Document v6X4693qd8xG8aX44kZz8yZRZ

3 Current Report Laad DEADLINES FOR COMPLIANCE PLAN SUBMISSION SET BY OSHA; COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS NOTED Companies in the primary and secondary smelting and battery manufacturing industries must have lead standard compliance plans available in two stages by July 1 and Aug. 1, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration an nounced June 5, adding however that a company will not be cited for missing the final deadline if it is engaged in the development of long-range engineering controls in coopera tion with OSHA and organized labor (49 FR 23175). An administrative stay of the compliance plan provisions of the lead standard - 29 CFR 1910.1025(eX3XiiXB) and (E) -- was granted to the smelting and battery manufacturing industries in December 1982. At the time, the lead standard was under general reconsideration by OSHA, and the agency said the stay was intended to relieve the industries from costly compliance with requirements that might later be changed (Current Report, Dec. 9, 1982, p. 563). The United Steelworkers of America filed suit against the stay, and in April OSHA lifted the stay pursuant to an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The stay was lifted effective June 1, and OSHA proposed that companies be required to complete the devel opment of compliance plans by July 1, based on information in their possession at that time, and then have updated plans available by Aug. 1 (Current Report, April 26, p. 1267). OSHA adhered to that schedule in its final action June 5, saying that a request for comment on the proposal elicited "no new evidence" from industry on why the July 1 and Aug. 1 deadlines could not be met In complying with other provisions of the lead standard, affected companies "should already have prepared fairly detailed written compliance plans," the agency maintained. . Companies and industry groups commenting on the pro posal had urged that OSHA provide flexibility for employers currently engaged in cooperative assessment programs aimed at identifying long-range control options for lead exposure (Current Report, May 31, p. 1357). In its comments to the agency, the Lead Industries Association suggested that OSHA, in its final rule, take care to "eliminate the possibility of enforcement citations being issued against an employer'' participating in an assessment program. `Sufficient Flexibility' OSHA's June 5 notice reflected this concern, remarking that the affected parties "have raised the necessity for sufficient flexibility to accommodate engineering studies currently in progress." To the extent that the Aug. 1 final deadline "may not be sufficiently flexible in this regard," the best way to accom modate employers engaged in engineering studies "is to issue a field directive in order to provide guidance regarding the agency's policy for enforcing paragraph (eX3) as of August 1,1984," the notice stated. Therefore, "in the event that an employer has by August I, 1984, initiated a study of long-term engineering control S-7-S4 options, either on its own or through active participation in a cooperative assessment with OSHA and employee represen tatives (where applicable), a citation for failure to meet the August 1 date will not be issued with respect to that control option, provided that the employer's compliance plan meets the guidelines described in the field directive," the notice said. OSHA indicated that the directive will be issued to agency field staff "in the very near future." Industry and union representatives declined to comment June 5 on specifics in the OSHA notice, saying that they had not had the opportunity yet to study the document. However, William E. Whitaker, vice president and general manager for AMAX Lead Company of Missouri, noted that his com pany currently is engaged in a cooperative program with OSHA and the United Steelworkers of America, and said it was "good to know" that such efforts will be taken into account when the final Aug. 1 deadline is enforced. Michael Wright, industrial hygienist for the Steelworkers, said the terms of the forthcoming directive may be a "critical issue." Unless strict guidelines are set forth, OSHA's policy could lead to "a lot of surface participation" in cooperative programs, Wright contended. The text of the OSHA notice on the effective dates for the compliance plan provisions appears in the Full Text section of this issue. The action will be reflected in a future Refer ence File supplement. Aabaatoa >. ADOPTION OF TWO-LEVEL ASBESTOS STANDARD WITH EXPOSURE, AMBIENT LIMITS URGED BY ORC Organization Resources Counselors, Inc., urged the Occu pational Safety and Health Administration May 25 to adopt two permissible concentrations of asbestos fibers in its final asbestos standard, one as a permissible airborne concentra tion and the other as a permissible limit for actual employee exposure. In comments addressed to OSHA, ORC recommended a permissible airborne concentration (PAC) of 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter of air. This is intended to regulate ambient concentrations of airborne asbestos at the worksite. Further, the organization suggested a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 f/cc. This PEL is intended to regulate actual employee exposures to asbestos fibers. Under ORC's recommended limits, if circumstances re quire that an employee work in ambieat airborne concentra tions of asbestos fibers above 0.5 f/cc, and it has been established and documented that engineering controls can not bring the PAC down to 0.5 f/cc or below, employers would be required to equip all employees with supplied air or positive pressure self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). This level, 0.5 f/cc, would require that the workforce be protected by the use of respirators with a minimum protec tion factor of five. From 0.5 f/cc down, the use of negative pressure respirators would be acceptable if they were capa ble of being fit-tested, either quantitatively or qualitatively, and used high efficiency particulate (HEPA) filters, accord ing to ORC. Above 0.5 f/cc, employees must be equipped with air-line respirators, or positive pressure SCBA. 4 The organization also maintained that the eight-hour time-weighted average airborne concentration of asbestos fibers