Nixon safety and health legislation package gets favorable initial reaction Mulling over the occupational safety and health legislation laid before Congress by President Nixon, the Manufacturing Chemists Association and other industrial and safety groups were far from taking a position on the bill last week. But MCA and the National Safety Council did find some aspects of the Administration bill more to their liking than the Johnson Administration bill that died in the House Rules Committee last year. George Gorbell, vice-chairman of MCA's safety and fire protection committee and manager of personnel safety for Monsanto, characterizes the Administration bill as an "improvement" over the Johnson Administration bill, and suggests that there's a "better atmosphere on occupational safety and health matters" in Congress this year. Most importantly, the Nixon legislative package lacks the interpretation of "imminent harm" that gave the Secretary of Labor "powers beyond anyone else's conception of power" in shutting a plant down for safety violations without court procedures. A spokesman for the National Safety Council, which did not support the Johnson Administration bill, said that NSC is "much more favorably dis-
posed" to the Nixon package. But it will be some time, as NSC "amalgamates" the viewpoints of its business, labor, and other interests, before it takes a stand on the bill. The Administration bill, S. 2788, introduced by Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R.-N.Y.), would, in Nixon's view, go beyond the "limited accident orientation" of the past, giving greater attention to health considerations, separate setting standards from enforcing them, and provide a flexible mechanism for reacting quickly to tomorrow's new technologies. To do all these things, the bill would establish a five-member National Occupational Safety and Health Board to adopt and promulgate national consensus standards to take effect July 1, 1972; give enforcement power to the Secretary of Labor with violators subject to fines up to $10,000; encourage states to expand and improve their programs; assign the H E W Secretary the task of seeking ways to improve the program; and set up a National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (see box). Some 35 million employees in the U.S. would be affected by the legislation. Giving thrust to the bill are
The Administration's Occupational and Safety Bill (S. 2788) would: • Establish a National Occupational Safety and Health Board with five members appointed by the President to five-year terms, one member changing each year. The board would have the power to promulgate standards after a "national consensus standard" had been adopted. • Give the Secretary of Labor the initial role in enforcing the standards established by the board. The Secretary would ask voluntary compliance of employers believed to be in violation of standards; failing their compliance, the complaint would be brought before the board, which would hold full hearings. If the board found a violation it would issue orders which the Secretary could enforce through the courts. In emergencies, the Secretary could go directly to the courts and petition for temporary relief. • Encourage state governments to submit plans for expanding and improving their own occupational safety and health programs. Federal grants would be available to pay up to 9 0 % of the costs of developing such plans. • Assign the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare the task of developing and carrying out a broad program of "study, experiment, demonstration, education, information, and technical assistance. . . ." The Secretary would be required to submit a comprehensive report to the President and Congress, in which he would evaluate the program and make recommendations for its improvement. • Establish a National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health to advise the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in administering the act.
32 C&EN AUG. 18, 1969
diese national and industrywide statistics: 14,500 workers killed annually on the job, 2.2 million injured, 250 million man-days lost, and $1.5 billion lost in wages. Two extremes. In introducing the safety bill, Sen. Javits, who earlier this year sponsored the Administration's coal mine health and safety bill, stated that "We have obviously reached a plateau insofar as the efforts of private industry and the states are concerned," and that major improvements are unlikely to come "unless and until" the Federal Government becomes "energetically and authoritatively involved." The Administration bill, however, rejects the two extremes —leaving safety and health matters in the hands of the states and private business or permitting a complete federal takeover, Sen. Javits maintained. But Sen. Javits did point out that some may want to go further in strengthening the Federal Government's hand. Among the issues the Labor Committee should give its "most careful attention to" are: • Whether enforcement orders issued by the board should be self-enforcing—subject to court review—rather than enforceable only through a decree of the federal district court. • Whether there is a need for permitting federal inspectors to issue orders in emergencies without first having to appeal to the district court for a temporary restraining order. • Whether labor organizations ought not to be permitted more effective participation by, for example, allowing them to demand inspections and intervene in enforcement proceedings. • W h e t h e r the Secretary of Labor and the H E W Secretary should have the power to ask judicial review of standards promulgated by the board, just as the Secretary of Labor does have power under the bill to ask judicial review of enforcement orders by the board. • Whether the jurisdictional limits in the bill, particularly those jurisdictional limits that concern agricultural workers, exclude too many workers from coverage. Standards. Apparently, the Administration bill wouldn't result in a rash of new standards. Sen. Javits said that "in view of the Herculean complexity and long period of time which would be necessary in setting standards for all occupations throughout the country," the board would be expected to use standards already developed by national standards producing organizations. The Administration bill also recognizes the states' critical role, Sen. Javits emphasized. If a state files a plan meeting criteria demonstrating that the state program will be substan-
~
• "jff. f,ft|fo\rΚ „* £ .
