BUSINESS
Contract Worker Safety Study May Spur Policy Changes Companies anxious for insight on how to make plants safer but question how impartial OSHA-sponsored report of contractor safety will be Susan J. Ainsworth, C&EN Houston
For several months now, the petrochemical industry has been anxiously awaiting the results of the John Gray Institute's (JGI) ambitious national study of safety and health issues as they relate to the use of contract employees in selected petrochemical industries. Companies are both eager for insight on how to make their plants safer and apprehensive about how the study's results will influence an increasingly aggressive Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Says JGI president John Calhoun Wells: "The findings are going to be significant, they're going to be substantive, and they're going to lead to significant and substantive public policy recommendations on our part." But at the same time, some also question how valid the results of the study will be when they are finally compiled and released to OSHA at the end of this month. Since the start of the project in January 1990, its focus and scope have changed, the deadline for the final draft of the report has been extended several times since last August and, consequently, the cost of the contract has almost tripled to reach $1.2 million. Meanwhile, a number of controversies over the impartiality and the credibility of the study have erupted. As part of that conflict, all four labor leaders recently resigned from a diversified 15-member steering committee organized to help guide the
study, claiming that industry officials are using their political connections to thwart the project. OSHA awarded the grant to JGI in the aftermath of the Oct. 23,1989, explosion and fire that ripped through Phillips 66's Houston chemical complex in Pasadena, Tex., killing 23 workers. Because a contractor, Fish Engineering & Construction, had been involved in the blast and in a previous fatal accident at the site, one of OSHA's key concerns in investigating that mishap is how contract work might affect petrochemical plant safety. Roughly one year ago, JGI completed a preliminary report based on a survey of plant managers and nine case studies of petrochemical facilities. Among other things, that report concluded that contract workers experience higher injury/illness rates than permanent employees. It also noted that "compared to permanent employees, contract employees re-
Wells: findings will be significant
ceive significantly less safety and health training and are less knowledgeable about workplace hazards, hazardous materials, and emergency response in petrochemical facilities." Another finding: petrochemical facilities "do not routinely track the safety performance of contract employees on site nor do they incorporate site-specific contractor performance into overall plant goals." Some contractor groups strongly objected to these findings, pointing out the report failed to recognize that contract workers often perform more specialized work that is less safe by nature. Few are willing to speculate on how conclusions in the final study may compare with those in the preliminary report. "It's probably premature to try to second-guess what the final report is going to look like," says Don Helin, director of safety and plant operations at the Washington, D.C.-based Chemical Manufacturers Association and a member of the national steering committee for the study. Still, the findings in the final report are sure to influence regulators and thereby have an impact on the way petrochemical companies and contractors do business. OSHA has already said that it would take the results of the study into account in drafting its proposed safety standard for the p e t r o c h e m i c a l i n d u s t r y (C&EN, March 11, page 6). "OSHA's impact on refinery operation has increased dramatically and the role of OSHA safety regulations will continue to increase," pointed out John L. Rivard, manager, regulations and safety services at Shell Oil, Houston, in a recent speech. The report's impact on the industry will hinge largely upon how solid it turns out to be. Helin says: "If the study is accomplished and is a May 6, 1991 C&EN
23
Business credible scientific product and develops some recommendations of what are good ways to do things, then I think there will be a positive impact/' He's hopeful that the study will uncover some "best practices" that can be shared with the whole industry. "If the study is not felt to be credible, I think it will be less effective." "The preliminary report was not very o b j e c t i v e / ' says Shelby C. Pierce, manager of refining and transportation engineering at Amoco Oil, Chicago, and a committee member. That could be partly because the academics pulling together the report may not have yet understood the industry well enough to know the right questions to ask of those interviewed, he reasons. "But, if the final report is not objective we'll have a fire on our hands," he says. The public policy changes to come with this report "could get mean." One major challenge to those involved in developing an objective final product is steering clear of the vortex of inherent controversies central to the issue of contractor safety and health in the petrochemical industry. "Unfortunately, due to the diverse backgrounds and special interests of members of the steering committee, many u n d e r l y i n g labor/ management issues, hidden agendas, and political overtones have continued to surface," tending to distract from this objective, notes Pierce. The committee, which was formed to guide the study with diverse and balanced viewpoints, is made up of representatives from contractors, organized labor, industry, impartial safety and occupational medical fields, and academia involved in labor relations. While industry officials had expressed concerns that the study would be slanted to support union arguments, union officials say they fear the results will be tilted to protect employers. "The study . . . has become a political football field which is being played on an inherently unlevel field," the union representatives wrote in a January letter to Gerard Scannell, assistant secretary of labor and head of OSHA. Union officials also complained about the appointment last June of John Danielson, a political appointee hired as a special assistant to Scan24
May 6, 1991 C&EN
nell. Danielson has raised allegations of cronyism in the selection of JGI to conduct the study, calling into question the validity of the study. In the letter to Scannell, the union representatives state, "It is hard for us to imagine the necessity of employing an industry procurer who made no bones about his designation by the White House to deal with the steering committee and the study. The introduction of Mr. Danielson is a most telling sign that control was being exerted by the White House and others over your own supervision of our work and the work of those charged with conducting the study." "The endless delays have served the cause of obscuring the facts concerning safety and health in the chemical and petrochemical industry," adds the letter. "Since last summer the industry and the contractors have heightened their collective rhetoric concerning occupational safety, training, and education. This flurry of activity will, we believe, skew the results of the study and the cause of safety in these plants will not be served." Separately, Wells notes that JGI was "delayed for months" by the Office of Management & Budget (OMB), which had to give clearance on the survey's wording. Alan McMillan, deputy assistant secretary for OSHA, insists that OMB has reviewed JGI's work with "no more or no less diligence" than with other projects and that some of its recommendations have "helped to make the questionnaires better." The deadline was also extended not just to allow time for OMB review, but to accommodate a change in the scope and breadth of the study, McMillan says. Early on "it became apparent that the JGI study was not to determine what could be done to prevent a recurrence of an accident [such as the one at the Phillips plant], but to thoroughly investigate the use of contractors in the petrochemical industry," says Pierce. Thus the study was expanded to include interviews with plant and contract workers, and a survey of contractor managers. A n o t h e r b o n e of c o n t e n t i o n among those involved in the survey is how OSHA should handle its option to do a peer review of the
