Traylor Bros., Inc., Application for Permanent Variance and Interim Order; Grant of Interim Order; Request for Comments, 44386-44398 [2015-18319]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44386
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC, on July 22,
2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015–18320 Filed 7–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[Docket No. OSHA–2012–0035]
Traylor Bros., Inc., Application for
Permanent Variance and Interim Order;
Grant of Interim Order; Request for
Comments
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In this notice, OSHA
announces the application of Traylor
Bros., Inc., for a permanent variance and
interim order from the provisions of
OSHA standards that regulate work in
compressed-air environments at 29 CFR
1926.803 and presents the Agency’s
preliminary finding to grant the
permanent variance. OSHA also
announces its grant of an interim order
in this notice. OSHA invites the public
to submit comments on the variance
application to assist the Agency in
determining whether to grant the
applicant a permanent variance based
on the conditions specified in this
application.
SUMMARY:
Submit comments, information,
documents in response to this notice,
and request for a hearing on or before
August 26, 2015. The interim order
specified by this notice becomes
effective on July 27, 2015, and shall
remain in effect until the interim order
is modified or revoked.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of
the following methods:
1. Electronically: Submit comments
and attachments electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, which is
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for making
electronic submissions.
2. Facsimile: If submissions,
including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax
them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693–1648.
3. Regular or express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger (courier) service:
Submit comments, requests, and any
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA–2012–0035,
Technical Data Center, U.S. Department
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N–2625, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693–2350 (TDY
number: (877) 889–5627). Note that
security procedures may result in
significant delays in receiving
comments and other written materials
by regular mail. Contact the OSHA
Docket Office for information about
security procedures concerning delivery
of materials by express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The
hours of operation for the OSHA Docket
Office are 8:15 a.m.–4:45 p.m., e.t.
4. Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and the OSHA
docket number (OSHA–2012–0035).
OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal
information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials
will be available online at https://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the
Agency cautions commenters about
submitting statements they do not want
made available to the public, or
submitting comments that contain
personal information (either about
themselves or others) such as Social
Security numbers, birth dates, and
medical data.
5. Docket: To read or download
submissions or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All documents in the
docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index; however,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the Web site.1
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection at
the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
6. Extension of Comment Period:
Submit requests for an extension of the
comment period on or before August 26,
2015 to the Office of Technical
Programs and Coordination Activities,
Variance Program, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency
Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210,
or by fax to (202) 693–1644.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank
Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of
1 Traylor indicated that the decompression tables
it intends to use for decompression with trimix are
proprietary. Therefore, these tables are not available
in the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N–3647, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693–1999; email:
Meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
General and technical information:
Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson, Director,
Office of Technical Programs and
Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency
Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N–3655, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693–2110; email:
Robinson.kevin@dol.gov. OSHA’s Web
page includes information about the
Variance Program (see https://
www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/variances/
index.html).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Copies of this Federal Register
notice. Electronic copies of this Federal
Register notice are available at https://
www.regulations.gov. This Federal
Register notice, as well as news releases
and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA’s Web page at https://
www.osha.gov.
Hearing Requests. According to 29
CFR 1905.15, hearing requests must
include: (1) A short and plain statement
detailing how the proposed variance
would affect the requesting party; (2) a
specification of any statement or
representation in the variance
application that the commenter denies,
and a concise summary of the evidence
adduced in support of each denial; and
(3) any views or arguments on any issue
of fact or law presented in the variance
application.
I. Notice of Application
On April 26, 2012, Traylor Bros., Inc.,
835 N. Congress Ave., Evansville, IN
47715, and Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee
Joint Venture, Blue Plains Tunnel, 5000
Overlook SW., Washington, DC 20032,
submitted under Section 6(d) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (‘‘OSH Act’’; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29
CFR 1905.11 (‘‘Variances and other
relief under section 6(d)’’), an
application for a permanent variance
from several provisions of the OSHA
standard that regulates work in
compressed air at 29 CFR 1926.803.
OSHA is addressing this request as two
separate applications: (1) Traylor Bros.,
Inc. (‘‘Traylor’’ or ‘‘the applicant’’)
request for a permanent variance for
future tunneling projects; and (2)
Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture,
Blue Plains Tunnel (‘‘Traylor JV’’). This
notice only addresses the Traylor
application for an interim order and
permanent variance for future tunneling
projects. This notice does not address
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the Traylor JV application for the Blue
Plains Tunnel Project, which OSHA
granted on March 27, 2015 (80 FR
16440).
Specifically, this notice addresses
Traylor’s application for a permanent
variance and interim order, applicable
to future tunneling projects, from the
provisions of the standard that: (1)
Prohibit compressed-air worker (CAW)
exposure to pressures exceeding 50
pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) except in
an emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5)); 2
(2) require the use of the decompression
values specified in decompression
tables in Appendix A of the
compressed-air standard for
construction (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1));
and (3) require the use of automated
operational controls and a special
decompression chamber (29 CFR
1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii),
respectively).
The applicant is a contractor that
works on complex tunnel projects using
recently developed equipment and
procedures for soft-ground tunneling.
The applicant’s workers engage in the
construction of tunnels using advanced
shielded mechanical excavation
techniques in conjunction with an earth
pressure balanced tunnel boring
machine (EPBTBM).
According to its application, Traylor
is likely to be the sole contractor, as
well as the general contractor in
association with future Joint Venture
partners for the construction of future
tunnels at various sites throughout the
nation. Traylor asserts that generally, it
bores tunnels (i.e., Blue Plains, as well
as future tunnels) below the water table
through soft soils consisting of clay, silt,
and sand.
Traylor employs specially trained
personnel for the construction of the
tunnel, and states that this construction
will use shielded mechanicalexcavation techniques. Traylor asserts
that its workers perform hyperbaric
interventions at pressures greater than
50 p.s.i.g. in the excavation chamber of
the EPBTBM; these interventions
consist of conducting inspections and
maintenance work on the cutter-head
structure and cutting tools of the
EPBTBM.
Traylor asserts that innovations in
tunnel excavation, specifically with
EPBTBMs, have, in most cases,
eliminated the need to pressurize the
2 The decompression tables in Appendix A of
subpart S express the maximum working pressures
as pounds per square inch gauge (p.s.i.g.), with a
maximum working pressure of 50 p.s.i.g. Therefore,
throughout this notice, OSHA expresses the 50 p.s.i.
value specified by § 1926.803(e)(5) as 50 p.s.i.g.,
consistent with the terminology in Appendix A,
Table 1 of subpart S.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
entire tunnel. This technology negates
the requirement that all members of a
tunnel-excavation crew work in
compressed air while excavating the
tunnel. These advances in technology
modified substantially the methods
used by the construction industry to
excavate subaqueous tunnels compared
to the caisson work regulated by the
current OSHA compressed-air standard
for construction at 29 CFR 1926.803.
Such advances reduce the number of
workers exposed, and the total duration
of exposure to hyperbaric pressure
during tunnel construction.
Using shielded mechanicalexcavation techniques, in conjunction
with precast concrete tunnel liners and
backfill grout, EPBTBMs provide
methods to achieve the face pressures
required to maintain a stabilized tunnel
face through various geologies, and
isolate that pressure to the forward
section (the working chamber) of the
EPBTBM. Interventions in the working
chamber (the pressurized portion of the
EPBTBM) take place only after halting
tunnel excavation and preparing the
machine and crew for an intervention.
Interventions occur to inspect or
maintain the mechanical-excavation
components located in the working
chamber. Maintenance conducted in the
working chamber includes changing
replaceable cutting tools and disposable
wear bars, and, in rare cases, repairing
structural damage to the cutter head.
In addition to innovations in tunnelexcavation methods, Traylor asserts that
innovations in hyperbaric medicine and
technology improve the safety of
decompression from hyperbaric
exposures. According to Traylor, the use
of decompression protocols
incorporating oxygen is more efficient,
effective, and safer for tunnel workers
than compliance with the
decompression tables specified by the
existing OSHA standard (29 CFR 1926,
subpart S, Appendix A decompression
tables). These hyperbaric exposures are
made safe by advances in technology, a
better understanding of hyperbaric
medicine, and the development of a
project-specific Hyperbaric Operations
Manual (HOM) that requires specialized
medical support and hyperbaric
supervision to provide assistance to a
team of specially trained man lock
attendants and hyperbaric workers or
CAWs.
OSHA initiated a technical review of
the Traylor’s variance application and
developed a set of follow-up questions
that it sent to Traylor on September 17,
2012 (Ex. OSHA–2012–0035–0003). On
October 26, 2012, Traylor submitted its
response and a request for an interim
order for the Blue Plains Tunnel Project,
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44387
as well as future projects (Ex. OSHA–
2012–0035–0013). In its response to
OSHA’s follow-up questions, Traylor
indicated that the maximum pressure to
which it is likely to expose workers
during future project interventions is 75
p.s.i.g and may involve the use of trimix
breathing gas (composed of a mixture of
oxygen, nitrogen, and helium in varying
concentrations used for breathing by
divers and CAWs for compression and
decompression when working at
pressures exceeding 73 p.s.i.g.).
Therefore, to work effectively on future
projects, Traylor must perform
hyperbaric interventions in compressed
air at pressures higher than the
maximum pressure specified by the
existing OSHA standard, 29 CFR
1926.803(e)(5), which states: ‘‘No
employee shall be subjected to pressure
exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. except in
emergency’’ (see footnote 2).
On July 11, 2013, OSHA granted
Traylor JV a project-specific interim
order for the completion of the Blue
Plains Tunnel in order to permit the
applicant to begin work while OSHA
continued to consider its application for
a permanent variance (for Traylor JV’s
completion of the Blue Plains Tunnel,
as well as Traylor’s future tunneling
projects). On December 11, 2014, OSHA
published a Federal Register notice
announcing Traylor JV’s application for
permanent variance and interim order,
grant of an interim order, and request
for comments (79 FR 73631). The
comment period expired on January 12,
2015. OSHA did not receive any
comments on the proposed variance. As
noted above, on March 27, 2015, OSHA
published the Federal Register notice
announcing the grant of a permanent
variance to Traylor JV for completion of
the Blue Plains Tunnel (80 FR 16440).
During its consideration of the Blue
Plains variance, OSHA continued its
technical review of the Traylor’s
variance application focusing on the
proposed use of trimix breathing gas
(proposed for use in future tunneling
projects at pressures exceeding 73
p.s.i.g.) and developed a second set of
follow-up questions that it sent to
Traylor on December 18, 2013 (Ex.
OSHA–2012–0035–0002). On January
21, 2014, Traylor submitted its response
(Ex. OSHA–2012–0035–0009). In its
response to OSHA’s follow-up
questions, Traylor provided additional
technical and scientific information
concerning successful trimix use on
tunneling projects throughout the
United States, as well as in Europe and
Asia. Additionally, Traylor reaffirmed
that the maximum pressure to which it
is likely to expose workers during
interventions for future tunneling
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
44388
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
projects is 75 p.s.i.g. and may involve
the use of trimix breathing gas.
In reviewing Traylor’s application for
future tunneling projects, OSHA
focused on the following important
considerations:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
• Variances are granted only to specific
employers that submitted a properly
completed and executed variance
application. Traylor has met this requirement
(for the single employer application);
• This notice announces only Traylor’s
(single employer) application for a variance
dealing with future projects. It does not
address Traylor’s future hyperbaric tunneling
projects in association with unnamed joint
venture partners;
• Proposed variance conditions require
Traylor to submit for OSHA’s review and
approval a project-specific HOM at least one
year prior to the start of work on any future
project;
• The proposed variance conditions
require the HOM to demonstrate that the
EPBTBM to be used on the project is
designed, fabricated, inspected, tested,
marked, and stamped in accordance with the
requirements of ASME PVHO–1.2012 (or
most recent edition of Safety Standards for
Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy) for
the TBM’s hyperbaric chambers.
• This condition ensures that each
proposed future tunneling project can be
comprehensively reviewed on a case-by-case
basis prior to OSHA granting its approval to
Traylor to proceed with its new project;
• Traylor may not begin hyperbaric
interventions at pressures exceeding 50
p.s.i.g. until OSHA completes its review of
the project-specific HOM and determines that
the safety and health instructions and
measures it specifies would be appropriate,
would comply with the conditions of the
variance, would adequately protect the safety
and health of CAWs, and so notifies the
applicant; and
• Traylor will be required to submit new
applications requesting modification of its
single employer variance and approval of its
project-specific HOM [with sufficient lead
time (at least one year prior to start of work
on any future project), to allow OSHA to
complete the variance modification process],
upon forming any future joint ventures.
Further, on December 6, 2012, OSHA
published a Federal Register notice (77
FR 72781) announcing a request for
information (RFI) for its continuing
regulatory reviews named standards
improvement projects (SIPs). The
Agency conducted similar regulatory
reviews of its existing standards
previously and issued this latest RFI to
initiate another of these regulatory
reviews, and naming this review the
Standards Improvement Project—Phase
IV (SIP–IV). The purpose of SIP–IV is to
improve and streamline OSHA
standards by removing or revising
requirements that are confusing or
outdated, or that duplicate, or are
inconsistent with other standards.
Additionally, the regulatory review also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
is designed to reduce regulatory burden
while maintaining or enhancing
employees’ safety and health. SIP–IV
will focus primarily on OSHA’s
construction standards.
As part of SIP–IV, OSHA is
considering updating the
decompression tables in Appendix A
(1926.803(f)(1)) (77 FR 72783). This
proposed action would permit
employers to use decompression
procedures and updated decompression
tables that take advantage of new
hyperbaric technologies used widely in
extreme hyperbaric exposures. If the
planned SIP–IV revises Appendix A,
Traylor (and similar tunneling
contractors previously granted a
variance) will still require hyperbaric
tunneling variances to address portions
of the standard not covered by SIP–IV
(i.e., 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5);
.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii)).
If SIP–IV is completed (including the
update of the decompression tables in
Appendix A (1926.803(f)(1)), OSHA will
modify Traylor’s (single employer) and
similar variances granted to other
employers to include the applicable
SIP–IV provisions as appropriate.
OSHA considered Traylor’s
application for a permanent variance
and interim order for future tunneling
projects. OSHA determined that Traylor
proposed an alternative that will
provide a workplace at least as safe and
healthful as that provided by the
standard.
II. The Variance Application
A. Background
Traylor asserts that the advances in
tunnel excavation technology described
in Section I of this notice modified
significantly the equipment and
methods used by contractors to
construct subaqueous tunnels, thereby
making several provisions of OSHA’s
compressed-air standard for
construction at 29 CFR 1926.803
inappropriate for this type of work.
These advances reduce both the number
of workers exposed, and the total
duration of exposure to the hyperbaric
conditions associated with tunnel
construction.
Using shielded mechanicalexcavation techniques, in conjunction
with pre-cast concrete tunnel liners and
backfill grout, EPBTBMs provide
methods to achieve the face pressures
required to maintain a stabilized tunnel
face, through various geologies, while
isolating that pressure to the forward
section (working or excavation chamber)
of the EPBTBM.
Interventions involving the working
chamber (the pressurized chamber at the
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
head of the EPBTBM) take place only
after the applicant halts tunnel
excavation and prepares the machine
and crew for an intervention.
Interventions occur to inspect or
maintain the mechanical-excavation
components located in the forward
portion of the working chamber.
Maintenance conducted in the forward
portion of the working chamber
includes changing replaceable cutting
tools, disposable wear bars, and, in rare
cases, repairs to the cutter head due to
structural damage.
In addition to innovations in tunnelexcavation methods, research conducted
after OSHA published its compressedair standard for construction in 1971,
resulted in advances in hyperbaric
medicine. In this regard, the applicant
asserts that the use of decompression
protocols incorporating oxygen and
trimix is more efficient, effective, and
safer for tunnel workers than
compliance with the existing OSHA
standard (29 CFR 1926, subpart S,
Appendix A decompression tables).
According to the applicant, contractors
routinely and safely expose employees
performing interventions in the working
chamber of EPBTBMs to hyperbaric
pressures up to 75 p.s.i.g., which is 50%
higher than maximum pressure
specified by the existing OSHA standard
(see 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5)).
The applicant contends that the
alternative safety measures included in
its application provide its workers with
a place of employment that is at least as
safe and healthful as they would obtain
under the existing provisions of OSHA’s
compressed-air standard for
construction. The applicant certifies
that it provided employee
representatives of affected workers with
a copy of the variance application.3 The
applicant also certifies that it notified its
workers of the variance application by
posting at prominent locations where it
normally posts workplace notices, a
summary of the application and
information specifying where the
workers can examine a copy of the
application. In addition, the applicant
informed its workers and their
representatives of their rights to petition
the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health for a
hearing on the variance application.
B. Variance From Paragraph (e)(5) of 29
CFR 1926.803, Prohibition of Exposure
to Pressure Greater Than 50 p.s.i.g. (see
Footnote 1)
The applicant states that it may
perform hyperbaric interventions at
3 See the definition of ‘‘Affected employee or
worker’’ in section III. D.
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g. in the
working chamber of the EPBTBM; this
pressure exceeds the pressure limit of
50 p.s.i.g. specified for nonemergency
purposes by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5). The
EPBTBM has twin man locks, with each
man lock having two compartments.
This configuration allows workers to
access the man locks for compression
and decompression, and medical
personnel to access the man locks if
required in an emergency.
EPBTBMs are capable of maintaining
pressure at the tunnel face, and
stabilizing existing geological
conditions, through the controlled use
of propel cylinders, a mechanically
driven cutter head, bulkheads within
the shield, ground-treatment foam, and
a screw conveyor that moves excavated
material from the working chamber. As
noted earlier, the forward-most portion
of the EPBTBM is the working chamber,
and this chamber is the only pressurized
segment of the EPBTBM. Within the
shield, the working chamber consists of
two sections: the staging chamber and
the forward working chamber. The
staging chamber is the section of the
working chamber between the man lock
door and the entry door to the forward
working chamber. The forward working
chamber is immediately behind the
cutter head and tunnel face.
The applicant will pressurize the
working chamber to the level required
to maintain a stable tunnel face.
Pressure in the staging chamber ranges
from atmospheric (no increased
pressure) to a maximum pressure equal
to the pressure in the working chamber.
The applicant asserts that most of the
hyperbaric interventions will be around
14.7 p.s.i.g. However, the applicant
maintains that they may have to perform
interventions at pressures up to 75
p.s.i.g.
