the effectiveness of controlled spray training · grant proposal was written by cmti, which is...

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

CONTROLLED SPRAY TRAINING

IN THE FIBER REINFORCED

The fiber reinforced Department of plastics (FRP) indus- Realizing health, environmental, Commerce to assist try accounts for a the fiber reinforced significant portion and economic benefits through plastics industry. of Indiana's eco- Indiana's strategic nomic activity. In improved spray techniques development fund June 1998, in grants are awarded response to newly to companies and proposed air pollu- industry consortia tion requirements and their potential effect on to support training and technic41 issistance pro- the FRP industry, the Indiana Clean Manufactur- grams that make Indiana industries more prof- ing Technology and Safe Materials Institute itable and competitive. (CMTI) organized an industry consortium of FRP The objective of the FRP grant is to implement manufacturers and their suppliers to address the an open mold, spray-operator training program, new requirements. modeled after the Composites -Fabricators Associ-

On December 8, 1998, The Greater Elkhart County Chamber of Commerce received a Strate- gic Development Fund grant from the Indiana S. J. Hall and J. R. Noonan

@ 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 2001 / 67

ation (CFA) Controlled Spray Training program, and to evaluate the effect of the program. The grant proposal was written by CMTI, which is located at Purdue University. The institute staffed, performed, and managed the training and evaluation portions of the grant. The objectives of the Indiana spray training program are fourfold:

parts, gel coats and resins, spray equipment, and Prodesign Composites personnel. Only one modification was made to the manufacturing plant- the open mold spray operation was totally enclosed to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 204 requirements for total enclosure and 100 percent capture of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.

Improve the eco- Background nomic viability of the FRP consortium members by reducing wasted overspray, thereby

The open mold FRP industry produces a diverse array of products: bathtubs, showers, van and truck tops, boats, and a variety of custom

The open mold FRP industry produces a diverse array of products: bathtubs, showers, van and truck tops, boats, and a variety of custom products. Nearly all of the production is based on

products. reducing raw material costs.

Reduce emissions of styrene to the environment. Reduce worker exposure to the hazardous materials used in the production process. Improve the quality of the open mold-produced parts through more consistent spray operations.

This article reports the findings of the emissions study, which CMTI performed from March through September 1999, to evaluate the near- and long-term effectiveness of the spray training program.

In order to ensure real-world applicability of the training program’s effectiveness, an emission analysis was performed at Viking Formed Prod- ucts, now known as Prodesign Composites (a division of Coachmen Industries, Inc., located in Middlebury, Indiana). Prodesign Composites is a leading FRP manufacturer with an admirable his- tory of leadership, innovation, and community involvement.

The emission tests were performed at one of the company’s open mold production facilities. Emission tests were performed under actual production conditions using production molds,

68 / Winter 2001 / Pollution Prevention Review

the spray application of styrene-based gel coats and resin systems. The gel coat and resin materials are sprayed onto a mold that is the inverse image of the product. When the material cures and becomes a hard, structurally sound material, it is separated from the mold. After further prepa- ration, the molded structure ultimately becomes the finished product (van top, shower stall, or other item). The spray process atomizes the gel coat and resin materials, and this atomization contributes significantly to the emission of styrene vapors into the air.

Styrene emissions have come under increased scrutiny during the past several years due to the categorization of styrene as a hazardous air pol- lutant (HAP) by the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency. As a result of federal mandates, EPA is developing a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard for the open mold FRP industry. The MACT will be designed to reduce the industry’s emissions of styrene and other HAPS.

The MACT standard draft is scheduled for promulgation in 2000. The draft MACT Will become official one year after promulgation, and existing FRP companies will probably have two to

three years to become compliant with the rules, regulations, and requirements.

S J Hall and J.R. Noonan

Companies will probably be required to use gel coats and resins containing reduced concentrations of styrene (and other HAPs), as well as to implement new application technologies and work practices that reduce emissions of HAPs. A variety of pollution prevention techniques are at the heart of strategies to reduce HAP (styrene) emissions. Key among these may be spray-operator training, which CFA emission investigations have shown not only reduces usage, but also reduces HAP emissions.

In recent years, a new resin application technology, generically referred to as “flow coating,” has been developed. The new flowcoat technology employs a nonatomizing application process, which has been proven to dramatically reduce resin-born styrene emissions during the application process.

Most open mold FRP manufacturers currently apply resin with the new, nonatomizing flowcoat technology. However, due to the fine-finish surface requirements of the gel coat process, flow- coating technology has not yet proven to be easily adaptable to gel coat application. Therefore, gel coat application in the FRP industry is still primarily applied via spray atomization.

Investigative work by the CFA has shown that operator-spray training, which instructs spray operators in the proper methods to reduce overspray and optimize atomization during the spray process, can reduce styrene emissions to levels commensurate with those of flowcoat application technology. Furthermore, CFA assessment has shown that operator-spray training has little effect in reducing emissions stemming from the optimal levels achieved with flowcoaters. There- fore, the operator-spray training program, which became the foundation of the Indiana FRP consortium, concerned itself only with atomized forms of application of gel coat and resin. Train- ing for the already optimal flowcoat technology was not considered.

The CFA has developed a complete operator- spray training program called “Controlled Spray Training.’’ The Controlled Spray Training program is a direct outgrowth of the work the CFA performed to develop styrene emission factors for EPA and industry. The CFA experimented with different operator spray techniques and spray gun setup procedures to optimize the process so that emissions are kept to a minimum during the spray process.

Training Description The spray-operator training program is a mix-

ture of classroom lectures, hands-on training in spray equipment setup procedures, operator-technique training, and open mold modification techniques, where applicable.

First, the spray operator receives a formal, multimedia presentation describing the emission characteristics of styrene-based, open mold production. The operator is then instructed in hands-on, individualized spray training. The spray operator is instructed in proper gel coat and resin spray gun setup procedures. (Typically, the gel and resin coat application process is accomplished utilizing air-assisted airless spray systems.)

The gun is initially set up with a minimum of air pressure (30 to 35 pounds per square inch [psi]); the fluid pressure is then adjusted until a tailless, long, and nar- row ellipse is created. This new setting is des- ignated the optimized air and fluid Pressure setting, and it differs ~

for each gun, depend- ing on the spray tip and the gel coat or resin viscosity. The spray operator is instructed to continuously monitor this optimal level throughout the day and change the settings as the situation demands.

Most ppen mold FRP manufacturers currently apply resin with the new, nonatomizing flowcoat technology.

The Effectiveness of Controlled Spray Training in the Fiber Reinforced Plastics Industry Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 2001 / 69 ’ 1 /I 1

When the gun setup optimization is complete, the operator is trained in spray technique. The Indiana program involves videotaping the individual operator while spraying, prior to receiving any training. The operator is then asked to critique his/her own performance based on the knowledge gained from the formal lecture niulti-

pres en t a t i o n . media The Indiana training program has found that this self-analysis is extremely effective in quickly changing

The Indiana spray training program recognized that most of the FRP consortium manufacturers used traditional flangeless molds.

spray-operator habits. A n added benefit is

that the instructor is not put in the position of being overly critical of spray operators. The videotaping feedback session gives the instructor and the spray operator the opportunity to review application technique issues, such as banding, gun angle, spray distance, spray coverage/over- lap, and so forth.

