Document 6w2LB1M0NdO3dMzEwJOEwjMZ4

DEPARTMEN )? HEALTH Ik HUMAN SERVICES Public Heiitn Ssrvics Center* for Diseau Control National Institute for Occupational Saftty & Healrt- Robert A. Taft Laboratories <678 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati OH 45226-1998 Jub* 3, 19S7 Hr. Peter L. de la Crus Lav Offieaa of Railsr snd Hechsan 1159 17th Street, H.W, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Deer Mr. de Is Crust We vrote to IARC la Lyon, ss ve had Indicated, and received a respoaaa from Dr. A. Altlo, Offlcar la Charge, Unit of Carcinogen Identification and Evaluation. A copy of his letter is enclosed. In response to this letter, ve have changed our listings in the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (BTZCS) to conform vlth IA1C criteria. In fact, ve have reviewed all IAS.C citations to bring them into conformity vlth tha XARC criteria defiaad la Supplement 4 and subsequent monographs. Wa now use the IARC terminology of 'Sufficient Evidence,* "Limited Evidence," Inadequate Evidence,* and "No Evidence* of carcinogenicity* In ylsv of the XARC letter, and also applying the criteria, the RTECS record for polyvinyl chloride now carries the following citationst IABC Cancer RevieviAoimal Inadequate Evidence tabc Cancer ReviewsHuiian Inadequate Evidence I regret that this whole process was slow in reaching a resolution, but it did ralaa an lssua of importance for ua. Tour Inquiries helped us to focus on our need for reviewing older citations. Tha criteria that 1ARC now uses simplify our task in reporting the conclusions of the XARC working groups nore accurately. Sincerely yours, Enclosure Doris Y. Sveet Editor, BTBCS Priorities ami Research Analysis Branch Division of Standards Development and Technology Transfer AP00050046 WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SanTS CENTRE INTERNATIONAL DE RECHERCHE SUR LE CANCER INTERNATIONAL AGENCY TOR RESEARCH ON CANCER ISO COUftS ALBERT-THOMAS 69372 LYON CEDEX 08 FRANCE T4I. 72.73.84.45 T4l*gr. Unktivctr Lyon T#]** 380023 (PI ftply r*lif (0 ; CI/75/2 Ffifft a* ftpptltr It fiUrtnC* : 7 April 1987 Dear Mrs Sweet, We thank you for your letter dated 25 March. Polyvinyl chloride - like a ranter of other chemicals - was, for the fir time, evaluated using tte formal classification 'sufficient*, 'limited', .or 'inadequate' evidence of carcinogenicity in Supplement 4 to the IABC Mrograpi In volume IS, v&ere polyvinyl chloride was first evaluated, this scheme had nc yet been adopted/ Thus volume 19 sinply states that only local sarcorras wore detected in rats the only species studied - after implantation of HC-sheet subcutaneously,' intraperitmeally?,- . the incidence of the tuzneurs varied with the form of the implant. - These data were considered not to provide ` sufficier evidence of carcinogenicity', as defined in the Preamble to Supplement 4. Although the absenos of'a chemical fran Appendix 2 of the Supplement 4 ir. no way 'negates' the assessments.dene earlier, for several chemicals Supplerc^r. provides the first formal- assessment of the degree of evidence on the IAFC sea Therefore assessments dene, in^Supplement 4 will represent the IMC views until a re-evaluation is '.j previously evaluated in Mrographs volumes 1-42. The result of these evaiuati Supplement 7 ofthe 'Mcnograph;.series, is ejected to be published early in 193 For the case of most such polymers it was considered that there is inadequate evidence of carcircgenicity in.experlinental animals. Yours sincerely Mrs Edit._, .... . Centers for Disease Control - National Institute for Occupational Safety 8 Health 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati CH 45226-1998 A. Aitlo, M.D Officer In charge. Unit of Carcinogen Identification and Evaluation AP00050047 U.S. Department Of Labor Assistant Secretary so* Occupational Safety and Hea*ft Wasnington. DC. 20210 :w 12 337 Hr, Peter L. de la Crus Keller and Heckman Lav Offices Suite 1000 1150 17th Street/ N.W. Washington/ D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. de la Crust > This is in response to your letter of December 29, 1986, regarding the regulation of vinyl chloride polymers and copolymers. Please aceept my apology for the delayed response. Thank you for the copy of the citation you sent to illustrate the type of Agency enforcement actions that some Vinyl Institute members have experienced and believe to be inappropriate. As you may be aware# this citation has been modified by Settlement Agreement. I would like to clarify the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's requirements for labelling vinyl chloride polymers and copolymers and for providing material safety data sheets for these substances. According to the definition at 29 CFR 19L01017<b)<9) in the vinyl chloride standard# vinyl chloride polymers and copolymers that have never been mass melted# or have only undergone an intermediate mass melting process such as when processed into pellets, are polyvinyl chloride. Such substances must bear labels containing the information specified in 29 CFR 1910.1017(1)(3) or <1)(4), depending upon whether they are waste material or products. Any additional labeling specified in the hazard communication standard# 29 CFR 1910.1200# does not apply to these substances. The material safety data sheet provisions ^ ' of the hazard communication standard do apply to them# hpwever. h Vinyl chloride monomers and copolymers that have been formed into a product by molding# calendering, extrusion or other similar process# and which do not require further processing at temperatures and for times sufficient to cause mass melting resulting in the release of vinyl chloride# are "fabricated products" and exempt from the vinyl chloride standard. These fabricated products would be covered by the labelling and material safety data sheet requirements of the hazard communication standard# however# if the hazard determination required by the standard indicates that further operations done on the products such as sanding# heat sealing# etc.# present a potential hazard to employees. AP00050048 -2As regards the Field Information Memorandum dated October 23, 1975, Subjects Enforcement of Vinyl Chloride Standard with Respect to Low Residual Monomer Resins, which you presented in our October meeting, the document is no longer in-effect. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further Prank A. White Deputy Assistant Secretary AP00050049 DEC l? S7S I'.S. OI-:PARTMr.\T OF LABOR i >.ik'(y .hi,| I ((.,<[(!/ A Jiinrir ,n i< >n .viiiiN-0T\is. c :u- .S( * ; *" Mr. R. JfC. Wheeler , Jr. Vinyl Chloride Resins Manager Union Carbide Corporation 270 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017. JRN 0 2 ^75 ig o N YJHw-tn > Dear Mr. Wheeler: This is in response to your joint letter with Mr. John Whittlesey dated June 17, 1975, petitioning for modifi cations of the Exposure to Vinyl Chloride Standard, 29 CPR 1910.1017 (formerly 1910.93 recodified May 28, 1975). There are no plans presently to amend the Vinyl Chloride Standard. A revised program directive is contemplated, although we are not certain as to the date it will be available. Please be assured that your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated and they will be considered fully in the revision of the program directive. In the meantime, the following administrative decisions have been made: 1. 