Document gY4jq2EENRbD4M01Qp9mL3K3

NATIONAL PETROLEUM REFINERS ASSOCIATION Founded 1902 SUITE 802 1725 DESALES STREET NW WASHINGTON D C 20036 Telephone i 202 630 3722 PAT R. WRIGLEY Director Industrial Relation* Si 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 thF 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 000013982 MOD COMPANY PLANT LOCATION:___________ By (Full Name! ____________ (Please type) TELEPHONE NO. J____ l REPORT OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES FOR THE YEAR 1976 1 T otal Worked 2 Recordable Casas a. b. 1 njurle* Illnesses c. Total (a-rd) 3 Extent and Outcome of tnjurv or illneee a. Fatalities e. ______ ! 9- Lost Workday Case* h. A i ncioence R ates i. i i. Case* K. Oays Total Casei Cam Involving Oav* Away From Work Number of Days Away From Work Number of Days of Restricted Activity Total Cases Deaths Lost and 1 ost Workday! time cases _________ 1 INSTRUCTIONS: TOTAL HOURS WORKED-COLUMN 1 If possible, report the total number of hours actually worked by ail 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 lc) 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 dut .es 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 4 ,,>re calculated as follows: . .. _ Number of Injuries and/or Illness x 200,000 Inc,dene. Rates* Total 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) * Column 1 Column 3 (g) x 200,000 Column 4 (k) - Column 1 ' 3356 RULES AND REGULATIONS Title 29--Labor CHAPTER XVII--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DE PARTMENT OF LABOR PART 1903--INSPECTIONS. CITATIONS AND PROPOSED PENALTIES PART 1904--RECORDING ANO REPORT ING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES PART 1991--GRANTS FOR IMPLEMENT ING APPROVED STATE PLANS Civil Penalties for First Instance Violations; Employers in Farming Operations With Ten or Fewer Employees; Small Em ployer Survey; Effect on State Grants; Interpretation 1. Purpose. Notice la hereby given pursuant to the Administrative Proce dure Act, 5 U.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-Department 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. 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 tbe funds appropriated un der tills paragraph shall be obligated or ex 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, or 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 the funds appropriated under this paragraph shall be obligated or expend ed to prescribe, twue. administer, or en force any standard, rule, regulation or order under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which is applicable to any per* son wbo is engaged In a farming operation and employs 20 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 CFR Parts 1903, 1904, and 1961. The purpose of this notice la to interpret the terms of those limita tions and their relation to State plana approved under section 18 of the Act However, in the case of any conflict between provisions of those parte 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 tbe 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 08HA 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 record keeping 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 f 1904.15, apply to those 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-serious viola tion unless 10 or more total violations are cited. This "10 or more" Includes all vio lations; that is. other-than-serious. 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 Field 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, sin 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 be treated as a second instance vio lation and may be accompanied by a pro posed penalty regardless of whether the alleged violation is cited as other-than- serious. Citations which Include second instance other-than-serious violation* with penalties will 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. and grouping of individual otherthan-serious 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-serious violations, includ ing violations of the posting requirements under section 17(1) 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-serious vio lations and an amended citation Is issued which brings the number of violations below 10, any remaining penalties for first instance other-than-serious 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 passible 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 the 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 the growing or harvesting of crops or the raising of live stock or poultry, or related activities conducted tv a farmer, on sites such as farms, ranches, orchards, dairy farms or similar farming 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 CSHO) 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 ten or fewer employees, the CSHO will then inquire as to the maximum number of employees he employed at FfDiftAL REGISTH, VOL 42, NO. 19--fKIDAY, JANUARY 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 cm 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. (Si 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 fanning 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 funds 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 and will continue to be applicable for as long as the funding limitations In Pub. L. 94-439 remain In effect, imlrse modified or revised by the Assistant Sec retary in the Frontal, RrcisTX*. (Sec. 8(g) (2), 84 Stat. 1000 (30 USvC. 857(g) (3) ; U.S.C, 603(a)(1)(D))) Signed at Washington. D C., this 19th day of January 1977. Moaroir Com*, Assistant Secretary of Labor. |PR Doe.77--337S Tiled 1-1-77;S:06 pm) RULES ANO REGULATIONS 5367 MCp 000013985 NMRAl HOIST* VOL 41. NO. Ift-fllOAY, JANUARY 29. I fff 5372 PROPOSED RUIES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary f 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. 1977, the comment period ap pearing on page 2981, Is corrected in the 2nd column. 32nd line, to read "Febru ary 14, 1977." instead of "February 10, 1977." Signed at Washington, D.C., this 21st day of January 1977. Joel Segall, Deputy Under Secretary International Affairs. (PR Doc.77-383? Filed l-37-T7;S: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 fOSHA). US. Depart ment of Labor, is studying the recom mendations of the Standards Advisory i Committee on Hazardous Materials La-j bellng and requests public comment as, to whether a standard requiring employ- ; er: 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 haaerds to which they are exposed. metal aioisTfe, vol 41, no. ie--jiday. January js, i*r? 966 ooo 0^ PROPOSED RULES .vr:: Section 6ib)<7) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1395. 29 U.S.C. 655) authorizes OSHA co issue standards which "prescribe the use of labels or other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to Insure that fm -loyees are apprised of all hazards to a men they are exposed, relevant sympi .m* and appropriate emergency treat ment. and proper conditions and precau tions of safe use or exposure." The Standai'ds Advisory Committee on Hazardous Materials Labeling was established under section 7<b) of the Act '29 U.S.C. 658) to develop guidelines for the Implementa tion of section 6(b)(7) of the Act with respect to hazardous materials. The Committee was requested: u> develop guidelines Tor 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 procedures, 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 NIOSH docu ment was given to the Committee mem bers at their first 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 of 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 on potentially hazardous posed; materials and situations. 7. Criteria for establishing categories An indoctrination program and con ol hazards; tinuing employee training concerning 8. 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, 1978, requesting that OSHA promul gate a regulation which would require "each employer to post and provide to mated costs of coming Into compliance with the recommendations of the ad visory committee; 12. The relationship of an OSHA standard on hazardous materials label each employee representative a list of the ing with the authority and regulations generic names of all chemicals used and of DOT. CPSC, and EPA; and 3987 0000 j fgOflAL RCOISTU, VOL 42, NO. 14--FRIDAY. JANUASY 28, 197? r,:374 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. DC. 20210. The submissions will 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 addresses: National Orricx Department of Labor-OSHA, Room N3620. 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington. D.C. 20210. Regional Otficss region t US. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. JFK Federal Building. Room 1804--Government Center. Boston. Maasachuetta 02303. region n US. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. ISIS Broadway (1 Astor Plaza). Room 3446, New York, New York 10038. region m US- Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Gate way Building--Suite 2100, $638 Market Street, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19104. recion rr US. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 1378 Peachtree Street, N.B.---Suite 587, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. REOXON V US. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 230 South Dearborn street. 32nd Floor--Room 3263, Chicago, Illinois 60604. region vt U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 889 Origin Square Building. Room 602, Texas 75209. 655, 657) and Secretary of Labor's Order which can be furnished without com No. 8-76 < 41 Fit 25059). promising BBN's pledgee 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. 77-3877 Plied 1-2S-77;4:17 pmj OSHA hereby reopens the comment period for the limited purpose of permit [ 29 CFR Pert 1910] ting participants at the hearing to com ment upon the BBN poet-hearing com [Docket No. OSH-11A] 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 6, 1976 (41 FR 32912), an infoxmal hearing was con vened on September 21, 1976 concerning the economic impact analysis <EIA> of the proposed standard on occupational noise exposure, and related issues as set the record of the proceeding to the 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 (Sec. 6. Rub. L. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1593 ,29 tended through October 8. 1976. at which US.C. 655); 29 CFR Part 1911; Secretary of time Administrative Law Judge Jean Labor'* Order No. 8-76.) Greene who had presided at the hearing, announced that the record would re main open for receipt of post-hearing comments for a period of 60 days. During the hearing. OSHA received Signed at Washington. D.C., this 19th day of January 1977. M.Bert Concxlin. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor many requests for information which [FRDoc.77-2*76 FUed 1-19^77; 5:06 pm] was not contained In the economic im 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 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 REGION VQ US, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 911 Walnut Street--Room 3000, t City, Missouri 64106. region nn US- Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Federal Building--Room 18010. 1961 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado 80394. was obtained pursuant to pledges of con fidentiality. Moreover OSHA cannot make such information available because OSHA does not have It In Its possession or control. With regard to requested data the release of which would not breach any pledgee of confidentiality. OSHA has decided to take steps to supply such data for the record, and has contracted with Bolt Beranek and Newman. Inc.. (BBN), the contractor for the EHA, to mow tx make it available. U.S. Department at Labor. Occupational Safety and Health AdmlMettatien. 9470 Federal Building. 480 Ootdeo data Ava ilus--Box 36017, San Francieeo, California 94102. RBBXOW I US. Department of labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Federal Office Building, Boom 6046, 909 First Ave nue. Seattle, Washington 96174. This advance notice of propoeed rule- In addition, BBN has prepared a poet hearing comment, which discusses cer tain Issues that arose at the hearing, particularly those areas of the ELA which have engendered the most comment This post-hearing comment Is now available for Inspection and copying at the fol lowing address: Tftohnloal Data Center (Docket No. 06H- 11A), Boom N-3630, Occupational Safety end Health Administration, UjS. Depart ment of Labor. 3rd Btxeet and Oooattcutlta making is Issued under wectfcme and 9 Avenue, tfW, Washington, D.O. 90910. at the Occupational Safety and Health The BBN post-hearing comment in Act of 1970 (94 Stat. 1993, 1999; 29 VM.C. cludes data requested at the hearing &20 NM9AI M0I3TII. VOL 42, NO. 14--FRIDAY, JAMUAKY 21, 1*77 oo.V oo 5434 NOTICES Develop criteria dealing with toxic ma terial* and harmful physical agent* and aubstance* which will describe exposure levels that are safe for various periods of employ ment. including but not limited to the ex posure levels at which no employee will suffer impaired health or functional capacities or diminished life expectancy as a result or his work experience. In addition, section 22(c) of the 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 "lUD 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 rulematting 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. PROCtDURS As of December 31. 1976, NIOSH has <& xV xCf transmitted a total of 57 criteria docu ments to OSHA (see Appendix At 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 Procoduraa tor navlaw; Raquaat for Information on Cadmium yean of Its existence. This rate of cri teria document development is expected to oontinue. 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 cm 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 with special attention to areas where addi tional information Is needed INTRODUCTION fore, OSHA proposes the continued use of Advance Notices of Proposed Rule making. published on a routine basis as new criteria documents are received, to invite public comment on the need for OSHA rulemakings to establish manda tory standards, and If standards should be deemed necessary, on the relative pri Under section 20(a) (3) of the Occupa ority of developing these standards. We tional Safety and Health Act of 1070 (94 believe such a procedure will assist SUL 1610. 