[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18863]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 10, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



29 CFR Parts 1910, et al.




Occupational Exposure to Asbestos; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

RIN: 1218-AB25

 
Occupational Exposure to Asbestos

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of 
Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: These final standards amend the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration's (OSHA's) standards issued June 17, 1986 (51 FR 22612, 
29 CFR 1910.1001, June 20, 1986) for occupational exposure to asbestos 
in general industry, and the construction industry, 29 CFR 1926.1101 
(previously 1926.58). In addition, they include a separate standard 
covering occupational exposure to asbestos in the shipyard industry, 
(29 CFR 1915.1001). Major revisions in these standards include a 
reduced time-weighted-average permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 
fiber per cubic centimeter (f/cc) for all asbestos work in all 
industries, a new classification scheme for asbestos construction and 
shipyard industry work which ties mandatory work practices to work 
classification, a presumptive asbestos identification requirement for 
``high hazard'' asbestos containing building materials, limited 
notification requirements for employers who use unlisted compliance 
methods in high risk asbestos abatement work, and mandatory methods of 
control for brake and clutch repair.
    Most of the revisions in these amended standards are the final 
response to an order of the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit, Building and Construction Trades Department v. Brock, 
838 F. 2d 1258, (D.C. Cir 1988), which had upheld the 1986 standards in 
major respects, but which had remanded certain issues for 
reconsideration. OSHA had made earlier changes in response to the court 
order on December 14, 1989 (54 FR 52024, December 20, 1989), and on 
February 5, 1990 (55 FR 3724).
    OSHA believes that these final standards fully address all of the 
concerns of the participants in this rulemaking and are responsive to 
all issues remanded by the court for reconsideration.

DATES: The effective date of these amendments is October 11, 1994. 
Various start-up dates are specified in the standards.

For Further Information Contact: Mr. James F. Foster, Director of 
Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3647, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 219-8151.

Supplementary Information:

Table of Contents

I. Regulatory History
II. Pertinent Legal Authority
III. Summary and Explanation of Revised Standards
    a. General Issues
    b. Regulatory Text Issues
IV. Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
V. Clearance of Information Collection Requirements
VI. Authority and Signature
VII. Amended Standards

I. Regulatory History

    OSHA has regulated asbestos several times as more information has 
become available. Asbestos rulemakings marked the early years of the 
Agency. A 12 f/cc permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos was 
included in the initial promulgation on May 29, 1971 (36 FR 10466) of 
OSHA standards pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. In response to a 
petition by the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, OSHA issued 
an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on asbestos on December 7, 1971, 
which established a PEL of 5 f/cc as an 8-hour time-weighted average 
(TWA) and a peak exposure level of 10 f/cc.
    In June 1972, OSHA promulgated a new final standard that 
established an 8-hour TWA PEL of 5 f/cc and a ceiling limit of 10 f/cc. 
These limits were intended primarily to protect employees against 
asbestosis, and it was hoped that they would provide some incidental 
degree of protection against asbestos induced forms of cancer. 
Effective July 1976, OSHA's 8-hour TWA limit was reduced to 2 f/cc and 
this limit remained in effect up to the effective date of the revised 
1986 standards.
    In October 1975, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (40 
FR 47652) to revise the asbestos standard because the Agency believed 
that ``sufficient medical and scientific evidence has been accumulated 
to warrant the designation of asbestos as a human carcinogen'' and that 
advances in monitoring and protective technology made re-examination of 
the standard ``desirable.'' This proposal would have reduced the 8-hour 
TWA to 0.5 f/cc and imposed a ceiling limit of 5 f/cc for 15 minutes. 
The 1975 proposal would have applied to all industries except 
construction.
    At that time no separate proposal applicable to the construction 
industry was developed by the Agency.
    On May 24, 1983 OSHA consulted with the Advisory Committee for 
Construction Safety and Health (``ACCSH'') concerning the applicability 
of any new asbestos standard to the construction industry. ACCSH 
endorsed OSHA's position that any new PEL adopted for general industry 
should also apply to the construction industry (Ex. 84-424).
    On November 4, 1983 OSHA published an ETS for asbestos (48 FR 
51096). The ETS marked a new regulatory initiative, related to, but not 
part of the 1975 proceeding. The ETS was held invalid by the 
U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on March 7, 1984.
    Subsequently, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (49 FR 
1416, April 10, 1984) for a standard covering occupational exposure to 
asbestos in all work places subject to the Act. Pursuant to Section 
6(c) of the Act, the ETS also served as a proposed rule. On June 17, 
1986, OSHA issued two revised standards, one governing occupational 
exposure to asbestos in general industry workplaces, the other 
applicable to construction workplaces (51 FR 22612 et seq., June 20, 
1986). Effective July 21, 1986, the revised standards amended OSHA's 
previous asbestos standard issued in 1972. The 1986 standards 
explicitly applied to occupational exposure to non-asbestiform 
tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. After a subsequent and 
separate rulemaking proceeding OSHA has deleted these minerals from the 
scope of the asbestos standards. (57 FR 24310, June 8, 1992).
    The separate comprehensive asbestos standards for general industry 
and construction which were issued in 1986 shared the same permissible 
exposure limit (PEL) and most ancillary requirements. Both standards 
reduced the 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) PEL tenfold to 0.2 f/cc 
from the previous 2 f/cc limit. Specific provisions were added in the 
construction standard to cover unique hazards relating to asbestos 
abatement and demolition jobs.
    Several major participants in the rulemaking proceeding including 
the AFL-CIO, the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of 
the AFL-CIO, and the Asbestos Information Association (AIA), challenged 
various provisions of the revised standards. On February 2, 1988, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its decision 
upholding most major challenged provisions, but remanding certain 
issues to OSHA for reconsideration (BCTD, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 
1258). The Court determined that OSHA had not adequately explained why 
it was not adopting certain recommended provisions in light of evidence 
suggesting that those provisions would be feasible to implement and 
would provide more than a de minimis benefit for worker health. The 
Court also ordered OSHA to clarify the regulatory text for two 
provisions and found one provision, a ban of spraying asbestos-
containing products, unsupported by the record. In addition, OSHA's 
failure to adopt a short-term exposure limit (STEL) was ordered to be 
reconsidered within 60 days of the Court's mandate. In partial 
response, OSHA issued a STEL of 1 f/cc measured over a 30-minute 
sampling period, on September 14, 1988 (53 FR 35610).
    In response to additional petitions by BCTD and the AFL-CIO, the 
Court, in an October 30, 1989 order, divided the remand issues into 
three categories as follows. With respect to three issues, the Court 
ordered OSHA to take action by December 14, 1989. These issues were:

    Issue 1. formally delete the ban on the spraying of asbestos-
containing materials;
    Issue 2. clarify that periodic monitoring in the construction 
industry must be resumed after conditions change; and
    Issue 3. Clarify the exemption for ``small-scale, short duration 
operations'' from the negative-pressure enclosure requirements of 
the construction standard to limit the exemption to work operations 
where it is impractical to construct an enclosure because of the 
configuration of the work environment.

    OSHA issued its response on these issues on December 14, 1989 (54 
FR 52024, December 20, 1989). In that document OSHA (1) removed the ban 
on the spraying of asbestos-containing materials; (2) changed the 
regulatory text to clarify that construction employers must resume 
periodic monitoring whenever there has been a change in process, 
control equipment, personnel or work practices that may result in new 
or additional asbestos exposure; and (3) explained why OSHA was not 
amending the regulatory text to clarify the limited exemption for 
``small-scale, short-duration operations'' in the construction industry 
standard, but instead would institute rulemaking on this issue.
    With respect to the second group of issues, the Court ordered OSHA 
to complete its response on the existing record by January 28, 1990. 
These issues are:

    Issue 4. The possibility of further regulations governing 
employee smoking controls;
    Issue 5. The effectiveness levels of various respirators and 
OSHA's policy of requiring respirators to protect workers at only 
PEL level; and
    Issue 6. The possibility of bi-lingual warnings and labels for 
employers with a significant number of non-English-speaking 
employees.

    The Court stated that if OSHA determines that these issues could 
not be resolved on the existing record, OSHA may explain why and 
commence new rulemaking instead.
    On January 28, 1990, OSHA issued its response on these issues (55 
FR 3724, February 5, 1990). In that document, OSHA: (1) prohibited 
workplace smoking in areas where occupational exposure to asbestos 
takes place; expanded training requirements to include information 
about available smoking cessation programs; required the distribution 
of self-help smoking cessation material; and, required a written 
opinion by the physician stating that the employee has been advised of 
the combined dangers of smoking and working with asbestos; (2) 
explained how and why the 1986 respiratory protection standards will 
reduce employee risk below that remaining solely as a result of the 
PEL, and that the effectiveness levels of respirators are under review; 
and (3) required employers to ensure that employees working in or near 
regulated areas understand warning signs, and required training 
programs to specifically instruct employees as to the content and 
presence of signs and labels.
    Finally, as to the third group of three remaining remand issues, 
the Court ordered OSHA to resolve these issues after rulemaking. These 
issues are:

    Issue 7. The establishment of operation-specific permissible 
exposure limits;
    Issue 8. The extension of reporting and information transfer 
requirements; and
    Issue 9. The expansion of the competent person requirement to 
all employers engaged in any kind of construction work.

    In addition, the Court granted OSHA's unopposed request to publish 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this group of issues on April 13, 
1990, to allow sufficient time to consult with the Advisory Committee 
on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). Under the Construction 
Safety Act (40 USC 333) and regulations in 29 CFR 1911.10 and 29 CFR 
1912.3, OSHA was required to consult with that committee in the 
formulation of regulatory proposals which would apply to employment in 
construction. OSHA presented the proposed regulatory text and pertinent 
explanatory materials to the ACCSH and consulted with them on March 14, 
1990. The Committee submitted comments and suggestions which were 
discussed in the proposal. The Court, on May 2, 1990 granted OSHA's 
further motion and extended the time to issue the proposal until July 
12, 1990, in order to allow coordination of the proposal with other 
regulatory agencies, in particular EPA.
    The proposed revisions were published July 20, 1990 (55 FR 29712). 
The date for close of the public comment period in the NPRM was 
September 25, 1990 with the public hearing scheduled to commence 
October 23, 1990. However, several interested parties requested 
additional time for comment on the NPRM due to the breadth of issues it 
presented. OSHA felt the objective of developing a complete rulemaking 
record would be served and extended the period for submission of public 
comments and for notices to appear at the informal hearing until 
December 3, 1990. The Agency also rescheduled the informal hearing to 
begin January 23, 1991. In the notice extending the time periods, OSHA 
also explained more clearly that the ACCSH report referenced in the 
NPRM was submitted by the labor representatives on that committee and 
not by the committee as a whole (55 FR p. 38703, September 20, 1990).
    The informal hearing was held for 13 days from January 23 to 
February 8, 1991. At the close of the hearing Administrative Law Judge 
Sheldon Lipson set April 12, 1991 as the close of the post-hearing 
comment period and June 12, 1991 as the close of the post-hearing 
briefing period. Subsequently on request, Judge Lipson extended these 
periods to April 26 and June 26 respectively. BCTD requested OSHA 
extend the post-hearing briefing period 4 weeks to allow additional 
time to fully address all issues of concern due to the extent and 
complexity of the records. OSHA granted this request and notified 
participants that the post-hearing briefing period was extended to July 
24, 1991.
    On November 3, 1992, by Federal Register notice, OSHA re-opened the 
comment period to allow supplementary public comment on options to 
protect workers from inadvertent exposure to asbestos in buildings (57 
FR 49697). This issue, not part of the Court's remand order, was 
broached by the Agency in the preamble to the proposal, and had been 
the subject of litigation brought by Service Employees International 
Union (SEIU) against EPA. In 1988 the Service Employees International 
Union, AFL-CIO petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for 
regulation of asbestos in public and commercial buildings and 
subsequently sued the Agency. This resulted in the convening of a 
series of ``Policy Dialogue'' meetings established by EPA in an attempt 
to reach agreement on issues concerning asbestos in public and 
commercial buildings. As discussed in the NPRM of July 20, 1990, OSHA 
and a variety of other interested parties participated in the meetings 
which took place between May 1989 and May 1990. These groups included 
realty interests, lenders and insurance interests, unions, asbestos 
manufacturers, public interest groups, asbestos consultants and 
contractors and states. The group failed to agree on all issues, but 
did generally agree that the presence of asbestos should be known to 
building service workers. The major area of disagreement in the group 
dealt with the characterization of risk to general building occupants 
and office workers. The group also did not agree on the need for 
specific federal asbestos inspection requirements.
    SEIU and other unions also participated in this rulemaking and 
urged OSHA to issue a building inspection rule. After discussions with 
EPA and review of the record concerning how best to protect employees 
against unknowing exposure the Agency published a request for comment 
on a regulatory approach to protect building service workers. The 
approach would require certain high-risk materials in accessible 
building/facility areas be designated presumptive asbestos containing 
materials and thus be treated as if they contained asbestos, until or 
unless the presumption was rebutted through sampling or specific 
information in the owner's possession relation to construction 
specifications. The notice also asked for comments on the Health 
Effects Institute (HEI) report which had been submitted to the record 
after the close of the post-hearing briefing periods. The notice 
resulted in submission of an additional 60 sets of comments, and the 
comment period closed on January 4, 1993.
    The record of this rulemaking consists of over 55,000 pages. OSHA 
has worked closely with EPA so that the regulations of both agencies 
are compatible to the extent OSHA's mandate allows.

II. Pertinent Legal Authority

    Authority for issuance of this standard is found primarily in 
sections 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 655(b), 657(c), and 657(g)(2) and in 
the Construction Safety Act, 40 U.S.C. 333. Section 6(b)(5) governs the 
issuance of occupational safety and health standards dealing with toxic 
materials or harmful physical agents. Section 3(8) of the Act defines 
an occupational safety and health standard as:

    * * *A standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or 
use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or 
processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or 
healthful employment and places of employment.

    The Supreme Court has said that section 3(8) applies to all 
permanent standards promulgated under the Act and requires the 
Secretary, before issuing any standard, to determine that it is 
reasonably necessary and appropriate to remedy a significant risk of 
material health impairment. Industrial Union Department v. American 
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
    The ``significant risk'' determination constitutes a finding that, 
absent the change in practices mandated by the standard, the workplaces 
in question would be ``unsafe'' in the sense that workers would be 
threatened with a significant risk of harm. Id. at 642. A significant 
risk finding, however, does not require mathematical precision or 
anything approaching scientific certainty if the ``best available 
evidence'' does not warrant that degree of proof. Id. at 655-656; 29 
U.S. 655 (b)(5). Rather, the Agency may base its finding largely on 
policy considerations and has considerable leeway with the kinds of 
assumptions it applies in interpreting the data supporting it, Id. 655-
656; 29 U.S. 655(b)(5). The Court's opinion indicates that risk 
assessments, which may involve mathematical estimates with some 
inherent uncertainties, are a means of demonstrating the existence of 
significant risk.

    The court further stated:
    It is the Agency's responsibility to determine in the first 
instance what it considers to be a ``significant'' risk. Some risks 
are plainly acceptable and others are plainly unacceptable. If, for 
example, the odds are one in a billion that a person will die from 
cancer by taking a drink of chlorinated water, the risk clearly 
could not be considered significant. On the other hand, if the odds 
are one in a thousand that regular inhalation of gasoline vapors 
that are 2% benzene will be fatal a reasonable person might well 
consider the risk significant and take the appropriate steps to 
decrease or eliminate it. (I.U.D. v A.P.I., 448 U.S. et 655).

    OSHA has always considered that a working lifetime risk of death of 
over 1 per 1000 from occupational causes is significant. This has been 
consistently upheld by the courts. See the recent discussion in the 
cadmium preamble 57 FR 42102, 42204 and the earlier asbestos preambles.
    OSHA believes that compliance with these final amendments to reduce 
the PEL to 0.1 f/cc as a time-weighted average measured over 8 hours 
will further reduce a significant health risk which existed after 
imposing a 0.2 f/cc PEL. OSHA's risk assessment accompanying the 1986 
standard, showed that lowering the TWA PEL from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc 
reduces the asbestos cancer mortality risk from lifetime exposure from 
64 deaths per 1,000 workers to 7 deaths per 1,000 workers. OSHA 
estimated that the incidence of asbestosis would be 5 cases per 1,000 
workers exposed for a working lifetime under the TWA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. 
Counterpart risk figures for 20 years of exposure are excess cancer 
risks of 4.5 per 1,000 workers and an estimated asbestosis incidence of 
2 cases per 1,000 workers.
    OSHA's risk assessment also showed that reducing exposures to 0.1 
f/cc would reduce excess cancer risk to 3.4 per 1,000 workers and a 20 
year exposure risk to 2.3 per 1,000 workers. OSHA concludes therefore 
that reducing the exposure limit to 0.1 f/cc will further reduce 
significant risk.
    OSHA's current estimates of employee exposure in the various 
operations covered by these standards are referenced in the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis found later in this document. Additional exposure 
estimates, based on record evidence are referenced throughout this 
document in the relevant preamble discussion concerning each operation.
    In the Court of Appeals litigation, AIA challenged OSHA's use of 
the PEL to calculate the residual risk remaining after the standard is 
implemented. AIA contended that workers would actually be exposed to 
average levels significantly below the PEL because employers would be 
required to engineer down to levels well below the PEL to assure that 
random fluctuations would not result in an OSHA compliance officer 
measuring an exposure level over the PEL during a routine inspection. 
Therefore, AIA contended, in calculating residual risk, OSHA should 
assume that employees will be exposed to average levels that are 
between one-half and one-quarter of the PEL. The Court implied that 
such an argument might have merit if factually supported and suggested 
that OSHA should make its own calculations of the relation between 
permissible exposure limit and the actual exposures such a limit would 
produce. (838 F.2d at 1266)
    Having carefully considered the issue, OSHA concludes it would be 
unrealistic to base its risk assessment on the assumption that 
employers will engineer to levels significantly below the PEL. First, 
as discussed below, the PEL of 0.1 f/cc is at the limit of feasibility 
for those workplaces in which asbestos levels are most difficult to 
control, and an assumption that average exposures will be substantially 
below the PEL will clearly be unrealistic for such workplaces. Second, 
OSHA found in issuing the 1986 standard that AIA's argument about 
uncontrollable fluctuations was exaggerated because such fluctuations 
could be minimized through proper inspection and maintenance of 
engineering controls and through proper training and supervision of 
employees whose work practices affected exposure levels. (51 FR at 
22653). Third, OSHA's enforcement policy gives employers the 
opportunity to show that a compliance officer's measurement over the 
PEL is unrepresentatively high and does not justify a citation, thus 
alleviating any concern employers might have that they will be cited on 
the basis of a single measurement that results from uncontrollable 
fluctuations. Fourth, even if some employers are sufficiently risk-
averse to engineer down to well below the PEL to avoid a slight risk of 
citation, OSHA cannot base a realistic risk assessment on the 
assumption that most employers will do so.
    The 0.1 f/cc level leaves a remaining significant risk. However as 
discussed below, and in earlier documents, OSHA believes this is the 
practical lower limit of feasibility for measuring asbestos levels 
reliably. However the work practices and engineering controls specified 
below for specific operations and required respirator use will in 
OSHA's view further reduce the risk. As discussed below, OSHA has 
carefully reviewed all the public suggestions to further reduce 
significant risk and has adopted those which have merit.
    After OSHA has determined that a significant risk exists and that 
such risk can be reduced or eliminated by the proposed standard, it 
must set the standard ``which most adequately assures, to the extent 
feasible on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee 
will suffer material impairment of health* * *,'' Section 6(b)(5) of 
the Act. The Supreme Court has interpreted this section to mean that 
OSHA must enact the most protective standard necessary to eliminate a 
significant risk of material health impairment, subject to the 
constraints of technological and economic feasibility. American Textile 
Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490(1981). The Court 
held that ``cost-benefit analysis is not required by the statute 
because feasibility analysis is.'' Id. at 509.
    Authority to issue this standard is also found in section 8(c) of 
the Act. In general, this section gives the Secretary authority to 
require employers to make, keep, and preserve records regarding 
activities related to the Act. In particular, section 8(c)(3) gives the 
Secretary authority to require employers to ``maintain accurate records 
of employee exposures to potentially toxic materials or harmful 
physical agents which are required to be monitored or measured under 
section 6.'' Provisions of OSHA standards which require the making and 
maintenance of records of medical examinations, exposure monitoring, 
and the like are issued pursuant to section 8(c) of the Act.
    Because the revisions to the asbestos standards are reasonably 
related to these statutory goals, the Secretary finds that these 
standards are necessary and appropriate to carry out is 
responsibilities under the Act.
    Response to recommendations of public to further reduce risk: As 
noted above, this rulemaking proceeding is a response to a remand order 
of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court determined that 
in the earlier 1986 rulemaking, OSHA had not sufficiently explained its 
decisions not to adopt certain regulatory provisions recommended by 
participants in that rulemaking. In particular, the Court of Appeals 
held that it is OSHA's ``duty to keep adding measures so long as they 
afford benefit and are feasible, up to the point where (it) no longer 
finds significant risk,'' and that it is OSHA's duty to consider the 
reasonableness of adopting them. 838 F.2d at 1269. The Court noted that 
OSHA need not justify its failure to adopt all suggested provisions: 
rather, the Agency must defend not adopting only those provisions 
demonstrated by their advocates, ``to be feasible to implement and will 
provide more than a de minimis benefit for worker health.'' The Court 
further explained, ``(n)aturally the force of the evidence and argument 
that OSHA must offer to defend its choice will vary with the force of 
the proponent's evidence and argument.'' Id at 1271.
    In this final rule, based upon the record evidence, OSHA is 
adopting certain regulatory recommendations made in the earlier 
rulemaking, is rejecting other recommendations, and is issuing other 
provisions which are based on, but are altered versions of yet other 
recommendations in the earlier rulemaking. In addition, new, different 
and expanded provisions also have been urged for adoption by 
participants in this rulemaking. These participants represent labor, 
public interest and industry interests. The Agency is adopting, 
rejecting and changing these recommendations as well.
    A large portion of this preamble is devoted to the Agency's 
explanations of these regulatory decisions. OSHA believes that its 
reasons when it has adopted or has not adopted recommended provisions 
are well supported by the evidence and that the reasons for its choices 
are stronger than the contrary arguments. In general, OSHA believes 
that the extent of its burden to refute claims of benefit for a 
recommended provision depends on the extent of the supporting data. If 
the data are valid and extensive, OSHA's burden is greater. If however, 
the claim of benefit is based on opinion, refutation by OSHA need not 
be grounded in data, but may be based on OSHA's well reasoned and 
expert contrary opinion.
    In sum, OSHA's decision not to adopt recommended provisions to 
reduce asbestos related risk reflects the Agency's expert judgment, 
often where available data creates considerable uncertainty, that the 
provisions would not offer more than de minimis benefit in reducing a 
still significant risk. Many recommendations were unsupported by data 
showing benefit. For example, it was recommended to prohibit high speed 
burnishing of asbestos-containing floor tile. However, the data do not 
show a measurable reduction of airborne asbestos fiber levels, based on 
actual fiber counts using such practices. Other recommended provisions 
simply do not reduce a still significant risk. For example, requiring 
very low clearance samples (analyzed by transmission electron 
microscopy) to deregulate all ``regulated areas'' to assure that EPA/
AHERA level of 0.01 f/cc is met does not appear to be necessary to 
reduce a significant risk to employees. There is an extremely low 
(although speculative) risk of asbestos related disease estimated at 
such clearance levels, and, there is evidence that immediate clearance 
sampling does not predict later concentration levels.
    OSHA discusses the recommendations made by participants in the 
preamble sections which cover the recommended provisions. The following 
is a list of the major recommendations made by public which are 
discussed later:
    1. Recommendations for a mandatory building inspection program: 
Recommended by BCTD (Ex. 143, Att. A); Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc. (7-
149), Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (Ex. 144); American 
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, (AFSCME, Ex. 141); 
ORC, or assume it is asbestos (Ex. 145), SBA, limited to employers 
whose work duties involve contact with ACM shall assure that all ACM in 
workplace is identified, need not inspect building areas constructed 
since 1980.
    2. Mandatory notification to OSHA by employers of all removal, 
renovation, and abatement work: Recommended by BCTD, (Ex. 143, Att. A 
at 3), The Courdith-Roberts Group, (L7-185); Gobbell Hays Partners, 
Inc. (7-149).
    3. Mandatory use of negative pressure enclosures in regulated 
areas, except for small-scale, short-duration operations and other 
limited circumstances: Recommended by BCTD, (Ex. 143 Att A at 5).
    4. Mandatory procedures for deregulating regulated areas including 
mandatory clearance sampling. Recommended by BCTD, (Ex. 143, Att. A at 
6); AFSCME (Ex. 141).
    5. OSHA accreditation of training and OSHA designated detailed 
training curricula. Recommended by BCTD (Ex. 143 Att. A at 8)
    6. Reduction of PEL below 0.1 f/c. Recommended by Gobbell Hays 
Partners, Inc. (Ex. 7-149).
    7. Require that required protective clothing be impervious. 
Recommended by Melco, Inc. (L7-187), J.Loften, Asbestos Workers Local 
Union #16 (Ex. 137).
    8. Specific training for maintenance and custodial workers in 
buildings that contain asbestos-containing material. Recommended by 
SEIU. (Ex. 144 at 14).
    9. Requirement that building owner respond to knowledge of asbestos 
in building by establishing O&M plan. Recommended by SEIU (Ex. 144 at 
17); AFSCME, (Ex. 141).
    10. Change in medical surveillance requirements for maintenance and 
custodial workers in ACM buildings--they exceed the 30 day limit. 
Recommended by AFSCME, (Ex. 141).
    11. Reduce action level to 0.05 f/cc. Recommended by BCTD. (Ex. 
143).
    12. Reduce STEL to 0.5 f/cc over 30 minutes. Recommended by BCTD. 
(Ex. 143), also by SESAC and NIOSH (Ex. 7-77, 125).
    13. Require most effective respirators feasible in all asbestos 
work. Recommended by BCTD. (Ex. 143).
    14. Require more specific and protective brake repair procedures. 
Recommended by Clayton Associates, Inc. (Ex. 148).
    15. Regulate activities involving ``friable'' asbestos-containing 
material differently from those involving ``non-friable'' asbestos. 
Recommended by Edison Electric Institute, (Ex. 7-145 , at e.g., 8 for 
quantity cut-offs for SSSD activities.)
    16. A clearance fiber level of 0.04 f/cc was recommended by SESAC 
who stated that such a requirement was needed to ``ensure that the 
asbestos work area is safe to enter by unprotected personnel after the 
asbestos work operation is completed.'' (Ex. 7-77).

Relationship to Indoor Air Quality Proposed Rule

    On April 5, 1994 at 59 FR 15968, OSHA proposed a new standard for 
indoor air quality. The proposed regulation included a clause making 
brief reference to asbestos. See Paragraph (d)(8) at page 16036. That 
reference was unintended as OSHA, intends to cover all asbestos issues 
in the final asbestos rule where full consideration has been given to 
them. OSHA will not create new requirements in a final Indoor Air 
Quality Standard that are specifically designed to control asbestos 
exposures, and will announce that it is withdrawing the asbestos clause 
in paragraph (d)(8) at the commencement of the indoor air hearing. 
Accordingly there is no need for parties to submit asbestos-related 
materials into the Indoor Air record.