L
America's most honored scientists look to Liquid Carbonic for their research gases How do we know? Liquid Carbonic is the nation's most quality conscious supplier of research gases—one responsible source for almost all laboratory-grade gases and mixtures. We certify that these gases meet or exceed the tolerances specified for them. We maintain a network of field laboratories to give fast, economical delivery anywhere in the continental U.S.A. We make a scientist's job easier in other ways too· Suppose a gas application problem has you puzzled. Get the answer from Liquid Carbonic. We've backed our network of field laboratories with a central Research and Development Laboratory. We staffed it with a creative team of scientists. Their job: to devise workable solutions to problems our customers send us. We also offer a complete line of Liqui-Lab Apparatus to handle safely the gas we sell. Liqui-Lab one and two-stage regulators, line regulators, flowmeters, needle valves, blowpipes, cylinder trucks. Highest quality, of course. And these are just some of your advantages when you buy research gas from Liquid Carbonic.
When purity counts, you can count on
Advertising Department CE-89 Liquid Carbonic Corporation 135 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, III. 60603 You've aroused my interest. Please send me more detailed information about what Liquid Carbonic can do for me. D Please have your salesman call on me. Name
Title
_-.
Company.
LIQUID CARBONIC 135 SOUTH LASALLE STREET · CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 In Canada: Liquid Carbonic Canadian Corporation, Limited 8375 Mayrand Street · Montreal 9, Quebec
Address City State
-Zip.
Start here for a great
3?4
finish Ashland Chemicals is the inventive one with 10 research and development centers . . . the one to watch for breakthrough ideas such as these: • A new, low-odor polyester-epoxy system that creates tile-like surfaces for interior or exterior applications. • A complete family of solvents and resins that comply with existing air pollution control laws. • New, extremely durable siliconized polyesters that open greater sales opportunities for coil coaters.
Ashland Chemical Company... the logical source for whatever ingredients your coating systems require. Thinners and Solvents · Synthetic Resins for Water and Solvent Systems · Chemicals · Carbon Blacks
• A new and remarkable nonyellowing urethane resin for seamless flooring formülators. Ashland Chemicals is the helpful one. Highly trained, experienced technical service staffs and versatile application laboratories are at your command across the country. A phone call is all it takes to put years of formulation and application know-how to work for you. Ashland Chemicals is the swift one. You get what you want . . . when you want it. 25 manuf a c t u r i n g plants throughout the U. S. . . . 50 distribution centers DIVISION
for bulk and LTL chemicals. And we're also in 14 foreign countries. We're not far from your door, wherever you are. In the coatings business, Ashland Chemicals is the big source for ideas, products, service and delivery. For more information write to: 8 E. Long Street, Columbus, Ohio 43216
Ashland
Ashland Chemical Company OF ASHLAND OIL & REFINING COMPANY
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS DIVISION: Surfactants, emulsifiers, fatty acids, fatty alcohols, amides, amines, quaternaries, antioxidants, vinyl plasticizers. PETROCHEMICALS DIVISION: Aromatic and aliphatic solvents, petronaphthalene, cumene, cyclohexane, petroleum pitch and coke. INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS & SOLVENTS DIVISION: Hydrocarbon solvents, plasticizers, esters, terpenes, ketones, alcohols, glycols, acids, alkalis, peroxygen chemicals, phosphates. RESINS & PLASTICS DIVISION: Resins for industrial and commercial coating formulations, laminating, impregnating, bonding, adhesives compounding, textile finishing, printing inks, molding and casting. CARBON BLACK & SYNTHETIC RUBBER DIVISION: Carbon blacks for rubber and specialties, SBR and its masterbatches. FOUNDRY PRODUCTS DIVISION: Bentonite, core and mold binders and washes, seacoal. exothermics, and foundry supplies. INTERNATIONAL DIVISION: Australia, Belgium, Canada. Colombia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, India, Italy, Mexico. Philippines, Spain, Argentina and Venezuela. AC-3
Chemical
mm
SYLVANIA GENERAL TELEPHONE & ELECTRONICS
"Ambidextrous, bisexual and polygamous"
In one chemical, two catalytic metals.
