Document G5YyO1KankVJ2aJL7LJQBR997

bbrand tha brand companfag, Ine. May 3. 1989 Alan McMillan Assistant Secretary (Acting) Occupational Safety and Health Administration U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, K.K. Washington, D.C. 20210 CSH CCu a tut r Dear Mr, McMillan: On April 11, 1989, Jim Werner, Brand's Vice President of Technical Services," and 1, along with members of an ad hoc committee of the Asbestos Abaterent Council of AWCI, met,with a Joint group of OSHA and EPA officials at the Department of Labor In Washington, D.C. Representing OSHA was H. Berrien Zettler, Joseph Hopkins, Helen Li, and David Smith. EPA was represented by Robert Jordan, Brian Duncan and Kim Wong. The primary purpose of the meeting was to express industry concerns and to exchange information on technology, engineering controls and regulatory interpretation and enforcement of glove bag use in the removal of asbestoscontaining materials (ACM). During the meeting, Brand described its procedures for the use of a Negative Air Bag in removing ACM. Both OSHA and EPA indicated verbally, that they believe the use of these bags in the manner described meets both the intent and requirement of the Standard, 29 CFR 1926.58. It was then suggested that this procedure be submitted in writing to the Administrator for a written response. Our interpretation of Appendix G of the Standard is that glove bag procedures, as described in the Appendix, are for small-scale, short-duration projects which allow exemption from many of the provisions of the Standard. This is rarely the case in most asbestos abatement projects. Brand's reference to a Negative Air Bag, is the same polyethylene bag with arms attached that is presently being marketed within the Industry as a glove bag. However, it Is in the application of this bag that Brand makes the dis tinction between a glove bag and a negative air bag. Brand's procedures for the use of the Negative Air Bag to remove asbestos pipe insulation are as follows: 'tnutttnct onrr Pfi riCfff illmpu 60066 O'.: wx /*> a1; ? r>y % e 1. The poly beg Is modified so es to allow make-up air to enter the bag but not leave the bag. This Is done with the addition of a poly flap which Is taped Inside the bag over an opening cut Into the bag. 2. The area to be worked on has been regulated by barrier tape end signs, and ell employers within the Immediate vicinity have been notified of the abate ment project. The workers ere suited p end ere wearing respirators. 3. The outside of the Insulation Is wet wiped and sprayed with an encapsulantprior to the bag being placed on the pipe. 4. The bag is attached to the pipe using approved methods. Brand only uses seamless bags and therefore does not have to tape a bottom seam. If the size of the pipe warrants It, a small, rigid plastic collar Is inserted Into the bag to Insure that the bag does not ccllapse when negative pressure is created. All of the necessary tools and equipment have been Inserted into the bag prior to its being sealed. 5. Using a small HEPA filtered vacuur unit, negative pressure Is created within the Negative Air Bag. This negative ventilation Is created prior to any abatement work and is maintained through-out the use of the bag. What we have now created is a classic negative pressure containment. The dif- ' : ference being that the worker Is on the outside of the containment as opposed to being on the inside as with a large containment. 6. The worker begins the removal process, using all of the normal engineering controls, including amended water, etc. During the removal process, both per sonal and area air samples are being taken by the Independent air monitoring contractor. 7. When the removal of the insulatio* is complete, the Negative Air Bag is removed by the approved method and is then treated es ACM waste. The removal process is thorough and includes encapsulant being sprayed onto the open ends of the pipe. 4 B. When the removal of the ACM waste Is completed, the workers are now required to undergo complete decontamination in the Decon Unit, which has been set up near by. We believe that using Negative Air Bags to remove pipe Insulation in this man ner, that Is, under negative pressure and with ell other provisions of the Standard in operation, meets both the letter and the intent of the standard with regard to removal practices end procedures. We Invite your response to this procedure end would eppreciate eny questions you may have. Thank you. Respectfully, J&S*. ATTred I. Greenfeld Corporate Manager, Occupational Safety and Health 2 OSHA to Begin Special Emphasis Program on Ergonomics At hearings before the House Subcommittee on Employment and Housing held June 6, 1989, Acting OSHA Assistant Secretary Alan C. McMillan stated that he has given the Agency the "go ahead" to implement a national special emphasis program in ergonomics. This effort will be directed first to the red meat (beef and pork processing) indus try and later extended to other industries. McMillan said the underlying goal of the new special emphasis pro gram is to encourage employers to establish ergonomics programs. To assist employers, OSHA plans to distribute guidelines on the elements essential to a good ergonomics program, particularly spe cialized training for employees, supervisors and medical personnel. On July 7, McMillan met with representatives from the American Meat Institute, United Food and Commercial Workers, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, AFL-CIO, and ORC to discuss the Agency's plans for reducing repetitive trauma injuries in the meat packing industry. OSHA intends to send letters to all employers in the red meat industry containing guidelines outlining what OSHA expects when it inspects meatpacking facilities. The guidelines are currently under development by OSHA staff and will be similar to the voluntary safety and health program guidelines issued in January. This pilot program will serve as the basis for extending OSHA's special emphasis program to other industries. OSHA has made no decisions regarding the need for an ergonomics standard and is in the process of evaluating a petition submitted by John Morrell, Inc. on this issue. '--ex; rr* rx^rrv nc 191C Sor^'ierUrvd PUce N W,, Wuhinfton D C 20036 (202) 293-2980 Organization Resources Counselor^ Inc. August l, 1989 1910 Sunderland Place. N V\ Washington. D.C. 20036 202-293-2980 Fa*:202-293-2915 Memorandum To: ORC Occupational Safety and Health Croup ORC Western Occupational Safety and Health Group ORC Occupational Safety and Health Physicians Group ORC Occupational Safety and Health Lawyers Group ORC International Safety and Health Forum From: Darrell K. Mattheis Subj-ect: Health Standards Update pgRA ip ggram After a long delay, Gerard F. Scannell was formally nominated by President Bush to head the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Scannell has held a number of positions within OSHA from 1971 until 1979 when he left to take the position of Director of Corporate Safety/Fire/Environmental Affairs for Johnson & Johnson. Even after the selection of a candidate for Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, the confirmation process can last six months or more. If Mr. Scannell's nomination is not acted on before Congress takes its August break, it could conceivably be October - November before he is formally confirmed. Alan McMillan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for OSKA, and also the acting head of OSHA, is doing an excellent job of administering the Agency, and has made a special point of pushing the Agency to finish pending standards. Zn the standards area, OSKA has been busy. The Agency published Blood Borne Pathogens, MDA, Methods of Compliance, another step in the Lead Remand, as well as Confined Spaces, Underground Construction and Electrical Generation. At the present time, much of OSKA's energy is being directed toward dealing with a whole series of law suits brought against its standards. Health Standards is busy working on the Formaldehyde Remand, the Enforcement Order on the Asbestos -2- Remand, fighting a Writ of Mandamus on Cadmium, dealing with the Petitions for stays on the PEL Project, still struggling with the non-asbestiform asbestos issue, and working on its decision on the Hazard Communication hearings held last fall. Zn addition, it is dealing with the diesel fumes issue, and the need for an Ergonomics Standard. ASBESTOS Zn the enforcement of the standard, OSHA has had a difficult time dealing with the small removal contractor who does not follow procedures as prescribed in the standard. The requirements for the use of a negative pressure enclosure for all removal jobs, and the proscription against the use of glove bags for the removal of pipe insulation, have caused particular problems. Negative Pressure Enclosures There is still an argument inside OSHA over whether the standard . . applies only when the PEL is exceeded or whether it, and its requirement for negative pressure enclosures, applies immediately whenever a removal job is started. At present, the sloppy contractor using poor procedures and work-practice controls, can simply shut down operations when OSHA appears on the scene, and OSHA's monitoring will show little or no exposure. When OSHA leaves, the job begins again with the same poor procedures. OSHA inspectors have been writing citations if negative pressure enclosures are not in use, regardless of the airborne levels measured. OSHA wants the authority to require that negative pressure equipment be used regardless of what the airborne levels may be so long as it is a removal job, large or small, no exemptions given. Thus, OSHA could determine immediate compliance with the standard, without the necessity to monitor. Monitoring would