29 CFR 1910.1017(a) and (b)(6) Scope and application (2), (3) and (b) Definitions (6) The standard defines a fabricated product as being one which is "made wholly or partly from polyvinyl chloride, and which does not require further processing at temp eratures, and for times, sufficient to cause mass melting of the polyvinyl chloride resulting in the release of vinyl chloride." "Release of vinyl chloride" means the release of an amount of vinyl chloride which would' likely result in employee exposure at or above the action level without regard to the use of engineering controls. Products which can be classified as fabricated products are exempt from the provisions of the vinyl chloride standard. All other products are subject to the re quirements of the standard. If the employer uses or manufactures a product which is not a fabricated product, he must initiate monitoring procedures. If the monitoring reveals that the employees are not exposed to vinyl chloride at or above the action level, the employer's operations will be exempt from the > r * i i AP00050050 provisions of the standard, However, if the monitoring reveals exposure at or above the action level, tbs employer Bust implement the procedures specified in the standard. 2. 29 era 1310.1017(b) Definitions (5). ' , The petition requests that the definition of emergency" be revised to include specific examples, such as fire and explosion. We agree that the definition sight veil be expanded to include esasples. Again, this matter will be addressed in h program directive and not as an asendnant to the standard. The definition of a "massive release" as being "greater than 100 parts per million (ppm)" found in the current progrsa Directive #200-35, will also be addressed in a revised directive. He agree that the 100 ppm should 'be changed. 3. ' 29 era 1910.1017(d) Honitoring (4) - The intent of paragraph (d)(4) is that tSe employer shall be 95% confident that his monitoring result is within 25tr 35$ or 50% of the actual value depending on the concentration. ` Therefore,.an employer using a* method which has proven vinyl chloride detection accuracy of 25% or less need take only one, measure ment regardless of the actual vinyl chloride monomer concentration. In concentration ranges where accura cies of 25% or 50% are required, the employer need take only one measurement if the method accuracy is less than the specified accuracy. With methods of unknown accuracy or having errors greater than the specified seeuracyvrcquiremcnhs, repasted measure-- ments are necessary. In these cases, one may use the coefficient of variation (CV) as a parameter to judge whether or not a sampling procedure is adequate to. meet the standard. The cv in percentage units is defined as the standard deviation of the method, times 100, divided by permissible exposure limit.. The required CV of the procedure is obtained by dividing the required accuracy by 1.95 (Z value for 95$ confidence). Thus* for accuracies of 25%, 351 and 50%, method CV values should be less than 12.0%, 17,9%, and 25.5% respectively. AP00050051 3 # .* To repeat/ there are no plans presently to amend the standard but your comments on monitoring will be con sidered in the program directive revision and also in future rulemaking where monitoring is a requirement, 4. 33 era isi0.1017(jJ Training, The standard does not specify a level of exposure to trigger training activities, Seeti'on 6(b)(7) of the Occupational Safety and Uealth Act of 1370 provides that employees shall be apprised of the nature of the baserdous substances with which they come in contact. The evidence ve have compiled on vinyl chloride has indicated that it is sufficiently hazardous to warrant training for all personnel v,*ho havo any possibility of coming in eontact with vinyl chloride. There is always 'the opportunity for accidents to oesur aud em ployees should be awar* of the possible consequences. There has also been some indication that storage con tainers may yield high concentrations of vinyl chloride ' when opened after transporting. 1 Therefore* it is not likely that the training provisions will be amended. ?r those operations covered by the standard* training 'is a requirement, 5. 25 CPS 1310.1017(e), Signs and labels (4) If there are situations where the blended polyvinyl chloride must bo labeled yet contains less then 0.5 ppa residual vinyl chloride monomer/ the following' . wording may be used: ' * BLENDED l*OLSVIHTL CQLCKZDS * (PVC) C0NCAIH3 TRACS MSOCHTS ( 0.5 pp*) OP VINYL CHLORIDE. VINYL CI1LORIDS IS A CAM: :r-3UC?isct AGENT. AP00050052 Ha hope that the above clarifications win satisfy your petition for modification and amendment of the vinyl chloride standard. As previously stated,' there are no plans presently to focaally amend the standard. There will be an addendum or modifica tion of the Program Directive 1200-35. Should you wish to discuss any setter further do not hesitate to contact me or members of ay staff. Sincerelyi Barry irhits Ac so ei'j.'tc Assistant Seesetary for Regional PrciSceas AP00050053 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LASOR Occupational Safety inJ Health AJonstJcracian Washington, o.C. -jzzia OEC 1 7 *75 Hr* Raymond H. Schenck Attorney Air Products and Chemicalsr five Executive Hail 'Swedesfocd Road Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087 Inc Dear Hr. Scheneki This is in response to your letter of June 30, 1975 to Assistant Secretary John 5. Standee petitioning for the modification of 29 era 1910.1017(b)(6), (formerly 39 C?R 19l0.93q(b)(6) recodified May 28, 1975), Exposure to Vinyl Chloride, Occupational Safety and Health Standards. 29 CFR 1910.1017(b)(6) defines a fabricated product as being one which is "made wholly or partly from polyvinyl chloride, and which does not require further processing at temperatures, and foe times, sufficient to cause mass melting of the polyvinyl chloride resulting in the release of vinyl chloride.'1 "Release of vinyl ehloride" means the release of an amount of vinyl chloride which would likely result in employee exposure at or above the action Level without regard to the use of engineering controls. Products which can be classified as fabricated products are exempt from the provisions of the vinyl chloride standard. All other products are subject to the requirements of the standard. There are no plans presently to formally modify the vinyl chloride standard. Therefore, we hope that the the above clarification of the regulation will satisfy your petition request. Should you have further questions, please contact me or members of my staff. Sincerely, Associate Assistant Secretary For Regional Programs AP00050054 L'.S. Dlii'ARTMENT Of: LABOR C<vupuviul $jU::v 4c li.jltr. WASHINGTON*. O.C. iyilU DC l7 1335 Mr. R S. arookman, Manager Research, Development and Technical Services Firestone Plastics Company Pottstovn, Pennsylvania 19464 r-s r Sear Mr. Srookman: In response to your letter of July 14, 1575, oetitioning for modification of the Vinyl Chloride Standard, the following determinations have been made: 1. 