29 U-S.C. 669), 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 FfOCRAL RRClSTIR, VOL 42, NO. 19--FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 1977 NOTICES 4:)-' Information are requested from the pub lic to be used in the development of pro posed standards, latere 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 allFederal Register for criteria docu ments received to date and will con tinue to publish such notices as new rec ommendations are received. In addition to notira the availability of new criteria documents containing NIOSH'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: 1. Whether the criteria document ade quately demonstrates the need for and appropnateneaa of regulating this substance or other hazard. 2. What benefits are expected to result from the regulation, l.e., what mortality and morbidity are associated with current expo sures. 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. 5. What Is tbe technological and economic feasibility of the NI06H recommendations (e.g.. control measures, methods of measure ment) ? . 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 wlU be used in deciding on the appropriate course of regulatory action. If any, for each criteria document and will also as sist In preparing the proposed standards for those hazards chosen to be addressed in an OSHA standards development project. Cadmium--Background Cadmium, atomic number 4ft and atomic weight 112.40. is a metallic ele ment with a sllver-blue-whlte appear ance. It Is soft and ductile and highly corrosion resistant due to the formation of the oxide which resists further oxida tion. Cadmium Is mined In conjunction with other metals, principally zinc. Cadmium occurs In nature as cadmium sulfide, or greenockite, which Is the most common cadmium ore, although It is found In economically recoverable form only with the sulfides of other metals <>.g. zinc sulfide). Cadmium is obtained aS a by-product of zinc, lead-zinc, and cooper-lead-zinc ore refining. NIOSH estimates U S. 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 1 million kg'year are used for stabilizers for plastics, particularly poly vinyl chloride. A like quantity is used for pigments. One quarter to one half mil lion kilograms of cadmium are used an nually as an alloying agent In low-melt ing-point brazing alloys, in copper for automobile radiators, in silver-cadmium electrical contacts and in other alloys. These uses account for 80-90 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 Occupational Exposcbes Alloy maker* Aluminum solder makers Battery makers, storage Cadmium, compound collecting bag cleaners Cadmium compound collecting bag handlers Cadmium platee Cadmium smelters Cadmium vapor lamp makers Cadmium worker! Ceramic makers Dental amalgam maker* Electric Instrument makers Electroplaters Engravers Olasa makers Incandescent lamp makers Lithographers Lithopone makers Metal tzers Paint makers Paint sprayers Photoelectric cell makers Pigment makers Small arms ammunition makers Smoke bomb makers Solderen Solder maker* Textile printer* Welders, <--awihw alloy Welder*, cadmium plated object Zinc refiner* Effects of Cadmium Exposure Numerous toxic effects resulting from exposure to cadmium or cadmium com pounds reported in the scientific litera ture are cited in the NIOSH document. Clearly demonstrated effects include anemia, kidney dysfunction, and pulmo nary changes including emphysema. Less clearly demonstrated effects, cited by NIOSH, include effects on the gonads, adrenal glands thyroid, pancreas, and the liver. Exposure to cadmium can result In kidney malfunction characterized pri marily by proteinuria (Ref. 94, 99, 95).1 This may be a sign of decreased tubular reahsorptkra although the precise etiol ogy is unknown. Although other evidence of renal tubular dysfunction such as glucosuria 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 chronio cadium 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. Subetemal pain, chills and myalgia may also be present. In most cases the symptoms resolve within one week, although. In about 20% 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/m3 during an 8-hour period (equivalent to 2.400 mg-mln/m5). Chronic sequelae in clude pulmonary fibrosis and "honey comb lung." Changes 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. 53-59, 59). The exposure times varied In these studies from 2 years to 39 years. Other studies cited by NIOSH have reported no pulmonary effects from chronic cadmium intoxication (Ref. 6164). but as NIOSH states, at least some of these Involved exposures at lo*<rconcentrations or for shorter exposure times. Anosmia (loss of the sense of .smell and hyposmla (reduced sensitivity to smells) are other potential consequence of cadmium exposure reported by NIOSH (Ref. 55, 65, 78, 79). As with lune and kidney damage, duration and concen tration of exposure are probably impor tant factors. Although concurrent mrkei exposures were reported in some og me studies (55, 65, 76) one study reported insenaltiveness 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 < Ji > 81). No bone marrow pathology tv found In one group of workers (Rrf it The possible role of cadmium in h\ pertension Is unclear. Studies cK*d &v NIOSH have shown a positive corrv.a tion between cardlo-vaecular disease *.>. ambient cadmium levels (82) and > pertenslon and urinary cadmium aj Higher than normal kidney cadButar levels were found at autopsy in 17 Maw who were hypertensive (84). niisih states, however, that "no definitive r*.* tlonshlp between iev4a m kidney and cardiovascular disease -m been demonstrated." Cadmium has been reported to < certain bone changes (Ref. 34, 7i m > Numbers are reference cited In the criteria document. FC0K1M UCISTBI, VOL. 42, NO. 19--FRIDAY, JANUARY 2*. 1977 a9 ,QV 0,0 :> 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 testes (Ref. 188, 189>. No increase in unknown etiology, although impaired 113). An increased incidence of aberra tumors occurred in rats given drinking tenal tubular regulation of calcium/ tions was found in chromosomes cultured water containing 5 ppm cadmium ace pn&sphorus balance may be responsible from leukocytes of workers exposed to tate. <Ref. 192>. No increase in prostate - Ref. 11. cadmium, zinc, and lead (Ref. 114>. The cancer was found in rats and mice given The 'Ttai-itai" (ouch-ouch> disease effects of such mixed exposures are diffi cadmium sulfate by injection or intra- imported by several investigators 'Ref. 1. cult to interpret as pointed out by both gastric catheter <Ref. 105-107). Testic 7. 40. 41. 89> which occurred in certain the authors of the study and NIOSH. ular changes and Leydig cell tumors did .1. t eas of Japan may be due to contamina- NIOSH included a report of one study occur but no prostate neoplasms or pre non 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. ls 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 were reported. carcinogenicity of cadmium. The IARC as diet and hormone levels, may also play The carcinogenic potential of cadmium review, cited by NIOSH, suggested that a role. has been examined in both exposed the data were insufficient to permit con The development of a yellow ring at human populations and in experimental clusions on whether or not cadmium is the neck of the tooth was cited by NIOSH animals. carcinogenic. to have been reported in early epidemi Surveys of cadmium workers have in ologic studies of cadmium exposed work dicated that cancer of the prostate may Basis or the Current Standard 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. 65, 96). In mium fume is an 8-hour average of o.l 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/m*. The standard for cadmium One study (Ref. 55), cited by NIOSH, There were 8 deaths In this group, 3 from dust is an 8-hour average of 0-2 mg/m1 reported abnormal liver function tests prostate cancer. In another study (Ref. with a ceiling concentration of 0.6 mg m in workers exposed to cadmium oxide 96), 4 prostate cancer deaths were found (29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-2>. The dust for a mean exposure time of 20 In a cohort of 248 workers, mis ls sig standard was originally developed in years. This was considered as an unusual nificantly more than expected, mere 1941, by the American Standards Asso finding and the extent of liver abnor may be some overlap in these two studies ciation (now American National Stand malities in exposed workers ls unknown. and one group of investigators, quoted by ards Institute, or ANSI) as an American Studies in animals have suggested that NIOSH, warned against drawing conclu Defense Emergency standard of 1 mg/m cadmium may exert some destructive sions until further studies are done (Ref. for cadmium and its compounds. ANSI effect on the gonads (Ref. 91. 92, 162>. 96). A study of 92 deaths among 292 revised the standard in 1970 to the pres These studies found testicular necrosis in cadmium smelter workers revealed 4 ent levels (ANSI 237.5) which was subse rats after injection of cadmium chloride prostate cancers compared to 1.15 ex quently adopted by OSHA under section solution. Other studies reported by pected (Ref. 97). mis was not considered 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and NIOSH, demonstrated that injection of significant. If only workers alive 20 years Health Act of 1970. The ANSI report cadmium had a sterilizing effect on the after their first exposures were consid briefly reviewed cadmium toxicity but ovaries of rats and gerblls (Ref. 186- ered 0.88 deaths would have been ex the specific basis for the standard was 169). One study (Ref. 94) reported high pected vs. the 4 observed, mis was re not stated. levels of cadmium in the teste 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 gonadal function in workers exposed to cadmium. A Russian study, cited by NIOSH. re ported reduced birth weights in children born to mothers who had been occupa tionally exposed to cadmium (Ref. 95). Terstologlcal 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 rats, mice, or hamsters with cadmium chloride (Ref. 172-176). One study (Ref. 174) found no increased rate of malfor mations In mice at a doee of 0.33 mg/kg but did And a doee-related increase at higher doses <0.63 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg. and 5 mg/kg). 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 cadmium exposure. No Increase In prostate cancer was found. NIOSH views the result of this study as uncertain due to the deficient occupa tional histories. In 1946, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) 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 ACGIH 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 z mg/cu m as a ceiling. In 1973, the acgth announced its intent to change the tlv of fume to 0.0S mg/cu m, also as a ceiling. Chromosomal damage due to cadmium has also been studied. Male mice were killed 3 months after mating to ascertain fertility, and dividing spermatocytes were examined for chromosomal rear Elevated blood and tissue cadmium levels were found in lung cancer patients In a study by Morgan (Ref. 103>. But whether this was a cause or effect Is unknown. 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 genlc 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 Tsuchlya were and Japan (Ref. Ill). In leukocytes, by suspensions of cadmium oxide, sulfide, cited as reasons for a lowering of the from ItaMtal patients, cultured In vitro, sulfate, and metal powder (Ref. 183-187). TLV of cadmium fume to a ceiling con federal REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 19--FRIOAY, JANUARY st, 1477 OOOO13991 NOTICES ur: centration to 0.05 mg Cd^cu m. The basis for indicating that there is a carcino genic or co-carcinogenic potential in cadmium oxide production was not stated. Several foreign countries have set llm' - for exposure to cadmium. Some of the tits, reported by NIOSH. are 20ug/mJ ,'jr dust and 10 mg mJ for fume in Pini Mul: 0.05 mg m' total and 0 02 mg m1 rcspirable> in Sweden: and 0.1 rng m* H-r cadmium oxide tn the USSR. Bul kina. Czechoslovakia. Hungary, Japan. Poland, and Rumania all have adopted 0 1 mg m 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 40xg/m3 and a 15 minute ceil ing Limit of 200^ mJ. A 1967 report by Tsuchiya (Ref. 63), cited by NIOSH, recommended a TWA of 50^g/m*. This author did state that this limit may only be valid for Japanese workers. A limit of 50/ig/m1 was suggested In another study, by Lauwerys. et al (Ref. 133), which found no effects in workers ex posed at Sl/ig/m* and proteinuria and reduced pulmonary function in workers exposed at fifiug'm'. NIOSH cautions that the presence of toxic effects at the 66ngy m1 level suggests that a limit of 50ug/m* would not have a large safety factor. NIOSH notes further that it is possible that workers exposed at 60m/m1 were also exposed to higher concentrations but this is uncertain. A study by Piscator (Ref. 131) found no effects In a group of women workers exposed to less than 100/ig m` (mostly about 40g/m'). 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 Mg. m\ 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 Mg, mJ for 15 minutes is based on evidence of acute pulmonary disease at 2.500-2,900 mg-min/m3 (about 5 mg/m' for 8 hours). NIOSH reported that there have been cases of exposures up to 25 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-respirable 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 rolling 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/m3. Although there is some evidence of the teratogenic effect of cadmium In both experimental animals and humans (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 prostatic 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 had 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. The NIOSH recommended limits for cadmium are based on total dust sampl ing and not limited to only the respirable portion. NIOSH feels that large particles of cadmium and its compounds, while not reaching 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 cadmium have separate limits for dust and fume 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 toxlcitles. 