OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH HEARINGS BEFORE THE SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS = [4 ii. SECOND SESSION Cat for fu blic Ox N eg lt k iho H.R. 14816 Sip A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TO SET STANDARDS TO ASSURE SAFE AND HEALTHFUL WORKING CONDITIONS FOR WORKING MEN AND WOMEN; TO ASSIST THE STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN EFFORTS TO ASSURE SUCH WORKING CONDITIONS ; TO PROVIDE FOR RESEARCH, INFOR- MATION, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING IN THE FIELD OF OCCU- PATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES / HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 1, 20, 28, 29 ; MARCH 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, AND 14, 1968 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman 2 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH HEARINGS BEFORE THE SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 759 NINETIETH-CONGRESS SECOND SESSION H.R. 14816 A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TO SET STANDARDS TO ASSURE SAFE AND HEALTHFUL WORKING CONDITIONS FOR WORKING MEN AND WOMEN; TO ASSIST THE STATES TO PARTICIPATE IN EFFORTS TO ASSURE SUCH WORKING CONDITIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR RESEARCH, INFOR- MATION, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING IN THE FIELD OF OCCU- PATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 1, 20, 28, 29; MARCH 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, AND 14, 1968 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman 2 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92-7340 WASHINGTON : 1968 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman EDITH GREEN, Oregon. FRANK THOMPSON, Jr., New Jersey ELMER J. HOLLAND, Pennsylvania JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, Illinois DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan HUGH L. CAREY, New York AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California SAM GIBBONS, Florida WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York LLOYD MEEDS, Washington PHILLIP BURTON, California CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma WILLIAM H. AYRES, Ohio ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio ALPHONZO BELL, California OGDEN R. REID, New York EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, Iowa JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan EDWIN D. ESHLEMAN, Pennsylvania JAMES C. GARDNER, North Carolina WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR ELMER J. HOLLAND, Pennsylvania, Chairman JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan SAM GIBBONS, Florida WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan LLOYD MEEDS, Washington PHILLIP BURTON, California EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin (Im) AFay E345 1969 PUBLIC HEALTH CONTENTS HaRARY Hearings held in Washington, D.C.: Page REBT iL, LOBE, vce dicomicisnisnitesimimmmrimmmsmis ess imino sbi eR An 1 FebTURTY 20, LOB... cmon isms mon os ses srs osm cos mss sem sms 105 FoDTUBLY 28, L008... vc comonomer rr 125 TEDTUBTY 20; 1088... noise sows sisson io 1 ow 185 March 5, VOBB.. co comm mommies soi mio i is or 5 A SRS SE me SE Se me SET 223 MATCH B, YABB... .. meer cs sss css semis mre ss er ms 8, 5 0 wm So 263 MALO 7). OOS crosses sessilis tom rm irl a So ia 349 MATCH 8, LOBS.,. cosmos sone suming abuse somerset mp wemsamionoi ot ssn 423 March 11, V88...« summers mg i mi -——— 469 March 12; 1008. cc mio sins soisiss sims si so oso gm HS 0 a i 4 527 MEATCh 14, LOBE... cr. cm mcs sion mr sri 555 5 3 or 703 PERE OF HLT, TABLB....... coco cd cin momsan mmission sisal mi sh BRR 1 Statement of— Berry, Clyde M., Ph. D., American Industrial Hygiene Association. 161 Burch, Alan, International Union of Operating Engineers_.___..____ 276 Burke, Frank, safety and health director, United Steelworkers of ANerica, AVLCYQACLIC... veo oo yoo gn soos oo i gist 527 Christenson, Otto P., consultant to the Conference of American Small Business Organizations. _ a 248 Dinman, Dr. Burton D., M.D., secretary, American Academy of Occupational Medicine, accompanied by Gilbert H. Collings, M.D., SINC AIALE DOSE: AITCOLOT ... cn oe im iso fr i Hl 476 Eichhorn, J. George, grand lodge representative of the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers_ ________________ 287 Ford, Hon. William D., a Representative in Congress from the State OF MACHT... ps pili pitt mehr pm A A 755 Gildea, Arthur P., secretary-treasurer, director of safety, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery WY OTOL, OF A TTIOTIO ii 00 i sts ro sm wag pg ge moe 140 Gintz, Ralph E., president, International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions... «-- cence cnmmmmmwnmme emo 543 Hanlon, John J., M.D., M.P.R., department of health, Detroit, Mich., president, American Public Health Association-.._._..._____ 471 Kalmykow, Andrew, American Insurance Association______________ 428 Krise, M. Holland, chairman, Industrial Commission of Ohio_______ 442 Logan, John O., Universal Oil Products Co., chairman, board of directors, Manufacturing Chemists Association, Inc., accompanied by C. U. Dernehl, G. L. Gobbell, and Lloyd Symington___._._._____ 369 Lyons, Raymond M., National Association of Manufacturers_._____ 232 azzocchi, Tony, citizenship-legislative director of the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union _________1_____________ 381 MecCahan, J. F., M.D., president, Industrial Medical Association, accompanied by David E. Goldstein, M.D., president elect; and Howard N. Schulz, executive director. _ oo. 513 MecCart, John A., operations director, Government Employes’ Coun- CLOT TNE ATTACH... ie ee cnr ewim mgs wimg mir rm pees SR A i Si 516 Meany, George, president, American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations. . eae 703 Montoya, Ricardo M., New Mexico State labor commissioner. ____ 731 Naumann, William E., chairman, legislative committee, Associated General ConrACHOrS Of ATNBTICH ou. mm wim io me 5 si i500 8 hm 0 sie 677 O’Hara, Donald C., executive vice president, National Petroleum POlNGTE ABSOCIIIION cm i 5 a ioe oi yi see se Spots 8 ts I 263 Patten, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the S010 OF NOW JOTREY .. ooo mm im mo sm vim 0 rm 754 Queener, J. Sharp, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and party... ._- 186 (111) 267 Statement of—Continued Rasmussen, Donald, M.D., Appalachian Regional Hospital, Beckley, W. Va., accompanied by Earl Stafford, Beckley, W. Va., Mr. Boyce A MIE, TRIN ori mmm mms fmm mm momen eco ee mg eso mi Sachs, Miriam, director of comprehensive health planning, accom- panied by Lynn Schall, chief, the occupational health program, New Jersey State Department of Health ____________________ Selikoff, Dr. Irving J., director of the Environmental Sciences Labora- tory, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, City University of New OLR ior soni Sr Hr i rity lo mm gp pesmi eee Smith, Wallace M., American Mutual Insurance Alliance, accompanied by Frederick D. Deeg, ‘manager, Accident and Fire Prevention IDOLE... cor meeps go om smmsecmipy geome mp pa ide Goes asst Stewart, Dr. William H., Surgeon General, Public Health Service, EW, accompanied by Vernon G. MacKenzie, Deputy Director, Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environmental Control, HEW _ Stuffing, W. Eugene, and A. C. Blackman, American Society of Safety EIEIIOBIE..... coi coi ivan shimmers mn: ms mim pms ge im prem pa Suarez, Jack, health and safety, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO________________________ Sullivan, Hon. Leonor K., a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri____________________________________________ Teplow, Leo, vice president, industrial relations, American Iron & Steel Institute, accompanied by J. L. Ridinger, F. R. Barnako, and Douglas Brown__________________________________________ Thompson, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey._ _ _ _________ o_o _____ Utter, Lloyd D., director of safety, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, accompanied by Daniel S. Bedell, Washington legislative representative _________________________ Wells, Hawey A., Jr, M.D., director of the Pulmonary Research Laboratory, Conemaugh Valley Memorial Hospital, Johnstown, 2 rin sn gop nn sr aE TE ATE SS Wells, R. Lomax, M.D., American Medical Association____________ Wirtz, Hon. W. Willard, Secretary of Labor, accompanied by Mrs. Esther Peterson, Assistant Secretary of Labor, and Charles Dona- hue, SolHeltor Of Labor. cee eee ee mmm mm Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, ete.: Allnutt, Robert F., Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 29, 1968____ ____________________________ “Control of Health Hazards From Machining of Beryllium at Goddard Space Flight Center” (booklet) (enclosure)________ John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA Management Instruction COIVCIOBITEY oe ergy oe mgm co oo ts eg ep eats rit i Lewis Operational Safety Manual, NASA (enclosure) ________ Statement of Public Health Service policy on the use of beryllium as an ingredient of rocket propellant (enclosure) ___________ Barnako, F. R., manager of compensation and safety, Bethelem Steel Corp., Bethlehem, Pa.: Letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 26, 1968__________ Memorandum on testimony of Frank Burke, safety and health director, United Steelworkers of America, before the Select Subcommittee on Labor, in respect of the Johnstown ecar NVBDIR cv re semi sco 3 Sp Ei Sree err me Memorandum on testimony of Frank Burke, safety and health director, United Steelworkers of America, in respect of the closing of the Sparrows Point tin mill dispensary _ ___________ Office of the impartial umpire, decision No. 1500, grievance No. M-321 (15700), Sparrows Point Plant, Bethlehem Steel Co. __ Williams, H. L., regional industrial hygienist, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Health, letter to Bethlehem Steel Co., dated Mareh 10,1967... ______________.______.__. Iron oxide fume concentrations (table) (enclosure) ________ Page 125 173 211 753 469 734 223 312 315 329 240 347 695 696 698 699 697 698 v Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.—Continued Berry, Dr. Clyde M., president, American Industrial Hygiene Asso- ciation, prepared statement of... ocean aa Boggs, Edmond M., commissioner, Commonwealth of Virginia: Letter to the subcommittee, dated March 4, 1968______________ Letter to Hon. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor. _____________ Petition to Hon. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor. _ Prepared statement of... oo ee cio een mm Resolution 1—Action by the IAGLO on July 21, 1967— Resolution 2—As amended by the IAGLO, July 21, 1967__ Burke, Frank, safety and health director, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC: Accident facts from 1947 through 1967—National Safety Council SUITOR WEADIEY .. cn rc i ion gms i Sige I i sme ss Portion of agreement between United States Steel Corp. and United Steelworkers of America, production and maintenance CINPV OY OOF ror a0 gn smears sm we gre are ms hm sg 0 Pe 0 SAE Letter to all U.S.A. district directors, staff representatives, and local union recording secretaries, dated January 3, 1962______ Comparison of State fish and game wardens with State safety inspectors (table)... oe na Chemical safety data sheet—Betanaphthylamine, published by Manufacturing Chemists Association. _______________________ Christenson, Otto F., consultant to the Conference of American Small Business Organizers: Directors, Conference of American Small Business Organizations... ccceccevommoma cian samen Christie, Richard E., general manager, major color television depart- ment, General Electric Co., letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 26, 1968. _ eee memm—— mmm mmm mmm Dinman, Dr. Bertram D., secretary, American Academy of Occupa- tional Medicine: pamphlet, “Threshold Limit Values for 1967” ____ Dwork, Ralph E., first deputy secretary of health, Pennsylvania Department of Health, telegram to Chairman Holland, dated February 28, 1968. __ ooo Georges, Thomas W., Jr., M.D., secretary of health, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Health, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 5, 1968. . cv eim em mmm moro orm mm on 2m 0 0m wm Gildea, Arthur P., secretary-treasurer, director of safety, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America: The Canada Labour (Safety) Code: 14-15 Elizabeth II, chapter 62, an act respecting the prevention of em- ployment injury in Federal works, undertakings, and businesses ._ Gintz, Ralph E., president, International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions: Disabling work injuries related to employment, 1940 to 1964 (chart) oe mmm ienemmmmmnom “Message From the President,” article from IAIABC newsletter, WVADIET 1067 oo cc mere 00 20 0 0 0 Prepared statement of ___ o-oo “Operation Safe Place,” 1966-67 reorganization plan of the ndustrial Safety and Buildings Division, Wisconsin Industrial CoriTRion (DOOKIE)... ou ow mpm wisi 0 mig i se sem mim cs nimi State of Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations, administrative comments on 1 year’s experience with “Operation Safe Place” __ Work Injury Cases Settled Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Wisconsin, The Incidence of Pulmonary Disease in In- dustry (booklet) ooo ooo mmm Work Injuries Reported Under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Wisconsin, Reporting Requirements (booklet). Page 161 671 674 675 671 673 674 531 536 529 529 743 248 248 486 185 742 145 545 548 550 562 561 585 630 VI Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.—Continued Government Employees’ Council, AFL-CIO: Prepared statement of ________________________ _____________ TADIE Yc comm imi sinc ss series ioc oo 0mm 5.0 mc see memes Table II—Fatal injuries to Federal employees_____________ Table III—Direct cost of injuries to Federal employees. _ _ BADLY TV cits ions br mmission mies sgl snes eg i oe Hanlon, Dr. John J., department of health, Detroit, Mich., president, American Public Health Association; resolution adopted by the governing council, American Public Health Association______~____ Hyde, J. A vice president, Shell Chemical Co., and R. G. Dillard, superintendent, Shell Chemical plant, Houston, Tex.: mergency manual for fire control with a planned, organized team effort, Houston plant________________________________ Excerpts from rules and regulations for the Houston plant, on Lo i ER Excerpts from rules and regulations for the Houston plant, February 1968. «cco eee mmm Prepared statement of ______________________________________ Safety (brochure) _________________________________________ Krise, M. Holland, chairman, Industrial Commission of Ohio: Remarks by Gov. Warren P. Knowles to the Manitowoc Indus- trial Safety Commission, Manitowoc, Wis., February 27, 1968. “Job Safety Issues Aired,” from Milwaukee Sentinel, Feb. 29, A088 cain nm wuss Smt pi mt ie orem mgs we mds fo See How frequency rates of industrial accidents are computed (excerpts from Ohio Industrial Safety Record) ______________ Lyons, Raymond L., National Association of Manufacturers________ anufacturing Chemists Association: Industrial injury experience— comparative summary: Safety performance for 1946 and 1958-67 (table). ___________ Severity rate, calendar days lost per million man-hours of ex- posure (chart) _____________ prem EE DT Ee Summary of injury experience based on size of participating firms 1963-67 (table) _________ ___________________________ Mazzocchi, Anthony citizenship-legislative director, Oil, Chemical, & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO: Letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 29, 1968____________ Lovelady, Ray A., president, Phillips Nationwide Council: Letter from dated March 18, 1968_______________________ Letter from, dated March 29, 1968____ _________________ Prepared Statement Of... qc. «cor vmmn ys gms signet mm m———— Meany, George, president, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations: Beattie, Donald S., executive secretary, on behalf of the Railway Labor Executives’ Association, statement submitted by _____" Policy resolution, adopted by AFL-CIO sixth constitutional con: vention, December 1965—Walsh-Healey Safety ._____________ Policy resolution adopted by AFL-CIO seventh constitutional Sonvntion, Bal Harbour, Fla., December 1967—Occupational BAU 2. mississippi mira pot moins rar ae erat Table 1-—Comparison of number of safety inspectors with number of fish and game wardens employed by specific STALE, JOBS. cvs im miss some st sw ii im 505 sie erm cers Table 2—-Fifteen largest States in manufacturing, mining, construction employment, by number of State safety inspectors. _ _ _______________________________________ Table 3—State and local government occupational health agencies by size of unit for total staff reported. _ ________ Table 4—State and local government health personnel by functioning category, January 1967___________________" Table 5—Coverage of State occupational safety rulemaking authority, January 1968______________________________ Table 6—Penalties for violations of State safety codes as of December 1967 — wo eee eee. Table 7—Administrative appeals and court review of penal- ties for violation of State safety codes, December 1967. __ Table 8—Occupational health and safety manpower. __ ____ Page 517 519 519 519 519 519 476 403 415 416 400 410 449 451 452 232 397 398 399 420 421 420 381 724 710 709 711 711 712 712 713 713 714 714 Vii Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etec.—Continued Memmott, Frank C., Associate Director, Health and Safety, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, letter to Jim Harrison, director of subcommittee, dated March 25, 1968________________ Naumann, William E., chairman, Legislative Committee, Associated General Contractors of America: Letter from William E. Dunn, SSonsive director, AGCA, to Hon. James O'Hara, dated March 27, O'Hara, Donald C., executive vice president, National Petroleum Refiners Association, prepared statement of .____________________ O’Hara, Hon. James G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan: LC of dusty trades disease in medical literature since O01 io ce eh a eres Sra mrss eA et metsmsen orm sw mms enantio Text of HB: T2008.0 0.0 hon om Simi oth ss pied rmlog geri son Parker, Hugh L., director, industrial hygiene service, Georgia De- partment of Public Health, telegram to Chairman Holland________ Queener, J. Sharp, U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Heitzmann, Robert D., assistant general manager, National Council on Compensation Insurance, letter to Andrew Malgard, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, dated February 27, LOGE eer cso 0 0 a ro oe Workmen’s compensation payments and costs, 1965. _.________ Workmen’s compensation coverage, benefits, and costs, 1940, 1944, and 1948-65 (table) .______________________ Rovmisn, Donald, M.D., Appalachian Regional Hospital, Berkeley, . Va.: “Miners Aid Study That Traces Lung Cases to Blood Circula- tion,” article from New York Times... oe... Proparcd StAtOINONLi Of... con cms mtn oe mim i sm om pf nm i Sachs, Miriam, director, Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, and Lynn Schall, chief, occupational health program, New Jersey State Department of Health, prepared statement of. __________________ Selikoff, Dr. Irving J., director, School of Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, City University of New York, prepared statement of __ ___________________________ Observed and expected number of deaths due to cancer among 632 Se workers exposed to asbestos dust 20 years or longer EDN EY oc. re 50 5 a on tee fh Sherrod, H. Floyd, Jr., Special Assistant to the Secretary, U.S. De- partment of Labor: Letter to James Harrison, director, Select Subcommittee on Labor, AEA IVIATCIY 22, TOUS... cron sri omc mm mcm go mm io im Accident statistics under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts ACH (BNCIOBUTE) cvs sai os ms rm sr os ime Record of injury frequency rates (enclosure)... _______ Letter to Jim Harrison, director of subcommittee. ____________ Beryllium, paper prepared by U.S. Department of Labor CONICIOBEAY cee soem rr cot mm sg pro my rr ml am io Rousselot, Louis M., M.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, letter to Jim Harrison, director of subcommittee OTIC OBIT ce geo ef gg 7 5 i Slack, Carstens, vice president, Phillips Petroleum Co.: Davis, Jieffer, M.D., medical director, letter from, dated March ; ND OS ccm ERwin Bliss mreabs rss gto po gp Ge i i Ss EAA Letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 26, 1968____________ Smith, Ben R., letter to George Eichhorn, grand lodge representative, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, dated Mareh 22, 1968. oem mmm em Steiger, Hon. William A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin: “Economy’s Health Was ‘Favorable’ in 1967,” newspaper article _ oom Statement of the Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, ANA TTUTRATL BOIALIOTIE.. cy er io, co 300 0 mr 0 0 i i Stuffing, W. Eugene, American Society of Safety Engineers, prepared statement of ere eeeemmmmeeem—m—mmmmm————— Page 257 685 263 139 363 743 210 207 209 137 136 173 349 351 237 237 238 309 309 311 419 418 348 260 259 . 295 Vio Prepared statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.—Continued Towler, John W., Union Oil Co. of California, letter to Chairman Page Holland, dated March 26, 1968________________________________ 417 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Division of Occupational Health, statement of __________ 186 Wirtz, Hon. Willard, Secretary of Labor: Exhibit A—Disabling work injuries related to employment, 1940 00, L008 (ONATEY «cc cisions imi mst oe sm mms empress meme mm min res 36 Exhibit B.—Injury frequency rates in manufacturing, 1940 to date (chart), excerpt from handbook of Labor Statistics, and table 142.-—Work-injury rates, by industry, 1958-65_______ 37 Exhibit C—Letter to Chairman Holland, dated February 19, O68 i pe tli it mm renee TR RA Se A Si rts, Lt 58 Exhibit D—Federal work injuries sustained during calendar year 1966—Federal Employees Compensation Act, U.S. Department of Labor booklet (enclosure): auses of accidental injuries as reported to the Bureau of Employees Compensation, calendar years 1965 and 1966 (BADIe) oe eee ei 79 Injuries sustained during calendar years 1965 and 1966 LEBDNOY cc cic mi ie 4 m5 rt mom go er ree 60 Selected list of injury rates for Federal establishments in which exposure data have been made available to the Bureau of Employees Compensation (table)_____________ 74 Exhibit E—Report to the President by the Secretary of Labor, Mission Safety-70, Second Year of Progress (pamphlet) ___ _ 82 Injury frequency trends, 1956-66, and 1970 goals (chart) ___ 86 Mission Safety—70 (chart) ._____________________________ 87 Progress toward Mission Safety—70 goal (chart). _________ 85 Exhibit F—Frequency and severity rates in manufacturing in- dustries, 1965 (table) ____________________________________ 88 Exhibit G—Frequency and severity rates in manufacturing in- dustries, 1964-65 (table) _.____________ a, 89 Exhibit H—Work deaths fall as safety expenditures rise (chart) _ 94 Exhibit I—Injury rates, New York State industries, 1962 (chart) _ 95 Exhibit J—State labor agency inspection staff (table). _________ 96 Exhibit K—Industrial safety budget allocations, fiscal year 1965 CEABIOY, «cyst rings oi rem re a Ki mn 98 Exhibit L—State budget allocations for industrial safety per non- agricultural worker, fiscal year 1965 (table) _________ ________ 98 Exhibit M—Location of various occupational functions in State governments (table) ____________________________________ 99 Exhibit N—Scope of State safety rulemaking authority (table). 102 Exhibit O—Penalties for violations of State safety codes (table). 103 Letter to Chairman Holland. _______________________________ 726 List of safety training courses_______________________________ 726 Prepared statement of _____________________________________ 8 Selected publications on safety, January 1966. ________________ 727 APPENDIX American Hotel and Motel Association, statement of the_ ______________ American Nurses’ Association, statement of __ _________.__________.__.__ American Optometric Association, statement presented by. _______ American Paper Institute, Inc., statement of .________________.________ American Retail Federation, statement of the. ________________________ Associated Builders & Contractors, statement of the __________________ Bonny, How. Walter S., a Representative in Congress from the State of evada: Laxalt, Hon. Paul, Governor of the State of Nevada, telegram to Congressman Baring. ooo Letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 25, 1968________________ Barr, Hon. Joseph M., mayor of Pittsburgh, statement by_________._.___ Bemis, John H., president, American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute, SUAUOINIONG OF 27. cen gp ome mo me 0 i wv a prey Binnings, Clem B., president, New Orleans chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, telegram from____________________________ Burleson, A. A., president, Sheltered Workshop for the Disabled, Inc., letter to Chairman Perkins, dated March 25, 1968. _________..._ Canada Labour (Safety) Code, Canada Department of Labour._________ Carlson, Kenneth F., safety coordinator, Geo. A. Hormel & Co., Fort Dodge, Iowa, letter to Congressman Culver, dated March 15, 1968____ Dalena, Donald T., editor, Fairless Union News, local 4889, United Steel- workers of America, AFL-CIO, Levittown, Pa., letter to Chairman Holland, dated February 1, 1968, enclosing editorial entitled ‘Safety Though Our Eyes’ _ eee mma meme mmm em = a M.J., Solon, Ohio, letter to Chairman Perkins, dated March 26, 1968. oem mm mmmm—mmeem—em—mom--—-s--- Decker, G. H., president, Manufacturing Chemists Association, Ine., letter to Congressman William D. Ford, dated March 29, 1968________ deTreville, Robert T. P., M.D., managing director, Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pa.: Letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 27, 1968. _______________ Paper read before the 28th annual meeting of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Pittsburgh, October 23-24, 1963_________ The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, bulletin on______________ Dixon, R. W., vice president, Harvey Hubbell, Inc., Bridgeport, Conn., letter to Congressman Irwin, dated February 9, 1968_______________. Doyle, Tom, commissioner of labor, State of Nebraska, comments on S. 2864 and H.R. 14816. _ eee mmm mmmm am mmmmm————- Electronic Industries Association, statement of the ___________________ Fredrick, William G., Se. D., director, Bureau of Industrial Hygiene, Detroit Department of Health, statement of _____________________--- Francy, Eugene V., Titanium Metals Corp. of America, Henderson, Nev., letter to Congressman Baring, dated March 8, 1968_________.______.__- Friedel, Hon. Samuel N., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 12, 1968, enclosing a letter from Henry Miller, commissioner, State of Maryland Depart- ment of Labor and Industry, dated March 12, 1968; also resolution. ___ Fulton, George P., executive general manager, National Institute of Dry- cleaning, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 27, 1968__________ Garmatz, Hon. Edward A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 12, 1968______ Gatenby, William H., vice president, Harvey Hubbell, Inc., Bridgeport, Conn., letter to Congressman Irwin, dated February 12, 1968... «uw Goodfellow, Thomas M., president, Association of American Railroads, statement of - eee memcmmmmmmmmmmmmemmmm mmm mmm ——— 791 788 907 959 939 795 950 970 938 804 971 979 973 963 792 926 963 792 X Gordon, K. §., executive assistant, Interstate Power Co., Dubuque, Towa, letter to Congressman Culver, dated February 28, 1968______________ Haggerty, C. J., president, Building and Construction Trades Department, ARL-CI10, statement of __________________________________________ Higgins, Robert L., executive vice president, National Electrical Con- tractors Association, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 1, 1968_ _ Horowitz, Leon D., supervisor of safety, Certain-teed Products Corp., Ambler, Pa., letter to Chairman Holland, dated February 26, 1968___ _ Johnston, T. W., chairman, Florida Industrial Commission, letter to Chair- man Holland, dated March 10, 1968_______________________________ Kane, James K., Jr., chairman, executive committee, Baltimore Safety Council, letter to Congressman Garmatz, dated March 20, 1968________ Knight, T. F., Jr., executive vice president, California Manufacturers Association, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 6, 1968________ Lynn, John C., legislative director, American Farm Labor Bureau, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 8, 1968___.._____________________ Mast, C. L., Jr., president, Millers’ National Federation, Chicago, Ill., letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 14, 1968________________________ Mayo, Duane W. (Duke), internatioual representative, International Union of Operating Engineers, Des Moines, Iowa, letter to Congressman Culver, dated March 18, 1968______________________________ Michigan Manufacturers’ Association, statement by___________________ Miller, Henry, Maryland county commissioner, letter to Hon. Samuel Friedel, dated March 12,1968_____________________________ Morton, James G., director of government relations, Manufacturing Chemists Association, Inc.: Letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 12, 1968________________ Safety program________________________________________________ Accident Case Histories—Sample monthly publication__________ Brochures regarding the association’s ‘Chemical Industry Safety Workshops,” and ‘‘Occupational Health Workshops’ __ Chemical safety data sheet SD-20, Sulfuric Acid__ ____________ Chemical safety data sheet SD-73, Tolylene Diisocyanate______ Letter from city of Richmond___________________"___________ Manual L-1, Guide to Precautionary Labeling of Hazardous Chemicals (excerpts) ____.________________________________ MCA Chem-Card Manual (excerpts) ________________________ Safety Guide SG-10, Entering Tanks and Other Enclosed Spaces. Safety Guide SG-17, Fire Protection in the Chemical Industry... Sample Chem-Cards___._______________________________ “°° Yearend report for 1967____________________________________ Moore, Carlos, legislative director, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, letter to Chairman Holland, dated February 14, 1968__________________________________ National Association of Manufacturers, supplemental statement of the... National Automobile Dealers Association, statement of_________________ National Constructors Association, statement of _______________________ National Governors’ Conference, statement of the_____________________ “National Occupational Safety and Health Goals and Progress in 1968,” editorial from Industrial Hygiene Digest, volume 32, No. 3, March 1968. National Safety Council, excerpts from “Accident Facts,” 1967 edition___ National Safety Council, excerpts from “Accident Facts,” 1967 edition, and “Accident Facts,”” 1968 preliminary condensed edition___________. Nyhan, Thomas D., statement on behalf of the Illinois State Chamber of COTIIIIYOTOR er ssa sm 5 m5 rtm mem mesmo mn Range, A. J., executive vice president, Pearl Brewing Co., San Antonio, Tex., letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 7, 1968______________ “Research in Accident Prevention—a Special Report,” article from the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers. ________________ Rieth, Ralph A., Jr., executive vice president, International Narrow Fab- ric Co., Inc., Keene, N.H., letter to Congressman Cleveland, dated February 29,1968_________________________________________ Riley, John J., director of labor, National Association of Home Builders, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 6, 1968____________________ Royals, Clyde R., Jr., president, Clyde R. Royals, Inc., Hampton, Va., letter to Congressman Downing, dated March 8, 1968____________ ____ Page 958 953 967 967 949 947 964 904 948 929 983 794 XI Rubber Manufacturers Association, statement of the___________________ Sabourin, Ivan, Queen’s Counsel, Montreal, Canada, statement on behalf of the asbestos mines industry in Canada _.________________________ Sallee, Elgin D., manager of safety and industrial hygiene, American Can 00., SLACETIEIIE DF - wim leis og i SH SD SE AES GR Sheehan, J. J., personnel manager, Caterpillar Tractor Co., Peoria, IIL, let- ter to Chairman Holland, dated March 6, 1968______________________ Smith, Bradford, Jr., chairman of the board, Insurance Co. of North America, Philadelphia, Pa., letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 22, NOOR or emg or pm SSS SE res Soet, John C., chief, Division of Occupational Health, State of Michigan Department of Public Health, letter to Chairman Holland, dated February 15, 1968 _ _ __ meee Southern States Industrial Council, statement of - _ ____________________ Stephens, Hon. Robert G., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia: Bryan, F. S., president, Union Manufacturing Co., Union Point, Ga., TOLLET TIBI coitus songlie rhino Fy Gt Sm dg oe i oe to Letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 11, 1968________________ Shaw, M. B., general superintendent, Bigg Manufacturing Co., Macon, Gty JOLLET TION = co vein min send sie ss sem te es mi oe Stewart, Charles W., president, Machinery & Allied Products Institute, statement addressed to Chairman Holland __________________________ Thomas, M. M., Koontz Creamery, Inc., Baltimore, Md., letter to Con- gressman Garmaitz, dated March 4, 1968... ooo emo mmm Trammell, W. V., Traco Steel, Inc., Anderson, S.C., letter from, dated FOBTURLY 22; NOOB. iuce omprimans smo ms hoi oe sos i lg goers en wi Treece, Bob G., executive vice president, Truck Rental & Leasing Co., San Antonio, Tex., letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 2, 1968_______ Turner, W. Elwyn, M.D., director of public health, County of Santa Clara Health Department, letter to Congressman Gubser, dated February 20, R088 a de re err RT Tra evince Trias a sg bie ors Volpe, Hon. John A., Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, BOBEIMIONY OF ecm os oo 0500 5 2 0g Watson, Edna, American Association of Industrial Nurses, Inc., New York, letter to Chairman Holland, dated March 29, 1968___________________ Wiis, Hon. Richard C., a Representative in Congress from the State of exas: Connally, Hon. John, Governor of the State of Texas, letter to Con- gressman White, dated February 27, 1968... oeveemennnaa Hulse, J. F., El Paso, Tex., letter to Congressman White, dated Febru- BEY DB FOBT cosinor som ge gs i sm gs 0 SE 0 Letter to Chairman Perkins, dated March 13, 1968_____________.__ Page 940 943 906 966 950 789 960 962 961 962 929 966 967 969 961 785 939 790 791 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1968 House or REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE CommiTTEE ON Epucation AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O'Hara presiding. Present: Representatives O'Hara, Hathaway, Ford, Scheuer, Gurney, Goodell, Esch, and Steiger. Also present : Representative Eckhardt. Staff: Jim Harrison, staff director; Marilyn Myers, clerk, Nancy Tyler, assistant clerk, Dr. James R. Wason, Legislative Reference Serv- ice, Library of Congress; and Mr. Will Henderson, minority staff. (The text of H.R. 14816 follows:) [H.R. 14816, 90th Cong., second sess.] A BILL To authorize the Secretary of Labor to set standards to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women; to assist the States to participate in efforts to assure such working conditions; to provide for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health; and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Occupa- tional Safety and Health Act of 1968.” CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND PURPOSE Sec. 2. (a) The Congress finds that— (1) personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations which result in death or disability are an increasing source of tragedy and extreme hardship for workers and their families, and that the number of such in- juries and illnesses has reached such sizable proportions in the Nation as to reduce to a serious degree the effectiveness of the manpower resources in the United States and thereby impose a substantial burden upon, and a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments; and (2) the public health and welfare of the Nation is endangered since oc- cupational injuries and illnesses involve a large part of the population either as victims of such injuries and illnesses or as members of the victims’ families. (b) Congress declares it to be the purpose and policy, through the exercise by Congress of its powers to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations and to provide for the general welfare, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions— (1) by establishing mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting commerce; (2) by providing for the effective enforcement of such safety and health standards ; (3) by providing for research relating to occupational safety and health; (1) (4) by providing for training programs to increase and improve personnel engaged in the field of occupational safety and health : (5) by more clearly delineating the responsibility of the Federal Govern- ment in its activities related to occupational safety and health in the private sector ; (6) by providing grants to the States to assist them in identifying their needs and responsibilities in the area of occupational safety and health, to develop plans in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and to conduct experimental and demonstration projects in connection therewith ; (7) by providing for appropriate accident and health reporting proce- dures which will help achieve the objectives of this Act. STANDARDS SEC. 3. (a) Any employer engaged in a business affecting commerce shall fur- nish employment and a place of employment which are safe and healthful and shall comply with the standards prescribed from time to time by the Secretary after appropriate consultation with other Federal agencies by rule or regulation for the adoption of practices, means, methods, operations, conditions, and proc- esses in order to provide safe and healthful employment and places of employment. (b) Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall apply to any rulemaking by the Secretary under subsection (a) of this section. ADMINISTRATION SEc. 4. In carrying out his responsibilities under this Act, the Secretary is authorized to— (a) appoint, without regard to the civil service laws, such advisory com- mittees or boards as he deems appropriate ; (b) use, with their consent, the services, facilities, and employees of Fed- eral agencies with or without reimbursement, and with the consent of any State or political subdivision thereof, accept and use the services, facilities, and employees of the agencies of such State or subdivision with or without reimbursement; and (¢) employ experts and consultants or organizations thereof as author- ized by section 3109, title 5, United States Code, compensate individuals so employed at rates not in excess of $100 per diem, including traveltime, and allow them, while away from their homes or regular places of business, travel expenses (including per diem in lieu of subsistence) as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in the Government service employed intermittently, while so employed, except that contracts for such employment may be renewed annually. INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS Sec. 5. (a) In order to carry out the purposes of this Act, the Secretary or his designated representative, upon presenting approriate credentials to the owner, operator, or agent in charge, is authorized— (1) to enter upon at reasonable times any factory, plant, establishment, construction site, mine, or other areas or workplace or environment subject to the provisions of this Act; and (2) to inspect and investigate during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, such place or environment and all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials therein, and to question em- ployees engaged in activities subject to the provisions of this Act. (b) For the purpose of carrying out his duties under this Act, the Secretary may delegate his authority under this section to any agency of the Federal Government with or without reimbursement, and, with its consent and with or without reimbursement and under conditions the Secretary may prescribe, to any appropriate State agency or agencies designated by the Governor of the State. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT Sec. 6. (a) (1) If, upon inspection or investigation, the Secretary determines that any person has violated the provisions of this Act or the regulations and standards established thereunder, he shall hold such hearings, issue such orders, 3 and make such decisions, based upon findings of fact, as are deemed to be neces- sary to enforce the provisions of the Act, and for such purposes the Secretary and the district courts shall have the authority and jurisdiction provided in section 5 of the Act of June 30, 1936 (ch. 881, 49 Stat. 2036), as amended. ] (2) If an inspection or investigation discloses that a violation may result in imminent harm to the safety and health of workers, the Secretary or his duly authorized representative may immediately issue an order providing for the immediate cessation of such violation and any other measures he may deem necessary to correct or remove such violation and, further, prohibit the employ- ment of any persons in locations or under conditions where such violations exist, except to correct or remove the violation. Such order shall remain in effect during the pendency of any subsequent proceeding under paragraph (1) of this sub- section and in the event of any judicial proceeding relating to such order before the proceeding under paragraph (1) of this subsection the only issue to be judicially determined shall be the existence of imminent harm to the safety and health of the workers. (b) Each employer subject to this Act shall make, keep, and preserve, and make available to the Secretary such records concerning the requirements of section 3(a) of this Act, and shall make reports therefrom to the Secretary, as he may prescribe by regulation or order as necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of this Act. (¢) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, shall provide for the establishment and supervision of programs for the education and training of employers and employees in the recognition, avoidance, and prevention of unsafe working conditions in employments covered by this Act, and to consult with and advise employers as to effective means of preventing occupational injuries and illnesses. INJUNCTIONS, JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT Sec. 7. (a) Wherever the Secretary has reason to believe, either on the basis of an inspection or investigation, that conditions or practices existing in viola- tion of section 3 (a) of this Act, or any rule thereunder, are of such a nature that their immediate correction or removal is reasonably required in order to safeguard the safety and health of workers, the Secretary may bring suit in a district court of the United States to enjoin or restrain the existence of such conditions or practices. Such relief shall include whatever is necessary to safe- guard the safety and health of persons affected, including the closing of the establishment or place in question and prohibiting the entry of any person in such establishment or place, except to correct such conditions or practices. Any suit shall be brought in the district where the person who is responsible for the existence of such conditions or practices resides or transacts business. (b) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to enforce any order of the Secretary under section 6 of this Act, and any person aggrieved by such order may obtain review thereof by such courts based upon the record before the Secretary. INADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE; CONFIDENTIALITY OF TRADE SECRETS Sec. 8 (a) No record or determination of any administrative proceeding under this Act or any statement or report of any kind obtained or received in connection with the administration or enforcement of the provisions of this Act shall be made available to any third party or admitted or used as evidence in any civil action growing out of any matter mentioned in such record, determina- tion, statement, or report, other than an action for enforcement or review under this Act; and (b) In connection with any proceeding under this Act no witness or any other person shall be required to divulge trade secrets or secret processes. PENALTIES Sec. 9. (a) Any person who violates, or fails or refuses to comply with, section 3(a) of this Act, any rule issued under section 3(a) of this Act, or any order issued under section 6 of this Act, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each such violation. Each violation of such provisions or rules or order shall be a separate offense, except that in the case of a violation through continuing failure or neglect to comply with such provisions or rules or an order of the Secretary, each day of continuance of such failure or neglect shall be 4 deemed a separate offense. The Secretary or his duly authorized representative is authorized to assess the civil penalties under this section. He may, upon application therefor, remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for under this section and he shall have the authority to determine the facts upon all such applications. (b) Penalties under this section shall be collected by the Secretary or by his duly authorized representative unless a district court determines that an order of the Secretary issued under section 6 (a) (2) would not result in imminent harm to the safety and health of the workers. (¢) Any person who willfully violates or fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of section 3(a) of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by im- prisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment : except that if the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, punishment shall be by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (d) Any person who forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person while engaged in or on account of the performance of inspections or investigatory duties under this Act shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Whoever, in the com- mission of any such acts, uses a deadly or dangerous weapon, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Whoever kills any person while engaged in or on account of the performance of inspecting or investigating duties under this Act shall be punished as provided under sections 1111 and 1114 of title 18, United States Code. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS Sec. 10. (a) Each contract or subcontract exceeding $2,500 and requiring or involving the employment of any person (1) to which the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or the District of Columbia is a party, (2) which is made for or on behalf of the United States, any agency or instrumental- ity thereof, or the District of Columbia, or (3) which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants from, or loans insured or guaranteed by, the United States or any agency or instrumentality of the United States, shall include the requirement that no part of such contract will be performed in any place or under any conditions which do not meet the standards issued by the Secretary under section 3 (a) of this Act. (b) In establishing standards under section 3(a) of this Act, the Secretary shall to the extent feasible conform such standards and those safety and health standards promulgated under other laws administered by him. (¢) In addition to the remedies otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary of Labor may declare ineligible to receive any contracts subject to this Act any person or firm, or any firm, corporation, partnership, or association in which such person or firm has a controlling interest, which is found to have disregarded its obligations under this Act until such person or firm has satisfied the Secretary that it will comply with the requirements of this Act. (d) In addition to the remedies otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary may recommend to the appropriate contracting agency that such agency cancel, terminate, suspend, or cause to be canceled, or suspended, any contract made by any contracting agency for the failure of an employer who is a contractor or subcontractor to comply with the order of the Secretary issued under section 6 of this Act for the breach or violation by such employer of the requirements under subsection (a) of this section. (e) This section shall not apply to any contract to be performed in a work- place within a foreign country or within any territory under the jurisdiction of the United States, except within a State, as that term is defined in section 20(f) of this Act. VARIATIONS, TOLERANCES, AND EXEMPTIONS Sec. 11. The Secretary may provide such reasonable limitations and may make such rules and regulations allowing reasonable variations, tolerances, and exemptions to and from any or all provisions of this Act as he may find necessary and proper in the public interest or to avoid serious impairment of the conduct of Government business. The Secretary shall keep an appropriately indexed record of all variations, tolerances, and exemptions granted under this section, which shall be open for public inspection. 5 FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIP SEC. 12. (a) The Secretary may, in his discretion, by rule or order decline to assert jurisdiction over any occupational safety or health issue, or class or category of such issue, governed by any State law whenever in his opinion the provisions of such State law and their enforcement would reasonably carry out the objectives of this Act. (b) Nothing in this Act shall prevent or bar any State agency or court from assuming and asserting jurisdiction over any occupational safety or health issue within five hundred and forty-five days following the effective date of this Act and thereafter over any such issue over which the Secretary declines to assert jurisdiction under subsection (a) of this section. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS Sec. 13. Nothing in this Act shall authorize the Secretary to regulate, or shall apply to, working conditions of employees with respect to whom another Federal agency has statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health. The Secretary shall coordinate, to the greatest extent practicable, the occupational safety and health activties of all Federal agencies. APPROPRIATIONS Sec. 14. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be nec- essary to carry out this Act. RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES Sec. 15. (a) (1) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, after con- sultation with the Secretary and with other appropriate Federal departments or agencies, shall conduct (directly or by grants or contracts) research, experi- ments, and demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health. (2) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall from time to time consult with the Secretary in order to develop specific plans for such research, demonstrations, and experiments as are necessary to produce criteria enabling the Secretary to meet his responsibility for the formulation of safety and health standards under this Act; and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, on the basis of such research, demonstrations, and experiments and any other information available to him, shall develop such criteria. (b) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to make inspections as provided in section 5 of this Act in order to carry out his functions and responsibilities under this section. (¢) The Secretary of Labor is authorized to enter into contracts, agreements, or other arrangements with appropriate public agencies or private organiza- tions for the purpose of conducting studies related to his responsibilities for establishing and applying occupational safety and health standards under sec- tion 3 of this Act. In carrying out his responsibilities under this subsection, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel- fare in order to avoid any duplication of efforts under this section. (d) The Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, shall establish such accident and health reporting systems for employers and for the States as he deems necessary to carry out his re- sponsibilities under this Act. Sec. 16. (a) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, after con- sultation with the Secretary of Labor and with other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, shall conduct (directly or by grants or contracts) educational programs to provide an adequate supply of personnel to carry out the purposes of this Act. (b) The Secretary is also authorized to conduct (directly or by grants or con- tracts) short-term training of personnel engaged in work related to his re- sponsibilities under this Act. GRANTS TO THE STATES Sec. 17. (a) The Secretary is authorized during the period beginning July 1, 1968, and ending June 30, 1971, to make grants to the States to assist them in identifying their needs and responsibilities in the area of occupational safety and health and to develop plans for— 92-734 0—68——2 6 (1) establishing systems for the collection of information concerning the nature and frequency of occupational injuries and diseases ; (2) increasing the expertise and enforcement capabilities of their per- sonnel engaged in occupational safety and health programs; and (3) otherwise improving the administration and enforcement of State occupational safety and health laws, including standards thereunder, con- sistent with the objectives of this Act. (b) The Secretary is authorized during the period beginning July 1, 1968, and ending June 30, 1971, to make grants to the States for experimental and demonstration projects consistent with the objectives set forth in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a) of this section. (¢) The Governor of the State shall designate the appropriate State agency, or agencies, for receipt of any grant made by the Secretary under this section. (d) Any State agency, or agencies, designated by the Governor of the State, desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application therefor to the Secretary. (e) The Secretary shall review the application, and shall, after consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, approve or reject such application. (f) As a condition for any grant under this section the State must agree to comply with the reporting and accounting requirements which the Secretary shall from time to time prescribe by rule or regulation to assure that moneys expended thereunder are in furtherance of the purposes of this section. (g) The Federal share for each State grant under this section may be up to 90 per centum of the State’s total cost. (h) Prior to June 30, 1971, the Secretary shall, after consultation with the Secretary of Heath, Education, and Welfare, transmit a report to the President and to Congress, describing the experience under the program and making any recommendations as he may deem appropriate. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS SEC. 18. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing or modifying in any way any other Federal laws prescribing safety and health requirements. AUDITS Sec. 19. The Comptroller General of the United States, or any of his duly authorized representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and exam- inations to any books, documents, papers, and records of the grantees that are pertinent to the grants received under this Act. REPORTS Sec. 20. Within one hundred and twenty days following the convening of the first session of each Congress, the Secretary and the Secretary of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare shall jointly prepare and submit to the President for trans- mittal to the Congress a biennial report upon the subject matter of this Act, the progress concerning the achievement of its purposes, the needs and requirements in the field of occupational safety and health, and any other relevant information, and including any recommendations they may deem appropriate. DEFINITIONS Sec. 21. (a) The term “Secretary” appearing in this Act means the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives. (b) The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States; or between a State and any place out- side thereof; or within the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States, or between points in the same State but through a point outside thereof. (¢) The term ‘‘person” means one or more individuals, partnerships, associa- tions, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized groups of persons. (d) The term “employer” means a person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees and includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee, but does not include 7 the United States or any State or political subdivision of a State or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization. (e) The term “employee” means an individual employed by an employer. (f) The term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and possessions of the United States. SEPARABILITY Sec. 22, If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. Mr. O'Hara. The Select Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor will be in order. The purpose of the meeting of the subcommittee today is to open hearings on H.R. 14816, the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968. It is always a pleasure for this committee to hear from the Secre- tary of Labor and he always has something of real significance to tell us. But I doubt we will have the opportunity to take testimony or the Secretary will have the opportunity to speak for a bill which has a greater potential for good for a larger segment of the American people than the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968. According to the President’s manpower message, occupational ac- cidents and diseases costs the economy something like $5 billion per year and we lose something on the order of 14,000 lives annually to these causes. The money we can ill afford to lose. The human lives are priceless. If through the legislation we can save one life, let alone 14,000, our time has been very well spent. H.R. 14816 has been introduced in the House with the joint spon- sorship of 16 Members. Chairman Perkins, Mrs. Green of Oregon, Mr. Thompson of New Jersey, Chairman Holland of this subcom- mittee, Mr. Dent, Mr. Pucinski, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Brademas, Mr. Carey, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. William D. Ford, Mr. Hathaway, Mr. Scheuer, Mr. Burton of California, and Mr. Eckhardt have all joined with me in bringing this administration proposal to the House. Occupational safety is not a new idea to this subcommittee. This sub- committee in fact began its operation as the Subcommittee on Safety and Compensation, and such important safety legislation as the Fed- eral Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act and important amend- ments to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act have been ap- proved by us in recent years. In this Congress we have already held and will continue to hold hearings on safety legislation covering the construction industry, but in this bill we are asked to pass on the proposition that every Ameri- an working man and woman is entitled to the safest and healthiest work environment that human ingenuity can provide. The proposition before the committee is that avoidable accidents and avoidable illnesses are unforgivable. Most of us I think agree with that proposition. We will now hear from the Secretary of Labor on how the administration proposes to achieve that goal. Mr. Secretary, I see you are accompanied by your solicitor, Mr. Donahue, and Assistant Secretary Peterson. I am looking forward to hearing your testimony. 8 STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR; ACCOMPANIED BY MRS. ESTHER PETERSON, ASSISTANT SECRE- TARY OF LABOR, AND CHARLES DONAHUE, SOLICITOR OF LABOR Secretary Wirrz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have filed with the committee a statement which I can either read or summarize, as you suggest. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Secretary, you may proceed as you feel best. Secretary Wirtz. 1 request that my written statement be made a part of the record and I would like to summarize its content to permit opportunity for whatever questions the committee may have. Mr. O'Hara. Without objection, the text of the Secretary’s state- ment will be entered at this point in the record. (The statement follows :) STATEMENT OF WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, on December 6, 1910, Presi- dent Taft asked the Congress to put a stop to the “frightful diseases” resulting from the “injurious manufacture” of matches with phosphorus—when they “can be made from other materials, entirely innocuous.” The Congress acted two years later, the law becoming effective in 1913. So far as I can find, that was the last time—until Monday of last week, January 23, 1968—that a President was to raise seriously with the Congress the question of reducing the human costs—in terms of preventable death, dis- ease, injury—of doing business. (There were brief passing references to the point in several messages transmitted by President Truman and President Ei- senhower.) Certain limited action was taken: In special measures of varying effectiveness covering such particularly hazardous occupations as mining and longshoring. In the Walsh-Healey Act of 1936, providing a semblance of protection to those working on Government contract—but in a form which served the principle poorly by the virtual pretense of its recognition. This half century of relative inaction was not because industrial accident or disease or death took a holiday. They didn’t. It was because this subject got lost in the thicket of political debate in which legitimate issues of intergovern- mental responsibility were beaten to a pulp by the “harangoutang’s argument” (the phrase was Ambrose Gwinn Bierce’s) about absolutes of States’ rights. The States did adopt industrial safety acts tailored usually to meet only those moral issues which some particular disaster made inescapably plain, such as the fire in the loft in the garment district in New York City in March 1911, when 146 women burned or jumped to death. But these laws rarely went very far. It is one of the little accidents of history (but with probably more than coincidence in it) that a young woman whose apartment was just around the corner from that loft, and who witnessed the holocaust, was later (1933 to 1945) Secretary of Labor. Frances Perkins was to remark to some of us on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Department (in 1963; its estab- lishment having been, incidentally, President Taft's last official act) about the tragic cost which resulted from America’s willingness to let its conscience about industrial safety and health get shot down in the cross-fire between State and Federal authority. A lot of history meets today at this hearing. The incidents I have mentioned are only footnotes—Ilittle pieces of the context of President Johnson's proposing to the Congress in his January 23 Message “The Nation's first comprehensive Occupational Health and Safety Program.” H.R. 14816 embodies that proposal. Mr. Chairman, I urge respectfully the consideration of this proposal free of the prejudices of the past. We have matured greatly in our consideration of State-Federal relations. IL.R. 14816 is carefully designed to take advantage of our ability now to find that maximum strength of cooperation between Federal and State governments which clearly exceeds the capacity of either acting alone. 9 We have also grown beyond the point of argument by accusation. This legis- lation will not succeed on a basis of charging American employers with callous- ness or human exploitation. To know the facts of the safety programs developed by most of American industry—often in cooperation with the unions represent- ing their employees—is to know that there is, in general, full recognition of both the human and the economic values involved here. There are laggards, and there is incompleteness of knowhow. But the case is not against heartlessness ; it is for health and safety. We proceed from the facts, not from implications of fault. The facts clearly command action. ach year in the most modern industrial society ever created by man : 14,500 workers are killed on the job. Over 2.2 million workers suffer disabling injuries. $1.5 billion in wages are lost. 250 million man days of productivity are wasted . . . nearly 10 times the days lost due to strikes and other work stoppages. The economy suffers a $6.8 billion setback. More Americans are injured at work than on the highways. We can lay no claim to progress. In 1958, 13,300 workers died from work acci- dents. Today’s figure is higher: In 1958, some 1.8 million workers suffered disabling injuries. That number also has risen. In 1958, the accident frequency rate for manufacturing was 11.4 per mil- lion man hours worked. Today it is 12.8. Workmen's compensation rates are increasing. One employer experienced a 469 increase in a single year. Unless we act our children will inherit a legacy of tragedy. Under the current system it is estimated that 75 out of every 100 teenagers now entering the work- force will suffer a disabling injury during their career. So far, State programs have been primarily relied upon to meet this situation. These efforts have brought benefits but far too few because the barriers to total success have been too formidable : Expenditures for safety standards and enforcement average 40 cents per worker with some States as low as 2 cents. Some agencies lack rule-making authority. Many safety and health standards are outdated and inadequate. Safety manpower is insufficient. Penalties are often too lenient and fail as deterrents. Coverage is often limited to specific areas such as boiler codes and elevator codes. Federal programs for occupational safety are piecemeal, fragmented and gener- ally incomplete. While Congress has provided strong Federal protections in public safety (e.g. airlines, railroads, etc.) occupational safety has lagged far behind. The major law—Walsh-Healey—was passed over three decades ago. It applies only to workers performing Government contracts and then only for the period of time they are actually working on these contracts. The result is that coverage varies from month to month and year to year, making enforcement difficult, if not im- possible. The established standards are not mandatory, which seriously hampers effective enforcement. While our efforts to date have been inadequate, there is ample evidence that the job can be done. In 1960, the Department of Labor promulgated comprehensive safety and health regulations under the 1958 safety amendments to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The injury frequency rate for shipyards at that time was 39 disabling injuries per million man hours worked. In longshoring it was 132. A substantial program was mounted, and the results are encouraging. Through the first 9 months of 1967, the rates in the shipyard and longshore industries are 21.7 and 82 respectively. This represents a 44 percent reduction of injuries in shipyards ever a seven-year period and a 38 percent reduction in longshoring. It is conservatively estimated that from 1960 through 1966, over 22,000 injuries were prevented. The average direct cost is $1,500.00 per injury. This means a total 6-year savings of over $33 million in injury costs. In addition, individual employers have reported millions of dollars in insurance rebates from reduced injury experience. The successes of a few State programs also give evidence that the job can be done. In the States that have mounted the most extensive programs, at costs aver- aging $1.1 million per State, the death rate from work accidents is 19 deaths per 10 100,000 workers. In the 10 States with the smallest programs, with average costs of $240,000 per State, the death rate averages 110 per 100,000 workers, or over 550% higher. These Federal and State examples provide a formula for future action : Expanded research is required. Safety standards must be expanded and enforced. State programs must be expanded and improved. Deterrents to ignoring unsafe conditions must be established. Safety manpower must be increased. This is what the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1966 will do. FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS H.R. 14816 will create a partnership of Federal and State action. The Federal responsibility will extend to the limits of the interstate commerce clause. The States will exercise these functions : 1. In the interstate commerce area, the Secretary of Labor can contract with the States, on a reimbursable basis, to carry out his responsibilities under the Act. Thus, the Secretary can utilize State manpower to carry out inspections of firms in interstate commerce, where the States have adequate and qualified manpower resources. 2. Also in the interstate commerce area, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Labor to decline to assert jurisdiction over particular areas in interstate com- merce where the provisions of State law meet adequately the objectives of the Act. 3. In the intrastate commerce area the States will have exclusive jurisdiction. To support the States in meeting their responsibilities, grants will be provided to assist them in identifying their needs in the occupational safety and health field. Planning funds and experimental and demonstration grants—with the Federal Goverment paying up to 909% of the program cost—will be available for: establishing information systems on the nature and frequency of occupa- tional injuries and diseases ; increasing the expertise and capability of personnel engaged in occupa- tional safety and health programs ; Improving the administration and enforcement of State occupational safety and health laws. The bill provides for a comprehensive Federal-State inter-relationship that gives a new meaning to the concept of Creative-Federalism. RESEARCH Research in the field of occupational safety and health is presently uncoor- dinated and woefully inadequate. The amount spent by the Government on re- search is equivalent to $6.57 for each work-related death. In traffic accidents the similar figure is $95.00 and for cancer the National Institutes of Health research investment is just under $415 per death. Rapid technological change, and the fast pace of invention have brought economic progress and new health problems. Uranium brought radiation. New machines create new and unknown dangers. More diseases are being traced to work as knowledge expands. A necessary ingredient in a sound safety program is a comprehensive research effort. H.R. 14816 recognizes this in its assignment of responsibilities to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Secretary of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare would conduct, either directly or by grants, research in the field of occupational safety and health. With this research, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare will develop criteria for the Secretary of Labor to use in establishing the safety and health standards. With such research and criteria, the Secretary of Labor's development of up-to-date and operative safety and health standards will be greatly facilitated. To cover situations requiring immediate attention the Secre- tary of Labor is given authority to arrange for studies to assist him in establish- ing standards. The bill permits the Secretary of Labor to establish reporting systems and to make grants to the States to help them develop systems to collect information on the nature and frequency of occupational injuries and diseases. Our present statistics are too weak for any meaningful purpose. Improved statistics would provide the foundation for strengthening both the State and Federal programs. 11 STANDARDS The bill provides for the Secretary of Labor to establish mandatory Federal standards. Experience under the Walsh-Healey Act indicates this is a necessity. It will lessen the unnecessary employer confusion caused by the existence of a variety of standards, some of which have no force of law. At the same time it will provide a quicker, surer method of pinpointing unsafe practices. In developing these standards the Department will utilize to a large extent private and public standard setting bodies. ENFORCEMENT In ordinary cases—where no immediate serious threat to the safety and health of workers is involved—the bill’s provisions will be enforced as the safety pro- visions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act are now enforced. If a violation is found, the Secretary of Labor will normally hold a hearing and apply the formal procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. If the hearing confirms a violation, the Secretary may issue a “cease and desist” order enforceable in the Federal district courts. The employer also has a right to appeal to these courts for review of the Secretary’s order. Those violations which may cause imminent harm to the safety and health of the workers are subject to “instant” cease and desist orders by the inspectors discovering the violation. These orders may also provide that employees be kept away from the hazardous area until safety has been restored. This type of order is also enforceable in the district courts, the only pertinent issue before the court being that of the existence of imminent harm to the workers. In serious but less extreme situations, the proposal authorizes the Secretary to go directly to the district court for injunctive relief. PENALTIES Civil penalies of up to $1,000 for each violation are provided. They can be assessed upon a finding of violation. Penalties under existing laws are imposed only for failure to correct an unsafe practice. Since only’ a small percentage of businesses can be inspected, laws which penalize only for the failure to correct can have no significant deterrent effect. Anyone willfully violating the provisions of the bill will be guilty of a mis- demeanor. In addition to these penalties there will be an added sanction with regard to Government contracts. If an employer violates the bill's provisions, the Secre- tary may declare him ineligible to receive Government contracts until he com- plies with the Act. Also, the Secretary may recommend to the contracting agency that any offender’s existing contract be cancelled or suspended. TRAINING The bill also provides for the education and continued training of safety per- sonnel to assure an adequate manpower supply. This is sorely needed. There are only slightly over 1,600 State safety inspectors and considerably fewer Federal inspectors to cover a work force of 75 million. Many medium sized firms and most small companies have no safety officials and many inspectors lack the necessary training to perform their jobs satisfactorily. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS This bill will not conflict with other safety and health provisions of Federal laws administered either by the Labor Department or other Federal agencies. Programs of regulatory agencies such as those in the Department of Transporta- tion, Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of the Interior and those pro- grams in the various procurement agencies remain intact. The bill is intended to reach out to areas that are currently untouched rather than duplicate existing efforts. To coordinate the existing laws with the provisions of H.R. 14816, the bill directs the Secretary of Labor to conform the safety and health standards under the bill and those which he promulgates under other laws administered by him. He is also charged with coordinating programs of other agencies with those established under this legislation. 12 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee : There are two tendencies in our thinking today about the relationship of man to work. One of these tendencies is to try to “quantify” the relationship—to put every- thing on a cost-effectiveness analysis basis—to do only what a computer can measure. So far as this tendency is concerned : I cannot tell you precisely how many lives this Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 will save. But it will be in the thousands—every year after the date of its enactment. I cannot tell you precisely how many disabling injuries this Act will pre- vent. But it will be in the hundreds of thousands—annually. I cannot tell you precisely how many dollars in wages this Act will save. But it will be in tens, and hundreds, of millions of dollars—each year. I cannot tell you precisely how much increased productivity this Act will mean. But it will be in billions of dollars—every year. This is not sufficiently precise information for a computer. It will suffice for the Committee—the Congress—the country. There is another, prouder contemporary tendency. It is to recognize that one of the advantages of national affluence, of economic success, is that it permits larger attention to human concerns. The mechanics were in charge of the industrial revolution. The humanists are asserting, against even stronger forces, their authority in the technological revolution. Life and limb were considered an acceptable price of progress during that period when even the optomists’ philosophy was embodied in a phrase about the “inevitability of progress.” But we are no longer determinists. We have ac- cepted human responsibility for shaping not only the course but the quality of progress. A higher value is placed now on a life, a limb, an eye. If the point be made that there is always some human cost of industrial or commercial advance, the necessary answer is that no modern logic permits the deliberate condoning of identifiable and preventable causes of death or disease or injury—when we know what we are doing. ‘When the question is whether an economic enterprise is to be required to satisfy the human values it affects or whether those values are to be compromised to serve the enterprise, there is no support any longer for the compromise. H.R. 14816 asserts the absolute priority of individual over institutional inter- ests, of human over economic values. Secretary Wirtz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this morning’s paper reports a casualty list from Vietnam. I want to give the members of the subcommittee another casualty list for today, which is a casualty list repeated every single workday throughout the year in this country, the occupational health and safety accidents in this country: 60 dead and 9,000 injured in 1 day. That is what is going to happen today in America and that is what has happened every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of every week of every month for too many years. Nine thousand injured and 60 dead. Now, a direct comparison of these two lists would be misleading be- cause there are two obvious differences. One is a concentration of deaths and injuries in Vietnam, and the other is the hope that that particular casualty list can be reduced to zero. While we cannot reduce this other casualty list to absolute zero, we should face the fact that this country suffers every single day an occupational casualty list of wide dimensions and that a very large part of it is reducible and can be eliminated. That is what we are here about today. In view of these figures, it is almost impossible to realize the under- emphasis which has been placed on this matter over the years. As nearly as we can determine, this is the first occasion, the occasion of the President’s message to the Congress of last week, in over half a century when this matter has been pressed forcibly by an administra- tion upon the Congress. 13 In December of 1910, President Taft sent a message to the Congress protesting what he called frightful diseases which were resulting from, in his phrase, “the injurious manufacture” of matches with phosphorous. Within two years the Congress had done something about that matter. In the intervening period, Mr. Chairman and members of the sub- committee, there have been, as you suggest in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, a series of actions of one kind or another dealing with the particular subject of occupational safety and health. But T find that in the last 20 years there have appeared only a few references to this subject in messages which were transmitted to the Congress; they are found in messages of President Truman and President Eisenhower, and those deal with special areas. I find no other emphasis that could be considered to have real dimensions and real proportions. The reasons for this are a little hard to evaluate. Perhaps most im- portant among them is the fact that this is a subject, this matter of occupational health and safety, about which a decision was reached quite a long time ago that the Federal Government should not play a large role because of the conflict involving States rights. I would express, Mr. Chairman, the hope that present considera- tion of this matter could be entered into with the full realization of how much we have grown up as far as the relationship between Federal and State responsibility is concerned. I do not believe the issue of this relationship is argued any longer in terms of what I found Mr. Bierce suggesting, in “The Devil’s Dictionary” as the “har- angoutang” of politics, with reference to a lot of oratory about States rights, when really the question is public responsibility. I think we are at the point now where we realize, in one connection or another, that we have learned how to find a larger strength in the combined efforts of the Federal and State Governments than that which either of them can muster or express alone. H.R. 14816 has been drafted with the most careful attention to the desirability of recognizing the opportunity for Federal-State coopera- tion in this area. The truth of the matter is that, as far as both the Federal and State laws, themselves, are concerned, there has been a considerable increase in their number. They started roughly in that same historical period to which I referred before. There is a little irony of history in the fact that just about 3 months after President Taft sent up his message about phosphorous matches there was the “Triangle” fire in the garment district in New York City. One hundred and forty-six women either burned to death or jumped to their death in that tragedy. It is an interesting point that Frances Perkins’ apartment at that time was just around the corner from the scene of that disaster. She saw it. She was subsequently Secretary of Labor, and I do not sup- pose that was entirely coincidental; she was Secretary of Labor from 1933 to 1945. When we celebrated several years ago the 50th anniversary of the Department of Labor, she was talking to some of us one afternoon and expressed, in phrases that stuck in my mind, her largest disappoint- ment that she was never able to get the subject of workers’ safety out from the crossfire of argument about Federal and State responsibility. 14 She was never able to surmount the barrier of that argument, so not very much was done. It would be a mistake to suggest that those State Jaws have been completely ineffective; but it would be the worst cowardice to fail to recognize the limited extent to which they have been effective. Turning again to the casualty list, I would like to mention some additional statistics. Fourteen thousand five hundred people are killed every year in this country while working, and 2.2 million suffer dis- abling injuries and lose worktime. Some of the other figures are less important because they are in a sense less human. A figure, however, of $1.5 billion loss in wages is a pretty significant item. Another point of comparison is that 10 times as much time is lost from work production in this country as a result of accidents as is lost from strikes and work stoppages. To speak of the loss to the economy in terms of productivity and total production may perhaps be diffi- cult to picture, but the direct loss to the gross national product is about $5 billion a year. If you add in the indirect losses, that figure comes to $6.5 billion a year. We are thus talking about a very, very major problem whether we are talking of economics or whether we are talking of human values. There are included in my statement a number of other statistical measures of the extent of this problem and I shall not repeat those here. There is one other point to be made about this matter. The prob- lems are Jeting worse, not better. They are growing in their size be- cause the population is growing, but the trouble is that, beyond such growth, the frequency rate of accidents in a good many areas is grow- ing. That is not true where it has been possible to move in, and in an effective way, as under the 1958 safety amendments to the Longshore- men’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act it has been possible to achieve a very real improvement within the scope of those amend- ments. There are other statistics which show that where States have moved in on these problems on a large scale, the severity and frequency rates have gone down. There is a direct relationship between the amount of money which is spent in the States on these programs and the acci- dent rate which results. You can draw a chart which shows that the less money that is spent, the higher the death rate. The difficulties about the State measures are various and it is almost impossible to generalize because in some of the States there are com- paratively effective laws and in other States there are very real limi- tations on their effectiveness. To a very considerable extent the size of the program is usually affected by budgetary considerations. And the difficulties of the program determine its effectiveness. I am suggesting in an elementary way that if we can just do more than we are doing in one way or another, the results are going to be very good. When you realize H.R. 14816 provides very extensive pro- visions for the enlargement of State operations, there is very little difficulty as far as the uniformly effective standards are concerned. There is almost a complete lack of uniformity among the States as far as safety standards go and in a good many cases there has not been much development of standards. In other States there has been a mag- nificent job done. There are very few penalty provisions in the State 15 laws and in most cases the standards are not mandatory. I mention those things only as a suggestion of the agenda possibilities and pros- pects which this bill suggests. Turning to the bill itself, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee, although its points are more detailed in my written statement, I' would like to summarize them now. We start off by recognition of the problem of Federal-State relations which is involved. The bill as pro- posed by the President to the Congress makes the Federal authority coterminus with the commerce authority. It provides at the same time for at least three areas of State operation. One, of course, is the complete control by the States over intrastate commerce. The bill also contains extensive provisions for the supple- mentation of State funds with Federal funds up to a 90-10 matching basis. We consider that a very important part of the bill. The bill also provides for what is in effect the ceding of Federal jurisdiction to the States the leaving of those areas to State control in which State control or regulation has proved effective. The measure also provides for the use of State facilities as arms of the Federal facility. I think the bill provides a complete set of possibilities of cooperative Federal-State operation. There is extensive provision in this bill for research in the area of occupational health and safety. Another set of statistics which are only suggestive, probably require some discount in their application, but they are nonetheless illustrative. We spend in this country on cancer research an amount which is equivalent to $415 per death from that disease. If we are looking at the matter of heart research if you take the number of deaths from heart disease and, divide it into the amount spent in research in that area, that figure is $95. If you turn to occupational accidents and diseases, that figure which was $415 in the cancer area and $95 in the traffic accident area becomes $6.57 per death. I do not think any of us takes any pleasure from trafficking in arithmetic which is based on death, but it does give us some suggestion of the extent to which we have almost overlooked the research responsibilities as far as the field of cccupational safety and health is concerned. H.R. 14816 provides for a very extensive development as a basis for a research program. As far as the Federal Government is con- cerned, such a program would be centered in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but it includes also a very extensive develop- ment of a research basis as far as the States are concerned. The bill anticipates the development of standards which will be mandatory Federal standards enforced as such. It would be a serious mistake to try to suggest that they are less than they are because we anticipate success in this area. And so those standards will be the heart of the enforcement procedure which is developed. Those standards will be based on the research which is conducted by HEW, and by other agencies. In developing the Federal standards, the Secretary of Labor could also rely upon State and private expertise where a good deal of work has been done in this standards area. When you come to enforcement of the bill, you will find a variety of provisions. They start from a recognition of the situation in which an investigator will identify a safety threat, an imminent threat to safety, which will require immediate action. To deal with such a 16 situation there is a specific provision for the administrative issuance of instant cease-and-desist orders. T realize the problems this provision presents, and realize the opposi- tion which it may bring in terms of the authority which it gives some individual, who will be identified as a bureancrat—the authority which it gives him to say “stop” as far as some moneymaking operation is concerned. T do not mean to blink at that fact at all. The situation is one in which there is the identification of that kind of threat; and the questions, the stakes, are life and death. T only refer to your opening statement, Mr. Chairman. If we are talking about the possibility of one death, our inclination is to go all out in seeing what has to be done to stop it. So that will be the point of attack as far as these provisions are concerned, and it should be met as such. There will not be many situations in which the issuance of such an order may be necessary, but we ought to recognize that the possibility exists and see it clearly before us. The normal situation will be one in which, the standards having been established with a considerable degree of particularity, there will be an investigation which identifies a violation of those particu- lar standards. In that situation the procedure, which is provided in H.R. 14816, is very much like the one which has already been proven from experience under the Longshore Act. It would involve the issuance of cease-and-desist orders; it would involve the enforcement and review of those orders, if necessary, through judicial proceedings. It would involve civil penaltiés of up to $1.000 in a case where a violation was found, and it would also include criminal penalties of up to £5,000, with the possibility of imprisonment, if there is willful violation of the bill’s provisions. The act provides also for injunctive enforcement where that is necessary, and, along the lines of the Walsh-Healey Act, for the cancellation of Government contracts in situations in which there is a violation of these standards, and the issuance of prohibitions upon subsequent contracting by the Government with a violator. This latter sanction is usually limited to flagrant violations where there is a failure to show good faith efforts to comply. There is next the provision in the bill for the training of personnel in occupational safety and health work. As in so many areas in which it is now our opportunity to turn as our affluence permits, we find a terrible shortage of manpower, both private and public, as far as the administration of safety standards are concerned. So there is provision in the bill for the meeting of that personnel problem and, in effect, easing this manpower shortage. There is provision in the bill for the adjustment of the responsi- bilities under H.R. 14816 to those which have been established under the other statutes to which you referred, Mr. Chairman, especially in connection with the activities in the maritime industry, and in con- nection with the mine safety legislation of 1966, which is about to become effective. There are provisions of other Federal laws which involve the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Transportation, and the Bureau of Mines, in the Department of the Interior. Tt is assumed in the bill that those authorities will be maintained, and that any rela. 17 tionship between the authority conferred under other laws and that conferred here will be worked out. Now, finally, Mr. Chairman, turning to the last part of my statement, I would like to identify carefully, so that it does not seem to be maudlin, what I think are two very important tendencies in our society today in our thinking about the relationship between people and work. One of those tendencies is to try to quantify the relationship between people and work and to put everything on a cost-effectiveness basis so that we end up trying to do only what a computer can help us in doing. I do not mean what I say here as being in any way in opposition to the most businesslike way of doing any job we can, but when it comes to a matter in which we have to work out equations between human values and economic costs and interests, there is a limitation on how far you can go on this precise basis. I do not know how many deaths will be avoided and prevented if H.R. 14816 is passed. I know there will be thousands, which seems to me close enough. And I do not know precisely how many disabling accidents will be prevented but T think it will be hundreds of thousands every year, and I think that is enough. And I cannot tell this committee precisely how many dollars in wages are going to be saved as a result of this bill. IT can tell you it will be hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably tens of millions of dollars, which seems to me to be enough. I do not know precisely what the effect will be on the gross national product, but IT know it will be in the billions, which seems to me close enough. So on the first point of whether we can measure what we are doing here sufficiently to warrant our doing it, I say only that I think the figures are such as to leave no possible refuge for shirking our respon- sibilities because of a mere inability to refine the decimal points which may be involved. Then, on the other hand, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee, there is another tendency in the country today. It is a broader contemporary tendency to recognize increasingly that one of the great advantages of our national affluence and economic success is that it now permits us to turn larger attention to human concerns. We do not need to worry so much as we did before about whether there will be some interference, some slight interference with the development of progress as we used to know it. I think of a comparison between the technological revolution today and the industrial revolution of about the turn of the century. The mechanics were in charge of the industrial revolution and there was no time for the argument that progress ought to in any way be con- trolled by the possibility that some people might be ground up on the assembly lines. It is very interesting, I think, that the humanists today, who are facing in the technological revolution even stronger forces than before, are insisting that we now measure progress in qualitative as well as in quantitative terms and that we not make human sacrifice for the development of progress. If you look back, life and limb were considered a very acceptable price of progress during that period when even the optimist’s philos- ophy was embodied in the phrase about the inevitability of progress. We were proud of our progress, but we are no longer determinists. 18 We have accepted human responsibility for shaping not only the course but the quality of progress. We do not any longer blame what happens on some remote or uncontrollable force. We recognize the perfection of the human condition being within the human capacity, and now higher value is placed on a life, or a limb or an eye. If in the discussion of this bill the point is made that there is always some human cost of industrial or commercial advance, it seems to me the absolutely essential answer is that no modern logic permits the deliberate condoning of identifiable or preventable causes of death or disease, or injury ; at least, not when we know what we are doing. When the question is whether an economic enterprise is to be required to satisfy the human values or whether those values are to be compromised, there is no support any longer for the compromise. It seems to me in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that FL.R. 14816 asserts the absolute priority of individual over institutional interests and of human over economic values, and in so doing it faces up to the most basic issues of contemporary thought and values. Thank you. Mr. O’Hagra. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Suffice to say I find myself in complete accord with your statement. We have a number of very alert interested members present today so I am going to withhold my questioning and let them have a first crack at you, Mr. Secretary. Secretary Wirtz. Thank you. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Hathaway? Mr. Haraway. I have one general question, Mr. Chairman. First of all, T want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for an excellent statement in support of the bill which I hope will be enacted. I won- dered if you had given any consideration to whether or not we should cover the manufacturers of equipment in the Safety Act such as we cover automobile manufacturers. Secretary Wirtz. Tam not sure I understand the question. Mr. Hariiaway. Defects of cranes and other equipment that are used on jobs that perhaps could be corrected in the first instance so we could prevent accidents. Should this bill perhaps have something in it like that? Secretary Wirtz. 1 do understand your question and, subject to correction by counsel, the act in its present form would not directly cover that. But it would seem to me an entirely legitimate area of in- quiry and action, and it surely would be one of the subjects of the greatly enlarged research which is involved here. But I would say that we would support whatever might be pro- posed by the Congress along that line—I mean, some direct involve- ment at the equipment manufacturing stage. Mr. O'Hara. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Haraway. Yes, certainly. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Secretary, it would seem to me that in setting en- forceable safety standards with respect to interstate business, we would say, for instance with respect to items of equipment—let’s take a crane example—that a crane must be counterbalanced or counter- weighted to the extent of so much per whatever amount of load it is 19 expected to pick up and so forth, and it must be of such and such a structure and such and such a strength and so forth. Now, while we would not have directly regulated the manufacturer of the crane, by saying to the user of the crane you cannot use the crane unless it meets certain standards, in effect the manufacturer of cranes cannot sell them then. He would have to, in order to find a market for his product, be able to produce a product that the user then could use to meet the stand- ards set under the act. That is how I would envision that particular aspect of it. Mr. Hatraway. I understand that, Mr. Chairman, and I know that would be the result of inspections on the job site where cranes or other tractors and other equipment is being used. I thought it might be a little more expeditious if we went right to the source immediately in the act and if we had a provision in the act to that effect. It would alert manufacturers to check into the safety of the various products they are making for industry, and even though we might not have a very strong provision to start with, in view of the fact that Secretary Wirtz mentioned we might have to hold lengthy hearings and hold up the enactment of this particular act, at least if we had some pro- vision in this to alert manufacturers of the need, we could get started on it. Secretary Wirtz. Mr. Gidel advises me, in connection with the ad- ministration of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act, that regulations under that law prohibit the use of cranes unless they meet certain safety standards—I am talking about my friend in the Depart- ment, not Congressman Goodell Mr. GoopeLL. I have not raised the enemy flag. Secretary Wirtz. You know I would not have put it that way except in the broadest terms of friendship. He is the administrator of the safety and health aspects of the Longshore Act. He tells me that the effect of the prohibition upon the use of particular equipment under that act has certainly the effect in practical operation of reaching the product at the manufacturer’s level, Mr. Hathaway. I suppose, on thinking it through—I might not like the logic of saying we will let you go ahead and make some equipment that is dangerous and we will hope to stop it when it gets out in the field—I guess as a prag- matic matter, the prohibition upon the use of it would be about as far as we would have much tradition for going. Mr. Haraway. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Before the Chair proceeds with the questioning, it would like to acknowledge the presence in the audience of Repre- sentative Robert Eckhardt from the State of Texas, a cosponsor of this bill. Bob, why don’t you come up and take a place at the table? Mr. Ecxmaror. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your invitation. T am happy to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and IT am very impressed by the number of people that have turned out this morning to listen te the very eloquent testimony of the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Gurney? Mr. Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. - 20 I echo the sentiments of the chairman of the subcommittee. We al- ways are happy to have you with us, Mr. Secretary, to tell us about our problems here in Government. It occurs to me that one of the things that a responsible legislator ought to do in approaching new legislation is to make sure there is an urgent need for it. There are lots of things we need to do, but some things we need to do more than other things. One of the things I am a little concerned about here is the lack of backup material, as I see it, with your statement in writing, and also your verbal statement, Mr. Secretary, as to the urgent need for legisla- tion of this sort. For example, I know in the statement itself on page 8 and again on page 9 that you say, for example : Our present statistics are too weak for any meaningful purpose— These are statistics referring to injuries and accidents, diseases, and also, you say that— Research in the field of occupational safety and health is uncoordinated and woefully inadequate. Admitted that there may be need for statistics so we may know the problem and the extent of it, how can we say that we know there is a need of this legislation if we do not know what the problem is? Would you care to comment on that? Secretary Wirtz. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Gurney. I would like to call attention to two things. First would be the de- sirability of our supplying the committee with the evidence which is available in the area and which does go into a good deal more detail than either the summary statement that I gave you or the written statement. We are in a position, for example, to supply the committee with work injury rates industry by industry, including a breakdown of both their frequency and their severity. The available information does permit me to tell you exactly, for example—if you take the manu- facturing industry—the frequency rate has moved from 11.4—that would be per million man-hours worked, 11.4 in 1958 to 12.8 in 1965. The severity rate, on the other hand, has gone down. I do not attach significance right now to the particular figures I am giving you, but just to give you some suggestion as to the extent it has gone. (See exhibits A and B submitted by the Department of Labor, printed at the conclusion of this day’s testimony.) Mr. Gurney. Let us pursue that for a moment. That surprises me. T am not an expert in this field but everything that I have read about it rather sketchily indicates that accident rates and death rates have gone down appreciably over the years because we have done as a na- tion a great deal in that area. Industry itself has done much. Workmen's compensation has done a great deal. Insurance companies, in trying to keep their rates down, have instituted safety programs so that my clear understanding ac- tually is that these statistics show these rates have all gone down. How does this show that yours has gone up? Are there any factors here built in that we do not know about in this figure that you just mentioned ? —— 21 Secretary Wirtz. I wouldn’t know how to explain the difference between the general understanding which I think parallels exactly what you have suggested and the facts as required by such a differ- ence—to the extent of available evidence. It is not just a narrow sta- tistic base on which I build. I call attention, for example, to the oral Jpard of the Wall Street Journal of last year, just about a year ago, arch 6, 1967 : Uh agety Setback. Boom-time conditions push factory accident rate to 13-year igh. That article goes on to identify what may be some of the answers to your questions. As you move into a higher capacity use of the productive facilities, it does mean more new help coming in. It does mean more overtime that is worked. It does create problems of super- vision which are not characteristic of a lower period. It does mean more changing of jobs. So 1 suspect that the situation we face now is to some extent a result of the extraordinary degree of rate of expansion. Mr. Gurney. That would make some sense but, of course, we do need to know that because I doubt if that statistic would buttress the argument of any need for legislation. It would indicate to me there was a need for work, more workers at once, and probably to put them on with less training because of our steamed-up economy. These facts we certainly need to know. Do you have any statistics on how much money has been spent last year and other years by industry on safety programs? Secretary Wirtz. No. IT do not have those figures in totals, but your question permits making a point which is very important. The extent to which private industry has been emphasizing the safety program is obviously the single most important element in this whole situation. I have been familiar with that in the past, even when I was an arbitrator. Mr. Gurney. Could we have these statistics furnished ? Secretary Wirtz. T am afraid that figures on total expenditures on occupational safety by all industries would not be available. I want to say, in general, as you would know my experience would reflect, that whenever you go into the shop of an industry, a responsible industrial operation, or into a plant, the first thing you see when you are inside that door is the report on the accidents, the safety situation. So there will be great pride taken in the number of days that can be reported without disabling injuries, and so on and so forth. I suspect that what- ever legislation we have passed will have comparatively little effect on the responsible American manufacturer or entrepreneur. It is pri- ary a matter of bringing laggards up to that same point of respon- sibility. In fact, it would be almost without qualification that I would say that I think if you take most of responsible American industry today there would be no effect of a bill on this kind on such industry except as the research which is called for might be helpful to them in carry- ing out their own policies. The companies whose names would come to mind most immediately" here, and the unions which have emphasized this most strongly, have already pushed out probably ahead of what would be done here. It is 92-734 0—68——3 22 primarily a matter of meeting those problems of lack of knowledge and of laggard tendencies on the part —e few. I wanted to mention one other thing about the statistics. I said there were two points. It is very important to realize the principal emphasis now, as far as government—State and Federal—are concerned is on research, and the largest amount of money at the start will be ex- penuted on research to get a clearer picture of what the standards may , or should be, and so on and so forth. As you know, we can carry that to a fault. I am thinking particu- larly about this last year of our experience in connection with the problem of uranium mining, in which we found that we had been spending among us, private and public, State and Federal, about 20 years working toward a Re —— and we didn’t even have one yet. There again, however, an examination of the responsible operations included a comparatively low degree of problem. Mr. Gurney. Mr. Chairman, I wonder, then, if we couldn’t have for the record the expenditures that have been made, say, over a period of 10 years, or more than that if it is meaningful, by industry for ac- cidents, safety programs. Also, by insurance companies, also by the U.S. Government and any other statistics in this area that are meaningful. (Department of Labor indicates that “there are no available figures on total expenditures by the private sector or by the Federal Gov- ernment which would reflect in any meaningful way the total amounts those entities spend on occupational safety and health.” See exhibit C.) Mr. Secretary, one other thing. I also, in the very sketchy research that I did prior to the hearing, found to my amazement that the accident and death rate as reported by the National Safety Council, I think it was, by Government was a lot poorer than industry. What leads you to believe that Government is going to do a better job of Sosvisng this whole area if they have not had the best record so ar Secretary Wirtz. If it would be the Congress decision to make this bill’s provisions applicable to the Government in its role as employer, such action would receive our full and complete support. Mr. Gurney. I don’t doubt that. I am not aiming really at that. I am just pointing out that the very body here that wants the new leg- islation to improve matters has not really had a good record itself. I wonder if we could have that record ? Secretary Wirtz. We would be glad to do that. The record will not, Mr. Gurney, support the breadth of your suggestion. There is a necessary breakdown that has to be made between the ordinary gov- ernmental operations and the shipyard operations and the other specialized activities. If I thought it was Mr. Gurney. That is fair. Secretary Wirtz. If I thought it was particularly important to you or to me to refine those statistics, I would be glad to do so. We will supply them. I think we would both agree, even if it should develop contrary to what I know to be the fact, that the Government was most laggard in its health and safety practices, there would not be an argu- ment against raising the level for the country as a whole. We would be glad to include it all. T will supply that information. (See exhibits D and E submitted by the Department of Labor, printed at the conclusion of this day’s testimony.) 23 Mr. Gurney. You mentioned the cost of health and safety programs. A good part of what the Government was spending today was in research. What is your estimate on the cost of this bill? I see it only provides for an open-end authorization here. Secretary Wirtz. I will answer your question on the basis of com- parison with the present situation. There are roughly three areas of expenditure as far as the Federal Government is concerned. One is research. The other is enforcement of the present programs, includ- ing training activities which are carried out in connection with those programs. The third is the grants to the States. The present situation is one of a total, and these are 1968 fiscal year totals, and they would be about $10,900,000, of which $8 million goes into research right now; $2,900,000 goes into the enforcement of the various present programs and zero into State grants. There is no present State grant figure. Mr. Gurney. What is your estimate on this bill? What do you strive for here as far as authorization is concerned ? Secretary Wirtz. To answer your questions further in terms of the immediate future, which includes the recognition that it is quite hard to tell exactly how fast we can move into this area, we have made some estimates. Those estimates would include up to a doubling of the present. figure for fiscal year 1969. Mr. Gurney. $21.8 million? Secretary Wirtz. Approximately that amount. I do not believe my attempt to break those down would be very reliable because this envisages, among other things, a very large degree of cooperation with the States and to whatever extent we can work this out 1n terms of their research and their enforcement, our part will be lessened. The financing would be out of the contingency fund so that you may assume that whatever is done in the first year will be, as the con- tingency fund appropriation requires, something less than $10 million or up to that amount. I am sorry not to be more specific about it, but we have attempted to be as helpful as possible. In some ways it is easier to project after the first transitional year. We are now talking and thinking subject to working out the rela- tionship with the States in terms of appropriation totals compared with $10.9 million this year which would move up in 1970 into the $25 million plus or minus range, in 1971 up into the $30 million plus or minus range, and would probably level off as nearly as we can tell in that area. i I should be less than candid if I were not to say to you when we are suggesting that the first element in the program 1s one for research, that we would be compromising ourselves to be very specific about what could come from that. It depends on what the research discloses. Mr. Gurney. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions but I better yield the floor to other members. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you, Mr. Gurney. Mr. Scheuer, do you have any questions? Mr. Scurver. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on a truly magnificent statement. It seems to me if our country finds it morally defensible to spend tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands per life that we terminate halfway around the world, we can find a 24 moral imperative to spend a fraction of 1 percent of that per life that we save here at home. In your statement on pages 4 and 6, you emphasize the shortage of safety manpower, personnel both for training of workers and for inspection presumably. On pages 7 and 11, you emphasize the need for increasing the expertise and capability of personnel, and the continued education and training of safety personnel to assure adequate man- power supply. You give us the astonishing figure in the whole Fed- eral apparatus, in the entire State apparatus, of only 1,600 State in- spectors and fewer than that in the Federal establishment. Secretary Wirrz. That is right. Mr. Scuruer. Do you feel that as a source of manpower both for training workers and inspecting physical premises, that we might look to the hard-core cadre of unemployed at present and develop a de- signed program for training the presently long-term hard-core unem- ployed to work as subprofessional aides to professionals in both train- ing and inspection ? Much that is new has been developed in design models for training aimed at health services, educational services, police, probation paroles, and other public assistance services. Secretary Wirtz. Mr. Scheuer, I know what is in your mind, and I am in a good position to articulate the point that, when you are talking about something like the new careers program, for which we are everlastingly grateful to you as its author, you are talking about ex- actly the kind of thing that is anticipated here. I have a great respect for the expertise of the safety engineers. Mr. ScHEUER. So do 1. Secretary Wikrz. I don’t mean for a moment to diminish the profes- sional quality of that work. At the same time, what we are talkin about here obviously involves the kind of thing on which there coul be development of a subprofessional level of competence which would be a very great help. So that my answer to your question would be an unqualified affirmative. This is precisely the kind of area into which we hope through the new careers program to move people—into those second- or third- level spots which may not be the top of the business but do represent ‘a larger usefulness of the individual and labor. Mr. Scueuer. Thank you. IT thank you again for a perfectly mar- velous statement. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Goodell, do you have any questions? Mr. GoopeLL. Yes. Mr. Secretary, first of all I hope that regardless of what position I take on this legislation we are friends. Secondly, I must say that I am a friend of the objective of the leg- islation and may well be a friend of the legislation itself. I do have some questions with reference to how you plan the enforcement. Secretary Wirrz. On that point, Mr. Goodell, I am sure that I don’t need to say that I am dead sure that you will find the fullest reflection of that in the license that I took. Mr. Goober. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. That is reciprocated. With reference to enforcement, I note that you have provision for instant cease and desist orders where there is a danger of imminent harm. 25 Assuming that you find such danger of imminent harm and go to the district court, as I understand the procedure would be in cease and desist orders, what would be the subsequent procedure? Would you contemplate there would be a right to a hearing with the court having total jurisdiction at this point in the administrative enforcement, to set the order aside ? Secretary Wirtz. I would be less than candid if I were not to make it quite clear this does not contemplate going to the court before that cease and desist action is taken. I went out of my way in my statement to make that clear and I don’t want to fuzz that point up at all. This does anticipate the possibility that if an inspector finds a situation—— Mr. GoopeLL. He would issue a cease and desist order? Secretary Wirtz. Yes; he would issue such an order. Mr. GoopberL. He can go to the district court to enforce his order? Secretary Wirtz. That is correct. Mr. Goober. What kind of a hearing do you contemplate would be involved on the facts in that case? Assuming that you had one, that is. Does that exclude any consideration of the facts thereafter? Secretary Wirtz. I would like to take this special precaution of asking Mr. Donahue, our solicitor, to respond to this question. Mr. Doxanuk. The action in court, Mr. Goodell, would involve the issues as stated on page 7 at the top of the bill, “* * * to be confined to the existence of imminent harm to the safety and health of the workers.” ; The question of the reasonableness of the ruling of the investigator, for example, could be involved in such determination of such im- minence of harm, and as far as stopping the activity is concerned ; and T assume subsequent recommendations would be made for corrective action. Mr. GooperL. Then the court would be charged with the responsi- bility of finding the facts in this case? Mr. Doxanuve. Finding the facts as to whether or not there was imminent harm to the workers justifying the cease and desist order. Mr. GooperL. In other words, the burden would be on the inspector to show that there was imminent harm? Mr. Donanrue. That is exactly correct. Mr. Goober. Would he have to prove this in the court to the court’s satisfaction? There would be no presumption of any finding by the inspector if it were true? Mr. Donanue. No presumption is provided for. Mr. Gooberr. Assuming that the court issues a cease and desist order, it would enforce your cease and desist order—it could have complete jurisdiction to modify that cease and desist order in any way that it wished ? Mr. Doxanve. I would assume so. The order may deal with im- minently harmful conditions which might exist only in a certain area. Mr. Goober. Right. What I was thinking of was an inspector issued a cease and desist order to close down an entire plant. The court could close down a section of the plant or it could take other action to en- force this without taking what it considered excessive action by an inspector ? Mr. Doxanuk. I think you are right in your assessment of it. 26 Mr. GoopeLL. Mr. Secretary, on page 13, my impression is that there is, after 545 days, a complete preemption by the Federal Government of jurisdiction in the interstate commerce field, where the Secretary has asserted that jurisdiction. In the meanwhile, for 545 days after the enactment of this presumably you could continue State enforcement, and Federal enforcement side oe side in the same plants and in the same situation ? ; Seatny Wirtz. During the first year and a half transitional pe- roa Mr. GoobELL. Yes. Secretary Wirrz. That is correct. After that period, although there would be preemption as far as the issue of authority is concerned, the bill does contemplate specifically the recognition of areas which may be left to the States. The answer to your question then, is that after i transitional period there may be Federal preemption under this ill. Mr. GoopeLL. In your discretion, you could leave the other to the State to enforce in your discretion, in contracts with the State, to enforce it where you felt that was most desirable ? Secretary Wirtz. That is correct. Under the bill, contracts can be made with the States to facilitate the enforcement of the act. Mr. GoopeLL. After 545 days, the year and a half, you would where you had asserted Federal authority however preempt the field? Secretary Wirtz. This is correct. Mr. GoopeLL. An industry would not be subject to the State safety regulations after that ? Secretary Wirtz. That is right. As a matter of authority, that would be placed in the Secretary. Mr. GoopberL. Assuming a State has more extensive safety regula- tions than your own, after the 545 days would the State’s authority be preempted entirely unless you made an exception ? Secretary Wirtz. Yes, it would. Mr. GoopeLL. I won’t go into some of the other questions that I have, except for one. I think that as a matter of record I would like you to comment on what you believe intrastate industries would include. I note that the States are given on page 7 of the bill exclusive jurisdiction over any intrastate matter. Would you characterize what that would be? Secretary Wirrz. May 1 ask Mr. Donahue to answer that? Mr. DoNanve. Again, I think the Congressman appreciates that there is an uneven and undefined line between interstate and intrastate commerce and that the court cases have constantly broadened what is regarded as “affecting interstate commerce” with regard to the various statutes. Giving the clearest kind of an example I suppose one might give, would be to refer to domestic service in the private home as being purely local in character. I do not have available an enumeration of all of those local activities which are clearly intrastate in character, but I think speaking gen- erally, that we can concede that most manufacturing, a great deal of retailing, certainly wholesaling, to a very considerable degree affect interstate commerce. To that extent they are all subject to the act with a comparatively minor, perhaps, but not easily defined area in purely Intrastate commerce. 27 I must confess that I cannot here right now define with any ac- curacy or precision exactly where that line may be. Mr. Gooperr. In other words, you are covering the farthest reach of the interstate commerce clause as interpreted by the courts? Mr. Donanue. That is correct. Mr. GooperL. As I understand it, this would be any activity affecting commerce ? Mr. Donauue. That is correct. : Mr. Goober. Not necessarily involved in commerce but affecting commerce ? Mr. Doxanue. That is correct. The cases have extended that to a considerable degree so that even though there is a minor, very minor percentage effect on interstate commerce, nevertheless there 1s enough effect in order for the statutes to reach within the scope of the commerce clause. Mr. GooperL. I would take it, Mr. Secretary, that you would contem- plate making an independent judgment as to the appropriateness of extending Federal authority to small operations and not necessarily decide that you were going to preempt the field because of the reach of the interstate commerce clause covered in all the various smallest pe operations? ecretary Wirrz. I appreciate your asking this question, Mr. Goodell. I had to bite my tongue a little bit to phrase my answer before. In the ares in which your question lies, I think it is very proper and in terms of authority it is that broad. Your second question involves a decision and permits me to say, of course, that the exercise of that broad au- thority would include a full recognition of the experience of distin- guishing between large and small employers and it would include— I don’t mean this to be a weakening assertion—it would include the fullest possible recognition of State action which may be taken in this area. In some States they have gone beyond minimal requirements. There are two sets of answers to your question. The first answer is that as far as authority goes, preemption authority, the definition of commerce here, which is spelled out in the bill so as to include business affecting commerce, that authority is very broad. Secondly, the exercise of that authority proceeds on the assumption of a sensible rule of reason in the administration with a strong em- phasis as reflected in the provision for grants to the States, and strong emphasis on the desirability of doing as much as possible in the States. Mr. Goober. Recognizing that you would want to attain maximum results under this legislation and, I am sure, the maximum degree of safety that we can for our worker, I take it consistent with that ob- jective it would be your intention to utilize the State machinery to the extent possible? Secretary Wirtz. Yes, sir. Mr. GoobeLr. In conclusion on that particular point you mentioned some States go beyond contemplation of this law now. Are there many? Can you name any of them that actually would, in effect, not be covered by this legislation because of State laws stronger than contemplated this law would be ? Secretary Wirtz. Somebody suggested “to paraphrase me does so at his own peril.” It was not, Mr. Goodell, that this went further or 28 these State laws go further than we would contemplate here. It is slightly different from that. Rather, that the present State laws go beyond what most of us would figure is the minimum level to be estab- lished by Government. That is a matter of inference that is not much different. You ask about particular States. Mrs. Peterson would be in a better position than I to answer that. Mrs. Pererson. I think there are some States—and I think it is difficult to name them specifically because they differ State by State— but we have a list which I think we would be very pleased to submit for the record of various standards and various components of their program so you could have it on a chart basis and thus know where they are and where they stand. There are quite a few.of them. I hope to name some. New York and California. I should look at the chart for your own State. That might comply right now and might meet most of the standards. I would suggest we submit it for the record and supplement that with a de- tailed analysis of where the States are in these matters. Mr. GooperL. I think it would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, if we had for the record a summary and characterization of the present State laws in all of the States so that we—— Mrs. Peterson: You understand it is spotty and it is bad to single out some without pointing out the advantages of many of them. Mr. O’Hara. Would the gentleman yield for a second ? Mr. GoopeLL. Yes. : Mr. O’Hara. The Chair intends to request the various items re- quested by the members of the committee before we conclude today. I would think it would be hard to say what States exceed the Federal standards until we have had the Federal standards. Mr. Gooperr. What I would like to get is a characterization of the types of laws that are in effect in each of the States. You mentioned some that appear to have no safety laws and other have very strong safety laws and what kinds of provisions Mrs. Pererson. We would like to present that on a factual basis rather than a judgment basis. (See exhibits F-O submitted by the Department of Labor.) (Staff note: Also filed with the subcommittee is a study by the Bureau of Labor Standards setting forth, in tabular form, compari- sons of State safety codes with selected ASA standards. Technical probins precluded printing these tables as a part of the hearing record.) Mr. Gurney. Would the gentleman yield ? Mr. Goober. Yes. Mr. Gurney. I notice that the bill provides, as far as enforce- ment is concerned, the Secretary may go into the district court to enjoin or restrain some practice he says is in violation of the law. I notice on page 11, section 10, it deals with Government contracts. The Secretary there has the power of saying that no part of a Gov- ernment contract will be performed in a plant that does not meet the standards prescribed. This also gives him the power to recommend to other Government agencies that are contracting that they cancel contracts. My question is this: Is there any appeal from that order or ruling to a court? Is a businessman at the mercy of an inspector who comes in and says there is a violation and the Secretary cancels a Govern- ment contract? 29 Secretary Wirtz. The answer to that question too, I think, Mr. Gurney, divides into two parts. I think the answer to your question is certainly as far as this bill is concerned there is no express provision for that review. I would have to check the Administrative Procedure Act to see whether there is proper specific provision there. Would there be ? Mr. Doxanuk. No, Mr. Secretary. There is a specific exemption for Government contracts as far as the Administrative Procedure Act is concerned. However, that exemption applies to rulemaking proceedings only. As for debarment proceedings for violations of the bill, the judicial review provided in section 7(b) of the bill would apply. No debarment could be ordered by the Secretary until the formal administrative hearing and decisionmaking procedures on the basis of a record have been followed under section 6. Decisions in such cases are reviewable in court under section 7 (b) of the bill. Secretary Wirtz. I should like to add one other thing based on experience. Wherever this problem has in the past arisen as a possibil- ity, I believe that in most cases we have been able to work it out on a practical basis. Where it has arisen as a possibility as it did in connection with the uranium mine safety practice, we have pro- ceeded on the basis of the assumption there would be a mandamus proceeding instituted if there should appear to the private party to be a violation of the discretion or abuse of the discretion in the act. Mr. Gurney. If that is the case, wouldn't it be well to work it into the act? Secretary Wirtz. It is not inadvertence that leaves it out as a matter of express reference. We are talking about a problem in which time may be a very real factor in cases of imminent harm. If there could be provision for some kind of review procedure which would provide in effect for stay, an operating stay action so that whatever condition we are talking about is voided in the meantime, we would support any kind of procedure of that kind. We are concerned only about that time factor here. Mr. Goober. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Gur~EY. Sure. Mr. Goober. I think it might be particularly important. I would assume that there would be a motive for the Federal Government not to just cut off a contract that the Government wants to have fulfilled if they are in the process of meeting that contract. As T understand the bill, you would have authority to declare a company ineligible for future Federal contracts by a determination on your part. I think there it might be even more important there be some kind of a review procedure to do that because the urgency of time is not quite as great in that situation. It even preserves your right that in the interim, until the court decides the matter, they shall be ineligible. But at least it lets the court make a final determination. Would you have objection? Secretary Wirtz. This does not present a serious problem technically because we already know the practical elements that are brought to bear. In a situation of this kind they are invariably much larger than the legal elements. This is a situation with which we are familiar. Under the Walsh-Healey Act, the Service Contract Act, the Davis- Bacon Act, and the executive order establishing the Office of Federal 30 Contract Compliance, all of which involve the authority to debar from or cancel Government contracts, we know that we are in a very diffi- cult administrative area. It is an area in which our experience shows that this form of action is taken in the rarest of situations. The effec- tiveness of the sanction lies more in its availability than its use. A good many years of experience now leaves me with the feeling that whatever is done as far as the procedures are concerned, review proce- dures in this area, does not really much matter because the showdown is in the confrontation which comes before. Usually that confrontation will work out satisfactorily. Summarizing my answer to the question, I think it would be unneces- sary to include express provisions to meet the problem we are talking about here. Mr. GoopeLL. You do not mind if we work on them ? Secretary Wirtz. If the committee so wishes, express language can * be written into the bill to make this clear. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Secretary, may I ask you very quickly, does this provision which Mr. Goodell referred to confer any authority upon the Federal Government that is not already possessed under Wa sh- Healey, Davis-Bacon, and so forth ? Secretary Wirtz. I think that everything that is provided here is covered in one act or another with the possible exception of the provi- sion here for an administrative officer moving immediately if he finds an imminently harmful situation. Mr. O’Hara. I mean in terms of cancellation of contract. Secretary Wirtz. No. Nothing there. Essentially it is the same; pro- cedurally it is the same. Mr. O’Hara. That is what I meant. Secretary Wirtz. Nothing on that. Indeed, I think that in broad terms there is a basis in one provision or another in present law for every single thing provided for here. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Ford, do you have any questions ? Mr. Forp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few questions. - With regard to the enforcement matter that Mr. Goodell has raised, would we contemplate that this would operate much in the way that we now operate at the local and State level with respect to the enforce- ment of fire and building codes and health regulations, where the in- spector puts a red tag in effect on the door and says, “Stop the ma- Suns stop doing what you are doing until something is straightened out”? In most of these instances it turns into a situation where by the time they reach any kind of a tribunal the matter has been cleaned up. Secretary Wirrz. The answer is “Yes.” I should like in connection with that to clarify my previous answer. When I say there is precedent for each of the things which is involved here, I want to make it quite clear that T am referring to a number of areas. Let me state it differently. There has been some precedent in ex- perience for everything that is proposed here. This act goes considera- bly beyond any other single act or any combination of acts, very con- siderably beyond it. On your point, Mr. Ford, it would mean the extension to a much wider area of potential injury situations of exactly the kind of practice to which you refer. The administrative practice of saying, “You have 31 got to cool that boiler, and now, because if you don’t I don’t know when the thing will explode,” it would extend to that. Mr. Forp. We know from a considerable body of law and a good deal of experience that at the local and State level that using this method under such codes does carry with it a whole body of law with respect to due process and there never seems to be any lack of remedy on the part of the reasonably alert attorney representing the client who feels that the order of the inspector was arbitrary or not justified in some way. Mr. GoopeLL. Would the gentleman yield ? Mr. For. Yes. Mr. GooperL. Do you contemplate a procedure for hearings on the standards that you are going to determine ? Secretary Wirtz. We do, and there is specific provision as a general matter for the hearing. It isin section 3 (b). Mr. Goober. There is reference in subsection (b) to 553 of title V. Secretary Wirtz. Yes. The reference to section 553 of title V in- corporates that by reference. Mr. GoopeLL. In other words, before setting up standards you would hold hearings and contemplate that in certain types of industry you would hear from industry and labor with reference to the standards? Secretary Wirtz. Yes. We would contemplate that. Then there is also provision throughout the several sections of the act for reliance upon the services, advice, and so forth, of the other Federal agencies and of the State agencies. Mr. Gooperr. Thank you. Mr. Foro. With respect to the philosophy of the Federal Govern- ment moving into this area, one concern that I have as a cosponsor of this legislation is that I feel we may not yet have gone far enough in assuring support for those States that are the leaders, that are doing the best job. Recognizing from your own figures here on page 6 the wide varia- tion that exists, we found in other kinds of Federal legislation that we concentrate so hard on those places where nothing was being done or where a poor job was being done, that we don’t encourage those States that are leaders to continue that position of leadership. As I study this legislation, I do not see that we would provide funds for a State which, for example, like my own, the State of Michigan, has some rather good laws in some areas of industrial safety on the books. Unfortunately, however, the legislature has not been able to find the money to provide the machinery to make them workable. That might look at first glance like we were doing a very good job and did not need help, but as a matter of fact we have a serious problem in making that legislation meaningful. T suspect, and this is only a personal appraisal, that in some of the legislation this committee has handled we have concentrated so much on the very weak child in the family that we have not helped those children who are the leaders of the family. You need only examine the way we are treating New York City and Los Angeles in the educa- tion bill to see what I mean, which is a particular sore spot. How do we in this legislation hold forth to a State that is moving ahead some sort of encouragement to go on being a leader instead of waiting until everybody catches up? 32 Secretary Wirtz. There would be three elements in my answer. The first would be section 17, which provides specifically for grants to the State for establishing systems for collection of information concern- ing the nature and frequency of occupational injuries and diseases and for otherwise improving the administration and enforcement of the State occupational safety and health laws. Also, as a part of the first art of the answer, there is a very broad provision here for ceding this jurisdiction to the States. But the probably more solid answer would be reflected in where we think now the money under this act will go, and the largest item of increase in our present contemplation is in the grants to the States. Then I suppose the third, and in some ways most pragmatic answer is reflected in the presence here at the hearing today of your Industrial Commissioner, Mr. Roumell, with whom we were talking about how that kind of experience can be enlarged, expanded, and used. So I answer that the bill provides specifically for grants to States, and our contemplation in terms of money is in terms of the allocation of the largest part of that increase to the grants to the States. And third, in the working relationship which is possible through Mrs. Peterson and her people to develop with people like Mr. Roumell. Mr. Forp. One final question, and a short one, Mr. Chairman. When Mr. Goodell was discussing the problem of preemption, you discussed it in terms of State regulation. We have a variety of local regulations and people who enforce them, starting with conditions that will be found in health codes, in fire codes, in a variety of other phrases, building codes, that direct themselves specifically to safe working conditions in the strict sense. When we are talking about the preemption here of the State regulations, would this extend down to, In your opinion, the local regulations that would cover similar areas? Secretary Wirtz. Yes, we faced the problem, Mr. Ford, of whom we should deal with in connection with this and our best judgment is reflected in section 17(d), which provides that any State agency or agencies designated by the Governor of the State desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application therefor to the Secre- tary. Your question is in terms of preemption, which is a little different Peston but the answer would be the same. The answer would be, on the question of preemption, that it would preempt local as well as State regulations. Again turning to the practical answer that is reflected in this bill, it contains a deliberate decision that our working relationship should be with agencies designated by the Governor. Mr. Forp. Is there in your power to exempt from this preemption a contemplated procedure whereby the cities, such as some of the re industrial cities, that have used local police powers to put regulations into effect and do in fact have a considerable force of enforcers now in the field, could be exempted ? Secretary Wirrz. My offhand reaction, at least in advance, is to take - the easy way out, and what that refers to is the question which might arise under the administration of the act. Take a particular State—we will take some other State, take my State instead of yours—where Chicago had a satisfactory code of enforcement of one sort or another and downstate did not, and T would be asked to cede authority to the 33 city of Chicago and not to the rest of the State. My offhand inclination is that I would find some way of reconciling, of meeting that problem other than to cede authority to Chicago and not to downstate. To do otherwise would just get into too many complicated situations. What we would do there would be to try to work with the State commission and with the city authority to find some reconciliation of their positions which would permit a joint action. But if we could not do it, my answer right now is that I just would not buy into a situation in which I was ceding authority to Mayor Daley but not to Governor Kerner. Mr. Foro. That is where a problem presents itself because we run into this whenever we talk about how much help we are going to give to the State. There are parts of the country, particularly the Midwest, where the suspicion of the State capitals 1s as great if not greater than the suspicion of the Federal or National Capital, and where avenues of communication and cooperation are not always what they ought to be between the State capital and the principal city of the State. T will not mention my own, but everybody knows we have prob- lems in Michigan. : Thank you. Mr. O’Hagra. Mr. Esch, I am afraid I cannot really give you suffi- cient time to rebut the statement, but if you have a couple of quick questions, go ahead. Mr. Escn. I would not want to rebut it; it does not need rebutting. I did have one or two questions on the bill, but in light of the fact it is time to adjourn, I want to express my appreciation of your coming, Mr. Secretary. I wonder if I might ask a parenthetical question. You made reference to the fact, and it was a startling thing, of the number of man-hours lost from vocational injury in relationship to strike man-hours, and I assume you were using the most recent figures because we know that hours lost by strikes recently is up somewhat. I wonder if you would want to suggest in the coming year you are also going to present to this committee recommendations finally on what might be done to handle the major strikes in the country. Can we look forward and anticipate your coming before us with that? Secretary Wirtz. Let’s take it one point at a time, Mr. Esch. I am afraid I do not have here, but I would like to supply for the record the time lost from strikes during the past 7 years. And TI realize your point was entirely nonpolitical so I will not refer to the political implications of it, but T would like to supply for the record the time lost from strikes during the last 7 years with the time lost during the preceding 7 years. : Mr. Esc. Could you state the last 2 years? Secretary Wirtz. I can give you those. For the last 2 years it is one-fourth of 1 percent man-hours lost, and the year before it was one-sixth of 1 percent of man-hours lost. So there has been that increase, and the year before it was one-sixth of 1 percent of man-hours lost. The time lost from strikes was that percent- age of the total man-hours worked. The last 2 years have seen more than the preceding 2 years, but the preceding 2 years are among the lowest on record. So it all depends on what base you use to start. 34 On your second part, which was a delicately put question as to whether there would be a recommendation for emergency strike leg- islation, I would have no present anticipation of that. Mr. Escu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. St ? Mr StriGer. Just briefly, Mr. Secretary, how much work was done in consulting the Governors and/or industrial commissioners or those at the State level responsible for the enforcement of the State occu- pational and safety codes before the production of this legislation? Secretary Wirtz. Almost none, Mr. Steiger. I would wish the answer to that question could have been different. It developed quite quickly and the answer to your question is unqualifiedly there was all too little of such consultation. Mr. Steicer. Would the construction industry be covered by this bill ? Secretary Wirtz. There is before the committee too, introduced by the chairman and Mr. Eilberg, H.R. 2567, dealing with construction industry safety. If H.R. 14816 were passed in the form now before you, it would probably include that other coverage. But if the ques- tion is whether in our view there should be, at this point at least, any diminution of emphasis on the other bill, the answer would be no. We face that same question not only in connection with the possibility of H.R. 14816, but in connection with the Walsh-Healey Act safety pro- visions and in connection with the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act safety provisions. There is a very practical question here. It may very well be that with this act being adopted here there will be the subsequent question as to whether we any oa may need the other laws on the books. And there is the companion question about this other bill, H.R. 2567. So the answer to your question would be if this bill is adopted in this form, it would probably constitute a complete coverage of these other areas, and particularly in connection with your question about the other bill, H.R. 2567, it would cover that. But we would at this point urge consideration both of the broad and the narrower question. Mr. Steiger. One final question because we have run out of time. Perhaps the chairman will have you back again, Do you have any breakdown at all as to the specifics that you have given as to how this goes in terms of industrial categories, the 14,500 workers killed on the job? Have you a breakdown of those statistics? If you do, would you supply them ? Secretary Wirtz. Yes. There is a lot of that and could I suggest, Mr. Chairman, these various questions be combined and we file with the committee a supplementary statement that includes both this kind of information and the kind of information having to do with the present State programs? (‘This information is found on page 88 et. seq.) Mr. Stercer. May I just inquire whether or not you feel that under the authority given to you, as broad as it is, as you have heen very candid in discussing, would bridges be covered? Secretary Wirtz. Harry or Brooklyn ? Mr. STEIGER. Bridges. 1h plain bridges. Secretary Wirtz. I did not know whether you meant Brooklyn or Harry. 35 Mr. Steger. I am talking about West Virginia. . oo gery Wirtz. Yes; I do know what you mean. The answer is es. er O’Hara. Construction thereof, but the travel over them would not? Secretary Wirtz. No; the travel would not. I am sorry I missed the point of the question. The construction of the bridge would be, travel over it would not. Mr. ScueuEr. But inspection would be covered ? Secretary Wirtz. 1 was thinking about that. I think probably the answer is “No.” Mr. O'Hara. It depends on whether or not it would fall in inter- state commerce. If you have a crew working on the bridge, I would suppose that the working conditions of that crew would certainly be included if it were in interstate commerce. Secretary Wirrz. I guess, Mr. Chairman, I would perhaps cau- tiously—so if that is what we want we could clear it up—cautiously I would give a different answer. I would apologize for missing the point of the question. But it would be fairly clear in my expression of this view that in connection with a situation such as that presented by the tragedy of the bridge, this act would not cover or meet that problem, and even if it were under repair at the moment, the only thing it would cover would be the working conditions of the repairmen and would not cover the safety of the passenger. So that on net, the answer should have been ne, and I am sorry to have made light of it because I Ad pot understand that you were speaking about a recent bridge tragedy. ‘ Mr. O’Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for coming over. I will ask you and the deputy to review the transcript of the testimony and to supply the items mentioned by you, including copies of the article referred to by you. Secretary Wirtz. All right. Mr. O'Hara. To the best of your ability would you supply the items requested by members of the committee during the hearing? Secretary Wirrz. OK. Mr. O’Hara. I would also like with respect to uranium miners, which have been a particular interest of mine, to take this first appropriate opportunity to commend you for exercising your authority under the Walsh-Healey Act to improve the working conditions under which such miners have worked. It is a step that I urged the Department to take 3 years ago. Secretary Wirtz. I know it. Mr. O'Hara. I am extremely pleased you have moved into this field in the vigorous and effective way you have. I want to express my appreciation for if. Secretary Wirrz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. The subcommittee stands adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to call ) (The Department of Labor exhibits referred to above are as follows :\ ExHIBIT A DISABLING WORK INJURIES 70 30 10 RELATED TO EMPLOYMENT 1940701966 MILLIONS OF INJURIES MILLIONS EMPLOYED 4.0 35h EMPLOYMENT 1966 UP 58% OVER 1940 BUT TOTAL DISABLING INJURIES 20% ABOVE 1940 EMPLOYMENT 30 (Right Scale) DISABLING WORK INJURIES (Left Scale) 25} 204+ y - 15 10 Sk 0 : y 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 Note: Excludes domestic service workers Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and National Safety Council U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS 9¢ y—89—0 $8L-C6 ExHIBIT B INJURY FREQUENCY RATES IN MANUFACTURING 1940 TO DATE INJURY FREQUENCY RATE INJURY FREQUENCY RATE 30 30 INJURY FREQUENCY RATES IN MANUFACTURING ™ 1840 to date — Year Rate Year Rate Year Rate het 1940 15.3] 1951 [ 15.5 | 1961 | 11.8 — 1941 | 18.1 | 1952 | 14.3 | 1962 | 119 1942 | 19.9 | 1953 | 13.4 | 1963 | 1133 —- 1943 | 20.0 | 1954 | 11.9 | 1964 | 1237 - 1944 | 18.4 | 1955 | .12.1 | 1965 | 12.9 1945 | 18.6 | 1956 | 12.0 |. 19662] 13.2 20 + NG 1946 | 19.9 | 1957 | 11.4 | 197 -1 20 ! 1947 | 18.8 | 1958 | 10.9 | 1968 1948 | 17.2 | 1958!| 11.4 | 1969 / 1949 | 14.5 | 1959 | 12:4 | 1970 | 77 ¢ — - 1 14.7 | 1960 | 12.0 I 1 wW 1. x S | — — = 1 i — or 10 — 10 0 0 1940 1950 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1 2 : Series revised for 1958 and subsequent years. Six month year to date The Injury Frequency Rate is the number of disabling work injuries per million employee hours of exposure Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics ExceErpr FroM HANDBOOK OF LABOR STATISTICS 1967 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS Office of Occupational Safety TABLE 142. Work-Injury Rates, by Industry, 1958-65! 1960 1961 1062 1965 SIC Rate Rate Rate Rate Industry 2 code 3 Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- Fre- | Se- quen-| ver- |quen-| ver- quen-| ver- quen-| ver- : cy | ity | cy | ity cy | ity cy | ity Manufacturing ..... .. ---=cenrenmsne]osevnens 12.0 | 753 | 11.8 | 698 | 11.9 | 698 Ordnance and Accessories... 19| 3.1 Ammunition, except for small arms.__. 192 | 2.6 Sighting and fire control equipment _ _ 104 | 3.1 5 Small 195 | 6.9 6 $s 196 .8 .0 Food and kindred products... 20 | 19.5 .6 Meat products... coon 201 | 25.2 28.0 eat packing plants... 2011 | 22.2 24.4 Sausages and other prepared meats. 2013 | 21.1 22.1 Poultry dressing and packing... 2015 | 39.9 45.8 | Dairy products... ooo 202 | 19.7 2.9 | reamery butter. __.________ 2021 | Cheese, natural and processed... 2022 | 17.5 15.9 | Condensed and evaporated milk___| 2023 | 17.2 17.4 Ice cream and frozen desserts... 2024 | 15.7 16.2 Phd milk. oc oocon espe gemnvannans 2026 | 20.8 22.1 Canned and preserved foods, except MEMS. nx rn m commen mere Se 203 | 21.0 25.7 Canned and cured sea foods. . 2031 y -| 35.2 Canned specialties 2032 # Canned fruits, vegetables, and Jollien.. . .. coceoromrugnpa aman 2033 Dried and dehydrated fruits and yopeianles. ... .cocovunnisnmsn mms 2034 Pickled fruits, vegetables, sauces and Qressings. .......oceuusemwsses 2035 Frozen fruits, juices, and vege- | $8018... errr s mp eTns 2037 Grain mill produets___________________ Flogf and other grain mill prod- Cond preparations. Wet con milling. ____________ Barry ¥ poten EET a fead and other perishable bakery J pots crackers, and pretzels. __ __ BURA... ci ccs sre Sa REET Cane sugar, except refining only ___ Cane sugar, refining only. _________ Beetsugar._.._____________________ Confectionery and related products... Candy and other confectionery POQRCES..... . ocoonninonn smn smanans Chocolate and cocoa products... Chewing gui... vo vvaevracaniis Beverages. icici man Malt liquors. ____________________. Wines, randy, § and brandy spirits. Distilfed , rectified, and blended Bottled ¢ and canned soft drinks____ Vissstisneous food and kindred prod- Soybean oil mills Animal, marine fats and oils, (Grease and tallow)__.__________ Shortening, margarine, and edible O18, NBC. nro munsssnm mim Food preparations, n.e.c..._...____ Tobacco manufactures..........___________ See footnotes at end of table. 204 | 16.2 [1,330 | 16.7 [1,091 | 14.1 [1,125 | 15.3 | 942 | 16.0 [1,367 | 17.3 [1,160 | 18.3 [1,528 | 18.1 | 1,476 2041 | 17.3 |1,771 | 19.5 [1,092 | 15.3 |2,271 | 16.6 | 849 | 18.6 | 868 | 17.7 (1,247 | 18.2 (1,944 | 20.8 | 2,003 2042 | 20.1 11,662 | 10.6 |1,324 | 16.9 | 644 | 18.1 (1,406 | 18.8 (2,336 | 21.0 |1,254 | 22.7 (2,036 | 21.3 | 1,735 2043 | 4.4 |._____ 4.3 |... 4.61... 5e8 ocnnen J — 71 Lazuns 6,0 l.cuvac 8.7 [cwrnene 2046 | 7.3 |______ 8.1 6.8... 8.0 | conn 2.8 [cerns 8.1 11,616 | 10.3 |. ____. 10.6 |... 205 | 16.0 | 850 | 17.3 | 780 | 16.8 | 754 | 17.4 | 788 | 16.3 | 793 | 16.4 | 795 | 17.0 | 881 | 16.7 637 2051 (16.4 | 859 | 18.1 | 780 | 17.4 | 754 | 18.2 | 804 | 16.9 | 860 | 17.2 | 848 | 17.8 | 953 | 17.1 638 2052 (12.9 | 792 | 12.2 | 781 | 13.5 | 756 | 11.7 | 679 | 12.5 | 386 | 10.9 | 471 | 12.4 | 440 | 14.1 633 206 | 23.4 1,031 | 24.9 | 964 | 21.3 |1,100 | 19.5 [1,119 | 21.0 (1,494 | 20.7 [1,146 | 21.2 (1,856 | 19.1 | 1,272 2O0L 1 vee imp azr rede n om cons 13.0 5 er 12.9 {.ouune 15.6 [1,680 | 13.4 |______ 9.8. 2062 | 12.7 | 812 | 12.1 | 644 | 14.8 | 516 | 12.7 | 521 | 11.6 |._____ 1.0 locus 126... 14.6 | 1,033 2063 | 34.6 |1,408 | 31.6 |1,464 | 34.5 |1,966 | 30.2 (1,428 | 36.0 |1,596 | 32.5 |1,216 | 32.1 [2,863 | 20.4 | 2,201 207 [13.9 | 801 | 13.5 | 557 | 14.2 | 664 | 14.5 | 483 | 14.2 | 487 | 14.4 | 760 | 15.9 | 594 | 16.7 696 207) (14.9 | 740 | 14.7 | 546 | 15.0 | 736 | 15.9 | 485 | 15.2 | 491 | 14.9 | 859 | 17.3 | 654 | 18.2 2072 | 7.0 loacees 6.9 t.unn D0 |ocersn 7:9 lemons 2:9 1c 78 lueeies 8.8 0. 20 louvues 2073 | 12.8 ocr ema t me den re 1B.2 | _____ 10.4 (...... 13.8 Lo. ssele cme el "Books: ublishing, publishing and rr 2731 5.9 7 Book | printing_______ 2732 | 8.7 n Miscellaneous publishing - 274 | 5.8 5. Commercial printing... _________ 275 9.2 11. Commercial printing, except litho- graphic. ooo 2751 | 9.1 10. Commercial printing, lithographic.| 2752 | 9.3 13. Engraving and plate printing.________ 2753 | 11.1 9. Manifold business forms._.__.._. 276 | 9.7 9. Greeting cards. ...oeevocememnnunn 277 | 9.6 7. Bookbinding and related industries... 278 | 10.1 14.1 blagkbooks, loose leaf binders and v QeVIeeS. . covcvci rename mean 2782 | 10.1 13.1 Bookbinding, and miscellaneous volated Work... .-c.sscerpwopunn 2789 | 10.2 14.9 Service industries for the printing ioe bemnma ymin ne este Torn) 219 | 7.2 5.6 A ivengTavinE TIEN 2793 | 5.5 5.2 Chemicals and allied produets........__._. 28 7.5 7.6 Industrial chemicals... 281 | 4.5 4.7 Alkalies and chlorine... _..__.__._- 2812 | 5.5 4.9 Industrial gases. - ooo 2813 | 10.0 11.4 Dyes and organic pigments_____.__ 2815 | 7.1 8. Inorganic pigments__________....__ 2816 | 8.4 7.3 Indisisiel re chemicals, n.e.c.| 2818 | 2.8 3.1 Industrial inorganic chemicals, DBC esas toss spear 2819 | 4.3 4.2 ¥¥ Plastics and synthetic materials. ______ Plastics materials; synthetic resins. Sails TUDDRT. guna mnmsns Cellulosic man-made fibers. _______ Synthetic organic fibers, except ——" ALE NR ological products Medicinal chemicals and botanical PPOAUCLE. oo mnusmanmminzmssnsss Pharmaceutical preparations. Soap, cleaners, and toilet goods. _ i Soap and other detergents. ________ Specialty cleaning and sanitation preparations... ___________________ Cosmetics and other toilet prepa- HONS, occ cio aan svunsnnonansn Paints, varnishes, and allied products. _ Gum and wood chemicals Agricultural chemicals. Fertilizers. __________ Fertilizers, mixing onl. Agricultural a and other ale om BO 00ST chemicals, 1.8.0... ..coumcunonsnas 11.3 1.7 Miscellaneous chemical products. 1 She and gelatin_________ xplosives._ ___ Er ting ink Chemicals and chemical prepara- HONS, M00... coca cn nnn asus M6 jouuuua 15.0 Jacuewea Petroleum refining and related industries. 8.3 | 80 | 8.6 993 - Petroleum refining ¢__________ H 6.1 | 618 | 6.3 880 Paving and roofing materials MAO Jeoeo ems Asphalt felts and coatings. _ 0.0. [enim wnseauan Rusher and miscellaneous plastics prod- eS ES ERE ER EE eR ES Ren 11.7 | 664 | 12.3 800 Tires and inner tubes. 6.1| 679 | 5.2 452 Rubber footwear_____ 49 (_____ 40 [eeene Fabricated rubber 11.2 | 676 | 12.9 908 Miscellaneous plastics sn oe 16.3 | 728 | 16.2 975 See footnotes end of table. Sy TABLE 142. Work-Injury Rates by Industry, 1958-65 '—Continued 1958 1959 1960 1961 1062 1963 1964 1965 SIC Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Industry 2 code ? Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- quen-| ver- [quen-| ver- |quen-| ver- |quen-| ver- |quen-| ver- |quen-| ver- |quen-| ver- quen-| ver- cy ity cy | ity cy | ity cy | ity cy | ity cy | ity cy | ity cy | ity Leather and leather products. ........_.... 31 | 10.9 11.4 11.8 | 416 | 12. 13.4 413 her tanning and finishing. _....__. 311 | 22.8 24.6 27.0 30. 32.7 | 1,057 Fi leather belting and packing. 312 | 9.3 6.0 11.2 9. 7.4 |... Boot and shoe cut stock and findings. . 313 | 17.1 21.3 22.4 22. 21.9 Footwear, except rubber... 314 | 8.5 8.9 9.1 9. 10.3 Footwear, not house slippers or rubber footwear. .......ccaennenn 3141 | 8.3 8.8 8.8 9. 10.1 House SHppers... cc cv seweersmunne 3142 | 11.1 10.1 14.9 13. 13.6 Lube gloves and mittens. ...ccxcuva 315 | 7.1 5.1 5.7 5. 7.0 int RR EERE SS a 316 | 13.5 15.1 13.5 13. 15.8 Handbags and other personal leather BO0AS. - .. . wavrnnsrsh emis sg Aes SS 317 | 9.5 9.1 10.5 n. 13.3 Women’ 's handbags and purses..... 3171 | 9.4 9.0 11.3 12.0 12.1 Personal leather goods, 4 hand- DAZE OF Purses. ccaucacsvescmnnn 3172 | 9.7 9.3 9.2 NO ona] 98 Lana] 71 {oaeunn)sossss Stone, clay, and glass products. _._._____.. 32 | 18.5 (1,364 | 20.0 1,212 | 18.3 18.0 3: 18.7 FIRE RI88... ovens r mmm mem sm estm ge ai 321 | 14.1 | 661 | 11.6 | 233 | 10.9 10.0 9.4 11.2 Glass and glassware, pressed or blown. 322 | 7.2 | 571 (10.0 | 619 | 8.8 8.1 8.0 9.0 Glass containers_______.__._....... 3221 | 7.0 | 544 | 9.0 680 | 8.7 7.7 8.4 9.5 Pressed snd) il glass and glass- eR SS 3229 | 7.5 611 | 11.3 | 534 | 9.0 8.8 7.5 8.4 Glass Ter made of purchased EEOC CIN 323 | 10.7 | 789 | 13.4 | 446 | 9.9 | 535 | 8.8 9.4 10.0 Cement. contre spe snsnenaninsssmssame 3M. 4] |..cne B85 [one 4.6 |. ove 3.9 4.0 5.7 Structural clay products... ______. 325 | 31.2 |2,133 | 34.3 [1,623 | 31.1 (1,842 | 31.5 30.6 32.8 Brick and Aisin clay tile. ____. 3251 | 35.2 |2,075 | 40.8 (1,788 | 36.5 |2,237 | 37.6 35.1 41.6 Ceramic wall and floor tile... ___._| 3253 | 19.8 |..___. 199) .__.. 9.70. . 21. 17.3 Clay refractories. .....ccccceeeenens 3255 | 22.4 |2,602 | 24.5 (2,189 | 21.9 (1,670 7 23. 20.0 fio clay products, n.e.c.._..| 3259 | 41.3 |2,746 | 43.8 |1,668 | 39.8 |2,415 | 39.5 38. 42.3 9% See footnotes at end of table. Pottery and related products. .________ 16.0 16.8 Vitreous china plumbing fixtures. _ 24.5 2.7 Vitreous china food utensils. ______ 12.9 11.0 ine earthenware food utensils. . 14.8 15.8 Porcelain electrical supplies. . - 1,7 16.1 Pottery products, n.e.c....__._____ 16.0 16.1 Gonareis, gypsum, and plaster prod- en 28.2 [2,712 | 28.2 Asis brick and block. _._______ 39.0 12,647 | 37.8 Condes Droducts, except block SR, 32.1 (3,855 | 35.3 Ready mixed concrete. 27.3 (1,867 | 24.5 Limet,......oau.e. 13.4... 17.4 G it roducts..._. 4.5 4.0 Cut stone and stone produets..._....__ 25.4 32.5 Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral products. ___________________________ 11.8 12,7 Abrasive products. 9.6 12.5 Asbestos products 10.3 10.9 Steam and other packing, and Ww COVEIING. vv amuspnyesnsecns 990 .. 11.3 erals: ed or treated... 23.7 .22.4 Mineral wool. ___________ Nonclay refractories... _____________ Primary metal industries _________________ 11.0 | 885 | 11.8 Blast furnaces, steel works, basic steel DPIOANCLS, «wiv versupennreannerneanzs 4.4 816 | 4.6 Blast fumasss, steel works and rolingmills._..........ccoosnens 3.4 78 | 3.4 rm products. _.__ 6.1 [ones 7.0 Steel wire gnaw wing and steel nails and spikes_.__.__________________ Hel... 17.3 Cold 10! re sheet, strip, and bars. _ 13.8 | 663 | 16.5 Steel pipe and tubes. ___________. 13.0 | 987 | 11.6 Iron and steel foundries... ____________ 23.0 |1,004 | 25.0 Gray iron foundries ______________ 23.6 [1,101 | 24.5 Malleable iron foundries. __________ 18.9 | 513 | 24.9 Steel foundries_..__ _.__.__________ 23.4 {1,010 | 26.2 Nonferrous primary smelting and refining ¢__________ 0.9. cecuns 10.1 Primary smelting and refining of Aa 124 |......[ 13.1 Primary smelting and refining of a 15.6 |......| 18.5 0s production of aluminum. 66... 5.4 Nonferrous secondary smelting and refining... __________________________ 31.8% ne. 32.0 Ly TABLE 142. Work-Injury Rates by Industry, 1958-65 '—Continued 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 SIC Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Industry 2 code 3 Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- .| Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- | Fre- | Se- Fre- | Se- quen-| ver- |quen-| ver- |quen-| ver- |quen-| ver- (quen-| ver- jquen-| ver- iquen-| ver- quen- ver- cy ity cy | ity cy | ity cy ity cy | ity cy | ity cy | ity cy | ity Primary metal industries—Continued Nonferrous rolling, drawing and ex- ATOAINRG... sus sn anv suman 335 | 11.0 (1,119 | 12.6 | 774 | 11.5 | 729 | 10.4 hol ne drawing, and extruding of TT I 3351 | 10.1 {1,000 | 10.7 | 999 | 9.7 (1,125 | 9.9 Rolling. drawing, and extruding of UIRNRIL « . coos ume npn 3352 | 10.2 |-.---- 18:3 [ — — — — —— 000 —— =o p- Noo © yt yt jn Ow ! © BNOWWRN—0—ON WHEW NN — PNNDS — — NN NRO ht bt fog NNwoow Dd O-OWONOUN—® Sao — — — i i . ~ aaSNosow — i al aed ide Pro dd W ODN UI (OO NW — GN P00 BOING aww SFE oaGnERNe WW WODPNDONNON®ON D—DN Oe © — — nN — New Jersey Severity Frequency Severity rate rate rate 1965 1964 1965 1964 1965 1964 631 1,220 28.6 35.6 1,908 3,325 3,598 7,335 37.1 30.9 2,467 4,451 1,799 2,797 28.1 30.4 3,097 1,825 148 53 17.2 13.0 989 1,142 815 1,725 37.3 35.9 1,667 2,581 975 12,874 34.8 56.2 2,511 4,477 230 1,173 7.3 8.1 514 7 1,069 227 14.7 14.0 1,020 779 318 179 21.5 17.8 1,163 1,271 62 112 14.5 13.5 71 560 121 17.6 17.6 244 290 319 234 18.6 16.2 476 339 64 57 4.4 4.1 116 182 289 3,743 10.6 10.2 360 273 90 1,315 9.4 10.9 231 122 199 11.0 9.1 438 723 1,746 129 13.2 10.2 240 240 108 155 10.1 8.4 727 330 116 65 6.5 7.6 590 221 40 15.0 17.2 1,986 485 19.7 21.6 538 1,493 Wisconsin Indiana Frequency rate 1964 Severity rate Frequency Severity rate, rate, 1965 1964 1965 1965 Sic Industry classification code Building construction, general_____ 15 Other construction, general con- LL a 16 Construction, special trade con- tractors. _____________________ 7 45.1 40.6 2,324 1,872 40.9 1,337 4,790 4,48 25.6 4,176 33.8 2,052 2,265 21.7 2,162 a6 Local and interurban passenger transit Motor freight transportation and warehousing. _.____.____ Water transportation____________. Electric, gas, and sanitary services. Wholesale trade... ____.___.____ Retail building materials, and farm equipment Retail general merchandise. Retail food © P00 CONG A NOE OWHaRW WwW — 19.6 28.0 47.3 ow — Neo »oSui~ 25 o~Ng Sof — — — —00O un — — Retail apparel and accessories. _ _ Retail furniture and home furnishings. ... ..=wssxsmenssons Eating and drinking places Miscellaneous retail stores__ Hotel and other lodging places. Personal services... __...__.... Miscellaneous business services. _ Automobile repair, services, and garages : Miscellaneous repair services___.- — — — NO oOoNONnoOo Woo Sy» NolNwe NE See Ro — 16.1 1,249 1,202 — £0 1 |njury rates extracted from publications of State agencies cooperating in the BLS-State work-injury survey. ' 2 Only groups 753 and 754 of standard industrial classification major group 75 are published by New York State. The rates for these groups were: Frequency rate Severity rate Automobile repair shops, SIC 753. ____________________ Automobile services, except repair, SIC 754____________ 1965 1964 1965 1964 14.2 14.5 448 809 13.1 16.0 731 174 NOTES ON STATE TABLE: FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY RATES These are work-injury frequency and severity rates comparable to the national rates included in the Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1967. The State rates have been extracted from State publications, available from the State offices. Dashes indicate rates are unavailable, either because insufficient data for computation were obtained or because the State does not include the in- dustry in question in its survey. Several of the agencies, because of limita- tions of resources, participate in the survey for a limited number of industries. The Indiana agency did not participate in the survey in 1964 and the Iowa and Michigan agencies did not collect information for severity rates in 1964 and 1965. The code identifications refer to the 1957 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, which was used in classifying establish- ment reports. The rates given (2-digit, or major industry groups) are weighted rates (employment weights applied to data for component 3- or 4-digit industries) except for Alabama, Connecticut, Maine, and South Carolina. National rates are weighted. Several of the State agencies do not request reports for very small establishments. Alabama, Pennsylvania, and New York (for construction and manufacturing) omit establishments with fewer than three employees. Maine, New Jersey, New York (for other nonmanufacturing industries), and Wisconsin omit those with fewer than four employees. Connecticut (for some nonmanufacturing industries) and Florida omit those with fewer than five employees. €6 Exum H WORK DEATHS FALL AS SAFETY EXPENDITURES RISE STATE SAFETY BUDGETS STATES WORK DEATHS Thousands of Dollars Grouped by Per 100,000 industrial workers LLL 5 0 8 nin 25 10 48 MI Note: Work deaths from National Safety Council, "Accident Facts, 1966," Chart 5 Evidence that money spent for industrial safety produces results is suggested by a comparison of work deaths with amounts allocated for industrial safety. Chart 5 shows that in 10 States spending an average of $240,000 each for safety, there were 110 work deaths per 100,000 industrial workers. Conversely, in 10 States spending an average of $1.1 million each for safety, there were only 19 work deaths per 100,000 industrial workers. 76 95 BExHIBIT I INJURY RATES "mma 1962 Lost-time injuries per million employee-hours = SERNRTNRNENRNNINVENY Sn Ease 11.6 Under 20-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500.999 1,000- [1 20 2,499 or more Size of manufacturing establishments : number of employees NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS Publication No. B-145 ~ExuIsiT J STATE LABOR AGENCY SAFETY INSPECTION STAFF promotion, industrial General, boiler, General, General, General, General Consfruc- elevator, General, General, General, boiler, General, mines, boiler, General, United States Total safety tion Boiler mines, Elevators Mines boiler, elevator, elevator elevator, mines construc- construc- boiler and elevator ~~ mines mines tion tion construc- tion NEW YORK. cei California__.._____ Pennsylvania_ Virginia____ Arkansas. Hawaii___ South Carolina. Colorado. _ Kentucky Alabama. _ See footnotes at end of table. STAT LABOR AGENCY SAFETY INSPECTION STAFF—Continued General, boiler, General, General, General, General Construc- elevator, General, General, General, boiler, General, mines, boiler, General, Safe Health United States Total safety tion Boiler mines, Elevators Mines boiler, elevator, elevator elevator, mines construc- sonstruc- boiler promotion, industrial and elevator ~~ mines mines tion tion education hygiene construc- tion 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 1 assachuse ® Mississippi... ®) TL SL ——— Nevada. ....coaucemas 4) New Hampshire..____. ® New MEXICO... xnxx neesmnescerserennamses North Dakota... __..... South DaKOta. . . cov vrrnan cram nme mmm me ene mn pwn mm wns wE SEE mn Tae Totalucsssnssss 5,570 1 Not included in total. 4+ Not in labor department. : No ns SompaRSstion commission envets Seley; 9/50 & 1A Wazs-Hout. Source: Organizations and functions of State Labor Agencies, June 1965 (LSB-SS). L6 98 ExHIiBIT K INDUSTRIAL SAFETY BUDGET ALLOCATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1965 [In labor departments or workmen's compensation agencies] Ranked Amount Ranked Amount y State (thou- y State (thou- totals sands) totals sands) 45-State total 1______________ $23,249 23 $156 24 156 1 New York... _________ 24,820 25 152 2 California. __.____._.______________ 3,346 26 131 3 HO. 22,299 27 2125 4 Washinglon........ccocicussinees 1,487 28 113 5 Pennsylvania... .cuivisivsset ne mn 1,347 29 2105 B Oregon. ...c.covonnennnnanmmmin 21,279 30 92 7 Newlersey_.__.__________________ 997 31 84 8 Massachusetts_____________________ 700 32 79 9 Wisconsin__..____.________________ 674 33 78 10 Minos... ____________ 531 34 75 11 Michigan 527 35 63 12 Florida... ccvcuusvenivnvonnnecees 2 492 36 62 13 North Carolina 2464 37 260 14 Tennessee... 412 38 54 15 Connecticut. _ : 347 39 52 16 Maryland... - 2318 40 251 17 Minnesota. _ : 312 41 247 18 Virginia___. % 284 42 41 19 Colorado... g 2255 43 32 20 Arkansas.____. 3 183 44 13 21 Rhode Island.__ - 181 45 13 22 Nevala.........connernveennmmmens 2160 ! Omitted are Delaware, Louisiana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming whose State budgets did not report safety amounts separately. These combined States represent less than 2 percent of total U.S. employment; spend an average of not more than $100,000 per State for all labor department functions. 2 Some or all of safety functions in workmen's compensation agency. Source: Based chiefly on fiscal year 1965 official budgets, supplemented in some instances by annual reports or other official reports. Exursir L STATE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PER NONAGRICULTURAL WORKER, FISCAL YEAR 1965 [In labor departments or workmen's compensation agencies] Ranked Per Ranked Per by per State nonagri- by per State nonagri- worker cultural worker cultural rate worker rate worker 45-State total. _____________ $0. 40 23 Maryland... .....civcvisnsnininess 2 $0.30 —_— 24 New Hampshire. = .29 1 Oregon__.________________________ 22.11 25 Minnesota. _ a .29 2 i 1.67 26 Virginia__ - _ .23 3 Alaska. _._. 1.13 27 Kansas... __ vee 4 21,03 a 2 5 2.74 +21 6 .70 .20 7 2.69 a «39 8 i 2.68 .19 9 California... _____ . 58 .18 10 Rhode Island... ___ .57 - 2.15 11 Wisconsin_______ +51 2.14 12 New Jersey. .44 .14 13 Colorado... 2.43 A2 14 Arkansas. I . 40 38 Alabama. .09 15 Tennessee... __ _____ _____ .37 39 Missouri__ .08 16 Connecticut... _____ .34 40 Idaho____ .07 17 Massachusetts... __ .34 41 Mississippi. . .07 18 Pennsylvania PEER .34 42 South Carolina. _ oi 2.07 1 .34 43 Indiana._______ : .05 20 North Carolina.________.__________ 2,33 44 Texas... ; .02 21 North Dakota. _______ ___________ 2,33 45 Oklahoma.__.___________._________ .02 22 Florida__._______________________.__ 2.30 1 Omitted are Delaware, Louisiana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming whose State budgets did not report safety amounts yeberaialy. These combined States represent less than 2 percent of total U.S. employment; spend an average of not more than $100,000 per State for all labor department functions. 2 Some or all of safety functions in workmen's compensation agency. Source: Based chiefly on fiscal year 1965 official budgets, supplemented in some instances by annual reports or other official reports. 8—89-0O VEL-C6 ExHIBIT M LOCATION OF VARIOUS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY FUNCTIONS IN STATE GOVERNMENTS Functions State Occupational safety ~~ Occupational health Boiler inspection Elevator inspection Radiation . Mine safety Workmen's com- Construction pensation Alabama__.....___. Department of indus- (*)................ Department of in- Department of in- Department of Department of in- Department of in- (*). trial relations. dustrial relations. dustrial relations. health. dustrial relations. dustrial relations. BIISRB nnn wsnne Department of labor_._ (*)_.._.........._. Department of labor. Department of labor_._____ rte i Department of labor_ (*). Arizona... _..___.. Industrial commission... (*)_..._..__...____ (mmnmencmnmmmmnn LO), mein wiarion Atomic energy com- State mine inspector. Industrial commis- Industrial commis- mission. sion. sion. Arkansas____ ___.__ Department of labor___ (*)____._ __________ Department of labor. Department of labor. Compensation com- Department of labor_ Compensation com- (*). mission and health. mission. California_____.____. Department of indus- Department of in- Department of in- Department of in- Department of in- Department of in- Department of in- Department of in- trial relations. dustrial relations. ustrial relations. ustrial relations. dustrial relations. dustrial relations. dustrial relations. dustrial relations. Colorado... _._____ Industrial commission _ (*).___.__...______ Industrial commis- OY iim hmmm beparimen of Bureau of mines____. Industrial commis- *), sion. ealth. sion. Connecticut_________ Department of labor___ Department of Department of labor. Department of labor ______ | ER, eds mann Compensation *). health. : commission. Delaware... ____. Department of labor ~~ (*)________________ Board of boller:rules. (*)-:..ccuvivosinsniunes do. _________. CD) nvm Department of labor Department of labor and industrial and industrial and industrial relations. relations. relations. District of Columbia. Minimum wage and iy Departmentof ~~ ___________ __ __________ 00. oo iiicnions CM) so cnsssnnnann U.S. Bureau of *). industrial safety licenses and in- employees’ board. spections. compensation. Blondes coer. neni Industrial commis- Industrial commis- (*)________________ es anoswamanmanes Board of health_____ CB) vn mmm meme Industrial commis- (*). sion. sion. sion. Georgia. ___________ Department of labor. __ (*)__._.._.________ Yana minannananns U)snniimanammnes Depa iient of inc irisnsvasnss Conpelsstion <*). ealth. oard. Hawaii_____________ Department of labor Department of Department of labor Department of labor _____ doo... Department of labor Department of labor (*). and industrial health. and industrial and industrial and industrial and industrial relations. relations. relations. relations. relations. Idaho.............. Department of labor___ (*)____________ _.__ Department of labor_ Department of labor_..___ 00:0 smn 8) nnn mm Indssiiial accident (*). oard. Winois._._._____________ do... __ iy A PA, KP esnsnvansnnann CY mit denn mmm do... Department of mines Industrial commis- Department of labor. sion. Indiana____________ Division of 1abor....... (*ocscsasnassases Division boiler Division of labor_.__ _____.do_____________ Division of labor..__ Industrial board_____ Division of labor. inspection. 5 WOWBL.: cocsumiusans Bureau of labor. ____ (2) iets sn mn Bureau of labor__.__ Bureau of labor____. Health department.. Bureau of mines_____ Workmen's compen- (*). sation service. Kansas... ________ Department of labor___ (*)__._____________ Department of labor. Department of labor__ Board of health___ __ Department of labor.. Workmen's com- * pensation director. Kentucky ._.____________ LL Department of C2 cm mmm nnd md do______.._____ Department of i Department of Department of labor. health. ealth. abor. JFL ——— essosnisesnnneds Board of health_____ Department of labor. (*)_.._.__.._______ Pacnuimmssnssenans EP). o smmmiins mimi Court administered. _ (*). 8 LOCATION OF VARIOUS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY FUNCTIONS IN STATE GOVERNMENTS—Continued Stal Functions ate Occupational safety ~~ Occupational health Boiler inspection Elevator inspection Radiation Mine safety Wormers com- Construction pensation Maine... ........ Department of labor Departmentof ~~ __.__ do... Department of Departmentof Industrial accident ~~ Department of labor. and industry. health and wel- labor. Hesith and wel- commission. are. are. Maryland... ________ do... Department of Department of C)oduevininnaians Department of Bureau of mines... Workmen's com- Department of labor ealth. labor and health. pensation and industry. industry. : commission. Michigan___________ Department of labor___ ____ do... Department of Department of wwe diPussensmninens County inspectors__. Departmentof work- Department of labor. labor. labor. men’s compensa- : . tion. * Minnesota... Industrial commission__ Industrial Industrial Industrial Health department... ___.do......_._.._. Industrial Industrial : } commission. commission. commission. commission. commission. MisSOUI. coon cae Department of labor Department of labor Department of labor Department of labor Department of Department of Department of Department of labor. and industrial and industrial and industrial and industrial public health. labor. labor. relations. relations. relations. relations. : Montana. __________ Industrial accident isineinninsnnss Industrial accident SN Ye ce mamma Industrial accident Industrial accident Industrial accident board. oard. board. oard. L Nebraska... ____ Department of labor___ (*)_.._____._______. Department of Department of Department of Department of Workmen's com- Workmen's com- labor. labor. health. labor. pensation court. pensation court. Nevada... _.. Industrial commission__ (*)____..._.___.... Industrial Industrial Board of health____. Inspector of mines... Industrial *) commission. commission. commission. New Jersey... _____ Department of labor ~~ (*)_____.__________ Department of labor Department of labor Department of Department of labor Department of labor Department of labor i and industry. and industry. and industry. health. and industry. and industry. and industry. New Mexico. _______ Ct) ermine KY). sins scum 0) cscs re rman acer Department of State mine Labor and industrial (*). public health. inspection. commission. New York... _. Department of labor___ Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of labor Department of labor. . labor. labor. labor. labor. labor. and workmen's compensation board. North Carolina... ____ do... .... 00sec svemanes sed 0% downs wud 000.00 ei vim State board of cnn tlle ngnnnaba nies Industrial Do. ealth. commission. North Dakota_______ Workmen's compen (*).ooooooooo- Workman's compen- Workmen's compen- (*)________.__._.___ Workmen's compen- Workmen's compen- (*). sation bureau. sation bureau. sation bureau. sation bureau. sation bureau. Ohi. cc ensmmanses Department of Department of Department of Department of Health Department Department of Bureau of work- : industrial relations. health. industrial industrial and department industrial men’s compensa- relations. relations. industrial relations. tion. relations. Oklahoma__________ Department of labor __ (*)_____.__________ Department of Baparinent of Depa tent of Inspector of mines_._ State industrial Department of labor. abor. labor. health. urt. Oregon... uvaiuins Bureau of labor and Board of health_____ Bureau of labor_____ Bureau of labor__._. Board of health_____ Yc ce nimnisnin Workmen's compen- Workmen's compen- workmen's compen- sation board. See footnote at end of table. sation board. sation board. 001 Pennsylvania_______ Department of labor Department of labor Department of labor Department of labor Department of Department of labor Department of labor and industries. and industries. and industries. and industries. health. and industries. and industries. Puerto Rico_________ Department of labor___ Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of Department of labor. labor. labor. labor. labor. labor. labor. Rhode Island ______ ____ do... ______ (Ye crevveconauins vied 40.2 cuaninees wand + Department of em resisnimmmnns Department of labor Do. ealth. and workmen's compensation commission. South Carolina... ____ do... _____ 0: simi mmnse ence ceva mad 00... ara Board of health ____ C2). ome mms Industrial *). commission. South Dakota. ______ Industrial commission__ (*)_________ _______ Ct) gicsans esr sn te cm] do... _.___ 0) donne grain Board of health_____ ™. Tennessee... _____ Department of labor___ (*)________________ Department of Department of Department of Department of Court _____________ Construction safety labor. labor. labor. abor. d. TE emanssreess Bureau of labor Department of Bureau of labor Bureau of labor 0) cinrenansnins Bureau of labor Industrial accident ~~ Bureau of labor statistics. health. statistics. statistics. statistics. board. statistics. Utah... ____________ Industrial commis- C2) nce Industrial commis- Industrial commis- Industrial commis- Industrial commis- Industrial commis- *). sion. sion. sion. sion. sion. sion. Vermont.___________ Department of in- CV semseeoranans Department of in- Department of in- Department of health Department of health. Department of health Department of health. dustrial relations. dustrial relations. dustrial relations. ) Virginia. .consinmans Department of labor ~~ (*)._______________ a CM) amid VD Department of labor Industrial commis- Department of labor and industry. and industry. sion. and industry. Washington______________ do... _____._. £2 ern wm wmmmmmnnn Department of labor Department of labor Department of labor _____ do. _._____. Department of labor (*). and industry. and industry. and industry. and industry. West Virginia_______ Department of labor___ Department of Department of labor. Department of labor. Department of Department of mines. Department of work- Department of labor. health. health. fen's compensa- on. Wisconsin. _________ Industrial commis- ()ennnnnvmmmm nnn Industrial commis- Industrial commis- (*)__._.__.________ Daisnmsnmmmmennne Industrial commis- Industrial commis- sion. sion. sion. sion. sion. Wyoming___________ Department of labor ~~ (*)..._____________ Department of labor (*).____...________ Cece Mine inspection de- Workmen's com- ™). and statistics. and statistics. partment. pensation depart- ment. Massachusetts. ____ _ Department of labor Department of labor Department of pub- ____________________ Department of labor ____________________ Industrial accident ~~ Department of labor and industries. and industires. lic safety. and industry. board. and industry. Mississippi... Board of health_______ Board of health_____ Board of health_____ a Board of health. ____ Conn mn erm mman Workmen's compen- (*). sation commission. New Hampshire_____ Department of labor. Department of health Department of health Department of health Departmentofhealth.___ ______________ _ Department of labor. Department of labor. and department of and department of and department of labor. labor. labor. NOTES 1. An asterisk (*) in the column for a particular function indicates that there is no definable or- ganization or segment of an organization concerned with the function. ity in one or more departments or bureaus. There is often a minimal activ - 2. Workmen's compensation is not considered to be a safety function nor even closely related but is included to indicate the instances in which it is in the same governmental unit as the safety function. 3. 3 States not included since they did not provide timely i nformation for this study. 101 102 ExHIBIT N SCOPE OF STATE SAFETY RULEMAKING AUTHORITY Rulemaking Rulemaking authority authority for all em- fer all em- Rulemaking United States ployments, ployments, authority Limitations and exclusions no exclu- with exclu- limited sions sions speci- fied a @ @) @ © ®) ADAMS. occ vonmsuvspninmenvess XL Sssmessagivisedssnssopae Excluded : Domestic and agriculture. Alaska... .... occas Xi ssincsseeetspereRes nese R re e ate ATIZONA, oie on mn stn Stine Sn AE ER SEER X i. sseusaseveas Limited: Construction and mining. Arkansas____._...._ X California... _._.. Colorado... . _ Limited: Mining. Connecticut_________ Excluded: Plants with approved safety sn SE Pn Fishing, hunting, domestic, and agricultural. Industrial employers. (Be vam sins Excluded: employers with less than 8 workers domestic and agriculture. Excluded: Domestic service. Excluded: Domestic and agriculture. Excited: Farm workers. 0. . Excluded: Family workshops. Excluded: Federal restaurants, hospitals, charitable places, domestic and agriculture. Excluded: Domestic and agriculture. Excluded: Fishing, logging, Federal places. Excluded: Domestic and agriculture. Michigan_______ Do. Minnesota. Mississippi - Limited: Railroads, LPG, manufacturing. PUSSOUT.. ccs snus sus minnmmn sven we Limited: Mining, construction in cities wit 50,000 persons. Montana, ....czenx RX © cenpesmsessscesvesvirtiperen severe NeDIOSKS. ...crcciins NX . © sgpesssimmssanefessresriivainsicsni Nevada... _._...__........ «J SN = Excluded: Domestic services. New Hampshire... X peemesmemenes Excluded: Factories and mechanical con- trivances. New Jersey (note 1)____________. X © chimes Excluded: Federal, school, banks, places with 3 employees or less. Domestic and agriculture. NCW MBXICO.. ..... con mnnssmssmsmmnnsd sem ss saw XX. cmssceessss Limited: Mining and construction. New York..__ : North Carolina... Norn Dakota eS wiv _ Excluded: Domestic and agriculture. Oi Ekman R |, Seewsweseswdesvesveesee Excluded: Farms and offices with 4 employ- ees or less. Oregon... _.___.__ Pennsylvania. Puerto Rico. Rhode Island South Carolina. . South Dakota. _ Excluded: Domestic and Agriculture. _ Limited: Appliances, occupational diseases. Tennessee. _ _ 5 _.. Excluded: Domestic and agriculture. TeRaS.... fogs resem ene ieee Excluded: Domestic service, ICC regulated employees. Utah_______________ Xi | cpsneseereedenme deem aleee VIMONL. «unclean a mmmmmnim sis v Excluded: Domestic service and family work- shops. Virginia... on iciasvusssanonsans X a Excluded: Farmworkers. Washington West Virginia. 3 Wisconsin. _ Excluded: Domestic and agriculture. Wyoming Note 1: Also exempts service and retail stores with 9 employees or less, public utilities, offices and laboratories, colleges . Sources: 1. State law library; Office of Occupational Safety, LSB, USDL; 2. State law library; occupational health and safety legislation by HEW. ExHIBIT O PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATE SAFETY CODES [Definitions for symbols: M—Mine safety rules. C—Construction safety rules. F—Fire safety rules. G—General safety rules. B—Boiler safety rules] Both maxi- Cease-and- Injunction Designated Maximum ~~ Minimum Maximum jail mum fine Each day Misde- Civil desist order against lower court United States fine fine sentence and jail a new meanor penalty issued by depart- Appeals procedure; 1st step to hear sentence offense safety ment’s contested department order cases BIBDAMG, ooo ninn sony bos pata mgt li wet a mm mn fmm we Paso EE SE SES mn M G G < Circuit. Alaska. 5 Arizona___ Arkansas_._._.___....__ $100G...._ $10G._____6monthsG.._______X Xx & es Do. California. .......cccxsnwes SIG, unvnsogearcnnus 8 MONE GQ een ne. District. Colorado. ________.__.__ $1,000M___ $50 M______ lyearM________ __ X Do. Connecticut__ ng rn es ag 1S eR PE EET TT me ere Labor Commissioner _- Superior. Delaware. _____________ $100G_____ $i0G.__.__ 6 months G________. Labor Department. __ Do. District of Columbia... $3006... O0days.._____ CD... & L..llliimememeemmee-m-------- RADOF Departmen 0 TENOR | TL Snes Eat a -- Circuit. Georgia... ____$1000C.___ $25G......lyearC.......__OX CC ........C¢TTT _. HAWAII «..ccoionnccins BI00B cress cen, 1 YOREC oer or Appeal Board. _______________ Do. JHBBO. oo cvnnsnumininis BUBMIPE. o.oo ss so prme emwemememe————— EE a Industrial accident board. _____ District. Winois________________$100G_____$25G._____________________________ Too Industrial Commission. _ _ " Girslit Indiana... $200G...__$20G.___ [II IIIT OT Commissioner of Labor_________ lowa___._____ ________SI00G..__ _$25G____________ TTT -. Employment Safety Commission. District. Kansas... ___________ Kentucky... _$100G.____$10G._._______ TT TTT oT Circuit. Louisiana. ....co ncn oie 90 days B._ Maine... _________ 0daYs B. cava X' smreinas ssi Superior. Maryland... ___________ 5years G___ - do Circuit. Massachusetts ________$250G.__________________ T_T Superior. Michigan. ______________ - 60 days B__ MInNesSola.. ........ cc ivenes - 90 days G._. Mississippi... eee District. -- Labor Department_____________ Do. rE sm — -- Industrial Commission_________ rm 0 SS SH pe te ot wt meee mee Labor Department. ____ -- Superior. New Jersey. pEepme EAS SER. memes G G X Labor Commission... Do. New Mexico. _._.__.__._ $200M_________________3monthsM____ IX em TT. NM | rrmmsesaeites emma pea -- District. NewYork______________$100G._.__..._________15daysG._.__..____X ool B' emer erRRA SSN ES eS er as Board of Appeals..........____ Superior. North Carolina. Board of Boiler Rules........__ Do. North Dakota €01 Exnislt O—Continued PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATE SAFETY CODES—Continued [Definitions for symbols: M—Mine safety rules. C—Construction safety rules. F—Fire safety rules. G—General safety rules. B—Boiler safety ruies] Both maxi- Cease-and- Injunction Designated Maximum ~~ Minimum Maximum jail mum fine Each day Misde- Civil desist order against lower court United States fine fine sentence and jail a new meanor penalty issued by depart- Appeals procedure; 1st step to hear sentence offense safety ment's contested department order cases $1,000 Go $50 Go o-oo oooeeooooceeeoommnnneaaooa SOG... FOG. cenecesnrninee $ - $1,000 G_._.. $250 C exas._ . . $5006... $50 GQ, vce in ng mms Utah____ MM... M Vermont. __________.__. $2006. - $256. 30daysGo_______.- X imme ooooaas , tions, Virginia. . «cee nn $100G._.._- F250. - «enema SERRE EER SEPT X BG eereerssanns G X Safety Codes Commission... Do. Washington SC SL000G. oi iiieieeeemzeezemmmmmeeeeaeeemeememmeaeasaeaeeeeemeeeeeee———— Department of Labor _ Superior. West Virginia $506. ..... $106...... 6 months G____.____ X XB esseesssmsssssssesesesssmemsnnmmss sn smn ag Set we Circuit. Wisconsin. __ - $1006... 08. «cerns mtn mena a a mmm Industrial Commiss Wyoming... $50 F....-- S10 Femme Me cea Re A _- District. Source: State Law Library, Office of Occupational Safety, LSB, USDL. 01 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1968 House oF REPRESENTATIVES, SeLecT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE ComMmrTTEE ON EpUcaTioN AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2257, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William D. Hathaway presiding. Present : Representatives Gibbons, Hathaway, Burton, and Steiger. Staff: Jim Harrison, staff director; Marilyn Myers, clerk; Nancy Tyler, assistant clerk; Mike Bernstein, minority staff counsel; Dr. James Wason, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress. Mr. Haraaway. The Select Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor will now come to order. We are privileged to have with us this morning Dr. William Stewart, the Surgeon General. Dr. Stewart, you may read your testimony or summarize it, whatever you care to do. STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM H. STEWART, SURGEON GENERAL, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCA- TION, AND WELFARE, ACCOMPANIED BY VERNON G. MacKENZIE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF DISEASE PREVENTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF HEW Dr. Stewart. If it is all right with you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read my statement. Before I begin, I am accompanied by Mr. Vernon G. MacKenzie, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environ- mental Control of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I am very glad to have this chance today to appear in support of H.R. 14816. Three weeks ago the Secretary of Labor gave you a very clear and precise explanation of the bill, including a general description of that portion of the bill which details the responsibility of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Secretary Wirtz spoke at some length about the accident problem in American industry, so that today I would like to discuss in some detail the occupational disease problem—even though we, along with the Department of Labor—do not believe that accidents and diseases are always separate problems; or that there is no connection between unhealthful working conditions and safety hazards. (105) 106 Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion this bill is a tremendous step forward in the health field. For many years occupational health and safety has been a neglected field of effort. Although several years ago we in the Public Health Service cele- brated the 50th anniversary of the occupational health program, it has not developed over the years as it should have, largely because of underfunding. This bill is designed to implement a partnership in the attack on the occupational health problem. It assigns to two Federal Depart- ments their respective roles: to the Department of Labor the task of establishing standards and providing the machinery for enforcement through Federal action and through State and local governments; to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare the missions of defining through research those elements that make up a safe and healthy workplace and of training the professional and semipro- fessional personnel needed to accomplish the total task. It will be the responsibility of our Department to provide the Department of Labor, the State and local agencies with information needed for the develop- ment of sound standards. This same information must be disseminated to management, labor, and the public at large so that all may know how best to solve present occupational health problems. I am convinced that industry will be cooperative—it has no desire to injure or make sick men and women in order to make a profit. Many large industrial units, whch are aware of health problems caused by the work place, have placed their earnest money on the line and protect some 15 million workers with health and preventive serv- ices. Yet not all workers have this health protection—in fact, the remain- ing 65 million workers out of a total of 80 million do not have these protections, and can be reached only through a system of work place inspection and education of small plant management, preferably through State and local official agencies. Regrettably, some situations will require sanctions, but I think these will be few. Through our past work in research, the gathering of statistics on oc- cupational diseases, and through our efforts to persuade the States and industry to move on the problems voluntarily—we have no Fed- eral enforcement powers—we have learned a great deal about occu- pational disease problems. In order that you may appreciate the gravity of the problem, I would like to give several examples. In 1966-67, we studied six metropolitan areas, examined 1,700 in- dustrial plants which employed 142,000 workers. Because of the pre- cise nature of the analyses, it can be statistically related to 30,000 plants, covering 650,000 workers. This study found that 65 percent of the. people were potentially exposed to toxic materials or harmful physical agents, such as severe noise or vibration. Our investigators examined controls that were in effect to protect these workers from toxic agents and found that only 25 percent of the workers were protected adequately. The remaining workers were plainly unprotected or working in conditions which needed immediate attention. Recently, we studied 231 foundries in one State. We found that 7.3 percent of the 3,200 workers—or one in 15—were exposed to environ- 107 mental conditions which were capable of producing disabling and fatal diseases. Moreover, since the State we studied was one which has an active occupational health program-—so that at least some improvements had been made—we believe it is safe to say that at least this high a pro- portion of foundry workers throughout the United States are exposed to similar or more serious risk. Thus, we estimate that more than 20,000 workers in this industry are presently working under dangerous conditions. Let me point out here, Mr. Chairman, that in our research efforts we have had to depend a great deal on such studies done with individ- ual States—because Federal authority was lacking for the gathering of national statistics to determine accurately the extent of diseases most in need of research and control methods. In another study we found that the Social Security Administration is currently receiving about 35,000 claims each year for disability from emphysema. About 7,000 claims—or one-fifth—are originating from occupations where the emphysema rate is excessive and where the occupations are known to involve exposures to materials which are damaging to the respiratory track. Social security is also receiving about 8,000 claims per year for disability from pneumoconiosis of occupational origin and tuberculosis of occupational origin. Our occupational health experts have tended to be cautious and conservative in making national projections from State figures, but, even so, the resultant figures are shocking. For example, in California, a State where occupational disease is reportable and where there are vigorous occupational health and safety programs, in 1964 there were a total of 27,000 occupational diseases reported, a rate of 4.8 per 1,000 workers. If this rate for a State with a good program is projected nationally, we could assume that among 80 million employed civilians in the United States there were at least 336,000 cases of occupational disease. Studies of specific industries by researchers have also given us clear warning of the magnitude of the problem. For example, one such study shows that about 314 million workers are exposed to asbestos fibers to some extent. These workers are acquiring to a degree we cannot currently meas- ure, because of the length of time which transpires before symptoms develop, the serious disabling disease of asbestosis. In addition, another researcher gathered figures on asbestos in- sulation workers for 20 years and found seven times more pulmonary cancer among these workers than in the general population. A third researcher made a records study of men employed in a plant manufacturing asbestos friction materials and found a prevalence of pulmonary cancer three times greater than the like population which 1s not so exposed. Still another researcher did a 3-year study of workers in asbestos textile plants and found twice as much pulmonary cancer as should have existed under normal conditions. The comparative costs of either preventing or paying for these individual tragedies, apart from the human values involved, is not al- ways easy to state. 108 But let me attempt to do so with some figures about the mining in- dustry’s longstanding problem of silicosis. Although silicosis has been most prevalent in the dusty trades, silica exposures are so widespread in industry today that we estimate more than 4 million workers are exposed in varying degree. During 1952-62, the number of silicosis cases compensated for all of industry was 34,500, with a dollar cost of more than $192 million. The individual dollar compensation was $5,600; and although I cannot give you and defend a precise figure, Mr. Chairman, I feel safe in asserting that we could have prevented such cases in the industry for less than that amount. ' Let me state it another way. In a recent 10-year period the number of workers covered by workmen’s compensation for occupational in- Juslor and disability increased by 24 percent—from 41 million to 51 million. During the same period the benefits paid, however, increased from $916 million to $2.1 billion—or by 130 percent. This represented a jump in costs five times as great as the incerase in the number of workers covered. Thus, savings in compensation per injury is getting greater for every dollar we spend in prevention. Also, we know that noise is a growing problem in industry. We do not know the nature and extent of the physical effect of excessive or con- tinuous noise on workers, but we have made a few studies that indicate the problem may be much more serious than we had thought—more research must be done quickly in this area. Equally important, we recognize that noise of all kinds is increasing in every phase of our daily lives—so that almost everything we learn about noise in industry will be valuable in application to people in nonindustrial situations. We know that workers are coming in contact with literally hundreds of new chemicals and formulations in industrial uses every day. At one time, years ago, the occupational health profession did enough research on each new chemical to publish recommended limitations on exposure. Today the chemicals have increased so fast in number that we have recommendations for only 400 out of 6,000 in commercial use. Our best estimates are that there are 800,000 people who suffer from some form of occupationally caused dermatitis every year. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before you will help to remedy the grave problem of occupational health and safety by accomplishing the following general objectives. First, it will provide a clear delineation of the authority and re- sponsibility for setting and enforcing Federal standards for oc- cupational health and safety. It will provide the means and mechanisms necessary to exercise the authority and to discharge Federal responsibility in an effective, efficient, and beneficial manner. Second, it will permit the establishment of standards and will shorten the time required for gathering sufficient data to permit the development and certification of those standards. Third, it will alleviate the shortage of trained personnel necessary for inspection, enforcement, and scientific and technical activities 109 in support of occupational health and safety at both the Federal and State levels. Fourth, it will help to answer the need for better collection and dissemination of scientific and technical information bearing on problems of occupational health and safety for use in developing standards and devising protective methods. And fifth, and very importantly, the bill will strengthen State programs for occupational health. Thus, the bill is designed to make the best possible use of Federal resources for the protection of our workers. While the Department of Labor enforces the standards of occupational safety and health using that Department’s technical proficiency, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will put to use its research facilities to establish criteria in the field of occupational safety and health. One of the most important benefits of this proposal will be a legis- lative emphasis for research on more than the gathering of information on the prevalence and causes of occupational injuries and diseases, as important as that is. As a result of this bill, most of our research will be directed more specifically to the establishment of criteria from which standards can be established. At the same time, however, our search will also continue to uncover presently unknown disease patterns such as those where the problem becomes more insidious, or where a disease’s manifestation is not immediately apparent, and the effects are subtle or a long time in coming. An example of diseases not immediately apparent is shown in the beryllium registry maintained by Dr. Harriett Hardy of the Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, which indicates that the onset of berylliosis in an individual may take place as long as 23 years after his last known exposure to the material. The brass or zinc foundry worker who breathes the metal fumes in the course of his work will not show the symptoms of chill, fever, and malaise until many hours after the exposure—until after he has gone home, and at a time when he is not likely to connect the exposure with his illness. When T speak of such problems, I would include not only diseases caused simply by exposure to materials of workplace, because it is apparent that disease may result from a combination of exposures both on and off the job, no one of which by itself might be sufficient to cause illness or disability. So, we must concern ourselves with the problem of aggravation of nonoccupational disease by the work environment. We also need to know those situations where hypersusceptible people need to be re- moved from certain work conditions. We must also probe the increase in susceptibility of certain workers to some diseases because of their age, sex, or other physical conditions. For example, should the permissible levels of exposure to certain contaminants of pregnant women on the job be different from those for other workers and, if so, to what degree ? Should we require more stringent controls of their employer? What reasonable economic burdens may we ask to be placed on employers for controls in the light of individual susceptibility differences? 110 These questions must be studied, and standards must be set to pro- tect the workers now. The bill also provides that we will conduct, directly or by grants or contracts, educational programs to acquire an adequate supply of professional health and safety workers. The greatest barrier to the control of known occupational hazards and occupationally-caused disease is the lack of trained personnel for correcting workplace hazards. Tllinois, the third largest of our industrial States, has only three industrial hygienists for the entire State. Texas has two, one of whom is about to retire. As of January 1966, ors were only 48 such persons employed in the 24 largest cities of the ation. An estimate made by the occupational health program in 1966 indicated an immediate need for at least 482 additional industrial hygiene field personnel in State and local agencies just to inspect and survey industries and to suggest needed control measures. State programs need to recruit and train 1,500 nonmedical pro- fessionals during the next 5 years. The American Medical Association estimates that 3,000 new full- time physicians will be employed by industry within the next 5 years. As in-plant services for small industries grow there will be another 3,000 physicians who will provide part-time service. Tt is anticipated that some 10,000 new nurses will enter industry over the next 5 years. Adequately trained manpower will be developed through recruitment of young professionals, in-service and on-the- job training, and graduate training. We must improve the occupational health and safety of 80 million American workers. This bill would be a great step forward to that goal. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that in some places I have painted a dark picture, so let me add that we are very much aware that some indus- tries and some State health departments have done and are still doing remarkable jobs in health safety; but their good work cannot but remind us of what needs to be done in the remaining—and bigger part of American industry and State health programs. The betterment of occupational health and safety conditions for the working population is, in a very real sense, the attack on one of the last remaining major areas of public health concern. We have begun in recent years great and exciting programs in many health fields—those dealing with the aged, the mentally retarded, the communicable diseases of childhood, mental health, and the environ- ment in general—and now we turn to the backbone of our families— the breadwinner. In the light of the problem which exists the benefits of the bill are obvious and long overdue. I join with Secretary Wirtz in urging the passage of this bill. Thank you. Mr. MacKenzie and T would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Haraway. Thank you very much, Dr. Stewart. In the field of accident prevention, the industry itself might sustain the cost without help of remedial action but in the field of occupational diseases it would appear from your testimony that it almost approaches 1 the magnitude of air and water pollution and industry might need additional funds provided by the Federal Government. Do you have any thoughts on that ? Dr. Stewarr. I think that is correct. If we had a situation where all of the toxic materials were concen- trated in a few large industries there probably would not be a need for a national program, but there is the widespread use of toxic agents that are increasing in large rates such as chemicals, other toxic agents throughout all industry small and large. The bulk of the workers in the smaller industries have no program. Also, since the exposure to toxic agents is changing so rapidly and new agents are rapidly coming into use, it exceeds the capacity of our research efforts find out what are the right criteria for arriving at standards. We need a greater research effort. As I mentioned, in the past we published standards for every chem- ical, but now we have about 400 chemicals being introduced daily. As a result the field of occupational diseases does take on a character like air and water pollution and T think it calls for Federal action to solve this problem. Mr. Haraway. Would you also contemplate Federal funds also for aiding individual firms to clean up whatever material might be nec- essary, say, in cases where there is a large incidence of occupational diseases. Dr. Stewart. T think the bulk of the Federal funds will be needed for the research effort in the setting of standards and in promulgating the standards in the enforcement area. I think once a problem is detected the remedial action can be taken by the industry. I can conceive of situations where the technical need to control the situation may in effect be beyond the capacity of the industry to handle it. I think in most instances, though, it is more of an awareness of the toxic substances, and what levels of exposure are safe. Mr. Harraway. This bill could require different industries to take affirmative action. This may be extremely costly to some, I don’t know, but it would seem so. For example, emphysema, where expensive machinery would have to be used in order to keep the factory dust free. This might be an expense the small plant could not sustain and perhaps some form of tax incentive or matching grant could help those industries get started. Dr. Stewart. This, 1 think, is possible to consider. When devices which protect the worker must be installed by everyone, they are part of the cost of manufacturing and the cost relationship to profit is there. But we have found that in most instances unless you are talking about something that is very costly and very complicated as we do in water pollution occasionally, industry can” do these as part of the way of doing business. Mr. Harraway. So, you would not contemplate a large expense as we have in water pollution Dr. Stewart. T don’t see it as clearly in this area as I do in the water pollution area. 112 Mr. Hataaway. You mentioned something about employment standards. Do you contemplate you would be recommending in certain instances an employer would be able to refuse employment to someone who was, say, a heavy smoker because of the additional dust he would inhale at a certain plant which would be enough to give him emphy- sema but if he did not smoke there would be no difficulty ? Dr. Stewart. I think you can look at it in two ways. If a person is unusually susceptible because of some preexisting condition, you may wish to restrict his employment in that area or find him other employ- ment in the plant. Not all people in a plant are exposed to a toxic material. In order to protect hypersensitive people it will take some further understanding of these preexisting conditions than we have at the present time. Mr. Haraaway. But you would consider some restriction with the employee? Dr. Stewart. If he has been smoking cigarettes for 30 years and he quits that day to take a job in an area where a smoker is 10 times more susceptible than the normal person, it is the time element as well as the condition itself. Mr. Haraaway. Do you contemplate we would be promulgating the standards for chemical manufacturers, for example, so we could nip the problem in the bud ? Dr. Stewart. The Department of Tabor will be promulgating the standards. We would be doing the research to develop the criteria on which the standards would be based. It has to be done chemical by chemical. Mr. Haranaway. Your research would presumably cover this field so that standards applicable to the manufacturers of chemicals could be forthcoming ? Dr. Stewart. Yes. We use this word “criteria,” Mr. Chairman. We use it here and in air pollution, too. We are talking really about the scientific base from which standards are developed. We would produce the scientific information or support the research that would produce it and the Department of Labor would decide the standard on those criteria. Mr. Hatraway. Isn’t there an existing Federal health and safety program ? Dr. Stewart. Yes, there is. Mr. Hataaway. Would that dovetail with this bill ? Dr. Stewart. At the present time we have a Division of Public Em- ployees Health in the Public Health Service. It is charged with the safety program of the Public Health Service, not other agencies, it is however, charged with consulting and helping the other departments of Government to set up Federal employee health programs. This program includes the establishment of industrial health clinics and in some instances staffing them. Most of this is on a reimbursement- type basis. We have about 62 units at the present time and we hope with our 1969 budget to go up to 90 units. Mr. Haraaway. So, this would fit in ? Dr. Stewart. Wherever the standards are being applied in industry we would try to apply those standards within the Federal Establish- ment. ——— 113 Mr. HaraawAy. Would it be a new unit within the Department of Seal, Eduention, and Welfare to handle this particular research facility ? Dr. Stewart. No, we have a Division of Occupational Health now which is some 53 or 54 years old and they do have a laboratory in Cincinnati and they do have a research and training grant program at the present time in this area. We have also formed a new Division of Environmental Health Sciences in the National Institutes of Health which is located in North Carolina—it is in its second year of existence—which is trying to look at the more basic problems of exposures at low levels. Mr. Hataaway. This bill would just add to the duties of that particular Division ? Dr. Stewart. That is correct. Mr. Harnaway. There is no need to spell that out in the legislation ? Dr. Stewart. Not at all. Mr. Hataaway. What about feedback from industry and labor? I don’t see any provision in the law to that effect. Tt just says you are going to disseminate safety and health information to management and the general public. Do you contemplate getting back data ? Dr. Stewart. Very much so. One of the limitations we have at the present time is that we are dependent upon what feedback is volun- teered to us. We do not have the authority to demand information. Therefore, we can’t really give you a national assessment of the problem. This is why in my testimony I am taking off from a State study and making generalizations from it. We interpret section 15, the research section, to mean also the sur- veillance effort that is necessary to get the answer to the question what is the extent of the disease problem in an industry or if you are talking about a specific area or the total national-type problem. Also, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shares the authority of the Secretary of Labor to enter industry to collect infor- mation under appropriate circumstances. We would use this authority to determine the health and safety problem, to do the studies and research necessary within the industry, or to collect information. Also, in section 17 the Secretary of Labor is charged with establish- ing a system for the collection of information concerning the nature and frequency of occupational injuries and diseases. So, there is plenty of authority in here. Mr. Hatraway. Do you think in the bill the language is sufficient for your purposes? Dr. Stewart. I think it is quite sufficient. Mr. Hatnaway. T thought it could be broadened but if you think it is sufficient, that is all right. Dr. Stewart. We interpret section 15 to cover this idea of surveil- lance and evaluation studies that would be done. If that is not so, the words surveillance and evaluation would be helpful. Mr. Harnaway. I don’t think it would do any harm to add them. 114 One final question. Do you contemplate giving technical assistance to the States? Dr. Stewart. Very much so. Mr. Haraaway. That is not really covered by the bill, though, is it? Tt does not come under the list. Dr. Stewart. It is not explicit in the list here. We do have general authority for technical assistance to the States in the whole gamut of health; it amounts to about a million dollars of technical assistance at the present time. Mr. Hataaway. If they have a problem which they can’t solve, they send it on to you? Dr. Stewart. That is right. Mr. Hatraway. We don’t need to incorporate anything like that. Dr. Stewart. T don’t think so. It is contained in the general author- ity of the Public Health Service. If you wish to make it more explicit, you can add it in here. We do have it explicitly in other legislation. Mr. Hataaway. Mr. Steiger ? Mr. Steer. Dr. Stewart, I was very interested in your testimony. In your statement on page 11 you indicate that you painted a very dark picture but you were very much aware that States and some health departments have done and are doing a remarkable job in health safety. Do you have a breakdown or a list or compilation as to which States are doing a good job and which States are not doing a good job and which industries are doing a good job? Dr. Stewart. I mentioned the large industry which covers about 15 million workers and I can give you a list of how much we estimate they are putting into occupational health and safety. As far as the States go, there are a few States that have strong programs; but in general, if one wants to generalize, the efforts of the States are very weak. For example, there are only 26 States with any programs, and they have 146 employees in this effort. There are probably eight States which are doing as good a job as they can within the restrictions of budget and personnel that they have. T can get you a list of these if you wish. Mr. Steicer. I wish you would. T would be interested in seeing how well we are doing and in what areas. Dr. Stewart. If one looks at all of the 50 States, we are not doing very well. (The requested information follows:) EIGHT STATES WITHOUT OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS 1. Delaware 5. North Dakota 2. South Carolina 6. Nevada 3. Alabama . 7. Nebraska 4. Arkansas 8. Arizona STATES AND CITIES WITH GOOD OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS 1. New York State 7. Tennessee 2. California 8. Massachusetts 3. Connecticut 9. Oregon 4. Michigan 10. City of Baltimore, Md. 5. New Jersey 11. City of Detroit, Mich. 6. Pennsylvania sa 115 Mr. Steiger. Did you at any time consult with any of the State health departments about this legislation ? Did you ask them for their comments and their reactions? Dr. Stewart. I had a discussion with the executive committee of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers when we met last December about this bill and the approach of the proposed legis- lation at that time, and what it would mean to them and how we could join together on it. Mr. Steiger. Then you have not attempted to inquire from the States as to what their own reactions are to the legislation ? Dr. Stewart. I have not personally done so. I do not know what con- tacts the Division of Occupational Health of the Public Health Serv- ice has had. Mr. Stricer. You don’t know what they have done? Dr. Stewart. I don’t know whether they have made any contacts. They work with the States all the time so I would assume there has been a great deal of contact. Mr. Srercer. Frankly, the thing that worries me is you have here a bill which is very broad in scope, it has a substantial impact upon what is now being done by both the Federal Government and each of the 50 States and the territories. Seemingly, from the witnesses thus far, very little has been done to try to find out whether the approach that the legislation takes is the one that ought to be taken or whether there are alternative routes that should be explored. Dr. Stewart. I don’t think there is any question in the public health field that we know too little about what is happening in occupational disease, that we need a great deal more research effort on exposure to toxic substances and we need a lot more information on which to base standards of exposure to protect people. " I don’t think there is any question about this in the public health ield. Mr. Steiger. What is the size of your staff in the Public Health Service ? Dr. Stewart. 258 in the Division of Occupational Health. Mr. Sterer. There are 258 in the Division of Occupational Health ? Dr. Stewart. That is right. Mr. Stercer. What is the size of the budget ? Dr. Stewart. The 1968 budget for direct operations is $4.4 million and research grants are around $3 million. Mr. Steiger. How would you propose to carry out subsection (d) on page 15 of the bill in section 15 in which “The Secretary of Labor shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, establish health reporting systems” ? Is this not done in workmen’s compensation ? Dr. Stewart. There are reports of workmen’s compensation but we want a report of the exposure to specific types of hazards. These are not reported now. In most States there is no reporting of occupational disease. California has a reportable disease pattern. The Secretary of Labor would establish these after consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Mr. Steiger. I would assume in HEW you might very much be in- volved in that. 92-784 0—68——9 116 Dr. Stewart. We would be consulting quite a bit. We have had a fair amount of experience with national surveillance systems. Mr. Stricer. Let me ask you about section 16. You talk in your statement about the need for personnel. Dr. Stewart. Yes, sir. Mr. Steiger. In that section, the Secretary of HEW is authorized to conduct educational programs to provide adequate personnel and supplies to carry out the purposes of this act. What type of funding do you think would be required to meet the needs as you see them and how would you propose that this be done? Dr. Stewart. If you are talking about the estimated costs in the first year of 1969 if this bill is enacted that our portion of this would be about $4.5 million. One-third of that would be in the training area. The training provisions are shaded by the fact that you have to have training spots in order to receive the grants to do the training. This is our estimate of what could be accomplished in the first year of the action of this bill. Mr. Stereer. What kind of comparison is there between what other countries are doing in this field as you have explained it to us this morning as compared to what the United States has done? Dr. Stewart. I am sorry I can’t answer that question. I don’t know. Mr. Steiger. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haraaway. Mr. Burton ? Mr. Burton. What percentage of the workers in the country are protected by mandatory workmen’s compensation laws? Dr. Stewart. The figure I gave here was 51 million out of 80 million, so that would be about 60 percent. Mr. Burton. So, three out of eight workers do not have workmen’s compensation coverage. How would you break out that three out of eight workers. What occupations would we find them in ¢ Dr. Stewart. They are migrant workers and agricultural workers. Mr. Burron. Has it struck you in the development of your testi- mony that in addition to the thrust of the proposed legislation that this committee ought to consider what to do with those American workers who are not protected by the workmen’s compensation ? Dr. Stewart. As you know, workmen’s compensation is a State effort. I think a look by the Congress at the workmen’s compensation efforts would be very useful. Mr. Burton. I didn’t know until this morning that there was this big a gap in the coverage. r. STEwART. There are gaps. Mr. Burton. Presumably this legislation intends to develop a body of knowledge and skill to prevent industrial injury or job-connected injuries. It occurs to me that for those that the program does not reach those that are injured on the job. It is somewhat alarming in the absence of our finding out how these injured workers are taken care of to learn that we have three out of eight who may well be not receiving medical treatment or, as the case is in many States, limited medical treatment ? Dr. Stewart. I think the thrust of this bill is not in the area you are exploring. The thrust of the bill is to prevent as much occupational 117 disease and injury as is preventable and still carry on our business of production. I doubt if we will ever prevent all disease and injury. There will always be need for compensation of injury and disease. But this is to recognize the fact that we are not doing an adequate job of protecting our workers in this country through the proper application of knowl- edge through standards. We can do a lot better job. We can prevent some of the injuries and diseases which are occuring now. This will have an offset, of course, of decreasing the need for compensation. But if you look on it as a health program as I do, what we are trying to do here is to keep people from getting hurt or sick. Mr. Burton. I suspect you are troubled also about workers once sick or injured not receiving adequate medical treatment ? Dr. Stewart. I would be very concerned about that. I think anyone who is sick or injured should have adequate medical treatment. Mr. Burton. I raise the point that I have because I am aware that the legislation does not deal with the area that I have been question- ing you about. This places in better perspective the thrust of the pro- posed legislation it isn’t so far reaching and radical. One might de- scribe this as modest in dealing with only a portion of the problem. Dr. Stewart. While it may be modest, Mr. Burton, the problem is enormous and the benefit to the human beings who work and the bene- fit to the economy is through this approach. Prevention is always the best thing in health. Mr. Burton. I have no other questions. Mr. Haraaway. Have the insurance companies been engaged in any research over the years with respect to occupational diseases? Dr. Stewart. Insurance companies have done some work in occupa- tional diseases; but they have done more work in the field of pre- venting compensible injury. They have done a fair amount of work in that area. Mr. Haraaway. Is the research in occupational diseases increasing or staying about the same? Dr. Stewart. I would say staying about the same. There is a double-headed problem here. There has been some re- search by Government and industry on occupational diseases; but the nature of the process of occupations has changed so rapidly— chemical industry—the use of chemicals in industry I should say is so widespread, the use of new substances that were not used in the past so the nature of the problem has changed and the research effort has stayed about the same in the country or decreased some and this is the two-headed deal we have at the present time. I think it is the major reason why there has to be a whole new thrust in the effort. Mr. Harnaway. Namely, companies can’t keep up with the change of pace. br. Stewart. They keep up by the complexity of the research, but by the time they research one thing they have two more on their hands. Mr. Hatnaway. Let me get clear in my mind, on page 14, under section 15(a) you are responsible for criteria for the establishment of standards. ’ 118 Do you want to give me an example of just what you would provide and what the Secretary of Labor would provide or is there a clear- cut line ? Dr. Stewart. Criteria are the scientific data which define levels at which certain things happen to people. The standard is a legally de- fined level above which one would take legal action. Mr. Sreicer. Can I ask you, Dr. Stewart, how long would you an- ticipate that it would be necessary to do the kind of research that you indicate we need to enable us to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the various aspects of industrial health. How long would it take to develop the criteria on which the stand- ards are based ? Dr. Stewart. It depends only on the level at which you want to set the standard. If there is an immediate area where there is such toxicity, you find a level at which it does not occur. You can’t wait until you have all of the scientific evidence before you set a standard. People are being hurt. You set the standard based on the scientific data you have at the time. You may need the standard right away. Of course, the standards can be changed as new scientific evidence comes into being. The research is going to go on for a long time. One of the problems we have from exposure to environmental contami- nants is a low dose of environmental contaminant which may not manifest itself for many years. It is very difficult to do research when the disease manifestation is many years after the exposure occurred or the disease manifests itself only after a long period of exposure. Mr. Stricer. In fiscal year 1968, you indicated that approximately $3 million of your funding was going for research. Can you give us a breakdown as to what you now do in industrial research, for example. Dr. Stewart. I can give you the research grants areas. The area of metal toxicosis, chemical toxicants, pneumoconiosis, which is one we have worked on for a long time, heat exposures, beryllium, asbestos and uranium and lasers are areas we are working on. I would also like to say, Mr. Steiger, the occupational health re- search is aimed at problems we know exist and for which we find we need criteria as fast as we can get them, but there is much effort going on supported by the National Institutes of Health and within their laboratories which deal at the molecular and cellular level and with the enzymes on environmental contaminants both in the work- place and outside which are beginning to reveal some of the basic understanding of how these things affect human beings. This has no time limit to it. It is the kind of basic research that may find something tomorrow that changes the whole set of criteria or it may not occur for 10 years. The whole field of toxicology has changed tremendously in the last 10 years. . . Mr. Stereer. In the bill, as you know, the coverage applicable in section 8 is “any employer engaged in a business affecting commerce.” Dr. Stewart. That is correct. Mr. Stereer. Which T would consider a broad interpretation of the commerce clause. It means everyone. Dr. Stewart. I interpret it as being very broad. 119 Mr. Steiger. That then makes, does it not, a rather burdensome task in attempting to find ways and means of conducting the research, establishing the criteria, and then implementing standards necessary for that broad a coverage? Dr. Stewarr. The research, of course, is aimed at the understanding of a particular toxicant on people. You don’t have to do it in every possible place of exposure. You have to do it in an adequate setting where you can get the right kind of information. The enforcement effort would apply to wherever this is happening in a business dealing in commerce. We would hope that this enforcement can, through information systems and surveilance, find out whether something is happening. Mr. Steer. Would you believe if you took one-third as you indi- cated of $4.5 million that might come if full funding were given to carry out the legislation, you said one-third was for training. Dr. Stewart. I said in the first year, Mr. Steiger. Mr. Steicer. I guess I have two questions. One is: What would you anticipate for subsequent years and sec- ondly, the needs as you indicate them, 1,500 nonmedical professionals during the next 5 years, 8,000 full-time physicians employed by indus- try, within the next 5 years, 3,000 physicians providing part-time service for smaller industries, 10,000 new nurses will enter industry over the next 5 years. I think that is a completely unrealistic goal both in terms of the funds that you anticipate will be available; and second, by the ex- plosion that we have had in this country for improved medcial care through medicare, through the increase in the number of hospital beds, through the increase in homes for the aged. How do we fit all of this together ? Dr. Stewart. Mr. Steiger, the training provisions of this bill are aimed at specific training, the technical training at whatever level one is talking about of the nurse, for instance, which gives them the knowledge they need to work in an industrial setting. They are already a nurse or physician. Mr. Steeer. Are you saying we will shift the personnel, taking them out of the hospitals and put them in industry? Dr. Stewart. The Health Professions Educational Assistance Act is aimed at increasing the capacity of the United States to produce nurses, physicians, ie] and so on. Mr. Steiger. We are losing the battle. Dr. Srewarr. I think you will find that in the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act we have expanded the places in medical schools by a thousand in just the past 4 years. We now have in being or coming along some 14 to 15 new medical schools and we have expanded nursing. The started in 1963-64. We are in our forth or fifth year of it. The Congress will have a review of these programs this year because they will come up for renewal but the capacity is being changed con- siderably. Now that is not going to solve all of the problems. We also have to make some decisions on priorities. There are not only priorities be- tween areas but the priorities between where one works and lives in the health professions. We have no answer to that at the present time. 120 Mr. Steiger. 1 am delighted if I may say you indicated there is a need for priorities. I concur completely. What frightens me is we are not doing anything about establishing priorities. Any judgment you would have I would be most interested in. Mr. Haraaway. Am I correct in assuming from your testimony, Doctor, there is no protection for the general public from the toxic ef- fects of any new chemical other than what the Food and Drug Admin- istration has control over. If someone came up with a new chemical for the paper industry, the fumes from which may be quite toxic, is there no governmental regula- tions or supervision with respect to the use of it ? Dr. Stewart. You are really talking about consumer protection. If ou are talking about a household spray or something similar the la- ling agent gets involved. Mr. Haraaway. The food and drug industry, if it used something that would have a toxic effect the consumer would be purchasing it but the industry would be using it and the fumes might be sent over a large metropolitan area and the F umes do have a toxic effect. Is there no Protesting to the public in the first place from the use of that chemical? Dr. Stewart. There are many ways of controlling that. Mr. Mac- Kenzie is pointing out the Clean Air Act could. This would be pollution shifted across State lines. There is the Hazardous Substance Act of the Food and Drug Administration. Mr. Haraaway. The Clean Air Act would cover fumes going outside of a mill but would not apply to a room where they were being pro- uced. There would be no protection to the workers at the present time in that instance. Dr. Stewart. There is no specific law administered by the Public Health Service. I don’t know enough about the Hazardous Substance Act of the Food and Drug Administration to give you a specific answer. Mr. Haraaway. I was wondering if there was any overlap. Dr. Stewart. We have the power of the Surgeon General to in- form and to look into health problems. We find this is very effective. We have a surveillance system, and we do pick up things here and there outside the surveillance system. Mr. Haraaway. I was interested in hearing your justification for the division of labor which is set up under this bill. Someone suggested that probably safety should be taken care of from both the research and enforcement point of view by the Depart- ment of Labor and the health and the occupational disease aspect of the bill should be taken care—the enforcement and research part—by HEW. Dr. Stewart. I think the division of labor that is outlined in the bill is perfectly appropriate between the two dopartiaents, Mr. Haraaway. How would you justify that? It would seem to me for the sake of argument since HEW is going to be doing the research and it will require a great deal more research on occupational diseases that it might also have the enforcement powers under the bill because it will know more about the causes of occupa- tional diseases. 121 Dr. Stewart. I think the mechanism and the machinery and the types of personnel are different when you are talking about the en- forcement area, the promulgation of standards, than when you are talking about the research and training effort that needs to go on in order to develop the criteria. You are talking about a different set of people. I think the division between standard setting and enforcement and research and training and development of the knowledge which allows you to set the stand- ard is the proper division of effort. Mr. Haraaway. Do health standards generally come under the jurisdiction of HEW in other acts? Dr. Stewart. In many instances they do and in other instances other Federal agencies have standards which affect the health of the pegpls, r. Hataaway. And they depend upon you for research ? Dr. Stewart. They depend on us for research and sometimes con- sultation. On the labeling put out on pesticides by the Department of Agri- culture, through an agreement, we review most of the changes of the labeling for recommendations on how it might affect the health of people. Mr. Haraaway. I was just thinking probably we would come up with more realistic standards if we had the people doing the research promulgate the standards simply because they would have more first- hand knowledge and know more about the problem. Dr. Stewart. Once the standard is set and has been based on the criteria, the criteria are the crucial issue in setting the standard. The enforcement is a different kind of procedure and process than the effort going into developing criteria. So, I think this is the right dividing point. Mr. Hataaway. So, the standards ought to be set by the Secretary of Labor? Dr. Stewart. Yes, based on the criteria developed by HEW. Mr. HaraawAy. It seems you might leave the enforcement to HEW and we might be better advised to let you set the standards. Dr. Stewart. This is a question of who can interpret the criteria. The Department of Labor can accept the criteria and I assume we would be working with the Department of Labor in arriving at the standard. We have considerable cooperation with the Bureau of Mines, for example, now on standards on mining. Mr. HaraawAay. Mr. Gibbons? Mr. Gisons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, I have been involved in two other hearings this morn- ing and it makes it a little complicated to keep up with all of this. I would prefer to let my other colleagues question the witness. Mr. Steiger. I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. The Coal Mine Safety Act, as I recall, did set some minimal standards. Tt is possible or appropriate in an area of this kind for Congress to undertake that same kind of approach in this kind of legislation rather than giving complete authority to the Secretaries of HEW and Labor to work together to set standards? 122 Dr. Stewart. Mr. Steiger, I don’t think it would be possible to put in the bill all of the standards that would apply to any possible substance or situation which may lead to occupational disease or in- jury. This would be just a monstrous task to attempt. Also, I think this is going to evolve over time. There is information now from which one can produce standards. There have been recom- mended standards. Major industries have adopted some of their own standards so there is a lot of information around on which some standards could be based but there will be others evolving as well. Likewise, the chemicals we may be dealing with 5 years from now may not exist at the present time. You don’t even know whether there would be a situation so I don’t see how it is possible to put the minimal standards even explicitly into the bill. Mr. Haraaway. On that same point, it has been suggested by, I be- lieve, some Members of Congress that this bill is so general and so broad it might constitute an unconstitutional delegation of power. I don’t expect you to give me a specific answer to this, but would it be possible to have at least guidelines—broad guidelines—upon which the standards would be based ? Dr. Stewart. I think the standards will be based on the scientific criteria. They are really a judgment based on the scientific informa- tion you have at the level of protection that you want to provide once you have these criteria. The criteria can tell you at such and such a level you have a 10 percent incidence of this thing and at another level you have zero incidence. There is a judgment factor as to where you set the level. The criteria does not change except as the scientific information changes. I cannot believe that that has any constitutionality entering into it, developing scientific information and setting standards. If there is a constitutional question here, I would not be able to answer. Mr. Hatuaway. I realize that. Mr. Steiger. He is a wise man. Mr. Haraaway. The law says delegate health and safety standards and it does not give any guidelines in the bill. I wonder if we could give some broad guidelines. Dr. Stewart. I doubt very much that that would be a constitutional question. I think it is a question of how much authority the Congress wants to give but we do have this delegation of authority in the Clean Air Act. Mr. Gieeowns. It is the same problem you run into in the subversive controls act. I think we have to recognize we have a real problem here. I know the agencies don’t want to have any of their guidelines dele- gated to them by Congress drawn away from them, but every now and then the Supreme Court says Congress has to put in some guidelines. The Supreme Court threw out the Subversive Control Act and some other controls because they said Congress has been too vague. Dr. Srewarr. I think we may be talking about two different things when we say criteria and standards. 123 The kind of criteria we are talking about are clinical data. In arriving at the standards, certain population studies give you this kind of disease information and then you decide what the standard should be. I think you will find in other legislation in the health field the Secretary of HEW has the authority to develop criteria and set standards. This is for the benefit of the people. Mr. Gieeons. Eventually, you are going to end up taking somebody to court and they will end up pleading all of the constitutional defenses that they have. I am merely trying to help you develop an act that will stand up in court. Isn’t there some criteria we can put in this bill that will help the court understand what we are getting at ? Dr. Stewart. The criteria we are talking about will be scientific documents. We issue these now in the Clean Air Act, the criteria for sulfur, the oxide from sulfur is a kind of compilation of the scien- tific studies which have been done which give some idea of the effects on human life, animals, plants, and so on, the economic impact. On this one it talks about standards. I can’t see any problem with that at all. Mr. Giseons. I would remind you the Clean Air Act has never been before the Supreme Court. I am wondering if we couldnt find some way of putting in some standards. The Court has the historic penchant for knocking out cases where standards have not been provided. Mr. Hataaway. For example, in the case of silicosis, what stand- ards in the States would be required, without getting into any specifi- cally so the law itself would offer a guideline to the ron. to come up with something more specific? Dr. Stewart. I think it is possible with the word guidelines as you are using it, it is possible for Congress to put that kind of guide- line into the legislative history in some way or another. Mr. Hataaway. In order for us to do this we would need more in- formation from you as to what are the serious occupational diseases and how we could categorize them so we could make a laundry list, so to speak. Dr. Stewart. I will be glad to do as much as we can, Mr. Chair- man. You are talking about an awfully broad and large and complex area. Mr. Gieeons. You could say chronic diseases of the lung or acute diseases of the lung or heart or of the liver or something of that sort. Dr. Stewart. I think we know how to develop the criteria we are talking about, Mr. Gibbons, and how to do the research that is necessary and how to interpret the research findings. Tt will range over the entire range of human ills as far as the mani- festation of what happens to a person when they are exposed to toxic substances. There are many indications that the chronic diseases that we deal with today are not single cause but probably have multiple causation. They may result from 30 years of exposure rather than exposed today and sick tomorrow kind of situation. I think it would be difficult to develop the criteria within the legislation. In fact, I think it is impossible to do so. 124 Mr. Haraway. I think we are talking about two different kinds of criteria. You are talking about physical data and we are talking about some legal framework in which to place the law so that the Secretary of Labor will have some indication of just what the bound- aries are within which he can set standards. Dr. Stewart. I think I would leave the Secretary of Labor to com- ment on that. Mr. Haraaway. We would need data from you so that we could set the general area in which the standards should be set. Dr. Stewart. We would be glad to supply you with any data that we have. Mr. Haraaway. Thank you very much, Doctor. We appreciate your testimony. Dr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hataaway. The subcommittee will stand in recess until Febru- ary 28, at 10 a.m. (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, February 28, 1968.) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1968 House oF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE CommrrTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 2 p.m, pursuant to call, in room 2257, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O’Hara presiding. Present: Representatives O'Hara, Hathaway, and Ford. Staff: Jim Harrison, staff director: Marilyn Myers, clerk; Dr. James Wason, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress; and Mr. Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel roo Lid Mr. O'Hara. The Select Committee on Labor will come to order, having obtained unanimous consent to sit today while the House is in session. . The purpose of today’s meeting is to continue the hearings on H.R. 14816, the occupational safety and health bill, which would authorize the Secretary of Labor to set standards to improve the working conditions for working men and women and assist the States to assure such working conditions and provide for research, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health. Our first witness today is Dr. Donald Rasmussen of the Appalsntion Regional Hospital, Beckley, W. Va. Dr. Rasmussen, will you step forward? I understand you are accompanied with several others, would you have them come up with you? STATEMENT OF DONALD RASMUSSEN, M.D, APPALACHIAN REGIONAL HOSPITAL, BECKLEY, W. VA,, ACCOMPANIED BY EARL STAFFORD, BECKLEY, W. VA.; MR. BOYCE; AND MR. FARLEY Mr. O'Hara. Dr. Rasmussen, could you start off by telling us a little about yourself and a little about the Appalachian Regional Hospital under your connection with the hospital and what you do there? Dr. Rasmussen. I am a specialist in internal medicine and pulmonary diseases. I am currently chief of the pulmonary laboratory at the hospi- tal and engaged primarily in performing pulmonary studies and work evaluation on a variety of subjects, most of which are coal miners. The Appalachian Regional Hospital is part of a nonprofit hospital chain which was formerly the Miners Memorial Hospital chain. Mr. O’Hara. Please proceed with your statement or would you rather summarize your statement ? Dr. Rasmussen. I have submitted the statement and I will, in es- sence, summarize what I consider to be the pertinent features. The (125) 126 primary thing that I want to say is that there is considerably more pulmonary impairment in the miners in the region, at least in south- ern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and southwestern Virginia, than is generally recognized. In particular, we find there is significant impairment in many of the miners whose X-rays reveal only minimal evidence of pneu- moconiosis. It is also important that the methods for evaluating this type of impairment are not adequate, at least insofar as the standard, routine, enforced vital capacity of the ordinary standard test for a respiratory malfunction used in most surveys. The problem is somewhat more complex because of the type of in- volvement in the small pulmonary arteries in these people, requiring more testing. But I think that because it is this type of abnormality, there has been a problem in that it is unrecognized by these people. There are other problems that we don’t have answers for. We do find some men with impairment who do have what we call obstructive changes or actual difficulty in moving air in and out of the lungs. The same type of trouble that people all over the world get, even house- wives, either for no apparent reason or whatever the causes of non- specific lung diseases are. It is difficult to separate the effects of the operation from what might be expected to occur in the general popula- tion. At the same time there are certain features of the diseases that we see which actually produce a type of emphysema, so here again is an area where the separation of these is not at all easy. Considerably more work needs to be done on this. Mr. O'Hara. You have examined a large number of people in the laboratory. I think you suggest in your statement that during the past 5 years you have examined approximately 2,000 bituminous miners. Could you give us some indication whether or not your find- ings from examination of 2,000 miners over a period of 5 years would suggest to you any conclusions about the incidence of pulmonary impairment as compared, for instance, to the number of reported cases and the statistics we are dealing with in this committee? Dr. Rasmussen. I can’t give you any exact estimate, I would say certainly there are a large number of men with X-ray evidence of pneumoconiosis who are not significantly impaired, in fact they may remain free of symptoms for rather lengthy periods of time while still engaged in the occupation. We had a case recently where one man continued working 17 years in the mines after he was compensated. He developed symptoms, how- ever, only about 2 years before we saw him. This is an unusual case in that we have some idea of his X-ray abnormality. On the other hand, for the most part, none of the other men of the 2,000 had anything like a routine, periodic X-ray examination. We can’t tell you the duration of the disease in many of the other cases. We do, however, see significantly impaired men with less than 20 years total mining exposure. We have to deal with this other variation in terms of time and the factors involved in this. We don’t know about those, whether this is total dust exposure or other toxic substances. We have no idea. I would not give you an exact number of cases but there are a large number of men who are asymtomatic. 127 Mr. O'Hara. You have suggested that the X-ray and the tradi- tional tests for vital capacity are the least useful tools in determining hw or not there is impairment of a man’s ability to function, right? r. Rasmussen. Yes, sir. Mr. O’Hara. And you have devised or are using a number of other tests which are better able to suggest to you impairment. Would you describe what you mean by impairment ? Dr. Rasmussen. I mean primarily shortness of breath, which is in- capacitating to one degree or another for performing physical activ- ity. This is what I mean primarily by incapacity. Mr. O'Hara. That I suppose might range om a really slight im- pairment that doesn’t significantly affect a man’s ability to work or perform the normal functions to a more severe impairment that would affect ability to work. Dr. Rasmussen. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. Do you encounter a number of people at Beckley who have their pulmonary capacity impaired to such an extent that it affects their ability to work ? Dr. Rasmussen. Yes, sir; very many. Mr. O'Hara. You see a lot of them ? Dr. Rasmussen. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. You examine a lot of people in the mining industry. Obviously, we are concerned with the mining industry but we are concerned with many other industries also. Have you found anything at Beckley that could be useful in evaluating the problems of workers and health hazards to workers in other industries ? Dr. Rasmussen. I believe there are a number of pneumoconioses that are described as benign, at least coal workers have that, and pneumo- coniotics are described as being benign diseases. I have little experience in examining people exposed to ash or dust, occasionally I examine peo- ple with fiberglass exposure in some of the chemical industries, not in sufficient number that I could make a statement, but I believe it would be well worth investigating some of these other conditions with some- what more extensive study, provided you find those that maintain they are symptomatic. Mr. O'Hara. In response to my question you suggest in your state- ment that you have reason to believe that mmcapacitating pulmonary insufficiency is much more common among bituminous miners in this general area than heretofore recognized. Would you expect that might be the case in other dust industries? Dr. Rasmussen. That would be my suspicion. This certainly should be investigated. Mr. O'Hara. You also suggest in your statement that one of the end results of the pneumoconiotic process may be emphysema and perhaps other types of bronchial disease. Is that something you encounter di- rectly? Dr. Rasmussen. I would say in morphological autopsy it is well known. In most of the dust areas, particularly around the vascular, there is an area of impaired tissue, a form of emphysema is often pro- duced. If this progresses sufficiently it gets to the stage where you are unable to differentiate this emphysema from the so-called specific lung 128 disease or chronic lung disease that can be found in any variety of in- dividuals. This in itself becomes an area of concern. The bronchial question be- comes a significant problem in terms of, let’s say, compensation, and so forth, in terms of disability as a result of process. These are areas which really and virtually are nat for the most part. Mr. O'Hara. You have suggested that the kinds of tests you run are essential to evaluating the degree of disability. Are the results of your tests sometimes used in workman’s compensation claims? Dr. RAsMUSSEN. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. There isn’t any trouble getting the results accepted, isthere? Dr. RasmusseN. Yes, there is considerable difficulty in getting the results accepted completely. Mr. O'Hara. If you have examined 2,000 miners, I suppose they have worked for a rather large number of employers? Dr. RasmusseN. Yes, sir. Mz. O’Hara. What sort of cooperation have you had from mine em- ployers in your investigations of the pulmonary difficulties of the miners? Dr. Rasmussen. I have had no direct opposition, as such, but I think there has been some difficulty at least on the part of one of the gentlemen here in relation to these studies but otherwise I have had, well, no direct opposition as such. Mr. O'Hara. Which of the gentlemen are you referring to? Dr. Rasmussen. Mr. Stafford. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Stafford, where do you work ? Mr. Starrorp. I did work in Mingo County for Allen Creek Coal Co. Mr. O'Hara. What coal company ? Mr. Starrorp. Allen Creek. The 25th day of this month will be 2 years. Mr. O'Hara. What were the circumstances that led to your leaving that company—did the vein run out? Mr. Starrorp. No, my lungs ran out. Mr. O'Hara. Tell us about it. Mr. Starrorp. Well, I went to a doctor in Williamson and had my first X-ray in July of 1965. Mr. O'Hara. Your first X-ray ? Mr. Starrorp. Yes, the first in several years. He told me there was something bad, wrong, with my lungs but 1t was not showing up on the X-rays. He got me an appointment at Beckley at this laboratory and I came up there and took the test. He stopped me from work then, this doctor at Williamson, after he had seen my test from Beckley. I had been off work about a year and then I took up my case with the union to collect my vacation pay to which I was entitled. One of their attorneys told me if I had not gone up there and taken this test they wouldn’t have fought me so hard. He asked me to get a doctor’s slip showing T wasn’t totally disabled and he would give me my vaca- tion pay. One of the fieldworkers and I went out and talked and he asked if I could get a doctor’s slip. I said, yes, but I couldn’t afford to do that because I would be telling a lie and cutting my own throat after getting the papers filled out like that. We went back in and asked the attorney 129 if he would use that against getting my social security or workmen’s compensation. He said, yes, he would use it against me but not the other men who had not applied for this test yet. } Mr. O'Hara. What led you to go to the doctor ? Mr. Srarrorp. I got so short winded I couldn’t walk; I couldn’t do any good inside or out. Mr. O'Hara. You went to the doctor and he took X-rays and said he thought something was seriously wrong even though it didn’t show up in the X-rays Ahh sent you to Beckley ? Mr. Starrorp. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. They ran tests ? Mr. Starrorp. Yes, sir. Mr. O’Hara. Dr. Rasmussen, did you run the tests? Dr. Rasmussen. Yes; the initial group. Mr. O'Hara. What did you find ? Dr. Rasmussen. A good degree of impairment in Mr. Stafford. Mr. O’Haga. Then, Mr. Stafford, you went back to your doctor in Williamson and he saw those tests that came from Beckley and said you would not be able to work any more ? Mr. Starrorp. That is right. Mr. O'Hara. Did you notify the company ? Mr. Srarrorp. No, I didn’t notify the company that T had quit; the doctor told me not to and my local office said not to. Mr. O'Hara. You just didn’t go back to work ? Mr. Starrorp. That is right. Mr. O'Hara. And you had vacation pay coming ? Mr. Starrorp. Yes, sir; almost a year’s vacation pay. Mr. O’Hara. You finally asked for that vacation pay? Mr. Starrorp. Yes, sir; I asked the local officers and we had a hearing and they had an attorney in on it. He told me because I had taken that test and it was published in some magazines and newspapers that that was going to make it hard on me and he would use that against me. Mr. O’Hara. I am not sure I understand the difficulty with vacation pay and your physical condition. Well, maybe I do at that. Was it the situation that you would have been entitled to vacation pay if you had quit because of your disability but not if you had simply walked out? Mr. Starrorp. No. After the doctor filled out my papers and said I was totally disabled that automatically stopped my vacation pay. They proved that by the contract. But he said that he would use that against me. Mr. O’Hara. Did you file for workmen’s compensation ? Mr. Starrorp. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. What happened ? Mr. Starrorp. They fought me for about a year and I finally got 30 percent. Mr. O’Hasa. The company fought it ? Mr. Starrorp. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. I think they usually do fight those claims. You said the lawyer suggested to you that they might have been easier on you if you had not gone to Beckley and if the case history of your case had not been published ? Mr. Starrorp. That is right. 130 Mr. O'Hara. Who told you that ? Mr. Starrorp. One of their attorneys. Mr. O’Hara. An attorney for your employer ? Mr. Starrorp. Yes. Mr. O’Hara. You have not worked since ? Mr. Srarrorp. No, sir, not since then, March, this year will be 2 years. Mr. O'Hara. Where do you live? Mr. Starrorp. Blackberry, W. Va. Mr. O’Hara. Where is that ? Mr. Starrorn. About 15 miles above Williamson in Mingo County. Mr. O’Hara. You do not work, but live in Blackberry City Mr. Starrorp. That is right. Mr. O'Hara. What is the principal industry in Blackberry City ¢ Mr. Starrorp. There is not any. i O’Hara. How many men of working age live in Blackberry ity ? Mr. Srarrorp. I would say about 200 and only about eight are work- ng Ths rest are disabled. Tr. O’Hara. They have troubles like yours? Mr. Starrorp. Yes, sir ; most of them. Mr. O'Hara. When you worked in the mines were you ever injured ? Mr. Starrorp. Yes, sir; I had my back broken in 1954. Mr. O’Hara. How long were you off work then ? Mr. Srarroro. A little over five months. Mr. O'Hara. How did that happen ? Mr. Starrorp. A roof fell. Mr. O’Hara. Dr. Rasmussen, the bill deals with two problems, one involving occupational health and the other industrial safety as it is more traditionally known. Are any of the other men with you able to shed any light on safety conditions in the non-environmental sense? Dr. Rasmussen. I believe so, I believe both these men were injured in the past. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Farley, are you working now ? Mr. Farcey. No, sir. Mr. O’Hara. Where did you work ? Toy Farrey. I worked in Morgan County, the mines were located there. Mr. O'Hara. You worked in the mine ? Mr. Farry. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. Are you working in a mine now ? Mr. Farcey. No, sir. Mr. O'Hara. Why not? Mr. Farrry. I was employed around the mines. My mine experience was inside the mines and I worked there for approximately 9 years until I got my back broken. I went to work in Ohio for 9 months and then after I got able to go back to the mines I went back and took a job around the mines and got employed as a carpenter for the last company I worked for in 1950, I believe it was. I worked there for quite a while and then the coal companies got to tearing down their houses and doing away with them and had no use for a carpenter so they more or less used me for an extra man. 131 About 6 years before I quit work they had me on a big heavy truck to haul refuse from the pits and dump it on a slate pile. This truck weighed about 20 tons and I hauled about 20 tons in it. I quit on ac- count of it being unsafe. I had to take this truck over a bridge and drive it until the bridge was practically falling through. I also drove it through a school zone. It had no brakes and had only one rear view mirror. I couldn’t see on the other side of me and would pass small children and wouldn’t know whether I hit them or not until I got up the hill and could see the other side. I asked for mirrors and they wouldn’t give them to me. I asked for another job. The last day I drove this Euclid, my air brakes went bad, the airlines were held together by wire. I stopped the Euclid and I went around and told my boss that I had no brakes. He said he and the mechanic would check them. He and the mechanic went out, checked the brakes and said they couldn't fix them. He said, if you are afraid to drive it, I will drive it, you go on in. I went on in and didn’t work any more. Mr. O’Hara. How did you break your back ? Mr. FarLey. A motor rolled on me inside the mine. Mr. O'Hara. After you recovered you got work around the mines but not in the mines ? Mr. FArLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. You worked as a carpenter and as a driver? Mr. Faruey. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. You drove a large truck hauling refuse Mr. Farrey. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. Made by the Euclid Manufacturing Co. ? Mr. Fariey. Yes, sir. Mr. O’Hara. You quit because you felt the truck was unsafe? Mr. Fariey. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. When you complained about it you were told it couldn’t be fixed and if you didn’t want to drive it, you didn’t have to, you could leave the job ? Mr. Farcey. That is right. Mr. (Fama, Mr. Boyce, what about you, have you worked in the mines’ Mr. Boyce. Yes, sir; I worked for a coal company a little better than 18 years. I ran a motor all the time. The mine had a fire in 1953. We got out and they shut down. When we got the men out, 18 men were killed. Two men killed were Garfield Henson and Clyde Wylie, they wanted to say they were responsible for the other 16 men’s death. I won't sign a statement on it and the mine foreman told me the first chance he got he would fire me. I worked on until November 17. When I was cut off then I went to the 25 mine. I got a job there. They gave me a job and sent me to the hospital which the company operated. The doctor told me I had TB and wanted to know how T even got over to the hospital. He told me IT had TB. Mr. O'Hara. You worked for a coal company and you were at work one day when there was a mine fire in your shift? Mr. Boyce. Yes; I just got out 7 minutes before it happened. Mr. O’Hara. They were changing shifts? 3 Mr. Boyce. No; what they did, IT worked 17 years on the day shift and he took Garfield Henson and put him in my place. They had a 92-734 0—68——10 132 cutoff the day before and he changed Garfield to the day shift and put me in his place. I gave them 20 empties off the rear of the tram and went to the bottom and he told me the mine was on fire, the dis- patcher told me. 1 got the fire truck and went back up there, it was stopped up with rock dust, there was nothing but mud 1n it and it wouldn’t work. Mr. O'Hara. You were not injured with the fire ¢ Mr. Boyce. No; but I was rolled with the motor before that. I went to buckle the pole down and caught a header, that caught me and rolled me across the top of the motor which I was pulling. Instead of me going to the hospital—there were six ribs road went to the hospital and they taped me up, so the company official got me and took me to the sand house. I stayed in the sand house for 44 days. He would come to my house and get me and take me back. Mr. O'Hara. You stayed on the job? os, Boyce. Yes; they put a bed in the sand house and put me in there. Mr. O'Hara. Six ribs? Mr. Boyce. Yes; six ribs broken. Mr. O'Hara. As I understood you, after the fire you were asked to sign a statement that indicated that the fire was caused by some of the other people that worked in the mine? Mr. Boyce. Yes. I had run the motor up there on the section where it happened for 8 years before they changed off. I couldn’t see no rea- son that our men had started the fire. I couldn’t sign such a statement. as that nohow. One of them was my brother. What they were after was to beat the women and children out of the company’s part of it. Mr. O'Hara. Shortly after that, then, you refused to sign the statement and then as I understand it, you left that mine? Mr. Boyce. Yes, I was laid off. The foreman told me the first chance he got he would fire me or cut me off. I was the only one laid off. Mr. O’Hara. You were the only one laid off ? Mr. Boyce. Yes. Mr. O'Hara. After you were laid off you went to another mine owned by the same company, is that right ? Mr. Boyce. Yes. Mr. O'Hara. You sought employment there? Mr. Boyce. Yes. Mr. O'Hara. They wanted you to have a physical examination ? Mr. Boyce. Yes. You go see the super of the mine and he sends you to the hospital. Mr. O’Hara. To get your physical ? Mr. Boyce. Yes, Fn they turned me down, told me I had TB. Mr. O'Hara. Who told you that ? Mr. Boyce. The doctor, John Wayne Hatfield, he was the one that examined me. Mr. O'Hara. Have you been working since then ? Mr. Boyce. No. This aid for dependent children, I get that, that is all. Mr. O'Hara. Dr. Rasmussen, have you examined Mr. Boyce? Dr. Rasmussen. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. Does he have tuberculosis ? 133 Dr. Rasmussen. There is no indication from his X-ray or skin test that he has or ever had tuberculosis. There is nothing other than simple pneumoconiosis, small, tiny nodular densities scattered throughout the lungs that do not suggest a diagnosis of tuberculosis. Mr. O’Hara. Have you given him tests to determine if his pulmo- nary capacities are impaired ? Dr. Rasmussen. Yes, sir; he is very much impaired. There is a marked Joss of capacity to exercise and the other abnormal features that we frequently find in these men. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Boyce, have you had any accidents in the mine yourself other than—well, I guess the mine fire didn’t directly involve you but did you have any accidents in the mine? Mr. Boyce. No, other than just being rolled over with that motor. Mr. O’Hara. That was with the six ribs but you didn’t lose any time ? Mr. Boyce. No, becouse they made me a bed in the sandhouse and got aman to keep a fire for me. Mr. O'Hara. You had six ribs broken, Mr. Stafford, you had your back broken and, Mr. Farley, you had your back broken ? Mr. Faruey. Yes, sir. Mr. O’Hara. Do you gentlemen have any opinion of the efficiency of the enforcement and inspection for safety in the places that you have worked ? Mr. Boyce. We do not have any State inspection because the com- pany knows a week ahead of time when they are coming so they can prepare for it. 1 have doubled back and made extra shifts for rock dust because they were coming. Mr. O'Hara. All this is a little beside the point of the present bill but not beside the point of the present inquiry. The bill as it stands before us would not cover coal mining but it 1s entirely possible that this committee, before it completes it deliberations, might wish to in some way relate coal mining and the hazards in the mines to the legis- lation we are now considering. Dr. Rasmussen, I recall during hearings on coal mining safety several years before in this committee there were discussions of hazards encountered in the mines having to do with gas, timbering, and with fire precautions, rock dust and so forth, but I don’t recall that we got very far into the subject of the conditions of the mine amtos- phere other than having to do with gas that might result in an explosion. Do you know from your experience at the hospital just what pre- cautions are taken and what standards are imposed under Federal or State inspection with respect to mining hazards? Dr. RasmusseN. I don’t believe there is any limits to amounts of dust as far as health hazards are concerned. From all IT have heard the emphasis almost is exclusively toward the explosion hazards and I think all the efforts are directed toward that end. I am sure part of the reason is that I don’t believe there is anyone who could actually give a valid estimate of the safe exposure in the coal mines. Mr. O'Hara. On the basis of your work do you think that one of the the objects of this legislation ought to be to conduct some research and to obtain information upon which valid dust standards could be 134 i a then enforced? Do you think that would be a worthwhile effort Dr. Rasmussen. Yes, sir; very much so as it is badly needed. It would appear on the basis of a number of relatively young men, men younger than I who are very significantly impaired, nil make me believe the situation is actually worsening rather than improving at the present time. Mr. O’Hara. To the extent that similar conditions are encountered in industry, I would suppose the same observation would hold, that dust standards are something that certainly ought to be investigated, that we ought to make an effort to establish a criteria of dust standards and enforce those criteria for industry generally? Dr. Rasmussen. Yes, sir. Mr. Haraaway. Would it be difficult to establish these standards? Dr. Rasmussen. 1 don’t know that much about the technical prob- lems involved in anlyzing the dust. There are great difficulties in re- lating the physical condition of miners now with the dust conditions under which they worked years before, so, in my view, this would really require a great deal of work. Mr. Hataaway. Do you think it would be very expensive to bring the dust standards down? Dr. Rasmussen. You mean to establish the standards or bring the dust down ? Mr. Haraaway. Bring the dust down. Dr. Rasmussen. From what I gather it would probably be an ex- pensive proposition. Mr. Haraaway. Do you have any idea of the cost ? Dr. Rasmussen. No, I don’t have that information about the cost of things in general in the mines but I do know that many of the com- panies have actually worked long and hard at methods to try to keep the dust down. Mr. HataAwAY. Are there any companies that do keep it down? Dr. Rasmussen. Not that I am aware of. Mr. Foro. Doctor, in conducting your experiments, do you use a ooniEn group to relate these people to others in the area or outside the area? Dr. RasmusseN. You mean do we have a group of men of similar age who are otherwise healthy ? We don’t have a sample such as this. The only thing in the way of a sample or comparative group we have are, of course, those individuals who are asymptomatic. Mr. Foro. In attempting to conduct the research you are limited to the people that for one reason or another are coming to your hospital ¢ Dr. Rasmussen. You must understand I am not conducting research. Mr. For. Well, the basis for your operation ? Dr. Rasmussen. There are established standards for normal indi- viduals from other centers where there are normal controls. In fact, these are well-known standards all over the world. Mr. Forp. Does anybody, to your knowledge, keep track of the people that you have been describing and have described here, your 2,000 other patients? If they leave the mines, what happens to these people? Dr. Rasmussen. I don’t believe there is any organized effort to do this. We have a large number of men who are still working and whom 135 we will reevaluate from time to time and a few that have discontinued employment. There is no organized effort to follow these. It would be a very good thing to see, for instance, whether they deteriorated after leaving the industry, whether they were improved or what happens to them. This would be an excellent thing. Mr. Foro. I have been told that in the State of Michigan where Mr. O’Hara and I come from that we have a lot of people from the coal mining region. They move from the mines to the auto factories and the auto plants do take note of previous employment in the mines and it is a systematic thing to keep track of the health record. This is a notable factor that stays on a person’s medical record during his subsequent career in this other industry. So there appar- ently 1s within the industry a considerable body of recordkeeping. So far I have not encountered any place or any agency of the Fed- eral Government or any other group which has attempted to put this information together and see what it shows us. That is why we are very much interested in the research possibilities of this legisla- tion; research not only in terms of a specific area, such as you are working in, but to follow these people into other parts of the country and compare them with other people of similar ages and other occu- pations to see what that shows and a variety of other things that cannot be done on a localized or small scale. I suppose we should not expect the State of West Virginia to be doing this; from one point of view it is no longer their problem after they leave West Virginia. Dr. Rasmussen. That is right. Mr. Forp. With respect to this question of environmental safety, other than the kind of situation you are talking about here with the lungs, are there any studies to show you or us the current accidents per number of working hours, per working days or per man, and to show us what the rate of injuries are, such as broken bones, numer- ous kinds of lacerations, and other incidents common to this type operation ? Dr. Rasmussen. 1 presume there are, but I am not aware of them. Mr. O'Hara. We have those records on coal mining and they are relatively accurate but they are not as well kept in other industries. Mr. Foro. The thing that strikes me, Mr. Chairman, is that the coal mining industry has been a focal point of concern for environ- mental safety for ah period of time than any other industry in this country. Yet conditions here don’t indicate that much has changed since the turn of the century and the beginning of the advent of the industrial revolution. There are fewer miners working, we know about these changes from an economic view but perhaps this legislation, Mr. Chairman, ought to be amended so that we can specifically examine this question and see whether the progress many of us believe had been made in fact does not appear to have taken place. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you, Mr. Ford. Without objection the staff will be instructed to enter your statement, Dr. Rasmussen, in full at this point in the record of this hearing and 136 in addition the staff will be instructed to enter in full the newspaper article referred to in Mr. Stafford’s testimony. (The statement and newspaper article follows :) PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD RASMUSSEN, M.D., APPALACHIAN REGIONAL HospIiTAL, BERKLEY, W. VA. Physicians in what is now the Appalachian Regional Hospital, Beckley, West Viriginia, have long been impressed with the high incidence of pulmonary disease among bituminous miners in this vicinity. Considerable investigation into certain aspects of the problem were undertaken here. Much anatomicopathologic data has been accumulated. During the past five years approximately 2,000 bituminous miners have been evaluated in the cardiopulmonary laboratory of this hospital. An attempt has been made to investigate these subjects with as broad a range of physiologic tests as possible. From the experience acquired, we have concluded that considerably more pul- monary impairment exists in this region than is generally recognized by most medical authorities or health agencies. Our studies contradict, in several ways, published authoritative opinions regarding the lung diseases in these subjects. Modern techniques of morphologic investigation of deceased miners employed by interested pathologists have provided additional support for our conclusions. Among the subjects evaluated in our laboratory are men who experience severe shortness of breath on slight exertion. Chest x-rays in this group reveal a wide range of abnormality, from almost normal to markedly abnormal. The degree of exertional dyspnea is poorly correlated with the degree of x-ray abnormality. Specific pulmonary function tests indicate that a relatively small number have evidence of significant difficulty in ventilating the lungs. These is no relationship between x-ray change and ventilatory impairment. Graded exercise studies appear to offer the most reliable means of defining the relative degrees of incapacity. Hxercise studies show a poor correlation with x-ray abnormalities. Combining arterial blood gases, and alveolar gas exchange with exercise enhance the value of the exercise studies and provides an imperfect correlation between certain measurements, such as the gradient between the alveolar and arterial oxygen and the degree of x-ray abnormality. Thus, we find sizeable numbers of cases who are significantly impaired, but whose chest x-rays reveal only minimal or simple pneumoconiosis. Most of these subjects are free of obstructive airway changes. Among those men with advanced x-ray abnormalities, who show evidence of significantly reduced work capacity, there may be even fewer whose ventilatory capacity is reduced. The majority opinion in this country and in Great Britain hold that simple pneumooconiosis is seldom the cause of impairment. It is also concluded that impairment associated with advanced x-ray change occurs with associated obstructive ventilatory dysfunction. In at least one American publication, the reader is advised to seek causes other than pulmonary for the dyspnea in cases of simple pneumoconiosis—causes such as “heart disease or psychoneurosis”. It should be noted that the above opinions are based almost exclusively on a single medical report from Britain, performed some 15 years ago, in which a most unrealistic sampling procedure induced a very serious bias into the results. Virtually all subsequent large studies have limited the measurements to the chest x-ray and a simple ventilatory test. In our material, these are the least useful parameters. Our studies have led us to believe that the primary lesions affecting men with coal workers lung diseases are those of the small pulmonary arteries. The most common among these are the peri-vascular pigment-laden mantles or collars, referred to many years ago as “benign anthracotic” lesions. We feel that the designation of “benign” may have been premature. One reason, we believe, for the opinion of some American and British authori- ties regarding the lack of impairment in men with only simple pneumoconiosis is the fact that the x-ray abnormalities may persist for long periods before the patient experiences symptoms or pulmonary functions become measurably im- paired. The onset of symptoms need not be associated with increased x-ray abnor- mality. We recently evaluated two men who had received compensation awards 17 and 19 years prior to our studies. Both returned to the mines and worked until 137 shortly before we saw them. Neither had noted symptoms for more than 2 to 3 years. The x-rays showed only simple category IT pneumoconiosis in one and a barely category A complicated pneumoconiosis in the other. Of the more than 2,000 miners studied here, we are not aware of a single man who had routine periodic x-ray examinations during his mining career. For this reason, we have no knowledge of the duration of changes in our subjects. We have no way of knowing whether similar physiologic patterns can be found in bituminous miners in other parts of this country or even in other parts of this state. No similar studies have been reported from this country and only rare reports are known from Europe. A number of important questions are yet unanswered among miners in this area. The occurrence of obstructive disease is by no means rare in our material. The extent to which this can be attributed to causes other than the occupa- tion is not known. It is, of course, well known that similar abnormalities occur in every segment of the population. It is also known, however, that one end result of the pneumoconiotic process may be emphysema. At what stage this becomes clinically manifest remains obscure. The equally unsettled question of chronic bronchial disease is of importance. In summary, we have reason to believe that incapacitating pulmonary insuf- ficiency is much more common among bituminous miners in this general area than has heretofore been recognized. This impairment is not closely related to x-ray changes nor to chronic obstructive lung disease. Our evidence suggests that the pulmonary arterial bed is primarily involved in causing the incapacity. [From the New York Times, Jan. 11, 1966] MINERS AID STUDY THAT TRACES LUNG CASES TO BLoOD CIRCULATION BeckLEy, W. VA.—Earl Stafford is a slender man with iron-gray, crew-cut hair and the unmistakable “miner’s mascara” of soft-coal dust in the lashes around his hazel eyes. He lay on a rolling stretcher recently in the Appalachian Regional Hospital, talking softly, as Dr. Donald L. Rasmussen inserted a small plastic tube into an artery of his left arm. The white sheets and gowns made a stark contrast to the unbelievable black- ness of the three-foot-high ‘“low-coal” tunnels along which two other doctors had crawled deep in the earth the day before. “I just got short-winded,” Mr. Stafford explained. “I run a motor. There’s not any straining work in it, but every trip of cars I pull up the hill I have to walk around them and I'd just run out of breath and have to sit down.” Mr. Stafford is a part of the so-called “coal study”—an ambitious attempt by the United States Public Health Service to explore and conquer miner’s lung diseases. AID IN LUNG DISEASES The work here is already producing important clues to the way soft-coal dust apparently affects both lung and heart actions. If this can be undersood, the research will have a great impact on the dozens of other “dusty industries” and perhaps on emphysema, lung cancer and air pollution work as well. For 30 of his 47 year, Mr. Stafford has worked in the dusty caves far below the rugged beauty of the West Virginia mountain tops. Twenty-two of these years have been spent crouched low on an electric truck—‘‘the motor’—hauling trains of 18-foot-long coal cars up a steep grade from four miles down in a drift mine in Red Jacket, W. Va. In an eight-and-a-half-hour day, Mr. Stafford may make six rattling, jolting trips up the slanting tracks, pulling 50 to 60 cars at a time. Before the long runs begin, he must walk, bent over in half to clear the tunnel roof, around the entire train, checking the couplings between cars. COMPLAINTS UNHEEDED Sand must be sprayed on the tracks just ahead of the motor’s wheels for traction. The slope is unusually steep. “I'd just about have to stay on sand going out and coming back, both.” Mr. Stafford said. For years, some older miners in this soft-coal region have been complaining of shortness of breath. But chest X-rays and ordinary breathing tests showed none 138 of the silicosis or other lung ailments common to hard-coal regions. Electrical traces of heart action were also normal. State compensation laws deal only with silicosis, which ordinarily shows clearly on an X-ray plate. Sometimes, miners who complained repeatedly were put down as having “ATS”—anxiety tension state—or accused of simply having ‘“‘compensationitis.” For years, some older miners in the soft-coal region have complained of short- ness of breath. In hard-coal regions, where rock dust from quartz frequently causes a lung disease among miners called silicosis, this would have been expected. However, silicosis—the only occupational lung ailment covered by state com- pensation laws—is not common in soft-coals areas. When X-rays and heart and breathing tests showed no evidence of damage, a complaining soft-coal miner was often diagnosed as having “ATS”—anxiety-tension-state—or accused of having “compensationitis.” Only the motor operators, who ride a few inches above the excellent rock- crushing device that steel wheels make as they grind sand against the steel track, were likely to show traces of the dreaded silicosis. However, a few medical men who saw case after case of breathlessness among miners with other types of jobs were curious. They found the miners rugged, quiet men, not given to complaining without reason. Several years ago, Senator Robert C. I"yrd, Democrat of West Virginia, got a $100,000 appropriation through Congress for what has grown into “the coal study”’—an investigation of all facets of the types of pneumoconiosis, or dust- induced lung disease, found in this region. The research has grown into a series of studies sponsored by or handled by the United States Public Health Service's Division of Occupational Health, with the cooperation of miners, unions and companies. The work going on here has held perhaps the most surprises and created strong hope for important discoveries. Until now, most studies of lung disease in this country have dealt with the body’s breathing mechanism. Far less attention has been paid to the role of the circulatory system through which the blood gains vital oxygen from the lungs. Mr. Stafford is a volunteer in this study. He sat bare-chested on a bicycle like exerciser the other day, pedaling steadily and breathing into a complex device of metal tubes and rubber bags. Another plastic tube, delicately pushed up his right arm through the heart and into his right lung, told an expensive electronic recorder what went on internally. The doctors here measure heart and lung actions while the miner is exercising, rather than at rest. With new and sophisticated methods, they are seeking significant changes in heart action that had escaped more ordinary diagnostic techniques. Because of earlier tests on Mr. Stafford, the doctors had not expected to see all they found today. After the first six-minute ride he said that “the motor is a lot rougher ride than this.” After the second ride, he was exhausted. His heart had tripled the pressure required in a normal lung to circulate the blood in order to draw the needed oxygen. “More and more this lends support to the belief that this is a vascular [circu- latory] problem with these people,” Dr. Rasmussen said. “It certainly implies there has been a tremendous vascular damage.” Dr. Hawley Wells Jr. thinks it may be a problem of “a pile of coal heaped on the small arteries of the lung.” He and Dr. William C. Lane, both Public Health officers, and Dr. Werner Laquer of the hospital here are pathologists. They study the slices of blackened lungs of dead coal miners. Dr. Lawrence S. Cohen, another Public Health officer, is a cardiologist. The entire coal study is directed by Dr. George H. L. Dillard of the Public Health Office in Cincinnati. Dr. Rasmussen is a civilian specialist in lung diseases, attached to the Public Health Service. Before the study began, he came to the hospital staff to follow pioneering work done by Dr. Albert D. Kistin, the hospital’s chief of medicine; Dr. Robert E. Hyatt, now at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Dr. Draper Warren of the Southern West Virginia Clinic here. 139 Mr. Stafford’s problem is typical of those the team here believes must be solved. If his condition worsens, he must quit work. He has a wife and young son to support, and his $100 a month United Mineworkers pension will not start until he is 55. The couple also have a daughter, 25, as well as two older sons who are not miners by Mr. Stafford’s choice. “I took them away from the coal fields,” he declared. “I got my back broken in 1944, so that kindly helped me a little to get them away.” Mr. O'Hara. I think your testimony, Dr. Rasmussen, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Boyce, and Mr. Farley, will be of use to us, especially in our study of so-called dusty trades disease. Without objection I would like to enter at this point in the record a list of a few of the diseases in the dusty trades, from antimony lung to wood worker’s lung, that have been identified in medical literature in the last 7 years. Thank you. (The information follows:) EXAMPLES OF DUSTY TRADES DISEASES IN MEDICAL LITERATURE SINCE 1961 Antimony Lung Asbestosis Bagassosis Baritosis Berrylium Pneumoconiosis Byssinosis Biscuit Placer’s Lung Blast Furnace Pneumoconiosis Brucite Lung. Caplan’s Syndrome Carbon Lung Cement Worker's Lung Charcoal Pneumoconiosis China-Clay Pneumoconiosis Chromium Lung Coal Worker's Emphysema Coal Worker's Pneumoconiosis Copper Dust Lung Corundum Lung (Shaver's Disease) Cosmetic Powder Pneumoconiosis Chronic Sulphur Poisoning Dusting Powder Lung Electroplater’s Lung Enamel Lung Ispartosis Farmer's Lung Fiber Glass Lung Flour-Mill Lung Fuller's Earth Lung Gas Worker's Disease Glass Wool Disease Graphite Lung Hematite Lung Hemp Disease Jute Dust Lung Limekiln Worker's Lung Liperotic Lung (Pumice Stone) Liphopone Pneumoconiosis Mason’s Lung (Pyroxene Andysite) Mixed Dust Pneumoconiosis Nepheline Lung Ochre Lung Pigeon Breeder's Lung Pine Pollen Pneumoconiosis Progressive Massive Fibrosis Pulmonary Aluminosis Saw Dust Pneumoconiosis Schmalkaldengrinder’s Lung ( Silicosis) Siderosis Smyridosis Spun Glass Lung Stannosis Suberosis (Cork Dust) Sulphur pyrite Lung Talco-silicosis Talicosis Titanium-dioxide Lung Vegetable Dust Lung Wood Worker's Lung Mr. O'Hara. Our next witness is Mr. Arthur P. Gildea, secretary- treasurer and director of safety of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America. Mr. Gildea, please be seated, it is nice to see you again. } You have submitted a statement for the record and, if you wish, you may read the statement in full, or you may summarize your state- ment, whatever you desire. 140 STATEMENT OF ARTHUR P. GILDEA, SECRETARY-TREASURER, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK & DISTILLERY WORK- ERS OF AMERICA Mr. Girpea. I will read the statement. I am Arthur P. Gildea of the International Union of United Brew- ery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am privileged to appear here today and to present generalized comment with respect to H.R. 14816 and urge favorable consideration to the enactment of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act. Nothing is more important to the well-being of our country than the safety and health of the millions of American workers. I do not pretend, under any circumstances, to represent myself as an expert on occupational safety and health standards. Any knowledge in this subject matter on my part has come from practical involve- ment in safety programs, conferences, and experience in working with union membership and management to promote safety. Providing a safe place of employment for working men and women in our country has been a goal of organized labor since the early days of formulation of unions. Organized labor’s efforts to promote industry safety in all phases of business, be it construction, farm, industrial, or service, have been geared to various endeavors. We have engaged in coordination with employers indicating a sincere interest in the safety of its employees by participating in programs to formulate voluntary standards for on-the-job safety. We have endeavored to interest State administrations and legisla- tures in a program to adopt safety codes to protect the wage earner from affliction of adversities resulting from hazardous occupational activity. We have urged State administrations to voluntarily accept the minimum Federal standards on safety as a basic formula on which to build a meaningful occupational safety and health program. Labor has continually called upon the Federal Government, through Congress and through respective executive departments, for aid and assistance in developing protection against occupational hazards. I was in attendance at the first President’s Conference on Occupa- tional Safety conducted in 1949, and have attended most of the suc- ceeding such annual conferences. The dialog of all representative groups attending these conferences was considered to be constructive, if the various statements of intent and principles formulated from conference findings were implemented on a State level. However, it is now almost 20 years since the first President’s Con- ference and approximately 4 years since the last conference was convened. The principles established at these conferences stressed State respon- sibility for the adoption of procedures for establishing safe working conditions, which principles, excepting in a minimum number of States, have not been implemented. This failure is substantial evidence 141 that Federal legislation on occupational safety and health is imperative. We cannot afford the luxury of allowing for this most important subject matter to be dealt with in any other way than in the most forthright manner. There are some statistics available which reflect the seriousness of the problems involving deaths and injuries resulting from occupational employment deficiencies. An examination of the available statistics do not, however, reflect the full impact of this critical situation involving occupational hazards. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has not been able to develop all inclusive statistics on occupational injuries and diseases because of the Department’s limited budget to develop this all important project. It is assumed that reported occupational accidents and diseases in- clude only adversities as may be reported because of lost time from employment being involved. A further study or investigation would unfold a substantial number of industrial accidents in which lost time is not suffered by a wage earner, in addition to the suffering from injury or disease. The economic loss to wage earners and industries is incomprehen- sible. There are figures depicting monetary loss to the economy of a worker, employer, and our country, but, here again, the statistics are not all-embracing. The human sufferings from injuries and diseases, resulting from occupational hazards, cannot be relieved through work- men’s compensatory benefits, most of which are inadequate in themselves. We cannot evaluate the loss of human lives of employees where death results from an occupational injury or disease. There is only one avenue of an approach to concentrating on the pre- dominant factors involved. The hazardous factors in employment must be eliminated. As stated before, labor in cooperation with industry does participate in management-labor safety programs, and limited success has been achieved in these joint efforts to curtail occupational hazards. However, there is always emanating from the joint management- labor safety programs a lacking of complete satisfaction by labor that the is substantially reduced, and a continuing protest from management that cost factors to improve working conditions of employment prohibit the adhering to recommendations of the labor members on such committees. Because I am charged with the responsibility of safety and health programs for our union, with a proud history of service to workers in industries under contract with us, I am deeply concerned over the inattention given to safety and health in various States. Many of our local unions are proud of their records of support for decent legislation in their home States, and enthusiastically re- port even minor improvements when they are enacted. But the list is endless of frustrating reports of bitter experiences in efforts of officers to have regulations enforced and policed. We do not have to be reminded of the many States where more money is spent to protect game and wildlife than the lives of human beings, for many of our members have been among the victims of neglect. 142 Our international union never stops reminding our local unions of the need for establishing machinery for management-labor safety committees through contract. We then urge the officers to see to it that the committees function and meet regularly. Our experience is that nothing kills a committee quicker than a period of good fortune. Let a plant go a few months without a serious accident and the inclination is to relax, usually too much. Technological progress has developed so rapidly in every phase of industry that the continuing hazards, plus new hazards of employ- ment, are not being given a compatible consideration. I do not intend that my remarks should be interpreted as impeach- ment against all employers, nor an utter disregard for the safety of its workers. However, the proportion of employers engaged in sincere coopera- tive management-labor safety efforts, in behalf of employees, is small in number when the total number of businesses operating in the country is taken into account. A sampling of various State programs present a very disturbing example of the minimum considerations to protect wage earners as against laws to protect fish and animals. While we are a community favoring fish and wildlife conservation, it would seem even more humane to demonstrate a concern for the conservation of human beings. 5 my own adopted State of Ohio, there are 109 inspectors to protect wildlife, but only 79 industrial safety inspectors to protect the working population of the State. Ohio is considered a highly industrial State. In numerous other States the budgetary allowances to enage industrial safety inspectors versus funds to provide for fish and game inspectors is even more disgracefully exemplified in that $100,000 to a few hundred thousand dollars are provided for em- ployment of safety inspectors, while the funds to provide employment of fish and game inspectors run up to $7.9 million in the State of Missouri. It is interesting to note that H.R. 14816 allows for States to respond to the serious problem of occupational safety and health under a Federal-State relationship. There should be no objection from any humane thinking State ad- ministration, or legislatures, and, in fact, opposition that would origi- nate from these sources should give impetus to a determination by Congress that success in curtailing employment hazards, eliminating work injuries and occupational diseases must depend on the Federal Government to ultimately and finally lead the way in a road to progress in this direction. The wage earners, working men and women of America, have long awaited, like a voice in the wilderness, to be heard in their plea for safe working conditions. Apparently, the wildlife voices have been heard, but the human voices have not. The Occupational Safety and Health Act does not originate from a new need, but actually this type of a long awaited bill will help alleviate a problem which has been of concern to wage earners for decades. How long must we go on, annually piling up this human wreckage, before Congress offers new direction? The labor movement has in- 143 sisted over the years that we must always turn to you in the end to do for us what we do not seem able to do for ourselves in the separate States. The 50 million workers in interstate commerce, who will derive direct benefit, and the 25 million workers in intrastate commerce who will derive indirect benefit from the passage of such a law, will be grateful to you for your attention in this vital matter. I look hopefully to an enlightened Congress to adopt a meaningful Occupational Safety and Health Act, oS I urge prompt and favor- able consideration to the enactment of T1.R. 14816. Mr. Chairman, the foregoing, in addition to much more testimony that will be presented to your committee, I trust, would more than justify favorable consideration of H.R. 14816, and enactment by the Congress of an Occupational Safety and Health Act to protect the wage earners of our country from killings and maimings within the business economy of our Nation. Mr. Chairman, we are hopefully looking for the enactment of the occupational safety and health bill. It will not be pioneering in the field of safety for the working men and women, for in Canada in December 1967 the Parliament assented to quite a similar bill as the bill before us here today. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from the foreword or preamble of the bulletin which carries the explanation of the law as well as a copy of the law. After reading these couple of paragraphs, I would like to leave this booklet here—this is entitled “Canada Labor Safety Code”— with the purpose in mind that additional copies are available and I think they would be helpful to the committee on this Safety and Health Act before you. In one sentence it says: An improvement in the safety environment in these Federal areas will prove to be a sound investment in good administrative and operating practices. It has been amply demonstrated in other jurisdictions that the control and reduc- tion of accidents at work can be achieved through sustained efforts to meet reasonable standards with adequate inspection and advisory services. We in- tend to strengthen these traditional tools of accident prevention and develop effective new ones atuned to the present-day requirements. This new code does not relieve any employer or agency from the obligations it has had in the past to combat injuries on the job. This is a law, Mr. Chairman, that was enacted by the Dominion of Canada and, like the congressional act, it provides for joint partici- pation of the Federal Government and the Provinces of Canada. Mr. O'Hara. Without objection the material referred to will be entered in the record. (The information appears in the appendix of the hearings.) : EE a Tere . oo r . Fae x B . rE : - = i = be = i “oki ¢ ® - . - a h - Be : A a®_ - 4 E : . . . : . oo . ; u ¥ - > » - . } . i 14-15 ELIZABETH II. CHAP. 62 An Act respecting the prevention of employment injury in federal works, undertakings and businesses. [Assented to 21st December, 1966.) ER Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Ll Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. 2. (a) (b) (© (d) (e) INTERPRETATION. In this Act, “employment injury” means personal injury, including disablement, caused by an industrial accident, occupational disease or employment hazard; “employer” means a person operating or carry- ing on a federal work, undertaking or business; “federal work, undertaking or business’ means a work, undertaking or business to which, in respect of employment thereupon or. in con- nection with the operation thereof, this Act applies; “Minister’’ means the Minister of Labour; and “safety officer” means a safety officer desig- nated pursuant to this Act and includes any regional safety officer. APPLICATION. (1) Subject to any other Act of the Parliament of Canada and any regulations thereunder, this Act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with Parr 1—35} 547 the 145 Short title. Definitions. *'Employ- ment injury.” *Employer." ‘Federal work, undertaking or business.” ‘‘ Minister.” “Safety officer.” Application of Act. 2 Government corporations. Exception. 146 Chap. 62. Canada Labour (Safety) Code. 14-15 EvL1z. II. the operation of any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada excluding any work, undertaking or business of a local or private nature in the Yukon Territory or Northwest Ter- ritories but including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, : (a) any work, undertaking or business operated or carried on for or in connection with navigation and shipping, whether inland or maritime, including the operation of ships and transporta- tion by ship anywhere in Canada; (b) any railway, canal, telegraph or other work or undertaking connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of a province; (c) any line of steam or other ships connecting a province with any other or others of the prov- inces, or extending beyond the limits of a province; (d) any ferry between any province and any other province or between any province and any country other than Canada; (e) any aerodrome, aircraft or line of air transporta- tion; (f) any radio broadcasting station; (9) any bank; (h) any work or undertaking that, although wholly situated within a province, is before or after its execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces; and (i) any work, undertaking or business outside the exclusive legislative authority of provincial legislatures. (2) Subject to any other Act of the Parliament of Canada and any regulations thereunder, this Act applies to and in respect of employment by a corporation established to perform any function or duty on behalf of the Govern- ment of Canada other than a corporation that is a depart- ment under the Financial Administration Act. (3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) and except as the Governor in Council may by order other- wise provide, nothing in this Act applies to or in respect of employment upon or in connection with the operation of ships, trains or aircraft. 548 EMPLOYMENT 147 1966. Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Chap. 62. EMPLOYMENT SAFETY. 4. (1) Every person operating or carrying on a federal work, undertaking or business shall do so in a manner that will not endanger the safety or health of any person employed thereupon or in connection therewith. (2) Every person operating or carrying on a federal work, undertaking or business shall adopt and carry out reasonable procedures and techniques designed or intended to prevent or reduce the risk of employment injury in the operation or carrying on of the federal work, under- taking or business. 5. Every person employed upon or in connection with the operation of any federal work, undertaking or business shall, in the course of his employment, (a) take all reasonable and necessary precautions to ensure his own safety and the safety of his fellow employees; and (b) at all appropriate times use such devices and wear such articles of clothing or equipment as are intended for his protection and furnished to him by his employer, or required pursuant to this Act to be used or worn by him. 6. (1) The fact that an employer or employee has complied with or failed to comply with any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations shall not be construed to affect any right of an 2mployee to compensation under any statute relating to compensation for employment injury, or to affect any liability or obligation of any employer or employee under any such statute. (2) Nothing in section 5 relieves an employer from any duty imposed upon him by section 4. REGULATIONS. 7. (1) Subject to any other Act of the Parliament of Canada and any regulations thereunder, the Governor in Council may make regulations for the safety and health of persons employed upon or in connection with the opera- tion of any federal work, undertaking or business and for the provision therefor of safety measures in the operation or use of plants, machinery, equipment, vehicles, materials, buildings, structures and premises used or to be used in connection with the operation of any federal work, under- taking or business and in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations (a) respecting the structural design and the main- tenance of any building or other structure; 549 (b) 92-734 O-68—11 Duty of employer. Safety procedures and techniques Duty of employee. Saving. Idem. Regulations. 4 Chap. 62. (b) (c) (d) (0) @ (9) (h) (@) () (k) ® (m) (n) (0) 148 Canada Labour (Safety) Code. 14-15 Eviz. II. respecting the use, operation and maintenance of (1) boilers and pressure vessels, (i1) escalators, clevators and other devices for moving passengers or freight, (iif) equipment for the generation, distribution or use of electricity, and (iv) gas or oil burning equipment or other heat generating equipment; respecting the ventilation, lighting and’ tem- perature of places of employment and pre- scribing the minimum amount of space for employees; respecting the provision and maintenance of potable water supplies and of sanitary and other facilities for the well-being of employees; respecting the guarding and fencing of machin- ery, equipment and places; respecting the handling, transportation, storage, use and disposal of substances or devices dan- gerous to the safety or health of employees; prescribing the standards for protective cloth- ing and equipment to be used by employees and the use of, and the responsibility for “providing, such clothing and equipment; prescribing the age, the health and physical requirements and the qualifications of persons who may be employed in particular occupa- tions; respecting the protection of employees from fire and explosion; prescribing mechanical standards for vehicles and equipment; respecting the furnishing of information to the Minister or a safety officer as to the location of the work, undertaking or business and the nature of the operations carried on or to be carried on therein, and the nature and amount of the materials used or to be used in the operations; respecting the reporting and investigation of accidents and dangerous occurrences; respecting the charges that may be made for any inspection and other services provided under this Act; respecting the adoption and implementation of appropriate safety codes; prescribing first-aid facilities and the provision of first-aid training and the services of first-aid attendants; 550 (p) 149 1966. Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Chap. 62. (p) governing the maintenance, production and inspection of records; and (g) generally for such other matters or things as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) Any regulation made pursuant to subsec- tion (1) may be made applicable generally to all federal works, undertakings or businesses, or particularly to one or more such works, undertakings or businesses or such classes thereof as may be specified in the regulations. ADMINISTRATION. Ss. The Minister may establish consultative and advisory committees on which employers and employees are represented to advise the Minister on any matters arising in relation to the administration of this Act, to assist in the establishment of reasonable standards of safety and to recommend regulations respecting safe employment prac- tices, procedures and techniques. 9. (1) The Minister may, for arty of the purposes of this Act, cause an inquiry to be made into and concerning occupational safety in any federal work, undertaking or business and may appoint one or more persons to hold the inquiry. (2) A person appointed pursuant to subsection (1) has and may exercise all of the powers of a person ap- pointed as a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act. 10. The Minister may designate any person as a safety officer under this Act and may designate regional safety officers for the purposes of this Act. 11. The Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into an agreement with any province or any provincial body specifying the terms and conditions under which a person employed by that province saf or provincial body may act as a safety officer for the purposes of this Act. 12. (1) The Minister may undertake research into the cause of and the means of preventing employment injury and may, where he deems it appropriate, undertake such research in cooperation with any department or agency of the Government of Canada or with any or all provinces or with any organization undertaking similar research. 551 (2) Regulation may be general or specific. Special committees. Inquiries. Powers on an inquiry. Safety officers. Agreements respecting use of provincial employees as ety officers. Research into accident prevention. 6 Publication of informa- tion. Employment safety programs. Duties of safety officers. Powers of safety officers. 150 Chap. 62. Canada Labour (Safety) Code. 14-15 Eu1z. II. (2) The Minister may publish the results of any research undertaken pursuant to this section and com- pile, prepare and disseminate data or information bearing upon safety or health of employees obtained from such research or otherwise. 13. The Minister may undertake programs to re- duce or prevent employment injury and may, where he deems it appropriate, undertake such programs in coopera- tion with any department or agency of the Government of Canada or with any or all provinces or any organization undertaking similar programs. SAFETY SERVICES. 14. (1) A safety officer shall (a) make such inspections and inquiries and carry out such tests as he deems necessary to assure himself that this Act and the regulations are being complied with; and (b) carry out such other duties as may be assigned to safety officers pursuant to this Act. (2) A safety officer may, in the performance of his duties, (a) inspect and examine all books and records relating in any way to conditions of work that affect the safety or health of any person em- ployed upon or in connection with the opera- tion of any federal work, undertaking or busi- ness; (b) take extracts from or make copies of any entry in the books and records mentioned in para- graph (a); (¢) require an employer to make or furnish full and correct statements, either orally or in writing in such form as may be required, respecting the conditions of work affecting the safety or health of all or any of his employees, and the materials and equipment used by them in their employment; (d) require any person employed upon or in con- nection with the operation of any federal work, undertaking or business to make full disclosure, production and delivery to him of all records or documents or copies thereof, or other informa- tion, orally or in writing, that he has in his possession or under his control and that in any way relate to the conditions of work affecting his safety or health, or that of his fellow workers, in his or their employment; and 552 (e) 151 1966. Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Chap. 62. (e) take or remove for purposes of analysis samples of materials and substances used or handled by employees, subject to the employer or his representative being notified of any samples or substances taken or removed for such purpose. (3) For the purposes of this Act, a safety officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any property, place or thing used in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business and may inspect the same and may, for such purposes, question any employee apart from his employer. (4) The safety officer shall be furnished by the Minister with a certificate of his authority and on entering any place used in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business shall, if so required, produce the certificate to the person in charge thereof. (5) The person in charge of any federal work, undertaking or business and every person employed there- upon or in connection therewith shall give a safety officer all reasonable assistance in his power to enable the safety officer to carry out his duties pursuant to this Act. 15. (1) No person shall obstruct -or hinder a safety officer engaged in carrying out his duties pursuant to this Act. (2) No person shall make a false or misleading statement either orally or in writing to a safety officer engaged in carrying out his duties pursuant to this Act. 16. (1) No safety officer shall be required to give testimony in any civil suit with regard to information obtained by him in the discharge of his duties pursuant to this Act except with the written permission of the Minister. (2) No safety officer who is admitted into any place in pursuance of the powers conferred by section 14 shall disclose to any person any information obtained by him therein with regard to any process or trade secret except for the purposes of this Act or as required by law. (3) No person, except for the purposes of this Act or for the purposes of a prosecution under this Act, shall publish or disclose the results of any particular analysis, examination, testing, inquiry or sampling made or taken by or at the request of a safety officer pursuant to section 14. (4) No person to whom information obtained pursuant to section 14 is communicated in confidence (a) shall divulge the name of the informant to any person except for the purposes of this Act; or (b) is competent or compellable to divulge the name of the informant before any court or other tribunal. "3 553 (5) Right to enter premises. Certificate of authority. Duty to assist safety officer. ‘Obstruction of safety officer. False statement. Safety officer's evidence in civil suits. Information confidential. Information not to be published. Confidential communica- tions. 152 8 Chap. 62. Canada Labour (Safety) Code. 14-15 Evuiz. II. Safety officer not liable. Imminent danger. Posting notice of danger. Cessation of use. Reference to magistrate. (5) No safety officer is personally liable for anything done by him in good faith under the authority or purported authority of this Act or the regulations. SPECIAL SAFETY MEASURES. 17. (1) Where a safety officer considers that any place, matter or thing, or any part or parts thereof, in a federal work, undertaking or business constitutes a source of imminent danger to the safety or health of persons em- ployed therein or in connection with the operation thereof and that the use of the place, matter or thing is thereby contrary to this Act and the regulations, (a) the safety officer shall notify the employer, or person in charge of the operation in which the place, matter or thing is used, of the danger and give directions in writing to the employer or person in charge directing him immediately or within such period of time as the safety officer specifies (i) to take measures for guarding the source of danger, or (ii) to protect any person from the danger; and (b) the safety officer may, if he considers that the imminent danger cannot otherwise be guarded or protected against immediately, direct that the place, matter or thing shall not be used until his directions are complied with but nothing in this paragraph prevents the doing of any work or thing necessary for the proper compliance with the direction. (2) Where a safety officer gives a direction under this section, he shall affix to or near the place, matter or thing, or any part thereof, a notice in the form prescribed by the Minister, and no person shall remove the notice unless authorized by a safety officer or by a magistrate under section 18. (3) Where a safety officer gives a direction under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) in respect of any place, matter or thing, the employer or person in charge thereof shall discontinue the use of the place, matter or thing and no person shall use such place, matter or thing until the measures directed by the safety officer have been taken. 18. (1) The person operating or carrying on the federal work, undertaking or business in respect of which a direction is given by a safety officer under section 17 con- cerning the use of a place, matter or thing therein, or the person in charge of the place, matter or thing, may, by notice 554 in 153 1966. Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Chap. 62. in writing, require the safety officer to refer his direction to a magistrate for review, and thereupon the safety officer shall refer the direction to a magistrate having jurisdiction in the area in which the place, matter or thing is located. (2) The magistrate to whom the direction of a safety officer is referred shall inquire into the circumstances of the direction and the need therefor and for that purpose may exercise all the powers of a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act; and he may vary, rescind or confirm the direction and: his decision thereon is final and con- clusive. (3) A reference under this section does not operate as a stay cf any direction by a safety officer, given under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 17, not to use a place, matter or thing. 19. (1) In the course of carrying out an inspection, a safety officer may give directions orally or in writing for the carrying out of any thing regulated, controlled or re- quired by the regulations and may require that his direc- tions be carried cut within such time as he specifies. (2) At the request of the person to whom a direction under subsection (1) is given, the safety officer shall put any oral direction to such person in writing and the employer or the person charged with the carrying out of the direction may appeal therefrom to the regional safety officer for the region in which the thing in respect of which the direction was given is situated by forthwith giving notice orally or in writing to such regional safety officer. (3) The regional safety officer shall vary, rescind or confirm the direction appealed from after giving the employer, or his representative, an opportunity to be heard. (4) An oral notice of appeal for the purposes of this section shall be confirmed in writing within twenty- four hours after such notice is given. ENFORCEMENT. 20. (1) An employer or any person in charge of the operation of any federal work, undertaking or business who (a) contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations, (b) fails or neglects to comply with a direction made by a safety officer, or 555 (c) Inquiry. Reference no stay. Directions arising out 9 of inspection. Appeal to regional safety officer. Result of appeal. Oral notice Offences. 10 Penalty. Offences. Offences by employees. Minister's consent required. Other offences. Iividence of direction. Time limit. 154 Chap. 62. Canada Labour (Safety) Code. 14-15 Enz. IT. (c) discharges or threatens to discharge or other- wise discriminates against a person because that person (i) has testified or is about to testify in any proceeding or inquiry had or taken under this Act, or (ii) has given any information to the Minister or a safety officer regarding the conditions of work affecting the safety or health of that person or any of his fellow employees, is guilty of an offence. (2) An employer who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment. (3) A person in charge of the operation of any federal work, undertaking or business who, not being the cmployer, is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is punishable on summary conviction. 21. (1) A person employed upon or in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or busi- ness who contravenes any provision of section 5 or any regulation prohibiting, regulating or controlling conduct on the part of employees is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) No proceeding in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except with the consent of the Minister. 22, A person who contravenes any provision of this Act for the contravention of which no other punish- ment is hereinbefore provided is guilty of an offence punish- able on summary conviction. 23. In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, a copy of a direction purporting to have been made under this Act or the regulations and purporting to have been signed by the person authorized by this Act or the regula- tions to make the direction is prima facie proof of the direction without proof of the signature or authority of the person by whom it purports to be signed. 24. Proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act may be instituted at any time within onc year after the time when the subject matter of the proceedings arose. 556 25. 155 1966. Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Chap. 62. i1 25. A complaint or information in respect of an Trial of offence under this Act may be heard, tried and determined °fferces: by a magistrate or justice if the accused is resident or carrying on business within his territorial jurisdiction, although the matter of the complaint or information did not arise in that territorial jurisdiction. 26. In any proceedings in respect of offences under Information. this Act, an information may include more than one offence committed by the same person and all such offences may be tried concurrently and one conviction for any or all such offences may be made. De Where an employer is guilty of an offence under Offence by this Act, every employee thereof responsible for such breach Tespinsible is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceed- ing one month or to both such fine and imprisonment. 28. (1) The Minister may apply or cause an appli- Injunction cation to be made to a judge of a superior eourt for an order Proceedioes: enjoining any person from continuing any act or default for which such person was convicted of an offence under this Act. (2) The judge in his discretion may make the Injunction. order applied for under subsection (1), and the order may be entered and enforced in the same manner as any other order or judgment of the superior court. I'URNISHING OF INFORMATION. 29, (1) Where pursuant to this Act a person is Notice to required to furnish information, the Minister may require [mish . the information to be furnished by a notice to that effect served personally or sent by registered mail addressed to the last known address of the person for whom the notice is intended, and such person shall furnish the information within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice. (2) A certificate purporting to be signed by the proof of Minister or a person authorized by him Sails (a) certifying that a notice was sent by registered information. mail to the person to whom it was addressed, accompanied by an identified post office certifi- cate of the registration and a true copy of the notice, and (b) certifying that the information has not been furnished as requested in the notice sent by the Minister 857 is 156 2 Chap. 62. (‘anada Labour (Safety) Code. 14-15 Evriz. II. Statute Revision Commission to consolidate Labour Statutes. Coming into force. is prima facie proof of the facts set out therein without proof of the signature or official character of the person by whom the certificate purports to be signed. GENERAL. 30. The Statute Revision Commission established under An Act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada shall, in consolidating and revising the public general statutes pursuant to that Act, assemble and consolidate as one Act under the short title of the “Canada Labour Code’ this Act and the following Acts: (a) Canada Labour (Standards) Code; (b) Female Employees Equal Pay Act; (¢) Canada Fair Employment Practices Act; and (d) Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act; and the Statute Revision Commission may without altering the substance thereof make such alterations in their form and language as are necessary for the purposes of this section. 31. This Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council. ROGER DUHAMEL, F.R.8.C. QUEEN'S PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1966 558 157 I made reference to the State of Ohio having more game wardens than they do industrial accident inspectors. Mr. O'Hara. Your figures are 109 inspectors to protect wildlife and 79 industrial safety inspectors; is that right? Mr. Gora. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest it appears im- perative that the State of Ohio should do a about reversing this trend. Mr. O’Hara. Do you think we should encourage the State of Ohio to have more industrial inspectors or fewer game inspectors? Mr. Giroea. We are a community believing in the conservation of wildlife; but I think we have to have more inspectors for safety. The record indicates in 1965 there were 228 dust deaths in Ohio. In 1967 there was a total of 367,744 industrial claims filed and by the end of the year there were 321,334 of these claims adjudicated. By the way of passing, I think 1t probably would be important to your committee, 1 rs | like to relate that in Ohio, having a State fund of workmen’s compensation, the procedure is to file a claim. The administrator on the industrial commission can deny this claim. It is then referred to a review board pursuant to request of the claimant. The review board will then conduct a hearing within a few months. The review board can make a determination and any testimony the administrator felt was absent in the original claim can be presented at this review board. The decision of the review board can be appealed by the admini- strator if it is favorable and, of course, if it is unfavorable it can be appealed by the claimant, then it becomes necessary, even though ou may get a favorable decision from the review board, to go before the Industrial Commission of the State of Ohio. I mention this because in the records of Ohio their records on in- dustrial accidents are not reported as such unless they are cleared, there is compensation or in some way they are recognized by the Industrial Commission of Ohio. I speak with authority on this subject matter from personal experience, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. Gildea. I understand your interest in the safety of workers extends beyond your duties with the International Union. Are you associated in some way with the National Safety Council ¢ Mr. Giupea. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I have been a member of the labor conference of the National Safety Council. The labor confer- ence of the National Safety Council was formed some years back and endorsed by the AFL-CIO and endorsed in conference. There are approximately 600 unions who are members of the National Safety Council. In the course of my rendering services as safety director I have associated myself with safety directors and safety representatives of many of our AFL-CIO unions in addition to the safety people from the miners and safety people from the transportation employees association. I have served in various capacities in this labor conference and at the present time I am vice president for labor of the National Safety Council. In that capacity I act as a liaison man between the executive 158 committee of the National Safety Council and the labor conference within the National Safety Council. Mr. O’Hagra. I gather you are not speaking for the National Safety Council today ? Mr. Gora. No, sir; Governor Pyle, who I would assume may be appearing before the committee, i be the official spokesman for the National Safety Council. Mr. Haraaway. Could you tell me to what extent you have tried to establish safety standards through collective bargaining? You indi- cate that voluntary systems have not been very successful and I wonder why the unions have not, pressed for safety standards in negotiation. Mr. Gitpea. There has been continual objection by management in negotiations that negotiation in collective bargaining should not be required to deal with the safety clauses. Many unions have been un- able to get, although they have recommended various safety clauses to be incorporated in the contract, they have not been successful in being able to negotiate these and get the agreement of management. Mr. Haruaway. This is because of what—cost.? Mr. Gipea. It is not so much the cost, I don’t believe that is pre- sented as an argument but management does not believe the union should have the right to negotiate safety clauses in the contract. Mr. Haraaway. Are you speaking just for your industry or through- out the industry ? Mr. Garpea. I would say basically all industries. Mr. Haraaway. You know of no basic reason ? Mr. Girpea. No; because in collective bargaining the cost factor was not brought up with respect to proposed provisions for safety as the cost factor would be brought up for various other proposed fringe benefits. They do not relate the cost to the proposal on safety as they relate the cost against the other fringe benefits. Mr. Hataaway. They simply say this is not a matter for bargaining ? Mr. GiLpra. Yes, sir. Mr. Haraaway. You have set up safety councils? Mr. Gpea. We have set up management-labor safety committees. I'would say those areas where we have committees are small in number in comparison to the number of firms operating with whom we have collective bargaining agreements. Mr. Haraaway. Would you say the unions have pressed strongly to get safety clauses in the bargaining agreements ? Mr. Giuoea. Yes, various records in the history of labor indicate strongly this has been a prime goal, getting safe working conditions in employment for its membership. Mr. Haraaway. Thank you. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Ford ? Mr. Forp. Aren't there some unions such as the autoworkers and steelworkers who have successfully pressed for consideration of types of shifts, hours, such things that relate to the ability of a person to react to his environment, and, therefore, contribute to safety ? Mr. Gipea. I could not speak with authority on that. Mr. Foro. Would you say it is a fair guess that in many areas the resistance to considering this a proper subject for negotiations between 159 the collective bargaining unit and the employer are traditional atti- tudes Ws respect to the relative roles of these two sides to the bargain- ng table? r. Gitpea. I think, Mr. Congressman, that it would depend on the economic influence of the particular labor organization. As was men- tioned here today, the autoworkers and steelworkers do have a recog- nized economic 1nfluence in the collective bargaining procedures but they represent just a segment of the working people, the men and women of America. There are so many other trade unions that do not have the same economic influence as the autoworkers and steelworkers. This is the real reason why we have to come to the Congress for help, as we mentioned before. Mr. O'Hara. If the gentleman will yield, I think under the National Labor Relations Act that the subjects set forth as being subject to col- lective bargaining are wages, hours, and conditions of work. I would think that if an employer just flatly refused to bargain on working conditions he would be guilty of £5: Aly to bargain in good faith. Mr. Foro. I don’t think they do in some particular places. After the initial agreement in the auto industry this past year we looked at the package of things to be settled at local level and found a large number that might be classified as conditions of safety or healthful working conditions, and so on. I take it from what you are saying that, on the whole, collective bargaining has not been an effective tool in securing what you would consider to be adequate safety features? Mr. Gioea. I think the word “adequate” is a fair definition. Mr. Foro. You have used Ohio as an example a number of times. Do you have a basis for an opinion as to the relationship between the workmen’s compensation rating, the so-called custom of the so-called good unions and the amount of effort put into State enforcement of safety standards? Mr. Giuoea. Nothing I could mention with authority. Mr. Foro. Your State of Ohio is certainly not one of the best work- men’s compensation States in this country. It has some aspects that are superior to the Michigan system, they don’t waste as much time on some of the medical niceties 1n accident cases as we do in Michigan. Have you studied the relationship of exchanges in your own State, in the flow of compensation claims? Let me give an example, when a decision is made that leads to a series of successful claims for work- men’s compensation, is this followed by any identifiable change in conditions surrounding that ? Mr. Gora. I would assume—then again I do not speak with exact authority—that, depending upon the type of the accident, an inspector may go in. They do not go in on every accident, I know. Mr. Forp. You have a distinction with respect to accidents hap- pening in employment and an illness not identifiable such as a blow to boty I am talking about a situation where a particular industrial practice leads to a recurrence of the same trouble. In Michigan a number of years ago we discovered the manner of handling boiler parts was lead.