Johns-Manville Corporation

Plain-English summary

Johns-Manville employees removed asbestos insulation from hot gas ducts without Type C supplied-air respirators and special clothing. The judge had required proof that asbestos exposure exceeded the standard's numerical limits. Applying intervening precedent, the Commission held that all employees engaged in asbestos removal had to use the specified respiratory and protective equipment regardless of measured exposure levels. It reversed the judge, affirmed a serious violation, and assessed the parties' stipulated $245 penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1001(c)(2)(iii)
• Outcome: Judge's vacation reversed; serious asbestos PPE violation affirmed and $245 penalty assessed.
• Key point: The asbestos removal work-practice rule required specified PPE without separate proof that airborne exposure limits were exceeded.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 78-2419

JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION

OSHRC Docket No. 78-2419

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

June 24, 1981

�
[*1]
�

Before: CLEARY and COTTINE, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Bobbye D. Spears, Reg. Sol., USDOL

James K. Green, Johns-Manville Corporation, for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

A decision of Administrative Law Judge J. Paul Brenton is before the Commission pursuant to section 12(j), 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i), of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. � �
�
651-678 (the "Act").
�
The judge vacated a citation issued by the Secretary of Labor (the "Secretary") alleging that Johns-Manville Corporation (the "Respondent") failed to require its employees to wear appropriate personal protective equipment during the removal of asbestos insulation from hot gas ducts in violation of the standard at 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.1001(c)(2)(iii). n1

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 The standard provides, in pertinent part:

�
�
1910.1001 Asbestos.

(c) Methods of compliance -

(2) Work practices -

(iii) Spraying, demolition, or removal. Employees engaged in the spraying of asbestos, the removal, or demolition of pipes, structures, or equipment covered or insulated with asbestos, and in the removal or demolition of asbestos insulation or coverings shall be provided with respiratory equipment in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section and with special clothing in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

The standards referenced in �
�
1910.1001(c)(2)(iii) provide, in pertinent part:

�
�
1910.1001 Asbestos.

(d) Personal protective equipment -

(2)(iii) Type "C" supplied-air respirators, continuous flow or pressure-demand class. A type "C" continuous flow or pressure-demand, supplied-air respirator shall be used to reduce the concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers in the respirator below the exposure limits prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, when the ceiling or the 8-hour time-weighted average airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers are reasonably expected to exceed 100 times those limits.

(3) Special Clothing: The employer shall provide, and require the use of, special clothing, such as coveralls or similar whole body clothing, head coverings, gloves, and foot coverings for any employee exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers, which exceed the ceiling level prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section.

�
[*2]
�

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Commissioner Cleary granted the Secretary's petition for review and directed review of the judge's decision on all of the issues raised in the petition, including the following issue:

Whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that complainant must show that Respondent's employees were exposed to asbestos in excess of the limits of 29 CFR �
�
1910.1001(b) in order to prove a violation of 29 CFR �
�
1910.1001(c)(2)(iii).

The Commission recently addressed the issue presented in this case in Anaconda Aluminum Co., 81 OSAHRC    , 9 BNA OSHD 1460, 1981 CCH OSHD P25,300 (No. 13102, 1981).
�
The Commission held that it was error to limit "the applicability of section 1910.1001(c)(2)(iii) to those situations in which the exposure limits referred to in paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (d)(3) are exceeded," and that all employees engaged in the spraying, demolition, or removal of asbestos must use type "C" supplied air respirators and special clothing. 9 BNA OSHD at 1480, 1981 CCH OSHC at p. 31,352.
�
Because Respondent's employees were removing asbestos insulation without using such equipment, Respondent [*3]
�
failed to comply with section 1910.1001(c)(2)(iii).

Accordingly, we set aside that portion of the judge's decision dealing with this issue and affirm a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.1001(c)(2)(iii).
�
The parties agreed at the hearing that an appropriate penalty for this violation, if found, is $245.
�
After considering the penalty factors set out in section 17(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i), we assess a penalty of $245.
�
SO ORDERED.
