Document YrapEBxvjNjm5GgvN9DGxj4vy

BIBLIOGRAPHY 15 1. Allen, E. E., "How to Combat Control Valve Noise," Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 71, No. 8, pages 43-47. 2. "American Petroleum Institute Guidelines on Noise," February 21, 1973, by TRACOR, Inc. for American Petroleum Institute. 3. Arant, J. S. , "Special Control Valves Reduce Noise and Vibration," Chemical Engineering, March 6, 1972, pages 92-98. 4. Bragdon, C. R. , "Municipal Noise Ordinances: 1975," Sound and Vibration Magazine, Dec. 1975, pages 24-30. 5. Bruce, R. D.t and R. E. Werchan, "Noise Control in the Petroleum and Chemical Industries," Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 71, No. 8, pages 56-59. 6. Goldsmith, J. R., M. D. and Erland Johnson, Ph.D., "Health Effects of Community Noise," AJPH, 1973, Vol. 63, No.9, pages 782-793. 7. Goodfriend. L. S., "A Professional's Strategies and Tactics: Exploring Community Noise Levels,"Noise Coatrol Engineering. 8. "impact of Noise Control at the Workplace," Report No. 2671, Prepared by BBN for U. S. Department of Labor, Nov. 30, 1973. 9. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," March 1974, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 10. Judd, S. H., "Noise Abatement in Existing Refineries," Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 71, No. 8, pages 31-42. 11. Judd, S. H. , "Noise Abatement in Processing Plants," Engineering, January 11, 1971, pages 139-145. Chemical 12. Kugler, A., "Controlling Noise in Processing Plants," Oil and Gas Journal July 28, 1975, pages 84-87. 13. Kugler, B. A., "Noise Control Design for New Plants,"Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 71, No. 8, pages 49-52. 14. Lyon, R. H., "Propagation of Environmental Noise," Science, Vol. 179, No. 4078, March 16, 1973, pages 1083-1090. 15. "Model Community Noise Control Ordinance," September 1975, National Institute of Municipal Law Officers. 16. "Noise from Industrial Plants," December 31, 1971, Prepared by L. S. Goodfriend Associates under Contract 68-04-0044 for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. MCD 000009658 NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS ASSOCIATION Founded 1902 SUITE 802 1723 DESALES STREET N W WASHINGTON D C 20036 Telephone i 202 638 3722 PAT R. WRISLEY Director, Industrial Relations 8 Safety TO: FROM: Refinery and Petrochemical Plant Safety Directors NPRA's Fire & Accident Prevention Committee Pat R. Wrigley We have enclosed several items of information dealing with OSHA and NIOSH. We have also enclosed a paper. Community Noise Regulations Effect on the Petroleum Industry, which was prepared by the Community Noise Task Force of the Stationary Force Emissions Committee. A reminder to those of you who have not responded to our January 26 memo dealing with the Report of Occupational Injuries for 1976 -- we hope that you will return the completed questionnaire as soon as possible, so that we can include your facility in the compilation of the data. If you did not receive this memo, please telephone us and we will be glad to see that a copy is directed to your attention. On January 18, we directed a memo to the Refinery and Petrochemical Plant Safety Directors with details on the plans which we have for the presentat ion of the NPRA Safety Awards at the Association's 75th Annual Meeting in San Francisco on March 29. If you did not receive this memo, please contact us and we will see that you receive a copy. For your information, we have enclosed a copy of the OSHA Booklet on Publi cations & Training Materials. 2/7/77 # 000009599 MCD COMPANY: __ ____________________ PLANT LOCATION:______________ By (Full Mampl (Please type! J.TELEPHONE NO. REPORT OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES FOR THE YEAR 1976 1 Total Hours Work ad 2 Raeordabla Casa* a. b, In|uri*f Illnassas c. Total (a+b) 3 Extant and Outcoma of injury or Illnas* d. Fatalitlas j | fl. | Lost Workday Casas h. Total Casas Casas 1 nvolvlng Days Away F rom Work Numoar of Days Away From Work Numoer of Days of Rastrictad Activity 4 i ncldanc* R ates i- | i. Casas *, ays Total Casas OeoThs Lost and 1 ost Workdays ti fhi cases , j INSTRUCTIONS: TOTAL HOURS WORKED-COLUMN 1 if possible, report the total number of hours actually worked by all employees during the reporting year including overtime worked. Do not include any non-work time even though paid such as vacations, holidays, sick leave, etc. The hours worked figure should be obtained from payroll or other time records whenever possible. If necessary to estimate hours worked, give consider ation to actual working schedules. For salaried employees working 40 hours per week, a monthly figure of 173.3 hours per employee may be used. RECORDABLE CASES-COLUMN 2 Recordable occupational injuries and illnesses are any cases which involve: (1) Occupational Fatalities (deaths) regardless of the length of time between injury and death, or the length of the illness, or (2) Occupational Illnesses; or (3) Occupational Injuries which result in one or more of the following: loss of consciousness; restriction of work or motion; transfer to another job; medical treatment (other than first aid); or lost workdays. EXTENT AND OUTCOME OF INJURY OR ILLNESS-COLUMN 3 Each recordable case must be classified as to extent and outcome as follows: Column 3 (d) Fatality - A fatality resulting from an occupational injury or illness should be charged to the year in which the injury occurred or the illness was diagnosed as an occupational illness. Column 3 (e) Lost Workday Cases - All cases which involve days away from work or days of restricted activity, or both, should be shown in Column 3 (e). Column 3 (f) Lost Workday Cases - Unable to Work - All cases which result in the employee being unable to work should be shown in Column 3 (f). Column 3 (g) Number of Days Away From Work - Enter the total number of workdays (consecutive or not) on which the employees involved in cases entered in Column 3 (f) would have worked but did not because of occupational injury and illness. Column 3 (h) Number of Days of Restricted Activity - Enter the total number of workdays (consecutive or not) on which the employees involved in cases entered in Column 3 (c) were (1) assigned to a temporary job; (2) worked at a per manent job less than full time or (3) worked at a permanently assigned job but were unable to perform all duties normally assigned to it. The number of lost workdays should not include the day of injury or any days which the employee was not scheduled to work. INCIDENCE RATES--COLUMN 4 All incidence rates recorded in Column A jre calculated as follows: MCD 000009600 Number of Injuries and/or Illness x 200.000 Incidence Rates - Totat Hours Worked During the Year 200,000 base for 100 full time equivalent employees. Column 2 (c) x 200,000 Column 4 (i) - Column 1 Column 3 (d) + Column 3 (f) x 200,000 Column 4 (j) - Co\umW~\ Column 3 (g) x 200,000 Column 4 (k) - column 1 5356 RULES AND REGULATIONS Title 29--Labor CHAPTER XVII--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DE PARTMENT OF LABOR PART 2903--INSPECTIONS, CITATIONS ANO PROPOSED PENALTIES PART 1904--RECORDING AND REPORT ING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES PART 1951--GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENT ING APPROVED STATE PLANS Civil Penalties for First Instance Violations; Employers in Fanning Operations With Ten or Fewer Employees; Small Em ployer Survey; Effect on State Grants; Interpretation e l. Purpose. Notice Is hereby given pursuant to the Administrative Proce dure Act. 5 XJ-S.C. 552(a) (1) <D) and sec tion 8(g) (2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (hereinafter re ferred to as the Act) (29 U.S.C. 657(g) < 2)) of the Department of Labor's inter pretation of the funding limitations In Title I of the Department of Labor-De partment of Health, Education, and Wel fare Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1977 < Pub. L. 94-439) which became ef fective October 1. 1976. and will cease to be in effect September 30, 1977, unless extended, o Pub. L. 94-439 places two limitations on the expenditure of funds for the Oc cupational Safety and Health Admin istration (hereinafter referred to as OSHA) by providing as follows; That none of the funds appropriated un der this paragraph aball be obligated or ax- pended for the assessment of civil penalties issued for first instance violations of any standard, rule, or regulation promulgated under tbe Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (other than serious, willful, at repeated violations under section 17 of the Act) resulting from the inspection of any establishment or workplace subject to the Act. unless such establishment or workplace is cited, on the basis of such Inspection, for 10 or more violations: Provided further. That none of tbe funds appropriated under this paragraph be obligated or expend ed to prescribe, issue, administer, or en force any standard, rule, regulation or ardor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which la applicable to any par son who Is engaged In a farming operation and employs 10 or fewer employees. Because of the one-year duration of the funding limitations of Pub. L. 94439, this notice does not constitute an amendment to 29 C7R Parts 1903, 1904, and 1951. The purpose of this notice Is to Interpret the terms of those limita tions and their relation to State plans approved under section 13 of the Act. However, In the case of any conflict between provisions of those parts and this notice, the provisions of this notice shall be controlling during fiscal year 1977 unless subsequently extended or provided otherwise by statute or regu lation. Notice of the funding limitations has been prepared as a rulemaking doc ument in order to give the public the most effective notice possible. The Department of Labor appropria tions acts for fiscal years 1975 and 1976 exempted employers employing ten or fewer employees from OSHA recordkeep ing requirements, except with respect to the provisions of 29 CFR 1904.15 which require exempted small employers to re port fatalities and multiple hospitaliza tion accidents and also to participate In the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (here inafter referred to as BLS) annual sta tistical survey If the small employers are selected by BLS for such participa tion. But the appropriations act for fiscal year 1977 (Pub. L. 94-439) did not in clude this recordkeeping exemption. The present OSHA recordkeeping regulation (29 CFR 1904.15) exempts employers em ploying seven or fewer employees. OSHA, however. Intends to publish In the near future a proposal to amend the recordkeeping regulation to extend the exist ing exemption to employers of ten or fewer employees. In order to avoid any undue burden on small employers, pend ing any permanent change In the regu lation. OSHA will continue treating em ployers with 8, 9, and 10 employees as exempt as was provided by the appro priations acts for fiscal years 1975 and 1976. However, as stated above, this ex emption for small employers does not, as provided In 9 1904.15, apply to thoee employers selected to participate In the BLS annual survey or to the require ment for reporting fatalities or multiple hospitalization accidents. 2. Scope, (a) The first funding limita tion under Pub. L. 94--439 is applicable to all employers covered by the Act and will be implemented as follows: (1) No penalty will be proposed for a first Instance other-than-serlous viola tion unless 10 or more total violations are cited. This H10 or more" Includes all vio lations; that Is. other-than-serlous, seri ous. willful, repeated, and failure to abate, but does not include de minimus violations. If 10 or more violations are cited, all 10 are subject to proposed pen alties to be calculated in accordance with the Instructions In the Occupational Safety and Health Pleld Operations Manual (hereinafter referred to as the Manual). (2) Civil penalties will be proposed in accordance with instructions In the Man ual. for all notifications of failure to abate, serious, willful and repeated vio lations. in addition, if upon reinspection of a workplace, an employer Is cited for a violation of the same subsection of a standard which was cited during a pre vious inspection, the alleged violation shall he treated as a second instance vio lation and may be accompanied by a pro posed poialty regardless of whether the alleged violation Is cited as other-thsn- serious. Citations which include second other-man serious violations with penalties win be accompanied by a brief explanation to the employer as to the reason for the proposed penalty if fewer than 10 violations are cited. (3) Grouping of several violations of a single standard into a single alleged vio lation. eind grouping of Individual otherthan-serlous violations which, when con sidered together, would be a serious vio lation. will continue according to present policy in the Manual. <4) The first limitation Is applicable to all other-than-serlous violations, includ ing violations of the posting requirements under section 17U) of the Act. <5) If, as a result of an Inspection, a citation was Issued for 10 or more viola tions, and penalties were proposed for some or all of the other-than-serlous vio lations and an amended citation Is issued which brings the number of violations below 10. any remaining penalties for first Instance other-than-serlous viola tions will be eliminated on the amended citation. (6) If both safety violations and pos sible health violations are found in an establishment, a citation will be issued as soon as possible for the safety violations and will not be held awaiting laboratory results. If laboratory results confirm any health violations, a second citation should be Issued for the health violations found during the same inspection, but the number of violations will not be to talled from both citations to determine whether 10 or more exist for penalty pur poses. Penalties will be proposed, or not be proposed, based on tbe number of vio lations in each separate citation. (7) The limitation will also be appli cable to OSHA actions involving penal ties In proceedings before the occupa tional safety and Health Review Com mission. <b) The second funding limitation (farm-operations) under Pub. L. 94-439 is applicable to all employers covered by the Act who are engaged in a farming operation and employ 10 or fewer em ployees and will be Implemented as fol lows: < 1) For the purposes of this limitation, a "farming operation" is defined as any operation involved in tbe growing or harvesting of crops or the raising of live stock or poultry, or related activities conducted by a farmer, on sites such as farms, ranches, orchards, dairy farms or similar fanning establishments. (2) No inspection will be made of an employer engaged in a farming opera tion if he employs 10 or fewer employees in all his workplaces. Members of the immediate family of the farm employer are not regarded as employees In making the initial determination as to that num ber. <3) At the beginning of any inspection the Compliance Safety and Health Of ficer (hereinafter referred to as the C8HO) will Initially determine, by in quiring of the employer, how many em ployees he has on the day of the inspec tion. If the employer states that he em ploys tai or fewer employees, the C8HO will then inquire as to the maximum number of employees he onployed at nOftAL SieiSTtt. VOL. 42. NO. I*--MIDAT. JANUABV 2S, 1977 any one time during the twelve months Immediately prior to the Inspection date. If the employer has had more than 10 employees at any one time during the previous 12 months the CSHO will proceed with the inspection. Where an inspection is conducted based Mi 11 or more employees employed at the time of the inspection or in the twelve month period prior to the date of the inspection, any further enforcement action will be continued regardless of the number of employees employed at any later date. (4) Any inspection made of an em ployer engaged In a farming operation who has more than 10 employees, is sub ject to all of the provisions of the first funding limitation as stated In 2(a) above. (5> No consultation services will be provided to any employer engaged In a farming operation If the employer has 10 or fewer employees. 3. State plane. Under section 18(c) (2) of the Act and 29 CFR 1902.3(d)(1). a State plan Is required to provide a pro gram for the enforcement of State standards which Is, or will be. at least as effective as that provided In the Act, and provide assurances that the State's en forcement program will continue to be at least as effective as the Federal pro gram. The provisions of the funding limitations in Pub. L. 94--439 do not limit State authority for the assessment of civil penalties Issued for first Instance viola tions of any standard, rule or regulation promulgated under State law. or to en force any standard, rule, regulation or order, under state law. which la appli cable to any person who Is engaged in a farming operation and employing 10 or fewer employees. However, States which engaged In ac tivities for which Federal funds may not be expended under Pub. L. 94-439 will not be reimbursed under sections 23(g) and 24(b) of the Act for any share of fund* expended by the State for those activi ties. States receiving 23(g) and 24(b) grant funds must be able to demonstrate that no portion of the grant funds has been used for the activities prohibited in the funding limitations. 4. Effective date. This notice Is effec tive end will continue to be applicable for as long as the funding In Pub. L. 94-439 remain In effect, unices modified or revised by the Assistant Sec retary In the Frocast Racism. (See. B(ft (2). 84 8tat. 1000 (29 TJMJO. 887(g) (2); 4 U.8.C. SB2(a) (1) (D))) Signed at Washington. D.C,, this 19th day of January 1977. Mobtow Com, Aeeietant Secretary of tabor. [FOoe.77-S378 PUsd l-t-77;S:06 pm) RULES ANO REGULATIONS fMUl MOISTn. VOL 48. NO. Ift-SMOAV. 4AMUASY IS, 1W7 5357 000009602 MCI) 5372 PROPOSED RULES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary [ 29 CFR Part 90 ] CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR WORKER ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE Proposed Rulemaking; Correction In FR Doc. 77-1289 appearing at page 2981 in the Federal Register of Janu ary 14. 1677. the comment period ap pearing on page 2981. is corrected in the 2nd column, 32nd line, to read "Febru ary 14. 1877," instead of "Februajy 10. 1977" Signed at Washington. D C., this 21at day of January 1977. Joel Scgall. Deputy Under Secretary International Affaire. [PB Doc.77-3837 Piled 1-37-77:8:45 am| Occupational Safety and Health Administration [29 CFR Part 1910] HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LABELING Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). U.S. Depart- . ment of Labor, is studying the recom mendations of the Standards Advisory a Committee on Hazardous Materials La- i beling and requests public comment as; to whether a standard requiring employ- ; ers to label hazardous materials should be developed and what should be con tained in.such a standard to assure that employees are apprised of the hazards to which they are exposed. FCOC8AL MOtSTge. VOL 43. NO. 1*--NUOAY. JANUAIY 38, 1877 MCD 000009603 PROPOSED RULES .VT". Section 6<b) <7> of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 <84 Stat. lj9S. 29 U.S.C- 655) authorizes OSHA to issue standards which "prescribe the use of labels or other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that rm-'loyees are apprised of all hazards to a hicii they are exposed, relevant sympi ;m' and appropriate emergency treat ment. and proper conditions and precau tions of safe use or exposure." The Stand ards Advisory Committee on Hazardous Materials Labeling was established under section 7(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 656) to develop guidelines for the implementa tion of section 6<b)(7) of the Act with respect to hazardous materials. The Committee was requested: to develop guidelines for categorizing and ranking hazards of materials, and guidelines for prescribing the required warnings of such hazards and related information on sympto matology, protective steps and equipment, and safe handling procedure*, by such means as labels, data sheets and training require ments, and to report to the Assistant Secre tary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health within 270 days following es tablishment of the Committee, The work of the Committee was to be basically limited to chemicals. The Advisory Committee began its de liberations on September 19, 1974, and concluded its activities in June 1975. All scheduled meetings were open to the pub lic, and were announced in advance in the Federal Register. The final report of the Committee, endorsed by a majority of the Committee members, was trans mitted to the Assistant Secretary on June 6. 