- 160 ing to an inordinate number of ruptures, and a study, promoted by in- surance companies, led to a different way of doing things and it cut down the economic loss if not human loss. I am searching for the instinctive reaction of some spokesmen of industry to this type of legislation. I join Mr. O'Hara in wondering if they would not welcome a reduction in economic loss as well as loss of trained employees who have to be replaced. I don’t quite understand whether what we are bucking is tradi- tional attitudes or attitudes that can be borne out by an assumption that it is cheaper on the whole to figure the percentages against the cost and forget the human equation or whether in fact there is a seg- ment of industry that recognizes both the human values and economic values and is not being represented by those people speaking out against this legislation ? Mr. Gripes. Mr. Chairman. With respect to the workmen’s com- pensation program, you mention the State of Ohio. I believe it was just approximately 2 years ago when they had legislation changing the provisions of workmen’s compensation, which in maiy instances mate- rially was a setback from a type of progressive workmen’s compensa- tion which we formerly had and i organized labor was endeav- oring to improve upon. Instead of getting improvement we lost ground in the revisions made a couple of years ago on workmen’s compensation in Ohio. As I indicated, nobody gets workmen’s compensation in Ohio unless a orted work injury is approved by the Industrial Commission of io. Mr. Forno. What about the noncompensable in terms of workmen’s compensation or insurance—expense connected with industrial acci- dents or illneses? Do we have anything available that you know of that would tell us the public cost of this kind of illness occasioned by an accident or some other less traumatic illness? There are people ending up on relief or in public hospitals as a result of industrially connected illnessus or accidents. Has anybody made a study of this? Mr. Girpea. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Foro. This goes back to the question I asked Dr. Rasmussen a little while ago. It appears that someone larger than a unit in the State will have to go in and make that study because of the fact that a worker may move from a coal mining area with an illness started while he was a coal miner, and once he arrives in an industrial center such as Chicago or South Bend, he becomes a public charge, either through medical treatment, welfare or a combination of those things, to the other community. That would not identify them with the industrial accidents happen- ing in that State. Mr. Gipea. I am sure such information would be very valuable to your committee and would be very revealing. I would suspect there 1s a substantial amount involved here, that a person may receive an injury in employment in Ohio and the injury or disease be of such a nature that he might want to go to some other area of the country because the climate of Ohio would contribute to the worsening of an injury or disease and getting into another community in the country he may have to rely upon welfare or something for subsistence. 161 Mr. For. I don’t think we have many studies of this kind and I am hopeful without legislation, that this is one of the things the Secretary would address himself to and tell us of the national impact and expense involved in this. Perhaps some of the traditional resistance would dissolve if people realized what it is costing them as part of their tax bill. Mr. Goora. I believe, Mr. Congressman, that the part of the bill which provides for research to be done in cooperation with the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Labor will be very helpful in obtaining this material because it is an environ- mental health condition. The Department of Labor may not have it but they would have a file on industrial accidents as we know them. I am sure between the two departments we should be able to come up with this type of infor- mation under the bill as set up. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, sir. Our next witness will be Dr. Clyde M. Berry, who is appearing on behalf of the American Industrial Hygene Association. Dr. Berry, would you please give us the benefit of your experience as we consider the bill before us? STATEMENT OF CLYDE M. BERRY, PH. D., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION Dr. Berry. Thank you, I would like to identify myself as speak- ing today for the American Industrial Hygiene Association as its current president. For background I could also indicate I have had 25 years’ experi- ence in the field in three areas in the Public Health Service, in industry, and now in education. It occurs to me I can be most useful to the committee by abbreviat- ing my formal testimony—I am sure you will be grateful for that. Mr. O'Hara. Without objection, we will enter your complete state- ment in the record at this point. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF CLYDE M. BERRY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Clyde M. Berry, Ph.D. Professor, College of Medicine, University of Iowa. I am the president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. I welcome this opportunity to offer comments on behalf of the American Industrial Hygiene Association on the Bill H.R. 14816, concerned with providing a comprehensive national occupational health and safety program. OBJECTIVE OF AIHA The American Industrial Hygiene Association (ATHA), a professional society organized in 1939, has as one of its objectives the promotion of the study and control of environmental factors affecting the health of workers. Its over 1,600 members are trained to recognize, evaluate, and control health hazards in the occupational environment, particularly the chemical, biological and physical agents which can induce injurious effects in man and the work associated factors and stresses which may cause impaired health and well being or sienificant discomfort and inefficiency. Our members include chemists, physicists, engineers, toxicologists and physi- cians. Many are on staffs of large corporations. They constantly combat the health hazards of the working environment of plants of these companies. Some 162 members devote most or all their time to basic research on the effects of various chemicals and physical agents and methods of controlling them whether they work for universities, governmental agencies, industry, private research orga- nizations or other groups. Industrial hygiene services to small plants as well as large companies are supplied by members employed by insurance companies, consulting agencies or public health agencies. ACTIVITIES OF AIHA The Association disseminates information on occupational health hazards through its various publications. The American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, published bi-monthly, is the major vehicle for the exchange of technical data in the industrial hygiene field. Through our technical committees, we re- lease annually a variety of technical publications discussing hazards and methods of control of the occupational environment. The continuing Hygienic Guide Series presents authoritative information on the health hazards of specific chemicals. We have prepared 166 such guides. Its other publications—the Industrial Noise Manual, Respiratory Protective Devices Manual, and Air Pollution Manuals, have been established as valuable reference works for combating difficult health prob- lems. We have sponsored monographs discussing in detail such subjects as pulmonary deposition and retention of inhaled aerosols, beryllium and thorium. In preparation are monographs on particulate size measurement, uranium, radio- iodine and plutonium. The American Industrial Hygiene Association in cooperation with the Ameri- can Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists sponsors the annual American Industrial Hygiene Conference which is the largest major assembly for the presentation ard exchange of industrial hygiene information. Our thirty local sections further the work of the parent organization in every geographical area of the United States. The Association hag correlated the industrial hygiene activities of diverse groups and agencies and has brought together the talents and knowledge of those sharing common interests in occupational health hazards. Our members represent the Association on inter-society committees in the preparation of guides and on committees of organizations concerned with voluntary codes and stand- ards. The Association has sponsored the preparation of a number of such guides and voluntary standards. GOAL OF AIHA In the performance of our objective, our goal is to include industrial hygiene as an essential component of all occupational health programs. The primary concern of industrial hygiene is with the prevention of occupational disease and, more specifically, with the recognition of environmental factors and stresses which influence health, evaluation of the magnitude of the environmental factors and stresses to predict probable effect on health, and the application of preventive measures to protect the workers’ health in the occupational environment. To carry out, these responsibilities, industrial hygiene personnel must acquire knowl- edge and competence through special studies and training. We have always supported the research work conducted by the highly-skilled personnel of the Occupational Health Program of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. We have promoted the industrial hygiene activities of the state and local agencies conducted by qualified industrial hygiene personnel. The Association has been distressed with activities of agencies operating under poorly formulated health legislation and without adequately trained personnel. It must be emphasized that only qualified industrial hygiene personnel can be relied on to determine by quantitative techniques whether or not the environ- ment is safe. Through its programs, the Association has focused its activities to improve competency and to stimulate action in the field of occupational health. COMMENTS OF ATHA ON H.R. 14816 The American Industrial Hygiene Association applauds the interest of the federal government in occupational health and safety. We wholeheartedly sup- port the overall stated objective of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968—“to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women.” However, we cannot concur in or give support to certain of the provi- sions of the proposed legislation. 163 Research The Association supports the authorization given in the bill to the Sec- retary of Health, Education and Welfare for expansion of research activities in occupational health. There is a need for research to provide data for the devel- opment of criteria (guides) for a safe and healthful working environment. Such criteria define the extent and type of exposure to chemicals (such as lead fume, benzene vapor, carbon monoxide gas), biologicals (such as fungi and bac- terial organisms), and physical agents (such as radiation, noise, heat, x-rays) in the occupational environment and the work associated stresses (such as repetitive motion, work pressure, fatigue) which are capable of causing illness. Only by quantitative measurement through air sampling and/or analysis by chemical or physical means can the factors and stresses be properly evaluated to determine whether a specific occupational environment is safe for short periods or for a life-time of exposure. Research is also needed to develop im- proved methods for controlling environmental health hazards. Examples of con- trol measures are ventilation and air cleaning to provide an atmosphere safe for human occupancy and reduction of exposure to radiant energy by shielding, increasing distance and limiting time. Epidemiologic (prevalence or retrospec- tive) studies are necessary to determine the probability of a causal relationship between occupation and illness. Criteria (Guides) Data developed through animal research, actual human exposure in the work- place and epidemiologic studies must be interpreted into criteria (guides) for the maintenance of health and efficiency. We believe the responsibility for the adoption of criteria relating to environmental factors and stresses should be given to a national advisory committee, chartered by Congress, and sponsored by representatives of scientific organizations and professional associations hav- ing a recognized interest in the effect of potentially hazardous. physical and chemical environmental agents on man. Recently, James H. Sterner, M.D., a member and past-president of the Ameri- can Industrial Hygiene Association, advanced a proposal for a National Council on Hazardous Physical and Chemical Agents, patterned along the lines of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. The Council would be financed by the sponsoring organizations, industry, foundations, and grants from governmental agencies. Representation on the Council would be from industry, government, labor, universities and professional groups. Criteria adopted by the Council would not require endorsement by the sponsoring organi- zations or agencies financing the Council. Such criteria would represent the best composite objective judgment of the scientific and professional community. Data for criteria developed by the research activities of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare would be of immense value to the Council when added to the data from industry, private research organizations, universities and others. The objective approach which would be provided by the National Council on Hazardous Physical and Chemical Agents which we support is necessary to the adoption of health criteria. Impractical, unreasonable and unwarranted criteria which can adversely affect industry can create unnecessary problems in labor relations and stimulate unjustifiable claims in workmen's compensation cases. To meet the objectives of this legislation industry should not be forced to install control equipment or change its processes if these will have no bearing on the health of its employees. The objectives of this bill will not be served unless criteria are judiciously developed. Standards The American Industrial Hygiene Association feels if standards are to be developed, they should be developed by those who are governed as well as those who govern. Law making and law enforcement should not be placed in the same agency. Grants to States The American Industrial Hygiene Association supports the section authorizing grants to states to upgrade and expand their occupational health programs. State and local programs vary in scope. depending upon size of staff and adminis- tration. Most are under-staffed and unable to cope with the complex problems of 92-784 0—68——12 164 the work environment and with the increasing labor force. Eight states do not have any occupational health programs. Of the 42 states which have an occupa- tional health program in three (Illinois, Masschusetts, and New York) the pro- gram functions in the state labor agency ; in two states (California and Oregon) and Puerto Rico, the program functions in the state labor and health agencies ; one state (Ohio) has programs in the health agency and in the state industrial commission; in one state (Washington) the program functions in the labor agency and the state university, and in 35 states, the program functions only in the state health agency. There are 33 occupational health units in local health agencies. Every attempt should be made to revitalize and improve state and local occu- pational health programs and to establish programs in the presently inactive state agencies. Only through adequate state and local programs can industrial hygiene services be given to the 80 per cent of American workers employed in small plants, agriculture, or small businesses where little or no occupational health services are provided. Educational Programs The American Industrial Hygiene Association supports the section author- izing the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to conduct educational programs. There is a shortage of personnel capable of evaluating the work en- vironment. Our Association has a membership of only 1,600. The American Conference of Governmental Industriat Hygienists has a membership of less than half this number, many of whom are also members of the American Indus- trial Hygiene Association. Only 590 are certified by the American Board of Indus- trial Hygiene, an independent organization sponsored initially by the American In- dustrial Hygiene Association and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists to delineate those who have gained competence and pro- fessional status in the field. There is a need for advanced training, leading toward certification. Grants, fellowships, and support of university training pro- grams will increase the number of professionals in occupational health. There is a need to recruit professional personnel who can be given on-the-job training or graduate courses to increase the manpower pool. Grants should include pro- grams in state and local agencies to provide in-service training of occupational health specialists and technicians. Summary The Association urges the establishment of a national advisory council for the adoption of criteria relating to factors and stresses in the work environ- ment. We support the assignment of responsibility for research and training in occupational health to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. We sup- port a grant program to strenthen state and local occupational health programs. We strongly urge the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to assist states in directing the evaluation of control mechanisms and measures intended to protect the workers’ health. Such evaluations should be carried out primarily by state agencies having personnel with industrial hygiene competence. We believe that a strengthened effort of cooperation of the federal government with state and local agencies, industry, labor, universities and professionals is needed to provide a dynamic national program of occupational health and safety to reduce accidents in the work-place and prevent occupational disease arising out of the work environment. On behalf of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, I wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you to express our views. I shall gladly try to answer any questions the Committee may have. Dr. Berry. There are several points I think might be amplified, might be explained, and then I can make myself available to you for questioning. There is on page 7 a reference to a National Council on Hazardous Physical and lk Agents which our profession feels might be offered as a better way of achieving criteria, not standards upon which control measures can be based. Adding to that verbiage in the text, I would indicate that those members who are suggested as coming to industry from government 165 should have membership on that council as individuals only and should not represent their organizations. } This will make for freedom of speech, candidness, exchange of in- formation, and could bring into a central location a fund of knowledge which now might be given grudgingly in many areas. I think emphasis can be made on the desirability of having the criteria ed by this council used as guidelines as these are recommended for consideration. A second point I would like to emphasize is the long, arduous, and technical aspect of education to prepare for that competition which we expect in industrial hygiene to achieve professional recognition. This leads to an intangible which we refer to as professional judg- ment. It is impossible with whatever armamentarium one might have with facts to apply these, that is without some professional exper- tise that is based upon knowledge, experience, and ability to recog- nize gaps and adjust accordingly. I would also indicate that 14 educational aspect to which I have just alluded as relating to the industrial hygiene profession and prep- aration, we also see a need for a bit of education for those people with whom we work. This would be the engineers who design, those people who operate, those people who maintain the equipment, this would be an education of the principles of industrial hygiene for those people who make management decision. I would indicate since I am in an academic atmosphere, this is an effort we make to get to the graduates and undergraduates in engineering classes, those people who will make decisions that will ap- pear subsequently in industry. This will be a distinct effort in the exercise of our profession. With those additional comments, sir, I would make myself avail- able to you for any additional questioning that you would like. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you very much, Dr. Berry. The bill suggests the creation of advisory committees but IT would gather that you would feel that legislation would be strengthened if instead of simply providing authority for the Secretary to use expert consultants and the like, as he deems necessary, you would feel it would be strengthened if we, in so many words, provided for the establishments of a National Advisory Council ? Dr. Berry. For the determination of those criteria, which I prefer to use as a term rather than standards. I realize they are used inter- changeably by many people in many areas but these would be guide- lines, these would be threshold limit values which are common y ac- cepted and are promulgated by the conference of industrial hygienists and widely accepted as the best data currently available as additional dots are currently being added; much more needs to be, I might add. Mr. O'Hara. When you speak of criteria, or guidelines, do you mean to suggest that unlike the standards provided for in the bill, their observance shall not be required? Did you mean to make that distinction ? Dr. Berry. I think the distinction I would make would refer to a material which is encountered in industry which would need to be appraised from the standpoint of the length of exposure, the way in 166 which it encounters the body, whether it is breathed, whether it is taken in through the mouth, whether absorbed through skin, I think it would relate to the frequency of exposure, I think it would relate to the intervals between exposure where the body has a recovery time, i} fain it would relate to sex, to age, I think it would relate to many things. As a hard and fast figure as applied across the board might not be the most advisable approach to make. Guidelines, yes, they might be referred to as standards, but fixed, hard guidelines which would be enforced with a small increment level, that is one point at which you are legal, above that you would be illegal, I think this would not be the appropriate way to go. Mr. O’Hara. How would you conceive then of the enforcement of any standards, or do you envisage any enforcement of standards in this area? Dr. Berry. I think that the system currently in use of threshold limit values as applied by knowledgeable individuals with due recog- nition of the circumstances under which the exposure is found is probably not only the most sensible approach but probably the most economical approach. It does make provision for variations which would not exist if there were hard and fast levels. Mr. O'Hara. All right, but as I understand your testimony on that point, you are saying with respect to exposure to certain kinds of dust or with exposure to certain chemicals, depending upon the type of exposure, the age of the individual, the equency of exposure, the duration of employment and so forth, you would suggest we might have variables in there rather than simply attempt to set a mini- mum or particular standard that would be applicable to the use of the dust level in industry, or the use of a particular chemical in in- dustry, period, without reference to the frequency or type of exposure. You are saying you want us to wind up with some sort of flexible criteria that takes into account the variations, the type of exposure, the frequency and so on. You don’t mean those flexible standards should not be enforced ? Dr. Berry. No, I think there can be some provision made. A reference was made earlier to exposures in coal mines. My fami- liarity with coal mines is not extensive but I have had a fair amount of underground experience in the mines of western Virginia, and I would expect to find different amounts and different kinds of dust, it Fou depend upon the type of slate, or coal, the way the blasting is done. There is research data already made, that is this is already done. The dust which causes illness should not contain more than a certain amount of dust in relation to silica content, rather than a fixed figure of a certain amount of dust with no reference to silicosis or no other reference involved. Mr. O’Hara. To get back to my original point, if such standards could be developed, you have no objection to their strict enforcement ? Dr. Berry. No, sir. Mr. O'Hara. You stated that the members of this national advisory council should be drawn from industrial hygienists, from industry, from labor, from a number of segments of our society that have a legitimate concern in this question but then you go on to suggest in your oral presentation that they should not be members of this group 167 as representatives of their respective employers, or what-have-you, but as individuals. I ask if you really feel that 1s realistic? In other words, I am a Member of Congress and I represent only the people of m district, however, I from time to time am made aware of the fact am a Democrat and I am this, that or the other—that I am a lawyer, for example. I suppose if I were at the same time employed by someone I would from time to time become aware of that factor. Is it realistic to expect that such a committee could be assembled and all the members thereof would feel perfectly free to disregard their everyday associations in deliberations? Dr. Berry. I don’t think it would be completely possible but an effort could be made in that direction as I have been subjected to coer- cive pressures as you have indicated within the tenure of my office as president of the Industrial Hygienic Association. I have had occasion to comment on several occasions to appointees that they are representing the association and not their employers. I think if this were clearly understood this might be reasonably well effective. As T agreed, it could not be universally applied. Mr. O'Hara. In putting together such a committee we tried to estab- lish a balance that would give us a sound assurance that no one seg- ment of our society would be overrepresented or dominated in this advisory committee. Dr. Berry. The council to which I refer is a technical council that would be drawn from various areas of employment, that would be industry and government and they would bring to that council their technical expertise and divorce themselves as much as possible from the influence their employment might imply. Mr. Foro. Do I understand the distinction you are drawing is that there should be a representative of management, a representative of labor, a representative of government, a representative of some other interested group as distinguished from a general admonition that in putting together a group they should be as widely experienced and identified with the viewpoints of all of the groups Toi an interest as possible ? In the first instance you have a situation where if a person is identi- fied from the day he goes on as a person representing labor, or a person representing management, for evermore whatever he says is loyal or disloyal to his constituents, as distinguished from a situation where I am qualified to be on this board as I have a view from labor or man- agement but I am not answerable to them for my continuance on this board. Dr. Berry. That is what I am referring to because I felt it was not adequately stated in my testimony. I would demur on anyone’s being appointed to the council simply because he was a member of labor or because he was a member of management, or of government. The council should be made up of technically proficient individuals who could discuss and recommend on the hazards associated with under- ground exposures whether from coal dust, granite dust, from nitro- glycerine from blasting, whether carbon monoxide ‘from blasting, these would be technical people and their employment would be coin- cidental. It would be helpful if someone knew the difference between a win- dow and the face of a mine but this sort of thing would not be essential. 168 Mr. O’Hara. I notice, Dr. Berry, in going through your statement, you state, as you have reiterated here, that “only qualified industrial hygiene personnel can be relied on to determine by quantitative tech- niques whether the environment is safe,” and then “only by quantita- tive measurement by air sampling and/or analysis by determining chemical or physical means can the factors and stresses be properly evaluated to whether a specific occupational environment is safe for short periods or for a lifetime of exposure.” I would gather from reading those statements in combination that you would probably, although you don’t say so in your statement, favor the right of entry provisions of the legislation so data can be gathered in the actual specific occupational environments we are going to be giving ? Dr. Berry. I would take no exception and think it would be very shortsighted on the part of management to do anything but welcome the bre information at his door, this should be welcome to him and also to his employees. Mr. O’Hara. With respect to the grants to States, do you say we should support these grants to the Sor to help in updating their safety and health proposals. You indicate most of the staff are unable to cope with the problems, eight States do not have any occupational health program, in other States it functions in the labor agencies, in some in the health agencies. There is a good os of variance, in other words. Speaking of that variance, I would gather you have made some study of the various methods of administration, do you have any personal preference or how do you feel the administration of the occupational health program operates best ? Dr. Berry. I would ask for your indulgence—I am not making a flippant remark but I would like to preface my remarks by indicating a feeling that no organization, however well set up, will function if the people in that organization do not want it to work, or they are not able to make it work. No organization is so bad if the people are able to work together and perform. In answer to your question I had the opportunity to work with peo- ple where there are activities in the health department in the States and I have found competence in both locations, that is for myself and the association, I would retreat to the position it needs to be done and where it can be done best is not the major concern. Mr. O'Hara. You feel any system can work if there is a will to work and sufficient attention and resource devoted to it? Dr. Berry. Precisely. Mr. O'Hara. You suggest that only through adequate State and local programs can industry accomplish the job—with most workers employed in small plants, agriculture, or small businesses where little or no occupational health services are provided. Do you feel that state- ment accurately portrays the situation, that the working places of 80 percent of American workers are places where little or no occupational health services are presently provided ? Dr. Berry. The thinking behind this leads to a tendency on the part of governmental agencies to consider performance on the basis of the number of plants visited, or the number of people served. If this is not included in everyone’s thinking, then the major effort will be made in 169 the larger plants, the more highly populated plants, and there may be those local areas in relatively less industrialized States which may not receive a comparable level of service on the basis of cost benefit. That is, what do we get for the money spent ? Mr. O'Hara. That is understandable. Dr. Berry. That is right. In Iowa, for example, with a heavy agricul- tural population it is most difficult to do research in problems of agri- culture, by modern standards. Towa is highly interested in this, Wash- ington might not be, New York might not be. But ample safeguards through a State and local approach would probably go far toward not losing these people in a kind of service today which all of us are seeking. Mr. O'Hara. You do feel under the present setup that the working places of 80 percent of the workers in America do not now receive ade- quate occupational health services? Dr. Berry. I think that is probably a conservative figure. Mr. O'Hara. You also suggest in effect that the places that do re- ceive adequate occupational health services are those where you get the largest return for your investments, that is the very large places of employment, and so forth, so in effect let’s assume, taking the conserva- tive figure, that we are now covering the places of employment of one- fifth of the American workers adequately and not covering adequately the places of employment of the other four-fifths, that the amount of effort and resources that would have to be put into this field in order to bring all these up to an adequate standard would be considerably more than four times the effort now going into it because the higher cost services are the ones that have not been touched ? Dr. Berry. I think that is an understatement, I think it would be substantially greater than four times because this is a more diffuse group, they are more inaccessible, they are less accustomed to accept- ing help so I think it would be much more difficult. Mr. Forp. As industry is more widely distributed across the country we are sometimes painfully aware of how many other States now make automobiles. From what you have just said to Congressman O’Hara, is it likely that where you have an autoplant established in a textile State which is the only one and may employ a couple of thousand people, that their industrial health program is going to give much attention to the health problems of that manufacturer? Or turn it around the other way, the textile mill located in a State with a lot of other industry, but maybe this is only one of two or three textile plants? Dr. Berry. I think this might happen but I think a much greater hazard exists in the tendency of any professional to gravitate toward those areas where he feels most comfortable or is most interested. Mr. Forp. Would Jn visualize this kind of professional research and expertise to be directed toward an industry on a national scale wherever that industry and its particular problems might be located or would the experts zero in on a particular area and try to deal with the multiplicity of work problems found there? Dr. Berry. I think it would tend to be those industries employing the largest number of people or be involved in the largest segment of the economic picture or might present the largest number of problems. 170 I would hope, as with the data from research, with the exchange of data from such a council such as this, that the individual going to an auto plant in a textile weaving State would go in more adequately prepared to recognize and evaluate and control the problems that he would find in this automobile manufacturing plant. There is this professional exchange which goes on constantly. As propossd this would improve that situation, there would be this in- ormation available and it would be exchanged more easily. Mr. Foro. As a professional, you use the term cost benefit as a limiting factor Dr. Berry. I heard that in Washington. Mr. Forp. Would you suppose the cost-benefit ratio for a particular industry might be greater if you followed the industry than if you tried a State by State, area by area basis to pick it up where you ran into it? Could you come up with a better result if you studied rubber- workers regardless of what State they worked in and establish stand- ards for that type of employment rather than going to Akron and working with rubberworkers one day, glassworkers another day, and so on ¢ Dr. Berry. I think the best professional results would be achieved by industrywide studies. These have been done by and with the health service for a generation and the data available from such studies are than applied at the State and local level wherever these happen to be. Mr. Forp. On page 10 of your prepared text you state : There is need for advanced training, grants, fellowships, and support of young- Sony raining programs to increase the number of professionals in occupational ea . How much attention is given now in other professions to occupa- tional health, and is there a possibility that rather than training a new set of experts that we might, using incentives from the Federal level, encourage them to teach public health doctors more about environ- mental occupational health than they now know, or the general practi- tioner, nurses, which approach is likely to produce the quickest results for us? Dr. Berry. I think that adding onto an already trained profes- sional with some expertise is probably the way to go. There are many competent industrial hygienists, many are engineers, I happen to be one myself, I started out as a pharmacist, and I would take no ex- ception to starting with someone with a technical background and the ability to conceive the approach and provide him with the intel- lectual and professional tools he would need to perform the job. Mr. Forno. What you are suggesting here is not the creation through the use of Federal funds of a new and separate profession, but the encouragement of the study of occupational health problems as an adjunct in existing studies. r. Berry. I think both are required, those at the elementary level should be provided with the maximum and broadest training. It would also be desirable at the institutions of higher learning that are now engaged in the training of industrial hygienists. fon Forp. Do most schools provide to a person who is studying to be a pharmacist, or a nurse or even a doctor, courses identifiable as courses dealing with the area to be called occupational health? Dr. Berry. Not to my knowledge. If the University of Iowa is an example, you would not receive training in industrial hygiene in the 171 college of pharmacy, in the college of engineering, in the college of Cy or some technical ow. of the ya as ra a specific area to which these individuals who have this basic traini would come and for whom a special curriculum has been devised er would enable them tio achieve professionalism. Mr. Forp. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Hara. Let me ask you one last question. Some years ago we provided in our food and drug laws that before a medication could be licensed for distribution in the United States, that the proposed licensee would have to establish that it was safe. Now, there has been a good deal of discussion in recent years over how effectively that provision has worked. Let’s take a situation in infuses. We have from time to time technological changes bringin, about the use of a lot of new substances, a lot of new chemicals. I rea. in the paper not too long ago about a new alloy contained in some sort, of soldering wire and it was found that workers using this par- ticular type of soldering wire were encountering, I think, pulmonary disease of some sort or other. Do you think it might make some sense, looking down the road, if we were to aim for a system that might place some restrictions upon the introduct’on of new chemical elements, substances, and so on in industrial processes without first seeing what effect they might have on people working with it or around it ? Dr. Berry. I think you are referring to cadmium, and I, as an in- dustrial hygienist, would have rejoiced to have the intended use of this material brought to my attention in the earliest planning stages and I would have voiced to management that it would have been per- fectly possible, however, had they designed their operation, to use this material on the basis of the guidance that I could provide, such as providing ventilation and respiratory equipment. To answer your question, there are too many occupational changes in the industry now, technology changes too rapidly, materials com- ing into plants vary in analysis and I think requiring this would be an impossible thing because there is not the competence to which they can go in many instances as hopefully there should be. This might Be ssible if there were added people with competence to whom they could go. Mr. O'Hara. T am not voicing an original complaint, by any means but we have been introducing new insecticides, pesticides, chemical processes, industrial processes, without the least investigation of some effects this might have upon people who work with these processes or substances, or people coming mto contact with them while going about their normal business. Do you feel as an industrial hygienist this has been a problem in this country ? Dr. Berry. Yes, I do. There have been situations and I would offer as an example the cranberry incident a few years ago in which ami- notriasal was used for control on the cranberry bugs and there was much to do about the residual coming through on the cranberries to the consumer. We and only we in agriculture, to the best of my knowledge, had we had cranberry bugs in Towa would have been concerned about the farmer applying aminotriasal. There is this necessity of following material throu, h its ecological pattern and see what the potentials are, This would spill over into water plugs. 172 Waste disposal, what do you do with your old containers, many things on which industrial hygienists can offer advice and raise questions. Mr. O'Hara. I think we should have a notification procedure of that sort, on the use of new products, new processes so we can attempt to i them, at least give a cursory evaluation as to their effects on people. r. Berry. Any efforts that could be made in that direction would be indeed laudable, the sort of thing that a company, who is able to afford an industrial hygienist, would expect him to do, screen new materials coming into the plant in relation to their proposed use and provide guidance on their safe use. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much. Mr. Foro. Isn't it possible that we could embark on an identification program to identify at least substances that have inherent dangers? As precedent for this I doubt if there is a fire extinguisher company in the country that doesn’t specify how to handle gasolines and things of that sort. In our State a few years ago we had a great to-do when they dis- covered what happens to people working around carbon tetrachloride in cleaning processes. Would it be possible in line with what Con- ressman O'Hara is talking about, for people in your profession to identify this product or this susbtance and to establish standards to indicate that when this substance is used by people in industrial proc- esses it might be harmful ? Dr. Berry. As you phrased the latter part of your question, I would concur. I am getting out of my expertise. Mr. Foro. Identifying something with inherent dangers? Dr. Berry. With gasoline you are dealing with physical properties with explosive limits. The same would be true of acetone, ether, many things. This approach could not be made with respect to the physical hazards in the use of that by a particular person. Some of them are anesthetics, some are poison. It is a question of judgment going beyond the fire and explosion aspects. id IT answer your question adequately ? Mr. Foro. I think so, but I think we have already identified some substances, and we have little red flags to protect the consumer, say- ing these things might be dangerous if used under certain circum- stances. We took all the fire extinguishers out of homes that had this material in them because of the potential danger. Having established this, can you envision the possibility of having a worktable standard for a preexamination, as Congressman O'Hara suggested, of an industrial process usily one of these materials where it would cause injury to those using it? Dr. Berry. From our organization we have approximately 170 hygienic guides which offer the help you suggest, but, for new mate- rials coming on, heavy dependence must be placed on animal experi- mentation and there 1s a difference in the physiological response be- tween species of animals—again I am getting outside my area—for food and drawing areas you need four different species of animals. Even with that it would not necessarily apply as to a unique indus- trial situation, but it might provide a clue and these are gratefully accepted and many industries do this so that, when they market a 173 material, it will have been screened toxicologically on animals. For poisonings, you need human volunteers to try a chemical; this data would not be available. Mr. Forp. Unfortunately the change takes place only after someone successfully prosecutes a lawsuit or a series of compensation claims and establishes that those factors exist, and then the change is made. Doctors were shooting penicillin into everyone with an industrial scratch until they started paying comp claims for people getting heart conditions as a reaction. It’s too bad we can’t, as a result of what has been established in one State as an objectionable type of thing, spread that knowledge to the other States. Dr. Berry. Such a dissemination of knowledge would be very, very ood. Mr. Forp. The lawyers will read about this and recommend the change be made, but the doctors don’t, nor do people in your profession. Dr. Berry. An information exchange with proper design can be a very stimulating device. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Doctor. Our final witness will be Dr. Miriam Sachs, who is director of Com- prehensive Health Planning and Mr. Liynn Schall, chief of the occupa- tional health program with the New Jersey State Department of Health. STATEMENT OF MIRIAM SACHS, DIRECTOR, COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING, ACCOMPANIED BY LYNN SCHALL, CHIEF, OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM, NEW JERSEY STATE DEPART- MENT OF HEALTH Dr. Sacas. I have given you the statement prepared by Mr. Schall and myself of which makes clear in more detail, things I would like to touch on. Mr. O’Hara. Without objection, your statement will be entered at this point in the record and you may emphasize the point you wish to make. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF MIRIAM SACHS, M.D., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING, AND BE. LYNN ScHALL, CHIEF, OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM, NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Miriam Sachs and I am a physician with the New Jersey State Department of Health. For eight years 1 was in charge of the Bureau of Occupational Health for the New Jersey State Health Department; I then became District State Health Officer in the Metropolitan State Health District, covering our five most urbanized and industrialized countries, and I am currently Director of the Office of Compre- hensive Health Planning (the 314 (a) State agency under 83-749, Partnership for Health). I have qualified myself in some detail because I wish it quite clear that my training and background are the basis for full support and accord with the con- cepts of H.R. 14816. . In these days of scarce manpower, we must conserve the manpower that we have, and what is more important, increase the productivity of that manpower by maintaining their health, and providing the safest possible environment for their working hours. It is our deepest obligation to ensure as safe and healthful a work place for the industrial and agricultural workers as it is to conduct 174 school health programs and prevention of school and playground accidents for our children. I wish to comment on Bill H.R. 14816 “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968.” The New Jersey State Department of Health has conducted an Occupational Health Program since the year 1942. We have served some 32,000 industries employing in excess of two million workers. Nowhere in the world will you find as great a divergence of products manufactured as in our State, often termed the “industrial crossroads of the world.” We have worked diligently in an effort to prevent or control diseases in industry. We have been plagued with a lack of funds and too few personnel to adequately perform our duties. Fifty- two percent of all reported industrial diseases represent dermatitis, a condition to which we cannot give attention because requests from industrial plant man- agement, organized labor and others, for assistance in detecting and preventing harmful conditions utilize all available time and analytical equipment. We have never had time nor facilities to devote to the important field of agricultural health. A shortage of trained, qualified personnel exists in the field of occupa- tional health. Many job vacancies are evident in various state and local health department programs. There is not a qualified industrial hygienist out of work in the United States today—the demand is so great and personnel so few! Post- graduate training as would be provided in H.R. 14816 is badly needed. In a small way, we in the New Jersey State Department of Health are endeavoring to provide refresher courses for industrial nurses of which there are about 800 in our State. During the past year we gave two ten-week courses, each limited to an attendance of 25 nurses. All courses have been greatly oversubscribed, and the presently planned course was filled long before announced. The medical-engineering team approach to occupational health in New Jersey has evolved largely as an activity of the State Department of Health. A written agreement exists between the New Jersey State Commissioner of Health and the Commissioner of Labor and Industry which places major responsibility for industrial safety in the Labor Department and for occupational health in the Health Department. AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Whereas the laws of New Jersey (R.S. 34:6-48) give to the Department of Labor and Industry the authority and responsibility of administering and en- forcing the requirement that every employer shall, without cost to his employees, provide reasonably effective devices, means and methods to prevent the con- traction by them of any illness or disease incident to the work or process in which they are engaged ; and Whereas the laws of New Jersey (Chapter 177 P.L. 1947) delegate authority and responsibility to the Department of Health to formulate comprehensive policies for the promotion of public health and the prevention of disease within the State, and to administer or supervise a program of industrial hygiene, en- courage the establishment of medical, dental, environmental engineering and nursing services in all industrial plants in the State, and to cooperate with the Department of Labor and Industry in formulating rules and regulations concerning industrial sanitary conditions ; and Whereas we, the Commissioners of the two Departments desire to perform our duties and responsibilities pursuant to statute in the most economical and expeditious manner. We do hereby agree to coordinate our activities as follows: A. The Department of Health in performing its health functions, including the initiation of surveys and studies of occupational health problems, will continue its practice of recommending action to industry and will send routinely to the Department of Labor and Industry data it may obtain in the course of its surveys pertinent to the functions of the Department of Labor and Industry. B. The Department of Labor and Industry in performing its functions of plant inspection, correction and enforcement, will send routinely to the Department of Health data it may obtain in the course of its inspections pertinent to the functions of the Department of Health. C. In instances of occupational disease where investigation by the Department of Health is deemed necessary or desirable by the Department of Labor and 175 Industry, the Department of Labor and Industry will request the Department of Health to conduct the survey or study. The Department of Health will com- plete the requested investigation as soon as feasible and will transmit its findings to the Department of Labor and Industry. The Department of Labor and Indus- try will forward the original report of the Department of Health with the report from the Department of Labor and Industry to the respective industrial plant involved. A copy of the complete report from the Department of Labor and In- dustry will be forwarded to the Department of Health. Whenever the findings of such a survey or study reveal noncompliance with established law, codes or regulations, the corrective or enforcement procedure necessary to effect com- pliance will remain within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Industry. D. Whenever the Department of Health is of the opinion, on the basis of plant survey, that need exists for enforcement action, it will so notify the Department of Labor and Industry of the need for such action. The Department of Labor and Industry will initiate appropriate proceedings to effect remedial action as may be necessary as soon as feasible and will report progress in this regard to the Department of Health. BE. The Department of Health and the Department of Labor and Industry will jointly develop and publish rules, regulations and informational bulletins designed to prevent or control the contraction of occupational illness by industrial employees. ¥. The Department of Labor and Industry and the Department of Health will exchange occupational disease statistics and other related data pertinent to the functions of each Department. Methods and forms to be used in accomplishing this exchange will be jointly developed and instituted as quickly as feasible. We do further agree that nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter in any way the powers, duties and responsibilities of either Department as set forth in the New Jersey Statutes. Witnesseth : Department of Labor and Industry: RAYMOND MALE, Commissioner. Department of Health: Roscoe P. KAnprLE, M.D., Commissioner. SEPTEMBER 29, 1960, Trenton, N.J. Each Department assists the other when requested. We believe health matters function better in health departments and that greater progress in preventive aspects of disease has been made because health specialists have dealt with health problems. It is with a great feeling of satisfaction that we have noted that H.R. 14816 mandates a similar working arrangement between the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Secretary of Labor. “A necessary ingredient in a sound safety program is a comprehensive research effort. H.R. 14816 recognizes this in its assignment of responsibilities to the Secre- tary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would conduct, either directly or by grants, research in the field of occupational safety and health. “With this research, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare will develop criteria for the Secretary of Labor to use in establishing the safety and health standards. With such research and criteria, the Secretary of Labor's development of up-to-date and operative safety and health standards will be greatly facilitated.” To assess the extent of the need for industrial health and safety services, it is necessary to know the incidence and trends in industrial disability. Evidence on this subject is derived from four sources: 1. Statistics of industrial accidents 2. Statistics on the evidence of occupational diseases 3. Data on the extent of the exposure of workers to occupational hazards potentially dangerous to their health, and 4. The statistics of differential mortality and morbidity by income group and occupation. In none of these fields do available data approximate adequacy. The studies and demonstraticns authorized in H.R. 14816, and set up ultimately as standards, will, T am sure, correct these deficiencies and give us a sound foundation for planning a comprehensive health and safety program for workers, 176 The Growing Problem About thirty years ago, a survey conducted by the Division of Industrial Hygiene of the National Institute of Health, in fifteen states and covering almost 1,500,000 workers in 16,800 plants listed the following important ma- terials and products used in the industrial life of the United States: TABLE 1V.—Hstimated number and percent of workers in selected industry groups in the United States exposed to specified materials, 1936-39 Number of workers surveyed (basis for percentages in col. 1) ________ 1, 487, 224 Percent of workers Materials : exposed Orangic dusts 18.11 Other metals ow 14. 85 Carbon monoxide. 9.75 Petroleum products 9. 61 Silicate dust 9.44 Dermatitis producers we 988 Other gases 9. 28 RO MISE mtn mime rsdn see ee vn ei ier 7.53 Nonsiliceous dust ____________________________________ 6. 08 Lead and its compounds_______ is 5.16 Organic solvents _ —— 5.04 Coal, dust, bituminous - 4.21 Alkaline compounds 3.87 Oils, fats, and waxes_____________________________________________ 3.85 Temperature change_____ i ——_—— 2.99 High-humidity = - 2.84 Acids, mineral. _ - 2.29 Sulfur dioxide ___________________ 1.65 Sulfur and its compounds____________________________________ 1.59 Salts, inorganic, technical, analytical [ER 1.58 Paints and enamels 1.52 Inks 1.32 Lacquer and varnish 1.28 Infections — 1.27 Alcohols, ethers, esters 1.14 Chemicals, organic and inorganic_____________________________ 1.10 Dyes im 1.03 Hydrogen sulfide. . 89 Coal tar products 86 Acids, organic - Antimony and its compounds Chromium and its compounds Cyanides Aldehydes - Halogenated hydrocarbons - Asbestos dust Arsenic and its compounds Accelerators __ Mercury and its compounds Fluorine and its compounds Cadmium Benzene Manganese and its compounds Medicine Chlorine Phosphorus Ooal dust, anthracite Hides Aniline and its compounds Amines .03 Selenium and its compounds Radium and radioactive substances .01 In the intervening years, especially since the advent of the nuclear age and the laser beam, the number of chemicals and mixed exposures has increased astro- REEEERERREEBERAAS 2223 2 177 nomically. The problem is further complicated by the changing character of industry. Great progress has been made in protection against mechanical hazards but the shift from a mechanical to a broadly diversified chemical industry has introduced a truly kaleidoscopic array of new hazards. Bach year over 500 previously unknown or unutilized chemicals are introduced into industry, usually without adequate knowledge about their potential toxicity. Especially is this the case in small industries that possess no facilities for independent study. Thus as fast as the hazards incidental to use of one chemical are recognized and suitable protective measures adopted, others of unknown potential are introduced. To a high degree this is a never-ending battle. Control agencies cannot rest on their laurels or even slacken their vigilance; on the contrary, expanded controls must be established in anticipation of even more complex problems. An additional facet of the problem is to be found in the much neglected area of agricultural hazards. Until recent years, attention was directed almost ex- clusively to urban industry, with complete neglect of the needs of the farm worker. He has always been exposed to certain hazards, such as those incidental to weather and association with animals, far less easily regulated than those of a closed and supervised factory environment. Current trends toward mechanization of agriculture and increasing use of synthetic chemicals as fertilizers or as pesticides have introduced many new hazards. The character of these hazards and the extensive use of unskilled and often migratory labor have made control doubly difficult, especially since the rural areas where these hazards exist are in general served by smaller and less highly organized health services than are the cities, and many areas enjoy almost no local service. URGENT NEED FOR RESEARCH An inseparably associated requisite for the future, therefore, is the need for research. It is relatively easy to envision the potential effect of the many in- creasing hazards of the environment. It is equally obvious that just as these hazards are by-products of modern scientific progress, so must their control require complicated technological procedures. Unfortunately, however, effective and practical procedures for the removal of all current hazards are not known. Procedures that were effective in control of yesterday’s relatively simple en- vironmental hazards are not necessarily applicable today when modern chemical industry releases into the environment, in plant and out of plant, a constantly changing variety of substances, many of which are of unknown physiological significance. Nature has provided no model for their removal from water, air or food, nor can it be expected that a procedure devised tomorrow and effective against a particular chemical would be equally effective against all. The problems of protection against current or future hazards are vastly more difficult than those of yesterday, yet no one can say that they are scientifically insoluble nor economically impossible. Quite obviously the answers will be found in research. The scientific mind that can unravel the atom, determine the chemical bases of life and inheritance, or explore the reaches of outer space can confidently be expected to find effective ways to regulate the environment to the extent necessary to eliminate or mini- mize its hazards. But research is both costly and time consuming. No future program of environmental control, no matter how logically structured, politically, socially, or economically, can succeed unless it provides for generous support of research. This also is beyond the bounds of small population units, whether commercial, academic or governmental. While one may confidently anticipate that industry will make major contributions in research leading to new methods of environmental control, and that the application of much of this will accrue to the financial benefit of industry, one cannot fail to recognize the ultimate responsibility of the Federal government, for the results of such research will be for the benefit of all the people. NEED FOR TRAINED MANPOWER Inseparably connected with the development of effective control and research programs is the problem of qualified manpower and its training. The increasing complexity of the environmntal problems awaiting solution cannot be resolved by generalists with a smattering of knowledge in many diverse areas but a mastery of none. Positions of responsible leadership will demand the services of engineers with specialized knowledge, of chemists, of physicists, meteorologists, veterinarians, microbiologists, food tchnologists and various other professional 178 groups, each with advanced and highly technical knowledge in a particular field. The provision of educational training facilities is an obvious responsibility of the universities, which must develop expanded programs not only of research but also of professional education in the many faceted problems of environ- mental health. But the universities cannot be expected to accomplish this without the closest possible association with control agencies, for while funda- mental scientific knowledge may be acquired within the academic world, its application to the community problems can usually be learned best through experience with community control programs. It is not idle theory to envision these programs, staffed with well-trained scientific personnel, serving essentially as extensions of the academic classroom and laboratory far more than is the case at present. H.R. 14816 as presently written under Section 17 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to make grants up to ninety per centum of the states’ total cost to assist in identifying their needs and responsibilities in the area of occupational safety and health and develop programs. These grants can be made until the year ending June 30, 1971. If these Federal funds are withdrawn completely at that time, state programs could not be expected to continue to function efficiently. We urge that consideration be given to continuation of support beyond 1971. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the opportunity of presenting our views. Dr. Sacas. I have read the statements of Secretary Wirtz and Dr. Stewart, the Secretary of Public Health Service, and it seems we are concentrating on the trees and not looking at the forest. I would like to make it clear I am heartly in favor of H.R. 14816. As an expanded point of evidence I would like to point to the statement that I fe with me which, on page 4, gives the detail of a cooperative agreement, a working agreement between the New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry and the New Jer- sey State Department of Health. It was worked out ori inally when Carl Holderman was commissioner of labor and Daniel ergman was commissioner of health. I was actively concerned with the details of it because until that moment we spent a great deal of time on what belonged in the department of labor and what belonged in the depart- ment of health. There is so much to be done we found we could work together quite effectively. I make this point because I think in the elements in your bill be- tween the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare it is very nice to find the Federal Government expanding their activities in that way so that they are working details, aside from personal enthusiasm. We have long needed something like this in the working popula- tion we have in this country. I think with our very young popula- tion coming along and the special benefits and the increase in our aging population we find the sole foundation of our productivity in the industrial workers who are supporting both tails on this popula- tion curve. Since they are in short supply and the need for man- power increases all the time, I think we have to give them a better, safer, less hazardous place to work and do everything we can in terms of good health or optimum health to increase their productivity and not lose them due to accident qr occupational disease or nonoccupa- tional disease which might be aggravated by certain working conditions. Mr. O'Hara. Then you feel that the overall administrative device that has been adopted in this legislation ; that is, cooperation between 179 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Depart- ment of Labor is something that can work if your experience in New Jersey is any guide, is that correct ? Dr. Sacus. Yes, with less funding, less power, we made it work. I call it crazy New Jersey, I come from Manhattan. It is a wonder- fully flexible State because we don’t have too much precedence. Mr. O'Hara. How would you say your program of industrial health and industrial safety compares to that of other States? I don’t want you to make any specific or invidious comparison but how would you rate the State of New Jersey’s efforts generally among the States? Dr. Sacms. I think our program has been very progressive, we are at the moment the most densely populated and highly urbanized State in the Union. We have a tremendous amount of industry and are considered first in chemical industry in the fourth smallest State so you can imagine what the loading of contaminants is in the work- ing environment and what comes out is air pollution and other aspects that the State has to cope with. We have at the moment in the department of labor in industry about 127 inspectors and 48 engineers. By contrast the staff of health looks very small, it numbers 11 people, engineers, hygienists, a public nurse, health consultant, and some laboratory people. The difference in our functions is that if there is a case of tuberculosis found in a foundry, or mine, or a particular industry, the rest of the State health department moves in; namely, the TB control program before family or everything else contracts it. I think this was the point I did not get in Dr. Rasmussen’s discus- sion in the cases he had found in the dust trades. Dust doesn’t create tuberculosis, the people bring it with them and the lack of TB case- findings creates more tuberculosis in those already suffering with some kind of lung disability. Mr. O’Hara. I think Dr. Rasmussen indicated he didn’t know of any connection between TB and exposures to mine dust. That one witness was told he had TB but Dr. Rasmussen said he didn’t. One thing here that gives me pause, you have indicated that New Jersey is first along the States in the chemical industry ? Dr. Sacus. Yes. Mr. O’Hara. I don’t know a lot about, it but it seems to me the chemi- cal industry would be one of the industries in which the health prob- lems would be most severe, that is the kind of things I would imagine under your modus operandi that your particular department has re- sponsibility for, it would require the most activity on the part of your Spariment, more so perhaps than, say, a fabricating industry of some kind. Dr. Sacus. Well, for example, the department of labor and indus- try has a very specific safety code which all of the industries in the State must follow, there must be certain types of ventilation, certain types of exhaust. If despite this they are getting perhaps jaundice which might be due to the use of some chlorinated compound, they will ask us to go in and survey the industry. We have done this, in industries that use lead, done the most ex- haustive research as far as we can go to try to determine why in some industries something is occurring. The human body can react in a very limited number of ways and a lot of things become jaundiced, it may 92-734 0—68——13 180 be viral hepatitis or serum hepatitis or some other mechanism in that particular plant. We are very careful in the types of determination we do and in this we have followed much of the teaching of the Public Health Service Occupational Health Center and their types of investi- gation. Mr. O'Hara. I would gather from your emphasis on the need for more and greater research you feel there is a lot more you could do if professionally trained personnel were available and if the resources were available to do that type thing? Dr. Sacus. Certainly, I think for the working population, quite dis- regarding whether ny wants it, the union wants it, or whoever wants it, that this level and extent of research must be the level and extent of research that there is in the region of cancer, heart conditions, strokes, where there can be a Federal arm through the States that would participate in some of the work. One of the first things I did when I came to New Jersey about 15 years ago was participate in an occupational cancer survey because at that time not as much was known about substances causing bladder cancer, lung cancer and the like and it was a very difficult thing to do because we were not scopey enough to do it on our own. The feeling was that though there wasn’t much occupational cancer, what there was was probably 100 percent preventable, which is more than you can say about the other forms of cancer. I think this is the role of the Federal Government where as in the chromate workers certain chrome was incriminated as causing lung cancer, and obviously the Department of Labor takes this and controls the chrome or chrome smelting or chrome dust in that type of industry. It’s never a very sim- ple thing but I think this is the kind of thing going on in other fed- erally supported programs which are joining many Federal agencies. Mr. O'Hara. Let me ask you this, perhaps I should have directed this question to Dr. Berry, but you in New Jersey make certain in- vestigations, make certain research, or have certain conditions called to your attention and then on the basis of your research we end up with some standard being adopted in the State of New Jersey, for instance, having to do with chrome or whatever it might be. Do you have any idea how or to what extent the results that you get on specific items and standards being enforced with respect to those items, to what extent they are comparable in other States? For instance, New Jersey has standards on—pick what you will, take any- thing but radiation, which is a natural thing—but say you have cer- tain standards with respect to exposure to asbestos, or whatever it might be. Would you have any notion whether those standards are re- flected in the standards of other States? Dr. Sacus. Only as they have competent people willing to accept them. These are things one reports in national meetings or reports back to a group, for example. For example, there is an extensive pesti- cide program going on in New Jersey but we are doing it under con- tract from the Public Health Service. We were asked to do it as a State with a tremendous amount of agriculture in our lowermost counties and a tremendous amount of frozen food industry which goes not only from New Jersey, but to many other States. I think it is very pertinent to the outline of the things you wish to accomplish by your bill. This would go right back to the Public Health Service and be compared to other programs on pesticides. Report pro- 181 grams should be used for better standards and better enforcement procedures. Mr. O’Hara. If the results you arrive at with respect to your investi- gation on pesticides are valid, and T would assume from your experi- ence and reputation they will be, I would suspect there will be a good deal of variation among the States on the standards they adopt even though there will be no variation in terms of human tolerances and what have you from one State to another. Dr. Sacus. On page 9 of my statement I refer to the fact we have an inadequate base of statistics—statistics don’t lie but lawyers use statistics—— Mr. O'Hara. They usually use them very well. Dr. Sacus. Yes, I know. You know we report certain accidents in terms of man-hours lost or days lost. We know of industries ourselves that will get people in station wagons and let them sit at the plant 2d say they have been in the industry. Their record doesn’t show lost ays. r. O'Hara. One of our witnesses says they picked him up at home every day and took him to the sand house where they had a bed set up. Dr. Sacns. Because we don’t have things that are comparable we wouldn’t know which States have programs comparable to another State and this again is, I think, research and methods, or research and reporting, just like the work done many years ago to get a death registration area and birth registration area so births and deaths could be comparable from one State of the Union to another. Mr. O'Hara. I wonder if you could help us understand your work a little better by recalling to your mind some example of a situation that was called to your attention where you did some research and what you found out and what the need was in terms of new standards and what have you. Br. Sacus. I will ask Mr. Schall; do you recall the one on carbon tet Mr. ScaaLL. There was one plant that used carbontetrachloride and didn’t understand the hazards associated with it. We were in the plant doing other work and we inquired about this and explained the hazards. They were using the solvent in a very harmful manner, so much so they were poisoning the operators and they didn’t realize this, they thought the operators had grouped together and were sort of against management. They were getting ready to try to dismiss people in this department. This is a small company in Camden and by small, this has more than 500 people, but they take an extremely parental attitude toward their employees. When we went back and conducted air tests and showed them that the poisonous concentrations existed, the company took steps to cor- rect these conditions, to put in proper ventilation, and so forth. They also sent these people to Florida for several weeks at com- pany expense. That showed a willingness to cooperate but a lack of understanding. We know of other such instances where if we had more people we could certainly do a more effective job in getting i to these industries. Mr. O'Hara. How many do you have ? : Mr. Scar. Eleven. These are professional people. Mr. O’Hara. What was the other figure ? 182 Mr. ScuALL. 127. They confine themselves to their work. y Mr. O'Hara. I have the impression, just a layman’s impression, that one of the industries, among the industries about which we know the least are the chemical petroleum industries in terms of possible hazards, the work of some of these industries. Mr. SonarL. This is true; we are always learning new things and new causes of disease but that also is one of the industries that is perhaps the best governed at the present time. Most of them, the large ones, all have complete medical facilities and many of the smaller plants band together for medical facilities. In New Jersey we are rather unique, all the work we do is requested and most of our work is requested from management, from industrial plant management, a lot from labor and we have very excellent work- ing relationships with both groups. This does not exist in some States, I guess in many States. Mr. O'Hara. I am glad to hear that, that is a good sign that you have done the right kind of job. You have a good reputation. Mr. ScaarL. We are real proud of it, its a nice way to work. Mr. O'Hara. You could use more people? Mr. ScuaLL. Yes. We have vacancies on our staff but our salaries are low and we can’t compete with industry and there is such a limited number of people available that you can’t find qualified, educated, trained people today. Industry is better able to entice the few around through higher salaries than we can in State government. Mr. O'Hara. I don’t think we can qualify for those vacancies, Mr. Ford, even though we might be looking for jobs. Mr. Foro. If a dermatitis condition breaks out, are you asked to come in and determine why it is occurring as distinguished from an approach where you can anticipate the use of certain materials might bring about certain results? Dr. Sacms. We have done pilot programs when we know some- thing new is coming in. From where I sit now in comprehensive health planning, IT am not as close as I used to be. Mr. ScuaLL. We are doing a code on laser beams. We do pilot plant studies, we get, copies of compensation claims in New Jersey but this is not a true picture because any claim that is settled out of court gets into State records, so disregard it. But we do studies if we do see a plant with any one disease which seems prevalent. We did a mine study several years ago where there were a lot of cases of pneumoconiosis. This was a lead mine. Dr. Sacus. There was an epidemic of claims, not an epidemic of silicosis. Mr. Forp. All you have to do is have a lot of claims and it picks up business for everybody in town. . Mr. Scuarr. We do studies, management very often, when there 1s a new process, they know they na substances which can be toxic, by that we mean poisonous, and they will ask us to come in and make studies on the pilot operation, which we will do and find the conditions and recommend controls which, when they put this thing in production, they put the controls on. We try to get back and study it after it is in production. e try to do studies of types of industries. This has been difficult lately because we just don’t have enough personnel to do the request work without self-initiated work. 183 We are starting on March 4 a study of laser beams in New Jersey. We are one of the heaviest States where these beams are used. If you don’t understand lasers, I will be glad to qualify it, but they are quite harmful. Mr. Foro. In the asbestos cases reported in the newspapers a short time back, doctors discovered a particular type of cancer, and they started backtracking. This is what the epidemologists do, is that right? 7% ScuALL. Yes. One of the things about a disease, the basicness such as the case you are talking about, you suspect a case because a person has certain symptoms, if it is an occupational exposure, you should go in and examine all those people using that substance. We have done that. It was part of the work reported by Dr. Irving Selikoff, from Paterson, N.J., on asbestosis and we arranged for him to go with some of the Johns-Manfield people to Canada to do some studies. We lost track of it after that but the science associations put on a huge internal symposium on it, and now so much more is known about the different kinds of asbestos. Many years ago, due to an odd lung condition, Mr. Schall and staff did a different form of asbestos investigation and that was in the undercoating of automobiles. That stuff is in such heavy gunk that the fibers don’t get loose. I think we were the first to do a study of that purely because a young man who had been using it had an odd, undiagnosed lung condition and that was the work he did. We did get the composition of undercoating which I never knew until that time had asbestos in it. We surveyed and air tested while Tn were undercoating automobiles and could pick up no asbestos at all. fn O’Hara. The quicker they rust out the better Mr. Ford and I like it. T have been trying to grope for some kind of system where we wouldn’t be chasing around trying to lock barn doors after the horses are gone—where at least under some set of circumstances we could require, with respect to the introduction of new industrial processes, that certain kinds of tests are run before the process is introduced. We would not try to predict everything that will happen under the process but that a few elementary precautions be taken by the one pro- posing to introduce the process, at least under his contract. Second, per- haps if those first tests suggest anything but absolute ironclad safety, with the use of this process, then perhaps certain requirements could be imposed, that there be frequent examination of the workers involved so that we can get on to these things more quickly. Would you think that would be a worthwhile approach ? Dr. Sacus. It’s extremely worthwhile. I have always felt about our working population the way a lot of people feel about school health; I don’t have too much to do with it, but there is a responsibility to the children going to school, there is a proper design for the buildings that children go to school in. There are requirements for physical examinations, or nurses, so why can’t we start with buildings, not have people not working with inade- quate ventilation, lack of a place to eat, where everything is contami- nated by what is done in the industry and they are bound to get it 184 on cigarettes, on their food, they don’t have adequate places to wash up. We know a great deal about fundamental things used, both the American Hygiene Association, the American Standards Association, these are all people that have a body of knowledge if someone could bring it together, you could start with quite a broad safety and good health base. I think it will be done if somebody asks them to do it. Mr. Forp. What worries me is without the national approach of giv- ing States the encouragement first to build the structure in the State to handle it and then the national approach industrywide. For ex- ample, we have chemical plants, and I would like to know how the people in the chemical plants in my State know about the things you have learned. We are not a big chemical State but we have substantial chemical plants. Our attention is drawn to the larger manufacturing processes which employ a larger population across the State. What worries me, with the situation as it is now, is how do the workers IT represent working for Wyandotte Chemical get benefit from what you are doing unless somebody happens to be at a na- tional meeting and picks up a journal. There seems to be no organized way to get this information to peo- ple whose primary job is to get it info the plants. The Public Health does some of this sort of work. Dr. Sacus. Yes, they do some. There are notifications, for example, when Asian flu was just around the corner you get bulletins saying support immunization campaigns. Our own food and drug people and then local health, they go around and pick up certain products because they have been discovered to be harmful, there are recalls of things. There were mechanisms, IT am not familiar with them all. T think they could be expanded because certainly if there is Federal legisla- tion and information and knowledge is known, then it is delinquent not to get it to the people who need it. Mr. Forp. Do you use computers in your work in New Jersey ? Dr. Sacus. We have a computer and the State I think for all State departments, this would be through the budget, is thinking of a larger expanded operation so all our State departments would feed in. We have a more limited one of our own at the moment. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much for your testimony. We are going to try to send help to New Jersey. The Select Committee on Labor will now stand in adjournment until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., in this room. (Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, February 29, 1968.) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1968 House oF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE CoMmMmITTEE ON EbUcaTiON AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room iid Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O'Hara pre- siding. Present : Representatives O'Hara, Esch and Goodell. Staff: Jim Harrison, staff director; Marilyn Myers, clerk; Nancy Tyler, assistant clerk; Dr. James Wason, Legislative Reference Serv- ice, Library of Congress; and Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel for labor. Mr. O'Hara. The Select Subcommittee on Labor will come to order. We are continuing hearings this morning on H.R. 14816, the Occu- pational Safety and Health Act of 1968. Our first witness was to be Dr. Jan Lieben, of the occupational health program of the Pennsyl- vania State ‘Department of Health. Dr. Lieben came to our attention because of the successful action by the State of Pennsylvania in out- lawing the use of beta-naphthylamine, an industrial chemical which is so toxic in its effect upon workers engaged in its use that no “safe limit” of exposure has ever been established. This particular chemical produces cancer of the bladder. Dr. Lieben, unfortunately, was unable to appear at this morning’s hearing; but Dr. Ralph Dwork, of the Pennsylvania Health Department, has assured Chairman Holland that the department will present a statement in writing on the bill before us. (Dr. Dwork’s telegram is inserted at this point in the record:) PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Harrisburg, Pa., February 28, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: In reply to your invitation of February 23, 1968, to present testimony concern- ing the proposed Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Depart- ment of Health will submit a written statement for your committee’s considera- tion. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this important health matter. * RAarrH E. DwoORk, M.D., First Deputy Secretary of Health. In Dr. Lieben's absence I would like inserted in the record a state- ment of November 1965 by the U.S. Public Health Service, regarding beta-naphthylamine and the action of the Pennsylvania authorities with respect to it. (The statement follows:) (185) 186 STATEMENT OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HeALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH KNOWN CANCER AGENT STILL LEGAL IN 49 STATES Only one State in the Union, Pennsylvania, has outlawed the use of beta- naphthylamine, a chemical employed primarily in dye manufacture and known to produce cancer of the bladder among workers exposed to it. The Interna- tional Union Against Cancer has pushed for removal of the chemical from the market, and its use is illegal in several European countries. The Division of Occupational Health, Public Health Service, says that Penn- sylvania in 1961 prohibited the “use, storage, transfer, or handling” of the potent carcinogen but that there is no legal obstacle to its use in any other part of the country. The chemical is regarded as so toxic, the Division reports, that no “safe limit” of exposure has ever been established. Dr. Jan Lieben, director of occupational] health activities in Pennsylvania, has reported that bladder cancer among dye workers in the state is thirty times more common than in the general population. Fifteen cases have been reported to date, Dr. Leiben says, among employers or former employees of two small plants which used the chemical before it was outlawed. Although the two plants employed a total of only 400 workers, approximately 2,000 may have been ex- posed because of employee turnover. Since authorities believe that the effects of beta-naphthylamine may remain latent for at least twelve years, additional victims may be expected. The Public Health Service points out that no Federal authority exists to con- trol the use of industrial poisons. The Pennsylvania authorities resorted to regu- latory action against beta-naphthylamine only after efforts to obtain voluntary action failed. : Mr. O’Hara. Our first witness, in the absence of Dr. Lieben, will be Mr. J. Sharp Queener, of the Du Pont Co., who is speaking on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. IT would like to welcome you to the committee. Please take a seat at the witness table and give us the ben- efit of your experience and knowledge on this subject. STATEMENT OF J. SHARP QUEENER, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY PETER J. PESTILLO, LABOR RELATIONS MAN- AGER, AND ANTHONY J. 0BADAL, LABOR RELATIONS ATTORNEY, OF THE NATIONAL CHAMBER'S STAFF Mr. Queener. Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, and committee members. As an introduction I should say my name is J. Sharp Queener. I am the safety director of the Du Pont Co., and I have been deeply con- cerned with the problems of safety and health in employment for many years. I have been president of the National Fire rotection Association and now serve on its board of directors. I am an immediate past Vice President for Industry of the National Safety Council. Twice I have been an employers’ representative at International Labor Organization Conferences on Safety. I was a member of Secretary Wirtz’ Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Oceu- pational Safety. I am appearing before this committee on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. The national chamber is the largest association of business and professional organizations in the United States, and is the principal spokesman for the American business community. The chamber represents 3,700 trade associations and local chambers of commerce. It has a direct membership of over 33,000 business firms and an underlying membership of approxi- mately 5 million individuals and firms. I appreciate this opportunity 187 to present. the national chamber’s position on the occupational safety oy health bill now pending before this committee. I am accompanied today by Mr. Peter J. Pestillo, labor relations manager, and Mr. Anthony J. Obadal, labor relations attorney, of the national chamber’s staft. The underlying purpose of the proposed legislation, that of improv- ing the safety and health of workers in American industry, is a most laudable one. One accident is one too many. As long as accidental deaths and injuries occur, there is a problem. Efforts must be made to find methods to achieve greater improvement. I will not attempt to document in detail the voluntary organized safety movement in America. The written presentation will do so but for many decades now, businessmen, individually and through associations, have actively engaged in promoting safety and health in industry. : The story is an extensive one, one in which we can all be proud. In the late 1900’s the steel industry pioneered in organized safety pro- grams. In 1912 a meeting was held which eventually resulted in what is now known as the National Safety Council. The American Society of Safety Engineers was organized in 1915. Because I am employed with the Du Pont Co. and know particu- larly about its activities, I might mention at this time that, from 1802, the date of the organization of the Du Pont Co., safety has been an integral part of management operating philosophy. Not only 1s it humanitarian; it is good business: but over the years we have found that we must work through people to attain good performance. We have to motivate them. We have safety standards in our company but they are not mandatory. We find that 80 to 90 percent of the injuries which are occurring in our company are due to a human failure rather than a piece of equipment, a machine, or so on. Extensive research is also being carried on. In 1935 the Du Pont Co. opened the Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine as a laboratory of industrial toxicology whose function would be to study the toxic effects of new chemicals and processes on labora- tory animals so that from the information gained the necessary pre- cautions could be maintained to manufacture safely the many new chemicals that thave been developed by industry. fuadentolly, the annual budget of this laboratory exceeds $2 million. At about the same time, other chemical companies established simi- lar laboratories and others have come into existence since then, Com- mercial laboratories in some universities offer similar services for those not having their own toxicology laboratories. In addition, many cities and States provide industrial hygiene serv- ices which send experts into plants to survey the hazards and suggest improvements. This brief description of voluntary action offers only a small sampling of the efforts of American industry to improve the Jssty kid health conditions in which the American worker performs 1s task. The business community’s interest in this task is motivated primarily by humanitarian reasons, from the knowledge that here we are treating with life and death, with keeping men whole or seeing them disabled. 188 Secondly, industrial experience has taught that providing safe and healthy working conditions is good business, and accident-prevention programs promote efficiency. The visible expenses of accidents stem- ming from wage losses, production stoppages, and medical and insur- ance costs are high. The National Safety Council estimates in 1966, alone, accident ex- penses totaled $6.8 billion. Costs of this magnitude cannot and have not been ignored. A particularly strong incentive for safety achievement is built di- rectly into the ratemaking techniques of our workmen’s compensation insurance system. This is particularly true in the experience rated plans which penalize employers with poor accident records. During the last half century the casualty insurance industry alone has spent over a half billion dollars in safety activities. Today, these companies are spending over $30 million annually in the development of safety programs. This industry employs over 3,000 safety engineers who spend a substantial portion of their time developing methods to prevent occupational accidents. (Address by D. G. Vaughan at the annual convention of the International Association of Industrial Ac- cidents Boards and Commissions, Edmonton, Alberta, transcript of proceedings, pp. 158-159.) Extensive employer cooperation is given to the programs established by these experts. I understand there has been an estimate made by the Department of Yohor that 4,000 to 6,000 inspectors would be needed to enforce this bill. I might say, additionally, a large number of companies employ their own safety engineers. In the Du Pont Co. we have 175 full-time safety engineers and another 50 who participate in a part-time safety effort, along with duties in employment and personnel safety activities. The proponents of the pending legislation assert that private indus- try and State and city administrations have failed to meet their respon- sibility for the safety of employees in industry and that safety con- ditions “are getting worse, not better.” (Statement of Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz, hearings before the (lommittee on Education and Labor, Select Subcommittee on Labor—H.R. 14816—p. 9, February 1, 1968.) Are these arguments valid? Have the efforts of industry failed to give employees a safe place to work ? Let’s look at the record. The fact is that the American worker is safer on his job than he is nearly anywhere else. He is safer working than he is at home. He is safer working than in public places. He is certainly safer at work than in traffic. The National Safety Council reports in Accident Facts the following statistics for the year 1966: Deaths Disabling injuries Motor-vehicle___. 5 53, 000 1,900, 000 Home... _ a 29, 500 4,400, 000 nS a ——_. 19, 500 2, 400, 000 Work: Non-motor-vehicle___.________ _____________________________ 11, 300 2,100, 000 Motor vehicle... 3,200 100, 000 ! The phrase “disabling injury’’ as used here and in Secretary Wirtz’ statement refers to injuries disabling beyond the day of the accident. We are informed that other countries find it useful to eliminate consideration of minor mishaps in statistical surveys. Thus, in Britain no injury is considered as disabling unless the time lost goes beyond 3 days of the accident. 189 It is remarkable that in the greatest industrial nation in the world, less than 13 percent of all accidental deaths occur on the job. Of 112,000 accidental deaths in 1967, 14,200 were job related and 21 percent of them involved motor vehicles. ; I might explain, in the Du Pont Co., if a salesman in a car calling on a customer is involved in a traffic accident and is killed, this is a traffic statistic but we have to take it as an injury in industry even though it is not located or related to something on the job. Our com- pany, of course, can’t do anything about what happens on the highway except try to get an employee to be a safer driver. In other words, seven out of eight accidental fatalities have no rela- tion to work. I do not plan on reading the following statistics which are pre- sented. They will be in the record but I would like to cite a comparision of American performance in safety with the European performance. 1 propose to make this a part of the record. I have an original copy but you will get a Xeroxed copy, an article published in January of 1967 in a British magazine called Industrial Safety. The title of this article is “The Truth About Work Safety in the United States of America.” In this article it is pointed out that Ameri- can performance is much, much ahead of the British performance and it is true of the European performance. The reason for this is Europe, years ago, took the legislative ap- proach to safety. The laws had to be minimal in character and there were not enough inspectors to enforce the law; so the performance is less than minimal in character. In recent years Du Pont has built many plants in Europe and we have been advising them on safety. Part of my work is to promote the voluntary approach in safety. I looked at figures for the last 4 years and the frequency rate of all our operations in Europe was ess than one. The European and British rate is much more than that. When you compare that with the 6.9 frequency rate of all industry, according to the National Safety Council, in America, you can see we have chosen a better and more effective route to get oS results than follow- ing the European legislative approach. We abide by the laws but we go beyond that. This is a record we can be very well proud of. I have been in many meetings with the ILO in Europe and have talked to businessmen and government represent- atives and they are really envious of what we do. Sometimes they don’t believe us; but, when they come over here and see what we have done, they are more convinced. The point that was made in this article is that they just don’t be- lieve that the performance of the chemical industry in the United States is seven times better than the performance in Great Britain and they stand ahead of all the other countries in Europe. But in safety, no one wishes to rest on present progress. No one desires to oppose legislation which can help improve the safety and health of American workers, but serious questions exist about the pending bill. Initially, I have been advised that section 3 of H.R. 14816 may well have serious consequences upon the workmen’s compensation systems of the States. In essence, these laws hold that industrial employers should 190 assume the cost of occupational disabilities—without regard to the question of fault or employee negligence. Resulting economic losses are considered costs of production. These laws serve to relieve employers of liability from common law suits involving negligence and insure employees of compensation for job- incurred injuries irrespective of fault. But section 3, as now drawn, creates a Federal obligation that requires employers to maintain a safe plant or shop. Thus, an employee injured on the job could bring a Federal cause of action against his employer for breaching this obligation. We do not believe that it was intended to undermine the workmen’s compenss- tion laws in this manner. It should be made clear that the bill is not intended to create a new Federal civil damage action to be superim- posed on the coverage State laws afford for injuries arising in the course of employment. The bill also grants a mandate to the Secretary of Labor of extraor- dinarily broad proportions, presumably covering every aspect of a plant’s operations from the parking lot to the cafeteria. Full discretion is placed in his office to set standards for every business affecting commerce. There are no limiting guidelines or criteria. Only section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), concerning notice and the opportunity to submit statements in a manner determined by the agency, applies to the promulgation of such standards. We urge that any bill passed require that rules or standards be made on the record after the public has been given an opportunity for an agency hearing, conducted pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. As in the case of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 307, 371) detailed findings of fact supported by substantial evidence on the whole record developed at public hearings should provide the basis for all rulings. The delegation of the rulemaking power of Congress is, at best, questionable. The placement of that power in the hands of one man is extraordinary and not called for by the circumstances confronting us. Even standards established by commissions or boards—composed of experts experienced with the problems of their industry—should be subjected to the limitations described above, those of the Adminis- trative Procedure Act and the check of judicial review. ) Fair trial and due process are also given short shrift by the proposed ill: The Secretary is given the power to declare without any hearing a person charged with a violation ineligible to receive government contracts. No right to judicially review this determination is granted by the bill and the right to review granted by Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act is doubtful. Permanent injunctions may be obtained under Section 7(a) passed solely upon a showing that the Secretary has “reason to believe" that a violation exists rather than upon proof that the violation does, in fact, exist. ) Standards and rules promulgated by the Secretary could be judicially tested only by a commission of a violation: the severe penalties for deliberate viola- tions render highly unlikely the choice of this method to challenge such determi- nations by the Secretary. An extraordinary power to issue injunctions without a hearing is granted inspectors, whose qualifications are not specified under the bill. 191 Parenthetically, I am told 4,000 to 6,000 people are to be employed to enforce this legislation and insurance people with 3,000 engineers have not licked the job yet but are trying to be effective. The criterion used for the issuance of such injunctions is vague and subjective interpretations are possible, nor is there any requirement that the Secretary im- mediately obtain a court injunction after the issuance of an emergency cease and desist order. Because the hearing authority and jurisdiction of the Secretary and the Courts is granted pursuant to Section 5 of the Public Contracts Law (Ch. 881, 49 Stat. 2036), the Secretary's findings of fact in any review proceeding would be con- sidered presumptively correct and need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The aggrieved party bears the burden of showing that the Secretary’s determi- nation was wrong. (U. S. v. Hudgins-Dize Co., 83 F. Supp. 593 and cases there cited). We urge that in any court proceeding administrative agencies bear the burden of coming forward to show that their findings are correct. The imposition of criminal penalties and administrative civil fines for nonwillful violations are unnecessary and duplicative of other remedial checks. They are punitive, not constructive. Adequate civil and criminal Federal contempt procedures already exist and could be used to deal with deliberate violators of this bill. The bill also overlooks the problem of the employee who fails to use safety devices made available to him. There is no obligation placed upon the employee to be individually responsible. Individual workers must be impressed with their re- sponsibility in the safety field. I assure you in the experience of my company what success we have had is because we have had the em- ployee assume his responsibility in the accident prevention field. Tt is the worker who has the most at stake. In too many instances, however, he rebels at wearing safety shoes, hard hats, and other personal protection. He tries to beat machine guards or takes them off entirely. Mr. Donald Vaughan, a safety expert for many years and of considerable standing, describes a problem all too frequently encountered in the following manner : We have encountered many union stewards who have argued against pull-out guards on punch presses because they claim they do not want the worker chained to the machine. I have been in numerous discussions with union representatives about the necessity of wearing protective glasses on grinding operations or of using respirators where there are injurious gases or dust. (Address by D. G. Vaughan at the Annual Convention of the Internation Association of Industrial Accidents Boards and Commissions, Edmonton, Alberta, Transcript of Proceed- ings, p. 158-159). These specific criticisms, which I have enumerated, should not be construed as an approval of the general concept of Federal regulatory legislation in the safety and health field. Effective industrial safety and health programs are in operation now in a number of States and municipalities, and, as we have already shown, private efforts are extensive. = alternate course, designed to preserve our traditional State-Federal relationship while upgrading local programs where needed, should be explored and is certainly to be preferred over the present suggestion to federalize our safety efforts. Moreover, this proposal will require the allocation of large sums of money to the creation of Federal machinery capable of regulating and policing all business affecting commerce. During this time of crisis 192 in Federal funding, particular care must be taken to spend prudently, efficiently, and effectively. A national dialog: To say that more has to be done in the field of safefy is to say the obvious. It is regrettable that proponents of this legislation have taken that course and done little more. As the Secretary indicated in his testimony, the bill was hastily drafted. There was little or no consultation with State or municipal officials. The expertise of those in the private sector has not been drawn upon. We are here today to emphasize the need for a national dialog to determine what should be done to improve this Nation’s occupational safety and health programs. Obviously, the Secretary of Labor has an interest in, and is properly concerned with this task, but employers and union leaders, as well as State and local officials, also have their vital roles to fulfill. In my many years of safety work, I have become convinced that any substantial safety progress must be achieved through the individual by getting him involved through groups at the community level. These interests should not and cannot be ignored if further progress in occupational safety is to be made. The present legislation ignores the interests of all these groups and makes the role of the Federal Government the dominant one. I might interpolate here, if we are going to have real safe results on the et of America, we have to get into the mind of the man behind the wheel, regardless of the better engineering of highways and better engineering of automobiles. We have to do that through the community group. We are not going to legislate safety successfully any more than we legislated the drinking habits of the individual citizen of the country by the Volstead Act. With due regard for the views of all interested parties, we must now devise a course to determine what can be and what needs to be done to improve safety on the job. Perhaps with the support of this com- mittee, a National Safety Commission could be convened to investi- gate and report on present public and private safety and health programs. This Commission should identify the problems and recommend solutions. Such a Commission to be productive and useful requires that every effort be made to provide participation by the most ex- perienced and skilled leaders the business community, the States, and municipalities have to offer. No effort should be spared to do this task quickly and efficiently. Anything less would be a disservice. We sincerely hope that others interested in finding the best solution to the problem of improving occupational safety and health will join us in this request. The desirable goal of this legislation, improved industrial safety, can be reached. The business community has as much interest in this end as does the Secretary of Labor. We suggest that the problem be approached with all deliberate speed but not with haste. Let there first be a determination of how best to proceed, a determination which is the product of the best minds of all the groups interested in safety. Our desire is not to secure delay but to seek the shorter path to success. In summary, gentlemen, I respectful say I feel that a good cause 1s no excuse for a bill hastily ted Thank you very much. 193 Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Queener. I would like to very briefly comment that I appreciate your closing remarks especially ; indeed, the purpose of these hearings, which are going to extend over several won and many hours, is exactly the purpose you suggest, that is to determine how best to proceed. I don’t think any of us, including those of us who joined in sponsor- ing the legislation before use, are hard and fast in our position that this particular formulation represents the only formulation that we would choose to support and we are grateful to you for the sugges- tions that you have made and certainly they will bo considered along with the suggestions of other witnesses. Mr. Esch, do you have any questions ? Mr. Escu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was pleased to hear the chairman’s comments on that. ' I was interested first to have you reemphasize the number of acci- dental deaths that occur in comparison to the number that were di- rectly job related. I think you emphasized seven out of eight accidental fatalities have no relation to work; is that correct ? Mr. Queener. That is right. Mr. Escu. In attempting to delineate the specific need, if one exists, we should recognize that the seven out of eight fatalities at least were not directly job related. Mr. QueenEr. I would like respectfully to add to that that when you analyze the 14,200 deaths which occurred in 1967, that in agricul- ture 2,900 are included. That is some 21 percent. When you consider that those injuries occurring on the highways to industrial workers, salesmen, and so forth, account for another 20 percent, and you take service and Government fatalities that won’t be affected by this law, zou i taking some 60 percent of the fatalities out of real job-related eaths. Mr. Escu. Can we get into another matter ? What about the Federal employees? Do you have figures to show their accident rate in rela- tionship to the private sector? Mr. QUEENER. Yes; because the National Safety Council has been working with the Department of Labor on this Mission 70, which is a plan starting in January 1965 and ending December 1969, a 5-year period to reduce the frequency rate of the Federal agency employment to 70 percent in 5 years, down 6 pereent each of the 5 years. Their frequency rate in 1963, 1964, and 1965 exceeded 7.0. I don’t have the exact figures before me. I understand there has been some deterioration of that in the last year or two and they are working hard to turn the trend downward. This figure of over seven exceeds the National Safety Council frequency rate of 6.91, for all individuals which gives you a relationship that we have a job to do in the Fed- eral agencies also. Mr. Esc. What you are saying is that the Federal agencies them- selves have a poorer record than the total industrial accident rate? Mr. QUEENER. Yes, sir. Mr. Esc. They are the ones we are now asking for regulation of the private sector ? } Mr. QUEENER. At least one group; yes, sir. 194 Mr. Escn. I think there has been concern on both sides of the aisle about the lack of standards or definition of standards in this legisla- tion we are considering now. I would like to get into that area. One of the difficulties is how you set standards and we know from Du Pont’s record it has been an excel- lent one, I wonder how you, as a firm, set standards within your own company ? Mr. QueenNer. For many years we have established standards on safety within the company. It has been on a participative basis with representations from all groups in the company on a certain subject. They develop a tentative standard. Tt is sent out for comment and critique. Tt comes back and becomes a consensus type of standard which is printed up and delivered to all units of our company. It is not mandatory. We think it is the best considered judgment but we say to people in our plants, when a plant manager is assigned the responsibility for the investment in a plant, he also has the responsi- bility for prevention of injury to his employees. How he does it won’t be the result of a stick over his head. We want results and every em- ployee a member of the safety team. Lir. Escu. It is attitudinal within the plant environment? Mr. QueeNEr. There are certain plans that have to be by design. Standards are necessary for thickness of plate, a code for boilers, and so on. We believe they should not be unilaterally developed by one roup. Wo have the National Safety Council, the United States of America Standards Institute, and others developing safety standards. Mr. Escu. You mentioned about seat belts and Federal employers. I note here 21 percent of the fatal accidents involved motor vehicles. What do you do to get your employees to wear seat belts? Mr. QueenEr. This is a very current argument, I bought a 1968 car and you should see the straps on the front and back seat, shoulder straps and so on. The problem in America today is to get people to do more than sit on those. We had a market research company check out the situation for Du Pont. This is an opinion poll. Thirty to 35 percent of those who have seat belts in their cars, the public, are using them. We have checked it out for Du Pont off the job and 75 percent are using them. We think we have gotten across to the minds of the employees twice as well as BE opaii But people driving cars on company business use seat. belts nearly on a 100-percent basis. I think one reason is we didn’t in 1955, when seat, belts became a prominent item, say all cars of the company are going to be equipped with seat belts and vou have to use them. For 2 years we told our salesmen we will install seat belts in your car if you will use them but. we would like to have a documented report on the use. They became a part of consolidation for a standard. After 2 years we made it mandatory to install seat belts in all of our equip- ment. The use of it is getting to the mind of the employees that he has a personal responsibility. Mr. Esch. Carried to its absurd conclusion in contrast, if this be- comes legislation, your firm could be vitally concerned if a man didn’t 195 wear a seat belt. You could be directly liable for taking the salesman off the road. Mr. QueeNEer. I don’t think we have enough inspectors to ride around in cars and see what our salesmen are doing. Mr. Esc. What did you suggest. ? Mr. QueeNEr. I quoted a figure given to me by the representative of the Department of Labor. It was represented that 4,000 to 6,000 in- spectors might be needed. Mr. Esc. Where will we receive these trained people, where will they come from ? Mr. QueeNEr. I don’t know. The market for safety people is limited. We are in the market ; others are in the market for them too. I don’t think you could get them. They are talking about going to the unemployed group. If our engineers can’t train people in the industry, 3,000 are working on this problem, how can we expect to train the high school level person to do this job? Mr. Escu. Aren't you really in favor of safety legislation ? Mr. Queener. I think I would be naive if I was opposed to safety legislation. In our economy we must have certain types of legislation. I wouldn’t want to fly on an airplane if there was not some regula- tion. We wouldn’t want to go in a building if there was not a boiler code, or building codes. We have to have a design for building standards and safety. What I am saying is in the interest of what we say is safety progress. We might go down the wrong road and develop what we find in Europe. That is a very good example and I am proud we are much further ahead than they. I think American industry generally has a sincere regard for the well-being of the individual employee. This is indus- trial relations in its finest concept and I can say in the Du Pont Co. safety was the springboard of all our employee relations plans and policies. This has been proven in our company. You have to have some legislation but to what extent do you go? I can say we can improve travel much more if we put a parachute on the back of every passenger but that wouldn’t mean anything unless they could get out. Would they have an exit by every seat? This would increase the cost to where soon we would not be traveling by air. Mr. Esca. We have to make sure the legislation passed utilizes the expertise found in the private sector, this is where it resides, any legis- lation we decide is cooperative rather than cumulative. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Goodell ? Mr. Goober. Secretary Wirtz testified before this committee in pre- senting the proposal and he indicated a series of statistics with refer- ence to accidents, work accidents, which seem to run counter to yours. I quote Mr. Wirtz, “We can lay to the claim of progress in 1958, 13,300 workers died from work accidents. Today’s figure is higher. In 1958 some 1.8 million workers suffered disabling injuries. That number has also risen. In 1958 the accident frequency was 11.4 million man- hours worked ; today it is 12.8.” Do you have any comment on that? Your testimony on pages 4 and 5 seems to indicate the opposite trend. 92-734 0—68——14 196 Mr. Queener. If you notice, Secretary Wirtz started talking about numbers. When you have more cars on the highways in numbers you will have more accidents. But look at the rate. The rate has been declining in this work area in both severity and frequency. He pulls out of that manufacturing and that is one part of seven areas involved in the total industrial field. Manufacturing has gone up slightly in the past few years. But I might refer to a statement of the Us. Department of Health and Welfare. I quote and it can be put in the record, “Two factors contributed to the slower rate of increase, the first was a slight rise in work accident rates in 1965. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the factory work injury rate for 1965 was 12.9 per million man-hours work compared to 12.7 for 1964, which was an increase, and 11.9 for 1963. This 1s considered a below-normal in- crease for a period of expanding production when hundreds of thou- sands of workers move into new and unfamiliar jobs and others en- gaged in overtime work where they may result in fatigue and relaxed vigilance.” (The full document from which above statement was taken appears after the questioning of Mr. Queener.) I would like to say the overall trend has been favorable and in 1967 when you look at what has taken place there was an improvement and there is no justification for a crash movement based on 1967 per- formance. This is what surprised safety professionals considerably. We are not satisfied, I have said, as long as one fatality is due to an accident or injury. There is work to be done but there is no evidence for the need for crash effort here. Mr. GoopeLL. Secretary Wirtz also cited statistics as to the result of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Are you familiar with testimony on that ? Mr. QUEENER. Yes, sir. Mr. Gooperr. Do you fecl that is relevant to the safety situation in the industry today ? Mr. Queener. We have units that don’t perform as well as others and when they perform as badly as the longshoremen, if you get in there and do anything you will show progress. To counter that, I think this is logical. We have had mining safety laws for a good many years, we have legislated for safety in the mines and the mining group still has the highest frequency rate in all the tabulations submitted by the National Safety Council members. When we give attention to areas where the performance is bad, we get improvement. I congratulate them on the progress. T think, good work has been done but I can’t use that situation as a criterion as a basis for this type of legislation. Overall I don’t think it applies. Mr. GoopeLL. Let me ask you or your legal counsel vith vou, with reference to this allegation you make on page 6 of your tectimony, section 3 of the bill creates a Federal obligation that conld enctain a Federal cause of action against the employer for breachine his obli- gation even though workmen’s compensation pretty much replaces this type of action throughout the country. Mr. Opaparn. There is a series of tort cases dealing with Federal standards and I will obtain these citations. 197 Mr. GoopELL. Recent cases? Mr. Opapar. Fairly recent. I might also point out this problem can be dealt with easily. A similar problem occurred in the drafting of the Federal Metal and Non-Metallic Mine Act. This committee, I believe, or the committee that handled it, agreed to an amendment along the lines that we suggest here. The reason why we are including it at this point is to be sure it is not overlooked in the event there is some legislation in this field. Mr. Gooperr. You feel the bill as written did not contemplate this but the language is so loose it would create an action against an em- ployer in spite of the fact State workmen’s compensation laws could prevent this? Mr. OBapar. That is right; and if the committee desires, we can give you specific language which will correct that situation. Mr. Gooperr. I think that would be helpful. {The requested information follows:) Volume 1 of Corpus Juris Secundum at page 900, Section 9, states: “It is a general rule that where a statute imposes a duty for the benefit or protection of particular individuals or classes of individuals, a violation of such duty gives a right of action to any person for whose benefit or protection the statute was enacted, for any damages he has sustained thereby, without any fault on his part, as against the person guilty of the violation.” See also: Texas and Pacific Ry. Co. vs. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 39 60 L. BEd 874 (1916) ; Dann V. Studebaker-Packard Corporation 288 F. 2nd 201, 208-209, (1961), and cases cited therein. Amendments correcting problem can be found at: 30 USC 481(c) Coal Mine Safety Act; 30 USC 738(c) Federal Metal & Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act. With reference to the procedures, there has been considerable reser- vation expressed on both sides of the aisle to some of the procedures indicated here. Is it your reading of section 681 on page 6 of the bill that the Secretary may make a determination based upon his own standards and his own regulations, that there has been a violation and then it is discretionary on his part as to whether he has hearings on that violation ? Mr. Opapbar. The bill’s wording leaves that question in doubt be- cause of the phrase on line 12, “As are deemed to be necessary.” If you take a look at that section, it says, “He shall hold such hear- ings,” then there are two phrases inserted, then the phrase “As are deemed necessary to enforce the provisions of this act.” Mr. Gooperr. It appears to be discretionary. He holds such hearings as he deems necessary. Mr. OBapar. That is correct. Mr. Gooperr. If there is an instance where he feels a cease-and-desist order, or an inspector feels a cease-and-desist order is indicated be- cause of the prospective injury to workers, there is no provision for a review of this. Mr. OBapar. There is no provision for an administrative review. 1 would say, as the bill is drafted, the aggrieved employer could take the inspectors determination for review to a Federal district court, however, the burden of proof used in a hearing of that type would be placed upon the employer. He would have to show that the Secretary’s determination was wrong because of the reference in section 6 (A) (1) to section 5 of the Public Contracts Act. Our research indicates that under section 5 of that act the burden is on the employer to show the administrative agency is wrong. 198 This runs contrary to our American concept of justice which re- quires that there be a presumption of innocence in any court proceed- ing. The Public Contracts Act is unique and a limited exception. Gen- erally, the burden should be clearly on the administrator to show his determination was the correct one. Mr. Gooperr. How do you proceed to protect the employees while you are involved in court for 6 months, a year, or 2 years ? Mr. OBapar. You don’t have to be involved in court for that length of time. I have been involved in injunctive proceedings and they can be settled very quickly. Safety proceedings could also be given priority over any other type of court action. When necessary, a temporary injunction could be obtained and thereafter the question of whether permanent injunction should be issued could be decided. Mr. Goober. You are suggesting if an inspector goes in and finds a condition which, in his opinion, involves imminent harm to certain employees, he then goes to court bearing injunctive proof to ask for injunctive relief? r. OBapaL. That is correct. He can do that if he can establish that he has reason to believe danger exists. I might also point out that the question of of imminent harm or an imminently dangerous situation is one that will not be ignored by any employer. Secretary Wirtz suggested that an inspector might find a boiler about to blow up at any moment and, therefore, this extraordi- nary power was necessary. If a boiler is going to blow up, every man involved who is anywhere near that boiler is going to try to immediately correct the situation. I do think the court injunction procedure we suggest here is an un- reasonable one. Temporary injunctions can be attained very quickly, within a matter of a day. Mr. Pestinro. The bill limits the view to the question of imminent harm and it would not permit a court to test the reasonableness of the order. You may have a situation where an inspector may want to shut down an entire plant where there is an area of narrow harm. Mr. GooperL. You make reference to the fact safety is frequently a matter of the individual, harm has to do with an individual employee complying with the rules. There are things that can be done, even making it a Federal law, but you are not arguing for it. . Do you mean you would have some obligation on the employee? How would that be enforced by this bill? Mr. Queener. I have this in mind, that is unilateral action is non- American normally. We have found over many years of experience if you are going to get results, you don’t develop rules and say this is it. I would never go into a plant and say every employee in this plant tomorrow has to wear safety spectacles. What we do to attain results is to have meetings and say we have had accidents and what shall we do. We discuss it, su, tions develop and we ask, shall we make it a rule. Not all agree but that will become the standard by which people are governed in the future. When they are not a participative part of it, they react psycho- logically against it. That is what I am trying to say. At the Federal level there is more tendency, because of the size, to get away from the local group. The State groups, the county groups 199 can do these things and more and more is being done and you get more participation. The States were not even consulted in preparation of this bill and to my knowledge no industrial safety professional was. The thing is unilaterally forced on the whole picture and I don’t think you will get results that way. Europe is a good example, they have not gotten the results we have. Mr. GoopeLL. You mean the Europeans have a governmental safety program comparable to the one being proposed here? Mr. Queener. Not comparable, but they legislated safety. I have had them tell me over there not to voluntarily do this for safety, for tomorrow they will pass a law and you will have to do it. They pass a law and don’t enforce it and minimal results in safety performance are obtained. Mr. Goober. You only make side reference, you just did, about the States not being consulted. Did you have any particular suggestion as to how the States ought to be involved in this legislation ? Mr. Queener. When you say, in this legislation, I would like this to be studied very closely. Mr. Gooperr. I realize you don’t want any legislation. Mr. Queener. I think the States should get into the picture. For years in Delaware, it is a small State, we didn’t have an industrial code, or fire prevention code. I helped participate and we wrote a fire pre- vention code a few years ago that is accepted very well. The industrial safety experience in Delaware has been favorable but we didn’ have a code. Several years ago industry and government were asked to work together and adopt one. We worked with them and accepted the features in it. But the point is the people in the State of Delaware talked about it and participated. They are going to be taxed. This is the key point and this is the whole point when you talk of federalized safety— participation is essential. I am for safety or I wouldn't be here. Mr. Goober. The other side of that coin is how many States do have effective safety codes? How many States are still dragging along the way Delaware was? Mr. Queener. A good many States have effective laws, I could men- tion quite a few. There are some that should do better. I see progress. Michigan, I was involved in talking with people on that law which was recently passed. Texas passed one. I think our States are begin- ning to realize that this is something that people want and they have te move in that direction. One of the problems, of course, is financing it, it seems to be a prob- lem everywhere. I know that the democratic procedures are slow but you just can’t hit people on the head, and say they are going to perform this way. We don’t want to live under that type of law. I think people ought to get together and discuss the subject. How can we more effectively get the State in the picture. But when the State administrators and safety officials were not consulted, how can you expect them to feel they are part of the picture. Mr. GoopeLL. Assume we pass this law in its present form without change, what do you think would be the impact on these States having 200 inadequate safety programs? Would it stimulate them to set up their own or preempt ? Mr. QueeNer. I think there would be some stimulation. Of course, there is a 90 percent and 10 percent arrangement on financing proposed. They would look toward that but I think the final result would be much more preferred if we stimulated them to do it on their own rather than through a Federal act. Mr. GooperL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you very much. Mr. Queener, I would like to ask a few questions, if I could. On page 4 of your statement you take issue with a statement. from Secre- tary Wirtz. I don’t like to see the chamber disagreeing with the Secretary of Labor and I thought I would try to reconcile your viewpoints. You quote the Secretary of Labor as saying safety conditions are getting worse, not, better and you then disagree with that statement. I think it would be appropriate to read the Secretary’s statement in full and see if we still disagree with it. The Secretary says: It is 14,500 people who are killed every year in this country working and it is 2.2 million people who suffer disabling injuries every year working so that they lost time. Some of the other figures are less important because they are less human. A figure of $114 billion lost in wages is a pretty important item. Another point of comparison suggests to us that 10 times as much time is lost from work production in this country as a result of accidents, 10 times as much as lost from strikes, work stoppages and things of that kind. The loss in the economy in terms of productivity and total production, we suggest this goes beyond our common understanding, but they result in a direct loss to Gross National Product of about $5 million a year. And then if you add in the indirect losses it comes to $614 billion a year. We are talking about a very, very major problem whether we are talking of the economics or whether we are talking of human values. There are, in the statement included, a number of other statistical measures of the extent of this problem and I do not repeat those here. There is one other point to be made about this—they are getting worse not better. t That is the statement you quote. They are growing in size because the population is growing. But the trouble is beyond that, the rate frequency of accidents in a good many of these areas is growing. I think that is all of the Secretary’s statement pertinent to your quotation. As I understand the Secrefary’s statement, what he is say- ing is that the amount of lost time, the amount of the number of acci- dents and the total hour value of lost production is growing. Do you quarrel with that statement ? Mr. QueeNEr. Growing in total but the implication Mr. O'Hara. That is all the Secretary said. Mr. Queener. The implication is the employers are not doing right, indicated by the employees accident rise. This is not true of what is being done in this country. By the National Safety Council, the death trend of workers—— Mr. O'Hara. What page? Mr. QueexnEr. Look on page 29. When you see in the left column, deaths per 100,000 workers, you start at 37, in 1966 it was 20, in 1967 it dropped to 19. Now, if you look at manufacturing, which is the middle column, it starts at 25 and down to 10 and, incidentally, it was nine in 1967, an improvement over 1966. 201 If you look at nonmanufacturing, these are agricultural workers, Government, workers and so forth, their rate is still 23 from 40. They have not had the good trend that the workers have industrially. You look at those graphs at the bottom, do you see the trends there on deaths and death rates? On the other page, page 28, I admit we have plateaued there, but look at the frequency rate, it is going down. Recently it went up. Why pick 1967 and said we have to have a crash program and not even talk to anybody about a bill. Mr. O'Hara. You picked 1926 and 1946 and 1966, right ? Mr. Queener. Right. Mr. O'Hara. You show significant improvement over that period, 1926, 1946, and 1966. Mr. Queener. That is right. Mr. O'Hara. If you drop back for the last 10 years and take 1956 to 1966, what do you find that? Starting on page 28 of “Accident Facts— 1967” you find that the total disability, temporary total disability rate has moved upward from 591 to 645, you find that all disabilities have moved from 638 to 691. Moving into manufacturing, I have not looked at these before, 1 find deaths per 100,000 workers has gone from 23 to 20, in manufac- turing from 12 to 10 and in nonmanufacturing from 28 to 23. The total number of deaths, as the Secretary pointed out, has gone up. There is a larger work force than there was then. I'am a little concerned because over the last 10 years frequency rates are not showing improvement. Mr. QueeNEgr. The overall trend, considering all factors and deaths become a very large part of it, has not been on el nature to require crash action. When you try to break down some of these figures, bear in mind on page 23 of accident facts we are talking about trade, man- ufacturing, service in Government, transportation and public utili- ties, agriculture, mining, and farming. You have a whole concept, I don’t know what you can do about agricultural safety enforcement. I don’t think it would be Interstate Commerce unless it was a peculiar situation. You have Government groups that won’t be affected federally or locally. They won’t be interested. You are picking at a very small part of the total. Because 1967 did show some improvement, I think it will show when the figures are out, why pick out 1968 as the time for all this action. Bear in mind I think we need to improve. We have a frequency rate of 26 injuries per million man-hours worked in 1966 in the Du Pont Co. We retrogressed up to .39 last year. We are unhappy with that, that is a 50 percent poorer performance. We are looking at our par, not the par of industry. We are disturbed about what is happening in American industry and American workplaces. We want something done. But are we picking out the best way to do the job? I don’t think we are. I congratulate the Secretary on his wanting to do something but let’s get it done in a manner that will do the most good. Mr. O'Hara. The disturbing element to me is this rate. As you put it, they have plateaued in the last few years, there was not the kind of improvement there was in earlier years. 202 Mr. Escu. You indicated agriculture would not be affected, you meant it would be difficult to regulate their safety condition, but they would be affected ? Mr. QueeNer. It would be difficult to enforce, let’s say. Mr. O'Hara. Another point about these statistics that I would like to make, and I don’t want to dwell any further on the statistics is that the figures used by you are quite properly the National Safety Council’s figures. The record of figures used on page 5 of the state- ment are National Safety Council figures, are they not? Mr. OBapaL. For the most part they are all National Safety Council figures except on page 5 we refer it to the fatality-rate injuries for the year 1913. The National Safety Council was not the source of that statistic. We obtained that information from a statement made by W. S. McCormick of the Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. and will send that over to you, the source for that material, if the committee so desires. Mr. O'Hara. I just think it ought to be made clear that in this same publication the National Safety Council itself points out that the rates of the employers who report to them are about 70 percent lower than for industry as a whole. Mr. QueeNEr. That is right. IT might make a correction of one statis- tic set forth on page 5, of our statement. Instead of 1,000 deaths occurring on farms, the correct figure is 2,900. Farm deaths account for about 21 percent of all work-related fatalities. Mr. O’Hara. On page 8 of your statement, Mr. Queener, you suggest in the second sentence of the second paragraph following the quote, effective industrial safety and health programs are in operation now in a number of States and municipalities. I gather that the converse of that, as in a number of others, there are not, effective occupational health and safety programs. Mr. Queener. I would certainly think so. Mr. O'Hara. That is another aspect of the situation that somewhat bothers me. On page 37 of the National Safety Council Accident Facts publica- tion, they have injury rates by States and without going into them, it is apparent that there are very great differences among the States. I think it is only fair, though, to read the comment of the Safety Council, suggesting that differences from State to State result as least partly from differences in the kind of work done in the various States. In the opinion of the National Safety Council that is part of the explanation. I would assume the remainder of the explanation must have to do with a variation in the effectiveness of the State programs. Would you take exception to that statement? Mr. QueexnEer. I think that might be true and it might be affected by the type of injury. I don’t see Oregon and Washington but logging is a hioch-injury frequency industry. Mining: Kentucky is 14: Pennslvania. 10; New York, 12; West Virginia is not there. I was thinking of mining States. I am surprised at 16.8 in California, which has done a very good job as a State in industrial safety and fire protection. I have to agree it might show a difference in effectiveness but I don’t think it would be the sole reason. 203 Mr. O'Hara. I tried to make that clear. The Safety Council comment is there are differences in the kind of work done. I think the remainder could be explained by the differences in effectiveness of State operations. Again, in an effort to reconcile your statement and the Secretary of Labor’s statement, on page 4 of his statement he makes the following assertion, one that es per safety standards and enforcement average $0.40 per worker with some States as low as $0.02 per worker. Mr. QueenEr. I have not attempted to look at the individual statis- tics, sir, because I don’t like the concept. of the entire act. There must be some things in here that are good. Mr. O'Hara. I am trying to sketch the problem. Mr. QueeNer. In an agricultural State where there is not much industry, they might not spend much. If it is a ranching State there would not be money spent on the safety of cowboys. That might be a State where $0.02 is spent. I am not in a position to talk of that. Mr. O’Hara. He suggests some agencies lack rulemaking authorities. Have you surveyed the State agencies to see if that is correct? Mr. QueeNEr. No, but I am personally familiar with several States with rulemaking authority and you get participation. I was on the rulemaking commission in Delaware for many years and once vou get participation it is accepted. I have not made it a point to find out what States don’t do it. I don’t take issue with this statement because I have not surveyed it. Mr. O'Hara. He suggests many State health and safety regula- jams are outdated and insufficient, you would probably agree with that. Mr. QuerNER. Yes, we are looking for people ourselves. Mr. O'Hara. Coverage is often limited to specific areas, such as boiler codes and elevator codes, is that correct? Mr. Queener. Right. Mr. O'Hara. I am impressed by your statement with respect to what you are doing in Du Pont. I noted—that is with reference to the Haskell Laboratory of Toxo- logical Industrial Medicine, you suggested that your injury frequency rate at Du Pont had been in the neighborhood of 214 million man- hours work and it had gone up recently? Mr. QueenEer. It was 26. I can’t remember back where it was 21/4. I hear some safety men laughing. Mr. O'Hara. I am delighted to be corrected. Mr. QueeNEr. It went up to 0.39 in 1967. Mr. O'Hara. In your European operation you mentioned a figure there? Mr. QueeNEer. 0.75. Mr. O'Hara. That is very interesting. You suggested that European operations had higher rates because they had adopted a regulatory methodology in Europe. Has that affected your operations in such a way as to produce a rate in your European operation almost double that of your U.S. operation? Mr. Queexer. No, that is not what caused a doubling. I have visited there and talked with our people. Our Nationals in Europe don’t have the concepts we have in America. You have to get them to understand 204 what you are trying to do in protecting themselves against injury in industry. We find it particularly difficult in the German employee group. They feel you are trying to interfere with their freedom of action. They are used to being told what to do by State law. We are working with a safety team. I have talked to those supervisors, sometimes through translators, because we are trying to get them to adopt a voluntary approach to safety. * We believe in treating each individual fairly. It is humanitarian and good business and we don’t have to be there too long until we get that concept across. I gave you a 4-year average to point out you don’t do it overnight. . In some areas, not Europe, we insist on safety shoes. The foreman leaves and the employee takes them off. He would rather go barefoot. It is a point of view which is necessary, not a legislative approach. It is working with them and developing a safety state of mind. While the legislative route may appear at first glance to be the road to take but if we consider it more carefully, it may not be the right way. Mr, O'Hara. I am trying to explore these differences and find the causes for them. I gather from your analysis of the differences be- tween European and U.S. operations that you would feel that the primary reason for the higher rate in European operations has to do with worker attitudes and management attitudes that are part of your European operation that don’t exist here and that is related in turn to management attitudes. You feel it is important that management have a very positive program and to have a climate of safety operat- ng in the plant. would certainly agree with that but I note that whereas the Euro- pean employers might have been deficient in that regard, whether it has to do with the fact there is more legislation in Europe, I think U.S. employers may have failed and I can’t attribute that to legislation. According to the rates of the National Safety Council on page 36, it shows the chemical industry as a whole having a frequency rate of 10 times Du Pont’s rate and that figure is held down by the fact that Du Pont is included in the report. If you took out Du Pont, it would be more than 10 times as high, so that suggests to me that Du Pont has done exceptionally good work but the lack of legislation does not necessarily promote the proper management and worker attitudes either. Mr. Queener. I would be inclined to change the statement about the European worker being the focal point. It is the management getting the worker to think the right way, not worrying about laws that might affect his operation. This takes time to do. But let’s put it this way, I am not trying to talk about Du Pont, but I have worked for a company which since 1802 has felt strongly about this. They started out making black powder. Take Du Pont out and your average for the industry may be a poorer performance but the injury figure will be much less than the 508 for all industry in America; 6.91 would be welcome in Great ritain. 205 Mr. O'Hara. I am suggesting there is a lot of room for improve- ment here and there. Mr. QueeNer. You are so right. Mr. OBapar. On page 26 it shows the chemical industry has a 3.78 frequency rate whereas the frequency rate for all industry is 6.91 so the record of this industry Mr. O'Hara. Oh, yes; I was pointing out Du Pont is classified with - the chemical industry and I was pointing out the industry has a rate 10 times Du Pont’s rate. IT am saying there is a great deal of difference between Du Pont and the average industry and there must be some reason having to do with Du Pont’s own operation. Mr. Escn. I think it is significant that seven out of eight are not job-related. The total record 1s almost twice as many because when we begin to delineate the problem, seven out of eight are not directly job- related. Therefore, when you are talking of a given industry it is very diffi- cult to delineate the problem because seven out of eight totally are not job-related—that is fatal accidents. Mr. O’Hara. These are the frequency work injuries. Mr. Esc. Iam talking of fatal accidents. Mr. O'Hara. With respect to your Haskell Laboratory, to which you refer on page 3, you suggest you operate the laboratory and its func- tion will be to study the toxic effects of new chemical processes on laboratory animals so that from the information gained, the necessary precautions could be taken to manufacture safely the many new chemi- cals which have been developed by industry. I am pleased to see that as I had not been aware of just exactly what Du Pont was doing in this field. Are your examinations in that {abora- tory directed primarily or entirely to the safety of manufacturing these chemicals or are they directed equally to some extent to the safety of the use of these chemicals? Mr. Queener. I am in charge of insurance for the company where we may have claims of public liability against our products. We use it for several different reasons. The chemicals we are going to explore as new products, the ones we use go through the laboratory first for in- vestigation on exposure to the operator working in our company. Second is the exposure to the public, and third is the consumer likely to be harmed by this product. There are times in research we discontinue product manufacture because we do not think it should be sold to the public. We used to make beta-naphthylamine. It is good business to know that you are not putting into the public market a product that is really too hazardous to justify it. We still manufacture dynamite, but there is no justification for eliminating it. Mr. O'Hara. Bringing up beta-naphthylamine, you were for some time engaged in the manufacture of beta-naphthylamine and then you stopped manufacturing it? Mr. QueeNer. Other products were satisfactory substitutes as far as we were concerned. Mr. O’Hara. With respect to that question, we have this occupa- tional health statement from the public health service dated in Novem- ber 1965 saying that Pennsylvania has outlawed the use of beta- naphthylamine, a chemical employed primarily in dye manufacturing 206 and known to produce cancer of the bladder in workers known to be exposed to it. I assume because of precautions taken in your plant so employees would not be exposed to it, you were aware of the dangers? Mr. QueENEer. Yes, we knew it and took measures against the ex- posure. It was a very expensive product to manufacture. Mr. O'Hara. When you sold it to dye manufacturers, what precau- tions did you take with respect to their use of it? Did you, as part of the sale process, did you give warning ? Mr. QUEENER. I can’t speak particularly to that point, but our policy is we give technical service information and caution against the cer- tain characteristics of certain products, I know more about tetraethyl lead where we sent people out to show customers how to clean tanks and handle the product safely. ‘We spent a lot of money showing people that the product is safe to use. Mr. O'Hara. Is it your policy that if you become aware of a toxilogi- cal danger or environmental danger in connection with a product you manufacture and sell, you do give the buyer some sort of warning? Mr. QuEeNER. Yes, technical knowledge. It is in some ways com- pared to technical data sheets published on many chemicals. It outlines the characteristics of the product, for what it should be used, and so on. It depends on the product as to the type of information. Mr. O’Hara. And the degree of danger. When you were manufac- turing beta-naphthylamine and some buyer came to you and said he wanted so many tank cars of beta-naphthylamine, as you understand the policy, would it have been your policy to make certain that that buyer would have had brought to his attention the precautions he would have to take and the dangers of the material. Mr. QUEENER. I can’t speak particularly to that but that is our policy. Mr. O’Hara. I think that is an excellent policy. One of the things it seems to me that we might strive for in this country is that manufac- turers will take that precaution with respect to products that they sell and not just Du Pont but all of them. I don’t know to what extent that is or is not done. Mr. Queener. I think, relating to the chemical industry, the MCA represents about 90 percent of the volume of chemicals manufactured. There is a safety and fire prevention committee which spends many hours developing this type of material. The MCA has labeling information on products which appears on labels. This is a concept chemical engineers adopted many years ago, not because it was required by law but because they felt it was good business. Mr. O'Hara. Would you supply us with the materials you just re- ferred to? Mr. QueenEr. Yes, I will do that. Mr. O'Hara. We would like to have that and take a look at it. IT notice in connection with this public service health report on beta-naphthyl- amine that the chemicals are regarded as so toxic that no safe limit of exposure has ever been established. The health authorities, Pennsylvania, they said, was the only State in the Union that outlawed the use of it. They said Pennsylvania au- 207 thorities resorted to regulatory action against beta-naphthylamine only after efforts to obtain voluntary action failed. If this is correct, I assume it is, it may be that efforts to obtain volun- tary action are not also a complete answer. Mr. Queener. T think you have to look at the size, volume and so forth. That is one of our problems. What one small group might do affects the majority. There are times when legislation is necessary, I don’t debate that issue but I think what I have said is that enlight- ened employers representing 90 percent. of the chemical industry vol- ume of production adopted a safety oriented point of view a long time ago. Mr. O'Hara. That is always the problem, 90 percent of the drivers are careful, prudent drivers. Ninety percent of the chemical industry is careful and prudent but unfortunately there are operators of motor vehicles and Ee rot that are not. In your conclusion, you suggest, as you did in response to Mr. Esch’s question, that probably Federal acfion with respect to industrial occupational health and safety would be appropriate although you have grave reservations about the form of action proposed in this bill. But you are in favor of the Federal Government taking an interest in this subject and making a constructive contribution, as I understand your testimony. Mr. Queenek. Taking an interest, I don’t know the avenue. Tt may not be legislation. I was very glad when, starting with Truman, the Government initiated Presidential safety conferences, thus pointing to one thing, it pointed to the citizens of this country that the top man in_our Government was vitally interested. This was continued until last year when for some reason it was dis- continued. Mr. O'Hara. I have before me a report called “A Strategy for a Livable Environment.” In that report on page 23 they recommend an effort to extend by 1970 preventative services to 100 percent of the employer population at its work place. I'am sure you share that goal. They suggest that this will require greater effort on the part of Federal and State and local government and industry itself. T am sure you share in that. Mr. QUEENER. Yes. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Queener; your testimony has been very helpful. (The information referred to follows :) [U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, Office of Research and Statistics] WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PAYMENTS AND Costs, 1965* The estimated number of workers covered by State and Federal workmen's compensation laws in an average month passed the 50-million mark in 1965. The 50.5-50.7 million workers covered represented a little more than 80 percent of the civilian employed wage and salary labor force in the country. During the past decade, this precentage has remained relatively stable, although the number of workers covered has increased by more than 9 million. In 1965 alone, a 2-million increase in coverage was recorded, the largest gain for any single year during the decade. *Summary of note by Alfred M. Skolnik and Julius W. Hobson to appear in the January 1967 issue of the Social Security Bulletin. 208 Payrolls covered by workmen's compensation also hit a new high in 1965 as wage levels advanced an average of 3.3 percent. The estimated covered payroll for 1965 was $290 billion, an increase of 6 percent from the 1964 estimate of $273 billion. Despite the growth in covered workers and payrolls and the acceleration in economic activity in 1965, workmen's compensation payments increased at a slower rate in 1965 than in 1964. The total of $1,797 million paid out in medical and cash benefits under State and Federal work injury laws was 5.6 percent higher than the 1964 aggregate of $1,701 million. The 1964 rise had been 7.5 percent. In absolute numbers, the $96 million increase in workmen's compensa- tion payments in 1965 was the fourth highest annual increase for the decade. Two factors probably contributed to the slower rate of increase. The first was the slight rise in work accident rates in 1965. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the factory work-injury frequency rate for 1965 was 12.9 per million man-hours worked, compared with 12.7 for 1964 and 11.9 for 1963. This is considered a below-normal increase for a period of expanding production when hundreds of thousands of workers move into new and unfamiliar jobs and others engage in overtime work that may result in fatigue and relaxed vigilance. The second factor was that though 1965 was an active legislative year for changes and improvements in the work-injury laws, for many States 1965 legis- lative changes and improvements in the work-injury laws did not go fully into effect until 1966. These changes included increases in maximum benefits for temporary total disability—the most common type of disability—in 25 States, as well as similar increases in several States for permanent total disability, for partial disability, and for death. At the end of 1965, 15 States, the District of Columbia, and the two Federal programs paid maximum benefits of $60 or more for temporary total disability ; another seven States paid maximums of $55 or more. For the sixth successive year, the cost of workmen's compensation to .em- ployers as a percentage of covered payroll rose in 1965. From a low of 89 cents per $100 of payroll in 1959, costs edged up to 93 cents in 1960, 96 cents in 1962, $1.00 in 1964, and finally, $1.01 in 1965. The latter figure is a new high for the years since World War II. : In absolute dollars, employers spent almost $200 million more in 1965 than in 1964 to insure or self-insure their work-injury risks. The estimated $2,925 million spent in 1965 consists of (a) $2,100 million in premiums paid to private insurance companies; (b) $570 million in premiums paid to State insurance funds (for the Federal programs financed through Congressional appropriations, these premiums are the sum of benefit payments and the costs of the admin- istrative agency); and (c) about $255 million as the cost of self-insurance (benefits paid by self-insurers, with the total increased 5-10 percent to allow for administrative costs). Total benefit outlays as percent of payroll have shown no change for the past four years, continuing to equal 62 cents for every $100 of covered payroll. Prior to 1962, a lower ratio had prevailed (58 cents in 1958, 55 cents in 1955, and 54 cents in 1950). Since costs showed a greater relative increase in 1965 than did benefit outlays, the proportion of the premium dollar that reached the injured worker dropped from 62 percent in 1964 to 61 percent in 1965. This is the lowest ratio recorded since 1957. Of the total payments of $1,797 million in 1965, private carriers were respon- sible for 63 percent, State insurance funds (including the Federal workmen's compensation programs) for 24 percent, and self-insurance for 13 percent. Pri- vate carrier and self-insured payments increased at a somewhat faster pace (6-7 percent) than State fund disbursements (4 percent). WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COVERAGE, BENEFITS AND COSTS, 1940, 1946, AND 1948-651 Benefits paid during year (millions) Percent of covered payroll Ranges in esti- mated number of By type of insurance By type of benefit Calendar year workers covered Cost of per month Total Insurance losses State fund Employers’ Medical and Compensation workmen's Benefits (millions) paid by private disbursements 3 self-insurance hospitalization payments compensation 5 carriers 2 payments 4 24.2-25.0 $256 $135 $73 $48 $95 $161 1.19 0.72 32.2-33.2 434 270 96 68 140 294 .91 .54 35.6-36.3 534 335 121 78 175 359 .96 51 34.9-35.7 353 132 81 185 381 98 55 36.5-37.2 615 381 149 85 200 415 89 54 38.3-39.0 709 444 170 94 233 476 90 54 39.1-39.7 785 491 193 101 260 525 94 55 40.4-41.0 841 524 210 107 280 561 97 55 39. 5-40.0 876 540 225 110 308 568 98 57 41.2-41.6 916 563 238 115 325 591 91 55 42.8-43.1 1,002 618 259 125 350 652 92 55 43.2-43.4 1,062 661 271 130 360 702 91 42.4-42.6 1,112 694 285 132 375 737 91 58 43.9-44.1 1,210 753 316 141 410 89 58 44,8-45.0 1,295 810 325 160 435 860 93 59 44,9-45.1 1,374 851 347 176 460 914 95 61 46.1-46.3 1,489 924 371 194 495 984 96 62 47.2-47.4 1,582 988 388 206 525 1,057 99 62 48.5-48.7 ,701 1,069 409 223 565 1,136 1.00 62 50. 5-50. 7 1,797 1,133 425 238 595 1,202 1.01 62 1 Data include Alaska and Hawaii beginning with 1959. ¢ Cash and medical benefits paid by self-insurers, plus value of medical benefits paid by employers 2 Net cash and medical benefits paid during calendar year by private insurance companies under carrying workmen's comp tion policies that lude standard medical coverage. standard workmen's compensation policies. 3 Net cash and medical benefits paid by competitive and exclusive State funds and by Federal by 5 to 10 percent to al workmen's compensation system. 5 Premiums written By private carriers and State funds, and benefits paid by self-insurers increased fow for administrative costs. Also includes benefits paid and administrative costs of Federal workmen's compensation system. 210 NATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMPENSATION INSURANCE, New York, N.Y., February 27, 1968. Re Safety Expenses—Workmen’s Compensation Insurance Carriers. Mr. ANDREW MALGARD, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MALGARD: At your request we have developed estimates of the dollars spent by workmen’s compensation insurance carriers on safety, and the percentage these dollars bear to the premiums paid to the companies. Obtaining these figures presents some complications because under the instructions for ex- pense accounting which all carriers are required to follow in reporting their expenses to insurance departments, the maintenance of a separate account for safety is an optional matter. Thus, although most carriers elect to keep a special accounting of safety expenditures, some do not earmark them. For those carriers which reported safety expenses separately, the following percentages of premiums were expended on safety for the years indicated : Calendar years: Poreani ot 10682 ee 1.8 TOO cece i mnie ee re rem erm mr 1.8 TOOT cs ii 5m iii mm 535 tt ge eet ei oe ee 1.7 OB em mim ————————————— i ot ind ep SRE 1.7 1966 ee 1.5 TPORAT concise oem im mm 550 55 i st ee itm 1.7 These carriers represented in the aggregate approximately 839, of the total premium volume of private insurance carriers. On the assumption that the same percentages are applicable to all carriers, we estimate that the following dollar amounts were expended for safety during the same calendar years: Calendar year : Amount FOBT | cee cerns ms immo ics a i SR RE $26, 600, 000 JO0T | cn commen TR EERE EER RR 28, 500, 000 FOOL crmm mm SS SS RA Sm mm mn 29, 400, 000 TOBE. cc mmm msi mmmiss mom am onion gooey ve ee iii 31, 700, 000 1966 31, 600, 000 TIDNOLEAL. ccm moe mm 5 ol A A ems 147, 800, 000 With respect to both of the above exhibits, premiums are net of premium discounts, retrospective rating returns and estimated dividends paid. We feel that the above figures are conservative because we know that the carriers have additional expenditures which have a safety impact and which do not show up under the safety account. For instance, monies are spent for the support of organizations the work of which includes activities in promotion of safety, such as the holding of safety conferences and the preparation of safe'y literature. The American Insurance Association and the American Mutual Insurance Alli- ance are examples of such organizations. Furthermore, it is also true that the insurance company is selling not only indemnity against loss but claim handling service as well. In the ordinary course of investigating and analyzing a claim there is an opportunity to identify the hazardous conditions which contributed to the accident and which can be rectified to prevent subsequent injuries. This is not a substitute for a primary safety effort but it is a valuable adjunct to the safety program. Finally, there are others involved in the insurance transaction, namely agents, and brokers who can, and do, contribute to the total effort of stimulating safety consciousness. We trust that the foregoing information is of help to you. Very truly yours, ) RoBERT D. HEITZMANN, Assistant General Manager. Our final witness for today is Mr. Leo Teplow, who is vice presi- dent of industrial relations of American Iron & Steel Institute. Would you step forward and give us the advantage of hearing your views? 211 STATEMENT OF LEO TEPLOW, VICE PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL RELA- TIONS, AMERICAN IRON & STEEL INSTITUTE, ACCOMPANIED BY J. L. RIDINGER, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND PLANT PROTEC- TION OF THE INLAND STEEL CO., CHAIRMAN OF THE INSTITUTE’S COMMITTEE ON SAFETY; F. R. BARNAKO, MANAGER OF COMPEN- SATION AND SAFETY, BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP.; AND DOUGLAS W. BROWN, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY, UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. Mr. O’Hara. Would you please identify yourself and proceed? Mr. Teprow. Mr. Chairman and members of the select subcommittee, my name is Leo Teplow. I am vice president, industrial relations, American Iron & Steel Institute. Occupational safety has been one of my primary responsibilities for over 25 years. I appear before this committee as a representative of American Iron & Steel Institute, an association of 68 domestic iron and steel producing and iron ore companies, with employment of well over one-half million hourly and salaried employees. I have with me three associates, on my extreme right, Mr. J. L. Ridinger, director of safety and plant protection of Inland Steel Co. in Chicago, who is chairman of the institute’s committee on safety. Immediately on my right is Mr. F. R. Barnako, manager of com- pensation and safety, Bethlehem Steel Corp., a former chairman of our committee on safety; and on my left is Mr. Douglas Brown, director of safety, United States Steel Corp. All of these gentlemen are members of our committee on safety. Although an inherently hazardous industry, the iron and steel industry has a notable record of over 60 years of hard work at accident ‘prevention. I note in Mr. Queener’s testimony, he made reference to the fact that the first company with a program of occupational safety was actually a steel company. Some companies started organized safety activities as early as 1907, which is over 60 years ago. It was the Association of Iron & Stool Electrical Engineers that was primarily responsible for organizing the National Safety Council over 50 years ago. The AISI Committee on Safety was organized in 1949, and today 28 steel companies are represented on that committee. Within the past 2 years, regional safety subcommittees have been formed to bring more companies and more plant-level people within the gambit of the committee on safety. Hardly an important safety conference takes place anywhere in the United States without steel company participation, frequently in a leadership position. The steel industry believes in safety, and practices what it believes. At this point, I would like to make a comment about safety special- ists; safety directors, the men involved in the safety movement. It is called a safety movement because it involves the deep-set feelings of the men involved. I know of no group in the United States that is more dedicated to their mission in life than are the safety directors and this is why it is always a great pleasure to work with our safety committee and with others engaged in the promotion of safety. 92-734 0—68——15 212 The accident frequency record of the steel industry indicates that, despite the industry’s inherent hazards, progress has been made. From a frequency of 30.92 disabling injuries per million man-hours worked in 1926, the rate came down to 3.54 in 1966. Since this paper was prepared, Mr. Chairman, there has become available the data on the steel industry’s experience in 1967 and it is a pleasure to report that we have reached a new low of 3.10 lost- time accidents per million man-hours. Despite dramatic changes in equipment and methods of produc- tion, despite higher speeds of operation, the industry has held the line at a relatively low frequency rate during the past decade, and, as I have just indicated, have improved on it during the past year. However, the industry is not satisfied with any frequency higher than zero. Of the list of 41 industries for which the National Safety Council maintains statistics, only four industries had in 1966 frequency levels lower than that in the steel industry. Today the steelworker is much safer on the job than he is off the job. Similarly, the AISI Committee on Industrial Health has concerned itself with the health aspects of employees since its formation in 1944. It. is responsible for a unique book, “Occupational Health Practices— Iron and Steel,” published in 1965, which describes steel company occupational wy programs in some detail. If it would be of interest to the committee, I would be very glad to send the committee a copy of that book. We address ourselves to the proposed legislation before you from the viewpoint of an industry that has a serious and long term interest in occupational health and safety. No one can take issue with the stated purpose and policy of the pro- posed legislation, which is to assure safe and healthful working condi- tions for “every working man and woman in the Nation.” In indicating our accord with this high objective, it is clear that a law applicable to all “businesses affecting commerce” involves a cover- age that included hundreds of thousands of employers, large and small, apparently including agriculture. It is generally conceded that, while there are employers of all sizes in various industries and commercial activities that have enviable health and safety records, the occurrence of high accident frequency is likely to be centered among smaller companies—companies which may not have full-time safety directors or medical departments. Administration of a health and safety law applicable to many thou- sands of small employers would require an extensive organization in- volving hundreds or possibly thousands of employees, with a substantial organizational superstructure here in Washington. A substantial organization would be required merely to feed in- formation into Washington as to the areas in which effort should be concentrated, since no bureau will ever have enough inspectors to cover every little workshop, garage, and cleaning establishment that would presumably be within the ambit of the proposed law. The committee is urged to consider whether the administration and enforcement of safety standards for employers—particularly small employers—would not more appropriately and efficiently be carried out by those closest to the scene—that is, the State government agen- cies concerned with occupational health and safety. 213 Tt is the State governments that can most effectively determine the problem areas where efforts ought to be concentrated—the high- hazard industries and companies in that State, the programs being undertaken by local employers, the measures found most effective to promote employee health and safety. Since I first prepared this paper, gentlemen of the committee, I have read the testimony given before this committee by William H. Stewart, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. While I do not wish to quote Surgeon General Stewart out of con- text, since he favors this bill, I do want to say he recognizes the problem and says: “Not all workers have this health protection, in fact the remaining 65 million workers out of a total of 80 million do not have these protections and can be reached only through a system of inspection of workplace and education of small plant management, preferably through State and local agencies. Regretfully,” he continues, “some situations will require sanctions but I think these will be few.” That is the end of the quotation from Surgeon General Stewart’s testimony. If it is objected that some States do not devote enough resources to occupational health and safety, it might be well to determine what actions might be taken to enable and encourage all State governments to be more effective in their occupational safety activities. The bill does move in that direction. It would authorize the Secre- taries of Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor, respectively, to conduct research and training; and to make grants to the States to assist them to identify their occupation health and safety needs and responsibilities, and to develop plans for: a) Ascertaining the facts; b) Increasing their expertise and enforcement capabilities; ¢) Improving the administration and enforcement of their health and safety laws. In our opinion, these are desirable measures, since they contribute to the overall objective of promoting occupational health and safety in the most efficient manner; that is, enabling and encouraging the States to do the job at the State level. : On the other hand, it is doubtful if any State legislature would allo- cate much funds or personnel to occupational health or safety if the Federal Government were to preempt, either now or at the end of 18 months, the enforcement and administration of safety in practically all of the significant economic activities in that State. If this committee and the Congress concur in our position that so comprehensive a program of occupational health and safety can best be administered at the State level, and that the Federal Government will assist the States in establishing programs of occupational safety, it would be our intention to cooperate in that endeavor. It is our hope that leadership in this respect may be as helpful as has been the leadership exercised by the steel companies in many other areas of safety, on the job and off the job. One of the provisions of the bill that gives us grave concern is that relating to the establishment of standards. These, according to the bill, are to be prescribed after appropriate consultation with i do Federal 214 agencies, but there is no requirement that there shall be consultation with representatives of those who are to be affected by them . Our experience with standards of this type, such as the Walsh- Healey safety and health regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor December 12, 1960, without prior consultation with those affected, is not encouraging. Despite widespread subsequent criticism of these regulations in private conferences, correspondence and public hearings, they remain unchanged to this day. On the other hand, the regulations issued by the Bureau of Labor Standards, under the Longshoremen’s and Harborworkers Compensa- tion Act, after extensive consultation with those affected, have met with excellent acceptance and have been instrumental in reducing acci- dents in those industries to which they are applicable. It seems to me this experience indicates the need and importance of requiring consultation with those to be affected. If the committee accepts our recommendation that the States be given an opportunity to administer effective health and safety laws and regulations, perhaps there is no need to provide for Federal standards authority. But if it is decided to proceed with Federal health and safety stand- ards, then we urge consideration of two modifications : (1) Provide that no standards be adopted without adequate con- sultation with representatives of those to be affected by them. If this is done, the standards or regulations are likely to be much more practical, enforceable and acceptable. The utilization of industry advisory committees—as also urged by Secretary Wirtz—to facilitate such consultation is strongly recommended. (2) Use as a guide existing safety and health standards developed by reputable standards organizations such as United States of America Standards Institute, National Fire Protection Association and Ameri- can Society for Testing and Materials. These voluntary standards agencies develop health and safety stand- ards through the consensus method which involves all those affected— users, employee representatives, manufacturers, independent experts, insurance companies, the National Safety Council, and appropriate government agencies at State and Federal levels. It would be a waste of scarce talent, time, and money to set aside such existing standards and develop new ones from scratch. Further- more, no new standards could achieve the acceptance that normally re- sults when those to be affected have had a part in developing them. Where needed health and safety standards do not exist, these agencies stand ready and should be relied upon to develop new standards. The steel industry has had extensive experience with the operation of these voluntary agencies, and many able representatives of the industry serve on a variety of their governing boards and standards commit. . tees. Those who are active in the field of occupational health and safety know that many occupational accidents, and I would say the vast ma- jority of occupational accidents, occur in whole or in part because of human failure: an unsafe act, violation of safety rules, the impulse to take a short cut and so forth. Perhaps the research which this bill contemplates can help us to arrive at a better understanding of the reasons for unsafe acts and 215 lead to ways to prevent them. In the steel industry, we attempt to avoid such unsafe actions by extensive foreman training, employee training, job safety analysis, safety contacts with individual employees, safety observations, safety rule books, posted signs, joint safety committees in many companies, and, when all else fails, hard-nosed discipline for violation of safety rules. But we note that the entire emphasis of the bill under consideration is to put obligations on the employer. We raise the question: Should not obligations to work safely, to follow safety rules and regulations, to wear personal protective apparel, be also imposed upon the employee? We realize that this is a complex and difficult area, but suggest that it merits exploration. There are two provisions in the bill which are especially dangerous. Section 6 (a) (2) authorizes the Secretary of Labor or his representa- tive to issue an order for the immediate cessation of a violation that he deems “may result in imminent harm to the safety and health of workers.” The power to stop operations or prohibit the employment of people is a drastic one. : Absent the showing of compelling need, it is submitted that such overwhelming discretionary authority should not be granted. The second provision which gives us grave concern is that incorpo- rated in section 9(a) which authorizes the Secretary to assess civil penalties of up to $1,000 a day for violation of safety standards, rules, or regulations relating to “practices, means, methods, operations, con- ditions, and processes.” This again is a broad power which raises serious questions of due process. The evidence of need would have to be very compelling to justify such grants of power. We know of no such evidence having been presented to this committee, and I have read the testimony of Secretary Wirtz and Surgeon General Stewart. Study of the bill indicates that some functions are to be carried out by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, some by the Sec- retary of Labor, some jointly or in consultation. Because of the Public Health Service, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has expertise in matters of health. The Department of Labor has expertise with respect to occupa- tional safety. We urge that a very careful study be made to insure that each Department is given responsibility for those areas in which it excels, and that efficient operations may result. In conclusion, we agree that the subject of occupational safety is one of profound importance. In the steel industry, it occupies a high order of priority in the minds not only of the safety departments, but also of the chief executives and operating executives of the companies. They work at making steel safely. Every serious accident with seri- ous potential —and many others as well—are investigated for the pur- pose of preventing recurrence. Time, talent, and funds are devoted to safety, not only because of the cost and human suffering involved, but because good management many that the operation will be safe. Safety and efficiency are closely related. The questions we hope this committee will consider are: Does the bill before you provide the best mechanism for promoting occupational health and safety? 216 Does it make the best possible utilization of the limited skilled man- power, funds, and other available resources? Will it strengthen the State administration of health and safety laws? Has a case been made for vesting the Secretary with the extraordi- nary powers of closing down operations and imposing civil penalties? We trust the committee will give serious consideration to these questions in its deliberations on the bill before you. Mr. Chairman, my associates and I would be very glad to deal with any questions you may have to raise. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Goodell, do you have any questions? Mr. Goober. Does this bill, H.R. 14816 provide all safety authority and safety administration that the States are prepared to handle? Mr. Teprow. As I read the bill the amount of authority granted to the States is entirely discretionary with the Secretary of Labor. This means that the bill itself grants them no right to do any more than they have in the past. In fact, it may seriously infringe their right to administer health and safety programs because of the theory of Federal preemption, of which we have heard a great deal. It is entirely discretionary with the Secretary of Labor whether he will delegate the responsibilities given to him in this act to the appro- priate State agencies. There may be an honest and justifiable difference of opinion between those responsible for health and safety at the State level and those advising the Secretary of Labor as to whether or not the State is competent, willing and able to administer its own program. r. GoopeLL. In other words, as far as the law is concerned, the Secretary can do anything he wishes and may in some instances pre- empt the State where others might feel the State is doing the job effectively. Mr. TepLow. That is correct. Mr. Gooperr. Perhaps you were here when T questioned the previ- ous witness about this question of trends and accidents and Mr. O'Hara questioned further along those lines. What is your view of the issue of occupational accidents and par- ticularly with reference to the steel industry itself and the trends? Mr. Teprow. I think the chairman was correct when he indicated that there was a substantial plateau during the past 10 years, that the progress which had previously been made has been hesitating during this period. I think in evaluating that condition, however, it ought to be rec- ognized that there has been a greater flux of activity, of more change in all occupational activities than we have ever known before in our history, which means that every time a man’s job is changed he has to be retrained to do that job safely. The problem with which we have been faced has been increasing and yet I see nothing in the creating of Federal standards which can pos- sibly deal with that problem because these are new problems that keep arising and it requires an active management to deal with them. When you consider the tremendous changes that have been taking place, the fact that the frequency has remained at a fairly stable level is in itself an achievement even though we in the Institute, like every- 217 one else in the safety movement, are unhappy as long as there is any accident frequency whatsoever. I would like to add that, so far as the steel industry is concerned, we have had substantial improvements in severity and as I reported in an aside to my written statement, we have in 1967 established a new low in accident frequency. Mr. Esca. What you are saying is another factor, it is because of the dynamic quality of manufacturing, that is the changes that occur may well require flexible standards rather than rigid standards, a continuing evaluation of standards. Mr. Teprow. I am completely in sympathy with your comment, Mr. Esch. T want to add this, however, these sudden changes are not lim- ited to industry. They are true of all occupations, the new equipment being used in agriculture, and in construction. The whole wide activity of occupations is characterized by these rapid changes for which only good management and well-trained work forces can cope with. Mr. Gooperr. The previous witness made reference to the Presi- dent’s Conference on Occupational Safety. Have you had any expe- rience with this? How active is it? Mr. TerLow. Yes, indeed, I have. These conference were started by President Truman, that was 1948 or 1949, continued by President Eisenhower and by President Kennedy, the last one having been planned by President Kennedy and actually carried out during the tenure of President Johnson in 1964. At that time the 2-year continuity, that is the practice of having a President’s Conference on Occupational Safety every 2 years, was discontinued. I had been very closely involved in some of these conferences because for the past three conferences I had been chairman of the planning committee for the President’s conference and I believe the knowledge that the head man of the entire Government of the United States has a real and vital interest in occupational safety, enough of an in- terest to sponsor occupational conferences, gives the entire movement impetus and is a help. If the trend of occupational accidents is not favorable, which I do not agree with, but if it is unfavorable, then it is strange that such activities as these have apparently been discontinued. oo Mr. Goober. You feel they were not only useful to you as an indi- vidual in the industry other than just showing the President’s intent in getting people together. 5 Mr. Terrow. Yes; we were successful in getting the best talent in the country to participate in these President’s conferences because after all it was a President’s conference. The attendance at these conferences, I don’t recollect now, but it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 people from all over the country from all phases of occupational safety, and they gave a great deal of useful information as well as promotion for occupational safety. GooperL. You give the impression from your testimony that you have grave reservations on this bill. Do you think we should not pass this bill? 218 Mr. Teprow. I believe there is room for the Federal Government to encourage or conduct research in the field of occupational safety, there is room for the Federal Government to encourage the States to act by providing education and training in safety. There is room for the Federal Government to help fund these activi- ties in States which apparently have not been able to provide the fund- ing themselves. In that connection, if T am not mistaken, the testimony of Surgeon General Stewart was to the effect that the Public Health Service action in the field of occupational safety had not achieved as much as it might have because of lack of funding so that the matter of funding is true not only of the States but nh the Federal Govern- ment in the past, apparently. Finally, I should think the Federal Government might well set a good example to all others in the field of occupational safety by hav- Ing good safety management in the Federal Government’s activities itself. When we were talking about the frequency of accidents among Fed- eral employees and others, please bear in mind that the Federal em- ployees are to a very large extent white-collar employees who are not generally subjected to all of the hazards that exist in mining, con- struction, in manufacturing and activities of that kind. Yet, despite that fact, their frequency rate has not been one to boast about. In fact, the frequency rate in the Federal Government is more than double what it is in the steel industry. That, to me, is not easily com- prehensible. One of our problems is that the records for the accident frequency in the Federal Government are over a year late in being made available. The latest figures we have for the Federal Govern. ment, I don’t know that they have yet been published, are for the year 1966. In the steel industry we have just completed collecting our data for 1967. The delay in getting data makes it that much more difficult to devote talents and other resources to the correction of the difficult areas that may have been discovered. Mr. Goopecr. In talking about the accident reports, Secretary Wirtz raised some questions about the accuracy of the National Safety Coun- cil’s reports. What is you experience, how accurate are the National Safety Council’s reports on the steel industry. How does that work ? Mr. Teprow. The Secretary, I believe, pointed out that the National Safety Council consists primarily of people with a higher than aver- age interest in safety and it is to be expected their rate would be better than that of any other particular industry if you included all of that industry. I think that is correct as far as it goes that those who are members of the Safety Council work harder and more safely and probably have a better safety record. However, the trend they disclose, I think, is one that can be trusted. It indicates where we are going and in the case of the steel industry the data is far more comprehensive than that collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with which 1 am thoroughly familiar, because the Bureau does it necessarily on a sample basis. 219 In the case of the steel industry, American Iron and Steel Institute collects the data that represents approximately 97 or 98 percent of the steel producing industry. This is the data which we then transmit to the National Safety Council and which they publish along with the other data. Mr. Goober. Their figures are your figures? Mr. TepLow. Yes; and are the most comprehensive figures anyone can get. r. GoopeLL. Is that an actual count ? Mr. Teprow. Yes; it is not a sample, it is an actual count. Mr. Goober. You have made reference and some of the other witnesses have, that you would like to see the States more involved. I think there is some question in all our minds as to whether the States are equipped to handle the job, would you comment on that? Mr. Teprow. Yes; I would be glad to. I would say at this time some of the States do an excellent job. There are others that are not as up- to-date but, with respect to those States, neither the States nor the Federal Government are today equipped to do the kind of job we are talking about of this vast improvement in safety everywhere. It has been mentioned by a previous witness that it may require a staff of 4,000 to 6,000 safety experts which are not now available in the United States to merely administer the Federal aspect of the program. I would say the real question now is, what is the best administrative mechanism for undertaking more effective safety legislation and administration of it throughout the country. Bearing in mind that the problem is primarily with the smaller operations, whether they be in agriculture, industry or mining, or anywhere else, it should be carried out by those closest to the operation involved. It should be a highly decentralized operation if it is to be effective. As Mr. Queener stated, it should be done on a community basis close to where the action is taking place in order that people may be imbued with the desire for cooperative action with their neighbors and associates. I believe in the final analysis, the States can do that job with the help of the Federal Government; namely, research, training, educa- tion, and funding, that the States in the final analysis will do that job much more effectively and efficiently. Mr. Goober. I have more questions but will yield to the Chairman and the other members. Mr. O'Hara. I would like to ask a couple of questions. I am very in- terested in your suggestion that the States ought to be encouraged in assisting to do a better job. You have pointed out there is a good deal of variance in the jobs done by various States. It seems to me there is an element of equity you have to deal with if you follow that route. If, indeed, some States are doing a good job and spending considerable sums on it, and other States are laying back on the others, I think there is a certain element of unfairness in pumping Federal funds into the negligent members of the Union and denying them to those who have been more conscientious. a GoopeLL. I appreciate your defending New York State like that. 220 Mr. TepLow. I think the question you raise goes far beyond the ques- tion of safety. : It is a question of general governmental policy, the whole question of how and why you provide grants to the States to persuade them to do a better job. Mr. O'Hara. The second question, 1 like the concept you have sug- ested but I think that any kind of assistance we give to the States as to be geared in some way to them making a reasonable effort on their own. Mr. Terrow. Mr. Chairman, T am not prepared at the moment to administer such a program but we have in fact provided to the States a great deal of service in the past without the power to enforce. For example, let’s take the work of the Public Health Service, in large measure it does the research, it makes available to the States and encourages the States and municipalities to gear themselves to do a better job. Thisis a mighty useful and productive effort. Mr. O’Hara. But there are precedents running both ways. Mr. Teprow. This is true. Mr. O’Hara. On the other hand, you see IT am troubled, I have con- sidered the idea of going to a stimulation of State effort but I eet hung up on the idea of how are we going to assure ourselves that the State is making a reasonable effort on its own. Secondly, what do we do about—TI don’t know that there would be any, perhaps there wouldn’t—but let’s assume there would be recal- citrant States, what would we do about that? Mr. Terrow. Let me suggest one way to get cooperation from the States would have been to take the Stafes into consultation before at- tempting to write a bill. I think this is a grave oversight and I don’t see what the great rush has been to suddenly propose a bill without previous consultation with the States who are going to be seriously affected by it, or with industry, or the insurance companies, or any of the other important factors in- volved in this case. Mr. O’Hara. I don’t think you should be so concerned about that, having had some experience with this committee, I can assure you that the usual practice in a bill is put before the committee and then the committee proceeds to write it after consultation with all kinds of groups of people. Mr. Teprow. Let me suggest had it been possible to carry on consul- tation or even now to carry on consultation with the States before drafting a final bill that there is a certain psychological involvement in trying to develop a consensus which binds, at least morally binds, those who have been involved in the process in attempting to carry it out. We find in many of our activities the extent to which we enlist employee participation determines the success or contributes to the success of the program. There are many aspects of our safety programs in which we do exactly that. Mr. O’Hara. My reservations with respect to your suggestions have to do with the question of getting a reasonable State effort and some- how assuring yourself that what you do is going to produce effective State action. 221 Those are the problems I am concerned about. Mr. Teprow. I understand it and sympathize with your reaction. I believe if the Federal Government were to do the research which needs to be done in this area, were to help in training, education and possibly some equitable method of funding and if, in addition to that, as I indicated in my statement, if we were to pledge that we would cooperate in a program to assist the States to do a better job, not only we but a lot of other industries, I believe a great deal can be accomplished basically, fundamentally and probably administratively much more feasibly. Mr. O'Hara. I am heartened by that but don’t share your optimism. Mr. Teprow. May I say if one were not an optimist, one would not be in the safety movement. What you are trying to do is avoid the kinds of things that have happened in the past and foresee the acci- dents of the future. Mr. Escm. It is difficult for me to comprehend, Mr. Chairman, that this bill was drafted without the total involvement of the States and the private sector and associations; after all if there is any expertise in this area, it surely resides within the ongoing State programs now and the various safety associations. It is difficult for me to comprehend that a bill of such magnitude and thrust is drafted without their consultation. I would like to clarify and reinforce one point. You reiterated testimony given by the Sur- geon General on the number of people not, covered by this bin, Mr. Teprow. What I referred to was his statement that there was about 15 million workers with adequate health and safety standards and about 65 million who were not. Mr. Escu. This indicates the breadth of the problem. What you are suggesting is the impetus the States now have may well be held back by a movement by the Government. Mr. Teprow. I have no doubt that would be the end result. Why should a State become involved if the Federal Government is moving in to.do the job? They have a lot of other places for their money and resources. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, the Select Subcommittee on Labor will now stand in adjournment, subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:40, the committee adjourned.) SO = . . . a . . » . o- 3 N a a= 7 B . a. =. - - - gE = - - . . . . - - B oo - - n Li B > i BN - - > “ ' = - a . k . wn . - Eo . " . so - ¥ B = = = B v = n - a » - v ) . . ¥ . . >a i. - B . : . w - oa B I - - . - - - pe oo e . - PETC . - . . BE " ~ - = - Ak = oo } - . B - Sn sy a - - - = B i - . . - . . . - ' - - 2 - BN . - . . . } I - . } . " » - . a - a == = n = : - vr - El =~ oe - . = = N N Bh “ = a . . - . . . = ' Fh a a - B - a . B Bh ! by . > ) hp r B r Bh “= - = " on - B - B v r " Bh B ie = B . ) - ; gE = : - = " B . - : a a a ) - ) . & = ® = v ph. a - . r . . . : - -— B B . a . om, = = 3 v Bh a . . - n * a . Bh . Bh B . . = a a : = a B 3 - a - oo a ¥ N ' a - = - - n Bh = OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1968 House oF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT SUBCOMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE ComMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O’Hara, presiding. Present: Representatives O'Hara, Hathaway, Esch, and Steiger. Staff members present : Jim Harrison, staff director; Marilyn Myers, clerk; Nancy Tyler, assistant clerk; Dr. James Wason, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress; and Mr. Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel for labor. Mr. O’HaraA. The select subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee is now in session. Our meeting today is to continue hearings on H.R. 14816, the oc- cupational and safety and health bill. Our first witness this morning is Dr. R. Lomax Wells, representing the American Medical Associa- tion. Dr. Wells, would you please step forward, identify yourself, and give the committee your experience and knowledge of this field. Dr. Wells, would you please identify yourself and proceed? STATEMENT OF R. LOMAX WELLS, M.D, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Dr. WerLs. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Dr. R. Lomax Wells of Fort Sumner Hills, Md. I serve as chairman of the Council on Occupational Health of the American Medical As- sociation. My own interest in this field spans a period extending over 30 years. During the last 21 years, I have devoted full time to occupa- tional health and safety programs in industry. I appear before you today as a spokesman of the American Medical Association to present the association’s views on H.R. 14816, the Oc- cupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. Appearing with me are Mr. Paul R. M. Donelan, AMA legislative attorney, and Dr. Henry F. Howe, director of the association’s department of occupational health in Chicago. Before speaking directly to the bill before you, I would like to take a few moments to outline briefly our interest in occupational safety and health which is the basis for our appearance today. The American Medical Association has maintained a continuous interest in and active support of occupational health and safety programs ever since the establishment of its Council on Industrial Health in 1937. (223) 224 The council name was changed in 1960 to the Council on Occupa- tional Health to indicate that its interest and concern for employee health and safety programs encompass every American worker wher- ever his work place might be. In that time, the association has conducted 27 annual Congresses on Occupational Health, well attended by physicians, labor representa- tives, industrial nurses, corporation personnel and safety directors, and industrial hygiene engineers throughout the Nation. We have produced more than 35 pamphlet guides (revised and up- dated as needed) and many reprints of papers by authorities in the fields of health and safety. In the last year alone, more than 75,000 copies of these guides and reprints were requested and provided to American physicians, nurses, management, and labor groups. We have some copies of these guides if the members of the subcommittee would like to review them. Although its primary andience is the more than 300,000 American physicians, the American Medical Association also provides informa- tive material and professional advisory services to the 10,000 active industrial nurses, and to hundreds of companies, labor unions, insur- ance companies, and workmen’s compensation officials. We have maintained active liaison with the occupational safety and health programs of the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, the Armed Services, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Safety Council, the International Association of Indus. trial Accident Boards and Commissions, the Council of State Govern- ments, the Industrial Medical Association, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the American Public Health Association, and many other similarly interested groups in both the public and private sectors. It is natural, therefore, that the AMA displayed great interest in the so-called Frye report entitled, “Protecting the Health of 80 Mil- lion Americans—A National Goal for Occupational Health,” issued by the Public Health Service in late 1965. The association supported the aims of the Frye report in a letter to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service on February 18, 1966. More recently in a letter to the President of the United Stafes in October 1967, Dr. Rouse, president of AMA, expressed the need for the delegation of more responsibility in this field to the Department of Health, Education, and Wel fare. From this background of longstanding interest in the health and safety of working people, the American Medical Association ap- proached, with anticipation, the President’s announcement in his re- cent manpower and occupational safety and health message, of a new Occupational Safety and Health Act. We have since studied the bill before you with great care and have come to share the belief that this is a proposal of major concern to the American worker and to American medicine, with broad implications for the directions in which occupational health and safety will be established for the future. We believe that the respective allocations of powers between the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Labor as set out in H.R. 14816, bear little resemblance to those fore- 225 casted in the Frye report. The bill before you places this responsi- bility almost completely in the Secretary of Labor. While recognizing a competency of the Department of Labor in the field of safety, we believe that the professional expertise in prob- lems of occupational health rests in the Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, which has for many years provided the Nation with consultation services, technical competence and services, research, teaching, and support for State health departments in occupational ealth. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare already has trained personnel and facilities, and, for an example, will analyze environmental and biological samples involving chemical exposures from any State in the Nation. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH On the matter of standards, we believe that the creation and en- forcement of mandatory standards for occupational health and safety, encompassing almost all fields of occupation should not be undertaken by the Federal Government. Occupational health and safety standards have been properly vested in the States, where the standards and the enforcement can be adapted to their particular geographical and industrial conditions. The legislation does provide a mechanism for improvement of occupational health and safety so that the States can maintain an effective program. The Federal Government can actively support those States whose present financial resources and manpower services fall short of effective levels. With this in mind, I will next comment on the provision in the bill for grants to the States. GRANTS TO THE STATES Section 17 provides for grants to the States for purposes of iden- tifying their needs and responsibilities in the areas of occupational AE and health, and to develop plans for (1) establishing systems for collection of information, (2) increasing expertise and enforce- ment capabilities of their personnel, and (3) otherwise improving the administration and enforcement of State laws, and grants for experi- mental and demonstration projects therefor. Federal support for the above may be up to 90 percent of the cost. We view the Federal support here as being too limited. We believe that the support can be more meaningful. It should go to substantive support of State programs, by providing actual assistance for train- ing of State personnel, and for the actual carrying out of the occupa- tional safety and health programs of the State. This would provide the incentive, where needed, to elevate the pro- grams in States where the programs actually need assistance. The effectivenes of Federal grants in aid to the States is well demonstrated by the experience from 1947 to 1950 when such grants stimulated an all-time high in official State industrial hygiene agencies and in pro- fessional personnel engaged in such work. H.R. 14816 thus could make a significant contribution to the total effort of assuring safe and healthful working conditions for American workers. 226 RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES We similarly support those provisions which call for the Federal Government to undertake ( directly or by grant or contract), research, SRD ents, and demonstrations, relating to occupational safety and ealth. In this activity, the Federal Government can play a significant role in the plan for such demonstration projects and research experiments to the end that criteria will be developed which may be used by the states in their occupational health and safety programs. Previous research in accident prevention, now usually called injury control, has mostly consisted of engineering, guarding of machinery, and safety job analysis. We believe that the greatest new potentials for advances in injury control will be in epidemiologic research, especially in the medical aspects of occupational injuries. Research is badly needed in the development of occupational ex- posure limits for new chemicals, and physical and biologic agents. These are the limits of concentrations of substances which workers may tolerate at their place of work without adverse effects on them. Rapid detection methods need to be developed for accurate determination of the degree of exposures. We need more definite studies of the effects of such exposures on the worker. Proven and reliable medical and engineering control measures are needed in many areas not yet available. Only by active research can true injury control be achieved. The Federal Government can make its greatest contribution to safety through the sponsorship of such research, and by training the manpower to carry it out. EDUCATION AND TRAINING Provision to conduct educational programs, and for the short term training of personnel are similarly salutary, and we recommend them to you for support. There is now a serious shortage of trained personnel in the field of occupational health and safety. If the basic objectives of this bill are to be served, professional manpower must be recruited in many dis- ciplines. The prevention of occupational illness and injury requires the competence of many professionals, including industrial hygienists, physicians, nurses, safety engineers, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and statisticians. Some need university degrees; others require the availability of expanded courses such as are now being conducted by the occupational health training facility of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In-service training programs are needed at the State level. Through the Federal financial assistance offered in H.R. 14816, real progress can be made in solving the critical problem of developing an adequate cadre of trained people to direct and administer the con. templated programs, and perform the research. OTHER PROVISIONS We would comment on one other provision in H.R. 14816, section 10, relating to Government contracts. We have no objection to a widening of coverage, including standards, inspection, and enforcement, by the 227 Department delegated by law to enforce the provision of Federal contracts under the Walsh-Healey Act. The U.S. Government, as a contracting party, has the right to estab- lish whatever conditions it chooses to impose on its own contractors, who are made aware of their obligations before entering into the agreement. Finally, we would suggest that the bill be amended to establish a National Advisory Council on Hazardous Agents, composed of recog- nized scientific authorities from Government, universities, and profes- sional societies. Such a Council would serve in advisory capacities in the formulation of proper scientific criteria and guidance to State programs. It would function in a manner similar to the existing and highly successful National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure- ment. The American Medical Association believes this kind of co- operation among the academic and professional communities with overnment, labor and business management can achieve the desirable objectives of assuring safe and healthful working conditions. In summary, there are provisions in H.R. 14816 which offer a frame- work for Federal and State Government, labor, industry, and the pro- fessions to develop a strong program to protect workers on their jobs. The AMA strongly supports the health and safety objectives of this bill, but is opposed to the provision authorizing the setting and en- forcement of mandatory national standards for safety and health. We believe that the objectives can best be accomplished through the research, education, and training provisions and through grants to States to enable them to undertake and conduct more effective pro- grams in both occupational health and safety. As to the latter, we recommend an amendment which would strengthen and expand such grants to the States. We further suggest the establishment of a Na- tional Advisory Council on Hazardous Agents to help implement these objectives. Mr. Chairman, the American Medical Association is grateful for the privilege of appearing before you to present its views. I shall attempt to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you very much, Dr. Wells. As I understand your testimony, you very much favor the grants to the States and the research that is proposed to be done. You would recommend a broadening of the grants so the States might use these funds not for their ln enforcement; is that right? Dr. WeLLs. That is right, sir. Mr. O'Hara. When you suggested you opposed Federal standards, but favored Federal grants to the States, I assume you accept the idea that there would be Federal conditions attached to the grants? Dr. WeLLs. Such grants would be for planning. The States would report, back to the Federal Government through the plans established and the expertise through the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Mr. O'Hara. You state at the top of page 4: We believe that the support can be more meaningful. It should go to substan- tive support of State programs, by providing actual assistance for the training of State personnel and for the actual carrying out of the health and safety programs of the State. 92-734 0—68——16 228 I would envisage from your answer if a State were to receive such a grant its program would have to meet certain criteria that the Fed- eral Government might establish for grants? Dr. Werrs. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I would like to relate back to 1947 and 1950 when such grants were given. A great deal of stimulation was given to State programs. If my understanding is a correct one, these have gone partially or totally down the drain be- cause of lack of funds, and, as a result, lack of personnel to carry out . the programs. Mr. O'Hara. In that respect, however, would the making of grants assure the Congress of an effective program in every State of the Union? Let’s put it this way: It is true that our knowledge is more limited in this area than we would want it to be and there is a great deal more to be done. Yet, there are variations in the capability of the States to enforce such criteria as are already established. But, by the same token, some States simply have no effective pro- gram, not because knowledge isn’t available or because they just cannot find the money anywhere for an effective program but because, apparently, they feel no need for an effective industrial safety pro- gram. Does this not seem to indicate that the failures are due to more than a lack of knowledge or a lack of funds? Dr. WeLLs. Mr. Chairman, let me go back again to 1947 and 1950. During that period of time Federal grants-in-aid for public health were designated for industrial hygiene and were allocated on a for- mula basis among the States. The impetus given by this kind of sup- port and interest did result in improvement in the programs within the States. During the 3 years the funds were made available, development of an official industrial hygiense agency reached an alltime high. All but two States, Delaware and Nevada, had such agencies. I am reading in part from the Public Health Reports from November 1964, from an article by Dr. Harry Heimann and Victoria M. Trasko, who re- viewed the situation at that time. Mr. O’Hara. But not in all States, I do not suppose? Dr. Werws. All except Delaware and Nevada according to the in- formation before me. I don’t mean to infer from that—if I may go a step further—that every State had the kind of program we all would like to have. But they were stimulated in every area, and 1 fing had support not been stopped, they would have been stimulated urther. Mr. O'Hara. If we take a survey of States we find that, for instance, just as in the scope of State safety rulemaking authority, there are many States that have exclusions of very significant nature. For instance, just by way of illustration, rulemaking authority is limited to construction in mining in Arizona and in no other field may the State even prescribe rules for industrial safety. In Missouri it is limited to mining and construction in cities having a population of more than 50,000. It is not even all construction. So I am just saying I think there is more to the problem than simply one of a lack of established criteria and lack of funds to carry out such activities. I would agree with you if there were to be funds to the States for operating substantive safety-health programs, there ought to be cer- 229 tain criteria that the States ought to meet in order to be eligible for such help. They would have to submit an application showing what they were going to do with the money and they would have to meet certain criteria in their programs to receive the funds. Would you not agree with that ? Dr. Wars. Yes, I would. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Haraway. Dr. Wells, if we followed your suggestion, it would also leave it up to State initative, would it not, to make application for these funds and if the State did not take initative their program might never improve. I think we have to recognize in certain States there are certain industries which are not in favor of improving their standards of health care and those industries have a great deal of in- fluence with the legislature in those particular States and that is one of the reasons why many of the States have not come up to a very high level of safety. hat is one reason why the Federal Government, we think, has to step into the picture and see that certain standards are maintained. Dr. WerLs. I am not qualified to reply completely in terms of what you say but I am sure this does exist, but T suspect that Public Law 89-849, while it does not relate directly to occupational health safety, is a step in this direction. I would hope that the stimulus would come and be effective, The problem with standards, as we see it in the present draft leg- islation, it is so broad it is really hard for me to stick my teeth into it. If I could take, for example, the District of Columbia as an extreme— and this is where I have practiced my medicine since 1933—this is not considered an industrial city and yet there are many hazards in it from an occupational point of view. But there are not nearly the hazards there are in a highly industrialized area such as Birmingham, Ala., for example. The point is that the needs and requirements will vary community by community and State by State. The broad base approach we have here in the draft makes it difficult for me to visual- ize how one bill could apply to all areas. Mr. Harnaway. Since hearings have to be held under the Admin- istrative Procedure Act, the Secretary must hold hearings before promulgating any further rules on regulations. On page 3, the Department of Labor should not be in the enforcing position and it should be left up to HEW. As you know the bill pro- vides that HEW will do all of the research and establish all of the criteria which the Secretary of Labor will develop standards. I just do not know why you are opposed to the Secretary of Labor doing it this way when Yriew is ary giving him a foundation. Dr. Weres. IT guess I have to relate in part, Congressman, to the experience under the Walsh-Healey Act which we have supported in our testimony. I have heard estimates that outside of our defense and security contracts which would not be available to any of us, perhaps 90,000 Government contracts with 30,000 contractors are involved. The Department of Labor, as I understand it, at this moment has 11 inspectors to inspect all of these installations. I don’t see how we could broaden the base in light of our present knowledge, from an inspection and standards point of view, until we really develop a program through the States of getting the kind of personnel which 230 we badly need. It is not limited to our field, I grant you, but it is badly needed to carry out the provisions of the State programs. I would guess on the basis of the number of inspections that one inspector could at best do no more than one inspection a day, as they are operating at the present time. ; Mr. HaraAwAyY. Is it your opinion that HEW could really admin- ister, from past experience ? Dr. WeLLs. That is correct. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Esch. Mr. Escu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 1 would like to try with you, Dr. Wells, to identify more clearly the roblem from your testimony. I seem to sense that you suggest that it 1s the need for more funding that would provide more adequate train- ing and more personnel as a place on which we might properly focus our attention as to where the need exists. Dr. WerLs. That is correct. Mr. Escu. You further suggest that although we now have within the Walsh-Healey Act the power to structure and perform and make changes because even that agency was not adequately staffed, we have not made any substantial progress or the PW progress that could be made under that act. Dr. Wewws. This is my understanding, sir. Mr. Escu. Your focus of attention, again, was directed toward a period of time when we had more emphasis and more funding and a great deal of forward movement took place in the States; is that right? Dr. WerLs. That is correct. Mr. Escu. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that we iden- tify the problem and I hope that in the testimony we will continue to identify what the problem really is. As we move forward in the hear- ings, it is becoming more apparent that the problem exists in terms of needed staff and training, and perhaps that problem is even more significant than any standards whether they be arbitrary or nonarbi- trary. I wonder what kind of standards were developed by the Labor De- partment under the Walsh-Healey Act. Dr. WerLs. Congressman, my understanding is that their standards were developed in the area of what I would call hardware, primarily for a protective mechanism on a saw, for example. We have no argu- ment with this at all. Believe you me, this is the thrust of our thinking. We want to improve the lot of the workers from the point of view of health and safety. Mechanical engineering designing of machinery has been the major thrust under the Walsh-Healey Act, as we understand it. The hazards to which our working populations are exposed are much greater than these. These are important and they should be protected. Mr. Esc. You are suggesting that the standards related not en- tirely to the working environment and the Walsh-Healey Act has not taken into account the total environment as much as the machine functions as they relate to the safety of the worker. Dr. WeLrs. That is my understanding. Mr. Esch. Are you aware of the way in which these standards were developed ? 231 Dr. Weres. T am not totally aware. I might ask Dr. Howe if he pow how they were developed. He has been closer to this phase than have. Dr. Howe. Mr. Esch, I think when the standards were proposed a few years ago, it was discovered that the standards that were being pro- posed by the Department of Labor did not utilize the standard criteria setting facilities and services that were available from professional organizations in the field. At that time, the enforcement was associated with the Wage and Hours Administration of the Department of Labor. We have had information which would indicate that the Bureau of Labor Standards, which does have some competence in this field, was not consulted in the establishment of those standards. Some of us were rather concerned that the kind of standard which was set was to what we call a “cook book standard” rather than stand- ards developed after consultation with the National Safety Council and with other professional groups like the industrial hygienists that are in the standards-setting business and the U.S. Standards Insti- tute. There are several groups in the field which have been setting standards in both health and safety. Yr Escn. Are these used as the basis for the development of State codes? Dr. Howe. These are used not only for the development of State codes, but they are used very commonly by various business associa- tions. Mr. Escn. In a voluntary way ? Dr. Howe. Yes, in the voluntary compliance field. There are thou- sands of organizations that have created their own safety standards based on the advice they get from professional safety groups. This seems to be the proper basis for the establishment of criteria. There is one other point I would like to make and that relates to minimum standards, such as the threshold liabilities and maximum allowable concentrations, which are set as criteria by many of the professional groups for certain purposes. One of these requires a label to be attached stating how it is to be used. These should not be translated directly as standards throughout an industry or through- out industry as a whole. They have to be interpreted by professionals as to what they mean. We run into this, of course, in the environmental health field where there is 24-hour a day exposure for 7 days a week as opposed to 8 hours a day for 5 days a week in the usual business frame of reference. You cannot establish the same standards for the two groups. They must be apportioned intelligently according to the type of exposure which the worker has. Mr. Esc. What you are suggesting is the need for great diversity in establishing standards really ? Dr. Howe. That is right. Mr. Esch. Many of us are concerned with the lack of consultation with existing organizations and associations prior to the drafting of this legislation and we are pleased to have this testimony as bearing on that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Steiger, do you have any questions? Mr. Steicer. I have no question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Dr. Wells, for your testimony. 232 Our next witness is Mr. Raymond M. Lyons, the National Associa- tion of Manufacturers. Mr. Lyons, if you would please step forward we would like to hear your testimony. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND M. LYONS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS Mr. Lyons. Mr. Congressman, my name is Raymond M. Lyons. I am vice president of Industrial Relations of the Fruehauf Corp. in Detroit, Mich. My company has 112 plants and branches throughout the United States. We employ about 14,000 people. A significant part of my overall responsibilities includes that of industrial safety and health, both on and off the job. I am accompanied by Kenneth E. Schweiger, of the industrial relations department of the NAM. I also serve as program group coordinator of the Employee Health- Safety Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers. In this capacity, I am responsible for coordination of the committee’s educational efforts in helping the industrial community to provide more effective safety and health programs for employees. I welcome and appreciate the opportunity to appear before this sub- committee on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers. Our companies—Ilarge, medium, and small in size—account for a sub- stantial portion of the Nation’s production of manufactured goods and of the employment in manufacturing industries. Industry’s interest in protecting the health and safety of people at work : Before commenting on H.R. 14816, I would like to point out that the NAM has had a pioneering and continuing interest in industrial health and safety and in stimulating industry to ever increasing recog- pile of its responsibility to employees “off the job” as well as “on the job. The NAM, as far back as 1912, produced its first safety film en- titled, “The Crime of Carelessness,” and in 1916 another film en- titled, “The Workman’s Lesson.” Both of these films urged sound industrial health and safety practices. More recently, in October 1966, the NAM sponsored a “National Conference on Mental Health and the Business Community.” Never before had industry sponsored a meeting on mental health at the na- tional level, and it was attended by over 300 representatives of Ameri- can industry. The MacMillan Co. thought the proceedings impor- tant enough to publish them in a book entitled, “To Work Is Human— Mental Health and the Business Community.” In its continuing efforts to provide improved accident prevention rograms, the NAM has published The Top 10 of Safety, and Safety ff the Job, over 40,000 copies of another publication, Maintaining a Healthful Working Environment, have also been distributed in recent months. The major program activity of the NAM Employee Health/Safety Committee continues to be directed toward stimulating increased at- {opizan to the protection of people not only at work but also off the ob. 3 The fact is that industrial safety programs have been so effective that people are estimated to be ten times safer at work than they 233 are away from work. While it is apparent that more can be done, thou- sands of manufacturing companies throughout the United States have achieved enviable safety records. Thousands of manufacturing com- panies have also done much to safeguard the health of people at work through occupational health programs and through measures designed to control the work environment. In addition to the significant accomplishments by private indvey on a voluntary basis, a great deal has been accomplished by national, State, and local health and safety organizations, as well as by State and local authorities charged with the responsibility of maintaining adequate industrial health and safety programs. In view of the very significant progress which has been made by industry over the years, working together with all of the other in- terested parties, the NAM strongly questions whether the imposition of mandatory Federal standards will materially contribute to better occupational health and safety conditions for people at work. Specific comments on H.R. 14816: This bill would grant an un- recedented amount of power to the Secretary of Labor in regulating industrial health and safety practices for virtually all of the em- ployers in the United States. We have the following comments on specific provisions: 1. The Secretary of Labor would have authority to issue manda- tory standards for all “employers in a business affecting commerce.” This would be a herculean task since it would require a plethora of codes, industry by industry and business by business. The same stand- ards could not possibly be applicable to A segments of industry and different parts of the country. The result TR a potpourri of many existing codes into some sort of national code which would be unwieldly and impractical. 2. The bill provides for the preemption of State occupational health and safety laws subject only to a unilateral determination by the Sec- retary of Labor to cede jurisdiction to those States, if any, whose laws and enforcement procedures “in his opinion” would reasonably carry out the purposes of the act. These vague criteria for measurement of the effectiveness of State laws, coupled with the complete discretion to cede authority to a State even if its laws do measure up, make it ible for a Secretary of Labor to keep this program completely under Federal control no mat- ter how good a State’s occupational health and safety program may be. 3. The Secretary of Labor would have the absolute right to order the closing of a plant, without any hearing or court review, upon a find- ing that “imminent harm” exists. In such a case, the plant would re- main closed during the pendency of an appeal by an employer, and the only issue that could be decided on such an appeal would be the exist- ence of “imminent harm.” The bill would authorize the delegation of this authority without any limitation. 4. The Secretary of Labor would be empowered both to assess civil penapos and upon application to remit or mitigate fines imposed—a act which greatly enhances the power and provides the opportunity for possible misuse. 5. The Secretary of Labor would be authorized to blacklist noncom- plying companies based solely on his finding that a company was in 234 violation of the act. He would be empowered to prevent such companies from being awarded Government contracts and could also recommend termination of existing contracts. In fact, the language of the bill suggests that the employer—Gov- ernment contractor or not—would have the burden of proving that a given method of operation was safe instead of the Government havnt to establish that it was unsafe. Under the proposed bill, industry is hel savy until proven innocent. 6. The Secretary of Labor would have authority to disburse any sums of money necessary to carry out the provisions of the bill and to make grants of up to 90 percent of a State’s total cost in implementing the provisions of the act. This is an open-ended authorization, with abso- utely no limit on cost. We refer to the potential cost of this bill as an objection to it only because we believe, as stated above, that the pro- gram would not accomplish its intended goals. Analysis of accidental death and injury statistics: In his testimony before this subcommittee, Secretary of Labor Wirtz noted that there was 14,500 deaths during work in 1966. However, it should be noted that 1,900, or approximately 13 percent of the total, occurred in manu- facturing industries. This compares with approximately 2,900 deaths, or about 20 percent, in agricultural work and 3,200 deaths, or about 22 percent, in Government and service. ince 1912, work-connected accidental deaths have decreased 67 per- cent despite an increase in the work force of over 100 percent. This is the greatest decrease in accidental deaths in any sector of our economy. Similarly, in terms of work-connected disabling injury, while there has been a 10-percent increase in the total number of injuries sustained by workers since 1945, the worker population has increased by almost 50 percent. he resulting disabling injury rate, which is the important measure has decreased significantly by almost 22 percent. Actually, three out o every four deaths and more than half the injuries suffered by workers in 1966 occurred off the job, and time lost as a result was 150 percent greater than time lost due to work-connected injuries. The inevitable conclusion drawn from the available statistics must be that a worker in the United States is much safer, by an estimated 10 to 1, at work than he is at home, on the highway, or on the farm. The human factor is the most important cause of accidents and injuries. It has been estimated that 75 to 85 percent of all such occur- rences have been caused by a negligent or unsafe act on the part of the individual. It is essential that positive safety attitudes and safety consciousness be instilled through proper training and educational programs. This cannot be done by legislation. Awareness of good safety and health habits has been stimulated through the efforts of individual companies working with such asso- ciations as the NAM, National Safety Council, the American So- ciety of Safety Engineers, the American Industrial Hygiene Associa- tion, and other interested organizations. The NAM further believes, that, in the absence of a far greater proof of need, the Secretary of Labor should not be given such unprecedented powers— (a) to develop mandatory national industrial health and safety standards; 235 1b) to arbitrarily close down an operation or, indeed, an entire plant; (c) toblacklist a company; (d) toimpose civil sanctions; (e) to preempt State law; and (f) to expend vast sums of public funds on a program of question- able merit in terms of providing safer and more healthful employment. The NAM submits that centralized control of industrial health and safety in the Federal Government would constitute unjustified inter- ference with the present activities of State and local governments and with private health and safety organizations. Such control could not take into account the widely divergent con- ditions, hazards, and environmental problems which may be pecu- liarly characteristic to a given industry or to a certain geographical area. It is because of such widely divergent conditions that we believe gual; regulation can more effectively be handled on a State and local evel. The NAM is also concerned that enactment of this bill would severely undermine all voluntary efforts to achieve ever better stand- ards of health and safety and would reduce the independent efforts of a number of States to a common denominator. CONCLUSION The NAM supports the objective of protecting the health and safety of workers in industry, both on the job and off the job. Great prog- ress has been made in achieving this objective through the efforts of the industrial community working together with health and safety organizations and State and local officials. We believe that the present approach toward achieving this objec- tive can ba more effective than that proposed by H.R. 14816, and we therefore urge its rejection. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much. Mr. Esch, do you have any questions? Mr. Esc. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we ought to first ask you, Mr. Lyons, to clarify a statement here. You suggested it was a ratio of about 10 to 1 in relationship to on-the-job in proportion to highway, farm, and home. You used the figure there just in terms of fatalities, did you not, and the evidence you showed on the bottom of page 5 of your testimony was at least 1t was one and a half times safer because at least the individual is off the job 150 percent of the time more. Would you comment on another area related to that, and you men- tioned that about 75 to 80 percent of the accidents are caused by human error. I wondered if you wanted to elaborate on that statement. Mr. Lyons. Mr. Schweiger has at least two citations here, one of which is included in the work of Dr. Allen McClain, “To Work Is Human,” copies of which are available to the subcommittee. On page 39, there is the statement : After all industry can document the fact that two-thirds of its job loss is caused by personal factors, that 8 to 90 percent of its accidents are based on the human factor. In addition, “Accident Facts,” 1967 edition, published by the Na- tional Safety Council, reflects some supporting data on page 31. 236 Mr. Esca. Would you want to suggest how the development of national standards would affect the human error? Mr. Lyons. I think I can correct my reply, if I may, to this area. I have heard the expression many times that safety is sold, not told. 1 think to the extent that the development and application of standards and the education of the worker, the closer we get it to him, the more effective I think it will be. Mr. Escu. In other words, getting the worker involved? Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Mr. Escu. Related to that is the question of the previous witness regarding the voluntary associations and groups and their develop- ment of standards. What do you think the impact of the development of this act and Federal standards would have on voluntary standards of private groups? I think he mentioned the United States of America Standards Insti- tute. What impact do you think this act would have on the great voluntary efforts that are being put forth? Mr. Lyons. In my opinion, it would tend to level the efforts of these Sgafientions, perhaps unconsciously. The national standard estab- lished as a minimum could well become the maximum desired by the various voluntary associations. Mr. Escr. You are suggesting then the impetus of the voluntary standards might be minimized by this act rather than strengthened? Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Mr. Escu. Especially since we have not taken into account the various voluntary standards and associations in this bill? Mr. Lyons. Yes. Mr. Escu. Thank you very much. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Steiger. Mr. SteiGer. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Lyons would be willing to share with us where you get the information that is found on page 5 of your testimony that 13 percent of the total of 14,500 deaths occurred in manufacturing industries, 20 percent in agriculture, and 22 percent in Government service. Mr. Lyons. This is the first paragraph in the center of the page, sir? Mr. STEIGER. Yes, sir. Mr. Livons. The statistics are outlined on page 23 of the work I referred to before as “Accident Facts,” 1967 edition. Mr. Steicer. Of the National Safety Council ? Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. Mr. Stereer. On page 6 on the testimony copy that we have—— Mr. Lyons. The copy I have is the same. Just the page numbers are different. Mr. SteGer. You indicate that positive safety standards and safety consciousness be instilled through proper education and training pro- grams; that this cannot be done by legislation. On behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers, would you be willing to give us your judgment as to what can be done by legislation? What do you think ought to be done? Specifically, what do you think is the proper role of the Federal Government in the field of occupational health and safety? Mr. Livons. First of all, I concur, where the Federal Government is a contracting party, it should have the opportunity and right to impose 237 whatever conditions it thinks are necessary to effectively carry out that contract. Speaking for the NAM, I do not believe in the legislative area that the Federal Government can possibly develop, in a period of constant change, a set. of criteria as a means of enforcing these laws on a nation- wide basis. I do not know if I am being responsive to your question, Mr. Steiger. I think, in substance, it is our position that the most effective job can be done at the State and local level and that the need—the continuing need-—for voluntary organizations should not be stifled by Federal legislation. Mr. Steiger. In the testimony of the American Medical Association they commented that they supported those provisions of the bill which called for the Federal Government to undertake research experi- ments and demontrations relating to occupational safety and health. Do you think this is an appropriate role for the Federal Government to play? en Lyons. I would prefer if I might to come back to this sub- committee or have the NAM come back with a written statement on that. It is obvious that to the degree this approach is utilized, funds for research could be allocated to establish standards. Mr. Steiger. I for one, Mr. Chairman, would be interested in having a further statement or comment by NAM on that question. Mr. O'Hara. Without objection, the witness has suggested the NAM is willing to submit a statement on that point, and without objection that statement submitted will be entered in the appendix of the record. Mr. Escr. Would the gentleman yield ? Mr. Stereer. I would be happy to yield. Mr. Esc. Reference has been made to the Walsh-Healey Act today. I wonder if it would be desirable for the Department of Labor to give us statistics on the incidence and severity of accidents of the em- ployers who have Government contracts under Walsh-Healey so that we might compare them with the national average to see what is being done in this field. Mr. O'Hara. Without objection, the staff wiil be directed to help obtain such information. (The requested information follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, March 22, 1968. JAMES HARRISON, Director, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HARRISON : As indicated in the enclosed statement, the Department of Labor does not have statistics on accident records of firms performing Gov- ernment supply contracts under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. Sincerely yours, H. Froyp SHERROD, Jr., Special Assistant to the Secretary. ACCIDENT STATISTICS UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT Enclosed is a copy of 29 CFR 50-201.502 pertaining to the maintenance of In- jury Frequency Rate Records by contractors subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. The Act does not require employers performing contracts for the Government 238 te submit accident records or rates to the Department of Labor on a regular basis while performing contractual services. Regulations require a contractor, while actually parforming a contract, to maintain accident rates on a quarterly basis and have them available for review during an inspection. For a national perspective on the safety of industries performing Walsh-Healey contracts, we have had to rely on the Bureau of Labor Statistics industry-wide accident statistics compiled by the sampling method. There are more than 75,000 plants subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Con- tracts Act. Without a special program and adequate personnel, the Department is not in a position to process statistics concerning their operations. Intermittent coverage of the establishments only while performing Walsh-Healey contracts poses another program in dealing with their accident patterns. RECORDS OF INJURY FREQUENCY RATES (a) Regulations—CFR 50-201.502. (1) Every person who is or shall become a party to a Government contract which is subject to the provisions of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act and the Regulations thereunder, or who is performing or shall perform any part of such contract subject to the provisions of such Act or Regulations, shall main- tain the records specified below which shall be available for inspection by author- ized representatives of the Secretary of Labor: (a) Records of injury frequency rates as defined in paragraphs (b) and (ec) of this section, calculated quarterly on a calendar basis commencing the first of January of each year; (b) The injury frequency rate shall be the number of disabling injuries to all employees per 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure, obtained by multiply- ing the total number of disabling injuries by 1,000,000 and dividing that sum by the total man-hours of exposure ; (¢) For the purpose of this section (1) “disabling injury” is one which causes disability to any employee extending beyond the day or shift during which the injury occurred, (2) “total man-hours of exposure” shall be the total man-hours actually worked by all employees during the quarter, (3) “employee” shall mean any employee in any department of the factory or establishment, including protection, maintenance, transportation, clerical, office, and sales, regardless of whether such employee is engaged in the performance of a contract subject to this Act. (d) The records required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section shall be kept on file at least 3 years from their date of entry.—Regulations, section 50-201.502, as amended April 18, 1958. Mr. Steieer. Might I inquire, also, Mr. Chairman, from the witness, concerning the proposal that we have under consideration one of the suggestions that is made is that the grants be made to the States to im- prove the work that the States and local units of Government are now oing in his field. Has the NAM given study to what the States are now doing ? Have you turned your attention to this in an effort to try to find out how well the 50 States are doing in his field and whether or not they are doing the kind of job that ought to be done? Mr. Livons. I am informed, Mr. Steiger, the NAM has not made a State-by-State analysis of the various States in this area other than analyze the workmen’s compensation laws of the various States. There has been no detailed analysis made of the legislation or the enforce- ment by State. Mr. Steicer. I would like the NAM take a look at this. Certainly the evidence thus far presented by the Labor Department is that in their judgment at least, the States have not done terribly well. There are exceptions, but across the board there are some States that have not carried on the kind of job that I think we in Wisconsin, for example, have done or that I know you in Michigan have done. 239 I share the concern that you have about the impairment and per- haps the complete abrogation of the work that States are doing as pro- posed in this bill. But I would ask that your organization take a look at that field because perhaps one of the things that can come from the work that is done is an effort to try to give some impetus to the States to do some worrying and carry on the work they are now doing, not to federalize occupational health and safety as this bill proposes but rather to find a way as the AMA suggests In its testimony to give an assist to the States in this field. Mr. Lions. As I pointed out in my testimony, Mr. Steiger, we admit that there is much to be done. There is most certainly, I think, a con- tinuing need on the part of not only NAM but other voluntary or- ganizations to encourage activity at the State level to improve the protection, facilities, and procedures of our workers. Mr. Steieer. Does the NAM have an on-going program of work- ing with your State Manufacturers Associations to have them work with State legislatures and executive branches to update and improve the work that is being done at the State level ? Mr. Lyons. I am told it is through the National Industrial Council that we do have an on-going program with the State associations. Mr. Ste1Ger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haraway (presiding). With regard to your specific comment starting on page 3, you indicate that the standards would result in a potpourri of standards that would be unwieldy and impracticable. Considering the safety of workers, is it a real valid objection that we are going to have a lot of different standards? Mr. Lyons. If they resulted in an improvement, obviously there should be no limitation on the number of laws we have, and I say “If.” But let me cite you an example that would seem to me to make this difficult of application. I am not a doctor and I am not an engineer, but as a layman, in the simple area of a paint spray booth, we have some booths that utilize water-based paint and others which utilize a lacquer-based paint. To utilize the need for protection of the respec- tive facilitiey requires an engineering working in detail and obviously in the need for antiexplosive devices there would be a greater need with the lacquer-based paint rather than the water-based paints. It would seem to me b the time we had an accumulation of laws or rules affecting the 50 States, a myriad of industries varying from State to State and in different parts of the country, I think as the testimony says this is a herculean task. I question whether or not, speaking for the NAM, the end result would produce the stated purpose of the bill which is to improve the health and safety of our employees. Mr. Haraaway. The task will not be too difficult in the States where there are adeqaute provisions. There is provision for the secretary to leave those States alone where they have adequate standards. Mr. Lyons. I guess this is because in the subjective opinion of the Secretary in the standards of a State, may be good or not. I know Mr. Steiger comes from a State which has an excellent program. Under this bill, as I understand it, the laws of the State of Wisconsin could be preempted and they have been a pioneer in this field. There is no assurance that they would not be. Mr. Haraaway. There is provision before the standards are adopted, 240 hearings would be held under the Administrative Procedure Act so State officials and other interested parties would have an opportunity to testify and presumably modify whatever standards are contem- plated in the light of the conditions in their own individual areas. Do you think we need any more than that? Mr. Lyons. You used the word presumably, sir, and I don’t know. I again hark back to the basis that in my opinion this should be at the State level and that there should not be a Federal agency in effect having the power to preempt the State law. Mr. HartHAWAY. Why 5 you think there is reason to believe the Secretary of Labor is going to be arbitrary and the person in the in- dividual States who is going to enforce the law will not be arbitrary? Mr. Livoxs. I would assume the person charged with the enforcement of a law in a State is far closer to the electorate and may well be far more responsive to the desires of the people in that State than some- one several miles away. Asia this is my opinion. r. Haraaway. He is probably not an elected official. If you were here when I made the comment to Dr. Wells, I stated that in many States we have to recognize the fact that industry’s larger companies do predominate and do have quite an effect on the State legislatures so that many of the standards that ought to be enforced in those States just are not, or are not legislated. Mr. Esch. Also, there are many States in which unions dominate as well as manufacturers. Mr. Lyons. If I can make an aside to that, Mr. Hathaway, another aspect of my position is that my company has some 116 labor union contracts. en you talk about a single employer he is made up of many, many employees who are quite willing to state their objective at the ballot box. So, when we talk about pressure from an employer, I think the em- ployee has the opportunity to express his wishes and he does it as you ave remarked. Mr. Hataaway. Yes; I realize that. I do agree with you, however, in your points 3 and 5 and something should be written into the law and I think the subcommittee discussed in an earlier hearing possible amendments to take care of that as well as to the fifth objection you make with regard to blacklisting noncom- plying companies. Those are all the questions I have. Are there any other questions anyone else wants to ask? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Lyons, for your testimony. Our next witness is Mr. Jack Suarez, health and safety director of the TUE, AFL-CIO. We are pleased to have you with us, Mr. Suarez. You can read your statement or summarize it. STATEMENT OF JACK SUAREZ, HEALTH AND SAFETY DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN CALLAHAN, LEG- ISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEC- TRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO Mr. Suarez. I have with me John Callahan, legislative director of our union. 241 My name is Jack Suarez. I am executive secretary of District 3 of the International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. District 3 of the TUE covers the New York and New Jersey areas. } In addition to serving as executive secretary of district 3, I am also the health and safety director of the IUE. In these capacities, I am especially pleased to be able to present testimony on the safety and health bill of 1968. There is no doubt that this type of legislation is greatly needed and long overdue. I appear before you in support of H.R. 14816 and assure you that I speak for the more than 340,000 members of the TUE, who are employed by the giants of the electrical industry as well as by many small one-shop electrical plants throughout this country. All of these workers are concerned about their health and safety on the job, as well as the health and safety of the many millions of other workers in all industries and fields outside the electrical industry. We are all aware of the fact that the health and safety of workers should be of primary concern not only to guarantee protection to the worker himself, but to provide assurance to his family that his health on the job is being protected. For many years the AFL-CIO has demanded a strong broad-based Federal attack to control or eliminate any factor on the job that is damaging to workers’ health and safety. We in the IUE strongly agree with this position and endorse this bill in the interest of the more than 80 million American workers who face hazards on the job. According to latest statistics, 14,500 workers are killed each year on their jobs; 2.2 million are injured; 250 million man-days and $1.5 bil- lion in wages are lost. Broken down on a daily basis, today’s industrial casualty loss will read 55 dead, 8,500 disabled, and 27,000 hurt. During the war years we recall that the accident rate was very high. This was due to the great demands that were being placed on our pro- duction capabilities. Gradually the rate declined for about 18 to 20 years; however, since 1958 it has been on the rise again and in 1966 reached a new high. We see headlines in the newspapers, hear of industrial accidents on the radio and on TV, but we as a Nation do not stop and think of these accidents as constituting a major problem in the country today. Many accidents and deaths resulting from a lack of a safety program or safeguards never come to our attention. For example, according to Secretary Wirtz over 1,000 workers are expected to die of lung cancer contracted from radiation contracted in uranium mines; many coal miners are suffering from dust diseases: Jing textile workers, from lung diseases—many of these resulting in the death of the worker. We feel this should be broadened to cover the workers in this field. Just a few months ago, the TUE testified in behalf of H.R. 107 90, the radiation bill. We indicated in that testimony the real dangers our workers faced from the emission of radiation from work with color TV sets and in this case the G.E. Co., in Syracuse put out over 90,000 color TV sets with faulty shunt regulator tubes, that emitted dangerous 242 radiation, some hundreds of times in excess of permissible maximum standards. We were informed by the U.S. Public Health Service—and we re- ferred to this in our testimony—that persons exposed to this radiation suffer damage of cancer, damage to the eyes, to the thyroid glands, and to the reproductive organs, much of which maybe transmitted to the unborn child. Mr. Chairman, I wish to emphasize that we have equal concern for the general public who were also exposed to the hazards of electro- magnetic radiation that was emitted from the faulty color TV sets. The public must be protected. The TUE made a number of attempts to get the manufacturer in- volved to provide safety measures, in the way of badges or other devices, to employees who might have been exposed. It was our con- tention that such protections for the health and safety of the workers we represent were a small request when considered in light of services rendered and the dangers to which they were exposed. To this day the manufacturer in question, GE, has refused to grant our modest safe- guard protection requests. You can see, Mr. an, why we in the electrical equipment and supplies industries are particularly anxious to see H.R. 14816 become a law. We contend as others before us have done, that the States have not done an adequate job of protecting the worker against on-the-job dangers. In many instances, States do not have the laws or regulations needed to do the job. And quite often, they lack the money or the trained personnel to enforce the laws which do exist. To cite an example, acocrding to reports to the AFL-CIO News from State labor federations, “only a corporal’s guard of State in- spectors oversees industrial safety and by contrast, an army of State game wardens protect fish and wildlife.” Testimony and other evidence has indicated that safety statistics would be even more horrifying if it were not for union-management safety programs in most big industries. IUE agreements covering some 340,000 workers throughout the United States and Canada contain safety and health clauses agreed to by the union and the company—clauses which spell out the responsi- bilities of both sides to protect he safety of the worker. We believe that these agreements are the minimum protections that should be given to the people we represent. We contend that the need to protect extends beyond these agreements, to the State and to the Federal Government. You have been told of the lower accident rate and death rate of firms affiliated with the National Safety Council, a voluntary organization including both safety-conscious employers and unions. For the past 10 years the work injury rate for firms affiliated with NSC has aver- aged around 4.6 injuries per million man-hours worked compared with 15.6 injuries per million for nonmembers. As TI mentioned earlier, State programs do not or rather have not provided the answer. Some States, I understand, have no one or just one or two persons involved in safety work. It is impossible to expect adequate protection when such inadequacy of State laws is so evident. opefully, the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968 will remove this inadequacy and bring protection to the many millions of workers for whom such protection is needed. 243 As Secretary Wirtz and others have pointed out, in their testimony, this bill does not replace any existing effort at the State or Federal level to protect the safety of the worker. Rather, the bill appears to build on and complement what enlightened employers and responsible State governments are doing. Some State programs, as well as some Federal programs, indicate what can be done when time, money, training, and interest are given to the problem of the safety of the worker. ~ H.R. 14816 would provide for additional benefits from already ex- isting programs. In our industry, the electrical and electronics industry, new tech- nological equipment and new production methods are constantly being introduced. In many areas the effects of these are practically unknown so that a safety program isregarded as an absolute necessity. We are pleased to see that the bill under consideration authorizes the Secretary to establish safety codes or regulations using all standard- setting agencies in the discharge of this function. We support. the enforcement procedures outlined in the bill. Many TUE represented plants work on Government contracts. We are pleased to note that if any employer violates the bills provisions, the Secre- tary may declare him ineligible to receive Government contracts until he complies with the act. Considering the fact that there are only 1,600 State safety inspectors, we are happy to note that the bill provides assistance to assure an ade- quate manpower supply through the education and continued train- ing of safety personnel. The need for research in the field of occupational health and safety cannot be overstated. As I mentioned earlier, in reference to our own union, the ever-increasing pace of invention brings new safety con- cern. New machines and new production methods bring new dangers. We are also in support of the AFL-CIO recommendation of the addition of the two following amendments. 1. Establishing a statutory Center for Occupational Health within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, standing equally with the Center for Air Pollution Control and absorbing the respon- sibilities of other elements within the U.S. Public Health Depart- ment which deal with occupational hazards. Presently, the Division of Occupational Health, which never in his- tory has had statutory existence, is merged with a number of other health related agencies and physically located in Cincinnati, Ohio. This unfortunate situation should be remedied immediately if the responsibilities of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare set. forth in this legislation are to be carried out effectively. 2. Giving the Secretary of Labor the power to pull back any delega- tion of authority to any State to conduct an occupational health and safety program, if such a State fails to live up to the conditions im- posed by the Secretary. We urge, Mr. Chairman, that Congress will give prompt and fa- vorable enactment to H.R. 14816. Thank you. Mr. Haraway. Thank you very much, Mr. Suarez. Just a correction in the statement, on page 2 it states, quoting Sec- retary Wirtz, over 100 workers. 92-734 0—68——17 244 Mr. Suarez. I looked at his report this morning and on the report that I read this morning before I came here it tes figure of 1,000, so I thought we had a typographical error in ours and I said 1,000. Mr. Haraaway. It should be 1,000? Mr. Suarez. Yes; it should be 1,000. That is our error. Mr. Haraaway. You mention on page 3 that as a result of collec- tive bargaining agreements you have set up safety standards in indus- try. I wonder why more has not been done along this line through the collective bargaining route. Mr. Suarez. I think a good part of it is our own fault in labor. I go around speaking on behalf of this. In negotiating a contract it appears that safety and health clauses come after coffee breaks. Mr. Haraaway. You have te go back to your men and say, “We didn’t get any raises in pay for you but we got you a lot of safety standards.” Mr. Suarez. John Callahan and I are going around the country to get our unions to shape up. We do get attention now when we quote the number of deaths in industry when compared to the deaths and casualties during this war. It is quite a ratio and we do get some attention. It is an educational program that I am sure the National Safety Council has worked on for many years and we belong to that council and we are trying to broaden this, because we know that industry and labor have a joint responsibility here and we have to start talking about meaningful contract clauses. . Mr. Haraaway. Would you say it has been the union’s reluctance to push these rather than the employer’s reluctance to accept standards? Mr. Suarez. When I speak of the unions, I speak of the members as a whole. When you try to draft contract demands, the people in the plant want to see the dollar sign—“What am I going to get that I can see ?”—and the safety protection might be an invisible fringe benefit. The big companies do see the light in this because it saves them con- Sa money on participation in workmen’s compensation. Mr. Hatraway. On page 5, you say you support the second amend- ment. Would you explan that a little bit? Mr. Suarez. This is the way it was written exactly by the conference they just had in Miami, the AFL-CIO, and I can see the language is conflicting. I understand the meaning is that what the Secretary of Labor has taken away, he can replace as soon as the conditions are cleared up. That is what is meant there. I had this taken out of its full context but I see it needs a real clarification. I guess you are going to have President George Meany here, I am sure, and he is much more qualified to answer on their desires on this one. Mr. Steiger. If the Chairman would yield, rather than putting it back are you talking about pullback, rescinding the delegation of authority ? Mr. Suarez. In other words, if he has an agreement as exists under the AEC, right now we have some six or seven States that Glenn Seaborg has granted the power and authority to regulate the AEC on laws and regulations on radio exposures. They have agreements so long as the States guarantee that they will fulfill the national require- 245 ments and this means the same thing—if they comply, OK; and if they do not, they will take back that authority. Mr. HATHAWAY. I think that is in the bill. Mr. Esch. Mr. Escu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to concur with the questions that the Chairman just asked regarding contract negotation time and the role of safety factors at such time. I appreciate very much your testimony and the emphasis the unions are attempting to give and that the members within the union are attempting to use collective bargaining as a vehicle for achieving safer conditions. I also appreciate your testimony that there are major cooperative programs between industry and unions working collectively on the problem. I wonder if we could continue on for just a moment to get a little more specific on the question of collective bargaining contracts. On page 2 you referred to the GE case. You had indicated that the IUE had been attempting to get more strigent safeguard protection there, and I wondered what specifically do you have in your contract. Do you have a provision that will allow you to place a grievance against GE? Mr. Suarez. You have hit on one of our weak points. John Callahan, before his position as legislative chairman, was chairman of the IUE-GE conference board which negotiates national contracts with GE and I am sure he could give you a real highlight on that. . Mr. CarLanan. Since the IUE was formed in 1950 we have had an article in our contract dealing with safety. As a part of that contract, a grievance can be filed on anything deal- ing with safety. In a lot of our plants we have a safety committee— management and labor. There are some places in some of the southern plants that a company has not gotten acclimated too well to the union and they don’t go along with these joint committees so we have it in the contract as one overall contract language. So anything dealing with safety is arbitrable and you can grieve and go to arbitration on it. Brother Suarez testified on Syracuse which deals with something over and above radiation. We have some- thing like 72 plants covered in the TUE contract and we have maybe about three plants that deal in the manufacturing of tubes where the radiation might have an effect. What he is pointing to is that in Syracuse we think they could have done more and they have not. Mr. Esc. There have been formal grievances? Mr. Carraman. Yes. And the local business agent testified before this committee on the radiation. Mr. Escn. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if it might not be proper for us to invite GE to submit testimony in light of that comment. Mr. Harnaway. With your permission 1 that invitation will be made. (A subsequent letter from (General Electric is printed at the con- clusion of this questioning.) Mr. Esci. Could we go on specifically to your suggestion on the agreements. You emphasized that they placed a rather low priority at contract time and we are familiar with it. It would be, though, within the right of unions to bargain for safer working conditions and 246 to place explicit and very specific working condition standards as part of a contract, would it not ? Mr. Suarez. Yes. Mr. Esch. Under existing law ? Mr. Suarez. In fact, Mr. Callahan and I have been given the re- sponsibility for drafting a model safety and health clause for all of our locals so we have some consistency. We still have the educational program to show the real need that it is up on top priority and not down below. Mr. Escn. I think we are trying to identify where the need exists and perhaps there is a need to have, as you have emphasized, for more emphasis and thrust regarding contract negotiations and working conditions. . For example, on page 4, you referred to the enforcement procedures outlined in the bill and that TUE as we know represents many plants that work on Government contracts. As our Chairman indicated, those are already covered by existing legislation. The Walsh-Healey Act makes it possible now for the Government to withhold contracts so that we do have precedent for Government contracts being with- held if both the Government and the union are willing to face responsibility. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haraway. Mr. Steiger? Mr. Stereer. What kind of work does the TUE do within each State to pinpoint and highlight the work that can be done at the State level in this field ? Mr. Suarez. Through our districts, we are emphasizing and have set up safety and health committees inside of districts and these dis- tricts cover geographic areas. There may be two States, five States, seven States in a district and I will speak for our own activities in the district that I come out of. Sometimes I have to have two hats. T speak, for instance, of New York and New Jersey. We do have full-time legislative people and, believe me, we place emphasis on safety and health, disability laws as well as workmen’s compensation laws because we understand and we try to make our people understand that just a raise in the workman’s compensation benefit amount is not the answer. We know that dollars and cents do not replace the breadwinner when he is out of the plant and it does affect the standard of living of the whole family. We want to work where it really counts. If there are possible health hazards and safety hazards we want them policed, we want coopera- tion, we want them removed to lower the need for workmen’s com- pensation. We think workmen’s compensation should come after we have cleared up health and safety factors. When we say that accidents are caused by the worker, that is quite obvious. Ninety-nine percent may be caused by workers but what causes the worker to get involved in an accident are the conditions—unhealthy and unsafe conditions, noise, et cetera. After 4 or 5 hours a worker is bound to get a little more careless due to these exposures. If we remove all these exposures we can certainly bring down the injury accident rate. We are not going to safely elim- inate all of it. Certainly we know if the worker gets hurt the worker was involved in it someplace, but to just say “educating the worker will eliminate all of this” is something we cannot see as being possible. 247 Mr. Steiger. In your statement on page 3 you say it is impossible to expect adequate protection when the inadequacy of State laws is so evident. If that is the case, prior to the introduction of this legislation, what has the TUE done in an effort to improve State legislation? Mr. Suarez. For instance, we have only two local unions in the State of Mississippi. Mississippi does not even have a labor department, and they have two safety inspectors for the whole State. We just have very, very little impact at all. It seems no one has had any impact at all on that whole State. This is one of the States where certainly we can’t do anything. We try but we just don’t have a voice. That State itself, even if we had a voice, would not be able to implement anything that is passed in that State. They don’t have the facilities, the funds, the people. I think this bill would help a State such as Mississippi with training, with funds available, and it would make this State a much better State for a man to work insofar as safety and health. Mr. Sreicer. By having the Federal Government take over? Mr. Suarez. Right ; but I don’t see it being done in my lifetime. Mr. Steer. You have two routes you can go. You can decide you want to federalize all occupational health and safety and have the Federal Government assume the total role of inspecting and setting the standards and developing the criteria in which the standards are set or you can go a different route. You can try to assist and aid States in an effort to have them upgrade any program if they are not now doing the job so it is spread more effectively and perhaps recognize the diversity that can exist between industries and between the factories in different areas and between con- ditions in different areas, and this is really where I am trying to go in terms of reaching a judgment of your union on what you have done in States. You have mentioned but one—Mississippi. I am assuming that by your testimony and by the statement that you just made you do not think the States are going to be able to do the job and therefore the Federal Government ought to doit all. Mr. Suarez. I think that this is a teamwork effort and it has to start from the top. The Federal Government can set and pass this legislation which will certainly bolster all the States. I think this is a program that calls for full cooperation, but it has to start someplace, and I definitely believe it should start with the Federal Government, with the States, industry, labor unions, whatever other groups actively participate to make this a meaningful and working regulation. It is not Big Brother looking down over us, but it just so happens that Big Brother is the one who can start this program by what you have before you, with whatever amendments you are going to put in it, but it has to start at the top and it calls for a unified program. If the Federal program says these are the standards, then you will have to expect cooperation for it to really come through. } Ie Spe, Do you know what the accident rate is in Mississippi indust. Mr. ia, Of deaths and injuries; no, I don’t. Mr. Esca. Would the gentleman yield ? Mr. Steicer. I would be happy to yield. 248 Mr. Escu. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we should have a breakdown by States of accidents and fatality rates in relation to the so-called inadequate laws. Mr. Haraway. I think it is a very good idea and I do think we have that available and without objection that breakdown should be made a part of the record. (The available information appears as exhibits F-O on page 88.) Mr. Hataaway, Thank you very much, Mr. Suarez, for your state- ment. I think you have pointed out many things that support the legis- lation and in particular the need for much more research in this area and for the stimulus of the Federal which it will provide to getting a uniform set, of standards throughout the country. Mr. Suarez. Thank you very much, sir. (The following letter was submitted for the record :) GENERAL ELECTRIC Co., Syracuse, N.Y., March 26, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DeAr Mr. HOLLAND : On March 5, 1968, testimony was given regarding radiation and the General Electric Company by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers before the Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor during hearings on H.R. 14816. This testimony includes several unfounded charges. We urge that the record reflect the fact that these charges were raised and refuted in the 1967 Record of Hearings on H.R. 10790 before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Very truly yours, RicHARD E. CHRISTIE, General Manager, Major Color Television Department. Mr. HataawAy. Our next witness is Otto F. Christenson. Mr. Christenson, we welcome you here. You are the consultant to the Conference of American Small Business Organizations. We have your written statement which you can read or you may summarize it. STATEMENT OF OTTO F. CHRISTENSON, CONSULTANT TO THE CON- FERENCE OF AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS Mr. CuristensoN. My name is Otto F. Christenson. I am an at- torney, my post office business address is 2901 Pleasant Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minn., and IT am a consultant doing research in business issues, unemployment and workmen’s compensation problems for the Conference of American Small Business Organizations. I appear here today in opposition to H.R. 14816 and S. 2964. The Conference of American Small Business Organizations is a nationwide association of small and medium business firms which has as its purpose the establishment. of a climate favorable to the growth and prosperity of independent business. The organization was founded in 1942, its cochairmen are Fred A. Hartley, Jr., former Congressman from New Jersey, and R. Harland Shaw of Chicago, 111. The names and addresses of the vice chairman, legal counsel here in Washington, the officers, area supervisors, regional managers, regional secretaries, and the executive committee are so numerous, and are people from all over the United States, that T have 249 listed them at the end of this statement, but shall not take the time to read them now. Safety and accident prevention have been a primary concern of American industry for longer than I personally can determine. The National Safety Council is over 50 years old and 1ts industrial members total more than 6,000 rather than 5,000 as indicated by Secretary Wirtz last month. _ Each State has a safety division or department. State Safety Coun- cils exist in many States. Most large cities have metropolitan safety committees or councils such as the Greater Los Angeles Chapter of the National Safety Council, and similar chapters or councils at Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and Stockton. To cite one more State, Ohio has chapters or councils at Cincinnati, Cleve- land, Dayton, Hamilton, Middletown, Toledo, and Youngstown. The accredited local safety councils, chartered by the National Safety Council, have a combined budget of something in the neighbor- hood of $5 million, and the National Safety Council’s annual budget is about $8 million. Other active groups that come readily to mind are the United States of America Standards Institute, the American Society of Safety, member associations of the Industrial Relations Group of the Na- tional Fire Protection Association, the Associated General Contrac- tors of each State, the 41 State manufacturers associations, the 118 member associations of the Industrial Relations Group of the National Industrial Council, many city chambers of commerce have safety committees. In the short time since these bills were introduced, it has been im- possible to list dozens of other safety and accident prevention organi- zations, although one comes to mind, such as the Industrial Nurses Associations of the various States. Insurance companies received 2 percent expense loading of each workmen’s compensation insurance policy premium for safety activi- ties. The mutual insurance industry spends more than its 2 percent premium expense loading. I do not. know what the stock insurance companies expend for safety activities, but for what it is worth, about 2 billion in premiums was collected by the insurance industry for workmen’s compensation insurance in the year 1966; 2 percent or approximately 40 million was collected for safety activities. Almost all large companies and many middle sized ones have safety department and engineers. Most of them work jointly with their labor union, if they have one. The work of accident prevention requires highly skilled personnel. There is no similarity between the problems of the steel mills, the tex- tile industry, toy manufacturing, foundries, retailing, contracting: the sophisticated industries, building computers or working with nu- clear energy, trucking, warehousing, elevators, construction of tun- nels, chemical manufacturing, and so forth. Each requires skilled personnel. These have been developed in each industry through the years; literally, many thousands of employees are engaged in safety work for the thousands of different types of in- dustry in the United States. It has often been said that today American workers are the safest people in the world, especially when they are at their jobs. For ex- 250 ample, in France, the working days lost because of accidents are two and a half times greater than in the United States, even though the United States has more than six times as many employees. Since 1920, the frequency rate of industrial injuries in this country has been reduced by more than 80 percent. The severity rate in the past 40 years has dropped more than 70 percent. The fatality rate, going back to the first year of which statistics are available, has dropped from 90 fatalities per 1,000 workers in 1913, to 22 workers killed per 100,000 workers in the early 1960's, a reduction in fatalities of over 75 percent. his remarkable safety progress has been spearheaded by private industry through its safety specialists, working closely through em- ployers, insurance carriers, labor officials, as well as other interested parties. Another insurance statistic is the fact that aside from workmen’s compensation insurance, $74 million was spent for accident prevention and safety by the fire insurance industries in the year 1966. This figure is relevant, even though it deals with fire insurance, since obviously fire insurance safety activities are related to industry and manufactur- ing, lants. © proposals in this bill would in fact add unnecessary Federal spending, encroach upon States’ rights, and enable unnecessary inter- ference with industry. It is fair to point out that the improvement of conditions by private initiative and the ensuing safety record sur- passes the record of Government activities in the same area. Federali- zation of industrial accident prevention programs would impair the effectiveness of programs now being operated on a cooperative basis by employees, the insurance industry, and supervisory agencies of the various State and local governments, in our opinion. The delegation of rulemaking powers to an administrative policy could lead to arbitrary of individual rights. Under existing proce- dures in the various States, employers, employees and the public have a voice in the establishment of safety regulations. Consideration is best given to variable conditions within industries and to those that are peculiar to the particular States. Delegation of arbitrary rulemaking powers to the Labor Secretary could result in loss of individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, unless such por are subject to clearly defined limitations. The proposed legis- ation fails to provide these limitations, which could clearly destroy many thousands of small businesses. Federal control of safety activities would lead to reliance upon policing of industry. Reliance upon such methods is inconsistent with the stated policies of the President’s Conference on Industrial Safety and the U.S. Department of Labor. Speaking before the board of directors of the National Safety Coun- cil several years ago, Mr. William L. Connelly, Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards, stated that his Department was opposed to a Federal safety bill, because the operation would be costly and ineffi- cient, and would depend on policing safety, which is never desirable. He further stated that the States have primary responsibility for dealing with the accident problem, and that Federal bills along these lines disregard this fact. : Passage of either of these bills would result in transferring to the 251 Labor Secretary and the U.S. Department of Labor the major control and powers now vested in State labor departments or industrial com- missions. To give the Federal Government the major accident preven- tion responsibilities of the several States would establish an unprece- dented Federal control of an exclusive State function by means of a Federal subsidy. It would ultimately reduce the area of independent State activity, with resulting deterioration of State safety services. Federal duplication of existing State and private industrial safety programs would constitute unjustifiable expense of taxpayers’ money, which would lead to an eventual absorption by a Federal agency at projected increased cost. The current unprecedented trend toward higher Government ex- penditures and taxes make it unwise at this time for the Federal Gov- ernment to usurp an area now in control of State and local govern- ments. The use of Federal funds should never be used to gain control of State and local functions. Simply stated, the legislation would em- power the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce minimum occupational safety and health standards for virtually every employer. The bill would give the Secretary of Labor authority to set safety standards and enforce them through hearings, orders, and injunctions. Coverage of the bill would extend through the broadest application of the commerce powers. States would have concurrent jurisdiction for 18 months, after which the Secretary of Labor would have discretionary authority over the safety regulations. An employee is safer on the job than in his home, safer than in public places, and most certainly safer than in traffic. In 1926, there were 31.87 disabling injuries for every million man- hours of work. By 1946, this figure has been reduced to 14.6 injuries per million man-hours. - By 1966, the injury rate was again cut in half, and was at 6.91 per million man-hours. During 1967, safety in industry was again improved, and in 1968 safety in industry will again be improved. This progress has come from the combination of State, local, and private efforts. Although the present proposal follows the now familiar pattern of turning over the problems to a President’s appointee to solve, the unlimited and undefined power that would be conferred upon him raises a host of questions. For example: Would the Secretary rewrite local building codes in the interest of safety ? Could the extensive powers conferred upon the Secretary be misused by some future Labor Secretary—a position which George Meany, AFL-CIO president, has described as “labor’s voice in Government”? For example: Could a plant where workers were on strike be closed down because the Department of Labor ruled that its operation, with skeleton crews or supervisory employees, constituted a safety hazard ? Could crew sizes—a disputed issued between management and un- 252 ions in many industries—be fixed by the Secretary of Labor as a safety measure ? Could the bill be used indirectly to set standards on all items of equipment used in plants? Representative O'Hara, the sponsor of the bill and chairman of the Select Labor Subcommittee ra up a question by Representative Hathaway, Democrat, of Maine, with this observation : Mr. Secretary, it would seem to me that in setting enforceable safety stand- ards with respect to interstate business, we would say, for instance, with respect to items of equipment—let’s take a crane example—that a crane must be counterbalanced or counterwieghted to the extent of so much per whatever amount or load it is expected to pick up and so forth, and it must be of such and such a structure and such and such a strength, and so forth. Now while we would not have directly regulated the manufacturer of the crane, by saying to the user of the crane you cannot use the crane unless it meets certain standards, in effect the manufacturer of the cranes cannot sell them. He would have to, in order to find a market for his product, be able to produce a product that the user could then use to meet the standards set under the Act. That is how I would envision that particular aspect of it. No one denies that industrial safety poses a challenge to everyone— individual, employer, insurance company, State agencies, and the Federal Government. In large measure, however, the American people are being asked to make the Secretary of Labor a “Czar of Safety.” To some extent, as the result of the sweeping and loosely defined powers conferred upon the Secretary they are being asked to “buy a pig in a poke.” One of the most striking features of the bill is that the power of the Secretary to issue them is unlimited. No guidelines are outlined, other than the Secretary may prescribe the standards “from time to time after appropriate consultation with other Federal agencies.” Because the bill provides that “any employer engaged in business affecting commerce shall furnish employment and a place of employ- ment which are safe and healthful and shall comply with the stand- ards,” presumably they would cover every aspect of a plant from parking lot to cafeteria and washroom. During hearings so far, little attention 1s being paid to the char- acter of these standards, or whether the Secretary would have diffi- culty in formulating them for every conceivable type of business in every conceivable location. “In order to carry out the purposes of the act, the Secretary or his designated representative (reasonable questions about Washington un- derstanding of the complexity of industrial safety might be raised by the Secretary of Labor's suggestion during the hearing that the hard-core unemployed be trained as subprofessionals to regulate and enforce the new safety provisions) is authorized to enter any factory, plant, workplace, or other area subject to the act at “any reasonable time” and to inspect “such place or environment and all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment.” The Secretary may delegate this authority to any other agency of the Federal Government or any appropriate State agency. On the basis of these investigations, the Secretary may move either administratively or through the courts. Administratively : The Secretary may hold a hearing after which he may issue any order necessary to enforce the provisions of the act. 253 If he considers it to be an extreme case involving imminent danger to employees he may shut down the plant completely without any hearings. The Secretary is authorized to impose a $1,000 fine for each day the violation existed, if there is a hearing, or for each day that an order is not obeyed. Courts: The Secretary could also move through the courts whenever he has “reason to believe” that the act or any safety rules he had issued under it were being violated. On the basis of court decisions in National Labor Relations Board cases, this probably means that the Secretary could receive an injunction without having to prove his case by a preponderance of evidence. He would be required merely to show he has “reason to believe” a violation exists. The employer has the right to appeal to the Federal district court for review of the Secretary’s order, but that order is continued in effect during the review. There would be no presumption of innocence, and the employer would be required to show that the Secretary’s deter- mination was wrong. Criminal penalties, jails and fines, could be imposed for willful violations. Additionally, the Secretary may declare any person ineligible to receive Government contracts if he believes that person is disregard- ing his obligations under the act. Persons and firms declared ineligible for Government contracts cannot appeal to the courts. Although the goal is stated as “delineation” of authority, it is quite clear that the bill intends the Secretary to take over control of occupa- tional health and safety programs in the United States. This view is made clear in the wording of the bill which permits the Secretary to either take over or decline jurisdiction—in his discre- tion—over any occupational or health issues governed by State laws. It is further supported by the attack on the States that has been evident in hearings and statements. For example, when Senator Paul Fannin, Republican, of Arizona, asked the Secretary of Labor whether the administration had consulted interested State agencies prior to drafting the bill, the Secretary replied: “Should we ask the foxes what to do with the chicken fence?” It is incredible to us that the Secretary of Labor should take this attitude. With the years of experience that the State agencies have had, it seems obvious to us that the State agencies should be consulted. Could we expect any delineation of authority to any other group than the Department of Labor? We are convinced that these bills should not be enacted, either in toto or in part. The bills are based on fallacious assumptions and seri- ous disregard of industrial safety programs now in successful opera- tion. The bills seek to impose upon the Federal Government responsi- bilities now being faithfully and adequately discharged by the several States and many private agencies and by industry itself. The Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Rela- tions has filed a position statement on the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968, dated February 28, 1968. We do not wish to copy their statement, but we agree thoroughly with their statement that— 254 Federal control cannot solve or even reduce the rate of job accidents and in- juries—the main flaw in the act is the supposition that Federal standards and strong enforcement can materially reduce accidents and deaths. Safety authorities throughout the Nation, including the National Safety Council, agree that 75 percent of all job accidents arise not from unsafe condi- tions, but from unsafe acts. The reduction of unsafe acts depends upon education and cooperation—under the proposed law, Wisconsin's codes and standards built up through 53 years of experience would, for all practical effects, be null and void. These codes have been developed by countless thousands of hours of effort by voluntary committees from industry, labor, and the professions. We feel that it would be impossible for a Federal agency to duplicate this experience in 18 months or even 18 years. Wisconsin law provides for a penalty only when an unsafe condition remains uncorrected. The proposed Federal law does not allow for a correction period. In Wisconsin we have found that most violations of the code are inadvertent. We feel it is unrealistic and unduly harsh to impose a $1,000 fine upon a busi- ness which inadvertently violates one of several conditions the code provides. Such a position would certainly work to the disadvantage of cooperative efforts. In the past 20 years many prominent persons in Government of both political parties have asserted time and time again that safety is essentially a local and a State problem, and that the only success- ful safety program is one done on a voluntary basis and not through legislation. The human factor is always important in safety endeavors and that is why so many of us believe that peryiasion of individuals rather than legislative mandatory acts is the key to the solution. In the fact of such longstanding evidence, it appears obvious that these bills are not so much concerned with safety legislation as they are with obtaining a much greater and unnecessary Federal regulation of industry. (The following was submitted for the record :) DIRECTORS, CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS W. V. Albright, president, W. F. Meyers Co., Bedford, Ind. E. L. Anderson, secretary, Columbia Supply Co., Columbia, S.C. Dennis Barretto, treasurer, Barretto Granite Corp., Milford, N.H. John T. Beatty, Beatty and Co., 400 N. Lake Lulu Dr., Winter Haven, Fla. A. C. Burrows, Rear Adm. U.S.N. (Ret.) Lake Bluff, Ill. Mrs. Kenneth C. Crain, author, critic and lecturer, 235 E. 22nd St., New York 10, N.Y. idwin W. Elmer, executive secretary, North Central Marine Association, 2901 Pleasant Ave. S., Minneapolis, Minn. M. E. Evanson, executive secretary, Associated Industries of Montana, P.O. Box 1301, Billings. Mont. ’ Hon. Fred A. Hartley, Jv.,, Washington, D.C. and R.F.D. 2, Milford, N.J. R. J. Hodson, president, Hosdreg Co., I".0. Box 469, Deming, N. Mex. C. D. Hunter, executive secretary, Custom Tailors and Designers Association of America, 400 Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. John L. Kilcullen, attorney, McNutt, Dudley and Easterwood, Barr Building, Washington, D.C. L. H. Kincaid, president, Inca Corp., P.O. Box 1077, Fort Pierce, Fla., and Keene, Va. A. L. Libra, executive secretary, Employers Association, Park-Edwards Building, P.O. Box 1691, Helena, Mont. Gail McCarty, president, The McCarty Co., Chicago, Ill. Roger L. MacBride, attorney at law, 62 High Street, Brattleboro, Vt. Hon. P. D. Midgett, Jr., president, Pamlico Power and Light Co., Engelhard, N.C. Miss Mary E. O'Donnell, 407 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, I11. Charlton B. Ogden, II, attorney at law, Ogden, Woods. Henriques and Reeves, 620 Richards Building, New Orleans, La. 255 R. Harland Shaw, 407 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Ill. William V. 8. Smith, attorney at law, 1700 E. Cherry, Seattle, Wash. D. G. Williamson, pres., Williamson Adhesives, Inc., Skokie, Ill. Frederick K. 8. Yee, gen. mgr., Yick Lung Co. 580 Dillingham Boulevard, Honolulu, Hawaii F. W. Ballou, Ballou Inc. Ridgewood, N.J. Col. G. Whitney Bowen, Security Trust Co., Livonia, N.Y. L. W. Drummond, president, Levy County State Bank, Chiefland, Fla. Kenneth C. Keller, attorney at law, Kellar & Driscoll, Lead, S. Dak. Harold L. Murphey, 8742 Kedvale Avenue, Skokie, Ill. John R. Ozier, president, Outdoor Display Adv. Corp., Nashville, Tenn. Prof. E. Merrill Root, Thompson, Conn. Dean K. Webster, Jr., chairman, H. K. Webster Co., Lawrence, Mass. Walter I. Frazier, Ingleside, Ill. Prof. Lewis H. Haney, 18 Argyle Road, Port Washington, N.Y. The Rev. Irving E. Howard, 70 S. Main Street, Uxbridge, Mass. P. A. Johnson, exec. vice pres., Grand Central Aircraft Co., Glendale, Calif. Prof. Arthur Kemp, Claremont, Calif. William W. Leigh, 4221. Woodlawn Ave., Little Rock, Ark. George E. Pike, attorney at law, Pike, Siss, Butler & Hoxie, Waterloo, Iowa. H. D. Schrier, pres. H. D. Schrier Petroleum Waxes, Kalamazoo, Mich. Mr. Haraway. Thank you very much, Mr. Christenson. According to our statistics there is an indication the smaller the plant the greater the frequency of accidents. Mr. CuristensoN. That is so. Mr. Haraaway. They cannot afford a safety engineer, and you say the Federal inspector would be a menace to business; but in that case would they not be a help? They would obtain the service of a safety engineer for nothing. Mr. Curistenson. I am in Minnesota and we have a lot of granite industry up there and we had a lot of trouble in silicosis developments, and so forth. We have had it for years and it was always the case that the big plants had the best records and two or three small plants had the worst ones. If you had 50,000 inspectors for small plants they are still going to have accidents. But the more you can do in the way of education through the Na- tional Safety Council and State safety groups—we had 58 meetings in all of the little- and middle-sized towns last year. Sometimes we have 25 people and in some places we would have 300 attending. I don’t care what kind or organization or laws or regulations you have or in- spectors, even if you had a million of them, the small plants are going to have more accidents than the large plants. They can’t afford a safety engineer, they can’t afford people walking around the plant all the time, they can’t afford the things that United States Steel or Chrysler or General Motors can afford. Mr. Haraway. The Federal inspectors you think would be a menace would substitute Mr. Curistenson. The more you preempt from what is going on from the various organizations and the various activities and the millions of dollars and the millions of man-hours that are now being spent, and they are working out in the small companies and they are working in the cities and villages and the counties and the States, the more you preempt that to the Federal Government I do think, and I did not use the word “menace” but I now use it. I think it would actually handicap the progress we are making. I think it would be a menace to the small industries. 256 Mr. Haraaway. How ? Mr. CurisTENSON. By removing the voluntary work which is now going on in the cities and villages or hampering it, or preempting it, or taking away the voluntary work that is going on. We are all humani- tarians and nobody wants to lose a worker. Whether it is a small company or a big company, none of us wants accidents. Everybody is working now. We are accident conscious. There is more reason for your Federal Government to move into traffic safety with rules and codes and regulations. There are more people hurt and killed in that than there is in manufacturing. Mr. Harsaway. I agree with you nobody wants accidents, but 1 think you will agree with me that sometimes a stimulus is needed to prevent accidents. We all know of instances where dangerous inter- sections are likely to cause accidents and nothing is done until there are accidents there, and I think this proposed program would be putting stop signs in some of these industries and it would help. Mr. my I donot think I can agree with you. Mr. Haraaway. Why should all of these different codes be admin- istered by the Secretary of Labor and having these codes apply to all of the States; are they then just good States? Mr. Curistenson. I think they should be developed locally ; whether it is the city of Portland, Maine, or the city of Oshkosh, Wis., or the city of St. Paul, industry and small industries get together with medium-sized and big companies and they get together with their safety engineers and get together on the codes and educate the people, and if the Federal Government is going to pass any laws on this and you lose any of this, and commonsense tells you that you will, if you lose this voluntary work that is going on with thousands of men and millions of dollars and fii of organizations, if you hamper them in any way, I do not think you are really accomplishing what you want to accomplish, and what I would like to see accomplished. Nobody wants any accidents. We are making progress every year. With 80 million workers we have a lot less fatalities than 50 years ago when we had, I suppose, 30,000 workers or whatever it was. Sure it is not perfect and it will never be perfect. You will never accomplish what you want to accomplish but you can work at it and make prog- ress and we are making soundly good progress in the United Far and I don’t think the Federal Government should move into this picture at this time. I think it should remain local, State, and voluntary. Mr. Haraway. There was testimony with respect to Mississippi. What progress is being made there ? Mr. Curistenson. I don’t know any more about Mississippi than I know about the moon. Mr. Haruaway. That is the problem. We want to find out about Mississippi and a lot of the other States to see that they bring their standards up. You mentioned something about 2 percent of the insurance com- panies. The Surgeon General testified the other day that the insurance sofibanies were doing very little research. r. CuristeNsoN. It depends on who you are talking about, too. Last week I was talking to the American Insurance Alliance which is an association of all of the mutual associations in the United States. 257 They have their offices in Chicago. I was talking to Leon Miller, their counsel. He tells me that they can prove to you men on the commit- tee that they are spending more money every year than they get of the 2 percent. I do not know what the story is with the stock companies. hey have an association up in New York City run by a very nice Rumanian named Andy Kalmykow, and I do not know what their facts are but I have talked to the American Mutual Alliance and they give 2 percent to their people for safety. They have their safety en- gineers and it is like the employers, Michigan, Warsaw, and the Lib- erty Mutual, and so on, who oh their safety programs, and they elect that they are spending more money than the 2 percent that they get for safety. Whatever this man told you the other day, I don’t know, but I am just passing that on to you and I think you will have a chance on the th of this month with the American Mutual Alliance testifying be- fore you and I would be interested myself in seeing what you men on the committee develop from them as to that figure; $40 million from the insurance companies—maybe it is not enough, but it is pretty good. They allege great accomplishments. } Mr. Haraaway. There is a tremendous amount of research that has to be done in the areas of occupational safety, disease, and whatnot. Mr. CuristenseN. And noise and air pollution—well, the field is just unlimited. Mr. Haraaway. Mr. Esch. Mr. Escu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think all of us are concerned with developing legislation that will continue the progress made by the voluntary associations and addi- tional emphasis and impetus to creating more favorable working conditions. Mention was made of the contrast between small industry as op- posed to larger industry. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act was amended a few years ago to apply to small mines that were previously exempted. I think they took off the 14-man exemption. I wonder if we might not ask the Department of Interior for figures on accidents, since these amendments on small mines, to see if there is a correlation. Mr. Haraway. Yes, without objection that request will be made of the Department of Interior and the answer will be made a part of the record. (The information follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU oF MINES, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1968. Director, Select Subcommittee of Labor, House of Representatives, Commitiece on Education and Labor, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HARRISON : This is in response to your recent question concerning the improvement in coal mines employing less than fifteen men underground (small mines). Since the March 1966 amendment to the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act, which made all underground coal mines subject to the mandatory provisions of Title IT of the Act, we are pleased to report that the number of fatalities and the fatality frequency rate for 1967 (the first full year of operation under the manda- tory provisions at small mines) were 40 percent below the figures for 1966. We feel that this dramatic reduction is most significant and reflects the wisdom of the Congress in enacting Public Law 89-376, which extended the mandatory pro- 258 visions of Title IT of the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act to the 6,000 previously exempt small underground mines. If additional information is needed, we will be glad to furnish it. Sincerely yours, FraNK C. MEM MOTT, Associate Director, Health and Safety. Mr. Esc. As part of the prepared testimony of the witness, he made mention of the fact, but did not quote him directly, of a Mr. William L. Conley of the Bureau of Labor Standards, in which he stated that his department was opposed to the Federal safety bill. I wonder in light of that generalized statement if we might not ask Mr. Conley to testify or submit a statement. “ i Mr. Christenson, I wonder if you would want to repeat the figure you gave of your estimate of the number of standards now in existence, voluntary standards. You indicate you thought there might be over 100,000 of those standards. Mr. CarrstensoN. You know, I don’t know. If you are going to take building codes, you can take the city of New York and I would guess you would have about 30,000. If you are going to take the codes of the American Standards Society, I don’t know again, but I think there must be many more thousands of codes in Cleveland and De- troit, and Chieago, New York, Milwaukee, and so forth, than any of us have any idea, and will go up to the figure of 100,000 just as an estimate. Mr. Escu. The point you are making is this legislation would pre- empt all of those standards, or could ? Mr. Curistenson. It could, and it would give the Secretary of La- bor—and I am not thinking of Mr. Wirtz in particular, but I am thinking of the future over the next 100 years—it would give any Secretary of Labor authority to knock out those codes, to revise them, change them, do what he wanted to. Say there is a strike on in a plant in your State and everybody is gone and they are operating it with 10 or 12 personnel. He could come along and say this is not an adequate staff for safety protection and close the plant and charge them $1,000 a day and keep them closed until labor decided that they had settled their contract. Those are the things that the little guy is worried about. He is con- cerned that you give this power to one man. Mr. Esc. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haraway. Mr. Steiger. Mr. SteicEr. I want to welcome, Mr. Christenson, a man who prac- ticed law in Lancaster, Wis., for a number of years and has a Wiscon- sin background. I appreciate his testimony. I have no questions. I think you have done a good job and have made a very valuable con- tribution to the committee in the statement you have made. I will ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, to insert at this point in the record the statement of the Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations of the State of Wisconsin in opposition to the bill. In his statement he referred to it, and I would like the complete statement to be made a part of the record. I would also ask permission to insert an article appearing in the Appleton Post-Cresent, February 25, 1968, which details the work of the de- 259 Paptaant and particularly its accident rate, which indicates it is going own. Mr. Hataaway. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The following material was entered in the record at the request of Mr. Steiger:) STATEMENT OF THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT oF INDUSTRY, LABOR, AND HUMAN RELATIONS THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT OF 1968 The companion bills, S 2864 and HR 14816, would establish a federal oceupa- tional safety and health program administered by the U. S. Department of Labor. In brief, the Act would do these things : 1. After an interim period of 545 days (18 months) all state laws covering occupational health and safety and applying to firms in interstate commerce would be abrogated. 2. To take the place of state law and administration, the Secretary of Labor would establish federal standards governing industrial health and safety, and enforce these standards by administrative orders, inspections, judicial proceedings, and public contracts. 3. The bill provides a penalty of up to $1000 per each violation and the possible shut down of operations. 4. The legislation contains authority for the Secretary to make contracts with the states for the administration of the law or parts of it. The Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations opposes the passage of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for the following reasons : 1. The Department opposes the concept that federal control can solve or even reduce the rate of job accidents and injuries. The sponsors of this legislation buttress their case by pointing to the toll of job accidents and injuries. Deaths and injuries resulting from traffic and crime are equally serious. Thus the federal government could make a similar case for taking over the administration and enforcement of state trafficand criminal laws. But the main flaw in the Act is the supposition that federal standards and strong enforcement can materially reduce accidents and deaths. Safety authori- ties throughout the Nation, including the National Safety Council, agree that 75 percent of all job accidents arise not from unsafe conditions, but from unsafe acts. The reduction of unsafe acts depends upon education and cooperation. The Wisconsin job safety program provides for about 90 percent education as against 10 percent enforcement. Beyond statistical research, we find no reference to edu- cation in the federal language. Further, we feel that any alleged improvement in standards will be more than offset in reducing injuries through the loss of cooperation. Cooperative and educational efforts are more successful when they take place between business and the units of government closest to them and the problems. 2. Under the proposed law, Wisconsin's codes and standards built up through 53 years of experience would, for all practical effects, be null and void. These codes have been deevloped by countless thousands of hours of effort by volunteer advisory committees from industry, labor and the professions. We feel that it would be impossible for a federal agency to duplicate this experience in 18 months, or even 18 years. As a second point under “2”, we feel that the structures in which men work and equipment is installed is just as important from the standpoint of safety as is the equipment itself. Approximately 25 percent of Wisconsin's budget in Indus- trial Safety is devoted to the inspection of plans and structures under construc- tion for their safety features. We find no reference to buildings and plan inspec- tion in the proposed federal law. 3. Wisconsin law provides for a penalty only when an unsafe condition remains uncorrected. The proposed federal law does not allow for a correction period. In Wisconsin we have found that most violations of the code are inadvertent. We feel it is unrealistic and unduly harsh to impose a $1000 fine upon a business which inadvertently violates one of several thousand code provisions. Such impo- sition would certainly work to the disavantage of cooperative efforts as discussed above. 4. The proposed law provides that the Secretary may make grants up to 90 percent of the state's cost for collection of information; increasing enforcement 92-734 0—68——18 260 capabilities, and otherwise improving the administration and enforcement of state occupational safety and health laws. From this language it does not appear that we would be paid for the day-to-day routine of education, inspection and enforcement, even if we were doing this job to the satisfaction of the Secretary. If this law passes, it seems Wisconsin would be forced into doing one of the following, none of which are satisfactory or practical. a. Discontinue our occupational safety program in its entirety and turn over this work to the U. S. Department of Labor. b. Maintain an inspection and enforcement bureau at state expense to enforce federal codes and standards. ¢. Maintain an inspection and enforcement bureau to cover those businesses not engaged in interstate commerce, and to enforce those parts of our codes which are above and beyond the federal codes. ‘ Finally, we believe that federalization of job safety may well have the opposite effect of that intended. We believe that it is unnecessary in Wisconsin, unwork- able in Wisconsin, and will in fact work to the detriment of the job safety pro- gram now in effect in Wisconsin. [From the Sunday Post-Crescent, Feb. 25, 1968] EconoMY’s HEALTH WAS “FAVORABLE” IN 1967 (By Joseph C. Fagan, Chairman, Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations) Our agency, the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, is con- cerned with people and their jobs. The conditions of safety, opportunity, and secu- rity that prevail for the over 1,800,000 people in our work are major factors in the health of Wisconsin’s economy. The measurements that we use to judge this health were, for the most part, quite favorable in 1967. The number of people employed in the state in 1967 reached an all-time high with 1,802,400 at work in August. Average employment for the year also set a record high, 1,753,000 for the first 11 months. At the same time we were enjoying these record levels of employment our unemployment rate was quite low, averag- ing 3.6 per cent, .3 per cent below the national average, but up .3 per cent from 1966. During 1967 we also recorded the highest ever average weekly earnings in pro- duction work, one of the key indicators we use to assess the vitality of our labor economy. This figure reached an all-time high in November with a weekly average of $126.38. - ACCIDENTS DOWN A gratifying face we can report was the downturn of job accidents during the last six months of 1967. Beginning in 1964, and continuing through the first half of 1967, our Department had the alarming experience of watching the job accident curve rise faster than the employment curve. Then, happily, in the middle of 1967 it began to drop. In the first six months of the year we recorded 19,784 reportable injuries (fatalities, permanent disability or more than 3 days of lost time). But in the last six months the figure dropped to 18,718, even as employment was ris- ing. The beginning of the decrease coincides with the point at which our intensi- fied job safety program went into effect. Twenty-eight new safety specialists, authorized by the Legislature in 1966, were hired early in 1967 and completed training in June. With these new men in the field we were able to consolidate the state into smaller inspection districts and so make the work of our entire 60 man inspection team more effective. We feel this program was substantially responsible for the decrease in job accidents. As we move into 1968, we are confident of even further reductions in the accident fre- quency rate even as we anticipate a rise in employment. JOB TRAINING One of the critical areas that has plagued the labor scene in previous years has been the chronic shortage of skilled labor. This fact has caused some Wisconsin industries to delay or even cancel expansion plans. We have made strides in relieving this shortage through our apprenticeship program and other on-the-job training programs. While the quantity of this training has not yet 261 reached the point where we would like it to be, we did achieve a major increase in 1967, reaching 7,522 apprentices at the close of the year, up 617 from the close of 1966. We are looking for 8,500 by the end of 1968. MINIMUM WAGE During tbe year our department set a new minimum wage for women and minors age 18 and over, from the current $1.25 an hour to $1.30 an hour. effective July 1, 1968. A new concept of determining future increases was also established by tying the rate directly to rises in the federal consumer price index. The 1967 state reorganization act assigned to our department the responsibility for the conditions of migrant labor camps in the state. During the summer months last year, our safety specialists made an intensive effort to cover every camp in the state. Three-hundred forty-one camps were inspecied and 274 of them were found to be in violation of one or more parts of the state's migrant labor code. There were 1,651 separate violations found. The camp operators have until May 1, 1968, to correct the deficiencies. To help them with this job, the department sponsored three informational workshops this past fall—in Wautoma, Sturgeon Bay, and Beaver Dam. To assist migrants with their day-to-day problems of environment, our Farm Labor Service Bureau hired 12 temporary employees during the summer months of 1967. These people, most of them Spanish speaking, helped migrant families in many areas, with problems ranging from finance, to schooling, to medical assistance. DISCRIMINATION A continuing problem that faced our department in 1967—and one that will £0 on into 1968-—is the unemployment pattern among minority groups. Young Negro men have an unemployment rate several times higher than their white counterparts. Overcoming this employment problem is, in our opinion, the key to the opportunity for equality. Artificial barriers in housing, education and social opportunity cannot long stand before the power of a full paycheck or “green power”. Our department has initiated many of its own programs to assist in this search for opportunity. One example, notable for its effectiveness and low cost, is our Community Involvement Toward Employment program (CITE) where our Employment Service Division runs two week classes for training young people in the rudi- ments of applying for and keeping a job. Starting Aug. 7, 1967, we held nine classes and graduated 2835 severely disadvantaged people from this course. Seventy per cent of them are now at work, earning from $1.40 to $3.60 an hour. Mr. Haraway. Ihave one final question on which I would like your comment. Although you and other witnesses have testified to the men- ace that this legislation would create by federalizing safety laws, you are aware of the fact that no standards will be adopted until there are hearings held under the Administrative Proportions Act and also that every State in the United States is represented by Senators and Con- gressmen and a lot of our job is preoccupied with getting to these ad- ministrative agencies and telling them they are not administering cer- tain standards under other laws as they should be administered in our little district, so there is some local protection built in not only in the law but in the Constitution. Mr. Curistenson. Speaking to that, and it is a touchy subject, and I have not wanted to refer to it too much, but it has bothered us very greatly that the Secretary of Labor has not conferred with a single State organization that we know of, and when he was asked by Senator Paul Fannin, Republican of Arizona, whether the administration had consulted interested State agencies, I will be darned if he didn’t say should we ask the foxes what to do about. the chicken fence. When you have a situation existing where they will not consult with the State industry commissions and safety commissioners, and so forth, 262 what are you going to look forward to? You can say sure he can have hearings under the Administrative Procedures Act but he makes the decision and he can make any decision he wants to. When a man says you should not consult the safety commissions and industrial commisisons of the United States anymore than you should consult a fox when you are building a chicken fence, that scares the dickens out of us. Aun, I do not think you have the protection that you really mean to have. Mr. Haraaway. There are other Federal laws being administered by the Secretary of Labor and other agencies here. You have not ex- perienced difficulties under those, have you, like the Mine Safety Act. Do you know of any experience there where the Secretary had abused his powers? Mr. Curistenson. I don’t know whether it is good or bad. I do not know anything about it. Mr. Haraway. Could we not anticipate under this act there would be a minimum of abuse. There will be certain amount of abuse whether it is administered by the State or the Federal Government. There is a need for statistics at least to fill in the gaps throughout the States where State law has not measured up to what their needs to be. Mr. CuristEnsoN. There may be, but I would certainly not want to give the power to the Secretary of Labor to close the plants and charge them $1,000 a day while he has them closed because he thought some- thing was being done that he felt should not be done. Mr. Haraway. I agree that provision should be in the bill for the employer to get damages if the Secretary’s action is arbitrary or some such measure as that. Thank you very much, Mr. Christenson, we appreciate your testi- mony. Mr. CuristeNnsoN. I certainly thank you. Mr. Hataaway. The subcommittee will stand in recess until tomor- row morning at 10 a.m. in this room. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 6, 1968.) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1968 House or REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR or THE CoMMITTEE oN EpucatioN anp LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O'Hara presiding. Present: Representatives O'Hara, Ford, Meeds, Esch, and Steiger. Staff members present : Jim Harrison, staff director; Marilyn Myers, clerk; Dr. James Wason, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress; and Mr. Michael J. Bernstein, Minority Counsel for Labor. Mr. O'Hara. The Select Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor will be in order. The purpose of the meeting today is to continue hearings on H.R. 14816, the occupational safety and health bill. STATEMENT OF DONALD C. O'HARA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS ASSOCIATION Congressman O’Hara. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Donald C. O’Hara, representing the National Petroleum Refiners Association. Cousin Donald, if you will just sit down. . Mr. Doxa C. O'Hara. 1 want to add I am also a native of Mich- igan. Bar, Chairman, we have submitted a multilith copy of my testimony, and if it is agreeable to the committee, I would - it be inserted 1n the record and summarize my statement orally. Congressman O'Hara. Without objection, the statement will be en- tered in full at this point in the record. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF DONALD C. O'HARA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS ASSOCIATION Before dealing with specific features of the Bill, I should like to tell you what we are doing to meet our responsibilities in this field. Our business is the han- dling and processing of large volumes of flammable liquids and gases. This means that safety is a vital factor in the design, construction and operation of refinery equipment. Since these costs are part of our construction and maintenance costs, it is impossible to indicate a complete breakdown which would show how much of the total is spent for safety. However, I asked some typical companies to submit the amounts allocated to their safety and health budgets in 1967. This shows that six companies spent a total of a little over $22 million on safety in 1967—that is, for safety engineers, physicians, industrial hygienists, training courses, special clothing, ete. These companies employ a total of about 100,000 employees, so that (263) 264 their safety expenditures averaged about $200.00 per employee in 1967. This employee total includes office workers, salesmen, ete. One other company sub- mitted a record of its expenditures in a single refinery in Montana. Not included in this total is $60,000 that was spent for pipe and nozzles for a new fire-control line. This left a total of $120,000 spent for employees’ safety alone. This plant has 165 employees, so the safety expenditures came to $727.00 per man in 1967. One other company submitted a similar breakdown for a refinery in Texas which showed a total of $721.20 per employee in 1967. Mor important that what we spend, of course is—What are the results? If we start with 1933, the first year for which the National Safety Council could furnish statistics for both refining and all industries, our accident rate declined steadily until 1954, when, for the first time, our accident frequency rate was down to an average of 5 disabling injuries per million man hours. Since that time, it has been on a plateau, with some years below 5 and never as high as 6. Our average has always been below the average for all industries, which, during those same years, has ranged from a low of 5.72 to a high of 6.91. Our average also has always been below the average for civilian employees of the Federal Government. Our experience has been that the number of disabling injuries suffered by refinery employees while they are off duty has consistently run from ten to twelve times higher than the rate during working time. It is a fact that the most dan- gerous hours of the day for a refinery worker begin when his shift ends and he gets in his car to go home. I am not citing this record to indicate that we are satisfied with our perform- ance. We will not be satisfied with any accident average higher than zero and we intend to continue our efforts toward that goal. I cite our record only to establish the fact that the refining industry qualifies as one of the industries in which there is “full recognition of both the human and economic values involved here,” as Secretary Wirtz described in his statement before you. We are in full accord with his recommendation that all industries should assume their safety obligation, but we do not agree with the Secretary’s observa: tion that the proposed Bill would affect only the laggards. Our comments are based on our experience with safety regulations. Most petro- leum refiners manufacture products for the Government, principally jet fuel, and, thus, we have been subject to the safety as well as the other provisions of the Walsh-Healey Act. We also are subject to a number of state and local safety regulations. Based on this experience, we are concerned about three features of the proposed legislation. Two of these are really different sides of the same coin, so I will treat them together. One is the concept that it is possible to write a single code and the other being that it is possible to recurit a single corps of inspectors which can deal with all industries. A few years ago, the Labor Department proposed a new set of Safety Regula- tions under the Walsh-Healey Act. We objected to some of these regulations on the ground that they would interfere with safety efforts in refineries rather than encourage them. We met with the officials of the Labor Department and they expressed surprise at our opposition. They said that they did not have petroleum refineries in mind when they drafted these regulations. The officials could not remember a case in which a petroleum refinery had been cited for a safety viola- tion in the thirty years since the statute was passed. Now, the Department proposes another statute and another corps of inspectors to be superimposed upon the Walsh-Healey Act as the Wage and Hour Act has been superimposed on it, so that we will have two sets of Safety Regulations, as we now have two sets of Wage and Hour Regulations. The Department proposes to recruit a corps of inspectors who will be given a course of instruction and then will travel about, inspecting meat packing plants, furniture factories, clothing factories, auto plants, steel mills, and all of the various industries in our country. These same inspectors will have the authority to go into a petroleum refinery and override the judgment of professional engineers on questions involving the design and operation of the process equipment used in these facilities. We consider this comparable to giving an inspector a training course in first aid and then author- izing him to go into a hospital and override the decision of the resident physician on the equipment to be used in the operating room. Federal safety inspections are not new. For many years, Congress has recog- nized that certain activities have a special public concern. The Coast Guard certifies as to the seaworthiness of passenger-carrying vessels, the Federal Avia- 265 tion Agency inspects airplanes, and the Bureau of Mines inspects coal mines. No one would seriously suggest that the FAA staff which inspects airplanes should also inspect coal mines, or that coal mine inspectors also are qualified to certify to the seaworthiness of an ocean liner. Yet, the Labor Department proposes to write a single set of regulations and provide a single corps of inspectors capable of dealing with all of the complex processes used in modern industry. As a matter of fact, we would not even consider one inspector qualified to inspect all of the processes in a petroleum refinery. One company pointed out to me that one of the three refineries it operates runs on what we call “Wyoming Sour” crude—this is no disparagement of Wyoming. It happens that the crude oil from some fields in Wyoming, West Texas, and Venezuela has a high sulphur con- tent. This crude is unusually corrosive and requires special equipment for proc- essing. The corrosive effect on metal occurs inside the pipes and pressure vessels. It is not apparent to even a trained inspector going through the plant. It is measured by the use of special equipment, such as ultrasonic wave propagation devices, and these readings must be interpreted by a trained metallurgist. On a number of occasions the Labor Department has authorized its regular investigators to make safety inspections and to submit complaints of safety viola- tions. By regular investigators, I am referring to individuals whose duty is to check payroll records to determine the compliance with the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Act, and who have had no technical training. We objected to the use of inspectors of this sort, and I must say we were even more surprised when Secretary Wirtz appeared before your Committee and expressed approval of the idea of looking to “the hard-core cadre of unemployed” as a source of manpower for this program. Under the proposed statute, these inspectors would be authorized to close down an oil refinery without a hearing on their judgment that a catalytic cracker was not being properly operated. When we pointed out to the Labor Department that many of the regulations which it proposed under the Walsh-Healey Act were inapplicable to refineries and chemical plants, we (and several other industries) suggested that the De- partment give consideration to Codes adopted by professional and scientific societies, especially those dealing with metallurgy, pressure vessels, ete. The Department apparently approved this idea because the Secretary of Labor has adopted it as part of the Regulations under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act. The following is quoted from these Regulations : “(a) Every contractor and subcontractor shall protect the safety and health of service employees by complying with the applicable standards, specifications, and codes developed and published by the United States Department of Labor or any other agency of the United States and nationally recognized professional organizations. . . . “(b) The following agencies and organizations, without limitation, are ex- amples of those referred to in paragraph (a) of this section : “National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce. “Public Health Service, 1.8. Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare. “Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of Interior. “United States of America Standards Institute (American Standards Association). “National Fire Protection Association. “American Society of Mechanical Engineers. “American Society for Testing and Materials. “American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.” However, he apparently has again reversed his position because, in his state- ment on H.R. 14816, he proposes only Labor Department Standards which he says “will lessen the unnecessary employer confusion caused by the existence of a variety of standards, some of which have no force at law.” We do not understand the reason for this change because it seems manifestly impossible to write a single code that will cover all of the processes used in com- plex modern plants. I will not take the Committee's time to review all of our objections to specific Regulations, but I would like to cite one example from the Labor Department's proposed Regulations under the Walsh-Healey Act. - This was a rule which would have prohibited the use of an unattended open flame. Presumably, this rule would have applied to some industries where trash fires or other fires might be left unattended. However, in the case of oil refineries, flares are one of the important safety devices. If you have ever driven at night 266 past the oil refineries along the New Jersey Turnpike, you may have noticed towers with a small flame burning at the top of them. The purpose of these | towers is to provide a method by which a refinery can, in an emergency, quickly dispose of flammable material such as butane, which might otherwise be danger- ous if allowed to escape unburned. The safest way to do this is to get it away from the refinery grounds and burn it at a considerable height. Refineries spend many millions of dollars to build pipes connected to these flares. (This is con- sidered a construction cost and is not included in the safety expenditures referred to above.) In order to make sure that this will be available at any time, a pilot light is kept burning at the top of the flare. It is no more dangerous than the pilot light that most of you will find in your furnace and in your hot-water heater. As a matter of fact, both of these units would be considerably more dangerous if they did not have this pilot light. Even if we were to do as the proposed Regulations would require, and hire enough men to sit and watch these fires three shifts a day, seven days a week, it would no contribute in any way to the safety of the plant. I cite this Regula- tion because it illustrates the real issue here, and that is not safety but the question of to what extent regulations can be used to hold back the introduction of new processes in the industry. This brings me to our final objection. Under the pending Bill, the Secretary of Labor would have complete authority to write the Regulations, enforce the Regulations, and interpret the Regulations. We believe there should be some provisions for review, especially when there is a genuine question of fact as to whether or not a regulation will promote safety. Our experience has been that there is constant pressure on regulatory agencies to use safety regulations to accomplish other purposes. The refining industry, like many other industries, is undergoing a technological revolution. Plants that were built even ten years ago are now obsolete, and new processes are being introduced every day in both petroleum and petrochemicals. Along with these new processes have come great changes in the use of auto- mated controls and computers. These changes have made refineries more efficient, and they also have made them safer. One result of these changes, of course, has been a reduction in the work force, most of which has been accomplished through a reduced hiring of new workers rather than layoffs. Local ordinances have been adopted in some important refining centers to prevent a refinery being operated by a reduced work force. Bills to establish special state commissions with authority to shut down refineries have been introduced in the legislatures of Ohio and Illinois. These proposals have nothing to do with safety. The only one of these ordinances to be tested in court is the one adopted in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, which is an important refining area. The court said in finding the ordinance unconsitutional that it amounted to special penal legislation and that it failed to define the offense sufficently for a penal law. The court said: “This ordinance is a penal law and purports to define a misdemeanor. Certain actions without the presence of a regular complement of skilled workers ordi- narily employed to operate and maintain such actions is a misdemeanor. At- tempting to operate or operating such actions where the regular complement of maintenance and operating employees are not on duty is a violation. What is a regular complement? What is a skilled worker? What is the meaning of ‘ordi- narily’? What is a maintenance employee? What is an operating employee? What is ‘on duty’ ?” In one recent case, there was a strike in a refinery which had a contract to supply jet fuel to the Air Force. The union called the company at 2:05 A.M. on a Sunday, and two minutes later the men left the units unattended. The company was able to keep the plant operating with supervisory personnel and continued to deliver jet fuel to the Government. The union sent a complaint to the Secretary of Labor (and published it in the local newspaper) charging that the plant was unsafe because it was not being operated by a full crew. It asked the Secretary to use his authority under the Walsh-Healey Act to find that the operation of the plant was not safe. The union issued a Strike Bulletin to its members, stating that it was going to see that safety investigation would follow so that the company’s Government contracts would be cancelled. Incidentally, this plant had two safety inspections under the Walsh-Healey Act earlier in the same year. It seems obvious that a man who is out on strike is not in any danger from 267 the operation of the plant, but the unions, nonetheless, have pressed their cam- paign to prevent plants from being operated with a reduced work force. We have had a similar experience in the distribution of petroleum products. So-called safety ordinances limiting the size of tanks and tank trucks have been held unconstitutional in Wisconsin (1), Colorado (2), and Texas (3). In the Colorado case, for exampie, the Colorado Supreme Court said : “After extensive hearings, the trial court found that the ordinance in ques- tion does not in fact tend to promote the public health, welfare and safety but accomplishes just the opposite result, namely, that it is in fact deterimental to the public health, welfare and safety. . . . “We hold that the subject ordinance which requires the tank vehicles to pass through the city to a bulk plant, unload at the bulk plant, and then reload vehicles of a capacity of less than 2,200 gallons for redelivery to retail filling stations throughout the city, necessarily involves a greater exposure to hazard and accident, and therefore, a greater danger to the public health, welfare, and safety of the city and its populace.” Since the issue here is whether these various ordinances are actually intended to promote safety, it is interesting to note that the 1967 edition of Accident Facts, published by the National Safety Council, shows that petroleum tank trucks are more than twice as safe as school buses, almost four times as safe as mail trucks, safer than public utility vehicles—in fact, safer than almost any form of highway transport. The purpose of these ordinances is not safety. It is to require the use of smaller trucks and smaller tanks so that more frequent deliveries are required-— actually increasing the risk. We believe that Government Regulations promulgated in the name of safety, but which have as their real purpose to bar the adoption of improved methods, subvert the cause of safety instead of promoting it. (1) Clark Oilv. City of Tomak (2) City of Colorado Springs v. Grueskin (3) City of Ballinger In summary, we recognize our responsibility to provide safe working condi- tions and we support Government efforts to promote safety. We believe that the cause of safety will be advanced if : (1) The Regulations which apply to our industry, or to any industry using complex and sophisticated processes, are drafted by men with the necessary technical knowledge. Specifically, we endorse the use of recognized standards developed by inde- pendent professional organizations—as is now done under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act, and (2) That no inspector be granted the authority to shut down a plant without some provision for an impartial review to determine whether the regulation involved will, in fact, improve safety. This is necessary if we are to make sure that the benefits of improved tech- nology are passed on to the public and the consumers. Mr. Doxarp C. O’Hara. I start out by telling something about the amount of money we spend, and I don’t think it is necessary to take the time to go into it. The important issue is what are the results and if you take the figures of National Safety Council over the period starting in 1933, which is the first year of available figures both for refining in- dustry and industry in general, there has not been a year during that period when our average has not been below the average of the Nation generally or a year when it has not been below the average for civilian employment in the Federal Government. I insert these figures only because I want to establish at the outset that we think we fall in the category of the industries that Secretar Wirtz referred to, which recognized their responsibility in this field. Now to get to the comments on the bill. We have had a good deal of experience with safety regulations. Most refineries manufacture products, particularly jet fuel for the Government, so we are subject to the Walsh-Healey Act and subject to State and local regulation. Based on that, we have three things about the bill that concern us. 268 Two are really different sides of the same coin: the concept that you can have a single set of standards to cover all industries and also the Stat that you can have a single corps of inspectors to inspect all plants. Now, a few years ago the Labor Department proposed a set of reg- ulations under the Walsh-Healey Act. We objected to some of these. We met with the Labor Department and they said they did not have petroleum refineries in mind when they drafted the regulation. As far as they recall, they never had a case under the Walsh-Healey Act in which a petroleum refinery has been cited. : As we understand, they Dropnse another corps of inspectors to be superimposed on what we already have under the act. These inspectors will be given a course of training and inspect meatpacking plants, steel mills, lumber yards, clothing factories, and so on. These same inspectors will have the authority to go into a refinery and shut it down without a hearing on their finding that a catalytic cracker is not being properly operated. We consider this comparable to giving a man a course in first aid and allowing him to go into a hospital and over- a, a decision of the resident physician on equipment to be operating with. Let’s take other forms of safety inspection. The Coast Guard certi- fies seaworthiness of vessels, the FAA inspects airplanes, and the Bureau of Mines inspects coal mines. I don’t think anyone would seriously propose that a man inspecting airplanes would also inspect coal mines, or that a coal mine inspector is qualified to testify as to the seaworthiness of a liner. Yet they take the position it is possible for these inspectors to go in and inspect a refinery or any other complex operation and make a decision on the process being used. We don’t think it is possible. As a matter of fact, on a number of occasions the Labor Department authorized its regular investigators to make inspections. By “regular investigators” I am talking about individuals whose duty it is to check the payrolls and most of them are only payroll auditors and only trained in that field and yet the Labor Department permitted them to make safety inspections. Under the statute, these men would have authority to close down the plant. Now let’s deal with the other side of this, and that is the question of the regulations. When we opposed the use of a single code of reg- ulations under the Walsh. Healey Act, we suggested and we are not alone. A good many others suggested the same thing. We suggested the Labor Department give consideration to the use of codes already established by a professional scientific society. I have cited in my statement here the regulations which the Secre- tary has published under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act. I want to say at the outset we are in agreement with these regula- tions and have no quarrel with them. What we object to is the fact when the Secretary appeared before you he said that he wants only Labor Department standards, which he said will “lessen the unneces- sary employer confusion caused by the existence of a variety of stand- ards some of which have no force of law.” Now, we just don’t understand the reason for that change in posi- tion. We think the rule he had before is the better one. Now let’s get down to specifies in the regulations. I don’t want to 269 take up the committee’s time to talk about all of our objections be- cause we filed a lengthy brief on it. There was one regulation, how- ever, in there which would have prohibited the use of an unattended open flame. When we talked to the Labor Department about that, they said: Well, we were thinking of a case of a trash fire in a plant and they should not go away and leave it unattended. If you have been in an oil refinery, you can imagine the possibility of having « trash fire in a place where you are not even allowed to smoke cigarettes. We have in the refinery a safety device called a flare and if you have driven along the New Jersey Turnpike at night, you have seen what looks like a torch in the air. What it 1s, we have a piece of pipe sticking up in the air and other pipes are connected so in an emergency 1f a refinery has to dispose of materials, for example butane, which would be a danger if permitted to escape unburned, they run it into this flare. They run pipes from all of the units to these flares. At the top of the flare is a pilot light which burns all the time. That pilot light is automatically controlled. Tt is no more dangerous than the pilot light in your furnace or hot-water heater at home. As a matter of fact, both of those units would be unsafe without a pilot. If we actually did what the Labor Department wants and hired enough men to sit and watch the fire three shifts a day, 7 days a week, it wouldn't contribute in any way to safety. This brings me to what is our final and, I would say, probably our most important objection. Under the proposed bill, the Secretary of Labor has authority to write the rr enforce the regulations, and interpret the regulations. Now, we think that some place there should be provision for an impartial hearing on the question of whether or not a regulation actually promotes safety. Now I want to say that our experience with safety regulations is, that there is constant pressure on the regulatory agencies to use safety regulations for some other purpose. The refining industry, like others, is right now in a technological revolution. Plants built 10 years ago are becoming obsolete and new processes are introduced every day. As they are introduced, we have had a great advance in the use of automatic equipment, automatic controls, computer controls, and if you could go into a modern refinery—and I wish it would be pos- sible for some of the committee to visit one, and we would be glad to arrange it—you could go to a refinery like those on the Delaware River processing 200,000 barrels a day of crude oil and if you walk through it at night when the night shift is on duty and the mainte- nance men are not there, you could actually walk in the front gate and walk all the way through the refinery and never see a man. The only men in there are in the control rooms, watching automatic controls. Now, what we find is that the unions have got to pressing many local communities to adopt ordinances to prohibit operating a refinery with a reduced work force—in Wood River, Ill, and one in Whiting, Ind., and one in Bayonne, N.J., and St. Charles Parish, La., all of which are refining areas. The only one tested in court is the one in St. Charles Parish. I cited a little bit here from the court decision. What the court found first, they called it punitive legislation because it singled out 270 only refineries. Secondly, the court pointed out it was too vague to be a criminal statute. There was another recent case of a strike in a refinery. The union called the plant manager at 2:05 a.m. on Sunday and 2 minutes later the men walked out and left the units unattended. The company operated the plant with supervisory personnel and the union sent a telegram to the Secretary of Labor—because the plant was supplying jet fuel to the Government it was subject to the Walsh-Healey Act— and they asked that the Secretary use his power under the Walsh- Healey Act to cancel the company’s Government contracts. Now we have had a similar experience not only with refineries but with distribution of petroleum products. There are a nuniber of local bodies that have adopted ordinances that limit the size of trucks and the size of tanks. They have been declared unconstitutional in a num- ber of States, and I would like to read briefly from the Colorado Supreme Court decision. The court said: After extensive hearings, the trial court found that the ordinance in question does not in fact tend to promote the public health, welfare and safety but accomplishes just the opposite result, namely, that it is in fact detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety . . . We hold that the subject ordinance which requires the tank vehicles to pass through the city to a bulk plant, unload at the bulk plant, and then reload vehicles of a capdcity of less than 2,200 gallons for redelivery to retail filling stations throughout the city, necessarily involves a greater exposure to hazard and accident, and therefore, a greater danger to the public health, welfare, and safety of the city and its populace. The purpose of the ordinance is not safety, but to require more frequent and smaller deliveries which actually increases the risk. e believe that Government regulations which are promulgated in the name of safety, but actually have as their purpose to prevent the introduction of modern equipment, subvert the cause of safety instead of promoting it. In summary, I want to say we recognize our responsibility to pro- vide safe working conditions and we support Government efforts to promote safety but would specifically like to see two things: one, that any regulations that apply to our industry or for that matter any in- dustry with complex, sophisticated equipment be written by men who have the necessary technical background to do it. Specifically, we endorse the approach which the Secretary has taken already under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act. Second, we hope that no inspector be given the authority to shut down a plant until the plant has an opportunity for an impartial hearing as to whether the regulations in question would actually pro- mote safety. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Congressman O'Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Hara. I found your statement very interesting and I think a very well reasoned state- ment. I would like to discuss it with you for a few minutes. Your present situation is that you face State regulation, in a num- ber of States? Mr. Donarp C. O'Hara. Yes. Congressman O’Hara. What has been your experience with State safety regulations? Mr. Donarp C. O'Hara. Well, we have this situation. 271 Congressman O’Hara. You have referred to some of your experi- ences under municipal ordinances and under Walsh-Healey. Mr. Donato C. O'Hara. Let me read to you a letter I just received lately. It was a refinery up in New Jersey that had a strike called by the Teamsters Union. This is a letter in which the refinery manager wrote to Commissioner of Labor and Industry in New Jersey, and I will quote briefly. He says: “In April the representative of your office made the annual inspec- tion of our refinery and reported that we were conducting our opera- tion in accordance with safety rules and regulations. Approximately 1 week before our strike started, one of your representatives in- spected our refinery for compliance with safety rules and regulations and found the refinery in satisfactory condition. Since the start of the strike, your representatives have visited us on several different occa- sions—October 19, November 12, and November 23 and November 25, December 5, December 9, December 10. “We understand that since December 11, a member of your staff has been assigned to check the refinery daily. In all of their inspections, we understand that your representatives have found the refinery was being operated safely.” So I would answer that question by saying we rarely get inspections by State officials unless there is a labor dispute and then we get fre- quent inspections. Congressman O'Hara. Do you feel the State regulation in inspection makes any contribution to the safety of the operation ? In other words, I'was very interested in your comment with respect to the complexity and the rapidly changing technology involved in the operation of oil refineries. You called our attention to the fact that on at least one occasion Walsh-Healey inspections have been made by people whose back- ground presumably was accounting or some similar field of endeavor, and you inferentially questioned the competency of such people to— and I think correctly so—to conduct a safety inspection of a refinery. I am wondering if you are not having somewhat similar difficulties with the States. Mr. Doxarp C. O'Hara. Well, we have. We are not here taking any position specifically between State and Federal inspection. I will say this as far as the States are concerned : I'he refinery busi- ness by its nature is concentrated in certain areas usually where there is market and deepwater transportation. New Jersey and Delaware Rivers have a tremendous concentration. You have huge concentration on the gulf coast between Houston and New Orleans and another in Los Angeles and another one around East Chicago; but outside of those areas, you find that in most States the problem wouldn't arise. Congressman O'Hara. Those are your major concentrations, but you have other refineries, for instance a refinery up around Baltimore, and there is a refinery or two up around Detroit. Mr. Donarp C. O'Hara. Yes, Detroit and Toledo. Congressman O'Hara. Right. There are additional refineries scat- tered around the country even though you have your concentration in maybe half a dozen locations. I found your testimony very useful with respect to some of the difficulties you ran into with municipal ordinances and so forth—-I 272 was wondering if you had similar difficulties with State regulation, and you have had some in New Jersey apparently from the letter you read to us. } Mr. Dovarp C. O'Hara. Actually we have had the same thing quite a few other places, say in Whiting, Ind. I am not suggesting it is not a legitimate function of the local community to have safety regula- tions, but I point out that you have the constant pattern of suddenly taking a great interest in safety and having a series of inspections where there is a labor dispute, when the real issue turns on the ques- tion of the reduction of the work force. We think that is a matter that does not belong in the safety field. Congressman O'Hara. I am trying to come to grips with this prob- lem. We have, I guess, several avenues that we could follow. One, it is not within our power to say “no safety regulation,” because, absent a Federal statute providing for preemption of State and local law, the States and the a certainly have the right to regulate in- dustries operating within their jurisdiction. We could go to a system, as some other witnesses have suggested, of trying to improve State regulation, or we could go to the system pro- vided in this bill which provides for Federal regulation and tries to jrpayey State regulation. should think that there would be pros and cons with each of the approaches. I should think, for instance, that if the Federal Govern- ment were to adopt a set of regulations specifically designed for the etroleum industry, making extensive use of the standards—is it the hes Institute’s own standards? Mr. Doxarp C. O'Hara. No; the standards that have already been adopted under the McNamara-O’Hara Act are mostly ones that have been approved by some Government department. They are on page 4 of my statement. Congressman O'Hara. Also National Fire Protection Association. Mr. Donarp C. O'Hara. That is right. I wanted to make clear be- cause sometimes we are accused of wanting to write our own regula- tions, because it is not the case. Congressman O'Hara. I am wondering about it because if the petro- leum industry is sui generis and not quite like any other industry, I notice for instance the Association of General Contractors, they have developed standards for their industry which are widely used by regu- latory agencies. I know that other industrial groups have put a great deal of effort into developing standards for safety of operations which are then dis- seminated widely through the industry. I am wondering if it would not make sense, and I suspected, without knowing, that probably your industry would have had such an operation. Mr. Donarp C. O'HARA. Yes. Congressman O'Hara. What is this, then ? Mr. Donato C. O'Hara. Well, there are standards which are pub- lished by the American Petroleum Institute. They, to some extent, in- corporate other standards. I would like to point out, for example, we would have electrical codes and one of the great factors in the refinery is what is known as pressure vessels; these units under pressure and the the standards applied are not necessarily peculiar to petroleum but involve knowledge of metallurgy and condition and quality of metals. 273 We are not saying that the petroleum industry expects to have a regulation of its own, and we Pe no objection to the Government regulation of safety but what we do say is that in any industry like ours where the processes are complex, that they don’t try to apply a single code like the Secretary was trying to apply in the Walsh-Healey Act, that there be provision for consultation with informed people on these standards and that the standards that are adopted incorporate the standards that these professional and engineering societies have al- ready set up. Second, we object very strongly to this rule that an inspector can come in and shut the plant down on his own motion. That is in- conceivable to us. Congressman O'Hara. Let me approach it in light of our experience in the Mine Safety, the Federal Metallic and Nonmetallic Act of which I was the sponsor. There we got at that problem in two ways. In the first place, with respect to your first remark, we provided for advisory committees, and we directed the Secretary of the Interior to appoint such committees from representatives of the industry, of labor in that particular industry, and of those who had particular knowledge and expertise in dealing with safety problems that were found in that particular industry. These boards were to help develop safety standards. They were virtually authorized to develop them, in fact, because when you cover all ping other than coal mining you are covering a great range of activity from gravel pits to open-pit metallic mining, to deep-shaft mining of all different kinds. Now, we authorized them to develop separate sets of standards and perhaps one basic set that would be applicable to common features of all of them and then different standards, depending on what kind of operation it was. So in that legislation, we provided both for standards that would fit the particular industry and for the involvement of the industry, of bd active in the industry, in the adoption of the standard. Now; I think that sort of an approach would probably be better from your point of view. Mr. DoNatp C. O'Hara. Yes, it would. I would certainly say we would endorse that kind of approach. I might say, speaking about the difference of mines, we have the same thing, we are not claiming that refineries are entirely unique, because the type of processes and the types of plants we have are very similar to chemical plants. In fact, we are reaching the point where the dis- tinction between the petroleum industry and chemical industry is disappearing . The chemical people are using crude oil like in Michigan and the Dow Chemical Co. 1s actually a huge user of crude oil and natural gas liquids and at the same time refineries are making chemical prod- ucts, so we think it would be possible to treat a group of these together as a single industry in the sense of having a set of standards that would apply to sophisticated equipment. Congressman O'Hara. You think if we go ahead with this, to pro- vide for the grouping of industries and the adoption of standards that are relevant to particular industries, that would make a lot more sense than one set of standards to cover everyone ? 274 Mr. Donarp C. O’Hara. That is right, and the provision that we have an eportinily to be heard on the question of whether the regulations actually cover it. Congressman O'Hara. I want to say first I think people involved in an industry ought to have a voice in deciding what the standards ought to be. To resume, the second point you make 1s a good point. In the case where the Secretary’s representative determines there is imminent danger the Secretary’s representative is authorized to authorize im- mediate withdrawal of men from the area of danger and, as you point out, when you go into court to appeal that order, the only ques- tion is whether or not imminent danger existed, not the reasonableness of the regulation or any other thing. Mr. Doxarp C. O'Hara. Yes. Congressman O'Hara. Well, I have the feeling, or it was my inten- tion that there be two points of attack on these, I mean regulations that would be adopted. First, I should think, that interested parties ought to have an opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of the regulations at the time they are issued, and before they are put into effect so that there would be complete opportunity for hearing and for the presentation of evidence so that they are not subject to unreason- able regulation in the first place. But once that has been done and the regulations have been estab- lished after everyone has had their say, I should think, that then if there is a finding of imminent danger, that that is not a time to litigate the basis of the regulation. I think that time should have come before the regulation went into effect. Don’t you agree with that? Mr. Doxarp C. O'Hara. No, I don’t. Let me tell you why. First of all, let’s take a case of an oil refinery, and I spoke of these refineries on the Delaware River, for example. We don’t object to these refineries having periodic safety inspections but, and as I say, our experience has been, we never had difficulty with Federal and even State inspections ex- cept when there was a labor dispute going on. That refinery now operates continuously, that is the nature of the process, it operates three shifts a day, 7 days a week. The crude oil that is processed in that refinery and most of those on the Delaware River, for example, is im od This means that tankers are sched- uled from Venezuela, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Mexico, and so forth, and are coming in there. All of this is scheduled months and months in advance; in fact, if they plan to shut down a unit for repair they schedule it months in advance and make arrangements to reschedule their tankers. Actually it takes about 3 days, about 72 hours, to shut down a refinery because of the continuous processing having to shut it down one unit at a time and reduce the pressure in units in series and to say that a man can just, say like a mine, everybody get out of this shaft in a minute, you can’t do it; in fact, it is unsafe to go away and leave it. If you decide to shut it down it 1s a long process of shutting it down. What we want, or what we feel is that experience we have had at Bayonne and Whiting, Ind., when there is a labor dispute, suddenly officials get interested in trying to shut the plant down whereas they had never been eT with it before. - Congressman O’Hara. Well, in this situation, the bill says: The rep- resentative may issue an order regarding the immediate cessation of 275 violation and any other measures necessary to remove such violation and further prohibit the employment of person or persons in locations or under conditions where such violations exist except to correct or remove the violation. Now, in the example you give, I think it seems pretty clear to me that given the continuous operation and the numerous steps and the time intervals required to properly shut down an operation, that there would be no question of saying that you couldn’t keep personnel there for the purpose of shutting down this operation properly. I mean, I think that is not the situation. Mr. Donato C. O'Hara. No; I agree with you on that. Our fear is that this power will be used at a time when there is no safety issue involved, and I pointed out to you, for example, the one case where the union did send a telegram to the Secretary of Labor and asked him to cancel the contract. That refinery had no safety problem and had been inspected twice that year and no question had been raised about safety, and their record that year was well below the industry average but the pressure is there to use it for another purpose. We believe in those cases we should have a right to show whether the regulation they are talking about is actually for safety. We think there are many cases where 1t is misused, I will put it that way. Congressman O'Hara. I think you are certainly entitled to protect yourself on the abuse of any regulations that might be adopted either under Walsh-Healey or under this legislation if it were passed or State regulation or local regulation, and I assure you we will carefully con- sider that problem. Let me get off the point for a moment or two. I was interested to read in a newspaper a couple of weeks ago about an exercise that is being conducted under the auspices of the U.S. Government in the Antarctic, where they drill, taking a huge, deep core out of the icecap. Perhaps you have read about this, too. Mr. Doxacp C. O'Hara. Yes. Congressman O'Hara. One of the things that they are looking for has to do with the amount of lead in the atmosphere today as com- ared to what it might have been before the extensive use of products, industrial use of products that had lead contained in them. Of course, the reason they are interested in that question is, there has been some suspicion that we have a lead-poisoning problem in the United States. Particularly, a number of people attempt to lay a major portion of the blame at the door of your industry, in connection with the use of lead and gasoline. I just wondered as a matter of curiosity what the industry is doing on this and how much attention it is paying to it and what your tenta- tive conclusions might be. Mr. Donawp C. O'Hara. First of all, my conclusions wouldn’t amount to much, because I am not a technical man. I do know that the industry has given a lot of study and there is a joint study going on with the Surgeon General’s Office and the Bureau of Mines which is supported by the American Petroleum Institute, making a study of this, and all I can say is, I would be glad to ask them to submit a copy of their report to you. Congressman O'Hara. I would be interested in getting whatever they have. It is not germane to the purpose of this except as it affects— 92-734 0—68——19 276 well, I guess perhaps it is germane, because in some occupations where one would A Joes ok to : lot of exhaust fumes, I suppose it would be germane; but any light you could shed on it we would appreciate. Mr. DoNaLp C. O'Hara. I will be glad to ask for a copy of whatever the survey has shown, but I really know nothing about it myself. Congressman O’Hara. I notice New York and New Jersey recently adopted new regulations that limit the sulfur content of residual fuel oils to 1 percent next year and three-tenths of 1 percent by 1972. I am wondering, with respect to that, two things: first, whether or not you feel the industry is going to be able to meet these requirements; and secondly, this is one of the aspects of State-by-State regulation that has interested the committee. I know of no other States that have adopted similar regulations, so the industry might well be in a position of having to meet certain Todniremonts in some places that it does not have to meet in other aces. r One of the arguments that have been advanced for this type of national approach is, you will have, or an industry would have but one set of standards that it would have to meet instead of up to 50 different sets. So I would like to have your comments on those; first, how you think you are going to be oh to meet the requirements of New York and New Jersey and what is the effect of having two States impose such requirements and other States perhaps having different requirements. Mr. Donarp C. O'Hara. First, I would answer by saying there is no fusion it is possible to meet. the requirement. It is like a lot of other things—it comes down to a question of money. The process and tech- nical knowledge is there to remove sulfur from oil but it costs more money. It also develops some political problems, because, as I mentioned in the statement, oil from Venezuela unfortunately has a higher sulfur content than others and the oil refined in New York and New Jersey is mostly Venezuelan. You have a whole lot of things involved. All I can say is, these regulations have been discussed at great length with these State authorities and with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the American Petroleum Institute has a department specifically devoted to this and I would be glad to ask them to submit a statement. But I couldn’t answer that question. Congressman O’Hara. I thank you very much, Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Esch or Mr. Steiger, any questions? Mr. Steiger. No. Mr. EscH. No. STATEMENT OF ALAN BURCH, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS Mr. O'Hara. Our next witness is Alan Burch, representing the In- ternational Union of Operating Engineers. Mr. Burch, would you please step forward and identify yourself and give the committee the benefit of your statements. Mr. Buren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Alan Burch 277 and I am safety director for the International Union of Operating Engineers. . 1 would like to make one comment. I listened with intensive inter- est to the preceding statement if for no other reason than seven operat- ing engineers lost their lives in the last 6 months, working in refineries. The organization I represent wants to express its support for the principle of Federal leadership in the drive to preserve the health and safety of working men and women. We feel that the Propasd bill, or something very nearly like it, will achieve this end. From the beginnings of this Republic the States have had the au- thority to act in this regard. Unfortunately, few of them have done so, and the result has been a considerable amount of unnecessary suffering. Certainly, few of us from organized labor have any objec- tions to the States doing the job; indeed, there are some excellent rea- sons for having them do so. The simple fact is, however, that virtually none have shown even a recognition of the problem, not to mention having taken positive steps to alleviate it. We are forced to conclude, from the history of State industrial safety and health activities, that neither the will nor the means will be forthcoming without Federal action. We who represent workers in the construction industry feel a pas: ticular sense of urgency for legislation in this field as our members suffer a disproportionate share of the on-the-job deaths and injuries. I will not cite the statistics as I am aware that the committee has had their attention drawn to the butcher’s bill by others, but I do want to point out that while workers in the construction industry compose about 5 percent of the U.S. work force, they suffer about 19 percent of the accidental fatalities and about 12 percent of the disabling in- juries that occur in industry annually. This is a shattering record for America’s largest industry, and much of it is traceable to the lack of mh regulations setting at least a minimum floor under the safety and health practices of con- tractors. This is an absolute necessity if such matters are to be re- moved from consideration in the lively competition for contracts which exists in the industry. In present circumstances, the responsible contractor is penalized by his costs for safety programs, while the all too many irresponsible con- tractors who care only about the buck go merrily on their bloody way. The entire history of occupational safety and health activity in America demonstrates conclusively that management’s hand must be forced before effective preventive action is forthcoming. We have tried to do this, on occasion, through the collective-bargaining process, but it is far too large and complex a problem to admit of solution by local groups who may have neither the time nor the expertise to bring to it. Unions exist primarily to better the economic conditions under which their members labor, and we have done a reasonably good job. We can do no less in the drive to allow our members to enjoy the fruits of their labors in good health and with whole bodies. We have worked with management whenever possible to this end, and we have urged the States to fulfill their responsibilities in this regard. These efforts have simply not been enough, as the record at- tests. It is time, and well past time, for the Federal Government to act. Much of what needs to be done is too large a job for any lesser entity. 78 The occupational health aspects of this bill, alone, strike to the heart of a growing problem for workers. No one knows the physiological effects of a majority of the materials and conditions workers are ex- posed to in the course of their jobs. To cite only a few of the more familiar items that are involved in work in my own trade, we have found that exposure to constant noise not only produces permanent loss of hearing but has other less easily detected adverse effects on the human frame. Heat stress, dusts and vapors, shock and vibration, contact with solvents, all have been found to produce more far-reaching deterioration of the body processes than previously known. We need much more information about these kinds of things before we can undertake meaningful countermeasures. We would hope, in this regard, that one of the results of this pro- posed legislation would be the establishment of a Federal occupa- tional health center to which all facets of industry could address their preventive health questions. From what little we presently know about the scope of these problems, they are already of epidemic proportions, The scientific fraternity should be no less concerned with these ques- tions than with those of other diseases, longer recognized as harmful Gentlemen of the Congress, the need is now and the need is great. We urge your favorable consideration of this legislation. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. Burch. Mr. Esch, any questions? Mr. Esch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to concur with Mr. Burch on the latter part of his testi- mony regarding the need for continued research and effort, collective research and efforts and surely the Government's role is in this regard. I also recognize that while we are spending money to get men on the moon we might properly spend money for men on earth. I would like to get into a specific point you raised. You indicated you tried to bring about effective action in the collective-bargaining proc- ess. You do concur that safety conditions and working conditions are an important point to be considered in collective bargaining. Mr. Burch. Yes, Mr. Esc. What specifically has the union done in the collective- Baryuiming process to improve working conditions and safety stand- aras¢ Mr. Murch. We have tried to set forth rules and regulations to which we insist both sides live up to, that our own members follow as well as the contractor. This has been a continual problem particularly in the construction industry where a set of rules 1s laid down that everyone is supposed to live by and when it becomes a matter of time, which means money, they are frequently discarded. It is necessary to hold both sides to this. Mr. Esc. What you are suggesting is that both unions and manage- ment are derelict at times regarding safety conditions, is that what you are saying ? Mr. Burch. I think so at times, yes. Mr. Esci. Will this be corrected by this legislation ? i Mr. Bure. It is my feeling that it is a long step in the right direc: ion. Mr. Esc. Do you think that management should be held responsible for the dereliction of the workers? 279 Mr. Burcu. Well, let me point out to you, Congressman Esch, that we hear a great deal about management rights and we don’t hear too much about management responsibilities. Mr. Escu. Don’t you have a grievance process through which you can present a grievance if management is derelict concerning working con- ditions that you have brought forth ? Mr. Burch. Sometimes. 1 would like to point out, too, that in the basic decisions that are made in this regard, the workers do not partic- ipate ordinarily. They don’t own the tools of production and frequent- ly have no say whatever or what. Mr, Escr. Do they have a say through the union membership? Mr. Bure. On occasion, but not too much. Mr. Esc. Either they do or don’t. I assume that unions represent the individual members through collective bargaining and through a grievance process? Mr. Bure. Yes, this is true. Mr. Esc. Hence, this is a partial involvement, this is a way they have a direct relationship not only in terms of compensation but of total working conditions, total environment, or their total environ- ment? Mr. Burch. There is considerable lack of knowledge, and I am speaking now to the construction industry, on what environmental conditions should be. Mr. Esc. Well, I appreciate your testimony in that regard, Mr. Burch, because I concur we need a great deal of research and effort directed toward this, a great deal more, and maybe you want to con- tinue to expand there. Mr. Burch. Using the subject of noise as an example, we know that continued exposure to loud noises causes permanent hearing loss or nerve damage. What is not well known although it has appeared in literature for some years, is the immediate effect that exposure to noise has in relation to extreme fatigue and much of what has heretofore been looked on by everyone as dereliction on the part of the worker could very well, and undoubtedly was, attributable to this kind of thing. In my own industry operation of large high speed heavy ma- chinery if not carefully handled could be deadly. We may put a man on one of these pieces of equipment and expose him to noise level—and shock and vibration by the way has the same physiological effect as does heat stress—and put him in a position whereby he no longer has the acuteness of sense that one should have to operate this kind of equipment. We have only learned this recently. We have had little success even in the one State that has a law in this regard in getting something done about it. Mr. Esc. I would support strongly your contention we need con- tinued research and emphasis in these areas. I guess some of us are concerned with the fact that now we are going to develop national standards that go into effect and practices when we delineate the prob- lem what we need to do is find out more about environmental condi- tions and put our thrust in that direction. Mr. Burca. However, there is a great deal we know about them now and regulation is badly needed in these areas. Mr. Esc. You think that unions are not capable of providing regu- lations through collective bargaining, are not capable or else they 280 don’t take on the responsibility of providing regulation through the collective-bargaining system; is that right? Mr. Buren. Not really. When we do it in the collective-bargaining system we are forced by the very nature of things to cite regulations or safety criteria that have already been developed. It would be an endless process and you would wind up with collective-bargaining contracts 6 inches thick to try to spell out all of this. Mr. Escu. About the same thing necessary as all of the regulations we are going to have on these industries? Mr. Burch. That could be. We have been very active as a union along with other unions working with the United States of America Standard Institute and other agencies in trying to develop these standards for this reason. Mr. Esch. Right, and you think the work of the voluntary associa- tions has been helpful within the field ? Mr. Burch. In recent years, yes. Mr. Escu. Right, thank you very much. We are happy to hear that. I am trying really to delineate what the problem is and I think the committee 1s concerned, too. Thank you. Mr. Burch. I would like to raise a couple of other issues with the indulgence of the Chair. Mr. Forp. I would like to observe with respect to the last question, I believe that Mr. Gildea of the Brewery Workers who testified before the committee last week indicated that in their industry the employers refused to negotiate as a legislative part of a contract question the environmental safety or work safety considering it to be a function exclusively within the jurisdiction of management and not a proper subject. for the collective-bargaining process. There are exceptions to this in our own State, as Mr. Esch well knows, in some aspects of the contract, particularly local conditions in the automobile industry, but this has been an area where manage- ment, and I make no judgment as to whether they have been right or wrong about this, has followed the course that traditionally this is not within the meaning of working conditions as the National Labor Relations Act used that term. That may or may not be a correct interpretation, but there is a differ- ence among industries on the attitudes of both the unions and man- agement with respect to this question. Mr. Escir. Will the Chairman yield ? I think that may be, Mr. Chairman, you were referring to the fact they would not want to yield on a point. I think section 8(A) (5) of Taft-Hartley indicates it is an unfair labor practice for any employer not to agree to negotiate those areas or have them as a subject for nego- tiation but they may not have agreed to yield. Thank you very much. (Mr. O’Hara resumed the Chair.) Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Steer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Tam sorry, Mr. Burch, you wanted to state something. Mr. Burcn. I wanted to make a statement in that same regard. About a year and half ago, I believe it was the NLRB, did hand a decision down in regard to a case in Texas that leads us to believe 281 that safety rule from here on will be regarded as a legitimate subject for collective bargaining. One of the problems, and I think we shave it with most of our brothers in labor, is cooperative programing, and we would like to join with management and work jointly and cooperatively with them. The problem is always the guidelines we follow. We feel strongly there is a great deal to be said for guidelines being laid down by a third party. There simply has not been enough done in this regard by the States although we have used State regulations on occasion. We feel that this is one of the real plus factors in this bill, that with the kind of regulations then forthcoming and in those areas where the inspectors inevitably don’t get, we will be able to point to these things and say, “This is what you should do or this is what will be required.” Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Stercer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Burch, how large a staff works with you in your role as safety director of the International Union of Operating Engineers! Mr. Bure. Here in Washington, D.C., where my office is, there is myself and my secretary, but we have some 230 local unions, and 100 of these are in the construction industry approximately 18 of these local unions now have full-time safety directors, and I work with them. Much of my work is in getting regulations ready. Mr. Stercer. Out of 100 locals you have 18 that have safety direc- tors? Mr. Burcu. Full time, yes. Mr. Stercer. What about the balance ? Mr. Burch. Most of the others have safety committees elected or appointed and deal with these problems but there is no substitute we found for a full-time man. Some of the locals simply are not large enough to support a full-time safety director. Mr. Steger. Let me be honest and say I find it difficult to under- stand quite frankly. Yours is a union that has among its members some of the highest paid and most professional of the trades through- out this country. I would have hoped that your record might even be better than it is in terms of both the work you do in the collective- bargaining process and the leadership that the international union takes in complying or making the local unions develop full-time safety directors. I recognize that in a relatively small union that may not be possible but what is the international doing to try to jointly provide full-time personnel whose job it is to handle safety regulations? Mr. Burch. This is difficult for an international to do because it is a large country, we have a limited staff, because we have limited funds. Also, and it is more properly done in the local unions. We en- courage in every way we can to have the local unions get full-time personnel. What is even more important, we encourage as far as we can—and are having great success in this regard—having one operat- ing engineer on each construction job responsible for safety to the union. His function is not to interfere with the superintendent or man- ager on the job, but is to observe and report back to the local union any circumstances he finds which may be adverse to the health and 282 safety of anyone on the job, not just an operating engineer. We have had great success with this program and on one large job in the State of Indiana, I think it is going now, using this program—and we have encouraged other trades to get into it there has been something like 214 million man-hours without a single lost time accident. This is a magnificient effort and we would like to see it occur everywhere. It does not unfortunately, but it is growing. One of the difficulties is having a set of guidelines and regulations to use to point to to build your program around. We simply don’t have them. We are working on them now. We don’t have enough. We have some training programs and for instance use the excellent facilities of the Bureau of Labor Standards. Some time ago we brought 20 of our people in both from the national staff and local unions and put them through a 4-week course in safety, which has been very fruitful. We would like to do much more of this and hope to in the future. Mr. Stercer. I yield to my colleague from Michigan. Mr. Esch. I have one question. You indicated you think there is a need for national coordination in training ? Mr. BurcH. Very much so. Mr. Escu. You also indicate I think that you felt that the real work was done in thé field with your safety people in the field because— well, why do you think it is so ? : Mr. Buron. I can’t directly effect, sitting in my office in Washington, what is happening on the job; it is the men on the job that have to do it and they know what the conditions are. And particularly in the construction industry, the conditions change sometimes hourly, and they have to be watched carefully. Mr. Eson. So it is actually difficult for you as you say sitting in Washington to know what the problems are locally and develop a total program for safety r. Burcn. I know what the problems are, but don’t know when the individual problems are occurring. For instance, high-speeed rub- ber tire equipment—I can’t say exactly, but something on the order of 50 lives a year would be saved if this equipment had rollover bars, the cost of which is extremely minor compared with the cost of any individual piece of equipment, but I suggest you will go a long way before you find a piece of equipment with that protection. We just don’t have it. There is a law in California in this regard and we still don’t find many. Mr. Esc. Why do you think it is so? Mr. Buren. It has been resisted by the contractor as a cost item. Mr. Esch. Didn’t the unions force the fact that we have rollover bars since this, as you indicated Haven’t unions insisted on it before they operate the machines? Mr. Burcu. We tried. Mr. Escn. Yesterday, we had testimony from the Electrical Workers indicating there is probably really pretily low priority on the part of the unions toward safety, say, within his union, and would you concur there is somewhat low priority generally in safety within your union? Mr. Burca. No, I don’t believe so. Mr. Esc. You think it is relatively high ? Mr. Burca. Well, I think part of it is due to the nature of the work. One of the things you have to do when you operate machinery is you have to operate it safely and efficiently. 283 Mr. Escu. Yet you indicated you don’t have the rollover bars on equipment, despite the fact there is a regulation? Mr. Burch. Faced with the simple fact that men have to work to earn a living, unfortunately we work on machines not so equipped. Mr. Esc. I appreciate your testimony because I think it highlights a problem. We can make work very, very safe if we stop all work tomorrow. Mr. Burch. Yes. Mr. Stereer. The man that testified yesterday said that the coffee break took a higher priority than safety did in the collective bargain- ing process; is that true in your union as well? Mr. Borer. I would like to think not, Congressman. I can’t really say. I have not been involved in collective bargaining myself for some years. I don’t believe it is so. It may seem that way sometimes, but I don’t really believe that is so. One of the difficulties, sir, is that it is most difficult to approach this problem in collective bargaining. There are simply too many other factors, and people do not have enough expertise. When you start to lay down a set of rules to live by and to work by you have to give close attention to it. For instance, there is in the Standards Institute a committee on cranes, hoists, and derricks, which is obviously of great interest to the operating engineers. I have served on the committee for more than 4 years and the committee has been writing those standards for some- thing in the order of 15 years, and they are not out yet. It is slow. We have pushed a spur in many ways, and I think the Sec- retary has added a spur for which we thank him, and hopefully we will have a safety standard that is practical and applicable that we can cite. I assure you it is our intention to see that adherence to the rules is written into every one of the collective bargaining agreements. Mr. SterGer. I appreciate your comments. I think it is one of the concerns, and you indicated earlier in answer to a question of Mr. Esch, that the collective bargaining agreement might be 6 inches thick, and I am afraid with the bill in its present form, talking about uniform standards throughout the country for all of the industries, that might well be 60 feet thick and not 6 inches thick, and I think this is one of the difficulties. It took 15 years and they are still not done for cranes and derricks. I can foresee we might well be looking at 10 or 12 or 15 years for some of the real critical and technical problems that are involved in occupa- tional health and safety for the Federal Government to do the total job. Mr. Buren. Mr. Congressman, I suggest that the passage of this bill would add a considerable spur to the time that it has taken in writing the regulations now. I don’t think this would mean you would get poorer regulations, regulations written in haste. I think it would add a spur to it. I think there is simply not enough time put into it. Tt is a voluntary process and in many industries and unions we simply don’t have the time to lend to it for extended periods of time. For instance, the committee on cranes, hoists, and derricks meets 6 times a year for 2 days each time and that is only 12 days out of a year and it is not much time to write standards. Mr. Steer. May I ask one further question? In your testimony you indicated that you would urge States to fulfill their responsi- bility. Can you cite for us some specific examples of how local unions, 284 and/or State councils, and/or the International have worked to urge State legislatures to do a better job than they are now doing? Mr. Burcu. This is usually left up to our local unions, our regional people, and I have not been personally involved, so I couldnt give you numbers on any specific States. I couldn’t state all of them but, specifically, we have done it in California, and New York, and Illi- nois, Indiana, Tennessee, New Jersey, and a good many people urge the legislatures to pass legislation. And in many instances we have had some degree of success. Unfortunately, these regulations in large part go ignored because they are unenforced, they are not implemented because of money— salaries are set too low. For instance, in one large State which I won't name, up until a short time ago their safety inspectors were industrial safety inspectors, $435 a month. You don’t get qualified safety inspectors for that money. And there are very few of them. Mr. Forp. Will the gentleman yield? I would like to mention that while a member of the Michigan Senate I saw firsthand the energetic lobbying by the unions represented by the witness in the State of Michigan as well as other people in the construction trades and they were the prime lobbyists for the first constructive safety in our great industrial sophisticated State of Michigan. We finally got at least a title in 1963, which has been improved slightly, but we suffered from the problem in that State—which the officials of our State, and both political parties will admit—of not being able to get the money to hire the people to make it as meaningful as those of us who supported it in 1963 intended it to be. That is really the crux of it, because it does not occupy a very high priority even in an industrial State like Michigan. With respect to the ability of organized labor to bring about a change in safety con- ditions, I might observe, and if the gentleman on the other side would like to join, I would be glad to put in another bill to repeal 14(b), so we can extend ability of unions to negotiate for this in a number of parts of the country where it does not exist now. Mr. SteiGer. I might just observe to my colleague from Michigan if in fact safety requirements were provided in the collective-bargain- ing contract, the union then would have a valid basis for a suit for damages for breach of the contract. It seems to me this might be a far more effective and meaningful method by which to achieve safety for the worker on the job than all of the rules and regulations of any of the Governments that may be involved. In addition to that, if the testimony that we have heard just prior to Mr. Burch’s is indicative of the job of the Federal Government where they are using accountants for enforcement of safety standards under the Walsh-Healey Act it does not make sense to me at all. Mr. Foro. If the gentleman will yield, you know what really is the crux of this—looking at it from the narrow point of view of a lawyer with some experience both as a defense and as a claimant’s representa- tives—what we really have is a difference between whether you make something a law and, therefore, the violation of that law is negligence per se, or have it as an agreement between people, which does not have the same effect regardless of what is spoken out in the open, and that is an underlying cost factor in having any of these regulations. 285 We have gone through this with the international standards for automobile safety and we know already what the impact of that can be on negilgence against a manufacturer who violates these standards. That is one of the reasons why they work so very hard to enforce it. There is a great deal of difference in the spur or impetus to rigid enforcement when the consequences might be more success in collec- tion of damages by people who are injured as a result of failure to obey the law. ere is not a similar set of rules, at least I am not aware of one in the law, where the court takes judicial notice of the provisions of a union contract to determine whether something was negligence as a matter of law. Mr. Stereer. I want to thank Mr. Burch for his testimony. Mr. O'Hara. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. For. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. Meeps. I would like to determine whether we consider safety standards to be State or Federal responsibility, or both. It seems to me the gentleman from Wisconsin would impose this duty or respon- sibility upon both industry and labor in negotiation, entirely forget- ting I people not covered by union contracts. Where Deon are covered by union contracts, even if this were a labor and business responsibility, this would impose a further burden and add another factor to what has already become a very, very complex arena of negotiations and one more factor upon which they can be tied up and cause disruptive work stoppages and strikes. Also, it would totally disregard the people not covered by these contracts. No further questions. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Burch, my attention has been called to the fact that a good number of injuries are caused by insufficient attention to the safety problem on the part of the worker himself. I am not surprised at that. The chances of any particular individual getting hurt or killed by any particular condition are perhaps very small. All of us take a number of chances and the chances are slight, of course, that one is going to be injured or killed by most conditions but I think it is unrealistic to call upon the workers to enforce their own safety standards. It is like calling on the passengers of commer- cial aircraft to share responsibility with the pilot for a safe landing. In fact, it is a little worse than that because at least the passengers on the aircraft are not employees, and not under supervision and di- rection. Now, it seems to me in your business, in the construction trades, let’s say that we have on each job supervisory personnel, the construc- tion boss, and if one of your members is doing a job improperly in term of accomplishing the construction, the construction boss is going to take note of that fact, and he is going to demand that that be corrected. It seems to me all you are saying is he ought to have the same ardor for correcting unsafe conditions that he has for connecting conditions na he considers to be an improper piece of workmanship, isn’t that right? Mr. BurcH. Yes, sir; it is. Mr. O'Hara. Well, it seems to be a reasonable position to me. People are reluctant to give up an immediate benefit like a nickel an hour 286 for a deferred benefit like not being injured over the next 15 years and when given their choice between those two things they will often take that nickle, I am afraid, but that is no reason why Government should not be very deeply concerned with safety practices. Mr. Buren. Yes, sir. What you say is very true, Mr. Chairman. I'am sure you have heard in some of the testimony here, in trying to assign ratios as to accidents, 95 percent are caused by the individual and only 5 percent by unsafe conditions. I think this is ridiculous to anyone who has looked into it deeply. Both are involved and, most or- dinarily, it is a conjunction of circumstances, an event meeting with an unsafe condition really, and you can’t expect human beings to react absolutely right in all circumstances. } } They simply don’t do it. They have their moments of inattention and moments when they don’t feel well, and so forth. For this reason, engineering solutions are far better solutions. I think no one involved in safety or health for that matter really seriously opposes this. Nev- ertheless, this goes to the area of protective devices, like where you have a noise problem here, using ear plugs without paying attenfion to the fact that ear plugs and/or ear muffs are impossible to wear under many circumstances. In the operation of heavy equipment you can’t keep them on unless they were so tight that they would cause extreme discomfort. It is the common thing to say the best protective device is the one that is used, but it is very frequently not the one provided. The sight of a man wearing earplugs and ear muffs on a piece of heavy equipment with no muffler on it is a little bit ridiculous to pro- tect himself against hearing loss. Someone here, as I remember, talked about pullouts about someone refusing to wear one, and I don’t know if you have seen one but he refused to wear one. You put a couple of cuffs on your wrist and the idea is this is attached to a cable and if your hands get too close to a punch press the device jerks them out. You can get a dislocated shoulder. There have to be much better ways of engineering protection than these. The pernicious use of hazard pay is another. I find this very deplorable in industry. Instead of reducing the hazard, produce hazard pay. Put on a respirator instead of using proper ventilation, in spite of the fact that they are extremely uncom- fortable and you can’t wear one for 8 hours at a time. As the Congressman suggested, if we handle it all through the collec- tive-bargaining process then we would find ourselves completely broke in the process of litigation, trying to litigate these things as to what is the best way and so forth. I think this is one of the roles that the Gov- ernment has to fill. The other points in the bill, the points about training are very important and grants-in-aid to the States to improve their own structures in this regard I think are very important. Many, many, many important things are in the bill and I can foresee it would be the greatest step forward ever taken for safety and health in this country. I' have had people say to me: After all the problem is not that big, but 113,000 are killed by accidents each year and 14,500 are killed on the job and I say to them how much does it take to get. you worried ? If 14,500 people died in any 1 year from a disease in this country, for heaven's sake, we would have hundreds of millions of dollars from 287 the Federal and State Governments to attack the epidemic, but we have a problem of epidemic proportion and the job is not getting done. The leading cause of death from the age of 1 year to middle age is accidents. The man who will run to his doctor for an annual checkup to make sure he does not have cancer or a heart problem pays absolutely no attention to this. Many managements have very Aw regard for safety, and I suggest to you that in large companies, by and large they try to do the best job but as you filter down from the board of directors down through the multilevels of management the confusion is tremen- dous and what comes out on the other side right on the job where the accidents happen is frequently not the most desirable thing simply because I think nobody is really required to do the right thing. Safety must be mandatory. A vacuum is left in the absence of regu- lations and in the absence of enforcement and no one seems to rush to fill it. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Burch. STATEMENT OF J. GEORGE EICHHORN, GRAND LODGE REPRESENT- ATIVE, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AERO- SPACE WORKERS Mr. O'Hara. Our next witness is Mr. J. George Eichhorn, repre- senting the International Association of Machinists. Please identify yourself and give us any information you think would be helpful to us in considering this bill. Mr. Excumorn. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is J. George Eichhorn and I am a grand lodge representative of the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers. My home address is: 1919 North Oleander Avenue, Daytona Beach, Fla. I am a founding member of the labor conference of the National Safety Council and at present a member of the executive board of that conference. My union welcomes the opportunity to have this chance today to appear in support of FLR. 14816 and to talk specifically about one area—that this bill, if enacted, would do much to protect the health of workers and their families. I have particular reference to a disease known as berylliosis and the problems of working with the metal called beryllium. The machinists, along with all of organized labor, have for many years called attention to the urgent need for a stronger federally based attack to control or eliminate any factor of on-the-job exposures that are damaging to the worker’s health and safety. Further, we are interested not only in the workers who we repre- sent, but the people in a community—regardless as to whether or not they are members. In the case of beryllium it has been established both that berylliosis or beryllium poisoning can be contracted by wives of beryllium work- ers who are handling their cloths and washing them and that there is a fallout effect on the people in the community, particularly down- wind, for perhaps as much as 5 miles. A symposium was held on this subject in Cincinnati last year un- der the auspices of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service. This symposium created a number of 288 questions in my mind that I believe the proposed legislation would take care of. Berryllium is a toxic metal and working with it produces two types of physical problems: (1) dermatitis and (2) pneumonitis— the latter having resulted in a number of deaths. At the outset, I would like to make clear that T am not an expert on this subject, but as a union representative handling the problems of the members of my union I have tried to learn what I could of the hazards and what could be done to offset these hazards. The workers that I represent fall into two categories—direct con- tact through the machining of beryllium parts and direct contact as workers around missile bases where beryllium is being used as a com- ponent in rocket fuel. This latter use is much newer and less understood than are the prob- lems in working with the raw ore and machining finished parts, but from our knowledge of neighborhood cases of berylliosis without work- ing directly with the product the indications are that we should have considerable concern about protecting our workers around missile test firing sites, as well as the community as a whole, from the amount of beryllium that is going to be present in the air that will be breathed in such areas. ¢ Because beryllium, while identified and known for a long time, has only been used to any considerable degree since World War IT and has had limited usage, very little money and effort have gone into determining many of the unanswered questions about its toxicity and effects on a human body. The only treatment of berylliosis is to remove the patient from any contact with beryllium. The in-hospital treatment seems to rely more on administering oxygen than it does on medicines, even though a number of medicines have been tried—with perhaps penicillium show- ing some results in its administration. There seems to be a difference in toxicity between high-fired and low-fired beryllium oxides, but the complete answers are not known at this time. There is considerable emphasis upon the particle size of inhaled beryllium components as a critical factor in the potential extent of absorption in the lower respiratory tract. That the answer to this type of a question should be found, as well as determining the chemical characterization of the dust, would seem to be most necessary. The whole question of air sampling needs to be resolved, particularly in light of particle size. It may well be that it will be possible to estab- lish variable standards for beryllium materials in different forms, but these standards will have to be based on a well-established difference in toxicity for the different forms before any such variable standards can be had. The only thing that we are at all sure of today is that a program of extreme industrial hygiene must be carried out. Where this is done, the control over the dermatitis and the berylliosis is quite complete. Of concern to us is the fact that diagnosis of the disease is still a »roblem, for it is our understanding that at the outset of contracting tn, disease there are as many as 23 other diseases whose symp- toms are similar to the disease of berylliosis. The doctor could easily misdiagnose and mistreat the problem, for lack of readily identifiable definitive manifestations of the disease. 289 I would like to point out, which is not in my written testimony, that the various beryllium products come into the plant with the labels attached to the boxes as is provided for by the labeling law but on my direct questioning of a great number of workers I find that the label is left at the shipping dock or at the point of receiving and the worker at the machine or bench never sees this warning label that is on the box that the beryllium is shipped in. The fact that employers rigidly screen prospective employees via preemployment physicals has not eliminated the continuation of cases of beryllium poisoning from developing. Taking the healthiest possi- ble workers, free of congenital or other incurred lung weaknesses or hypersensitivity to exposure to beryllium and having them get sick, with the possible chance of dying from beryllium disease, certainly compounds the crime of not knowing all that should be known about the cause and effects of exposure to beryllium. Under the current method of handling this on a State-by-State level, it should be pointed out that workmen’s compensation will vary greatly from State to State. Yet, the only treatment for the disease 1s taking them away from their jobs for as long a time as is necessary—which is usually a month or more—for treatment. The amount paid to survivors in death claims will also vary greatly from State to State, according to the workmen’s compensation rule in the instant case. As T said earlier, we are interested in the neighborhood cases, both from what we know now about the types of plants involved in these problems, but with the knowledge that beryllium is being used as a component in rocket. fuel we feel that much will have to be done on the possible enlargement of the neighborhood case type of problem. Surely, come threshold level of air pollution control will have to be defined and maintained. It is also our understanding that at present in the analysis of bio- logical systems for beryllium there is no way to distinguish beryl (from soil or coal ash) from industrial compounds of the element. A means to identify specific beryllium compounds is sorely needed. The useful- ness of air sampling without this information can hardly be called valid. We would hope that under the proposed bill the necessary money and research would be spent to develop more specific diagnostic tests for the earlier detection of minimal beings exposed to the aerosols of beryllium. There seems to be some considerable effort put forth to develop a foolproof allergy test to weed out hypersensitive employees and not have them come into contact with ey In all of the machining I have seen done on this product they need the type of a worker who is in very high demand and short in supply because of the skills he possesses. I sincerely doubt that the suggested allergy test will ever be applied as long as the skill levels are in such short supply. Another question that remains unanswered to me is whether or not the various beryllium compounds present a problem in exposure as a radioactive material. Most of the indications would seem to be nega- tive; yet the Atomic Energy Commission saw fit to set standards in this field, but this—like everything else I have brought up—remains an unanswered question. 290 There is also the question of whether or not beryllium disease has a possible carcinogenic effect. : As there is a more varied industrial use of the beryllium products and as the wider dissemination of new uses of the metal continues to take place, more has to be learned about its use and control. It seems to us that this bill is designed to make the possible use of Federal resources for not only the protection of our workers, but in this case the general environmental contamination of people not necessarily working with the product but by happenstance living in an area where rocket fuel will be fired and because emissions of undetermined contaminants to the general atmosphere and to the general populace by breathing the air about them. A very good example of proper diagnosing and the possibility of a vast lag between contact and exposure to diagnosis is the case of a Mrs. Ruth Heck of Reading, Pa. Mrs. Heck used to wash her brothers clothing in 1942 and 1943 when he was a beryllium worker, and she has lived in the area of the Beryllium Corp. plant in Reading—about 2 miles from the plant. Her case was diagnosed in 1961 and she won a lawsuit and damages in late 1967. Mrs. Heck’s case only goes to show how invalid is the case registry number of 780 cases of beryllium poisoning. The question is further compounded when Dr. Hardy of the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology now offers proof of beryllium manifesting itself in workers whose exposure dates back 23 years. Because of lack of general knowledge of beryllium and its symp- toms—plus the diagnostic problems mentioned earlier—surely it is not hard to believe that the case record of only 780 cases is not a reli- able reason for contenting ourselves with the thought that not too many people have suffered adverse effects from beryllium exposure. The proposed bill calls for “appropriate accident and health report- ing procedures.” Surely, Dr. Hardy’s revelations and the Heck case support the need for proper records when the possible lag in identify- ing the disease can be such a long period of time. Commensurate with this pr I have only recently run into a new one, thoriated nickel, and I got into it accidentally, in a plant whose homebase had sent out specific instructions on the dangers of the use of thoriated nickel and what steps should be taken to protect the workers and low and behold that had never been divulged to the workers and none of the meetings that had been called for by the home office of the corporation had ever been called out and in doing some checking on this I found that a welder had been working up on a nose cone of a missile for a long period of time exposed to the fumes of thoriated nickel in quite concentrated amounts because there was no chance for evacuation of the fumes around him and in his own in- genuity he went to get a portable vacuum and ran the hose up in there to give him some relief. I took this matter to task in kind of an unusual way in the union paper and brought up a lot of questions about it. The item on how the plant should have operated in telling the employees of the poten- tial dangers of thoriated nickel and the act it is radioactive, these meetings were then held almost instantly. Mr. Meeps (acting). Thank you, Mr. Eichhorn, for your testimony. First of all, let me compliment you on your fine testimony on this specific item here. In this committee, we generally get testimony which 291 reaches across many fields, and I think that it is very refreshing to sometimes get into a specific thing. I think you have done a good job. I would also like to compliment your association, particularly the aero- space workers, on a long history of concern with safety standards and one of the most forward looking labor organizations in the field of “safety standards, regulations and concern for the membership and as you say the membership of the communities in which they reside. You certainly have impressive credentials to be appearing before this committee as one of the founding members of labor’s part of this. Now, I would like to ask you, Mr. Eichhorn, if you feel if you don’t feel that the legislation presently before us and specifically sec- tion 2, subsection 3, directs itself right at the problem that you are speaking about, by providing for research relating to occupational safety and health? Mr. Excanorn. Yes, I was delighted when I saw there was going to be this type of legislation. Mr. Meeps. Page 3, line 5. Mr. ExcasaorN. I was delighted to see that this bill provides for re- search, adequate research, and that meaningful findings that are not started are going to come out of this. y Mr. Meeps. I noticed, Mr. Eichhorn, you were in the back of the room when the earlier witness testified and heard the questions directed to him by some of the members with regard to whether this thing might not be handled on a contract-by-contract basis. In this specific that you have directed yourself to, and that is why I think your testi- mony is so important, how would a union and management for that matter cover this problem in a contract? Mr. Ercinorn. Well, T am glad you ask me that. It so happens I am in negotiations at the moment with the American Beryllium Co. This was one of the items on the agenda, to get tighter control on early diagnosis. We negotiated, and told them the reason why we thought it should be in and what we thought we should have in the way of tighter control. The company’s immediate answer was and still is that this plant is perfectly all right, it has met every inspection that has been made of it, and they asked me what reference material I had. T showed them the three documents I have in my possession and they said, “Well, that material is old, it was published a long time ago.” This is true, but unfortunately nobody has written a book in 1966 or 1967. It is true that most of this was written back in 1946 and it was written then only because there had been quite a large number of deaths and this was not like an industry like mine but in the fluorescent industry. Mr. Mreps. The fact is that both labor and management know very little about this, is it not true? Mr. Excarorn. Unfortunately this is true. Mr. Meeps. And when we address ourselves to this bill we are talk- ing now not only about research and about safety standards, but about presently unknown hazards, looking down the path and asking re- search to determine whether some of the things we know are hazardous. We don’t know why or know as much as we should. Mr. Erciinor~y. Management for example, is taking their own air tests in their plant. We quarrel with where they take the air samples. 92-734 0—68——20 292 T know for a fact you can have in billet form or finished product form beryllium sitting on a shelf ready to be shipped and you can walk over in the vicinity of the stored product and pick up a reading of beryllium being present. It is only free of emission of contaminant when it is found with something ike common earth. If it is buried in the ground, it is not emitting a contaminant. Mr. Meeps. How is beryllium packaged or stored ? Mr. Ercanorn. Well, there is little storing problem to it. The parts are very high priced and they are shipped almost immediately to the consumer. Mr. Meeps. Are they marked in any way? Mr. Erxcanorn. Yes. The boxes are marked that this is beryllium and is dangerous. Mr. Meeps. How did that come about ? Mr. Eicauorn. It comes through the labeling law, the recently passed labeling law. It had nothing to do with beryllium as such, but 1t is just a recognized fact. Mr. Meeps. So it is recognized under that law as a dangerous sub- stance? Mr. Eicunorn. Yes, and it carries that class or range cover. As I say this can go into an assembly plant and the box will be broken open and the protective cocoons taken off and nobody will know they are handling beryllium unless the specifications should happen to say or told them. Mr. Meeps. The part itself? Mr. Excauorn. The part itself, I can certainly see that in an assem- bly plant some place down the line, they would have no reason to know it is Fer hi A machinist would, yes, because he finds it on his specifications and has to grind his tools to certain specifications and, of course, in keeping with the standard of hygiene that they know about, now that machine is equipped with take away exhausts which he has to know something about. Mr. Meeps. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert at the end of to- day’s hearing record, a copy of a letter to Mr. Eichhorn from a man from my State of Washington. It points up another specific instance in which the need for greater safety precautions in the use and han- dling of beryllium is evident. (Mr. O’Hara resumed the chair.) Mr. O'Hara. Without objectica the letter will be printed at that point. Mr. Esch. Mr. Escu. Thank you very much. I would like to add my com- ments to the previous Congressman’s comment, Mr. Eichhorn, and welcome you to the committee and commend your union for your progressive union movement and also your concern about safety in particular. I especially appreciate your testimony relating to the one particular case or the two cases you cited. I wonder if we can get into it a little bit more. What has been the Government's attitude toward beryllium in the firms that you have cited and are familiar with; that is, what has a Government, been doing specifically in the firms you are related wit! Mr. Ercanorn. In the firms that I have any direct contact with, the Government has done nothing. 293 Mr. Esc. These are generally firms that are dealing with Govern- ment contracts, is that true? Mr. Ercinorn. Yes, sir. To the best of my knowledge, any part I have ever seen or heard of being machined out of beryllium is going directly into weaponry. . Mr. Esc. Mr. Chairman, I think in light of that we should demand immediate investigation or comment from the Departmentof Labor as to why they are not now enforcing present regulations of any Gov- ernment contract that there will be safe working conditions and I would like to suggest we ask the Department of Labor to give us their full benefit of testimony as to why they are not now enforcing regula- tions which they could enforce. Mr. O'Hara. The staff will be directed to direct an inquiry to the Department of Labor with respect to what steps they are taking to protect workers from exposure to excess concentrations of beryllium under the Walsh-Healey Act. (The information follows at the end of today’s hearing.) Mr. Esc. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. One other area, I want your comments about the need for not onl y further research but continuing research, which your testimony brought out, that there is a need for a great deal of continuing re- search in all areas and I think that should be emphasized. You do rec- ognize we do have now, the Department of Labor has ability to en- force regulations through their contracts and yet have not seen fit to do so. Mr. Ercriniorn. This is true, but the staff that is available is split all over the 50 States and is very small and a great deal of this work is, I'am sure you must know, contracted out to State inspectors, and there- by it tells another story. Mr. Escn. That your suggestion is, we need a great many more in- spectors and more qualified inspectors ? Mr. Ercnnory. We have to bring the inspectors up to a qualified level and give them professional status. With what I see in this pro- posed bill, that is going to be accomplished and T think it is going to e simply wonderful. Mr. Esci. Even though not being done under Walsh-Healey, as you suggest ? Mr. Ercunors. No, it is not. If you want to get an inspection, you have to go after it and expedite this to get one. Then, again, if it is contracted out—well, from State to State this thing is so variable. States like Michigan, California, New York, and strangely enough, Arkansas, have fine enabling acts and they have good labeling com- missions and a fine staff of men to work with them but you can go to some pretty sorry examples. Mr. Esc. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Stereer. Let me just get back again to what Mr. Esch asked. T join him that your statement is very valuable and points out what obviously is a critical problem. You really don’t need the bill under consideration to get at the problem that you have, however. Mr. Excanorn. Well, 1 fc know who else is going to carry out the research and I don’t know who is going to train qualified people to deal with this type of a problem if you don’t have a bill such as this to create the money and the legislation to empower it to work. 294 Mr. Steicer. But in the case of beryllium specifically, IT would judge, and you have indicated, that this is almost 100 percent in de- fense-related areas under Government contract? Mr. Eicuuorn. This is true. Mr. Steiger. This bill is not going to reach anything that can be done under Walsh-Healey or Davis-Bacon or any of the other acts that might be appropriate in terms of enforcing legitimate standards in defense-oriented industries or industries with defense contracts because that power exists within the law today. Mr. Ercuiorn. But I do believe that this law is going to do some- thing about the necessary research and the understanding of a prob- lem and then we can worry about the enforcement some place else if that is what we have to do. Mr. Stereer. I think all of us agree that additional research, techni- cal, and quality research, is an absolute necessity. I don’t think you will find any of us disagreeing with that at all and I think you serve well in highlighting the support of yourself and the machinist union for which I take my hat off to you for agreeing that this is a necessary thing that we must do. Our concern in many ways is the enforcement that is granted in lots of areas and Ido hope we will followup and perhaps we will have you back again as a matter of fact when we get a report from the Labor Department on the beryllium problem as it relates to the defense industry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Eichhorn, do you know of any State regulations with respect to beryllium exposures in industry ? Mr. Ercamorn. I am of the opinion the State of Ohio and the State of Pennsylvania do have some type of legislative standards on this problem, because these are the two States where the deaths first occurred. The most recent outbreak of beryllium poison has been in New Jersey and I understand New Jersey has become concerned but I doubt that there is any law there. I am not in a position to say in fact that either one of the States have it but T am under the impression from what came out from the symposium last March in Cincinnati. Mr. O'Hara. Finally, T would like to comment that under Walsh- Healey or under Davis-Bacon, the Secretary of Labor is not explicitly riven the enforcement authority he would have under this legislation. Tt simply states there shall be a provision in the contract between the Government and the contractor which shall assure a safe working place and safe working conditions. Mr. Stereer. If the Chairman will yield, it is obvious that provision is not now being enforced. Mr. O'Hara. I think its enforcement is very spotty. The Secretary of Labor acknowledged as much, I think, in his testimony. Thank you very much, Mr. Eichhorn. STATEMENT OF W. EUGENE STUFFING AND A. C. BLACKMAN, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS Mr. O’Hara. Our final witness today is Mr. W. Eugene Stuffing, who is president of the American Society of Safety Engineers and 295 Mr. A. C. Blackman, who is accompanying Mr. Stuffing, who is man- aging director of the American Society of Safety Engineers. Mr. Stuffing, would you please identify yourself and summarize your testimony. Without objection your prepared statement will be mserted at this point in the hearing. (‘The statement follows :) Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is W. Eugene Stuffing and I have the honor of being the current President of the American Society of Safety Engineers. To more effectively relate the statement which is to follow, perhaps it would be well to briefly describe the Society's history and purpose. The American Society of Safety Engineers was founded in New York City in October 1911, and incorporated in 1915. Its purpose at that time was to provide its members a forum for the exchange of ideas and information on occupational accident prevention. Over the years, the Society has grown from the original group of 35 persons to almost 9,000 individual members at present. The American Society of Safety Engineers is the only national organization representing the practicing safety professional. Our membership comes to us from industry, construction, mercantile establishments, the various fields of trans- portation, insurance companies, the academic world, local, state and federal governmental agencies. The principal objective of the Society now is to develop and increase the professional competence of its members, and to interest qualified persons to pursue this field of endeavor as a career. Briefly, the safety professional brings together knowledge and talents of the various scientific, behavioral, managerial, and engineering disciplines; develops means for integrating them in a manner that will enable those who have opera- tional responsibility to give proper consideration to safety factors when making decisions. He is concerned with the design, development, improvement, coordina- tion and evaluation of systems of men, methods, materials and equipment with the objective of achieving optimum loss control effectiveness. Thus, he collects, analyzes and presents safety information in a manner that enables those with decisionmaking responsibilities to recognize and solve existing and future acci- dent problems. (The Society’s statement concerning the President's proposd “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968,” will be presented by Mr. A. C. Blackman, Man- aging Director of the American Society of Safety Engineers. Mr. Blackman is a member of our Society and is a registered professional engineer in th State of California. Prior to Mr. Blackman’s joining of our Society as Managing Director, he was chief of the Division of Industrial Safety for the State of California.) As a voluntary organization composed of individual safety professionals who are and have been concerned over the years with the prevention of occupational accidents, injuries, and illnesses, it is extremely gratifying to know of the interest in this subject expressed by the President and the Congress. In presenting to the Committee information which we believe will be of assist- ance to the Committee in its deliberation, we would like to discuss— 1. The complex nature of accident and injury occurrence, 2. The need for research in identifying causative factors involved in accidents, 3. Statistical data available from both private and governmental sources, 4. Injury rate trends indicated from the available statistical data, 5. The definite need for greater numbers of qualified safety professionals, and 6. The Society’s recommendations. ACCIDENTS AND INJURIES An “accident” is defined as an undesirable, unplanned event which frequently results in an injury or damage to property. There are a substantial number of accidents which do not result in an injury. There are various types of injuries depending upon their severity. “Disabling injuries” are those which cause the 296 injured worker to lose one or more days from his work. “Compensable injuries” are those in which compensation is paid to the injured employee under the terms of the agency having jurisdiction. Man has always been subjected to accidents. As the body of knowledge con- cerning accidents and how they are caused has grown over the past 50 or GO years in particular, it becomes clearly evident that they are not simple occur- rences which can be easily categorized in one or two specific compartments, but involved in each occurrence is a series of events and a number of different factors each of which has a bearing upon the ultimate result. Thus, accidents and the resulting injuries are extremely complex occurrences. They involve man as a human being with all of his variations of behavior and the environment in which he finds himself, as well as the type of activity in which he is engaged. It is axiomatic that the environment in which we find ourselves not only in the work situation, but in our everyday life, is constantly changing. Specifically, in the work situation, the kinds of machinery, equipment, buildings have changed drastically in the last 50 years, machines have become more complex, processes have changed, require a great deal less manual effort on the part of the indi- vidual, but a far greater knowledge of the machine or process which in turn requires a great deal more training and education on the part of the operator. If we stop to consider the multiple external forces which impinge upon man, we know that emotional disturbances and stresses have a direct effect upon the individual, what he does, how he feels, and how he performs any activity. We know that the stresses that are imposed by tension also have an effect upon his behavior. We know that his general physical well-being also has a definite and identifiable effect on his ability to perform his work or any other task. It is also known that there are a wide variety of conditions that exist in his physical environment which also have a bearing upon his actions. For example, extreme temperatures, humidity, noise, the amount of illumination, as well as the task that he is performing and its complexity all have a direct bearing upon his performance. When an accident does occur, it is extremely difficult and in many cases almost impossible to isolate any one single factor which could be said to be “the cause” of the accident and the resulting injury. Usually there are a number of factors each of which have contributed to some extent to the final result. In many cases, the elimination of any one of these factors would have prevented the accident and the resulting injury. Within my own experience, I recall a very dramatic accident which occurred many years ago within the confines of a rather large plant which caused a valued and experienced worker to lose his life. This particular incident occurred early in the morning when the individual in question went into the plant and knew that a valve on a compressed gas cylinder containing chloride had developed a leak the day before and had been shut off. He carefully put on a gas mask with a chlorine canister, took some hand tools with him, and attempted to repair the valve on the top of the cylinder. As he worked on this valve, he found that he could not fix it, and apparently could not shut it off either, so he rolled the cylinder over to a water faucet for the purpose of directing a stream of water on the leak which would cause the gas to solidify and seal the leak. While he was doing this, gas was escaping and, as it was in concentrated form, had spread out thru the entire room. Other employees who did not have any respiratory protection, im- mediately left the area. The man continued to work until finally someone per- suaded him to leave it alone and to leave the area. He went outside, removed his gas mask and by this time there was an ambulance present, as well as the fire department because of the fumes that were escaping from the building. He was taken to the hospital for observation and subsequently, inside of 24 hours, died of an excessive exposure to chlorine gas. A careful analysis of this accident showed that he thought that he was ade- quately protected by the gas mask. The canister was clearly marked to indicate that the protection provided by the chemical in the canister was limited to a 2% concentration of chlorine gas in the air that passed thru the canister. Because the canister was located on his chest and because the gas was escaping in close proximity to this, he inhaled a far higher concentration of chlorine which rapidly depleted the chemical inside of the canister. This is what caused his death. What was the cause of this fatal accident? The valve malfunction, the lack of knowledge of the amount of protection provided by the gas mask, the effort to repair the valve without adequate tools or facilities, the location of the cylinder. lack of supervision for the operation, were all factors. No one had foreseen this 297 chain of events taking place, because normally chlorine is sufficiently irritating to cause a person to leave the area. No one had foreseen the possibility of a person using a canister gas mask for other than emergency use. Preventive action in this case resulted in a number of changes in the processes, relocation of the cylinder and greater training for all employees in the area con- cerning the limitations of the protection provided by the canister gas mask. To obtain this information, it was necessary for a skilled safety professional to reconstruct the various events that had taken place, examine the process, and finally to make recommendations for changes to the plant management. There are some injuries which are relatively simple. One of these might be the typical example which all of us have experienced at one time or another and that is the incident of hitting our finger with a hammer when we are driving a nail. Usually, when we miss the nail and hit our finger, although it is painful, the ultimate result is not serious and we usually recover completely. This type of injury involves many factors. The condition of the hammer, type of nail, density of the material, the skill of the individual, and the concentration of the individual to the task, all have a direct bearing upon the accident occurrence. These two examples, the first somewhat unusual, and the second very common, cmphasize the complexities of accident causation. RESEARCH NEEDS What is needed is a far greater effort to determine the relative importance of the various factors involved in accident and injury occurrence. Although much is known concerning the importance of human factors, a great deal more needs to be known about these factors and how they relate to the environment in which men work. To quote from a study underwritten by the American Society of Safety Engineers in 1962, “At the root of any accident will be found human fac- tors of one kind or another—physiological, biochemical, psychological. These factors are meaningless, however, without reference to environmental considera- tions, the nature of the work, the nature of the organization, and the physical or chemical aspects of the environment. In essence, therefore, the overall problem of accidents appears to be a matter of functional disharmony between man and environment.” This is the opening paragraph of a study done by Dr. Leon Brody, Director of Research, Center for Safety Education, New York University. The title of this study was, “Human Factors Research in Occupational Accident Prevention, Its Status and Needs.” In this study, Dr. Brody raised a number of questions concerning the problems of occupational accident and injury prevention. (More than 500 copies of this study were given to the Research Grants Division of the US Public Health Service for distribution to prospective researchers.) As a further step in fostering research in occupational accident prevention, the Society created a separate corporation, the American Society for Safety Research and prepared a special pamphlet stating the Society's research pol- icy, several typical research problems that had been identified, and mailed this pamphlet to over 1,800 research establishments. Concurrently, each of these research establishments were asked if they were engaged in accident research, either traffic or occupational. Over 500 responses were received. 60 establish- ments indicated they had one or more accident research projects in progress. Further data was secured from these 60 research establishments. It is of interest to note that in 1966, a total of $23 billion was spent for research and development work in the United States. Of this total, only $7.5 million was being devoted to accident research. A total of 147 research projects were identified and described, of these 24 were non-motor vehicle accident projects. 5 of the 24 projects were being undertaken by one large casualty insurance company in their own laboratory. 8 did not indicate the amount of funds expended, 11 were funded at a total cost of $350,000. The complete report was published in the May 1966 issue of the Society's Journal. It is significant that a very small amount of research work is being done to develop more information on the causes of occupational injuries. STATISTICAL DATA The statistical information currently available of the total number of injuries that have occurred and the number of deaths, can provide data on which state wide programs can be developed. There are many different criterion for reporting that have been established depending upon the particular jurisdiction concerned 208 with Workmen’s Compensation administration. Each of the 50 states have a Workmen's Compensation Law, but each of these states have slightly different words in the statutes, somewhat different interpretations, with the result that no two are directly comparable in all respects. This is also true of those employments over which the federal government has jurisdiction. For example, there is a Federal Compensation Law as it applies to federal employees, the Harbor and Longshoremen’s Act, the Railroad Employees Liability Law, and the Jones Law which affect maritime or seamen aboard ships. Each of these laws are different in their administration and in what is considered compensable. Thus, statistics collected by these agencies are different. (These differences are in the types of injuries recorded.) Some examples are: One state will record only those injuries which they identify as compensable. These are the injuries where the disability exceeds the statutory waiting period. Another records all disabling injuries, that is those which cause one or more days loss of time from the job by the injured worker. A third state may require the reporting of all injuries which require medical treatment by a physician without regard to loss of time from work. This makes it impractical to compare the injury data of one state with another, but does make it possible to determine the trend of injury frequency in individual states providing they include information relating to exposure either thru man hours or number of employees. Thus, an increase in the number of injuries or deaths does not indicate lack of progress unless exposure is also considered. Since the statement has been made that “we can lay no claim to progress,” it is necessary to collect information that would either support or refute that statement. If the rate of injury occurrence in 1926 was compared to the present rate, there certainly has been substantial progress. Rather, the question is, “has the progress continued?” INJURY RATE TRENDS Disabling occupational injury data has been collected from several states for the years 1960-1966, inclusive (time did not permit a more extensive survey). Data is readily available from New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, Cali- fornia and Florida. The trend of frequency of diabling injuries in these states were compared to comparable data reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and those companies reporting to the National Safety Council. The states of Wsinconsin and New York show a rising trend in the frequency of disabling injuries in manufacturing industries. So do the reporters to the National Safety Council and the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. California’s data shows very little change, but includes all types of employment. Florida's data shows substantial fluctuation, which is unusual when large numbers of injuries are involved. It was not possible to secure data from several states which do not have any regulatory codes or statistical information, so that it is not possible to determine the trends in these states. The significance of this data is: Since all the above mentioned states have ongoing programs, substantial safety regulations, and fairly adequate staffs to enforce the regulations, as well as offering consultant type services to employers, it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of regulations is not a great factor in changing injury frequency. Perhaps one reason for this is that half of all compensable work injuries (NSC Accident Facts, 1967 Edition, page 31) result from manual handling of objects, falls of persons, and vehicles. The traditional form of regulations are apparently least effective in controlling these injuries. It is our conclusion, therefore, that the injury data available does not clearly indicate a particular solution. Rather, it indicates there is a problem in re- ducing occupational injuries further. It also indicates it is an extremely complex problem, with many variations and therefore, requires a systematic approach of separating the problem into segments and then identifying each segment. For example, if manual handling of objects is a source of 22% of all compensable injuries, this activity should be carefully studied to determine what steps can be taken to reduce those injuries. These conclusions are supported by the earlier portion of this presentation which discussed the complexities of accidents and the great need for research into the many factors involved in their causation. There is another subject that is often discussed, and that concerns the injury experience of the “small” employers versus that of the “large” employer. This was studied at the 1949 President’s Conference on Industrial Safety. Both the National Safety Council and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported additional data at the 1950 President’s Conference. 299 The NSC figure showed that plants with less than 100 employees had an in- jury frequency rate of 21.9 injuries per million man hours, those between 101 and 500 employees, a frequency of 20.58, and those with more than 500 employees, 10.13 injuries per million man hours. The BLS data reported at the rame Conference was for three specific indus- tries, textile dyeing and finishing, meat packing, and tin can manufacturing. In this data, the textile plant with less than 25 employees had a lower injury fre- quency than all other size establishments except those with more than 1,000 employees. In the meat packing industry, plants with less than 20 employees had a lower injury frequency than all other size establishments except those with more than 500 employees. A more recent study by the BLS of the experience in the highway and street construction industry was made in 1961 (BLS Report 257). This report showed that injury frequency for those employers with less than 10 employees was lower than those having 10-19, 20-49, and 50-99 employees, and comparable to the next two larger groups, with those over 500 employees having the lowest fre- quency rate. The report mentions, however, that severity rates (i.e. amount of time lost) was far higher in these establishments with over 500 employees. It is our conclusion, that this data indicates that more industry studies need to be made, since the injury rate by size of establishment varies depending upon the industry to some extent. Our Society believes that all the evidence indicates that the rate of progress in reducing occupational injuries and deaths has slowed, and, in some cases, retrogressed. NEED FOR QUALIFIED SAFETY PROFESSIONALS Because at least some of our members recognized this trend a number of years ago, considerable attention was directed toward possible reasons. One conclusion was that the safety practitioner needed to improve his own competence so that he would be better equipped to solve the problems created by our changing tech- nology. The result was the initiation of a project to define the functions of the professional safety position, and identify the knowledges and abilities necessary to perform these functions. This lead directly to the development of educational programs to be offered to those currently in this field of specialization. It was hoped that colleges and universities could be persuaded to develop curricula for future practitioners. The first phase of this project is completed—defining the functions. In the development of this description, it was necessary to recognize the complex nature of accidents and injuries. It became evident that the safety professional must have the kind and type of knowledge and experience that would enable him to understand the relationship between man and his environment, To quote from our Society’s description of the “Scope and Functions of the Professional Safety Position” : “The Safety Professional . . . will draw upon specialized knowledge in both the physical and social sciences. He will be required to have fundamental knowl- edge of statistics, mathematics, physics, chemisty, as well as the fundamentals of the engineering disciplines. “He will utilize knowledge in the fields of behavior, motivation and communica- tion. Knowledge of management principles, as well as the theory of business and governmental organizations will also be required. His specialized knowledeg must include a thorough understanding of the causative factors contributing to accident occurrence as well as methods and procedures designed to control such events.” As work progressed on this project, colleges and universities have expressed an interest in developing curricula, but have also asked for data that would sup- port the need for persons so trained. A survey was made of a number of firms in the private sector as well as governmental agencies. A total of 120 employers responded. These firms employ a total of 2,801 safety professionals on their respective staffs. During the past two years, they hired 632 individuals (1966 and 1965), and estimated a need for 468 persons in 1968. As a further indication of the need, the Society's Journal carries listings of positions available and situations wanted. For the past several years, the positions available have ex- ceeded those wanting positions by an average of 3 to 1. Therefore, there is an immediate need for qualified safety professionals. To meet this need, the Society is developing educational materials that can be used to provide qualified personnel with the necessary knowledge. Of equal impor- tance is the development of college and university curricula that will provide 300 the educational background for those who will be needed in the future. Cur- rently, an effort is being made to secure funds to underwrite fellowships in graduate study in industrial safety, since funds have been made available for training in home and traffic safety fields. SOCIETY RECOMMENDATIONS Our Society believes that the first steps that need to be taken to further reduce occupational injuries are : A. Increased research into accident and injury causative factors, and the collection of more valid injury statistics to determine the nature and magnitude of the occupational injury problem as it exists in the United States today. In- cluded in this research study should be data that would establish the relevancy of regulations, routine inspections, as an effective means of accomplishing the desired objective. It would appear that the federal government is in an ideal position to assume the leadership in the development and acceleration of occupa- tional safety research and in the funding of these projects. B. Creating a greater number of qualified safety professionals who are capable of providing the type of safety information upon which intelligent decisions can be made. Since accidents and injuries result from multiple, causative fac- tors, it is important that the individual who functions in the field of prevention, be capable of determining the kinds and types of controls that will be most effective. IN SUMMARY Accidental injuries are extremely complex occurrences. They involve man and his environment with all the complicating factors that are involved. A great deal more needs to be known about the factors involved in occupa- tional injury causation. The key factors need to be identified and their importance determined. More adequate and uniform injury statistics are needed to identify the nature and magnitude of the total occupational injury problem. Injury data available indicates that progress has been made over the years but the rate of improvement has retrogressed recently in some instances. There is well defined need for greater number of qualified safety professionals both now and for the future. This statement, of necessity, highlights some of the more important aspects of occupational injuries and their prevention. A great deal more could be written either to expand some of the subjects discussed, or to explore other subjects that are relevant. Our Society hopes that all interested groups will support greater research into accident causation. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee to present this statement and sincerely hope that it will contribute to a creative, thoughtful approach to the further reduction of occupational injuries. Mr. Sturring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee, my name is W. Eugene Stuffing and I have the honor of being the current president of the American Society of Safety Engineers. To more effectively relate the statement which is to follow, perhaps it would be well to briefly describe the society’s history and purpose. The American Society of Safely Engineers was founded in New York City in October 1911, and incorporated in 1915. Its purpose at that time was to provide its members a forum for the exchange of ideas and information on occupational accident prevention. Over the years, the society has grown from the original group of 35 persons to almost 9,000 individual members at present. The American Society of Safety Engineers is the only national organization representing the practicing safety professional. Our membership comes to us from industry, construction, mercantile estab- lishments, the various fields of transportation, insurance companies, the academic world, local, State and Federal governmental agencies. The principal objective of the society now is to develop and in- 301 crease the professional competence of its members, and to interest qualified persons to pursue this field of endeavor as a career. Briefly, the safety professional bijings together knowledge and talents of the various scientific, behavoral, managerial, and engineer- ing disciplines; develops means for integrating them in a manner that will enable those who have operational responsibility to give proper consideration to safety factors when making decisions. He is concerned with the design, development, improvement, co- ordination and evaluation of systems of men, methods, materials, and equipment with the objective of achieving optimum loss control effectiveness. Thus, he collects, analyzes and presents safety informa- tion in a manner that enables those with decisionmaking responsibili- ties to recognize and solve existing and future accident problems. The society’s statement concerning the President’s proposed “Ocecu- pational Safety and Health Act of 1968,” will be presented by Mr. A. C. Blackman, managing director of the American Society of Safety Engineers. Mr. Blackman is a member of our society and is a registered pro- fessional engineer in the State of California. Prior to Mr. Blackman’s joining our society as managing director, he was chief of the division of industrial safety for the State of California. Mr. Backman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have filed with you a number of copies of the complete statement and since it is rather long and in the interest of time I think it would be best merely to highlight the essence of that statement. We have ap- proached 1t from the standpoint of the individual professional and from the point of view of what can be done to prevent occupational accidents and injuries. We discussed in our statement several subjects and there are six of them. First, we discussed at some length the complex nature of accident and injury occurrence. We are calling attention to the fact it is not a single occurence and cannot be put into a category of one thing or another. Rather it in- volved multiple factors and consequently requires considerable thought and consideration and study to resolve the problem of preventing it. The second thing we discused is the need for research in the accident causation and control measures. We think this is very much in evi- dence and I gathered in listening to the committee that they are in STR that this is an important area so there is no need to dwell on that. We also commented at some length on the need for additional sta- tistical data from the various States and jurisdictions to determine the magnitude of the problem of occupational accidents and injuries. There is no uniformity presently among the various States and juris- dictions outside the States in the recording of this information, and it. is difficult to compare apples with oranges. The only thing you can do with the present data is compare the trends within a given jurisdiction. So we discussed some of these trends and this brought up an in- teresting point. : There are certain States which have pretty good on-going programs, New York, Wisconsin, California. They have pretty adequate regula- 302 tions, an adequate number, or a reasonably adequate number of people to enforce them, consult with employers and do all of the things that I think that the proposed legislation would empower the Secretary of Labor to do. We have compared the trend of injuries, disabling in- juries in those States with the figures published through 1966 here and which are supposed to represent to my knowledge a composite picture for manufacturing in the United States. We find there is not much difference; in fact there is not any differ- ence between the trend of injuries in these various States and those of the BLS figures. In other words, they have all gone up in the last several years. This immediately raises the question if these States al- ready have the regulatory facilities and staff, is this the answer to the problem? On that basis, we say that there is a great need for more information and we think this ought to be explored. We tried to get information from some of the States which do not have any regulatory codes and we found that this was not feasible or practical. You couldn’t get very much from them. Perhaps these two go hand in hand, I don’t know, but in any event you try to find out and can’t. We did get information from Texas, which has had no regulations up until the middle of 1967, when I believe they passed a new law. We found that what data we could collect was not directly comparable to others but there were some indications that their record was no worse on a trend basis, than any other States and better than some. This I think lends enough credence to the subject to say: Let’s get more information before we make a decision. I think this is the point we are trying to emphasize. The fifth point that we had, and it is one in which Mr. Eichhorn, bless his heart, touched on, and that is a great need for more qualified people. We are concerned with the proposal that has been presented to you because there was mention made of subprofessional technicians to do this work. We maintain if you are going to really do anything constructive, the individual who is going to do this work has to be competent, has to know what he is doing, and has to recognize the complexities of accidents and their causation and control. We believe this is very important. It can’t be done by just anybody with a short 3-week course in on-the-job training. I think this is very important. We would suggest to you that some of the reasons why the larger firms have made good records and far exceed the averages nationally and statewide is because they have on their staffs competent people. They have lived with the problem, have spent time studying on the operations and incorporated their control measures within the framework of this operation so they work. This is the reason that these firms have done so well. Now we have to find a way to extend this competency to all of the others who perhaps don’t have it and I think this is more in the nature of the problem, too. We are trying, in our way, with our limited resources, to work on an educational program, which is under development for our present membership, to keep them abreast of the changing conditions. We are also trying to interest colleges and universities in developing cur- riculums that will train the people and educate them for the future which we believe equally important. 303 Therefore, to summarize our recommendations, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, they are as follows: We definitely feel there is an important need for research in accident causation and control. I am talking more about the run-of-the-mill problems—every day problems—we face, and not the more dramatic and sophisticated types of problems such as beryllium and mononu- cleosis which has been with us quite a while. Why do 20 percent of the people fall and hurt themselves? Is it because there is something on the floor or on the working surface or because they simply lost their balance and tripped over their own feet or what. We don’t know. There is no data on this. We also need more comparable statistical data. This at the present time is collected in various ways. I believe there is some kind of agree- ment with this organization in some particular kind of sampling it takes. We are not suggesting any specific method but we think this is necessary if we are to evaluate the nature of the problem after all, sound decisions are only reached after adequate information is avail- able on which to base them. Now, my third point or recommendation is we certainly feel there is a definite need for a far greater number of qualified safety profes- sionals working in this area. I think with these three things we would be able to produce the kind of results I think everybody wants to have. That, gentlemen, constitutes a summary of our statement. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Blackman. Mr. Esch, any questions? Mr. Esc. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say how much I appreciate the very fine testimony of the witnesses. I think they articulated the need very explicitly and pointed up some ramifications which surely this committee will want to consider as we look at the bill and any other possible legislation. Would you concur that one of the problems is because of lack of statistical information and it has been because we don’t have to prove negligence now, for example, in workmen's compensation cases so we have no basis for determining causes of accidents? Mr. Brackman. I think partly this is it and partly because some of the States have different laws and they may not have some of the same reporting requirements. This is probably at the heart of it. It is pretty hard to determine because each one is a separate problem by itself. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Steiger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to concur in the statement made by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Esch, that your testimony has been among the best we have received thus far. I think it gets at the heart of the problem and pinpoints clearly some of the problems with the legislation. Are you taking the position on behalf of the American Society of Safety Engineers that the thrust of the bill as it relates to the data necessary, the correlation of data to provide the necessary information on which you can build some better understanding of where we are, combined with provisions to increase the personnel in the field,would be far more won rable than the total package of the enforcement which is granted to the Secretary of Labor? Is this basically what the society would recommend ? 304 Mr. Brackman. I think that is a fair statement. We feel that these are the important steps. A number one step would be the develop- ment of data to determine the direction in which you should go. There is no real substantive evidence to show that regulations per se are going to solve the problem. At least we couldn’t find any. I think this is at the heart of our point: we should not run off in all directions until we really know where we are going. Mr. Steiger. Thank you very, very much. Mr. Esc. Will you yield? Are we now ready for regulations this broad-based ? Do we have the information even if we wanted to develop regulations, does information now stand on which to develop Federal regulations at the present time ? Mr. Backman. Well, there are a lot of regulations and informa- tion available. In my position with the State of California, we had, telistng about a 6- by 9-inch volume. It is disturbing as to how volumi- nous they can get. How much relevancy do they have to the accidents actually occurring? Mr. Steicer. Were they relevant ? Mr. Backman. We tried to find out in some cases. For certain types of equipment, for example, elevators, they were relevant. Boilers, also, and you could pick out other types of equipment and specifically pin- point them. You could do this, for example, on a punch press, but we still haven’t got satisfactory means of protecting a punch press. We still describe a number of methods none of which are really satisfactory and we have not done real creative thinking on how to do it better. Some of the research might well be directed toward applied research as well as fundamental research. You could do some good in certain areas. But you get a lot of other regulations and you begin to wonder where do they fit in the sum total of this picture? I think it is a mixed thing. I think also what is suggested here 1s that this statistical analysis should develop some revelancy of these regulatory standards to the problem. We move along and the first thing you know we build up a book. And a little like the Post Office Department, you have so many regulations that one postmaster does not have all of the regulations and neither does the other one. Mr. Steicer. What happens in the case of, we talked about construc- tion this morning and you heard the testimony, and one of the prob- lems that was highlighted was noise, for example, and how do we han- dle the problem of the differences between the construction worker in the heart of New York City who is exposed to not only the noise that comes from a construction project but also the noise that comes from a city of so many million people as compared to the standards Thi are necessary on a construction project, say, Happy Valley, alif. Mr. Brackman. Well, I don’t know in what context, Mr. Steiger, you are talking about the noise standards and their effect upon the individual. We do know certain things about noise. We know that beyond certain points there is the potential for loss of hearing. We don’t know some of the other fringe effects of noise upon the individ- ual. We don’t know how much this affects the worker. Mr. Steiger. But the standards would not be the same, I would as- sume, for the desert in California and this other city ? 305 Mr. Brackman. You mean the external amounts of noise that you are talking about? I think I have trouble understanding precisely the point. Mr. Sreicer. I have trouble understanding how you develop a na- tional standard to prevent loss of hearing on a construction site? Mr. Brackman. Well, I would have difficulty understanding that myself. I mean I am not prepared, or I don’t feel I could give you an an- swer on how to establish a national standard that could be unilaterally imposed across the board. Mz. Srercer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Blackman, I notice with interest that prior to join- ing the society, you were chief of the division of industrial safety for the State of California? When was it? Mr. Backman. 1947 to 1959. Mr. O’Hara. California was represented in earlier testimony as hav- ing one of the better industrial safety codes and industrial safety oper- ations. Would you concur in that? Mr. Backman. Yes: I would have to. Mr. O'Hara. Were any of the provisions of that code which was placed before this committee put through during your tenure as chief of the division? Mr. Buackman. I don’t know which ones were, but IT know during that particular period of time we developed some elaborate regulations and 1n fact the first that existed on radiation exposures even before AEC put out regulatory standards, they had advisory standards. Mr. O'Hara. Go ahead. Mr. Brackman. Labeling and the elevator code I think is one of the better ones in the United States. These I think would be some of the more outstanding ones I can readily think of. Mr. O'Hara. I suppose like other bureau chiefs you fought for -adequate personnel and tried to get qualified personnel ? Mr. Brackman. Yes. Mr. O'Hara. Why? x Brackman. Because you can’t do a good job unless you have them. Mr. O'Hara. Would you testify before this committee there is no evidence that State regulation has any impact? Mr. Brackman. That is right. If you are going into something like this, it seems you have to be objective and analyze the facts and say what they indicate. In California, for example, the records there, and they have a rather complete statistical picture, showed was that in a 6-year period ending 1966, their disabling injuries per 1,000 workers fluctuated from 32 pretty consistently ending in 1966 with 3,178. Now, you can’t compare California data with New York or Wisconsin be- cause they both use man-hours, so you have a little different basis here, but if you look at New York they show 11.9, 11.6, 12, and 12.4, and 13.7, and there is a gradual trend up to 1965 and 1966. In Wisconsin, we did not get 1966 figures but had 1965 figures and they showed a general uptrend. California did, too, although it fluctuated closely there. I think this is something we really have not studied adequately. I think this is one of the reasons we are bringing it up. I would be less than remiss if I didn’t tell you I was disturbed at times when IT had my 306 former position sometimes about the voluminousness of the regulations we were developing and what was their effectiveness. - 1 said this was a disturbing factor. How good was it? In fact, we got to the point I won’t want to adopt any regulations that I couldn’t justify on the basis of injury experience. We did list a number of new legislations. y r. O'Hara. I am not going to depreciate your work as chief of that division. Don’t you believe that if the inspectors that were put on dur- ing your tenure in that office and the code provisions that were adopted during your tenure in that office had not been done, if none of that had been done while you were in the office, do you think Californias pic- ture today would be better or worse than it is now ? - Mr. Backman. I think it would be worse than it is now. I think 1 was trying to make the point, for example, earlier, Mr. Chairman, that I think the regulations have a place in certain specific kinds of things. I pointed to the elevator situation and I could spend considerable time discussing intracacies of this—boilers, matters of certain types of machinery. We put in regulations, too, in digging trenches and saying they ought to be shored. We were never successful really. In fact, we did a study and found out one-third of the men killed in trench cave-ins were as a result of.going down and putting in Padus This indicated there was a need for a better method accomplishing the job of putting in the trench and putting in the bracing to put the pipe in. Mr. O'Hara. 1 we certainly agree with you we don't know enough about safety practices and would you also agree we don’t effectively apply all that we do know about safety practices? Mr. Buacksurn. I would agree. Mr. O'Hara. But I would not agree, and I don’t think you would agree with the proposition that public regulation has no impact on the problem. I think we would probably agree that it is not the total answer to the problem. Mr. BLackBURN. Yes. Mr. O’Hara. But won’t you agree that even, as was said, it does have an impact, it is an important factor ? Mr. Brackman. I think it does have impact, but whether it has the answer to the overall problem the question I think we tried to raise. I think it ought to be evaluated from the standpoint of more complete information. Perhaps it would be possible to select from this vast Peds of regulatory standards those which are effective and eliminate those that are not. We put in an awful lot of things. I think that this is a point where we don’t know enough about the effect of these in certain areas, in many areas. We know about it in some. I would certainly be the last one to say there was not need for an adequate Sy for elevators, for ex- ample, or boilers. Mr, O'Hara. Or uranium exposure ? Mr. Brackman. Yes. Performance standards now are a different ipa of standard. You get into elevators, you are talking about precise things. Mr. O'Hara. That is right. It is a different kind of standard but there is a need for more than the elevator code type of standard. There is need for development and application of standards with respect to environmental conditions. 307 Mr. Backman. It is more of a performance standard. You could write a standard, for example, stating that the exposure to certain types of toxic material, whether gas fumes, or what, must be main- tained below a certain point. The method of accomplishments may be many and varied depending upon the particular stituation in which they find themselves. Mr. O’Hara. I would think the method of accomplishment would “be something we ought not to concern ourselves with, that we ought to leave it to the individual variations of circumstances and conditions just so it is accomplished. Mr. Brackman. That is right. Unfortunately, many of our stand- ards are not written this way, though. Mr. O'Hara. Then I think that probably we are in agreement that mere existence or existence and enforcement of State regulation is not an answer to the problem, but it is a factor to the extent that the regu- lations are appropriately drawn and effectively enforced, is that right? r. Backman. I think definitely what is a factor is the kind of peo- ple you have enforcing them. Mr. O'Hara. You spoke of the difference between firms of differ- ent sizes in several industries that have been surveyed and the experi- ence there indicated, in your testimony, drawn from BLS statistics, was that the larger ones had the best safety records. You suggested that with respect to the larger ones you thought a part of that might be due to the fact that it is the larger firms that generally are able to employ qualified full-time safety personnel. You felt that having a number of such personnel was, or having more qualified personnel was something we ought to be thinking about. Mr. BLackMAN. Yes. Mr. O'Hara. I would certainly agree with that statement. I would suggest that that is another argument in favor of regulation be- cause in a sense what that safety engineer is doing, or that safety engineering department is doing, is developing a private code of safety practices and seeing to its enforcement, right, within the establishment of that company ? Mr. BLackBURN. In essence, yes. Mr. O’Hara. It sems to me if you develop a highly qualified com- petent safety personnel, you are going to have to pay them somethin for their efforts and one of the problems is it takes a certain a iy fo be able to afford the services of full-time safety personnel, right? Mr. BLackmaN. Yes. Mr. O’Hara. So I think that, at least in the scheme I envision, we would eventually attempt to fill that void which economically can- not perhaps be filled by the firm by making available to them serv- ices from the State or from some governmental unit, from time to time. Don’t you think that is a method of going about it ? Mr. Brackman. Well, you have another aspect of this problem which is probably as much—well, I don’t know how you would term it—and T hesitate to use the term “psychological,” but I think it best fits it—there would be a difference certainly in the reception which is given to an individual and the listening which is given to his advice 92-734 0—68——21 308 and consultation if he is forced on you, or if you call him in. The smaller firms have pretty good records, and the ones in the middle seem to be, on whatever data has been collected, to be more of a prob- lem. They are just big enough to have more problems, more changes in their operations, and they are not big enough to justify, in their minds at least, the retention of somebody who is capable, They fre- quently have one man operating with four or five hats. He may be in charge of personnel and safety security and the insurance pro- gram and a few other things, and he devotes his time to that which he knows the best. The point at issue here, I think if we examine this, and it disturbs me considerably, is how many people do you need to go around and talk to or visit the various establishments to spend enough time there to absorb enough information about their operation so you can advise _ them on how they can better control the hazards created by those operations? Now, it takes a fair amount of time to do this. The reason that these men in the larger firms can do it is it is their full-time job. Now to go into a shop with 500 employees making any kind of thing, regardless of the fact that, for example, I might have some expertise in this area, it is going to take me some time, first of all, to understand their particular problem, their organizational structure, to work with them. I don’t know how many people this would take. Furthermore, I don’t know whether your workload administrator is going to put up with one man going to one plant and spending a week there. He is going to look at how many places did he visit and how many inspec- tions did he make, and this 1s a very practical problem. I don’t know how many people you would need, but it would be astronomical to do it if you could find that many people who are capable of doing it, which I doubt. Mr. O'Hara. I certainly agree with that. I would think that an essential part of any program we undertook here in the Congress would include steps or would be steps to assist in the training and development of more safety, qualified safety per- sonnel. I don’t think that we are going to have, or have now or will have in the foreseeable future enough people to do the kind of job that probably would be the optimum that you would see or that I would see. I don’t think, though, that is any reason why we can’t strive to improve the situation. I was struck by the conclusion of yours that all of the evidence indicates that the rate of progress in reducing occu- pational injuries and deaths has slowed and in some cases retrogressed. Mr. Brackman. I think it is true. The data support this. I think you have to look at this, too, in retrospect, over a long period of time, and find out whether there are some peculiar conditions which exist in the total picture that are today having an effect on this: Did we have the same kind of cyclic situation in 1950 to 1953, for example, when involved in the Korean crisis? Do these have a bearing on this? I think this is part of the statis- tical data that are necessary to find out whether this is directly attrib- utable to this. Manpower shortages, difficulties in finding people, dif- 309 ficulties in training; what is the effect of the emotional problems by these outside situations on the total population? I don’t know. Mr. O'Hara. I think you have helped us a great deal by giving us a balanced picture and by emphasizing the need for improving our statistical collection methods and determining, or learning more about the kind of hazards encountered and developing standards for them and providing adequate well-trained personnel. I think that this will certainly assist us in our consideration in this legislation and want to thank you for giving us your time to appear before us. Mr. Buackman. Thank you for the opportunity. Mr. O'Hara. The select subcommittee will stand in adjournment until tomorrow at 10 o’clock, when it will meet again in room 2200. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 7, 1968.) (The following material was submitted for the record :) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington. JIM HARRISON, Director, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HARRISON : In response to your inquiry of March 12 about what pre- cautions the Department has taken under the Walsh-Healey Act to protect workers from Beryllium, I can tell you in summary that it is adequately docu- mented that, after the hazard was recognized in about 1960, vigorous measures were taken by both the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Labor to see that the hazard was brought under control. It is equally well documented that these measures have been successful in that Beryllium disease has not been produced in any substantial extent in plants under Federal Contract since 1950. In order to explain these summary assertions, I am enclosing background informa- tion of the industry and of the control measures which are required. Please feel free to call upon me again if you should require further information. Sincerely yours, H. FLoYDp SHERROD, JT. Special Assistant to the Secretary. BERYLLIUM Background Beryllium has been in use in industry for a long time, very largely in the form of beryllium copper alloy which is widely used in a variety of industries because of its strength, toughness, and high electrical conductivity. The first detailed description of the beryllium copper alloys seems to have appeared in 1916 and the use of some of them in such things as electrodes, current carrying springs for electrical apparatus, nonmagnetic springs for watches and clocks, and a variety of other products requiring this kind of properties began about 1926 or 1928. Beryllium is also used in a very wide variety of industrial materials eithe. as the metal or as its compounds. Beryllium windows have been used in x-ray tubes for a good many years because both metal and the beryllium glasses are excep- tionally transparent to low voltage x-rays. The beryllium oxide is and has been widely used in the production of vitreous glazes for ceramics and of refractory crucibles for the melting of very high melting point materials. More recently, it has been of great interest in the nuclear energy industry as targets in cyclotrons to produce a strong beam of protons, as a moderator in certain types of nuclear reactors, and as a component of certain types of nuclear reactor fuels. Even more recently, there have been some experiments with the use of powdered beryllium as a component of rocket fuels because of its extremely high specific energy of combustion. These experiments seem to have been halted because of possible toxicity problems, without any evidence of actual intoxications. The question of the toxicity of beryllium and its compounds began to be raised in the early 1930's and was clearly stated in 1936 by Gelman in an article “Poisoning by Vapors of Beryllium Oxyfluoride”, in the Journal of Industrial 310 Hygiene and Toxicology, Volume 18, Page 371. There was, for several years, n considerable amount of argument as to whether the observed toxicity of beryl lium compounds was due to the beryllium itself, or to the acid materials which normally were associated with beryllium. As late as 1943, the Public Health Service published Bulletin No. 181, “The Toxicology of Beryllium”, which con- cluded “since no particular toxicity was established for beryllium, it appears that whatever toxicity has been found to occur with the beryllium salts is due to the toxicity of the added acid radical, such as the fluoride or oxyfluoride, or to an objectionable condition brought about by the hydrolysis of certain of its salts, such as the chloride and sulfate. No permissible safe working standards should be based upon beryllium itself. Safe operating conditions in the prepara- tion of the metal or its alloys must be based upon other considerations than an implied toxicity of beryllium.” This conclusion was based upon animal studies and is to be contrasted with the conclusions, also based upon animal studies, reached by Stockinger and others in a series of articles in the Archives of In- dustrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, Volumes 1 and 2, which appeared between April and August 1950, that beryllium is the most toxic non-radioactive metal. This latter conclusion seems to have been completely confirmed by a sub- stantial amount of human experience. Ry 1945, one physician in Cleveland had seen and reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 90 cases of pneumonitis due to beryllium and Gardner at the Saranac Laboratory and Hardy at Boston, began to see, as early as 1943, cases of berylliosis (chronic beryllium disease) in workers in fluorescent lamp plants where beryllium orthosilicate was used as part of the fluorescent powder. By the end of 1938, the beryllium case registry maintained by Dr. Hardy contained a total of 606 cases of which 231 cases came from the manufacture of fluorescent lamps and similar items such as neon and radio tubes, 247 cases came from the processes involved in the extraction of the metal and its compounds from the ore, and 76 cases were the result of the production and handling of beryllium metal and beryllium oxide. This was recorded in “Exposure Data and Epidemiology of the Beryllium Case Registry—1958” by Mary F. Peyton and Jane Worcester, the American Medical Association Archives of Industrial Health, Volume 19, February 1959. This Regis- try currently contains slightly over 700 cases. The rate of case additions has become very low since preventive measures have been instituted. Most of the cases added since the middle 1950's, have heen the result of the very long latent period between exposure and signs of the chronic disease. The case addition rate is becoming progressively lower as this long latent period passes for most of the heavily exposed workers. Beryllium has been of interest in nuclear energy research development from the beginning and the Federal Government through various agencies, starting with the Manhattan Engineer District, has been in the market for beryllium for these purposes since the very early 1940's or late 1930's. The beryllium pur- chased in these programs has been almost entirely in the form of the metal. There has aiso been some use of beryllium in the space program but it has been small as compared to that going into the atomic energy program. There was one period when beryllium was of particular interest as a material in reactors and when the Atomic Energy Commission was a major factor in the beryllium market. The Federal Government, at no time, was the sole purchaser. Between 1954 and 1964, when the Atomic Energy Commission ended contract purchases, its purchases averaged 20% of the domestic beryllium production. Purchases for other pur- poses were certainly low compared to this but we do not have precise figures im- mediately available. Action by Department of Labor and AEC The Atomic Energy Commission became concerned very early about the possi- bility of beryllium. intoxications and by 1950 had established specific recom- mendations for the control of beryllium hazards. These were described in the Safety and Fire Protection Newsletter of the Atomic ‘nergy Commission for May 1, 1950. These recommendations, among other things, set a maximum permissible limit of 2 micrograms of beryllium per cubic meter of air for an &hour day average and not to exceed 25 micrograms per cubic meter for any period of exposure no matter how short. The limit of 2 micrograms of beryllium per cubic meter of air for an 8-hour day average was adopted by the Department of Labor in the first safety and health regulations under the Walsh-Healey Act on December 28, 1960. The plants 311 of the major beryllium producers were investigated under the Walsh- Act in 1961 and 1962 to assure that they met the requirements of the Ras permissible limits and the engineering and personal protective requirements needed to ‘accomplish them. These major producers were the Brush Beryllium Company in Ohio and the Beryllium Corporation of America at Reading and Hazelton, Pennsylvania. The investigations were made in connection with the Atomic Energy Commission's Health and Safety Laboratories because the Atomic Energy Commission was buying large amounts of beryllium at that time and was vigorously enforcing the same standards with its own personnel. Re- investigations of these plants were made in 1964 and 1966. The firms were in compliance with the requirements for maximum permissible exposures to beryl- lium at the inspections. In addition to these major producers, there have been a number of inspections over this period where the machining of beryllium metal was a relatively small part of the plant operations. The same standards have been enforced on these machining operations. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, D.C. Jim HARRISON, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HARRISON : In response to your letter of March 12, 1968 regarding precautions associated with the use of beryllium, the problems of protection of workers from the hazards associated with this material have long been a matter of concern and action within the military departments. At the outset, it is worthwhile to point out that while this material is used extensively in aero- space and related military applications, there are a wide variety of civilian uses, also. This material is also widely used in atomic energy programs. Your attention is invited to the excellent compendium of information on beryllium entitled “Beryllium, Its Industrial Hygiene Aspects,” a publication of the American Industrial Hygiene Association and the United States Atomic Energy Commission, published by the Academic Press, New York. This volume is widely known among occupational health and industrial activities using berillium, and summarizes the latest information in the field. It has been our experience in dealing with our prime contractors that these principles are well understood and applied. With regard to specific measures in force for both contractor employees or personnel of the military departments, as indicated above, the accomplishment of a complete occupational and environmental health program within the Depart- ments of Army, Navy and Air Force has included the measures necessary for beryllium. Typical of the depth of attention given this matter is the report of the “Workshop on Beryllium,” 1961, conducted under the auspices of the United States Air Force and participated in by representatives of the Army, Navy and principal contractors engaged in the production and fabrication of beryllium. In 1962 the Atlantic Research Corporation prepared under contract “Standard Operating Procedures for the Safe Handling of Beryllium.” A technical report, “Toxicity of Beryllium,” ASD-TR-62-7-665 was issued in 1962 and has been widely in the military departments and furnished contractors where appropriate. We have maintained close contact with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the problems of beryllium, especially in regard to the use of this material in rocket propellants, as well as in the manufacturing and machining of materials. In February 1967, another meeting of representatives of industry, the Public Health Service and the military departments was held, in which the cur- rent status of critria, protective measures and research needs was extensively explored. Continuing action in the matter of protection from beryllium hazards is in progress. Lastly, as part of an extensive survey of beryllium industries being conducted jointly by the Office of Emergency Planning and the Department of Defense, an evaluation is being made of the programs and practices for worker and com- munity protection against the beryllium hazard. I trust the above provides you with information on the extent of our program activities in this important matter. Sincerely, Louis M. Rousseror, M.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary (Health and Medical). . 312 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., March 29, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in reply to Mr. Jim Harrison's request for in- formation regarding steps taken by NASA to protect workers from the health hazard posed by the metal beryllium. While the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is a major user of the metal beryllium, the quantities used are very small, and in many cases the metal is consumed as an integral part of a manufactured component which is complete when delivered and therefor requires no work whatever. When beryllium metal is being used, it either relates to industrial operations such as machining, sanding, or heat treating, etc., or to flight/propulsion opera- tions, such as solid-propellant rocket motor firings or ablation studies. In those instances when beryllium is used, the hazards are clearly recognized and work conditions are very carefully controlled and monitored and the personnel in- volved are supervised carefully. The operating parameters and procedures are based upon nationally recognized standards, and operations involving beryllium are permitted to take place only after a thorough prior review of the work to be done, including the location and procedures. NASA contractors are required to use State and Federal health standards as a general rule, and NASA levies special safety requirements whenever necessary. In order to provide you with specific instances of NASA’s concern for per- sonnel and contractor employees who work with beryllium, as well as for mem- bers of the public who might be exposed to the metal, below are some examples of NASA safety procedures and some factual information that may be of interest to you. I. The George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) conducts most of the industrial operations involving beryllium, specifically the following: A. Machining of beryllium metal. Measures taken to protect workers in- clude a separate shop, high velocity-low volume exhaust system, water wash chip collectors, and absolute filters to prevent escape of dust to atmosphere. Workers are provided special clothing, bath and change facilities and periodic physical examinations. Atmospheric samples are collected and analyzed and all waste is collected and buried. There is no hazard to the public. The Ameri- can Industrial Hygiene Association Hygiene Guide is applied. Threshold limit value (TLV) of .002 milligram per cubic meter as set by AIHA Conference 1967, is followed. B. Cryogenic testing of sandwich structures containing beryllium. The Boeing Company conducts these tests, which involve wet sanding of beryllium surfaces for attachment of strain gauges. The sandpaper used is treated as hazardous waste and buried. The openmation is conducted outside, and Boeing industrial hazards control bulletin NBR. 57, based on the American Industrial Hygiene Association Standards, is used for control. No hazard to public. C. Wet machining of beryllium billets for small thrust chambers. These operations are at Rocketdyne Division, North American Rockwell, Canoga Park, California. Controls include separate shop ventilation at each ma- chine, protective clothing, periodic physical examinations, and atmospheric sampling and analysis. There is no hazard to the public. Local standards and regulations are prepared, based upon the American Industrial Hygiene Association Standards. D. General machining of beryllium. These procedures are conducted at Bendix Corporation, Teterboro, New Jersey. Controls include separate shop ventilation at each machine, atmospheric sampling and analysis, protective clothing and periodic physical examinations. There is no hazard to the public. Local standards and regulations are based upon the American Industrial Hygiene Association Standards. II. Enclosure 1 is provided to show how the Goddard Space Flight Center sought and obtained the assistance of outside expertise (the U.S. Public Health Service) in planning facilities and operations for proposed work involving beryllium. This, again, involved the industrial type activity. 313 III. Mr. George Hichhorn, of the International Association of Machinists, is from Daytona Beach, Florida, and because of his proximity to the J. F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) he may, understandably, have some concern for his own community’s safety with respect to KSC operations. A. Neither KSC/NASA nor KSC contractors engage in any activities in- volving working, handling or machining beryllium in any form. Traces of beryllium in the form of an alloy are contained in the spacecraft in sealed units but are not considered a hazard in normal operations. B. Measures are being taken to protect personnel and the public from un- due exposure to beryllium, based upon the procedures outlined in NASA- AMR Safety Bulletin No. 1 “Beryllium Hazards”, National Safety Council (NSC) Data Sheet No. 562 “Beryllium”, and KMI 1710.13 “Safety Review of KSC Technical Operating Procedures.” A copy of the latter is attached as Enclosure 2. IV. Detailed definitive safety measures related to beryllium operations are provided in Part C, Chapter 15 of the NASA Lewis Research Center Operational Safety Manual, which is attached as Enclosure 3. V. NASA’s experimental beryllium-loaded solid propellant rocket motors are small, firings are few and usually are conducted in an altitude chamber (closed/ scrubbing system) which precludes atmospheric contamination. In the rare in- stances when NASA finds it necessary to conduct an atmospheric firing, the “Statement of PHS Policy on the Use of Beryllium as an Ingredient of Rocket Propellant” is the basic guideline. (See Enclosure 4.) NASA insists that— (1) the contractor provide a sound meteorological program and safety plans for such tests, (2) a qualified meteorologist be in charge of the test and be the person who determines when it is safe to fire, (3) the cognizant state medical authority agree to the test and test con- ditions, (4) meaningful sampling and analysis of air and soil be made prior to and after testing, (5) neither personnel nor the public be endangered, and (6) there be full discussion and coordination of the plans among the rep- resentatives of the contractor (subcontractor, if involved), NASA (program, safety and health officers), U.S. Public Health Service of the Environmental Science Services Administration (Meteorological consultant), cognizant state health authorities and other necessary experts. VI. As part of the NASA Safety Program, the NASA Safety Office is promul- gating uniform NASA-wide standards among which will be one dealing with beryllium operations. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely yours, RoBerT F. ALLNUTT, Assistant Administrator © for Legislative Affairs. > a 5 a -t B 1 B g et i ) Sei . 1 ft g B . oo RE oo Bi - a pas Bol = % } T w “ Ile 7 a B *. : 5 * = Lo a Re % a w - " + i a . _,- wk = o [> fp. oa = » 4 ” & : 2: vo fi ‘ FE « ov i & Bek re I we % ” 1 he wr a . od #) be > #5 ¥ . + § . . e . rR - » g bi 3 J i oe ; = cea ER. Sf i Fs . : h : Ell. “op , . a 1 >, § “ ed pr; w he Hh nd ’ - : - . a toe wR RIO ’ . is . Cy = 5 . 2 =e * Ho v= rrr . # : a r e is 7 Fe 4 Ie Ell Te ° a. aC x" a - fy . Hl . = . -— lest ell en isdn EF. SS CONTROL OF HEALTH HAZARDS FROM MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER Howard E. Ayer TR-9 September 1963 U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service Division of Occupational Health 1014 Broadway, Cincinnati 2, Ohio (315) 316 Upon a request from Dr. Rex Crago, Health Unit, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to Dr. Lewis J. Cralley. Assistant Chief, Research and Technical Services Branch, Division of Occupational Health, Public Health Service, thewriter visited Goddard Space Flight Center on September 10, 1963. Mr. Fred X. Hartman. Chief of Safety and Health, Dr. Crago and the writer discussed the planned beryllium machining operations with personnel of the Machine Branch. Tentative plans at the time of the visit were to partition off a special room, approximately 20 feet by 40 feet, for beryllium machining. Ma- chines in the room were to include a 16-inch lathe, Hardinge Mill, grinder 10-inch Monarch lathe, Decker jig bore. drill press, "white" cabinet and layout space. The only entrance to the room was to be through a locker room with sink, shower, and, possibly, laundry facilities. It was antic- ipated that each machine would have local exhaust ventilation, and a triple system with separate exhaust ports and ducts for iron. aluminum and beryllium respectively had been suggested. In the meeting it was pointed out that a combination of local exhaust and machine enclosure would be necessary to secure adequate control of beryllium exposures during machining. It was agreed that the Division of Occupational Health would furnish a written report including recom-— mendations for ventilation, housekeeping monitoring and medical exam inations. 317 CONTROL OF HEALTH HAZARDS FROM MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Beryllium is an extremely toxic metal, and beryllium dust or fume. when inhaled in sufficient quantity is capable of producing either an acute or a chronic disease of the lungs. To avoid disease among those working with beryllium and others inthe area, the following concentration limits for beryllium in air are applied: Type of Limit Beryllium Concentration (micrograms per cubic meter) Peak « never to be exceeded 25 Beryllium workers — average concentration 2 Qutside plant or shop -- community limit — 0.01 Average concentration not to exceed To assure that these limits are not exceeded it is recommended that: 1. Beryllium machining be performed in a separate shop, isolated from other areas by partitions and ventilation. 2. All machining operations be enclosed to the maximum degree possible and local exhaust ventilation be provided as described herein. 3. Personnel working on beryllium be provided with and required to wear clothing for the operation, this clothing not to be taken from the premises by the operators. 4. A change room, separate lockers for street clothes. shower and wash facilities be provided for beryllium workers. 5. If other metals are to be machined in the same shop, machines and floor be thoroughly cleaned using wet methods, before and after machining beryllium. Where cleaning methods may generate dust, appropriate respiratory protection must be used. It is recommended that only one exhaust system be provided. and that it be used only for beryllium, 318 MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER 6. The beryllium machining exhaust ventilation system be provided with an efficient dust collecting system as described herein. and the air from the collector be discharged vertically upwards at a high velocity well above any building air intakes. 7. Air samples for beryllium be taken by Safety and Health represent atives in the breathing zone of workers and in the outlet from dust collectors. 8. Preplacement and periodic physical examinations be performed on workers as described herein. ’ 9. Operating procedures to implement these recommendations be worked out by the Chief of Safety and Health. Machine Branch and Health Unit and appropriate written regulations be issued. CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR AIR BORNE BERYLLIUM The fact that the inhalation of beryllium dust or fume can produce respiratory disease is common knowledge. Two forms of the disease are known an acute pneumonitis and chronic berylliosis. Both of these diseases are serious, and the chronic form often results in total and permanent disability. In addition to persons working with beryllium individuals living near beryllium producing plants have developed chronic berylliosis. These three different conditions, the acute pneumonitis, the chronic occupational disease, and the neighborhood cases have led to the establishment of three different limits for atmospheric contamination. To prevent the acute form of the disease believed caused by one or more massive exposures, the maximum concentration should be limited. To pre- vent chronic berylliosis among workers the average concentration in the working environment should be limited and to prevent neighborhood cases among extremely susceptible persons the level in the community must be kept at a very low level, To meet these three conditions, the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission issued in 1951 its "Recommendations for Control of Beryllium Hazards’ which included the following standards: YA. The in-plant atmospheric concentration of beryllium should not exceed two micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m’) as an average concentra- tion throughout an eight-hour day. 319 MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER "B. Even though the daily average might be within the limits of the preceding paragraph. no personnel should be exposed to a concentration greater than 25 ug/m° for any period of time. however short. C. In the neighborhood of a plant handling beryllium compounds, the average monthly concentration at the breathing zone (BZ) level should not exceed 0.01 ug/m®." These limits have been widely accepted. The 2 ug/m’ in plant air con- centration has been adopted as a threshold limit by the American Con- ference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. The peak concentration limit of 25 ug/m® is widely used as a guide by other official agencies as is the community limit of 0.01 ug/m°. For the proposed operation at the Goddard Space Flight Center, equipment and procedures should be designed to meet the in-plant standards. and air cleaning of exhaust air should be sufficient to insure that the community limit is not exceeded at air inlets to any of the buildings at the Center. Because there is considerable dilution for any air inlet not immediately adjacent to the exhaust discharge the concentration discharged could considerably exceed 0.01 pg/m® provided that the outlet was located well away from any air inlet and the contaminated air was discharged in such a manner as to maximize dilution. MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM Beryllium machining is done by a great many installations in complete safety. Where the threshold limits given above have been observed there have been no known cases of berylliosis in any form. The typical machining operations (turning milling. boring etc.) generate enough beryllium chips and dust so that without adequate enclosure and local exhaust ventilation. concentrations in the workroom air would greatly exceed threshold limits. Because motion of machinery, heat and flying chips cause considerable air movement which tehds to spread beryllium throughout the area. adequate control can only be achieved with good enclosure and sufficient local exhaust ventilation. Figures 1 and 2 from Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice, illustrate Lu EL LCR Jit brtthabotin hd TOE Le Row smote sh Siclbocdilsgitinaatal ree for the degree of enclosure and the air volumes which have successfully con- trolled beryllium machining operations. It should be noted that the enclosure is so complete that an airflow of 300 c, f.m../sq.ft. of open area may be used. Because open areas are kept small. the total exhaust 320 MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER volume is not excessive. Where the location of the machining operation is small and fixed. as on a drill press. a lesser degree of enclosure may be used provided the local exhaust hood is located so that it will produce a control velocity of 250-300 feet per minute at the operation. A mini - mum duct velocity of 3500 feet per minute should be used for dust trans port. and a chip trap near the operation isdesirable to keep large chips out of the ductwork DUST COLLECTION Dust collection from beryllium exhaust systems should be of a degree sufficient to insure that the community limits of 0,01 ug/m’ (average) are not exceeded at nearby air intakes. As previously stated an outlet concentration considerably above the community limit of 0,01 wxg/m’ can usually be tolerated because of dilution in the outdoor air. However loadings of up to 300 pg/m° have been reported at the ccllector in similar operations so that a collector efficiency greater than 99 percent by weight will be required. Experience has demonstrated that a cloth bag collector using acrylic fiber bags or the equivalent at afiltering velocity of 3-4 feet per minute will provide the necessary degree of efficiency. A high efficiency centrifugal or dry type dynamic precip itator used as a pre cleaner will collect chips and large particles and allow the bag collector to operate for months without shaking. Assuming a reasonable workload the combination of the two devices should give a hopper emptying interval of a year or more. If no suitable receiver of scrap is available the scrap may be buried Discharge from the collector should be upward at a high velocity with the discharge point well above any air intakes The 'Chinese hat’ type of weather cap should not be used 321 SPECIFIC OPERATIONS 5-63 Transparent cover normally closed. @ = 300 cfm/sq ft of open areo Duct velocity = 3500 minimum fpm Entry loss = 0.35 VP AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS MILLINGMACHINE HOOD HIGH TOXICITY MATERIALS DATE /-58 | vs-68 FIGURE 1 we | vs-69 322 INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION 5-64 AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS “0 | i 0 83 xT ] 38 8 IT DATE /-58 dA 0S] = (jouoydo) dos; dif dA 0S 0 = sso] Ayu3 wey wun O0GE = Ayoofen 4anJ 02.10 Uado Jo {J bs/uwyd 00g =0 FIGURE 2 323 MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER The unusual nature of berylliosis -- that is. the incidence of disease among persons only casually exposed has led to isolation of beryllium processing operations from other areas. The isolation need not be of such a degree that access to the area is placed under security control and limited to only those actually engaged in beryllium machining. The beryllium machining area should however. be separated by walls parti- tions and doors from adjacent areas and airflow should be into the beryllium area. The controlled inflow of air will prevent contamination of adjacent areas inthe event of ventilating failures or during clean up. An exhaust ventilation air quantity from the room 25 percent greater than the quantity of air supplied to the room will normally give an inflow sufficient to prevent such cross contamination. If a central air condi tioning system is used. there should be no circulation of air from the beryllium machining area to other areas. Machining of beryllium requires no more protective clothing than other machining operations. However. to prevent possible beryllium exposure to wives and families in handling and laundering of badly soiled clothes it is customary to supply work clothing for beryllium machining operations It is then required that the clothing furnished be worn at work rather than street clothes. A change room with separate lockers for street clothes is furnished and laundry services for the work clothing provided Clothing furnished may include coveralls underwear socks and safety shoes. Laundry may be done either by a commercial laundry which has facilities for handling clothing soiled by very toxic material or by a facility laundry using appropriate precautions Unless operations are quite extensive it would appear safer and more economical to use an appropriate commercial laundry service. Regular floor and machine cleaning are essential. Housekeeping is very important in minimizing beryllium exposure. To the maximum extent pos sible wet methods of cleaning should be employed rather than dry wiping brushing or sweeping. If vacuum cleaning is employed appropriate pre cautions should be taken in emptying the filter hopper. Respiratory protection will be required if cleaning operations raise dust; the outlet from a normal industrial vacuum cleaner may contain enough extremely fine dust so that respirator protection is required. Ideally beryllium machining should be performed in a room separate from other metal machining. If this is impractical because of the small amount of beryllium machining. then the shop and machines should be thoroughly cleaned at the completion of beryllium machining operations and other metal scrap removed by the usual machine cleaning methods before beryllium is machined again. Such a procedure would appear more practical than the 92-734 O-68—22 324 MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER provision of separate exhaust systems for other metals. It is unlikely that a multiple exhaust take-off hood design with separate systems for each metal would provide adequate control when beryllium is machined. Respiratory protection is unnecessary when beryllium is being machined with adequate enclosure and local exhaust ventilation as described. Filter type respirators, suitable for materials significantly more toxic than lead. should be provided for clean up and emergencies. Such res. pirators should be Bureau of Mines approved. Because an approval schedule for such respirators has not been available. it may not be possible to obtain completely approved respirators. However. respirators with face pieces approved for dust and fume not significantly more toxic than lead and with filters not approved but designed for the more toxic materials can be purchased from several suppliers. Respirators should beworn during clean up. during failure of ventilating systems or at other times when substantial likelihood of excessive beryllium concentration exists MONITORING To assure that control systems are adequate and operating procedures are satisfactory air samples should be taken inthe beryllium machining area. Samples should be taken both in the breathing zone of machine operators and in the general shop area. Samples should also be taken in the exhaust air stream from the dust collector. (Companion samples from the collector inlet would be desirable as a check on collector efficiency.) The fre quency and duration of air samples will be dependent upon the scope and frequency of beryllium machining operations. The program should include samples at each machine general air samples and samples during clean up. As the adequacy of control measures is demonstrated sampling may be reduced to a routine basis. Wipe samples are also desirable. The most convenient sampling devices are portable sampling pumps which take filter samples. The lower limit of the usual method is approximately 0.04 pg beryllium so that a sample volume of 1000 liters would detect 20% of the threshold limit value With the common portable electrically driven pumps, this would meana one hour sample through aone -inch diameter filter. Membrane filter is a satisfactory filter media as is Whatman 41 and to a lesser extent. microsorban. Glass fiber filters should not be used because glass interferes with the analysis. If outdoor samples are taken to check community levels. a high volume sampler will be necessary. Manufacturers of suitable portable sampling pumps include 325 MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER 1. Gast Manufacturing Company, Benton Harbor, Michigan 2. Gelman Instrument Company. 106 N. Main Street Chelsea, Michigan 3. Union Industrial Equipment Corporation, 40 Beech Street, Port Chester, New York 4. Various laboratory supply houses High volume samplers may be obtained from (2) and (3) above. and 5S. General Metals Company, 8368 Bridgetown Road, Cleves, Ohio 6. Mine Safety Appliances Company, 201 N. Braddock Ave., Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania Filter media are available from (2) above and from: 7. Millipore Filter Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts. The low concentrations of air borne beryllium require careful sampling and sensitive analytical techniques. The Occupational Health Research and Training Facility. Division of Occupational Health. Public Health Service. will be available to advise on and participate in initiation of an air sampling program. The Division of Occupational Health can also analyze a limited number of air samples upon initiation of operations. and will assist if requested in arranging for analysis of routine air samples. 326 MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF BERYLLIUM WORKERS An outline of pertinent portions of a medical examination for beryllium workers. as suggested by Dr, John F. Zielinski Medical Director. Brush Beryllium Company. follows; Preplacement 1. Standard medical and surgical history Special emphasis on respiratory system 2. Occupational history Previous exposures to pulmonary hazards 3 Standard physical examination including routine blood and urine examination 4 14" x 17" PA chest roentgenogram 5. Selected pulmonary function tests a, Inspiratory capacity b., Expiratory reserve volume c. Vital capacity. both one and two stages d. Timed vital capacity Annual Standard physical examination 14" x 17" PA chest roentgenogram Routine blood and urine examination Termination Same as annual 327 MACHINING OF BERYLLIUM AT GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER The following defects automatically exclude a worker from beryllium exposure: 1. Previous pulmonary occupational disease 2. Previous or existing pulmonary non-occupational disease denoting trend or chronicity including. asthma hay fever two or more episodes of pneumonia. other than infancy emphysema empyema bronchiectasis chronic bronchitis specific therapy for tuberculosis pulmonary fungal disease TRO AO TD 3. Chronic liver disease 4. Chronic kidney disease 5. Cardiopathy with incompetent valves 6. Chronic skin disease 328 REFERENCES Hardy Harriet: Toxicity of Beryllium Compounds, Elsevier Pub. Co. New York, 1960. Hygienic Guide Series: Beryllium and Compounds. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assn. Quarterly, 17:345, 1956. Mitchell, R.N. and E.C. Hyatt: Beryllium Hazard Evaluation and Control Covering a Five Year Study, Am, Ind, Hyg. Assn. Quarterly, 18:207-213, 1957. : O’Neil, D.,P.: Toxic Materials Machined Safely, Amer. Machinist July 4 1955. Sterner, J. and M.Eisenbud: The Epidemiology of Beryllium Intoxira- tion. Arch, of Ind. Hyg. & Occ. Med. 4:123, 1951. 329 KMI __ 1710.13 October 27, 1967 Effective Date JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, NASA MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTION SUBJECT : SAFETY REVIEW OF KSC TECHNICAL OPERATING PROCEDURES REFERENCE: (a) KMI 1710. 1, "KSC Safety Program" 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Instruction is to assign responsibilities and provide guidelines for the review of Technical Operating Procedures (TOP's) by the KSC Safety Office for operations performed at the John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA (KSC) and KSC operations performed at the Air Force Eastern Test Range (AFETR). SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY This Instruction is applicable to all NASA/KSC organizational elements, to NASA/KSC contractors, and tenants of KSC. It covers the safety review of all Category I and Category II TOP's (as defined in paragraph 4). POLICY All TOP's developed by NASA or NASA contractor personnel for use at KSC, or at the AFETR, will be subject to a review by the KSC Safety Office to ascertain that the hazardous operations are identified and appropriate measures are specified. DEFINITIONS a. Program/Project Safety Plan: The safety plan that is developed for a specific program or project; e.g., Uprated Apollo/Saturn I Ground Safety Plan and Apollo/Saturn V Ground Safety Plan. KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 b. 330 Technical Operating Procedure (TOP): Any engineering document that provides detailed instructions to personnel, or authorizes work to be accomplished by personnel, for the operational checkout, verification, modification, or replacement of equipmem.. I'OP's are divided into two categories, as follows: (1) (2) Category I TOP's: Documents which provide detailed instructions for verifying functional operation of Ground Support Equipment (GSE) and Ground Support Equipment Systems; and procedures which provide detailed instructions for operational checkout, servicing, handling, and transporting space vehicle or space vehicle components during pre-launch and launch operations. Test and Checkout Procedures (TCP's) are examples of Category I TOP's. Category II TOP's: Documents which authorize work, provide engineering instructions, and establish a method of work control. (This category is not applicable for major tests or checkouts.) This type procedure may be written for a ""one-time' operation to perform special tests or authorize temporary installations, removals, or replacements. Test Preparation Sheets (TPS's) and Work Orders are examples of Category II TOP's. Hazardous Operation: An activity which could result in damage to property or personal injury because it involves, either singly or in combination, the following: (1) (2) Ordnance: Any operation involving the handling, transportation, installation, removal, closeout, or check- out of ordnance devices, and any operation or checkout of an ordnance system after ordnance items have been in- stalled or connected. Propellants: Any operation involving propellant loading, unloading or flow, hookup, or disconnect, movement of loaded storage units, or opening of contaminated systems. (3) (4) (5) (8) (7) (8) (9) 331 KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 Cryogenics: Any operation involving cryogenic loading, unloading or flow, hookup or disconnect, movement of loaded storage units, or repair of a contaminated system. Environmental: Any test where personnel are confined or exposed to an environment that deviates from normal atmosphere (e.g., chemical composition, pressure, or temperature). Handling: Any operation involving the hoisting, loading, or transporting of an end item flight vehicle (e.g., CM, SM, and SIA), or GSE of significant size or weight. Radiation: (a) Ionizing Radiation: Any operation utilizing an ionizing radiation source or radiographic equipment. (b) R. F. Radiation: Any operation producing more than 10 milliwatts per square centimeter field strength for continuous human exposure. Toxic/Flammable: Any operation involving toxic or flammable gases, liquids, or materials. Pressure: Any pressurizaticn of a system which exceeds 25 percent of the design burst. Electrical: Any operation involving an electrical hazard where significant risk exists because of the nature of the operation being performed or the equipment being utilized. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES a. The Primary Organization Having Cognizance Over the Operations will be responsible for: (1) Insuring that all Category I TOP's are forwarded to the KSC Safety Office for approval prior to use. KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 332 Insuring that Category II TOP's are reviewed and hazardous operations are properly marked. Insuring that all Category II TOP's containing hazardous operations are forwarded to the KSC Safety Office for approval prior to use. Insuring that a signature block (line) is included in the TOP for the signature of the Chief, KSC Safety Office. Insuring that the cognizant Contract Management Assistance Officer (CMAO) has considered this document for inclusion within each contract. Insuring that the cognizant Contract Technical Manager (CTM) has apprised affected contractors of their responsibility to comply with this Instruction as required and authorized by the contract. bs The Chief, KSC Safety Office, will be responsible for: (1) (2) (3) (4) Determining which Category I TOP's contain hazardous operations. Approving, by signature, the safety provisions in Category I TOP's and all Category II TOP's containing hazardous operations. Maintaining a log on previously reviewed TOP's on KSC Form 6-14. Supplying detailed hazard criteria, pertinent safety references, and safety guidelines to organizations responsible for developing TOP's. Co The Operations Support Office, Manager Apollo Program, will be responsible for: (1) Forwarding to the AFETR Range Safety Office all Apollo TOP's applicable to AFETR which have been previously approved by the KSC Safety Office. (2) 333 KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 Forwarding to the KSC Safety Office the AFETR Range Safety Office's comments on, or approval of, the TOP. d. The Range Operations Branch, Director Unmanned Launch Operations, will be responsible for: (1) Forwarding to the AFETR Range Safety Office all TOP's (for unmanned launch operations) previously approved by the KSC Safety Office. (2) Forwarding to the KSC Safety Office the AFETR Range Safety Office's comments on, or approval of, the TOP. 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS a. General All Category I TOP's will include a safety requirements section that meets the following criteria: (1) The specific hazard(s) encountered during the procedure must be identified. (2) Safety equipment required for each specific hazard must be identified. (3) The specific safety operating procedures (i.e., KSC Safety Operating Procedures (SOP's) governing the hazardous test) must be identified. (4) Safety rules or regulations that may be unique to a specific hazardous operation will be specified. b. Identification of Hazardous TOP's (1) Category I TOP's which are hazardous in their entirety will be identified with the following statement on the cover (in letters at least 3/16" in size): "THIS ENTIRE PROCEDURE IS CLASSIFIED HAZARDOUS." KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 (2) (3) Category I TOP's which contain hazardous operations in some portions of the procedure will be identified with the following statement on the cover (in letters at least 3/16" in size): "THIS PROCEDURE CONTAINS HAZ- ARDOUS OPERATIONS." (a) Each hazardous sequence, paragraph, or section within the text of the procedure will be identified by one of the following: 1. Letter "H" in margin. Ino Stripe through hazardous portions. 3. Hashmark through hazardous portion. (b) Warning notes will precede any operational step, sequence, etc. which if not strictly adhered to or observed, could result in personal injury and/or damage to equipment or facilities. Category II TOP's will be identified with the following statement on the cover: THIS IS{3J IS NOT 1 A HAZARDOUS PROCEDURE Signature Date c. Hazardous Procedure Determination (1) Each Category I and Category II TOP will be reviewed to determine if any portion thereof contains a hazardous operation or involves working with potentially hazardous materials. (2) 335 KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 The location or site at which the procedure will be performed will be considered, to determine if other operations in the area could have an adverse relationship to the procedure. d. Emergency Procedures (1) (2) (3) (4) All Category I and II TOP's containing hazardous operations will have adequate emergency provisions for each hazardous operation. The emergency procedures of the TOP will contain specific actions necessary to cope with the emergency condition. The emergency procedure must be available at all times during the operation and must be in one of the following locations: (a) On fold out pages preceding the hazardous operation. (b) On back pages of the procedure preceding the hazardous operation. (c) If the emergency procedure is lengthy or other- wise not suitable for either of the above alternatives, the document and its location will be identified in the TOP preceding the hazardous operation. Each sequence of a hazardous operation will be analyzed to determine what effect the sequence will have if an emergency condition should arise. e. Identification of Changes or Revisions (1) Changes or revisions to procedures previously approved by the KSC Safety Office will be clearly identified. For example: The notation ""C-1"" means "change number 1'"; the notation "R-4'"" means ''revision number 4." 336 KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 (2) All changes to Category I TOP's will be forwarded to the KSC Safety Office for approval. (3) All changes to Category II TOP's containing hazardous operations will be submitted to the KSC Safety Office for approval. (4) Changes or revisions to procedures previously approved by the KSC Safety Office will have the following statement, properly annotated, on the cover or first page of the procedure: THIS (CHANGE, REVISION) (DOES, DOES NOT) AFFECT THE HAZARD LEVEL OF THE BASIC DOCUMENT. Signature (Originator) Date 7. PROCEDURES a. Category I TOP Safety Review Plan (1) The functionally responsible organization: (a) Initiates the draft of the proposed TOP. (b) Submits one copy to the KSC Safety Office for review. (2) The KSC Safety Office: (a) Reviews the draft. (b) Coordinates with other KSC elements as required. 337 KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 Returns comments to the originator within 10 working days. The functionally responsible organization: Prepares a revised draft, incorporating applicable comments. Forwards the revised draft to the KSC Safety Office for approval. The KSC Safety Office: (c) (3) (a) (b) (4) (a) NOTE: (5) (b) Approves/disapproves (by signature) the original of the revised procedure and returns to the originator within 2 working days. Approval by the KSC Safety Office is subject to approval by the AFETR if the TOP is to be applicable there. Returns the approved original to the originating organization for printing and distribution. The functionally responsible organization prints and then distributes the approved procedure as follows: (a) (b) KSC Application: 1. Forwards three copies to the KSC Safety Office. 2. Makes distribution, as required, to using organization. Cape Kennedy Application: 1 Forwards six copies to the KSC Safety Office. 2. Makes distribution, as required, to using organization. KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 338 (5) The KSC Safety Office: (a) (b) (c) Distributes two copies of the approved procedure to mission safety support contractor(s), if required. Distributes three copies to AFETR (Cape Kennedy application only), via the appropriate KSC coordinating office, * at least 30 days prior to a scheduled test or other implementation. Apprises the functionally responsible organization, by memorandum, of approval of the TOP by AFETR, when applicable. b. Category II TOP Safety Review Plan (1) The functionally responsible organization: (a) (b) Initiates the draft of the proposed TOP. Submits two copies to the KSC Safety Office for review. (2) The KSC Safety Office: (a) (b) (c) (@) Reviews the draft. Coordinates with other KSC elements as required. Approves (by signature) the safety provisions in all TOP's containing hazardous operations. If applicable (Cape Kennedy application only), forwards KSC-approved TOP to the AFETR Range Safety Office for approval via the appropriate KSC coordinating office. * *1, KSC coordinating office for the Apollo Program is Operations Support Office, Manager Apollo Program. 2. KSC coordinating office for Unmanned Launch Operations is the Range Operations Branch, Director Unmanned Launch Operations. (e) Distribution: STDL-P 92-734 O-68—23 339 KMI 1710. 13 October 27, 1967 The originating organization distributes the approved TOP to applicable organizations. L— hla. Kurt H. Debus Director 340 LEWIS OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANUAL CHAPTER 15 = TOXIC/HAZARDOUS METALS PART C = BERYLLIUM 1. INTRODUCTION TO BERYLLIUM HAZARDS a. Within the past two decades, the hazards connected with the use of beryl- lium and its compounds have come to be recognized and partially understcod. This report is intended to acquaint the interested personnel with the broad outlines of this knowledge and with certain pertinent details. The magnitude of this problem prevents this report from being anything more than an introduction to the problem, but it does provide an outline of the requirements for working safely with beryllium. For the sake of brevity, beryllium will indicate hereinafter beryllium and its compounds. b. Two things must be remembered when working with beryllium. First, amounts of airborne beryllium so small as to require very special techniques for its detection and estimation can be very hazardous. Secondly, if the recommended limits to exposure are not exceeded beryllium can be worked and handled safely. c. The primary hazard is due to the inhaled dusts containing beryllium. Even though ingestion is not thought to be dangerous, a person working with it should not get any in his mouth. If beryllium is introduced into a break in the skin, a granuloma or ulcer may be formed which is difficult to heal. d. The AEC has made the following specifications for beryllium (atomic weight = 9.02) in the air. (1) The maximum allowable concentration pgraiceed outside the plant or laboratory is 0.01 micrograms Be/M’ (micrograms Be per cubic meter of 3. " (2) The concentration permitted in the laboratory is 2 micrograms Be/M3 averaged over an 8 hour day. (3) A concentration of 25 micrograms Be/M3 no matter how short the duration of exposure cannot be included in the 8 hour average. If such a concentration is excceded over a short term exposure (30 minutes), approved dust masks must be worn. (4) When the concentration reaches 100 micrograms Be/M3 of air, all work must cease. EFFECTIVE DATE 6-2-67 $ pace | oF 7 341 CHAPTER 15 ~ TOX|C/HAZARDOUS METALS PART C = BERYLLIUM One cannot assume that an operation is safe merely because a person has done it without showing symptoms. Years may intervene between the ex- posure and berylliosis. Furthermore, about 1% of the persons exposed to beryllium develop berylliosis. * : Certain procedures have been shown to be hazardous and must never be done if Be containing dust might possibly be present. These dangerous operations are: (1) Cleaning an area with brooms, brushes, high pressure water hoses, compressed air or vacuum cleaning with a cleaner not equipped with an absolute filter; (2) Exhausting air from approved vacuum cleaners into the general work ‘area. (3) All machining and grinding operations whether wet or dry without a properly designed hood. The mineral beryl and dust free beryllium metal and its alloys are safe to handle. High fired beryllium oxide appears to be innocuous (due prob- ably to larger particle sizes) while the low fired oxide and soluble compounds are highly toxic. Certain treatments of even the innocuous substances can produce dusts, vapors or films which have not been shown to be safe. Examples of possible hazards from these sources are listed below: (1) Several cases of chronic berylliosis have been reported where the only exposures to beryllium were due to machining 2% beryllium copper alloys. (2) Even though beryllium metal does not oxidize readily, it does undergo a localized form of corrosion when exposed to water. One potential hazard has been reported in the literature where such corrosion occurred during storage. (3) ' When a speciman containing beryllium or beryllium oxide is heated (e.g. by welding or using Be0 thermocouple insulators), it may reach a temperature at which its vapor pressure is high enough to create a hazard. The equilibrium vapor pressure for berylliym metal at 8850 C. (1625° F) is equivalent to 2 micrograms Be/M?, Beryllium oxide reaches such a vapor pressure at 1710° C (3110° F) in dry air (dew point -18° C). The temperature to which this oxide can be heated without creating a hazard is affected by the water con- tent _of the air. A vapor pressure equivalent to 2 micrograms Be/M3 is reached at 1250° C (2280° F) in the presence of air EFFECTIVE DATE PAGE 2 OF 7 LEWIS OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANUAL 6-2-67 342 CHAPTER 15 = TOXIC/HAZARDOUS METALS PART ( - BERYLLIUM containing water vapor with a partial pressure of 0.4 torr. Higher water vapor concentrations would produce higher beryllium concen= trations in the air at a given temperature. If the system has’ surfaces with temperatures lower than that of the beryllium con- talning specimen, the berylllum vapors would condense en these cooler surfaces and could create an otherwise unsuspected dust hazard. Hence, when wipe tests show the presence of 25 micrograms Be per square foot of exposed surface, the system must be cleaned. If the specimen is heated to temperatures greater than those known to be safe, every precaution must be taken to prevent exposure of personnel. h. Safety measures used to control the beryllium hazard and generalizations useful in selecting appropriate measures are listed below. (1) The air and the surfaces in the room being used should be adequately monitored and controlled. (a) Air leaving the area may require filtration. (b) All methods of dust control should be considered to be inadequate until demonstrated safe by monitoring. Aluminum may be used in preliminary work to evaluate the hazards. (c) All dust producing operations should be isolated by enclosing as completely as possible with adequate local exhaust ventil- ation. 1. There is no universally applicable hood. Selection of a hood design should depend on the operation contemplated. 2. The size of the hood opening should not be larger than what is required for the contemplated operation. 3. The rate of air flow through the opening should be at least 150 fpm (feet periminute) for such operations as melting, drying, filling of containers with powders, filing, deburring, etc. Higher rates (500 to 4000 fpm) are needed for such operations as drilling, surface grinding, sawing, etc. Many details that cannot be presented here are to be found in the literature. Some of these details on beryllium are available from the Special Panel on Industrial Hygiene. (2) Only those persons who have proper authorization should be per= mitted to enter any area that may be contaminated with beryllium i LEW!S OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANUAL |race 3 oF 7 343 CHAPTER 15 - TOXIC/HAZARDOUS METALS PART C - BERYLLIUM dust nor should any person be permitted to work with beryllium or in an area that may be contaminated without due warning and in= doctrination as to the hazards and the safety procedures involved. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Recelving clerks must not open packages containing beryllium, All beryllium containing items should be clearly identified as containing beryllium, by labels, if possible. Careful records of the location, use, disposal of all items containing beryllium should be kept. No beryllium contaminated equipment should be permitted to stand idle for any great length of time without decontamin- ation. Persons in charge of such equipment should not be permitted to go to another type of work without first eliminating the hazard. No janitor should be permitted to clean any area of suspected beryllium contamination without due warning and safeguards. (3) Beryllium containing items should be disposed of in an approved manner, (a) Wash waters from cleaning operations and laundry waters may be discharged into community sewers. (b) Large amounts of beryllium should be removed from the waste before discharging into the sewer. (c) Contaminated insoluble cutting oils should be filtered to remove particulate beryllium and then disposed of by burying in an approved location or possibly by burning under informed and careful supervision. (d) Contaminated scrap, waste rags, paper; etc. should be stored in covered containers for appropriate disposal possibly by including it with radioactive wastes or by returning the material to the manufacturer. i. In view of the above information, the Special Panel on Industrial Hygiene recommends the tentative adoption of a policy consistent with the fol Tow= ing statements: EFFECTIVE DATE LEWIS OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANUAL 6-2-67 CHAPTER | 5 - TOXIC/HAZARDOUS METALS PART = BERYLLIUM (1) No operations or fabrication involving beryllium should be per= formed without prior approval of the area safety committee. Fur= thermore, the Safety Officer should be notified shortly before doing any werk with beryllium except the mest innocuous even though the area safety committee approval has been obtalmed. (2) All operations involving the use of beryllium in any form or manner be done in compliance with the AEC specifications as set forth in paragraph d. (a) This requirement demands monitoring the air and in some cases the surfaces in the area of possible contamination. (b) Air monitoring should be done with each new operation in- volving beryllium. The monitored operation should not be repeated until the monitoring results are known. 1. At present, this requirement means waiting at least several days for analysis. 2. If the beryllium work continues to expand, a monitor that is capable of indicating the degree of contamination within a few minutes should be obtained. (c) A trial run of the operation using aluminum in place of beryllium might show areas of special hazard. (d) Wherever possible, one should start a potentially hazardous project with the least hazardous operation and proceed to more hazardous operation as competence is developed in the field. (e) Until equipment can be obtained of such a nature that it can be operated in such a way as to permit compliance with AEC regulations, the supplier should be requested whenever possible to carry out the more hazardous operations. 1. Even 2% Be-Cu requires some control in the machining operations. (3) Adequate medical supervision of all personnel who might be exposed to beryllium is required. (a) Personnel should consult with the Medical Services Office prior to working with beryllium for medical approval -2-67 i Ta LEWIS OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANUAL Lease 5 jor 7 345 CHAPTER 15 = TOXIC/HAZARDGUS METALS PART = BERYLLIUM (b) Personnel who receive injuries from beryllium (even 2% Be-Cu) in which the skin is broken (including scratches) should report to the Medical Services Office for proper treatment. (e) Personnel should report open wounds and any recent Illness to the Medical Services Office prior to working with beryllium, (d) Personnel have been subjected to atmospheres in which beryllium has exceeded the AEC limits may require medical supervision for an extended period of time after the last exposure, ) EFFECTIVE DATE loos 6 or 7 | LEWIS OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANUAL 62-67 346 CHAPTER 15 = TOXIC/HAZARDOUS METALS PART ( - BERYLLIUM (1) No operations or fabrication involving beryllium should be per- (2) (3) formed without prior approval of the area safety committee. Fur=- thermore, the Safety Officer should be notified shortly before doing any work with beryllium except the most innocuous even theugh the area safety committee approval has been obtained. All operations involving the use of beryllium in any form or manner be done In compliance with the AEC specifications as set forth in paragraph d. y (a) This requirement demands monitoring the air and in some cases the surfaces in the area of possible contamination. (b) Air monitoring should be done with each new operation in- volving beryllium. The monitored operation should not be repeated until the monitoring results are known. I. At present, this requirement means waiting at least several days for analysis. 2. If the beryllium work continues to expand, a monitor that is capable of indicating the degree of contamination within a few minutes should be obtained. (c) A trial run of the operation using aluminum in place of beryllium might show areas of special hazard. (d) Wherever possible, one should start a potentially hazardous project with the least hazardous operation and proceed to more hazardous operation as competence is developed in the field. (e) Until equipment can be obtained of such a nature that it can be operated in such a way as to permit compliance with AEC regulations, the supplier should be requested whenever possible to carry out the more hazardous operations. 1. Even 2% Be-Cu requires some control in the machining operations, Adequate medical supervision of all personnel who might be exposed to beryllium is required. (a) Personnel should consult with the Medical Services Office prior to working with beryllium for medical approval. EST | LEWIS OPERATIONAL SAFETY MANUAL |orce 5 or 7 6-2-67 347 STATEMENT oF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PoLICY ON THE USE OF BERYLLIUM AS AN INGREDIENT OF ROCKET PROPELLANT Increasing technological application of the unusual properties of beryllium metal, particularly as a high-energy rocket fuel, increases the potential for wide- spread contamination of man’s environment with beryllium compounds. Ex- tremely small amounts of airborne beryllium compounds are known to have caused illness and death among humans in the past, and the Public Health Service has an urgent sense of responsibility to prevent similar events in the future. Unlike certain other toxic contaminants generated by man’s advancing tech- nological activites, beryllium is not yet significantly ubiquitous to arouse wide- spread concern. The Public Health Service urges vigorous application of ef- fective control measures, developed in accordance with the guides and considera- tions enumerated below, to make certain that no serious concern will ever be justified on account of environmental contamination by beryllium. 1. TOXICITY Until more extensive investigation and research yields a better understanding of the toxic hazard associated with use of beryllium as a high-energy fuel, prudence requires the Public Health Service to assume, for practical purposes, that all combustion products of beryllium possess long-range toxicity for humans. Uncertainties surrounding any toxic limits promulgated on present knowledge about beryllium can be removed only by intensification of research effort which the Public Health Service urges strongly. 2. USE—LIMITED The Public Health Service deems unwise the peacetime use of beryllium in any first stage rocket or other operational system emitting beryllium combustion products during free flight from the ground through lower levels of the atmos- phere. 3. STATIC TESTING—CONTROLS—SITE SELECTION The Public Health Service adheres to the principle that combustion products of beryllium should be controlled by containment or other positive engineering methods. . In the event that the National defense requires limited planned emissions of beryllium combustion products to the atmosphere, prior to availability of con- tainment systems, then such emissions must be regulated with respect to quantity and controlled under carefully supervised conditions of time, frequency, mete- orology-conducive to rapid dilution, with extensive off-site monitoring. Emission sites should be remote from places of human habitation. It is recommended that such emission sites be selected in accordance with the following criterion: For intermittent exposure of an off-site human population to any compounds of beryllium, the maximum exposure of 75 ug-min Be/M*® of air may be tolerated within the limits of 10 to 60 minutes, accumulated during any two consecutive weeks. 4. MONITORING The Public Health Service does not expect to engage in routine monitoring of the atmosphere in the vicinity of test sites, but it recommends that all Federally supported test organizations which fire beryllium propellants conduct such mon- itoring and maintain permanently-bound records of their monitoring results ac- cessible for inspection by the Public Health Service at appropriate times. The monitoring program must be so designed as to determine bi-weekly weighted ex- posures at places of human habitation off-site, and to insure detection of inte- grated peak concentrations exceeding allowable limits prescribed for such places. 5. SURVEILLANCE Prime responsibility for surveillance of off-site beryllium concentrations must rest with those agencies of the Federal Government engaged in programs in- volving development and use of beryllium propellants. The Public Health Service, however, will intensify the program of its National Air Sampling Network in such a manner as to detect changes in background levels of beryllium. 348 6. REVIEW An advisory body of distinguished scientists knowledgeable in the field of beryllium disease prevention and control will pe sought or established by the Public Health Service. This group will periodically review accumulated data, experience, and results of research in order to guide the Public Health Service on future decisions relative to beryllium control standards. The National Acad- emy of Sciences-National Research Council will be asked to continue to serve this reviewing function. 7. UNIFIED EFFORT Special Working Groups will be assembled, formally or otherwise, by the Public Health Service from time to time as may be necessary to assure effective liaison and cooperative unified effort among these Federal Agencies and indus- trial interests upon whom impinge the primary impact of regulations or standards promulgated with regard to control of beryllium and other toxic substances. Rep- resentatives will be drawn from the Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, beryllium producers, propellant manufacturers, and other groups as may be appropriate. MARCH 22, 1968. GEORGE EICHHORN, Grand Lodge Representative. DEAR Sir: I have been reading of your efforts to set Federal Safety Standards. Possibly my case may help some. When I took my annual company physical and x-ray some spots showed up on my right lung. The doctors thought it was cancer or a tumor and said an operation was necessary. The Doctors cut half way around my chest and took biopsies of the spots. They said it was a form of Tuberculosis, possibly, but really didn’t know until they asked me if I had ever worked on any special metals. This was a month later. Then I remembered in a safety meeting we discussed the danger of beryllium. I told the Doctors of this and after numerous tests it showed that beryllium was the cause of my trouble. I worked with beryllium occasionally from 1954 to 1964. Surgery was done in September, 1967. I was off work for 12 weeks and then went back to work. The company said it could not possibly be beryllium as I didn’t work very much on it and content was too low. No precautions were taken. Could you tell me how the State Industrial has settled other cases like this or who I could write to for information on it? I turned in a long state Industral form last November but haven't heard anything yet. The AEC is investigating as they owned the beryllium that I was. machining for General Electric. Sincerely yours, BEN R. SMITH. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1968 House oF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, CoMmmITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:25 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O’Hara presiding. Present : Representatives O'Hara, Ford, Burton of California, Esch, and Steiger. Staff members present: Jim Harrison, director; Marilyn Myers, clerk; Nancy Tyler, assistant clerk; Dr. James Wason, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress; and Mr. Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel for labor. Mr. O'Hara. The Select Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor will come to order. The purpose of our meeting today is to continue our hearings on H.R. 14816, the occupational safety and health bill. STATEMENT OF DR. IRVING J. SELIKOFF, DIRECTOR OF THE ENVI- RONMENTAL SCIENCES LABORATORY, MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Mr. O’HarA. Our first witness this morning is Dr. Irving J. Selikoff, director of the Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, City University of New York. Dr. Selikoff, we are looking forward with great anticipation to your testimony and to any help you can give us in our consideration of this legislation, and we Ss appreciate it very much if To would pro- ceed, and we will insert your prepared statement at this point in the record. (The statement follows) STATEMENT BY IRVING J. SELIKOFF, DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LABORATORY, MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, CITY UNIVERSITY oF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Irving J. Selikoff. I am Professor of Community Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine of the City University of New York, and Director of its Environental Sciences Lab- oratory. I am Editor-in-Chief of “Environmental Research”, a recipient of the Lasker Award in Medicine of the American Public Health Association, a Diplo- mate of the American Board of Preventive Medicine. I am President-Elect of The New York Academy of Sciences, a Member of its Scientific Council, and have served as Chairman of its Division of Environmental Sciences. I detail these responsibilities both as identification and as an index of my professional and scientific interest in the problems with which this Bill is con- (349) 350 cerned, but I must confess at the outset that while my studies and research have been professional and scientific, the applications which may be derived from them are emphasized by my responsibilities as a citizen and a physician. The data I shall present are rigorously scientific; but I hope you will interpret them not only as cases in a tabulation but as persons whose health and lives are our responsibility. I propose to describe to you my research experiences with one group of work- men in this country, so that you might use it as an example or as a yardstick against which to evaluate this proposed Bill, to test whether it is necessary or unnecessary, whether it goes too far or not far enough, whether it is sorely needed or will prove superfluous. Because if this Bill is not the answer, an answer must surely be found for the difficulties I will review. For the past six years, I have been investigating occupational health hazards among insulation workers in our construction industry. These men apply the thermal insulation to pipes, ducts, boilers and other structures in buildings, factories, shipyards and other facilities. They are self-reliant, skilled craftsmen. The first union of insulation workers in the United States was formed in New York City in 1884 under a charter issued by the Knights of Labor (predecessor of the American Federation of Labor) as “The Salamander Association of Boiler and Pipe Felters.” Partly from these beginnings, the present union of insulation workers in this country was chartered in 1910 by th AFL as The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers. They are an important part of the construction industry. The trade is an important one and it fis not too much to say that modern construction and modern industry would halt without their work. The union has some 18,000 men on its rolls and there are probably almost an equal number of insulation workers who are not members of this union, often because of conditions of their work, as being employed in maintenance work, doing insulation work as part of other occupations, being members of other unions or by virtue of doing special insulation applications as, spraying. During the course of their work, these men use many materials, some of them mineral or of other inorganic nature. While we have had little knowledge con- cerning possible adverse effects of most of the materials with which they work (in part, because of their rather recent introduction and inadequate opportunity to observe the presence or absence of such effects), one of the materials with which they work has been under suspicion for some time. I refer to asbestos. This mineral fiber, with unique characteristics and of great value in our industry, is found in a number of the products which these men use in their work and have used for more than seventy years. In 1924, Cooke in England described a case of severe lung scarring—asbes- tosis—who had spent 20 years weaving asbestos textile products. In the next decade, numerous similar cases were observed, so that by the mid-1930s the hazard of asbestos as a pneumoconiotic dust was universally accepted. Textile factories in this country were also studied and our Public Health Service fully documented the significant risk involved in asbestos textile factories lin the re- port by Dreessen and colleagues in 1938. Precautionary measures were urged in this report and elimination of hazardous exposure was strongly recommended. Unfortunately implementation of the recommendations was haphazard and inadequate and the conditions and dangers, recognized and described 40 years ago, are still with us. It is an unhappy reflection on all of us—government, public health authorities, the medical profession—that at this time in the United States in the 1960s, 7% of all deaths among insulation workers are due to a completely preventable cause, pulmonary asbestosis. It may be of interest to outline the studies which have demonstrated this con- tinuing, disabling and fatal hazard. With my colleagues, Drs. E. Cuyler Ham- mond and J. Churg, I have been studying the health experiences of insulation workers in the NewYork-New Jersey metropolitan area, Locals 12 and 32 of the TAHFIAW. On December 31, 1942, these Locals had 632 members. We have fol- lowed each one of these men from that day to the present. During these years, 27 men have died of asbestosis, of a total of 367 deaths. Since there is no other cause for pulmonary asbestosis but the inhalation of asbestos fibers, these deaths have been unwarranted and unnecessary. Moreover, many of the men who have not been so badly affected as to die of the disease, have been and are disabled to a greater or lesser extent. Thus, more than half of the insulation workers examined by me with more than 20 years from the onset of their work, have the abnormal X-rays of asbestosis and almost one-third have shortness of breath of some degree. 351 It is evident that, somehow, we have failed these men. They had every right to look to their government and public health authorities, and to the physicians and scientists who guide them, for protection at their work. They were not given this protection. If the problem were to be limited to this difficulty, it would be bad enough and sufficient spur to remedial action. However, these workmen face an even greater and more worrisome hazard. There is hardly an asbestos insulation worker in this country who is not concerned with the possibility that cancer, induced by the asbestos to which he is exposed, will overwhelm him as he reaches the prime of life. This hazard, too, comes as no surprise to us. In 1935, Dr. Kenneth M. Lynch, then Professor of I’athology and now Chancellor of the University of South Carolina, described the case of lung cancer in a man who also had asbestosis. Because both of these diseases were then rare, Dr. Lynch suggested an etiological relationship. In the next 20 years, numerous similar cases of this association were recorded. Indeed, the Chief Inspector of factories in Great Britain, reviewing all the cases of asbestosis known to their Depart- ment, found in the mid-1950s that approximately 20% had associated lung cancer. Sticklers for statistical niceties insisted they were unconvinced, how- ever, and wanted even better data. Our experiences have supplied these requested morbid figures. I refer you again to the 632 men who were members of the Union in New York-New Jer- sey in 1942. You may wonder why we went so far back (especially since we have also been following 890 members of these Locals who joined in 1943 or after). The reason lies in an important characteristic of disease associated with in- dustrial asbestos exposure. Asbestos disease rarely occurs in less than 20 years from onset of exposure. Thus, men who work with asbestos do not get asbestosis in five, ten or fifteen years after starting work—asbestosis will become significant and death may follow 25, 30 or more years following the start of their first job. A similar period of clinical latency is true of asbestos cancer, as well. ‘When this occurs, it strikes 25, 30 or more years after the initial exposure. Incidentally, this is true of many other cancers, as well, both those related to industrial exposure and those not so related. For example, the youngster of sixteen or eighteen who starts smoking has no immediate fear of lung cancer, and correctly so. Unfortunately, he does not look ahead to his late forties or fifties, when the risk appears. Similarly, the bladder cancer following beta- napthalene exposure, the lung cancer of certain chromate workers, and even the skin cancers following arsenic ingestion; all have a long period of latency. For this reason, any evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of a substance, such as asbestos, must include a long period of observation in humans. T will talk more of this later. To return. There were 632 members of these Locals on December 31, 1942. We have followed these men, as I have said, to the present. Since we knew the ages of each one of these men in 1942, it was possible for Dr. Hammond, who is Director of Statistical Research and Epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, to determine how many cancers we might expect among these 632 men in subsequent years. We then compared the actual number of deaths and causes of death among these men, with what should have occurred among them, had their experiences been the same as the general population in the United States, age, year and sex being taken into account. The following Table outlines the data we obtained from January 1, 1943 to December 1, 1962. OBSERVED AND EXPECTED NUMBER OF DEATHS DUE TO CANCER AMONG 632 ASBESTOS WORKERS EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS DUST 20 YEARS OR LONGER Years Total, 1943-62 1943-47 1948-52 1953-57 1958-62 Total, all causes: Observed (asbestos workers)... _.__.________ 28.0 54.0 85.0 88.0 255.0 Expected (U.S. white males)... ___.____ 39.7 50.8 56.6 54.4 203.5 Total cancer, all sites: Observed (asbestos workers)... .______ 13.0 17.0 26.0 39.0 95.0 Expected (U.S. white males)... __. 5.7 8.1 13.0 9.7 36.5 Cancer of lung and pleura: Observed (asbestos workers). . 6.0 8.0 13.0 18.0 45,0 Expected (U.S. white males)... .8 1.4 2.0 2.4 6.6 Cancer of stomach, colon, and rectum: Observed (asbestos workers)... 4.0 4.0 7.0 14.0 29.0 Expected (U.S. white males)... ..__...__.._._. 2.0 2.5 2.6 2.3 9.4 352 The Table demonstrates that of the 632 men, 203 deaths could have been expected, had their experience been the same as the general population. Instead, 255 men died. As we look for the reason for the extra 50 deaths, it becomes evident that cancers of several types are responsible for the excess deaths. Thus, while we might have expected six or seven deaths due to lung cancer among these men, there were 45. While we would have expected nine or ten cancers of the stomach or colon, there were 29. Incidentally, since 1963 the figures have been, if anything, even worse. While we would have expected approximately 50 of the remainder of the men to have died in the past five years, there have been 113 deaths. And, while we would have expected 3 to have died of cancer of the lung or pleura, 28 have died of this disease. It is surely a tragedy to reflect that 1 in 5 of all insulation workers who now die in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area die of lung cancer. More than half of the 368 deaths among these men in the past=25 years have been due to cancer of one or another type. If these figures are projected to the country as a whole, and if no improvement in the health hazards these men face is achieved, we may look forward to perhaps 6,000 deaths of lung cancer and to perhaps 15,000 deaths of cancer in general among men in this single asbestos trade alone, in the U.S. I do not relish the role of Cassandra, and for the purpose of demonstrating the necessity for the development of an occupational health program for the insulation trade, the data already presented might suffice. Nevertheless, another dimension exists which may be useful in your considerations and which should be, at least briefly, mentioned. I refer to a hazard not even suspected until several years ago. While lung cancer, as I mentioned, was observed in association with asbestos more than 35 years ago, in the past several years, we have found that another tumlor, mesothelioma of the pleura or mesothelioma of the peri- toneum, has also begun to attack asbestos workers. This has attracted a great deal of attention, since until the recent past, this highly malignant tumor was considered to be extraordinarily rare—so rare as not to be separately coded in the International Classification of Causes of Death. Accurate data are hard to come by but in the past in general, mesothelioma was found in approximately 1 in 10,000 deaths. It was a very rare tumor. Now, it is not at all rare among individuals exposed to asbestos. Thus, in the last several years over 250 cases have been collected in one laboratory in South Africa, primarily in the area about one group of asbestos mines. Over 350 cases have been collected by another group of investigators in Great Britain and, again, asbestos exposure has been traced for the majority of these. We, too, have been struck by the early reports, especially by those of Dr. Christopher Wagner of South Africa, and noted that in our first 255 deaths, 4 had been due to mesothelioma. This number was, of course, too few to warrant extensive comment. However, since January 1, 1963, 13 of the next 113 deaths have been due to diffuse mesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum! It would appear that this invariably fatal tumor has been added to the already heavy risks of the*insulation worker and that one in ten deaths among them will be caused by it! Mesothelioma is curious in another way—one that has caused us much con- cern. While the cases seen in my Laboratory have been among industrial work- men more or less heavily exposed to asbestos dust, in many other instances the degree of exposure to asbestos has been very light indeed and there has been no clear correlation between degree of exposure and the likelihood of occurrence of the tumor. Newhouse and Thompson in London have presented very disturb- ing data in this regard. They investigated seventy-six consecutive mesotheliomas at the London Hospital, most seen within recent years, to study the relationship of asbestos exposure. As expected, in 31 of the 76 cases, the individual had worked with asbestos. Of the 45 cases who did not work with asbestos, in 9 instances the only asbestos exposure occurred by virtue of their having lived in the household of an asbestos worker (who often came home with the dust on his clothes). That left 36. Eleven cases occurred in people who merely lived within % mile of an asbestos factory in one district in London! Similar cases were reported by Wagner in South Africa, while in this country Lieben & Pistawka, reviewing 44 cases of mesothelioma in Pennsylvania, found that 20 had potential occupational exposure and 24 did not. Of the latter, 8 oc- curred as the result of neighborhood exposure by virtue of living near a factory using asbestos and in 3 cases there was potential household exposure. Thus, one death occurred in a minister living across the road from an asbestos plant, one 353 was a child whose father was an asbestos worker and another death occurred in a woman whose sons worked with the material. Borow and his colleagues have recently reported 17 cases of mesothelioma in New Jersey. Again, 15 were in asbestos workers, but two were in individuals who merely lived in a town which had a large asbestos factory. The very real question has thus been raised—is asbestos-induced cancer limited to those men who regularly are exposed to significant amounts of the dust, or is it a much wider hazard than this? A moment’s reflection may highlight the potential problem. We have little accurate data concerning the number of men employed in the United States who are regularly and directly exposed to asbestos, as in asbestos textile plants, asbestos product factories, insulation work, ete. Perhaps 100,000 or more men are regularly so employed. The hazards I have outlined would be serious enough if this were the only group involved. But are those indirectly occupationally exposed at similar risk? If so, the problem is much wider. For example, insulation workers work side by side with more than 3,500,000 other construction workers, often in the same room, inhaling the same dusts—steamfitters, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, masons, tile setters and others. Incidentally, to their indirect exposure must be added occasional direct exposure of their own in some instances, as a carpenter sawing an asbestos- cement board, a plumber using asbestos rovings, or the electrician stripping asbestos-covered wire. Much of the asbestos now used is used in the construction industry and much of the increase in world production (500,000 tons per year in 1930 to over 4,000,000 tons per year at present) has been utilized here. I believe enough has been said to indicate that an important occupational health problem exists in this trade, one that requires urgent and energetic cor- rective measures. I would urge you to consider the Bill before you in relation to the data I have presented. My own reading of the Bill suggests that it will go a long way in improving the unfortunate conditions that now exist. Again, from my own experience, a number of observations may be pertinent in evaluating specific approaches contained in the Bill. 1. I am convinced that the problems I have detailed can be solved and health hazards eliminated. Suggestive evidence is available in Great Britain, Germany and in this country indicating that both asbestosis and bronchogenic carcinoma can be significantly reduced in incidence as levels of asbestos exposure are drasti- cally reduced. The asbestos industry in general and the insulation industry in particular are much too important and much too valuable to be limited or injured by default. Appropriate safety measures are thus in the interests of both the industry and its employees. 2. Workmen in the trade expect and await the measures necessary to eliminate or diminish the hazards to which they are exposed. I recently inquired of them what problems they had noted in their practical experience. Over 13,000 took the trouble to write me with suggestions about cleaning up their trade, ranging from the availability of improved masks through less dusty materials, improved work- ing practices, appropriate exhausts, appropriate health examinations and the vacuuming of clothes before going home. 3. It is idle and largely inaccurate to “blame the industry” for the present situation. It is sometimes not appreciated that “industry” is mot an all-powerful monolithic single entity—certainly it is not in the insulation trade. In this trade; most employers are small business men, with limited resources, employing few men. When I looked into this matter at the end of 1965, there were over 900 em- ployers in the industry, employing an average of 17.6 men per shop. Such employers have neither the expertise, nor funds, nor knowledge to have detected these health hazards. They are just as much upset by them as are their men. Nor can they mount the necessary engineering and industrial hygiene pro- grams to develop adequate safeguards to remove these hazards. They will be anxious, I am sure, to undertake appropriate occupational health and industrial hygiene programs once these are suggested to them. This, I assume, is in line with the purposes of the Bill. 4. In the insulation trade, it is my impression that, while all would welcome the necessary measures, unless the public health authorities and those responsible for the occupational health measures take action, nothing will be done. In large part, this is because no one knows where the responsibility actually lies. Does it belong with the materials manufacturers? The individual employer? The regional employers’ associations? The national employers’ association? The national ma- terials manufacturers’ association? The local unions? The international union? 5. The problems we have discussed are excellent illustrations of the urgent need for extensive strengthening of the Occupational Health Program of the 354 Public Health Service. Their task has been tremendously extended and com- plicated in the last 20 years by the widespread introduction of numerous new materials, the biological actions of which are usually untested. Are there other asbestoses lying in wait for us? Only the Public Health Service includes the pos- sibility of long-run surveillance necessary for detection of those effects with a long latent period, as occupational cancer. Their continuing responsibility includes the coordination of observations made by scientists in various fields at various times. Moreover, ‘they often have the opportunity of studying large groups of men, often occupational lists. Few employers, except the very largest, have this opportunity. Moreover, workmen often go from job to job within the same industry, espe- cially in the construction trades. No one employer can expect to follow his employees long enough for long-term effects to be defined. Indeed, since such effects may vary with the same material from industry to industry, only a body which can observe all industries may be able to detect such effects. What I am saying is that industry is simply unable to police itself in the detection and definition of such hazards as have occurred. The industry needs help. 6. I would suggest that it is very much in the interest of industry in general, and the insulation industry in particular, to have, as the proposed Bill suggests, adequate authority given to the Department of Labor to set those standards necessary to reduce or eliminate occupational health hazards. I do not refer to those callous statistics which indicate that it is cheaper in the long run to have adequate safety and health precautions than to pay workmens compensation costs. While this may be true, there is a much more important aspect to the question. In many instances, where there is intra-industry and inter-industry competi- tion, it is often the most conscientious employer who is at a competitive dis- advantage. This is certainly true in those industries in which there is a risk of pneumoconioses or dust diseases of the lungs, as silicosis, coal workers, pneumoconisis, talcosis and asbestosis. Since there is, as we have seen, a long latent period—usually over 20 years—between dust exposure and disease result- ing from such exposure, precautions taken today will bear fruit, in the form of the employees’ good health, two decades or more hence. But at that time, it is highly likely that the employee will be working elsewhere! The employer in investing in current occupational health precautions, sees no immediate bene- fit, not even in reduction of workmen’s compensation costs. If he must pay the latter to current employees who are ill, he is paying for the neglect of another employer twenty or thirty years before. This analysis is relevant to the insulation trade today. I have spoken to many insulation contractors. They have been very concerned with the difficulties that have become evident and earnestly wish to remedy matters. Yet they have told me that if substantial investments or significant changes in working practices and conditions were required as part of the program to make this trade safe for the men working in it, such investments should be industry-wide and should not penalize those who undertake them in favor of those who do not. Standards based upon information collected and evaluated by experts in the Public Health Service, set on practical and realistic levels by the Secretary of Labor with adequate enforcement powers, and required by all employers in the industry seem essential to correct the serious situation I have outlined. The industry itself has neither the academic and scientific nor the administrative resources to prepare the appropriate corrective program and, the economic facts of life are such as to mitigate against the broad application of such a program by voluntary persuasion alone. Moreover, these influences are even more relevant when considering the social and community responsibilities which may exist. If the use of asbestos insulation materials should be shown to include some health hazard to other construction workmen as the result of concomitant indirect occupational exposure, we would need some mechanism as that outlined in this Bill to insure appropriate corrective measures, since many employers might hesitate to undertake expensive precau- tionary measures to prevent uncertain disease that might occur many years later among men they did not know, did not employ and for whom they had no responsibility—especially if in making such an investment they assumed an intolerable competitive disadvantage. In concluding, may I add a few words of personal comment and opinion. As I read this Bill, it seemed to divide responsibility fairly and effectively. What we now know would be used to set enforceable standards immediately. The institution of beryllium safety standards has resulted in a significant reduction 365 in beryllium disease and similar advantages will be obtained with other noxious agents, of which we already know a good deal: enough to prepare practical, realistic safety programs, I noticed that Secretary Wirtz on February 15 testified that over 1,000 workers are expected to die from radiation-induced lung cancer in uranium mines. I am sure we all regret these deaths from a hazard which has been recognized since 1879. And we have enough knowledge to point the urgency of a protective pro- gram for our insulation workers in this country, who should no longer die of asbestosis, lung cancer, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma. We should help industry help itself in the development, installation and administration of an industry-wide program which will penalize no employer but will help the many thousands of workmen who look to us to accept our responsibility to protect them against serious occupational hazards. On the other hand, the Bill looks forward to an important expansion of the research responsibilities and capabilities of the Occupational Health Program of the Public Health Service. This is urgently needed. At this time the Program is composed of highly skilled, energetic and dedicated scientists. But their re- sponsibilities, already heavy and numerous, are increasing almost geometrically. The Surgeon General, Dr. Stewart, stated in his testimony on February 20 that “, .. workers are coming in contact with literally hundreds of new chemicals and formulations in industrial uses every day.” He noted that these “. . . chem- icals have increased so fast in number that we have recommendations for only 400 out of 6,000 in commercial use.” Industry has increased in complexity and potential hazard, The tasks of the Occupational Health Program must somehow be accomplished and I would strongly urge that the strengthening of the Occupa- tional Health Program as envisaged by this Bill be supported. In conclusion, may I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of the Com- mittee for your invitation and for the opportunity of reviewing those of our experiences relevant to the Bill you are considering. Dr. Seuikorr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Irving J. Selikoff. I am professor of community medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine of the City University of New York and director of its Environmental Sci- ences Laboratory. I am editor in chief of “Environmental Research,” a recipient of the Lasker Award in Medicine of the American Public Health Association, a diplomat of the American Board of Preventive Medicine. I am president-elect of the New York Academy of Sciences, a member of its scientific council, and have served as chairman of its division of environmental sciences. I detail these responsibilities both as identification and as an index of my professional and scientific interest in the problems with which this bill is concerned, but I must confess at the outset that while my studies and research have been professional and scientific, the ap- plications which may be derived from them are emphasized by my responsibilities as a citizen and a physician. The data I shall present are rigorously scientific, but I hope you will interpret them not only as cases in a series of tables but as persons whose health and lives are our responsibility. I propose to describe to you my research experiences with one group of workmen in this country, so that you might use them as an example or as a yardstick against which to evaluate this proposed bill, to test whether it is necessary or unnecessary, whether it goes too far or not far enough, whether it is sorely needed or will prove superfluous. Because if this bill is not the answer, an answer must surely be found for the difficulties I will review. For the past 6 years, I have been investigating occupational health hazards among insulation workers in our construction industry. These men apply the thermal insulation to pipes, ducts, boilers, and other 92-734 0—68——24 356 structures in buildings, factories, shipyards, and other facilities. They are self-reliant, skilled craftsmen. The first union of insulation workers in the United States was formed in New York City in 1884 under a charter issued by the Knights of Labor, predecessor of the American Federation of Labor, as “The Salamander Association of Boiler and Pipe Felters.” Partly from these beginnings, the present union of insulation workers in this country was chartered in 1910 by the AFL as the International As- sociation of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers. They are an important part of the construction industry. The trade is an important one and it is not too much to say that modern construction "and modern industry would halt without their work. The union has some 18,000 men on its rolls and there are probably almost an equal number of insulation workers who are not members of this union, often because of conditions of their work, as being employed in maintenance work, doing insulation work as part of other occupations, being members of other unions, or by virtue of doing special insulation applications as, for example, spraying. During the course of their work, these men use many materials, some of them mineral or of other inorganic nature. While we have had little knowledge concerning possible adverse effects of most of the materials with which they work—in part, because of their rather recent introduction and inadequate opportunity to observe the presence or absence of such effects—one of the materials with which they work has been under suspicion as a health hazard for some time. I refer to asbestos. This fiber, with unique characteristics and of eat value in our industry, is found in a number of the products which these men use in their work and have used for more than 70 years. In 1924, which is a little over 40 years ago, Dr. Cooke in England described a case of a woman dying of severe lung scarring who had spent 20 years in a textile factory, weaving asbestos, and in the next decade many similar cases were reported, so that by the mid-1930’s the hazard of asbestos as a pneumoconiotic dust was pretty universally accpeted. Textile factories in this country, most of them in the southern part of our country, were also studied and our Public Health Service fully documented the very significant risks involved in asbestos textile fac- tories and a classic report by Dreesen and his colleagues which was published by the GPO in 1938. Precautionary measures were urged in this report and elimination of hazardous exposures were strongly recommended. As I sit here now, I am unhappy to say that unfortunately imple- mentation of these recommendations has been haphazard and inade- quate and that conditions and dangers so well recognized and so well described 40 years ago are still with us. It is an unhappy reflection on all of us—government, public health authorities, and my own medical profession—that ati this time in the United States in the 1960’s 7 percent of all deaths among insulation workers in this country are due to a completely preventable cause, plumonary asbestosis. In New York City among the insulation workers I have studied in the past several years, I have seen 27 men die of asbestosis of a total of 367 deaths among this group of men. 357 Now, since there is no other cause for pulmonary asbestosis except the inhalation of asbestos fibers, these 27 deaths among the men under my care have been completely unwarranted and completely unneces- sary. Moreover, of the men who have not been so badly affected as to die of the disease, many have been and are disabled to a greater or lesser effect or extent. Thus, more than half of the insulation workers examined by me— and I have now examined over 1,300 insulation workers—more than half of those examined by me with more than 20 years from onset of their work have abnormal X-rays of asbestosis and one-third have shortness of breath of some degree. Therefore, it is evident that in some way we have failed these men. They have every right to look to their Government and to their publir health authorities and to the physicians and scientists who guide them for protection at their work and were not given this protection. If the problem were limited to this particular difficulty—that is. scarred lungs as a result of inhalation of mineral fibers—it would be bad enough and it would be sufficient spur to remedial action. However, these workers face an even greater, and even more worrisome hazard. There is hardly an asbestos insulation worker in the conutry today who is not concerned with the possibility that cancer, induced by the asbes- is to which he is exposed, will overwhelm him as he reaches the prime of life. Unhappily, once more, this hazard, too, comes as no surprise to us. In 1935, Dr. Kenneth M. Lynch, who was then professor of pathology and is now chancellor of the University of South Carolina described a case of lung cancer in a man who also had asbestosis. It is hard to realize now in 1968 that lung cancer at that time was an uncommon disease, but it was. Since asbestosis at that time was also uncommon, he felt that the combination of these two diseases was sufficiently unusual to warrant reporting it and he did. He also suggested casual relationship between these two. In the next 20 years, from 1935 to 1955, numerous similar cases of this disease were recorded and in Great Britain, where indeed the asbestos manufacturing industry started, the Chief Inspector of Fac- tories for Great Britain reviewed in 1946, in 1949, and in 1954, all cases of individuals dying with asbestosis in Great Britain. To his astonishment, he found that 20 percent of all deaths in Great Britain of individuals dying with asbestosis also had lung cancer. Since the general population in Great Britain at that time had only 1 percent of deaths due to lung cancer, he remarked on this and raised a question of lung cancer being a hazard associated with the industrial use of asbestos. There were some problems with the statistics involved in this work and in many parts of the scientific world there were a number of sticklers for statistical niceties who insisted they were unconvinced and wanted even better data. Well, our experiences have supplied these requested morbid figures : In 1942, in New York, we fy 632 men who were members of the Insulation Workers Union, on December 31, 1942, and we have fol- lowed every single one of the 632 men since that time. Now, you may wonder why I go back all the way to 1942, and the reason for this 1s 358 very interesting and that is that asbestos disease, disease associated with the inhalation of asbestos, does not occur soon after you breathe it in ; it does not occur until 25 or 30 years later. You breathe it in now and get your lung cancer 25 years later. The same thing is true with many other things causing cancer; for example, cigarettes. Kids of 16 who start smoking cigarettes do not worry about lung cancer and are right because they don’t get it at 20, 25, 30, or 35, but have to wait until they are 50 or 55 ; and the same thing is true with aniline-dye workers, who absorb betanaphthylamine, for example, and don’t get bladder cancers until 25 years later. Therefore, we began to watch asbestos-insulation workers in 1942 to be able to have a long enough period of observation to see what would happen. Also, knowing their ages in 1942, we were able to deter- mine how many should have died of any disease by the end of 1962, knowing the usual rates for men in the United States during those years. The statistical data was accomplished and undertaken by my col- league, Dr. E. Cuyler Hammond, who is also director of statistical research for the American Cancer Society and one of the country’s outstanding biostatisticians and epidemiologists. Let me tell you now a little bit of what we have found among in- sulation construction workers in New York City, men that you see driving next to you on the road going to work, people just like us. We found that whereas there should have been, if their experience were the same as all other U.S. males—whereas there should have been 200 or so deaths among them, there were 255. Now, why were there 50 extra deaths in this small group of men? When we looked at the causes of death, the answers became obvious. As expected, some died of asbestosis; 12 out of the first 255 died of asbestosis. This is pretty bad but we knew this. Unhappily, whereas there should have been six or seven deaths due to lung cancer, there were 45. In other words, there was something peculiar about these 632 men, that instead of six dying of lung cancer within a 20-year period, 45 did—seven or eight times the expected number. Incidentally, while these figures go to the end of 1962, our observa- tions among these men have continued to the present. I might tell you that the results up to January 31, 1968, when I prepared the material for this hearing, are even worse. We would have expected 50 deaths among these men from January 1, 1963 to January 31, 1968. Instead of 50 deaths, we have had 113. We should have had, had their exper- ience been the same as all other U.S. males, three deaths due to lung cancer and we have had 28, so that the same tragedy dogs these men. Incidentally, other cancers have also been highly increased. For example, we would have expected from 1942 to 1968 in this group of men in New York 11 deaths due to cancer of the stomach and colon. Well, as you know, people who work in dusty atmospheres “eat” the dust as well as breathe it. We have had 38 cancers instead of the ex- pected 10 of cancer of the stomach and colon. We have also had unhappy experiences with something even more unusual. Now, I hope you will bear with me because I will have to use some words which are perhaps new to you. In doing so, I might add that I do not relish the role of Cassandra but it must be mentioned. I refer to a hazard not even suspected until several years ago. While 359 lung cancer was observed in association with asbestos by Dr. Lynch more than 35 years ago, in the past several years we have found an- other tumor, mesothelioma of the pleura, or mesothelioma of the peri- toneum ; this is a tumor which affects the lining of the chest or ab- domen, the mesothelial surface, and therefore labeled “mesothelioma.” We have found these tumors also began to attack asbestos workers. This is particularly bad because this tumor is invariably fatal. Because of our studies and regular X-rays among asbestos workers, we have been able to save a number of patients with lung cancers. We have detected them early, have had the men operated on and we have a few we have been able to save. Mesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum is diffuse; it lines the entire cavity and cannot be removed surgically. In the past, incidentally, this tumor has been so rare, as not even to be separately classified in the international list of causes of death. I don’t think in this country in the past we have had more than one in 10,000 deaths due to mesothelioma. On the other hand, at the present time among asbestos workers it is not at all rare. Indeed it is common. In the last 113 deaths in New York in the single local union in New York City, we have had 13 deaths due to mesothelioma of the pleura. In other words, one out of 10 instead of one out of 10,000. Mesothelioma is curious in another way and one that has given us a great deal of concern and may you. While the cases that I have talked to you about—that is, the 13 our of 113 deaths—have been among in- dustrial workmen who are more or less heavily exposed to asbestos even though they largely work in the open air, as in a building under construction, still the amount of asbestos they breathe in is much more than people occasionally exposed very lightly to some of the material. However, other investigators have given evidence that the degree of exposure to asbestos bears no clear correlation with a likelihood of occurrence of the tumor. Molly Newhouse and Hilda Thompson in London presented very disturbing data in this regard. At the London Hospital in recent years there have been, like everywhere else, very large numbers of mesotheliomas, 76 cases mostly in the last few years. Incidentally, in South Africa, in the region around the asbestos mines near Kimberley they have collected now 250 cases. Dr. Chris- topher Wagner, one of the pioneers in this field, has now collected in Great Britain in several urban centers 350 cases. Well, in this one hospital in London called the London Hospital, they had 76 cases of mesothelioma. Molly Newhouse went to investi- cate the people who died. She visited the families, the surviving wives, and so forth, and, as expected, of the 76, 31 had worked with asbestos. Well, we now know that if vou work with asbestos, you stand a good chance of dying of mesothelioma. Nevertheless, there were 45 cases who did not work with asbestos. And here is the rub: Of the 45 who did not work with asbestos, nine simply lived in the household with an asbestos worker. In other words, he came home with come dust on his clothes and the wife washed the clothes—household exposures. That still Teft 36; and of the 36, 11 simply lived within a half mile of one of the asbestos plants in London. Struck by these observations, other scientists have taken a look at the subject as well in this country. Jan Lieben, who is chief of the occupa- tional health program of the State of Pennsylvania, last year pub- lished a review that he had just done of 44 mesotheliomas they were 360 aware of in Pennsylvania. Again, 20, as expected, had potential occupa- tional exposure to asbestos at their work. But of those who did not work with asbestos, eight simply lived in the vicinity of an asbestos plant or a factory using asbestos, and three were simply household contacts. For example, there was one little girl who died of mesothelioma whose father worked with asbestos. There was a woman who had two sons working with asbestos who died of mesothelioma, and one was a minister who lived down the road from an asbestos plant. Incidentally, I might comment, too, on Borow’s study reported a few months ago. In one town in New Jersey, Somerville, where 17 cases were seen by him (one chest surgeon, in one town, saw 17 cases of mesothelioma) 15 worked in an asbestos plant not far away, and two simply lived in the same town with that plant. This raises a very real question: Is asbestos-induced cancer limited to those men who are regularly exposed to significant amounts of the material, or is it a much wider hazard ? A moment’s reflection will highlight the potential problem. For example, in this country we really don’t have accurate data on the number of men heavily exposed ; in other words, asbestos workers in textile or other factories or insulation workers. My best guess is, it is somewhere in the order of magnitude around 100,000 or 125,000 to 150,000. That would be bad enough, but if the findings of Newhouse and Thompson and Lieben and Wagner and Borow and others are real, then the problem of indirect occupational exposure has to be considered. For example, the insulation workers work side by side with many other men in construction work. They put their materials into buildings with many other trades. They could be working in a boilerroom and down the way is an electrician and at the other end of the room is a carpenter, putting a door jamb in. A real question arises as to whether it is simply the 20 or 30,000 insulation workers who are at risk or 314 million, 5 percent of our total work force in this country, who are subject to risk. I think I have said enough now to indicate that an important occupational health problem exists in this trade, one that requires urgent and energetic corrective action. I urge you to consider the bill before you in relation to this data. My own reading of the bill suggests that it will go a long way in improving the unfortunate conditions which now exist, and from my own experience, I would like to make a number of observations which may be pertinent in evaluating specific approaches contained in the bill under your consideration. First, T am convinced that the hazard and problems I have detailed can be solved and the hazard can be eliminated. We have enough engi- neering talent, industrial-hygiene talent in this country to solve the problem. Beryllium is a perfect example. Here was a highly toxic dust difficult to manage and yet when attention was paid to it, it was prac- tically eliminated as a public health hazard in this country. Secondly, T might add that the workmen in this trade expect and await the necessary measures to eliminate or at least severely diminish the hazards to which they are exposed. I recently inquired of the in- sulation workers in this country what problems they had noted in their day-to-day practical experience, and over 13,000 took the trouble to write me, giving me details of what they considered had to be done. 361 That indicates a keen interest, and they should have it, because they see what happens to their colleagues as they are working. At the same time, I think it is idle and largely inaccurate to blame the industry alone for the present situation. This benign approach of mind is not adopted, I may add, by all of my colleagues, but I think they are wrong. It is sometimes not appreciated that industry is not an all-powerful, monolithic, single industry, and it is not, in the insu- lation trade. In December 1965, T looked into the matter of how many employers there were of the 18,000 men in the Insulation Workers Union and I found there were over 900 employers and the average number of men employed by them was only 17.6 per shop. Such employers have neither the expertise, the funds, the knowledge to have detected these health hazards and they are just as much upset by them as are their men. Moreover, in their situation, they cannot mount the necessary engi- neering and industrial research programs to develop adequate safe- guards to remove these hazards. They are anxious, I am sure, to under- take appropriate occupational health and industrial-hygiene programs once these are suggested to them. This, I assume, is in line with the purposes of this bill. Moreover, I am reminded, as I talk to many employers in the insula- tion trade, of what sometimes happens to any of us as we see a dan- gerous situation approaching—a snake, a car, and so on. Sometimes we stand transfixed, not knowing where to run, not knowing what to do, and this is the situation in which these people find themselves. They don’t know who is to take the first step. They don’t know whose responsibility this is. Is it the National Contractors Association? Is it the individual contractors? Is it the international union? Is it the local union ? Is it the Materials Manufacturers Association? Who is respon- sible? They really don’t know. Moreover, I don’t think that they have another ability to look into this matter. For example, workmen often go from job to job within the same industry. In the insulation trade, that is, surely, and also in many other trades in the construction industry. No one employer can be expected to follow his employees long enough for long-term effects to be defined. Since it may vary from industry to industry, only bodies such as the Public Health Service can be expected to detect such effects. I note, too, in this bill an important role in research given to the Public Health Service to maintain the long observation necessary to detect occupational hazards, especially occupational cancer. What I am saying is that industry is simply unable to police itself in the detection and definition of such hazards as we have seen have occurred. I am here to say that the industry needs help and I would hope that the mechanisms designed in this bill would provide help to the industry. I suggest, too, that it is very much in the interest of industry in gen- eral and the insulation industry in particular to have, as the proposed bill suggests, adequate authority given to the Department of Labor to set standards necessary to reduce or eliminate occupational health hazards. And I don’t refer to such statistics as, well, once you spend money to set in safety procedures, you will save money in the long run be- 362 cause your workmen’s compensation costs will be less. While it may be true, I don’t think it is very important. On the other hand, there are many instances where intraindustry and interindustry competition would place the most conscientious em- ployer at a competitive disadvantage. This is certainly true in those industries in which there is a risk of pneumoconiosis or dust in the lungs, such as silicosis or abestosis. there is, as we have seen, a long latent period, usually over 20 years between dust exposure and disease resulting from such exposure, the precautions taken today will bear fruit in the form of good health 20 years or more later. At that time, it is very likely that the em- ployee who was protected by the employer will be working for some- else. Therefore, the employer, in investing in current occupa- tional health precautions, sees no immediate benefit, not even in the reduction of workmen’s compensation costs, because if he must pay compensation costs to current employees who are ill, he is paying for the neglect of another employer 20 years before him. This analysis is relevant to the insulation trade to date. I have spoken to many insulation contractors, some in this room. They have been very concerned with the difficulties that have become evident and earnestly wish to remedy matters, yet have told me if substantial in- vestments or significant changes in working practices and conditions were rehired as part of the program to make this trade safe for the men working in it, such investments should be industrywide and should not penalize those who undertake them in favor of those who do not. Moreover, these influences are even more relevant when considering the social and community responsibilities which may exist. If the use of asbestos insulation material should be shown to include some health hazards to other construction workmen as a result of concomitant indirect exposure, we would need, absolutely need, some measure as the ones outlined in this bill to insure appropriate corrective measures, since many employers might hesitate to undertake expensive pre- cautionary measures to prevent uncertain disease which might occur, many years later, among men they did not know, did not employ, and, for whom they had no responsibility, especially if in making such an investment they assumed an intolerable competitive disadvantage. I think I have said enough now. I might emphasize in concluding, that Dr. Stewart in his testimony before your committee on Februa 20 was correct in saying that wn Bo coming into contact with literally hundreds of new chemicals and formulations of industrial uses every day have inadequate protection. He noted that chemicals have in- creased so fast in number that we have recommendations for only 400 out of 6,000 in commercial use. Industry has increased in complexity and potential hazard. The tasks of the occupational health program must somehow be accom- plished and I would strongly urge that the strengthening of the occupational health program as envisaged by this bill be supported. In conclusion, may I thank you, Mr. O'Hara and members of the committee, for your invitation and for the opportunity of reviewing those of our experiences relevant to the bill you are considering. Mr. O’Hagra. Thank you very much, Dr. Selikoff. I think your testi- mony has been extremely useful in reminding us again of the nature and complexity of the problems we are dealing with. 363 Mr. Burton, any questions? 4 Mr. Burton. No questions. I want to say I am impressed with your ‘testimony and I don’t think I will volunteer to be an asbestos worker. Mr. O'Hara. Yes. Dr. SeLikorr. Incidentally, I think I might comment there is an- other bill before the House, H.R. 12913, also attacking the asbestos problem. Many people are now becoming concerned with it. Mr. O’Hara. H.R. 12913 is a bill which was sponsored by our col- league, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Patten), who has also joined in the sponsorship of a bill identical to H.R. 14816. H.R. 12913 has been referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com- merce, but I shall ask that it be printed in the record at this point for the information of the subcommittee. (Text of H.R. 12913 follows) [H.R. 12913, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To promote the safety of workers engaged in making asbestos products for shipment in commerce, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE SecTION 1. This Act may be cited as the “Asbestos Workers’ Health Protection Act DEFINITIONS SEC. 2. As used in this Act— (1) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. (2) The term “commerce” means commerce (A) between any State and any point outside thereof or (B) between points in the same State, but through any point outside thereof. (3) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia and the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico. (4) The term “asbestos product” means asbestos or any article made in whole or in part of asbestos. (5) The term “person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, asso- ciation, or other form of business enterprise. RULES AND REGULATIONS SEC. 3. (a) Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe and publishrin the Federal Register rules and reg- ulations for the protection of the health of persons handling asbestos or asbestos products or engaged in the manufacturing of such products, including (1) rules and regulations for the labeling of asbestos products so as to fully inform handlers and ultimate users of such products of the health hazards of such products and any measures which should be taken with respect thereto and (2) standards establishing limits on the number of particles of asbestos which may be in suspension in the air breathed by humans. (b) In addition to the rules and regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations, including rules and regulations for the making and maintenance of records, as may be necessary for the administration and enforcement of this Act. INSPECTION Sec. 4. (a) For purposes of enforcing this Act, officers and employees of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare designated by the Secretary, upon presenting appropriate credentials and a written notice to the person own- ing, operating, or in charge of any place where any asbestos or asbestos product is held for introduction into commerce or after such introduction are authorized (1) to enter such place at reasonable times, and to inspect such place and carry 364 out such tests as may be necessary to determine conformity with standards prescribed pursuant to section 3 of this Act. Such inspection and testing shall in all cases be carried out at reasonable times, within reasonable limits, and in a reasonable manner. *(b) Upon completion of any inspection carried out pursuant to subsection (a), the officer or employee making it, before leaving the premises shall give to the person to whom notice was presented pursuant to such subsection a report in writing setting forth any conditions or practices which are in violation of standards, rules, or regulations prescribed pursuant to this Act. A copy of such report shall be sent promptly to the Secretary. PROHIBITED ACTS Sec. 5. No person engaged in the business of refining or selling asbestos, or of manufacturing or selling asbestos products, for introduction into commerce shall violate any rule or regulation prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to section 3 of this Act. ENFORCEMENT Spc. 6. (a) If the Secretary, after reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing, determines that any person is violating section 5 of this Act, he shall issue an order requiring such person to cease and desist from continuing such violation within such time as may be specified in such order, but in no event less than thirty days from receipt of notice of such order by such person. (b) Any person required by an order of the Secretary to cease and desist from violation of any such standards, rules, or regulations may obtain judicial review of such order by filing a petition for review, within sixty days after service of such order, in the United States court of appeals either for the circuit in which such person resides or has his principal place of business or for any circuit in which the violation is found to have occurred, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A copy of the petition shall forthwith be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary or to any officer designated by him for that purpose and to the Attorney General, and thereupon the Secretary shall certify and file in the court through the Attorney General the record of the proceedings upon which the order is based, as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. (¢) Upon the filing of such petition, such court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding (which jurisdiction shall upon the filing of the record be ex- clusive) and shall have power to affirm the order of the Secretary, or to set it aside in whole or in part, temporarily or permanently, and to enforce such order to the extent that it is affirmed, and to issue such orders pendente lite as in its judgment are necessary to prevent injury to the public. The com- mencement of proceedings under this paragraph shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the Secretary’s order. (d) No objection to the order of the Secretary shall be considered by the court unless such objection was urged before the Secretary or unless there were reasonable grounds for failure so to do. The findings of the Secretary as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive, but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to the Secretary for the taking of additional evidence in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem proper, in which event the Secretary may make new or modified findings and shall file such findings (which, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive) and his recommendation, if any, for the modi- fication of setting aside of his original order, with the return of such ad- ditional evidence. (e) The judgment of the court affirming or setting aside, in whole or in part, any order under this subsection shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United States Code. (f) (1) Any person who violates a cease and desist order of the Secretary after it has become final and while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of $5,000 for each violation, which shall ac- crue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil suit in the name of the United States brought in the district where such person has his principal office or in any district in which he does business. Each separate violation of such an 365 order or failure to file such a report shall be a separate offense, except that in the case of a violation through continuing failure to obey a final order of the Secretary each day of continuance of such failure shall be deemed a separate offense. The Secretary may, upon application therefor, remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for in this paragraph, and he shall have authority to de- termine the facts upon all such applications. (2) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys, under the di- rection of the Attorney General of the United States, to prosecute for the re- covery of such forfeitures. Mr. O'Hara. I am going to have a few questions but first I am going to give my colleagues on the committee a chance. Mr. Esch. Mr. Escu. Thank you very much. I, too, want to thank you for testi- fying, Doctor, before the committee and giving us really a classic ex- ample of what intensive research over a period of time can show us in terms of industrial hazards. I wonder about one aspect that was mentioned facetiously but it could certainly be a serious question, and that is, do you have any- thing in your study to show the impact of those who did not smoke historically among the asbestos workers ? Dr. SeLikorr. Yes, sir, Mr. Esch, we do. Do I have a few minutes to tell you about it? Mr. O'Hara. Yes. Dr. Seuixkorr. We don’t know how asbestos causes cancer. One of the theories has been that the cancer producing substances such as those contained in cigarette smoke might become adsorbed onto the fiber and since the fiber, because it is thin and sharp, stays in the lung tissue, this would serve to fix the cancer producing substance in one place in sufficiently high concentration and for a sufficient period of time to produce the cancer. This has been one of the theories and it is now being studied. Therefore, we have looked into the question of a possible relation- ship with cigarette smoking. n January 1, 1963, we had under observation 370 asbestos insula- tion workers in New York who had been in the trade for more than 20 years, in other words, these were the men now at risk. We also had under observation another 900 men who had been in the trade for less than 20 years and we couldn’t have expected anything to happen to them. Of the 390 men, 87 had no history of cigarette smoking and 283 had a history of cigarette smoking. Up to last month, of the 87 men oldtime experienced insulation workers, in these 87 men we have yet to see a lung cancer. Of the 283 who had smoked cigarettes and worked with asbestos we would have expected 2 or 3 lung cancers as cigarette smokers: in other words, given the rate for cigarette smokers for 283 adult cigarette smokers of their ages, we would have expected 2 or 3 lung cancers in the 5 years. We have seen 28. So it is not simply the smoking, because we should have only seen 2 or 3, it is not simply the asbestos because we had asbestos workers and they didn’t die of lung cancer if they didn’t smoke cigarettes. It is something peculiar about this combination. This has given us even greater concern. I think you may have heard rumors that many people in this country now have some few fibers of asbestos in their lungs and most of us now do. In New York City, at the present time, in a series of 3,000 au- 366 topsies being studied in my laboratory, we have found a few asbestos bodies, asbestos fibers, in at least 50 per cent of people now dying in New York City. The same has been found in Pittsburgh, Miami and other cities. These are very few fibers, We have no idea whatever if they have any significance but the question is raised whether they might have significance in smokers and since a large proportion of our male population smokes, this may be a particular hazard. Mr. Esch. I thank you very much for your testimony and I think it is significant and it is rather shocking. Perhaps it highlights, too, the problem we have in trying to draft legislation which will really meet the problem. If there were not such a serious matter here, we might facetiously suggest perhaps we should get an injunction against all workers to stop smoking if they are working in the asbestos indus- try and this is the intent of the bill and in effect if there is apparent danger present then you get an injunction to stop a process. This is a difficulty perhaps that we have right now. You mentioned that Great Britain has been effective in dealing with the problems and hazards that you have indicated. What have they done? Could we get any direction from Great Britain? Dr. SeLikorr. Yes, we can. Indeed, they had a meeting of the em- ployers, the industry, and the labor unions and the Government au- thorities as far back as 1931 and they put down very stringent regula- tions for the highly exposed areas. We now know that other areas also should have been protected. This is all in retrospect. Unfortunately, they realize they made a mistake and did not go far enough. At least where they did go, in the very heavy areas, carding rooms, crushing rooms, and so forth, they were able to have sharply de- creased the amount of dust. There is some evidence now coming out of Dr. Knox's studies that where they had very stringent precau- tions, the incidence of lung cancer has gone down sharply. Mr. Esch. I was going to ask, do you have evidence to show their record in comparison with ours, for example ? Dr. Seuikorr. Well, they have no overall nationwide records either because in 1931 they made the wrong assumption that only very heavy exposure is dangerous, so they only protected the very bad places. In retrospect, they would now like to get these 35 or 40 years back and protect all of the factors. They don’t have that opportunity but we have that opportunity now. I have in the last several days been in contact with some industry representatives and we are going to schedule a meeting just like this for 2 months from now under the aegis of the New York Academy of Sciences, where we hope to begin to make the first steps to cleaning up this trade. Incidentally, with regard to your injunction to asbestos workers, you might not be far off. Mr. Hutchinson, who is in the room, presi- dent of the Asbestos Workers Union, has published in his national journal, all of the details concerning smoking. He has a special booklet about the dangers of insulation trade and it has been sent to all of the insulation workers and we hope there will be a very sharp reduction of smoking among them. In other words, we want the employers to help in cleaning up the trade, to protect all of the insulation workers, to protect all of the 367 construction workers, and at the same time we are taking action on the part of the men working with this. We had a meeting under the guidance of the Public Health Service last month to design new masks for insulation workers. In other words, we are going to try to attack this on a broad basis but I hope your committee will be able to prepare legislation that would assist all of us who are working in this Reld on an industrywide basis in correcting these conditions. Mr. Esc. I am sure we want to get the benefit of your testimony. I am pleased to see you have decided both in Great Britain it was a cooperative attitude, involving the expertise and cooperation of labor and management and government attacking the problem and your attitude here, too, is it should be a cooperative program. This is on a broad basis with the Government programs being the coordinator of the program. Dr. SeLikoFF. Yes, sir. Mr. Escu. Thank you very much. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Steiger. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. The testimony has been extremely important and very, very inter- esting and I am grateful that you are here this morning. Thank you. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Selikoff, you have been studying asbestos workers since 1942 and I noticed in your testimony where you make reference to the experience of uranium miners and you suggest that the hazard in uranium mining has been known since, I think, 1889. That was some Eastern European study, I think. Dr. SeLigorr. Yes, that was the famous instance of the Schneeberg Mines in Saxony, where in 1879 cases of fatal Jung tumors were re- ported among the workmen in this mine and to this day we still have workmen in the same mine dying of lung cancer. They are now under the control of the East German Government and unfortunately we do not have accurate information on what is going on. Mr. O'Hara. Well, I am sure you have kept up a continuing study of that but it is a particular interest of mine because 6 or 7 years ago I was the sponsor of a piece of legislation which was adopted providing for a study of safety conditions in the mining industry including a study of &xposures to radon daughters in the uranium mining industry. Then the study took a couple of years to complete and it con- clusively demonstrated what had already been conclusively demon- strated many times before, that is to say, that these exposures resulted in a much higher incidence of lung cancer among uranium miners and that if one were to reduce the exposure levels you have sharply reduced the incidence of lung cancer among uranium miners. So I sponsored a bill to provide for a safety program in these mines. That was enacted into law. That was about 3 years ago. I think 2 or 3 years ago. In the meantime, Dr. Holladay and others had been working with the States, and working with the industry and there had been dozens of meetings, giving all of the information on this, yet there was no significant improvement in conditions in the mines after all of these meetings and all of these discussions and for the very reasons that you detail—ventilation in many of these mines was 368 a very expensive prapagiion and in fact some of these mines could not be brought through any mechanical ventilation means within the suggested limits of exposure that Dr. Holladay and his colleagues suggested was the proper one. vs 0 as a consequence no one was willing to undertake the competitive disadvantage of installing that type of equipment when the fellow in the next State did not have to. The same thing was true of ventilation. If the State of Utah got tough in its program, their uranium Oper would be at a competi- tive disadvantage with the people in New Mexico and the people in Arizona, and so forth. As a consequence, very, very little has been done. Now the situation is not dissimilar, the length of time is a little different, but you have known and the industry has known and Public Health authorities have known for sometime, have they not, of these hazards associated with the asbestos industry? Dr. SELIKOFF. Yes. Mr. O’Hara. I think you suggested that around—well, you men- tioned a study that had been published some years ago with respect to this problem. Dr. SeLikorr. 1955, the chief inspector of factories of Great Britain. Mr. O’Hara. Yes, but published here in the United States? Dr. SeLikorr. We had a very good study done on the risks of asbestos published by the Public Health Service in 1938. Mr. O’Hara. 19381 Dr. SeLigorr. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. Then, you have recited for us a number of more re- cent confirmations and the results of which have been widely dissemi- nated. I read about them in the newspaper. Tell me what has happened in the industry to improve conditions over the past years, over the years you have been intimately associated with the problem ? 5 Dr. Serikorr. Mr. O'Hara, if very much had happened, I wouldn't e here. Mr. O'Hara. So it is not because this takes anyone by surprise, it is just that as the figures keep coming in as the exposure period of these workers gets up to the point—as it is now doing in the uranium indus- try, of course, where we have known for a long time what was going to happen but it has not started happening until recently because they need 15 or 20 years of exposure really and they are just now getting it—the same thing in connection with your studies that started in 1942, but very, very little is happening and that is what disturbs me. IT am not so worried about the mechanics of it, whether the States or indus- tries or anybody else does it. I don’t give a damn who does it just so it is done and I am not going to get tied up in a great big knot over who ought to be doing what for whom, because IT am going to insist that before we get through here we do something effective. I am not particular about just how we do it but that we do something effec- tive. I want to get the best conditions we can find but T am not going to get into an ideological debate over the proper operation of the Federal system and let. that prevent me from doing something effective. You know, I read an interesting book a few years ago about the potato farming in Ireland and the starvation of tens of thousands of 369 ple. The government there at that time was a government, of relative good will, they had great sympathy for the problems of the people in Ireland. They wanted to do something. They had the means at their disposal to save the lives of tens of thousands of people but they didn’t do it and the reason they didn’t is because effective measures would have violated some of the conventional economic wisdom of the day. You just couldn’t do things like that, it was not, you know, it was entirely wrong in an ideological sense, to take the steps that were neces- sary, so palliatives and half measures were attempted for years and as a consequence a lot of people died. Well, that is an entirely different subject but I think we have been in the same kind of a problem in this field of occupational health and safety and I am not going to let a theory stand in the way of some effective action if I can help it. Your testimony has been very helpful, Doctor, and thank you very much. Mr. O'Hara. Our next witness will be Mr. John Logan from the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association. Mr. Logan is also of Universal Oil Products Co. STATEMENT OF JOHN 0. LOGAN, UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO.; CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY C. U. DERNEHL, M.D, UNION CARBIDE CORP.; G. L. GORBELL, MONSANTO CO.; AND LLOYD SYMINGTON, GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. Logan. Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am John Logan, chairman of the board of directors of the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, on whose behalf I am appearing here today. I am currently president of the Universal Oil Products Co. and a former executive vice president of Olin Matheson Chemical Corp. Accompanying me, as technical experts, are Dr. C. U. Dernehl, chairman of the occupational health committee of the association; Mr. G. L. Gorbell, former chairman of the Association’s safety and fire protection committee ; and Mr. Lloyd Symington, general counsel. The Manufacturing Chemists Association 1s a nonprofit trade asso- ciation of 183 United States and 14 Canadian company members rep- resenting more than 90 percent of the production capacity of basic industrial chemicals within these countries. I might add that our oper- ations cover 14,000 plants and roughly 900,000 employees. : One of the major objectives of the association is to provide leader- ship and guidance in the development and promotion of safe prac- tices in the manufacture, transportation, handling, and use of chemicals. Our safety program was originated in 1946 and, as some indication of our achievements, I would like to submit a collection of our safety publications. This includes copies of our 95 chemical safety data sheets which enjoy worldwide acceptance as authoritative references on the hazards and safe handling of chemicals; Safety Guides cover- ing miscellaneous chemical activities presenting potential hazards; Case Histories of Accidents in the Chemical Industry; the MCA 370 Chem-Card Manual, containing emergency transportation informa- tion ; and our Guide to Precautionary Labeling of Hazardous Chemi- cals. The records of injury experience of our member companies report- ing show a reduction in the injury frequency rate from 7.65 in 1946 to 3.30 in 1967. Last year, 22 of our member companies had injury fre- quency rates of less than 2 and an additional 15 companies had fre- quency rates between 2 and 3. We therefore feel we can s eak from a broad background of knowledge and experience in these safety matters. Tt is relevant to note that continuing significant strides in occupa- tional safety and health have been achieved through the voluntary efforts of businessmen, both individually and through trade assocla- tions, during decades of record industrial growth. Therefore, in striv- ing to improve safety and healthful conditions in the work place, it 1s prudent—and it will be productive—to build upon the foundations of successful experience of American industry working in partner- ship with State and private agencies. The Manufacturing Chemists Association not only subscribes to the objectives of enhancing the safety and well-being of workers; it has been a pioneer in this field. But we question whether certain of the measures embodied in the proposed legislation will not encumber rather than enhance progress in occupational safety and health. In the interest of insuring a continuation of gains realized thus far, but having serious objections to certain provisions of H.R. 14816, we recommend that— Safety and health standards should be set by the consensus method, including consultation with all agencies and interests con- cerned. Enforcement of standards should be vested in the States. Provision should be made for a Policy Advisory Board, ap- pointed by the President, and for technical advisory committees appointed by the Secretary of Labor. Inspection, reporting, enforcement, and penalty provisions should be modified with due checks placed on unnecessary and arbitrary powers of administrative personnel. Judicial review procedures should be strengthened. Our specific objections, recommendations, and other comments on the proposed provisions, section by section, are set forth below. SECTION 3 (A)—SETTING OF STANDARDS Under section 3(a), the Secretary of Labor would be granted arbit- rary and excessive powers to set safety and health standards. The bill fails to give any recognition to existing voluntary safety codes and standards such as those of the National Fire Protection Association and the U.S. Standards Institute. Consensus principle recommended in setting standards: We urge that the consensus principle, which has worked so well in other stand- ard-setting activities, be required in this legislation for the develop- ment of occupational safety and health standards. This requirement should include participation by State safety departments, by affected industries and their workers, and by informed experts in the technical, academic, and medical areas. 371 Performance standards preferred: The bill as now written leaves to the discretion of the Secretary the type of standards to be pre- scribed. We urge that the bill provide that safety and health standards should be in terms of performance requirements to the maximum extent practicable. Many companies are concerned that mandatory safety standards will be of the specification or dimensional type— for example, a requirement that a guardrail be of 2-inch by 4-inch wood or of 1-inch iron pipe rather than that it should be able to with- stand a minimum horizontal pressure of 50 pounds. Even though com- panies may have excellent safety records, they fear that compliance with such ‘dimensional types of standards may be very difficult. SECTION 4—ADMINISTRATION Advisory groups should be mandatory: We are much, much in favor of advisory committees as mentioned in section 4(a) of the bill but believe their creation and use should be mandatory rather than discretionary. Specifically, we recommend— (a) Creation of an Occupational Health and Safety Policy Advisory Board composed of representatives of Government and industry members, appointed by the President, to advise and con- sult with the Secretary on matters of broad policy under the act and to make recommendations, as needed, to the President. (b) Creation of technical advisory committees, appointed by the Secretary from qualified representatives of the hates, man- agement, labor, and professional groups, to assist in the develop- ment of standards and methods to implement them. SECTION 5—INSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION We note that no mention is made of the numbers or qualifications of personnel needed to make these inspections. At least with respect to inspection of chemical plants, these inspectors would have to be highly trained and technically competent. We suggest that this com- mittee thoroughly look into the availability of such qualified personnel in sufficient numbers, the time required to train them if not available, - and the monetary cost both to Government and to industry. SECTION 6—ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT Primary enforcement by States recommended: We urge that en- forcement of these regulations should, in the first instance, be carried out by the various States and that only in case of default or inade- quate enforcement at the State level, should the Federal Government assume this responsibility. Subject to this major qualification, section 6(a) (1) would seem to provide an appropriate Federal administra- tive enforcement procedure. SECTION G(A) (2) “Imminent harm” questions should be determined by courts, not by subordinate administrative officials: We feel strongly that sub- section (a) (2) of section 6 is inappropriate, unnecessary, and grants arbitrary and excessive powers to ts officials without any 92-734 0—68——25 372 checks and balances whatsoever. We have no disagreement with the concept that any condition which may result in “imminent harm” to the safety and health of workers should be subject to prompt correction or removal, but this should be by court action as already provided for in section 7(a). SECTION 6 (B)—RECORDS AND REPORTS We are seriously concerned that, as written, section 6(b) could re- sult in unreasonable, burdensome, and costly recordkeeping and re- porting requirements. This possibility could be minimized by requir- ing that the specified regulations or orders be issued only after due notice and hearing, or by specifying that the Secretary should first consult with appropriate technical advisory committees. SECTION 7(b)—JUDICIAL REVIEW The proposed provision for judicial review in section 7(b) is lim- ited to review of orders by the Secretary under section 6 based upon the “record before the Secretary” —which would normally cover only the alleged violation of a standard, without reference to the validity or reasonableness of the standard itself. We would recommend that as in the recent Air Quality Act of 1967, judicial review be provided in respect to the particular standards established by the Secretary, as well as his orders in respect to violations of such standards. SECTION 9—PENALTIES The penalities imposed in section 9 of the proposed bill are, in many respects, harsh and unwarranted and, in certain aspects, in- consistent with sound legal procedure. Civil penalties : Take, for example, the provision for assessment and collection of civil penalties or fines by the Secretary or his representa- tive under section 9 (a) and (b). Although in cases of administrative enforcement, of standards under section 6(a), the Secretary must hold a hearing, make findings of fact, and issue an order subject to judicial review, section 9 (a), as written, permits assessment of a pen- alty for violation of a standard which has not gone through this hearing procedure, thus bypassing any hearing whatsoever. We urge that this sweeping grant of authority, which can be ex- ercised by minor officials without criteria, guidelines, internal ap- peals, or other procedural safeguards of any sort, and with only limited provision for judicial review, be rejected by this committee. We have no objection to civil penalties or fines in appropriate cases of willful or continuing violations; but, as under many other Federal regulatory laws, such penalties should be imposed by the courts. Criminal penalties: In addition, we feel that the criminal penalties pronosed in section 9(c) are wholly inappropriate. Similar Federal stafety standards laws, such as the Walsh-Healey Act and the recent Automotive Safety Act, do not contain criminal sanctions: and indeed we feel they are unnecessary and ill designed to achieve healthful and safe working conditions. Imprisonment of employers is an illogical and essentially ineffective approach to a national endeavor that will be better served by en- 373 lightened cooperation and continued encouragement of voluntary action, expenditures, and initiatives by private industry. SECTION 12—FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS We recommend that section 12 be changed to conform more closely to the patterns adopted for water and air pollution control under recent Roird legislation and by the AEC for State control of radia- tion sources. We believe it should be clearly stated that States should have the opportunity to manage their own problems and to develo standards and enforcement programs which meet minimum standards adopted by the Secretary. Only in the event of a failure to act or inadequate action by a Fate should Federal jurisdiction take over. Aid in this direction in the form of grants should be included in section 17, and the States should be encouraged to assume a larger chare of the cost by categorical funds from the State treasury. SECTION 15—RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES We endorse most strongly the intent of Congress as set forth in section 15. There is much need for knowledge in the whole of the field of occupational health and safety. It is suggested that, in section 15(d), which deals with health and accident reporting systems, the wording “after consulation” be changed to “in concurrence,” since the data accumulated can be of use also to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and duplication of effort in obtaining sta- tistics can be avoided. SECTION 16—EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS Because of the specialized nature of the work dealing with em- ployee health, it is recommended that section 16(a) be defined in terms of training grants at the university level, similar to the training grant program of the AEC designed to provide competently trained personnel for that program. This should be distinct from the short- term refresher courses designed to update the knowledge of already well-trained persons implied in section 16(b). We agree that research and related educational activities are highly desirable and should be a part of this legislation. We would point out, however, that, while the administration of this legislation has been vested in the Secretary of Labor, the concurrence of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is desirable. SUMMARY In summation, we agree with the objectives of improving the safety and well-being of the Nation’s workers. Should a substantive study indicate that Federal health and safety standards are necessary, then standards should be developed through the consensus method with the assistance of experts from industry, labor, the States, and educa- tional institutions. We believe that the individual States should then carry on the details of making the program work. Only in the event of failure by the States to develop adequate programs should there be Federal superimposition on State programs. 374 While the administration has given no indication of the costs of the proposed program, it is clear that a large sum will be required to recruit, technically train, and maintain the many additional Fed- eral employees required for inspection, enforcement, and other aspects of this program. Co E It is important, especially at this time of fiscal crisis, to consider carefully the cost of setting up and maintaining the Federal machinery for a program of great magnitude and whether there are not aiter- native and less-costly means of accomplishing the same objectives. The State-industry partnership, in this light, merits thoughtful examination. In conclusion, we in the chemical industry feel we have made great rogress in the voluntary promotion of occupational health and safety ut we do recognize a continuing need for emphasis and research in this area. Mr. Chairman, if I might close with a personal comment, through many years as an industry operating executive, I have always felt that safety is good business. In many cases, however, safety is a matter of attitudes on both the part of management and employees at all levels. A vast majority of chemical executives, I believe, will agree with me that safety is good business. I think the Government can most appropriately catalyze the devel- Pn of an interchange of safety information and the strengthening of State and industry effort where it is now deficient. Thank you, sir. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Logan. I would like to compliment you on your testimony. Although I am not in complete agreement with a number of the points you make, I felt that your presentation was a very constructive one and pointed out particular provisions that you feel could be strengthened or changed in some way that would make the program work better. 1 wish to compliment you and the industry for the constructive state- ment that you have presented. Mr. Burton, would you have any questions? Mr. Burton. You indicated you have some 14,000 plants and 900,000 employees? Mr. Loean. That is approximately across the industry. Mr. Burton. You have given us some 95 or so chemical safety data sheets Drehared by the Manufacturers Chemists Association, and ‘would you tell us how the sheets are distributed ? Mr. Locan. These sheets are, first of all, prepared by our safety committee or other appropriate committees aimed at handling prob- lems that have some order of priority, top priority, and then these are printed up in the form that you have and distributed to the member- ship of the industry and are made available via publication informa- tion to anyone else who might be interested in securing it, both within the country and outside of the country. Mr. Burton. Either 2,000 or 3,000 of each type of sheet is printed. You have some 14,000 plants. How is the gap between the number of pias and the number of those you have printed, how is that gap clos ¢ Mr. Logan. I can’t answer specifically how many are printed. I think it varies from paper to paper but it is many, many thousands. Dr. Dernenw. I think one printing would be close to 50,000. 375 Mr. Burton. Close to 507 Dr. DErNEHL. Yes. Mr. Burton. One would not gather it by the usual printing indi- cation on the bank here. Your Spot apparently was revised April 1960, and it appears they have only 2,000 printed but I am in no position to pursue the point if you say there were 50,000. Mr. Stevenson. My name is Stevenson and I am editorially re- sponsible for this program. We normally print 5,000 of a new edi- tion and on a reprint it might be 2,000 or 3,000 depending on what sale we might anticipate. Distribution of them as stated, we do send copies to other of our member companies in the first instance and then depending on their use or interest in the material then they order further copies. As stated in the testimony, these are accepted worldwide as authori- tative safety documents. I think roughly our total sales in a year ap- proximately are 80,000 of all of them in a single year. This has been going on a long time. Mr. Burron. What percentage of those in your economic activi- ties that are encompassed by your trade association, what percentage of those participating in this in terms of employers and in terms of employees would you estimate are in your Manufacturers’ Chemists Association? Mr. Loan. I am not sure I understand the question. Is that in rela- tion to these printed matters or printed items? Mr. Burton. No, just membership in your association. Mr. Loan. The membership is 183 U.S. companies and 14 Canadian companies and this represent 90 percent of the total productive ca- packs and this membership ranges from the vary large companies own to the very small. Mr. Burton. What percentage of the employers would they be? It is 90 percent of the capacity and what percentage of the employers would you estimate ? Mr. Locan. I don’t believe we ever made a determination. We don’t completely know the capacity of the nonmember com- panies. This is one of the problems. It would be a very high propor- tion. Mr. Burton. It would be on the order of about 90 percent of the employees, however? Mr. Logan. Yes. Mr. Burton. Does your association have any staff and, if so, how many that police the compliance or at least the utilization of the in- formation that you make available to your members? Mr. Logan. Our association has a staff of approximately 60 people in total covering the whole range of activities. We operate through a committee system and we have between 15 and 20 technical committees, each aimed at a particular facet of activity. For example, the occupa- tional health and safety committee is one. We would have, I would say, 10 percent of the staff people in, and this is purely an estimate, working primarily in that area. Now it does not police its members. The members who belong to the association pay, and the association provides the mechanism for information going to the companies who are members and the degree to which they then redistribute that and make use of it is really within their power. 376 Mr. Burton. May I just change the direction of the question. Do you have any estimate at all as to what percentage of the total business of your association is with the Federal Government, and, if you do, to what extent it is on a cost-plus basis and what extent on a bid basis? Mr. Loean. I have no such information and I doubt the association has. Mr. Burrow. I am quite impressed with the work that is reflected in these various documents. One thing that does occur to me you had to be rather well informed or very diligent to wade through them. But it is fairly clear to me you made a meaningful effort at least to make available to those who would take advantage of the information in a great variety of circumstances as well as the products that your people deal with. Mr. Logan. If T might supplement that, I think the association does a good job in making available information at the working level as well as at the management level. Now, much of this literature is useful to people at the plant level, plant managers, technical directors, safety managers, and so on. We flow this through what we call the executive contact, so the management representative in the associa- tion is aware of this activity and then through his own Go this material gets discriminated down to the working level. Much of this is working level material. Mr. Burton. One final question: If we are confronted with the notion we should separate out whatever the coverage of the legisla- tion is by dollar volume of business or number of employees, do you think that we are creating more problems than we are resolving by distinguishing businesses in like circumstances but with just a differ- ing dollar volume or number of employees or do you think, from your vantage point we would be well-advised to exempt the smaller firms and just deal with those that are responsible for doing a bulk of the effort. Mr. Logan. Dr. Dernehl, would you like to comment ? Dr. Dernent. I think our experience has been over the years if you look at the safety record of the large concerns, these are the concerns that are doing the best job in handling the problem and that really where the need for additional supervision, education is, is at the level of the small concern that employs 20, 50, 100, or 150 employees. Mr. Burrow. Can I infer from that if we do have legislation it is best to be uniform rather than exemption out, or only including in the major firms? Dr. DernenL. I believe that if you do have legislation it should be across the board and should apply equally to all. Mr. Burton. Do you concur in that? Mr. Locan. Yes, I concur. I think you would miss an opportunity to do it otherwise. Mr. O'Hara, Mr. Esch. Mr. Esch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have no major questions but I would like to join in complimenting Mr. Logan and his group for providing the rather explicit suggestions and I hope they will be taken into consideration as we begin the mark up of the bill. I am also impressed with the nature of your association and it high- lights to me the need for us to take into account the work that is exist- ing as we begin to move into this area. I would like, if you want to 377 comment on the fact, to know how you would relate—if you have any suggestion of how we might relate the great work of an association such as yours to any forthcoming legislation? Do you have any other suggestions other than what is outlined in the statement ? r. Locan. In a general way, the association and its staff and its members are ie to governmental agencies or anyone interested in this whole area. Mr. Escu. Has your association been contacted prior to the drafting of this legislation ? Mr. Locan. With respect to this? Mr. Escn. Were you contacted with respect to this specific legisla- tion ? Mr. Locan, I have not been. Mr. Esc. You were not ? Mr. Locan. No; in fact this came upon us rather suddenly. We are available, the association’s headquarters are here in town. Any specific question that they do not have the answer to can be secured rather promptly. Mr. Escu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it seems amaz- ing to me that if we are really sincerely interested in developi ng and improving safety conditions, before the drafting of this legislation there should have been a presentation by the Secretary of Labor to the various associations for their views. We have already had testi- mony on both sides of the aisle, that they have been effective in their methods to date, it is amazing to me that they were not taken into consultation prior to the drafting of the legislation. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Logan, I am going to sort of interrupt my usual procedure to ask you a couple of questions quickly. I have a meeting of 100 school people on my district around the corner and I have left them for quite a while and I want to get. back to them, Now, I notice on page 2 of your statement you spoke of a re- duction in the injury frequency rate from 765 in 1946 to 330 in 1967 and we found in looking at frequency rates in general that while there had been improvements since 1946 that it seems to have plateaued in the last 10 years or so. Is that also the experience of your industry ? Mr. Locan. Yes, it has plateaued. Mr. O'Hara. There had been a significant improvement ? Mr. Logan. Correct. There is some question about where do you stop? Do you go down to flat zero or is there a point where you do plateau? There is a real question there in statistics. Mr. O'Hara. Then you spoke of the safety records of a number of our member companies. Twenty-two had injury frequency rates of es than two and an additional 15 had frequency rates of between two and three. How many other companies are in your association? You accounted for 377 Mr. Loan. There are 197 total. Mr. O'Hara. 197 total? Mr. Loan. Right, and 37 are below three, so the others are obviously above. But since this is a smaller number, this obviously represents this situation? Mr. O’Hara. Represents a smaller company ? 378 Mr. Locan. No, it must represent, since the frequency is not related to company size, it is related to employment, it must represent over half of the people. Mr. O'Hara. I would think if you have 37 who are below the indus- trywide or associationwide average and over 100 who are above it that the 32 must be among the largest employers; is that right ? Mr. Loca. That 1s correct. Mr. O'Hara. What are the rates of some of the others on the high side ? Mr. Logan. Let me add to that. We experienced the same problem as all industry does in that the smaller companies do not have good experience and we, the same way, between one and 250 will average around 17. We get a breakdown here by number of employees and it is true that the larger the organization with enlightened management and with assistance safetywise, we do have a better record. Mr. SterGER. Would you yield for a moment. Also, on page 2, Mr. Logan, in your testimony, you say that the records in the experience of your member companies reporting of a total of 197, how many report ? Mr. Locax. Yes, we should bring that to bear because it is pertinent. The three statistics in 1967 covered 125 companies or 630,000 employees, slightly over two-thirds of the total employees, so it has a bearing on your question. Mr. O’Hara. I am just thinking that some of them must have injury frequency rates quite a bit above the industry average ? Mr. Logan. Yes, sir. Mr. O'Hara. Let me just ask one more question. I noticed your pub- lications here which I think are very good. I am interested in one re- garding one chemical we had testimony on, beta-naphthylamine. I refer to your chemical safety data sheet SO-32, which, without objection, will be printed at an appropriate point in the hearing record. I have had an opportunity to just glance through it. I think you start off the right way and the first topic is health hazards in which you make the following statement : There is no known safe allowable exposure. The only safe method of handling must be on the basis of no exposure whatever in any form. As T understand it, this publication is distributed in your industry. What about people who buy betanaphthylamine from you? Mr. Logan. Mr. Dernehl can answer that. Dr. Dernenr. This material is distributed to the industry-to- industry members and it is made available to anybody that asks for it. For example, we at Union Carbide regularly will buy 25 to 30 copies of every safety data sheet and when injuries come in to us re- garding a chemical on which there is a safety data sheet, if the inquiry is of an appropriate nature, the safety data sheet will be sent to the inquiry free. Mr. O’Hara. Without him asking for it? Dr. Dervenr. Without asking for it, yes, sir. If the information that he wants is covered in the safety data sheet, that is the best way to get it to him. So we then have the situation as our stock goes down we reorder and maintain a stock of this all the time. This is in addition 379 to literature of our own which we prepare on our own material. But where these safety data sheets are available we do use them. I think other industries follow pretty much the same practice. Mr. O'Hara. Right. Let me nn you this: Let’s say, you have de- veloped a new product, then what do you do about checking or getting safety data on it, doing research on it, so you are certain, before you either institute a manufacturing process or before you sell this to cus- tomers of yours, that you have a pretty good fix on the safety hazards associated with this product ? Mr. Logan. What we do, sir, and I can speak for my own company, I know that many others follow a similar procedure, but I cannot speak obviously for every other manufacturer but in our organization, when a new material is developed in research, at this point if there is some question as to its degree of toxicity, the hazards it may have, a small amount is sent to a toxicology laboratory we maintain at the Melon Institute and at this laboratory we determine, or we do what is known as range-finding tests, which determines, number one, the toxicity of materials if swallowed and toxicity by penetration in skin and toxicity by inhalation and ability to irritate the skin and ability to injure the eye. This is the basic material we develop on practically every material that we make or sell. As a matter of fact, we develop this information on lots of things that we use as intermediates in the plant that are never sold. We develop this material, on some things that never get out of research, because no market is visible for it so we already have the information and at the present time in our own files we have toxicity data on well over 3,000 different chemicals that have been accumulated since we first started this back in 1938. Mr. O’Hara. One final question with respect to the customers, for instance, beta-naphthylamine, do you ever go beyond the point of send- ing them information on health hazards and where, for instance, a customer has indicated an interest in purchasing this for a dyemaking process, do you ever then send out technical people to talk to them about the use—intended use—they intend to make and advise him on the spot on what he has to do in order to protect? Dr. DerNEHL. Yes. Mr. Loaan. I think it would be generally practiced—not completely, there would be exceptions—but it would become a matter of the judgment of the selling organization as to the capability of the buyer, its awareness of the problem, but in many cases sales people handling this type of product would make certain that the first order received from a company would have personal followup and adequate literature on safety information. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you. : I have to leave now and am going to ask my colleague from Michi- gan, Mr. Ford, if he will take over the chairmanship of the hearing. Mr. Foro (acting). Mr. Steiger is next. Mr. Steiger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to second the comments of both colleagues from Michigan, Mr. Esch and Mr. O’Hara, on the relevancy and, I think, the com- petency of your testimony. n I want to say, Mr. Chairman, while you were not the one who was in the chair while the statement was made, I concur with Jim O’Hara that 380 I think it is extremely important for all of us when we look at the merits of the bill and particularly when we look at the merits of the kind of testimony that has just been given to us, that the bill be con- sidered without regard to ideological factors. It seems to me extremely important that we all recognize and that we all know that there are evils and as far as possible the evils ought to be reduced or eliminated. The question, however, of how you go about doing this, and I think that is the basic question that this committee faces and the House will face it if this bill in whatever form it takes gets to the floor of the House is, How do we accomplish this most effectively ? The Manufacturing Chemists’ Association have given to us their judgment on how it can most effectively be accomplished. This differs with some of the other testimony we had, but it has been, I think, re- peated by a number of witnesses that they have some serious questions on how you go about it in this country with the diversity of products and the diversity of problems that exist, accomplishing the goal of protecting as far as possible workers, employers, and the rights as far as possible of all of the parties involved. Let me be very honest and say that, thus far, I am unconvinced that this bill would accomplish the objectives which we all share and the question of how the bill ought to be redirected or changed, in order to best do this, is one that we still face. I take my hat off to you, Mr. Logan, and I take my hat off to your association for the very good testimony that you have given us. I think it points the way to alterna- tive routes which may be available in accomplishing a goal which I think each one of us on the committee and I think everyone in this country would share, but the ideological factors in many cases seem to overshadow them. At least that is my impression on the basis of how the bills’ proponents think it ought to be done. I am not going to enter that argument or that sticky wicket because I think it is inappropriate. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Forp. Thank you. Mr. Burton. Mr. Burron. Would you supply for us the graph chart you made reference to when we asked a question about the incidence of injuries? Mr. Logan. Yes, sir. Mr. Forp. We have other witnesses but just before we pass on I want to thank you, Mr. Logan and your panel, and ask you if you will submit one other thing. Do you have a legal staff that participated with you? Mr. Syminaron. T helped to prepare it; T am general counsel. Mr. For. I have a personal interest in what the effect of this activity is upon your association under the liability laws in negligence cases arising out of them, arising out of the improper use as well, there are two areas there, and also what you think the effect would be of reducing these standards to law as distinguished from an association directive. I want to know if this merelv is a factor, an impediment, to adopting these standards as a matter of law. This is an important consideration. Mr. Logan. I will be happy to submit one. (The requested and related material will appear in the hearing record appendix.) 381 STATEMENT OF TONY MAZZOCCHI, CITIZENSHIP-LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTER- NATIONAL UNION, ACCOMPANIED BY ADOLPH WISMACK, PRESI- DENT; AND JOHN TICE, SAFETY CHAIRMAN OF LOCAL 8-3600, REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE NATIONAL LEAD CO. SAYREVILLE, N.J.; R. L. BARNES, PRESIDENT OF LOCAL 4-367; AND CHARLES McLOUTH, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Mr. O’Hara. If there is no objection the formal statement offered by Mr. Mazzocchi will be entered at this time in the record and we will ask you to summarize your testimony and then give the members of the committee an opportunity to raise questions. (The statement follows :) STATEMENT OF ANTHONY MAzzoccHI, CITIZENSHIP-LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Anthony Mazzochi. I am the Citizenship-Legislative Director of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic In- ternational Union. With me today are Adolph Wisnack, President, and John Tice, Safety Chair- man of Local 8-3660, representing the employees of the National Lead Company in Sayreville, New Jersey. Also, R. L. Barnes, President of Local 4-367, repre- senting the employees of the Shell Refinery in Deer Park, Texas, and Charles McLouth, International Representative of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union and a former refinery worker at the Pennzoil Refinery in Oil City, Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, our Union represents many thousands of workers in the oil, chemical and atomic industries. Our Union has had a serious concern with the problem of safety over a period of time. We are aware of the complexities of the industries where we represent workers. We know that no single industry or state can develop the expertise necessary to deal with the broad complex problem of safety as it affects the industries I have mentioned above. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to the safety of the work force and the community at large that H.R. 14816 be enacted into law. It is not my purpose today, Mr. Chairman, to relate to your Committee endless statistics involving the dangerous and unsafe conditions in those industries that OCAW deals with. In fact, statistics dealing with industrial injuries or death are open to serious question. My purpose here today is to let this Committee hear directly from some of our rank and file members who have been involved in safety problems of ex- treme concern. However, before I do that, let me illustrate some problems we have in the petroleum industry. Atlantic-Richfield, Port Arthur, Texas Leak in a high pressure line in the crude unit of the company’s Atreco Refinery flashed under pressure killing seven employees. Pure-Union, Beaumont, Texas Barge explosion, two men killed. Sinclair, Tatum, New Mexico During the year over 20 leaks occurred in tubes in the reboiler of the propanizer unit and were repaired by blocking the tubes off. Replacement of the tubes was being deferred to the next financial quarter when the additional pressure being exerted on the tubes by the blocking off process caused the tubes to erupt, causing a fire to burn for five and one-half hours. 382 Skelly Oil, El Dorado, Kansas Gauge which had been defective for more than one week gave away, shower: ing a man with hydrofluoric acid, killing him. Pure-Union, Lemont, Illinois Four men removed from Udex Unit during past year and one-half suffering from Benzine poisoning which caused a dangerous decrease in their white cor- puscle count. Despite these occurrences, company now requires blood tests of employees on unit every ten months when formerly tests were given every three months. Sohio, Lima, Ohio While bleeding a butane vapor lock a flash fire killed one employee and burned three others severely. An area of increasing concern to our oil membership, is the high incidence of sickness and death resulting from Hydrogen Sulfide fumes released in the refining of crude oil. Hydrogen Sulfide, although more prevelant in so-called “Sour Crudes,” is present in most crude oil and must be removed because of its highly corrosive properties. Released in the atmosphere, 800 PPM is usually fatal and decreasing propor- tions may cause severe respiratory difficuties as well as other ailments. We have received recent reports from : Shell Oil, Dominguez, California Man working in Hydrogen Sulfide Plant gassed by H.S backing up a water line. Resuscitation by plant nurse saved his life. Following accident, numerous check valves were replaced. Phillips, Kansas City, Kansas With an employment of approximately 400 people in the past twelve years, seventeen employees have died of either leukemia or lung cancer. Hydrogen Sulfide H:S is suspected as cause of death by Dr. Sloan Wilson, Hemotologist of the Kansas University Medical Center. Gulf 0il, Cincinnati, Ohio Abnormally high incidence of heart disease in past five years; Hydro Sulfide H.S suspected. Union Oil, Santa Maria, California Men getting sick on job, recent leukemia death. Hydrogen Sulfide H.S suspected. Ashland Oil, Canton, Ohio and Catlettsburg, Kentucky Both plants have had cases of men becoming ill due to Hydrogen Sulfide fumes. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union supports the position of the AFL-CIO on H.R. 14816. We urge that this Committee adopt this bill with the proposed AFL-CIO amendments. The problem of industrial health and safety cannot be separated from that of the community at large. A meaningful law will have an immediate beneficial effect on the entire society. I wish to thank your Committee, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity afforded us to present our concerns and views on this most important legislation. Mr. Mazzoccnr. Mr. Chairman, thank you. We recognize the time is late and will attempt to summarize a very complex bit of informa- tion here, a complex situation as we deal with it in our industry. We have heard a number of witnesses this morning relate statistics, and we are not going to get into a statistical discussion here simply be- -ause we think statistics are rather meaningless. Many of them don’t relate to the real situation—to fatalities and injuries we know about. We thought the committee would be better informed if we told it like it is. We brought workers who deal with some esoteric substances in a very complex industry and who, if they err or if there are ac- cidents, can endanger the entire community. We are not talking about the question of killing some workers on the job. We have workers killed on the job, but we are dealing with 383 situations where if there is an accident we have it within our means to kill tens of thousands of people. That can be very easily done when when through an accident, where chemicals we deal with are released and then can spread into the community. Specifically, in two instances we will talk about this morning, this possibility exists. I have Yona: with me today a worker from a petrochemical indus- try where there was an accident and workers from a titanium oxide production unit where carbon monoxide is a problem. If I may sum up simply : in this last case we are dealing with a substance we knew nothing about, management knew very little about it, and there were little or no enforcement procedures available to us when we became aware of what the problem was. People are dying, and we suspect that people are suffering brain damage that makes them accident- prone in other areas. i The facts of the stories told by these gentlemen this morning can be repeated many times. We are dealing in an area where lives are at stake. There must be enforcement and we have to be aware of the prob- lem we are dealing with. The new technology is rapidly advanced but man’s ability to deal with it has not kept pace in the industry. I think this same story can be told for most industries. I would like to introduce Roy Barnes, president of a local in Pasadena, Tex., and he will tell you of an accident that happened just recently in Texas and we will take it from there. Roy, if you will. Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you in support of H.R. 14816. My name is Roy Barnes, and I represent Local 4-367, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, Pasadena, Tex. My local is in strong support of this measure, which is cosponsored by Representative Bob Eckhardt, of the Eighth District of Texas,’ which 1s in Harris County. Mr. Foro. If T might interrupt the witness. I don’t think this should go without passing that this particular committee dealing in the area that it deals with concerning working people is extremely grateful to have Bob Eckhardt with us. He has been an ally since the day or since before he came here and he is somebody that we are very happy to have always advancing the work of this committee and supporting us. Mr. Barnes. We are happy to have him from Texas, too. Our local feels very strongly that Federal legislation of the sort embodied in this bill is an absolute necessity for the protection not only of the workers in the plants but also the general public, particularly those people who live near the plants. We would point out the Texas City disaster as an example of what could happen, if conditions were right, in the case of fires and explosions at refineries, chemical plants and such like. A good case in point is the explosion and resulting fire which occurred at Shell Chemical’s Houston Plant in Deer Park, Tex., on January 15, 1968, at approximately 10:25 p.m. This explosion was a direct result of the company’s maintenance policies and the lack of proper inspection procedures. The explosion was caused by the rupture of a 10-inch schedule-80 steel pipe con- 384 taining a mixture of propane and sulfuric acid. Had there been an adequate preventative maintenance program or inspection procedure this explosion would not have happened. Shell Oil & Chemical, along with many other companies, have abandoned any idea of preventative maintenance. Their idea is to run the plant until it falls apart, then shut it down, repair what must be repaired and bring it back up as fast as possible. The plant main- tenance forces have been cut below the absolute minimum required to keep the plants in any sort of repair. The operating forces, the men who actually run the plants, have been reduced below a safe level in many instances. The standard answer the companies give when we complain is that this is a calculated risk, that under ordinary circumstances nothing will happen. The men in the plants feel that the company could take all the risks they choose to take if only the company’s equipment were involved. But this “calculated risk” endangers the lives and well-being of the employees, particularly, as well as the general public. We feel that no company should have the right to completely dis- regard the safety of their employees, and the general public, in the name of “competition” and “profits.” Yet, each time we ask that a safety hazard be repaired, the company tells us the necessary man- power is not available, that we will have to wait, sometimes for months. (Certainly, the necessary manpower is not available. The companies have laid off men, have not replaced attrition losses, and have cut the number of employees to the point that necessary maintenance cannot possibly be done as soon as it should be. For instance, the 10-inch pipe which blew out on the night of Jan- uary 15 is normally nine-sixteenths of an inch thick. Yet the portion that ruptured was less than the thickness of a rusty beer can when the 450 to 500 pounds of pressure of the propane inside caused it to give way. It was so thin that our people actually broke pieces of it off with their fingers after the fire was out. This pipe, according to the opera- tors on the unit, had not been inspected, X-rayed, or even checked for at least 414 years, even though the plant had been completely shut down for necessary repairs several times. This very thin pipe ruptured, the propane, under 450 to 500 pounds of pressure, blew out and spread over a large area, drifted into some furnaces about 50 yards away and exploded. The explosion caused an enormous amount of other equipment to fail and a fire resulted which burned out of control for several hours. The fire melted large pipes and structural steel beams: the whole area was a twisted mass of wreckage the next morning. Some $2 or $3 million damage to the company’s equipment was the estimated cost we were given. The cost of equipment, to us, was a minor item. We were more con- cerned about the human cost. One man died, a guard at the gate some quarter of a mile away had a heart attack. Another man down in the plant had a heart attack while running from the flames. Two men were burned, one about the hands and arms, seriously enough that he is not back to work yet. 385 The other man, Frank Butler, had just completed 25 years’ service with Shell and was unlucky enough to be outside his control room when the explosion occurred. He 1s still in the intensive care ward at the hopital because of the burns he sustained over about 60 percent of his body. His kneecap was also crushed, and it is extremely doubt- ful if he will ever be able to work again. Even so, the men in the plant were extremely fortunate. One con- trol room was completely destroyed; the man who would ordinarily have been inside had gone to another control room for a cup of coffee or he surely would have been killed. The propane blew out over an open field and ignited almost immediately. Had it blown in another direction, or Id it had time to spread over a large area before it exploded, it could well have caused a major disaster. Had the explosion happened just 10 minutes later, at shift change time, it would undoubtedly have killed several men since they would have been walking by on their way to their job. Or it could have occurred during the daylight hours, where many more men were present, perhaps working in the area. Too, since it was shift change time, there was an extra complete crew of men readily available to aid in fighting the fire and keeping the adjacent equipment and tanks sprayed with water so that the fire did not spread. Had the regular crew been all that was available, it would have been impossible for them to carry on the necessary shut- down procedures and fight the fire at the same time. The whole ship channel area was lucky in that the propane blew out over an open field and not into other operating units. The resulting explosion could have set off a chain reaction which would have destroyed, not only the Shell Chemical plant and the approximately 90 men who were in the plant that night, but it could have spread to the Shell Oil refinery, and up the channel to the Tenneco Chemical plant, the Ethyl plant, the Phillips Chemical plant and so on, or down the channel to the Lubrizol plant, the Diamond Alkali plant, the Rohn & Haas Chemical plant, and so on, until it devastated the whole ship channel area. And we must not forget the city of Deer Park, which is separated only by a highway and a railroad track from the Shell Chemical plant. Most of the residents of the first three or four streets in Deer Park wisely evacuated their homes and spent the night much farther away from the plant. Memories of the Texas City disaster are still fresh in this area, despite the 20 years that have passed and a like disaster is all too much a possibility on the ship channel. At this point, I would like to deviate from the written statement and discuss an even more frightening possibility. On the inside of the Shell Chemical plant there is a unit which produces chlorine. There are also several tanks scattered through the plant filled with liquid chlorine under about 150 pounds of pressure. Had the fire, out of control, sur- rounded one of the chlorine tanks the heat could have increased the pressure in the tank to the point where the tank or one of the chlorine lines would burst. Had this happened the deadly chlorine gas would have been loosed in great quantities upon an unsuspecting public asleep in bed and could have killed many thousands of the residents of Harris County. 