The CFA Controlled Spray Program also calls for a four- to eight-inch flange to be placed along the outside edge of the mold. The flange serves no final product function; it is merely used to catch overspray as the operator applies the coating up to, and slightly over, the edge of the mold. This reduces the footprint (surface area) of overspray and, consequently, reduces emissions.

The Indiana spray training program recognized that most of the FRP consortium manufacturers used traditional flangeless molds. Early investigations regarding the adaptability of flanges to existing molds demonstrated that such adaptation could be costly. Therefore, some companies may decide not to use flanges on existing molds. Because there are elements of controlled spray other than mold flanges that have economic and environmental advantages, the Indiana program involves spray training both with and without mold flanges.

Emission Analysis Process Description CMTI and CF.A staff members visited several

open mold FRP manufacturing plants to determine the capability of each plant to enclose an emissions area so it could capture 100 percent ok emissions. Prodesign Composites proved to have a production facility ideally suited to the task and agreed to act as the emission testing facility.

The company supplied the materials and manpower to completely enclose an open mold spray booth area. Prodesign Composites also made changes to the air exchange system so that the booth’s makeup air would slightly underbal- ance the outgoing stach exhaust air. The under- balance of makeup air allowed the totally enclosed spray booth to operate at a slightly neg- ative pressure relative to the surrounding non- spray booth production facility.

When the booth enclosure was completed, and the makeup air adjustments were made, the booth met all the requirements of EPA Method 204 Temporary Total Enclosure, the standard for ensuring 100 percent capture of VOCs generated from a production process. The spray booth’s floor area measured approximately 35 feet by 48 feet and the booth’s height was approximately 12 feet.

The emission testing was performed in three phases. The first test involved a baseline emission analysis. No spray training was performed prior to the baseline test, and one of the plant’s best sprayers (a spray operator with many years of experience) served as the test’s open mold spray operator for all of the emissions tests. The second emissions test took place approximately four days after the spray operator received the Indiana FRP consortium’s spray training program. The third emissions test was conducted approximately five months after the second test. The spray operator


received no additional training during the five- month span; however, he did receive verbal men- toring at approximately six-week intervals U P

until the final test.

S J Hall and J.R. Noon

The veteran sprayer was selected as the test's applicator because most sprayers in the industry develop expertise only after they have been taught by other seasoned applicators. The quality of the part produced is strongly influenced by the abilities of the gel and resin sprayer. If the FRP consortium had selected an inexperienced applicator, the baseline test would have shown very high emissions and poor part quality. The test was designed to test a typical sprayer's improve- ment potential, and a typical sprayer is a multi- year veteran.

All emissions tests utilized the company's standard production gel coat and resin, as well as standard production air-assisted airless spray gun equipment. Each test utilized three identical standard van top production molds (78.6 square feet each). The parts produced from each of the tests were treated as standard product at the completion of each test.

The mold coating specification was as follows: 24 wet-mils gel coat, 85 wet-mils resin (first layer), and 85 wet-mils resin (second layer). Woven hand lay-up glass mat, as well as oriented strand board materials, were also used in the molds. In addition to the use of the same spray operator for each of the three tests, the same three-person, resin/glass chop roller team was also utilized.

Experiment Design The standard spray booth was completely

enclosed, and the natural draft area was observed to consistently have incoming air velocities in excess of 200 linear feet per minute. New exhaust filters for the booth were weighed and installed and a double layer cover (kraft paper) was installed over the entire spray booth floor. The top layer of the kraft paper floor cover was weighed before and after each test.'

The emissions and other pertinent test param- eters were monitored as depicted in Exhibit 1.

All of the mold parts and flange attachments were weighed prior to, and after, the emissions tests. The spray operator and the three-member resin/glass roller team wore preweighed Vortec overalls, booties, gloves, and head socks.

Test 1: Baseline (No Training) Emission Analysis Test

The spray operator set up the gel coat gun, as well as the resinlchop spray gun, to his regular spray preference:

Gel coat air-assisted airless settings: 78 psi air to fluid pump, 30 psi catalyst air pressure, .026 tip 40" angle, 4.62 pounds/minute flow, 2 percent DDM-9 MEKP catalyst. Resin chop air-assisted airless settings: 1,100 psi fluid pressure, 40 psi catalyst air pressure, 110 psi chopper pressure, .062 tip 30" angle, 15.5 pounds/minute flow, 1.5 percent DDM-9 MEKP catalyst, 32 percent glass.

When the spray booth reached a baseline level of less than one part-per-million (ppm) styrene concentration, the spray operator was given a signal to begin the regular spray process. The operator sprayed the gel coat on each of the three production van top molds. The molds did not have any flange material attached. Overspray occurred when the spray operator sprayed the gel coat and resin All emissions tests utilized the material, spray gun-to- compqny's standard production gel part distance varied coat and resin, as well as standard from 20 inches to 3 production air-assisted airless feet, and gun angle spray gun equipment. varied from 90" to 45" (referenced to the van top's surface). The spray opeiator moved about the mold perimeter only slightly.

The residchop spray process began approximately 45 minutes after completion of the first

The Effectiveness of Controlled Spray Training in the fiber Reinforced Plastics Industry

I Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 2001 / 71 il

Exhibit 1. Test Parameter Monitoring System

mold's gel coat application. The first layer of the resin was applied to the first mold, then to the second, and then to the third mold. The resin/chop roller team began the rolling process on the mold when the spray operator finished spraying it.

The spray operator began to apply the second coat of resin to the first mold approximately 30-45 minutes after applying the first coat of resin to the third mold. This allowed a desired level of polymerization to take place prior to the application of the second resin coat.

The second coat of resin application was performed identically to the first resin coat application (for all three molds), except that the spray operator also sprayed resin onto a mat of woven glass as it lay on the booth floor. This resin-satu- rated mat was then hand placed by the roller

team onto specific areas of the mold and rolled down into the wet resin on the mold.

The emission test was complete only after all the molds received their second coat and the booth's styrene emissions had dropped to baseline (less than one ppm). The baseline emission level was reached approximately 40-55 minutes after the end of the resin application to the third mold.

Test 2: Emission Analysis Immediately after Spray Training

spray gun, was set up according to the CFA Con- The gel coat gun, as well as the resinlchop

trolled Spray Training spray gun setup protocol. p ;. " <

0 1

., A ' The optimum, lowest operating air and fluid pressure was set in order to achieve the optimum, tailless, elliptical spray pattern, with the optimum atomization of the gel coat and resin material:

S J Hall and J.R. Noom 72 / Winter 2001 / Pollution Prevention Review

Gel coat air-assisted airless settings: 57 psi air to fluid pump, 25 psi catalyst air pressure, .021 tip 40" angle, 2.6 pounds/minute flow, 2 percent DDM-9 MEKP catalyst. Resin chop air-assisted airless settings: 670 psi fluid pressure, 22 psi catalyst air pressure, 66 psi chopper pressure, .052 tip 30" angle, 6.4 pounds/minute flow, 1.5 percent DDM-9 MEKP catalyst, 32 percent glass.