only be performed (by OSHA) if the CSHO judged that the operation was poorly controlled. The required use of negative pressure enclosures, coupled with the prohibition on the use of glove bags for removal operations, has caused great expense and operational difficulties for many in the industrial community. Clove Baa Use Under the small job exemption written into the Asbestos Standard, if a small amount of asbestos is being removed, and its removal is secondary to the performance of the operation, than glove bags may be used. Zf, however, asbestos insulation is being removed from pipes, and that is the main purpose of the job, then glove bags are not allowed under the present standard. For many small removal jobs, the use of glove bags results in lower exposures than the use of negative pressure enclosures, at a far lower expense. OSHA has cited a number of employers for OEamzation Resources Gxrsefcrs.hc 1910 Sunderland h*ct N.W.. Washington D.C 20036 (202)293-2960 -3- the us of glov* bags for vhat ar* pip* insulation removal jobs, vn though th* exposure lv*l is l*ss than 0.2 f/ce. S*v*ral of th*s* citations hav* bn chall*ng*d and will soon b* in court, and OSHA is cone*m*d that it will los* th*s* cas*s. Negative Pressure Clove Bags OSHA has recognised that glov* bags ar* often th* b*st available technology to reduce employ** exposures, but as described above, has had increasing difficulty accepting their us* for removal. A relatively new developaent, negative pressure glove bags, has allowed the OSHA National Office to one* again encourage th* use of the best technology. OSHA believes that the use of negative pressure glove bags, so long as th* other provisions of the standard ar* complied with, meets th* requirements of its Asbestos Standard. xn OSHA Letter Of Interpretation Supporting_The Use, of Negative Pressure Clove Baos As OSHA began to allow the use of negative pressure glov* bags ; : for the removal of asbestos containing materials, it began to receive requests for formal letters of approval. On Kay 3, 1989, Th* Brand Companies Znc., as a result of a joint OSHA-EPA meeting on the us* of glov* bags, wrote OSHA describing its equipment and procedures and asked for an interpretation as to whether it meets the requirements of 1926.58. On July 5, 1989, OSHA responded saying: "It is the opinion of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that th* use of "Negative Air Bags" as described in your letter meets the requirement for establishing a negative pressure enclosure pursuant to 29 CFR 1926.58(e)(6), provided that all of the other provisions of the construction asbestos standard are met." An OSHA letter of Interpretation on_Conp*t*nt_g*rsonf _and_ the Bequirements of the Asbestos Standard Recently ORC has received a number of calls asking whether OSHA interpreted the competent person requirement of its Asbestos Standard to mean that the competent person had to be on site at all times when the job was in progress. Joanne Linhard checked this out, and digging in the file of letters of interpretation, found that in January of 1987, OSHA had received a letter asking: OSHAs answer was: "Yes, a competent person is required to be at the job-site at all times when supervising the abatement process. jvic SW,, Wuhinpcm D.C 30036 (20)293-2980 4- OSKA's Directorate of Field Operations interprets abatement as covering removal, demolition, and renovation operations to meet the requirements of 1926.58 (e)(6)(ii). If you are interested in a copy of these two letters give us a call at 202-293*2980. Onions Tile luit To Tores Action on Asbestos Remand osHA's Asbestos standard was reaanded bach to it in February of 1988 as a result of a suit filed by the Building and Construction Trades Departaent, AFL-CXO. The Court bad a lengthy list of things it wanted OSHA to consider, one itea, the Short-Tern Exposure Level (STEL) had a 60-day response tine. OSHA net that deadline with the publication of its "Excursion Limit" but for the rest of the iteas in the reaand, OSHA has not responded. On June 12, 1989, the Building and Construction Trades (BCT) union of the AFL-CZO petitioned the Court to force OSHA to respond to the 1988 Asbestos Reaand by July 5, 1989. OSHA asked: for a 45-day extension of tiae to prepare its response, and the union has opposed it. In their petition, the unions concentrated on a number of the key issues diseussed in the February 1988 Reaand. (a) PEL: "Within thirty days promulgate FELs of less than 0.2 F/cc for those operations in the construction industry "where they are feasible," or provide the Court with an explanation for declining to do so." (b) Respirator Classification: "Within thirty days, assign lower protection factors to respirators permitted for exposure to asbestos in accord with the evidence in the rulemaking record, and the best evidence otherwise available." (c) Monitoring: "Within seven days add a provision to the construction industry asbestos standard that explicitly requires resumption of periodic monitoring where a change in workplace conditions may result in exposures above the action level." (d) Warnings and Labels: "Within thirty days add to the construction industry asbestos standard a requirement that employers utilize warnings and labels in those languages that are spoken by a substantial portion of the employer's workforce. Ten percent of the employer's workforce constitutes a substantial portion." OrEa-izaton Resource* Cbunseiors.hc 1910 SuaderWad PUce N.W., Wtthinpor D.C. 30036 (302) 293-2960 -5- () Importing and Record Transfer? -1) Within thirty days, require all construction industry employers to fils reports with OSHA before engaging in any asbestos project. 2) within thirty days, require all construction industry employers contracting or subcontracting asbestos-related work to establish, maintain and transfer to building owners written records of the presence and location of any asbestos products in the workplace." (f) Competent Person: "Within fifteen days expand the . scope of the competent person requirement to cover all asbestos related work, or provide a persuasive explanation for not doing so. (g) Small-Scale Short-Duration Operations: "1) Within seven days, include in the asbestos standard appropriate language stating that for removal, demolition, and renovation, the exemption from the negative pressure enclosure requirement for small-scale short-duration operations is limited to situations where it is impractical to construct a negative pressure enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment. 2) Within seven days, remove the exemption from the competent person requirement for small-scale short-duration operations." OSHA * s Response To The Petition OSHA, in its response to the Court, said that it intended to open the record and publish a proposal in January of 1990. The Agency has been accelerating its work on the Remand, but does not seem to be in a good position to make a substantive reply to the Court before this fall. OSHA has (I believe) identified three response strategies: .1. Reject all of the points raised in the remand, and defend the original standard with the addition of the STEL. 2. Make all of the changes requested by the Court and the unions, but not open the record. 3. Open the asbestos record, hold hearings, make selective changes in the standard to resolve the negative pressure enclosure, glove bag use and small job exemptions, and other Remand issues. OSHA Enforcement Considerations op Remand Response 1PKX Opinion) OSHA would like to resolve the enforcement issues related to glove bag use and the PEL, and,' at the same time, move to a more specification approach. That would involve: OEa-icatcr Resources Counselors tre 1910 SuaScrtod Place N.W., W*hiapo*i D.C. 3X36 (202) 293-2960 -6- a. Opening the record for additional comment on the issues raised by the Remand questions. b. Eliminating the snail job exemption. c. Require the use of negative pressure equipment, including negative pressure glove bags, for all jobs involving removal of asbestos. This vould allow the use of negative pressure glove bags for the removal of pipe insulation. d. Require the use of glove bags inside full size negative pressure enclosures, where feasible, to maintain airborne exposures below the PEL. e. Allow some maintenance jobs, sueh as the removal of gaskets, to be performed without negative pressure enclosures of any kind, and with the use of negative pressure respirators or PAPRs. f. Selectively lower the PEL for some kinds of operations in some industries. The first and second approaches speak for themselves, but for No. 3, some additional problems are raised. The unions in the Remand wanted to have some different (PELS) for particular industry groupings. Potentially, this could result in a PEL as low as 0.01 f/cc for some operations. The unions would like OSKA to eliminate the use of any respirators other than supplied air or SCBA where asbestos was being worked with* regardless of the level of exposure. My reading at present is that OSKA is not likely to go the route of eliminating all use of negative pressure respirators, but will, in fact, reduce some protection factors, and more carefully define when and where they may and may not be used. To sustain the third option, OSHA will need data on the levels of exposure that are created during the operation of negative pressure glove bags in a good operation. OSHA will also need to know what can be expected during maintenance operations on, for instance, furnaces in foundries, and gasket removal. The unions can be expected to oppose these positions, and without good monitoring data, OSKA probably could not sustain them. rtav of the standard for hctinollte, AntboPhylllte t Actiaolit* Responding to comments from interested parties, OSKA