III. Summary and Explanation of Revised Standards

    These final standards constitute OSHA's response to the remaining 
issues raised for the Agency's reconsideration by the United States 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The specific issues raised by 
the Court are: the establishment of operation-specific permissible 
exposure limits; the extension of reporting and information transfer 
requirements; the expansion of the competent person requirement to all 
employers engaged in any kind of construction work; and, the 
clarification of the small scale, short duration operation exemption 
from the requirement to establish a negative-pressure enclosure. For 
convenience OSHA is summarizing here its response to each of these 
issues. They are discussed in depth below. Also discussed below are the 
other changes OSHA has made which are not in direct response to the 
remand.
    Issue 7. Establishment of Operation Specific Exposure Limits: The 
court remand causes OSHA to consider establishing operation-specific 
permissible exposure limits to the extent feasible, as needed to 
eliminate significant risk of illnesses caused by asbestos exposure. 
OSHA proposed to decrease the PEL to a uniform 0.1 f/cc. OSHA believes 
that this limit is feasible for most industry sectors to reach most of 
the time (55 FR 29720). However, OSHA explained that PELs lower than 
0.1 f/cc are difficult to reliably measure. However OSHA has followed a 
more effective approach to lowering exposures for those sections and 
operations where lower exposures can be achieved. This approach is 
triggering protective provisions based on the kind of operation 
undertaken, rather than measured exposure levels. This approach is 
consistent with some other health standards (e.g., lead, coke ovens).
    A major reason for this approach for construction and shipyards is 
that measured levels of exposure often fail to define risk and are 
often not received before the work is completed. This was partly 
explained in the proposal. There OSHA noted that for removal jobs, 
highly variable amounts of asbestos are generated, ``reducing the 
predictability of exposure levels from one monitoring event to the 
next. Moreover, measured asbestos levels often cannot be used to 
determine the need for (specific controls) . . . because of the time 
required by the laboratory to complete the test and report the 
results.'' (55 FR at 29715-16). Thus, it would be unproductive to leave 
employees unprotected while initial monitoring results are being 
analyzed; and in many cases, even prompt reporting of exposure levels 
during the setting up of the controls would not predict exposures 
during the actual removal.
    A significant risk remains at the PEL of 0.1 f/cc, and it is 
feasible to attain lower levels for some workers exposed to asbestos. 
OSHA has therefore considered whether to establish different PELs for 
different operations based on the lowest exposure limits that can 
feasibly be achieved in those operations and that are needed to 
eliminate significant risk. OSHA has decided not to do so because the 
operation-specific work practices mandated in the standard will be a 
most cost-effective means of assuring that significant risk is 
eliminated to the extent feasible.
    Asbestos has been the subject of extensive rulemaking by OSHA and 
other agencies, and the operations that expose employees to asbestos 
are well known and thoroughly studied. Moreover, given the shift away 
from asbestos products wherever substitutes are available, it appears 
unlikely that major new uses will be found for asbestos in the future. 
OSHA has therefore been able to focus its rulemaking effort on 
evaluating the work practices that will best reduce asbestos exposures 
in the specific operations that expose workers to asbestos. The result 
is a standard that relies heavily on mandated work practices that will, 
in most situations, result in employee exposure well below the PEL. In 
effect, the mandated work practices will assure that each asbestos 
worker is exposed to the lowest feasible level for the operation in 
which that worker is engaged. This approach was taken in the 1986 
construction standard. There, OSHA ``tiered'' its construction standard 
``to apply increasingly stringent requirements to those work operations 
associated with the highest exposures.'' (51 FR at 23706). Rather than 
two classifications as in 1986 (small-scale and abatement work), OSHA 
now divides construction work into four classes and has made additional 
limited distinctions based on measurable variables such as amount of 
material disturbed.
    Since OSHA's approach assures that each employee is exposed to the 
lowest feasible level of asbestos, no additional protection would be 
gained by establishing a series of different PELs for different 
operations. Such an approach would add cost and complexity to 
employers' compliance duties and to OSHA's enforcement duties without 
benefiting worker health. PELs lower than 0.1 f/cc would be 
particularly unsuitable as compliance criteria because it is difficult 
to reliably measure lower levels. Because such measurements are 
unreliable, if lower PELs were established, measurements taken by 
employers and by OSHA would provide an uncertain basis for determining 
whether employers have fulfilled their compliance duties. However, both 
employers and OSHA can easily determine whether the work practices 
prescribed in the standard are being followed. The mandated work 
practices thus assure that employees are better protected than a series 
of different PELs while reducing compliance burdens on employers and 
easing the agency's enforcement burden. Therefore, rather than set 
operation-specific permissible exposure limits, OSHA proposed to 
further reduce risk by requiring certain additional work practices. The 
operations for which mandatory work practices are required would 
otherwise result in employee exposure that is significant. OSHA 
believes that these controls are feasible, reasonable, and necessary.
    OSHA also proposed, in the general industry standard, to link the 
dates when engineering controls would be required to reach the new 
lower PEL with the EPA Ban and Phase-out Rule. This linkage is no 
longer an option since the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently 
vacated the ban and it is not yet clear which asbestos-containing 
products will no longer remain in commerce, and staged phase-outs of 
asbestos containing products are not required.
    Issue 3. Small Scale Short Duration Definition: The Court asked 
that OSHA clarify the exemption for ``small scale, short duration 
operations'' from the negative-pressure enclosure (NPE) requirements of 
the construction standard. The negative pressure enclosure requirements 
are a substantial set of requirements. They include creating a system 
of regulated areas with a sealed work area under negative pressure, 
decontamination facilities and procedures, clean room facilities and 
procedures and shower facilities, and other practices to reduce worker 
exposure and spread of contamination outside the work area. In that 
standard, NPEs were required for all removal, demolition and renovation 
work except for small scale short duration operations.
    The Court suggested, based on its view of the Agency's earlier 
intent, that OSHA limit the exemption to work operations where it is 
impractical to construct an enclosure because of the configuration of 
the work environment. In an earlier response to the remand order, 
published in the Federal Register (54 FR 52024, December 20, 1989), 
OSHA declined to amend the regulatory text on the small-scale, short 
duration issue, without conducting supplemental notice and comment 
rulemaking. The Agency explained ``that explicitly limiting the 
exemption to situations where negative pressure enclosures are 
impractical might not reduce employee risk from asbestos exposure.'' 
(54 FR at 52026). OSHA stated that in the supplemental rulemaking, it 
intended ``to discuss the effectiveness and drawbacks of negative-
pressure enclosure, glove bags, and alternative control systems; and to 
specify more clearly under what circumstances various control systems 
may be used.'' (54 FR at 5207). OSHA also noted that the small-scale, 
short duration issue is related to the scope of the ``competent 
person'' requirement, which the 1986 standard lifted for operations 
which conformed to the exception, and thus combined consideration of 
both issues would be appropriate.
    Accordingly, in July l990, OSHA proposed related changes in both 
provisions ``small scale, short duration'' operations would be 
redefined in terms of general criteria, as well as the 1986 approach of 
listing specific examples. However, the underlying premise remained the 
same as in the 1986 standard: i.e. exemptions to the negative-pressure 
enclosure requirement for removal, renovation and demolition projects 
and limited to jobs which conformed to specified criteria. 
``Competent'' persons, according to the 1990 proposal, were to be 
required as supervisors on all asbestos-related construction worksites, 
instead of as in the 1986 standard, that required competent persons 
only for non ``small-scale, short term jobs.'' Required training for 
competent persons, would vary, however, depending on the kind of 
asbestos- related job needing supervision.
    The final provisions resolving these issues, are different from the 
proposal. Four classes of increasingly hazardous types of construction 
activity are matched with increasingly stringent control requirements. 
Class I asbestos work means activities involving the removal of 
asbestos containing material (ACM) and presumed asbestos containing 
material (PACM) which is ``high risk.'' Class II asbestos work means 
activities involving the removal of ACM and PACM which is not ``high 
risk.'' Class III asbestos work means activities involving repair and 
maintenance where ACM and PACM is disturbed. Class IV asbestos work 
means maintenance and custodial activities during which employees 
contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up waste and debris 
containing ACM and PACM. Each class includes work with similar exposure 
levels and with similar exposure risks. Each has a prescribed set of 
controls and work practices. Basically only Class I work, high-risk 
activities, require negative-pressure enclosures. The standard allows 
other designated proven control systems in limited circumstances and 
provides for yet-to-be-developed systems if certain backstop provisions 
are met. As indicated in its earlier responses to the Court, and its 
public notices of proposed rulemaking, OSHA has evaluated available 
control technologies and has concluded that the use of negative-
pressure control enclosures should be regulated in terms of when they 
are required rather than when they are not.
    In a major departure from the language of both the 1986 standard 
and the proposal, OSHA is deleting the term ``small scale, short 
duration'' from the regulatory text. Instead, the agency is 
distinguishing high- from lower-risk operations through the use of the 
classification system described above. Work that was exempted from the 
negative pressure enclosure requirements in the existing standard 
because it was of ``small-scale, short-duration'' are considered to be 
Class II and Class III work in this amendment. The agency finds that 
the term ``small-scale, short term'' is too limiting, is confusing, and 
cannot be defined with sufficient precision to serve the purpose of 
distinguishing high risk asbestos-disturbing activity from activity of 
reduced risk.
    The term is limiting because it focuses on a fraction of the 
circumstances and criteria which define lower risk work with asbestos-
containing material. For example, removing asbestos-containing products 
like transite panels, likely will not result in significant exposure, 
even if conducted for more than one day, if there is use of a few 
simple controls. As much as the scope and duration of the job, the 
materials themselves, their condition and the work-practices used 
define hazard potential. OSHA had tried to include these concepts under 
the ``small-term, short-duration'' exception in the current standard, 
by reference to examples. However, the breadth of the examples led the 
court to observe that ``the exception as now worded seems to erase the 
rule.'' (838 F. 2d at 1279).
    In the 1990 proposal OSHA tried to identify the conditions and 
operations which separated higher risk work with ACM from lower risk 
work in its small-scale, short-term definition. Still anchoring the 
distinction however, was OSHA's belief that the time a job took, and 
the amount of material involved, primarily determined risk. Based on 
the record of this proceeding, OSHA now finds that these are relevant, 
but not exclusive, factors.
    OSHA finds also that use of the term is confusing. In 1986, in its 
list of activities considered ``small-scale, short-term,'' OSHA listed 
some which are neither small-scale or short-term, but were regarded as 
lower risk, such as roofing work. To cure this confusion, OSHA 
proposed, in 1990 to limit the ``small-scale, short duration'' 
exemption to a subset of renovation, removal and demolition operations 
which took less time, and/or involved small areas. Even for these 
activities a temporal or volume cutoff was difficult to define, and the 
proposed definition contained numerical criteria, which varied 
depending on which activity was defined. In addition, it proposed to 
exempt other activities, such as roofing, regardless of the size of the 
project, from the negative-pressure enclosure requirement. EPA uses the 
term ``small-scale, short-duration'' to describe cut-offs which are 
much higher than those proposed by OSHA for its reporting requirements 
for asbestos renovation, demolition and removal work under NESHAPS. And 
under EPA's worker protection rule which applied to state and local 
government workers in OSHA non-state plan states, reporting 
requirements for asbestos ``abatement'' projects, do not apply to 
projects involving ``less than 3 linear feet or 3 square feet of 
friable asbestos material.'' (40 CFR 763.124).
    Many objections to the proposed definition were received by the 
Agency. After reviewing this record, and in light of the variety of 
interpretations of the term ``small-scale, short-duration,'' OSHA 
determined that it is inappropriate to use that term as the equivalent 
of lower risk activities. Once OSHA decided to include other control 
methods in the ``preferred category'' for high risk asbestos work, 
neither a ``small-scale, short-duration'' definition nor an exemption 
from negative- pressure enclosure requirement was central to OSHA's 
regulatory scheme. As explained more fully below, although OSHA no 
longer uses the term ``small--scale, short-term'' to exempt activities 
from universal requirements, OSHA uses the related terms ``small-
scale'' and ``reduced exposure potential'' as part of a larger 
classification scheme.
    Issue 8. The extension of reporting and information and transfer 
requirements:

A. Notification to OSHA

    OSHA had proposed expanded notification and reporting provisions in 
response to the Court's remand order concerning two issues. The first 
is whether OSHA should require employers to give the Agency advance 
notification of asbestos-related jobs. BCTD, in the 1984 rulemaking had 
suggested that OSHA should require all construction industry employers 
to file reports concerning any building demolition, renovation or 
removal project involving asbestos prior to beginning such a project. 
Two health enhancing benefits of a notice requirement were advanced by 
BCTD. One, is the help such information would provide the Agency in 
targeting inspections. The other is a claimed reduction in risk because 
of the consciousness-raising and self-education provided by the notice 
process.
    The Court noted that the BCTD proposal would ``arguably generate 
better information for ``selecting targets for inspection and that it 
was based on ``uncontradicted (and unanalyzed) evidence of non-de 
minimis benefits.'' (relating to compliance enhancement). (838 F.2d at 
1278). It remanded the issue to the Agency for further explanation or 
rebuttal.
    OSHA responded in 1990, by proposing a new provision to require 
employers to notify OSHA in writing prior to engaging in demolition, 
renovation, and removal operations which are not small-scale, short-
term operations. OSHA's proposed notice requirement shared many core 
elements with EPA's then current and proposed notification requirements 
under NESHAPS. OSHA noted that ``(t)he proposed notification is modeled 
after the notification requirement concerning asbestos abatement 
projects that occur in conjunction with building demolition and 
renovation operations. OSHA noted further that ``(e)mployers can 
satisfy the OSHA (proposed) notification requirement simply by 
forwarding a copy of the EPA form to the OSHA area office when 
complying with EPA's asbestos NESHAP.'' (55 FR at 29731). Both EPA's 
and OSHA's proposed, notification requirements would exempt less 
extensive operations. In OSHA's case, the exemption would have applied 
to small-scale, short-duration operations as otherwise defined in the 
standard. EPA's cutoffs are annual amounts: 260 linear feet on pipes 
and 160 square feet on other facility components. OSHA noted that many 
asbestos jobs would meet the notification requirements of both 
agencies, however there would be an indeterminate, yet significant 
number for which EPA notification would not be called for, but OSHA's 
proposed requirement would apply.
    Most public comment opposed the requirement. The major objection 
was the burden on the employer from completing and mailing the 
notification form. Further, some commenters questioned the overall 
usefulness of the notification requirement in promoting compliance (See 
comments of Shipbuilder's Council of America Ex. 7-2.) BCTD continued 
to argue for extensive reporting requirements for the reasons stated 
above. A few other commenters supported its position. (Ex. 7-5, 7-6, 7-
34, 7-64, 7-95, 7-118, 7-132, 7-149, 141, 144).
    OSHA has carefully reviewed all the comments. Based on the review 
and subsequent developments, the final regulation scales down OSHA's 
proposed notice requirements. OSHA is now requiring advance 
notification of Class I (mainly large-scale removals) only when the 
employer intends to utilize controls other than a negative pressure 
enclosure which meets the requirements of paragraph (g) of this 
standard, and in some circumstances, where modifications of glove bag 
systems, glove box systems and other control systems described in 
paragraph (g) are made.
    There are a number of reasons for OSHA's decisions. OSHA believes 
that the potential benefits in direct risk reduction from a separate 
OSHA reporting requirement are unlikely. There are already extensive 
EPA and state reporting requirements which OSHA requirements would 
partly duplicate. The EPA and state requirements already create any 
incentive to comply that such reports could create. Similar OSHA 
reports would not increase this benefit. Information which may be 
useful to OSHA in targeting inspections can be retrieved by 
information-sharing with the EPA while avoiding overlapping reports. 
OSHA notes that the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that federal 
agencies avoid clearly duplicative reporting requirements. Various 
comments challenge the value of duplicative requirements (e.g., Ex. 7-
17, 7-20, 7-22, 7-28, 7-39, 7-46, 7-47, 7-50, 7-54, 7-72, 7-74, 7-76, 
7-77, 7-78, 7-79, 7-81, 7-86, 7-87, 7-88, 7-89, 7-102, 7-103, 7-108, 7-
112, 7-125, 7-133, 142, 147). Thus, although OSHA's and EPA's reporting 
requirements are only partially duplicative, these considerations have 
influenced OSHA's decision not to require extensive pre-job reporting. 
OSHA is concerned that in reviewing the volume of reports which may be 
spawned by a separate OSHA requirement which exceeded the EPA 
requirements would strain OSHA area offices enforcement resources and 
drain such resources from other enforcement efforts. However, OSHA 
finds that advance reporting is appropriate where information is 
related to new or modified control methods for Class I work. In such 
cases, heightened attention to the data supporting their use will 
result from the requirement to send them to OSHA.
    BCTD's contrary view that compliance would be enhanced was based in 
part on its contractor's report, submitted after the 1984 hearing. The 
report estimated that an advance reporting requirement would reduce 
``the number of workers with TWA exposures over 0.1 f/cc'' up to 30% in 
drywall removal and demolition, and lesser amounts in other 
construction work. These estimates were based on the opinions of a 
seven person ``focus group'' which included three representatives of 
member unions of BCTD. No methodology was presented for deriving these 
quantitative estimates, and no supporting data has been submitted in 
either rulemaking (see brief Ex. 143 at 198). The Court referred to the 
report in its decision as uncontradicted, but that was because it was 
submitted late in the rulemaking procedures.
    The Agency believes based on its experience that these estimates of 
specific quantifiable benefits are speculative. But more importantly, 
the now-existing EPA and state reporting requirements and OSHA's use of 
that data for targeting inspections will achieve those benefits without 
duplicative reporting requirements. Further, OSHA made various changes 
to the final standard which will also achieve some of these benefits. 
These include the expanded provisions on hazard communication, which 
will alert employees in all asbestos renovation, removal and 
maintenance work that presumed asbestos containing material is present; 
that require competent persons to evaluate the work site before work is 
begun, by informing employers that OSHA is setting up information 
sharing systems with EPA to access employer notices sent to that 
Agency, and that require employers who use new and modified control 
systems to notify OSHA.
    Help for OSHA in targeting inspections from the submission of 
advance reports is the other claimed benefit from a reporting 
requirement. Some participants claimed that because pre-job reporting 
was helpful to EPA in targeting its inspections for compliance with 
NESHAP requirements, an OSHA pre-job reporting would similarly benefit 
this Agency. EPA did not testify at the hearing, but available 
information shows that its reporting system provides useful information 
to that Agency's enforcement program. NESHAPS reporting is made mostly 
to 45 state agencies, delegated by EPA to implement the asbestos 
NESHAP. Reporting in EPA Region II, is directly to the Regional Office. 
These reports are the source of two data bases: the National Asbestos 
Registry System (NARS), which develops a historical record of asbestos 
contractors, updated quarterly: and the ACTS system, which is a local 
data base on the compliance history of each contractor. OSHA is 
informed that ACTS is a tool that delegated agencies may use for day-
to-day tracking of asbestos activities. EPA's evaluation of the reports 
submitted to it and other information used in its NESHAP enforcement 
effort constitute a valuable resource for OSHA.
    In 1991 both agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to 
share information which will aid their enforcement efforts. Pursuant to 
that MOU, OSHA is developing with EPA an information sharing system 
based on the reports submitted both to EPA and to various states upon 
delegation from EPA to access that information to help OSHA target 
asbestos removal jobs. OSHA also believes that at this time some EPA 
delegated states, and OSHA state plan states have worked out ways to 
share notifications. OSHA believes that utilizing the EPA data to 
assist in targeting inspections will be more effective than duplicative 
reporting requirements.
    The Agency believes, based on its own enforcement experience that a 
limited notification requirement may enhance compliance in specified 
circumstances. Employers who choose to use new or modified control 
technology to reduce exposures in Class I asbestos work, must notify 
OSHA in advance, using EPA's NESHAP reporting form. Such information 
about new and/or modified asbestos control technology submitted to OSHA 
by employers who wish to use it will provide accessible information for 
the Agency to use to evaluate such technologies. OSHA believes that 
requiring employers to routinely submit to the Agency their data in 
support of claims of the effectiveness of new technology will help 
OSHA, employers and employees and their representatives to evaluate its 
effectiveness promptly.

Shipyard Employment Standard

    One area of the proposed standard to which SESAC raised objection 
was the requirement that OSHA be notified 10 days prior to initiating 
work on large scale asbestos operations. In addition to reiterating 
many of the objections to the provision raised by others, they pointed 
out that often they must immediately work on ships which enter their 
shipyards and turn them around quickly and that the delay caused by the 
notification would be overly burdensome. As OSHA explained above, 
notification of OSHA is required only when Class I operations are 
undertaken and alternate methods of control, other than the negative-
pressure enclosure methodology, is to be employed. This provision 
applies both in the construction and shipyard employment standards.

B. Notification of Other Employers and Subsequent Owners

    The Court remanded the issue of whether OSHA should, as recommended 
by BCTD, require employers contracting asbestos-related work to 
establish, maintain and transfer to building owners written records of 
the presence and locations of asbestos or asbestos products, in order 
to facilitate identification and prevention of asbestos hazards. As 
noted in the 1990 remand proposal, the Court remanded this issue so 
that the Agency may reach ``its own judgment on the issue'' of whether 
it was legally empowered to adopt such a requirement (See BCTD v. 
Brock, supra at 1278). OSHA concludes that BCTD has made a persuasive 
case for the need to expand the notification provisions to other 
employer and building owners and from them to subsequent employers with 
exposed employees. This is a necessary way to informing subsequent 
employers that their employees are at risk of asbestos exposure and of 
the need to take appropriate precautions. Requiring building owners to 
maintain and provide this information is by far the most effective way 
of notifying employers of exposed employees who are doing work many 
years after the asbestos was identified.
    OSHA has developed an information transfer scheme concerning the 
presence of asbestos in buildings and structures which may present a 
hazard to employees which is more comprehensive than the recommendation 
of BCTD. The approach places the primary compliance burden on the 
building and/or facility owner, even though the employees at risk may 
not be the owner's direct employees. Thus, this final standard confirms 
OSHA's tentative view in the proposal, that it has authority to require 
building owners who are statutory employers to take necessary and 
appropriate remedial action such as notifying other employers, to 
protect employees other than their own (see 55 FR at 29729).
    The proposed hazard communication provision limited the building 
owner's communication obligations to ``available'' information 
concerning the presence and location of asbestos. Now, in the final 
standard, the building owner must communicate his knowledge of the 
presence and location of ACM, based on ``available'' information, and, 
new to the final standard, of the presence and location of certain high 
risk materials, which are presumed to contain asbestos (PACM), unless 
the building was constructed or renovated after 1979 or is rebutted 
using laboratory analysis. Further details of this provision are 
spelled out later in this preamble.
    Issue 9. Competent Person. The Court remanded to OSHA to determine 
whether employers engaged in any kind of asbestos related construction 
work should be required to designate ``competent persons'' to oversee 
safety measures, or whether, as in the 1986 standard, employers should 
only be required to designate trained ``competent persons'' for 
asbestos removal, demolition, and renovations operations that are not 
small-scale, short duration. The court requested that OSHA either 
expand the ``competent person'' requirement or provide a more 
persuasive explanation of its refusal to do so.
    OSHA proposed in 1990 to expand the requirement. Under the 
proposal, supervision of all asbestos construction worksites by a 
``competent person'' would be required; the training of a competent 
person would be keyed to the kind of asbestos operation. However, the 
proposal left undecided whether onsite, continuous supervision of all 
asbestos-related work would be required for all asbestos work. The 
final standard resolves these issues. A ``competent'' person, as 
defined in the general construction standards, must supervise all work 
under the asbestos construction standard. That person must be ``capable 
of identifying existing asbestos * * * hazards in the workplace, and 
has the authority to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them 
* * *'' 29 CFR 1926.58[b].
    OSHA reiterates its statement in the proposal that ``all 
construction site employees would benefit from the presence of a 
competent person to oversee asbestos-related work'' (55 FR at 29726). 
However, the need for on-site supervision varies with the hazard 
potential of the work undertaken. All workers performing Class I 
construction work must have continuous access to an on-site supervisor, 
who meets the training requirements for designation as a ``competent 
person'' under this standard. Supervision for Class II and III work 
does not always require a continuous on-site ``competent person,'' 
therefore the standard requires inspections at ``sufficient'' intervals 
and at employee request. Supervision of installation of asbestos 
containing construction materials and Class IV work must also be 
accomplished by complying with the ``generic'' requirement for 
``frequent and regular'' inspection [Paragraph (0)(2)].
    Training for ``competent persons'' can be accomplished in a number 
of ways and meet the standard's performance requirements. For Class I, 
II and III work, the ``competent person'' must take a course such as a 
course under the EPA Model Accreditation Plan for accredited 
contractor/supervisor, project designer or management planner course, 
or their equivalent in content, duration, and criteria for success. 
Class IV work may be part of larger construction projects, in which 
case the competent person trained to supervise the project should 
supervise the on-site cleanup activities which constitute the Class IV 
work.

Explanation of Provisions of the Final Standards

    The following is a provision-by-provision discussion of the revised 
asbestos standards. Thus all the provisions in all three standards: 
general industry, construction and shipyard employment, relating to a 
topic will be discussed under the heading for that topic. For example, 
under the scope heading, the scope of the general industry standard 
will be first discussed, then the scope of the construction standard, 
and finally the scope of the shipyard employment standard. Similarly, 
under the methods of compliance heading, the provisions in each 
standard relating to that topic will be discussed. Where a discussion 
applies to all three or to two of the separate standards it will be so 
noted and will not be repeated for each standard. OSHA believes that 
this format will help the public understand where and why the various 
standards contain different provisions relating to the same subject 
matter. Further, it will avoid repetition in explanations where a 
common policy rationale applies to more than one asbestos standard.

(1) Scope and Application

    Paragraph (a). General Industry Standard. 29 CFR 1910.1001. The 
general industry standard covers all activities (except agriculture), 
covered by the Act which are not otherwise covered by the construction 
asbestos standard, 29 CFR 1926.1101, and the new shipyard employment 
standard, 29 CFR 1915.1001. Consequently, marine terminals and 
longshoring would be covered by the general industry standard if 
asbestos were being loaded, unloaded or stored. The asbestos 
construction standard, in existence since 1986, lists activities which 
it covers. This includes construction activities though they may take 
place at a factory or agricultural premises. The new shipyard 
employment standard, likewise lists its covered activities.
    Formerly, the general industry standard had been considered the 
generic asbestos standard. However, because of dramatic changes in the 
market for asbestos containing products, the standard now covers only 
four industry segments, three of which are distinct from each other, 
and all are diminishing in volume and employee population. Brake and 
clutch repair is the activity engaged in by the largest group of 
asbestos exposed workers, although most of them are exposed 
sporadically and at low levels. Next largest is custodial workers who 
do not perform their duties as part of construction activities, but 
clean surfaces, sweep, buff and vacuum floors and wash walls and 
windows in manufacturing plants and a wide variety of public and 
commercial buildings. Although in the preamble to the proposal and 
throughout this proceeding OSHA and most commenters had treated these 
workers as part of the construction work force, OSHA concludes that 
pure custodial work is not a construction activity, and should be 
regulated under the general industry standard. However, to avoid 
misinterpretation or for purposes of clarity of duties to affected 
parties, OSHA also is including provisions protecting custodial workers 
who may unknowingly contact asbestos-containing material in the 
construction and shipyard employment standards. In this way, there will 
be no advantage to interpreting coverage under any one of the asbestos 
standards, rather than another.
    The primary and secondary manufacture of asbestos containing 
products, completes the roster of identifiable general industry 
sectors. Once, along with installers of asbestos-containing products, 
the core of the asbestos-exposed work force, asbestos-containing 
product manufacturing employees are rapidly dwindling in number. OSHA 
expands on this theme its on economic analysis later in this document. 
At the time of the proposal, EPA had prohibited, at three stated 
intervals from August 1990 to August 1996, the future manufacture, 
importation, processing and distribution in commerce of asbestos in 
almost all products (54 FR at 29460, July 12, 1989). Subsequently the 
ban was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit. EPA has interpreted the decision as invalidating only those 
portions of the ban for products that were manufactured or imported at 
the time of the decision. Despite the remaining legitimacy of 
manufacture and use of asbestos-containing products, the industries 
which make and maintain them and the employees who are employed in 
those industries are declining rapidly and dramatically.
    Paragraph (a) Construction Standard. 29 CFR 1926.1101.
    The construction standard covers (but is not limited to) the 
following activities involving asbestos: demolition, removal, 
alteration, repair, maintenance, installation, clean-up, 
transportation, disposal, and storage. It has been redesignated 29 CFR 
1926.1101 to reflect the reorganization of health standards covering 
construction made June 30, 1993 (58 FR 35076). The scope and 
application remain generally unchanged from the proposal and earlier 
standard. However, 3 issues arose. First, new language, proposed in 
1990 is retained in the final. ``* * * coverage under this standard 
shall be based on the nature of the work operation involving asbestos 
exposure, not on the primary activity of the employer.'' This point was 
made clearly in the preamble to the 1986 standards; however, it was not 
specifically stated in the regulatory text and subsequently some 
confusion arose among the regulated community. Therefore, it is 
included as a clarification of the intended application of the 
standards. Asbestos work which involves removal, repair, maintenance or 
demolition is therefore explicitly regulated by the construction 
standard even if such work is performed within a facility otherwise 
regulated under the general industry standard.
    Certain commenters stated that maintenance and custodial work 
should not be regulated by the construction standard, because they are 
not construction operations. OSHA notes that it has made a distinction 
between maintenance and custodial work, that maintenance work is 
covered in the construction and shipyard employment standards, and that 
custodial work is covered in all three standards, when it is incidental 
to work otherwise covered by a standard.
    Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Soil: Prior to the publication of 
the 1990 asbestos proposal, OSHA received submissions describing 
asbestos deposits which occur as natural formations in the U.S. and 
that when disturbed, for example during earthmoving projects or during 
mining operations, drilling, blasting or sawing operations, the 
asbestos in the deposit can become airborne and expose workers to 
significant levels of asbestos fibers (Ex. 3-10, 3-11). The Agency 
proposed to clarify that such activities were covered under its 
asbestos construction standard and that methods of control were to be 
employed to avoid worker exposure during disturbances of naturally 
occurring asbestos deposits. OSHA sought additional information 
regarding any additional provisions it would adopt to protect workers 
engaged in these activities. In the proposal, the Agency also requested 
any information on appropriate methods to use to determine the presence 
of asbestos in soils, the effectiveness of wet and/or other methods to 
control worker exposures and information on effective decontamination 
methods for exposed workers.
    There were relatively few comments received on this issue. Some 
felt that asbestos in soil resulted in negligible exposures and that 
wetting to prevent fugitive emissions during earth moving would be 
sufficient control (e.g., Ex. 7-6). Another participant said there was 
a lack of control technology and called for further study to determine 
the extent and location of problems (Ex. 7-63). The industrial 
hygienists who had raised the issue of worker exposure to naturally 
occurring asbestos, described the occurrence of asbestos in the soil of 
Fairfax County, Virginia (Ex. 7-143). They reported that water misting 
during disturbance of asbestos-containing soils was effective in 
controlling exposures. They recommended the use of negative pressure 
air purifying respirators, protective clothing and showers to control 
exposures.
    OSHA finds that the record indicates that certain construction 
sites in mostly well-defined areas contain deposits of naturally 
occurring asbestos. In such areas, airborne asbestos during earthmoving 
activities may result in significant exposures. In such cases, wetting 
of the excavation site, often required by local authorities, should be 
sufficient to suppress measurable airborne asbestos concentrations. 
Information regarding the presence of asbestos in the vicinity of 
construction sites may be available from state environmental agencies, 
the United States Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Mines.
    In the absence of information which is readily available showing 
asbestos contamination of soil in the immediate vicinity of a 
construction site, the employer is not required to take any action 
under this standard.
    Paragraph (a) Shipyard Employment Asbestos Standard. 29 CFR 
1915.1001.:
    Workers engaged in shipyard industry activities, i.e. shipbuilding, 
ship repair, and other work in shipyards, who are exposed to asbestos 
have been protected by inclusion in 1986 general industry and 
construction standards published in 1986. Like in other non-
construction industries, OSHA intended employees working in shipyards 
to be protected by the general industry standard, except for those 
operations which were specifically listed as covered by the 
construction standard, i.e. renovation, removal, demolition and repair.
    In 1988, OSHA convened the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory 
Committee (SESAC), comprised of members from labor, private industry, 
state and federal government, and professional and trade associations. 
The Committee's charter directed it ``to develop a single set of 
comprehensive health and safety standards for Shipyards.''
    In the 1990 NPRM, OSHA sought information and comment on how best 
to provide equivalent protection to workers engaged in shipyard 
activities. The Agency noted that although it had considered these 
operations to be regulated under the general industry standard in the 
1986 rulemaking, subsequent considerations led OSHA to observe that 
many shipyard industry activities are construction-like in nature.
    In response, SESAC drafted alternative regulatory text which it 
submitted to this rulemaking docket with the recommendation that it be 
adopted as a vertical asbestos standard for shipyards (29 CFR 1915, Ex. 
7-77). The Committee stated: ``Maritime is neither general industry nor 
construction--it is maritime. ``This committee was formed by the 
Secretary of Labor with the objective in its charter to ``recommend * * 
* one comprehensive set of standards* * *for the shipbuilding, ship 
repair and shipbreaking industries* * *'' (Advisory Committee Charter).
    Additional comment and testimony on this issue was submitted during 
the rulemaking. For example, Charles Sledge, Jr. of the Norfolk Naval 
Shipyard in his testimony stated that he did not feel that shipyard 
industry work meets the definition of construction work defined in 29 
CFR 1910.12 (Ex. 28). Although he preferred keeping shipyard industry 
operations under the general industry asbestos standard, he recommended 
that OSHA apply the SESAC-recommended standard to shipyard activities 
rather than the construction asbestos standard. He pointed out that 
most asbestos work in shipyards takes place in fixed locations and does 
not have the transient nature of true construction work. Mr. Sledge 
also felt that shipyards have developed ways to stay below the PEL and 
that any change would result in requiring expensive alterations of 
facilities, and a need for additional training.
    Several commentors including F. Losey of the Shipbuilders Council 
of America (Ex. 7-2), D. Knecht of Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding (Ex. 7-
22), and C. Klein of Newport News Shipbuilding (Ex. 7-71) encouraged 
OSHA to adopt the SESAC-recommended regulatory text for shipyards (Ex. 
7-2).
    J. Collins of Naval Operations objected to OSHA's proposal to apply 
the construction asbestos standard to shipyard industry because he 
considered some of the provisions infeasible on vessels (Ex. 7-52). In 
his opinion the construction standard requires showers be located at 
the entrance to the regulated area and that this was not reasonable on 
small ships like submarines. Other comments, (apparently by others) in 
this submission expressed the view that shipyard industry activities 
should be regulated under the construction standard since they are 
often identical to construction work. To the same effect see Ex. 7-52.
    BCTD stated in its testimony that:

