Document

Salini-Impregilo/Healy Joint Venture; Application for Permanent Variance and Interim Order; Grant of Interim Order; Request for Comments

In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Salini- Impregilo/Healy Joint Venture for a Permanent Variance and Interim Order from provisions of OSHA standards that regulat...

Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
  1. [Docket No. OSHA-2018-0013]

AGENCY:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Salini-Impregilo/Healy Joint Venture for a Permanent Variance and Interim Order from provisions of OSHA standards that regulate work in compressed air environments and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the Permanent Variance. OSHA also announces the granting of an Interim Order. 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 September 26, 2019. The Interim Order described in this notice will become effective on August 27, 2019, and shall remain in effect until the completion of the Northeast Boundary Tunnel project for Washington, DC or the Interim Order is modified or revoked.

ADDRESSES:

Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at: www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.

Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service: When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2018-0013, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA docket number (OSHA-2018-0013). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov.

Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the www.regulations.gov index; however, some information ( e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Kevin Robinson, Director Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities (OTPCA) at the below address.

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; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: . ( printed page 44933)

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; telephone: (202) 693-2110; email: .

Copies of thisFederal Register notice. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at 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 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 offered in support of each denial; and (3) any views or arguments on any issue of fact or law presented in the variance application.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Application

OSHA's standards in subpart S of 29 CFR part 1926 govern underground construction, caissons, cofferdams, and compressed air. On October 19, 2017, Salini-Impregilo/Healy Joint Venture (“Salini” or “the applicant”), 2600 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20003, 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, 1926.803 of subpart S, and an Interim Order allowing it to proceed while OSHA considers the request for a Permanent Variance (OSHA-2018-0013-0001). This notice addresses Salini's application for a Permanent Variance and Interim Order for construction of the Northeast Boundary Tunnel Project in Washington, DC only and is not applicable to future Salini or Salini-related joint venture tunneling projects.

Specifically, this notice addresses Salini's application for a Permanent Variance and Interim Order from the provisions of the standard that: (1) Require the use of the decompression values specified in decompression tables in Appendix A of subpart S (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)); and (2) require the use of automated operational controls and a special decompression chamber (29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii) and (xvii), respectively).

OSHA has previously approved nearly identical provisions when granting several other very similar variances, as discussed in more detail in Section II. OSHA preliminarily concludes that the proposed variance is appropriate, grants an Interim Order temporarily allowing the proposed activity, and seeks comment on the proposed variance.

Background

The applicant is a contractor that works on complex tunnel projects using innovations in tunnel-excavation methods. The applicant's workers engage in the construction of tunnels using advanced shielded mechanical excavation techniques in conjunction with an earth pressure balanced micro-tunnel boring machine (EPBMTBM). Using shielded mechanical excavation techniques, in conjunction with precast concrete tunnel liners and backfill grout, EPBMTBMs 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 EPBMTBM.

Salini asserts that generally it bores tunnels using an EPBMTBM at levels below the water table through soft soils consisting of clay, silt, and sand. EPBMTBMs 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. The forward-most portion of the EPBMTBM is the working chamber, and this chamber is the only pressurized segment of the EPBMTBM. Within the shield, the working chamber consists of two sections: The forward working chamber and the staging chamber. The forward working chamber is immediately behind the cutter head and tunnel face. The staging chamber is behind the forward working chamber and between the man-lock door and the entry door to the forward working chamber.

The EPBMTBM has twin man-locks located between the pressurized working chamber and the non-pressurized portion of the machine. Each man-lock has 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.

The applicant will pressurize the working chamber to the level required to maintain a stable tunnel face, which for this project Salini estimates will be up to a pressure not exceeding 50 pounds per square in gauge (p.s.i.g.).[1] Pressure in the staging chamber ranges from atmospheric (no increased pressure) to a maximum pressure equal to the pressure in the forward working chamber.

Salini employs specially trained personnel for the construction of the tunnel. To keep the machinery working effectively, Salini asserts that these workers must periodically enter the excavation working chamber of the EPBMTBM to perform hyperbaric interventions during which workers would be exposed to air pressures up to 50 p.s.i.g., which does not exceed the maximum pressure specified by the existing OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5). These interventions consist of conducting inspections or maintenance work on the cutter-head structure and cutting tools of the EPBMTBM, such as changing replaceable cutting tools and disposable wear bars, and, in rare cases, repairing structural damage to the cutter head. These interventions are the only time that workers are exposed to compressed air. Interventions in the working chamber (the pressurized portion of the EPBMTBM) take place only after halting tunnel excavation and preparing the machine and crew for an intervention.

