Safety Tidbit 2.38 - Devil is in the Details

Safety Tidbit 2.38 – Devil is in the Details

Reference:       OSHA Letter of Interpretation dated August 5, 2011

                        Respirator Standard – 1910.134

                        Personal Protective Equipment Standard - 1910.132

I advised a client recently that their welders and grinders needed to be in half-face air-purifying respirators (APRs) while they install engineering controls or otherwise work to reduce exposures. The client emailed me that a worker shaved their beard for the fit-testing but advised management that, due to religious reasons, they would not be shaving their beard in the future. The client was curious if they could make the worker shave their beard.

As all of you are aware, OSHA’s respirator standard is succinct about facial hair [1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A)] or anything else such as prescription glasses [1910.134(g)(1)(iii)]) that may compromise the respirator-face seal or respirator valve function. So, what is the employer to do when the worker says they are not going to shave their beard due to religious reasons? Well, it becomes a management issue. You see, OSHA still wants the employer to provide protection from the contaminant but they also recognize the freedom of expression of religion. However, the fine print is this, the worker can wear a loose-fitting, hood-style, powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) which does not require fit-testing. Problem solved - right? Well not quite, who is going to pay for the PAPR which is $800-$1000 as opposed to the half-face APR which is about $10. Also, the half-face APR will adequately protect the worker from the contaminant.

We all know that “Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary because of hazards…[1910.132(a)].” Additionally, where employees provide their own protective equipment, the employer shall be responsible to assure its adequacy, including proper maintenance, and sanitation of such equipment [1910.132(b)]. Furthermore, OSHA’s Personal Protective Equipment standard [1910.132(h)(1)] says “…the protective equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), used to comply with this part, shall be provided by the employer at no cost to employees.” So… what do you think? Employer or Worker??

Answer – Worker. In 1910.132(h)(6), OSHA states: “Where an employee provides adequate protective equipment he or she owns pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the employer may allow the employee to use it and is not required to reimburse the employee for that equipment.”

So, as you can see the devil is in the details as to how to proceed. Everyone gets what they want but some clarification was needed for who was to responsible to pay. However, remember, the privately-owned respirator is still part of the employer’s respiratory protection program and the responsibility of the employer to ensure it is used and maintained properly by the employee.

Hope this was helpful and thanks for reading my Safety Tidbits and as always if you have a burning safety or health question please let me know. ~ Bryan

Safety Tidbit 2.37 – PRCS Reclassification

Safety Tidbit 2.37 – PRCS Reclassification

Reference:       OSHA Permit-required Confined Spaces

So, this question from a client is a couple of weeks old now. I asked if they had any permit-required confined spaces (PRCS) at their facility. The client said no. However, as I conducted my walk-through I noticed an entry door to their ventilation system with a padlock on it. I inquired if anyone is required to go into the space to clean it out or do any maintenance? The client said yes maybe once or twice a year they go inside to visually inspect the walls and completely clean it out with vacuum cleaners. His follow-on comment was interesting: But we always lock it out and empty the hopper before we go into the space. Let’s start from the beginning:

What is a confined space? - "Confined space" means a space that:

·      Is large enough and so configured that an employee can bodily enter and perform assigned work; and

·      Has limited or restricted means for entry or exit (for example, tanks, vessels, silos, storage bins, hoppers, vaults, and pits are spaces that may have limited means of entry.); and

·      Is not designed for continuous employee occupancy.

Check – I think the ventilation space meets this requirement.

What is a permit-required confined space? "Permit-required confined space (permit space)" means a confined space that has one or more of the following characteristics:

·      Contains or has a potential to contain a hazardous atmosphere;

·      Contains a material that has the potential for engulfing an entrant;

·      Has an internal configuration such that an entrant could be trapped or asphyxiated by inwardly converging walls or by a floor which slopes downward and tapers to a smaller cross-section; or

·      Contains any other recognized serious safety or health hazard.

Check - during normal operations.

