Document RJ63OMQMopby0DMkJZ11m7m7z

FILE NAME: Allied Signal Bendix (ASB) DATE: 1972 Mar 13 DOC#: ASB081 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo RE Third Visit by OSHA internal y:.y y y M em orandum March 13,' 1972 C: N.- Menz Letter No. John Riopelle. . . . y- .. Third Visit OSHA to FMD - Tennessee F ric tio n IVJaterials D iv isio n . . -' On 3/10/72.we received our third visit from OSHA out of Nashville, Tennessee, in the person of Mr. David Roberts-- ' '? Industrial Hygienist. ? You have my 2/10/72 and 2/14/72 letters ? to you covering their first visit,'plus my 3/7/72 letter to ; OSHA related to their first and second visits.; Attached hereto : is a copy of,.Houston Smith's 3/3/72 note to me explicitly cover- : ing the second visit. : ._ ... y ; ,. ... ; % *:-m . ' '-j/ . zL I. ,-Mr.. Roberts visit was prompted by another anonymous ,; - employee complaint, stating that the receiving dock?-; y ; y /;y. ramp .and railroad box car floors-get wet and slick? ' ^ y : yi^y.in inclement weather, and that the. loading and un- y. y. . yfSk loading platforms do not meet standards. OSHA stand- ; .r=r^v'--ynar(!s 1910.22 paragraph 2 and 1910.30. paragraphs 2,4,5 ,, ; are,those claimed to be violated. After completing v , . >;<. i.-i'.VS' y his investigation Mr. Roberts told us that the complaint ... ; . would probably be denied since we, in his opinion, con- . y!.y.yy formed to standards. - y . y . y y - y '"\i'tztj-'t.;y '^%72r y::?V:;CWetasked to be advised in writing of OSHA's denial of y; "r ;l Ayy y y;yy,vthis complaint; and of the denial of the first employee ... :y ;y.y complaint. Mr. Roberts said that this is not an-OSHA y ;:Vy f y -- y r\- .jsgppry ` ^ y : i.Procedure but that we might get a reply to a letter ! y y \ y i f y against the status of the complaints. .We b e l i e \ M y ;? :y y y y i t would be well to submit such a letter in order to,'. 's&y.ity.-.hopefully, close the file on these two incidences; y y y?,- y . ^ y y / y O ^ j ^ a 2. r; ; Mr. Roberts told us that we would not be cited for the ' lack of an overhead guard on the Receiving Department .y??' -y :..-/y~, y^-y'yyf?y:c! ^ .. 1ift truck. .Thus, the need for a thirty day extension .: to correct this alleged violation has been precluded; C-T--' ': and we merely need to advise .OSHA, in writing, when the '*: *; guard.has been received and installed. V - -. .,,y- " y/y , 3. ; W were also advised of the results of the noise level ^ - y ? . y and airborne contaminant tests made during OSHA's 2/11/72 - y . y. visit. Unfortunately, Mr. Roberts did not have the actual! \ y y results with him. This was a disappointment since we had ` itiy requested results of all -of;his tests,"regardless of , y ^ w hether they were in or out of specifications.. He again; & V ; advised that their procedures did not'include such a r e p o r t ^ ' ..v;wTSH' yy^Uli c-C.y ., r- " y . .,x?'*:^ WCK006909 Internai . . M em orandum Bendix Do- March 13, 1972 Lettor No. "i Third V is it by OSHA te m - Tennessee ' ;T- Page 2 '>*. ' . ' . : ' .; - : are expected. * S fo1lowing alleged violations . : : i% . >-. r No C235ro? U?ileFfSI'I,a^ f I ? * * Per 3. (Asbestos Dust), we exceed ther''i;,>fPi5raph ,9,0-93a mniiltter" s p M f f f c I TM e '5 fibers per . : - showed 10 fibers per m i n i Roberts tests - v - . >t the * oor time - : . y y b ') fctftais?"' * ion,pressl" ~ M line - over 90 - - * , v # - . c *^ Sandblast booth - over 90 decibels. : . ->,* , ; '"';d -) B 1 o c k w i dth cut s a w - over 90 d e c i b e l s / - . S.'~ ' V'.r e -) Passenger car lining grinder - over 90 decibels.- - -Vi ' - -v-' J f.) Mix roo* hammermill - over 90 decibelsi' ' >* ti ; that the operatorsh1nvolCvedhin itemsb) ^ h r m Ph ^ inclUdes a statement protection devices, we expect a citation of ear protective devices is. at o T * Wearinq ear /. Of t b e ^ TM ^ ^ o US ? ,, f f t ^ r w ^ , d 3/J l 72urt,,t0'f iir ' Poperts th.t each .4J-M6 S timin9 is based upon 8 weeks installation time, weeks desion^efm.X6 *?!i!*K(n0[?eths *to" c^orrectV...;.' -y.... i:Wi. 3 `" 4 be to o u r ' a d v a n t a g r ^ ^ e l f m f M t e l r ! 8 Personal PDinlon that It would And g,, across-the-board with somethin, H k e 9vacDu TM tc?enaS,, ^ s " r P'ant> _ if W. Armstrong R. Blair R. Burton * 6. Eads P. Jeansonne , ..0. Stone H. White ]/ . enclosures * '*?