Document 1QxEYZ2mBKJ4rr1yap5k3XrkE

:C liifcrofficc A\cin<niiulniii TO (Name and Location) J. N. Gann FROM (Name and Location) C.W. Whaley GEN 55 (REV.6/74) DATE January 27, 1982 REFERENCE NO* CWW-294-82 SUBJECT: Impact of 12-hour Work Shift on the BCP Industrial Hygiene Program________________________________ ________ On January 26, 1982 I discussed the potential impact of a 12-hour work shift on the BCP Industrial Hygiene Program wi'th Messrs. M. R. Stenzel and G. A. Vos (Company Industrial Hygienists). We agreed that the 12-hour shift would have little or no economic impact on the plant from an industrial hygiene standpoint. Chemical exposures in the plant are well below permissible limits so if these limits have to be reduced somewhat because of the extended shifts, exposures should still be within acceptable levels. Hearing-protection requirements are in effectthroughout the plant where ambient noise levels exceed 85 dB(A). Mr\ Vos believes that with this control, employees will be well protected against hearing loss even with the extended work shift. In addition, our Noise Control Program (i.e., criteria for implementing engineering controls) will not be affected by extending the work shift. There will be some impact on the Industrial Hygiene sampling and Health Monitoring Program such as: 1) The Industrial Hygiene Technician will have to work 12-hour days in order to obtain representative samples. 2) Permissible exposure limits for chemicals may have to be reduced (possibly to 2/3 of the existing PEL) because of the shorter recovery period between shifts. 3) The sampling and analytical program will be affected since most sampling procedures were developed to accommodate 6 to 8 hour samples. Sample periods will be extended to 10 to 12 hours thus requiring the use of multiple sampling tubes to prevent contaminant breakthrough. 4) A new version of the Industrial Hygiene Module exposure zones will have to be implemented to document the change to 12-hour shifts. This will enable us to study the chronic effects of chemical ejgjosure for the extended work shift. CWW/gh cc: C. J. Schaefer / Bob King / G. McCarthy / t. L. iejml / L. t. Hackfeld C. D. Barrett - Dallas M. R. Stenzel - Dallas - - 005871 G. A. Vos - Dallas OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20 April 2, 1979 Office of Field Coordination r? J or o i rC3 r-cPj SlJ; -m <aE8. iIiI *cH 3O -O-i n*>H* tiI fit 3 ~ I I ocI ocI oct 1 1555 A i bbh -> | 4-> J-> a-> 3 OOO t S8S iif*}>*j4^ ! WW iI So 5o 5o .1 1 iiO O Q 22 c'on.'txo'o;. 3222iI I jj 4j 4->-eOj a*s> LLt i tI * > >H>>-l *rtrt OHH o.HoO. OcOc 3 <3 3 3 i trv i \o r-co OJ CO ST b I Jj O)^ 11-31 005872 OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20 April 2, 1979 Office of Field Coordination I i i lb! i i HOw iI Mw<H Ii S 3 ! o 82 43 $b>>C-- tl O J O O - OH <X -SO5 t) 43 L . ai--;g . J <9 0 JC co TN3 C. 4Q3 .L E OHo t. 3 C 43 4> O <8 C 5 &= 1 i ^ o o. c (Ow V rl Q3.-H 3C >0>J>C>-4 nor|. AUcoC S*c> *oH **H* o CO 3 `i-t S C OH13 "g-dJi*. w ) c-- -Sfi -6 T3 C SCVAr-WjojLj --in 2VSS WL Of <53 tl 0.43 LDO o c ,>S Wo-\ o oas s*a c- *- CHHin ^poio< -> j_c___ci s3i a. .3 W H 43 s d 8T 3 JC Si go H 2 >t5l >5 *3 "V T3 \ eo^orco-3o- Hill 1> ^ nnnn ES8.&8.& ;8gfi<S2 V S -H > e 1 .*-> Tl C. MO.I5H O -5^.23*o pilioo V h 4c3 ocS >nH&Pr. sz . o*-. ai 4n3 O.Voi 4o-1 8.33 c S. *3 0*1 0-o4-*O-)t CO CQ C -4-> C 0.0 #aH o9 SL_ 2-S o O O t-t C O -4-> OS 4)H >C O n .c 43 < (0A4)<r1 o 3 H > C-.OH^-r- | *4CS*>4 oH 3 !> Sdfi -i JftCOiQ &4)<N O boa XC *H O <CO *H0 c0)I+4)IHOO -H 43 43 S3 *0 fi c o 4s3 oHr*8 CO to X > 43 3 o O *H 3 -----O >H4) C H<H *3jC H t O d O ti o o OHH< ^nocarojT 11-32 EXPLANATION OF TABLE HEADINGS (C o n t'd ) ) 005873 > OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20 c April 2. 