However according to 1910.146(c)(7), A space classified by the employer as a permit-required confined space may be reclassified as a non-permit confined space under the following procedures:

·      If the permit space poses no actual or potential atmospheric hazards and if all hazards within the space are eliminated without entry into the space, the permit space may be reclassified as a non-permit confined space for as long as the non-atmospheric hazards remain eliminated.

·      If it is necessary to enter the permit space to eliminate hazards, such entry shall be performed under paragraphs (d) through (k) of this section. If testing and inspection during that entry demonstrate that the hazards within the permit space have been eliminated, the permit space may be reclassified as a non-permit confined space for as long as the hazards remain eliminated.

·      NOTE: Control of atmospheric hazards through forced air ventilation does not constitute elimination of the hazards. Paragraph (c)(5) covers permit space entry where the employer can demonstrate that forced air ventilation alone will control all hazards in the space.

·      The employer shall document the basis for determining that all hazards in a permit space have been eliminated, through a certification that contains the date, the location of the space, and the signature of the person making the determination. The certification shall be made available to each employee entering the space or to that employee's authorized representative.

·      If hazards arise within a permit space that has been declassified to a non-permit space under paragraph (c)(7) of this section, each employee in the space shall exit the space. The employer shall then reevaluate the space and determine whether it must be reclassified as a permit space, in accordance with other applicable provisions of this section.

The operative statement is in the first bullet in 146(c)(7) just above – “…the permit space may be reclassified as a non-permit confined space for as long as the non-atmospheric hazards remain eliminated.” In other words, the space is permit-required confined space until the LOTO procedure has been executed and verified. As soon at the space is put back into service the “non-atmospheric hazards” are no longer controlled.

Hope this was helpful and thanks for reading my Safety Tidbits and as always if you have a burning safety or health question please let me know. ~ Bryan

Safety Tidbit 2.36 - Hearing Tests

Safety Tidbit 2.36 – Hearing Tests

Reference:       OSHA Hearing Conservation Standard 29CFR1910.95

This week I received a question that struck me as a little odd. See if you can catch the subtle second part of question. A client called and presented the following: “Does our part-time, retired truck driver need to get hearing tests with the rest of our mill staff?  He only works one or two days per week.” My question to the client: “Does the truck driver’s job expose him to excessive levels of noise (e.g., greater than 85 dBA)?”

As 1910.95)(c)(1) states:

“The employer shall administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program, as described in paragraphs (c) through (o) of this section, whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A scale (slow response) or, equivalently, a dose of fifty percent. For purposes of the hearing conservation program, employee noise exposures shall be computed in accordance with appendix A and Table G-16a, and without regard to any attenuation provided by the use of personal protective equipment.”

Furthermore, section (g)(1) of the Hearing Conservation Program requires the employer to establish and maintain an audiometric testing program by making audiometric testing available to all employees whose exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels. Notice there is no mention as to how many days per year the exposure can exceed 85 decibels before enrollment begins. Also, part-time employees are to be protected the same as full-time employees. This is the subtle second part of the client’s question.

Some points about the audiograms:

·      The audiogram shall be provided at no cost to employees.

·      Within 6 months of an employee's first exposure at or above the action level, the employer shall establish a valid baseline audiogram against which subsequent audiograms can be compared. (within one year if using a mobile test van).

·      Baseline audiograms must be preceded by at least 14 hours without noise exposure. (interestingly, OSHA permits the use of hearing protectors to reduce the noise exposure)

·      Audiograms must be repeated annually and compared to the baseline audiogram.

·      In determining whether a standard threshold shift has occurred, allowance may be made for the contribution of aging (presbycusis) to the change in hearing level by correcting the annual audiogram according to the procedure described in Appendix F: "Calculation and Application of Age Correction to Audiograms."

·      If there is a shift in their hearing follow-up within 30 days to confirm the loss of hearing.

