Document DD6y9BGEZpjVOZjedOvkp4Mq5

Westintfiousa Electric Corporation `.aw Ceoanmem ^flinjncus8 3uncinfl 3a'eway Center ='-$5urjn Pennsylvania '5222 'eieccwef 412 5*2 49C5 October 11, 1991 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Honorable Edwin G. Salyers Administrative Law Judge Occupational Safety and Healtb Review Commission 1365 Peachtree Street, N.E,, Room 240 Atlanta, Georgia 30367 (P& Re: Martin v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Docket No. 91-1874 Dear Judge Salyers: In accordance with the Rules of the Commission, I enclose the originals and one copy of the Answer to the Complaint, received by Westinghouse Electric Corporation on September 13, 1991, in the above-referenced matter and the Notice of Appearance of the undersigned counsel for Westinghouse. I request that the originals be filed and that a conformed copy of each be returned to me in the enclosed preaddressed envelope. As shown in the Certificate of Service attached to the Answer, I have served copies of the enclosed documents on the Complainant and the Steward of the Millwrights Union Local 1544. Enclosure Honorable Edwin G. Salyers October 11, 1991 Page 2 cc (w/enclosures) Ralph D. York, Esq. Associate Regional Solicitor United States Department of Labor 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-201 Nashville, Tennessee 37215 Mr. Harry Roberts, Steward Millwrights Union Local 1544 295 Plus Park Boulevard, Suite 203 Nashville, Tennessee 37217 BEFORE THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Respondent. (sr^ ) OSHRC DOCKET NO. ) ) 91-1874 ) ) REGION IV ) ) ) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ) 5^ Nov comes Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the Respondent by and through its undersigned counsel, files this answer and admits, denies and alleges as follows: I. Respondent denies each and every allegation contained in the complaint not otherwise specifically admitted herein. The Respondent denies the allegation of a violation of 'jsciJ Section 5(a)(2) of the Act and the Safety and Health Regulations contained in the preamble to the Complaint. The Respondent neither admits or denies the allegations of Paragraph I of the Complaint in that these allegations set forth conclusions of lav III. The Respondent admits in part and denies in part the allegations of Paragraph II of the Complaint. The Respondent has a place of business in Chicago, Illinois and a principal place of GALLATIN 1 V'-i'-'J business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Further, Respondent is not required to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph II of the cr c=u Complaint to the extent that they set forth conclusions of law as to jurisdiction. IV. The Respondent admits in part and denies in part the allegations of Paragraph III of the Complaint. The Respondent admits that an inspection of the workplace took place on May 30 and 31, 1991 by a representative of the Complainant and that it received a form entitled Citation and Notification of Penalty. v. The Respondent admits in part and denies in part the allegations of Paragraph IV of the Complaint. Respondent admits that the form entitled Citation and Notification of Penalty is attached as Exhibit A and denies the allegations that the violations, which are the subject of the Notice of Contest, occurred at the workplace. VI. The Respondent admits in part and denies in part the allegations of Paragraph V of the Complaint. The Respondent admits that Respondent submitted a notification of intent to contest the citation and Notification of Penalty Items No. l and 2b. The Respondent is without sufficient information and knowledge to form an opinion or belief as to the date the Complainant received the Respondent's notification. The Respondent neither admits or denies the remainder of Paragraph v in that these allegations set forth conclusions of lav. VII. "The Respondent admits in part and denies in part the allegations of Paragraph VI of the Complaint. The Respondent admits that it employed employees at the workplace and that one GALLATIN 2 or more employees were represented by the United Brotherhood of Millwrights, Millwrights Local 1544. The Respondent denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph VI. t|-s =_13 VIII. The Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph VII of the Complaint. Qw IX. A. Respondent denies the allegations contained Paragraph VIII A of the complaint that it violated 29 CPR Section 1926.58(f)(i). Respondent admits that the violation alleged in Paragraph VIII of the Complaint is also alleged in the form attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A, entitled Citation and Notification of Penalty, as Citation No. 1, Item No. 1. B. The Respondent admits in part and denies in part the allegations of Paragraph VIII B of the Complaint. The Respondent '~'-- admits that, under contract, its employees were engaged in the performance of maintenance and repair at a facility operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Respondent lacks sufficient information and knowledge as to the remaining allegations of -- Paragraph VIII B of the Complaint. C. The Respondent admits in part and denies in part the allegations of Paragraph VIII C of the Complaint. Respondent denies that it violated 29 CFR Section 1926.58(f)(2)(i) . The Respondent admits that it did not perform initial airborne monitoring before maintenance and repair operations were conducted on turbine units 1, 2 and 3. [2J 1. With respect to Paragraph VIII C 1 of the jr^cj Complaint, Respondent admits that initial airborne monitoring was not conducted at the initiation of the asbestos encapsulation on g!g] turbine units 1, 2 and 3. GALLATIi 3 2. With respect to Paragraph VIII C 2 of the Complaint, Respondent admits that initial airborne monitoring vaf -sr not conducted prior to the initiation of repairs on turbine units-- 1, 2 and 3. Respondent denies that the work on turbine units 1, 2 and 3 involved asbestos. r-- 0. Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph VIII D except that employees were engaged in maintenance and repair work2 w on the turbine units l, 2 and 3 referred to above. :> E. Respondent denies the allegation of "cited conditions, circumstances, practices, or operations" and admits the remaindejp'C_X-' of the allegations of Paragraph VIII Z. r> F. Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph VIII F.- G. Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph VIZI G. H. Respondent denies the allegations of Paragraph VIII H. X. D8FENS88 TO PARAGRAPH VIII OF THS COMPLAINT A. Respondent alleges that through the data in its possession prior to the encapsulation it was not required to monitor the air* This data consisted of: I^J '^4 1. Its knowledge of the design of the Westinghouse turbines and the fact that the fixed cloth insulation was "nonfriable;" Lrr------i --1Ji 2. That the fixed cloth insulation at the relevant times was non-friable and did not present a risk of exposure of asbestos fibers to the employees; and u--i~l r-_s GALLATIN 4 3. The condition of the fixed cloth insulation was verified and confirmed by a representative of the Tennessee Environmental Protection Agency before the encapsulation operation was conducted by one employee. 4. Respondent further alleges that only after this data was obtained and reviewed did one employee encapsulate the fixed cloth insulation. B. The provisions of 29 CFR Sections 1926.58(f)(2)(i) and (ii) authorize encapsulation without airborne monitoring if data is available with respect to the work to be performed. The provisions of 29 CFR Section 1926.58(f) (2) (ii) applied to this work. c. The employees engaged in the repair operations on turbine units 1, 2 and 3 were not engaged in activities that required work that could release asbestos fibers in excess of the action level and/or excursion limit. D. Prior to initiation of work on turbine units 1, 2 and 3 Respondent had bulk samples taken from the areas covering the bolts and flanges to determine if asbestos was present in these areas. Prior to work on these units Respondent received the test results of the samples taken on each,unit and these tests demonstrated that asbestos was not present in these areas. E. The workplace was not subject to 29 CFR 1926.58 since the repair operations on turbine units 1, 2 and 3 did not involve asbestos. The articles, or class of articles, that were being repaired are not identified in 29 CFR 1926.58. F. The diligence of Respondent and its knowledge of the turbine units 1, 2 and 3 made it clear that the employees would not be exposed to asbestos. GALLATIN 5 XI. A. Respondent denies the allegations contained of Paragraph IX A. ,r\ Mi B. The Respondent admits in part and denies in part the allegations of Paragraph IX 8 of the Complaint. The Respondent admits that, under contract, its employees were engaged in the performance of maintenance and repair at a facility operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Respondent lacks sufficient information and knowledge as to the remaining allegations of Paragraph IX B of the Complaint. C. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph IX C of the complaint. 0. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph IX 0. E. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph IX E. F. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph IX F. G. Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph IX G. is'zj XII. DEFENSES TO PARAGRAPH IX OF THE COMPLAINT isrz <C A. The Respondent maintained an office in a mobile trailer that was within 60 feet of the workplace. There were also trailers used for change rooms. The workplace was generally subject to the weather and climatic conditions since the walls and roofs over the turbines were generally removed before work began. GALLATIN 6 B. The Respondent maintained material safety data sheets in a red three ring binder in the trailer office. ,r\ C. The employees had daily access to the trailer office which contained: 1. The only telephone for the employees to use; 2. The employees' timecards; project; 3. The shop drawings for the turbines and the 4. All payroll activities; and 5. The manuals that the employees were required to use from time to time in order to perform their assigned jobs. 0. The office was the only feasible structure in which documents could be maintained on the worksite that was accessible to Respondent and its employees; that was heated/air conditioned; that was indoors; and that was not subject to adverse weather conditions. E. The Employees also had access to the trailer office to obtain tools or materials from time to time as the employees required. F. The employees had access to the trailer office to also 1(251 review the material safety data sheets in the red three ring binder. - GALLATIN 7 m o RELIST REQUESTED Respondent respectfully requests that the Commission dismiss 00 Weitinghouse Electric Corporation Room 2100 Westinghouse Building 11 stanvix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 642-5815 <i OALUTIM 8 on - ^; 1 D=a CERTIFICATE OF. SERVICE .n `O :a L~?a I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Answer with attachments, thereto, including the Notice of Appearance, were mailed this 11th day of October, 1991, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following: oo Ralph D. York, Esq. Associate Regional Solicitor United States Department of Labor 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-201 Nashville, Tennessee 37215 Mr. Harry Roberts, Steward Millwrights Union Local 1544 295 Plus Park Boulevard, Suite 203 Nashville---Tennessee 37217 tE. wills, Jr. for ;inghouse Electric Corporation ip-i ills! p- -i Mi r--\ ^9 /> U.S. Department of Labor Ctfice of :re Sonc-cr Nashvi11, Tennessee NOTICE OP APPEARANCE In the Matter of: Martin v. Weatinghouse Electric Corporation Docket No. 91-1874 The undersigned hereby enters an appearance as a representative of Weatinghouse Electric Corporation____ Name: Roger E. Wills, Jr. the^abgxa=fl^ p-tio- ned- matter. 0 obei 1991 Title: Chief Counsel Employer/Organization: Nature of Organization: Signat Weatinghouse Electric Z_______________________________ Manufacturing Address: Weatinghouse Building, Room 2100 11 Stanvix Street Phone: Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 642-5815 m DESIGNATION OP REPRESENTATIVE I hereby certify that Roger E. Wills, Jr. whose appearance is noted above, is authorized to act as ay representative r^j in the above matter, to discuss all facts and information related ; thereto, to negotiate a settlement, and to accept service of pleadingjjgji and other legal process on ay behalf. liscd jfaiae. ______Robert S Peters Date: October 11, 1991 Title: Assistant Secretary Employer/Organization: Nature of Organization: Address: Signature: Weatinghouse Electric Corporation Manufacturing Weatinghouse Building, Room 1728 11 Stanvix Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 642-3079 id gs)