19779 Office of Field Coordination c c 11-33 - 005874 OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20 April 2, 1979 Office of Field Coordination ica s 7 OC <0 58 J *3 C H H .O iU. M 0) I Sj 65 2 |C 5 Oas. -sa . ca t- 192 8 f cp l V i !' K} O 3 ! h tu I CO f- !8 8 4>C3 cL. SS 11-34 005875 OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20 April 2, 1979 Office of Field Coordination . CHAPTER XIII MODIFICATION OF PELS FOR PROLONGED EXPOSURE PERIODS A. Purpose and Scope. The 1968 ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) adopted by OSHA as permissible exposure limits (PELs) are directly related to assumed conventional exposure periods of no more than 8 hours/day, 40 hours/week. 1. The 8-hour exposure limits for some substances may not provide appropriate protection from health hazards when novel work schedules are utilized; e.g., exposures longer than 8 hours/day, four 10-hour days/week, six 7-hour days/ week, etc. This chapter identifies those PELs which may inadequately protect workers for prolonged exposure periods and describes how an "adjusted PEL" may be calculated. 2. Instructions on sampling and citation procedures shall be sought from the Assistant Regional Administrator (ARA) for Technical Support who shall in turn contact the Directorate of Technical Support. B. Procedure. 1. Each substance listed in the Substance Toxicity Table in Chapter II has been assigned to one of the six "Work Schedule" categories described in Figure XIII-1 on the basis of the 1968 Documentation of TLVs published by ACGIH. . 2. During a health inspection, the Industrial Hygienist has the responsibility of documenting any work schedules resulting in excessive exposures to a hazardous substance caused by exposure periods longer than 8 hours/day or 40 hours/week. This would include routine overtime shifts. 3. The Industrial Hygienist should determine an "adjusted PEL" as necessary for each hazardous substance sampled, according to the specifications given for the category to which it is assigned. . XIII-1 005876 OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20 April 2, 1979 Office of Field Coordination C 4. No adjustment should be made to the PELs of substances in category 1. For all other categories, the equivalent PELs should be calculated according to the methods described in paragraphs C.l through 6 and used as a professional guide or in the evaluation of act tel employee risk. 5. In all situations, the equivalent PEL will be equal to or lower (i.e. more restrictive) than the PEL values listed in 29 CFR 1910.1000. 6. The Industrial Hygienist should also elicit from the employees and document any symptomatology that nay be related to the exposure. C. Work Schedule Categories. 1. Category 1A. Ceiling Limit Standards. Substances in this category (e.g., butylamine) have ceiling limit stan dards which were intended never to be exceeded at any time, and so, are independent of the length or frequency of work shifts. The ceiling PELs for substances in this category should not be adjusted. 2. Category IB. Standards Preventing Mild Irritation. Substances in this category have a PEL designed primarily to prevent acute irritation or discomfort (e.g., cyclopentadiene). There are essentially no known cumulative effects resulting from exposures for extended periods of time at concentration levels near the PEL. The PELs for substances in this category should not be adjusted. 3. Category 1C. Standards Limited by Technologic Feasibility. The PELs of substances assigned to this category have been set either by technologic feasibility (e.g., vinyl chloride) or good hygiene practices (e.g., methyl acetylene). These factors are independent of the length or frequency of work shifts. The PELs for substances in this category should not be adjusted. XI11-2 005877 OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20 April 2, 1979 Office of Field Coordination 4. Category 2. Acute Toxicity Standards. a. . The substances in this category have PELs which prevent excessive accumulation of the substance in the body during 8 hours of exposure in any given day (e.g., carbon monoxide). b. The following equation determines