to which any employee may be exposed should not exceed 0.2 fibers per cubic centimeter of air, inhaled into the lungs. This is the airborne concentration of asbestos fibers at or below which employees need not wear respira tors, end above which all employees must be equipped with appropriate respiratory protective equipment ORC explained that the practical distinction between the two levels depends upon the definition of "exposure" as being that which is actually inhaled into the lungs. The organization maintained that at 0.5 f/cc the use of a fittestable respirator equipped with HEPA filters and a pro tection factor Of at least five, would bring actual employee exposure down to 0.1 f/cc..In addition, a protection factor of 10 would yield an actual exposure of 0.05 f/cc, according to the ORC. "It is ORC's judgment that the PAC/PEL approach dis cussed above would be a practical solution to the necessity to both work with asbestos and protect employees from the proven hazard it represents," the organization stated in its position paper. _ Recommendations for Respirator* Among the respirator requirements recommended by ORC are these: respirators should be used only where engi neering controls are not practical and only as part of a complete respirator program; only HEPA filters should be used; all respirators must be fit-tested; a minimum protec tion factor of five must be provided; supplied air or SCBA must be used above 0.5 f/cc; and respirators must be worn during asbestos removal operations. In addition, the group asserted that, with the use of proper work practices as part of an integrated health and safety program, the actual ambient airborne concentrations of asbestos in stripping and removal operations should not often reach a time-weighted average of 0.5 f/cc. The basic elements of an effective program for safely handling asbes tos materials include: The existence of an integrated health and safety pro gram within the company. A written program for handling materials containing asbestos. Training of potentially exposed employees in the use of the standardized techniques. Training in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment including respirators. Validation of standardized techniques through the moni toring of operations and the maintenance of records that establish an "historical" standard for ambient levels gener ated by such techniques. Strict enforcement of all general and specific health and safety program techniques within the company. Identification of materials containing asbestos. Isolation of the removal area where feasible and/or appropriate. Thorough, continuous wetting of the material to be removed with surfactant-containing water. Careful removal of asbestos insulation to avoid unneces sary disruption of the material Prompt disposal of removed asbestos-containing materi al packaged to prevent the release of fibers. Proper use of appropriate protective clothing and equipment ... Qualitative or quantitative fit-testing of all respirators used. ' ' OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Appropriate change facilities to remove contaminated protective clothing and appropriate cleaning/disposal of contaminated clothing and respirators. Prompt and thorough washing of all exposed parts of the body. Insistence that all contractors.establish and follow safe, effective techniques for all asbestos removal operations, including monitoring. In addition, ORC recommended that a standardized asbes tos removal technique, whose details are enforced by man agement as part of a comprehensive health and safety program, be established. The requirement for the monitor ing of every asbestos removal operation then could be eliminated, the group stated. While stressing that actual exposure to asbestos fibers should be kept as low as possible for all workers, ORC recommended that estimates of risk be based on exposures that are relevant to 1984 workplace conditions. "It is impor tant to know as accurately as possible what the actual risk is at today's exposure levels, but this is not possible unless we recognize the factors in the risk equation that have changed from 1944 to 1984." In conclusion, ORC urged OSHA to encourage the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to proceed with an extensive testing and certification program for respira tors that are used to protect against asbestos fibers. Risk Assessment INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE COULD FILL ROLE OF ANALYZING RISK ASSESSMENT PROJECTS The Interagency Risk Management Council, a federal multi-agency group which in part attempts to identify and resolve differences among agencies using risk assessment procedures, could probably fill the role of a risk assessment agency called for in a pending bill by Rep. Don Ritter (R-Pa) on risk assessment, a House subcommittee was told June 5. Several agency officials, including Leonard Vance, direc tor of health standards for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, indicated that the council could meet Ritter's criteria for a central agency that would be responsi ble for assessing the risks of health, environmental, and other hazards. The testimony came at a hearing by the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agri culture Research, and Environment on Ritter's bill, HR 4192, "The Risk Assessment Research and Demonstration Act of 1983." Title 1 of Ritter's bill would require eight federal agen cies, including OSHA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, to prepare stud ies assessing the risks of environmental, health, and other types of hazards. Further action or research on these studies would be coordinated by an already-existing agency named by the President (Current Report, May 24, p. 1344). In response to questions by the committee on using IRMC, whose members come from each of the major health regula tory agencies, as the central coordinating agency, Vance said, "OSHA has no problem with the council carrying out that type of role." * Much of the controversy at the subcommittee hearing centered on the bill's use of the terms risk assessment vs. risk management, as well as the coordinating agency's role in working with risk assessment and risk management tech- 6-7-84 Copyright C 1984 by The Bureiu of National Affaire, Inc. 0096-3237/84/10+.SO ALCOAO 000008695