    * * * [It] agrees with OSHA that, because the manner in which 
maritime employees work with and are exposed to asbestos is similar 
to the experience of construction employees, the provisions of the 
construction standard should apply in that industry. In particular, 
whenever the likelihood exists that asbestos-containing materials 
will be disturbed in ship repair and renovation, that activity 
should be conducted under a negative air apparatus. [Ex. 34, p.2]

    The rulemaking process revealed that there was confusion in the 
shipyard industry sector as to which of the standards applied to the 
various activities within the shipyard. In his testimony, the Chairman 
of the Shipyard Employment Standards Committee said: ``In the case of 
asbestos, both 1910 and 1926 are both applied in various shipyard 
operations. This is confusing to the shipyard work force who are 
required to follow one set of rules one day and another set the next 
day.'' (Tr. 337)
    In the current revision of the asbestos standards, OSHA has 
determined that a separate vertical standard for shipyards is 
appropriate. OSHA understands that many spokespeople for the shipyard 
industry believe that compliance with OSHA's asbestos standards will be 
facilitated in shipyards if only one standard applies to those 
workplaces. Because OSHA wishes to promote compliance, and because the 
Agency acknowledges that some shipyard conditions are unique, OSHA is 
issuing a standard that will apply only to shipyard industries. It is 
neither less nor more rigorous than the general industry and 
construction standards. How it differs from the two other asbestos 
standards will be discussed under the topic heading for each 
substantive provision, in the preamble text which follows. The 
recommendations will be discussed more fully, following a summary of 
the relatively small number of comments received by the Agency.
    Most provisions in the final shipyard standard include some 
relevant provisions similar to the revised construction standard. In 
addition OSHA has incorporated some of the specific recommendations 
made by the Shipyards Employment Standards Advisory Committee discussed 
below.
    Relatedly, the Great Lakes Carriers Associates, representing fleets 
on the Great Lakes, wanted assurance that asbestos exposures of seamen 
aboard vessels will continue to be regulated by the Coast Guard under 
an existing Memorandum of Understanding between the Coast Guard and 
OSHA (Ex. 7-8). OSHA does not intend to alter the agreement it has with 
the Coast Guard. Rather, the maritime standard under discussion 
concerns shipbuilding, ship repair and ship-breaking activities (29 CFR 
part 1915, Shipyards).

(2) Definitions

    Paragraph (b) General Industry, Construction and Shipyard 
Employment.
    OSHA has deleted some definitions which appear in the 1986 
standards, and has added others. Alphabetically, the changes are as 
follows:
    The 1986 standards contained an ``action level'' of 0.1 f/cc, one 
half the PEL of 0.2 f/cc. The action level provides a ``trigger'' for 
certain duties, such as monitoring, medical surveillance and training. 
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit instructed 
OSHA to consider reducing the action level to 0.05 f/cc should the PEL 
be reduced to 0.1 f/cc. In most single-substance air contaminant 
standards it has issued, OSHA has set an action level equal to half the 
PEL. The action level triggers duties of monitoring, medical 
surveillance, and training, and assures that workers who are not 
exposed at or above the PEL but who may nevertheless be exposed to 
levels that present a risk to their health receive a degree of 
protection. The action level thus helps to reduce residual risk that 
may remain at the PEL.
    In these standards, OSHA has taken a different approach to 
protecting workers exposed to levels of asbestos below the PEL. Instead 
of a numerical action level, employer duties involving training and 
medical surveillance are triggered by exposure to ACM or PACM or by the 
type of work being done. Additionally, work practices also are required 
regardless of measured exposure levels. OSHA considers this approach to 
better protect employees than an action level, which triggers training 
and medical surveillance duties based on monitoring results. OSHA's 
approach is particularly appropriate for asbestos because in many 
cases, asbestos levels below the PEL cannot be reliably measured, and 
duties tied to an action level might therefore be triggered by 
measurements of dubious accuracy.
    In the 1990 proposal, OSHA did not propose an action level based on 
its tentative conclusion that workplace asbestos concentrations below 
the PEL could not be reliably and reproducibily measured (55 FR 29722). 
The Agency asked for comment on the advisability of setting an action 
level of 0.05 f/cc, and specifically asked whether the methodology for 
measuring airborne asbestos levels had advanced sufficiently to allow 
reliable and reproducible measurements at that level. Evidence 
subsequently submitted to the rulemaking record indicated that levels 
as low as 0.05 f/cc could not be consistently measured reliably. The 
rulemaking reinforces OSHA's tentative conclusion that workplace 
asbestos levels of 0.05 f/cc cannot be measured reliably (see NIOSH Tr. 
215, SESAC Tr. 345). Because employers cannot obtain reliable and 
reproducible measurements of airborne asbestos levels at concentrations 
of 0.05 f/cc, it would be infeasible to base training and medical 
surveillance requirements on worker exposure to asbestos at such a 
level. OSHA therefore declines to establish an action level of 0.05 f/
cc. OSHA recognizes in some circumstances the general advantages of an 
action level, and if future monitoring technology is developed which 
would allow reliable, consistent determinations at lower fiber levels, 
OSHA will reconsider whether an action level would be appropriate for 
the asbestos standard and whether action under section (6)(b)(7) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act which directs OSHA to ``make 
appropriate modification in the * * * requirements relating to * * * 
monitoring or measuring * * * as may be warranted by experience, 
information, or medical or technological developments acquired 
subsequent to the promulgation of the relevant standard'' is 
appropriate.
    The agency has, however, included provisions that require training 
and medical surveillance of employees exposed below the PEL. Thus, like 
standards that contain an action level, these standards use training 
and medical surveillance to reduce the residual significant risk that 
remains at the PEL. The general industry standard requires that all 
employees who work in areas where ACM or PACM is present be given a 
prescribed level of awareness training. The construction and shipyard 
standards require training of all workers who install asbestos-
containing products and all workers who perform Class I, Class II, 
Class III, and Class IV work. These training requirements assure that 
all employees who are potentially exposed to more than de minimis 
concentrations of asbestos can recognize conditions and activities that 
can lead to asbestos exposure, know of the hazards associated with 
asbestos exposure, and are trained to utilize the means prescribed by 
the standard to minimize their exposure.
    With respect to medical surveillance, the construction and shipyard 
standards require medical surveillance of all workers who, for a 
combined total of 30 days per year or more, engage in Class I, II, or 
III work, or who are exposed above the PEL or excursion limit. 
Additionally employees who wear negative pressure respirators are 
provided with medical surveillance. The general industry standard 
requires medical surveillance of all workers exposed above the PEL or 
excursion level, with no 30-day per year limitation. In crafting these 
provisions, OSHA has attempted to assure that those workers for whom 
medical surveillance will provide relevant information and benefit are 
entitled to it. In construction and shipyard work, employees who do not 
engage in Class I, II, or III work are unlikely to be exposed above 
0.05 f/cc (the potential ``action level'') because the work practices 
mandated in the standard should result in negligible asbestos exposure 
to workers who do not specifically engage in asbestos-related work. 
Employees who engage in only Class IV work also should not be exposed 
above 0.05 f/cc because of the lower asbestos exposures associated with 
such work. OSHA therefore believes that the construction and shipyard 
provisions target medical surveillance where it is needed.
    In general industry, the vast majority of workers who are exposed 
below the PEL will also be exposed below 0.05 f/cc. The work practices 
mandated for brake and clutch repair, by far the largest general 
industry segment subject to the standard, should result in virtually 
all such workers being exposed below 0.05 f/cc. Another large general 
industry segment, custodial workers, will also be generally exposed 
below 0.05 f/cc. While some small number of workers in both categories 
as well as in the manufacturing of asbestos products may be exposed 
between 0.05 f/cc and 0.10 f/cc on some days, the difficulty of 
obtaining reliable and reproducible measurements at those levels makes 
it difficult to identify those workers accurately. Therefore, if 
medical surveillance were triggered by exposure above 0.05 f/cc, the 
employees subject to such surveillance would likely be chosen on the 
basis of the vagaries of the monitoring process rather than on any 
realistic assessment of the risk that they face. OSHA therefore 
concludes that it would be infeasible, and would not reduce significant 
risk, to require medical surveillance for workers in general industry 
exposed below the PEL or excursion limit.
    David Kirby of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated his belief 
that:

    I'm not sure if the analytical methodology will be able to 
support this due to the level of accuracy that's normally associated 
with trying to take samples under the normal procedures at that 
level.'' (Tr. 105)

NIOSH too testified that ``[i]n NIOSH's judgment, the establishment of 
a PEL or an action level below 0.1 fiber per cc for most industrial or 
construction work sites would be difficult at this period of time'' 
(Tr. 215). Additional doubt was voiced by the chairman of the Shipyard 
Employment Standards Advisory Committee, ``* * * an action level, that 
is 0.05 fibers per cc, is not appropriate or reasonable due to 
inconsistencies and non-reproducibility with the sampling and 
analytical methodology'' and noted concern that shipyard environments 
were especially likely to have high levels of background dust which 
could overload sampling devices, making determinations at that level 
more difficult (Tr. 345). Other commenters supported the proposed 
deletion of an action level (Ex. 7-2, 7-39, 7-99,7-104, 7-120, 7-146).

Asbestos

    In 1992 OSHA amended the definition of ``asbestos'' from the 1986 
standards. The non-asbestiform varieties of the minerals actinolite, 
tremolite and anthophyllite are no longer included in the definition of 
asbestos. In 1986 OSHA determined that although tremolite, actinolite 
and anthophyllite exist in different forms, all forms of these minerals 
would continue to be regulated. Following promulgation of the rule, 
several parties requested an administrative stay of the standard 
claiming that OSHA improperly included non-asbestiform minerals. A 
temporary stay insofar as the standards apply to the non-asbestos forms 
of tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite was granted and the Agency 
initiated rulemaking, proposing to remove these forms from the scope of 
the asbestos standards. Following a public comment period and public 
hearing, OSHA issued its final decision to delete non-asbestiform 
tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite from the scope of the asbestos 
standards (57 FR 24310, June 8, 1992). The Agency, in evaluating the 
record, found that ``evidence is lacking to conclude that non-
asbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite present the same 
type or magnitude of health effect as asbestos,'' and that the failure 
to regulate them as asbestos does not present a significant risk to 
employees.

Classification of Asbestos Work (Classes I-IV)

    In the Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards, OSHA is 
adding definitions for four classes of activities which trigger 
different provisions in the standard. Those activities presenting the 
greatest risk are designated Class I work, with decreasing risk 
potential attaching to each successive class. The Construction and 
Shipyard Employment Standards regulate Class I, II and III work; all 
three standards regulate Class IV work.
    ``Class I'' work is defined as activities involving the removal of 
thermal system insulation and sprayed-on or troweled-on or otherwise 
applied surfacing ACM (asbestos-containing material) and PACM (presumed 
asbestos-containing material); ``Class II asbestos work'' is defined as 
removal of ACM or PACM which is not TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM; 
``Class III asbestos work'' is defined as repair and maintenance 
operations which are likely to disturb ACM, or PACM; Class IV 
operations are custodial and housekeeping operations where minimal 
contact with ACM and/or PACM may occur.
    Class I asbestos work involves removal of surfacing materials 
sprayed or troweled or otherwise applied to surfaces, and removal of 
thermal system insulation. Surfacing materials include, for example, 
decorative plaster on ceilings or acoustical ACM on decking or 
fireproofing on structural members. Thermal system insulation includes, 
for example, ACM applied to pipes, boilers, tanks and ducts. Based on 
the record, OSHA has determined that the prevalence of these materials 
and their likelihood of significant fiber release when disturbed, 
requires rigorous control methods which OSHA has set out in the 
standards.
    Class II asbestos work involves removal of any other asbestos-
containing material--which is not TSI or surfacing ACM. Examples of 
Class II work are removal of floor or ceiling tiles, siding, roofing, 
transite panels. EPA refers to these materials as ``miscellaneous ACM'' 
in the ``Green Book.'' (Ex. 1-183) Work practices and other control 
measures to be employed in removing these materials are discussed later 
in this preamble under the methods of compliance section.
    Class III asbestos work are defined as repair and maintenance 
activities involving intentional disturbance of ACM/PACM. Class III is 
limited to incidental cutting away of small amounts (less than a single 
standard waste bag) of ACM/PACM, for example, to access an electrical 
box for repair.
    The first three classes of asbestos work are intended to cover the 
kinds of asbestos work which under the 1986 construction standard were 
designated ``asbestos removal, demolition, and renovation operations,'' 
including ``small-scale, short-duration operations, such as pipe 
repair, valve replacement, installing electrical conduits, installing 
or removing drywall, roofing, and other general building maintenance or 
renovation.''
    The classes are exclusive. For example, the stripping of 50 linear 
feet of thermal system insulation, which has not been positively 
identified as non-asbestos containing material is Class I, for it is 
the removal of PACM. Repair of a valve covered by ACM is Class III, 
since ``removal'' is not taking place. Removal of roofing material 
containing ACM is Class II, since roofing material is not high-risk 
ACM. OSHA believes dividing activities by ``Classes'' will be clearer 
than the prior system in the 1986 standard which prescribed different 
precautions for ``small scale, short duration work,'' which it then 
defined by example. As noted in several places in this document this 
was confusing to employers, to the Court and to OSHA itself. A more 
extensive discussion of the ``Class'' system of designating work with 
asbestos-containing materials is contained in the discussion on 
``Methods of Compliance'' provisions later in this preamble.
    Class IV work is defined as maintenance and custodial activities 
during which employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up 
waste and debris containing ACM and PACM. This includes dusting 
surfaces, vacuuming carpets, mopping floors, cleaning up ACM or PACM 
materials from thermal system insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM. Workers 
may contact ACM or PACM when performing a wide variety of routine jobs 
that result in incidental disturbance, such as changing a battery in a 
smoke detector attached to a ceiling containing ACM or PACM, polishing 
floors containing asbestos, and changing a light bulb in a fixture 
attached to an asbestos containing ceiling.
    For custodial work, the Class IV characterization applies to 
situations where there is an indication that surfaces are contaminated 
with ACM or PACM. One indication would be identification of the ACM or 
PACM sources of the debris or dust; such as visibly damaged, or 
degraded, ACM or PACM in the vicinity. Visibly damaged, degraded, or 
friable ACM or PACM are indications that surface dust could contain 
asbestos, and Class IV protection applies. OSHA requires in (g)(9) that 
such dust or debris be assumed to be ACM or PACM. Another indication 
could be an analytical test to determine whether the surface dust 
itself contains asbestos. Since dust of carpets may not be visible, 
visible dust on other surfaces along with the presence of ACM/PACM 
nearby would indicate that cleaning the carpet is Class IV work.
    The general industry standard also includes requirements for 
maintenance and custodial operations which mirror Class IV requirements 
in the construction standard. These would apply to activities which are 
not traditionally viewed as construction activities, and which, as 
contended by certain participants in this proceeding, may not be 
covered by the Construction Safety Act (40 U.S.C. 333). As further 
discussed in the preamble discussion relating to paragraph (a), Scope 
and Application, examples of these activities are clean-up in areas 
where asbestos-containing dust or debris is present and removing light 
fixtures located near ``high risk'' surfacing material.
    Some Class IV work was covered by the earlier standards, yet the 
coverage was incomplete. The general industry standard regulated 
housekeeping activities, and housekeeping activities were also included 
in the construction standard to be covered if they were part of a 
construction job. Precautionary maintenance guidelines to avoid 
disturbing ACM were addressed in Appendix G of the construction 
standard. OSHA believes that the switch from the regulated 
``housekeeping'' activities to the Class IV definition is clearer and 
reduces loopholes. The custodial activities covered in either event can 
clearly create asbestos dust and expose custodial employees to that 
dust. Data in the record show that custodial activities can produce not 
insignificant asbestos exposure levels. Therefore, the work practices 
required to reduce that dust are clearly necessary to reduce 
significant risk to custodial workers.
    By establishing a Class IV, OSHA is rejecting various 
recommendations that some activities, potentially involving asbestos 
disturbance, would result in de minimis risk, and as such should not be 
regulated (See further discussion concerning Methods of Compliance). 
The new definition of Class IV work, the removal of the non-mandatory 
appendix, and coverage of these activities both under general industry 
standard and the construction standard and shipyard employment 
standards clarify the standards' application to such work.
    OSHA requested comments on setting a cut-off for asbestos-
containing material with minimal asbestos content. There was 
overwhelming support for a 1% cutoff for ACM which would be consistent 
with EPA rules. The Hazard Communication Standard labeling and training 
provisions require labelling of materials which contain more than 0.1% 
asbestos. EPA defines asbestos containing material as: ``Any material 
containing more than one percent asbestos.'' (NESHAP and Green Book p. 
30). OSHA has no information to indicate what proportion of building 
materials fall into the category of containing more than 0.1% and less 
than 1.0% asbestos. EPA has listed building materials by their asbestos 
content and among those included on the list, only surfacing ACM ranged 
down to 1% (and up to 95%) (EPA ``Purple Book,'' Ex. 1-282). Some 
participants, including NIOSH have expressed concern that even 1% may 
be below the accuracy level for optical microscopic methods. (Ex. 7-
145, 162-39). Among those who dealt with the issue, most supported the 
1.0% cutoff, most citing its consistency with EPA (Ex. 7-5, 7-6, 7-21, 
7-43, 7-51, 7-74, 7-76, 7-99, 7-106, 7-111, 7-120, 7-137, 151, 162-59, 
162-29). OSHA agrees that a cutoff of 1.0% asbestos is appropriate for 
asbestos containing building materials and has included this value in 
its definitions of ACM.

Closely Resemble

    Included in the construction and shipyard employment standards is a 
definition for the term ``closely resemble,'' which is the term used in 
the regulatory text to limit the use of historic exposure data to 
predict exposures. It is defined as circumstances where ``the major 
workplace conditions which have contributed to the levels of historic 
asbestos exposure are no more protective than in the current 
workplace.'' OSHA's intent is to allow data reflecting past exposures 
to be used to predict current exposures only when the conditions of the 
earlier job were not more protective, i.e., employees were not better 
trained, work practices were not used more consistently, and no more 
supervision was present.

Competent Person

    OSHA has amended the definition of ``competent person'' in the 
construction standard and included it in the Shipyard Employment 
Standard as a ``qualified person.'' The definition is based on the 
definition of ``competent person'' in the general construction 
standard, 29 CFR 1926.32(f), i.e. ``one who is capable of identifying 
existing asbestos hazards in the workplace and who has the authority to 
take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them,'' but adds a 
specific training qualification. The training provisions require a 
competent person take a course which meets the requirements of EPA's 
Model Accreditation Plan (40 CFR 763, Subpart E). OSHA believes that 
specific training is needed so a ``competent person'' will have 
adequate knowledge to perform the competent person's responsibilities 
for Class I and II work. A Class II and Class IV ``competent person'' 
must undergo ``Operations and Maintenance'' (O&M) training as developed 
by EPA. Further discussion of these issues is found later in this 
document.
    The revised definition deletes from the definition a list of duties 
to be performed by the competent person. Duties are more appropriately 
set out in other regulatory paragraphs which are prescriptive, rather 
than in the ``definition'' section. In response to the court's remand, 
OSHA has also expanded the scope of the competent persons's duties so 
that a competent person must supervise all asbestos activities under 
the construction standard. As noted, these requirements are set forth 
in other regulatory paragraphs which govern conditions of work in 
covered activities.
    The shipyard employment standard does not use the term ``competent 
person,'' because that term has a unique definition under Part 1915. 
OSHA has accepted SECSAC's recommendation that the term ``qualified 
person'' should be used to designate a person with the same duties 
under the shipyard employment standard.

Critical Barriers

    OSHA is adding a definition for the term ``critical barriers'' 
whose use is required in certain asbestos operations. These are defined 
as plastic sheeting or equivalent material placed over openings to the 
work area. These barriers are effective when they seal all openings 
into a work area. Critical barriers can be other physical barriers 
sufficient to prevent airborne asbestos in a work area from migrating 
to an adjacent area.

Disturbance

    OSHA has added a definition for ``disturbance'' to all three 
standards to distinguish it from removal. In this definition 
disturbance means any contact with ACM/PACM which releases fibers or 
which alters its position or arrangement. It also includes operations 
which disrupt the matrix or render it friable or which generate visible 
debris from it. A quantitative cutoff of disturbance is given--the 
amount of ACM/PACM so disturbed may not exceed the amount that can be 
contained within one standard sized glove bag or waste bag. OSHA 
believes that certain jobs, e.g., repairing leaking valves, often 
require asbestos to be cut away to gain access to a component. If the 
amount of asbestos so ``disturbed'' is contained in one bag, Class I 
precautions are not necessary.

Glove Bag

    The term ``glove bag'' is also defined in the standards as a 
plastic bag-like enclosure affixed around ACM with glove-like 
appendages through which material and tools may be handled.

Homogeneous Area

    The presumption that a material contains asbestos may be rebutted 
by sampling a ``homogeneous'' area of the presumed ACM to determine its 
asbestos content. OSHA has defined ``homogeneous area'' in much the 
same way it is defined by EPA as an area of surfacing material or 
thermal system insulation that is uniform in color and texture.

Industrial Hygienist

    A definition for ``Industrial Hygienist'' is included in the 
standards as a professional person qualified by education, training, 
and experience to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and develop controls 
for occupational health hazards.

Initial Exposure Assessment

    ``Initial Exposure Assessment,'' including ``Negative Initial 
Exposure Assessment'' are terms used in the construction and in the 
shipyard standards. It means a required assessment by a ``competent 
person'' concerning the exposure potential of a specific asbestos job, 
or series of similar asbestos jobs. A ``Negative Initial Exposure 
Assessment'' is such an assessment in which it is concluded that 
employee exposures during the job are likely to be consistently below 
the PELs. Assessments must be based on information and data which are 
allowed pursuant to criteria in paragraph (f). The results of ``Initial 
monitoring,'' no longer required for each job, should be considered, 
but do not necessarily constitute an adequate ``assessment'' if they 
would not represent all worst-case employee exposures during the entire 
job.

Modification

    Alternatives or modifications to listed control methods are allowed 
when the employer demonstrates that such a ``modification'' still 
provides equivalent worker protection. OSHA does not intend that 
changes in a control method which decrease the safety margin of a 
material or omitting a procedure be permitted by calling it a 
``modification.'' A ``modification'' means a changed or altered 
procedure, material which replaces a procedure, material or component 
of a required system. For example, a new test proven successful in 
detecting leaks might be substituted for required ``smoke tests.'' 
Omission of a procedure or component, or a reduction in the stringency 
or strength of a material or component is not considered a 
``modification'' under this section.

Presumed Asbestos-Containing Material (PACM)

    In all three standards, ``presumed asbestos containing material,'' 
``PACM'' means thermal system insulation and sprayed on and/or troweled 
or otherwise applied surfacing material in buildings constructed no 
later than 1980. OSHA has found that these materials are ``high risk'' 
if asbestos-containing. OSHA bases this on the record, including the 
HEI Report which states that ``thermal system insulation and surface 
treatments (fireproofing, acoustical and decorative finishes) stand out 
in importance for their potential for fiber release and subsequent 
exposure to [building] occupants'' (Ex. 1-344, p. 4-5). Although these 
materials may have been installed in small quantities after 1980, OSHA 
finds that their installation is unlikely after that date.

Project Designer

    OSHA has adopted a definition like that of EPA for a ``Project 
Designer''-- a person who has successfully completed the training 
requirements for an abatement project designer established by 40 USC 
763.90(g).

Removal

    ``Removal'' means all operations where ACM and/or PACM is removed 
from a building component, regardless of the reason for the removal. It 
includes those maintenance, repair, renovation and demolition 
activities where ACM and/or PACM removal is incidental to the primary 
reason for the project, as well as where removal of ACM and/or PACM is 
the primary reason for the project. Removal should be distinguished 
from ``disturbance'' which includes ``cutting away'' a small amount of 
ACM or PACM.

Regulated Area

    ``Regulated area'' is included in all three standards. All three, 
like the 1986 standards, require the establishment of such an area 
where the employer believes that the PEL will be exceeded. Now, the 
construction and shipyard employment standards add that such area must 
be established also where Class I, II and III activities will take 
place, regardless of exposure levels. Also, the specific actions 
required of the employer to demarcate a regulated area are deleted from 
the definition, and are placed in the appropriate prescriptive 
paragraph, in this case paragraph (e)(6).