386 Our local union also represents the employees of the Roman House Chemical plants not far down the channel from Shell. At this point the even more deadly gas cyanide is stored in similar tanks. Think what would happen to the surrounding communities if this mankilling gas were to break. But what could Shell Chemical have done to prevent this explosion, and what can they do to prevent future occurrences, which might be even worse? First, they must have an adequate maintenance force, to keep their plant in safe operating condition. The units must be shut down before they fall apart and all the necessary repairs made while the unit is down, not just those repairs that are necessary to keep the unit operating. An example of the company’s attitude toward repairs occurred the very night of this explosion, in another part of the plant. A butane line was leaking and was called to the foreman’s attention. He gave the standard answer that there was no manpower available to repair the line. When the men protested it was unsafe, the foreman went to the warehouse and got a roll of tape and wrapped it around the leaking butane line. After much ridiculing of his efforts by the operators, he finally called a pipefitter who put a clamp on the line and stopped the leak. The pipefitter stated the line was so rotten he was just barely able to make the clamp hold. Second, a planned, routine safety inspection of all units must be made, on a schedule commensurate with the corrosive effects, pressures, and so forth, of the materials being handled. These inspections must be made often enough to catch any unsafe conditions before they cause explosions and fires. hird, there must be a valid safety program and safety department, not one like Shell Chemical presently has. The present safety depart- ment is a sham and a joke in that it 1s completely subordinate to pro- duction. If safety interferes with production or costs a little extra money, then safety is cast aside. Shell’s safety program has deterio- rated over the years until it is practically nonexistent. But above all, the companies must be caused to genuinely and sin- cerely care about the safety both of their employees and the general public. This can only be brought about by enforceable laws, Federal laws, that will cost the companies money if they are not obeyed. - Certainly a huge foreign-owned company such as Shell has no fear of State laws, even if the State were willing to act, which Texas certainly is not. There have been several fires and explosions over the years at Shell. Fortunately so far, none has been disastrous but the men in the plants realize that the odds get narrower with each escape. We would very much appreciate anything you gentlemen can do to make the odds more in our favor. We certainly would like to live to retire from Shell. This is just one of many, many such incidents which could be cited as legitimate reasons for the passage of this legislation. Most of the fires and explosions are not so spectacular as the one which has been cited, but they are not at all unusual. For instance, some 2 weeks after the fire at Shell Chemical there was a large fire at the Shell Oil refinery. As this report was being written, late on Sunday night, my house was shaken by an explosion, and fire could be seen from my windows. 387 Monday’s newspaper said there was a small fire, with no injuries, at the United States Industries plant on the ship channel. We wholeheartedly recommend passage of this legislation and sin- cerely hope that it can be put into effect in time to prevent some monstrous disaster rather than waiting until after such a disaster occurs. Thank you. Let’s get to the subject testimony, if we may tell you the story of National Lead Co., because we realize time is running out Ah we think you know sufficient about it. Mr. Esch. If I may interrupt and suggest that in light of the testi- mony about the companies named, that their witness be invited if they care to to submit testimony. Mr. Foro. Yes, it is so ordered. I think it would be very helpful to us if we advise them that this incident has been related and ask them for a description of it. Mr. Burron. Also the same request to the extent applicable to this firm also. Mr. Foro. I might suggest, however, that what has been said may involve either litigation or compensation claims and there might be hesitancy on the part of the company to submit any kind of statement. If that 1s the case the committee would understand it and I am sure the witnesses would also, if that is the case. Mr. Escn. I realize that is the difficulty in receiving this testimony, too. Mr. Burton. I might say, if I may, I don’t think it should in any way inhibit your stating the situation as you view it. In our tradition, we think it is only equable that if they were here belting your local your local might want the opportunity to have something in the record immediately following their observations. Mr. Mazzoccui. Excuse me, our presentation is not on the basis of local versus management or adversary. We are interested in telling the story because we think it relates to the entire question of safety as applies to industry and the public. These are examples, (Starr NorE—Pursuant to this instruction, the subcommittee staff discussed this matter with Washington representatives of both firms by telephone and was advised in both cases that they appreciated the opportunity to comment. Shell’s representative indicated that Shell would submit a statement on the legislation, which appears at the con- clusion of this day’s testimony. National Lead’s representative ad- 5 staff that they would not avail themselves of the opportunity. JH. Mr. Mazzoccur. At this point, I would like to introduce Adolph Wis- nack, president of a local representing employees at Sayreville, N.J. Mr. Wis~xack. In our plant, the National Tead Co., in Sayreville, produces titanium dioxide. About 5 years ago they built a small ex- perimental plant to produce a chloride pigment. About 2 years ago they completed a larger plant which is where we started having prob- lems and started noticing that there was something peculiar. We were not getting any complaints from our people working in the experimental plant. I don’t know why that was. But it is evident now we should have gotten them. 92-734 0—68——26 388 I have gotten many complaints now from our people, especially the people from the communities in the surrounding area of Sayreville, South Amboy, and they are greatly concerned since we had accidental deaths from carbon monoxide. They have now heard of other dangerous gases that are used at our plant. I became alerted that something was wrong when it was reported that the men at the chloride plant were suffering severe headaches and carrying bottles of aspirin or Bufferin in their pockets and taking as much as eight or 10 tablets a day. I became more alarmed when I heard os of the employees in his early twenties dying of a cerebral hemor- rhage. everal months later a very athletic employee, age 25, also suffered a cerebral hemorrhage. I started then to try to gain what informa- tion I could to determine what is causing this. ih spoke to my personal physician. I said, “This is unnatural for men in their early twenties to be suffering cerebral hemorrhages because this is a degen- erative disease” and he agreed wholelieartedly and said, “You don’t get cerebral hemorrhages in your early twenties.” Then, as I kept trying to get more information, on January 10, we had a third death, a fellow 25 years old. This employee went in a silo that is closed in and had two small tanks. One was used as a reagent tank where they make a chemical, and this chemical was added to the pumps that were pumping CO gas to the system in the manufacture of this chloride pigment. Someone had left a valve open and a little piece of wood got under- neath the check valve. When a pump started up there was a back pressure and the back pressure of the CO gas came back through the lines, up through this little tank. CO gas being odorless and colorless and tasteless, it didn’t take long. He tried to make the door but they found him laying face down near the door, dead. We nearly lost four more trying to rescue him from this silo build- ing. This is how heavy the concentration was in this building at the time. When the two men went in after him, they came staggering out immediately and two others trying to save them came staggering out. The next day, one of them again collapsed, so that meant we had three in the hospital at one time. We then, as a union, questioned why this should have happened, Why there was not an alarm system in this building if it was possible. They have an alarm system made by the MSA, but all of the while we are told that this instrument is set to go off and give an alarm at 200 parts per million. We thought this was safe enough for a human being to be in the vicinity until we found out. after meeting with two scientists from Rockefeller University, that the threshold is 50 parts per million. Before this we nearly had another young fellow black- out when he was 5 feet above the instrument and the instrument did not go off. He was ready to fall down when somebody came along and caught him and dragged him out of the area. This is what we are interested in—that there are standards set. I don’t think our company is aware but we are trying to tell them that 200 is not a safe standard. We are trying to get a standard established for chlorine gas. Our plant is situated so along the Raritan River, and we have a tank farm, always pumping chlorine back and forth. If there was ever an 389 accident to these tank cars and they started to leak, I don’t think our employees can get out in time. There is only one road coming in. I don’t think they could get out to the highway. The surrounding communi- ties would be endangered. I don’t know how many people could get killed if these tank cars ever let loose. This is our concern. This is why we feel there should be standards set, there should be some way that the people working could be pro- tected, and that we don’t have deaths occurring, especially to such young men as 23 to 25 years of age. Mr. Mazzoccnt. I would like to point out, since I was directly in- volved, carbon monoxide is manufactured because it is integral to a secret process the company uses. We found out that carbon monoxide is a brain-damaging agent and a cell of the brain could be killed without anyone detecting. We found the industrial hygienists that have a manual put out on threshold values. Fifty parts per million is the threshold value for carbon mon- oxide, and the equipment was once set at 500 parts per million. We don’t know what has happened to those individuals who have received such a high dosage. We also know that you receive from cigarette smoking 15,000 parts per million. Usually your system can adapt to it, however, for indi- viduals in this facility, maybe the injunctive procedures discussed earlier might not be a bad idea, because they can’t flush that out. The chlorine standard, as we understand it, is that, if I smell it, it is above the threshold—a manner of detecting it in the plant is by odor. You heard the asbestos problem this morning, we have miles and miles of pipe covered with asbestos in oil refineries. There are other esoteric chemicals we are unaware of. We have no- body to turn to. The company may be aware of the nature of some of these items. We talked to National Lead after bringing in advisers from Rockefeller and the Scientific Committee on Public Information. They are not convinced that 50 parts per million is the recommended dosage. 1 found out by making inquiry on Walsh-Healey this morning that that was the law as far as the Walsh-Healey violations are concerned, so we will probably ask for Walsh-Healey inspectors in the plant. But had this plant not fallen under Walsh-Healey, the recommended dos- age and the recommended threshold was an option that management would or could exercise. I would just point this out that this situation exists, and it exists in many other facilities. If we don’t have a law that defines a standard, vou have a hit-and-miss proposition. The competitors to National Lead shiould have the same type of law and the size of the facility means nothing. A law equally applying. First of all, we have to find out what the problems are in a modern society with chemicals and agents we are using. We don’t believe in setting standards by consensus. Our experi- ence with pipelines, voluntary codes that are reached by consensus, has been told and we know the results of that situation. We need something eaually applied, thoroughly researched. We don’t know the answers. The people we brought from the plants don’t know. We are not allowed to walk through the facilities because of industrial processes closely guarded. 390 They are reluctant to let anyone in. Even if a person is eompetent to advise us, the company is still reluctant because of trade secrets. We are sympathetic with that posture. Something must be done. I want to reiterate that a worker, who, dulled by carbon monoxide in small doses, who may be then accident- prone and is involved in an accident that releases chlorine or anything else, is endangering the entire community. Modern society cannot take the attitude what Rae in the particular facility is the business of the people in that facility. It is the business and concern of the com- munity at large. ; We will not ante up an entire community and leave an option to a plant manager who may be well meaning but ill-informed. We don’t pretend to be a reservoir of information. We have the concern and are expressing that concern. We think this bill goes a long way to meeting the problem that a modern industrial society now has. Mr. Forp. One question that has been asked of almost every witness that appeared in any way connected with the labor movement is what success have you had in negotiating safety with the employers as a part of your contract ? Mr. Wisnack. It is varying. I would say where we understand what the problem is we have some success—you know, a helmet, so you don’t bump your head. The obvious hazards we are aware of, but we didn’t understand the asbestos hazard until we had listened this morning, so we couldn’t négotiate about that. Now we realize this is really a problem with our people. But most times we have been unsuccessful. Management takes the position running a plant is their business and no one is going to tell them how to run a facility. This has been the problem. We have been successful in some areas and unsuccessful in others. Some local unions are just not aware, are not in possession of the facts to bargain intelligently at all times on the question. Mr. Escu. Mr. Chairman, will you yield? Could we pursue the matter a little more? You are suggesting that one of the problems then in dealing with safety in the collective bar- gaining process is the lack of knowledge by the locals, is that correct? Mr. Wisnack. That is not the main problem. That is one of the problems. The problem of enforcement, of course, is a problem and the question of economic power, the reality of economic power, where it is possessed. Mr. Esc. What action have you taken in light of these locals in terms of filing grievance proceedings and carrying them on? Have you closed down the plants? Mr. Wisnack. Mr. Esch, we have negotiated and established a union safety committee, which Mr. Tice here is the chairman of. We have a very militant committee and do get results. Mr. Mazzocchi has pointed out there are many things that we have no knowledge of and there is no way for us to get knowledge on them. Mr. Mazzoccni. We don’t have the power to close a plant down. Mr. Esc. Don’t you at contract negotiating time, and can’t you file a grievance and can’t you strike if conditions are wrong ? Mr. Mazzoccui. It boils down to the exercise of econmic power. Mr. Esc. What you are suggesting is that you don’t want to exert your total economic power on the company to close it down because of safety conditions? 391 Mr. Mazzocent. What I am suggesting is economic power is a rela- tive factor. If we are aware of the facts of a particular area, then we might be successful in negotiating proper safety standards. But, the committee from down the road where bargaining is less equal may not be able to negotiate a standard, and the unorganized worker who has no power whatsoever. We don’t think it should be a hit-and-miss basis on something that affects national safety. It has to be equally applied to organized and unorganized. It cannot be left to the ability of a union to negotiate based on its particular power at a given moment. Mr. Esc. Let’s pursue it a moment more. What you are suggesting is you would like to have national standards in all industries uniform throughout the country in every industry, large or small, in every type of industry, in every type of manufacturing or business and that you could use those standards then in your collective bargaining; is that what you are saying? Mr. Mazzoccur. Well, from the practical protection of the American society, we would suggest that it not be part of the collective bargain- ing process. Mr. Escn. You would rather remove all safety factors from collec- tive bargaining? Mr. Mazzoccur. We think there is a place in collective bargaining for safety, but standards should be established and equally applied. We want to take the hit-and-miss characteristics out. Mr. Esch. Those standards could be utilized in collective bargaining ? Mr. Mazzoccu1. We would use it as a basis of movement and try to resolve the situation intelligently. Mr. Forn. Mr. Mazzocchi, you put your finger on what to me is one of the more persuasive arguments for national standards. We went through this discussion and some people were surprised, for example, when, I believe, all of the Congressmen from Michigan voted for the concept of national safety standards for automobile manufacturers. They said, “This affects your principal industry,” but the automobile industry people ended up as strong supporters. Why? Because we had a very competitive industry. The Ford Motor Co. wants to be altruistic enough to add $75 or $100 a unit to their cars for the purpose of increasing the safety factors in tires and they have to do so at peril of not being competitive with the other automobile manufacturers. Let us use your plant as an example of these two cases just described. The first one, not so easy to identify with this. In the second case, con- sider the question of what are tolerable standards for men to work in. In order to bring those standards within the 50 parts per million you talked about as a desirable level it might be necessary to do certain things that cut down the efficiency and thereby increase the unit cost whether dealing in gallons or tons or however you sell it. You put the employer, because he does try to make his plant safe, in an unfair competitive situation with somebody down the road who deals in this kind of industry with a product that a lot of people can make. Really the whole test is who can make it cheaper and deliver it to where the market, is. This, it seems to me, would be at the very nub of why industry has as much to gain as anyone else in having these standards apply uni- formly through competitive industry. 392 Mr. Burton. I would like to have inserted at the conclusion of the testimony of the chemical association people this observation on my part. One of the manuals that we were impressed with was this red chemicard manual that the Manufacturing Chemists Association makes available. There are some 85 cards contained in the red booklet. They printed some 45,500 of them since the first printing in 1965. I learned after the testimony that our own State law requires our fire department’s equipment to have one of these cards available, and just about 25 per- cent of all of these useful pamphlets are utilized in California—and the rest of the Nation has only 75 percent. I think that is kind of useful for the record to reflect that. It does show that it is difficult, even with due diligence, to have needed information made available to those that should have it. I think some samples of MCA’s materials should appear in the record. (A sampling of these materials appears on p. 806 et seq. of this volume.) Mr. Burton. Mr. Mazzocchi, let me ask you one question. In the jurisdiction that your organization is operating within, are all of your workers covered by State workmen’s compensation laws? Mr. Mazzoccni. To the extent of my knowledge, I would assume they are. Mr. Burton. I don’t have any other questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend you and the men that you have brought with you for your useful contribution to our deliberations. I think the point of hit-and-miss nature of this plant-by-plant employer method of approaching safety standards is one that we prefer to follow, if your record reflects it works; but I imagine ever since the States got involved in safety-on-the-job laws and regulations, we found it does not work that way. You have to have some kind of standard. We have State standards of sorts. They are hit and miss as you go from one State to the other; also from one industry to the. other. I imagine this legislation is in- tended to fill the major gaps on the job safety of American workers. Mr. Forp. In how many States do you represent employees of the petrochemical industry ? Mr. Mazzoccur. I can’t break down petrochemical, but we represent employees over 38 States throughout the Union. We haven’t mentioned the atomic industry, which has its own very profound problems; and we prefer not to get into them today. The industries, of course, are very concentrated. Mr. Forp. For example, we have had testimony from the State of New Jersey which seems, from what else we have heard and from the experience of members, some members of the committee, to do a better job than most States in the chemical industry. Mr. Mazzocenr. I would quarrel with that on the basis of my expe- rience with National Lead. We had State inspectors. Mr. Forp. The point I am trying to reach is: How much variation do you find from your point of view between States? Do we have any States that are moving ahead that might be an example of how suc- cessfully safety standards can be adopted and enforced ? Mr. Mazzoccur. I am not competent to answer that. I have in my own experience not found any that I would consider a paragon of virtue in the area of worker safety. I know of a lot of bad experience, for 393 instance, in the State of Texas. If the State of New J ersey is reputed to have a fine safety program, I would have to quarrel with it on the basis of my experience in National Lead where we had State inspectors in the plant and that was it—we had a visit. Mr. Foro] Let me ask about another one. We have here, in the indus- tries you deal with, the kind of industries that in modern America are not any longer found in three or four or five concentrated spots in the country, but are in 38 States. In the State of Michigan, we are rather sophisticated about how to operate the kind of machinery that is used in the automobile industry and all of its supplementary serv- ices; but we also have some chemical plants, large ones; but it is not in the minds of people in Michigan a major industry, so maybe not as much attention has been devoted to it as possible. We have some steel mills but we certainly don’t have anything to compare with the State of Pennsylvania or the State of Indiana. What difference do you find with respect to a State where your in- dustry is a principal industry and where your State is overshadowed by some other principal manufacturing process? Mr. Mazzoconr. I think we have a classic example. The State of Texas, where we are the preponderant group in that State. You answer that. Mr. Barnes. As far as a safety law of any sort, we got one finally through the State legislature at the last session. It is merely a frame- work to build on in the future. They have told us there is no power at all; the State can do nothing. The Ere cannot send in an inspector or shut down a plant. There is a framework for a law which was finally passed at the last session and that was the first State industrial safety law ever passed in the State of Texas. Mr. Forn. Would you then agree, with the suggestion of this legis- lation, that safety in your industry can better be handled on a national approach to the problems of your industry with standards applying to industry without regard to where the industry is located, than it can, by a State-to-State attempt, become easier for a State agency to become expert in all of the variety of industries found in the State? Mr. Mazzoccnr. We say, unequivocally, it should be nationwide. Mr. Foro. That is the nub of the question. Should this be Federal concern or should we encourage the States to do more ? Mr. Mazzoccur. It has to be a Federal concern; it has to be based on our own observation. Mr. Wisnack. If we wait for the States, we will never have a stand- ard one for all of the States. Mr. Mazzocont. The safety chairman of the National Lead plant, John Tice, chairman for the union safety committee. Mr. Tice. I have been involved in this now for about 414 years as safety chairman. I have been dealing with the company on face value because I think they are a reputable company. But I will tell you the last few nights I have not slept after our meeting with these two scien- tists. I find out that 50 parts per million of carbon monoxide is a legal dosage that you can work in. Since this meeting last Monday, I find out in conversation with our operators and people that work in the experimental stations that the machines were set at 400 parts per mil- 394 lion. Last Monday on our tour of the plant with Mr. Mazzocchi, and other people involved, we found one machine on 400 parts and other machines on 300 parts and most of them were set on 200 parts per million. We have 10 areas broken down in our plant that we work with. I can say that nine of the 10 of them we have 100-percent cooperation. This experimental station where this new chloride process has been very lax. We have records over a year of old minutes from our safety meeting with the management that will verify this. I take any job that I am charged with with a lot of responsibility. Believe me, you feel bad because a kid 25 years of age died. Maybe it is because we were too lax, I don’t know; but until this past 2 weeks, I had no knowledge of what this level of parts per million did to a human being. As you know, our industry is covered with chlorine, we have an awful lot of chlorine in the area. I personally have gone up and tried to shut the station down on two occasions with no success. They have operated what they call a sour tower, where the caustic scrubbing cuts down the chlorine fumes being let into the air. They had this tower in operational condition for a period of 3 days at one time and 2 days on the other. If they had a flameout in this area, this whole area would have been covered with chlorine. There was nothing they could have done about it, not only for the people in the plant but the surrounding community of Melrose, which is a suburb of Sayreville. We know if we run a traffic-stop street, we get a ticket for it. I onl have a State equivalent of your certificate, as far as I have gone in i) school education, and I don’t know about the chemicals. I work on this on a part-time basis as a chairman. It is not a full-time job. 1 feel deeply concerned because of what has happened to our plant. These steel lines run through all of the buildings up in the chloride section. Who do we turn to? I can’t tell you and I don’t think any officer in the union can tell you. The expert advice that we recently received was only through Tony, here, when we got the people down from Rocke- feller. We are working with a potential bomb. We have two people, pipefitters on shifts, who will be working on the CO lines. They have to service and lock up the chlorine lines. If carbon monoxide has the effect on the brain that we have been told it has, I fear for not only our people in the plant, but for the people in South Amboy, Perth Amboy, and Sayreville, because they just might pass out there some night when they are opening up and that is going to be it. That is all I have. Mr. Forp. Mr. Esch. Mr. Escu. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions, just a com- ment that I am sure we are all vitally concerned with the area and 1 think the testimony of the witnesses highlighted the need for a great deal more research and cooperation and training than what we have now. I also want to comment on the chairman’s comments that we also have a competitive position international and I think that the prob- lem is related to domestic competition in this country and this has to be taken in the context of international competition and the costs in- 395 volved there and I am sure our committee wants to talk about these matters in the ensuing weeks. Thank you very much. Mr. Foro. Just with regard to that, Mr. Burton and I have visited a cotton plant where we saw people wearing a breechcloth working in acid with no rubber clothing. The manager of the plant was telling us how well they treated the employees. This was a company that could conceivably be competing with us, but never would I want to see us compete if that is the cost we have to pay for it in the international market. Mr. Mazzoccur. We subscribe to that wholeheartedly. Mr. Wiscnack. Might I invite the committee to drive through the turnpike from our section, Sayreville, through New York to see if you can make it through the industrial section. Mr. Foro. Driving up through Delaware is enough for me. We don’t have the cleanest air in Detroit but it beats what you have up there. Mr. Mazzoccnr. I also suggest you take a carbon monoxide reading in your garage underneath this building. Mr. Foro. I live under the smokestacks of the Ford plant. The hearings will be adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, March 8, 1968.) (The following material has been inserted as was previously noted in today’s transcript:) 396 TELEPHONE HUDSON 3.6126 Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. (FOUNDED 1872) 1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W, WasHINGTON, D. C. 20009 December 1967 1 INDUSTRIAL INJURY EXPERIENCE fi CRATE SUMMARY, 1967 Editorial This report concerns approximately six hundred thirty thousand men who worked twelve hundred sixty million manhours of chemical manufacturing in 1967. 4,152 men were injured. - This averages out at 33 injuries in a ten million manhour work period. Coincidentally, for the year 1966, we reported that six hundred twenty six thousand five hundred men had worked twelve hundred fifty three million manhours and that 4,130 were injured. This again averages out at 33 injuries per ten million manhours. Strangely enough, it's a safe bet that the record for 1968 will be about the same. That the injury rate won't vary more than 5 per- cent in either direction. Safety professionals call this phenomenon an injury plateau. MCA's plateau for more than ten years has been an injury rate of approximately 3 per million manhours worked. Even safety psychologists don't know why this should be so. They know of no predestination, no schedule or calendar of injuries, no malice aforethought. Yet how little variation there is in the chemical industry's annual contribution to the numerical total of all industrial injuries. One firm belief of MCA's Safety and Fire Protection Committee is that managements must lead and inspire the struggle to eliminate this current capability of statisticians to measure chemical produc- tion in terms of lives and limbs of men. As Dow's Sam MacCutcheon would say; "There's no better incentive than the footsteps of the boss" MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION, INC. SAFETY PERFORMANCE FOR 1946 AND 1958-1967 OT FOR RELEASE OR PUBLICATION, 1946 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Number of Firms Reporting 72 103 113 112 122 126 123 125 124 127 125 Deaths 26 54 69 63 50 65 43 54 81 57 69 Permanent Totals 1 2 1 2 2 4 1 1 3 3 2 Permanent Partials 153 218 229 201 192 197 180 189 221 253 216 Temporary Totals 3,098 2,526 3,010 2,898 2,911 3,169 3,065 3,404 3,363 3,817 3,865 Total Industrial Injuries 3,278 2,800 3,309 3,164 3,155 3,435 3,289 3,648 3,668 4,130 4,152 Employee Hours of Exposure (in thousands) 428,000 938,207 980, 064 992,585 1,049,897 1,093,925 1,103,081 1,153,608 1,179,170 1,252,954 1,259,939 Total Time Charged 295,000 492,590 605,065 547,974 475,495 561,994 429,358 495,318 688,338 581,574 659,943 Frequency Rate 7.65 2.98 3.38 3.19 3.00 3.14 2.98 3.16 3.11 3.30 3.30 Severity Rate All Injuries 689 525 617 552 453 514 389 429 584 464 524 Severity Rate Deaths and Permanent Totals Only 379 358 429 393 297 378 239 286 427 287 338 L6€ COLUMNS BASED ON THE ABOVE FIGURES 1000 FREQUENCY RATE SEVERITY RATE Number of Injuries per Million Calendar Days Lost per Million Man-Hours of Exposure 900 Man-Hours of Exposure 800 700 600 : @: 86E 200 A’ Frequency Rate Severity Rate All Chemicals (NSC) 1966 « « « + + + + 3.78. « c . ... 399 All Chemicals (BLS) 196. + v » vv 0 609 ov ss seis =-- All Manufacturing (NSC) 1966 . . . . . . . 6.91 . . . . . . . 689 All Manufacturing (BLS) 1985%u vw vv #5 #A2eD wv maw wn w= *Latest figures available Number Fo. of % of Exposure % of No. of | % of Time % of Deaths & % of Deaths Severity | Severity Rate of Reporting| Total Hours Total Charged | Total | Permanent |& Permanent |Prequency|Rate All| Deaths and Employees Pimms Reporting | (in 1,000's)| Exposure| Injurins| Injuries (Days) Time Total Total Rate Injuries Permanent Hours Disabilities|Disabilities Totals Only 1963 26 21.14 7,794 0.71 109 3.31 1,888 [ 0.44 0 0.00 13.99 242 o 1964 24 19.20 6,630 0.57 116 3.18 2,094 | 0.42 0 0.00 17.50 316 0 1965 25 20.16 7.412 0.63 130 3.54 7,831 1.14 3 1.19 17.53 1057 809 1966 23 18.11 6,666 0.53 137 3.32 4,39 | 0.76 0 0.00 20.55 659 0 1967 19 15 5,228 0.41 128 3.08 8,648 | 1.31 o 0.00 24.48 1654 0 1963 35 28.45 35,396 3.21 292 8.88 9,845 | 2.29 0 0.00 8.25 278 0 1964 38 30.40 37,816 3.28 385 10.55 45,340 | 9.15 6 10.90 10.18 1199 476 1965 34 27.42 35,200 2.99 384 10.49 18,237 2.65 1 1.19 10.91 518 170 1966 37 29.14 39,520 3.16 552 13.36 56,094 | 9.64 6 10.00 13.96 1419 911 1967 37 30 42,600 3.38 455 10.96 15,296 2.32 2 2.82 10.68 359 282 1000-2500 1963 22 17.89 77,949 7.06 498 15.14 38,461 8.96 4 9.09 6.39 493 308 1964 21 16.80 72,765 6.31 452 12.39 60,013 | 12.12 8 14.55 6.21 825 330 1965 24 19.36 83,077 7.04 536 14.61 70,148 | 10.19 9 10.71 6.45 844 650 1966 23 18.11 78,618 6.27 505 12.23 34,147 5.87 3 5.00 6.42 434 229 1967 24 19 77,605 6.16 604 14.55 34,231 5.19 2 2.82 7.78 441 155 2500-5000 1963 1s 12.19 98,609 8.94 378 11.52 36,097 | 8.41 4 9.09 3.84 366 243 1964 16 12.80 111,532 9.67 534 14.64 64,551 | 13.03 8 14.55 4.79 579 215 1965 17 13.71 125,753 10.66 717 19.54 86,638 [12.59 9 10.71 5.70 689 429 1966 19 14.96 135,317 10.80 644 15.59 115,622 | 19.88 12 20.00 4.76 854 532 1967 19 15 135,432 10.75 791 19.05 92,908 | 14.08 9 12.67 5.84 686 399 1963 25 20.33 883,333 80.08 2,011 61.15 343,067 | 79.90 36 8l.82 2.28 388 245 1964 26 20.80 924,865 80.17 2,161 59.24 323,320 | 65.28 33 60.00 2.34 350 214 1965 24 10.35 927,728 78.68 1,901 51.82 505,484 | 73.43 64 76.20 2.05 545 414 1966 25 19.68 992,833 79.24 2,292 55.50 371,315 | 63.85 39 65.00 2.30 374 236 1967 26 21 999,075 79.30 2,174 52.36 508,860 [77.10 58 81.69 2.18 509 348 1963 123 -— 1,103,081 -— 3,289 - 429,358 — 44 -— 2.98% 389% 239% 1964 125 -— 1,153,608 od 3,648 -— 495,318 — 55 3.16% 429% 286% 1965 124 — 1,179,170 CL 3,668 — 688,338 -— 84 — 3.11 579% 427% 1966 127 -— 1,252,954 -— 4,130 — 581,574 -— 60 -— 3.30% 464% 287% 1967 125 -— 1,259,940 -— 4,152 -— 659,943 -— 71 -— 3.30% 524+ 338+ *Cumulative Rates 66¢ 400 STATEMENT OF J. W. HYDE, VicE PRESIDENT, SHELL CHEMICAL Co., AND R. G. DILLARD, SUPERINTENDENT, SHELL CHEMICAL PranT, HousrtoN, TEX. My name is J. W. Hyde. I am Vice President of Shell Chemical Company. Mr. R. G. Dillard, Plant Superintendent of Shell Chemical’s Plant in Houston, Texas, joins me in this statement. I wish to express the appreciation of my company to Mr. William D. Ford and the other members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to respond to charges by Mr. R. L. Barnes, President of Local 4-367, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Worker's International Union, AFL-CIO, who testified on March 7 in support of H.R. 14816 (pp. 510-518). Reference will be made to various portions of Mr. Barnes’ testimony which we consider to have been inaccurate and misleading. In addition, reference will be made to an accident at Shell Oil Company’s refinery in Dominguez, California, cited on page 3 of a written statement to the subcommittee dated March 7, 1968, by Mr. Anthony Mazzocchi, Citizenship- Legislative Director of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Worker's International Union, AFL-CIO. Concerning the merits of H.R. 14816, Shell Chemical’s position has been stated by Mr. Donald C. O'Hara, Executive Vice President of the National Petroleum Refiners Association, whose statement opposing the Bill was made before the subcommittee on March 6. 1968. (1) SAFETY PROGRAM AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES IN EFFECT AT SHELL CHEMICAL'S HOUSTON PLANT Mr. Barnes charged that an explosion on January 15, 1968, at Shell Chemical’s Houston plant resulted from the “company’s maintenance policies and the lack of proper inspection procedures” (p. 383). As to what should be done, Mr. Barnes, testifying at page 386, says that a plant program should include: First, “an adequate maintenance force”; Second, “a planned, routine safety inspection of all units * * *”; and Third, “a valid safety program and safety depart- ment * * *” The substance of Mr. Barnes’ testimony is that such a program, including the three parts he believes are essential, does not exist at Shell's plant. The facts clearly refute this. First: Adequate maintenance is not ignored or neglected as Mr. Barnes alleges. Shell is well aware of its responsibility to keep the plant in a safe and efficient operating condition and the force available in the plant is adequate for all purposes of maintenance. Recent. technological and metallurgical improvements in process equipment have provided greater reliability and safety. Maintenance is required at less frequent intervals; thus permitting longer operation between shutdowns for maintenance purposes. While these improvements have reduced manpower re- quirements in the maintenance field this does not mean that maintenance is neglected or that the plant is run “until it falls apart” as Mr. Barnes charges at page 515. The maintenance force within the Houston plant in 1967 included 371 men; an average of 223 Shell employees together with 148 contract crafts- men from the AFL-CIO Building Trades group. Both Shell employees and AFL~- CIO Building Trades craftsmen are specifically selected for their qualifications and suitability for maintenance work. In addition, the constant upgrading of equipment in the plant by significant investments in new metallurgical alloys as they are developed, shows manage- ment’s continuing concern with safety. Although use of the latest metallurgical alloys increased our maintenance expense, this is considered as an investment in safer and more efficient operation; and refutes Mr. Barnes’ statement (pp. 516-517) that “if safety interferes with production or costs a little extra money, then safety is cast aside.” Second: Contrary to Mr. Barnes’ implication (p. 386), the modern inspection techniques we use at Houston and at all our chemical plants are part of a planned, orderly inspection system to keep a close and constant check on equip- ment. These techniques have helped us to determine what metals are best suited for various wear situations. Modern alloys, combined with extensive use of cor- rosion inhibitors, have increased equipment safety substantially. 1 Page references are to these printed hearings. Quotations are from the original transcript. 401 The importance of the inspection program is demonstrated by the high caliber of employees directed to supervise it. At our Houston chemical plant we have 24 people active in or participating in the inspection functions, 19 of whom are graduate engineers and the remainder are employees who have worked in the He as skilled craftsmen or were selected for their particular aptitude in this eld. Third : In response to the third point made by Mr. Barnes that there should be a “valid safety program and safety department” (p. 386), we have in our Safety Department; an assistant department manager who reports to the Manager of Personnel and four inspectors who were formerly skilled craftsmen or experienced operators. Their experience in the Safety Department varies from a minimum of seven to a maximum of 11 years. The combined experience of these five employees in operation, maintenance, and safety totals approximately 110 years. The average tenure in the Safety Department is ten years. It would therefore be obvious that these men are eminently qualified to perform their duties as safety inspectors. In addition to these five safety people, all maintenance and operating shift foremen serve in the Safety Department for periods of four to eight weeks on a scheduled basis in order to become acquainted with good safety practices. Plant management is held directly responsible for plant safety and administra- tion of safety procedures.” Further information on the safety program is shown in the following exhibits, i.e., “Guidebook to Safety” (Exhibit A); “Emergency Manual for Fire Control with a Planned, Organized Team Effort” (Exhibit B); “Rules and Regula- tions for the Houston Plant” August 1956 (Exhibit C) ; “Rules and Regulations for the Houston Plant” February 1968 (Exhibit D). (Excerpts from these exhibits are printed below.) In addition to the in-plant inspection procedures and safety program, outside safety authorities, agencies or inspection companies make plant inspections. These include: (1) periodic checks by U.S. Department of Labor representatives; (2) period checks by Travelers’ Insurance Company; (3) annual inspection by the Oil Insurance Company ; (4) annual inspection by the 4th U.S. Army ; and (5) inspections by the Texas Water Quality Board and the Texas Air Control Board. (2) ALLEGED MANPOWER DEFICIENCIES AT SHELL CHEMICAL'S HOUSTON PLANT At page 384 Mr. Barnes alleges that ‘the operating forces, the men that actually run the plants, have been reduced below a safe level in many instances—" and that “calculated risks” are accepted that nothing will happen. Since Mr. Barnes does not attempt to support his allegation or define a “safe level,” we can only assure the subcommittee that safety of operations is a primary considera- tion in determining the size of the operating force. Far from accepting a “calcu- lated risk” in this regard, the operating force is maintained at a level sufficient to provide assurance of safe as well as efficient operations. Other allegations made by Mr. Barnes charge that Shell Chemical Company : (a) “cut plant maintenance forces below the absolute minimum required to keep the plants in any sort of repair” (p. 384); (b) declines to repair safety hazards ‘because necessary manpower is not available” (p. 384); and (c) refuses to replace attrition losses and has cut the number of employees to the point “that the necessary maintenance cannot possibly be done as soon as it should be” (p. 384). We feel that we have adequately answered these and other allegations by the above references to maintenance at the Houston plant, its safety program and inspection procedure. The allegations of manpower deficiencies in operations and maintenance obviously is an attempt to force the Company, under the guise of safety, to employ unnecessary personnel. Shell's response herein clearly demonstrates the lack of any real substance to these charges. In fact, the Shell Chemical plant at Houston, in terms of housekeeping, gen- eral safety practices and appearance, is rated near the top five percent of plants in the United States Chemical Industry. The plant has received four safety awards by the National Safety Council, including the Presidential award which cites it for having operated for 3,750,000 man hours without a single lost-time accident. 20n page 515, Mr. Barnes makes an inaccurate statement relative to the storage of chlorine at this plant. All chlorine stored in tanks at our plant is in accordance with pe Ful regulations, and procedures recommended by the American Society of Mechanical ngineers. 402 (8) ACCIDENTS CITED AS HAVING OCCURRED AT SHELL CHEMICAL PLANT AND REFINERY IN HOUSTON, TEX., AND REFINERY AT DOMINGUEZ, CALIF. In his testimony Mr. Barnes referred to an explosion at the Shell Chemical Company plant in Houston (p. 383) and to a fire, also in Houston, occurring some weeks later at the Shell Oil Company refinery (p. 386). In addition, Mr. Mazzoc- chi refers in his written statement to a Shell employee injured at a hydrogen sulfide plant in Shell’s refinery in Dominguez, California (p. 382). Further in- formation on these accidents is shown below : * (1) On January 15, 1968, an 18-inch segment of pipe blew out, causing an explosion and fire at Shell Chemical’s Houston plant. The unit where the explosion occurred has been in operation some 27 years and during that time it essentially has been replaced approximately five times. The particular section of the unit in which the failure occurred had been shut down ap- proximately once a month for maintenance and inspections. Nevertheless, internal corrosion of the 18-inch section of pipe which ruptured escaped detection. (2) On February 15, 1968, an accident occurred at the Shell Oil refinery in Houston, Texas, Briefly, a pipefitter was given a written safety permit to open a line located at the normal paraffin recovery unit. Unexpectedly, gas escaped and ignited. The fire was extinguished in about 20 minutes. There were no injuries. (3) On March 30, 1967, an employee at Shell Oil's refinery in Dominguez, California, was hospitalized after inhaling H2 S gas which backed up through a water line into an open vessel. An Accident Investigating Com- mittee subsequently determined that the accident resulted from the failure of one or both of the check valves in the dual discharge lines. Additional check valves were provided to prevent recurrence. Even a single accident can be tragic if personal injury or death is involved. However, we do not believe that Mr. Barnes is serving the cause of safety by emphasizing isolated incidents which are not typical while ignorng the real achevement of millions of man hours worked without any disabling injury. The accidents cited above did not result from insufficient manpower or inade- quate inspection and safety procedures as Mr. Barnes charges. However, human beings are fallible and therefore it is not possible to totally eliminate all acci- dents. This does not mean that Shell is not deeply concerned about accidents. On the contrary, prevention, absolute and total, is the primary goal, and we strive for this with the best skills and techniques available. If an accident does occur we endeavor to learn from it and prevent repetition of any failure, human or mechanical. (4) CONCLUSION Finally, Mr. Barnes said that Shell shows a disregard for the safety of its employees and the public generally “in the name of ‘competition’ and ‘profits’ ” (p. 384). This charge is refuted by Shell’s whole record which shows a responsible, enlightened attitude toward and concern with the welfare of its employees, the community in which it functions, and the public generally. Manifestly, Shell is a successful competitor and makes a profit. Success, however, is not achieved today, nor ever was, by endangering the safety of employees or the public, to say nothing of the costly mistake, from a purely business point of view, of neglecting safety and risking the destruction of physical facilities which in Shell’s case amount to a multi-million dollar investment in the Houston plant alone. To do everything reasonably required to provide a safe environment in which to work and to avoid endangering the community are nothing more than any responsible company would choose to do solely on moral or ethical grounds. As for business considerations, to do otherwise would be to invite economic ruin. No profitable oil refinery or chemical plant can possibly be successful if operated today without an investment in and commitment to maintenance and all aspects of safety at least equal to the risk inherent in the operation. As shown above, the safety program and inspection procedures followed by Shell are planned by and executed under the supervision of experts in this field. 3 Information in this section on the accidents at Shell Oil Company's refineries in Houston, Texas, and Dominguez, California, has been furnished by Mr. L. T. Wilson, Manager of the Houston Refinery, and Mr. H. M. Karr, Manager of the Wilmington- Dominguez Refinery. 403 Certainly no other group of persons can be expected to have more knowledge or experience or be more directly and immediately motivated to achieve the goals of maximum plant safety. EMERGENCY MANUAL FOR FIRE CONTROL WITH A PLANNED, ORGANIZED TEAM Errort, HOUSTON PLANT FOREWORD It is essential that a definite procedure be established for fighting fires within the Plant in order that they may be extinguished with as little delay and con- fusion as possible. With this in mind, it is necessary to organize the personnel into individual groups or crews; each crew and each member of the crew to have definite assigned duties in case of fire and to be trained in these duties until the whole is a smooth-working team. The following instructions covering the organization of the fire crews, the fire- fighting equipment to which they shall be assigned and the general procedure to be followed from the “reporting” of a fire to the “recall” are given for your guidance. Please study this Manual thoroughly in order that you may be familiar with your duties at all times. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Reporting Fires Immediately after a fire is discovered, go to the nearest Plant phone and dial No. 321. The call will be answered, “Fire Alarm.” The person calling must first give his name, then state the location of the fire by Zone Number. The fire zone is on the dial plate of every Plant telephone. Speak distinctly; do not get excited and be sure the person answering the call understands correctly before leaving the telephone. Answering Alarms When the fire alarm telephone at the Main Gate House rings, it should be answered by the guard on duty by saying, “Fire Alarm.” Upon learning the Zone Number where the fire is reported, it should be repeated back to the man turning in the alarm so as to avoid any misunderstanding. To sound the alarm, a long alert blast of the electric siren on top of the Main Shops will be sounded. It will be followed by short blasts of the air horns indicating the Zone Number. After a slight pause, the Zone Number is to be repeated. Particular attention is called to the Fire Zone Map. Study the map posted in each control house so that you are thoroughly familiar with the zone locations. The Recall As soon as the fire is extinguished, one short blast of the whistle should be given. The recall should only be sounded on instructions from the staff member in charge. As soon as the recall is sounded, all men should immediately return to their jobs. Those in charge of the fire pumps should shut them down before returning. NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL IN EMERGENCIES In matters of emergency nature such as a fire, explosion, or any unusual occurrence outside of normal working hours, the Main Gateman will notify the Staff Duty Man. The Staff Duty Man, by evaluating the information received from the Gateman will upon receipt of call, or upon arrival at the Plant : A. Instruct the Gateman to notify the Telephone Answering Service Company, telephone number GR 3-6161, to actuate Alert One, Two, or Three, or a combination of Alerts One, Two, and Three . Alert One: Fire. Alert Two : Explosion. Alert Three : Release of Hazardous Chemicals or Gases . Alert Four : Test. B. Instruct the Gateman to stand by to notify the Telephone Answering Service Company. C. Conclude the emergency does not require the services of additional personnel. 92-734 0—68—27 In the event that more than one alert is involved, a combination of alerts should be given. . The Telephone Answering Service Company will call the personnel listed with them by the Company when notified by the Plant Gateman. For numerous reasons, the message will only be “Shell Chemical-—Alert (One), (Two), (Three), (Four), or (a combination of One, Two, or Three)”. FIRE AND EXTINGUISHING AGENTS Fire In order to have a fire, three conditions must be present simultaneously. First, there must be fuel in the form of combustible vapor. Second, there must be oxygen present in the proper concentration to support combustion. Third, there must be sufficient heat to ignite this vapor, and the amount of heat neces- sary and the length of time this heat must be applied varies according to the substance from which the vapor is given off. This can be more graphically explained if we state that each of these conditions represents one side of a triangle and all three portions must be present to make the triangle complete. Heat The prevention of any fire depends wholly on the excluding of any one of these requisites from the other two. Fire extinguishment depends on the same general principles. Fires are extinguished by : 1. Stopping formation or escape of vapor. ( Starving) 2. Reducing the heat of the burning substance to a point below ignition temperature. (Cooling) 3. Keeping air from the burning substance. (Smothering) Water One of the most common methods of extinguishing of fires is by application of water to the burning material. The application of water reduces the temperature of the burning material below that necessary for it to give off combustible vapor, thus removing the heat leg of the triangle by the cooling action of the extinguishing agent. For fires of wood, rubber, textiles, etc., application of vater is preferable to any other method of extinguishment. Care must be exer- cised in using water on oil fires. If considerable oil is released, large amounts of water applied to the area would spread the burning oil to nearby equipment. Further, water streams should not be directed steadily on extremely hot lines and equipment as the cold water streams on hot metal cause buckling and sometimes failures. Solvents and gas fires can be extinguished with water by the use of fog noz- zles. This equipment is designed to apply water in the form of fog or mist. When water is directed on the fire in this manner, it is converted into steam which smothers the fire by diluting the vapor-air mixture above the liquid surface to the point that there is insufficient oxygen to support combustion. The use of water is effective as a cooling agent to adjacent equipment and for the protection of fire crews when working near fires. Applying water to an electrical fire presents the hazard of electrocution: therefore, water should not be directed on electrical equipment in any form until switches have been opened or fuses pulled. Steam Steam is effectively used in the extinguishment of solvent and gas fires. It has a smothering and cooling effect on the fire. In reference to the fire triangle, the addition of steam dilutes the vapor-air mixture below the inflammable concentra- tions and removes the air (oxygen) side of the triangle. When steam is applied 405 under high pressure, it has a tendency to remove the heat leg of the triangle by the cooling action of the steam on the burning material. Permanent connections and steam smothering hose installations provide steam for extinguishment of fires originating in trenches, sewers, small enclosures, pump packings and vessels. Gassy areas are purged and gas concentrations are diluted by the application of steam in such area. As steam is a possible conductor of electricity, it should not be used on electrical equipment unless the power has been shut off. Carbon Dioxide Extinguishers The use of carbon dioxide as a fire extinguishing agent is effective in the ex- tinguishment of electrical fires, solvent fires and most gas fires put is not effec- tive on fires of wood, textiles, paper, etc., where glowing embers are present. A carbon dioxide extinguisher consists of one or more cylinders of liquid car- bon dioxide which vaporizes when released to the atmosphere and is blown through a horn over the fire area. This inert gas, being one and one-half times heavier than air, dilutes the air (oxygen) side of the fire triangle and extinguishes the fire by smothering. Difficulty is sometimes experienced in using this method of extinguishment in the open atmosphere under high wind velocities because of the difficulty experienced in confining the gas to the fire. In addition to reduction of the oxygen concentrations py dilution, the expan- sion of the liquid when reduced to a gas is accompanied by a severe drop in tem- perature and the formation of carbon dioxide snow. This drop in temperature, in addition to the force with which it is expelled, has a cooling effect on the burn- ing material and by removing the heat leg of the triangle assists greatly in the fire extinguishment. Carbon dioxide being a nonconductor of electricity, is a safe and effective method of extinguishing electrical fires. Dry Chemical Extinguishers In this type of extinguisher, a fog of finely powdered sodium bicarbonate (with a small amount of aluminum sulphate as a drying agent) is blown over the burning surface or in the cse of a gas fire blown into the burning gas by the pressure of a cylinder of carbon dioxide gas or nitrogen gas. A small hermetically sealed cylinder of carbon dioxide is used in a hand extinguisher and a cylinder of nitrogen with a hand controlled valve is used on the wheeled-type engines. This method of extinguishment removes the air (oxygen) and heat legs of the fire triangle and extinguishes by smothering and cooling. The inert gases released by the extinguisher and the carbon dioxide liberated from the sodium bicarbonate being heavier than air, blanket the area to smother the fire. Both agents are effective in cooling inflammable materials below their combustion point. Extinguishment of fires by use of dry, finely powdered, noncombustible dust has been used in various forms. Sand thrown over a small ground fire of solvent or other similar material has been effectively used for many years. The dust blown over the fire with the dry chemical extinguisher being princi- pally sodium bicarbonate, is converted to carbon dioxide and, in addition to the cooling effect of the powder, extinguishes by smothering. This powder being a nonconductor of electricity may be safely and effectively used on electrical fires. Foam The most generally use fire extinguishing agent in solvent storage is foam. Foam is the most effective of all extinguishing agents for fighting a solvent fire when the solvent is confined. For example, for a solvent fire in a tank, in a fire wall, trench, etc., where the liquid surface can be completely blanketed with a layer of foam, foam extinguishes the fire by cutting off the solvent surface from the free space and radiant heat above, thereby stopping the formation of vapor essential to the burning of the solvent and thus starves the fire by re- moving the air (oxygen) leg of the triangle. Foam also has a tendency to cool the solvent surface, but its greatest effectiveness is in starving. Being a conductor of electricity (foam is made up of about 95% water), foam. should not be used on electrical fires until the electric power has been shut off. INSTRUCTIONS IN USE OF EQUIPMENT General All employees should be instructed in the use of first equipment insofar as possible. This is particularly true of the fire crews and the Operating Depart- ment personnel. Every effort will be made to train as many men as possible in 406 the use of extinguishers, gas masks, etc. These instructons should be carried out by the Fire Inspectors and Fire Chiefs or alternates whenever opportunity offers. When moving up equipment, the fire crews should connect to the hydrant in such a manner that it will not be necessary for crews coming later to run their equipment over hose already in place. In case a crew is requested not to turn on the water or foam, the entire crew should stand by their equipment ready for further instructions until the recall is sounded. In case of fire on an operating unit or an adjacent unit from which a member of a fire crew is assigned, the man should first attend to any special duties in connection with protecting his unit before joining the crew; the remainder of the crew will proceed as usual. In order to acquaint all members of the fire organzation with the various methods of fire extinguishment and the various types of equipment available for the extinguishment of fires in this Plant, the following information is given. Many fires that could have been quickly extinguished with a bucket of water or with the contents of a small hand extinguisher at the time they were first discovered have resulted in total destruction either because the bucket of water or extinguisher was not available or because if available, it was not used or was not properly used. Dry Powder Wheeled Extinguishers To be properly operated, these extinguishers must be kept upright. Open pres- sure cylinder valve on the wheeled extinguisher, also, open chemical tank valve and be sure it is fully opened. Get nozzle in proper position to spray chemical at base of flame. Open hose nozzle. Direct stream of chemical at the base of flame sweeping with side-to-side motion, following up the fire. This extinguisher is safe to use on electric fires. After the fire is extinguished, close all valves, invert extinguisher, then open hose nozzle to release the pressure from the extinguisher. Be sure the extin- guisher is inverted so as to save chemical, then notify Fire Inspector. Wheeled Carbon Dioxide Extinguishers This extinguisher should also be kept upright. Pull the pin from the cylinder valve and open the valve fully. On the double cylinder extinguisher both valves must be opened simultaneously; direct gas at base of flame. After the fire is extinguished, close valves and notify Fire Inspector. This extinguisher is safe on electrical fires. Quick Acting Water Reels These reels are to be used in the areas affected and shall be operated by the operating personnel not specifically assigned to a crew and who can be spared from operating units. Remove hose from reel before turning water into hose. Emergency Fire Pump An auxiliary 1500 GPM gasoline-driven fire water pump is located at the EP cooling water tower, taking suction from the cooling tower basin and discharging into the fire water system to serve as a standby in case the Refinery water supply is insufficient. This pump is to be started by the EP Furnace Operator for all fires. Discharge valves to be opened into the Plant fire water system only if notified to do. The operator will stand by until the recall. The telephone number is 268. Fire Truck Unit No. 17 The fire truck has a 750 GPM water pump which can be used for increasing the pressure on hose streams or pump water into the fire water system from cooling tower basins. All members of Fire Crew No. 1 and all Operating Depart- ment Managers are trained in the operation of this truck. In case of an exceptionally large fire requiring a great many hose streams, difficulty may be encountered in maintaining pressure. In case additional pres- sure is needed, the staff member will contact the Refinery staff member on duty and request additional pumps at the Refinery boilerhouse be started. Foam Truck and Portable Foam Tower Unit No. 21 The foam truck has a 750 GPM water pump which can be used for increasing the pressure on hose streams or to pump water into the fire water system from cooling tower basins and can produce separate water and foam streams. The foam 407 truck is equipped with a 1,000-gallon storage tank of liquid Aer-O-Foam 99 and a portable foam tower. All members of the Fire Crews and Operating Depart- ment Managers receive training on the application of foam, the operation of this truck and the erection of the foam tower. The foam truck and equipment under normal conditions will be operated by Fire Crew No. 2. Foam We wish to call attention to the fact that most of the Plant’s storage tanks do mot have fixed foam connections. Fire fighting at these tanks is dependent entirely on foam towers. . The foam truck allows immediate application of foam following the hookup of water supply. The foam truck carries 1,000 gallons of liquid foam ; and 150 five- gallon cans (750 gallons) liquid foam is stored on pallets at the Fire and Safety Garage. The liquid foam stored at the Fire and Safety Garage will be transported to the scene of the fire as directed by the Fire Chief. When using the portable foam tower, it must be remembered that when raising and lowering the telescope sections, it must be done slowly to prevent loss of control. Foam nozzles with pickup tubes attached and 5-gallon cans of liquid foam can be used effectively on small fires such as trench fires, sump pit fires, spill fires in confined areas, etc. The foam nozzles and pickup tubes are found on the foam truck. Liquid foam is a mechanical foam that is mixed proportionately with water, making a foam solution. Air is introduced at the foam maker of the foam nozzle or foam chamber and the resultant churning action produces foam. Mechanical foam can best be produced with a water pressure of 80-130 pounds. It should be remembered that foam can only be effectively used where it is possible to confine the foam. In other words, foam cannot be effectively used for fires on towers, lines, etc. Two-way radios have been installed in the fire truck, foam truck and the Main Gatehouse to provide better communication during an emergency. These radios are for emergency use only. The Main Gate is Unit 20, the fire truck is Unit 17, the foam truck is Unit 21. All members of the fire crew and all Operating Depart- ment Managers are trained in the operation of these radios. Ambulance . The ambulance is located in the Fire and Safety Garage. The ambulance will report to all fires. The shift truck driver will leave his truck at the fire station and drive the ambulance to the fire. The truck driver should park the ambulance within a reasonable distance of the fire but in such a manner so as not to be a safety hazard or to interfere with placing fire-fighting equipment into operation. All shift truck drivers should be familiar with all locations of the Plant so as to avoid any delay in getting the ambulance to the scene of the fire. FIRE EQUIPMENT AND CREW ORGANIZATION The coordination of fire-fighting methods will be under the supervision of the Fire Chief. The Department Manager in whose area fire occurs during the normal workday will be the Fire Chief. At other times, the Operating Shift Fore- man will act as Fire Chief until relieved by the Staff Man on duty. The Fire Chief will be assisted by Department Managers, Assistant Department Managers, Operating Shift Foreman, Fire and Safety Inspectors and Maintenance Shift Foremen. In case of a tank fire requiring additional foam, the Maintenance Shift Fore- man will supervise the delivery of liquid Aer-O-Foam from the Fire and Safety Garage. He should keep a careful check on the amount of liquid being used and report to the Fire Chief when the supply begins to run low. He will arrange for men and equipment in case it is necessary to blind lines, move equipment or materials, and will arrange for men for clean-up and to assist the Fire Inspectors in replacing hose on reels, ete. The Fire and Safety Inspectors will maintain the fire-fighting equipment. At other times, they will assist the Department Managers in training the fire crews, taking pictures, making notes, etc., for reports. 408 The fire crews are made up from shift maintenance and operating personnel. Each crew will have men assigned to certain duties, which they are expected to perform on all fire calls. The duties of each member of the fire crew are herein- after set forth and each man shall remain at his post until recall is sounded. Bach fire crew will have one man assigned to the fire hydrant and the balance of the crew at the nozzle. The hydrant man and nozzle man should remain at their position until the recall is sounded. In some instances the fire may not require chemicals and in such cases this crew may be assigned other duties. When using foam or water streams, the hose should always be directed away from the fire until the Chief or Assistant Chief is certain that there is no oil or solvent present, so as to avoid possibility of flash back to the crew. Following is the Fire Organization Chart showing personnel duties and equip- ment assignments. SHELL CHEMICAL cou any ar HOUSTON PLANT £18 CONTROL OMANI AT 108 CHART FINE CnIEF STAFF wa 08 DUTY, SEPARTWENT MAMAGCR 06 SHIFT FORDE IN WSC AREA FIRE 13 LOCATED | | \ fie oner ASSISTANT FIRE CniEr —— o_O ontario warmer masses Asia vie ong in ct ASISTANT GPERATING SPARTMENT MARAGERS ASSISTANT MARAGEA-SAFETY § PLANT PROTICTION STERARCE S01FT Pomme OPERATING SIFT FeRDNER FIRE AR SALTY SPECTOR 18 CMR OF EUINERT, TORS, ELECTRICAL PRO- nec fie cao, botemmpgfdin sisting bpm tion THAN A BiacY fing ASHIST IN TRAINIBG FIRE CHEWS. |ROPECT AM ASS GD DOPLOTELS, AN PRO IDE ABDI TIM Tale VINE NVR HORSE 1 te A FIRE BILL, TaICIAN MERGENCY WATER Pye fect DEMT FIN TER PP 18 BWILIN aroun WAL LLECTRICAL BiSomeEcT ION 43 STH 06 B80. 3 C.N.T. TO OPTMTES —— SUITED BT F1NG CONT, Ameiva, 0 r—cr oT. Pe tin IAT MLL TRE BIER ILL Apis 0 pty mt, Huw bin 08 ITT POND 18 COMME OF TOP TOM TATE Fon ALL ALABE. mTER fepiadeomndl UY Je SHTR SASL TSUCTIIED Svar - TOM CHT INTO STITON (F REWITED OY Pa pi. 15 DEMIR (Mat 2), SinCT : RUSS MEPRENATATIVS TO CAFETERIA. 0-1 ovenie ¢, arr. wn ’ 10 Cay ove mt eco roan rs, nS © no mer. on. me. : Num re vie m2 Ty 40 01STILATIOR muPE ———— et wn, mw. | pigs + tow crue of Lovin ner 1. Lr wT, fcoeiMTion hina int ms a Fo fg bigsirviond 2 tow canreae mun PRoTIN TR Sack, Foun, Lo. Tos, Ase oTaen fine i on come coum pein 4 moses. o—-“oat 20 Fenn apy STANT CANE na vo ITH Soar Sir Ping COON 700 ML MA on 8-4 SIFT, mr Tn reinr. 409 LOCATION OF FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT The fire truck is located in the Fire and Safety Garage and is equipped with the following : Quantity Description L cme ————— 2-stage centrifugal pump, 750-gallons-per-minute capacity, with connections for 4 hose streams. 1,000 feet ______ 23-inch firehose (national standard threads). enema rem 20-foot extension ladder. DS mmm ————— 30-foot dry chemical extinguisher. D emma Akro-Mist nozzle. i J————— Rockwood nozzle. I sme 12-foot fog applicator. Dim 10-foot lengths of hard-suction hose. p ee 20-minute back-type air mask. 1 rm R a Fire entry suit. i Electric kit consisting of long-handle snips, pliers, rubber gloves, rubber blanket, hand rope, and pole climbers. BL mm Flange spreader. 1 ner ERERER Cooper hose jacket. Dros si Spanner wrench. B cmc sm mmm nem Shovel. D i ——————— AX, D HOLY. in mmm 24-inch adapters—double female, double male, and male-to- female. Be ree se ei ne Ever-Ready flashlight. 4 sets oom Pipe clamps: 2-, 3-, 4-, 6-, and 8-inch. OU cnn ———— End wrench. 1 cere ——— 41, - by 2V%-inch double female suction adapter. 1 cnn E EERE 41,- by 2%-inch 3-way suction siamese with clappers. 1D) nim ee Re i 25-inch hose controls. The foam truck (Unit No. 21) is located in the Fire and Safety Garage and is equipped with the following : Quantity Description ic |S 2-stage centrifugal pump 750-gallons-per-minute capacity with connections for 4 water streams and a connection to to foam-proportioning manifold. VN ci———————— Aer-O-Foam liquid-proportioning pump. i Portable telescoping foam tower with Moeller tube. 1,000 Teot. cnvie= 24-inch firehose NST (national standard threads). 300 feet... eee 1%-inch firehose IPT (iron pipe threads). 1,000 gallons_____ Liquid Aer-O-Foam. BD mi i i 30-pound dry powder extinguishers. 1 corms 21-inch fog nozzle. DY cme 21-inch foam nozzles. Dr mim——— 1%,-inch foam nozzles. 8 crm———————— 21-inch valves. Yc ————— 21-inch Multiversal nozzle. 8 cc 10-foot lengths of 44-inch hard suction hose. D) | om SEH 2%- to 14-inch adapters. ER wT Foam nozzle pickup tubes. Bur vm mr mie acne Hydrant wrench. 6 wam—————— Spanner wrench. 1 crm —— 2-way radio. 1 dime 4%%- by 21%-inch double female suction adapter. 1 meme ermeen 414- by 2%-inch 3-way suction siamese with clappers. BD] ra ar 2l-inch hose controls. : SE ——— Fire entry suit. | a — 30-minute back-type air mask. 410 A trailer is located in the Fire and Safety Garage and is equipped with the following : Quantity Description 300 feet_________ 2%" fire hose (national standard threads). rene Ree Te Foam nozzle with pickup tube. 2 mms Play pipe nozzles. D cass ———— 2%-inch fog nozzles. 2 Portable monitors. 2 Spanner wrench. Hydrant wrench. L. oii Navy-type wire basket stretcher. : Backboard. This equipment remains on standby in the Fire and Safety Garage and may be transported to the fire scene as directed by the Fire Chief to provide additional tools and equipment. SAFETY This Guidebook to Safety is being presented to you with the hope that it will serve both as a guide and as a reminder. In our complex world there are certain hazards peculiar to every venture— at home, at work, and at recreation. The key to health and happiness, then, is in learning, remembering, and practicing habits of safety. Be sure your home, your recreation gear, and your plant work area are kept free of needless obstacles to safety. Be constantly alert. Keep an eye on the inexperienced or careless fellow near you and help him to establish good safety habits, for his sake as well as your own. There are two prime personal reasons for being constantly alert to, and conscious of, safety : The pain of injury and the loss of income. And there are three groups who depend on your ability, including your ability to maintain safe working habits: Your family, your co-workers, and your company. None of these people can do more than cooperate in their respective ways to your safe benefit. Your wife can remind you to wear your safety shoes—but you must put them on ; your fellow workers can warn you of on-the-spot careless- ness—but yow must be careful; and your company tries to provide maximum safety in plant design, equipment, and training—but you must take advantage of them. The contents of this Guidebook, at best, only point up some of the more common hazards peculiar to our particular kind of work. It cannot be complete. It will serve you only insofar as you read it, re-read it occasionally as a reminder, and follow its guidelines. But being safe depends entirely on you and your own common sense. Your safety is of major importance to us. We are sure that you have the same high regard for maintaining good health. Make “Safety First” first for your safety. HousToN PLANT MANAGEMENT. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR SAFETY It is impossible to formulate rules for every conceivable circumstance or com- bination of circumstances that may occur in the day-to-day operation of a com- plex plant such as ours. To get the job done safely requires the cooperated efforts of everyone concerned. The following is intended to briefly outline the general areas of responsibility. Management.—Provides guidelines to see that the necessary safety features are incorporated in the designing and engineering of the plant and that the necessary tools and equipment are provided to do the job safely. Audits the im- plementation of the safety program through inspection and review of all safety statistics and records. Supervisor—Proper instruction of employees on each task or assignment pointing up the necessary steps to do the job safely. He writes necessary safety permits or obtains safety permits from Safety Department. He sees that the proper tools, equipment, and materials are used for a particular job. He fol- lows the progress of the work and restates and reviews safety precautions as frequently as necessary. 411 Employees—The individual's attitude is the key to safety in the performance of every task or assignment. He must use the safety equipment (such as goggles, hard hats, etc.) provided him. He must be sure that he fully understands the work to be done and the instructions are clear to him and keeps alert at all times for any changes in conditions as job progresses. He avoids chance taking and consults with supervisor or more experienced employee if he has questions. He assumes responsibility for good housekeeping and recognizes that, to be well Jans, a job must be done safely. He is responsible for the safety of his fellow workers. An alert mind and good sound judgment will help to attain the objective of reducing accidents to personnel and equipment. Safety department.—Initiates and implements plant safety program for the entire plant. Provides the necessary services for making audits of the safety equipment to ensure that all equipment is in serviceable condition. Assists in the necessary training for fire crews and of supervisory personnel. Consults with the supervisory group to make sure that safety practices are being followed. Checks certain jobs and issues necessary permits as requested by supervisors. Investigates accidents, makes reports, and recommends corrective action to avoid future occurrences. CLOTHING AND PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT Work clothing.—Clean, durable clothing, in good repair, prevents skin irrita- tions which, if exposed to chemical liquids or fumes, can cause infections. Avoid loose-fitting clothes which can get caught in moving machinery or snagged on projections. Don’t expose large areas of bare skin. If your clothes get chemically soaked, strip, take a soapy shower, and check out coveralls and shoes from First Aid. And don’t wear rings around machinery or electrical gear. Protective clothing.—Gloves, goggles, and slicker suits are considerably more comfortable and less cumbersome than suffering the consequences of not wearing them when needed. Well-designed protective clothing is available for every kind of hazardous condition in which you may work. Hard hats.—Hard hats must be worn at all times. The only exceptions to this rule are that they need not be worn in the control rooms, shops and offices. This applies to all, including office personnel and visitors. Goggles and shields.—Keep An Eye On Safety—And Safety On Your Eyes. You must have your goggles with you at all times. In most cases your own judg- ment will dictate when you should wear goggles. To make it handy for you to have them with you at all times, your hard hat has been designed so that your goggles can be snapped on. Hoods and shields are also provided for certain jobs. You must wear them whenever needed. A lifetime of clear vision is more than worth the time it takes to slip on your goggles and/or hood or shield. Personal safety sunglasses are also available at cost at Stores Department. Respiratory equipment.—Wear respiratory gear, whenever needed, to protect your lungs from fumes and injurious dust. If you're about to be exposed to gases, wear a gas mask. While it may not do much for your working comfort, it does a great deal for your health. . Safety belts.—Safety is never a cinch, but always cinching up your safety belt for working at heights greatly improves the odds. Be sure to check tag lines and fastenings before depending on your safety bill. Safety shoes—Keep your health on a good foundation: wear safety shoes! And stay out of metal shod shoes; they can produce dangerous sparks. You can buy good safety shoes, at cost, at Stores. Ear plugs.—Now hear this! There’s a wide variance in people’s tolerance to high noise levels. When you need ’em, wear em! Ear plugs will save you, at least, from severe headaches; at most, from damaged ear drums. Shortcuts and makeshifts.—A great many specialists, ever many years, have carefully designed and engineered safety equipment and safety procedures. There's a very practical reason for every safety rule. Don’t try to shortcut or makeshift. If you do, you're betting your health against the experts. Practical jokes.—Everyone enjoys a good sense of humor. But practical jokes aren't humorous, especially on the job. They can be dangerous, as well as being childish. Stairs and platforms.—Stairs can be tricky and metal stairs get slippery. Be especially careful on stairs and elevated platforms. If you find objects on stairs, remove them. The next guy may not see them in time. 412 Ladders.—When using a ladder, be certain it is securely lashed or is held securely by a co-worker. To climb a ladder, face it and, if possible, use both hands for climbing. Come back down the same way. First man over the top secures the top. And never try to work by balancing on the top step; get a longer ladder. Scaffolds—Wood scaffolds must be of sound lumber; metal ones must be placed on concrete or solid planking. Floor planks should be placed close together and blocked from creeping. Spans should not exceed eight feet unless double planks are used. Suspension lines should be re-checked frequently for security. Working above groynd.—Avoid dropping objects when working above ground level. Use a line—with a bucket, if needed—to hoist items up and down. And be alert when walking under elevated workmen. Warning tags.—A warning tag is like a cobra : Don’t mess with it or whatever it's attached to. Electrical equipment is tagged by craftsmen, valves by operators. They hang em up for your sake. Such tags are to be removed only by authorized personnel after job has been completed. Starting equipment.—Unless you are authorized, don’t start up machinery or equipment. A qualified person not only knows how to start it, but also has the good sense to make careful pre-startup safety checks to make sure no one is in a position to get hurt at startup. Machinery guards.—Don’t let your guard down! Never operate machinery which requires a guard unless it is in place. If repairs or shut-down machinery requires removal of the guard, the guard must be back in place before the machin- ery is started up again. Unguarded openings.—All manholes, trenches, and other excavations should be firmly covered or roped off, with warning lights or reflectors. Cleaning with compressed air.—Compressed air should never be used for c¢lean- ing clothes. Compressed air is for cleaning around equipment and machinery. Be sure your eyes are protected at all times. And never point an air hose at anyone. Compressed gas cylinders.—Beware the Bomb! Which is what a compressed gas cylinder is. The safety cap should be on the cylinder and the cylinder secured from falling or being struck. Keep valves, gauges, and all oxygen fittings free | from oil and grease—which includes keeping greasy or oily gloves or hands off ! Compressed gas must be released only with an approved regulator. And, finally— to avoid finality—remember that empty gas cylinders, which should be marked “Empty,” are the most dangerous. Air hammers.—Don’t point an air hammer at anything breakable. Jspecially be sure not to point it toward peopie. The plunger or tool can be shot out of the gun. An air hammer, in use, will bounce——so wear steel safety toe protec- tors in case of a bad bounce. Hand tools.—Always check before using a hand tool, if it's defective, tag it and retire it to the Tool Room. Otherwise, be sure even the serviceable tool is the right one for the job—and that you know how to use it properly. Cables and hoists.—The person doing the lifting must make sure the lines are sound and anchorage is secure for all cables, ropes, slings, blocks, etc., used for hoisting. Stay alert and unless otherwise imperative, stay clear of suspended loads. Signals should be given by one designated person. Lifting.—When lifting heavy objects, plant your feet squarely as nearly over the object as possible. Bend your knees and get a good handhold. Then lift with your leg muscles, keeping your back as straight as possible. Never try to lift more than you can handle safely. FIRE PREVENTION “Fire!” can be the most frightening word in the language. Fire is the greatest major hazard in any plant such as ours. Learn as much about fire prevention as you know about your work. Whether you feel you are “your brother's keeper” or not, be his “watcher.” If he gets careless about fire safety, alert him at once. One man’s omment of carelessness can cost your life, his life, and the lives of many others. Don’t ever guess about a suspected fire hazard. Presume that it's real. And take appropriate action. Permits.—Certain work requires a Fire and Safety Permit. Such work in- cludes : Welding, burning, sand blasting, grinding, concrete breaking, air/electric drilling, electric soldering and using any open flame. The Permits specify pre- cautions to take. Be sure and take them. Fire extinguisher.—Know where extinguishers are and learn how to use them effectively. Learn their limitations and help protect them. There must never be 413 any obstruction on, over, or in the way of an extinguisher. If you use one, report it immediately for re-charging. Static electricity and grounding.—Static electricity can cause dynamic ex- plosions. It is produced by several forms of energy, including friction, and ac- cumulates on objects not well grounded. These charged objects, when grounded, may produce sparks capable of igniting flammable vapors. Common sense dictates the necessity for preventing static electricity buildups or avoiding the possibility of sparking charged objects. Learn what needs to be done in your area and in your work to minimize this danger through effective grounding (effective against electrical storms, too)—then do it. And re-check it frequently. Report any defec- tive grounding devices to your supervisor. Owzidizing materials.— Burning” iron is a dangerous phenomenon. Certain sulphur compounds—especially hydrogen sulfide (H.S) reacts chemically with iron, sometimes producing iron sulfide (Fe.S). When this iron sulfide accumu- lates with oil sludges, it may become flammable (pyrophoric): When it dries in the air, it oxidizes rapidly, and may burst into flame. Until such materials can be removed, they should be kept wet. You should presume that deposits in vessels, columns, or tanks, are pyrophoric until proved otherwise. Other materials behave the same way and should be handled accordingly: Rusted steel wool, metal shavings, and used metal-foil packing. Flashlights.—Be sure you get the light without the flash by using only approved explosion-proof flashlights. They are available at the Tool Room. Matches, lighters, and smoking.—Be a matchless worker. “Strike anywhere” matches and press-lid lighters are prohibited. Flip-top lighters should not be taken into the plant area. Smoking is permitted only in established smoking areas and in specified shops and offices. Solvents and cleaning agents.—Keep it clean—but without flammable liquids. They are both fire hazards and skin irritants. In fact, volatile solvents of any kind should be carefully stored out of harm’s way. Spills and leaks.—Should there be a spill or leak, immediately notify your supervisor. Steps must be taken at once to control or prevent the spread of con- tamination or fire hazard. Housekeeping.—Trash lying around is a health hazard, a fire hazard, and an invitation to injury. Everything has a proper place. Keep your area policed up and avoid injury or worse. WORK IN ACTIVE PROCESS AREAS Area restrictions.—Permission must be obtained prior to starting maintenance work on operating equipment. Shift foremen or assigned operating employees will inform you of any special precautions that should be taken and issue a written permit, if necessary. Operating personnel should be aware of your work location in order that you may be advised of any unusual operating conditions that may affect you. A writen permit is required in certain restricted areas before oper- ating any motorized machinery. Loitering or congregating in control rooms distracts the operators’ attention which creates a potentially dangerous situation. Therefore, loitering in control rooms is not permitted. Operating equipment.—Operating personnel are responsible for all equip- ment under their control. Customarily, all such devices as valves, electrical switches, and controls are handled only by assigned operators or, when necessary, by persons under the operator’s direct supervision. The smart operator double- checks frequently valve lineups, starting switch positions, etc., before work is started. Electrical equipment.—All personnel should be thoroughly familiar in the safe operating procedures for electrical devices utilized in their work assignments. Do not attempt repairs or adjustments of unfamiliar devices. When in doubt, check with your supervisor before proceeding. Network piping—Because of the complexity of the piping system used for movement of products and utilities, it is necessary that each one becomes thor- oughly familiar with the lines in his area of responsibility and makes sure that he understands the interconnections on networks that serve more than one area. Care must be exercised when opening and closing valves to make the necessary lineups. Isolate sections of lines to be repaired or replaced. Although color schemes are used to assist in identifying certain lines, it is still the individual's responsibility to check each step to make sure that the lineups are correct. Tanks and vessels—A Fire and Safety Inspection Permit must be secured before entering any tank, vessel, or other enclosure which might contain harmful 414 fumes. The Fire and Safety Permit will specify what may and may not be done and will designate breathing apparatus to be used, if necessary. Before the permit is issued, the enclosure must be decontaminated, all related lines must be blinded, and an aspirator installed. Finally, everyone working inside must be kept under constant observation. Purging.—Air must not be used in purging any line contaminated with flam- mable materials—or you'll have an explosion problem. Only after lines have been thoroughly decontaminated may compressed air be used as a dryer. Each operat- ing department has safe purging procedures. These must be followed knowledge- ably and faithfully. Firing furnaces.—There’s an explicit way to fire up a furnace, particularly dealing with fire box purging. These procedures must be adhered to. Burners and pilots should be lighted immediately after such purging. TRAFFIC CONTROL Vehicular equipment.—Make sure you are thoroughly familiar with all plant regulations concerning driving either personal or company-owned vehicles. Never drive either one without proper, currently valid licenses. Don’t enter or leave any vehicle until it is at a complete stop. Remember, the pedestrian always has the right of way—as does the vehicle approaching from your right unless signals give your thoroughfare precedence. Secure prior approval of operations personnel in charge before taking a vehicle into any active process area. Railroad cquipment.—Stop, look, listen. Blue lights or blue flags and derails must be in place before railroad cars are loaded or unloaded. If you're in the vicinity, be extra careful. A rolling train is a tough opponent. Never ride on moving railroad cars and don’t crawl ever or under cars. And never take a chance on getting safely between two railroad cars. You have considerably more to lose than you possibly can gain. Pedestrian trafiic—Watch where you're going. And if you're going on a vehic- ular street walk on the left side so you can see what's coming. Also, walk no more than two abreast. Otherwise, walk on walkways and crossings. Don’t climb over firewalls. A badly twisted ankle is only the least injury you could sustain from such shortcuts. Street blockage—Don’t block the road. If obstructions are absolutely un- avoidable, make them as brief as possible. Remember to put up adequate signals, for day and/or night, as applicable. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES Fire.—If you find a fire which cannot be immediately snuffed out with first aid fire-fighting equipment, initiate the alarm by dailing 321, giving your name and the location of the fire. The alarm will then be sounded to fire crews. Once trained fire fighters appear, move out of their way. If you are not in the vicinity of the fire and are not a member of a fire crew, continue with your work unless instructed otherwise. Injurics.—Don’t second guess first aid. No matter how trivial an injury may seem, report to First Aid for treatment. At the least, painful infection may be avoided. Customarily, report to your foreman first. If he is not readily available, report to him as soon as possible after reporting to First Aid. If your co-worker is injured, don’t practice amateur guesswork first aid on him beyond the limits of your first aid knowledge. Call for trained help immediately. In the meantime, now that we've mentioned it, you'll be a lot handier to yourself and your family, too, if you take some first aid training. Aiding neighboring industries.—Plants along the Houston Ship Channel have formed an organization referred to as the Channel Industries Mutual Aid. The purpose of this organization is to lend assistance to other members if the need arises during an emergency situation. Communication is provided by means of a two-way radio system so that immediate contact can be made for requests for trained manpower, fire-fighting equipment, and rescue equipment. 415 ExcerpTs FROM RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE HousTON PLANT, AUGUST 1, 1956, SHELL CHEMICAL Corp., HousTON, TEX. FOREWORD This booklet has been prepared as a ready reference to guide employees in their day-to-day work at the Houston Plant. It sets forth local policies, rules and regulations, and supplements the handbook, “What Shell Means To You.” In an organization as large as this Plant, rules and regulations are necessary to guide operations and insure the maximum amount of coordination and safety. They help build a better understanding among all of us who comprise the organi- zation. Our respect for and careful observation of the rules set down in this book will lay the foundation for successful work. The conditions upon which a rule is based may change. In this case, the rule will be re-examined and may be changed to meet the new conditions. Rule changes as they occur will be posted on the bulletin boards. Please feel free to seek any additional information or advice you may need from your immediate supervisor or from representatives of the Personnel and Industrial Relations Department. You will find them ready to help you. GLENN PURCELL, } Manager, Houston Plant. SAFETY AND HEALTH Safety Instructions After a careful study of all potential hazards connected with the operation of the Houston Plant, the Corporation has prepared a booklet, Safety Rules and Instructions. Each employee is given a copy of this booklet in order that he may acquaint himself with the rules designed for his own and his associates’ pro- tection. For the benefit of all concerned, each employee must be familiar with these rules and observe them at all times. Injuries Despite all precautions exercised by employees and safety engineers, indus- trial accidents may occur. In case of occupational injury, employees will re- ceive compensation as specified in the Texas Employers Liability and Work- men’s Compensation Law, and where qualified, will receive additional benefits as provided by the Shell Disability Benefit Plan. The Personnel and Industrial Relations Department will be glad to answer questions concerning compensation payable in any particular case. : First Aid Treatment The neglect of minor injuries may have serious consequences. For this reason, it is a standing rule that each employee who suffers an injury, however trivial, in the course of his employment is to report promptly to the Plant First Aid Sta- tion for examination of the injury and necessary treatment. There are regis- tered nurses on duty from 7:30 AM to 4:00 I’M, Monday through Friday. At all other times there are registered nurses on duty at the Refinery Hospital. The night telephone number of the Refinery Hospital is GR-9-2588. If the First Aid staff requests the employee to return for further treatment, an appointment will be made. The employee should notify his supervisor of this appointment and follow any other instructions given him by the First Aid staff. The employee’s Department Manager will be notified by the Personnel and Industrial Relations Department of any further required treatment or special instructions. Physical Examination To protect the health interests of all concerned, a Corporation physician examines each new employee before his employment. The Corporation reserves the right to have an employee re-examined at any time. Lockers and Washrooms The Personnel and Industrial Relations Department assigns lockers to em- ployees. Locker transfers may be made only through that department. An employee's personal belongings not in use while he is working should be stored in his locker. In maintainng the locker room, the management may inspect lockers, remove and dispose of articles left outside of them, and deny lockers to employ- ees who leave them in an unsanitary condition. Lockers and washroom facilties are considered personal conveniences for employees during rest periods and free time. They are not intended for use during working hours. 416 Restricted Areas As a protective measure, employees must not walk through or congregate near operating units or areas unless their duties require them to do so. FIRE FIGHTING Alarm The first person to discover a fire beyond the control of employees in the im- mediate vicinity should go to the nearest Plant telephone and dial 321, the general fire alarm telephone at the boilerhouse control room. When the call is answered, he should give the exact location of the fire and his name and badge number. The fire alarm is a steam-actuated whistle sounded at full capacity for five (5) seconds; followed by an appropriate number of blasts of two (2) seconds dura- tion to indicate the Zone in which the fire is located. This signal is repeated almost immediately in order that everyone may know where the fire is located. Course of Action Employees assigned to fire crews should report to their fire stations immedi- ately upon hearing the fire siren. All spectators must remain away from the fire area at a safe distance and avoid any possible interference with the fire crews. Two-Alarm Fire A two-alarm fire is a major fire, which requires all possible assistance to ex- tinguish. Employees living within the vicinity of the Plant should report for duty upon hearing the two-alarm signal. Two two-alarm signal is a repetition of the first alarm signal, occurring some few mnutes or more after the first alarm. The two-alarm signal should not be confused with the repeated one-alarm signal, which, as stated above, is repeated almost immediately. Fire Manual Copies of the fire manual are placed in each department. All employees and particularly those employees assigned to fire crews, should familarize themselves with the fire fighting equipment and the procedure outlined in this booklet. ExcerrTs FROM RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE HOUSTON PLANT, FEBRUARY 1968, SHELL CHEMICAL CoMPANY, Houston, TEX. FOREWORD This booklet has been prepared as a ready reference to guide employees in their day-to-day work at the Houston Plant. It sets forth local policies, rules and regulations, and supplements the handbook, “What Shell Means To You.” In an organization as large as this Plant, rules and regulations are necessary to guide operations and insure the maximum amount of coordination and safety. They heip build a better understanding among all of us who comprise the or- ganization. Our respect for and careful observation of the rules set down in this book will lay the foundation for successful work. The conditions upon which a rule is based may change. In this case, the rule will be re-examined and may be changed to meet the new conditions. Further- more, it may become necessary to establish additional rules. Rule changes as they occur will be posted on the bulletin boards. Please feel free to seek any additional information or advice from your im- mediate supervisor or from representatives of the Personnel or Industrial Rela- tions Departments. You will find them ready to help you. F. E. Capopy, Manager, Houston Plant. ) SAFETY AND HEALTH Safety Instructions Each employee is given a copy of “Guidebook to Safety,” a booklet prepared by the Company which is intended to serve as a guide and reminder. This guide- book points up some of the more common hazards peculiar to our particular kind of work. Specific instructions will be furnished through your supervisor or through written instructions and Plant bulletins. For the benefit of all con- Shengg, soch employee should acquaint himself with all rules and observe them at a mes. 417 Injuries Despite all precautions industrial accidents may occur. In case of occupational injury, employees will receive compensation as specified in the Texas Employers Liability and Workmen’s Compensation Law, and where qualified, will receive additional benefits as provided by the Shell Disability Benefit Plan. The Per- sonnel Department will be glad to answer questions concerning compensation payable in any particular case. First Aid Treatment The neglect of minor injuries may have serious consequences. For this reason, it is a standing rule that each employee who suffers an injury, however trivial, in the course of his employment is to report promptly to the Plant Hospital for examination of the injury and necessary treatment. There is a registered nurse on duty from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. At all other times there are registered nurses on duty at the Refinery Hospital. The night tele- phone number of the Refinery Hospital is GR 9-1403. If the hospital staff requests the employee to return for further treatment, an appointment will be made. The employee should notify his supervisor of this appointment and follow any other instructions given him by the hospital staff. The employee's Department manager will be notified by the Personnel Depart- ment of any further required treatment or special instructions. In the event an employee becomes ill while at work and wishes to leave the Plant, he should report his intended departure to his immediate supervisor and go through the hospital prior to leaving the Plant. Physical Examination To protect the health interests of all concerned, a Company physician examines each new employee before his employment. The Company reserves the right to have an employee re-examined at any time. Lockers and Washrooms Lockers in the Changehouse located just outside of the Main Gate are pro- vided for the convenience of those wishing a personal locker. The employee must provide his own lock. An employee’s personal belongings not in use while he is working should be stored in his locker. In maintaining the locker room, the Management may inspect lockers, remove and dispose of articles left outside of them, and deny lockers to employees who leave them in an unsanitary condition. Lockers and washroom facilities are considered personal conveniences for employees and are not intended for use during working hours. Restricted Areas As a protective measure, employees must not walk through or congregate near operating units or areas unless their duties require them to do so. FIRE FIGHTING Alarm The first person to discover a fire beyond the control of employees in the imme- diate vicinity should go to the nearest Plant telephone and dial 321. The alarm will then be sounded to fire crews. Once trained fire fighters appear, move out of their way. If you are not in the vicinity of the fire or a member of a fire crew, continue your work unless instructed otherwise. Training Employees assigned to fire crews are given specific instructions in the use of fire fighting equipment. Training of these fire crews is a continuing activity. All other employees should become familiar with the fire and safety equip- ment in the area of their work and should learn the proper use of this equip- ment in case of emergencies. Union Oi Co. oF CALIFORNIA, Washington, D.C., March 26, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education, and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My Dear MR. CHAIRMAN: On March 7, 1968, Mr. Anthony Mazzocchi, Citizen- ship-Legislative Director of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International 418 Union, AFL-CIO, presented a statement to the Select Subcommittee on Labor in regard to H.R. 14816, “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968.” In his statement, Mr. Mazzocchi illustrated what he called “some problems we have in the petroleum industry” with—among others—examples from Union Oil Com- pany of California refineries at Beaumont, Texas, Lemont, Illinois, and at Santa Maria, California. The examples as cited by Mr. Mazzocchi were almost completely erroneous. The following are excerpts from Mr. Mazzocchi's statement and the true facts. Mr. Mazzocchi: Pure-Umion, Beaumont, Texas: Barge explosion, two men killed. Mr. Mazzocchi’s use of this example is misleading. The explosion he men- tioned occurred on July 16, 1967, at the Beaumont refinery dock on a barge oper- ated by the Canal Barge Company of New Orleans, Louisiana, and being cleaned by Coastal Marine Service of Port Arthur, Texas. There was no responsibility for direction of the job from either Union Oil Company or its Pure Oil Division. Our insurance carrier investigated the matter to ascertain whether or not the company had any liability and concluded it did not. Mr. Mazzocchi: Pure-Union, Lemont, Illinois: Four men removed from Uder unit during the past year and one-half suffering from Benzine poisoning which caused a dangerous decrease in their white corpuscle count. Despite these oc- curreaces, company now requires blood tests on employees on units cvery ten months when formerly tests were given every three months. Mr. Mazzocchi’s statement is completely incorrect. 1. There has never been a proven case of benzene poisoning at the Lemont refinery. 2. Over the past several years, three men have been restricted from working in the area where there might be exposure to benzene—but these restrictions were not related to benzene poisoning. 3. Industry practice is to do toxicology examinations on a six-to-12 months basis on all workers who might be exposed to the chemical. Union Oil Company's and its Pure Division's practice is an examination every six to eight months. Further: Before a man is assigned to duties which could lead to significant exposure to benzene, a careful blood count is taken and he is given a physical examination with particular attention to diseases of the heart, lungs, kidney, liver and previous history of benzene poisoning. We restrict him from the work if he dis- plays abnormalities that would make him more susceptible than normal to the toxic effects of benzene. After an employee has been assigned to areas where there is potential exposure, we conduct the surveillance examination at six to eight months intervals as noted above. If there is evidence of a change in physical condition— whether due to exposure to benzene or to other factors—which might make the worker more susceptible to poisoning, he is restricted from any exposure to the chemical. The restriction of an individual from exposure does not in any way imply that he is damaged from his association with the chemical. Mr. Mazzocchi: Union Oil, Santa Maria, California: Men getting sick on the job, recent leukemia death. Hydrogen sulfide suspected. Again, Mr. Mazzocchi’s statement is erroneous. There is absolutely no medical that hydrogen sulfide is a causative agent in leukemia. Very truly yours, JounN W. TOWLER. PHivLLips PETROLEUM (O., Washington, D.C., March 26, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, House Select Subcommittee on Labor, Education and Labor Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear CoNGRESSMAN HorLLAND : On March 7, 1968, Mr. Anthony Mazzocchi of the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, testifying at hearings on H.R. 14816 (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968), before the Select Subcommittee on Labor, entered into the record a statement with reference to Phillips Petroleum Company's refinery at Kansas City which stated : “With an employment of approximately 400 people in the past twelve years, seventeen employees have died of either leukemia or lung cancer. Hydrogen Sul- 419 fide HeS is suspected as cause of death by Dr. Sloan Wilson, Hemotologist of The Kansas University Medical Center”. Dr. Kieffer Davis, Medical Director of Phillips, in his letter of March 15, 1968 to the writer, a photo copy of which is attached, has related the facts regarding our experience at Kansas City during the 12-year period referred to by Mr. Mazzocchi. I have italicized the more salient points of the letter. Since the allegations made by Mr. Mazzocchi are at such wide variance with the facts, we believe this matter should be brought to your attention and request that Dr. Davis’ letter be entered into the record of the Committee hearings. Very truly yours, CARSTENS SLACK, Vice President. INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE BARTLESVILLE, OKLA., March 15, 1968. Mr. CARSTENS SLACK, Executive Department, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SLACK : Following the review of the statement made by Mr. Anthony Mazzocchi before the Select Subcommittee on Labor House Committee on the Bill H.R. 14816 (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968), we were quite con- cerned about the comment made in reference to Phillips Refinery at Kansas City. Dr. Clarke, chief physician of our medical office at the refinery, was contacted and also Mr. W. R. Pierce of the personnel section at the refinery and it is noted that during the twelve year period referred to by Mr. Mazzocchi there were three deaths in employees from cancer, one of the throat and two of the lungs, and one death from leukemia. During this twelve year span, of the 138 individuals who have retired from this refinery, 25 are deceased, one had leukemia, one female office worker had carcinoma of the breast, and one had aplastic anemia. None of these people had worked in areas in the refinery where even a potential exposure to hydrogen sulfide or any other hydrocarbon was possible. In fact, three of these employees worked in offices. It is of interest to note also that the average employment personnel in this particular refinery over the twelve year span was 71% individuals rather than the 400 as stated by Mr. Mazzocchi. Approximately three years ago members of the Public Health Service from the United States Public Health office in Cincinnati, representatives of local labor, Mr. Lucian Renes, Industrial Hygienist from my office, and Clarence Barkley and J. E. Storment from the refinery in Kansas City spent two days inspecting the refinery with particular reference to working environments and potential hazardous exposure areas. A copy of the report of this investigation is attached for your review. I am sure you will be interested in noting that no exposures whatsoever were found in our Kansas City Refinery by this group. This is of significance and extreme interest inasmuch as it points out that conscientious employers in the industrial world, such as Phillips, spend consider- able time and effort in providing safe working places for employees. Also, this points up the fact that the same accomplishment could never be furnished by labor representatives, especially those who are not trained nor lightened as to manufac- turing techniques, procedures, ete. On March 13 I talked on the telephone to Dr. Sloan Wilson of the Kansas University Medical Center, the physician who is also quoted by Mr. Mazzocchi in his statement about Phillips. Dr. Wilson was flabbergasted at hearing that he had been cited in this manner. He stated to me without equivocation that he knew absolutely nothing about the matter and certainly made no statement even simulating that which Mr. Mazzocchi quoted. As you may recall, a number of years ago the Petroleum Industry, through the American Petroleum Institute, spent several years conducting basic medical research work at Kettering Laboratory under the direction of Dr. Robert Kehoe to determine whether or not petroleum products or fractions of petroleum prod- ucts were in any way carcinogenic. During the several years this program was being carried out the Kettering Institute was also used as a registry recording all cases of cancer occurring in employee groups of the several petroleum companies participating. This epidemiological study revealed that the incidence of cancer in people employed in the Petroleum Industry is considerably lower than that existing in the population of the United States as a whole. This is a matter of record. From the foregoing facts it is difficult for me to understand how a statement such as that made by Mr. Mazzocchi can be accepted when it so obviously contains 92-734 0—68——28 420 no basic truths whatsoever. There is much more I could relate to you regarding the time and effort that many of us have spent in making sure that our people in Phillips Petroleum Company are provided safe and healthy working environ- ments. You can understand that it disturbs me to no end when unenlightened people are permitted to make such flagrant and untrue statements. I will be happy to furnish you other facts and data, if you wish. Sincerely, KI1errer Davis, M.D., Medical Director. O1, CHEMICAL & AToMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Washington, D.C., March 29, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, House Select Subcommittee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HoLLAND : On March 26, 1968, Carstens Slack a Vice Presi- dent of the Phillips Petroleum Company wrote to you concerning my testimony before the Select Subcommittee on Labor regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. To say that we are in disagreement with Mr. Slack would be an understate- ment. The facts will have to speak for themselves. The attached two letters from Mr. Ray Lovelady, an employee of Phillips Petroleum and a responsible, con- cerned individual who has had direct contact with the situation I referred to in my testimony. We will also submit death certificates of the 16 men mentioned in Mr. Love- lady’s letter of March 18, 1968, who were Phillips Petroleum employees. It appears that Dr. Davis has not received accurate information because he apparently did not even know of these cases. I think the letters from the Company and the letters from Mr. Lovelady indi- cate that the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 is of crucial importance. There is need for an impartial government agency that has the power to collect the facts and ascertain the validity of charges and claims involving safety. Sincerely yours, (The death certificates referred to are in the committee files.) ANTHONY MAZZOCCHI, Director, Citizenship-Legislative Department. MArcH 29, 1968. Mr. ANTHONY MAZZOCCHI, Citizenship-Legislative Director, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIrR AND BROTHER: I would like to answer two letters which I have in my possession. One from Mr. Kieffer Davis, Medical Director of Phillips Petroleum Company. The other from Mr. Carstens Slack, Vice President of Phillips to The Honorable Elmer J. Holland, Chairman, House Select Subcommittee on Labor Education and Labor Committee, requesting Dr. Davis’ letter be entered into the record of Committee hearings. Since Mr. Davis’ letter contains so many misrepresentations of the facts and irresponsible and slanderous remarks about people he has never met then I certainly insist this letter be entered into the hearing record. As for the first paragraph of Mr. Davis’ letter, I will submit death certificates to discredit his statement. They will show the number you testified to as being correct. For him to say “none of these people had worked in areas in the re- finery where even a potential exposure to hydrogen sulfide or any other hydro- carbons was possible,” is one of the most asinine statements I have ever heard. With the lax safety procedures and the curtailment of preventive maintenance, it would be impossible to work in an oil refinery without being almost constantly exposed to Hydrogen Sulfide: Caustics; Sulphurs; Acids and other Hydro Car- bons. It is with regularity that some of our members are being overcome and 150 consciousness from coming in contact from some of the elements listed above. Since he went into so much detail to get the exact number of people, even to the fraction, I want to point out that this figure includes office personnel who are almost never inside the refinery and are never exposed. 421 The second paragraph of Mr. Davis’ letter went into much detail explaining the inspection tour by members of the Public Health Service ; Representatives of his office ; Representatives of local labor and two members of management from the local refinery. First, I want to say this is a flagrant misrepresentation since we of the labor (local) union representing the employees in this refinery were never aware the inspection was to be made until after they had supposedly made the tour. I might say this inspection was brought about by my insistance to the City and County Health Department of Kansas City, Kansas. Since I was greatly concerned with the high frequency and severity of our industrial illnesses and deaths. As no tests were made in any area in which we had made complaints, I consider this inspection to be a coverup and a complete farce. Our plant manager at that time, Mr. V. C. Cavin, who has since expired with emphysema, made this remark in a Union Managenient meeting, “if the Government knew what we were emitting to the air, we would have to immediately spend a million dollars clean- ing this place up.” Approximately 1963, I was directed to Dr. Sloan Wilson for information con- cerning the elements our members were exposed to. His statement was that he was sure the elements our people were exposed to was a great contributing factor in the illnesses and deaths I was inquiring about, but to be able to prove conclusively and to pinpoint would require considerable research. As this was a phone conversation with Dr. Wilson of which I'm sure he has many, I can understand his possibly not remembering, nevertheless, this statement is true. In Dr. Davis’ fourth paragraph, he stated that several years were spent trying to determine whether or not petroleum products or fractions thereof were in any way carcinogenic. He did not disclose whether this study revealed the products to be carcinogenic, only that the incidence of cancer in petroleum work- ers was lower than the existing population of the United States as a whole. This sounds reasonable when you consider the ratio between petroleum workers and the rest of the United States population. In closing I would like to use Dr. Davis’ penultimate paragraph and quote. “From the foregoing facts it is difficult for me to understand how the statement such as made by Dr. Davis can be accepted when it obviously contains mis- representations of so many facts. There is much I could relate to you regarding the time and effort so many of us in labor have spent trying to get the Oil Industry to accept their moral responsibility and to provide safe and healthy working conditions for their employees who are our members. You can under- stand it disturbs labor leaders no end when enlightened people such as Dr. Davis hide the facts and distort the truth.” I will be happy to assist you in any way possible in getting these facts before the proper committees. Sincerely and fraternally, RAY A. LOVELADY, President, Phillips Nationwide Council. MArcH 18, 1968. Mr. ToNY MAZzOCCHI, Director, Legislative Department, OCAWIU, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR AND BROTHER: As you testified before the Senate Committee on March 6, concerning the large number of deaths here at the Phillips Petroleum refinery in Kansas City and as we discussed in our phone conversation that evening I submit the following list of employees who have died with some type of blood or lung cancer. I will indicate the ones who died subsequent to retire- ment. I have been unable to obtain the dates. If these facts are disputed, then we can subpoena them from the company. R. Adair H. Glayzer H. Rogers E. Graft L. Stephens E. Miller F. Stewart F. Dagley H. W. Miller S. Boatman R. Whitaker E. Dolph S. Barger C. Wyrick L. Hedges A. Lewis The last two people named in each column died after retirement. 422 Mr. Roy Edmondson—Now retired on total and permanent disability. One lung removed, the other badly damaged. Was poisoned by chlorine gas a few months prior to retirement. Mr. R. Whiles—Presently on sick leave receiving x-ray treatments for lung cancer. His normal retirement date at 65 years is July 1, 1968. This employee received a large charge of hydrofluoric acid fumes and was made unconscious and was hospitalized for several days. This was approximately 1960. Tony this completes my report except to say we have had considerable number of deaths due to heart attacks. I am happy to say that I never failed, while I was president of the local, to collect Workmen’s Compensation for the survivors of these members who had the attacks on the job and subsequently expired as a result of the attack. If I can be of further help, please feel free to call. Sincerely and fraternally, RAY A. LOVELADY, President, Phillips Nation Wide Council. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1968 House or REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR oF THE CoMMITTEE ON Epucation aNp LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:35 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O’Hara presiding. Present: Representatives O'Hara, Hathaway, Goodell, and Steiger. Staff members present: Jim Harrison, director; Marilyn Myers Clerk; Dr. James Wason, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress; and Mr. Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel for labor. Mr. O'Hara. The Select Subcommittee on Labor will come to order. The purpose of our meeting today is to continue the hearings on H.R. 14816, the occupational safety and health bill. STATEMENTS OF WALLACE M. SMITH, AMERICAN MUTUAL INSUR- ANCE ALLIANCE, ACCOMPANIED BY FREDERICK H. DEEG, MAN- AGER, ACCIDENT AND FIRE PREVENTION DEPARTMENT; AND ANDREW KALMYKOW, AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION Mr. O’Hara. Our first witnesses today are Mr. Wallace M. Smith of the American Mutual Insurance Alliance, and Mr. Andrew Kalmy- kow of the American Insurance Association. You gentlemen can take your seats at the table. I won't ask you both to talk at once but would like to have you seated and take your testimony seriatim and have questions directed to you at one time. Mr. Sarre. With me is Mr. Fred Deeg, manager of our accident and fire prevention department of the American Mutual Insurance Alliance. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you, and thank you for accommodating us with respect to dates of your testimony. You have been very helpful to us and we appreciate that. Mr. Smith, why don’t we hear from you first. Mr. Smita. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my statement can be made in about 12 or 14 minutes. I will just read it right through, if IT may, please. I am Wallace M. Smith, manager of the Mid-Atlantic office in Washington, D.C., of the American Mutual Insurance Alliance. Ac- companying me is Mr. Frederick H. Deeg of Chicago, manager of the accident and fire prevention department of our association. The alli- ance is a national association of 122 mutual property-casualty insur- ance companies with headquarters in Chicago, Ill. (423) 424 Our members provide approximately 30 percent of the workmen’s compensation insurance coverage written in this country by carriers of all types. They have a deep interest in any proposed legislation affecting occupational safety. Their interest is especially intense rela- tive to this legislation because of the broad powers it would confer upon the Secretary of Labor and because of the drastic change in an established mechanism for promoting occupational safety which has been working reasonably well over a period of many years. I state at the outset that the insurance companies for which I speak do not favor the program set out in H.R. 14816 and its com- panion bill, S. 2864. The basic reason for this position is that they do not believe it will achieve significant improvement in the occupational safety area, even if financed to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars and staffed with the thousands of employees likely to be re- quired to do the police or inspection work that would be needed to enforce the standards which would be imposed upon industry. We also have a number of other objections which can be made. These are based on the transfer of State functions to the Federal Government and the excessive and indiscriminate burden to be placed upon all interstate industry. It is not necessary to point out that insurance companies writing workman's compensation and casualty coverage are the strongest supporters of occupational safety, both for humanitarian and economic reasons. They have been working hard at improving it for more than 40 years and spend millions of dollars each year in direct occupational safety activity of an inspection, engineering, and educational nature. Their efforts, in cooperation with employer and employee organiza- tions and State and local authorities, have had considerable success. Occupational deaths have been cut 67 percent since 1912, when work- men’s compensation was being set up, and there has been a similar decrease in occupational injuries. Since the end of World War II, there has been a decrease of 12 percent in number of on-the-job fatali- ties and an increase of only 10 percent in actual number of on-the-job disabling injuries even though the work force has increased from 50 to 72 million. This means that deaths per 100,000 workers have dropped from 33 in 1945 to 20 in 1966. I think, Mr. Chairman, many witnesses have testified that the record in this country is far greater, far superior to that in industrial nations of Europe. The case for H.R. 14816 was presented to this subcommittee on Feb- ruary 1, 1968, by U.S. Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz, with his testimony augmented on February 20 by Surgeon General William H. Stewart. Both painted a dismal picture of the current state of occupa- tional safety, and selected statistics were offered. The gist of Secre- tary Wirtz’ statement was that because there were 14,500 occupational deaths and 2,200,000 disabling occupational injuries in 1966, the occu- pational safety situation is out of hand. The fact is that 1966 was an unusual year in terms of the number of occupational deaths, but there was no mcrease in the death rates per 100,000 workers. In 1967, the National Safety Council just has esti- mated, there was a 300 decrease in occupational fatalities. Changes in occupational safety statistics can be due to many factors other than ineffectiveness of safety programs. Current factors might 425 include: heavy use of production facilities, more construction work, more overtime, more changes in jobs, more inexperienced workers, heavier supervisory loads, and better accident reporting. Statistical comparisons over the years demonstrate conclusively that there has been steady improvement in occupational safety. Compari- sons with other types of deaths and injuries—such as in traflic and in the home—show that workplaces are less hazardous than either of these other fields. One statement made by Secretary Wirtz was disturbing to those who feel that a program of the magnitude suggested in H.R. 14816 should receive thorough study before the Congress is asked for a blank check. He said in effect that adoption of the act will each year save thousands of lives, prevent hundreds of thousands of disabling in- juries, save hundreds of millions of dollars in wages, and will mean billions in increased productivity. “This is not sufficiently precise information for a computer,” he said, “it will suffice for the committee, the Congress, and the country.” We agree that this information is not precise but question whether it will suffice for the committee, the Congress, and the country. The bill makes much of the research activities which will be carried on under it. A preliminary research project should be a study of what the program realistically can be expected to accomplish. Several other points made in testimony of administration spokes- men deserve brief comment. Surgeon General Stewart testified that about three out of eight workers in this country, or 37.5 percent—do not have workmen’s com- pensation coverage. This is far wide of the mark. As long ago as 1960, according to the official Social Security Bulletin of the U.S. Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, about 80 percent were cov- ered. Time has not permitted a detailed msurance company check of the existing situation; but with the expansion of covered employment since that date, it is certain that the percentage of coverage now is much above 80 percent. Secretary Wirtz said that workmen’s compensation rates are increas- ing, the implication being that loss experience is deteriorating, a re- flection upon the effectiveness of safety programs. The national level of workmen’s compensation rates did increase 4.1 percent in 1965, about 3.5 percent in 1966, and 4.1 percent in 1967. Virtually all of this rise is attributable to enactment of higher benefit legislation by the States and increases in hospital and medical costs. Secretary Wirtz estimated that the cost of Federal health and safety activities for fiscal year 1969, assuming passage of H.R. 14816, would be about $21,800,000, in 1970 about $25 million, and would level off at about $30 million in 1971. In view of the fact that the bill contemplates a heavy inspection or policing activity, these estimates seem overly modest. ) There are about 11.5 million business organizations in the United States, of which about 9 million are proprietorships, 1 million partner- ships, and 1.5 million corporations. An undetermined percentage of these would constitute the field which would require inspection to make certain that they were conforming with Federal safety standards. Many would net be engaged in interstate commerce, so they would not be subject to Federal inspection. But many would have multiple lo- 426 cations which would require multiple inspections. Many would require’ more than one annual inspection to assure conformity. The arithmetic of how many inspections would be required and how many inspectors would be needed should make it clear that this phase of the program alone would multiply by many times the cost of the program as estimated by Secretary Wirtz. It takes little imagination to envision the need for 10,000 inspec- tors at approximately $8,000 each per year, with enough supervisors, clerical help, transportation and travel expense to raise the cost of the inspection phase of the program to $175 million per year. Under what- ever plan which might be adopted for farming out activity to the States, the program would be an expensive one. In our opinion it is very doubtful that the results to be gained would justify expenditures of this magnitude. It can be argued that no such magnitude is contemplated. Presum- ably this would mean that inspections would be made upon a selective spot check basis. It is at this point that there comes into question whether the program would have a significant effect in improving the occupational safety picture. Would Federal inspectors concentrate upon large corporations, which have economic reasons associated with the cost of their workmen’s compensation insurance for maintainin high safety standards? Or would they concentrate upon smaller busi- ness establishments ? One possibility that suggests itself is that Federal inspections would be upon a complaint basis once it had been realized that the dimensions of a program calling for Federal inspection of every busi- ness establishment engaged in interstate commerce are too formid- able for the Federal funds and personnel available. Logical com- Dintgerss would be employees or their representatives, who thus would ave power to harass or even close down the operations of employers. Whether it would be possible to require insurance company inspec- tors or safety engineers to report to the U.S. Department of Labor violations of Federal standards which they found in the course of their surveys of operations of policyholders’ premises is a question to which an answer should be given before enactment of this legislation. Local or State inspectors having overlapping jurisdiction, such as those inspecting for building code violations, might be in the same position. A full exposition of the insurance business’ concerns with the program here proposed probably should include its opposition to the effects its enactment would have upon the State and local regulators, upon the employers who are its policyholders in the workmen’s com- pensation field, upon the employees to whom it pays hundreds of mil- lions of dollars each year in benefits and medical-rehabilitation ex- pense, and upon the public generally. But doubtless these points of view will be outlined by other spokesmen or already have been pre- sented to the subcommittee. I should like to conclude by calling to the subcommittee’s atten- tion some of the special apprehensions which are in the minds of workmen’s compensation insurance people as this legislation is urged upon the Congress. This program will be economically wasteful, the extent of waste depending upon what types of business establishments are federally 427 inspected, because there will be duplicate Federal and insurance in- spections. The program offered in H.R. 14816 is essentially a policing program designed to force compliance with federally imposed stand- ards. Insurance surveys are oriented toward safety engineering which will improve loss experience, and Federal certification that standards are being complied with could not be substituted for the insurance company’s own safety engineering operation. Qualified safety engineers and inspectors are in short supply. Re- cruitment of the large numbers of such personnel which will be re- quired under this bill will make insurance company safety opera- tions even more difficult than at present. Presumably Federal safety standards which will be set under this legislation will be less stringent than those in the States which now have high requirements, simply because national standards must seek a common denominator. Presumably they also will be less stringent than those now required by many insurance companies writing work- men’s compensation coverage. Insurers well may be faced with re- sistance to their demand for compliance by policyholders with their stricter safety requirements, upon the ground that compliance with Federal standards should be enough to absolve them from all other requirements. Similar situations now exist in connection with automobile insur- ance, where some people are now contending that anyone allowed to retain a license is entitled to liability coverage, and in fire insurance, where it is contended that any structure which has not been declared in violation of a municipal building code should be issued a fire insur- ance policy. The cost of workmen’s compensation insurance will increase if insurance companies eventually are required to pay the cost of Federal inspections, even though these would be of little value. This already has been proposed in the amendment to the Longshoremen’s and Har- bor Workers’ Compensation Act embodied in S. 2485. Mr. Chairman, I might mention those hearings are underway in the Senate at this time on that particular bill. The workmen’s compensation insurance rating structure is based upon rewarding the individual policyholder for superior loss experi- ence, an approach which has been highly successful in securing the cooperation of employers in safety activity. The proposed legislation would punish the employer for failing to conform to Federal safety standards. This approach, known as schedule rating, did not work to improve cooperation in safety activity when it was attempted in workmen’s compensation insurance and was abandoned. Compliance with specification standards or even performance stand- ards has little application to prevention of many types of industrial accidents. Many occupational deaths, for example, are due to heart ailments. More than 43 percent are due to manual handling of objects and to falls, events in which standards play a minor role. More than 20 percent of occupational fatalities are due to vehicle mishaps. Acci- dents due to machinery, which is what laymen think of first when considering how occupational accidents can be prevented by use of standards, account, for only 10 percent of occupational accidents and 3 percent of occupational deaths. 428 There is general agreement among occupational safety professionals that human factors are responsible for most occupational accidents. Despite continuing effort to control the physical involvement in indus- try by such devices as machine guarding, accidents continue to occur because of human shortcomings or carelessness. The situation is some- what similar to that which prevails in the highway safety field; no matter how many mechanical safety standards are imposed in relation to the vehicle or the highway, driver failure remains the overwhelm- ingly important factor in deaths and accidents. The program here proposed seems to place a little or no emphasis upon the importance of the human factor in occupational safety. This would involve primarily educational and personnel activity by em- ployers and employees and their organizations. Insurance companies have had much success in cooperating with policyholders in this area. As was noted earlier the feeling of our companies is that the pro- gram sought in H.R. 14816 will have little practical effect in prevent- Ing or minimizing occupational accidents and deaths. The great amount of money and effort which its proponents desire to expend could better be utilized in other safety directions. One direction might be serious re- search into what should be involved in a really effective program. This concludes our statement. Mr. HataAwaY (acting chairman). Thank you. Mr. Kalmykow. ANDREW KALMYKOW, COUNSEL, AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION Mr. KaLmyrow. My name is Andrew Kalmykow; I am counsel for the American Insurance Association. I may add at this point I per- sonally have had experience and concern in the field of industrial in- juries for something over 30 years, and I hope that to some slight de- gree I have been able to resolve or assist in resolving some of these problems. This is an organization of 170 stock insurance companies which write casualty and property insurance throughout the United States. Safety is of vital concern to them. They have been among the lead- ers in this field. One of our member companies, for example, organized North America’s First Safety Engineering Corps, as long ago as 1904. Casualty and property insurance companies in connection with their various coverages spend $185 million annually for safety work which inures to the benefit of employees and their employers. This is a con- servative estimate which does not include the cost of the very valuable safety activities of agents and brokers and certain field personnel of insurance companies. It likewise does not include the very valuable contributions to health and safety made by life and accident health in- surance companies nor State insurance funds or self-insurers. _ Insurance companies have not only humanitarian reasons for stress- ing safety activities, FDostay as these are; they have impelling eco- nomic incentives as well. To them effective safety work may mean the difference between profit and loss. They have provided the same incentives for the industries which they insure. One of the methods used most effectively in promoting safety is the highly refined system of pricing workmen’s compensation surance. The incentives to cut costs are built right into the ratemak- ing techniques, particularly in the experience rating plans which pe- na a or reward the employer according to a poor or good accident record. 429 Insurance companies accomplish results by selling the employer and his employees on the advantages of safety and by showing him how to achieve it. Thus his cooperation and that of his employees is obtained. They must convince the employer on the advisability of incurring the expense, sometimes substantial, of implementing their recommedations. This may involve changes in equipment as well as operations. Recommendations of insurance safety experts have frequently not only served to reduce accidents but to increase production as well. These substantial sums spent by employers should be included in any appraisal of current safety expenditures. It has been estimated that casualty and property insurance com- panies employ over 8,000 safety experts. These have the benefit of the many years of experience and know-how accumulated by the companies they represent. They also benefit through joint safety activities. Our association has an extensive engineering and safety department. Through its predecessor organization, this activity has been carried on since 1929. It is staffed by experts who work with leading experts of our companies in calling attention to work hazards and devising methods to eliminate them. Special bulletins providing the latest information are issued on such subjects as chemical hazards, construction hazards, and special hazards. Booklets are available to members for the elimination of work hazards in over 52 industries. In the intervening years, millions of these have been distributed. In 1967 alone, distribution has amounted to almost 2 million copies. 1 regret, Mr. Chairman, that an unexpected trip to Arizona pre- vented me from bringing with me some of the exhibits that we have issued in this connection. For example, here is one of the manuals that we issue with respect to industrial safety, and there are numerous pub- lications, hundreds of titles listed. Mr. Haraway. Mr. Kalmykow, if you would like to present the exhibits, we will be glad to receive them. Mr. Karmyrow. I will be glad to arrange it if it is your pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HaraAawAy. Thank you. Mr. Katmykow. They cooperate closely with many other agencies such as the American Society of Safety Kngineers, U.S.A. Standards Institute, the National Fire Protection Association, the National Safe- ty Council, the President’s Conference on Occupational Safety, the Associated General Contractors, National Committee on Accident Pre- vention, the Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America, and many others. Association representatives serve on about 90 committees of the U.S.A. Standards Institute. They, of course, also cooperate with public agencies, labor departments, et cetera, in safety work. Individual companies also have their own publications, visual aids, safety museums, training courses, et cetera. All of these are avail- able to industries which have the benefit of their insurance. I have taken the time briefly to outline these efforts to indicate these accident and safety activities today. Some of the prior testimony may have given the impression that little was being done in this area. More important, however, is the question: Has all this activity produced results? We believe that it has. 430 Today the fatality and permanent total disability rate is at the all- time low of 0.06 per million man-hours. Fatality figures are generally considered the most accurate with respect to industrial accidents. Since 1913, the number of workers killed per 100,000 employees has dropped from 91 in that year to 20 in 1966, a drop of 78 percent. The frequency rate for all injuries since 1926 has been reduced by 79 percent and their severity by 72 percent according to the National Safety Council. I may say these figures are supported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which indicates that for manufacturing, frequency of injury has been reduced by approximately 50 percent since 1926. Similar advances have also been made with respect to occupational diseases. Anthrax at one time was a major health problem. Seldom, if ever, does one hear of a case today ; likewise with phosphorus poison- ing. Lead poisoning is not the problem that it once was. Even silicosis, formerly a matter of major concern, has, to a large extent, been controlled. As was pointed out by a speaker at one of the President’s Confer- ences on Occupational dafety. There was a time, only three or four decades ago, when every person who nad worked in the granite sheds of New England for as long as 10 years con- tracted silicosis * * * It is significant to uote that to this very day not a single case of silicosis has been discovered among those workers who started to work in a granite shed after control measures were instituted. (Proceedings of the President’s Conference on Occupational Safety, 1962, Bulletin 243, U.S. Department of Labor.) In New York 4,518 cases of occupational disease were compen- sated in 1953. (Compensated cases closed 1950-54, N.Y. Workmen’s Compensation Board, 1959.) In 1965 only 1,801 occupational disease cases were compensated, a most substantial improvement in 12 years. (Compensated cases closed 1965, Workmen’s Compensation Board, Research and Statistics, Bulletin No. 20.) I believe that some of the figures cited at prior hearings concerning social security claims for silicosis reflect exposures that occurred many years ago particularly in coal mining, rather than current conditions. It must also be recognized that the concept of what is an occupa- tional disease is constantly being expanded. Concern over the subject of occupational disease caused separate records to be kept by insurance companies of occupational disease com- pensation payments for ratemaking purposes at one time. Because of the improvement in experience, this has no longer been found neces- sary. The last figures available indicate that occupational disease claims constitute well under 1 percent of all compensation payments. These advances are not er in a spirit of complacency. They are the result of extended study, effort, and education, with the co- operation of all interested parties—labor, industry, Government offi- clals, et cetera, as well as insurance carriers. This effort is being con- tinued and accentuated. During the past 2 years, it has received spe- cial attention of one of our committees, as a result of which a special program was adopted by our executive committee last year. This study is continuing. Relative to the bill in question, the congressional objective which it. specifies, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman 431 in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions, is one which we most heartily endorse. We have done our best over the years in helping to achieve that objective. We are concerned, however, over the best means of achieving this objective. We are pleased, therefore, to note that the bill, section 15, places emphasis on research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to oc- cupational safety and health. Certainly, properly conducted study and research in this subject is important. Such studies have in the past made an important contribution to the achievements cited, especially in the health field. I believe we have contributed from time to time to important aspects of such research. imilarly it is helpful that attention is given—section 16—to en- couraging the training of personnel engaged in the field of occupa- tional safety and health. We trust that this provision would not be in- terpreted to limit the use of such personnel only in the enforcement provisions of the act, but rather to its general objectives of promoting health and safely. Under the bill, the Secretary of Labor would also be authorized to conduct short-term training of personnel engaged in work related to his responsibilities under the act. (Sec. 16 b).) We wonder why it was felt necessary to add this specific provision. It is essential that the safety of working men and women in this country be entrusted to competent, thoroughly trained personnel. In implementing safety requirements, the judgment of the investigator or safety engineer plays a very important part. Extremely broad pow- ers are granted to the Secretary which he is, in turn, empowered to delegate. It is absolutely essential that this personnel be thoroughl competent. We view this matter with some concern because of the 0) erence during the testimony to the use of subprofessionals in enforcing the act. The welfare of working men and women and their employers is too important to be placed in the hands of those inadequately prepared. We are also pleased to note that the bill makes provision for grants- in-aid to States to assist them in identifying their needs and responsi- bilities in the area of occupational safety and health. Encouraging States to do more effective work in this field and helping them finan- cially to do so is most worthwhile. At the same time, however, the bill would appear to deprive them after 11% years of their jurisdiction in this area unless this jurisdiction is rasely conferred on them by the Secretary. (Sec. 12(b).) It is this vast delegation of power to one man that causes concern. We have extremely high regard for the ability and qualifications of the present Secretary and many members of his staff with whom we have had the privilege of working. However, under the bill, he and his successor, whoever he may be, would have the power vitally to af- fect the life of every working man and woman in the United States and their employers. His action or inaction might well have important effects, beneficial or otherwise, on the experience of insurance com- anies. k These broad regulatory powers can be exercised, under the bill, with- out any specific provision for consultation with other vitally affected ersons or organizations that have great competence in these areas. Bian: 553 of title 5, United States Code, relating to prior notice of 432 regulations, with the opportunity of commenting thereon, does not appear to provide adequate consultation. Only a description of the pro- posed regulation need be provided in advance. The Department of Labor has already broad powers in the field of health and safety. It is interesting to note how these have been exer- cised. Since 1936 it has had, under the Walsh-Healey Act, power to regulate health and safety with respect to Government contracts exceeding $10,000 in amount. In 1960, it issued extensive regulations which were severely criticized by safety experts. Some of these regu- lations were revised but many are still in effect. The National Safety Council concerning the revision found: “Twenty regulations are considered inadequate. Twenty-three are obsolete. * * * Four regulations are vague because the intent is not clearly understood.” (National Safety News, National Safety Council, January 1964, p. 32, containing the report of the council on the pro- posed revision of the “Safety and Health Standards for Federal Contracts.”) In section 10 of the bill it is provided that the Secretary shall to the extent feasible conform standards under the bill with those safety and health standards promulgated under other laws administered by him. This raises the question to what extent the existing regulations would be applied under the bill. It is to be noted that the coverage of the bill is extremely broad ; this includes not only businesses affecting commerce but home construction under FHA loans and other construction which is financed in whole or in part by loans from, or where the loans are insured or guaranteed by, the United States or any of its agencies. In 1965 additional similar powers were conferred on the Department under the Federal Service Contracts Act. Regulations promulgated under that act on December 29, 1967 (Federal Register, vol. 32, No. 252, Dec. 30, 1967, p. 21036) require compliance with the “applicable standards, specifications and codes developed and published by the United States Department of Labor or any other agency of the United States and nationally recognized professional organization.” The latter reference to professional organizations is most welcome, but in view of the severe sanctions which are in the bill, an employer may have some difficulty in determining which code may be applicable, especially if they should be inconsistent. The Department also since 1958 has had broad safety powers over longshoremen’s and harbor workers’ activities. This is an area of con- flicting jurisdiction which is particularly suitable for Federal regu- lation. These were promulgated after careful consultation with inter- ested parties and, when put into effect, resulted in considerable improvement in the rate of injuries. owever, since 1962 there has been a substantial increase from 51,000 injuries to 86,000 in 1966. There has probably been an increase in the number of employees covered by this act between the two dates but it is doubtful that it should account for the difference. It may also be noted that the frequency of accidents among Federal SI pplayans exceeds the national average; I believe 731, as compared to The question of inspection and enforcement under the bill is one of considerable importance. Cooperation and education are essential 433 ingredients for effective safety work. While education is mentioned, emphasis in the bill is on sanctions. In view of the present shortage of competent safety and health experts, the enforcement problem in the bill would be one of extreme magnitude, especially since practically all employments in the country would be affected. After careful consideration and with the advice of outstanding experts and other interested parties in and out of industry, minimum guides to States may be helpful, but full use should be made of trained personnel presently available. Municipal, State, and other regulations should not be automatically set aside and their enforcement capacity terminated. It is doubtful if the cause of safety would be advanced if industry were faced with conflicting regulations and possibly conflict- ing instructions from State and Federal offices each claiming jurisdic- tion. Safety experts of the employer or his carrier may again even have different recommendations to make. In conclusion, I would like to say that some features of this legisla- tion are desirable and others would seem to require further study. I trust that the foregoing remarks will be of some assistance to your committee in their deliberations. I can assure you of the full coopera- tion of the insurance industry in any further studies or further action that may be taken in this field. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hataaway. Thank you very much. We will start with questions to you, Mr. Kalmykow. There is an apparent disappearance of occupational diseases for compensation claims, but do you know to what extent this reflects a failure to keep the list of compensable diseases up to date in the work- men’s compensation laws? How do the workmen’s compensation laws list their compensable diseases? I suspect many of the States have not kept them up to date. That may be the reason for the lower frequency ? Mr. Karmykow. I may point out, Mr. Chairman, these laws are constantly being broadened in scope. If anything, there would be more claims because the coverage of the laws is constantly being broadened. At one time because of concern over this subject some of the laws restricted the number of diseases covered, but this coverage of occu- pational diseases is being expanded. The New York figures are cited on purpose because they have had broad coverage for years, so these figures would not be affected by the scope of the act. In other words, under exactly the same broad provi- sions there has been a very, very substantial drop in claims. Mr. Haraway. I realize the State of New York has brought them up to date, but how about Mississippi ? Mr. Karmykow. In Mississippi, they have also broadened their law. T know they are interested in the subject of occupational diseases gen- erally and I am hopeful they would broaden it in this respect, also. There are a good many other States that have broadened their laws and even Mississippi has done it. Mr. Haraway. That is one of the reasons for legislation; we have given up hope on some of the States and we want to make sure with these laws. 434 Mr. Karmyrow. I didn’t realize this legislation was intended to broaden the scope of the workmen’s compensation acts. I didn’t think it has that effect. Mr. Hataaway. I didn’t mean it that way. Mr. Kaumykow. At the same time, I think this general subject is receiving vast attention on the part of a lot of interested individuals and is producing very substantial effects. For example, last year alone, 32 States Increased their benefits very substantially. I think that shows very distinct interest in this area. Mr. Haraaway. Well, I didn’t mean it that way. It would not broaden the scope of compensable diseases but it will bring the regu- lations to the attention of the States that there are more cases to be handled. Mr. Karmysow. To that extent I think the work of this commit- tee would be very helpful. Mr. HaTtiaway. On page 3 of your statement you indicate there is a big drop in frequency rate for all injuries since 1926. I note since 1956 there has been no change whatsoever. Mr. Karmyrow. I don’t think it is quite that pessimistic a picture. I note according to figures I have, there is some improvement down to around, what is it, 1961 or 1962, somewhere around there. The last couple of years we have reached something, well, the improvement has not been as great. As a matter of fact there has been a slight in- crease in frequencies, but it has not been marked. Of course, the whole picture over the years, indicates that periodi- cally rates of frequency sometimes increase and then they fall, but there is no question the trend has been sharply downward. Mr. Haruaway. There seems a substantial reduction in rate from 1926 up until the early 1950s. Mr. Katmykxow. I have never attempted to lose weight, Mr. Chair- man, but they tell me that after you reach a certain point it is al- ways a little more difficult to get improvement in this area. I think that may be true here, where more effort is required and we are trying to exercise that effort. Mr. Haraway. Mr. Smith, on page 8 of your statement there are certain factors with respect to safety assistance that might have been overlooked. You mention, “Heavy use of production facilities, more construction work, more overtime, more changes in jobs, more inex- perienced workers, heavier supervisory loads and better accident re- porting,” are causes of occupational safety problems. Then, on the next page, you state : Statistical comparisons over the years demonstrate conclusively that there has been steady improvement in occupational safety. It would seem to me on the bottom of page 3 you are indicating the ratio has gone up because these other factors, and you then seem to do an about face and suggest that the ratio has gone down. Would you clarify that? Mr. Syvars. I think you could apply it, Mr. Chairman, to the situa- tion which you just inquired of Mr. Kalmykow. Over the years, the pyramid has been downward, we know. Here recently in the last 2 or 8 years we reached a plateau. Why is this? This is sort of the question you are asking. I think in the short run, because these factors at the bottom of page 3, you can see these changes. 435 Now, in 1966, you will see again, too, we are in a war. We have the production in the war effort now. Is the production having effect upon accidental frequency or does it not? Now, then at the top of page 4, that was simply the indication, as I said, that over a period, a long run period of years, you have had substantial improvement in your safety record. Mr. Haraaway. Thank you. The factors you mentioned on the bottom of page 3 are actual ones that we are trying to get at, the heavy use of production facilities is something that safety engineers should look into so that remedial action can be taken so this heavy use will not result in further injuries? Mr. Smrra. These are the actors and causes that our inspectors and safety engineers in our particular field, and I think from the Department of Labor, in safety efforts everywhere, they are continually being looked at and gone into and considered, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haraaway. On page 9, you criticized the bill stating : Federal safety standards which will be set under this legislation will be less stringent than those in the States which now have high requirements, simply because National Standards must seek a common denominator. Now, I presume that the Secretary, in holding hearings, which he is required to do, will get the views of everybody throughout the country and taking into consideration geographical variations and modifying the standards accordingly so they will be at least as good restrictions as the ones that are already in existence. Mr. Sara. I think you mean in comparison with the States and in our comparison we used the standards which the insurance industry would adhere to. Inasmuch as the individual inspections and services, we do have quite a high degree of specialization here. In the industrial field, where you have so many different types of organizations in industry, manufacturing, construction, and so on, you are just going to have to reach the lowest point where these people can get to an observe these things without just completely shutting down the manu- facturing and construction businesses. We just don’t believe these standards which will be imposed there by the Department of Labor will come up to what we have been measuring up to. Mr. HaTHAwAY. You have been measuring up to what State stand- ards or your own Mr. Sura. Our own. Mr. Haraway. Yours are usually higher than State standards? Mr. Smita. Yes. Mr. Haraaway. That is where they have to be? Mr. Syrra. 1 might add Mr. Deeg, who is the professional safety engineer, could comment on this. r. Deee. We use the standards in the insurance industry, of the insurance companies themselves, and many of them are based on the standards of United States of America Standards Institute, and others and in many instances they are higher than that which is required by the States. This, however, is at a discretion of the com- pany and the engineers who are providing the service. They follow the guidelines as set down by their companies. Mr. HATHAWAY. Well, do you mean that the States generally are not as stringent as you think they ought to be, is that true? 92-784 0—68——29 436 Mr. Deke. I think this varies from State to State. We don’t make a practice of trying to enforce the State regulations. It is necessary to keep abreast of the State regulations and we try to follow those that are set down through the various organizations I mentioned and modify them to meet the needs of the company. Mr. Haraaway. Didn’t you say in most instances your standards are more stringent than found in the States? Mr. Dera. In many cases. Mr. Haraaway. Many. Does that mean a majority or do you know? Mr. Dec. I couldn’t say if it is a majority or not. Mr. Smita. Mr. Chairman, if I may supplement that answer, it is not that we are speaking against the Federal standards as to quality or as to State standards of quality, but it seems in our specific individual application of our services to the standards, we simply believe that in our experience it would be superior to either. Mr. Hataaway. In the middle of the page, you state: Insurers well may be faced with resistance to their demand for compliance by policyholders with their stricter safety requirement, upon the ground that compliance with Federal standards should be enough to absolve them from all other requirements. Now, do you find the same thing true, taking in from what you just said, with respect to their sticking to the State standards, do you find resistance there because they don’t want to stick with your standards because of the State standards being sufficient even though you think they are not up to what you want? Mr. Smita. To my knowledge, no. Mr. Deke. I can give you a qualified answer. I know the employers accept our services because it 1s economical to do so. They can save money by our cooperative effort with them in pointing out the dif- ficulties. Mr. Haraaway. The same thing would be true if we had Federal standards, wouldn't it, there won’t be any reason for it to be any different? Mr. Smita. I don’t get the gist of the question. Mr. Haraaway. Well, you say in some instances the State stand- ards are not as tough as your standards are, but nevertheless the em- ployers are willing to cooperate, and they don’t balk at the fact that your standards are tougher than the ones imposed by the State, so con- trary to what the State says they should not have any reason to balk if the Federal standards are not tougher than their standards? Mr. Smita. I think you would have a more conscientious effort I think nationally now of these matters and I think you would have a tendency in this program, if you impress it upon industry generally throughout the country, they will want to meet the maximum, which will be the minimums as required by your Federal law program, which would be a maximum for industry to get to. I say we think, we can’t guarantee you, but it is our belief in the industry that this is as far as the industry is going to want to go. We do not have any definite, 1 suppose, evidence, if you want to use that term. r. HareAaway. It seems that the evidence would be to the contrary. Mr. Deg. I think if we have had any experience with this at all, it has been more in the case of the application of some of the Walsh- Healey standards where we have in several instances had communica- 437 tions from policyholders to member companies indicating that a certain requirement has been set down and that our requirement was a little more stringent than what had been set down and asking for the reason why. This has been particularly true in the occupational health field in the measurement of the “Dutch” samples, in that kind of situation. Mr. Haraaway. Thank you very much. Mr. Goodell? Mr. GooberL. Gentlemen, I appreciate your testimony, it is very effective. Now, let me ask you as a representative of the casualty and property insurance companies and the workmen’s compensation companies, what is your experience as to differences in claims in different States, par- ticularly wich reference to the types of accident and safety laws they have in the States, is there any ai difference in the number of claims and percentage of claims in the States with effective safety laws and those that donot have effective laws? Mr. Katmygow. I don’t know if this is directed to me, but I will attempt to answer. It is difficult to make comparisons between States. I, frankly, tried to do it a number of times. I found there was consider- able difficulty. Usually " figures available are useful in making comparisons between the experience in the State from one year to another, because they are generally kept more or less the same way. The experience from year to year may have some significance as compared to the others, but when you get to the figures of one State against another, the differences in computing those figures are such that 1t is very difficult to reach any compelling conclusions. I made the distinction between fatalities as compared to other types of injuries. I think these are considered more significant. On your particular inquiry there is no question I think that the more effective safety service—and I include the whole picture, not only on the basis of activity of the State itself, but of industry in the State—some types of industry that exists in a State is more hazardous than others and you have to take all of these factors into consideration in reaching any conclusion—but I think there is no ques- tion more effective work in the safety field will produce improvement in the overall compensation picture. I think that is probably true. Mr. Gooberr. Well, we had some testimony earlier from the safety engineers that they saw little difference from one State to another in these various accidents and as related to the effectiveness of their safety laws. Let me put the question in a different way to you. What propor- tion of the safety work today is implemented by Government? You do a great deal, the insurance companies, and the employers do a great deal on their own. The question is, what role does the Government, State, local, and Federal Governments play today? Do you have an estimate of this? I don’t mean percentagewise. Mr. Kaumykow. It is hard to estimate something like that because of the different factors involved. I think they all tend to compliment each other and work together. That is why I think there is some con- cern of somebody else coming in and pushing everything that is being done aside and taking over the whole direction of the movement. I think that is a matter which causes a little hesitation, 438 Mr. Goopberr. Well, let me put it another way. The proposal is, ac- cording to Mr. Wirtz, $21.8 million in the first year. You indicated in your testimony that your companies are now spending $185 million annually on safety Mr. Katmyrow. That is correct. Mr. Goober. I believe, Mr. Smith, you did give a figure? Mr. Smita. We used a general phrase, Mr. Goodell, millions of dollars. We would agree with Mr. Kalmykow, overall approximately $185 million. Mr. GooperL. That is the total of the insurance companies ? Mr. Sura. That is correct. Mr. Gooprrr. In addition to that, is there an expenditure for the industries? Mr. Smrra. Yes. Mr. Karmyrow. We can only make recommendations. They have to carry them out. They have safety programs and have to install, say, exhaust systems and make changes possibly in some of their opera- tions and all of it adds considerably to the cost. There is no question about it. Of course, you do have, then, public officials that do a certain amount of inspection on a municipal, town, county, and State basis, all the way up the line. Mr. Gooperr. I will leave further questions on this to my colleague, Mr. Steiger, but I was interested in a point you made in your testi- mony in which you pointed out “that workmen’s compensation in- surance rating structure is based upon rewarding the individual policyholder for superior loss,” experience, and that this legislation takes the other route of punishing the employer for failing to em- ploy Federal safety standards. ou go on to state, “this approach, known as schedule rating, did not work to improve cooperation in safety activity when it was at- tempted in workmen’s compensation insurance and was abandoned.” In effect, I understand you to say this approach to State work- men’s compensation insurance is being abandoned ? Mr. Surra. This is correct. May I ask Mr. Deeg to respond to the question. Mr. Drre. Sir, in the insurance industry in conjuction with the workmen’s compensation coverages some years ago we used this sys- tem which was called schedule rating. What this meant was you would list the machines in the plant and then list whether or not they were guarded. If they were guarded you ave certain percentage credits to the insured for having carried out this portion of the agreement, so to speak. We found that this didn’t work too well. We Found that we were acting as policemen in the plants, going in for the specific purpose of seeing whether or not a certain guard was in place or whether it was not in place. We sometimes felt that we had to sit in the anteroom for an un- usually long time before we were permitted on the premises and then some of the dust showed on the guard which had been taken off of the wall and put on for the purposes of evaluation. We did not feel this was good loss prevention activity, but we felt we were doing more policing than acting as a construction safety engineer. Mr. Goober. How long did this kind of approach continue? What span of years are we talking about ? 439 Mr. Deke. This continued for a number of years in several States and I would think that the last State, which is California, aban- doned, and I would guess it was 10 years ago, anyway. It is in that area. Mr. GoobeLL. In other words, you found that by offering a general inducement, that the cost to the employer of workmen’s compensation would be reduced through a good active safety program, you got better results than by trying to go in and specify details of what ac- tion the employer had to take in order to justify certain rewards? Mr. Dere. That is correct. The measures now concern accomplish- ment in terms of prevention of loss, praven)jon of accidents, rather than having something physical which we hoped would prevent an accident some time. Mr. Gooperr. Thank you. Mr. HaraawAy. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Stercer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the testimony of the insurance industry. I am extremely interested in it. You touched on a number of things which I will briefly ask of you. In the statement from the American Insurance Association, you indicated on page 2 that the association had an extensive engineering and safety depart- ment operating since 1929. Booklets are available to members for the elimination of work hazards in over 52 industries. I wonder, Mr. Smith, if you could comment on the part of the Mutual Alliance as to what extent you work in the field of occupational health and safety and how does it relate to what your members do and what kind of in- formation and publications do you have on this? Mr. Smrra. Mr. Deeg is in charge of our Poritmtas department along that line, and, Mr. Steiger, I would like him to respond, if you lease. P Mr. Deke. Sir, we, too, are active in the fire prevention department where we carry on many activities similar to those which Mr. Kalmy- kow has referred to. I might say that we have a bit of friendly com- petition between us to see which one can come out with the best sort of materials at the most appropirate times. We have, of course, a stafl of safety engineers, fire protection en- gineers, and we do our work under the guidance of our loss-control advisory committees which are composed of the chief engineers and specialists of our member companies. We have subcommittee groups in the fields of industrial safety, construction safety, industrial hygiene, fire safety, public safety, and committees of that nature, all working in specialized areas. We have a publication program that is broken down into basically three parts. We have a series which we call our technical guide series which provides fundamental information on accident prevention mat- ters. These are widely quoted by the National Safety Council and by the Department of Labor—the U.S. Department of Labor—and the States. They are fundamental information and I say they are authoritative. We have another series which we call our safety information serv- ice bulletins which are provided through our member companies and these are in the area of current items of interest. For example, the re- cent ones covered a subject discussed here yesterday, I believe it was, 440 subject of asbestos and lung cancer. These are to keep our engineers informed. We also have a series of promotion-type publications which are designed for management and supervisory employees. We carry on training activity for our member companies and work with other groups, the American Standards Institute, and we carry on research in some areas and this is basically the areas in which our association works. Our publications, I might say, are generally avail- able to all who want to use them. We develop them primarily for the benefit and use of our member companies but never limited them to that usage. Mr. Steiger. On page 3, Mr. Smith, of your testimony, the first of the figures I believe which we have had before us, 2.2 million disabling occupational injuries occurring in 1966, how does the insurance in- dustry, since I didn’t ask the question of the Secretary of Labor, define “disabling injury”? Mr. Smita. I think it is generally accepted, the definition is an in- jury to an employee which causes 1 day or more loss of work. I think that figure, too, the 2.2 million, only about 85 percent of that group have permanent bodily injuries. I am wrong. Only 15 percent of that group have permanent bodily injuries. This leaves 85 percent with no permanent bodily injury whatsoever. This would give you, I think, a picture of the overwhelming number of disabling injuries of a much less serious concern than generally thought than by citing a figure of 2.2 million disabling injuries. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Kalmykow, on page 7 of your testimony, you quote from the National Safety Council, from their “National Safety News” of January 1964, and I wonder if the chairman would be willing to see if we can’t get from the National Safety Council their report of the council on proposed revision of the safety and health standards on Federal contracts he mentioned in there. You raised an interesting point as to how well the Federal Govern- ment is doing. I think we ought to have it available. Mr. Hataaway. Yes; I will assure Mr. Steiger that counsel will try to obtain it for us. Mr. Steicer. Mr. Smith, on the bottom of page 8 you indicate in your testimony that qualified safety engineers and inspectors are in short supply. Recruitment of the large numbers of personnel which will be needed under this bill will make insurance company safety opera- tions even more difficult than at the present. I wonder if you can be more specific as to how you think the bill in its present form would affect the member companies, your organiza- tion, and the ATA ? Mr. Smrra. I might say, first, Mr. Steiger, that in the insurance field we have a very fertile ground for training safety engineers, safety inspectors. These men, from a very wide and diverse experience, gain a great unique experience and ability. Under the law or under this legislation which is proposed, it provides for Federal standards. It will also call for effective enforcement of these standards. I believe that almost everyone knowledgeable on the number of qualified personnel to do this safety work has stated there is a shortage of such. Mr. Deeg was telling me just yesterday he saw an advertisement in one of the papers recently, and this was from a Government agency, 441 and it was seeking safety engineers and it said “insurance experience preferred.” We believe, with the great need for additional personnel under this rogram, should it be enacted into law, just to put it frankly, there will a great desire on the part of the Federal Government to entice our personnel away from us. Mr. Steer. Could I ask both of you, can you give us briefly an indication of what you think? You indicate in your statement you don’t think the approach outlined in this legislation is appropriate. Can you say what the appropriate role is for the Federal ek in the occupational pe and health field? Is it personnel training? Is it standards? Mr. Smita. I would respond, first, if I may, Mr. Kalmykow, and I would like to preface my answer by stating I heard Mr. Blackman of the American Society of Safety Engineers yesterday and I don’t be- lieve I ever heard a more impressive statement as to need in this area. We certainly would echo oe remarks of that group that there is greater need for research. He cited so impressively, I thought, there is the workplace environ- ment and there is also the human element. There is so little known about contributing causes from both of these areas, but which is pres- ent in every accident, that we need more research. I believe that it has been stated there is $23 billion spent in this country on research annually. I think Mr. Blackman in a comment mentioned there is only $7.5 million of the $23 billion being used in safety research. On the part of the Government, what part of the Government should play in this, it seems to me that certainly in research, in these areas as to 2 causative factors, it should do research on the need or as to de- termining what type of program is needed here. They should do re- search in the training of personnel or make available training of more personnel. This seems to be an absolute necessity before we get into a program where you are going to need thousands and thousands of em- ployees, you do not have all of the information that is desired yet as to the causative factors of accidents and yet the Government is going pelivell with something as overwhelming as this program. You may interested, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Steiger, in the mission safety 70 program, which encompasses only the Federal Government and its employees. It commenced in 1965. The Department of Labor in order to get that program off the ground approached one of our largest mem- ber companies in order to seek advice as to how to set up this program and as to how to conduct it effectively. Not only on that one occasion but on several occasions our advice and help was solicited by the Department of Labor relative to that program. ow, 2 years later, the Government is going to have a program where the Department of Tabor will tell us how to run our sa ety operations in the industrial centers of the Nation and it just does not seem logical to me, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Steiger. Mr. Kaumyrow. I certainly agree with the remark just made as far as the need for research is concerned. That is an area where, of course, assistance is always very helpful. We have contributed to that aspect of the problem. 442 I also think it is helpful to have training of personnel, but we want to be certain it is adequate and not hasty—where you think you have a trained man when you don’t. I think that is of great concern, espe- cially if you are going to delegate to him the very serious responsi- bilities of determining whether hazards exist or not and whether there is need for remedying any particular situation. Then there is the subject of—well, I think guidance more than anything else—where a job should be done that is not being done. I think the Federal Government may well go in and point the way. But it should be on a minimum basis in the sense that where others may be more advanced than the Federal Government is prepared to go at any particular time, the work, the very effective work, that is being done in that area is not swept aside and the current enforce- ment agencies that operate in those areas are again not forced aside— and that goes all the way down the line. In other words, build on what we have, and not destroy and face an unknown situation which could readily be worse. We have shown what the existing situation is, what has been produced. If we can better it, fine, but let’s not destroy what has produced very effective results. Mr. Steicer. I appreciate your comment. Certainly, in the mission 70 project, they would, and I think it appropriate, discuss with you what could best be done and in this A I would expect they would talk with you all before it was introduced, on what was to be done, what should be done, and where we ought to go. This is one of the failings of the bill now before us. (Mr. O’Hara resumed the chair.) Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much. I want to apologize for my absence during part of your testimon and I did Sa an wh lies ray had pe meeting going upstairs. I thank you very much. Mr. rr We appreciate very much the privilege of being here, Mr. Chairman, and we are glad to be able to contribute, I hope to some degree, to your deliberations. Mr. O’Hara. Our last witness of today will be Mr. M. Holland Krise of the Industrial Commission of Ohio. Mr. Krise, we will be glad to hear your information that you think will be helpful in deliberation of this bill. STATEMENT OF M. HOLLAND KRISE, CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO Mr. Kris. Mr. Chairman and members of the Select Subcommittee on Labor, the State of Ohio appreciates this opportunity to Appear be- fore your committee on the extremely important subjects of safety and occupational diseases. As chairman of the Industrial Commission of Ohio, and with the permission of Governor Rhodes, I will recite Ohio’s thoughts on the subjects being considered. Ohioans have been aware of the impact of injuries and occupational diseases on the economy of the workman as well as his family and community. They passed a constitutional provision to compensate in- jured or diseased workmen effective in 1913. One provision established a separate fund to be collected from employers } and used for the prevention of accidents and occupational diseases. 443 The amendment gave to the industrial commission rulemaking au- thority to establish codes of specific safety requirements in business and industry and the power to enforce. It also provided for a deter- mination, upon application by the injured, on the question of whether an injury or disease resulted from the SAnaiyirs failure to Somply with a code and if, after investigation and a hearing, it was so found to award to the injured additional compensation in an amount not less than 15 percent nor more than 50 percent of the maximum benefit allowed. . This penalty must be paid by the employer personally or by an addi- tion to his rating and could not be insured through casualty insurance. Ohio has operated under this system for over 50 years. In other words, the penalty once attached is paid by the employer, it cannot be insured ey if it was a permanent total disability case where a man was found to have an injury and the finding was that the violation caused the injury and our rate at the present time being $56 a week the em- ployer would have to pay the man half of that so long as he lives ac- cording to the actuarial tables what the extent of it would be but it would be well up in the higher figures. Our system has been and is successful. Why ? We place the responsi- bility where it lies, directly upon the employer. The legal and moral responsibility for providing safe workplaces lies in the employer. He cannot delegate it away. He may assign duties to other employees to conduct safety programs, surveys, investigations, et cetera, but the responsibility never changes. he bill being considered by this committee recognizes this fact. Safety is ineffective only when responsibility is not accepted. Highway and traffic safety is a prime example. The Ohio program begins with a meeting between trained special- ists and the employer. At this meeting statistics are provided pointing out to the employer all the facts of his safety experience for a 5-year period. Next he 1s shown what his experience is costing him in dollars and cents through casualty insurance. Dollars and cents always interest employers and they never fail to accept our assistance. The effect is the division of safety and hygiene of the commission acts as the safety director for this employer. Our pro- grams have received the plaudits from many employers and tate workmen’s compensation administrators. Our program materials and educational ideas are in constant demand in areas throughout the country. This is all because Ohio is recognized for its success against disabling injuries and occupational diseases. Time will not permit a further discussion of Ohio’s vast safety pro- gram; however, any questions will be acceptable in any area of interest to this committee. Why is Ohio here? Why is it listed as an opponent to this legislation ? Simply because we are vitally interested in the safety and good health of Ohio’s work force and sincerely believe we can do a far better job than the Department of Labor in achieving our goal. _ The Federal Government has many thousands of employees working in shops and depots throughout the world. They state their frequency and severity in these operations run about the same as private enter- prises in comparable operations. Why just about the same? If legisla- 444 tion will improve the safety of workmen shouldn’t they be absolutely accident free? Also, for many years the safely controls for employers under Walsh- Healey contracts have been under the administration of the Federal Government and recently the Department of Labor. What is their record ? If they are continuing to have disabling injuries what is the excuse ? Ohio employees under Walsh-Healey are still looking to the State for help on safety and health programs. Is it because they receive better cooperation and more expert advice from State personnel? It must be assumed that is a fact. The Labor Department recognizes that some States and many large industries have excellent programs, however, indict other States and businesses. They feel the approach is safety by compulsion, thus eliminating the itiative for the safety conscious employers and States. They are endorsing the theory that constant inspection with stringent penal clauses is the “big stick” which will bring safe workplaces for all. Laws don’t create safety. Employer initiative with full recognition of its responsibility is the only method which has proven to be effective. If laws would create Sit the citizens of Washington, under the control of Congress, would be a place where people could venture forth at night on the public streets with the assurance they would be free from harm. Is it? Not from the best information available. This is a city under the control of the Federal Government with all the lawmaking authority, yet people are frightened in daylight hours, let alone the nights. Laws won’t create safe places. This bill would preempt Ohio’s laws which create codes of specific safety requirements with benefits directly to the injured for violations, not a fine and threat of imprisonment on the employer. The vast majority of employed persons in Ohio are involved in interstate com- merce, therefore, these people would no longer have the protection of Ohio’s laws. The Department of Labor has not made a case for this bill based on any facts. They have recited statistics and want additional power be- cause of these statistics. They want the authority to correct conditions admittedly within their jurisdiction under Walsh-Healey and in Gov- ernment-owned and operated facilities and have not shown that the problem has been cured in these areas. Ohio says vote “no.” If the Department of Labor is really concerned why don’t they promote safety through the established organizations and assist the various States in developing acceptable programs, leav- ing the jurisdiction with the State officials where it belongs. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Steiger, any questions? Mr. Steiger. Yes, Mr. Chairman. T appreciate the fact that we have the State of Ohio represented, with a fine Governor, and I for one am most interested in the statement you made. I wonder how many em- ployees you have on the industrial commission, what do you call it? Mr. Krisk. Division of safety and hygiene. Mr. Steiger. Yes; how many employees do you have ? Mr. Krise. 196. My Ste1cER, 196. How many specifically in the field of code enforce: ment 445 Mr. Kris. Indirectly all of them. We have actually 56 State inspec- tors. Mr. Strrcer. What is your budget for the division ? Mr. Krise. We budget $2 million a year out of our funds and that is only a drop in the bucket as to what is spent through our efforts on selling the safety program because the major expense is borne by the employer who accepts our programs. Mr. Steicer. You have 196 employees in the division and you have 56 what ? Mr. Krise. Fifty-six actual safety inspectors or safety inspector Supervisors. Mr. Steicer. With a budget of $2 million, and this was in 1967 or 1968, which ? Mr. Krise. What, for the calendar year, the current year, our budget is $2.2 million actually. Mr. SterGeRr. $2.2 million per year, it is not a biannual figure ? Mr. Krisk. Nos it is per year. Mr. SteieEr. I appreciate having that information. Do you remem- ber what the accident rate statistics for the State of Ohio area? Do you have it available? Mr. Krisk. As has been commented by others, you cannot make com- parisons, you cannot compare anyone reporting to the National Safety Council with the report we would supply simply because the National Safety Council has certain exclusions. We make a report on the basis of any claim that is filed and allowed and compensation paid for lost time or would have been paid had the man lost the statutory required number of days as being a disabling injury. For the year 1964, our frequency rate, was 6.16 and 1965 it was 6.65, and in 1966 it was 6.57 and that includes all employers covered by workmen’s compensation including farmers. Mr. Stercer. This booklet is available for the committee and I as- sume that you supplied it ? Mr. Krise. Is that the Safety Facts? It is available to anyone. Mr. STEIGER. Do you have an updated version ? Mr. Krise. What is the date? Mr. Harrison. Ohio Industrial Safety Record—Issue No. 8. It is not dated. The figures are up through 1959. Mr. Krise. We have a newer one. Mr. Steicer. Will you supply it for the committee ? Mr. KrisE. Yes. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent at this point in view of the statement made by the commissioner of Ohio to insert a speech by the Governor of Wisconsin on the bill, February 27, 1968, before the Manitowoc Industrial Safety Council, in Manitowoc, Wis., as well as an article from the Milwaukee Sentinel, February 29, which reports the remarks of the chairman of the State department of labor and human relations, Mr. Fagan, at the Gover- nor’s safety council held in Milwaukee on February 28. Mr. O'Hara. Without objection the material referred to by the gentleman from Wisconsin will be entered in the record. i” ip) material referred to appears after the questioning of Mr. rise. 446 Mr. Stercer. That is all the questions I have. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Krise, Mr. Steiger asked you how many safety inspection employees you had, inspectors and supervisors and you indicated 56% Mr. Krisk. Fifty-six actual safety inspectors. } Mr. O'Hara. How does that stand ? T have information available to the committee indicating you had 66; 10 more than you have today ? Mr. Krise. They included some industrial hygienists and other specialists; not what I classify as safety inspectors. They don’t go into plants on a routine basis and make inspections. They are at the supervisory level. Mr. O'Hara. They broke it down, nine boiler, six elevator. Mr. Krist. The nine boiler inspectors do not work with the indus trial Commission of Ohio but the department of industrial relations. Mr. O'Hara. All right, thank you for clearing that up. Mr. Krise, I notice when you spoke of the manner in which the Ohio law operates, you suggested that you had a broad rulemaking authority and that 1s one of the provisions of this bill that has had some objection. Would you feel that a safety program ought to involve broad rulemaking authority on the part of the commission or the industrial safety agency ? Mr. Krise. Well, in adopting the Ohio program I would have to say I would favor it. As an individual, I would say I do not believe in any laws that are on that basis. Where there is a penalty of any kind for violation, IT do not believe that safety can ever be sold by compulsion. It must be sold by incentive. The employer has to have an incentive created and the employee also has to have an incentive created so he will work in a manner not to endanger his fellow em- ployees. We have gone around the State of Ohio to county safety meetings which we sponsor and we find communities where the industry will run four and five severity, quarter after quarter, and never get below four and the reason they can’t get below four is there are things which no safety engineer can prevent. It is where a workman spills oil on the floor and some other workman slips on it and falls, so the accident was caused by the man spilling the oil. What we must sell is to each individual employee so he can protect his brothers. Mr. O'Hara. You don’t believe regulations, as such, with penalties in violation would make a contribution to reducing industrial ac- cidents? Mr. Krise. I don’t believe so. I believe a minimum standard or maxi- mum standard on the National Safety Council or ASSE standards are maximum safety standards. This bill suggests minimum safety standards, which are the standards under which Ohio operates, are good guidelines to be able to go out and show an employer where he is creating a hazard to his workmen which will be expensive not only to him but to the employer and entire community. I am postive you can sell the employer much easier if you say to him, “If you don’t do it, certain things will happen.” Just as the employee who is working on piecework will remove a guard from a machine so he can run it faster, everybody seems to find delight in violating laws and rules; but if you sell the person you don’t have to worry about him violating it. 447 Mr. O'Hara. But the point is, you don’t feel that is the essential part of a safety program, you don’t feel that the imposition of standards by an outside agency, whether State or Federal agency, with penalties for Yolaiions of those standards, you don’t feel that makes a contribu- tion Mr. Krise. I don’t think you can legislate safety or legislate a safe workplace. The employer already has the obligation under most State laws to provide a safe workplace and then somebody policies him to see he does. It is a much better program when the man is sold on it rather than to go and red tag a machine and shut it down. Under this bill, an inspector, if he felt necessary, could stop an operation by just stopping one machine that would hold up a whole roduction line because he, in his opinion, believes that machine might urt someone. Mr. O'Hara. I was interested in your comment about standards— maximum standards and minimum standards. I gather from your comment that you consider standards such as those recommended by the American Standards Association to be maximum standard? Mr. Kris. They are maximum; yes. That is the excelsior, that is the highest run of what you would do. Mr. O'Hara. You feel if there are compulsory standards under State or Federal, they should be set lower than the American Stand- ards Association, or American Association of General Contractors Standards, and so forth? Mr. Krisk. I would feel so on this basis if you have a penalty clause in connection with it. Incidentally, I did assist the Michigan State commissioner in two sessions on developing the new program which has quite carefully followed the Ohio program. Mr. O'Hara. I would like to ask you about a couple of specific roblems in connection with Ohio. I think I can understand there been a number of cases of lead poisoning in the State of Ohio in the past 10 years. Do you have information on it? Mr. Krise. I sit on the appeals and on workmen’s compensation and it is rarely we have a 3 poisoning case in Ohio. We have the Kettering Foundations in Cincinnati, to which all such cases are referred. We don’t have any more than anybody else has, of lead isoning. We have some Mori ley naturally, of lead poisoning, but we don’t have a finding that the person actually suffered from lead poisoning. I can’t, off the cuff, give you any figure, but all I can tell you it has never come to my attention that there is anything of any severity there. If it was, we would have our hygienist in the areas where it was being created to correct it. LL Mr. O’Hagra. I also had suggested to me—and whether or not it is accurate I don’t know—there 1s a relatively high incidence of central nervous system tumors in the Akron area and Toledo area? Have you found that? : : Mr. Krist. I believe you are referring to the allegations in the rubber industry which is based primarily in Akron on the basis of a blood disease which they felt was caused by benzene poisoning, but those cases have not been allowed because they have not been able to show there was a positive relationship between the slight amount 448 of benzene that has been used. Many of the plants discontinued use of it with their new processes. Because there had Po benzene in the area, as soon as a person had leukemia they would file workmen’s compensation. I personally have known that medical proof never convinced the commission that the leukemia was the result of the benzene, Mr, O’Hara. I think that according to my information, which as I say, I can’t vouch for, the incidence per thousand or per thousand workers of central nervous system tumors is higher in the rubber indus- try than other industries. Would you have information on that? Mr. Krise. Actually, I have no knowledge at all of any case of cen- tral nervous system tumors. If you are referring to the blood disease of lukemia, they alleged a higher incidence in the rubber industry, but I know no relationship of any disease to the tumor. It is a cancerous growth, and no one can tell you what causes a cancerous growth. Mr. O'Hara. You mentioned in your testimony a feature of your law which as far as I know is unusual, and it is that if the Commission finds that an injury or disease suffered by an employee resulted from the employer’s failure to comply with the code that additional com- pensation would be awarded ? Mr. Kris. This is if an application is made on that allegation. We investigate, have a hearing, and determine whether or not the violation caused the injury and then make the award on that basis. Mr. O’Hara, Is that used at all ? Mr. Krise. Definitely. Mr. O'Hara. Do you have any statistics? Mr. Krise. We don’t have any number; no. We have about 10 hear- ings a week on such violations which, of course, is infinitesimal when you figure the number of claims filed per year, but probably only, 1 would say, 20 percent of them is actually found where a violation has caused an injury. Mr. O’Hara. In case where such an allegation is made and is sub- stantiated, do you then in addition to making the award provided for in the law, do you then take any particular remedial action with re- spect to that employer ? Mr. Krist. Well, the award, the application for the award cannot be filed 2 years after the date of the injury. Mr. O'Hara. No; in terms of the time elapsing, there is a good deal of time. Mr. Kris. The condition generally wouldn’t have been cleared up before an inspector got on the job. Not infrequently we go into a plant based on such an application to find that the production job is not in existence any more. We have to gather the testimony from the em- ployees who were in supervision and then submit the sworn statements of these folks to us for consideration. If the condition still exists, there is still a violation, then there is no question but that that employer would be immediately notified to cease and desist. We won’t take him to court unless it becomes abso- lutely necessary. Mr. O'Hara, Thank you very much, Mr. Krise, for your testimony. 449 (The information follows:) REMARKS BY Gov. WARREN P. KNOWLES TO THE MANITOWOC INDUSTRIAL SAFETY COUNCIL, MANITOWOC MoTor HOTEL, MANITOWOC, WIiS., FEBRUARY 27, 1968 GREETINGS : It is a pleasure to be with you this evening, and I want to thank you for this demonstration of your concern in this important area of industrial safety. You may be aware through the news media of my administration’s concern and work in traffic safety. Our traffic safety program has had some success, al- though I must confess to you that it is not yet to the point I consider adequate. We are still working and working hard on this program and I am confident we will get what we must have by the time our next legislative session is ended. Although less publicized than our efforts in traffic safety, our concern for safety in all areas of the social, economic and recreational endeavors of our people is equally felt, equally needed, and is receiving equal billing in our per- suasive efforts. Safety must be a concern on the job—on the highways and in the home. It is of small benefit to a man to know he was protected on the streets and highways, if he loses his life or limb in a punch press. It is of little comfort to a wife and family to know that their father and hus- band worked in safe environment when he is crushed to death in an auto acci- dent on the way home from work. Looming large among this spectrum of accidental death and injury cause is, of course, the work environment. In 1967 while we were totalling up 1149 deaths and 49,767 injuries on Wisconsin highways, we were also recording 138 deaths and 38,499 reportable injuries from job accidents. I believe our industrial and business managers will agree that there is no more important factor in the business equation than the skill and labors of the men and women who make it go. Every job accident, big or small, detracts from this productivity and diminishes us all. These accidents individually and as a whole are a drain on our economy and a black mark on our social conscience. It’s our job, yours and mine, to do everything in our power to preserve this irreplaceable asset—our human resources. The accident frequency curve in the State had been rising at a rate greater than the rise in employment. There are many theories of why this happened— but the main thing is the fact that it did happen. I asked our Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations to undertake a thorough study of the causes and to offer suggestions on what part State Government should and could do to reverse this alarming rise. The study and recommendations resulted in the “Operation Safe Place” pro- gram, a plan to totally reorganize the industrial safety division of the Depart- ment and to add 30 new men to the inspection team. “Operation Safe Place” was signed into law in December of 1966. The reor- ganization and training by the Department took the first half of 1967. During this period, from 1965 through the middle of 1967, the job accident rate in Wisconsin continued to rise at a rate greater than the rise in employment. But, during the latter half of 1967, coinciding with the time when “Operation Safe Place” went into effect, the rising curve was reversed. In the last half of 1967 the State recorded 900 less injuries than we did in the comparable period in 1966. As a result of the 900 reduction, 1967 was a safer year on the job in Wisconsin than 1966, even though we had a significant rise in employment. Our State Workmen’s Compensation Division tells me that the average cost of benefits and compensation per accident reported in Wisconsin is about $750. So if we can credit “Operation Safe Place” for the saving of 976 injuries in the last half of 1967, the saving to our economy is over $600,000 in direct costs. Also, the experts tell me that the indirect costs of an accident are usually estimated at four to five times the direct. So even if we can be credited only with a portion of the gecline; I am still convinced that “Operation Safe Place” is more than paying or itself. But there is still cause for concern. We had 900 less accidents in the latter half of 1967, but 900 from the projected 39,400 still leaves 38,500 dead and injured, certainly not a cause for jubilation. So we need the cooperation of groups like yours for even greater effort. The job accident curve can be pushed downhill. We know that. Now we look for more 450 feet and legs to put on the back of the curve and give it an accelerated down- hill push. All of us are shocked at the toll of death and injury. We are grieved and sad- dened when they strike those close to us, our employees or fellow workers. We cannot forget, we cannot overlook the personal tragedy of job accidents. They are with us every hour of every day. As you may know, the work we are now doing to advance job safety is being threatened by a proposal now before the U.S. Congress. The proposal would establish a federal occupational safety and health pro- gram administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. But, as our State De- partment of Industry, Labor and Human Relations has warned, all state laws covering occupation health and safety applying to firms in interstate commerce would be abrogated under the federal proposal. The main flaw in the federal act is the assumption that federal standards and federal enforcement can significantly reduce accidents and deaths. In fact, fed- eralization of job safety may well have the opposite effect of that intended. Safety authorities throughout the nation, including the National Safety Coun- cil, agree that 75% of all job accidents arise not from unsafe conditions, but from unsafe acts. The reduction of unsafe acts depends upon education and co- operation. The Wisconsin job safety program provides for about 90% education and 10% enforcement. We find no reference to education in the federal proposal. Wisconsin’s safety codes and standards were built up through 53 years of ex- perience. They reflect thousands of hours of effort by volunteer advisory com- mittees from industry, labor and the professions. Under the federal proposal, these laws would be null and void. As ILHR points out, it would be impossible for a federal agency to duplicate this experience in 18 months, or even 18 years. Other weaknesses in the federal proposal is its failure to provide for buildings and plan inspection and failure to provide for a correction period during which a safety violation can be remedied. If this federal law passes, it appears that Wisconsin would be forced into doing one of three things—mnone of which are satisfactory or practical: 1. Discontinue our occupational safety program in its entirety and turn over this work to the U.S. Department of Labor ; 2. Maintain an inspection and enforcement bureau at state expense to enforce federal codes and standards; 3. Maintain an inspection and enforcement bureau to cover those businesses not engaged in interstate commerce. The sponsors of the federal legislation argue their case by pointing to the toll of job accidents and injuries. But, deaths and injuries resulting from traffic and crime are equally serious. So, the federal government could make a similar case for taking over the administration and enforcement of state traffic and criminal laws. Obviously, this is not a sound approach to the problem. I hope you will voice your opposition to that proposal while, at the same time, continuing your support of job safety programs in our State. I would ask that each President, Manager, or Foreman devote some time each day to the problem of job safety. If you can’t spare an hour, can you spare a half hour, ten minutes or five minutes? Your personal attention on a daily basis will bring the accident prevention program in your plant or organization up to first class status. There has been shown to be, I am told, a definite correlation between the manager’s interest and the accident frequency rate in any operation. I would ask you to join me as a crusader for safety, to become its mentor among your associataes in your Plant: among the entire business community and labor organizations of our State. It will be worth this effort if we save one life, prevent one disabling injury. I am sure you share with me a real concern with the steps that can be taken to cut down the size of our safety problems in Wisconsin. Your active support through the Council and individually to promote improved job safety and a higher level of traffic safety is essential to our goal of reversing the trends and making Wisconsin an even safer—and better place to work and live. 451 [From the Milwaukee Sentinel, Feb. 29] JoB SAFETY ISSUES AIRED Pleas for all-out opposition to proposed federal job safety legislation, revi- sions in Wisconsin’s construction safety codes and the co-operation of labor and management in a drive to cut the job accident rate were made here Wednesday at the governor’s conference on job safety at the Sheraton-Schroeder hotel. Joseph C. Fagan, chairman of the state department of industry, labor and human relations, scored the proposed federal legislation because he said it would abrogate state laws on industrial health and safety. He pointed to the proposed legislation’s emphasis on strong enforcement and punitive measures as the road to job safety and its lack of emphasis on educa- tion and co-operation—keys, in his view, to an effective job safety program. “Most accidents arise not from unsafe conditions but from unsafe acts,” Fagan told the more than 500 business and labor leaders attending the conference. “The reduction of unsafe acts depends upon education and co-operation,” he continued. “The Wisconsin job safety program provides for about 909, education as against 109 enforcement. LOSS ENVISIONED “Beyond statistical research, we find no reference to education in the federal language. Further, we feel that any alleged improvement in standards will be more than offset in reducing injuries through loss of co-operation. “Co-operation and educational efforts are more successful when they take place between business and the units of government closest to them and the problems.” If the federal occupational health and safety act were to become law, Wisconsin safety codes and standards—built up through 53 years’ experience—would be abrogated within 18 months, Fagan said. “We feel that it would be impossible for a federal agency to duplicate this ex- perience in 18 months, or even 18 years,” Fagan declared. He was also critical of the proposed legislation because of its failure to cover structures in which men work and its lack of provision for a correction period after a code violation has been found. PROJECT CITED Gov. Knowles, who spoke to the assembly before flying to the national gover- nors’ conference in Washington, called on every “president, manager or union leader” to join him as a “crusader for safety.” The governor pointed to “Operation Safe Place,” a project that was launched last year and which included the reorganization of the industrial safety division and expansion of the inspection staff, as a major advance on the reduction of job injuries. “During the latter half of 1967, coinciding with the time ‘Operation Safe Place’ went into effect, the rising curve (of job injuries) was reversed,” Knowles noted. “In the last half of 1967 the state recorded 900 less injuries than we did in the comparable period of 1966 . . . even though we had a significant rise in em- ployment.” The governor noted that, with an average cost of $750 in benefits and com- pensation per accident, the saving to the economy as a result of a 900 drop in injuries in 1967 was “over $600,000 in direct costs.” Donald E. Stevens, president of Stevens Construction Corp. and of the Allied Construction Employers Association, Inc., issued the call for ‘sweeping revi- sions” of Wisconsin’s construction safety codes. COUNCIL URGED “The construction industry safety council of Milwaukee (representing 28 trade associations in construction work in metropolitan Milwaukee) feels strongly that the governor would be well advised to take cognizance of the ‘model T’ safety code and convene, as quickly as possible, a representative ad- visory council to examine the existing code and suggest sweeping revisions in line with modern day construction techniques and equipment,” Stevens said. Stevens noted that the safety education program launched by the construction council last year “resulted in a clear cut 15% reduction in construction accidents in the area,” a reduction of annual accident costs “by a minimum of 600,000” and a reduction of from 46 to 39 the lost time accidents per million man-hours, 92-784 0—68——380 452 Edward B. Estkowski, a department commissoner, said that, within a year, the department’s data processing center will be equipped to tell industries “your actual accident costs.” “It’s earmarked to help you people—but there’s one hitch. You cannot have output without input—and that must come from you.” [Excerpts from Ohio Industrial Safety Record, compiled and published by Division of Safety and Hygiene—Industrial Commission of Ohio] How FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY RATES OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS ARE COMPUTED After many confusing independent efforts, a standard method of reporting injuries to workers has been established and set forth in the American Standards Association Code titled, “The American Standard Method of Recording and Measuring Work Injury Experience—Z716.1—1954.” Briefly stated, this code provides for relating the number of people to whom accidents may happen to the period in which they were exposed to accidents. The standard unit of measure is injuries per man-hour, or the number of injuries related to the number of hours worked by all employes. Example: a plant em- ploying 1,000 people completing a day without an accident compiles an injury- free record of 1,000 men X 8 hours, or 8,000 man-hours. Frequency rates, as listed in the tables in this report, are computed on the basis of the number of disabling injuries per 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure. Severity rates, as listed in the tables in this report, are computed on the basis of the number of days lost per 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure. The statistical data in this presentation are based on reports by employers as to number of employes and total hours worked during 1965. 453 IMPORTANT NOTE: In order to lessen the burden of the many reports which employers are required to complete, we have, through the cooperation of The Bureau of Workmen's Compensation, incorporated the man-hour report on the Workmen's Compensation payroll report form. Total employees and total hours worked by manual classification are reported on the payroll report every six months. This eliminates the necessity for preparing an additional form (SH-30). GH = A 31 10M BEV 348 SEL EN LOSHG INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS PAYROLL REPORT BUREAU OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION | ACCOUNTS SECTION COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 Eo (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE ALL ENTRIES) Iw od bare Torn to msEmo Putas ocx owt ad 5h | lL “ Conon mats + : THis COVERAGE go SIX MONTHS ACTUAL PAYROLL REPORT DUE LAPSES HOURS PROM | MUST BE REPORTED FROM | ON OR BEFORE AFTER eo | ; B New amie” FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE IN CALCULATION, THE ASSESSMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COST, FIVE VE (009 cents % tepren| “weded SHOWN BEL x i Manvel | Manual ce § Se 1% Jt i BH % Eh i 2 1 2 1 + INCLUDING CLERICAL OFRICE PAYROLL I ATIACH REMITTANCE FOR TOTAL AMOUNT DUE TOTAL PaTaOL | PAYABLE TO THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF amoUNT § #0 INCLUDING CLEAICAL GFICE AND SALES PAYROLL | 2 INCLUDING INCIDENTAL CRERATIONAL PAYROLL | PLEASE CHECK ONE BLOCK INSCRANCE SS 8% contrat C1 INSURANCE 1S TO BE CANCELLED [7] IE FOUOWING REASON: PUEALE CHECK OM A ITH GATE OF CANCALLATION 1 YOU HAVE CHECKED CANCHLAED 40%) 1. HAVE LESS THAN THREE EMPLOYEES (YOU MUST REPORT Full #eRi0D) [] Fi rua) (YOU MUST REPORT TO LAST DATE YOU HAD AN empOYEr [J] 2 susmess solo | 70 whom SoD SEND NO STAMPS CERTIFICATE TO THE COMMISSION OF OHIO SO NOTIN BE SIGHED BY OWNER. PARTNER OF OFICER, 1 THAT THE PAYROLL REPORTED MEREIN IS CORRECT AS TO THE CLASSIFICATION AND THE PERIOD STATED { — - ro cHnAE THs pAY OF » i SAMPLE PREMIUM CALCULATIONS Se ————— arr $ 19.857 w-raveou (SI X1,12 wan (Ime) 222.3984 $222.40 HSU She FREQUENCY RATE" 454 VEAD LNMDADICNA REO LUMPAR ih £1 4 3 OF OHIO ACCIDENT FREQUENCY RATES" COMPILATIONS FOR ALL INDUSTRIES. *Frequency Rate is the number of disabling injuries per 1,000,000 man-hours exposure. 7 6.65 6.63 6.16 6.13 $e a — 593 — Ri R 1965 1964 1963 ~~ 1962 1961 YEAR 455 FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON OF OHIO ACCIDENT SEVERITY RATES" COMPILATIONS FOR ALL INDUSTRIES. **Severity Rate is the number of days lost per 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure, including charges for permanent disabilities and deaths: 456 al y A ¥ ij i ¢ > OHIO DISABLING INJURIES YEAR FATAL oe 184 158 185 196 170 PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITIES _ 8 9 3 4 15 PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITIES _ 880 936 849 203 878 HERNIAS. .... 0.2 nas 2,159 2,207 2,118 2,130 2,069 TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITIES | 32,980 | 31,334 30,314 | 30,952 | 33,294 TEER REN Note — All disabling injuries shown occurred during the year under which they are listed. 457 FIVE-YEAR COMPARISON OF TOTAL OHIO DISABLING INJURIES (Fatalities, Permanent Total Disabilities, Permanent Partial Disabilities, Hernias, Temporary Total Disabilities) 458 BY PART OF BODY— 1965 PART OF BODY INJURED EYES ARMS BODY (General) HANDS THUMBS INDEX FINGERS MIDDLE - RING o LITTLE of LEGS FEET GREAT TOE FIRST SECOND THIRD v FOURTH “ TOTAL NO. OF % OF MEMBERS TOTAL 24 2.02 mn 24 98 333 299 207 125 — VNOH DH — 1189 459 OHIO PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITIES BY PART OF BODY PART OF BODY LOST MEMBERS Eyes 154 24 32 28 34 36 Arms 36 11 5 6 8 6 Hands 47 8 9 5 14 11 Thumbs 448 98 86 83 25 86 Index Fingers 1643 333 360 37 320 313 Middle 1466 299 341 266 270 290 Ring 1012 207 21% 198 202 186 Little 2 677 125 163 133 123 133 Legs 22 8 5. 3 4 2 Feet n 1 2 0 3 5 Great Toe 67 14 10 12 16 15 First “ 37 14 9 3 3 8 Second ” 49 9 14 10 6 10 Third 33 5 7 8 6 7 Fourth “ 43 9 12 7 6 9 Body (General) 145 24 30 29 32 30 TOTAL 5,890 1,189 1,304 1,108 | 1,142 1,147 460 OHIO ACCIDENT FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY Industry Frequency Severity Frequency Severity Rate* Rate** Rate* Rate** All industry oc... 6.65 557 6.16 515 Trade re i i A rn 2.65 221 2.60 196 Service rman 3.61 206 3.68 200 Manufacturing __________ 8.74 628 7.82 622 Public Utilities __________ 5.18 1,112 5.90 1,123 Transportation ed a 16.96 1,924 16.07 1,498 Agriculture tn we sv 10.32 635 12.03 720 Construction .__._.._... 14.28 1,576 13.65 1,284 Mining, Quarrying, Oil and Gas Wells _____ 12.23 2,433 11.55 2,259 » MAJOR GROUP STANDINGS — BASED ON OHIO Industry Frequency Severity Frequency Rate Rate Rate Trade oe a sn min 1 2 1 Service... anche 2 1 2 Manufacturing __________ 4 3 4 Public Utilities _ ________ 3 5 3 Transportation __________ 8 7 8 Agriculture’ ___...._.... 5 4 6 Construction ooo... io 7 6 7 Mining, Quarrying, Oil and Gas Wells _____ 6 8 5 8 * Frequency Rate is the number of disabling injuries per 1,000,000 man-hours exposure. 9 ** Severity Rate is the number of days lost per 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure including charges for permanent disabilities and deaths. 461 RATES BY MAJOR GROUPS Frequency Severity Frequency Severity Frequency Severity Rate* Rate* * Rate* Rate** Rate* Rate** 5.93 487 6.13 541 6.63 497 2.65 232 2.69 172 3.12 183 3.98 244 4.28 270 4.75 230 7.33 522 7.45 628 7.83 560 6.00 936 5.74 1,360 5.99 931 15.96 1,597 18.10 1,894 17.49 1,725 12.55 1,075 14.50 1,781 16.31 1,504 14.62 1,382 14.21 1,295 16.62 1,374 10.69 2,244 1022 2,519 11.41 2,131 ACCIDENT FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY RATES Frequency Severity Frequency Severity Frequency Severity Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 5 3 4 8 7 8 7 8 7 6 5 7 [J 6 6 7 6 6 4 7 5 5 8 5 8 5 8 462 OHIO INJURY RATES BY INDUSTRY No. of No. of Industry Units Frequency*| Severity** Units Frequency” Severity** All Industry . .. 119,367 | 6.65 557 117,201 6.16 515 Agriculture 6,703| 10.32 635 6,691 | 12.03 720 Aircraft and Missile Mfg. and Repair . 59| 2.81 93 57. 5.0 72 Air Transport . ... 141| 8.92 | 3,509 139 5.76 | 7,791 Automobile . | 3,507| 7.58 397 3,401 6.61 351 Cement Mfg. 10| 4.09 5,504 11 3.85 | 2,260 Chemical 0 0 0, 532) 8.78 417 524 7.13 823 Clay Products . | 175| 15.10 1,373 158 | 12.54 | 1,024 Communications... . 171 1.13 144 168 1.26 141 Concrete Products . 300) 23.99 2,438 274} 23.10 759 Construction . 15,530( 14.01 1,671 15,807 | 12.99 | 1,275 Electrical Equipment ao 5 639 | 4.00 320 600 | 3.92 293 Electric Utilities .. . ... 39| 5.77 1,625 37 7.05 | 1,048 Food ln li 1,603 | 10.03 545 1,560 | 10.71 737 Foundry Lr. br onl SL 312 16.13 1,542 310] 14.87 | 1,764 Gas Utilities .. .... 25] 3.55 71 25 3.71 94 Glogs: sdds ivi bia, 231 9.34 986 216 8.38 327 Iron and Steel Products 1,482 | 10.79 581 1,381 9.61 685 Lecter. | Lol and 157 | 5.69 1,059 137 6.59 225 lumber." oo G0 260 | 38.93 6,896 257 | 37.48 | 2,824 Machinery =... "0... .. 2,194 | 8.83 444 2,180 7.42 457 Meat Packing... ..... 483 | 20.51 1,17 424 17.85 219 Mining Coal .... 0. . .. 229 | 22.17 4,006 216 | 21.74 | 3,637 Mining (other than coal) 14 17.13 356 11 9.97 311 Miscellaneous Mfg. 1,301 | 8.22 528 V.219, 17.19 602 Non-ferrous Metal Prod. 4211 11.43 789 413 | 10.20 | 1,007 Petroleum | 4,307 6.97 635 4,275 8.45 | 1,263 Printing and Publishing 1,651 | 4.63 199 1,600 | 4.09 194 Pulp and Paper .... . 307 | 9.86 824 292 8.85 462 Quarry i tbe Vale 432 | 14.68 2,005 378 | 14.89 | 2,866 Rubber 12 00... Cosi 216 | 11.95 812 196 9.89 754 Service Eh 50,681 1.89 151 49,786 1.88 143 Sheet Metal A SES 1,508 7.37 536 1,445 6.96 529 Shipbuilding . . ... 2 59 | 8.57 1,401 561. 13.21 438 Steel... LLL A 139 5.89 1,032 118 5.79.1“ 1,71) Storage & Warehousing 143 | 9.31 320 136 | 7.41 316 Textile: 0%. 0. Soas 568 4.99 388 565 4.82 200 Tobacco . . . 16 | 10.57 475 16 11.41 326 Transit & Transportation 2,182 | 17.06 1,785 2,028 16.18 1,428 Wholesale and Retail . 19,118 4.94 368 18,575 5.00 325 Wood Products .. . . ... 1,522 | 12.46 617 L319 111,14 993 * Frequency Rate is the number of disabling injuries per 1,000,000 man-hours exposure ** Severity Rate is the number of days lost per 1,000,000 man-Rours of exposure including charges for permanent disabilities and deaths 463 No. of No. of No. of Units Frequency* | Severity" * Units Frequency*|Severity** Units Frequency*| Severity** 116,713 5.93 487 | 114,586 6.13 541 114,360 6.63 497 6,933 | 12.55 | 1,075 7,032 | 14.50 1,781 6,597 16.31 1,504 45 3.34 118 46 3.05 112 45 3.32 62 126 3.69 | 7,454 132 1.34 3 114 7.48 | 26,950 3,451 6.76 400 3,311 6.52 455 3,316 8.17 291 9 6.18 | 3,133 13 3.48 127 11 4.20 144 520 8.20 929 390 7.30 2,499 408 92.16 1,063 151 113.73 1,173 160 | 13.71 884 166 15.35 2,269 160 1.20 89 152 1.18 33 163 1.56 153 26) | 19.74 830 274 | 19.55 2,230 285 20.82 2,656 15,893 | 14.05 | 1,352 15,980 | 13.99 1,327 16,528 16.04 1,314 587 3.70 209 580 3.53 233 564 3.70 229 37 6.31 | 1,281 39 6.10 | 2,061 38 6.17 1,523 1,490 | 10.86 642 1,462 11.49 678 1,518 11.36 449 300 | 14.94 {1,156 314 | 13.43 1,250 327 14.41 1,319 28 5.95 1,159 28 6.16 957 29 6.85 100 220 8.45 242 203 7.94 631 27 6.24 180 1,316 8.67 567 1,272 9.57 690 1,267 9.66 727 137 5.20 203 139 7.83 378 149 6.23 195 274 | 38.89 | 2,119 270 | 45.39 | 6,697 269 44.56 3,110 2,132 6.19 332 2,071 6.70 421 2,058 7.43 568 398 | 19.75 739 415 | 18.68 1,225 425 19.90 1,254 218 | 18.60 | 3,931 230 | 22.50 | 5,872 233 24.12 4,292 13 | 13.45 | 1,306 14 3.91 137 15 9.14 252 1,137 7.16 495 1,095 7.65 623 1,112 7.93 601 386 8.17 378 379 9.65 1,284 378 10.06 494 4,241 7.48 967 4,008 7.63 652 4,033 7.23 884 1,579 3.83 121 1,541 4.12 152 1,560 4.85 160 271 9.71 884 275 9.60 617 272 9.71 483 352 | 18.48 | 5,159 385°) 19.521 3,277 373 18.99 2.32) 194 7.67 549 189 7.90 481 187 8.54 579 49,962 1.85 166 48,543 2.07 145 47,931 2.18 116 1,318 5.99 355 1,321 6.80 615 1,330 6.58 451 50 | 11.86 497 55 | 12.20 440 59 7.43 408 121 562° 1,057 124 4.54 928 119 4.71 843 139 9.90 358 137 11.74 388 137 8.64 252 575 5.08 182 580 5.12 316 596 5.82 308 13 | 11.40 | 486 15 | 12.22 | ‘486 17 9.98 158 1,934 | 16.08 1,538 1,213 18.26 1,212 1,873 17.57 1,524 18,261 5.16 388 17,998 5.02 285 18,113 6.14 345 1,481 | 11.19 573 1,501 10.93 | 1,058 1,528 12.30 931 464 INDUSTRY STANDINGS —BASED ON OHIO w Frequency Severity Frequency Severity Industry Rate Rate Rate Rate Agriculture . ........... 25 21 30 21 Aircraft and Missile Mfg. and Repair ... .. 3 2 9 1 Air Transport... . 5.00. 20 37 10 40 Automobile... ....... 15 1 13 14 Cement Mfg. .. ... .. . 6 39 4 36 Chemicals: .......... 18 12 16 25 Clay Products ......... 33 29 31 29 Communications . . .. .... 1 3 1 3 Concrete Products... .. 39 36 39 24 Construction... ........ 31 33 32 33 Electrical Equipment .... 5 6 5 8 Electric Utilities . . . .. .... 1 32 ¥5 30 Food 1% TLL. RTO 24 17 27 22 Foundry sa 50 0 vd valve 34 31 34 35 Gas Utilities .. ......... 4 1 3 2 Glass. .l rage 22 25 20 13 Iron and Steel Products . . 27 18 23 20 beother . who. AREA 10 27 12 7 Sumber on RUS GG 40 40 40 37 Machinery ............. 19 13 19 16 Meat Packing ......... 37 28 37 26 Mining Coal . ...... ... 38 38 38 39 Mining (other than Coal) 36 8 25 9 Miscellaneous Mfg. . . . . .. 16 15 17 19 Non-ferrous Metal Prod... 28 22 26 28 Petroleum ............. 13 20 21 32 Printing and Publishing. . 7 5 [ 5 Pulp and Paper ........ 23 24 22 17 Quarry 5 SEAS 32 35 35 38 Rubber uv... abies 29 23 24 23 Service o.oo RAR TIA 2 4 2 4 Sheet Metal ...... ..... 14 16 14 18 Shipbuilding . .. ........ 17 30 33 15 Steal in LC aes 12 26 11 31 Storage and Warehousing 21 7 18 10 Yoxtile =. i aoa 9 10 7 6 Tobaceoi:. x. il, 26 14 29 12 Transit and Transportation 35 34 36 34 Wholesale and Retail . .. 8 9 8 11 Wood Products . ........ 30 19 28° 27 Frequency Rate is the number of disabling injuries per 1,000,000 man-hours exposure. Severity Rate is the number of days lost per 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure including charges for permanent disabilities and deaths. 465 ACCIDENT FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY RATES Frequency Severity Frequency Severity Frequency Severity Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate 30 28 34 33 34 33 3 2 4 3 3 1 4 40 2 1 18 40 16 14 14 15 20 13 13 37 5 4 5 4 21 25 17 37 24 28 32 31 32 25 32 36 1 1 1 2 1 5 38 23 38 36 39 38 33 34 33 32 33 31 5 7 6 8 4 10 15 32 12 35 10 34 26 21 27 23 30 17 34 x2 31 30 31 32 n 30 13 27 14 2 22 8 22 21 12 8 23 19 23 24 25 24 9 6 20 1 1 9 40 36 40 40 35 29 14 9 15 13 17 21 39 22 36 29 38 30 37 38 39 39 40 39 31 33 Z 5 23 12 17 16 19 20 19 23 20 12 25 31 28 20 18 26 18 22 15 26 6 3 8 7 7 7 24 24 24 19 26 19 36 39 37 38 37 37 19 18 21 16 21 22 2 4 3 6 2 3 12 10 16 18 13 18 29 17 29 14 16 16 10 27 9 26 6 25 25 11 28 12 22 11 7 5 ¥ 10 8 14 28 15 30 17 27 6 35 35 35 34 36 35 8 13 10 9 9 15 27 20 26 28 29 27 466 BY TYPE OF INJURY - 1965 Fatal e \ No. of Permanent| Partial Total y All Severity Units Total |Disability | Disability | Disabilities | Rates** Industry All Industry _{119,367 .03 19 6.43 6.65 557 Agriculture 6,703 .03 19 10.10 10.32 635 Aircraft & Missile Mfg. & Repair 59 .00 .00 2.81 2.81 93 Air Transport 141 2.23 .00 6.69 8.92 |3,509 Automobile 3507 .01 .14 7.43 7.58 397 Cement Mfg. 10 .90 .00 3.19 4.09 |5,504 Chemicals 532 .02 .09 8.67 8.78 a7 Clay Products . 175 .06 32 14.72 15.10 | 1,373 Communications __ 171 .01 .00 1.12 1.13 144 Concrete Products 300 14 59 | 23.26 23.99 | 2,438 Construction - 15,530 15 20 | 13.66 14.01 | 1,671 Electrical Equipment 639 01 .24 3.75 4.00 320 Electric Utilities 39 .23 .16 5.38 5.77 |1,625 Food --1 1,603 .02 14 | 9.87 10.03 545 Foundry - 312 13 .38 15.62 16.13 | 1,542 Gas Utilities 25 .00 J7 3.38 3.55 71 Glass - 231 .00 .14 9.20 9.34 986 Iron and Steel Products 1,482 .02 .47 | 10.30 10.79 581 Leather 157 .00 44 525 5.69 | 1,059 Lumber 260 .85 85 | 37.23 38.93 | 6,896 Machinery 2194 .01 27 8.55 8.83 444 Meat Packing 3 483 .04 45 20.02 20.51 1,17 Mining Coal _ ________ 229 47 39 | 21.0 22.17 | 4,006 Mining (other than Coal) _ 14 .00 .00 17.13 17.13 356 Miscellaneous Mfg. 1,301 .02 .28 7.92 8.22 528 Non-ferrous Metal Prod. 421 .03 42 10.98 11.43 789 Petroleum 5 : 4,307 .05 14 6.78 6.97 635 Printing & Publishing 1,651 .00 .05 4.58 4.63 199 Pulp & Paper 307| .05 35 | 9.46 9.86 824 Quarry alu 432 .24 .08 14.36 14.68 | 2,005 Rubber mmm mm 216 .00 40 | 11.55 11.95 812 Service - - - 50,681 .00 .01 1.88 1.89 151 Sheet Metal _ .. _____ 1,508 .00 56 6.81 7.37 536 Shipbuilding 59 19 A9 8.19 8.57 | 1,401 Steel : a 139 10 35 5.44 5.89 | 1,032 Storage & Warehousing 143 .00 .00 9.31 9.31 320 Textile _ 5 568 01 .05 4.93 4.99 388 Yobaeto ‘nu. bun ST 16 .00 .00 10.57 10.57 475 Transit & Transportation _ 2,182 18 1 16.77 17.06 | 1,785 Wholesale & Retail _ 19,118 .02 10 4.82 4.94 368 Wood Products 1,522 .00 .64 11.82 12.46 617 * Frequency Rate is the number of disabling injuries per 1,000,000 man-hours exposure ++ Severity Rate is the number of days lost per 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure including charges for permanent disabilities and deaths 467 The Select Committee on Education and Labor will now stand in adjournment until 10 o’clock, Monday morning, when we will meet in room 2261, this building. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, March 11, 1968.) 92-734 0—68——381 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1968 House oF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR or THE CoMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O'Hara presiding. g Present: Representatives O'Hara, Ford, Hathaway, Burton, and teiger. Staft members present: Jim Harrison, staff director; Marilyn Myers, clerk ; Dr. James Wason, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress; and Mr. Michael J. Bernstein, minority labor counsel. Mr. O'Hara. The Select Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor will come to order. The purpose of our meeting today is to continue our considerations Jisongh hearings on H.R. 14816, the occupational safety and health ill. STATEMENT OF LLOYD D. UTTER, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY, INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRI- CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, AFL-CIO, ACCOMPANIED BY DANIEL S. BEDELL, WASHINGTON LEGISLA- TIVE REPRESENTATIVE Mr. O'Hara. Our first witness today is Mr. Lloyd D. Utter, who is director of safety of the UAW. Mr. Urrer. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am privileged to appear here today and to present the International Union UAW’s position and feelings with respect to H.R. 14816 and to urge favorable consideration to the enactment of the Federal Occupa- tional Safety and Health Act. It would improve the conditions of safety and the well-being of America, because it would raise the single most important working condition—the safety and health of workers. The Federal Government has the right and the obligation to be concerned with occupational safety and health. An attack must be made on the “source of evil which causes hazards and invites accidents” and “to protect every one of America’s 75 million workers while they are on the job.” Because over the years the States have not stepped up to their responsibilities in this area, the UAW, since its inception, has repeatedly by convention action called for Federal legislation to set standards for and secure enforcement of decent uniform conditions of occupational safety and health. (469) 470 This bill, if passed, would make it possible for the States to easily assume their responsibility, and give workers needed protection. Under this proposed legislation the acknowledged need for uniform national occupational safety and health standards could be met. Com- petition between States for industries would no longer be based in any way on low safety standards and unsafe and unhealthful conditions. The need for uniform national safety standards can potiaps only be met by Federal legislation. At least in this way it can be accomplished in the most effective and efficient manner. The Secretary of Labor should promulgate such standards after they have been developed by the consensus method with all concerned parties participating. While the individual States have not to date done the job they could, it is to be hoped that they will, once this bill is passed. However, for the protection of workers, where a State fails to submit a plan or has a plan that cannot be approved by the Secretary of Labor, Federal in- spection and enforcement should follow. All State plans must be sub- ject to the Secretary’s audit of performance and activities. To carry out the purposes of the act, we feel that in addition to the planning, research, and demonstration grants already provided for in the bill, Federal grants—or reimbursement—should also be provided to the States for operational and administrative purposes. With this sys- tem real progress could be made. The TVJAW sees no reason why a Federal agency or its contractors should be exempted from coverage. Statistical data, inadequate as it may be, shows that we in industry have achieved a lower frequency rate and better safety performance than has the Federal Government for its employees. The UAW foels that one of the most important features of this bill is requirement that research, experiments, and demonstrations be conducted in the field of occupational health—and for the first time, findings and results are to be used to set standards that can only result in greatly improved worker health once inspections are made of the work places and the standards enforced. Even today without further study, standards based on present knowledge of the work health haz- ards could accomplish much in worker health. May I suggest that this Select Subcommittee on Labor and Congress pay particular attention to the presentation and position of the Na- tional Safety Council. Professionals from industry working within the field of occupational safety and health, representing labor and management, have agreed that this type of legislation is needed and that great common good will result. The UAW endorses this position. Congress in the past has shown concern about lost time due to strikes and lockouts—and rightly so; we, too, are concerned. But if all of us are honestly concerned about this economic loss, we must be far more concerned about the lost time due to industrial accidents and injuries, which we know to be 90 percent preventable. Year in and year out, this lost time has been at least six times as great as the worktime lost due to labor disputes. America cannot afford this needless and cruel waste now or at any time. If for no other reason than this, Congress must take affirmative action on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the great weight of testimony that has been presented and that which will be presented will more than justify favorable consideration of H.R. 14816 and enactment by the 471 Congress of an Occupational Safety and Health Act. Our country needs it and our workers can no longer do without this protection. Finally, we of the UAW sincerely hope that Congress in its wisdom will include in the act specified and adequate appropriation authori- zations for each of the fine and various programs authorized in the bill in order to assure the aims of the bill and to secure effective en- forcement. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. Utter. Your testimony has been suc- cinct and to the point and for that I express my appreciation. It has been my experience that the United Auto Workers have been consistently in favor of strengthening industrial safety legislation. In their appearances before the State Legislature of Michigan as well as before the U.S. Congress and in resolutions of their convention and activities of their local unions, T have had some opportunity to ob- serve that. Mr. Urter. Yes, we have. We have been so concerned that we found it necessary to write the United States of America Standards Insti- tute Safety Code into our contracts in order to bring any decent sort of protection to our people in many of the States. Mr. O’Hara. It has been your practice, has it not, to do that in as many contracts as you can? Mr. Utter. Yes, it is no doubt the policy of our International Union. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Utter, I thank you for your testimony. I hope that before you leave town you will give Mr. Dan Bedell a little en- husiasm and get him up here working. Mr. Urrer. I am certain he will % that. T am sure he will. Mr. O’Hara. Okay ; thank you very much. STATEMENT OF JOHN J. HANLON, M.D., M.P.H., BEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DETROIT, MICH. PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION Mr. O’Hara. Our next witness is John J. Hanlon from the De- troit Health Department. Dr. Hanlon, we are pleased to have you with us, representing the American Public Health Association. Dr. Hanon. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee : The American Public Health Association is pleased to have this opportunity to present its views on H.R. 14816. We believe the pro- posal, addressed to a serious health problem, is long overdue and is worthy of serious study and affirmative action by this committee and the Congress. Before dealing substantively with the problems of occupational diseases, disabilities, and deaths and with this legislative proposal, I would like to acquaint you with the organization which has honored me with its presidency. The American Public Health Association is a 96-year-old professional society comprised of over 20,000 members whose vocations permit the full-time expenditure of their working lives in the betterment of the public’s health. They serve in both offi- cial and voluntary health agencies in communities as I do, in State agencies, and in the various national agencies. They are engaged both 472 in the conduct of public health programs and in the training of much- needed health program personnel. The APHA is multidisciplinary in nature—physicians, dentists, nurses, engineers, statisticians, nutritionists, and others with special- ties in health education, epidemiology and administration, to cite a few. One of our sections, oriptnnsed in 1914 and now consisting of approximately 640 members, devotes not only their professional lives but their association activities to occupational health. We do believe that by interest and competence, the APHA is qualified to speak to the subject at hand. The APHA, Mr. Chairman, is greatly encouraged by this new interest in improving occupational health and safety programs, evi- denced by President Johnson’s personal intervention, the introduction of H.R. 14816 by Mr. O'Hara and many of his colleagues, and finally by these hearings. Our interest 1s a matter of record; in 1956 and in 1957, when, as I shall point out, the future of Federal occupational health activities seemed grim if not without hope, and again in 1965, when the picture was considerably improved, the APHA, by the official action of its governing council, urged expanded governmental leadership and action in respect to occupational health service. I have attached a copy of our 1965 resolution as evidence for this statement, although I confess a possibility that the motivation for doing so could be ascribed to organizational vanity. Except for two points (we failed to include a reference to enforcement and favored authority under the U.S. Public Health Service) it almost appears that H.R. 14816 is a legalistic phrasing of that resolve. Seriously, I have made this reference to point up 5 fact that our position and, more importantly, our objectives, are consistent with those of this legislation. n establishing the rationale of the APHA positions, please indulge me a brief time to recite some historical facts. An industrial health program was begun in the U.S. Public Health Service in 1914. This action was precipitated, as too often is the case, by a tragedy of monu- mental proportions. Just as it took the death of a playful youngster to close Washington’s air-polluting Kenilworth dump, it was the infamous “shirtwaist fire” in a New York City sweatshop in 1911 which took the lives of almost 150 women that focused the Nation’s attention on the intolerable working conditions of that day and led to this initial Federal intervention. During World Wars I and II, times of unusual national commit- ment and an equally unusual recognition of the necessity of a healthy work force, Federal appropriations reached proportionate zeniths. It was during and only immediately after World War IT that PHS funds were sufficient to provide occupational health grants to the States—in all but two instances, to State health departments—plus the assign- ment of personnel to States to assist in initiating and improving State ooginatiopal health programs. e believe it appropriate, however, to point out that this period about which we can reminisce with comparative pride was followed by sharp budget reductions. This unfortunate turn of events reached its low point in 1955, when less than $600,000, not even 1 cent per worker per year, was appropriated for the PHS occupational health 473 activities. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that this brief recapitulation will provide a perspective with which to view today’s challenge. Now to the proposal under consideration today—H.R. 14816. First, I must state unequivocally that the APHA believes the Federal au- thority called for should A delegated to that agency of the Federal Government charged with health responsibilities, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The present program has lived, some- times barely endured, through all the vagaries of the democratic budget process, and it has survived without the blessing of specific legislative authorization. This record, while far from satisfactory, seems insuffi- cient grounds for condemnation. We are persuaded to believe that with a congressional mandate and authorization and with funds adequate to the task, the PHS could and would conduct an aggressive program of which we could all be proud and which incidentally would constitute a wise national eco- nomic investment. If, in the wisdom of the Congress, authority for major segments of this program is delegated to the Labor Department, we urge that authority nonetheless be given the Secretary of HEW, to not only conduct research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occu- pational safety and health but to produce the criteria and set the health, and possibly the safety standards requisite to the act. Contrary to the view that such action would be a fragmenting of responsibility, may I point out that within HEW you will find the radiological health and air pollution control activities among other HEW programs which have a direct bearing on occupational as well as other health hazards. Second, we urge the authorization of appropriations consistent in amount with the problems faced—probably in the magnitude of $20 million per year. The report entitled, “Protecting the Health of 80 Million Americans,” written by a group of experts, has suggested an annual $50 million for these purposes. This is probably a more accu- rate estimate of true need, but we make our suggestion to initiate a comprehensive program. May we remind the committee, few if any problems have been solved by transferring them from one jurisdiction to another—adequate moneys are reqired irrespective of the admin- istrative setting. Third, we strongly support program grants to States and the utilization of present and strengthened occupational health programs in State health departments. We would warn against the inference that present inadequate programs reflect solely on State dereliction of responsibility—the absence of State programs in nine States, for example. We believe the Federal Government must share, if indeed not assume, a major portion of this odious responsibility. And truthfully, the record in some States is well worthy of favor- able comment. Recall, please, that these efforts are financed without benefit of Federal support grants. In my own Detroit area, sir, for example, an area that is reputed to be a somewhat industrialized area, the department of health has, for a number of years, been trying to conduct an occupational health program without any State or Federal assistance. Duplicative organization and staff could be avoided by implementation of this recommendation. Despite the fact that our resolution of 1965 does not refer to the 474 subject, I want to assure the committee that the APHA supports enforcement of standards necessary to control or eradicate occupa- tional illness and injuries. These standards should be based on data and criteria scientifically arrived at by persons competent and ex- perienced in occupational health. In order to deal constructively with the multitude of new and often exotic materials which are introduced into our industry each year, a greatly expanded research effort is re- quired. This segment of the proposal is supported by the APHA. Our final substantive proposal is related to improved intelligence on the problem of occupational illnesses and injuries. I have pur- osely avoided any reference to statistics such as the amount of pro- oe Fo lost due to occupational caused illnesses or injuries, the percent of workers covered by industrial health programs, the value of wages lost, the number of persons killed or suffering disabling in- juries each year or other indicting data. The picture is unfavorable— that much we know. But we are fearful that even the best estimate is only a good guess. We simply have nothing approaching a good reporting system and until we do we must agree with Secretary Wirtz, who told this com- mittee, “Our present statistics are too weak for any meaningful purpose.” This objective can be accomplished with comparative eas: and it would not cost a great deal of money. Sound data would en- hance the opportunity to accelerate program elements which were shown to need more attention. Here again the well-proven State health department-Federal partnership could be arid One further comment: H.R. 14816 calls for a report describing the experience under the program and making recommendations deemed necessary. This report, due prior to June 30, 1971, should, we be- lieve, be a joint responsibility of the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Further, we suggest the committee consider the possible advantage of predicating this report upon a national conference called by the Secretaries. We believe recommendations, such as those called for, are most effective when persons outside the governmental estab- lishment participate in the evaluation process. Again, may TI express the gratitude of the American Public Health Association’s membership for this opportunity to express our views. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Dr. Hanlon. I would like to ask you a few questions that relate to the bill but do not relate to the matter directly introduced in your testimony. I don’t know if I am asking you to testify really as the president of the APHA or as a representative of the Detroit Department of Health or what, but you have to sort. these things out for yourself. Friday we had a witness who suggested that it was his belief that regulation of health and safety conditions in industrial establishments made no contribution whatsoever to a reduction of injury frequency and severity rates. I wondered if your experience and background would lead you to concur in that observation or to disagree with it. Dr. Hanrow. I do not have at my fingertips, of course, sir, definitive statistical data, but I would certainly disagree strongly with the statement. I know that in the literature there is ample evidence of clear contribution on the part of health and safety programs and measures to the well-being of workers, to their economic status, to 475 their productivity, and in an inverse ratio to reduced absenteeism and the like. I believe there is plenty of evidence. Mr. O'Hara. I think that his experience was that requiring an employer to establish and maintain certain conditions was ineffectual and that in fact I think he felt it was counterproductive. He felt we ought to encourage employers but not ever require them to do these things. That would not be your feeling? Dr. Haxron. Unfortunately, I feel that business and industry is, to me, like a big family and if we consider our own personal families there are some of them that we can accomplish a great deal with through education and encouragement with reference to immuniza- tion, tuberculosis examination, whatever it is, but there are always some who do not cooperate and you have to take some regulatory steps. believe this is true. In fact, in my own experience I know it is true. A great many of the industrial and business concerns of this country, in their enlightened self-interest and the national and com- munity interest do take, and have taken, very appropriate steps, fruit- ful steps, but they do not represent 100 percent. Mr. O'Hara. One other point, one last one I would like to ask you about. On the last page of your statement, you ask that we consider the possible advantage of predicating the report provided for in the legislation upon a national conference called by the Secretaries in which persons outside of the Government establishment would par- ticipate in the evaluation process. I think that point has a good deal of merit. I would like, though, to go from that point to another point made by several witnesses and not by others, and that is that several witnesses have suggested that in the adoption of the standards pro- vided for under this legislation, that we require that persons outside of the Government be consulted, persons having a particular interest and experience in this field, be consulted and that they have a voice in determining what these standards should be in the first instance. Do you have any thoughts on that? Dr. Hanvon. Yes, sir. I personally feel rather strongly in favor of that approach. It has been used with considerable success in many instances. I have done so myself, indeed, close to home. When we developed several years ago an air pollution code. We brought in not only individuals from the concerned governmental agencies, local and States, the public, and technical experts from the university set- ting, but also members of industry who would be affected, who had an obvious interest in it. We had many discussions and hearings. We came up with a product that was acceptable to all. I think the process, in fact I know the process has worked very well, because since that time, over 2 years, there has been only one appeal. We have an appeals board with repre- sentation from all sides, too. There has been only one appeal. Incidentally, I do know in my own field that the Public Health Serv- ice, in developing standards, has tended to make a practice of bring ing in outside assistance, opinion evaluation, and so on. (Dr. Hanlon submitted the following :) 476 RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, OCTOBER 20, 1965 In 1956 and again in 1957, the American Public Health Association called attention to the need for expanded governmental occupational health services. Since then there has been a steady attrition in occupational health services provided by states. Meanwhile, changing technology and shifts in the social and economic structure of the country have increased and changed the problems in occupational health. The problems of occupationally caused diseases have been neglected and there has been failure to capitalize on the opportunity to promote positive health among the nation’s eighty million employed persons. The American Public Health Association restates its position regarding oc- cupational health in the context of the social, economic and health concepts of today. It urges the Public Health Service, in cooperation with labor and manage- ment, to take leadership in developing a program of occupational health with national goals and missions that will meet today’s needs. Such a program should not confine itself to occupationally caused disease, but should include preven- tive services which will promote positive health among all employed persons. It should give consideration to the consolidation of the now scattered responsi- bilities and resources of the Federal Government. Federal support should be provided to strengthen state and local occupational health programs. The Federal responsibility should be expanded to establish criteria and standards where these are needed, support research and demonstrations, provide for the training of professional people in the needed disciplines, and assure availability of an expanded range and quantity of technical consultation. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much. Mr. Steiger, any questions? Mr. Steicer. No questions. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Burton. Mr. Burton. No questions. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much for your helpful testimony. Dr. Hanvon. Thank you again. STATEMENT OF BERTRAM D. DINMAN, M.D., SECRETARY, AMERI- CAN ACADEMY OF OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE, ACCOMPANIED BY GILBERT H. COLLINGS, M.D., IMMEDIATE PAST DIRECTOR Mr. O’Hara. Our next witness is Dr. Bertram D. Dinman, repre- senting American Academy of Occupational Medicine. Doctor, we would like very much to hear your testimony now. Dr. Dinman. I am Bertram D. Dinman, M.D., secretary of the Amer- ican Academy of Occupational Medicine, and appearing with me is Gilbert H. Collings, M.D. immediate past director. It is with considerable pleasure that the American Academy of Occupational Medicine accepts the honor of having the opportunity and privilngs of offering its counsel and aid in the formulation of legislative measures concerning the health and well-being of our work- ing population. he American Academy of Occupational Medicine, founded in 1946, has as its primary objective “the maintenance and improvement of the health of industrial workers.” The membership of the academy con- sists of those physicians on the industrial scene who have committed their full-time activities to this specialty of practice, that is, occupa- tional medicine. Another requirement for membership in the academy demands that such physicians occupy positions of responsibility in the planning, development, and operation of occupational health programs. In addition to encompassing physicians in responsible positions in industry, the American Academy of Occupational Medicine includes among its membership academicians and researchers in the area of 477 occupational medicine who have played a continuing and major role in this organziation’s activities. In order to raise and maintain the level of occupational medicine, the Academy has sponsored on a continuing basis postgraduate educa- tional opportunities for occupational health physicians and nurses. In addition, the academy’s membership has been recognized as con- stituting a body of highly qualified specialists, in that its fellows have been called upon by education evaluatory bodies to aid in the con- tinuing maintenance of the quality of occupational medical training programs. Accordingly, the academy, as a responsible member of the profes- sional community, has studied with great interest the legislation pro- posed by this 90th Congress. However, because of the particular competency of the academy, we shall comment only on the health and medical aspects of the proposed legislation. Nevertheless in response to the concern of the Congress for the safety and health of our working population as expressed in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968, the members of the American academy, looking beyond their technical roles, believe that they have a particular citizens’ respon- sibility for contributing such counsel and advice as is pertinent to the needs of the lawmaking processes. While over the past 20 years there has been progressive development of occupational medical services provided by the larger employers, the fact remains that, among the approximately two-thirds of the work- ing force at jobs in small establishments employing less than 100 em- ployees, there have been inadequate advances recorded in occupational health coverage. Accordingly, the academy looks with approbation upon the provi- sions of this bill which are designed to aid the development of State responsibility in this inadequately covered area. It is a matter of his- torical record that a major contribution to the initiation of State con- cern in occupational health was embodied in title VI of the Federal Security Act of 1936. When the Federal Government directed such concern to this area, the States responded to this challenge with the initiation and development of State agency activity in the field of occupational health. Unfortunately, with the intervening years State concern has dwin- dled so that local progress has been less than optimal. Thus the provi: sion of section 17 within the act presently being considered, which looks toward rejuvenation of interest by the States, is a welcome and practi- cal reassertion of national concern. If we examine the history of State developments in occupational health, several patterns emerge. As an expression of the variability of local conditions, some States have established occupational health and hygiene units in public health agencies, while others decided that local needs would be best met by placing such activities in State labor de- partments. . Co The record of performance testifies to the wisdom of permitting those knowledgeable as to local needs to determine the requisite course of action, since we have seen the development of agencies of excellence in the health departments of some States, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan on the one hand, and in the Labor Department of Massachu- setts and New York on the other hand, 478 In these de there has been a tradition of professionalism and service largely based upon a sense of continuity. Under such conditions, guaranteed by the existence of a merit or civil service system, the high- est level of professional competence can be retained since their activi- ties stand apart from partisan concerns regardless of changes in ad- ministration. It is important to emphasize this point, particularly in these times when such professional competencies are a scarce item within our na- tional personnel resource inventory. Accordingly, the academy would respectfully suggest that the committee take into consideration these historical facts. In view of its concern with professional education, the academy would like to congratulate the framers of this bill for their farsighted recognition of the national needs of educational programing embodied in sections 16 (a) and 17(a) (2) of this act. The academy wishes to go on record as favoring investigation and delineation of the scope and extent of health problems in the working environment. For it 1s unfortunately true at this time that adequate information about the existence and extent of such problems is lacking. It is also an unfortunate fact that Federal support of such activities has been minimal both in fundings and manpower in the past. Accordingly the American Academy of Occupational Medicine strongly endorses the intent of sections 15 and 16 of this bill and hopes to see the establishment of a statutory basis for the execution by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare of research, demon- strations, and experiments relating to occupational health. The most important concern of the academy for the proposed legis- lation involves the development of standards for health protection in the workplace. Without well-established and medically sound stand- ards, the intent of this proposed act cannot be realized. In the admini- stration of this act, the twin responsibilities of employee health pro- tection and employer equity are not feasible in the absence of environ- mental standards. However, with regard to a rational understanding of standards and their application, the academy believes that certain realities must be recognized and with respect to the present state of medical knowledge. Standards which attempt to set limits on the concentrations of air- borne contaminants and other potential hazards are based upon animal experimentation and human observation. In addition, there is an element of estimate concerning the margin of safety between concentrations of harmful materials or other condi- tions which product damaging health effects and the amount of such materials or conditions we do not cause deleterious body effects. Frequently, the scientific community is called upon to interpret animal experimentation data in the absence of meaningful human experience. Obviously, before a valid judgment can be made, a high degree of ex- pertise is required. In other cases, though human experience is available, the interpreta- tion of the meaning, adequancy, and reliability of such data requires considerable professional sophistication. Finally, those who must make such judgments have not considered it prudent to permit exposure of the worker to conditions in the working environment just below those causing bodily change, and an extra margin of safety, often twofold, 479 fivefold, or even tenfold, must be built into such health standards. It should be apparent that this body of considerations requires special wh ol in the area of life sciences and health. In view of the multitudinous chemical and physical agents produced by our modern technology, workers can be exposed to many thousands of situations potentially deleterious to health. Obviously, a sufficiently large body of experts to cover such a broad area of concern are not to be found within any one organization, be they governmental, indus- trial, or educational. To effectively carry out the intent of this act, the academy firmly believes that some mechanism must be found which can procure a con- sensus of the knowledge and experience of the entire scientific com- munity with respect to each potentially hazardous material or condi- tion for which standards are to be set. Accordingly, the AAOM respectfully recommends the establishment of a federally chartered Commission, representative of Government, labor, and industry, the professional community and the public, and to be appointed in equal numbers by the Secretaries of Labor and HEW. ie a federally chartered body, financed by grants from the Government, and other sponsoring agencies, should upon request for specific standards gather together existing knowledge from the scien- tific community, determine the consensus, and make the value judg- ment necessary to the formulation of specific standards. Members of this Commission should not be sponsored by the indi- vidual communities of interest; rather the Commission should speak for itself. Nor should such Commission require the endorsement of the respective sponsoring organizations. The academy believes that stand- ards developed by the Commission should be advisory and that their official adoption should be consistent with rulemaking procedures. Furthermore, the academy believes that such standards should be considered tentative for some reasonable period, since for the reasons alluded to previously they are, at best, considered judgments based upon less than prescience. In keeping with the philosophy expressed previously of proper State and local responsibility, the AAOM recommends that standards as are adopted by the Secretary of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare should be submitted to the individual States for promulga- tion and enforcement as stated by section 12. In those cases wherein the States, after an appropriate and reason- able time, fail to establish adequate control programs, such should con- stitute due cause for the Department of Labor and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to carry out this responsibility. Given the mechanisms herein discussed, we believe that reasonable, yet adequate, criteria and standards can and should be developed for the health protection of our working force. Certainly, within these safe- guards for all concerned, we should not fear, in the words of George Washington, to “* * * raise a standard to which the wise and just can repair.” In conclusion, on behalf of the American Academy of Occupational Medicine, we would like to express our appreciation for this opportu- nity to discuss with you the proposed Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. Dr, Collings and I shall gladly try to answer any questions the committee may have. 480 Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Dr. Dinman, for a helpful statement. Mr. Burton, any questions? Mr. Burton. On page 5 you discuss the prudent permissible ex- posure in the twofold, fivefold, or tenfold margin of safety. And is that view commonly held or is that view one that you hold but most of your colleagues would disagree with ? Mr. Dinman. Noj this is inherent in the formulation of standards for protection of health and in the working environment that causes it. We are somewhat less than trepid ; we admit there are areas of un- known things. Because of taking the risk of damaging anybody by playing the standard close to the data, we would rather see that it is commonly practiced to build a safety margin into the standards. Mr. Burton. I gather—you have also pointed out—there are a number of instances where the various disciplines don’t have enough data to establish standards of unchallengeable safety. Dr. Dinman. This is quite correct. Again, our data are relatively short in specific areas or specific conditions. Under those conditions, we do expect that such standards—and this has been the practice, too— are considered tentative. As a matter of fact, all standards as presently adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hy- gienists are considered tentative for 2 years. After standards are ten- tatively proposed, they can be challenged, changed, or can be altered on the basis of new data anyone may wish to bring forward. This, again, is a common proposition. We do not have all of the information. We make the best estimate and throw in again the safety margin. Mr. Burton. Tell me something about this association of indus- trial hygienists. Dr. rir The American Conference of Governmental Hygien- ists is an organization made up of industrial hygienists occupied in State, Federal, and local occupational health programs or occupa- tional hygiene programs. They have a committee on threshold limit values which meets annually to consider formulation of standards based upon the information which is available in the scientific liter- ature. These standards are then considered tentative for a 2-year period, after which they are adopted as a specific standard for a specific con- dition or contaminant in the environment. It has no enforcement; it has no legal status, as a matter of fact. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists is essentially an information ad- visory body. One must point out many of the States have adopted these threshold limit values into their individual State codes. Mr. Burton. You have submitted for the committee files or would you tell us how to acquire the compilation of these threshold values that this group has structured ? Dr. Dinman. I can obtain them or contact the staff. Mr. O’Hara. The staff will be instructed to obtain such standards. Mr. Steiger. (The information will appear at the end of the questioning of Dr. Dinman.) Mr. Steieer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 481 Dr. Dinman, I was impressed with your testimony. I think you did an exceptionally Fg job, and it has been valuable for the committee to have the benefit of your background and expertise in this kind of a field. Was your organization or were you contacted by representatives of the Labor Department or HEW prior to the introduction of this legislation? r. Dinman. Prior to the introduction of the legislation, no; not prior to the introduction. Mr. Steicer. Did they come to you to talk with you about what they were proposing to do? Dr. Dinman. No. Mr. Steiger. I will put in an editorial comment if I may to the chairman, to say I think the hearing has been very good. We have had some very, very exceptional testimony, this organization among them, which has pointed out some of the problems which I think are pretty obviously not considered by anybody in putting together a bill which is so massive in its implication and so far reaching. And it just appalls me that the Federal Government, with the obvious lack of competence that it has in the enforcement of the standards presently in operation on behalf of Federal employes, has not gone in to any- body to talk about what it ought to do in occupational health and safety. or, may I ask you, do you think there is any reason to put together in one body both occupational health and industrial safety, or is this something that, because of the very serious difficulties that you have pointed out and the fact we don’t know an awful lot about environmental health, that that should be really on its own and not involved as directly as it is in this bill with industrial safety? Dr. Corrings. Well, obviously, from my expression, you realize you hit a controversial issue. It is difficult to separate safety from health. There are overlaps and lines of grayness between these two areas. An individual who gets his leg broken by a physical trauma from falling off of an unguarded stairway is clearly an accident. An in- dividual who has liver disease from a toxic material found on the job clearly is an occupational illness. There are, however, some things which are borderlines; in between. If a man is killed by accidental exposure to carbon monoxide, for ex- ample, is this an occupational disease or is it an occupational accident? So I don’t propose, in answering your question, to get involved in the distinction between the two. As a representative of the academy, I have to confiue my answer to the health area because we take the position that we really don’t have expertise in the safety field and therefore we are interested pri- marily in the health aspect. Mr. Congressman, parenthetically, however, I would like to voice this personal comment if it can be registered as a personal comment As a physician, it seems to me that much of the need in the area of safety is in the area of human inadequacy. We have come a long way in safety in this country, particularly industrial safety in the protection of the individual against physical hazards, and what you can do to his environment. Much of what needs to be done, in my judgment, in this area in the future—much of the opportunity—relates to the 482 human element, and in this area I am not at all sure that people in the health disciplines need to be distinguished from people in the safety area, nor should they remain aloof from the safety problems; so that there are considerable reasons in my judgment for considering these two together. Administratively, clearly this creates some very difficult problems, because you have expertise in the health area in the Department of Hatin, Education, and Welfare, and it does not exist in some other places. Mr. Steiger. I appreciate your comment on that, Dr. Collings. Let me ask Dr. Dinman, if I may. You have suggested that the major thrust should be the research necessary to establish some criteria on which standards can be based, plus, if I read your statement correctly, improvements in the manpower necessary to expertly enforce what- ever standards are adopted. What kind of a role would you see for the commission you have recommended be established with representatives of government and labor and industry, the professional community and the public? Do you see this commission acting as the body to which the thrust of the legislation ought to go for the purposes of establishing the background and data necessary, the technical data necessary on which to base standards, and then would you foresee in the bill or in the law that within a certain period of time such standards ought to be promulgated and enforced ? Is this what you are outlining for us? Dr. Dinman. I think, however, some clarification is in order con- cerning the question of research in educational activities. I do not see necessarily the commission being the body to carry out such activities. I think under sections 15 and 16 of the bill there is clearly an excellent position for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to carry out such activities. I look upon the commission, however, as gathering such evidence as may be available or possibly determining such evidence as needed to adequately develop such standards. I don’t see the commission carrying out the researching responsibility for these activities. I think, hope- fully, there will be sufficient manpower and funding within the De- partment of Health, Education, and Welfare and the commission to gather and make such judgments as the standards require. Beyond that I think you stated the proposition clearly. Mr. Steiger. Then it would be your view that the responsibility adopted should be submitted to the individual States for promulgation and enforcement? Dr. Dinman. Correct. Mr. Strrcer. I would only caution you that in my judgment section 12 as drafted does not have that kind of intent but basically is intended to give the Secretary of Labor complete authority to take over all safety and health activities and not give the States the opportunity to do it first. If T had my druthers I would as soon change the thrust to allow what you recommended. I have no further questions. I appre- ciate the witnesses’ being here. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Haraaway. No questions. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Ford. Mr. Forp. Just one question. You mentioned the distinction between 483 the medical approach to environmental safety and the approach of, I think you said, “safety people” and then went on to say there should really be a distinction between the practicing physician and the safety people. Doesn’t it seem that from the standpoint of what we do in other areas, that we neglect the use of preventative medicine, in the field of environmental safety ? We have heard testimony concerning large numbers of persons in the petrochemical industry who, over a long period of time, have suf- fered permanent brain damage. Research is now going on to find out whether heretofore-accepted standards with respect to exposure to carbon monoxide are not high enough so that continuous exposure or frequent exposure would produce permanent brain damage. This came about as a result of the death of two or three young men and it is a backtracking proposition. We could go on and ‘on and we keep getting examples of this. How, from your point of view as a medical man, do we get the medi- cal research in front of these disasters instead of as an a terthought ? Dr. Dinnman. If T can speak for a moment as a professor from the University of Michigan, I have had experience, I think it was just last week, in a situation where, as a member of the Advisory Com- mittee on Toxicology of the National Academy of Science, we have been faced with the development of threshold limit values for Federal agencies—NASA, Department of Defense, and several others. We in this committee have had the opportunity to gather together the data which has been available from various investigatory groups and to set up threshold values in which we anticipate this TE Now, I don’t believe that it is an adequate expression of actuality to say that in all cases, or necessarily in most cases, that we have devel- oped threshold limit values in response to situations that have gone to the extent you have indicated. Mr. Foro. Excuse me for interrupting, but when I talk about de- veloping them, I am talking about developing these values in a prac- tical way so they are applied to people in industry. I understand you know a lot of things at the medical school at the University of Michigan which you have not been able to convince the State of Michigan Safety Department or our legislature are important. Now, when I talk about the establishment of preventive values, I am speaking in terms of their being applicable to people who come in contact with a harmful practice or substance. I am talking about the application of the values rather than the theory. Dr. Dinman. Again, I can only speak as a researcher and teacher. We, within this process you are Ew so can only offer what we think is the scientific body of information available and attempt to apply this information to the situation such as you are describing. Whether or not our best advices are accepted or carried out is quite another matter. Mr. Foro. All right, that brings us back to the line of questioning of the gentleman from Wisconsin. I understood you to suggest that even in the face of your recognition of the reluctance of people involved in the enforcement of safety standards, you would still prefer that we attempt to continue the present approach of State-by-State adoption of standards. Dr. Dinyman. Within the limitations that we have suggested on our last page of this statement. I quote page 7, the first paragraph. 92-734 0—68——382 484 Mr. Foro. I am familar with that approach. However, we had the experience of trying from time to time to get so-called uniform codes adopted by States without much success. We still don’t have a uniform commercial code in every State in the country, and there is great pressure for that. } We have 38 out of 50 States now where you know what a fire insur- ance policy is and probably less than half of that where there is some agreement on what is and what is not support duty with regard to children. This approach, frankly—and I am speaking as a lawyer—just has not worked in other areas. } We have raised a question here, for example, you are familiar with Michigan, I am sure, where the industrial processes of the automobile industry dominate the whole State in terms of people being knowledge able about them and knowledgeable about the problems that arise in them. On the other hand when something happens at Dow Chemical at Midland, it only affects a very small portion of the State, and we are not moving ahead of States like New Jersey and others that are chem- ical States. Now, what is your attitude about the distinction in the approach between a State like Michigan attempting to set standards for a whole variety of industries where the chemical industry might come down fourth or fifth from the top in priority, as distinguished from a cen- tral group of people working on the chemical end of it and another group on other types of industrial processes. Isn't it better from your standpoint to look for the medical problems that would exist in a par- ticular industry or in a particular substance rather than those things that will be found within a particular geographical area like a State? Dr. Dinman. Well, I think you are i upon several questions here. One question which you are touching upon is the development of standards; am I correct ? Mr. Forp. Yes. Dr. Dinman. We have suggested that rather than this being an indi- vidual, State-by-State function, that it be a centrally organized bod that has access to all of the information possible to develop such standards. We furthermore recognize the realities you outlined of the individ- ual States possibly picking up or failing to pick up the individual State’s responsibilities in the area and, therefore, we have the reason for the paragraph at the top of page 7 of the statement. Mr. For. I gather the distinction you are making is that you want to give the States a chance to work out the enforcement of the stand- ards but we should still try to develop industry standards as distin- guished from any of them in the State. Dr. Dinman. Yes. Mr. Foro. Thank you. Mr. O’HaRra. Well, thank you, Dr. Dinman, for your testimony. I am glad that Mr. Ford got into that line of questioning, because it helps us to better understand your position. You believe there should be national industry standards made available in the proper way, drawn up with the consultation of appropriate specialists, promul- gated or issued after careful consideration, and after appropriate re- search where necessarv, and these standards should be provided to the 485 States. The States, however, should be given the first crack at promul- ating and enforcing the standards but in any given State that would ail to do so the promulgation and enforcement of the standards would become a Federal responsibility. Dr. Dinman. This outline of yours is correct. Mr. O’Hagra. I think that is certainly a reasonable position. One of the things we worried about a little bit, I worried about, is that some of our experts and specialists in the field will get bogged down in consideration of what the appropriate standard ought to be and as a consequence won’t ever promulgate any standards. We have had some experience with that in several unfortunate cases. I don’t know how a piece of legislation impresses upon anyone a sense of urgency. There is some point at which, although one is not completely satisfied with the data on which a standard would be based, you simply have to, in order to protect the health of the people involved, based on the best data you can get, promulgate a standard and then go on trying to learn more so you can revise it if necessary. Isn’t that your position ? Dr. Dinman. Yes, that is our position. We recognize that occasion- ally such situations exist where we cannot arrive at a reasonable stand- ard or arrive at a standard with which we scientifically can feel totall comfortable. But recognizing the exigencies of the needs in all suc cases, standards have been in the past adopted and utilized. Mr. O'Hara. Perhaps if we go into the romulgation of standards under such a system, we ought to try for Ra language which will permit the development of a, based on adequate informa- tion and data, but, in cases where the problem is immediate, will pro- vide for a quicker method than the committee consensus route. Dr. Dinman. I might add that, under such conditions where such needs must be met in absence of data we are totally comfortable about it might be well that these standards be noted as having these areas of unknowns associated with them. Mr. O’Hara. Right. Thank you very much for your testimony. It has been very helpful. (The following was submitted for the record by Dr. Dinman :) 486 THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES FOR 1967 The Threshold Limit Values refer to air-borne concentrations of substances and represent con- ditions under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. Because of wide variation in individual susceptibility, exposure of an occasional individual ator even below the threshold limit may not prevent discomfort, ag- gravation of a pre-existing condition, or occupa- tional illness. Clinical tests are becoming available that per- mit detection of those individuals who will hy- perreact upon exposure to certain industrial sub- stances. Being predictive in character, they may be applied as screening tests in the preplacement job examination. Requests for further details of these tests should be directed to the Chairman of the Committee. Threshold limits should be used as guides in the control of health hazards and should not be regarded as fine lines between safe and dan- gerous concentrations. Exceptions are the sub- stances given in Appendix A and certain of the substances given a ‘“C’’ listing. The values not given a ‘“‘C” listing refer to time-weighted aver- age concentrations for a conventional 7 or 8 hour workday. Time-weighted average concentrations permit excursions above the limit, provided they are compensated by equivalent excursions below the limit during the work day. The degree of permis- sible excursion is pegged to the threshold limit value of the particular substance as given in table in Appendix C under ‘‘Test TLV Factor.”’ Hence, it is not considered appropriate to inter- pret air concentration values as exceeding time- weighted average limits, if such values lie within the permissible excursions. (See section on Legislative Code.) The amount by which these concentrations may be exceeded for short periods without injury to health depends upon a number of factors such as the nature of the contaminant, whether very high concentrations even for short periods produce acute poisoning, whether the effects are cumula- tive, the frequency with which high concentra- tions occur, and the duration of such periods. 487 All must be taken into consideration in arriving at a decision as to whether a hazardous situa- tion exists. Enlightened industrial hygiene prac- tice inclines toward controlling exposures below the limit rather than maiatenance at the limit. Threshold limits are based on the best avail- able information from industrial experience, from experimental human and animal studies, and when possible, from a combination of the three. The basis on which the values are established may differ from substance to substance; protec- tion against impairment of health may be the guiding factor for some, whereas reasonable free- dom from irritation, narcosis, nuisance or other forms of stress may dominate the basis for others. The Committee holds to the opinion that limits based on physical irritation should be considered no less binding than those based on physical impairment; growing bodies of evidence indicate that physical irritation may promote and accelerate physical impairment. These limits are intended for use in the field of industrial hygiene and should be interpreted and applied only by persons trained in this field. They are not intended for use, or for modifica- tion for use, (1) as a relative index of toxicity, by making a ratio of two limits, (2) in the evalu- ation or control of community air pollution or air pollution nuisances, (3) in estimating the toxic potential of continuous uninterrupted exposures, (4) as proof or disproof of an existing disease or physical condition, or (5) for adoption by coun- tries whose working conditions differ from those in the United States of America and where sub- stances and processes differ. Documentation of Threshold Limit Values. A separate companion piece to the TLVs is is- sued by ACGIH under this title. This publication gives the pertinent scientific information and da- ta with reference to literature sources that were used to base each limit. Each documentation al- so contains a statement defining the type of response against which the limit is safeguarding the worker. For a better understanding of the TLVs it is essential that the Documentation be consulted when the TLVs are being used. Ceiling vs Time-Weighted Average Limits, Although the time-weighted average concentra- 488 tion provides the most satisfactory, practical way of monitoring air-borne agents for compli- ance with the limits, there are certain substan- ces for which it is inappropriate. In the latter group are substances which are predominantly fast acting and whose threshold limit is more appropriately based on this particular response. Substances with this type of response are best controlled by a ceiling ‘‘C’’ limit that should not be exceeded. It is implicit in these defini- tions that the manner of sampling to determine compliance with the limits for each group must differ, a single brief sample, that is applicable to a ‘“C’” limit, is not appropriate to the time- weighted limit: here, a sufficient number of sam- ples are needed to permit a time-weighted average concentration throughout a complete cycle of operations or throughout the work shift. Whereas the ceiling limit places a definite boundary which concentrations should not be permitted to exceed, the time-weighted average limit requires an explicit limit to the excursions that are permissible above the listed values. The magnitude of these excursions may be peg- ged to the magnitude of the threshold limit by an appropriate . factor shown in Appendix C. It should be noted that the same factors are used by the Committee in making a judgment whether to include or exclude a substance for a ¢C”»’ listing, ‘‘Skin’’ Notation. Listed substances followed by the designation ¢‘Skin’’ refer to the potential contribution to the over-all exposure by the cu- taneous route including mucous membranes and eye, either by air-borne, or more particularly, by direct contact with the substance. Vehicles can alter skin absorption. This attention-calling de- signation is intended to suggest appropriate measures for the prevention of cutaneous absorp- tion so that the threshold limit is not invalidat- ed. These values are reviewed annually by the Committee on Threshold Limits for revision or additions, as further information becomes avail- able. Mixtures. Special consideration should be given also to the application of these values in assessing the health hazards which may be as- 489 sociated with exposure to mixtures of two or more substances. A brief discussion of basic considerations involved in developing threshold limit values for mixtures, and methods for their development, amplified by specific examples are given in Appendix B. ‘“Inert’’ or Nuisance Particulates. A number of dusts or particulates that occur in the working environment ordinarily produce no specific ef- fects upon prolonged inhalation. Some insoluble substances are classed as inert (e.g. iron and steel dusts, cement, silicon carbide, titanium dioxide, cellulose); others may be solu- ble (starch, soluble oils, calcium carbonate) but are of such a low order of activity that in con- centrations ordinarily encountered do not cause physiologic impairment; still others may be rap- idly eliminated or destroyed by the body (veg- etable oils, glycerine, sucrose). In the case of the insoluble substances, there may be some ac- cumulation in the respiratory passages. In the case of the soluble substances, this accumula- tion will ordinarily be temporary but may inter- fere to some extent with respiratory processes. Hence, it is desirable to control the concentra- tions of such particulates in the air breathed by any individual, in keeping with good industrial hygiene practice. A threshold limit of 15mg/m3, or 50 mppcf, whichever is less, is recommended for substan- ces in these categories and for which no specif- ic threshold limits have been assigned. This limit, for a normal work day, does not apply to brief exposures at higher concentrations. Neither does it apply to those substances which may cause physiologic impairment at lower concen- trations but for which a threshold limit has not yet been adopted. Some ‘‘inert’’ particulates are given in Appendix D. Simple Asphyxiants-‘‘Inert’’ Gases or Vapors. A number of gases and vapors, when present in high concentrations in air, act primarily as sim- ple asphyxiants without other significant phys- iologic effects. A TLV may not be recommend- ed for each simple asphyxiant because the limit- ing factor is the available oxygen. The minimal oxygen content should be 18 percent by volume 490 under normal atmospheric pressure (equivalent to a partial pressure, pO, of 135 mm Hg). Atmos- pheres deficient in 02 do not provide adequate warning and most simple asphyxiants are odor- less. Several simple asphyxiants are listed in Appendix E. Some asphyxiants present an ex- plosion hazard. Account should be taken of this factor in limiting the concentration of the asphyx- iant. Physical Factors. It is recognized that such physical factors as heat, ultraviolet and ioniz- ing radiation, humidity, abnormal pressure and the like may place added stress on the body so that the effects from exposure at a threshold limit may be altered. Most of these stresses act adversely to increase the toxic response of a substance. Although most threshold limits have built-in safety factors to guard against adverse effects of moderate deviations from normal en- vironments, the safety factors of most substan- ces are not of such a magnitude as to take care of gross deviations. For example, continuous work at temperatures above 90°F or over-time, extending the work-week more than 50%, might be considered gross deviations. In such instan- ces judgment must be exercised in the proper adjustments of the threshold limit values. ‘Notice of Intent’’ At the beginning of each year, proposed actions of the Committee for the forthcoming year are issued in the form of a “Notice of Intent.” This Notice provides not only an opportunity for comment, but solicits suggestions of substances to be added to the list. The suggestions should be accompanied by substantiating evidence, As Legislative Code, The Conference does not consider the Threshold Limit Values appro- priate matter for adoption in legislative codes and regulations and recommends against such use. If, however, the list is so used,the intent of the concepts contained in the Preface should be maintained and provisions should be made to keep the list current. Reprint Permission. This publication may be reprinted provided that written permission is ob- tained from the Secretary-Treasurer of the Con- ference and that it be published in its entirety. 491 RECOMMENDED VALUES (In Alphabetical Order) Substance ppm* Mg/M® ** Acetaldehyde ...............ocoooeiiiiici 200 360 Acetic acid........ ” 10 25 Acetic anhydride .. i. 5 20 Acetone .............. - 1,000 2,400 Acetonitrile ............cccoviiiinn . . 40 70 Acetylene dichloride, see 1,2 Dicloro- ethylene cocoons Acetylene tetrabromide .. - 1 14 Acrolein ...........ccecooee. . 0.1 0.25 + Acrylamide- Skin .. - 0.3 Acrylonitrile-Skin .. 20 45 Aldrin-Skin ............ 0.25 Ally! alcohol-Skin i 2 5 Allyl chloride... i 3 C Allyl glycidyl ether (AGE) .........cccccoeeenne 10 45 Allyl propyl disulfide.................. 2 12 2-Aminoethanol, see Ethanolamine. + 2-Aminopyridine .......ococcnninninnnnns - 0.5 2 AMMONIA ovine 50 35 Ammonium sulfamate (Ammate) 5 —- 15 n-Amyl acetate ....................... i. 100 525 + sec-Amyl acetate... 125 650 Aniline-SKin ..........cooceiiins 5 19 Anisidine (0, p-isomers)-Skin.... - 0.5 Antimony & compounds (as Sb)..... . - 0.5 ANTU (alpha naphthyl thiourea).. - 0.3 Arsenic & Compounds (as As)... . - 0.5 BRIBE ....ormmmmminnisrmummemen RG 0.05 0.2 + Azinphos - methyl = SKin......cccecenenne . - 0.2 Barium (soluble compounds).. - 0.5 .C Benzene (benzol)-Skin ........ . 25 80 Benzidine - SKin ....cccecevvveinene = - Al p-Benzoquinone, see Quinone..................... Benzoyl PeroXide.......omumimmamiimmiissimein - 5 Benzyl chloride ..... . 1 5 Beryllium. ..cooeeeiceeece eee —- 0.002 t Biphenyl, see Diphenyl we BOION OXIide «coco vveeerraneiceecsiaccrersaennaes —- 15 C Boron HiNUoHde ....cinunmnannanmmmmms 1 3 Bromine... . 0.1 0.7 + Bromoform-Skin .................... ; 0.5 5 Butadiene (1, 3-butadiene) .............ccooeen 1,000 2,200 * Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of contaminated air by volume at 25° C and 760 mm. Hg pressure. ** Approximate milligrams of particulate per cubic meter of air. A Numbers, See Appendix A + 1967 Addition t See Intended Values ++ + + ooo a0 0 + 492 Substance Butanethiol, see Butyl mercaptan ............. 2-BUtanOone ........ccccooeeeiiieiie eee 2-Butoxy ethanol (Butyl Cellosolve)-Skin .. Buty! acetate (n-butyl acetate) ................... neBuly) acetate .......ioeine - sec-Buty| acetate . tert-Buty| acetate .... Butyl alcohol ............ tert. Butyl alcohol Butylamine-SKin............cccoceeeene tert. Butyl chromate (as Cr03)-Skin.. n-Buty! glycidyl ether (BGE) .......... Butyl mercaptan...................... p—tert. Butyltoluene Cadmium (Metal dust and soluble salts)...... Cadmium oxide fume w Calcium arsenate. ai Calcium OXEAB....o con rssinrnmsmsemmmisspermrnre Camphor : 2 Carbaryl {58VIn) {R)...cccccnuissnsmmmeremesmmsssse Carbon black.......... - Carbon dioxide.......... Carbon disulfide-Skin . Carbon monoxide ............ Carbon tetrachloride-Skin.. . Chlordane=-Shin ........uumvmusimsmmrimn ining Chlorinated camphene, -Skin ...........c.cccc...... Chlorinated diphenyl oxide .. Chlorine. ..coveeeveevvcrenneannnns Chlorine dioxide ...... we Chlorine trifluoride ............ccoooviiiiiiiiiie Chloroacetaldehyde..............ccccccoovvveiverinnnen. Chlorobenzene (monochlorobenzene) .......... o-Chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (OCBM) vectra eee sree ast erera seers Chlorobromomethane ......... os 2-Chloro-1, 3 butadiene, see Chloroprene .. Chlorodiphenyl (42% chlorine)-Skin ............ Chlorodipheny! (54% chlorine)-Skin ............ 1, Chloro, 2,3 epoxypropane, see EPICHIOINYBIIN .....oconviinismminimsimmsemsinas 2, Chloroethanol, see Ethylene COTONYOLIN ovens muses: Chloroethylene, see Vinyl chloride .. Chloroform (trichloromethane) ......... 1-Chloro-1-nitropropane . LL —— Chloroprene (2-chloro-1, 3-butadiene)-Skin Chromic acid and chromates (as Cr03) ...... Coal tar pitch volatiles (benzene soluble fraction) (anthracene, BaP, phenanthrene , acridine, chrysene, pyrene) CODAIY connie See Intended Values ppm* Mg/M? *k 200 590 50 240 150 710 150. 710. 200 950 200. 950. 100 300 100 300 5 15 wa 0. 50 270 10 35° 10 60 - 0. - 0. - 1 - 5 - 2 a 5 - 3, 5,000 9,000 20 60 50. 55. 10 65 - 0. — 0. = 0. 1 3. 0.1 0. 0.1 0. 1 3 75 350 0.05 0 200 1,050 — 1 - 0. 50 240 20 100 0.1 0. 25 90 0. aoa; 493 Substance ppm* Mg/M®** COPDEr UME cc sninmmmmsniniiaimismise - 0.1 Dusts and Mists . - 1.0 Cotton dust (raw).... : — 1 Crag (R) NeIDICIAR ......mcmmimimmmemnisssmsens 15 Cresol (all isomers)-SKin ..........ccccoeeovevennnn. 5 22 + Crotonaldehyde............... _ 2s 6. + Cumene =SKiN ....cccovivenreeererieeereeeeaeeneesaeneas 50. 245. Cyanide (as CN)-SKin ............cccoeevveiieiennn. - 5 + CycloheXane.........ccoeevvnecieieerienneenesesnennes 300 1,050 Cyclohexanol ... . 50 200 Cyclohexanone ...............ccocceeeveeeeceveeeennnn. 50 200 + Cyclohexene..........ccevrreeerieeeereeienaeseesnenens 300 1,015 Cyclopentadiene.. : 75 200 2,8D eee - 10 DOTESKIN soniiononnsmarasnumnommnmsiiemiomg —- 1 DDVP-SKIN ..oooiieiieecec eee —- 1 Decaborane=Skin ...c..ommmimmisnsmiimmas 0.05 0.3 Demeton (R)-SKin ...........ocovvvviveeiiceen — 0.1 Diacetone alcohol (4-hydroxy-4-methyl-2- PeNtanone) ..............cccoeieiiiiiiieieeeeeeenn 50 240 1,2 Diaminoethane, see Ethylenediamine + DIAZOMEINANG .....covnnsinsisimmsmssimmisssisniss 0.2 0.4 DIDOTANG ....civiibtimemimisiisnsmismesssimessrinsb insite 0.1 0.1 + 1,2-Dibromoethane (ethylene dibromide)- Skin 25 190 C 0- Dichlorobenzene .........uuumsrunnonin 50 300 p-Dichlorobenzene......... 75 450 Dichlorodifluoromethane.... 1,000 4,950 1,3-Dichloro-5, 5-dimethyl hydantoin.......... - 0.2 1, 1, -Dichloroethane ..........ovninn. we 100 400 1, 2-Dichloroethane .... 50 200 1, 2-Dichloroethylene ... 200 790 C Dichloroethyl ether-Skin ... 15 90 Dichloromethane, see Methylenechloride .. Dichloromonofluoromethane ....................... 1,000 4,200 C 1,1-Dichloro-1-nitroethane............................ 10 60 1,2-Dichloropropane, see Propylenedi- chloride ......ccooevveveenennnnn. Dichlorotetrafiuoroethane . 1,000 7,000 Dieldrin-Skin ................... - 0.25 Diethylamine ............... 25 75 + Diethylamino ethanol-Skin ...... 10. 50. Diethylether, see Ethyl ether .... Difluorodibromomethane .......... . 100 860 C Diglycidyl ether (DGE)...........c.ccoceno... so 0.5 2.8 Dihydroxybenzene, see Hydroquinone ........ DISoDULYL RRIONG! vininmmmiimmmmismsmissisie 50 290 Dimethoxymethane, see Methylal ................ Dimethyl acetamide-Skin ........... oss 10 35 Dimethylamine ......c.ccooevivemnncnvinieciecceene 10 18 Dimethylaminobenzene, see Xylidene ........ Dimethylaniline (N-dimethylaniline)-Skin .. 5 25 Dimethylbenzene, see Xylene.................... + 1967 Addition 494 Substance ppm* Mg/M® ** Dimethyl 1, 2-dibromo-2, 2-dichloroethyl phosphate, (Dibrom) (R).....c.ccccoevereviriennnnnn. - 3 Dimethylformamide-SKin ........cccocreervernuenenne 10 30 2,6 Dimethylheptanone, see Diisobutyl 1010s 1, 1-Dimethylhydrazine-Skin.. 0.5 1 Dimethylsulfate - Skin ............... 1 5 Dinitrobenzene (all isomers)-Skin . - 1 Dinitro-o-cresol-Skin..........c.ccccce... - —- 0.2 Dinitrotoluene-Skin .............. .. - 1.5 Dioxane (Diethylene dioxide)-Skin .............. 100 360 Diphenylmethane diisocyanate (See Methylene bispheny! isocyanate (MDI)...... Dipropylene glycol methyl ether-Skin .......... 100 600 Di-sec, octyl phthalate (Di-2-ethylhexyl- PRINBIALE nmin SRE - 5 Endrin-Skin...... - 0.1 Epichlorhydrin-Skin.. - 5 19 EPN-SKIN Loe - 0.5 1, 2-Epoxypropane, see Propyleneoxide .... 2, 3-Epoxy-1-propanol see Glycidol ............ Ethanethiol, see Ethylmercaptan ... ww Ethanolamine ................c.ccoeennnnn . 3 6 2 Ethoxyethanol-Skin 200 740 2 Ethoxyethylacetate (Cellosolve acetate) SSKIN oes 100 540 Ethyl acetate ......... 400 1,400 Ethyl acrylate-Skin ...... 25 100 Ethyl alcohol (ethanol) ... wo 1,000 1,900 Ethylamine ...........oocooiiiiiiece ce 10. 18. Ethyl sec-amyl ketone (5-methyl-3-heptan- OME) evict eset esas seers eens 25, 130. Ethyl benzene .........cccoooovivivviiiciiniiiiiene 100. 435. Ethy) IOMIBE....ccconmmpmmmmmsmnin 200 890 Ethyl butyl ketone (3-Heptanone) n 50. 230. Ethyl chloride ...............cocoovvenenn. . 1,000 2,600 Ethyl ether ...... . 400 1,200 Eihy! Tomale unm mmmnanmmmmmmmss 100 300 Ethyl mercaptan..............cccccoceeviiiieicee 10. 25. Ethyl silicate.........ocnuiins . 100 850 Ethylene chlorohydrin-Skin . 5 16 Ethyienediaming ......ocmmmnsimmsssimivmms 10 25 Ethylene dibromide, see 1,2-Dibromo- BMIBNG...oirnrrsninmss ome siisnmys seis d Ts sen Ethylene dichloride, see 1,2-Dichloro- ethane cco Ethylene glycol dinitrate-Skin.................... 0.2 1.2 Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, see Methyl cellosolve acetate ................. Ethylene imine-Skin . 0.5 1. Ethylene oxide ..................... 50 90 Ethylidine chloride, see 1,1-Dichloro- RBNG om mr TT RE N-Ethylmorpholine-SKin ................oooenennn. 20. 94. See Intended Values 495 Substance ppm* Mg/M3 ** PoiDAM commmummmmmmmmmsrmmmmsmpare sss —- 15 Ferrovanadium dust. - 1 Fluoride (as F) .... ani - 2.5 FIUOTING ooo 0.1 0.2 Fluorotrichloromethane.................cccccoeeeeene 1,000 5,600 C Formaldehyde............... 5 6 + Formic acid ... 5 9: Furfural-Skin .... 5 20 Furfuryl alcohol ... 50 200 Bas0lING ....vmmmmmmpmimmsimis — - A6 Glycidol (2, 3-Epoxy-1-propanol) .................. 50 150 Glycol monoethyl ether, see 2-Ethoxy- ethanol... Guthion, see Azinphosmethyl . o } HEIN nnd . - 0.5 Heptachlor-Skin ....... - 0.5 1 Heptane (n-heptane) ... ere 500 2,000 Hexachloroethane-SKin .......cceoueeeecccuiieenns 1 10 Hexang (N-NBXANE) .........cuumsmssminasmisssasss 500 1,800 2-Hexanone . 100 410 HEXONE ovis crivmisisssinmmmis se isiviv saris ins mi iiaes 100 410 + sec-Hexyl acetate 50. 300. Hydrazine-Skin ..... 1 1.3 Hydrogen bromide ... 3 10 C Hydrogen chloride ....... 5 7 Hydrogen cyanide-Skin i. 10 11 Hydrogen fluoride ..........ccccooiviiiiiiiinnns 3 2 Hydrogen peroxide, 90%...............cccoevvrnuenen. 1 1.4 Hydrogen selenide.......... . 0.05 0.2 Hydrogen sulfide .. 10 15 Hydroquinone .... - 2 C 10UING .nmmmmmnmuniensmmmm ames aises wo 0.1 1 + Iron oxide fume ..........coooiiiiiiiiins es - 10. Isoamyl alcohol ... 100 360 + |soamyl acetate ... 100. 525 + Isobutyl acetate... is 150. 700 1SOPHOTONE o.oo 25 140 + Isopropyl acetate... 250. 950. Isopropy! alcohol. 400 980 Isopropylamine..... 5 12 Isopropylether ................ 500 2,100 Isopropyl glycidyl ether (IGE). i 50 240 KBONG iminium we 0.5 0.9 Lead ........... oo. - 0.2 Lead arsenate .. - 0.15 Lindane-Skin .......... - 0.5 Lithium hydride: ..........cooummnmme - 0.025 L.P.G. (Liquified petroleum gas) a 1,000 1,800 Magnesium oxide fume ........... _— - 15 Malathion-Skin ............ I. - 15 C MaNGaneSe .........occooovveveieiiiieiicieieeeeeeinies - 5 Marcury=-SRin .....oonsnnnmnnsmisiosmim sms - 0.1 Mercury (organic compounds)-Skin i - 0.01 MeSIty) OXIAR wom 25 100 + 1967 Addition oO+ 496 Substance ppm* Mg/M®** Methanethiol, see Methyl mercaptan .......... MethoxyChlor .........ocooovieiviiiiceceee - 15 2-Methoxyethanol, see Methyl cellosolve .. Methyl acetate ...............ccoovvv iii 200 610 Methyl! acetylene (propyne) ................... 1,000 1,650 Methy| acetylene-propadiene mixture AMAPPY oon imag arse 1,000 1,800 Methyl acrylate-Skin .... 10 35 Methylal (dimethoxymethane) ........................ 1,000 3,100 Methyl alcohol (methanol) .... oe 200 260 MBINYIAMING ..ovnmmummmimmnimnnmsmsmsimizn 10. 12, Methyl amy! alcohol, see Methyl iso- Duty d CRIINOY ccs nu misma Methy! (n-amyl) ketone (2-Heptanone) ........ 100. 465. Methyl! bromide-SKin ............ccooo ivi 20 80 Methyl butyl ketone, see 2-Hexanone. » Methyl cellosolve-SKin ..................... it 25 80 Methyl cellosolve acetate-Skin ... i. 25 120 Methyl chloride .......................... dre 100 210 Methyl chloroform .... 350 1,900 Methylcyclohexane .. . 500 2,000 MethylcyclONeXano) ...........umismsisisssmisis 100 470 o-Methylcyclohexanone-Skin ....................... 100 460 Methy| ethyl ketone (MEK), see 2-Butan- OMB eee eee eterna Methy! formate wh 100 250 Methyl iodide = SKin .........ccocooiiiniiiens Bs 28. Methyl isobutyl carbinol-Skin ................... 25 100 Methyl! isobutyl ketone, see Hexone Methyl isocyanate - Skin ................. a 0.02 0.05 Methyl mercaptan............. . 10 20 Methyl methacrylate... coumarins 100 410 Methyl propyl ketone, see 2-Pentanone...... aMethy| styrene ...........cccoooeeieieiiiiieiies 100 480 Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI) 0.02 0.2 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane) ........ 500 1,740 Molybdenum (soluble compounds) .......... - - 5 (insoluble compounds) i. — 15 Monomethyl aniline-Skin.................. wn 2 9 Monomethy! hydrazine- Skin.. . 0.2 0.35 Morpholine-Skin ......ccccueee.e. " 20 70 Naphtha (coal tar) 200 800 Napthalene ............ ” 10 50 3-Naphthylamine .. - AZ Nickel carbony) ....coonmermmpnms wi 0.001 0.007 Nickel, metal and soluble compounds ........ - 1 Nicotine-Bkin ....nnnnmmanimnnmmnnen - 0.5 Nitric acid........... 2 5 p-Nitroaniline-Skin .. 1 6 Nitrobenzene-Skin .............. . 1 5 p-Nitrochloro-benezene-SKin........cco.coeveueena. — 1 NIHOBINANG ...ovrmmnnsinsmmrmnssanmes 100 310 Nitrogen dioxide ...... 5 9 Nitrogen trifluoride 10 29 See Intended Values 497 Substance ppm* Mg/M®** C Nitroglycerin-Skin .......cccceevereerereverennnenennnn. 0.2 2 Nitromethane ...........ccccooeiiiiieieieeiees 100 250 1-Nitropropane .... 25 90 2-Nitropropane ..............occocovevereveeeeeerieeeeennnn 25 90 N-Nitrosodimethyl-amine (Di-methy|- Nitros0aminge)-SKin ..........cceeveerereererenennns - A3 Nitrotoluene-SKin.............cccoovevvveciccieeenn 5 30 Nitrotrichloromethane, see Chloropicrin ee FCI i cicinessirernisinsncnseitsmtmmm ais ini RA RTS 500 2,350 Oil mist (mineral) .. - 5 Osmium tetroxide... - 0.002 + Oxalic acid...... 1. Oxygen difluoride 0.05 0.1 DZONE ..nsvmntivmmmmmi im as STAT 0.1 0.2 Parathion-SKin .................cccoooiiiiiiies - 0.1 PENIADOIANG oo. o.cirismmsinmmmiis ait a 0.005 0.01 Pentachloronaphthalene-Skin........................ - 0.5 Pentachlorophenol-Skin .............ccccccooevnnne. - 0.5 Pentane .............ccooveivieiiieeeee een 1,000 2,950 2-Pentanone ............cccoceeveveiiieeeeeee earns 200 700 Perchloroethylene .............auamin mms 100 670 Perchloromethyl mercaptan ......................... 0.1 0.8 Perchiory! Huoride “.........ouvmmmmiensmani 3 13.5 Petroleum Distillates (naphtha). . 500 2,000 Phenol=-SKin ...oummnnummmmsmmnnmsmis 5 19 p-Phenylene diamine-Skin. ee - 0.1 + Phenyl ether (Vapor) ..........ccocoovvvviiennenne. 1. 7. + Phenyl ether-Biphenyl mixture (vapor) 1 7. Phenylethylene, see Styrene Phenyl glycidyl! ether (PGE) 50 310 Phenylhydrazine-SKin ..................ccccocoovvnnnnn. 5 22 Phosdrin (Mevinphos) (R)-Skin .................. —- 0.1 Phosgene (carbonyl chloride) .... wa 0.1 0.4 PHOSPNING ov immmmmnssmmimnmmmessiminibs 0.3 0.4 Phosphoric acid........ccocoeoiiieiiiiiieens - 1 PROSPHOIUS LY SVIOWY ocovnunmmimmpmunrsicmvasienicsmis - 0.1 Phosphorus pentachloride .. - Phosphorus pentasulfide .... - 1 Phosphorus trichloride ..... 0.5 3 Phthalic anhydride............. 2 12 Picric acid-Skin - 0.1 + Pival (2-Pivalyl-1, 3-indandione) . wi - 0.1 Platinum (Soluble Salts) ...........ccccoevvveerennnne. - 0.002 Polytetrafluoroethylene decomposition PIrOAUCES o.oo es - A* Propane.......... 1,000 1,800 PPropiolactone..... —- A® n-Propyl acetate . 200 840 r-Propyl nitrate ...... 25 110 Propylene dichloride... 75 350 + Propylene imine - Skin . 2. 5 Propylene oxide ........................ 100 240 Propyne, see Methylacetylene i Pyrethrum .........oooooiiiie ee - 5 + 1967 Addition 498 Substance PYHidine ....ocoocooiiiieecc cee QUINONE ocr + Rhodium, Metal fume and dusts ............... Soluble SAS. .....ccnnuummmminmnmmn sans Rotenone (commercial) ........cccocevevriciinecnnne. Selenium compounds (as S€)......ccuwweveeerrunence + Selenium hexafluoride ..........ccocooveicnnnnnn Silver, metal and soluble compounds.......... Sodium fluoroacetate (1080) - Skin .............. Sodium hydroxide ......onsunmsammanesmms SHIDING ooo Stoddard SOIWERE ....onssnienmrmanmmansmes Sty Chine o.oo t C Styrene monomer (phenylethylene)................ Sulfur dioxide. ........oooeviieieriiieniie ccs Sulfur hexafluoride ..........ccoeeeeeiiieieireennes SUNIIIC: BCID .ocniimmnmmimmimmsmamraires Sulfur monochloride ..........ccooeeiviinicicniiiinne Sulfur pemtatIuONige cummins Sulfuryl fluoride .........ooooviireniiiiieicecces Systox, See DemMBLON ........cociuuniesmimnn 2.8, 8'T crisis sagas espns iefeiitinn TAMA cc iinimanim mss aR ER ries TEDP - Skin ............. Teflon (R) decomposition products.............. Tellurium oon + Tellurium hexafluoride TEPP = SKilleooiiiieceeeeee eee sree 1,1,1, 2-Tetrachloro-2, 2-difluoroethane...... 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-1, 2-difluoroethane .... 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane-Skin .... ............ Tetrachloroethylene, see Perchloroethy- VBNIB |... ising oman a ST AERIAL R Tetrachloromethane, see Carbon tetra- Chon... coco mmm isms Tetraethyl lead (as Pb) - Skin ............c.c..... TatrahYAVOIUTAN o.oo visiimmmmmigams sans sis + Tetramethyl lead (TML) (as lead) - Skin .... + Tetramethyl succinonitrile = Skin ................ Tetranitromethane ...........ccoeeeeiinciciinnnne Tetryl (2, 4, 6-trinitrophenyimethylnitra- Mine) = SKIN ooo Thallium (soluble compounds) - Skin . ThIFAM eres Tin (inorganic cmpds, except oxide) . Tin (organic cmpds) .....cccceovevvniniinnns Titanium dioxide ...... Toluene (toluol) ................. C Toluene-2, 4-diisocyanate .... o-Toluidine - Skin Toxaphene, see Chlorinated camphene ...... 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane, see Methyl chloro- FOVIIY .concrrnnenmmmnsprmsrinnsnii Ph ESET SER ER SRY 1 See Intended Values ppm* Mg/M® * x 5 15 0.1 0.4 - 0.1 - 0.001 — 5 i 0.2 0.05 0.4 = 0.01 - 0.05 — 2 0.1 0.5 500 2,900 — 0.15 100 420 5 13 1,000 6,000 — 1 1 6 0.025 0.25 5 20 = 10 = 5 i 0.2 - AS ~— 0.1 0.02 0.2 wo 0.05 500 4,170 500 4,170 5 35 — 0.075 200 590 om 0.015 0.5 3. 1 8 — 1.5 = 0.1 - 5 = 2 — 0.1 w 15 200 750 0.02 0.14 5 22 Substance ’ ppm* Mg/M3 ** + 1,1, 2-Trichloroethane - Skin........................ 10. 45. Trichloroethylene ..............cccccceuee. 100 535 Trichloromethane, see Chloroform og Trichloronaphthalene - Skin ........... — - 5 1,2, 3-Trichloropropane .................... 50 300 1,1, 2-Trichloro 1, 2, 2-trifluoroethane 1,000 7,600 Triethylamine .........ccccoooovivviiiiciinns — 25 100 Trifluoromonobromomethane sp 1,000 6,100 2, 4,6-Trinitrophenol see Picric acid.......... 2,4, 6-Trinitrophenylmethylnitramine, see TOY socrrirommmmisrrrsysrremuii possess Shnrch Trinitrotoluene - Skin ....... - 1.5 Triorthocresyl phosphate . - 0.1 Tripheny! phosphate ............ - 3 Turpentine ..........ccoooveieiiine 100 560 1 Uranium (soluble compounds) ... - 0.05 (insoluble compounds). — 0.25 C Vanadium (V20s dust) —- . 0.9 (V20s fume).. — 0.1 Vinyl benzene, see Styrene........................ C Vinyl chionde .......comwmmmms 500 1,300 Vinylcyanide, see Acrylonitrile Viny} tOIUBNE ...covvvvivsieniripimmmsan 100 480 Warfarin ........ccooooeeeeeeeeeeeeee ene - 0.1 + Xylene (WI) cunenasnmmammmassmmmrens 100. 435. Xylidine = SKil o.oo 5 25 YUM. cova cnirainne _ - 1 Zinc oxide fume ..............ccoeoeviiiiiiiiieen - 5 Zirconium compounds (as Zr) .......cccceeeennn - 5 Radioactivity: For permissible concentrations of radio- isotopes in air, see U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Handbook 69, ‘‘Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible Concentrations of Radionuclides in Air and in Water for Occupational Exposure, ’’ June 5, 1959. Also, see U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards, Handbook 59, ‘Permissible Dose from External Sources of Ionizing Radiation, ’’ September 24, 1954, and adden- dum of April 15, 1958. + 1967 Addition 92-734 O-68—33 500 RESPIRABLE DUSTS EVALUATED BY COUNT Substance nm: pope: b> SILICA Crystalline Quartz, Threshold Limit calculated from the formula .......ccovvviiinenne 250 ** %Si0 2+ 5 Cristobalite » » n Amorphous, including natural diatomaceous earth..........ccceceennenne 20 F TESMOIILE. ..csnisituarssssssrssssnsvsninibnsins ss hiessiaRared 5 SILICATES (less than 1% crystalline silica) ASDESTOS ...cvovveiririieie een 5 MICA .....omismviivits ww 20 Soapstone ........... 20 VAC ....ovmisstiiaronis 20 Portland Cement. . 50 GRAPHITE (natural)..........ccooevvvenn 15 “Inert” or Nuisance Particulates 50 (or 15 mg/m3 whichever is the see Appendix D smaller) Conversion factors mppef x 35.3 = million particles per cubic meter = particles per c.c. * Millions of particles per cubic foot of air, based on impinger samples counted by light-field technics. ** The percentage of crystalline silica in the formula is the amount determined from air-borne samples, except in those instances in which other methods have been shown to be applicable. +HC *h 501 NOTICE OF INTENDED CHANGES These substances, with their corresponding values, comprise those for which either a limit has been proposed for the first time, or for which a change in the ‘‘Recommended’’ listing has been proposed. In both cases, the proposed limits should be considered trial limits that will remain in this listing for a period of at least two years. During this time, the previously Recommended Limit will remain in effect. If, after two years no evidence comes to light that questions the appropriateness of the values herein, the values will be placed in the ‘‘Recommended’’ list. Docu- mentation is available for each of these substan- ces. Substance Boron tribromide......... Bromine pentafluoride... sec-Buty! alcohol... CONG. eins svn sn esestsimorncns - a-Chloroacetophenone (phenacylchloride) .. Chromium, sol. chromic, chromous salts, as Cr Metallic & insol. salts..... Cobalt, Metal fume & dust. 7 Dibuty! phosphate . Dibutylphthalate......... Diethylene triamine-Skin.. Diisopropylamine-Skin.. Dimethylphthal ate Dipheny! os Dipheny!l amine......cccomeurenuereminescnnississnenns Ethyleneglycol dinitrate and/or Nitroglycerin-skin Fibrous glass... Gasoline + Heptane i. Hexachloronaphthalene=SKin........cc.ccceeveenene. — ol mol — on : +31 lol nN * Parts of vapor or gas per million parts of air plus vapor by volume at 25°C and 760 mm. Hg pressure. Approximate milligrams of particulate per cubic meter of air. * An atmospheric concentration of not more than 0.02 ppm, or personal protection may be necessary to avoid headache. + 1967 Revision ++ 1967 Additions Ma/M? ** 15 450 | pppipre 2 w nN ono [= tt Fz o++ + ++ 502 Substance Indium and compounds, as In........cccceeeeurene. Iron salts, soluble, as Fe.......eeeeiiivnenn. ISODUtYS BICONON Gv inininiimminsnmmnssimassiis Maleic anhydride .. Methyl silicate...... Naphtha (coal tar) NIC OXIde....cconnviiviinnss Octachloronaphthalene-Skin.. Octane. ..coninmminiiinn Parguat-SKity ouivmmniimiims Phenyl glycidyl ether (PGE) Propargy! alcohol-Skin ...... Propyl alcohol ............. I. ROX SKIN: ummmmmnninmimmnimwsmsnihises RONNEI ..ceiieeeeeeea eerie Tetrachloronaphthalene-Skin .... — THUY) DROSPNRREG.......civisimimmsmmmirimsinmms Tungsten & compounds, as W Soluble engsienmmesinibonsnn INSOIUDIG....civnnn imme Uranium, sol. & insol. compounds as U.... Zing chloride (BUmB) ....ccuvuvmimmssissmrimss 1967 Revision 1967 Additions ppm* 100. 0.25 5 100. 25. 200 10. 1 200. - Mg/M? *k 0.1 1 300. 1. 400. 30. 0.1 930 0.5 62. 510. 1.5 15. ape | Foo— nN 503 Appendix A . A' Benzidine Because of high incidence of bladder tumors in man, any exposure, including skin, is extremely hazardous. A? [B-Nophthylamine. Because of the extremely high incidence of bladder tumors in workers handling this compound and the in- ability to control exposures -naphthylamine has been prohibited by the State of Pennsylvania from manufacture, use and other activities that involve human contact. A®N-Nitrosodimethylamine Because of extremely high toxicity and presumed carcinogenic potential of this compound, con- tact by any route should not be permitted. A* Polytetrafluoroethylene* decomposition products. Thermal decomposition of the fluorocarbon chain in air leads to the formation of oxidized products containing carbon fluor- ine and oxygen. Because these products decompose in part by hydrolysis in alkaline solution, they can be quantita- tively determined in air as fluoride to provide an index of exposure. No TLV is recommended pending determination of the toxicity of the products, but air concentrations should be minimal. A°B Propiolactone Because of high acute toxicity and demonstra- ted skin tumor production in animals, contact by any route should be avoided. A® Gasoline. The composition of gasoline varies greatly and thus a single TLV for all types of gasoline is no longer ap- plicable. In general, the aromatic hydrocarbon content will determine what TLV applies. Consequently the content of benzene, other aromatics and additives should be determined to arrive at the appropriate TLV (Elkins, et al. A.I.H.A.J. 24, 99, 1963). * Trade Names: Algofion, Fluon, Halon, Teflon, Tetran Appendix B B.1 THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES FOR MIXTURES When two or more hazardous substances are present, their combined effect, rather than that of either individually, should be given primary consideration. In the absence of informa- tion to the contrary, the effects of the different hazards should 504 be considered as additive, That is, if the sum of the following fractions. Th t 2 i Tn exceeds unity, then the threshold limit of the mixture should be considered as being exceeded. C1 indicates the observed atmospheric concentration, and T1 the corresponding thres- hold limit, (See Example 1A.a.). Exceptions to the above rule may be made when there is good reason to believe that the chief effects of the different harmful substances are not in fact additive, but independent as when purely local effects on different organs of the body are produced by the various components of the mixture. In such cases the threshold limit ordinarily is exceeded only when at least one member of the series (C1 or C2 etc.) itself Ta T2 has a value exceeding unity, (See Example 1A.b.) Antagonistic action or potentiation may occur with some combinations of atmospheric contaminants. Such cases at present must be determined individually. Potentiating or an- tagonistic agents are not necessarily harmful by themselves. Potentiating effects of exposure to such agents by routes other than that of inhalation is also possible, e.g. imbibed al- cohol and inhaled narcotic (trichloroethylene). Potentiation is characteristically exhibited at high concentrations, less probably at low. When a given operation or process characteristically emits a number of harmful dusts, fumes, vapors or gases, it will frequently be only feasible to attempt to evaluate the hazard by measurement of a single substance. In such cases, the threshold limit used for this substance should be reduced by a suitable factor, the magnitude of which will depend on the number, toxicity and relative quantity of the other contami- nants ordinarily present. Examples of processes which are typically associated with two or more harmful atmospheric contaminants are welding, automobile repair, blasting, painting, lacquering, certain foundry operations, diesel exhausts, etc. (Example 2.) 505 THRESHOLD LIMIT VALUES FOR MIXTURES EXAMPLES 1A. General case, where air is analyzed for each component. a. ADDITIVE EFFECTS c+ , C2 , Cs Cn Ts T2 Ts Tw Air contains 5 ppm of carbon tetrachloride (TLV, 10), 20 ppm of ethylene dichloride (TLV, 50) and 10 ppm of ethylene dibro- mide, (TLV, 25). 5 20 . 10 _ 65 _ tH tE = = ud Threshold limit is exceeded. b. INDEPENDENT EFFECTS Air contains 0.15 mg/m3 of lead (TLV, 0.2) and 0.7 mg/m 3 of sulfuric acid (TLV, 1). 0.15 _ q.75 0.7. = 0.7 0.20 1 Threshold limit is not exceeded. 1B. Special case when source of contaminant is a mixture and atmospheric composition is assumed similar to that of original material, i.e. vapor pressure of each component is the same at the observed temperature. a. ADDITIVE EFFECTS, approximate solution. 1. A mixture of equal parts (1) trichloro- ethylene (TLV, 100), and (2) methyl chloroform (TLV, 350). C1 , C2 _ Cm Solution applicable 100 350 Tm to ‘‘spot’’ solvent mixture usage, where all or nearly all, solvent evap- orates. 506 7C1 + 207. wn 2C 700 700 Tm Tm = 700 x Z = 155 ppm 1B.b. General Exact Solution for Mixtures of N Components With Additive Effects and Different Vapor Pressures. mer , C2, ... 6% — lal ld +4 L (Cr+ Ca +,... + Cyv= T,; @1) C1 , Cz ,... Cn _ 1 Fr ¥ + =F By the Law of Partial Pressures, (3) Civ= ap, And by Raoult’s Law, (4) pr = F1pr°, Combine (3) and (4) to obtain (5) Cir=aFpr°. Combining (1), (2, 1) and (5), we obtain Fipse Fap2° . ., Fnpne__ (6) T + T 1 + T Fapre | Fapee , ., Fapx® Ts T2 Tw and solving for T, 6.1) T= Fip1® + Fap2® +... + Fnpn® ’ _Fapr Fapze , Fupw® TT Tz Tn i — on 2 Fip1° 6.2 T=-1=1 > Fipi° i =1 Ts T = Threshold Limit Value in ppm. C = Vapor concentration in ppm. = Vapor pressure of component in solution. © 507 p° = Vapor pressure of pure component. F = Mol fraction of component in solution. a = A constant of proportionality. Subscripts 1,2, . . . n relate the above quantities to components 1,2, . .. n, respectively. Subscript i refers to an arbitrary component from 1 to n. Absence of subscript relates the quantity to the mixture. Solution to be applied when there is a reservoir of the solvent mixture whose composition does not change appreciably by evaporation. Exact Arithmetic Solution of Specific Mixture Mol. wt. Density T peat Mol frac- 25°C tion in half-and half solu- tion by volume Trichloro- ethylene (1) 131.4 1.46 g/ml 100 73mm Hg 0. 527 Methylchlo- roform (2) 133.42 1.33 g/ml 350 125mm Hg 0.473 Fipie = (0.527) (73) = 38.2 F2p2° — (0.473) (125) = 59.2 T—38.2+50.2 _ (97.4) (350) _ (97.4) (350) _ 4 T3382, 59.2 133.8+5.2 193.0 100 * 350 T= 177 ppm (Note difference in T.L.V. when account is taken of vapor pressure and mol fraction in comparison with above example where such account is not taken). 2. A mixture of one part of (1) parathion (TLV, 0.1) and two parts of (2) EPN (TLV, 0.5). C1 €2_ _ Cm; ¢c, = 2c: 0. 0.5 Tm Cm = 3C C1 + 2G —_3C 0.1 0.5 Tm 1€1=13C1 0.5 Tm Tm =13 — 0.21 mg/m3 1C. T. L. V. for Mixtures of Mineral Dusts. For mixtures of biologically active mineral dusts the general formula for mixtures may be used. With the exception of asbestos, pure minerals are assigned TLV of 2.5, 20 or 50. For a mixture containing 80% talc and 20% quartz, the TLV for 100% of the mixture *‘C* is given by: 1 TLV = = 8.4 mppcf 0.8, 0.2 20 ' 2.5 Essentially the same result will be obtained if the limit of the more (most) toxic component is used provided the effects are additive. In the above example the limit for 20% quartz is 10 mppcf. For another mixture of 25% quartz 25% amorphous silica and 50% talc: - eg 1 _ N=. 5% 0 A 2.5 720 T20 The limit for 25% quartz approximates 8 mppcf. 509 Appendix C BASES FOR ASSIGNING LIMITING “C"” VALUES By definition in the Preface, a listed value bear- ing a ‘‘C'" designation refers to ‘ceiling’ value that should not be exceeded; all values should fluctuate below the listed value. In general the bases for assigning or not assigning a ‘‘C'"" value rest on whether excursions of concentration above a proposed limit for periods up to 15 minutes may result in a) intolerable irritation, b) chronic, or irreversible tissue change, or c) narcosis of sufficient degree to increase accident proneness, impair self rescue or materially reduce work efficiency. In order for the Committee to decide whether a sub- stance is a candidate for a ‘‘C' listing, some guidelines must be formulated on the permissive fluctuation above the limit in terms of the seriousness of the response in the categories a, b, c, given above. For this the factors given in the table below have been used by the Committee. For both technical and practical reasons, the factors have been pegged to the concentration in an inverse manner. It will be noted that as the magnitude of the T. L. V. increases a correspondingly decreased range of fluctuation is permitted; not to decrease the factor for T. L. V. s of increasing magnitude would permit exposures to large absolute quantities, an undesirable condition, a condition that is minimized. at low T. L. V. s. More- over, larger factors at the lower T. L. V. s are con- sistent with the difficulties in analyzing and con- trolling trace quantities. T.LV. Test RANGE T.LV. ppm* or mg/ml Factor Examples Otol 3 Toluene diisocyanate-T. L. V., 0.02 ppm, if permitted to rise above 0.06 ppm may result in sensitization in a single sub- sequent exposure! ‘‘C’’ listing recommended on category b. 1+to10 2 Manganese -T.L.V., 5mg/m°, contains little or no safety factor. All values should fluct- uate below 5mg/m3. *‘C"' listing recommended on category b. 510 T.LV. Test RANGE T.LV. ppm* or mg/m3 Facter Examples 10 + to 100 1.5 Methyl styrene-T. L. V. 100 if encountered at levels of 150 ppm will prove intense- ly irritating, *‘C’’ listing recommended on category a. 100 + to 1000 1.25 Methyl! chloroform-T. L. V. 350ppm, at 438 ppm for per- iods not exceeding 15 min- utes is not expected to re- sult in untoward effects relating to category c. No *C" listing recommended. * Whichever unit is applicable PERMISSIBLE EXCURSIONS FOR TIME- WEIGHTED AVERAGE (TWA) LIMITS As stated in the preface, the same factors may be used as guides for reasonable excursions above the limit for substan- ces to which the time-weighted average applies. The time- weighted average implies that each excursion above the limit is compensated by a comparable excursion below the limit. Thus, a value of 6 -ppm HF is permissible for periods not ex- ceeding 15 minutes, provided an equivalent decrease below the limit of 3 -ppm obtains. Appendix D Some “‘Inert’’ or Nuisance Particulates* Alundum (A1203) Limestone Calcium carbonate Magnesite Cellulose Marble Portland Cement Plaster of Paris Corundum (A1203) Rouge Emery Silicon Carbide Glycerine Mist Starch Graphite (synthetic) Sucrose Gypsum Tin Oxide Vegetable oil mists Titanium Dioxide (except castor, cashew nut, or similar irritant oils) *When toxic impurities are not present. 511 Appendix E Some Simple Asphyxiants — Acetylene Argon Ethane Ethylene Helium E.J. Baier Hervey B. Elkins, Ph.D. W. W. Fredrick, Ph.D. Bernard Grabois, P.E. Paul Gross, M.D. Wayland J. Hayes, Jr., M.D. “Inert” Gases and Vapors. Hydrogen Methane Neon Nitrogen Nitrous Oxide Harold N. MacFarland, Ph.D. Consultant Fredrick T. McDermott E. Mastromatteo, M.D. Walter W. Melvin, M.D. Ralph G. Smith, Ph. D. Mitchell R. Zavon, M.D. Herbert E. Stokinger, Ph.D., Chairman POP EPI IPDS BOD LS 1 PETIT LPI NLTIIBIND0R L000 BROOD UPIINDIISEIBINN LY IBA) Se IIVBD _J4)P PEI DIOIGENIERDIND Secretary-Treasurer American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 1014 Broadway Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Gentlemen: Please send me copy(s) of the 2nd Edition of the Documentation of Threshold Limit Values with supplements issued to date, at $4.50 per copy, postage prepaid. Enclosed is a check—_____, purchase or- 'der—___, in the amount of (Date) ____ ~~ (Signed) cIg 513 STATEMENT OF J. F. McCAHAN, M.D., PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID H. GOLDSTEIN, M.D., PRESIDENT-ELECT; AND HOWARD N. SCHULZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr. O’Hara. Our next witness is J. F. McCahan, president of the Industrial Medical Association. Dr. McCanman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is J. F. McCahan, M.D.; I am the president of the Industrial Medical Association. With me are David H. Goldstein, M.D., president- elect of the Industrial Medical Association, and Mr. Howard N. Schulz, executive director. We welcome this opportunity to discuss H.R. 14816, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968, and to present the views of the association. The Industrial Medical Association is an international professional society of approximately 4,000 doctors of medicine bound together by a common interest in that branch of medicine called industrial, or occupational, medicine. The association was founded in 1916. The purposes and objectives of the Industrial Medical Association are: 1. To foster the study of the problems peculiar to the practice of industrial medicine and surgery; 2. To unite into one organization members of the medical profession whose interests lie in that field, and assert their identification with it; 3. To encourage and foster the development of methods adapted to the conservation and improvement of health among workers; and 4. To promote a more general understanding of the purposes and results of the medical care and health maintenance of those workers. The proposed legislation states that it is the purpose and policy of the Congress “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions.” This goal has also been a major objective of the Industrial Medical Association since its founding. We offer our assistance in the framing of legislation such as H.R. 14816 to help achieve this common purpose. The following comments by the association are intended to be both constructive oa practical. With respect to both accidents and environmental control of health hazards the experience of major industry differs from that of small industry. In many of the major industries the programs in occupa- tional safety and health are successful, are well advanced, and have been developed to the point where the most important remaining prob- lem is human failure. This problem is largely unsolved and is an area of increasing concern to physicians. While there are notable excep- tions, the wy, Som and health programs generally have not been so well developed in much of the small industry of this country, in which most of the Nation’s work force is employed. Secretary of Labor Wirtz, in his statement on February 1 before this committee, outlined clearly the magnitude of the problem in terms of number of fatalities, disabling injuries, and economic loss to the Nation through loss of wages and loss of productivity. These prob- lems are the daily concern of our members. 514 It is generally recognized that in many industries the worker is safer at his job than he is away from it. This is the result of many years of effort on the part of many people. The development and im- provement of personal safety equipment and devices and the pro- grams in safety and health education have contributed materially to employee safety and health. In almost all industries the rate of ab- senteelsm resulting from a illness and injury far ex- ceeds that for illness and injury which is causally related to the job. EDUCATION AND TRAINING The Industrial Medical Association supports the provision of the bill authorizing the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to conduct educational programs to train personnel. There already ex- ists a shortage of physicians, nurses, industrial hygienists, safety en- gineers, and other professional specialists in the occupational safety and health fields. This shortage will be intensified, at least for the im- mediate future, if this bill is enacted. RESEARCH The Industrial Medical Association supports expanded research in occupational health. Studies are needed to determine accurately the prevalence and incidence of occupational injury and illness; to deter- mine the relationships of occupation and disease; to develop and im- prove the techniques of quantitative evaluation of the environment ; to measure the response of workers to environmental stresses; and to evaluate the methods of control of health hazards. GRANTS TO STATES The Industrial Medical Association supports grants to the States for research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occupa- tional safety and health with particular emphasis on the problems of small industry. STANDARDS The Industrial Medical Association acknowledges that the Federal Government has a role in standard setting. We concur with other pro- fessional organizations testifying earlier that this committee should give consideration to the establishment of a National Council on Haz- ardous Agents patterned after the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. Such a council, properly constituted with working committees of recognized scientific authorities from government, professional groups, industry, and labor, could develop guides, criteria, and stand- ards of great value to the States and to industry in improving occu- pational safety and health programs. The legislation proposes that the Secretary of Labor prescribe the standards after appropriate consultation with other Federal agencies. It is our belief that the role of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in establishing standards in occupational health should be much broader than providing consultation. We recommend that the 515 Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Secretary of Labor concur in the prescribed standards. We emphasize that standards should be based on scientific fact. In our opinion, they should be subject to public hearings before adoption. We wish to point out that setting of detailed standards in the innumer- able, different, and ever dynamically changing industrial activities and environments, is a tremendous task. INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT The Industrial Medical Association has a number of reservations about the provisions of the bill concerned with inspection and enforce- ment procedures. We believe that these are not in the area of our pri- mary competence, and we therefore prefer not to comment on them. SUMMARY In summary we support the basic objectives of H.R. 14816 and the provisions of the bill dealing with education and training, research, and grants to States. We support the development of national stand- ards In occupational safety and health. We believe that the standards should be based on scientific fact and should be subject to public hear- ings. In our opinion, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Secretary of Labor should concur in the prescribed standards. hs recommend the establishment of a National Council on Hazardous gents. Mr. Chairman, for 52 years the Industrial Medical Association and its members have been actively concerned about the problems now being considered by this committee. The most important resource of this Nation is its working population. We pledge you our support in main- taining and promoting the health and well-being of that resource. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Industrial Medical Association. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Doctor. Mr. Burton. Mr. Burton. No questions. Mr. O'Hara. Mr, Hathaway. Mr. Hataaway. Doctor, on page 6 you state: “We believe that the standards should be based on scientific fact and should be subject to public hearings.” There is a provision in the law whereby the standards do come under the Administrative Procedures Act, which does require hearings. You mean additional hearings? Dr. McCanan. No. Mr. Hataaway. You were not aware of this provision? Dr. McCanan. I was aware and we endorsed this as being necessary. Mr. Haruaway. I see; this is not a criticism. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Ford. Mr. Foro. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. On page 4 you make the observation with respect to shortage of trained personnel in industrial health and then finish the paragraph: “This shortage will be intensified, at least for the immediate future, if this bill is enacted.” You don’t mean there will be fewer people in industrial health but greater demand for them, is that right? 