During interventions, workers enter
the working chamber through one of the
twin man locks that open into the
staging chamber. To reach the forward
part of the working chamber, workers
pass through a door in a bulkhead that
separates the staging chamber from the
forward working chamber. The
maximum crew size allowed in the
forward working chamber is three. At
certain hyperbaric pressures (i.e., when
decompression times are greater than
work times), the twin man locks allow
for crew rotation. During crew rotation,
one crew can be compressing or
decompressing while the second crew is
working. Therefore, the working crew
always has an unoccupied man lock at
its disposal.
Further, the applicant asserts that it
will develop a project-specific HOM for
each future tunnel project that describes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
in detail the hyperbaric procedures and
required medical examinations used
during the planned tunnel-construction
project. The HOM will be projectspecific, and will discuss standard
operating procedures and emergency
and contingency procedures. The
procedures will include using
experienced and knowledgeable manlock attendants who have the training
and experience necessary to recognize
and treat decompression illnesses and
injuries. The attendants will be under
the direct supervision of the hyperbaric
supervisor and attending physician. In
addition, procedures will include
medical screening and review of
prospective CAWs. The purpose of this
screening procedure is to vet
prospective CAWs with medical
conditions (e.g., deep vein thrombosis,
poor vascular circulation, and muscle
cramping) that could be aggravated by
sitting in a cramped space (e.g., a man
lock) for extended periods or by
exposure to elevated pressures and
compressed gas mixtures. A
transportable recompression chamber
(shuttle) will be available to extract
workers from the hyperbaric working
chamber for emergency evacuation and
medical treatment; the shuttle attaches
to the topside medical lock, which is a
large recompression chamber. The
applicant believes that the procedures
included in the variance application
and in its project-specific HOM will
provide safe work conditions when
interventions are necessary, including
interventions above 50 p.s.i.g. OSHA
will comprehensively review the
project-specific HOM for each of
Traylor’s future projects prior to
granting its approval for Traylor to
proceed with its new project. Therefore,
Traylor may not begin hyperbaric
interventions at pressures exceeding 50
p.s.i.g. until OSHA completes its review
of the project-specific HOM and
determines that the safety and health
instructions and measures it specifies
would be appropriate, would conform
with the conditions in the variance, and
would adequately protect the safety and
health of the CAWs. OSHA will notify
the applicant that: (1) Its project-specific
HOM was found to be acceptable; and
(2) the applicant may begin hyperbaric
interventions at pressures exceeding 50
p.s.i.g. by complying fully with the
conditions of the interim order or
proposed variance (as an alternative to
complying with the requirements of the
standard).
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44389
C. Variance From Paragraph (f)(1) of 29
CFR 1926.803, Requirement To Use
OSHA Decompression Tables
OSHA’s compressed-air standard for
construction requires decompression in
accordance with the decompression
tables in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1926,
subpart S (see 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)).
As an alternative to the OSHA
decompression tables, the applicant
proposes to use newer decompression
schedules that supplement breathing air
used during decompression with air,
nitrox, or trimix (as appropriate). The
applicant asserts decompression
protocols using the 1992 French
Decompression Tables for air, nitrox, or
trimix as specified by the HOM are safer
for tunnel workers than the
decompression protocols specified in
Appendix A of 29 CFR 1926, subpart S.
Accordingly, the applicant proposes
to use the 1992 French Decompression
Tables to decompress CAWs after they
exit the hyperbaric conditions in the
working chamber. Also, Traylor
proposes to decompress with trimix gas,
under certain conditions specific to and
described in detail in the projectspecific HOM associated with each
future tunneling project. Depending on
the maximum working pressure and
exposure times, the 1992 French
Decompression Tables provide for air
decompression with or without oxygen
or trimix. Traylor asserts that using the
1992 French Decompression Tables for
air, nitrox, or trimix decompression has
many benefits, including (1) keeping the
partial pressure of nitrogen in the lungs
as low as possible; (2) keeping external
pressure as low as possible to reduce the
formation of bubbles in the blood; (3)
removing nitrogen from the lungs and
arterial blood and increasing the rate of
elimination of nitrogen; (4) improving
the quality of breathing during
decompression stops so that workers are
less tired and to prevent bone necrosis;
(5) reducing decompression time by
about 33 percent as compared to air
decompression; and (6) reducing
inflammation. Traylor asserts that the
1992 French Decompression Tables,
Appendix B provide for air
decompression with trimix
supplementation for staged
decompression for pressures ranging
from 58 to 75 p.s.i.g. As described in
Section IV of this notice, OSHA’s review
of the use of air, nitrox, or trimix in
several major tunneling projects
completed in the past indicates that it
contributed significantly to the
reduction of decompression illness
(DCI) and other associated adverse
effects observed and reported among
CAWs.
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
44390
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In addition, the project-specific HOM
will require a physician certified in
hyperbaric medicine to manage the
medical condition of CAWs during
hyperbaric exposures and
decompression. A trained and
experienced man-lock attendant also
will be present during hyperbaric
exposures and decompression. This
man lock attendant will operate the
hyperbaric system to ensure compliance
with the specified decompression table.
A hyperbaric supervisor (competent
person), trained in hyperbaric
operations, procedures, and safety, will
directly oversee all hyperbaric
interventions, and ensures that staff
follow the procedures delineated in the
HOM or by the attending physician.
The applicant asserts that at higher
hyperbaric pressures, decompression
times exceed 75 minutes. The variance
application and the project-specific
HOMs will establish protocols and
procedures that provide the basis for
alternate means of protection for CAWs
under these conditions. Accordingly,
based on these protocols and
procedures, the applicant requests to
use the 1992 French Decompression
Tables for hyperbaric interventions up
to 75 p.s.i.g. for future projects. The
applicant is committed to follow the
decompression procedures described in
its application and the project-specific
HOM during these interventions.
D. Variance From Paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of
29 CFR 1926.803, Automatically
Regulated Continuous Decompression
According to the applicant, breathing
air under hyperbaric conditions
increases the amount of nitrogen gas
dissolved in a CAW’s tissues. The
greater the hyperbaric pressure under
these conditions, and the more time
spent under the increased pressure, the
greater the amount of nitrogen gas
dissolved in the tissues. When the
pressure decreases during
decompression, tissues release the
dissolved nitrogen gas into the blood
system, which then carries the nitrogen
gas to the lungs for elimination through
exhalation. Releasing hyperbaric
pressure too rapidly during
decompression can increase the size of
the bubbles formed by nitrogen gas in
the blood system, resulting in DCI,
commonly referred to as ‘‘the bends.’’
This description of the etiology of DCI
is consistent with current scientific
theory and research on the issue (see
footnote 12 in this notice discussing a
1985 NIOSH report on DCI).
The 1992 French Decompression
Tables proposed for use by the applicant
provide for stops during worker
decompression (i.e., staged
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
decompression) to control the release of
nitrogen gas from tissues into the blood
system. Studies show that staged
decompression, in combination with
other features of the 1992 French
Decompression Tables such as the use
of oxygen, result in a lower incidence of
DCI than the OSHA decompression
requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803,
which specify the use of automatically
regulated continuous decompression
(see footnotes 10 through 18 in this
notice for references to these studies).4
In addition, the applicant asserts that
staged decompression is at least as
effective as an automatic controller in
regulating the decompression process
because:
1. A hyperbaric supervisor (a
competent person experienced and
trained in hyperbaric operations,
procedures, and safety) directly
supervises all hyperbaric interventions
and ensures that the man-lock
attendant, who is a competent person in
the manual control of hyperbaric
systems, follows the schedule specified
in the decompression tables, including
stops; and
2. The use of the 1992 French
Decompression Tables for staged
decompression offers an equal or better
level of management and control over
the decompression process than an
automatic controller and results in
lower occurrences of DCI.
Accordingly, the applicant is applying
for a permanent variance from the
OSHA standard at 29 CFR
1926.803(g)(1)(iii), which requires
automatic controls to regulate
decompression. As noted above, the
applicant is committed to conduct the
staged decompression according to the
1992 French Decompression Tables
under the direct control of the trained
4 In the study cited in footnote 10, starting at page
338, Dr. Eric Kindwall notes that the use of
automatically regulated continuous decompression
in the Washington State safety standards for
compressed-air work (from which OSHA derived its
decompression tables) was at the insistence of
contractors and the union, and against the advice
of the expert who calculated the decompression
table and recommended using staged
decompression. Dr. Kindwall then states,
‘‘Continuous decompression is inefficient and
wasteful. For example, if the last stage from 4 psig
. . . to the surface took 1 h, at least half the time
is spent at pressures less than 2 psig . . ., which
provides less and less meaningful bubble
suppression . . . .’’ In addition, the report
referenced in footnote 5 under the section titled,
‘‘Background on the Need for Interim
Decompression Tables’’ addresses the continuousdecompression protocol in the OSHA compressedair standard for construction, noting that ‘‘[a]side
from the tables for saturation diving to deep depths,
no other widely used or officially approved diving
decompression tables use straight line, continuous
decompressions at varying rates. Stage
decompression is usually the rule, since it is
simpler to control.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
man-lock attendant and under the
oversight of the hyperbaric supervisor.
E. Variance From Paragraph (g)(1)(xvii)
of 29 CFR 1926.803, Requirement of
Special Decompression Chamber
The OSHA compressed-air standard
for construction requires employers to
use a special decompression chamber of
sufficient size to accommodate all
CAWs being decompressed at the end of
the shift when total decompression time
exceeds 75 minutes (see 29 CFR
1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)). Use of the special
decompression chamber enables CAWs
to move about and flex their joints to
prevent neuromuscular problems during
decompression.
As an alternative to using a special
decompression chamber, the applicant
notes that since only the working
chamber of the EPBTBM is under
pressure, and only a few workers out of
the entire crew are exposed to
hyperbaric pressure, the man locks
(which, as noted earlier, connect
directly to the working chamber) and
the staging chamber are of sufficient size
to accommodate the exposed workers
during decompression. In addition,
space limitations in the EPBTBM do not
allow for the installation and use of an
additional special decompression lock
or chamber. Again, the applicant uses
the existing man locks, each of which
adequately accommodates a threemember crew for this purpose when
decompression lasts up to 75 minutes.
When decompression exceeds 75
minutes, crews can open the door
connecting the two compartments in
each man lock (during decompression
stops) or exit the man lock and move
into the staging chamber where
additional space is available. The
applicant asserts that this alternative
arrangement is as effective as a special
decompression chamber in that it has
sufficient space for all the CAWs at the
end of a shift and enables the CAWs to
move about and flex their joints to
prevent neuromuscular problems.
F. Previous Tunnel Construction
Variances
OSHA notes that on May 23, 2014, it
granted a sub-aqueous tunnel
construction permanent variance to
Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture (79 FR
29809) from the same provisions of the
standard that regulates work in
compressed air (at 29 CFR
1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and
(g)(1)(xvii)) that are the subject of the
present application. Additionally, as
previously stated in this notice, on
March, 27, 2015, OSHA also granted a
sub-aqueous tunnel construction
permanent variance to Traylor JV for the
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
completion of the Blue Plains Tunnel
(80 FR 16440).
Generally, the proposed alternate
conditions in this notice are based on
and very similar to the alternate
conditions of the previous permanent
variances.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
G. Multi-State Variance
Traylor stated that it performs
construction of sub-aqueous tunnels
using EPBTBM in compressed-air
environments in a number of states that
operate safety and health plans that
have been approved by OSHA under
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety
and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) and 29 CFR part 1952
(‘‘Approved State Plans for Enforcement
of State Standards’’). Because Traylor
performs tunnel construction work
nationwide, OSHA will process
Traylor’s application as one for a
permanent, multi-state variance
covering all states.
Twenty-seven state safety and health
plans have been approved by OSHA
under Section 18 of the OSH Act.5 As
part of the permanent variance process,
the Directorate of Cooperative and State
Programs will notify the State Plans of
Traylor’s variance application and grant
of the interim order, and the states will
have the opportunity to comment.
Additionally, in consideration of
Traylor’s application for a permanent
multi-state variance and interim order,
OSHA noted that four states have
previously granted sub-aqueous tunnel
construction variances and imposed
different or additional requirements and
conditions (California, Nevada, Oregon,
and Washington). California also
promulgated a new standard 6 for
similar sub-aqueous tunnel construction
work. In these states that previously
granted variances, Traylor would have
to continue to meet state-specific
requirements, should OSHA grant
Traylor a permanent multi-state
variance. Traylor must be prepared to
apply separately to these states for a
variance for tunnel construction work
addressing the conditions specified by
this proposed variance.
Five State Plans (Connecticut, Illinois,
New Jersey, New York, and the U.S.
5 Five State Plans (Connecticut, Illinois, New
Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands) limit their
occupational safety and health authority to state
and local employers only. State Plans that exercise
their occupational safety and health authority over
both public- and private-sector employers are:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
6 See California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
Subchapter 7, Group 26, Article 154, available at
https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb7g26a154.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
44391
Virgin Islands) cover only public-sector
workers and have no authority over the
private-sector workers addressed in this
variance application (i.e., that authority
continues to reside with Federal OSHA).
work performed during interventions.
The proposed condition places clear
limits on the circumstances under
which the applicant can expose its
employees to hyperbaric pressure.
III. Description of the Conditions
Specified by the Application for a
Permanent Variance
This section describes the alternative
means of compliance with 29 CFR
1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and
(g)(1)(xvii) and provides additional
detail regarding the proposed conditions
that form the basis of Traylor’s
application for a permanent variance.
Proposed Condition C: List of
Abbreviations
This proposed condition defines a
number of abbreviations used in the
proposed permanent variance. OSHA
believes that defining these
abbreviations serves to clarify and
standardize their usage, thereby
enhancing the applicant’s and its
employees’ understanding of the
conditions specified by the proposed
permanent variance.
Proposed Condition A: Scope
The scope of the permanent variance
would limit coverage to the work
situations specified under this proposed
condition. Clearly defining the scope of
the proposed permanent variance
provides Traylor, Traylor’s employees,
potential future applicants, other
stakeholders, the public, and OSHA
with necessary information regarding
the work situations in which the
proposed permanent variance would
apply.
As previously indicated in this notice,
according to 29 CFR 1905.11, an
employer (or class or group of
employers 7) may request a permanent
variance for a specific workplace or
workplaces (multiple sites). If granted,
the variance would apply to the specific
employer(s) that submitted the
application. In this instance, if OSHA
were to grant a permanent variance, it
would apply to the applicant only. As
a result, it is important to understand
that if OSHA were to grant Traylor a
permanent variance, the interim order
and proposed variance would not apply
to any other employers such as other
joint ventures the applicant may
undertake in the future. However, the
variance rules of practice do contain
provisions for future modification of
permanent variances. Under the
provisions of 29 CFR 1905.13, an
applicant may submit an application to
modify or amend a permanent variance
to add or include additional employers
(i.e., when future joint ventures are
established).
Proposed Condition B: Application
The proposed condition specifies the
circumstances under which the
proposed permanent variance would be
in effect, notably only for hyperbaric
7 A class or group of employers (such as members
of a trade alliance or association) may apply jointly
for a variance provided an authorized
representative for each employer signs the
application and the application identifies each
employer’s affected facilities.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Proposed Condition D: Definitions
The proposed condition defines a
series of terms, mostly technical terms,
used in the permanent variance to
standardize and clarify their meaning.
Defining these terms serves to enhance
the applicant’s and its employees’
understanding of the conditions
specified by the proposed permanent
variance.
Proposed Condition E: Safety and
Health Practices
The proposed condition requires the
applicant to develop and submit to
OSHA a project-specific HOM at least
one year before using the EPBTBM for
tunneling operations. The HOM will
have to demonstrate that the EPBTBM
planned for use in tunneling operations
is designed, fabricated, inspected,
tested, marked, and stamped in
accordance with the requirements of
ASME PVHO–1.2012 (or most recent
edition of Safety Standards for Pressure
Vessels for Human Occupancy) for the
TBM’s hyperbaric chambers. These
requirements ensure that the applicant
develops hyperbaric safety and health
procedures suitable for each specific
project. The HOM enables OSHA to
determine that the safety and health
instructions and measures it specifies
would be appropriate to the field
conditions of the proposed tunnel
(including expected geological
conditions), would conform to the
conditions of the variance, and will
adequately protect the safety and health
of the CAWs. It also enables OSHA to
enforce these instructions and measures.
Additionally, the proposed condition
includes a series of related hazard
prevention and control requirements
and methods (e.g., decompression
tables, job hazard analysis (JHA),
operations and inspections checklists,
investigation, recording and notification
to OSHA of recordable hyperbaric
injuries and illnesses, etc.) designed to
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
44392
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
ensure the continued effective
functioning of the hyperbaric equipment
and operating system.
Review of the project-specific HOM
would enable OSHA to: (1) Determine
that the safety and health instructions
and measures it specifies would be
appropriate, would conform to the
conditions of the variance, and would
adequately protect the safety and health
of CAWs; and (2) request the applicant
to revise or modify the HOM if it finds
that the hyperbaric safety and health
procedures are not suitable for the
specific project and would not
adequately protect the safety and health
of the CAWs. The applicant may not
begin hyperbaric interventions at
pressures exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. until
OSHA completes its review of the
project-specific HOM and determines
that the safety and health instructions
and measures it specifies would be
appropriate, would conform to the
conditions of the variance, and will
adequately protect the safety and health
of the CAWs. OSHA will notify the
applicant that: (1) Its project-specific
HOM was found to be acceptable; and
(2) the applicant may begin hyperbaric
interventions at pressures exceeding 50
p.s.i.g. by complying fully with the
conditions of the interim order or
proposed permanent variance (if, or
until the permanent variance is granted
as an alternative to complying with the
requirements of the standard).
Once approved, the project-specific
HOM would become part of the
variance, thus enabling OSHA to
enforce its safety and health procedures
and measures.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Condition F: Communication
The proposed condition would
require the applicant to develop and
implement an effective system of
information sharing and
communication. Effective information
sharing and communication ensures
that affected workers receive updated
information regarding any safety-related
hazards and incidents, and corrective
actions taken, prior to the start of each
shift. The proposed condition also
requires the applicant to ensure that
reliable means of emergency
communications are available and
maintained for affected workers and
support personnel during hyperbaric
operations. Availability of such reliable
means of communications would enable
affected workers and support personnel
to respond quickly and effectively to
hazardous conditions or emergencies
that may develop during EPBTBM
operations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
Proposed Condition G: Worker
Qualification and Training
appropriate, prior to returning them to
service.
The proposed condition would
require the applicant to develop and
implement an effective qualification and
training program for affected workers.
The proposed condition specifies the
factors that an affected worker must
know to perform safely during
hyperbaric operations, including how to
enter, work in, and exit from hyperbaric
conditions under both normal and
emergency conditions. Having welltrained and qualified workers
performing hyperbaric intervention
work ensures that they recognize, and
respond appropriately to, hyperbaric
safety and health hazards. These
qualification and training requirements
enable affected workers to cope
effectively with emergencies, as well as
the discomfort and physiological effects
of hyperbaric exposure, thereby
preventing injury, illness, and fatalities.