(3) Permissible Exposure Limits

    Paragraph (c) General Industry, Construction and Shipyard 
Standards.
    In all three standards, the eight hour time-weighted average 
permissible exposure limit is changed from an eight hour time weighted 
average (TWA) of 0.2 f/cc to a TWA of 0.1 f/cc in the revised final 
rules. As noted in the 1990 proposal and in the preamble discussion 
above, OSHA's decision to reduce the PEL across the board responds to 
the Court's directive to consider whether to establish operation-
specific exposure limits, since the Court noted that on the record of 
the 1986 standards, it appeared feasible to reduce the PEL to 0.1 f/cc 
limit in many industry sectors. OSHA has rejected ``operation-
specific'' PELs for the wide variety of operations that expose 
employees to asbestos. OSHA proposed and these final standards adopt 
required operation-specific work practices, in addition to an across-
the-board PEL reduction to 0.1 f/cc. OSHA expects that the risk 
reduction accomplished by this two-pronged approach will be at least as 
great as would operation-specific PELs. First, the required controls 
are found to be capable of achieving maximum exposure reduction on an 
operation-by-operation basis. Second, since OSHA has found that 
specific work practices are feasible, the Agency expects a higher 
compliance rate and thus, greater risk reduction than if practices were 
not specified. Third, in operations where particular controls are 
specified, the PEL is a backstop; alerting employers where additional 
controls are needed or closer surveillance is required; in all 
operations the PEL is a measurable and comparable value, which cannot 
be exceeded without further action by the employer to reduce exposures.
    At the time of the proposal in 1990, the question of whether the 
proposed PEL reduction would reduce a still significant risk had 
already been given a tentative answer by the Court. The D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals, in remanding the issue of lowering the PEL to the 
Agency, noted that based on the 1984 risk assessment, the excess risk 
stemming from average exposures of 0.1 f/cc ``could well be found 
significant.'' BCTD v. Brock, 838 F.2nd at 1266.'' (55 FR at 29714).
    In the proposal, OSHA stated that it believes ``that compliance 
with proposed amendments to reduce the PEL to 0.1 f/cc as a time-
weighted average measured over 8 hours would further reduce a 
significant health risk which exists after imposing a 0.2 f/cc PEL'' 
(55 FR 29714, July 20, 1990). OSHA's 1984 risk assessment showed that 
lowering the TWA PEL from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc reduced the asbestos 
cancer mortality risk from lifetime exposure from 64 to 6.7 deaths per 
1,000 workers. OSHA estimated that the incidence of asbestosis would be 
5 cases per 1,000 workers exposed for a working lifetime under the TWA 
PEL of 0.2 f/cc. Counterpart risk figures for 20 years of exposure are 
excess cancer risks of 4.5 per 1,000 workers and an estimated 
asbestosis incidence of 2 cases per 1,000 workers.
    OSHA's risk assessment also showed that reducing exposure to 0.1 f/
cc would further reduce, but not eliminate, significant risk. The 
excess cancer risk at that level would be reduced to a lifetime risk of 
3.4 per 1,000 workers and a 20 year exposure risk of 2.3 per 1,000 
workers. Consequently significant risk would be reduced substantially. 
However, OSHA concluded therefore that continued exposure to asbestos 
at the TWA permitted level and action level would still present 
residual risks to employees which are significant.
    The Court did not ask and OSHA did not undertake to review its 
earlier risk assessment in the proposal. At the hearing in January, 
1991, Mr. Martonik, spokesperson for OSHA was asked by Mr. Hardy, 
representing the Safe Building Alliance (SBA), if OSHA was planning to 
update the earlier risk assessment as part of this proceeding. Mr. 
Hardy stated that ``a number of parties have suggested to OSHA that its 
risk assessment from 1984, as relied on in the 1986 final rule, is 
outdated'' (Tr. 30). Mr. Martonik responded that ``we will have to 
consider all information we receive and determine relevance in this 
rulemaking after the record is closed. (Ibid).
    Other parties questioned OSHA's continuing reliance on the 1984 
risk assessment. The Asbestos Information Association (AIANA) testified 
that ``OSHA's 1984 risk assessment fails to take into account the 
scientific community's consensus that chrysotile exposures hold lower 
risk than the Agency estimates * * * we do not believe that the risk 
assessment that is six years old relies on the best available 
evidence.'' AIANA requested OSHA to convene experts, as part of this 
hearing process ``to revise its asbestos risk assessment.'' (Tr. 530), 
this was the major objection to OSHA's earlier risk assessment. Some 
participants voiced similar objections. (Ex. 7-88, 7-110, 7-104, 7-120, 
Ex. 145, 151), while others were of the opinion that chrysotile had the 
same potency as other forms of asbestos (see Ex. 119 C, 1-136, 125, 
Att. 6, 143 Att C, 143 Att. D.).
    Although as noted above, the issue of the continuing validity of 
OSHA's earlier risk assessment was not remanded to the Agency for 
reconsideration, implicit in OSHA's proposal to lower the PEL to 0.1 f/
cc is OSHA's determination based on the 1984 risk assessment, that the 
lower exposure limit is necessary to reduce a still significant 
occupational risk.
    After a comprehensive review of the evidence submitted concerning 
the validity of the 1984 risk assessment, OSHA has determined that it 
will continue to rely on the earlier analysis. The Agency believes that 
the studies used to derive risk estimates remain valid and reliable, 
and that OSHA's decision to not separate fiber types for purposes of 
risk analysis is neither scientifically nor regulatorily incorrect.
    There are at least three reasons for OSHA's decision not to 
separate fiber types. First, OSHA believes that the evidence in the 
record supports similar potency for chrysotile and amphiboles with 
regard to lung cancer and asbestosis. The evidence submitted in support 
of the claim that chrysotile asbestos is less toxic than other asbestos 
fiber types is related primarily to mesothelioma. This evidence is 
unpersuasive, and it provides an insufficient basis upon which to 
regulate that fiber type less stringently.
    As OSHA explained in the preamble to the 1986 standards,

    * * * to summarize the data on risk differential by asbestos 
fiber type, human epidemiological studies have suggested that 
occupational exposure to amphiboles is associated with a greater 
risk of mesothelioma than is exposure to chrysotile * * * No clear 
risk differential for lung cancer or other asbestos-related disease 
has been demonstrated by epidemiological studies. Animal 
experiments, however, have indicated that chrysotile is a more 
potent carcinogen than amphiboles when administered by inhalation or 
intrapleural injection * * * (51 FR at 22628).

OSHA agreed with the testimony of Dr. Davis, who stated that ``the 
evidence cannot answer * * * with certainty * * * if ``one fiber * * * 
of amphibole (is) more dangerous than one fiber * * * of chrysotile.'' 
(Ibid).
    Second, as stated in the 1986 asbestos standard, even if OSHA were 
to accept the premise (which it does not), that chrysotile may present 
a lower cancer risk than other asbestos fiber types, occupational 
exposure to chrysotile asbestos still presents a significant risk of 
disease at the revised PEL (See 51 FR 22649, 22652). In particular, 
asbestosis, the disabling and often fatal fibrosis of the deep portions 
of the lung, is caused by exposure to all types of asbestos. The 
evidence on this is strong and no new information has been presented to 
contradict this. As stated above, OSHA estimated asbestosis risks at 
0.2 f/cc exposures as an unacceptably high 5 cases per 1000 workers. 
Thus, asbestosis risks alone justify the regulation for chrysotile.
    Lung cancer risks associated with chrysotile exposures are also 
high--6.7 lung cancer deaths per 1000 workers exposed to 0.2 f/cc for a 
full working lifetime. OSHA notes that SBA's witness, Dr. K. Crump 
acknowledged that ``(t)here's not a clear difference, * * * even in 
humans, for lung cancer * * * in terms of distinguishing the potency of 
amphiboles vs. chrysotile.'' (Tr. 4220).
    Third, the record shows that employees are likely to be exposed to 
mixed fiber types at most construction and shipyard industry worksites 
most of the time. Assigning a higher PEL to chrysotile would present 
the Agency and employers with analytical difficulties in separately 
monitoring exposures to different fiber types. Thus, regulating 
different fiber types at differing levels, would require more 
monitoring all the time and would produce limited benefits (51 FR 
22682).
    Consequently, OSHA believes that its conclusion to treat all 
asbestos fibers as having a similar potency in the occupational setting 
remains valid. Most of the evidence submitted to the remand rulemaking 
duplicated evidence submitted to the 1986 standards' record, or was 
cumulative to the earlier body of evidence. For example AIANA appended 
its 1988 submission to the EPA, consisting of numerous studies and 
reports. Some of these documents were considered by OSHA in the prior 
rulemaking. There, OSHA had stated that the 1983 Berry and Newhouse 
study of friction materials manufacturing workers which found 
nonsignificant increases in lung cancer mortality, was inconsistent 
with other studies showing that low level asbestos exposure resulted in 
excess lung cancer mortality, because of the relatively short follow up 
period used (51 FR 22618).
    Other studies involved lung burden analyses of mesothelioma 
victims, apparently showing that the pulmonary content of chrysotile 
was within the range of the general population, whereas amphibole 
content was significantly elevated compared to the general population 
(see e.g. Churg, Malignant Mesothelioma in British Columbia in 1982, 
Cancer, 2/85, 672). OSHA noted in the preamble to the 1986 rule, that 
there is a difference in tissue retention which would account for the 
autopsy results and cited a study by Glyseth et al. (Doc. 33-C, Ex. 
312) which supported that explanation. OSHA also noted that ``the 
differential lung retention of various fiber types has been 
demonstrated in animals,'' citing a study by Wagner which found that 
animals exposed to chrysotile fibers developed lung cancer even though 
a smaller amount of chrysotile was retained in the lung compared to 
similar tests with amphiboles.
    Dr. Weill believed that ``these differences in tissue persistence 
may wholly or partially explain the observations [that exposure to 
amphiboles are associated with a higher prevalence of mesothelioma] in 
human * * * population * * *. Non-confirmation of fiber type 
differences in animal experiments may be related to the much shorter 
life span * * * [of experimental animals, which would not allow] the 
effects of varying tissue-persistence to be expressed'' (Doc. 33-C, Ex. 
99, p.18; 51 FR 22628). Therefore OSHA had reviewed and evaluated in 
the earlier rulemaking a portion of the evidence submitted by 
proponents of differential regulation of fiber types, and had rejected 
the claim that chrysotile should be regulated less stringently.
    Some new evidence on the issue of differential risks of asbestos 
fiber types was submitted by both supporters and detractors of that 
theory.
    In support of the position that chrysotile asbestos exposure is 
equivalent in risk to amphibole asbestos exposure, BCTD submitted 
studies which indicated excess mesothelioma cases in workers exposed 
solely to chrysotile asbestos (see Ex. 119 C, 1-136, 125, Att.6, 143 
Att C, 143 Att. D). In support of the opposing claim that chrysotile 
has reduced carcinogenic potential, AIANA and SBA submitted additional 
evidence. For example, AIANA submitted the World Health Organization's 
1989 working report which recommended that the exposure limit for 
chrysotile should be reduced to 1 f/cc or below (8 hour TWA), where it 
was recommended that exposure to crocidolite and amosite asbestos be 
prohibited (Ex. 21 A, p. 9). In particular, two papers by Mossman, et. 
al, are cited as the basis for the claim that a scientific 
``consensus'' believes that chrysotile carries a reduced carcinogenic 
risk (Ex. 1-153, 151). Thus AIANA states that ``since OSHA issued its 
1984 asbestos risk assessment, the scientific consensus that chrysotile 
asbestos poses lesser risks has solidified'' (Ex. 142 at 3).
    However, OSHA notes that various participants in this rulemaking, 
including NIOSH and Dr. Nicholson, disputed the existence of such a 
consensus. Dr. Nicholson and others including Dr. Landrigan, in a 
letter to Science, (Ex. 1-155), dispute various interpretations of data 
in Mossman et al.'s paper, and challenge the conclusion that chrysotile 
asbestos carries little cancer risk. Nicholson et al, point out that 
human studies show excess lung cancer risk that is proportionate to 
exposure across all fiber types, and that animal tests confirm these 
relationships. OSHA believes that the scientific community has not 
achieved ``consensus'' on these issues.
    Among the studies submitted in support of the lowered risk of 
chrysotile asbestos, are those of Churg, and others showing that the 
lung burden of mesothelioma victims is predominantly amphibole, even 
though high chrysotile exposure levels were reported. As noted above, 
this line of argument was presented in the earlier asbestos rulemaking, 
and OSHA had concluded that lung burden studies are inconclusive. 
Additional response to this argument is provided by Dement who notes 
that ``(t)he biological significance of post-mortem lung fiber burden 
data has yet to be established. These data are not useful as a 
predictor of disease for several reasons. Chrysotile is known to split 
longitudinally and partially dissolve in the lung whereas amphiboles 
remain in the lungs for years without significant dissolution * * *. 
Measurements of tissue fiber burdens many years after first exposure 
may bear no relationship to the carcinogenic events which likely have 
taken place many years before clinical manifestation of cancer.'' (Ex. 
1-273)
    BCTD pointed out in its post-hearing brief, that ``Dr. Landrigan 
testified, while the observation that chrysotile does not last as long 
in the lungs as other forms of asbestos is not new knowledge (Tr. 
1074), there is recent evidence that chrysotile is ``the most effective 
of the three major fiber types at migrating to the pleura, that it is 
present in substantial amounts in pleural plaques and mesotheliomas, 
even in circumstances where it is not present or minimally present in 
the lungs themselves'' (Tr. 1074).
    The Agency also notes that the HEI report, in summing up its 
discussion of its literature search of studies examining the issue of 
the relative potency of chrysotile in inducing mesothelioma, stated: 
``(t)he evidence that chrysotile rarely causes pleural mesothelioma is 
not conclusive ``* * * and concluded that the absence of mesothelioma 
in one of the ``two cohorts of heavily exposed asbestos workers who 
worked only with chrysotile * * * seems likely to be due at least in 
part to chance'' (Ex. 1-344 p. 6-23).
    HEI concluded that ``the mesothelioma risk for chrysotile was an 
issue of disagreement; some members of the Literature Review Panel held 
the view that a lower estimate should be recommended, as it would be 
more consistent with available data. The crucial issues, neither of 
which can be resolved unequivocally, are (1) what proportion of the 
mesotheliomas observed in groups such as the U.K. textile workers and 
the U.S. insulation workers were caused by their exposure to 
crocidolite or amosite; and (2) whether the best general estimate of 
the ratio of mesothelioma to excess lung cancer caused by chrysotile is 
provided by the Quebec miners and millers (about 1:4 or 1:5), or by the 
South Carolina textile workers handling Quebec fiber (zero)'' (Ex. 1-
344 p. 6-32).
    Thus, although there is some evidence linking chrysotile to a lower 
mesothelioma rate than some amphibole fiber types, OSHA believes that 
there is insufficient evidence to show that chrysotile does not present 
a significant mesothelioma risk to exposed employees. Furthermore, the 
major disease linked to asbestos exposure, lung cancer, occurs at the 
same frequency among employees exposed to equivalent doses of 
chrysotile or to amphibole asbestos fiber types. Indeed, evaluation of 
all of the evidence indicates that chrysotile asbestos presents a 
similar significant risk of lung cancer and asbestosis as other forms 
of asbestos. Since these adverse health effects constitute the majority 
of diseases related to asbestos exposure, OSHA is still of the opinion 
that chrysotile exposure should be treated the same as other forms of 
asbestos.
    In addition to contentions that OSHA's risk assessment had 
overstated asbestos risks because it treated the risks from all 
asbestos fiber types equally, other contentions were made that the 
earlier risk assessment may have understated the risks from asbestos, 
because it ignored evidence of the incidence of pleural plaques, and 
other asbestos disease which occurred in workers exposed at low levels, 
primarily as building custodians. The earlier risk assessment in 1984 
focused on whether there was a significant risk of cancer and 
asbestosis at various levels of cumulative exposure. During this 
hearing, various labor groups stated their position that the presence 
of pleural plaques in asbestos exposed employees is not only a marker 
of asbestos exposure, but also an independent ``material impairment'' 
because they are associated with a greater risk of lung function 
impairment and pleuritic pain. Pleural plaques are focal areas of 
fibrous thickening of the pleura, the membrane lining the lung. 
Further, suggestions were made that OSHA should reduce its PELS to 
correspond to these increased risks of ``material impairment'' which 
occurred at lower exposure levels (see e.g., Ex. 143 at 35-37).
    Evidence submitted during the rulemaking consisted of testimony and 
studies which in the view of some participants showed lung function 
decrement and resulting excess disease among workers exposed at low 
levels. For example BCTD witness Dr. Christine Oliver described various 
studies and concluded:

    Pleural plaques * * * were a predictor for increased mortality 
from lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma in subsequent years * * 
* pleural plaques have also been shown to be associated with 
decrement in lung function * * * At the very least, pleural plaques 
are a marker for exposure, sufficient to increase risk for lung 
cancer and for malignant mesothelioma, and they have also been 
associated with loss of lung function (Tr. 1035-6).

Dr. Oliver recommended medical surveillance of those exposed to 
asbestos in their capacity as custodians in buildings.
    The studies considered by Dr. Oliver consisted of one involving 120 
Boston public school custodians (Tr. 1026) which she conducted and 
found pleural plaques in 33% (N=40) of the group. Further she noted 
that in 21% (of the 40, or 12 individuals) there was no known exposure 
to asbestos outside work as school custodian. In 18% of the group and 
17 % of those with no outside exposure to asbestos, she observed a 
restrictive pulmonary defect, significantly associated with duration of 
employment as school custodian. Other studies described by Dr. Oliver, 
in the docket include: a study of 666 New York school custodians, 
reporting only x-ray data (Ex. 47). For all groups of workers, the lung 
abnormality seen on x-ray was associated with duration of work as 
custodian: a study of 1,117 insulation workers (likely to have had 
extensive asbestos exposure) by Dr. Irving Selikoff, in which workers 
were followed for up to 27 years prospectively, in which pleural 
plaques were found and which were concluded to be predictive of lung 
cancer mortality (Tr. 1036 and Ex. 124A): a study, by Balmes (Ex. 124 
DD, Tr. 1036, Ex. 1-374) of approximately 900 school district employees 
in California were determined as likely to have been exposed to 
asbestos. The authors concluded, ``More than 11 percent of workers 
known to have sustained exposure to ACM in school building, without 
history of exposure to asbestos prior to school district employment, 
and with at least 10 years of employment with the district had 
radiographic evidence of parenchymal asbestosis and/or asbestos-related 
pleural thickening'' (Ex. 1-374, p. 547). After adjusting for smoking 
and age, the relative risk was 1.3 times greater for those with 10 
years or more employment compared with those who had just begun working 
for the school district.
    In addition to the occurrence of pleural plaques which are viewed 
as presenting an independent material impairment of health due to low 
level asbestos exposures, Dr. Oliver cited other studies which 
correlated low level asbestos exposure with mesothelioma. Thus, a study 
by Dr. H. Anderson (Tr. 1032 and Ex. 124 EE, Ex. 1-374 using 
information on mesothelioma cases from a Wisconsin Cancer Registry, 
analyzed 359 deaths from 1959 to 1989. Using death certificate 
occupational information, the researchers hypothesized 41 as likely to 
have been exposed to asbestos in buildings. For 10 (34%), no other 
likely source of asbestos exposure was identified. The paper concluded 
that ``individuals occupationally exposed to in-place ACBM are at risk 
for the subsequent development of mesothelioma'' (Ex. 1-374, p. 570).
    SBA submitted a critique of these studies which they commissioned 
by Drs. H. Weill and J. Hughes (Ex. 122). They suggested potential 
biases in these studies, that Dr. Oliver's study subjects were 
volunteers, the study had a low participation rate, they had used a 
non-standard classification system, and did not adequately account for 
age in relating restriction to lung function. These reviewers concluded 
that spirometric functional measurements were not related to the 
presence of plaques and that reduced lung volume could result from 
other factors. Drs. Weill and Hughes also examined the other studies, 
and argued that Dr. Selikoff's were ``fatally flawed'' due to the 
potential for development of unmeasured changes during the 27 year 
period of follow-up, and that both the Anderson and Balmes studies 
failed to adequately adjust for age, smoking and other direct asbestos 
exposures. Other reports cited by BCTD were dismissed because of 
potential sources of bias.
    Dr. Oliver rebutted these arguments (Ex 143, Attachment F). She 
argued that she had adequate controls, adequately accounted for age and 
demonstrated that pleural plaques were significantly associated with 
both latency and duration of work as custodian in the total group and 
in the group with no known other exposure, that lung restriction was 
significantly associated with duration of work as a custodian, and that 
pleural plaques mark increased risk for lung cancer mortality.
    Dr. Levin also responded to the reviewer's criticism of his studies 
with Dr. Selikoff (Ex. 143, Attachment G). He pointed out that all x-
rays had been read by a single reader, Dr. Selikoff, and that there is 
no evidence that smoking without asbestos exposure increases appearance 
of the small irregular opacities in the lung seen on the x-rays in 
their study. He further noted that in his study only actively working 
custodians were included and were therefore a ``survivor'' group and 
would therefore not be expected to report pulmonary dysfunction 
frequently. He claimed that relatively unexposed subject groups would 
not be expected to have more than an upper limit of 3% pleural plaques.
    Dr. Anderson also responded to the Weill/Hughes comments (Ex. 143, 
Attachment H). He asserted that the review fails to explain how biases 
would significantly increase odds ratios in the study, that 
misclassification often is random and biases toward not detecting a 
difference between the study and control groups. He also questioned 
existence of evidence that smoking without asbestos exposure causes 
pleural thickening or irregular opacities.
    The review of available literature, including the studies mentioned 
above by the Health Effects Institute, resulted in its the estimation 
that the prevalence of pleural plaques in the general population to be 
about 5% (Ex. 1-344, p. A2-9). Although HEI advised caution in 
interpreting the existing studies due to lack of specificity and 
sensitivity of methods used and couched its conclusions in cautious 
terms, they concluded: ``* * * there is now persuasive evidence 
implicating asbestos-related pleural disease as an independent cause or 
indicator of functional impairment and possibly even disability * * * 
On the individual level, pleural disease may be the only indication of 
asbestos exposure, may explain symptoms and function impairment, and 
may predict future deterioration in lung function'' (Ex. 1-344 p. A2-
12).
    OSHA agrees that health effects such as lung function impairment 
and pleuritic pain would be considered ``material impairment,'' if 
substantial evidence supports the link to pleural plaques. OSHA 
concludes that the scientific data indicate that pleural plaques are 
primarily associated with asbestos exposure, and that they have 
occurred and still may at relatively low exposure levels.
    However, OSHA does not believe that the data are available to 
permit OSHA to do a separate risk assessment for these effects which 
would in a major way add to the present assessment. The risk assessment 
on which OSHA has based its significant risk determinations for the 
1986 and newly revised standards, calculated the incidence of 
mesothelioma, lung and other cancers and asbestosis, diseases based on 
a substantial amount of both mortality and exposure data. The data 
concerning lung function decrement and pleural plaques lack exposure 
information and would make quantitative risk estimates for these health 
effects less precise than the data for other forms of asbestos-related 
disease upon which OSHA is relying.
    A separate risk assessment is also unnecessary. OSHA believes that 
the revised regulations are already regulating at the margin of what is 
feasible, in terms of levels to be achieved, and controls which are 
required. OSHA has imposed necessary, feasible and well supported work 
practices for custodial work, which should reduce custodial exposures 
well below the historic levels (indeterminate) which may have been 
experienced by the workers studied in the above reports.
    More generally, there would be remaining significant risk at this 
new 0.1 f/cc exposure limit if there were not other provisions to these 
standards. However, the exposure limit is accompanied by mandated work 
practice controls and requirements for hazard communication, training 
and other provisions. Together these will very substantially reduce 
that remaining significant risk, although the exact amount of that 
reduction cannot be quantified. In addition, it would be difficult to 
measure accurately in the industrial setting levels lower than those in 
these standards. OSHA believes its approach of setting a PEL which is 
reliably measurable, yet, imposing work practices and ancillary 
provisions for operations regardless of measured fiber levels will 
result in risk reduction well below that expected from just enforcing 
the 0.1 f/cc PEL. Thus, a lower PEL would not produce significant 
worker benefit.

(4) Multi-Employer Worksites

    Paragraph (d) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards. OSHA 
is retitling paragraph (d) ``multi-employer worksites.'' The first 
provision, the same regulatory text as in the 1986 construction 
standard, requires that an employer whose work requires the 
establishment of a regulated area must inform other on-site employers 
of the asbestos work, and how other employees will be protected from 
hazards stemming from that work. In addition, new provisions follow 
which set out the compliance responsibilities of employers on multi-
employer worksites.
    In 1990, OSHA had proposed more comprehensive provisions governing 
communication of asbestos hazards among all employers, building and 
facility owners and employees, in a revised paragraph (d). These final 
standards expand communication provisions but repositions them in 
paragraph (k), ``communication of hazards.'' A discussion of those 
provisions is found below in this preamble under that heading.
    Paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) set out the compliance responsibilities 
of employers on multi-employer worksites. They acknowledge that on 
asbestos work sites, like other construction sites, employees exposed 
to a hazard are not always the employees of the employer who created 
the hazard.
    Paragraph (d)(2) incorporates the rules now applied in enforcement 
actions governing multi-employer construction sites generally, to 
assure that all employees on such a site receive the protection 
intended by the standards.(See Gelco Builders, Inc. 6 BNA 1104). The 
standard explicitly requires asbestos hazards to be abated ``by the 
contractor who created or controls the source of asbestos 
contamination.''
    In addition, paragraph (d)(3) sets forth the duties of the employer 
of employees who are exposed to asbestos hazards, but who did not 
create the source of contamination. One, such employer may request the 
contractor with control of the hazard to take corrective action. For 
example, if there is a breach of an enclosure within which asbestos 
work is being performed, the employer of employees working outside that 
enclosure should request the asbestos contractor who erected the 
enclosure to repair the breach immediately, as required by paragraph 
(d)(2). If the repair is not made, and if employees working outside the 
enclosure are exposed to asbestos in more than de minimis amounts, the 
employer of those employees should either remove them from the worksite 
pending repairs, or consider his employees to be working within a 
regulated area and comply with the provisions of paragraph (e) 
governing exposure assessments and monitoring of employees who work 
within such areas. If the employer of employees exposed to asbestos 
because of the failure of controls installed by another contractor, is 
the general contractor of the construction project, as such he has 
supervisory control over the entire worksite including the regulated 
area, and is responsible for violations which could be abated or 
prevented by the exercise of such supervisory capacity.
    Paragraph (d)(3) of the construction standard states the 
enforcement rule that regardless of who created a hazard, the employer 
of exposed employees is required to comply with applicable protective 
provisions to protect his employees. An example recited in the 
regulatory text presents the situation of employees working immediately 
adjacent to a Class I regulated area. If there is a breach of the 
enclosure or the critical barriers surrounding the asbestos work, 
employees working immediately adjacent to the work may be exposed to 
asbestos. The employer responsible for erecting the enclosure is 
required to insure its integrity. However, in the event that such 
repair is delayed or not made, the employer of the exposed ``bystander 
employees'' must designate a ``competent person'' to evaluate the 
exposure potential, conduct initial monitoring or an ``exposure 
assessment,'' and supervise other required protective actions. The 
evaluation may include the amount of time and frequency adjacent 
workers are exposed. For example, although passing through a 
contaminated area on the way to perform non-asbestos related activities 
is technically work which exposes employees to asbestos, the competent 
person's evaluation properly may conclude that no appreciable exposure 
is possible because of the brevity of the ``work'' in the area.

(5) Regulated Areas

    Paragraph (e) General Industry, Construction and Shipyard 
Employment Standards. Regulated areas are a traditional component of 
OSHA health standards. They segregate both the work and the worker so 
as to better regulate the work, and to protect uninvolved employees 
from exposure. The 1986 standards required regulated areas for work 
above the PELs and in construction, for demolition, renovation and 
removal activities. The final standards require that regulated areas be 
established where the PELS are likely to be exceeded, and under the 
construction and shipyard employment standards, where Class I, II and 
III asbestos work is performed. These requirements are substantively 
similar to those proposed in 1990.
    The basic requirements of the regulated areas are the same for all 
three standards, They are changed from the current standard to more 
coherently reflect the rest of the standard's provisions. For example, 
paragraph (e)(2) which requires the regulated area to be ``demarcated 
to minimize the number of persons within the area, and to protect 
persons outside the area from exposure to airborne concentrations of 
asbestos'' has been changed in two ways. The phrase ``in any manner,'' 
has been deleted. Since, paragraph (g) requires critical barriers for 
Class I and II work, and paragraph (k) requires warning signs outside 
regulated areas, demarcation must incorporate barriers and signs where 
otherwise required.
    OSHA has also deleted the phrase ``in excess of the TWA and/or 
excursion limit'' in the construction and shipyard employment standards 
to describe the level of protection intended to be offered persons 
outside the regulated area. Since OSHA has determined that a still 
significant risk remains below the PELS, intended protection should not 
be limited to protecting down to these levels. OSHA noted in its 1990 
proposal that in the construction standard, ``the regulated area 
controls are proposed to apply even when exposures may be less than the 
newly proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc'' (55 FR at 29716), however, no change 
was proposed for the ``demarcation'' provision. Paragraph (e)(3) is 
unchanged and continues to limit access to regulated areas to 
``authorized persons.''
    The final regulated area requirements for construction and shipyard 
industry delete former and proposed (e)(6), which dictated when 
negative pressure enclosures (NPEs) must be erected, and various duties 
required of the ``competent persons'' to ensure integrity of the 
regulated area and enclosure. Under OSHA's former approach, negative 
pressure enclosures were, in many cases, how construction employers 
should have demarcated their regulated areas. OSHA focussed on the role 
of such enclosures in providing ``bystander protection.'' In these 
final standards, OSHA is repositioning the NPE provisions to paragraph 
(g), ``methods of compliance.'' There, these systems are required to 
reduce exposures of the employees who are disturbing the asbestos who 
are inside the enclosures, as well as employees outside the enclosure.