That's how one chemistry professor described molybdenum. Another stood before his class and stormed, "When the good Lord wanted to confuse the inorganic chemist, He invented molybdenum." This surge of emotion is easy to understand. Here is an element that boggles the mind by flaunting valences and oxidation numbers from plus 6 to minus 2. Sometimes when you put a molybdenum compound into solution, you end up with a complex mixture of compounds with Moly showing off any valence it prefers at the moment. Moly has coordination numbers of 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Alter some condition slightly and Moly juggles these numbers around. Molybdate ions happily clump together into chains and all sorts of aggregates when you're not looking. The only excuse they need to play polymer-round-the-rosy is some little change in pH or concentration. Any system centered around Mo molecules has to be complex. A simple reaction can give you a fallout of products that will make your head spin. No wonderwhen some little shift in pressure, temperature, pH, concentration or electric potential can trigger a change in what comes out and how much of it comes out. But there's much to be said for a skittish element like this. For instance, it takes a lot of temperament to be a good catalyst. We've got some great ones working in commercial reactions. As for taming molybdenum, be of good cheer. We have everything under control. We can give you clearly defined Mo compounds, so at least you'll know what you're starting with. Look at it this way: where there's complexity, there's also opportunity. Your opportunity. // fate brings you to molybdenum or that other mad transition element, tungsten, we can offer you more than solace. Write for data on our Mo and W compounds.
One of them is always tungsten. The other, some other transition metal. We've linked them together in a whole new series of metatungstates. For instance, we can give you tungsten plus a lanthanide in this general formula: Ln 2 [H 2 (W3O 10 )4]-xH 2 O or tungsten plus some other metal ion, as in: Ni 8 [H 2 (W 3 0 1 o)4]-xH 2 0 The solubility of our metatungstates is phenomenal. You can keep dumping these chemicals into water until the solution is so thick it's like syrup. Which means you can get a high concentration of catalytic metals into and onto your substrates. Considering the notorious reluctance of tungstates to dissolve, this is a most cheering development. Our metatungstates will also dissolve in certain polar organics such as DMF and DMSO. If you've been mixing catalysts, you know how tough it is to get a completely homogeneous distribution. In ours, both metals are combined in the same compound. You can't get any more homogeneous than that. Of course, there's no way of varying the proportions of the two metals, but in your application this may not be a drawback. It may even be an advantage. You may find, for example, that the transition metal is present in just the right proportion to act as a good promoter for the tungsten catalyst. What's not present in any quantity are the alkali metals (less than 500 ppm). Our rare earth metatungstates are especially pure. This is good news for catalyst makers. Here's a list of the metals we are now adding to tungsten by hanging them on the coattails of the metatungstate ion: Y, La, Ce, Nd, Er, Ni, Co, Zn, V, Ag. All compounds are acidic in aqua, though silver is not as soluble as the others. We can also make the rest of the lanthanide metatungstates if you want them. Send for our tech bulletins on metatungstates. If you'd care to mention your potential or actual use, we may be able to give you more specific answers. A cosmic remark.
Mo (element 42). Not so elementary.
At room temperature, tungsten has such a low vapor pressure that you can compare it to just one atom of gas floating around in the entire known universe. Kind of startling, even for the metal with the world's highest melting point: 6170° F.