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 i* based on protection against kidnev damage--la this a correct approach? Are there other significant toxic effects or cadmium not discussed in the NIOSH cri teria document? Is the evidence sufficient for cadmium to be considered a teratogen and/or carcino gen? If so, what step* ehotUd be taken to pro tect exposed workers? Should all forms of cadmium be consid ered is a single exposure 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 sbauU it be based upon only the respirable fraction? Are the NIOSH recommendations for limit ing employee exposure to cadmium techno logically and economically feasible? If not. what alternatives are appropriate? Are there effective substitutes which can be used to replace cadmium in some of ita applications? 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 lor the Docket Officer. The NIOSH recommendations are reprinted in Appendix B. Comments should be addressed to Doc ket Officer, Docket H067, Department of Labor--OSHA, Room N3620, 3rd and Constitution Avenue, NW,, Washington. D.C. 20310, and should be submitted by March 20,1977. Dated at Washington, D.C., this I9t)i day of January 1977. Morton corn. Assistant Secretary of Labor ApvnvDtx A--enwu Docmcnrrs Tuwijumo to OSHA Ambettoe: Received January 91, 1979. At & result of petition to OSHA, an emergency Temporary Standard on aebeetoe had been lamed on December 7, 1972. current stand ard published on June 7, 1973. Proposed revision published October 9. 2979. New NIOSH recommendations received by OSHA on December 16. 1976. Hot environments: Received June 30, 1972. OSHA Advisory Committee eetaMIthed on subject on January K 1973. Ooaunlttee ttwwumfwUMhi.. submitted January 11. 1974. Inadequate Infiaiiisllim <m which to establish a mandatary standard. Beryllium: Received June 36. 1972. Propoeed standard published October 17, 197A. Carbon Monoxide: Beoetwd August 3, 197a MCI) 000013992 FfDIRAl REOISTft. VOC 42. NO 19--MIOAY, JANUARY 39, 1977 3438 NOTICES Not**: Received August 10. 1073. OSHA Advi sory Committee established oo subject on January 36. 1973. Committee rnrnmmsnrt* tioaa submitted December 30, 1973. Fro- posed revision to existing OSHA noise standard published on October 34. 1074. Hearings held in June and July 1975, and September and October 1976. Ultraviolet Radiation; Received December 20. U'72. Inorganic Lead; Received January 5, 1973. Proposed standard published October 3, \975. Coke oven Emissions; Received February 25, 1373. Advisory Committee established Au gust 12. 1974. Committee recommendations submitted May 34. 1975. Proposed standard published July 24, 1975. Pinal standard promulgated October 23. 1979. Chromic Acid; Received July 17, 1973. (see Hexavalent Chromium). Toluene; Received July 23. 1973. Proposed standard published October 6, 1975. Toluene Dllsocyanate: Received July 13, 1973. Trichloroethylene: Received July 33, 1973. Proposed standard published October 30, 1975. Inorganic Mercury; Received August 13, 1973. Inorganic Arseni*: Received January 31, 1974. Proposed January 21. 1975. Hearings held April 1975 and September 1976. Revised Criteria Document received June 93, 1973. Sulfur Dioxide: Recleved February 11. 1974. rropoesd November 34. 1976. Sulfuric Acid; Received June 6, 1974. Ammonia: Received June 16, 1974. Proposed November 25. 1975. Benzene; Received July 34. 1974. Chloroform; Received September 11. 1974. Cotton Dust: Received September 26, 1974. Proposed December 39. 1976. Silica: Received November 11. 1974. Identification System for Hazardous Mate rials: Received December 30. 1974. Advisory Committee established September 19. 1974. Committee recommendations submitted May 24. 1975. Xylene: Received May 30. 1975. Inorganic Fluoride*; Received June 30, 1975. Sodium Hydroxide: Received October 9, 1975. Zinc Oxide: Received October 10. 1975. Hexavalent chromium: Received December 3a 1975. Combined as single OSHA project with Chromic Add. Carbon Tetrachloride: Received January 33, 1976. Isopropyl Alcohol: Received March 9. 1976. Methylene Chloride: Received March 9. 1976. Hydrogen Fluoride: Received March 9, 1976. Phosgene: Received March 3. 1976. Nitric Acid: Received March9. 1976. Ethylene Dlchlortde: Received March 9. 1976. Methyl Alcohol: Received March 23. 1976. Nitrogen Dioxide: Received March 33, 1976. Chlorine: Received May 96. 1976. Methyl Chloroform (1,1.1 Trichloroethyl ene): Received July 1. 1976. Perchloroethylene (Tetrachloroethylene): Received July 1. 1976- Acetylene: Received June 30, 1976. Malathlon: Received June 30. 1976. Phenol: Received Juno 90, 1976. Parathton: Received June 90. 1976. Carbon Dioxide: Reoelved August 11, 1976. Cadmium: Received August 34, 1976. Epicblorohydrin: Reostvod September 17, 1976. Allyl Chloride: Received Bepfemhev 31, 1976. Methyl Pmrathlon: tlsoslved September 90, 1976. Carbary!: Received September 90, 1976. Cyanide and cyanide Salts: Received October 5. 1978. Organotm Compounder Deceived November 13.1976. Acrylamide: Deceived December t, 1976. Boron Trtfluorlde: Received December 17. 1976. Formaldehyde: Received December 30, 1976. Arans 8 1. EXCOMMXKBATTOne ro* A CADMIUM msMis The National Institute foe Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that worker exposure to i-rfmii.iw in % tne workplace be controlled by adherence to the following sections. The standard is designed to protect the health and safety of workers for up to a 10-hour workday, 40-hour week over a working lifetime. Compliance with all sections of the standerd should prevent ad verse effects of ex posure to cadmium on the health and safety of worker*. The standard is measurable by techniques that are valid, reproducible, and available to Industry and government agencies. Sufficient technology exists to permit compliance with the recom mended standard. The criteria and the stand ard will be subject to review and revision as necessary. "Cadmium" refers to elemental cadmium and all cadmium compounds. An "action level" ts defined as half the time- weighted average concentration environ mental limit of cadmium. "Occupational ex posure to cadmium" is defined as exposure to cadmium at a concentration greater than the action level. Exposure at lower environ mental concentrations win not require ad herence to the following sections, exoept for Section 8(b) and 7(d). SzcnoK 1 Environmental (Workplace air)--(a) Concentration. Occupational ex posure to cadmium shall be controlled so that workers are not exposed to cadmium at a concentration greater than 40 mlcrograma per cubic meter of atr (40l)g Cd/eu m determined as time-weighted everege (TWA) exposure concentration for up to a 10-hour workday. 40-hour workweek, or at a celling concentration greater than 300 ts) g Cd/eu m for any 19-mlnute sampling period. (b) Sampling and analysis. In the work environment shall be performed by the method provided tn Appendix I or by a method with at least equivalent efficiency. Samples shall be analysed by the method provided In Appendix H or by a method shown at least equivalent In precision and sensitivity. Sac. 3 Medical. Medical monitoring shall be made available to all worker* subject to occupational exposure to cadmium. (a) Preplaoememt examinations shall be made available to new or reassigned em ployees prior to Job placement, and. within 6 months of the promulgation of a standard baaed on these recommendations, to em ployees already engaged in wort involving exposure to Preplaesmsnt examinations shall Include a comprehensive work and medical history, a 14" x 17" P A. chest x-ray, measurement off -forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume during the first second (R7 1). measurement of blood pressure, blood analysis (blood urea nitrogen, com plete blood count, and serum glutamic ocaloacetate transaminase or other liver enaymsa), and urinalysis (mlcroaoople sxmlnatlon. sugar determination, quantitative protein determination, and specific gravity measurements). a judgmant of the works'1* shall be offered yearly, or as otho-wlse di rected by the responsible physician. Thee* periodic examinations h*.i| include interim work and medical history, urinalysis (with quantitative protein determinations very 4 month*) pulmonary function teats (FVC and FEV i), and blood pressure. Cheat radiographs shall be taken If Judged neces sary by the responsible physician. In addition, blood analysis, palpation o( the proetate tn male workers over 40 years old. and monitoring of urine cadmium con centrations are also recommended. If the concentration of cadmium in the urine rises above 10 (u)g/Uter. an investigation of the cause, such as environmental exposures, personal and Industrial hygiene practices, and nonoccupational exposure, should te conducted. Reassessment of occupational exposure, work practices, and personal habits shall be undertaken if FVC or FEV i becomes re duced 15 percent or more or the ratio FEV 1/FVC Is reduced 10 percent or more than would be expected from the age and smoking habits of the person examined. If persistent symptoms of respiratory trust disease de velop. If there are frequent upper or lower respiratory lnfecttona, or if persistent proteInula or other abnormal laboratory or clinical findings relatable to cadmium toxicity develop. Smoker* should be counseled on their pos sibly increased risk of chronic respiratory disease. (c) At termination of or transfer from em ployment involving occupational exposure to cadmium, a comprehensive examination in cluding the components of (a) above shall be offered. (d) Ferttnent medical records shall be re tained for 30 years after the last occupa tional exposure to cadmium. These records shall be made available to the designated medical representatives of the Secretary of Labor, of the Secretary of Health. Zducattofi, and Welfare, of the employer, and of the em ployee or former employee. See. 3 Labeling and Posting--(a) Con tainers. Shipping and storage containers or package containing cadmium or cadmium compounds shall bear th* following label: DANDER 1 CONTAINS....................i POISONOUS FUMES MAT BE FORMED ON HEATING HARMFUL ZF INHALED OR SWALLOWED AVOID CONTACT WITH SKIN, ETES. AND CLOTHING WASH HANDS THOROUGHLY AFTER KANDLXNO Avoid breathing fume, dust or mist Keep container closed Use only with adequate ventUatloo (b) Work areas Locations or areas where cadmium dust or fumes are Ukely to b# gsDerated shall be designated with clearly visible warning signs as shown below: DANGER 1 ability to work in poeltivs or negative pres CADMIUM (Cd) sure respirators shall he made. The method for protein determination In urine shall be quantitative and capable of detecting low molecular weight protein (see Appendix m). Determination of urine cad Cadmium Fume (or Dust) Areas Authorised Personnel Only Breathing Funs* (or Dust) May Cause immediate or Delayed Injury mium levels Is also recommended. No Smoking (b) Periodic svamlnaMona shall also be available, exoept for urine protein determinations, which shall be made avail able every 4 months, these examinations Beeplratore Are Located ............................. > i complete by Inserting "cadmium" or s Olve location of respirators. HMBAl COISTII, VOL 42, NO. 19--HNDAY, MNUAlY 26, 1977 3993 0000^ NOTICES 5439 This sign stall be printed In English and in Che predominant language or aon-Engliahspeaking workers. AU employees shall be trained and informed of the hazards and the hazardous areas. Ail Illiterate workers shall receive special attention. Sec. *. Personal Protective Equipment. Engineering controls shall be used it needed to maintain airborne cadmium concentra tions at or below the limits recommended in Section l. Compliance with these workplace environmental limits by the UBe of respira tors Is permuted only during emergencies. When use of a respirator is permitted, It shall be selected and used m accordance with the following requirements: <a) For the purpose of determining the type 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 clLmate changes occur that are likely to increase the concentration of airborne cadmium. (b) The employer shall ensure that no worker is exposed to cadmium in excess of the recommended limits because of improper respirator selection, tit. use. or maintenance. (c) A respiratory protection program meet ing the requirements of 39 CFR 1910.134. which Incorporates the American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protec tion. Z88.3-1969. shall be established and enforced by the employer. <d) The employer shall provide respirators in accordance with Table 1-1 and shall en sure that employees use the respirators pro vided in a proper manner when wearing of respirators is required. (e) Respirators selected from those de scribed in Table 1-1 shall be those approved under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11. (f) The employer shall ensure that em ployees are properly instructed in the use of respirators assigned to their use and on how to test for leakage, proper fit. and proper operations. (g) Respirators specified in Table 1-1 for use In atmospheres of higher concentrations of airborne cadmium may be used In atmos pheres of lower cadmium concentrations. <h) 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 clean respirators that are in good operating condition. <l) The employer shall periodically moni tor the use of respirators to ensure that the proper type of respirator Is worn, to evaluate the effectiveness of the respiratory protection program, and to eliminate any deficiencies in use and care of respirators. Table /-/,-- If' *!><utor ifiihh- Air concentrations Respirator type Less than or equal to 0.4 mj/m1. Leas than or equal to 3.0 mg,' m*. (i) Half-mask respirator with high efficiency Al ter (s). 