NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING/BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD

AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLE 8

OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

 

 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.4 and the provisions of Labor Code Sections 142.1, 142.2, 142.3, 142.4, and 144.6, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board of the State of California has set the time and place for a Public Meeting, Public Hearing, and Business Meeting:

 

           

PUBLIC MEETING:

On May 22, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.

in the Auditorium of the California State Building,

1350 Front Street, San Diego, California.

 

 

At the Public Meeting, the Board will make time available to receive comments or proposals from interested persons on any item concerning occupational safety and health.

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING:

On May 22, 2003 following the Public Meeting

in the Auditorium of the California State Building,

1350 Front Street, San Diego, California.

                       

 

At the Public Hearing, the Board will consider the public testimony on the proposed changes noticed below to occupational safety and health regulations in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.

 

 

BUSINESS MEETING:

On May 22, 2003 following the Public Hearing

in the Auditorium of the California State Building,

1350 Front Street, San Diego, California.

           

 

At the Business Meeting, the Board will conduct its monthly business.

 

The meeting facilities and restrooms are accessible to the physically disabled.  Requests for accommodations for the disabled (assistive listening device, sign language interpreters, etc.) should be made to the Board office no later than 10 working days prior to the day of the meeting.  If Paratransit services are needed, please contact the Paratransit office nearest you.

 

 

 


 

 

 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLE 8

OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

BY THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD

 

 

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.4 and Labor Code Sections 142.1, 142.4 and 144.5, that the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board pursuant to the authority granted by Labor Code Section 142.3, and to implement Labor Code Section 142.3, will consider the following proposed revisions to Title 8, Construction Safety Orders and General Industry Safety Orders of the California Code of Regulations, as indicated below, at its Public Hearing on May 22, 2003.

 

 

1.

TITLE 8:

Construction Safety Orders

Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 4

Sections 1532, 1532.1, and 1535

General Industry Safety Orders

Subchapter 7, Article 9

Sections 5198, 5200, 5201, 5207, 5211, 5214, 5218, and 5220

Medical Evaluations for Respirator Users 

 

 

2.

TITLE 8:

GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY ORDERS
Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 107

Section 5154.1

Ventilation Requirements for Laboratory-Type Hood Operations

 

       

 


                                     

 

 

A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

 

1.

TITLE 8:

Construction Safety Orders

Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 4

Sections 1532, 1532.1, and 1535

General Industry Safety Orders

Subchapter 7, Article 9

Sections 5198, 5200, 5201, 5207, 5211, 5214, 5218, and 5220

Medical Evaluations for Respirator Users 

 

 

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

 

The proposal amends the general requirements of eleven substance-specific health standards that require a respirator program in accordance with specified subsections of Title 8 California Code of Regulations, General Industry Safety Orders (GISO) Section 5144, Respiratory Protection.  The proposal will ensure that the respirator program requirements for each of the eleven sections include the requirements of Section 5144(e).  This subsection requires an employer to provide a medical assessment for the employee before being required to use the respirator in the workplace.  The proposal would amend Sections 1532, Cadmium; 1532.1, Lead; 1535, Methylenedianiline; 5198, Lead; 5200, Methylenedianiline; 5201, 1,3-Butadiene; 5207, Cadmium; 5211, Coke Oven Emissions; 5214, Inorganic Arsenic; 5218, Benzene; and 5220, Ethylene Oxide.  These standards currently rely on a specific medical surveillance program to provide for this assessment.  However, the medical surveillance programs are subject to a threshold based on the employee’s exposure to specific concentrations of the substance, and after a specified number of days.

 

The proposed amendments will have the effect of requiring employers to provide an employee with an initial medical evaluation that would assess the employee’s ability to use a respirator, before the employee is fit-tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace.

 

The current corresponding Federal OSHA standards are essentially equivalent to the existing California regulations and do not require medical assessments prior to respirator use.

 

COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

 

Costs or Savings to State Agencies

 

Insignificant to no costs or savings to state agencies will result as a consequence of the proposed action.

