Proposed Startup Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected applications
Selected applications \1\ with 50 or more
Employers with fewer Polyurethane foam \1\ with 1-49 employees and foam All other employers
than 20 employees mfrs. with 20 or more employees and foam fabricators with 150 with 20 or more
employees fabricators with 1- or more employees employees
149 employees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering controls to achieve 8- April 10, 2000 October 10, 1999 \2\.. April 10, 2000 \2\... April 10, 1999 \2\... In effect.
hour TWA PEL and STEL. (unchanged from
current standard).
Respirators to achieve 8-hour TWA April 10, 2000 \2\.... October 10, 2000 \2\.. April 10, 2000 \2\... April 10, 1999 \2\... In effect.
PEL.
Respirators to achieve STEL........ In effect............. In effect............. In effect............ In effect............ In effect.
All other provisions............... In effect............. In effect............. In effect............ In effect............ In effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As described earlier, the selected applications are furniture refinishing; general aviation aircraft stripping; product formulation; use of MC-based
adhesive for boat building and repair, recreational vehicle manufacture, van conversion, or upholstery; and use of MC in construction work for
restoration and preservation of buildings, painting and paint removal, cabinet making, or floor refinishing and resurfacing.
\2\ Under a partial stay issued on December 18, 1997 (62 FR 66275) these dates are now December 10, 1998 for engineering controls and August 31, 1998
for respirators to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL.
OSHA generally agrees that worker protection against MC exposure
will best be achieved if employers develop and install effective
engineering controls as soon as practicable. OSHA has long recognized
that engineering controls are superior to respiratory protection as a
means of protecting workers against inhalation of toxic chemicals.
Engineering controls protect workers by reducing the airborne
concentrations of methylene chloride to or below permitted limits.
Their effectiveness does not, unlike respirator use, depend on the
respiratory protection functioning as designed or on employers
effectively supervising employees to ensure that they use and maintain
respiratory equipment consistently and properly. Respirators also may
present safety hazards by limiting workers' mobility, vision, and
ability to communicate.
The agency also recognizes that employers require a reasonable
amount of time to develop and install engineering controls. Engineering
controls, such as local exhaust ventilation, must be properly designed
and installed if they are to work efficiently. The parties request that
OSHA help employers in the application groups for which relief is
sought to develop effective engineering controls by offering compliance
assistance that will give those employers guidance as to appropriate
engineering controls and avoid the uncertainty and expense that would
result if each employer were to attempt to design and implement its own
controls. OSHA agrees that compliance assistance would help employers
use their resources more efficiently and plans to offer such
assistance. Already, OSHA has developed Fact Sheets for a number of
applications that identify engineering controls and work practices that
employers can use to protect their employees against MC exposure. OSHA
has also developed a small entity compliance guide and has started
conducting a series of outreach seminars on the MC standard in various
cities around the country. OSHA intends to add to this information base
to further help employers to develop engineering controls that would be
both effective and feasible to implement in their facilities.
Although OSHA has long recognized the superiority of engineering
controls, respirator use is necessary when engineering and work
practice controls cannot achieve the required exposure levels. The
Agency has consistently required that respirators be used when feasible
engineering and work practice controls cannot achieve permissible
exposure limits. OSHA also requires the use of respirators for interim
protection while engineering controls are being developed and
installed. For most toxic chemicals, air-purifying respirators, which
are relatively inexpensive, provide effective protection at most
workplace exposure levels. However, air-purifying respirators do not
provide effective protection against MC exposure because MC quickly
penetrates all currently available organic vapor cartridges. Therefore,
when respirators are required under the MC standard, [[Page 24507]]
atmosphere-supplying respirators must be used.