29 era 1910.1517(b)(3) Definitions In regards to the dtfiniton of "massive release" in Program Directive *200-35 , we agree that the definition s.nould be modified. This will be addressed in a future program direc tive. in all prooability the stipulation of ICO ppm will be removed. 2. 29 CFR 1910.1017(b)(6) Definitions The standard defines a fabricated produce ss being one which is "made wholly or partly from polyvinyl *nioride, and which does not recuica further processing at .r.nrr a tu; *s , ar.d far times, sufficient to cause mass melting of the polyvinyl chloride resulting in the release of vinyl chloride." "Release of vinyl chloride" means the release of an amount of vinyl chloride which would likely result in employee expo sure at or aoove the action level without regard to the use of engineering controls. Products which can be classified as fabricated products..-arc exemnt from ti..- previsions of the vinyl chloride standard. All other products are subject to the requirements of the st.indeed. It tn-i ataioyer uses or manufactures a product which is net a f 2:. reared product, he must initiate mer.itori.ng procedures. * the tem ito r ing reveals that the employees are not expoovjo to vinyl chloride at or above the action level, the employers' operations will be exempt from the provisions of the sta cord. AP00050055 /--s . . However, if the monitoring reveals exposure at or above the action level, the employer must implement the procedures specified in the standard. 3, 29 CFR 19101.1017(g)(4)(ill) Respiratory protection Regarding your suggestion to add a Type C, Supplied Air Respirator, Pressure Cemand type# with full or half face* piece to this section: If an employer can show that a respirator provides equal or greater protection than those specified in the standard# ' he may be granted an interim order or a variance from the standard. Your company received such an interim order# dated May 30# 1975. 4. 29 CFR 1910,1017(h) Medical surveillance There is no OSHA regulation requiring an employee to submit to a medical examination. If the employee refuses any medical examination required to be provided by the employer, the employer shall Inform the employee of the possible health consequences of sueh refusal and obtain a signed statement from the employee indicating that the employee understands the risk involved by refusal to be examined. We greatly appreciate your sharing data, experience and knowledge with us. At the present time there are no plans to formally amend o.r modify the vinyl chloride standard. We hose that the above clarification of the regulation will satisfy the request in your petition. Should you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. for Regional Programs Copy to T, C. Walker 13/26/75 Conies to Met Hr! Hr. Hr. y,, HT-* Hr. V. 3. J. J. c. J\ ?. s; W. h; ,?T. Of -'D. R; A. Connolly Cassidy, ICleinert Hoy Arnold West Lloyd Park AP00050056 JAN 2 7 JC-75 U.S. DEPAi* uMENT ' LABOR Occupational Safety an-i Hcal^ ' icrunistrmon WASHINGTON, D.C. U10 Mr. Michael F. Saggese Business Manager Teruieco Chemicals, Inc. Foam and Flasdcs Division Nixon, New Jersey C5818 Dear Mr. Saggese: This is to confirm information I fjavo you verbally that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's vinyl chloride standard docs not apply to the handling or use of fabricated products , so long as no mass melt ing of the material is involved. t Mass melting is considered to occur when the physical identity of the particles of PVC and/or the structural form or identity of the material is 1-st. The fcJlrwir.g of rto i.et involve macs inciting! ho* wire cutting of film or sheet, thernoforming, blister packaging, heat sealing, lamination, vacuum forming, heat shrinking, and thermal welding of structural components. This lists the operations we currently know about; Ihorc may be others that would be included. Sincerely, Grover C. Wvcnn Chief Division of Health Standards Development X/C - G.S. Flint 2/3 G. L. Lofcx G. Munyer A.J. Quast AP00050057 'U - m 2 5 1975 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration WASHINGTON, D.C. 20110 Mr. R. N, Wheeler, Jr* Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals end Plastics P.0. Box 8004 South Charleston* Vest Virginia 25303 KLUUVC0 MAR 31197S O N WHFR FR. JR, Dear Mr. Wheelert Your letter dated February 14 suggests that certain of Union Carbide Corporation's vinyl costing resins from its dispersion and solution vinyl resin processes should be considered "fabricated products." In support of that position, you state that the particular resins described are "fabricated" for use and application via coating technology; and further that the dispersion and solution vinyl resins contain less than one part per million by weight of residual vinyl chloride monomer which effectively precludes the possibility of employee exposures in excess of the action level in the subsequent transportation, handling or use of these resins. the Occupational Safety and Eealth Administration standard for vinyl chloride defines a fabricated product as a "product made wholly or partly from polyvinyl chloride, which does not require further processing at temperatures, and for tinea sufficient to cause mass melting of the polyvinyl chloride resulting in the release of vinyl chloride." In reviewing the materials which you submitted, it is agreed that the term "fabricated products" Includes those solution and dispersion polyvinyl chloride resins decrlbed as having application in the formulation of paints and coatings which do not undergo further processing involving mats melting. It should be noted that the vinyl chloride standard would apply in all respects during the manufacturing of the solution end dispersion resins within Union Carbide Corporation facilities. Additionally, employers who used theee resins In applications which would require further processing at temperatures sufficient to cause mass melting of the polyvinyl chloride, would be subject to the provisions of ths standard. Sincerely, Chief, Division of Health Standards Development AP00050058 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION SECRETARY OF LA30R, > Complainant, v. HOOKER CHEMICAL CO,. Respondent, : ; : ; : OSHRC Docket No.78-4862 * DECISION 3efore BARNAKO, Acting Chairman; CLEARY and CQTTINE, Commissioners. 