 

Impact on Housing Costs

 

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

 

Impact on Businesses

 

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

 

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses

 

The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. 

 

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

 

The proposal will not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state.

 

Costs or Savings to Local Agencies or School Districts Required to be Reimbursed

 

No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed.  See explanation under “Determination of Mandate.”

 

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

 

This proposal does not impose any significant nondiscretionary costs or savings on local agencies.

 

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

 

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulations do not impose a local mandate.  Therefore, reimbursement by the state is not required pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the proposed amendments will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal.  Furthermore, these regulations do not constitute a “new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.”

 

The California Supreme Court has established that a “program” within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state.  (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)

 

The proposed regulations do not require local agencies to carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public.  Rather, the regulations require local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only.  Moreover, the proposed regulations do not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health program.  (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)

 

The proposed regulations do not impose unique requirements on local governments.  All employers - state, local and private - will be required to comply with the prescribed standard.

 

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

 

The Board has determined that the proposed amendments may affect small businesses.

 

ASSESSMENT

 

The adoption of the proposed amendment to these regulations will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California.

 

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

 

Our Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.

 

 


 

 

A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

 

2.

TITLE 8:

GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY ORDERS
Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 107

Section 5154.1

Ventilation Requirements for Laboratory-Type Hood Operations



INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

 

Existing Section 5154.1, Ventilation Requirements for Laboratory-Type Hood Operations, provides minimum requirements for the protection of employees when laboratory-type hoods are used to prevent harmful exposure.  Section 5154.1 specifies minimum ventilation and performance requirements, limitations on the use of laboratory-type hoods, and several specific requirements related to concentrations of flammable materials in the hood and duct, hazards associated with the exhaust stack, blowers, biological contaminants, use with perchloric acid, placarding of deficient hoods, devices used to indicate airflow, and a requirement that the inward flow into the hood be demonstrated.

 

The objectives of the proposed revisions to Section 5154.1 are to improve the performance of laboratory-type fume hoods when they are used to control harmful exposure to toxic materials or the potential risk of fire and explosion.  Labor Code Section 144.6 requires the Board to adopt standards for toxic materials that assure that no employee suffers material impairment or loss of functional capacity from exposure to such materials.  Laboratory-type hoods are used to control the extent to which employees are exposed to toxic materials and the risk of fire and explosion.  Section 5154.1 is intended to place requirements on the use and performance of laboratory-type hoods that makes the hoods effective as devices to control these hazards.  Other changes are proposed that will clarify existing requirements, but not substantively change them. 

 

Changes are proposed to the current definitions of the terms “hazardous substance” and “laboratory-type hood” in subsection (b).  The change to the term “hazardous substance” is intended to clarify that hazardous substances are those likely to cause injury or illness in the form and manner used, and not substantively alter the meaning of the term.  The term “laboratory-type hood” is changed to indicate that laboratory-type hoods are used to contain hazardous substances as compared with the current description as a device in which they are used.  This change is intended to make the definition of “laboratory-type hood” consistent with the change to the term “hazardous substance.” 

 

Subsection (c), Ventilation Rates, is changed by adding an option to operate the laboratory-type hood at a reduced average face velocity of 60 fpm if the hood is not being accessed by an operator and other specified conditions are met.  The effect of this change will be to provide a reduced ventilation rate while not compromising the ability of the laboratory-type hood to contain the hazardous substances in the hood.  A non-substantive change is also proposed to change the current velocity units from “linear feet per minute” to “feet per minute”.  This change will make the velocity unit consistent with the units used in other ventilation standards.

 

The requirement in subsection (e)(2) to install sash closure restrictions is changed to permit hoods to operate without a permanent sash stop, provided other openings into the hood such as the space under an airfoil are sufficient to ventilate the hood for explosion control.  The effect of this change will be to eliminate the need for installing unnecessary sash stops in these cases.