92-734 0—68——384 516 Dr. McCanan. That is true. Mr. Foro. We found after the passage of the Elementary and Sec- ondary Education Act which made money available for a substantial number of programs in special education, that we dried up the avail- able supply of remedial maging teachers and speech therapists and so on. Now after 3 years we find we have far more remedial reading teachers and more young people taking that as a major in college. This is because the jobs are available; the competition has brought the prestige and the salaries up; and the plain fact is that after only 3 years this shortage we created has almost doubled the number of people available or who will be available in a short period of time. Would you anticipate this legislation might serve as a same kind of spur to move people in and upward in this industrial health profession ? Dr. MoCanan. We believe it would ; however, we believe that we should take note of the fact there will be a necessary lag of tooling up in doing various things which you have already indicated before you will begin to then have an adequate supply of people adequately alin to carry out some of these responsibilities Mr. Foro. Well, when we developed the first jet airliners, we had very few jet pilots available, but it didn’t take very long for this to become a job sought after by a lot of people. Thank you. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you very much. Let me asi you this one ques- tion. “The Industrial Medical Association,” which you represent here in your appearance here today, “is an international professional so- ciety of pprsimitdy 4,000 doctors of medicine having a common intent in that branch of medicine called industrial or occupational medicine.” From what I see—is the makeup of this group much like the American Academy of Occupational Medicine ? Dr. McCanan. No; it is not. The American Academy of Occupa- tional Medicine is made up of individuals who are either in the practice of clinical occupational medicine or eductajon or research on a full-time basis. Roughly half of our membership are individuals who devote their full time in one way or another to occupational medi- cine. The other half is made up of individuals who practice part time either as physicians in plants or industry or as consultants in special problems that arise out of industrial illness and injury as well as consulting as regards to the overall health maintenance problem. Mr. O'Hara. Well, thank you, Doctor. Dr. MoCanan. Mr. Schulz reminds me—and you might be inter- ested—that about 95 percent of the academy members are also members of the Industrial Medical Association, so the two interlock con- siderably. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Dr. McCahan. We appreciate your testimony. STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCART, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES’ COUNCIL OF THE AFL-CIO Mr. O’Hara. Our last witness will be John McCart, speaking on behalf of Government Employes’ Council, AFL-CIO. Mr. McCart, welcome to the committee. We a preciate hearing your testimony. Mr. McCarr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 517 Mr. Chairman, we supplied the subcommittee with copies of our formal statement, and if it meets with your approval I would like to proceed to summarize it. Mr. O’Hara. I am sure that will meet the approval of the commit- tee, and without objection, the full text of the statement referred to by Mr. McCart will be entered in the record at this point. (The document referred to and S. 1158 follow :) STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' CounciL, AFL-CIO Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Government Employes’ Council, AFL-CIO, representing 35 unions with members in the postal, classified, and wage board services of the Federal Government, desires to offer its endorse- ment of the principles embodied in the pending bill. At a later date, AFL-CIO President George Meany will testify in detail on H.R. 14816. The Council subscribes to the position he will offer. The purpose of our appearance is to recommend incorporation of language in H.R. 14816 making its principles applicable to the Federal Government itself as the employer of more than 2.9 million workers. The objective of our proposal is to save human lives, eliminate human suf- fering, and conserve tax dollars. During the past 25 years, considerable improvement has been achieved in the safety record of the Federal Government. But the prevention of accidents and injuries and consequent reduction in suffering and cost involved must be a never- ending quest for the ideal. We cannot be satisfied with less than a substantial reduction in injuries and damage to property from year to year. Table I depicts the five-year record of Federal agencies on the total number of cases reported to the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, the number of these cases involving disability to the worker and the number of days lost because of these injuries. As you can see, the total number of cases and the amount of lost time increased from 1962 to 1966. Only the incidence of disabling cases declined. Table IT shows the number of Federal workers killed on the job during this same five-year period. The table is not voluminous, but it presents the stark, tragic fact that 68 more Federal workers died in 1966 because of work-related injuries than in 1962. Let us consider now the huge expenditures involved in this field. Here there is no valid comparison with private industry costs. But the Federal figures speak for themselves. Table III provides the direct cost incurred by the Federal Government in each of the years from 1962 to 1966. Each year, the figure has risen, so that in 1966 the expenditure was $13 million more than in 1962. It should be noted that all the figures here apply only to direct costs of on-the- job injuries. They do not include such indirect cost items as damage to machinery, material and equipment. Nor do they reflect the value of lost production time on the part of the injured employe, machinery, material, equipment and super- visory and staff personnel. In 1965, President Johnson estimated this figure at $1 billion. Another point should be stressed in connection with costs. In 1966 the average cost of fatal werk injuries was $71,372. Thus, the total amount of tax dollars expended on injuries experienced by Federal workers far exceeds the direct outlay noted in Table ITI. Table IV shows changes in the Government’s frequency and severity rates for 1962-66. An encouraging improvement can be noted in the steady decrease in injuries during this period. However, the duration of lost-time injuries has grown steadily to the extent of 76 days between 1962 and 1966. It should be possible through improved safety administration and cooperation on the part of all concerned to stabilize these figures at an appreciably lower level. In February, 1965, President Johnson launched Mission Safety—70 in an effort to dramatically reduce injuries to Federal employes. The plan envisioned a total of 30% reduction in the frequency rate during the life of the program. The labor movement generally, and our unions representing Federal employes, welcomed the President’s policy pronouncement. We view it as an imaginative step in the never-ending quest for the ideal in the safety field. 518 Three years have elapsed since the plan was initiated. The project began with a 7.9 frequency rate. A 30% reduction would bring the rate to 5.5. Today, the Government has progressed only 12.79% toward the goal. A ow agencies have exceeded the annual 59% reduction. Others have retro- gressed. This is not to say that the Department of Labor has been remiss in executing the plan. The Bureau of Labor Standards has responsibilities in the field of safety required by 8 public laws. In addition, it offers training and advisory services to states and unions. In the main, the pressing need is to supply the Department with the tools it needs to meet the challenge of making the Federal Government a model employer with respect to safety. We are convinced that a large part of the difficulty can be found in the fact that a clear outline of statutory authority and responsibility has not been enacted to underpin the Federal Government's safety program for its own agencies. The only general reference to the subject is found in Section 33(c¢) of the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act empowering the President to establish a Federal Safety Council to advise the Secretary of Labor in attaining a rdeuc- tion in the number of accidents. We believe a specific statutory charter governing the activities of the Secre- tary in the Federal safety field is essential. For Federal agencies, there is need for a statute outlining objectives to be achieved in designing their programs. Despite the existence of the Safety Council as an advisory body to the Secretary of Labor in Federal safety matters, the potential for progress in elimi- nating injuries and their causes has not been realized. Specifically, the Council recommends that the Secretary be provided these responsibilities in law— To prescribe minimum safety standards for Federal agencies. To make available to Federal agencies personnel and information on the establishment of safety education programs for supervisors and em- ployes. To accumulate data on safety and conduct necessary studies to develop ways of preventing injuries. To plan means of reducing the number of tort claims lodged against the Federal Government resulting from the actions of Federal employes. To serve as a clearing house for safety information for use of Federal activities. To evaluate and report to agency heads the status of department pro- grams, including inspection of premises where necessary. To report to Congress annually the status of the Federal safety program, and To serve on boards of investigations and inquiry to determine the causes of accidents and injuries. Agencies should have the obligations to supply safe working conditions and devices, to develop safety standards for employes, to maintain records of all work injuries and to present information required by the Secretary of Labor in this connection. Finally, union representation should be authorized on the group advising the Secretary on safety policies. Present law restricts Safety Council membership to agency representatives. Unions may participate only in a consultant capacity. It is our firm belief that unions representing Federal employes, who are the subjects of accidents and injuries, can make their proper contribution to the compelling task of reducing these incidents only with the opportunity to partici- pate fully and equally in all phases of the policy program. Full utilization of the know-how of employee organizations in constructing an improved safety program throughout the Federal Service is a definite advantage. It will serve also to stimulate participation of unions in planning and executing safety projects at the local and intermediate levels. In short, the objectives described above will clearly establish primary responsi- bility for the Federal Government’s internal safety effort by enabling it to play a more effective role in coordinating the multiplicity of safety programs devised by various agencies. They will offer also an opportunity for Congress to keep abreast of changes in the Federal safety program through the medium of annual reports. These purposes are outlined in detail in 8. 1158 introduced in the Senate by Senator Daniel B. Brewster of Maryland. A copy of that bill is attached to this ! 519 statement. We recommend that the Subcommittee add these or similar provisions to H.R. 14816. Mr. Chairman, the Council does not offer this amendment as a panacea or with the expectation that its enactment will result in the disappearance of accidents in agencies. However, we feel strongly that it provides the mechanism for achieving a much more satisfactory rate of progress in reducing worker injuries, material and property losses and the large expenditures involved. Of this the members of the Subcommittee may be assured—the organizations affiliated with our Council are eager to exert any effort possible to secure a sub- stantial reduction in injuries to Federal workers and the indirect adverse ef- fects described elsewhere in this statement. Our organizations subscribes to the fundamental purposes of H.R. 14816. We recommend addition of provisions establishing a statutory safety program for Federal agencies. TABLE | Total number of cases Nonfatal disabling Days chargeable 103, 107 41,372 2,408, 243 106, 594 41, 905 2,765,774 105, 976 40,374 2,718,479 104,710 39,148 2,855,718 109, 913 39, 862 3,114,863 TABLE I1.—Fatal injuries to Federal employes Year: Number DOOD ete eee oe se msi si A oS SS HE a ol 139 BOOBY occ rma oss reese sm se es nt 5 se 8 ET SAR 190 1964 re ae eo pl SR ER 172 1068 mmm RR ET AT Ae Sh oe a sro re Ge er 172 1966 - 207 TapLe II1.—Direct cost of injuries to Federal employes * Year: Oost HOOD Lc ci ers on o's eg eS Ho tm $32, 958, 155 DOOD. ce eer som es os oi SS rg 37, 619, 885 BOB | occ cio et merern erst po mi mn am A eo LF 38, 995, 348 SIO carci orm indore mono a ass pee a ee ee RRR SE 40, 914, 746 NOB6 | oreioiom cms onde comtiim semmima —es aps rele oes RA 2 46, 316, 823 1 Direct cost-payments made by the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation and value of leave of injured employes during disability. TABLE IV Year Frequency rate Severity rate AE Sm. a @w o -_— [=] w w w 0 ~ ~ o g CODE a. Alabama, Idaho, and Virginia: Inspectors inspect boilers, factories, and elevators. b. Arizona: No labor department listed in the 1961 issue of ‘‘Book of the States." 3 c. Arkansas, Colorado, lowa, and Kansas: No elevator code but elevator inspections made by factory inspectors when necessary. d. Georgia: A nonmetallic nonfuel mining State. e. Hawaii: State licensed insurance or fee inspectors. 1 f. Illinois: State does not Smploy boiler nor elevator inspectors, but it does inspect hoists on new construction. E lowa: There are also over 100 insurance company boiler inspectors commissioned by the State. . Kentucky: No boiler or elevator codes. i. Kentucky: Factory inspectors in the course of their duties inspect elevators but do not check them completely. k Maine: State also has 132 authorized boiler inspectors employed by insurance companies. . Maine: State also has 104 authorized elevator inspectors employed by insurance companies. < : i Massacayseti: Sete safety inspectors act as elevator inspectors in State buildings and in towns having no elevator nspections. m. Michigan and Minnesota: State does not employ mine inspectors. Authority of mine inspection is vested in county where mine is located. Iron and copper mines are county inspected. : n. Mississippi: No boiler inspection or elevator codes. Each individual factory owner is expected to have a boiler in- spection once a year. Report must be filed with State. 0. Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and Vermont: Elevator inspection included in the duties of the factory inspectors. . : p. Nevada: 1 inspector in the Las Vegas area and 1 in Reno area who conduct boiler and elevator inspections in their areas. + tahlich inspect all 4 New H ire: Factory insp ts employing 3 or more persons which operate a manufac- turing mill, or commercial establishment. 531 r. Ohio: State also has examination certified, 131 employees of insurance companies to inspect boilers. s. Ohio: State also has, in addition, 551 insurance company inspectors who have been certified through examination to do elevator inspections. . i i i South Dakota: State does not employ boiler inspectors directly. Use inspectors of insurance companies insuring the oilers. u. South Dakota: State employs no factory inspectors. Specifications call for ASME labels. Vv. South akate: Sate employs no elevator inspectors. Buildings having elevator have service agreements with the ele- vator installer. w. Texas: Inspections made by Commissioner or Industrial Safety Director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mr. Burke. But I do wish to quote the next list beginning with the year 1947. This is what I referred to in my testimony, “Accident Facts” of the National Safety Council Statistics. In 1947, deaths, 17,000. Might I add, Mr. Chairman, for the record, these are not overall figures. It is strictly occupational as defined by the National Safety Council’s Accident Facts. Disabilities, 4,090,000; cost $5,400 million. Here again, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will jump from 1947 to the year 1967 since you have this as part of your record. From 1947 to 1967, deaths, 14,200. Disabilities, 2,200,000. T am sure the Budget Department would be interested in the next figure because they could use it. Costs, $13,100 million. In order to save the committee’s time, my secretary and I totaled all three items as listed in that report or that list, from 1947 to 1957. The totals for the listing of deaths in that period of time is 291,900 deaths. Disabilities—this is permanent and partial—46,230,000. The total cost, Mr. Chairman, was $156,650 million. Let me just for a moment give you what the entire figure for all accidents in this country for 1966 amounted to. The total cost was $20 billion. Out of that $20 billion, how much of that was sacrificed by the workers? And what do you mean by that? Here is the breakdown by the National Safety Council. These costs include wage losses due to temporary inability to work, lower wages after returning to work due to permanent impairment, present be of future earnings lost by those totally impaired, $5,900 million. This is for 1966. Medical fees, hospital expenses, $2 billion. Insurance, administrative and claim settlement costs—claims are not identified separately but losses for which claim payments are made are included in other items in this table—$4,300 million. That is the way the list goes from 1947. The following figures are for 1967. Work disabilities, 2,200,000. Accident costs amounted to about $21,300 million. I am reading this off the preliminary report of the National Safety Council. This includes wage losses of $6 billion, medi- cal expenses of $2,200 million, administrative and claims settlements costs of insurance, $4,900 million. This does not count property dam- age and motor vehicle accidents, et cetera. The complete statistics submitted follow. (The document referred to follows :) Accident Facts From 1947 Through 1967—National Safety Council Statistics Year: 1947 DROAIIE oem mimi mmm ditimmmm, WE - 17, 000 DISADIILIOS. oe comin minim imei si mmssmsitmi ihaimesniasmmmaibm st mmm on 4, 090, 000 Costs a ——- Bb, 400, 000, 000 1948 Deaths = 16, 500 Disabilities 3, 880, 000 Costs 5, 600, 000, 000 92-734 O-68—35 532 Accident Facts From 1947 Through 1967—N ational Safety Council Statistics Year—Continued 1949 Deaths Disabilities Costs 1950 Deaths Disabilities Costs 1951 Deaths Disabilities Costs 1952 Deaths Disabilities Costs 1953 Deaths Disabilities Costs 1954 Deaths Costs 1955 Deaths Disabilities Costs 1956 Deaths Deaths Disabilities Costs 1958 IDA cocci 8 sores on eos mem en pp Disabilities Costs 1959 Deaths Disabilities Costs 1960 Deaths Disabilities Costs 1962 Deaths —— Disabilities ne Costs . 1963 Deaths _ — Disabilities Costs 1964 DIALING, civ omiog imines mmm mime me pur mesma messes emer so a Ws ma Disabilities _ Costs 13, 100 1, 785, 000 4, 400, 000,000 13, 300 1, 875, 000 4,100, 000, 000 14, 000 2, 030, 000 4, 450, 000, 000 12, 800 1, 920, 000 4, 900, 000, 000 12, 000 1, 900, 000 5, 760, 000, 000 11, 200 1, 750,000 5, 800, 000, 000 14, 200 1, 900, 000 6, 050, 000, 000 14, 300 2, 000, 000 6, 600, 000, 000 14, 200 1, 950, 000 7, 000, 000, 000 13, 300 1, 800, 000 7, 200, 000, 000 13, 800 1, 950, 000 7, 800, 000, 000 13, 800 1, 950, 000 8, 100, 000, 000 13, 500 1, 900, 000 8, 700, 000, 000 13, 700 2, 000, 000 9, 300, 000, 000 14, 200 2, 000, 000 9, 600, 000, 000 14, 200 2, 050, 000 9, 900, 000, 000 533 Accident Facts From 1947 Through 1967—National Safety Council Statistics Year—Continued 1965 Deaths 14, 100 Disabilities ____ 2, 100, 000 COBLES ons sive sm am ton 10, 700, 000, 000 1966 Deaths -..... wl — 14, 500 Disabilities eat I - 2, 200, 000 Costs i 12, 200, 000, 000 1967 Deaths 7 ! 14, 200 I SDI IER co pir em Sr 2, 200, 000 Costs 5 13, 100, 000, 000 I have had the privilege of reading some of the testimony that has been given before your committee. I vehemently rebut some of the statements, particularly the one statement that was made by an in- dividual who said that most of these accidents were caused be- cause the employees would not wear their protective devices. I can say to that person, and his company or corporation, if this be true, then, damn it, they have a poor safety program for an accident preven- tion program, because you will never get away with that in the steel industry. You know what would happen to you if you started to your place of employment without your safety hat, or your safety goggles, or your safety shoes, which we have to pay for? You would be sent home. Some of these people might be able to get away with that when some- body who is in the same business is not around to hear it, but they must remember that we also, some of us, can read. There was another statement made by an individual from the American Iron and Steel Institute, an old buddy of mine, whom I had to take on in an ILO conference in Monterey, Mexico, in 1957, because he was painting a beautiful picture for the world that was represented at that conference. He said in his statement—I will omit reading the whole thing that I cut out of the Pittsburgh Press, dated Saturday, March 2, 1968— but I would just like to read part of it. He suggested to this subcommittee that it would be more appropriate to leave the authority to the State governments. I have put years in $y work, begging them, begging them for everything in this line of work. Not just to put more inspectors on and pay them a decent salary but to set up the proper regulations and codes and a modern safety law. He goes on to say, at least he is quoted to have said, “If Congress does pass a Federal regulation, it should provide that no standard be adopted without adequate consultation with representatives of those to be affected by the standard, also that the regulations use as a guide existing safety and health standards developed by reputable standards organizations.” e named the U.S.A. Standards Institute, the National Fire Pro- tection Association, and the American Society for Testing and Materials. I read the bill in front of me, H.R. 14816, and I did not notice where these organizations were going to be passed over. I am sure that the Congress does not consider itself capable to go into this field without, 534 the proper techniques and engineers to assist them in giving to the Secretary of Labor a proper law to work under. f In my estimation, this is questioning the ability of the committee, its intelligence. ; Mr. Chairman, I do not come before this committee questioning any- body on that committee or its staff, but I do question some of those who have testified. IT have been in this industry since I was 16 years old. I resigned as an international board member to accept the job as director of safety and health by Phil Murray’s appointment back in 1949. This is not a check twice a month to me. I read accident reports and I make up my own speeches or testimony. Nobody writes for me. I could have said the same thing to you and your committee without this paper because I live with it day and night. I have seen too many of the men that I have worked with in the mill buried, crippled, permanently blinded. I did not come out of the swivel chair, I came out of the mill. I said to Phil Murray before he passed away : I think sometimes, Phil, maybe this job is getting me. I take it too much to heart. I see the lives being wasted. What has this industry or any other industry in this country done since 1952 that I referred to in my testimony, that fought us tooth and nail in every State? What did they do about the Donora smog? I instigated that investigation, had to get Phil Murray to call the White House in order to get teams into Donora because the State Health Department told me those 21 people would have died anyway, they were asthmatics. What have we done on that since 19497 I did not bring a copy of that, but I thought it would be good for this committee to hear because you, some time or another, are going to have to vote money, millions of dollars, on air pollution. Why should the taxpayers pay for air pollution in this country? Why should they ¢ When industry is spewing the cities and the commu- nities with their filth? We took care of it in Allegheny County 10 years before industry ever got off the pad. A homeowner was not allowed to use coal unless it was smokeless coal. We still have the smog. But there is a city ordinance, there is a county law that you cannot use coal unless it is smokeless. But where is the penalty on industry ? Is somebody going to tell me when I was in a meeting in Los Angeles back in 1956, when we had a press conference with President David J. McDonald, that it was because the people were burning rubbish and tires? And that is the reason why there is smog in Los Angeles? Is somebody going to tell me when this organization that I represent was instrumental in getting a half million dollars for the health depart- ment to make an investigation of that dump along the Pulaski High- way on the Jersey side? think, Mr. Chairman, I had better stop right here while I am ahead. Thank you for your attention. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you, Mr. Burke. It is very interesting to get the viewpoint of someone who has been as deeply involved in this problem over as long a period of time as you have. You have seen it from the standpoint of the worker in the mill and as an official of a labor organization. We certainly appreciate your testimony. 535 Mr. Hathaway, do you have any questions you would like to direct to Mr. Burke? Mr. Haraaway. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Burke, for an excellent statement and for providing us with these statistics which will be extremely helpful to us. I wonder if you could tell me how successful you have been through the collective bargaining route in obtaining safety standards where you know they are needed in the steel industry 7 Mr. Burke. This is not a cliche, Mr. Hathaway. I was going to ask the chairman if he would permit me another minute. I wanted to quote something out of our bargaining agreement with a member of this industry that I come from. On page 100 under the “SAFETY AND HEALTH SECTION 14”—in caps, yet : In addition, in the case of accidents which result in disabling injury or death or accidents which could have resulted in disabling injury or death and required a fact-finding investigation, the company will, after making its investigation, at the request of the union co-chairman— You have to listen close to this because even I get lost at times— of the Safety Committee supplied to him a statement of the nature of the injury, the circumstances of the accident and any recommendations available at that time. In such cases, when requested by the union co-chairman, the company co- chairman of the Safety Committee or his designated representative will review the statement with the union co-chairman. Also, in such cases, the company co- chairman of the Safety Committee or his designated representative, when re- quested by the union co-chairman, will visit the scene of the accident with the union co-chairman or, in his absence, his designated representative or substitute. They do not even live up to it. They are bankrupting our local unions by forcing them into arbitration, arbitrating things that are written into the contract. Let me proceed with the next part right after that: The union and the company shall each designate three representatives to a joint committee on safety which shall meet from time to time to review the operation of this section with a view to achieving maximum understanding as to how the company and the union can most effectively cooperate in achieving the objectives set forth in subsection (a). In other words, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hathaway, as I would translate this, it means that the Congress would appoint another com- mittee to watch over this committee. There is another item that I have here under “Disputes” and then I will finish. On page 98, down on line 235: Or (two) relieve from the job or jobs without loss to their right to return to such job or jobs, and, at management's discretion, assignment to such other employment as may be available in the plant. If I did not have any fingers on this hand, that is how many men are assigned to another job when they ask for relief from the job because of a hazardous condition. They are sent home. : The foreman says, “Exercise your right under the contract. I will call you when I need you.” I think that should answer your question, Mr. Hathaway. : Mr. Haraaway. Thank you, Mr. Burke. I was also intrested in knowing whether or not the steelworkers had in their package of de- 536 mands included safety standards when they were at the bargaining table. Evidently, they have them and have been very successful. 1 wonder if they ever had proposed standards. Mr. Burge. Mr. Chairman, there are three and a half pages on safety alone. Every negotiating time we have our demands in for certain things, improving the section. But these just will not come across. I am not allowed to tell you, if you were my reliefman, after I asked for relief from my job, I am forbidden, and this is manage- ment’s demands, I am forbidden to tell you what is wrong with that equipment. It says so right in here. I am not allowed to communicate with you. Now, what do you expect us to do? Strike? My answer is “Yes.” This industry is going to be confronted the same as the coal industry was confronted. All the boys are interested in the company giving increases and then what happened. There was an explosion, I mean of the people, of the miners. What have we had, about six shutdowns in the hi of Pennsylvania; in fact, around Allegheny County and Westmoreland County, with no repercussions on the part of manage- ment because they come under the safety section. The men refused to dig coal and they walked out of the mines until the condition was rectified. We do not have those privileges and we will never get them until we have the right to strike for them. Mr. Hataaway. Thank you very much, Mr. Burke. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Steiger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I meant to second the chairman’s comments and those of my col- league from Maine, Mr. Hathaway, on your very eloquent and forceful statement as one who has had a great deal of background and ex- perience in the safety and health field. I wondered, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask permission for Mr. Burke and Mr. McDonald to leave that copy of the contract. I, for one, would be interested in that portion of the contract that relates to safety. Mr. O'Hara. I am sure they would be happy to supply us with a copy of the contract. Without objection, the portion thereof relating to safety will be entered into the record of the hearing at this point. Mr. Stereer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke. You are quite welcome. (The document furnished follows :) PORTION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. AND UNITED STEEL- WORKERS OF AMERICA, PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES, SEPTEMBER 1, 1965, PITTSBURGH, PA. SECTION 14—SAFETY AND HEALTH A. Objective obligations of the parties The Company and the Union will cooperate in the continuing objective to eliminate accidents and health hazards. The Company shall continue to make reasonable provisions for the safety and health of its employees at the plants during the hours of their employment. B. Protective devices, wearing apparel, and equipment Protective devices, wearing apparel, and other equipment necessary properly to protect employees from injury shall be provided by the Company in accord- ance with practices now prevailing in each separate plant or as such practices may be improved from time to time by the Company. Goggles; gas masks; face 537 shields; respirators; special purpose gloves; fireproof, waterproof, or acidproof protective clothing when necessary and required shall be provided by the Com- pany without cost, except that the Company may assess a fair charge to cover loss or willful destruction thereof by the employee. Where any such equipment or clothing is now provided, the present practice concerning charge for loss or willful destruction by the employee shall continue. Proper heating and ventilat- ing systems shall be installed where needed. C. Disputes An employee or group of employees who believe that they are being required to work under conditions which are unsafe or unhealthy beyond the normal hazard inherent in the operation in question shall have the right to: (1) file a grievance in the third step of grievance procedure for preferred handling in such procedure and arbitration; or (2) relief from the job or jobs, without loss to their right to return to such job or jobs, and, at Management's discretion, assignment to such other employment as may be available in the plant; provided, however, that no employee, other than communicating the facts relating to the safety of the job, shall take any steps to prevent another employee from working on the job. The Board shall have authority to establish rules of procedure for the spe- cial handling of grievances arising under this Subsection C and to appoint local qualified arbitrators when necessary. The decision of such local arbitra- tors shall be subject to review by the Board in accordance with Subsection J of Section T—Arbitration of this Agreement. D. Joint safety committees 1. A safety committee consisting of three employees designated by the Union and three Management members designated by the Company shall be estab- lished in each plant. By mutual agreement the committee may be increased to not more than six representatives for each party. The safety committee shall hold monthly meetings at times determined by the committee, preferably out- side of regular working hours. Time consumed on committee work by com- mittee members designated by the Union shall not be considered hours worked to be compensated by the Company. The function of the safety committee shall be to advise with plant management concerning safety and health matters but not to handle grievances. In the discharge of its function, the safety committee shall: consider existing practices and rules relating to safety and health, for- mulate suggested changes in existing practices and rules, and recommend adop- tion of new practices and rules. 2. When the Company introduces new personal protective apparel or extends the use of protective apparel to new areas or issues new rules relating to the use of protective apparel, the matter will be discusssed with the members of the safety committee in advance with the objective of increasing cooperation. Should differences result from such discussions, a grievance may be filed in the Third Step by the Chairman of the Grievance Committee within 30 days thereafter. In the event that the grievance progresses through the grievance procedure to arbitration, the Board shall determine whether such rule or requirement is ap- propriate to achieve the objective set forth in Subsection A. 3. Advices of .the safety committee, together with supporting suggestions, recommendations, and reasons, shall be submitted to the plant General Super- intendent for his consideration and for such action as he may consider con- sistent with the Company’s responsibility to provide for the safety and health of its employees during the hours of their employment and the mutual objective set forth in Subsection A. 4. In the event the Company requires an employee to testify at the formal in- vestigation into the causes of a disabling injury, the employee may arrange to have the Union Co-Chairman of the safety committee or the Union member of such committee designated by the Union Co-Chairman to act in his absence present as an observer at the proceedings for the period of time required to take the employees’ testimony. The Union Co-Chairman will be furnished with a copy of such record as is made of the employee’s testimony. In addition, in the case of accidents which resulted in disabling injury or death or accidents which could have resulted in disabling injury or death and require a fact-finding in- vestigation, the Company will, after making its investigation, at the request of the Union Co-Chairman of the safety committee, supply to him a statement of the nature of the injury, the circumstance of the accident, and any recommendations available at that time. In such cases, when requested by the Union Co-Chairman, 538 the Company Co-Chairman of the safety committee or his designated repre- sentative will review the statement with the Union Co-Chairman. Also, in such cases, the Company Co-Chairman of the safety committee or his designated rep- resentative, when requested by the Union Co-Chairman, will visit the scene of the accident with the Union Co-Chairman or, in his absence, his designated substitute. 5. The Union and the Company shall each designate three representatives to a joint committee on safety which shall meet from time to time to review the operation of this Section with a view to achieving maximum understanding as to how the Company and the Union can most effectively cooperate in achieving the objective set forth in Subsection A. H. Disciplinary records Written records of disciplinary action against the employee involved for the violation of a safety rule but not involving a penalty of time off will not be used by the Company in any arbitration proceeding where such action occurred one oF more years prior to the date of the event which is the subject of such arbitra- tion. Mr. Steicer. I have not had a chance to look at the contract for the United Steel Workers dated 1965, but the United Auto Workers in its testimony indicated that as a part of their bargaining agreement with the automobile manufacturers, with others with whom they bargained, that the standards of the United States of America’s Standards In- stitute were embodied in the contract. Does your contract provide for the embodiment of specific standards such as those of the USA Standards Institute ? Mr. Burke. If it is in the UAW contract now, it must be just recent. Getting to the second part of your question, basically we operate on the ASA Standards, Electrical Standards. But we can’t get the other side to go along with that. They want to use the State safety laws, the State codes, the State regulations that are inadequate. You have partially in construction, not up to date. But I challenge anybody in this room, or if they read the statement I have made, to show me an up-to-date safety law in any State in this country, code or regulation. Mr. Stricer. My question did not relate to the State code. y ques- tion related to whether there were any specific standards written into the United Steel Workers contract. Mr. Burke. I would answer that basically no and it is not our fault. Mzr. Stercer. You indicated that you did not think that standards would be acceptable to management at such times as you have the right to strike. You have now the right to strike, do you not? Mr. Burke. Oh, no, we don’t. Mr. Steger. On safety standards under the Collective Bargaining Agreement ? Mr. Burke. No, we don’t. We cannot file on anything. You file a grievance. When you read that contract, you will find out. We jump to the third step. Mr. Steger. During the collective bargaining process, if you are not satisfied with what management has offered versus the offer you make, you have in the past, and I assume still do, enjoyed the right to strike. Mr. Burke. Let me submit a question to a question. Is this thing we are talking about controversial or is it not? This occupational safety and health law, is it controversial ? 539 Mr. Steiger. I think you might say there has been some concern that has been expressed. Mr. Burke. There may be a difference of opinion, but basically there is no controversy here because the members of our local unions who are members of the National Safety Council, including myself, hear and speak the same things that supervisors and safety directors and everybody else from management hear them speak. But still, when we get back to the plants it is an entirely different atmosphere. We are out of Chicago now, the Roman holiday is over. We are back in the plant now, we are back to reality. We are back where the flesh and blood flows. Mr. Steicer. What kind of staff, Mr. Burke, works with you—the director of safety and health of the United Steel Workers ? Mr. Burge. Every district director and staff man plus the local union committees which are over 8,000 locals. Mr. Steiger. How many of them are like yourself, concerned solely with health and safety ? Mr. Burke. I will admit that they probably are not as fanatical about it as I am. I can’t explain the reason why, but I do know they are concerned because that is all I do is travel around trying to settle complaints. I was at Sparrows Point here a few months ago and stopped a wildcat strike because the company wanted to dispose of a dispensary that services over 80,000 people. his is not just their own employees. I believe there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 or 32 companies that the main hospital services besides somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000-some em- ployees of Bethlehem Steel. 1 just got the report last week. They switched. Here is a question hore, sca Burke, call the volunteer fireman, he will do something about it. I stopped the wildcat strike. And, for the record, I regret it. Their lawyer came into the hearing. Both parties waived their right before I even had arrived into town, waived their rights to anything under the contract. They would arbitrate immediately in order to prevent this wildcat strike. One of their lawyers came in and they said, “What is this? This is the wrong procedure. We are supposed to go to step so and so and then to arbitration.” They had not even briefed them. Anyway, they recessed, they re- scinded their previous order in disposing of let us call it, No. 2 dis- ensary, and they forced our local union to go to arbitration and we ost, the case. Well, I pray to God they have all the luck that can be bestowed upon them with that one hospital, with all the people to be serviced— more people to be serviced by that one hospital than many cities have. Mr. Steicer. Let me ask one further question, if I may, Mr. Burke. You quoted, after you were through with your prepared statement, from a directive of te Pennsylvania safety law, is that correct? Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. Mr. Strieer. You indicated it had last been amended in 1953. Mr. Burke. Incidentally, Mr. Steiger, I was just appointed by Governor Shafer. This is ironic—this is a subcommittee hearing on an occupational and safety health law—I was appointed to the Gov- ernor’s Advisory Committee of the Bureau of ins for the pur- 540 ose of modifying, bringing up to date, the Pennsylvania State law, its codes and its regulations. Somebody must have leaked this news out because I tell you I would not have been more surprised if somebody had put a firecracker under my chair. Mr. Steicer. My concern, Mr. Burke, is what were the United Steel Workers doing in Pennsylvania to protect the occupational health and safety of workers in Pennsylvania from 1953 to 1968? I can speak for my own State of Wisconsin: we modernized, we updated, we revised, with the help of the United Steel Workers in Wisconsin and with the help of lots of people in Wisconsin. You have your national headquarters in Pennsylvania. You are obviously, I would assume, an organization of some influence and a reat deal of power in Pennsylvania. What did they do, what did you 0, what were you actively involved in, what laws did you push to do the kind of job that should be done in Pennsylvania if you don’t think it is adequate ? Mr. Burks. Mr. Steiger, I am a member of the Governor’s advisory committee for the annual occupational safety conference and I think they hope and pray every time there is a date set for me that I don’t show up because that is all IT fight with them about. We are tired of speeches. We want laws, we want protection. This has been going on for years and years and years. Just here re- cently, and this corporation is represented in this room tonight, just as an example, this is on the health side now, in Johnstown, I sub- mitted to the health department, Dr. Jan Lieben, a list of deaths in the car shop, nine deaths, and 27 disabilities who will never return to work, with emphysema. We checked their history and everything else. Their history goes way back. They were young men when they started to work. They worked in the welding department of the car shop. You know what I was told by Dr. Lieben when TI asked him to send equip- ment in there to make X-rays and so forth? The State of Pennsylvania cannot afford to spend $100,000 for such a survey. Do you want to know what rights we Bn in Pennsylvania? I will give you a quote from the attorney general of Pennsylvania. ‘When I, the international safety and health director of the United Steel Workers of America, get a call or letter from a local union of a hazardous condition, I call the supervisor of inspection on the phone and I follow up with a letter to put them on the record. I can’t get a report, so I wrote to the secretary, the previous secre- tary of labor and industry who, it so happened, was an international board member on furlough in order to take this job with the State. Here is the quotation of Mr. Sennett, the attorney general of Pennsylvania: Of the Right-To-Know law of June 21, 1957, P.L. 390, 65SP 661 ETSEQ, to departmental records, investigation reports, inspection reports and the like. It is our view that departmental reports, investigation reports and inspection re- ports compiled by the Bureau of Inspection, pursuant to its duties are such that the public dissemination of the information contained therein would operate to the prejudice or impairment of a person’s reputation or personal security. This is the inevitable conclusion when one considers that these reports may be used for the purposes of developing lawsuits and the like. Accordingly, it is our opinion, and you are advised, that you are not required to disclose the informa- tion contained in these reports in the absence of a court order or subpoena to the contrary. 541 That was the attorney general of Pennsylvania’s reply. He has no date on his reply to the secretary of labor and industry, but the secretary’s letter is dated September 27, 1967. Mr. Steiger. Thank you. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Ford. Mr. Forp. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burke, I appreciate the zeal of your presentation. It is refreshing to see that the steel workers are still active in the labor movement, particularly on an issue like this. We are very happy to see our good friend, Joe McDonald, with you, who has been very helpful to this committee. 1 hope you are being facetious when you suggest the possibility of another committee supervising this committee. There are a lot of people in Congress who would like to see this happen. Mr. Burge. I was just making a comparison, Mr. Ford. Mr. Forp. You represent an organization that seems to be in a par- ticularly good position to comment on the question which I have asked almost everyone that I have had a chance to talk with on this legislation. One of the controversies that has risen out of this legislation is the uestion of whether there should be national standards and whether the enforcement of these standards should be on the basis of national criteria. You must have some idea of the disparity between State “A” and State “B” in which employees of the steel industry represented by your organization are employed. Would you be able to supply the committee with examples of con- ditions that are prohibited by the safety restrictions and safety laws of one State but are ra in another State ? In other words, if there are such differences which have developed over a period of time, that is one place that they ought to show up. Mr. Burke. I would say, Congressman Ford, they would not be basic comparisons. They would be minor. But this industry here—I am sure when you were a young fellow on the 4th of July you might have lighted up a firecracker and once in a while you ran into a dud. Well, this industry reacts in the same way to various things. All at once, the boys will come to work and there will be a notice up on the bulletin boards, “Everybody has to wear safety goggles.” The next time, there will be a notice on the bulletin boards, “All officeworkers, everybody has to wear hard hats, safety goggles, safety shoes, et cetera.” I have had so many arguments with the industry. What could hap- en to an officeworker? Are the lights going to fall on his head? If it oes, we will sue you. We will get the Be government after you for bad construction. We admit that if an officeworker has to go out into the mill, like a recorder for instance, or some type of runner, once he is about to leave that office door he had better Pe his hard hat on and safety goggles and safety shoes. I make no Ey 1 don’t care whether they belong to the union or they don’t belong. To clarify that, I will say this: Many supervisors do not set an example for the employees. They will go into areas where they are not permitted to go into areas without the protective devices. They say, You do as I tell you to do, not as I do.” Now, while we are on this and you can check with our engineering 542 department. There is quite a large construction program going on in the industry and has been going on for some time. Would you believe me when I tell you people that we are still killing men on crane run- ways because there is not sufficient space for a man to clear the columns on the end trucks of a crane? Yes, they are still killing them. They won’t allow those couple of feet for man clearance. But they will expect the craneman, working on a runway for anywhere from two to maybe four cranes to walk all the way down the runway to go to the toilet. Most of them have no lights on the cranes. They have no set rules. They have no stairs where I can go down without walking the full length of the runway. But my basic point is this: They are still con- structing mills without allowing for man clearance. Mr. Forp. Is that being done universally or are there some States where the safety factors are required ? Mr. Burke. There is nothing in the codes, Mr. Ford. There is nothing in the safety laws that says that a steel company or company “A” or “Z” has to put a building up with man clearance between the columns on the ends of the trucks of a crane. There is nothing like that. You know what they tell me when I talk about that? They say, “For God’s sake, Burke, if you are going to start talking about that stuff, we will have a safety section as thick as your brief case.” That is true. Mr. For. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman Mr. O’Hara. Thank you, Mr. Burke. I assure you that I do not be- lieve the committee is going to leave this subject without doing some- thing that it believes will h effective. I share your concern over the seriousness of this problem. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Burke. Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Hara. Our next witness is Mr. Ralph Gintz, who is represent- ing the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards & Commissions. He is the president of the association. Mr. Gintz, welcome to the committee. We will be very pleased to hear your testimony. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Chairman, if you will-—— Mr. O'Hara. I want to yield at this point to my colleague from Wisconsin. It just occurred to me that Mr. Gintz is a citizen of your great State. Mr. Steicer. He is indeed a citizen of our great State. Mr. Chair- man, I want to personally thank the committee and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for making it possible for Mr. Gintz to be here today. He has been actively wx long associated with what used to be called the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin which has since upgraded its title to become the Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Re- lations. Ralph Gintz is a career employee of the State of Wisconsin and knows his subject and knows it well. I welcome you here and it is good to see you here, Ralph. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Gintz, you had befter be good tonight because Mr. Steiger called me up and he insisted that you have the opportunity to testify. I said, “Well, you know, I would be very happy to oblige you, but will Mr. Gintz have anything to say that will really assist the committee in its deliberations #”’ Mr. Steiger said that you would be the star witness of these hearings. So, we are expecting a great deal from you, Mr. Gintz. 543 STATEMENT OF RALPH E. GINTZ, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARDS & COMMISSIONS Mr. Gintz. Honorable sirs, I hope I can meet the challenge. I will try my best, gentlemen. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to be here, and I thank you for the opportunity. I am appearing against H.R. 14816 on behalf of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. I have been an officer of that organization since Sep- tember 1962 and I am now its president. That position is not salaried, and for the past 31 years I have been an employee of the Wisconsin Industrial Commission, renamed the department of industry, labor, and human relations in 1967. My position there has been as administrator of the workmen’s com- pensation division since 1956. I have also served on the U.S. Secre- tary of Labor’s six-man Advisory Committee on Studies of Workmen's Compensation and on the Committee of the Council of State Govern- ments which drafted a suggested workmen’s compensation and rehabili- tation law. Active membership in the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards & Commissions is limited to any government or governmental agency involved directly in the administration of a workmen’s compensation law. We have 64 active members consisting of our States, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Provinces of Cana- da, the Canadian Department of Labor, Puerto Rico, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines. Associate membership is available to individuals and organizations actively interested in any phase of work- men’s compensation, and we have 226 such members. In some jurisdictions ocupational safety and health are adminis- tered by the workmen’s compensation departments and in other juris- dictions by collateral administrators. The primary objective mn all instances is the promotion of safety and the prevention of industrial accidents or disease, to avoid injuries by assuring employment and a place of employment which are safe and healthful. If I may quote a portion of section 101.06 of the statute in my own beloved State of Wisconsin: “Every employer shall furnish employment which shall be safe for the employees therein and shall furnish a place of employ- ment which shall be safe for employees therein and for frequenters thereof, and shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards and shall adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render such employment and places of employment safe, and shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety, and welfare of such employees and frequenters.” Everyone is in favor of safety. The question is how it can best be achieved. How can we best eliminate or at least decrease the number of accidents, the fatalities, the injuries, with resulting grief, suffering, material, and economic loss ? The TATABC, which I represent, has a regular standing committee on safety. The present chairman of this committee is Mr. Robert Gil- more, from the Workmen’s Compensation Board of the State of Wash- ington. He has been actively engaged in safety work for over 25 years. One of the projects he and his committee are working upon is a sur- vey of our active membership to determine which Mg how many 544 jurisdictions impose penalties upon employers or employees when in- jury is caused by violation of safety provision. ndustry has the primary responsibility to provide and maintain safe employment lt a safe place of employment, and to do all that reasonably can be done to enforce the use of safety devices, practices, et cetera. en management neglects or fails to meet this responsibil- ity and injury occurs because of that neglect or failure, we believe a penalty should be imposed. Some States, such as Wisconsin, provide that workmen’s compensa- tion shall be increased by 15 percent in such cases and that this in- creased amount is a liability on the employer rather than the work- men’s compensation insurance carrier. On the other hand, where injury is caused by failure of the em- ployee to use safety devices provided by the employer, adequately maintained, and where the use is reasonably enforced by the employer, workmen’s compensation should be and is decreased 15 percent. We submit that safety is primarily a matter of education and sec- ondarily a matter of enforcement. Human frailties being what they are, we must promote safety to make not only management but also workers safety conscious. + Mw industrial injuries result from unsafe acts than from unsafe environment or equipment. The elimination or reduction of unsafe acts depends upon education and cooperation. Merely establishing standards will not assure an effective safety program. at is the record? We found the attached chart of the U.S. De- partment of Labor in our files. (The document referred to follows) DISADLING WORK INJURIES RELATED TO EMPLOYMENT 1940 TO 1964 MILLIONS OF INJURIES MILLIOMS EMPLOYED 3.0 -170 EMPLOYMENT (Right Scale) w DISABLING V/ORK INJURIES ¥ (Loft Scale) 2.0 A BE 2] [2 -140 1.5 |- 2 se De i t ; — OYMENT 1954 UP 5C% OVER 1940 DISABLING IHJURIES 12% ABOVE 1940 " Te 0 3 jt i ks 1930 1892 iS41 1248 4343 1SCo 1952 198d 1566 1230 12757 UIITED STATES DERARTIIENT OF LABOR ZUZEAU OF LASOR STATISTICS doinsstic soevics workars ove 546 Mr. Ginrz. I am sorry it only extends through 1964, but it demon- strates that the picture has not been all bad. Employment has risen steadily the past 23 years by approximately 50 percent, but the number of injuries has remained relatively constant at about 2 million per year. We feel sure that everyone will agree the utopian goal is to eliminate all industrial injuries, and even though that is unattainable we must ex- ert our best efforts toward that end. The rise in employment with in- sufficiently trained and inexperienced workers, as well as new scien- tific processes and methods of production, are a constant challenge, which has been met with reasonable success. - The 1967 edition of “Accident Facts” published by the National Safety Council shows that 14,500 workers were killed or sustained fatal injury while at work in 1966, but that 39,500 workers were killed or sustained fatal injury away from work. More workers also sus- tained nonfatal injuries while off the job than while at work, which has led to the sometimes used phrase, it is safer to be at work than it is to be away from work. There are fewer injuries on the job than off the job. There were 53,000 motor vehicle deaths in 1966. It has been admitted that the U.S. Department of Labor’s statistics on industrial injuries are weak and inadequate. The statistical commit- tee of our IATABC is collecting data from the various jurisdictions showing injuries by industry, the part of the body affected, the nature of the injury, the source of cause of the injury, the disability sustained, the age of the employee et cetera. Much has been done, is being done, and will continue to be done to prevent industrial injuries. We respect- fully submit that covperation and educational efforts are more success- ful at the local level between people who are closest to the problems. Many States provide safety seminars for representatives of industry and labor, and much literature is disseminated to constantly emphasize and to endeavor to educate everyone on the challenge of safety. Many States have established codes and standards over numerous years. Wisconsin, for example, has developed codes and standards over 53 years of experience by volunteer advisory committees from industry, labor, and the professions. We feel it would be impossible for a Federal agency, or any one for that matter, to duplicate this experience in 18 months or even 18 years. The structures in which people work and in which the equipment is installed are just as important from the standpoint of safety as is the equipment itself. Approximately 25 per- cent of Wisconsin's budget in industrial safety is devoted to the in- spection of plans and structures under construction for their safety features. We find no reference to buildings and plan inspection in the proposed Federal law. Wisconsin law provides for a penalty only when an unsafe condition remains uncorrected. The proposed Federal law does not allow for a correction. We have found that most violations of the code are inad- vertent and believe it is unrealistic and unduly harsh to impose a $1,000 fine upon a business which inadvertently violates one of several thousand code provisions. Such imposition would certainly work to the disadvantage of cooperative efforts as discussed above. The proposed law provides that the Secretary may make grants up to 90 percent of the State’s cost for collection of information, increasing enforcement capabilities, and otherwise improving the administration and enforcement of State occupational health and safety laws. It does 547 not appear from this language that the States would be paid for the day-to-day routine of education, inspection, and enforcement, even if they were doing the job to the satisfaction of the Secretary. It appears that the States would be forced into one of the following alternatives if this law is enacted, none of which are satisfactory or practical: (1) Discontinue their occupational safety programs in their entirety and turn over this work to the U.S. Department of Labor. (2) Maintain an inspection and enforcement Bureau at State ex- pense to enforce Federal codes and standards. (3) Maintain an inspection and enforcement bureau to cover those businesses not engaged in interstate commerce and to enforce those parts of their codes which are above and beyond the Federal codes. Finally, we believe that federalization of job safety may well have the opposite effect of that which was intended. We believe that it is unnecessary, unworkable, and would, in fact, work to the detriment of the job safety programs now in effect. For over 50 years the association which I represent has promoted improvement of State administrations by the States and has opposed Federal encroachment. In a December 1967 message to our membership, I reiterated what my predecessors have urged before me and stated: “Much had been accomplished to obtain substantive and procedural improvement, but some jurisdictions are lagging. It is our duty and responsibility as administrators to call the shortcomings in our statutes to the attention of our legislators and our executives, and to do all we can to eliminate them.” Our legislation committee is currently completing a survey of all member jurisdictions in our association, and achievement awards will be issued this year to each jurisdiction, showing the extent to which they have met the standards advocated by the association. We do therefore respectfully submit that H.R. 14816 should not be enacted. It is suggested that our “big brother” in Washington can better serve the working people and all members of our society by being a leader, rather than enforcer, in the field of industrial safety. A Na- tional Commission on Occupational Safety and Health with the parti- cipation of all States, would be able to investigate and to study the problem and determine how best to proceed. So a commission could take advantage of the best knowledge and experience available. The Federal Bureau of Employment Security finances an organiza- tion known as Interstate Conference of Fh Security Agencies. This is an advisory group of State administrators, of un- employment compensation, and employment service offices. It has a constitution with officers and an executive committee. The Bureau of Employment Security provides an executive secretary, as well as con- sultants and advisers, and it finances prescribed meetings of the execu- tive committee, subcommittees, and an annual meeting of all States to which each jurisdiction is authorized to send three delegates at Federal expense. We have enjoyed an excellent cooperative relationship with the staff of the Bureau of Labor Standards of the Department of Labor during my 12 years of activity in the TATABC. It 1s respectfully sug- rr that the establishment of a National Commission on Occupa- tional Safety and Health, similar to the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies, would be the best solution to our problem. 92-734 0—68——36 548 Thank you very much. I welcome any questions. (The statement referred to and president’s message follow :) [From IAIABC Newsletter, Winter 1967] MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT Those of you who attended the memorable 53d Annual Convention at Portland, Maine, obtained further light on many Workmen's Compensation problems and enjoyed many social contacts incidental to our meetings. Plans are already being made to assure a worthwhile program at Milwaukee next September 15 through 19. ‘Wisconsin had the first constitutional Workmen's Compensation statute, which became effective in 1911. We are proud of our accomplishments these past 56 years, but we recognize that deficiencies exist and we are endeavoring to correct them. Amendments have been obtained during every legislative session except in 1941. The Legislation Committee, in its report this year, recommended that legisla- tive achievement awards be issued to each jurisdiction to reveal the extent to which they have met the standards advocated by our association. This project has been assigned to the 1967-68 Legislation Committee with the hope that further effort may be stimulated to meet all of the standards. Much has been accomplished to obtain substantive and procedural improvement, but some juris- dictions are lagging. It is our duty and responsibility as administrators to call the shortcomings in our statutes to the attention of our legislators and our executives, and to do all we can to eliminate them. A special committee was appointed by President Keaney early this year to study the question of our association retaining an Executive Secretary. This is an issue of such magnitude that your Executive Committee concluded to circulate the Special Committee’s report to all active members with a solicitation for their comments and suggestions. This will be done in the very near future. Committee appointments are a challenging and difficult task for every new president. Some individuals will suggest that we spread the assignments among new individuals, while others will state that we should retain those persons who are doing good work for the association. I pleaded with all delegates when I spoke to them at the banquet in Maine, asking that they write to me within 30 days conveying any interest or willingness to serve on a committee. To those who might be overlooked, I state, “I am sorry. Why didn’t you write?” The Executive Committee has established a new five-member Federal-State Relations Committee as a standing committee to cope with federal-state problems on radiation, Social Security, etc. Apparently there is excellent liaison between local Social Security offices and Workmen's Compensation administrators in most jurisdictions, but there does appear to be opportunity for improvement in a number of them. The Administration and Procedure Committee in its 1962 report recommended that the regional spring conferences be workshop sessions. Most administrators have expressed an interest in and a preference for such type of meeting, but there seems to be a temptation to pattern regional meetings after the annual association convention. I have had the privilege of attending a Canadian Work- men’s Compensation conference where the delegates submit questions and prob- lems in advance. Attendance is restricted to Workmen’s Compensation adminis- trators and members of their staffs. The questions and problems are mimeo- graphed or printed and distributed in advance, and they have a very enthusiastic audience participation. Much enthusiasm has been expressed over the recent workshop panel discussions at our annual association programs. I am sure pro- gram chairmen for the regional meetings will find it very stimulating to follow this format for their sessions. Staff workers besides commissioners should be included and will contribute much, as well as receive much benefit. Page 11 of the last issue of the Newsletter referred to a study which criticized the handling of claims for coronary injuries in Wisconsin. I participated on a Mount Siani Hospital symposium of “Medical-Legal Aspects of Coronary Artery Disease in Industry” on November 18, 1966, and the following is a portion of the paper I presented on that occasion. It is our opinion that some response to the criticism is warranted and the following will vindicate our procedure : “(Alarm bell rings) There is no cause for alarm. There are those who would endeavor to alarm us over the manner in which cardiac claims are handled 549 under Workmen's Compensation in this state. There are those who would suggest that we should not compensation any cardiac cases under Workmen's Compensa- tion. There are those who would suggest that a separate system or procedure be established to handle these claims. On the other hand, there are those who would suggest that we dismiss too many claims and that we should allow more cases as compensable under our law. “You have heard and will hear here today a concentration of experts on this problem of medical-legal aspects of coronary artery disease in industry. One of the doctors this morning said that as time progresses, this problem becomes more confusing. I must agree with him. “My remarks are restricted primarily to the situation here in Wisconsin. Coronary claims have been covered under our Workmen's Compensation since its enactment in 1911. “I believe we have taken the middle-of-the-road course in Wisconsin, com- pensating those cases where it has been established that there was physical or emotional exertion or strain beyond the normal activity of daily living such as dressing, eating, drinking, sleeping and so forth, and that such additional exertion arose out of the employment. On the other hand, we have dismissed those claims where the claimant did not sustain the burden of proof. “I said there is no cause for alarm. In 1965 there were over 36,000 injury cases reported to us in the Workmen’s Compensation Division. Over 36,000 injuries occurring on the job. There were 65 claims for cardiac conditions, of which 51 were dismissed and 14 were compensated. Five of these 14 were fatalities. “In 1965 total benefits paid under our Workmen's Compensation Act exceeded 20 million dollars. Between six- and seven-tenths of 1 percent, or $131,000.00, were for cardiac cases. “According to the Public Health statistics published by the State Board of Health, there were over 12,000 deaths in Wisconsin in 1964 due to arteroisclerotic heart disease. It is alarming that five of these were attributed to employment? I think the speakers this morning would concede that it is possible and probable that some of these cases were due to emotional or physical strain connected with the employment. “As far as I know, no one claims that employment causes arteriosclerotic heart disease, but an employer takes an employe as he or she is, and if they have a pre-existing arteriosclerotic condition and there is exertion or strain on the job to aggravate that condition, the employer is responsible for the aggravation. “Preemployment physical examinations are, of course, recommended—not. only to weed out the persons with preexisting cardiac conditions but people with bad backs and other degenerative or congenital conditions. This is to assure proper. placement of the individual at work which he or she can safely perform. “I believe much of the success of our statute and administration has been due to simplicity and efficiency. If separate systems and procedures or rules are to be established for coronary claims, why shouldn’t they be provided for back cases, dermatitis claims? These are far more numerous than the coronary cases. “On the other hand, if we were to allow claims merely because the employee was at work when he developed his symptoms, the overall result would be detrimental to the workers of the state by deterring their employment. This would also be placing an unfair burden on industry. “Ours is the responsibility to administer the law as it is written. I believe Workmen's Compensation was not intended to compensate for spontaneous breakdown due to degenerative processes, but for injuries sustained in the course of and arising out of the employment. “I'll admit that in my opinion some states have gone overboard in compensating cardiac cases or claims under Workmen’s Compensation. In our state, it is neces- sary that there be medical evidence and opinion to establish a causal connection to a reasonable medical probability. We realize that medicine is not an exact science, but if it is medically established that there is no connection between employment and cardiac disabilities, I would respectfully urge that our good brothers in the medical profession teach some of the members of their profession that knowledge. We cannot allow a case under Workmen’s Compensation unless there is medical testimony to substantiate the connection between the employ- ment and the disability. “I personally do not believe there is any cause for alarm in the handling of coronary cases under our state, and unless we are forced by judicial interpreta- tion to go too far to the left, I don’t feel that any legislative or other change is warranted in the present procedure.” 550 BIOGRAPHICAL Ralph E. Gintz, Administrator of the Workmen's Compensation Division of the Wisconsin Industrial Commission, is the new President of the IATABC. He was elected at the Association’s 53rd Annual Convention in Portland, Maine. President Gintz was born and raised in Milwaukee, and graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1935. After serving 33 months during World War II as a naval deck officer in the Pacific theatre he returned as an Attorney-Examiner for the Wicsonsin Department of Industry, Labor and Hu- man Relations for twenty years, and Administrator of the Workmen's Compensa- tion Division the past eleven years. He is married, the father of a married daughter who also is an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin, and stepfather of a sophomore co-ed at the University of Wisconsin. He is a member of the Dane County and State Bar Associations, a Charter Member of Bethany Metho- dist Church in Madison, a 32nd Degree Mason and a Shriner. He is listed in Marquis-Who’s Who in the Midwest 1966 and 1967. STATEMENT OF RALPH KE. GINTzZ, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARDS & COMMISSIONS I am appearing against bill H.R. 14816 on behalf of the International Associa- tion of Industrial Accident Boards & Commissions. I have been an officer of that organization since September 1962 and am now its president. That position is not salaried, and for the past 31 years I have been an employe of the Wisconsin Industrial Commission, renamed the Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations in 1967. My position there has been as administrator of the Workmen's Compensation division since 1956. I have also served on the United States Secre- tary of Labor's six-man Advisory Committee on Studies of Workmen's Compen- sation and on the Committee of the Council of State Governments which drafted a suggested Workmen's Compensation and rehabilitation law. Active membership in the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards & Commissions is limited to any government or governmental agency involved directly in the administration of a Workmen’s Compensation law. We have 64 active members consisting of our States, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Provinces of Canada, the Canadian Department of Labor, Puerto Rico, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines. Associate membership is available to individuals and organizations actively interested in any phase of Workmen’s Compensation, and we have 226 such members. In some jurisdictions occupational safety and health are administered by the Workmen's Compensation departments and in other jurisdictions by collateral administrators. The primary objective in all instances is the promotion of safety and the prevention of industrial accidents or disease, to avoid injuries by assur- ing employment and a place of employment which are safe and healthful. If I may quote a portion of section 101.06 of the statute in my own beloved State of ‘Wisconsin : “Every employer shall furnish employment which shall be safe for the em- ployes therein and shall furnish a place of employment which shall be safe for employes therein and for frequenters thereof, and shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards and shall adopt and use methods and processes reason- ably adequate to render such employment and places of employment safe, and shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety and welfare of such employes and frequenters.” Everyone is in favor of safety! The question is how it can best be achieved. How can we best eliminate or at least decrease the number of accidents, the fatalities, the injuries, with resulting grief, suffering, material and economic loss. The TATABC, which I represent, has a regular standing committee on safety. The present chairman of this committee is Mr. Robert Gilmore from the Work- men’s Compensation board of the State of Washington. He has been actively engaged in safety work for over 25 years. One of the projects he and his com- mittee are working upon is a survey of our active membership to determine which and how many jurisdictions impose penalties upon employers or employes when injury is caused by violation of safety provision. Industry has the primary responsibility to provide and maintain safe employ- ment and a safe place of employment, and to do all that reasonably can be done to enforce the use of safety devices, practices, etc. When management neglects or 551 fails to meet this responsibility and injury occurs because of that neglect or failure, we believe a penalty should be imposed. Some States, such as Wisconsin, provide that workmen's compensation shall be increased by 15 percent in such cases and that this increased amount is a liability on the employer rather than the workmen's compensation insurance carrier. On the other hand, where injury is caused by failure of the employe to use safety devices provided by the employer, adequately maintained, and where the use is reasonably enforced by the employer, workmen’s compensation should be and is decreased 15 percent. We submit that safety is primarily a matter of education and secondarily a matter of enforcement. Human frailties being what they are, we must promote safety to make not only management but also workers safety conscious. More industrial injuries result from unsafe acts than from unsafe environment or equipment. The elimination or reduction of unsafe acts depends upon education and cooperation. Merely establishing standards will not assure an effective safety program. What is the record? We found a chart of the U.S. Department of Labor in our files. I am sorry it only extends through 1964, but it demonstrates that the picture has not been all bad. Employment has risen steadily the past 23 years by approximately 50 percent, but the number of injuries has remained relatively constant at about 2 million per year. We feel sure that everyone will agree the utopian goal is to eliminate all industrial injuries, and even though that is unattainable we must exert our best efforts toward that end. The rise in employment with insufficiently trained and inexperienced workers, as well as new scientific processes and methods of production, are a constant challenge, which has been met with reasonable success. The 1967 edition of “Accident Facts” published hy the National Safety Council shows that 14,500 workers were killed or sustained fatal injury while at work in 1966, but that 39,500 workers were killed or sustained fatal injury away from work. More workers also sustained nonfatal injuries while off the job than while at work. There were 53,000 motor vehicle deaths in 1966. It has been admitted that the U.S. Department of Labor's statistics on indus- trial injuries are weak and inadequate. The statistical committee of our IATABC is collecting data from the various jurisdictions showing injuries by industry, the part of the body affected, the nature of the injury, the source or cause of the injury, the disability sustained, the age of the employe, etc. Much has been done, is being done, and will continue to be done to prevent industrial injuries. We respectfully submit that cooperation and educational efforts are more successful at the local level between people who are closest to the problems. Many States provide safety seminars for representatives of industry and labor, and much literature is disseminated to constantly emphasize and to endeavor to educate everyone on the challenge of safety. Many States have established codes and standards over numerous years. Wis- consin, for example, has developed codes and standards over 53 years of experi- ence by volunteer advisory committees from industry, labor, and the professions. We feel it would be impossible for a Federal agency or anyone for that matter, to duplicate this experience in 18 months or even 18 years. The structures in which people work and in which the equipment is installed are just as important from the standpoint of safety as is the equipment itself. Approximately 25 percent of Wisconsin’s budget in industrial safety is devoted to the inspection of plans and structures under construction for their safety features. We find no reference to buildings and plan inspection in the proposed Federal law. Wisconsin law provides for a penalty only when an unsafe condition remains uncorrected. The proposed federal law does not allow for a correction. We have found that most violations of the code are inadvertent and believe it is unreal- istic and unduly harsh to impose a $1,000 fine upon a business which inadvert- ently violates one of several thousand code provisions. Such imposition would certainly work to the disadvantage of cooperative efforts as discussed above. The proposed law provides that the Secretary may make grants up to 90 per- cent of the State’s cost for collection of information, increasing enforcement capabilities, and otherwise improving the administration and enforcement of State occupational health and safety laws. It does not appear from this langauge that the States would be paid for the day-to-day routine of education, inspection, and enforcement, even if they were doing the job to the satisfaction of the Sec- retary. It appears that the States would be forced into one of the following al- ternatives if this law is enacted, none of which are satisfactory or practical: (1) Discontinue their occupational safety programs in their entirety and turn over this work to the U.S. Department of Labor, 552 (2) Maintain an inspection and enforcement bureau at State expense to en- force Federal codes and standards. (3) Maintain an inspection and enforcement bureau to cover those businesses not engaged in interstate commerce and to enforce those parts of their codes which are above and beyond the Federal codes. Finally, we believe that federalization of job safety may well have the oppo- site effect of that which was intended. We believe that it is unnecessary, unwork- able, and would, in fact, work to the detriment of the job safety programs now in effect. For over 50 years the association which I represent has promoted improve- ment of State administrations by the States and has opposed Federal encroach- ment. In a December 1967 message to our membership, I reiterated what my pred- ecessors have urged before me and stated: “Much has been accomplished to ob- tain substantive and procedural improvement, but some jurisdictions are lagging. It is our duty and responsibility as administrators to call the shortcomings in our statutes to the attention of our legislators and our executives, and to do all we can to eliminate them.” Our legislation committee is currently completing a survey of all member juris- dictions in our association, and achievement awards will be issued this year to each jurisdiction, showing the extent to which they have met the standards advocated by the association. We do therefore respectfully submit that H.R. 14816 should not be enacted. It is suggested that our big brother in Washington can better serve the work- ing people and all members of our society by being a leader rather than an en- forcer in the field of industrial safety. A national commission on occupational safety and health, with the participation of all States, would be able to investi- gate and to study the problem and determine how best to proceed. Such a com- mission could take advantage of the best knowledge and experience available. The Federal Bureau of Employment Security finances an organization known as “Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies.” This is an advisory group of State administrators, of unemployment compensation, and employment service offices. It has a constitution with officers and an executive committee. The Bureau of Employment Security provides an Hxecutive Secretary, as well as consultants and advisers, and it finances prescribed meetings of the executive committee, subcommittees, and an annual meeting of all States to which each jurisdiction is authorized to send three delegates at Federal expense. We have enjoyed an excellent cooperative relationship with the staff of the Bureau of Labor Standards of the Department of Labor during my twelve years of activity in the IAIABC. It is respectfully suggested that the establishment of a national commission on occupational safety and health, similar to the inter- state conference of employment security agencies, would be the best solution to our problem. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Gintz. Mr. Hathaway, do you have any questions? Mr. Haraaway. Thank you, A) Chairman. Yes; I do have a few questions. First of all, I do want to compliment you, Mr. Gintz, on a very good statement. There are parts of it with which I a with you ; but maybe I had better take the part I disagree with an the dessert for last. On page 2 of your statement, you quote from the Wisconsin statute, which is a very nice statement, but it says in effect what a religious organization might say : that you have to be good. afety devices and safeguards really require a considerable amount of research which this bill will provide, especially in the field of occu- pational diseases. As the Surgeon General testified a week or so ago, there are con- siderable areas where absolutely nothing is known about the effect of certain chemicals. It is not enough to say that the employer will maintain safety stand- ards, because he may not know what the safety standards should be. 553 He must know what the level of dust should be in the factory in order to be safe. So I think we have to have certain criteria furnished by the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare and safety standards on top of that. That is something that the States themselves are not really equipped financially to do, and many of the States would not do even if they were equipped financially. I have made a statement. I wonder if you will agree with that or not? Mr. Ginrz. Yes, I agree. Well, I agree with your statement as it relates to the general provision of this section of the statute. By saying that everybody shall go to church does not make them religious. However, this is the section of the statute under which our depart- 2s, our safety department, is authorized to enact standards and codes. The previous speaker indicated that if they were to provide stand- ards for the various dangerous operations in the steel mill they would have a book of standards as thick as his briefcase. We in Wisconsin do have a book of standards and codes several times the thickness of that briefcase and they are enacted under this general grovison of the statute. But if the code does not specifically provide or a particular instance and the employer has not Sn all he reason- ably could to make the employment and place of employment reason- ably safe and an injury occurs, we inflict a 15-percent penalty on that employer. here are so many conditions, of course, that you really can’t have a code for everything, but if there is an unsafe condition that the em- ployer knew of or should have known of, even though there is not a specific code, he will be found to have violated this section of the statute. Mr. Haraaway. Something similar to that should be enacted throughout the country, do you not think ? Mr. Gintz. It could be; yes, sir. Mr. Haraaway. Isn’t that the reason for this bill ¢ Mr. Gintz. I presume that you are correct, that fairly is what I would assume to be the intent of the bill to do it on a Federal level; es, Sir. ¥ Mr. HATHAWAY. Despite your statement on page 4 where you say, “We respectfully submit that cooperative and educational efforts are more successful at the local level between people who are closest to the problems,” don’t you believe that a papermill in Maine, a paper- mill in Georgia, in Oregon or Washington has similar problems of safety, standards for which could be promulgated by the Secretary of Labor without too much difficulty, after hearings required by the bill now before us? Mr. Gintz. I would assume that similar standards and codes would apply to the paper industry regardless of the location in the country, but merely by the good Secretary of Labor establishing the codes 1s not going to enforce them, just as you indicated before by saying that going to church does not make them religious. Enforcement, of course, is a problem. We feel very strongly that this can be done by cooperation and education on a local level than it can be on a national level. In Wisconsin, on February 28, I forget when these bills were introduced, but I know this conference of our 554 Governor was planned before that, “A time for decision in occupa- tional safety.” A Governor’s conference was held in Wisconsin on February 28, of industry and labor people, urging cooperation, trying to point out the problems of safety. We have been concerned with the accidents and while in my talk I attempted to point out that industry has done a reasonable job, but Ht does not mean we can’t do better and we should not strive to do tter. One death is too many. I am fearful, however, that we will not be able to prevent all injuries on the job. But certainly we want to do our best. The problem is how we can best do it. I sericusly urge that the com- mittee consider some commission to try to do it on a cooperative basis with the States. Mr. Hatraway. I think there is provision for that in here. Many of the witnesses testifying against the Federal Government getting into this overlooked the fact that in the first place standards will be set after hearings are conducted, that all of them agree that certain safety standards, as you agree, have to be employed. Although you say the enforcement would be better through local agencies, you forget that or you may overlook the fact that the per- sonnel who will be enforcing this will be people who live in those areas, presumably. The inspectors would be recruited from the areas where they live so that they would be familiar with them. The Federal Government is a separate country, so to speak, from the rest of the Nation. Mr. Ginrtz. The strongest reaction I might have to that would be that, “Good Lord, you can’t do it in 18 months. You can’t do it in 5 years. ou can’t establish these codes and standards in that length of time, sir. Mr. Haraaway. I don’t think they will be completely established in that length of time because research will be going on continuously and new standards will be adopted and older ones will be qualified as we go on. At least, we can make a start in those 18 months. Because we have some existing standards, as you indicate, in Wisconsin that we will be able to employ. I do want to commend you for your recommenda- tion on page 4 that, “You find no reference to buildings and plan inspection.’ I find that could be included. I think you are right with respect to your comment on the penalty section, especially with respect to ap- pearances that are due not to willful violations but to neglect. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Steiger. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. I appreciate the testimony that Ralph Gintz has given this evening. 1 think you have done a good job. I think it pinpoints clearly some of the problems that are involved in the legislation. I wonder whether or not, Ralph, either you or your organization was consulted prior to the introduction of this bill by the Labor Department ? Mr. Gintz. No; no one was consulted. 555 Mr. Steiger. I wonder further whether or not you can supply for the committee, or for me if not for the committee, a copy or whatever it takes of all the codes and standards of the State of Wisconsin. It has been some time since I have looked at them. I think it would be of interest to all of us to have the benefit of the 50 years of experience that Wisconsin has had. Mr. Gintz. I am sure that Wisconsin will be glad to do that. Mr. Steiger. I think that what you have said here and the organiza- tions you represent and the position that you take, particularly at the end of your statement that you included as part of your statement in saying, “Let us be honest about it, Federal jurisdiction is not doing the job, we think substantial work 1s possible and can be done,” to me represents the kind of work and effort that needs to be done. Mr. Burke of the Steelworkers, as you know, supplied the com- mittee with a chart dated January 3, 1962. In his statement he said, “I doubt the figures have changed considerably from 1962 to the present time.” Let me ask you: In Wisconsin, have the fi s changed ? He indi- cates for inspectors there were at that time ee boiler inspectors, 13 factory inspectors, four elevator inspectors, and four mine inspectors. Can you give us any indication as to what shifts have taken place since that time? Mr. Gantz. Yes; I believe I can. I will be happy to. I am proud of Wisconsin and I was halfway here on the plane today before I realized that I forgot my button, “We like it here,” with the outline of the State. Mr. Steieer. You will be docked when you get back, I tell you. Mr. GinTz. I wear that 5 or 6 days out of the week, but I just got the suit back from the cleaners yesterday and did not put it on. As far as our safety deputy staff is concerned. 1 was rather shocked to hear the previous Aw state, if I understood him correctly, that there had been no revisions or changes in their codes since 1953. Well, there has been constant revision in our codes in Wisconsin. We have about 30 advisory committees, one for each code; labor, man- agement, and professional men on each code. They renew their deliberations periodically, every few years at the maximum time, to consider revisions in the codes and standards that they are particularly concerned with, elevators, pits, and quarries, mines, factories. Now, as far as the deputies are concerned, Commissioner Roland in- itiated a revision of the safety department or reorganization a few years ago and about a year ago we began putting on new deputies and we have increased the field deputies from a staff of about 34 to 68, field safety inspectors. These are in addition to the boilermen. We have sev- eral boilermen and elevator men who work out of Madison. But we now have 68 field deputy safety inspectors throughout the State of Wisconsin. Mr. Stereer. I wish when you get back you would submit for the rec- ord a complete breakdown as to the staff of the State of Wisconsin’s Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations so that we might have some indications as to whether or not the figures have in fact changed. I think they have. y (The material requested appears at the end of the questioning of Mr. Gintz.) 556 Mr. Steer. Let me ask one further question, Ralph, as it relates to Wisconsin’s experience specifically. We have had all kinds of testimony on the facts and figures of accidents and accident reporting. I guess mine is twofold in nature. One is the experience in Wisconsin, 1f I am correct, and I inserted in the record, incidentally, the article that Joe Fagan wrote on accidents in Wisconsin which indicated that beginning in 1964 and continuing through the first half of 1967 our department, referring to the depart- ment of industry, labor, and human relations, had the alarming experience of watching job accidents rising higher than the employ- ment curve and happily in the middle of 1967, dropped. The first 6 months of the year we recorded 18,784 reportable injuries, fatalities, or permanent disabilities. In the last 6 months, the figure dropped to 18,718 even as employ- ment was rising. Is this in large measure due to the improvement in Wisconsin’s SYN and the increase in the number of inspectors that you added ? Mr. Gintz. We definitely feel that this is more than coincidence, that the addition of these safety deputies was definitely a factor in reducing the number of injuries. I forget all of the statistics that the chairman related but for several years previous to 1967, the number of injuries in workmen’s compensation was increasing about 10 percent a year. Yee year, it showed a decrease. The decrease began after the deputies began being assigned out to the field. Mr. Steiger. The second part of my question relates to the reporting of the injuries on workmen’s compensation. How complete are these? Can you supply the committee with the figures for the last 5 years, for example, of injuries? How do you break the injuries down to get an indication of where the problems are? r. GiNrz. I cannot help but brag a little bit. I think we have one of the finest statistical operations in our United States. I don’t say the finest but one of the finest. We can give you figures showing the num- ber of injuries each year, I would say for better than the past 10 years showing the number of injuries by industry, by occupation, by type of injury. We. have all these statistics. Mr. Steiger. I wish you would when you get back submit those as well, because I think they would be of value to the committee in their deliberations on the bill. Mr. Gintz. For how many years would you like us to go? Mr. Steieer. Five years I think would be sufficient. I will give them to Mr. Hathaway and he can look at them. Thank you, Ralph, very much, for coming. Mr. Gintz. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Gintz, I would like to talk to you a little bit about the association you are representing, the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions. On the first page of your statement you indicate that you have 64 active members, consisting of all of the States, I guess, the U.S. De- 557 partment of Labor, the Provinces of Canada, Canadian Department of Labor, Puerto Rico, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines. You have representation of each of the States and of the Federal Government on the commission, I would gather. Mr. Gintz. I regret to state that one of the States is not a member. I hope they will resume their membership but one of our Eastern States does not belong to our association. I believe it was attributable to some personal reaction which I hope to overcome during my year as president. Mr. O’Hara. How long has the association been in existence in some- thing like its present form? Mr. Gantz. It has been in existence since 1914. Workmen’s compen- sation first became effective in 1911. I would say substantially in its present form but was an infant in 1914 and has had a gradual de- velopment. r. O'Hara. You have a regular standing committee on safety ¢ Mr. Gintz. Yes, sir. We have a half dozen, six or eight regular stand- ing Soma r. O'Hara. I noted with interest your December 1967 message to your membership in which you say you reiterated what your predeces- sor said before you and stated : Much has been accomplished to obtain substantive and procedural improve- ment, but some jurisdictions are lagging. It is our duty and responsibility as ad- ministrators to call the shortcomings in our statutes to the attention of our legislators and our executives and do all we can to eliminate them. Then you say that your legislation committee is “currently complet- ing a survey of all member jurisdictions and achievement awards will be issued this year to each jurisdiction showing the extent to which they have met the standards advocated by the association.” I would be interested, first, in learning from you the basis of your statement that some jurisdictions are lagging. What do you mean by that and on what did you base that statement? Then I would like to know a bit about the standards that have been advocated by the association. Mr. Gintz. We can send you a list of the 23 standards. We can even send you a copy of the newsletter in which my statement. of December was printed. We have a quarterly magazine sent to all of our active and associate members and others who are interested in our organization. My primary work, of course, is in workmen’s compensation. About 10 or 12 of our States have the workmen’s compensation and safety operation under the same administrator. In Wisconsin, it is a collateral administrator. We have another man of rank comparable to mine who administers safety. But we do know in the workmen’s compensation field particularly that some States have not come up to date. 1 am happy to state that Wisconsin has eliminated the numerical exemption for employers coming under workmen’s compensation, just this year. Mr, O'Hara. Do you cover farmworkers ? Mr. Gintz. We cover farmworkers, farmers who have six or more employees on any 20 days in a calendar year. Je still do not cover the small farmer but we have written to the farm organizations urging that they consider this problem with the 5568 hope that they will support a reduction in the numbers for farmers in 1969. Mr. O'Hara. Other than that you have eliminated the numerical exemption. Mr. Gintz. That is right, sir. A number of the other States have been doing that. But we feel that there is still a lot. to be done. Mr. O'Hara. I took it, though, when you quoted your own statement of December 1967, in your testimony about safety before this commitee you were not dealing with workmen’s compensation, that the quote was relevant to our wn. Soins here and that you were referring to safety standards and ok vm regulation in that statement. Mr. Gintz. Actually, I was referring to both, Mr. O’Hara. You and I know that there are some States that do not have good safety programs. Something, of course, should be done to stimulate them. I hope I may have made a suggestion that might be given consideration by your committee, that we can do this by a commission and study it. It is ad- mitted that our statistics and figures are poor but can we in our country establish a commission to research, wil , before jumping into this? We don’t have the standards yet. Can we or should we set up a method of administration before we have the standards established ? I hope I am not out of bounds in talking in this manner but I am merely raising questions for your consideration, gentlemen. Mr. O’Hara. I appreciate that. These achievement awards you speak of in the next paragraph on page 6, have you ever done this before? Mr. Gantz. Yes. I believe it was about 10 years ago. We will have our annual meeting in Milwaukee next September, from the 15th through the 19th. It is my plan to write to the Governor of each State, perhaps 3 months before our meeting, to inform him of the fact that these achievement awards will be given and to invite each Gov- ernor, if possible, despite its being an election year, to come to our con- vention to accept the award on behalf of the State. Mr. O'Hara. Ours will not be traveling, maybe he will be there. Mr. Gintz. I will take the fifth on that, sir. This, I hope, is a means. Now, if the Governor cannot or will not come I would hope to send him a copy of the achievement award which will also point out the lack of achievement, hoping thereby to call attention of the executive to the extent to which their State might be deficient. Mr. O'Hara. I would be very interested in obtaining a copy of the standards that you have advocated and learning just how many of the States are meeting those standards. I think that would be a very useful piece of information. I would gather that the standards to which you refer do not have to do with safety codes, I mean the details of safety codes; they have to do with the existence of safety codes, the number of inspectors and so forth, per thousand workers, and that sort of thing. What are the standards like ? Mr. Ginrz. Since our association is principally an association of workmen’s compensation boards and commissions, we do not have any standards on the number of safety definitions and so forth or any codes on safety. 559 I believe we should adopt more specific standards on them. Mr. O'Hara. I would certainly encourage you to do so. I think that would be one voluntary effort that might make a contribution. But I might suggest to you that the experience of your association, which has within its membership all of the States, save one, and the Federal Government, the experience of your association which has not yet even adopted suggested standards with respect to industrial safety prog, and the fact that evidently the associaion is just now em- rking on a project to determine to somehow get at this question of statistical reliability of reports, because there are so many differences, I suggest that that does not give me any cause for optimism about what would happen if we simply established a commission consisting of the same people that are represented in your commission and say to them, “Now, fellows, go forth and do good.’ I think it 1s going to require more than that. Mr. Gantz. oll, if a commision were established, and was financed by Federal funds, such as the Bureau of Employment Security has, Liam you could get more cooperation from a few of our backward tates. They would have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If such a commission were established to reseach and study and establish standards, if experience proved that the States weren’t cutting the bucks, all right, you have no alternative, I suppose, but a Federal en- forcement agency. Mr. O'Hara. I appreciate that progression. I think that we ought to in some way involve progression in this act if it becomes law but I have not made up my mind what sort of progression it ought to be. Wisconsin, of course, is in a very good position to testify on this subject. Your industrial commission, I think, was the first one in the United States, wasn’t it ? Mr. Gintz. Ibelieve it was, sir. Mr. O'Hara. You have had more experience and a longer history in this field than any other State in the Union, is that right ? Mr. Gantz. That is correct. We had the first effective workmen’s compensation statute in the country ; and we have had legislative com- mittees from several other States come up to study our operation with the idea of adopting what they thought might be good in ours, and several of them have. Mr. O'Hara. I was impressed by the statement read by Mr. Steiger that in 1967, the latter half thereof, you had succeeded in establishi a reduction in work related injuries in spite of the fact that the iE force has increased. I have before me a report of work injuries reported under the Work- men’s Compensation Act of Wisconsin, dated December 1966, which I obtained from the Library of Congress. It shows that as to the number of injury cases reported per 1,000 workers in Wisconsin for the years 1945 through 1966, not including 1967, it shows that a substantial improvement was made in the number of injury cases pops ad per 1,000 workers occurring for the most part in the year 1949, but that since that time progress has been very slow indeed, 1949 through 1966, and in fact if you start out in 1953, 1953 to 1966, it would appear that there has been no progress during that period of time. 560 I am very pleased that there has apparently been progress in the tentative figures for the latter half of 1967. I wonder if you could tell us, tell the committee, what you feel is the cause of this lack of prog- ress, if you agree that that is the case, during the 1950’s and throu 1966, and contrast that with the progress that was made, apparently made, in 1967? Mr. Gintz. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether you were in the room when I referred to the fact that our staff of field safety deputies was doubled just about 12 or 14 months ago. The commissioners were concerned with the more or less static number of injury frequency rate and the fact that the number of injuries per year was increasing substantially so they went to the emergency board and Governor and obtained appropriations and put on 34 additional safety deputies just a year ago. It is felt that the reduction in the injuries is attributable to the fact that we had more safety men out in the field inspecting. Now the State is divided into eight districts. Each month the super- visor of each district gets a list of the 10 employers who have the most injuries in that district for that month. A deputy definitely calls on each of those 10 employers. So they are really trying to get out there and if the employers had a good record previously they can go in and say, “You a a good record. How come this last month ?” If he hoe had a continuous bad record, okay, you had better do something about it. Mr. O'Hara. Yes, I did hear that statement. I wanted to get you to say it again. We have had a couple of witnesses here on previous days of hearings. One of them representing a great State who testified that he did not think that State regulation had any impact whatso- ever on the number of work injuries. I gather you would not agree with that? r. Gintz. Certainly not. Whenever I give a talk to a group of labor people or safety men in Wisconsin, I try to put across the point that safety cannot be overemphasized. You have to talk the morning, noon, and night. I was looking here, I had some posters which I think are a good way of bringing it home, a picture of the jackass of the month, “Run down the corridor;” “take two steps at a time;” and all these things, that makes one the jackass of the month. It is a picture of a donkey on a stand. Well, I think these impress people. But you have to keep after them. Mor. O'Hara. I will ignore your choice of a symbol. We have an- other witness who said, and on later backpedaled a little bit, that there was no evidence to suggest that regulation had any impact. He did not go quite so far as our first witness I referred to. He said there was no evidence to establish that State regulation had contributed to a reduction of work-related injuries. I think your evidence here today strongly suggests that the regulation has con- tributed to the reduction in the i. of injuries. Finally, Mr. Gintz, I might advise you that this subcommittee is the same one that has on more than one occasion conducted hearings on a bill having to do with the public employment services. I would think that although members of the subcommittee seem to have some differences about the best approach to strengthening of our 561 public employment services, I would think there was something of a consensus to the effect that the present system was not working as well as it might. So, I do think whatever this committee does it has to involve the experience and the knowledge of State safety agencies and the States that are determined to do a good job in that area shall serve as models for what we do. I think a number of States have quite impressive codes. 1 want you to know that for one, I do not intend simply to discard that wealth of experience and knowledge that many States’ safety boards have acquired. ou have been a very helpful witness. I am pleased that I headed Mr. Steiger’s request. I think that you have filled his prophesy. We thank you for appearing. Mr. Gintz. Thank you very much, gentlemen. STATE OF WISCONSIN, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, LABOR, AND HUMAN RELATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS ON ONE YEAR'S EXPERIENCE WITH ‘OPERATION SAFE PLACE” It has been somewhat over a year since “Operation Safe Place” was made a part of the laws of Wisconsin. Since that time we have recruited 34 new safety specialists and trained them to do multiple safety inspections. We also set up a special safety course for our incumbent safety specialists to train them in the codes with which they were not expert. The result was a general inspection staff of 50 men and eight regional supervisors. Although we were committed from the beginning to make the plan work, we did at times wonder if a small group of men like this could have any significant effect on the injury frequency rate of approximately 1,400,000 workers. The safety specialists completed their training in June of 1967 and were at their districts on the first of July. During this training time the injury frequency rate in Wisconsin had been consistently on the upswing and the number of in- dustrial injuries was at an all time high. In fact there had been 1094 more in- juries in the first six months of 1967 than in 1966. We were pleased, however, to see that this trend was reversed during the last six months of 1967 with the first decrease in injuries in July coinciding with the time that our safety specialists were sent out in the field. The last half of 1967 showed a decrease of 1416 injuries with 20,134 being recorded for July through December 1966 and 18,718 being recorded for the same period of 1967. The same trend has continued in 1968. There have been 226 fewer injuries in January and February of 1968 than in 1967. All this was occurring while employment was going up. Thirty Thousand employees were added in 1967. We believe that there have been several reasons for the effectiveness of the program : 1. We stressed 90% education and 10% enforcement. Seventeen Safety Semi- nars have been held with attendance varying from 40 to 200 persons at a meeting. 2. Employers were informed of the code requirements and given a reasonable time to comply. Time extensions have been granted in many cases where it would be an undue hardship to comply immediately. 3. Enforcement of the codes was used when an employer refused to comply. Prosecution is handled through the Attorney General's office. Enclosed you will find an extended graph showing that injuries are on down- swing in Wisconsin. It is our sincere hope that our men can continue to have an effect on injury frequency rate. 562 “Operation Safe Place,” 1966-1967 Reorganization Plan of the Industrial Safety and Buildings Division, Wisconsin Industrial Commission PART 1 DUTIES OF ENGINEERING AND PLAN REVIEW SECTION 1. Review architects’ and engineers’ building plans for approval. 2. Review heating and ventilation plans, paint spray booths, dust collection systems and fire escapes. . Approve new construction materials for use in Wisconsin. . Approve masonary units on a yearly basis. . Code consultation with architects and engineers. . Code revision and updating with advisory committee. . Certify welders for the construction industry. Process petitions for modification. - 9. Enforce the Industrial Commission rules and prepare cases for the Attorney General's Office. 10. Instruct and train local building inspectors and fire chiefs in Industrial Commission rules. © 0S PUR GROWTH OF OUR STATE Please think for awhile about the industrial and population growth of our state. By the end of 1964, there were 540,000 more people in Wisconsin than there were ten years before, in 1955. By 1968, this will grow another 160,000 to an estimated 700,000 people more than there were in 1955. The construction industry is faced with the challenging job of building, tearing down and rebuilding for this ever-increasing population. It is also challenged by the array of new industry products and new building products to use in this giant enterprise of providing for our 4,106,0004 people. The next pages show what is happening to the population of our state and to our work load. 563 POPULATION WISCONSIN IN MILLIONS Fe ee] Industrial Building ACTUAL mary and Safety Division ESTIMATE cS E2 0 ed ol ~ . ¥ _° 4.2 _| O° 4, 266,000 °%, 226,000 an ©9'%, 186,000 1 , 146,000 4.0 __| - I39 | 3.8 J 3.7 — 3.6 3.5 _| ‘ voll ’ i 1 1 1 1 v T v T o, 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1955 ~- 3,666,000 1960 - 3,966,000 1956 = 3,740,000 1961 - 4,008,000 } 1957 ~- 3,802,000 1962 = 4,029,000 1958 ~- 3,863,000 1963 ~ 4,061,000 1959 - 3,915,000 1964 - 4,106,000 An optimistic estimate of 40,000 annual increase in population was used in’ projecting. 92-734 O-68—37 564 ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS REGISTERED IN WISCONSIN ACTUAL EZ] 6976 ' - 6641 rm . 6306 [] PROJECTED | i 5,500 J 5406 ENGINEERS 5,000 _| 4973 4646 5 4120 . 38 3587 w- 336 300 —{ 200s ou) A CT 5 1 1955 | 1956] 1957] 1958 | 1959 | 1960 | 1961 [1062 | 1963 1964 | 1065 | 67 [20¢3 9 (4 EEHHEE o SE 03 220 = 606 ARCHITECTS Be 1% ~ | 808 " 885 56 1035 yous 1165 1235 The Statistics for these charts are from the annual report of the "Wisconsin Reg: ation Board of Architects and Professional Engineers." The year-end date z ais report is July 3lst. Therefore the figure used for 1955 is for the year ending July 3lst, 1955, etc. It is estimated that approximately 75% of all architects and 30% of all engineers regularly submit plans. 565 PLANS use © / PROJECTED H 10000 ~ ‘ - 9750 9500 _ 9250 Industrial Building } \ and Safety Division 1966 Forecast is based on Engineering: 8750 ... News Record anticipated 3 "7% increase - 9000 8500 _ 8250 : 8000 _ 7750 _ 7500 _ 6750 _ White indicates plans that must be reviewed _ more than once, qn 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 1965) 1956) 1957 § 1958 JANUARY 1965 THROUGH JUNE 1965 3546 PLANS WERE RECEIVED 4009 PLANS WERE PROCESSED * 4638 buildings were approved for const. in 1965 * Many plans must be reviewed more than once before approval or consist of more than one type of plan. Records of this variance are only available as of 1960. 566 INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY & BUILDINGS 7 . 7 150, VOLUME OF PLANS REVIEWED gy BY MILLIONS OF CUBIC FEET 2 1400 1300 1200 11.00 1000 900 800 700 600 Sestugs met 500 400 1961 [1962 | 1963 | 1964 | 1965 | 1966 | 1967 | 1968 | 1969 | 80.0 M Cubic feet of plan review per year per man No figures are available on volume prior to 1960 567 NUMBER OF PLANS BY CUBIC FOOTAGE GROUPS 901,000 to wm cu. ft, 801,000 701,000 601,000 501,000 401,000 301,000 201,000 101,000 51,000 26,000 to 900,000 cu. ft. to soclhen [1 I to 700,000 cu. ft, to 600,000 cu. ft, to 500,000 cu, ft. [ to J cu. ft. to, 259 ft. to 200,000 cu. ft, to 100,000 cu. ft. to 50,000 cu, ft. DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY & BUILDINGS - 35 - 5 - 58 - 7 - 109 - 159 = 426 932 -1260 -2669 25, oT 774 Tnis graph shows an average yearly number of plans submitted by plan size based on the years 1963, 1964 and 1965. Cubic Footage Statistics are not kept on all types of plans (examples of non- reported: Alterations, Exhaust Systems, Bleachers). for 1963 is 783, for 1964 is 1212, Total of the non-reported 568 MANUALS OF REQUIRED READING BY NUMBER OF PAGES Iadustrial Building and Safety Division ones 29, SRY <<: cos 750 pages BKAD ye gE mmm es Edition ee 3 MANUAL 1962 Edition sete pr 450, REINFTORCED~ 1956 EE CONCRETE Edition B% 72 MANUAL 1963 y = Edition SH 144 Ia recent years the materials used in, and the methods of, construction have undergone considerable changes. Only a few major areas are represented in this graph. To efficiently review the plans of all other engineers or architects, the Commission Engineer must be more knowledgeable in all areas. 569 FORECAST As one can see, the graphs on the previous pages, in general, show a ten year history from 1955, to 1965. However, it is the very interesting future with which we are concerned. The past is only of use as it helps us to chart our course into tomorrow. Here are the predicted figures for 1968, taken from the graphs: 1. The state population will be 4,266,000. 2. There will be 7,296 registered engineers and 1,22 registered architects, of which approximately 709% of the architects and 309% of the engineers regularly submit plans. 3. We can expect to process in excess of 9,300 plans, which represent approx- imately 5,300 new buildings. 4. We can expect to process in excess of 1,500 million cubic feet of buildings, which is approximately 660 million dollars worth of work in the state—mnot including Milwaukee, which processes its own plans. 5. Buildings, in general, are getting larger, and more complex. In 1965, there was a 13% increase in the average size of the buildings over 1964. No estimate is made as to whether this trend will continue. MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS December 1965, and January 1966, show an increase of 70 plans over the same period last year, so the trend of increased construction is continuing. At present, we are approximately 3% weeks behind schedule in the plan review part of the Buildings Section. We are not further behind because the following emergency measures have been instituted : 1. Field inspectors have been called in to review plans, for a total of 82 man weeks during 1965, and 14 man weeks in 1966. This has resulted in a poorer quality of plan review because the inspectors are not engineers. It has also meant that the very important field inspections have not been made and rules have not been enforced during this time. 2. Architects and engineers have not been allowed to come in for personal interviews or preliminary approval. This is very costly to the architects, engi- neers, and the public, because plans must then be revised to meet code after the plans are completed. It is proposed to add one architect IV to our staff for preliminary plan approvals. 3. The 24 safety codes which need constant updating, have been neglected. The revision to the building code, which was scheduled for July, 1965, has been completed, but is not being sent to the revisor of statutes, because the revisions it contains are over one year old and require further review. It is proposed to add one engineer code advisor Class 16 to be secretary of all code committees. We ask then for enough qualified men to meet the challenging work ahead. 4. Request for Additional Manpower ‘We request : One Engineer Code Advisor, Class 16. One Architect IV Plan Consultant (for preliminary plan review). Two Engineers I11. Two Engineering Aids III Plan Validator. * The engineering aids will be assigned to lower level work now performed by engineers, such as checking to see that the plans are sealed by a registered architect or engineer and whether the calculations, plot plan and other data are enclosed with the submittal. 570 5. The Existing Organizational Chart is shown below : CHIEF ENG, V TO DIRECTOR BUILDING ENG. IV BUILDING ENG. 111 ENG. 111 ENG. 11 ENG, II ENG. 11 ENG. 11 ENG. 11 HEAT. & VENT, ENG. 111 ‘J ENG. 11 6. The Proposed Organizational Chart is shown below : CHIEF ENG. VI TO DIRECTOR LL BUILDING ENG. IV BUILDING § ENG. III BUILDING] ENG. 11 ET — ENG. 111 ENG, II ENG. 11 ENG. II ENG. 11 ENG. 11 HEAT, & VENT ENGINEER 111 ENGINEER 111 ENGINEER 11 CODE ADV. CLASS 16 ARCH, OR ENG. IV PRELIM, ENG. AID 1 ENG, AID I 571 A study made by the Administrative Section of the Industrial Commission in 1965 showed that the present fees for plans approval covers the present costs and has a surplus which goes into the general fund. Building fees received 1965 $179, 477. 90 Engineering department costs 1965 (including space equipment supervision and services).__._._ - 163, 283. 00 Surplus 16, 194. 00 It should be noted that approximately 25% of all volume is free, because it consists of public buildings. If this $40,821.00 cost was considered a surplus, the present fees would approxi- mate the $58,596.00 increase in cost of operation. If the upward trend of building continues, the present fees can be expected to cover the additional cost of doing the work. It is recommended that these costs be reviewed yearly to match the fees with the costs as required. Statement by Chief Engineer: I believe that the men requested above meets only the very minimum to avert an emergency situation. Respectfully submitted. CHARLES A. HAGBERG. PArT II REORGANIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY & BUILDINGS SECTION INSPECTION SYSTEM A. Euwisting organization The existing organization of the Industrial Safety and Buildings Section as shown below consists of seven separate sections of specialized personnel who are responsible for the safety of the citizens of Wisconsin on a state-wide basis. The men in each section with the exception of the electrical and petroleum products section have their offices at various locations throughout the state and for each section the state is divided up into geographical districts with men as- signed to districts on the basis of need. The present system has produced dedicated men who are specialists in their field. B. Deficiencies of the present organization 1. The districts to which the safety specialists are assigned are very large with the exception of the Milwaukee area approximately one-half of all inspection time is spent in traveling. 2. The districts of the various sections overlap each other and of course are different for each section because of the different number of men in each section. Existing Organization Chart DIRECTOR | I | Chlef Chief Fact. Chief Elect. Eng. [Petro | Engineer Section Boller Sec. Safety Spec. | Clerical [ Elect. Eng. Sect. Sup. PEERS: ges} Asst. Chief Vi ee Y Spec 9 Engineer Factory Clerks : Safety 3 Boiler Chief Spec. Safety Elevator Sec. on Spec. Po— Chief i 9 7] 3 Elev. Mine Sec. Plan Building Safety Review Safety Spec. peered Eng. spec. | 3 Mining & : Quarries Safety | Spec. NOTE The Legislature has authorized 5 additional Inspectors positions which according to Executive and Legislative intent are to be approved only after the development of a broad safety inspection plan. \ 573 3. The present organization does not have enough manpower to assure the people of the state a minimum standard of safety. C. Reorganization proposal 1. The Central Idea of the reorganization is two-fold. (a) Combine the various sections so that one man can do all of the required inspections in his area and call for specialized assistance when there is a complex problem. (b) Provide an adequate staff tQ assure the people of Wisconsin that the mini- mum Standards of Safety are maintained. D. Our need for safety services The Statistical Division shows on the following table and graphs that for the past four years the daily average number of inquiries has shown an increase. The graph shows that while there was a general decline in the number of inquiries over a broad period starting in 1948 there has been a marked increase since 1961. 574 ORK INJURIES REPORTED UNDER ORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT ISCONSIN COMM | SS | ONERS . INDUSTRIAL COMM ON OF WISCONSIN STATI ICAL oIVieloN JUSEPH C, FAGAN, CHAIRMAN CARL E. LAURI STAT, RELEASE 2193 GENE A. ROWLAND JANUARY 19, 19 STEPHEN J, REILLY, DECEMBER SECRETARY v 1965 AVERAGE NONAGR|CULTUNAL E-PLOYMENT IN WISCONSIN AND DAILY AVERAGE NUMOER OF INJURIES REPORTED, 1939 THROUGH 1965 DAILY AVERAGE - EMPLOYMENT fy TTY YY Tp eeisery of —— | 200 AVERAGE NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT § : : 1,200,000 A 960,000 150]. DAILY AVEIAGE NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED. 720,000 480,000 50 240,000 0 L Avvikisibicd lamb a — . PR Pat ! Hs 575 TABLE 2051.3. —AVERAGE NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN WISCONSIN AND DAILY AVERAGE NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED, 1939 THROUGH 1965 Average Daily Average Daily nonagricultural average nonagricultural average Year employment! number of Year employment! number of (in thousands) injuries (in thousands) injuries reported 2 reported 2 72 98 76 87 102 93 112 97 121 89 124 83 119 94 129 92 129 90 121 96 102 100 104 108 110 118 104 1 Employment igus for years 1939 through 1946 were revised and adjusted to the 1957 benchmark. Employment fuss for years 1947 through 1964 were revised and adjusted to the 1964 benchmark. Source: Industrial Commission of Wisconsin in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Labor. 2 Excluding Sundays and holidays only. 3 Preliminary. PERCENTAGE DISTRIDUTION OF WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED IN 1965 .d Ys CLASSIFIED OY MAJOR ACCIDENT TYPE . 37.5 . . Tg UEC 35 | 4 } x ve ; PSC _ PERCENT OF TOTAL ow aor (RE = NUMDER OF CASES . 30 i percent oF: aes 4 "(EY - ria cases” en % 20 15 10 5 1040) : 0 lox brn fe Aria ee a OVER— STRUCK CAUGHT B0D~ NOT EXER— AGAINST iLy RE~ TION REAC— PORT— TREMES VEH, TION €D DENTS (CS ACC, ETC, INSECT CUR, 9.8 577 Injuries subject to Workmen’s Compensation Act shows that in Wisconsin, in the manufacturing industry the present rate is 16.5 injuries per million man- hours worked, while the national average for manufacturing is 12.7 injuries per million man-hours worked. Our construction industry has a rate of 38.3. It is rather interesting to note that most injuries other than motor vehicle are caused by rather simple causes such as being struck by an object, falls, contact with an electrical current and being caught between objects. BE. Our safety workload To determine the actual workload of our safety people, one must decide what is a reasonable number of inspections that must be made in the various categories of construction, manufacturing, ete. On the following pages, a detailed study is made showing how we arrived at the number of inspections required and the man-hours required to do the job. 1. New Buildings that Require Inspection New building which are under construction should be inspected and the job site inspected for construction methods safety at the following stages of construction : (a) The first inspection is required when the foundation or substructure is being formed and poured. General safety conditions are discussed at this time. (b) The second inspection is required on larger buildings when the structural steel or concrete members are being installed. This is particularly hazardous. (¢) The third inspection is required when mechanical equipment, such as fur- naces, boilers, air-conditioning systems and ventilation systems are being in- stalled. This inspection is also required for the interior work, such as partitioning and roughed-in stairs. Again, this inspection is required only on the more complex jobs. (d) The final inspection is required to check the finished job. This includes exit lights, fire alarm systems, location of emergency equipment, finished stairs, sanitary facilities and isolation of hazards. One can see from the above outline that all jobs do not need the same number of inspections. A warehouse, for example, would require only the first and fourth inspections because of its simplicity, while a school, hospital or other large public building would require all four inspections. In addition to the above inspections, it is usually necessary to follow up the orders written on the last inspection to see that the work is completed. The size of the building is not the best criteria as to the number of inspection required, but the type of building usually indicates the number of inspections needed. The following breakdown of types of buildings and the number of inspections required will show that an average of three inspections are required for each building: Number of Number of inspections inspections Kind of Building: required Kind of Building—Continued required ADATLINONES cee iene meen sm emi 3 SChoOlS mmm mismo mis 4 ChULCHOE osm metas sss ib css sm 4 Service Stations .--c 642 186 [emkommos a om 2 22 = LO a 580 — [MARAT HON 381 ARE 1431 512 TAA vr fea 837 535 60 “6 ¥ 5 odo | REMPEAL | OU TAGAMIE “I © 20) @)]_ 2192 380 213 rr a JUNEAU d “1 I ALUMET MONR] a. 22 SQ 425 ™ cros 0 ~ 1215 271 95 NaRaueTie[enee he 1224 316 ws (3 TAC OYGA ~ 1253 VERNON ® fy a 3 154 SA J [000GE 872 [Fonmom(l ¥ Go = CRAWFORD 275 728 692 1027 870 X 295 ~ DANE spins — Towa NPE = ® ®O ® (39) 0 GRANT ® 292 L214 952 3228 3 @ GE & 69 6% LA FAYETTE EEN, p 1 8 hg "2365 © GD HA 265 490 1679 1 121 1407 (O oS IGNATES DISTRICT DESIGNATES REGION =~ §& Heating Ventilati Building Eh wn —————————— — Director istant Direc tor Chief Inspector 9 | | | | ! | Clerical Section Fire Prev, falist Electrical Speciall Mining Specialist Elevator fety Safety Const, Safety. £89 584 I. Checklist tools Under the present system each safety specialist inspects the items which he considers important. As one can see this will vary from man to man. It is planned to develop a checklist system for each type of work so that each man would do a thorough job and not miss any items. When a complex problem comes up which the district man whom we shall call a “Safety Consultant” cannot solve, a specialist from the Central Office would be called to the jobsite. The specialists from the Central Office would then check out the problem and apply the code rules. J. In conclusion 1. The reorganization plan will assure the people of the State that major places of employment and the larger buildings frequented by the public will be checked out at reasonable intervals. 2. The reorganization plan will assure a “programmed System” of inspec- tion to reduce the number of injuries in the state and provide Wisconsin’s citizens with a safe place. 585 WORK INJURY CASES SETTLED UNDER THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT OF WISCONSIN THE INCIDENCE OF PULMONARY DISF*°7 IN INDUSTRY as seen by the State of Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, Joseph C, Fagan, Chairman. Five years ago, the words "pulmonary disease would have brought to mind such occupational diseases as silicosis, asbestosis, tuberculosis, Today, we have to consider the broader term "respiratory infections, not else- where classified" (now, isn't that an awkward term =~ but we're stuck with it for i: statistical purposes until we can come up with something better), because of our present inability to separate the respiratory infections, caused by the new chemi= cals and processes, into neat categories, For example, we have the relatively new problem of TDI (toluene diisocyanate) which affects various parts of the respiratory system == sometimes it strikes the nose and throat, sometimes the bronchial tubes and/or lungs are affected, and sometimes the entire respiratory system is involved.’ First, let's consider the older, better known pulmonary diseases. In Wisconsin, the law bringing occupational diseases under our Workmen's Compensation Act became effective in 1919 (the first effective workmen's compensation law in the United States was enacted by the Wisconsin legislature in 1911), The single most costly occupational disease in Wisconsin has been the pulmonary disease known as silicosis (we include silico-tuberculosis in this category), From 1919 through 1966, over 900 silicosis claims have been adjudged compensable or ap- proved as compromises, with total indemnity and medical expenses of almost seven million dollars, No claim for silicosis was made until 1921, From 1921 through 1930, 120 claims were presented, an average of only 12 a year, During the next two years, 112 claims were filed, The peak years of 1933 and 1934 saw the number of claims rise from 190 to 321. This last jump in claims can be attributed almost entirely to three things: First, the depression brought on a large number of claims filed by out-of-work employes who had been exposed to silica and were hopeful of finding some way to raise money, Some attorneys of that day also saw a chance to make a little money by en= couraging the filing of silicosis claims, (In fact, some researchers have referred to them as "ambulance chasers" =-=- being an attorney, myself, I'm sure that only the humanitarian aspects swayed them!) Secondly, the insurance carriers became alarmed when it became known that the “total incurred losses resulting from silicosis claims (as reported by the largest writer of compensation insurance in Wisconsin) rose from one-fifth of one percent of the total of all claims of policies expiring in the year 1930 to ten percent of the total of all claims registered by the policies expiring in the year 1932, This led insurance carriers to insist on medical examinations of the employes of their policy= holders, and to refuse to insure if there remained in the employ any one who was found to have any stage of silicosis, Employes so discharged or refused employment usually filed claims for silicosis. In the third place, the actions of one self-insurer and one insured company added to the number of claims, One of the self-insured iron mining companies became interested in the silicosis problem and had all of its men examined, Where danger= ous conditions were found, settlements were made with the workers, Where silicosis was found in incipient stages, minor settlements were made, even though no disability 586 was present, Many small compromise settlements were thus made to avoid prolonged litigation. One of the insured companies in the metal industry group, before moving out of the state, had all of its men examined for silicosis and encouraged every worker with any stage or symptom of silicosis to file claim against the insurance carrier, As a result, this insurance company paid out over $180,000, mostly in compromise settlements, By 1935, the number of claims had decreased to 104; in 1936, only 46 claims for disability due to silicosis were brought before the Commission, The bulk of the claims during the years 1931 through 1936 was made up of nonfatal cases, many of them noncompensable, Likewise, the nonfatal compromised cases were very numerous in those years; in many, the disability was very slight and the compromise settlements were frequently for small amounts, In the years 1921 through 1936, 1,174 formal hearings were held on silicosis cases alone, 750 cases required hearings; 143 did not, The majority of the hear- ings were held between 1932 and 1936, The noncompensable cases required a higher average number of hearings per case than the compensable or compromised cases, Many cases were rejected because of a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that a case was not compensable unless time or wage loss was experienced during the period of employment with the employer against whom the claim was filed, While this undoubtedly brought the cost down, it resulted in meritorious claims being barred. Subsequent amendments to our Act have clarified this point. As the law now reads, "Time of injury, occurrence of injury, or date of injury is the date of the accident which caused the injury, or in the case of disease the last day of work for the last employer whose employment caused disability’: The spate of silicosis and other occupational disease claims during the depres- sion period, although costly, did create an awareness of occupational diseases, This resulted in substantial efforts to control the known hazards, Plant sanitation and medical check-ups became commonplace. In Wisconsin, we have now reached the point where we stress 90 percent education and only 10 percent enforcement, The other major pulmonary diseases that crop up in our workmen's compensation statistics are tuberculosis, pneumonia, pneumonitis, asbestosis and pneumoconiosis, not elsewhere classified. : Our statistical history of tuberculosis as an occupational disease goes back to 1919, There have been no significant variations in the number of cases from year to year, Most of the cases have been incurred in hospitals and allied health services. Two hundred claims have been compensated through 1966, with indemnity and medical costs of over $700,000, For the other four pulmonary diseases referred to above, our statistical his=- tory covers the years 1937 through 1966 (unfortunately, data on compromise settle- ments are not available for any occupational disease for the years 1937 through 1943), The number of cases compensated and total indemnity and medical aid were, respec= tively: pneumonia, 37 and $32,767; pneumonitis, 19 and $6,319; asbestosis, 11 and $198,784; pneumoconiosis,, not elsewhere classified, 8 and $65,098, Considering all pulmonary diseases discussed above, the total known number of cases was over 2,000; total known indemnity and medical costs, almost eight million dollars. Silicosis accounted for almost 46 percent of the cases and over 84 percent of the indemnity and medical costs. 587 The above sounds lile a small amount when one considers that in Pennsylvania, where miners disabled by pneumoconiosis are paid from state funds, payments in fis= cal 1966 totalled over 27 million dollars. The State of New York is now "gathering detailed evidence about lung diseases, how they work, and how they affect the lungs, the tissue and the way they function," according to a pamphlet called "The Fight Against Dust Diseases" (issued by the Div= ision of Industrial Hygiene, Morris Kleinfeld, M,D,, Director). The following are quotes from this pamphlet: "During the past three years, more than 600 workmen have been given lung examinations by the Division's testing program. *¥kkk We use an epidemiological approach, We study all facets of the disease to try and get a natural history of the disease. We attempt to detect and evaluate early changes in lung function == any early evidence of disability, *¥¥¥* The lung-testing work of the Division of Industrial Hygiene in Buffalo a couple of years ago was the achievement that sold the men of Local 30 (The International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, AFL-CIO) on the program, Among fewer than 200 asbestos workers tested at that time, the Division located 19 cases of lung disease. Mr, Dwyer said Local 30 is discussing the possibility of; following through on the results of the Syra= cuse study by establishing a continuing study of its own, The union's primary concern is the health of its men. A-continuing lung=-testing program in which the men's lungs were tested at in- tervals would enable the group to discover evidence of illness early," The common hazards of silica dust and asbestos are pretty well known, However, how many are prepared to measure exposure to crystalline free silica which may be used rather incidentally in an operation at a plant that is not normally considered to be a dusty industry? Silica flour is used, for example, as a filler in some paint mixtures, Talc and soapstone powders have been found to produce disabling pneumoconiosis in lesser concentrations than dusts made up of silicates, with the result that no more than 20 million particles per cubic foot of air is considered safe. These two materials often have some quartz content, sometimes as much as 20 percent; thus, ex- posure should be limited to 10 million particles per cubic foot of air, Exposure to amorphous silica should also be limited to 20 million particles per cubic foot of air, When subjected to a calcining operation, the exposure may have to be limited to 7 million particles per cubic foot of air. ' It is not my intention to lecture on threshold limits; the above was mentioned to emphasize the fact that we have a lot to learn yet even about exposure to silica dusts, : Let's change the subject slightly == what about those repiratory infections, not elsewhere classified by our Statistical Division? From 1937 through 1966, over 800 cases cost almost a quarter of a million dol=- lars, The majority of the claims arose from contact with toxic and noxious sub= stances, such as dusts and chemicals, 588 It will be a different story from now on, We have a backlog of unsettled cases which are costing in the millions of dollars == one self-insured employer, alone, has paid out more than one million dollars, It is almost impossible to pinpoint in every case the exact part of the respiratory system involved; we do know that, in many of the cases, the doctors are seeking to find out the long-term affect on the lungs. New chemicals and processes have brought about this situation, Silica and as- bestos have long been recognized as cripplers and killers; but who, five years ago, would have been prepared to listen to a discussion of epoxy resins, methyl ethyl ke= tone plasticizers, toluene diisocyanate (and other tongue twisters), in conjunction with pulmonary diseases? To-enlarge on my theme a bit: the incidence of silicosis was traditionally lim= ited to a relatively few industries and occupations == in fact, in some industries a hacking cough was a sign that a man had a job, The new hazards can be found in al- most: any industry, in almost any occupational classification == y2s, even in the home. Progress is wonderful, but the exotic new chemicals and powerful new pesti- cides are endangering the health == and the lives == of many of our workers, both on-the-job and off=the=job, As one newspaper article put it: "Some people are really allergic to work == and it's not their fault," So, what are we doing about it? In 1965, we held several conferences on the hazards of exposure to the various chemical. processes and epoxy compounds. These meetings were attended by represent= atives of government, industry and labor. We secured the cooperation of all concern= ed in our efforts to pursue a medical and preventive approach with the idea of edu= cating the public, industry and labor, without causing hysteria, For the past few years, an extensive study has been carried out by two doctors from the University of Wisconsin Medical School: Dr, Louis W, Chosy, Instructor of Medicine and Dr, John Rankin, Professor of Medicine, A National Institutes of Health grant supports their research, Working closely with affected Wisconsin employers, they have personally treated several hundred cases involving respiratory conditions resulting from exposure to glues, insulators, adhesives, foam plastics, etc, As explained by Dr, Chosy, "These resinous compounds have been developed by moedern chemistry, Chemically and simply speaking, scientists developed the new com= pounds by adding different chemical ingredients to a basic 'polymer' molecule under varying conditions. The materials are highly 'reactive' only while they are first being used, After a glue dries, it is no longer reactive and therefore causes no one any trouble, There are many industrial uses of the new compounds, They are used, for example, in adhesives which can bind metal or effectively encase electrical cir= cuits, "In almost every case studied," said Dr, Chosy, "the affected persons' ailments were initially diagnosed as sinus trouble, pneumonia, chronic bronchitis, or asthma == all of which may be side effects of exposure to polymer compounds, With added exposure, respiratory problems may become more severe, resulting in ear infections, sinus inflammation, or bronchial pneumonia, The full range of exposure effects is not completely understood, The best treatment for exposure is to keep away from the compounds, This poses a special problem for the workman whose job requires contact with resinous materials. Apd complete recovery may require prolonged absence from exposure, And, re-exposure, even after 'recovery' starts the problem over again, often quicker than the first time," 589 "These polymers may be encountered by the scientist in his electronics lab, the laborer in a lumber mill, the sportsman, repairing his fiber glass boat, or even the captive husband painting the, house, " he, ‘said, What is "the answer for the industrial and home users of these products? "Largely," said Dr, Chosy, "the answer is education in the dangers of indis- criminate use, of these adhesives and resinous compounds as well as urging industry to give closer attention to the potential medical problems of their workers, In well-ventilated plants where resinous conlpounds are used, workers usually are not affected. Contact with these new materials could conceivably become an increasing problem for the man on the street, These compounds are used in a variety of pro= ducts == such as epoxy paints, enamels, lacquers and glues == primarily designed for home use, , v wn Our safety tiopaetind have also been’ ‘Working eldsely with some of the employers who have had the misfortune of using a chemical process without understanding the medical problems that would ensue, We have the power of increasing workmen's com= pensation benefits by 15 percent, which the employer himself must pay, but we prefer to work with ‘the employer to help him solve his problems, rather than shaking a big stick at him, This cooperation haé in turn brought about more willingness, on the part of the employer, to dig back into the absence records of his employes to see if their absences were due to colds, or due to new production processes. - Our largest workmén's ‘compensation carrier, Employers Mutual Liability -Insur= ance Company of Wisconsin, has set up an industrial hygiene laboratory equipped with the latest electronic devices used in whenieal analysis, To quote, in part, from one of their recent pamphlets: "Analytical chemistry has Seen revolutionized in recent years by the development of ‘instruments which have rendered obsolete the slow, laborious and costly methods of classical quantitative analysis. "Our new lab has more than $30,000 worth of equipment, including such devices as an atomic absorption spectrophoto= meter, a gas chromatograph, and a recording ultraviolet spec= trophotometer, This equipment enables us to give one or two days service to policyholders on most samples, "Our senior industrial hygienisticollects air samples with a midget impinger, which pulls a measured volume of air ‘through a chemical solution that traps TDI fumes, TDI, an ingredient of the polyurethane foam, can produce respiratory symptoms in very small atmospheric concentrations, He mea-= sures the intensity of the dye's color by using a visible light range spectrophotometer, which determines. what percent of a beam of light is transmitted by the dye s¢lution. This is an indicator of the concentration of TDI in:the solution, "He uses curves-on a graph and a slide rule to convert the percentage given by the spectrophotometer into the con= centration of TDI in the air sample, The concentration is expressed in parts per million, fe . "In the plant's’ laboratory, he adds certain reagents to the solution through which the air sample. passed, If any TDI is present, the chemicals will react to form a blue-red azo dye." 590 Our workmen's compensation records show that quite a few Wisconsin employers have become aware of the problems of certain new production processes and have cor- rected the processes. In these plants, the affected workers were given the choice of staying at their old job or transferring to a different part of the plant == many transferred, Some sought jobs elsewhere, on advice of their physicians, Some are still being paid workmen's compensation. We have had cases where a worker who has transferred to another part of the plant comes in contact with others who are work=- ing with the "clean" process == in lunch rooms, etc, == and becomes disabled again. Once felled by TDI, some affected workers cannot stand a whiff of it; one such em= ploye has claimed that other workers bring it out on their clothes and back come her old difficulties, Not enough doctors are aware that these new materials are causing respiratory problems. If a given doctor sees only isolated cases, he is apt to consider his patient's illness as a chronic one, rather than one due to his work, The most critical problem right now is that millions of workers work for small companies that have neither in-plant services nor an awareness of potential hazards, In the United States, plants that employ less than 500 workers (the kind that usu= 1ly offer no health services) constitute 98 percent of all working establishments, and employ two-thirds of the working force, Services that a 100,000 = man company can provide may cost a 500 = man company much more per worker. As a result, smaller companies tend to neglect medical services, This is the biggest unsolved problem in occupational health, The smaller companies have no safety directors, no industrial hygienists. Te whom can they turn when they contemplate changing production processes? We are try- ing to change their thinking of us as an enforcement agency; we urge them to come to us for help, We would far rather pursue preventive measures than wait for our work= ers to come to us for workmen's compensation, I'd like to recommend that you all read an article that appeared in the March 1962 issue of the magazine "Occupational Hazards" == "Chemicals: Danger Looms While Industry Booms," In it is brought out an extremely important point (the entire arti=- cle is excellent): "What should be included in the labels used for proprietary chem= ical products?" At the present time, it is not always possible to determine from the label whether or not a potent sensitizer, a corrosive, a primary irritant, or a harmless substance is included in the product, How much does it mean to the ordinary user to read on a label: "Use in a well-ventilated area," At home, or in a small plant, one would think it enough to open a few windows and place a few fans around, Where is the warning that the products can cause respiratory difficulty or dermatitis? Unless warnings and precautions are clearly stated on labels, the manufacturers and, under some conditions, the sellers of proprietary chemicals are liable for in=- juries and property damage that result from their use, However, this means little to the worker who is disabled or fatally injured through improper use of a chemical =~ improper use because the label did not state clearly what precautions should be taken, ' Unfortunately, too, many chemical producers manufacture formulas ior sale through distributors who may ignore labeling requirements, The only answer, as I see it, is to wage a nationwide compaign to establish strict labeling requirements, and then to follow through with strict enforcement, 591 Where does all this leave us? For awhile, we thought we had some of our pulmonary disease problems licked. At least, we thought we recognized the hazards, Now we have the challenge of new occupational health hazards, new concepts of considering the whole man, rather than the injured portion of the body.. We have had two nondisabling silicosis cases, for instance, in which the original disease has brought on mental illness == unable to find a job in the only work he knows and unwilling to learn another trade, brooding has brought on mental illness which incapacitates the man entirely, Some occupational health experts have begun to press for “environmental health" -= an approach designed to cover all the physical and mental stresses affecting the "whole man" on or off the job, Many think that industry's responsibility is far more extensive than thought previously, In the opinion of most experts, job health has improved tremendously since the days of the sweat shops and dust=filled shops, The incidence of some occupational diseases has been drastically reduced, + But, we must face the fact that the potential threat to the health and well- being of our workers has never been greater, Although industry is spending unpre- cedented amounts of money to protect its employes from all known hazards, today's technological advances are creating problems faster than we can handle them, This is the challenge that faces us now, Ve must keep abreast of all new de= velopments; we must find a way to help the smaller plants; we must have better label=- ing; the toxicity of gach nev chemical or process must be established before it can be put into use. TABLE 191.5 592 COMPENSADLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES SETTLED, 1936 - 1966 NUMBER OF CASES MEDICAL AID PAID In CASES WITH YEAR rn ioani LAY INDEMNITY AS an) REmonTen TOTAL [DEATH & | PERM=~ CONTRACT PERM= ANENT TEMP- NUMBER MEDICAL ANENT | PAR= ORARY oF AMOUNT | AND OTHER TOTAL TIAL CASES 1 7 Sr 2 9 Hs ] 2 : PR 2 gu 9 oH BEB ORE 3 i 67 1%(c 7 2% 123103 650 21 . 2 : Leb uml om |B Em 3 1 va 11(a 3 1.82 } ol }s el 3 i 15 8 21 1:83 161,93 1,497 3/913 2 ve | BELOBOLEm| HE [1 pau 1 1s 11(a 1 1 2 ,202 1, 3 8.36 7 alae nov dee Ek BR O8 1 127 | its) i 1:55 Bx Ie BN & SR | Lo fb) a 8 lew 1 1057 | 1 Woon Bde |S ond & Ela oR oe Bk |B RE 2 gw oe RB Bhd BE 4d 1 10(a 8 30 % 3 111,201 9% 1 0 H 1 2 65,09 2 i208 232 B J a h ga 2 a) & 1 8 Bo 2 PIR i 1: 03 57 1 981 11(x) 48 922 537,392 886 186,993 95 TABLE 190.26 NUMBER AND BENEFIT COSTS OF COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES SETTLED 1962 - 1966 . RN ITEM 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 NUMBER OF CASES: BN > 3 TOTAL = ALL COMPENSABLE CASES SETTLED...eees. 31,228 27,761 2,128 2k, 772 22,316 COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES : . SETTUED vo svc vss smvss vai vinn sian esse sis ssss 961 861 315 1,0L4 823 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPENSABLE CASES =f SETTLED ivuvv cp vovvnpevvmesvemyruweonnive 31 3.1 3.6 4.2 3.7 COMFENSADLE SILICOSIS CASES SETTLED. ..... 7 12 16 19 ° 1 RERCENT OF COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL i DISEASE CASEByuyuiess isumsnsvensvvnvnse 17 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.3 BENEFIT COSTS: TOTAL = ALL COMPENSABLE CASES SETTLED..ssssss $2k,179,042 $20,672,062 $38,127,113 $17,973,011 $15,593,147 COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES : SETTUED, vis yrln wii pt nn trib gr pT Aria won sw 746,710 137,021 718,440 937,271 579.107 PERCENT OF TOTAL COMPENSABLE CASES SETTLED Chews snes SeT aR Hes He ES Carne 3.1 3.6 4.0 5.2 “3.7 COMPENSABLE SILICOSIS CASES SETTLED.ses.. 329,010 308,157 345,256 371,745 221,393 PERCENT OF COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL 2 DISEASE CASES .uvuvensssevs vasopivnsnss Wc 41.8 48.1 39.7 38.2 174 COVERING INDEMNITY, DEATH BENEFITS AND MEDICAL COSTS ONLY; THE ESTIMATED COST OF CONTRACT MED)CAL CASES IS INCLUDED. £69 594 EXPLANATIONS Healing period = actual time lost from work, due to work injury or occupational disease, counting 6 days to the week. * de ok kk Compensable time = number of days for which indemnity (workmen's compensation) is due and payable, according to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of Wisconsin, counting 6 days to the week, * k Kk k % Compensable cases (regular settlements) include all cases, except compromise cases, in which indemnity (workmen's compensation) is due and payable, * dk Kk kk Compromise cases include all cases in which a compromise of liability (under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Wisconsin) is made by the employer and the employee. All compromises may be reviewed, set aside, modified or confirmed by the Wisconsin Industry, Labor and Human Relations Commission upon application of either party within one year from the date of the compromise, The amount of the compromise settlement includes both indemnity and medical aid. * Kk k Kk Kk nec = not elsewhere classified. de de kok One occupational disease may be found spelled two ways in this release -- pneumo- coniosis, Part of the release was typed before it was discovered that the spelling had changed from pneumonoconiosis to pneumoconiosis. * kx k kk Uk The reader will note that "nec" and "not reported" show up quite frequently in our statistical tables. It is unfortunate, but there are still. too many employers who do not report to us the exact chemical, chemical process or other source of occupa- tional disease, In some cases, it is carelessness; in others, lack of precise knowledge on the part of the employer; in still others, an unwillingness to admit the true source, partly due to a fear of adverse publicity. %* dk ok kk In the various tables where alphabetic letters are in parentheses after a number, the letter denotes how many permanent total disability cases were included, For example, (A) includes 1 permanent total disability case; (B) includes 2 permanent total disability cases; etc, 595 TaeLe 182.7 LOSS QF HEARING ATTRIBUTED TO PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO EXCESSIVE NOISE CASES SETTLED UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT REGULAR SETTLEMENTS 1 CASES WITH Ew ia | setaisy aie A en ns eho ree oF AVERAGE | NUMBER AVERAGE CONTRACT CASES AMOUNT PER OF AMOUNT PER MEDICAL 3 CASE CASES CASE AND OTHER 18 g: - $ - $ - - 5 - $ - - 1839 1 438 438 1 101 10] 2 1940 1 % 2 1 2h 24 2 1941 Li - - = - . a: : : =1 : : mE : Io - - - - ” & 1945, 1 150 150 1 22 22 . 6 1 1 2 i 1 1, 5 1 22 po » 3? 1 10% 2 3,7 1,67 1 31 37 1 1550.. 4 1m,922 2,981 3 103 34 1 1951 2 5, 2, 2 168 84 - 19 1 1 193 19. 2 12 : - - : s . 2 - 1955. . 2 2,218 1,109 2 273 137 3 1 B46 ’ 6 16 2 2 1 1 a2 |} 2 3 i 1 ’ 1 128 1,4 2 213 1 6 1989... ] ; 1p ? 2 46 2 1960... 13,255 1,473 203 51 5 198 ivisionivnse 14 1 1. = - - 14 1%: i % 12 1, 3 1 2 283 3 1 oh I , eit 3 2 g 196%. , 10, 15 : - - 6 1965... 20 39,627 1,981 - - - 20 1966 24 53,108 2,213 - - - 24 COMPROMISE SETTLEMENTS y AMOUNT OF COMPROMISE SETTLEMENTS TOTAL PER) GO NUMOER OF . AVERAGE LOWEST HIGHEST COMPROMISE TOTAL PER AMOUNT FOR AMOUNT FOR SETTLEMENTS CASE ANY CASE ANY CASE JUNE - DEC. 49 $113,456 $2,315 $500 $5,476 08 247,764 2,2 ) ki 3: 35% fies 7 Pood og 7 16,7 2,3 5,3 21 1,021 2: 1,924 12 138 1,000 i WE Bo wa im Sa 2 24) 1 8 3.3% 1905, ovivnven 1 15,224 1; 2,360 1565. 10 ivi "on § 35% 82 B 3,321 iy SETTLEMENTS. 92-734 O-68—39 INDEMNITY, MEDICAL EXPENSE AND OTHER BENEFITS ARE ADDED AND GIVEN AS ONE FIGURE IN COMPROMISE 596 TABLE 182.74 LOSS OF HEARING ATTRIBUTED TO PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO EXCESSIVE NOISE COMPENSABLE CASES SETTLED, 1962 - 1966 CLASSIFIED BY INDUSTRY TOTAL CASES NUMBER OF CASES SETTLED IN: INDUSTRY 1962 - 1966 NUMBER [ rencent 1966 [ 1965 [ 1964 | 1963 | 1962 TOTAL... 102 100,0 24 20 6 1 Wn MANUFACTURING. +o sosassescnssarensassnsaesnaans 98 96.1 23 20 6 9 %o PAPER MILLS, EXCEPT BUILDING PAPER MILLS.,.. 2 2.0 - 1 - - 1 TIRES AND INNER TUBES...... 1 1.0 - - - - 1 IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES, 3 2.9 1 1 - - 1 NONFERROUS FOUNDRIES. .... 2-8 - - 1 - 1 MISCELLANEOUS PRIMARY METAL 59 57. 13 14 3 5 24 HEATING APPARATUS (EXCEPT ELECTRIC) ANDO PLUMBING FIXTURES. uvseveasrosasncannes 2.9 - - - - 3 FABRICATED STRUCTURAL METAL PRODUCTS 2.0 1 - - - ENGINES AND TURBINES....... ‘8 - - - 3 1 FARM MACHINERY AND EQUI PME roses tana o " 1 - 1 5 CONSTRUCTION, MINING, AND MATERIALS HANDLING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT... 0cvsaue 6 5.9 3 2 1 - - GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT... 1 i - - - - MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT... 7 .9 3 2 - - 2 MINING AND QUARRYING DIMENSION STONE... eesess 1 1.0 - - - - 1 CONSTRUCTION. cvsennnecons 2 2.0 1 - - 1 - PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING. ..... 1 1.0 1 - - - - MASONRY, STONEWORK, TILE SETTING AND PLASTERING. ..... treeetetitantntiinannnen 1 1.0 - - - 1 - COUNTY GOVERNMENT...... Ceres eetietiesanane 1 1.0 - - - 1 - SILICOSIS CASES COMPENSATED IN YEARS 1921 - 1930 Tale 181.7a CLASSIFIED BY YEAR REPORTED TO INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION yy COMPROMISE TOTAL SETTLEMENTS REGULAR SETTLEMENTS NUMBER OF CASES YEAR INDEMNITY, KIND OF DISABILITY NUMBER MEDICAL, NUMBER AMOUNT INDEMNITY MED ICAL FUNERAL oF FUNERAL oF oF TOTAL DEATH & | PERM- PAID AID EXPENSES CASES EXPENSES CASES COMPROMISE - PERM~ ANENT TEMP = PAID PAID PAID ANENT PAR =~ ORARY TOTAL TIAL TOTAL... 460 $1,398,495 346 Nun 11h 103(e) 6 5 $639,182 423,637 $19,185 1 2,350 1 2,35 = - - - - = - 17, - = - - 17.13% 3 1 28 y 6,054 3 } = 1 bate = 1 y2, 6 12.382 2 y - 1 2! 282 7 3 16,952 1 3.429 2 - - 12, 0 4oo y 21,4 2 1; 2 2 = * 19, & 400 ¢ % B 2 3% 6 2 - : 2 1,000 1 1797499 ¢ Ba 4d 1} : 2 Sn | Ea 2ko0 20 1101391 5 Bo 15 15 z 7 S972 2k 1995 176,761 12 ,278 2 1 126,6 J Pi 3 i hh 2 i. SU BiB 2..7° Go | 1: 179% ji ERE 92 GY EIR E i 1067 us B55 2 2 - i 5 8 EES "hoo 10 23,737 8 17,533 2 2 - - 10,475 329 koo 1/ INCLUDING ONLY THE CASES CLOSED AS oF pEcemeer 31, 1936. 2/ COMPROMISE SETTLEMENTS COVER ALL BENEFITS -- INDEMNITY, MEDICAL AID AND FUNERAL EXPENSE, IF ANY. . {a INCLUDES 1 PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY CASE; ©) INCLUDES 2 PERMANENT TOTAL DISADILITY CASES. L69 vase 181.7 COMPENSABLE AND COMPROMISE SILICOSIS CASES SETTLED, 1937 - 1966 a CLASSIFIED BY YEAR OF SETTLEMENT JoTAL : se ERO 1/ REGULAR SETTLEMENTS NUMBER OF CASES MEDICAL AID PAID |. oo INIT YEAR wawnze | omy | waster | avout RN or isanIrIYY INDEMNITY ee 4 NO FEE oF MED | CAL oF oF TOTAL PERM PERM- PAID REPORTED CASES AlD CASES | COMPROMISE Beavh 4 PRU | anewr | vEMPS NUMOZR SowIacs PAID TOTAL gars ORARY. hs AMOUNT ep Crier TOTAL... * $ + * $i» 395 | 195 91 53 56 $h,263,1% 288 $651,467 107 1937. 00cannes » + * * 22 1 4 - 167,324 13 2,6 9 emit if iY PYRG OFF PSEiY lg : . . . 13 8 3 1 i es 9 3:6 § * # * * 8 6 2 - - N:: . * * * * Yq 7 2 1 2 3: J 12 138 2 | 3 i 8,170 70 6 1 = : i 2 5 6.509 2 un , ' . - - , n 80:28 3 3.68 S 4 3 - 1 959 5 3, 3 22 130,1 2 1, 20 1 118,676 1 12 Boal 1 2:30 1 8 3 3 } Sl 12 i 05 ? 15 1,904 5 1350 10 6 1 1 2 ,181 8 i 2 10 80.333 2 8,500 8 y 2 - 2 2.3 y i 5 9, 3 10,750 12 5 3 - 4 5,706 5 7 1 169,0 4 16,066 1 “ 148, 11 y 1 10.018 1 4,000 12 3 } = } BE 14 i 7 1 3 di ¥ 28% 16 3 1 2 109.755 3 2 17 16-18 : ’ 17 13 : 2 1 198: 7 15 135 2 16 213,980 1 2,000 15 6 2 4 3 12.917 13 19, - 2 13 148 204 1 ,500 - 12 1 3 2 182 i 19,02 5 dima) oc ERs 4 foi BEd IR 16 30 ? iB 12 9 1 i £ 202. 10 23.537 : 1 41,6 2 ,814 1" 1 8 2 » 246, 6 87, 1 3 682 5 21420 11 2 4 3 2 21% 10 4a ? 2h 458,315 2 87,462 12 6 2 - 4 269,270 15 10h: y 20 3 3.18 1% 39 1 9 1 2 3 1990 10 28, 6 15 347,637 3 40,805 12 2 1 2 1 94,936 1 12,096 5 21 354,505 4 27,315 7 - 10 5 2 271,400 9 55,730 8 a/ INCLUDES SILICOSIS AND SILJCO-TUBERCULOS iS CASES, 1/ COMPROMISE CASES INCLUDE ALL CASES IN WHICH A COMPROMISE OF LIABILITY (UNDER THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF WISCONSIN) IS MADE BY THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. ALL COMPROMISES MAY BE REVIEWED, SET ASIDE, MODIFIED OR CONFIRMED BY THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS UPON APPLICATION OF EITHER PARTY WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF COMPROMISE. THE AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT [INCLUDES BOTH INDEMNITY AND MEDICAL AID. * COMPROMISE DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR YEARS 1937 YNROUGH 1943, NOTE: THE SMALL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL AID SHOWN FOR CERTAIN YEARS SUGGESTS THAT THE ACTUAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEDICAL AID PAID 1S NOT ALWAYS REPORTED. 86¢ 599 TABLE 192.10 COMPENSABLE SILICOSIS CASES SETTLED, 1962 - 1966 a/ CLASSIFIED BY INDUSTRY AND KIND OF DISABILITY I TEM TOTAL CASES 1952 - 1966 NUMBER OF SILICOSIS CASES SETTLED IN: NUMBER | PERCENT 1966 | 1965 | 1964 | alae TOTAL SILICOSIS CASESuivevacsannes INDUSTRY OF ORIGIN: MANUFACTURING. ccaseusserasnsasannscasssanses TIRES AND INNER TUBES.:veevessssnnss CUT STONE AND STONE PRODUCTS...... IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES... NONFERROUS FOUNDRIES, . . HEATING APPARATUS (EX ELECTR] PLUMBING FIXTURES. .ciessnseevncsones FABRICATED STRUCTURAL METAL PRODUCTS. ENGINES AND TURBINES....0sneesss FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, ,. CONSTRUCTION, MINING, AND MATERIALS HANDLING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT .vavsss. METALWORKING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT...... SPECIAL INDUSTRY MACHINERY, EXCEPT METALWORKING MACHINERY. sevevonaananennvsse GENERAL INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES. esusesnssancsnnrans MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEMWICLE EQUIPMENT MUS 1 CAL INSTRUMENTS AND PARTS, EERE MINING AND QUARRYING: eseevvessnssoossasnannns IRON ORE... CRUSHED ANI cesennens ING RIPRAP RETAIL TRADE... vsuvscesonesessossssvnnvesses MONUMENTS AND TOMBSTONES. .eessosvsoncrocss KIND OF DISABILITY: FATAL CASES.esecvcetvcesssnsesenncasensnnnnsse PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY CASES.suveveasase PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY CASES:eeesvonaes TEMPORARY DISABILITY CASES.eeinvesnsse 75 NN = EF = E—- 30 15 n 100.0 “Po NN WO WW WwW OOWW =I~O0~ Oo nN ==, 25.3 ko,0 20.0 14,7 17 12 16 19 mn 17 n 13 18 10 - - ! 1 - 1 1 6 y 3 iP 3 1 - So! - 2 y y 3 | 1 - - - - 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 = - = 1 “ % - 1 - z B 3 > cer bk Beis - - - - 2 - - - 3 - - 1 1 1 1 = w 1 1 - 1 - - - ” ® 2 * = - - 2 - - 5 2 9 6 2 10 7 y 5 4 5 2 1 y 3 2 1 2 4 2 a/ INCLUDES SILICOSIS AND SIL|CO-TUBERCULOSIS. TASLE 150.1a COMPENSABLE AND COMPROMISE TUBERCULOSIS CASES SETTLED 1/ CLASSIFIED BY YEAR DISABILITY BEGAN, 1919 - 1936 COMPROM | SE TOTAL SETTLEMENTS REGULAR SETTLEMENTS NUMBER OF CASES INDEMNITY YEAR NUMBER AND NUMBER AMOUNT KIND OF DISABILITY MEDICAL OF MED | CAL OF OF INDEMNITY AID CASES AID CASES COMPROM | SE TOTAL PAID PAID PAID FAYAL NONFATAL TOTAL:euasans 13 $104,408 33 $38,473 15 6 9 $5H, 542 $11,393 1919... 1 8.817 - - 1 1 - 6,750 2,127 1920. . - - - - C- - - - J&L. SERS 2 7.542 1 2,000 1 1 - 5,497 45 sei i 18,220 2 2,000 2 : 2 15,850 370 1925... 3 3,150 3 3,150 5 3 : > : is 1 1, 5 ¥. - 5 3326-- 1 15,135 - = 1 - 1 10,875 4,860 i: 1 3 3 3.8% 3 * 3 888 0 SN 2 201 1 *200 1 1 o 1,112 875 1,726 2 2 % 940 el 2 3%} 2 9.016 1 - 1 1832 300 fl Ell El] i 2 233 3 oe — 2 . 2 1.51 &l VIB bis wogesmiinmcomnin 5 ¥,h6 4 3,508 1 - ! 408 500 1/ INCLUDING ONLY THE CASES SETTLED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1936. COMPENSABLE AND COMPROMISE TUBERCULOSIS CASES SETTLED CLASSIFIED BY YEAR OF SETTLEMENT, 1937 - 1966 TABLE 150.1 TOTAL oe NERONISE REGULAR SETTLEMENTS NUMBER OF CASES MEDICAL AID PAID CASES Wi YEAR NUMBER Sia TY NUMBER AMOUNT KIND OF DISABILITY IN CASES oN. A NO ree oF | MEDICAL oF oF INDEMNITY EE DASIS REPORTED- cases Al0 CASES | comPROMISE | TOTAL bEATH & an TEMP- wip NUMBER oa ToacY | PRID ANENT PAR- ORARY oF AMOUNT Putin TOTAL | TiAL CASES » SL 2 $ +» 137 1k4(o) 6 17 $470,221 70 £114,887 61 . ’ 3 * 6 2(a) 1 3 23.674 4 5.469 2 * ‘ ’ : 3 : 3 4128 3 Lh : : : : : 3 | 2 Dg | BE : ei i * * = * 5 1 1 3 21 1) 2 1,253 3 1 319 - % i - 4 19 - 5 13,6 1 200 § - 2 6 8, 2 4, y t i. 1 1% 5 : : 2 0.387 : 338 ; EI il" vols : 4 2a 1:38 ¢ 10 8 - 5 10 2(a) z 8 2.185 2 2's é 15,4 2,434 2) = 12, 1 124 4 ppm | lm ie od Bm 1 mo plgm | LLB slr fi) iE of] ,387 1 10,000 - - T 23,535 2 J “ pe 2 % “ 2 . - < 2 ; jo - 5 : 3 - 3 Hs 3 5.159 5 13) i 5 . 2 15.062 i 3 ¢ | | 1 | um be 2 RHEE vm] 12,391 oy - - - 8,74 2 64k 1 } 53% ; 4,076 3 i $ 3 747 2 3 } 2 8): 3 Sh 9 1(a) : 1 RB 5 ir 4 4 i 2 3:993 - 2% 3 - 2 2 5. 32 ? 1 59 1 1966s suvses 1 L,3 - - 1 - 1 2 1,586 1 2,832 5 {s) INCLUDES PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY CASE; INCLUDES 4 PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY CASES. - COMPROMISE DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR YEARS 1937 THROUGH 1943. 109 TABLE 151.1 RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS, NEC. COMPENSABLE AND COMPROMISE CASES SETTLED, 1937 - 1966 TOTAL ol iproNISE REGULAR SETTLEMENTS NUMBER OF CASES MEDICAL AID PAID YEAR INDEMNITY IN CASES ON A CASES WITH SETTLED NUMBER AND NUMBER AMOUNT KIND OF DISABILITY INDEMNITY FEE BASIS NO FEE oF MED | CAL oF oF DEATH & | PERM- PAID REPORTED- cases AlD CASES | coMPROMISE [ TOTAL PERM- ANENT TEMP- NUMBER CONTRACT PAID ANENT PAR~ ORARY oF AMOUNT MEDICAL TOTAL TIAL CASES AND OTHER $F » $ 04 2(a) 7 775 | $138,313 153 85,150 3 y : : 21: : 2 8 13 2 : = * - 13 = - 1m i 1 - . s * 16 - - 16 16 1,243 - * = - 1 - - 1 12 » * » 12 - - 13 5 15 F: ! = = * 5 - - 9 1,761 9 1,159 - 2, 811 x - : ® 10 1 ’ : BB BE dE ue] EOE ,218 3 2, 42 16 % r 16 662 16 hy = 8; ; g, J SE | WR bog 8B | 27.008 1 110 31 1(a) & 3 1 282 30 8,602 1 4095 - - 36 - - 6 1, 35 2,129 } 826 - - 2 - 2 1 2 1 - 13! 1 1 : 1 iB £2 i LE 1 k 15 bi - 1 45 FE 3 Hn 1 3 ,209 - 2 3 - - 5 34 » 2,ko1 - 7.152 2 289 37 - - 7 2,951 3 3.912 1 6, - - 16 = = 16 2,928 1 A 1 ga 3 2] 26 = . 26 3 x 25 5 ade | 2 ‘166 3 : : 3 6 2 1 i 15.336 2 $155 17 = 1 16 8 2 303 1 13,150. 9, 5 - 1 4 127 Y 5,826 1 wr ela: or os Ely | id 1 [0 3 z : H 1, 13 3 21 2 20,57 - - 29 - - 29 13,594 20 7s 1 19,683 3 1,472 48 - 1 by 9,352 45 8,859 3 (A) INCLUDES 1 PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY CASE. ® COMPROMISE DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE YEAKS 1937 THROUGH 1943, 209 TABLE 152.1 SELECTED COMPENSABLE AND COMPROMISE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES SETTLED, 1937 - 1966 CLASSIFIED BY OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AND YEAR SETTLED TOTAL se REGULAR SETTLEMENTS OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE MOR OF ARES orca Ti INDEMNITY CASES WITH NUMBER AND NUMBER AMOUNT KIND OF DISABILITY INDEMNITY ye 3 NOtepE oF MEDI CAL oF oF PAID REPORTED- BASES oT ll lil a A ot TE rv ED oat YEAR pain ANENT PAR- ORARY oF | Amount AND OTHER TOTAL TIAL CASES AseEsToS IS 5 $ Y ¥ $ 2 » HR 5 = ER 10 a - * » » s 1 1 : I J 1 cE 1 x = - 1 1 2 . 1 : lei | | CY eG eR LR P(E |: |. Hi: Ell ORC: : | i | 20517 i a - | BR : §:an 5 $ : 2 ’ R{ 2 : #|B|% ne : 2 3 : 2 3 1 w 2 €.211 3 a - * - * * 3 : = 3 £ 9 3 2 B * * » © i & - 1 } 12 - Ibe ili RS BY gue 2 1 1 a 1 gE : 1 is 1 i : 31,1 ! 1% {Zu 2 2 2 Ke : : 1395. : 88 ; 2 gir ry ip | 3 az : 1957 . 1 FA - - 1 - - v4 18 1 27 = 1 9: .’ 3 - = 3 - - 3 3% 3 . Fold ll | | ode Ls AME {RE 196%. 3 HT 5 I 3 : 2 3 1.18 3 1; E 1 liga : i : 2 1000 2 2 1 1 " - 1 c - 1 23 1 3 3 PARABRITIS rer ; i * * = ” - ” 2.762 8 3 1 i 1 3 : : Pitt of 8 3 i ised 5 | 8 | : 3 Ci] BlT ml § 1365. 2 ) - - @ - 2 512 2 1,0 = 152: 1 99 - - 1 - - 1 69 1 . sit Bn i £09 TABLE 152.1 (CONTINUED) COMPROM | SE TOTAL SETTLEMENTS REGULAR SETTLEMENTS OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE NUMBER OF CASES MEDICAL AID PAID IN CASES ON A INDEMNITY CASES WITH NUMBER AND NUMBER AMOUNT KIND OF DISABILITY INDEMNITY FEE BASIS NO FEE oF MEDI CAL oF oF TOTAL | DEATH & PERM- PAID REPORTED CASES AID CASES COMPROMISE PERM- ANENT | TEMP- NUMBER CONTRACT YEAR PAID ANENT PAR- | ORARY oF AMOUNT MED CAL TOTAL TIAL CASES AND OTHER PNEUMONOCON 1 0S * $ * * $= 6 1(a) 1 4 | $26,066 6 3.138 - 4 38, 1 33.7% 3 = 1 2 3.715 3 655 - 1 23 1 ,168 = - - v 1] xz » - 1 - - 1 - 1 122 1 83 = 2 23, - - 2 1(a) * 1 22,229 2 1,6 3 (A) INCLUDES 1 PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY CASE; (c) INCLUDES 3 PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY CASES. * COMPROMISE DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE PRIOR To 194k, TaeLe 195.3 COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES SETTLED IN 1966 CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF INJURY == pect NUMBER OF CASES MEDSCAL AID PAID KIND OF DISABILITY HEALING | COMPENSABLE oy : bi : e om fe PER PER 10D TIME INDEMNITY REPORTED | NUMBER NATURE OF INJURY TOTAL PERM- | nT temp~ | (PAYS) (oavs) PAID NUMBER CONTRACT oF ) ANENT pa ORARY oF AMOUNT MED I CAL WOMEN Tora | TT CASES AND OTHER TOWALss cy vrnomsnrns 931 n 43 92 | 25,667 77,980 537.3% | 886 $186,993 95 315 EARNS A RAE il - - 1n n 124 1 « 1 ABER an Lg ) ] - 2 i 35 > 3 3 ol 2 1 prati Ly 2 : . 2 9 10 1 2 2 ith : . Bl 2 BLOB LOBE oR) iv] - - 2 331 - 3 % - - % i Li # 1 4 Ollesesssosssscssennne - - w - pera renes 5 - - 5 5 12 308 5 3 6 2 2 BURSITISuccsescesnbosesessvssee 1 - - 1 I o1 199 7 051 - 1 ornate Ch - - ky 21 2 4 de - - i 2 - 1 1 8 1 ui 1 #53 1 S CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING 6 - - S 4 2 3 hi! 2 1 CELLULITIS. cuuareseesnere 1 - - 1 3 3 i 1 Te ¥ - CONJUNCTIVITIS... 1 - - 1 1 1 10 - - CYB ut ansnrrragt 3: - - 3 51 45 4 3 325 - 2 SS rey “BUS - 2 4hy ,978 ,666 69,31 bh 4h 1 2 140 OYSENTERYassnnssiesss i : : 2 | VR 4% 33 | “1 1% 3 1 teesrens ees 1 - 1 2 2 1 1 12 1 ATL tT 2 - - 2 3 3 Ie 2 a - - ERYSIPELOTHR IX. vsvaanas 1 - 1 1 n 1 - - FELON sawns vs visa ves saswvses vues 1 - - 1 19 19 36 1 0 » - FOOD POISONING.:.ouss 1 - - } 368 2 1 7 - - FREEZING, FROSTBITE Yq - 1 1 3,49 7 2. 5 > FRICTION BURN....oous - - 1 13 3 1 102 - - FUNGUS INFECTION, NEC.. 2 - - 2 105 1 300 1 17 1 1 GANGLION: ceases sonnnne 12 < - 12 214 211 2,122 12 2,212 - n GASTROENTERITIS a cvs sarvsaris ins 1 - 1 8 5 57 - - 1 - revs reneseriveney 22 - - 22 202 160 1, 21 1, 1 2 Fenonmotos. e111 pn TR JRE Srp dah HEPATITIS LY - - 13 1,7 1.725 15.313 13 6,02 - 1" HERNIA... - - 2 - - 2 - HYDRARTHR 10 | - - 10 2 2,283 10 2,504 > 1 | G09 TABLE 195.3 (CONTINUED) NUMBER OF CASES MEDICAL AID PAID IN CASES ON A CASES WITH KIND OF DISACILITY HEALING | COMPENSABLE FEE OAS}S NO FEE URY PERM PER 10D TIME INDEMNITY REPORTED~ NUMBER ¥ATURE ROR ‘IY TOTAL PERM- | ANENT| TEmp- | (DAYS) (eavs) PAYS NuMsER SoNTRALY > ANENT R= ORARY oF AMOUNT MEDI CAL WOMEN TOTAL rar. CASES AND OTHER IHPETIE0Ls sae sted ast snus the suas 1 - - 1 1" 3 $ 17 1 $ 17 - in INF LAMMAT 6 Th 5 , TENDONS, MUSCLES, NEC.... 1 134 3,22 he 37,591 12 a Frill linde tig NEC.vvrseesnenen cee 2 2 2 2 1:38 23 IE 1 3 LEAD POISONING. ssus staves sas ssnssen J - 2 13, 474 7 yoo Ie 13 9,543 & - LOSS OF HEARING, OCCUPATIONAL...s. - - - » » - LOSS OF VISION, OCCUPATIONAL...... 1 - 1 - - 11 0,496 1 176 - = - 1 MEASLES .evveavsnrsnnennnee ceenaann 1 - - : 20 2 2 3 vol 3 ] MERCURY POISONING: eesssss “ee 2 - - JE 9 1 ; "270 I i METHYLCHLORIDE POISONING... .e 3 - - 1 é 1% > 8 MUMPS push waren anmnans sunny i - - 2 2 i = $ 2 8 MUSCLE SPASM, NEC. .e 1 - - Pp HYOBITIS scr si tots a brins trnans “ y . & i 150 147 1,6 3 = 1 3 3 1 1 - NEURALGIA. ccevncreannrnns teeanae ve 1 - - 1 8 83 ~00 : NEURASTHENIA. we 2 - - 2 098 3 = - NEURITISceans . 1 - - 1 30 30 300 1 20 PERIONYCHIA, . ] = - ] y J : ! - 1 - - 1 2 - - - - 10 oO! 1 - - 2 1 : ] 2 2, 22,229 2 y : PROTRUSION, DISC... 2 - - 2 I 3 . 3 : 7 = 3 PSITTACOS ISueusvsins v 2 - - 2 19 9 ’ 1 2 - RADIATION BURN, NEC....... v 2 - 2 192 1,426 21 9 RESPIRATORY INFECTION, NEC.uounnns 3 - 3 en a 5,T¢ 3 4,32 2 12 voaresnne renee 1 - - 1 0 0 2h 1 0 - 1 A 1 1 3 3 148 1 13 1 SEPTICEMIA 2 - 1 1 12 2 £ 2,1 2 3.092 - 3 SHIGELLA. +. 00es " Z 5 ] 5 oo 29 55 3 : ] 39.613 5 3 SILICOSIS suger » ’ +29 c SILICO-TUBERCULOSIS. ... 3 § - ! ig 1 15% 3 5 = 3 - SPUReseverveimin ines we - - ¥ STAPHYLOCOCCUS INFECTION. . 1 - 2 ? 2% 2 = 1 2.37% - : SYNOVITIS: ceaears sas vammsnsenerene - - SYSTEMIC POISONING, NECaaserrannan 17 - - 17 ys 145 I hs Jae E ; TENDONITIS, . . 12 - - 12 1 1, » 4 TENOSYNOV | T 22 - 1 21 4 12 3.92 2% 2 2 2 3 TETANUS. ... } g > } } 1 119 1 17 - zr TISSUE DAMAGI ! = T 1 y 1 1 2,032 - ! TUBERCULOSIS. 1 = 1 - 3 ’ oe 3 ede : TYPHOID FEVER. . 2 - - 2 £ é ; UNDULANT FEVER. :eesvsaensnssennnns 5 - = 5 19% 19% 2,130 590 / IN ONE CASE, ORIGINAL INJURY WAS FROSTBITE; THE OTHER WAS DUE TO CONTACT WITH LUBRICATING OR CUTTING OIL AND GREASE. 909 TADLE 197.3 COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES SETTLED IN 1966 CLASSIFIED DY EXPOSURE TYPE NUMDER OF CASES MEDICAL AID PAID KIND OF DISACILITY | HEALING |compENSABLE IN CASES ‘ON A Tn EXPOSURE TYPE CEATH £1 sere PER 10D TIME INDEMNITY FEE BASS REPORTED= NIMBER ’ TOTAL | "ocom- | anent | Temp- | (PAYS) (oars) eAID NUMBER CONTRACT oF ANENT PAR~ ORARY OF AMOUNT MEDICAL WOMEN TOTAL TIAL CASES AND OTHER TOTAL... iieienns vedvue 981 11(x) 48 922 25,667 77.980 $537,392 886 £186,993 95 315 ; ’ y - 2 ky 836 841 ’ 46 6,20 1 er yew ae. B=» 2 W3 836 Bi TE we ea i 3 sesstsenrrsreitt ers sere - - 6 1 1 1 & - 1 gin 8 0 §| GG] BY LB O§E OB i v ’ sesesssnsrrnsnenane 2 - 231 ” Jk RS) 21 1,6 21 112 BE ro iar 1 - } ea 3.88 2 5 3 28 13 % 98 17 91 BY LEANING, KNEELING, 25 - - 25 el 2:53 5 ,620 - 2 Y IBRAT ING OBJECT... - - - - BY REPEATED FRICTI 18 - 1 1 22 4 2,250 2 2,88 hy BY REPEATED PRESSURE. 3 - Ee 2 461 k; by 1 | I y 3 OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED, tecessranne - - 25 19 £2 3 13 - CONTACT WITH RADIATIONS AND CAUSTICS; : . we reeerens 6 1 14 632 19,380 63,561 417,6 608 144 248 ky 1 TE INMALAT IONeev svn ener s cops RE Yr [TER | SA | Ted | Sk Seki 13 a BY INGESTION... vee y i - - wd 8.0 2 = J i 2 » 2kh & Wa BY ABS ON.. sense - ” , » ’ a a conse 3 - 3 82 3.008 112 8:% 79 12:58 7 2 REACTION, OTHER THAN BODILY.useeaseenes 3 - 3 85 82 921 3 536 - - creeds msi doniimvvind BEES TI 1 5 146 ash 2,306 6 3.6% . . PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO EXCESSIVE NOISE.. 24 - 2h - - 1173 53,108 - 24 - L09 tase 196.3 (CONTINUED) MEDICAL SID PalD BER OF CASES IN CASES ON A CASES, Vi iy = fSEapAns Prom) NUMBER RIND OF DISABRLITY yey, yng | compensasie on PER| OD TIME ) ! oe Ty NuMBER Sonvascy woe a ToraL | perm- | SEER | np. | (0A YS) {oars o AMOUNT eit ANENT | oaR- | oRARY cas, TOTAL TIAL $ 1 $ 10 = -e COAL & PETROLEUM PRODUCTS {ooms.} 1 _ _ : 2 & 8 ! 5 MINERAL SERIE rani smnon } : - 1 5 Ne : TAR swans ee a AA . | , p ua hn 8 163 FANE, FIRS) SHOMExsuvuuuwsnsunons 2 : 3 = : hi : : SMOKE wy ue russvrevrsmrsveeers o hl 2s 2 8 : FLAMMABLE AND HOT SUBSTANCES....s. 1 - - 1 5 508 4,329 18 2,7% ! 3 FOUNDRY SAND s1ESs Leber enka us 19 ] 1 78 2 2 : & 1 2 PAINT, VARNISH, SHELLAC. _ - 3 5 5 3 SOLDER, SOLDERING FLUX.. . 3 - i = : : JOINTER COMPOUND. .eesssersansens ; , % ; % . - : - ANIMAL PRODUCTS (NOT FOOD).....0ss 3 - - ¢ 2 2 12 2 133 | Lh RR 3 5 Ei n : HIDE, LEATHER..... “ ) : i 3.853 pe ¥2,876 1 7% : BODILY MOTION. onus neon sn sas svsanis 3 ° 1 3 v al 2 : : TURNING... : b : - : hid iss ; : RIDINGyueenane i - - R Jo 3 " pd : ] STEPPING DOWN... . Le o 3 3 4 y, : uo’ : STATIC POSITION sevsnevnss . 163 = é 158 , e . ; OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED. eves eannnes , ror 2.00 2.050 oe % J 8 8 - ’ - = CHEMICALS, CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, NEC 3 : 4 3 2 : 2 y 1 2 BUMONIAvs ssw ss orsvusasssanivons : ¥ : : a i CALCIUM HYDROXIDE. . - - io k 3 : he : i SODIUM HYDROXIDE... : - - : 5 : , CARBON MONOXIDE. . o = - > 2 2 = 2 2 i i CHLORINE os sassvsne 3 ~ 1 2 32 iF : Ri - : CHROMIUM COMPOUND 7 k = 1 1] 2 2 J : 1 CYANOGEN COMPOUND ! = = I 2 : i B " : - FORMALDEHYDE, ,,.. 1 ¥ - ¥ 0 u 5,3 3 9.248 - : HYDROGEN SULPHIDE oe 3 - 13 8 3 2 Zao : E a 2 { i 1 1 } 9 = 1 i : - 1 2 2 9 2 10 - : ; : i 3 1 142 - {= 3%. 1 ko v3 : ) : i : 3 3 > ¥3) 2 : SEE 8 21 8 2 2 i 4 “ag =H 3 3 t 2 : i 3 - 2 k o S63 INSECTICIDE 1 it - . z . : } ANT vu vee ner stpvoekenntvens : PRaToRmARIS, BLUEPRINT ING 1 1 28 28 2 3 CHEMICAL +o vou vrnwn yun sonseranes ] : 3 © PAINT REMOVER... vonssnsnssssvens le 809 TABLE 196.3 (coNT IES) NUMBER OF CASES KIND OF DISABILITY HEAL ING COMPENSABLE CAL AID PAID IN CASES ON A FEE DAS!IS CASES WITH NO FEE SOURCE PERM- PER 1 OO TIME INDEMNITY REPORTED- NunSER TOTAL | PERM=- £ p.| (cAYS) (avs) PAID NUMBER CONTRACT ANENT ncn Tepes, oF AMOUNT MEDICAL WOMEN TOTAL | raat cases AND OTHER CHEMICALS, CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, NEC. (CONT.) ' y 8 : s . : PAINT THINNER: :cevesssaenssnanee - - - - RESIN, ROSINssasesseosssnassnnse 3 - - 2 15 9 8B 2 2 - - HAIR DRESSING PREPARATION.. 6 - - 6 22] 22] 1,511 6 1,329 - 5 RUST INHIBITOR. .euvasennss 1 - - 1 4 34 3 1 i - - OXYGEN CCMPOUND., ‘ee 1 - - 1 2 8 2 8 2 - e EPOXY COMPOUND ver ? - - 9 9 3 i? 8 2 1 i ACETONE. sees “es - - - POLYURETHANE «vcs es ven 2 - - p 15 § & 2 Ii - - OTHER OR UNSPECIFIEDssccssssanes 23 - = 23 437 Lor 3, 21 3,343 2 7 CLOTHING, APPAREL, SHOES.cessssass - - 9 14 5 40 “ 1 BLOUSE, DRESS, SHIRT. “es 7 - - ! 3 3 be J > - - BOOT, SHOEseassssns ore - - - - OVE, NEC. wee 1 - - 1 2 16 1 25 & = ae es 1 : z 1 13 12 m 1 152 - 1 RUBBER GLOVE sue ses vores ssvssvves 1 - - 1 29 29 309 1 119 5 - DRUGS , MEDICINES: sesvsssnversssee 2 - 2 14 1 88 2 1 2 BIOLOGIC PRODUCT, NEC 1 - 1 4 1 1 1 = 1 OTHER MEDICINAL. vesssnssvsenoves 1 - 1 10 10 1 1 3 - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL, ATMOSPHERIC : CONDITIONS vrs enn ivronerssinanes 84 # 27 7 1,143 8,420 64,441 5 10,73 25 y HIGH AIR PRESSURE oe 4 - - 3 21 230 ? = EAT svanasrine cor 25 - - 25 2ko 192 2,0 24 2,265 1 3 es of - 2 ” 1 630 5, 2: 3.9 t - 3 COLO uwamdaleaiis sub vnn cobnsnnonvi - - - SUDDEN VARIATIONS OF TEMPERATURE 1 - - 1 i 10 1 1 - - DAMPNESS , MOISTURE. eussesssassns 3 - " 3 18 5 1 3 19° w REPEATED NOISE... os 2! - 24 > = 7.73 53,1 - - 24 - ORAF Tus svnss ations eee 1 - - 1 4 1 1 13 - - OCCUPATION, PER SE... Zoe 3 - - 3 8 82 %! 3 - = OTHER OR UNSPECIF [ED..... vers ses - 1 - n 232 2,005 2, - - FOOD PRODUCTS (INC. ANIMAL FOODS). 19 - - 19 246 225 1,92! 18 2,143 1 10 MEAT, MEAT PRODUCT sevencsnsnsse 1 - - 1 n 11 12 - - 1 - MILK, MILK PRODUCT... ns 2 - - 2 3s ke i 2 - 1 CORN vevesvuvns ran ee - - - - FISH, puuvuree vee - - 2 1 ™ 1 - Ta FLOUR woe 3 - - 3 ko 4o 406 3 1 - 3 CHOCOLATE.... see 2 - - g 3 2 152 2 2 - 3 POULTRY GH siti enn mss nas cesmrnins 7 - - - FURNITURE, FIXTU INGS, . 1 - - 1 2 20 1 28 - 1 FER mae Sh 1 ee te : 2 20 1 28 3 1 TABLE 196.3 (CONTINUED) NUMBER OF CASES = MEDICAL AID PAID IN CASES ON A CASES WITH KIND OF DISABILITY | HEALING [comPENsABLE FEE BASIS No Fri SOURCE PERM= PER 10D TIME INDEMNITY REPORTED- | NUMBER TOTAL | PERM= | anent | TEMp- | (DAYS) (oAys) PAID NUMBER CONTRACT oF ANENT | bar- | orarY oF AMOUNT MED ICAL WOMEN Total | riaL CASES AND OTHER GLASS ITEMB, NEC.... 6 - - 5 119 116 $ 6 $ 265 = 3 GLASS FIBER. . 6 . : 6 13 16 2 é 265 " 2 INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC AGENT, NEC. 56 - 3 53 2,815 3,122 25,473 51 16,064 5 35 ADDERS vox ran vis SOREN VER SREB RRS 1 - % 1 1 1k 1 289 = 5 MOVABLE LADDER, NEC..vseevsnnns 1 - - 1 1 1h 1 289 a LIQUIDE, NEC, ouvaassmannmess vas 1 - - 1 19 19 11 1 16 = 1 OTHER LIQUID, NEC. visa rsnsnns 1 - = 1 19 19 1m 1 16 % 1 MECHANICAL POWER TRANSMISSION APPARATUS es vvrvsstssrrnecrsennse 1 - - 1 1 13 19 1 102 - - CHAIN, ROPE, CABLE...svevecnnas 1 - - 1 1 13 19 1 102 - - METAL FTEMS, NEC. svesssrensavines 4 = = } 59 56 387 b 268 - 2 PIPE, PIPING. v.ouenons 1 - - 1 2 2 65 1 2 = 1 METAL CHIP, SPLINTER. 1 - - 1 1 1 14 1 T - - SCREW. + 4s 1 - = 1 2 1 = » - OTHER OR UNSP| 1 - - 1 13 1 147 1 5 - 1 MINERAL ITEMS, NECuuserunnrnnnnas 2 - - 2 24 24 185 2 99 = 1 - - 1 1 1 14 1 22 - - Fe AS A 1 “ 1 13 13 1 1 - hy PLANTS, TREES, VEGETATION. ....... 6 - - 63 86 566 b, 8 5,48 4 POISON I1V¥srsannsnaen +9 3 - - Ts) 5) % EAL 36 3.0 7 1 POISON OAK. . A, 6 = = 6 121 1 & ,2 = 1 POISON SUMAC . 6 - - S 6 3 2 37 - - TREEsensosss . 1 - ” 1 8 5 - 1 = PLANT, NEC..... . 2 - - 2 9 3 25 2 12 - - VEGETATION, NEC... cevene 1 - - 1 2 23 1 12 - - WEED, NECuusonnononnennnnnnnsns 7 - - 7 43 2k3 7 Tie - 2 PLASTIC ITEMS, NEG: cosnvaninsvanne 4 - - hy 47 Lh 299 k 1 - 4 PLASTIC ITEM, NEC. .oounnnonnnns y % hy 47 4h 299 4 1 - 4 RADIATING SUBSTANCES AND EQUIPMENT, vs suvsiss : 24 - 1 192 1,330 9,922 22 1,091 2 ULTRAVIOLET EQUI PMI 1 - - 5 2 26 1 od - - WELDING EQUIPMENT. vsuneennnann 23 - 1 22 187 1,328 9,3% 21 1,060 2 = © SOAPS DETERGENTS , CLEANING $ COMPOUNDS , NEC. sa snpvesnsvvs sons 5 - - 57 1.253 1,232 10,585 2 6,244 S 18 BLEACH. 4vvveernnnsns ; 1 - - 3 1 2 229 i 1 CLEANING COMPOUND, NEC « 21 - = 21 485 46 3.21 19 2.59 2 7 DETERGENT ivi inis nbn non mnmmmens 12 - - 12 229 21 Ys 12 1,066 - 019 0¥—89-0O ¥€L-C6 TaBLE 196.3 (CONTINUED) NUMBER OF CASES MEDICAL AID PAID IN CASES ON A CASES WITH KIND OF DISABILITY HEALING COMPENSABLE FEE BASIS ps nes om TOTAL PERM- PER] OD TIME INDEMNITY nae 5 ounce PERM- | NENT | TEMP-| (DAYS) (oavs) PAID NUMBER SoIAC SF TOTAL | PAR- ORARY oF AMOUNT AND OTHER TIAL CASES SOAPS , east CLEANING COMPOUNDS , NEC. (CONT. EB VSHUATE 4 sisi rans svs verses 4 - - y 2g 2% $ 2,95 3 3 2 1 Ee : 1 . .z 7 1 19 1,054 6 Tou3 i 1 SOLVENT, NECusssevsnvivsninssvn - - 9 14 1 1,29 9 1,560 = 1 DUSTS, FUMES, VAPORS, GASES, NEC. 3 3 2 4 + hei ope ¥ 245 pb 1% SILICA uuu ra snvy reve rye » » ) » - FUMES, CEMENT 2 - .a 2 12 6 63 1 19 1 1 CORN DUST...,. .e 1 - - 1 £ g2 1 30 - - BLASTING FUMES.esvvas . 1 - - 1 & 1 30 - 1 FUMES OR GAS, SOLDERING. . : - - i pa z foots 1 1 Foils Shade 16 i oz 15 1 3,012 23.43 18 1.29 z Ie FUMES, GAS, NEC. . 19 - = 15 355 322 ,2 1 2h 1 5 ; . : As 1 = a 1 ¥ 1 wi 9 30 : : FERTILE AFEMS, NECeasars ssn svanss 3 - - 3 8 81 3 36 = 2 COTTON.suusnns . 3 - - : 2 12 } 2: - 1 FELT... ‘ - - = - WOO sins snares ane Aas ia aes 1 = & 1 78 78 wed 1 2% = 1 WOOD. JYEMS, NECsesevswsssvuneoneis } - - 3 3 2 207 ¥ 3 ! 1 : 1 : - 1 7 § 4 1 8 * = VENEER. sasnssessvsssanssnnenne 2 - - 2 2 1 15 2 89 - 1 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. . 48 - - 7 55 a 8,151 ¥ b,436 2 3 BRINE, SALT 1 - - 2 - - - 20 2! 1 1 1 1 - GLUEu 2 vren # In 1% 169 iE 1% 1,2 - 3 INJURED PE } - - } 3 1 1% 5 200 1 - “ o “ . To : 1 - - 1 it] 143 1.4 1 613" - or : 1 - = 1 1 - - ies “ . - - 120 1 3 1 21 3 8 - 1 SHELLAC... pri v } » 3 } 2h 2 256 13 - - TAPE (ADHESIVE, ETC.) . 2 - - z 5] 4 ha 2 21] - - - COREL, eusvvaivsaser . - - - - ROLL OF MATERIAL “ 1 - - 1 ¢ 3 i 1 0 : - EAR PLUGseusnsenevevenssssevene 1 - - 1 y 1 1 3 - - NOT REPORTED un vivcvapunwrwwnmpmne 128 - - 120 2,400 2,220 19,991 121 12,277 7 50 119 TasLe 185.21 COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES SETTLED IN 1966 CLASSIFIED BY KIND OF DISABILITY, OCCUPATION ANO NATURE OF INJURY CONTAGIOUS INF LAMMAT | ON KIND OF DISABILITY" DERMA=- | PNEUMONO- oR SYSTEMIC oF TOTAL TITis| CcONIOSIS | INFECTIOUS | POISONING MUSCLES, op OCCUPATION - DISEASE EXC, HEAR ING DISEASE Jess HEAT ALL FREEZING EFFECTS | OTHER TOTAL. vesveinis 981 46 19 54 ko 201 2h 17 22 158 PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY CASES,.... 1 - ' 1 - - - - - - - CONSERVATION AlD.... FACTORY LABORER, NEC FOUNDRY LABORER, NEC ses seer e it NAY ob a a Cea [ "a [1 43 [] ' —— tte ' ' ' ' ' ' WHEELABRATOR OPERATOR + sess 2 ' 1 ' ' ' n x ' ' ' LOSS OF HEARING, OCCUPATIONAL.ssesee BLACKSMITH. . CHIPPER. . CONSTRUCT ION LABORER. FACTORY LABORER INSPECTOR, JANITOR... SHEAR OPERATOR. “sees J wd LE [(] "a "a [] —— 1 [I “a INJURIES KATED RELATIVE TO SCHEDULED INJURIES, . Ne WW mnt tt tt Vt ts ' ASSEMBLER. .svsas BREWERY WORKER BUTCHER. FACTORY LABORER. HANDBILL DISTRIBUTOR. HANDTRUCKER, , MANAGER, NEC, MOLDER.ssvvee OPERATING ENGINEER, NEC PLANT PATROLMAN... STEAMF ITTER. esses WHOLESALE SALESMAN UNSPECIF JED. . 1 ' ' ' 11) sma ' ' ' ' Leanne C= rem Ye ta aa - Tyre Cr — aa ve LI ; § ay iy ' ' ' ' 1 ' . ' .s NOND I SABL ING SILICOBIB La arrersnnies CHIPPER sey vivaisannes FOUNDRY LABORER, NEC.. ' N= Ww ' ' ' ' ' ' ' INJURIES RATED RELATIVE.-TO PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY eeeasesseenccencens n ' ' ‘ ' n ELECTRICIAN, MAINTENANCE.. FACTORY LABORER. . SHEET METAL WORKER, CONSTRUCT 1ON STUDENT NURSE, TESTER eur nasn —— ' ne ' ' ' ' ’ ' c19 vaBLE 185.21 (CONTINUED) KIND OF DISABILITY CONTAGIOUS SL Loss TOTAL | PERMA= | PNEUMONO- OR SYSTEMIC oF FREEZING | HEAT ALL TIFIS CONlOSIS INFECTIOUS POISONING MUSCLES, HEAR I NG EFFECTS | OTHER OCCUPATION DiSEASE ETC. & TEMPORARY DISABILITY CASES..cevssvves 51 195 28 vB E % a Nn ASSEMBLER. .ssveesasnsssreessnans AUTO MECHANIC... CANNERY WORKER, NEC. CARPENTER CEMENTER CHARWOMAN. CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC. COOKeeessoosssnssnvasce COSMETOLOGIST.4s DAIRY PLANT WORKER. ssevess DIE CASTING MACHINE OPERATOR DISHWASHER. .evsssresnnsres DRILL PRESS OPERATOR FACTORY LABORER, NEC FARM WORKER, NEC, FINISHER, NEC... FOREMANuessonmssnes FOUNDRY LABORER, NEC GRINDER, NECussssss HOSPITAL ATTENDANT. INSPECTOR. saasssse INSTITUTION AID. KITCHEN HELPER., LABORATORY TEC! LABORER, NEC.usse LAUNDRY WORKER, NEC. MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC MAINTENANCE MAN::essss MATERIALS HANDLER, NEC, MECHANIC, NEC... “ee pr I~ OW ~ © © COC NE NWN =~ O n FEW O~IU =U FOUL Sb — ONOLNO\N LWW | OV O OVE" (WE ETVW COO 10 +1 JTW 41 WU ON n w NON =| mts | ET I = OW =O £1 === | WN =O mma sO =) £1 = OWI WIW=UT | 1 = mal = GOW = IN fe ForGo — 1d PACKER, NEC.usss PACKING PLANT WORKER, NEC. PAINTERseevssseenss PLATER.useuse POULTRY DRESSER... PRESS OPERATOR, NEC, TANNERY WORKER, NEC. TEACHER sete snen — own L301 ER AE) et CEE AY DAN SEN SEEN EY ELL N00) mead Feat OLE = DOU Eh = Ww EF IEES ERY FER TEANT FESR EARS TRE SENS RENEE RW FEE em est LEIA EIR Em mm ma EE a0 a) =a OE mae ELTON EE ELON EE = WIE bg FEN FEEL -W n & 8 - > SG ALL OTHER OCCUPATIONS 1/vusvesesss ' no - {i £19 y OCCUPATIONS WITH LESS THAN 5 TEMPORARY DISABILITY CASES. TaoLe 183.25 COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES SETTLED IN 1966, CLASSIFIED BY INDUSTRY AND SOURCE OF INJURY wl aang, CONTAGIOUS INFLAMMAT 1 ON Noa: MA NO- oR SYSTEMIC oF HEAT ALL INDUSTRY TOTAL TiTis | coniosis| INFECTIOUS | POISONING MUSCLES, FREEZING | MEAT 1 ALL DISEASE ETC. TOTAL. . 931 Lk46 19 54 ko 201 24 17 22 158 AGRICULTURE AND F1SHING, . 12 - - 2 - - - 1 2 MINING AND QUARRYING . ceeee 1 - - - 1 - - - - CONSTRUCT IONa.sasnsns seen 1 - - 2 13 1 - 3 3 GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS... 0 - - 1 5 - - - s GENERAL CONTRACTORS, OTHER THAN BUILDING. cessssnsnsnsssvsssnsnas 2 - > - 1 - = 1 8 SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS. -e 1 - - 1 9 1 v 2 MANUFACTURING. eesvssvsvssrennsne 262 17 10 21 1 23 2 1" of FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS. . 37 - 9 - - 1 3 1 TEXTILES AND APPAREL..cosesess - - 1 - - = 2 LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS...... 32 - - - 3 - - - 1 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES.... . - - 1 - - 2 PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS. . - - 1 8 - - 2 2 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING... - - - 1 - 1 CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS. 2 - - - 1 - - - 1 RUBBER & MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS | PRODUCTS 44a Cree snes 8 - - - 1 - - - 6 LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS . z - 1 1 1 - - - 2 STONE, CLAY & GLASS PRODUCTS. 1 - - 1 - - - 2 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES. . 1% - 5 8 14 - 4 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS. 32 - 2 2 1 - 1 1 MACHINERY, EXC, ELECTRICAL. 38 5 - 3 22 5 - 1 1 ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES... 3 - - y 26 - = - 9 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT. . - 1 2 3 - 9 INSTRUMENTS AND RELATED PRODUCTS. 2 ® - 1 MISCELLANEOUS MFG, INDUSTRIES. 9 - - 2 2 - - 0 4 MOTOR FRT. TRANSPORTATION AND WAREHOUS ING. ev uvase 3 - - - - - 1 < 1 OTHER TRANSPORTATION - - - 1 - - - - COMMUNI CAT ION. « . £ - - - 1 - - - - UTILITIES, . - - - - - 1 1 2 . . by 1 4 8 1 - 4 2 3 L ' 1 1 2 5 5 7 A RETAIL TRADE: BUILDING MATERIALS, HARDWARE & FARM EQUIPMENT. . - - - 1 s - 3 5 GENERAL MDSE. & APPAREL. - - 1 4 - - - ? FOODisveseasannncnnsanes - - - - - - - AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS & GAS SERVICE STATIONS. . 1 - 1 E - 3 - ~ FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS . & EQUIPMENT. .aseeessscnsans - - - - - - “ - 3 EATING & DRINKING PLACES.... 10 - 1 - - - - - - MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL STORES. 2 - 1 1 1 - 1 - - FINANCE, INS, & REAL ESTATE..... 2 - - - 2 - - - 1 SERVICE INDUSTRIES. ssssssseeanss 2 - 9 : 3 - 6 1 5 STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. ...cssss 5 1 31 7 = 3 9 3 ¥19 TaoLe 184.5 SELECTED COMPENSABLE DERMATITIS CASES SETTLED IN 1966 KIND HEALING | COMPEN-| AMOUNT OF | AMOUNT OF INDUSTRY OCCUPATION SOURCE oF DERI OD SABLE | INDEMNITY | MEDICAL DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID GENERAL FARMS FOREMAN CHEMICAL, NEC. T 34 3h $256 $677 GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC. PAINT, VARNISH, SHELLAC T 29 29 280 51 CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC. CEMENT, CONCRETE T 30 2 20 9% CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC. MORTAR T 143 143 1,521 613 HIGHWAY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION, EXCEPT ELEVATED HIGHWAYS FOREMAN TAR T 25 25 283 196 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION, EXCEPT HIGHWAY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC, CEMENT, CONCRETE T 26 26 295 55 MASONRY, STONEWORK, TILE SETTING AND PLASTERING CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC. RUBBER GLOVES T 29 29 309 19 CARPENTERING AND WOOD FLOOR ING CARPET AND RESILIENT FLOOR TAPE T 25 25 283 123 LAYER MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC, CEMENT, CONCRETE Y 21 21 281 sh2 MFG. SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION SETUP MAN CHEMICAL, NEC. T 80 80 907 103 MFG. CREAMERY BUTTER DAIRY PLANT WORKER CLEANING COMPOUND, NEC. T 48 48 3’ 3% DAIRY PLANT WORKER CLEANING COMPOUND, NEC. T uy I 2 POULTRY DRESSER NOT REPORTED Y 3 3 254 29 MFG. CHEESE DAIRY PLANT WORKER DAMPNESS , MOISTURE T 8 3 hoz a DAIRY PLANT WORKER NOT REPORTED r 1 1 501 7 MFG. MALT LIQUORS BREWERY WORKER ACID, NEC. r 32 32 320 422 BROAD WOVEN FABRIC MILLS, WOOL: INCLUDING DYEING AND FINISHING SPINNER wooL T 78 78 487 305 MFG. DRESSES MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC. DRESS T 33 33 250 58 SAWMILLS AND PLANING MILLS, GENERAL SAW OPERATOR, NEC. POISON OAK T %5 55 516 365 MILLWORK PLANTS ASSEMBLER GLUE Y 27 27 196 73 VENEER AND PLYWOOD PLANTS LATHE OPERATOR, NEC, GLUE T I 3] 369 468 MISCELLANEOUS WOOD PRODUCTS FACTORY LABORER, NEC, PAINT, VARNISH, SHELLAC T 35 35 261 kot NEWSPAPERS: PUBLISHING, PUBLISHING AND PRINTING ENGRAVER PHOTOGRAPHIC, BLUE=- v 28 28 299 833 PRINTING CHEMICAL e19 vaste 184.5 (conTinueD) KIND HEALING | COMPEN= | AMOUNT OF | AMOUNT OF INDUSTRY OCCUPATION SOURCE oF PERIOD SABLE INDEMNITY | MEDICAL DISACILITY TIME PAID AID PAID COMMERCIAL PRINTING, EXCEPT LITHOGRAPHIC PORTER SOLVENT, NEC. Tr 36 35 : 38 $160 MFG. CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL PREPARATIONS, NEC. MIXER OPERATOR . NOT REPORTED y 32 32 351 183 MFG. TIRES AND INNER TUBES MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC. RUDBER T &2 & 661 106 FACTORY LABORER, NEC. NOT REPORTED T 2 2 2,97 35 LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC, RUBBER ¥ 51 bl 510 in TANNERY WORKER NOT REPORTED TPO 27 27 4 2 BEAMHOUSE MAN NOT REPORTED T 37 37 3 99 MFG. FOOTWEAR, EXCEPT HOUSE SLIPPERS AND RUBBER FOOTWEAR BENCH HAND HIDE, LEATHER T 25 25 151 32 MFG. ABRASIVE PRODUCTS FABRICATOR NOT REPORTED T Ly uy 388 501 GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES FACTORY LABORER, NEC. HEAT T 28 20 317 269 MFG. ALUMINUM CASTINGS TRIMMER, NEC. LUBRICATING, CUTTING T 25 25 283 20 OIL AND GREASE PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES, NEC. WELDER RUST INHIBITOR T 34 34 385 7 MFG. HARDWARE, NEC. MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC. NOT REPORTED TPO 29 29 ko 138 MFG. ENAMELED IRON AND METAL SANITARY WARE MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC. KEROSENE T 31 31 328 21 ASSEMBLER NOT REPORTED T 36 36 08 22 MFG, METAL DOORS, SASH, FRAMES, MOLDING AND TRIM MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC. DISHWATER T 29 29 329 123 MFG. SCREW MACHINE PRODUCTS MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC. LUBRICATING, CUTTING T 29 29 298 209 OIL AND GREASE MFG. METAL STAMPINGS INSPECTOR NOT REPORTED I 30 30 309 196 ELECTROPLATING, PLATING, POLISHING, ANODIZ ING AND COLORING FACTORY LABORER, NEC, CHEMICAL, NEC. T 27 2 1 1 JANITOR NOT REPORTED T 25 2 1 1,293 MFG. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, NEC, ASSEMBLER LUBRICATING, CUTTING T 28 28 37 43 OIL AND GREASE GRINDER, NEC. INSECTICIDE T 42 42 ue Fo GRINDER, NEC. NOT REPORTED T _ 96 95 1, 7 MFG. MINING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT OIL FIELD MACHINERY AND 5 EQUIPMENT MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC. LUBRICATING, CUTTING T 61 31 691 137 OIL AND GREASE 919 vaste 184.5 {conTINUED) KIND COMPEN- | AMOUNT OF | AMOUNT oF INDUSTRY OCCUPATION SOURCE oF Hea Lluis SABLE | INDEMNITY | MEDICAL DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID MFG, HOISTS, INDUSTRIAL CRANES AND MONORAIL SYSTEMS TESTER LUBRICATING, CUTTING PPO 66 321 $2,596 $1,647 OIL AND GREASE MFG. SPECIAL DIES AND TOOLS, DIE SETS, JIGS AND FIXTURES MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC, NOT REPORTED T 98 93 LN 70 MFG. METAL WORKING MACHINERY, EXCEPT MACHINE TOOLS GRINDER, NEC, COOLANT : i 50 50 567 50 MFG. MECHANICAL POWER TRANSMISSION i. . EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT BALL AND ROLLER BEAR I NGS TRAINEE LUBRICATING, CUTTING ¥ 58 58 657 83 : OIL AND GREASE MFG. COMPUTING AND ACCOUNTING MACHINES, INCLUDING CASH REGISTERS ASSEMBLER NOT REPORTED T 2 158 165 ASSEMBLER NOT REPORTED T 3 3 2kio 23 MFG, POWER, DISTRIBUTION AND . SPECIALTY TRANSFORMERS FACTORY LABORER, NEC. LUBRICATING, CUTTING T 25 25 273 255 OIL AND GREASE MFG, MOTORS AND GENERATORS FACTORY LABORER, NEC, ACETONE T T2 12 hoy 90 MFG. INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS ASSEMBLER PAINT, VARNISH, SHELLAC T 43 43 321 80 MFG, ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES, NEC. FACTORY LABORER, NEC, GLASS FIBER T ST 57 346 30 MFG, PRIMARY BATTERIES, DRY AND WET FACTORY LABORER, NEC. CHEMICAL, NEC. T 63 63 498 170 TRUCKING, LOCAL AND LONG DISTANCE MECHANIC, NEC. GASOLINE ¥ 78 73 88% 398 TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION , (WIRE OR RADIO) LINEMAN, TELEPHONE POISON IVY Li 78 78 Thy 506 WHOLESALE GROCERIES AND RELATED PRODUCTS WAREHOUSEMAN, NEC. MILK, MILK PRODUCT T 35 35 397 23% MISCELLANEOUS WHOLESALERS TRUCK DRIVER CRUDE OIL, FUEL OIL ¥ 48 48 Ley 148 CANDY, NUT AND CONFECT]ONERY STORES DIPPER CHOCOLATE T 28 28 176 hy RETAIL BAKERIES BAKER DOUGH, FLOUR T 26 26 217 70 MISCELLANEOUS FOOD STORES cook DISHWATER v3 55 55 462 m VEC .. MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS (NEW AND USED cars) AUTO WASHER NOT REPORTED T bh 3 kot 126 L19 vaeLe 184.5 (conTinuED) KIND HEAL ING COMPEN=- | AMOUNT OF AMOUNT OF INDUSTRY OCCUPATION source oF A SABLE | INDEMNITY | MEDICAL DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS FILLING STATION ATTENDANT NOT REPORTED T 168 168 $1,792 697 LADORER, NEC. NOT REPORTED v 3 31 199 EATING AND DRINKING PLACES BARTENDER DETERGENT T 6 6G 14 76 BARTENDER DISHWATER T 1 1 2,123 - MOTELS, TOURIST COURTS AND MOTELS WASHER, NEC. CLEANING COMPOUND, NEC. T 8s 85 496 201 BEAUTY SHOPS COSMETOLOGIST HAIR DRESSING PREPARATION T & ge 289 164 COSMETOLOGIST HAIR DRESSING PREPARAT|ON T 21 2! 1 2 COSMETOLOGIST HAIR DRESSING PREPARATION T 96 96 672 3 BUSINESS SERVICES, NEC. PHOTO FINISHER NOT REPORTED T 25 25 175 b2 HOSP TALS HOUSEMAN CLEANING COMPOUND, NEC. ¥ 6 2 209 172 MAIO CLEANING COMPOUND, NEC, T 0 261 235 HEALTH AND ALLIED SERVICES, NEC. cook DETERGENT T 53 53 29% 66 NONPROF | T EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AGENCIES TESTER CHEMICAL, NEC. T 51 51 27% 174% UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN = MILWAUKEE BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING COMPOUND, NEC. r 89 89 646 996 HELPER CITY - COUNTY HOSPITALS KITCHEN HELPER DETERGENT r 26 26 1 35 COUNTY AGENCY IN COOPERATION WITH -STATE AND/OR FEDERAL AGENCY TESTER NOT REPORTED T 154 154 1,262 500 COUNTY HOSPITALS AND RELATED INSTITUTIONS HOSPITAL ATTENDANT OTHER MEDICINAL T hn 13} 465 - T = TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY; TPO = TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY; PPD = PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY. 819 TaBLE 196.3 COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES SETTLED In 1966 CLASSIFIED BY SOURCE Ne SF ues NER Sioa CASES WITH KIND OF DISABILITY | HEALING | COMPENSABLE FEE BASIS NO pee NUMBER SOURCE == PER | OD TIME INDEMNITY REPORTED oF TOTAL. PERM= | ANENT | TEMP- {oars} {oars} AIO NUMBER AMOUNT MED ICAL WOMEN ANENT | pAR- ORARY CASES AND OTHER TOTAL | T1AL YOMLs rus wevenns 981 n 48 922 | 25,667 71.980 $537,392 | 886 $186,993 95 315 - y 134 1,426 6 76; - 1] MACHINES ;, MACHINERY. vessanssrenans ¢ - = 5 i 3 213 1 of = - PRESS, NECiesense 1 - i 1 13 1 14 1 41 - - PUNCH PRESS, NEC. 2 yo 2 2 32 12 2 5 -« 2 SYITCHER cs venivs vey = ” 2 * OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED.usssasrones 2 - - 2 3 150 - 1 - # 1 39 39 1 VEHICLES .vvecesvaossvassnrcsncanne Lok 1 150 - - TRUCK. consis isensveseraossnvives 1 > - 1 39 » 4 2,7 3 10 5 21 ENR, 2k - 1 23 X31 5 3B } 0 3 g FALE ssa eno ivuisnvin ive 1 = - I 2 209 1 (3 - - HAMMER , SLEDGE, MALLET... 1 - - 5 23 £3 > 5 423 - 2 PLIERS, PINCERS, TONGS.. ? - 3 % 101 2 i 470 3 PUTTY KNIFE. = 1 23 1 1 312 - 1 SCREWDRIVER, 1 = > 1 3 i 1 2 - = SCYTHE, SICK 1 - - } 9 9 1 1 21 - - SHOVEL, SPADE. 1 = re 2 11 0 2 5 - 1 WRENCHE oy cores sursvensimre 2 - - 1 13 1 110 1 2] = ® UNPOWERED HAND TOOL, NEC. 1 - % : 21 1 192 2 3 - AIR HAMMER. cocesessssesness 2 - z : 150 13 1, 1 i7 1 2 AIR, GAS, ELECTRIC TOOL, NEC 2 + - 6 1 31 1 2! - 1 SANDER. «sssevonsrssessssnes (3 » i” : 52 530 2 3 - 2 POWERED SCREWOR IVER - = > 2 i 139 - - 2 - WELDING TOOL, NEC.. : = & 7 ¢ } # 1 5 - < WRENCH. sun sri snssenesvsnons vans - 143 2 22 - 22 - - 22 ‘1 2 »3 a 5 WORKING SURFACES. eeveessvsascranes 20 BUILDING FLOOR.. 2 © - 2 % 2 5 1 "18 - - 1 : - “1 1 13 1% 1 13 : - GROUND svesesrescvcssoscveccnoes i 3 EXPLOSIVE GASES AND VAPORS. I - . 8 44 or . 1 5 - 3 NATURAL GAS... + - . 9 5 96 i 3 e - REFRIGERANT 1 - 2 i 3 9 102 1 12 _- - SEWER GAS, . ! = © » 8 1 +330 COAL AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS....sss 33 o 2 3 33 2 2 2 3 3% - - CRUDE OIL, FUEL OlL.iuses 2 - Y 1 8 1 398 ¥ 1 GASOLINEasoessssns os 1 - ® 4 351 1 21 - 1 1 - - 1 1 KEROSENE vevsnsvassssvssvssonson io 1 7 LUBRICATING, CUTTING OIL AND 810 6 9 26 GREASE vs surevevsvrsvvnevevene 27 = 2 25 538 [a Contlnued on pages 24.27 619 TaoLe 188.27 SELECTED COMPENSABLE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE CASES SETTLED IN 1966 KIND COMPEN- | AMOUNT OF AM! T OF ONAL DISEASE A CUN bEeUPATY OCCUPATION SOURCE oF Maliig SABLE | INDEMNITY | MEDICAL INDUSTRY DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID AMPUTATION, AS RESULT OF OCCUPATIONAL pi1sease (ALL cases) MFG. INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS MOLDER LUBRICATING, CUTTING PPO - 38 ¢ 280 $ 120 OIL AND GREASE ADVERTISING HANDBILL DISTRIBUTOR COLD WEATHER PPO Tn 372 559 372 FREEZING, FROSTBITE" (SELECTED CASES) GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS FILLING STATION ATTENDANT COLD WEATHER Tr 27 27 200 ks AUTOMOBILE SERVICES, EXCEPT REPAIR AUTO WASHER COLD WEATHER T 0 0 14 AUTO WASHER COLD WEATHER v 2 2 4 SPORTS PROMOTERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS, AND MISCELLANEOUS AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION SERV CES NOT REPORTED COLD WEATHER PPO 128 129 1,263 1,379 OCCUPATIONAL LOSS OF HEARING (ALL CASES) PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - 293 2,169 - STEEL FOUNDRIES JANITOR REPEATED NOISE PPD - 633 4,698 - MFG. IRON AND STEEL FORGINGS FACTORY: LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - 3 2, - FACTORY LABORER, NEC, REPEATED NOISE PPD - 1 - FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - 2,2 - FACTORY LABORER, NEC, REPEATED NOISE PPD - 20 3.10 - FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPO - 1% - FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - 1 - FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - Set 3:10 - FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPO - 2 ,076 - FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD # mn » - FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - 43 A : - INSPECTOR REPEATED NOISE PPD - 130 - INSPECTOR REPEATED NOISE PPO - 32 2,910 - SHEAR OPERATOR REPEATED NOISE PPO - 2,076 - MFG. SHEET METAL WORK FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - 248 1,843 - MFG. FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT CHIPPER REPEATED NOISE PPD - 128 oké - MFG. CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY AND z EQUIPMENT FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - ol y, - FACTORY LABORER, NEC, REPEATED NOISE PPO - - FACTORY LABORER, NEC, REPEATED NOISE PPO - 3. = MFG, MECHANICAL POWER TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT , EXCEPT BALL AND ROLLER 5 - BEARINGS FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - 136 1,043 029 tase 108,27 (CONTINUED) OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE KIND MEAL tng | COMPEN- | AMCUNT OF [AMOUNT CF OCCUPATION SOURCE oF PERIOD | SABLE INDEMNITY | MEDICAL | NDUSTRY DISACILITY TIME PAID AID PAID OCCUPATIONAL LOSS OF HEARING (ALL CASES) (CONTINUED) MFG, MOTOR VEHICLES BLACKSMITH REPEATED NOISE PPD - 184 $1,361 ¢ - MFG. PASSENGER CAR BODIES FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - 272 2,087 - MFG. MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS AND ACCESSORIES FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED NOISE PPD - 231 1,716 - HEAT EXHAUSTION (SELECTED CASES) PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING FOREMAN HEAT T 32 32 363 ko PAPER MILLS, EXCEPT BUILDING PAPER MILLS GRINDER MAN HEAT ¥ 16 16 m 153 MFG. INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS, TRACTORS, TRAILERS AND STACKERS SHEAR OPERATOR HEAT T 20 20 210 3 LUMBER AND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS DEALERS CRANE OPERATOR HEAT T 17 17 193 42 HERNIAS (ALL cases) MFG. FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT HEATER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 48 43 512 - NEC. SETUP MAN REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 39 39 6 2 NEC. SILICOSIS (ALL CASES) GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES FOUNDRY LABORER, NEC. SILICA PTD = 3,857 28,267 17,863 MALLEABLE IRON FOUNDRIES FOUNDRY LABORER, NEC. SILICA PTD - 2,958 18,557 - STEEL FOUNDRIES FOUNDRY LABORER, NEC. SILICA PPD 79 £23 ord 0 SETUP MAN SILICA PTD - 3,47 19, Ti MFG, ALUMINUM CASTINGS FOUNDRY LABORER, NEC, siLica PPD - 194 2,000 145 MFG. ENAMELED IRON ANDO : . METAL SANITARY WARE FACTORY LABORER, NEC, SILICA PPD - 1,628 10,850 - FACTORY LABORER, NEC, SILICA PTO - 4,655 25,470 2,547 MFG. INTERNAL COMBUSTION i ENGINES, NEC. FACTORY LABORER, NEC, SILICA PTD - 3,916 21,24k - MFG. FARM MACHINERY AND © 2 * EQUIPMENT CHIPPER siLica PPD = 382 813 MFG. INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS, TRACTORS, TRAILERS AND STACKERS MOLDER siLicA PTD - 1,306 16,254 - 129 tase 188.27 OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE KIND HEAL COMPEN=~ | AMOUNT OF AMOUNT oF : OCCUPATION SOURCE oF baling SABLE | INDEMNITY MED I CAL INDUSTRY DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID siticosis (ALL cases) (coNTiINuED) MFG. MECHANICAL POWER TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT BALL AND ROLLER BEARINGS S1LICO-TUBERCULOSIS (ALL cASES) MFG. CUT STONE AND STONE PRODUCTS STEEL FOUNDRIES FABRICATED PLATE WORK (BOILER SHOPS) MFG, MECHANICAL POWER TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT BALL AND ROLLER DEAR INGS PNEUMOCON 10S 1S, NEC. (ALL CASES) MISCELLANEOUS WHOLESALERS WISCONSIN CONSERVATION DEPT. RADIATION BURN, NEC. (SELECTED CASES) MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS MFG. CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT MFG. MINING MACHINERY AND EQU|PMENT, EXCEPT OIL FIELD MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT LEAD POISONING (SELECTED CASES) SECONDARY SMELTING, REFINING AND ALLOYING OF NONFERROUS METALS AND ALLOYS MFG. BRASS, BRONZE, COBPER, COPPER BASE ALLOY CASTINGS MFG. PLUMBING FIXTURE FITTING AND TRIM (BRASS GooDS) MFG. MINING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT OIL FIELD MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT FACTORY LABORER, NEC. FACTORY LABORER, NEC, STONE CUTTER MOLDER WHEELABRATOR OPERATOR FACTORY LABORER, NEC. SANDBLASTER NOT REPORTED CONSERVATION AID CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC. SERV ICEMAN, NEC, CRANE OPERATOR CUPOLA CHARGER MAINTENANCE MAN FOUNDRY LABORER, .NEC, MOLDER BENCH HAND SILICA sSiLicA SILICA siLica SiLicA SiLica SILICA GRAIN DUST DUST, NEC. WELD ING EQUIPMENT WELDING EQUIPMENT WELDING EQUIPMENT LEAD COMPOUND LEAD COMPOUND LEAD COMPOUND LEAD COMPOUND LEAD COMPOUND PTO PTD - 3 1,153 51 37 142 30 2,006 1,13 7.31 5,039 1,482 75 2,847 51 3 142 8 15,212 8,071 36,165 23,315 13,338 641 21,588 105 523 181 5 626 19 965 51 410 212 (£4!) taoLe 188.27 (conTiNuED) OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE OCCUPATION SOURCE re heative ent pron] 1 id gong INDUSTRY DISATILITY TIME PAID AID PAID LEAD POISONING (SELECTED cASES) (CONTINUED) v MFG. STORAGE BATTERIES FACTORY LABORER, NEC. LEAD COMPQUND T 27 27 $2h6 $ 882 MISCELLANEOUS WHOLESALERS SCRAPYARD WORKER LEAD COMPOUND ¥ 4 34 305 82 SCRAPYARD WORKER LEAD COMPOUND T 1 51 3n 1,07 MERCURY POISONING (SELECTED CASES) MFG. CURRENT CARRYING WIRING DEV]CES FACTORY LABORER, NEC. MERCURY T 69 89 736 1,179 SYSTEMIC POISONING, NEC. (SELECTED CASES) GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS TRACTOR OPERATOR CEMENT, CONCRETE Tr L6 46 521 91 ARTHRITIS (SELECTED CASES) | GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS CARPENTER COLO WEATHER iT 85 3s 963 41 MFG, CHEESE MOLDER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 22 22 2k9 33 BURSITIS (SELECTED cases) i SAWMILLS AND PLANING MILLS, GENERAL SAWYER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 26 26 200 112 GANGLION (SELECTED CASES) peer = MFG. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, NEC. MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC, 2 REPEATED BODILY MOTION, YT [3°] 29 309 431 MACHINE CPERATOR, NEC. aD soDILY MOTION, T 35 35 397 346 MYOSITIS (SELECTED CASES) Je MFG. CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT WELDER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 60 60 680 170 . © NEC. MFG. INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS ASSEMBLER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T T4 ™ 8ko TENDONITIS (SELECTED CASES) Wek ' BOOK PRINTING BOOKS | NDER ' REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 53 53 565 43 CUTTER OPERATOR : Po BODILY MOTION, T 22 22 2kg 35% ' ' NEC. MFG. MOTOR VEHICLES ASSEMBLER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 33 33 330 TENOSYNOVITIS (SELECTED CASES) . ee MFG. RAINCOSTS AND OTHER WATER- PROOF OUTER GARMENTS SEWING MACHINE OPERATOR REPEATED BODILY MOTION, TT 5 3 508 56 NEC. £29 taste 188.27 (conTiInuED) OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE KIND HEAL ING COMPEN- AMOUNT OF | AMOUNT OF OCCUPATION SOURCE OF PER 100 SADLE INDEMNITY MEDICAL INDUSTRY DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID TENOSYNOVITIS (SELECTED cases) (CONTINUED) MFG. ENAMELED IRON AND METAL SANITARY WARE MOLDER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 26 26 $ 295 $124 NEC. MFG. MISCELLANEOUS FABRICATED WIRE PRODUCTS ASSEMBLER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, PPD 96 108 1,113 482 NEC. MFG, INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, - NEC, DRILL PRESS OPERATOR PIPE, PIPING TPO 27 27 65 66 (REPEATED PRESSURE) MFG. MOTOR VEHICLES © ASSEMBLER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 47 47 533 NEC. CITY OR VILLAGE GOVERNMENT, NEC. LABORER, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 56 56 457 916 NEC. INFLAMMATION OR IRRITATION OF JOINTS, TENDONS AND MUSCLES (SELECTED CASES) PAINTING, PAPERHANG ING AND DECORATING CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC. STATIC POSITION T 103 103 1,030 55 MASONRY, STONEWORK, TILE SETTING AND PLASTERING HOD CARRIER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 69 69 136 995 NEC. CONSTRUCTION LABORER, NEC. DAMPNESS, MOISTURE T 31 31 351 50 MEAT PACKING PLANTS PACKING PLANT WORKER, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 99 99 1,004 Cc. BUTCHER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, PPD mn 236 1,981 621 NEC. * POULTRY AND SMALL GAME DRESSING AND PACKING, WHOLESALE POULTRY DRESSER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 26 26 148 106 NEC. POULTRY DRESSER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 38 38 222 7 NEC. POULTRY DRESSER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 4 4 239 8s NEC. MFG. MALT LIQUORS BREWERY WORKER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, PPD - 186 1,377 15 NEC. KNITTING MILLS, NEC. FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOTION, PPD 11 79 545 = NEC. MFG, WOOD HOUSEMOLD FURNITURE, UPHOLSTERED FACTORY LABORER, NEC. BUILDING FLOOR (FROM T 84 34 874 42s KNEELING ON, ETC.) PAPERBOARD MILLS PAINTER, APPRENTICE BUILDING FLOOR (FROM T 78 78 832 555 KNEELING ON, ETC.) : FACTORY LABORER, NEC. T 32 32 314 309 REPEATED BODILY MOTION, NEC. ¥29 raoLe 108.27 (conTinueD) NEC. OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ' KIND WERGING COMPEN- | AMOUNT OF | AMOUNT OF OCCUPATION SOURCE oF ALN SABLE INDEMNITY | MEDICAL INDUSTRY DISABILITY TIME -PAID AID PAID INFLAMMATION OR IRRITATION OF JOINTS, TENDONS AND MUSCLES (CONTINUED) BOOK PRINTING BINDERY WORKER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, ' T 61 61 § 602 $ 509 NEC. FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 34 34 346 31 NEC. MFG. TIRES AND INNER TUBES FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 65 55 693 425 NEC. : MFG, FABR|CATED RUBBER PRODUCTS, NEC, TRIMMER, NEC. : REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 25 25 163 48 NEC. LEATHER TANNING iAND FINISHING GLUER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 28 28 255 68 NEC. MFG, FOOTWEAR, EXCEPT HOUSE SLIPPERS AND RUBCER FOOTWEAR TRAINEE REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 48 291 25 REC. MFG, METAL DOORS, SASH, FRAMES, MOLDING AND TRIM FACTORY LABORER, NEC, REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 51 51 513 25 NEC. FABRICATED PLATE WORK (BOILER SHOPS) CUTOFF OPERATOR REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 32 32 341 S517 NEC, FACTORY LABORER), NEC. BUILDING FLOOR (FROM T 64 64 683 187 KNEELING ON, ETC, ) FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T iy by 499. - 189 NEC. MFG. SHEET METAL WORK ELECTRICIAN, MAINTENANCE REPEATED BODILY MOTION, PPD 108 708 5,602 1,71 NEC. MFG. METAL STAMPINGS PRESS OPERATOR, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOT|ON, YT k2 42 331 T NEC. MFG. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, NEC. MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC, UNSPECIFIED MACHINE T 19 19 895 297 (REPEATED PRESSURE) MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC, REPEATED BODILY MOTION, TY 30 30 336 128 NEC. MFG. INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS ASSEMBLER AIR, GAS, ELECTRIC TOOL, T 135 135 1,530 NEC, (REPEATED PRESSURE) ASSEMBLER POWERED SCREWDRIVER * 35 35 397 256 (REPEATED PRESSURE) FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T un 41 bs59 NEC. MFG. ELECTRIC HOUSEWARES AND FANS ASSEMBLER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, TT 60 60 346 12 g NEC. MFG. RADIO AND TELEVISION RECEIVING SETS, EXCEPT COMMUNICATION TYPES ASSEMBLER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 42 42 336 is g29 tasce 188.27 (conTinuep) OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE KIND COMPEN- | AMOUNT OF | AMOUNT OF OCCUPATION SOURCE oF perlite | “sanie INDEMNITY | MEDICAL INDUSTRY DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID INFLAMMATION OR IRRITATION OF JOINTS, . TENDONS AND MUSCLES (CONTINUED) MFG. RADIO AND TELEVISION TRANSMITTING, SIGNALING AND DETECTION EQUIPMENT AND APPARATUS PLANT PATROLMAN REPEATED BODILY MOTION, PPD 13 70 §$ 586 $ 549 NEC. MFG. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FOR INTERNAL COMBUST JON ENG INES FACTORY LABORER, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 153 153 1,578 936 NEC, MFG. PASSENGER CAR BODIES WELDER REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 48 48 512 150 NEC, 4 TELEPHONE COMMUNI CAT {ON (WIRE oR RADIO) LINEMAN, TELEPHONE REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 162 162 1,728 2,069 NEC, + REAL ESTATE OPERATORS (EXCEPT DEVELOPERS) AND LESSORS CHARWOMAN REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 99 99 433 110 NEC, HOTELS, TOURIST COURTS AND MOTELS MAID REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 33 33 158 30 NEC. MISCELLANEOUS REPAIR SHOPS AND RELATED SERVICES LABORER, NEC. REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 18 48 512 62 - NEC. HEPATITIS, INFECTIOUS (ALL cAsEs) MFG. CHEESE CHEESEMAKER INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 8 5 57 nn AGENT, NEC. HOSPITALS LABORATORY TECHNICIAN INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC v 63 63 496 147 AGENT, NEC. PRACTICAL NURSE INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC 7 32 32 267 2k AGENT, NEC. WISCONSIN PUBLIC WELFARE DEPT. INSTITUTION AID INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 29 29 308 Lig AGENT, NEC. INSTITUTION AID INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 37 37 338 4s AGENT, NEC. INSTITUTION AID INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 53 53 478 383 AGENT, NEC. . . INSTITUTION AID INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 5715 575 5,187 301 AGENT, NEC, INSTITUTION AID INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC Y 106 106 967 1,730 AGENT, NEC. INSTITUTION AID INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 221 221 1,383 2,694 AGENT, NEC. PRACTICAL NURSE INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 345 345 3,474 308 AGENT, NEC. REGISTERED NURSE INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC I is ks 510 592 AGENT, NEC. TEACHER INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T Lo ko 453 58 AGENT, NEC. 929 1$—89-0O %£L-C6 yasLe 188.27 (conTinueD) OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE KIND WEALING | COMPEN= | AMOUNT OF | AMOUNT oF OCCUPATION SOURCE oF PERTOD SABLE | INDEMNITY MED | CAL INDUSTRY DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID HEPATITIS, INFECTIOUS (ALL CASES) {cont InUED) CITY OR VILLAGE HOSPITALS AND RELATED INSTITUTIONS LABORATORY TECHNICIAN INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 174 17% $1,457 $1,249 AGENT, NEC, PSITTACOSIS (ALL CASES) UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN LABORATORY TECHNICIAN INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 99 99 938 82 AGENT, NEC. CITY OR VILLAGE HEALTH DEPT. BACTERIOLOGIST INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC ¥ 20 20 227 sh AGENT, NEC. SALMONELLA (ALL CASES) COUNTY HOSPITALS AND RELATED INSTITUTIONS KITCHEN HELPER INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC Tr 30 30 245 30 AGENT, NEC. SHIGELLA (ALL cases) WISCONSIN PUBLIC WELFARE DEPT. INSTITUTION AID INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 2h 24 272 32 AGENT, NEC. STAPHYLOCOCCUS INFECTION (SELECTED CASES) WHOLESALE GROCERIES & RELATED PRODUCTS WHOLESALE SALESMAN INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC PPD 52 16 173 349 AGENT, NEC. ' WHOLESALE MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES MANAGER, NEC. INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC PPD 39 63 561 1,4 AGENT, NEC. WISCONSIN PUBLIC WELFARE DEPT, INSTITUTION AID INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 28 28 299 213 AGENT, NEC. TUBERCULOSIS (ALL CASES) HOSPITALS STUDENT NURSE INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC PPD 153 453 1,586 2,832 AGENT, NEC. TYPHOID FEVER (ALL CASES) HOSPITALS HOSPITAL ATTENDANT INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 28 28 65 169 AGENT, ‘NEC. COUNTY HOSPITALS AND RELATED : INSTITUTIONS HOSPITAL ATTENDANT INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 93 53 4o7 S511 AGENT, NEC. UNDULANT FEVER (ALL CASES) i MEAT PACKING PLANTS PACKING PLANT WORKER, NEC. INFECTIOUS, ‘PARASITIC T 16 16 181 1 AGENT, NEC, : PACKING PLANT WORKER, NEC. INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC ¥ 23" 23: 261 88 AGENT, NEC. PACKING PLANT WORKER, NEC, INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 103 103 1,099 AGENT, NEC. PACKING PLANT WORKER, NEC, INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 22 22 2kg 425 AGENT, NEC. L29 taste 180.27 (continued) OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE KIND HEAL ING COMPEN=- AMOUNT OF | AMOUNT OF OCCUPATION SOURCE oF PER | OD SAGLE INDEMNITY MED ICAL INDUSTRY DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID UNOULANT FEVER (ALL CASES) (CONTINUED) MEAT PACKING PLANTS (CONTINUED) PACKING PLANT WORKER, NEC, INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 30 30 § 340 $ 166 - AGENT, NEC. FUNGUS INFECTION, NEC. (SELECTED CASES) LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING HIDE TRIMMER INFECTIOUS, PARASITIC T 99 99 278 AGENT, NEC. BRONCHITIS (SELECTED CASES) MFG. CHEESE DAIRY PLANT WORKER NATURAL GAS T ko ko 411 245 MFG. TIRES AND INNER TUBES FACTORY LABORER, NEC, FUME, GAS, NEC. T 6 3 27 603 CALLOSITY (SELECTED CASES) MILLWORK PLANTS FACTORY WORKER, NEC, PUTTY KNIFE PPD 76 101 999 470 (REPEATED FRICTION) CYST (SELECTED CASES) COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPT. TRUCK DRIVER TRUCK ” 39 39 Loy 150 {REPEATED FRICTION) HYDRARTHROSIS (SELECTED CASES) GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS CARPENTER BUILDING FLOOR (BY T 26 26 277 545 KNEELING ON, ETC.) MASONRY, STONEWORK, TILE SETTING AND PLASTERING TILE SETTER BUILDING FLOOR (BY T 8 58 619 483 KNEELING ON, ETC.) FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT STORES CARPET AND RESILIENT FLOOR REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 51 51 Shh 1,068 LAYER NEC, TILE SETTER BUILDING FLOOR (BY T Lh Ly 469 354 KNEELING ON, ETC.) INFLAMMATION, NEC. (SELECTED CASES) PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SHEET METAL WORKER PAINT, VARNISH, SHELLAC PPD 120 270 2,269 1,307 ELECTROPLATING, PLATING, POLISHING, ANOD IZING AND COLORING FACTORY LABORER, NEC. CHROM | UM COMPOUND PPD - 120 855 12 MFG. MISCELLANEOUS MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL MACHINIST CHEMICAL, NEC. T 26 26 319 641 LOSS OF VISION, OCCUPATIONAL (ALL CASES) WHOLESALE MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES STEAMF I TTER WELDING EQUIPMENT PPD - 1,192 8,496 176 NEURASTHENIA (SELECTED CASES) GROCERY STORES BUTCHER OCCUPATION, PER SE T 67 67 759 228 829 TABLE 188.27 (CONTINUED) OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE KINO HEALING COMPEN=- AMOUNT OF | AMOUNT OF OCCUPATION SOURCE oF ty SABLE INDEMNITY | MEDICAL INDUSTRY DISABILITY TIME PAID AID PAID NEURITIS (ALL CASES) SPORTS PROMOTERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS , AND MISCELLANEOUS AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES ATHLETE REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 30 30 $ 300 $ 20 NEC. PROTRUSION, DISC (ALL cAses) HIGHWAY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION, EXCEPT ELEVATED HIGHWAYS MACHINE OPERATOR, NEC. RIDING T 25 25 283 690 RETAIL HARDWARE AND FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANIC, NEC. RIDING ¥ 6 3 32 252 sciaTica (ALL cases) SHOE STORES RETAIL SALESCLERK REPEATED BODILY MOTION, T 33 33 148 107 NEC. SEPTICEMIA (SELECTED CASES) CITY OR VILLAGE SEWAGE DEPT. OPERATING ENGINEER, NEC, ENVIRONMENTAL, ATMOS- PPD 112 232 2,085 2,805 PHERIC CONDITIONS, NEC. RESPIRATORY INFECTION, NEC. (SELECTED CASES GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS CORPORATE OFF I CER DUST, NEC. T 53 53 565 koe MFG. TIRES AND INNER TUBES FACTORY LABORER, NEC, FUME, GAS, NEC. T 182 102 1,820 93 MFG. MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS MOLDER TOLUENE (DI 1SOCYANATE) T %o ko 423 142 FACTORY LABORER, NEC, SOLVENT, NEC. T 35 35 237 331 ELECTROPLATING, PLATING, POLISHING, ANOD IZING AND COLOR ING FACTORY LABORER, NEC, FUME, GAS, NEC. T 37 37 297 123 MFG. MOTORCYCLES, BICYCLES AND PARTS FACTORY LABORER, NEC. NOT REPORTED T uy Ly 339 107 HOTELS, TOURIST COURTS AND MOTELS PAINTER AMMON | A T 50 50 35¢ 718 sPUR (ALL cases) MISCELLANEOUS WHOLESALERS TRUCK DRJVER STEPPING DOWN (REPEATED) T ko ko 453 334 NOTE: T = TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY; TPO = PTD = PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY, TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY; PPD = PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY; 629 630 Work INJURY CASES SETTLED UNDER THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT OF WISCONSIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS May we ask the assistance of all insurance carriers and self-insured employers in furnishing full information to eliminate extensive correspondence. The re- porting requirements are set out in Ind 80,02, As you know a final WC~13 is filed when payments are completed, Will you show the medical expense at that time? If you do not have the information at that time, may we have the figure as soon as available without the necessity of a request from us, Likewise, if temporary disability extends over three weeks or if permanent disability exists, may we also receive the final medical re- port as soon as available, As a reminder, in the latter case, the employe also is to be furnished a copy of the WC-13 and final medical report. Norman J. Taugher, Assistant Administrator Workmen's Compensation Division 631 COMMENTS 38,499 work injuries were reported under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Wisconsin in 1967 == 322 less than the 38,821 reported in 1966. The last six months of 1967 accounted for the reduction in the annual total, not= withstanding the seven year peak of 3,554 cases reported in March 1967 and the high monthly levels for the other five months of the first half of 1967. 2,746 cases were reported in December 1967 == the lowest monthly total since July 1965 and between 400 and 500 lower than the 3,228 and 3,163 reported in December 1966 and December 1965, respectively, (Injury cases included in this release represent potential compensable injury and disease cases where indemnity will probably be paid,) Based on preliminary estimates, nonfarm-nonfederal employment appears to have reached a new annual average high in 1967 of over 1,400,000 workers, Each month of 1967 had a higher employment level than the same month in 1966. Table 3001,3 on page 4 shows that annual average nonfarm-nonfederal employment levels increased each year since 1961; midmonth employment levels were also higher in each given month from one year to the next, The highest monthly employment peak was reached in Sept, 1967 == the largest number of injuries was reported in March 1967, Seasonal activity in trade industries was primarily responsible for the overall em= ployment increase from November to December 1967, Contract construction experienced a seasonal cutback of some 5,200 workers from November to December 1967, In December 1967, trade was about 15,000 higher than in December 1966; the service and miscellan= eous group approximately 12,000 higher than a year ago. Manufacturing, however, dropped off almost 18,000 employees between December 1966 and December 1967, Changes in employment between November 1967 and December 1967 and between December 1966 and December 1967 follow (source of employment data is Reports and Analysis, U, C, Division, Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations): , Industry Group Dec, 1967 Net Change From: ‘ Nov, 1967 Dec, 1966 Total Nonfarm-Nonfederal Wage and Salary Workerseseso 1,439,000 + 900 +26, 600 Manufacturingessescecccsscevee 498,200 -2,000 -17,900 Durable GoodS.ssesses 325,000 + 300 =19,400 Nondurable GoodS..sseesess 173,200 -2,300 + 1,400 Canning & Preserving... 4,700 -2,200 - 100 Miningeeseessassnsesscencences 2,500 - 400 + 100 Contract Construction,... .e 63,300 =5,200 + 1,400 Transportation and Public UtilitfeBeecececcsecscaccene 77,200 -1,000 + 200 Wholesale Trade .e 69,200 + 500 + 4,000 Retail Trade.seeseseescesceces 257,200 +9,100 +10, 700 Finance, Insurance and Real Estate@icesesececencscne 57,600 0 + 3,700 Service and MiscellaneouS..... 204,800 + 800 +11, 900 State and Local Government,... 208,700 - 900 +12,600 | sure that you are much safer at work today than, 632 How Hazarpous Is Your Jos Chances that you’ll be injured on the job point up the importance of work safety and workmen’s compensation IF YOU ARE a logger you can typically anticipate, suffering a disabling work injury everywight years. But if you work in a bank, you could likely work | more than 200 years before being Joly on the job. The disparity of these figures highlight wide dif ferences in the hazards inherent in various lines of work. For the worker in a hazardous industry, the likelihood of injury makes a persuasive argument for safe work practices. And for the employer. work | injury odds testify to the importance of an ¢flective safety program and the value of a comprehensive workmen's compensation program that includes bass prevention and rehabilitation services. 3 More than 47 million U.S. workers, or 80 per cent / of the country's work force, are now protected by workmen's compensation provided by private insur- ance companies, state funds and self-insurance pro- grams. Commercia) insurance companies provide nearly two- thirds o "some $2 billion paid annually _under:workmen’s compensation for medical and hos- i pital care, wage replacement and survivors’ benefits. But however hazardous your job is, “you can be vouyould have been 10 or 20 years ago. New tech- "miquer jn, protecting and training workers, many of “them dgVcloped by workmen's compensation insur- ance carriers, have made significant strides in re- * xkwing job hazards. Industrial hygienists and safety _*{mgtineers have applied their expertise to every line | i possible to beat the work injury odds. of endeavor in cflorts to eliminate or control work hazards. Consider that in the decade from 1955 to 1965, employers in all industries reporting to the National Safety Council reduced their work injury rate from 6.96 to 6.53 per 1 million man-hours. Since 1926, the same figure has come down from an astronom- ical 31.87. Workers arc about four times safer today than they were 10 years ago. More important, workers who are injured can ex- pect vastly improved medical treatment and re- habilitation services that cnable them to recover more quickly. Work injury severity, measured by time lost per accident, fell from an index of 2,500 in 1926 to 695 in 1965. From 1955 to 1965 alone, work accident severity was cut from 815 to 695. Workmen's compensation insurance takes into ac- count the differences in the degree of hazards in various industries. Rates are set on the basis of ac- cident experience within an industry, and aggregate premiums are related to the amount of cach e¢m- ployer's payroll. Mutual insurance companies writ- ing workmen's compensation coverage place strong emphasis on loss prevention and the effectiveness of safety programs. Through retrospective rating, an employer whose safety record is better than his in- dustry’s average earns a lower insurance rate. For the employer as well as for the individual worker there are many incentives to do everything © 633 COMMENTS The average work-week of production workers in manufacturing industries was lengthen= ed from 41,1 hours in November 1967 to 41.2 hours in December 1967; however, the 41,2 hours worked in December 1967 were considerably below the 42,1 hours worked per week in December 1966, In November 1967, as in October 1967, turnover rates for total manufacturing showed declines in both accessions and separations from the previous month's level, Both rates were also lower than for the corresponding month of last year, It is suggested that these changes in employment be compared with industry changes in : the number of injury cases reported, shown elsewhere in this release, The annual number of cases reported, by occupational classification, follows: 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 Totalisesvesessesss 38,499 38,821 36,104 33,321 30,532 29,477 27,403 Professional, Tech. & Managerial 1,675 1,562 1,501 1,405 1,307 1,302 1,128 Clerical and SaleS..ceeveececees 1,961 1,779 1,803 1,636 1,482 1,438 1,336 Service.cesesescessssccsscsccane 3,778 3,541 3,378 3,418 3,029 2,809 2,602 Agriculture, Fishery, Forestry., 544 540 554 594 442 471 525 Skilledscseesscscescrnssacsocens 9,043 9,368 8,811 8,346 7,443 7,227 7,255 Semiskilled...,. 10,679 10,840 9,742 8,538 7,719 7,862 7,083 Apprentices... 181 169 127 153 140 125 116 Unskilled..ceese 10,716 11,152 10,308 9,364 9,108 8,364 7,467 Not Reported.eecesceccccccsscees 103 39 7 20 2 4 Z Charts on pages 4 and 5 show that the number of injury cases reported in each of the eight Industrial Safety and Buildings Division's safety regions was below their res- pective November 1965 = October 1967 24-month averages; that the number reported from the Milwaukee region in December 1967 dropped to a point more than two standard deviations below its November 1965 = October 1967 24-month average; and that the only region which recorded an increase in the number reported between November 1967 and December 1967 was the Rice Lake region, For six consecutive months now, the number of reported cases which were incurred in the Milwaukee region remained below the November 1965 = October 1967 average of 1,020; in two of these months, the number reported was more than two standard devia=- tions below this average, Employment levels in the Milwaukee Metropolitan Area (Milwaukee, Ozaukee and Waukesha Counties) rose between December 1966 and December 1967 in all industry divisions ex- cept manufacturing, The 201,200 workers employed in mid-December 1967 in manufactur= ing in the Milwaukee Metropolitan Area were 10,500 below the number employed in mid=- December 1966. R L The number of reported cases rose from 233 in November 1967 to 246 in December 1967. 184 employers reported the 233 cases in November and 180 employers reported the 246 cases in December, Two employers reported between 10 and 19 cases in December; only one employer reported between 10 and 19 .in the previous month, 634 NUMBER OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INJURY CASES REPORTED PER 10,000 NONFARM AND NONFEDERAL EMPLOYEES DECEMBER 1965 - DECEMBER 1967 (30OURCE: TABLE 3001.3) 30 19.1 [ »~ 1 i 1 J de 1 1 l 1 1 1 DEC. JAN, FEB. MAR, APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG, SEPT. ocr. NOV, bEC. 24 moutH PERIOD: Nov. 1965 - oct. 1967 pec. JAN. = DEC. ARITHMETIC MINUS TWO PLUS TWO REGIONAL CHART MEAN STANDARD ~~ STANDARD 1965 DEVIATIONS DEVIATIONS REGION NO. | == RICE LAKE. 2 210 REGION NO. 2 =~ WAUSAU.... 2! 2 REGION NO. 3 LA CROSSE. 2 1 REGION NO. == NEENAH.... it ¢ REGION NO. == MADISON... 1 REGION NO. 2 == WEST BEND. 1 REGION NO. z == MILWAUKEE. . 1,020 ¥y. REGION NO. 8 == RACINE.... 4 OUT OF STATE -- CHART 9... CHART 10.. 8 I | NOT REPORTED == Ge9 INJURY CASES REPORTED UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF WISCONSIN . ‘ BY REGION OF OCCURRENCE OF INJURY OR DISEASE, NOV. 1965 TO CATE 9€9 TABLE 3001.3 FIRST REPORTS OF INJURY FILED UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF WISCONSIN AND WISCONSIN TOTAL NONFARM AND NONFEDERAL EMPLOYMENT JANUARY 1961 To DATE JAN. FEB. | MAY | JUNE JuLy | AUG, SEPT. MAR. APR YEAR TOTAL NO. OF INJURY CASES REPORTED (* JULY AND OCTOBER 1967 FIGURES REVISED DUE TO A MACHINE ERROR): me BME ou WE iE i i ZZ Bm om MW Bop ig ER oe 1365. « Jou 3:38 Sots 338 BEI Biol feR 3 2; 3.118 Ls 821 ; ; ,28 8 ; : ; ,826 . 6 i Bal 3% Om I oe Es Re of 1% un Iw 1 oe 1969... NONFARM AND NONFEDERAL EMPLOYMENT (source: 1% 11g #! Lie UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DIVISION -- CURRENT MONTH FIGURE IS PREL IMI MARY) Li VR A eg A LR ww WW o0- Wwhogne w= — ~~ Ww on - © 1,230 NM wh NOV. | DEC. “see. == NN SEHR WN =\O 3 1 1 oe 1 15g a |. is 2: 1 1,24 153513 i612 1965.2 | 1,307,281 gr 3 1942 1,276,94k 1,295, 132A 132005 To 3, id 1,345, Sie:8H | 41 v3 ih 5 1.302 1966... 1,369, 1 4 1 IT L495 1 274 1, ‘ ZB 14 } a 1h2.an 242 15 1352:38 1158 3, 2% 15 3 382,143 1 3: PhS Vidi 520 1 2%9% 238 } iy 1255 2 101 2049 1,4%0 3: ‘328 HE 1,438.84 1969. NO. OF INJURY CASES REPORTED PER 10,000 NONFARM AND NONFEDERAL EMPLOYEES: 1961.. 237.0 20.1 13. 20.1 17.8 18.8 20.2 18.8 23. 20.1 21, 20.6 11. 12 re 380.0 21. 183 22.1 19.1 20. 20.4 20.2 202 19. 53 22. 8:2 1963. 2 3 21.8 2.1 3 19.2 19:8 21.1 £12 23. 20. 21. iB 183 1965. . 5: 3 5 23.3 26. 23 20.9 5] fa: 55:3 21. 35:2 24, 23.6 1966. . 283. 22.8 23.4 24.8 21. 2h, 23.4 22.4 27. 22. 22. ’ a: 74.4, 23.3 3 25.7 22, 23. 33 20.4 4:3 21. 54 HN 5:1 1969. + } NO. OF INJURY CASES REPORTED PER 10,000 NONFARM AND NONFEDERAL EMPLOYLES (TmmeE MONTH AVERAGES): DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMDER OCTOBER NOVEMBER YEAR JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE Jury AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER FEDRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMPER DECEMBER JANUARY ve 4 % 18. 19. 20.8 20. 21.6 20. 19.9 19.9 1% 19. 20:8 ® 20.3 2:3 21.7 al 2, 20:3 20. 20.9 1963... 2:3 21. 20, 19. i} 20. 22, 22, 21. 21. 20, 20.9 196k, , 21. . 2. 22,1 22.8 23.0 22.6 21, 22, 2%. 22. gan Be | En | By IBGE) Re) BR) ogy | ai | BT | HB |W i 23.3 a: 26.1 23. 23.0 2 22.8 22.2 23.2 22.1 2i.3¢/ : 1969... 2/ PRELIMINARY L89 THREE-MONTH MOV ING AVERAGES OF NUMBER OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INJURY CASES REPORTED. PER 10,000 NONFARM AND NONFEDERAL EMPLOYEES, JANUARY 1961 - peCEMBER 1967 TABLE 3001.3) (30URCE 638 dd Sibi hihi Soe” a i 34.00 eer Sok, iia 1 ntl oh WY a Cel ited br tnt day 25 20 15 "834 ‘dC ‘onv Aanr anne AVR “udy CHV G34 NYE ‘230 "AON Ane anne AVA ‘ddV ‘YVH ‘634 "NV “230 * AON “130 *d3s *onv Ann anne AVR ‘ud¥ ‘HY *A34 ‘Nye *730 1963 1964 1965 1966. 1967 IDMONTH 3 1962 1961 mM 639 26 cases were due to overexertion in December 1967, as compared with 24 in November, 44 of the 246 cases resulted from various types of falls, 47 of the cases reported in December 1967 arose out of lumber and wood products in= dustries: of these 47, 12 resulted from contact with toxic and noxious substances, 12 from being struck by something, 12 from being caught in, on, under, or between something, 5 from striking against an object, 5 from overexertion, and 1 from a fall, Only 23 cases had been reported during the previous month by employers in this major industry group. In local governmental work, 27 were reported in December 1967 and 26 in the previous month, Contractors reported 26 in both months, 27 were reported in December by food industries, Wausau Regiop No, 2 255 cases were reported in December 1967 == less than the num- bers reported in November 1967, in December 1966 and in December 1965, 206 employ- ers reported the 255 cases, 211 reported the 270 cases in November 1967, Three em= ployers reported between 5 and 9 cases in December 1967 as compared with none re= porting more than 4 in November 1967, 63 of the 255 cases resulted from the injured employee being struck by an object, 43 were due to falls, and 35 were due to overexertion, 46 of the cases reported in December 1967 arose out of lumber and wood products in- dustries: 19 resulted from being struck by something, 5 each from falls, from strik- ing against something and from being caught in, on, under or between something, 6 from overexertion, 2 from contact with toxic and noxious substances, 1 from contact with atmospheric or environmental temperature extremes, and 3 from accident types not reported, 32 were reported by this major industry group during the previous month, Local government accounted for 20 cases in December as compared with 26 in the pre- vious month, Contractors reported 25 in December as compared with 26 in November, Food and kindred products industry dropped from 20 to 18, paper and allied products rose from 18 to 25, Transportation equipment manufacturing incurred 17 cases both months, C. 163 cases were reported in December 1967 =-- less than the numbers reported in the previous month and in the same months of 1966 and 1965, 17 employers reported between 2 and 4 injury cases in December 1967; none reported more than 4, The largest zumber of cases reported in December 1967 resulted from the injured employee being struck by various objects, equipment, etc, 21 of the cases reported in December 1967 arose out of lumber and wood products in= dustries, The number of reports from local governmental units dropped from 26 to 23 between November and December 1967. Construction dropped from 26 to 20, food rose from 19 to 24, Neepah Region No, 4 346 cases were reported in December 1967 =-- less than the num= bers reported in the previous month and in the same month in 1966 and 1965, One em- ployer reported between 10 and 19 cases, two between 5 and 9, and 43 between 2 and 4 in December 1967, 73 of the 346 cases were due to the injured getting struck by something, 65 cases resulted from falls, and overexertion was responsible for 53. Local governmental units reported 21 injury cases in December 1967 as compared with 27 in November 1967, The number reported by contractors in both months remained rather steady at 50 in November and 53 in December 1967, Both months had more than 30 from food and kindred products and from paper and allied products, Primary metal industry cases dropped from 26 to 23, Madison Region No, 5 248 cases were reported in December 1967 =~ less than the num= ber of cases reported in November 1967 and in December 1965 and December 1966, Falls were responsible for 55 of the 248 cases, 5 employers reported between 5 and 9 end 26 reported between 2 and 4 in December 1967, 49 cases were incurred by construction workers in December 1967 as Vell as_in Novem=- ber 1967, Local government accounted for only 17 cases as compared with -27 in Nov=- ember 1967. Food and nonelectrical machinery had 20 each in December as compared with 25 and 24 respectively in the previous month, State government reported 13 in December, West Bend Region No, 6 297 cases were reported in December 1967 == less than the number of cases reported in November 1967 and December 1966, but more .than the number reported in December 1965. In December 1967, 7 employers reported ‘between 5 and 9 injury cases and 34 between 2 and 4 cases; in November 1967, 1 employer re- ported between 10 and 19 cases, 6 between 5 and 9 cases and 36 between 2 and 4 cases, Objects, etc, striking the injured employee were responsible for 65 injury. cases, and overexertion resulted in 52 cases. 22 cases were reported by municipal governments in November and December. 1967, The number in contract construction rose from 29 to 32, 29 cases were reported by food industries in December, 25, 34 and 31 cases were reported in December by primary metal, fabricated metal products and nonelectrical machinery, respectively; this compares with 23, 39 and 24 reported by these industries in November, 838 cases were reported in December 1967 == down from the number of cases reported in November 1967, December 1966 and December 1965. One em= ployer reported 20 or more cases, five employers between 10 and 19, twelve betvesn 5 and 9, and 121 between 2 and 4, 129 of the 838 cases resulted from falls; however, objects striking the injured em- ployee accounted for 186, and 165 were due to overexertion, 101 happened in contract construction work and 103 in nonelectrical machinery industries, Comparable figures for November were 118 and 113, respectively, Municipal government reported 72 in November and 69 in December, First reports from primary metal industries increased from 59 to 62. Racine Region No, 8 308 cases were reported in December 1967 == down from the num= ber of cases reported in November 1967, December 1966 and December 1965, One employ- er reported between 10 and 19 cases, two between 5 and 9, and forty between 2 and 4. 68 of the December 1967 cases resulted from overexertion, 45 from falls, 42 from striking against an object, and 53 from being struck by something, 35 happened in contract construction and 28 in local government work; this compares with 38 and 20 641 TABLE 3000.3 INJURY CASES REPORTED UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF WISCONSIN, BY REGION, DISTRICT AND COUNTY OF OCCURRENCE OF INJURY OR DISEASE, AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYERS WHO REPORTED THESE CASES, DECEMBER 1967 NUMBER OF |NJURY CASES REPORTED REGION, NUMBER OF EMPLOYERS WHO NOV. REPORTED SPECIFIED DISTRICT JAN, = DEC. 1965 pecemser 1967 NUMBER OF INJURY CASES 1/ AND 1 20 1966 | 1967 [MONTHLY | roraL [MeN |womMEN | FATAL 1 2-4 10-19] or COUNTY 96 967 Ih 5-9 9 ao ToTAL.... | 38,821 38,499 3,249 2,746 2,280 466 8 |1,60% 327 33 REGION NO, 1 RICE LAKE..s0e SUPERIOR..ee BAYFIELD... BURNETT... DOUGLAS...» SAWYER, eee WASHBURN. . 1:1 0 w y ~ o - +0 nN 2 3,298 2 246 2% 9 302 2 HURLEY. oeeee 3 3 1 a i $hSturen 8 46; i 1 1 8% 142 12 n 3 seis = 38 n —— pa) = T=) =n tir 11s ay 3 [=] oN = —w on >p8a 9) — ON =O —~&U -— | =ND WO EN prey Pra 11) a tI ° eg = 0 NEW R|CHMOND PIERCE. . ue POLKssvasoe ST, CROIX, sr SNES ee 0 TNE N tyre no ol EY ve 130 1 n EAU CLAIRE. BARRON. see DUNNsssooe 1 - n —l = w ~ 1 0 EAU CLAIRE,. &1 CHIPPEWA. + ik a5 ro RUSKeeosee TAYLOR, eee —_—t EAU CLAIRE, BUFFALO... EAU CLAIRE PEPINcsses LOW == NEON 11 110 np 0 TUI= ON DW == re 0 ins 13738 nN on —-n == VOIO W=O WVONEF OW =U 2 3 2828 oR Bod w res $l ria REGION NO, 2 WAUSAU.esesnee RHINELANDER, n - Ww & - ns oONEO FN O00 NE—=—=D PDWIUne 3 = ONO LINCOLN. 235 1 3 ‘ONEIDAssae 2 21% 1 } MARINETTE, 4s 423 5% Xo 42 gk OCONTO4 ave 161 135 13 0 0 wise | S703 3 SHAWANO, sass 6 2 38 MENOMINEE, SHAWANO. + & 21 1 1 14 13 WAUPACA. oo 37 342 3 27 23 WISCONSIN RAPIDS. 000s 6 BZ 3 13 REGION NO, 3 LA CROSSE.se.s 2,517 2,450 208 163 1 339 385 — ound try nd Lr TW £3 se» 1111 Ww - nN OWN N FE = OW ny Caw Caw Eee 1m 5 HVE £339) ry ay ey eis 2 Tr ‘ Py oo WE IW FE I N=IW = = Ln NI ow Co = ' 3h n nN n n on ~~ ' ] ' R GSB Corww REE IB TABLE 3000,3 (conTinvED) 642 NUMBER OF INJURY CASES REPORTED Region, wv - NUMBER OF EMPLOYERS WHO DISTRICT JAN. = DEC. 1965 * pEcemMeEr 1967 NUMBER Br Nady CASES iy AND 1567 20 COUNTY i 1966 1967 i TOTAL|MEN | WOMEN | FATAL | 1 2-4 [5-9 [10-19] or [ToTaL i AVERAGE MORE REGION NO, 3 (conta) BLACK RIVER i 68 2 18 46 y 1 ¥ eR i Fy) a J 2 gee B JACKSON . - - - - - - TREMPEALEAU | 33 19 1 1 2 12 - - " 2 - - - 13 use 6 ~ wi wr #8 OW® OB 3B 3 o:|Bl:o:o:oB sessvnes | 34 2 26 2 } = - om To onnoR . i iu 1 1 3 2 i 1 1 - - = 1 VERNON. seve 15% 137 1 1 1 71 - 12 3 - - - 15 MONTELLO. +0 es { 58 624 4 3% 28 6 = 21 5. - - 2 ADAMS + va y0s 1 - ” . = = a. - Seen LAKE, } a J }2 8 1 - 1 2 - - - J! AUscoee - - *- - HMARQUETTE,, | ? } [I 3 ~ ~ < ” WAUSHARA. 4 ! 109 119 9 7 2 - 1 1 - - - R]CHLAND | CENTER. vues 48 ko 2 22 3 1 2] 2 - - - 2 Rall 24 22> 23rd RICHMANG.., | 129 # n 3 3 - - 3 - - wom 3 3 . U FAEENAKa ess casse Wor 703 393 36 30 M6 - 2p dy 2 1. a APPLETON. 40s fod 1, 23 2 90 fo 1 - 2 i - - - 1 OUTAGAMIE,, | 1,0 1,12 91 90 10 - 1 - - - i Cooma THB OLR 2% ORE 3 [FB o:o:o: 8 GREEN BAY... 36 304 28 20 1 3 - 12 - - - 16 DOORyyveeee 1 3 1 1 2 - 2 1 - - - 6 KEWAUNEE. .. 163 1 1 1 1 1 - 3 - - - 10 NEENAH AND OSHKOSH, 4.4 1,21 1,251 - ” EA 1,21 1,251 5 & 2 8 - % g : } - a NITOWOC,... 8 6h 48 16 - 8 8 - «- ¥ A CALMET oes a 2 2 1h g - is 2 3 - - 1 MAN] TOWOC, mm 50 3 1 - 1 - - 35 REGION NO. 5 abisoty setnne 3, ve 318 ue 20 : - 18 26 5 - - 3 CoLUMB Ans + 2 i5 1 : 1% 3: >: : SAUKsseseee 2 275 2 1 1 4 - 1 2 a. - = 15 mn OME OR ome oR ocd: occ vee 2 J - np MADISON. +vaus 19 19% 16 15 1k 1 ” 1 1 = % alk LArAvETTELS i wo 4% lo: ERI Doo % JANESVILLE... | 1,0 2 1,02; 8 6 60 - ko 3 - - 48 ott 3 BS SERRAR SIRE REGION No, 6 2 2 . s ' . WEST BEND.eusas ) 1 . 322 297 232 2 1 3 ww, ow 2) F ve - - ow WEEE ST OEE TOI BRIE ewe | Val 1,06 - = TE we 8 BROW O38: o-oo 8 TABLE 3000.3 (CONTINUED) NUMBER OF INJURY CASES REPORTED REGION, NUMBER OF EMPLOYERS WHO NOV, REPORTED SPEC]FJ]ED DISTRICT JAN, = DEC, 1965 oecemeer 1967 NUMBER OF INJURY CASES 1/ AND ! *1 1 20 COUNTY | 1966 | 1967 ct TOTAL | MEN | womeEN | FATAL] 1 [2-4 |5-9 10-19] or | TOTAL AVERAGE MORE REGION No, 6 WEST BEND i 6 xe Mw $1::: 8 DODGE, sss - - - uy 4 Ly 4 26 1 - 16 2 Lm ie 2 aaah i& 1 2 no2 12 » 16 2 2. .% = 2 PORT . 451 26 2 - 2 2 . - = 24 ——l B OB ® 3 2 {2 2 ..:: 2% - 10 1 y 2 2 HE 2 Toon. 10 £2 PA 12 3 18 i 2 ] 1 - oo. 2 REGION No, T wees | 12,2 a 1,02! 4 1 121 12 1 hy ris 15:2 ng 1 20 iE 2 3 1 2 121. 12 2 1 io MILWAUKEE, | 12,291 11,891 1,020 6! 14 1 121 12 5 1 Loy REGION No, 8 RACINE ssaanas y, y, 4 08 2 4 18 0 2 1 = 22 ED ER BBY OL FRC: Ae ’ 2 - - - INBuueese | 1,700 1, 1 1 2 1 63 1 70 em dr + 1:30 11% 1% 13 % 2 1 a 3 1 1. = R YANc ees s Ly 431 26 20 6 1 22 2° oe" =m 24 Bane wi i 3 26 20 6 i 3 2 .I0 I WAseues ki ko - (J 1 - - na oe 3 PY 12 8 ko 8 - 0 4 1. = - 3 OUT OF STATE... ¥12 497 Yo 39 39 v 33 3 wie ole - 36 NOT REPORTED... 8 119 8 6 5 1 - 6 - - J a 6 1/ AN EMPLOYER THE INJURY in November, at the same level of 31 both months, ed by motor freight transportation and warehousing establishments, MAY BE INCLUDED IN THIS PART OF THE TABLE TwO WAS INCURRED, COMMENTS OR MORE TIMES, DEPENDING ON WHERE Nonelectrical machinery dropped from 46 to 32, primary metals stayed 39 cases were reported in December 1967 =~ down from the number re- ported in November 1967, the same as reported in December 1966 and one less than the number reported in December 1965, 92-734 O-68—42 Three employers reported between 2 and 4 cases; five employers had reported between 2 and 4 cases in November 1967. 17 were report- TABLE 2051.5 AVERAGE NONAGRI CULTURAL EMPLOYMENT IN WISCONSIN AND DAILY AVERAGE NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED, 1939 THROuGH 1967 AVERAGE DAILY AVERAGE YEAR WENAGRI CULTURAL NUMBER OF RIES piney reported 2/ 3/ 193% sannevve ,600 SR &h:5%0 It 1941 ,200 102 is 1580 12 io 2 124 1945. 1700 19 1946 8,100 12 13 %s: 123 1 1,014,700 121 1949 ’ 1% 1950. 1,022,100 1 1951 1,071,200 110 193 11097300 ! 1991 102033 1955. vv 1,108,100 5} a 1,146,900 1 1,152,000 1 1,114,900 8 1959 1,166,000 1 1,191,900 92 1961. 1,179, 1% ae % 1 1,233, ! i Ha 2 1965 1,331,700 1 1966. ’ 1,395,200 12 15% i 11838.5008/ 12 SOURCE: DEPT. OF 1,, L. & H. R., U. C. DIV., R. & A. EXCLUDING SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS ONLY. RRR POTENTIAL COMPENSABLE CASES (WHERE [NDEMNITY OR CCMPENSATION WILL PROBABLY BE PAID). J: PRELIMINARY, 645 TABLE 2052.7 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF WORKERS COVERED BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF WISCONSIN, AND NUMBER OF INJURY CASES REPORTED PER 1,000 SucH WORKERS, 1945 - 1967 Mor" onnchs Foe ees Lu YEAR COVERED BY CASES PER 1,000 si oglueys AF REPORTED 1/ WORKERS 805,000 36,497 45.3 875,000 32-53 ui -4 ,000 4 12; i i = 950,000 31835 #% 995,000 3.8% 4.0 1,000,000 ;021 2.9 1,0 3850 0, 29: 1,025,000 35% 3:0 1,055, 29,062 28. 110231900 27,h 2.3 1,035,000 23,4 2h, i AS i 21.0 1,035,000 28,320 26.1 1,070,000 27, 25.6 } 880 500 dan 27.0 i i ot 1,190,000 38:70k 30.3 1968. cavivaeer 1,240,000 8,821 1s 106 ensue ashia 1,285,000 hos 3:3 Vv POTENTIAL COMPENSABLE CASES (WHERE INDEMNITY OR COMPENSATION WILL PROBABLY BE PAID). TABLE 2033.5 WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED, 1963 - 1967, CLASSIFIED BY INDUSTRY 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 INDUSTRY TOTAL FATAL TOTAL FATAL TOTAL FATAL TOTAL FATAL TOTAL | FATAL CASES CASES CASES CASES CASES FOFALuyrusevnvs 38,499 138 38,821 157 36,106 128 33,321 126 30,532 127 AGRICULTURE AND FISHING. cususustssnsensusensrns 3 5 ? 1 3 0 3 i 3 732 2 MINING AND QUARRYING.... . CONSTRUCTION sevssssossnsness ~ y, 2 y, 2 y, & 7 4,21 2 3,7 2 GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS.esvescevsnse . 1,3 3 i; 1,4 1.822 2 1,1 GENERAL CONTRACTORS, OTHER THAN BUILDING . 1,00 1 1,01 9 20 & 12 SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS. .ecesasensenes ve 2,0 12 2,169 1 2,1 1 2 10 Vy & MANUFACTURING. covevoravsesnes oa 18,356 34 18.33 16, 3 1 2k 30 3 3 FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 2 7 2, n 3 39 1 2, 3 , ? TEXTILES AND APPAREL.csvaes . 1 - 2 ] 2 - 2 - 1 he LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS. . > 2 i; 12% 5 1.1 - a 1 3 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES..... . = - 3 z 3 2 2 3 1 £ PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS....s ’ 1,059 4 Lo y 96 2 2 3 2 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING..evsus . HY 1 9 2 430 3 3 - CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS .esvsvocacsssencs 1 - 38 - 1 1 - 1 1 5 RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS... 3 6 - y - ® - § 1 - 1 2 LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS..cssssessasss . 5 1 490 2 54 1 | - Ei - STONE, CLAY AND GLASS PRODUCTS . 402 1 Li ¢ z 401 2 3 1 : 2 3 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES.... . 2,316 i 2, 2 2 4 }s 4 1.330 : FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS... . 3 2a 2 1 1 ’ : if ] 4 MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICALscssevscssee che ’ 1 3, 9 3,151 5 2,049 1 - } ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES... 1,052 - 2 12 - - : } TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT .oescoerravrsscosensens 13 3 1 1 922 3 3! 3 1 INSTRUMENTS AND RELATED PRODUCTSasesecssses . 101 - 115 - 95 - > } - MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES.ussssss 399 3 1 - 352 8 0 1 3 2 8 MOTOR FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION AND WAREHOUSING “ 1.282 10 1. 5 1:32 1, 2 $ - OTHER TRANSPORTATION.esssosessssssssssncsssannns 343 1 301 - 2 3 9 3 3 = COMMUNICATION: saesanas . Ie 1 2 5 2 2 z UTILITIESesaus . 2 1 213 3 5 2 22 TRADE vo wovwioesiie - 6,052 22 5,871 2; 5,989 21 5, 2 2% WHOLESALE TRADE .cersvcsecvaseccsensossscssones 1,835 9 1,722 13 1,729 10 1,62 10 1,632 12 RETAIL TRADE: BUILDING MATERIALS, HARDWARE AND FARM A A ST. 1% 3 2 2 64 3 i% 4 ¢ 3 GENERAL MERCHANDISE AND APPAREL x 1 22 - : 5 3 ¢ : FOODguuessaenvseosassssssssnacssssssssncsnss = - = AUTOMOT IVE DEALERS AND GAS SERVICE STATIONS, Ba k 96 3 bo i 3 123 : FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT... 1 1 1 1 o g ° } EATING AND DRINKING PLACES.sssssssessransnse 2 = 5 1 5 1 3 : 1 MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL STORES... . 6 4 3 2 - : 1 3 : : FINANCE, INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE... . 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 g 2 2 z a = 2 232 8 SERVICE INDUSTRIES.ceasassascons “es » , » ’ » STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. ke 33% 19 3,7 18 3,728 15 3,728 13 3,295 20 NOT REPORTED 4 v's vs sat ain ise ivsesnsssssnenssess 15 - 16 - 5 - 1 - 1 - | 9%9 DAILY AVERAGE NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED, BY INDUSTRY GROUPS INDUSTRY 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 ALL INDUSTRIES = TOTALs.oesesessoss 96.0 89.6 92.2 93.8 83.0 ALL MANUFACTURING... aas ELE ASRS ee .0 53.9 47.3 42.8 ki.6 371 38.8 b1.5 33.8 FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS... 2 2:8 8.6 8.% 8.5 8.3 8.2 8.3 13 LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS... . ‘1 3.8 3.5 3.1 3:3 3:6 3: .2 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES.s... i. 1.2 1.2 7.1 3:2 . «l ‘3 1.1 PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS... 3:6 2.9 2. 21 2. 2.5 2.4 2. 2.2 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES, .1 £1 7 h, 4.0 32 -2 33 2.7 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS. . 7.0 5. 3 }.2 L.3 3 . .9 3. MACHINERY (EXCEPT ELECTRICA 1.7 1.3 8. 1-2 6. 3 3 1-8 5.6 ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, EQU]PMENT 3. 2. 2.3 vd 2.0 of 1d . 1.3 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT..... 51 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 2, 2.9 2.3 ALL OTHER MANUFACTURING. ..eveavees ee —— 9. 7.9 71.3 6.6 7.1 6.0 6.0 6.1 5.5 RADE wavs nasa omruny A 19.1 19.5 18.1 17.7 16.7 16.3 16.4 16.1 15.8 CONSTRUCTIONS vss vavevasvivnves Crreererenerarens 16.1 14.5 13.7 12.2 12.0 12.4 2g 12.3 1.4 . . k, k, v " “ bq k.o - GENERAL CONTRACTORS, OFWER Ti 31 2d 2 22 Rok 2d 2.3 : SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS. ..veessesss 2.3 6.5 6. 5, 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.0 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (STATE, COUNTY AND } ; LOCAL GOVERNMENT) .1eaesosn rane h me nhr SO, 12.3 12,3 10.7 9.8 9.8 9.5 SERVICE INDUSTRIES...... CeervsvsasrtreessErTaTY 1.4 7.1 6.0 5.4 5.6 5.5 TRANSPORTATION. ses svaas sesre Ties REE 6.3 5.5 5.2 Ls 4.8 5.0 AGRICULTURE AND FISHINGesss.an vessrvesnsvenvins 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 ALL OTHER INOUSTRIES.svesesncsars CSC eR Esta 2.4 2.3 2.3 1.9 2.3 L¥9 TABLE 715.28 JANUARY 1958 - pEcemer 1967 JAN. | ree | march | amie | MAY | JUNE | July | AUG. | seer. | ocr. | Nov. | DEC. 648 0 on ~N OX0 ~~ O ~— O® rl 2 SD CRE cen SUSY THN F 5 NNN NNN 2 . 8 | como 0 TROIS © =O EO NON v= CP w kr | FAO = oa om I SRA) Ad BY NNN oN YNM < £ =| & 2820 NOCD 2 ooo ono tin Wy ™ \O\D 0D \ - WYN “ONG woo) 2 POTN 3 | Fane SOND EINE SUE mewre : —— : ~ AVI ae NNN NNN ONY OO (LF\OAD NOMA OMAO Ov 3252 = AR Q io Ry 4 pi ED BEE SSAA - 4 SAE Sein Re 2 NO = Coos NNN VON x [a on w PONG INNO EN MINOW = © =O OD Ere ow = i ene > armas SoG - Ee Rg NNN NN NON v'} - 20 oo oo Bel i | BBR OPOED SOV 13: \o0ND 21 > y & & OQ or an 9 > —————— ARN TN. «3 —NUUN NNN NOM 8 Zz - § 6 a) ro — a 238 AREAS roe Sp Wwox 4 any nly ey F NNNNN NNT 2 2 a @ < Ww J a S J INONRO a eh - yo il = one FUSER BERRY Tetnw moves ef | eee RUSON WRI Taf) & ONAN NN NNO za @ & a a ° x - 5 oon NN INN Ww — Fue - - - “ SURE Zl TN ee 2 i @ NNNNN NNN £ 355 $ | W83LR 2 MeN Fh =a INOW MONO FANON i —p UONO\ = — oy Oy MO = 0 OM MALE » > » » > FIRST REPORTS OF INJURIES FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS, BY MONTHS YEAR { TOTAL ALL INJURY CASES: [EE vy 1958 9 & 2 a 3&2 7 YEAR FERRE RRR yg 2! 2 2 2 ; FATAL INJURY CASES ONLY 649 TABLE 2032.6A WORK INJURIES REPORTED IN 1965 AND 1967 CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF INJURY TOTAL . FATAL NATURE OF INJURY 1967 | 1966 1967 | 1966 TOTAL. +x ovo 30,499 38,821 138 157 SPRAINS, [STRAINS us vavrsvanpmrimssvesnanans 8,613 8,295 - - CUTS, LACERATIONS, PUNCTURES, ABRASIONS,... 6,504 6,805 5 4 FRACTURES. ,sveraenes Snes 4,647 4,645 20 15 BRUISES, CONTUSIONS, ,. ’ 4,778 5,334 - - MULTIPLE INJURIES... . 800 1,273 8 61 BURNS, SCALDS,, cusursrsdonvnens d 1,18 1,639 El 6 CRUSHING INJURIES. ssurusssessasnennnnnonnes 836 919 6 20 ET 911 9k - - DERMATITIS. sus ans vmasisasnsastossnernennes 493 511 - - AMPUTATIONS, ‘ENUCLEATIONS, 40s sussreassssee 551 592 1 - ALL: OTHER REPORTED us suis ve sens vo nrvepesnsne 5,919 5,814 30 37 NOT REPORTED, 4s seuussssnnsasrassnsanennnens 2,643 1,987 4 8 TABLE 2004.72 VORK INJURIES REPORTED IN 1966 AND 1967 CLASSIFIED BY PART OF BODY AFFECTED TOTAL FATAL PART OF BODY 1967 | 1966 1967 | 1966 TOTAL..ueus 38,499 38.821 138 157 TRUNK. 40s , 11,004 10,827 9 4 LEG, LEGS,,.vosvs . 6,062 5,991 1 1 FINGER, FINGERS.. . 5,759 6,056 - - MULTIPLE OR BODY SYSTEMusssvsesnernnnanenns 3,066 3,338 93 127 ARM, ARMS. .4ussusenssnsensnssssnnsonanannns 3,464 3,213 - 1 FOOT; FEET van vumsme nso su@ois Sw ute sia sn amine 2,%% 2,534 1 5 HAND, HANDE, suv ininsnmvrmornssmsnsersoponss 2,162 2,215 - - HEAD, FALE, NECK, .usuvssesansssssanesaennns 1,763 1,719 23 18 HOE, TORE simmamiorsiinnamsmmsntPaien snes nenain 1,365 1,513 - - EYE, EVES usuarvanis sessrswsrsnssenvovmanss 850 816 - - NOV BEPORTED uaassnsnids as sinsabnaihiniamaonivie 596 539 1 6 NOTE: INCLUDED IN THE INJURIES TO THE TRUNK IN 1967 VERE J °30a8e INJURIES (INCLUDING THE BACK, VERTEBRAE, INTERVERTEBRAL DISCS, SACRUM AND COCCYX); &, OF THE BACK INJURIES WERE DUE TO SPRAINS OR STRAINS (EXCLUDING THE VERTEBRAE, |NTERVERTEBRAL DISCS, SACRUM AND COCCYX). 650 TABLE 2030.25A \/ORK INJURIES REPORTED IN 1966 AND 1967 CLASSIFIED BY ACCIDENT TYPE TOTAL “FATAL ACCIDENT TYPE 1967 1966 1967 1966 TOTAL. ot vss 38,499 38,821 138 157 STRUCK BY (NONTRAFFIC)uussessessosssssnsnes 7,902 8,478 10 7 FALLS sams nuo asd samen is datos vasuasiann saane 6,521 6,113 20 21 OVEREXERTION, 4404 uansnssensnssnsnsnennanes 6,349 6,175 4 te STRUCK: AGAINST. uieinisvsssnnssnmnisiores 4,39% 4,679 1 - CAUGHT IN, ON, UNDER, BETVEEN...ueseseseses 4,223 4,226 1 16 BODILY: REACTIONyu suv ven suivssvsssvasnnsvany 2,665 2,681 - - TRAPFIC ACCIDENTS. odes virvravsvsrnssonens 1,009 1,010 52 52 CONTACT WITH RADIATIONS AND CAUSTICS; TOXIC AND NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES. es essssssesas 850 936 6 5 CONTACT WITH TEMPERATURE EXTREMES, NEC...., 867 828 1 3 NONTRAFF IC VEHICLE ACCIDENTS, NEC.vvevaeenn 703 162 6 9 RUBBED, ABRADED, (ETC, eu saustsrsvsnsnssvvnss 268 289 - - NIBUENCE, , o rerouinnis sonia snenssinhon ison 269 222 1 2 EXPLOSION, FLAREBACK, ETC.seesseesessennnss 2k2 226 3 1 ATTACKED BY ANIMAL OR INSECT.u.eeeaeesesaee 127 130 - 1 CONTACT WITH ELECTRIC CURRENT. .e0casnsasees 109 15 10 13 HORSERLAY 4 5 43 4 50.44 iva LEVER TIS SHEER EROS SRY 2 23 - - REACTION, OTHER THAN BODILY.sssessssennsens it 12 - - CONTACT WITH OTHER ATMOSPHERIC OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. 4svassssveasnnecs 15! 13 - - PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO EXCESSIVE NOISE.seuss 7 13 - - TRAUMATIC EXPOSURE TO NOISE. eeesasneroanses 6 1 - - SUDDEN STOP OR START (NONVEHICLE)ssssassess 2 1 % - RING CAUGHT IN, ONveesessminrmnnsrnmeesnvon 7 21 - SLIPPED; CAUGHT BY OR HUNG ONTO.uvvsesesnes 50 22 : - TRAPPED. INvy swe ens aphsosnessnsmnvosstnivges 4 - - - UNCONTROLLED ELEVATION OR DESCENT.....,e0ss 5 - - - SLIDING DOWN, counsaesssssonn sins vrosmesssns 7 - # - NOT REPORTED, us vn aswesntsssuseisonssnsnns 1,860 1,839 13 651 TABLE 2031.254 ORK INJURIES REPORTED IN 1558 AND 1967 CLASSIFIED BY SOURCE OF INJURY : TOTAL FATAL SOURCE OF INJURY 1967 | 1966 1967 | 1966 TOTAL sv essy 38,499 38,821 138 157 WORKING SURFACES, us uususmnsvesssiiinssnne 5,660 5,246 17 15 MACHINES, MACHINERY. seueruvrreersannannnnee 4,248 4,561 n 12 VEHICLES sun snnvanmsnssnemenessosmavsssavin 3,449 3,343 51 64 BODILY MOTION, . 2,816 2,810 - - CONTAINERS... 2,84 2,771 1 1 HAND TOOLS 4 useaaasannnrssosanasssornononns 1,989 2,083 | 1 - HOISTS, ELEVATORS, CONVEYORS...seeesesseses 79% 839 8 9 EXPLOSIVE, HOT AND FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES... 1,048 968 4 7 FURNITURE, FIXTURES, FURNISHINGS ...0e0vuaeas 515 59% - 1 ALL OTHER REPORTED, ,.... EERE © 12,857 13,276 25 36 NOT. REPORTED 4 av svn suis haps ss sis sosavs sin 2,223 2,267 1h 12 Decisions of Interest The deceased was employed as a receptionist. She was the only employe in the office after the president left that day. The plant was located in an industrial area, Her quitting time was 4:30 p.m, and about 5:00 p,m, her body was found on the employer's premises, The crime is unsolved, The examiner found liability. The Commissioners affirmed, The applicant, a filling station attendant, arranged to have his 1957 Chevrolet towed to respondent's premises with respondent truck and without permission, Respondent directed him to move it, The applicant sold the transmission and the purchaser was to remove it, The purchaser had difficulty in so doing and asked applicant for ad- vice, The applicant got under the car to remove some bolts and was injured when the jack slipped, The examiner dismissed finding injury did not arise out of the employ-~ ment, The Commissioners affirmed, TaeLE 2034.6 WORK INJURIES INCURRED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REPORTED IN 1967 MOTOR- SNOW FIRE ROAD | AMBU- | MOTOR ROAD. ACCIDENT TYPE TOTAL [TRUCK | AUTO | TAXI | BUS CYCLE BICYCLE PLOW | TRACTOR VEHICLE | GRADER| LANCE | SCOOTER | ROLLER OTHER TOTAL.u.es.s [1,009 | 503 365 38 24 21 15 12 10 4 4 z . 2 2 7 COLLISION WITH: fee ) ONCOMING VEHWICLE ON SAME PUBLIC Tor. ROAD. se vevesscavunsesvesstsnsnese | 2 5% 23 26 2 1 - 2 - “ . - ® . - - VEHICLE MOVING IN SAME DIRECTION . ON SAME PUBLIC ROAD. aseesescnnsns 83 | 29 35 3 y 1 < 3 1 > = - - - 1 VEHICLE MOVING IN AN INTERSECTING PUBLIC ROAD yen ivurivesieirafonis 116 50 51 5 5 2 1 - - - 1 - : . STANDING VEHICLE OR OBJECT IN PUBLIC ROAD 4 shud pant kRi us a nniinins 61. 36 6 - i 1 6 ® - 2 # 1 1 STANDING VEHICLE OR OBJECT NOT IN PUBLIC ROAD.vscsvssnnassnnanns 1 - - 1 - - -- - - - - - - TRAIN, . } 1 3 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - ANIMAL. - - - - - - - - - - - - OTHER OR | 2 16 16 2 . - - - - - - - - STRUCK BY: ANOTHER VEHICLE WHILE STANDING IN PUBLIC ROAD, ceuvivivesiionnisis 62 20 - 2 1 1 - w - - - - " " ANOTHER VEHICLE WHILE STANDING ; OFF PUBLIC ROADucasssasns 3 8 3 3 - = - - * 1 - - - - 7 1 OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED. . 30 1 1 ky - 2 - - - - - - - - 1 NONCOLLIS ION: OVERTURNED was ons ctvessvvevrsvnresy 2 - 1 hy 6 - - - - - 2 * - RAN OFF ROADWAY... . 1 7 21 1 3 1 - 1 1 1 - - - - - SUDDEN STOP OR START. . 1 i 3 - - - - - 1 1 1 - - - JACKKNIFE BY TRAILER. 14 1 - - - - - - £ - e - - 2 LOAD SHIFT: comannsotiss ” 10 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FALL FROM MOVING VEHICLE . 12 9 - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - 1 MECHANICAL FAILURE, . ‘ 3 3% 4 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 HUMAN FAILURE. ......, ie : 4 1 2 = - ~ - - = - - - 5 OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED yeuuvessvarsne 2 - - - - - - - - - - - > - PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY.vsusesavenenass 31 7 21 - 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, UNSPECIFIED. sussan 183 56 113 6 # 5 1 - 2 - - - 2 - NOTE: 52 OF THE 187 WORK’ Tun ies FOR ONLY 2, oF THE 30, INCURRED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDE 99 WORK INJURIES RE REPORTED IN 1967, (COMPARABLE FIGURES FOR 1 TED IN 1 2s 3 2.6%; PROVED FATAL. THE, FAT, 8.86 87 455% INTED FOR i 157, RE ALTHOUGH THE WORK INJURIES FROM Ti FFIC ACCIDENTS ACCOUNTED 31:13 of THE 130 FATAL WORK INJURIES TIVELY. 299 TasLE 2030.28 WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED IN 1967, CLASSIFIED BY ACCIDENT TYPE ACCIDENT TYPE NUMBER OF CASES TOTAL | FATAL ACCIDENT TYPE NUMBER OF CASES TOTAL FATAL FALLS STRUCK BYeueus TOTAL.wsvevere FALL OR JUMP TO DIFFERENT LEVEL..sevevnee FROM SCAFFOLD, WALKWAY, PLATFORM, ETC,, FRCM LADDER. . FROM PILED MATER AL. FROM MOVING EQUIPMENT. FROM STATIONARY EQUIPMENT. . ON STAIRS. vavrssessssasnas INTO SHAFT, EXCAVATION, FLOOR FROM AN!MAL,, FROM ROOF, au. .. FROM CHAIR, BENCH, SAWMORSE + . DROP OF ELEVATOR TO DIFFERENT FROM TC. IEEE EEE. I EEE EEE] FALL WITH EQUIPMENT. OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED. . Sse ae este esas “te ee eases esses Ces ea eee Ose FALL ON SAME LEVEL..ssesees TO WALKWAY OR WORKING SURFACE. ONTO OR AGAINST..coecenansnnes FALL, UNSPECIFIED... STRUCK AGAINST. secveavsosssscsosesscssansssassasnsnns STATIONARY OBJECT. BUMPED INTO, . STEPPED ON, KICKED, 40 PUSHED OR | OWN AGAINST... OBJECT HANOLED BY INJURED, TRIPPED OVER. KNELT ONussew STEPPED OR SLIPPED 1 OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED... eae 0 CONTAINER, MOVING OBJUECT..seessseesscccanses MOVING PART OF EQUIPMENT... VEHICLE IN MOTION«ssssssas OBJECT HANDLED BY INJURED. OBJECT HANOLED BY OTHERS... 30,459 138 6,521 n BES paid TU WE = EW ay 6 2 1h 23 1 é 258 9% 287 1 4,394 1 ,TJC 1 23k BREAD 62) = 616 « 8 - 7,902 10 2,501 2 21 sTRUck BY (CONT.) FALLING OBJECT, FLYING OBJECT... TIPPING, SLIDING, ROLLING OBJECT. MOVING PART OF EQUIPMENT MATERIAL FROM EQUIPMENT, SPLASHED BY.ssesoosess OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED... CAUGHT IN, ON, UNDER, BETWEEN.:sceesssevsvnonconesse OBJECT HANDLED BY INJURED AND ANOTHER OBJECT... A MOVING AND A STATIONARY OBJECT. COLLAPSING PILE OF MATERIAL... COLLAPSING STRUCTURE. esses sre . . CAVE=IN OF EXCAVATION, TUNNEL, TRENCH,.. SLIDE OF EARTH, ROCKS, ETC..cvvsrees cesses EQUIPMENT BEING SET UP, SERVICED OR 1SMANTLED MECHANICAL APPARATUS OR PARTS...e..40 . OTHER OR UNSPECIFIEDsvessvevoecsvevcncnsne TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS... COLLISION WITH. casas vseannvsecssverssonnnons ONCOMING VEHICLE ON SAME PUBLIC ROAD, VEHICLE MOVING IN SAME DIRECTION ON S, PUBLIC ROAD.vesesoesssnses - sresenane VEHICLE MOVING IN AN INTERSECTING PUBLIC ROAD. . STANDING VEHICLE OR OBJECT IN PUBLIC ROAD. . STANDING VEHICLE OR OBJECT NOT IN PUBLIC ROAD. TRAIN. . ANIMAL OTHER OR he STRUCK BY.sseoeonas sesecces ANOTHER VEHICLE WHILE STAND ING in PUBLIC ROAD, . ANOTHER VEHICLE WHILE STANDING OFF PUBLIC ROAD. OTHER OR UNSPECIFIEDssssservssrsossssnsssnnnsns NONCOLLIS ION OVERTURNED. RAN OFF ROADWAY. SUDDEN STOP OR START JACKKNIFE BY TRAILER LOAD SHIFT.veeencas FALL FROM MOVING venice MECHANICAL FAILURE, NUMAN FAILURE. 000s OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED Tee ve ww tie eee —_- Ea +1 01 wun o VW owt =i wt 1 wow £99 TaBLE 2030.28 (conTiNuED) ACCIDENT TYPE NUMBER OF CASES ACCIDENT TYPE NUMBER OF CASES TOTAL | FATAL TOTAL | FATAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CONT.) CONTACT WITH TEMPERATURE EXTREMES, NEC, (CONT.) PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BYusoevssesssosreasavcsvranneonne 31 COLD SUBSTANCE. .esesessessass even 1 - FIRE STARTED BY OTHER SOURCE. ees 2 1 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, UNSPECIFIEDussesssessecsnssnenns 183 OTHER OR UNSPECIFIEDssssasans verses - NONTRAFF IC VEHICLE ACCIDENTS, NEC... 703 OVEREXERT ION Cesta TIv Tease 6,349 4 MECHANICAL FAILURE; ¢ose —— 8 ~ IN LIFTING OR LOWERING... Jegsiedie vais 4,160 1 RAN OFF EMBANKMENT eee 4 - IN PULLING OR PUSHING... cessesane sees 28 - STRUCK BY ANCTHER VE - - IN HOLDING OR CARRYING... . - . . . 2 - OVERTURNED. .cvuscassnss . 2 2 IN HANDLING EQUIPMENT.... . . . . . 1 PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY... * 2 1 IN WIELDING OR THROWING, . . . . . . 2 COLLISION WITH ANOTHER MOVING VEHICLE . 9 - OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED..uss eereeeses cover - HUMAN FAILURE. .covacorvacnacasassnns . 1 - COLLISION WITH ‘STATIONARY OBJECT.... # 108 - BODILY REACTION. wcessssnassasssrsssansssanssnesnens 2,665 - LOAD SHIFTeeacsscns eres . 8 - SUDDEN STOP OR START... ~ . 4 - FROM VOLUNTARY MOTIONS... 1,488 - STRUCK BY LOAD FALLING FROM VEMICLE. - FROM INVOLUNTARY MOTIONS. 1.7m - STRUCK BY MOVING PART.. “ones . 179 - TRAIN ACCIDENT. eeessees seen . 2 1 RUBBED, ABRADED, ETC, 268 - AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT... seas . 5 2 WATER TRANSPORT ACCIDENT Shee . 1 - BY REPEATED MOTIONsssesesseessans coarse 150 - OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED.,,. . . 2 - BY LEANING, KNEELING, SITTING ON. . . 22 - BY VIBRATING OBJECT.. seven 3 - CONTACT WITH ELECTRIC CURRENT co vvesnsvecersassstvnns 109 10 BY REPEATED FRICTION, Fo 2 - BY REPEATED PRESSURE, eure 6 - CONTACT WITH OVERHEAD POWER LINES, 26 8 OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED. . . - DIRECTLY sevavsensascans 9 2 THROUGH EQUIPMENT, . . 18 6 CONTACT WITH RADIATIONS AND CAUSTICS; TOXIC AND NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES. . 850 6 CONTACT RESULTING FROM FAULTY EQUIPMENT esessssvrss 2 - 19 6 CONTACT WITH OTHER ENERGIZED PARTS . . 59 2 . % - DIRECTLY ues eervesersse . sores 10 - . b: - THROUGH EQUIPMENT. . . eens 33 1 . 1 - NORMALLY NONCURRENT CARRYING. vss eres - OTHER OR UNSPECIFIEDueasssses agin 10 1 VIOLENCE. 269 1 EXPLOSION, FLAREBACK, ETC... i 242 3 HORBEPLAY. ous spesvsni ons priv asi auavisreversvvvee 2k - STRUCK BY MATERIAL FROM EXPLOSION, . . 30 1 TRAPPED INuvessvevsarees 4 - FLAREBACK IN LIGHTING, FIRING, ETC. . 51 - EXPLOSION, . . # 12 2 UNCONTROLLED ELEVATION OR DESCENT.eecssvsssccncsnssse 5 - BURST APART... . . - REACTION, OTHER THAN BODILY.eseaseasssrssossvansese 1h - CONTACT WITH TEMPERATURE EXTRERES, 867 1 CONTACT WITH ATMOSPHERIC, ENVIRONMENTAL ATMOSPHERIC, ENVIROMENTAL... . 42 - CONDITIONS ; NECeuvscenssssnnssrsversevses 15 - SPLASH OR BOIL=OVERsasass “ 508 - ESCAPE OF STEAM OR SUBSTANCE... . Lk - SUDDEN STOP OR START. 2 = OTHER HOT SUBSTANCE..eeaeers . 84 - $99 vaBLE 2030,28 (coNTINUED) NUMBER OF CASES NUMBER OF CASES ACCIDENT TYPE ACCIDENT TYPE TOTAL [ rama TOTAL FATAL RING CAUGHT IN, ONecsssecsesarnrsssersacscanesasnces 7 - TRAUMATIC EXPOSURE TO NOISE. susreseersersnaoncanns 6 - SLIPPED: CAUGHT BY OR HUNG ONTGussvvsssosnesosonoas 50 - ATTACKED BY ANIMAL OR INSECT.ssessecranssssncssseca 127 - SLICING DOWNusvesessssessrssrsernssivsstrinneresnnes 7 - NOT REPORTEDu.uuucsstnsesnteserurcennsosannrnrvnns 1,860 13 PRCLCNGEL EXPOSURE TO EXCESSIVE NOISEseesssssasccass 1 - Gq9 Selected serious injuries reported in December 1967: Press operator smashed left hand in die in press. Amputation, ring, middle, index and little fingers. Crushing injury to wrist and thumb, Maintenance foreman 'was making repairs to grandulator when the machine was apparently turned on by a small child"; amputa- tion, foot at ankle. Glazier fell 16 feet, Severe head and chest injuries; collapsed lung; internal injuries. Foreman was kneeling on ground, removing 7/16 guy wire from anchor rod. When he pulled guy wire out of eye in rod, end of guy wire flipped up and struck him in left eye, Eyeball had to be removed. Delicatessen cook cut tips off all fingers on right hand. While roofing was being applied around opening in roof, foreman stepped near opening. The board which was over the opening moved and he fell 25 feet onto concrete floor below, Skull fracture. WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED, CLASSIFIED BY SOURCE OF INJURY TABLE 2031.25 sid TOTAL 1967 NJ RET 1967 sauna | reonvan | MARCH | APRIL | MAY JUNE | sor Javeuss| serremece | ocroecr |wovemace]oecenees TOTALusasncnsnsn 38,499 {3,185(1) 3,315(1) 3,55%(0) 3,112(x) 3,275(m) 3,340(0) 2,715(n} 3,526(x) 3,111(r) 3,550(0) 3,070(a) 2,Thé(n) ANIMAL PRODUCTS (NOT FOOD).. 62 y 1 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 13 7 5 ARIMALS INSECTS, : oe 4 10 2 8 1 14 1 1 ena 2,538 08 307 28 222 al 5 192 4 22 28 176 164 os ao UCTURES 3 1 i 32 12 2 a) 3 x Bi 31 } 2 2 pat Rl iid fl 1 2 8 8 8 3 3 T i ¢ 1 beanal ig vende e vee 297 23 25 23 25 20 34 3 24 25 32 23 Z CLOTHING, APPAREL, SHOES.... 2 7 5 1 18 3 > 3 3 gw i” = 2 15 COAL AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. 1 21 2 2k 2! 2i 2 207(a) 2 2 2 ta 1% 23 3 30 3B 2 2 in 23 2 3 2 3 DRUGS, MEDICINES.esassaserss - - 1 - 2 1 ~ - 2 i B - DUSTS, FUMES, gasees Vapors, NEC.esas canine 114 6 5 10 12 Io 13 3 14 10 1" ? 2 21 0 (a) 32(e) M6(a) 2 1 ELECTS MRA, 3% 3 8 2 7(a) 3 9 9 % 4 7 1 2 2 ENVIRONMENT, heeds SRST 86 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 8 eats AND VAPORS + % 3 2 7 1 5 ¢ 3 1 fa ? 2 1 EXPLOSIVES cssvssssscsssoconsne - - - - - - - 8 - FLAME, FIRE, SMOKE 9: 8 9(a) 19 4 6 5 2 2 d 42 6 AaSint ly von Bl ® or fF de ox Ed 0% OH 5% Te wirbes s| uo 40 13 % so = BL 3 £2 5 3 GLASS ITEMS, NEC. 2 1 18 3 6 2 2 1 0 V 198 g | HAND TOOLSasssanss et 12 132 1; 3% 2 1 1338) 3 2 > 3 4 I yioiy NE ¥9| 29 36 i 31(a) 43 1 31 Bi(c) 32(a) 38(a) 39(a) 1 ious fun masasiTiS 9% 1 16 10 18 i 2 3 Hie & 3 LADDERS 4s000s 13 1 17 3 Lay n . 1 a) £ 7 2 5 ey Tetum 4,243 347(a) 323(a) 388(a) 327 366 5658 | 20048) 4 3 361(a) hoh(e) 351 297(a) MECHANICAL POWER 4 2 2 20 1 21 3 18 16 geile WB Rf BF HF Bed FE BF dB, Bf MINERAL ITEMS, NECsvesesesss 9 2 1 2 3] , Tate 2 1 PAPER AND PULP ITEMS, NEC... 2 1 2 § “ 5 ': 3 4 4 i$ 5 t TRANES s FACES vEabTAS LS s6| 18 19 25 17 te) 3 25 3 30(e) 2 a 2% ar wy 8 3 12 1% 21 15 2 1h 1 3 7 12 RADI Pant lH x ew ere Ere can a8 999 TABLE 2031.25 (CONTINUED) TOTAL 13 ¢ 1 SOURCE OF INJURY 1967 JANUARY [reenuan| waren | ae | MAY | JUNE | Jury [aveusr f seeremoce Joerosen|noveuses] DECEMBER SCRAP, DEBRIS, WASTE MATERIALS, NECuevvsenvesonse 16 1 1 - 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 SOAPS, DETERGENTS, CLEANING COMPOUNDS , NEC... ’ 8 2 3 1 3 : 2 9 1 4 9 EXTILE ITEMS, NEC . 2 emg ohm, ae . 3 286(r) 3 (€) 323) 3m Rte) AR 2lil(c) 20) 23(c) 32(0) B00) lic) WOOD ITEMS, NEC.sos. . led 225 ) a. ¢ ba ) 3 3 1 (8) 1 & 3 £ & WORKING SURFACES. ceesavennss , A A 397(8) 3%0(a) 31(8) 516(s) (a) » NECauan [2s 208 2 22 2 HERSAET rm EB dn Bh Bde de dog Bei 207(c) 195(e) On the lighter side: "Evidently an I,B.M, machine ' "Still under doctor's car." goofed', as I have not applied for nor am entitled to any workmens compensation," "His hip keeps dropping out of him," How long will he be away from work? "hes fired." "He slid the last four steps on the seat of his pants and his ankle was in there too." Manner in which notice to employer was given: "Butcher was pealing kidneys." "His eyes." "Iwo 30# tins of egg whites in freezer reaching for French Fries." "Knife jumped at him," L99 658 TABLE 2032.6 WORK INJURIES REPORTED IN 1967, CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF INJURY | NuMBER NUMBER NATURE OF INJURY oF NATURE OF INJURY OF CASES CASES TOTALeesnes 38,499 ! HEAT STROKE, HEAT EXHAUSTION, 10 HEMATOMA, . 0 ABSCESS. ees . HEMORRHAGE, 4 ACHE, PAIN. . HEMCRRHO1DS 4 + ALLERGY, NEC . HEPATITIS, INFECTIOUS + 15 AMPUTAT | ON. . HERNIAsvesrse in ANESTHES 1A. . HYDRARTHROS 1S 10 . HYPERTENS 10N, 2 . . IMBEDDED OBJECT... Li . IMPETIGOssssvvcsns . INFECTED WOUND, 4s. 2 . INFECTION, NECuuss ko . INFLAMMATION OR IRRITATION OF JOINTS, TENDONS, .MUSCLES, NEC, 214 BITE, STING . INFLAMMATION, NEC, 1 BLISTERsesee INTERNAL INJURIES, NEC, 3 BolL, CARBUNCLE., BRONCHITIS, LARYNGITISeoees . . 3 BRUISE, CON: ol LEAD POISONING . . 1 BULLET WOUND, 44, LOCKED JOINTessans . BURN, CHEMICAL... LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO NATURAL TEETH... 1 BURN, ELECTRIC.. LOSS OF HEARING, OCCUPATIONAL... . BURN, HOT SUBSTANCE,. LOSS OF HEARING, TEMPORARY.. . BURSITISeasscscesnsas LOSS OF HEARING, TRAUMATIC... . 6 LOSS OF SENSE OF SMELL,, . . 1 CAISSON DISEASE, . § LOSS OF VISION, TRAUMATIC... . 14 CALLOSITYeus . LOSS OF VOICE, vesee . 1 CANCERsasaes . 1 LYMPHANGITIS4s teens . 2 CARBON MONOXIDE TPoisdiinG . 1 CELLULITIS.. . . 1 MEASLES. esses . seses 1 CHICKEN POX, . . 1 MENTAL ILLNESS . cesses 2 COLLAPSE, NEC. . . 10 MISCARRIAGE asssese . eevee 2 COMMON COLD. . . MONONUCLEOSIS, INFECTIOUS... cose 1 CONCUSSION. + . . 17 MUMPS,esssassascace . veene 2 CONJUNCTIVITIS, . . MUSCLE SPASM, NEC,, . . '] CONVULSION, . . MYOSITIS.s . 0 CRAMP, . . 8 CRUSHING INJURY. . . 3 NAUSEAsesse . 3 CURVATURE. esses . NECROSISsaees . CUT, LACERATION, ABRASION .e 5+3) NEURALGIA. o 1 CYSTiveessdeensrnsensnnensreee . 47 | nNeurasTHENIA. . NEURITIS.s . DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF ARTIFICIAL NEUROSIS... . TEETH, . . 1 NEWCASTLE . 1 DERMATITIS... . 493 DETACHMENT, + . PARALYSISsesvse DIFFICULTY IN BREATHING. . 1 PARATYPHOI1D DISLOCATION, . . 290 PARES IS,. . DIZZINESS... . 12 PHLEBITIS, DROWNING . 1 PHYS | CAL: EXHAUSTION vss EDEMA. eo EFFUSION ELECTRIC SHOCK, ELECTROCUTION EMPHYSEMA. 4 o ENUCLEATION, EPICONDYLITI se aes FAINTING SPELL.es F1BROSITIS FRACTURE FREEZING, FROS FRICTION BURNesoe FUNGUS INFECTION, GANGLION GASTROENTERITIS, HEART ATTACK. PINCHED NERVE... PNEUMONIAsecrone . PNEUMOCON]0S IS, NEC PNEUMOTHORAX 4 oo PREVENTIVE SHOT, PROLAPSEsseeeee PROTRUSION, DISC PUNCTURE WOUND, cesses enm RABIESssensee RADIATION BURN, NEC, RADICULITISsesesernse REACTION TO DRUG, SERUM, VACCINE. INFECTION, RESPIRATORY RINGWORM, 4» RUPTURE , EXCEPT HERNT As oes RUPTURE OF PREVIOUS INCISION, RUPTURED BLOOD VESSEL NEC SALMONELLA. SCABIES SCALPING, nN ONO NV) = =O] = \O—] =+\O WoO Ww ns JO FS 3 659 TABLE 2032,6 (conTINUED) ’ NUMBER . NUMBER NATURE OF INJURY oF NATURE OF INJURY oF CASES CASES SCARLET FEVER, TENOSYNOVITIS,, . 51 SETATI Avs veer U7 | TETANUS 1 esaas . 1 SEPARATION OF BONE, CARTILAGE, THROMBOPHLEBITIS,,, . 1 LIGAMENT, MUSCLE, TENDON, 38 | THROMEOSISisaness . SEPTICEMlAsecesss ve 9 TISSUE DAMAGE, NEC & 5 SEVERED ARTERY, 20 TORN CARTILAGE, LIGA SEVERED CARTILAGE, L) GAM MUSCLE, TENDON ves S151 TENDON, MUSCLE., SEVERED NERVE SHOCK, NEC, 2i2 TUBERCULOS.IS, , i TUMOR. ULCER, EXTERNAL... 2 ULCER, INTERNAL. ve SPURecsssvssnnsnne STAPHYLOCOCCUS [NF £cT! ON. STREPTOCOCCUS INFECTION, 8.613 VARICOSE VEINSuoyesas VIRUS INFECTION, NEC.. es te sees 1 LwARYesvsesnonvones es eve see sane STROKE, 4 & oe 2 WHIPLASH INJURY, ,. 66 SYNOVITIS n SYSTEMIC POSSONING NEC. us . Ly MULTIPLE INJURIES escsecesrecscnsennsns 800 TENDONITISeseeeesseessssnccesenssrnnss 39 | NOT REPORTED. 2,643 - Decisions of Interest The issue was whether applicant's claim is barred by the two year statute of limita- tions, Ayers was a city fireman who alleged an injury entitling him to compensation. While he was off work, he was paid his full salary as sick leave benefits, The Commission= ers held that such payments were not made "in lieu of compensation" and therefore did not constitute workmen's compensation payments. The application for hearing notify- ing the city of a claim was not filed within two years and since no compensation was paid, the claim was barred by the two year statute of limitation, 102,12, Wisconsin Statutes, * * * %* * As applicant was preparing to leave her office at the end of the work day she at=- tempted to put on her boots, She put on her left boot and then raised her right foot with her lower back leaning against the wall, While in this position, she lost her balance and fell sustaining injury, " The examiner found that injury arose out of her employment, The Commissioners affirmed, * * * * * The applicant was hit on the top of his head by the edge of a plywood board, 1' x 2°! x 5/8" that weighed 3 or 4 pounds. The board had slid along the form, After rubbing his head, he resumed work, He was dazed and claimed permanent disability based on vertigo, The examiner dismissed finding he had preexisting arteriosclerosis of the basilar artery, that the accident did not accelerate the arteriosclerosis and that the symp= toms of vertigo was due to the natural progression of the disease, The Commissioners affirmed, 92-734 O-68—43 660 TasLE 451,142 REPORT LAG IN FIRST REPORTS OF INJURIES, DURING 1967 PERCENTAGE OF CASES IN WHICH REPORTS WERE RECEIVED BY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS WITHIN SPECIFIED NUMBER OF DAYS FROM DATE OF INJURY CASES TABULATED DY REPORT LAG (NUMBER OF DAYS s ELAPSED FROM DATE OF INJURY TO DATE REPORT OF Sases TOTAL INJURY WAS RECEIVED BY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, NEO ERE nuns LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS) Ee NOT . CASES CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES REPORTED NunscR RECEIVED WITHIN Jeet CASES 7 oavs| 14 oavs | 21 pays [28 oavs | 35 pays (1) REPORTS FILED BY: ALL EMPLOYERS 1966 - TOTAL.vesasns Er ,821 7.1 4 3 3 2 8s- 1,64 1967 = TOTAL..ueuues 499 2901 . . . 1,5 JANUARY von vous ,18 3 149 FEBRUARY. coe aass ,31 0 2 MARCH, . 2 14 APRIL 1 3 MAY, . AUGUST. ue POOL MILD) Forno PADLIITUIND N= O =n 1 NOOO = TWAOUIN OI NUNN ONO NO FI ORL ONO O +0 MV IBGE owo- FERIIROICOPD Coo nn MPR ==ON Wik LLL ER REIS Un VIII LAIAIISS BD FE 00UN COO] Ol & = ~~ Od SRS ERS S33 WwW EUNOW =\0 £3 O C000 =~ Zot =e Fo 1 . : : i SEPTEMBER. 1 4, 1 OCTOBER... 2: 1 NOVEMBER. .eves ee ” 12 DECEMBER sues esse 5 1+ 131 Bremen | WEB || BS EB Bl BR BI 1 JANVARY uw sue vines 2,79 2,666 .6 . 81.6 v A 131 a IEE Bo Boa 8 APRIL, i 2, 1 51d 7 1. . nl 1 MAY. . 2,899 2,76 . 9. 3.9 6 « 1 JUNE, 2,9 2,82 .9 4-4 .9 ol -3 1 JULY... 24 3 2 f ol 3:3 ‘7 -2 102 alan 2 3 } 1 1.6 5 ; 11 orHERe ss eeren 3049 || 3:80 7 9 ge 8 3 3 DECEMBER es eans ss 2 { 2,320 .9 9.3 .9 7.0 9. 12 SELF= INSURED EMPLOYERS v a Women: | VBS 83 43 Td OBI 1 pln BE Gs Ri : i 2 WE 8 of a 1 3 HE f 2.2 : 60.5 6 8 By 1 2 3 2 > 66.1 2.3 6.3 1 231 ¥. ki, Ly .6 1, 2 9 3-3 5a 7 A . 1 ] 1 ; 0 | 28. 0 i: «2 . 1 a 1a HH ER ER IE Oecemeen. 3 5 | 35:3 I Ad 2:3 é PRIVATE SELF= INSURED EMPLOYERS 66 = TOTALecsessse ’ ’ . 8 ‘ . LR vm BE O55 nl ou: 12 JANUARY, eeese _ 2h 225 48 83.6 90.7 95.1 95.6 16 661 TABLE 451.142 (conTinueD) CASES TABULATED OY REPORT LAG (NUMBER OF DAYS CASES ELAPSED FROM DATE OF INJURY TO DATE REPORT OF WITH TOTAL INJURY WAS RECEIVED BY DEPARTMENT Of INDUSTRY, REPORT PERIOD HuNDER LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS LAG CASES CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES aor REPORTED NuNBER RECEIVED WITHIN iio CASES 1 oavs | 1% oavs|21 oavs [28 DAYS |35 DAYS (M PRIVATE SELF=- INSURED EMPLOYERS (cont. ) ’ FEBRUARY. 4000s 216 24 45.1 2,4 . .2 . 12 MARCH, savsaane 270 2 2 ig 4 23 2 2 APRIL, , 2 22 2 1. . 9. 91. i 21 4.8 9-2 Ri , 1. B® 29 2 2 ay J 2, %: 1 . . . 90. 92. 2 1B 33 Is 9 90.4 3: 13 22h 2 2, . +9 2 . 1 . 255 2! bs, ol ad 3: .0 NOVEMBER. 4040s 210 201 43, .6 . . .0 DECEMBER... .40s 195 190 .0 3.2 92.1 gh:2 .3 PUBLIC SELF=|NSURED : EMPLOYERS 1966 = TOTAL.vveosss 1 1 ~ 23. 1. , 13% » TOTAL assess 181 188 i N 5 ns . . FE JANUARY, . 14 14 a FEBRUAR 206 - MARCH 1 2 APRIL ~I —\0L GVONO OUNOLAN CON AO FLO COU ONO! RAEI ION, FO SW O = ONIN N= NOW ECON ORO ~ NY RRRFIIRETING A WO O~=DOINIVNO OW “WE 1 Ema tt tt) ht th tt 1 m SEPTEMBER, 1 1 OCTOBER, , 13 1 ol NOVEMBER, 123 1 . DECEMBER, 1 4 103 i UNINSURED EMPLOYERS 1966 = TOTAL..uuusas 3 1367 = TOTALLsuvuese 1 Coto 3 oo 3 hE 8% © Bo ag (1) INCLUDES CASES IN WHICH THE DATE OF INJURY IS NOT REPORTED, AND CASES IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE HAS LOST NO TIME UP TO THE DATE THE REPORT IS MADE, r/ Reviseo. Decisions of Interest The issue was whether there was liability for payment into the second injury fund under 102,59(2), The employe had a preexisting loss of vision ‘in one eye of 93.43 percent, As a result of an industrial injury he lost his remaining vision, The examiner found that as a result of the injury he sustained "total impairment" of the eye, The law does not require that the member or faculty be normal, The employe is taken in the condition that he is at the time of injury, The Commissioners affirmed, 662 vasLe 2050,81 WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED - SELECTED DATA DECEMOER A A CUMULATIVE Frey 1967 A ed 1967 1966 TOTAL - ALL INJURY CASES REPORTED... ' 2,746 3,070 3,228 38,499 38,821 DAILY AVERAGE NUMBER OF INJURIES REPORTED..eesvesus 109.8 122.8 124.2 125.8 126.5 FATAL CASES. .euvornrnunnnuensnsnsnenenenaneneienes | 8 17 10 138 157 nnrnenendsRassraeraniensnasnsreasene | 2,280 2426 2,738 31. 33,039 JE TB eee: | 20 BEE RUS SE NUMBER OF CASES [N SELECTED AGE GROUPS: 1 9 12 ¢ 19 11 3 3 3 5 4 ok A af al 2,301 #2 2,626 31,48 3 Xl 66 1 182 191 2,21 2, INSURANCE STATUS OF EMPLOYER: urennen wre nrenrresr apr srsnsasrsenes (| BME By 2,86 . 4, Rata - a # e? 3 28 3 38 PRIVATE, . " 2 ie 2 2s 2.81 unINSURED LL LLLLl IIIT 2 2 : PERCENTAGE OF FIRST REPORTS RECEIVED WITHIN ] DAYS AFTER DATE OF INJURY: "stab Dap ovend. ods RBA #2 2d SELF= INSURED EMPLOYERS, 2 2 -3 4 .0 . PRAVATE cov vrinssnnvs .0 3 5 2:4 v) PUBLIC. cuveevesnns 7 1 9 . 2 UNINSURED EMPLOYERS., 50.0 - 50.0 25.0 50.08r/ NUMBER OF CASES BY REGION: 6 2 WEST BEND, . 2 OUT OF STATE 3 NOT REPORTED....0vs. tesstettitietsattnreanns NUMBER OF CASES BY OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION (1): PROFESS | ONAL, TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL 109 CLERICAL AND SALESusecrssccnsenvvsss HE SERVICE. sur evrivvvvvirvesvavvsnasie 229 AGRICULTURAL, FISHERY, FORESTRY, ETC. 1 SKILLED. v0 iin iva 0 SEMISKILLED, 15 APPRENTICES,,.. UNSKILLED. . NOT REPORTE &3 LOW F450 — To Ey Co Se SRE EIS “seve 1,562 1,179 3,941 9, 10,840 (1) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM OF THE DICTIONARY OF OCCUPATIONAL TITLES, 1949 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR). NOTE: IN THE VARIOUS TABLES WHERE ALPHABETICAL LETTERS ARE IN PARENTHESES AFTER A NUMBER, THE LETTER TELLS HOW MANY FATAL CASES WERE INCLUDED IN THE NUMBER OF CASES FOR A GIVEN CATEGORY. FOR EXAMPLE, (A) DENOTES 1 FATAL CASE, (B) DENOTES 2 FATAL CASES, ETC. NEC = NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED. R/ Revised. WORK INJURIES INCURRED IN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REPORTED IN DECEMBER 1967 TABLE 2020.84 ACCIDENT TYPE TOTAL TRUCK awrowonnre | BICYCLE TAX! COLLISION WITH: ONCOMING VEHICLE ON SAME PUBLIC ROAD.cvevocsassnccsans VEH]CLE MOVING IN SAME DIRECTION ON SAME PUBLIC ROAD.. VEHICLE MOVING IN AN INTERSECTING ROAD. TRAIN... ANIMAL. . . . OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED. STRUCK BY: ANOTHER VEHICLE WHILE STANDING IN PUBLIC ROAD. OTHER OR UNSPECIFIED. secs cscsncvrvosecrccsnnce NONCOLLISION: OVERTURNED. cvs. RAN OFF ROADWAY. . JACKKNIFE BY TRAILER... LOAD SHIFT.eeececeas MECHANICAL FAILURE. , HUMAN FAILURE... PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY.ueesessesesorsvensonsaacenccnananss TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, UNSPECIFIED cusses esacscnsossnsonannsnae 88(c) 3 1308) 1 § >> -— -ET NO — xn 48(c) ON = ON = > wn 29 |= EE J] —- ~ nN 5 ne £99 TABLE 213,330 WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED IN DECEMBER 1967, CLASSIFIED BY INDUSTRY AND SOURCE OF INJURY NUMBER OF ACCIDENTAL INJURY CASES ASsSOCI ATED WITH SOURCE OF INJURY: EXPLOSIVE, occu- INDUSTRY TOTAL MACHINES , | HIGHWAY OTHER HOISTS, HAND | WORKING HOT AND NOT PAT ONAL MACHINERY [VEHICLES | VEHICLES | ELEVATORS, | yoo1s | SURFACES | FLAMMABLE |OTHER |reporTED JO! SEASES CONVEYORS SUBSTANCES TOTALuvunieniannns 2,746(wH) 297(a) 131(c) 131 ko 148 405(a) 76 1,300 136(c) 82 AGRICULTURE AND FISHING.essseossassse 33 3 - 4 1 2 5 " 1 2 3 MINING AND QUARRYING... 1(a) - - - 2 1(a) - : - CONSTRUCTION: sex euveesnreres 3% 22 1 8 1 2 1 1 26 1 GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS..asss o7 - 2 - 1 5 GENERAL CONTRACTORS, OTHER THAN 6 1 ) 1 Z 3 2 2 3 BUILDING. woh os A A - SPECIAL TRADE CO 1 15) = RS $ o£ i 3% 3 3 120a) = MANUFACTURING: sevsesssnse 2 1 9 FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS. 216(e) 1 30) Id 4 1 i 5 8 19(a) 3 TEXTILES ‘AND ‘APPAREL. +s 13 i - 1 - - 3 - LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS 14 1 1 8 3 2 1 - 6 8 7 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES.. 3 4 1 1 - - 1 1 2 PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS.... 3 18 w 3 1 5 6 1 40 4 4 PRINTING AND PUBLISHINGa.es. 3 1 4 1 2 5 ha 12 1 - CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS 10 - - 1 1 - - 3 4 1 - RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS + esevseevevsvenrnsnsnssse 1 - 4 1 3 2 1 10 1 1 LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS. g 1 1 i - 1 1 - - STONE, CLAY AND GLASS PRCDUCTS. 2 - - 1 - 8 1 PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES.... 15 18 = z 1 10 11 1 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS... 121 27 1 1 3 12 64 MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL.sssss 232 50 1 15 5 1 18 107 9 ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES..ssiiiisens . L 6 - 6 1 1 8 1 9 5 6 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT. 1 1 6 5 3 5 1 0 i 2 INSTRUMENTS AND RELATED PI - - - - - - 2 - 2 MISCELLANEOUS MFG, INDUSTRIES..u.s 26(a) - 1 1 3 3 1 10 2(a) 1 MOTOR FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION AND WAREHOUS INGa sv asenss 122(a) 2k(a) 1" - 3 1 - 59 3 1 OTHER TRANSPORTATION. .e 31 - 1 2 - - - 20 - = COMMUNICATION: vuassans 3 - - - - - 1 - 2 - - Laven. ye 21 3h 18 9 J 19 3 ooh 18 i TRADE esnanonees WHOLESALE TRADE. 121 5 1 y 2 Z R 1 1 6 1 RETAIL TRADE: cr BUILDING MATERIALS » HARDWARE AND FARM EQUIPMENT. seaessasses 52 4 4 2 2 4 18 - 17 1 i = GENERAL MERCHANDISE AND APPAREL. 9 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 2 1 ' = FOOD, vow vet buts toh TRI RREELERAR TY 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 + @® AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS AND GAS i SERVICE STATIONSesesasscscssaes 39 - 10 - 2 5 3 - 16 2 ! 1 FURNITURE, HOME FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT 4evsaessnensannns 3 = 2 1 - 1 2 - 8 3 - EATING AND DRINKING PLACES. k: 4 1 ® - 2 3 2 16 a MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL STORES 2 1 h 2 1 1 14 1 |= FINANCE, INSURANCE AND REAL EST 1 - 2 - - 21 3 1 6 2 i : SERVICE INDUSTRIES sesvsss 16 2 5 ? 1 § 3 ¢ 86 1" } ¢ HRA AE 1 2 - : 2 1 . 3 3 - | $99 r CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF INJURY, SOURCE OF INJU( ANZ ACCIDENT TYPE TABLE 2003.80 WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED IN DECEMBER 1967 AMFU= curs, Ses fo any ror | TATION Cone | SUNS | nveres | Tonrimes, | Sova] roads [emns Semaine | au | er ACCIDENT TYPE cLeations| TUS! SS ATCheYY CUMULATIVE TOTAL = JAN.-DEC. 1967 [38,499 557 4,776 1,718 836 6,585 493 k,647 911 8,613 6,718 2,643 PERCENT. 00a 100,0 1.4 12.4 ks 2.2 11 1:3 12.1 2.4 22.4 17.% 6.9 oecemeer 1967 | 2,746(w) 34 353 122 55(a) 508 29 354(a) 58 568 U59(e) 186(a) ’ sessertarennes 2 42 1 10 - 2 20 18 ET ie i 8 2 ? 2 0° #8 i 3 % 8 CAUGHT IN, ON, UNDER, BETWEEN. . 13 (a) 16 16 18 - 13 “ 2 13(a) 5 OTHER essesevsanrsnsssnsnevsvne - b - - - 3 1 13 3 1 VEHICLES us ewsesnsrosnsssssuvionss o) - 3 - 8 - be y 1 34 % 18 A, sony c - - . - - TE rer iatt 1 49 : ¥ 25g 3 > 3“ 3 2 8) 13 CONVEYORS svn srsarreeeerenes ko 1 6 12 8 = [2 6 2 2 STRUCK BY OR AGAINST. 21 - ? - 1 ¢ - 1 5 1 CAUGHT IN, ON, UNDER, BETWEEN, , 12 1 - 1 - 1 - - 3 1 OTHER ses ees sesestonrssvesssesy 1 - - 1 - 2 - 2 1 1 - s HAND TOOLS:evevsereeresseserser . 148 - 12 6 4 64 - 1 1 2 18 3 STRUCK BY OR AGAINST 101 - 9 § 3 59 - 9 - : 12 OVEREXERTION,ssaaes 3 - - - - - - 2 1 2! - OTHER. ses svescesnas 1 - 3 2 1 5 - - - 1 2 - cerses ceessrenree - 1 1 2 - 12 1 b 46 Is TuRrases Mow) - & 1 1 2 - 12; 1 ta) 45 OTHERuueseasesvesrenssesserrene 25 - 2 - - 1 - - 12 4 i EXPLOSIVE, HOT OR FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES +v vun sncnnsvsnsssvsine 76 - - 67 - 2 - - - 2 5 - OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE.eesessecsaes 82 - - - - 29 - - - 53 - cer F 1 2 - 126 uy boy 21 6 ry I. 2 J wr goed wu owiy STRUCK 5 2 12 2 1 19 = 3 23 1 Lh CAUGHT IN, ON, SABER; BETWEEN, 5 15 - 1 g - 1 - 0 2 OVEREXERT ION. see vs nse sn coven - - - - - - 2 3 264 5 ? BODILY REACTION, eee 5 - 1 - - - - 2 95 0 OTHER. .evuvsss . - 6 1 - 9 - - 3 1 4 NOT REPERTED ui wun benssssvssinsns 136(c) 2 4 3 1(a) 21 - 7 7 21 36(a) 34(a) G99 CLASSIFIED BY TABLE 2004.81 NATURE OF INJURY AND PART OF BODY AFFECTED WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED IN DECEMBER 1967 EYE HEAD, ARM HAND FINGER LEG FOOT TOE MULTIPLE NOT NATURE OF INJURY TOTAL OR FACE, TRUNK OR OR OR OR OR OR OR BODY | prporTED EYES NECK ARMS HANDS FINGERS LEGS FEET TOES SYSTEM CUMULATIVE TOTAL = JAN.-DEC. 1967 38,499 850 1,763 11,008 3,464 2,162 5,759 6,062 2,408 1,365 3,066 596 PERCENT. ..0va 100.0 2.2 4.6 28.6 9.0 5.6 15.0 15,7 6.3 3.5 8.0 1:5 pecemBer 1967 2,746(m) 66 15(a) 18% 227 165 398 45h 192 81 195(F) 33(a) AMPUTATION, ENUCLEATION Rp 3 1 - - - - 2 - 1 - - AVULSION. ssanvasssnennn canes 9 - - - - 2 7 - - - - - BRUISE, CONTUSIONsacsscssesesasss 353 3 19 57 31 25 24 88 46 20 bo . BURN, SCALDs cesses reine ieee 122 é 6 Pod 35 5 1&1 a i CAISSON DISEASE. ¢ - z - - - - - - - 1 - FEE AQ) - - i 1 1 41 2 5 i (a) = CUT, LACERATION, Al y 12 49 8 25 62 166 56 17 - 19 ¥ DERMATITIS cuss vans sisnugesorsinis 2 - - - 4 2 4 - - 10 1 DISLOCATION. sess sswssessosensrne 2 - - 17 - - 1 § - 1 - - FRACTURE cus vases vassnivetvaravy 354 (a) - 10(a) 73 61 1 L2 ST ko 51 9 . . g - - 3 - - - - - - 2 - 2 Jf tt # 2 £ ‘2 4-323 » $f 7: IMBEDDED ‘SPLINTER + ssw sve vonsesss 53 25 - 2 1 7 1% 2 1 - 1 - LEAD POISONINGsssessesscssasasans 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - LOSS OF HEARING, TRAUMATIC.eseass 3 - 3 - - - - - - - - - 5¢ - - 2 - - - - - - - - FONCTURE WOUNDss . 8 - 2 3 1 7 10 y 16 - : Fy S1L1CO-TUBERCULOSIS, ceeane - - - = - - - = - 1 - SPRAIN, STRAINiiseceresassesecncs 565 - 10 3m 36 5 7 120 16 3 12 2 jenttgiitest Rolo LI 146 - 1 75 13 1 4 39 8 - y 1 MULTIPLE INJURIES.. ‘eee 32(o) - 2 - 1 2 - - - = 27(o) - ALL OTHER REPORTED .esssesssnsesns 200(a) 17 16 32 26 12 21 28 6 1 39(a) 2 NOT REPORTEDsssassssseseassssnnes 186(a) 2 20 56 9 7 12 31 16 6 1 26(a) 999 TaoLE 2001.81 WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED IN DECEMBER 1967 CLASSIFIED BY CITY OF OCCURRENCE AND NATURE OF INJURY cuts, REGION MBER ry ORES s| BURNS, | CRUSHING Ba yioNs; oERMA=| FRAC- | oo | SPRAINS, | ALL NoT SITY (1) CASES Ee TUS | ONS. SCALDS INJURIES SeRATLIRE, TITIS TURES STRA INS OTHER REPORTED we 8 = - < RICE LAKE. 2) 2 2 ! = 1h - 3 = 2 3 6 EAU CLAIRE 2 2 1 - - - - 12 2 y MELLEN saves svinwiae 6 - 1 - - ! - 5 - i 1 i SUPERIOR. scssesnns 23 - 2 - - - 3 - 8 5 2 WAUSAU. 4 ven 9 2 15 4 1 1 - 12 1 18 20 1 MARINETTE... 1 - - - 1 - - 2 - 4 J 3 MARSHF |ELD. . 20 1 i - ~ 2 - ? - y y - STEVENS POINT..... 22 - 3 1 - 1 - 1 3 5 WAUSAU. cesavsnnnsnse 2h 1 2 - - - i 1 WISCONSIN RAPIDS. . 18 - 3 1 - 3 - i > 3 3 3 ervesnes - 1 - . y - - by LA CROSSE } - : X : 3 - 3 } } 3 ] 226 6 11 2 8 2 8 48 21? % 1 3% %?+%-F o%oyoi 0 1 i 2 : : 3 2 2 i 2 2 - 5 £ - - : - 6 i 1 5% i 3 i i i : i i : ! 33 - 2 2 = 1 - 3 - 9 T 3 131 2 16 3 2 21 - 22 32 25 5 - 1 - - = Fl: 3 3+. 3% 0:71 731.1 MAD ISON. 90 1 10 1 2 16 - 15 = 19 21 5 WEST BEND.... 3 } 3 5 5 23 1 1 - 29 20 3 - - - - 2 1 35 - 2 - 1 6 1 - 8 1 4 1 - 1 1 1 - i = 6 3 2.0 § % 2° .fF : 3: } ..% MIL od 8Y4 16 1% 151 b 8 cooamy. + fir ; : i 2... : 3 = = be] 4 MILWAUKEE, . 4 % 33 12 24 4 6 16 1m 9 38 SOUTH MILWA - 1 - 2 8 1 - WAUWATOSA, ... v - - - 10 - i - 6 WEST ALLIS..v0ue.. 7 - 5 2 - 5 - - 9 1 3 RACINE. .eovrsrnranas 186 4 2 8 2 2 2 b SATEEN i 3 - ? 1 : 1 : 1 s Ki % " KENOSHA4ssvasannas T i rT 3 i 8 i 3 3 } 4 - i 16 2 WAUKESHA, 4 0ennoans 2 - 2 2 4 1 7 1 6 5 MENOMONEE FALLS... 1 - 2 1 - 5 - 3 - 1 2 - CITIES WITH INJURIES REPORTED IN A GIVEN MONTH. £99 TaoLe 2000.81 WORK INJURY CASES REPORTED IN DECEMBER 1967 CLASSIFIED BY COUNTY OF OCCURRENCE AND ACCIDENT TYPE RESTON ne TOTAL | FALLS po cg bg TRAFFIC ar "| exprosions, el . cavsTICs , Sqn. COUNTY TOTAL AGAINST BETWEEN ACCIDENTS | _ cc nents | HEAT, colo €vC. RADIATIONS, REFORFLU ETC. TOTALueeess 38,499 | 2,746 | 459 900 287 88 45 82 657 60 168 LA CROSSE REGION....4 2,450 163 24 52 16 7 y y 37 5 14 ADAMS. cevesssvsans - - - - - - - - - - CLARK. cassassvasoce 2 3 2 1" 2 2 - - 1 1 a saann an 2 1 1 * jo = 1 : Se naccRD ds 4 1 2 i 1 - 1 1 - 2 i lo 1 } i i i : i 1" 1 : } - 2 Z 2 z - 23 4 : 2 - - 3 7 : 1 1 1 1 - 2 1 - i = i 12 2 - - - 3 = - - 1 12 a 1 9 1 1 - - 3 - - 1 = : WAUSHARA. « 11 ° 3 } 1 - = - 3 2 3 HADISGN REGION ERR z it = Lj 2p 9 4 5 56 5 1h sesseeeses : z = 3 - i - gl 14 04 1 10g 5 ¥ 16 ] 2 : : ] 1h : 2 Bl 7 - 1 2 1 - 1 3 : - v 11,891 838 1 28 89 14 13 24 225 1 50 " resin : on: n ih 86 123 253 39 14 13 24 225 1 50 , 6 12 1 8 6 2 aio nig wR 2 3 ? 3 : 3 7 3 Fo 125 : 3 i ! : : i KEWAUNEE , 15 3 2 5 2 - 3 z l = 2 oi bora ol o1,2 0 1h ; 3 3 3 3 2 i WINNEBAGOs ss saanass 1,25 “7 20 u - 1 1 SveEee Ly 08 yi 2 12 6 8 8 9 14 WE in 2 3B 3 1 5 1 » v 1s 1 3 RACINE. .., 1. 13 3 3 1 4 3 4 3 4 WALWORTH, 1 3 1 - 1 I 2 1 WAUKESHA G0 000 ves oe 1,655 121 19 4 1 6 3 3 3 2 y A y 246 by 2 6 - 60 13 16 meee Tol WY fT §%_ % : : - : 899 TABLE 2000.81 (CONTINUED) REGION CUMU- STRUCK CAUGHT IN, NONTRAFF IC OVER~ Toxics, OTHER el aie | oe [rae | ro, Sti |, | lh (in| Sule] ER 2, mie hase REGION CONT, 288 1 1 - - - < 1 gf vi; 2 : ‘fmt ogg gd he 4 ; 13 i : : : 3 : y 302 0 I 1 3 1 - - : 2 2 fi 2 x 1 - - 7 - ki 3% 7 Ls 3 2 - 1 13 - 3 56 1 - 1 - - - - - - - 12 9 1 3 - 1 - - 4 - a 1s 1 § -: i §© 3: 4 2 1 w - - “ 1 ) { 1 2 : 1 - - 3 - 1 ) i$ : g i 2 : : i i : 7 1 2 2 z z z 1 : 1 3.538 255 43 9% 25 10 6 10 32 5 1 105 3 1 6 - - - - - - 1 160 6 2 1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 231 10 2 22 2 3 : 1 1 - 1 = 3 2 : 3 : i 2 2 ; t Zl 41; I Powge BD 300 2 8 2 - - 1 8 ® 1 178 a i 2 - - z - 2 He 5 3 § 1 2 1 2 2 1 . 50 3 20 5 3 2 2 1 5 1 vEST BEND REGION 3, 2% 1 H 3 1 $ 1) 1 2 FOND DU LAC : 0 2 1 i$ 1 3 - 1" 2 5 JEFFERSON, , 1 - - 11 1 - Geant 2 Bl: § : : : } 4 Sanineron ae ‘Bg 3 6 3 9 2 1 2 § 1 1 OUT OF STATEusuusss. 497 39 9 8 2 10 1 - 1 - 2 NOT REPORTEDsesveaes 119 6 1 1 - - - 1 - 3 699 FATAL INJURIES REPORTED TO DEPARTMENT OF pEcemBer 1967 INOUSTRY, LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS PLACE OF OCCURRENCE EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE INCUSTRY AcE OCCUPATION AVAILABLE DESCRIPTION CRAWFORD COUNTY JEFFERSON MILWAUKEE NEW BERLIN RACINE COUNTY SHEBOYGAN COUNTY TOMAH WALWORTH COUNTY PRAIRIE SAND & GRAVEL, INC, STOPPENBACH SAUSAGE CO, ARTKRAFT, INC, STOEHR GRADING COMPANY MARIGOLD DAIRY CO, EDWARD R. PARLOW J. J. FARMER CONSTRUCTION co. B. R. AMON & SONS MARION LUCEY ERWIN A. GRIEP FRANCIS L. JETTY LEON V. WASLEY VICTOR M. BRAUN WALDEMAR RATHKE ORDA IN NESSETH DONALD MURPHY 64 SAND & GRAVEL PLANT OPERATOR 45 MEAT PROCESSING & SAUSAGE MFG, SAUSAGE PACKER 23 MFG. ELECTRICAL OUTDOOR SIGNS SIGN SERVICEMAN Lo EARTHMOV ING = CONSTRUCTION HEAVY EQUIPMENT MECHANIC 43 DAIRY ROUTEMAN ko MILK HAULER MILK TRUCK DRIVER 48 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE LABORER bh ROAD CONTRACTOR CRUSHER OPERATOR FELL; NO DETAILS, FLASHEXPLOS)CN CF UNDETERMINED ORIGIN OCCURRED IN SMOKEHOUSE AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING. DIED WHILE SERVICING SIGN. TRUCK OVERTURNED. TRUCK RAN INTO DITCH, TRUCK WAS SIDESWIPED BY PASSING CAR. COLLAPSED WHILE WORKING ON FLAT ROOF. FELL IN CRUSHER HOPPER. 0.9 671 Mr. O'Hara. Before taking our last witness, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the statement on H.R. 14816, submitted by Mr. Edmond M. Boggs, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Lahr and Industry be entered at this point in the record of the earing. Mr. oBgs wanted very much to appear before us today but the unseasonably inclement weather visited on the State of Virginia last ht and today prevented Mr. Boggs’ appearance here. Wo want to state we are sorry he could not be here with us. Copies of his statement have been made available to the members of the sub- committee. We will read his statement and it will be printed at this point in the record. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The document referred to follows:) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Richmond, Va., March 4, 1968. MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE : Since the attached Petition was filed with the Secretary of Labor on April 7, 1966, the Safety Codes Commis- sion has adopted many rules and regulations which are in effect. Such rules and regulations cover construction, excavation and demolition in all phases of safety, including the public when such work is in progress. Safety codes have been adopted with respect to all types of abrasive wheels. The Department since that time has established a Construction Safety Division staffed with qualified personnel and in addition to this, we have established nine field offices throughout the State of Virginia to carry out the provisions of the labor laws and mining laws, as well as all rules and regulations adopted by the Safety Codes Commission. The Safety Codes Commission is a continuing body and is constantly working on new codes. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards, has been kept advised of this progress but to date, we have received no reply from the Secre- tary of Labor or the Bureau with respect to their intentions except that I have been told in person that they could not give an answer of acceptance to the Petition or a refusal. EpMmonDp M. Boagas, Commissioner. STATEMENT BY EDMOND M. BoGas, COMMISSIONER, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY We are completely opposed to the enactment of H.R. 14816, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968, or any other proposal of similar intent, because it is unnecessary and undesirable and would, in fact, prove harmful. State legislation gives to the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry the personnel, the law and the budget needed to maintain an excellent safety pro- gram in Virginia. Our statutes authorizes the Safety Codes Commission to study and investigate all phases of safety and to formulate rules and regulations to further protect and promote the safety and health of workers. It is readily apparent in Virginia that the Department of Labor and Industry has all of the law, regulation, and cooperation that it needs to carry out a posi- tive industrial safety program. Let me emphasize that cooperation at the local level and at the scene of the job is the most important aspect of safety, and our program enjoys maximum acceptance and cooperation. Federal intervention would hinder this program. Safety is a non-controversial goal, and all involved can work together for its attainmment. It is hard to believe that any state cannot afford what is required for an effective industrial safety program. In fact, no state can afford not to have it. The savings involved in life, injury and money are worth many times what is required to maintain a good safety program. The legislation being considered by your Committee in unnecessary and highly undesirable as regards the administration and promotion of industrial safety in factories, plants, establishments, construction sites, mines or other work places, 672 Not only is Federal aid not needed, it is an unwanted intrusion of the Federal Government into a field of state responsibility where local effort and coopera- tion have produced steady improvements in working conditions, generally. The inclusion of mine safety in this bill is somewhat difficult to understand inasmuch as there is a Federal Bureau of Mines which is under the Department of the Interior. The Federal Bureau of Mines has many Federal mine inspectors throughout the country and many assigned to Virginia. The Virginia Department of Labor and Industry, Division of Mines, filed a State Plan with the Federal Bureau of Mines which was accepted and is now in effect, whereby a cooperative program in mine safety is in operation; and to provide for mine safety under some other act would simply mean that the Federal Government could have Federal mine inspectors being inspected by Federal inspectors from some other agency of the Federal Government as well as state inspectors. The operations of the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry are versatile and complete in the field of job accident prevention. Our program involves direct contacts with employers and employees and safety programs designed for differ- ent types of industries as well as for excavation, demolition and construction and the public when construction is in progress, as well as for individual plants. Our inspection services, consultation services, educational services and enforce- ment all have the same common goal—to hold to a minimum the economic and human losses due to accidents and injuries. The safety schools for supervisors and safety personnel, conducted throughout Virginia with the full cooperation of industry and county and city governments, have achieved Statewide support, wide acclaim and results. Virginia has, over the years, recorded a steady lowering of injury frequency rates which are below the national average in industrial plants. In construction, the Experience Rating Bureau indicates that the experience rate in the con- struction industry for 1966 showed a decrease of 8.9% and in 1967, 11.1%, for a total of 20% in two years. This is positive proof of the over-all effectiveness of our accident prevention efforts. We maintain, in Virginia, a modern system of accident reporting. Our accident data are compiled in accordance with USASI. The safety divisions of the Department of Labor and Industry in Virginia enjoy the broadest possible cooperation from local government, State and local safety associations, and trade and employers’ associations. This close working relationship involves many years of dedicated effort and is based more on cooperation and positive effort than law or regulation. We all understand the necessity for the law and the regulation we have forged, but we appreciate that safety cannot, in fact, be legislated—that it thrives only on cooperation and local effort with a minimum of outside guidance, apparent or otherwise. In our State, we have all of the law, all of the manpower, all of the authority, and all of the cooperation we need to discharge our responsibility with regard to job safety. Unneeded funds and unnecessary interference from the United States Department of Labor could only detract from the good program and the positive effort we have achieved in Virginia. The Act further provides for Federal-State relationship. As much as this State has tried to work out a relationship with the U.S. Department of Labor and as much as we have recognized the need for such a relationship, we have been unable to obtain this type of cooperation. The Secretary of Labor is invested with such powers that he may, in his discretion, by rule or order decline to assert jurisdiction over any occupational safety or health issue, or class or category of such issue, governed by any State law whenever in his opinion the provisions of such State law and their enforcement would reasonably carry out the objectives of this Act. The U.S. Department of Labor through its actions has made it clear that cooperation with the state agencies in the field of occupational safety will be on its terms or not at all. This legislation is the U.S. Department of Labor’s response to a long history of undelivered promises to state agencies on cooperation. Instances of repeated evasions on cooperation on the part of the U.S. Depart- ment of Labor are cited to show the attitudes and the frustrations we have encountered. In 1962 agreements with state labor department agencies to handle Walsh- Healey inspections were cancelled without consultation or prior notice. We had understood that this cooperative arrangement was satisfactory and had received no written or oral complaints. At the time of the cancellation of these agree- ments with the states, it was stated that no additional Federal safety personnel would be required even though the U.S. Department of Labor was not sufficiently staffed to handle the required safety inspections. 673 Subsequently, a number of conferences with the U.S. Department of Labor were held on the question of renewing these state agreements. State labor agencies were encouraged to submit petitions to the U.S. Secretary of Labor for their reinstatement. On April 7, 1966, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Labor enumerating the State criteria for State occupational safety including the laws, the regulations, the program, the manpower and the authority and asked the Secretary of Labor to enter into a new agreement with Virginia to provide safety and health inspec- tions required under the Walsh-Healey Act for government contractors. To date, we have been unable to obtain any answer from the U.S. Department of Labor with respect to the acceptability of this petiion. We are at a loss to under- stand why our petition for a cooperative agreement with the State to provide for safety and health inspections of establishments holding Federal contracts under the Walsh-Healey Act has neither been approved nor responded to orally or in writing. We hold that there are no additional substantial considerations of interstate commerce responsibility involved in the field of occupational safety. The law, the regulations, the technology, and the manpower requirements to deal with occupational safety are clearly identified and well within the level of basic responsibility of state government. As in public education and police protection, there exists within the state all of the elements of responsibility and close working relationships to deal directly and effectively with occupational safety. To pile on an unwarranted level of far-removed national bureaucracy would simply duplicate and dilute the effort toward occupational safety. This would be costly in terms of wasted effort and additional public funds. H.R. 11192, the Occupational Safety Act of 1962, was before the General Sub- committee on Labor and this bill provided for substantially the same things as the bill before you now, except for the fact that it did not include mine safety ; therefore, the introduction of this type of legislation is nothing new before the Congress at this time. The Congress in the Appropriations Committee did not look upon this legisla- tion with favor at that time and the states are now in a much better position to carry out their responsibilities than then even though they were as well qualified to do the job as the Federal Government would have been. The Appropriations Committee in its report to the 88th Congress, Report No. 1316, dated April 10, 1964, on page 7, made this statement so far as the attitude of the U.S. Department of Labor was concerned in cancelling out contracts with several states which were conducting safety inspections of the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions: “The Committee was surprised to learn of a change in the program for safety investigations of the public contracts division. The Committee will not condone requests for increases in the future for additional health and safety inspectors or investigators in the public contracts division. The contract use of State agen- cies for this purpose has been satisfactory in most cases and has avoided dupli- cation of efforts and costs. The Committee deems the cancellation of these con- tracts and arrangements ill-advised and wishes to consider it at its hearing next year.” There is no doubt in my mind that the State of Virginia, as well as many other states, has continued to show an active interest in carrying out safety provisions for all its workers. There have been attempts on the part of the U.S. Department of Labor to get resolutions approved by the International Associa- tion of Governmental Labor Officials which would give the U.S. Department of Labor support in getting such legislation passed in order that they may take over control of safety within the states, but the attached copies of two resolu- tions are firm denouncements by the states to give the Federal Government this unwarranted control. For these reasons, I hope that it will be your pleasure to reject this bill or anything similar to it. REsoLUTION 1—AoTrioN BY THE IAGLO on Jury 21, 1967—TABLED Whereas State Labor Departments have had a continual expansion of responsi- bilities to an increasing labor force, and Whereas the resources available to State Labor Departments have not been similarly expanded, and Whereas large sums of money will be appropriated to States by the Federal Government during 1967 to implement Federal-State programs, and 674 Whereas the recent Governors’ conference revealed that such Federal grants will steadily increase ; Therefore be it Resolwed, That the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials support the principle of soliciting Federal grants-in-aid as a means of strength- ening State Labor Departments with particular emphasis in the areas of minimum wages, overtime, equal pay, child labor, occupational safety, and apprenticeship programs. RESOLUTION 2—AS8 AMENDED BY THE IAGLO JuLy 21, 1967 Whereas the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials has historically recognized the need of a continued strengthening of State legislation and State Departments of Labor as a basic need to insure the protection of the labor force, and Whereas, Federal legislation is necessary for the protection of various seg- ments of the labor force, and Whereas it is important to re-examine the relationships of various Federal and State programs, and Whereas the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials and the Secretary of Labor have recognized the difficult problems inherent in dual jurisdiction, and Whereas the Secretary of Labor has contracted for an independent study of these matters, and Whereas the Secretary of Labor, upon the recommendation of the Interna- tional Association of Governmental Labor Officials, has initiated a study for the purpose of identifying the nature and scope of the problems of dual juris- diction ; and reviewing the relationships of Federal and State agencies in various areas of mutual interest : Therefore, be it Resolved, That the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials commend the Secretary of Labor for his interest and action and urge continuing consultation with the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials to insure that areas of special interest to the states will be studied. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, Richmond, Va., April 7, 1966. Hon. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY : The enclosed Petition is being submitted to you for your consideration with several attachments to back up the content of the Petition; one, of course, is the Labor Laws and Mining Laws of Virginia. I would like to call to your attention some of the sections of these laws which I think would be pertinent in considering the establishment of this agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor and the Department of Labor and Industry. Section 40-1.1 of the Code of Virginia, on pages 7 and 8, outlines the definitions which show the coverage of the Virginia laws. Subsection (5) of these definitions is very broad, the only exclusion being agricultural employees on the farm ; and subsection (7) giving the definition of machinery would also give some idea of the broad coverage of the laws. Section 40-1.2 provides for the safety, health and welfare of the employees ; § 404 points out the powers and duties of the Commissioner of Labor and In- dustry in this State; § 40-8, on page 9, is self-explanatory; § 40-20, page 13, provides for the establishment of the Safety Codes Commission. This particular section was amended, amendment attached, to cover the general public. Section 40-20.1 regulates the handling, storage, use and sale of all types of blasting agents and has been amended, amendment attached. Under § 40-20.2, manufac- turers of explosives are also required to register with the Department. Section 40-21 is quoted in my Petition to you. Article 5, § 40-44, page 21, refers to sanitary provisions. The Safety Codes Commission has the authority to adopt such rules and regulations; and, as pointed out in my Petition, ASA Standards for these facilities are followed by 675 this State; § 4044.1 requires the Commissioner to notify the State Health Com- missioner of any sanitary facilities creating a health problem. I might say in connection with this requirement that we have a very fine working arrangement with our State Health Department in carrying out all such requests. Article 6, § 40-54.1 requires the Commissioner of Labor and Industry to notify the State Fire Marshal's Office of any violations of the Fire Hazards Law. The State Fire Marshal's Office at the present time has the authority to adopt rules and regulations and enforce such rules and regulations, so far as outside hand- rails, fire escapes and doors are concerned. Here, again, we have a very close working relationship with the State Fire Marshal's Office and use their rules and regulations in making our safety and health inspections and if we do not receive immediate compliance, the State Fire Marshal's Office is notified immediately and they carry out the responsibility of enforcing compliance. Section 40-55 of the Code of Virginia is self-explanatory. Under this section, the business would have an opportunity to appeal to the Safety Codes Com- mission within thirty days. If no such appeal has been taken by the business, then a violation exists and the business would have to take immediate action to correct the violation. If such violation is not corrected within the thirty-day period, mandatory compliance would be applied. Section 40-56 is a specific law and is not subject to the Safety Codes Com- mission and is enforceable as written. If a machine or any part thereof is in dangerous condition, the Department has the authority within thirty days to stop operation of any such machine and such machine would be tagged and sealed. Since the rest of these provisions are self-explanatory, I do not see any need of going into all of them, but I call your attention to § 40-61.2, on page 23, which covers excavation, demolition and construction, to advise that the 1966 General Assembly amended this section to extend to the general public when this type of construction is in progress, amendment attached; and, also, § 40-61.3, on page 24, which is an emergency clause to apply that, where imminent danger may exist, the Department has the authority to close down such operation immediately. The criteria that was pointed out in the Petition is based on the fact that all of our people have an industrial safety background and are required to take a two-week training course annually with the Bureau of Labor Standards, U. S. Department of Labor ; these courses have been made available to the Department for the past seventeen and a half years to my knowledge. Our educational programs consist of industrial safety supervisory training schools held monthly on a rotating basis throughout the State of Virginia and our personnel are equipped with 16mm projectors to show safety films in the busi- nesses; and equipment is made available to them for measuring ventilation sys- tems, gases and other impurities. The program extends not only into the business establishments, but into Rotary Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, labor organizations, women’s groups, volunteer fire departments, etc.; monthly safety releases and bulletins are distributed to businesses and civic groups. The Safety Codes Commission will have completed the adoption of rules and regulations in excavation, demolition and construction work by the first of June, 1966 ; all future employees with the Department will come from this indus- try and will meet the qualifications for boiler inspections and construction codes. I sincerely hope that this criteria will meet the minimum requirements of the U.S. Department of Labor. With kindess regards, I am, Sincerely yours, EpMmonD M. Boaas, Commissioner. PETITION TO HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Pursuant to the provisions of Part 50-205.3 of the regulations of the U.S. Department of Labor entitled “Enforcement of Safety and Health Standards by State Officers and Employees,” the Department of Labor and Industry of the State of Virginia hereby petitions the Secretary of Labor to reinstate the previ- ous agreement providing for the use of the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry in conducting safety inspections under the safety and health provisions of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. This petition is supported by the following considerations: . 92-734 0—68——44 676 (1) From 1942 to November 1963, the Department of Labor and Industry served as designated agent for the U.S. Department of Labor in conducting safety inspections under the safety and health provisions of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. (2) At no time during these twenty-one years did the U.S. Department of Labor cite any objections to the quality or quantity of inspections made by the Department of Labor and Industry. (3) The Administrator of the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Divisions canceled this agreement without consultation with or consent of the Department of Labor and Industry. In a letter to the Commissioner of Labor and Industry dated October 23, 1963, copy attached, the Administrator praised the cooperation of the State of Virginia and thanked it for making these inspections in the past. (4) The Department of Labor and Industry is legally authorized by the laws of the State of Virginia to enter into an agreement to conduct inspections under the safety and health provisions of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act within the meaning of the regulations of the U.S. Department of Labor, Part 50-205. Section 40-21 of the Code of Virginia provides : “The Department may enter into agreements with the Wage and Hour Division, the Children’s Bureau, United States Department of Labor, for assistance and cooperation in the enforcement within this State of the act of Congress known as the Fair Labor Standards Act of one thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight, and amendments thereto, and may accept payment or reimbursement for its services as provided by such act of Congress. Any such agreement may be subject to the regulations of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, or the Chief of the Children’s Bureau of the United States Department of Labor, as the case may be, and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of the Division of the Budget. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the Department to spend in excess of its appropriations from State funds, except to the extent that such excess may be paid or reimbursed to it by United States Department of Labor. All payments received by the Department under this section shall be deposited in the State treasury and are hereby appropriated to the Department to enable it to carry out the agreements entered into under this section.” (5) The safety personnel of the Department of Labor and Industry are quali- fied to make these inspections and many of them have been trained by the Bureau of Labor Standards of the U.S. Department of Labor; and all of them have been attending two-week training courses of the Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, and received certificates of competency signed by the Secretary of Labor. (6) There are twelve safety inspectors on the staff of the Department of Labor and Industry and July 1, 1966, four safety inspectors will be added and three more will be added in July 1, 1967. This number is adequate to perform the functions which would be required of the Department of Labor and Industry pusuant to the regulations of the U.S. Department of Labor. (7) Section 40-20 of the Code of Virginia establishes the Safety Codes Com- mission which shall study and investigate all phases of safety in public and pri- vate business establishments and shall serve as advisor to the Commissioner of Labor and Industry. Section 40-20, copy of which is attached, gives to the Safety Codes Commission the authority to adopt rules and regulations in all phases of safety in public and private business establishments (which includes boilers), but does not include industrial hygiene and radiation hazards since these are specifically set up under the Virginia State Health Department. The Safety Codes Commission has the authority to adopt rules and regulations in all phases of safety not in conflict with the law. Article 5, Section 40-44, provides for toilet facilities in places of employ- ment and ASA Standards are followed by this Department with respect to this requirement and the Safety Codes Commission has the authority to adopt spe- cific rules and regulations. (Section 40-44.1 states that the State Health Commissioner shall be advised if such facilities create a health problem). Article 6, Section 40-54.1, authorize the Department to notify the State Fire Marshal's Office of any violation of the Virginia Fire Hazard’s Law or rules and regulations adopted thereunder coming to his attention. This refers to doors and handrails outside the building for which the Fire Marshal’s Office establishes rules and regulations. The Department has jurisdiction over handrails and stair- ways inside the building. 677 In view of the foregoing responsibilities, and the authority of the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry to enter into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor pursuant to the U.S. Department of Labor's regulations, Part 50-205.3, it is respectfully requested that the Secretary of Labor enter into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry to provide for safety and health inspections required under this act. Epmonp M. BoGas, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Labor & Industry. Mr. O'Hara. Our final witness is Mr. William E. Naumann, repre- senting the Associated General Contractors of America. He is chair- man of the legislative committee of the Associated General Contrac- tors of America. Mr. Naumann, welcome back. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. NAUMANN, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA Mr. Naumann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here again. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is William E. Naumann. I am a working contractor, the chairman of the board of M. S. Sundt Construction Co., whose headquarters are in Tucson, Ariz., and who has for the past 7 years been operating as a general contractor under the same firm name and under the same continuity of management. I am chairman of the legislative committee of the Associated General Contractors of America, a trade association of almost 8,500 of the Nation’s leading general contractors who perform the greater part of all highway, heavy engineering, and building construction done in the United States each year. I also serve the AGC as chairman of the heavy division and as a member of its executive and labor committees. Let me reemphasize our support for a worthwhile program which would bring about more safety on the job. This is one point where my previous testimony made the state- ment that this industry under no circumstances can be against any program that will provide greater job safety. However, we differ with the approach which this bill takes in promoting safety on the job. In brief this bill is negative and punitive in nature where an affirmative and positive approach is needed. Let me explain. Great emphasis is placed on injunctions, fines, criminal and civil penalties, jail sentences, arbitrary cease-and-desist orders, and cancel- lations of contracts. All of this has been put together by Government staff and attorneys without consultation with business representatives including advisory committees established for this very purpose; that is, to advise the Government on matters affecting the public and the business community. oo ] It is the product of a crash program which the administration readily admits. ] We, of course, welcome this opportunity to present our views on this bill even though we were not consulted before it was drafted. 678 Your willingness to hold hearings at night, such as this, shows your desire to get further information on the subject. It also indicates an extreme sense of urgency to get something passed by this Congress. We believe it is unwise to vest so much unlimited power, both ad- ministrative and quasi-judicial, in any one person whomever he may be. This is no reflection on the present Secretary of Labor, whom we regard as most capable. However, it applies to all the agents the staff personnel, estimated to reach 8,000, who will be invested with powers heretofore unknown in the annals of our Government— except in time of war. I direct your attention to that section of the bill which makes it possible for an agent of the Secretary of Labor to issue cease-and- desist orders closing down an entire operation or any part thereof based on his own personal judgment without benefit of advice of a court or other checks and balances. Now I might as an aside at this particular time, Mr. Chairman, point out that there has been quite a study made in the past few days of the numbers of people that would be involved in the enforce- ment procedures as outlined in the bill as it presently exists and it indicates that a total of 11,459 inspectors, 1,149 supervisors, and some 3,800 clerks would be an honest estimate of the administrative force that would be required to carry out the enforcement of the procedures of this bill as it is presently drafted. : Now, I would like to make some comments on several of the major provisions contained in H.R. 14816. STANDARDS The bill would establish mandatory Federal standards for occupa- tional safety and would give the Secretary of Labor the power to promulgate safety standards for all industries which affect interstate commerce. This covers 1114 million business organizations throughout the country of all types and sizes. There are approximately 9.1 million proprietorships, 922,000 partnerships and some 1.4 million corpor- ations which would be brought under the provisions of this bill if enacted. The Secretary is granted the authority to establish standards, however, no specific guidelines have been spelled out in the bill. We believe this is not in the best interest of all concerned because when an agency is granted such sweeping powers there is a tendency to go far beyond the specific problem involved and legislate in a di- rection which was not originally contemplated. INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS The Secretary or his representative is authorized to inspect plants, business establishments and all working conditions and equipment on the site. We believe that certain requirements should be established for the personnel who are authorized to inspect and investigate in order to sure that qualified men would be conducting such investigations. And these qualifications, since the jobs these people have are very important ones, must be spelled out. 679 Now with regard to penalties the bill provides for both civil and criminal penalties with fines ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 and imprisonment up to 10 years for any persons who violate or fail or refuse to comply with the provisions contained in the bill. The penalties seem to be unrealistic, particularly in view of the fact that the employee is totally ey from the provisions of the section. It does not reach instances where protective devices have been removed or where an employee refused to wear protective equipment. This particular section emphasizes a negative approach in that it punishes a wrongdoer for having violated some on or regulation which is yet to be written. A punitive approach is not going to promote safety. It must be done through education and training. Insurance companies have tried punitive measures to assure com- pliance of safety regulations by increasing insurance premiums on cases where they found violations. However, they admit that it did not work. It just turned into a policing action. Obviously effective insofar as policing is concerned, but not effective in the actual im- provement of job safety. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS The Secretary may declare any contractor inelgible to receive Gov- ernment contracts if he believes that that person is disregarding his obligations under the Act. Contractors declared ineligible for Government contracts cannot appeal to the courts. We believe that such broad power vested with the Secretary could be misused and contractors would be without judicial remedy. And believe me, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this committee, this is a place where this industry always feels it has protection in the judicial system of this great country of ours, and this is a place where we feel that regardless of the type of legis- lation, if we would finally have our day in court that we will not be too badly harmed. GRANTS TO STATES The bill would authorize the Secretary of Labor to make grants to the States to assist them in developing their plans and responsibilities in the area of occupational safety and health. Such a provision might allow the Federal Government to assume, through underwriting, the power of the States to regulate their own safety programs. It could revert to a pursestring-type control vested solely with one department. Centralized control of industrialized health and safety vested with the Federal Government would constitute an unjustified interference with the present powers and functions of State and local govern- ments and with private health and safety organizations. One thing which these hearings have brought out is the need for a uniform system of reporting accidents. There are many different criteria for reporting accidents and injuries by various States and agencies, and each reporting system differs widely, therefore, the sta- tistics collected from these reports are not easily comparable. For this reason we feel in this industry that one of the best efforts that could be made under the section of any such legislation with re- 680 gard to grants made to the States would be for the modernization toward a uniform method of reporting industrial accidents. We support the idea of establishing a National Safety Commis- sion to investigate and report on present public and private safety and health programs. Such a commission should recommend solutions to any problems uncovered by its investigation. Such a proposed commission should conduct, promote, and coordinate research and investigations into the causes and prevention of accidents. We believe that the encouraging and coordinating of research in the field of accident causes and prevention, which could be undertaken by such a commission, would be a benefit to everyone concerned. Our country, in both public and private efforts, has been devoting many dollars each year to organized and directed research into the prevention and cure of cancer, tuberculosis, and mental illness. Acci- dents do not just happen—they are caused. It is long past due that such an organized and directed attack be made upon the cause and prevention of accidents. In the past, some success has been achieved in accident reduction brought about by the installation of mechanical safety devices; such as, manny guards. However, complex human behavior is not cantly changed by simple or unilateral means such as described in this bill. At this point we get back to the basic thesis that good safety prac- tices within an individual cannot be legislated, that they must be achieved by the efforts with this same individual of education on a continuing basis. As I have previously stated before your committee on a similar bill which was related to construction safety, H.R. 2567, AGC does not believe safety can be achieved through legislation, but only through education. Accident prevention in construction is largely a matter of education, vigilance, and cooperation. It is a matter of Tan relations rather than an engineering problem. Hard-and-fast rules alone will not insure safety on the job. This can only be secured by constant and careful attention on the part of the superintendent and foreman, with the co- operation of the workmen. Again, I must reiterate the fact that the statistics show that the relationship of industrial accidents caused by unsafe practices versus those that are caused by unsafe acts on the part of an individual rep- resent a ratio of about 85 percent caused by the acts of an individual and not over 15 percent caused by unsafe practices that can be rem- edied by regulation. An informed foreman having the knowledge and know-how to im- part his knowledge is the key to any accident prevention program. If there is a secret to building a program of accident prevention, then such supervision from the Be to the highest levels is where the answer is to be found. In my own experience and in the experience of the Associated Gen- eral Contractors we find that any safety program has to have the en- dorsement of the top management of any organization if it is to be effective and the people responsible for it must have the power that is required for them to be impressive upon the people whom the pro- 681 gram affects and they have to have what we call the teeth to make their ideas stick. Men should be taught to think in terms of preventing accidents and taught not to take unnecessary chances. Legislation cannot do this. The administration and enforcement of laws and rules is an ex- pensive procedure. Automotive regulatory laws are a good example. If a law states that a specific speed may not be roi without a penalty, does it stop speeding? No. It is infinitely better to prevent accidents by positive action of education and training. Training is the answer. In order to best achieve this and formulate a national policy, our apprentice training programs will have to be revitalized. And instruction in safe practices within our industry has to start with the first training of an apprentice that will finally be- come a part of our work force. Safety education is not popular because of the recognized com- plexity and difficulty of hy a field of endeavor. It requires the in- volvement of extremely thoughtful, well-trained, and highly sophisti- snd personnel, which, according to experts, is virtually unavailable today. It is our belief that the establishment of a National Safety Com- mission will help to train and establish qualified personnel capable of drafting standards. . We would support any proposal along these lines which would per- mit a thorough investigation into the facts regarding the causes of accidents which are derived from a uniform system of reporting. This isthe only way to accurately and meaningfully approach such a serious and complex problem. The prevention of job injuries requires an intimate knowledge of conditions and a close working relationship between management, labor, and government. The States, because of their familiarity with local programs, can plan safety programs for local areas more effectively than can be done through a national program administered from Washington, D.C. Businesses within the State tend to work more closely and more efficiently with State governments than with the National Government. This is particularly important when it comes to safety, since close and continuing cooperation from management is an essential element in securing results. The underlying cry, which the proponents give for this legislation is the failure of the States to reduce the accident toll. Some States have done a very good job. The lack of achievement is not due to the lack of interest or desire on the part of State Industrial Commissions, but is rather due to the failure of the various legislatures to appropriate funds to carry out the necessary promotional and educational activities. The establishment of a safety commission and reporting system would do much to rectify this situation and would tend to give unity. The Federal control of safety, I believe, would bring about many conflicts between State and Federal authorities with respect to the administration of safety laws. 682 But a provision in a Federal law to supplement the funds available to any State to carry out the requirements of its own safety laws can- not help but be a worthwhile undertaking. The bill does recognize the problem of funding such a program in the States. One provision would authorize the Secretary of Labor to make grants up to 90 percent in order to develop health and safety lans. } As was pointed out by a previous witness, Mr. J. Sharp Queener, Safety Director for the DuPont Corporation, business has not been sitting idly by but has contributed heavily in time and money on the promotion of safety. Today, insurance companies alone are spending. Not $30 million annually but the latest report secured this afternoon indicates that the insurance industry contributes to its efforts on the promotion of industrial safety 114 percent of its total premiums which amounted to, in the year just past, right at $185 million. Therefore, it is obvious that the insured spends substantially greater sums to implement their programs. Industry has not failed to do its art. b Believe me, gentlemen, were it not for the money spent by the insurance people, by industry, itself, toward the promotion of indi- vidual, regional and in many cases, statewide programs, that we would have no progress in safety for the reason that I have pointed out, that in too many instances there is not enough money available to the State to properly carry out their program. In my own operations, I have instituted a new program to pro- mote safety on the job. I award a special bonus bond to those super- visors having an accident-free experience for their individual crews. In addition to the production bonuses, we now have a bonus that has to do with their performance and safety record. I am happy to say as an organization which does a tremendous amount of work that we have historically conducted a safe operation and we have done it because we have been willing to spend our own money in the employ- ment of safety engineers, our safety director department, in the awards and recognition of our people that do a good job on safety, in the matter of the very latest of safety devices, in the matter of the very latest in protective clothing and various other safety equipment of this sort, and we feel that this is good business. Believe me, gentlemen, that any time we can get additional help along these lines from the Federal Government for education and the things which our experience has proven will better our general safety record the same as 1t will better the general safety record of all in- dustry, that we have to be in favor of this kind of program. I would like to cite this fact. As I say, my organization does a lot of work. Very recently in our quarterly safety awards made to our people, we had 37 of the 54 top supervisors involved in our organization who received recognition and award not for just a good position but for a perfect record for an entire year, of not having a single lost time accident. And at the same time, 147 of their foremen were similarly recognized, dropping down the scale to where you match supervisor to a smaller crew. These are the kinds of things which we believe can be supplemented by the proposal that we as endorse in taking the talents, that were just spoken of by the witness who just preceded me, taking the knowl- 683 edge which has been gained from industry, taking the absolute in- formation with regard to regulations that have been successful—and there are many of them because many Government agencies have excellent safety records because of good safety requirements and good safety regulation, that the people that work for these agencies have to comply with—take all these things and put them together and in a calm and not necessarily slow, but in an efficient manner, examine what the problems really are and this to my notion will produce a far greater result than the kind of legislation that we are considering here which has to do with the negative approach of being mandatory, punitive and to my notion, ill-advised and too hasty in its conclusion. We believe that the decision to make the grants and the reporting and accounting requirements should be those that would be a result of studies carried on by every capable and knowledgeable person and organization in this country drawn together and coordinated by what we would choose to call a National Safety Commission. And in summary, we believe that the bill was hastily drawn, that it is ill-advised and does little to improve the current safety record, that the problem would be best approached through the establishment of a qualified National Safety Commission who could establish criteria and define its standards as well as guide any enforcement of a national occupational safety program. Mr. Chairman, I would like to at this time make two requests. One of them is that we be allowed to supplement this statement with some additional information that would deal directly with the programs that have been successful in our construction industry in many, many cases. If that request would be granted, we would be most grateful. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Naumann, subject to the time limitations on gettin the record of these hearings printed, which I am sure you understand, and without objection, it will be ordered that these tables that you refer to, the additional material you refer to, will be entered into the record at the conclusion of your testimony. Mr, Naumann. Thank you. The other request that I have is to make one more statement with regard to what progress has been made in industrial safety not only in our industry but in all industry since the late 20’s at which time the matter of industrial safety, the matter of workmen’s compensation was barely getting underway. I feel that we cannot reiterate too many times that the kinds of ef- forts that have been put forth by industry are paying off, that they are producing improvement. I do not mean to say by this statement that we have reached an ul- timate situation where we are satisfied, because this is not the case. But I say that we must recognize that there has been steady and constant progress and that if the basic idea and procedures that have been car- ried out by industry to produce these kind of advancements, that if they are supplemented by additional programs, financed, for example, many of them, by the Federal Government, and with the ability of these same people to further expand the efforts of education and in- struction, a development of better safety devices, continuing research 2 ie causes and methods for prevention, that we will progress still urther. 684 I think it is fair that even though this testimony has been before this committee, I would like to reiterate the progress that has been made. In 1926, the frequency rate for accidental injury was 31.87. That is that there were 31.87 disabling injuries for every million man-hours of work. Two decades later, in 1946, this rate had been more than halved to 14.6 injuries per million man-hours. By 1966, the injury rate had again been more than halved and was at 6.91. During 1967, the frequency rate of industry was again improved. Remarkable gains have also been made in severity rate. This rate has dropped from 2,500 man-days lost per 1 million man-hours of work in 1926 to only 689 man-days lost in 1966. To put it another way, the frequency of injuries has been reduced 78.3 percent. The seriousness of those injuries has been reduced 72.4 percent, and the frequency of patients reduced 78.1 percent. By contrast during the same period of time, the total number of employees in nonagricultural employment from which these figures are taken, increased by 121.8 percent. The total number of man-hours worked in manufacturing nearly doubled, rising from 23.4 billion in 1926 to 40.8 billion in 1967, and meanwhile, our productivity during the last two decades alone has risen by 93.7 percent. In the light of these figures, these on-the-job deaths and injuries have resulted in spectacular achievement, a Te chapter in Amer- ican progress, but in safety no one wishes to rest on present progress. I reiterate that with the kind of progress which has been made vir- tually on a bootstrap basis by the States and by industry, that means established by the Federal Government and operated in conjunction with the knowledge that industry has already gained can only result in a better record in the future. I thank you very much. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. Naumann. I will appreciate getting those addtional materials from you. I wonder if I can ask you, since you have been so cooperative with the committee, whether you can supply us with additional information. You opened my eyes fo a new possibility when you tied in the date at which the injury frequency rates began falling off rather sharply with the beginning of the adop- tion of Workmen's Compensation Act. I would like to ask you if you could, through your effective research department, furnish us with the following material for the same dates that you gave in your testimony, 1926, 1936, 1946, 1956, 1966, the per- centage of workers covered by workmen’s compensation statutes on each of those dates, and the percentage of average wage that the aver- age workmen’s compensation payment represented for each of those dates. I would be interested in discovering if there is any coincidence be- tween those figures and the figures that you gave us on injury fre- quency rates and severity rates. If you could, we would appreciate that very much. Mr. Naumann. I will do my best. (The information to be furnished follows :) 685 THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, Washington, D.C. March 27, 1968. Hon. JAMES G. O'HARA, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. O'HARA : During the course of Mr. William E: Naumann’s testimony on H.R. 14816, the Occupational Health and Safety bill, you asked Mr. Naumann to supplement his statement by furnishing the Sub-Committee with the per- centage of workers covered by workmen’s compensation and the percentage of the coverage wage that the average workmen’s compensation payment was during 1926, 1936, 1946, 1956, and 1966. We have made every effort possible to comply with this request, but these figures are not readily available and there was not sufficient time to research this particular area. Our 49th Annual Convention convened in Dallas, Texas, shortly after the hearings. Therefore, we express sincere regret that we are un- able to furnish these figures at this time. With regard to the author of the book, “Industrial Accident Prevention,” which was mentioned during the construction safety hearing, the author’s name is Herbert W. Heinrick. The publisher was McGraw Hill of New York, New York, and the last printing was in 1959. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, WirLiaM E. DUNN, Ewecutive Director, Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Hathaway, do you have any questions? Mr. Haraaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your statement and thank you for calling to our attention some of the aspects of the bill as introduced that may need to be cleaned up, especially with respect to the punitive powers given to the Secretary. In many instances, I think many members of the committee have had them called to their attention already. We do intend to make them more equitable. You mentioned, although it is not included in your written state- ment, that this program would increase the number of inspectors tre- mendously. But the witness preceding you indicated that in the State of Wisconsin when they increased the number of inspectors the acci- dent frequency also crept up. Do you disagree with the gentleman’s statement ? Do you not think the more inspectors we have the better chance we have to prevent accidents? Mr. Naumann. I don’t disagree with the statement provided. I think if this gentleman had gone farther into the problem, he would probably say the same thing that I said, that the number of inspectors, provided they are qualified people and know what they are doing, is the key to additional people or additional bodies having affect on the decrease in industrial Rcait We do not feel that if there was a sufficient force, for example, in our State of qualified people to carry out the program, when the in- spector comes on the job he not only inspects for the unsafe condition the manhole that does not have a railing around it, or the un rotected edge of a scaffold or a thing like that, speaking of some of the things that can happen in the construction industry, he in addition, carries on the process of education by talking to the supervisory people on that job, “How many toolbox conferences have your foremen had with the crews in the past month ? How many safety meetings have you 686 as the superintendent attended in your company’s own safety pro- gram?” These are the things. We are firm in our belief that you cannot have too many people, no matter where they are as long as they are knowledgeable and quali- fied, that would be preaching the gospel of safety on the job in the plant, Sverywhara that the problem exists, and it exists everywhere people work. Our only problem, our only objection, is to the fact that these people, the only fear we have is that these people who have the tremendous powers would not be qualified people and they would be policemen rather than educators. Mr. Haraway. I would agree with you, I would hope that they would be educators as well as policemen. Let me skip to your suggestion with respect to the National Safety Commission. You indicated in your testimony that it would be better to have a National Safety Commission to make investigations and propose stand- ards but won’t this be accomplished by the tn of Do holding hearings on the standards he 1s going to propose ? Won't he be able to conduct the same investigations as the National Safety Commission ? Mr. Naumann. Our fear is that in the same manner that this legis- lation was drafted, hastily put together, that there might be very well the same kind of procedure in the drafting of regulations and safety standard, that the people who are closest to the problem would not be consulted and that in some manner, in the rush of eagerness to get the policeman on the job, that this might very well happen. LY no objection to the final regulation of industrial safety if it is carried out in the most efficient manner. This is why we say that we feel the State should be involved. We feel that the most knowledgeable people in the country should be a part and the best experience Tin be a part of the formation of regulations that will actually do the job and these regulations, I might point out, in addition to establishing physical requirements within plants and so on, should at the same time establish educational requirements and training requirements. We feel that if this ne situation, rather than hastily considered legislation, would be looked at over a period of time, that out of this consultation and out of the knowledge that is inherently here a better way to establish standards of safety and a means of enforcing them could be achieved. Mr. Haraaway. I, for one, share the same apprehension that you share, but I think the provisions of this act ‘5 take care of your apprehensions because under the hearing procedure anybody who wants to testify before the Secretary would have an opportunity to do so. The Secretary would certainly be relying on codes already in existence, that have been in existence for years, and that have worked. Of course, there is provision in here for him to let those States’ regula- tions that he thinks are workable, continue. So, your apprehension may be based on the fact that this bill as you say, was hastily drafted. I don’t say that it was, but I think that your apprehension is unwarranted because one of the reasons for 687 holding hearings is that when a bill is considered that does not have all inclusive provisions, doesn’t cover every objection, then during the hearing procedure it will be amended considerably so that the final product will probably meet with your satisfaction. Mr. Naumann. Mr. Hathaway, the other apprehension that we have is that we don’t feel that the final decision in spite of the hearings and in spite of the best effort, should rest with one man, one man who sometimes would conceivably have a prejudiced interest. This is possible, we are all human, but we feel that a commission composed of people of sound judgment, qualified people and operating as an independent agency, could better serve and better relieve the apprehensions of industry with regard to the practicality of regula- tions, the practicality of requirement and the basis on which they are enforced. The whole effort, and I don’t believe there is any difference in your ideas of what the general effort should be than there is in mine and our whole question is a plea to come up with the best possible solution toward improving an already good job done by industry. Mr. Haraaway. The trouble is that such an approach does not have any teeth with it. The standards may be recommended to the various States but what if the States don’t adopt them ? Mr. Naumann. I don’t believe, Mr. Hathaway, that this poses a problem. I cite to you the new mine safety legislation which said for all intents and purposes you States enact your own mine safety legislation and if you don’t, we will take over for you. This is exactly what it says. I know that this is the case because just in the legislature in our own great State of Arizona, we have just passed the new mine safety legislation that meets the standards of the Federal law. Mr. Hatnaway. So you would rather have the Commission estab- lish standards and then have a certain period of time within which the State should act and if they don’t the Federal Government should step in? 3 Naumann. This is one approach that would represent an entirely practical approach. To my notion if such a commission as we have spoken of would be formed for the consideration of the whole problem, that the matter of enforcement could also be a consideration of this commission. And like I say, we have no quarrel with having a responsibility for safety. All we ask are the basic safeguards that the people that we deal with are knowledgeable people, that the regu- lations that are established are practical, that the method of enforce- ment provides for some review to operate on a basis that you have a chance to correct. Right at this time in the statehouse in Phoenix in my State, there is under consideration a bill that reorganizes the industrial commis- sion and has a greater impetus toward industrial safety. These are exactly the same safeguards that we have asked for in the consideration of this legislation. In other words, we still want a practical way to do this. We want it to be such a way so that people who have tried and for some reason made a slip don’t wind up in the penitentiary without a hearing. 688 These kinds of things are the places where we feel that a commis- sion such as we suggest in its careful consideration of all of the aspects of both regulation and enforcement could do a real and honest and effective job. As I point out, one of the things that they would be greatly con- sidering is the matter of how can we better educate? We have tried everything. I have right here in my hand a little maneuver that won the golden prize for the best safety promotion scheme for the individual. Because we work so many Spanish Americans in our labor forces, we have taken a Fry construction company and called it a safety construction company. Our Mexican American people can understand. Our safety director has nicknamed himself “Garcia.” Every week in every man’s paycheck there is a new cartoon. We found out that comic books, this kind of graphic presentation, are effective. We get down to this level. We get down to where they can hardly help but understand. was amazed at our most recent National Conference on Safety held by the AGC, we brought this along with our safety director who conceived it. We provided enough copies to meet the demand. Everybody wanted this item because it can be adapted. It is just another scheme. So what I say is that there are not enough schemes. We wish the day after tomorrow we could have a hundred new ones that would help the cause along. Mr. Haraaway. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Steiger. Mr. Steiger. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Mr. Naumann’s being back with us again. It is good to see you here before the committee and have the benefit of your testimony. Mr. Naumann. Thank you. sir. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Ford. Mr. Forp. Mr. Naumann, it is always a pleasure to see you here. 1 am particularly pleased at the support you have given this evening to a number of the principles that I see in this legislation. I don’t think, after hearing your responses to Mr. Hathaway, you and I are as far apart as we have been in the past. I take it from your formal testimony here that you believe that one of the real problems in the inception of this legislation is moving these functions to a national focus rather than a State and local focus. From that I gather that you are suggesting that the States are better able to do the job of enacting safety legislation and enforcing it. Am 1 correct ? : Mr. Naumann. This is substantially our basic thesis and it is based on our experience. Mr. Forp. How long have you been with the Associated General Contractors? Mr. NaumaNN. Asa member ? Mr. Forp. No, as an officer. Mr. NauMaNN. As a chairman of committees and as a member of the executive committee for about 19 years. Mr. Forp. You operate in all 50 States? 689 Mr. Naumann. No, we don’t operate in all 50 States. We operate, and this is just a matter of chance, we are qualified and have operated in all 50 States, let me put it that way. Presently, the bulk of our work is confined to about 11 States. Mr. Forp. Which States would you characterize as having the most restrictive and punitive safety laws? Mr. Naumann. Now this would be a real hard question for me to answer with no more analysis than right here, but I would almost cast a vote, right or wrong, for the great State of California. Mr. Forp. Which has the most flexible and from your point of view, easiest to work with safety regulations? Mr. Naumann. Insofar as safety regulations are concerned, we don’t find any unwieldiness in any of the States where we have operated to the point of their not being practical. Let me put it this way. In our own State, which, incidentally, is a poor State, and if the copper strike does not get over pretty soon it will be a lot poorer, we do not have a strong and extensive enforcement agency within the industrial commission, for example. And you might very well say that for this reason it might be considered that this State is an easy State to work in. But the fact that the regulations are on the books, sensible ones, the fact that we have under all of the Federal agencies operating in that State, their regulations to comply with, that we have to produce from our own organization the kind of enforcement, and this applies to all industry, the kind of enforcement that would relieve us of the respon- sibilities under the law. If there is a difference, it comes in the basic attitudes and abilities of the State enforcement people. Mr. Forn. As cosponsor of the construction safety laws, that were passed in Michigan during Governor Romney’s first term in office and for which he has expressed great pride all over this country, I am familiar with the help we got from your organization. Do you happen to know what position you took in the State of Michigan in enacting a construction safety law? Mr. Naumann. The position that the AGC took ? Mr. Forp. Yes. Mr. Naumann. I don’t believe that nationally we took a strong position. Mr. Forn. Do you know whether your people when they came out there were in favor of it or testified against it? Mr. Naumann. I honestly don’t know of that particular instance. Mr. Forp. Do you generally favor the enactment of State construc- tion safety laws? Mr. Naumann. As I say, if they carry the safeguards that we have been talking about this evening and the safeguards that we have asked for in our own State in the reconsideration of our not only construc- tion but all safety laws, we cannot oppose them. We have no brief for opposing them. Mr. Foro. What State would you suggest that the committee look to for a sample of a construction safety law that your organization has indorsed and supported the papsage of? Mr. Naumann. I beg your pardon? 690 Mr. Foro. Which State should the committee look to for a sample of the State construction law which meets the criteria you have set forth and which your organization has supported the enactment of ? Mr. Naumann. Ohio would be a very good one. Mr. Foro. Do you consider the Ohio construction safety law to be a good one? . Naumann. That is right. By the same token, even I don’t con- sider the Michigan would be a bad one. Mr. Foro. I had to vote for it because I helped introduce it but by the time we got through with it, it did not do a thing. It happens to be a sore spot for me. f takes a lot of gall to brag about the Michigan law because it is nothing but a title. Mr. Naumann. That is what I was going to say. It is not a bad law but it does not get anything done. Mr. Foro. I appreciate your comment with respect to the reluctance of the States to provide funds for safety education and for safety enforcement. That is a good deal of our problem. This is not a political observa- tion. There does not seem to be any more enthusiasm in one party than in the other to provide safety funds in the States. Maybe we can help them. Mr. Naumann. Along those lines and some figures that I haven’t quoted up to now, I quoted the numbers of people that a study would indicate would be hired for the coverage 4 this legislation as proposed here now. I also have some figures on the cost of these wonderful people. It is projected that there would be a requirement of 11,487 inspectors at approximately $8,000 per year if you could find them, 1,148 super- visors at $12,000 a year, and some 3,800 clerks at $4,000 a year, which would represent an annual expenditure of $120,880,000. If you add to that the automobile and field expenses and the per diem allowances for these people, you would add another $172 million which would give you a proposed operating requirement in the first year that such an organization was fully staffed of in excess of $293 million. I say that to spend this kind of money and spend it largely on a police force would be a ridiculous and wasteful operation. I would have no quarrel with spending this kind of money if the Congress and the administration in their enthusiasm can find it and as a taxpayer I would help contribute to it. I would have no quarrel spending this kind of money for effective operations in the reduction of industrial accidents. But I don’t believe, and I don’t believe that this committee in the final analysis would believe, that this kind of money should be spent on a police force. Mr. Forp. Now you pointed, as I mentioned, to the fact that State legislatures are slow and reluctant to appropriate money for these urposes. Does your organization customarily take a position before tate legislatures in favor of greater appropriations for safety educa- tion, safety regulations? Mr. Naumann. We cannot help but take this position, Mr. Ford. The reason being that if the State does not pay for part of the educa- tion and the requirements of carr: iio on good safety programs we have to take it out of our own ps . beeanse we cannot afford, we cannot exist with the cost of indu:/iial accidents unless we operate safely. The amount of money that is involved in industrial accidents, we cannot afford to be slipshod because in the first place we can be ill- considered by many of the Federal contracting agencies from which we get a large majority of our work. The other thing, we cannot operate our jobs because they can and do and will, if you are operating on an unsafe basis, shut you down. So we have to have a good safety program. In the areas where there has been effort made in education and in a better concept of the on- the-job safety, we do not have to spend as much of our own money. In other words, if the State legislatures appropriate money it means that everybody that pays taxes shares to some degree. If we do not have any help from this it comes entirely out of our pocket. Mr. Forn. What I asked for and perhaps I did not make it clear, was an example of trying to find some models that we could look to here. Where have we seen a State legislature in recent years, as a result of your efforts, or organized labor or anybody else, grasping the magni- tude of this problem and coming up with substantial increases in appopriations for this purpose. Mr. Srercer. If the gentleman from Michigan will yield—he may not have been here to hear the discussion of the State of Wisconsin. You could look to that State as a model. Mr. Nauvmax~. I was just going to mention that Wisconsin would be a good example. Mr. Forp. Thank you very much. Mr. Navmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. Ford. Mr. Naumann, it looks like we are going to have the last dance. I will try to make it worthwhile. I was much interested in the figures that you projected with respect to the number of inspectors and super- visors and clerks and so forth. How did you arrive at those figures, the number of inspectors and supervisors and clerks that would be required to administer this? Mr. Navman. I borrowed them from the insurance industry which projected the same basis as they provide the safety inspectors, super- visors and their administrative people that have the same responsibility and have expanded it by the expansion to a national program. Mr. O'Hara. That is very interesting. Evidently the insurance in- dustry feels that the number of safety inspectors, supervisors, and clerks, if you project the numbers to the Nation that they think are necessary for their own insured contractors of different kinds you would end up with 11,487 inspectors and a total of 16,435 personnel. What is interesting about that is in all the 50 States we have a total of only 1,571 safety inspectors. Evidently, the insurance indus- try feels that if we had industrial safety inspectors per 100,000 workers in the magnitude of whatever they think is necessary in their own good judgment, instead of having 1,571 safety inspectors as we now Re in all of the States of the Union, we should have 11,487. That is a very interesting observation on their part. 62-734 0—68——45 692 There is an implication there that we now have employed by all the 50 States about one-tenth of the number of inspectors that the insur- ance industry would put on if they covered all those employers. Mr. Naumann. No. They would not put them on on this basis because any number of their personnel and any number of these personnel properly so, if it were so organized on this basis, if it were properly organized, are not inspectors per se. They are instructors, they are educators, because they feel that it is money well spent for them to pay for people to go around and help in the education of the people who are largely responsible for industrial accidents and that is the work force. Now then, and I don’t disagree with you even in your comparison that you have just drawn from this, that if there is a way to afford these many people working in industrial safety, effectively working in industrial safety, that I for one would not he against 1t, because I think there have been the statements made here time after time, and 1 add to them, that one accident is too many. Let me point out to you that this would be an advantage to the insurance company, the effective use of people, just like it 1s advan- tageous to a contractor who is able to get refunds on his insurance premiums if he operates on a safe basis. There is nothing impractical about these numbers. If there is some- thing that is impractical about it, it is how they are used. Mr. O’Hara. I noticed that your recommendations are basically that a National Safety Commission be established. You suggest on page 4 that it have the power to “investigate and report on present public and private safety and health programs. Such a commission should recom- mend solutions to any problems uncovered by its investigation. Such a proposed commission should conduct, promote, and coordinate re- search and investigations into the causes and prevention of accidents.” You suggest that the National Safety Commission on page 6 ought to help to train and establish qualified safety personnel capabale of drafting standards. And then finally you suggest in the last paragraph of your statement that the problem 1s best approached in the establish- ment of a qualified safety commission to establish criteria and define the standards as well as guide any enforcement of a national occupa- tional safety program. What do you mean, guide any enforcement ? Mr. Naumann. I believe that I mentioned this before in my discus- sion with another member of the committee. There can be any number of ways that enforcement can be achieved. I think that if we call it national dialogue or a national consideration of all of these problems by a commission, call it anything you want as long as it takes advantage of the knowledge and experience and the ability to get things done of the number of people that there are in these great United States, that is something that they should consider, the best way to enforcement, whether it is by regulations or enforcement procedures as proposed in this bill or by another bill. We say that the whole idea of establishment of standards and in a more effective way to have the standards lived up to, the more effective way of educating the people that are largely responsible for the greater bulk of industrial accidents, that all these things are the problem and that this commission should consider all of these things in a deliberate 693 and effective way to come up with the best answer which we feel would be a better answer than the answer produced by this legislation as 1t 1s written. That is why, Mr. Chairman, that in response to Mr. Ford’s comment that he was glad at one time that I came here in favor of something, I think it is an honest statement and it is a very sincere one; we are not opposed to the idea of a better job but we are opposed to the approach of this legislation, and I believe than any time you oppose anything it rather becomes incumbent upon you to offer a better suggestion or one at least in your honest opinion would better serve. Mr. O'Hara. We appreciate your doing that. I particularly appreci- ate it. I think this represents some new thoughts on your part since the time you testified on the construction safety bill. _ I want to say that I appreciate the obvious thought which has gone into the preparation of your statement. We will certainly give serious consideration to your suggestion. Mr. Forp. Mr. Chairman, I have just one question. During these hearings a number of members have asked repre- sentatives of organized labor why they don’t do more or what they do in the way of negotiating, as part of their collective bargaining agree- ment, to include safety standards. From your point of view, as a spokesman for management, do you think that a negotiation of safety standards in union contracts should be a substitute for legislating these standards? Mr. Naumann. I don’t know that T would take the position that it should be necessarily a substitute. T think it has been an effective means of making it a safer way to work. Let me give you an example. In our master labor agreement in the State of Arizona we retain an unlimited right to hire and fire. We do not have any grievance procedure. The only thing we can’t do is to fire a man and have him discriminate—fire him for something that you would not fire somebody else for, a matter of discrimination, one against the other. The only place in that labor contract where a man is entitled to a hearing, ir where we have a grievance procedure, is in the matter of safety. We say that if a man refused to go on a machine or if a man refused to enter an excavation or if he refused to, for any reason, to do his work, that we can fire him. But then he is entitled to a hearing before a safety committee that is set up by this same labor contract composed of half of management’s members and half of labor’s members. And if that committee decides he was justified in refusing to enter into this area or climb on this piece of equipment or anything in this way, then he is made whole. He gets reinstated and he gets his back- pay for any period he was unemployed. : I am happy to say that we have had such a regulation in our basic trades labor contract since 1948. We have yet to hear a case under it because this just does not happen. Our people are well enough—1I am talking about the industry people in that State—are well enough educated and their supervisors and their people who direct the efforts of the workmen are well enough educated to where the do not send a man some place where they would not go themselves. 694 Mr. Foro. You are suggesting that this has worked so well that you don’t have accidents any more ? Mr. Naumann. [say our record is very good. We were talking about the possibility of negotiating certain requirements of safetv into labor contracts. Let me tell you where we do have a quarrel with organized labor. You ask the average local union, and I have asked this question of everyone in two States that we do business in over the past 2 months, When was the last time that you people as a local union had a safety meeting ? This is where we have a quarrel with organized labor, where they would anticipate that management's side, aided and abetted by legis- lation of whatever description, must do the whole job when they have a closer liaison and could be most effective with their own membership if as a part of every union meeting, 5 minutes, 2 minutes, what- ever te be spared, would be devoted to the matter of safety educa- tion. One filmstrip, one short movie, one small 2-minute talk. This is where we have an argument. I can give you my solemn word that never has a safety regulation come up as a matter of collective bargaining in this particular area. What the contract says is that we will comply with the laws as they exist in the State. Mr. Forp. Then the standards that you are talking about are not established by labor ? Mr. Naumann. I agree with this. The standards are established for us by others. I would say by reason of the amount of work we do for the Federal Government as compared to the amount of private work we do—and all private work, of course, comes under the safety standards set up by States and by cities and by counties, by any politi- cal subdivision—but in the Federal work the standards are already set. They are set by the Corps of Engineers; they are set by the Bureau of Reclamation. They are set by the Bureau of Public Roads, and they are enforced by these same agencies. I tell you another thing, there is no need to have additional stand- ards. While we are on the subject that the chairman brought up, that I changed my attitude since I was here on the construction safety bill, my argument as far as the construction safety bill was concerned, was that this was not the way; that we did not need new standards. I still maintain this is largely the case insofar as construction is concerned. I haven’t chan my position because the legislation we are considering here tonight applies to all industry and many indus- tries conceivably are not as well standardized as regards safety re- quirements as the construction industry. I say this in addition, that another set of safety standards that is built into our basic labor agreement, is that the AGC Manual of Con- struction Safety shall be the bible and shall represent the standards of safety on the job. The labor unions are willing in construction to accept this set of standards and, believe me, gentlemen, it is an excellent set. 695 Mr. Forn. Are you suggesting that the standards that apply to your employees when you are working on Federal work are more stringent than when you are doing work for a private employer? Mr. Naumann. Not necessarily more stringent. For example, as I say Mr. Forp. Do you find it any more difficult to work with ? Mr. Naumann. No; not necessarily, because they are good standards, they are practical standards. Mr. Foro. Has the enforcement of these Federal standards by the Federal agency involved made it intolerable or more difficult for you to work with them ? Mr. Forp. Thank you. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you, Mr. Naumann, for that indorsement of Federal standards. I think we had better stop at that point. Thanks very much for coming over. We have a meeting tentatively scheduled for 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon if we can obtain permission of the House to sit. So, I would advise the committee tentatively of 2 o’clock but that is subject to later change. The committee will now stand adjourned until tomorrow, hopefully, at 2 o’clock. (Whereupon, at 10:40 p.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- vene at 2 p.m., Wednesday, March 13,1968.) (The subcommittee was unable to secure unanimous consent to sit while the House was in session and Mr. Gurney made a point of order against a meeting called subsequent to adjournment on March 13.) (The following letter and material was subsequently received from Bethlehem Steel Corp. :) BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., Bethlehem, Pa., March 26, 1968. Hon. ELMER G. HOLLAND, Chairman, House Select Subcommittee on Labor, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN Horranp: On March 12, 1968, Mr. Frank Burke, Safety and Health Director, United Steelworkers of America, testified before your Committee in support of the above titled proposed legislation. During that tes- timony Mr. Burke commented on the closing of a dispensary at our Sparrows Point Plant, inferring that this left 30,000 employees without adequate medical attention. Later in his testimony, he alleged that as a result of occupational exposures at our Car Shop at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, 9 persons died and 27 were dis- abled from working as a result of emphysema. His statements (a) suggested that our employees do not receive adequate medical treatment at Sparrows Point Plant, (b) are exposed to unhealthful working conditions at Johnstown Plant, and (c¢) that Federal safety and health regulations are required because the States (at least Pennsylvania) are not fulfilling their responsibilities. The facts are to the contrary and we believe it important that you be informed thereon. For that purpose I attach a memorandum from our Medical Director, Dr. P. J. Whitaker, and our Manager of Industrial Relations, Mr. George A. Moore, which sets out details of the occurrences to which Mr. Burke referred. I trust that these are sufficiently informative, but, in the event you have any further questions, we shall be most happy to provide you with any other information you desire. Very truly yours, J. R. BARNAKO, Manager of Compensation and Sa, ety. 696 MEMORANDUM ON TESTIMONY OF F'RANK BURKE, SAFETY AND HEALTH DIRECTOR, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA IN RESPECT oF THE CLOSING OF THE JOHNS- TOWN CAR SHOPS Mr. Frank Burke, Director of Safety and Health, United Steeworkers of America, in his appearance before the House Select Committee on Labor, sup- ported the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968, H.R. 14816. In his testi- mony as reported on page 540, he stated: “This has been going on for years and years. Just here recently, and this corporation is represented in this room tonight, just as an example, this is on the health side now, in Johnstown, I submitted to the Health Department, Dr. Jan Lieben, a list of deaths in the car shop, nine deaths, and 27 disabilities who will never return to work with emphysema. We checked their history and everything else. Their history goes way back. They were young men when they started to work. They worked in the welding depart- ment of the car shop. You know what I was told by Dr. Lieben when I asked him to send equipment in there to make x-rays and so forth. “The State of Pennsylvania cannot afford to spend $100,000 for such a survey.” The only car shop in Johnstown is operated by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and the facts concerning the environment in those shops, the joint investigation of the complaint by the employer, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and the State Department of Health, and the subsequent recommendations do not support Mr. Burke's contention that enactment of H.R. 14816 will result in improved em- ployee health; they do conclusively demonstrate that this incident was an ex- ample of close cooperation between an employer and a state agency in investi- gating a complaint of unhealthful working conditions by determining the extent of the workers’ exposure and arriving at a conclusion and recommendation based upon the knowledge thus acquired. There is nothing in this sequence of events that remotely suggests that the employer or the State performed any act of omission or commission which was detrimental to the health of any employee and which would have been avoided if the responsibility for occupational safety and health had been vested in the Department of Labor. In support of this position, we invite the Committee's attention to the following chronology : During the 1965 negotiations between the United Steelworkers of America and the steel industry, one of the local issues at the Johnstown Plant, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, concerned an allegation of excessive welding fumes in the Johnstown Car Shops. This was one of two local issues which was not resolved during negotiations or subsequent discussions between Johnstown Plant Manage- ment and Mr. Frank Burke. The union’s complaint was based upon an allegedly high incidence of emphy- sema among Car Shop employees ; the company’s response was that the environ- ment had been studied by Plant and Corporate Industrial Health Engineering Personnel, that the results of these studies had been evaluated by those person- nel and by Plant and Corporate Medical personnel who were recognized special- ists in the area of Occupational Health, that it had been unanimously agreed by all those persons that the environment did not constitute a hazard to the health of the employees and that there was not any evidence of an excessive incidence of emphysema among Car Shop employees. Management offered the services of the Plant Medical Department to take chest x-rays of a small group of Car Shop employees to determine if emphysema was a problem among those em- ployees but this offer was not accepted. Mr. Burke later requested the Division of Occupational Health, State Depart- ment of Health, to investigate the complaint and make chest x-rays available to all Car Shop employees. In supporting his request, a list of 25 employees allegedly having emphysema was furnished. Upon the invitation of the Director, Division of Occupational Health, Corporate and Plant Medical personnel met in the State Health Department, Harrisburg, with the Director and representatives from his office. Bethlehem’s representa- tives provided the State agency with all of the information concerning the Car Shop environment and the health of Car Shop employees known to them. In an effort to quickly determine if emphysema was a problem for these employees, the medical and insurance records of the first ten names on the list submitted by Mr. Burke were reviewed. None of those employees was known to the Plant Medical or Plant Sickness and Accident Insurance Departments as having emphysema. It was agreed that the Plant Medical Department would offer chest x-rays to all 25 named employees and would make the films available to the employee’s family physician and/or the State Department of Health. The Director, Division 697 of Occupational Health, immediately initiated steps to have environmental studies made by his own technical personnel. The Health Department’s Regional Industrial Hygienist accompanied by a physician visited the Plant and inspected the Car Shops four days later. Because welding operations were somewhat cur- tailed at that time, air sampling was delayed for approximately seven weeks. At that time, welding operations and shop conditions were again normal and at- mospheric samples were collected and analyzed by the State Department of Health. During the collection of the air samples by the State agency, Plant In- dustrial Health Engineers simultaneously collected samples at similar locations under similar conditions for their own analysis to serve as an accuracy check on their own sampling and analytic techniques. A report from the Regional Industrial Hygienist was subsequently received. The report stated that the results of air sampling and subsequent analysis indi- cated that exposure to iron oxide fumes was less than the threshold limit value and no recommendations were deemed necessary. A copy of this report is at- tached. Copies of the report were subsequently made available to local union officials and to Mr, Burke by Plant Management. This phase of the Car Shop complaint appeared closed. We find it most difficult to understand why any of the procedures followed by either Bethlehem or the State Department of Health should be subject to criticism or cited as reasons for the necessity for enacting legislation directing the Department of Labor to as- sume responsibility for employee safety and health. Finally, in Mr. Burke's testimony, he indicated that there had been nine deaths and twenty-seven permanent disabilities, presumably from emphysema, among Car Shop employees. Bethlehem’s records, however, indicate that during the five-year period, January 1, 1963 through December 31, 1967, only one Car Shop employee was retired because of permanent disability due to pulmonary emphy- sema. A secondary diagnosis of pulinonary emphysema was listed on the dis- ability pension application of four other Car Shop employees. Emphysema was not listed as the cause of death of any of the Car Shop employees who died during this period of time. Of the 25 names submitted by Mr. Burke, 19 are currently working in the Car Shops. Two are off work because of illness and four have been granted normal pensions after 30 years of employment. Not one was pensioned because of dis- ability and not one has appeared at the Plant Medical Department for a chest X-ray. Paurn J. WHITAKER, M.D, Medical Director, Bethlehem Steel Corp. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Lewistown, Pa., March 10, 1968. BeraHLEHEM STEEL CoO., Johnstown, Pa. (Attention Mr. George Green, plant manager). GENTLEMEN : On February 9, 1967 personnel of this Division evaluated the exposure of your employees in the Tank Shop to welding fumes. This was done as a result of a conference held in Harrisburg on December 12, 1966 with medi- cal doctors employed by your Company. Atmospheric samples of welding fumes were collected by the use of membrane filters. Since the welding rods were of mild steel composition, the samples were analyzed for iron oxide fumes. The results (Table 1) indicate that the exposure to this substance was less than the threshold liinit value. In view of our findings no recommendations are deemed necessary under present operating conditions. Thank you for your cooperation. For your information we are enclosing our hygenic information guide entitled “Iron Oxide” and Article 432, as amended. We are also including copies of this report for Mr. Rus:el Ruhf, Industrial Heaith Engineer of your Company, and for Union Officials. The services of this office are available to you at all times at your request. Sincerely, H. IL. WILLIAMS, Regional Industrial Hygienist. 698 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH IRON OXIDE FUME CONCENTRATIONS, BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., JOHNSTOWN, PA. Iron oxide fume concentrations ! Location (milligrams per Remarks cubic meter of air) Tank shop ooo. 1.25 1.09 Collector on welder, arc welding, center beams. i 195 Arc welding, under frames, stationary. .67 End section. .28 End section, collector on welder. 57 Welding under frames, collector on welder. 1, 5 In crane cab. 2 4 General air, center of shop. i .99 General air, flat-bed welding. 1 2 ; Bl Fiat-bed welding. 1. 3 Welding beams. Al 1 Threshold limit value: 15 milligrams iron oxide fume per cubic meter of air, based on an 8-hour working day. MEMORANDUM ON TESTIMONY OF FRANK BURKE, SAFETY AND HEALTH DIRECTOR, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, IN RESPECT OF THE CLOSING OF THE SPARROWS PoiNT TIN MILL DISPENSARY On March 12, 1968, Mr. Frank Burke, Safety and Health Director, United Steelworkers of America, testified before the House Select Subcommittee on Labor in support of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. During his testimony, as reported on page 539, he discussed the closing of a dispensary at the Sparrows Point Plant of Bethlehem Steel Corporation. He stated that the dis- pensary serviced over 30,000 people and implied that the Corporation had closed it without due regard for the welfare of its employees. In reality, the dispensary involved was a small one which serviced an employee population in the Tin Mills of 6,500 to 7,000 people. It functioned only as a first- aid station, providing treatment for loose foreign bodies in the eyes, minor cuts, bruises and burns, and minor sprains. Treatment of similar injuries had long been also provided at the Plant Hospital and, of course, injury cases in the Tin Mills which were more serious than those described above were referred to the Plant Hospital. The Plant Hospital is equipped and staffed to supply virtually any type of treatment short of major surgery. It has always serviced the entire Plant, in- cluding the Mills served by the dispensary in question. Its professional staff consists of five physicians, at least one of whom is on duty at all times; five registered nurses; X-ray technicians; a laboratory technician; a physical thera- pist; and numerous Medical Attendants who also operate the Hospital's two fully-equipped, radio-dispatched ambulances and two regular vehicles used to transport employees requiring hospital care. Its facilities include diagnostic X-ray; electro-cardiographs; automatic heart-lung machines; a defibrillator for erratic heart beat; a physical therapy room; and an operating room. In addition, all medical records of each employee at the Plant are kept on file there and are routinely pulled and reviewed as necessary whenever an employee seeks treatment for any reason. In the Corporation’s opinion, the closing of the dispensary in the Tin Mills would actually improve the employee’s medical care and treatment because of the better facilities, more highly trained staff and availability of medical histories at the Plant Hospital. Before closing the dispensary, however, the Corporation discussed the matter with the Union and, upon encountering resistance, agreed to expedite processing of the issue in the grievance procedure. The issue was 699 presented to an impartial third party (Impartial Umpire) in accordance with the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement on January 3 and 4, 1968. The Impartial Umpire rendered a decision on January 15, 1968 (copy at- tached), in which he found that *“. . . the closing of the Dispensary and the referral of all patients to the Hospital will in reality improve the overall stand- ard of medical care for the employees working nearby the Dispensary.” He further stated that “. . . there is no showing that any services that were admin- istered there (the Dispensary) were substantially helpful or necessary to the patient's health and safety.” Subsequent to receipt of the Umpire’s Decision, the dispensary was closed. Such action was actually beneficial to the health and safety of the employees involved rather than detrimental as implied by Mr. Burke. G. A. MOORE, Jr., Manager of Industrial Relations, Bethlehem Steel Corp. OFFICE OF THE IMPARTIAL UMPIRE—DECISION No. 1500 January 15, 1968 Grievance No. M-321 (15700), Sparrows Point Plant IN THE MATTER OF BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION AND UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LocAaL UNION No. 2609 This grievance protests the Company’s decision to close permanently the Tin Mill Dispensary, thereby centralizing all medical facilities at the Plant’s Main Dispensary, hereafter called “the Hospital.” The Union claims that the termina- tion of medical services and facilities at the Dispensary violates the Company's obligation to provide safe and healthful conditions of work assured by Article XIV, and also violates a local working condition protected by Article II, Section 3, of the Agreement. The Tin Mill Dispensary has been in existence for many years. The Union be- lieves, and it is not disputed, that it has been providing service to employees at least since 1915. Historically, the Dispensary has serviced not only the Tin Mill, but the 56’’ and 66’ Continuous Sheet Mill, the 56’ Hot Strip Mill and the 68’ Hot Strip Mill, as well. In the recent past, the employee population of these mills has ranged from 6,500 to 7,000 employees. The Dispensary is open on a 21-turn basis. On each turn, it is staffed by a single Medical Attendant who is not permitted to leave the Dispensary. Not any of the Medical Attendants who work in the Dispensary are certified registered or licensed by any authority, Kach of the Medical Attendants, however, is a former Pharmacists Mate and trained as such by the United States Navy. About three years ago the Company did assign to the Dispensary, in addition to the Medical Attendant, a female registered nurse in answer to a request for one based on the presence of a large female workforce in the area. Her assignment there was discontinued after one year, apparently because there was insufficient work for her to do. In essence, the Dispensary is a first-aid station. The only types of cases which the Medical Attendant may treat are loose foreign bodies in the eye, minor cuts, bruises and burns, and minor sprains. All other cases must go to the Plant Hos- pital. Its facilities consist of a treatment room, where the minor lacerations (those which do not involve deeper tissues and do not involve a joint), contu- sions and abrasions, which constitute the bulk of the injuries treated, are dressed and redressed; a room containing four beds which are apparently used mainly by blood donors during semi-annual blood donation drives, but are also used occasionally for other purposes, such as for ice pack treatment of an employee for swelling, which was the case during the Umpires visit; and a third room containing a tilt-back chair in which employees sit when loose foreign particles are removed from the eye. (The Medical Attendant may treat only cases where a swab will remove the particle.) Consistent with the nature of the medical care available at the Dispensary, its medical supplies are limited to such items as aspirins, anticeptic liquids and ointments, salt tablets and assorted sterile bandages. To summarize, except for a bottle of oxygen which is kept in the Dispensary for emergencies, the “medicines” and equipment to be found there are those which may be found in the average household. It is true also, that 700 except for the removal of sutures from minor cuts, which the Medical Attendant may do, he is permitted to perform no other type of medical services in the Dispensary that may not also be performed by any individual properly trained in first aid care and treatment. All complaints, illnesses and injuries beyond the scope of the treatment available at the Dispensary are cared for at the plant Hospital. The same type of medical service provided at the Dispensary is also provided at the Hospital. The Hospital, however, is equipped and staffed to supply vir- tually any type of treatment short of major surgery. It has always serviced the entire Plant, including the Mills served by the Dispensary. Its professional staff consists of five physicians, at least one of whom is on duty at all times; five registered nurses; X-ray technicians; a laboratory technician; a physical thera- pist; and numerous Medical Attendants who also operate the Hospital's two fully-equipped, radio-dispatched ambulances and two regular vehicles used to transport employees requiring hospital care. Its facilities include diagnostic X-ray ; electro-cardiographs; automatic heart-lung machines; a defibrillator for erratic heart beat; a physical therapy room; and an operting room. In addition, all medical records of each employee at the Plant are kept on file there and are routinely pulled and reviewed as necessary whenever an employee seeks treatment for any reason. The most obvious change resulting from the closing of the Dispensary is the increase in the distance that must be travelled to obtain treatment at the Hospital. While no employee in the area was more than several city blocks distant from the Dispensary, the Hospital is as far away as 1.6 miles from the northeast corner of the hot strip mill complex, the furthest point serviced by the Dispensary. As a result, the Union contends that the hazards to the em- ployees are greater. This is particularly true, the Union says, of serious injuries which frequently—always according to some Union witnesses—were treated first at the Dispensary before the patients were removed to the Hospital. Aside from numerous cases where loss of blood from deep lacerations was stopped by a Medical Attendant at the Dispensary as a first aid measure, the Dispensary has also provided emergency care for heart patients. For example, employee Frank Lurz testified that on December 11, 1967, he suffered a severe loss of breath. Prior to going to the Hospital for treatment, however, his foreman helped him to the Dispensary, a five-minute walk from where he was when he had trouble breathing. To his relief, Lurz was able to breathe oxygen that was available at the Dispensary. Other individual examples of care available at the Dispensary were offered. This line of testimony convinced the Umpire that many employees are grateful for the care they have received at the Dispen- sary and believe that their injuries were minimized by prompt treatment at that location. In the Company's view, the closing of the Dispensary and (aided by an efficient ambulance service), the centralization of all medical services at the Hospital (except, of course, for first-aid available throughout the Plant from individuals and first-aid teams), does not constitute a lessening, but rather a net improvement in the employees’ medical care and treatment. According to Dr. S. J. Bociek, the Plant Surgeon, the available equipment and the pro- fessional staff at the Hospital and the availability of medical records there, the efficient ambulance service at the Plant and modern changes in the practice of medicine now makes the Dispensary, with its few facilities, actually a medically undesirable treatment facility. There is, according to Dr. Bociek, a large “gray area” of complaints where a better diagnosis and treatment is likely if the employees’ complete medical histories are available. Given certain conditions, for example, simple aspirin may be dangerous and the medical records in all probability will indicate when such conditions are present. Fur- ther, contrary to the former practice of washing and pouring antiseptic into a wound as a first aid measure, it is now considered better practice merely to cover a serious wound with a dry bandage and send the patient directly to the Hospital. According to Dr. Bociek, this is all a Medical Attendant at the Dispensary has been permitted to do in the case of serious wounds. If the patient were sent directly to the Hospital by ambulance, that much more time would be saved. And as for Mr. Lurz’ seizure, referred to above, Dr. Bociek believes that the five-minute walk to the Dispensary was the worst possible thing for him to do; that an ambulance driven by a Medical Attendant and carrying oxygen could have reached him just as quickly, if not faster, and taken him to the Hospital where Mr. Lurz was ultimately examined and treated by 701 a physician. As for the ambulance service, the Company’s records show that during the second half of 1967, the average Hospital door-to-door time in re- sponse to a total of 109 calls was 13.19 minutes. And of the total, only six calls exceeded 20 minutes. (This record, the Union agrees, is a good one. It also seems to dispel the Union’s fear that the railroad traffic in the Plant potentially impedes ambulance service.) Finally, in Dr. Bociek’s 23 years at the Plant as a physician, he knows of not a single case where a life was saved at the Dispensary. The relevant portion of Article XIV here in issue, reads as follows: “The Company will continue to make every reasonable effort to provide safe and healthful conditions of work for Employees at the Plants and to provide Em- ployees with any necessary protective equipment in accordance with the practices prevailing at the respective Plants at the date of this Agreement.” The Umpire is not convinced by the record in this grievance that the standards required by the provision are breached by the closing of the Dispensary. Indeed, the persuasive evidence establishes, in his opinion, that the closing of the Dis- pensary and the referral of «ll patients to the Hospital will in reality improve the overall standard of medical care for the employees working nearby the Dis- pensary. Except for the most minor injuries and illnesses, treatment has always been at the Hospital; and when other than minor cases have been taken first to the Dispensary, there is no showing that any services that were administered there were substantially helpful or necessary to the patient’s health and safety. Indeed, the record supports the conclusion that, instead of immediately calling for Hospital ambulance service, to remove a seriously injured person from the site of his injury first to the Dispensary, however well-meaning the move, is to do the patient a disservice. Because there are neither the medicines, facilities nor the professional skills available at the Dispensary to treat serious injuries, to take such a case there seems, from the evidence presented, only to cause the patient further discomfort by the necessary jostling associated with moving him, and to delay his treatment at the Hospital which is the only place at the Plant where serious injuries may be properly treated by skilled people. As for employees with minor injuries and complaints of the type which have been treated at the Dispensary, they obviously will have medical care at the Hospital at least as good as they have had at the Dispensary. As for the time factor in reaching the Hospital, there is no question as to the availability of transporta- tion and the record indicates that an employee normally can reach the Hospital by means of ambulance service in less time than he can walk to the Dispensary. The evidence also shows that the number of patient visits at the Dispensary for job-related injuries has dropped steadily each year during the period from 1960 through 1967. From a monthly average in 1960 of 371 such visits, they have dropped consistently each year to a monthly average in 1967 of 141. As for the monthly average of total visits to the Dispensary during this same period, i.e. job- related as well as all others, except for the experiences in 1964, they also have shown a consistent downward trend from 1,667 average monthly visits in 1960, to 569 in 1967. Further, during June, 1967, the peak month for injuries in the tin and strip operations served by the Dispensary, new injuries average only two each turn. At this point it might be well to note the Union’s concern that the closing of the Dispensary will unduly strain the existing facilities at the Hospital. The Union points out that the Hospital serves not only the entire Plant but also makes its staff and facilities available to employees of numerous other companies in the area. The evidence shows, however, that the Hospital has provided serv- ices to employees of other companies for many years and that the first-aid type of workload generated by the closing of the Dispensary may easily be absorbed at the Hospital. On all the evidence presented, while the Umpire can well understand that to many employees the knowledge that the Dispensary was located relatively close by their work place was, as it was described at the hearing, a “fine thing,” he is unable to conclude that its closing violated the Company's obligations under Article XIV. In the Umpire’s judgment, Management has not breached its obliga- tions “to make every reasonable effort to provide safe and healthful conditions of work” for the affected employees. The Union’s health and safety claim, ac- cordingly, must be denied. The Union's further claim based upon the local working conditions provision, Article II, Section 3, may be treated briefly. As the Umpire understands the Union’s claim based on this provision, it is not grounded generally on the availa- bility of medical services for the employees; indeed, such a claim would be un- 702 tenable. Rather, it is a claim that the Dispensary must remain open at the same location because it has been in operation there for a very long time. And, accord- ing to the Union, Article II, Section 3 prevents such a removal, absent any change in the basis for establishing the Dispensary at that location. The con- tractural theory underlying this claim, however, has already been rejected for reasons which appear sound to this Umpire, in an earlier and similar case at another of the Company’s Plants. See Decision No. 751, 24 L.U.D. 529 (Seward- Porter) where the Umpire commented as follows : “Article II, Section 3, cannot properly be held to freeze the administrative arrangements by which the Company fulfills its obligations under Article XIV. The methods of medical treatment followed by the Company's physicians and medical staff—the procedures, medicines, surgical techniques, ete. which they use in treating sick or injured employees—are obviously not ‘local working con- dition.” And these things cannot realistically be separated from the physical arrangements—the clinics, dispensaries, laboratories, first-aid stations, operat- ing rooms, ambulances, etc.—by which the doctors’ techniques are implemented and made effective. ‘Freezing’ the latter might well jeopardize the former and result in lowering the Company’s medical efficiency rather than raising it. The Umpire does not believe the parties wrote Article II, Section 3, with any such intent.” The Umpire adopts this language as his own. DECISION The grievance is denied. SEYMOUR STRONGIN, Assistant to the Impartial Umpire. Approved : RALPH T. STEWARD, Impartial Umpire. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1968 SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE CommirTeEE ON Epucartion ann Labor, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O'Hara pre- siding. oh Representatives O'Hara, Hathaway, Pucinski, Dellenback and Esch. Staff: Jim Harrison, staff director; Marilyn Myers, clerk; Nancy Tyler, assistant clerk; Dr. James Wason, Legislative Reference Serv- ice, Library of Congress; and Mr, Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel for Labor. Mr. O’Hara. The Select Subcommittee on Labor of the House Com- mittee on Education and Labor will come to order. The purpose of our meeting today is to conclude the hearings on H.R. 14816, the occupational safety and health bill. Our first witness this morning is Mr. George Meany, who is presi- dent of the AFL-CIO. Mr. Meany, it is always a pleasure to have you before the committee and we are looking forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF GEORGE MEANY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDER- ATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZA- TIONS Mr. Meany. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The 14 million men and women who are members of our affiliated unions strongly support a Federal-State program for occupational safety and health. We urge enactment of IL.R. 14816 with amendments which I will propose later. We premise our position on the basic moral consideration that every man and woman in the course of his work shall, insofar as humanly possible, be provided a safe place of employment, This is the moment organized labor has long awaited in the dis- couraging and often tragic quest of generations of American workers for a safe and healthy place of employment. This legislation is far overdue. Its benefits will not reach all Ameri- can workers for several years—even with the fullest and most vigorous implementation by the Congress, the Executive, and by responsible State government. Enactment and full funding by the Congress this year is imperative; the alternative is intolerable—more time lost, and no stop to the (703) 704 mounting toll of deaths, illnesses, and injuries to American workers— a toll which can and must be reduced by every means within the powers of a concerned nation. oo It seems inconceivable but it is true that for the first time in the history of this Nation the Congress has before it legislation to secure safe and healthy working conditions for all workers as a national goal. The President in his message transmitted to this session of the Congress described the objective in these words: “* * * to protect everyone of America’s 75 million workers while they are on the job.” Every year thousands of workers die slow, often agonizing deaths from th effects of coal dust, asbestos, beryllium, lead, cotton dust, carbon monoxide, cancer-causing chemicals, dyes, radiation, pesticides, and exotic fuels. Others suffer long illnesses. Thousands suffer from employment in artificially created harmful environments. Tet me make it unmistakably clear that we do not believe any mem- ber of the Congress takes lightly the death, the permanent maiming or the temporary disability of any worker in the course of his pro- ducing goods or providing services for the benefit of all of us. We do believe, however, the goals should be kept directly before us; namely, that government at all levels must make every effort to reduce industrial injury. Historically, the safety of all workers on the job, except in limited Federal areas, has been exclusively in the jurisdic- tion of States. We believe that the facts are unmistakably clear that to leave to the States the jurisdiction over the safety of the 75 million workers on the job is not the answer. Neither do we believe the issue is either States rights or Federal encroachment. We believe that the needed improvements can come only by a national focusing of attention on the tragedy of on the job injuries. Because we believe this, we support H.R. 14816. We are not saying to you and we are not arguing for you to enact solely a Federal safety program. We are urging you to enact a Federal-State program. In the area of safety, we believe the greatest good will be accom- plished only if such programs are promoted both at the Federal and tate levels of government. The bill before you empowers the Secretary of Labor to encourage State governments to develop effective occupational safety and health programs consistent with the provisions and objectives of the act. He can do this in two ways: First, by a contract Yb the Secretary of Labor and the re- spective State agency designated by the Governor. The State would be reimbursed. The Secretary may also decline to assert jurisdiction if he makes a determination that the objectives of the act would not be reasonably carried out by the State in question. Second, the bill provides a Federal grant-in-aid mechanism to quali- fied States. It stipulates up to 90 percent of the program cost for planning and for experimental and demonstration programs, report- Ing systems, manpower training, administration and enforcement. H.R. 14816 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare to conduct research directly or by means of grants in the field of occupational safety and health. The principal produc- tion of this research would be the development of criteria Seine the effects on human beings of products, processes, materials and equip- ment used in the working environment. Such criteria would be applied by the Secretary of Labor in the establishment and enforcement of safety and health standards. 705 The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would be re- sponsible for conducting manpower training programs for occupa- tional health personnel, establishing management-labor education programs for the prevention and control of occupational hazards, and engaging in surveillance inspection of plants in order to determine if existing standards are in need of review for effectiveness. It would gather data on occupational diseases and develop report- ing systems to verify problems for research, standards setting and compliance programs carried out by the Secretary of Labor. This legislation should substantially erase the artificial distinction between problems of safety and occupational health which have multi- plied the inherent difficulties of carrying out a broad-based Federal- tate attack on unsafe working conditions. The emphasis on preven- tion deserves applause. The Secretary of Labor in his testimony before the Senate Labor Subcommittee on Occupational Safety and Health correctly pointed out that safety programs have clearly demonstrated that thousands of lives can be saved and hundreds of thousands of workers made safe from injury. There is no plant so large, no operation so small that it cannot pose a threat to a workers’ health or life. It makes little difference whether the hazard consists of an unpro- tected elevator shaft in a building under construction, asbestos parti- cles inhaled by a worker in the pipefitting industry, radon daughters gas drawn into the lungs of an underground miner or the unusual noise and vibration experienced every working day by thousands of heavy equipment operators. Fortunately, research in the medical science continuously expands our knowledge of environmental diseases. The testimony of Dr. Irving J. Selikoft coe demonstrated this in one area of experimentation. On the other hand, our statistics fail to show the thousands of workers who die from causes related to their jobs but whose deaths are not recorded as directly or indirectly caused by the doctors certi- fying the death certificates are unaware of the relationship of the job to the disease. When tragedy struck three astronauts last year, the eyes of the Nation, the resources of the press and the investigative machinery of the Congress were rightly brought to bear on the causes of the incident. The questions asked were: “How did this happen ¢”, and “What must be done so that it won't happen again ¢” It is significant that without a tragic incident this committee and the Congress are addressing themselves to the same two questions. The people, white collar and blue collar, members of unions or unorga- nized, who are the casualties among the nearly 80 million men and women in America’s work force and who comprise 40 percent of the population, and who pay 60 percent of the taxes—the casualties that deeply touch and change the lives of their wives and their children— would if they but knew your efforts, thank you. Mr. Chairman, this bill adds a vital new principle to a bill of rights for all American workers. It does as it should give reality to the goal that workers should never be called upon to pay for their jobs with their health or their lives. The producers of our goods and the pro viders of our services merit the best and most effective coordinate efforts of the Federal Government and those of the States to see ta? a T safety standards in their place of work are constantly and s.2.- strengthened. 706 Industry and labor must shoulder their respective responsibilities with government in working toward this goal. The timeliness of your hearings show clearly in the record. 1. With very few exceptions, the safety and occupational health program of the various States have failed effectively to protect the lives and the health of workers on the job. The basic reason is simply that State labor laws and their enforcement are in most jurisdictions weak, archaic, poorly financed, undermanned, broken up among many jurisdictions. : If the past is our guide, we find no reason to believe the needed im- provements will be forthcoming. Meanwhile, our population increases, the revolution in science and technology speeds on and the expansion of industry all combine to overwhelm the limited resources of State labor and occupational health agencies. America’s labor force continues to increase. The population expors estimate an additional 20 million persons, reaching at least 100 million in the labor force by 1980. More and more young workers, more and more women workers will enter the labor market. A multiplicity of factors will complicate the problem of occupational safety and health. Can the States respond to this challenge ¢ Based on the record, there is no indication to believe they would without the passage and full implementation of H.R. 14816. Let me illustrate. The situation among the States shows a startling reversal of priorities. In one particular instance, an instance in which I am sure most State legislators are unaware of, the State apparently placed a higher value on wildlife than on human life. In response to the President’s message on manpower and occupa- tional health, I cited as a horrible example the highly industrialized State of Ohio which has 109 fish and game wardens but only 79 industrial safety inspectors. The AFL-CIO News made inquiries through our State central bodies for a similar comparison to see if Ohio was an isolated example. Unfortunately, it was not. As a matter of fact, its ratio of game wardens to safety inspectors was not as disproportionate as it was in Alabama, for example—105 game wardens to 12 safet inspec- tors; Missouri, 145 game wardens to 19 safety inspectors; a, 150 game wardens to five safety inspectors; Arizona, 55 game wardens to five safety inspectors. While I am aware of the various degrees of industrial development among the States, the comparison is still too revealing. The results of this study, although it does not cover all 50 States, is contained in the supplementary material attached to my statement. I have included lon data on State labor agencies which show wide variation in inspection personnel, rulemaking authority, the agencies responsible for administration and the extent of coverage. The attachments, in addition, contain data revealing a similar situation existing among the States in occupational health. The record plainly shows that the States stand today incapable of doing the kind of job that needs to be done. The Federal-State program incentives in FL.R. 14816 whereby State governments are encouraged by the various Federal incentives, finan- cial and otherwise, will, in the belief of organized labor, exert the necessary inducements to stimulate the more responsible States into long-overdue action. 707 2. I would be less than fair to the States if I did not point out the shortcomings of the Federal Government to meet its responsibilities to improve the working environment within its area of jurisdiction. For years, the Walsh-Healey and Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Acts have not been adequately enforced. It is only recently that a beginning in that direction has been made under the latter act by the Labor Department. The safety inspection staff under the Walsh-Healey Act is woefully undermanned. Labor has strongly supported, without substantial suc- cess, efforts to build up an adequate enforcement branch. The result : The Secretary has been forced to delegate his responsibilities to a number of the States. I have discussed State weaknesses earlier in this statement. Organized labor has continued to exert its best efforts to interest the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in vigorously carry- ing forward the most meaningful program recommendations con- tained in the 1965 special report to the Surgeon General, known as the Fry report. The recommendations of the Fry report, which were endorsed in general by the AFL-CIO in its 1965 convention occupational health pol statement, set forth the framework of a national occupational ealth program aimed toward elimination or control of occupational factors hazardous to the health of workers and the promotion of good health, including the prevention of illnesses among workers. Unfortunately, re happened. Instead, a reorganization took lace within the Public Hea th Service in 1966 which dumped the ivision of Occupational Health into a newly created National Cen- ter for Urban and Industrial Health, and moved its personnel to Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1967. This Center has been assigned a miscellany of programs. In addi- tion to occupational health, there was included interstate quarantine regulations, international shellfish sanitation agreements, solid waste disposal and salvage among others. We have opposed this reorganizational downgrading of the Division of Occupational Health. We will continue to do so. I shall have some- thing to propose about this matter later in this statement. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it took 7 long years before the Federal Radiation Council established last year a standard overning exposure of uranium miners to deadly radon daughters gas. ober of the needless delay, buckpassing among involved Federal agencies and lax enforcement by the States, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 miners were needlessly condemned to death from lung cancer. If it had not been for action taken unilaterally by the Secretary of Labor in setting such a standard, the Federal Radiation Council might yet bein deliberation on the matter. Finally, within the Federal executive branch, itself, the Safety 70 program has fallen far short of its goal of reducing lost-time accidents among Federal employees by 30 percent. The record unfortunately shows that the Federal Government has also failed to consider worker health and safety as a matter of prime importance and has failed to do something significant about it. We strongly believe that H.R. 14816 will place national responsi- bility and an for the first time squarely and inescapably where it belongs. 92-734 0—68—46 708 I do not want the record to show that because the AFL-CIO en- dorses the Occupational Health and Safety Act we consider it a per- fect legislative document not susceptible to constructive amendments. There is a long hard pull ahead to mobilize the full resources of the Federal Government, the States, industry, labor, the medical profes- sion, the colleges and universities and the professional societies to secure safety and health on the job for America’s working men and women. This legislation is the first decisive step to secure the broadest possible effort. We want it to be a firm step, and in the right direction. I therefore respectfully propose that H.R. 14816 be amended as follows: 1. We urge the Congress to establish a statutory Center for Occupa- tional Health within the U.S. Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We ask that it absorb the responsi- bilities of other elements within the U.S. Public Health Service dealing with occupational hazards. The Division of Occupational Health in the past has dene indis- pensable pioneering work in the field of bringing improved and modern health practices to industry. Its role within the program set forth by the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968 should be given statutory existence and the necessary resources to carry out assigned responsibilities and continuity of operation. uch a provision creating a Center for Occupational Health could be inserted in section 15 of the bill. 2. We urge that this legislation and its legislative history make it clear that the Secretary of Labor, in delegating his authority to a State, shall do so only if the State demonstrates that its program will be initially and continuingly compatible with the purposes of the act and with the conditions under which the Secretary delegates such authority. In this connection, the Secretary should be armed with express powers to suspend or recall such rn and reassert his responsi- bilities under the act if any State fails to live up to the conditions im- posed by him. 3. The administrative enforcement and penalties sections of H.R. 14816 stand as a major key to reaching the goals of this legislation. We want to make it clear that when we talk of inspectors we mean qualified inspectors; and, when we talk about the enforcement process we mean firm and decisive action ; not arbitrary, not capricious. Enforcement should be coupled with education and assistance to regulate parties to acquaint them with what should be done and how it should be done in order to meet the occupational health and safety standards and regulations promulgated by the Secretary. 4. We believe that coverage should be extended to the 2.8 million Spy of the Federal Government. Surely, they are as fully en- titled to the protections of this act as are workers in private industry. 5. More than 60 percent of American workers are found in some 3 million small plants, businesses, and farms with less than 500 workers per establishment. Little or no occupational health or safety protec- tion exists for these workers. We urge the mobilization of Federal, State, local, business, labor, medical, and community resources under this act to develop programs to assist such plants and businesses to provide adequate safety and health protections for their workers. 709 Mr. Chairman, T conclude with three points necessary, in my opinion, to attaining the goals of a meritorious occupational health and safety program. 1. Manpower. Skilled manpower, inspection and enforcement per- sonnel, industrial hygienists, industrial physicians, statisticians, nurses, technicians of all kinds—are presently not available at all levels of government or in industry. Adequate appropriations for recruiting and training competent personnel in the Federal and State Govern- ments must be made available. If this is not done, the hopes of the workers of our Nation that this legislation will help them on the job will end in disillusionment. 2. Conditions for delegating authority to the States. We urge that conditions for such delegation and any financial assistance established by the Secretary to the States will carry with it these conditions: The State government must establish a single agency or an overall com- mission administering the State labor and occupational health agencies. The employees of such a department or commission must be placed under State civil service. Federal matching grants-in-aid should partly cover costs of administration of ongoing programs found ac- ceptable by the Secretary. 3. Standards setting. Whenever the resources of various private organizations setting standards are available, the Secretary of Labor should firmly establish a policy of using them. The resources of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should be fully utilized. Since the process of agreeing on a standards by concensus among private standards associations can often be inordinatel slow, the Secretary should be empowered to set his own standards if he de- termines that to do otherwise would result in unwarranted and un- necessary delay in carrying out his responsibilities to protect workers on the job. We propose that the Secretaries of Labor and of Health, Education, and Welfare, with the assistance of other affected Federal agencies, be directed to make a study as to the need for labeling standards on industrial chemicals and other toxic materials transported across State lines. Where Federal jurisdiction exists, the power to enforce such standards should be delegated to the proper authority or authorities. Mr. Chairman, may I once again tell you that organized labor re- gards this bill as a historic milestone in the evolution of humanitarian concern for the welfare of American workers. We believe that the Occupational Health and Safety Act with amendments and with ade- quate resources placed at its disposal by the Congress will be a decisive step in safety history. Let us make the workplaces of this Nation safe and healthy. Thank you very much. (Mr. Meany also submitted the following documents :) Porrcy RESOLUTION, ADOPTED BY AFL-CIO SEVENTH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, BAL HARBOUR, FrA., DECEMBER 1967—OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Organized labor continues to call attention to the changing conditions America which have made the protection of workers’ health a national responsibility. Every day of the year, it is estimated that 24 new chemical materials are released by industry into the work environment. Many of them have been found to be harmful or even deadly to human beings. The biological effects of others are still to be determined. 710 Such toxic materials, together with other occupational hazards—such as noise, vibration, inadequate or excessive light and artificial work-associated environ- ments—have implications for the physical and mental health of millions of workers. In spite of these growing hazards, the response of federal and state govern- ments has been generally inadequate and indifferent. Even the President's efforts to stir the Department of Health, Education and Welfare into mounting a national occupational health program for America’s workers have not produced the vigorous actions demanded by the problem. We reiterate our strong support for a national occupational health program to control or eliminate any factor on the job that is damaging to workers’ health, and to promote good health and reduce job-induced illness. Therefore, be it Resolved: 1. All workers should be covered by a national occupational health program, established in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare with adequate funds, manpower and authority. Compliance and enforcement, under such a program should be a cooperative effort between the Department of HEW and the Department of Labor, including adequate inspection and criminal penal- ties for willful violators of safety standards and regulations. 2. We urge the Secretary of HEW to call a White House Conference on Occu- pational Health, with fullest participation by AFL-CIO affiliated unions. 3. We congratulate the Secretary of Labor for the decisive action he took in establishing standards for occupational exposure of uranium miners. Full pro- tection of the nation’s uranium miners has been long overdue. Poricy RESOLUTION, ApoPTED BY AFL-CIO SixTH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, DECEMBER 1965—WALSH-HEALEY SAFETY We are pleased to note that Secretary of Labor Wirtz has recently appointed a 12-member Ad Hoc Safety Program Advisory Committee to review Depart- ment of Labor safety programs and to make recommendations for their improve- ment. Labor has three representatives on this committee which was set up pursuant to a recommendation made by the AFL-CIO at public hearings held during March 1964 on the proposed revisions of the Safety and Health Standards under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. In its testimony at the 1964 public hearings, the AFL-CIO strongly recom- mended that the Secretary of Labor brief the Congress on the true needs for an effective Walsh-Healey safety program and request additional budget to provide the number and quality of staff safety engineers necessary to carry out an ade- quate safety inspection program for the 15 million workers employed under federal contracts. Our recommendation was based on the plain fact that the Wages and Hours Division has never possessed the manpower or budget to even begin to do an adequate job of carrying out its safety responsibilities under the Walsh-Healey Act. At the present time there are only ten safety engineers employed by the Wages and Hours Division to inspect the 30,000 industrial establishments which come under this act. During the past year they have been able to make only 1600 inspections and found 90 percent of the establishments in violation. If this disgraceful condition continues, it is entirely possible that it may be 18 or 20 years before a federal safety engineer returns to the plants he inspected during the past year. It is obvious that the newly appointed Ad Hoc Safety Program Advisory Committee, after reviewing the present inadequate safety programs of the Department of Labor, should recommend an expanded and effective safety pro- gram. Therefore, be it Resolved: That we believe there are certain fundamental principles upon which such a program should be based. 1. There must be federal standards. This is a federal program and the respon- sibility of a federal agency. No such agency charged with the duty of requiring a safe work place for workers on federal contracts can carry out such a duty without defining its terms. Nor would it be fair to workers or to the industrial community not to do so. Such standards should be reasonable and no more burdensome than necessary to assure the safety of the workers involved. We believe that standards based on generally accepted codes fit this description. 2. Adequate resources and manpower must be assigned to the program. The moral and legal responsibility is clear; and no administrator should be charged 711 with such a responsibility without being furnished the resources necessary to do the job. TABLE I.—COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF SAFETY INSPECTORS WITH NUMBER OF FISH AND GAME WARDENS EMPLOYED BY SPECIFIED STATES, 1968 Number safety Number fish and Ratio, State inspectors game wardens col. 2 to col. 1 @O 2) 3) Alabama. _________________ 12 82 6.8 AIZON coon is aims Sra ye AE a 5 85 11.0 ATRANES cocci snaitinmsna mmm 10 114 11.4 mn Sm ——— 15 120 8.0 J, 50 37 1 = 15 125 1.7 RE ————— 40 13.3 es ER ARS 2120 135 L1 ENR SA A eR 14 67 4.8 PERE Rint SH Rm ————— 321 3181 8.6 ER 18 120-125 6.8 TE SC 18 4135 1.5 eR 19 145 7.6 ee 10 50 5.0 ie 255 200 .8 160 2.8 RR. 79 109 1.4 5 150 30.0 Oregon... 74 98 1.3 Pennsylvania. 95 190 2.0 South Dakota. 9 48 53 u 8 57 7.1 13 117 9.1 558 100 7 63 45 15.0 1Does not include 112 deputy volunteer game wardens. 2 New law provides for 120 inspectors. Present number not reported. 3 Includes all personnel in both departments. 4 Includes 65 part-time wardens. 52 more inspectors to be added in 1968. © Only mines covered in State law. Source: Replies to questionnaire, Feb. 6, 1968, sent by AFL-CIO News to all AFL-CIO State central bodies. TABLE 2.—15 LARGEST STATES IN MANUFACTURING, MINING, CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT, BY NUMBER OF STATE SAFETY INSPECTORS Total number Number of Number of State employed ! (thou- inspectors inspectors per sands of workers) 100,000 workers eR re aE SE ER RR ER Rm mn mm 2,207.3 2255 11.5 1,912.2 220 12.6 1,754.7 295 5.4 Rm mmm onc im Se A HT RRR RRS 1,582.8 279 4.9 A —————————— 1,565.0 120 7.6 1,267.9 26 2.1 i SE RR EA HERA SE 1,016.3 9 «3 ea RR An 977.2 75 1.7 RE RS RAR SAR SA min mms 804.9 20 2.5 780.3 154 6.8 fm on 564.0 29 5.6 527.1 150 9.4 526. 5 119 3.5 Tennessee. 508. 6 31 6.0 BRONTE cusses SE REAR EES Smear em mn 505. 4 20 3.9 TOM). cee oe sem mmm —————————— 16, 500. 2 LA cccssmn Total, United States_____________________________________ 23,271.1 LBB ccrcsiemsssnns 1 December 1967. i 2 Reported by AFL-CIO news questionnaire, Feb. 6, 1968. Source: ‘Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report of the Labor Force,” BLS., DOL, January 1968, AFL-CIO ques- tionnaire, Feb. 6, 1968; U.S. Labor Department tabulations as of June 1965. 712 TABLE 3.—STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AGENCIES BY SIZE OF UNIT FOR TOTA STAFF REPORTED, JANUARY 1967 Size of staff Jurisdictions Total 1 person 2 to 4 persons 5 to 9 persons 10 persons and over Total, all jurisdictions: UNIS... «env ncpamnasssnewanpee 82 11 30 21 20 Persons... 667 11 82 135 439 State jurisdictions: Heal th departments: Units 42 6 8 14 14 Persons... ooo. 425 6 23 87 309 Labo r agencies: UNS. ies pa 8 simesessswes 4 1 3 POISONS. .c ccoccainemumnssennasae 10] omesgemesuws 11 9 81 Local health department units: Units. ool 32 5 18 6 3 Persons... ooo 141 5 48 39 49 Source: Directory of Governmental Occupational Health Personnel, January 1968, U.S. Public Health Service. TABLE 4.—STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PERSONNEL BY FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY, JANUARY 1967 Co State agencies Functional category All jurisdic: ————— Local health tions Health Labor departments departments agencies With programs: States oon 42 38 7 15 District of Columbia and Puerto Rico 2 2 I eswlupmesees Jurisdictional units... __.__.__.._. = 82 42 8 32 Total PRrSONNG). cv. visuininsenssmnssasmsmaiss 667 425 101 141 Physicians, total... 46 29 9 8 Directors oo 20 14 1 5 Staff... 15 7 7 1 CONSUMAMS.... os snes mis smn manne a 11 8 1 2 NUISe CONSUIANLS. . . css nmp msm rms HSER ERE 24 14 2 8 Employee health services, total... _________________ 41 crisnseseses 2 Physicians___ 10 10 een Nurses and Tethnitians. oe osu ums svi mswamin mmm 31 J 2 261 162 46 53 37 24 224 138 42 44 Chemists, technicians__________________________.__.___. 117 81 23 13 Sanitarians........... - 48 3 cesses 45 Radiological health staff. z 87 65 15 7 Air pollution staff. ___ i 20 18 cesomseens 4 Allother_ eee 3 16 6 1 Source: Directory of Governmental Occupational Health Personnel, January 1968, U.S. Public Health Service. 713 TABLE 5.—Coverage of State occupational safety rulemaking authority, February 1968 Coverage : 1. All employment aw TI3 2. Domestic excluded £9 3. Agriculture excluded . 23 4. Domestic and agriculture excluded ‘9 5. Other exclusions : (a) Domestic, agriculture, and minimum number workers._._.__ £9 (b) Agriculture and minimum number workers 1 (¢) Domestic, agriculture and other___________________ 3 (d) Minimum number workers and other____________________ 51 (e) Domestic and other yy (f) All other wa 6. Limited coverage : (a) Construction and mining only_______________________ uo (b) Mining only__ __ 5 (c¢) Industrial only = (d) Industrial, railroad, LPG, only______________________~ Ty 7. None _.___________ 9 Total oe SS RR 52 1 Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut (except plants with approved safety programs), Florida, Towa, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Otgeon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Utah, Wisconsin, West Virginia. 2 California, Hawaii, Nevada. 8 Illinois, Indiana, Virginia. we Alaoarn, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, sconsin. 8 Georgia, New Hampshire, ¢ Oklahoma. “Delaware, Kentucky, South Carolina. 8 New Jersey. ? Texas, Vermont. 10 Kansas, Maine. 1 Arizona, New Mexico. 12 Colorado, Missouri. 18 District of Columbia. 14 Mississippi. 15 South Dakota, Wyoming. Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Occupational Safety. TABLE 6.—Penalties for violations of state safety codes as of December 1967 Number of Penalty : States Fines only 124 Fines and/or jail sentences 226 Civil penalty only 1 Other *y Total 52 Providing for each day as a mew offense ____________________________ 522 Cease and desist orders by State safety BFIOMUCY ccc ira sii i ne me sa i °15 * Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Penn- sylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, Wisconsin. 2 Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia. 8 Alabama. 4 Mississippi—No State labor department. © Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. ¢ Delaware, California, Colorado, Maryland, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Virginia. Nore.—Fines covering only specific safety areas in: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Louisi- aba, Miomgan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, yoming. Jail sentences covering only specific safety areas in: Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota. Source: Office of Occupational Safety, U.S. Department of Labor. 714 TABLE T.—Administrative appeals and court review of penalties for violation of State safety codes, December 1967 Number of States First step administrative agency review occ eee eee 130 First step court review______________________o 5 NUDE SPPCALE OF COURT POVIOIWE coe cece ss sm rs sss es mmo me se om tm re mt im mr 317 TIGER cmt momen pers ms gos wii BE HT a Administrative plus court review_________________________ Administrative review but no court review 1 Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Towa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming, Wisconsin, 2 Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, West Virginia, Wyoming. 3 Alaska, Arizona, District of Columbia, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missis- sippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah. + Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Towa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 3 Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, yoming. 5 Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin. Source : U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Occupational Safety. TABLE 8—OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY MANPOWER 1. Five States (Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia) have more in- pectors assigned to special functions (miner, elevators, boilers) that to general safety. 2. There are 28 employees in 10 States dealing with safety programs and edu- cation, (10 in the State of Washington). 3. There are 13 employees in five States in the field of occupational health and industrial hygiene—six in the State of Washington. 4. As of June 1965—20 percent of all inspectors in the various States were assigned to specific fields—elevator, boiler, construction and mine safety—or a combination thereof. 5. According to incomplete verbal data obtained from Department of Labor, there are approximately 2,000 Federal employees engaged in occupational safety and health as of January 1968. Departments and agencies include, Atomic Energy Commission, U.S. Bureau of Mines, ICC, USPHS, FAA, Department of Defense. There are only an estimated 200 enforcement personnel, most of which are in ARC and U.S. Bureau of Mines. There are 10 Walsh-Healey safety inspectors, and seven fair labor standards safety inspectors. There are 130 occupational health professional and technical personnel employed by U.S. Public Health Service. 6. In 1962 there were 1,751 full-time and 589 part-time physicians specializing in occupational medicine, less than 1 percent of the Nation's practicing physi- cians. Nearly 70 percent were over 45 years of age in 1957. Most of these doctors were returned by major industries and available to only about 20 percent of U.S. workforce. Sources : U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Public Health Service. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you, Mr. Meany. Thank you especially for the constructive suggestions as to ways you think this proposal might be improved. Mr. Hathaway, do you have any questions you would like to direct to Mr. Meany ? Mr. Harnaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also commend you, Mr. Meany, for your excellent state- ment and for the constructive suggestions which you have made. There is only one question I want to ask you concerning the comment on how successful you have been through the collective bergaining rules for establishing safety standards. rou evidently have not been successful, and I would like to know why. 715 Mr. Meany. I would say we have been, to a degree, successful but this is not uniform; this depends on each plant. I think that this sort of a law would certainly assist in our collective bargaining negotia- tions like everything else. We react to trouble and this is as old as the history of the labor movement. I mean, something happens and you get excited about it and you do something about it and then you sort of forget it for the time. This would require quite a bit of research, but with all the tens and hun- dreds of thousands of labor unions I am quite sure that practically all of them contain some reference to safety standards and protection to the workers on the job. I don’t think that you will find uniformity and I think whatever they are doing would be helped by legislation such as this. Mr. Haraaway. If this legislation were passed, it would serve as a spur, do you think? Mr. Meany. I think it would. In order to reenforce, I think it would be the most natural thing in the world to try to get the employer to try to insert into the collective- bargaining agreement the very standards that have been accepted by the State and Federal Government. Mr. Haraaway. Maybe we should insert a provision in here that where the Secretary approves of the standards approved for the col- lective-bargaining groups he will also approve a standard similar to the provision we have with respect to the States. Mr. Esc. Would you yield ? Mr. Meany. I think on that overall question, Mr. Hathaway, it just makes sense. I think it should be made plain in this legislation and certainly in the legislative history, why should the Secretary of Labor inject himself into any situation where this matter is being adequately cared for either through collective bargaining or by the States? Let him divert his attention and resources to the areas where that does not exist because in the final analysis if we have adequate protection by the States we don’t need the Secretary of Labor in the picture at all. Mr. Esca. Would you yield ? Mr. Hataaway. Yes. Mr. Esch. Thank you very much. Mr. Meany, we had testimony from the United Auto Workers that all of their collective-bargaining contracts incorporate the standards established by the United States of America’s Standards Institute, ap- parently utilizing the United States of America’s Standards Institute for the same function that you just outlined for a legislation standard. Mr. Meany. I think that is all to the good. I don’t see any harm in that. Mr. Escr. Do the other unions in the AFL-CIO utilize any such existing standards now ? Mr. Eon They may, Mr. Esch. I would have to look that up. Whether they used these private agencies or whether they developed their own standards as a result of experience, I don’t know; but T am quite sure that you will not find any collective-bargaining agreements where there is not some attention paid to this matter. Mr. Escu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haraway. Thank you, Mr. Meany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 716 Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Esch. Mr. Escu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I share the honor of having you here this morning, Mr. Meany. 1 also share with you your basic moral concern that every man and woman so far as humanly possible be provided with a safe working environment. We have had a good deal of testimony from the various experts in the area, from the various safety associations, and from others indi- cating that prior to the drafting of this legislation they were not consulted. We have also had indication that the various State safety groups were not consulted. I would like to ask you now if any of the staff of the AFL-CIO were consulted prior to the drafting of this legislation. Mr. Meany. I can’t give you the detailed answer but I am quite sure that we have a very active legislative department. I am quite sure some of our people got a look at this thing. Whether they were consulted in the sense that they had a hand in the drafting, I don’t know, but I would not be surprised if that were true. Mr. Escn. So, you are suggesting that most likely Mr. Meany. I am suggesting I have a good legislative body. Mr. Escr. Let’s move on to a point which you made about the fact that at present we know that the Federal Government is quite derelict in safety standards for our own Federal employees. You mentioned the fact that statistics bear this out. You have also indicated that we have not done the job that we could do under Walsh-Healey, and we have had testimony that emphasized this fact. What evidence do you have, then, to show that the Federal Govern- ment will be any more effective in dealing with this problem under the proposed legislation than what we now have under Walsh-Healy or for Federal employees? Mr. Meany. You get more power in this bill than you have under Walsh-TTealey. I think the mere fact that Congress is considering and possibly going to pass overall legislation for the first time in its history, that this will have some impact on the various agencies. It certainly could not work the other way—it would have to—well, wake them up to their responsibilities. I think if you study Walsh- Healy you will find out that there are not the requirements under Walsh-Healy that would be included in this bill. Mr. Esc. You would concede, however, that Federal employees as a group have a poorer safety record than general industry? Mr. Meany. I would say asa group; yes. Mr. Esc. And we now have the power to take direct action. Mr. Meany. You have the limited power under the other laws but I don’t think you have the same incentive. I don’t think you have the same incentive in the Federal agency that you would have if Congress passes this legislation which I say represents a very significant mile- stone in this field. Mr. Esc. Would you want to amplify on the point of needing quali- fied employees and the need for more trained personnel? There are members on the committee who feel the statement by Mr. Wirtz was 717 somewhat unqualified when he said that certainly there are many un- employed persons now that could be employed in this capacity. What do you feel would make very highly qualified and skilled personnel ? Mr. Meany. I don’t know where would be the original source of these people, whether they will be unemployed people or whether peo- ple would be unemployed in other occupations or even equal to those who have some small knowledge in this field. Whoever you brought in would certainly have to be trained to apply themselves to this field ; you just could not take even a person who has a good academic background and put him right in here. He would have to know something more than that which he learned in his school training to go into this field, but it is quite obvious that this is not a difficult field to train people. You have the money to train them and you can offer them the prospect of a fairly good job under civil service. I think you would have no shortage. Shortly, there would be no short- age of applicants. Mr. Escn. What you are suggesting is that we have not to this date given proper emphasis to securing a large number of trained personnel ¢ Mr. Meany. That is right. I don’t think there would be any great difficulty in getting the people. The numbers that would be required, I don’t know that they would be so great unless you put the Federal and State altogether—you might come up with a nL large figure. Certainly, it would not take any great numbers to, for instance, double what we have now. You would not need very much to do that although that, in my opinion, would not be adequate. Mr. Escu. I was going to ask you if you had any evidence to show how many you would need to adequately cover the total area. Mr. Meany. Well, it would be a guess if I said maybe 5,000 over the whole country. That would certainly be many more than we have now. Mr. Escu. I wanted to make one thing clear for the record, which I am sure vou would want to make clear. You used the number of conservation inspectors as a comparison. I am sure you want to go on record because of the many conserva- tionists, hunters, and fishermen in the AFL-CIO, that you were not against having adequate safeguards in regard to conservation ? Mr. Meany. No. It was just a convenient table. Mr. Esch. Yes. Could you also indicate for the record that your statistics did not include city inspectors or local inspectors ? Mr. Meany. No. We were thinking strictly in terms of State inspec- tors and naturally we were making our comparisons of conservation with protection of wildlife, also State, because I don’t know if the cities have any game inspectors; they do have some wildlife, I am sure. Mr. Escr. I am sure there are numerous safety inspectors. I wonder, Mr. O'Hara, in light of the testimony and need for more trained personnel if we might not ask the Department of Labor if there are any projects under the manpower program for training safety personnel. They can get that information for our committee. Mr. O'Hara. That is a good question. The staff will be directed to attempt to ascertain if the Government under MDTA or other agen- 718 cies have any safety personnel training programs, although I might just suggest to the gentleman, my colleague from Michigan, that un- der MDTA we require before a training program be begun that there be reasonable assurance that there are going to be jobs available for such people when they finish. I don’t know if enough attention has been paid to this field in the past to provide that assurance now. (The requested information appears at the conclusion of Mr. Meany’s questioning.) Mr. Esc. Well, I assume that, as a result of our investigations that attention will be forthcoming. One other area, Mr. Meany, if we might, and that is that you have indicated that there was some work going on now within the private sector within industry and with labor within the States. Would you concur that any program or any legislation that this committee develops should fully utilize the existing expertise and knowledge ? Mr. Meany. Without question. Without question. They should use everything that they have. Mr. Escu. Our goal then should be to utilize this existing expertise and focus attention on getting the job done. Mr. Meany. That is right. In some of our national unions we have a very highly developed safety program and joined in by both the industry on a national basis and the union on a national basis. Mr. Esch, we can furnish you with documents which prove that this has worked and has worked not only for the benefit of those who would be possibly injured or in some way adversly affected on the job but it has worked for the benefit of the employer because it has brought down his insurance rate. I say we can document this; there is no question about this. This is done in some industries, as I say, on a national basis with sort of a national agreement. We certainly would not want to see that sort of activity pushed aside; we would want to see that sort of blended in in some way to this whole program. Mr. Esci. You raise an interesting point. I wonder if you would just want to generalize for a moment or so. Would you concur that we place so much emphasis both within Government and within the bargaining unit with workmen’s compensation; that is, protecting the worker after he is injured, and perhaps our attention now should be directed toward making a safer working environment. Mr. Meany. Let me give you somewhat of an example of my ex- perience, my feeling in this regard. in 1936, I appeared before the governing body of the International Labor Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, and I presented a paper on silicosis, not on the question of paying compensation for silicosis which I was actively engaged in then as a representative of labor but on the prevention of silicosis. I would like to see anything that is done in this field, the emphasis be on prevention because this is where it pays off. Now, we used to spend a lot of time before the State legislatures trying to add to what we call the list of occupational diseases. Now, these were the diseases that went on a list and if you had a disease on that list, there was a legal presumption then that if you worked a certain number of times in a certain occupation that your occupation 719 ond your disease were directly connected, that your disease came from that. So, of course, industry would fight these things as they fought al- most anything that represented some increase in cost to them. We went through this for a number of years and I suppose in some of the States this still prevails. However, I became convinced way back in 1936 that the answer to silicosis, to asbestoscosis and all these diseases that come from the inhaling of foreign materials into the lungs, things that come from the place of grinding, that our direction should not be seeking compensation after the injury or after the man’s health has been damaged, but to devote our time and our energies to the elimination and prevention of these diseases. It was through the efforts of the New York State Federation of Labor more than 30 years ago that the State department of industrial hygiene was set up and they have made tremendous progress, especial- ly in the dust diseases. Of course, I can tell you an amusing sidelight on this. I think it is amusing, anyway. When I was seeking this legislation, a State senator who was also a lawyer told me that I was crazy, that I was not pro- tecting my people. He said, “Why, you get a much better verdict in common law than by putting these people under workmen’s compensation on these silicosis cases.” I said, “How is that 2” He said, “Why, you can’t lose the case; the lungs are petrified. You lay the lungs on the table before the judge and the jury and you get a tremendous verdict.” I said, “The fellow has to be dead.” He said, “Oh, yes; that is necessary.” So, I am not for putting the lungs on the table; I am for keeping the dust out of the lungs. Mr. Escu. I appreciate your testimony on that point, Mr. Meany, and I wish that each one of your members would encourage that. I was a little bit disturbed by the testimony of the International Union of Electricians when they indicated that they felt that securing safety conditions in a contract ranked a little bit lower than the coffee break in terms of order of priority for the individual members. I share your concern for safe working conditions. Mr. Meany. The building construction industry has done a tre- mendous job in this field and everything they have done is in preven- tion ; I mean everything that prevents. I, personally, have seen that change take place over a long number of years. I would like to make one other point, Mr. Chairman. This is about not only the need for standards bd certainly the need for enforce- ment. This recent mine disaster in Calumet, La., in which 21 miners lost their lives, now the Federal Bureau of Mines made an inspection in this mine 8 months ago—— Mr. Esca. Iam sorry, Mr. Meany. Who did Mr. Meany. Federal Bureau of Mines—and they recommended that the mine sink a second shaft for ventilation and also if possible an escape route and that various fire controls be installed, As I say, 720 this investigation was made about 7 or 8 months ago and the recom- mendations were made by the Federal Bureau of Mines engineer in that district. However, the head of the Bureau of the district said that these recommendations didn’t have the force of law so why recommenda- tions; they were just recommendations, and nothing happened. I only point that out to show the need not only to find out what all these dangers are about and the things that we need but to get some kind of enforcement so that the recommendations can be implemented. Mr. Esca. Mr. Meany, I appreciate your comment on that. Mr. O'Hara, I wonder if we should not ask, in light of Mr. Meany’s testimony, for a clarification from the Bureau of Mines, specifically on that accident. It was my understanding that they were covered by legislation which was passed and it seems to me that this is a crucial point because it is one thing for us to pass legislation; it is another thing to make sure that that legislation is adequately enforced. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that it es be very necessary for us to have a statement from the Bureau of Mines in regard to that tragedy, if you will. Mr. O'Hara. The gentleman from Michigan makes a very excellent suggestion. T think it will be entirely appropriate for this committee in the exercise of its legislative ral function. After all, 3 years ago this committee reported and the House agreed to and 2 years ago the President signed into law a Federal Metallic and Non-Metallic Safety Act giving certain enforcement responsibilities in these mines to the U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1 think that it would be as you request, entirely appropriate to ask the Bureau of Mines to come up here and explain to us what has been done with that legislation with particular reference to the mine that the gentleman has referred to. T will instruct staff to contact the Bureau of Mines and arrange for an appearance under the oversight authority of this subcommittee. Would that be agreeable ? Mr. Esc. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Knowing your direct involvement in that legislation, I appreciate your continued interest. Just one other question, Mr. Meany, if I might. You have mentioned the ILO and also the problem of increased costs of doing business with safe working conditions. We all are aware of the difficult position competitively between American industry and the really total lack of adequate safety standards in other countries. 1 wonder how active and how much emphasis your group is placing on making sure that we have safe working conditions throughout the world, not only from a humanitarian standpoint but also because of the need for competitive equality ? Mr. Meany. This has been one of the major activities. ILO, since it was formed here in Washington 50 years ago—in 1969, the 50th anniversary, and they have set up these standards in what they call the form of conventions. They take considerable time. When they are finally adopted, they are generally adopted by unani- mous vote and then they expect the various member nations of the ILO—the ILO is an organization of nations; it is not a private organization. They expect them to set up these standards. 721 Now, most of the standards that they have set are lower than what we already have in this country insofar as what you write into law. There may be some exceptions to that. Mr. Esca. We have had testimony of safer conditions in American industry than they have in other countries today. Mr. Meany. Yes. I say that despite the fact that we have a long way to go and we have a greater—now, insofar as costs, I don’t know whether I misunderstood you, but I did not say that the safety standars, installation of safety methods and devices add to the cost. T think this is a mistake that we had way back in the early days. For instance, if you put some suction devices into a plant and there- fore eliminate all possibility of any contamination of the lungs for a number of employees, it would be done for pennies a day insofar as the use of the device goes, but it would have to reflect itself in the in- Tre rates of these employees to the extent that he would make a profit. This has been the history of the building industry. The building industry, at one time there was no such thing as cleaning a building except maybe once during the course of the construction and once when you got to the end of it; you just let everything lay around, boards and mortar and brick and shafts were open. Well, many years ago the building industry found out that it paid to eliminate those con- ditions. We now work in clean buildings; they clean up every day. This may sound like, well, this is certainly adding to the cost. Yes; to the direct cost, but they more than get this back in reduced insurance rates. And, of course, what it means when you think in terms of the num- ber of people who did not die or the people who did not become hos- pitalized through injury and so forth, you cannot really measure the gain there through this sort of activity. Mr. Esca. Thank you for that testimony. I think it also emphasizes to the committee the great emphasis that the building trades have put on safe working conditions, the impetus that they have given and the thrust for safer working conditions. It emphasizes, certainly, Mr. Chairman, what has been done to bring about safe working conditions in a cooperative program between in- dustry and union and indicates where the committee might place fur- ther attention. Thank you. Mr. O’Hara. Mr. Dellenback, have you any questions? Mr. DeLLeneack. No. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Meany, I would like to speak to you with respect to the second point on page 9 of your statement. I think the point you make is a very good one, this is, conditions for delegating authority to the States. You urge that conditions for delegation or any financial assistance established by the Secretary for the States carries with it the following conditions: That there be a single agency administering the State labor and occupational health agencies ; that the employees of such department or commission must be placed under State civil serv- ice; and you also suggest that when those conditions are met Federal matching grants-in-aid should partly cover the cost of administering the on-going program that is acceptable to the Secretary. 722 Mr. Meany. Well, we don’t think that there should be grants-in-aid to a State if it is going to add a safety inspector in this department and another one over here so that you scatter the thing all over, be- cause we don’t think that is effective. This is the reason we feel that the State, if it does not have a single agency to administer this it should set one up in order to really get enforcement. Mr. O'Hara. I agree with your point. I think that one of the de- ficiencies that has become apparent in the legislation as it now stands is that we do not spell out the conditions and the criteria that you use when the Secretary is delegating responsibilities to the State or to make grants-in-aid to the States. 1 think that legislation ought to go a bit more further than it does and that is one of the things I think we should look at in executive session on this bill. We ought to look at the ground rules for delegation and for grants. You mention in your next point the use of standards that have been adopted by various private organizations. What sort of standards do you have in mind ? Mr. Meany. Well, let’s go right to the building trades as an example. Now, I am not trying to indicate the building trades has done a perfect job. In some places, they have done a job that I could not pos- sibly improve on. Let’s take the building trades in a city like New York where they have the very powerful Building Trades Employees Association and, of course, the strong building trade unions. They have their safety committee and their safety standards, and I think that they develop safety standards for commercial and industrial con- struction by private agreement there that, in my opinion, would go beyond anything that the Federal Government might even think about at this time. So, I would say in applying this that you would just adopt for that area at least the standards that have been worked out by private management and private labor in commercial and industrial construc- tion ; I mean because they have made a success. Now, to what extent you would take that set of standards and try to impose it somewhere else, I don’t know, but it certainly should be a goal. This, of course, would be something that would be within the judgment of the Secretary of Labor. This is what I mean by taking the resources of private industry. Now, all of these safety setups that we have had with the private employers are continuing organizations because the nature of the work 1s changing all the time—operating engineers, new equipment coming in, and other organizations, there is new material coming in and this calls for a continuing application and perhaps of the ad- justment of safety standards to meet these problems. I don’t want to try to get into the administrative detail but I would say the Secretary of Labor should certainly find some way of using that experience and that knowledge and that sort of machinery. Mr. O'Hara. Would you feel the same way about the standards that have been adopted by national organizations such as the U.S.A. Standards Institute and the Association of General Contractors? Mr. Meany. I am not familiar with them but I say that under this law the Secretary of Labor should certainly take a look at them and if useful to certainly use them. 723 I can testify where we have these relationships between labor and management and they are in this safety field; I can testify in that area that we have developed useful standards. Now, what other private groups have done, I am not sure, but I certainly feel the Secretary of Labor should look into that at any place that he finds something useful that has been developed by pri- vate industry in any manner either through collective bargaining with labor or without labor. If it is useful, I think he should use it and in- corporate it into his program in some way. Mr. O'Hara. That certainly makes sense to me. One last point, Mr. Meany. We have had some testimony here that I thought you might like to comment on. The National Association of Manufacturers testified, for instance, as follows: It has been estimated that 75 percent to 85 percent of all such occurrences— Meaning accidents and injuries— have been caused by a negligent or unsafe act on the part of the individual. The Association of General Contractors’ witness on the day before yesterday similarly alleged that 85 percent of the accidents were the fault of the worker. I wonder if you would like to comment on those. Mr. Meany. Of course, I could not accept those figures. I have had some experience. But if that is true, in what way is that an argument against the legislation? If we have to educate the worker to protect him, for God’s sake, let’s educate him because he is not the only one that suffers. He might have a whole house full of kids, so let’s protect the kids even if we have to impose some rigid conditions on the worker. If the workers are at fault, then we need a law like this more, perhaps on that basis than any other. So, I don’t buy that as an argument even though the figure—you know, this business of trying to pin things on the worker has a long, long history and it predates the enactment of workmen’s compensation laws in this country, and some of it is a little bit ridiculous. We had what we called the old Employer’s Liability Act. The title of the act sounded very good, the Employer’s Liability, the Employer's Liability Act in the State of New York. But as you read it, you read chapter after chapter which excluded the employer from liability if such and such a condition existed, and one of the major ones was called contributory negligence on the part of the employee. We had a very famous case in the State of New York under the Employer’s Liability Act. A boy up in Kingston had his arm torn off in a sawmill and under the Employer’s Liability Act not one cent of compensation came because of contributory negligence and the con- tributory negligence consisted of the fact that in signing his working papers his mother falsified his age. He was left completely without any help at all under the Employer's Liability Act because his mother set out the wrong date when she filled out his working papers, as my mother did for me along about the same time. However, the result of that was that a very great Governor of the State of New York, a very great man by the name of Charles Evans Hughes, became so concerned about that particular decision that we 92-734 0—68—41 724 got a workmen’s compensation law in the State of New York within 3 years. LH O’Hara. Mr. Meany, I agree with your analysis completely. Now that we are making confessions, I might suggest to you I altered my birth certificate when I went to work, too. Since these statements that I mentioned were made, I thought it might be worthwhile to get a little other evidence on the subject in and I appreciate your statement. I would like at this time to call attention to the safety bulletin of Bethlehem Steel Corp. and subsidiary companies, volume 33, No. 3, March 1968. I would like to read from that safety bulletin. This is an internal publication of the company they send around to their own safety people and I would like to quote from it: The Safety Bulletin has repeatedly emphasized that there are both man and environmental causes in most accidents. This was certainly true in the 1967 fatal accidents, for in 28 of the 30 cases, the causes involved both men and their environment. One was solely the result of an environmental cause and only one was solely the result of a man cause. This is emphasized because it is widely believed that a large proportion of all accidents have man causes rather than environmental causes. This is simply not true. Mr. O'Hara. It shows a significant degree of candor, as well, in this internal publication of the steel company. Mr. Meany, we want to thank you very much for your testimony. I am sure it will help us in our consideration of this bill before us. Mr. Meany. Thank you. Could I submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a statement on behalf of Donald S. Beattie, who is executive secretary of the Railway Labor Executives’ Association, in which he indicates their position on this bill? Any objection? Mr. O'Hara, Without objection, the statement referred to by the witness will be entered at this point in the record. Mr. Meany. Thank you very much. (The document referred to is as follows :) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DONALD S. BEATTIE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ON BEHALF OF THE RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES’ ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Donald S. Beattie. I am executive secretary-treasurer of the Railway Labor Executives’ Association, 400 First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and appear before you on behalf of that Association, composed of the leaders of 23 railway labor organizations repre- senting nearly all of the nation’s railroad employees. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall insert a list of our affiliated organizations in the record after my testimony. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on H.R. 14816, the “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968”. RLEA strongly supports this long-overdue legislation, the need for which is pressing particularly as it relates to railroad safety. As of today, there exists only piecemeal Federal legislation relating to railroad safety, such as the Safety Appliance Act, the Locomotive Ash Pan Act, the Locomotive Inspection Act, the Accident Reports Act, the Hours of Service Act, and the Signal Inspection Act, the names of which have been updated to meet modern requirements. Surprising as it may seem, there is no Federal regulatory author- ity whatsoever to cover such significant areas as the safety of railroad tracks, roadbeds, tunnels or bridges, undercarriages of railroad cars, or safety in rail yards, shops, freight houses and stations, or grade crossing safety. Moreover, no Federal law covers unsafe railroad operating practices, or health and sanitation conditions affecting railroad employees. 725 It is ironic, indeed, that one of the oldest common carriers, the railroads, have less effective safety laws and practices than airlines, buses or trucks. While rail- roads may not be the most hazardous form of transport, the need for compre- hensive and effective safety regulation is evident. According to preliminary figures, in 1967 there were 7,089 train accidents in the United States, up from 4,149 in 1961. Deaths from railroad accidents are running at almost 2,500 a year, and reportable injuries exceed 24,000 a year. Based on reports by the railroads themselves, about half of all train accidents are caused by faulty conditions not subject to any Federal law permitting regulations to effect safe standards and practices. From such statistics alone, it is clear that self-policing by the railroads on safety has been, and still is, ineffective to protect workers and the public. In a recent report by the National Transportation Safety Board on a fatal head-on collision between two New York Central Railroad freight trains it was noted that “. .. the economic pressures to cut corners or disregard rules in the name of convenience or time saving are definitely pressures felt throughout the railroad industry.” The Board went on to point out that general corrective steps, such as legislation, may be necessary. The purpose of my testimony is to help convince you that such legislation is indispensable and that only by that route can the Federal Government fulfill its responsibility of assuring that this nation has safe railroads. H.R. 14816 would be a major step in that direction. In this bill the Secretary of Labor is given broad authority to regulate the working conditions of em- ployees where no other Federal agency has authority to prescribe or enforce standards affecting occupational safety or health. As noted, there are many areas relating to railroad safety as to which there is no existing Federal regulatory authority. The intent of this legislation is to fill the void not only as to railroads, but in every industry. Section 13 of H.R. 14816 would cover railroad safety conditions where there is no existing coverage. However, the limitation upon the Secretary where another Federal agency has authority “affecting occupational safety or health” might be construed to limit the Secretary’s authority where another agency regulates areas even remotely though not substantially connected with the sub- ject matter. Such construction would be most unfortunate and, indeed, would thwart the specific purposes of this bill—to promote safe and healthful working conditions for all working men and women. This legislation should assure that the Secretary of Labor has authority in any area where substantial and meaning- ful authority has not otherwise been legislatively granted. To make it absolutely clear that this intent is effectuated, the following amendment to Section 13 is suggested : “Sec. 13. Nothing in this Act shall authorize the Secretary to regulate, or shall apply to, any working condition with respect to which another Federal agency has statutory authority to prescribe and enforce standards or regulations governing occupational safety or health. The Secretary shall coordinate, to the greatest extent practicable, the occupational safety and health activities of all Federal agencies.” This would change the emphasis from the individual employee to the working condition thus simplifying the determination as to whether there has been adequate delegation of authority to another administrative agency. Where Congress gives authority to another agency to regulate in a particular area of safety, the Secretary of Labor’s authority would terminate. Two com- panion measures are pending before Congress to give the Department of Trans- portation broad authority over railroad safety. These bills are H.R. 5934, intro- duced by Representative John Moss of California, and S. 526 sponsored by Sena- tor Gale McGee of Wyoming. No action has been taken on these bills to date. Even if these bills were to pass in their present form, the Secretary of Labor would still have jurisdiction under H.R. 14816 to govern health and sanitation conditions of railroads. I would like also to direct your attention to the salutary enforcement provi- sions of this bill (Sections 6 and 7). Section 6 gives the Secretary effective authority to issue an order providing for immediate cessation of any violation and any other measures he may deem necessary to correct or remove such vio- lation. Section 7 gives the Secretary authority to issue injunctions or restraining orders to correct unsafe conditions or practices. RLEA is in complete accord with these proposed enforcement devices. In areas where we are fortunate enough to have some railroad safety laws, there are no such adequate enforce- 726 ment provisions to put a bite into the statutes. The penalties which are provided fail to reflect the potential harm which can result from violation of the statute. In many cases the railroads prefer to risk paying a small penalty rather than fulfill the law, since it is often less expensive to pay the fine rather than remedy the wrong. As Chairman Charles Webb of the Interstate Commerce Commission stated on July 21, 1965, there is “a growing lack of compliance by the carriers.” He noted that “in many instances noncompliance with our safety laws and regulations appears to be cheaper than compliance.” Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify. The Railway Labor Executives’ Association is an organization of the chief executives of the national and international railway labor unions which repre- sent virtually all employees in the railroad industry. The chief executives of the following rail unions are affiliated with our Association : American Railway Supervisors Association. American Train Dispatchers’ Association. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. Brotherhood of Railrcad Trainmen. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes. Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America. Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Black- smiths, Forgers and Helpers. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers. International Organization Masters, Mates and Pilots of America. National Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association. Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen. Railroad Yardmasters of America. Railway Employes’ Department, AFL-CIO. Seafarers’ International Union of North America. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association. Switchmen’s Union of North America. Transportation-Communication Employees Union. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington. Hon. ELMER HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear ELMER: Jim Harrison called concerning the forthcoming hearings on occupational safety, and asked that we let you know, for inclusion in the hearing record, if anything has been done under MDTA to train people in the field of occupational health and safety. A thorough check of our manpower programs reveals that nothing specific has been pursued in this area. Sincerely, WILLARD WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor. ACTIVITIES OF BUREAU OF LABOR STANDARDS LiST oF SAFETY TRAINING COURSES (30 HOURS) Organization and Administration Mechanical and Physical Chemical and Environmental Supervisory Construction Low Voltage Electricity Seminars (6-12 hours) : Selected subjects from above courses, 727 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS ON SAFETY, JANUARY 1966 TECHNICAL Safety in Industry—A series of technical bulletins discussing some aspect of occupational safety and health. Bulletins are divided into three categories: Me- chanical and Physical Hazards, Environmental and Chemical Hazards, and Or- ganization and Administration. Mechanical and Physical Hazards Control of BHlectrical Shock Hazards—Bull. 216 Revised. (LS-32). Provides background information on the cause of electrical shock, its severity, and where encountered. Broad principles of control are suggested. 1962. 16 pp. 15 cents. Fire Protection for the Safety Man—Bull. 232. (LS—47). The bulletin discusses the fundamentals of fire protection, prevention, and control as they apply in an industrial safety program. 1961. 25 pp. 15 cents. Maintenance and Safety—Bull. 246. (LS-57 ). Describes maintenance situations from a hazard standpoint, and points out the value of preventive maintenance as a means of reducing injuries. 1962. 15 pp. 15 cents. Mechanical Handling of Materials—Bull., 219. (LS-35). Describes various types of equipment used for the mechanical handling of materials, enumerates their hazards, and suggests control measures. 1960. 29 pp. 15 cents. Mechanics for the Safety Man—Bull. 239. (LS-52). Provides background in- formation to relate current safety practices to mechanical laws or principles involving both statics and kinetics. Applies physical laws to actual situations encountered in industry. 1962. 24 pp. 15 cents. Personal Protective Bquipment—Bull. 231. (LS-46). Describes the kinds of personal equipment available, gives information on their intended use, and their limitations. Covers five categories of equipment; namely, eye and face-and-eye protection, head protection, ear protection, foot protection, and miscellaneous protective equippment. 1961. 26 pp. 15 cents. Rigging Cargo Gear—Bull. 240. (LS-53). Discusses ship’s cargo handling gear, the effect of stresses under various conditions of loading, and summarizes safe practices in rigging such gear. 1962. 23 pp. 15 cents. Static Hlectricity—Bull. 256. (LS-65). Explains that the generation of static electricity cannot be prevented, but its accumulation can be controlled. Opera- tions, including paint spraying, tank cleaning, the transfer of petroleum prod- ucts, grain handling, printing, or other processes in which flammable vapors may be present, must include static control as a factor. 1963. 20 pp. 15 cents. Teach Them To Lift—Bull. 110, Revised 1965. (LS-11). This bulletin is de- veloped in three sections; the first describes the problems connected with the universal manual lifting problem. Part 2 describes in some detail the method and techniques for “teaching them to lift” when mechanical and other means cannot be employed. Part 3 provides for a do-it-yourself project. It contains detailed and scaled plans and specifications for building a “How To Lift” demon- strator model that can be used as a visual aid in the presentation of Part 2 of this bulletin. 1965. 22 pp. 15 cents. Environmental and Chemical Hazards Chemistry for the Safety Man—Bull. 222. (LS-38). Provides the background which will enable the safety man to understand some of the principles applied in controlling chemical hazards. 1965 Revised. 26 pp. 15 cents. Chlorine Handling in Stevedoring Operations—Bull. 241. (LS-54). Contains information about the physical characteristics of Chlorine and its health haz- ards. Suggests how leaking cylinders should be handled. 1962. 9 pp. 15 cents. Controlling Noise Hazards—Bull. 207. (LS-24). This bulletin is intended to create an awareness of the hazard of noise, to explain its characteristics, and to suggest how it can be controlled. 1959. 8 pp. 10 cents. The Inorganic Acids—Bull. 265. (LS-349). Treats the inorganic acids as a group, presents principles for evaluating and controlling potential hazards in the handling, storage, and use of these chemicals. Included is a discussion of the unique characteristics or potential hazards of individual acids, a table of chemical and physical properties, and procedures to be followed in the event of an emer- gency. 1964. 31 pp. 15 cents. Respiratory Protective Hquipment—Bull, 226. (LS-42). Provides information helpful in selecting and using the right protective equipment for a particular respiratory hazard. The limitations of equipment are also given. 1961. 34 pp. 20 cents. 728 The Use and Handling of Compressed Gases—Bull. 259, (LS-292). Prepared as an aid in controlling the potential hazards which might arise from the use of compressed gases. The various gas laws are discussed and related to the im- portance of observing proper procedures. Specific physical and chemical prop- erties and characteristics of the gases commonly handled under pressure are explained. 1963. 30 pp. 15 cents. Organization and Administration The Consultative Approach to Safety—Bull. 223. (LS-39). Points out the ad- vantages of consultation and evaluation of hazards in lieu of routine inspection. Tells how the consultative approach can be instituted. 1960. 9 pp. 15 cents. Control of the Physical Environment—Bull. 211. (LS-28). Discusses the sur- roundings and external conditions of a safe and healthful place to work and its impact on the development of a safety program. 1960. 13 pp. 15 cents. The Fundamentals of Accident Prevention—Bull. 247. (LS-58). Outlines four basic elements of a safety program and suggests program activities to implement these elements. 1962. 14 pp. 15 cents. Using Injury Statistics—Bull. 255. (LS—64). Emphasizes that injury statistics have a significant role in accident prevention because they provide a factual base upon which an effective safety program can be built. The bulletin discusses injury rates, records, costs and causes and how they can be utilized as a means to establish an injury prevention program. 1963. 18 pp. 15 cents. The Safety in Industry Instructor Outlines were prepared for use by instruc- tors with some knowledge and experience in safety engineering techniques. Each outline provides considerable detail on a specific subject with suggested visual aids which may be coplied. These outlines should be very helpful to safety in- structors in industry, colleges, apprenticeship programs, union trade schools, and vocational training programs.’ Accident Cause Analysis—Bull. 270. (LS-367). Describes basic accident causes and methods for conducting an analysis. 1965. 19 pp. 20 cents. Accident Cost Control—Bull. 268. (LS-369). Describes the factors involved in determining the costs of accidents, giving examples of accounting methods. 1965. 14 pp. 20 cents. Appraising Safety Performance—Bull. 269. (LS-370). Discusses injury fre- quency and severity rates and the formulas for making these determinations. 1965. 14 pp. 20 cents. Introduction to Industrial Safety—Bull. 267, (LS-368). Gives a history of the safety movement in this country with emphasis on the functions of Federal and State governments in safety activities. 1965. 19 pp. 20 cents. Machinery Safeguarding—Bull. 276. (LS-297). Describes the various prin- ciples and techniques of guarding machinery and equipment. It provides guide- lines for the instructor for discussion of various types of guards, construction, and specifications in addition to an excellent discussion on the classic points of operation guarding. 1965. 68 pp. 40 cents. Occupational Health Hazards—Their Evaluation and Control—Bull. 198. (LS— 18). Presents information on occupational health hazards and exposures, de- scribes techniques for the appraisal of these hazards, and enumerates general control methods. 1958. 36 pp. 25 cents. The Principles and Techniques of Mechanical Guarding—Bull. 197. (LS-17). Discusses and outlines principles of mechanical guarding applicable to all guarding situations, followed by illustrations showing the techniques of mechan- ical guarding as applied to specific machines. 1959. 58 pp. 40 cents. Safety Subjects—Bull. 67. (LS-1). Covers the fundamentals of industrial accident prevention, giving reasons for and development of the safety move- ment ; responsibilities and functions of management, supervision, and employees ; and basic methods of controlling physical hazards and work practices. Each chapter is followed by a list of questions for use in teaching. Revised 1956. 280 pp. $1. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TRAINING Proceedings—The President's Conference on Occupational Safety—Bull. 263. (LS-306). Includes major portions of Conference deliberations and reports, and other pertinent data. 1964. 441 pp.* 1 Distribution will be made only to participants in Bureau of Labor Standards ‘“Instruc- tor Institute” courses. I" 0 Conference Proceedings of previous years (1948-62) may be consulted in your local raries, 729 Occupational Safety Aids. A series of informative folders on specific areas of safety programing. Suitable for safety committee discussion or training. (Multi- lithed). Accident Causes. 1961. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-162). Conducting a Job Hazard Analysis. 1961. 6 pp. (OSA-LS-163). Demolition Operations. 1965. 12 pp. (OSA-LS-352). Development of the Safety Movement. 1961. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-182). Elements of a Safety Program. 1959. 8 pp. (OSA-LS-164). Face and Eye Protection. 1960. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-165). Good Housekeeping. 1959. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-166). Hazards of Low Voltage Electricity. 1961. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-167). How To Compute Injury Rates. 1960. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-168). How To Investigate Accidents. 1960. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-169). Inspecting for Safety. 1960. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-170). Office Safety. 1959. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-171). Preventing Office Accidents. 1960. 8 pp. (OSA-LS-172). Promoting Worker Interest. 1960. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-173). Recording Employee Injuries. 1961. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-174). Safeguarding Machinery. 1959. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-176). Safe Lifting. 1960. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-175). Safety Committee Activities. 1961. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-177). Safety Program Projects. 1960. 6 pp. (OSA-LS-178). Safety Standards. 1960. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-179). Safety Training Techniques in the Classroom. 1960. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-180). Supervisory Responsibiilty for Safety. 1961. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-181). Trips, Slips, and Falls. 1959. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-183). Wire Size. 1960. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-184). Work Accident Costs. 1961. 4 pp. (OSA-LS-185). Occupational Safety Charts. A series of charts illustrating safe operation of common machines, tools, and equipment for use as posters, instruction guides and promotion of safe work methods. 1 p. each. (Multilithed). Hand Trucks (OSC-1.S-186) Electrical Equipment (OSC-LS-193) Power Trucks (OSC-LS-187) Low Voltage Electrical Equipment Scaffolds (OSC-LS-188) Ladders (OSC-LS-195) Arc Welding (OSC-LS-189) Drill Presses (OSC-LS-196) Gas Welding and Cutting Equipment Punch Presses (OSC-LS-197) (OSC-LS-190) Overhead Cranes (OSC-LS-198) Grinding Wheels (OSC-LS-191) Metal Shapers (OSC-LS-199) (OSC-LS-194) Hand Tools (OSC-LS-200) Power Shears (OSC-LS-192) Freight Elevators (OSC-LS-201) Safety Standards. Bimonthly periodical devoted to promoting safety in work- places. Publishes news and activities of the Federal Safety Council and Federal agencies, the maritime industry, the President’s Conference on Occupational Safety, State safety programs, and management and labor safety programs in general. 24 pp. Annual subscription, $1.00 domestic; $1.25 foreign; single copies 20 cents. STATE SAFETY CODE ANALYSES Comparison Charts of State Safety Codes with American Standard Codes. Printed as graphic charts, the provisions of State safety codes are compared with like provisions of the American Standards Association’s codes and recorded as “same or similar to,” “more restrictive than,” or “less restrictive than ASA Standard.” (22 x 17’). Abrasive Wheels. 1961. 2 pp. (ASACC-LS-105). Cranes, Derricks, and Hoists. 1962. 5 pp. (ASACC-LS-112). Demolition (Building Construction). 1960. 1 p. (ASACC-LS-98). Excavation. 1963. 2 pp. (ASACC-LS-288). Fixed Ladders. 1963. 1 p. (ASACC-LS-309). Floor and Wall Openings. 1960. 1 p. (ASACC-LS-99). Ladders (Construction). 1960. 1 p. (ASACC-LS-100). Laundry Machinery and Operations. 1963. 1 p.* Mechanical Power-Transmission (Apparatus). 1960. 1 p. (ASACC-LS-101). 8 Stock exhausted. Listing is maintained for information purposes only. 730 Mills and Calenders in the Rubber Industry. 1961. 1 p. (ASACC-LS-102). Portable Metal Ladders. 1963. 1 p. (ASACC-LS-111). Portable Wood Ladders. 1964. 2 pp.® Powered Industrial Trucks. 1963. 2 pp. (ASACC-LS-108). Power Presses, 1962. 1 p.* Sanitation. 1960. 1 p. (ASACC-LS-103). Scaffolds. 1961. 5 pp. (ASACC-LS-104). Textile Safety. 1962. 2 pp. (ASACC-LS-110). Welding and Cutting. 1961. 3 pp. (ASACC-LS-106). Window Cleaning. 1963. 1 p. (ASACC-LS-109). Woodworking Machinery. 1961. 2 pp. (ASACC-LS-107). Safe Work Guides. A series of folders describing safety precautions for cer- tain construction trades. 1959. 4 pp. (Multilithed). Carpenters (SWG-LS-232). Construction Supervisor (SWG-LS-233). Electricians (SWG-LS-234). Masons (SWG-LS-235). Plumbers (SWG-LS-236). Powder Actuated Tools (SWG-LS-238). Roofers and Waterproofers (SWG-LS-237). How To Inspect Chart Series. Illustrated charts of specific devices, operations, or machines showing suggested safe conditions and safe work methods. Suitable for wall posting. Sizes vary. (Multilithed). Bag Sewing Operation (LS-147) Scaffold Construction (HTIC-LS-149) Circular Table Saw (LS-146) Textile (HTIC-LS-294) Cupola (HTIC-LS-148) Tractor Loader (HTIC-LS-143) Demolition (HTIC-LS-356) Veneer Lathe (HTIC-1.S-150) Floor Stand Grinder (LS-145) Woodworking-Wood Shaper (HTIC- Radial Saw (HTIC-LS-144) LS-318) Occupational Hazards to Young Workers. See Youth Services and Employment Standards Section, p. 17. MARITIME Gear COeritification Regulations. (LS-285). Regulations issued by the Secre- tary of Labor in environments covered by Section 41 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act which specifically govern accreditation of persons for carrying out cargo gear certification and the procedures to be fol- lowed. July 1963. 56 pp. Log and Ohaert. (LS-82), U.S. Department of Labor’s Annual Report on Public Law 85-742, the “U.S. Department of Labor Maritime Safety Program.” Current issue only, 8 pp. Maritime Safety Digest For Longshoring. (LS-278). Periodical reporting on special safety items of interest to the maritime industry as a whole. 4 pp. (Multilithed). For Shipyards. (LS-72). Periorical reporting on special safety items of inter- est to the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry. 4 pp. (Multilithed). Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring. (LS-269). Regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor for longshoring employments covered by Section 41 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. 1960. 96 pp. Also 1961 Supplement containing amendments to the 1960 Regulations. 1961. 14 pp. Safety and Health Regulations for Shipbreaking. (LS-95). Contains regula- tions issued by the Secretary of Labor for shipbreaking employments covered by Section 41 of the Longshormen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. June 1965. 31 pp. Safety and Health Regulations for Shipbuilding. (LS-96). Contains regula- tions issued by the Secretary of Labor for shipbuilding employments covered by Section 41 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. June 1965. 40 pp. Safety and Health Regulations for Ship Repairing. (1.S-97). Containes regu- lations issued by the Secretary of Labor for ship repairing employments covered by Section 41 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 1960, as amended in June 1965. 45 pp. 731 Safety Data Series. A series covering technical problems in specific areas of employments in longshoring and in shipyards. (Multilithed). Longshoring Carbon Monoxide. (L.S-271). 4 pp. Hoisting of Mechanically Powered Vehicles (Fork Lifts). (LS-267). 4 pp. Safe Practices for Longshoremen : No. 1. “Access-Stevedore Gear.” (LS-258). 4 pp. No. 2. “Handling Cargo.” (LS-355). 4 pp. No. 3. “Opening and Closing Hatches.” (1.S-360). 4 pp. No. 4. “Rigging Gear.” (L.S-347). 4 pp. No. 5. “Dunnage.” (L.S—41). 4 pp. Summary of Suggested Safe Practices of Rigging and Using Cargo Handling Gear. (LS-330). 6 pp. . Why Are Booms Dropped. (LS-298). 6 pp. Shipyards Competent Persons in Shipyard Operations, Reminders to. (LS-40). 12 pp. A Gas Hazards Trainer. (L.S-9). 28 pp. Physical Properties of Common Flammable Liquids and Gases. (L.S-131). 5 pp. Shipyard Fire and Explosion Hazards. (LS-36). 4 pp. Shipyard Scaffolding. (LS-74). 19 pp. Temporary Lights for Flammable Atmospheres. (LS-350). 13 pp. Temporary Portable Shipboard Ventilation for Control of Flammable Atmos- pheres in Ship Repairing, Shipbuilding, and Shipbreaking. (LS-358). 11 pp. Wheatstone Bridge Combustible Gas Indicator. (LS-277).19 pp. Wheatstone Bridge Combustible Gas Indicator; Operation and Interpretation of Readings. (LS-90). 3 pp. FEDERAL SAFETY COUNCIL Elements of a Safety Program. (LS-164). Recommendations to assist Federal departments and agencies in establishing and conducting programs for the prevention of accidents. The booklet will be helpful not only to those agencies desiring to establish safety programs but also to agencies wishing to measure existing safety programs against the recommended elements. 1960. 16 pp. Field Council Handbook. (1.S-305). A handbook to assist government officials in organizing field Federal Safety Councils in their local areas. It contains val- uable information on organization, operation, and program suggestions which will not only assist the beginning council but also those already established and presently functioning. 62 pp. (Multilithed). One Out of Siw. (LS-161). Safety tips to office workers, with particular em- phasis on fire control. Popular style. Originally prepared by the Federal Inter- departmental Safety Council and issued in July 1950. 1952. 10 pp. Mr. O'Hara. Our next witness will be Mr. Ricardo M. Montoya, New Mexico State labor commissioner. Mr. Montoya, if you would please step forward and take a seat at the table, we would be very pleased to hear your comments and views on the bill before us. STATEMENT OF RICARDO M. MONTOYA, NEW MEXICO STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER Mr. Montoya. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I appreciate the privilege and distinction of appearing before you to give testimony on this major legislative effort so crucial to working people everywhere, so important and meaningful to their employers, so basically humane in its aspects. A review of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968, H.R. 14816, has convinced me that such legislation would be to the best interests and benefit of the State of New Mexico in general, and the workers to be covered by this act, in particular. 732 New Mexico does not have an occupational safety act. In repeated legislatures, such an act has been proposed. In most instances, these acts have been favorably considered; however, like so many other States, the revenue to support such legislation has not been deemed available. A bill to provide New Mexico with a comprehensive occupational safety act is now prepared and has been reviewed by the safety officers of the Bureau of Labor Standards of the U.S. Department of Labor and found to be completely acceptable for the State-Ifederal partner- ship envisioned by the act before this committee. We are very hopeful, and conditions look very promising, for its enactment at our next regular session of the New Mexico State Legislature. Mr. Chairman, I believe passage of H.R. 14816 will greatly enhance enactment of our own bill at our State level. New Mexico is in a unique position among our States in that it is one of three State jurisdictions in the Nation that do not have occupa- tional safety AT As a result, while the estimated percentage of employees covered under State code-making authority is 89 percent nationwide, New Mexico has 5.8 percent such coverage for its workers. This percentage is brought about by the constitutional mine inspector provision. The workmen’s compensation division within my department has shown a gradual increase in work accidents reported. The compensation paid injured workmen has had a marked increase. In the fiscal year ending 1966, New Mexico experienced 48 fatalities, 64 permanent dis- abilities, 2,733 partial disabilities, and 10,826 noncompensable work injury reports of the total of 17,945 reports made. These are on an estimated work force of 122,000 workers. As you see, New Mexico has a desperate need for a comprehensive occupational safety act. As a member of the executive board of the International Association of Governmental Labor Officials, IT am highly conscious of the argu- ments in opposition by some States to this legislation. They appear to be based more on the mechanics of implementation than in the sub- stance of the bill. There is a desire by all concerned that a true partnership approach to implementation of the bill be provided for. They are fearful of a Federal takeover of responsibilities for safety that have traditionally been under State jurisdiction. There are some concerns, also, as to the permanency of Federal financial aid to enforce the provisions of the act. I do not quarrel with the many reservations held by some labor commissioners of sister States. However, there is indeed a great need for standardization of safety codes that would benefit workers in all States. My office is the recipient of approximately 2,000 inquiries per year from manufacturers, employment agencies, and other interested parties concerning adopted safety codes by the State of New Mexico. It is my considered opinion that the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 would be of great benefit to all workers and employers, specifically to the State of New Mexico. With strengthening amend- ments to overcome procedural objections, I very strongly urge and advocate yo. r favorable consideration and support toward the passage of this ball. 733 Thank you for your kind attention. Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Montoya. I found your testimony very interesting. Mr. Hathaway, do aD any questions? Mr. Haraaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes; one question with respect to the last sentence in your statement. You say, “With strengthening amendments to overcome procedural objections © * *7, at did you have in mind specifically, Mr. Montoya? Mr. Montoya. Like I stated in my statement, there have been some objections voiced by some of the State commissioners in our meeting. They feel that the State-Federal relation approach should be more clearly stated in the bill, that there be a provision made that rather than to have a completed Federal control to make sure that there is participation by the State. Now, this is not our position. I am in full accord with what Mr. Meany said as far as this should also be made to industry which brings so many good standards and safety to municipalities and to counties. I think all of our various bodies have their place and their part to play under this legislation. Mr. HataawAay. You mean we should state more clearly that if there are more adequate safeguards by any industry, whether it is private or public; that the Federal Government should leave them alone? Mr. Montoya. This is true, basically. In a State versus Federal, I think it is really not a valid argument to the true aspects of the bill. Personally, this is, of course, my own personal attitude. I don’t think that we should have our States or our cities or our industry hollering about who holds the firehose while the building burns. IT think that we all need to get on that hose and get the fire put out. Mr. Harnaway. Thank you very much, Mr. Montoya. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Esch? Mr. Esch. Yes. Mr. Montoya, the point I tried to make at one of the earlier hearings is that I am not inflexible about the mechanical workings of this bill; I am just determined that we are going to have some improvement in occupational safety. We are going to do everything within our power one way or the other to reduce the number of occupational diseases and deaths and injuries. I appreciate your statement. I especially like the point you made that you believe that passage of this bill would greatly enhance enactment of a comprehensive State law on this subject. You mean by that that you feel that if the State felt it was under some pressure from the Federal Government; that is, if it felt that unless it acted, the Federal Government might step in and do the job, that that was the purpose of such legislation? Mr. Montoya. Well, to a certain extent. We also have a problem that was quoted by Mr. Meany as far as wildlife inspectors and so forth, but States like New Mexico are ex- tremely limited in resources and I think basically the biggest obstacle in getting a safety act for our working people in New Mexico is not so much the fact that the Federal Government might takeover if they 734 might not act but the fact that there are not sufficient funds available or have not been available in the past. I think this is the first thing. Then there is the question, too, that there is made available to them Federal funds. The fact that the Federal Government is moving in this field certainly makes the States conscious of their negligence in the ast. 2 Our chances, in my way or thinking, are 100 percent better if we do have a Federal act in the field. Mr. O'Hara. I was also interested in the fact that your office re- ceives about 2,000 inquiries a year from manufacturers, employment agencies, and other interested parties concerning the provisions of your safety codes to the extent that you have them. I think that demonstrates that one of the problems that industry faces when it is doing business in more than one State is adapting his operations to the particular safety requirements of the various States in which he operates. You feel that a national standard would be of advantage, I take it? Mr. Montoya. There is no question about that. This is absolutely true. The increase is coming not from within the State but, with few exceptions, from new industry coming into the State. By and large, all of the inquries are from out of State. I might say that along with these inquiries, often from some of them, be it the employment agency or an industry, they also ask to see whether our standards are the same as they have wherever they are operating at that point. There is no question that this would be of great benefit to industry if you had just one standard instead of different standards of the different States adopted. There is no question in my mind that the aim of this legislation to keep workers healthy would be best served if you had standards that were universally the same; it would make it so much easier for indus- try to comply with. In time, it would be easier for the worker to under- stand what he has to do and see there is no question about it. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Montoya. We find your testimony very useful. Thank you. Mr. Montoya. Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Hara. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. O'Hara. Our last witness this morning will be Dr. Hawey A. Wells, of Johnstown, Pa. Dr. Wells, if you will please take a place at the witness table, we would appreciate hearing from you. STATEMENT OF HAWEY A. WELLS, JR., M.D., DIRECTOR OF THE PULMONARY RESEARCH LABORATORY, CONEMAUGH VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, JOHNSTOWN, PA. Dr. Werrs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like te paraphrase my statement, if there is no objection, in the interest of time and in case there are questions. 1 am a pathologist and as a pathologist I study the mechanisms of disease by examination of tissues. 735 The mechanics of disease and death means each significant step between the first cause and the final effect of any process that causes death. I am used to having the last word in the medical conferences because I have the added advantage of clinical information concerning the causes under consideration plus the final look into the body, into the tissue, that defines the disease. I am sorry to say that I don’t have any last words today even though I am the last speaker scheduled. Pathology’s contribution came after thousands of years of guess- work into the workings of disease on the human body. When we were at last permitted to make complete examination of the human body, to lay the organs out into the open and to study them completely, we were finally able to come out of the dark ages and allow the great advances that medicine has made in prevention, in diagnosis and in curing disease. The same applies in industrial health. We can only hope to be able to diagnose or cure industrial problems when we can completely analyze the industrial environment that caused the injury, the disease or the death. Each day I examine mangled arms and legs or fingers, hands, lungs, spleens, bladders, cancers of all sorts, and diseases, and I try to diag- nose the primary cause without the basic information necessary. Mr. Meany mentioned the 21 men who died as a result of, well, what? The pathologist said carbon monoxide poisoning. That is a relatively easy diagnosis to make but does any man in this room believe that that is the basic, initial cause of death in those 21 men? We have to look more deeply into the environment, into the condi- tions that initiate the processes. Even those most vigorously opposed to HL.R. 14816 admit that we don’t know enough about the cause of accidents, about the cause of disease and death in industry. If everybody is in favor of research or at least does not openly oppose research and education, let’s make sure that this research is complete research, that it includes the right to examine the environment as well as the disease, to enter any industry engaged in interstate commerce and using potentially dangerous caus- tic materials so that we can make that complete examination. In my personal research, I study the effect of particulates, tiny par- ticles of dust of various kinds, upon the lungs. There is a big block in this field, a big frustration for all of the workers. There is an im- possible task of correlating the disease that we find at autopsy with the work environment. We have to try to guess at what the work en- vironment was that caused it. We never know the duration of exposure, the exact chemical nature or the particle sizes or the concentrations. It is a bit comparable to the physician of 200 years ago poking around in the belly of a case of acute appendicitis without knowing the anatomic structures and functions involved that produced all these confusing symptoms and signs and so many deaths from what is now a very simple disease. Certainly, one of the more compelling witnesses that testified before the subcommitte was Dr. Irving Selikoft who told you at length of his intensive research in the use of asbestos. He emphasized our lack of 736 knowledge about the environmental exposure necessary to cause disease, to cause the cancer. . The same day that Dr. Selikoff spoke, witnesses told of carbon monoxide problems in a nearby State. They testified that the hazard was not identified until someone managed to bring scientific experts right into the plant to identify the basic problem. r. Selikoff also asked where the responsibility lies for preventing these preventable things. The committe has heard testimony that lays blame at the feet of industry, but is industry solely to blame? There are many unequal laws between the States where companies are forced to work with stringent safety regulations and yet must compete with companies across the border with virtually no responsibilities to inaugurate safety or health programs. A “cancer-causing chemical, betanaphthylamine, has been men- tioned. It was used in a State that passed pioneering legislation which allowed the right of entry into areas where I toxic materials were used. A Fading health worker discovered that exposed workers were indeed contracting carcinoma of the bladder at a high rate. Instead of doing something about this for the workers’ benefit in this plant, the manufacturer decided not to continue operation under the cost required to eliminate the exposure. Now, the operation is car- ried on in other States. Georgians are now probably getting cancer of the bladder instead of Pennsylvanians. Yet, you have heard testimony indicating that industry and the States don’t need Feedral uniform help in carrying out their responsibility. Testimony has also been presented before this committee which indicates that the compensation laws and insurance costs leave indus- try three alternatives: 1) They must either prevent the injury, disease or death, or 2) The must pay through higher insurance rates, or 3) They must attempt to hide the fact that the disease or injury or death occurred in the first place, or deny the responsibility. We have heard examples of responsible industry with admirable safety records and they offer a contrast to the many that were silent. A witness testified that very little is known about the small plants of America where under 100 men are employed. These are the plants where two-thirds of America’s working force spends their lives. Is it not precisely these groups that can ill afford the luxury of safety and health programs? Considering compensation and insurance costs, I am sure no com- pany in America ever willingly pays the ever-rising insurance costs and those States that assume part of the burden for compensation can certainly take no comfort in their budgets. For instance, Pennsyl- vania’s compensation costs will exceed $50 million this year. Let’s examine the obscuring of disease and injury by this need to minimize insurance and compensation costs. As you heard last Thurs- day, the system that we presently use rewards the small companies with irresponsible safety and health practices and penalizes their com- petitors who wish to launch meaningful prevention and educational campaigns. 737 Accident reporting statistics, prevalence figures of occupational dis- ease and even of occupationally related deaths “do not approach ade- quacy,” as one health official told you in her testimony. These statistics are vitally necessary if we are going to know what is happening and what to do about it. You have seen a man who was bodily carried from the hospital and given a bed at the workplace in order to minimize for that operation its lost time accidents. Testimony was presented that “make-work” activity after injury is a common practice in some industries; probably it is more common than most of us realize. I asked my cabdriver on the way to the airport yesterday why he was driving a cab, because he was a husky, articulate fellow. He said he got bored sitting around a steel plant after a small injury. The doctor had told him not to work; they gave him a night shift and gave him a chair and told him to sit in it for 8 hours each night for 2 weeks. So, he went into cabdriving and has a part-time job with one of the airlines and is educating himself instead of doing this boring “make-work.” Knowledge gained by painful experience in industry is not readily disseminated to the industrial physicians, hygienists, and engineers in like industries across the country, and in some cases the information is not disseminated at all. There seems to be some tendency to obscure this information, to obstruct the free dissemination of knowledge. It became apparent while we were touring the country with an exhibit that presented the pathology of one particular disease. Many physicians expressed frustrations at having inadequate medical information to diagnose and treat patients with suspected occupational diseases, much less the ability to prevent them. Dr. John Zalinsky came up to us in Detroit and told of 30 cases of a chronic lung disease caused by exposure to “safe” levels of beryllium dust. He was told by the companies that if he published this material in the medical literature that he would have to look for another job. He was torn between professional honesty and personal security and before he resolved this dilemma he died of his second heart attack. His material has never been published. Other industries, other physicians seeing these diseases don’t have the value of his experience, painful experience. I have knowledge of a plant that uses manganese, a toxic material that has been known to be very dangerous for a long time. Recently, through some bitter experiences, the management of this plant found that it did indeed poison the nervous system causing permanent brain damage in exposed workers. They have used, for about a year, a simple test, no more complicated than a prick on the finger, that will detect exposure to this material before permanent nerve injury occurs. How many hundreds of other companies use manganese but don’t have the advantage of this simple test for detecting exposure because this test has not been published in this country in the medical literature? 738 Now, unless each physician and each industrial hygienist and safety engineer has available to him the research experience of all those who have preceded him in his profession, then he has to duplicate the re- search in every case, many times at the cost of human life. Underreporting of occupational diseases also has another dele- terious effect—the physician in general practice often does not think in terms of a patient’s oorypaiion in trying to make a diagnosis; he is faced with many, many different occupations. Two years ago, the Public Health Service reported three “pneu- monia” deaths which were ultimately traced to the use of silver solder containing cadmium which is another deadly metal. So, aside from the problem of diagnosis in these cases, another diffi- culty arose. They had trouble defining the exposure because the ma- terial was inadequately labeled in the first place. This Congress has put itself on record as opposing contamination of the atmosphere. It has passed a law aimed at preventing air pollu- tion. It should be quite clear that this Congress also must oppose the many times more hazardous concentration of poisons in the atmos- phere of America’s workers. I should like to thank the committee for giving me an opportunity to express these views. I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and members of your committee for your courage in bringing out the bill at this time. Some of the testimony here is pretty gory. In reading through it, an objective observer will come to the conclusion, I think, that many, if not most, of these injuries and diseases and deaths are preventable ones. It is very frustrating to watch helplessly while patients die, autopsy them, and find that their death occurred because of a preventable disease. Some families push me to the wall and say, “Could these things have been prevented ¢” I have known of their bitterness when I have had to say “Perhaps.” I can only imagine the reaction of the 2 million people who were 1njured last year and the like numbers in the years before that, their families, the untold hundreds of thousands of men with fatal and disabling diseases and their families, when the full implications of the testimony of these hearings reaches them, that their injury and disease might have been prevented. I hope their bitterness provides constructive pressure for compre- hensive research, complete examinations into industry’s problems and prompt action by this body on H.R. 14816. Mr. O’Hara. Thank you very much. Mr. Hathaway, do you have any questions? Mr. Haraaway. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have one question. I want to thank you, Doctor, for highlighting a problem which has been highlighted by the Surgeon General and others who have testified before us that there is not enough research in this area of occupational disease; that many people think by simply stating that a place should be safe to work in, they have covered the whole field. They will go to the layman’s place that looks very safe to work in and point out the problem that in many instances the place is not safe or in Hoss instances would only be brought out by careful study and research. 739 The only question I wanted to ask you is whether or not you think that the provision in the bill covering research and related activities which is in section 15 is adequate to cover the problem. Dr. Werws. It should be spelled out more clearly, in my opinion, that the research may be carried out in the environment that the workers find themselves in. I believe this would strengthen the bill. This actually is right of entry. It perhaps should be spelled out the right of entry of whom, for what purpose? We have spoken of the qualification of these inspectors. Perhaps this would strengthen the bill if we could make sure that we take ad- vantage of the best talent available in creating inspection. Mr. Haraway. So that research men would go right on the spot and stay there and conduct their research ? Dr. WerwLs. This is absolutely necessary. Mr. Haraaway. Thank you very much, Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Hara. Dr. Wells, I was interested in your reference to beta- naphthylamine. As I recall the previous reference to that chemical, I read into the record at that time and entered in the record the notes and briefs from the U.S. Public Health Service in November 1965, calling attention to the title of the notes and briefs. The memorandum was “Known Cancer Agent Still Legal in 49 States.” In that reference, I quote from it, they referred to Pennsylvania outlawing the use of beta-naphthylamine and they said the chemical is regarded as so toxic that no safe limit for exposure has ever been established. Chairman Holland of this subcommittee received a statement from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Health signed by Thomas W. Georges, M.D., for entry in the record of these hearings, and I quote from that. Dr. Georges said : There is a real necessity for uniform standards in some aspects of these prob- lems. For example, after we eliminated by regulation an extremely hazardous chemical, beta naphthylamine, which produces bladder cancer, we lost a small industry by keeping our workers well. Production was then taken up in another state which has a weak safety program. Now, you referred to beta-naphthylamine. You were a little more specific. Are we to understand that this chemical which was the subject of the order of the Pennsylvania department which was the subject of the 1965 bulletin of the U.S. Public Health Service and which is covered in “Occupational Diseases Guide to Their Recognition” pub- lication of the Public Health Service Bulletin printed in June 1966, calling attention to the Pennsylvania action with respect to beta- naphthylamine is still being used and still manufactured ? Dr. WerLs. As of this week, we have definite knowledge that there is in the State of Georgia a plant using this chemical. How many years and how many bladder cancers will it take before Georgians can pro- tect themselves through the legislative process on the State level? Mr. O’Hara. I think that is a very good question. Now, I was especially interested in your testimony about Dr. John Zelinsky in Detroit. As I would gather it, his statement to you strongly 92-734 0—68——48 740 suggested that the then known safe levels of exposure of beryllium dust were unsafe. Dr. Weres. This is the implication of his material. He told us a story about our lack of specific knowledge and need to develop better standards. But suppose what would happen if we had no standards at all about the levels of beryllium dust? We do have some suggestions but only by bitter experience have we been able to find that these suggestions based on almost arbitrary evidence are but guesses. We do have some good guesses; and we have, I am sure, saved thousands of lives as Mr. Meany said by incorporating safety and health standards. I speak in favor of better research, better knowledge, the use of this painful experience in a better way to disseminate it as quickly and as broadly as possible. Mr. G’Hara. The example of manganese, the toxicity of manganese in developing a new test which is not generally known in industries using manganese, I think is an excellent example of the need for re- search and for disseminating the results of that research. You sug- gested it 1s a simple test. Is it such a simple test that you think it ho be widely adopted if it were known? Dr. Werrs. Well, it consists of pricking the finger and smearing it on a slide and looking at it. The laboratory that conducts that test has been sworn to secrecy, by the way. It has come to my attention that the Russians are aware of this test and they have published it recently. In fact, I don’t think America can be too proud of her disseminating scientific reports and reports in the occupation diseases under the “index medicus,” “occupational diseases.” In 1965, the Iron Curtain countries which don’t make a habit of airing their dirty laundry, published 156 reports and research papers to America’s 78. In 1966, it was Iron Curtain 47, America 29. The French were ahead of us. You heard that they were primitive in their occupational safety and health standards but at least they published more papers that year than America in this field. Mr. O'Hara. Too bad they could not orbit that test or we would have had one, too. Dr. Werrs. 1 think those people that are being exposed to this or have particular exposure to this have the right to that prick on the finger. Mr. O'Hara. I think they do. You have called our attention to the case of pneumonia, so-called pneumonia deaths, that are finally traced to the use of a silver solder that had a cadmium component. Now, the use of this cadmium silver solder was fairly common and it had been going on for a number of years. Then finally somehow somebody in a flash of insight perhaps was able to connect up these deaths with the use of such a substance. Dr. Weris. If you will excuse me, sir, I don’t think it was a flash of insight. I think it was a lot of doggone hard detective work on the part of the Public Health Service and the people involved in doing 741 this complicated research which was made harder because of the ob- scure labeling of the material. This, in itself, helps to hide exposure and helps to inhibit adequate examination and research. Mr. O'Hara. Would you suggest, though, that inasmuch as this material had been in use for some time that perhaps these three cases have been adequately indentified as to their etiology but that there may have been a number of others and that we an very much un- derstanding the number of deaths that occur in the United States due to occupational exposures? Dr. WeLLs. After looking at lungs and lungs and lungs every day with pneumonia, how am I to say that this pneumonia was not caused by some substance that this man was exposed to? We won’t know until we can completely examine what this man has been exposed to. Mr. Meany disparaged—and rightly so—throwing the lungs down on the table and getting compensation for it, but unless we throw these lungs out on the table along with a careful history of exposure, how are we going to connect up these causes and their effects ? Mr. O'Hara, I agree with you completely and I think you and Mr. Meany were getting to the same point, that is, that you better find out what the causes are and prevent them, rather than try to collect the damages later on. I am going to make a suggestion now that you might not agree with, or you might, and that is that unless this Congress takes strong action we are not going to see anything done, anything significant done, be- cause I recall those deaths that were recorded from the use of cadmium the silver solder with cadmium components in improperly ventilated work spaces, and it occurred to me immediately that there ought to be some sort of labeling requirement. I recall having contacted the Department of Health, Plucation, and Welfare and the Department of Labor at that time with respect to getting up a bill that would impose labeling requirements on these in- dustrial substances that are going to be used in similar industries, the requirements that we now have with respect to what is sold over the counter. I would like to suggest I didn’t get very much in response. I don’t think that I stirred up any great degree of interest at this suggestion. That was a couple of years ago. 0, I would say that we in Congress are going to have to take a good hard look at this and push hard if we are going to expect any results. Would you agree with this? Dr. Wers. I would wholeheartedly agree with that statement and I think this is a part of the complete research that I have tried to emphasize must be done. Mr. O’Hara. Dr. Wells, I want to thank you very much for your testimony. You have been extremely helpful to us. I hope that this committee will capture some of the sense es that you feel about these problems and be guided by that sense of urgency. Thank you very Ak. Dr. Weras. Thank you, Mr. O’Hara, and gentlemen. Mr. O'Hara. Without objection, the materials received by the com- mittee will be inserted in the record at the. conclusion of Dr. Wells’ testimony. (See attached note and statements.) 742 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Harrisburg, Pa., March 5, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. My DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : The Pennsylvania Department of Health is pleased to respond to your request for a stateraent in connection with hearings on the “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968” (H.R. 14816). We believe it to be appropriate and timely to consider legislation in this field. Under the laws of Pennsylvania, industrial safety is handled by our Department of Labor and Industry, and occupational disease prevention is conducted by the Department of Health. This allocation of responsibility also exists in 36 other states. Admittedly, some of these programs—both industrial safety and occupa- tional disease prevention—are in need of support and strengthening by Federal assistance. The occupational health program in Pennsylvania has been carried out by the Department of Health for more than thirty years. While four or five highly industrial states in the country have programs of similar caliber, there is a need for emphasis on occupational health in all states. In Pennsylvania our major program functions in occupational health consist of : investigations; standard-setting; enforcement of regulations; consultation ; and technical assistance. Our health regulations include those establishing threshold limit values, short-term limits and related hazards in places of em- ployment ; ionizing radiation in work places; and regulations for control of dangerous materials. Copies of these are enclosed. Control of lead poisoning and silicosis in foundries is a classical example of occupational health problems which have been controlled in Pennsylvania. How- ever, in common with many other states, we still have occupational disease problems in the mining industry, asbestos manufacture and handling, and in chemical production. Federal financial and technical assistance on such problems is needed. The economic factors relating to occupational disease are significant. Common- wealth payments for occupational diseases which are preventable have increased from less thane$3 million in 1970 to over $55 million in fiscal 1967-68, largely because of compensation for pneumoconiosis. The amount of money spent by Pennsylvania taxpayers for occupational disease prevention is about 1.6 percent of the amount currently spent to pay compensation costs, There is a real necessity for uniform standards in some aspects of these prob- lems. For example—after we eliminated by regulation an extremely hazardous chemical, beta-Naphthylamine, which produces bladder cancer, we lost a small industry but kept our workers well-——production was then taken up in another state which has a weak occupational health program. They are now producing beta-Naphthylamine, and most certainly, cancer in their workers. The bill gives evidence of having been hastily drafted and without consultation with the states. We believe that certain principles should be embodied in any T'ederal legislation in this field: 1. If the intent is to encourage and strengthen state programs in Occupational Safety and Health—and we urge this emphasis—the immediate and direct im- position of Federal enforcement powers, as provided in the bill, would have the opposite effect. We believe that the legislation should require the states to plan and develop adequate industrial safety and occupational disease prevention pro- grams in accordance with general uniform guidelines, as has been done in air and water pollution control. If, after a reasonable time period, the states fail to meet their responsibilities, the Federal enforcement authorities would go into effect. 2. All states are now required, as a prerequisite for Federal aid under the new “Partnership for Health Act”, to develop comprehensive health plans. The Occupational Health and Safety Act should require that grants made under this bill be reviewed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for con- sistency with comprehensive health plans. 3. Safety and occupational health are separate and distinct activities in most states, in view of the different type of expertise required. We believe that, in each of these areas, the inter-related functions of research, standards-setting and en- forcement should be allocated to the respective Departments in order to utilize fully the available know-how. Thus the areas of responsibility for the Department of Labor and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should be defi- 743 nitely spelled out in the act, and the two Departments should work as equals in their respective areas of occupational disease prevention and industrial safety, rather than as consultants to each other. Obviously interdepartmental policy coordination will be necessary. 4. Research and development of improved technical and professional man- power are essential Federal responsibilities. These functions should be continued and expanded substantially, both directly and through grants. We feel that legislation, such as the “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968,” is important, and I trust that you will consider and reevaluate these points before final action is taken on this legislation. Sincerely, Taomas W. GEORGES, Jr., M.D., Secretary of Health. [Telegram ] ATLANTA, GA., March 13, 1968. Hon. ¥L.MER J. HOLLAND, Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. : This will confirm telephone conversation of March 13, 1968, with Mr. Jim Harrison. Beta-naphthylamine is presently being manufactured in one plant in Georgia. HueH L. PARKER, Director, Industrial Hygiene Service, Georgia Department of Public Health. MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON, D.C. CHEMICAL SAFETY DATA SEEET—BETANAPHTHYLAMINE (Adopted April 1949) 1. NAME Chemical Names: Betanaphthylamine; 2-Naphthylamine; 2-Amino Naphtha- lene. Common Name : Betanaphthylamine. Formulae : CiH;NH: : CioHN. 2. PROPERTIES 2.1 Grade and strength Technical ; Flaked, 99.09 betanaphthylamine (minimum). 2.2 Important physical and chemical properties (techwical grade) Color: White to faint pink. Odor : Faint, aromatic and not unpleasant. Vapor Density : 4.94 (air=—1). Specific gravity : 1.061 at 98° C. (208.4° F.). Boiling Point : 306.0° C. (583° F.). Freezing Point : 109.0° C. (228.2° F.). Explosive Limits (Vapor) : Not recorded. Light Sensitivity : Light sensitive ; darkens. Corrosiveness : Not corrosive. Reactivity : Not dangerously reactive. Hygroscopicity : Not hygroscopic. Deliguescence : Not deliguescent. Water Solubility : Sparingly soluble in cold and hot water. 2.3 Hazardous properties 2.3.1 Health hazards Betanaphthylamine is a hazardous chemical in any of its forms—solid (Hake, lump, or dust), liquid, or vapor. It may be absorbed through the lungs, the gastro-intestinal tract, and the skin. Long and continued exposure to even small amounts may produce tumors and cancers of the bladder. There is no known safe, allowable exposure. The only safe method of handling must be on the 744 basis of no exposure whatever in any form. (See 8 Health Hazards and Their Control.) 2.3.2 Fire and explosion hazards Betanaphthylamine is combustible, and at elevated temperatures gives off vapors which are flammable and explosive. The explosive limits of its vapors have not been determined. (See 6.2 Fire and Explosion Hazards.) 3. UsvuAL SHIPPING CONTAINERS The shipment of betanaphthylamine is not specifically regulated by the ICC. 3.1 Type and size 3.1.1 Betanaphthylamine is usually shipped in 35 gallon steel drums constructed of 22 gauge steel sheeting, 20 inches inside diameter and 27 inches overall length. The drums have full open heads, bolted ring seal covers, and the covers are equipped with rubber gaskets. 3.2 Label and identification 3.2.1 The ICC does not require a label or statement of any kind on containers used for the shipment of betanaphthylamine. However, the Manufacturing Chem- ists’ Association recommends that the following label be used as a minimum precaution in addition to the identifying label or stencil. 3.3 Disposal and return precautions 3.3.1 The drums used for the shipment of betanaphthylamine are non-return- able. They should never be used for any other product. The covers should be replaced immediately on the emptied containers. These should then be trans- ported to an isolated, restricted area and the residual contents of the druins burned out. At the burning ground the covers should first be removed from the drums and the containers placed on rubbish to be burned, but before it is ignited. It should be remembered that vapors of betanaphthylamine are flammable and explosive. 4. UNLOADING AND EMPTYING 4.1 Health hazards Betanaphthylamine is a hazardous chemical in any of its forms—solid (flake, lump, or dust), liquid, or vapor. It may be absorbed through the lungs, the gastro-intestinal tract, and the skin. Long and continued exposure to even small amounts may produce tumors and cancers of the bladder. There is no known safe, allowable exposure. The only safe method of handling must be on the basis of no exposure whatever in any form. (See 8 Health Hazards and Their Control.) 4.2 Fire and explosion hazards Betanaphthylamine is combustible, and at elevated temperatures gives off vapors which are flammable and explosive. The explosive limits of its vapors have not been determined. (See 6.2 Fire and Explosion Hazards.) 4.3 Drums 4.3.1 Drums of betanaphthylamine should be emptied under a well ventilated enclosure with the draft blowing away from the operator. The minimum face velocity of air into the enclosure should be 100 feet per minute. 4.3.2 The operator should wear proper protective equipment. (See 6.5 Per- sonal Protective Equipment.) 4.3.3 The lid of the drum should be removed carefully, and the contents emptied by means of a long handled scoop or shovel. When the greater part of the contents has been emptied by this method, the drum may then be inverted over the receiving vessel or opening and the remainder emptied carefully in this manner. 4.3.4 When empty, the drums should be disposed of as outlined in 3.3 Disposal and Return Precautions. t 5. STORAGE 5.1 Hazards 5.1.1 Health hazards Betanaphthylamine is a hazardous chemical in any of its forms—solid (flake, lump, or dust), liquid, or vapor. It may be absorbed through the lungs, the gastro-intestinal tract, and the skin. Long and continued exposure to even small 745 amounts may produce tumors and cancers of the bladder. There is no known safe, allowable exposure. The only safe method of handling must be on the basis of no exposure whatever in any form. (See 8. Health Hazards and Their Control.) 5.1.2 Fire and explosion hazards Betanapthylamine is combustible, and at elevdated temperatures gives off vapors which are flammable and explosive. The explosive limits of its vapors have not been determined. (See 6.2 Fire and Explosion Hazards.) 5.2 Conditions of storage 5.2.1. Containers of betanaphthylamine should be stored in a cool, dry place, and away from other combustible or flammable materials. 5.2.2. They should stored on floors that can be washed down. Cement or brick floors are recommended. 6. HANDLING 6.1 Health hazards Betanaphthylamine is an insidious chemical to handle. It is absorbed through the lungs, the gastro-intestinal tract and the skin, and thus absorbed it can cause tumors and cancers of the bladder. These tumors and cancers usually do not develope until several years after a person handling betanaphthylamine has been exposed. 6.2 Fire and explosion hazards Betanaphthylamine is combustible, and at elevated temperatures it gives off vapors that are flammable and explosive. 6.3 Spills and leakage 6.3.1. The contents of punctured or leaky containers of betanaphthylamine should be transferred to sound containers. Proper protective equipment should be worn by the operator doing this work. (See 6.5 Personal Protective Equipment.) 6.3.2. Spilled betanaphthylamine should be swept up immediately and burned in an isolated area. Small amounts of residual material should be cleaned up by washing with dilute hydrochloric acid (0.1%), and then by flushing the con- taminated area with large quantities of water. 6.4 Employee education and training 6.4.1. New employees before being placed on a job in which betanaphthylamine is handled should be instructed carefully in the hazardous nature of the material. Older employees should be reinstructed and quizzed periodically. 6.4.2. All employees should be acquainted with the location, purpose, use, and maintenance of personal protective equipment. 6.4.3. They should be familiar with the location of safety showers and fire protective equipment. 6.4.4. Operating procedures, including a set of safety rules, should be posted in areas where betanaphythylamine is handled. 6.5 Personal protective equipment 6.5.1. Availability and use Personal protective equipment is not a substitute for good, safe working conditions, adequate ventilation, and intelligent conduct on the part of employees working with betanaphthylamine. Such equipment may protect the individual wearing it while others in the area may be exposed to danger. The correct usage of personal protective equipment requires the education of the worker in the proper employment of the equipment available to him (see 6.4 Employee Edu- cation and Training). Under conditions which are sufficiently hazardous to require protective equipment, its use should be carefully supervised. In all cases the type of protective equipment selected should depend upon the degree of hazard existing. The following personal protective equipment should always be used for the purposes mentioned and as specified in 8. HEALTH HAZARDS AND THEIR CONTROL, and in other sections of this Data Sheet. 6.5.2 Hye protection 6.5.2.1 Chemical Safety Goggles. Cup type or rubber framed goggles equipped with approved impact resistant glass or plastic lenses should be worn whenever there is danger of betanaphthylamine coming in contact with the eyes. Goggles 746 should be carefully fitted by adjusting the nose piece and head band to insure maximum protection and comfort. 6.5.2.2 Spectacle Type Safety Goggles. Metal or plastic rim safety spectacles with perforated side shields which can be obtained with prescription safety lenses, or suitable all plastic goggles, may be used where continuous eye pro- tection is desirable. 6.5.3 Respiratory protection Respiratory protective equipment must be carefully maintained, inspected, cleaned, and sterilized at regular intervals, and always before use by another person. Personnel wearing such equipment must be carefully instructed in its operation and limitations. 6.5.3.1 Air or oxygen supplied masks, equipped with full face pieces, must be worn for protection where an oxygen deficiency—Iless than 16 per cent by vol- ume, or a concentration of a harmful vapor above 2 per cent by volume may be encountered, such as: (a) In emergencies when the vapor concentration is not definitely known. (b) When the harmful vapor lacks a distinguishable odor. (c¢) In tank and equipment cleaning and repair work. (d) When the exposure period is to be over 30 minutes’ duration. 6.5.3.2 Only masks approved by the United States Bureau of Mines should be used and the manufacturer’s instructions must be carefully followed. Types available include : (a) Air line masks supplied by plant compressed air (systems that supply compressed air from a central station to an entire plant) are suitable for use only where conditions will permit safe escape in case of failure of the com- pressed air supply. Such masks should be used only in conjunction with a suitable reducing or demand type valve and filter. The compressed air should be checked frequently to make certain that harmful gases from the decomposition of the lubricating oil used in the compressor or from impure air supply are not present. (b) Positive pressure hose masks supplied by externally lubricated blowers are usually preferred to the air line type. Since these masks also depend on a remote air supply, they should be used only where conditions will permit safe escape in the event of an air supply failure. Care must be taken to locate the blower or air source in an area which is free from air contaminants. (¢) Self-contained breathing apparatus which permits the wearer to carry a supply of oxygen or air compressed in a cylinder, or the self-generating type which produces oxygen chemically, allows for greater mobility. The length of time a self-contained breathing apparatus provides protection varies according to the amount of air or oxygen supply carried. In tank work where small manholes are encountered, a self-contained breathing apparatus is usually unsuitable be- case ouf its bulk. 6.5.3.3 Industrial canister type gas masks, approved by the United States Bureau of Mines, fitted with the proper canister for absorbing betanaphthylamine vapor (or gas), and equipped with the full face pieces, will afford protection against concentrations not exceeding 2 per cent by volume when used in accord- ance with the manufacturer's instructions. The oxygen content of the air must be not less than 16 per cent by volume. The masks should be used for relatively short exposure periods, i.e., for less than 30 minutes. They may not be suitable for use in an emergency since at that time the actual vapor concentration is un- known and it may be very high. The wearer must be warned to leave the con- taminated area immediately on detecting the odor of harmful vapor. This is an indication that the mask is not functioning properly or that the vapor con- centration is too high. Nore. Where carbon monoxide may be encountered in addition to betanaph- thlyamine, the masks should be equipped with an all purpose canister and a timing device as approved by the United States Bureau of Mines. 6.5.4 Head protection 6.5.4.1 Safety, or “Hard” hats should be used for protection against acci- dental liquid leaks, falling tools, or other objects. 6.5.4.2 Brimmed felt hats may be substituted for safety hats where the danger of falling objects is remote. 6.5.5 Foot protection Leather or rubber safety shoes with built in steel toe caps are recommended. Rubbers may be worn over leather safety shoes. 747 6.5.6 Body, skin, and hand protection 6.5.6.1 Aprons made of rubber or other suitable protective material should be worn to protection against accidental contact. 6.5.6.2 Gloves made of rubber or other suitable protective material should be worn to protect the hands from betanaphthylamine. 6.5.6.8 Sleeves made of rubber or other suitable protective material should be worn when the need for complete arm protection is indicated. 6.5.6.4 The rubber gloves, rubber aprons, rubber boots, respirators, and gog- gles must be thoroughly cleaned immediately after use. The suggested procedure for cleaning is as follows: Wash the devices thoroughly with cold water, scrub them thoroughly with hot alkaline soap solution, and rinse them thoroughly with hot water. The containers for the wash solutions must be thoroughly washed with warm water immediately after use and all of the wash solutions care- fully discarded to the sewers and flushed well with water. 6.5.6.5 Life harness and life line should be worn by men working in equip- or other confined spaces to facilitate rescue. 6.5.6.6 Adequate facilities for personal cleanliness isolated from manufactur- ing and handling operations should be provided, and employees should be re- quired to wash before smoking, eating, and at the end of the work day. 6.6 Engineering controls 6.6.1 Location 6.6.1.1 Vessels and equipment used for the manufacture and packaging of betanaphthylamine should be isolated from other working areas by means of standard fire walls. A separate building for the complete operation, including packaging, is best. 6.6.2 Special equipment and design 6.6.2.1 The design of equipment in which betanaphthylamine is manufactured, handled, or used is highly specialized because of the hazardous nature of the material. The technical problems of designing such equipment, providing ade- quate ventilation, and formulating operating procedures which insure maximum safety can best be handled by operating supervisors, engineers, and safety and fire protection experts, who have had experience with betanaphthylamine. 6.6.3 System types 6.6.3.1 As far as possible, totally enclosed systems should be provided where betanaphthylamine is manufactured, handled, or used. 6.6.4 Physical testing 6.6.4.1 Under exposure to ultra-violet light, betanaphthylamine emits a strong, characteristic reddish-blue fluorescence. A method based on this phenomenon can therefore be used to detect small amounts of the material. If a darkened area is illuminated with such light, the betanaphthylamine particle will fluoresce. While other materials may similarly fluoresce, such an effect requires immediate attention in areas where betanaphthylamine is processed. 6.6.5 Static electricity 6.6.5.1 There is little danger from static electricity in areas where betanaph- thylamine is handled unless through equipment failure, hot vapors of the mate- rial escape into the air. In places where such escape is possible, equipment and piping should be grounded. 6.7 Ventilation 6.7.1 Good ventilation is very important in areas where betanaphthylamine is manufactured, handled or used. 6.7.2 For storage rooms, natural draft ventilation is generally adequate. 6.7.3 Where betanaphthylamine is processed, mechanical ventilation should be provided, and the induced draft of air should pass across the operating zone. Air should be drawn from an outside, uncontaminated area by means of explo- sion-proof equipment. (See 4.3.1) 6.8 Cleaning and repair work 6.8.1 Preparation 6.8.1.1 The cleaning and repair of any equipment in which betanaphthylamine is processed should be under the supervision of trained foremen who are fully familiar with the hazards involved in handling the material, 748 6.8.1.2 It should be ascertained that all sources of ignition have been eliminated from the vicinity of the equipment being cleaned or repaired. 6.8.1.3 Hand tools made of non-ferrous metals, referred to as non-sparking tools, should be used. 6.8.1.4 The agitators, if any, in the equipment should be disconnected. The main switch should be locked in the off position; and the drive belt, if any, should be removed. 6.8.1.5 Betanaphthylamine equipment can be cleaned or made ready for repair work by (1) steaming it out and then flushing with large volumes of water, or (2) by washing it out with dilute hydrochloric acid (0.1%) and then flushing with large amounts of water. 6.8.2 Hntering equipment 6.8.2.1 No one should enter a tank or piece of equipment of any kind in which betanaphthylamine is processed until a work permit has been signed by an authorized person indicating that it has been tested and found to be free of toxic and flammable mixtures, with no oxygen deficiency existing. 6.8.2.2 Workmen entering such a tank or piece of equipment should be provided with and be required to wear proper personal protective equipment. (See 6.5 Personal Protective Equipment.) 6.9 Repackaging 6.9.1 In case betanaphthylamine has to be repackaged, proper protective equip- ment should be worn by the operator doing the work. 6.9.2 The repackaging should be done in a well ventilated area, with an induced draft blowing over the containers and away from the operators. (See 4.3.1 for air velocity.) 6.10 Small tools 6.10.1 The small shop tools, such as shovels, scrapers, and samplers, which have come into contact with betanaphthylamine must, after use, be immediately cleaned in the designated area by thoroughly scrubbing in dilute, warm HCI solution followed by thorough rinsing in dilute soda ash solution followed by thorough rinsing with water. The containers for the wash solutions must be thoroughly washed with warm water and all of the wash solutions carefully discarded to the sewers. 7. WASTE DISPOSAL 7.1 The best way to dispose of wastes containing betanaphthylamine is to burn them in an isolated area, under conditions that will assure complete destruction. 7.2 Small amounts of waste material can be dissolved in dilute hydrochloric acid (0.1%), with the resulting solution running to drains, ditches, or sewers if such disposal is not in violation of laws, ordinances or regulations. Washing with dilute acid should always be followed by flushing the contaminated area with large quantities of water. Care must be taken to keep betanaphthylamine solutions from seeping into the ground and contaminating water sources. 8. HEALTH HAZARDS AND THEIR CONTROL 8.1 Hazards 8.1.1 General discussion: Betanaphthylamine is a dangerous compound to handle. It is absorbed through the lungs, the gastro-intestinal tract and the skin. It is eliminated in the urine, and acts upon the urinary bladder, producing simple tumors and carcinomas. There are no regularly recognized acute effects, either generally or upon the skin. The tumors and cancers produced by exposure to betanaphthylamine do not appear until the worker has been exposed for several years. Removal of a worker from exposure will not cure the disease, neither will it prevent development of tumors and cancers from previous exposure if the exposure has been sufficient to damage the bladder wall. There is no available information on the amount of betanaphthylamine that can be safely absorbed into the human body or the length of time required to produce bladder damage. 8.1.2 Acute towicity 8.1.2.1 There are no regularly recognized acute effects from exposure to beta- naphthylamine. 8.1.2.2 Local. There are no local effects. Usually, it does not cause cyanosis or dermatitis. 749 8.1.3 Chronic toxicity: Continuous exposure to betanaphthylamine results in the development of bladder tumors (simple tumors and cancer). 8.2 Prevention and control 8.2.1 General discussion: Prevention and control of the health hazards asso- ciated with the handling of betanaphthylamine depend entirely upon complete elimination of inhalation, skin contact, and ingestion. 8.2.2 There is no known safe, allowable exposure. The only safe method of handling must be on the basis of no exposure whatsoever, either in the air, on the skin, or by ingestion. 8.2.3 Handling: Betanaphthylamine should be handled in entirely closed sys- tems wherever possible, Adequate ventilation must be installed at all points at which air contamination may arise. Dust and fumes collected through the ven- tilating systems should be so treated that all betanaphthylamine is destroyed before final discharge into the atmosphere. Final discharge should be taken care of in such a manner as to insure against any possible contamination to surround- ing or nearby areas. 8.2.4 Employee education: All employees should be informed of the health hazards associated with the handling of betanaphthylamine. They should have available, and be encouraged to drink, copious quantities of drinking water. 8.2.5 Pre-employment medical examinations: All applicants should have a cystoscopic examination before employment. The presence of any disease of the kidneys or bladder is cause for rejection for this type of work. 8.2.6 Medical examinations: Cystoscopic examinations should be repeated yearly on all employees working with betanaphthylamine. 8.3 Personal protective equipment Each employee should be provided with decontaminated, freshly laundered clothing at the beginning of each shift, consisting of coveralls, underwear, socks and head covering. Special footwear should be used for working hours, kept at the plant and never worn outside. There should be two locker rooms available, one for street clothing and the other for working clothes. These rooms should be separated and shower baths and toilet facilities so located that each employee can take a bath at the end of each shift. This rule should be rigidly adhered to. Mechanics working in betanaphthylamine processes should be kept to an abso- lute minimum and subjected to the same rules and regulations as operators. The number of operators should be kept to an absolute minimum and other employees of the plant excluded from the betanaphthylamine area at all times. Respiratory protection should be provided where flaked betanaphthylamine is handled, and under conditions where exposure to fumes or dust exists. All mechanics should wear such protection when making repairs except in those instances where it has been possible to completely decontaminate all equipment upon which they work. All tools and equipment used in making repairs should be com- pletely decontaminated. No beverages, food, tobacco, or chewing gum should be allowed in areas where betanaphthylamine is made, handled, or used. Workers should be required to eat lunches only in designated locations where there can be no possibility of con- tamination. Face and hands must be carefully washed before eating. 8.) First aid Bxposure to betanapthylamine does not produce conditions normally requiring First Aid. 9.5 Medical treatment Workers who develop bladder tumors will require special medical treatment by physicians who understand the proper management of this type of disease, preferably specialists. The medical information in this publication has been supplied by the Medical Advisory Committee of the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Mr. O'Hara. Several Members of the House wish to present state- ments to the subcommittee in regard to this legislation. The first state- ment is that of our very distinguished colleague from Missouri, Mrs. Sullivan, who has been in the forefront of those working for safet legislation. We are also taking testimony from the Honorable Fran 750 Thompson, Jr., a Representative from the State of New Jersey; the Honorable Edward J. Patten, a Representative from the Siate of New Jersey; and the Honorable William D. Ford, a Representative from the State of Michigan. Mrs. Sullivan. TESTIMONY OF HON. LEONOR K. SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Mrs. Svriavan. I want to congratulate the members of the sub- committee for holding such extensive and informative hearings on this legislation. The House will certainly be indebted to you for pro- viding such a full record when the bill comes before us, as I trust it will in the near future. My purpose today is to try to sketch in some of the background and the origin of the legislation, because I think it grew out of correspondence I have had with the Department of Labor going back at least 10 years, culminating in the introduction in 1965 of what I believe was the first bill introduced on the subject of industrial hazards. As the members know, I now have a bill before the sub- committee, TL.R. 1323, which provides for Federal regulation by the Secretary of Labor of hazardous materials used in industrial processes, and it is my understanding that the administration bill you are now considering developed out of the request IT had made to the Secretary of Labor for serious consideration of the need for the kind of legisla- tion I had introduced. As in the case with almost any new legislative proposal, the original idea came in the form of correspondence from individual citizens who had encountered a situation which required correction and the question was how to go about providing the necessary refords. As I said, it was about 10 years or more ago when I received information on a number of deaths to workmen in the St. Louis area as a result of using carbon tetrachloride in an industrial plant. This was before we had enacted the Hazardous Sustance Labeling Act of 1960, and there was very little Federal regulation of the many new chemicals coming on’ the market in both industrial and household use. When I heard about these episodes involving carbon tetrachloride, I investigated and found that the Bureau of Labor Standards of the Department of Labor ex- ercised some surveillance over these solvents and chemicals but only for the purpose of providing information and recommendations to the States for their own regulatory purposes. The Bureau of Labor Stand- ards issued suggested labels and warnings but there was no Federal statute empowering the Secretary to prohibit the use in industry of unsafe materials or to require that certain standards be met in the use of such material. I immediately entered into correspondence with the then Secretary of Labor, Secretary Mitchell, in the Eisenhower administration, and asked for assistance in drafting legislation which the Congress could consider which would give to the Federal Government the power to issue regulations to assure safety on the job in the use of these hazard- ous materials. The exchange of correspondence was not very fruitful ; the Department of Labor in those days held to the position that regula- tion of this kind should remain entirely up to the States, and so it would not even provide technical drafting assistance to me in prepar- 751 ing a bill. Under the circumstances, it was obvious that if the agency which would administer a proposed law had no sympathy whatsoever for such a law and did not think it was necessary, and would not even help draft language for it, Congress would certainly not be very enthu- siastic about considering it. Nevertheless, I worried about this problem, and particularly after we took up and passed the Hazardous Substances Labeling Act of 1960 which provided some Federal protection in the use of hazardous sub- stances in the family household. That legislation did not apply to ma- terials used in industry, however. Subsequently, a very serious case came to my attention involving an industrial plant in St. Louis whose workers were all experiencing a mysterious skin ailment, the cause of which no one could pinpoint. Plant officials had maintained that there was no change whatsoever in the procedures used in the plant and the whole thing was a great mystery. Thereupon, at the request of the workers in the plant, and with the approval of the Missouri Health Department, I asked the U.S. Public Health Service to make a thorough investigation into plant operations to try to find out what was causing the illnesses to the employees— and some of the illnesses were quite serious, involving, as I recall, liver damage as well as skin problems. A comprehensive investigation by specialists of the Public Health Service uncovered the fact that one of the manufacturers supplying a chemical to the plant had changed one of the ingredients in that chemi- cal without notifying its industrial customers that it had done so. What appeared to the manufacturer to be a very minor change in a chemical formula, however, had very serious consequences in this particular plant among the employees. By this time, we had new leadership in the Department of Labor, and so I then took up with Secretary Wirtz the need for Federal legis- lation to get at this problem and to protect the workers in the use of hazardous industrial materials. Without taking any position whatso- ever on the legislation itself, the Department did provide me with drafting assistance at my request in the preparation of the bill which I introduced in the 89th Congress and which I reintroduced in this Congress as H.R. 1323. It was not an administration measure, how- ever. I then began the task of trying to interest labor and management in this kind of legislative approach and also the Department of Labor and other agencies of the Government which would have responsibility for the protection of workers in industrial plants. This effort, I am happy to say, finally culminated this year in the decision of the De- partment of Labor to seek legislation of its own to protect industrial workers from hazards on the job. The administration bill not before you, H.R. 14816, goes far beyond the proposals contained in my bill, and applies to all aspects of industrial hazards and not just to those involving the use of toxic, corrosive, irritating, flammable, explosive or radioactive materials. Consequently, I am certainly not going to urge that you consider my bill in preference to the administration bill; my bill was a pioneering effort to try to spotlight the need for legislation in one definite area of industrial activity with which I had become familiar and which we had already covered as far as household products are concerned. But: 752 I can see the value of including in the coverage of this legislation not only hazardous materials such as solvents and other chemicals, but also the machinery and eanipment used on the job and the methods of operating such equipment. The background of this legislation reminds me of an experience which I had in connection with what is now our very broad and com- prehensive automobile safety act. T had gone to former Congressman Kenneth Roberts of Alabama, who was then the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Safety of the House Committee on In- terstate and Foreign Commerce, and who had performed a mavelous job in pioneering safety equipment on automobiles purchased by the ederal Government, and discussed with him the high number of accidents on the highways which could be attributed to unsafe and defective “cheapie” tires. He then drafted, and we jointly introduced the first bill to require Federa! standards for the safety of all auto- mobile tires, and this was the forerunner of legislation which eventu- ally was recommended to the House dealing with the safety of all of the components of an automobile. By the time that legislation came to the hearings stage, the Roberts-Sullivan tire safety bill, which had been a pioneering proposal, and was considered at the time of intro- duction as being somewhat revolutionary, was actually far less than the administration and later the entire Congress were willing to sup- port. So TI feel that way about this legislation too. My bill, H.R. 1323, on hazardous industrial materials appears somewhat innocuous com- pared to the administration proposal now before you. All T am intent on doing is helping to pass the strongest and most comprehensive bill we can pass, but as a very minimum-—as a mini- mum—we should certainly clear up this no man’s land of hazardous chemicals which we now regulate for use in household products but which we do not regulate for use in industrial procedures. I want to close this loophole so that the man who is working with these chemicals has at least as much protection in his use of these materials as he or his wife has at home in using the same chemicals. When the fore- man hands a worker a container of some chemical and says go and do this or that with it, and there are no requirements for safe handling of that material on the job and the label which accompanied the orig- inal container is not around for the workman to read or the foreman to read when the material is actually put to use on the job, the foreman inadvertently and innocently may be sending that man out to his death or making him subject to the jeopardy of serious illness. This has happened many times, as your hearings so far have clearly shown. So whatever you do on this legislation, I would think the protection of the worker in the use of hazardous materials has to be the beginning point and whatever you recommend that goes beyond that minimum requirement will certainly be an added plus which I would certainly encourage you to support. The need is urgent with so many millions of our people employed in jobs in which the danger of illness or accident is very great, and with the remarkable improvements in technology which bring their own hazards with them, we have an obligation to the public, to the family, and to the individual worker as well as to his employer— and it’s important that the employer have this protection, too—to bring on the job as much technical information as possible on how to 753 employ workers safely. We certainly have the know-how to accomplish that purpose; it is only a question of writing the right kind of laws which will put that know-how to work in the factory. Responsible industry in the United States has spent millions of dol- lars over the years in safety education and in protection of the em- ployees from danger. Yet industrial accidents continue at an alarm- ing rate and cause untold suffering, loss of earnings, and worst of all, loss of life. The insurance costs to industry are high. The Federal Government has extensive expenses as an end result of industrial accidents, through the costs of operating the Vocational Rehabilita- tion Program, and the Social Security Disability Program. These are good programs, but I would like to see their cost reduced, at least somewhat, by preventing many of these crippling or disabling acci- dents from occurring. This can only be done through the kind of legis- lation you are now considering, and I pledge you my support for whatever effective bill emerges from this subcommittee and from the full committee in safeguarding the American worker on the job. Thank you. Mr. O'Hara. We will now hear the statement of our colleague, the Honorable Frank Thompson, Jr., of the State of New Jersey. Mr. Taomreson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK THOMPSON, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Taompson. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to you and the members of the subcommittee for permitting me to express my support for the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. I joined with our distinguished colleague, Mr. O’Hara of Michigan, to cosponsor this bill in the belief that working conditions in certain industries are such that additional action to safeguard the health of American workers is necessary. Testimony elicited before the subcom- mittee has borne out this belief. No one who has read the statement submitted by Dr. Irving J. Selikoff could fail to be moved by the grim statistics tolling the lives of those who have worked in the thermal installation industry. The rising incidence of cancer among those workers is a matter of serious concern. It is a matter of common knowledge that the rapid industrial growth which we have witnessed in the United States in this century has introduced substances and processes hitherto unknown to natural science. As a result, we are just beginning to discover aftereffects detri- mental to the health of workers who had no reason to believe that their lives were endangered. As Dr. Selikoff’s research demonstrates, there is much we need to know before we can even begin the task of creating safeguards which may be required. The approach of this legislation is twofold. It seeks to stimulate research into occupational safety and health problems while at the same time it authorizes the Secre- tary of Labor to enforce standards to mitigate those dangers to health and safety that are known to exist. : Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to emphasize that there is no intent in this legislation, certainly not on the part of this cosponsor, to penalize or unduly burden any segment of our industrial commu- nity. Obviously, the economic well-being of the United States requires 754 a sound and healthy industrial growth. But this economic truism should not permit us to ignore that fact that industrialization does present occupational hazards which are dangerous to our working force and to the public at large. The Federal Government has a re- sponsibility to its citizens to alert them to such dangers and to take those steps necessary to safeguard the public health and welfare. I am not prepared to say that the legislation before the subcommittee is necessarily the only way in which that responsibility can be carried out, but I do think it charts a path that we must follow. I urge favor- able consideration of H.R. 14816. Mr. O'Hara. At this time I have the honor of presenting to this subcommitte a Member of Congress who needs no introduction. I present the Hon. Edward J. Patten of New Jersey. Mr. Parren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PATTEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Parrex. Mr. Chairman and members of his subcommittee, at the end of today—and every other workday throughout the year— over 27,000 American workers will be injured in factories, 8,500 will be disabled, and 55 will be killed. And although most industrial plants have broadened their safety programs, there has been a disturbing rise of 22 percent during the past 8 years in disabling injuries per million man-hours worked, because of increased productivity. Judging from present indications, this disturbing trend will con- tinue—unless strong and courageous action is taken now. I hope that the House of Representatives, recognizing this serious problem, will take affirmative action this year. To help correct this appalling record of industrial injury, disabil- ity and death, I have joined several colleagues in helping to co-sponsor the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968, which would “* * * prescribe and enforce health and safety standards * * *” involving persons employed by firms engaged in interstate commerce. About 50 million workers would be covered by the bill, which would establish mandatory occupational and health standards; provide for their effective enforcement; furnish training and conduct research in the health and safety fields; and help States develop plans that would improve industrial health and safety. There is definite evidence that many safety programs operated by states are weak and ineffective. I firmly believe that standards should be strengthened and federal financial aid—ranging to 90 percent— provided to help assure safe working conditions everywhere in this nation. Mr. Chairman, this legislation would not only help prevent human tragedy due to industrial accidents, but would also contribute to labor- management harmony, because disputes often include the charge of inadequate safety. I urge that this measure be reported. Mr. O’Hara. Our next witness is our colleague on this subcommittee, the Honorable William D. Ford from the State of Michigan. Mr. Forp. Thank You Mr. O'Hara. 755 STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. FORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. Cuamrman. My original support for the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 has been strengthened and reaffirmed during the course of these hearings, as I have listened to testimony from persons who are more familiar with the urgent need for this legislation. Organized labor has been in the forefront of long and insistent demands that Congress give recognition to the long-ignored problem of worker safety and health. As the AFL-CIO executive council pointed out in a statement last month, America’s workers comprise 40 percent of the population and pay 60 percent of the taxes, but 80 percent of them are employed where there is little conventional safety and no occupational health protec- tion. A grim reminder of this neglect is presented in the annual death and injury toll from employee accidents. Each year 14,500 workers are killed at their jobs; another 2,200,000 are injured. This results in the annual loss of 250,000,000 man-days of work, $1,500,000,000 in wages, and over $5,000,000,000 in production. The Honorable Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, has outlined for this committee the deplorable history of Federal action in the area of worker safety. For a period of 55 years—since the passage of the law in 1913 to curtail injuries in the phosphorus match industry—Congress has sel- dom even considered the problem of occupational health and safety. This half century of neglect created a void that was only partially filled by a series of state Ye which went only a short way toward solving the problem. The law that we are now considering takes full advantage of state Power and combines it with the force and prestige of the Federal overnment. This resulting cooperation creates a strength that neither the Federal Government or State governments could achieve on their own. States which have adopted successful programs have given proof that our goal can be achieved. In some of these States, the death rate from on-job accidents is 19 per 100,000 workers. This compares with a death rate of 110 per 100,000 in States with smaller and less effective programs. I realize that absolute safety is a utopian and probably an impossible goal. There are jobs that carry an inherent amount of danger. But this nation cannot permit the continuance of job hazards that are within our power to curb or eliminate. That is what this legislation will do. ‘And that is why I so strongly feel that it must be passed by this Congress. Mr. O'Hara. Any further statements received by the committee be- tween now and the time the hearings go to the printer will likewise be inserted. With the hearing today, the Select Subcommittee on Labor has concluded its hearings on the bill, H.R. 14816, and we will now ad- journ, subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the select subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) 92-734 0—68——49 “3 E bi i Te § Sea Bo Bor ian os AERA ©: UR CE = dha raw APPENDIX Appendix [Material submitted by National Safety Council] 1867 EDITION wT 758 Tha MMatiamal [Manlth Snrvoy a AULIERW LR wolibbbn wii More than 50,000,000 people are injured to some extent each year, according _ to the National Health Survey conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service. Nearly half of the injuries require only medical attention, with no restriction of the person’s usual activities. One injury in five confines the victim to bed. Complete injury totals, estimated from the survey, are shown in the table below. Estimated Number of Bed Disabling and Less Serious Injuries in the U.S.—Annual Average, July 1963-June 1966 Not Bed Disabling Bed . Without Total Class of Accident Disabling With Activity Persons Injuries Activity Restriction Injured Restriction (Medically Attended) All Classes* 10,921,000 16,189,000 23,742,000 50,851,000 Motor-Vehicle (moving) 1,554,000 885,000 1,273,000 3,712,000 Work 1,939,000 2,919,000 4,595,000 9,453,000 Home 3,474,000 6,623,000 10,946,000 21,044,000 Other and Not Classifiedt 4,277,000 6,139,000 7,243,000 17,659,000 *The estimated totals by class of mccident do not add to the total for All Classes because work accidents involving moving motor vehicles have been included in both Motor-Vehicle accidents and in Work accidents. 4¥Included in this category are Nonmoving Motor-Vehicle accidents such as those which happen while repairing, cleaning, and performing similar work om motor vehicles; the average yearly injury totals in such accidents were: bed disabling——411,000, with activity restriction=—822,000, without activity restriction—— 1,004,000; total—2,237,000. Couspaniaon, of NSC aed Notional Reali Survey figures Numerical differences between the National Health Survey totals above and the National Safety Council totals on the opposite page appear to be due mainly to differences in the injury definition used, as follows: NHS definition of injury. A bed disabling injury is one which confines a person to bed for more than half of the daylight hours (on the day of the accident or on some following day). A restricted activity injury is one which causes a person to cut down on his usual activities for a whole day (these do not require complete inactivity). NSC definition of injury. A disabling injury is defined in the USA Standard Z16.1 as an injury which prevents a person from performing any of his usual activities for a full day beyond the day of the accident. The USA Standard applies to work injuries, but the Cowell has adapted this definition to in- juries in other categories. Differences in the definitions used by NHS and NSC will, of course, produce different injury totals. However, the similarity in the definition of the NHS bed disabling injury and in the NSC disabling injury, and similarities in the totals for these categories, supports the belief that both the NHS and NSC figures reflect with reasonable accuracy the injuries meeting their respective definitions. 759 10,800,000 disabling” injuries in 1966 : ° . ; Vv Le Change Disabling f / 4 2 Deaths from 1965 Injuries* EN 113,000 +5% 10,800,000 The death total in 1966 was up about 5,000 over 1965. Motor-vehicle, home and work deaths increased, while public deaths were unchanged. The death rate per 100,000 persons rose to 57.7 from 55.7 in 1965. Principal classes of accidents: Change Disabling Deaths from 1965 Injuries® Motor-vehicle 53,000 + 8% 1,900,000 Public non-work 49,500 1,800,000 Work 3,200 100,000 Home 300 20,000 =o ENE Work 14500 +3% 2,200,000 Non-motor-vehicle 11,300 2,100,000 Motor-vehicle 3,200 100,000 = =i Home 29,500 + 4% 4,400,000 Non-motor-vehicle 29,200 4,400,000 Motor-vehicle 300 20,000 Jp————ry ¥ Public’ 19,500 0% 2,400,000 NOTE: Deaths and injuries shown for the four separate classifications total more than national figures shown at the top of the page because some deaths and injuries are included in more than one classification, For example, 3,200 work deaths involved motor vehicles and are in both the work and motor-vehicle classifications; and 300 motor-vehicle deaths occurred on home premises and are in both the home and motor-vehicle classifications. The total of such duplication amounted to about 3,600 deaths and 100,000 injuries in 1966. *Disabling beyond the day of accident. Injuries are not reported on a national basis, so the totals shown are Shproximations based on ratios of disabling injuries to deaths developed from special studies. The totals are the best estimates for the current year; however, they should not be compared with totals shown in previous editions of ACCIDENT FACTS to indicate either year-to-year changes or trends. Exceptions are the work injury estimates, for which broad representative reporting and long established standardization of “disabling injury" give reliability to the increase from 1965 to 1966. tExcludes motor-vehicle and work accidents in public places. Includes recreation (swim- ming, hunting, etc.), transportation except motor vehicle, public building accidents, etc. 760 amp: Costs of aceideals in 100 The accidents in which the deaths and injuries occurred, together with noninjury motor-vehicle accidents and fires, cost the nation in 1966, at least $20,000,000,000 These costs include: Wage losses due to temporary inability to work, lower wages after returning to work due to perma- nent impairment, present value of future earnings lost by those totally incapacitated or killed____ $5,900,000,000 f } I Medical fees, hospital expenses $2,000,000,000 Insurance administrative and claim settlement ry costs (claims are not identified separately but iw. losses for which claim payments are made are in- ‘ cluded in other items in this table—see note below) $4,300,000,000 = Property damage in motor-vehicle accidents. $3,300,000,000 | Property destroyed by fire $1,496,000,000 «= Property destroyed and production lost due to “%-i work injury accidents $3,000,000,000 Notes on certain accident costs There are alternative ways of identifying certain costs of accidents, The items in the table above represent one of the ways. Care has been used to be sure that all measurable costs have been included, and that none have been included twice. See comments below under insurance costs. Wage losses. Loss of productivity by injured or killed workers is a loss to the nation. Since, theoretically, a worker's contribution to the wealth of the nation is measured in terms of wages, then the sum total of wages lost due to accidents provides a measure of this lost productivity. For nonfatal injuries, actual wage losses are used; for fatalities and permanently disabling injuries, the figure used is the present value of all future earnings lost. Insurance administrative and claim settlement costs. This is the difference between premiums paid to insurance companies and claims paid by them; it is their cost of doing business and is a ig of the accident cost total. Claims paid by insurance companies are not identified ssperatety n the total. Since every claim is paid to a claimant for such losses as wages, medical and hospital expense, cost of repairing damaged property, etc., losses for which claims are paid are already included in various items In the table above. . 761 Accidental Injuries by Severity of Injury, 1966 Public Severity of Injury TOTAL* Motor- Work Home Non-Motor- Vehicle Vehicle All Injuries® .......ccovvvnnenn 10,900,000 1,950,000 2,200,000 4,450,000 2,400,000 Deaths ......... 113,000 53,000 14,500 29,600 19,500 Nonfatal injuries . 10,800,000 1,900,000 2,200,000 4,400,000 2,400,000 Permanent impa nN 400,000 160,000 90,000 120,000 60,000 i tst , , Temporary total disabilities 10,400,000 1,750,000 2,100,000 4,300,000 2,350,000 Source: National Safety Council Spproximations (rounded) based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, state industrial commissions, state traffic authorities, state departments of health, insurance companies, industrial establish- ments and other sources. *Duplications between motor-vehicle, work and home are eliminated in the TOTAL column, The All-Injury and Nonfatal Injury figures are the rounded sums of the detailed items. {The term ‘permanent impairments’ includes both permanent partial and permanent total disability. The above estimates thus include impairments ranging from the permanent stiffening of a joint or a finger amputation, to permanent, complete crippling. 1966 Accident Costs Costs of accidents in 1966 were: Accidental injuries (see table below).....................$12,200,000,000 Property damage in motor-vehicle accidents (NSC est.)..... 3,300,000,000 Fire losses (American Insurance Association est.)......... 1,496,000,000 Other costs of work injury accidents (see page 24)......... 3,000,000,000 National Safety Council approximation of losses, such as property damage, interference with production, and time lost by workers other than the injured, resulting from work injury accidents. TOTAL (rounded) ........covvvveeunennennennenns...$20,000,000,000 Motor-vehicle accidents .............cccivennnneeeenens...$10,000,000,000 This total includes the $6,700,000,000 estimated cost of injuries and insurance administrative costs shown in the table below, and the above estimate of $3,300,000,000 property damage. Not included are costs of certain public agency activities such as police, fire and courts; damages awarded in excess of direct cost; indirect costs to employers, etc. Work accidents ..........ooveveeeeeennnnneeennennnessss.$ 6,800,000,000 / This total includes the $3,000,000,000 estimated cost of injuries and insurance administrative costs shown in the table below, an esti- mate of $3,000,000,000 other costs arising out of these accidents, and $800,000,000 direct losses in business fires. Not included is the value of Deoperty damage in noninjury accidents other than fires, and the indirect losses of all fires. Certain Costs of Accidental Injuries, 1966 Public Cost TOTAL* Motor- Work Home Non-Motor- Vehicle Vehicle Total® ..vevveenss vo... $12,200,000,000 $6,700,000,000 $3,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,200,000,000 Ree 1058 «.ouves ve 5.900,000,000 2,600,000,000 1,500,000,000 1,000,000,000 950,000,000 Medical expense . 000 000,000 2,000,000,000 £90.04 400 700,000,000 ,000, 250,000, Insurance admin, costs... 4,300,000,000 3,500,000, 800,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 Source: See source footnote of table above. Wage loss includes loss of wages (or the value of services) due to temporary inability to work, lower wages when returned to work due to ermanent partial disabi ity and the present value of anticipated future earnings for permanent otal disability or death. Medical expense includes doctors’ and hospitals’ fees. Insurance admin. costs includes all administrative, selling and claim settlement expenses for insurance companies and self-insurers. For additional comment, see page 4. *See corresponding footnote of table above. - 762 Principal Classes of Accidental Deaths by States, 1966 Palle Unclassi- . Motor- - - Sint TOTALS Vehiclors Worktt Home Fon-Molor fieds Deaths [Ratet| Deaths | Ratet| Deaths | Ratet | Deaths |Ratet | Deaths|Ratet | Deaths| Rntet Total U. S...... 113,000 57.7 53,000 27.1 14,600 7.4 29,500 15.1 19,5600 10.0 ... ." Alabama .......... 2,397 68.2 1,193 33.9 132 3.8 697 19.8 346 9.8 29 0.8 Alaska . 371 136.4 73 26.8 41 156.1 76 27.9 176 64.7 27 9.9 Arizona 1,185 73.2 654 40.4 105 6.5 214 13.2 188 11.6 66 4.1 Arkansas .. 1,353 69.2 682 34. on sms see awe sar ser ee _— California . wwe aw vin. we cn wigs vow ww swe’ sow pegs “vs Colorado .... 1,274 64.4 633 32.0 135 6.8 223 11.3 241 12.2 101 5.1 Connecticut 1,037 36.1 422 14.7 47 1.6 294 10.2 220 7.7 54 1.9 Delaware ... 285 55.7 148 28.9 20 39 10.6 46 9.0 11 3.3 District of Columbia 480 59.4 120 14.9 17 -31 164 20.3 98 12.1 87 10.8 Florida ...... ces... 3,912 65.8 1,841 31.0 316 6.3 837 141 1,028 17.3 23 0.4 Georgia . 1,403 31.6 233 5.2 608 13.6 367 82 1356 3.0 Hawaii 131 18.2 36 6.0 41 6.7 87 12.1 10 1.4 Idaho 270 38.9 73 10.6 134 19.3 117 16.9 4 06 Illinois 2,384 22.2 33% 3.1 1,374 12.8 1,083 10.1 24 02 Indiana 1.583 32.2 234 4.38 711 14.5 406 8.2 43 0.9 Iowa ...... . 932 33.9 250 9.1 331 12.0 291 10.6 80 2.9 Kansas .... . 1,432 63.6 753 33.5 162 17.2 285 12.7 227 10.1 63 2.8 Kentucky 2,176 68.3 1,082 34.0 172 5.4 526 16.5 314 9.9 81 25 Louisiana . . 2,704 75.0 1,269 35.2 240 6.7 592 16.4 409 11.4 194 5.4 Maine ....c..i ieee 475 48.3 224 22.8 2 25 138 14.0 88 9.0 0 ww Maryland ..oopeees 1,695 46.9 740 20.5 94 26 442 12.2 438 12.1 11 0.3 Massachusetts gu. Ay aa wa wikis wie suiel | ei mE cen ax Michigan . 2,265 27.0 273 3.3 800 10.7 738 8.8 b16 6.2 Minnesota .. 1,007 28.2 145 4.1 538 15.0 445 12.4 20 0.6 Mississippi . 882 37.9 117 5.0 466 20.0 278 11.9 119 5.1 Missouri .. 1,428 31.7 203 4.5 783 17.4 750 16.6 3 0.1 Montana .. 279 39.7 81 11.5 75 10.7 119 17.0 51 73 Nebraska . 446 30.6 119 8.2 187 12.8 276 18.0 18 12 Nevada ........ . 224 49.3 43 9.5 70 15.4 105 23.1 13 29 New Hampshire... 147 21.6 13 19 90 13.2 51 7.5 0 wie New Jersey . 1,135 16.5 194 2.8 893 12.9 553 8.0 170 2.5 New Mexico 452 44.2 70 6.8 198 19.4 147 14.4 6 0.6 New York..... 2,902 15.9 406 2.2 2,183 12.0 2,017 11.0 94 0.5 North Carolina 1,785 35.7 281 5.6 626 12. 582 11.6 151 3.0 North Dakota .. 220 33.8 63 9.7 102 15.7 72 11.1 5 0.8 Ohio ...... , 2,635 24.6 228 22 1,182 11.5 919 89 340 3.3 Oklahoma , 774 31.5 152 6.2 384 15.6 339 13.8 67 2.7 Oregon .......ee.ee A 706 36.1 170 8.7 219 11.2 247 12.6 35 1.8 Pennsylvania 5,274 ¥ 2,261 19.6 303 2.6 1,403 12.1 706 6.1 625 5.4 Rhode Island 363 ! 116 12.9 14 1.6 126 14.0 112 125 1 01 South Carolina .... 1,912 73.9 976 37.7 8 3.2 334 12.9 261 9.7 268 104 South Dakota ..... 533 178.2 280 41.1 72 10.6 107 15.7 97 14.2 8 1.2 Tennessee ......... 2,666 68.7 1,376 35.4 206 5.3 606 15.6 338 8.7 194 5.0 Texas .ucirvsiwrin 6,310 58.7 3,270 30.4 701 6.6 1,430 13.3 711 6.6 492 4.6 Utah vovevssevsonss 658 65.3 362 34.9 82 8.1 117 11.6 118 11.7 15 1.5 Vermont % 296 173.1 119 29.4 30 7.4 87 21.6 61 15.1 3 0.7 Virginia . 2,484 55.1 1,116 24.8 214 4.7 563 12.5 469 104 175 39 Washington . 1,833 6156 860 28.9 195 6.5 3562 11.8 450 15.1 43 1.4 West Virginia . 1,266 170.6 518 28.9 180 10.0 230 12.8 184 10.3 19 109 Wisconsin ....... . 3, 66.4 1,145 27.5 227 5.5 441 10.6 606 14.6 9 0.2 Wyoming ......... 78.7 149 45.3 28 86 31 94 66 16.7 7 21 Puerto Rico ..... ve 948 35.5 411 15.4 63 2.4 139 5.2 298 11.2 37 14 Virgin Islands .... 13 26.3 8.1 1 20 5 10.1 3 6.1 0 ee Source: Provisional reports of vital statistics registrars; deaths are by place of occurrence. U. S. totals are National afety Council estimates. *The .all-class total may not equal the sum of the separate class totals because motor-vehicle and other transportation deaths occurring to persons in the course of their employment are included in the work death totals as well as the motor-vehicle and public non-motor-vehicle totals, res given above and those on pages 44 and 64 are due in niost **Differences between the fi cases to the inclusion of nont fic deaths in this table. tDeaths per 100,000 population. ttWork death totals may be too low where incomplete information on death certificates re- sults in the deaths being included in Public or Unclassified. The Work totals include some cases not compensable. For compensable cases only, see page 34. §Includes late effects (deaths occurring more than one year after the accident.) 763 Accidental Deaths by States. 1966 and Rate Changes from 1963 | Deaths Death Rates Deaths Death Rates State Change State Change 1966 1965 |1966* | from 1966 1965 |1966* | from | 1965 1965 Total U.S, ..113,000 108,004 57.7 + 4% Missouri 3,167 3,045 70.3 + 3% hE BoE nl Alabama ..... 2,397 2447 68.2 — 1% ebraska ’ d 0 Alaska... 371 “303 136.4 +219 Nevada ..:.... s21 doa 941 + 5% Arizona oo 118 1.093 13.2 5% N. Hampshire, 301 326 44.2 — 4% Arkansas ..... 416 , fo i 4 New Jersey .. 2,873 2,703 41.6 + 4% California .... ... 10,111 54.9% “ee New Mexico ve 8 ; 920 533 z 8% ew vats i f . Smit: I VE BEB | Nomi oH GR ee TH onnecticut .. 1, } \ lo A sie , biviss mE BI pig pied i st. of Col.. . fo ONO. vuysmmmns 5,204 5,093 50.5 2% Florida ....... 912 3,632 65.8 + 6% Oklahoma .... 1.659 1491 67.5 129 SR nnsylvania., y 5 . — Sores 278 9 + Rhode Island. 363 3712 404 + 2% Thine 0503 353 Tab § Corolina ... 1913 1717 739 +o a . Dakota .... Indiana 2,994 59.3 To Tennessee nt 2.608 2.447 687 10% CXBS +iivueen . ‘0 Iowa oiianees 1,765 64.6 3% ! ’ — Kinsas 1a 8 i 8% Utah ......... 658 694 65.3 8% entucky .... 2, , ; 0 * Louisiana .... 2.704 2.560 75.0 8% VOTRE ee 38 00 BL tI Maine ...cui0n 475 528 483 — 1% Washington 1,833 1.834 61.5 3% W. Virginia .. 1,266 1, 70.6 10% Maryland .... 1,695 1,691 46.9 + 4% Wisconsin . ,345 2,261 656.4 5% Massachusetts. ... 2,659 49.6% Lia Wyoming 259 47 78.7 —22% Michigan ..... 4,693 4,370 654.8 5% Minnesota .... 2,135 1,980 659.7 11% Puerto Rico .. 948 1,019 356 — 5% Mississippi ... 1,861 1,613 80.0 15% Virgin Islands 13 49 26.3 —61% te Source: 1966—Registrars of vital statistics; 1966—National Center for Health Statistics. *Rates are deaths per 100,000 population. 11966 NCHS. " - wn " » Rao nmr" Maat potas her aTaea 1055 WILL Wal nn dW abd uo blip LY] : ew (PA $d mes DEATHS PER 100,000 POPULATION ws. 49.61 v1 404 am. 36. xs 41.6 w 55,7 w. 469 " REGIONAL RATES e NEW ENGLAND .8 away *T405 MIDPLE ATLANTK it EAST NORTH CENTRAL § 2. CI BELOW 52.0—12 STATES WEST NORTH CENTRAL 66.1 [152.0 T0 649— 13 STATES ECT 65.0 TO 71.9 13 STATES I 72.0 & OVER — 11 STATES @ Source: Rates estimated by NSC based on data from State Health Departments and U. S. Consus Bureaw., Seo page 44 for map showing motor-vehicle death rates. 11965 NCHS. 764 adi alid ane ina Lu iad [CELLS ok (See also page 2 for National Health Survey totals) \ { Mh Between 1912 and 1966, accidental work deaths per 100,000 population were reduced " 67 per cent, from 21 to 7. In 1912, an estimated 18,000 to 21,000 workers’ lives were ro lost while producing 100 billion dollars worth of gross national product. In 1966, in a J wll 3 work force double in size and producing more than seven times as much, there were only hedind 14,500 work deaths. .e lusy Weiheis Deaths Death Rates Di : ablin & Group 1900) 1966 | (Shane. | 1966 1956 | % Change 1966 ALL INDUSTRIES 72,600 14,500 +400 20 23 —13% 2,200,000 Trade 15,800 1,300 +100 8 11 —=27% 420,000 Manufacturing 18,800 1,900 +100 10 12 —17% 470,000 Service, government 25,100 3,200 +4200 13 15 —13% 580,000 Transportation and public utilities 4,250 1,700 0 40 33 +219 200,000 Agriculture 4,200 2,900 —100 69 55 +25% 250,000 Construction 3,800 2,800 +100 74 71 + 4% 240,000 Mining, quarrying 650 700 0 108 100 + 8% 40,000 *Disabling beyond the day of the accident. Totals include deaths. **Deaths per 100,000 workers in each group. - Accidental work deaths in 1966 totalled 14,500, an increase™f 400 over the 1965 total. Disabling injuries totalled about 2,200,000, an increase of 100,000 over the 1965 count. Contributing to the increase was an increase in exposure; employment rose over four per cent, more than offsetting a slight decrease in average hours worked per week. . \ [Al » » L P- Rr Amd] anta prTn oa whalaid Wak vould Jue Liv. 253 80 MILLIONS OF WORKERS Ls WORKERS } EL 4 DEATHS 40 18,000 60 35 16,000 80 DEATHS 30 14,000 40 25 12,000 30 See data in table on page 29 ¥DEATHS PER DEATH RATES * 20 765 Tire lost becuse of work injuries MAN-DAYS TOTAL TIME LOST IN 1966. 255, 000,000 (From accidents which occurred in 1966) By Injured Workers 45,000,000 By Other Workers 210,000,000 Time Loss in Future Years from 1966 Accidents__________ 140,000,000 Time lost by injured workers includes primarily the actual time lost during the year from disabling injuries, except that it does not include time lost on the day of the injury or time | required for further medical treatment or check-up following i .. _ _. theinjured person’s return to work. Fatalities are included at an average loss of 150 days per case, and permanent impairments are included at actual days lost plus a small allowance for lost efficiency resulting from the impairment. Time lost by workers other than those injured arises when these persons stop to help the injured or to discuss the accidents. Also included is the time required to replace damaged products or equipment. ny - Jorl accident costs (For additional cost information, sce pages 4, 5, 30, 34) Compensation paid to all workers in the nation who are under workmen’s compensation laws was approximately $1,800,000,000 in 1965 (latest figures reported by the Social Security Board). Of this amount, $600,000,000 was for medical and hospital costs and $1,200,000,000 was for wage compensation. TOTAL COSTIN 1966 $6.,800,000,000%* Visible Costs 3,000,000,000 Other Costs 3,000,000,000 Fire Losses 800,000,000 Cost Per Worker toIndustry____~ ~~~ 90 *Not included is the value of property damage in noninjury accidents other than fires, and the indirect losses of all fires. We The total cost of work accidents in 1966 is estimated about | =<. | 6 per cent higher than in 1965. -~ ; Nd Visible costs include wage losses of $1,500,000, ,000) insurance | ; | administrative costs amounting to about $800,000,000 and medi- cal costs of $700,000,000. Other costs shown above include the money value of damaged equipment and materials, production delays, and time losses of other workers not involved in injury accidents. Similar costs in noninjury accidents are not included in the estimate. boo 766 El} doris and injuries of workers (See also page 33) Piuce Deaths Yoluries 1966 Rates* 1966 | 1965 1966 Deaths | Injuries ALL ACCIDENTS ...... 54,000 50,600 5,100,000 .13 12.0 AMWork ..osvivnnis 14,500 14,100 2,200,000 .10 15.2% Away from Work. ... 39,500, 36,500 2,900,000 .14 10.4 Motor-vehicle ...... 24,800 22,800 900,000 94 384.0 Public non-mot. veh. 7,500 7,100 900,000 .08 9.0 Home .ovoiveniins 7,200 6,600 1,100,000 05 72 *Per 1,000,000 man-hours exposure. This is the indicated disabling work injury rate for all workers in all industries, including 4 agriculture, and differs from the rate shown on page 28, which represents the experience of Just those companies reporting to NSC. Three out of four deaths, and more than half of the injuries { suffered by workers in 1966 occurred off the job. These totals, \ «dl and rates per million hours exposure are shown in the table Ne a above. C oo. Production time lost due to off-job accidents totalled 65,000,000 man-days in 1966, compared with 45,000,000 man-days lost by workers injured on the job. Indirect losses of time, though, which seldom arise out of off-job accidents, totalled an estimated 210,000,000 man-days from accidents on the job. Trends in on-job and cff-job desis end injuries i So Since World War II, accidental deaths of workers on the job A have decreased 12 per cent. Off the job, 1966 deaths exceeded yd | the 1945 total by 32 per cent, but with an increase in the num- . af. 1] ber of workers the rate was down 10 per cent. The ratio of off- = job deaths to on-job deaths was the highest on record in 1966; the injury ratio was the highest since 1945. Deaths Injuries Year On-Job Oft-Job Ratio Ratio No. | Ratet | No. | Rates | Oft/On| On-ob Ott-Job | ott/0n 1 500> 33 30,000 60 1.82 000,000 750,000 1.38 Ce Tm 27 31,600 56 2.03 ,950,000 2,600,000 1.28 1955 14,200 24 31,300 53 2.20 1,950,000 ,400,000 1.23 1956 14,300 23 31,700 52 2.22 1,950,000 500,000 1.28 57 14,200 23 81,700 52 2.23 ,000 ,450,000 1.29 195 22 ,000 48 2.18 / 250,000 1.25 23 29,000 47 2.10 1,950, 2,200,000 1.13 1960 13,800 22 29,200 47 2.12 1,950,000 ,250,000 1.15 1961 13,500 21 28,900 45 2.14 1,950,000 2,200,000 1.16 1962 13,700 21 80,000 48 2.19 2,000,000 250,000 1.13 1963 14,200 21 81,700 48 2.23 2,000,000 ,350,000 1.18 1964 14,200 21 84,600 61 2.44 2,050,000 ,500,000 1.22 1965 14,100 20 86,500 52 2.59 2,100,000 2,700,000 1.29 6~ 20 89,600 2.72 ,900,000 1.32 Change 1945-66 —12% ~~ —39% +32% —10% 449% +10% +5% —4% *Deaths per 100,000 workers. See page 29 for number of workers. 1966 injury rates, reporters to fational © FREQUENCY RATE DISABLING INJURIES PER 1,000,000 MAN-HOURS if COMMUNICATIONS AUTONOBILE AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING ELECTRICAL EQUIPNENT STEEL CHEMICAL CEMENT TEXTILE MACHINERY RUBBER & PLASTICS SHEET METAL BLASS ELECTRIC UTILITIES GAS SHIPBUILDING STORAGE & WARENOUSING oy ALL INDUSTRIES JON-FERROUS METALS & PROD. WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES PETROLEUN PLP & PAPER FERTILIZER ININING, SURFACE TOBACCO RAILROAD EQUIPNENT CLAY & MINERAL PRODUCTS IRON & STEEL PRODUCTS LEATHER PRINTING & PUBLISHING FOUNDRY vs b 767 cir, A Ce % Siva HA (68) 329 ~~ Wy Pl (18) 360 ie A 2 (84) 360 J 105) 399 . ua {iy J Fi foe . (82) 430 %* Figures in parentheses show average days charged per case. + 1965. 1A, ~ioly Gouneil SEVERITY RATE (107)*135 (64) 148 (21) 153 (18) 173 (82) 184 (33) 220 (140) 235 (32) 293 (73) sat (14) 554 # (109) sel |E (96) 591 EX # Not comparable to rate in previous years because of change in sample. All rates compiled in accordance with the US A Standard Method of Recording and Measuring Work Injury Experience, USA Standard 216.1-1954 (R1959). See table and footnote on page 35 for indication of coverage in (106) 623 (60) 631 (33) ese (197) 698 EE (76) 702 (80) 713 each Industry. ==" (51) 735 kZ (94) 759 (103) 778 (124) 859 (95) 937 Bod (88) 1,005 Ey (77) 1,030 E23 (195) 1,046 3 (289) 1,182 3 (154) 1,302 [9 (208) 1,787 fA Cr) erot— (139) 2,30 E23 (126) 2,58 3 (198) 2,505 EEE TIME CHARGES (DAYS) PER 1,000,000 MAN-HOURS COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADE LEATHER AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING STORAGE & WARENOUSIG AUTOMOBILE TosACCH MACHINERY AIR TRANSPORT TEXTILE CHEMICAL PRINTING & PUBLISHING SHEET METAL FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES RUBBER & PLASTICS sLAsS SHIPBUILDING GAS a IRON & STEEL PRODU TS NEAT PACKING ae wousrries 1 STEEL RAILROAD EQUIPMENT 000 TRANSIT PULP & PAPER PETROLEDN 3 NON-FERROUS METALS & PROD. CLAY & MINERAL PRODUCTS FOUNDRY WOOD PRODUCTS ELECTRIC UTLTIES CEMENT FERTILIZER MINING, SURFACE CONSTRUCTION NBER MARINE TRANSPORTATION awk MINING, DNDERG! 00ND COAL MINING, INDGRO , EXCEPT Cll 768 -~ TAN py. ~ v, Yeimey raion of [20 ooohors are lower Member companies of the National Safety Council generally have lower injury rates than nonmember companies, as indicated by the 1965 industry rates in the table below. (The 1965 rates are the latest full-year rates avail- able from BLS.) The NSC rates represent the experience of member com- panies; the BLS rates represent the experience of all industry in the U.S., including NSC members. The BLS rates for the first six months of 1966, and changes from 1965, are the latest national figures available. Injury Frequency Rates of Reporters to NSC and BLS 1965 BLS Six Months* Industry (NSC Classification) NSC BLS* 1965 | 1966 | % Change Aircraft Manufacturing 2.0 3.6 3.4 3.7 I 9% Automobile . 1.7 4.7 4.3 4.8 12% Chemical . 3.3 6.5 6.7 6.1 — 9% Electrical Eq 1.9 5.7 5.7 6.0 6% Fertilizer .. 8.0 17.6 16.3 17.0 4% 008 Lovee 10.7 21.1 19.5 20.8 7% Foundry . co. jusvevnmvvesiossanin 10.5 25.6 24.3 25.7 6% Glass .....vviriiiieiniiaeinanan ’ 5.1 9.4 9.1 11.2 23% ron and Steel Products...... 9.3 10.9 17.4 18.3 5% Leather i. ...ovsvsssnsns sins sun 13.4 13.7 13.6 15.1 12% Lumber ..... 15.9 41.0 39.2 38.9 — 1% Machinery .. 4.2 12.6 12.3 13.1 + 7% Meat Packing 18.9 38.4 36.3 35.8 1% Non-ferrous Metals and Products. . 6.5 14.1 12.9 15.9 23% Prinung ¢ ol Tupishing 10.8 9.1 9.5 9.8 3% Rallroua Paper... .. 7.6 12.0 11.5 12.6 9% Raifrond’ Equipm 9.4 10.1 10.0 11.3 13% SOY 3.3 6.6 9.2 9.0 — 2% Bune. Meta Products. 4.56 19.7 19.0 21.1 +11% Shipbuiidi ng 6.7 23.4 24.1 22.7 — 6% Steel ...uveevee 3.4 4.9 4.8 6.3 Pi Textile Sey 4.3 8.0 8.0 8.1 1% Wood Products 13.1 23.7 23.6 22.9 — 3% Source: NSC—reporters to National Safety Council; BLS—reporters to U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Rates are preliminary. Injury rates in manufacturing — NSC members and nonmembers In the individual industries above, it has not been possible to exclude NSC member experience from the BLS rates. For all manufacturing, though, it is possible to estimate a national rate excluding NSC members. On this basis, as shown in the table below, NSC members average more than 70 per cent lower for frequency rate, and nearly 40 per cent lower for severity rate. Injury Rates in Manufacturing—NSC Members and Nonmembers Injury Frequency Rate — Injury Severity Rate Year NSC Non- % NSC NSC Non % NSC Members members Rates Lower| Members members Rates Lower 4.8 15.0 —68 . 650 780 —29 4.7 14.2 —67 540 850 —36 4.6 14.6 —68 520 870 —40 4.8 16.4 —69 550 830 —34 4.3 16.3 —72 530 850 —38 4.3 15.1 —72 470 —41 4.56 16.1 —170 490 790 —38 4.6 15.6 —T71 460 800 —43 4.6 16.6 —173 450 . 4.6 —173 450 3 5.1 17.61 —T71 470 . Source: Nonmember—Total U.S. SEnsrienne projected from BLS rates, less experience of reporters to NSC. fPreliminary. *BLS rates not available. 769 Injury experience of reporiers to the National Safely Couneil, 1926 to 1966 Frequency Rates of All Disabilities Average Y pase rol Be i All So Ih - P T ta oar of y erm. emp. al orm. emp. om, Units | Perm. | Partist | Total )| Disa- Rates | partist | Total | * Total Total | Disab. |\ Disab. /| bilities Total | Disab. | Disab. | Disability atid 28.93 3071 31.877 2,500 a 29 964 17 A716 25.02 25.95 1.880 A029 964 15 19 1 23.62 24.52 2,030 ..—.8——2.9 —963-— 17 22 93 2424 2539 2250 — .9 37 954 16 A978 17.50 18.47 1,970 1.0 42 948 19 A764 1481 1512 1,720. 11 42 947 21 a6. 1246 1320 1, 12 44 944 21 16. 68 13.77 - 14.56 1,680 11 43 94.6 20 a7. 60 14.48 520 1,700 11 45 84.4 20 A578 13.04 1402 1,580 11 56 93.3 21 d6 71 1270 1857 1,640 12 52 93.6 22 a5 76 13.14 14.05 1,80 11 54 93.5 20 a5 11.38 1218 1530 1.2 53 935 25 J4 65 11.04 11.83 1420 12 55 93.3 23 J4 67 1171 1252 1440 11 54 935 22 J4 70 14.55 1539 1,530 9 45 946 21 . 59 13.94 14.68 1,49 1.0 40 950 20 10 72 13770 14.52 1200 7 50 943 20 10 80 13.56 14.46 1210 a 55 938 20 : 69 1285 13.63 1,160 a1 51 942 23 A177 18.28 14.164” 1,280 8 54 938 22 10 71 1245 13.26 1,230 83 54 938 2 a0 1070 11.49 1,120 5 60 931 21 08 64 942 10.14 1,020 3 63 929 23 08 57 865 9.30 940 9 62 929 22 09 53 8.44 9.06 970 1.0 58 932 23 08 52 7.80 8.40 880 9 63 928 23 : 50 6.87 7.44 830 10 68 92.2 23 07 44 6.71 7.22 800 1.0 61 929 23 08 46 6.42 6.96 815 12 66 922 22 07 40 591 788 11 63 926 25 0 42 5.78 B- 40 12 66 922 24 01 40 5.70 6.17. M4 12 68 922 25 0 Al 5.99 6.47 Ww 11 64 925 25 07 5.59 6.04 29 12 63 925 26 06 38 ED 8 666 11 63 92.6 26 0 39 ; 19 64 11 63 92.6 28 06 34 5.12 6.12 682 1.0 58 934 29 07.35 6.03 6.45 63 1.0 54 936 27 0 4 6.12 6.53 65 10 52 93 28 J g EI=" 689 9 58 9833 26 FREQUENCY SEVERITY RATE RATZ 30 20 BRET ADRURTARNT NRRL EHTET HENNE UTUTHN WERE WN Deaths and death rates 770 from all worl accidents, 1833 to 1266 Manufacturing Nonmanufacturing Year Deaths per, Deaths per Deaths per Deaths | Workers |= jog 000 Workers |" 00,000 Deaths | Workers | = 09,000 (thousands) | workers (thousands) | workers (thousands) | workers 1933........14,500 39,000 37 6,900 25 12,800 32,100 40 .16,000 41,500 39 8,100 23 14,100 33,400 42 .16,500 42,500 39 ,600 22 14,600 33,900 43 1936........18,500 44,000 42 9,400 26 16,100 34,600 47 . 44,100 43 10,200 25 16,400 33,900 48 42,100 38 9,000 21 14,100 33,100 43 43,600 36 9,900 18 13,700 33,700 41 45,200 38 10,600 19 15,000 34,600 43 48,100 37 2,600 12,700 20 15,400 35,400 44 51,500 35 2,900 14,700 20 15,100 36,800 41 52,200 34 3,100 17,000 18 14,400 35,200 41 51,800 31 2,900 16,700 17 13,100 35,100 37 50,200 33 2,700 14,900 18 13,800 85,300 ~~ 389 52,400 31 2,500 14,200 18 714,000 — 38,200 = 87 54,900 81 2,700 14,800 18 14,300 40,100 36 56,000 29 2,600 15,000 17 13,400 41,000 33 55,200 27 2,300 14,100 16 12,700 41,100 31 56,400 21 2,600 15,100 17 © 12,900 41,300 31 57,450 28 2,700 16,200 17 13,300 41,250 32 57,800 26 2,400 16,400 15 12,600 41,400 30 58,050 26 2,400 17,350 14 12,600 40,700 S1 57,600 24 2,000 16,050 12 12,000 41,450 29 59,400 24 2,000 16,650 12 12,200 42,750 29 61,100 23 2,000 17,000 12 12,300 44,100 28 61,300 28 2,000 16,900 12 12,200 44,400 27 59,900 @2/ 1,800 15,600 12 11,600 44,300 26 61,300 23 1,900 16,300 12 11,900 45,000 26 64,400 21 1,700 16,600 10 12,100 47,800 25 ,500 21 1,700 16,400 10 11,800 48,100 25 1962. Fa Ls, 700 65,200 21 1,800 16,600 1 11,900 48,600 4 1963........14,200 66,200 21 1,800 16,800 11 12,400 49,400 25 67,600 21 1,700 17,000 10 ,600 ! 25 69,700 2 1,800 17,700 10 12,300 52,000 24 72,600 2 1,900 18,800 10 12,600 o 23 Ianufacturing vs nonmanufacturing DEATH RATES 80 DEATH RATES* NONMANUF DEATHS 20,000 (—1— T rm DEATHS 16,000 [—i-/"% | ~ “MT [2% 3 oA of ym I gas NONMANUFACTURING A 8,000 | 4,000 MANUFACTURING -— ws 80 v8 0 1933 ‘38 “wo 771 } f Yer Ini > nxn lan! Part of body injured in work zo2ienls Try . y rill ; y Disabling work injuries in the Eases 2 J COMPENSATION entire nation totalled approximately 3% 2,200,000 in 1966. Of these, about 2% 14,500 were fatal and 90,000 resulted 6% in some permanent impairment. 6% Injuries to the trunk occurred most frequently, with thumb and finger injuries next, according to reports from State Labor Departments. Head (except eyes) .......... 130,000 BYES vin snes nia 258s ma bin ion 65,000 ATMS: vison ons ms vos sve ...175,000 Hands ..................... 130,000 Thumbs and fingers......... 375,000 LBES vos win soins win s 50 warm im 93 260,000 Feet ........cooiviiiinnn.. 150,000 Toes .......vvveininnnnnn. 90,000 Trunk somausaesesomssnssinss 625,000 General ................... 200,000 The chart shows for each body part, per cent of all injuries, and per cent of all compensation paid. See © Sovrias Sls Leb: Dupts., pages 24 and 34 for total compensa- cases —14 states, costs—9 states. tion payments. Fea of workers killed en the job The average age of the 14,500 workers killed on the job in 1966 was 40 years. Numbers of deaths by age groups are shown in the table below. The percentage distributions of all deaths and deaths within major industries point up differences in the age distributions by industries. Worker Deaths by Major Industries and Age Groups - } Per Cent of Deaths by Age Groups 0.0 Industry Deaths All | Under| 15- | 25- | 48- 65- | wa 3 Ages 15 24 44 64 4 Over All Industries — Deaths .......... 14,500 200 2,200 5,100 5,700 900 400 — Per cent ........ 100% 2 15 35 39 6 3 Major Industries: 4 Tae. oy sunuinvevervve sin svserve 1,300 100% 2 16 31 39 8 4 Manufacturing ....... ... 1900 100% , 13 40 43 3 1 Service, government . 3,200 100% x 19 34 6 2 Transp., pub. util.. 1,700 100% . 15 46 36 3 1 Agriculture ....... 100% 5 14 17 43 14 7 Construction ...... Lo. 2,800 100% . 14 43 39 3 1 Mining, quarrying ............. 700 1 - 14 48 3 1 Source: National Safety Council. : *Less than 0.6% 92-734 O-68—50 772 Source and cost of worl injuries Handling objects is the principal source of compensable work injuries. Falls cause the next largest number. For injuries of different severity, though, the sources vary. Motor-vehicle acci- 7/71 dents cause only five per cent of the temporary injuries, but L/é 4 eighteen per cent of the deaths. Machinery accidents cause only six per cent of the temporary injuries and three per cent of the deaths, but nineteen per cent of the permanent injuries. Motor-vehicle in- juries, and falls to different levels are the most costly. Source and Cost of Compensable Work Injuries All Cases Fatal Permanent Temporary Source of Injury % of Ave. % of Ave. | %ot | Ave. % of | Ave. . Cases Cost* ,! Cases Cost* | Cases | Cost* Cases | Cost* Total ....covvevvevunene 1000 $ 765 100.0 $14,400 100.0 $1,660 100.0 $365 fahing objects, manual.. 22.6 710 13.9 16,200 9.6 1,675 28.5 365 Fal v 20.4 1,050 17.4 14,500 18.5 Y 21 3 425 10.4 885 32 15,200 9.2 2,050 1.0 380 Different 1 10.0 1,250 12.6 14,000 9.3 3,275 02 520 Struck by falling, . losing objects ....evsve. 13.6 540 9.3 13,000 19.3 1,090 1a 315 Machinery .......ccceesveene * 10.2 790 3.1 19,500 © 19.2 1,425 6.3 240 Vehicles ves 7.1 1,125 20.7 15,000 11 Yi 6.9 410 Motor 5.0 1,250 18.0 ,000 4s 2,400 5.2 410 Other . 2.1 880 2.7 15,100 .8 1,980 1.7 430 Stepping on, again objects 6.9 346 2.3 17,700 5.6 726 1.6 160 Hand tools 6.1 530 1.6 16,400 8.1 1,060 5.3 255 Elec., heat, explosives...... 2.6 820 1.1 13,400 2.2 1,650 2.6 2566 Elevators, hoists, conveyors 2.2 1,125 3.6 14,700 3.8 2,080 1.6 445 Other «...cvercevrvnnnmson 8.4 780 20.6 , 6.6 1,830 9.0 390 Source: Reports from state labor departments. *Compensation only. Bock injuries About 400,000 workers suffer disabling back injuries each year, and the number seems to be increasing faster than injuries in general. Additional evidence of this is indicated by a Wisconsin report on compensable injuries summarized in the table below. As noted, the percentage of all injuries involving the back has been increasing steadily, and the costs have been increasing at an even greater rate. Compensable Back Injuries in Wisconsin, 1938-1965 % % Average Payments per Case Year of All of All Cases Comp. Total Benefits | Indemnity | Med. Aid 1938 10.9 17 $164 $116 $49 1940 12.1 9.0 167 117 50 1945 13.2 9.7 155 109 46 1950 16.0 11.4 287 203 84 1966 16.2 13.9 445 310 135 1960 16.7 16.56 586 384 202 1965 18.2 19.1 782 527 256 1950-1965 1% 68% 172% 1 205! 1938-1965 1a% 148% 371% 1938-1965 increase in benefits-all cases 224% 284 Source: Industrial Commission of ‘Wisconsin, Statistical Division. 773 York injuries io minors w— More than 5,000,000 persons under 18 years of age are em- (; ployed in the U.S. The total number of work injuries suffered eo) by these young people is not known, but some details of the in- juries are shown in the table below, taken from a recent study ig © ~y made by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Standards. Cuts and abrasions were the most frequent injuries in each of the industries studied; bruises and contusions were second, and strains and sprains third. For individual industries, though, the frequencies of dif- ferent kinds of injuries varied. In eating and drinking places, and in auto service stations, burns and scalds were second in importance. Strains and sprains were second in hotels and retail food stores. These and other differ- ences are noted in the table below. lene eae iL r Young workers have fewer trunk injuries, more finger injuries The frequency of injury to different body parts are somewhat different for young workers than for all workers as indicated by a comparison of the percentage figures in the first column of the lower part of the table below with those in the chart on page 30. Young workers have considerably fewer trunk injuries, and somewhat fewer toe injuries, which probably reflects dif- ferences in the type of work done. They have more hand and finger injuries, most of which are cuts, abrasions, and punctures. The table indicates the principal kinds of injuries to each body part. Work Injuries of Persons Under 18 Years of Age Percentage Distribution of Nature of Injury. by Industry and Part of Body Injured | : Nature of Injury Cuts, Amputa-| Industry Bruises, Sisalng, Other, rot [fbrasing outer Sra mares | rnc [Hon oft Bites sions _| Hernins| Use known Total* 42.9 14.0 13.7 8.6 7.0 1.0 12.8 Agriculture .... vee 42.8 11.2 14.1 23 11.0 6 17.9 Construction ..............c. 100.0% 39.3 16.5 15.2 6.0 8.2 1.8 13.9 Retail trade: General merchandise .... 100.0% 53.9 14.0 10.6 2.6 6.1 .9 11.8 FoR vvexivviverpeiiriive . 100.0% 65.0 12.7 16.7 3.3 4.5 1.3 7.5 Auto service stations.. 100.0% 31.2 11.56 11.8 20.5 8.3 .3 16.6 Being drinking places. 100.0% 46.4 10.6 9.9 22.9 2.4 1.0 6.7 Service: Hotel, lodging places. . 100.0% 37.4 13.6 19.4 9.9 6.9 3 12.0 Auto repalr ...v.eipi0en 100.0% 33.2 .2 8.4 10.6 10.2 .0 16.6 Amusement, recreation... 100.0% 36.6 17.7 12.8 5.4 16.3 .6 116 Part of Body Tota . Total® .......... 100.0 100.0% 42.9 14.0 18.7 8.6 7.0 1.0 128 Head .. 11.6 100.0% 37.4 11.6 1.8 10.2 3.6 2 2 Trunk .... 9.8 100.0% 3.6 13.6 66.8 21 4.7 .0 10.3 Upper Xtrem 8 48.8 100.0% 59.0 10.9 5.9 9.2 6.9 1.8 6.3 Hands 11.4 100.0% 61.2 9.9 22 17.0 3.8 .3 5.6 Fingers ... £3.1 100.0% 72.3 10.3 1.8 1.8 5.7 3.2 49 Lower extrem'’s .. 23.8 100.0% 36.6 21.5 16.1 7.0 11.2 .b 8.1 Feet ...... .. 84 100.0% 51.0 18.9 5.9 9.5 7.6 .3 6.8 2088 -oyivviiioins 2.6 100.0% 21.4 31.6 23 9 31.5 2.7 9.7 Source: U. 8. Bureau of Labor Standards Bulletin 282. *Includes the experience of some industries not shown, but not all industries in the U.S. #Percentages for some body parts are not shown. 774 Off-the-job injuries to workers More workers are killed and injured off the job than on the job, but the difference in totals arises partly because workers spend more time off the job than on the job. ’ Relating such occurrences to hours of exposure shows that for injuries, the rate is lower away from work even though there are more injuries in this environment. For deaths, though, both the number and the rate are higher away from work. See the table at the top of page 25 for totals and rates. Most off-job deaths involve motor vehicles Nearly two-thirds of all accidental deaths of workers away from work arise out of motor-vehicle accidents. Such accidents are the leading source of death in all age groups, but they are more important among younger workers. As shown in the table below, for workers under 25 years of age, three- fourths of the deaths away from work arise out of motor-vehicle accidents, but this percentage drops for each successively older age group, to two-thirds for workers 25-44 years, to about one-half for workers 45-64 years, and to about one-third for workers over 65 years. Public deaths mostly from drownings and falls In public places, drowning is the principal source of off-job deaths among all workers. By age groups, drowning is the leading source among workers under 45 years, and it is the second leading source among workers over 45 years. Other leading sources of accidental death for each age group, in public places and in the home, are shown in the table below. Off-Job Accidental Deaths of Workers, 1966 by Age Group and Accident Source Age Group Accident x 5 - A im 15-24 25-44 45-64 65 & Over No. | % No. | % No. | % No. | % Total 100 13,800 100 13,200 100 3,300 100 Motor-vehicle wh "7 9,200 67 7,200 66 1,300 40 Public v 16 2,400 17 2,900 22 800 24 Home 8 2,200 16 3,100 23 1,200 36 Leading Accident Sources Public: Drowning Drowning Falls Falls Firearms Air transp. Drowning Drowning Water transp. Firearms ‘Water transp. ‘Water transp. Falls Falls Air transp. RR transp. Home: Fires Fires Fires Falls Firearms Falls Falls Fires Poison — gas Poison — gas Poison — gas Firearms Poison — solid, Firearms Poison — solid, Poison — solid, liquid liquid liquid Source: Estimates by National Safety Council based dat. m N Hed ose! nin y y on data from the National Center for 775 Work Injuries and Compensation Payments, 1965 Cases Compensated Compensation Payments (§ thousands) State Total By Private | By State | By Self- Deaths | Injuries | payments Carriers Funds Insurers Total U.S. .......... von $1,796,551 $1,133,452 $425,342 $237,757 Alabama* 8,873 16,654 9,459 een 7,095 Alaska ... 2,645 3.514 3.279 wk 235 Arizona .. 6,836 20,424 751 19,088 585 Arkansas* . 8,170 11.568 9,753 wot © 1,815 California 181,336t 267,699 174,367 64,012 29,320 Colorado 7,754 15,297 4,650 9,267 1.390 Connecticut . 91 15,609 19,415 17,860 “ele 1,665 Delaware .......v.- nl a. 2,347 1,862 455 District of Columb LL. ie 6,397 6,007 wo 390 Florida ........ .. 253 30,423 54,708 48,429 we 6,279 Georgia «.cvoos En ces 19.830 16,950 - 2,880 Hawall coi van TRE SEE vv 7,068 4,883 wa 2,185 IDO wou vas one vans BS 4,150 5.821 3,811 1,450 560 THHDoIS +. con ine ene 3.47% 86,981 73,026 hatnt 13.955 Indiana* ....... were 123% 26,2861 23,116 19,691 Towa .......... I — Bp 12.156 9,725 we 2,430 Kansas* ....... ooo. 101% 14,1681 15,817 12,652 sa 3,165 Kentucky* ..... eee 3B 2,369 15,556 13,305 “re 250 Louisiana ..... wel oie y giz 43,765 38,055 5,710 Maine ..i.ivens vere 207 30,0541 4,108 3,673 won v Maryland ...... vans 9 17,548 24,565 18,751 2,626 3,188 Massachusetts . wees 403% 243,417 65,131 60,306 rig ,825 Michigan ...... ug ye 69,799 46,670 4,879 18,250 Minnesota* .... 195 15,836 27,7111 23,941 wi 4 3,830 Mississippi ve www pv 11,814 A 895 Missouri ....... oo 30 19,244 31,114 27,054 Gah 4,060 Montana ...... oo 62 3,588 6,680 2,092 3,568 1,020 Nebraska* ... .. 93f 38,0931 5.921 5,621 gin 300 Nevada .......... i oi 7,380 20 7,195 165 New Hampshire* .. 28F 32,949t 4,457 4,372 wren 85 New Jersey ..... .. 309 65,127 83,947 75,087 cs 8,860 New Mexico* .. ow OF 17,6291 8, 7,768 Zi 1,055 New York ....... oe “926 112,470 197,439 124,452 48,742 24,245 North Carolina* ... . 134 18,5674 20,611 17,586 you 025 North Dakota* .. 39 2,786 3,721 9 3,712 view OBO. wwii sof id 138,971 195 99,552 39,224 Oklahom 204 7,303 20.079 16,140 2,704 1,235 Oregon 99 25,568 28,102 3,835 24,267 Yih Pennsylvania 925 47,113 69,033 43,543 4,230 21,260 Rhode Island .... ove i 8,376 ,926 ee 450 South Carolina* . 18 5,844 10,764 9,524 vr 1,240 South Dakota ax ei 2,218 1,928 o9 # Tennessee* 130 14,916 20,737 18,817 vos 1,920 Texas* .. 720% 200,7991 89,147 89,147 ree ak Utah .. vai a 4,978 1,167 2,981 830 Vermont . 4% aE 335 2,625 2,295 worl 230 Virginia ccooeis wo 161 15,867 17,952 14,837 vig 3,116 Washington* .. Lo 174 19,476 38,083 1,658 36,260 176 West Virginia* 113 40,095 17,891 111 16,464 2,316 Wisconsin ... 116 217,645 ,976 25,651 wise 5,425 Wyoming ....... Lo 26 12,296 1,953 42 1,911 i Federal Employees 1724+ 104,710** 73,464 - 78,464 Puerto Rico ........ L125 49,260 Virgin Islands ......... _- ew Canadian Provinces: Alberta ................. 107 24,618 British Columbia ....... 206 27,156 Manitoba .......... .. 45 11,985 New Brunswick . .. 36 9,685 Newfoundland ... 29 3,887 Nova Scotia ... wwe BY 9,264 ONATIO wipe vv vpuopins ove 4 4061 368,9471 Prince Edward Island... 2 722 QUELLE vuvvvvvran sun wens 247 142,230 Saskatchewan .......... 118 9,707 Source: State and provincial compensation authorities and Social Security Board. State com- parisons should not be made without considering differences in population, industries and com- pensation laws. See page 6 for national estimates of deaths, injuries and costs. *Cases for fiscal year. *¢Civilian employees only. Total reported cases. 776 Injury Rates, Reporters to the National Safety Council, 1966 == Frequency Rates** Severi Number — Rates” Industry ol Badal, po Rap oat Rk nits erm. | Partial otal sabil- Total | Disab. | Disab. | ities | Disab,)| Rate | Rank All Reporting Industries* 10,007 06 40 6.45 6.91 pe 689 se Aircraft Manufacturing ...... 80 .02 13 2.11 2.26 3 184 b AP Transport ows swam 15 .01 13 19.36 19.50 37 360 10 Automobile ...... x 363 .02 31 1.34 1.67 2 235 7 Cement ‘x 187 13 .42 3.55 4.10 7 1,182 33 Chemical ...cvvrvwrvsrnrsnsmns 1,170 .04 .28 3.46 3.78 6 399 12 Clay & Mineral Products..... 225 07 72 9.08 9.87 26 937 29 Communications ............. 76 .01 .06 1.19 1.26 1 135 1 Construction «vss vervsnns 252 25 .69 11.40 12.24 32 2,170 36 Electrical Equipment ........ 418 .01 os | 2.08 2.30 4 148 2 Electric Utilities ....cocevevas 229 12 .31 4.93 5.36 13 1,046 32 Federal Civilian Employeest.. 1 .03 .20 7.07 7.30 19 531 15 Fertilizer 174 .16 .56 7.76 8.48 22 1,302 34 Food «iv: en we a 796 .05 .58 11.33 11.96 31 713 24 Foundry Cees 148 .09 79 10.86 11.73 30 1,005 30 BAS "nis sine nase Be SRTRSEERY 674 .07 11 5.67 5.85 14 623 19 Glass ......iiiiiiiiiiiiiie, 126 .04 7 4.58 5.33 12 581 17 Iron & Steel Products. we 237 .03 .76 9.69 10.48 27 631 20 Leather ....:.uvvsviis TT 39 .00 42 10.06 10.48 28 173 4 Lumber ..............o00u.. 220 27 78 15.56 16.61 36 2,311 37 Machinery cosesus vais sonveiss 421 .01 57 4.23 4.81 9 329 9 Marine Transportation ...... 64 .23 1.16 18.81 20.20 38 2,641 38 Meat Packing .......«.: wv 36 .05 .38 20.57 21.00 39 686 21 Mining, Surface 145 .19 37 8.03 8.59 23 1,787 35 Mining, Underground Coal... 104 .55 1.57 34.52 36.64 41 5,264 40 Mining, Undrgrd., ex. Coal... 147 .67 1.31 26.07 28.05 40 6,165 41 Non-Ferrous Metals & Prods. 156 07 .68 6.30 6.95 17 859 28 Petroletm .covvvis conunrvmnass 212 .09 14 7.32 7.65 20 775 27 Printing & Publishing........ 68 .01 .40 10.91 11.32 29 406 13 Pulp & Paper........ wii v 916 .06 57 7.456 8.08 21 759 26 QUBITY «us suvanvas vas samamiyavs 404 .31 .58 12.40 13.29 33 2,695 39 Railroad Equipment ......... 14 .06 .40 8.81 9.27 25 702 23 Rubber & Plasticsi... . 243 .03 47 4.38 4.88 10 564 16 Sheet Metal Products. . 223 .02 70 4.49 5.21 11 430 14 Shipbuilding .......... — 38 .04 .43 5.67 6.14 15 591 18 Beel «x wus covvn tun won mkv eEs g 98 07 35 3.12 3.54 5 698 22 Storage & Warehousing...... 159 .00 .16 6.42 6.58 16 220 6 Textile 189 .02 .50 3.75 4.27 8 360 11 Tobacco .. 29 .00 .85 8.35 9.20 24 293 8 Transit 143 .06 19 14.09 14.34 35 735 26 Wholesale & Retail Trade.... 62 .01 .07 7.11 7.19 18 153 3 Wood Products ........... i 131 .04 .88 12.43 13.35 34 1,030 31 Source: Individual company reports of National Safety Council members and reports of the following organizations covering the experience of their members: American Iron and Steel Institute, American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, American Transit Association, Edison Electric Institute, Folding Paper Box Association, Portland Cement Association, U. S. Bureat of, Mines National Safety Competitions, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Employees’ ompensation. Records are compiled in accordance with the USA Standard Method of Recording and Measuring Work Injury Experience, USA Standard Z16.1—1954 (R 1959). Man-hours reported for all industries totalled almost 17,050,000,000. Rankings are indica- tive rather than exact because of variation from industry to industry in the proportion of com- panies which maintain accident records and send reports to the National Safety Council. *Includes miscellaneous industries and corrections for certain duplications. 11966 data. **Frequency rate is the number of disabling injuries Bd 1,000,000 man-hours of exposure. Severity rate is the number of days charged per 1,000, man-hours of exposure, including charges for permanent disabilities and deaths. tRates are not comparable to rates in previous years because of change in sample. 77 Three-Year Injury Rates, Reporters to N.S.C., 1964-1966 Industry | Freq. | Sev. | Industry | Freq. | Sev. Al: InQuSEIIOs ....s vue sve ive oa 6.63 692 SUZAE, Dest ..i vii verve monms 29.33 2,542 Abroiale BL faotipl 1.96 166 Sugar, Cane . .....evsns sana 8.62 1,191 rer. anufacturing ....... B > Aircraft engines ............ 2.57 168 FOUNALY ui cosvvvan ude nema 3.10.91 852 Aircraft mfg. and gssenily., is i» Foundries NA mach, shop... 0.3 553 ANOratt parts. Sub. 256TH : id Majioalle fron foundries. .... , 1.288 Air Transport ....coceveis van oe 19.11 503 on-ferrous foundries .. ix Transport Steel foundries ........ 1,248 Automobile .................... 1.75 216 Glass pee 433 at. glass ..... ve % 8 Oily coe B48 LOR Glass products... 110 8 407 Quarries, mines, clay fields.. 4.00 1,634 Government Employees . Federal civilian Loves: 7.64% 523+ Chemical ............. EET 3.4 420 Municipal employees ........ © 20.76 712 ACHE, univ vind 555 Coin 1S 000 050 3.64 136 Administration ..... .. 6.49 246 Alcohol and wood jistiiates, 2.94 765 3 .. 20.94 746 Chlorine and Sifakis 3.49 483 Parks 18.60 341 Coal tar products. . 844 POLICE vv vim yom mwnin sions 31.69 2,612 Fats and oils...... 950 Sanitation, sewage, refuse. 50.79 + 1,801 Fuses and powder. 609 Street department ........ 4 High explosives ... 1,370 Industrial gases 435 Iron and Steel Products Laboratories ...... 266 Boiler shops ......... Paint and varnish a 350 Bolts, nuts and screws. Pharm, fine Shem. cosmetics 34 #1 Chain, manufacturing t IM convince van 7 8 soi thse sein sit Plastic materials soph 2. 198 Hardware and hand tools 369 Salt, refining & processing.. 15.70 1,302 Heating equipment ........ 7.08 307 Soap and giycorine Geisha 2.78 199 Structural steel fabrication.. 13.08 1,047 Synthetic fibers ... win 173 he metal sanitary ware. 12.35 ws 1,92 ire drawing . 2: Synthetic rubber 929 We ang, 150 Clay and Mineral Products.... 9.11 910 Brick and tile............. 4322 om BGEEEL Lone chs in oncrete prods ready mix 22. y i Gypsum PrOAUCES «vvverrenss 398 452 Tanning and manufacturing. 31.36 766 8.62 719 TIADOL: on come sibudnmmnesnnismne 16.59 2,029 Mine mineral products...... 8.14 738 Forestry .. 936 1,199 Pottery ....ivvvivens «oo 9.96 455 Logging . 23.98 5,155 Saw mills ....... 21.48 1,711 Communications .. 1.22 141 Wood preserving 18.29 Construction ............... 12.90% 2,129% Machinery ... 4.43 315 Concrete, bridge, dam, etc ,25% Agricultural’ 5.90 454 Gen. building construction Construction ....,.. 5.39 426 Heavy construction ..... Engines and turbine: 1.53 220 Highway construction General industrial 3.69 276 Marine construction ..... Household and service 4.72 323 Public utility construction... 16. State highway departments... 12.04 Structural & orn. metal work 19.62 Electrical Equipment stm wv Automotive electrical equip.. Carbon products : Communication equipment .. Electric lamps : Heavy electr cal equipment. 2.49 Insulated wire an Light elect. equip. and appl. 212 Fertilizer: v.ovrvecesponms 8.80 Complete fertilizer ‘plants . 10.23 Dry mix units........... 12.25 Wet mix units. . 8.06 Food .... 11.15 Bakeries 11.33 Breweries ............. 10.23 Beverages, nonalcoholic . Canning and preserving Cereals ...... Confectionery Corn products 7.956 Dairy products 17.41 Distilleries .. 96 Grain elevators . Grain milling Light mach. & office instru.. 3.08 103 Mach. tools, metal workg mach. .. 6.58 482 Special industry machinery .. 8.13 392 Marine Transportation 2,627 Harbor equipment ... 2,443 River and other craft. ,680 Stevedoring .......... y Marine, government ......... Meat Packing ................. 18.65 527 Mining, Surface ............... 9.02 2,040 Mining, Underground Coal.... 37.09 6,959 Mining, Undergrd., except Coal 29.45 4,691 Metal 3.00 Non-Ferrous Metals & Products s 70 875 Alumina 76 Aluminum reduction . .. 6.38 Fabrication .......... .. 6.58 854 Ore preparation . .. 7.30 1,506 Refining cows von .. 6.90 585 SMEING wuvwrvwnvns vvwen 445 4 6.70 712 Petroleum ......ivs verve sins e 7.69 “7 Printing and Publishing. ...... 10.59 499 778 Three-Year Injury Rates, Reporters to N.S.C., 1964-1966 (Continued) Industry Freq. | Sev. Industry | Freq. | Sev. Public Utilities Shipbuilding ............ ruven 00D 632 Electric utilities 5.61 1,143 eat yards .19 306 Gag Industry .....ocosoen see 5.80 497 Private yards ..........eu.t 987 Gas mfg. Thixed & L.P.G 8.01 460 Natural gas . 5.74 498 Steel ....ousiiiviviire seni 710 Water utilities 13.56 922 Combination utilities 6.17 1,031 Storage and Warehousing..... 173 Pulp and Paper.......... 7.49 722 Textile ..ouivvimnvevin is Bags and specialties. . 7.94 394 el and rug mills. % 049 Book and cover paper. 4.89 635 Cord and twine mills. . 4.33 218 Boxes and containers. . 10.93 662 Cotton textile mills...... wees 5.58 388 Building board .....cvrvavivns 8.01 566 Dyeing and finishing...... 5.956 432 Coated and glazed paper..... 10.93 639 Silk & synthetic text. mills.. 1.34 238 Folding paper boxes......... 9.63 332 Woolen & worsted mills..... 16.18 352 wpe ATT he Fk 5.82 LL Eaper OAT vos wummmnsi Ges sive A TOBACCO vvvon ccnp nupvnisvnmny “ Paty oA Ts unspecified. .20 838 obacto 552 i ulp mills ........... 6.72 1,330 Transit ........cooivinnnnennnns 842 Rooting pur os ot Sompination 874 aus a A ge sq 54s OLOr DUS. wvvie vin sos fuk Bovine 74 Quarry Wholesale and Retail Trade... 7.26 95 Sand and gravel............. 17.38 2,694 Wood Products . 13.51 1,127 Sla; cee 14 30 Furniture ....... 9.70 637 . 1255 Hlrwoen and veneer 15.48 1.340 00 ractions .... B A Railroad Equipment .......... 9.43 736 Wooden containers. ... 1,320 Rubber & Plastics 3.91% 458% Footwear ...... 1.06 231 Other Industries Industrial rubber good 4.97 607 AZriCUITUTe ...onivi sian savin 11.59 1,030 Plastic products ...... 7.65 538 Building and grounds oper.. 5.53 601 Tires and tubes 397 406 Miscellaneous manufacturing. 6.38 298 Office supplies ............ 1.76 164 Sheet Metal Products. ......... 71 408 Photog., optical, instrmnt.. 5.28 138 Metal furniture ......« coves 512 OFLICES| vous sin indi rnin .66 123 Small arms ammunition 91 414 Service ........ 4.4 326 Stamped, formed metal prods. 4.43 389 Garages ..... 341 Tinware and tin cans........ 5.38 477 Institutions 148 Source: Reports to the National Safety Council. *1963-1965. 1See footnote on page 35. Injury rates by states Standard injury frequency rates for those states which compute such measures are shown in the table below. Differences from state to state in the All Manu- facturing and separate industry rates result at least partly from differences in the kind of work done in the various states. Disabling Injury Frequency Rates, Selected States, 1965 Industry [Ala. | cal. | Fla. [11+ | Ky. | Me. [N. Y.[ Pa. [8.cC. [ Va." | Wise. All Manufacturing ....... 12.4 16.8 18.7 10.1 140 198 12.4 108 7.6 142 16.5 Chemical, allied prods. . 10.0 16.8 14.7 85 148 26.8 9.7 6.6 6.1 2.4 10.7 Fabricated metal prods. . 20.1 262 231 132 165 203 23.0 166 269 289 20.6 Food, kindred prods. . 26.9 325 383.2 140 14.0 321 245 19.7 187 23.8 245 Furniture ......... 365.3 29.2 230 158 183 18.0 21.8 223 204 180 265 General machinery .... . 31.7 17.1 213 96 128 208 104 13.3 13.0 9.6 16.0 Lumber, wood prods... . 3.0 483 46.1 20.8 48.7 53.8 34.6 37.6 3256 426 35.4 Primary metals ....... 88 26.1 276 11.0 9.0 656.9 16.1 89 183 17.2 36.2 Paper, allied prods..... 6.6 13.7 8.7 15.0 35.0 7.5 16.3 14.8 58 10.6 8.9 Printing, publishing ....... 7.0 10.6 9.0 9.1 7.3 6.8 10.7 8.0 6.6 1.2 9.1 Textile mill prods........... 6.8 24.6 84 108 9.6 146 120 12.0 3.7 6.6 13.2 Source: State Labor Departments, except U.S. BLS for Illinois. *1964. 779 Best No-Injury Records Known in Industry The following list shows, for major industry groups, the largest number of continuous man-hours worked without a disabling injury, as reported to the National Safety Council. Industry Chemical Electrical Equipment Textile Aircraft Mfg. Sheet Metal Products Communications Machinery Automobile Steel Rubber & Plastics Tobacco Petroleum Fertilizer Foundry Pulp & Paper Iron & Steel Products Electric Utilities Shipbuilding Construction Glass Leather Printing & Publishing Gas Clay & Mineral Products Transit Cement Railroad Equipment Meat Packing Non-Ferrous Metals Food Afr Transport Wood Products Mining Quarry Marine Lumber *Record continuing Company and Plant or Location E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., Chattanooga Plant, Chattanoomn, Tels x.iy vis cong vam 46% bie visive ¥ WESTERN ELECTRIC CO., North Carolina Works, Greensboro, N. C THE CHEMSTRAND CORP., Nylon Plant, Pensacola, FIOHIAR +o irra res coroaannyes srs ennssnresosansssasssane THED BOEING COMPANY, Airplane Division, Renton, Ree aoN ARMS CO., Lake City Arsenal, pendence, Mo. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO, St. Louis: MO. ,uovinesvios vovsiwasvns vive vn snide svn sae sures INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. Plant No. 2, Poughkeepsie, N.' Y......coevvviceiininns GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Fisher Body Div., Plant #2, Grand Rapids, MiCh........eeovcvurrvrensnvsrsras UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., Gary Steel Works, Gary, Indiana ........ccoeiiiiiiiiiiiiiniirrinerarsains CELANESE PLASTICS COMPANY, Newark Plant, Newark, NeW JOISBY ..: cvs cus vaivnin vv spam amen vm stem vw BAYUK CIGARS, INC., Philadelphia, Pa............... AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, Whiting Research Labs., Whiting, Indiana «....uyeesinios im donatop dus vers ve sais b MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, El Dorado Plant, El Dorado, ArKaNSas. .. oc. .cvsonvss sve ses voivpins ive GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Central Foundry Div., Saginaw, Mich. Plant................. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORP. Cellulose Spec. Div., Memphis, TENN. vv ves cus sommwsmpmgs sve coven va vm vis REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, Ilion, New York.... GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, Baton Rouge Division, Baton Rouge, Ll... ..s «vjvius sve swsoveive svn sins NEW YORK NAVAL SHIPYA lyn, New York uv: covevscesns E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO struction, Deepwater Point, KIMBLE GLASS CO., Sub. of Gian Illinois, 100d, NT. « convnnrmmmsmns vost onomtsos sesenses io 3 GENESCO, Cowan Plant, Cowan, Tennessee............ WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Printing Plant, TIaflord, Pa. ...oncoucasessmesss sue ssses cas nye ames vine WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT CO., Washington, D. C... AMERICAN STANDARD, San Pablo Plant, San Pablo, Le Tm VIRGINIA TRANSIT CO., Transportation Dept mond Div., Richmond, Virginia LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT CO., Oglesby, Illinois GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Electro-Motive Div, Cleveland, ‘ORIO uv ven vuvrvamimenn sate wemwwnve vv vaxwe WILSON & COMPANY, INC., Los Angeles, Calif...... ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, Fabricating Plant, Alcoa, Tennessee SCHENLEY INDUSTRIES Inde- KROEHLER MFG. CO., Plant #3, Kankakee, Illinois RESERVE MINING COMPANY, Babbitt Division, Babbitt, Minnesota '... corrmarrmriveme cave ssmebpose ps U. S. STEEL CORP. Mjenigan Limestone Biv, Calcite Plant, Rogers City, MICH. sivas ss errs i¥iesansssesn U. 8S. STEEL CORP, Michigsh Lid Limestone Div. Brad- ley Transp. Line, Rogers City, Mich pore & TALBOT, INC., Oakridge Saw), Oakridge, FEBON + vvk vais ve vas Toma Mew ST a VSR Man-Hours 45,808,779 38,004,393 27,261,264 22,855,034 19,815,543 18,624,242 17,604,263 17,496,659 17,133,243 15,966,227 14,314,436 14,300,000 11,709,490 9,634,3(9 9,428,814 9,152,494 8,986,628 8,509,572 8,099,6:9 7,378,6.2 7,310,9"2 7,266,673 7,248,3"2 7,027,969 5,683,281 5,487,376 5,294,90 5,051.1 1 4,955," 9 4,898,6 0 4,496,259 4,100,615 3,664,118 3,634,688 2,886,224 1,978,469* 780 National Safety Council industrial awards The following list shows the number of units whose records were reported to the National Safety Council for award evalua- . tion, and the number earning awards during the period June 1, 1966, to May 31, 1967. These awards are available to members of the Council under its Award Plan for Recognizing Good Industrial Safety Records. The Award of Honor is earned by about 5 out of 100 member units whose records are submitted for evaluation. It is estimated, though, that less than 5 out of 1,000 of the nation’s total number of units would meet the Award of Honor requirements. Contest awards totalled 1,630, earned by companies for their records in the Council’s industrial contests. Almost 1,000 of these were 1st, 2nd and 3rd place, or special awards. The remainder, included also in the totals below, were 46 Honor, 117 Merit, 361 Commendation and 137 President’s Letter awards earned for records which ranged from good to outstanding, but which did not place in the contests’ competitive standings. National Safety Council Industrial Awards | Number of Awards Industry Group Tyits ’ Byatuated Honor | Merit Commen |Prgsident . | Total All Industries .......... 8,807 474 1,105 1,287 696 3,561 Aircraft Manufacturing .... 95 9 21 4 0 34 Air Transport 6 4 21 21 52 Automobile ...... 22 28 4 0 54 Cement .......... 3 18 46 7 74 Chemical .............counue 72 170 268 141 651 Clay & Mineral Progucts ot 226 17 44 17 86 Communications .... v5 99 2 6 6 12 26 Construction ... 248 42 24 19 107 Electrical Equipment 412 38 n 31 14 1 Electrical Utilities vs 253 34 66 29 132 Fertilizer 179 8 12 43 Food .covviivnnes 752 17 49 138 97 301 Foundry 138 3 13 Ea 110 1 15 36 61 Glass. “voivven vw vovvanior ses sas 128 4 9 16 8 37 Iron & Steel Products...... 227 19 24 18 11 72 Leather 35 1 0 0 0 1 Lumber 206 11 21 17 5 54 Machinery 366 14 37 20 16 86 Marine Transport 132 7 35 35 5 82 Meal Packing ; 31 3 2 1 0 6 DE" vow vrwwvesimussane oe 227 31 34 19 8 92 Min Ferrous Metals 149 20 13 0 38 Petroleum 343 22 46 67 23 158 Printing & Publishing we 61 3 8 9 3 23 Pulp & Paper. i.. vesssusss 771 8 76 86 25 195 QUBITY “ure vie vob anmmnv msn 116 3 25 32 8 68 Railroad Equipment ....... 27 1 3 11 0 15 Rubber & Plastics.......... 254 9 37 11 10 67 Sheet Metal Products....... 218 8 37 23 b 73 Shivhuilding 44 2 4 12 0 18 Steel ........ 143 6 21 1 1 35 Stora e & Warehousing 152 5 17 28 25 75 Textile ve 218 17 44 20 4 85 Tobacco .........covuvuvnnn. 30 0 1 1 1 3 TPRNSIY won oor runs nasa Tin ive 10 2 0 1 0 3 Wholesale & Retail Trade... 86 0 8 12 45 66 Wood Products ............ 126 5 12 6 10 33 Miscellaneous .............. 681 54 102 116 58 330 781 Definitions of Certain Terms used in ACCIDENT FACTS Accident is that occurrence in a sequence of vents which usually produces unintended ynjury. death or property damage. Accident type describes the occurrence lead- my to injury or property damage. Agency or agent is the principal object such us tool, machine, or equipment involved in the accident and is usually the object in- tlicting injury or property damage. Day (motor-vehicle accidents) is the time interval between sunrise and sunset. Death from accident is an injury which ter- minates fatally within one year of the date of accident. Disabling injury is an injury causing death, permanent disability, or any degree of tem- porary total disability. Farm, see page 88. Fatal accident is an accident which results in the death of one or more persons within twelve months. Home is a dwelling and its premises within the property lines, including. in addition to the usual single-family dwellings and apart- ment houses, duplex dwellings, boarding and rooming houses, and seasonal cottages. No longer classified as Home are barracks, dor- mitories, and resident institutions. Man-hours are the total number of hours worked by all employees of an industrial or- ganization or an industry. A man-hour is the equivalent of one man working one hour. Motor vehicle is any mechanically or elec- trically powered device (except one moved by human power), not operating on rails, upon which or by which any person or prop- erty may be transported upon a land high- way. The load on a motor vehicle, or trailer attached to it, is considered part of the ve- hicle. Tractors and motorized machinery are included while self-propelled in transit or used for transportation. Also included are motor scooters and motorized bicycles. Nonmotor vehicle is any vehicle other than a motor vehicle, except a coaster wagon, child's sled. child's tricycle, child's scooter. wheel- chair, roller skates, ice skates, skis, baby carriage, and similar means of transportation persons using these latter means of trans- portation are considered pedestrians. Motor-vehicle accident is any accident involv- ing a motor vehicle in motion that results in death, injury, or property damage. However, motion of the motor vehicle is not required in a collision between a railroad train or a street car and a motor vehicle. For descrip- tions of different types of motor-vehicle acci- dents, see pages 42 and 43. Motor-vehicle traffic accident is a motor- vehicle accident which occurs on a trafficway —a way or place, any part of which is open to the use of the public for purposes of ve- hicular traffic. Motor-vehicle nontraffic accident is any motor- vehicle accident which occurs entirely in any place other than a trafficway. Night (motor-vehicle accidents) is the time interval between sunset and sunrise. Nonfatal injury accident is an accident in which at least one person is injured, and no injury terminates fatally. Pedestrian is any person who at the time of the injury is not in a motor vehicle or non- motor vehicle. (See definition of motor- vehicle.) Persons on other vehicles such as a coaster wagon, child's tricycle, roller skates, ete. are considered pedestrians, A person hitching onto a vehicle is a pedestrian unless entirely in or on the vehicle. Permanent disability is synonymous with per- manent impairment and includes any degree of impairment from the amputation of a part of a finger or the permanent impairment of vision to seriously and permanently crippling nonfatal injuries. The term, permanent total disability, usually implies permanent, com- plete inability to perform gainful work, but includes also the amputation of both arms, both legs, both feet, or any combination of two such extremities, and the total loss of sight. Permanent partial disability implies permanent impairment of any degree less than permanent total disability. Property damage accident is an accident which results in property damage, but in which no person is injured. Rates a. Death rates are of three types: 1. Population—the number of deaths per 100,000 persons exposed; 2. Registration—the number of deaths from motor-vehicle accidents per 10.000 motor vehicles registered in the area for which the rate is computed; 3. Mileage—the number of deaths from motor-vehicle accidents per 100,000,000 miles of motor-vehicle travel in the area for which the rate is computed. b. Frequency rate is the number of dis- abling work injuries per 1,000,000 em- ployee-hours exposure. c. Severity rate is the total days charged for work injuries jor 1,000,000 employee- hours exposure, ays charged include actual calendar days of disability result- ing from temporary total injuries, and scheduled charges for deaths and perma- nent disabilities. These latter charges are based on 6,000 days for a death or per- manent total disability, with proportion- ately fewer days for permanent partial disabilities of varying degrees of se- riousness. Rural (for motor-vehicle reporting) includes places of less than 2.500 inhabitants, except those classified as urban by the U.S. Census Bureau. (See urban definition below.) Temporary total disability is an injury which does not result in death or permanent dis- ability, but which renders the injured person unable to perform regular duties on one or Toe full calendar days after the day of the injury. Urban (for motor-vehicle reporting) includes places of 2,600 or more inhabitants, and the towns. townships. and other areas classified as urban by the U.S. Census Bureau. Work injuries are those which arise out of and in the course of gainful work, except that (1) work injuries to domestic servants, and (2) injuries occurring in connection with farm chores, are classified as home injuries. 782 "AcciDENT Facts, 1968 PRELIMINARY CONDENSED EDITION, ISSUED FEBRUARY 1968 ALL ACCIDENTAL DEATHS 1957 ‘58 ‘59 ‘60 ‘61 '62 ‘63 ‘64 ‘65 ‘66 ‘67 The 1967 accident death total was approximately 112,000, about 1 per cent less than the 1966 death toll of approximately 113,000 (see table below). Disabling injuries numbered about 10,700,000, including 400,000 which resulted in some degree of Pecmanen) impairment — ranging rom partial loss of use of a finger to blindness or complete crippling. Disabling injury totals for the rincipal er of accidents were: ar fo 1,900,000; public non-motor-vehicle, 2,400,000; home, 4,300,000; work, 2,200,000. Dupli- cations of motor-vehicle with other classes numbered 100,000. Death to- tals are given in the table below. Accident costs amounted to about $21,300,000,000. This includes wage loss of $6,000,000,000, medical ex- pense of $2,200,000,000, administra- tive and claim settlement costs of insurance, $4,900,000,000, property damage in motor-vehicle-accidents of $3,500,000,000, property loss in fires of about $1,706,000,000, and the so- called “indirect” costs of work acci- dents of about $35000,000,000. Motor-vehicle accident costs ex- clude certain public agency activities such as police, fire, courts; damages awarded exceeding direct cost; in- direct costs to employers. Work acci- dent costs exclude property damage value in noninjury accidents other than fires, and the indirect losses of all fires. The trend from 1966 to 1967 was down. Home deaths decreased 3 per cent and work deaths decreased 2 per cent. Motor-vehicle and public non- motor-vehicle deaths showed no change from 1966. The death rate in 1967 per 100,000 population was 56.6, a decrease of 2 per cent from the 1966 rate of 57.7. Present indications are that in 1967, as in earlier years, accidents were the fourth most important cause of death, exceeded only by heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Accidents were the leading cause of death among both males and females 1 to 37 years old, according to the latest detailed information (1965). Accident types that were most im- portant in 1967 were motor-vehicle accidents and falls with 47 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively, of the death total. Fires, burns and injuries associated with conflagrations caused 7 per cent of the deaths, and drown- ings another 6 per cent. In 1908 to 1912, the five years pre- ceding the formation of the National Safety Council, the average accidental death rate was 83 per 100,000 popu- lation. This was divided roughly into rates of 2 for motor-vehicle accidents and 81 for non-motor-vehicle acci- dents. By 1967 the non-motor-vehicle accident rate had dropped from 81 to 30. This record of successful acci- dent prevention work was partly concealed by the increase in the dS det: Foxe is: priblished suavally, fa; tw densed Edition, The The Con of this edition is to list a few outstanding ings, work accident rates, accident costs and many other details. Prices of the 1967 Edition are: 1 copy, $2.40; 2 to motor-vehicle death rate from 2 to 27, resulting from the great increase in the use of motor vehicles. Death totals by age groups in 1967, and changes from 1966, based on the Seventh Revision of the Inter- national Statistical Classification of Causes of Death, follow: Age 1967 1966 Change Ot 4 7,900 8,500 —7% 5 to 14 7,800 8,000 —3% 15 to 24 21,600 21,200 +2% 25 to 44 23,100 22,800 +1% 45 to 64 23400 23,700 —1% 65 to 74 10900 10,800 +1% 75 and over 17,300 18,000 —4% Since the ten years 1903 to 1912 the greatest progress in accident ‘pre- vention has been made among chil- dren under 15 years of age. The 65 ALL ACCIDENTS Motor-vehicle .... Public non-motor-vehicle . Home .. Work THE NATIONAL ACCIDENT FATALITY TOLL Note: The motor-vebicle totals include some deaths also included in the work and home totals. This duplication amounted to about 3,200 in 1967 and 3,500 in 1966. All figures ar National Safety Council estimates. 1967 1966 Change 113,000 —1% 53,000 0% 19,500 19,500 0% 28,500 29,500 —3% 14,200 —2% to 74 year age group had the least improvement, except for the 15 to 24 year age group which had an in- crease. The 1967 death rates per 100,000 population for each age group are shown below and are compared with the corresponding 1903-1912 rates. Age 1903-12 1967 Change* 0to 4 95.0 41.0 —57% 5 to 14 41.8 19.1 —54% 15 to 24 64.6 67.9 + 5% 25 to 44 83.2 49.1 —41% 45 to 64 104.1 58.3 —43% 65 to 74 164.5 92.9 —35% 75 and over 525.7 247.5 —45% *Adjusted for 1948 Revision in Death Classifi- cation List. The latest detailed information available (1965) showed motor-ve- hicle deaths as the leading cause of accidental deaths for all age groups under 75 years. Motor-vehicle deaths were 24 per cent of the 0 to 4 years ar death total, 48 per cent for 5 to 14 years, 72 per cent for 15 to 24 years, 57 per cent for 25 to 44 years, 46 per cent for 45 to 64 years and 39 per cent for 65 to 74 years. Among persons 75 years and over the leading cause of accidental death was falls, which were 65 per cent of the total. The next leading causes of acci- dental deaths were: 0 to 4 years— fires, burns; 5 to 14, 15 to 24, and 25 to 44 years—drownings; 45 to 64, and 65 to 74 years—falls; 75 years and over—motor vehicle. Four catastrophes in 1967 caused more than 50 deaths each; airplane crashes near Hendersonville, N.C. and near Cincinnati, Ohio; tornadoes in Illinois and a bridge collapse near Pt. Pleasant, W. Va. There were, however, six other catastrophes in which 25 or more persons died. MOTOR-VEHICLE ACCIDENTS There were approximately 53,000 deaths from motor-vehicle accidents in 1967, no change from 1966. Motor- vehicle mileage was up 4 per cent. Deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles decreased to 5.5 from 5.7 in 1966. MOTOR-VEHICLE IIL 59 ‘60 ‘61 '62 '63 "64 ‘65 ‘66 ‘67 783 Disabling injuries in 1967 numbered about 1,900,000. Costs, including wage loss, medical ex , administrative and claim settlement costs of insurance, and property damage amounted to $11,000,000,000. More than 30 per cent of the deaths, 16,400, were from accidents in urban areas (cities and towns with more than 2,500 population) ; nearly 70 per cent, 36,600, from accidents in rural areas and towns under 2,500 population. There were approximately 9,300 pe- destrian deaths, no change from 1966; and 43,700 nonpedestrian deaths, also no change from 1966. The age distribution of deaths, and changes from 1966, were as follows: Age 1967 1966 Change Oto 4 2,000 2,100 —5% 5 0 14 3,800 4,000 —5% 15 to 24 15,800 15,600 +1% 25 to 44 13,000 13,000 0% 45 to 64 10,900 11,000 —1% 65 to 74 4,400 4300 +2% 75and over 3,100 3,000 43% WORK ACCIDENTS The 1967 death total for work ac- cidents was approximately 14,200 or 300 less than the 1966 total. Dis- abling injuries numbered 2,200,000. The death total excluding agriculture was about 11,500 of hich 1,900 occurred in manufacturing industries. Total cost, including loss from business fires, amounted to about $6,800,000,000. In addition to the 14,200 workers killed while at work, 40,300 died from off-the-job accidents—a death total of 54,500. Workers injured in both kinds of accidents numbered about 5,400,000. HOME ACCIDENTS Home accident deaths in 1967 to- taled approximately 28,500, or 1,000 less than the 1966 total. Disabling in- juries numbered 4,300,000. Costs—in- cluding wage loss, medical expense and administrative and claim settlement costs of insurance—amounted to $1,500,000,000. Falls caused about two-fifths of the deaths; fires, burns, more than one- fifth; all other types, one-third. More than one-third of those killed were persons 75 years old and older. Nearly one-fifth were children under 5 years. The remaining two-fifths were persons 5 to 74 years old. PUBLIC ACCIDENTS There were approximately 19,500 deaths in public non-motor-vehicle ac- cidents during 1967, about the samé number as in 1966. Disabling injuries n ted approximately 2,400,000, of which 60,000 were permanent impair-_ HOME ACCIDENT DTG 58 '59 ‘60 ‘61 ‘62 '63 ‘64 ‘65 ‘66 ments. Wage loss, medical expense and administrative and claim settlement costs of insurance amounted to $1,300,000,000. oi Nontransport drownings and-ifalls cach resulted in nearly one-fourth of the deaths. Transportation accidents (rail, air, water, and other—not in- volving motor vehicles) accounted for nearly one-fifth. All other con- tributed about one-third of the death total. Deaths were distributed by age about as follows: 45 to 64 and 75 years and older each about one-fifth; 15 to 24 and 25 to 44 each had about one-sixth; 5 to 14 and 65 to 74 each about one- ninth; children under five less than one-tenth. AIRPLANE ACCIDENTS . Fatal accidents during 1967 in the domestic passenger-carrying operation of scheduled air-carriers claimed the lives of 226 passengers and 24 crew members. The passenger death rate per 100,000,000 passenger-miles, based on preliminary information was 0.30. Total deaths in all civil aviation ac- cidents numbered about 1,500. RAILROAD ACCIDENTS Passenger deaths in 1967 railroad accidents are not available at this time, but some information is available on highway grade crossing accidents. For the first five months of 1967, deaths in these accidents totalled 705, compared with 733 in the same months of 1966, according to the Federal Railroad Ad- ministration. Reports from state motor- vehicle departments indicate a full year total of about 1,580 grade crossing deaths, compared with about 1,740 in 1966. FIRE LOSSES The estimate of fire losses for 1967 was approximately $1,706,000,000, ac- cording to the American Insurance As- sociation, about 14 per cent more than in 1966. : 784 STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNOR'S CONFERENCE This statement is based on the responses of a number of the Governors to a survey conducted by this office on the proposed Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968 and on the Report of the National Governors’ Conference Committee on Manpower and Labor Relations—approved by the Conference at the Mid- Year Meeting March 1 in Washington, D.C. Governor Hulett C. Smith of West Virginia is Committee Chairman. A copy of the report is attached. In the Committee Report as well as in individual responses, many Governors express concern over the lack of prior consultation in drafting this legislation, the sudden appearance of the legislation, and the rapid pace of the hearing sched- ule. In addition to their affect on the bill, these factors combined with the heavy state legislative schedule at the present time, have prompted delays in obtaining comments from all Governors. The Committee might expect additional state comments later in the spring. Gubernatorial responses to our material indicate support in principle for the basic purpose of the legislation: better health and safety conditions for the worker. However, most Governors oppose extension of federal enforcement or standard setting authority in this field. Virtually all take issue with the federal preemption features of HR 14816. The Manpower and Labor Relations Committee Report expressed doubt that federal preemption is either necessary or the best approach to the problem. In- stead, the Governors indicated a clear preference for the philosophy of federal- state relations reflected in a variety of recent legislation such as air pollution control and meat inspection. These laws tend to bolster state programs wherever possible and avoid preemption of state authority except in severe cases of state inactivity or public health emergencies. The National Safety Council has released figures indicating that the death rate has dropped from thirty-three for every one hundred thousand workers in 1945 to twenty in 1966. The Secretary of Labor in his testimony before this Com- mittee has commended progress in a number of states with the most highly developed programs. Many Governors question whether the case for this legislation has been proven. They acknowledge the value of added federal assistance for improving state pro- grams, but most of the Governors question whether federal displacement of state standard-setting and enforcement authority would meet the ends sought. The real solution may be correcting the inadequacy of funds available to enforce existing laws—or the adoption of new state and local laws. The proposed legislation raises problems and uncertainties of defining juris- dictional limits, blanket uniformity of standards, concurrent jurisdiction followed by displacement of traditional state authority where accomplishments are pre- dominately non-Federal. There is also the problem of current strictures on fed- eral financing. Most of the responding Governors urge additional research into program needs and clarification of the problems involved before legislation is adopted. Secretary Wirtz testified that “research in the field of occupational safety and health is presently uncoordinated and woefully inadequate” and that “our present statis- tics are too weak for any meaningful purpose.” Some Governors would confine federal assistance to research and demonstra- tion. Others support grants for state occupational safety and health operations as well as the planning assistance proposed in H.R. 14816. They call for block grants; seek legislative assurance of equitable distribution of funds among states ; and call for the use of federal aid as an incentive for solid and improved state programs. Many Governors note the lack of Congressional guidelines to assist the Sec- retary in standard-setting or in displacing state authority. They also express con- cern over the timetable that would appear to require the Secretary to have set standards and be prepared to enforce them within eighteen months. Another problem raised by many of the Governors concerns concurrent juris- diction by two police powers, especially with the recognized uncertainties of clearly defined jurisdictional limits. In summary, most of the Governors have already proven their dedication to better health and safety conditions for the worker by instituting and improving state standards and enforcement. Generally, the Governors welcome expanded federal effort in research and demonstration projects, as well as federal financial aid to improve state programs including planning assistance proposed in H.R. 785 14816. However, the Governors question seriously whether the present legislation with its preemptive provisions will solve the problem. The National Governors’ Conference Office of Federal-State Relations would be happy to submit any further statement the Committee requests or cooperate with the Committee in any way to help develop the best bill that responds to the stated need. Thank you. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND LABOR RELATIONS, NATIONAL GOVERNOR'S CONFERENCE * The Committee on Manpower and Labor Relations met primarily to consider its Task Force Report on State and Local Government Labor Relations, the In- tergovernmental Personnel Act, the Occupational Health and Safety bill, and programs and organizational realignment in the manpower field. The Committee found most rewarding an exchange of views on these matters with Labor Secretary W. Willard Wirtz; and Chairman John W. Macy, Jr., Civil Service Commission; and Manpower Administrator Stanley J. Ruttenberg, U.S. Department of Labor. It is proposed that the Conference accept the following action statement: Each Governor is urged to review carefully the Report on State and local Government Labor Relations, and to keep the Committee informed of any developments in this field in his state. Also, the Committee urges that a full discussion of the subject be scheduled for the 1968 Annual Meeting. The Intergovernmental Personnel Act, passed by the Senate and now under consideration in the House, incorporates many changes sought by state and local governments. The Committee suggests that the Governors, in preparing testimony for the House committee hearings, consider reaffirming support for such changes, and for a restoration of the three-fourths federal share originally proposed for personnel administration and training grants. In the Committee's consideration of the Occupational Safety and Health pro- posals, it was suggested, during conversations with Secretary Wirtz, that the philosophy of federal-state relations developed with the assistance of the Gover- nors and reflected in air pollution, highway safety, meat inspection and other legislation, would be preferable to the approach used in the pending bill. The Committee finds indications of doubt that federal preemption is either necessary or the best approach to the problem. The Committee reemphasized the importance of each state presenting promptly to appropriate federal authorities its own views and needs on this bill and other proposed legislation affecting the states. This Committee joins with the Committee on State-Urban Relations to encour- age increased efforts to place the unemployed in permanent instead of temporary jobs. It is suggested that every precaution be taken to provide for the needy not on welfare in the realignment of manpower programs. It is strongly recommended that the Congress allow the states more lead time in consideration of proposed legislation, and that the various federal agencies make every effort to maintain realistic schedules in the cooperative development and implementation of regulations in connection with new manpower legislation and other programs affecting the states. The Committee is also of the view that the Governors should explore possibili- ties for more effective state employment services and statewide cooperative area manpower planning. TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. VOLPE, GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 14816, the Occupational Safety bill. Long before I entered public service I was intimately acquainted with the construction business, and it is to that area of your deliberations that I wish to address myself. My apprenticeship in that industry began as a hod carrier, working with my father. The story of the development of America is largely a story of builders, 1 Report accepted by the National Governors’ Conference at its Mid-Year Meeting on Federal-State Relations, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1968. 786 and I am especially pleased to be able to present this testimony to your Committee, for the building industry has always been a part of my life. Your Committee is to be commended wholeheartedly for its efforts in focusing attention on occupa- tional safety and for emphasizing the necessity of protecting the health and safety of employees and others within the construction industry. Because, of course, safety pays. About eight years ago, I prepared an article for “the constructor” entitled “100 Ways to Save a Buck”, listing in detail some of the efforts we had made in the John A. Volpe Construction Company to widen the profit margin by promoting intensive on-the-job safety. As I reviewed that article the other day, the thought occurred to me that the message is now doubly valuable, and that because of inflation, the article could be reprinted and the title changed to “100 Ways to Save Two Bucks”! Men working under safe conditions produce more than those working under hazardous conditions. Better production means profit on a job and tends to lower costs. Lower building costs are a gain for the community, the contractor, the employee, as well as the National economy. These real and tangible results should be an incentive for all to continue intensive efforts toward safe jobs. I will admit that as Governor of Massachusetts, I've probably spent more time and thought on such things as highway safety and public safety over the past eight years. But the fact remains that I have been concerned with safety problems in the construction industry since long before entering public life, and I would assure you that my former firm, the John A. Volpe Construction Company, is still very active, and that its safety program still gets top priority, even though the ex-boss happens to be in the Massachusetts State House and not in the Company offices. Job safety means time saved, money saved, and lives saved. There is no ques- tion that the industry is faced with a challenge. The accident frequency rate in the construction field is 12.24 lost-time accidents per million man-hours of expo- sure. This is nearly double the average rate for all industries, which is 6.91. Construction remains second only to the mining industry as far as accident frequency is concerned. With this challenge before us, we must look for the tools to get the job done. We must make the industry safer—and we must do it now. The industry has, in fact, been quick to adopt the protective devices that have been made available, such as hard hats, safety shoes, safety glasses, and protective clothing. But there is more that must be done. The challenges must be faced in the areas of (first of all) management concern, and (secondly) employee awareness. The greatest safety problem in the construction industry today is not so much the nature of the work—not so much a physical inability to cope with hazards— but rather a seeming willingness to put unbound faith and trust in “lady luck”. “Luck” and “risk” may be intrinsic parts of estimating and bidding, but they certainly have no place in a safety program. During these hearings, you are looking for new ideas and new concepts in safety, and I trust some will be developed. After all, industry has both the tools and the rules. What it needs now is the determination and the follow-through to use those tools, and to follow those rules! Only then will the construction industry be able to call itself a truly safe industry. There are many things that can be done. Management must show that it cares— that it has a personal concern in the safety of each and every employee. Manage- ment must educate. Every channel of publicity and information must be used. Safety must be sold. Top management must be aware that sales can be won or lost on the basis of insurance costs, and that insurance costs are keyed directly to the safety record of the company. Each worker must have the will for safety. In the same way that a lion tamer is “on his toes” every time he goes into that cage, men must be constantly aware that their personal safety is on the line during every working hour. I suspect that too many foremen and supervisors try to be re-assuring. It’s easy to say “Oh, don’t worry about that thing—it’ll never fall down”. Management must never try to “cover up” an accident—because if it does, the same accident will probably happen again. We should make it difficult for accidents to happen, but if they do occur, we must make it difficult for them to go unnoticed. Safety programs must be tailored to each particular job. It is negligent to attempt to standardize a safety program and expect it to run automatically— because, believe me, it won’t. An analysis must be made of each individual job, and emphasis must be given to particular job hazards. 