By Pat A. Cook, Atty., and James E. Krause There is a growing concern over possible harmful effects of asphalt fumes on workers, particularly in the hot mix roofing and roadwork industries. OSHA has designated asphalt fumes as its number one non-regulatory priority. According to Ed Geddie of the North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Administration (NC OSHA), the fume issue is on the priority planning list of issues to be considered for federal rule planning, and he expects a rule on asphalt fumes to be out within the next few years. The effect of asphalt fumes on workers has been the subject of studies for many years. In one such study done on hot asphalt mixes at two hot mix facilities involving four asphalts from three refineries, air contaminants were found to be with¬ in the threshold limit values (TLV). The study concluded there were no serious air pollution or employee health prob¬ lems resulting from the use of petroleum-derived asphalt in hot mixes. A later 1988 study showed the amount of volatile material measured from asphalt at temperatures above 316 degrees C had increased 9-16 times the earlier measured amounts, and 2-7 times more from coal tar. The authors of the study con¬ cluded that the asphalt and especially coal tar pitch are highly carcinogenic, particularly at elevated temperatures. Studies all show that the fumes from coal tar (a common ingredient in roof patching materials) are more carcinogenic than asphalt fumes. Between 1976 and 1993, a total of 19 epidemiological stud¬ ies examined the potential carcinogenic effects of bitumens on workers through inhalation and dermal exposure. Lung cancer excesses occurred in 1 1, lung cancer and bladder can¬ cer excesses occurred in 8; and asphalt exposure was signifi¬ cantly associated with an excess of ureter and pelvic cancer, stomach cancer, and colon cancer in most groups. OSHA currently has no permissive exposure limit (PEL) for asphalt. Since there is no regulation without a PEL, OSHA must enforce current hazardous conditions from asphalt fumes under the General Duty Clause, if it attempts to enforce them at all. The General Duty Clause [OSHA Section 5(a)(1)] was enacted to cover serious hazards to which no specific stan¬ dard applies. These three elements must be shown for a General Duty violation: 1) The employer failed to render its workplace free of a hazard; 2) The hazard is recognized by the employer or its industry,- and 3) The hazard is causing or is likely to cause death or serious physical harm. NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) lists asphalt as a suspect carcinogen with a threshold limit value (TLV) of 5mg/m 3 (milligrams per cubic meter) measured over a 15-minute period. This is a very low stan¬ dard. Mark Wiggins (South Carolina OSHA) indicated that a TLV of 5 mg/m 3 particulate matter is visible as a cloud or smoke. OSHA can enforce this NIOSH standard under the general duty clause if it so chooses. Currently, OSHA must prove overexposure to support a General Duty violation, since there is no PEL regulation to enforce. This will change, of course, if and when an OSHA regulation is implemented dealing with asphalt fumes. Asphalt fumes are a definite and growing concern in regula¬ tory agencies,- there will be regulations governing it within a very few years. The current projection of regulation includes rotation of workers, respiratory protection, monitoring of temperatures, and measuring of air quality. Studies show that several simple measures will keep exposure of workers to a minimum, especially proper ventilation and careful attention to constant temperatures of hot mix. You should help ensure that your client won’t be a target of an OSHA investigation by taking such measures seriously and bringing them to the attention of those who can effect these precautions. Put A. Cook is an attorney, and James E. Krause, a law clerk with Safran Law Offices, Raleigh, NC. The law offices specialize in construc¬ tion-related litigation. Region I Region III Region V Region VII Mike DeFrancesco, RRC Dennis McNeil, RRC. RRO, CCS Daniel J. Neuhaus, RRC Colin Murphy, RRC Langhorne. Pennsylvania Homewood. Illinois Denver, Colorado Seattle, Washington (215) 757-1450 (708) 799-3599 (303) 342-3902 (206)467-0054 Region II Region IV Region VI Region VIII C. Allen Kidd. RRC. EIT Paul Ridley Trov F. Brooks. RRC Albert Duwyn, RRC Charlotte. North Carolina Dallas, Texas Clovis. California Mississauga, Ontario (704) 553-8285 (214)939-4900 (209) 298-9135 (905)607-7244 10 • Interface June 1998 Correction The individual charts for each of the Life Cycle Cost Analyses in the article by William Kirn in the April 1998 issue of Interface had some incorrect figures due to typographical errors. For that reason, we are reprinting the charts here. The Life Cycle Cost Summary chart on page 5 of the April issue is correct. Life Cycle Cost Analysis #1 No Maintenance Program Year 0 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dis. Factor (10%) 1.000 0.909 0.826 0.751 0 680 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.466 0.424 0.386 Capital Expense $300,000 $0 PV $300,000 $0 Mgt Overhead $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 PV $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 Visual Survey SO so so $0 $0 so SO so $0 $0 PV so so $0 so $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 Moisture Survey $0 $0 PV so so $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Leaks so so $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $1,500 $2,250 $3,000 PV so so $563 $510 $466 $423 $385 $699 $954 $1,158 Interior Damage $500 $500 PV so so SO SO $311 $0 $0 $233 $0 $0 Wet Insul Sq. R. