Document V3OLxdDK3pbNvq1Y7Xg1z5RVj

GEORGIA-PACIFIC INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. E. B. Hollingsworth J. D. Rauch OSHA INSPECTION - AKRON, N. Y. PLANT DATE: June 18, 1973 LOCATION: Wilmington location: Akron >n Friday, June 15, 1973 we received our "Notification of Proposed PenaLty" from the u. S. j/eaartment of Labor - Occupational Safety and Health Administration, (OSHA), regard * tr.ree "Serious Violations" and seven "Other Violations." The three serious violatives eacu carry a propos :d penalty of $800.00 each and four of the seven othei violations car v a proposed penalty of $90.00 each, making a total penalty for all violations of SZ./bO.OO. a Xerox copy of thi. document was mailed to you on 6/15/73. Additional c >ples were mallei. <il the same time to Messrs: G. E. Wilson, John DiLorenzo, George Turner. It would appear to me that the first order of business regarding this matter is our decision whether to oay the assessment or whether we should contest the citations. We have until July 19/3 co advise OSHA if we Intend to contest the citations. Otherwise we should issue a cneck la the amount of $2,760.00. The OSHA requirements on this matter are as follows: "The payment of penalties is to be made by certified check or money order, payaole to the order of "Occupational Safety and Health-Labor." Remit to the Area Dire--cor. YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the aforesaid Citation(s), this Notification, the proposed assessment shall be deemed to be the final order of the Occupac ic=. Safety and Health Review Commission and not subject to review by any court <> unless, within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this notice you the official named below in writing that you intend to contest the Citation a. this Notification of Proposed Penalty before Review Commission. Tile Uov.i. Commission is an independent quasi-judicial agency with authority to issue net... .ns regarding citations and proposed penalties." In order to assist in a decision on this matter I will go over each violation, nit ropo'.c penalty, and my thoughts regarding each of them. 1. SERIOUS VIOLATIONS Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (b) Page 22142 Citation Number 1 Description of alleged violation Failure of the employer to maintain employee exposure to airborne con centrations of asbestos fibers below acceptable levels: Proposed Pena $SOO.uO 1) Concentrations beiow 5 fibers, longer than 5 microns, par CC, based on an 8 hour Time Weighted Average, 2) Concentrations, at any time, below 10 fibers, longer than 5 microns , per CC. SGP 0006864 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (d) (2) Page 22143 2- Citation Number 2 Description of alleged violation Failure of the employer to provide, and for the employees to use, U.S. Bureau of Hines approved respirators to prevent inhalation of airborne asbestos dust fibers (within the dry mixing and pnckout area). Proposed Penalty $800.00 Citation Number 3 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (d) (2) (iv) Page 22143 Description of alleged violations Failure of employer to establish a respiratory progrAa. m throughout the dry mixing area in accordance with the American National Standard Practice for Respiratory Protection Z38.2-1969, for employees who are exposed to excessive asbestos dust concentrations. Proposed icnaify $800.00 jUg**- In order to abate these three serious violations we must first, pay the proposed penalty or advise OSUA that we Intend to contest the citations. If contested we would then hove to appear before the Review Commission and enter our reasons and cvidonce why we do not think we should be fined. At this time we do not possess such cvidonce. All we have in tie List results from the New York State tests which were unfavorable and the Lists results ..res Union Carbide that were run 1/18/73. 'While these tests results are more favorable > ;, they point out areas of high asbestos dust concent:ration that have not area . ..e. ; or tested by OSHA or New York State. Introduction of tna Union Carbide Report could niniy do more harm than good. If we do not contest the OSHA Report we must do the relieving: 1. Immediate Temporary Administrative Controls Initiate immediate temporary administrative controls to prevent employee exporuee to excessive asbestos dust concentrations by July 1, j.9 73. A Compliance offiu.c veil determine if these temporary controls are preventing employes exposure. (1) Provide U.S. Bureau of Mines approved respirators for all employees working within the joint compound dry nixing and pack out areas of the main plant. Continue the use of respirators until the installation of permanent engineering controls. (2) Establish a complete respirator program in accordance with the provi.:; icuu of the American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protection Z88.2-1969. (3) Establish a program for maintaining the joint compound ary mixing aau . out areas of the main plant in a clean, orderly ana sanitary aenditica r' prevent asbestos dust contamination of the air. Thie pro .