1975. There were also three mi nority reports on various sections of the final report. Prior to developing specific recommen dations. the Committee identified and discussed several major issues. For ex ample. the Committee considered ques tions relating to classification systems for hazardous chemicals addressing It self to what major classification systems exist, their strengths and weaknesses, as well a their basis of design, and their ability to meet the objectives and scope of such classification systems. Further, questions arose concerning the mainte nance, updating, and revision of classi fication systems, and concerning how a standard should accommodate changing technological developments affecting the classification system? Requirements and practices In these areas have been well established in many industries and by professional associations, as well a reg ulated by various government agencies and international agreements. The Com mittee tried to take cognisance of the ex isting practices in arriving at its final conclusions. Among other materials, the Committee also considered the document, "An Identification System for Occupa tionally Hazardous Materials,*' which was prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A draft of the NI08H docu ment was given to the Committee mem bers at their flnt meeting, and they re ceived the final document midway produced at the workplace." In addition, through their deliberations. members of Congress have expressed in The basic premise of the Committee terest in this subject and have suggested in developing guidelines for categorizing that OSHA initiate steps to issue a regu and ranking hazards of materials and for lation requiring disclosure to employees prescribing the required warnings by of the generic name of chemicals to labels, data sheets and training pro which they are exposed. grams, involved a total system concept. In September 1976. the Committee on This concept utilizes an integrated pro Government Operations of the House o gram including material safety and Representatives Issued a report (House health hazard Information in the formu Report No. 94-1688) dealing with chem lation and implementation of an em ical dangers in the workplace. As one of ployee training program. Some or all of its several findings and conclusions, the the parts of the system are required, as Committee stated that "the Occupational warranted by the potential hazard con Safety and Health Administration has ditions. Under the Committee's recom failed to implement section 6 < b > < 7 > of mendations. the determination of the the Occupational Safety and Health Act specific hazard classification/ranking of which requires that employees be ap a material, and the implementation of prised of and be protected from the haz such items as material safety data sheets, ards to which they are exposed." The hazard placard systems, and labeling Report then commented that OSHA's systems in employee training and indoc promulgation of the Threshold Limit trination programs, would be the specific Value list (29 CFR 1910.1000) as a stand responsibility of the employer. ard was an Initial step that should be In developing guidelines for the hazard supplemented by "regulations requiring classification and ranking of a material, labeling, monitoring, and training." In the Committee confined its recommenda order to comply with the intent tions to three major categories of the recommendations contained In the hazards: flammability, reactivity, and Committee Report. OSHA is publishing health. The Committee suggested that this notice as a preliminary step in the the Secretary cousult with other Federal development of a regulation. agencies concerned with material haz Accordingly. Interested persons are in ards, such as the Environmental Protec vited to submit written data, views, and tion Agency, the Consumer Products arguments concerning a standard on Safety Commission, and the Department hazardous materials labeling. Comments of Transportation, to solicit information are specifically requested concerning: that would be of assistance to OSHA in 1. Whether a standard on hazardous the preparation of a proposal for hazard materials labeling should be issued or ous materials labeling. be included in the Standards Comple The Committee recommendations with tion Project or be covered by another regard to label requirements are exten mechanism; sive. as a label affords the most Immedi 2. The source for the list or group of ate means of informing an employee of chemicals to be included In this standard the hazards of a particular material. (the chemicals contained in 29 CFR They are based on the language label 1910.1000. the NIOSH Toxic Substances ing system developed by a committee of List, or other source); the Manufacturing Chemists Association, 3. Each section of the advisory com certain United Nations symbols, and cer mittee recommendations; tain provisions of the regulations of the 4. Suitable alternatives to the recom Federal Hazardous Substances Act. mendations of the advisory committee; The Committee recommended that 5. The national Institute for Occupa each employer prepare a material safety tional Safety and Health document. "An data sheet to be used in combination Identification System for Occupationally with other components of the system Hazardous Materials: " such as labels, placards, and employee 6. The obligation of an employer to indoctrination programs to provide em determine the hazards related to the ma ployers and employees with relevant in terials to which his employees are ex- formation oo potentially hazardous poeed; materials and situations. 7. Criteria for establishing categories An indoctrination program and con of hazards; tinuing employee training concerning 9. Whether the contents of the labels potential hazards Is recommended by the should be in the nature of a warning or Committee. The Indoctrination program contain descriptive information concern and training include: hazard identifica ing the hazards of each material: tion and recognition, relevant symptoms 9. Appropriate training requirements of disease, emergency procedures, and and other means of informing the em the necessity for accurate recordkeeping. ployee; In addition to considering the above 10. The listing of generic names for recommendations. OSHA has received trade name substances covered by the other information related to hazardous regulation; materials labeling. The Health Research 11. Supported cost data of the esti Group submitted a petition on September 27. 1976. requesting that OSHA promul gate a regulation which would require "each employer to post and provide to each employee representative a list of the mated casts of Into compliance with the recommendations of the ad visory committee: 12. The relationship of ea OSHA standard on hazardous matnilt** label ing with the authority and regulations generic names of all chemicals used and of DOT. CFSC, and SPA: and FRDtftAl. tfOISTU. VOL 42, NO. 19--FRIDAY, JANUARY It, 1977 ,eP h. ,o9 oo',0' .')3T4 PROPOSED RULES 13. Any other related issues. Communications must be submitted by March 29. 1977 to the Docket Officer, OSHA. New Department of Labor Bldg., 200 Constitution Avenue. NW,, Wash ington. D.C. 20210. The submissions win be available for public inspection and copying at the above location. The recommendations of the Stand ards Advisory Committee on Hazardous Materials Labeling will be available for inspection and copying, upon request, at any of the following addressee: National Ovtic* Department of Labor-OSHA. Room N3620. 200 Constitution Ave.. N.W.. Washington, DC20210. Regional Ornccs trcioN i US- Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, JFK Federal Building, Room 1304--Government Center. Boston. Maaaachuetts 02303. axcxoN a US. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. ISIS Broadway (1 Astor Plaza). Room 3440. New York. New York 10036. mxctow txx U 3. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Gate way Building--Suite 2100, SS3A Market Street. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19104. xzoion rv 659. 657) and Secretary of Labor's Order which can be furnished without com No. 8-76 (41 FR 25069). promising BBN's pledges of confidenti Signed at Washington, D.C., this 19th ality day of January, 1977. OSHA recognizes that participants at the hearing may wish to comment on. Morton Corn. Assistant Secretary of Labor. the additional information contained in BBN's post-hearing comment. Therefore. [FR Doc. 77-2377 Filed 1-25-77:4:17 pm| OSHA hereby reopens the comment period for the limited purpose of permit ting participants at the hearing to com [29CFR Part 1910] ment upon the BBN poet-hearing com {Docket No. OSH-llA] OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE ment. for a period of 30 days. Comments must be submitted in quadruplicate to the above address, and must be postmarked Availability of Post-Hearing Comments and on or before February 28. 1977. Additional Information on Economic Im At the end of this period the presid pact Analysis; Limited Comment Period ing Administrative Law Judge will certify Pursuant to notices published in the Federal Register on June 18. 1976 (41 FR 24718) and August 8. 1978 (41 FR 32912). an informal hearing was con vened on September 21. 1976 concerning the economic impact analysis fEIA> of the proposed standard on occupational noise exposure, and related Issues as set the record of the proceeding to die As sistant Secretary of Labor for Occupa tional Safety and Health. The proposal will be reviewed In light of all oral and written submissions received as part of the record and final action will be taken based on the entire record developed in this proceeding. forth in the notices. The hearing ex tended through October 8.1976. at which time Administrative Law Judge Jean (Sec. e. Pub. L. 91-596, 84 Stet. 1593 (29 use. 655>: 39 CFR Part 1911: Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-76.) Greene who had presided at the hearing, Signed at Washington. D.C., this 19th announced that the record would re day of January 1977. main open for receipt of post-hearing comments for a period of 60 days. During the hearing. OSHA received BERT M. CONCKLIN. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor many requests for information which {FR Doc.77-3376 FUed 1-19-77:8:06 pm]. was not contained in the economic im US. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1375 Peachtree Street, N.S.--Suite 667, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. REGION V pact analysis Itself, but which was re lated to Its preparation. OSHA's repre sentative at the hearing noted that all requests for additional material would be taken under advisement by the US, Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 230 South Dearborn Street. 32nd Floor--Room 3263, Chicago, Illinois 60604. REGION Tl U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 669 Griffla Square Building, Room 60% Dallas, Texas 75202. REGION VS U3. Department of Later, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 911 Walnut Street--Room 3000. Kansas City, Missouri 64106. region vis u 3. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Federal Building--Boom 19010. 1001 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado 60294. ilWHW B agency, and that a decision would be forthcoming with regard to such mate rial. As was discussed at the hearing, it would require substantial additional funding and effort to provide the re quested Information for the record. Much of the requested Information could not be made public by the contractor because it was obtained pursuant to pledges of con fidentiality. Moreover OSHA cannot make such Information available because OSHA does not have It In Its possession Oi controL With regard to requested data the release of which would not breach any pledges of confidentiality. 06HA has decided to take steps to supply such data for tha record, and has contracted with Bolt Beranek and Newman. Inc., (BBN). the contractor for the EIA, to make it available. US. Department of Ubcr, Occupational Safety and Health AdmlnJetranoo. *470 Federal Building, 460 Ooldan Onto Avonue Box 36017, San Francisco, California 94102. UBXOM X US. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Federal Qfioe Building. Room 9046. 909 Ftzat Ave nue. Seattle. Washington 0917% In addition. BBN has prepared a post hearing comment, which discusses cer tain issues that arose at the hearing, particularly those areas of the EIA which have engendered the most comment This post-hearing comment Is now available for inspection and copying at the fol lowing address; Technical Data Center (Docket Ho. OSHUA). Boom K-seao. Oceupehonai aalety sad Health Administration. DA Depart This advance notice of proponed rulela Issued under oecttaw 9 and t ment of Labor. 3rd Btieet and Ooastltuttso Avenue. NW. Washington. D.O. >0919. of tte Occupational Safety and Health The BBN post-hearing comment in- Act at 187 (84 Slat. 1688,1888; 38 UJS.C. dudes data requested at the hearing 000009605 MCD TIDttAL HOISTIR, VOL 42, NO. 1--FtiDAY, iAMUAKT 2% 1*77 5434 ' MCD 000009606 NOTICES Develop criteria with toxic ma- tarlala and harmful physical agents and sub- ecaaoae which will daecrt&e exposure tmu that are safe for various periods of employmeat. Including but not Limited to the ex posure levels at which no employee wui suffer impaired health or functional capacities or diminished Ufe expectancy as a result of his work experience. In addition, section 22CO of Che Act au thorizes NIOSH to develop recommended occupational safety and health stand ards. These criteria and the recom mended standard developed by NIOSH are intended to be a principal source of information to OSHA concerning many aspects of standards proposals. As noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in "IUD v Hodgson", 499 F. 2d 467 <D.C. Clr. 1974). while NIOSH criteria documents do not address all of the elements rele vant to OSHA rulemaking and while OSHA is to consider all of the informa tion available to it, the NIOSH recom mendations were intended to be an im portant aid of OSHA In the rulemaking process. Proceduxi As of December 31. 1976. NIOSH has transmitted a total of 57 criteria docu ments to OSHA (see Appendix A) for consideration as the basis for the devel opment of mandatory occupational safety and health standards. OSHA has initiated rulemaking on a significant number of the hazards identified by the Criteria Documents, and in some in stances published Advance Notices of Rulemaking or Notices of Receipt of Criteria Document in order to elicit pub lic comment on key issues during the early stages of the respective proceed ings, and to encourage public involve ment in determining the appropriate course of regulatory action and in the formulation of future proposed stand ards. Occupational Safety and Health Administration In the past year. NIO$H has pub lished as many criteria documents as had been published in the preceding REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF NIOSH CRITERIA DOCUMENTS Procedures for Review; Request for Information on Cadmium years of its existence. This rate of cri teria document development is expected to continue. OSHA recognizes the need to establish rational priorities for the In itiation of rulemakings on the basis of Purpose. This notice describes the the NIOSH recommendations. We fur procedures that will be followed by the ther recognize that public comment on Occupational Safety and Health Admin the relative need for OSHA standards on istration (OSHA) In evaluating NIOSH the hazards addressed by the NIOSH criteria documents and. where appropri criteria document can be of substantial ate. In developing proposed standards on benefit in setting these priorities. There the basis of these criteria documents. This document also requests information from the public In relation the NIOSH criteria document for cadmium, with fore. OSHA proposes the continued use of Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking. published on a routine basis as new criteria documents are received, to special attention to areas where addi tional information is needed iMTRorocnow invite public comment on the need for OSHA rulemakings to establish manda tory standards, and U standards should be deemed necessary, on the relative pri Under section 30(a) (3) of the Occupa ority of developing these standards. We tional Safety and Health Act of 1070 (S4 believe such, a procedure will assist SUL 1610. 29 XJA.C. 660). the Secretary OSHA In determining the best allocation of Health. Education and Welfare, act of Its staff resources to address the most ing through the National Institute for serious hazards. We also believe that the Occupational Safety and Health Advance Notice should continue to iden (NIOSH), is directed to: tify key issues on which data and other ROSHAL HOISTft, VOL 42, NO. IS--RIOAY, JANUARY IS, 1977 NOTICES 34.r> Information are requested from the pub lic to be used in the development of pro posed standards. Tliere have been a num ber of recent criteria documents for which OSHA has not published any no tice of receipt or other advance notice of rulemaking. Beginning with this no nce. OSHA will publish notices In the Federal Register for all criteria docu ments received to date and will con tinue to publish such notices as new rec ommendations are received. In addition to notire the availability t.f new criteria documents containing NlOSH's recommended standards for occupational exposure to toxic substances or other work place hazards, the notices will summarize the hazards presented: the types and extent of use: the major affected parties, as identified in the cri teria document: the source of the pres ent standard: the NIOSH recommended standard: and the basis for the recom mended standard. While public comment Is Invited on any issue raised by the NIOSH recommendations, comment and information are specifically requested on the following issues to assist OSHA in fulfilling its responsibilities: i. Whether the criteria document ade quately demonstrates the need for and ap propriateness of regulating this substance or other hazard. 3. What benefits are expected to result from the regulation, l.e.. what mortality and morbidity are associated with current expo- cures, and to what extent would that be re duced by the recommended standards. 3. Are affected Industries and employee groups, number of employees exposed and conditions of exposure correctly described in the criteria document. 4. Description of current engineering and work practice controls for major affected processes /Industries. ft. What in the technological and economic feasibility of the NTO&H recommendations (eg., control measures, methods of measure ment i 7 ft. Whether the sampling and analytical methods recommended are appropriate and can be feasibly compiled with by affected employers. 7. What are the environmental Impacts of the recommended standard? These comments will become part of the record of rulemaking which will be used in deciding on the appropriate course of regulatory action, if any. for each criteria document and will also aftfitst in preparing the proposed standards for thoee hazards chosen to be addressed in an OSHA standards development project. Cadmium--Background Cadmium, atomic number 48 and atomic weight 112.40. U a metallic ele ment with a silver-blue-white appear ance. It is soft and ductile and highly corrosion resistant due to the formation of the oxide which reeista further oxida tion. Cadmium Is mined in conjunction with other metals, principally sine. Cadmium occurs In nature as cadmium sulfide, or greenocklte. which la the most common cadmium ore, although It le found in economically recoverable form only with the sulfides of other metals <e.g. sine sulfide). Cadmium Is obtained aS a by-product of zinc, lead-zinc, and cooper-lead-zinc ore refining. NIOSH estimates U8, cadmium pro duction in the 1961-70 period to be 4.2 to 6.9 million kilograms. Electroplating accounts for 45-60 percent of cadmium use. About l million kg/year are used for stabilizers for plastics, particularly poly vinyl chloride. A like quantity Is used for pigments. One quarter to one hah mil lion kilograms of cadmium are used an nually as an alloying agent in low-melting-pomt brazing alloys, in copper for automobile radiators, in stiver-cadmium electrical contacts and In other alloys. These uses account for 30-90 percent of cadmium consumption. Other minor uses include nickel-cadmium batteries, fungicides, photograph, and television picture tubes. Dusts, fume, and mists of cadmium are commonly present in smelting proc esses involving zinc, copper, and lead as well as in specific processes for ex tracting cadmium, according to NIOSH. NIOSH estimates that there are 100.000 workers potentially exposed to cadmium in the occupations listed In Table I. Table I--Potential Occwactonai Exposves Alloy makers Aluminum solder makers Battery makers, storage Cadmium compound collecting bag cleaner* Cadmium compound collecting bag handlers Cadmium plates Cadmium smelters Cadmium vapor lamp makers Cadmium workers Ceramic makers Dental amalgam makers Electric instrument maker* Electroplaters Engravers Glass makers Incandescent lamp makers Lithographers Llthopone makers MetalIzers Paint makers Paint sprayers Photoelectric cell makers Pigment makers Small arms ammunition makers Smoke bomb makers Soldorere Solder maker* Textile printers Welders, cadmium alloy Welders, cadmium plated object Zinc refiners Sprscrs or Cadmium Exposur* Numerous toxic effects resulting from exposure to owtniinm or com pounds reported In the scientific litera ture are cited In the NI06H document. Clearly demonstrated effects Include anemia, kidney dysfunction, and pulmo nary changes including emphysema. Lee* clearly demonstrated effects, cited by NIOSH. include effect* on the gonads, adrenal glands* thyroid, pancreas, and the liver. Exposure to <*>/imiiiw ean result In kidney malfunction characterized pri marily by proteinuria (Ref. 54, 65, 65). This may be a sign of decreased tubular reabeorption although the precise etiol ogy is unknown. Although other evidence of renal tubular dysfunction such as glu- coswia and amino aciduria, have been reported, proteinuria is the most com mon abnormality found In exposed work ers and Is probably the earliest sign of renal dysfunction in cadlum intoxication Pulmonary effects can result from both acute and chronic cadlum exposure. Acute effects result from exposure to cadium fume of several milligrams per cubic meter concentration and consist of the delayed <4-10 hours) appearance of dyspnea, cough, and the feeling of chest constriction. Substemal pain, chills and myalgia may also be present In most cases the symptoms resolve within one week, although, in about 20r'e of the people exposed, the dyspnea is progres sive and wheezing and hemoptypsis may develop. Pulmonary edema and intersti tial pneumonia may occur. In progressive cases, death characteristically occurs within the first week after exposure, a probable lethal concentration of cad mium oxide fume Is about 5 mg/m' dur ing an 8-hour period (equivalent to 2.400 mg-mtn/m'). Chronic sequelae In clude pulmonary fibrosis and "honey comb lung." Change* may occur in the muscles of the pulmonary and bronchial blood vessels. Chronic cadmium Inhalation has been reported to cause pulmonary emphysema in humans (Ref. 53-56,59). The exposure time* varied In these studies from 2 yean to 39 yean. Other studies cited by NI06H have reported no pulmonary effects from chronic cadmium Intoxication (Ref. 61- 64), but as NIOSH states, at least some of these Involved exposures at lower concentrations or for shorter exposure times. Anosmia (loss of the sense of smell > and hypaemla (reduced sensitivity to smells) are other potential oonsequences of cadmium exposure reported by NIOSH (Ref. 55, 65, 78. 79). As with lung and kidney damage, duration and concen tration of exposure are probably Impor tant factors. Although concurrent nickel exposures were reported in some of the studies <55, 65, 78) one study reported Insanilttveness to smells without evi dence of nickel exposure (79). Moderate anemia has been described In workers exposed for a long time to cadmium oxide dust and fume (38, 55, 81). No bone marrow p&thoiogy was found In one group of workers (Ref. 55). The possible role of rjutmiiim in hy pertension la unclear. Studies cited by NIOSH have shown a positive correla tion between cardlo-vascular disease and ambient cadmium levels (82) and hy pertension and urinary cadmium (83). Higher than normal kidney f^minw levels were found at autopsy in 17 adults who were hypertensive (84). NIOSH states, however, that "no definitive rela tionship between levels In the kidney and cardiovascular disease has been demoosttated." Cadmium has been reported to cause certain bone changes (Ref. 34. 71) and > wttmhsrs are reference cited la the NIOSH criteria document. KDMAL KGISm, VOL 42, NO. IV--HUDAT, JANUAST 18, IV77 MOD 000009607 m NOTICES back and extremity pain (Ref. 38). The and in human leukocytes, cultured with Cadmium chloride injection of 30* mole/ bone changes, similar or Identical to cadmium sulfide, increases in chromo kg also caused Interstitial cell tumors of osteomalacia (softening of bone) are of somal aberrations were found (Ref. 112. the testee (Ref. 188, 189). No increase m unknown etiology, although Impaired 113). An increased Incldmce of aberra tumors occurred in rats given drinking renal tubular regulation of calcium/ tions was found in chromosomes cultured water containing 5 ppm cadmium ace pnospliorus balance may be responsible from leukocytes of workers exposed to tate- 'Ref. 192). No increase m prostate Ref. 1 The "Ital-ltal" (ouch-ouch) disease reported by several Investigators (Ref. l, 7. 