3Y THE COMMISSION: A decision of Administrative Lav Judge Charles K. Chaplin is before the Commission for review pursuant to section L2(j), 29 U.S.C. 5 661{i), of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 55 651-678. Judge Chaplin vacated a citation alleging an other chan serious violation of the standard at 29 C.F.R. 1910.i017(j) 1/ The standard provides, in pertinent part: 5 1910.1017 Vinyl Chloride * * (J) Training. Each employee engaged in vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride operations shall be provided training in a program relating to the harards of vinyl chloride and precautions for Its safe use. The standard secs out the requirements for training programs. AP00050059 a. The Secretary of Labor ("Secretary") filed a letter stating chat the judge's decision should be affirmed. The Secretary stated that "Training requirements are noe applicable in this case because respondent's cited compounding and calendering operations simply are not processes which could result in hazardous exposure to vinyl chloride by the nature-of the operations themselves." He thereby Indicated that he did not wish, to pursue the case. Respondent, Hooker Chemical Company, filed a' brief urgin> affirmance of the decision. Therefore, there is no expression of Interest in Commission review by an aggrieved party. Moreover, the judge's decision raises no issue of compelling public interest. Accordingly, the case will' not be reviewed, and the judge's decision is affirmed. See ?PG Industries (Caribe), 30 OSAHRC ____, 8 SNA OSHC 2001, 1930 CCH DSHD 1 24,733 (Ho. 77-2235, 1980); Abboct-Somner, Inc.. 76 OSAHRC 21/A2, 3 SNA OSHC 2032, 1975-76 CCH 0SHD U 20,425 (No. 9507, 1976). The decision is accorded the precedential value of an unreviewed judge's decision. See Leone Construction Co.. 76 OSAHRC 12/E6, 3 3NA' OSHC 1979, 1975-76 CCH DSHD S 20,387 (No. 4090, 1976), appeal withdrawn. No. 76-4070 (2d Cir. May 17, 1976). SO ORDERED. FOR THE COMMISSION J* DATED WAR 3 1 iset Executive Secretary 2/ In his direction for review, Commissioner Cottine specified the following issue: Whether the Administrative Law Judge erred In concluding that 29 C.F.R. $ 1910.10L7(j) has no application to places of employment where the levels of vinyl chloride in the ambient air are below 0.5 ppm. AP00050060 COTTINE, Commissioner, dissencing: The interpretation of the employee training provision -of the vinyl chloride standard, is a matter of compelling public interest.--^ The Commission is obligated to exercise its responsibility to interpret the standard in this case because the revised enforcement policy of the Secretary of Labor amounts to a modification of the vinyl chloride standard without the rulemaking procedlngs required by the Act, specifically 29 U.S.C. $G55Cb) ^ The Respondent was cited for noncompliance with 29 C.F.R. $1910. 1017(j )--^for failing to provide employee training regarding vinyl chloride 1^/ For my individual views on the assessment of compelling public interest as a basis for Commission review In the absence of party interest, see my seperate opinions in PPG Indus. (Caribe), 1980 OSAHRC , 8 BNA OSHC 2003, 1980 CCH 0SKD 1124,733 (No. 77- 2235, 1980); Cargill. Inc.. 80 OSAHRC 28/D8, 8 BNA OSHC 1980 CCH 0SKD 1124,359 (No. 78-3006, 1980); Keco Indus , Inc. . 78 OSAHRC L05/D9, 7 BNA OSHC 2048, 1979 CCH 0SHD 1124,117 (No. 78-661, 1979); Cargill, Inc., 79 OSAHRC 90/A2, 7 BNA OSHC 2045, 1979 CCH OSHD 1123,981 (Nos. 78-2862 6 78-3864, 1979). 2/ Section 6(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 5655(b), sets forth the procedures by which "(tjhe Secretary may by rule promulgate, modify, or revoke any occupational safety or health standard." 3/ 29 C.F.R. 51910.1017 (j) provides: (j) Training. Each employee engaged in vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride operations shall be provided training In a program relating " to the hazards of vinyl chloride and precautions for Its safe use. (I) The program shall include: (i) The nature of the health hazard from chronic exposure to vinyl chloride Including specifically the carcinogenic hazard; (II) The specific nature of operations which could result in exposure to vinyl chloride in excess of ehe permissible limit and necessary protective steps; (ill) The purpose for, proper use, and limitations of respiratory protective devices; (Continued) AP00050061 Oo 4 for employees working In certain arena of its resin facility that are not "regulated areas" as defined in $1910.1017(e)--4/ and where vinyl chloride concentrations do not exceed the "action level" of 11910.1017(b)(1) The administrative lav judge eoneluded that the cited standard is not applicable "to plaees of employment where VC levels in the ambient air are belov 0.5 ppm", and the citation was vacated. For the reasons that follow, the Judge's decision is inconsistent with the specific terms of the cited provision and should not be affirmed. 2/ (Continued) (iv) The fire hazard and acute toxicity of vinyl chloride and the necessary protective steps; (v) The purpose for and a description of the monitoring program; (vi) The purpose for, and a description of, the medical surveillance program; (vli) Emergency procedures; (viii) Specific information to aid thu employee in recognition of conditions which may result in the release of vinyl chloride; and (xi). A review of this standard at the employee's first training and indoctrination program, and annual)/ thereafter. (2) All materials relating to the program shall be provided upon request to the Assistant Secretary and the Director. 4/ 29 C.F.R. $1910.1017(e) provides: (e) Regulated area. (1) A regulated area shall be established' where: (1) Vinyl chldride or polyvinyl chloride Is manufactured, reacted* repackaged, scored, handled or used; and (li) Vinyl chloride concentrations are in excess of the permissible exposure limit. (2) Access to regulated areas shall be limited to authorized persons. 2/ 29 C.F.R. $1910.1017(b)(1) provides: (b) Definitions, (1) "Action level" means a concentration of vinyl chloride of 0.5 ppm averaged over an 8-hour work day. AP00050062 oo Arguing Co the judge for affirmance of Che citation, Che Secretary cited the preamble accompanying publication of the permanent vinyl chloride standard at 39 Fed. Reg 3S890 (1974) and stated, "since any VC exposure may be harmful, each employee engaged in PVC operations, regardless of how minimal the monitoring results, must be trained, and we recognise no exceptions to the training requirement." (Letter to judge in lieu of brief (March 19, 1979)). Although the cited conditions clearly Involve work areas where employees are engaged in polyvinyl chloride operations, . the Secretary now claims on review that training requirements are not applicable and that this view "is the enforcement policy now adopted by the OSHA national Office In identical situations." (Letter to Commission in lieu of brief (July 6, 1979)). In contrast to the letter submitted to the administrative law judge, the representation on review provides no citation to the standard, the accompanying preamble, or any subsequent revision in support of its new interpretation. This new interpretation is inconsistent with the provisions and structure of the vinyl chloride standard as discussed in the preamble accompanying publication of the permanent standard. The "action level" of one-half of the permissible exposure limit was included in the permanent standard to "minimize the Impact of the standard on the employers who have attained exposure levels well below the permissible limit," 39 Fed. Reg. at 35893, by exempting those low level exposure areas from "some provisions of the standard." Id. (emphasis supplied). Examples of provisions chat do not apply when the action level is not exceeded are AP00050063 medical surveillance (1910.1017(k))-- and periodic monitoring (11910.1017(d') The Secretary stated, "[i)n our judgment, exposures below the action level do not present a sufficient hazard to warrant-application of the entire standard eo the many employers who are or will be below chat level." JCd. (emphasis supplied)/ However, chose provisions thet exempt areas not In excess of the action level specifically include the action level requirement, furthermore, the action level requirement for these provisions was expressly described in the preamble to the promulgating document* 39 Fed. Reg, at 33893, 33895. In contrast, the employee training provision at issue in this case is limited neither by its terms nor by the accompanying explanation in the preamble. 