2) Type C demand type (negative pressure) sup plied air respirator with half-mask facepiece, (l) Pull facepisos respi rator with high efficiency filter (s). <2i Type C demand type (negative pressure) sup plied air respirator with full facepiece. (9 > sell-contained breath ing apparatus with full facepiece In demand mode (negative pres sure) . Air concentrations Less than or equal to 40 mg/m. $0 mg/m greater unknown or or Respirator type (1) Powered air-purifying (positive pressure) res pirator with high effi ciency Altera. (3) Type C continuous flow (positive pressure) supplied air respirator. (l) Combination supplied air respirator, pressuredemand type, with aux iliary self-contained air supply. i3) Self-contained breath ing apparatus with full facepiece in positive pressure mode. Sec. 5 Inform Employees of Hazards from Cadmium.--() 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 stagee of nineas), 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. (b) A continuing education program, con ducted by a person or persons qualified by experience or special training, shall be In stituted to ensure that ail 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 Safety and Health Administra tion, U S. Department of Labor. See. 6 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 unlesa appropriate air sampling and analysis have demonstrated that concentrations are at or below the environmental Umlta. Methods other than enclosure and ventilation tor 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 vorkplace. 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, Erasing, and Thermal Cut ting. Welding, brazing, or thermal cutting of material containing cadmium shall be per formed using local exhaust ventilation dem onstrated by air sampling and analysis to keep cadmium concentrations within the limits of Section l. For single operations where local exhaust ventilation is not avail able. where sir sampling has not been per formed, or where air sampling has demon strated a likelihood of overexposure to cad mium fume or dust, respirators shall be provided and worn as specified In Section 4 Where molten ta used or formeo temperatures should be kept as low as possi ble consistent with the requirements of 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, wtth 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 airbor-p cadmium. Such procedures shall in clude provision for appropriate respirators as specified Ln Section 4. Specific emergency procedures shall be de signed for fires, to protect both In-p.aiu 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 street clothing shall be exchanged at the beginning and the end ot each workday, so that wk clothing will not be worn outside the workplace. The employer shall provide for proper laundry of clothing and shall instruct launderera on procedures to be taken to avoid inhalation of cadmiumcontaining dusts. Sec. 7. Sanitation Practices.--(a) Where there la 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 materials, and col lection of cadmium-containing dust. <e) Cadmium-containing and cadmiumplated metal parts should be kept separate from parte not containing cadmium ar marked appropriately so that accidental e poeuree resulting from welding and cotring wilt not occur. (d) Facilities shall be maintained to pro tect foodstuffs and food consumption areas 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 shower fa cilities shall be provided, workers shall wash their hands before eating or before using tobacco to prevent their absorbing additional amounts of cadmium compounds. Sec. 8 Monitoring and Recordkeeping. Workers are not considered to be occupa tionally exposed to cadmium if environmen tal concentrations, as determined on the basts of an industrial hygiene survey to be performed within 90 days of the promulga tion of a standard, do not exceed the action level. I.e., half the recommended TWA en vironmental limit, or if there Is no operation storage, or handling or cadmium in any form or con lamination of workplace air by cad mium from other sources. Them industrial hygiene surveys shall be repeated at lea.i every 3 years and within 30 days after anv process or operating change likely to rv*ult in increases of airborne concentrations ot cadmium. Records of them surveys, including the basis for concluding that airborne con centrations of cadmium are at or below the action level, shall be maintained until the nest survey hae been completed. The'following requirements apply to oc cupational exposure to cadmium, te, to *orK - MCI) 000013994 SCOHAL lEdlSTIR, VOL 42, NO. 19--FRIDAY, JANUARY 28. 1977 5440 NOTICES pUe* whri tb action l*wl Is excMdsd. (s> Personal monitoring. A program of breathing zone or persona) monitoring shall be Instituted to Identify end measure the exposure of all employees occupationally ex posed to cadmium. This sampling and analy sis snail be conducted every 3 months on at least 25 percent of the workers so that each worker s expo-TC l' mea*ured at least every year; this frequency snd fraction of em ployees sampled may be different If so di rected by a profes'lonal Industrial hygienist. Sufficient numbers of samples shall be col lected and analyzed to permit construction of valid estimates of the TWA and celling concentration exposures of workers during each warkshKt: the number of TWA and cell ing concentration determinations for an operation shall be based on such factors as mobility and job functions of workers in that operation Tf montortng of any worker shows exposu-e in excess of either recom mended environmental limit, additional monitoring shall be promptly Initiated. If confirmed, control nj-Dcedures shall be InstlUited as soon as possible: these mav pre cede and obviate confirmatory monitoring If the emnlover desires. Affected employers shall be advised t**>at exposures have been exee&stve and be notified of the control pro cedures being implemented. Monitoring of these employees' 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*, rt-omm* ded Itmtt? Normal moni toring may then be resumed. lb) Rrrorctkcepinij. Environmental moni toring records shah bo maintained for at least 20 v-eir'? These records shall include methods of samplin'! and analysis used, types of respiratory prcte-tlon used, and TWA and celling conce itr-tlons found. Each employee shall be ab'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 medic." I records -hall be retained for 20 years after the 1 st occupational ex posure to cadmium. Record? of environmen tal exposures annlicable to an employee should be included In the employee's medical records. These medical records shall be made available to the designated medical repre sentative! of the Secretary of Labor, of the Secretary of Health. Educ tion and Welfare, of the employer, and of the employee or for mer employee. [FR Doc 77 2179 Filed 1-19-77:5:06 pm| Occupational Safety and Health Administration [V-77-1] 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 25169. 7th li 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. 1596: 29 U S.C. 655) 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 in 29 CFR 1926.451 <a> <4), <5). and (10) dealing with scaffolds. The place of employment affected by the application is as follows: Richmond Engineering Company, Inc.. 7th A Hospital Streets, Richmond. Virginia 23260. 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 all places where notices to em ployees are normally posted'. Employees have also been informed of their right to petition the Assistant Secretary for a 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 1926.451(a) <4). (5), and <10>. Section 1926.451(a) <4) and 15 read as follows: (4) Guardrails and toeboards shall be In stalled on all open sides and ends of plat forms more than 10 feet above the ground or floor, except needle beams scaffolding and floats (see pararr-phs (pi and (w> of this section) Scaffolds 4 to 10 feet In height having a minimum horizontal dimension In either direction of less than 45 Inches, shall have standard guardrails Installed on all open sides and ends of the platform. 15) Guardrails shall be 2 x 4 Inches, or the equivalent, approximately 42 Inches high, with a mldrail. when required. Supports shall be at Intervals not to exceed 8 feet. Toeboards shall be a minimum of 4 Inches In height. The applicant states that its business is of a specialized nature involving steel Plate erectionb y members of the boiler maker's trade. The applicant contends that the scaf folds used in building tanks are mobile and are frequently raised as are the tank sections, in order to position the next set of steel plates. The scaffolds used do not have toeboards because tools are placed in well designed "loose tool" containers provided for that purpose. In addition, the applicant proposes to rope off the area directly below and in close proximity to the scaffold and to permit only those employees, and tools currently being used by them, on the scaffolds. As a further precaution, a taut wire is installed mid way between the innermost plank face of the scaffold platform and the tank face. The applicant states that because the scaffolds must be moved frequently, it would be more hazardous to constantly remove and replace toeboards. The applicant also proposes to place guardrail supports at 10'8" intervals in lieu of the 8' requirement of 5 1926.451 <a) (5i. This would allow consistent bracket spacing since the applicantfurther desires to use 10'6" spans for its scaffold planking although 3 1926.451(a) < 16) allows a maximum span of 10'. The planks proposed to be used are rough full-dimensioned 2" x 12" x 12' planks of Douglas Fir or Southern Yellow Pine 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 the scaffolds he is using are safe, even though the span is one-hall foot longer than the maximum length allowed, be cause of the increased strength of the 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: US. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Gate way Building--Suite 15220. 3535 Market Street. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Federal Building (PO. Box 10186) Room 8018. 400 North 6th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23240. All interested persons, including em 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 argument* relating to the pertinent ap plication no later than February 28, 1977. In addition, employers and em ployees who believe they would be af fected by a grant or denial of the variance may request a hearing on the application no later than February 28. 1977. in con formance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1905.15. Submission of written com ments and requests for a hearing should be in quadruplicate, and must be ad dressed to the Office of Variance Deter mination at the above address. II. Interim Order. It appears from the application for variance and interim order that the proposed scaffolding de scribed in the application, with certain variations, will provide a place of em ployment as safe as those which would prevail if the applicant were to comply fully with 29 CFR 1926.451(a) (4>, w>. and (10). It further appears that an interim order is necessary, pending a decision on the application. In order to prevent undue hardship to the applicant and its employees. Therefore, It is or dered. pursuant to section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. and 29 CFR 1905.11(c), that the Richmond Engineering Company. Inc., be. and is hereby authorised to use scaf folds in accordance with the following conditions, in lieu of complying with the toeboard and span requirements in 3 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 bars, key plates, key channels, or long handled maul which may be placed on the scaffold plank during the time they are required for work. The loose tool containers shall be secured to prevent their upset or dlslodgment from the scaf fold area. (b) Areas beneath and far enough away from the base of the scaffold to contain anything that falls from above shall be roped off and posted with clearly visible signs stating: "Danger Overhead Work." FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42. NO. 19--FRIDAY, JANUARY 2t, 1977 1399^ 0000 (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 Lieu of using a guardrail or tle-off system. <d' Not more than three employees shall be working on a 10'6" span of scat* fold planking at any time. <e> The maximum distance between brackets to which scaffolding and guard rail supports are attached shall be IO'0". These brackets shall be welded to the steel plates. <f) Scaffold planks of rough full-di mensioned 2"X12"X12' Douglas Ftr or Southern Yellow Pine 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.SOO 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' rlanks 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 9 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 than 10'6" Intervals. Richmond Engineering Company, Inc., shall give notl~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 29. 1977, and shall remain in effect until a decision is rendered on the application for variance. Signed at Washington. D.C., this 19th day of January 1977. B. M. COlfCKLOf. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor. [FR Doc.77-2936 Piled 1-27-77:6:45 am] NOTICES 5441 000013996 MCI) FKOMAL MOISTIft. VOL 42, NO. IV--Ft(DAY, JANUARY 29, 1977 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: Immediate 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.