(6) Exposure Assessment and Monitoring

    Paragraph (d) General Industry. There are no changes to the 
exposure monitoring provisions of the General Industry Standard.
    Paragraph (f) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standard. To 
conform with the newly revised approach to categorization of asbestos 
work, and to reflect the difficulties of reliably estimating asbestos 
exposures based on limited past or current exposure monitoring, the 
requirements for exposure monitoring in the 1986 standard have been 
changed. First, there is a general requirement that all employers who 
have a workplace covered by this standard conduct an ``initial exposure 
assessment'' at the beginning of each asbestos job [(paragraph (f)(2)]. 
Exceptions to this requirement exist only for most Class IV work. The 
``assessment'' must be conducted by the ``competent person.'' The 
purposes of these ``assessments'' are to predict whether exposure 
levels during the planned asbestos work can be expected to exceed the 
PELs, and thus whether additional monitoring, and other precautions are 
required.
    ``Initial assessments'' are different from ``initial monitoring'' 
required in the 1986 standards. ``Initial monitoring'' as used for 
processes in general industry, was rationally relied on to estimate 
future exposures for that purpose. Historic monitoring data were 
considered second-best data. The new requirement for ``initial exposure 
assessments'' acknowledges that initial exposure monitoring in many 
cases cannot adequately predict all future exposures on construction 
jobs. Even if monitoring results were instantaneously available, the 
value of early exposure monitoring in predicting later exposures over a 
multi-day asbestos job is limited. First-day exposures are likely to be 
lower than later exposures, because they reflect early set-up rather 
than removal activities, conducted in relatively clean areas before 
disturbance may contaminate the regulated area.
    One purpose of the initial exposure assessment is to identify which 
asbestos jobs are likely to exceed the PEL in time for employers to 
install and implement the extra controls required to reduce such 
exposures. Such additional controls may consist of ventilation which 
redirects the air away from the over-exposed employees, and mandatory 
protective clothing and hygiene facilities associated with donning and 
removing such gear. Even employers who are planning to install full 
negative pressure enclosures with air flushing technology must conduct 
initial exposure assessments. This will insure that the ``competent 
person'' has reviewed the success of controls in past projects, in 
order to evaluate the planned controls for the current project. 
Testimony and comment to the record emphasized that the evaluation of 
industrial hygienists or other properly trained personnel was essential 
to decision making on how best to protect workers. For example, David 
Kirby of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, agreed with the statement that 
before there is any operation involving asbestos containing material, 
the industrial hygiene staff makes a determination as to whether that's 
likely to be a high risk, relatively high risk or a low risk operation 
(Tr. 197). Other participants endorsed requiring advance assessment of 
asbestos-disturbing jobs (see e.g., ORC, Ex. 145, p. 6).
    The former ``initial monitoring'' provisions allowed use of 
historic data. OSHA now requires the evaluation of data from earlier 
asbestos jobs to estimate exposures on new jobs. However, the ``data'' 
reviewed are more than air monitoring results. This record has 
convinced the Agency that consideration of factors in successfully 
controlling asbestos exposures needs to be a part of the assessment. In 
addition to measurement results, the assessment must review relevant 
controls and conditions, factors that influence the degree of exposure. 
These include, but are not limited to, the degree and quality of 
supervision and of employee training, techniques used for wetting the 
ACM in the various circumstances encountered, placing and repositioning 
the ventilation equipment, and impacts due to weather conditions. The 
assessment therefore must be based on the competent person's review of 
all aspects of the employer's performance doing similar jobs. Only if 
similar controls are used and the work supervised by the same or 
similarly trained personnel, may past data be relied on. In addition, 
the results of initial monitoring required if feasible, must inform the 
competent person's assessment. Judgment of the ``competent person'' is 
required when reviewing records of past work. For example, even where 
an employer's earlier glove bag removals produced some exposures above 
the PEL, if more recent glove bag removals by the same crew show no 
exceedances, the ``competent person'' may be warranted in predicting 
that the current job performed by the same crew will be well controlled 
and exposures will not exceed the PELs.
    The other basis allowed for an initial exposure assessment is 
``objective data'' to show that it is, in effect, impossible for a job 
to result in excessive exposures. The 1986 standard, 1926.58, paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii), allowed such data to demonstrate that the ``product or 
material containing asbestos cannot release * * * (excessive) 
concentrations * * *.'' Since the record of this proceeding shows that 
almost all asbestos products may in time become hazardous, if for 
example, their matrix becomes disturbed, the activity, as well as the 
material, is the exposure-limiting factor. OSHA therefore now allows a 
showing that a specific activity involving a product is incapable of 
producing exceedances. The ``objective data'' must demonstrate that 
under ``the work conditions having the greatest potential for releasing 
asbestos,'' an activity coupled with a specific material, simply cannot 
result in excessive concentrations.
    OSHA cannot predict all the combinations of activity and product 
which will meet this test. OSHA believes instead that construction 
employers should be given the responsibility for making these 
determinations for their particular work. However, on the record of 
this proceeding, they would appear to be limited to Class IV 
activities, or certain Class III activities such as limited removal of 
intact asbestos containing gaskets using wet methods and containment 
methods. OSHA notes that under no conditions can a Class I removal 
qualify for this exemption; based on the record of this rulemaking, 
every removal activity involving TSI and surfacing ACM is capable of 
releasing fibers above the PEL.
    There are separate provisions regarding a ``negative initial 
exposure assessment'' which is a demonstration that the activity 
involving the asbestos material is unlikely under all foreseeable 
conditions to result in concentrations above the PELs.
    The competent person must exercise judgment in performing these 
exposure assessments. For example, if initial monitoring is evaluated 
the first day's measurements which reflect set-up activities may not 
adequately predict later exposures on a removal job. The competent 
person should examine both the first day's exposures and comparable 
full job exposure data from other comparable jobs, before a conclusion 
is reached that exposures on that job will not exceed the PELs.
    In large measure, the required bases for making a ``negative 
exposure assessment'' in the revised construction standard are the same 
criteria which would, under the 1986 standard, have allowed an employer 
to claim an exemption from initial monitoring based on ``historic 
data.'' The standard makes it more difficult to base an initial 
exposure assessment on historic data than did the previous provision 
for initial determination. Now, the assessment must consider, the 
experience and training of the crews. Therefore, the standard now 
requires that a negative exposure assessment must compare crews with 
comparable experience and training, an employer cannot compare 
untrained and inexperienced crews. And no ``negative exposure 
assessment'' can be made if the crews which disturb asbestos in the 
current job are untrained. OSHA believes that a major factor in the 
effectiveness of all control systems for removing asbestos-containing 
materials is the experience and training of the contractor and 
employees. Evidence in the record shows dramatic reductions in exposure 
levels as untrained employees learned proper glove bag techniques (see 
e.g., the NIOSH study, Ex. 125).
    The lack of a ``negative exposure determination'' usually indicates 
that workers are not experienced/trained or that a job is complex. In 
such situations, additional protections, less dependent on experience 
of the workers, or the complexity of the job, should be required. Thus, 
critical barriers are required in all Class I and II work, and for 
Class III work, plastic barriers are required, where negative exposure 
assessments are not produced. If the employer cannot assure that levels 
will be minimized, protection against migration of asbestos dust must 
be provided. Similarly, if excessive levels are possible, employees in 
all classes must be protected by respirator use and the standard so 
requires.
    OSHA believes its approach balances the concern that asbestos 
exposure levels vary from job to job and may be non-predictive of 
future levels with the Agency's knowledge gained from long-term 
enforcement of the asbestos standard, that different employers have 
different ``track records.'' The negative initial exposure assessment 
provisions require consideration of factors which have been identified 
as influencing the variability of results. In fact, one commenter 
stated that ``* * * it is invalid to predict that any particular 
operation is always below the PEL,'' identified critical contributing 
variables as ``the materials, work practices and experience of the 
crew'' (Ex. 7-52). OSHA is requiring the ``negative exposure 
assessment'' to be based on these, among other, factors. OSHA 
emphasizes that a ``negative exposure assessment'' does not predict 
exposure levels beyond a particular job. A new assessment must be 
produced each time another job is undertaken. Employers may evaluate 
repetitive operations with highly similar characteristics, as one job, 
such as cable pulling in the same building, so long as the historic 
data used also reflect repetitive operations of the same duration and 
frequency.
    In sum, OSHA believes data specific to the building, contractor and 
employees is helpful in predicting exposures when the same variables 
apply. The lack of such data should require additional precautions. 
Additionally, unless there is a ``negative exposure assessment,'' the 
employer must continue to conduct periodic monitoring. Periodic 
monitoring, in a change from the 1986 construction standard, now is 
required within the regulated areas of Class I and Class II asbestos 
jobs and for Class III asbestos work where the initial assessment 
projects that the PEL is reasonably likely to be exceeded. In these 
operations the employer is to perform daily monitoring representative 
of the exposure of each workers performing these tasks. The provisions 
allowing discontinuance of monitoring, additional monitoring, 
observation of monitoring are unchanged.
    Although not a remanded issue, several participants discussed the 
subject of a clearance fiber level to determine when a regulated area 
could be reoccupied following asbestos operations. Some supported use 
of a clearance level with aggressive sampling and analysis in 
accredited laboratories (Ex. 141, 143). Most who supported a clearance 
level stated support for the AHERA level of 0.01 f/cc or background 
fiber level (40 CFR 736.90). A representative of the US Navy felt that 
measurement of the quality of abatement--a clearance level--was needed, 
but that it should not be considered to be a ``health standard'' (Ex. 
7-52). In a similar vein, the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (Ex. 
147, Tr. 279) and a representative of the American Paper Institute 
pointed out that a permissible exposure limit and a clearance level are 
not the same and should not be confused; the former is health-based and 
the latter a measure of cleanliness (Ex. 7-74). Mr. Churchill an 
asbestos consultant, supported a clearance requirement and felt that 
the person performing this measurement should be an independent entity 
(Ex. 7-95). As mentioned earlier, the Shipyard Employment Standards 
Advisory Committee recommended adoption of a clearance level of 0.04 f/
cc measured non-aggressively (Ex. 7-77). The submission of the Monsanto 
Company expressed their desire that OSHA not adopt a clearance 
requirement (Ex. 7-125).
    OSHA has not included a provision for a specific ``clearance 
level'' in these revised standards. In reviewing the record, there is 
no clear evidence of a linkage between such a requirement and 
subsequent lessening of worker exposure. Clearly, regulated areas must 
be cleaned following asbestos work. However, designation of a specific 
fiber level which must be attained before an area can be reoccupied 
does not appear to be necessary for worker health when all other 
provisions of the standard are complied with. Meeting the requirements 
of the standards will protect workers and bystander employees and will 
prevent the migration of fibers from the work area. The docket contains 
some data indicating that attainment of a clearance level (either 
background or 0.01 f/cc) does not conclusively predict fiber levels 
which will occur in formerly regulated areas (Ex. 1-23, 162-19). 
Therefore, OSHA has not included a quantitative cutoff to determine 
whether a work area has been adequately cleaned to allow re-entry, 
rather the standards now require that the information regarding the 
final monitoring of the prior work be provided to those reoccupying the 
area. However, OSHA recognizes the need for adequate cleaning of the 
worksite following disturbance/removal of asbestos.

(7) Methods of Compliance

    Paragraph (f) General Industry.
    OSHA proposed several changes to the methods of compliance 
provisions. One was to require specific work practice and engineering 
controls for brake and clutch repair; another was to regulate the 
maintenance of asbestos-containing flooring by prohibiting certain 
kinds of work practices and requiring others; the third was to require 
that engineering and work practice controls to achieve the newly 
reduced PEL of 0.1 f/cc be phased-in to coincide with the imposition of 
the EPA ban for various industrial sectors which manufacture asbestos 
containing material (see 55 FR 29721-29726). The final general industry 
standard retains the conceptual outline of these proposed changes; 
however the details differ.

Brake and Clutch Repair

    OSHA is adding a mandatory appendix to its asbestos standard for 
general industry and to the shipyard employment standard. This appendix 
specifies the engineering controls and work practices to be followed 
during brake and clutch work. Two methods of control are ``preferred,'' 
the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method and the low pressure/recycle method. 
In operations in which such work is infrequent (i.e., establishments 
performing fewer than 5 brake jobs per week), simple wet methods are 
included among the ``preferred'' controls. Also, use of ``equivalent'' 
methods of control is permitted.
    In the July 20, 1990 proposed revision of the general industry 
asbestos standard, OSHA proposed that the employer comply with the 
standard by implementing one of three specified methods of engineering 
controls and work practices to control asbestos exposure during 
automotive brake and clutch repair and assembly operations. These 
methods were the enclosed cylinder/HEPA vacuum system, the spray can/
solvent system, and the wet brush-recycle method. Detailed requirements 
for these three methods were set out in proposed Appendix F. Once 
having properly used one of these methods, the employer would have been 
exempt from other requirements of the standard. OSHA preliminarily 
found that the use of these methods would routinely result in exposure 
levels below the PEL. The proposal also would have allowed the employer 
to comply with the standard by using an ``equivalent'' method, which 
follows written procedures, which the employer demonstrates can achieve 
results equivalent to Method A, [the enclosed cylinder/HEPA vacuum 
system, Proposed 1910.1001 (f)(x)]. This proposed revision differed 
from the 1986 standard in two ways. The earlier standard set out two 
methods of reducing exposure in a non-mandatory appendix. Secondly, the 
controls themselves are somewhat different; one method, the wet brush-
recycle method, was added; the enclosed cylinder/HEPA vacuum system was 
revised, and the spray can/solvent system is retained. OSHA endorsed 
these three methods based primarily on the results of a NIOSH study 
completed after the 1986 standard which found that all three methods 
effectively reduced exposure levels during brake drum servicing 
operations to below the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc (Ex. 1-112).
    In the final standard OSHA lists two ``preferred methods,'' the 
wet-brush recycle methods and the enclosure/HEPA vacuum system. OSHA is 
deleting the solvent/spray method from the list of preferred methods. 
OSHA still is listing the above two methods as ``preferred,'' but the 
description of these methods is more generic than in the proposal, so 
as not to preclude use of methods which differ from those described in 
the proposal in minor ways which are unlikely to affect their 
efficiency. In addition, specific training provisions are added to 
ensure that work practices are effectively followed.
    Like the proposal, ``equivalent'' methods are allowed so long as 
required training is held. The employer must show that the 
``equivalent'' method can reliably achieve exposures below the PEL in 
the workplace conditions where the method is sought to be used. In 
addition employers using such ``equivalent'' methods must demonstrate 
by exposure data from their workplaces using the equivalent method, or 
by reference to exposure data representing conditions similar to their 
workplace that the anticipated exposure reduction in fact, has been 
achieved. OSHA believes that these changes will allow employers to 
choose among various proven approaches and encourage the development of 
new devices and practices which effectively reduce exposures in brake 
and clutch repair facilities.
    Considerable comment and testimony were submitted to the record by 
the public concerning OSHA's proposed revisions on protection for 
automotive repair workers. Information concerning additional methods to 
achieve asbestos control during brake repair was submitted. These 
additional methods include HEPA vacuum systems without an enclosed 
cylinder (Ex. 7-104), using water spray instead of solvent spray (Ex. 
7-104, 7-04), enclosures shaped other than cylindrically (Ex. 7-127), 
and collecting the drips of sprays from the solvent spray method (Ex. 
1-84).
    Some commenters claimed that OSHA should not require any specific 
method of reducing airborne asbestos exposure to brake and clutch 
repair workers, but merely require that the PEL be achieved (Ex. 7-31, 
7-43, 7-79, 7-104, 7-146). Other commenters pointed out that most brake 
service operations are performed by small businesses that lack 
resources to evaluate control devices (Ex. 1-112). Evidence submitted 
concerning the airborne asbestos fiber levels produced by the use of 
most of the suggested methods showed exposures consistently below the 
proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc.
    Various comments concerned the ``wet brush-recycle method.'' A 
developer of an enclosure method for brake/clutch repair asbestos 
control, recommended that the term be broadened to allow ``more 
latitude in design preference for the manufacturer'' (Ex. 162-41). He 
suggested that the name be changed to ``low pressure/wet cleaning'' 
method. He also asked that OSHA use a more general term to describe the 
preferred enclosure method, objecting to specification of its shape as 
cylindrical. OSHA agrees that the shape of the enclosure need not be 
specified and that the term suggested, ``negative pressure enclosure/
HEPA vacuum system,'' was appropriate.
    Similarly, R. Wagner of BP of America felt that it was not 
necessary that the wet brush/recycle method actually include a brush 
and presented monitoring results indicating effective fiber control 
when spraying on the solution without brushing (Ex. 7-24). OSHA agrees 
that, although a brush is useful in cleaning the components, the 
preferred method will be designated low pressure/wet cleaning and will 
not specify the use of a brush.
    A manufacturer of a low pressure/wet cleaning apparatus, objected 
to OSHA requiring use of an aqueous solution in the machine (Ex. 162-
1). OSHA understands that the organic solution in the apparatus is a 
degreaser used as a parts cleaner. Mr. Swartz in testimony explained 
that solvents are used as degreasers, but that most brake work does not 
require degreasing--he estimated that only once per 200 to 300 brake 
jobs would such a solvent be needed (Tr. 1843). OSHA has determined 
that it will maintain the requirement that aqueous solutions be used in 
this procedure to control asbestos fiber levels. OSHA further warns of 
the potential danger of solvent use in these operations and that use of 
solvents, which are often flammable and may be carcinogenic, must be 
undertaken with great care. OSHA also stresses the need for low 
pressure application of the solution to the surfaces during this 
operation to avoid asbestos fiber release and the necessity that the 
asbestos-contaminated solution not be allowed to dry on surfaces.
    A manufacturer of a wet brush-recycle type brake cleaner, Hilgren 
of Kleer Flo, offered the following advice to users of this method 
regarding disposal of waste: ``Our recommended method of disposal is to 
simply add adsorbent material such as ``floor-dry'' to the waste bag. 
Then direct the flow through brush into the bag containing the 
absorbent material. Allow the machine to pump the solution from the 
reservoir'' (Ex. 7-117).
    Most relevant comments supported the effectiveness of two of the 
three proposed ``preferred'' methods: the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method 
and the wet wash/recycle system. However, substantial opposition was 
directed at OSHA's preference for the solvent spray system. For 
example, George Swartz, Director of Safety for Midas International 
Corporation testified that ``the utilization of an aerosol system is 
ludicrous'' (Tr. 1840). One, some of the solvents used in commercial 
preparations are suspect carcinogens. Two, use of a spray can does not 
reliably control exposures due to asbestos dust in the brake assembly, 
because of the difficulties of removing the drum, and that after 
removal asbestos containing dust in the assembly cannot easily be 
reached by a aerosolized spray. Three, certain solvent sprays, 
according to Mr. Swartz, can damage friction material and the rubber 
parts of the cups which force the brake shoe out to the drum (Tr.1840-
46). Another witness, James E. Clayton, testified that ``you can't take 
a can of compressed solution like this (Gunk brake cleaner) and just 
spray it on dry dust without it getting into the air.'' (id at 1914-
15).
    The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) agreed in its 
post-hearing comment that the use of spray can with certain solvents is 
potentially dangerous, and suggested that nonhazardous sprays or 
aerosols be allowed (Ex. 150). Another participant described an 
occasion in which the spray can was accidentally dropped, punctured, 
and released solvent into the work area (Ex. 7-24). The safety director 
at Fruehauf Trailer Operations, asked ``why is it necessary to use a 
solvent as opposed to water? * * * why couldn't it be used in place of 
a solvent in the performance of brake and clutch work?'' (Ex. 7-4). Mr. 
Swartz agreed that ``simple water and detergent can be as effective'' 
(Ex. 1-176) However, he insisted that it be a gentle mist of water and 
that resulting drips be caught and proper disposal carried out (Tr. 
1852).
    OSHA agrees with these comments and witnesses. The Agency notes 
that some of the solvents contained in the spray cans used to spray 
brake assemblies present significant health risks. As a matter of 
public health policy, it is better not to list as preferred, a 
compliance method which introduces another hazardous substance into the 
breathing zone of the worker.
    Further, the effectiveness of the solvent/spray method is 
compromised by the reported need to use additional force to remove 
asbestos deposited in the brake assembly, which the spray cannot reach. 
Additionally, comment and testimony indicate that the force of the 
aerosol spray by itself can make airborne the asbestos-containing dust. 
OSHA noted in the proposal, that the spray/solvent can method produced 
the highest airborne concentrations of the methods tested by NIOSH (55 
FR at 29724). OSHA notes that although it based its endorsement of the 
solvent/spray method on the NIOSH study, as Mr. Swartz pointed out, 
``the issue of the residual dust left in a drum, I don't think, was 
properly addressed in that study * * * (In) the real world, * * * the 
mechanic will either dump it on the ground or he'll dump it in a 
garbage can. At the end of the day he's going to sweep the floor, and 
he's sweeping the dust up'' (Id at 1845).
    Thus, in this final standard the spray/solvent can method is no 
longer a ``preferred method,'' the use of which will exempt employers 
from other provisions of the standard. Although the standard does not 
prohibit the use of solvent sprays in brake and clutch repair to 
control asbestos exposure, employers will have to comply with other 
provisions in the asbestos and other standards when using the method. 
Initial monitoring must be undertaken to assure that exposures are 
likely to remain under the PEL, provisions of the hazard communication 
standard relating to communicating the hazard potential of the solvent 
used, and training employees in avoiding exposure to such solvent must 
be complied with. Employees must be specifically informed that the 
solvent/spray method is not preferred, and OSHA's reasons for that 
decision must be explained to them, as part of that training. Employers 
must provide for the prompt cleanup of all asbestos containing liquid 
or debris which is produced by any brake cleaning method, including a 
solvent/spray. Thus, solvent-wetted asbestos containing material must 
be HEPA vacuumed when it reaches the ground, because waiting will 
result in dried and airborne dust.
    Among the methods tested by NIOSH was the use of a HEPA vacuum 
alone, without enclosure. The National Automobile Dealers Association 
representative, D. Greenhaus, encouraged OSHA to include this in its 
list of preferred methods of asbestos control in brake work stating 
that this was the method already in use in many places (Ex. 7-104). The 
Sheehy (NIOSH) study noted that'' * * * the drums must be removed 
before the vacuum cleaner can be used, thus there is a potential for 
asbestos release during drum removal'' (Ex. 1-112), and P. Carpenter of 
Nilfisk stated ``[t]he greatest potential for exposure occurs when the 
brake drum is first removed'' (Ex. 7-140). OSHA agrees that the 
potential for exposure during drum removal before the HEPA vacuum can 
be used precludes listing including this as a preferred method. 
Moreover, NIOSH found that HEPA systems alone do not clean the brake 
components as effectively as the other methods (Ex. 1-112). Mr. 
Greenhaus also recommended that OSHA prohibit three activities during 
brake operations: dry brushing, air hose cleaning and use of non-HEPA 
vacuums. NIOSH agreed that such prohibitions are necessary and OSHA 
concurs.
    One related issue is whether to require respirator use for 
employees when changing filters or bags from vacuums. OSHA proposed 
that they not be required when changing HEPA filters, noting that 
filter changes occurred infrequently, recorded fiber levels during 
changes were not excessive, and other requirements triggered by 
respirator use, such as medical examinations and fit testing 
procedures, did not appear to confer any significant benefit to 
employees. One participant, Mr. Clayton, who initially disagreed with 
OSHA's proposal not to require respirators for filter changes, 
clarified that the ancillary requirements for a respirator program, 
``would scare everybody away from wanting to do it * * * and would be a 
rather heavy burden for most employers'' (Tr. 1931). Mr. Clayton 
pointed out that exposure potential existed not only during filter 
changes, but during vacuum bag changes as well. He further pointed out 
that although HEPA filter changes were infrequent, bags ``could be 
changed as often as every three to five weeks by a shop'' (Id at 1929). 
Mr. Clayton described two systems of ensuring that bag changing does 
not expose employees to asbestos containing dust. Under one system the 
bag is collected under negative pressure; under the other the bag is 
made from non-woven material and is ``virtually undestructible.'' OSHA 
has concluded that so long as filters and vacuum bags are changed using 
work practices to minimize rupture and spillage, exposure from that 
activity will be de minimis, and respirator use is not required to 
protect employees. Accordingly, additional work practices relating to 
filter changes, when a vacuum is used, are included in the standard.
    OSHA is allowing another method to be used in shops in which brake 
work comprises only a minor portion of the workload, and thus where 
employee exposure is infrequent and minimal. For those shops in which 
brake work is infrequent, OSHA has determined to allow the use of a wet 
method of control as a ``preferred'' method. Therefore, in facilities 
in which no more than 5 pairs of brakes or 5 clutches, or some 
combination totaling 5, are repaired each week, the mechanic/technician 
may control potential asbestos exposure through the use of a pump 
sprayer (bottle) containing water or amended water to wet down the drum 
or clutch housing before it is removed and to control fiber release 
during subsequent activities. The mechanic may use other implements to 
deliver the water such as a garden hose; however, the resulting waste 
water generated must be caught and properly disposed of without 
allowing it to dry on any surfaces. OSHA anticipates that the use of a 
spray bottle will be adequate to control the dust without generating a 
large volume of waste water, however any waste water generated must be 
disposed of properly. OSHA applied a qualitative analysis using its 
risk management expertise in making the decision that allows less 
effective controls for facilities that do 5 or fewer brake and 5 or 
fewer clutch repair jobs per week. Relevant factors were the magnitude 
of the risk of asbestos caused disease estimated in the 1986 risk 
assessment at levels of exposure in vehicle repair facilities, the 
duration of exposure, and the practicality of using controls in the 
industry.
    In describing the usual work practices of mechanics performing 
brake jobs, Mr. Swartz of Midas Corporation reported that it was 
occasionally necessary for the mechanic/technician to dislodge a 
``frozen'' brake drum; this was usually performed by striking it with a 
hammer (Ex. 1-176). When performed within an enclosure under negative 
pressure, this operation would be unlikely to expose the worker to 
asbestos fibers; however, when using the other methods it is essential 
that the exterior of the drum, especially around the seams, be 
thoroughly wetted to minimize fiber release. OSHA concurs and thus will 
require that before attempts are made to dislodge a ``frozen'' brake 
drum, the drum must be thoroughly wetted.
    Other comments were received which dealt with minor alterations in 
wording which would render the requirements clearer and more specific 
and some of these have been incorporated into the language of Appendix 
F (Appendix L in the shipyard employment standard). Several 
participants noted that additional activities, such as inspection and 
disassembly of brakes could also result in exposure and should be 
included. Mr. Swartz explained that brakes are frequently checked to 
determine whether they are defective and this involves removal of the 
drums and results in potential exposure to asbestos-containing dust 
(Tr. 1843). OSHA agrees that these activities should be covered by the 
rule and has included them in the language of the final rule. Therefore 
the following activities will be listed and will require implementation 
of the provisions of the mandatory appendix F (appendix L in the 
shipyard employment standard): clutch and brake inspection, 
disassembly, repair and assembly.
    Mr. Swartz also testified that brake shoes are recycled and new 
friction material is placed on re-used metal frames (Tr. 1871). A 
letter forwarded to OSHA by EPA Brian Putnam, whose work experience 
included 4 years of delivering auto parts to garages and service 
stations, stated:

    * * * it is my observation that auto parts employees face 
significant exposure to asbestos from brake shoe cores, brake drums, 
and clutches. Not only do they store cores for exchange with the 
manufacturers, most also turn brake drums which come in with a * * * 
coating of dust on them (Ex. 1-133).