Each mold was equipped with 4-inch-wide flange material attached to the mold edge. The spray operator sprayed the gel coat and resin material with little overspray. The operator used the controlled spray training "banding" technique to spray around the part's outer edge in one continuous application, the spray gun-to-part distance varied from 12-24 inches, and the gun angle varied from 90" by plus or minus 20" (referenced to the van top's surface). All other application procedures were identical to the methods followed in Test 1.

Test 3: Emission Analysis Five Months after Spray Training Was Conducted

The gel coat gun, as well as the resin/chop spray gun, was set up to the identical pressures and flow rates as used in Test 2:

Gel coat air-assisted airless settings: 57 psi air to fluid pump, 25 psi catalyst air pressure, .021 tip 40" angle, 2.6 pounds/minute flow, 2 percent DDM-9 MEKP catalyst. Resin chop air-assisted airless settings: 670 psi fluid pressure, 22 psi catalyst air pressure, 66 psi chopper pressure, .052 tip 30" angle, 6.4 poundslminute flow, 1.5 percent DDM-9 MEKP catalyst, 32 percent glass.

The molds were equipped with 4-inch-wide flange material attached to the mold edges. The spray operator sprayed the gel coat and resin materials with little visible overspray. The spray

operator used a modified spray training "banding" technique to spray around the part's outer edge in four sep- arate steps. The operator banded one side

Each mold was equipped with 4- inch-wide flange material attached

to the mold edge.

edge and then sprayed from the edge to the part's center in a pattern parallel with the edge. This pattern was repeated for each of the three remaining edges.

The spray gun-to-part spray distance varied from 12-24 inches, and the gun angle varied from 90°, by plus or minus 20" (referenced to the van top's surface). All other application procedures were identical to the methods followed in Test 1.

Data Acquisition System and Emission Test Quality Assurance

The FRP consortium's emissions tests were conducted in accordance with the following EPA recommendations:

EPA Method 1, Sample and Velocity Traverse for Stationary Sources; EPA Method 204, Temporary/Permanent Enclo- sure-Collection of 100 percent Emissions; and EPA Method 25A, Determination of Total Gaseous, Organic Concentration, Using Flame Ionization Analyzer (FIA or FID [flame ionization detector]).

\

The equipment employed in the emission tests is listed below:

Air-assisted airless gel coat gun; .026 and .021 tip size; Air-assisted airless resin chop; .062 and .052 tip size; J.U.M. Engineering, Inc.: flame ionization detector (FID) total carbon analyzer, Model 3-100;

The Effectiveness of Controlled Spray Training in the Fiber Reinforced Plastics Industry Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 2001 I 73 1

Dwyer Instrument, Inc.: two standard-design pitot tubes, model 160 series; Dwyer Instrument, Inc.: primary standard manometer, model #424; NEC Versa data-logging Pentium portable computer; National Instruments: LabVIEW, version 5.1 Graphical Programming Software, data acquisition software; National Instruments: LabVIEW DAQCARD AI-1 6XE-50 voltage to digital converter; National Instruments: SCB-68 voltage to digital interface; Dwyer Instrument, Inc.: pressure transducer, model 607-4; converts stack air velocity pressure (in inches of water) to linear voltage readout; Alnor Velometer, series 6000: air velocity measurement instrument; Barnant temperature and relative humidity logger, model 69 19000; Dwyer Instrument, Inc.: temperature meter- voltage readout, model 4151D; Sartorious scale: 360 pounds maximum +2 grams accuracy; Sartorious scale: 150 pounds maximum +1 gram accuracy; and Stack VOC sample line insulated and temperature controlled by a CAL, series 9000 microprocessor.

CMTI staff developed a data acquisition collection system that is capable of simultaneously and continuously monitoring pertinent stack data, including velocity, temperature, relative humidity, and parts per million of volatile organic compounds.

An electronic pressure transducer connected to a stack pitot tube continuously monitored stack air velocity. Electronic temperature and humidity instruments continuously monitored the stack temperature and relative humidity. A J.U.M. Engineering, Inc., total carbon analyzer


FID continuously monitored the parts per million of styrene in the stack’s exhaust air. The plant location’s barometric pressure (later adjusted to the site’s altitude) was obtained from the area’s local airport weather data.

All of these data were fed into an especially designed data acquisition software program and readings from each data source were logged every two seconds. Each of the FRP consortium’s three emissions tests spanned an average of 250 minutes. This culminated in the collection, storage, and computation of more than 30,000 data points for each test.

All test equipment had been calibrated and the equipment’s accuracy had been verified. The J.U.M. FID was calibrated before and after each test, using certified EPA calibration gases (propane standard).

The stack velocity, in addition to being continuously monitored via the pressure transducer download to the computer, was manually tra- versed, according to EPA Method 1. Therefore, a primary standard was used, in conjunction with the continuous pressure transducer, to develop the approximate dry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm) flow rate of the exhaust stack air.

The data acquisition software enabled the CMTI staff to calculate the rate of exhaust emission every two seconds; thus, the emissions from the tests were totaled by summing thousands of two-second integration packets. This proved to be a highly accurate means of collecting and calcu- lating the emission test data. Exhibit 2 lists the summary of data collected by CMTI staff during

Exhibit 2. Emission Collection Efficiency

Styrene Collection Efficiency

*;r Styrene Dispensed (Ibs.) 0.8576 Styrene Emissions Collected (Ibs.) 0.8428

Collection Efficiency (“/.) Span Gas Drift Check

98 28% 1%

an emission collection efficiency test at the Prodesign Composites facility.

A known amount of pure styrene was atomized into the booth and the emissions were monitored in a manner identical to all of the emission tests. The capture rate of the known amount of styrene, using CMTI monitoring equipment, exceeded 98 percent. This on-site collection experiment verified the accuracy and quality of the FRP consortium’s emissions testing program.

Styrene emissions, detected in the exhaust stack via the total carbon analyzer, were recorded, in parts per million, as propane. Styrene is an unstable, reactive chemical both in liquid and vapor form. Thus, the total carbon analyzer, also called a FID, for the FRP consortium tests was calibrated with EPA-certified calibration gases com- posed of known concentrations of propane gas.

Propane was used as the calibration gas because, unlike styrene, it is an extremely stable gas. Pure propane gas blended with a diluent gas, such as air or nitrogen, to a specific, known concentration will remain at the blended concentration for months. The stable, blended, and known propane concentration is then used to calibrate the total carbon analyzer and to monitor the instrument’s consistency, over time, in accurately recording ppm in an exhaust stack air stream.

The FID is calibrated to sense the three carbon atoms in each propane molecule. The instrument assumes that the source of all detected carbon is

propane. Consequently, when the instrument senses the eight carbon atoms from each styrene molecule, it assumes it is detecting 2.667 (83) propane molecules. Thus, the ppm readout of the instrument for detecting styrene, when calibrated using propane calibration gases, is 2.667 times higher (theoretically) than the styrene’s actual concentration.

To convert from the propane ppm calibrated readout to the styrene ppm, the propane ppm value must be multiplied by a conversion factor of 0.375 (38). However, since FID instruments have individual sensitivity/response profiles, the actual conversion factor is rarely equal to the the- oretical value. In the case of the FID instrument used for the FRP emission tests, the actual propane-to-styrene conversion factor, determined from multiple testing of freshly prepared, known styrene samples, was 0.4248. This is a typical number and is in agreement with a general range reported by other researchers performing similar tests and using similar equipment.