Atmosphere-supplying respirators are a relatively expensive type of
respiratory equipment, requiring the employer not only to purchase the
respiratory equipment itself but also to install an air compressor and
associated ductwork or rent cylinders containing breathing air. In
light of the relatively high cost associated with the atmosphere-
supplying respirators required by the MC standard, OSHA agrees with the
parties that the standard should permit employers in the identified
application groups to concentrate their limited resources on developing
permanent engineering solutions rather than diverting part of those
resources to interim respiratory protection to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL.
OSHA further notes that the parties' proposal will provide workers
with significant interim protection before the final compliance
deadline of April 10, 2000 or by whatever earlier date controls are
required. First, under the parties' proposal, the STEL will go into
effect as scheduled, and employers will be required to ensure that some
combination of engineering controls, work practice controls, and
respiratory protection reduce exposures below that level. Workers will
therefore be protected against acute health effects associated with
high short-term exposure to MC. Moreover, reduction of short-term
exposures to below the STEL will, in many cases, help reduce 8-hour
time-weighted average exposures as well and will thereby provide
workers with some interim protection against the chronic effects of MC
exposure. The parties' proposal will also not delay compliance with the
requirement that employers implement feasible work practices to reduce
MC exposures. Such controls can achieve significant reductions in MC
exposures in many workplaces at low cost. Early implementation of work
practice controls will also enable employers to evaluate the extent to
which exposures can be reduced by such controls and will enable them to
better determine the nature and extent of the engineering controls they
will need to achieve the 8-hour TWA PEL and STEL. Furthermore, the
remaining protections of the standard (regulated areas, protective work
clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities, hazard communication,
employee information and training, and recordkeeping) will take effect
as currently scheduled for all employers.
In many workplace situations, adherence to careful work practices
will achieve substantial reductions in MC exposures. In its Fact
Sheets, OSHA has identified feasible work practices for several of the
application groups (furniture refinishing, polyurethane foam
manufacturing, construction work) for which the parties seek relief.
Many of the identified work practices would be feasible for and useful
to facilities in other application groups as well. To facilitate
widespread dissemination of the information on work practices in the
Fact Sheets, OSHA is listing them below. A. Furniture Refinishers
Keep MC Vapors Contained
Keep the door to mixing/storage areas closed at all times.
Store and transport MC only in approved safety containers.
Properly label all MC containers to indicate their
contents, hazards, and proper use, storage and disposal. Read these
labels and follow the directions.
Keep solution containers closed tightly when not in use.
Avoid unnecessary transfer or movement of stripping solutions.
Keep dip tanks and reservoir tanks covered when not in use.
Keep the stripping solution at the appropriate temperature
(often around 70 deg. F). At this temperature, wax in the solution will
form a vapor barrier that prevents the solution from evaporating too
quickly. If the temperature is too high or too low, the wax will not
form a vapor barrier.
Do not let sludge dry on the stripping table. Place the
wet sludge in sealed containers for later recovery or disposal, or dry
it using proper engineering controls (e.g., local exhaust ventilation)
to capture the MC vapors. Avoid Breathing MC Vapors
Turn on the dip tank or stripping table ventilation system
at least an hour before work begins or leave it on overnight.
Avoid breathing air directly above the stripping solution
and dip tank. Do not lean over the tank when working.
Avoid breathing the air directly above the furniture
during manual stripping. Do not lean over an area covered with stripper.
Do not work or stand between solution-covered furniture
and the exhaust system.
Turn the solution-recycling system off when it is not being used.
Do not rely on the odor of MC to warn you of overexposure.
People cannot smell MC until vapor concentrations are above 300 ppm,
which is 12 times higher than the 8-hour time-weighted-average
permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm. Also, you sense of smell can
quickly get used to the odor of MC so that you stop noticing it.
If you become dizzy, light-headed, or have other symptoms
of MC exposure, go immediately to an area with fresh air.
Minimize the Chance of Spills and Leaks
Develop and follow your facility's procedures for
detecting MC leaks from process equipment, holding tanks, and spill
control devices. Frequently inspect process equipment, holding tanks, and
spill control devices for cracks, loose parts, and other possible
sources of leaks.