The asbestos standard 1910.1001 (k)(1) states that ``all surfaces shall 
be maintained as free as practicable of accumulations of dusts and 
waste containing asbestos,'' and subsequently in (k)(6) specifically 
states that items consigned for disposal which are contaminated shall 
be sealed in impermeable bags or other closed impermeable containers. 
In order to include materials which are contaminated and scheduled for 
recycling, not disposal, the phrase ``or recycling'' is added to this 
provision (k)(6), which now is as follows: Waste, scrap, debris, bags, 
containers, equipment and clothing contaminating with asbestos 
consigned for disposal or recycling, shall be collected and disposed of 
in sealed impermeable bags, or other closed, impermeable containers.
    Engineering controls and good work practices should be implemented 
at all times during brake servicing. Because of the health hazards 
associated with asbestos exposure, these actions must be considered 
even when the worker believes that the brake shoes do not contain 
asbestos.
    OSHA received several comments pointing out a need for training 
requirements for brake and clutch mechanics. For example J. Clayton of 
Clayton Associates, Inc supported a training requirement for brake and 
clutch repair workers citing as examples that New Jersey required one 
day training for mechanics and that Maryland requires training for 
those covered under its asbestos program. He estimated the cost of 
training at $150 and noted that certified instructors were required in 
both these states (Ex. 7-127). OSHA agrees that workers exposed to 
asbestos must be trained in appropriate ways to avoid exposure to 
airborne asbestos fibers. Therefore, OSHA has provided a mandatory 
appendix outlining the work practices to be used in performing these 
operations, and has included a requirement that brake and clutch repair 
workers receive training in the appropriate use of these work 
practices.

Floor Maintenance

    Paragraph (k)(7) General Industry Standard. The 1986 standard 
contained no provisions specifically covering work practices on 
asbestos containing flooring materials. In 1990, OSHA proposed in 
paragraph (f)(xi) several limitations on buffing and sanding asbestos 
containing flooring. In the housekeeping section of the final OSHA is 
prohibiting or limiting three work practices relating to floor 
maintenance for asbestos-containing flooring materials and those 
assumed to contain asbestos. They are: (i) sanding of asbestos-
containing floor material is prohibited; (ii) stripping of finishes 
shall be conducted using low abrasion pads at speed lower than 300 rpm 
and wet methods; and, (iii) burnishing or dry buffing may be performed 
only on asbestos-containing flooring which has sufficient finish so 
that the pad cannot contact the asbestos-containing material.
    OSHA had proposed to allow asbestos containing floor tile to be 
buffed only with ``low abrasion pads at speeds of 190 rpm or less'' 
(See 55 FR at 22752). However, after a review of the record OSHA 
believes that restricting sanding of floor materials, limiting the 
speed and abrasiveness of the pads and specifying use of wet methods 
for stripping floors, and allowing buffing only on finished floors will 
protect floor care workers from exposure to airborne asbestos fibers 
while performing the maintenance and will minimize future exposures due 
to deteriorating flooring caused by inadequate maintenance.
    Paragraph (g) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards:
    The ``methods of compliance'' provisions are the core of the 
revised standards. They set generic, operation-specific and exposure 
triggered requirements for conducting asbestos work. In the 1986 
construction standard, provisions dictating engineering controls and 
work practices for most construction jobs were contained in paragraph 
(e), governing the ``regulated area.'' OSHA believes that paragraph 
(g), the methods of compliance section, is a more logical home for 
these provisions.
    Most of the requirements in paragraph (g) are instructions to use 
specified work practices. The work practice approach to controlling 
asbestos exposure in construction activities is widely endorsed. It is 
the model for NESHAP regulation under EPA (see 40 CFR 60.143), most 
state regulations and voluntary consensus guidelines. OSHA has tried to 
formulate work practice requirements as simple, flexible instructions, 
embodying the basic control strategies for asbestos dust suppression. 
These are to wet it down, contain the disturbance, and isolate the 
operation. The work practice-engineering controls which are listed and 
described in the regulation are the ones which the rulemaking record 
confirms are used, understood, and effective.
    OSHA expects that modifications and innovations in asbestos control 
technology will be developed. The standards provide for this by setting 
up general criteria for alternative controls, and an easily met 
procedure to allow the use of effective alternatives. Paragraph (g)(6) 
governs alternatives for Class I control methods, and paragraph 
(g)(7)(vi) for Class II methods. For both classes, detailed written 
demonstrations of the effectiveness of the alternative/modification are 
required and evaluations by designated persons are required. 
Alternatives for Class I work require a more rigorous demonstration of 
effectiveness, and advance notice to OSHA of their use. OSHA intends 
these requirements to be capable of being met by well-designed and 
tested alternative control methods. They are meant to exclude short-cut 
methods which hope to evade the other provisions in the standard. By 
their inclusion, OSHA is stating its policy view that industry has 
demonstrated its responsible innovative capability in the past, and 
will continue to do so.
    The first provision in the construction methods of compliance 
paragraph, (g)(1)(i), requires that three basic and simple controls be 
utilized in all operations covered by the construction standard, 
regardless of exposure levels in those operations. These provisions 
apply to, for example, employers who install asbestos-containing 
material (no Class designation), clean up asbestos-containing debris at 
a construction site (Class IV), repair a boiler covered with asbestos-
containing TSI (Class I or III), and remove asbestos-containing 
surfacing material (Class I).
    The controls required are: use of HEPA filtered vacuums to collect 
debris and visible dust; use of wet methods to control asbestos fiber 
dispersion; and prompt disposal of asbestos contaminated waste 
materials.
    OSHA has imposed these controls to reduce airborne contamination by 
asbestos fibers disturbed during construction activities. However 
fibers are released, contamination can be reduced by suppressing 
asbestos containing dusts, and/or collecting them before they dry and 
are able to migrate.
    OSHA believes that most employers will be able to use wet methods, 
in handling asbestos-containing materials to reduce the airborne 
migration of fibers. The use of wet methods to control airborne 
asbestos was not explicitly required in the 1986 construction standard. 
It was mentioned among the control measures which could be used to keep 
down fiber levels during ``maintenance and renovation projects in 
environments that do not lend themselves to the construction of 
negative-pressure enclosures'' (51 FR 22711). In the Method of 
Compliance section, OSHA presented use of wet methods among a list of 
engineering and work practice controls from which an employer could 
choose when seeking to comply with the PEL. The 1972 asbestos standard 
had required the use of wet methods to the extent practicable to reduce 
the release of asbestos fibers unless the usefulness of the product 
would be diminished by the use of such methods. On reconsideration, 
OSHA now finds the use of wet methods to be an inexpensive, generally 
feasible, and highly effective way to control release of asbestos 
fibers and returns to the earlier requirement for its use in all 
feasible situations.
    There is overwhelming record support for the use of wet methods 
(e.g., Exs. 7-1, 7-34, 7-37, 7-51, 7-52, 7-74, 7-86, 7-89, 7-99, 7-132, 
119P, 143, Tr. 223, 722 and 756). Representatives of most sectors, 
expressed support for a requirement for wet methods.(e.g., transite 
panel removal, Ex.7-74; removal of asbestos packing, Ex. 7-99; floor 
tile maintenance, Ex 7-132; custodial or maintenance work, Ex. 162-4, 
162-25; floor tile and sheet removal, Ex 7-132; sheet gasket removal, 
Ex 119; cutting of transite pipe, Ex.117, Tab 6 at 5, Tab 7 at 1). B. 
Kynock of the AIR Coalition endorsed the use of wet methods, stating: 
``wetting of material is still considered a state of the art 
engineering control--using wet methods--because it is the one 
definitive way we can keep fiber levels to a minimum'' (Tr. 3574). 
Evidence submitted into the record concerning a variety of asbestos 
jobs showed significant decreases in exposure levels when wet methods 
were used, compared to when the work was done dry [see e.g., re: sheet 
gasket removal (Ex.119-P)]. In the study by Paik et al, 1982 (Ex. 84-
204) sprayed-on asbestos containing material was removed from eleven 
buildings, in one dry methods were employed due to electrical 
considerations while wet methods were employed in the other buildings. 
The dry method resulted in a geometric mean fiber level of 16.4 f/cc, 
while during the use of wet methods the geometric mean was 0.5 f/cc. 
OSHA notes that the OSHA PEL at the time the samples were taken was 2.0 
f/cc.
    Exxon (EUSA) submitted extensive sampling data indicating low fiber 
counts during outdoor removals in which wet methods were used (Ex. 38). 
Exxon also submitted sampling data from the outdoor removal of pipeline 
wrap from underground lines in which wetting was the primary means of 
control and in which 30 personal samples had an average fiber level 
less than 0.03 f/cc (Ex. 127). It is noted that Exxon also submitted 
specific additional work practices used in conjunction with wet methods 
to control fiber levels.
    Requiring wet methods is consistent with EPA's regulatory scheme. 
Wet methods are required by EPA for removal and demolition jobs falling 
within the jurisdictional limits of NESHAP, and are recommended by that 
Agency as part of a basic ``O & M'' program for building custodians and 
maintenance workers. (EPA, Managing Asbestos In Place, Ex. 1-183, p. 
18-19).
    EPA/NESHAP, which requires facility owners and/or operators to 
control asbestos fiber emissions by wetting prior, to during, and after 
demolition/removal, has provided guidance in a pamphlet entitled 
``Asbestos/NESHAP Adequately Wet Guidance'' (EPA 340/1-90-019, December 
1990, Ex. 1-300). In this booklet two exceptions to wetting are 
described: when temperature at the point of wetting if below freezing, 
and, when use of water would unavoidably damage equipment or present a 
safety hazard. In the latter case, local exhaust ventilation and 
collection systems to capture fibers must be used.
    Others voiced reservation regarding a universal requirement for use 
of wet methods. E. Downey of US West, Inc. felt that in the case of 
telecommunications industry and computer systems, use of wet methods 
would not be practical, particularly in roofing operations (Ex. 7-79). 
J. Collins of the US Navy Office of Operations and others recommended 
ground fault circuit use for avoiding the electrical hazards presented 
by use of wet methods (Ex. 7-52).
    OSHA will allow employers to claim infeasibility if they cannot use 
wet methods due to conditions such as electrical hazards, hot surfaces, 
and the presence of technical equipment which cannot tolerate moisture.
    The use of wet methods for roofing was a major issue in this 
proceeding. Steven Phillips, counsel to the National Roofing 
Contractors Association testified:

    We have submitted for the record a report performed by SRI * * * 
their recommendation was that there is no improvement on asbestos 
emissions and there are safety hazards involved in putting workers 
on roofs when wet methods are utilized * * * (Tr. 2456).

    The National Roofing Contractor's Association (NRCA) cited four 
reasons not to require wetting on roofs: ``the introduction of water on 
the roof creates safety hazards, such as slipping; water on the roof 
can enter the building and cause damage and electrical hazards; the 
introduction of water on the roof can damage the roof system (e.g., by 
soaking insulation boards); the SRI International study reveals that 
roofing work involving wetting does not appear to produce either higher 
or lower concentrations than work performed dry. We believe this is 
because of the nature of roof systems. They are applied and in place to 
repel water. Thus, water (amended or unamended) does not penetrate the 
material--it just rolls off of it'' (Ex. 7-112, p. 21).
    Some participants suggested that using wet methods on roofs should 
be recommended, but not required, because of safety concerns. For 
instance, the asbestos administrator for Florida, noted that using wet 
methods on a sloped roof may be more of a hazard to the workers, than 
the benefits gained (Ex. 7-6).
    In contrast, NIOSH recommended that before an operation (tear-off 
of asbestos-containing roofing material), the roof should be wetted 
with water or other wetting agent (Ex. 44). BCTD noted in its post-
hearing brief that ``the majority of the jobs reported in the SRI 
Study, submitted by NRCA, employed wet methods'' (Ex. 143, citing Ex. 
9-31A). Various submissions noted that power cutting of built-up 
roofing is the standard method used to remove roofing material. Use of 
this method generates dust which may contain asbestos (Ex. 1-357, 7-95, 
7-96, 7-115). The Paik study and other evidence demonstrate that 
wetting does substantially reduce exposure. OSHA believes that 
continuous misting of the cutting blade during the cutting operation, 
whether performed by hand or by machine will help to control dust. 
Field observations of such procedures have shown that little water is 
pooled as a result of the misting process (Ex. 1-313), and that in most 
circumstances, evaporation will quickly occur. Therefore, OSHA does not 
believe that the requirement to mist the cutting blade will create a 
slipping hazard on roofs under most circumstances. If, however, a 
competent person determines that the specific conditions of a roofing 
job (e.g. a steeply sloping roof, or below freezing temperatures) 
combined with the water resulting from any misting, would create a 
slipping hazard, misting may be omitted, if other precautions are 
followed, such as equipping the power tool with a HEPA vacuum system, 
or using hand methods.
    The National Roofing Contractors Association said that currently 
there is no HEPA vacuum attached roofing cutter (Ex. 146). However, a 
wide variety of power tools have been fitted with local exhaust systems 
that work very well, including those used on tools for asbestos work. 
The 1972 asbestos standard required the use of local exhaust 
ventilation on all hand-operated or powered tools which may produce or 
release asbestos fibers in excess of the permissible exposure limit (37 
FR 11320). The 1986 standard affirmed the requirement for ventilation 
for tools (51 FR 22715). We again reaffirm it here. To the extent 
feasible, tools used for working with ACM must be equipped with local 
exhaust ventilation. Some development work may be needed, but HEPA 
vacuum systems have been designed for many similar uses.

Other Basic Controls

    The other basic controls in (g)(1), required for all operations 
under the standard are intended to reduce exposure caused by 
resuspension of asbestos fibers which have settled. The first is the 
requirement in (g)(1)(i) to use vacuum cleaners equipped with HEPA 
filters or other methods to collect debris and visible dust containing 
ACM or PACM before the material dries, which prevents the resuspension 
of fibers. This requirement complements the prohibition in (g)(2)(iii), 
which prohibits dry clean-up, including sweeping and shoveling, of dust 
and debris containing ACM or PACM. Although ``wet'' sweeping is not 
prohibited, it is not preferred, and may not be used to ``collect'' 
visible dust and debris. Nor may dry ACM or PACM-containing dust or 
debris be collected by means other than vacuuming with a HEPA filtered 
vacuum.
    There was substantial record support for these requirements. As 
noted above these procedures apply to all asbestos operations. In 
removal operations, the requirement to use wet methods in the removal 
[(g)(1)(ii)] will help assure that resulting debris and dust can be 
collected before they dry out or are vacuumed up using vacuums equipped 
with HEPA filters (g)(1)(i). Even if operations are conducted within 
negative pressure enclosures, debris and dust should not remain 
uncollected for the entire work shift, because the resuspension of 
asbestos fibers from these sources creates additional new exposures for 
employees. If the work is performed within glove bags, leaks in the 
bags may create dust and debris. Fallen debris can be spread to parts 
of the building and thereby create widespread contamination. If the 
collection bags or devices required by other provisions fail or fall 
short, prompt collection of the dust and debris will limit the exposure 
to workers from such failure. If the negative pressure within the 
enclosure lapses, prompt collection of dust and debris will protect 
employees outside the enclosure from resuspended fibers. For these 
reasons, OSHA believes that careful treatment of asbestos waste and 
visible dust must be followed in all construction and shipyard industry 
operations which expose employees to asbestos.
    OSHA notes that for demolition and renovation work which is covered 
under NESHAP (40 CFR 61 Subpart M), all ACM must be kept wet until 
sealed in a leak-tight container which includes an appropriate label. 
OSHA is extending this requirement to all jobs under the standard, and 
now requires that all asbestos-contaminated waste be promptly disposed 
of in leak tight containers [(g)(1)(iii)].

Requirements for Operations Which May Exceed the PELs

    Paragraph (g)(2) applies to situations where it is expected that 
exposures may exceed the PEL, and thus additional controls are required 
to keep exposures at or below the PEL. Paragraph (g)(2) requires that 
local exhaust ventilation equipped with HEPA filter dust collection 
systems be installed for fixed processes involving asbestos handling 
and for power tools used in installing, or otherwise handling asbestos 
containing materials. In addition, enclosure or isolation of the 
asbestos releasing process must take place. These controls were listed 
as optional in the 1986 standard. They are now required, because of 
their proven ability to reduce dust levels in virtually all 
occupational environments. These controls, in particular, apply to 
construction activities involving the installation of new asbestos-
containing construction materials, and in some cases the removal of 
previously installed material.
    R.J. Pigg, President of the Asbestos Information Assn. of North 
America, testified that ``the tools that we use, (for cutting asbestos-
cement pipe as recommended work practices) are those that can be fitted 
with vacuum attachments. We have studies that relate to those 
recommended work practices that * * * support, when they're being 
followed, that you're well below the PEL'' (Tr. 558-9).
    In addition, paragraph (g)(2) requires that where the exposures are 
expected to be above the PEL, ventilation to move contaminated air away 
from exposed employees in the regulated areas toward a HEPA filtration 
or collection device is required. This requirement is adapted from the 
current standard which lists ``general ventilation systems'' as one of 
the control methods to be used to achieve the PEL. However, OSHA 
believes that the term ``air sweeping away from exposed employees 
toward a HEPA filtered exhaust device'' is more appropriate and 
effective. Further, it removes the interpretative possibility that 
using a general building ventilation system to vent asbestos-
contaminated air, would be acceptable under the standard. A similar 
requirement is also aimed at Class I jobs which cannot produce a 
negative initial exposure assessment [see (g)(4)(F)].

Prohibitions

    Paragraph (g)(3) sets out four prohibitions for all work under the 
standard. One prohibition, relating to high-speed abrasive disc saws, 
is made more specific; one, prohibiting dry sweeping and dry clean-up 
of ACM and PACM is added; and, one prohibiting employee rotation is 
expanded to apply to all attempts to reduce exposure, not, as in the 
1986 standard, to reach the PEL. OSHA finds these changes will help 
reduce employee exposures and are consistent with the revisions to the 
standards.

Controls for Asbestos Jobs According to Their Classification

    The next set of requirements in the ``Methods of Compliance'' 
beginning at paragraph-(g)(4), are keyed to the four classes of 
construction activities, Class I through IV, relating to previously 
installed ACM and PACM, defined in paragraph (b). The scheme is risk-
based with Class I as the most hazardous, and Class IV the least so.
    Class I asbestos work consists of the ``removal'' of asbestos-
containing TSI and surfacing material and of PACM, including demolition 
operations involving these materials. Class II work consists of the 
``removal'' of all other asbestos-containing materials, including 
resilient flooring presumed to contain asbestos. Class III work 
consists of the ``disturbance'' of all previously installed asbestos-
containing building materials and PACM. Class IV work consists of 
housekeeping and custodial work in contact with previously installed 
ACM and PACM, and the clean-up of debris on construction sites.
    All asbestos work under the construction and shipbuilding standards 
is not in the ``class system.'' The installation of new asbestos-
containing products does not carry a class designation, and thus the 
class-specific requirements do not apply to that activity. Work covered 
by the general industry standard is not included in the ``class 
system'' as well.
    OSHA also notes that the differences in controls required among 
classes is not great. Further, the Agency believes that the risk 
overlap between adjoining classes is neither frequent nor large, and 
that the standard allows the employer flexibility in most such cases. 
The regulation requires job-by-job evaluation of regulated projects, 
and gives the competent person some leeway in easing some requirements 
when it appears that the project can be done especially safely.
    The following examples illustrate how operations involving 
potential asbestos disturbance are to be classified. If an insulated 
pipe is leaking, and less than one standard glove bag's worth of TSI is 
``disturbed'' (see definition in paragraph B) in order to repair the 
leak, it is a Category III job. If the TSI is stripped from a section 
of piping to inspect all the piping in an area for leaks, it is a Class 
I job. If the section of piping required to be stripped is less than 25 
feet, it is still a Class I job, but critical barriers may not be 
required if the initial exposure assessment is ``negative'' [see 
(g)(4)(i)(B)]. If it is not clear which category the work belongs, the 
employer should assume the higher, more restrictive, category applies, 
and should comply with the listed work practices and controls for that 
category. OSHA believes that most asbestos work will fit easily into 
the categories which are defined.
    OSHA found that the term ``small-scale, short-duration,'' 
insufficient to distinguish lower risk asbestos operations which allow 
exemptions from generally required controls.
    A historical perspective is useful to clarify this issue. In 1986, 
OSHA required that all removal, renovation, and demolition operations, 
except for ``small-scale, short duration'' operations, be conducted 
within negative pressure enclosures [29 CFR 1926.58(e)(6)(1986)]. The 
scope of both the requirement and the exemption was unclear. The 
requirement did not explicitly apply to ``maintenance or repair'' 
operations, though most of the examples given were in that category. 
The examples cited in the exemption included pipe repair, valve 
replacement, installing electrical conduits, installing or removing 
drywall, roofing, and other general building maintenance operations. In 
addition, OSHA maintained that it was not possible to specify with 
precision the exact size of a ``small-scale'' maintenance job or to 
pinpoint the time involved in a ``short-duration'' task.
    The Court of Appeals stated that OSHA had not drawn the parameters 
of the exemption with enough specificity and that ``the exception as 
now worded seems to erase the rule.'' As noted above the Court remanded 
the issue to OSHA to ``clarify the exemption for ``small scale, short 
duration operations'' from the negative-pressure enclosure 
requirements. Further the Court suggested that OSHA limit the exemption 
to ``work operations where it is impractical to construct an enclosure 
because of the configuration of the work environment,'' stated by OSHA 
in the preamble to the 1986 rule, as the intended scope of the 
exemption (51 FR at 22,711,2).
    However, the consequences of qualifying for the exemption were less 
clear when the regulatory text was consulted. Section (e)(6) of the 
1986 standard allowed ``small-scale, short-duration operations'' to be 
exempt from the negative pressure enclosure requirement for removal, 
demolition, and renovations operations. However, some contractors 
successfully argued in enforcement actions, that a NPE was a 
particularized kind of a ``regulated area'' which the overriding 
general provision required only in ``work areas where airborne 
concentrations of asbestos exceed or can reasonably be expected to 
exceed the TWA and/or excursion limit'' (Section (e)(1)). To impart 
certainty to the requirement OSHA issued a compliance directive which 
triggered the requirement at the PEL, and attempted to clarify the kind 
of operations which would qualify for the exemption, in a job where 
exceedances of the PEL were expected.
    In its July 20, 1990 proposal, OSHA would have required NPEs based 
on the type of work to be done; and sought to clarify the definition of 
small-scale, short duration operations by proposing specific cutoffs 
for ``small'' and ``short.'' In addition, general criteria were 
proposed which were intended to amplify the exemptive criteria: 
operations must be ``non-repetitive, affect small surfaces or volumes 
of material containing asbestos * * * not expected to expose bystanders 
to significant amounts of asbestos * * * completed within one work 
day.'' Cutoffs for specific operations were: repair or removal of 
asbestos on pipes: 21 linear feet; repair or removal of asbestos panel; 
9 square feet: pipe valves containing asbestos gaskets or electrical 
work that disturbs asbestos: one worker, four hours, removal of 
drywall: one workday, endcapping of pipes and tile removal: four hours, 
and installation of conduits: eight-hour work shift.
    Many participants agreed that using only the duration, and size of 
a job did not adequately characterize risk. Some argued that all 
asbestos jobs were risky, indeed there should be little regulatory 
distinction made. For example, NIOSH spokesperson, Richard Lemen, 
expressed the view that ``even with short duration, small-term jobs we 
still feel that there is a risk to the worker, not only from the one 
time exposures, but from the potential of that worker doing multiple 
jobs over periods of time * * * which increase the exposure each time 
and the lung burden of asbestos to each of those exposures * * * we 
still feel that * * * [these jobs] should be treated as protectively as 
the other type of jobs.'' (Tr. 244), [See to the same effect the 
testimony of Mr. Cook, an abatement contractor who testified for the 
BCTD and Lynn McDonald, representing the Sheet-Metal Workers Union, 
(Tr. 829ff)].
    The proposed definition of small-scale, short duration operations 
included specification of the number of square and linear feet of 
asbestos-containing material. There were numerous objections raised to 
the proposed values.
    Several participants suggested that the NESHAP cutoff of 260 square 
or 160 linear feet, used by EPA for notification, be used as the cutoff 
for small-scale work (Ex. 7-9, 7-21, 7-39, 7-52, 7-113, 103, 1-53, 1-
55). Others such as Edward Palagyi, a Florida State Asbestos 
Coordinator, felt that this cutoff was too high for OSHA to use in its 
definition (Ex. 7-6).
    Several alternate amounts of material were suggested. Christopher 
Corrado of the Long Island Lighting Company (Ex. 7-29), James Foley of 
the New York Power Authority (Ex. 7-31) and Robert Brothers of Eastman 
Kodak (Ex. 7-81) recommended that OSHA adopt the amounts used by New 
York in its small-scale definition--25 linear and 10 square feet. 
William Dundulis of the Rhode Island Department of Health felt that to 
avoid confusion, OSHA should adopt the same cutoff that EPA used in its 
Worker Protection Rule--3 linear and 3 square feet (7-124). Others 
suggested that the amount of material be defined by the amount of 
asbestos-containing waste generated by the activity. For example, 
Preston Quirk of Gobbell Hays suggested cutoff maximum of 55 gallon 
drum or 1 cubic yard of ACM waste material (Ex. 7-34), while OSHA 
witness David Kirby suggested 3 glove bags worth of waste material or 
10 linear feet as the cutoff of a small-scale job (Ex. 7-111). BCTD 
suggested ``the lesser of (a) a yield of no more than 1-1/3 cubic feet 
(10 gallons) of asbestos-containing waste material, or (b) a maximum 
length of 2 feet or a maximum area of no more than 8 square feet of 
material containing asbestos.'' Noting that the amount of material 
covering a pipe varies with its diameter, (and the thickness of the 
material) BCTD calculated that removal of 1 inch of insulation from 
common pipe dimensions can vary from 1.37 to 5.04 cubic feet of waste. 
(Ex 143 at 131).
    Although OSHA believes that the amount of waste material generated 
by a job may be a valid index of its exposure potential, the Agency 
agrees with participants who pointed out the difficulties of estimating 
the amount of waste material in advance of the job. [e.g., testimony of 
Chip D'Angelo, an asbestos consultant, (Tr. 3086), Paul Fiduccia, 
representing a number of real estate and building owner interests, (Tr. 
791); Paul Heffernan of Kaselaan and D'Angelo Associates, (Ex. 7-36)].
    Various other quantitative limits were suggested which were tied to 
specific materials; (e.g. transite panels, 32 square feet (Ex. 7-94), 
48 square feet (7-96). Mr. Churchill, representing the California 
Association of Asbestos Professionals, suggested 9 square and 9 linear 
feet as cutoffs for small-scale jobs (Ex. 7-95 and Tr. 3468).
    Charles Kelly of Edison Electric Institute asked whether complete 
removal of a pipe which might exceed 21 feet in length, but which 
involved removal of less than 2 feet of insulation at either end to 
enable cutting the pipe length for removal would be considered a small-
scale job (Ex. 156).
    Many additional commentators and hearing participants discussed 
these issues during this rulemaking proceeding. Some commented that the 
duration cutoffs were not realistic or protective. Other participants 
asked for clarification on whether duration of the job included 
preparation and cleanup. Also, Captain John Collins of the US Navy felt 
that employers would abuse the exemption by assigning many employees to 
a job in order to complete it in a short time period (Ex. 7-52), and 
suggested that instead of specifying the number of persons and the 
number of hours, OSHA should set the limit in terms of man-hours [see 
also Churchill at Tr. 3468, ORC at Tr. 3181, Kynock of AIR Coalition 
(Tr. 3539)].
    Daniel Bart of GTE Service Corporation expressed concern that by 
having a time limitation for small-scale, short duration operations in 
the definition, the installation of telephone cables in buildings might 
no longer be considered short duration (Ex. 7-87). Dr. Michael Crane of 
Consolidated Edison, New York objected to the requirement that an 
operation be non-repetitive in order to qualify as small-scale, short 
duration (Ex. 7-76). He said, ``(t)here are jobs * * * not part of an 
overall asbestos removal but are performed many times in the course of 
day during routine maintenance that must be done in generation stations 
and other utility facilities'' [see also the suggestion of Paul 
Heffernan of Kaselaan & D'Angelo to adopt the concept of ``functional 
space'' as designated under AHERA, and defining a non-repetitive 
operation as occurring once within such a functional space (Ex. 7-36)]. 
Some also asked if OSHA intended preparation time and clean-up time be 
included in the duration limits for SSSD (Ex. 7-108).
    Several participants noted that most asbestos work would not be 
assigned to a single worker, and SSSD should include only jobs 
completed by 2 employees in one work shift (Ex. 7-31): Preston Quirk of 
Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc. suggested that a maximum of 3 workers be 
allowed (Ex. 7-34). Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. (ORC) 
maintained that the specification of the number of workers was not 
necessary, as long as the employer had a comprehensive safety and 
health plan. (Ex. 7-99).
    The views on these defining variables has influenced the Agency's 
decision to broaden and realign its job classification system based on 
relative risk. Based on this record and the agency's experience in 
enforcing the 1986 standard's provisions on small-scale, short duration 
work, OSHA is dropping the term ``small-scale, short term'' work from 
the regulatory text. The agency finds that the term ``small-scale, 
short term'' is too limiting, has been shown to be confusing, and 
cannot be defined with sufficient precision to serve the purpose of 
distinguishing high risk asbestos-disturbing activity from activity of 
reduced risk.
    The term is limiting because it focuses on a fraction of the 
circumstances and criteria which define lower risk work with asbestos-
containing material. OSHA has found that thermal system insulation 
(TSI) and surfacing material are the asbestos-containing building 
materials likely to produce significant employee exposure. On the other 
hand, removing asbestos-containing products like transite panels, 
likely will not result in significant exposure, even if conducted for 
more than one day, under minimum controls. As much as the scope and 
duration of the job, the materials themselves, their condition and the 
work-practices used define hazard potential.
    OSHA's organization of asbestos jobs into categories is based on 
the more objective criteria, such as the type of material to be 
disturbed and the type of activity. Factors which are more subjective, 
such as condition, and crew experience are part of the required pre-job 
assessment by a ``competent person.'' Not concentrating on the amount 
of asbestos material or the time the job takes, avoids serious 
objections raised by rulemaking participants to the time- or volume-
based definition in the proposal. For example, a frequent complaint was 
that the duration of the operation should not be specified in the 
definition of small-scale activities because this might create 
incentives to perform the work more hurriedly and in a more hazardous 
manner when the worker must meet defined time schedules (Ex. 7-18, 7-
35, 7-37, 7-43, 7-50, 7-52, 7-54, 7-63, 7-74, 7-76, 7-81, 7-87, 7-89, 
7-95, 7-99, 7-106, 7-112, 7-124, 7-128, 7-135, 7-139, 7-146, 7-151, 
143, Tr. 417). (In a few regulatory provisions, however, OSHA still 
relies on the amount of material to be removed to indicate risk, and 
thus, the protections required. These are the exemption from critical 
barriers from low-exposure Class I jobs [see paragraph (g)(4) and in 
defining ``disturbance'']).
    This classification system is OSHA's response to the Court's remand 
issue of how to clarify the term ``small-scale, short duration.'' (see 
also preceding discussion of classes of asbestos work under 
``Definitions.'')

