Document 71rBgR6MER7zyO5bpgyeOr6QR

t> o+ A y r <z #j PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT SH-1917 v. .* x? / s/ `/ / %S ,, <?&&/ t | [i.m 008453 DPMC 01930.1 August 29, 1985 K.C. Crawford J.L. Rivard * Re: OSHA's Hazcom Regulation A copy of the OSHA field compliance manual on Hazcom is provided for your information. Distribution to other locations may be useful. John;; see pages A4, for their position on "tank trucks", and A6. Interesting reading. 5.^ cc: -e6b Satellite PJS Chron CHBT8524101 P. J. SNYDER DPMC-01934 LAM 008457 48794 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27. 1985 / Proposed Rules pending in the D.C. District Court is Information 'and Consumer Affairs,;. ,...- of this hazard information will soon be closely looking at the assets of the ;. . OCcuptational Safety and Health .'. , respondents .and if successful, can. . Administration, Room N3637,200,..? available in the industrial sectors outside of manufacturing Just by virtue . distribute to iconsujnera any assets that :. Constitution Avenue NW,, Washington,.. of the fact that it will have to be -~ might be subsequently discovered.' ^ DC 20210; (202)*23r8148. generated by manufacturers to comply . Further investigation. by the Commission v SUPPUEMEMTARr iNFORMATCOfCOh !;v with the requirements of the current.-= of the financial states'of respondents tsi! *. November 25,1983, OSHA published a;--;, rule. In addition, the HCS requires labels unwarrahtedj'since itwould largely'/'.^ final fide in the Federal Register entitled to be placed on containers of hazardous duplicate the efforts of the classactioh''/ * "Hazard Communication" (29 CFR ; ^ chemicals regardless of where the suit /v;;*- ?' v -* v 1910.1200; 43 FR 53230). Hie standard container is being shipped. Thus the. : . The purpose of this analysis is to X-' - requires diemical manufacturers and label information is already mandated ,r facilitate public comment on the Importers to assess the hazards of 1;?^ ' throughout all industrial sectors. The proposed orders, and it Is not intended V. chemicals which they produce or Import,, Agency anticipated that once the rule to constitute an official interpretation of ` and to transmit information on iudri.?s"\h goes into effect, the situation in the non- . the agreemehts and proposed orders or.'.. hazards to employees and employers in - ' manufacturing industries could be ..v .j.-. / the manufacturing Sector Standard'X4X.Xassessed to. verify whether llje < '< , ? Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes ZtjX.^information is actually becoming - 'Scfo through 39, by means of container labels'", 'available, or whether additional,-;;. >r* ; and material safety data sheets. 'X-'.'/. rulemaking would be required to eftsure, Employers in the manufacturing sector. . that it Is transmitted. ,^,',.. > ,>. ? are requiredJ^o provide irtfonnatiqn ; ,;>. 't t' / .The Agency's determination of the concerning hazardous chemicals fo tHeir ' appropriate.scope of industries to be . f employees b^infdns''(n.luuM^13^^^ covered was challenged in the United communication pro^mi'ihese,'^^'^?,1. States Court of Appeals for the Third', ',' Occupational &fety and Health 29 CFR Parts blO, 1915. and 1928 i,. irogramsare to iqclude'cpntahrer'^X^'XX.ChouIt {United Steelworkers ofAmerica abels. material safefy data sheet8r ''XS X v- AocAre/i763F.2d 728 (3d Cir. 1985))./ trainlng/and access^to written records// , Hie petititonerS argued that other-.'4 The'underlying purpose .of the jjule is.. employees should be explicitly covered (Docket No. H-22D1 \S.-J -'? Tr, It [ Hazard Communication; Advance lisdi. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking agencV: Optional S^hdHeaithX to reduce the Incidence'of chemical , by the rule, and that OSHA had , source illnesses and Injuries through 'X']. inappropriately drawn a distinction in . increased availability ofbifbrmatipn' X i terms of protection offered to employees a'bou.t the^hazard.s of the che/micals, if - - jn the various non-manufacturing: X;X' (ndustries where employees are exposed to hazardous chemicals. ... . - action; Advance Notice'of Proposed . Rulemaking . Hie Third Circuit issued its opinion on measures for their employees, ff May 24,1985. The Court essentially . =. emplbyeea have such,infonnatibn,they^ agreed with OSHA's analysis that, - will be better able to prp.tect th.emselyes,;' based upon the rate of chemical source i and to,support and phrtiQipaip^n,thelrX . illnesses and injuries, the need fofc;/i-.uf . expanding the'scope of ihdustries .