Document qa8byq6rbJLOoL1OMgyjM371x

TDi ^>"LAURA RIPPEY PITTSBURGH OFFICE i t REC'D APR 2 51985 To SEE DISTRIBUTION April 6, 1988 PLAINTIFF' EXHIBIT AL-932 RE; ASBESTOS STANDARDS - COURT MANDATED RECONSIDERATION The attached bulletin from ORC lists some areas of the new OSHA asbestos rules which may be changed following a recent court ruling. This office will keep you informed of changes if and when they occur. At this time, ORC is requesting member industries to submit data on the potential impact if a rule change mandated switching from negative pressure respirators to supplied air or SCBA (see p.3). How many individuals at your facility use respiratory protection for asbestos work? % -- }0 p How many SCBA or supplied air units would be purchased by your facility if this respirator protection change occurred? ^ p-<+ If there are other proposed changes mentioned in this bulletin which would significantly affect your facility, please send your comments to this office. LAURA RIPPEY LLR/TP ASBEST6.LLR Att. cc: L.F. Schneider, J. Damiano/C.F. Pgh.-13 DiMascio, Pgh.-6 DISTRIBUTION: Haig Sakoian, ATC irl&nas, md/Wp^ks Ilngton,' Sid Degarmo, Davenport Sue Kraft, Davenport Jean Bailey, Lebanon Scott Anderson, Massena Jeff Shockey, Pt. Comfort Jerry Eicher, Richmond Brooks Parker, Rockdale Todd Valli, Stolle Dale Huddleston, Tennessee Al Piecka, Vernon Ken Karsten, Warrick Jim Thompson, Wenatchee a ALCOA National Place, Suite 911 .1.3,31Lf^nniy,vania ^nue, N.W. Washington, D.C 20004 202-737-6330 Organization Resources Counselors, Inc March 24, 1988 Memorandum To: From: Subject: ORC Occupational Safety and Health Group ORC Western Occupational Safety and Health Group ORC Occupational Safety and Health Physicians Group Darrell K. Mattheis Significant Elements in Court Decision on Suits Against OSHA's Asbestos Standard On February 2, 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling on the suits that had been filed against OSHA's Asbestos Standard. On February 16, 1988, ORC distributed a short analysis of this decision to bring it to your attention. ` There are a number of significant issues in the Court's ruling, but I would like to direct your attention toward several issues in particular: SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN THE COURT'S DECISION ** The Court reversed OSHA's ban on spraying of asbestos containing products (pp. 21-22). ** The Court told OSHA it must reconsider additional smoking control measures (pp. 25-26). ** The Court reguired OSHA to consider setting lower PELs for some industry groupings (pp. 27-28). ** The Court ordered OSHA to complete reconsideration of a STEL for asbestos within 60 days (p. 29). ** The Court told OSHA it must reconsider requiring the use of supplied air respirators to achieve levels lower-than the PEL (p. 32). 2 It must be noted that OSHA interprets the Courts remand in this instance as requiring the recon sideration of their whole respirator policy, but not specifically the use of supplied, air equipment in place of negative pressure respirators. ** The Court ordered OSHA to clarify its Asbestos Standard as to when an employer must resume periodic monitoring, once it has been terminated because fiber concentrations were below the Action Level (p. 34). ** The Court thought more could be done to meet the needs of non-english speaking employees in the workplace, and ordered OSHA to reconsider its requirements for multilingual warnings and labels (pp. 37-38). ** The Court ordered OSHA to consider requirements that all construction industry employers file reports with it prior to engaging in any asbestos projects (p. 38-39). ** The Court ordered OSHA to explicitly consider requiring all employers contracting or subcontracting asbestos related work to~establish, maintain and transfer to building owners written records of the presence and locations of any asbestos or asbestos products in any actual or prospective workplace (p. 39-40). **. The Court ruled that The Secretary must either expand the applicability of the competent person requirement or give a better explanation of why it is not necessary (pp. 40-41). ** The Court ordered OSHA to consider adding the following clarification of the "small-scale" -exemp tion from the preamble of the standard to the rule itself: The exemption was meant to apply only to "those work operations where it is impractical to construct a negative pressure enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment" (pp. 4243). In a footnote on page 41 of the decision, the Court commented: "We observe that neither the record nor common sense provides clear support for the "small-scale short term operations" exception from the competent person requirement for removal, demolition and renovation operations,...". Later, the court commented that: "Indeed, the exception as now worded seems to erase the rule" (p. 42). And finally: "In so far as the exemption applies to the competent person requirement, ve can discern no logic whatever in OSHA's choice of language, with or without the preamble's gloss" (p. 43). A RESPONSE IS NEEDED The time that will be available for a response to the potential changes listed above is dependent upon both OSHA and the courts. It may be as long as 6 to 9 months, but eventually the unions will go back to the court in an attempt to force a response from OSHA in a short time frame. OSHA has not requested comments, but any sent in will be accepted and a special file started. ASBESTOS TASK FORCE RESPONDING The ORC Asbestos Task Force is presently gathering data on the potential costs of switching all respirators that may be used to protect against airborne asbestos fibers from negative pressure to either supplied air or Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA). Ve are requesting data on the total numbers of people who may, in the course of normal duties, need to use a respira'tor, the cost of supplied air and SCBA units, and a program to maintain them, and the costs of training. WRITE TO OSHA AND OKB If you believe that your operations may be impacted by any of the changes in the Asbestos Standard that OSHA has been ordered to consider, you should make it known to OSHA and OMB. If you do not wish to write directly to OSHA or OMB, you may send your comments to ORC and ve will incorporate them into our own comments. We have listed the addresses of the appropriate individuals at OSHA and OMB to whom comments should be sent. Mr. Charles Adkins Director of the Directorate of Health Standards U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA Room N-3718 Washington, D.C. 20210 Mr. Scott Jacobs Office of Management & Budget 726 Jackson, N.W. N.E.O.B. Room 3208 Washington, D.C. 20746 DKM3:lgs K LAURA RIPPEY PITTSBURGH OFFICE - To SEE DISTRIBUTION April 6, 1988 I RE: ASBESTOS STANDARDS - COURT MANDATED RECONSIDERATION The attached bulletin from ORC lists some areas of the new OSHA asbestos rules which may be changed following a recent court ruling. This office will keep you informed of changes if and when they occur. At this time, ORC is requesting member industries to submit data on the potential impact if a rule change mandated switching from negative pressure respirators to supplied air or SCBA (see p.3). How many individuals at your facility use respiratory protection for asbestos work? (A How many SCBA or supplied a-ir units would be purchased by your facility if this respiratory protection change occurred? #*^f there are other proposed changes mentioned in this bulletin 0^* which would significantly affect your facility, please, send j) your comments to 'this office. AURA RIPPEY IV> LT LR/TP ASBEST6.LLR Att. cc: L.F. Schneider, Pgh.-13 J. Damiano/C.F. DiMascio, Pgh.-6 DISTRIBUTION: Haig Sakoian, ATC Tom Engelgau, Addy Ozzie Wilkerson, Anderson Co. Conrad Carter, Badin Irene Scheffler, Arkansas Joe Progar, Cleveland Works Zack Washington, Corona Sid Degarmo, Davenport Sue Kraft, Davenport Jean Bailey, Lebanon Scott Anderson, Massena Jeff Shockey, Pt. Comfort Jerry Eicher, Richmond Brooks Parker, Rockdale Todd Valli, Stolle Dale Huddleston, Tennessee Al Piecka, Vernon Ken Karsten, Warrick Jim Thompson, Wenatchee E3 ALCOA