Just prior to the beginning of each test, the FID was calibrated using the EPA-certified propane-standard gases. At the completion of each test, the FID was rechecked with the same EPA-certified calibration gases. Exhibit 3, the FID Calibration Drift Check, reports the difference in the reading of the known ppm EPA gases from initial calibration at the beginning of each test to the end of each test. The data demonstrate

Exhibit 3. FID Drift Check . TEST

Test 1 (Untrained) Test 2

DURATION (minutes)

241

SPAN G A S Drifi

<+2% ,

(Controlled spray) 260 <+0.6% Test 3 (Follow-up with controlled spray) 273

*

Gel coat phase <+2%

Resin phase + 6.1%

Span gas drift of 5% or less from initial calibration to the end of the test is deemed acceptable.

The Effectiveness of Controlled Spray Training in the Fiber Reinforced Plastics Industry Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 2001 / 75

Exhibit 4. Stack Flow Rate Data

TEST Identification

Test 1 (Without controlled spray) Test 2 (With controlled spray)

Average Flow Rate of Each Test ftflmin

Individual Test Deviation from Combined Tests Average

23,924.3 0.90%

23,677.7 0.1 4% Test 3 Follow-up (with controlled spray) 23,529.1 0.76%

that the FID operated effectively and met the standards of the EPA Method 25A for resistance to drift.

Exhibit 4 lists the average observed actual stack flow rate in dry standard cubic feet per minute of each of the three tests. The maximum variance (from test to test), from the combined average of the three tests, was less than 1 percent (0.90 percent). This result demonstrates the consistent stability of the exhaust system and the stack flow rate monitoring system.

Test Results and Discussion The CFA Unified Emission Factor Model (UEF)

(the emission factor referenced in Indiana air per- mits) lists gel coats, applied with uncontrolled spray with less than 33 percent styrene content (by weight), as having an emission factor of 44.5 percent of the available styrene. The gel coat and resin used in the FRP consortium's emissions test had a styrene content (by weight) of 27.25 per-

Exhibit 5. Gel Coat Spray Tests 1, 2, and 3

cent and 33.5 percent, respectively (no methyl methacrylate, or any other VOC, other than the minimal catalyst content, was present in either the gel coat or the resin) and the observed uncontrolled spray emission factor was 41.3 percent available styrene (see Exhibit 5). Thus, the emissions factor observed in the FRP consortium styrene emissions test is 7.2 percent less than the CFA UEF model estimate.

The CFA's UEF emission factor for controlled spray of gel coats is listed as 32.5 percent of the available styrene. This is a 27 percent reduction when compared to the uncontrolled spray of gel coat in the UEF. The FRP consortium3 tests demonstrated a maximum of 5.1 percent (second test) and a minimum of a 1.2 percent (third test) emission reduction for controlled spray applica- tions of gel coat when compared to uncontrolled spray. The reasons for the difference in the reduction estimates of the UEF and the FRP consortium's tests might be explained by the following:

Test 3 5-month

Test 1 without Test 2 with % difference follow-up with YO difference controlled spray controlled spray from Test 1 controlled spray from Test 1

Weight of gel coat sprayed 49.42 Ibs. 40.05 Ibs. -1 9% 33.05 Ibs. -33.1%

o/o available styrene emissions (27.25% styrene, by weight,

Potential dollar savings from

in gel coat) 41.3% 39.2% -5.1% 40.8% -1.2%

use reduction NA $3.10, per mold NA $5.45, per mold NA

The mold type used in the FRP consortium’s test was female, while the mold type in the CFA tests (which developed the UEF) was male. Male molds, due to their geometric con- figuration, will have substantially more overspray potential than a female mold counter- part. If controlled spray techniques are practiced while spraying onto a mold’s surface, much less overspray emission reduction is achieved with a female mold than with a male mold. The perimeter to surface area ratio was greater for the CFA mold than for the FRP consortium’s mold (0.835 to 0.5 12, respectively); therefore, there was less opportunity for overspray, during overall spray time, with the FRP consortium’s mold when compared to the CFA’s mold (i.e., overspray of the FRP consortium’s mold was less, as a percentage of the total amount sprayed, when compared to the CFA’s mold). The CFA sprayed the same weight of gel coat in its uncontrolled spray tests as it did in its controlled tests; thus, the thickness of its controlled spray parts was greater. The FRP consortium’s tests applied the same thickness to both the uncontrolled spray and controlled spray parts and, thus, reduced the amount sprayed. As previously indicated, surface area is the “after application” determiner of emissions: the thicker a part, given a constant surface area, the less the percentage of emissions per pound applied. Therefore, the CFA emission factor for controlled spray predicts a greater reduction in percent emissions because more material was put on the part (it was thicker). The percentage of emissions for the thicker part is lower, and this increases the percent emissions reduction. The FRP consortium’s molds did not have part thickness increase as a result of the controlled spray process. The part thickness for Test 2,

when compared to Test 1, was nearly identical (average, 24 mils), while the part thickness for Test 3 was actually, on average, 22 mils (averaging 2 mils thinner than Test 1’s parts). The fact that 20 percent less material was sprayed in Test 2 and 33 percent less material was sprayed in Test 3 means less material sprayed per given surface area (particularly for Test 3), and this would lead to a higher percent emission factor (compared to the CFA emission estimates) simply due to the thickness (mass) to surface area phenomenon which determines emissions.

The raw material savings resulting from the reduction in consumption are of particular note. Test 2 demonstrated that controlled spray could reduce gel coat material use by 19 percent, resulting in a $3.10 per mold savings. Test 3 demonstrated an even greater use reduction of 33 percent, resulting in a $5.45 savings per mold. As stated earlier, review of mold thickness data demonstrated that the Test 3 average thickness was slightly less than that of Tests 1 and 2, so conservative cost savings estimates default to Test 2’s results.

The chart in Exhibit 6 illustrates the styrene emissions level (ppm) measured during the gel coat spray phase of Tests 1, 2, and 3. Thus, the chart compares the concentration of styrene vapors of gel coat sprayhg without controlled spray training (Test l), with controlled spray training (Test 2), and measuring controlled spray training information retention (Test 3 follow-up).

The reduced concentration of styrene ppm observed in Test 2 clearly demonstrates that spray training is effective in reducing styrene emissions and reducing peak ppm levels (see Exhibit 6 for

The raw material savings resulting from the reduction in COnSumption

are of particular note.

The Effectiveness of Controlled Spray Training in the Fiber Reinforced Plastics Industry Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 2001 / 77

Exhibit 6. Gel Coat Controlled Spray (C.S.) Comparison

!

0 a0 0 I- O 21 ‘9 0 -? 0 m 0 ri 0

Duration of Test (minutes)

if the training were repeated after an interval of perhaps three months, sprayers might retain a greater percentage of training information and sustain the desired technique-thus more effectively maintaining emission reductions.

The sprayer’s ability to increase the “trained” spray application speed nearer to the production rate of “untrained” spray application demonstrates that sprayers can adopt low-emission spray techniques and still maintain production rates.