^ .'i^ covered by its Hazard Cominunicatfoh'1^ Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200),X which currently'covers '?~rX? V employer's proteQtive1prbgramS.^r' " ' Although employees in many;*"" industries are exposed to hazarobuif jV . chemlcal8, pSHA detenniiied that the' -^X hazard communication programs may be greatest in manufacturing, but the .Court. did not concur that this determination. should be used to.support not explicitly;., ' ; manufacturing' divisiori,'to'dtKefj.X'< f industries where employeestare exposed to hazardous' chemicals. In addition, the . need for hazard co'mmuhicatiph;*^;;^' covering the other industries. The Court; - programs',! alleviate the. risks of such'^0,exposures was greafest in the' C'tf'ifijj-i- / was also unpersuaded by OSHA's ;*/'. arguments that information will become Agency Is also considering reopening/1'.-the rule to clarify'several specific issues" . relating to its scope, and IsTtereby !:` requesting further inforihation regardirig' these date: Comments must be received on or..- manufacturing sectof. (For a detailed avij. A available In the non-manufacturing v':/. discussion of this determination pleasesector when the current rates Is in place, see the preamble tolhe final rule, 48 FR an that the particular circumstances " 63284-80, November 25,1983). Although" justified a differentiationbetween.Vv ;. manufacturing constitutes about 30% of industries in teirms of coverage under i> total employment,jts employees account . the priority-setting discretion given tox / for more than 50% of the chemical ' the Secretary of Labor by section 6(g) of before February K, 198tL/^'XiY X source illnesses and injuries, that are - . the Occupational Safety and Health Act, ; ADDRESS: Written comments must be XX' reported each year, Hius there appears29 U.S.C. 655(g). Although the Court. - submitted. In quadruplicate,'to die v uto Lbea a disp_o_rpIoart.iojnfa_t_e__n_e_e_d__fo_rLh_a_vi:n_g_ acknowledged that "Section 6(g) clearly Docket Officer, Docket No. H-022D, information about hazards in the ..-.y permits the Secretary to set priorities for Room N3070, Occupational Safety and N manufacturing sector,/ r1 :-r the use of the Agency's resources, and to Health Administration 200 Constitution. ; . In addition, since the.chemicals are r.X promulgate standards sequentially," the Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;;..: developed arid produced in the - Court found that OSHA "failed" to / (202) 523^7394. Written .comments , manufacturing eector. the hazard' ,. .w ; explain "why coverage of workers i received, as well as all other,-.' r .. infprmation has to be generated there -?' outside the manufacturing sector would information In Docket H-^22, will be ',- : first, regardless of which other * -. . have seriously impeded the rulemaking available for inspection and copying at industries are covered. The producers of process" or "why it is not feasible for , this address, Monday through Friday... the.chemicals are in the best position to, the same standard to be applied in other 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.. //- \j`. ?/ >: v! ascertain the hazards, and to pass that -;, sectors where workers are exposed to - . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information on to their customers using: similar hazards." 763 F. 2d at 738.: Mr. James F. Foster, Director, Office of the materials. OSHA believes that much Therefore, in light of the Court's DPMC-01931 LAM 008454 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 229 / Wednesday. November 27, 1985 / Proposed Rules 48795 decision OSHA is reconsidering the application of the HCS to employees'in. non-manufacturing sectors, r; ;.- . The reconsideration of this I^sue had already been initiated by OSHA prior to the issuance of the Court's opinion. On March 4,1985, the Assistant Secretary of. tabor for OSHA asked the National. ~ ` Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSffl to give. OSHA its recommendation on the need and feasibility of expanding the scope of, coverage of the Hazard Communication Standard. On June 21,1985 NACOSH adopted the following recommendation: / (NACOSH] strongly endorses the > ' OSHA effort to promulgate a Hazard Communication Standard and selection of the manufacturing sector for its . scope of (^overage. It is the consensus' recommendation of the Committee that" the scope of th^ Communication Standard within the industries outside:- :: manufacturing, and the appropriateness : of covering those industries in a manner similar to the coverage of pianiifacturing in the current rule. Duplicate ' k ? ' submissions of information previously specific hazards? How is a `*" ; determination made regarding the- *; / appropriate protective measures to be V implemented in this situation? ' V, ; 8.Are "consumer products" ujsed in this industry in a manner that results in H , industries to which the information hazard information obtained forthese. ' supplied applies (by SIC Code if products?..'