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 manlocks and the working chamber are designed to accommodate three people, which is the maximum crew size allowed under the proposed variance. When the required decompression times are greater than work times, the twin man-locks allow for crew rotation. ( printed page 44934) 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.

Salini asserts that these innovations in tunnel excavation have greatly reduced worker exposure to hazards of pressurized air work because they have eliminated the need to pressurize the entire tunnel for the project and would thereby reduce the number of workers exposed, as well as the total duration of exposure, to hyperbaric pressure during tunnel construction. These advances in technology substantially modified 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.

In addition to the reduced exposures resulting from the innovations in tunnel-excavation methods, Salini asserts that innovations in hyperbaric medicine and technology improve the safety of decompression from hyperbaric exposures. These procedures, however, would deviate from the decompression process that OSHA requires for construction in 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1) and the decompression tables in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1926, subpart S. Nevertheless, according to Salini, their 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.

Salini therefore believes its workers will be at least as safe under its proposed alternatives as they would be under OSHA's standard because of the reduction in number of workers and duration of hyperbaric exposures, better application 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 or compressed-air workers (CAWs).

Based on an initial review of Salini's application for a Permanent Variance and Interim Order for the construction of the Northeast Boundary Tunnel Project in Washington, DC, OSHA has preliminarily determined that Salini proposed an alternative that would provide a workplace at least as safe and healthful as that provided by the standard.

II. The Variance Application

Pursuant to the requirements of OSHA's variance regulations, the applicant certifies that it provided employee representatives of affected workers with a copy of the variance application.[2] 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.

A. OSHA History of Approval of Nearly Identical Variance Requests

OSHA has previously approved several nearly identical variances involving the same types of tunneling equipment used for similar projects. OSHA notes that it granted three subaqueous tunnel construction Permanent Variances from the same provisions of OSHA's compressed-air standard (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii)) that are the subject of the present application: (1) Impregilo, Healy, Parsons, Joint Venture (IHP JV) for the completion of the Annacostia River Tunnel in Washington, DC (80 FR 50652 (August 20, 2015)); (2) Traylor JV for the completion of the Blue Plains Tunnel in Washington, DC (80 FR 16440 (March 27, 2015)); and (3) Tully/OHL USA Joint Venture for the completion of the New York Economic Development Corporation's New York Siphon Tunnel project (79 FR 29809) (May 23, 2014)). The proposed alternate conditions in this notice are nearly identical to the alternate conditions of the previous Permanent Variances.[3] OSHA is not aware of any injuries or other safety issues that arose from work performed under these conditions in accordance with the previous variances.

B. 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 (the 1992 French Decompression Tables) that rely on staged decompression and supplement breathing air used during decompression with air or oxygen (as appropriate).[4] The applicant asserts decompression protocols using the 1992 French Decompression Tables for air or oxygen as specified by the Northeast Boundary Tunnel Project-specific HOM are safer for tunnel workers than the decompression protocols specified in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1926, subpart S. Accordingly, the applicant would commit to following the decompression procedures described in that HOM, which would require it to follow the 1992 French Decompression Tables to decompress compressed-air worker (CAWs) after they exit the hyperbaric conditions in the working chamber.

Depending on the maximum working pressure and exposure times, the 1992 French Decompression Tables provide for air decompression with or without oxygen. Salini asserts that oxygen 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 nitrogen elimination; (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.

In addition, the project-specific HOM requires a physician certified in hyperbaric medicine to manage the medical condition of CAWs during hyperbaric exposures and decompression. A trained and ( printed page 44935) experienced man-lock attendant is also required to be present during hyperbaric exposures and decompression. This man-lock attendant is to operate the hyperbaric system to ensure compliance with the specified decompression table. A hyperbaric supervisor (competent person), who is trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety, directly oversees all hyperbaric interventions and ensures that staff follow the procedures delineated in the HOM or by the attending physician.

C. Variance From Paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of 29 CFR 1926.803, Automatically Regulated Continuous Decompression

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 conducting 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.

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 decompression illness (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 use of automatically regulated continuous decompression.[5] In addition, the applicant asserts that staged decompression administered in accordance with its HMO is at least as effective as an automatic controller in regulating the decompression process because the HMO includes a hyperbaric supervisor (a competent person experienced and trained in hyperbaric operations, procedures, and safety) who 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.

D. 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.

Space limitations in the EPBMTBM do not allow for the installation and use of an additional special decompression lock or chamber. The applicant proposes that it be permitted to rely on the man-locks and staging chamber in lieu of adding a separate, special decompression chamber. Because 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 all of the exposed workers during decompression. 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.