40. 41. 89 > which occurred in certain areas of Japan may be due to contamina cadmium, zinc, and lead (Ref. 114). The effects of such mixed exposures are diffi cult to interpret as pointed out by both the authors of the study and NIOSH. NIOSH included a report of one study cancer was found in rats and mice given cadmium sulfate by injection or intra- gastric catheter (Ref- 10^107 >. Testic ular changes and Leydig cell tumors did occur but no prostate neoplasms or pre tion of crops and water with industrial which concluded that cadmium exposure neoplastic changes occurred in either wastes containing cadmium. The disease can cause central nervous system rodent species. is apparently osteomalacia and involves changes (Ref. 116). Changes in cutane The International Agency for Research painful joints and bones, especially in ous. optical and motor nerve chronaxy on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the potential the back and legs. Other factors, such as diet and hormone levels, may also play a role. The development of a yellow ring at the neck of the tooth was cited by NIOSH to have been reported in early epidemi ologic studies of cadmium exposed work were reported. The carcinogenic potential of cadmium has been examined in both exposed human populations and in experimental animals. Surveys of cadmium workers have in dicated that cancer of the prostate may carcinogenicity of cadmium. The IARC review, cited by NIOSH, suggested that the data were insufficient to permit con clusions on whether or not cadmium is carcinogenic. Basts or the Current Stsndsro ers and was at one time suggested to be a be more frequent in these groups than in The present OSHA standard for cad warning sign of chronic cadmium poison the general population (Ref. 6$, 96). In mium fume is an 8-hour average of 0 1 ing. The etiology and significance of this one study (Ref. 65), 74 men with greater mg/m* with a ceiling concentration of effect remains unclear. than 10 years exposure were surveyed. 0.3 mg/m1. The standard for cadmium One study (Ref. SS). cited by NIOSH. There were 6 deaths in this group. 3 from dust is an 8-hour average of 0.2 mg/m' reported abnormal liver function tests prostate cancer. In another study (Ref. with a ceiling concentration of 0.6 mi m' in workers exposed to cadmium oxide dust for a mean exposure time of 20 years. This was considered as an unusual finding and the extent of liver abnor 96), 4 prostate cancer deaths were found in a cohort of 248 workers. This is sig nificantly more than expected. There may be some overlap in these two studies (29 CTR 1910.1000, Table Z-2>, The standard was originally developed in 1941, by the American Standards Asso ciation (now American National Stand malities in exposed workers is unknown. Studies in animals have suggested that cadmium may exert some destructive effect on the gonads (Ref. 91. 92. 162). These studies found testicular necrosis in rats after injection of cadmium chloride and one group of Investigators, quoted by NIOSH, warned against drawing conclu sions until further studies are done (Ref. 96). A study of 92 deaths among 292 cadmium smelter workers revealed 4 prostate cancers compared to 1.15 ex ards Institute, or ANSI) as an American Defense Emergency Standard of 1 mg/m for cadmium and Its compounds. ANSI revised the standard in 1970 to the pres ent levels (ANSI Z37.5) which was subse quently adopted by OSHA under section solution. Other studies reported by pected (Ref. 97). This was not considered 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and NIOSH, demonstrated that injection of cadmium had a sterilizing effect on the ovaries of rats and gerbils (Ref. 166169>. One study (Ref. 94) reported high significant. If only workers alive 20 years after their first exposures were consid ered 0.88 deaths would have been ex pected vs. the 4 observed. This was re Health Act of 1970. The ANSI report briefly reviewed cadmium toxicity but the specific basis for the standard was not stated. levels of cadmium In the tests of men exposed to cadmium fume. NIOSH cau tions, however, that further study is necessary before any conclusion can be drawn concerning the possible effects of cadmium on gonadftl function in workers exposed to cadmium. A Russian study, cited by NIOSH. re ported reduced birth weights in children bom to mothers who had been occupa tionally exposed to cadmium (Ref. 93>. Teratologlcal effects of cadmium have been demonstrated in animals. Severe malformations (e.g.. anophthalmia, mi crophthalmia. hydrocephaly, renal agen esis) have been reported after injection of rata. mice, or hamsters with cadmium chloride (Ref. 172-176). One study (Ret. 174) found no Increased rate of malfor mations in mice at a dose of 0.33 mg/kg but did find a doee-related increase at higher doses (0.63 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg, and 5 mg/kg). Chromosomal damage due to cadmium has also been studied. Male mice were killed 3 months after to ascertain fertility, and dividing spermatocytes were examined for chromosomal rear ported to be significant at the 0.05 level. NIOSH states that these studies are suggestive of a link between occupational exposure to cadmium and prostate can cer but that the number of cases are small and some of these studies may be overlapping. A significant excess (12 obs. vs. 5.11 exp.) of cancer of the respiratory tract has been reported In workers exposed to cadmium (Ref. 97). These authors also noted a significant excess of all neo plasms (27 obs. vs. 17.5 exp.). In a study of patients hospitalized due to suspected neoplastic disease, Kolonel (Ref. 101) found a significant increase in renal cancer and a nonsignificant in crease in pancreatic cancer in patients through to have had *< exposure. No Increase In prostate cancer was found. NIOSH views the result of tht study as uncertain due to the deficient occupa tional histories. Elevated blood and tissue cadmium levels were found Id lung cancer patients in a study by Morgan (Ref. 103). But whether this was a cause or effect is unknown. In 1946, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACOIH) recommended a Maximum Al lowable Concentration (MAC) Value of 0.1 mg/cu m for cadmium, continuing it for several subsequent years but changing the name MAC Values to Threshold Limit Values (TLV's) in 1948 (these 1946-1949 MAC or TLV lists were unpublished but privately circulated). In 1956. the TLV of 0.1 mg/cu m was as signed to CdO fume, rather than Cd. In 1965. a tentative value of 0.2 mg cu m for cadmium (metal dusts and soluble salts) was added, and changed to a rec ommended value in 1967. More re cently. the ACOIH recommended several changes in the TLV's of cadmium dusts and fumes. In 1970. the TLV of cadmium dusts and salts was continued at 0.2 mg/cu m as a ceiling. In 1973. the acgth announced its intent to change the TLV of fume to 0.05 mg/cu m, also as a ceiling. In 1974, the intention to change the TLV of cadmium dusts and salts to 0.05 mg cu m as a TWA concentration was an nounced. In 1975. a note was added in dicating that cadmium oxide production rangements but none were found. In Cadmium chloride produced tumors at Involved a carcinogenic or co-carcino- humans, no significant differences in the injection site In 3 of 30 rats 12-16 genic potential. In a supplement to the chromosomal aberrations were found in months post-injection (Ref. 182). Injec 1971 TLV documentation, a review by exposed and control groups from Sweden tion site sarcomas have also been Induced Bonnell and the report of Tfeuchiya were and Japan (Ref. 111). In leukocytes, by suspensions of yimH* cited as reasons far a lowering of the from Itai-ltat patients, cultured in vitro, sulfate, and metal powder (Ref. 183-167). TLV of cadmium fume to a ceiling con- MCI) 0009608 FCOCIAl RCGISTie, VOL 43, NO. IV--FRIDAY, JANUARY 31. 1*77 NOTICES 54.T7 centration to 0.05 mg Cd/cu m. The basis for indicating that there is a carcino genic or co-carclnogenic potential in cadmium oxide production was not stated. Several foreign countries have set 11mfor exposure to cadmium. Some of the mt* reported by NIOSH. are 20*ig-'`mJ f'jr dust and 10 mg m1 for fume in Fin land; 0.05 mg mJ total and 0.02 mg m* TCspirablet in Sweden: and 0.1 mg-m* :or cadmium oxide in the USSR. Bul garia. Czechoslovakia. Hungary. Japan. Poland, and Rumania all have adopted 01 mg nv for cadmium or cadmium oxide. Basis for the Recommended Standard The environmental limit recommended by NIOSH for exposure to cadmium is a time-weighted-average (TWA) concen tration of 40^g/mI and a 15 minute ceil ing limit of 200Mg'm\ A 1967 report by Tsuchiya (Ref. 63), cited by NIOSH. recommended a TWA of SO^g/m*. This author did state that this limit may only be valid for Japanese workers. A limit of 50pg/m* was suggested in another study, by Lauwerys. et al (Ref. 133). which found no effects in workers ex posed at 31*g/m* and proteinuria and reduced pulmonary function in workers exposed at SSug/m*. NIOSH cautions that the presence of toxic effects at the 66ug/ mJ level suggests that a limit of SOug'm* would not have a large safety factor. NIOSH notes further that It Is possible that workers exposed at 66*tg/m* were also exposed to higher concentrations but this is uncertain. A study by Plscator (Ref. 131) found no effects In a group of women workers exposed to less than 100jig/m' (mostly about Wmg'm1). One elderly woman was found to have pro teinuria but that was attributed to earlier exposures at higher levels. Because of the low margin of safety afforded by a limit of 50 Mg,m'. NIOSH recommends a limit of 40 g,'mJ. NIOSH reports that It appears likely that the threshold for the development of adverse effects on pulmonary function Is higher than the threshold for adverse effects on renal function, this has not been clearly established. The recommended limit Is intended to protect against the develop ment of renal damage. The recommend ed medical surveillance protocol for ex posed employees includes examinations of both renal and pulmonary function. The recommended ceiling limit of 200 wg/mJ for 15 minutes Is based on evidence of acute pulmonary disease at 2.309-2,900 mg-mln/m* (about 5 mg/m* for 8 hours). NIOSH reported that there have been cases of exposures up to 35 mg m' without acute pulmonary dis ease but such instances may have been only very brief exposures or exposures may have been to primarily non-resplrable dust. Another study NIOSH cites, reported acute cadmium Intoxication at an estimated concentration range of 10140 Mg/m* for a cumulative exposure of almost 10 hours. Because of the contra dictory evidence, NIOSH recommends a ceiling limit based on what NIOSH be lieves to be realistic limitations on excur sions and the belief that acute pulmonary disease, possibly fatal, can develop at around 2500 mg-min/m1. Although there is some evidence of the teratogenic effect of in both experimental animals and humans i see Effects Of Exposure), the data, par ticularly in humans. NIOSH believes to be incomplete. NIOSH states that hu man fetal abnormalities may be related to zinc retention in the mother caused by cadmium absorption which created a zinc deficiency in the fetus. Injection of zinc into pregnant rats has been re ported to exert a protective effect on the fetuses against the development of cad mium-induced abnormalities (Ref. 177. 178) NIOSH. therefore, concludes that reduction of cadmium exposure to a level that does not result in abnormal zinc requirements should allow sufficient zinc to the fetus for normal develop ment. This has not been proven and NIOSH suggests further research be done. The data on the potential carcinoge nicity of cadmium is contradictory. Among men working with cadmium, small numbers of cases of pro6tatlc can cers, mainly in the elderly, have been found (Ref. 65. 96. 97). Other epidemio logic studies (Ref. 101, 102) and animal studies (Ref. 105-7) have not found ex cess prostate cancers. These studies are considered Inadequate by NIOSH as the human subjects were not known to have bad cadmium exposure and the animals were not given large enough doses of cad mium. The findings of excess total can cers and lung cancers among cadmium smelter workers Is confounded by the concomitant exposure to arsenic. (Ref. 97.) Due to the uncertainties of the pres ently available data on the carcinoge nicity of cadmium, NIOSH did not feel that a limit based on this effect was ap propriate. Hie NIOSH recommended limits for cadmium are based on totel dust sampl ing and not limited to only the respirable portion. NIOSH feels that large particles of <whw<iiw and its compounds, while not mathing the alveoli, may still be toxic because they may be cleared from the upper respiratory tract and swal lowed and be absorbed through the gas trointestinal tract. The past and present standards for have separate limits for dust and ftime due to the greater penetrabili ty in the lungs of the smaller fume par ticles. The recommended standard does distinguish different forms of cadmium NIOSH states that the evidence of pro teinuria In populations exposed to either dust or fume demonstrates that the effects found are comparable at similar concentrations of either form of cad mium. NIOSH feels that the data does not show that a given amount of cad mium is more toxic as small particles than as large particles: therefore, a standard expressed as total dust Is an effectively lower standard and Is there fore more protective. Lack of good data precludes NIOSH from recommending different standards for different com pounds of cadmium based on their in dividual toxlcltiee. Public Participation in addition to the general Issues, listed under Introduction, on which comment and Information are requested. OSHA requests comment and information on the following specific issues raised by the NIOSH recommendations for a standard for occupational exposure to cadmium: The exposure limit recommended bv NIOSH l based on protection against kidnev damagfr--is this & correct approach? Are there other slgnlQcaat tone effects of cadmium aot discussed in the NIOSH cri teria document? Is the evidence sufficient for cadmium to be considered a teratogen and/or a carcino gen? If so, what steps should be taken to pro tect exposed workers? Should all forma of cadmium be consid ered in a tingle expoeure limit, as recom mended by NIOSH. or should separate stand ards be set for dust and fume? Should the cadmium standard be express ed in terms of total particulate, as recom mended by NIOSH. or should it be based upon only the reeplrable fraction? Are the NIOSH recommendations for Urait Lng employee exposure to cadmium techno logically and economically feasible? If not. what alternatives are appropriate? Are there effective subatltutee which can be used to replace cadmium in some of its appUcattons? Is the NIOSH estimate of exposed workers ! 100.000) accurate? Are there employee groups not listed which are potentially exposed to cadmium? The NIOSH criteria document, all ref erences. and comments on the document from the NIOSH review consultants and other groups (Tab Document) are avail able for review and copying at the OSHA Technical Data Center at the address listed below for the Docket Officer. The NIOSH recommendations are reprinted in Appendix B. Comments should be addressed to Doc ket Officer, Docket HOS7, Department of Labor--OSHA. Room N3620. 3rd and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington. D.C. 30210, and should be submitted by March 30,1977. Dated at Washington, D.C., this I9ih day of January 1977. Morton Corn. Assistant Secretary of Labor Arrttmx A--Cmau Docmanm TSAMXMXmD TO Asbestos: Recelvsd January 91, 1973. As a result of s pstltloo to OSHA. sa Emergency Temporary Standard mi abasias had been issued on Deoember 7, 1071. Current stand ard published on June 7, 1972. Proposed revision published October 9. 1970. New NIOSH recommendations reeeired by OSHA on December IS, 1978. Hot Environments; Deceived June SO. 1973. OSHA Advisory Committee setaMlehert on subject on January 34. 1973. Oommlttee rTouimeiwtetlons eabmltted January 11. 1974. Inadequate nfanuttoa a which to establish a nianrtalnfT standard. Beryllium: Bewaived June 90. 1073. Proposed NewlsTd published October IT. 1078. Carbon Monoaide: hsostisd August 8. 1973. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43. NO. IV--FRIDAY, JANUARY 38. 1977 00009609 MCD 0 5438 NOTICES Kotae: Received August 10, 1977. OSHA Advi sory Committee established on subject oa JanIIjy 30, 1973. Committee reCOOUae&dAtivns submitted December 30, 1973. Pro posed revision to existing OSBA notes standard published oa October 34, 1974. Hearings held in June and July 1973, end September and October 1970. Ultraviolet Radiation: Received December 30, ;.-7 2. Inorganic Lead: Received January 5, 1973. Proposed standard published October 3. 11)75. Coke oven Emissions: Received February 28. 1973. Advisory Committee established Au gust 12. 1974. Committee recommendation* submitted May 34. 1973. Proposed standard published July 24. 1973. Final standard promulgated October 23. 1976. Chromic Acid; Received July 17, 1973. (see Hexavalent Chromium). Toluene: Received July 23. 1973. Propoeed etandard published October 6. 1975. Toluene Diisocyanate; Received July 13,1973, TTtchioroethyiene: Received July 33. 1973. Propoeed standard published October 90. 1976. Inorganic Mercury: Received August 13, 1973. Inorganic Areenla: Received January 21.1974. Propoeed January 21. 1973. Hearings held April 1978 and September 1970. Revised Criteria Document received June 23, 1973. Sulfur Dioxide: Recleved February 11. 1974. Propoeed November 94. 1975. Sulfuric Acid: Received June 8. 1974. Ammonia: Received June 15. 1974. Proposed November 25. 1975. Benzene; Received July 94. 1974. Chloroform: Received September 11. 1974. Cotton Dust; Received September 26, 1974. Propoeed December 28. 1973. Silica: Received November 11. 1974. Identification System for Hazardous Mate rials: Received December 30. 1974. Advisory Committee established September 19, 1974. Committee recommendation* submitted May 24. 1976. Xylene: Received May 30. t975. Inorganic Fluorides: Received June 30. 1973. Sodium Hydroxide: Received October 9, 1973. Zinc Oxide: Received October 10, 1973. Bexavalent chromium: Received December 3, 1973. Combined as single OffBA project with Chromic Acid. Carbon Tetrachloride: Received January 23, 1970. Isopropyl Alcohol: Received March 9, 1978. Methylene Chloride: Received March 9, 1973. Hydrogen Fluoride: Received March 9, 1976. Phosgene: Received March 3. 1970. Nitric Add: Received March9. 1976. Ethylene Dlchlortde; Received March 9. 1976. Methyl Alcohol; Received March 92. 1973. Nitrogen Dioxide: Received March 23, 1976, Chlorine: Received May 90. 1676. Methyl Chloroform (1.1.1 Trichloroethyl ene) : Received July 1. 1970. Perebloroetbylene (Tetrachloroethylene): Received July 1. 1976. Acetylene: Received June 30. 1976. Malathton: Received June 30. 1970. Phenol: Received June 00. 1976. Parathlon: Received June 90.1976. Carbon Dioxide: Beostvsd August 11, 1976. Cadmium: Received August 94. 1973. Epicblorohydrln: Received flspteuaber 17, 1976. AUyl Chloride: Received September 9U 1973. Methyl Perethlon: Tleostvsd September 90. 1970. Carberyl: Received September 60, 1976. Cyanide and Cyanide Salta; Reoalvad Ootober 5.1976. Orgaaotm Compounder Esosivsd NoenhsT 12. 1973. Acrylamide: Recsteed DaeamhM 1, lMfc Boron Trlfluorlde: Received Deremher 17. 1975. Formaldehyde; Received December 90, 1973. Altnuu R mall be offered yearly, or ss otherwise aj. i. mBcoMMBmsTTOwa roa a eamcxuic STunuaB The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOQB) recommends that worxer exposure to cadmium In .the workplace be ccntroijj by adherence to the reeted by the responsible physician. These periodic exam! natiom include Interim work and medical history, urinalysis (with quantitative protein determinations every 4 months) pulmonary function testa (FVC and FEV X). and blood pressure. Chut radiographs shall be taken IT Judged neces following sections. The standard la designed sary by the responsible physician. to protect the health and safety of worker* In addition, blood analysts, palpation of for up to e 10-hour workday, 40-hour week the prostate in male workers over 40 years over a working lifetime. Compliance with all old, and monitoring of urtne cadmium con sections of the standard should prevent ad centrations ar* also recommended. If the verse effects of ex poeure to cadmium on the concentration of cadmium in the urtne rises health and safety of workers. The standard above io <*i)g/uter. an Investigation of the is measurable by techniques that are valid, cause, such me environmental exposures, reproducible, and available to industry and personal and industrial hygiene practices, government agendas. Sufficient technology and nonoccupatlonat exposure, should he exists to permit compliance with the recom conducted. mended standard. The criteria and the stand Reassessment of occupational exposure, ard will be subject to review and revision work practices, and personal habits shall be as necessary. "Cadmium" refers to elemental undertaken if FVC or FEV l becomes re cadmium and all cadmium oompounda. An duced 15 percent or more or the ratio FEV "action level" Is defined as the time- 1/FVC is reduced 10 percent or more than welghted average concentration environ would be expected from the age and smoking mental limit of cadmium. "Occupational ex habits of the person examined. If persistent posure to cadmium" Is defined as exposure symptoms of respiratory tract disease de to cadmium at a concentration greater than velop. If there are frequent upper or lower the action level. Exposure at lower environ respiratory Infections, or if persistent pro- mental concentrations will not require ad teinula or other abnormal laboratory or herence to the following sections, sxaept tor clinical findings relatabls to cadmium Section 6(b) and 7(d). toxicity develop. Section 1 Environmental (Workplace Smokers should be counseled on their pos air)--(s) Concentration. Occupational ex sibly tncreeaed risk of chronic respiratory posure to cadmium shall be controlled eo disease. that workers are not exposed to cadmium at (c) At termination of or transfer from em a concentration greater than 40 mlmgrama ployment involving occupational exposure to per cubic meter of air (40(*)g Cd/cu m cadmium, a comprehensive examination in determined as a time-weighted average cluding the components of (a) above shall (TWA) exposure ooncenwstion for up to a be offered. 10-hour workday, 40-hour workweek, or at a celling concentration greater than 200 (a) g Cd/cu m for any 15-mlnute sampling (d) Pertinent medical records shall be re tained for ao years after the last occupa tional exposure to cadmium. These records parted. shall be made available to the designated (b) Sampling and analysts. Sampling In medical representatives of the Secretary of the work environment shall ba performed lAbor. of the Secretary of Health. Educatioh, by the method provided la Appendix I or by a method with at least equivalent efficiency. Samples ahall be analysed by the method provided In Appendix ZJ er by a method and Welfare, of the employer, and of the em ployee or former employee. See. 3 Labeling and Porting--(a) Con tainers. Shipping and storage container* or ahowa at least equivalent la precision and peckege containing cadmium or cadmium sensitivity. compounds shall bear the following label: 8*0. 