Paragraph (2)(e) of this proposed
condition also would require the
applicant to provide affected workers
with information they can use to contact
the appropriate healthcare professionals
if it is suspected that they are
developing hyperbaric-related health
effects. This requirement provides for
early intervention and treatment of DCI
and other health effects resulting from
hyperbaric exposure, thereby reducing
the potential severity of these effects.
Proposed Condition I: Compression and
Decompression
The proposed condition would
require the applicant to consult with its
designated medical advisor regarding
special compression or decompression
procedures appropriate for any
unacclimated CAW. This proposed
provision would ensure that the
applicant consults with the medical
advisor, and involves the medical
advisor in the evaluation, development,
and implementation of compression or
decompression protocols appropriate for
any CAW requiring acclimation to the
hyperbaric conditions encountered
during EPBTBM operations.
Accordingly, CAWs requiring
acclimation would have an opportunity
to acclimate prior to exposure to these
hyperbaric conditions. OSHA believes
this proposed condition would prevent
or reduce adverse reactions among
CAWs to the effects of compression or
decompression associated with the
intervention work they perform in the
EPBTBM.
Proposed Condition H: Inspections,
Tests, and Accident Prevention
The proposed condition would
require the applicant to develop,
implement, and operate a program of
frequent and regular inspections of the
EPBTBM’s hyperbaric equipment and
support systems, and associated work
areas. This proposed condition would
help to ensure the safe operation and
physical integrity of the equipment and
work areas necessary to conduct
hyperbaric operations. The proposed
condition would also enhance worker
safety by reducing the risk of
hyperbaric-related emergencies.
Paragraph (3) of this proposed
condition would require the applicant
to document tests, inspections,
corrective actions, and repairs involving
the EPBTBM, and maintain these
documents at the job site for the
duration of the job. This requirement
would provide the applicant with
information needed to schedule tests
and inspections to ensure the continued
safe operation of the equipment and
systems, and to determine that the
actions taken to correct defects in
hyperbaric equipment and systems were
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Proposed Condition J: Recordkeeping
The proposed condition would
require the applicant to maintain
records of specific factors associated
with each hyperbaric intervention. The
information gathered and recorded
under this provision, in concert with the
information provided under proposed
condition K (using OSHA 301 Incident
Report form to investigate, record, and
provide notice to OSHA of hyperbaric
recordable injuries as defined by 29 CFR
1904.4, 1904.7, 1904.8 through 1904.12),
would enable the applicant and OSHA
to determine the effectiveness of the
permanent variance in preventing DCI
and other hyperbaric-related effects.8
Proposed Condition K: Notifications
Under the proposed condition, the
applicant would be required, within
specified periods, to notify OSHA of: (1)
Any recordable injury, illness, inpatient hospitalization, amputation, loss
of an eye, or fatality that occurs as a
result of hyperbaric exposures during
EPBTBM operations; (2) provide OSHA
with a copy of the hyperbaric exposures
incident investigation report (using
8 See 29 CFR 1904 Recording and Reporting
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (https://
www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_
document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9631);
recordkeeping forms and instructions (https://
www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/RKform300pkgfillable-enabled.pdf); and updates to OSHA’s
recordkeeping rule and Web page ((79 FR 56130);
https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping2014/
index.html).
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
OSHA 301 form) of these events within
24 hours of the incident; (3) include on
the 301 form information on the
hyperbaric conditions associated with
the recordable injury or illness, the rootcause determination, and preventive
and corrective actions identified and
implemented; (4) provide its
certification that it informed affected
workers of the incident and the results
of the incident investigation; (5) notify
the Office of Technical Programs and
Coordination Activities (OTPCA) and
the OSHA Area Office closest to the
tunnel project site within 15 working
days should the applicant need to revise
its HOM to accommodate changes in its
compressed-air operations that affect its
ability to comply with the conditions of
the proposed permanent variance; and
(6) provide OTPCA and the OSHA Area
Office closest to the tunnel project site,
at the end of the project, with a report
evaluating the effectiveness of the
decompression tables.
It should be noted that the
requirement of completing and
submitting the hyperbaric exposurerelated (recordable) incident
investigation report (OSHA 301 form)
would be more restrictive than the
current recordkeeping requirement of
completing the OSHA 301 form within
7 calendar days of the incident
(1904.29(b)(3)). This modified and more
stringent incident investigation and
reporting requirement would be
restricted to intervention-related
hyperbaric (recordable) incidents only.
Providing notification would be
essential because time is a critical
element in OSHA’s ability to determine
the continued effectiveness of the
variance conditions in preventing
hyperbaric incidents, and the
applicant’s identification and
implementation of appropriate
corrective and preventive actions.
Further, these notification
requirements also would enable the
applicant, its employees, and OSHA to
determine the effectiveness of the
permanent variance in providing the
requisite level of safety to the
applicant’s workers and, based on this
determination, whether to revise or
revoke the conditions of the proposed
permanent variance. Timely notification
would permit OSHA to take whatever
action may be necessary and
appropriate to prevent further injuries
and illnesses. Providing notification to
employees would inform them of the
precautions taken by the applicant to
prevent similar incidents in the future.
Additionally, this proposed condition
also would require the applicant to
notify OSHA if it ceases to do business,
has a new address or location for its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
main office, or transfers the operations
covered by the proposed permanent
variance to a successor company. In
addition, the condition specifies that
OSHA must approve the transfer of the
permanent variance to a successor
company. These requirements would
allow OSHA to communicate effectively
with the applicant regarding the status
of the proposed permanent variance,
and expedite the Agency’s
administration and enforcement of the
permanent variance. Stipulating that an
applicant would be required to have
OSHA’s approval to transfer a variance
to a successor company would provide
assurance that the successor company
has knowledge of, and will comply
with, the conditions specified by
proposed permanent variance, thereby
ensuring the safety of workers involved
in performing the operations covered by
the proposed permanent variance.
IV. Grant of Interim Order
As noted earlier, the applicant
requested an interim order. Based on
Traylor’s assertions in its application,
the interim order addresses CAWs
performing interventions in hyperbaric
conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. that
involve proposed use of the 1992
French Decompression Tables for air,
nitrox, or trimix as specified by the
HOM for staged decompression with
pressures ranging from 58 to 75 p.s.i.g.
During the period starting with the
publication of this notice until the
Agency modifies or revokes the interim
order or makes a decision on its
application for a permanent variance,
the applicant is required to comply fully
with the conditions of the interim order
(as an alternative to complying with the
requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803
(hereafter, ‘‘the standard’’)) that:
A. Prohibit employers using
compressed air under hyperbaric
conditions from subjecting workers to
pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g., except in
an emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5));
B. Require the use of decompression
values specified by the decompression
tables in Appendix A of the
compressed-air standard (29 CFR
1926.803(f)(1)); and
C. Require the use of automated
operational controls and a special
decompression chamber (29 CFR
1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii),
respectively).
After reviewing the proposed
alternatives OSHA preliminarily
determined that:
A. Traylor developed, and proposed
to implement, effective alternative
measures to the prohibition of using
compressed air under hyperbaric
conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. The
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44393
alternative measures include use of
engineering and administrative controls
of the hazards associated with work
performed in compressed-air conditions
exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. while engaged in
the construction of a subaqueous tunnel
using advanced shielded mechanicalexcavation techniques in conjunction
with an EPBTBM. Prior to conducting
interventions in the EPBTBM’s
pressurized working chamber, the
applicant halts tunnel excavation and
prepares the machine and crew to
conduct the interventions. Interventions
involve inspection, maintenance, or
repair of the mechanical-excavation
components located in the working
chamber.
B. Traylor developed, and proposed to
implement, safe hyperbaric work
procedures, emergency and contingency
procedures, and medical examinations
for future tunneling projects’ CAWs.
The applicant will compile these
standard operating procedures into a
project-specific HOM. The HOM will
discuss the procedures and personnel
qualifications for performing work
safely during the compression and
decompression phases of interventions.
The HOM will also specify the
decompression tables the applicant
proposes to use. Depending on the
maximum working pressure and
exposure times during the interventions,
the tables provide for decompression
using the 1992 French Decompression
Tables for air, nitrox, or trimix as
specified by the HOM. The
decompression tables also include
delays or stops for various time intervals
at different pressure levels during the
transition to atmospheric pressure (i.e.,
staged decompression). In all cases, a
physician certified in hyperbaric
medicine will manage the medical
condition of CAWs during
decompression. In addition, a trained
and experienced man-lock attendant,
experienced in recognizing
decompression sickness or illnesses and
injuries will be present. Of key
importance, a hyperbaric supervisor
(competent person), trained in
hyperbaric operations, procedures, and
safety, will directly supervise all
hyperbaric operations to ensure
compliance with the procedures
delineated in the project-specific HOM
or by the attending physician.
C. Traylor developed, and proposed to
implement, a training program to
instruct affected workers in the hazards
associated with conducting hyperbaric
operations.
D. Traylor developed, and proposed
to implement, an effective alternative to
the use of automatic controllers that
continuously decrease pressure to
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
44394
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
achieve decompression in accordance
with the tables specified by the
standard. The alternative includes
using: (1) The 1992 French
Decompression Tables for guiding
staged decompression to achieve lower
occurrences of DCI; (2) decompression
protocols of air, nitrox, or trimix again
to achieve lower occurrences of DCI; (3)
a trained and competent attendant for
implementing appropriate hyperbaric
entry and exit procedures, and (4) a
competent hyperbaric supervisor and
attending physician certified in
hyperbaric medicine, to oversee all
hyperbaric operations.
E. Traylor developed, and proposed to
implement, an effective alternative to
the use of the special decompression
chamber required by the standard.
EPBTBM technology permits the
tunnel’s work areas to be at atmospheric
pressure, with only the face of the
EPBTBM (i.e., the working chamber) at
elevated pressure during interventions.
The applicant would limit interventions
conducted in the working chamber to
performing required inspection,
maintenance, and repair of the cutting
tools on the face of the EPBTBM. The
EPBTBM’s man lock and working
chamber provide sufficient space for the
maximum crew of three CAWs to stand
up and move around, and safely
accommodate decompression times up
to 360 minutes. Therefore, OSHA
preliminarily determined that the
EPBTBM’s man lock and working
chamber function as effectively as the
special decompression chamber
required by the standard.
OSHA conducted a review of the
scientific literature regarding
decompression to determine whether
the alternative decompression method
(i.e., the 1992 French Decompression
Tables) Traylor proposed would provide
a workplace as safe and healthful as that
provided by the standard. Based on this
review, OSHA determined that
tunneling operations performed with
these tables 9 resulted in a lower
occurrence of DCI than the
decompression tables specified by the
standard.10 11 12
9 In 1992, the French Ministry of Labour replaced
the 1974 French Decompression Tables with the
1992 French Decompression Tables, which differ
from OSHA’s decompression tables in Appendix A
by using: (1) Staged decompression as opposed to
continuous (linear) decompression; (2)
decompression tables based on air or both air and
pure oxygen; and (3) emergency tables when
unexpected exposure times occur (up to 30 minutes
above the maximum allowed working time).
10 Kindwall, EP (1997). Compressed-air tunneling
and caisson work decompression procedures:
Development, problems, and solutions. Undersea
and Hyperbaric Medicine, 24(4), pp. 337–345. This
article reported 60 treated cases of DCI among 4,168
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
The review conducted by OSHA
focused on the use of the 1992 French
Decompression Tables with air, nitrox,
or trimix and found several research
studies supporting the determination
that such use resulted in a lower rate of
DCI than the decompression tables
specified by the standard. For example,
H. L. Anderson studied the occurrence
of DCI at maximum hyperbaric
pressures ranging from 4 p.s.i.g. to 43
p.s.i.g. during construction of the Great
Belt Tunnel in Denmark (1992–1996); 13
this project used the 1992 French
Decompression Tables to decompress
the workers during part of the
construction. Anderson observed 6
decompression sickness (DCS) cases out
of 7,220 decompression events, and
reported that switching to the 1992
French Decompression tables reduced
the DCI incidence to 0.08%. The DCI
incidence in the study by H. L.
Andersen is substantially less than the
DCI incidence reported for the
decompression tables specified in
Appendix A. OSHA found no studies in
which the DCI incidence reported for
the 1992 French Decompression Tables
were higher than the DCI incidence
reported for the OSHA decompression
tables, nor did OSHA find any studies
indicating that the 1992 French
Decompression Tables were more
hazardous to employees than the OSHA
decompression tables.14
OSHA also reviewed the use of trimix
in tunneling operations. In compressedexposures between 19 and 31 p.s.i.g. over a 51-week
contract period, for a DCI incidence of 1.44% for
the decompression tables specified by the OSHA
standard.
11 Sealey, JL (1969). Safe exit from the hyperbaric
environment: Medical experience with pressurized
tunnel operations. Journal of Occupational
Medicine, 11(5), pp. 273–275. This article reported
210 treated cases of DCI among 38,600 hyperbaric
exposures between 13 and 34 p.s.i.g. over a 32month period, for an incidence of 0.54% for the
decompression tables specified by the Washington
State safety standards for compressed-air work,
which are similar to the tables in the OSHA
standard. Moreover, the article reported 51 treated
cases of DCI for 3,000 exposures between 30 and 34
p.s.i.g., for an incidence of 1.7% for the Washington
State tables.
12 In 1985, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a report
entitled ‘‘Criteria for Interim Decompression Tables
for Caisson and Tunnel Workers;’’ this report
reviewed studies of DCI and other hyperbaricrelated injuries resulting from use of OSHA’s tables.
This report is available on NIOSH’s Web site:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/decompression/
default.html.
13 Anderson HL (2002). Decompression sickness
during construction of the Great Belt Tunnel,
Denmark. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine,
29(3), pp. 172–188.
14 Le Pechon JC, Barre P, Baud JP, Ollivier F
´
(September 1996). Compressed-air work—French
Tables 1992—operational results. JCLP Hyperbarie
Paris, Centre Medical Subaquatique Interentreprise,
Marseille: Communication a l’EUBS, pp. 1–5 (see
Ex. OSHA–2012–0036–0005).
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
air atmospheres greater than 73 p.s.i.g.,
it becomes increasingly more difficult to
work due to increased breathing
resistance, increased risk of DCI, and the
adverse effects of the increased partial
pressures of nitrogen and oxygen.
Nitrogen narcosis occurs when a diver
or CAW breathes a gas mixture with a
nitrogen partial pressure greater than
2.54 ATA (i.e., 73 p.s.i.g.). Nitrogen
narcosis compromises judgment,
performance, and reaction time of divers
and CAWs and can lead to loss of
consciousness.15 There is concern that
nitrogen narcosis may impair CAWs
leading to possible safety issues.16
Exposure to oxygen at partial pressures
greater than normal daily living may be
toxic to the lungs and central nervous
system under certain conditions. The
higher the partial pressure of oxygen
and the longer the exposure, the more
severe the toxic effects. One way to
reduce oxygen exposure is to alter the
percentage of oxygen in the breathing
mixture (see footnote 15). Trimix is a
mixture of the inert gas helium, oxygen
and nitrogen. Because helium is less
dense than air, use of helium in
compressed atmospheres decreases
breathing resistance and allows for
adjustment of the partial pressures of
oxygen and nitrogen to reduce the
incidence of nitrogen narcosis and
oxygen toxicity.
Trimix has been successfully used in
deep caisson work and tunneling
projects including the construction of
the Meiko West Bridge,17 the Western
Scheldt Tunnel (see footnote 16), and in
the Seattle Brightwater Tunneling
Project.18 During the construction of the
Western Scheldt Tunnel, there were
fewer reported cases of DCIs in CAWs
using trimix than in other CAWs using
just compressed air, despite working at
higher pressures (see footnotes 16 and
17). Additionally, the use of compressed
air during the construction of the
Western Scheldt Tunnel was also
15 United States Navy. (2011) U.S. Navy Diving
Manual, Revision 6. Department of the Navy.
16 Van Rees, Vellinga T, Verhoevan A, Jan Dijk F,
Sterk W (November-December 2006) Health and
efficiency in trimix versus air breathing in CAWs.
Undersea Hyperbaric Medicine 33 (6), pp 419–427.
This article reported that during construction of the
Western Scheldt Tunneling Project, there were 52
exposures to trimix at 81.2–84.1 p.s.i. with no
reported cases of DCI. Three of 318 exposures to
compressed air resulted in DCI in this study.
17 Takishima R, Sterk W, Nashimoto T (1996)
Trimix breathing in deep caisson work for the
construction of Pier (P2) for the Meiko West Bridge.
Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Meeting
Abstract. During construction of the Meiko West
Bridge, there were 11 cases of DCI in 2059 trimix
exposures for a reported DCI rate of 1%.
18 Hamilton R, Kay E (November 2008) Boring
deep tunnels. Proceedings, 3rd of U.S.-Japan Panel
on Aerospace-Diving Physiology and Technology,
and Hyperbaric Medicine.
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
associated with a slower working pace
and operational errors that the authors
associated with the adverse effects of
nitrogen at high pressure ((i.e., nitrogen
narcosis) (see footnote 16)). Trimix
decompression tables are proprietary so
large studies of workers with specific
pressure exposure for specific trimix
schedules are not available. Additional
concerns include the lack of a defined
recompression protocol in the case of
DCI and some studies have found
evidence of cardiopulmonary strain in
divers using trimix but at pressures
greater than those submitted for this
variance (see footnote 15).
Review of the literature and reports
from presentations to professional
societies support that the incidence of
DCI with this technique is lower than
the incidence of DCIs reported with the
use of OSHA tables. In addition, use of
trimix reduces the risk of impairment
from nitrogen narcosis and allows for
the adjustment of oxygen partial
pressure to reduce exposure to elevated
oxygen partial pressures (see footnotes
16 and 18). Therefore, OSHA
preliminarily concludes that the
proposed use of the 1992 French
Decompression Tables would protect
workers at least as effectively as the
OSHA decompression tables.
Based on a review of available
evidence, the experience of State Plans
that either granted variances (Nevada,
Oregon, and Washington) 19 or
promulgated a new standard
(California) 20 for hyperbaric exposures
occurring during similar subaqueous
tunnel-construction work, and the
information provided in the applicant’s
variance application, OSHA is granting
an interim order for future tunneling
projects and announces the application
for the permanent variance.
