Document peNBOjYZJKyZN2wGDrajMG3Oj

FILE NAME: Georgia Pacific (GP) DATE: 1973 June 13 DOC#: GP019 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo - OSHA Inspection - Akron, NY Plant IN TK R D C FA R TM K N TA L CO M M U N ICA TIO N to. fro m i Mr. E. ft Hollingsvorth j. d . R auch s u b j e c t . OSHA INSPECTION - AKRON. N. Y. PLANT OATS: June 18, 1973 lo c a t io n . Wilmington lo ca tio n Akron >n Friday, June 15y 1973 ve received our "Notification of Proposed Penalty" fro.T ti>- u. ueaartnent of Labor - Occupational Safety and Health Administration, (OSHA), rcnar.. three "Serious Violations" and seven "Other Violations." The three serious violat...-. eacu carry a proposed penalty of $800.00 each and four of the seven other violation ta; a proposed penalty of $90.00 each. Baking a total penalty for all violations of $ 2 . / 6 o . 0 u . a Xerox copy of this document was mailed to you on 6/15/73. Additional copies were at the same time to Messrs: G. E. Wilson, John DlLorenzo, George Turner. It woult. iv *.u lo me that the first order of business regarding this matter Is our decision whether to oay tne assessment or whether ve should contest the citations. We have until July , 19/3 to advise OSHA if ve Intend to contest the citations. Otherwise ve should issue & cuech in the amount of $2,760.00. The OSHA requirements on this matter are as follows: "The payment of penalties is to be made by certified check or money order, to the order of "Occupational Safety and Health-Labor." Remit to the Area D m .or. YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the aforesaid Citatlon(s), this Notification. ,. the proposed assessment shall be deemed to be the final order of the Occu,..., .. Safety and Health Review Commission and not subject to review by any coui. unless, within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this notice y< . > the official named below in writing that you intend to contest the Citati" this Notification of Proposed Penalty before the Rcvicv Commission, 'he Commission is an independent quasi-judicial agency with authority to issue regarding citations and proposed penalties." In order to assist in a decision on this matter I will go over each violation, .... . penalty, and my thoughts regarding each of them. 1. SERIOUS VIOLATIONS Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (b) Page 22142 Citation Number 1*12 Description of aliened violation Failure of the employer to maintain employee exposure to airborne con centrations of asbestos fibers below acceptable levels: Proposed SdOu.oo 1) Concentrations beiow 5 fibers, longer than 5 microns, per C C , based on an 8 hour Time Weighted Average, 2) Concentrations, at any time, below 10 fibers, longer than 5 microns, per C C . tandard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (d) (2) Page 22143 Citation Number 2 Description of alleged violation Failure of the employer to provide, and for the employees to use, U.S. Bureau of Mines approved respirators to prevent inhalation of airborne asbestos dust fibers (within the dry mixing and packout area). Proposed Penalty $800.00 Citation Humber 3 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (d)(2>(lv) Page 22143 Description of alleged violations Failure of employer to establish a respiratory program throughout the dry mixing area in accordance with the American National Standard Practice for Respiratory Protection ZS8.2-1969, for employees who are exposed to excessive asbestos dust concentrations. Proposed Penalty $800.00 / 6/sf/ A t**-- *fjt*J&* */** In order to abate these three serious violations we must first, pay the proposed penalty c advise OSUA that we intend to contest the citations. If contested we would then have to appear before the Review Commission and enter our reasons and evidonce why vc da not th.nl we should be fined. At this time we do not possess such evidence. All we have in t t :e results from the New York State teats which were unfavorable and the tents result:; .:c: Union Carbide that were run 1/18/73. While these tests results arc more favor:,.:: to u . they point out areas of high asbestos dust concentration that hnv: not bao.i o- tested by OSHA or New York State. Introduction of the Union Carbide Report could . ;> 1; do more harm then good. If we do not contest the OSUA Report we must do the following: 1. Immediate Temporary Administrative Controls Initiate immediate temporary administrative controls to prevent cr.ployee : . - < to excessive aabeetoe duet concentrations by July 1, 1973. A Compliance uliiL r wl.I determine if these temporary controls are preventing employee exposure. (1) Provide U.S. Bureau of Mines approved respirators for all employers working within the joint compound dry mixing and pack out area1} of the main plant. Continue the use of respirators until the installation of permanent engineering controls. (2) Establish s complete respirator program in accordance with the provLr, Joa; of the American National Standard Practices for Respiratory ProtectLen Z88.2-1969. (3) Establish a program for maintaining the joint compound dry mixing a-vi i. out areas of the main plant in a clean, orderly and sanitary cor.ilitier. t prevent asbestos dust contamination of the sir. This prorraii will m d v utilizing sealed Impermeable bags for the storage of waste asbestos. (4) Provide meployees with protective clothing that can be maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition from becoming contaminated with aabestoo. In addition provide employees