Where spills occur, follow procedures for containing them.
Clean up all spills and leaks as quickly as possible.
Place rags, waste, paper towels, or absorbent used to
clean spills in a closed container (preferably a non-aluminum, all
metal safety container) immediately after use.
Make sure that leaks are repaired and spills cleaned up by
employees who are trained in proper cleanup methods. These employees
should wear appropriate personal protective equipment.
Take Extra Precautions in Low and Confined Spaces
MC vapors are heavier than air, so they tend to move to low,
unventilated spaces such as tanks and maintenance pits.
Do not enter or lean into a storage tank, dip tank, or
low-lying confined area until it has been completely aired out and
tested. Wear proper PPE and follow the appropriate confined space entry
procedures outlined in OSHA's Permit Required Confined Spaces standard
(29 CFR 1910.146). Use a long-handled tool to pick up items that you drop
into a confined space or low-lying area. B. Polyurethane Foam Manufacturers
Keep MC Vapors Contained
Keep the doors to the pouring and cooling areas closed at all times.
Store and transport MC only in approved safety containers.
Properly label all MC containers to indicate their
contents, hazards, and proper use, storage and disposal. Read these
labels and follow the directions.
Keep MC containers closed tightly when not in use.
Avoid unnecessary transfer or movement of MC.
Keep the openings on the sides of the tunnel closed when it is not in use.
[[Page 24508]]
This keeps MC vapors from escaping and ensures that the makeup air
system at the end of the tunnel runs well. Avoid Breathing MC Vapors
Turn on local exhaust ventilation systems in the tunnel
and cooling rooms at least an hour before work begins or leave them on
overnight. Turn on the general ventilation system in the cooling room
at least an hour before work beings or leave it on overnight.
Avoid breathing air directly above cooling foam.
When possible, minimize the amount of time spent near the
cooling foam and tunnel openings because these areas are likely to have
the highest levels of MC vapors.
Do not work or stand between cooling foam and the exhaust system.
Do not rely on the odor of MC to warn you of overexposure.
People cannot smell MC until vapor concentrations are above 300 ppm,
which is 12 times higher than the 8-hour time-weighted-average
permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm. Also, you sense of smell can
quickly get used to the odor of MC so that you stop noticing it.
If you become dizzy, light-headed, or have other symptoms
of MC exposure, go immediately to an area with fresh air.
Minimize the Chance of Spills and Leaks
Develop and follow your facility's procedures for
detecting MC leaks from process equipment, holding tanks, and spill
control devices. Frequently inspect the tunnel and other equipment for
cracks, loose parts, and other possible sources of leaks.
Clean up all spills and leaks as quickly as possible.
Place rags, waste, paper towels, or absorbent used to
clean spills in a closed container (preferably a non-aluminum, all
metal safety container) immediately after use.
Make sure that leaks are repaired and spills cleaned up by
employees who are trained in proper cleanup methods. These employees
should wear appropriate personal protective equipment.
Take Extra Precautions in Low and Confined Spaces
MC vapors are heavier than air, so they tend to move to low,
unventilated spaces.
Do not enter or lean into a low-lying confined area until
it has been completely aired out and tested. Wear proper PPE and follow
the appropriate confined space entry procedures outlined in OSHA's
Permit Required Confined Spaces standard (29 CFR 1910.146).
Use a long-handled tool to pick up items that you drop
into a confined space or low-lying area. C. Construction Work
Keep MC Vapors Contained
Store and transport MC products only in approved safety containers.
Properly label all MC containers to indicate their
contents, hazards, and proper use, storage and disposal. Read these
labels and follow the directions.
Keep MC product containers closed tightly when not in use.
Avoid unnecessary transfer or movement of MC products.
Avoid Breathing MC Vapors
Avoid breathing the air directly above areas covered with
MC. Do not lean over an area covered with MC.