III. Agency Preliminary Determinations

After reviewing the proposed alternatives OSHA preliminarily determined that the applicants proposed alternatives on the whole, subject to the conditions in the request and imposed by this Interim Order, provide measures that are as safe and healthful as those required by the cited OSHA standards addressed in section II of this document.

In addition, OSHA has preliminarily determined that each of the following alternatives are at least as effective as the specified OSHA requirements:

A. 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1)

Salini has proposed to implement, equally effective alternative measures to the requirement in 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1) for compliance with OSHA's decompression tables. The HOM specifies the procedures and personnel qualifications for performing work safely during the compression and decompression phases of interventions. The HOM also specifies the decompression tables the applicant proposes to use (the 1992 French Decompression Tables). Depending on the maximum working pressure and exposure times during the interventions, the tables provide for decompression using air, pure oxygen, or a combination of air and oxygen. 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, ( printed page 44936) 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.

As it did when granting the three previous variances to IHP JV, Traylor JV, and Tully JV, OSHA conducted a review of the scientific literature and concluded that the alternative decompression method ( i.e., the 1992 French Decompression Tables) Salini proposed would be at least as safe as the decompression tables specified by OSHA when applied by trained medical personnel under the conditions that would be imposed by the proposed variance.

Some of the literature even indicates that it may be safer, concluding that decompression performed in accordance with these tables resulted in a lower occurrence of DCI than decompression conducted in accordance with 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).[6] This project used the 1992 French Decompression Tables to decompress the workers during part of the construction. Anderson observed 6 DCI cases out of 7,220 decompression events, and reported that switching to the 1992 French Decompression tables reduced the DCI incidence to 0.08% compared to a previous incidence rate of 0.14%. 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.[7]

OSHA's experience with the previous three variances, which all incorporated nearly identical decompression plans and did not result in safety issues, also provides evidence that the alternative procedure as a whole is at least as effective for this type of tunneling project as compliance with OSHA's decompression tables. The experience of State Plans [8] that either granted variances (Nevada, Oregon and Washington) [9] or promulgated a new standard (California) [10] for hyperbaric exposures occurring during similar subaqueous tunnel-construction work, provide additional evidence of the effectiveness of this alternative procedure.

B. 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)

Salini developed, and proposed to implement, an equally effective alternative to 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(xvii), which requires the use of automatic controllers that continuously decrease pressure to achieve decompression in accordance with the tables specified by the standard. The applicant's alternative includes using the 1992 French Decompression Tables for guiding staged decompression to achieve lower occurrences of DCI, using a trained and competent attendant for implementing appropriate hyperbaric entry and exit procedures, and providing a competent hyperbaric supervisor and attending physician certified in hyperbaric medicine, to oversee all hyperbaric operations.

In reaching this preliminary conclusion, OSHA again notes the experience of previous nearly identical tunneling variances, the experiences of State Plan States, and a review of the literature and other information noted earlier.

C. 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)

Salini developed, and proposed to implement, an effective alternative to the use of the special decompression chamber required by 29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(xvii). The EPBMTBM's man-lock and working chamber appear to satisfy all of the conditions of the special decompression chamber, including that they 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.[11] Therefore, again noting OSHA's previous experience with nearly identical variances including the same alternative, OSHA preliminarily determined that the EPBMTBM's man-lock and working chamber function as effectively as the special decompression chamber required by the standard.

Pursuant to section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), and based on the record discussed above, the agency preliminarily finds that when the employer complies with the conditions of the previously granted Interim Order, or 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.

IV. Grant of Interim Order, Proposal for Permanent Variance, and Request for Comment

OSHA hereby announces the preliminary decision to grant an Interim Order allowing Salini's CAWs to perform interventions in hyperbaric conditions not exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. during the Northeast Boundary Tunnel Project, subject to the conditions that follow in this document. This Interim Order will remain in effect until completion of the Northeast Boundary Tunnel Project or until the agency modifies or revokes the Interim Order or makes a decision on Salini's application for a Permanent Variance. During the period starting with the publication of this notice until completion of the Northeast Boundary Tunnel, or 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 following requirements of 29 CFR 1926.803 (hereafter, “the standard”) that:

1. Require the use of decompression values specified by the decompression tables in Appendix A of the ( printed page 44937) compressed-air standard (29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1));

2. Require the use of automated operational controls (29 CFR 1926.803(g)(1)(iii)); and

3. Require the use of a special decompression chamber (1926.803(g)(1)(xvii)).

In order to avail itself of the Interim Order, Salini must: (1) Comply with the conditions listed in the Interim Order for the period starting with the grant of the Interim Order and ending with Salini's completion of the Northeast Boundary Tunnel Project (or until the agency modifies or revokes the Interim Order or makes a decision on its application for a Permanent Variance); (2) comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 1926; and (3) 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.