. f. ; :-0V. possible).-., _'"/ 9, Is this industry subject to stater ' c's-ji v- 2. What is the current industry' _ initiated "right-to-know" laws? What p--r-a-c--t-i-c-e--r--e-g--a--r-d--in--g--h--a--z--a-rrd -~ - - ,, * ' hhaftsfi bKepepnti tthfiep i(nndftuiisfitirrvy''fsi experienc'ed communication?Do employers generally? unddr such state Ikws? Are there;^/* have written hazard communication v , particular provisions that have programs? Are containers labeled? Are ^ -- * * "-- * /. ' S'*** ' the aspects'of hazard wuuumuuiuuu , industries at as early a time as possib^; ^ ^ c^nfly implemented in tHe^" -reoga.--rdingo-e-x--t-e-n--d--in-go,t-h--e--s-c--o--pe ~tqcbvef' CompleteImplemenatioa may requr^^, ' industry? Please indicate by specific*4 './/1 other industries, there are several areas?*' phasing in gradually. The BLS. Kfcidence activity if possible. i.e. costs for training^; .In the current standard where a iiumberrf - rates of occupational Illnesses. and H,,:,w. ,,n the riresent j- of questions have been raised-i^,^.^;^':- developed r of for HthaezraurldemCaokminmgunicatiloonh iic-i:'. 4. If OSHA extended the provisions of ;', the specific way in which the problems (Docket H-022) reveals that while thheerree':":- the Hazard Communication Standard to'"' may be addressed.':'..- - is considerable information concerning '/ this mdustriy as wwrriittteerCn whafpprobrlemo,: jqb. The sltaendard imncludes msu ';. worker exposure to hazardous" `! might anreln obtain!^ ortranamitting-.. .- aaMdes". ^ereJre4V; chemicals in Iindustries other than mroijnauonr ir or example, are, been many questions regarding this' manufacturing, there Is very little '- ; ; . there special problems associated wifh r^ Exemption,'and apparent confusion^'?. information concerning current practices - J^e agricultural.industry or smalT- of employers in those industries, or the businesses?) What solutions to these: * anpnptilricaahibtSiliHtyr'oAfr tthlwe prirmoviisiionnnsa aams ........ ': p- roblems can .y,.ou tas--sest that wo, uld..V... presently drawn when considering the still result in employees getting the diverse types' of workplaces that'may be - information they tle^d?^; :n --j.-r. f; encountered.-Vrvivg -'i 5. Does this industry have fixed work:. The purpose of this: notice is to re? sites? If not. Is there some central point ~ : open the record to collect specific -': '.tv/ where information could be made information In these areas so that the ?.. accessible? Agency can respond to the Court's vN/; ./ - - 6. Does this industry have transient direction, In order hot to unnecessarily >. workers? What current practices, are .; -aib--ou*t *th-e- -a--ppllcationdf the._--provislon as .-' written. Does the`'article" defirutioh'. \V and exemption ln the curTerit fule apply ',.', - . to products produced or used in your. V industry? If so, has if been difficult to ' \'r~. apply the definition to these products?,' . ' Whafsuggestions do you have for.- V'/.V.. ).- ; modifying of clarifying the definition' and exemption to address these', : .; ' difficulties?^;Vii ' -iW'- ' delay the regulatory process,.the rr.- u ! : used to ensure such workers' are VC comment period.established is relatively -. apprised of the bazaids they may'.' `V -I " 11. The Hazard Communication.- '^'/ Standard exempts wood and wood >; short (60 days), and the questions are.' encounter on the site? Is there ,training ( products, such as lumber and paper,- specific to those areas where - -; __ or information specific to the types of^;V from'covefage. Although these products information is.lacking. OSHA requests ,, ~ jobs performed? '^ ' - - ^ maybe flammable or'ccoomnbustible, this 7" that respondents address these>,,, ........ 7. To what extent are hazardous . 