 

The requirements in subsection (e)(3) are changed by replacing the current requirement for a qualitative airflow indicator to a requirement for a quantitative indicator.  The requirement for inward airflow demonstration is changed to reference a specific procedure for airflow demonstration and velocity measurement and that this demonstration is required to be conducted on an annual basis, as well as at installation, repairs or renovation, and the addition of large equipment into the hood.  The change includes an exception permitting biannual airflow demonstration and velocity measurement if a calibration and maintenance program is in place for the quantitative indicator.  The effect of this change will be to provide the hood user with a means of detecting changes in the airflow into the hood which cannot be detected with qualitative indicators, and which can cause significant reduction in the ability of the hood to control harmful exposure.  The effect of the requirement for a specific procedure to demonstrate inward airflow on an annual basis will be to improve the reliability of the airflow demonstration to detect hoods with inadequate capture and containment characteristics initially and over time.

 

The requirement at subsection (e)(7) specifying construction materials is changed to include references to more recent polymer materials which are suitable for construction of laboratory-hoods that are used in perchloric acid evaporation processes.  This change is not intended to substantively alter the current requirement.  The effect of this change is to reduce uncertainty when these more recent materials are used.

 

The proposal adds a new subsection regarding hood operator qualifications.  The subsection requires that employers take steps to ensure that employees understand the functional characteristics of the hood and are able to use the hood safely.  The subsection requires that the employees be familiar with the performance testing requirements for the hood and can determine when the hood was last tested.  The effect of this change will be to reduce the risk that employees use laboratory-type hoods in an unsafe manner, the employee is unaware that required performance tests have not been performed, or that the hood is currently operating in an unsafe manner.

 

These amendments to Title 8 CCR Section 5154.1 are proposed pursuant the authority granted to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board in Labor Code Section 142.3.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

         Section 6, Flow Visualization and Velocity Procedure, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995, Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods.

 

         Section 7, Tracer Gas Test Procedure, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., ANSI/ASHRAE 110-1995, Method of Testing Performance of Laboratory Fume Hoods.

 

These documents are too cumbersome or impractical to publish in Title 8.  Therefore, it is proposed to incorporate the documents by reference.  Copies of these documents are available for review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Standards Board Office located at 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, California.

 

COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

 

Costs or Savings to State Agencies

 

No significant costs or savings to state agencies will result as a consequence of the proposed action.  The change proposed to subsection (e)(3) will require the installation of a quantitative airflow indicator on those hoods without such indicators.  A representative of a major laboratory hood manufacturer attended several advisory committee meetings and estimated that the majority of hoods installed in the last 5 to 7 years had installed flow indicators.  He also estimated that approximately 50% of hoods older than this had installed indicators.  The cost for the indicator is the sum of the components’ cost and labor cost for installation.  Simple diaphragm gages, inclined manometers, and vane indicators with installation kits range from $22 to $70.  Labor costs are estimated to range from $50 to $100 per hour and installation time one to three hours.  The estimated one time costs for this indicator is therefore between $72 and $370.  Subsection (e)(3) is also changed to require a specific procedure for airflow demonstration and velocity measurement and this demonstration is required to be conducted on an annual basis, as well as at installation, repairs or renovation, and the addition of large equipment into the hood.  The change includes a “note” permitting biannual airflow demonstration and airflow measurement if a calibration and maintenance program is in place for the quantitative indicator.  The change will require both small and gross smoke challenges on an annual or biannual basis.  The cost associated with this is the sum of the costs of the smoke generating equipment and labor for performing the test.  The equipment costs are estimated at approximately $7 and the labor between $50 and $100 for the test.  The cost estimate is therefore between $57 and $107.