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Wasted Energy $47 $94 $141 $188 $235 $282 $329 $376 $423 PV Energy so $39 $71 $96 $117 $133 $145 $153 $159 $163 Energy Saved $0 PV so $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 Year 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 Summary Dis Factor (10%) 0.350 0319 0.290 0263 0.239 0.217 0197 0.179 0 163 0.148 Capital Expense $500,000 PV $175,000 $475,000 Mgt. Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Visual Survey $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so PV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Moisture Survey $0 so PV so SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 Leaks $0 $0 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $1,500 $1250 $3,000 PV $0 $0 $218 $197 $179 $163 $148 $269 $367 $444 $7,142 Interior Damage $500 $500 $500 PV $175 $0 $0 $0 $120 $0 $0 $90 $0 $0 $928 Wet Insul. Sq. Ft. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Wasted Energy $0 $47 $94 $141 $188 $235 $282 $329 $376 $423 PV Energy $0 $15 $27 $37 $45 $51 $56 $59 $61 $63 $1,489 Energy Saved $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PV $0 SO $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $484,558 Life Cycle Cost Analysis #2 Modest Maintenance Program Year 9 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 Dis Factor (10%) 1.000 0.909 0 826 0.751 0.680 0 621 0.564 0.513 0.466 0.424 0.386 Capital Expense $300,000 $0 PV svto mo $0 Mgt Overhead $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 PV $909 $826 $751 $680 $621 $564 $513 $466 $424 $386 Visual Survey $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 PV $909 $826 $751 $680 $621 $564 $513 $466 $424 $386 Moisture Survey $0 $0 PV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 Leaks $0 $0 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $150 $250 PV $0 $0 $188 $170 $155 $141 $128 $117 $106 $97 Intenor Damage $0 $500 $0 PV $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $257 $0 SO $0 Wes tank Sq. R 0 0 25 25 50 50 75 75 100 100 Wasted Energy $0 $47 $47 $94 $94 $141 SI41 $188 $188 PV Energy so so $35 $32 $’8 $53 n $66 $80 $73 Energy Saved $0 PV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Year 11 12 14 16 17 19 20 Summary Du. Factor (10%) 0 350 0.319 0290 0 263 0239 0217 0.197 0.179 0163 0.148 C Comprehensive Maintenance Program Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dis. Factor (10%) 1.000 0.909 0.826 0.751 0.680 0.621 0.564 0.513 0.466 0.424 0.386 Capital Expense $300,000 $75,000 PV $300,000 $28,950 Mgt. Overhead $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Sl.000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 PV $909 $826 $751 $680 $621 $564 $513 $466 $424 $386 Visual Survey $2,000 $1000 $1000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 S 2.000 $2,000 $2,000 PV $1,818 $1,652 $1,502 $1360 $1242 $1,128 $1,026 $932 $848 $772 Moisture Survey $5,000 $5,000 PV $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,105 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,930 Leaks $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 PV $0 $0 $188 $170 $155 $141 $128 $117 $106 $97 Interior Damage PV $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 $0 Wet Insul Sq. Ft Wasted Energy PV Energy $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 $0 $0 Energy Saved $8,070 PV so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 ($3,115) Year 11 12 13 14 •• 17 18 19 20 Summary Dii Factor (10%) 0.350 0.319 0290 0 263 0.239 0.217 O.t97 0179 0.163 0.148 Capital Expense $0 PV SO $728 950 Mgt Overhead $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 PV $350 $319 $290 $263 $239 $217 $197 $179 $163 $148 $8305 Visual Survey $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1000 $1000 $2,000 $2,000 $1000 PV $700 $638 $580 $526 $478 $434 $394 $358 $326 $296 $17,010 Moisture Survey $5,000 $5,000 PV SO $0 SO $0 $1,195 $0 $0 $0 $0 $740 $6,970 Leaks $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 PV $88 $80 $73 $66 $60 $54 S49 $45 $41 $37 $1,693 Interior Damage $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PV $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 Wet Insul. Sq. R. Wasted Energy PV Energy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Energy Saved $8,070 $6,460 $6,460 $6,460 $6,460 $6,460 $6,460 $6,460 $6,460 $6,460 PV ($1261 ($1261 ($1,873 ($1,699 ($1,544 ($1,402 ($1273 ($1,156 ($1,053 ($956) ($18393) $144,715 12 Interface June 1998