'potential hazard is considered to be- questions, keying each responsee to the ' V chemicals'purchased from retail : unmistakable, and provision of;' : number of the question it applies toVand ' distributors? Hovy is information Information for this type of hazard was provide as muqi Substantive da>ttafl nastt'^^ V nohbttfallinnpeHd nabbonuiltt ttlhlOefslPe rcfhlpemmticrfalllfsl wwlhiPennM''1'k' -! r tlUhoUuiwgthkVt tjAo kbea' .umnnnAeacaeesVseaMryr.'nOCStHA did' - possible. Although all information is v purchased from these types of - 'i' not intend that this exemption Include welcome, an extensive record already. - " establishments? Do the retail -?r ^ ' "wood dust", a substance for which the / exists, and all information in that record ' distributors provide hazard information? American Conference of Governmental' ` will be used. It should also be noted that ; Are manufacturers contacted directiy Industrial Hygienists has established ; the need for the standard has already for the information? If so, has this been exposure limits, but some have. v ..: been demonstrated, and the information ..' a successful approach? Are employees ' interpreted it that way. Would it be : required at this point is to. establish thev : exposed to the chemical involved appropriate to clarify that the "wood current status of hazard communication' /" without receiving information about the and wood products" exemption does not DPMC-01932 LAM 008455 46736 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 229 / Wednesday. November 27, 1985 / Proposed Rules apply tp "wood dust"? What problems ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Indiana.1 These operating permits were might result from this clarification. i.e_ AGENCY ; issued by the City of Indianapolis Air ' is there any situation where coverage of Pollution Control Division, were wood dust would not be appropriate? *40 CFR Part 52 subsequently adopted by the State, and 12. The rule includes a "floor" of ' hazard chemicals, that is, it incorporates by reference several lists of chemicals' and slates that the'substances on these * lists are to be considered hazardous in v [A-5-FRL-2927-11 : ! - :U.S; Approval and Promulgation of -1;`, Implementation Plans: Indiana.: all situations. Nuisance dust appears on agency: U.S. Environmental Protection these lists; Since any dust can be Agency (USEPA)./"., : considered a nuisance dust in some . ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. situations, OSHA father clarified this r- . coverage in its compliance directive on -; summary: This notice proposes to -s ." i the rule (CPL 2-2.38) by stating that only approve certain emissions limitations /' those dusts listed by the American/1 ' and compliance techniques contained in Conference of Governmental Industrial *' '' operating permits for three coke pven contain emission limitations and . compliance techniiiues for cokebVeh 1 ' doors and pushing and quenching , operations. Citizens Gas and Coke is ; located in Marion County's Center . / Township, which Is designated as a primary nonattainment area for TSP (40 CFR 81.315). ' ; . .; The requirements for an approvable SIP are described Jn a "General. . t ` Preamble" for Part D rulemakings ,, -/. published at 44 FR 20372 (April 4.1979) .. 44 FR 38583 (July 2,1979), 44 FR 50371 (August 28,1979). 44 FR 53761 .v ". , Hygienists in the nuisance particulate/*' appendix of its annual Threshold Limit Value publication would be'covered by-*the Hazaid Communication Standard.': Would it be appropriate toVemove '.? nuisance dust from thechemicalain batteries located at Citizens Gas and ; .f: (September 17,1979), and.44 FR 67182k,.'. Coke Utility in Indianapolis (Marion.' :. (November 23,1979). For. a TSP SIP/. . / County), Indiana, but to disapprove two :' revision fo be acceptable in meeting the ; limits for Coke Battery No. 1.,Citizens "> applicable requirements of Part D,.. . ', Gas and Cokejajocated in a portion of,; ^' unless a coinpletely'apprbvable modeled Marlon County whlch U designated as a attainment demonstration ls.submitted, .,. covered by the standard its a health' u ; v primary honatiatomeht area for /-/m'r aU emlssIon points at industrial sources > hazard? Are there situations where; -v-// "particulates (40 CFR 81.315). Indiana id/: : must begoverned by approvable labels, material safety data sheets, and / submitted these limits as a revision to.';..--',-' reasonably available control technology t training would be useful to employees:'- the Indiana. State Implementation Plan V f (RAClJ emission limitations,' and all. . , exposed to these chemicals?. -; '-j. V ' " for Marion Countyv^.T*/; Kv> other applicable Section 110 q Ihibhc Participation date: Comment^ on this action are due;/ requirements must be met, e.g^ test by January 27,1986.'" 