granted a temporary stay of the effective dates of the current standard as they apply to the non-asbestiform varieties of asbestos listed. OSKA has been reviewing data submitted by the R. T. Vanderbilt Company, and others, as well as the latest scientific .r** V w.. Wtshirurtott D.C 20036 (202) 293-2960 7- publications on the subject. The key issue is whether there is a "non-asbestiform" variety of treadite, anthophyllite and actinolite. R.T. Vanderbilt filed a petition with the Appeals Court in the District of Coluabia to reopen its ease against OSKA's 1986 Asbestos Standard. On June 29, the Court denied the Petition, and on July 7, 1969, Vanderbilt announced its intention to re file its petition within 45 days. Vanderbilt coaplained that OSHA has not conducted rulemaking on the issue as it agreed to in 1986. R.T. Vanderbilt's case to have non-asbestiform varieties of asbestos excluded from the 1986 OSHA Asbestos Standard rests on the fine points of disputed mineralogical definitions. p.g.K&-gx.fefnfli mv On July 21, 1989, OSHA published in the Federal Register notice of an "Extension of Partial Stay and Amendment of Final Rule," (54 FR 30704.) The partial stay of 1910.1001 & 1926.58 has been extended until November 30, 1990. . E?A Ban On Asbestos On July 6, 1989, the EPA issued a final rule to ban (over the next seven years) the incorporation of asbestos in virtually all new products. The EPA has estimated that the ban will save 200 lives over the next 13 years. AIDS-HEPATITIS, BLOOD BORNE PATHOPENS.-STANDARD On May 30, 1989, OSHA published in the Federal Register (54 FR 23042), a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for "Occupational Exposure to Blood Borne Pathogens; Proposed Rule and Notice of Hearing." Hearings have been scheduled for the following cities and dates; * Washington, D.C., September 12, 1989 * Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 1989 * San Francisco, California, October 24, 1989 Written comments and notices of intention to give testimony at one of the hearings, must have be postmarked on or before August 14, 1989. For your interest, we have attached a copy of the regulatory text and a summary of OSHA's Blood Borne Pathogens standard. Rev Doguments From Other_Agencies In this rulemaking OSHA is asking that concerned parties review and comment on the use of information from the following documents in the Blood Borne Pathogens rulemaking. !91C Su<4en*5 N W,, W*shinjior. D.C XC36 (202) 293-2960 -8- * "Guidelines for Prevention of Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis B Virus to Health Care and Public Safety Workers." * "A Curriculum Guide for Public-Safety and EmergencyResponse Workers-Prevention of Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis B Virus." * "Standards for the Tracking and Management of Medical Waste; Interim Final Rule and Request for Comments" TR 54 12326, March 24, 1989. In particular, the Agency is concerned with those areas where recommendations made in those documents are at odds with requirements of the proposed standard. pipyai-Y Qf fit""*"*-* Number of establishments affected; ---------- 616,880 Estimated population at risk:---------- 5,311,554 Estimated benefits of standard;-------- 9,221 - 9,977 infections and 205 - 222 deaths prevented annually. Estimated total annual costs of standard:------------------ $ 852 million Estimated compliance costs for health units in industry: ------------ $ 45,655,456 Estimated costs for PPE:-------------- $ 400,717,716 1910.1030 Blood Borne Pathogens (a) Scope and Application This standard applies to all occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials as defined by paragraph (b) of this section. (b) EffifiltiftBl From the standpoint of the industrial workplace, definitions are key; * "Blood" means human blood, human blood components and products made from human blood. Ot3Tcaton Resources Gotrsetarihc. 1910 SwxfcriarxJ PUee N.W,, Washing* D.C 20036 (202)293-2960 * "Exposure Incident" Beans e specific eye, south, other mucous membrane, non-intact skin, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious Baterials that results froa the perforaanee of an esployees duties. * "Infectious Waste" Beans blood and blood products, contaninated sharps, pathol&9ieal wastes, and microbiological wastes. * "Occupational Exposure" Beans reasonably anticipated skin, eye, bucous aeabrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious Baterials that stay result froa the perforaanee of an employee's duties. This definition excludes incidental exposures that Bay take place on the job, and that are neither reasonably nor routinely expeeted and that the worker is not required to incur in the normal course of employment. (Emphasis added) * "Other Potentially Infectious Materials" means (1) the following body fluids, semen, vaginal secretions, cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, pleural fluid, pericardial fluid, peritoneal fluid, amniotic fluid, saliva in dental procedures, and any body fluid that is visibly contaminated with blood; (2) human tissue; (3) KIV or HBV cell or tissue cultures.* * "Universal Precautions" is a method of infection control in which all human blood and certain body fluids are treated as if known to be infectious for HIV, HBV, and other blood borne pathogens. (e) Infection Control Each employer who has employees with occupational exposure as defined in paragraph (b) Bust identify and document positions, tasks and procedures where occupational exposure Bay take place. Where an employees anticipated duties Bay result in an occupational exposure, the employer Bust develop a written infection control plan, which Bust be reviewed and updated as tasks or procedures change. (d) Methods of Compliance Universal precautions shall be observed to prevent contact with blood and other potentially infectious Baterials, unless those precautions would interfere with the proper delivery or health care or public safety services in a particular circumstance, or would create a significant risk to the personal safety of the worker. (Note: This paragraph, inserted at the insistence of the Department of Health and Human Services, constitutes a large -10- loop-hole in the requirements for universal precautions which OSHA was forced to accept as the price for having the standard released by OKB.) Personal Protective Equipment? Where there is a potential for exposure the employer shall provide and assure that employees use appropriate personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, gloves, gowns, fluid proof aprons, laboratory coats, and head and foot coverings, face shields or masks, end eye protection, as well as mouthpieces, resuscitation bags, pocket masks, or other ventilation devices. Gloves must be worn where there is e potential for direct skin contact with blood or other potentially infections materials. Disposable gloves and utility gloves can be used, and may be disinfected for re-use if intact. Masks and eye protection or chin-length face shields are required where there is a potential for the spray, spatter or aerosolisation of blood or other potentially infections materials. A distinction is made between "fluid resistant" clothing which must be worn if there is a potential for splashing or spraying of blood or-other potentially infectious materials, and "fluid proof" clothing which must be worn if there is a potential for becoming soaked with blood, etc. Infectious waste must be placed in closable, leak-proof containers or bags that are color coded or labeled as required by paragraph (g) (1) (ii) of this standard. Laundry from workplaces with employees covered by this standard, which is contaminated with blood, etc., must be treated as if it were infectious, and treated as infectious waste while being transported. The employer must ensure that laundry workers use appropriate personal protective equipment. i (e) HIV and HBV Research Laboratories and Production Facilities This paragraph applies only to research laboratories and production facilities engaged in the culture, production, concentration end manipulation of HIV and HBV. It does not apply to clinical or diagnostic laboratories engaged solely in the analysis of blood, tissues or organs. (f) Hepatitis B Vaccination and Post Exposure Follow-up Employers must make hepatitis B vaccination available to all employees who may have occupational exposure on average one or more times per month and perform post-exposure follow-up for all employees with an occupational exposure incident. Following a report of an exposure incident, the employer must make available to.each covered employee a confidential medical evaluation and follow-up. pot-. Cn, r~sf?ky\ he J97P SuoderUftd N.W.. Washington D C 20036 (202)293-2960 -11- This follow-up Bust include documentation of the routes of exposure, HBV end HIV antibody status of the source of exposure end the circumstances of the exposure. For each employee evaluated, the employer must obtain, and provide to the employee, the evaluating physician's written opinion, within 15 days. (g) Communication of Hazards to Employees (1) Signs and Labels: Signs bearing the required special biohazard legend must be posted at the entrance to all work areas specified in paragraph (e). Warning labels must be placed on containers of infectious wastes, whether used to store or transport potentially infectious materials. Labels shall contain the specified biohazard legend. (2) Information and Training: All employees with occupational exposure must participate in a training program, provided at no cost to the employee, within 90 days after the effective date of this standard and at least annually thereafter. (b) Recordkeeping (1) Medical records: An accurate record must be kept for each employee covered by paragraph (f). Sueh records must be maintained for at least the duration of employment plus 30 years. (2) Training Records: These records must contain names of instructors and those who attended, dates, and content of training and maintained for five years. (i) Pates The standard will become effective 30 days after publication in the feflgrfll-Pggiiter. within 90 davs of the Effective .Date: * Exposure Determinations must be completed. Within 120 davs of the Effective Date; * The Infection Control Plan must be completed. Within 150 davs of the Effective Date: Engineering and Work Practice Controls, Personal Protective Equipment, Housekeeping, Requirements for Facilities Falling Under Section (e), Hepatitis B Vaccination and Post Exposure Follow-up, Communication of Hazards and Recordkeeping. Oe3-iRevxrref Gxn&efcrs he 191C Suaderttatf ftoee N.W,, WithinD C 20C36 (2Ct) 293-2960 -12 OSKA expects the vaccination series to hava baan initiated if not completed by this time. 1.3-BPTADIgyg Work has pickad up significantly on this standard. Acting OSKA head Alan McMillan has signed the final draft NPR and sent it up to Secretary Dole's office where it is being reviewed. As soon and Dole's staff is satisfied, it will go to MB. OSKA has revised the date by which it expects to finish the NPR to the Fall of 1989. ORC has heard that a PEL of 2 ppm is under consideration. CADMIUM OSHA Sued bv ICWP t Public Citizen; On June 1, 1989 the International Chemical Workers Union and Public Citizen petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to force OSHA to issue an NPR on cadmium within one month, and publish a final standard within one year. The unions also wanted the courts to retain jurisdiction to monitor and to force OSHA to report monthly to the Court and the petitioners. On June 18, 1986, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen filed a petition for an Emergency Temporary Standard asking for a PEL of 1 ug/m3 and a 5 ug/m3 ceiling. On June 26, 1987, the International Chemical Workers Union, working with Public Citizen, petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for a Writ of Mandamus that would force OSHA to issue an ETS for cadmium exposure in the workplace. The Court denied the petition. The draft cadmium NPR first went to the Labor Department PRB, 17 November 1988. OSKA is said to be considering lowering the PEL to 1.0 ug/m3 from the previously considered 5 ug/m3. The old OSKA PEL, as listed in 1910.1000, Table Z-2, was 100 micrograms/m3 for fume and 200 mierograms/m3 for dust. OSHA intends to regulate cadmium on the basis of its carcinogenicity and its potential to cause kidney damage. The draft cadmium NPR has been signed by McMillan, cleared by Secretary Dole's office, and went to OMB during the week of July 17, 1989. Draft of cadmium N?_R_Avaliable OSKA has made available a draft copy of the 11-17-88 version of its Cadmium NPR. If you would like to see a copy, give us a call at 202/293-2980 and we will be happy to send you one. rry rtcofnrs ^yz. KWf Sun<fcrUf*<J *lee V W. Wuhmrton D.C. 20036 f202) 293-2980 13- gayggR KL2SX This standard, for tha sonant at least, is daad. Tha nav admini stration vill hava to make a daeision on what to do about it. pigm fTOSg Tha Housa Education and Labor Subconnittaa on Baalth and Safaty has. schadulad thraa days of hearings on tha affacts of diasal fumes in work araas lacking sufficient ventilation to remove both tha particulates and gases resulting from diasal combustion. On the first day of haarings, tha Subcommittee listened to testimony from Richard A. Leman, Assistant Director of HIOSH, who repeated NIOSK's position that diasal exhaust should be treated as a "potential carcinogen" and recommended that exposures be reduced to the "lowest feasible limit." OSHA is due to testify on July 26, 1989 and the agency worked - : hard at preparing solid testimony. Due to the time constraint, OSHA was forced to use a HIOSH analysis of research work published in this area. NIOSH has been studying the effects of diesel fumes for many years, but in the past has never found enough positive results to declare it a carcinogen. The pressure on Capitol Hill is being organized and orchestrated by the United Mine Workers and the International Association of Fire Fighters. Because of this pressure from Congress, OSHA may be forced to start work on a standard for diesel fumes in 1990. The process may well begin with a petition to OSHA for a 6(b) standard on diesel fumes in the fall of 1969. ETHYLEKE PIBROMIDE This project is behind schedule, seems to have a low priority, and is not likely to be finished in the near future. ZfiRffltPgmffig On December 6, 1988, the Secretary of Labor, responding to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, announced that OSHA had decided to stay the hazard communication provisions of the Formaldehyde Standard (FS) at 29 FR. 1910.1048 (m)(1)(i) for a period of nine months. The purpose of the stay is to permit the Agency to revoke sections (m)(1)(i) through (m)(4)(ii). These sections contain require ments for the 0.1 ppm cut-off and labeling. e. V w 3-DC 20036 nci'. 293-2980 14- The decision to stay the four labeling related paragraphs of the FS was published in the Federal Register December 13, 1988 (53 FR 50198). While the Formaldehyde Standard's hazard communication provisions are stayed, the generic Hazard Communication Standard, 1910.1200, will apply to all formaldehyde and formaldehyde containing products. Remand Of OSHA's Formaldehyde Standard on June 9, 1989, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded to QSKA its Formaldehyde Standard for reconsideration' of its calculation of the risks from cancer at one part-per-million (ppm) and its requirements for medical removal. The rest of the standard was upheld. Background On December 4, 1987, OSHA published at 52 FR 168-312, its Formaldehyde Standard. This publication came after much coercion on the part of organized labor and the introduction of new evidence. In 1979, the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology: (CZZT) had released an animal study which raised fears that formaldehyde might be a human carcinogen. Zn 1981, the United Auto Workers and 13 other unions petitioned OSKA for an Emergency Temporary Standard. OSHA refused to do so and the UAW filed suit to compel OSKA to take some action. The court ordered OSKA to reconsider its decision not to publish a standard for formaldehyde, and this ultimately led to the publication of the Formaldehyde Standard. Shortly after the publication of OSHA's Formaldehyde Standard, the unions filed suit, charging that OSHA was wrong in finding that formaldehyde did not present a significant risk at the 1 ppm level, and that OSHA was "arbitrary and capricious" in not mandating stricter . measures for medical surveillance, examinations, and medical protection. The case was heard before, Silberman, Buckley and Williams, and Judge Williams wrote the decision. Judge Williams, after reviewing the written arguments, remanded "...the case to OSKA for reconsideration of its calculation of the risk of cancer from formaldehyde at 1 ppm (particularly its choice of a non-linear curve for extrapolating the risk from animal studies to low dose human exposures) and for reconsideration of its failure to require medical removal protection." Other than these two critical items, the court upheld the standard. The Court, in its discussion of OSHA's reasoning in support of its 1 ppm PEL, made it clear that it had problems with the logic that lead OSHA to its decision. The unions had originally asked for a 0.5 ppm PEL, but it appears that at this point they are Pin V w. WtthinnwD.C. 20036 (202)293-2960 15 pressing the agency for 0.1 ppm. The final daciaion will probably depend on a raintarprctation of tha work of Aaron Blair t. al. and a raviav of any nav work that has boon published since tha standard was promulgated. Medical Removal Protection Here the Court relied on positions taken and defended by OSKA in other standards, primarily the Lead Standard. Judged against its own words and actions in support of its Lead Standard, the Court found OSKA's arguments for not including medical removal protection (MRP) as part of its Formaldehyde Standard, unconvincing and not supported by the record. Judge Williams' discussion made it clear that he considered it reasonable that medical removal, and the attendant "protection" provisions, should be initiated by dermal or sensory irritation, and not just sensitization. The arguments pro and con for medical removal and medical removal protection in the Formaldehyde Remand come at a critical time. It is likely that these arguments will both establish a precedent for, and bear heavily upon, OSKA's decisions on MRP for the Generic Medical Surveillance Standard. CENTRIC MONITORING AMP MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE STANDARDS OSKA continues to work actively on these standards, but no decision has been made to go forward with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The decision on an NPR is presently scheduled for October 1989. Medical Surveillance ORC and members of its Generic Medical Surveillance Task Force met with OSKA to discuss issues surrounding a Medical Surveillance Standard in general, and testing in particular. As a result of that discussion, it became clear that OSKA is not likely to go off-the-deep-end on required medical surveillance testing. At the same time, however, it was evident that they do not yet have a clear idea of what they want to use as criteria for an appropriate medical surveillance test. OSKA is in the process of letting a contract to have the subject of vhat tests exist, and are appropriate, reviewed. OSKA seems to bo clear that it does not make good sense, from the