$. Depart ment of Labor. Bert Concklin, depucy 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 -MORE- 39^ qoOOT 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" carcinogen (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 -gents 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 aqents would cause OSHA 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, medi surveillance requirements, personal protective measures, recordkeeping requirement 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 setting job health standards on a substance-by-substance basis," Concklin said. -MORE- MOD 00001399a 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." m Concklin said the proposed regulations will be presented later this week cc 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 summary sheet. - MORE- MCP 000013999 SUMMARY SHEET IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND REGULATION OF OCCUPATIONAL CARCINOGENS I, Qackground 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 through 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 than 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 preventable if the causative agents can be identified and human exposure to them eliminated or minimized. MCD 000014000 2 II. The Regulatory Dilemma Any 'k-cisior, 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 CSHA's rulemakings. In its five year history, OSHA has concluded only 4 rulemaking proceedings concernin': carcinogens, namely the asbestos standard in 1972, the carcinogen standard in January '974 '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 boon identified by the National Institute fcr Occupational Safety and Health C'NIOSH") as being "suspect carcinogens". Ln other words, NICSH has foi.nd some scientific evidence, admittedly of varying 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. III. 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 0SHA*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. .?. That a toxic material confirmed as a carcinogen in animal tests must be treated, as a policy matter, as posing a carcinogenic risk to man, 3. That there is presently no means to determine a "safe" exposure loveL to a carcinoqen; hence, for regulatory purposes, if will bo assumed that no safe level exists. 4. That in rogulutina employee exposure to a carcinoaen, OSHA wiLl set the permissible exposure limit as low as feasible. s. That where suitable substitutes for a carcinogen are found to be less hazardous to the worker, no occupational exposure to the carcinogen wilL be permitted. MCD 000014001 3 The proposal would permit any interested party to submit information from human or animal studies to establish the carcinogenicity of c_ 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 a* "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 000014002 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 ft : a confirmed carcinogen is proposed for this purpose. 3. SimpLify and reduce the time required for rulemaking by limiting the public hearing to certain specified issues, including feasibility. 4. Issue a final standard within s-x 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 chat the evidence of carcino genicity is only "suggestive" and request that those aqencies 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 aqencies including NIOSH, EPA, and NCI of classification and request any additional information which could have a bearing on reconsideration of the Category III classification. MCD 000014003 Surprise Inspections For Safety Okayed By Lyle Dennlston Waihington Scar Staff 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 Hea4th 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. H* Washington Star Frifer.Fhnry4,1977 ttCD Oouui-i United States News Department 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,1' 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 sta. 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 t*e suspension of all inspection activity in Idaho," Dr. Corn said. "The offices i" Boise and Jackson will remain open for all other business, hut no inspections be conducted in Idaho. That includes inspections based on complaints, report' imminent dancer and reports of hospitalizations and fatalities due to industry accidents." - MORE- MCD 000014005 2 7;>? '>-! c i d >? n * wnich ror*TrH the bails for `ho case at issue fall* into another '...-T'jrs. g^oer-*1 inspections. and activity i *. that area wil' also be suspended. the--4' l-oal rrooev--* a-*a einc 'at'-ied out,1 Or. ,'ocn *aid, we .ill continue to our resc-ons i b': 1 i t ies, under the law, throughout tne rest of the nation. All inspection artivities are being- and will be- carried out." ba MCD 000014006 News Sr Office of InformationWashington, D.C. 2021Q OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADM INISTPA'ION 'cotact: James Foster Office: 202-523-8151 After Hours: (703) 941-6793 USDL-- 77-80 PELcASE: Immediate ^oncav, Jan. ,0, 0,7 IDAHO OS!!A. OFFICES CHASE INSPECTION ACTIVITY t'r. = r n' 1'u S ';}.' "'onT: c Lv.',''s ' *' ' ' ' " 1 * ; : :r i. -' < j iC - 1 p- ' .. L'.i _ f 1 :n a i'.ay 3n ' s i j: - " - i u ` s ` I r .-,;x t i on or. ,,:*.d OSUA Cu udse M'Sport; ...15 oocjuse 'f .".He cr'ort;s ce'ief tney did rot comely with the Fourth Amendment. "As a result of the court's order, we have no choice but to suspend ail 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 filed with the court on Wednesday along with a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. "If the district court grants us the stay, we will immediately 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. -MORE- MCD 000014007 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," Dr. Corn said, we cel'-r/e our 'nscection -rocedures are eminently reasonable. "We visit estahl i'.hiner.ts which, based on 'Industry average injury rates, can he oected to heue sinnificant numbers o* nazards to employee safety ana 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.0. Box 1223, 83501, telephone number (208) 743-2589. ### r mod 000140QQ 2956 RULES AND REGULATIONS CHAPTER XVII--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY ANO HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DE PARTMENT OF LABOR [Docket No. 3-103| 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 page 59696 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, middle column, de lete the eighth line from the bottom and insert: `'would actually be Idled, In stead of 10." FHAL MCtSTfR, VOL. 42. NO. 10--MIDST, JANUAIY 14. 1977 / MCD 00001^009 IM6WSA JR|^^ United States i 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. m Editor's Note: For added details contact William Crumbaker, operations review officer Seattle (206) 422-5043. MCD 000014010 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 25 pom 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 recomnended, 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 lowerea to a two-hour time-weighted average concentration of 1 ppm in air. OSHA currently is considering this recommendation. 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. MOD 000014011 MCI) 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 2 KlfikAID United Slates IMuWo seni Office of Information Washington, D C. 20210 A w OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY t HEALTH ADMINISTRATION ConUct: Jims Foster Office: (202) 523-91$1 After Hours: (703) 941-0796 US0L-- 77-26 FOR RELEASE, Lmeedtate mndey, January 10. 1977 NATIONWIDE HEARINGS ON 0SHA PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE SCHEDULED Eleven public Meetings allowing representatives of labor, management and the public to coament on recoamendations 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 11 ci ties 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 among those national consensus and federal standards adopted by OSHA on May 29, 1971, five months after enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. On April 23, 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 comaent on approximately IS percent of its general industry safety standards: walking working surfaces, fire protection and anhydrous amnonia. On May 7, 1976, President Ford established federal task forces to work with selected agencies to improve and simplify their regulations. OSHA was one of the agencies. The President's task force on revision of the OSHA Safety Regulations was responsible for developing both suggested revised standards for machinery and machine guarding, and a reconnended 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 Coeenittee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) on Oct. 7 and Nov. 4, 1976. The committee as a whole reviewed the approach on Nov. 16. NACOSH then recomnended that OSHA publish the approach, with some modifications, as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to collect information and content. 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 contents on the specific machinery and machine guarding approach, OSHA is using a three-column format. The first ar left-hand column contains the language of the present standard. The second or middle column contains the most recent standard recottmended by the American National Standard Institute (ANSI). ANSI, a private organization.developed many of the voluntary national consensus standards initially adopted by OSHA. The third or right-hand column contains connects 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. Design or specification stan dards dictate how a machine must be constructed and operated. A performance standard states employer obi igations in terms of ultimate goals to be achieved. The employer is then free to select the specific method to achieve those goals. MORE 3 c> o >o V> CP OSHA Is specifically seeking cements on whether enployer obligations are sufficiently clear under this approach, and on whether employees will be readily able to determine If a safe workplace Is being provided. Written cements on the notices should be submitted on or before April 7, 1977, to be Included with the record of the meetings. Reguests to make oral presentations on substantive Issues at the Beatings should be submitted not later than two weeks prior to the meeting dates. Both written cements and requests to make presentations should be sent to Docket 0, OSHA Technical Data Center, Room N3620, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., H.W., Washington, O.C. 20210. The requests to make written presentations should identify the person or organization wishing to appear, the subject matter, the amount of tine wanted and a brief stmary of the presentation, If possible. Late requests may be honored, time permitting. The meetings will be chaired by representatives of the Department of Labor designated by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. The meetings will normally begin at 10 a.m. and conclude at 5 p-m. but provisions will be made for evening sessions, if sufficient requests are received. The meeting dates and locations are: March 1-3, 1977 Atlanta fiulf Oil Bldg. Room 18S 1375 Peachtree St., N.E, East Boston Logan Hilton Hotel Logan Airport - MORE 4 Cleveland Cleveland Holiday tnn 1111 Lakeside March 8-10, 1977 Chicago Sheraton 0`Kare (Rosemont) 6810 N. Mannheim Rd. Dallas Denver Baker Hotel - The Tenas Room 1400 Cowmerce St. Stouffer's Denver Inn 3203 Quebec St. March 15-17, 1977 Los Angeles Blltmore Hotel- Roman Room S15 South 01 tv* St. Winston- Benton Convention Center Salem (N.C.) Conference Room #5 301 West 5th St. March 22-24, 1977 Seattle Washington Plaza Hotel Sth A Westlake St. Kansas City Phillips House- The London Room (Mo.) 12th 1 Baltimore New York U.S. Department of Labor Room 3560 - 35th Floor 1515 Broadway MCD 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 4 .5- OSHA MACHINE GUARDING FACT SHEET This fact sheet highlights general Issues raised by the possible revision of the standards as wet) 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 "performance" or "specifications'' standards. It is Important to note that there are no comonly accepted definitions of "performance" or "specification'* standards. Rather there Is a spectrum of require ments ranging from the general duty requirement-- to maintain workplaces free from recognized hazards-- to the most specific-- rivets should be five inches apart, ratlings must be exactly 42 inches high, etc. As a general proposition, a specification standard can be said to show how a task should be accomplished. On the other hand, a performance standard states obligations in terms of ultimate goals whicn 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 performance approach. Those employers argue that 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 must do to comply with the regulationsSimilarly some employees have*suggested that performance standards may not adequately Inform them of what obligations are imposed on their companies - HOftE- 6 The question has also arisen about the deqree to which a performance approach could impose information greater burdens on OSHA compliance officers. The task force approach embodies a performance standard, but also provides detailed information in two separate appendices to the regulation to help employers and employees understand how safeguards can be pul 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: (1) determine if a hazard exists and if an employee 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 his 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 obligaiimi to protect employees, he could follow all the specifications laid out in Appendix B. When making an inspection compliance officer would assess each machine In determine if an employee is exposed to an enumerated hazard, if an employee was so exposed and an acceptable method of safeguarding was not used or the specif i -HONE- Au S at e 2 c I I oo 3 7W & co o-- 6<5 1 a Ql^ 000 nesses and those with highly transient work forces: (8) The feasibility of complying with a department of labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration 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 [29 CFR Part 1910] (Docket No. H-1041 AMORPHOUS SIUCA 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, (Secs. 4(b). Stui and 6 of me Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1S92. 1693. 1599: 29 U.S.C. 653(b). 655(b). 