#% ! > M` y ;M r -\:0 v./' # * Internai . . M em orandum Bendix Do- March 13, 1972 Lettor No. "i Third V is it by OSHA te m - Tennessee ' ;T- Page 2 - '>*. ' . ' . : ' .; : are expected. * S fo1lowing alleged violations . : : i% . >-. r No C235ro? U?ileFfSI'I,a^ f I ? * * Per 3. (Asbestos Dust), we exceed ther''i;,>fPi5raph ,9,0-93a mniiltter" s p M f f f c I TM e '5 fibers per . : - showed 10 fibers per m i n i Roberts tests - v - . >t the * oor time - : . y y b ') fctftais?"' * ion,pressl" ~ M line - over 90 - - * , v # - . c *^ Sandblast booth - over 90 decibels. : . ->,* , ; '"';d -) B 1 o c k w i dth cut s a w - over 90 d e c i b e l s / - . S.'~ ' V'.r e -) Passenger car lining grinder - over 90 decibels.- - -Vi ' - -v-'J f.) Mix roo* hammermill - over 90 decibelsi' ' >* ti ; that the operatorsh1nvolCvedhin itemsb) ^ h r m Ph ^ inclUdes a statement protection devices, we expect a citation of ear protective devices is. at o T * Wearinq ear /. Of t b e ^ TM ^ ^ o US ? ,, f f t ^ r w ^ , d 3/J l 72urt,,t0'f iir ' Poperts th.t each .4J-M6 S timin9 is based upon 8 weeks installation time, weeks desion^efm.X6 *?!i!*K(n0[?eths *to" c^orrectV...;.' -y.... i:Wi. 3 `" 4 be to o u r ' a d v a n t a g r ^ ^ e l f m f M t e l r ! 8 Personal PDinlon that It would And g,, across-the-board with somethin, H k e 9vacDu TM tc?enaS,, ^ s " r P'ant> _ if W. Armstrong R. Blair R. Burton * 6. Eads P. Jeansonne , ..0. Stone H. White ]/ . enclosures * '*?#% ! > M` - y;M r -\:0 v./' # * OSHA-2A U.S. DEPARTMENT OP LABOR Oceupotlonof Sofery ond Health AdmJnUtrallon 1600 Hayes Street - Suite 302 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 CITATION FOR SERIOUS VIOLATION* CSHO NO H-6 0 5 3 AREA 1760 OSHA 1 NO. 1 R EG IO N 1* Citation Number 1 o f 1 EMPLOYER Friction Materials Division, (Street Michigan Avenue Road Bendix Date Issued Corporation ADDRESS ( (City . Cleveland State Tennessee March 1U, 1972 Z in 37311 An inspection of a workplace under your ownership, operation, or control located at M ic h ig a n Avenue R o a d , ---gleveiand, Tennessee ................................................... and described as follows __ Manufacture of Brake linings_____________ ___________________________ __ ________ _ _ has been conducted. On the b asis of the inspection it is alleged that you have violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651, in the following respects: Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (a) and (b) Description of alleged violation Employees exposed to asbestos dust in excess of five fibers per milliliter without use of appropriate engineering methods of control. (Example of such exposure was the operator of machine 1$-2.) Date on which alleged violation must be corrected November 1 , 19 72 g CT> PLAINTIFF'S mCO EXHIBIT Os e n A 1Q- Area Director's Signature __ ifZ Z The issuance of a citation does not constitute a finding that a violation of the Act has occurred unless there is a failure to ontest as provided for in the Act or, if contested, unless the citation is affirmed by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES " Any employee or representative of employees who believes that any period of time fixed in this citation for the correction of violation is unreasonable has the right to contest such time for correction by filing a notice with the U.S. Department of Labor t the address shown above within 15 working days of the date this citation was issued. . " No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any comlaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act or has testified or is about to testify n such proceeding or because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this icr." Sec. 11 (c)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651. The law requires that a copy of the enclosed citation(s) " shall be prominently posted" in a conspicuous place " at or near ach place a violation referred to in the citation occurred." It must remain posted until all violations cited therein are cor seted, or for 15 working days, whichever period is longer. A serious violation, according to the Act " shall be deemed to exist in a place of employment if there is a substantial robability that death or serious physical harm could result from a condition which exists, or from one or more practices, cans, methods, operations, or processes which have been adopted or are in use, in such place of employment unless the emloyer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation." Sec. 17(k). G M I 1.46