787 Incentive plays a major role in construction safety. Many of the safest com- panies in the country have found that a program providing awards on a com- petitive basis gives workers proof that safety pays, and makes them eager par- ticipants in a safety program. : Training is also of the utmost importance. A man who is provided with only perfunctory training on a new piece of equipment is not prepared to cope with emergencies—and becomes a hazard himself. While safe workers may not always be good workers, you can be absolutely sure that a good worker is a safe worker. Another point that we found extremely helpful in our company—insurance carriers are always eager and glad to help with accident prevention work. Small accidents can become serious if they are not given proper attention. Maintenance of adequate first-aid facilities is a must on every job. And most of all, safety rules must be enforced on every job. It does no good whatsoever to blanket the job with signs if supervisors and foremen will let the men use unsafe short-cuts and unnecessary risks. Foremen must be en- couraged to pick the most responsible men for the hazardous jobs, making sure that safety rules are being followed and safety tools are being used. One device which we found to be useful and successful was to have a weekly safety inspection on the job by a three-man team of employees, with the team’s personnel changed each week. The motto of industry must be, “Stick to the book. Follow the rules. Keep the men aware of the need for safety, and safety will become part and parcel of construction operations.” Yes, gentlemen, safety is a continuing thing. There is no great influx of new ideas and new concepts. We must learn by the lessons of the past. We must put these lessons to good use. We must drive those lessons home hour after hour, day after day, job after job. The industry is making firm and definite steps in the right direction. I am impressed by the fact that to date more than 10,000 supervisors have success- fully completed the Associated General Contractors’ construction safety course. Equally impressive is the fact that there are over 1,000 enrollees in the new safety correspondence course, with 300 having completed it already. I have long supported the A.G.C.’s Safety Certification Program, whereby each company is evaluated by an A.G.C. team of experts and ranked accordingly. I am personaily proud that my former firm, the John A. Volpe Construction Company, was one of the first in the nation to be certified. We are substantially in agreement that certain safety standards may, in the near future, be set up as pre-requisites for membership in the A.G.C. Yes, much is being done. But the industry must do more, and in closing, I would like to take off my hard hat for a moment and speak to you as a Governor, rather than as a former contractor. I am sure—that if the construction industry does not do its own job of safety education and awareness—does not bring that lost-time accident rate down sharply—then someone is going to step in and do it for them. As a former contractor, as an individual businessman in a free enterprise society, I share the concern against undue government interference. But I ask you sincerely, when a man’s life is at stake—or when an arm or a leg or his eyesight is at stake—is not that man’s safety certainly within the realm of governmental concern? I think it is. I know it is. I, for one, and the John A. Volpe Construction Company, would much prefer that industry set its own house in order. I would be ashamed—yes, ashamed—if the government came to my former company and said, “You aren't doing the job. We're going to have to do it for you.” Remember well, that government had to step in to make mines safer places in which to work. Government regulates safety in the air lanes, on the high- ways, and at sea. Government establishes firm safety standards in plants that have government contracts. Government has, indeed, already taken steps within the construction industry. Government will do more, if the industry does not do it. I sincerely and earnestly hope to see the day when the construction industry no longer holds the title “second worst”. It's nothing to brag about. I look for the day when all construction men will recognize hazards at all times. I look for the day when we will continually do everything within our power to prevent death, injury, and lost time—when we will protect to the best of our ability. Until we have done everything we possibly can, we will not have done enough. Thank you. 62-734 0—68——b1 788 STATEMENT BY MAYOR JOSEPH M. BARR OF PITTSBURGH, PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS I am pleased to have this opportunity to express support for the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 in behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors. There can be no doubt from the statistics that much needs to be done to pro- tect the workers of this nation. This bill will go far in assisting this effort. It authorizes the establishment of uniform nationwide standards protecting our workers which will reap the benefits of economy of resources and efficiency in operating procedures. The economic advantages to industry of uniform standards and specifications have long been recognized. The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to undertake training and educational programs. These programs will be of immeasurable value to states and local governments in meeting the manpower shortage of qualified personnel responsible for occupational safety and health. Moreover, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare would be author- ized to provide for research in this vast field. We have accomplished much by research in the field of health and other disciplines. Without research many of our technological, engineering and other feats would have been unrealized. But we have never really put research techniques to work for us in the field of occupational safety. This program of research could be of untold benefits to the working people of this country and the nation itself. The bill provides authorization of grants to states to assist in the regulation and enforcement of occupational health and safety standards. We recognize that states need this assistance. It is important, however, to understand that many local governments have great responsibilities to provide safety and health services to the working population. This is true particularly in areas where the primary objective has been to safeguard the public safety and health but the overlap for workers has been substantial. Fire prevention is only the most conspicuous example of such activity. The emphasis given to the safety movement by the catastrophic Triangle fire of 1911 in the New York garment district which took 145 lives is well known. Local fire regulations in places of employment have reduced the chances of such holo- causts occurring again. And Congress has taken one great step forward in the field of fire prevention by its passage of the Fire Research and Safety Act. All cities and municipalities have adopted codes and ordinances to promote health and safety by maintaining standards of construction for residences and public buildings. The safe construction, installation and maintenance of boilers and pressure vessels is another area where local regulations and enforcement have played an important role. Cities’ building and inspection departments reg- ulate and inspect elevators, electrical installations, plumbing, refrigerating, heat- ing, and air conditioning units. They establish requirements for such building service occupations as window cleaning. Furthermore licensing requirements for electricians, stationary and hoisting engineers, boiler elevator operators, ete., also contribute to job safety. City health departments have a primary role in air pollution control and establishing sanitation standards in places of employment. Since 1962 a continuing policy resolution of the U.S. Conference of Mayors has called on all member cities to conduct regular safety programs for municipal employees—not only to cut the costly toll of accidents and injuries but as “sound municipal management.” But we should be able to do more. Because of this great local responsibility for worker safety, I urge the Com- mittee to amend Section 17 of the bill before you. The amendment would au- thorize the Secretary of Labor to make grants “to the states and other public bodies to assist them in identifying their needs and responsibilities in the area of occupational safety and health and to develop plans for” assisting both levels of government in the enforcement of safety and health programs. Thank you. 789 STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Lansing, Mich., February 15, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. HoLrAND : We wish to take this opportunity to express our opinion with reference to proposed legislation known as the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. We do so with the full realization of the importance and timeliness of the aims of this act with regard to the general welfare of our coun- try. It is our primary objective in expressing our point of view to suggest modifi- cations in the proposal which we believe will accomplish the objectives of reduc- ing industrial accidents and preventing occupational disease in a more effective manner. Your consideration of our comments and suggestions is respectfully solicited. The proposed legislation as reported in the Congressional Record of January 23, 1968 has been reviewed and carefully considered against a background of more than twenty five years of experience in dealing with occupational health problems. The following statements summarize our opinion with reference to this proposed Act. 1. We support the basic proposal that an intensified federal program is needed in both occupational health and occupational safety to establish uniform stand- ards, to provide for research and training, to provide financial grants to states to carry out their established function, and to provide for effective enforcement of occupational health and occupational safety standards. 2. We strongly believe that occupational disease prevention and occupational safety problems are separate and distinct entities which logically should be sep- arated in terms of program responsibility. The success of the proposed legisla- tion is in our view predicated upon the establishment of two parallel programs with separate responsibilities placed in the Department of Labor and the Depart- ment of Health, Education and Welfare. 3. Occupational health, in major part, is a matter of disease prevention. We believe therefore, questions concerning employee health, the establishment of occupational health standards and regulations, the research and training pro- grams in occupational health, and the enforcement of occupational health rules and regulations can most effectively be handled by the health agencies of the federal and state governments. 4. It is our viewpoint that evaluation of environmental factors relating to employee health, monitoring of employee exposure to workroom contaminants or physical agents, prevention of occupational disease, and the determination of the remedial action required to protect the health of the worker are highly technical and specialized functions that cannot be dealt with in the same manner as the traumatic problems of workroom safety. 5. For the reasons outlined above and for others, we believe that the Occupa- tional Health and Safety Act of 1968 should be amended giving direction and authority to the Secretary of Labor to carry out a vigorous program to improve occupational safety and to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare for an equivalent program to preserve occupational health. 6. It appears illogical to us that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, with all of its expertise in the area of disease prevention should be divested of the basic responsibility for occupational health which is a critical segment of the total adult health disease prevention picture. The abrogation of this responsibility will, in our view, make the accomplishment of the desired objectives more costly, more difficult and in all probability cause a serious delay in their implementation. We appreciate the opportunity to express our opinion and we would be pleased to discuss the matter further if we can be of service to you. Sincerely yours, JorN C. SoET, Chief, Division of Occupational Health. 790 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1968. Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman, Education and Labor Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mi. CHAIRMAN : I am enclosing letters from the Honorable John Connally, Governor of Texas, and from a leading El Paso attorney, Mr. Jim Hulse, con- cerning H.R. 14816, now being considered by your committee. 1 will appreciate the attention of your committee to the objections to this legislation posed by Governor Connally and Mr. Hulse. If the bill could be amended to meet these objections, I would be glad to hear of any such possibilities. Sincerely yours, RicaARD C. WHITE, Member of Congrese. FEBRUARY 27, 1968. Hon. RicHARD WHITE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Deak Dick: As Governor of a state that has declared a basic policy of pro- tection for working men and women against unsafe and hazardous working con- ditions, I am alarmed at the content of the Health and Safety Act of 1968 (H.R. 14816 and S. 2864). These companion bills envision a new federal standards program that would impose the heavy hand of bureaucratic conformity upon states that are rigorously pursuing a course of excellence in a field which is a traditional responsibility of state government. In Texas, the 60th Legislature passed, and I signed into law, occupational safety legislation (H.B. 559) which provides for a Division of Occupational Safety within the State Department of Health and for the establishment of safety standards to meet the particular needs of Texas industry. This program is a classic example of the flexibility and innovation that is an inherent feature of responsible state governments moving to meet the divergent needs of the 50 states that make our nation. In view of the efforts éxpended by Texas and most other states, it is my opinion that the Health Safety Act of 1968 would be an unnecessary duplication in the field of occupational safety. The bills, as introduced, raise serious questions of concurrent jurisdiction and infringe upon a basic responsibility now being met by state governments. I know you share my concern not only for the safety of our working men and women, but for the vitality of state government. I there- fore urge you to oppose this proposed legislation which I believe would be detrimental to both. With kindest regards, Sincerely, JouN CONNALLY, Governor of Texas. EL Paso, TEX., February 28, 1968. Hon. RicEARD C. WHITE, Washington, D.C. DeArR RicHARD: My attention has been called to HR 14816, “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968”. More and more, it seems that we have legislation in Congress for tighter Federal control of every aspect of life in these United States. Most of it, under the Constitution, and under any theory of a free government, should be left to the States. This is simply one more example. This is an effort by the Congress to establish federal safety standards. The State code would operate along with the federal standards, but it would put the newly established Texas law in a bind in trying to compete with federal standards. The bill provides that the State and Federal governments would have con- current jurisdiction over the federal standards for 18 months, after which the Secretary of Labor of the Federal government would determine whether or not 791 the State would continue to have concurrent jurisdiction or whether the Federal government would take exclusive jurisdiction. The bill gives the Secretary of Labor the power to petition the District Courts to close down a plant violating the code. Penalties are quite severe—civil penal- ties for violating standards are not to exceed $1,000 for each violation ; criminal penalties can be assessed if any willfully violates the law and this can involve imprisonment for not more than 6 months or a fine not to exceed $5,000, or both. All employers who run a business of any size at all, have safety programs. All of the ones I know about run very successful programs. Generally, employers are tremendously interested in the safety and welfare of their employees not only because they all have humanitarian instincts but also because an injury to an employee costs the employer money. It costs him in Workmen's Compensation premiums and it costs him in having to train either new or temporary employees. I am sure the proponents of the Bill can give you horrible examples of acci- dents that have happened, nevertheless, under the comprehensive and successful safety programs of most employers, far better than can be done by any Govern- ment bureaucrat—this Bill is not needed. It only increases the bureaucratic red- tape which is strangling the people of this country. I urge you to do everything you can to prevent its passage. Yours very truly, Jim HULSE. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Education and Labor Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR COLLEAGUE: I am enclosing a telegram from the Governor of my State, the Honorable Paul Laxalt, as well as a copy of a letter from the Nevada Division of Titanium Metals Corporation, Mr. Eugene V. Francy, both of which indicate opposition to the proposed legislation, the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I share the views of my constituents, and my Governor. Sincerely, WALTER S. BARING, Congressman for Nevada. CARSON CI1Y, NEV., February 27, 1968. Hon. WALTER S. BARING, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. : Proposed Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 (8. 2964 and H.R. 14816) clearly demonstrate seizure by Federal Government of control of industrial safety and occupational health in all States. Both bills propose complete preemp- tion of the field by Federal Government, only mitigation being possible through discretion of the Secretary of Labor. The bills make it clear that the Labor De- partment must be prepared to assume responsibility for virtually entire adminis- tration of factory inspection and enforcement of compliance everywhere in the country within 18 months. Both bills reflect on seemly haste in preparation with- out consultation with the States and basis for them seems no more sound than the flimsy pretext used to force through the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967. Since 1955, Nevada has been more than meeting its obligtaions in industrial help and safety activity with last change in law in 1967 legislature. Nevada Industrial Commission covers estimated 95 percent of employers with average expenditure far above national average set forth by Secretary Wirtz. In addition, we have related functions here such as liquified petroleum gas board, State fire marshal, mine inspection office and environmental health. From Nevada's viewpoint, the two bills have no justification in fact and reflect only another greedy grasp for power and control of State activities by Federal agencies. Sincerely, PAUL LAXALT, Governor, State of Nevada. 792 TITANIUM METALS CORP. OF AMERICA, Henderson, Nev., March 8, 1968. Hon. WALTER BARING, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sik: It has come to my attention that an Occupational Safety and Health Act has been proposed—H.R. 14816 and S. 2864. The bills appear to be identical, and from my point of view they are the most arbitrary pieces of legislature IT have had the misfortune to read. Industry has been acutely aware of safety and health protection of their employees, and has strenuously worked for it over a long period of time. It is of general consensus that moral, an well as economic considerations require everyone to strive constantly for achieving an ever-higher standard of industrial safety. But a good cause is no excuse for a bad bill. It is basically unwise to grant almost unlimited discretionary powers to a Federal agency to set standards, supervise enforcement, judge compliance or the lack of it, and to assess penalties. The bill would, in effect, Federalize State industrial and health programs, and jeopardize State workmen's compensation systems. The State of Nevada, under the Nevada Industrial Commission and the Bureau of Mines, keep close surveillance on industry and its employees, with respect to their health and welfare. For Congress to enact, on a federal level, the proposed bills would be a duplicate of the services which is entirely unnecessary and burdensome. We hope you will do everything possible to prevent this type of legis- lation from passing. Both the frequency and severity rate in industry, going back to 1926, has con- tinuously dropped. The death rate has constantly dropped. And the best accident record found in prevention of accidents has been in industry. The home and the highway have by far the worst record. Again, your help in preventing the passing of this legislation will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Gene EUGENE V. FRANCY. STATE OF NEBRASKA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Lincoln, February 26, 1968. To: Robert Barnett, special counsel to the Governor; and Dr. Clayton Yeutter, executive assistant to the Governor. From: Tom Doyle, commissioner of labor. Subject: Comments on Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968—S. 2864 and H.R. 14816. I have reviewed the subject Administration Bills cited above and submit the following comments relative to the probable effect of these Bills on the State of Nebraska if enacted as originally submitted to the Congress: I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The stated purpose is to reduce accidental industrial injuries and deaths mainly through : a. Mandatory federal occupational safety and health standards b. Granting pre-emptive enforcement authority to the Secretary of labor c. Expanded research (by Federal, State, and/or private agencies) con- cerning development of safety standards d. Grants to the states (up to 90% Federal matching funds), for identifi- cation of local safety needs, development of plans and solutions to these needs, and for training of occupational safety personnel. II. EVALUATION OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES A. Advantages to the State of Nebraska appear to be : 1. Improved safety standards and more effective enforcement ; experience in private and public agencies has demonstrated convincingly that improved occupational safety standards, coupled with efficient and consistent enforce- ment, substantially reduces accidental injury and death rates in industry. Nebraska is badly in need of strengthened enforcement provisions relative to violations of state safety regulations. Implementation of these bills would nraovide the necessarv enforcement authorization. 793 B. Disadvantages to the State of Nebraska appear to be: 1. The bills lodge administrative authority with the Secretary of Labor. The states are pre-empted in this area except where the Secretary delegates this authority to the various states. 2. The size of the appropriation which will be necessary to effectively implement these bills is uncertain; and it is unlikely that a realistic estimate will be available within the 18-month “grace period” allotted to the Secre- tary for “tooling up” to assume the responsibility for administration of factory inspections, and enforcement of compliance over the entire country. Lacking this information, the appropriation would be delayed (and prob- ably inadequate), and the result would be substitution of an ineffective federal occupational safety program which might on balance, be inferior to the existing state programs. III. SUGGESTED REVISIONS OF BILLS A. These Bills should contain safeguards to assure that the administration and enforecement responsibility will be presumed to rest with the various States, except where the Secretary of Labor has clearly demonstrated that the various states are unable, or unwilling to comply with the federal standards. B. Occupational Safety Standards should be developed jointly by State and Federal agencies. The original drafts of these two bills specify that the develop- ment of safety standards shall be established by “* * * The Secretary of Labor, after appropriate consultation with other Federal agencies * * *7, C. It is questionable whether realistic and/or effective national standards are possible in view of the situation refletced in Secretary Wirtz’ testimony that “research in the field of occupational safety is presently uncoordinated and woe- fully inadequate”, and that “our present statistics are too weak for any mean- ingful purpose.” Therefore, these bills should be constructed to require that adequate advances in research and statistical analysis take place before national standards are developed. STATEMENTS Much human suffering and economic loss results from accidental injuries and deaths in industry. Many of these accidents can be avoided through improved occupational safety standards, coupled with effective and consistent enforcement. In my opinion, the Occupational Health and Safety legislation submitted to the present Congress, if it includes the revisions suggested herein, will provide an effective system for reducing the accidental injury and death rates im Ne- braska industry. I recommend that this legislation be supported, subject to these reservations. 794 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 12, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington D.C. Dear MR. CHAIRMAN : Attached is a comprehensive letter by the Maryland State Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry in connection with H.R. 14816 now under consideration by your committee. I would appreciate your bringing these facts to their attention and hope they will be given very careful study. Sincerely, EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Member of Congress. STATE OF MARYLAND, DEPARTMENT OF LLABOR AND INDUSTRY, Baltimore, March 12, 1968. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FRIEDEL: As enforcing authority for the Maryland Occu- pational Safety Law, Article 89, Sections 28-49, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1964 Replacement Volume and Supplements thereto, we feel it necessary to call your attention to Federal legislation embodied in HR 14816 and its Senate com- panion, S 2864, the proposed Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968, and advise you of our opposition to it in the form in which it was submitted to the Congress. Section 12(a), subtitle, “Federal-State Relationship,” would grant complete discretion to the Secretary of Labor to determine, without qualification, whether or not Federal preemption would be exerted in the area of occupational safety and health in any or all States. We are acutely aware of existing problems in occupational accident preven- tion in some of our sister States through lack of adequate statutory authority, inadequate funding, inadequate staffing, etc., but submit that Maryland does have all of the several qualifications necessary to reasonably carry out our re- sponsibilities in this field. Over the past several years there are numerous docu- mented accomplishments that give credence to our assertion of capabilities. Fol- lowing is a partial listing of some pertinent achievements. 1. Our safety inspection division presently is composed of one (1) chief of division, one (1) assistant chief and forty (40) safety inspectors, all of whom are fully qualified, classified employees within the State Merit System. Their sole responsibility is enforcement of the occupational safety law and the more than forty (40) nationally recognized safety codes adopted in accordance with provisions contained in the law. This is in comparison to a total inspection staff of eighteen (18) in 1963 who had in addition to safety inspection responsbility for enforcement of all other protective labor standards under Departmental jurisdiction. 2. Effective July 1, 1965, a safety education section was established. This sec- tion is composed of a director and two (2) safety training specialists, along with supporting clerical staff, whose responsibility is assisting employers in establishing safety programs and in conducting safety courses in all employment sectors, public and private. Since its inception, over 12,000 registrants have attended safety courses given by this section in all areas of the State. The suc- cess of this effort can probably best be judged by the fact that two (2) additional safety training specialists were allowed in the budget for fiscal year 1969 in what has been widely referred to as a “tight budget.” 3. Senate Resolution No. 9, adopted by the Senate of Maryland on January 25, 1968, (copy attached) is indication of only one important accident prevention area in which we have been able to achieve positive results. 4. Awards paid by the Maryland Workmen's Compensation Commission for injuries sustained or diseases contracted through employment were reduced by $362,978 during calendar year 1966 (the latest date available) when compared to calendar year 1965. 5. In 1966 and again in 1967 reductions were effected in rates charged em- Dployers for Workmen’s Compensation insurance coverage. The cumulative two 795 year reductions totaled 8.1% and has meant an estimated saving of $3,725,000 to Maryland employers. 6. In Maryland during fiscal year 1967 there were one hundred and fifteen (115) more lost time accidents reported than were reported during fiscal year 1965. This slight increase was particularly noted in view of the increase of approximately 85,000 additional workers employed in 1967 than had been em- ployed in 1965. The employment figures for both years are for the period January-March as reported for unemployment insurance coverage through the Department of Employment Security. Using a basis of a 40 hour week and a 50 week year, the additional 85,000 workers created 170,000,000 additional man hours of exposure to potential injury during 1967 than were present during 1965. Taken in this light, the slight increase of 115 more lost time accidents reported can be viewed in its proper perspective. We would like to state we have the highest respect and admiration for the present Secretary of Labor, with whom we have worked closely in several areas of mutual concern during his tenure in office, and to reiterate our understand- ing of the problems he faces nationally in his efforts to protect America’s workers while they are on the job. We do feel, however, that the language of Section 12 (a) of the proposed legislation should be amended to make it incum- bent upon the Secretary to show, without question, a demonstrated need for Federal preemption in the occupational safety and health activities of the several States rather than the declination to assert jurisdiction as contained in the Bills now before the Congress. Your consideration of the thoughts contained herein will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully, HENRY MILLER, Commissioner. SENATE REsoLUTION No. 9 Senate Resolution congratulating the State Department of Labor and Industry On December 29, 1962, a massive cave-in on a construction site in Prince George’s County caused the death of five workers and injuries to eleven others in one of the most tragic accidents ever recorded in the construction industry in Maryland. As a result of that tragedy, a Select Committee of the House of Delegates was appointed during the 1963 session of the General Assembly to inquire into the occupational safey activities of the State Department of Labor and Industry with particular emphasis on the Department’s inspection capabilities on new construction projects. The recommendations of the Select Committee and subsequent action on the part of the General Assembly has enabled the Department of Labor and In- dustry to achieve gratifying results. During 1964, the first year the Department of Labor and Industry was author- ized to employ construction safety inspectors, there were seventeen fatalities in the State as a result of cave-ins on construction sites. During 1965, the total fatalities from this cause dropped to ten. In 1966, the total fataliies was reduced to two. During this past year, there were no fatalities in Maryland resulting from cave-ins on construction sites. As a matter of fact, twenty months have passed without a fatal accident due to cave-ins on construction sites in Mary- land ; now therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate of Maryland, That deep appreciation be extended to the staff of the State Department of Labor and Industry for attaining the positive results they have been able to achieve; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate is directed to send a copy of this Resolution to Mr. Henry Miller, Commissioner, and Mr. William R. Welsh, Deputy Commissioner, of the State Department of Labor and Industry at 301 West Preston Street in Baltimore. THE CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE, CANADA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR FOREW ORD In response to the enactment by Parliament of the Canada Labour (Safety) Code, the Department of Labour has set in motion a positive program to pro- mote the employment safety and well-being of the many thousands of Canadians working in industries and businesses in the federal field. An improvement in 796 the safety environment in these federal areas will prove to be a sound invest: ment in good administrative and operating practices. It has been amply demonstrated in other jurisdictions that the control and reduction of accidents at work can be achieved through sustained efforts to meet reasonable standards with adequate inspection and advisory services. We intend to strengthen these traditional tools of accident prevention and develop effective new ones, attuned to present-day requirements. This will be done in collaboration with other public authorities, with safety organizations, and with the industries concerned. This new Code does not relieve any employer or agency from the obligations it has had in the past to combat injuries on the job. The overall objective of the Code and of our implementation program is to provide a charter through which a co-ordinated offensive can be sustained against suffering, financial loss, and the waste of manpower due to injuries and accidents. Occupational safety is clearly a tripartite responsibility to be shared by Gov- ernment-—establishing performance criteria and various services to assist in attaining them; by Employers—providing satisfactory working conditions and actively promoting safety; and by Workers—performing their tasks safely and co-operating in demonstrating that the safe way is the efficient way to do any job. Only through these three vital partners’ planning and working together and utilizing all appropriate resources with enlightened skill can a genuine and permanent breakthrough against this persistent problem of occupational hazards be achieved. The degree of co-operation amongst all agencies concerned that led to the creation of the Code itself augurs well for its successful implementation through the Department’s program. The ultimate success of any accident prevention program depends on many factors, one of the most important of which is a maturity of attitude and action on the part of all those concerned. This, plus effective co-operation, will pay real dividends to both employers and employees and to Canada as a whole. Hon. JoEN R. NICHOLSON, Minister. GEORGE V. HAYTHORNE, Deputy Minister. December, 1967 INTRODUCTION The new Canada Labour (Safety) Code is essentially an investment in the conservation of Canada’s most vital resource—the men and women who produce the goods and services for modern living. Through this legislation, Parliament has made it possible to provide all those engaged in industries and other enterprises under its jurisdiction with a work- ing environment of minimum risk to their personal well-being. Being essentially an enabling Act, the new Safety Code is designed to avoid duplicating or supplanting adequate safety provisions in any existing legislation. Its role is complementary, intended to apply principally to those safety matters and empolyees not already covered by other federal legislation. In line with its general concern for the rights and welfare of employees com- ing within federal jurisdiction, the Canada Department of Labour has been assigned the responsibility of assuring to each man and woman a safe and healthy working environment. To achieve this goal, the Department will work in close co-operation with other governmental departments and services, with ap- propriate employers and employee groups and with the various industrial acci- dent prevention agencies across the country. NEW APPROACH The Safety Code is a major advance in employment safety in Canada. In consequence of the extensive preparatory work and reflecting the progress made by other authorities in the field, the statute embodies the best features of con- temporary employment safety law. It will have increasingly beneficial impact and significance as the various aspects of the co-ordinated program are developed and implemented. The Act establishes basic principles and indicates the general scope and method of its application. It does not specify safety and health requirements but does im- pose general obligations upon both employers and employees. These include meet- ing realistic performance standards as required through regulations. 797 It is a comprehensive approach to an old and extremely complicated problem. It provides a broad framework for much constructive activity, but its full poten- tial and effectiveness can only be realized through the genuine interest and col- laboration of employers, unions and of the people for whom it is primarily designed—the employees. Through their co-operation and with their direct participation, the incalculable human suffering, losses in production and the ever-increasing costs of employment injury benefits will be reduced. The federal government’s responsibilities in the field of employment safety are similar in many respect to those of the provinces, and certainly many of the objectives are held in common. There are some areas that are peculiar to the federal domain but in geueral it can be said that the community of interest between the federal and provincial governments in this field can be advanced effectively only through the co-ordination of their diverse activities. The continuing and extensive program as contemplated by the new Safety Cede will require an investment of time, effort and money on the part of those concerned. In return there will be the positive benefit of greater safety, higher morale and improved operating efficiency through lower loses in manpower and material. COVERAGE The Safety Code applies to employment in the operation of industries and businesses under federal jurisdiction and in certain Crown corporations. It does not generally apply to employment on, or in connection with the actual operation of ships, trains or aircraft, since these forms of transport are already covered by other Acts of Parliament. The Safety Code applies to employers and employees in works, undertakings and businesses connecting one province with another province or with another country. (Sec. 3) Among these are international of international or interprovincial transport and communication systems, including. railways highway transport pipelines canals ferries tunnels and bridges, and telephones, telegraph and cable systems. The Safety Code applies also to: services connected with shipping radio and television broadcasting air transport and acrodromes banks Primary fishing, when the fishermen work for wages. The Safety Code covers employment in those works, undertakings or businesses that, although wholly within one province, have been declared by Parliament to be “for the general advantage of Canada, or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.” Such undertakings include: uranivm mining and processing grain elevators flour and feed mills feed warehouses and seed cleaning mills certain railways operating soiely in one province the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Limited in the Flin Flon mineral arca the works and undertakings of the Yellowknife Telephone Company. The Safety Code will apply to the many federal Crown corporations that are engaged in preduction, trading or service operations of a commercial or industrial nature. For example: Cape Breton Development Corporation Hldorado Minning and Refining Limited National Harbours Board Polymer Corporation Limited St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. The Safety Code does not apply directly to the federal Public Service, where working conditions are established by the Government. Following the practice, 798 however, adopted in connection with the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the Government will, as a matter of policy, see to the application in the Public Service of the principles contained in the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. It will adopt appropriate standards and, with respect to working conditions generally, the Government as an employer will take such measures as employers subject to the Safety Code are required to observe in order to safeguard the safety and health of its employees. RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYER Bach employer subject to the Safety Code will be required in carrying out his operations to ensure the safety and health of all his employees while at work. Employers will also be responsible for adopting and implementing reasonable procedures and techniques to prevent or reduce the risk of employment injury. (Sec. 4) RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYEE Employees coming under the Safety Code must, during the course of their employment, take all reasonable and necessary precautions to ensure their own personal safety and the safety of their fellow employees. Bvery employee is required to use any special safety devices, articles of clothing, or equipment that are intended for his protection as may be specified in regulations under the Act. (Sec. 5) REGULATIONS The Safety Code authorizes the making of extensive regulations for the safety and health of workers and for the provision of various safety measures. These regulations will be complementary to any provisions or requirements au- thorized under other Acts of Parliament and will be concerned with those matters that are not otherwise regulated. The study of the requirement of regulations and the preparation of their contents will be a continuing, major activity of fundamental importance. There will be wide-spread consultation with those who will be directly affected by the regulations as well as with persons or groups having special knowledge or experience in a particular field. In addition to the specific matters listed, which are those usually dealt with in industrial safety laws, regulations may be issued on other conditions of work affecting the safety and health of employees. It is intended to incorporate as far as practicable into regulations under the Safety Code appropriate standards and practices now in force in the provinces. On other matters, new standards will be developed where no regulations now exist. (Sec. 7) ADMINISTRATION Recognizing the necessity and mutual benefits of continuing close co-opera- tion, consultative and advistory committees of employers and employees and of other groups will be established. These committees will advise the Minister of Labour on matters pertaining to the administration of the Act, assist in the establishment of reasonable safety standards, and make recommendations re- specting safe employment practices and programs. (Sec. 8) During the development of regulations and other aspects of the work under the Safety Code, and with a view toward more effective administration, there will be continuous consultation with federal and provincial government depart- ments, federal enterprises, organized labour and other involved groups. Thus the Canada Department of Labour will be able to benefit from the experience of those who have special knowledge in employment safety and accident prevention matters. Formal inquiries may be made into particular or general occupational safety problems or situations in any federal undertaking. (Sec. 9) SAFETY OFFICERS The Department’s headquarters and regional offices will be staffed by profes- sional engineers and experienced technical officers who will be responsible for implementing the general program and for the provision of competent advisory and consulting services. They will seek to develop and maintain helpful liaison with all those coming under the provisions of the Code. 799 To the extent that it will be possible to work out mutually satisfactory ar- rangements with provincial authorities, the Canada Department of Labour does not contemplate establishing an extensive field organization. It is expected that regular inspections and related functions of enforcement carried out under the Act will be performed by experienced provincial officials, who will be designated as safety officers for the purposes of the Act. Their duties, powers and responsibilities will, in general, be similar to those carried out by provincial inspectorates. In this way, duplication or overlapping of func- tions in this area will be carefully avoided. (Sec. 10, 11) SAFETY SERVICES Departmental services to be provided under the Canada Labour (Safety) Code include the following: Advisory services.—A general secretariat and conference service will be es- tablished in support of the various consultative and advisory groups provided for in the legislation. Technical consultation—A select staff of engineers, technicians, and others will be available to evaluate situations and conditions and to recommend cor- rective measures. This has reference not only to existing operations but also to planned or actual changes in work that may have an effect on safety and on in-plant safety programs. Education and training.—General educational and publicity work and the promotion of safety and safe work practices will be provided by the Canada Department of Labour. Co-operatively developed programs will feature em- phasis on safety in pre-employment and staff training. Production of special media to inform both management and employees is an essential part of any general safety program and to be effective must be continuous, imaginative and ever-adapting to new problems in the safety field. Research.—The importance into basic causes of employment accidents and into more efficient methods of promoting occupational safety cannot be over- emphasized. Where appropriate, the Department's research will be done in co-operation with other agencies of the federal government, the provinces, or with any institution or organization having similar interests and possessing suit- able facilities. Inspections—Regular inspections of work places and processes by competent staff is, of course, fundamental to the other safety services provided by the Canada Department of Labour. Some industries within federal jurisdiction have been following closely existing provincial requirements and practices and they have had the benefit of regualr inspection services. In such places it will largely be a matter of ensuring the continuation of these activities but under the authority of the Safety Code. ENFORCEMENT The nature of offences, the manner of prosecution and the penalties for con- travention of the Safety Code or of the regulations are clearly defined and these provisions should be studied carefully. It should be noted that both employers and euloyees have specific responsibilities and are liable to prosecution for failure to live up to their obligations. (Sec. 20-28) SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS The National Association of Manufacturers believes that the appropriate role for the Federal government in the field of occupational health and safety is one of supporting state, local and private efforts. It is our strong conviction that the most effective, efficient implementation of occupational health and safety programs results from their administration by responsible officials and individuals who are close to the scene. The Federal government can properly support the states in the establishment of such programs, but Federal assistance must be on a voluntary basis and not with the threat of Federal pre-emption if it is to produce the desired results. In view of the conclusion by numerous privately financed studies that the careless act is a causative factor in a major portion of occupational accidents and disabilities, the Federal government could perhaps carry out basic research to get at the root of this problem and to discover effective means for combating 800 it. Then, too, the Federal government could conduct research to discover more about environmental factors and industrial diseases affecting people at work. Industry in general would benefit from more knowledge of how new methods, processes and materials affect the human body in this period of rapidly changing technology. Such basic research and inquiry is an essential ingredient in realistically examining what can be expected from a new Federal program such as the one proposed in H.R. 14816 to which we have already registered our opposition. We believe the Federal government should endorse the development of ad- visory health and safety standards by independent professional organizations. Through this approach, meaningful standards can continue to be developed by industry which draw in large part upon the standards, codes and regulations that are presently in existence. Such a supportive role on the part of the Federal gov- ernment could provide both encouragement and assistance to state and local officials, as well as to private industry. [Article from the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers] RESEARCH IN ACCIDENT PREVENTION—A SPECIAL REPORT The posture of the American Society of Safety Engineers regarding accident prevention research is clearly stated in the introduction to a brochure published in July, 1965 entitled “Research in Accident Prevention.” It states: “the Ameri- can Society of Safety Engineers is concerned about the need for greater research efforts in the prevention of accidents and injuries. The Society believes that accelerated research will improve accident and injury-control techniques, thus contributing greatly to the economy of our nation and for the health and welfare of our people.” Society records as far back as October, 1939, reveal substantial interest in accident prevention research even then. Efforts by the Society’s Research Com- mittee to identify research projects, obtain funds and provide for the publishing of the results of the research activity are reports in Executive Committee minutes. : At an Executive Committee meeting on October 15, 1939, held in Atlantic City, Walter 8S. Paine reported of a study of some 1,000 accidental injury reports made to determine the significance of mechanical hazard, as well as to identify those injuries which could be ascribed to personal factors on the part of the injured. He reported that 18 percent of the injuries could be attributed wholly to “mechanical” causes. (Although no explanation is given, it is presumed ‘‘me- chanical” includes physical hazards which may have been created by uneven floors, for example, as well as by machines). Twenty-two percent of the injuries were attributable to personal factors on the part of the injured and 60 perecnt of these injuries were considered to be caused by a combination of both. The report concluded that on the basis of this sample, some 78 percent of the injuries could be attributed wholly or in part to mechanical causes, and 82 percent could be considered to be wholly or in part due to personal causes. The Committee, in summarizing heir findings, made several recommenda- tions, emphasizing that mechanical and personal causes were of equal signifi- cance. They recommended that the initial plan of attack be on the mechanical causes. At later meetings, held in 1943, several problems concerning the Society's policy on accident prevention research were considered. Discussion revolved about the question of whether the Society should have a continuing research program and if so, where could funds be obtained ? The consensus of the group at that time, was that the greatest need was to define the projects of most significance, determine the estimates of funds needed to carry them to their conclusion and to seek means of obtaining those funds. 801 As a result of these discussions, three projects were submitted to the Executive Committee for approval on October 4, 1943. The three projects were (1) safety belts, harnesses and accessories, with an estimated cost of $10,500 for one year; (2) safe walkway surfaces, with an estimated cost of $32,000 over a two-year period; and (3) the quality of plastic eye protection, with an estimated cost of $10,000 per year. Subsequent meeting minutes report the progress of these three projects. In May, 1945 the Battelle Memorial Institute was engaged to conduct the research project on testing of plastic eye protection materials. The work was ultimately completed in the middle of 1947, and the final report was published. In May, 1946, a contract was signed with the Ohio State University to under- take the project on safety belts, harnesses and accessories. This project was finally completed in 1951, with a report prepared for publication. The project to measure the slipperiness of walkway surfaces was undertaken by the U. S. Bureau of Standards. The Bureau subsequently reported that it had developed a method for measuring the coefficient of friction of various substances on different types of floor surfaces which would make it possible to determine the degree of slipperiness of floor surfaces under varying conditions. There is no indication however, that the study was completed, although a great amount of work was apparently done on this project. In more recent times, the Society’s Research Committe recommended to the Executive Committe and the Board of Directors that a study of human factors research in occupational accident prevention be made, to determine the status of current research and to identify the most urgent needs in this area. This work was assigned to Dr. Leon Brody of the New York University Center for Safety Education, and the work was completed in the fall of 1962. It is now available in published form from the Society’s headquarters. STATEMENT OF POLICY From this background it is evident that the Society has been cognizant of the need for accident prevention research for several decades. Although some specific proposals matured, a great deal of time was spent in attempting to determine how the work could be implemented and where funds could be obtained. During the 1962-63 Society year, an effort was made to prepare a formal statement of policy on the Society's position with respect to accident prevention research. As a result of the discussions that year and in the years immediately preceeding it, a statement of policy on accident prevention research was devel- oped and later approved by the Board of Directors. This policy is: To determine the research needs in accident prevention To inform organizations that conduct or support research, and the public, of the need for basic and applied research to achieve greater accident prevention. To conduct, independently, or cooperatively with our other organizations, such research as the Society's financial resources will permit. To stimulate other organizations to conduct accident prevent research To evaluate, upon request, proposed research projects in relation to the needs of the profession To provide assistance to other organizations in carrying out needed research projects, either through guidance, suggested procedures or in obtaining funds for the work The next step was to develop a functional unit within the organizational framework of the Society to implement this research policy. Again much thought was given to the best method of organizing the Society’s work in this area and finally the Research Committee of the Society was divided into two major sub- groups. RESEARCH REVIEW BOARD The first of these is the Research Review Board, which is composed of out- standing individuals highly competent in the field of accident prevention and research, who would serve for indefinite terms, and whose function would be to review research proposals, evaluate them as to their practical value for con- tribution to the knowledge of accident prevention, and, if the project was ap- proved, to assist in securing funds to support the work, 802 The other unit of the Research Committee was designated the Research Opera- tions Committee. This group is charged with the responsibility of suggesting spe- cific research projects as well as evaluating research reports for possible applica- tion by the safety practitioner. Again the question was raised as to how this could be implemented to achieve ultimate objectives. It was decided to prepare the brochure “Research in Acci- dent Prevention,” describing the Society's policy and the organizational units which had been created, and then distribute it to organizations engaged in all types of research. The purposes of this distribution would be first, to inform them of the Society’s interest in research, and second, to stimulate these organizations to consider the subject of accident prevention as a vital research area. In July, 1965, the brochure was published and mailed to more than 1,800 re- search centers in the U.S., together with a questionnaire which asked if they were engaged in any accident prevention research, and if so, whether these projects were in the occupational or traffic safety areas. Some 510 replies were received. Sixty institutions indicated that they had one or more accident prevention research projects currently in progress. Many of those who did not have any projects underway, indicated an interest in the sub- ject by requesting copies of the results of the survey. RESULTS OF SURVEY Later, another questionnaire requesting further details, was sent to those in- stitutions who bad indicated some accident prevention research projects. The information obtained in these surveys is included in this issue, showing the institution, the name of the sponsor, a brief description of the work being per- formed, the present status of the project or projects and their approximate costs. Publishing this information, it was felt will make available to all institutions currently engaged in research, easily accessible information on what is taking place elsewhere, and at the same time, indicate the scope of accident prevention research currently underway. Research and development is becoming an increasingly important activity in the U.S. The best published estimates are that approximately $23 billion will be spent for research and development work in 1966. Of this amount, almost $16 billion is being funded by the Federal government. Some $14 billion of this is in the Department of Defense, Space Agencies and the Atomic Energy Commission. The balance, or approximately $2 billion is being expended in four major areas—transportation, building materials and housing facilities, sewage disposal and treatment, and air pollution. Private industry is expected to spend approximately $7.2 billion on research and development during 1966. This would include research work on materials, processes and products. The largest amount is being expended in 10 major in- dustries—ceramics, chemicals, drugs, cosmetics, textiles, plastics, metals, petro- leum, adhesives and detergents. How much of this $23 billion is being expended on accident prevention re- search? Perhaps another question one should ask is how much should be spent on accident prevention research? On the basis of the list of projects for 1965 and 1966, published in this issue, there seems to be at least $7.5 million being ex- pended on accident prevention. During the past year, the focus of attention has been on traffic accidents, be- cause they have risen sharply during the past several years. In all probability, this concern will stimulate additional activity in the field of research to deter- mine causes and controls of traffic accidents. The question again may be asked: “What are the needs with respect to the occupational accident prevention field ?” “Accident Facts,” published by the National Safety Council in 1965, indicates that the frequency rate of the companies reporting to the Council for all disabling injuries in the year 1964, was higher than in any other year since 1955. It would appear then, that there is need for further study if this rate of dis- abling injury is to be reversed. “Accident Facts” also reveals that the injury frequency rates of those com- panies reporting to the Council are substantially lower than those covered in data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Bureau data includes a larger sampling of industry and is perhaps more representative of the wide variety of industry in the U.S. 803 WORK INJURY RATES It is impossible to compare all industries, but in manufacturing, the National Safety Council company members show an injury frequency rate which is some 70 per cent less than those who are not members of the Council. The figures in “Accident Facts” are stated to be work injuries, and depending on one’s definition of what constitutes a work injury or an occupational injury, this may vary widely. For example, an occupational injury frequency might well include agriculture and housewives (since work in the home may be considered an occupation for the housewife), as well as industry as we normally consider it, to include min- ing, construction, manufacturing, trades and services and transportation. On the basis of the record, it is evident that there is need for additional effort in determining the causes of personal injuries resulting from activities in which people normally engage, whether at home or within an industrial establishment. The giant strides in our technology during the past 10 or 15 years have been cited frequently, yet in the light of this increase in technological knowledge and skills, is it not time that some of these skills be applied to the problem of acci- dent prevention? For example, we are still thinking and talking of the same types of protective devices on power punch presses that we have talked about for the past 15 years. Perhaps a practical type of research project might undertake to examine the operation of the punch press from a “biomechanical” point of view to find out if there are other ways or methods to provide the operator of such a machine with the kind of protection that will keep him from being injured when the inevitable human error occurs. One university researcher has raised the question whether profit-sharing might have any direct affect on accident reduction because of its motivating influence on the individual. Recently a member of the Society wrote to ask if there were any published materials which established criteria for creating an adequate safety staff. Among the questions he asked was: How many professional safety engineers are necessary in a given establishment to maintain surveillance over the hazards created and provide the information to enable the managers to control accidents? One of the statements frequently made about accident costs is that the cost of compensation and of medical expenses represent only a percentage of the total cost. The usual guideline applied, as a result of studies done prior to World War II, is that these are approximately 1% of the total cost. It would be revealing however, to do some case studies in different industries by collecting information on accidents as they occur, or recording the various costs for a specific industry over a period of time, to determine whether these costs are still in the same ratic or whether this ratio has changed, and equally important, what variation exists between different industries. Such a study would require development work in the methodology of collecting accident information at the point of occurrence. ' Several years ago, the Society published two articles on laser safety. The American Engineer, in its February, 1966 issue reported that some $30 million per year are being spent by the Department of Defense on laser projects and that some 500 papers are published annually on the characteristics and use of lasers. It would seem reasonable to ask how much experimental work or study has been devoted to the new hazards created by this device and its effect upon human beings. In the history of safety engineering, the greatest attention was initially devoted to the guarding of machinery and the enclosure of belts, pulleys and driving mechanisms. The trend later turned toward the direction of training and educating the individuals exposed to these hazards, on the premise that their behavior could be altered to reduce the probability of human error. Is it possible now, that the emphasis has swung too far in this direction, so that insufficient attention is being given to the environmental aspects of the problem? Another concept, used by the human factors engineer, is that con- sideration should be given to the interaction between the human being and his environment. George A. Peters, in his paper “Human Error: Analysis and Control,” pub- lished in the January, 1966 Journal, made the point that it was possible to com- pute the probability of human error. 92-734 0—68——b52 804 CONCLUSION It appears therefore, that the human factors engineer assumes that there is going to be some human error and recognizes that provisions must be made for the control of the effects of that error. In conclusion, it is the responsibility of the professionals in any field to constantly reexamine their methods, techniques and procedures to be certain that the maximum utilization of existing knowledge is being made in that field. The American Society of Safety Engineers, as an organization of individuals whose primary responsibilities are in the field of accident prevention, has an important responsibility in the field of research in accident prevention. These responsibilities include the identification of problems, developing pos- sible solutions, and bringing together those persons in various disciplines who can, through their specialized knowledge, contribute to the solutions of the problems. The summary of accident prevention research underway, which is published in this issue of the Journal, should not only be helpful to those engaged in this type of research activity, but should also be useful by identifying what is not being done. No survey of this type can be said to be complete, yet there is enough infor- mation to indicate that some of the more fundamental aspects of accident caus- ation and control need considerable study. This may be one of the greatest challenges facing the Society, its members, and our nation in the immediate future. MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION, INC, Washington, D.C., March 29, 1968. Hon. Wirriam D. Forbp, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE Forp: During Mr. John O. Logan's testimony on the above bill on behalf of the Manufacturing Chemists Association (MCA) on March 7, 1968, you asked that we submit a statement on the effect of MCA’s activities (such as its publication of chemical safety data sheets, transportation emergency guides, precautionary labels and the like) on possible liability for negligence. In other words, we assume that this question of liability is intended to include the possible liability of an employer to his employees for failure to observe a safety or health standard, and the possible liability of a producer of a hazardous product to a subsequent user. You also asked Mr. Logan whether such liability might be affected if an association safety recommendation were to be incorporated in a regulation with the force of law. We have tried in this letter to respond to both inquiries. Briefly, MCA’s activities in sponsoring the promulgation of safety recommen- dations have no effect on the liability of chemical manufacturers for injuries to their own employees in the plant. Such injuries are covered completely by the workmen’s compensation laws which provide compensation regardless of fault or negligence. Since the proposed bill might be interpreted as creating a new federal course of action—which is unnecessary in view of the protection already afforded workers for job-related injuries under these compensation laws—we urge an addition to the bill to make crystal clear that no such inter- pretation is intended. I. LIABILITY TO EMPLOYEES The preparation and promulgation of safety recommendations by MCA have no effect on the liability of chemical manufacturers for injuries to their own employees in the plant. This is primarily because workmen’s compensation laws in the 50 states and analogous federal statutes have, with minor exceptions, eliminated negligence and contributory negligence as a factor in suits against employers by their employees. In lieu thereof, the compensation laws have created a speedy, inexpensive, administrative procedure designed to com- pensate employees for job-related injuries or diseases without regard to fault by either employer or employee. 805 Since employees are thus protected under the workmen’s compensation laws for injuries connected with their jobs, there is no need for them to have a cause of action against their employer on account of any violation of the regu- lations or safety standards which would be promulgated under the proposed bill. However, as noted also by Mr. J. Sharp Queener in his testimony on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States (see Tr. 208-209, 224-225), the bill, as written, might be construed to create a new federal cause of action—that is, to permit an employee to sue his employer in tort for failure to provide work- ing conditions satisfying the regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary. This is a serious defect. Although we assume such a major disruption of the workmen’s compensation systems of the States was not intended, MCA shares the concern of the Chamber of Commerce that the language of the proposed bill is not clear on this point. MCA suggests that the bill be clarified by adding the following provision (comparable to that for a similar purpose in the Mine Safety Acts—see 30 U.S.C. §8 481 (¢), 738(c) ) : “Nothing in this Act shall be construed or held to supersede or in any man- ner affect the workmen’s compensation laws of any State or Territory, or to enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties or liabilities of employers and employees under State or Terri- torial laws in respect of injuries, occupational or other diseases or death of em- ployees arising out of or in the course of employment.” II. LIABILITY LAWS We assume from its title and objectives that the subject bill is directed pri- marily towards improved health and safety conditions for workers at their places of employment, and is not intended to have any direct effect upon the liability of manufacturers for injuries to users of their products under general principles of product liability. However, in view of your question indicating interest in this area of liability laws, we are glad to submit the following comments. The Manufacturing Chemists Association’s long time sponsorship of recom- mendations for the safe handling of industrial chemicals has done much to im- prove the safety record of the industry. If MCA’s safety recommendations were now to be codified into governmental standards there would be some adverse effects, not the least of which might be a tendency to freeze industry safety programs at the level of the safety standards required under the legislation. In cases of product liability, the courts generally hold that a showing of compliance with a regulatory statute by a defendant constitutes some evidence that he has exercised due care. Arata v. Tonegato, 152 Cal. App. 2d 837, 314 P 2d 130 (Dist. Ct. App. 1957) ; Howson v. Foster Beef Co., 87 N.H. 200, 177 Atl. 656 (1935) ; 2 Restatement of Torts, 2d § 288C (1965) ; Prosser, Torts § 35, at 205 (3d ed. 1964). See generally Comment, “Products Liability Based Upon Violation of Statutory Standards”, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 1388 (1966). It is a valid assumption that a jury often will be persuaded to find for a defendant who has done all that the Government asks of him. This legal situa- tion would operate to the disadvantage of an injured plaintiff in a situation in which an industry safety recommendation has been replaced by a less strict government standard. We submit that this likelihood that the development and enforcement of government safety standards will stifle industry incentive to progressively work towards higher levels of safety than would be mandatory under a fixed law, is a negative factor which must be faced. It would be tragic if this bill, inspired and designed to promote health and safety in work places, were inadvertently to dampen or extinguish the initiative, imagination and expertise for safety of responsible employers. 1 hope the foregoing is helpful. It is submitted in the same spirit that prompted Mr. Logan’s testimony. To paraphrase that testimony in the light of the above: The Manufacturing Chemists Association subscribes to the objectives of en- hancing the safety and well-being of workers. But we feel strongly that the proposed legislation should not impinge upon the workmen's compensation laws or upon the common law development of products liability. Any such result would only encumber rather than enhance progress in occupational safety and health. Sincerely, G. H. DECKER, President, 806 MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. Washington, D.C., March 12, 1968. Hon. ELMER HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Labor and Education, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : In line with your request we are providing a summary of safety guides and other materials employed by the chemical industry to encourage safe practices and ensure the safe handling of hazardous materials. In addition to these safety measures, our organization conducts conferences and clinics in occupational safety and health for plant personnel in every part of the country. The continuing series of regional meetings are extremely effective in promoting safety and protecting the health of chemical workers. They reach down to the plant management and employee level, providing the broad base that is so essential in achieving safety goals. The Manufacturing Chemists Association and its company members have an extensive base of knowledge and experience in safety to draw upon, and we shall be happy to provide any technical assistance and support that would be useful to the work of the committee. Sincerely, JAMES G. MORTON, Director of Government Relations. SAFETY PROGRAM OF THE MANUFATURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION The overall safety program of the Manufacturing Chemists Association is developed and executed by the Safety and Fire Protection Committee, the Occu- pational Health Committee, the Labels and Precautionary Information Commit- tee and the chemical transportation committees. Each committee is composed of chemical company specialists in the various activities named. The following are examples of the safety activities included in the program: (1) Chemical Safety Data Sheets (A series of 95 publications). Each “Safety Data Sheet” is a 12 to 24 page booklet describing the hazards of a specific chem- ical and making safety recommendations for engineering control, personal pro- tection, fire fighting, storage and transportation of the material. First aid and medical treatment is also included. MCA Chemical Safety Data Sheets are available to both industry and the general public. Hahibits: SD-73 Tolyene Diisocyanate. SD-20 Sulfuric Acid. (2) Safety Guides (19 in the series). These are four-page publications dealing with miscellaneous matters of safety in chemical manufacturing such as: Flam- mable Liquids—Storage and Handling of Drum Lots and Smaller Quantities; Disposal of Hazardous Waste ; Safety in the Scale-up and Transfer of Chemical Processes ; Entering Tanks and Other Enclosed Spaces. Hahibits: SG-17 Fire Protection in the Chemical Industry. SG-10 Entering Tanks and Other Enclosed Spaces. (3) Precautionary Labeling. A chemical industry guide for the labeling of containers. Exhibits: Manual IL-1 Guide to Precautionary Labeling of Hazardous Chemicals (excerpts). (4) Tramsportation Emergency Information. This is a voluntary safety pro- gram devised and introduced by the Manufacturing Chemists Association for the safe control of hazardous chemicals involved in transportation accidents. Under this program: (a) A “Chem-Card” containing necessary emergency information is provided by the chemical company shipper, and carried by the vehicle (truck) driver with his other shipping papers; (b) the red-backed MCA Chem-Card Manual is prepared for use by police and fire-fighting officials. Over 40,000 copies have been distributed throughout the country to date. 807 (Note: See congratulatory letter from the City of Richmond Fire Department following the Indiana train-wreck of January 1, 1968.) Exhibits: Sample Chem-Cards. MCA Chem-Card Manual (excerpts). Letter from City of Richmond. (5) Case Histories of Accidents. A monthly publication describing accidents, their canses, and measures taken to prevent their recurrence. Exhibits: Sample monthly publication. (6) Brochures regarding the Association’s “Chemical Industry Safety Work- shops” and “Occupational Health Workshops” held annually in different chemi- cal centers of the United States. Exhibits: Programs. (7) Collection and Publication of member company injury statistics. Bahibit: A copy of the year-end report for 1967 is attached. (8) Awards Program. Award of Certificates of Achievement to plants of mem- ber companies which work the calendar year without a single lost-time injury. For more than 700 such certificates will be awarded. nr py r oo - yr . 1 . LE 1. . - i... tw) me eel 2. al a ELEN FER | | . } - p= == 0 . be bl. oe oad fee fn dp, LS JH. 1 "oar ge a) 7 oe, FCI ol A S 5 a - B " oo i i" R . i oer = A a } : . A: . i | B A Yr BN A i pe sobE en Tain Harn f 1 on a B } SMe Mee 0 Lc FT ow re oT pe pw J «oan 5 Pg Eom now te aE WE Te The Te tL af lie . a oo . we SE oo r - - B 1 es oe . ook = wig, uw parts gt ) oa mC : Ges | i, | _ Te } a p= r } Gen dee oe Tr Ga, # a Eo. Sard et honors Ce Swe Tw an tr Bh B f Ww a uj - sa 0 ow ine Rg, oo Spee =F Seow wo w= I hl . ot Fis 5 Bh . Lf . oh a a ; = E ot a - : ” al . - A] CE Po SHEE r i i: oo" = . - 8 , } . i i Ar aE i - a . B - ) " . oo | =. = i } KE 1 BE SE, . : a Cag BE 1 : ER n . B viz al HA l i" oo Le - ' - Sit. , Po i = : . —— - w Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-73 PROPERTIES AND ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR SAFE HANDLING AND USE OF TOLYLENE DIISOCYANATE ADOPTED 1959 Chemicals in any form can be safely stored, handled or used if the physical, chemical and hazardous properties are fully under- stood and the necessary precautions, including the use of proper safeguards and personal protective equipment, are observed. (809) 810 Chemical Safety Data Sheet TOLYLENE DIISOCYANATE PREFACE Tolylene diisocyanate is a colorless to pale yellow liquid with a strong pungent odor. Inhalation of the vapors may be injurious to the lungs and pulmonary edema could occur after serious vapor exposure. Tolylene diisocyanate reacts (sometimes violently) with compounds containing active hydrogen. A polymerization of the isocyanate may take place and the heat generated lead to a pressure build-up which may rupture the container. The full text of this data sheet should be consulted for details of the hazards of tolylene diisocyanate and suggestions as to their control. 811 Manual Chemical Safety Data Sheet oo TOLYLENE DIISOCYANATE ADOPTED MARCH 1959 1. NAMES Chemical Name: Tolylene Diisocyanate Common Names: Tolylene Diisocyanate Toluene Diisocyanate TDI Formulae: CH;CgH3 (NCO), CH; CH; | | — NCO OCN —| NCO 2,4 Tolylene 2,6 Tolylene Diisocyanate Diisocyanate | NCO 2. PROPERTIES 2.1 GRADES AND STRENGTHS Grade: Commercial, distilled Strength: Minimum assay 99.0% Commercially available in three isomer ratios— (a) 100% 2,4 (b) 80% 2,4; 20% 2,6 (c) 65% 2,4; 35% 2,6 2.2 PROPERTIES AND CHARACTERISTICS 100% 2,4 80% 2.4; 65% 2,4; 20% 2,6 35% 2,6 Physical State... oeeeeeeeersesmenspemmmmmeeenens Liquid Liquid Liquid Approximate Flash Point (Open Cup). — 132°C.(270°F.) 132°C.(270°F.) 132°C.(270°F.) Boiling Point : — 251°C.(484°F.) 251°C.(484°F.) 251°C.(484°F.) Color. _Water white to pale yellow COPTOBIVIY: cousin scssmiasiiamssisnsonsisssicese sesso Relatively noncorrosive at normal temperatures Heat of Evaporation... Hygroscopicity.... Light Sensitivity 144.9 BTU/Ib. (120-180°C.) Reacts with water with evolution of carbon dioxide _Ultra violet causes yellowing Melting Point. 19.5-21.5°C. 11.5-13.5°C. 3.5-5.5°C. (67-71°F.) (53-56°F.) (38-42°F.) OHO ccs bepmas Sharp, pungent Reactivity. Reacts with compounds containing active hydrogen, the reaction rate depending upon the nature of the active hydrogen compound. Can be violent. 812 Manual Sheet Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Tolylene Diisocyanate $D-73 Specific Gravity (25°C./15.5°C.)ccccccmencmnione 1.22 1.22 2 Specific Heat (77-167°F.) 0.375 BTU/Ib./°F. Vapor Density (Air = 1)_. Vapor Pressure at 20°C... 6.0 6.0 6.0 Approx. 0.0lmm Approx. 0.0lmm Approx. 0.01mm VISCOBHY Bt SOPC cvs sciinoiisns ss 1.45 centistokes Threshold Limit (Max. average atmospheric concentration for 8 hr. working day with- out injury to health.) 0.1 ppm. or 0.7 mg. per cu. m. 3. HAZARDS 3.1 HEALTH HAZARDS Tolylene diisocyanate is an irritating substance in either its liquid or vapor form. On contact with the skin or eyes it produces irritation and if not removed immediately may cause burns. Inhalation of the vapor may be injurious to the lungs. The vapor is capable of producing difficult and labored breathing in some individuals. 3.1.1 Warning Properties Its characteristic odor and strong irritating effect on the eyes and upper respiratory passages are warn- ings of the presence of tolylene diisocyanate vapors in the air. No one will voluntarily Bey in a high concentration of vapor. However, at the tentative threshold limit value (0.1 ppm. or 0.7 mg. per cu. m.) for prolonged exposure, it is difficult to detect the compound by odor or immediate sensory effects. This low level has been set to avoid delayed irritation or possible difficulty in breathing. 3.2 FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS Due to its high flash point tolylene diisocyanate does not constitute a severe fire hazard. (See Sec- tion 6 4. ENGINEERING CONTROL OF HAZARDS 4.1 BUILDING DESIGN 4.1.1 Buildings in which tolylene diisocyanate is handled or stored should be well ventilated and be of fire-resistive construction. 4.1.2 Equipment should be installed in such a fashion that a worker's path to the nearest exit is clear and unobstructed. 4.1.3 Not less than two means of exit should be provided from each separate room or building in which tolylene diisocyanate is stored, handled or used. No portion of such a room or building should be further than 75 feet from the nearest exit. Additional exits should be provided depending upon the number of persons in the building. (See NFPA “Building Exits Code.”) 4.1.4 All exit doors should open out in the direction of travel and should be provided with panic hardware. 42 EQUIPMENT DESIGN 4.2.1 Totally enclosed systems should be used for processes where tolylene diisocyanate is a raw material. This is necessary because the escape of tolylene diisocyanate vapors would be highly irri- tating to workers and cause them to abandon the area. Provisions should be made to make possible the addition or removal of materials without open- ing the equipment. 4.2.2 Whenever it is found necessary to open the equipment, adequate ventilation should be avail- able to immediately remove any vapors that may be present. 4.2.3 Solid or residual materials that are removed from the process should be thoroughly decontami- nated of tolylene diisocyanate vapors. 4.2.4 Open containers or partially opened con- tainers of tolylene diisocyanate should not be left standing in working areas. Points at which con- tainers must be opened should be adequately venti- lated. 4.3 VENTILATION 4.3.1 Good ventilation is essential in rooms or areas where tolylene diisocyanate is handled. Al- though the material is not highly toxic, its vapor is highly irritating to personnel, 4.3.2 Exhaust Hoods A hood type ventilation unit should be situated over equipment where tolylene diisocyanate vapors 813 Tolylene Diisocyanate Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Manual are exposed to the atmosphere. The volume of air mechanically exhausted must be such that the hood face velocities are within acceptable limits (100 ft. per minute per square foot of hood opening or more). The type of hood to be used will depend upon the particular application, and the ventilation system should be designed by experienced engineers. The following design principles should be adhered to: (a) The exhaust hood should be located as close as possible to the source of the escaping vapor. (b) The process should be enclosed as much as possible. (c) Baffles and side shields should be used to the fullest. (d) The velocity of air at the point of vapor dispersal should be sufficiently high to capture the vapor particles. This is an especially important con- sideration in the case of tolylene diisocyanate vapors, which are six times as heavy as air and tend to flow downward. (e) Advantage should be taken of air move- ment due to thermal currents. (f) Vapors should not be drawn past the oper- ator’s face. (g) The hood should be positioned so that it does not interfere with the operator's work. 4.3.3 Pouring from Containers When it is necessary to pour tolylene diisocya- nate from a can or drum, a temporary lid fitted with a flexible hose leading to the exhaust system should be placed on the container. 4.3.4 Area Ventilation In some cases, the process equipment in which tolylene diisocyanate leaks might possibly occur is too extensive to be enclosed by an exhaust hood. Thus mechanical ventilation of ‘the entire room may be necessary. A down-draft type of ventilation is most desirable, since tolylene diisocyanate is six times as heavy as air. $D-73 4.4 AIR ANALYSIS 4.4.1 A threshold limit for tolylene diisocyanate vapor has not yet been fully determined, but pre- liminary animal tests indicate 0.1 ppm. is safe. A concentration which can be smelled (approximately 0.1-1.0 ppm., varying with the individual) is too high for continuous exposure. 4.42 A calibrated indicator for the detection of tolylene diisocyanate vapor is commercially avail able. This unit is portable and can be used to make spot checks around tolylene diisocyanate handling equipment. A colorimetric method is also available in which a known volume of test air is pumped through an absorber solution. The intensity of coloration of the solution is a quantitative measure of the presence of tolylene diisocyanate vapors. 4.5 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT All electrical equipment and wiring should be in compliance with the National Electrical Code. Wir- ing for ordinary locations is suitable. 4.6 ADDITIONAL PRECAUTIONS Care should be taken to prevent tolylene diisocya- nate from coming into contact with basic compounds such as caustic soda, tertiary amines, or other similar materials. This might cause uncontrollable poly- merization of the isocyanate. The heat given off in such a reaction could result in rapid vaporization of any low boiling solvent that might be present. A build-up of pressure and even rupture of the con- taining vessel may follow. If a strong base and water are present, carbon dioxide will be liberated, again resulting in a pressure build-up. The introduction of an acidic compound such as benzoyl chloride or acetyl chloride will control poly- merization. However, only minor amounts of acidic materials should be added, perhaps, 0.01-0.02 per cent chlorine. In some cases large amounts may cause more rapid polymerization. The best measure is to take the necessary precautions to prevent poly- merization from occurring. 5. EMPLOYEE SAFETY To EMPLOYEE EDUCATION AND TRAIN. IN 5.1.1 Employee training is probably the most important safety measure a company can take. Al- though the company may provide the best in the way of protective equipment and expend great effort to be sure that each process or operation is designed with safety in mind, an improperly trained worker can create an undue hazard. An effective employee education should include the following items: (a) The operator should be thoroughly familiar with the process with which he is concerned, as well as the hazards that exist. (b) He should be instructed in proper handling procedures for the chemicals involved. 814 Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Tolylene Diisocyanate $D-73 (c) He should know exactly what action to take if fires, spills, or other similar occurrences should take place. (d) He should be drilled in the proper use of fire- fighting, first-aid and rescue equipment. It is im- portant that he know the exact location of these items, as well as the location of safety showers, eye baths, bubbler drinking fountains, fire alarms, and emergency shutdown equipment. (e) He should know when personal protective equipment is to be used and how to use it effectively. (See Section 5.2). 5.1.2 It is the responsibility of supervision to train each worker, and, equally as important, to instill within him an attitude of safety. The supervisor must procure the necessary safety equipment and be sure that it is maintained in working order at all times. 5.1.3 Operating procedures, including all safety rules, should be posted in work areas where they may be read by employees. 5.2 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 5.2.1 Availability and Use While personal protective equipment is not an adequate substitute for good, safe working condi- tions, adequate ventilation, and intelligent conduct on the part of employees working with tolylene diioscyanate, it is in many instances, the only prac- tical means of protecting the worker, particularly in emergency situations. One should keep firmly in mind that personal protective equipment protects only the worker wearing it, and other unprotected workers in the area may be exposed to danger. The following personal protective equipment should be used as indicated: 5.2.2 Eye Protection (a) Safety Glasses Metal or plastic rim safety spectacles with unperforated side shields which can be obtained with prescription safety lenses or suitable all-plastic safety goggles may be used where continuous eye protec- tion is desirable, as in laboratories. However, where complete eye protection is needed, safety glasses alone are not adequate. (b) Chemical Safety Goggles Cup-type or rubber-framed goggles of the cover-all type, equipped with the approved impact- resistant glass or plastic lenses, should be worn when- ever there is danger of tolylene diisocyanate liquid or vapor coming in contact with the eyes. (c) Eye Washes Should tolylene diisocyanate liquid or vapor come into contact with the eyes, some means of flushing with water should be available nearby. Safety showers, eye baths, or bubbler drinking foun- tains may be used. Wash the eye copiously with water for several minutes, then report to the medical department. (See Sections 10 and 11.) 5.2.3 Respiratory Protection 5.2.3.1 Severe exposure to tolylene diisocya- nate may occur in tanks during equipment repairs, when areas are being decontaminated following spills, or in case of failure of piping or equipment. Em- ployees who may be subject to such exposures should be provided with the proper respiratory protection. 5.2.3.2 Respiratory protective equipment must be carefully maintained, inspected, and cleaned regu- larly. In areas where frequent exposures to tolylene diisocyanate vapors may occur, each worker should be assigned a gas mask (or whatever type of respira- tory protective device is authorized). This equip- ment should be located at some easily accessible point. Every worker should know how to put on his mask quickly and how to operate it properly. When masks are not assigned on an individual basis, the equipment should be sterilized before use by another person. 5.2.3.3 The following types of respiratory equipment are available: (a) Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus— which permits the wearer to carry a supply of oxygen or air compressed in the cylinder, and the self-gen- erating type which produces oxygen chemically, al- low for greater mobility. The length of time a self- contained breathing apparatus provides protection varies according to the amount of air or oxygen sup- ply carried. Cylinder (or compressed) oxygen should not be used in tanks or other confined spaces. (b) Positive Pressure Hose Masks—supplied by externally lubricated blowers. Since these masks depend on a remote air supply, they should be used only where conditions will permit safe escape in the event of air supply failure. Care must be taken to locate the blower air source in an area which is free of air contaminants. (c) Air-Line Masks—supplied by plant com- pressed air are suitable for use only where conditions will permit safe escape in case of failure of the compressed air supply. Such masks should be used with a suitable reducing or demand-type valve, excess pressure relief valve, and filter. The compressed air should be checked frequently to make certain that harmful gases from the decomposition of the lubri- cating oil used in the compressor, or impure air supply, are not present. 815 Tolylene Diisocyanate Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Manual (d) Industrial Canister Type Gas Masks, equipped with full face pieces and approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines, fitted with the proper canister for absorbing organic vapor, will afford protection against concentrations of tolylene diisocyanate vapor not exceeding 2 per cent by volume when used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The oxygen content of the air must not be less than 16 per cent by volume. The masks should be used for relatively short exposure periods only. They may not be suitable for use in an emergency since, at that time, the actual vapor concentration is unknown and may be very high. The wearer must be warned to leave the contaminated area immediately on detecting the odor of a harmful vapor; this is an indication that the mask is not functioning properly or that the vapor concentration is too high, Note: Where carbon monoxide may be en- countered in addition to tolylene diisocyanate the mask should be equipped with an “all purpose canis- ter” and a “timing device” as approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines. 5.2.3.4 Air or oxygen supplied masks, equipped with full face pieces and approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines, should be used under the following conditions: (a) In emergencies when the vapor concentra- tion is not definitely known. (b) When the vapor concentration is over 2 per cent by volume. (c) When the oxygen content of the air may be less than 16 per cent by volume. 6. FIRE 6.1 Due to its high flash point, tolylene diisocyanate does not constitute a severe fire hazard. However, it is important that the proper fire-fighting equipment is available in case it should be needed. 6.2 Water spray is effective for extinguishment of fires covering large areas. Automatic sprinkler sys- tems may be helpful in certain applications. Carbon dioxide or dry chemical extinguishers are also effec- tive. Sheet $D-73 (d) When extended exposure is likely. (e) In equipment cleaning and repair work. 5.2.4 Head Protection “Hard” hats should be worn where there is any danger from falling objects. If hard hats are not considered necessary, soft-brimmed hats or caps should be worn to give protection against liquid leaks and splashes. 5.2.5 Foot Protection Safety shoes with built-in steel toe caps are recommended for workers handling drums and cans of tolylene diisocyanate. Shoes should be thorough- ly washed with soap and water after mild external contamination, and should be discarded after severe contamination. 5.2.6 Body, Skin and Hand Protection 5.2.6.1 Contact of liquid tolylene diisocyanate with the skin may lead to irritation and blistering. A long-sleeved shirt should be worn whenever there is any danger of skin contamination. Chemical workers’ rubber gloves and impervious aprons should be worn where possibility of spill or splash exists. 5.2.6.2 Should liquid tolylene diisocyanate come in contact with the skin, affected areas should be thoroughly washed with soap and water. Alcohol may be used for a rinse after soap and water have been used. Contaminated clothing should be re- moved and laundered before re-use. FIGHTING 6.3 Personnel who are engaged in fighting tolylene diisocyanate fires must be protected against nitrogen dioxide fumes, as well as tolylene diisocyanate vapors. Any fire-fighter close enough to be in con- tact with these fumes should wear self-contained breathing apparatus. The usual fireman’s body protection should be worn: rubber coat, boots, and helmet. 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE 7.1 USUAL SHIPPING CONTAINERS 7.1.1 ICC Classification and Regulations Tolylene diisocyanate is not classified as a dangerous chemical and therefore is not subject to ICC Regulations governing the transportation of hazardous articles. 7.1.2 Type and Size Tolylene diisocyanate may be shipped in drums, tank trucks, or tank cars. The most widely used container is the 55-gallon tight-head lined drum. Drums complying with ICC Specification 17E are commonly used. Drums conforming to Consolidated Freight Classification Rule 40, Section 5, are also satisfactory. 7.1.3 Labeling and Identification Each container (including tank cars and tank trucks) should carry identifying label or stencil that is clearly visible. 816 Manual Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Tolylene Diisocyanate $D-73 The Manufacturing Chemists’ Association rec- ommends that all containers of tolylene diisocyanate should bear the following label in addition to or in combination with any label, warning or other state- ment required by statutes, regulations or ordinances: DANGER! Keep container closed. Do not breathe vapor. TOLYLENE DIISOCYANATE HAZARDOUS LIQUID AND VAPOR CAUSES BURNS Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Use only with adequate ventilation. In case of contact, immediately flush eyes or skin with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes; for eyes, get medical attention. Remove and wash clothing before re-use. 7.2 HANDLING—GENERAL 7.2.1 Tolylene diisocyanate containers should remain closed as much as possible, thus preventing the escape of irritating vapors. When it is necessary to open a container, workmen should wear the proper equipment (see Section 5.2). Adequate ventilation should also be available (see Section 4.3). 7.2.2 Spills When tolylene diisocyanate leaks or spills oc- cur, only properly protected personnel should remain in the area. Leaking containers should be removed to the outdoors or to an isolated, well-ventilated area, and the contents transferred to other suitable containers. 7.2.2.1 Spills on Floors and Other Flat Surfaces 7.2.2.1.1 A powder has been developed that is effective in neutralizing isocyanate spillage. It is recommended that spills be covered with a thin layer of this powder. The isocyanate will be absorbed and destroyed within a few minutes. The product can then be swept away. The powder is made up as follows: Sawdust 23.0 Ibs. Fullers Earth 38.5 lbs. 61.5 Ibs. of Carrier Solids Ethanol 19.2 Ibs. Triethanolamine 3.8 Ibs. Concentrated Ammonia Solution 3.8 Ibs. Water 11.5 Ibs. Dye (water solvant 0.2 Ibs. type) 38.5 lbs. of Active Solution 100.0 Ibs. Powder The dye and water are first added to the reaction vessel, and the sawdust and Fullers Earth are introduced and stirred for one hour. The re- mainder of the ingredients are then added with con- tinuous stirring. A total of two hours’ stirring time from the beginning of the addition of solution is normally satisfactory. The finished powder is slight- ly moist but does not lump, and it can be removed as a loose mass. The powder can be stored in bags with polyethylene liners. The ethanol serves both as a solvent and as a reactant for the formation of urethanes. The triethanolamine is a powerful catalyst, and ammonia serves to neutralize both liquid isocyanates and isocyanate vapors. The presence of water and Fullers Earth reduces the flammability of the final mixture to a safe level. 7.2.2.1.2 If the neutralising powder des- cribed in Section 7.2.2.1.1 is not available, spills can be dealt with by covering with Fullers Earth or an absorbent clay. The absorbent can then be swept up and transferred to an open drum. The drum should be placed in a ventilated location or out of doors, filled with water and allowed to stand for 48 hours. The contents of the drum can then be discarded. After the absorbent has been swept up the area should be washed down with a § percent aqueous ammonia solution containing a detergent. 7.2.2.2 Decontamination of Containers 7.2.2.2.1 Containers such as drums may be decontaminated by adding 5 to 10 pounds of the powder, letting the drum stand for a little while, and then rolling it a few times. The container should be continuously vented to prevent the build-up of pressure. After approximately 20 minutes’ contact of the powder with the contents, the container may be washed with water. 817 Tolylene Diisocyanate Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Manual Sheet 7.2.2.2.2 If the powder is not available, empty drums may be decontaminated by placing them in an open area out of doors and filling with water. Allow to stand at least 48 hours. Bungs must not be replaced on drums containing water. 7.2.2.3 Spills Where Use of the Powder is Undesirable In some cases the use of neutralizing powder is undesirable. An example of this would be when tolylene diisocyanate is running over process equip- ment or piping. The best method of handling this type of spill is to spray the isocyanate with a mixture of 50% ethanol, 40% water, and 10% concentrated ammonia solution. This mixture will neutralize the isocyanate completely and will then evaporate, leav- ing an odorless residue. Care should be exercised in using this mixture as its vapors are flammable. The mixture should not be used where it could be ignited by an open flame or a spark. Ammonia fumes will be given off, but these are not nearly as objectionable as tolylene diisocyanate vapors. A mixture of 10% aqueous ammonia containing an emulsifying agent such as mahogany soap has also been used successfully. This mixture does not pre- sent the possible fire hazard introduced by the use of the ethanol-water-ammonia solution. 7.3 DRUMS 7.3.1 Handling Drums should be unloaded and handled care- fully to prevent damage. Each shipment should be carefully examined for leaking drums. If any is found, it should be removed to some well ventilated area, preferably outdoors, and the contents trans- ferred to a suitable container. Workmen responsible for opening or closing drums should wear the appropriate protective equip- ment (see Section 5.2). 7.3.2 Emptying Drums should be well-secured and blocked before emptying. To remove the body plug from a drum of tolylene diisocyanate, the operator should use a bung or plug wrench. He should place the bung up, stand to one side, and face away during the operation. After the bung starts to loosen, it should be given not more than one full turn. If internal pressure exists, it should be allowed to escape to the atmosphere. After all pressure has been vented off, the operator can loosen the plug further and remove it. 7.3.3 Disposal Metal drums to be returned to suppliers should $D-73 be completely drained and all openings (for bungs, plugs, removable heads, etc.) tightly closed with gaskets in place. Care should be taken that no moisture is present because carbon dioxide forma- tion could rupture the drum. When metal drums are to be scrapped, they should be steamed in a well ventilated area to convert any residual tolylene diisocyanate to solid urea. Drums should then be crushed or pierced to render them impossible for re-use. 7.4 TANK TRUCKS 7.4.1 It is preferable that tank truck unloading facilities be level and paved and so located that the truck can be easily and safely maneuvered to the unloading spot. 7.4.2 Ordinarily all operations concerning the tank truck and its fittings, pumps, and hoses are the responsibility of the tank truck operator. Therefore, the unloading operation should be carried out by properly instructed employees in cooperation with the driver. 7.4.3 Truck brakes should be set and, if neces- sary, the wheels blocked. 7.4.4 The shipper should be consulted on proper unloading procedure. 7.5 TANK CARS 7.5.1 Unloading 7.5.1.1 The unloading of tank cars of tolylene diisocyanate should be done only with competent supervision. Detailed recommendations regarding unloading procedures set forth in the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association Manual Sheet TC-4 is a de- pendable guide to assist unloaders in performing this operation safely. 7.5.1.2 The following information should also be kept in mind: (a) It may be necessary to heat the tank car before unloading tolylene diisocyanate. The 2,4 isomer will begin to freeze out at about 70°F., and the entire contents of the tank car will solidify if the temperature is lowered. A 25-75 psi steam supply should be attached to the steam coil on the tank car, and the tolylene diisocyanate should be heated to 75-80° F. (24-27° C.) (b) It is essential that the tank car be padded with a dry atmosphere at all times. If this is not done, any water vapor that might be present will react with the isocyanate, forming a solid urea ma- terial. This may result in plugging of lines and will result in loss of tolylene diisocyanate. Nitrogen 818 Manual Sheet Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Tolylene Diisocyanate SD-73 is recommended for tank padding. Also acceptable is dry air (—40°F. dew point). (c) A filter should be located in the line between the tank car unloading equipment and the storage tank into which the tolylene diisocyanate is to be discharged. This will remove any solids that may be present. 7.5.2 Return Precautions Empty tank cars should be returned as promptly as possible, in accordance with instructions received from the shipper. The shipper’s routing instructions should always be strictly followed. 7.6 STORAGE 7.6.1 Indoor Storage Indoor storage areas should be dry, fireproof, and adequately ventilated. It is desirable that floors be pitched to trapped floor drains. If drains are not provided, four inch curbs or a drained gutter, covered with an appropriate grill, should be con- structed at door openings. In areas where spillage is likely to occur, a drained gutter arrangement is preferable since a trapped floor drain would soon be plugged with ureas. All storage areas should be provided with an automatic sprinkler system. Drums should be arranged jn an orderly man- ner. Rows of drums should not obstruct doorways in case a hurried exit from the storage area is necessary. 7.6.2 Bulk Storage 7.6.2.1 All tanks in which tolylene diisocya- nate is stored must be blanketed with a dry gas, such as nitrogen, or with dry air (—40°F. dew point). This will prevent the reaction of any moisture that could otherwise be present with the isocyanate to form solid ureas. 7.6.2.2 Heating may sometimes be necessary because the 2.4 tolylene diisocyanate isomer will begin to crystallize out at temperature below 70°F. 7.6.2.3 Tolylene diisocyanate in storage tanks should be thoroughly stirred before being pumped to processing equipment. This is necessary to assure uniformity of isomer composition (when both the 2,4 and 2,6 isomers are present), because stratifica- tion into isomer layers will result if at any time the storage tank has been cooled enough to cause the material to begin to freeze. 8. TANK AND EQUIPMENT GLEANING AND REPAIRS 8.1 PREPARATION OF TANKS AND EQUIP- MENT 8.1.1 Tank and equipment cleaning should be under the direction of thoroughly trained personnel who are fully familiar with all of the hazards and the safeguards necessary for the safe performance of the work. 8.1.2 Process equipment should not be repaired when jn operation. Lines should be drained and then blown dry with a dry inert gas such as nitrogen, if practicable. Workmen should wear appropriate protective devices (See Section 5.2). Any spills from lines or equipment shauld be cleaned up im- mediately. (See Section 7.2.2.) 8.1.3 A tank that is to be entered should be drained and then flushed with solvent. It is prob- ably most convenient to use the process solvent for this purpose, although any other ‘conventional or- ganic solvent may be used, providing it is not too flammable. The tank should then be filled with water once or twice and drained to remove vapors. After a purge with fresh air, a check should be made to determine whether any vapors remain. If not, and if a further test for oxygen sufficiency proves satisfactory, the tank is safe to enter. All lines leading in and out of the tank should be blanked off or disconnected. If an agitator is used, it should be locked out at the main cut-out. 8.2 ENTERING THE TANK 8.2.1 No one should enter a tank or confined space until a work permit has been signed by an authorized person indicating that the area has been tested and found to be safe. 8.2.2 No workman should enter a tank or vessel that does not have a manhole opening large enough to admit a person wearing a safety harness, life line, and emergency respiratory equipment. It should be ascertained that the tank or vessel can be left by the original entrance. A man outside the tank should keep the man in the tank under observation at all times. Another man should be available near- by to aid in rescue if necessary. 8.2.3 A supplied-air respirator or self-contained breathing apparatus, together with rescue harness and life line should always be located outside the tank for rescue purposes, regardless of the type of respiratory equipment or air supply which is pro- vided for employees inside the tank. 819 Tolylene Diisocyanate Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Manual Sheet 8.3 EMERGENCY RESCUE Under no circumstance should the rescuer enter a tank to remove a victim of overexposure without proper respiratory protection, a safety harness and an attached life line. The free end of the life line should be manned by an attendant located outside the tank. Another attendant should be immediately $D-73 available to assist in the rescue if needed. The rescuer should be in view of the outside attendant at all times or in constant communication with him. 8.4 EXTERIOR REPAIR WORK A tank should be emptied and cleaned as outlined above before any major exterior repair work is done. 9. WASTE DISPOSAL Any quantity of tolylene diisocyanate that is to be disposed of should first be transformed to a urea. This can be done by making use of the neutralizing compound described in Section 7.2.2.1. In this way irritating tolylene diisocyanate vapor is not present in great amounts and the solid material that results can be disposed of. Liquid tolylene diisocyanate should never be washed directly down the drain with water, because the solids that result will plug the sewer line. Disposal of wastes should be in accordance with Federal, state and local regulations regarding pollu- tion control. 10. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT 10.1 HEALTH HAZARDS 10.1.1 General Tolylene diisocyanate is a colorless to pale yel- low liquid with a strong pungent odor and is irritating to the eyes and upper respiratory tract even in low concentrations. It is moreover a potential skin sensi- tizer and can cause difficulty in breathing in some individuals at a concentration below a point detecta- ble either by irritation or odor. On contact with the skin or eyes, tolylene diisocyanate causes irritation and if not removed immediately can produce burns. Inhalation of the vapors may be injurious to the lungs. After serious vapor exposure, pulmonary edema could occur. 10.1.2 Acute Toxicity 10.1.2.1 Pulmonary edema may follow exposure to a high vapor concentration of tolylene diisocyanate. It does not develop as frequently or as silently as it may after exposure to other chemicals such as nitrous fumes or phosgene. In lesser amounts, tolylene di- isocyanate is capable of producing irritation of the upper respiratory system with the resultant develop- ment of bronchitis. Systemic Effects It is capable of producing a spasm of the bronchial tubes which leads to difficulty in breathing in sensitive individuals exposed to amounts in excess of one-tenth of a part per million. The material is only mildly toxic when taken by mouth but acts as a corrosive on the mouth and stomach tissue. 92-734 O-68—53 10.1.2.2 Local Effects Tolylene diisocyanate if allowed to remain on the skin, will produce redness, swelling and blis- tering. Contact with the eyes will produce severe immediate irritation which may result in permanent damage. Exposure to the vapor can lead to tears and burning of the eyes as well as coughing. Skin sensitization or dermatitis has not been a prominent occurrence with the use of tolylene diisocyanate, although skin tests with guinea pigs indicate that it is a potential skin sensitizer. Derma- titis which occurs simultaneously with its use may be due to the catalyst involved. 10.1.3 Chronic Toxicity Repeated exposure of the skin or of the eyes, nose, or upper respiratory tract may cause chronic irritation. Spasm of the bronchial tubes may produce diffi- culty in breathing in sensitive individuals. 10.2 PREVENTIVE HEALTH MEASURES Tolylene diisocyanate is not a serious industrial hazard if workers are adequately instructed and supervised in proper means of handling the chemical. 10.2.1 Personal Hygiene Properly designed emergency showers and eye baths should be placed in convenient locations wher- ever tolylene diisocyanate is used. All employees should know the location and operation of such equipment. It must be frequently inspected to make sure it is in proper working condition. Manual Sheet Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. 820 Tolylene Diisocyanate SD-73 It should be realized by every worker that exposure to a chemical which can cause a burn requires the instant application of copious amounts of water and that the speed with which this is done may markedly decrease the severity of the burn. 10.2.2 Physical Examination 10.2.2.1 Preplacement Examinations Before being assigned to handling tolylene diisocyanate, all individuals should have a careful preplacement physical examination. In order to protect the health of these individuals properly, the physician carrying out the examination may wish to exclude from such processes, people with the follow- ing conditions: (a) Those with only one functioning eye. (b) Those with uncorrected, severe, faulty vision. Those who have chronic diseases of the nose, throat or lung. Those with a history or presence of asthma or asthmatic bronchitis. 10.2.2.2 Periodic Health Examinations Employees working with tolylene diisocya- nate will not develop chronic disease provided rea- sonable and acceptable measures of industrial hy- giene are consistently enforced. A certain percentage, however, may be affected by even minute exposure. This effect takes the form of acute spasm of the bronchial tubes whenever the individual comes in contact with even very small amounts of the vapor. There is no remedy for this condition and the indi- viduals do not “become hardened” or lose their sensi- tivity. If an individual is affected by exposure to minute amounts of tolylene diisocyanate, he should be Jemoved from all further contacts with the chem- ical. (c) (d) 11. 11.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES In cases of skin or eye exposure to tolylene di- isocyanate, the chemical must be removed immedi- ately or severe injury will result. After severe exposure to the vapors of tolylene diisocyanate it is important to move the patient from the contaminated area to a spot where he can receive medical attention. 11.2 CONTACT WITH SKIN AND MUCOUS MEMBRANES The most important part of the treatment of local irritations is the removal of the irritant by the use 10.3 SUGGESTIONS TO PHYSICIANS Treatment of the irritation and broncho-spasm follows the usual medical treatment for such condi- tions arising from any external cause. There have been no reports on any attempted hardening process and its does not appear that it should be instituted. 10.3.1 Oxygen Administration Oxygen has been found useful in the treatment of inhalation exposures of many chemicals, especial- ly those capable of causing either immediate or de- layed harmful effects in the lungs. In most exposures, administration of 100% oxygen at atmospheric pressures has been found to be adequate. This is best accomplished by use of a face mask having a reservoir bag of the non-re- breathing type. Inhalation of 100% oxygen should not exceed one hour of continuous treatment. After each hour therapy may be interrupted. It may be re- instituted as the clinical condition indicates. Some believe that superior results are obtained when exposures to lung irritants are treated with oxygen under an exhalation pressure not exceeding 4 cm. water. Masks providing for such exhalation pressures are obtainable. A single treatment may suffice for minor exposures to irritants. It is believed by some observers that oxygen under pressure is useful as an aid in the prevention of pulmonary edema after breathing irritants. In the event of an exposure causing symptoms or in the case of a history of severe exposure, the patient may be treated with qxygen under 4 cm. exhalation pressure for one-half hour periods out of every hour. Treatment may be continued in this way until symptoms subside or other clinical indica- tions for interruption appear. Caution! It may not be advisable to administer oxygen under positive pressure in the presence of impending or existing cardiovascular failure. FIRST AID of large amounts of water immediately after the acci- dent occurs. If the skin contact is extensive and an emergency shower is available, the employee should get under the shower immediately. Clothes can be removed while under the shower. In other instances, flushing with large amounts of running water together with soap and water washing should be continued for at least five minutes. It is important to remember to remove all clothing including shoes, socks, etc.. which may be contaminated. Subsequent medical treatment is the same as for thermal burns. 11.3 CONTACT WITH EYES If even small amounts of tolylene diisocyanate 821 Tolylene Diisocyanate Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Manual enter the eyes, they should be irrigated immediately with large amounts of water for a minimum of fifteen minutes. This can be done with an eye bath if avail- able, a gentle stream of water from a hose, or by pouring water from any clean container. The eye- lids should be held apart during the irrigation to in- sure contact of water with all of the tissues of the surface of the eyes and lids. After the first fifteen- minute period of irrigation, if pain is still present, it is permissible as a first aid measure to instill 2 or 3 drops of 0.5 per cent pontocaine solution or an equally effective aqueous topical anesthetic. No oils or oily ointments should be instilled unless ordered by the physician. The employee should be sent to a physician, preferably an eye specialist, as rapidly as possible. 11.4 TAKEN INTERNALLY If a person has accidentally swallowed some toly- lene diisocyanate, the harm that occurs will be due to the corrosive action on the esophagus and stomach rather than any systemic toxicity. The person should instantly drink large amounts of water in order to re- duce the concentration of the chemical. It is im- portant that this be done as rapidly as possible rather than attempt to hunt for an antidote or a neutralizer which may not be available. Vomiting can be in- duced by having the patient stick his finger down Sheet his throat or by giving large quantities of warm salt water (2 tablespoonfuls of table salt and a pint of water) or warm soapy water. If vomiting should occur, more water should be given in a further at- tempt to dilute the material. Medical attention should be obtained immediately. 11.5 INHALATION Exposed persons should go at once to an uncon- taminated area. If the exposure has been for a limited time, usually nothing more than this is needed. If, however, there has been a severe ex- posure and the worker has been overcome he must be carried at once into an uncontaminated atmos- phere and effective artificial respiration initiated im- mediately. If oxygen inhalation apparatus is avail- able, oxygen should be administered, but only by a person authorized for such duty by a physician. The patient should be kept comfortably warm, but not hot. Stimulants will rarely be necessary where adequate oxygenation is maintained. Any such drugs for shock treatment should be given only by the attend- ing physician. Never attempt to give anything by mouth to an unconscious patient. CHEMICAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS *Acetaldehyde Acetic Acid Acetic Anhydride *Acetone Acetylene *Acrolein *Acrylonitrile . Aluminum Chloride _ Ammonium Dichromate *Ammonia Anhydrous *Ammonia Aqua *Aniline Antiron: (Anhydrous) Arsenic Trioxide *Benzene .... .. *Benzyl Chloride Benzoyl Peroxide Betanaphthylamine Boron Hydrides . *Bromine . *Butadiene *n-| Butyllithium in Hydrocarbon Solvents *Butyraldehydes . Calcium Carbide Carbon Disulfide Carbon Tetrachloride *Caustic Potash *Caustic Soda . .... *Chlorine Chloroform *Chlorosulfonic Acid Chromic Acid . *Cresol ..... *Cyclohexane ..... *Diethylenetriamine *Dimethyl Sulfate Dinitrotoluenes *Ethyl Acetate . . *Ethyl Chloride *Ethyl Ether _ 5 *Ethylene Dichloride *Ethylene Oxide _ Formaldehyde *Hydrochioric Acid Hydrocyanic Acid >. *Hydrofluoric Acid *Hydrogen Peroxide Hydrogen Peroxide net Exceeding Hroren Peroxide (Hig Strength) Hydrogen Sulfide *Isopropylamine Lead Oxides Maleic Anhydride Methyl Acrylate and Ethyl Acrylate *Methanol Methylamines *Methyl Bromide *Methy| Chloride Methylene Chloride .. . *Methyl Ethyl Ketone *Mixed Acid . . Naphthalene *Nitric Acid *Nitrobenzene . Ortho-Dichlorobenzene Paraformaldehyde paraNitroaniline Perchloroethylene Perchloric Acid Solution *Phenol (1952) SD-43 (1951) SD-41 (1962) SD-15 (1962) SD-87 (1957) SD-7 1961) SD-85 -(1964) SD-31 (1956) SD-62 (1952) SD-45 (1960) SD-8 (1947) SD-13 (1963) SD-17 -(1957) SD-66 (1956) SD-60 (1960) SD-2 (1957) SD-69 (1960) SD-81 -(1949) SD-32 (1961) SD-84 -(1952) SD-49 (1954) SD-55 (1966) SD-91 (1960) SD-78 (1967) SD-23 -(1967) SD-12 (1963) SD-3 (1947) SD-10 ..(1947) SD-9 (1960) SD-80 (1962) SD-89 (1949) SD-33 (1952) SD-44 (1952) SD-48 (1957) SD-68 (1959) SD-76 (1966) SD-19 (1966) SD-93 (1953) SD-51 (1953) SD-50 (1965) SD-29 (1947) SD-18 (1951) SD-38 (1960) SD-1 (1951) SD-39 (1961) SD-67 (1957) SD-25 (1955) SD-53 (1961) SD-53—Sup. A (1961) SD-53—Sup. B (1950) SD-36 (1959) SD-72 (1956) SD-64 (1962) SD-88 - (1960) SD-79 (1948) SD-22 (1955) SD-57 (1949) SD-35 (1951) SD-40 - (1962) SD-86 (1961) SD-83 ~.. (1956) SD-65 (1956) SD-58 (1961) SD-5 (1948) SD-21 (1953) SD-54 (1960) SD-6 (1966) SD-94 (1948) SD-24 (1965) SD-11 (1964) SD-4 822 seize a fg SD-95 i 958) SD-70 Tots) 378 1947) SD-16 1948) SD-26 Hi SD-71 (1948) SD-27 1050 SD-61 (1956) SD-59 1952) SD-42 -(1949) SD-30 1952) SD-47 (1952) SD-46 and Potassium Styrene (1951) SD-37 Sulfur ee; ; 1959) SD-74 Sulfur Chlorides ..... ) SD-77 *Sulfur Dioxide 1953) SD-52 *Sulfuric Acid . a (1963) SD-20 Tetrachloroethane - (1949) SD-34 *Toluene . _.. (1956) SD-63 Toluidine -.(1961) SD-82 Tolylene Diisocyanate (1359) SD-73 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 96! Trichioroethylene eevee (1956) SD-14 *Vinyl Acetate . .(1959) SD-75 *Vinyi Chloride 8 (1954) SD-56 Zirconium and Hafnium Powder (1966) SD-92 * Chem-Cards available LABORATORY SAFETY 1. Film “Safety in the Chemical Laboratory"—A 16 mm sound-color, 20-minute film. Pur- chase Price $100.00. Preview charge, $5 per week — deductible from purchase cost if ordered within 30 days of preview. A Teacher's Guide accompanies the film. 234 page volume—"Guide for Safety in the Chemical Laboratory”-—$6.50. Order direct from D. Van Nostrand & Co., Inc., 120 Alexander St., Princeton, N. J. ~ CASE HISTORIES OF ACCIDENTS IN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY Vol. One — 1962 $2.50 Vol. Two — 1966 $3.50 MANUALS L-1 Guide to Precautionary Labelin, of Hazardous Chemicals (Sixt Edition—1961) _. TC-2 Tank Cars—ICC S Spec ub. ber-Lined—Unloading when filled with Muriatic Acid, Phosphoric Acid, or other authorized liquids. .15 TC-3 Tank Cars—Unloading wher filled with liquid Caustic Soda or Caus- fie Eh (Revised 1946, 1950, TC-4 Tank Cars—Unloading when filled with flammable liquids (Revised, TC-6 Tank Cars—Unloading when filled with Phenol (Revised, 1959) 30 TC-7 Tank Car Approach Platforms _ 20 CHEM-CARDS (Transportation Emergency Guides) See Chemical Safety Data Sheets marked with asterisk (*) Also available for: Butyllithium Methyl Chlorine Trifluoride Methacrylate Diethylamine Monomethyl (Anhydrous) Hydrazine Dimethyl Ether Motor Fuel Epichlorohydrin Antiknock Ethanol Compound Ethyl Acrylate Nitric Acid Fluorine (Liquid) (Red, Fuming) Formic Acid Hydrazine/ UDMH Nitrogen, Liquid Nitrogen Tetroxide Hydrogen, Liquid Oleum Isopropanol Oxygen, Liquid Isopropyl Ether Pentaborane Methyi Acrylate Methylamines Perchloryl Fluoride Sulfur Trioxide (Anhydrous) Unsymmetrical Methylamines Dimethyl (Aqueous) Hydrazine Methyl Isobutyl Vinylidene Chloride Ketone Xylene CHEM-CARD MANUAL $1.00 CHEMICAL SAFETY GUIDES Health Factors in the Safe Handling of Chemicals . eis S07 Housekeeping in the "Chemical Industry scene SG Flammable Liquids — Storage and Handling of Drum Lots and Smaller Quantities arene G3 Emergency Organization for the Chemical Industry SG4 Plastic Foams—Storage, Handling and Fabrication . SG-5 Forklift Operations .....SG-6 Guide for Storage and Handling of Shock and Impact Sensitive Materials - SG-7 Electrical Switch Lockout Procedure SG-8 Disposal of Hazardous Waste .__.._..SG-9 Entering Tanks and Other Enclosed Spaces _.... .SG-10 Off-The-Job Safety .. .SG-11 Public Relations in Emergencies -SG-12 Maintenance and Inspection of Fire Protection Equipment _ SG-13 Safety in the Scale-up and Transfer of Chemical Processes -SG-14 Training of Process Operators .8G-15 Liquid Chemicals: Sampling of Tank Car and Tank Truck Shipments SG-16 Fire Protection in the Chemical Industry . _...__... . _ SG17 Identification of Materials .SG-18 Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas SG-19 CHEMICAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS SAFETY GUIDES 10% discount on com CHEM-CARDS of chemical safety data sheets or of safety guides or total quantities of 100 or more. Future issues may be obtained, when and as issued, on a yearly subscription basis—billed at the end of the year. order to Publications Department, Manufacturing 5 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20009. 30 cents each 20 cents each -. 5 cents each 20% discount 30% discount 823 Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-20 PROPERTIES AND ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR SAFE HANDLING AND USE OF SULFURIC ACID REVISED 1963 Chemicals in any form can be safely stored, handled or used if the physical, chemical and hazardous properties are fully under- stood and the necessary precautions, including the use of proper safeguards and personal protective equipment, are observed. 824 Chemical Safety Data Sheet SULFURIC ACID PREFACE This chemical safety data sheet contains material previously pub- lished in Manual TC-1 “Tank Cars—Unloading when filled with sulfuric acid, ete.” Sulfuric acid is a colorless to cloudy liquid used widely in the manufacture of chemicals, textiles, leather, pigments, steel and other metal products, dyes, petroleum, explosives; etc. It is highly corrosive to most metals particularly in strengths below 60°Be. with evolution of hydrogen, a highly flammable and explosive gas." Sulfuric acid itself is not flammable but may cause ignition by contact with combustible liquids and solids. On contact with the skin or eyes sulfuric acid produces severe burns. Swallowing may cause severe injury or death. Inhalation of concentrated vapor or mist from hot acid may be injurious to the lungs. The full text of this chemical safety data sheet should be con- sulted for details of the hazards of sulfuric acid and suggestions for their control. 825 Chemical Safety Data Sheet ho” SULFURIC ACID ADOPTED FEBRUARY, 1948 FIRST REVISION 1952 SECOND REVISION 1963 1. NAME Chemical Names: . Sulfuric Acid, Fuming Sulfuric Acid Common Names: Sulfuric Acid, Oleum Formula: H.SO, Oleum: H,SO, with dissolved SO; 2. PROPERTIES 2.1 GRADES AND STRENGTHS 2.1.1 Grades: Technical (Commercial), CP, USP, Battery Acid, Fuming (Oleum). 2.1.2 Strengths: Strengths and other data on representative commercial grades follow (see MCA Manual Sheets T-7, T-7A, and T-8 for complete details): Sulfuric Acid Sp. Gr. at 60°F. Freezing Point Bé % H,S0, Compared to H,0/60°F. °C. °F. 52° 65.13 1.5591 —40.0 —40° 58° 74.36 1.6667 —44.0 —47° 60° 77.67 1.7059 — 8.0 18° 66° 93.19 1.8354 —320 —26° —-_ 98.00 1.8438 3.0 371° —_ 100.00 1.8392 10.0 50° Oleums % Equivalent Sp. Gr. at 100°F. Freezing Point % Free SO, H,S0, Compared to H,0/60°F. °C. °F. 20.0 104.50 1.8820 — 9.0 15° 30.0 106.75 1.9156 15.5 60° 40.0 109.00 1.9473 33.0 94° 65.0 114.63 1.9820 3.6 34° 100.0 122.50 1.8342 17.2 63° (Liquid SO) 2.2 PROPERTIES AND CHARACTERISTICS Physical state _ _.Liquid Color __. ...Clear, colorless to cloudy Odor _. _...Oleum has a sharp, penetrating odor Flash point ...None Corrosivity Highly corrosive to most metals; particularly at con- centrations below 60° Bé with evolution of hydrogen gas (See 3.2). Reactivity In addition to attacking many metals, the acid in its concentrated form is a strong oxidizing agent and may cause ignition on contact with organic materials and such products as nitrates, carbides, chlorates, etc. It also reacts exothermically with water. RY BPOSCOPICHY. cous arsnmssmommenmessrssines cosmaiscimnisroniucsisssed N08 826 Manval Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Sulfuric Acid $D-20 3. HAZARDS 3.1 HEALTH HAZARDS (See also Section 10) Due to its corrosive, oxidizing and sulfonating properties, sulfuric acid produces rapid destruction of tissues and severe burns on contact with bodily tissues of any kind. 3.1.1 Warning Properties Sulfuric acid is odorless but fuming sulfuric or oleum has a sharp, penetrating effect on the nose due to release of dissolved SO;. Sulfuric acid mists in concentrations in excess of 1 mg/m? are easily recognized by most observers, while a con- centration of 5 mg/m? is distinctly objectionable. A sensation of “breathing dusty air” is experienced. 3.1.2 Threshold Limit A threshold limit of 1 mg/m? has been recom- mended as a safe concentration for an eight-hour exposure. 3.2 FIRE HAZARDS (See Section 6, Fire and Explosion Hazards) The acid itself is not flammable, but in its higher concentrations may cause ignition by contact with combustible liquids and solids. A highly flammable and explosive gas, hydrogen, is generated by the action of the acid on most metals. 4. ENGINEERING CONTROL OF HAZARDS 4.1 BUILDING DESIGN Buildings may be constructed of wood, concrete or steel. Open steel work should be protected by an acid resistant paint. Provision should be made for drainage and washing down spills with large quantities of water. Stairs, platforms and walkways should be pro- vided to give access to tank tops. 4.2 EQUIPMENT DESIGN Since sulfuric acid is highly corrosive to many metals and alloys, the proper design and selection of handling, storage and processing equipment is imperative. Storage tank manholes, and those on other large vessels containing sulfuric acid, should be designed so that men wearing rescue harness, life line and breathing apparatus can enter readily. 4.2.1 System Types Sulfuric acid should be handled in a closed sys- tem throughout whenever possible. Storage tanks and similar equipment should always be protected by breather vents so located that accidental over- flow will be safely discharged into a sump or other safe location. 4.2.2 Filling Operations A common system used to feed carboy and drum locations consists of an acid tank, with two valves in the line, feeding the packaging line by gravity. If the two valves are closed and the system allowed to remain idle for any length of time, pres- sure may build up between the two valves, par- ticularly during hot weather. Then, when the lower valve is opened, acid may blow out the open line. This hazard can be controlled by either of the following methods: (a) When ending filling operations, close only one valve. (b) If both valves are found to be closed when resuming filling operations, open the valve nearest to the tank. This will permit any pressure in the line to vent into the tank itself. 4.3 VENTILATION The vapor from hot sulfuric acid or oleum, some- times referred to as fumes, while not seriously toxic, is extremely irritating to the upper respiratory tract. (See Section 10.1, Health Hazards.) It is also highly corrosive to metal and other materials of construction. It is therefore important to maintain adequate ventilation at all locations where such acid is handled. Storage should be located in the open, or in well- ventilated buildings or sheds. Individual sensitivity to vapors is variable; 0.125 to 0.50 parts per million may be mildly annoying; 1.5 to 2.5 ppm definitely unpleasant, and 10 to 20 ppm unbearable. Workers exposed to low concen- trations of vapor gradually become less sensitive to their irritant action. 4.4 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT Electrical fixtures should be of the liquid-tight type. All wiring should be in liquid-tight, rigid metal conduit. (See article 500 of National Elec- trical Code.) 827 Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Manval Sheet $D-20 5. EMPLOYEE SAFETY 5.1 EMPLOYEE EDUCATION AND TRAIN- ING Safety in handling sulfuric acid depends, to a great extent, upon the effectiveness of employee education, proper training in safe practices and the use of safe equipment, and intelligent supervision. The education and training of employees to work safely and to use the personal protective equipment provided for them is the responsibility of supervision. Training classes for both new and old employees should be conducted periodically to maintain a high degree of safety in handling procedures. Employees should be thoroughly informed of the hazards that may result from improper handling of sulfuric acid, oleum or liquid SO;. They should be cautioned to prevent spills, and thoroughly instructed regarding proper action to take in case they occur. (See 7.10.) Each employee should know what to do in an emer- gency and should be fully informed as to first aid measures. (See Section 11, FIRST AID.) In addition to the above, employee education and training should include the following: (a) Instruction and periodic drill or quiz regard- ing the locations, purpose, and use of emergency fire fighting equipment, fire alarms and emergency shut- down equipment such as valves and switches. (b) Instructions and periodic drill or quiz regard- ing the locations, purpose, and use of personal pro- tective equipment. (¢) Instruction and periodic drill or quiz regard- ing the locations of safety showers, eye-baths, bubbler drinking fountains, or the closest source of water for use in emergencies. (d) Instructions to avoid all unnecessary inhala- tion of vapors of sulfuric acid and all direct contact with liquid. (e) Instructions to report to the proper authority all cases of equipment failure. 52 SAFETY SHOWERS AND EYE WASH FOUNTAINS Readily accessible, well marked, rapid action safety showers and eye wash fountains (preferably with warm water supply) must be available in the areas where sulfuric acid is being handled. Showers should have deluge type heads, easily accessible, plainly marked and controlled by quick-opening valves of the type that stay open. They should be capable of supplying large quantities of water under moderately high pressure. Blankets should be located near the safety showers. Eye wash fountains. or a ready source of running tap water, such as a drinking fountain or hose with a gentle flow of water should be immediately available for eye irrigation. All safety equipment should be inspected and tested at regular intervals, preferably daily and especially during freez- ing weather, to make sure it is in good working condition at all times. 5.3 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 5.3.1 Availability and Use While personal protective equipment is not an adequate substitute for good, safe working condi- tions, adequate ventilation, and intelligent conduct on the part of employees working with sulfuric acid, it is, in many instances, the only practical means of protecting the worker, particularly in emergency situ- ations. One should keep firmly in mind that personal protective equipment protects only the worker wear- ing it, and other unprotected workers in the area may be exposed to danger. The correct usage of personal protective equip- ment requires the education of the worker in proper employment of the equipment available to him. Under conditions which are sufficiently hazardous to require personal protective equipment, its use should be supervised and the type of protective equipment selected should be capable of control over any po- tential hazard. The following personal protective equipment should be used when indicated. 5.3.2 Eye Protection 5.3.2.1 Chemical Safety Goggles | Cup-type or rubber framed goggles, equipped with the approved impact resistant glass or plastic lenses, should be worn whenever there is danger of sulfuric acid coming in contact with the eyes. Gog- gles should be carefully fitted to ensure maximum protection and comfort. 5.3.2.2 Spectacle-Type Safety Goggles Metal or plastic rim safety spectacles with unperforated side shields which can be obtained with prescription safety lenses or suitable all plastic safety goggles may be used where continuous eye protec- tion is desirable, as in laboratories. These types, however, should not be used where complete eye protection against sulfuric acid is needed. 5.3.2.3 Face Shields Plastic shields (full length, eight inch mini- mum) with forehead protection may be worn in ad- dition to chemical safety goggles where complete 828 Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Sulfuric Acid $D-20 face protection is desirable. Chemical safety goggles should always be worn as added protection where there is danger of material striking the eyes from underneath or around the sides of the face shield. 5.3.3 Respiratory Protection Severe exposure to sulfuric acid may occur in tanks during equipment cleaning and repairs, when decontaminating areas following spills, or in case of failure of piping or equipment. Employees who may be subject to such ex- posures should be provided with proper respiratory protection and trained in its use and care. Available types arc described below. NOTE: Respiratory protective equipment should bear U. S. Bureau of Mines approval and must be carefully maintained, inspected, cleaned and steri- lized at regular intervals, and always before and after use by another person. (a) Self-contained Breathing Apparatus which permits the wearer to carry a supply of oxygen or air compressed in the cylinder, and the self-generating type which produces oxygen chemically. These al- low considerable mobility. The length of time a self- contained breathing apparatus provides protection varies according to the amount of air, oxygen or re- generating material carried. Compressed oxygen should not be used where there is danger of contact with flammable liquids, vapors, or sources of igni- tion, especially in confined spaces such as tanks or pits. (b) Positive Pressure Hose Masks supplied by blowers requiring no internal lubrication. The wearer must be able to use the same route for exit as for entrance and must take precautions to keep the hose line free of entanglement. The air blower must be placed in an area free of contaminants. (c) Air-line Masks supplied with clean com- pressed air. These are suitable for use only where conditions will permit safe escape in case of failure of the compressed air supply. These masks are usually supplied with air piped to the area from a compressor. lt is extremely important that the air supply is taken from a safe source, and that it is not contaminated by oil decomposition from inadequate cooling at the compressor. The safer method is to use a separate compressor of the type not requiring internal lubrication. Pressure reducing and relief valves, as well as suitable traps and filters, must be installed at all mask stations. An alternative arrangement frequently used is high pressure breathing air from standard (200 cu. ft.) cylinders, with a demand-type valve and face piece. This arrangement may also be used with 50-100 Ib. clean piped plant air, and, as an additional precaution with the demand mask, a small cylinder of compressed air may be worn for use as an emergency escape from the area. Consult a safety equipment dealer for details on the proper use of Bureau of Mines approved equipment. (d) Industrial Canister Type Gas Masks, equipped with full face pieces and approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines, fitted with the proper canister for absorbing sulfuric acid. These will afford pro- tection against concentrations not exceeding 2 per cent by volume when used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. The oxygen content of the air must not be less than 16 per cent by volume. The masks should be used for relatively short ex- posure periods only. They may not be suitable for use in an emergency since, at that time, the actual vapor concentration is unknown and an oxygen de- ficiency may exist. The wearer must be warned to leave the contaminated area immediately on detect- ing the odor of a harmful vapor. This may indicate that the mask is not functioning properly, the vapor concentration is too high, the canister is exhausted or the mask is not properly fitted. NOTE: Where carbon monoxide or other gas having little or no odor may be encountered in addi- tion to sulfuric acid, the mask should be equipped with an “all purpose canister” and a “timing device” or a colorimetric window indicator as approved by the U. S. Bureau of Mines. 5.3.4 Head Protection “Hard” hats should be worn where there is danger from falling objects. If hard hats are not considered necessary, soft-brimmed hats or caps may be worn to give protection against liquid leaks and splashes. 5.3.5 Foot Protection Rubber safety shoes with built-in steel toe caps are recommended for workers handling drums and carboys of sulfuric acid. Rubbers worn over leather safety shoes should be thoroughly cleaned after con- tamination. 5.3.6 Body, 5kin and Hand Protection Sustained or intermittent skin contact with liquid sulfuric acid will produce burns at the site of contact. Creams and ointments do not afford adequate pro- tection. Rubber gloves and aprons should be worn when there is a possibility of body contact. Protec- tive clothing contaminated by sulfuric acid should be flushed with flowing water promptly and cleaned in- side and out each time it is used. Affected areas of the body should be flushed thoroughly with water. As a general hygienic measure, facilities for personal cleanliness should be provided, and washing before lunch and at the end of the work day should be encouraged. 829 Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Manval Sheet $D-20 6. FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD CONTROL The acid itself is not flammable, but in its higher concentrations may cause ignition by coniact with combustible materials. It should, therefore, be iso- lated from organic materials, and such products as nitrates, carbides, chlorates and metallic powders. Safeguard against mechanical injury of containers. When diluting, always add the acid to water. Never add water to the acid. Hydrogen, a highly flammable gas, can be gen- erated inside a drum, tank car, tank truck or metal storage tank containing sulfuric acid. As hydrogen will form explosive mixtures with air under certain conditions, smoking should not be permitted near open drums, tank cars or tank trucks, nor should open lights be permitted. When welding or performing other hot work in storage areas, precautions should be taken so that hydrogen vapors*will not be flashed or exploded by a spark. This precaution is particularly applicable to partially filled drums or tanks. Explosions have occurred when welding in atmos- pheres where hydrogen has accumulated over a week- end. Weak acid can attack systems during such idle time, permitting accumulation of hydrogen in cool- ers, towers, and other equipment. To prevent hydrogen explosions when burning or 7. HANDLING 7.1 USUAL SHIPPING CONTAINERS Sulfuric acid is classified by the Interstate Com- merce Commission as a corrosive liquid. As such, it must be packed in ICC specification containers when shipped by rail, water, or highway, and all of the ICC Regulations regarding loading, handling, and marking must be followed. 7.1.1 Type and Size (a) For all strengths, glass bottles in wooden boxes, ICC Spec. 15A, 15B, 15C, 16A, or 19A, in corrugated cartons, ICC Spec. 12A, in expanded polystyrene cases, ICC Spec. 33A. (b) For strengths not less than 100% nor more than 115% (approx.), steel drum, ICC 5C. (¢) For strengths not to exceed 100.5%, glass carboys up to 13 gallon capacity, ICC Spec. 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E, or 1K. (d) For strengths not to exceed 95%, metal drums, ICC Spec. 5H; polyethylene carboys, ICC Spec. 2T or 2TL, overpacked in ICC Spec. 1H, 15P, 22C, 37A, 21C, or 16D, outer containers. Inside polyethylene containers, ICC Spec. 2S or 2Sh over- welding, valves on lines leading to the equipment being worked on should be closed or blanked off. Sampling ports should be provided at the top of towers and elsewhere in the system, to test for hydrogen before work is started. Meters for hydro- gen measurement are available commercially. Spe- cial care should be taken when welding or burning on acid lines which have been emptied but not washed. The accelerated generation of hydrogen by localized heat often causes minor explosions, spray- ing acid and destroying welds. Such lines should be washed and purged if at all practicable. On all closed systems which are opened for hot work, the section involved must be isolated as far as possible in both directions. Sweeping out en- trained or accumulated gases should be practiced to the maximum extent feasible. Hydrogen can be exploded when alarm probes on automatic pump controls come in contact with acid. An induction type relay with a high probe voltage can produce a spark. If this type relay is used, the low volt tap should be used. Other types of level alarms, where there is no spark hazard, are pref- erable. Adequate ventilation is the best precaution against hydrogen fires. AND STORAGE packed in steel drums, ICC 5B, 6V, or 37A, in wire- bound wooden overwrap, ICC Spec. 16D. Inside polyethylene container, ICC Spec. 2U, over-packed in fibreboard boxes, ICC Spec. 12B, or wirebound wooden box 16A. (e) For strengths 77.5% or greater, provided the acid has a corrosive effect on steel, measured at 100°F., no greater than 66° Bé commercial sul- furic acid. Metal drums, ICC Spec. 5A or 5C for acid of 93% or greater strength. ICC Spec 17F (single trip only), drums must be equipped with vented closures. (f) For strengths 65.25% or greater provided that corrosive effect on steel, measured at 100°F. is no greater than 52° Bé commercial acid; portable tank, ICC Spec. 60; tank motor vehicle, MC310 and MC311; tank cars, ICC Spec. 103A, 103A-W, or 111A100-W-2. (g) For strengths not to exceed 51% ; rubber lined metal drums, ICC Spec. SD; portable tanks (rubber lined); tank motor vehicles (rubber lined) ICC Spec. MC310, or MC311; tank cars, ICC Spec. 103B, 103B-W, or 111A100-W-5. Numerous small 830 Manval Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Sulfuric Acid $D-20 containers are authorized, and new ones are con- stantly being added; ICC Regulations should be consulted for approved containers. (h) Tank cars, ICC Spec. 103A or 103A-W, for acid of 1.5591 specific gravity (52° Bé) or greater strength. (i) Rubber-lined tank cars, ICC Spec. 103B or 103B-W, for acid of not over 1.4 specific gravity (42° Bé). (j) Tank motor vehicles, ICC Spec. MC-310 and MC-311, rubber-lined, for sulfuric acid not ex- ceeding 1.408 specific gravity (42° Bé). (k) Tank motor vehicles, ICC Spec. MC-310 and MC-311, for sulfuric acid of 1.5591 specific gravity (52° Bé) or greater strength. Note: See ICC Regulations, Section 74.538 and 77.848 specifying the dangerous articles which may not be loaded with sulfuric acid. In certain instances nitiic acid is added as an anti-freeze agent to sulfuric acid, particularly oleum. ICC specification containers must be used for these mixtures (see ICC Regulations). The long term effects of strong acid (90-95% H:SO,) on polyethylene are not definitely estab- lished. Color changes do occur in the resin, how- ever, and returnable containers of such material should be examined regularly for embrittlement of the plastic, especially at lower temperatures, before refilling for shipment. 7.2 LABELING AND IDENTIFICATION 7.2.1 ICC Requirements 7.2.1.1 Each container should carry an iden- tifying label or stencil. 7.2.1.2 Each drum and each box containing jnside containers, must bear the ICC white ACID a . Tank cars, and railroad cars carrying one or more containers of sulfuric acid must bear the ICC DANGEROUS placard. Motor vehicles (including tank motor vehicles) transporting sulfuric acid must be marked in accordance with Section 77.823 of ICC Regulations. 7.2.1.3 Disposal and Return Precautions Before returning shipping containers to sup- pliers, observe usual precautions regarding complete drainage of contents and tightly close all openings. Follow ICC Regulations regarding the con- dition of empty containers and labeling; and the condition of empty cars and placard requirements before returning to the shipper. Before returning glass containers to the ship- per they must be stoppered and the ICC white ACID labels on the outside cases must be removed. It is recommended that the prescribed white “EMPTY” label not be used to cover an ACID label, as it can be washed off, exposing the label underneath. 7.2.2 Precautionary Labeling The following label text is from page 89 of Manual L-1, Guide to Precautionary Labeling of Hazardous Chemicals, Sixth Edition, 1961, and is designed for the product as shipped for industrial use. Before adopting a label the latest edition of this Manual should always be consulted. The text should be used in addition to or in combination with any specific wording required by law. Since individual statutes, regulations or ordinances may require that particular information be included in a label, that certain, information be displayed in a particular man- ner or that a specific label be affixed to a container, the use of this label text will not necessarily ensure compliance with such laws. Such laws include the Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act and similar state and municipal legislation. attention. violent reaction. SULFURIC ACID DANGER! CAUSES SEVERE BURNS Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. In case of contact, immediately flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes; for eyes, get medical Do not add water to contents while in a container because of 831 Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Miia 50-20 (FUMING SULFURIC ACID) DANGER! CAUSES SEVERE BURNS Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Avoid breathing vapor. In case of contact, immediately flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes; for eyes, get medical attention. Do not add water to contents while in a container because of violent reaction. 7.3 CARBOYS four tiers high, in such a manner that the necks (a) The instructions for handling carboys in MCA Manual Sheets C-1 (for shippers) and C-2 (for consignees) should be followed. (b) Protective clothing should consist of a felt, treated fiber or safety hard hat with brim, rubber gloves, face shield or chemical type goggles, rubber apron and rubber safety-toe boots or shoes. A supply of water should be close at hand. (c) Carefully inspect all carboys on receipt and set aside any damaged ones for special handling. (d) Be sure closures are securely fastened before moving either filled or empty carboys. (e) Place a cap or boot over the neck of the carboy before moving it. (f) Use specially designed hand-trucks for trans- porting individually boxed carboys about the plant. Do not use hooks. (g) Never handle carboys by the closure or neck of the bottle. (h) Never walk a carboy on the edge of the box. (i) When removing full or empty boxed car- boys from storage tiers, trucks or cars, and when stacking full or empty carboys, the neck of the bottle should never be tilted toward the workman. (j) Carboys should never be stored more than three tiers high, preferably two tiers. Empty boxed carboys should be stored on their flat side, not over will not protrude into aisles or passageways. (k) When opening carboys, keep the hands and face to the side of the neck, never over it. A wire cutter should be used to remove the wire which holds the stopper in place. No attempt should be made to loosen the wire by twisting or prying. (1) NEVER USE AIR PRESSURE TO EMPTY CARBOYS. Use a tilter especially designed for the purpose, or a safety siphon fabricated of material resistant to sulfuric acid. (m) It is mandatory that empty boxed carboys be completely drained before presentation to the transportation company. Failure to do so is in violations of ICC Regulations. 7.4 DRUMS 7.4.1 Emptying (a) The instructions for handling drums given in MCA Manual Sheets D-30 (for shippers) and D-31 (for consignees) should be followed. (b) Protective clothing should consist of a felt, treated fiber or safety hard hat with brim, rub- ber gloves, face shield or chemical-type goggles, rubber apron and rubber safety-toe shoes. A supply of water should be close at hand. (c) Inspect drums for loose plugs and signs of leakage or damage before moving. Set aside for special handling if damage is found. Tighten loose plugs. 832 Manval Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Sulfuric Acid $D-20 (d) Avoid rough handling of drums. Do not drop. Drums should be handled carefully to and from their place of storage. Before emptying con- tents, substantially support drums and block them to prevent movement. (e) To remove the body plug, place plug =p and use a pipe wrench or preferably a plug wrenc with a long handle. Stand to one side and face away during the operation. After the plug starts, turn slowly, and open not more than one full turn. If accumulated internal pressure vents, allow it to reduce to atmospheric pressure. Only then should the plug be slowly loosened further or removed. (f) Drums should be stored with plugs up. Storage period should be kept to a minimum. (g) VENT DRUMS WEEKLY, MORE FRE- QUENTLY IN HOT WEATHER, TO RELEASE PRESSURE THAT MAY BUILD UP. (Liquid SO; drums should not be vented during storage as ex- cessive moisture pick-up may destroy stabilizer action.) An alternative method to the above is to cover the drum with a rubber blanket, loosen the plug, then proceed as in (e) above, using the wrench under the blanket to afford maximum pro- tection against a pressure spray of acid. (h) Drums should be emptied by gravity only, using a faucet or safety siphon fabricated of material resistant to sulfuric acid. APPLICATION OF PRESSURE TO THE DRUM IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND SHOULD NEVER BE AT- TEMPTED. (i) Smoking should be strictly forbidden while handling, working on, or emptying drums because of the hydrogen hazard. (See Section 6) (j) Since drums may contain hydrogen gas they should never be struck with a spark-producing tool. 7.42 Defective or Leaking Drums (a) Employees handling leaking drums should wear full protective equipment—rubber safety-toe boots, gloves and suit, safety glasses covered by a face shield and a brimmed hat. If extreme condi- tions exist, an acid hood should be worn. (b) Move the defective drum to a well-venti- lated or outdoor area. Clear the immediate area of non-essential personnel and material. (c) If the leak cannot be stopped, tie rubber sheeting around the drum to minimize splashing while it is being used. Check that the cross-threaded plug will not become dislodged. NOTE: KEEP WATER AWAY FROM LEAKING LIQUID SO, DRUMS. Tie rubber sheeting around the drum. Contact the supplier for advice. (d) Neutralize spills with soda ash. Wash the area thoroughly with water. If necessary, sand or a mixture of rd ash and sand can be used to soak up the acid. This should be shoveled up for disposal. (e) Protect or remove material in the area which may be affected by fumes. The effect of fumes on neighboring property should also be taken into account. (f) When transferring acid make sure that the serviceable container is clean and that when filled it is adequately labeled. (8) Pumps which can pressurize drums should not be used when transferring acid. Pumps must be cleaned after use. A self-starting (bulb-activated) siphon may be used. The siphon hose should be firmly anchored before starting transfer operations. (h) Defective drums should be thoroughly washed (except where a violent reaction with water due to heat of dilution will result), then destroyed by punching holes in the bottom with non-sparking hammer and chisel. Take care to avoid jagged edges. If the contents of drum cannot be transferred, the drum should be taken to an open ground area. A hole should be dug for the drum, and the hole filled with soda ash. If it is not possible to dig a hole, surround the drum with a dike of soda ash and let it leak. 7.5 TANK TRUCKS 7.5.1 General (a) The use of tank trucks is authorized by ICC Regulations. Local rules, regulations and ordi- nances must also be observed. (b) ICC Regulations (Section 77.834) require that tank motor vehicles be attended during load- ing and unloading. If it becomes necessary for the attendant to leave the operation, transfer of the acid must be stopped. (c) Protective equipment consisting of an acid hood, acid-resistant apron and gloves and a long- sleeved shirt and trousers (preferably of wool or other acid-resistant fiber) should be worn while venting or connecting and disconnecting pipelines. Acid goggles and a brimmed hat should be worn under all conditions except when an acid hood is being used. If necessary to work on connections beneath the tank, a full acid suit should be worn. Respiratory protection should be worn when neces- sary to work in an atmosphere containing sulfuric acid fumes. If caught in an emergency without respiratory protection, the breath should be held and escape made, if possible, without breathing. If this is not possible, short shallow breaths should be taken so as not to fill lungs. Any exposure to fumes should be reported so the individual can receive immediate medical attention. Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. 833 (d) An emergency shower and preferably an eye bath should be easily accessible and within 25 feet of the loading or unloading spot and other sources of water should be available for washdowns. 7.5.2 Fittings, Ete. (a) The packing and lubricant for om y glands, etc. must be of a material recommended for sulfuric acid handling. (b) The pump glands, flanged fittings, and valve stems should be provided with splash shields or collars in cases where personnel would be ex- posed to acid leaks or sprays if acid should escape. The use of transparent shields may assist personnel in detecting incipient leaks before they become serious. (c) Where access to the top of the tank truck is needed, the spot should be provided with stairs and platform. Non-combustible construction is pre- ferred. Overhead loading lines should be counter- weighted with a pulley and weight system, or equiva- lent. 7.5.3 Damage en Route In case a tank truck becomes damaged en route so that it cannot proceed safely to destination, every effort should be made to park it where it will not endanger traffic or property. The police and fire departments should be notified and public warned to stay away. The truck should be parked, if pos- sible, in a vacant lot and away from an area in which there is a concentration of people. If leaking, the acid should be jepped in a depression or pit and if possible, neutralized with soda ash or lime and the neutralized material subsequently thoroughly washed away. Litmus paper should be used to de- termine that the spill has been adequately neutralized. If available, another authorized tank truck should be brought to the disabled vehicle to “pump off” the leaking acid. 7.5.4 Unloading (a) Tank trucks should be visually inspected for leaks before they are allowed to enter the plant. (b) Unloading should preferably be performed only during daylight hours. When it is necessary to unload at night, proper and adequate lighting should be provided around the tank truck and the working areas involved in the operation. (c) It is preferable that the truck pad be ar- ranged so liquid spillage will drain away from the truck and exposed structures. The pad should be of sufficient length to allow the truck and trailer a minimum of a 4-foot clearance at each end and 2-foot clearance on each side. Because of the hazard of backing equipment into roadways and the possible need to move a truck quickly from the unloading spot, it should be so arranged that the Manvel Shoot $D-20 truck can be driven away in a forward direction. Where a drive-through arrangement is used, a chain, gravity-swing guard gate, or equivalent, should be provided across the truck entrance to the driveway when same is not in use. (d) Only qualified and properly instructed em- ployees should operate the truck and make the hook-up of the hose from the tank truck to the receiving tank. (e) Contents of the tank truck should be checked before they are transferred. If a sample is required for testing purposes, the truck driver should open the manhole or filling opening. The person taking the sample should wear the prescribed pro- tective equipment. (f) An authorized and qualified consignee representative should give approval to unload into the storage tank. is consignee representative should designate the specific unloading connection to be used. He should trace the line to make sure that all valves are properly set and that the overflow line on the storage tank will discharge to a safe location. He should also make sure there is room in it for the amount of acid to be transferred. (g) Before connecting for unloading, the truck engine should be stopped and not started again dur- ing the entire unloading operation unless it is neces- sary to operate the pump by power take-off or to use the truck engine to operate compressors as a source of air for air pressure unloading. (h) Truck parking brakes should be set and, where necessary, the wheels blocked. (i) A sign should be placed near truck stating in effect “Danger—Unloading Acid” to caution others to stay away from the operation. (j) Whether unloading by pump or air, the piping should, if possible, be arranged so the acid will drain toward the storage tank when the pum is shut down or when the discharge valve is i (k) When unloading line must be run across a walkway, suitable warning signs should be pro- vided to denote the hazard. (1) Before starting to vent or connect, a water hose should be connected and ready for emergency use and the emergency shower should be tested. (m) The acid flow should not be started until the truck driver is so instructed by the consignee’s authorized representative. (n) Wherever practicable, unloading should be accomplished by pumping. Whether pumping or unloading by air pressure, observe the following pro- cedure. Operate relief valve to vent the tank. Re- move blind flange from air inlet line. Leave this line open during pumping. After making certain there is no air pressure, remove blind flange from stand- pipe and connect unloading line to standpipe. 834 Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Sulfuric Acid Manual Sheet $D-20 (0) If transfer is by means of air pressure, connect air line and apply air slowly until there is a normal flow of acid into the storage tank. The air pressure must not exceed the safe working pres- sure of the tank or the start-to-discharge pressure of the relief valve. When the tank truck is empty, shut off the air and operate the relief valve to vent off the pressure. After pressure has been vented, disconnect the air line. Do not disconnect the acid unloading line until the tank truck is at atmospheric pressure and the tank truck standpipe drained. After disconnecting the acid unloading line replace blind flanges on standpipe and air line. (p) If a spill or overflow should occur during a transferring operation, the pump or supply of air should be stopped, valves shut off and spill cleaned up before other actions are taken. 7.6 TANK CARS—UNLOADING 7.61 General (a) Acids may be safely unloaded either by pump or air pressure, if proper safeguards are taken. While it is difficult to unload oleum by means of a pump due to the difficulty of maintaining suction at the pump, this method can be used if desired. It has the advantage of eliminating the venting of the large volume of SO; laden air which results from blowing a tank empty with air. (b) Car number should be compared with that on shipping papers or invoice to verify contents and avoid mixing of products. (c) Shipper’s instructions for unloading should always be followed. Observe all precautions. The sequence of handling the pipe caps is particularly important—the air inlet should be opened first, and the acid connection last. (d) Protective clothing should consist of a felt or treated fiber hat with brim, face shield, rubber gloves, high-top rubber safety-toe shoes and outer clothing. A rubber suit should be worn when con- necting or disconnecting the car, but the wearing should be limited to short periods to avoid excessive fatigue. Water in ample quantity should be immedi- ately available at the unloading station (See Section 5.2 Safety Showers and Eye Wash Fountains). 7.6.2 Explosion Hazards (a) NO NAKED FLAME OF ANY KIND SHOULD EVER BE PERMITTED NEAR AN OPENING OF THE TANK FCR ANY PURPOSE. Explosion proof lights or flashlights may be used with safety. (b) Smoking is strictly forbidden in the vicinity of the dome. (c) All tools used in connection with unload- ing must be kept free from oil, dirt, and grit. (d) Never strike tank fittings with tools or other hard objects. Do not use hammer and chisel at any time. FAILURE TO OBSERVE THESE PRECAUTIONS MAY RESULT IN THE IGNI- TION OF HYDROGEN GAS FROM THE DOME AND CREATE AN EXPLOSION. (e) Tank must not be used for a product other than that which it last contained, as injury to the tank or an explosion may result. Consignee should never take this risk. (f) Under no circumstances should air pres- sure in excess of 30 psi be used for unloading car tank. Use of air beyond this pressure may produce tank damage or bursting. (g) Discharge connections must be detached immediately after tank is unloaded. Unloader must stay with car throughout the unloading operation and until all discharge fittings are disconnected and car fittings replaced and closed. (h) Should any hazardous conditions arise, im- mediately close air supply, and do not reopen until repairs have been completed. NOTE: Tanks are hydrostatically tested to 60 or 100 psi depending on the class and so certified by stencilled markings on both sides of the tank as required by ICC Regulations. THESE STEN- CILLED MARKINGS HAVE NO RELATION WHATEVER TO THE PRESSURE USED FOR UNLOADING. The shipper, with full knowledge of the product transported, restricts unloading pres- sure to not over 30 psi to insure safety. 7.6.3 Placement of Car for Unloading (a) Unloading dock should be in the open and located so as to dissipate vapors to fresh air. (b) See that train or yi crew accurately spot the car at the unloading line. Tracks can be marked for proper location to simplify proper spot- ting. Unloading track should be level. (c) Brakes should be set and wheels blocked on all cars being unloaded. (d) Standard derails and blue warning flags and lights should be placed. In addition, caution signs can be so placed as to give necessary warning to persons approaching from open track or siding end, and should be left in place until after car is unloaded and disconnected. Sign should be at least 12 x 15 inches in size, and bear words, “STOP— TANK CAR CONNECTED”, the word “STOP” being in letters at least 4” high, and the other letters at least 2” high. Lettering should be white on blue background. Signs and derails are standard equip- ment available from safety equipment dealers. (e) If it is necessary to move a partly unloaded tank car, all openings should be closed and the car moved carefully as considerable force can be exerted by the movement of the acid in the tank. $6—89-0 ¥£L-C6 FIGURE 1 — AIR PIPING ARRANGEMENT FOR UNLOADING ACID TANK CARS AIR GAUGE NOT OVER 30 LBS AIR PRESSURE TO BE APPLIED PRESSURE REDUCING \ EXTRA HEAVY VALVE SET AT 28 LBS. POP VALVE STEEL PIPE AND ELL SET AT 30 LBS. ~~ A da EXTRA HEAVY // REDUCING ELL ACID DISCHARGE 2" EXTRA HEAVY WATER AIR SHUT-OFF UNIONS SEPARATOR VALVE LY a VALVE TO RELEASE AIR PRESSURE cap COMBINATION SAFETY vent— LF [= AND. AIR CONNECTION ACID DISCHARGE CONNECTION ___—— MANWAY ¥ . SAFETY VENT REMOVED . COVER PLATE PIPE NOTE: AFTER UNLOADING OF CAR HAS BEEN COMPLETED, CLOSE AIR SHUT-OFF VALVE TANK CAR AND OPEN AIR PRESSURE RELEASE VALVE. DOME THEN, DISCONNECT AIR LINE BEFORE DISCONNECTING ACID DISCHARGE LINE. PY 2nying Ul ‘UOlDIdOSSY sisiway) Bulinidonuopy oz-as 1o0ys (onuow ges NOTE: SECOND VALVE. PLAN FIGURE 2 — TANK CAR DOME WITH AIR INLET AND LIQUID EDUCTION VALVES SOME CARS MAY BE EQUIPPED WITH A SAFETY VENT INSTEAD OF THE AIR 2" LIQUID EDUCTION VALVE Q SAFETY VENT FILL-HOLE COVER oz-as weys jonuow ‘3u| ‘uonpidossy sysiwey) Buinionuoy PPV dunjing 9€8 FIGURE 3 — TANK CAR DOME WITH AIR INLET AND LIQUID EDUCTION CONNECTIONS CAP FRANGIBLE DISC BASE 2" PIPE NIPPLE Fd COMBINATION SAFETY VENT AND AIR CONNECTION > { 2" LIQUID EDUCTION 5 PIPE 1" AIR INLET NOTE. SOME CARS MAY BE EQUIPPED WITH I" AIR INLET PIPE NIPPLE, OR I" PLUG. FILL - HOLE COVER PLAN VIEW OF DOME or-as woys [onuny PIV d1ny|ng Jul ‘uoypIdOSSY sisiweyD) Bulnionuoy LES 838 Manual $D-20 7.6.4 Dome Fittings (see Figures 1,2, and 3) (a) Dome fittings of tank cars may be of dif- ferent types. All are designed to require unloading through the dome acid connections by means of compressed air or pump. The following fittings and connections are usually identified by name and sten- cilled for identification: 1. Fill-hole Cover (hinged or secured by center screw). 2. Discharge (or eduction) Pipe (closed with cap, plug, or valve). 3. Air Connection: (a) A pipe nipple closed with a safety vent; or, (b) a separate air connection closed with a cap, valve, or plug cock. (c) When car is equipped with two vents, one is sealed and must not be removed. 4. Safety Vent. A safety device equipped with a frangible disc, designed to relieve abnormal pres- sure, which may be built up in the tank during transit. All cars are equipped with a safety vent device. Some cars require removal of the safety vent assembly to make the air connection for unloading. Other cars are equipped with two safety vents, one of which is a sealed vent, not to be removed. (b) Removal and replacement of connections should be made with a wrench. (c) If leakage at any of the tank car dome fittings occurs and cannot be stopped by tightening the bolts or fittings, shut off the air supply. When pressure in the car has been reduced to atmospheric, remove such fitting and apply a new rubber asbestos or approved plastic gasket. Special gaskets are used. If the wrong type is used as a replacement, contents of the tank may be contaminated. (d) DO NOT USE A RUBBER HOSE FOR THE ACID DISCHARGE CONNECTION 7.6.5 Bottom Openings (a) Bottom openings must be blanked as per ICC Regulations except on sludge acid cars. (b) Discharge of contents through the bottom of the tank should never be attempted. The bottom flanged plate is used only as a washout connection. 7.6.6 Unloading Procedures UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE DISCHARGE PIPE BE OPENED UNTIL ALL PRESSURE IN THE TANK HAS BEEN RELEASED. Carefully read all caution markings on tank and dome before discharge. 7.6.7 Unloading by Air Pressure Compressed air used for unloading must be as free as possible from oil, excess moisture and foreign Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Sulfuric Acid matter. To insure this, the air supply should be taken from the TOP of the air receiver (reservoir). This receiver should be drained at regular intervals. The air line leading to tank car—(usually a dead and idle line between receipts) —should be thorough- ly blown clear before making connection to the tank car. Any moisture so admitted may readily generate heat depending on the acid being unloaded and accelerate corrosion of the tank. It is recommended that consignee install an air dryer or water separator in the air line, adjacent to and preceding the air shut-off valve. Air unloading operations should be carried out strictly in the following sequence: (a) First vent the car by loosening, very slowly, the ENTIRE air vent device or air inlet cap to relieve internal pressure. Then remove this device from the top of the pipe nipple. Care is necessary, for the tank car may be under pressure, particularly during hot weather. If this pressure is not released gradually, there is danger from acid spray being carried out with the escaping air. (b) The fill-hole cover on the dome may now be safely opened for the purpose of securing a sample of the product, after which it must be tightly secured in place—be sure the gasket is properly seated. (c) Remove pipe cap from top of acid dis- charge pipe and make STEEL PIPE connection from pipe on car (or from valve on car) to the acid storage tank. (d) Make STEEL PIPE connection from plant air line to the air connection on tank car dome. (Compressed air connection can be a properly sized and pressure rated hose as far as water separator. It should be steel pipe from separator to car.) The air line must have a pressure reducing or safety valve set at not over 28 psi, also an air gauge and valve to release car tank pressure when emptied. (e) APPLY AIR PRESSURE SLOWLY until there is normal flow into storage tank; then adjust air pressure and maintain until the tank car is completely empty. Storage tank must be vented to atmosphere while acid is entering. A drop in pres- sure and the sound of air rushing through the discharge pipe indicates that the tank is empty. Con- tinue the flow of air until the discharge line is completely empty, then shut off the air, open the relief valve, and allow the acid pipe to drain. (f) Disconnect plant air fittings from the safety vent or air inlet on car and replace safety vent, or close air inlet. (g) Do not disconnect the acid line from the car until the tank is at atmospheric pressure and sufficient time is given to permit complete drainage of line. (Close valve on acid line at car, if so equipped.) Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. 839 Manual Sheet (h) Always assuming line still has acid in it, and taking precautions accordingly, carefully dis- connect plant acid line from the discharge pipe fit- ting (or valve) and tightly replace pipe cap or plug with wrench. (Wear protective clothing as outlined in 7.6.1 (d).) Any drippings from the acid line should be caught in a lead or other suitable re- ceptacle. Do not permit drainage to spill on tank car. Wash any spillage with water. 7.6.8 Unloading By Pump The pump should be constructed of materials not readily affected by the product. A self-priming centrifugal pump is preferred over the positive dis- placement type. If the latter is used, it should be provided with an un-valved by-pass from outlet to inlet with properly rated rupture disc of suitable material. Also, car must be vented to prevent a vacuum and to permit air to displace the acid as car is unloaded. All connections to the pump should be made in such a manner as to avoid excessive stresses at the pump. The pump packing should be checked prior to unloading to avoid the danger of acid leakage. The relief valve should be connected to discharge to a safe location or may be connected so as to discharge to the pump suction. In all cases, the relief valve should be large enough to handle the full pump capacity to avoid pressure building up beyond the safe limits for the pump or piping system. Pump unloading operations should be carried out strictly in the following sequence: (a) First vent the car by loosening, very slowly, the entire air vent device or air inlet cap to relieve internal pressure. Then remove this device from the top of the pipe nipple. Care is necessary, for the tank car may be under pressure, particularly during hot weather. If this pressure is not relieved grad- ually, there is danger from acid spray being carried out with the escaping air. (b) The fill-hole cover on the dome may now be safely opened for the purpose of securing a sample of the product. (¢) Remove pipe cap from top of acid dis- charge pipe and make STEEL PIPE connection from pipe on car (or, from valve on car) to the pump inlet. Make STEEL PIPE connection from pump outlet to acid storage tank. (d) Start pump, with car vented to atmos- phere. If priming is required, follow procedure for unloading by air and apply only sufficient pressure to start flow of acid to pump. Do not use more than 30 psi pressure. (e) Storage tank must be vented to the atmos- phere while acid is being transferred. (f) When the tank car is empty, the pump, operating under less of a burden, may signal the $D-20 end of the transfer by operating faster at a different sound pitch and the sound of acid entering the storage tank will cease. (g) Shut off the pump and open drain line valves. (h) After lines have completely drained (close valve on acid line at car, if so equipped), disconnect plant acid line from car discharge pipe fitting (or valve), and tightly replace car pipe cap or plug with wrench. (Place a lead or other suitable receptacle under the connection while dismantling to catch drip- pings. Wear rubber gloves and goggles. Do not per- mit drainage to spill on tank car. Wash any spillage with water.) (i) Close fill-hole cover on dome. Be sure gasket is properly seated. 7.6.9 Defective Discharge Pipe The acid discharge pipe is subject to corrosion. 1f the pipe has broken or defective threads or holes or cracks, or the bottom is worn away, complete discharge of the tank will be difficult. In such case, replacement should be made with extra-heavy steel pipe. 7.6.10 Obstructed Discharge Pipe Other than from frozen or congealed product, obstruction in the discharge pipe may be caused by an accumulation of sediment at the lower end of pipe. To remedy this, use an iron or steel rod, not over 38 inch in diameter, in the following sequence: (a) Insert rod in top of discharge pipe, and push it through to the bottom, ramming until the pipe is clear. (b) Then loosen sediment around base outside of the discharge pipe by prodding area with the rod. (c) Withdraw the rod and wash it off with water. (d) If unloading by air, replace and secure the dome fill-hole cover. See that gasket is properly placed and that all necessary connections are made before proceeding with unloading. (If pump unload- ing is being used this step can be eliminated.) 7.6.11 Frozen (Congealed) Sulfuric Acid and Oleum (See Figure 4) In very cold weather, the higher strengths of Sulfuric Acid and Oleum congeal or crystallize. Before thawing is attempted, the consignee should test for this by working an iron or steel rod down through the discharge pipe as a frozen or otherwise plugged discharge pipe may be responsible for any difficulty encountered. If the product is crystallized, the rod will not reach the bottom of the tank. FIGURE 4 — UNLOADING FROZEN ACID AND OLEUM RECOMMENDED PIPING ARRANGEMENT WHEN TANK CAR IS HANDLED IN HEATED BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 10 VALVE FOR RELIEVING PRESSURE IN TANK CAR. OPEN ONLY WHEN HEATING FROZEN CAR SHUT-OFF VALVE Ti FITTINGS UP TO THIS POINT TO CONNECT TO TANK CAR CONNECT TO TANK CAR BE UTILIZED ONLY WHEN AIR CONNECTION WITH ACID CONNECTION WITH CONTENTS OF CAR ARE EXTRA -HEAVY UNION, AS EXTRA HEAVY UNION, AS COMPLETELY THAWED. SEE SHOWN IN FIGURE 2 SHOWN IN FIGURE 2 FIGURE 2 FOR DETAILS ACID DISCHARGE o0z-as ‘ooys jpnuow SU) ‘uolpIOSSY sislwey) Bulnponuoyy PPV dlnjing 0¥8 841 Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. One method of liquefying the product is to cover the tank car with a tarpaulin and place a perforated steam pipe between the rails under the car tank. Another method of liquefying the product is by placing the tank car in a heated building and thawing the contents. If the building is heated by steam, piping should be laid preferably between the two railroad rails the entire length of the car tank. The Consignee should use the piping arrangement shown in Figure 1 throughout the heating operation to avoid possible tank damage from pressure and overflow of acid through dome fitting. If any of the above methods fail, consult your supplier for additional assistance. If car is equipped with insulation and external coils, liquefying the product can be accomplished by making pipe connection for low pressure steam at the heater coil inlet pipes. NEVER ATTEMPT TO THAW CONTENTS BY BUILDING A FIRE OR USING AN OPEN FLAME UNDER THE TANK CAR OR AROUND THE TANK: (1) Because of the danger of explosion, and (2) The Consignee will be responsible for all such fire damage. 7.6.12 Removal or Reversal of Placards The four 10% x 10% inch ICC caution plac- ards on sides and ends of the tank or car must be removed, or reversed (if in metal placard holders), by the party discharging the tank car. The empty tank car must be offered to the receiving carrier either without placards, or prefer- ably with four “Dangerous—Empty” placards. (See Sections 74.562 and 74.563 of Interstate Commerce Commission Regulations.) 7.6.13 Return of Empty Cars Return empty tank cars as promptly as pos- sible, in accordance with the shipping instructions received from the shipper. Shipper’s routing instruc- tions should always be strictly followed. 7.6.14 Internal Washing Under no circumstances should water or other liquid be introduced into car tanks by consignee, nor should any employee be permitted to enter an empty tank car for any purpose whatsoever. 7.6.15 Discharge Line Between Tank Car and Storage All pipe and fittings forming the delivery line $D-20 between the tank car and storage tank should be of iron, steel, or other suitable material. The minimum air pressure necessary for empty- ing a car tank depends upon the following: (a) Specific gravity of the product (b) Design of the delivery line (c) Length of delivery line to the storage (d) Height from a point on a plane with the bottom of the car tank to top of storage tank. Corrosive liquids are usually of high specific gravity, and it is important that the delivery line be properly designed and maintained to insure against undue hazards. Exceptions involving the use of smaller than two-inch diameter pipe, or abnormal length or height of line, should be avoided. Careful consideration should be given to all new and existing delivery lines and storage tanks. Alterations should be made to insure unloading of tank cars with air pressure not exceeding 30 psi. This may involve: (a) Utilizing an existing railway track (b) Extending the present track (c) Installing a new track, to permit moving the tank car closer to the storage tank. If more than 30 psi air pressure is necessary to discharge contents to storage, an acid pump should be provided. 7.6.16 Damage to Exterior of Tank Car Dur- ing Unloading Damage to the paint, stencilled markings and tank metal by the product, in the form of a liquid or spray, is evidence to the shipper and consignee that unloading was permitted under conditions haz- ardous to employees and property. Damage of this nature can usually be attributed to the following: (a) Careless operation (b) Defective fittings in consignee’s delivery line (c) Defective connection fittings on tank car (d) Disconnecting delivery line from tank car before it has completely drained. Any spillage on the exterior of the tank car should be promptly washed off with water to avoid damage and possible injury to persons handling car during course of return. The Consignee is responsible for damage. 7.6.17 Service Every effort is made by the shipper to insure loaded tank cars being in proper condition at time 842 Manual Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Sulfuric Acid $D-20 of shipment. This often includes application of a tank air test, after loading, to determine the tight- ness of tank, dome fittings, and gaskets. In the event a tank car is received with evidence of a leak or splashing through one of the dome fittings, the consignee should make repairs sufficient to unload the contents. In each such case, the shipper should be notified, given full particulars, describing the defect. This procedure will insure proper inspection and further repairs, as required, upon receipt of the tank car by the shipper. 7.7 SAMPLING OF PRODUCT (a) A sample may be taken by filling a bottle of acid resistant material. This can be lowered into the acid by use of an iron rod with a slip-hold attachment. NOTE: Do not use polyethylene sample bottles on acids of strengths 99% or greater, or on mixed acid. Glass is preferable. (b) Alternatively, the introduction of a tee and sampling valve at any desired point in the unloading line to the storage tank will permit easy withdrawal of samples. The sample valve on unloading line should be flushed, as it may well contain contamina- tion not representative of the tank truck or tank car’s contents. 7.8 STORAGE TANKS Sulfuric acid, which attacks most metals, can be stored satisfactorily in tanks of material similar to that permitted for shipping containers. Steel is not satisfactory for all strengths. 7.9 SPENT ACIDS Many of the spent acids, especially sludge acids, emit fumes when agitated by being dumped into a tank car or tank truck. These fumes, depending on the origin of the acid, can either be hydrocarbons or sulfur dioxide. Conditions have been encountered where personnel were apparently severely affected by inhalation of the fumes. Employee training should include these factors and efforts to minimize such exposures may include: (a) Loading through a drop pipe to the bottom of the tank to minimize agitation and aeration, and/or (b) Use of a fume hood attached to a suitable exhauster. Some spent acids will foam when agi- tated. This can resuli in overflow of an otherwise only partially filled tank. Foaming problems can be handled by providing surge tanks, or overflow lines. In process, separation of spent acids from oil or hydrocarbon may be incomplete. This is especially true of alkylation acid, and can result in creation of an explosive atmosphere in and around a vessel. These factors should be considered both in load- ing and unloading tank cars and tank trucks. Fre- quent tests with a combustible gas indicator should be made, and tank cars and trucks should be grounded before loading or unloading. The possible deleterious effect of an acid vapor atmosphere on the combustible gas indicator should be considered. Pumping is preferred by many as the safest method of handling spent acids though bottom or gravity unloading of tank motor vehicles is authorized by the ICC. Air blowing is not recommended because agitation of spent acids containing hydrocarbons may create, or add to possibilities of explosive mix- tures. Also, the use of air may cause emission of fumes, creating a breathing hazard. In addition to frequent tests with a combustible gas indicator, equipment to protect against breathing fumes or vapors may be required. Safety showers supplying warmed water are pre- ferred for the removal of sludge acid from the skin. (See 5.2, Safety Showers and Eye Wash Fountains.) 7.10 LEAKS AND SPILLS In manufacturing or handling sulfuric acid, any leak occurring in pipe lines or equipment should be considered as an acid leak and treated accordingly with extreme caution until proven to be otherwise. A contaminated area should be immediately zoned off to avoid anyone being exposed to the acid spray or stream, and applicable valves adjusted to isolate the system and stop further leakage. The contami- nated area should be thoroughly flushed down with copious quantities of water and soda ash or lime spread around to neutralize any remaining acidity on the surface of the ground or concrete pad as the case may be. If water is not available, the contaminated area should be covered with sand, ashes or gravel and acidity neutralized with soda ash or lime. If the acid leak or spill is of sufficient quantity to contaminate the sewer system, soda ash or other alkaline material should be added to neutralize the acidity. A water hose should be readily available when repairs to pipe lines or equipment are being made. Employees should wear personal protective equip- ment (see 5.4) as required by the circumstances. Sulfuric acid leaks, spills, or drainings must not come in contact with any sulfide wastes, such as in sewers, because of the danger of evolving hydrogen sulfide gas. 843 Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Manual Shoot $D-20 8. TANK AND EQUIPMENT CLEANING AND REPAIRS (See MCA Safety Guide, SG-10) 8.1 PREPARATION OF TANKS AND EQUIP- MENT (a) The hazardous nature of tank inspection, cleaning or repairs, requires that the supervisor and crew be selected, trained and drilled carefully. They should be thoroughly familiar with the hazards, and the safeguards necessary for the safe performance of the work. All tank work should be done under the direct supervision of a foreman. (b) Wherever possible enclosures should be cleaned from the outside, using clean-out doors. (c) Pipelines, including vent lines, into or out of the tank or other apparatus should be shut off, disconnected, preferably by removing a complete small section and installing a blind flange on the open end to protect against human error and un- suspected leaks. Valves, cocks and blind flanges IN the pipeline should not be relied on. (d) Warning signs should be displayed to indi- cate when employees are in the tank or other apparatus. (e) Be sure the tank can be left by the original entrance. (f) All fuses or safety jacks must be pulled, switches tagged off and locked out with multiple locks on agitators, pumps or any other power driven equipment. Belts must be removed on multiple line shaft driven equipment. (g) Drain the tank as completely as possible. (h) Wash thoroughly with large quantities of running water any sludge and residues that cannot be drained; add soda ash or lime in sufficient quan- tity to neutralize any residual acid; fill the tank COMPLETELY with water and drain out. (i) A constant source of fresh air, introduced in such a manner as to insure a complete air change, must be provided. (j) Use proper protective equipment. (See 5.3) 8.2 ENTERING TANK (a) Before entering a tank and during the course of the work, tests should be made by a qualified person to determine that no further washing is nec- essary, that no oxygen deficiency exists, and that no harmful gas or vapor is present. (b) Before directing men to enter a tank, an inspection of the interior should be made by the supervisor, who should be equipped with a sup- plied-air respirator or self-contained breathing ap- paratus, together with rescue harness and life line. (c) One man on the outside of the tank should keep the men in the tank under constant observa- tion during inspection and performance of work. At least two other men should be available to aid in rescue if any of those in the tank are overcome. (d) Only authorized persons should be permitted to enter a tank or vessel. (e) A supplied-air respirator or self-contained breathing apparatus, together with rescue harness and life line, should be located outside the tank entrance. This equipment should be used for rescue, regardless of the type of respiratory protection or air supply which is provided for employees inside the tank. (f) In addition to protecting the employees ac- tually engaged in cleaning and repairing Te tank, attention should be paid to the protection of workers in nearby areas. Where there is a hazard of objects falling from overhead, barricades should be erected, with appropriate warning signs. (g) The portable electric lights and power tools should be of the three-wire grounded, explosion- proof type approved for use in hazardous locations. They should be maintained in excellent condition. 8.3 EMERGENCY RESCUE Under no circumstances should a rescuer enter a tank to remove a victim of over-exposure without proper respiratory protection, a safety harness and an attached life line. The end of the life line should be manned by an attendant located outside the tank. This end of the life line should be secured so that it cannot be pulled into the tank inadvertently. Another attendant should be immediately avail- able to assist in the rescue if needed. The rescuer should be in view of the outside attendant at all times or in constant communication with him. Emergency procedures should be established for summoning ambulance, physician, or other agency promptly, so that such assistance will be en route to the location before the rescue is accomplished. 84 EXTERIOR REPAIR WORK All outside welding or burning on tanks or equip- ment which have contained sulfuric acid should be done only after such containers have been thorough- ly purged, due to the possible hazard of hydrogen being present. Steam or inert gas may be used for purging when outside welding or burning work is scheduled. In all cases, if repair work is interrupted, the tank atmosphere should be checked thoroughly and a new work permit issued before resumption of work. 844 Manval Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. Sulfuric Acid $D-20 9. WASTE 9.1 All local and state regulations concerning waste disposal to streams, municipal treatment plants or impounding basins should be determined and fol- lowed. 9.2 Sulfuric Acid is corrosive to most sewer con- struction materials. When neutralized and in dilute solution, there is no evidence of corrosivity, toxicity, or taste and odor problems in disposal to a municipal treatment plant or a stream. The preferred neutral- izing agents are lime and soda ash. Limestone may be used but when acid strength is high an insoluble coating will form on the surface of the stone reduc- ng its activity. The reaction with limestone and soda ash releases carbon dioxide and ventilation is re- quired in certain cases. For continuous waste neu- tralization an effluent holding basin may be required to settle out suspended calcium sulfate and other insoluble salts. For more details on neutralization, see MCA Manual Sheet W-3 on Neutralization of Acidic and Alkaline Plant Effiuents. 9.3 In neutralized, diluted form (such as sodium sulfate or calcium sulfate), it may be safely sewered to a municipal sewage treatment plant. Restrictions on quantities that may be sewered are matters of agreement with the treatment plant. Presence of high concentrations of sulfates in total influent to sewage plants employing anaerobic treatment could result in somewhat more H,S production than nor- mal due to partial degradation of some of the sulfate 10.1 HEALTH HAZARDS 10.1.1 General On contact with the skin or eyes, sulfuric acid produces severe burns. Inhalation of concentrated vapor or mist from hot acid or oleum may be in- jurious to the lung. Swallowing may cause severe injury or death. 10.1.2 Acute Toxicity 10.1.2.1 Systemic Effects No systemic effects are noted except those due to the irritating or corrosive character of the material. 10.1.2.2 Local Effects Sulfuric acid is dangerous when improperly handled. Concentrated solutions are rapidly de- structive to any body tissues with which they come in contact. Repeated contact with diluted solutions may cause a dermatitis. MEDICAL DISPOSAL ion in the anaerobic process. Calcium sulfate con- tributes to permanent hardness in water which would be unaffected by the treatment process. 9.4 Disposal of neutralized solutions of sulfuric acid to a watercourse is dependent upon the assimi- lative capacity of the stream. The only effects upon the stream would be those of adding dissolved solids and hardness (if calcium sulfate) to the river water provided existing concentrations in the river water are below those of the discharge. Degree of increase would depend upon dilution ratio of river flow to discharge rate which is usually sufficiently high to make any effects insignificant. In cases where river water is quite alkaline and highly buffered, direct discharge of dilute solutions of sulfuric acid without neutralization could prove beneficial in neutralizing excess alkalinity in the stream. Method of disposal and quantity of discharges are subject to the ap- proval of the applicable control authority. 9.5 Impounding of unneutralized sulfuric acid wastes in lagoons may be allowable in certain areas where soils are sufficiently alkaline and where no contamination of a drinking water supply might result. Such disposal would depend upon quantity of acid wastes involved. Area and state pollution control laws and regulations would dictate whether approval of control authority was required. Gen- erally speaking, however, such disposal comes under the jurisdiction of control authorities in most states. MANAGEMENT Contact with the eyes very rapidly causes severe damage which may be followed by total loss of sight. Inhalation of concentrated vapor or mist from hot acid or oleum will cause damage to the upper respiratory tract and even to the lung tissue proper. 10.1.3 Chronic Toxicity 10.1.3.1 Systemic Effects No systemic effects are noted, except those secondary to tissue damage. These can be pre- vented by proper handling and use of the material, and minimized by prompt first-aid measures. 10.1.3.2 Local Effects Repeated contact with dilute solutions may cause skin irritation. Repeated inhalation of mist may cause an inflammation of the upper and lower respiratory tract. 845 Sulfuric Acid 10.2 PREVENTIVE HEALTH MEASURES Sulfuric acid is not a serious industrial hazard if workers are adequately instructed and supervised in the proper means of handling the chemical. Con- tact with the skin and eyes as well as the inhalation of vapors or mists should be avoided. A threshold limit value of 1 mg/m? has been suggested as the safe concentration for an eight-hour exposure. 10.2.1 Personal Hygiene Properly designed emergency showers and eye baths should be placed in convenient locations wherever sulfuric acid is used. All employees should know the location and operation of such equipment. It must be frequently inspected to make sure it is in proper working condition. Personal protective equipment for workers who are exposed to contact with sulfuric acid is described in 5.3. 10.2.2 Physical Examination 10.2.2.1 Preplacement Examinations It may be desirable to exclude from potential exposure to sulfuric acid, prospective employees with the following conditions: (a) Those with only one functioning eye. (b) Those with uncorrected, severe faulty vision. (c) Those who have chronic diseases of the upper respiratory tract or lung. (d) Those with severe pre-existing skin lesions. 10.2.2.2 Periodic Health Examinations No specific type of periodic health examina- tion is needed. 11. 11.1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES Speed in removing sulfuric acid is of primary im- portance. It is important to remove the patient from a contaminated area as soon as possible. 11.2 CONTACT WITH SKIN AND MUCOUS MEMBRANE Immediate removal by the use of large amounts of water is urgent. If the skin contact is extensive and an emergency shower is available, the employee should get under the show immediately. Clothes can be removed while under the shower. In other instances, flushing with large amounts of running water together with soap and water washing should Manufacturing Chemists” Association, Inc. Manval $D-20 10.3 SUGGESTIONS TO PHYSICIANS 10.3.1 General Treatment is symptomatic and no specific anti- dotes are known. Because there is no specific known antidote for sulfuric acid, effective and immediate relief of symptoms is the primary goal of medical management. 10.3.2 Oxygen Administration Oxygen has been found useful in the treatment of sulfuric acid inhalation exposures. In most ex- posures, administration of 100 per cent oxygen at atmospheric pressures has been found to be ade- quate. This is best accomplished by use of a face mask having a reservoir bag of the non-rebreathing type. Inhalation of 100 per cent oxygen should not exceed one hour of continuous treatment. After each hour therapy should be interrupted. It may be reinstituted as the clinical condition indicates. Some believe that superior results are obtained when exposures are treated with oxygen under an exhalation pressure not exceeding 4 cm water. Masks providing for such exhalation pressures are obtainable. A single treatment may suffice for minor exposures. It is believed by some observers that oxygen under pressure is useful as an aid in the prevention of pulmonary edema after breathing irritants. In the event of an exposure causing symptoms or in the case of a history of severe exposure, the patient may be treated with oxygen under 4 cm exhalation pressure for one-half hour periods out of every hour. Treatment may be continued in this way until symptoms subside or other clinical indi- cations for interruption appear. FIRST AID be continued for at least fifteen minutes. It is im- portant to remove all clothing including shoes, socks, + etc, which may be contaminated. Su uent medical treatment is the same as for thermal burns. 11.3 CONTACT WITH EYES If even small amounts of sulfuric acid enter the eyes, they should be irrigated immediately with large amounts of water for a minimum of fifteen minutes. This can be done with an eye bath, if available, a gentle stream of water from a hose, or by pouring water from any clean container. The eyelids should be held apart during the irrigation to insure contact of water with all of the tissues of the surface of the eyes and lids. If pain is still present after the first Manval Shoot $D-20 fifteen-minute period of irrigation, the irrigation should be continued for fifteen minutes longer. It is permissible as a first-aid measure to instill two or three drops of an effective aqueous local eye anes- thetic for relief of pain. If this is done, cover the eye with a patch. No oils or oily ointments should be instilled. The employee should be sent to a physician, preferably an eye specialist, as promply as possible after the irrigation has been completed. 11.4 TAKEN INTERNALLY If a person has swallowed any sulfuric acid, he should drink large amounts of water immediately in order to reduce the concentration of chemical. Medical attention should, of course, be obtained immediately. Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. 846 Sulruric Acid 11.5 INHALATION 11.5.1 General If a worker has been exposed to sulfuric acid mist or to the vapors arising from oleum or hot sulfuric acid, he should be at once removed to an uncontaminated area and a physician called. He should be kept under observation until the possibility of developing a delayed pulmonary reaction is no longer present. If oxygen inhalation apparatus is available, oxygen may be administered but only by a person authorized by a physician. 11.5.2 Artificial Respiration If breathing has apparently ceased, artificial respiration should be started immediately. Have someone call a physician immediately. 847 [Safety Guide SG—-17—Adopted 1964—Recommended Safe Practices and Procedures] FIRE PROTECTION IN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY Careful initial planning of any aspect of chemical manufacturing or of the handling of chemical products will do much to accomplish safe results. It is hoped this Guide, prepared as an activity of the Safety and Fire Protection Committee of the Manufacturnig Chemists’ Association, will assist in such planning, INTRODUCTION Adequate fire protection is an unquestionable requirement of the chemical industry. A chemical plant's continued production depends on the structural fire protection features incorporated in its design and the active fire protection measures incorporated in its daily operation. SCOPE This Safety Guide outlines the basic principles of plant fire protection and provides a basie check list for use when planning or appraising a fire protection organization. RESPONSIBILITY Fire protection in the chemical industry is a responsibility of managemeni. It cannot be delegate to others or to insurance companies. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PLANT FIRE PROTECTION The first essential inchemical plant fire protection lies in the selection of basic processes and in choice of equipment. Evaluation of the fire and explosion hazards is needed throughout the research stages. In fact, careful evaluation of these hazards may show that proposed processes with great economic appeal may prove to be unworkable from the hazard standpoint. In other instances, careful studies during research and pilot stages may indicate methods of controlling some poten- tially hazardous processes. While there are many factors to be considered in all phases of design, a few of the more basic principles are as follows : (a) Closed systems.—Storage of flammable liquids should be in safely arranged close storage containers with the handling of material entirely in closed piping and with all reactions in closed equipment ; the entire system to be operated under conditions which will not permit the development of an explosive mixture. This is accomplished in many instances by blanketing all vapor spaces with inert gas. In the design of closed systems, careful attention must be given to pressure relief both from normal operating causes and from fire exposure. (b) Outdoor operation—Whenever possible, chemical operations should be conducted in equipment which does not require enclosure in any type of structure in which flammable gases may accumulate. In the even of rupture of equip- ment and resulting fire, the damage in general will be much less in an outdoor installation than inside an enclosure and the fire fighting operation will be con- siderably simplified. While complete outdoor installations without any building structure whatever are not always possible, modifications of this general principle can be used successfully as, for example, building structures complete with floors, and roof but no walls, or enclosed buildings so arranged that the fire hazard operations are located in unenclosed portions of the structure adequately cut off from the remainder of the building. (¢) Remote operation and instrumentation.—Analysis of loss experience has clearly indicated “inadequate instrumentation and control” as one of the major factors in chemical plant fires. Thorough instrumentation carefully designed on the “fail-safe” principle is essential to chemical plant fire safety. In general, instrumentation and control should be so arranged that operators and the control instruments are in protected locations that will be entirely safe in any anticipated emergency. Any control system should provide at least three lines of defense. A first line control system following the “fail-safe” principle should be based on the key factors required for safety. An entirely separate system, preferably based on en- tirely different factors should also be provided. A third line of defense may con- 848 sist of indicating instruments and alarms with provision for manual shut-downs by thoroughly trained operators. Much recent experience has shown that truly exceptional protection must be afforded the control house or room. Product lines, no matter how small, should not enter the control room. It must be so located and designed to withstand any conceivable fire or explosion in the operating equipment. Usually this will require explosion resisting walls without openings on the sides facing operating equip- ment. If operators must see the operating equipment, mirrors should be used with no windows directly facing the equipment. Where windows are used, they should be designed to resist explosion pressures and eliminate any hazards from flying glass. In some instances, air or oxygen for control room operators may be required to insure their safety over an extended period if it should become impossible to leave the control room during an emergency. (d) Continuous operation.—While not always possible, continuous flow of materials and continuous reaction in chemical plants usually reduce the quanti- ties of material which might be involved in fire and usually allows better control of pressure and temperature conditions. FIRE PROTECTION MEASURES Fire protection measures include those which are inherent in the structure or equipment (referred to as “structural”) and those which depend upon the actua- tion of some type of equipment (referred to as “active”). 1. Structural protection “Structural” protection refers to fire resistance of structure, location of stor- ages, ete. so that fire will not spread from one area to another. In general, where the desired results can be obtained by “structural” protection, this is to be preferred to protection requiring the operation of automatic devices or some form of manual application. For example, in the protection of storage tanks for liquefied petroleum gas, structural protection by insulation, separation and diking is essential “first-line” protection. Supplementation by other methods, such as water spray, is often de- sirable but is not an acceptable alternative. Similarly, the protection of the supports of distillation columns and other equipment by insulation is essential. This “structural” protection should prevent collapse of supporting structures even in the event of complete failure of other methods of prctection. 9. Active protection (a) Automatic protection.—After doing everything possible to reduce fire hazards through selection of process, proper design of equipment and the use of structural methods of protection, automatic fire protection methods will be required. The most useful of the automatic methods is the automatic sprinkler and its related methods such as water spray. The effectiveness of water, especially in spray form, as a coolant makes its use invaluable in the protection of struec- ture even when water may not be the ideal extinguishing material for the particular chemical involved. Low cost and ready availability of large reserve supplies are also factors in the consideration of water systems as being basic. Adequate water supply through properly sized distribution mains is essential. In some instances, availability of water for fire protection may be a deter- mining factor in site selection. In particular situations, other special extinguishing methods may prove valuable. Automatic foam, carbon dioxide, and dry chemical systems as out- lined in the pertinent National Fire Protection Association standards not only are often valuable adjuncts to structural protection and water systems but in certain special instances may be required as the sole automatic protection. The selection of special protection devices must always be made with great care and with proper consideration for the protection of the whole structure in event of any failure of the special system. (b) Manual protection.—Although considered last because of its dependence upon the human factor, manual fire fighting methods must always be carefully 849 considered. The general principles in regard to the use of manual fire fighting methods in chemical plants are as follows: I. There must be technically competent direction of the fire fighting pro- gram. Public fire departments will not, in general, be familiar with the details of chemical plant operation and localized special knowledge within the plant is required. II. On-plant forces.—Except in very small or comparatively low hazard opera- tions, some type of plant fire fighting organization is required. In 24-hour opera- tions, fire fighting by operating personnel under their shift supervision is usually most practical. In plants which do not operate continuously, or only in part continuously, a full-time plant fire fighting force familiar with plant operations may be required. Such forces, whether made up of operating crews or a separate fire fighting force, must be well equipped and thoroughly trained as to possible hazards. 111. Cooperation with public fire departments.— There should be active coopera- tion with the public fire departments so that they may back up the local plant fire forces in any emergency. Active cooperation with the public department usually leads to a decision on the part of public authorities that the plant chief or fire protection director should be in charge of all operations if the public department is called in. Chemical plant fire apparatus may differ appreciably from that used in public service. It is usually a mistake to buy standard municipal fire pumpers and similar equipment and expect it to satisfy chemical plant needs. Chemical plant apparatus should make adequate provision for the use of foam, carbon dioxide, dry chemical and any other special methods suitable in the particular plant. Industrial mutual aid may be of considerable value, especially where two or more chemical plants are located in the same general area. The mutual aid systems of the Kanawha Valley (Charleston, West Virginia), the Bayonne industrial area in New Jersey and along the Houston Waterway in Texas are examples which have well proved their usefulness. IV. Portable fire ewtinguishers.— While portable fire extinguishers serve a very necessary part in chemical plant fire fighting, they are auxiliary to all other methods. Such devices should be available in adequate numbers and all plant personnel should be thoroughly trained in their use. In general, however, established procedures should require the immediate calling of the plant fire department. A man should never be expected to fight a fire alone. (See Safety Guide No. 13) V. Emergency plan.—An emergency plan should be prepared outlining proce- dures to be taken to protect employees as well as the property against fire, explosion or other accident of major proportion. (See Safety Guide No. 4) VI. Protection for the firemen.—Firemen in chemical plants may be exposed to a variety of toxic gases. The use of self-contained breathing equipment should be mandatory for all operations where a fireman may be exposed to smoke or fumes. Protective clothing may be also necessary for protection of the skin against irritating gases. ENGINEERS’ CHECK LIST The following check list is intended as a guide for use when assessing the fire hazards and reviewing the fire protection organization of a chemical plant. It may also be used to particular advantage in planning new facilities. No such check list can ever be entirely complete or meet the needs of every situation. Care should be taken in using such a list to make sure that unlisted items are not overlooked. Location . Accessibility. Traffic—vehicular and pedestrian. . Parking areas—entrance, exits, drainage, lighting, enclosures. . Clearances—-buildings for railroad traffic and vehicles (overhead—width— turnarounds). . Drainage. . Road locations, markings. . Entrances, exits—foot, traffic, truck, railroad, NOT BwhoR — oaST hw NOR OX NS Jp woE BG COPROMP RN 850 Buildings Wind pressure—snow loads—floor loads—earthquake design. Roof material-—anchorage. Roof vents and drains, smoke dispersal. Stairwells—ramps—Ilighting. Elevators—dumbwaiters. Fire walls—openings—fire doors. Explosion relief. Exits—fire escapes, identification, safety tread. Record storage. . Ventilation—fans, blowers, air conditioning, scrubbing of toxic vapors, loca- tion of exhausts, inlets, smoke and heat ventilation dampers, fire curtains. . Lightning protection, structural and equipment grounding for electrical dis- charges. . Building heaters— (hazardous or non-hazardous area) vents. . Locker rooms including need for separate lockers for work and street clothes— required number of each and air changes—ASA. . Building drainage—inside and out. . Structural steel and equipment fireproofing. . Access ladders to roofs from outside ground level, escape ladders, fire escapes. . Bearing capacity of subsoil. Sprinklers, hydrants and mains . Water supply including secondary supplies, pumps, reservoirs and tanks. . Mains—adequate looping, cathodic protection, coated and wrapped when needed, sectional valves. . Hydrants—Ilocation. . Automatic sprinklers—occupancy classification—Wet systems—Dry sys- tems—Deluge systems. Standpipes—tanks. . Type, size, location and number of first aid extinguishers needed. . Fixed automatic extinguishing systems, CO., Nz, foam, dry powder. Special fire protection systems—rise in temperature alarms, sprinkler system flow alarms, photoelectric smoke and flame alarms, Electrical . Hazard classification. . Accessibility of critical circuit breakers. Polarized outlets—grounded systems. Switches and breakers for critical equipment and machinery. Lighting—hazardous or non-hazardous areas—Ilight intensity—approved equipment—U.L. and F.M.—emergency lights. Telephones—hazardous or non-hazardous areas. . Type of electrical distribution system—voltage, grounded or ungrounded, overhead, underground. . Conduit, raceways, enclosures, corrosion consideration. . Motor and circuit protection. . Transformer location and types. . “Fail-safe” control devices, protect against automatic re-starting. . Preferred busses for critical loads. . Key interlocks for safety and proper sequencing, duplicate feeders. Sewers . Chemical sewers, trapped, accessible clearouts, vents, locations, disposal, ex- plosion hazards, trap tanks, forced ventilation, automatic flammable vapor detectors and alarms. . Sanitary sewers—treatment, disposal, traps, plugs, cleanouts, vents. Storm sewers. . Waste treatment, possible hazards from stream contamination including fire hazard from spills into streams and lakes. Bw fd whe NOUR oo = ® © Nom pe PHAGT Rvp Cor oot kwhH 851 Storage a. General . Accessibility—entrances and exits, sizes. . Sprinklered. Aisle space. Floor loading. Racks. . Height of piles. Roof venting. b. Flammable liquids—Gases, dusts, and powders, fumes, and mists Closed systems. Safe atmospheres throughout system. Areas to be sprinklered or provided with water spray. Emergency vents, flame arrestors, relief valves—safe venting location includ- ing flares. Floor drains to chemical sewers properly trapped. Ventilation—pressurized control rooms and/or equipment. Tanks, bins, silos—underground, above ground, distances, fireproof supports, dikes and drainage, pipeways, ducts, inert atmospheres. Special extinguishing system—foam, dry chemical, carbon dioxide—explosion suppression. Dependable refrigeration systems for critical chemicals. c¢. Raw materials Hazard classification of material including shock sensitivity. Facilities for receiving and storing. Identification and purity tests. Provisions to prevent materials being placed in wrong tanks, ete. d. Finished products Identification and labeling to protect the customer. Conformance with ICC and other shipping regulations. Segregation of hazardous materials. Protection from contamination, especially in the filling of tank cars and tank trucks. Placarding of shipping vehicles. Routing of hazardous vehicles. Data sheets of safety information for customers. Safe storage facilities, piling height. Safe shipping containers. Inert gas blanketing of hazardous products Materials handling Truck loading and unloading facilities. Railroad loading and unloading facilities. Industrial truck—tractor—gasoline, electric, diesel, liquefied petroleum gas. Loading—unloading docks—grounding system for flammable liquids—rail— tank truck—truck trailer. Cranes—mobile—capacity marking, overload protection, limit switches. Warehouse area, floor loading and arrangement, sprinklers, height of piles, ventilation. Conveyors and their location in production areas. Flammable liquid storage—paints, oils, solvents. Reactive or explosive storage—qualtities, distance separation, limited access. . Disposal of wastes, incinerators, air and water pollution safeguards. Machinery a. Accessibility—maintenance—operations Provision to prevent overheating, friction heat. Possible damage to fire protection equipment from machine failures. Protection of pipe lines from vehicles including lift trucks. 92-734 0—68——b6 852 b. Emergency stop switches Process Chemicals—fire and health hazards, skin, respiratory—instrumentation— operating rules—maintenance. Compatability—chemicals. Stability, etc. Pressures and temperatures in processes. Critical pressures and temperatures. Relief devices—flame arrestors—need. Coded vessels and piping material suitable for planned chemicals. Measures for handling runaway reactions. Fixed fire protection systems—Co,, foam, deluge. Are vessels properly vented, safe location, area. Permanent vacuum cleaning systems. Explosion barricades—isolation. 13. Inert gas blanketing systems—Ilisting of inert gas equipment to be blanketed. = RESOXASMp®N 14. Emergency shutdown valves, switches, location from critical area, action time for delays. 15. Fireproofing of metal supports. 16. Safety devices for heat exchange equipment, vents, valves and drains. 17. Expansion joints or expansion loops, process steam lines. 18. Steam tracing—provision for relief of thermal expansion in heated lines. 19. Insulation for personnel protection—hot process, steam lines and tracing. 20. Static grounding for vessels and piping. 21. Manholes, platforms, ladders adequate cleanout opening for maintenance in tanks and vessels—safe entry permit procedures. 22. Provisions for corrosion control. 23. Pipe line identification. 24, Radiation hazards—measuring instruments containing radioisotopes—X- rays—personal protection for fire fighters. Safety equipment and facilities 1. Dispensary and equipment. 2. Ambulance. 3. Fire truck. 4. Fire alarm system. 5. Fire whistle and siren—departments—outside. 6. Fire pumps—approved. 7. Sanitary and process waste treatment. 8. Snow removal and ice control equipment. 9. Safety showers and/or eye wash fountains. 10. Safety ladders and cages. . Emergency equipment locations, gas masks, protective clothing, fire blankets, inside hose streams, stretchers. 12. Laboratory safety shields. 13. Watchmen stations. 14. Hose houses, type, location, hose and allied equipment. 15. Instruments, continuous analyzers for flammable vapors and gases, toxic vapors. 16. Communications, emergency telephones, radio, public address systems, pag- ing systems, safe location and continuous manning of communications center. — = REFERENCES The various pertinent publications of the National Fire Protection Associa- tion and the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association should be used as basic guides in the development of chemical plant fire fighting programs. Specific reference is made to NFPA pamphlets 6, “Organization of Fire Safety in Industrial Estab- lishments:” 7, “Controlling Fire Emergencies;” 10, “Portable Fire Extinguish- ers;” 11, “Foam Extinguishing Systems;” 12, “Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems ;” 13, “Sprinkler Systems;” 14, “Strandpipe and Hose Systems;” 15, “Water Spray Systems;” 17, “Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems ;” 18, “Wet- ting Agents.” Reference should be made to the NFPA Industrial Fire Brigade Training Manual and the pamphlet, “Employee Organization for Fire Safety.” 853 Other useful pamphlets for specific situations will include the National Fire Protection Association standards relating to flammable liquids and the National Electrical Code. Precautions necessary in the use of certain specific chemicals are outlined in the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association’s “Chemical Safety Data Sheets.” [Sdfety Guide SG-10—Adopted 1961—Recommended Safe Practices and Procedures] ENTERING TANKS AND OTHER ENCLOSED SPACES This Safety Guide has been prepared as an activity of the General Safety Committee of the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association. Pre- planning of any aspect of chemical manufacturing will do much to accomplish safe results. It is hoped this guide will assist in such pre- planning. I. SCOPE Unusual and frequently unexpected acute hazards may be encountered when personnel must enter a tank or other enclosed space. Typical of such hazards are: accidental activation of powerful agitating equipment; release of danger- ous gases or liquids into the enclosed space; unexpected exposure to asphyxi- ating, toxic, corrosive, flammable, or radioactive chemicals; or insufficient oxygen for life. Certain fundamental precautions and procedures should be observed for positive accident prevention. The character and degree of each specific hazard or combination of hazards usually will be different. This guide outlines a practical basis by which essential precautionary measures may be decided. II. DESCRIPTION Chemical plant personnel must enter enclosed spaces, hereafter called tanks, to clean, inspect, repair, and perform other duties associated with either the equipment or the process. Enclosed spaces which are potentially hazardous include: A. Enclosures with limited access openings for personnel, such as closed storage tanks, tank cars, process vessels (usually with only a man-hole for entering). B. Tanks, pits, tubs, vaults, vessels, or other confiined spaces with one side open to the air but so deep as to require entrance and aid of an assistant in case of emergency. C. Confined spaces, such as ventilation or exhaust ducts, sewers, under- ground utility tunnels or pipe lines. III. RESPONSIBILITY Responsibility for safety both at the time of entry and during the entire operation rests with the Supervisor. This responsibility covers conditions of work for contractors’ employees and workmen from other divisions as well as for his own men. He must make sure that adequate steps have been taken to eliminate or control the hazards. He must also make sure that all personnel understand the nature of such hazards which remain and the precautions to follow. IV. HAZARDS The hazards commonly encountered are : } A. Towic vapors in fatal concentrations.—May result from known material in the tank, by gradual release from sludge or scale, or be introduced by leakage from interconnected systems due to failure to blank off or dis- connect pipelines or ducts. B. Flammable gases, with potential of fire or ewplosion. C. Lack of oxygen, causing asphywiation.—May result from chemicals absorbing or replacing oxygen in the tank air, or from inert gas often used to exclude oxygen to reduce the possibility of explosions. Air in clean tanks closed for an extended period may become deficient in oxygen because of rusting (or oxidation) of the metal of the tank. Improper or inadequate ventilation during tank work may also result in a lack of oxygen. 854 D. Hlectric shock from portable lights, tools, or associated electrical equipment. BE. Injury from mechanical equipment such as mixers, conveyors, etc., inadvertently activated. F. Bodily injury from direct contact with corrosives or dermatitis-pro- ducing chemicals. G. Physical hazards such as slipping, falling, and falling objects. H. Burn hazards resulting from accidental opening of a steam valve in a line which has not been blanked off or disconnected. V. PROCEDURES The hazards inherent in tank entry can be avoided or overcome if the fol- lowing principles are applied properly each and every time a tank is entered. Establish a definite system of pre-planning for tank entry and a worker instruction program. Prepare the vessel for entry by physically isolating it, cleaning it to remove contaminants, and testing it to insure absence of such contaminants. Use a formal permit system requiring written authorization for entry to be issued only after the supervisor in charge is satisfied personally with tank preparation, precautions to be taken, personal protective equipment to be used, and procedures to be followed. A. Pre-planming and education Survey the various tanks requiring entry and evaluate the hazard potential. All concerned should agree to the detailed standards and procedures established. There should be no doubt as to exactly what is meant. Worker and supervisor alike, should be fully informed both as to fundamentals and specific requirements. There should be appropriate follow-up to insure that the system is being followed exactly. It is not sufficient merely to set up standards; follow-up is necessary for full compliance. Close liaison and job planning between various groups such as production and maintenance is essential. One good technique for refresher education is to have specific instructions and a pertinent check list on a printed permit which must be displayed at the job site. B. Preparation of Tank 1. Cleaning.—According to the nature of the product the tank should be made clean and void of residual product by hot or cold water flush, by steaming, by chemical neutralization or by air purge, with harmful vapors vented safely to the outdoors. If the tank is steamed, it should be allowed to cool before entry. Steam should not be introduced below liquid surface in tanks being cleaned. Nonmiscible solvents sometimes will stratify and bump out at almost explosive pressure due to the difference in boiling point temperatures between the water layer and the solvents. After the material in the tank has been drained, pumped out, floated off, or otherwise evacuated to a safe point of discharge, sludge or incrustatation should be removed, to the greatest possible degree, by operation from outside of the tank. Should the tank have contained radioactive materials, it will be necessary to ascertain the type and magnitude of radioactivity remaining after cleaning so that a time limit for exposure may be established. Protective clothing and respiratory protection should not be used as a substitute for cleaning and ventilating. Except in extreme emergency—for example, saving of a life or mak- ing emergency surveys or repairs—mno one should enter a tank containing a flammable atmosphere or one which because of oxygen deficiency or contamina- tion, may be so immediately harmful as to prevent escape from the tank in case of failure of the respiratory equipment. 2. Ventilation—The tank should be thoroughly ventilated, preferably by some positive method of mechanical exhaust ventilation so arranged as to avoid recirculating contaminated air. After the tank is cleaned and ventilated, the mechanical exhaust ventilation equipment should be kept operating to provide secondary protection in case of accidental introduction of harmful chemicals; to remove contamination that may be produced by work in the tank such as weld- ing and cutting, painting, coating; and to cool the tank and improve working conditions. Should decontamination involve flammable liquids, vapors, gases, or dusts, all sources if ignition should be eliminated. For example, to eliminate any accumula- 855 tion of static electricity and prevent autogenous ignition of flammables which may be in the tank, steam should be introduced at relatively low pressure and velocity. Steam lines should be electrically bonded to the tank if it contains any flammable material. 3. Isolation.—The tank should be completely isolated from all other systems and equipment. For example, lines connected to the tanks should be physically disconnected and blanked off. Positive and adequate measures must be taken to prevent harmful material—solid, liquid, or vapor—from entering the tank while workmen are inside or after cleaning. This work should be coordinated with cleaning operations to prevent re-contamination. In all cases where lines have contained hazardous fluids or inert gas, or where they contain fluids at high pressures or temperatures, the lines should be physically disconnected by re- moval of valves, spool pleces, or expansion joints, and blank flanges placed in the lines. Exceptions to normal blanking procedure, such as bleeder valves tagged in the open position, should be approved only by qualified supervision. Exceptions should be made only when thoroughly justified and not as a matter of expediency. Approval of exceptions requires that adequate alternative measures be taken to protect the worker. Experience has shown that valves, although closed, may leak dangerous liquid or gas. This will require either disconnecting, capping, or blanking all service, process, vent, or overflow lines on a given unit to prevent entrance of material by leakage through (or accidental opening of) a valve. This should include steam connections to a jacket and in case of welding on the wall between the inner tank and jacket, should include water, brine, or air lines to the jacket. Open ends of disconnected lines should be blanked or capped to prevent any flow from the disconnected end of the line entering a tank opening or draining onto assistants on the outside. Blanks should be installed as close to the tank as practicable to prevent drainage from trapped sections. Drains or overflow lines should be dis- connected or blanked if they extend into a sewer from which steam or fumes could be conducted back to the tank, or if they connect to other equipment or ex- tend to a remote location. All blanks should be of materials which are not sus- ceptible to corrosion by the chemicals to which they are exposed with different types adequately identified. Blanks should be of such thickness and tensile strength as to satisfy the maximum pressure which may be imposed upon them without distortion or failure. 4. Lock Out (See MCA Safety Guide No. 8 Electrical Switch Lock-out Pro- cedure.) Line-disconnect switches supplying power to any mechanical apparatus in the tank such as mixers, conveyors, etc., should be tagged and locked in the “off” position. It is not adequate to lock a push button station as it still may be possible to energize the circuit. The key should be kept by the man in the tank, and he alone should be authorized to unlock the switch and remove the tag on completion of the job. Where more than one man is exposed, each should place his own lock on the switch. In certain cases it may be advisable, as further pro- tection, to have a plant electrician pull the line fuses in the electrical circuit in- volved or take other positive steps to guard against accidental energization. Where there is a line shaft, the belt or chain drive should be removed or similar positive measures provided, such as mechanical latches. 5. Testing —If the tank has held any flammable or harmful product before flushing ; if it contains any residue or sludge which may release flammable or harmful gases or vapors; or if oxygen deficiency or excess is suspected or even possible, a test of the atmosphere in the tank should be made immediately before entering and before performing any hot work such as the lighting of torches. Presence of flammable or toxic vapors, excess oxygen or oxygen deficiency should be determined by direct reading instruments or chemical analysis. Single-fluid instruments which absorb both oxygen and carbon dioxide should not be used for oxygen determination. Interim tests of the atmosphere in the tank should be made as often as may be necessary while the work is in progress. Continuous sampling and analysis with automatic alarm may be indicated. 0. Issuance of permit for entry The tank entry permit is authorization and approval in writing. It serves as a method of formalizing agreed upon procedures and also as a check list to insure that all existing hazards are considered, evaluated, and correct protective measures taken. No employee should enter any tank without reporting to and securing approval from his immediate supervisor who in turn secures entry approval from the supervisor to whom the tank is assigned. The supervisor to whose department 856 the tank is assigned should discuss the project in detail with those entering the tank. He should review the hazards of the product or other materials to which they may be exposed. He should furnish all the safety information he may be able to provide. Then supervisors of various men to be involved should review and complete the permit form jointly. Appropriate supervisors must be certain by personal investigation, immediately before entry and before signing the permit, that the entry and its incidental work will be safe. To insure continuation of safe conditions, if a pause of appreciable duration occurs during the carrying out of a job, the site must be re-investigated by the authorized signer before the job can be allowed to resume. Commencement of a new shift should always re- quire re-investigation and a new permit. No permit should be valid except for the job, location, persons, and time specified. VI. PRECAUTIONS A. Tools.—Hand tools should be clean, in good condition, and should be selected carefully according to the uses intended. Spark-resistant hand tools are usually preferred where a possibility of flammable vapors or gases exists unless the area is well wetted down with water. Portable power tools and equipment should be clean and in good condition. Electrical tools and equipment such as hand lamps and extension cords should be grounded, and if the tank is a “Hazardous Loca- tion” under the definitions of the National Electrical Code, should be of the ex- plosion proof type. In any Class I exposure (also Class 11 in dangerous flammable dust concentrations) it may be found preferable to use air-operated power tools. Even in these circumstances, however, careful thought must be given to the possibility of fire or explosion arising from struck sparks, overheating of the tool (as in drilling), electrostatic generation from discharge of compressed air. or other mechanical sources. The use of low voltage (32 volts or less) lighting and electrical equipment serves to minimize further the possible hazard of electric shock. Ladders used in tanks should be lashed at the top and, if possible, at the bottom. Employees performing electrical welding in tanks should be provided with and required to use rubber blankets and such other personal protective equipment as may be required. Welding and cutting torches must not be taken into the tank until ready to be used and must be removed from the tank immediately after use. Oylinders of oxygen or other gas should never be taken into tanks, and should be turned off at the cylinder valve when not in use. Special signs posted near the tank help keep unnecessary people away, insure that potentially harmful operations will not be started independently nearby, and help guide rescuers should they be necessary. B. Personal Protective Hquipment.—Proper protection may range from espe- cially designed complete coverage suits for protection against radiation or highly toxic chemicals harmful by absorption through the intact skin, to chemical gog- gles, hard hats, gloves, and safety shoes normally worn to protect against routine hazards. Employees should never unduly expose the skin when working in tanks, and should wear full coverage of clothing at all times. When burning or welding is done inside a tank, supervision should consider the use of flame-proofed clothing by the employees involved. Working bareheaded, with shirt sleeves rolled up, or in an undershirt, may in some exposures be hazardous. Certified breathing air, either from self-contained units, central systems such as cylinders of air, or suitable compressors should be supplied if the integrity of the atmosphere cannot be guaranteed and if there is any possibility of air contamination of a harmful nature or of oxygen deficiency while employees are within an enclosed vessel. The use of canister type masks, which operate on the principle of chemical absorption or mechanical filtration, may not afford ade- quate protection and should, therefore, not be used. Equipment should bear Bureau of Mines approval and should be suited specif- ically to the type of exposure and should protect against the worst condition that might be encountered. For specifically recommended protection refer to MCA Chemical Safety Data Sheets or other authoritative source. As part of pre- planning, information as to the best type of respiratory protection should be ascertained in advance according to the specific exposure involved. C. Emergency and Rescue.—Where the potential exposure in the tank is acute or requires an employee to wear respiratory protection or where rescue may be difficult, he must be provided with a body harness with life line attached. 857 It is good practice to use body harness for any vessel entry work. Such safety harness or safety cover-alls with a built-in harness and life line shall be used when the shape, size, and location of the tank space permits the safe emergency removal of personnel by standby personnel without requiring entry of the tank. When the shape, size, and location of the tank does not meet this requirement, a specific procedure for the rescue of personnel must be developed in the pre- planning stage of the tank entry work and made a specific part of the tank entry permit. In some cases it is advisable to have a block and tackle positioned on a tripod or otherwise fastened above the manhole. For obvious reasons, manholes large enough to accommodate the man and his safety gear should be provided, such as a 24’’ diameter for circular ones. Where existing manholes are smaller than 20’’ in the largest dimension, wrist harnesses often are prac- tical. The free end of the life line should be secured to a fixed object and should be attended by an observer who will keep the man in the tank always within his vision. The observer may pass tools; but he must have no other job which will take his attention away from the man in the tank; which will interfere with his attempts to withdraw the victim by use of the life line; or which will require his leaving the vicinity of the tank for any time whatever. In case of emergency, the outside observer must never enter the tank until he is relieved at his post. It is his job to summon aid immediately (various alarms, such as a whistle, may be used) ; to attempt to remove the victim by use of the life line, and to perform all other necessary rescue functions from outside. Upon the arrival of help, he may enter the tank for rescue work only when he is assured that his outside assistance is adequate. Such safety observers should be well trained in basic First Aid principles, such as rescue breathing techniques. Rescuers entering the tank must be protected with the safety facilities required by the situation, i.e., life line and harness, and proper personal protective equipment. For rescue purposes at least one unit of self- contained breathing equipment should be located outside and convenient to the tank together with harness, rope, and such other emergency equipment as may be indicated. It is better to have too much equipment at job site than too little—too late! Where hazardous chemicals may be contacted in the course of tank work or where the possibility of fire is involved, a charged hose line with spray nozzle should be available nearby. The number of men in a tamk, particularly at the time of burning or welding, must be reduced to the abseo- lute minimum necessary for the work itself. The supervisors concerned must be trained to be on the alert, before and during the job to detect and correct immediately new and different hazards or to stop the work until the new hazards are corrected. } 858 WORK PERMIT REQUIRED FOR: 1. Weldingor Cutting In Any Location Other Than Shops or Auxiliary Shops. 2. Hot Work In Hazardous and Semi-Hazardous Areas. 3. Vessel Entry Work. Date From AM. | To AM. | Type of Work P.M. P.M. Issued For Work On/In Workman Assigned to.Job,| Dept. Assigned Job Authorizing Supervisor CHECK (v') ONLY IF ANSWER IS YES 1. 0 Is welding & cutting necessary? 2. AreL ines Carrying Material To Or From Equipment Blinded or Removed? LJ) Flammable Ll Corrosive 3. Are Shut Off Valves Tagged or Locked in Off Position? [J Flammable [J Corrosive CJ] Steam 4. Equipment Preparation. [J steamed [J Washed Cl Purged 5. Source of Power For Agitators And Pumps Lock In Off Position. [J Electrical Switches LJ Belt Removed 6. Protective Equipment Needed? Respiratory Protection Ol Goggles [J Air Mover L] Fire Protection [J Clothing [] Safety Belt 7. 8. Will An Operating Has Equipment Been Representative Be Present [J Checked for Residuals? 9. Have Hazards of Nearby Areas Been Considered? [J other Floor Levels [J welding Machinery Properly Grounded Ol Sewers [J other Machinery 859 ExcerPTs FROM MANUAL L-1, GUIDE TO PRECAUTIONARY LABELING OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS PART | Preparation of Precautionary Labels General Principles The following General Principles serve as a guide in the prepara- tion of precautionary labels for hazardous substances. (1) Each hazardous substance presents a distinct problem and must be treated individually in the light of its own characteristics. Conclu- sions regarding the hazards of a product cannot safely be drawn either from the properties of the materials from which it is formed or by analogies based upon chemical structure. Mixtures of two or more chemicals may have properties that vary in kind or degree from those of the individual components. Any precautionary label for mixtures should be based on the prop- erties of the finished product. Impurities may contribute hazardous properties and should not be overlooked. (2) All statements on precautionary labels should be brief, accurate, and expressed in simple, easily understood terms. (3) Precautionary labeling should be used only when and to the extent necessary. The language should be practical, not based alone upon the inherent properties of a product, but directed toward the avoid- ance of hazards resulting from such use, handling, and storage as may reasonably be anticipated. The use of precautionary labels for relatively harmless products, or the use of unnecessary words, will develop a disregard for labels and defeat their purpose as surely as will failure to give adequate notice of hazards. (4) On labels for different products, uniformity in language to indicate the same hazards and same degree of hazard is most desirable in order to gain greater understanding through standardization. (5) The following subject matter should be considered for inclusion on a precautionary label: A. Name of Product. B. Signal Word designating degree of hazard—DANGER!, WARNING!, or CAUTION! 860 C. Affirmative Statement of Hazards. D. Precautionary Measures covering actions to be followed or avoided. E. Instructions in Case of Contact or Exposure, where ad- visable. (Note: Under some laws antidotes or first aid procedures are required when the word POISON’ is used.) Instructions for the handling and storage of containers should also be considered for inclusion on the label. This is information relating to characteristics of the container as well as those of its contents, and is discussed separately under Container Handling and Storage on Page 24. (6) The inclusion of the word POISON’ and the skull and crossbones on a label should be limited to those cases where the product is a poison according to the definition appearing on Page 10, or where such use is prescribed by law. When used, this legend should be in addition to the other label warnings and should not take the place of the Signal Words DANGER!, WARNING!, and CAUTION! which are designed to show the relative degree of hazard. (7) A non-descriptive code designation or trade name should not be used as the only identification of a hazardous substance. If the complete chemical name is not shown, the label should clearly state the type of chemical, e.g., “corrosive acid”, “lead compound”. (8) Precautionary statements should be grouped together in a prominent location on the label and should be printed in easily legible type which is in contrast by typography, layout, or color with other printed matter on the label. The label should be affixed firmly to and in a conspicuous place on the container. Preparation of Labels In the preparation of a precautionary label, the compilation of all available relevant information on the product is a necessary first step. An adequate knowledge of the toxicity of the material (obtained from the literature or through laboratory tests) and data on physical and chemical properties, packaging, and methods of handling and use of the product are needed to make possible a description of the hazards. In the case of an established product, advantage should be taken of the experience of people involved in manufacturing, shipping, and using 861 the material. All the General Principles should be kept in mind and the following information considered for inclusion on the label: A. Name of Product This is important information for the safety of handlers and users. It is preferable that the chemical name of the product be used. The recommendations of the American Chemical Society for nomenclature should be followed. Trade names may be used in addition to chemical names. A non-descriptive code designa- tion or trade name should not be used as the only identification of a hazardous chemical. If the complete chemical name is not shown, the label should at least clearly state the type of chemical, e.g., “corro- sive acid”, lead compound”. B. Signal Word This word is intended to draw attention to the pres- ence of hazard, and to indicate the degree of severity. The Signal Words recommended are, in the order of diminishing severity of hazard: (1) DANGER! (2) WARNING! (3) CAUTION! Degree of severity can be expressed only in relative terms. “DANGER!” is the strongest of the three words and should be used for those products presenting the most serious hazards. “CAUTION!” is recommended for those compounds presenting the least serious hazards. “WARNING!” is intermediate between “DANGER!” and “CAUTION!” Reference to the illustrative labels in Part II of this Guide will help in the selection of the proper Signal Word. C.. Statement of Hazards This statement should give notice of the hazards that are present in connection with the customary or reasonably anticipated handling or use of the product. Examples are: CAUSES BURNS VAPOR EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS Many chemical products will present more than one type of hazard, in which case, appropriate statements for each significant type should be included on the label. In general, the most serious hazard should be stated first. While any compound may be hazardous if improperly used, it is impractical to cover every possible contingency on a label. Efforts should be directed toward giving notice of the significant hazards. A minor hazard may frequently be covered clearly and briefly by an appropriate precautionary statement alone. In some cases, the total hazard of a product, while justifying one or more Precautionary Meas- 862 ures, may be of such order as to require no Statement of Hazard on the label. D. Precautionary Measures These instructions are intended to sup- plement the Statement of Hazards by setting forth briefly measures to be taken to avoid injury or damage from stated hazards. Examples are: Keep away from heat, sparks, and open flame. Avoid breathing dust. Precautionary Measures may be included for hazards not considered of sufficient importance to require mention in the Statement of Hazards. Statements similar to, “Do not take internally.” deserve special attention. They are seldom necessary where the Precautionary Measure to be followed is obvious as, for example, when the product is labeled ““POISON’’ or the Statement of Hazards contains the words, “MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED”. On the other hand, the instruction may be desirable if the name, appearance, use, or other attributes of the chemical are likely to result in its being taken orally through accident or mistaken identity. E. Instructions in Case of Contact or Exposure The primary pur- pose of precautionary labeling is to prevent injury or damage. How- ever, Instructions in Case of Contact or Exposure may be included in those instances where the results of contact or exposure are severe and immediate treatment is highly desirable, and where simple remedial measures may be taken safely by non-professional persons before medical assistance is available. Instructions should be limited to recognized first aid procedures based on simple methods and commonly available materials. Instruc- tions for strictly medical treatment should be omitted except when specifically required by law or indicated by special circumstances. Because of the serious and lasting effects that may result from eye injuries, a recommendation to get medical attention should accompany any specific instructions directed to treatment of the eyes. In certain instances, simple remedial measures such as washing, or removal of clothing, may be included where they will serve to avoid serious injury following contact or exposure. All precautionary information should appear on the label as a unit and should be printed in the order given above. The labels in Parts II and III illustrate suitable arrangements and indicate the relative promi- 863 nence that should be given to the individual statements. Such relative prominence may be achieved in a number of ways such as by variation in type size, color, or layout of the printed material. Note: Some state laws and regulations require, on labels, the use of special or strictly defined antidotes or prescribe special ways in which these must be shown for certain hazardous substances. The require- ments for any given poison may, therefore, vary greatly, and the impossi- bility of showing, in the illustrative labels, antidotes which might be nationally acceptable has led to the practice of indicating only the need for an appropriate first aid or antidote statement where the ““POISON- skull and crossbones’ legend is used. Table 1, on Pages 20 and 21, is intended as a guide in the selection of precautionary statements for labels. Listed are classifications of mate- rials according to the hazardous properties most frequently encountered. Opposite each classification are given Statements of Hazard, Precaution- ary Measures and, in most cases, Instructions in Case of Contact or Exposure. It is important to recognize that hazardous substances can have inherent in them more than one of such hazardous properties, and that the label wording for such products should include an appropriate combination of the pertinent statements. As each hazardous substance must be treated individually in the light of its own characteristics and customary or reasonably anticipated handling or use, there will be many instances in which the illustrative statements in Table 1 will not be applicable, either because they do not accurately express the degree of hazard or because they fail to cover the particular characteristics. In such cases, suitable statements should be chosen to fit the situation. The illustrative labels in Part II of this Guide may be helpful in the choice of appropriate wording. EXAMPLE OF LABEL PREPARATION To give as complete an illustration as possible of the procedure to be used in writing a precautionary label, Ethylene Chlorohydrin has been selected. A study of available physical, chemical, and toxicological data shows that this chemical presents several hazards for consideration. It is a poison, as defined in this Guide, by skin absorption and is dangerously toxic by oral ingestion and by vapor inhalation. On con- tact it can cause serious damage to the eyes. There is a hazard of combustibility since the flashpoint of the liquid is 140°F., which is within the range of combustibility in Class of Hazard I-C in Table 1. A special hazard of Ethylene Chlorohydrin is its ability to penetrate ordinary rubber. a ».. 864 The selection of the Signal Word depends on the seriousness of the hazards and to a lesser extent on the number of hazards. In the case of Ethylene Chlorohydrin, both major hazards—its toxicity and its ac- tion on the eyes—are serious and acute. Therefore, the Signal Word “DANGER!” is indicated. Since ethylene chlorohydrin is dangerous by any type of contact with the body, strong Statements of Hazard should be used. As far as possible, hazards should be listed in the order of decreasing importance. Thus, from Table 1, Classes of Hazard III, IX, and X, appropriate State- ments of Hazard are selected to describe the various hazards. From III: VAPOR EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS VAPOR MAY BE FATAL IF INHALED From IX: EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS LIQUID ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN From X: MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED For brevity and better emphasis, the above statements are combined and rearranged: EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS LIQUID AND VAPOR MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED, INHALED, OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN For the major hazard of eye damage, the appropriate Statement of Hazard as selected from Table 1, Class of Hazard VII, is modified to: CAUSES BURNS TO EYES The Statement of Hazard “COMBUSTIBLE is not necessary (ex- cept as required by law), since the Precautionary Measure, “Keep away from heat and open flame.” is considered adequate. Since ordinary rubber protective clothing, including gloves, will not eliminate the hazard of skin absorption, a special Precautionary Statement to this effect should be prepared and included. » 865 Statements of Precautionary Measures are selected from Table 1, Column 3, Classes of Hazard I, III, VII, IX and X. From I: Keep away from heat and open flame. From III: Do not breathe vapor. Use only with adequate ventilation. From VII: Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. From IX: Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. From X: Do not take internally. Special Precautionary Statement prepared to cover special hazard of material: Ordinary rubber protective clothing, including gloves, will not pre- vent skin absorption. Instructions in Case of Contact or Exposure are selected from Table 1, Column 4, Class of Hazard IX: From IX: In case of contact, immediately remove all contaminated clothing and flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes; for eyes, get medical attention. Wash clothing before re-use. Ethylene Chlorohydrin is a poison by absorption into the body by skin contact, therefore, the “POISON-skull and crossbones’ legend is used, followed by first aid instructions: £ POISON @ Call A Physician First Aid If swallowed: If conscious, make patient vomit immediately by putting finger down throat or by giving warm mustard water or salt water. fgely. Ce um General: Keep patied® warm; if conscious, give black coffee. Note to Physician: Do nat give adrenalin. ’ 866 Thus, the completed precautionary label, combining and rearrang- ing selected material according to General Principles as outlined in this Guide, will include the following components as shown below: & Name of Product, eo Signal Word, © Statement of Hazards, oO Precautionary Measures, oO Instructions in Case of Contact or Exposure, 0 Poison Legend and Q First Aid Statement © [ETHYLENE CHLOROHYDRIN (ANHYDROUS OR 38%) © ---{ DANGER! [EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS LIQUID AND VAPOR O —— MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED, INHALED, OR a a ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Ordinary rubber protec- tive clothing, including gloves, will not prevent skin absorption. Do not breathe vapor. Use only with adequate ventilation. Do not take internally. Keep away from heat and open flame. In case of contact, immediately remove all contaminated clothing and flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes; for eyes, get medical attention. Wash clothing before £- POISON Call A Physician First Aid If swallowed: If conscious, make patient vomit immediately by putting finger down throat or by giving warm mustard water or salt water freely. General: Keep patient warm; if conscious, give black coffee. Note to Physician: Do not give adrenalin. TABLE 1 867 SELECTION OF PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS Products will be encountered that present hazards varying in kind or degree from those listed. Appropriate Statement of Hazards, Precautionary Measures, and Instructions in Case of Contact or Exposure should be prepared on the basis of the properties of the prod- uct, following the pattern and general phraseology of the following table. Parenthetical words in the table express variations in kind or degree and are to be used where appli- cable. SEE EXAMPLE OF LABEL PREPARATION BEGINNING ON PAGE 16. Class of Hazard Statements of Hazard IMPORTANT: Select applicable statement(s) only. Selection(s) to be based on actual hazard(s) and degree of hazard. In some instances, where a mild caution is indicated, the Statement of Hazard may be omitted and adequate information provided by the statement of Precautionary Measures. Liquids Flashing at 150°F. or Below (Flash points are determined by the Tagliabue Open-Cup Method) A. Flash point 20°F. or below B. Flash point above 20°F. to 80°F. inclusive EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE FLAMMABLE C. Flash point above 80°F. to 150°F. inclusive COMBUSTIBLE* Oxidizing Materials STRONG OXIDANT CONTACT WITH COMBUSTIBLE (OTHER) MATERIAL MAY CAUSE FIRE Materials Giving Vapors Rapidly Toxic or Extremely Irritating on Exposure for a Short Time or to Low Concentrations VAPOR (EXTREMELY) HAZARDOUS (IRRITATING) HAZARDOUS LIQUID AND VAPOR (GAS UNDER PRESSURE) VAPOR POISONOUS IF INHALED VAPOR MAY BE FATAL IF INHALED [See NOTE opposite page] Materials Giving Vapors Hazardous from Pro- longed or Repeated Exposures or Exposure to High Concentrations VAPOR HARMFUL CAUSES IRRITATION OF EYES, NOSE, AND THROAT Gases and Vapors Physiologically Inert GAS (VAPOR) REDUCES OXYGEN AVAILABLE FOR BREATHING RELEASES HEAVY GAS (VAPOR) WHICH MAY CAUSE SUFFOCATION Vi Materials in Dust Form Hazardous from Inhalation or Contact HAZARDOUS (HARMFUL) DUST HARMFUL IF INHALED CAUSES IRRITATION OF SKIN, EYES, NOSE, AND THROAT Vil. Corrosives CAUSES SEVERE BURNS CAUSES BURNS MAY CAUSE BURNS VIL. Irritants, Sensitizers CAUSES SKIN IRRITATION MAY CAUSE SKIN IRRITATION Materials Toxic through Skin Absorption (EXTREMELY) HAZARDOUS (HARMFUL) SOLID (LIQUID) ABSORPTION THROUGH SKIN MAY BE FATAL ABSORPTION THROUGH SKIN HARMFUL (RAPIDLY) ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN [See NOTE opposite page] Materials Toxic if Swallowed 2-734 0—68——756 POISONOUS IF SWALLOWED MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED [See NOTE opposite page] *As required by law 868 The statements shown below are not intended to be complete. In the preparation of a given label, state- «ents applicable to the product may be found in this Table. However, suitable modification thereof, or differ- at statements entirely, may be necessary. NOTE: “POISON-skull and crossbones” should be included if the product meets any of the criteria for “POISON” set forth on Page 10 or is required by law. If “POISON” is used, add a first aid or antidote statement as required. Precautionary Measures MPORTANT: Select applicable statement(s) only. jelection(s) to be based on actual hazard(s) and legree of hazard. In some instances the omission of 1 Precautionary Statement may be justified where the neasure to be followed is obvious from the statement of Hazard. Keep away from heat (sparks,) and open flame. Keep container closed (and away from heat). Use with adequate ventilation. Store separately (away) from and avoid contact with combustible (other) materials. Avoid contamination of clothing as it becomes dangerously flammable when dry. Keep container closed (and away from heat). Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Do not breathe vapor. Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Use only with adequate ventilation. Keep container closed (and away from heat). Have airline respirator or self-contained oxygen respirator available for emergency. Use only with adequate ventilation. Avoid (prolonged or repeated) breathing (of) vapor. Avoid contact with skin, eyes, and clothing. Keep container closed (and away from heat). Use with adequate ventilation. Keep container closed. Do not enter storage areas unless adequately ventilated. Do not breathe dust. Avoid breathing dust. Wash thoroughly before eating or smoking. Avoid contact with skin, eyes, and clothing. Instructions in Case of Contact or Exposure IMPORTANT: Select applicable statement(s) only. Selection(s) to be based on necessity for prompt action in order to avoid serious effects. In case of contact, immediately flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for (at least) 15 minutes; for eyes, get medical attention. (Wash clothing thoroughly at once.) Sweep up spillage at once. Flush or absorb spillage with ......................... In case of contact, immediately flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for (at least) 15 minutes; for eyes, get medical attention. Remove and wash clothing before re-use. [See NOTE above] If spilled on clothing, remove and wash before re-use. In case of exposure to high concentrations, move to fresh air. If affected by exposure, move to fresh air. If breathing has stopped, apply artificial respiration. In case of contact, (immediately) flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for (at least) 15 minutes; for eyes, get medical attention. (Remove and wash clothing before re-use.) Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Avoid contact with skin, eyes, and clothing. Avoid exposure to (concentrated) vapor. Avoid (prolonged or repeated) contact with skin. Wash thoroughly after handling. Avoid exposure to (concentrated) vapor. Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Avoid contact with skin, eyes, and clothing. In case of contact, immediately flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for (at least) 15 minutes; (for es,) get medical attention. (Remove and wash hing before re-use.) In case of contact, flush with (plenty of) water; (for eyes, get medical attention.) In case of ct, i diately all nated clothing and) flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for (at least) 15 minutes; (for eyes, get medical attention. Wash clothing before re-use. [See NOTE above] Wash thoroughly before eating or smoking. Wash thoroughly after handling. Do not breathe dust (vapor). Avoid breathing dust (vapor). Do not take internally. [See Precautionary Measures, Page 15]. . [See NOTE above] 869 Labels for Small Commercial Packages The General Principles governing the preparation of precautionary labels discussed in Part I and the illustrative labels in Part II of this Guide have been developed primarily for bulk packages of chemicals intended for industrial use. The General Principles may be applied, however, to chemicals packaged in small containers. These may include, among others, hazardous substances in retail packages intended for the ultimate consumer; highly purified chemicals intended for research, testing, or control; and chemicals intended for professional use such as in pharmacy. As stated in the General Principles on Page 12, each hazardous substance presents a distinct problem and must be treated individually in the light of its own characteristics. This same principle will apply to small containers. Small containers may present a problem of less available space for labeling purposes. Careful and selective shortening of precautionary statements for such containers may be in order if necessary to permit legibility, or if the wording on labels for the chemical in industrial packages is not applicable. Consideration should always be given to (1) the intended or reasonably anticipated handling or use of the particular product, (2) the training and experience of the expected user, and (3) the extent to which the hazard is modified by the size or type of container. The foliowing principles are recommended for condensation of suggested label wording where necessary or advisable: (1) Retain the Signal Word; (2) Retain the Statement of Hazards, shortened if necessary to a practical equivalent; (3) Consider omission of Precautionary Measures if they are clearly indicated or implied from the Statement of Hazards or can be clearly indicated or implied by revising the Statement of Hazards; (4) Consider omission of wording relating to hazards that may be less serious because of the particular characteristics of the package, the nature of the use, and the training and experience of the user. Care must be taken to include Precautionary Measures for any additional hazard which may be present as a result of such characteristics, use, or training and experience. Care should be taken that labels prepared in accordance with the above principles include all information required by law. 870 Labels for Samples and for New Products for Investigational Use Samples: In general, the label for samples of a product should bear the same precautionary information that is on the commercial label, with the exception of possible differences in container instructions. If the prod- uct is not in commercial production, the label for samples should be prepared in accordance with the General Principles stated on Page 12 in this Guide. New Products for Investigational Use: Chemical, physical, and toxicological data should be obtained on any product before it is distributed, so that hazardous properties can be described on the label. However, it may occasionally be necessary to make delivery of a new product for investigational use before all of these data are obtained. For instance, the quantity available may be too small for necessary tests, or the product may have to be delivered to investigators for the purpose of obtaining the desired information. These deliveries should be made to qualified investigators only, and should be labeled as adequately as possible with the information avail- able. To cover such cases (and such cases only) the following illustra- tion is suggested for preparing labels to be used during the period of investigation. (NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT) FOR INVESTIGATIONAL USE ONLY SIGNAL WORD! STATEMENT(S) OF KNOWN HAZARD(S) Appropriate precautionary measures. Appropriate instructions in case of contact or exposure. IMPORTANT! The chemical, physical, and toxicological properties of this product have not been fully investigated, and its handling or use may (be hazardous) (present additional hazards). Exercise due care. 871 CONTAINER HANDLING AND STORAGE Care should always be exercised in handling and storing containers of hazardous chemicals and in removing the contents. The Chemical Packaging Committee of the Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc., has recommended the general precautions given below for handling and storing certain classes of containers. Applicable phrases may be selected from these statements. These may be used either as separate labels or in combination with the precautionary labels illustrated in Part II. Where the properties of the substance require special or addi- tional precautions, such instructions are indicated in some instances in conjunction with the individual label in Part II. Metal Drum Handling and Storage (for liquids and semi-liquids) Keep plug up to prevent leakage. Keep drum out of sun and away from heat. Relieve internal pressure when received and at least weekly thereafter by slowly loosening plug. Retighten immediately. Drums should be grounded when being emptied. Do not drop or slide across sharp projection. Never use pressure to empty. Drum is not a pressure vessel. Keep lights, fire, and sparks away from drums. Drum must not be washed out or used for other purposes. Replace plug after each withdrawal and return with empty drum. In case of spillage, flush with plenty of water. Glass Carboy Handling and Storage Before moving carboy be sure closure is securely fastened. Avoid rough handling or dropping. Loosen closure carefully. Keep carboy out of sun and away from heat. Never use pressure to empty. Carboy is not a pressure vessel. Completely drain carboy before returning. In case of spillage, flush with plenty of water. Wooden Barrel Handling and Storage (for liquids and semi-liquids) Keep barrel out of sun and away from heat. Store with bilge bung up. Never use pressure to empty. Drain completely. Keep barrel moist—shrinkage may cause leaks. In case of gpillage, flush with plenty of water. 872 Cylinder Handling and Storage Keep cylinder out of sun and away from heat. Never drop cylinders. Keep cylinders locked vertically to prevent falling and/or dropping. Be sure connections are tight. ICC Regulations prohibit refilling cylinder without permission of owner. Have airline respirator or self-contained oxygen respirator available for emergency. Aerosol Containers The term “aerosol container” is generally applied to a container which holds its contents under pressure and is equipped with a dis- pensing nozzle designed to release the container’s contents through a very small orifice. While a true aerosol is a mist or spray of fine parti- cles or droplets suspended in air, aerosol type containers are used for packaging and dispensing many products which do not form true aerosols on release. Thus, there are aerosol products dispensed as depositing sprays (paints or insecticides) or as semi-liquid froths (whipping cream or shaving lather). In all cases, aerosol containers require more care in handling and storage than similar unpressurized containers, and particularly require protection from elevated tempera- tures. When the contents are released as an aerosol or fine spray, there may be greater flammability or inhalation hazard than would be pre- sented by the same product in other types of packaging and use. The Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association suggests the following precautionary text for the pressure hazard presented by a metal aerosol container: WARNING! Contents under pressure. Do not puncture. Exposure to heat or prolonged exposure to sun may cause bursting. Do not throw into fire or incinerator. NOTE: Additional feqiisec cautions for statements as to hazards to persons and prop- erty, the safe discharge of contents, etc. will depend upon the particular product. Appropriate modification of the above text may be required for an aerosol container made of a non-metallic material. Also, additional precautionary labeling may be needed to warn against hazards presented by the contents of an aerosol container after release. Special test pro- cedures developed by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Associa- tion are, used in determining the flammability hazards of products in aerosol containers. 873 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE DANGER! HAZARDOUS VAPOR AND LIQUID MAY BE FATAL IF INHALED OR SWALLOWED Use only with adequate ventilation. Do not breathe vapor. Avoid prolonged or repeated contact with skin. Do not take internally. £ POISON Call A Physician First Aid MCA Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-3 available CAUSTIC POTASH — Same label as SODIUM HYDROXIDE MCA Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-10 available CAUSTIC SODA — Same label as SODIUM HYDROXIDE MCA Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-9 available CHLORAL DANGER! EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS LIQUID AND VAPOR INHALATION MAY CAUSE DELAYED FATAL LUNG INJURY Do not get in eyes, on skin, on clothing. Do not breathe vapor. Use only with adequate ventilation. In case of contact, immediately flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes; for eyes, get medical attention. In case of inhalation or suspicion of inhalation, move patient at once to fresh air and call a physician. Keep patient absolutely quiet and start oxygen inhalation through suitable equipment. 874 CHLORINATED DIPHENYL (MONO, DI, or TRI) — Same label as CHLORINATED NAPHTHALENE CHLORINATED DIPHENYL OXIDE (MONO, DI, or TRI) — Same label as CHLORINATED NAPHTHALENE CHLORINATED NAPHTHALENE (For TRI and HIGHER CHLORINATED NAPHTHALENES) CAUTION! Avoid repeated contact with skin. Avoid repeated inhalation of fumes and dust. CHLORINE DANGER! HAZARDOUS LIQUID AND GAS UNDER PRESSURE DO NOT HANDLE OR USE UNTIL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS RECOM- MENDED BY MANUFACTURER HAVE BEEN READ AND UNDERSTOOD. Do not breathe air containing this gas. Do not get in eyes or on skin. Do not heat cylinders. Have available emergency gas masks approved by U.S. Bureau of Mines for Chlorine service. In case of exposure, move patient to fresh air, keep him warm and quiet, and call a physician. MCA Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-80 available 875 CYANIDES, INORGANIC (Excluding HYDROCYANIC ACID and CALCIUM CYANIDE) (NAME OF CYANIDE) DANGER! POISONOUS SOLID CONTACT WITH ACID LIBERATES POISONOUS GAS Do not breathe gas or dust. Do not take internally. Avoid contact with eyes and skin. Wash thoroughly after handling. Keep container closed and away from acids. Store in a dry place. Keep away from feed and foodstuffs. In case of contact with eyes, flush with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes and get medical attention. $2 POISON First Aid Carry patient to fresh air. Have him lie down. Remove contaminated clothing but keep patient warm. Start treatment immediately. Call a physician. Antidote If Gas is inhaled: Break an amyl nitrite pearl in a cloth and hold lightly under nose for 15 seconds. Repeat 5 times at about 15-second intervals. Use artificial respiration if breathing has stopped. If swallowed: Break an amyl nitrite pearl in a cloth and hold lightly under nose for 15 seconds. If patient is conscious, or when con- sciousness returns, give emetic (1 tablespoonful of salt to each glass of warm water) and repeat until vomit fluid is clear. Repeat inhalation of amyl nitrite 5 times at about 15-second intervals. Use artificial respiration if breathing has stopped. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person. MCA Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-30 available for SODIUM CYANIDE 876 CYCLOHEXANE DANGER! EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE Keep away from heat, sparks, and open flame. Keep container closed. Use with adequate ventilation. Avoid prolonged breathing of vapor. MCA Chemical Safety Data Sheet SD-68 available CYCLOHEXANOL CAUTION! VAPOR HARMFUL Use only with adequate ventilation. Avoid prolonged breathing of vapor. Avoid prolonged or repeated contact with skin. CYCLOHEXANONE CAUTION! VAPOR HARMFUL Keep away from heat and open flame. Use only with adequate ventilation. Avoid prolonged breathing of vapor. Avoid prolonged or repeated contact with skin. 877 CHEM-CARDS MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION Foreword This manual of Chem-Cards is intended for ready reference by officials making on-the-spot judgments as to fire fighting and other actions to be taken to protect the public in emergencies involving chemicals in transit by tank truck. Each Chem-Card covers a specific chemical moved in tank motor vehicle, and which possesses flammable, oxidizing, cor- rosive, poisonous or other hazardous properties. Each Chem-Card briefly states the hazards of the chemical and makes broad recom- mendations for action in case of fire, leak or human exposure. The information on the Chem-Card is directed solely toward an immediate emergency that is aggravated because of the mass of material involved. The card is not intended to perform the function of a product label. No mention is made of the potential hazards, if any, of repeated exposure, nor of the possibility of relatively minor harmful effects such as skin or eye irritation. Unlike a product label, the Chem-Card is not concerned with handling and storage instruc- tions, nor with the hazards that might be encountered in reasonably foreseeable handling and use. Although a high percentage of the total chemical tonnage moved in bulk on the highways is represented by the Chem-Cards in this manual, emergencies involving other chemicals may be encountered. Therefore, fire departments may wish to include in their training activities a study of other available safety literature such as the MCA Chemical Safety Data Sheets, the publications of other trade asso- ciations, and the standards of the National Fire Protection Association. 878 Contents Chem-Card Chem-Card Chemical Number Chemical Number A Acetaldehyde 49 C CTF 2 Acetone 23 Cyclohexane 20 Acetone Cyanhydrin ems easen 34 D Diethylamine (Anhydrous) _ 27 Acetonitrile... 64 Diethylenetriamine 72 Acrolein (Inhibited) 76 Dimethylamine (Anhydrous) 26 Acrylonitrile wos 19 Dimethylamine (Aqueous) _... 84 Aerozine 50 on 9 Dimethyl Ether 61 Alt Rech... 3B Dimethyl Sulfate 55 y OUR «iene menesrinssssin . . Ammonia, Anhydrous 44 E Epic spohydin.. co ao Ammonia, Aqua 66 Sons ki 16 Ammonium Hydroxide 66 a i ie 1 Anhydrous Ammonia 44 P_ i ans - a Anhydrous Hydrazine 7 Ri Aria c o > Aniline Oil (Liquid) 51 YU AICONO! -.-reeoeseomesaseeseese Ethyl Aldehyde 49 B Benzene . 17 Ethyl Chloride - Sess 24 Benzo! _ 17 Ethylene Dichloride ertrmiei D2 Benzyl Chloride 54 Ethylene Oxide 36 Bromine... 59 Ethyl Ether _. . 16 Bromomethane 38 F Fluorine, Liquid =... 10 Butadiene (Inhibited) 81 Formic Acid 83 Butanol ........... oe 80 Fuming Sulfuric Acid (Oleum) 68 Sy foetate Sree 0 [es Hydrazine, Anhydrous... 7 Hydrazine/ UDMH — 9 (Secondary or Tettlay) _.... 80 Hydrochloric Acid } 82 Bu : = Hydrofluoric Acid HYI3'aenYoe (Anhydrous or Aqueous) ..... 42 C Carbolic Acid 48 Hydrogen, Liquid csstpeeprnses 12 Caustic Potash (Liquid) ensrrren. 32 Hydrogen Peroxide Caustic Soda igi). 33 (High Strength)... 14 Chlorine —. 53 JIRFNA 3 Chlorine Trifluoride 2 ISOPIOPAND] ...ccovennirmeicmsiissamsss 71 Chlorosulfonic Acid snr ID Isopropyl Alcohol 71 Cresol _ wenden 77 Isopropylamine 56 Cresylic Acid conve e 77 Isopropyl Ether omens: 58 Contents Chem-Card Chem-Card Chemical Number Chemical Number L. Liquid Fluorine 10 P PF 4 Liquid Hydrogen = 12 Phenol 48 Liquid Nitrogen 6 Phosphorus Oxychloride Sel 39 Liquid Oxygen 13 Phosphorus Pentasulfide 41 Phosphorus Trichloride = 40 Methyl Acniate 7a Phosphorus, Whit or Methyl Alcohol 69 Yellow, in Water ... 5 Potassium Hydroxide 32 Methylamines (Anhydrous) 26 y Methylamines (Aqueous) . 84 Red Poing Nitric Acid... 3 Methyl Bromide (Liquid) 38 RFNA : Fe 3 Methyl Chloride ~~ 67 . . Methyl Ettyi Ketone 22 © Sedum hydrants ......... 33 Methy! Isobutyl Ketone 57 NS as ~ Methyl Methacrylate 43 Sodium (Metallic) . . : Sulfur Dioxide =... 78 MUGHAL crocrearstomormsenns. - 8B Sulfuric Acid 25 Monomethylamine Sulfur Trioxide AANVIOUS) onsen - 28 (Stabilized) 52 Monomethylamine (Aqueous) 84 a Monomethy! Hydrazine 11 Tetraethyl Lead, Liana i 30 Motor Fuel Antiknock Toluene _. : _ 19 Compound... 30 Toluol 19 Muriatic Acid ~~ 82 Trimethylamine (Anhydrous) 26 Nitrating Acid 65 Trimethylamine (Aqueous) 84 Nitric Acid _ : 47 UDMH _ } 8 Nitric Acid, Red Fuming 3 Unsymmetrical Dimethyl Nitrobenzene srs BD Hydrazine 8 Nip Liquid .. 7 Vinyl Acetate 21 gen, Liquid 6 Vinvl Chlorid 46 Nitrogen Tetroxide . = 1 ys HIDHES ssssmaiee N-Two-O-Four 1 Vinylidene Chloride (Inhibited) 75 © Geum TT WWE Poston i Wats 3 Oxygen, Liquid 13 X Xylene 45 P Pentaborane 5 I ~ 45 Perchloryl Fluoride =... 4 Y Yellow —_— in Water = 37 880 Interpretation of Statements Used on Chem-Cards HE VALUE OF A CHEM-CARD will be in direct proportion to its ability to convey essential information in the limited space available. Considering the range of subject matter covered by the card, it is evident that an extreme degree of condensation of information must be effected. There is much that might be said about the hazards of any particular substance, and the measures for dealing with an emergency, but only a small part of this can be used on a Chem-Card. Frequently, a choice must be made between what is critical and what is of less importance. Certain recommendations have been selected, for the sake of emphasis, for almost automatic inclusion on every Chem-Card, even though to some observers it might seem as though these should be taken for granted as matters of common sense. On the other hand, certain other recom- mendations have been consistently omitted since it is considered that they should be routine procedures familiar to anyone trained in handling emergencies of this nature. In the development of Chem-Cards many points of view have been solicited with respect to both what should be said and the best means of saying it. The final results reflect the consensus concerning the message and recommendations which are most important. It is assumed that, in every emergency of the type contemplated on a Chem-Card, there will be one individual who will act as the “authority in charge” and who will be capable of exercising judgment in choosing measures to deal with the emergency. It is the function of the Chem-Card to assist this individual in making decisions, and not to serve as a substitute for his judgment. This distinction is important, since the recommendations given on a Chem-Card are given only as those that are likely to be useful in the majority of instances. No representation is made that they are necessary, adequate or applicable in all instances. Every effort has been made to maintain a uniformity of language on Chem-Cards. Many hazardous chemicals present the same types and degrees of hazards, and require similar recommendations in case of emergency. A lack of similarity of language in these instances might imply differences where none are intended. On the other hand, this concern for uniformity has not been allowed to interfere with the inclusion of necessary information that is unique. The following notes are provided as an explanation of the rationale for the use of the more common statements that are found on Chem-Cards. 881 1. Fire Hazards The statement “EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE” is used for compressed gases that are classified as “flammable” under Interstate Commerce Commission Regulations, and for liquids having a flash point of 20°F, Tagliabue Open Cup, or less. The designation “FLAMMABLE” is used for liquids having a flash point above 20°F to and including 80°F. The statement “CAN CATCH FIRE” is used for liquids with a flash point above 80° F, and, in some instances, for solids classified as “flammable” under Interstate Commerce Commission Regulations. “STRONG OXIDIZERS” are chemicals that yield oxygen readily to stimulate combustion. For this reason, there is inserted the additional statement “CONTACT WITH COMBUSTIBLES MAY CAUSE FIRE”. Some chemicals are of such a nature that they can react with them- selves to form much larger melecules, a process known as “polymeriza- tion”. Such chemicals are usually shipped as mixtures with small amounts of another substance, known as an “inhibitor”, which prevents this self- reaction. However, excessive heat can overcome the effect of the inhibitor, so that under fire conditions it is possible for an uncontrolled reaction to be initiated in the load. Such a reaction is usually accompanied by the generation of considerable heat and excessive pressure which may result in failure of the tank. Where this possibility exists, the statement “FIRE MAY CAUSE VIOLENT RUPTURE OF TANK” is used. Chemicals which are combustible (in the broad sense) and which contain chlorine or sulfur in their structure will yield hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide, respectively, when they burn. These gases are highly irritating, and, in such cases, the statement “BURNING RELEASES IRRITATING GAS?” is used. There are other conditions under which toxic or irritating decomposition products may be released by burning or contact with air, acid or water, and these situations are indicated by appropriate statements in the fire hazard section of the Chem-Card. 2. Exposure Hazards In general, statements of exposure hazards on a Chem-Card are limited to those hazards which pose a threat of death or serious disability. Undue emphasis on minor or improbable hazards would only downgrade the effectiveness of the card. One significant exception to this rule is the statement “VAPOR HARMFUL” which is applied to those volatile organic liquids whose vapors have a simple narcotic action. Breathing high concentrations of these vapors for short periods, or lower concentrations for longer periods, may cause dizziness and other symptoms resembling alcoholic intoxication. In exceptional cases, this condition might progress 882 to unconsciousness. At any rate, even minor degrees of incoordination increase the likelihood of accidents and create hazardous conditions. Therefore, it is considered desirable to warn against breathing of vapor by use of the words “VAPOR HARMFUL”, even though these chemicals may not be considered harmful under normal conditions of handling and use. It is the greater bulk of material involved in a tank truck emergency that renders the hazard somewhat more likely. Where more than one physical state of the chemical is hazardous, these hazards are dealt with in separate statements which identify the physical state, e.g., “VAPOR EXTREMELY IRRITATING. LIQUID CAUSES BURNS”. The following remarks can be made with respect to individual cate- gories of hazardous chemicals: CORROSIVE LIQUIDS. Corrosive liquids are liquids which, in contact with living tissue, cause destruction of the tissue by chemical action. The action of corrosives is spoken of as “CAUSES BURNS” or “LIQUID CAUSES BURNS”, and, if the degree of injury warrants, the burns are characterized as “SEVERE”. In general, the action of a corrosive will be manifest on any body surface so that there is no need to specifically identify sites of action. However, there are occasional chemicals that are corrosive only to eyes, and in these cases the statement “LIQUID CAUSES EYE BURNS” is used. The use of the word “DELAYED” to describe burns refers to the action of those chemicals, e.g., ethylene oxide and methyl bromide, that are capable of injuring the skin but are so volatile that they do not remain on uncovered skin sufficiently long to produce a local effect. Skin injury from these chemicals requires that they be held in contact for a period of time, possibly several hours or longer, by shoes or some other article of clothing. Leather shoes are particular offenders in this respect since leather readily absorbs most of the chemicals that are noted for this action. A special case of tissue injury is that produced by the freezing effect of liquefied gases. In these cases, the hazard is described by the statement “LIQUID MAY CAUSE SKIN OR EYE INJURY SIMILAR TO FROSTBITE”. Some liquefied gases are also corrosives, and in these instances the corro- sive hazard is considered to be predominant and no mention is made of the possibility of frostbite injury. CLASS B POISONS. The statements “POISONOUS BY INHALATION” and “POISONOUS BY SKIN ABSORPTION” are applied to those chemicals that are class B poisons by inhalation and skin contact, respectively, according to the definitions in the Interstate Commerce Commission Regu- lations. If a chemical is a class B poison by ingestion only, this fact is not recognized on a Chem-Card. 883 The skull and crossbones symbol is placed on the Chem-Card of a chemical which either (1) is a class B poison, or (2) is known to be a “poison” on the basis of human experience. LUNG IRRITANTS. Some gases and vapors, when inhaled, may produce injury to the lungs, the full extent of which is not immediately apparent. Frequently, it is only after a latent period of several hours or longer that pulmonary edema develops with potentially serious or even fatal conse- quences. Delayed effects are always of particular concern not only by reason of their generally serious nature but also because the exposed individual may have passed beyond the reach of prompt medical as- sistance. The lung irritants that are capable of causing delayed effects upon the lungs are identified on Chem-Cards by the statement “LUNG INJURY MAY BE DELAYED”. 3. In Case of Spill or Leak If the chemical is flammable or extremely flammable, the first rec- ommendations given are “SHUT OFF IGNITION. NO SMOKING OR FLARES”. A source of ignition is particularly dangerous in the vicinity of flammable gases or vapors that are heavier than air since these tend to flow in relatively narrow currents along the ground, following de- pressions in the terrain. Hence, they may be ignited at a considerable distance from the source and “flash back”. As a general principle, the number of people at risk in the vicinity of a leak or spill should be kept to as few as possible, and these should be individuals who are properly protected and have tasks to perform in connection with the emergency. Hence, the recommendation “KEEP PEO- PLE AWAY” appears on every Chem-Card except the few for which more stringent measures are deemed necessary. A determination of the extent of the “area of risk” must be left to the judgment of the authority in charge at the scene of the accident. The extent of the area will depend upon his estimate of the degree of hazard based on his interpretation of the Chem-Card, together with such other factors as the size of the spill or leak and the speed and direction of the prevailing wind. Once the extent of the area of risk has been determined, bystanders should be kept beyond its periphery and, preferably, upwind. On a few Chem-Cards, the recommendation “EVACUATE AREA” is used. These cards deal with gases or vapors that either are powerful irritants, e.g., chlorine and ammonia, or are unusually toxic, or are capa- ble of causing delayed lung injury. Here again it must be left to the judgment of the authority in charge to determine whether a sufficient amount of material has been liberated, and whether atmospheric condi- 92-734 O-68—57 884 tions are such that potentially harmful amounts of the chemical could be carried into inhabited areas. If he decides that such is the case, then the population of the area of risk should be alerted and moved to a point further remote, preferably upwind, from the scene of the accident. The recommendation to evacuate the area might also be applicable to extremely flammable chemicals that do not offer a health hazard. If such gases or vapors are heavier than air, they tend to flow downhill as well as downwind, and collect in cellars and other low spots. Under these circumstances there is a significant explosion hazard, particularly since such areas may contain heaters, burners, electric motors or other sources of ignition. The recommendation “SHUT OFF LEAK IF WITHOUT RISK” is always used for obvious reasons. It is recognized that every situation in which there is a leak will be attended by some risk, so that the expression “without risk” is a relative one. Nevertheless, stopping the leak is such a basic and effective means of abating the hazard that it is felt the recom- mendation should be given even though its execution must be left to the judgment of the person who must cope with the emergency. It is an action of primary importance if it can be done without personal injury. The statement “KEEP UPWIND” is used only for those chemicals whose vapors are toxic or highly irritating. It is not used for those whose vapors have only a low order of irritancy, or only an anesthetic effect. Where the Chem-Card mentions “full protective clothing” it has ref- erence to the usual fireman's rubber coat or “turnout coat”, rubber gloves, rubber boots and helmet. In dealing with corrosive liquids, chemical goggles should also be worn unless some type of respiratory protection is used that includes eye protection. Where respiratory protection is needed, self-contained breathing apparatus is always specified. This type of equipment is available in most fire safety organizations and can be used in high concentrations of atmospheric contaminants. The air-purifying type of respirator such as the canister mask is not effective in all types of harmful atmospheres and cannot be relied upon in high concentrations (about 2% or greater) of contaminants. Its use in emergency situations where the concentration of contaminant is high or unknown would only give a false sense of security, and cannot be recommended. Certainly the most convenient method of disposing of a spill is to flush it to a sewer; however, this is not necessarily the most desirable method. Flammable liquids can create fire and explosion hazards in sewers, and highly toxic chemicals can create health hazards if they gain access to potable water supplies. Accordingly, some consideration should be given to the possibility of diking and removing large spills. If a flammable liquid is substantially soluble in water (approximately 20% or more) and is not a highly toxic substance, the Chem-Card simply 885 advises “FLUSH AREA WITH WATER SPRAY”. However, if a flammable liquid has only limited solubility in water, the recommendation is given “DIKE LARGE SPILLS AND REMOVE BY PUMPING INTO A SALVAGE TANK”. It is recognized that a removal operation is not without hazard since there is the ever-present danger that the spill may catch fire. The danger of fire may be lessened if some turbulence is created to aid in dispersing the vapor. Therefore the advice “USE WATER SPRAY TO ‘KNOCK DOWN’ VAPOR” is given. Where the run-off of a major spill to sewers would create fire or health hazards, the Chem-Card gives the recommendation “NOTIFY AU- THORITIES”. It is not intended that the truck driver himself should make such notification, since he cannot be expected to know the extent of the sewerage system or the proximity of public water supplies, or even how to reach the appropriate authorities. However, he should call the possi- bility of these hazards to the attention of the first officials, such as police or firemen, who arrive at the scene of the accident. These officials will be familiar with local conditions, and will be able to alert the ap- propriate authorities. Generally speaking, it is wise to notify the local Health Department of the circumstances surrounding a spill or leak of any consequence, even though the incident may not carry with it the threat of a health hazard. The reason for this is that residents of an area usually turn to their Health Department for information on unusual incidents, particularly if there is an odor of chemicals in the environment. If the department has advance knowledge of the facts in the case, it can allay the fears of residents and prevent the spread of alarming rumors. 4. In Case of Fire It is recognized that most vehicles are equipped with carbon dioxide or dry chemical fire extinguishers, whereas water may not be readily available. Hence, the statement “ON SMALL FIRE USE DRY CHEMICAL OR CARBON DIOXIDE” is almost invariably used. For large fires, water is about the only practicable controlling or extinguishing agent, and is recommended in some form in almost all cases. However, water should be used with caution since the chemical and physical properties of the flammable substance will affect the choice of the method of applica- tion. For example, water may be ineffective in fighting fires in liquids with low flash points if applied as a stream, but it can be effective if applied as a spray to absorb much of the heat and sweep flames off the surface of the liquid. The Chem-Card follows the practice of the National Fire Protection Association in recommending “alcohol” foam for all water-soluble flamma- 886 ble liquids except those that are only very slightly soluble, and for those liquids that for some other reason break down ordinary foam. The latter is recommended for the water-insoluble flammable liquids. Here again, judgment must be exercised, since in some instances ordinary foam might be used successfully to extinguish fires in slightly water-soluble liquids, particularly if applied at a rate greater than that normally recommended. Application of “alcohol” foam in all cases should be gradual and gentle. The recommendation not to use water or other extinguishing agent on a fire is used when the chemical properties of the flammable substance are such that a violent reaction would occur if water or a particular agent came into contact with it. In the event of a fire from a leak in a tank of a compressed gas, ex- tinguishment of the fire could result in extensive spread of the gas with the possibility of explosion damage by subsequent re-ignition. In these cases, the recommendation is given “DO NOT PUT OUT FIRE UNLESS LEAK CAN BE SHUT OFF IMMEDIATELY”. In the case of those liquids which, at fire temperature, may undergo an uncontrolled polymerization with possible rupture of the tank, the recommendation is given “IF TANK IS HEAVILY EXPOSED TO FIRE, EVACUATE AREA AND LET FIRE BURN”. 5. In Case of Exposure Any set of first aid instructions has, in the last analysis, only two prime objectives: (1) termination of the exposure, and (2) maintenance of respiration until the patient can be transferred to the care of a physician. Ideally, measures to achieve both of these objectives should be undertaken simultaneously. While this may be possible in some instances in practice, it is definitely impossible to present all recommendations simultaneously in writing. Hence, a certain amount of arbitrary judgment was exercised in deciding on the order in which these statements should appear on a Chem-Card. It is intended that, insofar as possible, the ranking of rec- ommendations should connote an order of importance, but this is not always necessarily the case. If the exposure includes inhalation, the first statement used is “REMOVE TO FRESH AIR”. If the exposure involves skin or eye con- tact, flushing with water and the removal of contaminated clothing is the next order of business in termination of exposure. In most cases, flush- ing and removal of contaminated clothing are matters of the highest urgency. However, at this point, one must also consider the possibilities that the patient (1) may be unconscious, (2) may have difficulty in breathing, or (3) may have stopped breathing altogether. xX 887 Loss of consciousness is a common occurrence in accidents, and is, generally speaking, about as likely to occur from traumatic injury as from poisoning. In order to prevent the Chem-Cards from becoming too repe- titious, it was decided that the statement “IF UNCONSCIOUS, CALL A PHYSICIAN” would be used only on the cards of those chemicals whose vapor might cause loss of consciousness through an anesthetic action. In cases of exposure to other than purely corrosive products, there is always the possibility that cessation of respiration may occur. If its oc- currence is reasonably foreseeable, the statement “IF NOT BREATHING, APPLY ARTIFICIAL RESPIRATION, OXYGEN” is used, either as the first statement, or following “REMOVE TO FRESH AIR” and “IF UNCON- SCIOUS, CALL A PHYSICIAN” where these statements are applicable. If there is small likelihood of cessation of respiration, but difficulty in breathing might be anticipated, as with lung irritants, the statement “IF BREATHING IS DIFFICULT, ADMINISTER OXYGEN?” is used. Next in order appears, when indicated, the “flushing” statement for skin and eyes, and the recommendation for the removal of contaminated clothing including shoes. Flushing of eyes for 15 minutes is a serious undertaking at best, and an adequate supply of clean water is not readily available in many emergencies. Consequently, this statement is reserved for exposures in which there is a real possibility of loss of sight, and is always coupled with the recommendation to “CALL A PHYSICIAN”, al- though the latter statement is not repeated if it appears in an appropriate context elsewhere in the same section. Under some circumstances of injury, such as in the case of extensive chemical burns of the skin resulting from contact with corrosive liquids, there is danger that the patient may go into shock. In such cases, the statement “KEEP PATIENT AT REST” is added. In those cases in which the effects of exposure may be delayed, this fact is noted by the statement “EFFECTS MAY BE DELAYED”. The possibility of delayed effects always demands that the patient be seen as soon as possible by a physician. If the patient has suffered a frostbite injury, the statement “THAW FROSTED PARTS WITH WATER” is used. In some instances, the hazards of the chemical are so great that the statement “CALL A PHYSICIAN AT ONCE” is made a part of the initial recommendation in this section. The recommendation to “CALL A PHYSI- CIAN” is always used when exposure to the chemical is likely to cause (1) loss of consciousness, (2) eye injury, (3) delayed effects, or (4) severe lung irritation. 888 MCA CHEM-CARD — Transportation Emergency Guide CC-33 August 1965 CAUSTIC SODA iio (Sodium Hydroxide) Clear, viscous liquid; no odor HAZARDS IN CASE OF ACCIDENT IF THIS HAPPENS DO THIS ~~ SPILL or Keep people away. Shut off leak if without risk. If nec- essary to enter spill area, wear chemical goggles and LEAK full protective clothing including rubber boots. Flush area with water. Cannot catch fire. Cool tank with water if exposed to fire. In case of contact, immediately flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes; remove contam- inated clothing and shoes at once. Call a physician. Keep patient at rest. EXPOSURE © Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc., 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20009, 1965. While prepared from sources believed reliable, the Association makes no warranty that the information is, in all cases, correct or sufficient. Printed in USA MCA CHEM-CARD — 889 Transportation Emergency Guide CC-25 August 1965 SuLFuric AciD (Oil of Vitriol) Colorless to brown, oily liquid; no odor HAZARDS i i Cannot catch fire. Contact with combustibles may cause fire. FIRE Explosive concentrations of hydrogen gas can accumulate i inside metal tanks containing acid. 5 SPILL or LEAK EXPOSURE EXPOSURE Causes severe burns. IN CASE OF ACCIDENT IF THIS HAPPENS DO THIS A Keep people away. Shut off leak if without risk. If nec- essary to enter spill area, wear chemical goggles and full protective clothing including boots. Keep open flames away from tank openings, and do not strike tank fittings with tools or other hard objects. Flush area with water spray, but do not get water in tank; violent reaction may occur. Acid cannot catch fire, but care must be taken not to ignite hydrogen gas which may accumulate. Use dry chemical or carbon dioxide to fight fire. Cool tank with water if exposed to fire, but do not get water in tank. In case of contact, immediately flush skin or eyes with plenty of water for at least 15 minutes; remove contam- inated clothing and shoes at once. Call a physician. Keep patient at rest. © Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc., 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20009, 1965. While prepared from sources believed reliable, the Association makes no warranty that the information is, in all cases, correct or sufficient. Printed in USA 890 FIRE DEPARTMENT, City or RicEMOND, IND, January 13, 1968. MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION, INC., Washington, D.C. DEAR Sik: I wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the Manu- facturing Chemists Association for making the Chem-Card Manual available. Our fire department is thirty miles east of Dunreith, Indiana. The location of the disastrous train wreck and fire on January 1, 1968. We were called for by mutual aid in the emergency and responded with our high-expansion foam unit. Working in cooperation with railroad and state police officials we were able to find out the chemicals involved in the accident. Using the Chem-Card Manual we could evaluate the potential of each chemical involved and take appropriate action. The chemicals involved were: Acetone Cyanhydrin, Ethylene Oxide, Methyl Methacrylate, Vinyl Chloride and Anhydrous Ammonia. In my opinion a Chem-Card Manual should be a regular piece of equipment in every fire department vehicle, state and city police, sheriff and town marshal cars, the Chem-Card Manual is located in each and every fire department vehicle in the City of Richmond, Indiana. Without this information at our finger tips at Dunreith and taking the action as outlined in the Chem-Card Manual a major disaster could not have been presented. Sincerely. ' Roranp F. WALLS, Assistant Chief. [February 1968 issue] AccIDENT CASE HISTORIES Case History No. 1457 INADEQUATE TANK CAR ENTRY PROCEDURE Description: An explosion with potentially fatal results occurred in a tank car used exclusively in 62 percent acid service for a customer that employs natural gas during unloading. General plant procedure for washing acid tank cars is to assign two men, both wearing rain suits, safety glasses, boots, gloves and hard hats. The drain plug is jacked out of the bottom of the car. The car is then hosed with water until clean. On the day of the accident, two men were assigned the job of cleaning an acid tank car. They removed the dome cover from the car and observed approximately a two inch heel of acid in the bottom. The employees then opened the bottom drain plug and drained the acid. When this was accomplished, they poured water into the car with a one inch water hose for about 30 minutes. Both workers then entered the car via a ten foot wooden ladder which they inserted into a manhole. Shortly after entry, an explosion occurred ; the men were removed from the car and taken to a hospital in an ambulance. Investigation revealed a cigarette lighter inside the tank car. It is felt that this was the most probable source of ignition. It was noted that one man was wearing a full rain suit, jacket, overalls and low-quarter leather shoes. He did not have on safety glasses, safety cap or gloves. The other man was not wearing any protective equipment. Injuries: (1) Second and third degree burns on face, hands, legs and up to 35 percent of his body. (2) Second and third degree burns on face, hands, back, legs, feet and up to 45 percent of his body. Causes: Ignition of a flammable vapor atmosphere. Preventive Measures: 1. Establish written vessel entry procedures. 2. Completely fill tank car with water, drain and make flammable vapor and oxygen deficiency tests prior to tank entry. 8. Discuss accident in all safety meetings and review existing procedure. 891 Case History No. 1458 UNSAFE PRACTICES Description: An operator attempted to free a “frozen” centrifuge. He applied steam for 30 minutes and then used a bar to apply pressure, but was unable to free it even with several attempts. He requested assistance from a co-worker who suggested removal of the drive assembly guard so more pressure would be exerted. Again the bar was used, this time on the protruding studs and the shaft but with no success. Subsequently, the co-worker suggested pulling on the belt. In so doing, he caught his fourth and fifth fingers (left hand) between the belt and pulleys. Injury : Traumatic amputation distal half of fourth finger as well as a fracture, laceration and fracture distal aspect of fifth finger. Cause: Removal of guard and exposure of hands to pinch point. Preventive Measures: 1. Reinstruct operators to consult supervision on such problems. 2. Re-emphasize need for practicing safe procedures and not to remove any guard or safety device without supervisory approval. 3. Determine cause of “freezing” of centrifuge and provide procedures to both avoid same and restart when ‘‘frozen.” Case History No. 1}59 MAN COLLAPSES IN TANK CAR DUE TO OXYGEN DEFICIENCY Description: A broad gauge tank car, used to transport a heavy inert gas, was emptied in a conventional manner after which nitrogen pressure was applied for leak testing. A leak was noticed, the pressure was released and the car was prepared for entry by supplying air and purging for about five hours. The air was provided through a one-inch hose with an open “Tee” connection at its end. Purging was accomplished through a four-inch hose which was attached to the suction side of an exhaust blower and extended to the bottom of the car. The next day two men were assigned to perform some work inside the car. Before entering it, the employee who later collapsed made an oxygen determination by dropping a sampling hose through the manhole about four feet into the car. The oxygen testing device indicated a satisfactory oxygen content at this level. He entered, performed some work at a standing position, then knelt on the bottom of the car to perform another phase of the work. In a few seconds he slumped to a prone position. The standby man outside the car immediately sounded an alarm to summon aid. Two co-workers donned air masks, entered the car and lifted the employee to the manhole by the rope attached to the lift belt he was wearing. Others outside the car pulled him out. Oxygen was promptly administered to the employee and, after a medical examination, he returned to his regular job. Cause: The purging provided was not adequate to dissipate the heavy inert gas left in a layer in the bottom of the car. The sample taken after purging did mot detect this since it was not withdrawn close to the bottom of the car. After the incident, a sample taken a few inches above the bottom of the tank car indicated a 4 percent oxygen content at this level. Preventive Measures: In the future, a more adequate purging method will be used. The probes on oxygen and flammable vapor analyzers will be of sufficient length to sample the air at all levels in vessels to be entered. Air samples will, hereafter, be withdrawn starting at 6 inches from the bottom, and then at 3-foot increments up to the top of the vessel. (Nore.—Relatively high boiling compounds such as fluorocarbons and chlori- nated hydrocarbons may leave the interior surface of any vessel “wet” after the contents are presumably discharged. In such cases, “normal” purging proce- dures or time cycles may not be adequate to completely exhaust all of the product vapor. Case History No. 1460 INADEQUATE AGITATING FACILITIES Description: A chemist received first degree burns of his head and second de- gree burns of his left hand when a reaction mixture erupted from a flask. A formulation of 2,5-dimethylpyrrole was being prepared according to a literature 892 reference. The chemist formed a complex of phosphorus oxychloride and dimethyl- formamide (DMF) and then began the slow addition of the 2,5-DMP, at an internal temperature of 15°C. A magnetic stirrer was used and when only a part of the 2,5-DMP had been added, the chemist noted that the stirrer was not creating a vortex in the very dark mixture. He removed the flask from the ice bath and started a swirling motion hoping to disengage the stirrer. A slight warming was noted and after swirling the flask again, the mixture erupted spontaneously. His safety glasses were coated with the material and are credited with saving his eyes from injury. Cause: The cause of the eruption was attributed to inadequate stirring that allowed an accumulation of unreacted 2,5-DMP which, on mixing by swirling, reacted all at once. Preventive Measure: Electric powered stirrers, which offer more positive action, will be used in reactions of this type in the future. Case History No. 1461 IMPROPER TEST SETUP FAILS Description: Employee was testing and setting a high pressure relief valve (3500 1bs.) when a portion of the gasketing at a flange blew out. Parts of the gasket and water at 2500 1b. pressure struck the employee in the lower abdominal region resulting in bruises and contusions. Cause: Failure to properly construct test stand rig. Two flanged spool pieces were used to rig up the pressure relief valve on the test stand. The mating flanges of the spool pieces were of different design and, therefore, did not provide ade- quate gasket compression when made up. Preventive Measures: 1. All Instrument Shop personnel have been reinstructed in the proper methods of making up flanges and testing pressure relief valves. 2. A guard will be constructed to protect personnel from pressure release failures when performing the testing. 3. A set of flanges with proper gaskets will be made up for each type of pressure relief valve to be tested. 4. The accident has been reviewed at the scene with all Instrument Me- chanics and Maintenance Foremen. The incident will be further reviewed with all Maintenance Mechanics at the next weekly safety meetings. Case History No. 1}62 ACID SPRAY FROM PIPE FLANGE Description: A departmental mechanic was removing a blank flange from a three-inch vent line serving a nitric-sulfuric acid mixing tank. The line had been blanked four days previously so that a hole in the tank could be repaired. He loosened two flange bolts and a small amount of acid dripped out. Thinking that the line was clear, the mechanic loosened the remaining flange bolts; acid sprayed out of the flange onto his lower legs. The mechanic’s Dynel clothing and quick action by a production operator in turning a water hose on the mechanic probably mitigated the injury to first and second degree chemical burns. Me- chanic was wearing rubber gloves and chemical goggles. Cause: The vent line ties into a forced draft vent header which serves two acid mixing tanks. The prolonged period that the vent line had been blanked permitted acid vapor condensate from the other mixing tank to collect in the line above the blank. Preventive Measures: 1. The wearing of full protective equipment during the initial breaking of any line in corrosive material service will be re-emphasized. 2. The loosening of flange bolts on the side away from the mechanic with positive breaking of the flange seal, before loosening the remaining flange bolts, will be stressed. 3. Blank flanges with drain valve attachments will be used where feasible when the possibility of chemical accumulation exists. The material will then be drained off prior to loosening flange bolts. 893 Case History No. 1463 TRAILER WHEEL COLLAPSE Description: A Materials Loader was operating a tow motor to load a 30,000 pound shipment of material into a parked trailer at the loading dock. Approxi- mately 16,000 pounds were loaded when the left front landing gear (parking dolly wheels) of the trailer collapsed as the Materials Loader was stacking three bales inside the trailer. The collapsed landing gear caused the front end of the trailer to drop approximately six inches onto a safety tripod placed under the front end. The tripod prevented the trailer from falling to the ground or over on its side and potential serious injury to the Materials Loader. The trailer had been properly prepared for loading, i.e., safety check list was marked off and initialled which is required on all loading. Cause: Eight bolts which secured landing gear to trailer frame sheared off. Preventive Measures: 1. Item 4 on the safety check list will be reworded to be more specific: Center tripod with handle out at front end of trailer. Clearance between tripod and trailer base must be no more than six inches. 2. This potentially serious accident was reviewed with Shipping personnel and it was emphasized that the use of proper safety precautions prevented a serious injury in this incident. This incident was also discussed with the carrier involved. The carrier assured us that his trailers will be more care- fully inspected in the future. Other carries will be notified and asked to make more frequent inspections of their trailers. Case History No. 1464 FAILED TO WEAR PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT Description: Failure to wear prescribed air line mask resulted in chemical intoxication and a minor head injury to an operator while checking a centrifuge. The last part of a batch involving a hydrogen sulfide treatment was dropped from a still under two lbs. of nitrogen pressure to the centrifuge. A separate flow of nitrogen was admitted to the centrifuge to eliminate contact of the batch with air. Cause: The operator approached the centrifuge to check the cake distribution. He was not wearing the prescribed air mask. At this moment the remaining batch entered the centrifuge and the residual pressure released from the still, permitting the fumes to escape through the open viewing port of the centrifuge. He last recalled having placed a flexible exhaust duct over the 4’’ viewing port. He fell to the centrifuge platform but soon regained consciousness and was transported to the plant hospital in an ambulance which had been summoned to the scene. Preventive Measures: 1. Precautions were reviewed with supervision and supervisors will in- sist that their workers wear the prescribed protective equipment as stipu- lated in the operating instructions. 2. The centrifuge has since been provided with a sealed cover, a perma- nent sight glass and exhaust ventilation. 894 PANEL CHEMICAL INDUSTRY (Members of MCA O i Health ( ittee) W. L. SurTtoN, M.D. (Moderator) WORKSHOP Eastman Kodak Company E. E. CHRISTOFANO on Hercules Incorporated Es OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH E. M. Dixon, M.D. Celanese Corporation M. GasQuE, M.D. Sponsored by Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation H. H. Goirz, M.D. q Fa, eis sorely MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS L. C. HAasLaM, M.D. ASSOCIATION Canadian Industries Limited WASHINGTON, D. C. N. V. HENDRICKS Enjay Chemical Company M. N. JoHNsoN, M.D. and the Monsanto Company W. E..McCorMICK CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL The B. F. Goodrich Company of R. W. McNas Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation MICHIGAN J. A. PENDERGRASS Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company G. J. Storrs, M.D. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company March 14, 1967 J. H. WoLFsig, M.D. United States Rubber Company GUEST PANELISTS Dearborn Inn J. J. RONAYNE, M.D. Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation 20301 Oakwood Bouleva rd W. A. RYE, M.D. » . rr Dearborn, Michigan 48124 895 Chemical Industry Workshop on Occupational Health March 14, 1967 An open discussion of questions on industrial medical services, toxicology and industrial hygiene. The objective of the Workshop is to provide an opportunity for sharing occupational health information related to: The provision of medical services for persons using industrial chemicals. The nature and use of toxicological information. The application of industrial hygiene techniques to the achievement of healthful working conditions. The safe use of chemical products. Emphasis will be on practical problems and their resolution. A panel of experienced persons specializing in occupational medicine, industrial hygiene and toxicology will serve as discussion leaders, drawing on their experience to direct the exploration and discussion of the problems you present. There will be no prepared speeches. The entire time will be devoted to the discussion of questions submitted beforehand in writing or asked at the meeting. Panelists are members of the Occupational Health Committee of the Manufacturing Chemists Association. The Committee hopes, in particular, to assist smaller chemical firms, chemical repackagers, con- sumers, and any companies which do not have formal medical programs, in their understanding and control of chemical hazards. The workshop will be of interest to industrial nurses, persons in the employ of local health departments, industrial hygienists, plant physicians—both full-time and part-time, plant managers, industrial relations personnel, safety and chemical engineers and others. YOU ARE URGED TO ADVISE INTERESTED PERSONS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION. PROGRAM 9:00 a.m. Registration—Alexandria Ballroom (Those who are pre-registered will receive a registration/ luncheon ticket. This should be shown on admission and will be collected at the luncheon.) 9:30 a.m. Introductory Remarks 12:00 noon Break MR. JouN H. Nason 12:30 p.m. Luncheon in Greenfield Room Chairman, CIC of Michigan Speaker: DR. RICHARD A. PRINDLE WORKSHOP SESSION Assistant Surgeon-General ator on Chief, Bureau of State Services Committee, Manufacturing 2:00 p.m. Afternoon Workshop Session Chemists Association 4:00 p.m. Adjournment POSSIBLE SUBJECTS FOR DISCUSSION You are invited to submit questions prior to the meeting. These will be given some priority, but additional written questions and oral questions will be accepted at the meeting. A number of possible topics are listed below. They are offered simply as a means of stimulating your own thinking. Organization of plant medical services First aid for chemical exposures The role of the industrial nurse Industrial Risiene ais sampling, threshold limit Prep! t inati values, estimation of exposure Teplacement examinations Toxicology—evaluation of chemical hazards, lung Medical surveillance of exposed persons irritants, dermatitis Panel A. H. CHRISTIAN, Moderator Division Safety Engineer American Viscose Div., FMC Corp. R. H. ALBISSER Corporate Safety Coordinator, Merck & Co., Inc. L. W. BouLTON Director of Safety and Past] Protection Polymer Corporation Limite A. L. Coss Director of Industrial Safety, Eastman Kodak Company C. U. DERNEHL, M.D. Director of Toxicology, Union Carbide Corporation G. G. FLEMING Director of Safety and Plant Protection Celanese Corporation P. C. FoLse Manager, Accident and Fire Protection Mobil Chemical Company G. L. GORBELL Manager, Personnel Safety, Monsanto Company A. L. KLING Director of Loss Prevention Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. F. E. MACAULAY Safety Director, Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation S. M. MACCUTCHEON Director, Safety and Loss Prevention The Dow Chemical Company J. S. QUEENER Manner, Safety and Fire Protection E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. J. V. SAvERCOOL Manager of Safet, Allied Chemical G. F. SELLEN Process Division Head, Baton Rouge Enjay Chemical Company and Loss Prevention orporation S. F. SPENCE Director, Safety and Loss Prevention American Cyanamid Company N. G. WHITE, Ph.D. Manager, Industrial Hygiene, Shell Chemical Company W. S. Woop Safety Engineer, Sun Oil Company Manufacturing Chemists Association Safety and Fire Protection Committee 896 CHEMICAL INDUSTRY SAFETY WORKSHOP Sponsored by MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON, D. C. and the CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL of the PACIFIC NORTHWEST Cooperating Groups American Chemical Society (Puget Sound Section) American Institute of Chemical Engineers (Puget Sound Section) American Society of Safety Engineers (Puget Sound Chapter) Association of Washington Industries Seattle Area Industrial Council Seattle—King County Safety Council APRIL 21, 1967 SEATTLE CENTER 305 HARRISON STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 897 Seattle Center Washington Chemical Industry Safety Workshop April 21, 1967 An “open meeting” for discussion of questions involving safety in the handling, use. storage, transportation and manufacture of chemicals. The objective of the Workshop is to provide an opportunity for the sharing of chemical safety information through discussion with a panel of experienced safety specialists. Panelists are members of the Safety and Fire Protection Committee of the Manufacturing Chemists Association, and the Committee hopes, through this Workshop, to assist small chemical firms, repackagers, consumers, carriers, fire chiefs and others in their understanding of the safe handling and use of chemicals. Anyone with an interest in chemical safety can benefit—safety engineers, design engineers, plant managers, production supervisors, professional chemists, plant medical personnel, fire protection specialists, industrial hygienists, transporters, etc. There will be no prepared speeches except for a short explanation of the purpose of the meeting. The entire time will be devoted to the discussion of questions, submitted beforehand in writing, or asked at the meeting. The function of the panel members will be to serve as discussion leaders, drawing on their experience to direct the exploration of the problems you present. Please advise interested people in your organization. This Workshop can prove a fruitful experience for all who attend. PROGRAM 9:00 am. Olympic Room—Registration (Those who are pre-registered will receive a registration/luncheon ticket. This should be shown on admission and will be collected at the luncheon.) 9:30 a.m. Welcome by MR. JOHN MAIN, Chairman, CIC of Pacific Northwest WORKSHOP SESSION Moderator—MR. A. H. CHRISTIAN Chairman, MCA Safety and Fire Protection Commit- tee and President, American Society of Safety Engi- neers 12:00 Noon—Break 12:30 p.m. Group Luncheon in Orcas and Lopez Rooms Dr. Dixy LE Ray, Director, Pacific Science Center, Seattle, will speak of men and molecules 2:00 p.m. Afternoon Workshop Session 4:00 p.m. Adjournment POSSIBLE SUBJECTS FOR DISCUSSION You are invited to submit questions prior to the meeting. Additional written and oral questions will be accepted at the meeting. A number of possible topics are listed below. They are offered simply as a means of stimulating your own thinking. Chemical Process Hazards—Safety parameters of hazardous reactions—job safety analysis Work Permits—tank entry—welding and cutting. Plant Design—control house design and location—sewers and waste disposal—fail-safe instrumentation—pressure relief systems Chemical Handling — labeling — shipping — transportation emergencies Fire Prevention and Fighting—emergency and disaster plans —fire brigades—fire protection facilities. Toxicity—determination and evaluation—health programs— industrial hygiene—personal protective equipment (Members of MCA Occupational Health Committee) C. U. DERNEHL, M.D. (Moderator) Union Carbide Corporation E. E. CHRISTOFANO Hercules Incorporated E. M. Dixon M.D. Celanese Corporation F. DRENNAN GAssAwAY, M.D. Gulf Oil Corporation N. V. HENDRICKS Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) M. N. JouNnsoN, M.D. Monsanto Company GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS American Cyanamid Company Mac Roy GAsQUE, M.D. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation W. J. MARTIN, M.D. Cyanamid of Canada Limited WiLLiam E. McCormick The B. F. Goodrich Company R. W. McNas Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation FRANK L. OGLESBY Tennessee Eastman Company JOHN A. PENDERGRASS Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company GorpoN J. Stores, M.D. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company T. R. TORKELSON ‘The Dow Chemical Company J. H. WoLFsiE, M.D. Uniroyal, Inc. 898 What's YOUR question? Organization of plant medical services? Industrial nursing? Pre-placement examinations? Medical surveillance? First aid for chemical exposure? Industrial hygiene — air sampling? Toxicology — evaluation of chemical hazards? efc., etc, etc. Chemical Industry Workshop on Occupational Health sponsored by MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION (WASHINGTON, D. C.) and the CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCILS OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, DELAWARE AND NEW JERSEY FEBRUARY 20, 1968 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN HOTEL Chestnut Street at Ninth Philadelphia, Pa. Chemical Industry Workshop on Occupational Health A panel of experienced persons will afford an opportunity for open discussion of problems in- volving industrial medicine, industrial hygiene and toxicology. Panelists are members” of the Occupational Health Committee of the Manufac- turing Chemists Association, and will draw on their experience to direct the exploration and discussion of the problems you present. There will be no prepared speeches. The en- tire time will be devoted to the discussion of ques- tions submitted beforehand in writing, or asked at the meeting. The objective is to share occupational health information on any matter related to: The provision of medical services for persons using industrial chemicals. The nature and use of toxicological information. The application of industrial hygiene techniques to the achievement of healthful working conditions. The safe use of chemical products. The Committee hopes, in particular, to assist smaller chemical firms, chemical repackagers, con- sumers, and any companies which do not have formal medical programs, in their understanding and control of chemical hazards. The workshop will be of interest to industrial nurses, persons in the employ of local health departments, industrial hygienists, plant physicians—both full-time and part-time, plant managers, industrial relations per- sonnel, safety and chemical engineers and others. Note: The morning session will be of a “general” nature. Subjects raised for discussion should pref- erably be of broad interest. During the afternoon session you may participate in your choice of three separate but concurrent discussion groups on (a) industrial hygiene, (b) industrial medicine, and (c) chemical toxicology. You may, of course, move from group to group as you desire. This arrangement should provide opportunity for more detailed discussion of specific topics than is pos- sible during the “general” session in the morning. 92-734 O-68—58 February 20, 1968 Program 9:00 a.m. Registration (Crystal Ballroom, 9th St. side) Those who pre-register will receive by mail a registration/luncheon ticket. This should be shown on admission and will be col- lected by the waiter at the luncheon. 9:30 a.m. Introduction by: Dr. C. U. DERNEHL, Moderator Welcome: MR. J. T. KEATING, Chairman CIC of Eastern Pennsylvania MR. M. K. BRANDT, Chairman CIC of Delaware WORKSHOP SESSION 12:00 Break 12:30 p.m. Group Luncheon (Crystal Ballroom, 8th St. side) 2:00 p.m. Concurrent sessions (In the Washington, Barry and Franklin rooms) (a) INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE (b) INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE (c) CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY 4:00 p.m. Adjournment 900 TELEPHONE HUDSON 3-6126 . . y v. Manufacturing Chemists’ Association, Inc. (FOUNDED 1872) 1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W. WasHINGTON, D. C. 20009 December 1967 INDUSTRIAL INJURY EXPERIENCE - COMPARATIVE SUMMARY, 1967 Editorial This report concerns approximately six hundred thirty thousand men who worked twelve hundred sixty million manhours of chemical manufacturing in 1967. 4,152 men were injured. This averages out at 33 injuries in a ten million manhour work period. Coincidentally, for the year 1966, we reported that six hundred twenty six thousand five hundred men had worked twelve hundred fifty three million manhours and that 4,130 were injured. This again averages out at 33 injuries per ten million manhours. Strangely enough, it's a safe bet that the record for 1968 will be about the same. That the injury rate won't vary more than 5 per- cent in either direction. Safety professionals call this phenomenon an injury plateau. MCA's plateau for more than ten years has been an injury rate of approximately 3 per million manhours worked. Even safety psychologists don't know why this should be so. They know of no predestination, no schedule or calendar of injuries, no malice aforethought. Yet how little variation there is in the chemical industry's annual contribution to the numerical total of all industrial injuries. One firm belief of MCA's Safety and Fire Protection Committee is that managements must lead and inspire the struggle to eliminate this current capability of statisticians to measure chemical produc- tion in terms of lives and limbs of men. As Dow's Sam MacCutcheon would say; "There's no better incentive than the footsteps of the boss" MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION, INC. SAFETY PERFORMANCE FOR 1946 AND 1958-1967 Number of Firms Reporting Deaths Permanent Totals Permanent Partials Temporary Totals Total Industrial Injuries Employee Hours of Exposure (in thousands) Total Time Charged Frequency Rate Severity Rate All Injuries 72 153 3,098 3,278 428,000 295,000 7.65 103 218 2,526 938,207 492,590 2.98 525 1959 1960 13 12 69 63 1 2 229 201 3,010 2,8% 3,309 3,164 980,064 992,585 605,065 547,974 3.38 3.19 617 552 1962 1963 126 123 65 43 4 i 197 180 3,169 3,065 3,435 3,289 1,093,925 1,103,081 561,994 429,358 3.14 2.98 514 389 189 3,404 1,153,608 495,318 3.16 429 124 81 221 3,363 3,668 1,179,170 688,338 3.11 584 127 57 253 3,817 4,130 1,252,954 581,574 3.30 464 125 69 216 3,865 4,152 1,259,939 659,943 3.30 524 106 COLUMNS BASED ON THE ABOVE FIGURES 1000 Number of Injuries per Million Calendar Days Lost per Million Man-Hours of Exposure 900 Man-Hours of Exposure 800 700 600 300 200 All Chemicals (NSC) 1966 + + + +. + 3.78... 0... 399 All Chemicals (BLS) 3985#, + + wv sve 2 BeF «cd baa == All Manufacturing (NSC) 1966 . . . . . . - 6.91... .... 689 All Manufacturing (BLS) 29650, & « + + + +1249 4b v wu. = *Latest figures available 206 Number Mo. of % of Exposure % of Ho. of | % of Time % of Deaths & % of Deaths Severity | Severity Rate of Reporting| Total Hours Total Total Charged | Total Permanent |& Permanent |Prequency|Rate All| Deaths and Employees Pirms |Reporting | (in 1,000's) Injuries|Injuries (Days) Time Total Total Rate Injuries Permanent Hours Disabilities|Disabilities Totals Only 1-250 1963 26 21.14 7.794 0.71 109 3.31 1,888 | 0.44 [J 0.00 13.99 242 0 1964 24 19.20 6,630 0.57 116 3.18 2,094 | 0.42 0 0.00 17.50 316 0 1965 25 20.16 7,412 0.63 130 3.54 7,831 | 1.14 1 1.19 17.53 1057 809 1966 23 18.11 6,666 0.53 137 3.32 4,39 | 0.76 o 0.00 20.55 659 0 1967 19 1s 5,228 0.41 128 3.08 8,648 | 1.31 o 0.00 24.48 1654 o 1963 35 28.45 35,39 3.21 292 8.88 9,845 | 2.29 0 0.00 8.25 278 o 1964 38 30.40 37,816 3.28 385 10.55 45,340 | 9.15 6 10.90 10.18 1199 476 1965 34 27.42 35,200 2.99 384 10.49 18,237 | 2.65 1 1.19 10.91 518 170 1966 37 29.14 39,520 3.16 552 13.36 56,094 | 9.64 6 10.00 13.96 1419 911 1967 37 30 42,600 3.38 455 10.96 15,296 | 2.32 2 2.82 10.68 359 282 1963 22 17.89 77,949 7.06 498 15.14 38,461 | 8.96 4 9.09 6.39 493 308 1964 21 16.80 72,765 6.31 452 12.39 60,013 | 12.12 8 14.55 6.21 825 330 1965 24 19.36 83,077 7.04 536 14.61 70,148 | 10.19 9 10.71 6.45 844 650 1966 23 18.11 78,618 6.27 505 12.23 34,147 | 5.87 3 5.00 6.42 434 229 1967 24 19 77,605 6.16 604 14.55 34,231 | 5.19 2 2.82 7.78 441 155 1963 15 12.19 98,609 8.94 379 11.52 36,097 | 8.41 4 9.09 3.84 366 243 1964 16 12.80 111,532 9.67 534 14.64 64,551 [13.03 8 14.55 4.79 579 21s 1965 17 13.711 125,753 10.66 77 19.54 86,633 | 12.59 ° 10.71 5.70 689 429 1966 19 14.96 135,317 10.80 644 15.59 115,622 | 19.88 12 20.00 4.76 854 532 1967 19 15 135,432 10.75 791 19.05 92,908 | 14.08 9 12.67 5.84 686 399 1963 25 20.33 883,333 80.08 2,011 61.15 343,067 [79.90 36 81.82 2.28 388 245 1964 26 20.80 924,865 80.17 2,161 59.24 323,320 | 65.28 33 60.00 2.34 350 214 1965 24 19.35 927,728 78.68 1,901 51.82 505,484 | 73.43 64 76.20 2.05 545 414 1966 25 19.68 992,833 79.24 2,292 55.50 371,315 | 63.85 39 65.00 2.30 374 236 1967 26 1 999,075 79.30 2,174 52.36 . 77.10 58 81.69 2.18 509 348 IOTALS 1963 123 -— 1,103,081 — 3,289 — 429,358 -— 44 -— 2.98% 389+ 239% 1964 125 -— 1,153,608 — 3,648 -— 495,318 -— 55 -— 3.16% 429+ 286% 1965 124 _— 1,179,170 ed 3,668 -— 688,338 Ld 84 -— 3.11 579% 427% 1966 127 -— 1,252,954 -— 4,130 -— 581,574 -_— 60 -— 3.30% 464% 287+ 1967 125 — 1,259,940 — 4,152 — 659,943 -— 71 — 3.30% 524+ 33g *Cumulative Rates £06 904 AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HoLLAND: The American Farm Bureau Federation did not request time to be heard relative to H.R. 14816 because we had no specific policy position relating to the issues involved. We have now had an opportunity to review the proposed bill with our Board of Directors, which has authorized us to present the following recommendations to the Committee : 1. Standards.—We recommend that the broad provisions of Section 3(a) and 3(b) relative to the authority of the Secretary to establish safety standards be revised materially to allow state and industry participation with respect to the original establishment or subsequent modification of such standards. It is recognized that Section 4 (a) authorizes the Secretary to appoint such advisory committees as he deems appropriate. We would urge the inclusion of a specific statutory requirement for the appointment of an advisory committee for an industry prior to the institution of rule making for such industry. The quali- fications for and appointment of such advisory committees should be specified in Section 3. The industry should be requested to nominate competent safety specialists experienced with employer safety programs in the industry. The States should be requested to nominate safety specialists who have been in- volved in administering safety laws and standards in their respective states. The standards drafted by the advisory committee should be the proposed stand- ards for the industry subject to the subsequent procedural requirements speci- fied in Section 3(b). 2. Enforcement.