Under section 6(d) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(d)), and based on
the record discussed above, the Agency
preliminarily finds that when the
employer complies with the conditions
of the proposed variance, the working
conditions of the employer’s workers
would be at least as safe and healthful
as if the employer complied with the
working conditions specified by
paragraphs (e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and
(g)(1)(xvii) of 29 CFR 1926.803.
Therefore, Traylor will: (1) Comply with
the conditions listed in the future
tunnel projects interim order for the
19 These state variances are available in the
docket: Exs. OSHA–2012–0035–0006 (Nevada),
OSHA–2012–0035–0007 (Oregon), and OSHA–
2012–0035–0008 (Washington).
20 See California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
Subchapter 7, Group 26, Article 154, available at
https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb7g26a154.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
period starting with the grant of the
interim order until the Agency modifies
or revokes the interim order or makes a
decision on its application for a
permanent variance); (2) comply fully
with the specific conditions of the
variance, if granted; (3) comply fully
with all other applicable provisions of
29 CFR part 1926; and (4) provide a
copy of this Federal Register notice to
all employees affected by the proposed
conditions, including the affected
employees of other employers, using the
same means it used to inform these
employees of its application for a
permanent variance.
V. Specific Conditions of the Interim
Order and the Application for a
Permanent Variance
The following conditions apply to the
interim order OSHA is granting to
Traylor. These conditions specify the
alternative means of compliance with
the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR
1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and
(g)(1)(xvii). In addition, these conditions
are the conditions that specify the
alternative means of compliance with
the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR
1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and
(g)(1)(xvii) that OSHA is proposing for
Traylor’s permanent variance. The
conditions/proposed conditions would
apply to all employees of Traylor
exposed to hyperbaric conditions. These
conditions/proposed conditions would
be: 21
A. Scope
The permanent variance would apply
only to work:
1. That occurs in conjunction with
construction of future subaqueous
tunnels using advanced shielded
mechanical-excavation techniques and
involving operation of an EPBTBM;
2. Performed under compressed-air
and hyperbaric conditions up to 75
p.s.i.g;
3. In the EPBTBM’s forward section
(the working chamber) and associated
hyperbaric chambers used to pressurize
and decompress employees entering and
exiting the working chamber;
4. Except for the requirements
specified by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5),
(f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii), Traylor
would be required to comply fully with
all other applicable provisions of 29
CFR part 1926; and
5. The interim order granted to
Traylor for future tunnel projects will
remain in effect until OSHA modifies or
21 In these conditions, OSHA is using the future
conditional form of the verb (e.g., ‘‘would’’), which
pertains to the application for a permanent variance
(designated as ‘‘permanent variance’’) but the
conditions also apply to the interim order.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44395
revokes this interim order or grants
Traylor’s request for a permanent
variance in accordance with 29 CFR
1905.13.
B. Application
The permanent variance would apply
only when Traylor stops the tunnelboring work, pressurizes the working
chamber, and the CAWs either enter the
working chamber to perform
interventions (i.e., inspect, maintain, or
repair the mechanical-excavation
components), or exit the working
chamber after performing interventions.
C. List of Abbreviations
Abbreviations used throughout this
proposed permanent variance would
include the following:
1. ATA—Atmosphere Absolute
2. CAW—Compressed-air worker
3. CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
4. DCI—Decompression Illness
5. DCS—Decompression Sickness (or the
bends)
6. EPBTBM—Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel
Boring Machine
7. HOM—Hyperbaric Operations and Safety
Manual
8. JHA—Job hazard analysis
9. OSHA—Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
10. OTPCA—Office of Technical Programs
and Coordination Activities
D. Definitions
The following definitions would
apply to this proposed permanent
variance. These definitions would
supplement the definitions in each
project-specific HOM.
1. Affected employee or worker—an
employee or worker who is affected by
the conditions of this proposed
permanent variance, or any one of his or
her authorized representatives. The term
‘‘employee’’ has the meaning defined
and used under the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.).
2. Atmospheric pressure—the
pressure of air at sea-level, generally,
14.7 p.s.i.a., 1 atmosphere absolute, or 0
p.s.i.g.
3. Compressed-air worker—an
individual who is specially trained and
medically qualified to perform work in
a pressurized environment while
breathing air at pressures up to 75
p.s.i.g.
4. Competent person—an individual
who is capable of identifying existing
and predictable hazards in the
surroundings or working conditions that
are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous
to employees, and who has
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
44396
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
authorization to take prompt corrective
measures to eliminate them.22
5. Decompression illness—an illness
(also called decompression sickness
(DCS) or the bends) caused by gas
bubbles appearing in body
compartments due to a reduction in
ambient pressure. Examples of
symptoms of decompression illness
include (but are not limited to): Joint
pain (also known as the ‘bends’ for
agonizing pain or the ‘niggles’ for slight
pain); areas of bone destruction (termed
dysbaric osteonecrosis); skin disorders
(such as cutis marmorata, which causes
a pink marbling of the skin); spinal cord
and brain disorders (such as stroke,
paralysis, paresthesia, and bladder
dysfunction); cardiopulmonary
disorders, such as shortness of breath;
and arterial gas embolism (gas bubbles
in the arteries that block blood flow).23
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Note: Health effects associated with
hyperbaric intervention but not considered
symptoms of DCI can include: Barotrauma
(direct damage to air-containing cavities in
the body such as ears, sinuses and lungs);
nitrogen narcosis (reversible alteration in
consciousness that may occur in hyperbaric
environments and is caused by the anesthetic
effect of certain gases at high pressure); and
oxygen toxicity (a central nervous system
condition resulting from the harmful effects
of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at
elevated partial pressures).
6. Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel
Boring Machine—the machinery used to
excavate the tunnel.
7. Hot work—any activity performed
in a hazardous location that may
introduce an ignition source into a
potentially flammable atmosphere.24
8. Hyperbaric—at a higher pressure
than atmospheric pressure.
9. Hyperbaric intervention—a term
that describes the process of stopping
the EPBTBM and preparing and
executing work under hyperbaric
pressure in the working chamber for the
purpose of inspecting, replacing, or
repairing cutting tools and/or the
cutterhead structure.
10. Hyperbaric Operations Manual—a
detailed, project-specific health and
safety plan developed and implemented
by Traylor for working in compressed
air during future hyperbaric tunnel
projects.
11. Job hazard analysis—an
evaluation of tasks or operations to
identify potential hazards and to
determine the necessary controls.
22 Adapted
from 29 CFR 1926.32(f).
Appendix 10 of ‘‘A Guide to the Work in
Compressed-Air Regulations 1996,’’ published by
the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive
available from NIOSH at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/
docket/archive/pdfs/NIOSH-254/compReg1996.pdf.
24 Also see 29 CFR 1910.146(b).
23 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
12. Man lock—an enclosed space
capable of pressurization, and used for
compressing or decompressing any
employee or material when either is
passing into or out of a working
chamber.
13. Nitrox—a mixture of oxygen and
air and refers to mixtures which are
more than 21% oxygen.
14. Pressure—a force acting on a unit
area. Usually expressed as pounds per
square inch (p.s.i.).
15. p.s.i.—pounds per square inch, a
common unit of measurement of
pressure; a pressure given in p.s.i.
corresponds to absolute pressure.
16. p.s.i.a—pounds per square inch
absolute, or absolute pressure, is the
sum of the atmospheric pressure and
gauge pressure. At sea-level,
atmospheric pressure is approximately
14.7 p.s.i. Adding 14.7 to a pressure
expressed in units of p.s.i.g. will yield
the absolute pressure, expressed as
p.s.i.a.
17. p.s.i.g.—pounds per square inch
gauge, a common unit of pressure;
pressure expressed as p.s.i.g.
corresponds to pressure relative to
atmospheric pressure. At sea-level,
atmospheric pressure is approximately
14.7 p.s.i. Subtracting 14.7 from a
pressure expressed in units of p.s.i.a.
yields the gauge pressure, expressed as
p.s.i.g.
18. Qualified person—an individual
who, by possession of a recognized
degree, certificate, or professional
standing, or who, by extensive
knowledge, training, and experience,
successfully demonstrates an ability to
solve or resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the
project.25
19. Trimix—a mixture of oxygen,
nitrogen and helium that is used in
hyperbaric environments instead of air
to reduce nitrogen narcosis and the
hazards of oxygen toxicity.
20. Working chamber—an enclosed
space in the EPBTBM in which CAWs
perform interventions, and which is
accessible only through a man lock.
E. Safety and Health Practices
1. Traylor would have to develop and
implement a project-specific HOM, and
submit the HOM to OSHA at least one
year before using the EPBTBM on the
project for which the HOM applies. The
HOM would provide the governing
requirements regarding expected safety
and health hazards (including
anticipated geological conditions) and
hyperbaric exposures during the tunnelconstruction project.
PO 00000
25 Adapted
from 29 CFR 1926.32(m).
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2. The HOM would be required to
demonstrate that the EPBTBM to be
used on the project is designed,
fabricated, inspected, tested, marked,
and stamped in accordance with the
requirements of ASME PVHO–1.2012
(or most recent edition of Safety
Standards for Pressure Vessels for
Human Occupancy) for the EPBTBM’s
hyperbaric chambers.
3. When submitting the projectspecific HOM to OSHA for approval,
Traylor must demonstrate that it
informed its employees of the proposed
HOM and their right to petition the
Assistant Secretary for a variance by:
a. giving a copy of the proposed
project-specific HOM to the authorized
employee representatives;
b. posting a statement giving a
summary of the proposed projectspecific HOM and specifying where its
employees may examine a copy of the
permanent variance application (at the
place(s) where the applicant normally
posts notices to employees or, instead of
a summary, posting the application
itself); or
c. using other appropriate means.
4. Traylor may not begin hyperbaric
interventions at pressures exceeding 50
p.s.i.g. until OSHA completes its review
of the project-specific HOM and
determines that the safety and health
instructions and measures it specifies
would be appropriate, would comply
with the conditions of the variance, and
would adequately protect the safety and
health of CAWs. Traylor would have to
receive a written acknowledgement
from OSHA stating that: (1) OSHA
found its project-specific HOM
acceptable; and (2) OSHA determined
that it may begin hyperbaric
interventions at pressures exceeding 50
p.s.i.g. by complying fully with the
conditions of the interim order or
proposed permanent variance (as an
alternative to complying with the
requirements of the standard). Once
approved by OSHA, the HOM would
become part of this variance for the
purposes of the project for which it was
developed.
5. Traylor would have to implement
the safety and health instructions
included in the manufacturer’s
operations manuals for the EPBTBM,
and the safety and health instructions
provided by the manufacturer for the
operation of decompression equipment.
6. Traylor would have to use air or
trimix as the only breathing gas in the
working chamber.
7. Traylor would have to use the 1992
French Decompression Tables for air,
nitrox, and trimix decompression
specified in the HOM, specifically, the
extracted portions of the 1992 French
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
Decompression tables titled, ‘‘French
Regulation Air Standard Tables.’’
8. Traylor would have to equip man
locks used by its employees with an air,
nitrox, or trimix-delivery system as
specified by the HOM approved by
OSHA for the project. Traylor would be
required to not store oxygen or other
compressed gases used in conjunction
with hyperbaric work in the tunnel.
9. Workers performing hot work
under hyperbaric conditions would
have to use flame-retardant personal
protective equipment and clothing.
10. In hyperbaric work areas, Traylor
would have to maintain an adequate
fire-suppression system approved for
hyperbaric work areas.
11. Traylor would have to develop
and implement one or more JHAs for
work in the hyperbaric work areas, and
review, periodically and as necessary
(e.g., after making changes to a planned
intervention that affects its operation),
the contents of the JHAs with affected
employees. The JHAs would have to
include all the job functions that the
risk assessment 26 indicates are essential
to prevent injury or illness.
12. Traylor would have to develop a
set of checklists to guide compressed-air
work and ensure that employees follow
the procedures required by this
proposed permanent variance
(including all procedures required by
the HOM approved by OSHA for the
project, which this proposed variance
would incorporate by reference). The
checklists would have to include all
steps and equipment functions that the
risk assessment indicates are essential to
prevent injury or illness during
compressed-air work.
13. Traylor would have to ensure that
the safety and health provisions of each
HOM adequately protect the workers of
all contractors and subcontractors
involved in hyperbaric operations for
the project to which the HOM applies.27
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
F. Communication
1. Prior to beginning a shift, Traylor
would have to implement a system that
informs workers exposed to hyperbaric
conditions of any hazardous
occurrences or conditions that might
affect their safety, including hyperbaric
incidents, gas releases, equipment
failures, earth or rock slides, cave-ins,
flooding, fires, or explosions.
2. Traylor would have to provide a
power-assisted means of
26 See ANSI/AIHA Z10–2012, American National
Standard for Occupational Health and Safety
Management Systems, for reference.
27 See ANSI/ASSE A10.33–2011, American
National Standard for Construction and Demolition
Operations—Safety and Health Program
Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects, for
reference.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
communication among affected workers
and support personnel in hyperbaric
conditions where unassisted voice
communication is inadequate.
a. Traylor would have to use an
independent power supply for powered
communication systems, and these
systems would have to operate such that
use or disruption of any one phone or
signal location will not disrupt the
operation of the system from any other
location.
b. Traylor would have to test
communication systems at the start of
each shift and as necessary thereafter to
ensure proper operation.
G. Worker Qualifications and Training
Traylor would have to:
1. Ensure that each affected worker
receives effective training on how to
safely enter, work in, exit from, and
undertake emergency evacuation or
rescue from, hyperbaric conditions, and
document this training.
2. Provide effective instruction, before
beginning hyperbaric operations, to
each worker who performs work, or
controls the exposure of others, in
hyperbaric conditions, and document
this instruction. The instruction would
include:
a. The physics and physiology of
hyperbaric work;
b. Recognition of pressure-related
injuries;
c. Information on the causes and
recognition of the signs and symptoms
associated with decompression illness,
and other hyperbaric interventionrelated health effects (e.g., barotrauma,
nitrogen narcosis, and oxygen toxicity).
d. How to avoid discomfort during
compression and decompression;
e. Information the workers can use to
contact the appropriate healthcare
professionals should the workers have
concerns that they may be experiencing
adverse health effects from hyperbaric
exposure; and
f. Procedures and requirements
applicable to the employee in the
project-specific HOM.
3. Repeat the instruction specified in
paragraph (G)(2) of this proposed
condition periodically and as necessary
(e.g., after making changes to its
hyperbaric operations).
4. When conducting training for its
hyperbaric workers, make this training
available to OSHA personnel and notify
the OTPCA at OSHA’s National Office
and OSHA’s nearest affected Area Office
before the training takes place.
H. Inspections, Tests, and Accident
Prevention
1. Traylor would have to initiate and
maintain a program of frequent and
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44397
regular inspections of the EPBTBM’s
hyperbaric equipment and support
systems (such as temperature control,
illumination, ventilation, and fireprevention and fire-suppression
systems), and hyperbaric work areas, as
required under 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2) by:
a. Developing a set of checklists to be
used by a competent person in
conducting weekly inspections of
hyperbaric equipment and work areas;
and
b. Ensuring that a competent person
conducts daily visual checks and
weekly inspections of the EPBTBM.
2. If the competent person determines
that the equipment constitutes a safety
hazard, Traylor would have to remove
the equipment from service until it
corrects the hazardous condition and
has the correction approved by a
qualified person.
3. Traylor would have to maintain
records of all tests and inspections of
the EPBTBM, as well as associated
corrective actions and repairs, at the job
site for the duration of the job.
I. Compression and Decompression
Traylor would have to consult with its
attending physician concerning the
need for special compression or
decompression exposures appropriate
for CAWs not acclimated to hyperbaric
exposure.
J. Recordkeeping
Traylor would have to maintain a
record of any recordable injury, illness,
in-patient hospitalization, amputation,
loss of an eye, or fatality (as defined by
29 CFR part 1904 Recording and
Reporting Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses), resulting from exposure of an
employee to hyperbaric conditions by
completing the OSHA 301 Incident
Report form and OSHA 300 Log of Work
Related Injuries and Illnesses.
Note: Examples of important information
to include on the OSHA 301 Incident Report
form (along with the corresponding question
on the form) would have to address the
following: the task performed (Question (Q)
14); an estimate of the CAW’s workload (Q
14); the composition of the gas mixture (e.g.,
air or trimix (Q 14)); the pressure worked at
(Q 14); temperature in the work and
decompression environments (Q 14); did
something unusual occur during the task or
decompression (Q 14); time of symptom
onset (Q 15); duration of time between
decompression and onset of symptoms (Q
15); nature and duration of symptoms (Q 16);
a medical summary of the illness or injury (Q
16); duration of the hyperbaric intervention
(Q 17); any possible contributing factors (Q
17); the number of prior interventions
completed by injured or ill CAW (Q 17); the
number of prior interventions completed by
injured or ill CAW at that pressure (Q 17);
the contact information for the treating
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
44398
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 2015 / Notices
healthcare provider (Q 17); and the date and
time of last hyperbaric exposure for this
CAW.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In addition to completing the OSHA
301 Incident Report form and OSHA
300 Log of Work Related Injuries and
Illnesses, Traylor would have to
maintain records of:
1. The date, times (e.g., began
compression, time spent compressing,
time performing intervention, time
spent decompressing), and pressure for
each hyperbaric intervention.
2. The name of each individual
worker exposed to hyperbaric pressure
and the decompression protocols and
results for each worker.
3. The total number of interventions
and the amount of hyperbaric work time
at each pressure.
4. The post-intervention physical
assessment of each individual CAW for
signs and symptoms of decompression
illness, barotrauma, nitrogen narcosis,
oxygen toxicity or other health effects
associated with work in compressed air
or mixed gasses for each hyperbaric
intervention.
K. Notifications
1. To assist OSHA in administering
the conditions specified herein, Traylor
would have to:
a. Notify the OTPCA and the nearest
affected Area Office of any recordable
injury, illness, in-patient
hospitalization, amputation, loss of an
eye, or fatality (by submitting the
completed OSHA 301 Incident Report
form 28) resulting from exposure of an
employee to hyperbaric conditions
including those that do not require
recompression treatment (e.g., nitrogen
narcosis, oxygen toxicity, barotrauma),
but still meet the recordable injury or
illness criteria (of 29 CFR 1904). The
notification would have to be made
within 8 hours of the incident, or after
becoming aware of a recordable injury
or illness, and a copy of the incident
investigation (OSHA 301) would have to
be provided within 24 hours of the
incident, or after becoming aware of a
recordable injury or illness. In addition
to the information required by the
OSHA 301, the incident-investigation
report would have to include a rootcause determination, and the preventive
and corrective actions identified and
implemented.
b. Provide certification within 15 days
of the incident that it informed affected
workers of the incident and the results
of the incident investigation (including
the root-cause determination and
preventive and corrective actions
identified and implemented).