Bottom line, evaluate the noise levels in your workplace. If workers are exposed above 85 dBA continuously (or equivalently) for 8 hours then they must be enrolled in the hearing conservation program, whether the exposure be every day or one day a year.

Hope this was helpful and thanks for reading my Safety Tidbits ~ Bryan

Safety Tidbit 2.35 - Is a spray booth necessary?

Safety Tidbit 2.35 – Is a spray booth necessary?

Reference:       OSHA Letter of Interpretation July 14, 2009

                        OSHA Ventilation Standard (1910.94)

                        OSHA Spray Finishing of Flammable and Combustible materials 1910.107

A colleague recently asked me when is a booth necessary for spray painting operations? His example was that the employer periodically spray applies flammable paints (not aerosol cans) on signs and the back of large construction trucks. The operation lasts less than 15-20 minutes and uses a quart or less of paint at a time.

OSHA’s 1910.94(c)(2) states that spray booths or spray rooms are to be used to enclose or confine all spray finishing using organic or inorganic materials. Since the primary purpose of 1910.94(c) is to protect health, this is not a big deal if the appropriate PEL in Subpart Z of Part 1910 is not exceeded.

Therefore, if no OSHA PEL is exceeded during spray finishing operations, the operation falls under the OSHA standard at 1910.107. That standard does not have an enclosure provision like 1910.94(c) requiring that all spray finishing using flammable and combustible materials be confined to spray booths or spray rooms. However, the 1910.107(g)(1) requires that "[spraying shall not be conducted outside of predetermined spraying areas." Paragraph 1910.107(a)(2) defines a "spraying area" as "[any area in which dangerous quantities of flammable vapors or mists, or combustible residues, dusts, or deposits are present due to the operation of spraying processes." OSHA interprets "dangerous quantities of flammable vapors or mists" in 1910.107(a)(2), to be areas with concentrations exceeding 25% of the lower flammable limit (LFL) of any chemical used at any time during the spray finishing operations, without the benefit of ventilation required under the standard.

Example: To determine the lower explosive limits of the most common solvents used in spray finishing, see Table G-11 of 1910.94. Column 1 gives the number of cubic feet of vapor per gallon of solvent and column 2 gives the lower explosive limit (LEL) in percentage by volume of air. Note that the quantity of solvent will be diminished by the quantity of solids and nonflammables contained in the finish.

To determine the volume of air in cubic feet necessary to dilute the vapor from 1 gallon of solvent to 25 percent of the lower explosive limit, apply the following formula:

Dilution volume required per gallon of solvent =

4 X (100 - LEL) X (cubic feet of vapor per gallon) / LEL

Using toluene as the solvent.

1. LEL of toluene from Table G-11, column 2, is 1.4 percent.

2. Cubic feet of vapor per gallon from Table G-11, column 1, is 30.4 cubic feet per gallon.

3. Dilution volume required =

4 X (100 - 1.4) X 30.4 / 1.4 = 8,564 cubic feet/gallon.

4. To convert to cubic feet per minute of required ventilation, multiply the dilution volume required per gallon of solvent by the number of gallons of solvent evaporated per minute.

Therefore: If the operation uses one quart of paint over 15 minutes.

(0.25 gallons/15 minutes) = 0.0167gallons/minute or GPM

or in other words, one gallon will evaporate every approx. 60 minutes

5. 8,564 CF/gal X 0.0167 GPM = 143 CFM

However, 25 percent of the LEL or in our example above 1.4%/25 equals 0.056%. Converted to parts per million (PPM) is 0.056%X10,000=560 PPM. OSHA’s acceptable ceiling concentration for Toluene is 300 PPM and OSHA’s acceptable maximum peak above the acceptable ceiling concentration for an 8-hr shift is 500 PPM. All provided the total 8-hour time-weighted average stays below 200 PPM.

So back to the original question of whether a spray booth was necessary. More information is needed (SDS) and an industrial hygiene evaluation of the work area.

Hope this was helpful and thanks for reading my Safety Tidbits ~ Bryan