standpoint of occupational health, to require a lot of tests with poor predictability or acceptability. However, the agency also made it clear that where tests are appropriate, they will be required, and that Medical Removal, Medical Removal Protection, and Multiple Physician Review will be required. In general, OSKA seems to be considering three options for generic medical surveillance. -16- (1) Sinply require all employers to have and implement a medical surveillance program without being specific. (2) Lump together all of the medical surveillance requirements in existing 6(b) standards, and combine with them those 20-30 substances that have well accepted tests. OSHA would, at the same time, announce that it would add additional tests in the future as it was deemed appropriate. (3) Same approach as (2) above but rely upon NZOSH for recommendations on criteria as well as substances having appropriate tests. The folks at OSKA seem to believe that, while the Generic Medical Surveillance Standard, as a whole, will cause them considerably more trouble than the Generic Monitoring Standard, they will not have trouble justifying any testing or examinations required. OSHA has contracted with Meridian Associates Inc. to gather information on the technical and economic feasibility of the Generic Medical Surveillance Standard. * Generic Monitoring The ORC Task Force is actively working on documents and presentations explaining and analyzing the ORC recommendations. These documents will be submitted to OSHA and also used as the basis of presentations made to OSHA and OMB by Task Force members. These documents will be completed by the end of October 1989. gLYPPL gTffSBS Work has picked up on this standard again, and OSKA now expects to have a Notice' of Proposed Rulemaking out by the end of the year, or early spring of 1990. NIOSH has a draft Criteria Document for glycol ethers that is close to being finished, but there does not seem to be a big push. HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD On January 24, 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a temporary stay of the Third Circuit's decision ending a stay on the application of OSKA's Hazard Communications Standard to the construction industry. The Supreme Court also denied an application for a stay of the decision while it reviews appeals made by the construction industry. OSHA can now enforce the HCS in all industries including construction. --O.- ' loir- *1. V U- Wtshinnor E> C. 20C36 002) 293-2980 -17 On February 27, 1919, the U.S. Justice Department petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was incorrect in finding that the Office of Kanageaent and Budget (OKI) did not have the authority, under its Paperwork Seduction Act to disapprove three provisions of OSKA's expanded HCS. Justice argued that if the August 19, 1988 decision was allowed to stand, it would essentially eliminate OKB's capability to review not only the OSHA HCS, but also many other critical regulatory documents. The Supreae Court has not yet responded to the petition. On February 21, 1989, a group of industry petitioners asked the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit's November 25, 1988 decision upholding expansion of the standard for all industries. This group argued that by adopting the ACGZH Threshold Limit Values, OSKA delegated its rulemaking authority to a private entity, which is unconstitutional. On April 3, 1989, the Secretary of Labor and several unions asked the Supreme Court to deny a request by industry groups to review the November 25, 1988 decision by the Third Circuit upholding the expanded OSHA HCS. On Kay 15, 1989, the Supreme Court accepted for consideration the Justice Departments petition for review of the Third Circuit Court's August 19 decision on OKB's authority to review paperwork requirements of regulations being proposed. On Kay 25, 1989, OSKA sent to Alan KcKillan, its Acting Assistant Secretary, a final draft of its decision on the requirements for material safety data sheets at multi-employer worksites and exemptions from the labeling requirement for consumer products and some drugs regulated by the FDA. The review is expected to proceed expeditiously. Revised Enforcement Guidelines The OSKA Office of Compliance Programming is developing revised enforcement guidelines for the HCS to integrate HCS and HAZWOPSR. Zn addition, the revision will place more emphasis on employers providing training rather than just information. The revised guidelines ere expected to be out in late September 1989. LABORATORY BTAXPARD The final version of OSKA's Laboratory Standard was transmitted to OKB the last week in September 1988, end could be released at any time. OSKA believes that it has met all of OKB's objections, and that there is nothing left that should hold it up. OKB had OxaTtzarcr Re&OL/tes Gxnsefcrihc. mo Soadertead Ptaee N.W.. Wuhiaftoa D.C 30036 (202)293-2980 -18- previously informed OSKA that the Laboratory Standard would ba reviewed as soon as thsy vara finishad with the Blood Boma Pathogens NPR. Nov however, OMB is insisting that OSKA raaova all spacial provisions for carcinogans from tha standard and OSKA is not willing to do this. LEAP BEKAUB On July 11, 1989, OSHA publishad in tha Fadaral Register (54 FR 29142) its "Final rula, statement of reasons." Tha final rula givas OSHA's dacisions ragarding tha tachnical and economic faasibility of nina industry sactors aaating OSHA's Laad Standard, 1910.1025, (50 ug/m3). Bight of tha industry sactors vara found capabla of aaating the 50 ug/m3 level through engineering and work practice controls; brass and bronze ingot production, independent battery breaking, laad cheaicals, laad chroaata pigments, leaded steal, secondary copper smelting, shipbuilding and ship repair. For non-ferrous ' : foundries OSKA determined that 50 ug/m3 is technically, but not economically feasible. OSKA determined that if it enforced tha retirements of its Laad Standard on small non-ferrous foundries, over 50 percent would be forced out of the business. OSHA has not yet determined if achieving a PEL above 50 ug/m3 but below 200 ug/m3 by means of engineering and work practice controls is economically feasible. . ELECTROMACNETIC FIELP8 AND JTVTB Concern is rising in the scientific community about the effects of electric and magnetic fields on biological systems. Recently there have been a number of articles and studies published on the effects of powerful electric fields on children. Some of the articles have been quite intemperate. This of course ties directly into VDTs and reproductive problems. As a result, OSHA is under increased pressure for new standards for non-ionizing radiation, VDTs and reproductive hazards. It is possible that over the next two years, OSKA may be forced into setting standards for VDTs, non-ionizing radiation and reproductive hazards as a result of the growing controversy over the effects of electric and magnetic fields on humans. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in May of 1989 released a useful study titled: "Biological effects of power frequency electric and magnetic fields,* by: I. Nair, M.G. Morgan, and H.K. Florig. This document may be ordered from the Government poc-. i--e*. CoLTsebrsInc 1910 Sutxfcrtud Ptaet N.W., Wtshiapoe D.C 30036 (202) 293-2980 -19- Printing Office. The CPO number is 052-003-011-522, the cost Is $4.75, ths study can be ordered over ths phons (202-703-3238) and paid for with Visa or Mastsr Card. Tha bast time to call is batvaan 7:30 and 9:30 a.a. KMOftPE MINERAL ?HBM OSHA continuas to monitor this subjact closaly, but, at prasant, docs not plan regulatory action. METHODS OF COMPLIANCE J NOTICE 07 PROPOSED BPlEMRKINg On Monday, June 5, 1989, OSHA published in tha Federal Register at 54 FR 23991, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for Methods of Compliance. Comments and requests for a hearing should be submitted by October 3, 1989. Background When OSKA first began operations back in 1971, it adopted its present hierarchy of controls from national consensus standards; Over the years, this hierarchy became solidified by tradition and usage and OSKA is reluctant to change it. Back in 1980 President Reagan began a push to slow down government regulations. As part of this effort then Vice President Bush was placed in command of a task force that had the charge of finding ways to ease the regulatory burden on employers. One of the concepts that came out of this Bush Task Force was the equivalency of respiratory protection and engineering controls. In other vords, that respirators and engineering controls were equivalent and could be interchanged as the situation demanded, or the employer wished. One result of the equivalency concept on respirators and engineering controls was the Methods of Compliance Standard. OSKA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Methods of Compliance (48 FR 7473) in February of 1983. Other pressures impacting OSKA forced the Methods of Compliance standard to the sidelines for many years, but it was never forgotten, least of all by the Office of Management and Budget (0MB). OKB favored the equivalency theory because it considerably eased the costs of compliance for employers. Over the years, various individuals at OKB and within the Labor Department have.pushed hard to have the equivalency concept accepted by OSKA and implemented in the revision of 1910.134, its respirator standard. During 1988 when OSKA and Mr. Pendergrass were trying very hard to gain OKB approval for the PEL Project, the Blood Borne Pathogens Standard, respirators, laboratories and others, OKB drove a hard bargain. In return for 0MB expediting its review process for OSHA's standards, OSKA must agree to publish a Notice - C v* \L' yrv; fjK'* 293-2960 -20 