39 Fed. Reg. at 3S895* The standard specifically applies to "felach employee engaged in vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride operations." 11910.1017(j) (emphasis supplied). There is no reference to the action level and no exemption from the clearly stated application of the training provisions. The proper interpretation of the standard is that stated by the Secretary in his letter to the judge; "[Ejach employee engaged In FVC operations, regardless of how minimal the monieorln; results, must be trained, and we recognize no exceptions to the training 6/ . Section 1910.1017(d) states, in pertinent part, (d) Monitoring. a * (2) Where a determination . . . shows any employee exposures, without regard to the use of respirators in excess of Che action level, a program for determining exposures for each such employee shall be established. 2J Section 1910.L0L7(k) states, in pertinent part, (k) Medical surveillance, k program of medical surveillance shall be instituted for each employee exposed, without regard to the use of respirators, to vinyl chloride in excess of the action level. AP00050064 O 7 -P requirement." Any variation froa this requirement must be pursuant to rulemaking consistent with the provisions of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 5655(b)(5). See Florida Peach Grovers Ass*n v. Brennan, 489 T.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1974); United States Steel Corn., 77 OSAHRC 12/C3, 2 SNA OSHC 1343, 1974-75 CCH DSHD 119,047 (Nos. 2975 6 4349, 1974)(lead k concurring oplns.), appeal dismissed, 517 F.Zd 1400 (3d Cir. 1975)* AP00050065 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. HOOKER CHEMICAL CO.t Respondent. OSHRC Docket No. 78-4862 : APPEARANCES Barnett Silverstein, Esq. for the Secretary Bruce L. Harrison, Esq. for the respondent. DECISION AND ORDER Chaplin( Judge In September 1973, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) inspected the worksite of Hooker Chemical Co. (Hooker) and issued a citation for an other (than serious} violation containing two separately stated violations. Hooker contested item 2 which alleged that: Employee(s) engaged in vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride operations were not provided training in a program relating to the hazards of vinyl chloride and precautions for its safe use: a) Calendar tsiej, Compound, and Warehouse^ Areas. At the hearing the Secretary moved to amend the complaint to drop the warehouse area from the citation. This amendment was granted (Tr. 12). AP00050066 oo This was alleged to be a violation of the standard at 29 C.F.R. I9l0.l0l7(j) which provides: Each employee engaged in vinyl chloride or poly vinyl chloride operations shall be provided training in a program relating to the hazards of vinyl chloride and precautions for its safe use. Subparagraphs of this standard delineate the content of such a program. No penalty was proposed but abatement was directed by November 28, 1978. In its answer, Hooker admitted the Review Commission had jurisdic tion of the parties and this matter. A hearing was held February 9, 1979, at which time the parties stipulated (Ex. J-l) that Hooker is engaged In the polymerization of raw vinyl chloride (VC) in its resin facility, takes the resin, adds stabilizers, inhibiters, plasticizers, and colors, mixes and extrudes the product into food grade quality polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pellets in its compound facility; sends the resin through blender, mill, extruder and calender machines to produce vinyl film and sheets, and ships the finished product from its warehouse. The resin facility is a regulated area as defined in 29 C.F.R. lSHMOnte)^ and the calender and compound areas are not and are below the action level (Tr. 170). The Inspection of Hooker's facilities on September 22, 1978, was based on a complaint of inadequate medical testing and training of employees operating the resin facility. The employees working in the resin area are fully trained under section 19l0.l017(j) and employees in the compound and calender areas are not. The untrained employees at Hooker's two plant sites number 275 (Tr. 141,142). (a) Regulated area. (1) A regulated area shall be established where: (0 Vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride is manufactured, reacted, repackaged, stored, handled or used; and (ii) Vinyl chloride concentrations are in excess of the permissible exposure limits. -2- AP00050067 -o THE EVIDENCE Mr. Martin Dubin, an industrial hygienist (CO) with a Master's degree in science and occupational health employed by the Secretary, testified that he conducted the inspection of Hooker's plant and at the opening conference ascertained that employees in the resin facility routinely received training and medical examinations; however, employees outside the resin facility were not trained (Tr. 17). After Inspecting the resin facility he briefly stopped In the compound and calender areas where he looked at the operations (Tr. 18). The citation involved in this case was issued because the compound and calender areas were engaged in PVC operations (Tr. 20). Since compliance with the standard turned on the definition of the words ". . . engaged in vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride operations.. as used in the standard, Mr. Harrison asked him how this phrase was defined and he responded that he looked to the standard at section 1910.1017(a)(2) which states: This section applies to the manufacture, reaction, packaging, repackaging, storage, handling or use of vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride, but does not apply to the-handling or use of fabricated products made of polyvinyl chloride. Other than this, there was no definition (Tr. 21). In answer to my question he stated that n. . . regulated areas. . were all plant areas where the ambient air contained high levels of VC and that VC operations were all those other areas where VC may be In the air1' but not in the high ranges (Tr. 37). On redirect examination he stated that Hooker's records showed VC monomer in the compound area, but below the action level, 0.5 ppm over an 8-hour period. (Tr. 45, SI). He expressed his opinion that every employee involved -3- in VC operations must be trained, no matter how minimal their exposure (Tr. 46). In the calender area ha observed employees calendering, milling and blending PVC to form sheet and roll which he interpreted as PVC operations (Tr. 52). In the compound area the employees were extruding or blending PVC pellets which he considered being engaged in PVC operations (Tr. 53). Mr. Charles W. Kiefert, Division Manager of Safety for Hooker, testified that one of his responsibilities was training employees with respect to VC (Tr. 61). As an offer of proof, after Mr. Silverstein's objection was sustained, Mr. Harrison developed, through questioning of Mr. Kiefert, data respecting industry accident rates