2 Jfedical. Medical monitoring shall be made available to all workers subject to occupational exposure to DANQERt CONTAINS........... .......i (a) Preplacemeat examinations ahall be aide available to new or reeesigned em ployees prior to Job placement, and. within POISONOUS FUMES MAT BE FORMED ON BSATINO 6 months of the promulgation of a standard HARMFUL IF INHALED OR SWALLOWED based on these recommendations, to em ployees already engaged In work involving exposure to eedmium. AVOID CONTACT WITH SKIN. EYES, AND CLOTHING Freplacement examinations shall Include WASH HANDS THOROUGHLY AFTER a comprehensive work and medical history, HANDLING a 14" x 17" ?A chest x-ray, measurement of farced vital capacity (FVC) and forced Avoid breathing fume, duet or mlet expiratory volume during the lint second Seep container closed mTV 1). measurement of blood pressure, blood analysis (blood urea nitrogen, com plete blood count, and serum glutamic ocaloacetate transaminase or other liver eosymaa), and urinalysis (uleroaoopte ex amination. sugar determination, quantitative protein determination, and specific gravity measurements). A Judgment of the worfcmTt Use only with adequate ventilation (b) Work area* Locations or areas where cadmium dust or fumee are likely to be generated shall be designated with clearly risible warning signs as shown below: DANGER! ability be work in positive or negative pres CADMIUM (Cd) sure rtsptratora shall be made. The method for protean determination in vrum ba quantitative and capable of detecting lev molecular weight protein (eea Afr*"*1* IS). Determination of urine cad mium levels Is also recommended. Cadmium Fume (or Dust) Arses Authorised Personnel Only Breethtng Fume (or Duet) May Cause Tmmnui-------Delayed injury NO Smoking (b) ftrlodle minlnotlo-- shall tko ba available, except for urine protein determinations, which shall be made avail able every 4 months, thsas examinations iMlnkn Aik located ------------------------ * i complete by Inserting "cadmium- or i Olve location of reeplratom I3D3BA1 MOUTH. VOL. 42. NO. 14--NHOAV, JANUAtV 39. 1977 MCD 000009610 NOTICES 5439 This sign aha1] be printed in English and in the predominant langurs t non-English* speaking workers. AH employees ehail be trained and informed of the hazards and the hazardous areas. AH Illiterate workers shall receive special attention. Szc. 4. Personal Protective fqi/ipmenf. Engineering controls shall be used If needed to maintain airborne cadmium concentra tions at or below the limits recommended In Section l. Compliance with these workplace environmental limits by the use of respira tors la permitted only during emergencies. When use of a respirator is permitted. It shall be selected and used m accordance with the following requirements: la) For the purpose of determining the tvpe of respirator to be used, the employer shall measure the concentrations of cadmium in the workplace initially and thereafter whenever control, process, operation, work site. or climate changes occur that are likely to increase the concentration of airborne cadmium. (b) The employer shall ensure that no worker ts exposed to cadmium in excess of the recommended limits because of Improper respirator selection. St, use, or maintenance. (e) A respiratory protection program meet ing the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134. which incorporates the American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protec tion. ZS0.2-1968, shall be established and enforced by the employer. fd> The employer shall provide respirators in accordance wtth Table 1-1 and shall en sure that employees use the respirators pro vided in a proper manner when wearing of respirators is required. ie) Respirators selected from those de scribed In Table X-l shall be those approved under the provisions of 30 uni Part 11. (f) The employer shall ensure that em ployees are properly Instructed in the use of respirator* assigned to their use and on how to test for leakage, proper fit, and proper operations. lg) Respirators specified in Table 1-1 for use in atmospheres of higher concentre tiooa of airborne cadmium may be used in atmos pheres of lower cadmium concentrations. (hi The employer shall establish and con duct a program of cleaning, sanitizing. In specting. maintaining, repairing, and storing of respirators, to ensure that employees are provided with elean respirators that are in good operating condition. (i) The employer shall periodically moni tor the use of respirators to ensure that the proper type of respirator la worn, to evaluate the effectiveness of the respiratory protection program, and to sllmlnata any deficiencies in use and care of respirators. Table I-t.-- tf<-*pirutor *rlftinn Air concentration* Less than or equal to 0.4 mg/m1. Less than or equal to 3.0 mg/m*. Respirator type U) Half-mask respirator with high efficiency flltens). (3) Type C demand type 4negative pressure) sup plied air respirator with half-mask facepiece. (1) Full faeepieoe respi rator with high efficiency niter (a). (2) Type C demand type (negative pressure) sup plied air respirator with full facepiece. ft) Self-contained breath ing apparatus with full faeepieoe m demand mod* (negative pres sure). Air concentration* Leas than or equal to 40 mg/m*. 40 mg/m* greater unknown or or Respirator type (1> Towered atr-purlfytng (positive pressure) res pirator with high effi ciency filters. (31 Type C continuous flow (positive pressure) supplied air respirator. (1) Combination supplied air respirator, pressuredemand type, with aux iliary self-contained air supply. (2) Self-contained breath ing apparatus with full facepiece m positive pressure mode. See. 5 Inform Employees of Hazaras from Cadmium.--><ai Workers initially assigned or reassigned to Jobs involving occupational exposure to cadmium shall be informed of the hazards, symptoms of overexposure < in cluding information on the characteristics of onset and stagea of illness), appropriate procedures to be taken In the event of an emergency, and precautions to ensure safe use and to minimize exposure. They shall be advised of the availability of relevant in formation, including that prescribed in (c) below. This information shall be accessible to each worker occupationally exposed to cad mium. lb) A continuing education program, con ducted by a person or persons qualified by experience or special training, shall be in stituted to ensure that all workers have cur rent knowledge of Job hazards, proper main tenance procedures and cleanup methods, and that they know how to use respirators correctly. It shall include a description of the general nature of the medical surveillance procedures and why tt Is advantageous to the worker to undergo these examinations. (c) Required information shall be record ed on a "Material Safety Data Sheet" as specified in Appendix IV or on any other form approved for the purpose by the Oc cupational 8afety and Health Administra tion. U-S. Department of Labor. Szc. S Work Practices--(a) Exhaust Sys tems. Operations creating workplace expos ure to cadmium shall be enclosed to the maximum extent practicable and be pro vided with local exhaust ventilation unless appropriate air sampling and analysis have demonstrated that concentrations are at or below the environmental limit*. Methods other than enclosure and ventilation for meeting exposure limits to cadmium may be used if they bring concentrations in workplace air to or below the environmental limits. Effluent air shall be cleaned to meet any emission standards that may become promulgated. Air from the exhaust ventila tion system shall not be recirculated into the workplace. Enclosures, exhaust hoods, and ductwork shall be kept in good repair so that design airflows are maintained. Airflow shall be measured at each hood at least semiannually and preferably monthly. Continuous airflow indicators are recommended, such as water or oil manometers properly mounted at the juncture of fume hood and dust throat (marked to indicate acceptable airflow). A tog showing design airflow and results of semiannual inspections shall be kept. (b) Welding, Brazing, end Thermal Cuf fing. Welding, bracing, or thermal cutting of containing *<*'"* ^n be per formed using local exhaust ventilation dem onstrated by air mmpling and analysis to heap concentrations within the limits of section t. Tor single opwttona where local exhaust ventilation la not avail able. where air sampling haa not been per formed. or where air sampling haa demon strated a likelihood of overexposure to cad mium fume or dust, respirators shall oe provided and worn ae specified in Section 4 Where molten *--^-`im a used or formed, temperatures should be kept ss low as possi ble consistent with the requirements or the operation to prevent excessive fume genera tion. Additions of cadmium should be made in the manner generating the least fume. Wherever possible this should be accom plished by automatic controls, with recording of temperature and use of alarms or indica tors for higher temperature. (c) Emergency Procedures. Emergency pro cedures shall be established for anv event which may result In substantial release of airborne cadmium. Such procedures sball In clude /revision for appropriate respirators as specified In Section 4. Specific emergency procedure* shall be de signed for Area, to protect both in-piaiu workers and firefighters. <d) Work Clothing. Workers shall wear work clothing consisting at the least of hat. shirt, or blouse, pants or skirt, and shoes Work clothing and aoset clothing shall be exchanged at the beginning and the end of each workday, so ehat work clothing will not be worn outside the workplace. The emplover shall provide tor proper laundry of clothing and shall instruct launderera on procedures to be taken to avoid inhalation of cadmiumcontaining dusts. Sec. 7. Sanitation Practices.-- (ai Where there Is cadmium-containing dust, cleaning should be performed by vacuum pickup or wet mopping. No dry sweeping or blowing shall be permitted. (b) Emphasis shall be placed upon prompt cleanup of spills, repair of equipment and leaks, proper storage of metenala. and col lection of cadmium-containing dust. <c) Cadmium-containing and cadmium- plated metal parts should be kept separate from parts not containing cadmium and marked appropriately eo that accidental ex posures resulting from welding and cuttir will not occur. (d) Faculties shall be maintained to pro tect foodstuffs and food consumption trtu from contamination by materials containing cadmium. Food storage, handling, and con sumption shall be separate from cadmium work areas. Smoking or carrying uncovered tobacco or tobacco products in cadmium work areas shall be prohibited. (e) Adequate handwashing and ehower fa cilities shall be provided. Worker* shell wash their hands before eating or before using tobacco to prevent their absorbing additional amounts of cadmium compounds. Szc. 8 Monitoring end Recordkeeping. Workers are not to be occupa tionally exposed to cadmium if environmen tal concentrations, as determined on the basis of an Industrial hygiene survey to be performed within 90 day* of the promulga tion of a standard, do not exceed the action level, l.e., half the recommended TWA en vironmental limit, or if there is no operation, storage, or handling or cadmium tn any form or contamination of workplace air by cad mium from other sources. These industrial hygiene survey* shall be repeated at least every a years and wlthta SO days after any process or operating change Ukaly to result in increases of airborne concentrations of Records of those surveys, including the basis for concluding that airborne con centrations of cadmium are at or below the action level, shall be until the nest survey haa been completed. The'following requirements apply to oc cupational exposure to oedmlmn, le, to work- NOHAl M0I91H, VQL 43, NO. 14--FRIDAY, JANUARY 38. T4T7 MCD 000009611 5440 NOTICES pue* wbwr* th action iml la excMM. () Perton&l monitoring. A pragitn of &r*aUalng zone or personal monitoring ahall tM tnatitutad to Identity end mftftfture the exposure of all employees occupationally ex. posed to cadmium. Tbls sampling end analysis shall be conducted every 3 months on at least 29 percent of the workers so that each workers expo'"re M mea*ured at least every year; thia frequency and fraction of em ployees samplei may be different If so di rected bv a professional Industrial hygienist. Sufficient numbers of samples shall be col lected and analysed to permit construction of valid estimates of the TWA and celling concentration exposures of workers during each workshift: the number of TWA and cell ing concentration determinations for an operation shall be based on such factors as mobllitv and ]ob functions of workers In that operation If montortng of any worker shows exposu-e In excess of either recom mended environmental limit, additional monitoring shall be promptly initiated. If confirmed, con'rol nrocedures shall be In stituted as soon as possible: these may pre cede and obvtate confirmatory monitoring if the emniover desires. Affected employers ehall be advised that exposures have been excessive and be notified of the control pro cedures being implemented. Monitoring of thee employees1 exposure shall be conducted at least as ofter as everv 30 davs and shall continue until successive samplings at least a week apart confirm that exposure no longer exceed*, re^omm* ded limit'. Normal moni toring may then be resumed. fbl Recordkeeping. Environmental moni toring records shall bs maintained for at least 20 years These records shall include methods of xunplInT and analysis used, types of resptratory prcte-tion used, and TWA and celling eonce tir-tion* found. Each employee shall be ah'e to obtain Information on Ms own environmental exposures. Environmen tal records shall be made available to desig nated repre-e tatl es of the Secretary of Labor and of the Secretary of Health, Edu cation and Welfare. Pertinent mcdlcrl records 'hall be retained for 20 years after the t st octupatlonal ex posure to cadmium Record' of environmen tal exposures anniicahle to an employee should be Included in the employee's medical records These medical records shall be made available to the designated medical repre sentatives of the Secretary of Labor, of the Secretary of Health. Educ tion and Welfare, of the emplover. and of the employee or for mer employee. [FR Doc 77 2379 Filed l-t9-77:5:0 pm) Occupational Safety and Health Administration | V-77-1J RICHMOND ENGINEERING COMPANY. INC. Application for Variance and Interim Order; Grant of Interim Order I. Notice of application. Notice is hereby given that RECO Constructors. Inc.. Box 25189. 7th It Hospital Streets. Richmond. Virginia 23260 has made ap plication pursuant to section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1598: 29 U.S.C. 855) and 29 CFR 1905.11 for a variance and In terim order, pending a decision on the application for a variance, from the standards prescribed la 29 CTO 1936.451 `a) (4). <5>, and (10) dealing with scaffolds. The place of employment affected by the scaffolds he Is using are safe, even the application la as follows: though the span is one-half foot longer Richmond Engineering Company. Inc.. 7th a than the maximum length allowed, be Hospital Sctmw. Richmond, Virginia 39300. cause of the increased strength of the The applicant certifies that employees who would be affected by the variance have been notified of the application by giving a copy of it to their authorized employee representative, and by posting a copy at ail places where notices to em ployees are normally posted. Employees have also been informed of their right t.o petition the Assistant Secretary for a wood. A copy of the application will be made available for Inspection and copying upon request at the Office of Variance Determination, U.3. Department of Labor, Room N-3668. 200 Constitution Avenue. NW,, Washington, D.C. 20210. and at the following Regional and Area Offices: hearing. Regarding the merits of the applica tion. the applicant contends that It is providing a place of employment as safe as that required by 5 1926.451(a) (4), (5). and (10). Section 1926.451(a) <4> and <. 51 read as follows; T7.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Gate way Building--Suite 15220. 3535 Market Street. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104. US. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Federal Building |P O Box 101861 Room 8018. 400 North 6th Street. Richmond. Virginia 14) Guardrails and toeboards shall b In 23240. stalled oh all open sides and ends of plat All Interested persons, including em forms more than 10 feet above the ground or floor, except needle beams scaffolding and floats (see para?r\ph3 (p) and (w) of this section). Scaffolds 4 to 10 feet In height having a minimum horizontal dimension In either direction of less than 4S inches, shall have standard guardrails Installed on all ployers and employees who believe they would be affected by the grant or denial of the application for variance are in vited to submit written data, views, and arguments relating to the pertinent ap plication no later than February 28, open sides and ends of the platform. 1977. In addition, employers and em (5) Guardrails shall be 3 x 4 Inches, or the ployees who believe they would be af equivalent, approximately 42 Inches high, fected by a grant or denial of the variance with a mldratl. when required. Supports shall be at Intervals not to exceed 8 feet. Toeboards shall be a minimum of 4 Inches In may request a hearing on the application no later than February 28. 1977, in con height. formance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1905.15. Submission of written com The applicant states that Its business ments and requests for a hearing should is of a specialized nature involving steel be in quadruplicate, and must be ad plate erectionb y members of the boiler dressed to the Office of Variance Deter maker's trade. mination at the above address. The applicant contends that the scaf II. Interim Order. It appears from the folds used in building tanks are mobile application for variance and interim and are frequently raised as are the tank order that the proposed scaffolding de sections, in order to position the next set scribed in the application, with certain of steel plates. The scaffolds used do not variations, will provide a place of em have toeboards because tools are placed ployment as safe as those which would in well designed "loose tool" containers prevail if the applicant were to comply provided for that purpose. In addition, fully with 29 CFR 1926.451(a) (4). io>. the applicant proposes to rope off the and (10). It further appears that an area directly below and in close proximity interim order Is necessary, pending a to the scaffold and to permit only those decision on the application, in order to employees, and tools currently being used prevent undue hardship to the applicant by them, on the scaffolds. As a further precaution, a taut wire is Installed mid and Its employees. Therefore, It Is or dered, pursuant to section 6(d) of the way between the Innermost plank face of Occupational Safety and Health Act of the scaffold platform and the tank face. 1970, and 29 CFR 1905.11(c). that the The applicant states that because the Richmond Engineering Company. Inc., scaffolds must be moved frequently, it be, and is hereby authorized to use scaf would be more hazardous to constantly remove and replace toeboards. folds in accordance with the following conditions, in lieu of complying with the The applicant also proposes to place toeboord and span requirements in guardrail supports at 10'6" Intervals In lieu of the 8' requirement of 5 1926.451 (a)(5). This would allow consistent bracket spacing since the applicant, fur ther desires to use 10'6" spans for its 5 1926.451(a) (4). (5). and (10>: (a) The applicant's loose' tools and equipment shall be kept in well-designed tool containers. This does not include fltup ban. key plates, key channels, or scaffold planking although 5 1926.451(a) (16) allows a maximum span of 10*. The planks proposed to be used are rough long handled maul which may be placed on the scaffold plonk during the time they are required for work. The loose tool full-dimensioned 2" x 12" x 12' planks containers shall be secured to prevent of Douglas Fir or Southern Yellow Pine their upset or dlslodgment from the scaf of select structural grade. The Douglas Fir has a fiber stress of 1.900 and a modu lus of elasticity of 1.900.000. while the Southern Yellow Pine has a 2,500 fiber stress and a modulus of elasticity of 2.000,000. The applicant contends that fold area. (b) Areas beneath and far enough away from the bese of the scaffold to contain anything that falls from above shall be roped off and posted with clearly visible signs stating: "Danger Overhead, Work." notSAL ttOISTEI, VOL 42, NO. 19--FIIDAY, JANUAST 28. 1977 MCD 000009612 i'c) The space between the innermost edge of the scaffold platform and the curved plate structure of the tank shell shall not exceed 12" without protective measures. A taut wire rope supported on scaffold brackets at plank level may be used to divide any space exceeding 12" in Ueu of using a guardrail or tle-off system. <d> Not more than three employees shall be working on a 10'6'' span of scaf fold planking at any time. <e> The maximum distance between brackets to which scaffolding and guard rail supports are attached shall be 10'6". These brackets shall be welded to the steel plates. (f) Scaffold planks of rough full-di mensioned 2"X12"X12' Douglas Fir or Southern Yellow Fine of select structural grade or equivalent planking shall be used. The Douglas Fir shall have at least a 1.900 fiber stress and 1.900,000 modulus of elasticity, while the Yellow Pine shall have at least 2.500 fiber stress and 2,000,000 modulus of elasticity. Three planks with full thickness 2"X10"X12' dimensions may be used In lieu of two 2" x 12" x 12' planks provided that they are clamped or bonded together at the midpoint of th* span, in order to spread the weight of the employees. (g) All planking shall be secured from movement or overlapped in accordance With f 1926.451 (a) (12). <h) Guardrails shall be constructed of taut wire rope, and shall be supported by angle Irons attached to brackets welded to the steel plates. These guardrails shall be at least of equivalent strength, stability and height as those required for the 8 foot span of 2" x 4" wood rails by 29 CFR 1926.451(a)(5). Guardrail sup ports shall be located at no greater t>a" 10'6" intervals. Richmond Engineering Company. Inc., shall give noti-e of this interim order to employees affected thereby, by the same means required to be used to Inform them of the application for a variance. Effective date: This interim order shall be effective as of January 28. 