-.ram will melm.,: utilizing sealed impermeable bag3 for the storage of wascc asbestos. SGP 0006865 -3- (4) Provide employees with protective clothing that can be maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition from becoming contaminated with asbestos. In addition, provide employees with individual clothes lockers to prevent their personal clothing from becoming contaminated with asbestos dust. (5) Establish a personal monitoring program to determine, at six month intervals, the concentrations of asbestos dust. 6-/$-?3 n (6) Post asbestos "Caution" signs at all approaches to the work area to prevent unprotected persons from entering. ~~&bAr* C-lB* 73 (7) Affix asbestos "Caution" labels on all raw materials, mixtures, scrap, waste, debris and other products containing asbestos to prevent exposure to asbestos dust. II. Permanent Engineering and Administrative Controls (1) By July 27, 1973, submit a plan for approval to the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety' and Health Administration, 203 Midtown Plaza, 700 E. Water Street, Syracuse, New York 13210, Mr. Chester C. Whiteside, Area Director, showing a timetable for the installation of engineering controls to prevent employee exposure'to asbestos dust concentrations above allowable limits. (2) Incorporate items (3) through (7) (listed as temporary administrative controls in Part I) as permanent administrative controls to prevent employee asbestos dust exposure. II. OTHER VIOLATIONS Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (d),,(3) Page 22143 Description of alleged violation Failure of the employer to provide and require use of sp -ciai clothing. such as coveralls or similar whole body coverings, gloves, and foot coverings to prevent akin contact with asbestos fibers, of <. mployccs within the dry mix ClilCi peCj<bcut area. Propo. S> b 0 0 b In order to abate this violation, according to OSHA vfe must: "Provide employees with protective clothing that can be maintain;:-* iv. . oaniiary and reliable condition from becoming contaminated with asbestos. In audition, provide employees with individual clothes lockers to prevent tho.tr person,:i clothing from becoming contaminated with asbestos dust." This would be a very great expense to our operation. As it has been explain-*, to employee would require head to toe covering. This would be so uncomfortable u a. that keeping employees on the job would be nearly *:.\poss^blo. They all ccispi.nn . the face masks we require them to wear are too hot. , t er; o .,n r -< ti- ;t The soiled clothing would have to be gathered in marked piaatic bars and cic u i laundry that has special equipment to wash asbestos contaminated materials. v.-- < purchase and provide special throw away clothing that could be disposed of at the c,.J of each shift. We have not investigated the cost of cither of these solutions, uut ] .. vt no doubt at all that we would find the additional costs very high. SGP 0006866 -4 - Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (d)(4) Page 22143 Citation Number 2 Description of alleged violation Failure of the employer to provide change rooms, two separate clothes lockers for work and street clothes, and the laundering and handling of work clothes for all employees exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers in excess of prescribed limits, 'within the joint compound mixing and packout area. Proposed Penalty $ 90.00 In order to abate this violation, according to OSIIA v-e must follow the provisions sa outlined in number 1 above. As explained to me, we must provide two seperate change rooms and two aeperate clothes lockers. This is to prevent contamination of street clothes from aobeacos that would be in work clothes change area. Also the street clothes change area must have an outside entrance so the employee does not have to pass through the asbestos work area in his street clothes. At this time I do not know where we could place such a change area. Hie wash and rest room facility required would make placement of such a change room almost impossible to install under existing conditions. This would almost require an additional building. We have not Investigated the cost of this requirement, but feel-that the cost would be prohibitive. Citation Number 3 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (f)(2)(ii) Page 22143 Description of vj olr t ion Failure of the employer to establish a personal noniccrir.p program at intervals not greater tarn G months within the joint compound mixing and packout areas where asbestos exposure may reasonably be foreseen to exceed prescribed limits. Proo'i-?'. G None In order to abate this violation, according to G3HA, we must: "Establish a personal monitoring program to determine, at six month interval , the concentrations of asbestos dust." This, can be accomplished without much problems, ivc r.ave located an Individ a .1 c r. .u.o will run the required monitoring tests. However t.;is would require ;n exp____u; . u.t $400.00 every six months. If we were to purchase the equipment for acrf tc-: :. ; .a i have to invest about $1,500. in equipment. And about $151. every six rent hr. o ; il test filters analyzed. The equipment outlay of $l,Ju0. would be on a one tin h.