OSHA is also proposing that the same requirements (see above section IV, parts A through C) would apply to a Permanent Variance if OSHA ultimately issues one for this project. OSHA requests comment on those conditions as well as OSHA's preliminary determination that the specified alternatives and conditions would provide a workplace as safe and healthful as those required by the standard from which a variance is sought. After reviewing comments, OSHA will publish in the Federal Register the agency's final decision approving or rejecting the request for a Permanent Variance.

V. Description of the Specified Conditions of the Interim Order and the Application for a Permanent Variance

This section describes the alternative means of compliance with 29 CFR 1926.803(f)(1), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(xvii) and provides additional detail regarding the proposed conditions that form the basis of Salini's application for an Interim Order and for a Permanent Variance. The conditions are listed in Section VI. For brevity, the discussion that follows refers only to the Permanent Variance, but the same conditions apply to the Interim Order.

Proposed Condition A: Scope

The scope of the proposed Permanent Variance would limit coverage to the work situations specified. Clearly defining the scope of the proposed Permanent Variance provides Salini, Salini'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. To the extent that Salini exceeds the defined scope of this variance, it would be required to comply with OSHA's standards.

Pursuant to 29 CFR 1905.11, an employer (or class or group of employers) [12] may request a Permanent Variance for a specific workplace or workplaces. If OSHA approves a Permanent Variance, it would apply only to the specific employer(s) that submitted the application and only to the specific workplace or workplaces designated as part of the project. In this instance, if OSHA were to grant a Permanent Variance, it would apply to only the applicant, Salini-Impregilo/Healy JV and only the Northeast Boundary Tunnel Project. As a result, it is important to understand that if OSHA were to grant Salini a Permanent Variance, it would not apply to any other employers, such as other joint ventures the applicant may undertake in the future. However, 29 CFR 1905.13 does contain provisions for future modification of Permanent Variances to add or include additional employers if future joint ventures are established.

Proposed Condition B: Duration

The Interim Order is only intended as a temporary measure pending OSHA's decision on the Permanent Variance, so this condition specifies the duration of the Order. If OSHA approves a Permanent Variance, it would specify the duration of the Permanent Variance as the remainder of the Northeast Boundary Tunnel Project.

Proposed Condition C: List of Abbreviations

Proposed condition C 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 proposed 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

This proposed condition requires the applicant to develop and submit to OSHA an HOM specific to the Northeast Boundary Tunnel Project at least six months before using the EPBMTBM for tunneling operations. The applicant must also submit, at least six months before using the EPBMTBM, proof that the EPBMTBM's hyperbaric chambers have been designed, fabricated, inspected, tested, marked, and stamped in accordance with the requirements of ASME PVHO-1.2012 (or the most recent edition of Safety Standards for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy). These requirements ensure that the applicant develops hyperbaric safety and health procedures suitable for the project.

The submission of the HOM to OSHA, which Salini has already completed, enables OSHA to determine whether the safety and health instructions and measures it specifies are appropriate to the field conditions of the tunnel (including expected geological conditions), conform to the conditions of the variance, and adequately protect the safety and health of the CAWs. It also facilitates OSHA's ability to ensure that the applicant is complying with these instructions and measures. The requirement for proof of compliance with ASME PVHO-1.2012 is intended to ensure that the equipment is structurally sound and capable of performing to protect the safety of the employees exposed to hyperbaric pressure.

Additionally, the proposed condition includes a series of related hazard prevention and control requirements and methods ( e.g., decompression tables, job hazard analyses (JHA), operations and inspections checklists, incident investigation, and recording and notification to OSHA of recordable hyperbaric injuries and illnesses) designed to ensure the continued effective functioning of the hyperbaric equipment and operating system.

Proposed Condition F: Communication

This proposed condition requires the applicant to develop and implement an effective system of information sharing and communication. Effective information sharing and communication are intended to ensure that affected workers receive updated information regarding any safety-related hazards and incidents, and corrective actions taken, ( printed page 44938) 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 EPBMTBM operations.

Proposed Condition G: Worker Qualification and Training

This proposed condition requires 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 is intended to ensure 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 worker injury, illness, and fatalities.

Paragraph (2)(e) of this proposed condition requires the applicant to provide affected workers with information they can use to contact the appropriate healthcare professionals if the workers believe 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

Proposed Condition H requires the applicant to develop, implement, and operate a program of frequent and regular inspections of the EPBMTBM's hyperbaric equipment and support systems, and associated work areas. This condition would help to ensure the safe operation and physical integrity of the equipment and work areas necessary to conduct hyperbaric operations. The condition would also enhance worker safety by reducing the risk of hyperbaric-related emergencies.