1077. and shall remain In effect until a la rendered on the application for variance. Signed at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of January 1977. B. M. CoivcxLnr, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor. (PR Doe.CT-asas PUl l~37-rr;6:s aa) notick SOI noitAi uoisTie, vol. 4*. no. iv---nhdav, jANuatr a a. ivrr MCD 000009613 News Sr Office of Information OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Contact: James Foster Office : (202) 523-8151 After Hours: (703) 941-6798 Washington, D.C. 20210 USDL-- 77.75 FOR RELEASE: Ifimediate Monday, January 24, 1977 OSHA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED CANCER POLICY A draft of proposed regulations on worker exposure to cancer-causing chemicals that would speed the rulemaking process was made public today by the U.S. Depart ment of Labor. Bert Concklin, deputy assistant secretary of labor for the Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), said the proposed rules are intended to identify, classify and regulate potential carcinogens in American workplaces. If adopted, the rules would provide three uniform job health standards to be used under differing circumstances as OSHA moves to regulate potential carcinogens. The three uniform standards would each contain provisions OSHA has learned are common to most job health standards. By using these uniform standards, rulemaking could be speeded for each carcinogen being dealt with. Concklin said the proposed rules are based on three propositions: --That the term "carcinogen" must be defined for purposes of regulatory activity: --That, as a policy matter, a toxic material confirmed as a carcinogen in a mammalian test animal species is to be treated as posing a carcinogenic risk to humans, --That when OSHA is dealing with an identified carcionogen, the permissible worker exposure level would be set as low as feasible, or in certain cases would not be permitted at all. This is based on the general policy that there is 000009614 tfCD -MORE- 2- - presently no means to determine a safe exposure level to a known carcinogen. In dealing with a specific carcinogen, Concklin added, OSHA would rely on evidence from human epidemiological studies, animal studies, or both. The extent to which such data are conclusive would permit OSHA to classify the substance as a "confirmed" carcinogen (classification I), a "suspect" carcinooen (classification II), or neither (classification III). Classification III agents would require further analysis of available data. The classification of a carcinoqen would then trigger appropriate requlato'-y action. Classification I agents would be regulated by an emergency temporary standard. A category II classification would result in developing a permanent health standard following normal rulemaking procedures. Classification III agents would cause QSHA to request from other federal agencies, including NIOSH, EPA, and NCI, any additional information which could have a bearing on reconsideration of the classification. Each of the three approaches would include certain provisions common to job health standards issued by OSHA in the past. These would include, among others, rules on monitorinq and measuring workplace concentrations of the carcinoqen, medica surveillance requirements, personal protective measures, recordkeeping requirements, personal hygiene, sanitation and housekeeping measures and employee training. Concklin noted that with these uniform measures in effect, rulemaking for a specific carcinoqen would thus be limited to such issues as the lowest feasible exposure level, whether the substance was properly classified, and environmental impact issues. "We recognize that this approach marks a departure from OSHA's usual pattern of setting job health standards on a substance-by-substance basis," Concklin said. -MORE- *CD ooooo 3 "However, we believe this new system will better enable us to protect the worker by effectively grouping hazards of a similar nature to facilitate standards setting in a more timely and consistent manner." Concklin said the proposed regulations will be presented later this week tc the National Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) for review and recommendations. NACOSH is a 12-member group made up of representatives of employees, employers, the safety and health :-ofessions and the public. Its purpose is to advise and recommend to the Secretaries of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare national policy on job safety and health matters. Additional details are contained in the attached surmary sheet. - MORE- MOD 000009616 SUMMARY SHEET IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND REGULATION OF OCCUPATIONAL CARCINOGENS I. Background Heart disease and cancer--the fourth and eighth leading causes of death, respectively, in 1900--now lead the nation's list of killers. In 1900, these two diseases were responsible for only 12 percent of deaths; today, they account for more than one-half of U.S. mortality. Annual death rates from cancer rose from 64 percent per 100,000 population in 1900 to 168 in 1970. Cancer killed a reported 358,400 U.S. citizens in 1974--over 1,000 persons per day. Over one million are under treatment for the disease, and each year 900,000 new cases are diagnosed. Of these, about one-third are skin cancers-- usually treatable, and with no significant impact on life expectancy; the other 600,000, however, are serious and are potentially fatal. The American Cancer Society now estimates that 25 percent of the United States population will ulti mately develop some form of cancer. The economic and social impacts of cancer in the United States are massive and hard to estimate. An estimated SI.8 billion per year is spent solely for hospital care of cancer patients. To these direct expenditures must be added indirect costs, such as the estimated 1.8 million work years lost to the national economy and to family income by unemployed or underemployed cancer victims. One estimate cited by the General Accounting Office of the United States Congress is that- the annual cost of cancer is S15 billion, of which $3-5 billion is attrib utable to direct care and treatment and the remainder attributed to the loss of earning power and oroductivity. Most prominent of the causes of cancer are believed to be genetic and environmental factors. Today, there is growing recognition that 60 to 90 per cent of all cancer may be related to environmental factors. Cancer rates vary siqnificantly throuqh the United States. In general, however, states with high rates are the industrial states. It has long been known that densely populated and industrialized areas have higher death rates from many causes than nearby rural areas. The extent to which the observed incidence and rise in incidence of cancer are attributable to manmade chemicals cannot be estimated with any precision, however, but the tragic effects are. Recognition by cancer specialists that the majority of human cancers are influenced by environmental factors is of extraor dinary significance to OSHA--it means that most human occupational cancers may be prpventable if the causative agents can be identified and human exposure to them -Miminared or minimized. 2 II. The Regulatory Dilemma Any decision to regulate carcinogens is obviousLy complex. And with the increasing number of environmental chemicals, the number of carcinogens also increase, together with the size and complexity of OSHA's rulemakings. It its five year history, OSHA has concluded only 4 rulemaking proceedings concertino carcinogens, namely the asbestos standard in 1972, the carcinogen standard in January 1974 ^regulating 14 substances), the vinyl chloride standard in October 1974 and the coke over emissions standard in October 1976. At the outset, OSHA notes that 1,500 agents have been identified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ("NIOSH") as being "suspect carcinogens". Ln other words, NIOSH has found some scientific evidence, admittedly of varvin: quality, identifying those substances as having potential carcinogenic activity in humans or in laboratory test animals. Yet, OSHA has completed regulatory activity for only 17 of those substances. Thus, we believe it is necessary to devise a system for regulatory action which will assure a consistency of approach in regulating carcinogens, a speedy approach and an approach which will limit the size of OSHA's rulemakings which have grown far beyond the ability of OSHA's staf to handle by the present case-by-case approach. til. Summary of Proposed Regulatory Policy OSHA has drafted for review by its National Advisory Committee for Occupa tional Safety and Health, a proposed set of regulations to identify, classify, and regulate potential carcinogens in American workplaces. The proposal incor porates several policy considerations derived from OSHA's experience to date in applying its regulatory obligations to the issue of carcinogens. These policy considerations include: 1. That the term "carcinogen," although perhaps difficult to define precisely as a matter of science, must be defined for purposes of regulatory activity. 7. That a toxic material confirmed as a carcinogen in animal tests must be treated, a a policy matter, as posing a carcinogenic risk to man. 3. That there is presently no means to determine a "safe" exposure level to a carcinogen; hence, for regulatory purfjosos, it wiLl be assumed that no safe level exists. 4. That in regulating employee exposure to a carcinogen, OSHA will set the permissible exposure limit as low as feasible. s. That where mutable substitutes for a carcinogen are found to be less hazardous to the worker, no occupational exposure to the carcinogen will be permitted. MCD 000009618 3 The proposal would permit any interested party to submit information from human or animal studies to establish the carcinogenicity of <_ toxic material. OSHA would then be required, within a specified brief period, to classify the toxic material as to its carcinogenicity based on the criteria set forth. The degree of conclusiveness of such data will permit classification of the substance as a "confirmed" (Category I Toxic Material) or a "suspect" (Category II Toxic Material) carcinogen, or neither (Category III Toxic Material) where further data is needed. Classification of "confirmed" or "suspect" carcinogen would be followed immediately by specific regulatory action as provided in this proposal. IV. Classification of Carcinogens Receipt of information concerning a potential occupational carcinogen will be noted in the Federal Register and public comment invited. Within 30 days from the close of the comment period, OSHA in consultation with NIOSH will classify the substance and announce that classification in the Federal Register. The following criteria are proposed to be used in classifying carcinogens. A. Category I Toxic Materials A substance will be classified as a Category I Toxic Material ("confirmed" carcinogen) based on positive evidence found in any of the following: 1. Humans 2. Two mammalian test species 3. One mammalian species, if the results are replicated in the same species in a separate study 4. A single mammalian species if the results are supported by multi-test evidence of mutagenicity B. Category II Toxic Materials A substance will be classified as a Category II Toxic Material ("suspect" carcinogen) if the evidence of carcinogenicity in humans or one or more mammalian species is found by OSHA to be only "sug gestive" as opposed to confirming. Such a distinction would be based on generally accepted standards of review for such scientific studies. MCD 000009619 4 C. Category III Toxic Materials A substance for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is found inadequate to classify as Category I or II will be classified as Category III. V. Regulatory Actions The proposal provides that at the time of or immediately following classification, regulatory action shall be initiated as follows: A. Category I Toxic Material 1. Issue an Emergency Temporary Standard--a model standard is proposed for this purpose. 2. Issue a proposed permanent standard--a model permanent standard fc ; a confirmed carcinogen is proposed for this purpose. 3. Simplify and reduce the time required for rulenakir.q by limiting the public hearing to certain specified issues, including feasibility. 4. Issue a final standard within six months. 5. Prohibit occupational exposure in specific applications where suitable substitutes are found which are less hazardous to workers. B. Category II Toxic Material 1. Issue a proposed permanent standard--a model permanent standard for a "suspect" carcinogen is proposed. 2. Notify other federal agencies including NIOSH, EPA, and NCI of the determination that the evidence of carcino genicity is only "suggestive" and request that those agencies consider such evidence in priorities for further research. 3. Complete the rulemaking proceeding and issue a final standard. C. Category III Toxic Material Advise other federal agencies including NIOSH, EFA, and NCI of classification and request any additional information which could have a bearing on reconsideration of the Category IIT classification. MCD 000009620 Surprise Inspections For Safety Okayed By Lyle Dennlston Wtshinfiofi SUrSuff Writer Government inspectors are free again to make surprise visits to businesses to check up on safety hazards for workers. The only business in the country they may not visit is Barlow's Inc. in Pocatello, Idaho. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist yesterday issued an order that lifted, for the next several months, a lower frederal court's ban on surprise inspections by the Labor Department under the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act. He expressly exempted Barlow's from any in spection because it won a challenge to the power of the Labor Department to send inspectors on unan nounced visits to look for hazardous conditions on the job. A special three-judge court in Boise on Dec. 30 ruled that inspectors violated Barlow's constitu tional rights by a surprise visit without advance permission from a court. The three-judge court is sued a nationwide ban on such inspections without court-issued warrants. The Labor Department is planning to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court. It asked Rehn quist to let the inspections go forward everywhere except at Barlow's because, otherwise, it would be "almost totally powerless" to require businesses to remedy safety hazards to workers. On Jan. 25, Rehnquist issued a temporary order that allowed inspections to resume everywhere but in the state of Idaho. Yesterday, he allowed inspections everywhere except Barlow's until after the Supreme Court has issued a final decision on the Labor Department's appeal. The WishiagtOQ Star 1977 MCD 000009621 United States Department News of Labor OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION CONTACT: James Foster USDL-- 77-33 FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATE, WEDNESDAY January 12, 1977 OSHA SEEKS SUPREME COURT RELIEF IN IDAHO CASE The U.S. Department of Labor will seek relief in the Supreme Court from a U.S. District Court in Idaho ruling against inspections. "We are profoundly disappointed at the decision of the district court not to grant our motion for a stay in this case," Dr. Morton Corn, assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), said today. "We will move now, as rapidly as possible, to seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court," Dr. Corn said. "The issues raised in this case are, as the district court said, constitutional in nature and can only be resolved by the Supreme Court." The special three-judge panel of the district court handed down a decision on Dec. 30, which found that OSHA's inspection authority under the Occupational Safety and Health Act violates the Fourth Amendment. OSHA filed a motion to stay the court's accompanying injunction on Jan. 4. The decision to deny the stay was handed down yesterday. "We have no choice but to honor the court's decision and will continue the suspension of all inspection activity in Idaho," Dr. Corn said. "The offices in Boise and Jackson will remain open for all other business, but no inspections will be conducted in Idaho. That includes inspections based on complaints, reports of imminent danger and reports of hospitalizations and fatalities due to industrial accidents." - MORE- **CX) 2 T;ie incident wnich forced the basis for the case at issue fa 11 ^ into another ~ vir-i. gone**-*1 inspections. and activity is that area will also be suspended. ' v : ie thp-1' Iroal r-rc:e>s-< v^c 'einc cairied out,'1 lr. torn sa^'o. 'we . ;' ' continue tc ,:uir`iVi our resoonsib' 1 ities, under the law, throughout the rest of the nation. All inspection activities are being- and will be- carried ou"." Hi 000009623 MOD News Office of InformationWashington, D.C. 2Q21Q OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Contact: James Foster Office: 202-523-8151 After Hours: (703) 941-6798 USDL-- 77-80 FOR PELcASE: Immediate Moncav, Jan. 10, 13:7 IDAHO OSUA OFFICES CEASE INSPECTION ACTIVITY T' f- Marx r-~ ** . : . c -,e,pr _ -t - '>''1/ ~ : : - : - -r * y,- .= j ,c s VO'' 11 ; .wc , V.S. - 'l" 't 'n;. : ;jl^ on a j r0Jy jn 1 j.:" "-T^"sc*y. '"- rxt ion or. o-.d OSUA -y -xase v1 sp ?o t:,i s because *-f :..ne cart's oe'ief tney Jid rot comely with the Fourth Amendment. "As a result of the court's order, we have no choice but to suspend all inspection activity in Idaho until the court acts on the motion to stay the injunction," Dr, Morton Corn, assistant secretary of labor for OSHA, said here. The Lewiston and Boise offices remain open for all purposes other tnan actual inspections including review cf inspection reports, responding to com plaints on hazardous working conditions, and recording fatalities. The government's motion to stay was filedwith the court on Wednesday along with a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. "If the district court grants us the stay, we will inmediately resume inspections in Idaho," Or. Corn said. "If the stay is not granted, we will immediately exercise our right to seek a stay from the Supreme Court." OSHA's inspection activity is continuing as usual throughout the rest of the country. 009^24 000 -MORE- 2- - The court ruling involved an employer who refused to let an OSHA inspector enter his place of business. The employer contended such an inspection would violate his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to be protected from "unreasonable searches and seizures." "The Act makes it clear that inspections are to be conducted at reasonable times and within reasonable limits and within a reasonable manner," Or. Corn said, we believe our inspection procedures are eminently reasonable. "We visit estaol ichmer.ts which, based on industry average injury rates, can ho ^'-cected to n<v,a c.ionificant numbers of hazards to employee safety and health. It is difficult to imagine any administrative system directed to preventive measures in approximately five million establishments which could anticipate, with any greater degree of accuracy, the hazards we might encounter in any given workplace." The Boise office of OSHA is located at 1315 West Idaho St., P.0. Box 9207, 83707. The telephone number is (208) 384-1867. A field station is located in Lewiston, P.O. Box 1223, 83501, telephone number (208) 743-2589. ### 000009625 MCD 2956 RULES AND REGULATIONS CHAPTER XVII--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. DE PARTMENT OF LABOR (Docket No. S-102] PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION Ground-Fault Protection Correction In FR Doc. 76-37472 appearing at pace 55606 In the Issue for Tuesday. De cember 21. 1976 the following correc tions should be made: <1) On page 55697. first column, eighteenth line from the top, after the word "economic" insert "impact". (2) On page 55699. column, de lete the eighth line from the bottom and insert: "would actually be Idled, in stead of 10." FKM9AI HOISTH. VOL 43. NO. IQ--ntDAY, JANUARY 14. 1977 / MCD 000009626 K 1^111^ United States IMuWo grsr Office of Information Washington, D C. 20210 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Contact: Office : After Hours: James Foster (202) 523-8151 (703) 941-6798 USDL-- 77-36 FOR RELEASE: A.M. EDITIONS FRIDAY, JAN. 14, 1977 JOB SAFETY DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT SETTLED The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently reached settlement with Missouri Valley, Inc., Amarillo, Texas in a job safety discrimination issue involving an alleged discharge of an employee who exercised rights under federal law. The voluntary settlement resolved a discrimination complaint filed with OSHA by Mr. Richard l. Lyons, Glen Bumie, Md. Lyons alleged that he was dis charged for contacting-OSHA regarding safety hazards on the job, participating in the walkaround Inspection, and being outspoken about safety on the job. As part of the settlement agreement, the company paid Lyons backpay and posted a notice to employees outlining the terms of the settlement. The complaint and settlement are related to a provision in the Occupational Safety and Health Act that employees engaged in safety or health related activities are protected against discrimination, discharge, or other adverse action by the employer arising out of the employee's protected activities. ### Editor's Note: For added details contact William Crumbaker, operations review officer Seattle (206) 422-5043. MCP 000009627 2- - current mandatory 'requirements concerning benzene. Under the present standard, the permissible exposure limits to benzene are an eight-hour time-weighted average concentration of 10 ppm and a ceiling con centration of 23 ppm except for a maximum peak up to 50 ppm, or whatever limits are set by a state agency in a state with an approved safety and health plan. If employee exposure is in excess of permissible limits, the employer must implement feasible engineering or administrative controls. Such controls must be implemented even if they do not completely reduce exposure to permissible limits. Only when all feasible controls have been implemented* and the level of benzene still exceeds permissible limits, may an employer rely on a respiratory protection program. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) announced in August 1976 that available evidence that benzene is leukemogenic is conclusive. NIOSH recommended, therefore, that for regulatory purposes benzene be considered carcinogenic in man. Based on available evidence, NIOSH has recommended that the permissible ex posure limit for benzene be lowered to a two-hour time-weighted average concentration of 1 ppm in air. OSHA currently is considering this recomnendation. For a single, free copy of the guidelines, write to B.K. Kwon, Room N3603, U.S. Department of Labor, 3rd St. and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. 62 009 OOO MCD 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 2 9 News s? ^ Office of Information Washington, D C. 20210 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY I HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Contact: flc: Ur Hours: Jams Foster (202) 523-8151 (793) Ml-6796 US0L-- 77-28 FOR RELEASE: {Mediate fenday. January 10. 