with individual clothes lockers to prevent their persemel from becoming contaminated with asbestos dust* (5) Establish a personal monitoring program to determine, at six month intervals, the concentrations of asbestos dust* i->-*3 (6) Post asbestos "Caution" signs at all approaches to the work area to prevent unprotected persons from entering. /#' 73 ( (7) Affix asbestos "Caution" labels on all rav materials, mixtures, scrap, vaste, debris and other products containing asbestos to prevent exposure to asbestos dust. II. Permanent Engineering and Administrative Controls (1) By July 27, 1973, submit a plan for approval to the U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 203 Midtown Plaza, 700 E. V.'ati Street, Syracuse, Nev York 13210, Mr. Chester C. Whiteside, Area Director, showing e timetable for the installation of engineering controls to prevent employee exposure*to asbestos dust concentrations above allowable limits. (2) Incorporate items (3) through (7) (listed cs temporary administrative controls in Part I) as permanent administrative controls to prevent employes asbestos dust exposure. II. OTHER VIOLATIONS Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (d)(3) Page 22143 Citation Jk-- brr 1 Description of all-*r-d violation Failure of the c-rvl-y^r to provide and require use o.' c; cial clothing, such as coveralls or similar whole body coverings, glove., and foot coverings to prev,... .- .in contact with asbestos fiters, of employee.; within the dry ni.v a.id packcut area. In order to abate this violation, according to Cd.-i v.o r.u:c: "Provide employees with protective clochirn chat can be main tainrd i;. and reliable condition from becoming con t e n r e d with asbestos. In audi: c , provide employees with Individual clothes lockers to prevent their pcr.sc/. 1 clothing from becoming contaminated with asbestes dust." This would be a very great expense to our operation. As it has been enplai... r: . <. employee would require head to toe covering. This would be so unccmfort.-.bi/-1 > . that keeping employees on the job would be nearly ir.possible. They all co-.p.. . . Li the face masks ve require them to wear are coo hot. The soiled clothing would have to be gathered in marked piontie be?'? and ele laundry that has special equipment to wash asbestos contaminated ri-icriali;. purchase and provide special throw away clothing that could be disponed of at l.. each shift. We have._not investigated the cost of either of these solutions, doubt at all that we would find the additional costs very high. : <. . .i 4 A Citation Number 2 Standard or regulation allegedly vlolatad 29 CFR 1910.93a ( d )( 4 ) Page 22143 Description of alleged violation Failure of the employer to provide change rooms, two separate clothes lockers for work and street clothes, and the laundering and handling of work clothes for all employees exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers in excess of prescribed limits, within the joint compound mixing and packout area. Proposed Penalty $ 90.00 In order to abate this violation, according to OSHA we must follow the provisions a.-. outll in number 1 above. As explained to me, we must provide two seperate change rooms ar.J tvo seperate clothes lockers. This is to prevent contamination of street clothes frc.n asbestc that would be in work clothes change area. Also the street clothes change area must have an outside entrance so the employee does not have to pass through the asbestos work area in his street clothes. At this time I do not know where we could place such a change area. The wash and rest too facility required would make placement of such a change room almost impossible to install under existing conditions. This would almost require an additional building. Wc h.v.-c not investigated the cost of this requirement, but feel that the cost would be prohibitive. Citation Number 3 Standard or regulation allegedly violated Description of alio" ' violation Pr>.vvr 29 CFR 1910.93a (f)(2)(H) Failure of the e-pioyer to establish Page 22143 a personal monitorin', procra.a at ~ intervals not greater then 6 months within the joint co..pound nixing and packout a r e m vlierc asbestos exposure may reasc.v.biy be foreseen to axceed prescribed limits. In order to abate tills violation, according to GSilA, we must: "Establish a personal monitoring program to determine, at six month ia..- /., the concentrations of asbestos dust." This, can be accomplished without much problems, ive have located an indivieu will run the required monitoring tests. However teis would require an .. $400.00 every six months. If we were to purchase the equipment for- to have to Invest sbout $1,500. in equipment. And abort $15 ). every six ronci,-. . test filters analyzed. The equipment outlay of $l,jw3. would be on a one ti have only to decide which way to go on this fer total OS'.A abateTM .n.. c. th..s .. The Union Carbide tests wars run over 6 months ago and cannot be counted a .. Citation Number 4 Standard or regulation allegedly violatad 29 CFR 1910.93a <g)()(l) Paga 22143 Description of alleged violation Proposed Penalty Failure of employer to post "Caution" $ None signs at all approaches to the Joint 7*+* <//*/*} compound mixing and pockout area where airborne concentrations of asbestoe fibers may be in excess of prescribed limits. In order to abate this violation, according to OSHA. ve must: "Post asbestos "Caution" signs at all approaches to the work area to prevent unprotected persons from entering." We now