Document evbGNyKBdQnVwXLyBoN10Y5Gg

FILE NAME: Shipbuilders Council of America (SHIP) DATE: 1972 Mar 14 DOC#: SHIP070 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: SCA Public Hearing Testimony STATEMENT OF THE SHIPBUILDERS COUNCIL OF AMERICA WATERGATE 600 WASHINGTON D. C. 20037 presented at A Hearing Regarding Proposed Emergency Standard on Asbestos On 14 March 1972 before O ffice of S afety and Health Standards, Mr. Arthur Goldberg, Hearing Examiner by: David R. L avalette Representing the Shipbuilders Council PLAINTIFF'S E EXHIBIT f SBCA 5086  STATl-Ml'NT KKGAljDINd PROPOSED RULE MAKING FOR ADOPTION OF EMERGENCY STANDARD ON ASBESTOS DUST*(29 CFR 1910.93) % 1. Although we unders tand ,. and are in agreement w ith , the in ten t of the su b ject proposed rule making, we fe e l that as p resen tly d ra ft ed, the proposal requires c la r if ic a tio n and is not p r a c tic a b le . S p e c ific sectio n s where a need for change is ind icated are d iscu ssed , and changes are proposed which would elim inate am biguity, render implementation p ra ctica b le, and assure attainm ent o f the o b je c tiv e. 2. Paragraph 1910.93e sta te s: "Warning sign s sh a ll be provided and displayed at each lo ca tio n where asb estos dust hazards are p resent. Signs sh a ll be posted at lea st 50 feet in each d ir e ctio n from the location where the hazard is p resen t, and a t in te r v a ls of not more than 100 feet along each edge of the area where the hazard is p resent." This requirement would present no problem for fixed shore side fa c ilitie s such as pipe covering fabrication shops, although there appears to be no n e c e ssity for posting such areas except on access doors, provided good v en tila tio n control is m aintained. However, th is requirement would impose a hardship aboard sh ip . It could e f f e c t iv e ly c lo se down a com plete sh ip under con stru ction or repair during pipe covering or b o ile r bricking op eration s. As sta ted , the proposal would require eith er the posting of a complete v essel or constant moving of signs as work location s change through out the sh ip . The purpose of the sign s is obviou sly to warn employes of the existen ce of a p otential hazard in the general area of operations producing airborne asb estos d u st, and hence prevent th e ir exposure. The key words in the proposed paragraph are ''where asb estos dust hazards ar-e p resent". Since "dust hazards" are not d efin ed , we assume that dust hazards are deemed to e ^ is t when the concentrations sp ecified in Paragraph 1910.93a are exceeded. In order to c la r ify th is and ob viate the n e c e ssity for sign s when le v e ls as sp e c ifie d in Paragraph 1910.93a are not exceeded, we propose the follow ing addition to section 1910.93e: "Signs are not required in areas where the environmental sampling as conducted in accordance with Paragraph 1910.93f indicates that lev els sp ecified in Paragraph 1910.93a are not exceeded." 3. Paragraph 1910.93f sta tes in part: (f) M onitoring - (1) Personal. "Employes engaged in the particular operations or using the particular tools sp ecified in paragraph (d) of this section , or exposed to concentrations of asbestos dust in excess of the lim its specified in paragraph (c) (3) of this section sh all be monitored in accordance with th is paragraph." (iv ) Sampling frequency - "Sampling periods s h a ll be of such number and pattern as to represen t accu rately the exposure of the employes oyer their working period." (2) Environmental. "Environmental monitoring sh all be conducted in a ll areas in which employes are exposed to concentrations of asbestos dust in excess of the lim its specified in paragraph (a) of this sec tio n ." (iv ) Sampling frequency. "Sampling periods s h a ll be of such number and pattern as to represen t accu rately the exposure of the employes over th eir working period." 2 Although not sp e c ific a lly sta ted , there is an im plication that sampling w ill be required d a ily for a l l in d iv id u a ls and environ ments exposed to asbestos dysfc. At le a st,th e standard could be so interpreted in the absence of more sp e c ific language, % We fe e l that rep resen ta tive sam pling for a l l types o f opera tion s should s u ffic e to prove the personal and environm ental exposure le v e ls , and serve as a b a sis for p rescrib in g the need for engineering controls and/or p rotective equipment as appropriate. V irtu ally a ll . sh ip bu ild in g and ship repair operations are r e p e titiv e and sim ilar operations are not lik e ly to produce exposures which vary sig n ifica n tly from day to day provided proper con tro l measures are imposed. We, th erefo re, propose the ad d ition of the follow in g s ta te - ment to Paragraph L`J10.9iC : "Where dust producing operations are r e p e titiv e in n atu re, i t is s u ffic ie n t to perform and document sampling for each typ ical type of o p eration , and consider such r e su lts as accu rate ly reflectin g employe exposures over th eir working period. Sampling is required whenever operations, m aterials, or control measures change in such a manner as to c r ea te p o ten t ia l exposures which d iffe r s ig n ific a n tly from such typical operations. Sampling of typical operations sh all be repeated at lea st annually to verify prior resu lts." 4. We fe e l that adoption of the proposed rule making would se r io u sly and u n ju stifia b ly impact sh ip b u ild in g and ship repair 3 ! i hd;;. We fe e l that the channel; we arc proposing would r e su lt in p ro tection of the employes and the environment equal to or b etter than the proposed ru le making. We fe e l that the ad d itio n of a * fc - quantitative d efin ition of "dust hazard" as suggested w ill encourage users to employ engineering controls at the source of em issions, thus minimizing the need for sign s by reducing atmospheric concentra tions of asb estos dust in surrounding a rea s. We b e lie v e that the suggested addition regarding sampling frequency w ill minimize con fu sion , and is c o n siste n t w ith good in d u str ia l hygiene and engineer ing practice. 4