Class I Work

    Class I work, i.e., the ``removal'' of TSI or surfacing ACM or 
PACM, must be performed using procedures in paragraph (g)(4) and using 
a control method which is listed in paragraph (g)(5) of the standard. 
If another control method is used, or if a listed control method is 
``modified,'' the standard in paragraph (g)(6) requires that a 
certified industrial hygienist (CIH), or licensed professional engineer 
who is a ``project designer,'' certify the control method using the 
criteria set out in the regulatory text. The requirements of (g)(4) 
are: for Class I jobs, preparation must be supervised by a competent 
person, dropcloths must be used and HVAC systems must be isolated. The 
area must be set up using ``critical barriers' either as part of a 
negative pressure enclosure system, or as a supplemental barrier to 
another listed system which isolates the asbestos disturbance in a 
different way. Other barriers or isolation methods may be used to 
prevent asbestos migration. The effectiveness of such methods must be 
proven by visual inspection and clearance or perimeter monitoring (see 
e.g., Ex. 9-34 cc). As noted below, OSHA believes that the size of the 
removal job alone does not predict the risk to workers. However, if a 
job is smaller, the chances are reduced that isolation barriers 
provided by glove bags or boxes will fail.
    OSHA was reluctant to limit glove bag removals without critical 
barriers only to maintenance projects, where as NIOSH noted, it is more 
likely that crews will be untrained (Ex. 125). Rather, OSHA has 
followed the lead of some states, which allow removals involving less 
than 25 linear feet of TSI, and 10 square feet of other material to be 
handled without critical barriers, unless the glove bags or enclosure 
loses its integrity (see e.g., 12 NYCRR 56) or where a negative 
exposure assessment has not been produced. Such projects are class I 
removals, and workers required to perform them must be trained in an 
EPA-accredited training course or equivalent; OSHA believes that the 
work force performing these relatively minor removals is the same work 
force performing major removals, thus the jobs will be well-conducted 
and critical barriers will be unnecessary.
    In addition, where the employer cannot demonstrate that a Class I 
job is likely not to overexpose employees, the employer must ventilate 
the regulated area to move contaminated air away from employee 
breathing zones.
    Paragraph (g)(5) sets out five listed control methods which OSHA 
has evaluated during this rulemaking. The Agency finds that using these 
methods pursuant to the limitations and specifications in the paragraph 
is likely to effectively control employee exposures when performing 
Class I work. The first control system listed for Class I work is the 
Negative Pressure Enclosure System (or NPE). The extent to which OSHA 
should require these systems for major asbestos work was a remanded 
issue. As discussed in detail below, OSHA has found that NPEs, when 
constructed and used according to the criteria in this standard, can be 
effective in protecting employees within and outside the enclosure.
    Other listed systems also may be used for Class I work under stated 
limitations. Paragraph (g)(5) sets out these limitations. These systems 
are: glove bag systems, negative-pressure glove bag systems, negative 
pressure glove box systems, the water spray process system, and a mini-
enclosure system. OSHA emphasizes the use of the term ``system.'' Each 
method consists of tangible materials and devices; and of procedures 
and practices. All the listed elements must be complied with before 
OSHA's finding of effectiveness are relevant. Other, unspecified 
control methods, ``alternative control methods,'' may be used if 
additional notification is given OSHA, and if a specially trained 
``project designer'' or a certified industrial hygienist certifies that 
the controls will be protective.
    Participants in this rulemaking requested that OSHA's revisions 
allow alternative systems. OSHA agrees that asbestos removal technology 
is evolving. If another control method is used, or if a listed control 
method is ``modified,'' the standard requires that a certified 
industrial hygienist or licensed professional engineer who is also 
qualified as a project designer certify the control method using the 
criteria set out in the regulatory text. Additional discussion of these 
issues is found later in this document.

Specific Issues Relating to Methods of Compliance

    1. A major issue in this proceeding is when NPEs should be 
required. In the 1990 proposal OSHA would have required the erection of 
negative pressure enclosures for all asbestos removal jobs, except for 
``small scale short duration work.'' This proposal responded to the 
Court's order for OSHA to clarify the conditions under which negative 
pressure enclosures were required in the 1986 standard (see discussion 
on Issue #3).
    The major rationale in the 1986 standard for requiring negative 
pressure enclosures was to ensure that contamination from large-scale 
asbestos projects did not spread beyond the work area. OSHA there 
stated that ``general contamination of the workplace has resulted from 
failure to confine asbestos using strict regulated area procedures, and 
asbestos-related diseases have been found in workers of a different 
trade exposed to asbestos contamination from the activities of asbestos 
workers.'' (55 FR at 29716). The effectiveness of NPEs in protecting 
employees working within the enclosure was not the explicit basis for 
their adoption in the 1986 rule.
    In the 1990 proposal, OSHA primarily based the requirement for 
universal NPEs for major asbestos work on limited data relating to 
contamination of workspaces adjacent to asbestos work, and reports of 
historic disease experienced by employers in trades other than asbestos 
work who worked alongside asbestos workers. OSHA stated however, that 
the Agency ``has not been able to estimate the risk to bystander 
employees * * *'' and asked for comment and data on their exposure (55 
FR 29716). OSHA also asked for information about alternatives to work 
in full containment, such as glove bag and box systems and ``new 
technologies'' (55 FR 29717). Although OSHA proposed more tightly drawn 
exemptions to the required use of negative pressure enclosures, the 
Agency also raised the possibility that data to be submitted about 
alternative control systems might result in a limitation, rather than 
an expansion of the walk-in enclosure requirements (55 FR 29720).
    Further the 1990 proposal specifically focused on whether work 
within walk-in enclosures was the optimum method to protect asbestos 
workers. It is widely accepted that employees who disturb asbestos, and 
who contact deteriorated asbestos during their work are most at risk 
(see e.g., Ex. 1-344, p. 1-12). In its earlier response to the Court's 
remand, OSHA noted that the ``record of the 1986 standard contains no 
data concerning whether employees working within the negative pressure 
enclosures also benefit from reduced exposure, whether working inside 
enclosures may introduce other potential work hazards such as heat 
stress. Further rulemaking is necessary to develop this information.'' 
(54 FR 52026, Dec. 20, 1989). In the proposal, OSHA reiterated this 
statement and again raised this issue (55 FR 29715).
    The rulemaking record reflected this two-part inquiry. Data and 
comment were submitted concerning the effectiveness of NPEs in 
protecting employees within the enclosure, and their effectiveness in 
protecting ``bystander'' employees and adjacent areas from asbestos 
contamination. The record presents a mixed case on both issues. First, 
very limited data were submitted showing that employees working within 
the enclosures experienced reduced asbestos levels because of the 
enclosures themselves, or the ventilation provided by negative air 
machines, in spite of claims that the enclosures and ventilation 
produce such results. In fact claims were made that in comparing work 
within enclosures to work without enclosures, ``enclosures consistently 
came out higher in terms of what the person inside the enclosure is 
exposed to'' (Exxon, Tr. 2678). However, the record contains some data 
which show that properly designed and installed NPEs may limit the 
spread of asbestos contamination to adjacent areas and employees. 
However, the record also demonstrates that other systems, properly 
installed and performed by trained employees will also limit the spread 
of asbestos contamination. These are discussed in depth below.
    Based on this record and on the Agency's experience and expertise, 
OSHA has concluded that although negative pressure enclosure systems 
are effective in many circumstances in protecting workers both within 
and outside the enclosure, other systems are equally effective in 
designated circumstances. Additionally, the demonstration in this 
rulemaking that other systems can be effective, supports regulatory 
provisions which do not stifle continued development and refinement of 
control strategies for asbestos work.

2. Effectiveness of NPEs in Protecting Employees Working Within the 
Enclosure

    As noted above, little data were submitted showing that employees 
working within the enclosure have reduced exposures because of the 
enclosure itself, or other components of the NPE system. Although much 
data was alluded to during the hearing, e.g., ``* * * 10 years of real, 
real projects with rooms full of data, * * * we have some nice 
summaries that I can give you * * *.''(Tr. 3133). However, none of 
these data was submitted to the record. Also, NIOSH testified during 
the rulemaking hearing, ``we are not aware of any studies evaluating 
their (negative pressure enclosures) effectiveness or delineating 
important parameters such as minimum pressure differential, minimum air 
flow, or maximum volumes feasible for various barrier materials.'' (Tr. 
228). BCTD noted a study in which ``two MIT researchers estimated 
``that total exposures using the HEPA negative pressure system might be 
about four-fold less than they would be without the system'' (Ex. 143 
at 90). OSHA notes that this estimate was derived from ``assumptions'' 
of the study team, and was unsupported by exposure data. Further, the 
baseline exposure model was based on a much earlier study of activities 
cleaning up contamination in a building. During this rulemaking 
hearing, the author of that study described it as ``extremely unique, * 
* * not representative of buildings in the United States'' (Tr. 2157). 
OSHA therefore regards the MIT exposure reduction estimate as 
unsupported and too speculative to serve as a basis for regulatory 
decision making.
    Exposure data submitted to this rulemaking record which reflected 
personal samples within negative pressure enclosures do not support the 
view that working within such enclosures by itself will ensure reduced 
employee exposure. In fact, data were submitted which showed that 
employees working within negative pressure enclosures under some 
circumstances were exposed to excessive levels of asbestos (see below). 
OSHA recognizes that a showing of elevated levels from any one project 
or series of projects does not indict the control method as the cause 
of such elevations. However, numerous submissions from various sources 
which show elevated exposure levels with no indication of improper 
system installation indicates that in operation, the use of negative 
pressure enclosure systems does not assure effective exposure reduction 
to the employees performing the work.
    Thus, Union Carbide submitted 1,000 exposure measurements 
``generally obtained from jobs where insulation was removed from piping 
of 1'' -14'' diameter and from other miscellaneous jobs removing 
asbestos from vessels'' (Ex. 7-108). More than one half of the samples 
were over the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc, and most of those were over the 
previous PEL of 0.2 f/cc. Additional data showing high exposures within 
negative pressure enclosures compared to relatively low exposure levels 
for glove bag use were submitted by Arco Products, Inc. (Ex. 7-139) and 
Grayling (7-144). The Arco submission contained monitoring results from 
9 personal samples taken within the enclosure. These ranged from 0.01 
to 0.44 f/cc with a mean on 0.28 f/cc. Lower exposure levels for work 
within NPEs was shown by data submitted by the Asbestos Abatement 
Council, presenting data incorporating air monitoring results for over 
200 projects, collected from four different contractors over an eight 
year time period. These data showed area samples ranging from 0.12 to 
0.15 f/cc, while personal samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.07 f/cc (Ex. 1-
142).
    Various reasons were advanced for the presence of elevated exposure 
levels within negative pressure enclosures. Thus Dr. Sawyer testified 
``I have seen configurations that not only don't work maintaining the 
enclosure integrity, but they actually can increase fiber burdens in 
the contamination area * * * (t)his involves * * * a HEPA filter by 
itself without a drive mechanism, without a fan to force air through 
it'' (Tr. 2176). ``I can anecdotally tell you what I've seen out there, 
but a lot of the systems just don't work, and some of them can actually 
increase the hazard to workers'' (Id at 2177-78).
    In view of the disparity in the submitted data, OSHA concludes that 
negative pressure enclosure systems, like other control systems which 
depend on proper installation, design and supervision for 
effectiveness, can vary in protection they afford to employees working 
within. Unlike engineering systems permanently installed which are 
capitalized by the facility owner, negative pressure systems are 
installed for the duration of the job, and economic pressures are 
exerted to hold down the time and cost of the installation.
    Thus, the support for the use of NPEs to reduce employee exposure 
is mixed. OSHA is also concerned that other health and safety hazards 
may result from work in negative pressure enclosure systems. For 
example, problems with toxic adhesives were noted in the record. Levels 
of methylene chloride, used to seal poly sheeting to underlying 
surfaces to contain work areas have been measured at over the PEL for 
that substance (Ex. 1-24). Some of the polyethylene used for sheeting 
may be combustible (Ex. 7-18). Certain industries reported particular 
hazards of NPEs. For example, a representative of Arco Products Co. 
commented that in the gasoline industry hazards included: build-up of 
gases inside the enclosure, heat stress, fire hazards, lack of good 
ventilation, difficulty in working with mobile equipment, difficulties 
in communicating and exiting during emergencies (Ex. 7-139).
    Various solutions to these problem were suggested. Thus, it was 
suggested that less toxic adhesives be substituted for methylene 
chloride; that poly sheets can be attached without adhesives (BCTD, Ex. 
143); that heat stress be eliminated by increasing the number of air 
changes per hour within the enclosure; that a transparent window be 
installed in each enclosure to facilitate communication (Ex. 7-6); and 
other such adaptations. Certain of these suggestions were criticized as 
ineffective. For example, Union Carbide stated in its post-hearing 
submission, ``(w)e have observed that even when 8 to 12 air changes per 
hour are provided to the enclosure, on certain days the inside of the 
enclosure temperature has risen as high as 140 degrees F. The heat 
stress situation is further exacerbated by the body coveralls worn by 
the workers'' (Ex. 113 p. 6).
    OSHA believes that some of these potential problems attributable to 
negative pressure enclosures may be averted. However, the record also 
indicates that the use of this control technique shares with other 
asbestos control methods, a primary reliance upon the skill and 
training of designers and workers to assure its effectiveness. In 
addition, under some circumstances even the proper use of negative 
pressure enclosures can introduce additional hazards into the 
workplace.
    One feature of some negative pressure enclosure systems, negative 
air ventilation, was singled out by some participants as the primary 
means of reducing exposures to employees working within them. OSHA 
notes however, that the requirement for NPEs as adopted in the 1986 
rule, did not contain any criteria for such ventilation, and that the 
rationale for requiring NPEs did not rest on the capability of 
ventilation to reduce employee exposure. Therefore, OSHA regards the 
recommendation for requiring special ventilation as a new claim, to be 
supported by evidence and testimony submitted to this record.
    One of the main characteristics of the negative pressure enclosure 
system is that the air pressure inside the enclosure is less than 
outside the enclosure. This pressure difference is created by a fan 
exhausting air, through a filter, from inside the enclosure to outside 
the enclosure. Under negative pressure, any leaks in the walls of the 
enclosure will result in clean air coming into the enclosure, rather 
than contaminated air leaking to the outside. The system is primarily 
designed to keep asbestos from contaminating the building. As stated 
earlier, this approach does not appear to improve working conditions 
inside the enclosure. Negative air ventilation draws clean air from 
outside the enclosure at sufficient quantities and at strategic 
locations, so as to provide clean air in the worker's breathing zone. 
Support for negative air ventilation was submitted by numerous 
participants. For example, Mr. D'Angelo testified that ``negative air 
ventilation is the single most effective engineering control reducing 
worker exposure as well as reducing the risk to adjacent bystanders or 
other operations.'' Further, he recommended a minimum of 8 and up to 20 
air changes per hour to assure appropriate ventilation is maintained 
(Tr. 3078, 3087). This process, ``which has expanded on the negative 
pressure enclosure, (is) called air flush methodology'' (Tr. 3085).
    Other participants also supported the use of ``air flushing'' 
techniques, or directed make-up air. Chip D'Angelo, an asbestos 
abatement consultant described the principle as moving airborne fibers 
out of the work area with air velocity, thereby ``flushing'' the area 
by bringing in air from sources outside the enclosure additional to 
that brought through the decontamination chamber. He further described 
moving the air away from the worker and toward the negative air 
filtration machines and directing the moving air to ``dead spots'' in 
the enclosure by use of baffles and flexiducts (Tr. 3035) (see BCTD, 
Ex. 143 p. 90, and citations therein). Mr. Cook, an asbestos abatement 
contractor, appearing for the BCTD, testified that ``it's a fairly easy 
technology to implement, depending on the situation.''(Tr. 805). Mr. 
Medaglia, president of an engineering firm suggested adding to the 
definition of a negative pressure enclosure, the phrase ``* * * all 
areas within the enclosure are swept by the flowing air towards the 
exhaust fans * * *'' (Tr. 3052). Other support was provided by New 
Jersey White Lung Association (Tr. 601-2), NIOSH (Tr. 228 and 257), R. 
Sawyer (Tr. 2161), D. Kirby (Tr. 170), Global Consumer Services (Tr. 
2341) and J. Cook of QSI International (Tr. 804.)
    However, some engineers who testified did not utilize the 
technique; Exxon noted in its testimony that ``you can't, quite 
honestly, get enough volume of air velocity to convince yourself you 
are going to get good equal mixing within an entire enclosure'' (Tr. 
2680); and NIOSH noted in its submitted testimony, that ``we are not 
aware of any studies evaluating their effectiveness (NPE's) or 
delineating important parameters such as * * * minimum air flow'' (Ex. 
9). NIOSH recommended that OSHA incorporate into the rule for negative-
pressure enclosures, design requirements for air-flow patterns within 
the enclosure to move airborne particles away from the worker'' (Ibid).
    Although ``air flushing'' is the ventilation approach most 
recommended for use within negative pressure systems, actual data 
showing its success is limited. In recognition of the support from 
engineers who have utilized these systems, OSHA is requiring a 
performance based version of ``air flushing'' as a component of the 
negative pressure enclosure system. OSHA is also requiring ventilation 
which ``directs the air away from exposed employees'' when other 
controls are used for Class I work where no there is insufficient data 
to support a ``negative exposure assessment.''
    Participants also argued that the use of negative pressure systems 
under stated circumstances was unnecessary and would not contribute to 
employee protection against asbestos exposure. Working outdoors was one 
such circumstance. Amoco submitted data in which 95% amosite was 
removed from an outdoor pipe run without negative pressure enclosure in 
which most samples indicated very low fiber levels (Ex. 7-39). However, 
the following work practices were also used: restricted access, 
immediate and double bagging of debris or use of airtight chutes, 
barricaded area, use of HEPA equipped vacuums, respirator, 
decontamination procedures, and training and supervision of the 
operation by a competent person.
    OSHA believes that outdoor Class I work may be safely done without 
enclosures. Therefore, paragraph (g) allows all outdoor Class I work to 
be conducted using other control methods, such as a glove bag system, 
so long as the specifications and work practices for such systems are 
followed. In addition, decontamination procedures for all Class I work, 
outdoors as well as indoors, including decontamination facilities and 
showers, must be made available for all Class I work, including that 
performed outdoors.
    As discussed above, the negative pressure enclosure requirement in 
the 1986 standard lacked specificity. BCTD recommended that OSHA 
specify the number of air changes per hour required in the negative 
pressure enclosure (Ex. 143, p. 94). They reasoned that this would 
improve ventilation within the enclosure and reduce worker exposure. 
Union Carbide testified that they use 8 to 12 changes per hour (Tr. 
2255) and Chip D'Angelo recommended 10 changes per hour (Ex. 99). New 
Jersey White Lung Association representative suggested 8 changes per 
hour (Tr. 482). BCTD and others also proposed that the negative 
pressure differential be increased from the recommended 0.02 column 
inches water in Appendix F (Ex. 143, p. 95) ``because of fluctuations 
inside the enclosure.''
    In several published articles, Spicer and D'Angelo expressed their 
support for these recommendations and further suggested that pressure 
measurements be made at several points within the enclosure (Ex. 9-34 
NN, Tr. 3126). The use of a manometer to measure the pressure 
differential between the enclosure and the area outside the enclosure 
was also supported by BCTD and D'Angelo and Spicer primarily because 
this device would provide immediate notice if there were a loss of 
pressure and therefore increased potential for fiber escape (Ex. 143, 
p. 96 and Ex. 9-34 NN). He estimated the cost of a manometer at $20.00 
(Tr. 3078).
    BCTD submitted additional recommendations which it felt would 
improve negative pressure enclosure use:

--Use additional air filtration machines in areas of especially high 
fiber concentrations, to serve as ``scrubbers''
--Use at least one negative air filtration machine per room in 
multi-room enclosures
--Provide an independent power source and back-up HEPA unit for use 
in case of failure
--Smoke test the enclosure for leaks
--Pre-filter inlet air (Ex. 143, p. 97)

    Most of these recommendations appear to be beneficial. Requiring 
smoke testing to detect leaks is adopted by the Agency as part of 
required set-up procedures when such enclosures are used. Others, such 
as requiring ``additional air filtration machines * * * where exposures 
are especially high'' appear to be sound engineering advice but would 
present enforcement problems, if included in the regulatory text (Ex. 
143). Instead, as part of the mandatory criteria for NPEs, when used to 
control exposure in Class I jobs, the Agency is requiring ``competent 
persons'' to oversee the installation of such systems, and employees to 
be protected within such enclosures by ventilation systems which 
minimize their asbestos exposure. OSHA believes that its provisions on 
negative pressure systems will protect employees working within them.
    Based on the above extensive analysis of the many studies and 
comments, OSHA has concluded that NPEs are not appropriate as a 
universal requirement. They usually protect bystanders well, but not 
always workers within the enclosures, and can sometimes create other 
problems. Consequently, OSHA is permitting alternatives to NPEs in 
appropriate circumstances and is upgrading requirements for NPEs when 
they are used.
    Also, OSHA believes that various alternative requirements in this 
final revised standard triggered by Class I, II, and III work, some of 
which are components of negative pressure systems will protect adjacent 
or ``bystander'' employees under most situations. Thus, mandatory 
critical barriers for most Class I, some Class II and III work will bar 
passage of fugitive asbestos fibers; and, clarifying the 
responsibilities of the various employers on a multi-employer worksite, 
paragraph (d) will protect all work site employees from fugitive 
emissions.

3. What Other Control Systems Can be Allowed for Asbestos Work Which 
Involves High Risk Materials?

    OSHA is allowing other control systems for Category I asbestos 
work, but only under stated conditions. Thus, the second asbestos 
control system permitted for use for Category I asbestos work is a 
glove bag system which meets the requirements of the standard, and is 
used only in the limited situations listed in paragraph (g), i.e. 
straight runs of piping and to remove intact TSI.
    Other technologies recommended by the accredited project designer 
or competent person based on supporting data showing their 
effectiveness may also be used. Whenever a technology is used which is 
not referenced in the standards, the employer must notify OSHA before 
the asbestos job, and include in the notification the basis for the 
project designer's or certified industrial hygienist's decision that 
the new technology will be equally effective as other technologies 
referenced in the appendix. Daily personal and periphery area 
monitoring must be conducted for all such jobs, as well as clearance 
samples at the termination of the abatement job.

Glove Bag Systems

    The decision to allow increased glove bag use is based on the 
considerable comment and evidence submitted during this proceeding 
concerning the safety and effectiveness of glove bag use. OSHA had 
proposed to permit only small-scale, short duration removals to be 
conducted using glove bags; however the Agency noted that it was 
considering whether alternatives, including glove bags, to negative 
pressure enclosures for renovation, removal and demolition operations 
should be allowed (55 FR at 29716).
    In the 1986 standard, glove bag effectiveness was considered too 
uncertain to allow as a preferred control. Therefore OSHA relegated 
glove bag use to small-scale, short duration jobs, or jobs exempt from 
the negative pressure enclosure requirement because of the 
configuration of the work environment. However OSHA noted that glove 
bag use could generally be expected to reduce exposures to below 0.1 f/
cc (51 FR 22711).
    In the preamble to its proposed amendments the Agency noted that 
available data indicated that glove bags in use may not always provide 
adequate protection. In large part, the Agency based this preliminary 
evaluation on the results of an evaluation performed by NIOSH in which 
improperly used glove bags resulted in excessive fiber counts.
    As noted above, this final construction standard expands the 
conditions in which glove bag use is allowed. Now, glove bag use for 
removal of TSI and surfacing ACM is allowed without quantity limitation 
for intact TSI for straight runs of piping.
    OSHA believes these decisions are well supported by this rulemaking 
record. Many participants urged OSHA to expand the conditions for 
permitting glove bag use. For example the Dow Chemical Company stated, 
``removal of asbestos containing material from pipes or pipelines can 
best be accomplished with the use of glove bags in all instances, not 
just when pipes are elevated. Needless to say, the employees carrying 
out the operation must be trained and adequately supervised to the 
glove bags properly.'' (Ex. 7-103). The American Paper Institute and 
the National Forest Products Association stated that ``(w)e fully agree 
with the field personnel that there should be no linear footage limit 
for the removal of asbestos insulation on pipe when proper glove bag 
techniques are used'' (Ex. 7-74 at 9). The National Insulation and 
Abatement Contractors Association commented ``(a) skilled asbestos 
abatement mechanic can certainly remove in excess of 21 linear feet in 
properly used glove bags in as safe a manner as he or she can less than 
21 feet. * * * (i)n addition, the implied restriction against glove bag 
use outside of small-scale, short-duration work ignores the advances 
made in glove bag practices and worker skills'' (Ex 7-72 at 2).
    Mr. Vest of the U.S. Air Force commented: ``(t)he regulation should 
clearly allow for * * * operations that are not small-scale, short 
duration but are also not within the purview of the full requirements 
for a regulated area. We believe multiple glove bag operations would 
fall into this category; this in-between category should require 
training and additional procedures, but not necessarily ``negative 
pressure enclosures.'' James Snyder, representing the American Paper 
Institute, maintained that there should be no linear limit as long as 
proper glove bag techniques were used (Ex. 7-74). Exhibits 7-9, 7-19, 
7-21, 7-26, 7-32, 7-33, 7-50, 7-63, 7-72, 7-73, 7-74, 7-76, 7-95, 7-99, 
7-102, 7-103, 7-106, 7-107, 7-120, 7-121, 7-125, 7-128, 7-130, 7-139, 
7-144, and 7-146 also supported expanded glove bag use.
    In addition, to these generalized statements of support for 
expanded use of glove bags, participants submitted data to show the 
effectiveness of glove bags in protecting workers. For example, the 
U.S. Air Force, introduced data (Ex. 3-9). The large majority of 
measurement were below 0.1 f/cc. Only 54 of the 370 measurements sets 
were over 0.1 f/cc, some of which were within the sampling and 
analytical error margin of 25%.
    Dr. Vernon Rose of the University of Alabama at Birmingham 
submitted a paper entitled: ``Analysis of PCM asbestos air monitoring 
results for a major abatement project'' (Ex. 7-194), in which over 2000 
sampling results were presented, taken over a five year period during 
which thermal system insulation was removed from a single building. 
This study provides very extensive data on closely observed work which 
the authors described as ``* * * ideal conditions existed to support 
the proper abatement of ACM'' (Ex. 7-194). However, they also noted 
that the environment was generally quite dusty and that since the 
results were PCM counts, they might overestimate the true exposure 
level. The results are summarized Table I.