Paragraph (3) of this proposed condition requires the applicant to document tests, inspections, corrective actions, and repairs involving the EPBMTBM, and maintain these documents at the jobsite 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

This proposed condition would require the applicant to consult with the designated medical advisor regarding special compression or decompression procedures appropriate for any unacclimated CAW and then implement the procedures recommended by the medical consultant. 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 EPBMTBM operations. Accordingly, CAWs requiring acclimation would have an opportunity to acclimate prior to exposure to these hyperbaric conditions. OSHA believes this 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 EPBMTBM.

Proposed Condition J: Recordkeeping

Under OSHA's existing recordkeeping requirements in 29 CFR part 1904 regarding Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, Salini must maintain a record of any recordable injury, illness, or fatality (as defined by 29 CFR part 1904) resulting from exposure of an employee to hyperbaric conditions by completing the OSHA Form 301 Incident Report and OSHA Form 300 Log of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses. The applicant did not seek a variance from this standard and therefore must comply fully with those requirements.

Examples of important information to include on the OSHA Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident Report (along with the corresponding question on the form) are:

Q14

Q15

Q16

Q17

Footnotes

1.  The applicant originally requested a Variance to work up to pressures not exceeding 58 p.s.i.g., which would have exceeded OSHA's prohibition on pressures that exceed 50 p.s.i.g. (29 CFR 1926.803(e)(5)). The application was amended to estimate that will be up to pressure not exceeding 50 p.s.i.g. The revision to the application can be found in the docket at OSHA-2018-003-0004.

The decompression tables in Appendix A of subpart S of part 1926 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.

Back to Citation

2.  See the definition of “Affected employee or worker” in section V. D.

Back to Citation

3.  The other variances allowed further deviation from OSHA standards by permitting employee exposures above 50 p.s.i.g. based on the composition of the soil and the amount of water that will be above the tunnel for various sections of this project. The current proposed variance includes substantively the same safeguards as the variances that OSHA granted previously even though employees will not be exposed to the higher pressures.

Back to Citation

4.  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).

Back to Citation

5.  See, e.g., Dr. Eric 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. Dr. 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 p.s.i.g. . . . to the surface took 1h, at least half the time is spent at pressures less than 2 p.s.i.g. . . . , which provides less and less meaningful bubble suppression . . . .” In addition, Dr. Kindwall 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.”

Back to Citation

6.  Anderson HL (2002). Decompression sickness during construction of the Great Belt tunnel, Denmark. Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine, 29(3), pp. 172-188.

Back to Citation

7.  Le Péchon 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).

Back to Citation

8.  Under Section 18 of the OSH Act, Congress expressly provides that States and U.S. territories may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards. OSHA refers to such States and territories as “State Plan States” Occupational safety and health standards developed by State Plan States must be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards (29 U.S.C. 667).

Back to Citation

9.  These state variances are available in the docket for the 2015 Traylor JV variance: Exs. OSHA-2012-0035-0006 (Nevada), OSHA-2012-0035-0005 (Oregon), and OSHA-2012-0035-0004 (Washington).

Back to Citation

10.  See California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Subchapter 7, Group 26, Article 154, available at www.dir.ca.gov/​title8/​sb7g26a154.html.

Back to Citation

11.  As part of the HOM, Salini submitted a letter from Dr. Tommy Love MD, asserting the safe accommodation of decompression times up to 360 minutes.

Back to Citation

12.  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.

Back to Citation

14.  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 are mandatory for purposes of the Interim Order.

Back to Citation

16.  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 www.cdc.gov/​niosh/​docket/​archive/​pdfs/​NIOSH-254/​compReg1996.pdf.

Back to Citation

19.  See ANSI/AIHA Z10-2012, American National Standard for Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, for reference.

Back to Citation

20.  See footnote 10.

Back to Citation

[FR Doc. 2019-18377 Filed 8-26-19; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

Legal Citation

Federal Register Citation

Use this for formal legal and research references to the published document.

84 FR 44932

Web Citation

Suggested Web Citation

Use this when citing the archival web version of the document.

“Salini-Impregilo/Healy Joint Venture; Application for Permanent Variance and Interim Order; Grant of Interim Order; Request for Comments,” thefederalregister.org (August 27, 2019), https://thefederalregister.org/documents/2019-18377/salini-impregilo-healy-joint-venture-application-for-permanent-variance-and-interim-order-grant-of-interim-order-request.