3..: -M v. "-/ methods, inspection procedures, - . ., - All written comments in response to f.-r this notice must be received on or before February 25,1986, in quadruplicates > .. 1 addressed to the Docket Officer. Docket / addresses Copies of this proposed ' '; revision are available for Inspection at the following addresses: ,'V. O' ' compliance schedules. Additionally, - present emission limits in these areas cannot be relaxed without an attainment' > demonstration. ; ;. '/ No. Hr022D, Room N3670, Occupational U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, - Specifically, for the coke batteries at Safety and Health Administration, 200' Region V, Air and Radiation Branch, ;V Citizens Gas and Coke Utility, two of . Constitution Avenue NW.t Washington. 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, .' the three units at the Utility (Batteries H ; DC 20210: (202) 523-7894. All written / 1: Illinois 60604 4?Vi: vri:- > k & 'and E) are currently Federally regulated ~ submissions, as well as other' //'/. . v? ; Indiana Air Pollution Control Division, /X' by SIP regulations only. However, the /J - information gathered by the Agency," ./ Indiana State Board of Health, .1330-> third unit at th Utility, Coke Battery No, - will be considered in anyaction taken.,' 1. West Michigan Street Indianapolis,k ' / 1, is additionally regulated by . Written comments and materials j Indiana 46206. '</'/ construction permits issued by the State ; submitted in response to this notice will Written comments should be sent to:. " and the City of Indianapolis in 1978. The - ` be available for inspection and copying in the Docket Office, Room N3670, at the / ' above address, between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. 4. . . ' / , Gary CuIeziah, Chief, Regulatory i ik / requirements to these construction / c Analysis Section (5AR-26), Air and / X';' permits are also Federal enforceable. In Radiation Branch, U.S. Environmental k; 1983, the City of Indianapolis Issued the: Protection Agency, Region V, 230 South' ': operating permits referenced above, Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604.' - which added certain, identia! emission - ; Authority and Signature... ' ' - limitations and operating conditions at '1 This document was prepared under 1 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT! Robert B. Miller Regulatory Analysis / all three units for doors, pushing - v; // operations, and quenching operations. the direction of Patrick R. Tyson, Acting Section (5AR-26), U.S. Environmental, / The limits to the operating permits and ' Assistant Secretary for Occupational Protection Agency, 230 South Dearborn /, Safety and Health, U.S. Department of tabor,'200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. It is Issued - . pursuant to section 6(b) and 8(g) of the " Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.655,657). " Street Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-. 6031/ .; ; . . ,:.r SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On / January 18.1984. the State of Indiana/*; (State) submitted as a revision to the . / Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) 'Operatingpermit* tnlrufiana are Issued Tor limited period of time. These three Citizens Gal and Coke operating permits expired in June 1384- On . October 2St 1984. the City of Indanapolia issued new ; operating permits to Citizens Gaa and Coke which ... contain aimOar requirements for Batteries E and H to those on which USEPA is proposing rulemaking' Signed at Washington. DC. this 22nd day of. November. 1985.; Patrick R. Tyson, Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Occupational ' Safety andHealth. : '' (FR Doc. 85-28354 Filed 11-25-85:11:17 am] BILLING COOE 4S10-2S-M : > for total suspended particulates (TSP) : ' certain operating conditions and limits. ` These were contained in Certification of Operation (operating permits) Nos." . 06895,06896, and 06897 and are . applicable to three coke batteries at Citizens Gas and Coke Utilities, the only coke batteries in Marion County/ today. For Battery 1. the new operating permits does not reflect the State's SIP aubmitlaL but the underlying construction permit These new. enforceable permits must be submitted to USEPA before will go lo final rulemaking on Ihe actions in today's proposaLIf similar requirements for ' ' / ' Batteries E and H are not submitted. USEPA will / disapprove all Items In today's proposaL because . they do not meet the Stale (local] enforcability requirements of 40 CFR 51.22. DPMC-01933 LAM 008456