1977 NATIONWIDE HEARINGS ON OSHA PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE SCHEDULED Eleven public Meetings allowing representatives of labor, Miugeaent and the publ 1c to cogent on recoanendatlons of a Presidential task force have been scheduled for March by the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Meetings, scheduled for II cities across the country, will focus on the task force's suggested approach to revision of the standards on Machinery and Machine guarding, and on specific sections of the existing standard which should be changed. The standards were aanng those national consensus and federal standards adopted by OSHA on May 29, 1971, five Months after enactnent of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. On April 27, 1976, OSHA, recognizing the need to obtain data to use in re vising all the adopted standards, published a notice in the Federal Register calling for comment on approximately IS percent of Its general industry safety standards; walking working surfaces, fire protection and anhydrous aanonia. On May 7, 1976, President Ford established federal task forces to work with selected agencies to Improve and slaipllfy their regulations. OSHA was one of the agencies. The President's Usk force on revision of the OSHA Safety Regulations was responsible for developing both suggested revised standards for Machinery and Machine guarding, and a recommended new approach to OSHA safety standards. MORE -2- The task force approach was reviewed by the policy and standards subgroups of OSHA's National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) on Oct. 7 and Nov. 4, 1976. The committee as a whole reviewed the approach on Nov. 18. NACOSH then recoanended that OSHA publish the approach, with sotae Modifications, as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to collect information and coement. Two notices are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Friday, Jan. 7. 1977. One raises specific technical Issues concerning revision of the Machinery and Machine guarding standard. The other discusses general approaches to the problem of standards preparation and revision. To solicit comments on the specific machinery and machine guarding approach. OSHA is using a three-column format. The first or left-hand column contains the language of the present standard. The second or middle column contains the most recent standard recommended by the American National Standard Institute (ANSI). ANSI, a private organizatlon.developed many of the voluntary national consensus standards initially adopted by OSHA. The third or right-hand column contains contents and raises Issues relating to the particular provisions of the standard. The general approach notice discusses ways of combining performance and specification standards to ensure worker safety. Oeslgn or specification stan dards dictate how a machine must be constructed and operated A performance standard states employer obiigatIons in terms of ultimate goals to be achieved. The employer Is then free to select the specific method to achieve those goa1s. HORf MCD 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 3 0 -3- OSHA Is specifically seeking ccwnwnts on whether employer obligations are sufftctentlyclear under this approach, and on whether employees will be readily able to determine If a safe workplace Is being provided. Written coaMnts on the notices should be submitted on or before April 7. 1977, to be Included with the record of the neetlngs- Requests to aake oral presentations on substantive Issues at the Meetings should be sutailtted not later than two weeks prior to the Meeting dates. Both written contents and requests to nake presentations should be sent to Oocfcet 0, OSHA Technical Data Center, Room N3620, U.S. OepartMent of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.M., Washington, D.C. 20210. The requests to Make written presentations should Identify the person or organisation wishing to appear, the subject natter, the amount of tine wanted and a brief suaoMry of the presentation. If possible. Late requests nay be honored, tlMt peralttlng. The nettings will be chaired by representatives of the Departaent of Labor designated by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. The amtlngs will normally begin et 10 a.a. and conclude at S p.a. but provisions will be aade for evening sessions, if sufficient requests are received. The netting dates and locations are: March 1-3, 1977 Atlanta Gulf Oil Bldg. Rooa IBS 1375 Peachtree St., N.E. East Boston Logan Hilton Hotal Logan Airport - MORE - 4 Cleveland Cleveland Holiday Inn lilt lakeside Itarch 8-10, 1977 Chicago Sheraton O'Hare (Rosemont) 6810 N. Mannheiw fid Oallas Baker Hotel - The Texas Room 1400 Coaeerce St. Oenver Stouffer's Denver Inn 3203 Quebec St. March 15-17, 1977 Los Angeles Bi1 twore Hotel* Renan Room SIS South Olive St. Winston* Benton Convention Center Salon (N.C.) Conference Roan IS 301 West 5th St. March 22-24, 1977 Seattle Washington Plata Hotel 5th i Westlake St. Kansas City Phillips House- The London Roon (Ho.) 12th i Baltlnore New York U.S. Departnent of Labor Roca 3560 - 35th Floor 1515 BroaAny MCD 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 3 1 -b OSHA MACHINE GUARDING FACT SHEET This fact shoot highlights gonoral Issues raised by the passible revision of the standards as well as a discussion of different approaches to standards revision. (Specific technical Issues relative to the standards revision are con tained in the Jan. 7, Federal Register.) The April 23, 1976 Federal Register notice pointed out one of the major Issues In the process Is whether to use "ptrfomtnco" or "specifications" standards. It Is Important to note that there are no conaonly accepted definitions of "perfonnance" or "specification" standards. Rather there is a spectrua of requireaents ranging froa the general duty requirement-- to Maintain workplaces free froa recognized hazards-- to the most specific-- rivets should be five inches apart, railings aust be exactly 42 Inches high, etc. As a general proposition, a specification standard can be said to show how a task should be occamplIshed. On the other hand, a perfomance standard states obligations In tenns of ultlaete goals which must be achieved. The employer re mains free to select the specific method to achieve the goals. A large number of employers appear to favor the adoption of a perfonnance approach. Those ee*>loyers argue tht the specification type of standard is unduly rigid. Inhibits the development and use of new technology, and is often so com plicated that many employers and employees cannot determine what is required. On the other hand, a number of employers have expressed concern that under a per formance standard they would lack sufficient guidance to know exactly what they aust do to coaply with the regulations. Similarly some eaployees have* suggested that performance standards may not adequately Inform them of what obligations are inposed on their companies. - MOAE- 6 The question has also arisen about the degree to which a performance approach could Impose Information greater burdens on OSHA compliance officers. The task force approach embodies a perfonnance standard, but also provides detailed information in two separate appendices to the regulation to help employers and employees understand how safeguards can be put in place. The regulation lists hazards and specifies safeguarding methods, one of which must be used by an employer to protect employees' against the hazards. The employer could carry out his obli gations In either of two ways: (I) determine If a hazard exists and If an ee^iloyee Is exposed. If an employee is exposed to hazard, the employer must use an accept able safeguarding method. Appendix A provides guidance on how to use an acceptable method. (2) the employer can follow all the revelant specifications listed in Appendix B. Appendix A would provide guidance to an employer who opted for a performance approach. He would determine what protection was best suited for his employees based on a simplified explanation of the basic principles of machine guarding contained in Appendix A, Illustrations of various types of safeguarding devices are contained In the appendix for hts use. In addition, the appendix would identify 22 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards 'elevant to machine guarding which have not been reviewed or approved by OSHA. If an employer preferred a more detailed approach to fulfilling his obligation to protect employees, he could follow all the specifications laid out In Appendix B. When making an inspection a compliance officer would assess each machine to determine If an employee is exposed to an enumerated hazard. If an employee was so exposed and an acceptable method of safeguard>ng was not used or the specif 1- -HQRE- o o OP o. I * >O 8 O3 000009632 nesses and those with highly transient work forces; DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [ 29 CFR Part 1910] [Docket No. H-104) AMORPHOUS SILICA (8) The feasibility of complying with a complete amorphous silica standard at the current or a reduced level of ex posure; <9) The environmental, economic and inflationary impact of a complete amor phous silica standard at the current or a reduced level of exposure; and <10> Any other information pertinent in preparing an amorphous silica stand ard. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US. Department of Labor is studying the general health implications, safe exposure levels, and methods of sampling and measurement for amorphous silica. It is considering preparing a new proposed standard which will be complete and will better protect employees exposed to amorphous silica in the diatomaceous earth process* Ing industry, refractory brick industry, wine and liquor production industry, and other industries which use amor (Secs. 4(b). 6(t)i and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1592, 1593. 1599: 29 U.S.C. 633(b). 655(b), 657) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-76 (41 FR 25059. June 22. 1976) .) Signed at Washington, DC. tins I7ih day of December 1976. Morton Corn. Assistant Secretary of Labor | PR Doc 76-37870 Filed 8-27 76 8 45 am| phous silica or diatomaceous earth for cleaning, polishing, filtering, calcining or other processes. There is now no com plete standard for amorphous silica but an exposure limit is set by Table Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000 (formerly Table G-3 Of 29 CFR 1910.93). This advance notice of proposed rule- making is being published to permit In terested persons to submit Information useful in the preparation of a proposed standard and suggested requirements to be included within it. Interested persons will also be entitled to participate in the rulemaking process after the publica tion of any proposed standard on amor phous silica through written comments and participation at a hearing If requested. Accordingly. Interested persons are in vited o submit by March 1.1977, written data, views and comments concerning a standard on amorphous silica for em ployees to the Docket officer. Docket No. H-104, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Room N-3620, 200 Constitution Ave.. NW, Washington. D C. 20210 (Tel ephone (202) 533-8076). Comments are specifically requested concerning: (l) Health effects of amorphous silica; (2> Data useful for setting a safe ex posure level and also data of current exposure levels; (3) The use of respirable mass of dust as a measure of risk: (4) Workplaces, processes, occupa tions or Jobs where exposures to amor phous silica can occur; (5) Appropriate engineering controls, work practices and personal protective equipment to reduce levels of exposure; (6) Appropriate provisions for em ployee exposure monitoring, methods of compliance, signs and labels, medical surveillance, training and recordkeeping; (7) The application of recordkeeping and requirements to small busl- *0*tAl tSOUTH, VOL 41. HO. ISO--TUllDAT. MCBMMB IS. 197* VCD Ooo 963; % 8 o o o oo CD CP CC News Office of Informalion United States Department of Labor Washington, D C 20210 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY fc HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Contact: Office : After Hours: James Foster <202> 523-8151 (703} 941-6798 USOL-- 76-1545 FOR RELEASE: Infnedute Monday. Jan. 3. 1977 OSHA SETS MARCH 15 HEARING FOR PROPOSEO LEAD STANDARD A public hearing concerning a proposed 50b health standard that would reduce worker exposure to lead has been scheduled to begin March 15, 1977, in Washington, D.C., according to a notice of the U.S. Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), scheduled to be published In the Federal Register today. The key provision of the proposed standard would change the present OSHA permissible exposure limit from 200 to 100 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air, based on an eight-hour time-weighted average. OSHA officials noted that the final standard on employee exposure to lead will be baaed on the total public record developed during the rulemaking process. That record will include all written and oral data, views and arguments concerning all issues raised in the rulemaklnq. Thus, OSHA expressed hopes for widest possible participation by interested parties. Since the proposal first appeared in the Fedor.1 Register Oct. 3, 1975, additional issues have been raised concerning chelating agents (chemical purgatives administered to remove metals from the body), the adequacy of blood level determinations, and effects of lead or. human reproductive functions. To permit further comment on these new issues, issues uis-.-'l -MORE- MCD 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 3 5 2 earlier, and any other related Issues, OSHA has extended to February 11, the deadline for written coament. The written comment period originally ended Dec. 2, 197%, but was later extented to Jan. 16, 1976. In addition, a prelieinary "Technological Feasibility, Cost of Compliance and Inflationary Iepact Study" on the proposal has been prepared for OSSA. It la now available for public inspection and copying at OSHA's Technical Data Center, U.s. Department of Labor, Roost N3620, 3rd St. and Constitution Ave., H.M., Washington, D.C. 20210. A final study, that will consider ongoing data collection efforts, will be Bade available for further study at least four weeks prior to the March IS public hearing. Since publication of the proposed standard, OSHA also has re ceived copies of additional studies and reports, most of which have been published recently and which concern various health problems arising from lead exposure. Because the studies may be discussed at ths public hearing, c<ag>lets listing Is scheduled to appear In today`s Federal Register notice. Interested persons are Invited to submit written data, views and arguments with respect to the proposal, the preliminary technological and coat study, the additional scientific studies, the additional issues raised, and any other relevant issues postmarked by Feb. 11, tos Docket Officer, Docket No. H-004, Room N3620 OSHA, U.S. Depart ment of Labor, 3rd St., and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. An additional Federal Register notice will be published later offering an opportunity for public reiixmaa to the final technological MORE- 3 and Coat study. Requests to appear at the March 15 public hearing to begin at 9:30 a.m. in the Departmental Auditorium, Constitution Ave. between 12th and 14th Sts., N.W., should be poetxiarked by Feb. 11, and iant to the OSHA Comnittae Management Office, Room N3633, at the U.S. Department of Labor. Requeets muat contain names and addresses of persons requesting to appear, the capacity in which they will eppear, the estimated time needed, apecific provisions of the proposal that will be addressed, a detailed statement of the position to be taken on each issue to be addressed together with a statement of the evidence to be produced in support of that position. department of labor Occupational Safaty and Health Administration [ 29 CFR Part 1910} (DOCXeK No. H-0O4) PROPOSED STANOARO FOR EXPOSURE TO LEAD Informal Public Hearing; Availability of Pi'slMi'inaiy Tachnoio0eai Feasibility and Inflationary Impact Study; and Re caipt of Additional Studlaa Purpose. The purposes of this notice are ta schedule a hearing date lor re ceipt of oral testimony on. all relevant Issues concerning the lead proposal; to explicitly raise certain additional issues: to sat- forth a List of additional studies concerning exposure to lead; to announce the availability ad a preliminary techno- logical fcueifailtty. natot and inflationary impact studyof the proposed, lead standard; and to permit further comment on the proposal.*. - Background; On October 3. 1975. no- tice of a propoeed standard for occupa tional exposure Co lead waw published by the Occupational Safew and Health Ad ministration (OfiHA) in die Pisiml n--isiia.<4FR 46994) pursuant to the authority' Ss secBens 4<b) and 8(c) of tha rusnpsnimsl Safety and Health. Act of 1979 (S+Stat. 1593. 1599; 29 UH.C. 655, 657V and Title 39. Code of Federal Regu lations <CPR> Fart 1911. Interested persons were given until De cember 2. 1975 to submit written data, views and arguments on the proposal and to file objections and request a hearing thereon. At tha request of several com menting parties, this period was subse quently extended until January 16. 1976 (40 FR 55M6>. Over 100 written com ments have been received including ap proximately 40 requests that a public rulemaking hearing be held. Issue*: The preamble to the proposed standard listed 10 major issues as likely to be of significance in the rulemaking proceeding (40 FR 45934). They are as follows: 1. Whether the proposed permissible exposure limit to lead should be 100 ug/m V end whether this level incorpo rates an appropriate margin of safety; X Whether subclinical effects of ex posure should be considered In estab lishing a standard for rrmumtlftnal ex posure to any substance, in this case lead; " 3. Whether compliance with the pro posal is technologically and economi cally feasible; 4. Whether, as provldsd in the pro posal. employers in specific In dustrie* should be required to conduct Initial monitoring of the -r-"1-- of some employees or whether initial deter minations without nuattortng are sufl- cient for tQ industries; S Whether ***--***g*--* sampihw and analysis should be regutted ee a igiuis -y voi L no. j 1 naming 4-ivn MCD 000009636 % PROPOSED RULES WJS -meni to air monitoring to determine em bor or the U. House of Representatives the total body-; burden. Also, blood lead ployee absorption at lead; . Whether the provisions for methods of compliance, medical surveillance, pro tective equipment and clothing, hygiene facilities, and recordkeeping are appro priate; 7. Whether warning signs and labels -should be required: to investigate occupational exposure to determinations are susceptible to depres lead and use of chelating agents. The Di sion from a variety of sources other tha rector of the National Institute, for Oc reduced lead absorption, such as froi. cupational Safety and Health, Dr. John .anemia or chelation treatment. In addi Finklea, testified at the hearing that: tion, a procedure frequently employed "They (chelating agents) should only be by laboratories that perform blood lead administered tinder proper medical su determinations la to also assess hema pervision and not by anyone untrained tocrit or hemoglobin levels in order to - 8. To what extent are there groups with In medicine. Physicians should more accurately indicate the amount oi increased susceptibility to .lead in the not chelate workers and send them back lead present in the body. working population, such as women of to work where there is a likelihood that Recently, biological monitoring meth - childbearing age; and should such in- they would have continued overexposure ods other than blood lead determinations - creased susceptibility, if it exists, be con- to lead." Anemia and evidence of neuro have received increased attention. The sidered In establishing a standard for logical damage have been found In work 1976 Ml. Sinai study of workers in 2 lead occupational exposure to any substance, ers treated in this manner. Dr. Hector smelters la Indiana revealed that, of the . m thm case lead; and Blejer, appearing on his own behalf, tes laboratory findings studied including 9. What are the environmental and ln- tified concerning his observations of the blood lead levels, determinations of sine fiationary impacts of thls-proposal. the use of chelating agents during his protoporphyrin (ZPP), an indicator of 10. Whether compliance with the pro- service with the State of California. He hemesynthesis, correlated well with the prosal would be technologically and eco noted that some experts recommend that clinical symptoms observed. Other recent nomically feasible for all affected In chelates or any other chelation therapy studies suggest that both during and dustries, and particularly for employers should not be administered at all to after long-term stable lead exposures engaging small numbers of employees. treat overexposed adult workers. Instead, measurement of erythrocyte proto Comments and information were they recommend immediate removal of porphyrin (EP), a i*iiay indicator to sought on these and any other issues the employe from exposure and treat ZPP. gives a better reflection of bema- raised by the proposal. ment of the symptoms of intoxication. tologlcally active lead than other avail Since publication of the proposal, This is referred to as natural "delead able parameters. It should be noted that issues not specifically covered by the 10 ing." HP determinations are already being em listed above or discussed at any length In July 1976, the Pood and Drug Ad ployed In conjunction with blood lead In the preamble have been raised. OSHA ministration warned against the "pro determinations in screening tests for lead - considers these new issues to be of such phylactic" use of chelation in its June- toxieation in children. The studies have importance and controversy that com July Drug Bulletin, adding that "the# also found a positive correlation at blood ments. Information and-data are now chronie.use to combat continued exposure lead levels below 70ug/X00ml between EF sought on them, both tn writing and at to lead has not been shorn to be effec and subjective symptoms related to lead the rulemaking hearing. Therefore, to tive and can barm the subject." "Pro toxicity. These and other studies were promote the fullest possible analysis of phylactic" chelation has been rf discussed by the Subcommittee on Per these issues during the rulemaking pro- in the literature to include the routine missible Limits of the Permanent Cots- ' oeedlng, they are briefly discussed below. use of chelation or similarly acting drugs mission and International Association on Cheiating Agents. Essentially, chelates to prevent elevated Mood lead levels in Occupational Health which met In Am are chemical purgatives administered to workers who are occupationally exposed sterdam. The Netherlands, in Septembt remove metals from the body. They are to lead or the use of these drugs to rou- 1976. The Subcommittee's published re --often administered in emergency situa lower blood lead levels to predes port on occupational exposure to lead, in- tions to remove lead from children who ignated concentrations. eluding a discussbm-ofZPP determina - have ingested large amounts and are ex The issue of chelation thus ooncenu Its tions. is still pending. ZPP determinations hibiting symptoms of acute lead poison- proper use in an occupations! setting to may offer substantial promise as a prac tug. Chelates, such as calcium disodium the extent that an employer is involved tical, sensitive and -economic monitor ethylezMdiamine tetraacetate (ETDTA. with its administration. More specifics!