Do not work or stand between MC-covered areas and the exhaust system.
Do not rely on the odor of MC to warn you of overexposure.
People cannot smell MC until vapor concentrations are above 300 ppm,
which is 12 times higher than the 8-hour time-weighted-average
permissible exposure limit of 25 ppm.
Also, your sense of smell can quickly get used to the odor of MC so
that you stop noticing it.
If you become dizzy, light-headed, or have other symptoms
of MC exposure, go immediately to an area with fresh air.
Minimize the Chance of Spills and Leaks
Develop and follow procedures for containing MC spills or leaks.
Frequently inspect MC product containers for cracks or
other possible sources of leaks.
Clean up all spills and leaks as quickly as possible.
Place rags, waste, paper towels, or absorbent used to
clean spills in a closed container (preferably a non-aluminum, all
metal safety container) immediately after use.
Make sure that leaks are repaired and spills cleaned up by
employees who are trained in proper cleanup methods. These employees
should wear appropriate personal protective equipment.
Take extra Precautions in Low and Confined Spaces
MC vapors are heavier than air, so they tend to move to low,
unventilated spaces.
Do not enter or lean into a low-lying confined area until
it has been completely aired out and tested. Wear proper PPE and follow
the appropriate confined space entry procedures outlined in OSHA's
Permit Required Confined Spaces standard (29 CFR 1910.146).
Use a long-handled tool to pick up items that you drop in
area where MC is being used.
V. Preliminary Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (j), Medical Surveillance, of
the final rule governing occupational exposure to methlylene chloride
(MC) (29 CFR 1910.1052) to add medical removal protection benefits to
the rule. This preliminary economic analysis estimates the costs of
complying with the proposed MRP provisions and then assesses the
economic feasibility and potential economic impacts of these costs on
firms in the affected sectors. The information used in this analysis is
taken from the exposure profile, industry profile, and economic impacts
analysis presented in the Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129) that
accompanied OSHA's final rule for methylene chloride (Federal Register
Vol. 62, 7, pp. 1494 to 1619). Relying on the data developed for the
analysis to support this proposed revision to the final rule ensures
analytical consistency and comparability across the two economic
analysis documents.
OSHA's final MC rule did not contain medical removal protection
provisions. The revisions being proposed today respond to a motion for
reconsideration filed by the United Auto Workers (UAW), the Halogenated
Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc., and others. As requested in that
motion, OSHA is proposing to add paragraphs (j)(9)(i) (A) and (B),
(j)(10), (j)(11), (j)(12), (j)(13), and (j)(14), dealing with medical
removal protection, medical removal protection benefits, voluntary
removal or restriction of an employee, and multiple health care
professional review, respectively, to the final rule. Medical removal
protection (MRP) would apply only under certain limited circumstances,
i.e., medical removal protection would be required only if a physician
or other licensed health care professional finds that exposure to MC
may contribute to or aggravate the employee's existing cardiac,
hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or dermal disease. The
proposed rule instructs the physician or other licensed health care
professional to presume that a medical condition is unlikely to require
removal form exposure to MC, [[Page 24509]]
unless medical evidence indicates to the contrary, if the employee is
not exposed to MC at concentrations above the 8-hour TWA PEL of 25 ppm.
The physician or other licensed health care professional may also
recommend removal from exposure to MC for any other condition that
would, in the health care professional's opinion, place the employee's
health at risk of material impairment from exposure to MC, but MRP
would only be triggered by a finding that exposure to MC may contribute
to or aggravate the employee's existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological
(including stroke), or dermal disease.
Any employee medically removed must (1) be provided with comparable
work where MC exposures are below the action level, or (2) be
completely removed from MC exposure. The employee's total pay, benefits
and seniority must be maintained throughout the period of medical
removal protection, even if the only way to remove the employee from MC
exposure is to send him or her home for the duration of the medical
removal protection period. The employer may reduce the amount paid to
the removed worker to the extent that the worker's previous pay has
been offset by other compensation (such as worker's compensation
payments) or by wages from another job made possible by the medical removal.