28 See
footnote 8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:58 Jul 24, 2015
Jkt 235001
c. Notify the OTPCA and the nearest
affected Area Office within 15 working
days and in writing, of any change in
the compressed-air operations that
affects Traylor’s ability to comply with
the proposed conditions specified
herein.
d. Upon completion of each
hyperbaric tunnel project, evaluate the
effectiveness of the decompression
tables used throughout the project, and
provide a written report of this
evaluation to the OTPCA and the neared
affected Area Office.
Note: The evaluation report would
have to contain summaries of: (1) the
number, dates, durations, and pressures
of the hyperbaric interventions
completed; (2) decompression protocols
implemented (including composition of
gas mixtures (air, oxygen, nitrox, and
trimix), and the results achieved; (3) the
total number of interventions and the
number of hyperbaric incidents
(decompression illnesses and/or health
effects associated with hyperbaric
interventions as recorded on OSHA 301
and 300 forms, and relevant medical
diagnoses and treating physicians’
opinions); and (4) root-causes, and
preventive and corrective actions
identified and implemented.
e. To assist OSHA in administering
the proposed conditions specified
herein, inform the OTPCA and the
nearest affected Area Office as soon as
possible after it has knowledge that it
will:
i. Cease to do business;
ii. Change the location and address of
the main office for managing the
tunneling operations specified by the
project-specific HOM; or
iii. Transfer the operations specified
herein to a successor company.
f. Notify all affected employees of this
interim order/proposed permanent
variance by the same means required to
inform them of its application for a
variance.
2. OSHA would have to approve the
transfer of the proposed permanent
variance to a successor company.
Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of
this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is
issuing this notice pursuant to Section
29 U.S.C. 655(6)(d), Secretary of Labor’s
Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1905.11.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Signed at Washington, DC, on July 22,
2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015–18319 Filed 7–24–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Notice of Availability of Calendar Year
2016 Competitive Grant Funds for the
Veterans Pro Bono Program
Legal Services Corporation.
Solicitation of proposals for the
provision of pro bono legal services to
veterans.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Legal Services
Corporation (LSC) provides grants of
federally-appropriated funds for civil
legal services to low-income individuals
and families.
Pursuant to Public Law 102–229, LSC
administers the process of awarding
grant funds for the Veterans Pro Bono
Program for the purpose of furnishing
effective, efficient and high quality pro
bono legal services to eligible veterans
appearing before the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).
LSC hereby announces the availability
of competitive grant funds for the
Veterans Pro Bono Program for calendar
year 2016 and solicits grant proposals
from interested parties. The exact
amount of available funds and the date,
terms, and conditions of their
availability for calendar year 2016 will
be determined through the
congressional appropriations process for
FY 2016. For the past three years,
Congress has appropriated
approximately $2.5 million each year.
DATES: The deadline to submit a Notice
of Intent to Compete is Friday, August
28, 2015, at 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
Notices must be submitted by email to
veteransprobono@lsc.gov.
ADDRESSES: Office of Program
Performance, Veterans Pro Bono
Program Competition, Legal Services
Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Third
Floor, Washington, DC 20007–3522.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about the application process,
please contact Meredith Horton, Office
of Program Performance, by email at
veteransprobono@lsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Funds for
the Veterans Pro Bono Program are
authorized by and subject to Public Law
102–229, title I, ch. II, 105 Stat. 1701,
1710, as incorporated by reference in
subsequent appropriations for the
United States Court of Appeals for
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 143 (Monday, July 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44386-44398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18319]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0035]
Traylor Bros., Inc., Application for Permanent Variance and
Interim Order; Grant of Interim Order; Request for Comments
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Traylor
Bros., Inc., for a permanent variance and interim order from the
provisions of OSHA standards that regulate work in compressed-air
environments at 29 CFR 1926.803 and presents the Agency's preliminary
finding to grant the permanent variance. OSHA also announces its grant
of an interim order in this notice. OSHA invites the public to submit
comments on the variance application to assist the Agency in
determining whether to grant the applicant a permanent variance based
on the conditions specified in this application.
DATES: Submit comments, information, documents in response to this
notice, and request for a hearing on or before August 26, 2015. The
interim order specified by this notice becomes effective on July 27,
2015, and shall remain in effect until the interim order is modified or
revoked.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, requests, and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2012-0035, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350 (TDY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA
Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2012-0035). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site.\1\ All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Traylor indicated that the decompression tables it intends
to use for decompression with trimix are proprietary. Therefore,
these tables are not available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Extension of Comment Period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before August 26, 2015 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Variance Program,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax
to (202) 693-1644.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999;
email: Meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-2110; email: Robinson.kevin@dol.gov. OSHA's Web page includes
information about the Variance Program (see https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/variances/).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Copies of this Federal Register notice. Electronic copies of this
Federal Register notice are available at https://www.regulations.gov.
This Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other
relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at https://www.osha.gov.
Hearing Requests. According to 29 CFR 1905.15, hearing requests
must include: (1) A short and plain statement detailing how the
proposed variance would affect the requesting party; (2) a
specification of any statement or representation in the variance
application that the commenter denies, and a concise summary of the
evidence adduced in support of each denial; and (3) any views or
arguments on any issue of fact or law presented in the variance
application.
I. Notice of Application
On April 26, 2012, Traylor Bros., Inc., 835 N. Congress Ave.,
Evansville, IN 47715, and Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture, Blue
Plains Tunnel, 5000 Overlook SW., Washington, DC 20032, submitted under
Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (``OSH
Act''; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 (``Variances and other relief
under section 6(d)''), an application for a permanent variance from
several provisions of the OSHA standard that regulates work in
compressed air at 29 CFR 1926.803. OSHA is addressing this request as
two separate applications: (1) Traylor Bros., Inc. (``Traylor'' or
``the applicant'') request for a permanent variance for future
tunneling projects; and (2) Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture, Blue
Plains Tunnel (``Traylor JV''). This notice only addresses the Traylor
application for an interim order and permanent variance for future
tunneling projects. This notice does not address
[[Page 44387]]
the Traylor JV application for the Blue Plains Tunnel Project, which
OSHA granted on March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16440).
Specifically, this notice addresses Traylor's application for a
permanent variance and interim order, applicable to future tunneling
projects, from the provisions of the standard that: (1) Prohibit
compressed-air worker (CAW) exposure to pressures exceeding 50 pounds
per square inch (p.s.i.) except in an emergency (29 CFR
1926.803(e)(5)); \2\ (2) require the use of the decompression values
specified in decompression tables in Appendix A of the compressed-air
standard for construction (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)); and (3) require the
use of automated operational controls and a special decompression
chamber (29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii),
respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The decompression tables in Appendix A of subpart S express
the maximum working pressures as pounds per square inch gauge
(p.s.i.g.), with a maximum working pressure of 50 p.s.i.g.
Therefore, throughout this notice, OSHA expresses the 50 p.s.i.
value specified by Sec. 1926.803(e)(5) as 50 p.s.i.g., consistent
with the terminology in Appendix A, Table 1 of subpart S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The applicant is a contractor that works on complex tunnel projects
using recently developed equipment and procedures for soft-ground
tunneling. The applicant's workers engage in the construction of
tunnels using advanced shielded mechanical excavation techniques in
conjunction with an earth pressure balanced tunnel boring machine
(EPBTBM).
According to its application, Traylor is likely to be the sole
contractor, as well as the general contractor in association with
future Joint Venture partners for the construction of future tunnels at
various sites throughout the nation. Traylor asserts that generally, it
bores tunnels (i.e., Blue Plains, as well as future tunnels) below the
water table through soft soils consisting of clay, silt, and sand.
Traylor employs specially trained personnel for the construction of
the tunnel, and states that this construction will use shielded
mechanical-excavation techniques. Traylor asserts that its workers
perform hyperbaric interventions at pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g.
in the excavation chamber of the EPBTBM; these interventions consist of
conducting inspections and maintenance work on the cutter-head
structure and cutting tools of the EPBTBM.
Traylor asserts that innovations in tunnel excavation, specifically
with EPBTBMs, have, in most cases, eliminated the need to pressurize
the entire tunnel. This technology negates the requirement that all
members of a tunnel-excavation crew work in compressed air while
excavating the tunnel. These advances in technology modified
substantially the methods used by the construction industry to excavate
subaqueous tunnels compared to the caisson work regulated by the
current OSHA compressed-air standard for construction at 29 CFR
1926.803. Such advances reduce the number of workers exposed, and the
total duration of exposure to hyperbaric pressure during tunnel
construction.
Using shielded mechanical-excavation techniques, in conjunction
with precast concrete tunnel liners and backfill grout, EPBTBMs provide
methods to achieve the face pressures required to maintain a stabilized
tunnel face through various geologies, and isolate that pressure to the
forward section (the working chamber) of the EPBTBM. Interventions in
the working chamber (the pressurized portion of the EPBTBM) take place
only after halting tunnel excavation and preparing the machine and crew
for an intervention. Interventions occur to inspect or maintain the
mechanical-excavation components located in the working chamber.
Maintenance conducted in the working chamber includes changing
replaceable cutting tools and disposable wear bars, and, in rare cases,
repairing structural damage to the cutter head.
In addition to innovations in tunnel-excavation methods, Traylor
asserts that innovations in hyperbaric medicine and technology improve
the safety of decompression from hyperbaric exposures. According to
Traylor, the use of decompression protocols incorporating oxygen is
more efficient, effective, and safer for tunnel workers than compliance
with the decompression tables specified by the existing OSHA standard
(29 CFR 1926, subpart S, Appendix A decompression tables). These
hyperbaric exposures are made safe by advances in technology, a better
understanding of hyperbaric medicine, and the development of a project-
specific Hyperbaric Operations Manual (HOM) that requires specialized
medical support and hyperbaric supervision to provide assistance to a
team of specially trained man lock attendants and hyperbaric workers or
CAWs.
OSHA initiated a technical review of the Traylor's variance
application and developed a set of follow-up questions that it sent to
Traylor on September 17, 2012 (Ex. OSHA-2012-0035-0003). On October 26,
2012, Traylor submitted its response and a request for an interim order
for the Blue Plains Tunnel Project, as well as future projects (Ex.
OSHA-2012-0035-0013). In its response to OSHA's follow-up questions,
Traylor indicated that the maximum pressure to which it is likely to
expose workers during future project interventions is 75 p.s.i.g and
may involve the use of trimix breathing gas (composed of a mixture of
oxygen, nitrogen, and helium in varying concentrations used for
breathing by divers and CAWs for compression and decompression when
working at pressures exceeding 73 p.s.i.g.). Therefore, to work
effectively on future projects, Traylor must perform hyperbaric
interventions in compressed air at pressures higher than the maximum
pressure specified by the existing OSHA standard, 29 CFR
1926.803(e)(5), which states: ``No employee shall be subjected to
pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. except in emergency'' (see footnote 2).
On July 11, 2013, OSHA granted Traylor JV a project-specific
interim order for the completion of the Blue Plains Tunnel in order to
permit the applicant to begin work while OSHA continued to consider its
application for a permanent variance (for Traylor JV's completion of
the Blue Plains Tunnel, as well as Traylor's future tunneling
projects). On December 11, 2014, OSHA published a Federal Register
notice announcing Traylor JV's application for permanent variance and
interim order, grant of an interim order, and request for comments (79
FR 73631). The comment period expired on January 12, 2015. OSHA did not
receive any comments on the proposed variance. As noted above, on March
27, 2015, OSHA published the Federal Register notice announcing the
grant of a permanent variance to Traylor JV for completion of the Blue
Plains Tunnel (80 FR 16440).
During its consideration of the Blue Plains variance, OSHA
continued its technical review of the Traylor's variance application
focusing on the proposed use of trimix breathing gas (proposed for use
in future tunneling projects at pressures exceeding 73 p.s.i.g.) and
developed a second set of follow-up questions that it sent to Traylor
on December 18, 2013 (Ex. OSHA-2012-0035-0002). On January 21, 2014,
Traylor submitted its response (Ex. OSHA-2012-0035-0009). In its
response to OSHA's follow-up questions, Traylor provided additional
technical and scientific information concerning successful trimix use
on tunneling projects throughout the United States, as well as in
Europe and Asia. Additionally, Traylor reaffirmed that the maximum
pressure to which it is likely to expose workers during interventions
for future tunneling
[[Page 44388]]
projects is 75 p.s.i.g. and may involve the use of trimix breathing
gas.
In reviewing Traylor's application for future tunneling projects,
OSHA focused on the following important considerations:
Variances are granted only to specific employers that
submitted a properly completed and executed variance application.
Traylor has met this requirement (for the single employer
application);
This notice announces only Traylor's (single employer)
application for a variance dealing with future projects. It does not
address Traylor's future hyperbaric tunneling projects in
association with unnamed joint venture partners;
Proposed variance conditions require Traylor to submit
for OSHA's review and approval a project-specific HOM at least one
year prior to the start of work on any future project;
The proposed variance conditions require the HOM to
demonstrate that the EPBTBM to be used on the project is designed,
fabricated, inspected, tested, marked, and stamped in accordance
with the requirements of ASME PVHO-1.2012 (or most recent edition of
Safety Standards for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy) for the
TBM's hyperbaric chambers.
This condition ensures that each proposed future
tunneling project can be comprehensively reviewed on a case-by-case
basis prior to OSHA granting its approval to Traylor to proceed with
its new project;
Traylor may not begin hyperbaric interventions at
pressures exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. until OSHA completes its review of
the project-specific HOM and determines that the safety and health
instructions and measures it specifies would be appropriate, would
comply with the conditions of the variance, would adequately protect
the safety and health of CAWs, and so notifies the applicant; and
Traylor will be required to submit new applications
requesting modification of its single employer variance and approval
of its project-specific HOM [with sufficient lead time (at least one
year prior to start of work on any future project), to allow OSHA to
complete the variance modification process], upon forming any future
joint ventures.
Further, on December 6, 2012, OSHA published a Federal Register
notice (77 FR 72781) announcing a request for information (RFI) for its
continuing regulatory reviews named standards improvement projects
(SIPs). The Agency conducted similar regulatory reviews of its existing
standards previously and issued this latest RFI to initiate another of
these regulatory reviews, and naming this review the Standards
Improvement Project--Phase IV (SIP-IV). The purpose of SIP-IV is to
improve and streamline OSHA standards by removing or revising
requirements that are confusing or outdated, or that duplicate, or are
inconsistent with other standards. Additionally, the regulatory review
also is designed to reduce regulatory burden while maintaining or
enhancing employees' safety and health. SIP-IV will focus primarily on
OSHA's construction standards.
As part of SIP-IV, OSHA is considering updating the decompression
tables in Appendix A (1926.803(f)(1)) (77 FR 72783). This proposed
action would permit employers to use decompression procedures and
updated decompression tables that take advantage of new hyperbaric
technologies used widely in extreme hyperbaric exposures. If the
planned SIP-IV revises Appendix A, Traylor (and similar tunneling
contractors previously granted a variance) will still require
hyperbaric tunneling variances to address portions of the standard not
covered by SIP-IV (i.e., 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5); .803(g)(1)(iii) and
.803(g)(1)(xvii)).
If SIP-IV is completed (including the update of the decompression
tables in Appendix A (1926.803(f)(1)), OSHA will modify Traylor's
(single employer) and similar variances granted to other employers to
include the applicable SIP-IV provisions as appropriate.
OSHA considered Traylor's application for a permanent variance and
interim order for future tunneling projects. OSHA determined that
Traylor proposed an alternative that will provide a workplace at least
as safe and healthful as that provided by the standard.
II. The Variance Application
A. Background
Traylor asserts that the advances in tunnel excavation technology
described in Section I of this notice modified significantly the
equipment and methods used by contractors to construct subaqueous
tunnels, thereby making several provisions of OSHA's compressed-air
standard for construction at 29 CFR 1926.803 inappropriate for this
type of work. These advances reduce both the number of workers exposed,
and the total duration of exposure to the hyperbaric conditions
associated with tunnel construction.
Using shielded mechanical-excavation techniques, in conjunction
with pre-cast concrete tunnel liners and backfill grout, EPBTBMs
provide methods to achieve the face pressures required to maintain a
stabilized tunnel face, through various geologies, while isolating that
pressure to the forward section (working or excavation chamber) of the
EPBTBM.
Interventions involving the working chamber (the pressurized
chamber at the head of the EPBTBM) take place only after the applicant
halts tunnel excavation and prepares the machine and crew for an
intervention. Interventions occur to inspect or maintain the
mechanical-excavation components located in the forward portion of the
working chamber. Maintenance conducted in the forward portion of the
working chamber includes changing replaceable cutting tools, disposable
wear bars, and, in rare cases, repairs to the cutter head due to
structural damage.
In addition to innovations in tunnel-excavation methods, research
conducted after OSHA published its compressed-air standard for
construction in 1971, resulted in advances in hyperbaric medicine. In
this regard, the applicant asserts that the use of decompression
protocols incorporating oxygen and trimix is more efficient, effective,
and safer for tunnel workers than compliance with the existing OSHA
standard (29 CFR 1926, subpart S, Appendix A decompression tables).
According to the applicant, contractors routinely and safely expose
employees performing interventions in the working chamber of EPBTBMs to
hyperbaric pressures up to 75 p.s.i.g., which is 50% higher than
maximum pressure specified by the existing OSHA standard (see 29 CFR
1926.803(e)(5)).
The applicant contends that the alternative safety measures
included in its application provide its workers with a place of
employment that is at least as safe and healthful as they would obtain
under the existing provisions of OSHA's compressed-air standard for
construction. The applicant certifies that it provided employee
representatives of affected workers with a copy of the variance
application.\3\ The applicant also certifies that it notified its
workers of the variance application by posting at prominent locations
where it normally posts workplace notices, a summary of the application
and information specifying where the workers can examine a copy of the
application. In addition, the applicant informed its workers and their
representatives of their rights to petition the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health for a hearing on the variance
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the definition of ``Affected employee or worker'' in
section III. D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Variance From Paragraph (e)(5) of 29 CFR 1926.803, Prohibition of
Exposure to Pressure Greater Than 50 p.s.i.g. (see Footnote 1)
The applicant states that it may perform hyperbaric interventions
at
[[Page 44389]]
pressures greater than 50 p.s.i.g. in the working chamber of the
EPBTBM; this pressure exceeds the pressure limit of 50 p.s.i.g.
specified for nonemergency purposes by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5). The
EPBTBM has twin man locks, with each man lock having two compartments.
This configuration allows workers to access the man locks for
compression and decompression, and medical personnel to access the man
locks if required in an emergency.