657) and Secretary of Labor s Order No. S-76 (41 FR 25059. June 22, 1976) .) Signed at Washington. l)C. this nth day of December 1976. Morton Cohn, Assistant Secretary of Labor |FR Doc 76-37870 Filed 8-27 76.8 45 am] and other industries which use amor 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 0-3 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 i, 1977, written data, views and comments concerning a standard on amorphous silica for em ployees to the Docket Officer. Docket No. H-204, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. U.3. Department of Labor, Room N-3620, 200 Constitution Ave., NW. Washington, D C. 20210 (Tel ephone (202) 523-8076). Comments are specifically requested concerning: (1) 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 similar requirements to small busi FCOttAl IIOt$T!R. VOL 4), NO. TUCSOAT, 0ICKMIH 28. It7 MCP 000014016 MCD 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 7 JL United States NcWo ss,,r Office oMnformalion Washington, D C. 20210 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY i HEALTH ADMINISTRATION Contact: Office : After Hours: James Foster (202) 523-8151 (703) 941-6798 [JSDL-- 76-1545 FOR RELEASE: (nmediate Monday, Jan. 3, 1977 OSHA SETS MARCH 15 HEARING FOR PROPOSED LEAD STANDARD A public hearing concerning a proposed job 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 Administratloi (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 eiqht-hour time-weight*:d average. OSHA officials noted that the final standard on employee exposure to lead will be based on the total public record developed during tn> rulemaking process. That record will include all written and oral data, views and arguments concerning all issues raised in the rule making. Thus, OSHA expressed hopes for widest [possible participate i by interested parties. Since the proposal first appeared in the Ruder.i) Hegistei Oct. ). 1975, additional issues have been raised concerning chelating ager.'v (chemical purgatives administered to remove metals from the body) , the adequacy of blood level determinations, and effects of load i. human reproductive functions. To permit further comment on these new issues, issues ra i -MORE- : MCI) 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 8 2 earlier, and any other related laauas, OSHA has extended to February 11, the deadline for written comment. The written comment period originally ended Dec. 2, 1975, but was later extented to Jan. 16, 1976. In addition, a preliminary "Technological Feasibility, Cost of Compliance and Inflationary Impact Study" on the proposal has been prepared for OSHA. It is now available for public inspection and copying at OSHA's Technical Data Center, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3620, 3rd St. and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. A final study, that will consider ongoing data collection efforts, will be made available for further study at least four weeks prior to the March 15 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 the publtc hearing, a complete listing Is scheduled to appear In today's Federal Register notice. Interested persons ere invited to submit written data, views and argumsnts 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, to: 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 Cor public re^oonse to the final technological MORE - 3 and Cost study. Requests to appear at the March 15 public hearing to begin at 9:30 s.m. in the Departmental Auditorium, Constitution Ave. between 12th and 14th Sts., N.W., should be postmarked by Feb. 11, and sant to the OSHA Committee Management Office, Room N3633, at the U.S. Department of Labor. Requests must contain names and addresses of persons requesting to appear, the capacity in which they will appear, the estimated time needed, specific 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 Safety and Health Administration [29 CFR Part 191&J [Docket No. H-004] PROPOSED STANOARD FOR EXPOSURE TO LEAO Informal Public Hearing Availability of Preliminafy Technotogieal Feasibility and Inflationary Impact Study; and Receipt of Additional Studies Purpose. The purposes of this notice are to- schedule a hearing data for re ceipt of oral testimony on. ail relevant lasuea concerning the lead proposal; to expUcitly raiea certain ahum*v iaeues; to set forth, a List of additional studies concerning exposure to lead; to announce the availability of a preliminary techno logical faaatbllixy. cost of compliance and infiattonary impact study- of the proposed lead standard; and to permit further comment on the proposal.^Background; On October 3. 1975, no tice of a proposed standard for occupa tional exposure to lead warn published by the ^Vnipatfrmal Safety and Health Ad ministration <OSHA> in the PsoiasL. Rmma (40 FR 46934) pursuant to the authority to sections 6(h) and 3(c) of the OvenpaHanal Safety and Health. Act of 1979 (M8UL 1593. 1599 : 39 UJB.C. 666. 9S7V and Title 39, Code of Federal Regu lations (CFR) Part 1911. Interested persons were given until De cember 2. 1975 to submit written data, tews and arguments on the proposal and to die objections and request a hearing thereon. At the request of several com menting parties, this period was subse quently extended until January 16. 1976 (40 FR 55666>. Over 100 written com ments have been received including ap proximately 40 requests that a public rulemaking hearing be held. Issues: 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 *: and whether this level incorpo rates an appropriate margin of safety;. 2. Whether subdlnlcal affects of ex posure should be considered in estab lishing a standard for occupational 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 provided in the pro posal. employers in certain specific in dustries should be required to conduct Initial monitoring of the exposures at Mtibe employees or ilaUm tnitlel deter minations without monitoring are suffi cient for all Industries: $. Whether s sampling and analysis should be munlurt an a simple PROPOSED RULES bW -ment to air monitoring to determine em ployee absorption ot lead; a. Whether the provisions for methods of compliance, medical surveillance, pro bor of the D5, House of Representatives to investigate occupational exposure to lead and use of chelating agents. The Di rector of the National Institute, for Oc the total body-: burden. Also, blood iead determinations are susceptible to depre* aion from a variety of sources other th* reduced lead absorption, such as Iron, tective equipment and clothing, hygiene facilities, and recordkeeping are appro priate; 7. Whether warning signs and labels - should be required; - 8. To what extent are there groups with Increased susceptibility to iead In the cupational Safety and Health, Dr. John Finklea, testified at the hearing that: "They (chelating agents) should only be administered under proper medical su pervision and not by anyone untrained In medicine. Physicians should not chelate workers and send them back anemia or chelation treatment. In addi tion, a procedure frequently employed by laboratories that perform blood lead determinations is to also titt-cd hema tocrit or hemoglobin levels in order to more accurately indicate the amount of 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 to work 1976 Mt. Sinai study of workers to 2 lead occupational exposure to any substance, ers treated in this manner. Dr. Hector smelters In Indiana revealed that, of the in thin case lead; and Blejer, appearing on his own behalf, tes laboratory finding* studied including - 9. What are the environmental and in tified concerning his observations of the blood lead levels, determinations of tine flationary impacts of this-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 hemeeynthesis, correlated well with the prosal would be technologically aod 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 email numbers of employees. treat overexposed adult workers. Instead, measurement of erythrocyte proto Comments and Information were they recommend immediate removal of porphyrin (EP), a vinniiftT. indicator to ought on these and any other Issues the employe from exposure and treat ZPP, gives a better reflection of bema- raised by the proposed. ment of the symptoms of intoxication. tologlcaUy 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." EP determinations are already being em bated above or discussed at any length In July 1976, the Food and Drug Ad ployed to ramjnnotiftw with blood lead In the preamble have been raised. OSHA ministration warned against the "pro determinations to screening tests for lead considers these new issues to be of such phylactic" use of chelation to its June- toxication in children. The studies have importance and controversy that com July Drug Bulletin, adding that "their also found a positive correlation at blood ments, Information and- data are now chronic use to combat continued exposure lead levels below 70ug/100ml between EP nought on them, both to writing and at to lead has not been shown to be effec and subjective symptoms related to lead the rulemaking hearing. Therefore, to tive and can harm the subject.'' "Pro toxicity. These and other studies were promote the fullest possible analysis of phylactic" chelation has been discussed discussed by the Subcommittee os Per these issues during the rulem&ldng pro in the literature to include the routine missible Limits of the Permanent Com- ceeding, they are briefly discussed below. use of chelation or similarly acting drugs - .mission and International Association c Chelating Agent*. Essentially, chelates to prevent elevated blood lead levels in Occupational Health which met to Am are chemical purgatives administered to workers who are occupationally exposed sterdam, The Netherlands, to September 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 tinely lower blood lead levels to predes port on occupational exposure to lead, in - tions to remove lead from children who ignated concentrations. eluding a discussion-of ZPP determina have ingested large amounts and are ex The issue of chelation thus concerns its tions. Is still pending. ZPP determination* hibiting symptoms of acute lead poison- proper use in an occupational setting to may offer substantial, promise as a prac tng. Chelates, such as calcium disodium the extent that an employer Is involved tical, sensitise and -economic monitor- gthylenediamine tetraacetate (EDTA. with its administration. More tpectflcal-., tog test suitable for routine use. One Versenate), are highly toxic and place ly, under what circumstances, If any, manufacturer indicated to its comment 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. Further treat employees exhibiting symptoms of hematofluorometer, mow commercially more, once administered, they remove not acute lead Intoxication? Would compll-, - available, permits -the determination of only lead but may remove most other ance with the proposal's requirement . the ZPP level to a-drop of unprocessed metals from the system as well. concerning it be adequately protective of . blood deposited aa adisposable glass elide OSHA recognized the possibly Inap worker health? What are the long-term .^comment #79,-addidum). ' propriate use of chelates to reduce em and short-term health effects of chala- x 'In light of these reentwtudies, OSHA ployee Mood levels to the proposed -tion? -vt,-- -rseeksootnmenis on tbe-potential utility standard when it recommended that: Adequacy of Blood Lead Determine- i-.-of ZPP determinations-as aa alterna- "Chelating agents shall not be routinely ttons. Blood lead level determinations are r tive method to be used in the initial administered to employees, and shall not the primary biological monitoring tech screening for lead intoxication. Are the be administered at all exoept by, and at nique required in -the proposal's medical 1 -equipment and technique -necessary for the discretion of. a licensed physician.'' surveillance provisions. The preamble to this determination reliable, available and (40 FR 45945) in a written comment the proposal acknowledged that this relatively Inexpensive? Should blood lead submitted on the proposal. It wee sug method provides the most useful and . determinations be supplemented with gested that OSSA prohibit the adminis relatively accurate method of arriving assessments of hematocrit and hemo tration of all oral chelating agents and at an employee's current lead absorption. globin levels? limit the administration of intravenous The preamble also stated that, of the Effects of Load oa Reproductive Func chelating agents to emergency situations various biological monitoring tests avail tion*. For years, lead has been known to only (comment #112, p. 2). In February able, determinations of blood lead levels affect repraduethw functions. Observa 1978, a study performed by the Mt correlated best with the appearance of tions among human populations indicate Sinai School of Medicine's Environment symptoms of lead Intoxication and with that lead is associated with stenbry 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, increased 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, animal test systems have indicates. Compensation and Health and Safety of - lead to the body at a particular time that lead may be associated with un- the full Committee on Education and La which may be as little as 10 percent of potency and mutagenesis- However. fCDMAt MOffTSt, -VOi.' 42. NO. 1--UlSSOAY, -JAMUAST 4. VS7T 000014020 MCD sto PROPOSED RULES beyond acknowledging that fetal dam age. particularly to the nervous system, c&a occur at levels usually considered safe for adults, there is little scientific agreement as to the precise levels of ex posure that correlate with onset of these a-gi-- a.; A. Brill: sod A. Schuler: Utility of PUcaul Tlvu* am ui Indicator of Trscs Element Exposure to Adult so* Ftu*. Envimn. SM 8:64. (1044). Balob K.: Ths Effect.* of Chronic lacnutd Lead Absorption ua to* Nttroua Syvt*m A Review Artlel*--Bull**ia of to* Lorn An- Perm A.; O. Cambleghi; and O. beech: Ini tial Occupational Exposure to * Arch Ennroa Hsaitd 31:73-78. (ifarch- Apru 1976). Poundary Dust Control--Petting Benches and Small Adjustable Hood* Braita *rut Safety Executive, London 1973. If. fg. sta efiecta. In 1973. the National Academy of Sciences suggested that a clinical state geia Neurologic** Socteciea, Voi. 38. No. 2 (April 1973). tionary Office. P.O. Box 609. Loodoa SJ3 1. United Kingdom approaching that of frank lead poison ing is necessary before the fertility o men or women is affected. More recently, however, a 1975 study of mala workers ac a Rumanian storage battery plant re vealed effects on spermatogenesis which, may be of clinical significance at rela tively low blood lead levels. This suggests Baloh a.: Laboratory Diagnosis of Tncra--il Load Absorption. Aren Environ Health 2*: 198-408, (1374). . Barry p. s. L: A Comparison of Concentra tions of Lead in Human Tissue*. Brit J tnd M*d 33'119-139. (1973) .' Belden B.; L. P Oarben: Health of Workers Espussi co Oalena. J Induct Hyg and To* 31:34?