- . ing test suitable for routine use. One Vervenate), are highly toxic and place ly, under what circumstances, if any, manufacturer truilrstod ta its oomment a strain on certain organs, such as the should chelation therapy be relied on to on the proposed standard that a portable kidney, when used repeatedly. Purther- treat employeee exhibiting symptoms of hrmatofluorometer. - mow commercially ' more, once administered, they remove not acute lead intoxication? Would compli available, permits -the determination of only lead but may remove most other ance with the proposal's requirement the ZPP level in a drop of unprocessed metals from the system as weU. concerning it be adequately protective of - blood deposited on adisposable glass shde OSHA recognised the possibly tnap- worker health? What are the long-term Mcomment *79,-addendum). - propriate use of chelates to reduce em end short-term health affects of chela--a^irilightof these reoentatudies, OfiHA ployee blood levels to the proposed -tion? - -raeefcs oommenis oo the-potential utility standard when it recommended that: Adequacy of Blood Lead Determine--of ZPP determinations-as an atterna- "Chelating agents shall not be routinely tio*u. Blood lead level determinations are ->44ve -method to be umd in the initial administered to employees, and shall not the primary biological monitoring teeh- screening for lead intoxication. Are the be administered at all cxeept by, and at nique required in -the proposal's medical * -equipment and technique necessary for the discretion of, a licensed physician." <40 PH 45945) In a written comment submitted on the proposal. It was sug gested that OSHA prohibit the adminis tration of all oral chelating agents and unrelUance provisions. The preamble to the proposal acknowledged that this method provides the most useful and relatively accurate method of arriving at an employee's current lead absorption. this determination reliable, available and relatively Inexpensive? Should blood lead determinations be supplemented with aaeeeKnenti pf hematocrit and hemo globin levels? - limit the administration of intravenous The preamble also stated that, of the Effects of Load am Reproductive Func - chelating agents to emergency situations various biological monitoring tests avail-: tions. For years, lead has been known to only (comment #112, p. 2). In February able, determinations of blood lead levels affect reproductive functions. Observa 1976, a study performed by the Mt- correlated best with the appearance of tions human populations indicate Slnai 8chool of Medicine's Environment symptoms of lead intoxication and with that lead is associated with sterility, al Sciences Laboratory in New York re concentrations of airborne lead. There spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, birth vealed routine chelation therapy at two are, however, some significant limitations defects, tocruised infant mortality, in Indianapolis, Indiana secondary lead inherent in blood lead level determina creased prematurity -and increase in smelters. In March, hearings were held tions. For example, a blood lead level re chromosomal abnormalities. Additional by the Subcommittee on Manpower, flects the amount of active or mobile ly. awitwai test systems have indicated Compensation and Health and Safety of lead in -the body at a particular time that lead may be a--liriaierl with to the fun Committee on Bducation and La- which may be as little as 10 percent of mutegriwsh Bowevr. fBMJU, OMIti, 'VOL 41, NO. 9 TUtgOAT. J4MUASV M. 'IVTT MOD 000009637 996Q00G0 dOW a**i -(Bll) *tl mm**" 90 pirj jo %aoam nmt * pm mm n 'll Mans 7 *Mmg *x > fx wiyiw MftI4l) *m: t 90m W l--I MU |M| nff-po* w isi*oiA anpipvop uox P" iwrj aufqdwdovurf wiiaiqsiJ* mv :"tb *x pm MtvpBK i r*o wwm 990 m moo 1a4m0 *p*"m* **p*p"o*m--ns 1wx# *wi *z ?ti mv VI vpiw pn vopn Tfl Vaiuoe D| popup torwwp TA iwm ISMBilq aq|B|M p * "--bi ra f popi*0*1 v p*pm* tpwpp y vn snuionoj n OilV`phitpusisftsg vp cq pvqvuoo WWtei od Piwjoaq popop Aq akd Metro (A) Wl^iodewu X pqp gwq VWPd *qs re P--oayp i*t iB-ot wMiq mur -woom V 4mn oapOTn |D Uuipuv v, iw--itt v luomna jo tn--x IO wiwuj pan i'M m0M%utn -<aMi) noe-eevK IHWi/m Xiruunrm pwq fgamp mi Amorlcuqdn :mm| *v pm aqwiumg * wmnbomk '9 tn--tujp k nn ooa iumpp qias iv--iwgiaa jo mam. nrap8ji ms op ud>a atei > -t XmupojL lading Pt*U imrvRD s jo ntni (OtPI) Ol -ilimo o i r? Ma *1 TP Ppoui TN ass -*o,l *oooo iiwuppM pt *x stei aupuei sfcpwnsm Imps m vstwh `iasmpaz po ms m mo<e mpsusq tia a(tet) p*-~sc:otpmpoir pus onvs pwntfwa tmj uj oolusinm o phipwiwp nuj Ann mB* miwq pnoinx unenm pns dnowoz pq*n -qnd nsq euvq msto a ar -svbxiaj pan VTpov praompps ;o wfdoo pram qo --R VHVO `prapqy p--inrirn stn jo mvppRqnd mwiw &rw*iS prnomppv paoBranj o*nanpcurtaj Psumaur tppwq javoa no vl to maost* vqpitfsj mam TT* -*H tlMPOB PWI U1PB0008 Ol BMPJOM -oodiad poo pps wmpusioQwp ssfQ quiuniw 9paqiu q PVUA on raouad 4acmp *ma mrn rajaqqwu t rr rnn imkq T9om*m ? *h `r t pmoKr ptmm 4V*pi post pootq oo( *s *oon MUBl) `TOP 99E ML*T> -opatq tnafipoMu pfsui no post jd spj :c 'asms awum m*v -pm e* pmm -m iu(iMBdHMu n--rawijL go Asttwv mn -anpMd*a :ti--trwma pc ^nra npadoa -1 taaaMMMQ o toximio* p "I vsvtvsmnri (wax *a oH*a) tw 9armi ooaitag anwp fwipcjmq oa pas aociaMsasax ps*i mu* nnnu to siiwowifip ms ai 0Uiq<bodoai oTZ snmx *x swuici MUftx) *cv pax W8 dm asp sou BPT nH oqs x vtv imua pos aoWm Xiwosnia 'n-nn:es hwmh ss^u mau to vonaapaoo oajosi PHO to MBS ni :npns T poo Ad iMa*?a `iXOrUf.u P*l p sub Bmi.9?? ' PPHw e pis ^ pox / uc ommmtt vM*onwsnr IwIumm immwm* JH -Q pas aw imp *vj swish o rrv mmo -A VU oo Ptf^issq 9sp ao nonauuojm Psipm* oqyo Acts oxa ary Taswi* 9ar -oopojdaj mnni ta <n przs Ps sqjpaq 'PCPP P> QKBM a| bowayoJd p)nbpa opwoad I--Iirtnuf P<n nnmo noixAOJd P>*w p *n omod* wi* -ppmpd vo mbqq pmod q no moonb pusMt pwi 9* iffTiiainK *(& saao -ai Qvao Asfqn* P n prod aopais avunwas *wn xiaixvm row *vdBmui m oe porj fOMoon :sol T i*T o*H 06T 111 SIX) *tl-PtT:M pos xstdiDoa jp uoRinpaidaj trrtzmq Mt6T) * P*l ISM ja f *aea>iuQBai M*n a* rbq po . ao put jo w%oogo ja^pjatej sanjer iqj, Li TOi ow*oiam flsuwnptn psri Aq wasatoom as --iuquiiupiq :tmrearsa 'R3B} Saxdofstap PMsaoPe sjnorwiip pooj twniodmuo jo opjspnue no wwiboj *nx qs to atvi -psaxuj :sos*PiH pwittodnaao to jwumop MftU&l) 'ttCe tfopaa -WOX `sz svsnHaaj os pw^ to aottOJSti -tumpy QBaj. uoqg jo $wn "*' *--i T pos "s ixarpms 'f soomasqtiS UmXlPW m:*XVSTS aaivAsp osjp -psoq iphibHjmui <n psaod js wi wjtp wmiu n*o m ;u--h f pas waaiA *d is ajoaojag - IpfcPT ) **-W: T P4TSSH TO*l*m niT anunitri |ii ] pwsm is--qi -ipa *pv luuipsmsiptay sippj :Mrx k v '.asn>i o 'smmi *r rp Iswsg pp-dcicc mm vox t *t9 Mfttei) -wnwam psm 1* WSPS3 w iini--ij. cosh is otaaqo; w pas wowsiisc was sonusaiWT ssua siioR(U4s 90 Jsunoy :*r sotoo Maeet *yp-tv nsrw 'oo**h wu witfwss iwm MS po sapwB 1 sPBtX T pas ^aa) -iow o r w^iiih v :-a * PiUwioRa Mfitei) 'eoi-Ptiicc. sox pox r sue 'Pirn poots sPtB iisisojai aswi faiwiwj parx *' PBX Moiipji Ti Ty rt *x wowawono -<Vtn >*e-M*:TPP*X *pai f OS 'aWuSBPX 4no Pandans -aop ona pwmj jqOoj saoi o Jama s tavoJd os ossabapmst xaRas s> 'Hoot /Jo op JO |p*oi pail Pootq oxiiuhasiu a 03 odb(Mmo a luum--a `jtp tq poet jo a/sn 001 jo 3faqi ajiuodri eptwraiod vn 9*9 osa sdnatf tnfipq pm Axsnpcq qpoq io, apsm ivod v *aJo JaMSoqprwa jb eiWifli paai mumj joj qpnoeyairt jpdosd pn--nnyr twcdcud vn to paxm <-3 woommo 70 jsqnmn a `^Qvou si jniff.Japxuoj pootq oq* no pat jo vaaip os meows stops xq AnPSMeoms And jo sifwrrliin ro psau oq mo xpext jorpi snu. 'xwwt pool racm pagi -ooa asa xq mtp aqJtq sa* xiacioM . - Ipi^T ^RI pool mom m swwuMa . *v -v mmso qj ttsAit nr* ww hwwiI -viaa m-tsc:t PPI dnno f WWH JOSO Metei) 'flu :fft qaiu -J03JS mn pawoqt w--xqxpmtt61 V ptn mm <*o; iwipstt hv :~a pbooois '(PMt) ***** *( *umOB TMOi Jiaii M'PB PQZ> ilepaa sox icwcapai fpian t s !> aasnasB MU1) *PP-C1 >'K pm r uxs sa^triM ps1 po unsotf <3 m nrcion os po*a nx Xiarsjpqm itn po nmumm try rp praorr^jiiu Motei) MU-ot:oe asis*s acauas arv `ipep ooT*m9ai J--toosspgl MD to WB W m *SOQ pS7 :wiituiu-n . poi :cUas 'a Lcn -f Wuri -q sfop Mtoei) p~0*;5T astsoB aojuag oarp opa pas poena on pse*! f *iun ^isouoic, po ipass TOWniTOi^oi uv ; mnng Ai `T ^ J*S*p|0O (CtCl) p*n dnaoo e 'P*l m jnod -*a Dtn%nxusa aoj asraua otfoioia * * xsutspt loriv) -os*ipama ppv ^^nmAgiouuuy ouiowavUg intqo 'H two smo a idooors c i ' a m*i*Pto stopon pins i * i buh f *ttMao<i<u psri jo aucm iqmox s. *p aanita fsxtojaauti naojqo :*r t **nna _ MPiet ioj-c) MCE-ttS sueiPiu rwmiu *pomsmzunia pso*i jo' ' *ntsai men pool pootq tswot m AI >ao|SA OTanpooo uss aosooi paemaioep PViqnpw osirawj mqx pozsoj ueuiid pas anesaawsra Apia otn to mou -de -^q Xpme ^tei T *rszadJasdnoo :p*n jd fiwrnurum mx wunsi Wpcu jqpqs wnn -po^r Jo naeoe sstatps 'Utex ipdvi Tti-sti fErv tnxiM *-- cq pfqrdsasns sjoxa xnqJrr^ oq opts xcd sstwH-oojt s m Modaa pwi jo ioaboo ymajud poo -zwqm uau *uac|saM qso r--j^.lo mr* wuBuuuuaa :mz-o ajcmi] paqs pwdmoo TTeeq oaox? , *(9t6t) CC~6t:C p*x pBi r ww *sawoda Pa m*np -ox to wtisg tswfPi tn tvuno wtettQ TSBBVDwsserff :ojqs*e f -q pos rpyp -OasPI 'H *X *0**000 T Tg *W IT `O Mepn3 *szsX tsMsas wt am jouna mniodta jo rant ot ipiqtiu qs vpcrppun; *opnpcuaaj orsaz ao paii jo V>oq cuwaop jua s Mover *oqso**OK> *TBC-iK-tC XisJJnt spu, 'Raoi PI poeqq flpoi xta^n toi pos Ah wnpaz t `saorso oa pModq -vtu XO 90QoctuJ(t t3fOTp JO oq Area WS04i jo QirssH :aoqjso d "7 -"a tPtS qppjA X99a9AqouadB oo saap9 per^A .Mstei) eci-en:cc paix TO f iw *o***ftx usuing m P**7 jo boor -sbosoodo jo voBintftnoo >* -~I 'S d h*q ittet> *9oe-6i :jz qiwtH quuxft U3JV Torsdjonv ppt y>--mu jo nouJsia XosJoqv7 ;~h v^TB Mttes Tvsavv -aj sireid Aasrsq amjcqs uviuvumn s 3 Eia^mn JO xpnss tL6l S jaAaMoq 'Atsiia9<M uok pavs ri uataoM jo uam jo Xatpwij 9U3 ejo/sq iiwsawo si sui -ocsod posi menu; jo ss tJTqasojC-s otsss Tooiusp s sam paswsiiaiae e~s 'oopao'i `119 sop `Od '*oiBO trouots E *H *SS 'toA *snSJoc r*ov*oiCL.-ntj asraS jo Atuspeov iraonsj-J U3 &tei 03 ~*>5 t; n stfll nopooq 'oAunoexa mo mn*B poou *iqun[pv tT*ws pqo wS3o*b Po\ai**iwso3 poo iirpoaoa Mates rudv/poJOK) `t-Ctttt OSTOOH US aa*V 'ps*q oj omoodaa fsotmolnopo ms -rsj -.poaq o pas -.nTPsmm; -o fv yoaoA -try oon *cs jo awairia--^iajuv auoh v --bwUs muMK am so oaistfjooqv Fo*i mmw.| puiq jo sstsua qi u ao?a tvwn) >: soa VOJIAW3 snwy pay Stnpy m sjnv'dxa tnwMQ jo jossjtpiq vs *nix mawnd to iinan ;a*se "v pos :rtwa ~v wSg peaqs ;o sasoo qsua assjajjoo ssqs ajiiaod 'Si JO RA9[ 9Btoaid 9tfS os is scant**-i7^ PBnaato* mn *1 aJqs *Tnps ojvt paiap;Baoo Airmen iaj ss jnooo aso `massab tnosxaa atp os AjJsynorVP^ -urep jsssj sip snzitpaiaomos pviotaq snru oKOdoid 01 FtOPOSED RULES till National Institute for OocupsUonaJ Saiaty maA Haaltb: Health Hiur4 EvaluaUoa De termination*. Reports No. 73-27-200 (June 1970). 70-160-103 (November 1974). end 73-104-180 < January 1976). NmUciuu H.: T tint Polaonlng IQ Children; Pornl A.: Cbromowomal Effects of Load: A Review. Berber EL; H. Salle: The Analytical Pre cision of Lead in Blood Oompand to 6Azamolevuilnie Add Dehydratase Activity. IL2RO 207. International Lead-Zinc Ra Waldron H.: Correlation Between Boom f. rametm* of Lead Ahsorpnoa and Lead in- tomoation. But j ind Med 2S:i95-ig (1971). Wadaan RJ>; ;x. uiafitls: B wtnei Lepat; MIL Lyons; UP. Vitale; and . 4 Neurologic Implication* of WMmpread cearch Organization--Study of Solubility Jaeeiow: Occupational Lead Nephropathy fiuocilzuoal Latoilcation, Seminar* is Psy and Particle Size Distribution of Industrial Amer J Mad 69:630-841. (197S). chiatry Vol. 5 No. 1. (February 1973). Airborne Lead. Zialhuls B.: Biological Quality Guide for In - Pascbeo P.: Operation of Lead Blast Fur Lauwerys Early Biochemical and Bio organic Lead Int Aren Arbeitsmed 32; 103 naces: Summary and Critical Evaluation logical Effects or Load tn Man; a Bedew. (1974). ol the Literature of 1971. ATME World Lilia B.; W. Blumberg; J. XUmger; A. Pteeh- EleLbcis B.: TV-- Pteimiii* Relationships Symposium on Metallurgy of betn; S. Diamond; H. Anderson: and X. for Inorganic Lead; L Bieehemieal and Lead and Zinc is St. Louis. (German) Metall 26:190-09. (1973). seiikoff: Lead Effecu *--""g Secondary Load Smelter* with Blood Load lovds Be Basmatologieal Wsepo--. 1st Arch Ooeup Hlth 36:1-19. (1976). RecireulaUon of Exhaust Air, UA. Depart ment of Health, Education and Welfare, NTOSH (70-186). Reeonunended Industrial VentUation Guide- low 80 ug/iOOml. Nordberg G.: Does-Effect and Does Bsspones Ralatlonabips for Lead Conclusions Reached at an International Masting In Zlaihuta . rrm flscpmiss Rtaattonahlp* for Inorganic Lead; IL Subjective and Functional Response Levels. lot Arch Ooeup Kt& 36:19-30, (1976). lixtea, us. Department of p--*>T>| Educa tion and Welfare. NIOSH (70-162). Esinert M.: laid Quality from a TWehnical Tokyo, November 1974.Popode D.: Effect of Low Dorns of Inor ganic Lead on Seme Biological Parameters: Preliminary Study cf Technological Feasibility, Cost of Compliance and In and Application Engineering Standpoint. "Response of ar.a-rv Activity and RP In flationary impact: (German) Metall 38:130-142, (February 1974). Report of Overatgbt Heatings on the Oeeu- safety and Health Act--Occupa tional Health Hazard*. before the Subcom mittee on Hanpower, Oempenaation and Health and Safety of the Committee os Ed ucation and Labor, UjB. House of Repre- Blood, tbs Urinary ALA and OF Levels in workers Chronically Hipaasd to Lead. Repko J.: Behavioral Methods and Results in tbs Evaluation of Workers Occupa tionally Exposed to Inorganic Lead in UB. Battery Manufacturing Industries. Schiele R.; S. Sehaller: Studies About the "Lead-Specificity'* of the Erythrocyte, John Short and Associates, Inc., has prepared for O6HA a preliminary study entitled ."Technological Feasibility, Cost of Compliance and Inflationary Impact Study of the ITopoeed OSHA Standard for Lead." The study tneludes assess ment of the technological feasibility of entatlTM (March 18. 22, 24. 28, 1976). Delta-AmiaoieTunnJc Add Dahydrataee compliance, an Initial estimate of com Boa* H.; H. Lauwsrya; J, Bucbet; and M. Vrelust; Raaponm of FHP and ALAU In Men and Women Moderately Exp omit to Lead. 1st Aren Arbtataaned 04:97, (1978). Bahf Lead Expozur* Control in the Pro duction of Leaded Steel. AZBJ 94:63-67. (1963). j.; Human Fetal Haaards from En (ALA-D). BeppsJainen A.; H. Hanninan: and S- Hemberg: Effect of Lead on the Central and Pertphearai Nervous System. Verberk M.: Meter Nerve Conduction Veloc ity in Volunteer* Ingesting Inorganic Lead for 49 Days. Wtbowo A.; F- del Castilho; H. Harper: U. pliance, an initial estimate of compli ance costs and the potential economic Implications for thoee industries affected by the proposed standard. The effects on other variables, aach as employment, prices, productivity, market structure, exports and imports, and the consump vironmental Pollution with Certain Non- Verberk; H. Salle; and R. ZMlhuix: Inter tion of energy and critical materials, are Essential Trace Cements. Clinical Pediat ries. (March 1972). Schiaepfsr W.: Experimental Lead Neurop athy: A Disease of the Supporting Cells in the Peripheral Nervous System. J Neu ropathy Exper Neur 28:289-194. (1971). Second International Workshop on Occu pational Lead Exposure, Bevaloattoa eg Permissible Unlu on Lead Exposure, Per manent Commission and international Aseocianon on Occupational Health. (September action Between Lead and Iron Metaholian. a Probable Oauee of nmeii 9a< oeptibllity to Inorganic Lead. * WLLiamj m. : Permieslble Limits for Occu pational Exposuro to Inorgenie Lead and the Blood Lead-Air Lead Bdataouhip. also considered. " -Notice to bring given of the availabil ity of this preliminary study to afford interested pasties the earliest pew- *'-ie opportune to contribute commen Zttbuis B.; a. wibowo: Revtsw Paper:' flro-~~formation and -data. The final St--y. eepdhiuty of Adult Pesetas to Lead; which will be made -available at least 4 *produ** Pnactioa tn Pa-, weeks prior to the pobhc hearing, will be _ **airo ana maim. *--d qq the nsoltoof an omolns sod- FEZ.'i2S23SSSS 21-23.1976}. Papers Presented: *i- ia Urine During lead Work. Brit a1'Asmaciates Of Salt lake City. Utah, on fllwln L.; Free Erythrocyte Protoporphyrin as an Indicator of tbs Blologioal Beet at Lead in Adult Malta. Beritte T.; D. Prpte-Ma]&e; and 8. TeUmnan: iod Mad 37:33-89. (1S70). behalf of 06BA. The final study will in- Seiander 84 BL mm~ and L. BaUgwth: elude a dtoeossion Of the anticipated ben- - stadia is Lead Pouoaiag. Brit 3 ind Mad'-WfltB to be derived from tmplementAtlon 1, uses). :-i of the proposal and a more in-depth ALAD/EPF Haste ea a Measure of the Peripheral Narrow Bye-"valuation of the various economic lm- Degree and Duration of the Addon of load. BarUs A.; k. H. EchaUsr, H. Onmw; M. Laa- tem tn Lead ri|njsifi workw*. HEW PubU-' pacts. Evaiuaticm at the economic and aatroa74-12S, pp 940-847, (197B). .tecfanological feagfbfli&. at the e^ai govln; and J. Trotter: BnTlronmental Bx- . posurt to Lead; Analytteal and tpldimlc . logical Investigations Using the Earcgwan nmmsiiTwl Method for Blood Detta- AadnoieTuUnlc gmd Pahjdiatiaa Activity Determination. Stjlsma S. daPranai: Cytogenlc Investi gation* tn Votuntawe Ingesting ZBoyaate Oarnik A.: a. Smith: Factors Influencing the XvsJuaaoD of Blood Load Lovata and PropoMiia for Improving the Baliability at Results. Cools A.; H. Salle; M. Verberk; and R. Ziel- aa T.; o. Senna: Narva Oonduotam in Oo- ,-standard will be based an the entire rec- Pone-Mediae 4e:sc9- >-ard af the bwwi| ivnoffrttng in- gis.riMg). '-v'dudl&g aa oral and written comments T-tt < pMt -Of Ike rawnl. M-WlMlte ."Jr*- JBmI rtady. - . . Health 2S:8S3-2S9. (1971). Interested parties are invited to sub- Strand Z-; j. Manning; and H. MarvM Tha tndoetton of Palis iniHwilMiilliiki eynumaaa la Cultured Liver Oeu*. J Biol' ait infonnnfeian. cowimwato sad data on the tocos of aeoncroic fesdibility of the Cbem. 947:3E20-3S97. (1972). proposal or on hoy other tocue dtoeuesed fltuik EJ.: BJologlaal Ewpanst of Mala and in the preliminhry ctoctv. tnciudlng: PemaU Voluatoafa to Inor^nic Lead. Int > (1) Cost hnpaet 00 eancumers, busi- Arch Afbattamen 33:83-97, (1974). . - n--aa, mATkets, or MdetmL StAte or local buls: Blocbamieel Basponaa of Mete Volun flukata T.; M. Aoki; and T. Tomaamto: govenunecit; teer* ingmdng Inorganic lead iw 49 Days. Orookford G.; B. Mstran: Frograav Report. A Study of Bunas TiTinmaiue in Rela tion to Lead Exposure. daBruin A.: Early Biochemical /Biological Effects of Lead (laboratory DUgnoais of laoroaaad Load Absorption); Human Ex perts noe. Cbangaa la Hepatic Datta-AmBroievuitate Add In toad Xatntoaated Bata. 3 Todsol Environ Health 127:32, (1373). Thompson J.: Balance betavsn Intake and Output of lead la Normal Individuals. Brit J lad Mad 39:199-194. (1971). Tola B.*. The Effect of Blood Lead OaneenWa-' tloxx. Age. Bex and TUno of Expueun Upon <2) Effect oh productivity of wage earners, buatnaaeue (both wnall and large) or fovcnoBCBt; (9) Effect on donpoatios; (4) Effect on imports and exports; (8) Effect on enpphdx of important ma terial*, products or services; Placbhetn A.; J. Htatnger; W. Biumberg; B. LUta; and L Mllnff : PiBarometric zino Froioparphynn Deterednstion la Blood-A FracUeal Method for the Detection of Chronic Load riaacmlng Ervthrocyte ALA-D Activity, Work Environ Baalth lo:ss-ss, (1973). Urbawowlcx H.: OacupaUanal topeuw to tnorganta Oompouitato of Inad Arch Baalth 33:304-968, (1973). . (t) Effect on employment; - (7) Ability at mirtfif inddsWes to Ab sorb dOdte at mmrrttonor; and <) Effect on mMrgy supply or dea. A. - iwMtAi awiim. vol at, no. i \miwaiykiiMUtu, MCD 000009639 S1J PIOW tuts* Thp pfetsemary study of the proposed l-ad standard ta now am Liable for public inspection and awytng at tlse following adireas:..Technical Data Center. OccuwuLiooal Safety and Health Admmisffa- <$> A detailed statement of the- evi dence with respect to such issue proposed to be adduced at the hearts*, OSHA has determined that strict en- forcement of Its procedural nilea cou- The proposal will be reviewed tn tight of all oral and written subuussBiu re ceived as part of the record, a-ifi a sjiai standard will be issued based oa. the en ure record in this proceeding tioc. U-3. Department of labor, Room tamed in 29 CFR 19UU.1 ia necessary for N'-~:n29. Third and Constitution Avenue, an expeditious and orderly proceeding. /rvportont Onta N.W., Washington. D.C. 20310. CTele- Therefore, the notices of intention to phone* 2D2-523--S076> appear will be scrutinized closely for sul- Publus participation. Interested per- ficieatly detailed information concerning sons are Invited to submit written data, the position to be with regard to views arguments with respect to the the issues specified and the evidence to prooosaL the preliminary study, the ad- be adduced in support of the position, ditional scientific studies, the three Is- Persons filing notices of intention to sues discussed in this notice, and any appear which are not sufficiently detailed other relevant issues. Such comments will be so informed given seven (7> must be postmarked on or before Febru- days from the date they are informed to ary 11. 1977. All written comments must- file a proper notice of Intention to p- RvartASv: Mai>. IS. 1977. iau for rubaltaoe q4 *t - daocr for bearing: Mar. 11, 1077 LuC day lor aiing Noiioss of Appear*/*., Feb. n. 1977. Claaa ot i-inw-at Period: Peb 11. L9T7. {Sec. 0. PUb. l~ 91-690. 64 3t*t. 1593 UA C. MS): 29 CVS Part 19 U: Secretary ai Labor's Order No. 8-76 (41 PS 3908S).) . Signed at, Washington. DC. tim 27tii day of December 1978. be submitted in quadruplicate- to the Docket Officer. Docket Nos H-004^Room N--3620, UJSk Department of Labor. 3rd and Conedtuttoo- Avenue; If.Wi. Wash- pear. In addition, the- amount of time requested for each presentation wiU be ie>leeed in light of the contents of the notice of intention to: appear. In those Morrow Core. - Aiwiotnnt decretory of Lobar [PR DCTa.rr-U3 PUed I~3-TT, S: 4S azal ington* ELC. 20210. Wrlttes submiaaians cases where the information contained must clearly* identify the portion of the in the notice of intention to appear dose proposal and' tba preliminary study ad- not seam to warrant the amount eg. ttme dressed and. the position taken with re- requested, the- participant will be sUo- speet ta each-- issue therein. The data, eated a more appropriate amount of time views, and arguments that axe submitted., - and notified of thatfact. The participant as well aa copies of the new avt** will have seven (7) days from the data - listed earilec.