Exhibit 7 lists important overspray data,

peak ppm levels attained). Test 3, performed five months after the spray training program instruc- tion, identifies two additional, important points:

The effectiveness of the earlier spray training is obvious; the data suggest the sprayer retained about 25 percent of the skills attained during training. The gel coat application speed was significantly slower in Test 2 than in Test 1; however, as the sprayer adapted the training information and technique to the production-oriented routine, the gel coat application speed of Test Three increased to more nearly match that of Test 1 (see Exhibit 6, duration of test).

While the data from one series of tests (using one spray gun operator) are limited in statistical inference potential, the information suggests that

which were collected during Tests 1, 2, and 3. The value of controlled spray is demonstrated in this table. The weight of the material sprayed past the mold and deposited onto the floor during Test 1 (without controlled spray) was reduced by 90 percent during Test 2, which utilized a controlled spray technique. The gains in limiting overspray

78 I Winter 2001 I Pollution Prevention Review S J Hall and J.R Nmna

Exhibit 7. Overspray Data

Test 3 5-month.

Test 3 5-month

Test 1 without Test 2 with '10 difference follow-up with o/o difference controlled spray controlled spray from Test 1 controlled spray from Test 1

Weight of overspray on booth floor 18.9 Ibs. 1.9 Ibs. -90% .4 Ibs. -98'10 Weight of overspray on booth filters .a ibs. .5 Ibs. -36% NA NA

were more graphic in the controlled spray follow- up test, which demonstrated a 98 percent reduction in overspray to the floor, when compared to the first test.

Reduction in overspray to the booth filters also attests to the effectiveness of controlled spray. The overspray deposited onto the filters during Test 1 (without controlled spray) was reduced by 36 percent during Test 2, which utilized the controlled spray technique. Due to a recording error, the booth filter weight change of the controlled spray follow-up test could not be calculated.

Exhibit 8 lists the important data collected for the resin spray application for emission Tests 1, 2, and 3.

The amount of resin used to produce the parts for Test 1 (uncontrolled spray) and Test 2 (controlled spray) remained relatively constant, vary- ing by only 3.2 percent. However, there was a substantial difference in emissions between the

Exhibit 8. Resin Spray Tests 1, 2, and 3 1

two tests (16.3 percent versus 12.6 percent): The controlled spray (Test 2) registered a 22.4 percent reduction in emissions when compared to the uncontrolled spray (Test 1).

Serious equipment malfunction occurred during the resin coating phase of Test 3, which casts serious doubt on the applicability of the resin emission data gathered for that test. Despite repeated attempts to correct the malfunction, the pump/spray equipment continued to operate poorly. Repeated glass chopper jamming also occurred, which caused numerous spray process "starts" and "stops." Emission test team members experienced eye irritation and also noticed droplet deposits on notepads, on cameras, and on their persons. It was decided that, since this was the FRP consortium's only opportunity for an analysis of resin spray training's long-term effectiveness, the test would continue, the data would be collected, and parts would be produced.

Pollution Prevention Review I Winter 2001 / 79

Test 3 FID calibratioddrift check (Exhibit 3 ) references a drift of <+2 percent for the gel coat phase and +6.1 percent for the resin coating phase. The 6.1 percent drift is significantly higher than the more typical drift of less than t2 percent. The FID drift means that it detected 6 percent more propane at the end of Test 3 that it had detected when calibrated at the beginning of the test.

One can therefore assume that the FID would detect styrene concentration at a level up to 6 percent higher than actual concentrations. If one assumes a worst case condition, that the 6 percent “over-detection” started at the beginning of

It follows that controlled spray techniques per se contribute significantly to emissions reduction beyond that reduction achieved simply from the use of less material.

Test 3 and continued to the test’s completion, then the styrene emissions during the resin application phase would have been overstated by 6 percent for the entire test. Therefore, the

previously mentioned complications regarding Test 3 resin application emissions (due to equipment malfunction) were further exacerbated by the FID’s 6 percent drift from the initial calibration. If the overstatement assumption is adopted, then the initial emission factor developed for Test 3 (18.9 percent [Exhibit 81) is 6 percent higher and, in actuality, the emission factor should be reported as 17.8 percent.

Even considering the FID-adjusted emission factor of 17.8 percent, the Test 3 (follow-up trained spray) percent emissions exceed that of Test 1 (no spray training). While the abnormal FID drift made Test 3‘s emissions appear higher than actual emissions, the real problem involving the resin phase emission test was primarily due to equipment malfunction. The reader is advised to keep in mind that Test 3’s resin emission data are flawed due to the equipment malfunction, and the test is not representative of what might be


expected from typical follow-up controlled spray conditions.

The CFA UEF factor for uncontrolled spray of resin material containing 33.5 percent is 17.7 percent available styrene. Test 1’s emission factor was 16.3 percent available styrene and comports well with the CFA’s conservative UEF factor. The Test 2 (controlled spray) emission factor of 12.6 percent represents a 22.4 percent reduction in emissions when compared to that of the uncontrolled spray test. This represents a substantial reduction in emissions, despite the fact that only 3.3 percent less material was used.

It follows that controlled spray techniques per se contribute significantly to emissions reduction beyond that reduction achieved simply from the use of less material. The Test 1 (uncontrolled) cost savings data, when compared to that of Test 2 (controlled spray), suggest that $2.78 per mold can be saved in resin raw material.

Exhibit 9 charts the styrene emissions (ppm) from the resin spray process phase of Tests 1,2, and 3. Again, one can easily discern the significant reduction of styrene emissions in Test 2 (with controlled spray training) when compared to Test 1 (without controlled spray training). One can also observe that Test 2’s application speed is significantly slower than that of Test 1. Due to serious and continuous malfunctioning of the spray equipment during Test 3, only limited conclusions can be drawn from the resin spray portion of that test.

Conclusions The FRP consortium’s spray training program

was initiated to accomplish four key objectives:

Improve the economic performance of the FRP consortium members by reducing wasted overspray, thereby reducing raw material costs. ,+*=

- 2 Reduce emissions of styrene to the environment. ;?$

Reduce worker exposure to the harmful raw materials used in the production process.

S J Hall and J R. Noonan

i

Exhibit 9. Resin Controlled Spray (C.S.) Comparison I

100

f 80 0

m L. E

f

.3

.y

c

60

i;

5 2 40 Q)

1(1

a a E 20

0

\ .

lwithout C . S I

/ /I [Follow-up C.SI

Duration of Test (minutes)

Improve the quality of open mold-produced parts through more consistent spray operations.

The training effectiveness tests demonstrated that all four objectives can be achieved.

Cleanup Cost Savings Cost reductions result from a cleaner work-

ing spray booth. Review of Exhibit 7 suggests that a facility that employs controlled spray techniques may achieve substantial cleaning1 labor savings, as well as reduced special and/or hazardous waste disposal costs. A conservative estimate of potential labor and raw material savings follows.