—We recommend that the provisions of Section 6 relating to the enforcement of compliance with standards be extensively revised. No Sec- retary of an Executive Department should be expected to serve as prosecutor, judge and jury as provided in Section 6. The provisions of Section 5 of the Act of June 30, 1936, incorporated by reference into Section 6(a) of H.R. 14816, would make the Secretary’s determination as to a matter of fact, final and con- clusive, thus essentially destroying the effectiveness of any judicial remedy. We do not believe that a grant of power as contained in Section 6(a) is neces- sary to effectively accomplish the objectives of the Act. The issuance of a cease and desist order to an employer is not an action that an employer could afford to regard lightly. In the great majority of cases any violation would be cor- rected upon issuance of the cease and desist order, or even before such order is issued, or irrespective of the issuance of an order. The only circumstance in which an employer would fail to abide by a cease and desist order is where the employer is convinced that the Secretary is mistaken. Otherwise, the em- ployer would run the risk of criminal prosecution under other sections of the Act. We suggest in lieu of the present provisions of Section 6 the following: ‘When an alleged violation of the standards is determined the Secretary (or the State agency to which jurisdiction is ceded) may issue a cease and desist order. The concern to whom the cease and desist order is issued may appeal such order to a federal court. If the concern to whom the cease and desist order is issued does not modify its practice to accord with the safety standard the Secretary may ask a federal court for an enforcing order. It should be the responsibility of the court to determine if a temporary injunction be issued prior to the determination as to whether or not a final injunction be issued. It should also be the responsibility of the court to impose any fine or penalty. The Secretary of Labor should not have authority to include a fine or penalty in a cease and desist order. 3. Pre-emption.—The provisions of Section 12(b) establish federal pre-emp- tion and extinguish state law, except as the Secretary may rule otherwise. We would urge that the authority of the states to exercise responsibility relative to safety matters be reserved. It would seem probable that there are many local situations and problems that would not necessarily be adequately dealt with in a federal safety standard. We urge the inclusion in Section 12 of a sentence pro- viding that state laws and regulations relative to industrial safety should con- tinue to be valid and enforceable except where there is a direct conflict between 905 state and federal regulation so that they cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together. 4. Dublication of Federal Authority.—We recognize the intent of Section 13 of the bill to avoid duplication of federal regulatory authority. It seems imprac- tical for the Secretary of Labor to be directed to “coordinate” the safety activi- ties of other Federal agencies, and therefore recommend deletion of this provision. Since safety standards may also be issued under the Walsh-Healey Act, it would be inadvisable to have two different safety standards applicable to the same concerns but issued under different regulatory statutes. We recommend that the bill amend the Walsh-Healey Act to eliminate the duplication. 5. Ceding Jurisdiction to States.—We urge that the language of Section 12 be amended to state a Congressional policy that when a State is reasonably ac- complishing the objectives of the Act, the Secretary shall cede jurisdiction to the State. We would suggest that when any State submits at any time an applica- tion to accept responsibility for the administration of the program in the State that a hearing be held and that the hearing record be the basis for a determina- tion as to the capacity and authorization of the State Agency to acceptably per- form the inspection, enforcement and other provisions of the Act. We believe the purposes of the Act would be accomplished to a lesser degree if there is both a federal and a state agency in the State endeavoring to accomplish the same objective. Such duplication of administration would discourage the State from undertaking an effective program. 6. Grants in Aid—It is our recommendation that if grants to the States are to be provided, the Congress should establish a formula for the distribution of such funds, in preference to leaving the authority to allocate funds to the Secre- tary of Labor. If the States are to accept a responsible partnership role relative to safety matters they should not be subject to the Secretary's discretion con- cerning the allocation of funds for specific purposes. A State should not be pen- alized because it has undertaken a good program in the past. The proper basis for the allocation of funds would seem to be the number of employed persons in the State. 7. Reporting.—We submit that the submittal of reports to federal agencies as the result of a series of statutory enactments is becoming an onerous burden that actually serves questionable purpose. There are some 5 million non-agri- cultural employers and perhaps an additional 1 million agricultural employers. The millions of reports authorized by Section 6(b) would necessitate a large private work force to prepare, and a large public work force to receive, analyze and file. A large percentage of such employers would not comply with this re- quirement because they would not know about it. We doubt that the statistical information that might be extracted from such reports would be any more ac- curate or more useful than that now available from other sources. Admittedly, the Secretary might limit such reports by regulation, but this would make the statistical data abstracted therefrom even less complete and useful. We recom- mend the deletion of this Section as impractical and of dubious value in fur- thering the objectives of the Act. 8. Personnel—Some testimony has indicated that the number of federal in- spectors that might be required if the bill were approved in its present form would be about 4,000. If this is so and if the Secretary of Labor were to seek to employ a substantial number of safety engineers and competent inspection per- sonnel these would necessarily have to come from state agencies and private industry. The effectiveness of state and private activity in the safety field would be susbstantially reduced by such recruitment of their personnel. This rein- forces our argument for more effective language relating to the ceding of admin- istrative responsibility to the States. The degree to which the objectives of the Act may be accomplished would de- pend in substantial measure upon the competence and knowledge of the industry by the inspectors and their supervisors. This competence will vary by industry. Thus an inspector who may be competent in the area of agricultural practices may be incompetent in the area of steel plant operations, and vice versa. We recommend that any statutory provision relating to inspection include a direc- tive to the Secretary that inspectors must be qualified as to experience and knowledge of the technology of the industry or industries for which they are designated as inspection personnel. 9. Oonclusion.—By submitting the above recommendations for revision of the bill we do not intend to indicate that we believe the general approach of the bill to 906 the problem of industrial safety, even if revised as we have recommended, would be the most effective means of accomplishing the objectives of the bill. We be- lieve such objectives will be best achieved if we build upon the experience and organization structure of the respective states, rather than to superimpose a federal preemptive regulatory structure. It is agreed the bill has been hastily drafted. No effort has been made prior to presenting the bill to the Congress to seek the advice and counsel of the Governors of the States, or the experts in the safety field employed by State Governments and private industry, or the national organizations with experience and knowledge in the safety field. It appears to us that a great deal of further study and consideration is needed before any conclusion can be reached con- cerning the legislative enactment that would most effectively promote industrial safety. We recommend that the Congress provide for the making of a compre- hensive study of this problem which would include participation of responsible state and private safety personnel and review of accumulated information now available from state and private sources. It will be appreciated if you will include this letter in the hearing record. Sincerely yours, JoHN C. LYNN, Legislative Director. STATEMENT BY ELGIN D. SALLEE, MANAGER OF SAFETY AND INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE, AMERICAN CAN Co. The tools of occupational injury and illness must be further reduced. Every practical effort to accomplish this is in order. One such practical effort, which is obvious that proponents of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 have in mind, is the upgrading of standards aimed at assuring work conditions that are safe and conducive to the maintenance of good health. Such improvement of standards is sorely needed in a number of States. The intent of the Act is laudable. American Can Company certainly endorses this intent. U.S. business has a problem, a big one, in further reducing incidence of aceci- dents. When a problem is recognized, the logical way to proceed is: (1) get the facts, (2) determine what to do based on the facts, (3) do it. There is inadequate information on the first of these points, with respect to the actual causes of work accidents and illnesses. There are wide gaps in work accident data—and it is not realistic to expect that perfection will ever be attained. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that certain action should be further delayed. There are enough facts on which to base some practical further action— and it is quite obvious that this action will result in saving of life and limb. It is definitely not the purpose here to hinder in any way the intent of this Act. There is no desire to be critical of this proposed legislation other than in the interest of being constructive. The Act is needed. The desire is simply that it be the best possible, with content entirely appropriate to the problem, based on knowledge at hand. On this premise there are several items in the bill about which those having long, detailed experience in industrial safety work have significant question and concern : Sections 3 and J. Content of the detailed standards will be the crux of the entire effort or purpose of the Act. As now drawn, the Act would leave detailed rule-making to the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, with no limiting guides or criteria. There should be well-defined procedure to assure that rules and standards adopted are as practical as possible, not left merely to the discretion of the Secretary. This is no reflection on the capabilities of his office and the advisory committees he may select. Industry wants better assurance that the available knowledge is put to use. There should be definite provision eliminating possibility of federal civil damage action superimposed on State Workmen's Compensation coverage. Sections 5, 6 and 7. Better definition is necessary for the criterion on which restrictive or punitive measures for violations are based. Industry does not favor the prospect that inspectors, who may or may not be well-qualified, must always be considered presumptively correct in their findings. Under such circumstances the aggrieved person must bear the burden of showing that the inspector was wrong. It would seem much more appropriate for the administrative agency to ‘show that a violation exists, or did exist. 907 General. The real causes of accidents and over-exposure to health-impairing factors are widely variant. If there is to be optimum success in preventing acci- dents and illnesses by the most practical means, the preventive effort must like- wise be varied. The preventive measure should be well-rounded. There must be standards and regulations on work conditions, knowledge of how to do the work safely, procedure and means with which to do it safely, and ways to assure that the worker uses his safety knowledge and self-preservation instincts. Those closely familiar with details of accident prevention work know that standards, rules and regulations are not enough, that safe work conditions alone are not enough, training alone is not the answer and that accidents certainly won’t be “legislated away”. The problem is many-sided and its attack should likewise have many sides—a well-rounded effort. Companies with organized safety programs know that the major portion of their employee-accidents are caused by employee incorrect practices or acts, rather than unsafe work conditions. This doesn’t mean that existence of unsafe conditions can be countenanced—in fact, doing a good job of eliminating and pre- venting unsafe conditions is probably one of the most effective means of influ- encing employees to work and behave safely. However, since a major proportion of the overall problems is in getting workers to act and behave safely, and to use the personal protective equipment, safeguards and protective devices pro- vided them, it would be highly desirable for this Act to contain measures placing some definite responsibility on the individual. In addition to fixing individual responsibility it would be helpful to provide means of better maintaining safety-mindedness among workers. In a large pro- portion of work accidents, it is quite obvious that the employee “knew better’— but he didn’t use his safety knowledge. Industry would favor assistance in this respect. The Act as now drawn will cost a tremendous amount. Many experienced indus- trial safety specialists are convinced that dollars spent in country-wide efforts to build and maintain safety-mindedness will produce much more preventive effectiveness than an equivalent amount spent solely toward attaining the goal of universal upgrading of work condition standards, and their enforcement. The ideal, of course, is a good combination of the two. It is heartening to see that the bill contains provisions for research and develop- ment of criteria. This is highly commendable. Much of the unfavorable accident experience is the result of lack of knowledge on the most practical ways of fore- stalling mishaps. There is an immeasurable wealth of expertise on this matter, readily available through the National Safety Council, professional safety and health organiza- tions, societies specializing in establishment of standards, unions, insurance carriers, trade associations and others, as well as those Government Agencies experienced in safety and health work. It is strongly urged that full advantage be taken of these. The establishment of a national commission for dealing with protection of the safety and health of the worker is urged, with its main purpose that of develop- ing criteria, guidelines and information upon which local authorities can base practical standards and preventive action. For both the development of criteria and setting of State standards, we recommend use of the consensus procedure only, as suggested by the National Safety Council, the Industrial Hygiene Foun- dation of America and others. By this means further practical benefit can be derived from the knowledge and capabilities of such organizations and personnel, whose effectiveness in preservation of the physical well-being of the industrial worker has been well-demonstrated. STATEMENT oF JOHN H. BEMIS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COKE & COAL CHEMICALS INSTITUTE My name is John H. Bemis. I am a vice president of Pickands Mather and Co., Cleveland, Ohio. However, I present this statement on behalf of the American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute, of which I am president. This Institute repre- sents, as its name indicates, companies manufacturing coke and its by-products from coal, as well as those chemicals derived from petroleum. These products include merchant coke, sold to metal foundries and other users as fuel for proc- essing various metals, as well as chemical derivatives used in many other Ameri- can industries—creosote, benzene, road tar, ammonia and many others, 908 The companies making up the membership of the Coke Institute have worked industriously, as individuals and collectively, to improve their products and their processes. Intrinsic in this effort, and apart from the humanities which are basic to success, is the realization by these companies that hazards to the safety and health of our employees are costly. It is good business, as well as good citizenship, to develop the best possible health and safety practices as fast as the economics of an industry will permit. This the coke industry has been doing and will continue to do. The big question is how best to get the job done. The most careful study and consideration should precede any sweeping effort to deal with health and safety through broad-brush legislation. We certainly are for progress. We have shown that. But we are against precipitate action, espe- cially through legislation drafted in haste. Establishing a National Safety Commission has definite merit—a Commission with power and funds to take a deep look at specifics as well as generalities, then report findings and recommendations to the Congress. With this Commission approach, if specific legislation were required, at least it would have a base of careful investigation and preparation. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN HOTEL & MOTEL ASSOCIATION The American Hotel & Motel Association is federation of hotel and motel associations located in the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands; similarly affiliated with AH&MA are twelve “regional” hotel and motel associations and in excess of 90 “city” hotel and motel associations. The Association’s membership numbers in excess of 6,000 hotels and motels contain- ing in excess of 700,000 rentable rooms. The American Hotel & Motel Association maintains offices at 221 West 57th Street, New York, New York, and at 777-14th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. We welcome the opportunity to register with this subcommittee the views of the American Hotel & Motel Association on H.R. 14816, The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. Our Association recognizes and has for many years been conscious of the need for an effective industry-wide occupational safety and health program. Based on a survey made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1961 with the endorsement of American Hotel Association, the AH&MA'’s predecessor, the aver- age work-injury frequency rate of hotel workers in 1960 was 10.0 disability injuries per million hours worked, about 109% below the 1960 average of 11.3 for all manufacturing workers. (BLS Report No. 230) The National Safety Council reports that the 1966 frequency rate for “Institu- tions” which includes hotel/motels was 4.85 (NSC Work Injury Rates 1967 Edi- tion). In manufacturing the frequency rate was 13.2 for the first half of 1966. Our industry continues to recognize its obligations to employees to provide safe and healthy working conditions and considerable improvement has resulted from voluntary action. AH&MA has been and is active in the occupational safey and health field. We have a permanent Fire and Accident Prevention Committee which is composed of owners, managers and specialists in the hotel/motel industry. Specific activities in which we are engaged are : 1. Issuance of Operations Bulletins to guide our members on subjects such as: How To Set Up a Fire Organization Plan, Cut Accident Costs With This 13 Step Program, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation; see Exhibit B. 2. Issuance to members of a booklet “What Every Supervisor Should Know About Hotel/Motel Safety” which was written by an AH&MA consultant. 3. Issuance to members of a booklet prepared by National Board of Fire Un- derwriters on how to develop Fire Safe Hotels. 4. An AH&MA staff representative serves on the National Safety Council, Trades and Services Committee, which develops data sheets on topics of direct interest to the industry. 5. Staff members assist the U.S. of America Standards Institute in the develop- ment of voluntary industry standards. 6. AH&MA has a consultant, a former Deputy Chief for the Division of Fire Prevention for New York City, who also advises in Safety and Fire Prevention areas. 909 Work injuries and accident causes in hotels were examined and reported in BLS Report 329, July 1967. This report concluded in part. . . . “that behavior is more likely to explain causal factors of hotel accidents than ‘are physical condi- tions or that the unsafe conditions were not identified.” (Emphasis added.) This report in the final paragraphs of its summary states: “These causal patterns suggest that no extraordinary accident prevention measures are needed to curtail hotel accidents. The maintenance of good working surfaces, proper handling procedures and alertness to surroundings would do much to minimize the pattern of hotel accidents found in this study. (Emphasis added.) “Finally, the above findings appear to be equally valid regardless of the size or type of hotel, as these factors failed to differentiate the casual patterns behind accidents.” It appears that the major gains in accident prevention can be made by con- tinually improving supervisory and employee attitudes so their personal acts will be performed with safety in mind. The proposed legislation and in particular its provisions for inspection, investi- gation and penalties, is not required in the hotel/motel industry. And while we cannot disagree with the underlying basis of the legislation—that of improving the safety and health of workers in U.S. industry—serious questions remain. The end may be laudable; however, Congress must be certain to adopt the proper means to accomplish the end. As for the scope of the proposed program, through the broadest application of the commerce power and by planning, experimental, and the demonstration grants to the states, the draft bill seeks to reach, as far as possible, every work- ing man and woman in the country. Addressing ourselves to the need for such a wide-sweeping Federal regulatory program, we submit that the matter is one more properly within the province of the states where standards and enforcement can be adapted to their particular geographical and industrial conditions. For the proponents of the pending legis- lation, we are not talking about “States rights.” * We are talking about common sense. To suggest a national code on conditions which may vary from locale to locale is absurd. We are most concerned with the bill’s provision allowing a Federal inspector to go into an employer's operation with an order for immediate cessation of work if he finds a condition that threatens “imminent harm” to employees. Nowhere do we find guarantees of administrative due process prior to the closing of the employer’s facilities. This represents a potent power and all based upon an un- reviewable, subjective determination. We also question the wisdom of placing the rule making power solely with the Secretary of Labor. Even more objectionable is the absence in this section of the bill of any review procedures. Congress must consider whether or not occupa- tional safety and health is suited to national regulation, as determined by a single individual. Congress must also insure that any persons affected by such regula- tions are afforded the guarantee of administrative due process and judicial review. The Surgeon General of the United States has testified that the proposal will alleviate the shortage of trained personnel necessary for inspection and enforce- ment in support of occupational health and safety. We do not believe that the Administration’s proposal is either a necessary or desirable means to accomplish this end. The proposal overlooks entirely the problem of the employee who fails to utilize safety devices and practices made available to him by his employer. Particularly in an industry such as ours, where employee behavior is the most prevalent cause of accidents, this is an important point. It has been established that smaller employers are those that now have a high accident frequency. As regards safety programs for such small employers, Federal involvement should be limited to aiding the states through research, education and training and funding. Such small employers are hardest pressed to cope with the recordkeeping and bookkeeping requirements and general ad- ministrative “red tape” attendant to all Federal regulation and inspection. Such small employers are better reached on a state or local basis. 1 Statement of Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz, Hearings before the Subcommittee $3 Lanor, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare (S. 2864), p. 2, February 15, 910 ’ What will it all cost? One witness has testified to an anticipated need for 10,000 Federal inspectors and an annual Federal budget of from $175 million to $250 million for inspection alone.” In his testimony the Secretary of Labor estimated the initial administrative costs at from $17 million to $30 million. The proposal itself merely states “such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.” Of course, it is not possible to place a price tag on human health and safety. It is appropriate, however, to question a program which on its face would appear to be a vehicle for wasteful, time and money consuming duplication. We suggest that this Congress, in lieu of passing the legislation in its proposed form, set the groundwork for an investigation into the field of occupational safety and health—that more thought be given to the problem and possible solu- tions. We submit that establishing a “national commission” is the most sensible and proper approach as already attested to by the 90th Congress in the form of P.L. 90-259—the Fire Research and Safety Act. In the course of establishing the desirability for a detailed study of the fire safety and protection programs, the Congress found a need for the following: (1) Information—*“Cause and effect” information was very limited. (2) Research—Most research was “mission-oriented” and not directed to un- derstanding the basic nature and cause of the problem. (3) Education—Educational endeavors were underfinanced, often misdirected and an many cases not fully effective. (4) Demonstration projects—The practice of safety had not effectively been taken out of the “classroom” and placed into the “real world.” ‘We submit that these inquiries should be made with regard to occupational safety and health. It is our belief that the procedure established in P.L. 90-259 for the national fire research and safety program represents the best approach to solution of any “occupational safety and health” problems which may exist. Such a program could have as its working body a National Commission on Occupational Health and Safety, as appointed by the Secretary of Health, Edu- cation and Welfare and answerable to the Congress. The Commision we envision would be composed of both government agency personnel and private citizens— all expert and knowledgeable in fields related to the Commission’s purpose. The Commission would be charged with undertaking a comprehensive occupational health and safety program to determine practical and effective measures of pro- tection against the hazards of death and injury. Coordination of the Commission’s efforts would most logically be within the province of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. The establishment of such a National Commission would have several immedi- ate advantages over the Administration’s proposal, including the following: (1) It would establish a central information house on existing governmental and private safety and health programs. (2) It would allow the development of programs which would not operate at cross purposes with the current workman’s compensation programs and private industry occupational safety and health programs. (3) It would provide the benefit of expert thinking in the field of occupational health and safety. If it was later found that Federal occupational safety and health standards were necessary, they could then be promulgated with the benefit of the thinking of technically proficient people. STATEMENT PRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is indeed a privilege to pre- sent the views of the American Optometric Association on the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. I am Dr. Bernard A. Morewitz, an optometrist practicing in Newport News, Virginia. I am speaking as Chairman, Committee on Occupational Vision of the American Optometric Association, an organiza- tion composed of over 14,000 practicing optometrists. A folder, “Facts About AOA”, and a copy of my resume are attached to this statement. We optometrists are vitally concerned with occupational health and safety, especially as they relate to the eyes and vision. During the past 10 years IT have 2 Statement of Wallace M. Smith, American Mutual Insurance Alliance, Hearings before the ‘Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, March 8, . 911 served as vision consultant to the Navy's Superintendent of ship building at the Newport News Shipyard. Since inception of the corrective, protective program at the shipyard, we know of no disabling eye injury sustained by or which has befallen or incapacitated any superviser who has participated in the program. I feel our corrective, protective program has proven its continued worth. Many factors affect visual safety and health on the job, such as lighting, colors of equipment, materials and surroundings, protective eyewear and corrective eyewear to afford an individual maximum functional vision. Because opto- metry deals with the science of vision, optometrists have special interest in all factors which affect an individual's ability to obtain the most benefit from his visual process. For example, a lathe operator should use safety goggles or spectacles. If the operator wears glasses prescribed to correct a refractive error of vision, he will place the protective goggles over his own glasses, a cumbersome arrangement at best. More useful and functional are safety glasses or goggles containing lenses ground to the operator’s prescription. Some occupations require workers to make various acts based on different visual responses. Bus drivers, for ex- ample, must have excellent distance acuity and at the same time be able to function well for near point visual tasks such as issuing tickets, making change and keeping records. Few of us could perform in our occupations without functional vision. Our ability to work depends heavily on our ability to see. Estimates indicate that 809% of what we learn is learned through seeing and I feel that 80% of what we do on the job depends on seeing. To assure that any occupational safety and health legislation includes real- istic recognition of vision, I feel that the word “vision” should appear in the bill. If this is not possible, I urge that the Committee's report on the bill clearly state that vision is one of the major areas of concern. It is appropriate that optometrists be appointed to advisory committees or boards authorized by H.R. 14816 and serve as consultants. In addition, schools and colleges of optometry could assist in providing for research relating to oc- cupational safety and health as well as participate in experimental and dem- onstration projects. Too frequently, optometrists and optometric organizations have found that unless optometry is specifically named or spelled out in legislation, they are unable to participate when the legislation becomes law. In an area as vital to the people of this country as occupational safety and health, the matter of vis- ion and optometric vision care would be prominent by their absence. We in optometry would prefer to be prominent by our contributions to occupational safety and health. The American Optometric Association supports the intent of H.R. 14816. Standards for safe, healthful working conditions, research, education, informa- tion and training to benefit all of us who work will save millions of dollars annually and, more important, will save untold hardships for workers and their families. BERNARD A. MOREWITZ, O.D. Residence : 4021 Chesapeake Ave., Newport News, Va. sa 116 Thirtieth Street, Newport News, Va. Academic Background Preoptometry : University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. Optometry : Columbia University, New York, New York—1948. Military U.S. Coast Guard. Previous Haperience Engineer, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Specialization in Optometry Industrial and occupational vision. Memberships and Fellowships American Optometric Association, Committee on Occupational Vision, Chairman, 1966—present. 912 American Academy of Optomeutry, Fellow. American Optometric Foundation. Virginia Optometric Association, Board of Directors, 1964—present. Better Vision Institute. Omega Epsilon Phi (optometric fraternity). Industrial Vision Consultant to the Superintendent of Ship Building, U.S. Navy, Newport News Ship Building and Dry Dock Co., 1956-67. Engineers Club of the Virginia Peninsula. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, INC. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this statement is submitted to the committee by the American Paper Institute, Inc.* to set forth its views concerning H.R. 14816, generally referred to as the “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968.” The American Paper Institute is the national trade association of the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. A non-profit organization with approximately 250 member companies, it is the recognized representative of the pulp, paper and paperboard industry in the United States. The paper and allied products indus- try operates more than 800 pulp, paper and paperboard mills and over 5,000 converting plants located in nearly every state of the Union. In 1966 industry- wide employment reached 684,000 people who were paid $4.6 billion. As an industry vitally concerned with the safety and health of its employees, we welcome this opportunity to present for the record this statement setting forth our views on H.R. 14816. We hope our statement will be helpful to the Sub- committee in its deliberations concerning needed modifications or amendments to the bill. We are grateful for the strong interest in occupational health and safety that the distinguished acting Chairman and members of the subcommittee have demonstrated in these hearings as they proceed to develop effective and workable legislation. The long history of this subcommittee’s concern with occupational safety deserves commendation. Representative O’Hara’s statement when he opened these hearings “that avoidable accidents and avoidable illnesses are un- forgivable” is one with which all men must agree. Before presenting our specific recommendations for modifications in H.R. 14816, we should like to give you a brief summary regarding our industry’s record of concern and accomplishment in occupational safety. For more than 50 years companies in our industry have been actively engaged in developing and carrying out safety programs to protect their employees, and have been spending money for the necessary manpower and equipment to carry out these programs. Over a quarter century ago an industry-wide effort, imple- mented through our Safety Task Force and its predecessors initiated industry- wide educational and related efforts to cope with the safety problems associated with the production of pulp, paper and paperboard. Further evidence of this concern is attested to by the fact that members of this industry have been active supporters and members of the National Safety Council since 1915, when the Council established its pulp and paper section. At the present time the American Paper Institute’s concern with occupational safety and health is a continuing concern of our Committee on Industrial Relations. It is charged with the following responsibility for safety and health : “Formulate and recommend improved procedures, methods and policies which will reduce accidents and injuries in the industry. Establish, maintain, and ad- minister a program to recognize outstanding safety achievements by members’ companies. Study programs designed to maintain and improve the health of all levels of personnel.” Further, the Executive Committee of the American Paper Institute has called on chief executive officers of member companies to evaluate their occupational safety and health programs to determine whether every reasonable effort is being made to prevent avoidable accidents and illnesses. Wherever the evaluation indicates the need for strengthening their programs, they are urged to take corrective action to the end that all workers will be better protected. In addition, our Executive Committee adopted a resolution requesting member companies to objectively evaluate, in conjunction with the National Safety Council, the adequacy of the occupational safety and health programs of the states in which their manufacturing facilities and woodlands are located to determine whether *Hdwin A. Locke, Jr., President, 260 Madison Avenue, New York, New York. 913 the responsible state agency is receiving adequate appropriations and has ade- quate authority with which to carry out an effective state program and, where such evaluation indicates the need for strengthening a state’s program, to encourage elected state officials to provide needed authority and funding. One additional evidence of industry concern is demonstrated by the fact that research projects concerned with employee safety and health and the prevention of avoidable accidents and illnesses have been launched by a number of companies. We hope this summary of the industry’s past and current efforts in behalf of the health and safety of its employees demonstrates that we come before you with a record of accomplishment and a manifested concern for dealing with the problems before this subcommittee. We are pleased to join with you, the Federal agencies involved, the states, and the public in a continuing and intensified effort to solve the complex and costly problems associated with the protection of the health and safety of all American workers. Only through such a combined and concerted effort of all parties concerned will the public’s interest be effectively protected. Turning now to our specific recommendations regarding the principal features of H.R. 14816, we respectfully urge that the following modifications be made in the proposed legislation : 1) H.R. 14816 should be amended to clearly establish that it is the intent of the Congress that the states will continue to have primary responsibility for the development and enforcement of standards for occupational safety and health. We believe that the creation and enforcement of mandatory standards for occu- pational health and safety should not be undertaken by the Federal Government. Such authority has long been vested in the states and it is in the states where these standards and their enforcement can be most effectively adapted to their particular geographical, industrial and economic conditions. At the same time, we acknowledge that this legislation, properly modified, can provide a mechanism for the improvement of state occupational health and safety programs and thereby help assure more effective state programs. The states have already developed mechanisms for working with industry and others in the development, through the consensus method, of mandatory standards and it would be a serious mistake to by-pass and fail to utilize this mechanism in developing even more effective state programs. We are in full agreement with the objectives of this legislation insofar as the improvement of occupational safety and health programs are concerned. We agree that the Federal Government, with its resources, can play an important role in guiding and stimulating state programs. In our view, however, the Federal role should be one of guidance and leadership in much the same way as Congress in its wisdom provided in the Clean Air Act of 1967 and in similar legislation, That program, as you know, places primary responsibility for establishing standards on state governments. In this connection, we believe there is need for a clearer delineation of the responsibilities between the national and the state governments in carrying out this program. That delineation should be consistent with the principles of our Federal system and be based on a recognition that a workable program depends primarily for its success on state authorities acting in concert with industry and other concerned groups under the guidance of the national government. The task is too extensive and too variegated for the national government to solve largely by itself. We hope that the subcommittee will delete from the bill those provisions which would authorize the establishment and enforcement of Federal mandatory occu- pational safety and health standards, and that it will make appropriate modifica- tions in other portions of the bill which relate to this modification. 2) We support the provision of the bill authorizing the appointment of advisory committees or boards as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor. However, we recommend that the membership of the advisory committees or boards be required to include appropriate representatives of all interested organizations, including the Federal agencies, the states, employers, employees, independent experts, insurance companies and the National Safety Council. All such organizations have experts who should be utilized to the maximum extent in the development and strengthening of this program, 3) We recognize that Section 10 relates generally to Government contracts and that the U.S. Government, as one of the contracting parties, has the right to establish whatever conditions it chooses to impose on its contractors who are made aware of their obligations before entering into the agreement. However, 914 we deem it essential for provision to be made that, prior to the issuance of any regulations by the Secretary of Labor, there be consultation with those who are likely to be affected. 4) As stated above, we believe that the section dealing with Federal-State Relationships should be redrafted to clearly set forth the relationships and responsibilities of the states vis-a-vis the Federal Government in the develop- ment, administration and enforcement of occupational safety and health stand- ards. By precisely defining the responsibilities of the states, state officials and affected industries and other groups will have a clear incentive for proceeding in the development of needed laws and regulations and the strengthening of agencies and staff to enable each state to carry out an effective program. Some states already have good programs and others are making substantial progress toward this end. If it is not made clear to the remaining states that they too must proceed on a similar basis, uncertainty concerning the role of the states in this effort will result in further delays in achieving the goal we all seek. On the other hand, should Federal pre-emption of the standard setting authority be approved, such action would destroy any incentive on the part of the states and affected groups to proceed in this much needed effort. We believe that by combining the talents and the resources of the state governments, indus- try and other interested groups, we can assure the development of a sound, long- range program. 5) We have referred to our own industry’s research efforts in behalf of occu- pational health and safety. We recognize, however, the need for even more research and preventive effort and we, therefore, support the proposed author- ization of funds for research and demonstration programs contained in the proposed legislation. We hope, however, that the research program envisioned by H.R. 14816 will be broadened to encompass the human failure factor in acci- dent causation. An unsafe act, violation of safety rules, the impulse to take a short cut—all stemming from the motivation of the individual rather than being caused by the environment—should receive proper attention in the allocation of research funds under this program. 6) In our view, Section 15(d), which requires the establishment of accident and health reporting systems, should be modified to provide that the system established under this section require reporting by states to the Federal Govern- ment rather than requiring such reporting by both employers and states. Such a change would be effective in bringing about state action to assure that the states obtain from employers needed information concerning accidents and ill- nesses having an occupational base. 7) Section 16 would authorize the establishment of educational programs to provide an adequate supply of personnel, as well as authorize short-term train- ing programs, both of which would be intended for personnel utilized by govern- ment in carrying out this act. We recognize there is now a serious shortage of trained personnel in the field of occupational health and safety, not only in government, but also in industry. There is need not only in the Federal Govern- ment, but also at the state level, for such educational and training programs. We recommend that some of the training funds be channeled to the states to enable them to meet their critical manpower problem which will become more acute as the tempo of this program increases. 8) Section 17 authorizes grants to the states for development of plans and for experimental and demonstration projects. We support this grant program but suggest that the Federal share, instead of being 909% of the states’ total cost, be 509%. As mentioned earlier, to help assure that states have adequate matching funds we are calling on member companies (hopefully, other associations will do the same) to urge them to support adequate appropriations by elected state officials for the effective execution of these programs. In conclusion, we agree that the matter of occupational safety and health is of great importance and must command our continuing attention and concern. Certainly, in the pulp, paper and paperboard industry, our record demonstrates a long-standing concern, as well as substantial improvement over the past five decades since the first paper company joined the National Safety Council in 1915. We are agreed that H.R. 14816 could, if appropriately modified, provide a workable framework from which it will be possible to develop a more effective program to protect American workers on their jobs. Such a program, however, of necessity should be administered and enforced at the state level with en- couragement stemming from the Federal Government in the form of grants 915 for research to identify and develop appropriate programs, as well as to foster an increasing reservoir of necessary professional talent to carry out at the state level these occupational safety and health programs. In our view, the setting and enforcement of mandatory national standards for safety and health would deter rather than encourage the objectives which we all share. The state governments, working cooperatively with labor, indus- try, the professions, and other interested groups, we feel, are in a much better position than the Federal Government to make sound and substantial progress, building on the foundation that already exists. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views and recommendations concerning this important legislation. STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. GOODFELLOW, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS My name is Thomas Goodfellow and I am president of the Association of American Railroads, known as AAR. The AAR is a voluntary, nonprofit, unin- corporated association composed of the major railreds of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and many of the smaller roads. Our members operate about 94 per cent of the mileage of railroads operating in the United States. We represent our members in matters of common concern, such as H.R. 14816. I have been a railroader for more than 40 years, starting as an apprentice with the Pennsylvania Railroad during summer vacations. After I received a degree in civil engineering from Cornell I began full-time work in various engi- neering, mechanical and operating jobs with that railroad. For II years before I came with the AAR I was president of The Long Island Rail Road. I think I know a great deal about safety in railroading because I have had to be con- cerned with rail safety at every moment of my working career. I am just as concerned with safety now as I was when I was an apprentice—and I may say that the earliest lesson impressed upon me those 40-odd years ago was that safety always comes first. We of the railroad industry, because of our necessary concern with safety, and also because of our long experience with Federal safety regulation, may be able to contribute something to the Committee’s consideration of this bill. I will try to be as brief and to the point as possible. To the extent that this bill covers the railroad industry—a matter referred to below—we oppose it because : (1) The powers it grants are too broad and unrestrained ; (2) No need for new Federal regulation has been shown ; and (3) There has been no showing that such regulation would be beneficial. At the outset, let me speak of the coverage of this legislation. Section 13 of H.R. 14816 makes the bill and the rules and standards adopted under it inapplicable to the activities of employees whose occupational safety is affected by standards or regulations prescribed by another Federal agency. In our view this would clearly exempt from the Labor Department’s jurisdiction all railroad activities and property directly connected with, or directly used in, the provision of transportation services. This is because many hundreds of rules and standards affecting the safety of employees engaged in such activities or on such property are prescribed and enforced by the Department of Transportation. Some of the standards have been in existence for more than 70 years.* This conclusion is not ours alone. The statement filed with this Committee under date of March 14 by Mr. Donaid Beattie on behalf of the Railway Labor Execu- tives’ Association states its authors’ fears that the railroad industry is not fully covered by the bill. Consequently Mr. Beattie proposes an amendment that would broaden the scope of the legislation as applied to railroads and thus greatly narrow the exemption I have described. I feel certain that most members of Congress who consider the matter will agree that the exemption written into the bill is sound. Just a year ago the new Department of Transportation took over the railroad safety functions of the ICC at the direction of Congress. Even if new authority over safety in railroading were needed—which it certainly is not—Congress would be frustrating its own plan if it accorded that authority to a third agency that has no interest in, knowiedge of, or responsibility for transportation. I would therefore hope that *A summary of the railroad safety acts and regulations is attached as an appendix, 92-784 0—68——59 916 any Committee reports that may be issued in connection with this bill would emphasize the existence and desirability of the exemption. But we must recognize that even though railroad employees, especially those whose work directly affects transportation services, are not covered by the bill as it now stands, it might be asserted that those railroad employees whose work does not directly affect transportion services or who work off operating proper- ties—men in railroad shops, for example—would be covered by the bill as writ- ten, along with millions of employees of other industries. For these reasons we must assume that if H.R. 14816 were adopted we might be subject to some degree of regulation in areas of our business not now govern- ed by existing Federal statutes. Let me turn now to the substance of the bill. A disturbing element is the enormous power given the Secretary of Labor by section 3. The power granted by this section is limited only by reference to safety. So long as the Secretary believes that a standard or a regulation is needed in order to provide safety he may adopt that standard or regulation, and all industries affected must obey under the sanction of severe penalties for violation. There is no requirement that the Secretary hold evidentiary hearings on the record when he adopts or amends a rule. All he need do is give notice of a proposed rule and allow interested par- ties to file written views and arguments on it. Railroad experience suggests that this procedure is not an adequate substitute for a full hearing in many contested cases involving safety rules. We believe this power—which is as broad as a safety power could possibly be—goes too far. The American economy and the Federal Government are founded on the prin- ciple that industry should exist as free enterprise, and that the Government should regulate industry only in those areas where regulation is necessary. We think this is a healthful principle. (We also think this legislation loses com- plete sight of it.) Underlying this bill there seem to be two unsaid assumptions : that safety in all areas of American industry is at a low level, and that govern- mental regulation can improve it. Both of these premises are unproved, and we thing they are unprovable concerning the railroads. Additional regulation of American industry should not be undertaken without showing first, that a definite need exists and second, that regulation can satisfy that need. The railroad industry has for more than 70 years been subjected to extensive Federal regulation in the field of safety. The safety statutes under which we operate provide for regulation of safety in particular areas, areas where Con- gress thought a special need existed. These include, for example, locomotive in- spection, signal inspection, safety appliances, and hours of service. Congress has also rejected or refused to consider numerous bills relating to other areas of railroad safety. These include, for example, bills that would have given the Government control over operating rules, track inspection or freight car inspection. In a number of these cases we have shown in hearings that the legislation proposed was not needed, and Congress has agreed. We have never had legislation of the type here proposed, a bill which would make overall “safety” the only criterion for governmental regulation. If H.R. 14816 became law, and were held to apply to railroads, it would arbi- trarily overrule these thoughtful determinations that Federal control should not extend to certain areas of railroad operation. This bill would do this without any justification, and indeed without any indi- cation that Federal regulation would result in improvement. Our experience has been that although governmental regulation of safety is capable of yielding good results in certain areas, such regulations are also capable of obstructing progress (including progress in the area of safety itself) because of the rigidity inherent in even the best systems of regulation. A given standard or inspection procedure, once adopted, has a tendency to last for a very long time, sometimes long past the period when it is effective in accomplishing the purpose it was designed for. In his testimony in support of this bill Secretary Wirtz made it plain that he did not believe American industry in general lacked any concern for safety, and I am very glad he did so. He is right. Any industrial death or injury is a tragedy that benefits no one. The loss of an employee inevitably means a loss to his employer as well as to himself and his family. I would like to summarize one element of the railroad safety record over the years. It is a record of which we are proud. Before 1930, more than 1000 rail employees per year were fatally injured in work accidents. Since that date employee fatalities have trended steadily downward. They were reduced to an 917 all-time low of 137 in absolute numbers during 1961; and they reached an all- time low in relation to traffic volume during 1966—the last full year of record. During 1966 the fatality rate for employees on duty on Class I railroads was 0.94 per 10 billion gross ton miles. This astronomical measure of 10 billion gross ton miles demonstrates the extraordinary safety we have achieved in railroading. The 1966 record represents a more than 10-fold improvement over a period of 40 years. The fatality rate for employees on duty per million man hours worked was in 1966 0.12, representing a reduction of two-thirds over the past 40 years. Our safety record therefore provides no justification at all for a law such as H.R. 14816 and I cannot see how governmental action in areas where we are not now regulated could improve the safety record. Certainly no one has shown this to be the case. Safety regulations, we have learned, always entails economic consequences. No one can object to this if the regulation accomplishes its purpose ; for no one can match dollars against lives. On the other hand, this economic effect of reg- ulation cannot be disregarded. The economic burden of unnecessary or ill-consid- ered or trivial regulations can never be justified. In the case of a public service industry such as ours it can be a burden on the entire population. By this I do not mean to suggest that anyone in our Government would syste- matically advocate regulation of this kind. I do suggest that the possibility of such regulation exists, despite good will on all sides, because safety is an ex- ceedingly complex matter. The causes of accidents are seldom easily eliminated or even identified. It seems to me that this consideration is another which sug- gests the necessity for going more slowly and for attempting to define both a need and a solution which would satisfy it before adopting the broad-brush ap- proach inherent in this bill. In this connection a wise suggestion has already been made to this Committee by Mr. J. Sharp Queener, Safety Director of the DuPont Company, on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. He has proposed the creation of a National Safety Commission that would be capable of doing what has not yet been done in the broad field of national safety: finding the problems and suggesting the right answers to them. Cannot industry, labor, and Government together thus find out where to go and how to get there? Finally, it seems to us that the penalty imposed by section 9(a) of the bill is excessive and the scheme for collecting it is undesirable. Section 9(a) imposes a penalty of $1000 for any violation of any rule, stand- ard, or order issued by the Secretary. In the context of the bill these are not willful or criminal violations, for which separate and much larger penalties are provided elsewhere. It follows that the $1000 fine applies to violations that are inadvertent, innocent, and non-negligent. : Violations of this kind cannot be deterred in any significant degree by the size of the fine because no one intends them. But when the rules subject to viola- tion are numerous and complex—as they must inevitably be under this bill—the chance that more and more of them will be violated becomes correspondingly great. The exact meaning of a rule, moreover, and the exact factual circum- stances surrounding an alleged violation are often debatable. But if the debate is resolved against an industry, the fine will be imposed. These $1000 fines are therefore capable of becoming a substantial economic burden to no purpose, certainly not that of deterrence. Comparable fines for vio- lation of most railroad safety laws and rules are now $250. Even so, they were increased to that level from a general level of $100 as late as 1957. I can see no reason why the fines under this bill should be four times higher. Other witnesses before this Committee have criticized that portion of section 9 that permits the Secretary to assess this penalty on his own determination of both facts and law. These are matters that should be determined by the courts, as they are under the existing railroad safety laws. The courts are equipped to do even-handed justice as between the executive and the citizen. The executive is not, because no party to a controversy is competent to assess a fine against his opponent. For these reasons, the railroad industry believes that H.R. 14816 should not be enacted. APPENDIX The following summarizes the principal Federal laws and regulations govern- ing railroad safety. 1. Safety Appliance Acts—A series of acts adopted from 1893 to 1910 (with some later supplements and amendments). These laws require the use of specified 918 devices on railroad rolling stock and empower the DOT to adopt and enforce related standards. These standards (other than for power brakes and draw bars) are published in 26 sections, most of which contain numerous subsections (49 C.F.R. Part 131, occupying 28 pages). 2. Power Brake Act—Technically one of the Safety Appliance Acts, adopted in 1958, but somewhat different in scope and effect. It authorizes the DOT to adopt and enforce rules, standards, and instructions for installation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of power brakes. These rules and standards (together with a few relating to draw bars and to other power brake provisions of the Safety Appliance Acts) are published in 10 sections, most of which contain numerous subsections (49 C.F.R. Part 132, occupying 6 pages) followed by specifications in 43 sections plus amendments. 3. Signal Inspection Act—Adopted in 1920 and greatly broadened by subse- quent amendments. Related to Block Signal Resolution of 1906. This law gives the DOT authority to require the installation of signal, train stop, and train control systems, to approve or disapprove their modification, to adopt and enforce rules, standards, and instructions relating to their installation, inspection, main- tenance, and repair, to inspect them, and to require reports concerning them. The related rules, standards, and instructions are published in 305 sections, some of which contain subsections (49 C.F.R. Parts 233, 234, 236, occupying 29 pages). 4. Locomotive Inspection Act—Adopted in 1911 and broadened by subsequent amendments. Authorizes the DOT to adopt and enforce rules, standards, an instructions for the inspection and testing of locomotives and to inspect locomo- tives and require reports thereoun. The rules, standards, and instructions are published in 280 sections, many of which contain subsections (49 C.F.R. Part 91, occupying 84 pages). 5. Accident Reports Act—Adopted in 1910 and amended in 1960. Requires sub- mission of railroad accident reports to the DOT and authorizes the DOT to prescribe related rules, regulations, and forms and to investigate accidents. Related rules are published in 29 sections, most of which contain subsections (49 C.F.R. Part 125, occupying 25 pages). 6. Hours of Service Act—Adopted in 1907. Istablishes maximum hours of service for specified classes of railroad employees. Authorizes the DOT to execute and enforce the Act. Related regulations are published in 3 sections (49 C.F.R. Part 61, occupying 2 pages). 7. Ash Pan Act—ODbsolete because applicable only to steam locomotives. 8 Transportation of Haplosives—Act adopted in 1908 and subsequently codi- fied and amended. Authorizes the DOT to make rules and regulations governing the transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles. Related regulations (49 C.F.R. Parts 71-79) are extremely voluminous, occupy- ing 750 pages. Some of these regulations apply expressly to shippers or to other modes of transportation, but the greater part apply to railroads. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN RETAIL FEDERATION The American Retail Federation, a Federation of 48 state retail associations and 27 national retail associations, is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 14816, the “Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968.” The wide scope of jurisdiction granted to the Secretary of Labor (to any industry “affecting commerce”) is without foundation in need, especially when viewed in the context of the practically unbridled regulation-writing as inspection and injunctive powers vested in him by this measure. Furthermore, it has not been shown that such a legislative program is neces- sary in our industry. This legislation will not advance the present interest of our employees. Rather, by diverting management’s attention to yet another tangen- tial area, it would only serve to increase the cost of the operations. The basis of our recommendation is founded upon several factors, stated hereafter: 1. The congressional findings and purpose are general in nature. There has not been any attempt to identify industries or job classifications wherein the legislation would be necessary and a new benefit to workers. Yet, the burden of 019 this legislation and subsequent Federal regulations would be imposed on all in- dustries now providing safe working conditions. 2. We find the desired standards to be excessively vague. Only after the Act is passed will an employer know whether the subsequent regulations will be un- duly overbearing or, on the other hand, totally ineffective in achieving the pur- poses of the Act. 3. Another government agency would be permitted to interrupt production by investigation, inspection and questioning of employees. It should also be noted that this bill would authorize the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to inspect business premises for similar purposes. 4. A government Department, by virtue of this legislation, would have au- thorization to issue ex parte orders after performing an inspection. This places the burden and the cost of resorting to legal relief on the employer. 5. The scope of the Secretary’s authority to issue orders, which could include a cessation of doing business and the prohibition against employment of per- sonnel, we find to be unacceptably broad. 6. The Secretary will have authority to enforce yet undetermined regu- lations by requesting an injunction in a United States District Court. To grant this remedy for yet-to-be-determined standards is an unwarranted grant of legal power. 7. We find onerous the imposition upon an employer of additional cost to be incurred as a result of the mandate to make and keep records. As well, another report, added to the array already required, will have to be made to the govern- ment by the employer. 8. The Secretary is authorized to set up training programs. Details of such programs are yet undetermined. Protection against the probability of unduly interfering with business by such undetermined programs is not provided for by this legislation. Nor is there a limitation restraining such programs only to areas where they have been determined to be necessary. 9. An individual would be subject to $1,000 fine per violation and a $5,000 fine for willful violation. We oppose the imposition of a fine when the Secretary already has the power to stop the violation. 10. This Act creates an open-end appropriation of government monies, in- cluding an expenditure for research by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which permits the awarding of contracts for such research to private groups. These groups would thereby have authority to inspect an employer's production processes. 11. The Secretary’s power of inspection may be delegated to any other govern- ment agency. When this is related to the section granting the Secretary or his delegated representative authority to take any action necessary (where an in- vestigation discloses a condition of imminent harm), one can foresee the pos- sible whip-saw power in any government agency who may not have had success in dealing with a particular employer. We, therefore, conclude that this proposed legislation would subject the re- tailer to significantly increased burdens and costs as a result of recordkeeping, reporting and the interruption of business due to inspection and employee ques- tioning. In addition, the Act has not placed any limitation on expenses to be appropriated in carrying out this program. There is also a serious question as to the necessity of a Federal Law which would duplicate to a great extent the laws of several states. ‘We urge the Committee to consider and adopt these views. HueeNE A. KEENEY, Hazecutive Vice President. STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS This statement regarding H.R. 14816 is offered by the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., an association of more than 2,300 member firms with over 80,000 employees in twelve states and with headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland. It presents the Association’s views on H.R. 14816, a bill to create federal or national occupational safety and health standards applicable to all businesses affecting commerce. The members of the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., at times in this statement called ABC, and their thousands of employees are, as their name 920 implies, engaged in the construction and related industries. Most of the ABC's members are in states east of the Mississippi River. Safety and health is always of major concern to ABC and its members, and we are gratified to know of the Subcommittee’s interest in attempting to minimize through legislation injuries and deaths which occur through occupational accidents. Such injuries and deaths are realities which tend to provoke highly emotional and spontaneous reactions, especially when it might have been possible to pre- vent such tragedy. Maiming and violent deaths graphically portrayed in photo- graphs such as those presented by Secretary Wirtz in some of his testimony cer- tainly inflame the sensibilities of reasonable men, and this is why many courts today refuse to allow pictures to be introduced into evidence. This undeniable prejudicial effect makes any rational and reasonable argument against legislation proposed in the name of safety and health seem weak. ABC is much concerned with this area, and is eager to cooperate with any reasonable program designed to minimize safety hazards in employment. The real issue, however, should not be confused with the desired results of safety legislation, since employers and employees alike are concerned with the reduction of injury and death. The fundamental issue is whether the proposed legislation will achieve the intended laudatory goals in the orderly and rapid manner assured by its proponents. It is ABC’s position that while the motives and intentions behind H.R. 14816 are the highest, the federal standards and legislation proposed through this Act are not the effective and reasonable solution that is sought. H.R. 1}816 based on wrong premise H.R. 14816 assumes that injuries are the result of perilous conditions of employment, virtually ignoring negligence and carelessness of the workman. In some instances, unsafe conditions do make for injuries, but these are estimated by safety experts as causing only about 15 per cent of the accidents. About 85 per cent of the injuries are credited to careless acts. Federal agencies, employers, unions, insurance companies, private safety councils, and state safety bureaus already concentrate their efforts on reducing employment injuries and deaths. Optional efforts are thus already being expended to eliminate occupational dangers which lend themselves to correction. It is hardly reasonable that a new federal law will alleviate those injuries and deaths which comprise the majority of employment tragedies—those created by a care- less, or hungover, or distraught employee. No amount of federal attention will remove human error. Alarming statistics have been recited by those convinced that federal legisla- tion is the answer, but meaningful interpretation of reports and surveys in fact show good results from present safety programs. Statistical facts show consistent reduction in injury frequency rates Below is a chart displaying “injury frequency rates” in five-year increments since 1930. It is significant to note from the chart that “injury frequency rates” have steadily declined in all categories, while the number of reporting units has significantly increased over the elapsed time. Explanations for a more thorough understanding of these statistics are located in Attachment I. INJURY FREQUENCY RATES AS REPORTED BY THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL IN 5-YEAR INCREMENTS SINCE 1930 Injury frequency rates Year Number of frye ! units Fatal Permanent Temporary All disabling partial total injuries 4,198 0.19 0.78 17.50 18.47 3,796 15 +13 13.14 14, 02 5,163 14 .67 L721 12,52 6,262 09 . 69 12.85 13.63 6, 395 08 +57 8.65 9.30 7,287 08 . 46 6. 42 6.96 7,894 07 .38 5,59 6.04 9,754 07 .34 6.12 6.53 Source: The National Safety Council, Work Injury Rates, 1967 edition, p. 26. 921 It quickly becomes evident from the above information that realistic and very encouraging progress in reduction of injuries has been made. Certainly the forces presently acting on safety and health have been anything but ineffective, and are definitely not the picture of lethargy some would have us depict. These conse- quences merit serious consideration, and should do much to repel the hostile criticism directed towards present programs of safety which have been labeled ineffective. The situation in the construction industry In recent years the Bureau of Labor Statistics has produced studies of “injury frequency rates” broken down to various phases of business using the uniform “Standard Industrial Classifications,” (referred to as Sic.) The studies con- ducted by BLS substantiate the findings made by the National Safety Council. In ABC's industry of construction BLS figures reveal a consistent pattern and even a decline in injuries for 1965, the most recent year available, while the num- ber of persons employed increases. The following table, based on BLS statistics, illustrates this point : INJURY FREQUENCY RATES IN THE SIC CLASSIFICATION OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION, 1958-651 Total average annual employment, non- Total employment for Percent of total Injury frequency Year agricultural, private contract construction average annual rates on contract and nonprivate (thousands) employment construction (thousands) 51, 363 2,778 5.41 30.9 53,313 2,960 5,55 32.1 54,234 2,885 5.32 3.5 , 042 2,816 521 30.9 55, 596 2,902 522 29.5 56,702 , 96. 5.23 28.6 58,332 3,050 523 20.5 60, 832 3,181 5.23 28.3 1 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statisics, ‘Employment and Earnings for the United States, 1960-67," Bueyn No 121-5; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Injury Rates by Industry, 1955-63," Bulletins 0s. an : Note: See explanation of chart in attachment II. The term ““SIC'* means ‘‘standard industrial classification.” While charges of inactivity in the field of safety have been leveled at the states, it is significant to note in the field of construction that during the period from 1961 to 1966, twenty-seven states made additions to or developed new construc- tion safety codes. * H.R. 14816 defective in ignoring pre-employment examinations It is no surprise that one very important factor of reducing accidents in as- certaining the capabilities or limitations of man, before placing him on a job. The most practical means of doing this is through pre-placement physical exami- nations. In the construction industry, perhaps because of organized labor op- position, no craft members were ever tested prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act which is designed to eliminate racial discrimination. H.R. 14816 makes no provi- sion for pre-employment examination, and yet in geographic areas where such examinations are carried on without interference, as many as 40 per cent of the applicants were found to require limited assignments due to physical deficiencies.” The sweeping effect of H.R. 14816—Parties affected The Health and Safety Act provides that the safety standards and regulations eventually promulgated will apply to contracts or subcontracts exceeding $2500 which involve the employment of any person to which the U.S. or any agency is a party, which is made for or on behalf of the U.S. or its agents, or is financed in whole or in part by government loans (Sec. 10(a)). The Act further provides in Sec. 3(a) that Department of Labor standards would apply to any employer engaged in a business effecting commerce. 1 Dept. of Labor, BLS, State Safety Law Library, June 1966, 2 Statement by Wm. E. Naumann, chmn. of Legis. Comm. of AGC in a statement before the House subcom. on H.R. 2567, Constr. Safety. 922 Between these two sections, this pending legislation could conceivably affect most business. Most federal loans and grants appear to be in the form of con- tracts, so the contract coverage alone is indeed sweeping. Experience has taught us that the term “affect commerce” can include practically any business. It seems unwise for the Congress to pass this legislation requested by the Department of Labor without requiring it to estimate who is affected and how. It is difficult to guess who would not be covered by the “affect commerce” section over and above the contract provision. The Department of Labor should provide clarification. It is ironical incidentally that the aim is to include such large volumes of business under this intended safety mecca, but without inclusion of the U.S. or state government employees. The injury and death figures for government em- ployees are high. Shouldn’t the government lead, not lag? Why should federal employees be denied equal protection of the law? The standards and their scope The standards established in the Act are very vague and general. In other proposed safety acts, proposed standards have commonly been directed toward improvements in physical conditions and regulations covering employee practices have been deemed unenforceable. A dilemma then arises. If physical conditions and vital operating rules were the sole determinate of safety, there would be no problem but such is not the case. Human behavior is also a serious consideration. If the present proposal is to be effective, it requires standards for these areas not previously considered possible, appropriate or enforceable. Experience of the Department of Labor raises great doubt that it could devise such standards. Its work with the Walsh-Healey Act, for instance, as discussed later, does not inspire confidence. The proposed legislation does not impose proce- dures that promise better results this time. The proposed statute states that the Department of Labor must consult other federal agencies, and Sec. 553 of Title 5, U. S. Code, shall apply. Essentially, this section requires notice and hearing prior to the institution of rules. It would be reasonable to require more preliminary procedures. Even the President's Conference on Occupational Safety (1950) es- tablished more elaborate and sophisticated procedures than H.R. 14816 for sound rule-making in the states. Reference to technical information and technical as- sistance was encouraged. Participation by employers and employee is another aspect which was encouraged and should be utilized presently. An advisory committee could prove to be a valuable assistance. Such possibilities escaped serious attention in this bill. Financing problem needs further study The Act and the message which accompanied it are strangely silent on the amounts needed to attain the stated objectives. A review of the previous Con- gressional safety programs demonstrates that extensive funds are necessary to reduce the injury rate by any significant proportion. The successful maritime pro- gram of the Department of Labor needed $7 million total, rising to $2% million per year to cut an injury base of 12,800 by 37%. It must be emphasized, how- ever, that this program was easier than the proposed program to fund since the injuries were concentrated in one particular area. The proposed act is framed in terms of a nationwide campaign, where injuries are more widely distributed and therefore more costly and difficult to reach. The expenditure of the money would be gratifying if the desired results could be certain. But past experience should be a warning that the entire program may prove to be a waste. It is always a temptation in government-sponsored programs to think in such large sums, that we as individuals lose a grasp on the reality of the problem. Once this happens and the various agencies take over, Parkinson’s law insidiously replaces efficiency. More consideration, and a careful analysis of existing pro- grams should occur before large sums are blindly appropriated. The Walsh-Healey Act is an example of an unfortunate Federally-sponsored safety program which never really got off the ground. Its failure may be attribut- able to many features such as unrealistic standards, failure to enforce properly, and extremely slow movement by the agencies responsible for its institution. No one during all the testimony has pointed to this statute as an example of any- thing but chaos. Even the President stated, “It (Walsh-Healey) is more honored in the breach than observed.” The proposed legislation is attempting without adequate planning and guidelines to pilot a safety program even more extensive, 923 so the chances of failure are more ominous. There should be far more extensive study and planning if the program now suggested is to be anything more than an expensive and useless experiment. Research The proposed statute makes provisions for research programs, to help launch the safety campaign. This is always a good way to ignite a new and relatively untried program of this nature, and would likewise be a possible area for federal appropriations to the states. By providing funds to the states for research, a broad base of diversified information would ultimately be available, founded on the varied needs of different industrial and business requirements. Proper appli- cation of the principle arrived at after considered research could do much to minimize injuries, especially in the industries which have a comparatively high injury rate. Inspection and penalties These two areas of the bill are to many the most objectionable, unsatisfactory and unacceptable of the entire statute. It seems the authors are taking a back door approach to the problem and one that is somewhat inflexible, and will un- doubtedly open a Pandora's box of vocal and belligerent objection. It is regret- table that the states have not been more successful and responsive in developing sophisticated safety programs and it is undoubtedly one of the major purposes of this statute to remedy that situation. But the states have in fact made progress and will make more if allowed to do so. On the other side, moreover, industry has been quite successful and active with safety programs, but H.R. 14816 directs much of its energies towards penalizing industry despite the good work it has done in the area of safety. The proponents of the statute have made the Secretary of Labor and his staff a monolithic structure, with a seeming presumption of omnipotence and virtually no recourse for error. The question then comes to mind, why punish all industry with this unfair and unbearable procedure when most of it has been doing good work in the field of safety? Why suppress safety programs in those states which have done excellent safety work ? Enforcement procedures hardly represent fair play Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the proposed Safety Act provide for an army of safety inspectors whose jobs is to inspect industry and business to determine their con- formity with the promulgated standards, and further determine if there is an imminent health or safety hazard. These inspectors would be permitted to enter affected establishments at any “reasonable time.” If the inspector so determines that danger is imminent, the entire operation may be shut down without the benefit of a hearing or trial. Once a cease and desist order is issued by the Depart- ment of Labor on the advice of a safety inspector, this may be further enforced by injunctive relief from the U.S. District Courts. If it becomes necessary to go to court for injunctive and judicial relief, the only hearing provided concerning the facts at this point is a determination of the imminence of the harm alleged. Secretary Wirtz was quite emphatic and inflexible in his testimony that no hear- ing was contemplated in cases involving imminent harm prior to the issuance of a cease and desist order, and if court relief became necessary, then there would be a hearing only on the narrow issue mentioned. When imminent danger is not the issue, that is in event of some other alleged violation of the Act, then a hearing is contemplated prior to the cease and desist order. It is quite unnerving to contemplate that the Secretary of Labor and his in- spectors are to be such demigods without the benefit of due process. It would tend to soften the blow somewhat if the Secretary advocated the use of safety engineers as inspectors or other highly trained specialists, but he has taken the opposite position and wholeheartedly recommended the use of hardcore unem- ployed as inspectors. Without being an alarmist this plan overall is shocking. It outrages the mind and the principles of justice that a virtually unemployable individual can pro- claim imminent harm and have an entire operation shut down without the benefit of a hearing. The process of appeal, if any, as available here (the possibility of which was not discussed by the Secretary at the hearing) would not only be very time-consuming but costly in terms of money and lost production. It is awesome to think that one relatively untrained inspector would have such power, 924 In addition to the cease and desist order and a possible court order when necessary, there are a number of other penalties available to the Department of Labor under the statute. Penalties Section 9 of the proposed Act makes available a civil penalty of $1000 for failure of an affected business to conform to the standards promulgated, or for operating when it has been deemed to be a threat of imminent harm. This fine is available for each separate offense, and when there is continuing failure to comply, each day of continuance is considered a separate offense. Note here again that it is not the court assessing the penalty, but the Secretary or his authorized agent. The District Court has only the power to overrule the issue of imminent harm and many employers even though they felt the rules were being unfairly applied against them would submit rather than spend the time and money for an appeal to the United States Courts. Section 9(¢) of H.R. 2864 makes willful violation of the statute a misdemeanor, with conviction providing for $5,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment, with the potential penalty doubling after the first conviction. Forcible resistance results in a potentially greater penalty. Penalty through government route But a more uncanny and unjust mode of punishment is available in the field of government contracts through Section 10 of the statute. Under this section the Secretary has the power to declare ineligible for a government contract any firm which he finds is not meeting the standards prescribed, and likewise he has power to recommend to the government agency involved cancellation of an existing contract if he finds the contracting firm not meeting such standards. As Secretary Wirtz so candidly admits in his testimony before the subcommittee, there is no review of such a decision by the Secretary. In a similar discussion later in the testimony, Secretary Wirtz there admits that he will have the authority to declare a company ineligible for future federal contract by a determination on his part, and again there is no review of this decision. The Secretary can thereby cut off all government contracts of a company and it will not have the protection of a court hearing. Procedure of the type described are so alien to this country and its principles that the entire process recommended by the statute does violence to the basic Constitutional tenets of due process, protection of property and the right to a fair trial. The procedures made available take on the unnerving characteristics of a bill of attainder. If Congress permits the bill to pass as it stands, then there will be no limits on the inroads that can be made in the Constitutional principles protecting property. The government police power (a power which the federal government has never been recognized as having) is a power which must be cautiously exercised with careful consideration, and certainly does not warrant the highanded and sweeping tactics made potentially available through this proposed statute. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION To summarize, ABC and its members heartily support job safety. It is com- mendable that this Congress would like to take measures through legislation to protect employees from unnecessary or preventable dangers. Some states have made considerable progress in this area. Others, as public opinion dictates, can do so if the federai government does not preempt their authority. Industry, however, shows highly gratifying activity in the field of safety as the statistics indicate. Certainly ABC like most employers, is eager to cooperate with any reasonable program to minimize employment tragedy, but the Occu- pational Safety and Health Act of 1968 is unacceptable in its present form. Even though emotion runs high at vivid portrayals of industrial tragedy, reason must prevail before those concerned are stampeded into a situation where the proposed remedies are more insidious than the evil sought to be corrected. The most objectionable features of H.R. 14816 are the methods of inspection, the power the bill delegates to the Secretary of Labor and his inspectors, and the unbridled methods of enforcement made available to the Secretary and his staff. Respect for law would certainly be rocked to the very foundation if the proposed delegations of authority are actually conceded to the Secretary of Labor and his staff. Other featares of H.R. 14816 should also be modified or eliminated. The sub- committee should give consideration to whether this bill will actually reach the 925 desired results at all in its present form. As we have seen, nearly 85% of the industrial accidents occur because of some human error, and not hazardous working conditions. H.R. 14816 does nothing about this situation. Many federal safety programs are already in existence, and duplication is both unwarranted and unnecessary. In establishing safety standards, more than mere publication, notice and hear- ings should be utilized. Study programs and extensive research, particularly by the states is warranted. We should profit from the Department's failure effect- ively to handle Walsh-Healey safety standards, and avoid imposing a situation which will create such failure on even a larger area. Let reason prevail, and properly safeguard the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Sweeping delegations as proposed by H.R. 14816 and the alarming enforcement procedures advocated can do no more than elevate the Secretary of Labor to an industrial dictator and create disrespect for law. Rabid abandon- ment in the name of a cause seldom produces the desired results. ATTACHMENT [—EXPLANATION OF CHART FOUND ON PAGE 3, ENTITLED “INJURY FREQUENCY RATES AS REPORTED BY THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL IN 5-YEAR INCREMENTS SINCE 1930” This chart categorizes injuries for all industry according to degree of severity. Once these classifications are determined, injury frequency rates for that category are established annually by computing the number of disabling injuries per 1,000,000 man-hours of work. The number of units refers to the companies, plants, establishments, shops, stores, stations, ete. for which information is reported to the National Safety Council. Definitions for the degrees of severity are as follows: Fotal, is self-explanatory and means any occupational injury ultimately re- sulting in death; Permanent Partial is any disability other than death or permanent total disa- bility which results in the complete loss or loss of use of any member or part of a member of the body, or any permanent impairment of functions of the body or body part; Temporary Total is any disability which does not result in death or permanent impairment, but which renders the disabled person unable to perform a regularly established job on one or more full calendar days following the day of injury; All Disabling Injuries refers to any and all work disability which arises out of and in the course of employment, and which results in death, permanent total, or temporary total disability. ATTACHMENT II—EXPLANATION OF CHART FOUND ON PAGE 4, ENTITLED “INJURY FREQUENCY RATES IN THE SIC CLASSIFICATION OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION 1958 1965” This chart prepared from information available throughout the Bureau of Labor Statistics establishes injury rates for that particular industry known as Contract Construction. The Department of Labor in conjunction with the Bureau of Labor Statistics annually supplies a manual entitled the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. This manual categorizes industry, business and services according to certain established uniform definitions created by the Bureau of Lahor Statistics. These classifications are referred to as SIC classification or Standard Industrial Classifications. The category of Contract Construction is one such SIC classification. The information presented in this chart was compiled from two government sources : The Employment and Earnings Manual, and Injury Rates by Industry Bulletins. (For specific citations see the footnote utilized with the chart.) The first column of the chart shows the total average annual employment for all non-agricultural industries, services and businesses both private and non-pri- vate. As evidenced from the chart, the total average annual employment increases steadily for the years studied. The second column shows the total employment for the SIC Classification of Contract Construction. The percentage of employees engaged in this classification as against the total non-agricultural employment (column one) is stated in col- umn three of the chart. For the years studied, Contract Construction comprised about 5+ 9% of total non-agricultural employment for all industries, business and services. 926 The fourth column shows the injury frequency rate for Contract Construction. This rate is established by computing the average number of disabling work in- juries for each million employee-hours worked. The information used in com- piling the frequency rate is based on nationwide statistics available to the government. As the chart indicates, injury frequency rates for Contract Construction steadily declined, while the number of employees increased. STATEMENT OF THE ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION INTRODUCTION The Electronic Industries Association (EIA) is a trade organization repre- senting over 300 member-company employers engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment and components. EIA members are located throughout the United States and would be included under the proposed “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968.” The Safety and Health Committee of the EIA Industrial Relations Department, as representatives of these manufacturers, has carefully studied the proposed legislation and the committee’s recommendations have been approved, as follows : EIA, while not condoning nor approving in any way further expansion of I'ederal regulatory controls over American industry, respectfully submits the following recommendations for revision of specific sections of the proposed “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968” : STANDARDS, SECTION 3 (a) EIA endorses the principle of safety standards that are uniform throughout the country, but recommends that the proposed Act be amended to include a require- ment that they be developed with adequate consultation with representatives of all groups affected, and the consensus method be utilized. Whenever possible, written safety standards should indicate safety perform- ance requirements rather than rigid specifications. In those standards where it is not possible to define safety performance, detailed specifications should be used. It is also recommended that variations be provided in any safety standards for existing facilities, when such need exists. ADMINISTRATION, SECTION 4 A permanent Advisory Committee, having representation from industry, labor, state and federal governments, should be established to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare on matters relative to establishing safety standards, special reports, establishment of research projects and utilization of data, and assessment of penalties, as well as other activities and programs provided for in the Act. In addition, as the need arises, the Secretary of Labor should appoint repre- sentative Ad Hoc groups of consultants to advise him and the Advisory Com- mittee on specialized problems and in connection with the problems of par- ticular industries. INSPECTIONS AND INVESTMENTS, SECTION b Those individuals designated by the Secretary of Labor as his representatives in carrying out safety inspections and investigations of factories, plants, es- tablishments, construction sites, mines, or other work places or environments subject to the provisions of this Act, should be qualified in accordance with safety engineering qualification standards established by civil service and recognized national professional bodies. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT, SECTION 6 (&) (1) (2) To allow necessary lead time for companies to bring themselves into com- pliance, it is recommended that all initial and new safety standards not be enforced immediately, but have an effective date of twelve (12) months after the date of first public notice of promulgation. In cases of revision of safety 927 standards, the Secretary of Labor should be authorized and directed to provide a reasonable period of time, not necessarily as long as twelve months, between the date of promulgating any such revised standard and its effective date. After the lapse of the lead time, in assessing the civil penalty, the Secretary of Labor and his representative should take into consideration the circum- stances involved, including the nature of the violation, any willful unsafe prac- tice by an employee, the bona fides of the employer in complying or attempting to comply with the standard, and any other relevant circumstances. Any employer (whose factory, plant, establishment, construction site, mine, or other work place or environment is subject to the provisions of this Act) who is required to cease operating either totally or in part because of an alleged violation deemed to be of imminent harm to the safety and health of his workers, should have injunctive relief and recourse against the Federal Government for total economic losses suffered (including customer good will) if cessation was later found to be unwarranted. Research and Related Activities and Grants to the States, Sections 15 and 17: EIA endorses the provisions for research and state aid. CONCLUSION EIA trusts that the Committee will give serious consideration to these rec- ommended changes in its deliberations on this bill. THOMAS H. MCBRIEN, Chairman, Safety and Health Committee, Industrial Relations Department. HEATH WAKELEE, Director, Industrial Relations Department. [From Industrial Hygiene Digest, vol. 32, No. 3, March 1968] EDITORIAL—NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH GOALS AND PROGRESS IN 1968 In his first message to Congress following his State of the Union Address, President Lyndon Baines Johnson has proposed.— A 2.1 billion dollar manpower program, the largest in the nation’s history, for placing the hard-core unemployed in private industry jobs, and The nation’s first comprehensive occupational health and safety program to protect the worker while he is on the job. Both of these programs are of the greatest importance to those responsible for employee health and safety and wiil be the subject of much deliberation and discussion in the Foundation’s Membership, Board and Staff leading up to the 33rd Annual Meeting in October. How will new employment practices affect existing occupational safety and health programs? The Foundation’s Medical Committee will be considering this carefully during the next few weeks. The impact of the proposed Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 on industry of all sizes is surmised from the President’s message, reported in the New York Times, January 24, 1968 and abstracted as follows: “...To give the American worker the complete protection he needs, we must also safeguard him against hazards on the job. Today, adequate protection does not exist. It is to the shame of a modern industrial nation, which prides itself on the productivity of its workers, that each year: 14,500 workers are killed on the job; 2.2 million workers are injured; 250 million man-days of productivity are wasted; $1.5-billion in wages are lost. The result: a loss of $5-billion to the economy. This loss of life, limb and sight must end. An attack must be launched at the source of the evil—against the conditions which cause hazards and invite accidents. The reasons for these staggering losses are clear. Safety standards are nar- row. Research lags behind. Enforcement programs are weak. Trained safety specialists fall far short of the need. The Federal Government offers the worker today only a patchwork of obsolete and ineffective laws. 928 The major law—Walsh-Healey—was passed more than three decades ago. Its coverage is limited. It applies only to a worker performing a Government contract. Last year about half of the work force was covered, and then only part of the time. It is more honored in the breach than observed. Last year, investigations revealed a disturbing number of violations in the plants of Government con- tractors. Comprehensive protection under other Federal laws is restricted to about a million workers in specialized fields—longshoremen and miners, for example. Only a few states have modern laws to protect the workers’ health and safety. Most have no coverage or laws that are weak and deficient. The gap in worker protection is wide and glaring—and it must be closed by a strong and forceful new law. It must be our goal to protect every one of America’s 75 million workers while they are on the job. I am submitting to the Congress the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. Here, in broad outline, is what this measure will do. For more than 50 million workers involved in interstate commerce it will : Strengthen the authority and resources of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to conduct an extensive program of research. This will provide the needed information on which new standards can be developed. Empower the Secretary of Labor to set and enforce those standards. Impose strong sanctions, civil and criminal, on those who endanger the health and safety of the American working man. For American workers in intrastate commerce, it will provide, for the first time, Federal help to the states to start and strengthen their own health and safety programs. These grants will assist the states to— develop plans to protect the worker, collect information on occupational injuries and diseases, set and enforce standards, and train inspectors and other needed experts . . . COMMENT Individuals from all segments of the community are currently testifying on House Bill No. 14816 and hearings will be scheduled later on the same bill in the Senate, as S. 2864. A copy of the proposed Act is available to Industrial Hygiene Foundation Members upon request. Brief Reports of testimony by Mr. Leo Teplow, Vice President of American Iron & Steel Institute, (an IHF Trustee) and by Public Health Service Surgeon General William H. Stewart which have appeared in the press are included in this issue's Legal Section, Items 188-189, D. 4; their full testimony is also available at IHF Headquarters. THF serves in two important ways: (1) as a source of industrial experience and expertise in matters pertaining to hazard controls and health conservation and (2) as a site of objective, factual evaluation, providing a “standard to which the wise and just may repair”. Foundation membership is entirely voluntary, and while a relatively small number of progressive companies now share in its activities and support, it is safe to say that the entire work force and community as a whole benefit greatly from IHF’s activities, described in the Transactions of the 32nd Annual Meeting and in the 1967 Annual Report. As IHF programs of medical statistics and epidemiology, mental health education and conservation, and field, laboratory and information research develop, the problem of adequate staffing of preventive programs related to employee health becomes increasingly pressing. Hopefully, economic analysis in the form of “Program Budgeting”, (used to great advantage by the Department of Defense for years, and adopted more recently by Department of Health, Education & Welfare) will be useful also to Congress and to the Department of Labor in considering relative merits of various alternatives. At its last meeting, ITHF's Board approved the Founda- tion’s 1968 Budget, which contains three new and interesting items of great potential value to industry and its workers: First, an THF contract with Consad Corporation for an objective review of overall Occupational Safety and Health Requirements, existing national resources and goals, and recommendations to improve definition of role and scope of work of all segments of the community having a potential contribution to make. Second, an THF grant to the University of Cincinnati's Kettering Laboratory to assist in developing the national infor- mation research programs presented by Professor Alan Kent and Dr. Edward P. 929 Radford at the last Annual Meeting, transactions of which will be distributed next month and 7'hird, an IHF contract with the University of Pittsburgh to establish an Industrial Hygiene Research Unit in collaboration with the Uni- versity of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health (Department of Occupa- tional Health) and School of Medicine (Departments of Pathology and Medicine) as a means of bringing the best factual information to students of Occupational Health and of Medicine and Pathology as well, stimulating their interest in careers in Environmental and Occupational Health research, teaching and practice. Industrial Hygiene Foundation’s mission is the advancement of healthful working conditions and human relations in industry. The success of voluntary health programs in its membership sets a high standard of excellence in the world. At a time when increasing evidence shows that occupational injury and disease make up less than 10% of industry’s total illness costs, it would be unwise to assume that improved employee health automatically will result from controls directed at “on the job” accidents and occupational diseases alone. Government's regulatory role should not overwhelm its leadership responsibilities. IHF is firmly based in industry, with strong ties in health departments in industry, govern- ment, research and academic institutions. Through IHF, industry directs its total health efforts in a position of leadership based on sound scientific management. A unique resource, IHF offers a point of management planning for governmental representatives having related missions, through collaborative programs of health conservation. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, Des Moines, Iowa, March 18, 1968. Hon. JouN C. CULVER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sir: In behalf of our members who are gainfully employed in the con- struction industry here in the State of Iowa, we earnestly solicit your most dili- gent support of the above captioned resolution and urge that it be passed in its present form this session. As you are aware, the scope of coverage of this bill is one of the largest of its nature and now includes the construction industry which means it could drasti- cally reduce the number of dead and injured our trade now experiences on the jobs and in the plant where our members earn their livings. Your support in this request for passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 will be deeply appreciated by all of the members and officers in our trade. Sincerely, DuaNE W. (DUKE) MAYO, International Representative. MACHINERY AND ALLIED PRODUCTS INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., March 29, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Education and Labor Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. HorraAnp: In response to the Subcommittee’s announcement of hearings on February 5, we are pleased to offer our views on H.R. 14816, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. We particularly welcome this op- portunity to comment on this proposal because members of the Institute, a na- tional organization of capital goods and allied product manufacturers, have a long-standing interest in the safety and health of employees, both their own and their customers’, Indeed, MAPI member companies are among the American industry leaders who have pioneered to provide safety in the workplace. In brief, we oppose the concept and substance of H.R. 14816. We feel, how- ever, that the government can make a unique contribution to the nation’s safety effort through a program of research and education. Should Congress find it necessary to act in the field of safety, we suggest that this is the course it should follow. 930 THE ISSUE BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE We believe that all those with a part to play in providing safety in the work- place—including employers, employees, unions, and government at all levels— must be encouraged to make every effort possible to reduce industrial injuries. Although, practically speaking, “complete” safety is an unreachable goal it is certainly worth striving for and continuing efforts must be made. It is therefore, we think, always timely for the Administration to bring this subject before Congress for review. As we see it, the issue before this Subcommittee is simple and straightfor- ward; namely, what can and should the federal government be doing to help te achieve occupational safety. A starting point in finding the answer is, we be- lieve, the lesson of history. As Secretary of Labor Wirtz has suggested to this Subcommittee, we should “proceed from the facts.” In keeping with this ap- proach, we are setting out below relevant data compiled by the National Safety Council dealing with the historical record of accident frequency, severity, and deaths in the workplace. (See Tables I, II, and III on the following pages.) TABLE L—Injury frequency experience of reporters to the National Safety Council, 1926-66 Disabilities frequency Years: rate?! FOB! rosie cinmissmmimnrimcmissmriim misses SR et st ee ts cid ef 31.9 1936 - = RSE me 13.6 TV sis mss oom 55 fom HE 14.2 NOHO ems om ss mm moe os sss mm me os es on ei 6. 4 1966 mem 6.9 1 Frequency rates (number of disabling work injuries per 1,000,000 employee-hours exposure). Source : National Safety Council, “Accident Facts,” 1967 edition, p. 28. TABLE I1.—Injury scverity experience of reporters to the National Safety Council, 1926-66 Severity Years: rates! TODD cere sr mms esse me sips oo ss SE SR A AS mn RE 2, 500 1936 1, 640 1946 _ ee 1, 280 TO cm cm mr cer a oe a 733 OOD ee ce cer cer mm me em ese og J 0 a 689 1 Severity rates (total days charged for work injuries per 1,000,000 employee-hours exposure). Source: National Safety Council, “Accident Facts,” 1967 edition, p. 28. TABLE 111.—DEATH RATES FROM ALL WORK ACCIDENTS, 1936-66 DEATH RATES! Years Rate Number of workers (in millions) 44.0 42 52.4 31 61.1 23 72.6 20 1 Death rates (the number of deaths per 100,000 persons exposed). Source: National Safety Council, ‘‘Accident Facts,” 1967 edition. p. 29. The past 10 years The Secretary of Labor in his statistical review before this Subcommittee highlighted the 1956-66 record and concluded “We can lay no claim to progress.” While we think that the record over the past 10 years is not as good as it should be, to suggest that there has been no progress is completely unjustifi- able. We know, of course, that the history of safety in our country has seen periodic interruptions in the trend toward accident elimination but we think it very significant that overall the trend has been both dramatic and definitely in the right direction. 931 Moreover, if we judge the past ten-year record in terms of “progress” or lack of it, we must examine the causes of the trend. The Secretary notes “the cur- rent unprecedented growth in the economy” and this is, of course, part of the answer. In more detail, we know that such factors as the following tend to contribute to a rise in accidents : 1. The entrance of new and inexperienced workers into the labor force. 2. Transfers of workers to types of work with which they are relatively unfamiliar. 3. Increases in scheduled hours of work including substantial amounts of overtime. But we do not believe this tells the whole story because three factors denoting progress also must be considered in this leveling off in our accident improve- ment : 1. Methods of reporting data are better now than they were a few years ago so that more accidents are reported. 2. Very significant is the fact that we have had a tremendous increase in the labor force from 61.1 million in 1956 to 72.6 million in 1966 which means exposure to major causes of accident has increased—yet the accident improve- ment trend has at worst only leveled off. 3. We think most safety experts would agree that in the past the major effort in safety has concentrated on eliminating faults in equipment and facilities, and the trend for the past 10 years must indicate in part that we have achieved the great proportion of potential benefits from this attack and that the remain- ing challenge lies in preventing the “failure” of the equipment user and not the equipment itself. As we shall develop in more detail later, this points up the need for education. In sum, the ten-year record appears to be a mixed bag. Disappointing in the overall leveling off but encouraging in the sense that it shows better reporting, no worsening even with a fifteen to twenty percent increase in the labor force, and the maturation of the equipment and facility improvement program. BUILDING ON CURRENT EFFORTS Even with the 1956-66 record in mind, one trend stands out above all others over the past 30-40 years (ever since records have been kept) ; namely, that considerable progress has been made in providing safety at the workplace. We think this to be a very important point. Because it follows that if progress has been made, “how” this progress was accomplished becomes key if we are correctly going to draw any blueprint for future action. Safety is good business To our membership the primary reason for this progress is so well known that it has become a cliche, albeit a meaningful one—safety is good business. As vir- tually every plant manager in a capital goods industry would state, there is both a humanitarian and economic payoff in providing safety which makes safety a day-to-day concern and obligation of the managers of any establishment. Obviously, however, statements of good intention, no matter how often re- iterated, do not in themselves bring about progress so we must look beyond the words to find the pattern of action which has been and is being employed. This pattern may be properly called “the businessman’s approach” because in signifi- cant measure it is a voluntary effort in keeping with the highest traditions of our free enterprise system. Its success in the sense of pioneering effort and the reduction of manpower losses in the face of a greatly expanding workforce is due we think to some highly effective yet relatively unsophisticated and simple concepts. First, to provide safety requires control of the environment and the business- man’s approach has had its origin and is carried out in the workplace. Accepting safety as a management responsibility, through establishing policies, procedures, and practices, and training supervisors and employees, the employer has exer- cised a unique control over the workforce. To sum up, the first lesson from examining past trends is that there is a “grass-roots” effort under which de- cisions to improve the safety record are made, initiative is shown, and action taken in thousands of different plants and workplaces throughout the country. Second, to provide safety demands “know-how.” Here again the businessman has a unique opportunity in terms of developing the expertise of safety because of his knowledge of his own operations. Thus it should come as no surprise to find that most standards and codes as well as that which is subsumed under 92-734 0—68——60 932 safety engineering have their origin inside the workplace where information is at a maximum with respect to “know-how” as to methods of operations, design and use of machines, tools, and equipment, and plant layout. It has been of course at the initiative of private industry that most of the safety organizations which now provide the needed technical know-how were started and today they are making a major contribution to the task of providing safety. Third, to provide safety requires commitment in the terms of a day-to-day enforcement policy as part of every operation. Education of the employees, em- ployee training, necessary housekeeping, etc., have to be day-to-day commit- ments. Because the first step of any safety program is policing the physical en- vironment, a number of codes have been developed and today we have a major enforcement effort on the state level. The businessman's approach To sum up, if we go to history for help in long-range planning for the future we find that much of the progress made to date is the result of business leader- ship and initiative. Recognizing both the humanitarian and economic rewards of safety, we find there has been, and is, a traditional and substantial voluntary effort leading to programs with three components: first, acceptance of man- agement responsibility translated into safety organization and supervisory and employee training; second, improvement of performance through increased know-how ; and, third, day-to-day maintenance of certain physical conditions and methods—those which are most appropriate under all attendant circumstances. THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSALS If we recognize the fact that the effort which has been made on a voluntary basis has been successful, the question for this Subcommittee becomes: What should the federal government be doing to help industry improve its safety performance? In short, how can government serve to speed up progress toward safety in the workplace? As we see the Administration’s proposal, there are several elements including— Expanded research and safety education, Expanded and enforced safety standards or codes promulgated on the federal level, Creation of stiff penalties as a goad to action, and Birth of a new and probably large federal bureaucracy. We have talked about the businessman’s approach, what can we say as to that of the Administration? Except for the element of expanding research and safety education, the measure boils down to an alarmist “let’s legislate” ap- proach. As we read Secretary Wirtz's testimony, Congress is expected to be gal- vanized into activity by a shocking dramatization of horror, financial costs, and manpower losses. Once Congress is thus motivated, the Administration is hoping that it will “legislate” safety. No doubt in keeping with this era of “wars on” our society’s evils and enemies, we find the Secretary’s testimony replete with an assault philesophy, e.g., “legacy of tragedy,” “attention to human concern,” and “higher value(s) ... on a life, a limb, an eye.” At the heart of the approach is Section 3 of the bill which would authorize the creation of a code or codes with violations subject to heavy and far-reaching penalties to compel occupational safety. There are at once two issues here: first, the use of a mandatory code and, second, the use of compulsion through stiff penalties. The pitfalls in the code approach On the state level we have had mandatory codes for a long period of time and industry experience under such codes reveals the following weaknesses in relying heavily on this means to achieve safety in the workplace : 1. Almost every code that has been promulgated needs interpretation of a technical nature. Thus for the companies with little technical know-how—which according to the Secretary are the prime targets of this bill—it is impossible for the code itself to provide complete and clear direction. 2. A continuing challenge to safety always has been the changing technologies which tend to outdate a code rapidly. For this reason, codes such as envisioned in the Administration’s bill would be under almost constant revision as new data and further experience are revealed. With the certainly of “bureaucratic lag,” the codes would never be up-to-date and where new approaches represented technical breakthroughs the codes could be dangerous if compulsory. 933 3. A code is at best only a partial answer to safety. For example, as a spokes- man for a state program puts it: “We have found on analysis that around two-thirds of the accidents that occur in industry in the State of New York have no connection with mechanical factors such as are covered by our State safety codes. If we enforced our codes with 100 percent perfection, and didn't have a single violation in the entire State, it seems probable that well over two-thirds of the accidents would still occur.” * 4. Mandatory codes with overly stiff and punitive sanctions present unique difficulties in the drafting stage. For example, for codes to maintain their validity there must be a prompt disclosure and full and free discussion of breakthroughs which is inhibited when tentative conclusions become mandatory provisions. Another key problem is the need for true bipartisanship in the drafting of a code or, as a spokesman for the Labor Department has stated: [I]n the stand- ards development process . . . [there] must be brought to bear the best technical talent; a broad and broad-minded participation of key interest groups, private, quasi-public, and government; and a spirit which transcends petty partisan ploys or public power plays.” * 5. Perhaps most troublesome is the fact that mandatory safety codes enforced by those outside the place of busines have a tendency to lull managers and em- ployees into the feeling that the responsibility for safety has been shifted from themselves to others. While these are some of the weaknesses of any code system, we do not argue that standards have no place in safety work. The definitely do. The question for this Subcommittee is simply whether the federal government would be making effective use of its resources in the safety effort if it were to create a national safety enforcement agency and mandatory codes. The problem of compulsion The record shows a remarkable degree of voluntarism on the part of industry. Coupled with a record of progress, we find absolutely no justification for an extensive far-reaching enforcement effort backed up by stiff penalties applicable to one and all regardless of past performance. It seems to us that the Administra- tion position is that since voluntarism cannot work to reduce accidents, all indus- try must be forced to place increased emphasis on the elimination of unsafe con- ditions and unsafe equipment. We find no fault with the need for attention to working conditions and equip- ment, but a compulsory approach with severe penalties has a number of con- ceptual weaknesses including the following : 1. Safety through police action has never accomplished more than limited progress, e.g., the control of traffic on the highway. 2. “Compulsion” does not equal “affirmative action,” that is, it fails to account for the attitudinal ingredient which is absolutely necessary for safety progress. 3. Successful state programs with mandatory requirements depend heavily on the safety expert to serve as a kind of consultant to help management and in this sense belie the notion of “compulsion.” 4. To achieve safety requires a cooperative effort between all those with a role to play, yet compulsion tends to negate cooperation. We see no panacea in mandatory codes, extensive enforcement, and stiff pen- alties. Indeed, one of the ironies of the current situation is that even among states where a considerable enforcement effort is made safety records vary considerably. We account for this fact on the grounds that ultimately, no matter what the enforcement approach, actual safety performance turns on the volun- tary effort made by the employer and the employee. This is not to say that cer- tain physical conditions do not contribute to poor safety records; they can and do. We are simplying saying that the failures of the people in the workplace cause a very high percentage of the accidents under present-day conditions. Only a meaningful voluntary effort can really reach the people because of the fun- damental importance of exercising day-to-day control—the “grass-roots” ap- proach. The more removed the enforcement effort, i.e., the plant versus the state versus the federal, the less input it has. 1 Isador Lubin, Industrial Commissioner, New York State Department of Labor during the President's Conference on Occupational Safety, 1958, BLS Bulletin 196, p. 187. 2 Nelson M. Bortz, Director, Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor during Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Standards, February 1967, published by United States of America Standards Institute, p. 12, 934 A look at the Walsh-Healey experience As this Subcommittee knows, the Administration has already had some experience with mandatory codes covering a broad segment of industry. We refer of course to the attempt to establish a mandatory code under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act. We suggest the record of the attempt in 1963 to establish meaningful standards illustrates a number of the key pitfalls awaiting the De- partment of Labor should the bill as written become law.? For example, cited below are a few of the types of problems the Department's draft code presented : 1. Technical deficiencies.—To take one problem, the 1963 proposal in Section 50-204.2 would have required that : “Building and all appurtenances thereto, including bridges, towers, balconies, runways, and platforms, shall be structurally safe to prevent collapse.” Obviously such a requirement adds nothing from a practical point of view, i.e., provides no help to the employer. And what would be worse, it would leave the criteria for determining what is “structurally safe” completely up to the judgment or whim of the federal safety inspector under a kind of retroactive application of the code. 2. Impracticalities—To illustrate another type of problem, Section 50-204.57 would have set up a specific requirement for aisle widths where power driven industrial trucks were in customary use. While such an approach would tend to provide safety, it is but one of several ways to achieve this goal when narrow aisles provide a hazard. For example, limitations on speed and the load being carried on the truck are equally valid techniques which are used to insure safety. The code, however, provided no alternatives and thus would have presented many employers with an obligation to extensively alter some plants with no assurance that there would be any improvement in safety performance. 3. Unworkable—Even beyond technical and practical difficulties which logi- cally attach to all mandatory codes, the Walsh-Healey proposal also contained to- tally unworkable standards. To take but one example, Section 50-204.180 would have required that: “Guards and safeguards shall be constructed or attached to machines and mechanical power transmission apparatus for the purpose of protecting against injuries from the following sources: * * * “(e) Human failure, resulting from curiosity, zeal, distraction, fatigue, indul- gence, worry, anger, illness, deliberate chance taking, or horseplay.” Obviously the only way to comply with such a regulation would be to reduce man-hours to zero in connection with the use of such machines. Thus, employers would have an option either to close the factory or so completely automate that the machines would be controlled by push buttons removed from the area of danger. 4. Interference in employer-employee relations.—One further type of problem presented by the Walsh-Healey proposal can be illustrated by the requirement in Section 50-204.298 as follows : “* * * Where employees provide their own protective equipment, the em- ployer shall be responsible to assure the adequacy of such equipment.” In such an area, the safety obligation normally is bilateral in nature in that the employee has certain responsibilities under rules set down by man- agement. If by regulation the obligation were made unilateral—resting solely with the employer—it would have to provide the employer with certain rights beyond those implicit in the normal employer-employee relationship in order that he could fulfill his obligation. A conclusion We have tried to develop the point that the compulsory or “let's legislate safety” approach has not been the success its proponents predict it will be. We think the reasons for its shortcomings can be boiled down to the obvious; namely, to prevent accidents requires, first, last, and always that safety be an oper- ating responsibility. As Arthur Goldberg has put it: “Good safety records are posted in the face of the greatest hazards because people talk and think and act on safety.” Restated, remote controls have a limited value, and to federalize existing safety enforcement efforts now accomplished on the state level would provide no “magic” answer and could even be a backward step. 3 For a detailed discussion see Industrial Safety Standards, MAPI 1964. 935 A CONSTRUCTIVE FEDERAL EFFORT As we indicated at the outset, we firmly believe that everyone interested in safety has a role to play and should be urged to do so. We think that the federal government can play an effective role in two related areas: first, research and, second, education. A research effort If we accept the conclusion that every accident results from a combination of environmental conditions and human factors, we immediately see a need for a vast research effort to learn more about the dynamics of the accident phenomenon. For example, risk taking, stress reaction, interpersonal relation- ships, “functional” age standards, and the social character of jobs are but a few of the issues on the human factor side of the equation that need exploring. Also, there is a need to study the input into accidents of environmental factors such as noise, temperature, ventilation, etc. In short, if the federal government in cooperation with industrial experts could help answer the following ques- tions, it would make a major contribution : 1. How do unsafe conditions affect operator performance in terms of safety? 2. How are unsafe conditions and unsafe acts interrelated? 3. What constitutes plant safety performance? 4. How is safety performance influenced by: training, supervision, communi- cations, ete. ? 5. To what degree can we specify environmental standards for safe and health- ful work? 6. What constitutes a reasonable accident prevention budget? 7. What constitutes acceptable risks for management to accept safety-wise? And so forth. That there is so much to be learned as to the dynamics of safety was underscored by Secretary Wirtz in his categorization of today’s research as “woefully inadequate.” We would, however, broaden the effort suggested by the Secretary to obtain information on the basic issues, leaving much of the “re- search . .. to [be] use[d] in establishing the safety and health standards” to the ongoing private effort until that point in time when the standards themselves will have a precise meaning in terms of their safety accomplishment. The pitfall in emphasizing research for standards is that it tends to obviate the need for the basic research of the dynamics of accidents. The need for education As a corollary to the need for more research, there is a need of a high magni- tude for education. Here the federal government has a unique opportunity to make a contribution. First, the government is a large employer and, as brought out by testimony of the Government Employee's Council of the AFL-CIO, has a first-hand opportunity to implement in its own workplaces its findings on the dy- namics of accidents. Second, the federal government could assist the states through a program of education so that these enforcement efforts closer to the plant location can become more meaningful. Third, the federal government can help in increasing the school’s contribution to safety by assisting in this vital area. Fourth, the federal government can step up efforts to help industry through improved data, workshops, conferences, consultation, and publicity. In short, if we were to set aside for the moment the budgetary limitations in- hibiting any federal effort, we see a substantial research and education need that is crying out for federal attention. That concentration of effort in these areas would achieve more than the “let's legislate safety” approach is, we think just plain obvious. To start the effort We respectfully suggest that this Subcommittee should start this effort by recommending to the full Committee that a Congressional Commission with rep- resentation from all interested groups be chartered to establish basic guidelines to direct a federal government research and education program in the field of safety. Under such an approach we think that in one or two years from now the federal government might be well on its way toward playing a much more meaningful role in providing health and safety for American workers. We repeat, Congress should not—for the reasons cited herein—adopt any program of mandatory federal codes. 936 In conclusion, we would like to again thank the Subcommittee for this oppor- tunity to express our views. Because safety is a high priority subject on the day- to-day operating agenda of any capital goods company, we hope this Subcommit- tee will continu~z to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas on how progress can be achieved in this vital area. If during the course of your deliberations we can be of any assistance, we hope you will call on us. Respectfully, CHARLES W. STEWART, President. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION This statement is presented on behalf of the National Automobile Dealers As- sociation (NADA). NADA is a national trade association representing some 22,000 franchised new car and truck dealers engaged in the retail sale of all makes of new cars and trucks, both domestic and foreign. At the outset, it should be clearly and emphatically stated that NADA is in basic agreement with the objectives of this bill to provide working men and women with safe and healthful working conditions. In fact, NADA has been very active in the promotion of safety for many years. However, we are op- posed to H.R. 14816 and set forth below are the reasons for such opposition. At the same time we ofler certain other suggestions. 1. NADA believes that the establishment and enforcement of mandatory safety and health standards are the proper responsibility of the several States. Yet the bill limits the States’ authority in this area most substantially. 2. NADA believes that no convincing reasons have been adduced demonstrat- ing the need for Federal legislation in the area of occupational safety and health. 3. At the same time that the Congress is considering a 10 percent surtax and a drastic reduction in the Federal budget, it is inconsistent for it to pass legis- lation which would establish a new and unneeded governmental bureaucracy, the size and expense of which no one has accurately been able to estimate. 4. This bill is directed entirely at employer compliance with safety and health standards. It does not address itself to the problem of employee responsibility to use safety equipment or safe procedures under all working conditions. It does not attempt to deal with employee noncompliance with safety procedures, an important source of all industrial accidents. 5. Under Section 3 (a), the Secretary of Labor would be granted arbitrary and excessive powers to set safety and health standards without affording a full hearing in advance on such standards. Moreover, the bill fails to give appropriate recognition to existing Federal and State safety codes and standards, and it contains absolutely no guidelines with respect to the establishment of any standards. 6. NADA strongly objects to the inappropriate and excessive powers granted to a subordinate Federal or State official under Section 6(a) (2). No protection is provided the employer in this situation. “Imminent harm’ determinations, which could result in the immediate closing of a business establishment, should properly be made by the courts. 7. NADA is concerned that Section 6(b) would result in burdensome and unnecessary record keeping on the part of any employer subject to the Act. 8. The civil and criminal penalties provided in Section 9 of the proposed bill are harsh and unnecessary. The criminal penalties should be dropped altogether as punitive in nature. Similar Federal safety standard laws do not contain suc: criminal sanctions. 9. NADA urges that the enforcement of any safety and health standards under Section 6(a) be carried out by the States. The Federal Government should assume this responsibility only in the case of default or inadequate enforcement at the State level. 10. Section 7(b), which provides for judicial review of orders issued by the Secretary under Section 6 but limits that review to the record before the Secre- tary, is objectionable. The reason is that ‘record before the Secretary” would ordinarily cover only the alleged violation of the standard, without any refer- ence to the application, validity, or reasonableness of the standard itself. NADA strongly recommends that judicial review be specifically provided with respect to all the standards established by the Secretary, as well as his orders issued for violations of such standards. 937 11. While NADA believes that Federal regulatory legislation is not proper in this area, NADA sees no objection to the establishment of a Federal safety ad- visory council to make studies of occupational safety and health standards and, following such studies, to make suggestions as appropriate for consideration and adoption by the states and American industry. In addition, NADA has no objection to modest Federal grants to the States to assist in their occupational safety and health programs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DRYCLEANING, Silver Spring, Md., March 27, 1968. Re Occupational Safety Act, H.R. 14816. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, House Select Subcommittee on Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN HoLLAND: As the Executive General Manager of the Na- tional Institute of Drycleaning, a national association of several thousand small business members, I respectfully submit our industry’s concern over the authority to be vested in the United States Department of Labor under the provisions of H.R. 14816. The members of the Institute do not take issue with the need for safe working conditions for all employees. There is no doubt that in some situations remedial safety precautions are necessary ; however, the proposed cure could be worse than the illness. We do not discount nor take lightly the tragedy of employees killed or injured in employment. We do wonder if Federal legislation and a single Federal Safety Code can improve on State and local efforts. We do not believe another level of regulation is the logical remedy. Enforcement of those codes already in existence seems to be a more practical and perhaps workable approach. To create new Federal authority will amount to regulation upon regulation upon regulation. This tactic is not, in our opinion, the answer. We believe that safety is a State and local matter. If the Federal Government were to assist, financially, in the effective enforcement of existing State and local safety codes, the objectives of safe employment or a reduced injury rate would be achieved as readily and as simply as is possible. It appears to our members that the impersonal disposition of a distant Federal Government agency is not conducive to solving the problem nor does it have a staff trained to understanding the many subtleties of different employment situa- tions. The members of the Institute are of the opinion that the Federal Gov- ernment should concern itself with the many problems of greater magnitude that face the entire nation at this time. Sincerely, GEORGE P. FULTON, Haxecutive General Manager. STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION The National Constructors Association welcomes this opportunity to present its view in opposition to TLR. 14816. The Association, known as NCA, is com- posed of 32 internationally known firms of engineers and constructors which design and erect multi-million dollar industrial complexes. These include oil refineries, chemical plants, steel mills and power stations throughout the United States and abroad. NCA companies have engineered and constructed many gov- ernment facilities. Among these are atomic energy installations, desulinizing plants, missile and space projects, and work for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. In carrying out construction projects, NCA members employ many thousands of building trades workers. These companies, in their own interest and in the interest of their employees, have been leaders in promoting safety in the construc- tion industry. NCA firms as a group have consistently recorded accident frequency and severity rates which are far below the national average for heavy con- struction as published by the National Safety Council. Our safety record can be attributed to the accident prevention activities of our members as individual employers, and collectively as an Association. The Safety Director of each company is a member of the Accident Prevention Committee. 938 We maintain representation on appropriate committees of the USA Standards Institute and participate actively in the National Safety Council’s construction safety programs. In addition, our members take part in a wide range of local and regional safety activities, including assistance in developing State and local safety codes. While our Association firmly subscribes to the goals of protecting workers from injuries and illnesses arising from their work situations, we oppose H.R. 14816 for the following reasons : Enforcement of safety and health standards with penalties for violations should be the function of each individual state rather than a U.S. Government central agency. The bill would tend to centralize in the federal government the enforce- ment of safety laws and regulations now carried out effectively in many states. ‘While the bill would permit state agencies to continue for 18 months to function in the area of “interstate” industrial safety, the entire responsibility in this area would thereafter become exclusively federal except in those cases where it is waived by the Secretary of Labor. We believe this virtual preempting of the role of the states would be against the public interest. Although Safety and Health Standards do exist in many states, there are a number which either do not have such standards or which lack suitable inspec- tion. We believe that those states not having adequate safety and health stand- arrds should be given financial and technical and technical assistance as required without imposing federal control. The National Constructors Association therefore respectfully urges that H.R. 14816 not be approved by the Committee. FRED S. CAMERON, Chairman, Accident Prevention Committee. Sovron, Ouro, March 26, 1968. Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PERKINS : Your attention is directed to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 (HR 14816). I have reviewed this proposed legislation and am alarmed at its implications. The bill purports to solve the many problems associated with industrial safety through the establishment of arbitrary safety standards to be enforced by the Secretary of Labor. The bill grants to the Secretary broad powers to impose fines and to close down plants that do not conform. The apparent test is not whether a condition is safe or unsafe, but whether or not it conforms to the standard. These rigid standards have been proposed in the face of overwhelming evidence, based on years of experience, that indicate only a small portion of accidents re- sult from unsafe conditions. The majority of accidents involve unsafe acts or other personal factors associated with the behavior of people. These problems can best be met with proper job training and programs aimed at improving employees’ work attitudes. All of us are interested in making our plants safer places to work. Most indus- tries have long ago learned that operating safe plants, in addition to its humani- tarian aspects, is just plain good business. The frequency of disabling injuries in 1966 represents a reduction of almost 809% below the level of 40 years ago. These gains have been accomplished through the voluntary efforts of industry in cooperation with local and state authorities, and with guidance from such professional organizations as the United States of America Standards Institute, the American Society of Safety Engineers, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the National Safety Council and its local and state affiliates, and many other dedicated professional groups. In my opinion, this hastily-drafted and hastily-introduced piece of legislation does not meet the needs of industry or the country. True, while great strides have been made in industrial safety, much more needs to be done. However, I think the problems should be studied thoroughly by competent professionals, appointed by Congress, to determine what role, if any, the Federal Government should play in our fight against industrial accidents. Certainly HR 14816 does not meet these needs. 939 I urge you to review this bill carefully and to convey to the appropriate sub- committee members our deep concern over its approach to the problems of in- dustrial safety. In addition, I would appreciate hearing from you what action you have deemed appropriate on this bill. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, M. J. D’ARCANGELO. SHELTERED WORKSHOP FOR THE DISABLED, INC., Binghamton, N.Y., March 25, 1968. Re H.R. 14816 and 8. 2864, Occupational Safety and Health Act. Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman, Education and Labor Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DeAr Sir: On H.R. 14816 and 8. 2864 Bill, we urge you to support resolutions and actions that would require everyone in interstate commerce to comply to safety rules and regulations that meet minimum requirements prescribed by Federal law. We further suggest however, that the administrative surveillance of these be performed by State Labor Departments, so that a current and timely check may be made on compliance. A. A. BURLESON, President. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIAL NURSES, INC. New York, N.Y., March 29, 1968. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My DEAR MR. HoLrAND: As President of the American Association of In- dustrial Nurses I would like to express to you the Association’s views on H.R. 14816. Before speaking directly to the Bill I would like to outline briefly our interest in the field of occupational health and safety. The American Association of Industrial Nurses was organized in 1942. It has a membership of 6,000 registered nurses whose professional skills are concerned primarily with the health and safety of the American worker in his work place. The members of AAIN are directly involved in the protection and promotion of the total health of people who work. One of the Association’s major objectives is to improve community health by providing increasingly expert and better nursing services to workers on the job. We believe this is reflected in better health and safety experiences in the home and other off-the-job activities. We are also concerned with increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the registered professional nurse in her job within industry. To this end we have developed and sponsored varying programs of education designed specifically for the occupational health nurse. These programs have been promoted through annual meetings, conference workshops, both formal and informal, at the local, state and national level. The American Association of Industrial Nurses Journal serves as an excellent, authoritative source of information for scientific reports and technical articles related to occupational health nursing and medicine. An Occupational Health Nurse Study was conducted by the Division of Occu- pational Health of the United States Public Health Service in the spring of 1964. The report of this Study reveals vividly the precarious situation which exists in this specialty field with reference to health manpower needs. Out of a group of approximately 17,000 industrial nurses, 80 percent replied—44 percent of those responding indicated they were 50 years of age or older. The follow- ing quote from the Study substantiates many of the opinions held by experts in the field: “The age and years of service of occupational health nurses sug- gest that mary new nurses will be needed in the near future to succeed retirees. If occupational health nursing is to keep pace with modern occupational health practices, many more nurses with adequate academic preparation must be at- tracted to the field.” 940 This situation is of tremendous concern to us. Industry, then, will soon be faced with replacing this large percentage of nurses who will be retiring. There will be increasing demands for professional nurses with some training in Occu- pational Health nursing. It would be unfortunate if nurses new to industry would have to undergo the same kind of trial and error experience as in the past. Even if graduates of baccalaureate programs were available to serve as staff nurses, their numbers are insufficient. The fact that the majority of the openings will be in one-nurse units demands that these nurses have additional training and experience. Any training less than that of a registered professional nurse would not provide the knowledge and capabilities necessary for efficient nursing services, Personnel other than a registered professional nurse are not legally qualified to give nursing services without full time registered profes- sional nurse or medical supervision. Educational opportunities and facilities must be provided if the ranks of occupational health nurses are to be replenished with registered professional nurses with adequate basic training as well as the neces- sary preparation at the baccalaureate and graduate level. There is also urgent need for more advanced preparation for the occupational health nursing consultants who are needed to assist the nurses who have little or no training in occupational health. We wish to emphasize the strategic position of and the need for the occupational health nurse consultant in State Departments of Health who can provide skilled advisory services in health and safety to nurses in industry upon request. It is not our intention to comment upon those aspects of the proposed legis- lation relating to federal standards and enforcement. This is not in our field of competence and expertise. Certainly there are provisions in H.R. 14816 where the Federal and state governments working in close alliance with the medical, nursing and allied professions and with labor and industry which can provide a base for developing strong programs to protect the American worker at his job. We suggest that the research, education and training provisions of H.R. 14816 directed through the states to the local level will strengthen the efforts to improve and expand programs in the field of occupational health and safety. In the field of occupational nursing there is a critical need for strengthening all efforts towards improved education and training that will produce the personnel neces- sary to do the job effectively. In closing, I would like to express our feeling that the worker and management must share in the grave responsibility for the safety and health of each individual worker. The best safety standards and the finest occupational health facilities will not assure the worker of his safety and health. His understanding and cooperation must be an integral part of any successful program. I appreciate the opportunity of presenting the Association’s views. I am taking the liberty of including copies of my letter for the members of your committee. Sincerely yours, EpNA WATSON. STATEMENT OF THE RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION The Rubber Manufacturers Association is a national organization represent- ing American companies engaged in the manufacture of rubber products. Mem- bers of this association employ over 809 of all production and maintenance em- ployees in this industry. Multi-plant companies as well as single plant employers are included in the membership of this association. For many years companies in this industry have been among the leaders in the promotion of industrial safety. This interest spurred the formation of the Rubber Section of the National Safety Council in 1919, and today this body is made up of professional and experienced safety engineers in this industry. Through this voluntary cooperation in attacking our mutual problems in acci- dent prevention, the rate of disabling injuries per million man hours worked has been consistently below the accident rate for all industry during a period of 40 years. HISTORICAL DECLINE IN ACCIDENT FREQUENCY RATE The accident frequency rate for all industry has dropped from 31.87 accidents per million man hours worked in 1926 (the first year comparable figures were available) to 6.91 in 1966, as reported by the National Safety Council. For the rubber manufacturing industry, however, the National Safety Coun- cil reports comparable figures of 30.09 in 1926 and 4.88 in 1966. 941 This record has been achieved through voluntary efforts in utilizing skilled and dedicated safety and health specialists to eliminate accidents and illness at the place of work. The safety engineers of our industry have participated in the formation of numerous safety standards applicable to our own industry as well as industry in general through various national organizations such as the United States of America Standards Institute, the American Society for Testing and Materials, the National Safety Council and the National Fire Protection Association. For example, the standard known as B28.1-—1967, “Safety Specifications for Mills and Calendars in the Rubber and Plastics Industry,” has recently under- gone its third revision since 1949. Sponsored by the National Safety Council and approved by U.S.A.S.I., this code has been accepted by the rubber manufac- turing industry and the U.S. Department of Labor as the standard for the in- stallation and use of this equipment which is basic to our manufacturing proc- esses. Likewise, there has been a continuing history of cooperation between our safety engineers and equipment manufacturers in designing safety features into the heavy machinery characteristic of this industry’s operations. This experience demonstrates the flexibility and ease of updating that are inherent in the voluntary system of establishing meaningful industry standards. EXISTING VOLUNTARY EFFORT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The many programs and organizations now in existence, representing signifi- cant accomplishments in the fields of safety and health, should be utilized as a base from which a comprehensive and determined new effort can be launched to further reduce occupational accident and disease. We seriously question the need for the establishment of a Federal administra- tive and enforcement agency in the field of occupational safety and health. This would be an abrupt change from the system which has seen valuable work— voluntarily accomplished—in the difficult and early years of accident prevention by private industry as well as national, state and local organizations. In our opinion, it would be most unwise to overturn such a system that is time-tested for effective accident prevention. Indeed, these efforts deserve per- petuation through encouragement and support from the Federal government rather than abandonment for a new, untested approach, having as its main promise for success a rigid and punitive enforcement procedure. The magnitude and implications of such an administrative undertaking as contemplated in HR 14816 are of tremendous proportions. Far more meaningful contributions to accident prevention could be achieved through the expansion of present state and private programs. THE NEED FOR FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS IS QUESTIONARLE HR 14816 relies heavily on the promulgation and enforcement of Federal safety standards to achieve its purpose. While technical guidance is necessary, it is our experience that words and procedures alone cannot prevent accidents. The all-important human element must be dealt with as well. The key to safety is proper supervision and training which makes safety a way of thinking . .. a habit. Unfortunately, safety stand- ards come first to the mind of the uninitiated as the best tool for preventing accidents because of the common misunderstanding that most accidents involve machinery. However, the American Mutual Insurance Alliance, whose testimony was presented before this subcommittee’s hearings on HR 14816, states that only 109% of occupational accidents and 3% of occupational deaths are due to machinery. This organization also pointed out to the subcommittee that many deaths at the place of occupation are due to heart ailments, more than 43% are due to the manual handling of objects, and more than 209 are due to vehicle mishaps. Compliance with “safety standards” has little application to the prevention of such accidents. To achieve the continued improvement in occupational health and safety that we all desire, some degree of contribution might be made through an expansion of the standards process. Such standards, however, perhaps more properly realized through a cooperative effort at a more local level than the Federal Government, would have to recognize that the great diversity of American 942 business results in extreme variances in the occupational environment of workers. No Federal standard could effectively introduce an equal element of safety into any two different. places of work. Any effort toward standardization must have as a prerequisite extensive consultation and dialogue with those who are to be affected by the standards, making full use of the vast body of knowledge developed by existing voluntary standards agencies and competent professional organizations in the field of environmental health. CREATION OF NEW LIABILITY PROBLEMS Prior to the advent of Workmen's Compensation laws, employees were left to pursue relief for their injuries under the laws of negligence of the various states. These, of course, prevented recovery under various doctrines such as assumption of risk, the fellow servant doctrine, etc. So that all occupational injuries and illnesses would be compensable, the Workmen's Compensation laws were passed which made the employer liable with- out regard to any fault on his part. Now Section 3 of HR 14816 would impose the further burden of having to face—in addition to the liability under the Work- men’s Compensation laws—the threat of civil suits by employees who are injured in a situation where the employer is not at fault, although it might be shown that he failed to meet some aspects of standards set by the Department of Labor. It is patently unfair to impose liability on the employer without regard to fault, especially when this liability is based upon violation of standards that have been arbitrarily imposed. COSTLY FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES A great deal of concern arises from the fact that in order to make available a competent Federal inspection and enforcement organization of sufficient size to review compliance by the thousands of business establishments covered by the bill, it would be necessary to incur great cost to the Federal government in an area more appropriately handled at the local level. It is even questionable whether such inordinate Federal expenditures could ever achieve their desired end. Furthermore, Federal spending of this magnitude would indeed be inconsistent with the recognized need for austerity and budgetary reduction in the administration of our government. RESEARCH AND TRAINING HR 14816 provides for research and training in occupational safety and health. It also provides for grants to the states to assist them in identifying their needs in these areas and for setting up their own systems to collect facts, improve their knowledge in the field, and to improve their administrative and enforcement capabilities. Such measures would go far in building the existing system for occupational accident prevention to the level of universal competence that we seek. The regulatory, preventive and educational activities of each state could then be carried into a broader segment of industry and commerce. A further benefit to be derived from the research and training contemplated by the bill is that the true problem areas could be pinpointed and resolved. It has been pointed out at the subcommittee’s hearing on HR 14816 that ap- proximately 859% of occupational accidents are due to human error. Human error is not correctable through the imposition of Federal safety stand- ards! And yet HR 14816 proposes to devote all of its corrective effort and sub- sequent enforcement to less than 159 of the actual problem. Historical precedent will attest that safety codes and standards have not in the past and cannot in the future deal effectively with human error. Industrial safety personnel and professional safety organizations have to date provided the sole effort in dealing with accidents caused by the emotional em- ployee, or by the person who shortcuts standard safety procedures or the one who violates accepted safe practices. In the development of research and training programs, the time, talents and leadership of experienced industrial safety personnel will continue to be avail- able to aid in the implementation of such projects for safety improvement. 943 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The facts cited within this statement can only partially bear witness to the long, determined and succesful campaign waged in the rubber industry against occupational accidents and disease. We have for many years pursued the same goal as HR 14816, namely improved occupational safety, and with such a pur- pose we indeed take no issue. With our long history of serious interest and sound accomplishment in occu- pational safety, we have learned, however, that to be successful in this work demands also that we be objective. This well-learned lesson motivates our view- point presented to the subcommitee concerning this bill. Our industry believes it cannot rest on past accomplishments in safety. In the state of our civilization and social development today, occupational injuries and disease cannot be accepted as a necessary by-product of any industrial or commer- cial endeavor. We consider it the responsibility of all concerned to seriously and methodically strive for perfection in accident prevention. Accordingly, the resources of the Federal government can most effectively be brought to bear on this effort through the role of a participating and vitally interested partner, rather than the sole administrator and enforcer of such a far-reaching regulatory structure as contemplated in HR 14816. It is our sincere belief that iittle evidence has been presented before the sub- committee to demonstrate a valid need for the establishment of Federal safety standards and an enforcement program. If such a standards program is not needed, then the whole thrust of effort should be redirected toward a means that can best achieve the desired goal of this bill. To this end, we find value in and support the concept advanced by other wit- nesses of a broad cooperative effort sponsored by the Federal government that would bring about continuing research in regard to causes and prevention of oc- cnpational injuries and disease. Such a cooperative effort could perhaps be realized through the establishment of an organization—national in scope—made up of the most experienced and skilled leaders available from business and labor and from the Federal, State and Local government, whose purpose would be to study the problem at hand and recommend solutions. Such an effort, exercised without delay, could do much to assure the orderly attainment of an obviously commendable goal—the prevention of accidents. STATEMENT ON BEHALF AND FOR MR. IVAN SABOURIN, QUEEN’S CoUNSEL, 507 PLACE D’ARMES, MONTREAL, CANADA, ON BEHALF OF THE ASBESTOS MINES INDUSTRY IN CANADA To the Honorable Mr. Holland, Chairman of the Select Subcommittee on Labour, and to Members of said Committee: It is respectfully submitted : Nearly two hundred years ago, in 1776, came Benjamin Franklin to my present home in Iberville, Quebec. His aim was to win Canada to the cause of Independ- ence. His mission accomplished, he left the shores of our Richelieu River (close to Lake Champlain, near the border, where I live) and reported to Congress. In those days industry hardly had started on this continent this ascension which was to make America the most industrialized nation. Since those days the ties between our two countries have become closer and ctoser whilst we have for generations showed the world an example of enjoying friendly relationship, with some four thousand mile border-frontier devoid altogether of any display of force, military or otherwise. But there are ties that seem to have contributed largely to bring about such cordial understanding bases on common interests: they are the ties of industry at large, of management and labour forces working together. On the one hand the vastness of your capital investments in Canada make you play and necessarily so a legitimate mighty role in our very economy. In the same vein, similarity in labour and industry conditions has brought about a degree of international penetration promoting more and more the development of a large family of workers with a more and more common ideology, this north and south of the border, face to face with like problems. The industry, here in point, the asbestos mining and milling industry I have had the honour to represent for more than thirty years, representing as advisor 944 nearly all of the mining and production of asbestos fibres in my country. The case of the Canadian Asbestos Mines known as the Quebec Asbestos Mining Associa- tion offers a good illustration of the extent to which your participation through the field in investments and “know how” reaches into that number one group of commercial industries at home, that of “mine”. For example, in the industry of mining and milling chrysotile asbestos (which is the asbestos mined and milled in Canada) your Nation owns and controls some two-thirds of that field. This is an important proportion indeed of our production which started roughly a century ago in Canada (Quebec) in that region surrounding Thetford Mines and the town of Asbestos—a region being in diameter of some fifty-miles. The production in Canada has been about 85% (U.S.S.R. excepted) of the world’s total chrysotile asbestos (chrysotile is the most sought of the various categories of asbestos on the world’s markets). Since the Bill presently under consideration by your Senate and House of Representatives embraces basic principles which are of much importance to our Canadian Asbestos Mining Production (the greatest proportion of which you own and control—as already said above) it follows, naturally so, that our indus- try should be desirous to place respectfully before you some of the data and experience it has gathered over the years, our interest in so doing being particu- larly prompted by the fact that one of the main objectives of the Bill will be to achieve such standards as will better ensure the safety and health of the worker, such standards likely to integrate themselves eventually into our own modes of production and this due to the fact that we, of course, share the objectives which your Bill is seeking. This incidence of safety and health set out in the preamble of this Bill as a primary objective has been brought forward into the limelight in the last few years and particularly so before yourselves, sitting in committee, some two weeks ago by the important studies carried out by Dr. Selikoff and his associates at Mount Sinai Hospital Environmental Sciences Laboratory (in conjunction with renowned Head Statistician of the American Cancer Society Dr. Hammond). The bulk of the work of Professor Selikoff has been centered on the so called Heat and Frost Insulation Asbestos Workers Trade. Although such sector of workers reflects but one of the many “end-uses” of the Asbestos fibre, the findings of Dr. Selikoff nevertheless are of considerable interest to the balance of the industry (some 15000 workers are involved in Dr. Selikoff’s Insulation Study). It is with these considerations in mind, Mr. Chairman, that our industry expresses their gratitude to the Honourable Mr. Holland, President of this Select Committee and to Representative Mr. James O'Hara, Chairman of the Proceed- ings, for having so graciously extended to your humble servant, a Canadian, the privilege of tabling before you the submission of the Asbestos Mining Industry I have the honour to represent. My first step, in this delicate mission, should be to assure you that this indus- try cannot be but fully in accord with the principles set out in the preamble of your Bill. No one, citizen or country, employee or employer, labour or manage- ment could not take but pride in supporting a law the lofty object of which is to insure the safety, health and welfare of the worker. Health and Freedom shall ever be the greatest assets of man and woman— without which no real welfare can be enjoyed. Your desire through this Bill to foster proper research and training cannot also but provide for those necessary tools without which the ways and means to fashion and ensure safety and health of our men and women at work may not be devised. Possibly the word “Standards” reflects at their best those very criteria with which to measure and gauge the degree of advancement in the study and research for those methods and tolerance limits which may be allowed for this or that operation in industry should it involve the safety, health or welfare of the worker. You would be interested to know that an attempt to conduct a proper study, programming and planning for achieving such standards is already under way. it being proposed to hold in May next sessions of joint study at the New York Academy of Sciences under the tutelage of the incumbent Dr. Selikoff, at which sessions would participate representatives of management and labour as well as of Governmental and Scientific Groups, the likely field of asbestos exposure for such joint-sessions to be that of the so-called Insulation Trade Group represented by the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers; also would attend Dr. Karl Lindell (a world foremost mining and 945 milling engineer) Chairman of the Board of Canadian Johns-Manville Company Limited (Quebec) and of Advocate Asbestos Mines Limited (Newfoundland). For the research as to the causality of the incidence of such pathological con- dition as might involve asbestos fibres or particles as a possible agent or concom- mittant factor under certain conditons i.e. as a co-carcinogen factor the asbestos industry and particularly so the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association has been accomplishing a very considerable amount of work nad ponderous study, at great cost, trouble and expenditure with the ever present object of seeking the ensur- ance of safety and the maintenance of good health for all workers, this primarily through adequate preventive measures whenever possible. For we agree it should always be the sacred duty of the powers-that-be and more particularly of the industry not to intrude into the field of manufacture, trade or commerce at the expense of the safety or health of the worker unless it be for those justifiable reasons which exist only under exceptional grounds such as the urgent necessity of certain fields of production in periods of imminent national crisis such as warfare or unless due to the obligations at times of venturing into a new field of production when however technologically or sci- entifically there are not available data or observation as should enable one to foresee the hidden latent dangers of hazards. Thus it will always be possible for science, progress, prosperity to be achieved but not without certain dangers for which no responsibility however, should lie for those who are and in good faith and cannot foresee the unforseeable. Just as one may not enrich oneself at the expense of the safety or health of the worker or neighbour, nov will monetary compensation bring ever adequate solace or replacement value to the maimed or sick. We should always aim at preventing wherever possible rather than curing. In that connection it was just a few days ago that I heard the Head of A.F.L.-C.I.O., Mr. Meany, express himself vigourously before you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, when he was vindicating the need for “prevention” rather than that of “compensation”. What is related above, Mr. Chairman, has been constituting the thinking of those engaged in the industry of the asbestos mines identified at home under a corporate name as the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association, an Association grouping together the following : Asbestos Corporation Limited, Thetford Mines Bell Asbestos Mines Limited, Thetford Mines Canadian Johns-Manville Co., Ltd., Asbestos Carey Canadian Mines, ast Broughton Flintkote Mines Limited, Thetford Mines Lake Asbestos Company Ltd., Thetford Mines National Asbestos Mines Ltd., Thetford Mines Cassiar Asbestos Mines—British Columbia—enjoys consultative affiliation with this Association in the field of health, the Quebec Asbestos Mining Associa- tion therefore representing for all practical purposes the asbestos mines in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific; (Advocate Asbestos Mines Limited is in the Atlantic—Newfoundland—and is managed by Johns-Manville Corporation) As to our activities in the field of research and study of the health incidences in the industry I am not pouring into this recerd data or distinctions of a scientific nature this field being left to scientists or qualified physicians of specialists in the fields of phthsiology, biology, physiology, epidemiology, pathol- ogy, radiology ete. To have such a field of qualified experts orient and constantly advise and supervise our activities in our endeavours in the field of health, re- search and study during the last four decades, we addressed ourselves to our various Schools of Medicine and Laboratories on the continent and eventually reached the right person in Colonel A. J. Lanza (He had the unique distinction of having headed in both World Wars the field of responsibility of the physical fitness and health of the U.S. Armed Forces; he was moreover the founder at New York University of the first Post Graduate School of Industrial Medicine. Dr. Lanza gaided us into setting up our first Industrial Health Clinic, this at the town of Asbestos, Quebec in the late twenties under the local direction of the great Country Doctor R. H. Stevenson who kept and followed up records for all the families of our workers, in close consultation with the Head of the then Pulmonary Fields, in Montreal and Toronto said consultants being : Professor 946 Byers, Ridell, Cunningham, Brink, Vidal, Jarry—and the specialized personnel at our hospitals and sanatoria in the Laurentian Mountains. Later, in the thirties, we repaired to the Saranac Laboratory and Trudeau Foundation in the Adirondacks, the latter constituting without a doubt the most advanced research center on the continent in the Pulmonary Field and that of the allied respiratory tracts, plus cardiopathy. There, at Saranac, began our relationship with the Head of the Saranac Trudeau Laboratory, Dr. Leroy U. Gardner, a most eminent pathologist and acknowledged leader in the field of industrial medicine. Recipient of many dis- tinguished awards he was for many years a U.S. Public Health top consultant and to his Laboratory flocked daily from all parts of our continent industrial doctors, facing health problems in that phase of very fast expansion in the industrial economy of America. Under Dr. Gardner and his staff was then founded in the forties at Thetford Mines an Industrial Clinic destined to serve the six mines situated in the neighbourhood. The Trudeau Laboratory comprised such famous names as Cummings, Samson, Pratt, Vorwald (distinguished pathol- ogist and author Professor at Fort Wayne University and now Head of the vast Laboratory of Research at Detroit) plus Professor George Wright, founder of the Laboratory and School of Physiology at Trudeau a pioneer in the field of respiratory physiology and an authority at the top of today’s echelons across the continent and the present Director of the Scientific Committee of the Institute of Occupational and Environment Health, an Institute promoted by our Asbestos Mining Association. Since the setting inte action of these two Industrial Clinics (at Thetford Mines and at Asbestos) it was my duty and that of our Medical Advisors to keep track yearly (that went on from 1940 to date) of the Asbestos health problems as they appeared over the world. There was no significant Lab- oratory or source of information which was not consulted; contacts were made continuously so as to assure ourselves of the trends in both the Industrial Engi- neering Preventive Field and the Medical Fields proper. It can therefore be said that no stone was left unturned, our trips taking us to the other Continent, into Asia and Orient as well, in South America, from time to time, with Dr. Cartier our Director at Thetford Mines (Industrial Clinic) and Professor Vidal, Pro- fessor Gregoire, Dr. Kenneth Smith (Professor of New York University and Medical Director of Johns-Manville Corporation). We visited all the main centres where the asbestos-health-problems existed in the last few years in the company of Dr. Karl Lindell and Professor Vidal on exploratory and observation trips. We travelled to the British Isles—Europe—Scandinavia, and on two oc- casions in U.8.S.R. (1960 and 1968) including Asia (Siberia—Kazecstan—Sverd- slovsk and Asbest where some twenty-five thousand workers operate asbestos mines and mills and produce today more chrysotile asbes.os than is produced in the Occident (Canada and U.S. included). In conclusion might we recite here the composition of the staff manning the Scientific Committee of the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health, the executive committee of which is composed of : Dr. K. V. Lindell : chairman W. N. Oughtred (President Asbestos Corporation Limited and present President of Quebec Asbestos Mining Association) F. Parker Smith (President Bell Asbestos Mines Limited) Michael Messel (President Lake Asbestos Mines Limited, ex-officio member as immediate past President of the above Association) Ivan Sabourin Q. C.: secretary and counsel The Scientific Committee is composed as follows : Dr. George Wright : Director of the Committee, Head of Research at St. Luke's Hospital (Cleveland, Ohio) Dr. Paul Kotin : Director of U.S. Center of Environmental Sciences and of Centre of Etiology of Cancer at Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Marvin Cushner: Professor, Head of “Tumors Field in Pathology” (an au- thority in Cancer Research) at New York University and Bellevue Hospital; participant and professor at the Anthony J. Lanza School of Occupational Health, Sterling Forest, New Jersey. Dr. Fernand Gregoire: head of Lavoisier Clinic, Montreal Physiologist—Hx- pert of our Quebec Workmen’s Compensation Board Professor and Author of papers which have already attracted the scientific attention of the world of both continents. Dr. John Beattie: Professor at Queen’s College (Cambridge, England) whose considerable experience since the early thirties and his writings have placed 047 him in the forefront of the field of pulmonary studies as to mine and factory workers (for some years Professor Beattie also taught at McGill University) his current studies have also brought him in close and current contact with the Pneumoconiosis Institute of Great Britain at Cardiff, the foremost Pneumoconi- osis Institute of the British Isles now presided by Physiologist, Dr. John Gib- son, heading the “Union Internationale du Cancer” Committee on asbestosis and allied problems. Dr. Daniel Braun: Bx-Director of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation (Mellon Institute) Pittsburgh—who conducted and published the 1955 epidemiological survey (Thetford Mines and Asbestos) on the incidence of cancer with the Quebec asbestos workers (a study of which has been published in scientific re- views and the conclusion is to the effect that the cancer incidence is not any higher with such workers than with other population groups of the province where no asbestos industry is present. Dr. P. Pelnar: in charge of experimental work in Medical Research Division, St. Lukes Hospital (Cleveland) professor at Prague, Tchecoslovakie, author and lecturer ; his publications in many languages have stamped him as a pathologist of note and an industrial health expert of exceptional science. Our books, our data, our observations and findings, in short all of our records, are at your disposal, Mr. Chairman, should it be found desirable for you to consider them. Much experience has been gathered, much experimentation com- piled. Of late on two occasions we have convened at Antigua at 1965 and in 1967 some forty scientists ind research experts gathered from the four corners of the globe. The object of these conferences was to advise the industry as the present health problems it is facing. Your U.S. Public Health Director Dr. Mur- ray Brown kindly attended our last meeting at Antigua which convened as a special scientific Conference by the Director of the Institute, Professor George Wright and the members of his Scientific Committee. From 1940 to 1964 the Association had held like study meetings and conducted various extensive surveys: MEETINGS 1: Conference at Carierville Hospital Group of Radiologists and Pathologists and Clinicians from Carolina (Lynch et al) and from Saranac (Gardner et al) and from Toronto (Riddell et al) and Quebec and Montreal our association and governmental medical representatives. 1951 and 1953 : Two like meetings at Montebello. 1957 : Queen Elizabeth Hotel—Montreal—three days symposium gathering scien- tists from both continents 150 representatives from Saranac—Harvard— McGill—Toronto—Montreal University—Belgium—France. Various hospital and schools of study and governmental agencies. Hpidemiological Surveys: 1945: Metropolitap Life Insurance et al Health: turberculosis found to be not more prevalent with asbestos workers than general population (ref- erence : The Wheatley Report) 1955: The Braun and Truan Cancer Study (Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh). Cancer found not to be more prevalent with asbestos workers than in general population. N.B.—A three year epidemiological survey is being conducted (now in its sec- ond year) by Professor Macdonald, McGill University and his staff under the aegis of Dr. Wright's scientific committee which is sponsoring other study groups here and in Europe. In all of this we trust you may have learned of some sources of information you may wish to contact or confer with through your various agencies. We remain at your disposal ever and again beg to thank you most deeply for having allowed this presentation. BALTIMORE SAFETY COUNCIL, INC., Baltimore, Md., March 20, 1968. EbpwArDp A. GArRMATZ, M.C., Federal Office Building, Baltimore, Md. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GARMATZ: At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Baltimore Safety Council held on Friday, March 15, 1968, a careful study was made of Senate Bill #2864 entitled ‘‘Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1968.” 92-784 0—68——61 948 The following conclusions were drawn; that we would like to state for you as our representative in the U.S. Congress. Under Section 2, item (1), we are of the opinion that the findings contained in this paragraph are overstated in that they relate the proportion of persons injured or killed as a result of accidents arising out of work situations to be so sizeable as to reduce to a serious degree the effectiveness of the manpower resources in the United States. We question the credibility of this statement since national statistical studies of industrial accidents and injuries do not reflect such alarming facts. Under Section 3 of the Act concerning Standards, we agree that the Federal government can best prescribe standards thus guaranteeing some uniformity in occupational safety laws and regulations. However, we would hope that such standards be developed only after a thorough and complete exchange of ideas by not just Federal agencies but in collaboration with professional organizations with a thorough knowledge of industrial safe practices. Under Section 4, entitled “Administration” we would suggest that more effort be made to strengthen existing State Departments of Labor & Industry through federal assistance in the area of research of accident data and the training and professionalization of state inspectors, rather than the use of federal employees in a direct administrative role. In Sections 5 and 6, dealing with Inspections, Investigations, and Enforcement, we take strong exception to the concept that the Federal government should become involved in the enforcement procedures of the Act. We in the State of Maryland have what we consider to be an effective State Department of Labor & Industry that is equipped to enforce our occupational laws. Further, under Sec- tion 6, article (2), we seriously question the practicality of giving any investiga- tive or enforcement personnel the right to stop a manufacturing or industrial operation without first some determination of right by the court system in that State. As stated earlier, we concur with the idea of the Federal government’s respon- sibility and involvement in the areas of research and training, as defined in Sec- tions 15, 16, and 17 of the Act. In summary, while endorsing the idea of improved industrial and occupational safety environments for all workers and realizing the natural role of the Federal government in developing National Safety Standards and promulgating the same ; we strongly urge that the present bill be re-written so that Sate Departments of Labor & Industry be strengthened and that these State Departments be given the sole responsibility for enforcement of the Act. If you feel that personal testimony by a spokesman representing the Baltimore Safety Council would be helpful, we would be happy to state our views at any hearing of this bill. Sincerely, James HE. KANE, Jr., Chairman, Hxecutive Committee. MILLERS’ NATIONAL FEDERATION, Chicago, Ill., March 14, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washing- ton, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN HOLLAND: At a meeting on March 7, the Executive Com- mittee of the Millers’ National Federation authorized the filing of a statement in opposition to H.R. 14816. The Millers’ National Federation represents about 85 percent of the productive capacity of the United States flour milling industry. Its members are highly con- scious of the importance of industrial safety and health programs. These have been fostered by insurance requirements, State and local regulations, and the natural desire of mill management to improve health and safety standards vol- untarily. The Millers’ National Federation itself has a Safety Committee to assist in attaining these objectives. It is the opinion of the Federation that H.R. 14816 could very easily undermine these efforts. It is unlikely that any single set of national standards could be applied to the milling industry without causing a great deal of unnecessary eco- 949 nomic harm to many. On the other hand, any attempt to establish standards on a plant-by-plant basis, or even by regions, would undoubtedly prove to be an unbelievably complex and expensive task for the Federal Government. The National Association of Manufacturers has provided you with a detailed analysis of the impact of H.R. 14816. The Millers’ National Federation endorses it fully. Sincerely, C. L. MAsT, Jr., President. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Tallahassee, Fla., March 19, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN : I want to express to you my strong opposition individually and as Chairman of the Florida Industrial Commission to HR 14816 and S 2864, “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968,” now pending in Congress. These bills confer broad powers on the Secretary of Labor to impose safety and health standards on virually every employer in the United States. There is no effective limitation based on the local—that, intrastate—nature of the employer’s activities. The bills empower the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to develop “criteria” and the Secretary of Labor to prescribe standards and regulations designed to assure such working conditions. He would be granted access to the premises of employers during normal working hours and at “other reasonable times.” In his enforcement of the Act, the Secretary of Labor would be empowered to issue cease and desist orders, enforceable in the federal district courts. Within the scope of his administrative authority, he would have the power to close a plant if he determines that the employees therein are threatened with “im- minent harm” as a result of health or safety conditions. While the Secretary’s rulemaking powers are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, the admin- istrative enforcement processes are not. In addition to the foregoing, the Secretary would be empowered to seek a court injunction directly if he determines that immediate correction is reasonably required to safeguard employee safety or health. This remedy would also include the closing of a plant. Various civil and criminal penalties are imposed by the bills, the civil penalty to be a maximum of $1,000 for each violation—each day of “failure and neglect” to correct a violation found by the Secretary would constitute a separate viola- tion—that is, it would make the employer liable for up to $1,000 per day in this kind of situation. Criminal penalties would be a maximum of $5,000 or six month’s imprisonment, or both. An unusual feature of the bill would authorize the Secretary to assess the amount of civil penalties, which would normally be a judicial function, and also to pass upon requests or petitions to remit or mitigate any such assessment. The setting of fines is normally a judicial function, and the Secretary should not have this power coupled with the authority to pass on applications for reductions. Employers who are government contractors or subcontractors would be sub- jected to additional restrictions—to “supplement” the remedies now available to the Secretary under the Walsh-Healey Act. The Florida Industrial Commission has developed and maintained an out- standing Safety Department operating under the Workmen's Compensation Division of this Commission. This Department has received international recog- nition. Foreign countries and state administrations have requested information relative to the operation of this Department and a number of them have adopted and are following the procedures of our safety provisions. We feel that our Safety Department is second to none. We would hate to see a Department such as this be discarded merely on the discretion of the Secretary of Labor. We are completely opposed to the enactment of this bill or any other proposal of similar intent because it is unnecessary and undesirable and would, in fact, prove harmful. Sincerely yours, T. W. JorENSTON, Ohairman, 950 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Philadelphia, Pa., March 22, 1968. Hon. ELMER A. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Ray- burn House O fiice Building, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. CHAIRMAN : I wish to submit this statement relative to your delib- eration of H.R. 14816, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968, and request that it be made a part of the record. I have reviewed much of the testimony relative to H.R. 14816 with considerable interest and much concern. You have heard from two important segments of the insurance industry. 1 refer to the statements of Mr. Wallace M. Smith of the American Mutual Insurance Alliance and Mr. Andrew Kalmykow of the American Insurance Association. The Insurance Company of North America is an inde- pendent company and not a member of either of these associations. We do, how- ever, concur strongly with the positions taken by these two groups. The insurance industry has long placed a major emphasis on occupational safety. Indeed, in the area of insurance service, we believe loss control to be our most important function. We have developed a high degree of proficiency in this area and are confident that we have been effective in reducing occupational accidents. I also share the concern of Mr. J. Sharp Queener, who testified for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that the private sector has not been called upon in de- signing the act. We in insurance have an important and coutinuing interest in occupational safety as do the states and industry. In our view these segments (state, industry and insurance) should continue to exercise the responsibility for setting and enforcing safety standards. Yours truly, BRADFORD SMITH, JT., Chairman of the Board. Gro. A. HorMEL & Co., Fort Dodge, Iowa, March 15, 1968. Hon. J. C. CULVER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CULVER: I am writing to you in regard to the Occupation Health and Safety Act of 1968 (H.R. 14816). I do not oppose legislation that will improve the safety of American workers, but I certainly have many reservations about this bill. It was drafted, as far as I have been able to find out, without consulting with professional safety people or even with interested state agencies. It will give the Secretary of Labor the power to set and enforce safety standards for all business affecting commerce. It gives him unprecedented powers in setting these mandatory safety and health standards with no limiting guidelines. My inter- pretation of the bill sets him up as a Safety Czar setting safety rules with the public having no opportunity for hearings. The Secretary may also under Section 7 obtain permanent injunctions solely upon showing that has has “reason to believe” that a violation exists. Further, the aggrieved party is deemed guilty in any review proceeding until he proves himself innocent. The fines of up to $1,000 per day are excessive. In short, the entire bill leaves much to be desired. Please believe that, as the Safety Coordinator of a plant with 900 employees, I am directly concerned with the safety of ail workers—it's my job. I feel strongly that you cannot legislate safety, that is, you will not reduce injury frequency rates merely by passing a law. In 1966 the 10,017 company units in the United States that report to the National Safety Council had an average injury frequency rate of only 6.91, an excellent safety record. This means that there were only 6.91 lost time injuries per 1,000,000 man hours worked. Twenty years ago in 1946 it was 14.16, and forty years ago in 1926 it was 31.87. We have been making steady progress without any interference from Washington—I am positive that much more prog- ress will be made in the future. The drafters of the bill imply that the entire facet of improving our nation’s safety record is environmental ; this is far from the truth. The proper guarding of machines, furnishing hard hats, respiratory masks, ete. is taken for granted in American industry today—companies provide these things. They have realized long ago that safety doesn’t cost, it pays. What we are working on today is instill- 951 ing safety in the attitudes of the workers. If this isn’t done, all the laws you can pass in Washington will not prevent an injury. If you want to see how serious American industry is today in reducing injuries to its workers, just attend a National Safety Congress, or thumb through some of the industrial safety magazines, such as “National Safety News”, “Safety En- gineering”, and “Occupational Hazards”, or talk to any of the thousands of per- sons like myself who are dedicated to industrial safety. I am sure you would be convinced that the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968 is not the approach to take to improve this nation’s industrial safety record. Very truly yours, KENNETH F. CARLSON, Safety Coordinator. STATEMENT BY THOMAS D. NYHAN, ON BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE This statement is presented by me on behalf of the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce, a state-wide business organization which represents 20,000 business- men in 491 communities throughout the State of Illinois. I am a partner in the Chicago law firm of Pope, Ballard, Uriell, Kennedy, Shepard & Fowle, and chair- man of the State Chamber's Workmen's Compensation Committee. At the outset, I wish to make it crystal clear that the purpose of the proposed legislation, that of improving the safety and health of workers in American industry, is certainly a most crucial one. The business community would only be satisfied if there were no accidents at all. However, since Illinois is, in dollar volume, the largest producer of manu- factured goods and the leading exporter of manufactured goods into the inter- national market, we are vitally interested in legislation which would result in transferring to the Secretary of Labor and the United States Department of Labor control and powers now vested in our state labor department. To give the federal government the major accident prevention reponsibilities of the several states would establish an unprecedented federal control of an exclusive state function by means of a federal subsidy. It would ultimately reduce the area of independent state activity with results which would deteriorate state safety services. In the absence of a very extensive and expensive nationwide inspection and enforcement agency, not yet in being, there exists a serious possibility of deterio- ration in all safety services. Additionally, because this proposed legislation ap- ples, as it only can, to industries affecting interstate commerce by necessity we are faced with a duplication of facilities; i.e., a state agency as well as a federal agency, with its attendant increased burden on the taxpayer or the elimination of the state agency with a total loss of control over industries which are intra- state in nature. Injuries and sickness which are job connected do occur but as Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz was careful to point out in his own testimony, the Occupa- tional Health and Safety Act of 1968 was not predicated upon any notion that American employers were calloused . . . or even at fault. Having established the fact that injuries do occur and that this is bad, the Secretary moved very easily to the federal remedy, namely a broad national program with uniform federal standards. The nature of these standards in this instance is unknown. Their development is to be left to the wisdom of federal bureaucracy. But the bill is unfortunately very specific about the sanctions to be imposed upon an employer who violates any of these unknown standards. The current unprecedented trend toward higher government expenditures and taxes make it unwise at this time for the federal government to usurp an area now in control of state and local government. Federal funds should never be used to gain control of a function which can best be handled at a state or local level. Progress in the field of accident prevention and occupational safety demon- strates that with the cooperation of employees and state and local agencies which were alluded to above, the employers and industry are doing a creditable job in safety activities. Although there have been interruptions in this trend, the industrial accidents severity and frequency rates have been reduced consider- ably over the past forty years. Privately owned and state supervised industrial safety programs are being improved constantly. It was interesting to note that when Secretary Wirtz was 952 asked at the hearing how much consultation was done with the state agency which has control of this function, he replied that the program had come up very suddenly and there was “almost none.” Considering the apparent urgency in which this bill had its beginnings and its rather drastic far-reaching enforcement provisions, one is almost forced to conclude that the individual state efforts in the area of industrial safety have failed. A review of the record over the past forty years belies this conclusion. To be sure, a review of that record demon- strates that the results have been nothing short of remarkable. Nor has there been any convincing evidence produced that would indicate such progress would have been improved under a federalized system. H.R. 14816 has also a direct connection with the state’s workmen's compensa- tion system. The genius of this system is that it gives employers a built-in finan- cial incentive to reduce injuries. Under the rating system, there is a direct relationship between the employer's safety performance and the price he pays for his compensation insurance. This built-in financial incentive has made the prevention of accidents an integral part of the competitive business enterprise system. Everyone benefits from this system . . . the employee whose work place is made safer, as well as the employer who uses safety expenditures as a com- petitive tool to lowering his operating cost. Under existing procedures in the various states, employers, employees and the public have a voice in the establishment of safety regulations. Consideration is best given to variable conditions within industries and to those that are peculiar to the particular states. Delegation of arbitrary rule-making powers to the Labor Secretary could result in loss of individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution unless such powers are subject to clearly defined limitations. The proposed legis- lation fails to provide these limitations which could clearly destroy many thou- sands of small businesses. Certainly, no one is opposed to procedures which would improve safety. How- ever, H.R. 14816 certainly contains no indication or guarantee that its passage would secure that goal. The business community has as much interest in this as does the Secretary of Labor and before hastily proceeding with federal inter- vention into traditionally a state function, a determination should be made by all interested parties that such an approach is reasonable, necessary and sound. HARVEY HUBBELL, INC., Bridgeport, Conn., February 12, 1968. Hon. DoNALD J. IRWIN, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Str: I am writing in reference to House Bill, H.R. 14816, “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968.” This Bill would establish Federal supervision over health and safety standards on the job without regard to the fact that the States now have programs in effect and working to achieve the same end. I urge that you oppose this Bill as being unnecessary legislation in a field thoroughly covered by State Laws which have worked, and are working, to reduce and eliminate causes of industrial accidents and health hazards. The State of Connecticut, for example, has rigid standards which are enforced by State Labor Department Inspectors with the authority to issue desist orders, if necessary. We have worked to those standards and find them stringent but effective so that in our Bridgeport operations we have, since 1960, on three occasions attained over 1,000,000 man hours without a lost time accident. We employ 1100 people in the State of Connecticut at Bridgeport, Stonington and Newtown and these people are protected by State regulations covering the subject of occupational safety and health. Our Company also has manu- facturing plants in California, Illinois and Ohio, each of which States have health and safety standards and employ inspectors to assure that those stand- ards are met. Detailed measures recommended to preserve health and assure safety differ from state to state; however, it is our experience that there are different ways to accomplish protection for workers on the job and we have willingly invested a large amount of money in complying with the various state agencies. It is obvious that the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 would impose another set of costly standards, in a field now regulated, with punitive provisions which are unduly harsh at this stage in the development of our industrial civilization. There were abuses in the 19th Century and the early 953 20th Century and it appears as if this act is aimed at historical abuses rather than recognition of the substantial progress that has been made over the years. The proposed Bill is undesirable, unnecessary and punitive in its intent. I urge that you vote against it, if and when it is reported out by committee. Very truly yours, WiLriaM H. GATENBY, Vice President. STATEMENT OF C. J. HAGGERTY, PRESIDENT, BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO Mr. Chairman, my name is C. J. Haggerty. I am President of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO. The Department is a federation of 18 National and International Unions composed of 8400 Local Unions through- out the United States. The opportunity to appear before this Committee in support of H.R. 2567, the Construction Safety Bill, is greatly appreciated. We in the Building Trades have an intense interest in the health and safety of our membership. To provide adequate protection against fatal accidents and disabling injuries has always been a major goal of our Department. The Committee is to be highly commended for calling these hearings to reveal the facts which clearly demonstrate the immediate need to establish Federal safety standards and provide for enforcement of those standards on all Gov- ernment and Federally assisted construction projects. The construction industry, as no other industry, reaches into every center of activity in this country. Its approximately four million workers are spread out in every state, city, county and small town in this nation. For all of its progressive greatness and its growing economic strength throughout the years, the construction industry has neglected its first obligation—the protection of the health and safety of its workers. Construction, and the people who derive their income from it, represent the largest single industry in this country. This year the nation’s total construction expenditure will exceed $75 billion. The Federal Government, in fiscal year 1968, plans to spend approximately $15 billion in Federal and Federally aided construction projects. In addition to the approximately four million people directly employed, twenty million of this nation’s total work force are dependent on the construction industry for their livelihood. These are impressive figures. They reflect the progressive greatness of this industry. The facts are that the approximately four million workers involved in the construction industry suffer a higher accident frequency rate than any industry in the country, except mining. According to the National Safety Council, the average injury frequency rate for all industries is 6.91 for every one million man-hours worked. The latest injury survey conducted by the Department of Labor shows that the construction industry has an injury frequency rate of 28.6 per one million man-hours of work. Exhibit A contains a table of various injury frequency rates broken down into separate trades and categories in the construction industry. You will note in studying the table in Exhibit A that the injury frequency rate in the construc- tion industry ranges from 20.7 to 43.9. The National Safety Council, whose construction rates, it should be noted, do not represent the total construction industry, has also reported that deaths and disabling injuries both increased in 1966. They reported 240,000 disabling injuries, a 21% percent increase over 1965; and 2800 deaths, which represented a four percent increase over the previous year. Statistics also indicate that there has been no improvement in the rates of injury in the construction industry for the past eight years. A table of the specific death and injury figures for each year from 1959 through 1966 is contained in Exhibit B. This is ridiculous when you consider the fact that this industry, with the millions of workers dependent upon it for a living, is among the most hazardous and yet there is no Federal authority to set safety standards, not to mention power to enforce them. This is an extremely serious oversight in the Federal statutes now on the books and, in our opinion, H.R. 2567 would provide a sound and workable approach to this problem. To evaluate the relative degree of hazard, extent of accident prevention accomplishment and enforcement, and the need for more effective measures, the manual rates for Workmen’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability In- 954 surance, as issued by such organizations as the National Council on Compensa- tion Insurance are the most accurate and indicative. These rates are the basis on which compensation insurance is assessed for the various employment categories. While these rates vary from State to State, an example of rates for various classiflcations set for the Disrtict of Columbia would be typical. Exhibit C shows a comparison of certain construction trades with other manu- facturing or processing activities in rates per $100.00 of payroll. In 1960, Governor John A. Volpe of Massachusetts, President of J. A. Volpe Construction Company and a vocal advocate of safety was quoted in the Com- structor Magazine as follows: “On invitation bids and cost plus bids, insurance costs are a major factor when contracts are being considered.” The insurance factor has become even greater when consideration is given to the fact that premiums must reflect a subsequent 40 percent increase in medical costs since 1960. Another very important factor is that because of the size and high cost of the equipment used in the construction industry, accidents can be very costly even when injuries are very slight. As a case in point, I would direct the Committee's attention to Hahibit D. To continue in this vein, I would like to establish some dollar costs to the industry and to the country caused by the high accident toll in the construc- tion industry. The costs of these accidents are astronomical. The Associated General Contractors of America computed the costs of acci- dents for 1951 as follows: Direct compensation insurance costs________________________ $409, 500, 000. 00 Damaged equipment, work stoppage, spoiled work, reclama- ION, ele. QUE 10 ACCIBOIIIS. on om iiss mei im 5 i erm ee sees 819, 000, 600. 00 Total 1, 228, 500, 000. 00 Again in 1963 ,the Associated General Contractors computed the cost of acci- dents in the construction industry. Their final figure was $2 billion despite the fact that 1963 was one of the industry's better years. This means that the accident cost had increased by more than 3; of a billion dollars over a 12-year span. We in the Building Trades, using our most conservative projections, have set as a minimum a $2.3 billion price tag on accidents in the 1965-1966 period based on the 1963 costs set by the Associated General Contractors. Has anyone ever stopped to think of just what the loss of 174 million man- days of labor means? For one thing, it means that over the last eight years 4.3 million workers lost a full week’s work. Considering it in another way, it means that 1.4 billion man-hours were lost during that period. I wonder what would happen if that number of workers lost that much productive time because of a strike? I believe you know what would happen. The story would be spread over the front pages of the world. Loud demands would follow that the labor leaders involved in the stoppage be called to account. Public opinion would be outraged. On the other hand, accidents which result in millions of man-days lost—not to mention the human suffering involved—generally are tucked away on the back pages to be eventually ignored. The truth is that in 1965 the num- ber of productive man-days lost due to job connected accidents was 10 times greater than the loss due to labor-management disputes. Returning to the 174 million man-days of productive time lost over the last eight years—it also means that had these 174 million man-days been saved, 87,000 worker-years of employment would not have been lost over the last eight years in the construction industry alone. I would like to emphasize to the Committee that this is not the total number of preventable injuries and deaths nor the total dollar loss. The data that I have used does not represent all of the preventable injuries and deaths that have occurred over the last eight years in construction. It represents the ex- perience of those companies who have elected to report their experience, There are thousands of employers who do not volunteer t roepottrrheiCCliE— There are thousands of employers who do not volunteer to report their experience. Now, how much does this mean in lost dollars, dollars which were absorbed by the industry, dollars which were lost to the economy? The Building Trades, accepting the lowest amount of dollar costs reported by the Associated General Contractors of $1.2 billion a year for accident costs, found that over the past 955 eight years accidents in the construction industry amounted to more than $9.6 billion. No one would accept a challenge to set a monetary amount on the pain, suffering to the injured or his family, that these figures represent. It is im- possible. The Committee may be interested in why I have used data based on the last eight years in examining the accident experience of the construction industry. This was done in order that the Committee can see the results of legislation similar to that which the Committee is considering for Federal Construction Safety. The 85th Congress late in the second session passed PL 85-742 commonly referred to as the Maritime Safety Act. This law authorized the Secretary of Labor to establish rules and regulations, promote safety and train and educate those involved in the stevedoring and ship repairing employments. The opposition to that legislation took the position that passage of the legis- tion was not needed, would cripple the industry, and put individual companies out of business. The sense of the testimony was all gloom and doom. I am sure that the Committee will hear similar testimony on the Construction Safety Bill. However, I think the record of the Department of Labor in administering the Maritime Safety Act speaks for itself. 1960 was the first full year that the Department of Labor started administer- ing the Maritime Safety Act. The injury frequency rate for longshoring at that time was 132, and in shipyards it was 89 according to reports submitted by employers to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. At the end of 1966, the employers in the longshore and shipyard business reported injury frequency rates of 81.4 and 23.6 respectively. This represents a 39 percent reduction of injuries in longshoring and a 41 percent reduction of injuries in shipyard work in a 6 year period. I don’t think the Committee will find any companies that were put out of business during this period because of Federal safety laws. In fact, if the truth were known, the Maritime people saved hundreds of thousands of dol- lars. It would like the Committee to hear what a Vice-President of a stevedoring company of Savannah, Georgia, had to say concerning the Department of Labor’s Maritime Safety and Health Program about the Department’s ability to fairly administer a safety law. He was testifying before a Congressional Committee for another purpose: “Before proceeding with the particular purpose of my appearance here today, I would like to make an observation about the Department’s Maritime Safety Program which I feel should be on record. As vehemently opposed to the legis- lation that established this Federal safety function, today, I would like to state that I personally feel that this program is one of the most helpful and objectively administered Federal programs that I, as a businessman, have had to become involved in. The results they are achieving, in what is admittedly hostile atmosphere, are astounding and the people at the working level are a credit to dedicated public service.” I am sure the Committee is wondering why I have spent time talking about the Department’s Maritime Safety Program when the matter here today in- volves Construction Safety. It is simply this, it shows what can be accomplished through Federal Safety Laws, and it shows to the Committee that all the foreboding testimony the Committee will hear in opposition is unfounded. The Committee, in calling this hearing, has expressed its concern about the problem of high incidence of preventable injuries in the construction industry. The Committee’s concern is amply justified, and its setting of these hearings is a distinctive public service. It is a massive problem in which all are involved, contractors, labor, owners and the Government. Even the most tolerant appraisal by any or all cannot ignore the facts that expose loss of life, injuries, waste, inefficiency and delay. I have reported on the high cost of suffering and death of the workman. I have reported on the inroads made on profits. The Government must be made aware of the increased spending of Public Monies resulting from poor safety records which is passed on through higher bids. Compounding the Government costs are the increasing number of tort claims being brought against the Government on the allegations that Federal Agencies failed to provide a safe working environment and were negligent in enforcing safety on Federally funded projects. To illustrate how serious safety on Federal 956 Construction is, I would like to quote a passage from the current edition of the “Lawyers Desk Reference” authored by Dean Robb and Harry Philo, both prominent and influential claims attorneys : “Construction safety in the United States today is most wholly dependent upon the philosophy, competence and will of the safety personnel of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Northwest Division of the Corps of Engineers, headquartered in Portland, Oregon is the only District that appears to have all three. The time which the Bureau of Reclamation spends rationalizing negligent conduct could much better be spent saving lives by in- sisting on government contractors with safe equipment, competent safety per- sonnel and adequate safety programs, and by developing safe systems of work and safe design of machinery and equipment. Such an approach would probably save the lives of ten thousand workers and prevent injury to one million in the next ten years.” Construction is no longer just a local or state affair. Giant joint combines; volume ; affect on state-line operations, have long since made the principle of Federal regulation and guidance a necessity. The States-rights argument often used in a situation such as this, is primarily a defense against meaningful regulation per se. In those States which do have some sensible safety requirements, the industry must abide by such regulations. In order to be equitable to the construction worker who crosses State lines, he should be guaranteed minimum safety coverage wherever he works. He does not get this now. The long record shows that most States and other political sub-divisions have shown that they cannot, or will not provide for safe working conditions. The job must be done, it is long overdue. Appeals to the industry—even by some of its own leaders—to “do something” about this national disgrace continue to go un- heeded. Experience has proven that it is up to the Federal Government to step in and act. (Hahibit E—State Safety Activity in Construction). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which applies by contractural requirement, the type of regulations envisioned in this Bill, has a frequency rate of 5 injuries for every million man-hours worked. However, even this program seems to be losing ground. In 1958, accidents caused property damage on Corps of Engineers projects amounting to $5,781,000. In 1966, the property damage loss was $10.5 million. More important, the U.S. Corps of Engineers reported that for every 7 con- tractor employees working for them that received a disabling injury, one of the employees was killed on the job. The all industry average according to the National Safety Council is one in a hundred. To understand the safety problem in the construction industry, it must be remembered there are four types of contractors. Group 1. The Contractors who have inadequate records, no safety program, and do not belong to the National Safety Council, the Associated General Contractors Association or other groups. Group 2. Those Contractors who may belong to the Associated General Contractors, and report their injury and frequency and severity rates to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but have no formal safety program, have inadequate safety records, and have very little conception of the cost of accidents. } Group 3. Those Contractors who belong to safety oriented groups like the Associated General Contractors, are members of the National Safety Council, have formal safety programs for their own employees, and keep such records as required to indicate accident costs and report to the above associations. Group 4. Those Contractors who in addition to having an active safety program, as indicated in 3 above, have also set safety standards and require- ments which apply not only to their own construction employees, but are also incorporated into agreements with their subcontractors. These standards and requirements are enumerated in a written document outlining specific and detailed codes which must be met. The subcontract work is policed by the safety personnel of the general contractor and any uncorrected infrac- tions of the requirements with respect to the safety of machinery or equip- ment, working conditions, work practices, etc., are grounds for cancellation of the entire contract. That accidents and injuries in the construction industry can be controlled by safety programs well conceived, carried out and policed can be shown conclu- sively by comparing the histories given below. 957 The Bureau of Labor Statistics gathers injury frequency rates from construc- tion firms in Groups 2, 3 and 4. These groups include the construction contractors with excellent safety and health programs, those with inadequate safety and health programs, and those with no safety and health programs at all. The injury frequency rates and severity rates for this group are shown below and, as will be noted, are very high among contractors reporting to BLS. Rate 1962 1963 1964 1965 Injury frequency... 29.5 28.6 20.5 28.3 Severity. eee 2,497 2,219 2,434 2,585 By contrast, the construction contractors who are members of the National Safety Council are those who usually have fairly active safety programs. Their injury frequency rates and severity rates are much less: The statistics are as follows : CONTRACTORS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE NSC 1962 1963 1964 1965 Injury frequency rates 14.7 12,2 13.2 13.3 Severity rates 1,989 2,641 2,215 1,984 That the above rates can be further radically reduced by setting up safety standards to be met by construction contractors and policing those jobs can be shown by the histories of the contractors working for the Corp of Engineers whose safety engineers police the jobs and insist on safe equipment and safe working conditions for the workers involved in those contracts. That the construction industry can be made as safe an industry as the manu- facturing industry can be seen from the records posted by Dupont Company's Chambers Works Construction Project, Deep Water Point, New Jersey. The firm and its construction sub-contractors worked 8,099,629 man-hours without a dis- abling injury. This was done by insuring that proper equipment and tools were provided for the job, that machinery was guarded, that scaffolds, passageways, hoisting equip- ment, ladders were in safe condition, that excellent housekeeping was maintained. The George A. Fuller Company completed Chicago’s tallest structure (41 stories). The Prudential Building, after 314 years in construction with as many as 1200 men on the job without a fatality. Those who cry loudest against Federal safety standards are those who are doing the least. Those who are doing something or are willing to do something to prevent accidents really have nothing to fear. We in the Building Trades, believe that this legislation would benefit not only the workers, but also the contractors and the Federal Government. As proven by similar safety and health legislation currently administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, the provisions of this Bill will : a. Reduce employers injury compensation costs Reduce contractor liability by meeting accepted safety standards Reduce contract costs through improved operational efficiency . Improve competitive status of companies through reduced costs . Reduce serious accidents delay project completion dates . Provide minimum national uniformity in safe work practices . Improve the safety skills throughout the industry by training workers on Federal projects who then move on to private construction projects h. Assist States to upgrade their safety posture through improved national programming In summation, the Building Trades Department wholeheartedly supports this proposed legislation. Our reasons are as follows : Injuries.—The frequency and severity of injuries are alarmingly high. This is not a recent development nor one of a temporary nature, but has been, is, and will continue to be a consistent fact unless the concrete action proposed is taken. Human values—The hundreds of thousands of construction workers must receive constructive consideration. The U.S. Government, labor and management Jointly have an obligation which has not been met. It can no longer be ignored. RErans 958 Economics.—There can be no argument regarding the fact that accidents are expensive and produce a substantial dollar drain. The total dollar loss in this industry is astronomical. In addition, the economic loss to employers who suffer these injuries represents, independently a horrendous figure. The exact totals are moot points. The overall effect, however, is that the entire public suffers through increased end product costs. Construction contracted and paid for by the U.S. Government is therefore in effect subsidizing human and economic loss. Enormity of the problem.—The Construction Industry is one of the Na- tion’s largest. One dollar out of every eight dollars of Gross National Prod- ucts is spent in Construction or an allied field. This obviously compounds the problem and accentuates the necessity for legislative action. Congressional service.—Since its inception, Congress has wisely seen fit to legislatively provide for the good of the majority of the people—this Na- tion’s workforce—in many ways. This legislation is just one more step in the tradition and intent of Congress. A guarantee that a very large percentage of the working population will be protected from bodily harm. On the basis of these facts and the accompanying exhibits, I believe that the vital need for this legislation has been very clearly established and fully sub- stantiated. We strongly urge that the Commitee act promplty and favorably on this legislation. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, Washington, D.C., March 6, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Hducation and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. HoLLAnD : It is our understanding that the Select Subcommittee on Labor is presently considering H.R. 14816, proposel legislation to authorize the Secretary of Labor to set federal standards for occupational safety and health for businesses affecting commerce. The National Association of Home Builders, representing over 50,000 members of the residential construction industry located throughout the Nation, has a direct and vital interest in any proposal which would affect the business opera- tions of its members, particularly legislation to impose mandatory federal stand- ards for job site safety, compliance procedures and severe penalties for violation of such standards. The labor committee of this Association earlier considered a comparable measure (H.R. 2567) for imposition of federal safety standards solely for this industry, and recommended that such measure be opposed on the basis that safety and accident prevention is a matter best left to apropriate action at the local level. The basic reason for this position is that the committee felt that job site safety and prevention of accidents is more a matter of worker education than federal regulation, and, therefore, more properly within the function of local industry and State and local authorities. Accordingly, the members of this As- sociation are opposed to H.R. 14816 and related bills for the same reason. We appreciate the opportunity afforded to state our position in this regard and would like to have this statement made part of the printed record of the hearings held on this subject. Sincerely, JoHN J. RILEY, Director of Labor. INTERSTATE POWER Co., Dubuque, Iowa, February 28, 1968. Congressman JOHN C. CULVER, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR JouN: We have been reading the introduction of HR-14816 relating to occupational safety and health. As you may know, Iowa passed safety legislation in 1965 and the Employment Safety Commission has, since that time, been working on safety rules and coordi- nating them with national standards now in existence. In addition, they have 959 adopted a policy of waiting for some revised codes, which will be released shortly, in order that they meet modern conditions rather than institute national stand- ards that are as much as ten years old. To the best of our knowledge, the subject of occupational safety and health is receiving individual state action, and the regulation of such is better left with the states where it is possible to coordinate industry to the best interests of the employee and the general public. While this legislation has had some hearings, it seems to be having rapid introduction since the subject was proposed in the manpower message of Janu- ary 23rd by the President. This is a complex subject and should not be acted up without careful considera- tion of what is working successfully in various states. In fact, we see no need for any measures that compound and make for further regulation and resulting increased costs without additional due benefits to employees and the general public, as well as our shareholders. We know that a measure such as this will have your careful consideration. Sincerely, K. S. Gorpon, . Hazecutive Assistant. CLYDE R. RoyALs, INc., Hampton, Va., March 8, 1968. Hon. THOMAS N. DOWNING, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DownING: With great concern I read of the Administra- tion’s Safety Bill, which is currently being heard. I am not at all in favor of Bill HR 14816 and Bill S 2864 with the Federal Government being the Administrator. In our business, safety is our greatest concern. We use manuals that are fur- nished by our insurance companies and in many cases manuals that are fur- nished by various agencies of the United States Government. With the labor shortage as it is today, we can not afford to have one of our employees injured in any way. This not only reflects in our labor costs, but is also a great factor in how our insurance rates is determined. On a State level through the Virginia Road Builders Association and the Virginia Asphalt Association, we have safety committees which are doing a good job in making everyone aware of the necessity of a safety program in their orga- nizations. We would like for you to oppose Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz in his plan and let us retain the authority to administer our own safety programs. With kindest regards, Very truly yours, C. R. RoYALs, Jr., President. NEW ORLEANS, LA., February 17, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, U.S. Representative, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. We would like to ask for your help in defeating construction safety bill H.R. 2567 and Occupational Safety and Health Act, H.R. 14816 and S. 2864. The House Select Committee on Labor concluded hearings on February 7 on H.R. 2567. The committee is scheduled to begin hearings on H.R. 14816 the week of February 19 and Secretary Wirtz was to appear before the Senate on Feb- ruary 15. We are opposed to all of these proposed acts of legislation mainly be- cause they are necessarily duplicate Federal safety programs which are already in existence and their scope of authority is entirely too broad. Safety can best be handled by private industry. We respectfully request your support in defeat- ing these bills and other similar legislation. CLEM B. BINNINGS, President, New Orleans Chapter, Associated General Contractors of America, 960 STATEMENT OF SOUTHERN STATES INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL The Southern States Industrial Council represents more than 2700 industrial and business firms. Eighty five percent of these firms are located in a 16-state area extending from Texas to Maryland, with the remaining 15 percent located in other parts of the nation. Headquarters of the Council are in Nashville, Tennessee. The Council believes H.R. 14816—the so-called Occupational Health and Safety Act-—contains a grave threat to the private enterprise system, and is con- cerned that the many dangers inherent in this proposed legislation may not be fully understood. Behind this legislation is an attempt to create in the public mind a crisis where none exists, in order to capitalize politically on the natural concern of all citizens for the health and safety of our working people. The newspapers quickly recog- nized and tabbed the hasty drafting and introduction of this Administration- sponsored measure as an obvious election year effort by develop an image as guardian and saviour of the production worker. The tactics of the Secretary of Labor in trying to win support for this measure by showing the Committee a few exceedingly gruesome pictures of industrial accidents reflect upon the intelli- gence of its members. In fact, they reduce to a low plane the entire legislative process. Furthermore, we see in this bill another move to take from the states powers and functions they have traditionally exercised, and to concentrate those powers in the Federal bureaucracy. The powers this bill would give to the Secretary of Labor to set standards for industry according to his own whims, to enforce these standards by Federal edict, and to close down an industrial plant by simply issuing the order whenever it suits him to do so are far more suited to a dictator- ship than to our Republic and its free enterprise foundation. Is there need for this bill? We say there is not. The Council does not assert, nor do we know anyone who does, that improvements cannot be made in safe- guarding the health and safety of factory workers. But the fact is that this is an area that has received great attention from industrial management execu- tives and the states for both humanitarian and economic reasons. The economic spur for improvement is found in the fact that accidents and illness among employees are expensive. As a result, United States workers have the safest and most healthful working environments of any workers in the world. Statistics and insurance figures show that workers are safer on the job than they are on the highways, or even in their own homes. And improvements are continually being made. Research is being conducted continuously to find ways of reducing indus- trial accidents. Today’s newer industrial plants are light, airy places with pleas- ing colors and soft music, located away from the smoke, grime and nerve-wrack- ing congestion of the central cities. With the many grave unresolved problems facing our nation today, why should the Federal government divert its efforts and funds to an area in which remarkable progress already has been made and continues to be made? The Council hopes each member of the Congress will ask himself that question. One of the sections of H.R. 14816 of particular concern is that having to do with the establishment of standards for “safety” and for a “healthful place of employment.” The Secretary of Labor would be given unlimited power to set these standards, with the help of other Federal agencies. We are not convinced of the capability of the Secretary to properly determine safety standards for many different types of industries, each having different problems, limitations and requirements. Even more complex than the problem of establishing safety standards is that of determining what constitutes a “healthful place of employment”. What are the criteria for this determination? The act does not provide any. Will some government staff employee, perhaps in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, decide what in his opinion is a “healthful” place in which to work? We leave to your imagination what a Washington bureaucrat might dream up as the standards for a “healthful place of employment”. If the Sec- retary of Labor accepts standards so determined, industry would have to con- form or face the direct penalties. The Council vigorously protests the proposal in H.R. 14816 to permit the Sec- retary of Labor to arbitrarily shut down a plant, without any hearings or court action, should he unilaterally decide that a situation exists involving im- mediate danger to the plant’s employees. This is far too much power over an industrial firm to be placed in the hands of an appointed Federal employee— 961 particularly one of such obvious bias toward labor unions and against business as the present Secretary of Labor. The mischief that might be done through mis- use of this power is frightening to contemplate. Equally frightening is the potential misuse of the power H.R. 14816 gives the Secretary of Labor to declare any company ineligible to receive government con- tracts if he declares that company is not maintaining satisfactory safety stand- ards. This is the most thinly concealed form of blackmail and should be com- pletely unacceptable under our form of government. The Secretary of Labor is a human being and subject to human errors, pressures and prejudices. He should not be given such unrestrained power over American industry. The most commonly used device for extension of Federal power into areas where the states have had jurisdiction is that of offering Federal funds. In H.R. 14816, the Secretary of Labor would be authorized to make grants to the states so they could do “a better job” of administering and enforcing state safety standards. To receive these grants, the states would have to comply with re- porting and accounting procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Furthermore, the Secretary is empowered to assume jurisdiction over industrial safety and health matters covered by state laws when—in his opinion—the states are not doing what he thinks they should. A careful reading of this proposed legislation makes it clear that if it were enacted the Secretary of Labor would become the national czar of occupational health and safety, with the power to shut down or punish industrial enterprises at will, or even upon a whim. The Southern States Industrial Council believes that Federal legislation in the field of occupational health and safety is unneeded. Even if legislation in this field were needed, we are convinced that H.R. 14816 is not the answer for the reasons we have outlined and urge that this committee withhold its approval. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA HEALTH DEPARTMENT, February 20, 1968. Hon. CHARLES S. GUBSER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. GUBSER: Thank you for the prompt receipt of copies of the Walsh- Healey and McNamara-O'Hara Acts sent by Jean Gordon on your behalf. May we comment briefly and favorably upon the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. It is suggested, however, that environmental exposure limits for non-traumatic medical reasons be established only with the concurrence of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare or the consensus of a board of qualified physicians. As the law is proposed, the Secretary of Labor is merely directed to consult medical opinion before establishing Toxicological Threshold Limit Values. This bill is designated H.R. 14816, or S. 2864. Sincerely, W. ELwyN TURNER, M.D., Director of Public Health. J. P. BARTLETT, M.D., Chief, Divisional of Occupational Health. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 11, 1968. Hon. ELMER HOLLAND, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Enclosed are two letters I have received from con- stituents in my district opposing H.R. 14816, the Occupational Health and Safety bill presently the subject of hearings by your committee: Mr. F. S. Bryan, president, Union Manufacturing Company, Union Point, Georgia, and Mr. M. B. Shaw, general superintendent, Bibb Manufacturing Company, Porterdale, Georgia. 962 Both Mr. Bryan and Mr. Shaw express the feeling that we already have adequate safety and health programs and that further inspections and control by the federal government would constitute unjust interference with private enterprise. In view of this, I would like to ask that you have their letters in- serted in the hearings on the bill. Please let me know if this can be done. Sincerely, ROBERT G. STEPHENS, JT. UNION MANUFACTURING Co., Union Point, Ga., March 7, 1968. Re Federal legislation: Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968. Hon. ROBERT G. STEPHENS, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DrAR Bos: I understand that there are two bills, S. 2864 and H.R. 14816. I feel that both of these bills are unnecessary. In the first place every industry tries to promote the health and safety of its employees. In the textile industry we have safety programs trying to promote safety from every angle. In our own plant we have monthly meetings of all foremen and discuss a monthly inspection tour made by a committee of our own personnel and endeavor to correct any dangerous or unsafe conditions in our plant. In addition to this our Insurance Company makes periodic inspections for such conditions, and on top of this our State of Georgia sends a man around periodically to inspect these conditions according to Georgia Standards. This is up to the Department of Labor in this state. Then when we are on Government contracts we have a federal inspection for such conditions, so we feel that we are already over-inspected on these matters and further inspection would just be an unnecessary expense and cost of operating the Federal Government. It appears to me that with the already elaborate safety and health programs that further inspections and controls by the Federal Government would seem to constitute unjust interference with private enterprise, and I do hope that after studying these two bills carrying the same title that you will feel justified in voting against them. Best regards. Yours very truly, F. S. BRYAN, President. BiB MANUFACTURING Co., Porterdale, Ga., March 7, 1968. Hon. ROBERT STEPHENS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. STEVENS: As we understand it, Senate Bill 2864 and House Bill 14816 has recently been presented to Congress under title of “Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1968”. We further understand this legislation would empower the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce minimum occupational safety and health standards for virtually every employer. To state our views, we feel industries, including textiles, already have elab- orate safety and health program and centralized control of industrial health and safety by the Federal Government which seem to constitute unjust interference with private enterprise. We hope that you see fit not to support the two bills in question. We feel these bills are not needed and will simply concentrate more authority in Washington which rightfully belongs to the individual states and private enterprise. Yours very truly, M. B. SHAW, General Superintendent. 963 HARVEY HUBBELL, INC., Bridgeport, Conn., February 9, 1968. Hon. DorALD J. IRWIN, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. IRWIN : The proposed bill H.R. 14816 covering “Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968” is not a good bill for either the employee or the employer and should be defeated. I am sure all of us are as much concerned as the President over the number of industrial accidents resulting in death, loss of time, and lost wages. However, to make a bill that has all of the threats and enforcements that this bill contains and yet with no real problem solving recommendations is certainly not indicative of the quality of government that this country requires. It certainly would be ridiculous for a company or an individual to threaten a contractor with all kinds of penalties for not completing a house on time when he did not give him the specifications of the home or building. I feel it would be, indeed, much more constructive and much more in the interest of the employees to work through the state’s existing agencies that cover the welfare and safety of the employees, since these people are much closer to the employees and the industries involved. Certainly, it is logical first to deter- mine the need and second what specifically and constructively will aid the em- ployees before the Federal seizure of the state’s present authority and the rather arbitrary assignment of power to representatives of the Federal government. Very truly yours, R. W. DIixoN, Vice President. INTERNATIONAL NArrRow FaBric Co., INO, Keene, N.H., February 29, 1968. Hon. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, U.S. Representative, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CLEVELAND : I am writing you in regard to Bill #HR. 14816 which is the proposed Occupational Safety and Health Act. Too be against Health and Safety is almost like being against sin and for this reason I am afraid that the Bill will have appeal. However, our Company op- poses it in its present form because of the fact that it is so broadly worded and that the Secretary of Labor could make practically any ruling he wanted to in the name of Health or Safety. We feel that if the Congress decides that the States are incapable of controlling the Safety and Health of their own manu- facturers that any bill which is passed by the Congress should set down very strict guide lines for the Secretary of Labor to follow. Too often in the past, when loosely worded bills have gone through, the regulations that have come out of the various Bureaus in Washington are a far cry from what the Congress intended. I certainly hope that you will give this bill your careful consideration and I would appreciate hearing your comments on it. Sincerely yours, Rare A. RIETH, Jr. Haxecutive Vice-President. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. FREDERICK, Sc. D., DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE, DETROIT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH My name is William G. Frederick, staff member of the Bureau of Industrial Hygiene, Detroit Department of Health, since 1936 and its Director since 1946. The City of Detroit has 850,000 gainfully employed workers who work in ap- proximately 50,000 workplaces. The average number of employees per work- place is sixteen, the median is eight and the minimum is three. Less than ten 92-734 0—68——62 964 establishments employ more than ten thousand workers and less than 300 em- ploy more than 100 workers. Detroit’s Industrial Hygiene program, inadequate in coverage as it is, repre- sents one of the few large ones in the United States. Most of the nation’s workers receive no protection from the health-impairing stresses of the work environ- ment. It is hard to rationalize this neglect in the face of our concern with the community environment. Air pollution in the workplace ranges from a hundred to a thousandfold above that in the community; noise levels are permanently deafening ; ionizing radiation exposure is frequently high. Legislation of the type provided in HR 14816 or Senate Bill 2864 is urgently needed to assist local governmental programs to provide healthful working con- ditions. Most critically needed are : 1. A supply of trained manpower. 2. Accelerated research on occupational disease cause and prevention. 3. Direct financial support on a fund matching basis. 4. Predetermination of the hazard of materials before general use by workers by a process similar to that used for new drugs. Detroit’s workers must depend primarily upon the small twenty-five member staff of the Bureau of Industrial Hygiene for occupational health protection from high workroom air pollution, noise, radioactive materials, laser beams, high heat and similar dangers associated with our complex industrial technol- ogy. In 1966, working conditions required improvements in 1,421 of the 2,604 establishments we were able to inspect with the available staff; 157,000 workers directly benefited from the 2,585 correction orders which were issued. A total of 6,716 visits were made to 5.2 per cent of Detroit's work places in which 303,- 760 workers or 389, of the work force were employed. Complaints, requests for service and specific licensure ordinances accounted for most of our initial in- vestigations. After necessary follow-up work, little time was left for self- initiated studies and surveillance in high hazard operations such as construc- tion, foundries and the noisy trades. Of the 2,250 requests received, 633 came from employers and employees, 207 from contractors and insurance carriers, 56 from plant neighbors and the balance from other governmental agencies. Plans examined for environmental control of hazards increased from 141 in 1964 and 205 in 1965 to 350 in 1966. Detroit in its concerted attack on the elimination of poverty and of crime, recognizes the need of gainful employment opportunity for all of its adult citizens. The displaced worker, the early retiree, the high school drop-out, the partially disabled—all must become a productive member of our work force. Unfortunately, we tend to select workers to fit the stresses of the job or the workplace rather than to fit the workplace to the capabilities of the potential work force. The worker has little or no control over his work environment. As a result, those people with genetically built in hypersensitivity, with mental health problems, with accident or disease caused partial impairment are denied employment because they cannot stand up to the rigors of the job. The staff of the Bureau of Industrial Hygiene is well aware of the multiplicity of chemical, physical, microbiological and ergonomic stress which the occupational environment imposes on the worker and for over thirty years has, with sub- stantial success, cooperated with employees to keep these on-the-job health stresses below the level which will cause health impairment in normal healthy workers after short or long term exposure. We are now undertaking to apply known Industrial Hygiene principles to making Detroit's workplaces. tolerable to a substantial percentage of the medically handicapped. CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Los Angeles, March 6, 1968. Hon. BLMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Education and Labor Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HorLLAND : The California Manufacturers Association and its mem- bership has continually supported and promulgated realistic health and safety laws and regulations, as evidenced by the existing high safety standards of the State of California. The simultaneous introduction of matching bills in the U.S. Senate (S 2864— Yarborough) and in the House of Representatives (HR 14816—O'Hara) de- 965 signed to establish complete federal control of industry health and safety stand- ards is of immediate and vital concern to this organization for the following reasons: 1. Incomplete and inconclusive documentation has been cited to show the need for federal safety legislation of this type. National statistics show a con- tinuous improvement in the reduction of industrial accidents and deaths by the combined efforts of State, local, and private enterprise. 2. Although undoubtedly well intentioned, this bill gives the Secretary (of Labor) complete control of occupational health and safety programs in the United States, as the words of the Bill authorizes the Secretary to either take over or decline jurisdiction of occupational health and safety programs from any state, thus completely usurping states rights. In addition, the Secretary has unlimited power to issue standards at his will. No guidelines are provided other than he may prescribe the standards “from time to time after appropriate consultation with other Federal Agencies.” 3. This legislation would duplicate, needlessly, already existing standards and enforcement agencies of many states (such as California). This duplication would provide no additional safety but only add cost to an already overbur- dened taxpayer. This hastily conceived legislation pays little concern over the character of these standards or the difficulty in formulating them to cover all type of busi- nesses for all locations, but it does provide in great detail all of the penalties for non-compliance. 4. This bill would give broad discretionary powers to the designated inspec- tors as to compliance with issued standards, with no immediate recourse to industry. 5. In addition to the sweeping administrative enforcement, injunctions, and judicial enforcement, the Secretary would have the additional power to de- clare any person or firm ineligible to receive government contracts, if he be- lieved that that person or firm was disregarding his obligation under the Act. Such persons or firms declared ineligible would have no recourse to the courts. It is the recommendation and request of the California Manufacturers Asso- ciation, in view of the obvious discrepancies contained in this bill, that this proposed legislation be vigorously opposed. Respectfully yours, T. F. KN1cHT, Jr., Executive Vice President. PEARL BrEWING Co., San Antonio, Tewx., March 7, 1968. Congressman ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HoLLAND : With sincere regret, we have learned that companion bills have been introduced in the House—H.R. 14816—and in the Senate—S. 2864— which propose to establish federalization of occupational safety and health programs, At a time when private industry itself and private industry supported research centers are experiencing constant progress in the field of occupational safety and health programs, we are amazed and stunned to learn that our federal govern- ment once again wishes to bring these matters under compulsory legislation. The safeguarding of employees is of vital concern to each and every individual employer. The employer realizes that the productivity of his plant and the plant’s contribution to the nation itself is dependent upon the safety and good health of his employees. The returns of the large investments required to finance many of the safety and health programs are realized as being most tangible and worth- while valuable investments. Should there be a determination on Capitol Hill that a Federal Program in this area is a must and that some type of program must be enacted, we would seriously and sincerely suggest that this be confined to openly supporting the states in their programs. We maintain that the safeguarding of people at work can be best achieved through individual employers working with state and local governments and through voluntary programs being adhered to through trade and professional associations. The necessity for an effective safety and health program is realized by all responsible employers and these are being followed and enforced. We do mot 966 believe and cannot conceive how it can be honestly determined that the Federal Government is indeed competent to provide guidance in this field. The federalization of occupational safety and health programs is indeed another case of federal governmental encroachment in state sovereignty. This peril must be diminished and we request your sincerity toward the restoration of state and local governmental sovereignty be recorded in your opposition toward these measures. With respectful sincerity and best wishes, we are Respectfully, A. J. RANGE, Executive Vice President. CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CoO., Peoria, Ill., March 6, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HoLLAND : We at Caterpillar Tractor Co. acknowledge and share with others the concern for safe working conditions and the reduction of accidents. We have had a Company-administered safety program at Caterpillar for 40 years . . . and our safety frequency and severity rates are far below the national average. We are opposed to federal enforcement of safety standards as proposed in H.R. 14816 and S. 2864. We are opposed to the concept embodied in the bills for these reasons: 1. Centralized federal control of industrial safety and health would be a duplication of states’ Department of Labor factory inspection functions. 2. Over 80 percent of all accidents are caused by the personal errors of people. Codes, rules, and present state laws have never been effective in dealing with this problem. To change from state to federal enforcement of safety codes or laws or to duplicate the state control with federal control and inspection will not produce the needed improvement. It will only increase the cost. Safety improvement in this “people error” area will probably only come through education and discipline applied at a local level, preferably through the supervisor-employee relationship. 3. Government contractors—such as Caterpillar—cannot guarantee com- plete adherence by all their suppliers (short of placing safety inspectors on suppliers’ premises). But the proposal would require that contractors make such guarantees. 4. The entire burden of industrial safety logically should not be placed upon the employer. The actions of employees responsible in the majority of accidents are generally not within the scope of control by the employer. In our opinion, enactment of this type of legislation would entrust excessive control at the federal government level, would cause undue confusion, and create greater tax burdens without reducing the numbers of accidents. Because of these objections, we feel legislation as proposed is unnecessary and impractical. Sincerely, J. J. SHEEHAN, Personnel Manager. TaE H. E. KooNTZ CREAMERY, INC. Baltimore, Md., March 4, 1968. Re H.R. 14816. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN GARMATZ: We are concerned with contents of above num- bered Bill—the Administration’s proposal to have U.S. Government supervise and control occupational Safety and Health. We believe such help of Federal Government—if any-—should be channeled through local state governments where there has been progress in establishing health and safe working conditions for the employed. 967 Further bureaucracy would be established with the passage of this Bill increas- ing Federal Budget expense requirements—an area we would hope reductions could be made to deter inflation. We would welcome your opposition to this legislation. Our appreciation for your cooperative thinking. Yours very truly, M. M. THOMAS. nse CERTAIN-TEED PrODUCTS CORP., Ambler, Pa., February 26, 1968. Re H.R. 14816, proposed Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. Mr. E. J. HOLLAND, Select Labor Subcommittee, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Rep- resentatives, Washington, D.C. Dear CHAIRMAN HOLLAND: I urge your committee not to send the proposed Biil No. H.R. 14816 as presently written to the House for passage. Those portions of the bill which provide grants to the States to strengthen their own Safety Laws and which provide money for Safety Research, Education and Training would be very helpful in reducing occupational injuries. However, implementation and enforcement of safety regulations should be left in the hands of state and local governments. Twenty years of experience in the health and safety field have taught me that no “outsiders”, and I include myself as Corporate Safety Director as well as outside governmental and insurance inspectors, can do the difficult job of re- ducing accidents. It must be done by the line supervisors with motivation for safety coming from management. In my opinion a bill providing for Safety Research, Statistics, Education and Training can achieve much better results in accident reduction than a bill con- taining punitive measures which will only function by harassment and which would be costly and difficult to implement and enforce. Sincerely, Leon D. HOROWITZ, Supervisor of Safety. TrACO STEEL, INC., Anderson, 8.C., February 22, 1968. Re House Resolution 14816. House COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Rayburn House O flice Building, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN : As an employer in the steel fabrication business located in Anderson, South Carolina, I would like to express my opposition to this bill which proposes Federal worker safety standards for business and industry. I feel that this legislation is unnecessary inasmuch as we already have state legislation in force. In addition, we work very closely with the safety division of our insurance carriers in promoting worker safety in our plants This proposed Federal legislation appears to me to be nothing more than an overlapping of regulation§ which can best be done on a state level. Sincerely yours, W. V. TRAMMELL. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INC., Washington, D.C., March 1, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My DEAR Mgr. HorrAnp: Thank you very much for letting us provide this statement to your Subcommittee as a part of the hearings on H.R. 14816 relating to the subject of Occupational Safety and Health. By way of introduction, the National Electrical Contractors Association, which was organized in 1901, is the nationally recognized spokesman for the electrical 968 contracting industry. This industry is composed of small business firms primarily engaged in making on-the-site electrical installations. These concerns individu- ally employ about 16 workmen on the average, although a number have payrolls which average in the thousands of men. These companies can be found in every community of the United States and are engaged in construction projects which range from wiring of small homes to such highly technical and involved installa- tions as atomic energy plants and missile complexes. The typical electrical contractor provides the skilled service of procuring materials and fixtures and installing them in a safe, efficient and workmanlike manner whereby the electric power generated and brought to the owner’s prop- erty line can be utilized to energize fixtures, appliances and equipment. In short, the contractor serves as the vital link between energy and its applicators. The health and safety of their journeymen electricians, apprentices and other employees is a prime responsibility of the professional qualified electrical contractors. The National Electrical Contractors Association agrees with the desirability of the stated goals and objectives of H.R. 14816 which are: “To assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women.” However, we do not believe the promulgation of health and safety standards by the Secretary of Labor to be the optimum means of controlling environmental and human factors on federal construction or federally assisted construction, or on private construction. We believe the most effective means to be the continuing education of the apprentice and journeyman. Such education creates an awareness of unsafe practices, and fosters an attitude conducive to health and safety. The National Electrical Contractors Association in cooperation with the International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers sponsors a program of this type by their National Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee. That electrical contractors have a viable effective program is borne out by the Testimony of Mr. C. J. Haggerty, President Building Trades Department, AFL-CIO, before the Select Subcom- mittee on Labor relative to H.R. 2567. Electrical contracting has the lowest frequency rate in the construction industry of 20.7 injuries per 1 million man- hours. This is less than 21 injuries for 1000 men working six months and it includes experience with electrically energized equipment. Think of it—1000 men working a basic workweek for six months with less than 21 injuries. We further believe the injury rate on Federal work is probably less than the rate shown since the Davis-Bacon Act provisions tend to bring the best and safest workmen into government financed construction. The great majority of these workmen are union craftsmen trained in an excellent apprenticeship and train- ing program. We hope it is clear that we are not in favor of this proposed legislation, but we offer the following comments in an effort to make meaningful modification if the Congress believes such legislation is needed. Specifically, we suggest there be representation by on-site contractors and subcontractors in the form of an Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Labor. We further suggest there be at least one on-site contractor and subcontractor whose primary business is in one of the categories identified in the statistics. We feel the Secretary or other responsible party should be bound to the recom- mendations of such advisory Committee. We think it unreasonable to give the Secretary such unlimited power as the bill is presently written. We believe the unlimited right of health and safety inspectors to visit projects should be bridled. Federal contracting officers could request such inspection when deemed necessary on federal work. On other work the owner should be held responsible for job safety. The use of experienced qualified contractors and subcontractors with a proven record of safety will increase the probability of accident-free and injury-free construction. This could be one basis of prequalifying qualified contractors and subcontractors. We object to the enforcement power of the inspector who could completely close a construction project. A subcontractor could suffer serious financial difficulty by such an action. If this subcontractor’s men are not operating in a hazardous or unsafe manner, the damage to him would be grossly unfair. On the other hand, if such a subcontractor were compensated for the delay and possible resulting changes (constructive or otherwise), the additional costs to total proj- ects might become astronomical. It usually happens that more requirements, more reports, more inspections result in more costs. Rather than pay “for requirement inspectors” and ‘“‘require- 969 ment writers” directly by increasing the Secretary’s payroll and for report writers and supervisors indirectly by increasing the construction job cost, it is suggested the government dollar would be better spent by paying the contractor and subcontractor an incentive premium for accident-free construction. It would seem to be meritorious to conduct research, experiments and demon- strations relating to occupational safety and health to more clearly define areas of incidence. Such reports should then be made to the Congress for considered action rather than to grant such broad general powers to the Secretary of Labor before problems are focused and their magnitudes determined. Section 14 author- izes appropriations of such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act. We believe that such an open-ended provision is not fiscally responsible at a time when vast sums of money are being expended to contract the war in Vietnam, to resolve urban housing and other local problems, when Americans are being requested to cut down travel abroad and when the Federal budget is in a condi- tion of grave concern. We thank you for the opportunity to include this statement and feel sure that your hearings will demonstrate there is no need for the Federal government to move in the direction indicated by H.R. 14816. Sincerely yours, RoBERT L. HIGGINS, Haxecutive Vice President. TRUCK RENTAL AND Leasing Co., San Antonio, Tewx., March 2, 1968. Congressman ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: With sincere regret, we have learned that companion bills have been introduced in the House—H.R. 14816—and in the Senate—S. 2864—which pro- pose to establish federalization of occupational safety and health programs. At a time when private industry itself and private industry supported re- search centers are experiencing constant progress in the field of occupational safety and health programs, we are amazed and stunned to learn that our federal government once again wishes to bring these matters under compulsory legislation. The safeguarding of employees is of vital concern to each and every individual employer. The employer realizes that the productivity of his plant and the plant’s contribution to the nation itself is dependent upon the safety and good health of his employees. The returns for the large investments required to finance many of the safety and health programs are realized as being most tangible and worthwhile valuable investments. Should there be a determination on Capitol Hill that a Federal Program in this area is a must and that some type of program must be enacted, we would seriously and sincerely suggest that this be confined to openly supporting the states in their programs. We maintain that the safeguarding of people at work can be best achieved through individual employers working with state and local governments and through voluntary programs being adhered to through trade and professional associations. The necessity for an effective safety and health program is realized by all responsible employers and these are being followed and enforced. We do not believe and can not conceive how it can be honestly determined that the Federal Government is indeed competent to provide guidance in this field. The federalization of occupational safety and health programs is indeed another case of federal governmental encroachment in state sovereignty. This peril must be diminished and we request your sincerity toward the restoration of state and local governmental sovereignty be recorded in your opposition toward these measures. With respectful sincerity and best wishes, we are Respectfully, Bog G. TREECE, Executive Vice President. (Identical letters were received from Stull Chemical Co., San An- tonio, Tex.; Judson, Inc., San Antonio, Tex.; K. W. Bruder, San An- tonio, Tex.; Stuart A. Bergman, director, industrial relations, Ed 970 Friefrich, San Antonio, Tex.; and Edward Knowlton, manager and partner, Knowlton’s Creamery, San Antonio, Tex.) LocAL 4889, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Levittown, Pa., February 1, 1968. Congressman ELMER J. HOLLAND, 20th District of Pennsylvania. DEAR MR. HorLLAND: I read your January 26 news release, on safety legisla- tion you co-sponsored, with much interest. I share your opinion that workers are entitled to a safe working environment. It is good to know that we have Congressmen such as yourself and James G. O’Hara that are concerned with such forgotten (seemingly) things as safety. Enclosed you will find our Local's paper the “Fairless Union News”. The lead Editorial on page 2 (Safety Through Our Eyes) can acquaint you with some of our problems. Please send more on this bill as information is available. Sincerely, DoNALD T. DALENA. [From the Fairless Union News] SAFETY THROUGH OUR EYES Your Editor has met some of management's Safety Engineers and had the opportunity to discuss the plant safety program with them. They painted a pic- ture of sincerity, duty, obligation, and concern for the safety of our people. Let us, then, accept management's sincere desire for our safety and health. Knowing what we do and by accepting this sincere desire, we recipients of the program must conclude that somewhere there is something wrong, missing, mis- placed. lacking, inadequate. What? We know there is little respect for the overall program for two basic reasons: lack of consideration by issuing blanket safety rules, and selective enforce- ment of safety rules, often to the point of absurdity. Blanket coverage orders are issued on hard hats, safety goggles, long sleeve shirts, and metatarsal guards by men who do not have to perform and never have performed work while wearing this cumbersome equipment. Equipment is usually issued without even trying to understand the problems of individual jobs where this equipment can actually create a hazard where not needed. A blanket order crys out against understanding and results in disrespect for and lack of confidence in the entire safety program. Protecting us against several million-to-one odds is at best a weak ineffective argument. But we have no say; the Company decides who wears what. Let us look at some of the selective enforcement of safety rules; we call it safety at the Company’s convenience. A man was issued a discipline slip when caught stenciling numbers in a locker room without wearing his hard hat and goggles, while a steady parade of nude men passed before him to and from the showers. Yet in another case a Maintenance Man was ordered, over his strong protest, to drive a truck with a door that would not open on the driver's side! Here are a few more cases. A Craneman was sent home for refusing to work after the front rail fell from his cab, leaving him no forward protection. A Welder was reprimanded for smoking in a no-smoking area standing beside his partner who was burning with an open torch! A Tractor Driver received a slip for not pulling his key out when momentarily leaving his tractor yet boxcars are un- loaded with a Diesel tractor (only one available). The driver holds his breath when inside the car. Enough of these cases. When we see incidents such as these what can we think? How can we think anything other than the fact that production comes first? We see the present safety program as one who sees a hypocrite; and far worse than a hypocrite : a hypocrite who is convinced he is not a hypocrite ! We don’t expect them to remove every little straw over which we stumble, how- ever, we don’t want to be disciplined for every stumble. We recommend that each 971 job be studied and safety rules and equipment be determined for each job and area. We also recommend elimination of selective enforcement of safety rules. This, then, could constitute a beginning! A positive step in the direction of respect. Dare we hope for this improvement? INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, INC., Pittsburgh, Pa., March 27, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HoLLAND: In President Johnson's address to Congress on January 23, 1968, included in his discussion on manpower was a recommendation for enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968 in which the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Labor would administer the various aspects of that act. The Industrial Hygiene Foundation has corresponded with President Johnson, Senator Yarborough, and yourself concerning the Act and offering to provide testimony in the public hearings which are now in progress. Although time would not permit our inclusion in the “live” testimony, before the Congressional Committee, we have been invited by you to provide written testimony to be included in the written records of the hearings. Our testimony consists of the following : As an association dedicated to the management of health conservation of the work force and representing more than four hundred (400) member industrial companies in this task, the Industrial Hygiene Foundation has developed, since its inception in 1935, a broad spectrum of expertise in environmental and occu- pational health and safety and has staffed its research facilities to conduct pro- grams to better understand the effects of a wide variety of environmental and occupational parameters on the health, attitude, and well-being of the workers. We have served as consultant and advisor to a large number of our member companies in establishing design criteria both for new facilities and for improv- ing existing facilities for better working conditions. We have, through our staff’s technical competence, plus that available through our member companies, substantial expertise that can be brought to bear on the efficacy of the subject Act of 1968 and its administration. We have recently contracted with CONSAD Corporation to review the over-all effort by all those involved with industrial hygiene, the effective management of health conservation, to determine on a national basis what is being done and by whom, where there is unnecessary duplication and overlap, and where there are voids that need to be filled, and who has the capability to fill them. The results of this investigation will go a long way toward specifying and quantifying the needs of the nation, what agency or agencies are best qualified to satisfy those needs, and point the way to get the greatest value for each “health” dollar being spent. Through the support of our membership and that of several arms of the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, research programs of far reaching effect have been conducted and are now being conducted in such areas as environmental effects on the worker, epidemiological studies, health hazard prevention, patho- logical research, work area design improvement, mental health of the work force, and many others. Many of our member companies have substantial programs of their own as well as those in collaboration with Industrial Hygiene Foundation which are designed to prevent exposure to health and safety hazards by eliminating or minimizing the hazards and providing suitable protection from those hazards which are inherent to the work being done. In the spirit of public service and in the best interest of the work force, we sincerely believe Industrial Hygiene Foundation can provide expertise which 972 will be vital to the effective discharge of our mutual interests and responsibili- ties relating to the subject Act. We will welcome the opportunity to serve you in an advisory role and to develop such technical and professional resources as may be required. We firmly believe that through our objective assistance and the cooperative efforts of the Foundation’s members, meaningful and reasonable legislation can be written and implemented in the best interests of all concerned and in support of confirmed national technological growth and development. Attached are copies of my talks to Industrial Hygiene Foundation in 1963, 1966, and 1967, an Industrial Hygiene Foundation Bulletin on the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, and the March, 1968, issue of the Industrial Hygiene Digest, which includes an Editorial on the subject of the proposed Act. The enclosed reply was received from the Senate Subcommittee on Labor in answer to my request to testify for Industrial Hygiene Foundation. I would like to emphasize Industrial Hygiene Foundation’s intention to remain totally objective with regard to the matters covered in the proposed legislation, striving diligenty to help insure that the resultant of all forces working in this area will be in the direction of maximum progress in health protection and conservation, which is the essence of Industrial Hygiene Foundation’s mission. Respectfully yours, ROBERT T. P. DETREVILLE, M.D., Managing Director. INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, Inc. Legal Series, Bulletin No. 6 The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act 4400 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1963 (973) 974 INTRODUCTION Representatives of the Foundation's membership, at the time of the 28th Annual Meeting and at the November 8, 1963 meeting of the Legal Committee in New York, expressed concern over the Walsh-Healey Act revisions proposed by the U.S. Department of Labor, which are currently under consideration. The position of the National Safety Council, reached at their meeting in Chicago on October 31, 1963, is summarized in their report dated November 5, which has been reproduced in the Industrial Hygiene Digest for December, 1963, with their permission. The evolution of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act since 1936 is traced in this Bulletin to provide the membership with additional background information concerning the intent of the Act. Your attention is directed to the requirement to submit comments to the Office of the Secretary of Labor (Division of Public Contracts) no later than December 31, 1963. 975 The Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, originally passed as temporary or makeshift legislation, continues on the statute books 27 years after its passage and moreover is taking on a new and dangerous look. This Act was a direct outgrowth of the United States Supreme Court's de- cision declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Industry Codes promulgated thereunder, unconstitutional. A major political promise and objective of the Roosevelt adminis- tration had been to fix minimum wages and maximum hours for industry. This was accomplished by the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act and Federal Wage and Hour legislation. In 1935, the Supreme Court in the case of Schecter Poultry Corporation vs. U.S., 295 U.S. 495, declared that the attempt to fix wages and hours through the provisions of the NRA Codes was not a valid exercise of federal power. One year later, in the case of Carter vs. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238, invalidated the Federal Wage and Hour legislation as a violation of the due process clause and as being a regulation of commerce which was beyond the power of Con- gress, The language in these two decisions, particularly that in the Schecter case, convinced many government lawyers that a statute directly fixing minimum wages and maximum hours in industries affecting com- merce was beyond federal powers under the constitution. The decision invalidating the NRA Codes was not completely un- expected in the Department of Labor. The then Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins, had two bills already drafted which embodied alternative approaches to the problem of establishing Federal Wage and Hour standards. The more limited of the two bills relied on the power of the government to require its own contractors to observe minimum wage and hour standards. The second was a general Wage and Hour statute based on the commerce clause which, in 1935, was felt to be probably unconstitutional by all concerned. The more limited approach was tried first, being introduced in the Senate by Senator Walsh in June, 1935, and passing that body in August, 1935. The Walsh bill, although termed the more limited approach, was in fact a very broad measure, applying not only to prime contractors but also to their subcontractors and suppliers. It likewise applied to every loan or grant of funds by the federal government or any agency thereof. It applied to all contracts regardless of amount and further it provided that all bidders would have to have maintained NRA Code wages and hours from the effective date of the Act to the time of bidding. It contained no reference to working conditions under which the contract was to be performed. The bill was sent to the House, but they did not act on it that year. Instead, the bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee for study. Some members of that Committee were concerned about its constitutionality. 976 Early in 1936, another Supreme Court Decision (United States vs. Butler, 297 U.S. 1) seemed to narrow further the scope of federal authority to regulate labor conditions in industry through its contracting power and with this decision in mind, Representative Healey introduced his bill in March, 1936. This bill was also referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Subsequently a substitute bill was reported out of Committee. It bore the names of both Senator Walsh and Representative Healey. After and intense legislative struggle, the bill passed the House on June 19, 1936. It provided what was felt to be a constitutional method of controlling wages and hours in industry, at least those who held government contracts. The bill also contained a subsection stating "That no part of the contract bill be performed in any plants, factories, buildings or surroundings, or under working conditions which are unsanitary or hazardous or dangerous to the health and safety of employees, and that compliance with the safety, sani- tary, and factory inspection laws of the state shall be deemed prima facie evidence of compliance with the subsection." On June 20, 1936, the bill was returned to the Senate for its concurrence and Senator Walsh, without making any effort to obtain a conference despite the drastic changes from his original bill, moved the Senate to concur in the amendments, which it did. The bill ultimately was signed by the President and on June 30, 1936, the Walsh-Healey Act became law. Because of Senator Walsh's maneuver, the only legislative his- tory of the Act, which is pertinent, is that in the House. The Committee hearings and House debates indicate strongly that the Walsh-Healey Act was intended as an interim, stopgap means of exerting some pressure toward wage and hour standards until the constitutional problems in the way of general legislation could be solved, and that Congress intended a much narrower application of the measure than was originally proposed by Senator Walsh. Its application to subcontractors and suppliers was eliminated as was all reference to the old NRA Codes. It is readily apparent that the primary purpose of the Walsh- Healey Act was control of wage and hour standards by the federal government ‘and at the outset no thought was directed toward safety and health standards. The House substitute bill did contain a reference to the working conditions under which the contracts were to be performed and this applied to sub- contractors and suppliers as well. While this language was inserted in the Act, apparently it drew very little attention at the outset. However, it soon became apparent that the subsection was not being completely overlooked. In March of 1942, there was published for the first time a guide to the basic safety and health requirements under the Act. This guide was developed by an Advisory Committee on safety and health made up of representatives of various in- terested groups. It had been determined that some outline of minimum re- quirements was needed to assist companies in complying with the law. In- spections were made to determine whether or not the minimum requirements were being met and in some instances hearings were held to determine this fact. After the publication of the "Basic Requirements" in 1942, they were 977 revised in 1951, being brought up to date and expanded somewhat. Again, this was done through conference or contact with interested parties. In 1956, the Basic requirements were reprinted with little or no change. Throughout the period of this development, it was clear that these Basic Requirements were considered to be guides in the administration of the Act. They were not intended to limit or supersede, in any way, state or lecal safety and sanitation codes, but were claimed to represent generally what had been shown by industrial experience to be reasonable minimum requirements for health and safety. It was, however, becoming evident to the Department of Labor that there was a '"weakness' in the Act in that an employer was prima facie in compliance if he met the state laws in regard to health and safety, yet there were many states that either had no safety regulations or had very weak ones. The Department of Labor was becoming aware of the fact that a substantial revision of the basic requirements was needed, and this was “accomplished in 1958. This revision, however, apparently did not accom- plish what it was felt was needed. At this point, it is important to keep in mind that the original purpose of the Walsh-Healey Act—interim or stopgap legislation to control wages and hours—had been accomplished; that subsequent general legis- lation, the Fair Labor Standards Act, was passed and did control wages and hours. The Walsh-Healey Act had served its intended purpose. On December 28, 1960, the first major revision of the Basic Re- quirements was published in the Federal Register. This first major re- vision was done with no prior conference or contact with interested parties as had been the custom in the past. The announcement in the Federal Regis- ter came as a surprise to all concerned. In the preamble to this revision, it was stated that a single standard of safety and health conditions was re- quired for all work subject to the Act. This, of course, is clearly contrary to the purpose of the original Act, The preamble can be said to be a rationalization of the Department's position. The 1960 revision was drafted without the guidance of the people who had theretofore been consulted. A drastic step had been taken and it appears that the Department was attempt- ing to justify the action it had taken. The reaction to this revision was immediate and from all corners. However, most, if not all, of the comments forwarded to the Secretary of Labor, were directed to the content of "standards'' rather than the method used to revise them. The Secretary was in no position to ignore the com- ments that were submitted and subsequently published in the Federal Regis- ter on October 1, 1963, still another revision of the '""Standards' which pur- ported to include at least some of the suggestions that had been made. 978 : The time limit for filing comments to the proposed revision has been extended to December 31, -1963, and it is urged that all interested persons study the revision thoroughly, keeping in mind the original purpose of the Act. 979 [Read before the 28th Annual Meeting of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation, Pittsburgh, Oct. 23-24, 1963] INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE FOUNDATION For several years, I have been privileged to work with Prof Hatch in certain undertakings vitally related to the mational defense effort. Representing the military service (United States Air Force), I had requested assistance from recognized experts in the field of occupational health to solve pressing problems in a way similar to that in which some industrial corporations had approached Mellon Institute for assistance with the silicosis problem 28 years ago. However, the problem involved critical evaluation of all avilable data, toxicity and hazard control concerning several substances of military interest to help direct the efforts of thousands of contractors in the safe use of materials and in the prep- aration of satisfactory technical data for guidance of military personnel follow- ing the introduction of the industrial products into the Air Force inventory. The first project was an attempt to rescue beryllium as an aerospace material. There was great interest in the technical potential of beryllium because of certain properties including light weight, high modulus of elasticity (rigidity), and thermal stability, as well as high intrinsic heat of combustion. This interest was so great that millions of dollars were being devoted to technical research and development in the fabrication and manipulation of 100% beryllium material. More than 300 companies were interested in introducing beryllium into their plants in support of aerospace applications. Even though Air Force scientists recognized the high costs and certain disadvantages of beryllium, including toxic hazards, its potential was considered so great that there was willingness on the part of the military to undertake to control beryl- lium in the way that radioisotopes were controlled in Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) installations, essentially completely, if this were necessary. This was actually the position taken by the ARC in the mid 1940's when beryllium was introduced into AEC installations. Two major producers of beryllium were re- quired by contract to control atmospheric concentrations of beryllium to AEC recommended tentative threshold limit values. The question arose in 1957 whether the Air Force might not be able to reduce its costs and improve effectiveness of hazard control by providing an Air Force beryllium handling manual. The need for guidance was quite obvious in that there was, on the one hand, a complete lack of awareness of toxicity on the part of some potential contractors and, on the other hand, an unreasonable degree of fear associated with the handling of beryllium, even in rolled sheet form. It was readily apparent, however, that AEC recommended controls introduced into hundreds of plants would be very costly. For example, a contractor responsible for handling beryllium in one Air Force application requested permission to divert several millions of dollars of contract funds to allow creation of a separate beryllium handling facility. Other con- tractors learning of the requirement to control beryllium hazard requested to be relieved of contractural obligations, not wanting to introduce the material into their plants under any circumstances. . At this time, there was actually increasing evidence accumulating that the AEC threshold limit value was not easy to maintain in practice and in some cases, for short periods of time, it has been exceeded to a considerable degree without concomitant ill effects on exposed populations followed under careful medical surveillance. It thus appeared that the threshold limit value would probably have to be changed eventually and it appeared unwise to allow an Air Force manual to officially recognize the AEC’ recommended threshold limit value without qualification. A workshop was held for the Air Force at the Kettering Laboratory, University of Cincinnati, chaired by the late Dr. Frank Princi, and the results of this workshop and of the Air Force Final Technical Engineering Report on Beryllium have been added to the professional literature. The following statement appeared in the later report and will, incidentally, probably be included in the new American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Hygienic Guide on Beryllium. Following a statement of the American Conference of Govern- mental Industrial Hygienists Threshold Limit Value for atmospheric concen- trations of beryllium, the Atomic Energy Commission Advisory Committee rec- ommendations are given. In the words of the Report : “These standards are currently recommended for all processes where beryllium or its compounds are used. No differentiation in the limits has been made between the various compounds of beryllium or in relation to the size of the particles of 92-784 0—68——68 980 beryllium present in the air. To date, no case of either acute or chronic beryllium disease has been reported in connection with plant operations at which these standards have not been exceeded. Data collected in recent years during ex- tensive investigations of the air in plants engaged in the processing of beryllium and some of its alloys, support the observations of Machle, in 1948, that the above target values have been exceeded manyfold, continuously and probably for several years without apparently producing the chronic disease. The uncertainties con- cerning the precise quantitative relationships between the severity and duration of the exposure and the occurrence of the chronic disease in the past, raise ques- tions as to the need for a limit as low as the one recommended. All that can be said on this score at this time, is that there is insufficient evidence on which to establish alternative limits. Therefore, these standards persist not as precise criteria for human safety, but as the best available guides to acceptable industrial and technological practice in the mater of hygiene.” This is a valid example of the ability of the industrial health specialty to provide support to industry in the solution of pressing problems. To change a threshold limit value which has become sacrosanct is no easy task. As stated in the 1963 American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values, the threshold limit value tentatively set on AEC recom- mendations many years ago persists today pending the development of more nearly accurate and realistic values. In view of current knowledge concerning the industrial experience described in the above reports, there appears to be valid reason for ACGIH to return the threshold limit value for beryllium to the tenta- tive list, where it was originally and for many years. As Chief of Health and Safety, Ballistic Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, in 1960-1961 I was confronted with the necessity to help advise the commander on the satisfactory performance of the work of some 30,000 con- tractors and subcontractors engaged in Air Force missile production. Competence of certain of the contractors in health and safety was exellent, but there was poor liaison and in many cases the smaller contractors had no health and safety programs but were responsible under contract for contributing technical data to help guide Air Force use of toxic materials. It became eivdent that a means would have to be devised of developing useful and reliable information to guide Air Force contractors in preparing technical orders for Air Force use. The failures in systems health and safety technical data were pointed to by Dr. Thrift Hanks of Boeing in 1961. Acordingly, another workshop was held on July 6-7 of that year and Technical Orders (TO) 00 80BB-2 and 3 were prepared, co-ordinated, and published on non-cryogenic propellants used in the Titan IT missile. It is interesting to note that the TO’s were published on July 18 and distributed that day to those attending the Air Force/Industry Safety Conference at Riverside, Calif. Prof Hatch and I met with the Board of Trustees of the Industrial Hygiene Foundation (IHF) about a year ago. The interest of industrial management in developing IHF programs to better meet the needs of industry today and in the future was outlined. The Board of Trustees expressed confidence in the ability of the field of industrial hygiene to adopt and in IHEF’s role in aiding the transition. One of the chief strengths of industrial hygiene and of the IHF is the ability to aid communication between representatives of management, technical and professional disciplines, and employees on matters relating to health. The nature of industrial hygiene support depends upon the problem. If the technique or information is not available, basic and applied research are performed to derive answers. Assistance is given to design controls and measure, record, report, and evaluate our experience using a scientific rather than an emotional approach to health hazards. When a problem has been solved and controls applied it may appear that we have worked ourselves out of a job, as in the case of the pedia- trician without acute infectious disease, such as measies. This is a false im- pression, however, since some of the occupational health problems facing us are more challenging though less obvious and dramatic than was silicosis. Let me develop certain of these problems in relation to IHF interest and plans. Consider first that an estimated 35 million or more persons in the United States work in industry too small to be covered by preventive programs of occupational health. Furthermore, of over one quarter of a million physicians in the United States, only 399 are members of the American Academy of Occupational Medicine and less than 4,000 belong to the Industrial Medical Association. There are about 100,000 chemists and chemical engineers in the American Chemical Society 981 | alone, but less than 1,500 industrial hygienists belong to the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Up to now there has been no adequate program to cover the needs of small industry or to attract adequate numbers of physicians, engineers, chemists, and other health services personnel into training in and practice of industrial health. We are actually losing some of our trained personnel in this field. Prof Hatch has called attention to the lack of a necessary system of knowledge on the part of professionals in the field of occupational medicine, at a time when the poten- tial for increasing compensation for chronic disease is becoming greater than that which existed during the worst days of the silicosis problem. For example, at a meeting of the IHF Legal Committee in New York in April, there was general agreement that lack of evidence in occupational diseases hearings makes the po- tential for abuse astronomical. The lack of a system of professional knowledge in this field is in some respects a failure in communication and, as stated by Colonel Boysen in a paper at the 1963 American Industrial Hygiene Association meeting, this lack of communication produces an amazing duplication of effort. As the field grows, the problem may be expected to worsen. The common denominator of these and other problems facing us today is management ; those responsible must concern themselves more actively in its solution. Certain steps can and should be taken by private industry and are thus the concern of IHF. Whether the Foundation solves the problems “in house” or acts as a “catalyst” in bringing together those capable of solving the problem and sources of support is not a matter of importance so long as the job is done properly, which implies sound management of funds, personnel, facilities, and publications to encourage under- standing among professional personnel on which confidence can be based. A proper balance of governmental and private funds and studies in programs of research and teaching of occupational health is considered advisable. The Foundation is considering establishment of a system of consultants in every discipline and in every area in which a need exists in the United States or abroad to support the needs of American industry. Many companies maintain their own consultants and spend a considerable amount of time and effort on the part of corporate medical departments in procuring and maintaining such services. Availability of such consultants through IHF would undoubtedly pro- vide a useful service to the membership. It would also provide a framework to develop improved standards of practice of industrial health through standard- ization of records and reporting, improved systemization of our best and most useful knowledge on occupational disease diagnosis and control. It would also provide a broad base for application of the latest techniques of teaching and learning to a large number of professional and technical personnel who could be expected to be receptive to such training, similar to the way in which physi- cians who perform examinations for insurance companies and for the Federal Aviation Agency attempt to comply with the stated requirements. This system is highly developed in the military services. Certain incentives associated with such a professional appointment in IHF, eg, as a means of increasing income and professional prestige might provide a means of making a “breakthrough” in attracting responsible professional and technical people into the field. If so, it should provide a source of professional and technical personnel in advance training and research fellowships in occupational health in our universities and identify areas requiring further basic and applied research. It would extend the membership and effectiveness of professional and technical associations such as the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the Industrial Medical Asso- ciation, and the American Academy of Occupational Medicine. It would provide a means of extending occupational health services into small plants not covered presently. It would bring industrial hygiene into better contact with the problems which created the specialty. The cost of developing such a system of consultants over a period of two to three years within IHF would probably not exceed the cost of application of an atmospheric pollution control device to a single stack of a steel mill, which Dr. Weidlein has said costs up to $9 million in some instances. It would probably not exceed the cost of a single medium-sized hospital, an aircraft carrier or a B-58 bomber. I doubt that as effective service could be created in government, regardless of cost as has been shown by the experience of Ethyl Corporation related by Dr. Kehoe. Once established, this THF program would probably be largely self-sustaining, largely paid for out of services rendered. The initial costs of this program could very well be shared by THF and private foundations with matching funds from government but the voluntary aspects of the program 982 in THF would be essential to success. The Public Health Service and other gov- ernmental agencies in the occupational health field could contribute greatly to accomplishment of research and training in many areas. For example, a need exists for an encyclopedia of occupational health, with periodic up-to-date sup- plements. This service should include a Health Law Manual with quarterly supplements similar to the Hospital Law Manual now published by the Health Law Center of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. IHF, with its system of committees, might be the most logical site for managing the development of such a publication which would be of great value to IHF members and its many consultants in the field. However, governmental and university scientists could make very significant contributions and help main- tain the highest possible degree of accuracy and effectiveness of the textual contents. At the time that we studied the health and safety aspects of the Ballistic Systems Division program in 1961, it did not occur to any of us that IHF might have a part to play. Dr. Thrift Hanks of Boeing commented as early as 1961 that there was a need for an association of private industries to help im- prove the preparation of adequate technical data on health and safety aspects of Air Force contracts. Certain advantages to the federal government of cooperation with IHF in such a program should be pointed out. A revision of the Walsh-Healey Act is currently under consideration and proposed changes appear to some to indicate an attempt to enforce compliance with the act by an expanded program of federal inspection. The federal government could use the Foundation to help im- plement the provisions of the Act by including a statement to the effect that “avidence of ability to meet the requirement of the law with regard to per- formance of health and safety aspects of government contracts would be (1) membership in IHF and/or (2) otherwise demonstrated competence in the field of occupational health and safety.” This government decision would put IHF in the position of assisting potential government contractors in qualify- ing to obtain work involving handling of hazardous materials. From more work should come more jobs, and employees may be expected to cooperate more fully with management’s efforts to insure that health hazards are controlled. Costs of health hazard controls would be identified and included in bids wherever possi- ble, and would give better information on which to evaluate the low bidder. IHF recommendations could be reviewed by governmental hygienists. Incidentally, but very important, as a result of improving preventive programs of occupa- tional health, costs of health and compensation insurance might very well be expected to be lower. In summary, IHF is presented with an extremely challenging concept and one that is worthy of our best efforts. The IHF program proposed herein is a means of encouraging the development of industrial health services through incentives in a system of free enterprise. The program should be self-sustaining once estab- lished and would work in conjunction with all those individuals and agencies in government, universities, industry and professional and technical associations who can contribute to the total program. No other program has been proposed which would be expected to introduce an adequate number of industrial health personnel into a program which would provide control over the level of prac- tice of professional and technical personnel in the field, allowing industry-wide evaluation of experience, and motivating industry to request industrial health services as a means of furthering its own expansion and growth. Industrial management created IHF to solve this problem 28 years ago. Speaking for the membership and the trustees of the Foundation, we intend to continue to play an active role in the further development of this important health service, vol- untarily and in full cooperation with those responsible for enforcing health conservation programs at all levels of government. 983 STATEMENT OF MICHIGAN MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the question before this Com- mittee is not whether occupational safety programs are desirable. Such pro- grams are more than desirable—they are absolutely necessary. The real question before this Committee, and the only one to which we address ourselves in this statement, is very simply stated as follows : “Who can best develop occupational safety programs responsive to needs, peculiar to problems, most likely to reduce accidents and resulting injuries which so seriously affect the health, welfare and economy of the people of the United States?” Many would claim that distinction. It is apparent from the content of HR 14816 that Congressman O’Hara believes the federal govern- ment can do it by granting almost dictatorial power to the Secretary of Labor. The Michigan Manufacturers’ Association (an Association of nearly 2300 members) does not believe that anyone, anywhere, possesses the knowledge, the skill, the capacity or the ability to discharge the awesome responsibilities, use the extreme power, and exercise the discretion that appears to be granted under this bill to the ultimate best interest of the people of the State of Michigan or the nation. This observation is not meant to reflect upon the present Secretary. The Mich- igan Manufacturers’ Association just does not believe there ever has been, or ever will be, a man holding that office capable of discharging all of the duties and responsibilities granted by this proposal to the best interests of labor, man- agement, the states and the people of this country—and we do not believe that such an extreme grant of dictatorial power could possibly be of ultimate benefit to our primary concern—the employers and employees of Michigan. The State of Michigan, through the leadership of its Governor and Legislature, and with the cooperation of all business and labor interests, in 1967 developed a safety program which calls upon the talent of Michigan’s most skilled personnel, its ablest administrators and its experts in safety to insure its success. It is al- ready being aggressively implemented by Michigan’s Bureau of Safety and Regula- tion. A brief comparison of Michigan’s program with that offered by HR 14816 should best indicate to this Committee the weaknesses in the federal proposal and the justification for MMA's opposition to it. IN WHOM SHOULD RULEMAKING AUTHORITY REST? H.R. 14816—The U.S. Secretary of Labor is granted the sole and absolute authority to establish mandatory occupational safety and health standards in all businesses “affecting commerce” without any requirement that he first consult with, or seek advice from, experts from industry, labor, government or the public. Michigan law provides that rule making authority rests in a Commission of nine men, appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate, who are selected from business, labor, insurance and the public sectors. Rules may be promulgated by this Commission only after consultation with advisory com- mittees made up of persons knowledgeable in the various areas of occupational safety. Such rules become effective only after public hearings and proper notice. It is the opinion of Michigan Manufacturers’ Association that Michigan men and women holding the confidence of Michigan’s Governor and Legisla- ture, after consultation with Michigan people steeped in the knowledge of Michigan’s occupational safety problems and their solutions, can best promu- gate and adopt standards, rules and codes for the protection of Michigan em- ployees. And we believe that other states have similar talent and capabilities. 984 SHOULD STANDARDS BE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE REVIEW ? H.R. 14816 makes no provision whatever for legislative review of the stand- ards developed by the Secretary of Labor. His authority apparently is final and absolute. Michigan law provides that all codes, standards and rules developed by its Commission are subject to automatic and mandatory review by the Michigan State Legislature and require legislative approval by resolution. Michigan Manufacturers’ Association believes that bureaucratic action should always be subject to review by the highest elective, legislative body holding the ultimate legislative (policy determining) authority. Only in this manner can the ultimate desires of the people be assured. WHO SHOULD ENFORCE STANDARDS? H.R. 14816 gives to the Secretary of Labor and to his authorized representatives the sole authority to enforce all standards. He controls inspections and investiga- tions. He determines if violations exist. He then holds hearings, issues orders and makes decisions to the extent he thinks necessary to “enforce the provisions of the act”. He and the District courts have the authority and jurisdiction. If his inspection or investigation discloses that, in his opinion, a violation might result in imminent harm, he or his representative may issue an immediate cease and desist order, and take any other measures he deems necessary to correct the violation. In addition, he may by his order prohibit the employment of any per- sons in such locations. His order can effectively close any plant until a judicial determination is made on the question of the “existence of imminent harm to the safety and health of the workers”. Michigan law gives to the Michigan Department of Labor the authority to inspect and investigate all premises at all reasonable times. It gives to its Board of Compliance and Appeals the authority to enforce Michigan standards. That Board is composed of five members: two from business, two from labor, with the fifth a member of the American Society of Safety Engineers. Their appointments by the Governor must be consented to by the Michigan Senate. A fair representa- tion of all safety interests is thus assured. That Board is given the authority to enforce all standards and to issue cease and desist orders when the standards are not met with compliance. Michigan law provides for certain prescribed steps to be followed by the Board to obtain compliance or to prevent a continuation of an unsafe condition by issuance of a cease and desist order, including proper hearings. The Michigan Manufacturers’ Association believes that Michigan's law insures a prompt and responsible enforcement of its standards but that it equally insures against its standards being used for arbitrary, punitive, capricious or vindictive purposes against either its employers or ts employees. WHO SHOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO GRANT TOLERANCES, VARIATIONS, AND EXEMPTIONS ? H.R. 14816—has given the U.S. Secretary of Labor the sole authority, in his judgment, to grant such tolerances, allow such variances and permit such ex- emptions as he may find to be in the public interest. Michigan law provides that the authority to permit deviations, allow tolerances, variations, ete. shall rest in its Occupational Safety Standards Commission and/ or its Board of Compliance and Appeals, with the requirement that they can be granted only in instances where the purpose of the standards can be preserved and the cause of safety fostered. The Michigan Manufacturers’ Association believes that the Michigan law, by requiring consideration by the Board or Commission, insures a judgment in cases of variances, etc., unaffected by prejudice, sympathy, favoritism or single judgment. It, therefore, affords better protection for all occupational safety interests in Michigan. WHO SHOULD HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES? Under H.R. 14816, the Secretary of Labor is authorized to assess civil penalties which may be as much as one thousand dollars per violation, with each day of such alleged violation being a separate offense. All criminal violations would be handled in federal courts. 985 Michigan law provides for all civil and criminal penalties to be determined and assessed by Michigan courts, with prosecutions to be under the direction of Michigan county prosecutors or Michigan attorneys general. The Michigan Manufacturers’ Association believes that Michigan’s elec- tive judges, with Michigan juries, under the guidance of officers of Mich- igan’s courts, are better equipped to protect Michigan’s safety laws than are federal courts. WHAT EFFECT WOULD THE FEDERAL ACTION HAVE UPON MICHIGAN'S PROGRAM ? Within 545 days from the effective date of the federal act, Michigan's Occu- pational Safety Act would be automatically preempted except insofar as it affects those few employers held not to be in a business “affecting commerce”. The only condition under which Michigan's Department of Labor could regain any control of its own occupational safety program would be for the Secretary of Labor to, in his sole discretion, affirmatively issue an order or a rule declining to assert juris- diction over any such “occupational safety or health issue or class or category of such issue”. The only justification for such declination would be his opinion that the provisions of the Michigan law and its enforcement would reasonably carry out the objectives of the act. Michigan Manufacturers’ Association does not believe that the right of the State of Michigan to expand and develop its own occupational safety program should rest solely on the whim of the Secretary of Labor. Michigan em- ployers are taxing themselves over $450,000.00 a year at this time for an educational program directed toward both employers and employees, in schools and in factories, to promote safe working practices. Hundreds of volunteer safety experts are already lending their talents and knowledge toward the development of standards, codes and rules which would promote such safe employment practices. With the imminent threat of federal preemption of Michigan’s program under the terms of HR 14816, we foresee a gradual falling off and deteriora- tion of Michigan's program until the time of the federal take-over. The federal government has not yet demonstrated that it can do as good a job as can employers under existing state laws. The National Safety Council figures show, for example, that firms engaged in manufacturing in 1966 held injuries down to 5.1 per million man hours worked. That compares to 6.9 for all industry. The federal government, during the same period, experienced 7.3 injuries per million man hours for civilian employees. We believe that federal superiority in occupational safety should be unequivocably estab- lished before consideration should be given to entrusting the industrial safety of Michigan's employees to its jurisdiction. IS THERE A PLACE FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN THE FIELD OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ? Of course there is. Safety is the business of everyone—the employee, the em- ployer, the public, and government. But we believe that the participation of each should be in the area where each can be most effective. We believe that the federal government could, and should, conduct and encourage research directed toward assisting the various states in their development of sound and respon- sible state programs. It could, and should, develop facilities for the collection and dissemination of comprehensive statistical information for use by the states in their respective programs. It could, and should, through voluntary educational effort, encourage states, in cooperation with management and labor, to develop and improve their own safety laws to the end that the goals of all occupational safety programs can be better achieved. And, but not of lesser importance, it could and should assist in the funding of state activities in instances and in areas where state, local, and private funds are not available. In summary, the Michigan Manufacturers’ Association agrees with the report of a special “Occupational Safety Study Task Force” appointed by Governor George Romney of Michigan which recently concluded its report to the Governor on its study of HR 14816 with the following observations : (a) principal responsibility for making and administering industrial safety and health laws rests with the individual states and not with the federal government ; 986 (b) the function of the federal government in the field of occupational safety should be that if providing research, developing and analyzing sta- tistics and in encouraging the states through funding and other means to establish and operate their own individual occupational safety programs ; and (e¢) that the foresight and action of the Governor of the State of Michi- gan and the Michigan State Legislature together with aggressive action and programming by the Bureau of Safety and Regulation of the Michigan De- partment of Labor will result in a program of occupational safety for the State of Michigan far superior to any which could be devised by the U.S. Department of Labor and its Secretary. STATEMENT OF AMERICAN NURSES’ ASSOCIATION The American Nurses’ Association would like to record its support for H.R. 14816, the bill “To authorize the Secretary of Labor to set standards to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women; to assist the States to participate in efforts to assure such working conditions: to provide for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health ; and for other purposes.” Data supplied by the Secretary of Labor and the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service attest to the very great need for the standards recommended by the legislation; the accurate reporting of in- juries; and training for workers in occupational health and safety. Nurses are particularly sensitive to the need for improving industrial safety standards, for their work brings them into direct contact with accident cases. They are exposed daily to the grim facts of inadequate safety precautions as they care for victims in hospitals as well as in the work area where they may be serving as occupational health nurses. The workers in industry, incapacitated by injury or illness, account to a con- siderable degree for the expanding hospital industry—the industry which em- ploys the third largest number of individual workers. The language of the proposal includes all industry in interstate commerce. Ac- cording to the amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the hospital and nursing home industry are now included in interstate commerce. Until the pend- ing suit which is challenging this provision is cleared, the provision of the law remains in force. Therefore, hospitals need to be considered in the total, as a part of the industrial complex which will be affected by this legislation. There is a lack of up-to-date data regarding the safety programs and injury rates in this industry. According to the 1953 study and subsequent survey data, the hospital industry accident and frequency rates are much the same for indus- try as a whole, including the hazard of contracting diseases. With the increasing number of non-skilled workers employed in the hospital and nursing home in- dustry, the hazards increase since these persons have less understanding of how and why they need to protect themselves from persons with communicable dis- eases, and the proper use of body mechanics to avoid injury. Generally, these individuals are in the low income bracket and therefore, are greater health risks. It has not been possible to identify health and safety training programs in hospitals and other personal care institutions from the data that now are avail- able. State licensing laws do provide a minimal degree of protection regarding fire hazards and sanitary conditions. The patients in hospitals which are approved by the Joint Commission on Accreditation for Hospitals are protected to a consid- erable degree by regulations covering these institutions. But the safeguards for employees’ protection are minimal. One of the major hazards for individuals employed in public institutions, mainly the state psychiatric hospitals, is the danger of attack from the patient. It has been noted that the accident rate for general non-governmental hospitals is approximately the same as that for industry as a whole namely 8.19%. How- ever, the accident rate for the psychiatric institutions is more than double that of the general hospital. This rate is 17.7 compared to 8.1. Tuberculosis hospitals rank next in injury frequency rates with occupational disease as one of the major causes. New data on hospital injury rates have been collected and will be available from the Department of Labor about mid-1968. 987 At present the opportunities for training for occupational health nursing as a specialty are very limited. These need to be expanded substantially if we are to have the nurses qualified to assist in carrying out the provisions of H.R. 14816. DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTCS OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH NURSING The practice of occupational health nursing is unique in many ways. This is also true of other nursing specialties. For example, pediatric nursing is concerned with the care of children ; geriatric nursing, with older people; and public health nursing, with the inhabitants of a particular geographical area. All of these obviously also have several areas of common concern since all perform nursing functions. The uniqueness of the position of this country’s 18,000 occupational health nurses is found in the setting in which they work; in the composition of the people they serve; in the functions they perform ; and in their relationships with management and labor. All of these have a definite influence on the character of their nursing practice. The physical setting The occupational health nurse is generally employed in an organization which is economically or production-oriented rather than health-oriented. Its principal function is to provide a service or to manufacture a product which is sold for financial profit. The maintenance of health is not a primary objective. This fact alone sharply differentiates the function of the occupational health nurse from that of the nurse in the hospital, public health agency or doctor’s office where the primary concern is to cure illness or promote health. Priorities, and conse- quently nursing practice, are different, requiring the nurse to pay particular attention to the standards under which her department operates. The industrial setting also provides a social milieu, good or bad, which affects the worker's morale as well as his physical health. It is imperative, therefore, that the occupational health nurse understand the relationships between health and the social, psychological and physical aspects of the work environment. Many nurses work for agencies which have established standards or qualifi- cations for employment that are in accord with those set by the ANA’s occupa- tional sections. Employers in industry often require only that the occupational health nurse be licensed to practice. This certainly points to the need for more discrimination in the selection and education of the occupational health nurse. For example, she must be prepared in her specialty prior to employment to enable her to interpret to management standards for competent occupational health nursing service and to secure management's assistance in providing the best possible service. The clientele The practice of occupational health nursing is designed to meet the health needs of essentially well adults whose primary concern about the state of their health relates to their productivity on the job. The nurse, therefore, has a three fold responsibility to keep the employee healthy : for his own sake, for that of his coworkers, and for the enterprise for which he works. This demands a philosophy of practice related much more to the maintenance of health than to the care of sick persons. A second, and striking, difference in the nature of her responsibility to her clientele is that its composition is not greatly subject to change. Because the employee population is relatively stable over long periods of time, in comparison with the patient population in health care facilities, the occupational health nurse has contact with the same men and women over a longer period of time than most nurses do. She may be responsible for the health of an employee throughout his entire adult life and his major life experiences—marriage, child- bearing and rearing—as well as his employment cycle—promotion, possible de- motion, and retirement. This gives her a unique opportunity to become familiar with his health status and requirements and to provide comprehensive nursing care based on his spe- 1 From Selected Areas of Knowledge or Skill Basic to Effective Practice of Occupational Health Nursing, American Nurses’ Association, 1966, 988 cific needs as well as the general health needs of the employee group. She can seek and receive a continuous flow of information about the health of her clientele. She often can take advantage of modern industrial methods of collect- ing, storing and retrieving data that are maintained by the company principally for its business management, but available for her use in improving health serv- ices to employees if she recognizes the potential of data processing equipment and knows how to put the machinery to work. She has access to opportunities for research related to the health of people who work. She needs only motivation and knowledge to translate the opportunities into productive action. Thirdly, while the employee has all of the health needs common to the general population, he also has health problems arising from his employment situation, and the nurse needs to know their cause, effect, prevention and nursing care. She needs the knowledge that will alert her to signs of impending health prob- lems and to help her prevent or alleviate occupational disease and injury. This is largely dependent upon her knowledge of a given work environment, its hazards and their control. While in its broadest sense this function is common to all nurses, it is nevertheless of much greater significance in the field of occupational health. Nurse-employee contacts Contacts between the nurse and the employee are sometimes initiated by the nurse, sometimes by the employee. The nurse’s constant availability is an im- portant factor in helping to build rapport that encourages employees to make full use of available nursing service. It is obvious that the nurse cannot be aware of all instances in which she may be helpful to all employees. However, if an employee finds the nurse receptive, he will be apt to seek her assistance; if she is not helpful, he will not. A good understanding of human behavior and ability to use human relations skills in coping with occupational health problems enables the nurse to provide consistently competent service to the employee. A worker, for example, will often ask for help in solving a nonhealth problem that is upsetting him by presenting a complaint about his health which often is merely a mask for a different stress. The nurse’s sensitivity and skill in human relations can make it easier for the employee to reveal his actual problem to her. Priveleged commumwications The concept of privileged communication is central to the nurse-employee rela- tionship, a sensitive area since it touches on the nurse’s dual responsibility to employees and management. The nurse is administratively responsible, either directly or indirectly, to a person in executive level management who is neither a doctor nor a nurse. This person is responsible for the financial support of the employee health service which is maintained to safeguard the health of the employee while he is on the job. His interest in matters related to employee health is legitimate. Yet the privacy of the employee must be protected. The occu- pational health nurse, more often than other nurses, must make important inde- pendent decisions about what to do with information about employees which comes to her attention. A hospitalized patient, generally speaking, is willing to reveal whatever per- sonal information the hospital staff requests. An employee on the other hand, may deliberately withhold information from the occupational health staff if he believes it may affect his future earning capacity or change his job status. Since the nurse must have accurate and complete information about him in order to plan his health care, it is essential that she overcome this tendency and establish the kind of relationship which assures him that he can rely on her professional support and discretion. The nurse’s functions Since the occupational health nurse if often the only full-time professional health representative in her setting, she frequently performs staff as well as line functions. Besides providing nursing care and administering the nursing service, she serves as consultant to management and also collaborates with management and the medical director in developing the employee health nursing service as a complement to community nursing services. Competent practice in all of these 989 areas requires more knowledge than is presently offered in basic nursing educa- tion. Furthermore, the knowledge required is beyond the scope of on-the-job orientation programs. For example: Since administrative control of her activities is often invested in non-nursing personnel who are unfamiliar with nursing practice, its scope and limitations, the nurse in occupational health must be well informed not only about modern nursing practices but also about the legal, economic, social and labor laws which control her particular practice. Interpreting the potential serv- ices and values of occupatonal health nursing to non-nursing management is par- ticularly important, inasmuch as management and the medical director partici- pate in determining the scope of the program. The nurse in industry very often does not have a nursing supervisor to advise her and share her responsibility for competent performance. While few occupational health nurses have supervisory or administrative titles, they do, in effect, manage the employee health service. In a multiple-nurse unit or a one-nurse unit, the head nurse or the one-nurse staff must direct the nursing service as well as provide clinical care. This management function requires skill in the administration of the internal affairs of the nursing department as well as in the administration of the department as a part of the total industrial complex. Legal standards Like all nurses the occupational health nurse must observe certain legal standards, such as the state nursing practice act, communicable diseases laws and regulations, and local health and sanitary codes. More than most other nurses, she is responsible for knowing and obeying laws, codes and regulations pertaining to safety standards, environmental hazards, food service, insurance plans, occupational disease and injury and other labor and social laws. She bears primary responsibility for the content of the first medical report of an on-the-job injury or illness. Because she is often the only full-time health employee in the industry, her nursing record is often the primary legal document reporting the circumstances of an illness, an injury or an accident which may appear not to have caused an injury. For the occupational health nurse, the “team” is not the health team that supports the work of other nurses. While, like other nurses, she works with the doctor, the similarity ends there. The nurse in industry shares responsibility for maintaining employee health with categories of personnel with whom she generally has had no previous contact. These include industrial hygienists, sani- tary engineers, toxicologists, health physicists, and labor and management au- thorities. Though the occupational health nurse is not expected to be an expert in these areas, she should know enough about their functions and contributions to occupational health to enable her to work effectively with them. Diagnostic decisions The absence of other health personnel places an unusual burden of responsi- bility for direct nursing care and diagnostic decisions on the occupational health nurse. In other settings, the professional nurse often delegates nursing care to other personnel ; in industry it seldom is feasible to do this. One of the constant and basic questions confronting her is “Can this employee safely resume his usual work activities?” The decision often depends upon her judgment. The pattern of part-time or on-call medical direction in industry also influences the practice of nursing. Unlike most of her counterparts, the nurse in industry is often the first and only member of the professional health staff to have contact with the ill or injured employee. She rarely can wait to determine his nursing diagnosis and nursing care until a physician has examined him and made a diagnosis ; often she must make a provisional diagnosis before the doctor appears. She must be able to exercise skilled independent judgment in evaluating the condition of the patient and determining the immediate or follow-up nursing care to be given. Her education must prepare her to make these judgments with- out assistance from other health staff. The ANA also believes that there must be a close working relationship between the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Public Health Service; 990 Labor Department ; State industrial commissions and the State Boards of Health. Only through the combined efforts of all of these agencies can the working con- ditions in industry be safe and healthful. The ANA urges the passage of this legislation. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, Detroit, Mich., February 14, 1968. Hon. ELMER J. HOLLAND, Chairman, Select Labor Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HOLLAND : We would like to advise you of our support for H.R. 14816, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1968. The necessity for legislation such as proposed by this act is clearly reflected by a superficial analysis of work-injury rates released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Although we are privileged to represent employees covering a wide and varied range of industry and business, the basic area of our jurisdiction, the motor freight and warehousing industry provides clearly the definite need for safety legislation. In 1965 this industry had a frequency rate of 29.2 disabling work injuries per million man hours worked. This resulted in a severity rate of 1,672 days of disabiilty for each million man hours worked. In 1964 the frequency rate was 31.2 disabling work injuries per million man hours worked, with a resultant 1,950 days of disability for each million man hours worked. In other areas of our jurisdiction such as the construction industry the rates of frequency and severity are even much higher. These figures alone contradict those who contend that existing State laws are adequate. The proposed act would grant the Secretary of Labor broad powers to set safety standards which go a long way toward assuring workers of at least minimum safeguards for their personal protection. We know from experience the misery and human suffering brought about by on the job accidents, and the resultant economic consequences of loss of work, medical and hospital expenses. We urge your favorable consideration in committee and final passage on the floor of H.R. 14816. Sincerely, CARLOS MOORE, Legislative Director. Wifi C02851k359