EPBTBMs are capable of maintaining pressure at the tunnel face, and
stabilizing existing geological conditions, through the controlled use
of propel cylinders, a mechanically driven cutter head, bulkheads
within the shield, ground-treatment foam, and a screw conveyor that
moves excavated material from the working chamber. As noted earlier,
the forward-most portion of the EPBTBM is the working chamber, and this
chamber is the only pressurized segment of the EPBTBM. Within the
shield, the working chamber consists of two sections: the staging
chamber and the forward working chamber. The staging chamber is the
section of the working chamber between the man lock door and the entry
door to the forward working chamber. The forward working chamber is
immediately behind the cutter head and tunnel face.
The applicant will pressurize the working chamber to the level
required to maintain a stable tunnel face. Pressure in the staging
chamber ranges from atmospheric (no increased pressure) to a maximum
pressure equal to the pressure in the working chamber. The applicant
asserts that most of the hyperbaric interventions will be around 14.7
p.s.i.g. However, the applicant maintains that they may have to perform
interventions at pressures up to 75 p.s.i.g.
During interventions, workers enter the working chamber through one
of the twin man locks that open into the staging chamber. To reach the
forward part of the working chamber, workers pass through a door in a
bulkhead that separates the staging chamber from the forward working
chamber. The maximum crew size allowed in the forward working chamber
is three. At certain hyperbaric pressures (i.e., when decompression
times are greater than work times), the twin man locks allow for crew
rotation. During crew rotation, one crew can be compressing or
decompressing while the second crew is working. Therefore, the working
crew always has an unoccupied man lock at its disposal.
Further, the applicant asserts that it will develop a project-
specific HOM for each future tunnel project that describes in detail
the hyperbaric procedures and required medical examinations used during
the planned tunnel-construction project. The HOM will be project-
specific, and will discuss standard operating procedures and emergency
and contingency procedures. The procedures will include using
experienced and knowledgeable man-lock attendants who have the training
and experience necessary to recognize and treat decompression illnesses
and injuries. The attendants will be under the direct supervision of
the hyperbaric supervisor and attending physician. In addition,
procedures will include medical screening and review of prospective
CAWs. The purpose of this screening procedure is to vet prospective
CAWs with medical conditions (e.g., deep vein thrombosis, poor vascular
circulation, and muscle cramping) that could be aggravated by sitting
in a cramped space (e.g., a man lock) for extended periods or by
exposure to elevated pressures and compressed gas mixtures. A
transportable recompression chamber (shuttle) will be available to
extract workers from the hyperbaric working chamber for emergency
evacuation and medical treatment; the shuttle attaches to the topside
medical lock, which is a large recompression chamber. The applicant
believes that the procedures included in the variance application and
in its project-specific HOM will provide safe work conditions when
interventions are necessary, including interventions above 50 p.s.i.g.
OSHA will comprehensively review the project-specific HOM for each of
Traylor's future projects prior to granting its approval for Traylor to
proceed with its new project. Therefore, Traylor may not begin
hyperbaric interventions at pressures exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. until OSHA
completes its review of the project-specific HOM and determines that
the safety and health instructions and measures it specifies would be
appropriate, would conform with the conditions in the variance, and
would adequately protect the safety and health of the CAWs. OSHA will
notify the applicant that: (1) Its project-specific HOM was found to be
acceptable; and (2) the applicant may begin hyperbaric interventions at
pressures exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. by complying fully with the conditions
of the interim order or proposed variance (as an alternative to
complying with the requirements of the standard).
C. Variance From Paragraph (f)(1) of 29 CFR 1926.803, Requirement To
Use OSHA Decompression Tables
OSHA's compressed-air standard for construction requires
decompression in accordance with the decompression tables in Appendix A
of 29 CFR 1926, subpart S (see 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)). As an
alternative to the OSHA decompression tables, the applicant proposes to
use newer decompression schedules that supplement breathing air used
during decompression with air, nitrox, or trimix (as appropriate). The
applicant asserts decompression protocols using the 1992 French
Decompression Tables for air, nitrox, or trimix as specified by the HOM
are safer for tunnel workers than the decompression protocols specified
in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1926, subpart S.
Accordingly, the applicant proposes to use the 1992 French
Decompression Tables to decompress CAWs after they exit the hyperbaric
conditions in the working chamber. Also, Traylor proposes to decompress
with trimix gas, under certain conditions specific to and described in
detail in the project-specific HOM associated with each future
tunneling project. Depending on the maximum working pressure and
exposure times, the 1992 French Decompression Tables provide for air
decompression with or without oxygen or trimix. Traylor asserts that
using the 1992 French Decompression Tables for air, nitrox, or trimix
decompression has many benefits, including (1) keeping the partial
pressure of nitrogen in the lungs as low as possible; (2) keeping
external pressure as low as possible to reduce the formation of bubbles
in the blood; (3) removing nitrogen from the lungs and arterial blood
and increasing the rate of elimination of nitrogen; (4) improving the
quality of breathing during decompression stops so that workers are
less tired and to prevent bone necrosis; (5) reducing decompression
time by about 33 percent as compared to air decompression; and (6)
reducing inflammation. Traylor asserts that the 1992 French
Decompression Tables, Appendix B provide for air decompression with
trimix supplementation for staged decompression for pressures ranging
from 58 to 75 p.s.i.g. As described in Section IV of this notice,
OSHA's review of the use of air, nitrox, or trimix in several major
tunneling projects completed in the past indicates that it contributed
significantly to the reduction of decompression illness (DCI) and other
associated adverse effects observed and reported among CAWs.
[[Page 44390]]
In addition, the project-specific HOM will require a physician
certified in hyperbaric medicine to manage the medical condition of
CAWs during hyperbaric exposures and decompression. A trained and
experienced man-lock attendant also will be present during hyperbaric
exposures and decompression. This man lock attendant will operate the
hyperbaric system to ensure compliance with the specified decompression
table. A hyperbaric supervisor (competent person), trained in
hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety, will directly oversee
all hyperbaric interventions, and ensures that staff follow the
procedures delineated in the HOM or by the attending physician.
The applicant asserts that at higher hyperbaric pressures,
decompression times exceed 75 minutes. The variance application and the
project-specific HOMs will establish protocols and procedures that
provide the basis for alternate means of protection for CAWs under
these conditions. Accordingly, based on these protocols and procedures,
the applicant requests to use the 1992 French Decompression Tables for
hyperbaric interventions up to 75 p.s.i.g. for future projects. The
applicant is committed to follow the decompression procedures described
in its application and the project-specific HOM during these
interventions.
D. Variance From Paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of 29 CFR 1926.803,
Automatically Regulated Continuous Decompression
According to the applicant, breathing air under hyperbaric
conditions increases the amount of nitrogen gas dissolved in a CAW's
tissues. The greater the hyperbaric pressure under these conditions,
and the more time spent under the increased pressure, the greater the
amount of nitrogen gas dissolved in the tissues. When the pressure
decreases during decompression, tissues release the dissolved nitrogen
gas into the blood system, which then carries the nitrogen gas to the
lungs for elimination through exhalation. Releasing hyperbaric pressure
too rapidly during decompression can increase the size of the bubbles
formed by nitrogen gas in the blood system, resulting in DCI, commonly
referred to as ``the bends.'' This description of the etiology of DCI
is consistent with current scientific theory and research on the issue
(see footnote 12 in this notice discussing a 1985 NIOSH report on DCI).
The 1992 French Decompression Tables proposed for use by the
applicant provide for stops during worker decompression (i.e., staged
decompression) to control the release of nitrogen gas from tissues into
the blood system. Studies show that staged decompression, in
combination with other features of the 1992 French Decompression Tables
such as the use of oxygen, result in a lower incidence of DCI than the
OSHA decompression requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803, which specify the
use of automatically regulated continuous decompression (see footnotes
10 through 18 in this notice for references to these studies).\4\ In
addition, the applicant asserts that staged decompression is at least
as effective as an automatic controller in regulating the decompression
process because:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the study cited in footnote 10, starting at page 338, Dr.
Eric Kindwall notes that the use of automatically regulated
continuous decompression in the Washington State safety standards
for compressed-air work (from which OSHA derived its decompression
tables) was at the insistence of contractors and the union, and
against the advice of the expert who calculated the decompression
table and recommended using staged decompression. Dr. Kindwall then
states, ``Continuous decompression is inefficient and wasteful. For
example, if the last stage from 4 psig . . . to the surface took 1
h, at least half the time is spent at pressures less than 2 psig . .
., which provides less and less meaningful bubble suppression . . .
.'' In addition, the report referenced in footnote 5 under the
section titled, ``Background on the Need for Interim Decompression
Tables'' addresses the continuous-decompression protocol in the OSHA
compressed-air standard for construction, noting that ``[a]side from
the tables for saturation diving to deep depths, no other widely
used or officially approved diving decompression tables use straight
line, continuous decompressions at varying rates. Stage
decompression is usually the rule, since it is simpler to control.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A hyperbaric supervisor (a competent person experienced and
trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety) directly
supervises all hyperbaric interventions and ensures that the man-lock
attendant, who is a competent person in the manual control of
hyperbaric systems, follows the schedule specified in the decompression
tables, including stops; and
2. The use of the 1992 French Decompression Tables for staged
decompression offers an equal or better level of management and control
over the decompression process than an automatic controller and results
in lower occurrences of DCI.
Accordingly, the applicant is applying for a permanent variance
from the OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii), which requires
automatic controls to regulate decompression. As noted above, the
applicant is committed to conduct the staged decompression according to
the 1992 French Decompression Tables under the direct control of the
trained man-lock attendant and under the oversight of the hyperbaric
supervisor.
E. Variance From Paragraph (g)(1)(xvii) of 29 CFR 1926.803, Requirement
of Special Decompression Chamber
The OSHA compressed-air standard for construction requires
employers to use a special decompression chamber of sufficient size to
accommodate all CAWs being decompressed at the end of the shift when
total decompression time exceeds 75 minutes (see 29 CFR
1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)). Use of the special decompression chamber enables
CAWs to move about and flex their joints to prevent neuromuscular
problems during decompression.
As an alternative to using a special decompression chamber, the
applicant notes that since only the working chamber of the EPBTBM is
under pressure, and only a few workers out of the entire crew are
exposed to hyperbaric pressure, the man locks (which, as noted earlier,
connect directly to the working chamber) and the staging chamber are of
sufficient size to accommodate the exposed workers during
decompression. In addition, space limitations in the EPBTBM do not
allow for the installation and use of an additional special
decompression lock or chamber. Again, the applicant uses the existing
man locks, each of which adequately accommodates a three-member crew
for this purpose when decompression lasts up to 75 minutes. When
decompression exceeds 75 minutes, crews can open the door connecting
the two compartments in each man lock (during decompression stops) or
exit the man lock and move into the staging chamber where additional
space is available. The applicant asserts that this alternative
arrangement is as effective as a special decompression chamber in that
it has sufficient space for all the CAWs at the end of a shift and
enables the CAWs to move about and flex their joints to prevent
neuromuscular problems.
F. Previous Tunnel Construction Variances
OSHA notes that on May 23, 2014, it granted a sub-aqueous tunnel
construction permanent variance to Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture (79 FR
29809) from the same provisions of the standard that regulates work in
compressed air (at 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and
(g)(1)(xvii)) that are the subject of the present application.
Additionally, as previously stated in this notice, on March, 27, 2015,
OSHA also granted a sub-aqueous tunnel construction permanent variance
to Traylor JV for the
[[Page 44391]]
completion of the Blue Plains Tunnel (80 FR 16440).
Generally, the proposed alternate conditions in this notice are
based on and very similar to the alternate conditions of the previous
permanent variances.
G. Multi-State Variance
Traylor stated that it performs construction of sub-aqueous tunnels
using EPBTBM in compressed-air environments in a number of states that
operate safety and health plans that have been approved by OSHA under
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.) and 29 CFR part 1952 (``Approved State Plans for
Enforcement of State Standards''). Because Traylor performs tunnel
construction work nationwide, OSHA will process Traylor's application
as one for a permanent, multi-state variance covering all states.
Twenty-seven state safety and health plans have been approved by
OSHA under Section 18 of the OSH Act.\5\ As part of the permanent
variance process, the Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs
will notify the State Plans of Traylor's variance application and grant
of the interim order, and the states will have the opportunity to
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Five State Plans (Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New
York, and the Virgin Islands) limit their occupational safety and
health authority to state and local employers only. State Plans that
exercise their occupational safety and health authority over both
public- and private-sector employers are: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and
Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in consideration of Traylor's application for a
permanent multi-state variance and interim order, OSHA noted that four
states have previously granted sub-aqueous tunnel construction
variances and imposed different or additional requirements and
conditions (California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). California
also promulgated a new standard \6\ for similar sub-aqueous tunnel
construction work. In these states that previously granted variances,
Traylor would have to continue to meet state-specific requirements,
should OSHA grant Traylor a permanent multi-state variance. Traylor
must be prepared to apply separately to these states for a variance for
tunnel construction work addressing the conditions specified by this
proposed variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Subchapter 7,
Group 26, Article 154, available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb7g26a154.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five State Plans (Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands) cover only public-sector workers and have no
authority over the private-sector workers addressed in this variance
application (i.e., that authority continues to reside with Federal
OSHA).
III. Description of the Conditions Specified by the Application for a
Permanent Variance
This section describes the alternative means of compliance with 29
CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) and provides
additional detail regarding the proposed conditions that form the basis
of Traylor's application for a permanent variance.
Proposed Condition A: Scope
The scope of the permanent variance would limit coverage to the
work situations specified under this proposed condition. Clearly
defining the scope of the proposed permanent variance provides Traylor,
Traylor's employees, potential future applicants, other stakeholders,
the public, and OSHA with necessary information regarding the work
situations in which the proposed permanent variance would apply.
As previously indicated in this notice, according to 29 CFR
1905.11, an employer (or class or group of employers \7\) may request a
permanent variance for a specific workplace or workplaces (multiple
sites). If granted, the variance would apply to the specific
employer(s) that submitted the application. In this instance, if OSHA
were to grant a permanent variance, it would apply to the applicant
only. As a result, it is important to understand that if OSHA were to
grant Traylor a permanent variance, the interim order and proposed
variance would not apply to any other employers such as other joint
ventures the applicant may undertake in the future. However, the
variance rules of practice do contain provisions for future
modification of permanent variances. Under the provisions of 29 CFR
1905.13, an applicant may submit an application to modify or amend a
permanent variance to add or include additional employers (i.e., when
future joint ventures are established).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A class or group of employers (such as members of a trade
alliance or association) may apply jointly for a variance provided
an authorized representative for each employer signs the application
and the application identifies each employer's affected facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Condition B: Application
The proposed condition specifies the circumstances under which the
proposed permanent variance would be in effect, notably only for
hyperbaric work performed during interventions. The proposed condition
places clear limits on the circumstances under which the applicant can
expose its employees to hyperbaric pressure.
Proposed Condition C: List of Abbreviations
This proposed condition defines a number of abbreviations used in
the proposed permanent variance. OSHA believes that defining these
abbreviations serves to clarify and standardize their usage, thereby
enhancing the applicant's and its employees' understanding of the
conditions specified by the proposed permanent variance.
Proposed Condition D: Definitions
The proposed condition defines a series of terms, mostly technical
terms, used in the permanent variance to standardize and clarify their
meaning. Defining these terms serves to enhance the applicant's and its
employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the proposed
permanent variance.
Proposed Condition E: Safety and Health Practices
The proposed condition requires the applicant to develop and submit
to OSHA a project-specific HOM at least one year before using the
EPBTBM for tunneling operations. The HOM will have to demonstrate that
the EPBTBM planned for use in tunneling operations is designed,
fabricated, inspected, tested, marked, and stamped in accordance with
the requirements of ASME PVHO-1.2012 (or most recent edition of Safety
Standards for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy) for the TBM's
hyperbaric chambers. These requirements ensure that the applicant
develops hyperbaric safety and health procedures suitable for each
specific project. The HOM enables OSHA to determine that the safety and
health instructions and measures it specifies would be appropriate to
the field conditions of the proposed tunnel (including expected
geological conditions), would conform to the conditions of the
variance, and will adequately protect the safety and health of the
CAWs. It also enables OSHA to enforce these instructions and measures.
Additionally, the proposed condition includes a series of related
hazard prevention and control requirements and methods (e.g.,
decompression tables, job hazard analysis (JHA), operations and
inspections checklists, investigation, recording and notification to
OSHA of recordable hyperbaric injuries and illnesses, etc.) designed to
[[Page 44392]]
ensure the continued effective functioning of the hyperbaric equipment
and operating system.
Review of the project-specific HOM would enable OSHA to: (1)
Determine that the safety and health instructions and measures it
specifies would be appropriate, would conform to the conditions of the
variance, and would adequately protect the safety and health of CAWs;
and (2) request the applicant to revise or modify the HOM if it finds
that the hyperbaric safety and health procedures are not suitable for
the specific project and would not adequately protect the safety and
health of the CAWs. The applicant may not begin hyperbaric
interventions at pressures exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. until OSHA completes
its review of the project-specific HOM and determines that the safety
and health instructions and measures it specifies would be appropriate,
would conform to the conditions of the variance, and will adequately
protect the safety and health of the CAWs. OSHA will notify the
applicant that: (1) Its project-specific HOM was found to be
acceptable; and (2) the applicant may begin hyperbaric interventions at
pressures exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. by complying fully with the conditions
of the interim order or proposed permanent variance (if, or until the
permanent variance is granted as an alternative to complying with the
requirements of the standard).
Once approved, the project-specific HOM would become part of the
variance, thus enabling OSHA to enforce its safety and health
procedures and measures.
Proposed Condition F: Communication
The proposed condition would require the applicant to develop and
implement an effective system of information sharing and communication.
Effective information sharing and communication ensures that affected
workers receive updated information regarding any safety-related
hazards and incidents, and corrective actions taken, prior to the start
of each shift. The proposed condition also requires the applicant to
ensure that reliable means of emergency communications are available
and maintained for affected workers and support personnel during
hyperbaric operations. Availability of such reliable means of
communications would enable affected workers and support personnel to
respond quickly and effectively to hazardous conditions or emergencies
that may develop during EPBTBM operations.
Proposed Condition G: Worker Qualification and Training
The proposed condition would require the applicant to develop and
implement an effective qualification and training program for affected
workers. The proposed condition specifies the factors that an affected
worker must know to perform safely during hyperbaric operations,
including how to enter, work in, and exit from hyperbaric conditions
under both normal and emergency conditions. Having well-trained and
qualified workers performing hyperbaric intervention work ensures that
they recognize, and respond appropriately to, hyperbaric safety and
health hazards. These qualification and training requirements enable
affected workers to cope effectively with emergencies, as well as the
discomfort and physiological effects of hyperbaric exposure, thereby
preventing injury, illness, and fatalities.