Potential Cost Savings (Per Booth): ' Reduced cleanup labor costs 1 hrlday x 5 dayslweek @ $8lhour = $40/week

in the Fiber Reinforced

Booth cleaning material cost reductions =

$25/week Gel coat raw material savings @ $3.10/mold (assume 12 molds produced per day, 5 dayslweek) = $186/week Resin raw material cost savings $2.78 (assume 12 molds produced per day, 5 days/week) =

$167/week Total yearly potential savings @ 50 weeks per year, per booth = $20,89O/year

Raw Material Consumption Reduction Sav- ings

Reduced raw material consumption made possible by the spray training provides material cost savings. The observed raw material use reductions, as well as the lower emission factors from the spray training program, are explained in the following emission calculations.

Plastics industry Pollution Prwention Review / Winter 2001 / 81 I

I

Exhibit 10. Gel Coat Emissions Data Test 1 Compared to Test 2 16.00

14.00 Test 1 2 0 12.00 Test 2

n i; 8.00

$ 6.00 a f 4.00

2.00

0.00

L. 10.00

- Lbs. Applied UEF Lbs. Estimated Lbs. Actual Lhs. hmissions Lbs Eniissioiis

Use Reduction Spray Training (Styrene) Einissictns (Styrene) Emissions (Stjrene) Reduction Due to Reduction Due to

(Shrenc) Technique (Sllrene)

Gel coat: 49.42 lbs. x 27.25 percent styrene x .413 percent = 5.56 Ibs. of styrene emitted before spray training (49.42 Ibs. x 19 percent material use reduction) x 27.25 percent styrene x 41.3 percent = 1.05 lbs. of styrene not emitted due to use reduction 40.05 Ibs. x 27.25 percent styrene x 39.2 percent = 4.28 Ibs. of styrene emissions after spray training 5.56 Ibs. - 4.28 Ibs. = 1.28 lbs. total emission reduction due to training and use reduction

The total emission reduction is greater than the reduction attributable solely to reduced use of raw material (1.28 lbs. - 1.05 Ibs. = 0.23 Ibs.). The conclusion is that 18 percent (0.23 1.28) of the

Exhibit 11. Gel Coat Emissions Data

gel coat emission reduction is due to spray technique, and 82 percent (1.05 1.28) of the reduction is due to material use reduction. This is depicted in Exhibits 10 and 11.

Resin: 254.9 lbs. x 33.5 percent styrene x 16.3 percent = 13.92 lbs. of styrene emitted before spray training (254.9 lbs. x 3.2 percent material use reduction) x 33.5 percent x 16.3 percent = 0.45 Ibs. of styrene not emitted due to use reduction 246.7 lbs. x 33.5 percent x 12.6 percent =

10.41 Ibs. of styrene emissions after spray training 13.92 Ibs. - 10.41 lbs. = 3.51 lbs. emission reduction due to training and use reduction

Lbs. Emissions Lbs. Emissions Reduction Due

Lbs. Applied UEF Lbs. Estimated Lbs. Actual Reduction Due to Use to Spray Training (Styrene) Emissions (Styrene) Emissions (Styrene) Reduction (Styrene) Technique (Styrene)

Test 1 13.47 5.99 5.56 NA NA Test 2 10.91 3.55 4.28 1.05 0.23

I

$9 %; 82 I Winter 2001 / Pollution Prevention Review S J Hall and J R Noonan

Exhibit 12. Resin Emissions Data Test 1 Compared to Test 2 90.00

80.00

70.00

60.00 f 3 13 50.00 3 3 40.00 E 3 5 L. 30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

Test 1

, - I _

”_ . .I . .. . .

Lbs. Applied (Styrene) UEF Lbs. Estimated Lbs. Actual Emissions Lbs. Emissions Lbs. Emissioas Emisiorts (Styrene) (W-) Reduction Due to Use Reduction Due to Spray

Reduction (Styrene) Training Technique (Styrene)

The total emission reduction is greater than the reduction attributable solely to reduced use of raw material (3.51 Ibs. - 0.45 lbs. = 3.06 lbs.). The conclusion is that 87.2 percent (3.06 3.51) of the resin emission reduction is due to spray technique, and 12.8 percent (0.45 3.51) is due to material use reduction. This is depicted in Exhibits 12 and 13.

Note that since approximately 6.5 times [(254.9 Ibs. x 33.5 percent [Exhibit 81 - (49.42 Ibs. x 27.25 percent [Exhibit SI)] more styrene is sprayed during the resin phase than during the gel coat phase, the emission reduction attributable to

Exhibit 13. Resin Emissions Data

spray training techniques for resin accounts for 87.2 percent of the reduction when compared to the gel coat’s emission reduction of 18 percent.

TotaI gel coat and resin emission reduction:

ing, which includes the material use reduction. 1.28 Ibs. t 3.51 = 4.79 lbs. reduction due to train-

Therefore, comparing the spray training emissions test (Test 2) to the emissions from the no- training test (Test 1)’ one will observe a 24.8 percent total emissions reduction (combined gel coat and resin emissions).

Lbs. Emissions Lbs. Emissions Reduction Due

Lbs. Applied UEF Lbs. Estimated Lbs. Actual Reduction Due to Use to Spray Training (Styrene) Emissions (Styrene) Emissions (Styrene) Reduction (Styrene) Technique (Styrene)

Test 1 85.39 14.43 13.92 NA NA Test 2 82.65 10.74 10.41 0.45 3.06

L

\ o The Effectiveness of Controlled Spray Training in the Fiber Reinforced Plastics Industry Pollution Prevention Review / Winter 2001 / 83

Reduced Worker Exposure In addition to raw material consumption

reduction, spray training reduces emissions and worker exposure to hazardous chemicals. Review of Exhibits 6 and 9 demonstrates the value of controlled spray training techniques in reducing the concentration (ppm) of harmful chemicals in the workplace. With such training, employees are exposed to reduced levels of hazardous compounds, and the workplace is safer.

Exhibit 6 (gel coat spray) demonstrates that the peak styrene level in Test 1 (untrained personnel) is approximately 77 ppm (lasting less than 20 seconds), while the peak level in Test 2 (trained personnel) and Test 3 (follow-up of trained personnel) are approximately 33 and 50 ppm, respectively. These data represent a peak ppm styrene exposure level reduction for Test 2, which is 57.1 percent less than Test 1. The peak level reduction of Test 3, when compared to Test 1, is 35 percent.

Exhibit 9 illustrates that the peak level of styrene emissions from the resin spray in Test 1 is approximately 82 ppm; Test 2 and Test 3 display peak styrene levels of 33 and 65 ppm, respectively. Thus, peak exposure levels are reduced by 59.7 percent (Test 2) and 20 percent (Test 3) when compared to Test 1. As stated previously, the equipment malfunctions that plagued Test 3’s resin spray phase cast doubt upon the reliability of the resin emission test results.

The reduced exposure levels achieved through the spray training program may also allow a company to reduce air flow, and thus create savings in heating energy costs. A cost-savings estimate can- not be developed from the data gathered in this test. However, it is a cost savings that could amount to a substantial dollar figure, especially for facilities with more than one spray booth. Be

aware that, if reductions are made, adequate safety factor margins must be maintained to ensure that worker exposure complies with regulatory requirements (e.g., OSHA regulations).

The emissions and use-reduction data results of the spray training emissions test demonstrate that CFA-based spray training reduces emissions to the environment, reduces employees’ exposure to hazardous chemicals, and can lead to substantial cost savings for companies that employ the training.