 

Impact on Housing Costs

 

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

 

Impact on Businesses

 

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

 

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses

 

The Board is not aware of any significant cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.  The change proposed to subsection (e)(3) will require the installation of a quantitative airflow indicator on those hoods without such indicators.  A representative of a major laboratory hood manufacturer attended several advisory committee meetings and estimated that the majority of hoods installed in the last 5 to 7 years had installed flow indicators.  He also estimated that approximately 50% of hoods older than this had installed indicators.  The cost for the indicator is the sum of the components’ cost and labor cost for installation.  Simple diaphragm gages, inclined manometers, and vane indicators with installation kits range from $22 to $70.  Labor costs are estimated to range from $50 to $100 per hour and installation time one to three hours.  The estimated one time costs for this indicator is therefore between $72 and $370.  Subsection (e)(3) is also changed to require a specific procedure for airflow demonstration and velocity measurement and this demonstration is required to be conducted on an annual basis, as well as at installation, repairs or renovation, and the addition of large equipment into the hood.  The change includes an exception permitting biannual airflow demonstration and airflow measurement if a calibration and maintenance program is in place for the quantitative indicator.  The change will require both small and gross smoke challenges on an annual or biannual basis.  The cost associated with this is the sum of the costs of the smoke generating equipment and labor for performing the test.  The equipment costs are estimated at approximately $7 and the labor between $50 and $100 for the test.  The cost estimate is therefore between $57 and $107.

 

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

 

The proposal will not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state.

 

Costs or Savings to Local Agencies or School Districts Required to be Reimbursed

 

No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed.  See explanation under “Determination of Mandate.”

 

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

 

This proposal does not impose a significant nondiscretionary costs or savings on local agencies.

 

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

 

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulation does not impose a local mandate.  Therefore, reimbursement by the state is not required pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because this regulation does not constitute a “new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.”

 

The California Supreme Court has established that a “program” within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state.  (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)

 

The proposed regulation does not require local agencies to carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public.  Rather, the regulation requires local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only.  Moreover, the proposed regulation does not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health program.  (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)

 

The proposed regulation does not impose unique requirements on local governments.  All employers - state, local and private - will be required to comply with the prescribed standard.

 

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

 

The Board has determined that the proposed amendments may affect small businesses.

 

ASSESSMENT

 

The adoption of the proposed amendments to this regulation will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California.

 

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

 

Our Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.

 

The above proposals do not contain building standards as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 18909. 

 

A copy of the proposed changes in STRIKEOUT/UNDERLINE format is available upon request made to the Occupational Safety and Health Standard Board’s Office, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA  95833, (916) 274-5721.  Copies will also be available at the Public Hearing.

 

An INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS containinga statement of the purpose and factual basis for the proposed actions, identification of the technical documents relied upon, and a description of any identified alternatives has been prepared and is available upon request from the Standards Board’s Office.

 

Notice is also given that any interested person may present statements or arguments orally or in writing at the hearing on the proposed changes under consideration.  It is requested, but not required, that written comments be submitted so that they are received no later than May 16, 2003.  The official record of the rulemaking proceedings will be closed at the conclusion of the public hearing and written comments received after 5:00 p.m. on May 22, 2003 will not be considered by the Board unless the Board announces an extension of time in which to submit written comments.  Written comments should be mailed to the address provided below or submitted by fax at (916) 274-5743 or e-mailed at oshsb@hq.dir.ca.gov.  The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board may thereafter adopt the above proposal substantially as set forth without further notice. 

 

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board's rulemaking file on the proposed actions including all the information upon which the proposals are based are open to public inspection Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Standards Board's Office, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833.

 

The full text of proposed changes, including any changes or modifications that may be made as a result of the public hearing, shall be available from the Executive Officer 15 days prior to the date on which the Standards Board adopts the proposed changes.

 

Inquiries concerning either the proposed administrative action or the substance of the proposed changes may be directed to John D. MacLeod, Executive Officer, or Michael Manieri, Principal Safety Engineer,at (916) 274-5721. 

 

You can access the Board’s notice and other materials associated with this proposal on the Standards Board’s homepage/website address which is http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb.  Once the Final Statement of Reasons is prepared, it may be obtained by accessing the Board’s website or by calling the telephone number listed above.