Paragraph (2)(e) of this proposed condition also would require the
applicant to provide affected workers with information they can use to
contact the appropriate healthcare professionals if it is suspected
that they are developing hyperbaric-related health effects. This
requirement provides for early intervention and treatment of DCI and
other health effects resulting from hyperbaric exposure, thereby
reducing the potential severity of these effects.
Proposed Condition H: Inspections, Tests, and Accident Prevention
The proposed condition would require the applicant to develop,
implement, and operate a program of frequent and regular inspections of
the EPBTBM's hyperbaric equipment and support systems, and associated
work areas. This proposed condition would help to ensure the safe
operation and physical integrity of the equipment and work areas
necessary to conduct hyperbaric operations. The proposed condition
would also enhance worker safety by reducing the risk of hyperbaric-
related emergencies.
Paragraph (3) of this proposed condition would require the
applicant to document tests, inspections, corrective actions, and
repairs involving the EPBTBM, and maintain these documents at the job
site for the duration of the job. This requirement would provide the
applicant with information needed to schedule tests and inspections to
ensure the continued safe operation of the equipment and systems, and
to determine that the actions taken to correct defects in hyperbaric
equipment and systems were appropriate, prior to returning them to
service.
Proposed Condition I: Compression and Decompression
The proposed condition would require the applicant to consult with
its designated medical advisor regarding special compression or
decompression procedures appropriate for any unacclimated CAW. This
proposed provision would ensure that the applicant consults with the
medical advisor, and involves the medical advisor in the evaluation,
development, and implementation of compression or decompression
protocols appropriate for any CAW requiring acclimation to the
hyperbaric conditions encountered during EPBTBM operations.
Accordingly, CAWs requiring acclimation would have an opportunity to
acclimate prior to exposure to these hyperbaric conditions. OSHA
believes this proposed condition would prevent or reduce adverse
reactions among CAWs to the effects of compression or decompression
associated with the intervention work they perform in the EPBTBM.
Proposed Condition J: Recordkeeping
The proposed condition would require the applicant to maintain
records of specific factors associated with each hyperbaric
intervention. The information gathered and recorded under this
provision, in concert with the information provided under proposed
condition K (using OSHA 301 Incident Report form to investigate,
record, and provide notice to OSHA of hyperbaric recordable injuries as
defined by 29 CFR 1904.4, 1904.7, 1904.8 through 1904.12), would enable
the applicant and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the permanent
variance in preventing DCI and other hyperbaric-related effects.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 29 CFR 1904 Recording and Reporting Occupational
Injuries and Illnesses (https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9631); recordkeeping
forms and instructions (https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/RKform300pkg-fillable-enabled.pdf); and updates to OSHA's
recordkeeping rule and Web page ((79 FR 56130); https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping2014/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Condition K: Notifications
Under the proposed condition, the applicant would be required,
within specified periods, to notify OSHA of: (1) Any recordable injury,
illness, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, loss of an eye, or
fatality that occurs as a result of hyperbaric exposures during EPBTBM
operations; (2) provide OSHA with a copy of the hyperbaric exposures
incident investigation report (using
[[Page 44393]]
OSHA 301 form) of these events within 24 hours of the incident; (3)
include on the 301 form information on the hyperbaric conditions
associated with the recordable injury or illness, the root-cause
determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and
implemented; (4) provide its certification that it informed affected
workers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation;
(5) notify the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities
(OTPCA) and the OSHA Area Office closest to the tunnel project site
within 15 working days should the applicant need to revise its HOM to
accommodate changes in its compressed-air operations that affect its
ability to comply with the conditions of the proposed permanent
variance; and (6) provide OTPCA and the OSHA Area Office closest to the
tunnel project site, at the end of the project, with a report
evaluating the effectiveness of the decompression tables.
It should be noted that the requirement of completing and
submitting the hyperbaric exposure-related (recordable) incident
investigation report (OSHA 301 form) would be more restrictive than the
current recordkeeping requirement of completing the OSHA 301 form
within 7 calendar days of the incident (1904.29(b)(3)). This modified
and more stringent incident investigation and reporting requirement
would be restricted to intervention-related hyperbaric (recordable)
incidents only. Providing notification would be essential because time
is a critical element in OSHA's ability to determine the continued
effectiveness of the variance conditions in preventing hyperbaric
incidents, and the applicant's identification and implementation of
appropriate corrective and preventive actions.
Further, these notification requirements also would enable the
applicant, its employees, and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of
the permanent variance in providing the requisite level of safety to
the applicant's workers and, based on this determination, whether to
revise or revoke the conditions of the proposed permanent variance.
Timely notification would permit OSHA to take whatever action may be
necessary and appropriate to prevent further injuries and illnesses.
Providing notification to employees would inform them of the
precautions taken by the applicant to prevent similar incidents in the
future.
Additionally, this proposed condition also would require the
applicant to notify OSHA if it ceases to do business, has a new address
or location for its main office, or transfers the operations covered by
the proposed permanent variance to a successor company. In addition,
the condition specifies that OSHA must approve the transfer of the
permanent variance to a successor company. These requirements would
allow OSHA to communicate effectively with the applicant regarding the
status of the proposed permanent variance, and expedite the Agency's
administration and enforcement of the permanent variance. Stipulating
that an applicant would be required to have OSHA's approval to transfer
a variance to a successor company would provide assurance that the
successor company has knowledge of, and will comply with, the
conditions specified by proposed permanent variance, thereby ensuring
the safety of workers involved in performing the operations covered by
the proposed permanent variance.
IV. Grant of Interim Order
As noted earlier, the applicant requested an interim order. Based
on Traylor's assertions in its application, the interim order addresses
CAWs performing interventions in hyperbaric conditions exceeding 50
p.s.i.g. that involve proposed use of the 1992 French Decompression
Tables for air, nitrox, or trimix as specified by the HOM for staged
decompression with pressures ranging from 58 to 75 p.s.i.g. During the
period starting with the publication of this notice until the Agency
modifies or revokes the interim order or makes a decision on its
application for a permanent variance, the applicant is required to
comply fully with the conditions of the interim order (as an
alternative to complying with the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803
(hereafter, ``the standard'')) that:
A. Prohibit employers using compressed air under hyperbaric
conditions from subjecting workers to pressure exceeding 50 p.s.i.g.,
except in an emergency (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5));
B. Require the use of decompression values specified by the
decompression tables in Appendix A of the compressed-air standard (29
CFR 1926.803(f)(1)); and
C. Require the use of automated operational controls and a special
decompression chamber (29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and .803(g)(1)(xvii),
respectively).
After reviewing the proposed alternatives OSHA preliminarily
determined that:
A. Traylor developed, and proposed to implement, effective
alternative measures to the prohibition of using compressed air under
hyperbaric conditions exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. The alternative measures
include use of engineering and administrative controls of the hazards
associated with work performed in compressed-air conditions exceeding
50 p.s.i.g. while engaged in the construction of a subaqueous tunnel
using advanced shielded mechanical-excavation techniques in conjunction
with an EPBTBM. Prior to conducting interventions in the EPBTBM's
pressurized working chamber, the applicant halts tunnel excavation and
prepares the machine and crew to conduct the interventions.
Interventions involve inspection, maintenance, or repair of the
mechanical-excavation components located in the working chamber.
B. Traylor developed, and proposed to implement, safe hyperbaric
work procedures, emergency and contingency procedures, and medical
examinations for future tunneling projects' CAWs. The applicant will
compile these standard operating procedures into a project-specific
HOM. The HOM will discuss the procedures and personnel qualifications
for performing work safely during the compression and decompression
phases of interventions. The HOM will also specify the decompression
tables the applicant proposes to use. Depending on the maximum working
pressure and exposure times during the interventions, the tables
provide for decompression using the 1992 French Decompression Tables
for air, nitrox, or trimix as specified by the HOM. The decompression
tables also include delays or stops for various time intervals at
different pressure levels during the transition to atmospheric pressure
(i.e., staged decompression). In all cases, a physician certified in
hyperbaric medicine will manage the medical condition of CAWs during
decompression. In addition, a trained and experienced man-lock
attendant, experienced in recognizing decompression sickness or
illnesses and injuries will be present. Of key importance, a hyperbaric
supervisor (competent person), trained in hyperbaric operations,
procedures, and safety, will directly supervise all hyperbaric
operations to ensure compliance with the procedures delineated in the
project-specific HOM or by the attending physician.
C. Traylor developed, and proposed to implement, a training program
to instruct affected workers in the hazards associated with conducting
hyperbaric operations.
D. Traylor developed, and proposed to implement, an effective
alternative to the use of automatic controllers that continuously
decrease pressure to
[[Page 44394]]
achieve decompression in accordance with the tables specified by the
standard. The alternative includes using: (1) The 1992 French
Decompression Tables for guiding staged decompression to achieve lower
occurrences of DCI; (2) decompression protocols of air, nitrox, or
trimix again to achieve lower occurrences of DCI; (3) a trained and
competent attendant for implementing appropriate hyperbaric entry and
exit procedures, and (4) a competent hyperbaric supervisor and
attending physician certified in hyperbaric medicine, to oversee all
hyperbaric operations.
E. Traylor developed, and proposed to implement, an effective
alternative to the use of the special decompression chamber required by
the standard. EPBTBM technology permits the tunnel's work areas to be
at atmospheric pressure, with only the face of the EPBTBM (i.e., the
working chamber) at elevated pressure during interventions. The
applicant would limit interventions conducted in the working chamber to
performing required inspection, maintenance, and repair of the cutting
tools on the face of the EPBTBM. The EPBTBM's man lock and working
chamber provide sufficient space for the maximum crew of three CAWs to
stand up and move around, and safely accommodate decompression times up
to 360 minutes. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily determined that the
EPBTBM's man lock and working chamber function as effectively as the
special decompression chamber required by the standard.
OSHA conducted a review of the scientific literature regarding
decompression to determine whether the alternative decompression method
(i.e., the 1992 French Decompression Tables) Traylor proposed would
provide a workplace as safe and healthful as that provided by the
standard. Based on this review, OSHA determined that tunneling
operations performed with these tables \9\ resulted in a lower
occurrence of DCI than the decompression tables specified by the
standard.10 11 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In 1992, the French Ministry of Labour replaced the 1974
French Decompression Tables with the 1992 French Decompression
Tables, which differ from OSHA's decompression tables in Appendix A
by using: (1) Staged decompression as opposed to continuous (linear)
decompression; (2) decompression tables based on air or both air and
pure oxygen; and (3) emergency tables when unexpected exposure times
occur (up to 30 minutes above the maximum allowed working time).
\10\ Kindwall, EP (1997). Compressed-air tunneling and caisson
work decompression procedures: Development, problems, and solutions.
Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 24(4), pp. 337-345. This article
reported 60 treated cases of DCI among 4,168 exposures between 19
and 31 p.s.i.g. over a 51-week contract period, for a DCI incidence
of 1.44% for the decompression tables specified by the OSHA
standard.
\11\ Sealey, JL (1969). Safe exit from the hyperbaric
environment: Medical experience with pressurized tunnel operations.
Journal of Occupational Medicine, 11(5), pp. 273-275. This article
reported 210 treated cases of DCI among 38,600 hyperbaric exposures
between 13 and 34 p.s.i.g. over a 32-month period, for an incidence
of 0.54% for the decompression tables specified by the Washington
State safety standards for compressed-air work, which are similar to
the tables in the OSHA standard. Moreover, the article reported 51
treated cases of DCI for 3,000 exposures between 30 and 34 p.s.i.g.,
for an incidence of 1.7% for the Washington State tables.
\12\ In 1985, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) published a report entitled ``Criteria for Interim
Decompression Tables for Caisson and Tunnel Workers;'' this report
reviewed studies of DCI and other hyperbaric-related injuries
resulting from use of OSHA's tables. This report is available on
NIOSH's Web site: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/decompression/default.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The review conducted by OSHA focused on the use of the 1992 French
Decompression Tables with air, nitrox, or trimix and found several
research studies supporting the determination that such use resulted in
a lower rate of DCI than the decompression tables specified by the
standard. For example, H. L. Anderson studied the occurrence of DCI at
maximum hyperbaric pressures ranging from 4 p.s.i.g. to 43 p.s.i.g.
during construction of the Great Belt Tunnel in Denmark (1992-1996);
\13\ this project used the 1992 French Decompression Tables to
decompress the workers during part of the construction. Anderson
observed 6 decompression sickness (DCS) cases out of 7,220
decompression events, and reported that switching to the 1992 French
Decompression tables reduced the DCI incidence to 0.08%. The DCI
incidence in the study by H. L. Andersen is substantially less than the
DCI incidence reported for the decompression tables specified in
Appendix A. OSHA found no studies in which the DCI incidence reported
for the 1992 French Decompression Tables were higher than the DCI
incidence reported for the OSHA decompression tables, nor did OSHA find
any studies indicating that the 1992 French Decompression Tables were
more hazardous to employees than the OSHA decompression tables.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Anderson HL (2002). Decompression sickness during
construction of the Great Belt Tunnel, Denmark. Undersea and
Hyperbaric Medicine, 29(3), pp. 172-188.
\14\ Le P[eacute]chon JC, Barre P, Baud JP, Ollivier F
(September 1996). Compressed-air work--French Tables 1992--
operational results. JCLP Hyperbarie Paris, Centre Medical
Subaquatique Interentreprise, Marseille: Communication a l'EUBS, pp.
1-5 (see Ex. OSHA-2012-0036-0005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA also reviewed the use of trimix in tunneling operations. In
compressed-air atmospheres greater than 73 p.s.i.g., it becomes
increasingly more difficult to work due to increased breathing
resistance, increased risk of DCI, and the adverse effects of the
increased partial pressures of nitrogen and oxygen. Nitrogen narcosis
occurs when a diver or CAW breathes a gas mixture with a nitrogen
partial pressure greater than 2.54 ATA (i.e., 73 p.s.i.g.). Nitrogen
narcosis compromises judgment, performance, and reaction time of divers
and CAWs and can lead to loss of consciousness.\15\ There is concern
that nitrogen narcosis may impair CAWs leading to possible safety
issues.\16\ Exposure to oxygen at partial pressures greater than normal
daily living may be toxic to the lungs and central nervous system under
certain conditions. The higher the partial pressure of oxygen and the
longer the exposure, the more severe the toxic effects. One way to
reduce oxygen exposure is to alter the percentage of oxygen in the
breathing mixture (see footnote 15). Trimix is a mixture of the inert
gas helium, oxygen and nitrogen. Because helium is less dense than air,
use of helium in compressed atmospheres decreases breathing resistance
and allows for adjustment of the partial pressures of oxygen and
nitrogen to reduce the incidence of nitrogen narcosis and oxygen
toxicity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ United States Navy. (2011) U.S. Navy Diving Manual,
Revision 6. Department of the Navy.
\16\ Van Rees, Vellinga T, Verhoevan A, Jan Dijk F, Sterk W
(November-December 2006) Health and efficiency in trimix versus air
breathing in CAWs. Undersea Hyperbaric Medicine 33 (6), pp 419-427.
This article reported that during construction of the Western
Scheldt Tunneling Project, there were 52 exposures to trimix at
81.2-84.1 p.s.i. with no reported cases of DCI. Three of 318
exposures to compressed air resulted in DCI in this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trimix has been successfully used in deep caisson work and
tunneling projects including the construction of the Meiko West
Bridge,\17\ the Western Scheldt Tunnel (see footnote 16), and in the
Seattle Brightwater Tunneling Project.\18\ During the construction of
the Western Scheldt Tunnel, there were fewer reported cases of DCIs in
CAWs using trimix than in other CAWs using just compressed air, despite
working at higher pressures (see footnotes 16 and 17). Additionally,
the use of compressed air during the construction of the Western
Scheldt Tunnel was also
[[Page 44395]]
associated with a slower working pace and operational errors that the
authors associated with the adverse effects of nitrogen at high
pressure ((i.e., nitrogen narcosis) (see footnote 16)). Trimix
decompression tables are proprietary so large studies of workers with
specific pressure exposure for specific trimix schedules are not
available. Additional concerns include the lack of a defined
recompression protocol in the case of DCI and some studies have found
evidence of cardiopulmonary strain in divers using trimix but at
pressures greater than those submitted for this variance (see footnote
15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Takishima R, Sterk W, Nashimoto T (1996) Trimix breathing
in deep caisson work for the construction of Pier (P2) for the Meiko
West Bridge. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society Meeting
Abstract. During construction of the Meiko West Bridge, there were
11 cases of DCI in 2059 trimix exposures for a reported DCI rate of
1%.
\18\ Hamilton R, Kay E (November 2008) Boring deep tunnels.
Proceedings, 3rd of U.S.-Japan Panel on Aerospace-Diving Physiology
and Technology, and Hyperbaric Medicine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of the literature and reports from presentations to
professional societies support that the incidence of DCI with this
technique is lower than the incidence of DCIs reported with the use of
OSHA tables. In addition, use of trimix reduces the risk of impairment
from nitrogen narcosis and allows for the adjustment of oxygen partial
pressure to reduce exposure to elevated oxygen partial pressures (see
footnotes 16 and 18). Therefore, OSHA preliminarily concludes that the
proposed use of the 1992 French Decompression Tables would protect
workers at least as effectively as the OSHA decompression tables.
Based on a review of available evidence, the experience of State
Plans that either granted variances (Nevada, Oregon, and Washington)
\19\ or promulgated a new standard (California) \20\ for hyperbaric
exposures occurring during similar subaqueous tunnel-construction work,
and the information provided in the applicant's variance application,
OSHA is granting an interim order for future tunneling projects and
announces the application for the permanent variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ These state variances are available in the docket: Exs.
OSHA-2012-0035-0006 (Nevada), OSHA-2012-0035-0007 (Oregon), and
OSHA-2012-0035-0008 (Washington).
\20\ See California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Subchapter 7,
Group 26, Article 154, available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb7g26a154.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(d)), and based on the record discussed above, the
Agency preliminarily finds that when the employer complies with the
conditions of the proposed variance, the working conditions of the
employer's workers would be at least as safe and healthful as if the
employer complied with the working conditions specified by paragraphs
(e)(5), (f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) of 29 CFR 1926.803.