Acknowledgments The authors thank the following for their con-

tributions to the success of the program described in this article:

The Indiana Department of Commerce, which provided the grant that made the training and emissions tests possible. Robert Lacovara, technical director of the Composites Fabricators Association, Arling- ton, Virginia, who provided unwavering support and guidance. Robert A. Haberlein, Ph.D., Engineering Envi- ronmental Consulting Services, Annapolis, Maryland, whose technical expertise in stack testing procedure helped ensure the program’s quality. Thaddeus J. Godish, Ph.D., of Ball State Uni- versity, whose knowledge, support, and dona- tion of equipment made the emissions testing possible.

We especially thank the management and employees of Prodesign Composites of Middle- bury, Indiana, whose patience, professionalism, and dedication contributed greatly to the success of the emissions testing program.

S.J. Hall and J.R. Noonan are with the Indiana Clean Manufacturlng Technology and Safe Materials Institute, Purdue Uni- versity, West Lafayette, Indiana.

84 / Winter 2001 / Pollution Prevention Review S J Hall and J.R. Noonan

Rewarding Volunteers: OSHA Issues a Final Voluntary Self-Audits Policy

Over the last five years or so, government agencies have offered an unprecedented number of incentives designed to encourage industrial entities to audit voluntarily their manufacturing operations, and to disclose voluntarily indiscretions they discover through these auditing activities. In July 2000, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued its final voluntary self-audit policy. This "Washington Watch" column summarizes this important policy, and discusses key issues that continue to inspire a robust "auditing" debate.

Background Through a combination of carrot and stick

measures, OSHA has long encouraged employers to audit their industrial operations. Industrial safety and health audits are included as explicit requirements in many OSHA standards.' Some argue that the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act itself implicitly imposes a "duty" on employers to scrutinize their workplaces to identify and correct hazardous conditions.2 Addition- ally, OSHA believes that it has a long-standing course of conduct in interacting with regulated employers that encourages employers regularly to undertake voluntary audits to ensure that the purposes of the OSH Act-to ensure a safe and healthful working environment-are achieved.

Largely to formalize OSHA's long-standing goal of encouraging voluntary audits, OSHA pub- lished a proposed policy statement concerning the use of voluntary employers' self-audits on

October 6, 1999.j The proposed policy statement sought as its primary goal to promote safe and healthful working environments by providing incentives to employers to identify and correct recognized hazards that could cause employee death or injury.

OSHA noted in the proposed policy statement that safety and health audits can promote the purposes of the OSH Act in several ways, including:

Promoting safety in the workplace; Reducing the direct and indirect costs associ- ated with occupational illnesses and injuries; and Providing employers with opportunities to address conditions prior to OSHA inspections, thereby reducing compliance costs.

Proposed Policy Specifics The proposed policy statement explicitly

applied to audits that are (a) systematic, documented, and "objective" reviews conducted by or for employers to review their operations and practices to assess compliance with the OSH Act; and (b) not mandated by the OSH Act, or by rules or orders issued pursuant to the OSH Act or settlement agreements. Findings resulting from such systematic self-audits must be

.

Lynn 1. Bergeson

0 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc Pallutlon Prevention Review / Winter 2001 I85

documented at the time the condition is discovered, or immediately after completion of the audit, to ensure that they are “promptly” addressed. Additionally, the self-audit must be conducted, or supervised, by a professional who is “competent to identify workplace safety and health hazards, given the scope and complexity of the process under review.”‘

Importantly, the proposed policy statement provided that OSHA would not routinely request voluntary employer self-audit reports at the initiation of an OSHA inspection. Additionally, the proposed policy provided that where an employer identified a hazardous condition through a voluntary self-audit, and the employer promptly undertook appropriate corrective measures, OSHA would treat the audit report as evidence of good faith, not as evidence of a willful violation. This provision was an important concession to those who feared that audit reports would become the proverbial “Exhibit A” in subsequent criminal enforcement actions.

OSHA emphasized, however, that in limited situations, especially those where OSHA has an “independent basis” to believe a health hazard exists, documentation related to voluntary self- audits would continue to be sought. OSHA provided the following example: Assume a cata- strophic accident occurred, and OSHA investi- gates the circumstances of the accident to assess compliance and to ensure that any hazardous conditions contributing to the accident have been abated. Under these circumstances, OSHA maintained that it would seek access to any audit reports as it would have an independent basis to believe a specific safety or health hazard warranted investigation.

OSHA solicited and received considerable comment on the proposed policy. As the discussion below notes, while the response generally was favorable, some criticized OSHA for being unnecessarily rigid in several key respects.

1% I I&. 86 / Winter 2001 / Pollution Prevention Review

Final Audit Policy OSHA issued its final self-audit policy on July

28, 2000.j The final policy, like the proposed version, stated three important policy positions:

First, OSHA will not routinely request self- audit reports at the initiation of an inspection. Second, OSHA will not use self-audit reports as a means of identifying hazards upon which to focus during the inspection. Finally, where a voluntary self-audit identifies a hazardous condition, and the employer has corrected the violative condition prior to initiation of the inspection and has taken the appropriate steps to prevent the recurrence of the condition, OSHA will not issue a citation, even if the violative condition existed within the six-month limitations period during which OSHA is authorized to issue citatiom6

Importantly also, and as in the proposed policy statement, OSHA will treat the self-audit report as evidence of good faith, and not as evidence of a willful violation, where a voluntary self-audit identifies a hazardous condition and the employer promptly undertakes appropriate measures to correct the violative condition.

OSHA made four key substantive changes to the proposed policy in the final policy statement. These are described below.

Definitional Changes In the final policy, OSHA has defined the term

“self-audit” to include health and safety audits conducted for an employer by a third party. Thus, an audit conducted by a third party for an employer is now covered by the final policy.

Additionally, OSHA changed the definition of the word “objective” by deleting reference to “safety and health professional[s]” and by *.

‘ C broadening the class of persons who may con- ,h& duct an “objective” self-audit to include com-

Pete employees and management officials. This modification responded to suggestions from small business employers who claimed not to have the financial resources to retain independent consultants, and who wished to use their own personnel to conduct otherwise bona fide audits. These personnel may not have professional “certification,” but nonetheless have the necessary experience to conduct an effective and thorough self-audit.

Training for Compliance Safety and Health Officers

In the final policy, OSHA explicitly states its commitment to training for compliance safety and health officers who apply the audit policy. Training will be provided to ensure OSHA’s consistent and proper implementation of the policy. This change was made in response to comments from employers who expressed concern regarding the potential for inconsistent implementation and application of the audit policy by OSHA personnel.

Citation Policy for Violative Conditions In the final policy, OSHA incorporated what it

has characterized as its current enforcement practice and added a provision stating that it will refrain from issuing a citation for a violative condition that an employer discovered as a result of a voluntary self-audit if the employer corrects the condition prior to initiation of the OSHA inspection and the employer has taken appropriate steps to prevent recurrence of the violative condition. OSHA made this change in response to requests that OSHA explicitly state that it will not issue citations for violative conditions that are discovered during a voluntary self-audit, but that are corrected prior to the initiation of an inspection, even if the violative condition existed. within the six- month limitations period during which OSHA is authorized to issue citations.

