Document 15gQraKMamvev6BGyyOQBmjE

/f-TTfrCfr^tr-T JANUARY 20, 1982 BETH TREANOR - API LARRY BIRKNER - ATLANTIC RICHFIELD Per the October 28 Semi-annual Agenda of Regulations, OSHA intends to review "Engineering Controls vs. Respirators; generic question." Current OSHA standards, both generic and specific, require that feasible engineering controls are to be used as the primary means to control employee exposure to airborne toxic materials, rather than respirators. This policy has been targeted for review by the President's task force on Regulatory Relief. Accbrding to the Semi-annual Agenda, OSHA Intends to re-examine this policy on cost-effectiveness grounds, and consider modifications of present standards. Some thoughts follow. (1) Scope of the Issue OSHA has identified the isssue as "Engineering Controls vs. Respirators; generic question." Industry is using the phrase "Hierarchy of Controls." The industry phrase is potentially larger in scope, because it embraces workplace agents other than air contaminants (e.g., noise-engineering controls vs. hearing protectors; heat stress - engineering controls vs. protective equipment). Consequently, it may not be prudent to adopt the phase "Hierarchy of Controls" unless we intentionally decide to tackle the issue on all fronts. (2) Existing OSHA Regulations The primacy of engineering controls Is well-established In existing OSHA regulations, both generally and specifically. A summary follows (see attachments for specific language). (a) For Air Contaminants Generically 1910.134 1910.1000 1990.157 Respiratory Protection (For compliance with PEL's) Carcinogen Policy Model Standard LAM 004442 DPMC-10515 2 Specifically 1910.1001 Asbestos 1910.1017 Vinyl chloride 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic 1910.1025 Lead 1910.1028 Benzene (overturned, for other reasons) 1910.1029 Coke oven emissions 1910.1043 Cotton dust 1910.1044 DBCP 1910.1045 Acrylonitrile 1910.1003 thru 1910.1016 - Thirteen carcinogens, with specific control requirements, backed up with respirators. (b) For Noise 1910.95 Taken altogether, the above regulations comprise a formidable regu latory entrenchment of the primacy of engineering controls. Further, each new specific>substance standard added with equivalent language exacerbates the problem. Overall however, the principal problem stems from the generic requirements in 1910.134 respiratory protection, 1910.1000 - compliance with PEL'S, and 1990.151 carcinogen policy model standard (plus 1910.95 for the noise - hearing protector analogy). (3) Industry's Objective and Strategy Industry needs to sort out an objective, and then develop a strategy. Possible objectives include: (a) Overturn the primacy of engineering controls in all existing regulations, and preclude recurrence in future regulations. If accomplished by the regulatory process (e.g., rulemaking), this is truly a prodigious task. If attempted on. a rule-by-rule basis, it will never be accomplished. If attempted generlcally, organized labor would wage an all-out holy war. It seems likely that this objective is achievable only by legislative or judicial action, establishing protective equipment as equal to engineering controls, or requiring cost-benefit analysis for any 0SHA standard. (b) Curtail the primacy of engineering controls, and establish a "beach head". A possible strategy for this approach might Include one or all of the following. (1) Eliminate primacy of engineering controls from 1910.134 in the expected revised rule. Supportjng logic is that 1910.134 establishes a minimum requirement for a respiratory protection LAM 004443 DPMC-10516 3 program, if such a program is required. As such, 1910.134 need not/should not mention engineering controls (or work practices) In any fashion. (2) Eliminate primacy of engineering controls from 1990.151, during expected OSHA revision (or deletion) of the generic carcinogen standard. (3) Revise 1910.1000 to eliminate the primacy of engineering controls. Supporting logic would have to be developed. (4) Revise 1910.95 to eliminate the primacy of engineering controls for noise. Supporting logic would have to be developed. (5) Select one substance specific standard and eliminate primacy of engineering controls therein. Likely candidates are cotton dust and coke ovens. Such an