study. By the middle of this month, OSHA will decide either to "impanel an advisory committee" for the task or hand it over to an existing group of experts," McMillan says. "From a CMA vantage point, we hope that once the study is completed OSHA would have a disinterested third party, such as an academic institution, do a peer review of the study," says Helin. He sees a need for a review of the factual scientific basis for the study to determine if the conclusions reached are really substantiated by the facts. "We think that is important to ensure the study has national credibility." But for his part, Amoco's Pierce says he's "a little concerned" about turning over the painstakingly prepared report to a group of people new to its content. "In that case it won't be a peer review; it will be a matter of opinion." OSHA also plans to hold an international conference to discuss the report. The one- or two-day conference is tentatively slated for early 1992, says McMillan; he expects that OSHA will nail down the details sometime this fall. The conference would address other issues, too, such as the proposed standard, which is due by year's end. Says Helin: "We really hope a conference will take place; it would be an opportunity to get all the parties together to discuss the study and how it overlays all the other process safety issues going on. This is a real key time for process safety." For all of its controversy and delays, some are hopeful that the firstof-its-kind report will be worth the effort. "I hope that the report will give us some good science and hard data to allow us to determine how to devote our resources to the problems of this industry with a realistic perspective rather than a speculative perspective," says McMillan. The industry "should look to this report with an open mind, as I think both labor and management sides have by and large done all along," he adds. If that happens, "I think the report will affect the way industry, labor, management, and government use their resources individually and jointly to address the broader issue of improving safety and health in this industry." •
Debate slows growth hormone commercialization
Bovine somatotropin, or BST, has long been expected to be the first m u l t i m i l l i o n - d o l l a r agricultural product produced by genetic engineering. Monsanto, Eli Lilly, Upjohn, and American Cyanamid have invested an estimated $500 million and several years to develop the growth hormone, which increases milk production in cows. Public reaction, along with a protracted review by the Food & Drug Administration for marketing approval, has slowed the commercialization of BST. The controversy surrounding the hormone was presented as an example of "the chilling effect the external social climate can have on innovation" in a session called Examples of Innovation in the Chemical Industry, sponsored by the Division of Chemical Marketing & Economics. "If someone, a respected critic or more likely an activist or a radical Luddite, decides they don't want what you are working so hard to invent," says Lyman H. Johnson, manager of marketing research and communications for Monsanto Agricultural Co., "the most sophisticated system for developing new products and processes could suddenly be declared irrelevant and useless." Few products have gotten as prolonged attention as BST. Safety, economic, political, and social questions about the hormone have become intertwined in a heated debate that has progressed little toward any resolution in nearly a decade. The recombinant protein is a nearly exact copy of the natural hormone already found in cow's milk and is readily digested by humans. However, even the unprecedented publication by FDA researchers of conclusions that BST is safe for humans has had little effect in curtailing negative response. A National Institutes of Health panel also was convened and gave the hormone essentially a clean bill of h e a l t h (C&EN, Dec. 17, 1990, page 6). FDA
has not approved BST for marketing and is still reviewing animal safety and product efficacy. FDA's handling of the matter has prompted General Accounting Office and Department of Health & Human Services investigations. As far as critics are concerned, Johnson believes that their questions are legitimate, but the fear they create is not. "For their own reasons, which have not been shared with me, [critics] are trying to alarm the public," he says. "Their stated agenda is opposition to biotechnology." Despite the focus on safety, the key issue is generally considered to be economics and the potential impact of BST on the dairy industry. The hormone increases milk production about 10 to 25% with a 5 to 15% more efficient use of feed by the animal. Increased milk production leading to lower prices might be expected to speed up the trend in small dairy farm closings. Wisconsin and Minnesota have banned BST until June 1991. "As with all technology, the economic consequences are complex and imprecisely understood," says J o h n s o n . "It is certain that all progress or . . . any change will benefit some and not others, and some more than others." "Milk production, the so-called surplus, and farm profitability are highly volatile statistics and are as much or more dependent on government farm policy, weather, and crops, than on production technology," he adds. In light of data Johnson presents on malnourishment, it is his opinion that "until those life and death issues are taken care of, I don't want to hear about a milk glut. It's a cruel, selfish, and baseless argument." The overriding issue for industry and R&D is, believes Johnson, the "ability to secure and maintain freedom to innovate based on responsible science." "For that science to be relevant, you need the public's approval and permission," he stresses. "Without the public's approval, you have no freedom to innovate." Ann Thayer
OneOfThefcw Foam Problems We Can't Sok. But we have antifoam agents for just about everything else. Including products for both aqueous and non-aqueous systems. High and low pH. High temperatures. And food-related uses. Our antifoam agents are concentrated, too. A little goes a long way, lasts a long time. For samples or to talk to our antifoam experts...
Call
1800
FOAM FREE Or write: Dow Corning Corporation, Dept.A-7014, P.O. Box 7604, Mt. Prospect, IL 60056-7604.
DOW CORNING ©1988 Dow Corning Corporation. CIRCLE 9 ON READER SERVICE CARD
May 6, 1991 C&EN
25