Prerogative Voluntarily to Provide Self-Audit Documentation

The final policy provides that an employer may voluntarily provide OSHA with self-audit documentation, and the employer may be eligible to receive the benefits that are offered under the policy. Several commenters urged OSHA to provide that in certain situations in which OSHA has not requested or used voluntary self-audit documentation while conducting its inspection, employers should nonetheless be permitted to take advantage of the policy by providing OSHA with evidence of their voluntary self-audit program.

OSHA concurred that there are instances in which OSHA is unaware of an employer’s self- audit activities and thus the employer would, absent offering information to OSHA, not be considered for recognition under the policy. To address this situation, the final policy now expressly provides that an employer voluntarily may provide OSHA with self-audit documentation, and thus be eligible to receive the benefits that are available under the policy.

Proposals Rejected by OSHA OSHA expressly rejected some suggestions

offered by commenters. First, several commenters urged OSHA to refrain totally from using voluntary self-audit information as part of OSHA’s enforcement efforts. OSHA declined to accept this comment. OSHA stated that a complete prohibi- tion on the use of audit documentation is unnec- essary to provide appropriate, positive treatment for voluntary self-audits. Further, OSHA stated that there are legitimate circumstances in which voluntary self-audit documentation is important to enable OSHA effectively to enforce the OSH Act. For example, according to OSHA, such information may allow an inspector who has already identified a hazard to determine the scope of the hazard or to assess the manner in which the condition can be effectively abated.

Winter 2001 J 07

Additionally, several commenters urged OSHA to outline in more detail the specific circumstances in which inspectors may voluntarily request self- audit documentation. OSHA declined to accept this modification for several reasons. First, OSHA believes that, given the diversity of circumstances that inspectors encounter in conducting workplace inspections, it is not feasible to list each and every situation with specificity. Second, OSHA believes that its inspectors should have discretion in imple- menting the policy effectively and efficiently to ful- fill their mandate to detect and identify occupational safety and health hazards. Third, OSHA believes that it has adopted the comments offered by several employers who expressed the concern that specificity may in practice increase the fre- quency with which inspectors request voluntary self-audit documentation, given the “natural human inclination to interpret specific examples as situations in which a request for self-audit documentation is mandated, as opposed to merely permitted, pursuant to the policy.”’

Self-Auditing Comes of Age The audit debate has raged for years. The sub-

stance of the debate, however, has changed dramatically. In years past, a key issue related to whether to conduct a voluntary audit. The “don’t go looking for trouble” syndrome prevailed.

Not any more. For the most part today, it is standard operating procedure for companies, large and small alike, to establish and maintain vigorous audit programs. Indeed, the costs of fail- ing to do so are simply too great. Similarly, the rewards offered under most government self- audit policies are sufficiently tempting to encourage the establishment of audit programs even among the most doubting of Thomases. More- over, even if management were disinclined to ini- tiate such a policy, pressures imposed by corpo- rate boards, shareholders, labor unions, federal government acquisition regulations, Internation-

$>

$


a1 Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification requirements, and related considerations have proven too compelling to ignore.

Similarly, precisely how self-audits should be undertaken historically was the subject of robust debate. But this too has changed in recent years. The drill for undertaking a voluntary self-audit, the role of legal counsel, and the “paper trail” that must be created and maintained now are relatively well-defined issues.R An established body of case law has eliminated much of the uncertainty regarding how best to preserve a variety of legal privileges to prevent the disclosure of audit documents.

The Remaining Dilemma: Threat of Criminal Prosecution

That said, however, perhaps the most vexing and legally troubling issue of all remains unre- solved. While both OSHA’s and EPA’s self-audit policies offer significant reductions in penalties, neither offers companies the ability to achieve global resolution of civil and criminal liability. Due to the vagaries of prosecutorial discretion and the zeal with which some prosecutors pursue their tar- gets, employers are forced to balance carefully the benefits offered by these audit policies against the likelihood that any self-confessed indiscretion will be referred for criminal prosecution.

Industry observers have expressed concern with the EPA audit policy in this regard since its incep- tion almost five years ago. Although the EPA policy was revised in May 2000, significant uncertainty remains given the policy’s minimal protection against criminal prosecution for self-confessed environmental indiscretions. The EPA policy offers almost no protection from criminal prosecution; this is largely because the standard against which EPA reviews self-confessed violations to assess whether any should be referred for criminal prosecution is subjective. What constitutes a prevalent “management philosophy that condones violations” is, for the most part, a very subjective deter-

mination. Because of the high-stakes nature of criminal enforcement actions, for both the prosecution and the defendant, great care must be taken in weighing the benefits of EPA’s self-audit promise against the possibility that even the most seeming- ly benign of violations may be fair game for criminal enforcement.

OSHA’s self-audit policy does not explicitly mention criminal matters, perhaps because criminal prosecutions are maintained pursuant to a different legal standard under the OSH Act. Nonethe- less, the same balancing of risks and benefits must precede any decision to avail oneself of the benefits available under the OSHA audit policy. While the benefits offered under the policy are real and valu- able, they would pale beside the cost, damage, and stress of a criminal enforcement proceeding.

Clearly, the incentives for volunteer auditing and self-confession are working as intended. Given the fear of criminal prosecution, however, the effect of these incentives will remain limited for the fore- seeable future.

audits and other reviews for operations with hazardous waste products), and 1910.1025(d), (e) (mandating monitoring and planning to evaluate and to reduce employee exposure to lead).

2. See 64 Fed. Reg. 54358, 54359 (Oct. 6, 1999), citing Dunlop v. Rockwell Int’l, 540 F.2d 1283, 1291-92 (6th Cir. 1976); Auto- matic Sprinkler Corp. of America, 7 BNA OSHC 1957, 1959 (OSH Review Commission 1979).

3. Id. at 54358. 4. Id. at 54361 (col. 1).

5. 65 Fed. Reg. 46198 (July 28, 2ooO).

6. Id.

7. Id. at 46500.

8. The need to be vigilant in terms of how a self-audit is conducted derives from the desire of most employers to maintain various legal privileges asserted with the audit report. Several privileges apply, including the attorney- client privilege, the attorney work-product privilege, and a newer privilege sometimes referred to as the “privilege of self-critical analysis.” Several courts have held that environmental and occupational safety and health self-audits are entitled to privilege from disclosure on the basis of the privilege of critical self-analysis. See Reichhold Chems., Inc. v. Textron Inc., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13806 (D.C. NFL 1994); Olen Properties Corp. v. Sheldalh, Inc., 38 ERC 1887, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7125 (D.C.C. California 1994). A growing number of states have also begun to enact privilege laws intended to protect internal environmental audits from disclosure.

Notes 1. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. 4s 1926.20@) (requiring frequent and regular inspections of constructions sites), 1910.119 (mandating compliance audits and other inspections and investigations for operations with hazardous chemicals), 1910.120 (requiring

Lynn L. Bergeson is a founding shareholder of Bergeson & Campbell, PC., a Washington, D.C., law firm concentrating on assisting clients in obtaining regulatory agency approval of their chemical, medical device, and diagnostic products, as well as on the regulation, product litigation, and business issues related to those products.

Review Winter 2001 I 89

the effectiveness of controlled spray training · grant proposal was written by cmti, which is...

Documents