compared to Hooker's to reflect where Hooker was applying its assets to improve health conditions. (In its Answer, Hooker had alleged that "Abatement of the alleged violation is economically infeasible." Counsel argues that economic feasibility was an affirmative defense to complying with all standards (Tr. 64--71)). Kiefert also indicated that he spent two days a week in employee safety meetings. In response to Mr. SilversteinTs questions he stated the division of Hooker of which the cited plant was a part had a gross profit in 1978 of approximately $750,000. In reply to my question he estimated his safety budget as being in excess of $100,000 a year. Kiefert stated further that during a strike period, beginning in August * 1978, 37 replacement employees received some training requiring six instructor hours per week (Tr. 82). Each regular employee went to one training session each month so that a weekly meeting was held to accommodate four shifts {Tr, 84). These meetings lasted from 45 minutes to 2 hours. A corporate decision was made that for employees In nonregulated -4- AP00050069 areas, YC training would reduce lima available for training in higher priority safety areas (Tr. 35). The standard alleged to have been violated requires that the training program for employees includes (0 The nature of the health hazard from chronic exposure to vinyl chloride including specifically the carcinogenic hazard* (ii) The specific nature of operations which could result in exposure to vinyl chloride in excess of the permissible limit and necessary protective steps; Oil) The purpose for, proper use, and limitations of respiratory protective devices; (iv) The fire hazard and acute toxicity of vinyl chloride, and the necessary protective steps; (v) The purpose for and a description of the monitoring program; (vi) The purpose for, and a description of, the medical surveillance program; (vii) Emergency procedures; CviiO Specific information to aid the employee in recognition of conditions which may result in the release of vinyl chloride; and (ix) A review of this standard at the employee's first training and indoctrination program, and annually thereafter. Mr. Kiefert was asked to estimate' the cost of estabiishing such a program for the employees in the compound and calendering areas (Tr. 98)* He replied that this could be accomplished in one separate safety meeting. With respect to Hooker's defense that the Secretary had become actively involved in a labor-management dispute (Tr. 22), I ruled that such matter was not germane to the issue before me. However, Mr. Harrison was -3- permitted to make an offer of proof (Tr. 100). Mr. Kiefert testified that Hooker's cited plant was struck at midnight, August 20, 197$, and the strike lasted seven weeks, generating a lot of hostility. The inspection took place during the strike as a result of an employee complaint. Mr, Harold F. Dubcc, Jr., Hooker's Manager of Environmental Compliance, responsible for coordination of all regulatory compliance efforts in the Division here being cited and who had formerly been Division Manager of S&fety and Security, testified that his education included a degree in Chemical Engineering and previous work experience with American Cyanamid for five years as plant safety engineer (Tr. 109). He was a certified safety professional. When asked to whom the standard at 1910.1017(j) applied he expressed the opinion that it only applied to the regulated areas, i.e., areas at or above the action level (Tr. 118, 120). With respect to the nine subjects required to be included in a training program, he stated that monitoring had shown VC levels below the action level, therefore the employees in these nonregulated areas had no need for the specified training (Tr. 111). On cross-examination he stated that Hooker was continuing to monitor for VC and that in the compounding and calendering areas VC was present "In hundredths of parts per million ranges. . ." The basis for his opinion regarding the inapplicability of the standard was that the entire standard only applied to regulated areas (Tr. 121). In an offer of proof, Hooker's counsel took Mr. Dubec through additional incidents occurring during the strike and the training given employees. He said each retraining session took one man-day of the trainer's time and the employees were trained on an overtime basis (Tr. 136). The cost of each training session was the salary for the trainer, publications AP00050071 issued (Ex. R-l <k 2), clerical support time and participating employee wages. He estimated IS additional training sessions would be required to train employees in nonregulated areas and such additional training might require hiring a consultant to do the training. On redirect examination* the CO stated that based on office files and conversations with other employees In his office and of other chemical employers, he believed retraining was given to all employees. In rebuttal, Mr. Kiefert took the stand to testify that he had contacted the three employers mentioned by the CO as retraining its employees and determined that Stauffer Chemical and Tenneco trained the same as Hooker and B. F. Goodrich trained new hires only (Tr. 163). Complainant's exhibit C-l, a pamphlet titled "Vinyl Chloride", published by the U. S. Department of Labor, Occuptional Safety and Health Administration, June 1975, discusses the hazard of VC and points out that "If a fabricating plant tests its air and finds that VC levels are less than 0.5 ppm ('action level'), the plant .is effectively exempted from much of the rest of the standard." (Underscoring supplied). THE ISSUE While the Secretary did not file a post hearing brief, he did submit a letter which rather succinctly states the issue. l .. .since any VC exposure may be harmful, each employee engaged in PVC operations, regardless ofhow minimal the monitoring results, must he. trained, and we recognize no exceptions to the training requirement. Hooker, in its excellent brief, stated the issue in a different cast, i.e.r that ".. .the training requirement applies only to employees working in regulated areas, as that term is defined at (1910] .1017(e)." -7- AP00050072 DISCUSSION The Initial standard governing employee exposure to VC was contained in 1910.93 and established a ceiling value of 500 ppm of air. In April 1974, an emergency temporary standard was promulgated (39 FR 12341) reducing the permissible exposure level to 50 ppm and other requirements Including monitoring and respiratory protection (2910.93q). On May 10, 1974, the Secretary proposed a permanent standard that limited employee exposure to "no detectable level" and added, for the first time, a provision respecting a "regulated area"* In the proposal there was a section (1910.93a(j)(3)) which came under the hearing of emergency situations: (3) Each authorized employee shall be trained in a program relating to the hazards of vinyl chloride and the precautions for safe use. (1) The program shall include: (A) The nature of the fire hazard, and the necessary protective steps; (B) The nature of the toxic hazard, including local and systemic effects, acute and chronic effects including specifically the carcinogenic hazard; (C) The specific nature of operations which