have these signs at the Plant. They were ordered in April and arrived late in Kay. We have yet to install the signs. They read as follows: "Asbestos Dust Hazard. Avoid Breathing Dust. Wear Protective Equipment. Do not remain in area unless your work requires it. Breathing asbestos dust may be hazardous to your health." This leads us to believe that all employees entering the area must have complete procaccio such as face masks, protective clothing, etc. So vo have not installed the va m i nr: signs until we are ready to provide this total protection to the employees in the department, maintance employees, supervisors, quality control employees, and any other posalo le viaito including OSKA Inspectors. If you think ve should install these signs, please advise and this can be accomplished within an hours time. These signs are bright yellow and arc 14" x 20" with up tol" lettering. So they ore quite visible. Citation Nuabcr 5 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (g)(2)(i) Page 22144 Description of allt: .:i viclrtj.cn Propr . Failure of the oroioyor to all lx n ; . "Caution" label to ail rr.-- r..utcriais mixtures, scrap, vs-ta, debris and other products cant-inin;*, arb^coa fibers to prevent capusure to con centrations above prescribed U n i t s during any resaonubxy foraccable use. In order to abate this violation, according to COIL'., we r.i:.t: "Affix asbestee "Caution" labels on all raw nacerais, mixturen, aerar < debris and oliter products containing aabcatea to prevent exposure to ar... . Wc now have e stomp for our finished product has;; z:;d all future bn;;n for r 1 ... will have the required caution label factory' print -d. Hc./cver, this could ^ . Ready Mix as it reads "all raw materials, mixture:; , etc." If this iu .he cu < . no preparations to so label one end five gallon palls or one gallon cartons. 6 Citation Number 6 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a ( h > & Page 22144 Description of alleged violation Failure of the employer to maintain all external eurfacea within the joint compound dry mixing and packout area, free of accumulations of asbestos fibers (dry sweeping is to be discouraged, utilise vacuum sweeping methods). Proposed Penalty $ 90.00 In order to abate this violation, according to 0S1IA, wc must: "Establish a program for maintaining the joint compound dry mixing and pack out areas of the main plant in a clean, orderly and sanitary condition to-prevent .t..Lcg :en due t contamination of the air. This program will Include utilizing sealed impermeable bags for the storage of waste asbestos." This would be a nearly impossible task until total dust control is accomplished. Keeping "all external surfaces within the Joint Compound, dry mixing and pack out area, free of accumulations of ssbestos fibers", would mean all walls, support beams, tank tops, etc. free of dust. We could d e a n this all up, but could not prevent the reoccurance of dust build-up until the dust is under control. We hove inquired into power sweepers and hnvc found one that has asbestos control features. This model also has s sweeper hose Attach-.-,c. so that hand as well as floor sweeping could be accomplished. This would cost about $8,00 Citation Number 7 Standard or regulation allegedly violated 29 CFR 1910.93a (h)(2) Page 22144 Description of aliened v5el-tJon Failure of the cnf.oyv.r to collect and diapose of all ncV^tc- w.t-tc, scrap, debris, , ci.nta.n -.r-, contaminated clotnin- In f.onled impermeable bans to p:v.vc:.t ;:.;y forseeable airborne concentration: of asbestos fibers abev^ cnc allow able limit. Ptn; v ...u- In order to abate this violation, according to GSlbi, v? n-:ct: "Establish s program for maintaining the jci..t co. d dry ' areas of the main plant in a clean, orderly az-1 it. r,- con. it :r., tc dust contamination of the air. This progra.:, will inciuuc utilv.i;-:: bags for the Storage of waste asbestos. Affix acucuiou "Cnutlv..." 1 '... . materials, mixtures, scrap, waste, debris and uth.r products cuatainiu;, . prevent exposure to asbestos dust." We have no ready solution to this problem. Wc can collect the c -pty p. vr in plastic bags and dispose of them underground at c,. . wl.c. hut, other a such as floor sweepings and dust collector waste would bu oi r.uch wo*;;'. >. this method would not be possible. We have a quo.. . an iueinevator i . on empty asbestos bags. This would cost about $o,Ub0.00 plus inatc.llat L> r.. need seme ideas on this matter. This covers all of the 0SHA violations regarding cur ur.c cf u;bc ;to.,. -A;, from the "Multi-Step Abatement" many of these contrla have to be con?) anc our total plans have to be submitted by July 2;, 1973. This id no. I chink our fuCuro operation* depend on how the reply to these citations is 'a^nuloi. 1 would suggest first tbst the Portland Engineering Office send soacone to Akron to make a complete study of the problae and aske their recommendations. Then X would request that some expert legsl^ soeistance be used to reply to OSHA. It would appear that an improper reply could result la a eery high violation penalty or plant closure. As stated in the OSHA citation, " Initiate iamedlato temporary administrative controls to prevent employee exposure to excessive asbestos dust concentrations by July 1, 1973. A Conplalncc Officer will determine if these temporary controls are preventing employee exposure." On this basis I would expect another OSHA Inspection on or about 7-1-73. Please auvi.se. v our next step should be. k att. J. D. &.