-39L (November 19*>. Ooidsesm D.; T. J. Knsop: V. Ituioa: ***> N. CoMxi; Erythrocytic AmuioievuiLn.': Acid Dehydratase. (ALAD) Actlricy as a Biologic Parameter for Determining Ex posures to Lead. J. Occup Med it:137-isu (LOTS). Ooldwater L. J.; W. Hoover: An Intareatlonal, Study of "Normal" Levels of Lead in Blood and Urine. Arch Environ Health 15:80-89, a new concern abotffc effects of lead on Beeson Q. L; W. H. A Ocorge: M. 3. Litch male reproductive functions at relatively field: and D. J. Seaborn: Biochemical low levels of exposure. During the last several years, studies Changes During the T"1M| Stages of In dustrial Lead Exposure, Brtt* j ind 33:29-35. (1976). have been completed that, indicate fe-^ 'Bwj B.: C. Zlax: EmUuuiaentef and Cllnlesi male workers, even when* not pregnant,. ` Costed of Load Erpoemw Ur a Noa-P*rinua may also be slightly more susceptible to -* FUnndry- AIHJ 1T5-178. (April 196T). adverse effect* of lead*, than their male Bsnnsa Er Tbs Btochsnianry of Laad: Bo-- counterpart*. A 19TA study by - Sep- riow oi ta* Body Di*mamma and Harases found that females exhibited . of L--d Determination. mistime . decreased motor nerve conduction veloc ` 287-291. (May 1968). ity at lower blood lead levels than males. A. 1974 study by Aleaste showed that after- Butter S. J.: Chronic Neurological Dtseeee As . a Possible Puna of Lead roiaenmg. J Near Psych 19:119. (19821. EDTA provocation taste PER levels hi Cerolk A. A.: Daisimiusihm af Blood Lead women were higher than in. men at spec -. Using a 4.0ms Paper ---- Dts* Oar- ified arise lead levels, ltd* latter study -- Sen Sampling (top Tachnigns. Brtt J lad. can be viewed as sugmative of greater susceptibility ta adnlt women to effeets of lead on the blood forming process. Finally, a number of. comments re ceived on the propbaml discussed proper . tied 91:238-244. (1974). Chamberlain M. Jj P. *ti. XJL " tj wa* ... tend Poisoning with aa Exoaeavsty High Bood Lead. Brtt / Cad tied 33:119-139, (1976). Chattsrjee B. B.: u. K, WUlben J. O. Wal- protection for fonale laud workers of fotd; and X. Slagr Tbs lunation of per childbearing age. A point made by both sonal Sampler PBtar Hearts AIHJ M3-64A. industry and health group* was that the permhihi* exposure limit of 100 ug/st* of lead in air. assuming a correlation to a maximum blood lead level of 60 ug/ lOOg. ta actually inadequate to protect a (Nov.-Dee. 1909). Chibs ti.: Activity, of Brythrocyte DeltsAmiaoi**Tiiinia Add Dehydratase and Its Change by Heat Treatment as Endless of Lead exposure. Brtt J Tod Med 33:98-42. (1978). developing fetus. Chisolm J.: Dtsfeurbaaose to tbs Phsy utinete The issues regarding effects of lead on * of Same la Lead intrwiaarinn. J at FMhl (1987). Ooyer Hu D. Lsenard: J. Moor; B. Byns; and ' U. 8. Krigman: Lsad Doaag* aod the Rot- of the IaWaaucieas incuialon Body. Arch Environ Hsalth 20:708-71L (1970). ITisger-Aitinssn. Bd An Asasssmsnt of lit Laboratory Tests Used to Monitor the Ex posure of Lead WJiksia. Brtt J Ind Mt-c 28:93-SH (1971)-. Hamilton A-: W. L. BsTOy: Indmutai Tmo . coiogy (2nd BA.). New Toth Hoeben, 574 PP.(19*9). p.' ait for f rnil and Other Ifseels J Oaenp Msd 18:381-4M, (May 1978). Bsrnhetg Bu J. HlHeasii O. tetittn: and B Liana: Delis InSiMiienillnl* Arid Oebydrass as aMsausg Lead ttpeanrs. Arch EnviroQHealth21:140-14*. (1978).. TTeenbiag 83 B. Vthfcoc and J. Hasan; Rd CU Ifnshnes ACTsees in Worfcere Ex posed to Tnnrnnln Lead. Arch Bariron Health 14:119 IH (1987). Huhennont O4 J. BUchct: & ftoels; and &. Lauwerye: Bffaet of Short Term Admin istration of Lead to Pregnant Raw. Tomoology 9:979, (1978). Journal of Oemxpetioael Medtetse: Proceed ing! of the 1974 Confirmee on Standard* of Occupational load Exposure. Sponsored by Lsad Industries Association Voi. 17 No. 2. (1978). human reproduction are complex and 84:174-187. (Plhtetety 19S*). multiple, with relatively little scientific Cotton UJ: o. mrmnn: rx. miisrten: Kao B4 B. Porbm: assets-of Lead on Hams Byatbssttdng Bitayesea and Urinary ALA attention paid to this subject until re- , and O. Kaeantsta: nuhTAItenl Neuropathy cent times. Nevertheless, at leaat several questions can be posed. Dose the rrtrmla la Land Works**. Brit J lad tted 2:80-09. (1B70). ^ sibis exposure limit and other related provisions within the fT--*1 provide adequate protection to women of childbearing age and to the human reproduc tive system. Are there any other studies, dams* A Bsiaadsv: Ortruw la Lsad Poisoning. Brtt J End Mad 23:311-81*. (>. DeJesus P.V.; L TTsnsins 1111 a riiiisswlis and A Barebl: The Itel of Cold on Nerve Conduction of Bonn Slow and Peat information or data Tinailiii on the ef Nerve Fiber*. Neurology 23:1188-4188. la tbs Rah 143 Free Boe bp Biol tied 234: 43. (1973). A^ T. Tamsast zinc Protoporphyrin in tbs teytbroeytas of Pattsnts wtth Lead " Intoxlostteb and dm Pegulsttay Anemia. - Science 188:988 998. (Peecmlm 8. 1974). Lancranjean 1.; K. papescu; O. Oavaueetu, I. 33epoch: sad ti. Barbsaaasa: Bsproducttve Ability of wertensa Oconpsrionsl mposed to load. Arm Bnvtmn Health. 38: fects of lead on male reproductive func <1w. 998 401. (1978). tions at low blood lead levnter Utereetod DaKretean. A L BLA. Waldron: Urtewy Litis H: A. Ptsshbein: Load Plasma Among persons are invited to submit comments on aU tames regarding effects of lead on worker lt,H, Including reproductive functions. Additional Stutter? te publication of the proposed standard. OSHA has ob tained copies of additional and reporte. Most of them have been pub lished recently sad concern various health effects arising tnm to lead. The Rmiing* of some vs Ukaty to OsUa-AmlaolevuiiBto- Md and Poipto tellaogea La Lead--Expoaad Worker*. Brtt S lad tied 20:38 ta. (1962). worker* In HenrutHafT Lead Smaller*: Bs- aulB of a Clinical Field survey February 2~ 4. 1976. Beport to tbs National matttuts Dust Ednetloo Ophas fit tbs Ceramics of Health Sciences. ESOO Industry. Health and Safe*) ttacutivn, 939. London 1978. H. if. Ststtoaary OOon P.OT ' Lius R.: N. OrvUesuu: C. Nesteuses: B. Box 888, London SB. i. Unltsd Ktegteaa, Doattriu: sod A. luaals: Nephropathy Xgan D: Ai T. CrOuiMr Cumniartv* Lead in Chronic Lead Damning Brit rti*l Men Potseidjg ta Hui*m ta a timing Ares Oon- 2*:198-aOL(1988). tsminstsrt wtth-------------Tot Bo* 88:7BS' 738b(197Q). Lockmet* W.: Land Contest of Pecldoous Tbs4h at mililini in ai*wi Enrim- Bquipmsnt and Proosdurm tor Btytinw- msste. Arch Barimn Hmlth 30:688-887. be rtlcniteerl at the public hearing end eyts Protoporphyrin (HP) Analyte* a* a . (1978). may have some bearing on requirements dmesniag Method to* Pertlstria Lead Pte- London &i T. Hartmann: and ti. Safer: contained in tfa* final standard. As a re sult. the following Itet of addMteml studies is provided at tiffs than. an PoQutien Tufiimring trA *n- mnln* UA Dspsrfmant ^ Haalth Bda- . cation and Walter*. FHB, Bo. 0S-g78I. P*him M; Z. Pahlm: aad.D. HaA: Baste of Sutotatee Lsad Lcvete on rragnaut Wiiuisu m the Stela at til--urt. Bassareh fte* teythxscyts Protoporphyria Laval and Ncrvs Conduction Vtiocity m End-stage Banal Dtiaaas. Bit. B8rt J 4:324. (1979). iferflsld id a. ti. Ship pa. J. Bare**; R. D^Buss, and A. Aaar? BOaet of Lsad on Oomm m Ch--Psthsl PUarteaete it8S8. Uned Began-- roOowteg Acute Bem- 0978). v irkepi to De^. All BMH. (IBP). VOL.4*r lAHBASr 4, 1977 MCD 000014021 PROPOSED RULES bit _y. . Hetinn*l Institute lor Occupational Saiety end Health: Health Hazard Evaluation Deunnintlnn Reports No. 73-37-200 (June 1978), 73-168-163 (November 1974). end 73-164-169 (January 1070). Needleman H.: Lead Poisoning in Children r Neurologic Implications of Widespread SubcUnlcal Intoxication. Seminars in Psy chiatry Vol. 5 No. 1, (February 1973). Feecben P.: Operation of Lead Blast Fur naces: Summary and Critical Evaluation of the Literature of 1971. ArtfF. World Symposium on Mining and Metallurgy of Lead and Zinc In St. Louis. (German) Metall 36:196-00. (1973). Recirculation of Exhaust Air. UB, Depart ment of Health, Education and Welfare. NIOSH (76-186). Recommended Industrial Ventilation Guide lines, U. Department of Health, Educa tion and welfare. NIOSH (76-163). Belnert M.: Lead Quality from a Technical and Application Engineering Standpoint. (German) MetaU 38:136-142, (February 197*). Ilsport of Oversight Hearings on the Occu pational Safety and Health Act--Occupa tional Health Haaards, before the Subcom mittee on Manpower, Compensation and Health and Safety of the Committee on Ed ucation and Labor, US. House of Repre sentatives (March 18, 22, 34. 25, 1976). Boals B.; B. Laowsrya; J. Bucbet; and M. Vrelustr Response of FHP and ALAU in Men and Women Moderately Fiiinsiiit to T --ill Int Arch Arbeltsmed 84:97, (1976) Bnhf R.: Lead Exposure Control In the Pro duction of Leaded Steel. AIHJ 34:63-67. (1968). Scanlon J.: Human Fetal Haaards from En vironmental Pollution with Certain NonBmentlal Trace Dements. Clinical Pediat rics. (March 1973). Schlaepfer W.: Experimental Lead Neurop athy: A Disease of the Supporting Cells in the Peripheral Nervous System. J Neu ropathy toper Naur 28:189-194. (1971). fieoond Internationa] workshop on Occu pational Lead Exposure, Revaluation of Permissible Limlta on Lead Exposure, Per manent Commission and International Asso ciation on Occupational Health. (September 31-28,1976). Paper* Freeeoted: Alssslo L.: Tree Srythroeyte Protoporphyrin as an Indicator of the Biological Effect of Lead In Adult Males. Bemte T.: D. Prplo-Ma)le; and 6. Teltonan: ALAD/EPF a*lo as a Measure of the Degree and Duration of the Action of Lead. Berlin A.: S. H. SchaUer; H. onmes; M. lampwvin- nd j. Trotter: Environmental to- . poaur* to Lead: Analytical and Epidemio logical Investigations Using tbs European Standardised Method for Blood DeltaAminolevulinic Add Dehydratase Activity Determination. Bljlsma Ja H. deFranes: Cytogente Xnvsetl- gaOonj in votuntews Ingesting Inorganic Lead. Oeraik A.: A. Smith: PeeWas Influencing the Evaluation of Blood Load Levels and Pro posal* for Improving the Reliability of Results. Cools A.; H. Salle; M. Verberk; and H. Zlelhuts: Biochemical Response of Male Volun teers Ingesting Inorganic Lead far 49 Days. Orockford G.; 8. Mltran: Pi ogress Report, A Btudy of Human Performance in Rela tion to Lead Exposure. deBruln A.: Early Biochemical /Biological Effaeu of Lead (Laboratory Diagnosis of Increased Lead Absorption); Human Ex perts noe. pischbeln A.; J. Etenger; W. Blumberg; yL Lills; and X. Bcllkoff : Ftnorometric ZAno Protoporphyrin Determination in Bieod-A Tiweueal Method for the Detection of Chronic Lead Poisoning. Torn! A: Chromoaomal Effects of Lead; A Review. Berber H. Salle; The Analytical Pre cision of Lead In Blood Ooxnpared to S- Aminoievullnic Add Dehydratase Activity. ILZRO 207. International Lead-Zinc Re search Organization--Study of Solubility and Particle Size Dlstrlbuoon of Industrial Airborne Lead. Lsuwerys R.: Early Biochemical and Bio logical Effects of Lead In Man; A Bedew. Lilia R.; W. Blamberg; J. BUdnger; A. Flsch- beln; S. Diamond; H. Anderson: and I. Seineoff: Lead Effects Among Secondary Lead Smelters with Blood Lead Levels Be* low 80 ug/100ml. Nordberg G.: Dose-Effsct and Dose nssponss Reiationshipa for Load Conclusions Reached at an International Meeting in Tokyo, November 1974.- Popode D.: Effect of Low Doses of Inor- ganic Lead on Some Biological Parameters: "Response of ALA-D Activity and FEF in Waldron H.: Correlation Between 66me Pa rameters of Lead Absorption uo Lead in- - toxlaation. Brit J lad Med a8:l95-''. (1971). Wedeen HR.; JA MaeSaka; B. Weiner, Lepat; 1U1. Lyons: LF. Vitale; and MM Joesiow: Occupational Lead Nephropathy Asm J Med 89:630-641, (1978), Zlelhuis B.: Biological Quality Guide for In organic Lead. Xnt Arch Arbeltsmed 32:103, (1974). Zlelhuls R.: Doee neefinmn Relationships for Inorganic Lead: I. Biochemical and Haematologioal Ilesponse. Int Arch Oocup Sth 36:1-18, (1976).' Zlelhuls B.: Dnss nespouss Relationship* lor Inorganic Lead; EL Subjective and Functional nssponss Levels. Int Arch Oocup BQtb 26:19-86, (1976). Preliminary Study cf Technological Feasibility, Cost of Compliance and In flationary Impact: Blood, the Urinary ALA and OP Levels in workers Chronically Exposed to Lead. Repko J.: Behavioral Methods and Results in the Evaluation of Workers Occupa tionally Exposed to Inorganic lead in UB. Battery Manufacturing Industries. Schiele R.; ff. Schaller: Studies About the "Lead-Specificity" of the Srythroeyte. John Short and Associates, Inc., has prepared for 065A a preliminary study entitled "Technological Feasibility, Cost of Compliance and inflationary Impact Study of the Proposed OSHA Standard for Lead." The study Includes assess ment of the technological feasibility of Delta-Aminolevulinic Aoid Dehydratase (ALA-D). Beppaiainen A.; H. Hannlnea: and B. Hern- berg: Effect of Lead on the Central and Pertpheeral Nervous System. Verberk 1L: Motor Nerve Conduction Veloc ity in Volunteer* Ingesting Inorganic Lead for 49 Days. compliance, an Initial estimate of com pliance, an Initial estimate of compli ance costs and the potential economic Implications for those industries affected by the proposed standard. The effects on other variables, such as employment, pi ices, productivity, market structure, Wibowo A.: P. del Castilho; R. Herber; M. exports and Imports, and the consump Verberk; H. Salle; and R. Zlelhuls: Inter tion of energy and critical materials, are action Between Lead and Iron Metabo lism. a toobable Cause of Femsle Bus-. oeptlbUlty to Inorganic Lead. * williams M.: Permissible Limits far Occu pational Exposure to Inocganlo Lead and the Blood Lead-Air Lead BetAdenahlp also considered. * -Notice Is being given, of the availabil ity of this prehzniDary study to i interested parties the earliest pa opportunity to contribute comments, *n- Zlelhuls R.; A. Wibowo: Review Paper: Bue- ~formation and 'data. The final study. oeptlblllty of Adult rnniiiM to which will be made -available at least 4 Effect* on Reproductive Function in F*-. weeks prior to the pubhe hearing, .will be males and Males. baaed on the results-of an ongoing sup Beiander S.; g. Cramer: JnterrelAtionahipa Between Lead in Blood, Lead in Urine and plemental data collection effort by D. B. am In Urine During Land Work. Brit j'-Amodates of Salt lake City, Utah, on Ind Med 27:38-89, (1970). hebalf of OSHA. The-f--ina1 l--st--ud---y----w--i"ll in- Beiander S.; K. fTemar a_n__d__L_.