Therefore, Traylor will: (1) Comply with the conditions listed in the
future tunnel projects interim order for the period starting with the
grant of the interim order until the Agency modifies or revokes the
interim order or makes a decision on its application for a permanent
variance); (2) comply fully with the specific conditions of the
variance, if granted; (3) comply fully with all other applicable
provisions of 29 CFR part 1926; and (4) provide a copy of this Federal
Register notice to all employees affected by the proposed conditions,
including the affected employees of other employers, using the same
means it used to inform these employees of its application for a
permanent variance.
V. Specific Conditions of the Interim Order and the Application for a
Permanent Variance
The following conditions apply to the interim order OSHA is
granting to Traylor. These conditions specify the alternative means of
compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5),
(f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii). In addition, these conditions
are the conditions that specify the alternative means of compliance
with the requirements of paragraphs 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5), (f)(1),
(g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) that OSHA is proposing for Traylor's
permanent variance. The conditions/proposed conditions would apply to
all employees of Traylor exposed to hyperbaric conditions. These
conditions/proposed conditions would be: \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In these conditions, OSHA is using the future conditional
form of the verb (e.g., ``would''), which pertains to the
application for a permanent variance (designated as ``permanent
variance'') but the conditions also apply to the interim order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Scope
The permanent variance would apply only to work:
1. That occurs in conjunction with construction of future
subaqueous tunnels using advanced shielded mechanical-excavation
techniques and involving operation of an EPBTBM;
2. Performed under compressed-air and hyperbaric conditions up to
75 p.s.i.g;
3. In the EPBTBM's forward section (the working chamber) and
associated hyperbaric chambers used to pressurize and decompress
employees entering and exiting the working chamber;
4. Except for the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5),
(f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii), Traylor would be required to
comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 1926;
and
5. The interim order granted to Traylor for future tunnel projects
will remain in effect until OSHA modifies or revokes this interim order
or grants Traylor's request for a permanent variance in accordance with
29 CFR 1905.13.
B. Application
The permanent variance would apply only when Traylor stops the
tunnel-boring work, pressurizes the working chamber, and the CAWs
either enter the working chamber to perform interventions (i.e.,
inspect, maintain, or repair the mechanical-excavation components), or
exit the working chamber after performing interventions.
C. List of Abbreviations
Abbreviations used throughout this proposed permanent variance
would include the following:
1. ATA--Atmosphere Absolute
2. CAW--Compressed-air worker
3. CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
4. DCI--Decompression Illness
5. DCS--Decompression Sickness (or the bends)
6. EPBTBM--Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel Boring Machine
7. HOM--Hyperbaric Operations and Safety Manual
8. JHA--Job hazard analysis
9. OSHA--Occupational Safety and Health Administration
10. OTPCA--Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities
D. Definitions
The following definitions would apply to this proposed permanent
variance. These definitions would supplement the definitions in each
project-specific HOM.
1. Affected employee or worker--an employee or worker who is
affected by the conditions of this proposed permanent variance, or any
one of his or her authorized representatives. The term ``employee'' has
the meaning defined and used under the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
2. Atmospheric pressure--the pressure of air at sea-level,
generally, 14.7 p.s.i.a., 1 atmosphere absolute, or 0 p.s.i.g.
3. Compressed-air worker--an individual who is specially trained
and medically qualified to perform work in a pressurized environment
while breathing air at pressures up to 75 p.s.i.g.
4. Competent person--an individual who is capable of identifying
existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working
conditions that are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees,
and who has
[[Page 44396]]
authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Adapted from 29 CFR 1926.32(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Decompression illness--an illness (also called decompression
sickness (DCS) or the bends) caused by gas bubbles appearing in body
compartments due to a reduction in ambient pressure. Examples of
symptoms of decompression illness include (but are not limited to):
Joint pain (also known as the `bends' for agonizing pain or the
`niggles' for slight pain); areas of bone destruction (termed dysbaric
osteonecrosis); skin disorders (such as cutis marmorata, which causes a
pink marbling of the skin); spinal cord and brain disorders (such as
stroke, paralysis, paresthesia, and bladder dysfunction);
cardiopulmonary disorders, such as shortness of breath; and arterial
gas embolism (gas bubbles in the arteries that block blood flow).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Appendix 10 of ``A Guide to the Work in Compressed-Air
Regulations 1996,'' published by the United Kingdom Health and
Safety Executive available from NIOSH at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/pdfs/NIOSH-254/compReg1996.pdf.
Note: Health effects associated with hyperbaric intervention but
not considered symptoms of DCI can include: Barotrauma (direct
damage to air-containing cavities in the body such as ears, sinuses
and lungs); nitrogen narcosis (reversible alteration in
consciousness that may occur in hyperbaric environments and is
caused by the anesthetic effect of certain gases at high pressure);
and oxygen toxicity (a central nervous system condition resulting
from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(O2) at elevated partial pressures).
6. Earth Pressure Balanced Tunnel Boring Machine--the machinery
used to excavate the tunnel.
7. Hot work--any activity performed in a hazardous location that
may introduce an ignition source into a potentially flammable
atmosphere.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Also see 29 CFR 1910.146(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Hyperbaric--at a higher pressure than atmospheric pressure.
9. Hyperbaric intervention--a term that describes the process of
stopping the EPBTBM and preparing and executing work under hyperbaric
pressure in the working chamber for the purpose of inspecting,
replacing, or repairing cutting tools and/or the cutterhead structure.
10. Hyperbaric Operations Manual--a detailed, project-specific
health and safety plan developed and implemented by Traylor for working
in compressed air during future hyperbaric tunnel projects.
11. Job hazard analysis--an evaluation of tasks or operations to
identify potential hazards and to determine the necessary controls.
12. Man lock--an enclosed space capable of pressurization, and used
for compressing or decompressing any employee or material when either
is passing into or out of a working chamber.
13. Nitrox--a mixture of oxygen and air and refers to mixtures
which are more than 21% oxygen.
14. Pressure--a force acting on a unit area. Usually expressed as
pounds per square inch (p.s.i.).
15. p.s.i.--pounds per square inch, a common unit of measurement of
pressure; a pressure given in p.s.i. corresponds to absolute pressure.
16. p.s.i.a--pounds per square inch absolute, or absolute pressure,
is the sum of the atmospheric pressure and gauge pressure. At sea-
level, atmospheric pressure is approximately 14.7 p.s.i. Adding 14.7 to
a pressure expressed in units of p.s.i.g. will yield the absolute
pressure, expressed as p.s.i.a.
17. p.s.i.g.--pounds per square inch gauge, a common unit of
pressure; pressure expressed as p.s.i.g. corresponds to pressure
relative to atmospheric pressure. At sea-level, atmospheric pressure is
approximately 14.7 p.s.i. Subtracting 14.7 from a pressure expressed in
units of p.s.i.a. yields the gauge pressure, expressed as p.s.i.g.
18. Qualified person--an individual who, by possession of a
recognized degree, certificate, or professional standing, or who, by
extensive knowledge, training, and experience, successfully
demonstrates an ability to solve or resolve problems relating to the
subject matter, the work, or the project.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Adapted from 29 CFR 1926.32(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Trimix--a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and helium that is used
in hyperbaric environments instead of air to reduce nitrogen narcosis
and the hazards of oxygen toxicity.
20. Working chamber--an enclosed space in the EPBTBM in which CAWs
perform interventions, and which is accessible only through a man lock.
E. Safety and Health Practices
1. Traylor would have to develop and implement a project-specific
HOM, and submit the HOM to OSHA at least one year before using the
EPBTBM on the project for which the HOM applies. The HOM would provide
the governing requirements regarding expected safety and health hazards
(including anticipated geological conditions) and hyperbaric exposures
during the tunnel-construction project.
2. The HOM would be required to demonstrate that the EPBTBM to be
used on the project is designed, fabricated, inspected, tested, marked,
and stamped in accordance with the requirements of ASME PVHO-1.2012 (or
most recent edition of Safety Standards for Pressure Vessels for Human
Occupancy) for the EPBTBM's hyperbaric chambers.
3. When submitting the project-specific HOM to OSHA for approval,
Traylor must demonstrate that it informed its employees of the proposed
HOM and their right to petition the Assistant Secretary for a variance
by:
a. giving a copy of the proposed project-specific HOM to the
authorized employee representatives;
b. posting a statement giving a summary of the proposed project-
specific HOM and specifying where its employees may examine a copy of
the permanent variance application (at the place(s) where the applicant
normally posts notices to employees or, instead of a summary, posting
the application itself); or
c. using other appropriate means.
4. Traylor may not begin hyperbaric interventions at pressures
exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. until OSHA completes its review of the project-
specific HOM and determines that the safety and health instructions and
measures it specifies would be appropriate, would comply with the
conditions of the variance, and would adequately protect the safety and
health of CAWs. Traylor would have to receive a written acknowledgement
from OSHA stating that: (1) OSHA found its project-specific HOM
acceptable; and (2) OSHA determined that it may begin hyperbaric
interventions at pressures exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. by complying fully
with the conditions of the interim order or proposed permanent variance
(as an alternative to complying with the requirements of the standard).
Once approved by OSHA, the HOM would become part of this variance for
the purposes of the project for which it was developed.
5. Traylor would have to implement the safety and health
instructions included in the manufacturer's operations manuals for the
EPBTBM, and the safety and health instructions provided by the
manufacturer for the operation of decompression equipment.
6. Traylor would have to use air or trimix as the only breathing
gas in the working chamber.
7. Traylor would have to use the 1992 French Decompression Tables
for air, nitrox, and trimix decompression specified in the HOM,
specifically, the extracted portions of the 1992 French
[[Page 44397]]
Decompression tables titled, ``French Regulation Air Standard Tables.''
8. Traylor would have to equip man locks used by its employees with
an air, nitrox, or trimix-delivery system as specified by the HOM
approved by OSHA for the project. Traylor would be required to not
store oxygen or other compressed gases used in conjunction with
hyperbaric work in the tunnel.
9. Workers performing hot work under hyperbaric conditions would
have to use flame-retardant personal protective equipment and clothing.
10. In hyperbaric work areas, Traylor would have to maintain an
adequate fire-suppression system approved for hyperbaric work areas.
11. Traylor would have to develop and implement one or more JHAs
for work in the hyperbaric work areas, and review, periodically and as
necessary (e.g., after making changes to a planned intervention that
affects its operation), the contents of the JHAs with affected
employees. The JHAs would have to include all the job functions that
the risk assessment \26\ indicates are essential to prevent injury or
illness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See ANSI/AIHA Z10-2012, American National Standard for
Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, for reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Traylor would have to develop a set of checklists to guide
compressed-air work and ensure that employees follow the procedures
required by this proposed permanent variance (including all procedures
required by the HOM approved by OSHA for the project, which this
proposed variance would incorporate by reference). The checklists would
have to include all steps and equipment functions that the risk
assessment indicates are essential to prevent injury or illness during
compressed-air work.
13. Traylor would have to ensure that the safety and health
provisions of each HOM adequately protect the workers of all
contractors and subcontractors involved in hyperbaric operations for
the project to which the HOM applies.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See ANSI/ASSE A10.33-2011, American National Standard for
Construction and Demolition Operations--Safety and Health Program
Requirements for Multi-Employer Projects, for reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Communication
1. Prior to beginning a shift, Traylor would have to implement a
system that informs workers exposed to hyperbaric conditions of any
hazardous occurrences or conditions that might affect their safety,
including hyperbaric incidents, gas releases, equipment failures, earth
or rock slides, cave-ins, flooding, fires, or explosions.
2. Traylor would have to provide a power-assisted means of
communication among affected workers and support personnel in
hyperbaric conditions where unassisted voice communication is
inadequate.
a. Traylor would have to use an independent power supply for
powered communication systems, and these systems would have to operate
such that use or disruption of any one phone or signal location will
not disrupt the operation of the system from any other location.
b. Traylor would have to test communication systems at the start of
each shift and as necessary thereafter to ensure proper operation.
G. Worker Qualifications and Training
Traylor would have to:
1. Ensure that each affected worker receives effective training on
how to safely enter, work in, exit from, and undertake emergency
evacuation or rescue from, hyperbaric conditions, and document this
training.
2. Provide effective instruction, before beginning hyperbaric
operations, to each worker who performs work, or controls the exposure
of others, in hyperbaric conditions, and document this instruction. The
instruction would include:
a. The physics and physiology of hyperbaric work;
b. Recognition of pressure-related injuries;
c. Information on the causes and recognition of the signs and
symptoms associated with decompression illness, and other hyperbaric
intervention-related health effects (e.g., barotrauma, nitrogen
narcosis, and oxygen toxicity).
d. How to avoid discomfort during compression and decompression;
e. Information the workers can use to contact the appropriate
healthcare professionals should the workers have concerns that they may
be experiencing adverse health effects from hyperbaric exposure; and
f. Procedures and requirements applicable to the employee in the
project-specific HOM.
3. Repeat the instruction specified in paragraph (G)(2) of this
proposed condition periodically and as necessary (e.g., after making
changes to its hyperbaric operations).
4. When conducting training for its hyperbaric workers, make this
training available to OSHA personnel and notify the OTPCA at OSHA's
National Office and OSHA's nearest affected Area Office before the
training takes place.
H. Inspections, Tests, and Accident Prevention
1. Traylor would have to initiate and maintain a program of
frequent and regular inspections of the EPBTBM's hyperbaric equipment
and support systems (such as temperature control, illumination,
ventilation, and fire-prevention and fire-suppression systems), and
hyperbaric work areas, as required under 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2) by:
a. Developing a set of checklists to be used by a competent person
in conducting weekly inspections of hyperbaric equipment and work
areas; and
b. Ensuring that a competent person conducts daily visual checks
and weekly inspections of the EPBTBM.
2. If the competent person determines that the equipment
constitutes a safety hazard, Traylor would have to remove the equipment
from service until it corrects the hazardous condition and has the
correction approved by a qualified person.
3. Traylor would have to maintain records of all tests and
inspections of the EPBTBM, as well as associated corrective actions and
repairs, at the job site for the duration of the job.
I. Compression and Decompression
Traylor would have to consult with its attending physician
concerning the need for special compression or decompression exposures
appropriate for CAWs not acclimated to hyperbaric exposure.
J. Recordkeeping
Traylor would have to maintain a record of any recordable injury,
illness, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, loss of an eye, or
fatality (as defined by 29 CFR part 1904 Recording and Reporting
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses), resulting from exposure of an
employee to hyperbaric conditions by completing the OSHA 301 Incident
Report form and OSHA 300 Log of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses.
Note: Examples of important information to include on the OSHA
301 Incident Report form (along with the corresponding question on
the form) would have to address the following: the task performed
(Question (Q) 14); an estimate of the CAW's workload (Q 14); the
composition of the gas mixture (e.g., air or trimix (Q 14)); the
pressure worked at (Q 14); temperature in the work and decompression
environments (Q 14); did something unusual occur during the task or
decompression (Q 14); time of symptom onset (Q 15); duration of time
between decompression and onset of symptoms (Q 15); nature and
duration of symptoms (Q 16); a medical summary of the illness or
injury (Q 16); duration of the hyperbaric intervention (Q 17); any
possible contributing factors (Q 17); the number of prior
interventions completed by injured or ill CAW (Q 17); the number of
prior interventions completed by injured or ill CAW at that pressure
(Q 17); the contact information for the treating
[[Page 44398]]
healthcare provider (Q 17); and the date and time of last hyperbaric
exposure for this CAW.
In addition to completing the OSHA 301 Incident Report form and
OSHA 300 Log of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses, Traylor would have
to maintain records of:
1. The date, times (e.g., began compression, time spent
compressing, time performing intervention, time spent decompressing),
and pressure for each hyperbaric intervention.
2. The name of each individual worker exposed to hyperbaric
pressure and the decompression protocols and results for each worker.
3. The total number of interventions and the amount of hyperbaric
work time at each pressure.
4. The post-intervention physical assessment of each individual CAW
for signs and symptoms of decompression illness, barotrauma, nitrogen
narcosis, oxygen toxicity or other health effects associated with work
in compressed air or mixed gasses for each hyperbaric intervention.
K. Notifications
1. To assist OSHA in administering the conditions specified herein,
Traylor would have to:
a. Notify the OTPCA and the nearest affected Area Office of any
recordable injury, illness, in-patient hospitalization, amputation,
loss of an eye, or fatality (by submitting the completed OSHA 301
Incident Report form \28\) resulting from exposure of an employee to
hyperbaric conditions including those that do not require recompression
treatment (e.g., nitrogen narcosis, oxygen toxicity, barotrauma), but
still meet the recordable injury or illness criteria (of 29 CFR 1904).
The notification would have to be made within 8 hours of the incident,
or after becoming aware of a recordable injury or illness, and a copy
of the incident investigation (OSHA 301) would have to be provided
within 24 hours of the incident, or after becoming aware of a
recordable injury or illness. In addition to the information required
by the OSHA 301, the incident-investigation report would have to
include a root-cause determination, and the preventive and corrective
actions identified and implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See footnote 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Provide certification within 15 days of the incident that it
informed affected workers of the incident and the results of the
incident investigation (including the root-cause determination and
preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented).
c. Notify the OTPCA and the nearest affected Area Office within 15
working days and in writing, of any change in the compressed-air
operations that affects Traylor's ability to comply with the proposed
conditions specified herein.
d. Upon completion of each hyperbaric tunnel project, evaluate the
effectiveness of the decompression tables used throughout the project,
and provide a written report of this evaluation to the OTPCA and the
neared affected Area Office.
Note: The evaluation report would have to contain summaries of: (1)
the number, dates, durations, and pressures of the hyperbaric
interventions completed; (2) decompression protocols implemented
(including composition of gas mixtures (air, oxygen, nitrox, and
trimix), and the results achieved; (3) the total number of
interventions and the number of hyperbaric incidents (decompression
illnesses and/or health effects associated with hyperbaric
interventions as recorded on OSHA 301 and 300 forms, and relevant
medical diagnoses and treating physicians' opinions); and (4) root-
causes, and preventive and corrective actions identified and
implemented.
e. To assist OSHA in administering the proposed conditions
specified herein, inform the OTPCA and the nearest affected Area Office
as soon as possible after it has knowledge that it will:
i. Cease to do business;
ii. Change the location and address of the main office for managing
the tunneling operations specified by the project-specific HOM; or
iii. Transfer the operations specified herein to a successor
company.
f. Notify all affected employees of this interim order/proposed
permanent variance by the same means required to inform them of its
application for a variance.
2. OSHA would have to approve the transfer of the proposed
permanent variance to a successor company.
Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29
U.S.C. 655(6)(d), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912,
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1905.11.
Signed at Washington, DC, on July 22, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-18319 Filed 7-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
