Document ZJ9mMpGee4OgdLrJ5Va9Z8jOY

`1 as*- ^ `r. t\.^ca V 0 RECEIVED MAri 2 1977, FEB 2 2 1977 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE SAPeTYDEPtT r. -v.s AND plastics /Mr. R. J. Taylor Mr. J. W. Whittlesey - 501 (46) uatf tJ C-* k-.** 4/1, 1 t <AS < l TV , TEAA'S i > February 17, 1977 suejst Ref. (1) Letter of R. L. Frantz to J. B, Leverton re. 3M Brand Vinyl Chloride Respirator No, 8716 dated February 10, 1977 (attached) 3M Brand Vinyl Chloride Respirator No. 8716 Ref. (2) Letter of W. P. Harris,of 3M Company to R. L. Frantz dated January 19, 1977 (attached) Gentlemen: This is to request your input and guidance regarding the use of subject. , respirator in VCM. exposure situations. ' Specifically: ' (1) Do you recommend use of the mask in our vinyls departments at this time ? (2) What would our legal liability be considering possible "de minimus citations' ? Any comments you may have would be most appreciated. Please contact me if you have any questions. - .. UCC 094680 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION 270 PARK -`-VENUE MEW YORK, N Y. 10017 AW DEPARTMENT RECEIVED MAR 3 1977 February 28, 1977 Mr. John B. Leverton Manager Safety and Environmental Affairs Department Chemicals and Plastics Division Post Office Box 471 Texas City, Texas 77590 Re: 3M Brand Vinyl Chloride Respirator No. 8716 Dear Mr. Leverton: In response to your letter of February 17 asking whether I recommend use of the 3M Brand Vinyl Chloride respira tor in your vinyls department, it would appear, so far as the legalities are concerned, appropriate for use in atmospheres up to ten parts per million for two hour periods. I cannot comment on the physical capabilities of the device and will leave that to Mr. Taylor. The OSHA letter, a copy of which 3M furnished you, specifica1l1ly**- states thati>Un J- the4.1k a II"^311M <9d4 ispos*aVbIl*e acmartriJdJge res_p_J irator is acceptable for two hour use in atmospheres of up to ten parts per million vinyl chloride". The problem arises because it is not an approved respirator which OSHA's respirator regulation requires to be used, and cannot be tested for approval by NIOSH because of NIOSH regulations, the revision of which has not taken place. Accordingly, OSHA, if it finds such respirators being used in the course of any inspection will issue what amounts to notice of violation but which do not even comprise citations and certainly do not involve any penalties. The so-called deminimus situation is used in situations where no hazard appears but a technical violation of a regulation is apparent. As already indicated, it is not even classed as a non-serious violation and forms no basis. If more than one violation is found in subsequent inspection for either a serious, repeated, or willful violation*; Under the circumstances, I would see no legal problems with the use of such respirators under the prescribed conditions. Very truly yours. JWW :me cc: Mr. R. J. Taylor ,/ / 1 -1--. / John W Whittlesey / UCC 094681