Sylvania Metals & Chemicals, Chemical and Metallurgical Division, Towanda, Pa. 18848
tially as effective as a federal program would be, insofar as standards, inspections, legal authority, qualified personnel, and adequate funding are concerned, the state may continue to exercise its responsibility, subject to a continuing evaluation by the Secretary of Labor. MCA reaction. Monsanto's Gorbell says that establishing a National Occupational Safety and Health Board with the power to adopt and promulgate national consensus standards is a distinct improvement over the Johnson Administration bill that would have given the Secretary of Labor the power to set mandatory standards. The industry certainly favors setting standards by the consensus method and Gorbell likes the fact that the board would have three members with professional safety backgrounds. Questioned about the Secretary of Labor's enforcement authority under the new bill, Gorbell says, "There's nothing wrong with this, but the enforcement mechanism under the new bill permits judicial review. And it gives those of us who have to live under the law an opportunity to state our views." One of the bones of contention in the Johnson Administration bill was the authoritarian "imminent harm" section of the bill. Under this section, the Secretary of Labor's representative could come into a plant, Gorbell explains, and could, in essence, shut down the plant with an immediate cease and desist order if he found imminent harm to workers. Now the legislation is worded such that a district court must issue a restraining order or injunction and this process gives the company a chance to express its views, Gorbell points out. He also observes that should a company be found not in violation of the standard, then the company's monetary losses from court action would be covered by the Government. On the question of the bill's recommendations to encourage states to improve their programs, Gorbell says, "We believe that the states should be the prime organization governing business in a state. But I would be the first to agree," he observes, "that not all states are doing the job they should in occupational safety and health matters." Yet he notes that the Federal Government can't take over the "whole ball of wax" in this area. It doesn't have enough technically competent people to do the job, so to get the job done, the states must retain some of their responsibilities in this area. The states, of course, may have better programs than the federal standard in any one occupational area. Likewise, Gorbell points out, a corn-
Sen. Jacob Javits A plateau has been reached
pany may have a better program or be doing a better job than the federal standards indicate. Such standards can be presented to the National Occupational Safety and Health Board and the state or company would not have to conform, per se, to the board's standards. Gorbell backs "one-hundred percent" the broad program of research, education, and technical assistance to be carried out by the H E W Secretary and called for in the Administration bill. He feels that there's much that can be done in this area. On the final major provision of the Nixon package, Gorbell says that he thoroughly approves the recommendation that would establish a National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health to advise the Secretaries of Hew and Labor. In 1968 MCA proposed a similar Occupational Health and Safety Policy Advisory Board to advise and consult with the Secretary of Labor (C&EN, March 18, 1968, page 34). The 12-member advisory committee in the Administration bill would give an opportunity for management, labor, and government to express their views on occupational safety and health matters, Gorbell believes. Gorbell emphasizes that his views are immediate reactions to the Administration bill and that before Congressional hearings take place MCA's position would be based on a review of the legislation by the association's
safety and fire protection committee. Differences. The Nixon Administration bill differs from the previous administration's proposed legislation in a number of respects. Originally the Johnson Administration legislation would have given the Secretary of Labor the power to issue mandatory standards and to close down plants immediately if there was imminent harm to workers. But after criticism from business interests, the House Education and Labor Committee reported out a bill (H.R. 17748) that limited the Secretary's authority to issuing standards adopted by established safety organizations and providing judicial review of the Secretary's determinations. In the absence of consensus standards, the Secretary of Labor could appoint advisory committees to submit within 270 days recommendations on federal occupational safety and health rules and regulations. Similarities between the Johnson and Nixon Administration bills include 'the establishment of a National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, directing the Secretary of H E W to develop research and training programs, and provision for federal grants to the states for up to 9 0 % of the costs of developing occupational safety and health plans. The chemical industry's safety record is excellent, Gorbell points out. Based on National Safety Council statistics for 1967, the industry ranked sixth behind communications, automobile, aerospace, electrical equipment, and steel in terms of the frequency of disabling injuries per 1 million man-hours. By way of comparison, the chemical industry's frequency rate for that year was 3.55 as against 35.27 for underground coal mining. In 1968, the chemical industry slightly reduced both the frequency and severity rates, according to MCA figures. The frequency rate dropped to 3.27 per million man-hours worked while the severity rate—work days charged or lost because of injuriesfell from 524 days per million manhours worked in 1967 to 485 days in 1968. For the past 10 years the industry's injury frequency rate has been about 3 per million man-hours worked. Monsanto's Gorbell points out that although the injury frequency rate has reached a plateau, man-hours of exposure have risen more than 200 million during the 10-year period. And he emphasizes that the industry is certainly not indifferent toward further improvement, but that each reduction in this rate requires greater effort by the industry. AUG. 18, 1969 C&EN 37