action, if successful, would establish a beach head, and refine Industry's arguments. Of the above, it seems essential to achieve at least (1) and (2) or nothing really is gained. It seems plausible that this might be achieved, because regulatory activity relating to (1) and (2) is already underway. While (3) should also be achieved, it seems highly unlikely that a successful challenge could be mounted, particularly if constrained to the two years remaining in this administration. Given this, the next best strategy is to ignore (3), and concentrate on preventing proliferation of mandated engineering controls. Conceptually, this would be done by achieving (1) and (2), ignoring (3), and developing the logic for not continuing to mandate engineering controls in future substance-specific standards. This logic could be conveyed to OSHA via informal meetings, and applied in each specific rulemaking. The first likely vehicle could be E0 regulation. Meanwhile, if the steel industry can argue successfully for deletion (not reversal) of primacy of engineering controls in coke ovens, let's cheer them on. However, I doubt that anyone can support reversal. Also, if OSHA provides the opportunity, primacy of engineering controls in noise should be eliminated (but not reversed). . (4) Conclusions The primacy of engineering controls is deeply entrenched in existing regulations. Organized labor can be expected to wage a holy war to present overturning the primacy of engineering controls. Legislative relief may be a better course than regulatory relief. Deletions of primacy of engineering controls from 1910.134 and 1990.151 should LAM 004444 DPMC-10517 4 probably be pursued, regardless. We may be better off to Ignore 1910.1000, and concentrate Instead on preventing proliferation, at each opportunity. The first opportunity may be EO. This thought paper Is Intended to stimulate discussion. It is based on the arguable premise that some sort of change to the primacy of engineering controls Is justified. That premise, In Itself, might generate discussion. J. L. Rivard Attachments cc: Darrell Matthels - ORC Milton Freifeld - CMA Charles Richards - Gulf Oil Chemicals be: H. L. Kusnetz C. F. Phillips G. L. Greene LAM 004445 DPMC-10518 METHODS OF COMPLIANCE HIERARCHY 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1) and 1910.1000(e); Revision Current 1910.134(a)(1) "Respiratory Protection (a) Permissible practice. (1) In the control of those occupational diseases caused by breathing air contaminated with harmful dusts, fogs, fumes, mists, gases, smoke, sprays, or vapors, the primary objective shall be to prevent atmospheric contamination. This shall be accomplished as far as feasible by accepted engineering control measures (for example, enclosure, or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation, and substitution of less toxic materials). CEmphasis added.] When effective engineering controls are not feasible, or while they are being instituted, appropriate respirators shall be used pursuant to the following requirements." Current 1910.1000(e) "To achieve compliance with paragraph (a) through (d) of this section, administrative or engineering controls must first be determined and implemented whenever feasible. When controls are not feasible to achieve full compliance, protective equipment or any other protective measures shall be used to keep the exposure of employees to air contaminan-ts within the limits prescribed in this section. [Emphasis added.} Any equipment and/or technical measures used for this purpose must be approved for each particular use by a competent industrial hygienist or other technically qualified person. Whenever respirators are used, their use shall comply with 1910.134." /?