-* ... . have only to decide which way to go on this fer total OSHA abatement o. this ... -r.i n. The Union Carbide tests were run over 6 months ago cud cannot be counted on .. roq* tent. SGP 0006867 - 5: Citation Number 4 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (g)(1)(i) Page 22143 Description of alleged violation Proponed Penalty Failure of employer to post "Caution" $ None signs at all approaches to the Joint (//a/*) compound mixing and packout area where airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers may be in excess of prescribed limits. In order to abate this violation, according to OSHA, we must? "Post asbestos "Caution" signs at all approaches to the work area to prevent unprotected persons from entering." We now have these signs at the Plant. They were ordered in April and arriveu late in May. We have yet to Install the signs. They read os follows: "Asbestos Dust Hazard. Avoid Breathing Dust. Wear Protective Equipment. Do not remain in area unless your work requires it. Breathing asbestos dust may be hazardous to your health." This leads us to believe that all employees entering the area must have complete protection, such as face masks, protective clothing, etc. So we have not installed the warning signs until we are ready to provide this total protection to the employees in the department, maintance employees, supervisors, quality control employees, and any other possible visitors including OSHA inspectors. If you think we should install these signs, please advise and this can be accomplished within an hours time. These signs are bright yellow and are 14" x 20" with up to!" lettering. So they are quite visible. Citation Number 5 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (g)(2)(i) Page 22144 Description of a lit. v.d vitiation Failure of the or.? layer to ntlix a "Caution" label to nil raw . .^torirJ.3 mixtures, scrap, waste, debris and other products containing na-bostoa fibers to prevent exposure to con centrations above prescribed limits during any reasonably forsocable use. P rones . i>n . .c\; ; -vta In order to abate this violation, according to CSHA, we mist: "Affix asbestos "Caution" labels on ail raw materials, mixtures, scran, vaat , debris and other products containing asbestos to prevent exposure to cos d.. t. Wc now have a stamp for our finished product bags and all future bags .or a;, r :i will have the required caution label factory printed. Hcwever, this could ^ ceay * .cude Ready Mix as it reads "all raw materials, mixtures . etc." If this is .he ca..-.o, w... ... ... ...;do no preperations to so label one and five gallon palls or one gallon cartons. SGP 0006868 b Citation Number 6 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (h)(1) Page 22144 Deacription of alleged violation Failure of the employer to maintain all external surfaces within the joint compound, dry mixing and packout area, free of accumulations of asbestos fibers (dry sweeping is to be discouraged, utilise vacuum sweeping methods). Proposed Penalty $ 90.00 In order to abate this violation, according to OCHA, we must: "Establish a program for maintaining the joint compound dry nixing and rack out areas of the main plant in a clean, orderly and oar.itary condition to prevent asbestos dust contamination of the air. This program will include utilizing sealed impermeable bags for the storage of waste asbestos." This would be a nearly impossible task until total dust control is accomplished, keeping "all external surfaces within the Joint Compound, dry mixing and pack out area, free of accumulations of asbestos fibers", would mean all walls, support beams, tame tops, etc. free of dust. We could clean this all up, but could not prevent the reoccurance or dust build-up until the dust is under control. We have inquired into power sweepers ana have found one that has asbestos control features. Tills model also has a sweeper hose attachment so that hand as well as floor sweeping could be accomplished. This would cost about $8,000. Citation Number 7 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (h)(2) Page 22144 Description of alleged yjoVtlc-n Failure of the employer to cc.>.icct and dispose of all nsbootcr .arte, scrap, debris, bag;., mata.u : n, contaminated clothing in rrrl.-a impermeable bags to prevent any forseeable airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers above one allow able limit. Propo In order to abate this violation, according to CSILa, wo mm:: "Establish a program for maintaining the joint ca; pound ury mixing a, areas of the main plant in a clean, orderly and nenitrrv condition to dust contamination of the air. This program will .nciu^a ucilininn so. bags for the storage of waste asbestos. Affix nsacstou ''Caution" ' materials, mixtures, scrap, waste, debris and ana..: prcaacta containin; prevent exposure to asbestos dust." We have no ready solution to this problem. We can collect the c -pty p,;; or Ir. plastic bags and dispose of them underground at :;a mine, nut, other sum ns floor sweepings and dust collector waste wourd hz oi nuch weight . .. this method would not be possible. We nave a quo . . n an incinerator m.,,c . . . . on empty asbestos bags. This would cost abouc $3,uju.0Q pxus installation, necc some ideas on this matter. SGP 0006869 This covers ail of the 0SHA violations regarding car use cr - .bento... from the "Multi-Step Abatement" many of these controls have to be c'cmnj . t . . anc our total plans have to be submitted by July 2~, , 1973. fl.is .... not wr; I think our future operations depend on how the reply to these citations is h.auilcc. 1 would suggest first that the Portland Engineering Office send someone to Akron to make a complete study of the problem and make their recommendations. Then would request that some expert legal assistance be used to reply to OSHA. It would appear that an improper reply could result in a very high violation penalty or plant closure. As stated in the OSHA citation, " Initiate immediate temporary administrative controls to prevent employee exposure to excessive asbestos dust concentrations by July 1, 1973. A Complaince Officer will determine if these temporary controls are preventing employee exposure." On this basis I would expect another OSKA inspection on or about 7-1-73. Please auvlae whut our next step should be. k att. J D R. SGP 0006870