of Proposed Rulemaking for Methods of Compliance. This NPR vould, at least, open up for public discussion the concept of a less rigid hierarchy of controls for respirators and engineering controls. The OSHA staff vas not enthusiastic about the idea, but Mr. Pendergrass vas anxious to have the PEL Project published, and, ultimately, OSKA accepted OMB*s conditions. Zn publishing the NPR on Methods of Compliance hovever, OSKA did not completely go along with OMB's wishes. Thus, on reading the Methods of Compliance NPR one vill note that for every concession to expanded respirator use, OSKA has inserted at least two negative comments. These counter-points generally indicate a belief that either data is lacking to support such a position or that engineering controls are both feasible and superior in that particular situation. The key things to note are that the five sets of circumstances that may justify expanded respirator use are listed, comments are requested on the five sets of conditions, and that if a hearing * : is desired, it must be requested. Zn the Methods of Compliance NPR OSKA has at one and the same time defended its traditional hierarchy of controls for respirators and engineering controls, and raised the questions requested by OMB. The Proposal OSHA is proposing to modify its hierarchy of controls in 1910.1000(e) and 1910.134(a)(1) for feasible engineering and work practice controls in response to nev data, and a further clarification of when more extensive use of respirators may be appropriate. Three Primary Policy Considerations 1. Health protection. 2. Respirator technology and use practices have progressed significantly since initial adoption of OSHA's compliance requirements in 1971. 3. Cost effectiveness. Five Bets of circumstances Where. gngiaeerlnft -CeRtrols MtY_b.t Infeasible 1. During the time necessary to install feasible engineering controls; 2. Where feasible, engineering controls result in only a negligible reduction in exposure; '''''nn Resources Gxrsetorslnc 1910 SundertMd Place N.W,, Wtfhinpon D.C 20036 (202) 293-2960 -21- 3. During emergencies, life saving recovering operations, repair shutdowns, and field situations where there is a lack of utilities for implementing engineering controls; 4. Operations requiring added protection where there is a failure of normal controls; and 5. Entries into unknown atmospheres. gRC,,.cMnfc In the course of this NPR, OSKA raises many complex and vexing questions, most of which have been fought over in the various standards the Agency has published. In spite of OSKA's negative comments, these questions present the opportunity for those who wish, to submit data and reopen issues that the Agency has considered closed for ten years or more. ORC, through its Respirator Task Force, has submitted both draft standards and comments on the 1983 ANPR. ORC has supported the existing . hierarchy of controls as being good industrial hygiene, but has made it clear that OSKA must allow for more flexibility in their application. There is no substitute for professional judgement and room must be left for its application if any standard is to achieve maximum effectiveness. IEKE CHLORIDE OSKA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR} on November 24, 1986, and has been working on it ever since. Work has proceeded steadily, but we are not likely to see it published until late in 1989, if then. PDA Bans Methylene Chloride In Cosmetics On June 29, 1989, the FDA issued a final rule banning the use of methylene chloride in cosmetics (54 FR 27328). The FDA cited scientific studies which indicated that inhalation of methylene chloride caused cancer in laboratory animals, and on that basis determined that continued use of methylene chloride could pose a "significant risk" to humans. 4.4KETHYLENEDIANILINE 1KDK1 OSKA published the recommendations of its Negotiated Rulemaking Committee July 16, 1987 (52 FR 26776). On Friday Kay 12, 1989, (OSHA) published in the Federal Register (54 FR 20672) e Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for KDA. The PEL is set at 10 ppb as an 8 hour TWA, the STEL is 100 ppb over 15 minutes, and the Action Level is 5 ppb. *? 22- There are two NPRs, on* for General Industry, Section 1910.1050, which is found in 1910.19, paragraph (k), Part 1910 of Subpart B; end 1926.60 for Construction. Both standards contain mandatory appendices on respirator fit-testing and four non-mandatory appendices on chemical hazard information, technical guidelines, medical surveillance and suggested monitoring procedures. Differences Between the General-Industry and.Construction Standards 1926.60 differs from 1910.1050 in that two types, of regulated areas are required, depending upon whether exposures are to solids or liquids; communication about KDA hazards among employers at multi-employer worksites is required; if objective historical data demonstrate exposures below the action level, or all employees wear supplied-air respirators, the employer need not perform initial monitoring; the use of disposable protective clothing is encouraged; the construction standard grants some compliance responsibility to a "competent" person; allows change areas and clean areas rather than mandating separate rooms; and permits employers to have other organizations such as trade associations maintain medical records. BUKKARY or PROPOSED STANDARD (a) Scope and Application This section is notable for the listing of ciresistances and. situations where the standard is not designed to apply. Notable is the reliance in (a)(3) on "objective data" to establish that during the processing, us* and handling of products containing KDA, they are not capable of releasing KDA under expected conditions of use. This reliance on "objective data" continues through-out the NPR. (b) Definitions (See Standard) (c) Permissible Exposure Limits PEL: 10 parts per billion (ppb) (8 hour TWA) A-l: 5 ppb STEL: 100 ppb (over 15 minutes) (d) Emergency Situations OSHA requires a written emergency plan for each worksite with the possibility of an emergency. This plan should cover appropriate personal protective equipment, and alerting and evacuation of employees. Osa'iiator Resources CoLnsetorshc 1910 Suftderttnd nex N.W.. Wishinpon D.C 20036 (202) 293-296C -23 () Eregmrf-Mealtgrlaq All determinations of employee exposures, except the STEL, must be based on t hour breathing ton* personal samples. Equivalent exposures procedures say be used to eliminate unnecessary monitoring for similar jobs. Initial monitoring must be performed for all workplaces covered by the standard. Periodic monitoring must be repeated every six months if exposures are at or below the action level, and at least every three months if expostures are above the PELS. If periodic monitoring indicates that employee exposures in at least two consecutive measurements taken at least 7 days apart are below the action level the monitoring may be discontinued for that employee. Additional monitoring shall be performed if there have been major changes in production, processes, chemicals, controls, personnel or work practices. Visual inspections of employee skin for dermal exposure are mandated. Employees must be notified in writing of results.; within 15 working days. (f) Regulated Areas Regulated areas must be established, including those where non-airbome, dermal exposures are possible. Persons entering the regulated areas must have the appropriate PPE. Eating, drinking, smoking, chewing gum or tobacco, or applying cosmetics are prohibited in regulated areas. If exposures are above the action level, employees must shower. Separate, non-contaminated lunch areas must be provided if food and drink are allowed at the worksite. If airborne exposures in the workplace are above the PEL, lunch areas must have filtered air and employees must wash hands and face as well as remove all protective gear before entering. (g) Methods of Compliance Engineering and work practice controls must be used to reduce employee exposures to or below the PELS, except where the employer can show they are not feasible. A written compliance program is required which shows how the exposures will be reduced, and shall include the written emergency plan. Rotation of employees to reduce exposures is not permitted. <h) Respiratory Protection Respirators may be used where the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible to reduce exposures below the PEL with engineering controls alone, where controls are not yet implemented, or where feasible engineering and work practice controls are not sufficient to reduce exposures to or below the PEL. KIOSH/MSHA approved respirators must be used, and Wf SxterUad Ptoee N.W.. Wtshinpoo D.C 30036 (302) 293-2980 -24- the employer must institute a respirator program in accordance with 1910.134 (b), (d),(a) & (f). Either quantitative or qualitative fit testing is required at initial fitting and, at least annually, thereafter for negative pressure respirators, and any employee who cannot wear a negative pressure respirator shall be given the option of wearing a positive pressure or any supplied-air respirator operating in the continuous flow or pressure demand mode. (i) Protective Work Clothing and Equipment Where it is likely that employees may have dermal contact with MDA, the employer shall provide appropriate PPE and clothing and ensure that the employee uses them. Contaminated protective clothing and equipment shall be removed only in appropriate change rooms, and before eating, drinking, smoking, etc. Contaminated PPE and clothing shall be stored in closed labeled containers. Employees must.be provided with clean protective clothing and equipment, and the employer must ensure that it is appropriately cleaned, repaired, etc. (j) Hygiene Facilities Clean change