__B__a_ll_g_e__rt_bd: ude a discussion of the anticipated benBtndiee in Lead Poisoning. Brit j ind ised-'BfltS to be derived from Implementation *8:283-292, (i960). .i .of the pi ope--I, and a more Id-depth ffeppeieinen. A-M.: Pwipberai Nervoue 8y*--'WvluAtkm of the various economic im- tem m Lead topuaeii workers. HEW PubU- pacts. Evaluation of the economic and otaon 74-iae, pp 340-347, (1976). ;j technological feasibility of the final Bema T.; O. Banna: New* Oondnetiea in O** - standard will be baaed cm the entire recDMaaee*. Foiia Medioa 40:809-).art the rulemaking proceeding, ln- iu,<iM6). ' -ydudlof all oral and-written comments zzs?s2? r *??*'. -weu " ^ Haaltk 23:266-369, (1971). - Interested parties are invited to ib- Btrmntf Lj J. Manning; and E Marver Tba Induction of Delta-Amlnolevullnie mtt information, comments and data on Synthetase in Cultured Liver OeUs. J BioT the Issue of economic feasibility of the Cbem. 347:2830-2827, (1972). - proposal or on any other issue discussed Stuik EJ.: Biological Beepone* of Male and in -the preliminary study, including: Female Tolnnltsn to Inarganle Lead. Int - <1> Cost impact on consumers, busi Areb Arbeltsmen 83:83-97, (1974). . nesses. markets, or Federal. State or local eukata T.; M. Aofei; and T. Yamaamte: government; Change* in Hepatlo Delia imliMiirnillaln <2) Effect on productivity of wage Add la Lead xmoaeated Bata. J Toxiaol Environ Health 127:32, (1976). Tbompeon J.: Balance between Intake and Output of Lead in Normal individual*. Brit J Ind Med 28:199-194. (1971). Tola 8.: The Effect of Blood Lead Ooaoentra ilon, Age. Bex and Tim* of Exposure Upon earner*, burin seem (both email and large) or government; (3) Effect on competition; (4) Effect on imports and exports; (3) Effect on supplies at important ma terials, products or services; Erythrocyte ALA--D Activity, Work Environ Health 10:38-86, (1973). Urbaaowica H.: Oocupattaaal Exposure to In organic Oompound* of Lead. Aren EnvEoa Health 38:364 388, (2972). . (6) Keeton employment; (7) Ability of fpeettc industries u sorb eoeta of compliance; and <8) Effect on energy supply or deeuand. mui ttoisra. vow 42. no. 2--tvooay, saMNurr.4. \*rr MCD 000014022 S1J PtOPOSED tUl.ES Th< n'etuainary study of the proposed (8> A detailed statement of the evi The proposal will be renewed tn light l9d standard ts now available tor public dence with respect to each such hsue of all oral and written submissions re m.-.rwtfan and copytng at the following proposed to be adduced at the hearto*. ceived as port of the record, aad a final acidrma;.Technical Data Center. Occu pational 3afety and He&icn Adminiatra- cioq, U4. Department of Labor. Room N-'o2Q. Third aod Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington. DC. 20210. (Tele phone: 202-523--8078> Public Participation. Interested per sons are invited to submit written data, views arguments with respect to the proposal, the preliminary study, the ad ditional scientific studies, the three Is sues discussed in this notice, and any other relevant Issues. Such comments must be postmarked on or before Febru ary 1L. 197T. All written comments must- OSHA has determined that strict en forcement of Its procedural rules con tained in 29 CFR 191Lii is necessary for an expeditious and orderly proceeding. Therefore, the notices of intention to appear will be scrutinized cioeely for suf ficiently detailed information concerning the position to be with regard to the issues specified and the evidence to be adduced in support of the position. Persons filing notices of intention to appear which are not sufficiently detailed will be so informed and given seven (7) days from the date they are informed to file a proper notice of Intention to ap standard will be issued based ocx the en ure record in this proceecuig /fn^sertant DrttAt Hearing*: M*f. 15, 1977. Lue day for submitting tletemvciu Md Tor bearing: Mar. li. wtt Last day for tiling Notice* of Appwwu,".. Feb. li, 1977. CIom ot CoouPeriod. Fed. > 1, IST7. (S*c. 8. Pub. L. VI-898. 88 3t*t. 1393 i-U CSC. 958): 39 CFR Part 1911: Secrr'nry at Labor's Order No. 8-78 (41 PR 39060).) Signed at Washington. D C, this 2T*h day of December 1970. be submitted in quadruplicate- to the Docket Officer. Docket Net H-004,Room N-3620, UA Department erf Labor. 3rd and Conatihittocr Arsenic; M.W1. Wuh- pear. In addition, the- amount of time requested for each preeentaUoo will be reviewed in light of the contecta of the otic* of intention tn appear. In those Morrow Cou. - Assistant Secrttarp of labor (TR Ooo.TT-ia PU1 r-5-7T; 8: an i ingtoou. 20210. Written submissions cases where the information contained must clearly Identify the portion of the m the- notice of intention to appear doaa proposal and'the preliminary stody ad not seem to warrant the amount at time dressed and. the position taken with re . requested, the participant will be allo spect to each - issue therein; The data, cated a more appropriate-amount of time news, and argisneats that ara submitted., -and notified of that fact The partietpent as well sc copies of the near stnrilm will have seven (7) days from the date - listed earlier.-win be available for public on whleh he is so informed to deems- inspection and copying at the above ad strate why the allocated, time is Inappro dress. AH timely written subndastons re priate. " ceived shall be made a parted the record In addition, to submitting appropriate of this proceeding. --r and timely notices of intention to appear^ In respane* to a number of requests those persons intending tn submit pre from commenting parties., and pursuant pared written statement or doemneats. to section 5(b) (3) of the Ack.aa.oppee- foe* the rwo?i at tbs bssz2s --* sub tunity to submit oral testimony concern mit such documents in quudrupheata by ing the Issosa raised by the proposed March ll, 1977. These documents most standard, including its mrf *n. be received by Clarence Page In the vironmentat hnpaeta will be provided at OSHA Committee Management Office, bp an informal public hearing schednled to the close of business March 11,1977. begin at 9:3d am. on March 13, 19T7. tn The hearing will commence at 9:30 the Departmental Auditorium. Constitu an. on March 15, 1977, with the resolu tion Avenue between 12th mod 14th tion- of any procedural matters relating Streets, N.W.. Washington. D.C. 20210. to the proceeding. The hearing will be Persons desiring to participate at the conducted and decisions made In accord hearing, including those who previously ance With 29 CFR Part 1911. requested that a public hearing be held, The Administrative Law Judge pre must file a notice of intention to appear, siding at the bearing than have aD the postmarked on or before February 11. powers necessary or appropriate to con 1977 with the OSHA Committee Manage duct a full and fair informal hearing in ment Office. Docket No. H-004. Room N- cluding the powers: 3S33. U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Con stitution Avenue. N.W-, Washington, D.C. 20210 (Telephone: 202-623-0024). Ex cept under extraordinary circumstances, (1) to regulate the coma* of the pro ceedings: (2) to dispose of procedural requests, objections, and comparable matters; a party which does net submit a proper notice of intention to appeac In timely fashion win not be permitted to tatotfy at the hearing. The notices of tatantian to appear, which will be available for inspection and copying at the Q6HA Committee Man agement OSes, must --* ttoe foHowing information; (3) to confine thw presentations to matters pertinent to the prupcmnl stand ard: <4) to regulate the conduct of those presan) at the headng_by appropriate means; i-k (5) in the Judge's discretion, to ques tion and permit questimtog of any wit ness;, and. -M. (1) The name, address, and telephone (6> tn the judge's- dtsaretion, to keep number of each pemon to appear; the record ops for a reasonsbis, stated (2) T2ie capacity m which the pemon time to receive writts information and will appear; additional data, views and arguments (3> The apprahnata <rf time from any person who has participated tn required for thepmossitaflnsi; tbs oral irmrsefllngi (4> The speetfio issues that wtU be ad Following the doaa of the hearing; the dressed; pcedkUagAdmlnletiittvn Law Judge abaO <6) a detailed statement erf the posi certify the record thmaof to the A^et- tion that wfli be takaa with rnffiient to ant Secretary of Labor for OoctmnOooal eaeh tesoeadffiWMd; and " Safe* and Health. ,; dslft,,/ . ,a. ' * NJ ) "i s * WOC *.- NWi s, 1V7T MCD 000014023 TECHNICALOccupational N Safety ano Health v Administration NOTES v US DEPARTMENT QF lASOR Washington D C 20210 J No' m '* int*'e$i o< bf*viiy. ih* William* Sieigtf Occupational Sa*#ty and Malih ci o* 1970 may M **ff*d to ai th* job Sa*ty and Hyjiin *cr or ai in* *ci ' Th Occupational SaNly and Health administ'i>on may be 't't'rtd to at OSHA " TECHNICAL NOTES December 28, 1976 TN 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. The 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 tovard the tank. In addition, ledges around the guard rails prevent an employee from accidentally stepping into the tank. -MORE- MCD 000014024 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 stat*- develop their plans supplements also must be submitted for approvi. 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 r parting requirements, and prcceJv*`es for cocrdir;*tion between V* Division of Occupational Safety and Division of Occupational He i -MORE- MCD 000014025 r 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. ### 000014026 MCD 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. 000014027 MCD [2 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 tlieir 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." Discussion 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 000014028 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 000014029 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 undesira ble 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. oooo^030 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. MCD 000014031 6 3) Result in enactment of unnecessarily restrictive (low)comunUy 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 1, 2 and 3) which could be overly protective of the health and welfare of the community, impractical, and not consistent with good land usd planning. MCD 000014032 7 Reconrnendations Rrlntivc to Interim Community Noise lVsnn iluuii; 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 n 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. MOD frOOOj 403s 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 5 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 noi vlevel 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 ** * This list may provide guidance to pinpoint potential community noise MCD 0000140.54 9 problems for given noise source situations in your operations. Exploration and Production Operations Experience - Complaints 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 000014035 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) shou Id 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. 000014036 MOD 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 (2) 50 ho 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 land use. MOD 000014037 8 Oaoo v* >> 0 0c1c u DAYTIME LEVELS Q NIGHTTIME LEVELS Q IS AVER ACC DAY SILTS AVERAGE NIGHT SI 76 117 CITIES OAYTIME LIMITS iis Cities nighttime limits M 0Itf * *u oM <K 70 Ui B 2 3 Z figure i 1 FIXEO SOURCE NOISE LEVELS ALL OWAII l T A RESIDENT! AL OlSTRlCT UC UNDAIUtS }> cp <> [] [] ' <) c? aO S \ o OnSSn rf .5 !_____ & 1 01 0 D Q004 90 EiS ao 7S 70 OS GO SS W> A WEIGHTED sound level in uBA Figure I. Fixcil Source Noise Levels Allowable at Residcnli.il Oislriel Uouiubuies -0 MCD 000014039 K O o o o o ^ O CO CO 40 DAYTIME LEVELS 0 AflGHTTlMf LEVELS Q 35 AVCHAGE NIGHT 59 21 104 ClTlES OAYTtME LIMITS 104 CITIES NIGHTTIME LIMITS * 1 FIGURE II -------- 1 f IKtO SOURCE YOlSE LEVELS A LLOWA8LE at e USINESS/COMU EflCJAL OlSTBIC T BOUNDARIES 35 35 u* o O 30 Us S> S s X 15 5 ' qT90 1 05 L ?1 T 80 75 i> <> 1 rLnJ c] o [1 <> L] J--l Lr Ag' ' q o1 - 1 70 65 M A WUCHTID SOUND ItVtL INdBA --1 -- 55 8d P e< f1 ------------------- SO \ \\ \ Figure 2. Fixed Source Noise Levels Allowable at Business/Commercial District Boundaries 40 DAYTIME LEVELS NIGHTTIME LEVELS Q Q AVERAGE DAY 67 M AVERAGE NIGHT 64 24 11? CITIES OAYTlME LIMITS 1I3CITIE5 NIGHTTIME LIMITS t FIGURE III r FIXED SOURCE NOISE LEVELS/LLLOWASLE AT MAN UFACTURING/l VDUSTRlAl OIS TRICT 80LADA hies \ 1 n u m b e r o r Cit ie s I1 3( > : vh m i c] ri t) S. lJ o D o n c E ^jo ] O L_s 8> BE > <3> o 90 as BO 70 70 oo 60 00 6Q 40 4J A WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL IN dUA o> Figure 3. Fixed Source Noise Levels Allowable at Maimlacluring/Induslrial Dioiriel Uouikl.irics BIBLIOGRAPHY 15 1. Allen, E. E., ,rHow 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. B., "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., 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 Control 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 Jour-* i July 28, 1975, pages 84-87. '_ 13. Kugler, B. A., "Noise Control Design for New Plants,"Chemical Engineer.~i Progress, Vol. 71, No. 8, pages 48-52. 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. Goodfriend Associates under Contract 68-04-0044 for the U. Environmental Protection Agency, S. S. MCD 000014041 i