-win be avallahto for-public on which he is so informed to dmiun- lnspeetton- and copying at thw above ad- strata why tile allocated ttme ts inappro- dress. AH timely written sutamtekms re- prlate. ^ celred shall be made a part of ttaerecord In addition to submitting appropriate of this proceeding. -*i--- and timely notices of Intention to appear^ In respaoaa -to a number at requests those persons intending to submit a pre- from commoting parties,, and pursuant pared written statement or documents. to section 6(h) (3) of the Ae&SKoppac- for the record at the hem Srs must sub- tunlty to submit oral testimony concern- mit such documents tn quadruplicate by mg the laeoce ratied by the proposed March 11, 1977. These documents must standard, ineluding its economic, and en- be received by Clarence Page in the viremmantai imparts will be provided at OS5A Committee Managemmt Office, hr an informal publin hearing schadnlad to the does of business March It, 1977. * begin at 9:30 ul on March 19.1977. in Tha hearing will <*--*"* at 9:30 the Departtaentol Auditorium. Constitu- ajn. on March IS, 1977, with the resolu tion Avenue between 12th and 14th Uon of any procedural matters relating Streets. N.W,, Waattingtoo, D.C. 20310. to the proceeding. TTia hearing wO be Persons desiring to participate at tba conducted end decisions made In accord hearing, tiwinritng those who previously ance with 29 CFR Fart 1911. requested that a public bearing be held. The Administrative law Judge pre- must file a notice of Intention to ameer, siding at the heating shall have an the postmarks* on or before Mrnary XL powers necessary or appropriate to ccn- 1977 with the OSHA Committee Mstiefit duct a fun and fair Informal hearing, la ment Office, Docket NO. H-004. Room N- chiding the powers: 3633. DJ9. Department of Labor, 200 Odd- <l> to regulate the com of the pro stitution Avenue. N.W,, Washington, D.C. cisiUngi: 20210 (Telephone: 303-623-9024). Bt- <*> to dispose of procedural requests, cept under sxttwardSnary circumstances, objections, and comparable matters? a party which does oat submit a propsr <3) to confine the prsesntatioos to notice of to appear in matters pertinent to the propound stand- fashion will not be permitted to testify at srd: the hearing. <4) to regulate thg oonduct of those The notices of Intepticn to appear, pmni at the hearing hr appropriate which win be available for tnepectioa end means: ; -4 copying at tha now* Canmtttee Ida- (5> in the Judge's dlarietion. to quee- agesmt Office. nmet oontnin tim follow- tion end permit qneerinntof of any wtt- ing liifis inslhei uses:.and -+ (1) The name, siirtrw. aadtatopbene (> in the Judge's- rtlemsHnn. to keep number of each person to appear; the record open for a rmsnnshls. stated (2) The capacity to whiffix tha person time to receive written information and win appear: additional data, views and arguBMnts (3) The apprentmnto ansmt eg tins fromeay person who has perttetpatodtn requirsd for the presentations the oral rrmraarllTin (4> The specific issues. Lbak will be ad- Following the close of the hearted the dressed: . nmmrm in i h (6> A detailed fefanienl eg tha poet- tnrttfy the record thereof to tim A^t- tioa that wfll be total wttti nqpeot to ant Secretary of Labor toe Ooctmatioiial MCD 000009640 " '` ,vr- *. - ; **. urn. t. I, iwry Occupational Safety and Health v Administration TECHNICAL NOTES v US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Hjfn Washington 0 C 20210 Not, m tn Qf b**viiy the Wiiinm* Slig> Occupational Safety eno Health Act o' 1970 m, be rt'"a to at tise joo Sa'ety #no Hejith Act" or as the Act The Occupational Safety anp Health Administration may oe referred to as 'OSH* " TECHNICAL NOTES #68 December 28, 1976 IN THIS ISSUE: 1. OSHA GRANTS VARIANCE ON GUARDRAIL REQUIREMENT 2. OSHA APPROVES SUPPLEMENTS TO VERMONT PLAN 1. OSHA GRANTS VARIANCES ON GUARDRAIL REQUIREMENT In three separate actions, OSHA has granted Metalplate and Coating, Inc., Atlanta; Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co., Chicago; and Smith Industries, Inc., Houston, variance from the general require ments for protective guardrails and toeboards around galvanizing tanks. The permanent variance approvals are effective December 28, the scheduled date of publication in the Federal Register. The companies initially petitioned separately for an interim order allowing variance. Tha interim order of Metalplate and Coatings, Inc., was granted and published in the Federal Register September 27, 1974; Joslyn Manufacturing's on July 23, 1976; Smith Industries* December 23, 1975. Those notices invited interested persons, including affected employers, to submit comments. No comments or requests for a public hearing were received. All three companies have aalvanizing tanks on which the standard requirement of a 42-inch quardrail would seriously interfere with necessary work practices such as skimming zinc. In each instance, the company his installed guardrails shorter than the required height but of sufficient height to allow an employee to right himself if he should fall tov'ard the tank. In addition, ledqes around the guard rails prevent an employee from accidentally stepping into the tank. -MORE- MCD 000009641 2 These devices will be used in combination with the employer's assurance that no employee will be allowed to walk, step, or sit on the ledge around the tank, Additionally, each company will provide employee training sessions on the hazards of working around the tanks* The combined safety measures provide as much protection as the standard guardrail and toeboard. *** 2. OSHA APPROVES SUPPLEMENTS TO VERMONT PLAN The Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Adminis tration (OSHA) has approved supplements to Vermont's state plan for occupational safety and health. Notice of approval, which re flects the completion of several developmental steps, is scheduled to appear in the January 4, 1977, Federal Register. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, states may submit for OSHA's approval plans for their own job safety and health program. Such plans may be approved if they are "at least as effective as" OSHA's federal job safety and health programs. Vermont's plan was approved as developmental in 1973. As the states develop their plans supplements also must be submitted for approval under the same basic criterion. In addition to some minor clerical corrections, the Vermont iuppiements concern establishment of the following: a Standards Advisory Council, a health and safety enforcement program, an Occupational Safety and Health Review Board, recordkeeping and re puting requirements, and procedures for coordination between Vermont's Division of Occupational Safety and Division of Occupational Health. -MORE- 000009642 MCD 3 The supplements, along with the approved state plan may be in spected and copied at the following locations: Office of the Director, Federal Compliance and State Programs, Room N3608, 3rd St. and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210; Technical Data Center, Room N3620, 3rd St. and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210; Office of the Regional Administrator, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room 1804, John F. Kennedy Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02202; Department of Labor and Industry, State Office Building, Montepelier, Vermont 0562, #** 000009643 COMMUNITY NOISE REGULATIONS EFFECT ON THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY Background on Community Noise Ordinance in the U. S. According to the December 1975 issue of Sound and Vibration magazine, at the end of 1975, there were approximately 550 separate community noise ordinances in effect throughout the United States. Many of these have been enacted for some time and contain only general nuisance provisions. They normally have not been a problem or a hardship for industry due to lax enforcement. However, in the past year or so the tendency has been to enact legislation providing ordinances with quantitative noise emission limits. These, coupled with OSHA's workplace noise limits, are starting to impose restrictions on the amount of noise industry can emit and are providing regulators with the tools to both determine violations and take action against the violators. The ordinances enacted to date have generally been locally inspired to fulfill a local community need and, therefore, there has been little uniformity. However, in September, 1975, the Federal EPA published a "Model Community Noise Control Ordinance" for use by cities and counties in developing their local ordinances. There are Indications the EPA intends to actively encourage communities to enact ordinances modeled after theirs where none are present and to change over to this performance standard type where nuisance type ordinances currently exist which are difficult to enforce. MCD 000009644 t2 What this means is that industry must be alert to any proposed noise ordinance in the communities in which they have facilities. Further, they should have some idea of the noise level their facilities generate at the property line. Armed with the latter information and forewarned of impending legislation, they will be in the position of being able to furnish input to hearings and meetings on the legislation. As we have become painfully aware, once legislation is on the books it is extremely difficult to change. The time for industry to get their opinion across and have it be heard is prior to enactment of legislation. Following are brief discussions of the model ordinance, its possible future impact on the Petroleum Industry, recommendations relative to the model ordinance and use of interim community noise level design guide criteria (in the absence of existing or proposed ordinances) and examples of typical industrial community noise problem areas. For more information on noise control, we recommend reading API Medical Research Report EA-7301 titled "Guidelines on Noise." Piscussion of Model Community Noise Ordinance Contents The model ordinance was authored by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Briefly described, the report contains a model ordinance for use by cities and counties in the development of noise control ordinances tailored to local conditions and goals. It is a comprehensive, performance-standard noise ordinance intended to overcome enforcement problems associated with the outmoded nuisance law approach to noise control. The report contains sections on the control of noise from both stationary and mobile sources and includes land use planning provisions. MCD 00009645 3 The report does not contain nor recommend specific values of community noise level limits, but rather generally recommends the adoption of noise limits that will provide for the health and welfare of the local community. It also recommends that localities adopting specific noise level limits consider the technical practicality and economic reasonableness (impact) of noise levels chosen for enforcement. Major Provisions of Model Community Noise Ordinance Following is a list of major general provisions of the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance relative to the establishment of a community ordinance: Declaration of Findings, Policy and Scope Definitions and Standards . Powers and Duties of the (Environmental Protection) / (Noise Control) Office . Duties and Responsibilities of Other Departments Prohibitive Noise Acts Exception and Variances of Noise . Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use Motor Vehicle Maximum Sound Levels Land Use . Enforcement Figures 1, 2, and 3 (pages 12, 13, & 14) which appear in the Model Ordinance, summarize graphically the property line levels set by current municipal noise ordinances for various land usages. MCD 000009646 4 The Model Ordinance proposes that communities consider the following land use situations: 1) Set property line sound limits for the broad receiving land use categories of residential, commercial, and industrial. Many communities are employing this type of quantitative limit to provide stronger legal control over undesirable sound levels than is attainable with an ordinance containing only nuisance provisions. 2) If the community land use/zoning code accurately reflects the actual use of the land, then the designations used for zoning categories may effectively be plugged into the ordinance. On the other hand, if there are numerous discrepancies between the way the land is zoned and the way it Is actually used (e. g., commercial establishments in a residential zone), or if there are large tracts of unzoned land, the community may prefer to base property line limits on the actual use of the land. This would provide greater protection for impacted properties. 3) A related matter to be considered in controlling property line noise is that of the occasional non-conforming land use. An example is the case of a single residence located in an industrial area. It may not be possible for several manufacturers impacting the residence to lower their noise levels to meet the limit specified for residential areas. Situations of this type will require some discretion in enforcement. mod 0000q64? 5 Figures 1, 2, and 3 and the above discussion illustrate the wide ranges of community noise level limits that can be, and have been, enacted into law for any given land use situation. Some of the lower noise levels would be impractical, technically infeasible, excessively expensive, and overly protective in providing for the comfort, health and welfare of the communities. The Model Noise Ordinance should provide excellent guidance to communities in the establishment of noise control legislation and control. Since the Model Ordinance does not set specific noise level limits for various land usage situations, problems can be created for industry if a given community ordinance establishes overly restrictive noise limits. Many of the overly protective ordinances, as illustrated in Figures 1, 2, and 3, might not have been enacted into law if local industry had exerted a properly timed, knowledgeable and practical input into the proposed community noise ordinance noise limits before their enactment into law. Possible Impacts of the Model Community Noise Ordinance Following are areas which could be strongly affected by the publication of the Model Community Noise Ordinance: 1) Accelerate the future enactment of community noise ordinance throughout the U, S. (See "State and Municipal Noise Activities 1973-1974" EPA). 2) Increase the financial burdens of the Petroleum Industry in order to gain compliance with new community noise level limits for both stationary and mobile sources. MCb 009e48 6 3) Result in enactment of unnecessarily restrictive (low)commumty noise level limits in many instances. This condition would be particularly true where the ordinance legislators are poorly informed as to the practicality and economic reasonableness of proposed community noise level limits in given land usage situations. Recommendations Relative to the Model Community Noise Ordinance The API recommends that its members consider actions relative to the following areas: 1) Obtain and study the Model Community Noise Ordinance and any ensuing governmental documents in this related area. 2) Maintain awareness of pending or future community noise ordinances involving areas surrounding particular industrial operations. 3) Exert influence on local ordinance legislators in an effort to prevent enactment of unnecessarily restrictive community noise levels (see examples on Figure lv 2 and 3) which could be overly protective of the health and welfare of the community, impractical, and not consistent with good land us# planning. MCD 000009649 7 Recommendations Rrlntivo to Inrerim Community Noise levt'i IK*.si|;ii Hindu Criteria For stationary noise source situations where there is no existing or proposed community noise limit ordinance, it is recommended that API members follow an interim community noise limit design guide criteria. The criteria can be used as a design basis for the Installation of new plant equipment and new complexes and noise abatement of existing facilities. Use of the design criteria for new installations should minimize the possibility of community complaints and reduce the need for plant noise abatement retrofitting at higher cost should a community noise ordinance be imposed in the future. The API Guidelines on Noise, Medical Research Report #EA 7301, Section 1.3, recommends design criteria to minimize community annoyance. Table 1 on page il shows recommended day and night maximum community noise level criteria similar to those shown in Report #EA 7301, Table 2. These community noise levels are representative averages of many existing governmental regulations in the U. S. (see Figures 1, 2, and 3) and are usually achievable if a given plant has a nominal distance from its noise sources to its fence line. It is further recommended that noise level limitations at the community property lines adjacent to the plant should be controlled as follows: a) Unless specifically legislated by local, state or federal community noise level ordinances, the maximum residential or industrial community property line design noise limit criteria as shown in Table I can be used for grass roots plants. MCD 000009650 8 b) In situations where a new complex is to be added to an existing plant, which has a lower existing community noise level than the legislated requirements or the maximum level shown in Table 1, the permissible rise of community noise level should be limited to below S dBA (3 dBA design basis). When the noise level approaches the maximum design limits of either Table 1 or local ordinances, the noise contribution for a new complex addition should be limited to zero to minimize the possibility of community complaints from the new noise source. This means that the total noise level contribution of the new addition should be sufficiently below the community noise limit so that its contribution to the total community noise is insignificant. c) Where an existing plant community noise level exceeds the limits of Table 1 or local noise ordinance limits, the new complex should be designed so that it will not contribute to the controlling noise level limit. This noise control design procedure for new installations should permit systematic abatement of noise from the existing complex, if required, to eventually satisfy the lower controlling community noise level limit without the new complex becoming a restricting factor. For further discussions on controlling community as well as in-plant noise, see the API "Guideline on Noise," Medical Research Report ?EA 7301." Examples of Typical Community Noise Problem Areas The following list illustrates some of the wide areas in which potential community noise problems have been experienced to date in the Petroleum Industr This list may provide guidance to pinpoint potential community noise MCD 000009651 9 problems for given noise source situations in your operations. Exploration and Production Operations Experience - Complaint? by residents about noise from compressors in gathering stations. "Property line" sound pressure level range 53-68dB(A). Pipe Line Operations Experience - Complaints received about diesel engine driven pumps and cooling fan noise on electric motor driven pumps at pumping stations. "Property line" sound pressure level 61 dB(A). Manufacturing Operations Experience - Complaints received from residents about: Flares (pulsating noise) Furnaces (constant combustion "roar") Atmospheric Vents (high pitched discrete tones) Air Compressors for Cat Cracker (low frequency noise) "Property line" sound pressure level range 61-83 dB(A). MOD 000009652 10 Marketing - Retail Operations Experience - Complaints on intermittent noise from air blower unit in Tunnel Car Washes. "Property line" sound pressure level range 76-82 dB(A). Marketing - Terminal Operations Experience - Complaints about compressors on vapor recovery units at terminals. "Property line" sound pressure level range 60-70 dB(A). Potential Problem Area, All Operations - Truck Noise Experience - Complaints range from moving noise in residential areas to air starters on diesel trucks during deliveries. Sound pressure level ranges exceeding 90 dB(A) are common. Conclusion It should be realized that once overly restrictive noise ordinances are enacted, they can create great problems and would be difficult to change. Therefore, the previous discussions and illustrations of community noise (as applied to existing or potential community noise control ordinances) should alert members of the Petroleum Industry to the need for active participation in the initial phases of legislation of those ordinances. This joint industrial-legislative effort will hopefully provide for the enactment of ordinances that are both technically practical and economically reasonable for industry while still providing noise levels consistent with the health and welfare of the community. 11 Table 1 Guidelines for Community Noise Levels (l) Area (3) Rural (residential) Suburban (residential) (also hospital, church, and similar zones) Urban (residential) (also apartment) Urban (residential) with some commercial, retail, or light industry Predominantly industrial Heavy industrial, few dwellings Sound Level (dBA) Day(2) Night 50 4o 55 45 6o 50 65 55 70 60 75 65 "Day" represents the period 0700-2200 hours, and "Night", 2200-0700 hours. (1) These are general guidelines that apply to the nearest boundary of each listed type of community area. The proximity of potentially affected parties may alter the ultimate selection of maximum plant boundary line noise values. Future land useage and development' and proposed local community noise regulations should be anticipated. (2) Night time noise limits are usually the controlling limit for stationary noise source operating 24 hours per day such as refineries, chemical plants, and production facilities. (3) Receiving laud use. MCD 000009654 & s oo oo qg96' \ DAYTIME LEVELS night time levels QQ AVERAGEOAY MTS AVERAGE MIGHT SI 76 117 CITIES OAVTIME LIMITS naciTiES nighttime limits -- MCURE 1 EUEDSOUnCE NOISE LEVllS ALL OWAI1L I A RLSIOlNTl Al DISTRICT UCiundamus c: <> c1 c3 ' i____ 1B 90 bi 80 <> [] .i c o 10 6$ 60 A WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL IN V8A /fk a SmP on SS SO co0 3 i>m Figure I. Fixed Source Noise Levels Allowable jt Uesidcnii.il Dislrtcl Uouiulaues 10 x 8 o oo o o co a cn Cl 000009656 OAYTlMC LEVELS NIGHTTIME LEVELS Q Q 35 AVERAGE DAV 63 33 AVERAGE NIGHT 54 II 104 CITIES OAVTiME LIMITS IQACITlES NIGHTTIME LIMITS 30 i FIGURE II 1 ------------- 1 6 IKED SOURCE 140ISE LEVELS A LLOWA6LE AT USlNESS/COMM .RCIAL DlSTRlC T BOUNOAftlES M Hi/iI 5 ? *> If* ,, <> < LJ c] Q [1 <> [] 5 li--_ir n oT'an* 0 t P1 3 OLMO o 3 E,f *0 5 00 75 70 65 6fl 55 *0 5 A WEIGHTED SOUNQ LEVEL IN d8A Figure 2. Fixed Source Noise Levels Allowable at Business/Commercial District Boundaries \* J \ \ U> 3: 8 o o o o o CD CD CP <3 X 40-j DAYTIME LEVELS NIGHTTIME LEVELS ^ Q AVERAGE OAV SI &4 AVtftAUC NIGHT 04 34 11} CITIES DAYTIME LIMITS HlClIlES NIGHTTIME LIMITS -- r-- FIGURE III r FIXED SOURCE NOISE LEVELS 4LlLOWABLE AT MAN UFACTUBING.'I MDOSTRJAl DlS TBICT AOl'VDA HIES b* Uf U 0M c Ui m 1 X 16 10 6 cLj 90 OS 1I V/ | lift 1----------------------- ES c 3 r1 LJ OCJ D O 80 B (r n O< E` > M IS JO 6b 60 Vj SO 40 A *{ IGHTCO SOUNO LEVEL IHdilA *J Figure 3. Fixed Source Noise Levels Allowable at Manulaeturing/luJustri.il l)>lriet UoumLines