a level which ensures that employees exposed more than 8 hours/day will not receive a dosage (i.e. length of exposure X concentration) in excess of that intended by the standard. Equivalent PEL = 8-hour PEL X 8 hours hours of exposure in one day (Equation X1II-1) c. The Industrial Hygienist should normally conduct sampling for the entire shift minus no more than one hour for equipment set-up and retrieval (e.g., at least 9 hours of a 10-hour shift). In situations where an employee works multiple shifts in a day (e.g., two 7-hour shifts), and the Industrial Hygienist can document sufficient cause to expect exposure concentra tions to be similar during the other shifts, the sampling should be done during only one shift. 5. Category 3. Cumulative Toxicity Standards a. Substances assigned to this category present cumulative hazards (e.g., lead, mercury, etc.). The PELs for . these substances are designed to prevent excessive accumulation in the body resulting from many days or even years of exposure. b. The following equation ensures that workers exposed more than 40 hours/week will not receive a dosage in excess of that intended by the standard. Equivalent PEL ** 8--hour PEL X 40 hours hours of exposure in one week (Equation XIII-2) XIII--3 : 005878 OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20 April 2, 1979 Office of Field Coordination c. It is the responsibility of the Industrial Hygienist to conduct sufficient sampling to document exposure levels for the entire week when evaluating conditions on the basis of this equivalent PEL. For most operations the Industrial Hygienist will be able to sample during one shift only and then document sufficient cause to predict exposure concentrations during the other shifts. 6. Category 4. Acute and Cumulative Toxicity Standards. Substances in this category may present both an acute and a cumulative hazard. For this reason, the PELs of these substances should be adjusted by either equation XIII-1 or XIII--2; i.e. whichever provides the greatest protection. 7. Refined Adjustment Equations for Specific Standards. The adjustment equation presented for categories 2 and 3 reflect an oversimplification of the actual accumulation and removal of a toxic agent from the body. Additional research, however, is needed in order to apply more complex equations to estimate resulting body burden and health risk due to prolonged exposure periods. This chapter will be updated when the necessary data become available. Industrial Hygienists having sufficient data to validate adjusting PELs by a more rigorous method such as those proposed in the following articles are encouraged to do so following approval from the ARA for Technical Support: Brief, R.S. and R.A. Seal a, "Occupational Exposure Limits for Novel Schedules," Amer. Ind. Hyq. Assn. Jour. 36:467, 1975. Roach, S.A., "A More Rational Basis for Air Sampling Programmes," Ann. Occup. Hyq. 20:65, 1977. Hickey, J.L.S. and P.C. Reist, "Application of Occupational Exposure Limits to Unusual Work Schedules," Amer. Ind. Hyq. Assn. Jour. 38:613, 1977. XIII-4 005879 OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.20 April 2, 1979 Office of Field Coordination <o 3 E U O u. 4-3 C > o XX CO *o S- <D 3 CO II o o -G CL _J UJ CO Cl. X X <D CO s- *n-J 3 to UJ o <aj: .x +J cro tv <v a tv cnc jc a> a) (j+j+i to o ,--<v' 3 23 > t- i E 3 00 c M CO 4-3 c cnc oc c o z: CJ <D cd zo: o z c ^ 4-> -a 23 S- tn <V <V U tOn 4r-a> o3 a<D X ilu cnoo .X c ai .2 % +-> X CO T3 U Sa) <d d CO 4-> O O < J3 Q. a5 X uo uj cn^- a ai jx c tn c tv 4-> -a x. j-> ai vi 23 S- to J_ $_ <u aj s_ i- cu 3 M -P 3 O -P O oO to V to -c Q-tUCXJ c <o 4-> *-- $S--( O CO r- C ocn o -r- r-- 4>3 o <d c 4-3 oC *r-- aj -ct-- >5 4-> r-- o *r-- X o 4-3 CD 4-> >> 3 r-- ac <C O *c CD O > *r- X 4-3 4-3 CO #r" -- O 3 *EX 3O O 4-3 d) > *-- 4-> ai +-> !-- 3 3 >, O E -M o o<a 3 -t-- 2: *i" PT3 X 0c0 CQ <t3 4-> i r-- S_ 3O to cn a: ai n S- -C +J O O to 2MO < t--< CO fH o r4 C\1 CO : 005880