    Table I.--Asbestos Fiber Levels During Various Removal Operations   
                               [Ex. 7-194]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     No.      Mean (f/     Confidence   
       Sample description          samples      cc3)        interval    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full enclosure-entrance.........        303      0.026       0.021-0.033
Full enclosure-background.......        333      0.022       0.019-0.025
Mini-enclosure-entrance.........         35      0.022       0.016-0.036
Mini-enclosure-background.......         38      0.023       0.013-0.058
At glove bag....................        430      0.037       0.034-0.041
Glove bag-background............        386      0.028       0.025-0.031
Full enclosure-clearance........        161      0.002       0.002-0.003
Mini-enclosure-clearance........         94      0.006       0.005-0.008
Pre-work........................         39      0.013       0.010-0.018
Full enclosure-personal.........        116      0.233       0.177-0.327
Full enclosure-within...........        160      0.119       0.097-0.152
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except for those taken within the negative pressure enclosure, all 
sample means, including those taken at and away from glove bags are 
well below the new PEL of 0.1 f/cc.
    In OSHA's view, the large amount of data contained in this study 
demonstrating that exposure levels at the glove bag consistently were 
well below the PEL of 0.1 f/cc supports the effectiveness of glove bags 
in protecting the asbestos worker.
    Additional data were submitted by Grayling Industries and Control 
Resource Systems, Inc., glove bag manufacturers (Ex. 7-144). Personal 
breathing zone measurements representing varied removals are almost all 
below OSHA's proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc. After the hearing, Grayling 
submitted letters from some of the contractors and organizations in 
charge of the projects for which data was submitted, which detailed the 
procedures followed by employees during the jobs where low exposure 
levels were recorded. (Ex. 111). These conditions correspond to the 
specifications and work practices which OSHA is requiring in this 
standard for glove bag use.
    Virtually all of the participants who opposed expanded use of glove 
bags for removal jobs, cited the NIOSH study referred to above. (See 
e.g. Ex. 143 at 98-100). The study was conducted jointly by NIOSH and 
EPA in 1985, and its results were made public, as a Health Hazard 
Evaluation (Exs. 1-1, 1-2, 1-20). It has also formed the basis for 
NIOSH's institutional position on glove bags published as ``An 
Evaluation Glove Bag Containment in Asbestos Removal'' in October 1990. 
(submitted post-hearing as Ex. 125). Based on the data and analysis in 
that document, NIOSH's spokesperson, Richard Lemen testified at the 
rulemaking hearing:

    NIOSH has found that airborne fibers are released in the work 
place when glove bags are used to remove asbestos pipe. Although the 
reasons for these releases were not determined, the study indicated 
that glove bags did not control asbestos exposures as anticipated. 
Thus, NIOSH strongly supports OSHA in requiring that negative-
pressure enclosures be used in conjunction with glove bags. 
Furthermore, NIOSH recommends that OSHA require the use of 
respiratory protection when glove bags are used. At a minimum, NIOSH 
recommends that workers should be required to wear the most 
protective air-purifying respirators * * * (Tr. 229)

    The study evaluated the removal of asbestos containing pipe lagging 
using glove bags from four public school buildings. The data were 
obtained during week-long surveys in each of the buildings. According 
to the abstract in the evaluation: ``the same work crew removed 
asbestos-containing pipe lagging in all four schools. Personal 
exposures to airborne fibers were determined using the NIOSH method'' 
(Ex. 125). NIOSH summarized the results: ``* * * In three of the four 
facilities studied, workers were exposed to airborne asbestos 
concentrations above the OSHA PEL. Only in the last building where the 
removal took place, were exposure levels reduced to below the new OSHA 
PELs.''
    Interpretation of the results of this study varied. BCTD viewed the 
study as supporting its view that glove bags should not be permitted 
for other than small scale, short duration jobs because they do not 
provide reliable protection for bystanders. (Ex. 143, p. 98). HEI 
concluded, based on the NIOSH study, that ``* * * glove bags should 
never be used as a stand alone abatement isolation procedure for long 
pipe runs'' (HEI, Ex. 1-344, p. 5-48). Clearly these results call into 
question any expansion of permitted glove bag use. However, after 
paying close attention to the conditions, personnel and equipment 
utilized in the NIOSH study, and to the rest of the record, OSHA 
believes that glove bag systems, when properly deployed and 
supplemented by barriers, are capable of protecting both the abatement 
worker and bystander employee.
    Details of the improper usage in the NIOSH study were pointed out 
by Grayling and CI and by the NIOSH investigators themselves; ``the 
methods employed by workers * * * violated current state-of the art 
glove bag procedures * * * (t)he glove bags contained over four times 
the recommended material, they were opened up and slid down the pipe, * 
* * (t)hey were used as a receptacle rather than as a glove bag, * * * 
the envelope was slit to speed the removal process, * * * bags were 
being sealed while removal was taking place * * *'' and other improper 
procedures (Ex. 130, Ex. 125). In addition, although NIOSH noted 
``[w]orker training and experience are important components in a 
reliable system of control measure, * * * (in this study) the work crew 
was not trained in the proper use of glove bags'' (Ex. 125, p. 20).
    Representatives of the glove bag industry also noted that since the 
study was undertaken in 1985-86, the equipment used by the workers, has 
been replaced by better designed and more protective equipment and 
materials. For example, one of the glove bags used in the study 
employed a zippered connection system, which ``promote(s) the free flow 
of contaminated air from the glove bag during removal * * *,'' and the 
``one-size fits all'' glove bag has been replaced by a ``greater number 
of designs and configurations of glove bags * * * (for) T's, elbows, 
valves, verticals and extended runs'' (Ex. 130, p. 3).
    The study showed that by the time the removal activity reached the 
fourth (final) building, the work crew, having been ``trained'' by a 
variety of on-the-job methods, such as ``trial and error,'' advice from 
the survey team, and watching a videotape, exposure levels were 
dramatically reduced. The pre-removal levels were not lower at the 
final facility, approximately the same amount of asbestos was removed 
as in the other operations and the authors stated that the lagging was 
in generally good condition throughout the study--lending further 
credence to the hypothesis that the use of improved work practices led 
to generation of lower fiber levels. The report concluded with a list 
of recommendations for work practices for glove bag use.
    OSHA believes that the NIOSH study should be viewed as a 
demonstration of poor work practices by untrained employees. The Agency 
notes that although the NIOSH study contains carefully presented and 
analyzed exposure data, the study design was compromised by the 
intervention of the investigators in instructing the workers. Further, 
since the workers were untrained, and for the most part did not use the 
glove bags correctly to attempt to isolate the disturbances, the study 
is of limited utility in identifying problems of glove bag systems when 
they are used correctly.
    NIOSH speculated that ignorance of proper glove bag procedures was 
common for plant maintenance personnel, asbestos operations and 
maintenance personnel, and many asbestos removal contractors who use 
glove bags only occasionally'' (Ex. 125, p. 53). If indeed this is so, 
it suggests that short of prohibiting glove-bag removals entirely, 
restricting permitted usage to, for example, maintenance work (small-
scale, short-duration work) may result in limiting permitted glove bag 
work to where it is likely to be performed incorrectly. It also 
suggests that, the frequency of glove bag work, rather than the size of 
the removal project is more relevant to its effectiveness. Other 
participants echoed this caution, for example, David Kirby of Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory testified that glove bag usage should be 
conditioned on showing quarterly frequency of glove bag usage (Tr. 116-
17).
    OSHA concludes that when conscientiously used by well-trained, 
well-supervised personnel, glove bags can effectively reduce asbestos 
fiber release. The NIOSH study demonstrated clearly that the obverse is 
also true; when glove bags are used improperly by untrained or 
insufficiently trained workers, airborne fiber levels can become 
significantly elevated. Consequently, based on this extensive evidence 
and analysis, OSHA is permitting wider use of glove bag technology in 
the final standard, but is including additional requirements to improve 
the effectiveness of their use. The Agency notes that the new 
regulatory text prescribing the specifications and work practices for 
allowable glove bag removals would prohibit the kind of removal 
activity observed in the NIOSH study.
    Based on its study, NIOSH recommended detailed work practices and 
specifications for glove bag use. OSHA has incorporated the major 
recommendations into the standard, either as part of the overall 
requirements for asbestos removal, or as required components of 
permitted glove bag systems. For example, NIOSH recommends that workers 
``spray frequently during the removal process so that newly exposed 
surfaces are wetted.'' OSHA requires that all work be performed using 
wet methods. ``Wet methods'' are defined as, applying sufficient water 
to ACM and PACM during the work operation so that fibers, if released, 
are prevented from becoming airborne. Other recommendations likewise 
are covered by more generic requirements.
    For Class I work in which glove bags are used, OSHA is requiring 
that 2 persons perform the glove bag removal. BCTD recommended that 2 
persons perform glove bag work stating that ``* * * the operation can 
be hard-pressed to adjust the HEPA vacuum flow rates or water pressure 
in the sprayer while his/her hands are in the bag'' (Ex. 143, p. 125). 
BCTD also felt that proper decontamination required a ``buddy system'' 
involving a second worker.
    Exxon representative, Mr. Booher, testified that their practices is 
to have 2 persons per glove bag (Tr. 2673). Mr. Sledge of Naval Sea 
Systems Command testified that two personal normally perform glove bag 
operations in their facilities, usually using glove bags under negative 
pressure (Tr. 420). OSHA agrees and believes that proper use of glove 
bags in removing high-risk ACM (TSI and surfacing ACM) requires at 
least two persons. The Agency also notes that required training of 
employees must cover detailed glove bag procedures. Many of the 
detailed work practices recommended by NIOSH are advisory, i.e. use 
``sprayer of sufficient length,'' will be covered in training, and/or 
are encompassed by more general requirements.

Other Systems

    Although glove bag systems were the alternative system most 
discussed during the rulemaking, participants submitted data on other 
systems which were claimed to effectively isolate asbestos dust during 
removal. The Agency has reviewed the data and comment on these 
submissions and has listed four additional systems as permitted for 
Class I work under stated circumstances in paragraph (g)(5). The Agency 
emphasizes that the listing of any system is not an endorsement by 
OSHA. The listing merely indicates that various combinations of 
engineering controls and work practices represented by these systems, 
when properly carried out, and when all other provisions of these 
standards, e.g., training, competent person supervision, exposure 
assessments and respirator use where required, are found by the Agency 
on this record to constitute effective means of controlling employee 
exposure to asbestos.
    Two of the systems are modifications of glove bag systems. One, a 
negative pressure glove bag system, was presented as an alternative by 
several participants. One witness stated that ``the nuclear ship repair 
industry has used pipe containment glove bags for years * * * all of 
this work has been required to be performed with constant negative 
pressure being maintained inside the glove bag during removal 
operations'' (Tr. 3028). A panel testifying on behalf of Union Carbide 
described a negative-pressure glove bag technology which they have 
developed (Tr. 2192 and Ex. 7-108). M. Patel, an industrial hygienist 
at Union Carbide, described it in his written testimony:

    The glove bag system is used as follows: The glove bag is 
connected to the glove/hose connector. All the tools needed to 
remove asbestos are placed in the inner pouch of the glove bag. The 
bag is installed on a pipe utilizing the zipper provided at the top. 
The shoulder is fastened on both ends of the glove bag with 
tourniquets. The rest of the system is connected. The insulation is 
wetted with amended water using the portable garden sprayer. The 
asbestos is cut and falls through the open sliding gate valve and 
collects in the waste bag. Vacuum in the bag and in the rest of the 
system is adjusted to prevent collapse of the bag. When the asbestos 
waste collected in the bag is almost full, the sliding gate valve is 
closed as the vacuum in the system is slowly controlled by adjusting 
the splitter valve, and the bag is carefully sealed and removed. A 
new bag is installed and the sliding gate valve opened. When all 
asbestos inside the glove bag is removed, the pipe and the wall of 
the glove bag above the middle zipper inside the bag are rinsed with 
amended water. The middle zipper is closed to isolate the upper 
compartment while vacuum is still being pulled.
    The tourniquet on either end of the glove bag is loosened and 
the bag is moved to the next position. The middle portion of the bag 
is unzipped and the work is continued Ex. 9-43).

The panel members reported that the mean value of the exposure for the 
modified negative-pressure glove bag was 0.02 f/cc.
    In a post-hearing submission, Union Carbide submitted a large 
number of additional measurements from various operations supporting 
the relative effectiveness of their negative-pressure glove bag method 
of asbestos control. These data showed both glove bags and negative 
pressure glove bag personal exposure levels were low, and well below 
those for negative pressure enclosures as measured by the company.

       Table II.--Asbestos Fiber Levels During Removal Operations       
                                [Ex. 113]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           No.                   %>0.1 F/
               Operation                 samples   Sample type      CC  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glove bag..............................    2,280  Area.........      2.3
Negative-pressure enclosure............    1,220  Area.........     16.4
Glove bag..............................    2,361  Personal.....     22.7
Negative-pressure enclosure............    1,001  Personal.....     60.9
Negative-pressure glove bag............       90  Area.........      1.1
Negative-pressure glove bag............       80  Personal.....  10.0\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mean of those >0.1 f/cc=0.21 f/cc, the overall mean=0.046 f/cc.      

    Some of the exposure monitoring results showed personal samples 
above the new PEL of 0.1 f/cc. Union Carbide suggested, that employees 
performing Class I work using the modified negative pressure glove-bag, 
wear respiratory protection. OSHA is requiring that all employees who 
perform Class I work wear respirators.
    Additional data on negative pressure glove bags showing effective 
exposure reductions was submitted by others, including NIOSH (Ex. 1-
125, 1-126). ``Opinion evidence'' was that negative pressure glove 
bags, when properly used, offered an additional margin of safety over 
non-negative pressure glove bags (see e.g., testimony of David Kirby, 
Tr. 188).
    Based on these data, OSHA is allowing negative pressure glove bags 
for Class I work, subject to similar limitations as ``regular'' glove 
bags.
    Another method allowed for Class I work is the negative pressure 
glove box. This isolation device, is a rigid containment, unlike the 
glove bag, which is made of flexible material. Because it can be 
constructed of strong, impermeable material, common glove bag failures 
due to holes, leaks and collapse, would theoretically be avoided.
    Mark Mazzara of SDS International Builders submitted several 
documents describing a negative pressure glove box, which his firm was 
marketing. The accompanying brochures described it as follows:

    * * *system allows for the removal of ACM on pipes by creating a 
closed work area around the pipe section to be worked on. * * * 
consists of work box, together with a pressure barrier generated by 
the systems inherent Negative Pressure filtration system. The Work 
Box is a maneuverable element of sturdy metal construction that is 
positioned around the unit of pipe to be worked on * * * [it] is 
fitted with standard gloved apertures allowing for access into the 
closed system for the asbestos workers. At the base of the Work Box 
is an aperture feeding into a bagging outlet into which the 
liberated ACM is passed. This allows for easy bagging of the ACM and 
its subsequent disposal. * * * [it] is attached to a * * * negative 
pressure generator, that allows the creation of the pressure barrier 
that allows the creation of the closed system, preventing the escape 
of hazards materials into surrounding area (Ex. 7-98).

The submissions contained numerous sampling results indicating that low 
fiber levels were maintained during the use of this device. 
Accompanying these was a letter from the State of New Jersey in which 
the Division of Building and Construction (Frank J. Kuzniacki) stated 
that he felt that the device ``provided a safe and cost effective 
alternative to standard glove bag removal.''
    The last method specifically listed for Class I use is designated 
the ``water spray'' process. In submissions to the docket and in 
testimony at the public hearing, representatives of Hydrous Dust 
Control Systems, Inc. described an alternate method of control for use 
in work on asbestos covered pipes which they called the Portam Process. 
This process relies on water spray to provide a barrier between the 
worker and the ACM. In written materials it was described as follows:

    Engineered designed sprays are configured so as to create a 
liquid barrier on every plane. The spray is so designed as to throw 
a heavy droplet of liquid giving it both velocity and direction. On 
at least one of these planes * * * the heavy water droplets are 
forced into collision creating a very fine aerosol which is 
contained within liquid barriers. A water containment device is 
placed around the spray rails with an open access and double drain 
facility. A vacuum hose is connected to the drain facility creating 
a slight pressure differential (negative pressure), in the contained 
area. When water covers the drain area the pressure differential is 
maximized in the drain hose pulling the waste and water very rapidly 
to the remote interceptor. This movement creates a shock pulse which 
is quite visual and is reflected at the workhead. The sudden 
movement of air within the work zone helps to stimulated the fine 
aerosol droplets creating eddy current. These eddy currents promote 
a 360 deg. precipitation around the pipe (Ex. 1-171).

    Data were presented showing that use of this system achieved 
consistently low exposure levels. However, the complexity of the 
system, and its uniqueness require, as the manufacturer recommends, 
additional training for effective use. Therefore OSHA is allowing this 
system to be used only by workers who are trained in a supplemental 40 
hour training course in the specific use of this system, including at 
least 8 hours of which must be hands-on training. Although BCTD stated 
that this system possessed a high potential for exposure because it is 
not a sealed system, (Ex. 143, at 103), OSHA believes that the 
technology of the water spray system is sufficiently proven by the data 
submitted.
    Other specific systems which do not easily fit the descriptions of 
the above systems were discussed during the rulemaking. Some, such as 
the ``Lyons Trough'' appear promising, however, the data submitted are 
too limited for OSHA to determine effectiveness in the rulemaking. 
Several TEM and PCM measurements were made during a ``controlled 
demonstration'' which lasted 31 minutes and during ``field evaluation'' 
of 29 minutes. The personal sample from the former was below the limit 
of detection by PCM, and the personal sample from the latter measured 
0.002 f/cc by PCM (Ex. 135).
    Other methods appeared too limited in application to be 
``generically'' approved by OSHA, and/or appeared highly dependent on 
worker behavior to avoid failure. Such a system, devised by Tenneco, is 
a modified glove bag/mini-enclosure to facilitate safe removal of small 
amounts of asbestos fireproofing above ceiling tiles (Ex. 65 A-P). In 
its post-hearing brief, the BCTD objected to the use of the Tenneco 
device for two reasons. First, because it was held as close as possible 
to the ceiling and did not fit against it, they felt there was 
potential for fiber escape; and second, they questioned how effective 
it would be if one of the workers holding it up got tired and dropped 
it. (Ex. 143, p. 103). OSHA agrees; the device may be used therefore 
only as an alternative control method pursuant to the requirements for 
certification in paragraph (g)(6).
Mini-Enclosures
    Mini-enclosures, the other control method allowed for Class I work 
is supported by a submission by BCTD which described a portable 
isolation enclosure developed by J. Streiter of Southern Insulation 
Inc. (Ex. 119, #5). OSHA notes, however, that mini-enclosures are 
manufactured by other companies and this rule does not limit use of the 
device to any particular manufacturer. In an accompanying trade paper 
article the portable enclosure is described as: ``a cubicle with an 
extendable shroud that fits on top. A HEPA filtration system drew air 
down from the ceiling. Inside the enclosure was a suited man; opposite 
was a trapped door with a bag attached * * * the worker remove[d] the 
tile, clean[ed] off the grid and deposit[ed] everything in the bag 
after opening the trap door. Suction would pull the door shut. Within 
the enclosure was a shower attachment * * *'' The submission also 
contained air sampling data obtained during use of this apparatus while 
removing ceiling tiles from a Virginia building. The results indicated 
that fiber levels averaged less than 0.01 f/cc. However, as pointed out 
by BCTD in its post-hearing brief there was failure to achieve 
clearance (0.01 f/cc under AHERA) in this building following use of the 
device which ``necessitated evacuation of the work areas on several 
occasions.'' As explained elsewhere in this document, OSHA is not 
requiring AHERA clearance levels to be achieved for Class I work. If 
such requirements must be met, the employer should employ all 
applicable controls which in some cases may exceed those in these 
standards.

Class II Work

    Class II asbestos work is defined as activities involving the 
removal of ACM or PACM which is not TSI or surfacing ACM. According to 
the definition, this includes, but is not limited to, the removal of 
asbestos-containing wallboard, floor tile and sheeting, gaskets, joint 
compounds, roofing felts, roofing and siding shingles, and construction 
mastics.
    OSHA has found that the exposure potential from Class II work is 
generally lower than for Class I work, when removal is conducted under 
substantially similar conditions. Consequently, if the employer shows, 
that in any particular job, that well-trained and experienced workers, 
with an established ``track record'' of keeping exposures low will 
perform that removal, the required controls are less stringent than 
those required for Class I removals.
    Removal of materials which are not TSI or surfacing ACM may be 
handled by complying with work practice and engineering control 
requirements for Class II in paragraph (g)(7), and the generic 
requirements for all asbestos work in (g)(1) of the standard. 
Additionally, methods allowed for Class I removals may be used for 
Class II work, unless the system cannot be adapted for Class II work, 
such as in the case of the water spray process system. Glove bags/boxes 
can be installed around some materials covered by the Class II 
designation, such as gaskets and ceiling tiles. It is OSHA's intent to 
allow Class I methods to be used for removing Class II materials when 
no modification in the apparatus is required, without special notice to 
OSHA.
    As Class II work, removal of asbestos-containing material such as 
floor tiles and roofing will not be subject to quantity cut-offs for 
using certain control methods. This is similar to the proposal, which 
would have allowed these materials to be removed using mandated work 
practices, and exempted compliant jobs from negative pressure enclosure 
requirements. Under the final standard, other materials classified as 
``miscellaneous'' by EPA such as transite panel and valves/gaskets may 
be removed without quantity limitation so long as Class II work 
practices are followed. Additionally, the standard allows all other 
materials (except TSI and surfacing ACM) to be removed using the 
generic work practices in paragraph (g)(1) which require wet methods, 
HEPA vacuuming and prompt waste disposal, and pursuant to additional 
controls in (g)(2) if the PEL may be exceeded.
    Paragraphs (g)(7)(i) and (ii) establish ``setting-up'' requirements 
which apply to all removals of all Class II materials. These include 
the requirement that a competent person supervise the work and that 
where a negative exposure assessment cannot be produced or changed 
conditions during the job indicate elevated fiber levels, critical 
barriers or other isolation methods must be used or where the ACM is 
not removed in a substantially intact.
    OSHA is also listing specific work practices for some kinds of 
Class II work which are common, such as removing flooring material or 
roofing material, as proposed. The generic list of work practices for 
all operations under this standard in paragraph (g)(1), covers most 
specific practices set out for each kind of removal. However, since 
both OSHA and participants believe that stating how each kind of 
material must be removed in specific terms will enhance compliance, 
paragraph (g)(7)(2) restates the relevant generic requirements in terms 
specific to each activity. For example, using wet methods for all 
asbestos work, unless the employer can show wet methods are infeasible, 
is now required, in the generic requirements, for all asbestos work 
[see (g)(1)]. However, wet methods encompass a range of work practices. 
For example, when removing material which is bound in a matrix, misting 
may be appropriate. Removing ACM or PACM which is not so bound, or 
where deterioration of the ACM has occurred, would require more 
aggressive wetting.
    Thus, in the paragraph applying to flooring removal, the employer 
must mist the ``snip point'' used for cutting sheet flooring. For 
roofing removal, the blades of all powered tools must be continually 
misted during use. OSHA believes these more specific directions will 
help insure that work is done protectively.
    OSHA proposed to require use of wet methods to remove sheet floor 
covering. RFCI guidelines state that floor tile is to be removed by 
prying up an edge but no mention of the use of water on the floor tile 
is made. The revised standards require the use of wet methods wherever 
feasible including operations involving the removal of all floor 
covering materials known or presumed to contain asbestos. P. Quirk, an 
asbestos consultant, recommended that ``Floor tile and sheet removal 
must utilize wet methods for all work'' (Ex. 3-34). A representative of 
the Resilient Floor and Decorative Covering Union expressed a similar 
view that ``the floor should be kept adequately wet during the entire 
operation'' (Ex. 7-37). Based on this support, OSHA has concluded that 
most flooring removals must be performed using wet methods when 
feasible and has included this requirement in the final with one 
exception. The exception allows floor tiles to be removed intact using 
heat.

Specific Work Practices for Specific Class II Operations

    As discussed above, certain precautions are always required for all 
work under these construction and shipyard standards in paragraph 
(g)(1). These are HEPA equipped vacuums, wet methods, and prompt 
disposal of waste and debris. Additional provisions apply to the 
removal of all Class II material [Paragraph (g)(7)]. These are required 
critical barriers in designated indoor activities and dropcloths in 
all.
    OSHA also includes more detailed work practices for specific Class 
II activities, such as the removal of roofing materials and resilient 
flooring material. Most of these requirements are more specific 
applications of general industrial principles for handling dust-
generating materials, asbestos in particular. OSHA and many 
participants believe that employers are helped by specific work 
practice requirements so long as they do not restrict common sense 
accommodations to unique workplace conditions. The following discussion 
show the reasons for and support of OSHA's decisions for specific work 
practices for removal or disturbing ACM or PACM.

Flooring Operations

    Flooring operations are separately discussed because of the amount 
of interest in these activities manifest during the rulemaking, and the 
prevalence of asbestos-containing flooring materials in buildings. 
Because of the prevalence of asbestos-containing flooring, the 
frequency which it is maintained and removed, and the possibility of 
exposure if improperly done, specific requirements for flooring are 
needed to reduce significant risk to the extent feasible.
    Removal of asbestos containing flooring materials is a Class II 
asbestos job. As such, it must be performed using the operation 
specific controls set out in paragraph (g)(ii)(a), or when called for 
by an ``exposure assessment using ``alternative'' controls. Additional 
controls must be used if the employer does not produce a ``negative 
exposure assessment'' prior to the beginning of the job, if during the 
job, there is reasonable belief that a permissible exposure level will 
be exceeded, or if methods are used which are expected to result in 
flooring material breaking or otherwise removed in a non-intact state. 
The required controls in large part mirror those of the proposal which 
were based on work practice recommended by the Resilient Flooring 
Covering Institute (RFCI). Additional ``non-aggressive'' practices are 
allowed, in response to supporting data and to commenters such as 
Michael Murphy of Monsanto who asked that OSHA ``* * * allow the use of 
other practices which achieve comparable results'' (Ex. 7-125).
    OSHA believes that these provisions are necessary and appropriate 
to reduce risk to workers who perform this type of activity. The 
relative level of risk of removing asbestos-containing flooring was 
considered in the rulemaking. OSHA has not classified asbestos 
containing flooring as ``high risk.'' The degree of risk from removing 
these materials depends on the kind of removal activity performed, and 
on the condition of the material. Data relating to flooring removal 
show overall lower levels than TSI and surfacing ACM (see e.g., Ex. 7-
100; 7-132). Thus, EPA recently included resilient floor covering, in 
its lowest risk category (Category I non-friable ACM). However EPA 
concluded that ``if these materials are in poor condition and are 
friable or they are subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting or 
abrading, they are to be treated as friable asbestos materials (55 FR 
at 48409). The OSHA record supports these findings.
    Opinions of some asbestos abatement experts familiar with a range 
of asbestos removal projects agreed with the basis for EPA's and OSHA's 
classification scheme. Marshall Marcus stated that flooring removals, 
when well conducted are likely to involve lower exposures than removals 
of other types of interior asbestos containing materials; whereas Mary 
Finn emphasized that removing of flooring tile, because it cannot be 
saturated easily, may, when aggressively removed, result in significant 
exposures (see testimony of Marshall Marcus, Tr. 3794 and Mary Finn Tr. 
3765).
    OSHA's approach of requiring those removal methods which are 
unlikely to elevate exposures was challenged by participants who 
contended that methods for removing flooring cannot be determined at 
the beginning of the project. This might occur when employees discover 
during the project that flooring is resistant to removal. This may be 
difficult to predict in advance, as pointed out by BCTD (Ex. 143 at 
155, citing testimony of asbestos contractor and consultant Marshall 
Marcus, Tr. 3794 and others). OSHA acknowledges that such difficulties 
may occur. However, as pointed out by Mary Finn, many of the variables 
contributing to exposures are available for consideration at the 
inception of the project; ``* * * the predictability of how aggressive 
one must remove floor tile varies from job to job depending on the age 
of the particular materials, depending on the wear that it's undergone 
and depending on the techniques that the particular contractor and his 
workers might use'' (Tr. 3744).
    Also, OSHA notes that much of the project data submitted show 
consistency in practices over the entire project. In cases where more 
aggressive methods are resorted to mid-job, OSHA requires a ``mid-
course correction:'' a re-evaluation of the exposure potential by the 
competent person, and the installation of additional controls if the 
projection is that the exposures will exceed the PEL.
    Most ``aggressive'' techniques, such as ``shot-blasting'' may be 
used only after an evaluation showed that less aggressive methods are 
not feasible. Even if the evaluation of the ``aggressive'' method shows 
exposures will be below the PEL, the employees must still install 
critical barriers or otherwise isolate the removal operation [paragraph 
(g)(4)(i)(B)(2)], and employees must wear respirators. This is required 
regardless of when such ``aggressive'' methods were used, at the 
inception, or mid-way into a removal job.
    Specific ``non-aggressive'' control methods are allowed and 
preferred for removing flooring materials (tile, sheet, and mastics) 
which contain asbestos and those materials for which the employer/
building owner has not verified the absence of asbestos. The controls 
are ``non-aggressive'' work practices, and include the practices which 
under OSHA's proposal would have allowed an exemption from the 
requirement to erect a negative pressure enclosure for flooring 
material removal (see 55 FR at 29719).
    OSHA did not propose to require employers to assume that vinyl or 
asphalt tile or resilient flooring was asbestos containing, although 
the RFCI recommended that such an assumption be made. OSHA asked for 
comments on this issue.
    Several industrial hygienists agreed that the recommendation should 
be followed. For example, David Kirby, industrial hygienist, Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, testified that an ongoing survey of ORNL 
facilities showed that ``90 percent of our floor tile either contained 
asbestos or the mastic material that's used to attach them to the 
floors contained asbestos.'' