Document EvoK78V97E8k3kRX81k87qNpj

CURRENT REPORT -AV9 Q6HFL /fe 1325 rule "is far-too restrictive and invalidates alternative dBA be inchurcd in the time weighted average, receive ad dosinTeter types which would be equivalently effective," de ditional consideration and review before the amendment Bernardo said. Regarding testing booths, the Fnamber at becomesjcffective. torney, said that "essentially laboratory conditions" would be required to meet the low frequency noise specifications for the Booths, which he called an "irppracticat and un workable requirement." Asbestos LAM 016840 There is^confusion in the standard'of the terms "noise' OSHA INSTRUCTION GIVES PROCEDURES and "dose" which causes "significant ambiguity." FOR DOCUMENTING PAST EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE Training program requirements are excessive and pre sent "the potential for harassment of employers." Recordkeeping requirements are "far too excessive and costly," particularly for /small and medium-sized businesses. The calibration\ requirements for dosimeters and audiometers are "exhaustive" and require more testing than necessary to ensure acc Projections of the Yiuwiber of workers covered by the amendment, the overall cosXof compliance, and the cost per worker for compliance are "badly underestimated." The requirements that ohly audiologists, qualified physicians, and otdlaryngologistsVvaluate audiograms and perform certain mities is "excessively costly and an inef ficient use of limited professional resources since trained technicians ancr qualified nurses could\idequately perform such responsibilities." The agetfcy miscalculated the effect o\impulse noise on measurements. The Chamber has sought to stay the ruleXsince it was issued oi/jan. 16 (Current Report, Jan. 22, p\833). Last month, /he Chamber proposed to Reagan's taskVforce on regulatory reform that the eight-hour time-weighted, noise exposure to which workers must be exposed to be included in Procedures for documenting past employee exposure to airborne asbestos fibers when concentrations can not be measured by taking of air samples on the day of the inspec tion or thereafter were detailed in an Occupational Safety and Health Administration instruction issued Feb. 18. The instruction, CPL 2-2.21A, sets guidelines for deter mining whether asbestos had been used or handled regularly at the workplace -- or, if it had been used or handled on an irregular basis, whether employees were exposed to "significant amounts" of asbestos-containing dust -- for the purposes of the medical examination requirements of the asbestos standard (Reference File, 31:8306). Compliance officers are instructed to obtain monitoring results from the employer or contractor, or from other sources. Information necessary to document asbestos use or handling is to be obtained through employee, employer representative, or union interviews, and through written employer information if it exists. The instruction cancels a similar document issued in Oc tober 1978 but. except for the addition of the procedures for documenting past exposure, leaves it essentially unchanged (Current Report. Nov. 2, 1978; Reference File, 21:9158). Text of the instruction follows. industrial hearing conservation programs under the new rule be raised from 85 dB to 90 dB (Current Report, Feb. 19, p. 1266). ORC Petition Text of OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.21A Subject: 29 CFR 1910.100I(j)(2), (3) or (4), Minimum Airborne Fiber Concentration for Initiating and Continuing Asbestos Medical Examinations. -A similar petition requesting suspension of/ le effective A. Purpose. This instruction provides uniform inspection dhle of the Occupational Safely and Health ^ministration's and compliance procedures for the medical examination re new, hearing conservation amendment, fufl review of the quirement in the asbestos standard. record compiled on the amendment, andxt reopening of the B. Scope. This instruction applies OSHA-wide. recorchalso was submitted March 2 to/5ecretary of Labor C. Cancellation. OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.21, October Raymond J. Donovan by the Organization Resources 1 1, 1978, is canceled. Counselors. Inc. D. /lotion. OSHA Regional Administrator and Area Direc ORC critTCized the amendment f<pf relying on specification tors shall assure that enforcement of 29 CFR 1910.1001 rather than performance criteria and for being too technical (j)(2). (3) or (4) is consistent with the guidelines in G. of ly complex for most employees'. "In our view, OSHA can this instruction. solve the broaakproblem and many of the specific problems E. Federal Program Change. This instruction (contained in theximendment'j only if it substitutes a perfor describes a Federal program change which affects State mance standard for the excessively specification-oriented programs. Each Regional Administrator shall: amendment." the organization stated. 1. Ensure that this change is forwarded to each State ORC shares similar' concerns with the Chamber of designee. Commerce about aXnumber of issues, including 2. Explain the technical content of the change to the State specifications for test booths, recordkeeping requirements, designee ns requested. specifications required for dosimeters, whether dosimeters 3. Ensure that State designees are asked to acknowledge are reliable under the requirements of this program, receipt of this Federal program change in writing, within 30 definitions of significant threshold shift and revised baseline days of notification; to the Regional Administrator. This in the program,'enforcement and\eed for the 14-hour quiet acknowledgement should include a description either of the period, requirements for audiomerer calibration, training State's plan to implement the change or the reasons why the requirements; effect of impulse noise wr measurements, and change should not apply to that State. limitation of audiogram review to certain physicians. 4. Review policies, instructions and guidelines issued by In addition. ORC requested that several issues, such as the the State to determine that this change has been com cost effectiveness of the amendment, the nuniber of workers municated to State program personnel. Routine monitoring The covered and the resulting overall cost of the amendment, the activities (accompanied inspections and case file reviews) 10.2 provision for employee monitoring of the program/possible shall also be used to determine if this change has been im confusion between the requirements of the amendment and plemented in actual performance. those/ of the old standard, the handling of computer F. Hue kg rouml. OSHA has determined that generally prog/ams. and the requirement that noise levels as low as 80 citations should, as a matter of policy, be issued for 3-t?8i Cu[>vrujM 11 by f/u* Bu'c.ju of Njhfw <il Aff.ius Inr 0095 3237.81-S00 50 DPMC-10584 1326 OCCUPATIONAL ETY & HEALTH REPORTER violations of yr'CFR i910.1001 (jJ(2), (3) or (4), only when employees are exposed to a minimum of 0.1 asbestos fibers longer than 5 micrometers per cubic centimeter of air, as determined by the sampling method prescribed in section G.2.' of this instruction. (The phrase "fibers longer than 5 micrometers per cubic centimeter of air" shall hereafter be abbreviated as "fibers/cc."] However, for situations in which sampling of exposure is infeasible, citations may be issued as provided in G.5. of this instruction. G. Enforcement Guidelines. 1. Medical examinations as per 29 CFR 1910.1001 (j){2), (3) or (4) will be required for any 7- to 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 0.1 fibers/cc, or for a greater con centration. 2. Sampling procedures will follow Chapter X of die 1HFOM with the additional guidelines of G.3 and 4. of this in struction. 3. Sampling for Exposures to Asbestos Dust with Low Levels of Contn initiation (e.g.. Mixed mill Other Minerals). a. For exposure to dust that is mostly asbestos and is ex pected to be below the permissible exposure limit, the same filter should be used for the entire shift, but no longer than 8 hours. b. For exposure expected to be at or above the permissible exposure limit, several samples may be required during the shift to avoid overloading the filters. 4. Sampling for Exposure to Asbestos Dust with High Levels of Contamination. a. Several samples of exposure may be required during the shift to avoid overloading the filter. b. Filters should be changed only after a minimum of 1 hour of sampling time lor exposures expected to be close to 0.1 fibers/cc. Seven or eight 1-hour samples can be collected during the day. 5. Past Exposures. When employees have been exposed to asbestos but air samples cannot be taken on the day of the inspection or thereafter, citations for serious violation of 29 CFR 19!0.1001 (j)(2), (3) or (4) should be issued according to the following procedures: a. Determine that employees were exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos, and that the use or handling of asbestos was performed on a regular basis; or that the use or handling of asbestos was performed on an irregular basis, but employees were-exposed to significant amounts of dust containing asbestos. NOTE: Compliance officers shall obtain monitoring results from the employer (contractor) or other source (e.g., insurance company; company or plant for whom con tracting work is being done; building owner/building management; other Federal, State or local agency), and shall indicate exposure levels above 0.1 fibers/cc of asbestos. b. Document, by employee, employee representative, and union interviews, that this work was performed routinely, on a repeated basis; or that the use or handling of asbestos was performed on an irregular basis, but employees were expos ed to significant amounts of dust containing asbestos. In ad dition, obtain documentation from written employer infor mation on these routine operations, if it exists. c. The violative conditions must have occurred at least within the previous 6 months to meet the requirements of Section 9(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. G. Ti/pes of \'iolations. a. A "serious" violation of 29 CFR 1910.1001 (j)(2), (3) or (4) would exist where an employer does not provide the re quired medical examinations, and an employee is exposed to 0.1 or more fibers/cc. b. For definitions and guidance on "repeated", "willful" or a "failure to correct" violation, see the FOM, Chapter VIII. Litigation COliRT RULES GRAIN DUST ACCUMULATION VIOLATES OSHA HOUSEKEEPING STANDARD An employer that has been cited twice for violation of the Occupa\ional Safety and Health Administration'siiousekeeping standard, for failure to prevent accumulations of grain dust in it\ grain elevator, is in repeated, serious violation of that housekeeping standard, the U.S. Court /f Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Unit A, ruled March 5. This decision in linage Corporation / .Secretary of l.nhor and OSAIIKC (No. 79-1906) affirrned a ruling of the Occupational ^afety and Health Revi/w-Commission (7 OS1IC 132(1). The case arose out of the inspection of the employer's Destrehan. La., grain elevator. During that inspection, the OSHA compliance Vficer found 42/locations where dust and grain had accumulated. The citation charged that this condi tion was in violation of 29 CFI/t 1910.22(a)(1) and that it created a fire hazardXThis citation was the third such cita tion issued to the employer for violation of the same housekeeping standard.YThe/irst and third citations involved dust accumulations ancAttie second involved materia! and ropes left in walking areVs. After a hearing on thAmerits of the case, an OSAHRC judge found the employer to be in repeated, serious violation of the housekeeping stytndar^and assessed a $10,000 penalty. This appeal followed/ The employer d'uynot dispute the existence of the dust ac cumulations at the'grain elevaVor but, instead, argued that the housekeepinc/standard had seen impermissibly expand ed to include fire and explosionyiazards. According to the employer, grain dust fire and explosion hazards can only be addressed by promulgating a specific rule covering those hazards. The appellate court rejected that argument, stating, "lAdhile a specific rulemakmg may be preferable, OSHA is/by no means obligated to countenance dangerous eonditio/s pending the promulgation W a regulation that specifjhally addresses one of the hazard? that tire condition generates." This opinion, which was written by Circbit Judge Sam D. Johnson, who was joined by Circuit Judges Irving L. Goldberg and Henry Politz, will appear in a future Decisions State Plans LAM 016841 MONETARY PENALTIES AGAINST WORKERS SUBJECT OF OSHA INSTRUCTION TO FIELD States are not absolutely prohibited from leveling econom penalties against workers who fail to comply with job safetvNmd health standards, but any state considering the inclusion, of such sanctions in its state plan should evaluate the action cdrefully to determine whether it "weakens the effectiveness of the overall enforcement program." nccordi to an Occupational Safety and Health Administration field jrective. The document, OSH.-^\Instruction STP 2-1.8A, dated Feb. 24, also said that a state which includes such penalties in its plans "must show how these-sanctions would not reduce Lhe overalf effectiveness of the state's enforcement program below that of the federal enforcement progrSfn." 3-12-81 O c cu p o 11 o i' o! Safely & Meolih fxcpor 0095-3237/81/SOO 50 DPMC-10585 February 23, 1981 Carl Gary /)S &~- TdZ X ISSi /))f Clc-fl L, We need to thoroughly review present asbestos exposure -jL potential to pipefitters and boilermakers DPMC North and ' South. Lets outline a strategy and discuss this matter with the appropriate maintenance managers. Although exposure levels are anticipated to be low, generating some documentation is warranted. cc: MED ECB Satellite PJS Chron P. J. SNYDER law 016842 DPMC-10586