&<*' d>)0\ 1910.95(b)(1) Noise: "When employees are subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized. If such controls fail to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table G-16, personal protective equipment shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels within the levels of the table." Co/<tl<+S~ f 't'/o. /of 7 ifi Mtihodt 4/ eompUaoce. Cmpta/ss exposures to *tnyl chloride sheD be con[ trolled W U or Mow (ho permissible ex* poaure limit provided In paragraph <e> * of this wclion by engineering. work prac tice. and rn aortal protective control* aa 1 follow*' <1) Feasible engineering end wort practice control* shall Immediately be used to reduce exposures to at or below the permissible exposure limit Wherever feasible engineering and work practice controls which can be In stituted immediately are not suOctent to reduce exposures to at or below the per missible exposure limit, they ahofl none theless be u*ed to reduce exposures to th% Inwe*'. practicable level, and shall be ^urrlementcd py respiratory protection In accordsnee with pnraci'aoh fg> of this section A program than be established and Implemented to reduce exposures to at or below the errm>oble exposure limit, or to the create*! .xter.t fesutble. solely by means of engineering and work practice control*, as soon as feasible. O) Written plans tor 'Och a program shall be developed snd furnished upon request for examination and copying <o authorised representative* of the Assis tant Secretary and the Director. Such Plans shall be updated at least every six months LAM 004446 DPMC-10519 ilHfTtrm or mtt ttgoam ^ 1*110.1001 to ln*tU the tftitnowm conro r" SmUinlUd to. toolartqn, w.im* muticuan. ud iml practtbwl to fnttu* "> * " In hlei toe - iKI-Jj* nrrrlw~l In pw**^ W1 * taehnlcaU* act leoalbl* or toaelbl* to an txtont Inauffl- (ton* <X Mtortoo mtoto to* praoeflbtO br P*'***'11 <W *"" aaetMn-.er______ !w,' ^^f^tolrator. art t~- ;i -- hiii of. this eubpara- |<?/0.looJ sVw< ) tU* !>.*- o^3`**< flfojott Ac****Method* ofiOiMHowro --<1* ) The employ* ahall Institute M (VlWt PO*IM* ,UJl,SUtjS than Deeombar >1- IW *"*t UK and ori[ practice eontrolato oo okpoauio* to or totowtb* PIble expoaur* Umlt, eept l0J? nt that too mptortn"towltl ueh control* are not ni('cU> S"RSebqlpulbroonnieyniu." loAr worolaaatoodonataritao- h.h no atabUaheO br an oowtorwboro t-muotophonrl to manulocturtomccMod. uxad. repackated. totoMao. aSSodir ttorod. AU auch areaatoatt to controlled In accocdane* orlto to* to^tmmu tor too loUowtoc eatoaotr or Ktcfortoi deecnbto* to* operation ln- rolxd: (1) teoloted ^XhSTS workloe into t-NIUotootonrJJhtolnan Isolated intern aueh a* a *tow to* shall wash toolr hand* and TM cf^om^prlseteiomn o*t ttoo*oMtheilrrnaoddlrttotloaka and not toaa- oclatad with to* Uolatod aratoto. <]) Closed unto* operation. Wlthto reauUtod anaa whore t-NltroMphcnjl to itoretfin aealad containers, or contained to a ctoecd arstotn. tociudtoa plplna era* terns, with anjr sample-ports or opening closed while a-NItraUphonrt to conUUod trttoto: (U Accos* shall to restricted to authorised smplorsos oolr: Ul) Emploi--i shall ba required la wash hands, forearma (aea and neck upon each exit (not too roqulatad araaa. eloaa to to* point of exit and baton *nSsitus to other acttvtttoa. (J) Open pessef sjrslem operattons. Ones mill lystem oper*Uocu as defined In paragraph 0 <13 > of thiseecUonare (IU Bach operation shall be provided with conUnuoui local exhaust ventdaUoo so that atr movement is aiwav s f rom ordinary work areas to the operation. Ex - haust air ihall not be discharged to regu lated areas, nonmulated arraa or the external environment unless decontami nated. Clean makeup air shall be Intro duced In.suJBelent volume to maintain the correct operation of the local exhaust system. fill) Employees shall be provided with, and required to wear. dean, full body protective dothff (smocks, coveralls, or long-sleeved shirt and panu >. shoe cov en and fiovea prior to entering the regu lated area. Uv) Employees engaged In 4-Nitrobiphetvyi handling operations shall be pro vided with and required f wear and use a half-face, filter-type respirator for dusts, mists, and fumes. In accordance with f 1910.134. A respirator affording higher levels of protection may t> sub stituted. (4) Transfer from a elated Httlem, charging or discharging point operation!, or otherwise opening a cloud tgttem. Xn operation! Involving "laboratory typo hoods." or In location! where 4-NHroblphenyl is confined In an otherwise "dosed system," but U transferred, charted, or discharged Inf other nor mally dooed container*, the proeldons ol thU snbparatraph ahall apply. U> Ac cess shall be reatrteted f author^** em ployees only: .oo ompoouro* toorb^ow to* SS? SSssaasgs HrTonSia,,ndtno-tyhe--r rnno.cetaoaparrMP"-""*""- a to not rogulrod ** * bofofoToootratorr prouettoo to to-