could result in exposure to vinyl chloride, and necessary protective steps; (D) The purpose for and application of the medical surveillance program; (E) The purpose for and application of decontam ination practices; (F> The purpose for and significance of emergency practices and procedures; (G) The employee's specific role under normal operating or emergency conditions; (H) Specific information to aid the employee In recognition and evaluation of conditions and situa tions which may result in the release of vinyl cloride; (I) The purpose for and application of specific first aid procedures and practices; (J) A review of this standard at the employee's first training and indoctrination program and annually thereafter. -8- AP00050073 (A separate provision for employee training was added to the final standard rather than including it within the section on emergency situations as in the proposal (39 FR 168970,)) An "authorized employee" was defined (1910.93q(bX2)) as an employee whose duties require him to be in the regulated area and who has been specifically assigned by the employer. Thus we see that initially the Secretary proposed that employees required to work in the regulated area were to be trained for emergency situations in a program relating to the hazards of VC. However, in the permanent standard adopted, and in issue here, these training requirements were imposed on employees engaged in VC. or PVC operations. The Secretary now desires to interpret this to require that virtually everyone employed where VC or PVC is handled be trained. In response to my query he replied that somewhere between the person who delivered raw materials and the president of the employer there was an area where VC operations occurred and clearly the compound and calender areas fit that description (Tr. 56). In publishing the.permanent standard the Secretary'established the concept of an "action level" and he said: Employers who, in fact, are substantially below the exposure limit will be subjected to only minimal burdens by virtue of the 'action level'. . . . .The purpose of the action level is to minimize the impact of the standard on the employers who have attained exposure levels well below the permissible limit. Thus, where the results of monitoring under paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) demon strate that no employee is exposed in excess of 0,5 ppm TWA, employers may, In effect, be exempted from some provisions of the standard ... In our judgment, exposures below the action level do not present a sufficient hazard to warrant application of the entire standard to the many employers who are or will be below that level. -9- AP00050074 From this It may be inferred that even exposure below the action level requires compliance with some part of the standard. The Secretary cites a Commission decision, Travenol Alaska Laboratories, Ino. J__ OSAHHC___ {Docket No. 13593, 1975) (Judge's Decision) in support of its position that employers such as Hooker may not decide what is required of them. However, Travenol dealt with a requirement that monitoring records contain certain data and Judge Burroughs ruled that this was required of all employers required to conduct initial monitoring. Such a holding is in accord with the Secretary's statement by inference that even an employer with exposure levels below the action level had to comply with a part of the standard. But such a holding Is of no assistance in resolving the issue before me. Further, the Secretary said: .. .Employers who, in fact, are substantially below the exposure limit will be subjected to only minimal burdens by virtue of the 'action level' to be discussed below. This accords with the conclusion I have reAChed. In further amplification of the standard he explained that certain programs could be discontinued where exposure was below the action level. When he discussed the"Signs and labels" required he considered it: ., .imperative that a worker be fully informed and that he realize the possible risks involved in his occupation. Coupled with the training requirement in the standard, we believe that the signs and labels required will adequately inform employees of the hazard. Who has to be informed and trained? Quite obviously employees in the regulated areas since ". . . such signs will warn unauthorized personnel to keep out. . He also said: -10 I AP00050075 o <' . . .The pri. r application of most protective f measures requires an amount of training and indoctrination of employees that cannot easily be conveyed on a sign or label.. . Since the signs and labels were to warn personnel entering the regulated areas, the training was intended for regulated area employees. The sole explanation for the new training requirement was* (12) Training. A separate provision for employee training has been added to the final standard rather than including it within the section on emergency situations as In the proposal. The new paragraph provides for training of employees concerning the carcinogenic hazard of VC, emergency procedures, the need for monitoring and an annual review of the standard. It also provides for training of employees concerning the purpose for, proper use of, and limitations connected with respiratory protection. -v Quite obviously the training requirement continues to be an answer to emergency situations as it was in the proposal. When we look to the nature of the training the Secretary requires, it is apparent that they are directed to employees who will be responding to an emergency. Who will respond to an emergency? Fire fighters, first aiders and employees working where the emergency exists logically need to be trained. Is It the Secretary's position that the amount of VC in the air may increase because of the inadvertent release of trapped VC In food grade quality products of the resin facility? If so, monitoring will show this, and as soon as the "action level" is reached a set of requirements is activated. ' |^ It is my decision that if the Secretary intended the standard tol require what Is contended in this case, the standard is inartfully drawn and can only be considered vague, insofar as that Intent is seen. It behooves the Secretary to define the term "VC operations" since he has been so careful to define other trigger terms. -11- o findings of fact O 1. Hooker is an employer who processes raw VC into finished products. 2. Some of its manufacturing facility is "regulated" with respect to VC exposure. 3. The raw VC processes through a resin facility (regulated), where it is chemically changed, to a compound area where substances are added to give it permanence and create "food grade" quality PVC (unregulated) to calender area where finished products are created (unregulated). 4. The amount of VC in the ambient air In the compound and calender areas approaches the nondectable levels, as low as hundreths of parts per million. 5. Employees in regulated areas are trained but those in nonregulated areas are not. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Review Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the issue In this case. 2. The standard at 29 C.F.R. 19l0.i017(j) has no application to places of employment where VC levels in the ambient air are below 0.5 ppm. 3. Hooker did not violate Sec. 5(a)(2) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 654(a)(2)). ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that item number 2 of the citation for an alleged other than serious violation is vacated. Dated: May 7,1979 Hyattsville, Maryland Judge, OSHRC -12- AP00050077 OC_iDt;TP,L PVC RESINS ADDIS t P.02 u. s. spAmfCsrr op labor OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 2156 tfoeddale Boulevard Suite 200 Baton Rouge, Lousielna 70506-1 use Febraury 19, 1988 Occidental Chemical Corporation Hwy 1 it Richardson Rd. Addis, LA. 70710 Re: Worksite - Hwy 1 4 Richardson Rd., Addis, LA 70710 OSHA Inspection 101620532 - H9i17- Dear Sir: Enclosed you will find citations for violations or the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) which may have accompanying proposed penalties. Also enclosed is a booklet which explains your rights and responsibilities under the Act. If you have any questions about the en closed citations and penalties. 2 would welcome further discussion in person or by telephone. You will note on page 9 of the booklet that, for violations which you do not contest, you must (1) notify this office promptly by letter that you have taken appropriate corrective action within the time set forth on the citation: and (2) pay any penalties assessed. Please inform me of the abatement, steps you have taken end of their dates together with adequate supporting documentation; e.g., drawings or photographs of corrected con ditions, purchase/work orders related to abatement actions, air sampling results. This information will allow us to close the case. As indicated on page 10 of the booklet, you may request an informal confer ence with ms during the 15-working-day notice of contest period. During such an informal conference you may present any evidence or views which you believe would support an adjustment to the citation or the penalty. IT you ere considering a request for an informal conference to discuss any issues related to this Citation and Notification of Penalty, please keep in mind that a written letter of Intent to contest muat be submitted to the Area Director within 15 working deys of your receipt of the citation. The running of this contest period is not interrupted by an informal con ference. Therefore, you must take care to schedule the informal conference early enough in the 15-day period to allow time to contest subsequent to the Informal conference, should you decide to do so. AP00050078 OCCIDENTAL PVC RESINS ADu r P.03 If you decide to request an informal conference, please complete the attached notice at the bottom of this letter and post it next to the citations as soon aa the time, date, and piece of the Infernal conference have been determined. Be sure to bring to the conference with you any and all supporting documentation of existing conditions es well aa of any abatement steps taken thus far. If conditions warrant, we can enter into an informal settlement agreement which amicably resolves this matter without litigation or eontest. Sincerely, Paul J. Hansen, Jr Area Director Enclosures NOTICE 32 EMPLOYEES An Informal conference has bean scheduled with OSHA to discuss the citations issued on 2/19/86. The conference will be held at the OSHA office located at 2156 Wooddale Boulevard, Hoover Annex, Suite 200, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70906 on 2 AP00050079 U.S. D*pArtmsnt ol LEDor > Occupational Safety and Hearth Admrnlatratlcn ^ Hwvtr Annex Suite 200 2156 Uooddale Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70606 2 Other 01 ,,To: Occidental Chemical Corporation and its successors Hwy 1 A Richardson Rd. Addis, LA 70710 P.04 * The vtolatlenffl dasoribed In this Citation are alligM to have oc curred on or about the day the Inapaetlon wt mad* unie*i otherwise indicated within the description {Ivan balow. 'll. inspection Sit*; 3. iMuance Data *. inspection Number 02/19/66 10162053? 5. Reporting ID 0625700 7. Optional Report No. 8. CSHO ID H91 1 V 1. Pag* No. 1 01 1 10. inspection Dated): 2/9/se - 2/io/a* Hvy 1 & Richardson Rd. Addis, LA 70710 THE LAW M0UIAE8 that a copy o! this Citation be polled Immediately in prominent plica at or near tha location of v^atienfaj cited below Tha Citation mutt rtmain posted until ttia violation! elted below hava been abated, or for 3 working day* (excluding weekend* an a Federal Holiday*), whichever la longer. Thla citation describes violattane of th# Occupational 9alty and Hatith Aet-af 1970. Tha pamtty(ta] listed below art baaed on that# vlofaitane. You muit abate tha violations ratarrad tom thli CH alien by tha datea naiad balow and pay tha panattiaa prepcaed, unlaaa within is working days (excluding wsekeno* and PidaraJ holiday*) from your receipt of thla Citation and penalty you mail a notice ol oomaat to tha U.S. Oooartmant erf Labor Area Office at tna addrais ehown above. (Sea the enclosed booklet which outlines your right* arid raiponilbllltlaa and should ba read in conjunction with (hi* form.) You art further notified that unlaaa you inform tha Area Director in writing that you intend loeontait the Citation or proposed penalties within 15 working cayi after receipt, Ihie Citation and iha proposed penalties win baeoma a final order of lha Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and may not be reviewed by any court or agency, lisuanca of thla Citation coat not constitute a finding that a vieiaiion of tha Act nta ooeurrad unitu than la a failure to eontait provided for h tha Aet or, If aentaatad, unlaaa tha Citation l< itfirmid by the Review Commlntan. II. ham Number IS. Standard, Regulation or Bootion ot the Act violated 14. Description IS. Data by Which violation Muit 8a Abated ?9 CFR 1910.1017(1X4): Containers of polyvinyl chloride were not egibly labeled: "Polyvinyl Chloride (Or Trade Name) Contains Vinyl Jhloride- Vinyl Chloride is A Cancer-Suspect Agent": (a) Warehouse, bags of polyvinyl chloride resin intended for shipment, PtuMM An Out WMn IS Dtyi a( Racket el Thn Notfftatfea Unle (WMM tS enclosed BootaeQ This Sectfer Mty Be Detached Befors Poiang II. Penalty 0.00 17. Ara* Oirj anPaul J. Hansen, Jr. NOTICEiITTO EMMPPLLOYEES -- The law givss an employe# or hi* r#pr*i*ntatlv* the opportunity to object te any abate ment date eat for a violation If he believee ihe date to be unreasonable. The contest must be mailed to the U.S, Department of Labor Area Offkee at the addreaa shown above within 15 working days (excluding weekends and Federal holidays) of the receipt by the employer of this Cita tion and penalty. EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION UNLAWFUL -- The law prohlbits discrimination by an employer against an employee for filing a complaint or for exercising any rights under this Act. An employee who believes that he has been discriminated against may file a complaint no later than 30 days after Ihe discrimination with the U.S, Department of Labor Area Of- flee at the address shown above. EMPLOYER RI0HT8 AND RESPONSIBILITIES -- The enclosed booklet outlines employer rights and responsibilities and should be read In conjunction with thla notification. CITATION AND NOTIFICATION Of SSNALTY ORIGINAL 03HA-* (Rsv. 1/S4J o.oo PTtfatMtfty ttatOr TThMla injiocw AP00050080