Request for Clarification of 29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(6)

Standard Number: 1910.1025

January 13, 1995

This memorandum is in response to the request from Health & Safety Management, Inc. of Beaumont, Texas. Based upon their preventative maintenance work described in the original correspondence three questions were posed. Each is addressed below:

1. Is it necessary to conduct a personal monitoring program?

Yes. As long as the previous personal monitoring showed an exposure above the action level or permissible exposure limit (PEL), monitoring would have to be conducted every six months and quarterly, respectively. As you are aware, the air monitoring requirement is necessary for the employer to assure an adequate level of respiratory protection for the workers.

2. Is it necessary to continue the medical monitoring program?

No. Under paragraph (j)(1) of the lead standard, workers must be exposed to airborne lead above the action limit for 30 days or more each year to be covered by this section. This answer assumes that the workers are not exposed to lead above the action limit except when they are involved in this preventative maintenance work.

3. If the quarterly preventative maintenance procedures were increased from four to six or eight times per year, would the answers to the first two change?

No.

I hope this provides a satisfactory answer to your inquiry. If we can provide any further assistance please contact Richard Fairfax of my staff at (202) 219-8036.

December 23, 1994

The attached request from Health & Safety Management, Inc., Beaumont, Texas, dated October 31, 1994, was referred by our Houston South Area Office. This inquiry is forwarded for your review and response since the questions raised could have national implications. This company's client operates world-wide.

The standard indicates frequency of monitoring based on level of exposure. However, these levels vary from below the action level to four times the PEL over short periods of time. Attempts to apply the guidelines in this standard create problems in compliance. The employees are well protected as indicated by blood lead and ZPP levels.

Please provide a copy of your response to Jerry Bailey, Assistant Regional Administrator for Technical Support.

GILBERT J. SAULTER
Regional Administrator

Attachments

December 23, 1994

Mr. Richard P. Griffin
Health & Safety Management, Inc.
1245 West Cardinal
Drive Beaumont, Texas 77705

Dear Mr. Griffin:

This refers to your request dated October 31, 1994, for clarification of 29 CFR 1910.1025(d)(6) which was addressed to our Houston South Area Office.

Your inquiry has been referred to the Directorate of Compliance Programs, Washington, D. C., for response. You should hear from that office soon.

If we may be of further assistance, please advise.

Sincerely,

GILBERT J. SAULTER
Regional Administrator

December 12, 1994

The attached is submitted for your review and action.

RAYMOND L. SKINNER AREA DIRECTOR

October 31, 1994

Mr. Ray Skinner
U.S. Department of Labor - OSHA
17625 El Camino Real, Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77058

Dear Mr. Skinner:

Thank you for taking your time to discuss my questions concerning 29 CFR 1910.1025 - Lead. You indicated that if I would put the scenario in general terms, you would attempt to obtain an answer for me in writing.

As we discussed, I have a client who has a potential exposure to Lead during a preventative maintenance" procedure. This procedure now takes place quarterly and lasts for just a few hours per employee. Results of extensive personal monitoring has varied from less than 30 ug/m(3) to less than 200 ug/m(3) based on an 8-hour TWA. All feasible engineering controls are in place and the employees are wearing Powered Air Purifying Respirators (PAPRs) equipped with HEPA filters. All medical test data indicates blood Lead levels < 40 ug/100 grams and ZPP levels < 50 ug/100 grams. My questions are these:

1. Is it necessary to continue the personal monitoring program?

2. Is it necessary to continue the medical monitoring program?

3. If the quarterly preventative maintenance procedures were increased from four times per year to six or eight times per year, would the answers to the first two questions change?

Any information that you can give me on this issue would certainly be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Richard P. Griffin, CIH
CSP President