rooms and showers must be provided for employees required to wear or use PPE. Separata rooms must be provided for PPE and street clothes. Lunch facilities must be provided, and if they are in an area where there is a potential for airborne exposure to MDA they must have positive pressure, temperature control and a filtered air supply. The employer must ensure that employees exposed to MDA wash hair, hands, and faces with soap and water prior to eating, drinking, etc. (k) Hazard Communication Regulated areas and containers with MDA in them must be labeled. MSDS must be available to employees. Information end training on MDA must be given in accordance with the Hazard Communication Standard at the time of initial assignment and annually thereafter. The medical surveillance and removal provisions must be included in the training. ID gpvMXwiag All surfaces in the workplace must be maintained as free as practicable of visible accumulations of MDA. The employer must have a program for detecting, repairing, and cleaning up leaks of any form of MDA. O^-Tca^cr Rewurctt Gxrsetrilnc 1910 Susdertaad rUct N.W.. Washington D.C. 20036 (202) 293-2960 25" <m> Medical urvelllanca All employees exposed at or above the action lovol for 30 or more day* par year, or employees vith a- likelihood of dermal xpoaura for 15 days or more par year, or who hava baan axposad in an emergency situation aust hava availabla a aadieal survaillanca program. All sxaainations aust ba parforaad by or undar tha diraction of licansad physicians at no cost to tha aaployaa. initial Exams i Thasa aust ba givan vithin 60 days of tha affaetiva data of this standard, and shall includa: a datailad history, a physical examination vith all routine parameters, laboratory tests including liver function tests and urinalysis. Periodic Examinations: Examinations for covered employees shall ba givan at least annually after tha initial exam. Repeat liver function tests shall ba administered at the advice of tha physician. 3 Emergency Exposures: After an emergency exposure, if the liver function tests are normal, they must ba repeated two to three weeks later and if the second set of tests is normal and the physician agrees, testing may be discontinued. Multiple Physician Review; Where the employee has an abnormal liver function test, or the physician recommends no further exposure, the employee may designate a mutually acceptable internist as a second physician. The employer must pay for the second opinion if informed by the employee of intention to seek further medical advice, and the employee makes an appointment vith a second physician. If the two physicians cannot reach agreement, then the employee and employer shall designate a third physician to resolve the disagreement. Physicians Opinion: Employers must obtain and provide the employee vith a copy of the written physicians opinion within 15 days of its receipt, but it shall not reveal specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to occupational exposures. Medical Removal Provisions: The NPR makes provisions for the temporary medical removal of an employee following an initial examination, an additional examination, an examination following an emergency exposure, or a final medical determination. Liver function tests are the prime determinate for removal, and for return to former job status along with the examining physicians opinion. r>^a"U2rior R*<ourE< Counsetarshc 1910 Swadcriaad fUee N.W.. Washington D.C. 30036 (202) 293-2980 -26- OSHA states that it is not intended to expand upon or restrict any rights an employee has or would have had, absent temporary medical reaoval, to a specific job classification or position under a collective bargaining agreement. Medical Reaoval Benefits: The eaployer shall provide up to six aonths of aedical reaoval protection benefits on each occasion that an aaployee is reaoved froa exposure to MDA. The employer shall aaintain the earnings, seniority and other employment rights and benefits of an aaployee as though the employee had not been reaoved froa normal exposure to MDA or otherwise limited. Where the final aedical determination indicates that the employee may not return to former job status, the employer shall continue to provide medical removal benefits to the employee until either the employee is returned to former job status or a decision is made that the employee cannot return. (n) Recordkeeping The eaployer must keep records of all aonitoring done to .determine employee exposures for at least 30 years, and all records of aedical surveillance and removals, for at least the duration of employment plus 30 years. Records of monitoring done to document exemptions from further aonitoring or "objective data" must be maintained for the duration of reliance on them. (o) Observation of Monitoring Affected employees or their representatives must be given an opportunity to observe monitoring of employee exposure to MDA. (P> Effective date Thirty days from the effective date of the final standard. (q) appfpflls,tl ,. They are not intended, by themselves, to create additional obligations. (r) Btart-un Dates PgKA TECgKICAL KAKUAL OSHA's Tech Manual is scheduled to be sent to the Government Printing Office on August 15, 1989. If all goes well it will be available to OSHA Field Offices by September 1, 1989. Ota-iraior. Resources CouTsefcnhc me Swa<ScriJ run N.W., Wishmpor D.C 20036 (202)293-2960 -27- rit-iBWJisx on Thursday January 19. 1989. OSHA published its final ruls for its Air Contaminants Standard (PEL Projact) (FR 542332). Tha affaetiva data is March 1, 1989, and tha start-up data for compliance with any combination of controls is September 1, 1989 through December 30, 1992. Tha start-up data for compliance with engineering controls provisions is December 31, 1993, unless the Methods of Compliance standard has bean published amending section (e) of the revision. Zf by December 31, 1991, a final rule has been published in the Federal Register amending paragraph (e) the effective date is December 31, 1992. Zf no final rule has been published amending paragraph (e), then the effective date is December 31, 1993. Tuesday March 28, 1989 (FR 54 12792j. OSHA published a "Guide and Bibliography to Final Rule" which provides guides to facilitate use of the January 19, 1989 publication. This includes: (1) An* ; Individual substance index and an integrated Table of Contents which are both referenced to specific pages in the January 19, 1989 FR publication; and, (2) the list of references OSHA relied upon to develop the health effects evaluations in Section VI (54 FR 2394) of the January 19, 1989 preamble. Wednesday July 5. 1989. (FR 54 28054 and 28184) OSHA published in the Federal Register a list of corrections to the preamble and final rule on Air Contaminants issued by OSHA on January 19, 1989. Suits Against the Air Contaminants__Standard Presently some 27 individuals or groups have filed petitions for review of the OSHA PEL Project. Of this group, only three have actually petitioned OSHA for a stay of the Project. All cases have been consolidated in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Groups that have filed petitions include_tbs__fPlloving; * Com Refiners Association, Znc., Archer Daniels Midland Company and A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company; (Sulfur dioxide) * Courtaulds Fibers, Inc., (Air Contaminants Std.) * American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organisations; (Air Contaminants Std.) * Inter-industry Committee on Carbon Disulfide; (Air Contaminants) * American Iron and Steel Institute; (Air Contaminants std.) WrSut>4ert*a<srto N.W., Washmn D.C. 3D036 (202)293-2960 -28- * international Fabricare Institute 6 Texas Laundry and Drycleaning Association; (Air Contaminants Std.) * INCO United States, Inc. and INCO Ltd.; (Air Contaainants Std.) * Aaerican Mining Congress and The Coastal Corporation; (Air Contaainants Std.) * Interstate natural Cas Association of America; (Air Contaainants) * Caterpillar, Inc.; (Welding fumes) * Hoechst-Celanese Corporation 8 Tennessee Eastman Company; (Acetone) * Enzyme Technical Association; (Subtilisins) * The Fertilizer Institute; (Air contaminants Std.) * The National Grain & Feed Association, Inc.; (Air Contaminants Std.) * Fiberglass Fabrication Association; (Styrene) * The Society of The Plastics Industry, Inc.; (Ethylene Dichloride 8 Styrene)* * International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration; (Air Contaminants Std.) * Salt Institute; (Air Contaminants Std.) * National Lime Association; (Air Contaminants Std.) * Brush Wellman, Inc.; (Air Contaainants Std.) * Institute of Makers of Explosives; (Nitroglycerin 8 ethylene glycol dinitrate) * Kennecott Corporation; (Air Contaainants Std.) * . The Scientific Apparatus Makers Association; (Mercury vapor) * ASARCO Incorporated; (Air Contaainants Std.) * United Technologies Corporation; (Air Contaminants Std.) * NGK Metals Corporation; (Air Contaminants Std.) * American Gas Association; (Air Contaainants Std.) ?Y 191C SuBderiA&tf Place N.W., Wtihjnpon D.C. 20036 (202)293-2960 29- QggA peai to K>tnit for Administrative ltvi on PEL rzjfUsi On July 17, 199, OSKA replied to petitions requesting a stay of ithar tha whola Air Contaminants Standard* or of PELs for individual substancas. Tha following is a listing of OSKA's rasponsas: t * Carbon Monoxide: Tha 35 ppa PEL is sustainsd, but tha Calling Limit of 200 ppa is stayad insofar as it applias to tha staal industry ponding tha daeision of tha court of appaals on AZSZs patition for judicial rsvisw of tha standard. * Carbon Monoxide: Raquast for an administrative stay of tha STEL for carbon aonoxide ponding judicial review, denied, "...the agency is convinced that eoaplianca with the ceiling level