Lead control when welding or cutting painted construction surfaces

December 16, 1994

MEMORANDUM FOR: PATRICIA K. CLARK

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

THROUGH: JOHN B. MILES, JR., DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS

FROM: RUTH E. MCCULLY, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF HEALTH COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE INTERIM FINAL LEAD IN CONSTRUCTION STANDARD

This letter is in response to your memorandum of June 23, requesting an interpretation of the Interim Final Lead in Construction standard as it relates to welding on painted surfaces. We apologize for the delay in responding to you.

Your correspondence raised a number of interesting points between the 1926.354 and 1926.62 standards. The scope of the standard in 1926.62(a) states in part that:

"This section applies to all construction work where an employee may be occupationally exposed to lead."

In reviewing the scope and preamble to 1926.62, we believe that the interim final lead in construction standard must be treated as a vertical standard and take precedence over the related sections in 1926.353 and .354. Concerning the issue of feasibility, where workers are exposed to lead above the permissible exposure limit, the employer must reduce worker exposure levels. Under the standard, the employer is required to utilize engineering and work practice controls including administrative controls to achieve compliance.

The abatement controls must be implemented by the employer to the extent feasible to reduce employee exposure to lead. Where feasible controls fail to reduce the exposure to below the permissible exposure limit the employer then must use appropriate respiratory protection as described in 1926.62(f). Feasible engineering controls, among other methods, can include stripping back the painted surface as described in 1926.353 and .354. The rationale for an employer's exposure abatement method should be described in their written compliance program.

Based upon this, the issue of feasibility must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. For example, where a steel I-beam section must be cut, the use of an extended cutting torch described in Mr. Borg's letter has been shown in some instances to reduce the exposure to lead. This method could be used in place of stripping back if it provided equivalent or better worker protection. When considering whether or not to strip back a painted surface prior to cutting or welding, the rationale must be based upon the work conditions and which method provides the greatest worker protection.

We expect this addresses your concerns. Should you have any comments or questions, please call [the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190].

Enclosure

cc: Regional Administrators OSHA Training Institute

[Earlier internal memorandum and requester letter reproduced on the source page; omitted here.]