The proposal would require employers to maintain medical removal
protection benefits for up to six months. Medical removal protection
may be terminated in less than 6 months if a medical determination
shows that the employee may return to MC exposure, or a medical
determination is made that the employee can never return to MC exposure.
In situations in which no comparable work is available for the
medically removed employee, the proposal would allow the employer to
demonstrate that the medical removal and the costs of medical removal
protection benefits, considering feasibility in relation to the size of
the employer's business and the other requirements of this standard,
make reliance on medical removal protection an inappropriate remedy. In
such a situation, the employer may retain the employee in the existing
job until transfer or removal becomes appropriate, provided that the
employer ensures that the employee receives additional medical
surveillance, including a physical examination at least every 60 days
until removal or transfer occurs, and that the employer or PLHCP
informs the employee of the risk to the employee's health from
continued MC exposure.
In conducting this economic analysis, OSHA has estimated the number
of workers with the four listed types of conditions (neurological,
hepatic, cardiac, and dermal disease) that can trigger MRP. OSHA has
assumed that medical removal protection would be extended only to
employees exposed above the PEL, as reflected by the presumption. This
analysis also assumes that all employers will provide medical removal
protection whenever a physician or other licensed health care provider
recommends removal, i.e., OSHA has not quantified the number of times
small firms may retain an employee for whom a removal recommendation
has been made in the employee's existing job due to the employer's
financial inability to remove the employee. Because some very small
firms may find that medical removal protection is infeasible in their
circumstances but this cost analysis assumes that all such employees
will be removed, OSHA believes that this analysis is likely to
overestimate the costs associated with MRP.
Cost of Medical Removal Protection Provisions
OSHA's estimates of the costs of the proposed medical removal
protection provisions are calculated based on the number of workers
eligible for medical removal protection times the frequency of the
medical conditions that would trigger medical removal protection in the
exposed population times the costs of medical removal protection for
each type of medical condition.
Number of Workers Eligible for Medical Removal Protection Under the Proposal
Because of the presumption stated explicitly in the proposed
revisions, medical removal protection will be limited in almost all
cases to employees exposed to MC at concentrations above the PEL of 25
PPM as an 8-hour TWA. The Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129) estimated
that approximately 55,000 employees in all affected application groups
are currently exposed above 25 ppm. This estimate is used here to
calculate the number of employees potentially eligible for medical
removal protection during the year in which medical removal protection
would be in effect but the engineering control requirements of the rule
would not yet be in effect for some of the application groups. Once the
implementation of engineering controls is required, OSHA assumes, for
the purposes of this analysis, that 10 percent of those employees
previously exposed to an 8-hour TWA above 25 ppm (5,500 employees)
would continue to be exposed to an 8-hour TWA above 25 ppm.
OSHA believes that reliance on these assumptions will lead to an
overestimate of the number of employees eligible for medical removal
protection because some firms will have implemented controls and lower
the exposure of their employees well before the final standard requires
them to do so. Once the standard requires employers to implement
engineering controls, OSHA's Final Economic Analysis (Ex. 129)
estimated that the exposure of almost all employees would be reduced to
MC levels below 25 ppm as a 8-hour TWA. To capture all costs
potentially associated with the proposed medical removal protection
provisions, OSHA has assumed for this analysis that some employees will
continue to be exposed above 25 ppm.
Frequency of Medical Removal Protection Under the Proposed Provisions
The proposed changes to the occupational exposure to methylene
chloride standard allow for medical removal protection in the event
that exposure to methylene chloride ''may contribute to or aggravate
existing cardiac, hepatic, neurological (including stroke), or skin
disease.'' Medical removal protection does not apply if the condition
is such that removal from MC exposure must be permanent.
|