is readily achievable in the autoaotive emissions testing industry." (p-6) * welding Funes: Request for an administrative stay denied. "OSHA interprets the welding fumes PEL* which regulates total fume concentration generated during tha welding of iron, mild steel or aluminum, to apply in addition to any other exposure limits governing individual fume components." * Ethvlene dichloride; Petitioner requested a stay of the PEL and STEL pending judicial review, and requested a reconsideration of the PEL, all of which OSKA denied. OSKA noted that: "...the recent studies relied on by SPI'do not refute OSKA's conclusion that EDC poses a possible cancer hazard." (P-3) * perchlorethvlenc fPCS): Requested a stay of the PEL of 25 ppm and recommended an interim PEL of 50 ppm during the stay.' Stay denied. "In sum, OSKA concludes that industry will not suffer irreparable harm in attempting to comply with the standard." (p-9)* * Ammonia, phosphoric acid, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitric acid and hydrogen sulfide,. The Fertiliser Institute requested OSKA to stay implementation of or, in the alternative, to postpone the effective date for compliance by means of engineering and work practice controls, with the PELs of the above. Request denied. OSKA notes that "...substantial evidence supports OSKA's determination that there is a significant risk of material health impairment at exposure levels above the PELs for each of the substances in question." (p-10) Ogamzaton Resources CaT6efcxs,hc 1910 Suadertasd Pisee N.W,, Wubingim D.C 20036 (202) 293-2980 -30- * Mercury: The Scientific Apparatus Makers Association (SAMA) requested an administrative stay of the revised Air Contaminants standard PEL for mercury. Request denied. OSHA notes that: "Other than repeating its prediction of injury and illness due to respirator use, SAMA fails to explain how the public interest would be served by staying the mercury vapor PEL." (p-6) * Nitroglycerin i ethvlene olvcol dinitrate: Institute of Makers of Explosives (XME), requested a stay of the PEL for these two substances pending judicial review, and reconsideration of the PEL. Since OSHA is presently involved in settlement negotiations with IME on these issues, OSHA granted a 30 day stay from September 1, 19B9 to October 1, 1969 applicable to all explosive makers utilizing either substance. Zf negotiations are protracted, OSHA indicated it would consider an appropriate extension of the stay. Additionally, if negotiations do not progress by ; July 31, 1989, OSHA will join with ZME in requesting an extension of IMS's deadline for filing its judicial stay request. RESPIRATORS This proposal, which has been at 0MB since May 1987, is con sidered by OSHA ready for publication. OMB has required OSHA to. perform a study on the effectiveness of disposable respirators which is what caused the delays in 1988. The publication of the Methods of Compliance NPR may delay OMB's release of the Respirator Standard until the crucial issues it raises have been resolved. Pit Testing SCBA OSHA is taking a harder line on the fit-testing of SCBA equipment designated for emergency or escape use. OSHA will insist that all SCBAs used by emergency responders be fit tested. SCBAs., if designated for escape purposes, are not required to be fittested. OSHA would like to require that escape SCBA (face fitting) be fit-tested, but at present it lacks an adequate method to perform the fit testing. For face-fitting SCBA, OSHA recommends that where the face-piece of the SCBA is the same as the face-piece on a negative pressure respirator, the negative pressure respirator be fit-tested with an appropriate cartridge. Stand-by Requirements for SCBA Use in Potentially IDLE Conditions In a letter dated April 18, 1989, OSHA Interpreted its Respirator Standard, 1910.134 as requiring two or more standby persons when an employee is using SCBA in a known or potential XDLH situation. Po< Cry rv^oicn. Ire I91C ScMertuxJ PUct NW.. Wtshiapor D.C. 20036 (202)293-2980 31- "When self-contained breathing apparatus is used in the open hatch gauging of sour crude oil tanks, 29 CFR 1910.134(e)(3)(ii) applies whenever known or potential concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (K2S) at the hateh can reach or exceed levels which are immediately dangerous to life or health (XDIH). Under these circumstances, two or sore standby persons must be present and equipped with the appropriate rescue equipment." 1910.134 (e)(3}(ii) reads as follows: '"(ii) When self-contained breathing apparatus or hose masks with blowers are used in atmospheres immediately dangerous to life or health, standby men must be present with suitable rescue equipment." OSHA based its decision on the word "men" above, although (e)(3)(iii) states: * "Persons using air line respirators in atmospheres immediately hazardous to life or health shall be equipped with safety harnesses and safety lines for lifting or removing persons from hazardous atmospheres or other and equivalent provisions for the rescue of persons from hazardous atmospheres shall be used. X standby man or men with suitable self-contained breathing apparatus shall be at the nearest fresh air base for emergency rescue." (Emphasis . added.) The latest draft of OSHA's revision of 1910.134 (10-5-88) reads as follows: "(g) Use of respirators. (2)(ii) When an employee(s) wears a respirator in IDLH, unknown or potentially XDIH atmospheres where the employee(s) could be overcome if the respiratory protection fails, the employer shall ensure that at least one additional person located outside the ZDLH atmosphere, and able to provide affective emergency assistance; and (iii) Where employees enter ZDLH atmospheres, the employer shall ensure that they ere equipped with retrieval equipment for lifting or removing them from the hazardous area, or shall ensure that equivalent provisions for rescue have been made. (iv) The emergency assistance personnel present shall be equipped with a positive pressure,-self-contained breathing apparatus." (Emphasis added) This is substantially the same as the draft KPR sent to OMB for review. -Zf this language remains unchanged in the final standard, the April 18, 1989 interpretation is moot. Zf the final standard contains the requirement for a minimum of two OcaTesta-. Resources Qxnsebrshc 1910 Saedwtaod Ptet N.W.. Wtshiajv* D.C 3DC36 (202) 293-2960 -32- persons as a back-up for aach SCBA equipped individual antaring IDLH or potentially ZOLH atmospheres, it could ba costly and counterproductive to implement. ORC encourages all who say have occasion to use SCBA in potentially IDLH ataosphares to coaaant to OSHA on this situation. NIOSH-REVISION OF ITS PROPOSED RESPIRATOR TESTlfrO ARP CERTIFICATION DOCUMENT NIOSH has subaittad to OKB a revised docuaent that it believes aeets the great aajority of the criticises leveled at it by industry and OSKA. The new 42 CFR Part 84 would taka the testing and certification of respirators out of the Mina Safety and Health Adainistration, would require a 25 aenber panel to test all negative pressure respirators subaittad for certification, and would take a aore generic approach to testing respirators. * : Nelson A. Leidel, Senior Science Adviser for NIOSH, coaaented that the present proposal would render all existing respirator certifications obsolete in five years. PILISA The pressure for a new silica standard continues, but OSHA believes that with the changed PEL, it is in a good position to resist. OSHA LOOKING POR NATION WIDE COMPLIANCE OSHA has its compliance data-base up and running smoothly nation wide. From its Analytical Laboratories in Salt Lake City, Utah, OSHA is making available to all of its regional and area offices, the complete record of all citations received by a company nationwide, for the last five years. When a Compliance Officer shows up to do an inspection, the chances are that he/she will have a record of every citation your company received at any location in the U.S. OSKA is pushing companies to respond to the receipt of a citation at one location with compliance at all locations, nationwide. OSHA Compliance Officers have access to the details of every Inspection a company has received at any location in the USA; this includes the narrative report of the inspections. Thus, if a company received a citation for over-exposure to a solvent in Cairo, Illinois, a Compliance Officer in Jacksonville, Florida inspecting another facility of the same company six months later, might be tempted to classify a similar solvent over-exposure as a repeat violation. .. .y t. _ *v -- T"l n W'VC n2' 7?3-29ZC -33- To date OUC is not aware of any repeat citations being given, but companies have been pressed hard to explain why they have not abated a particular hazard at all company locations after having received a citation for it in one location. Xs of yet there is not a formal field directive requiring this action, but I believe that it will happen in the not too distant future. Xs of the moment, the OSHA record of past inspections is not generally available in an on-line .form. Those wishing a print out of their company's record can request it through ORC. DKK3:lgs ---- ---- 20C36 C7C2' 293-2960 Distribution: Jacfc Kelley - Shelby Doug Morris - Shelby Do*yPerr|^f Sal^s_^ur^^ Norman Culbertson - Celriver Bob Williams - Celriver Roger Tankersley - Celco Tom Johnson - Celco Gary Ille - Cape Industries Carrol Whaley - Charlotte 466 Pern Carter - Charlotte 466 Ricky Smith - Charlotte 466 Bill Piercy - Greer Bob Narvaez - Greer Ben Fugitt - Spartanburg Jim Stowe - Spartanburg T. Cosentino - Bridgewater M. Stenzel - Dallas J. Gordon - Dallas D. Woodhull - Chatham K. Lombardozzi - Bridgewater T. Telis - Summit B. T. Bowyer - Charlotte 264 cc: C. A. Branney - Charlotte 264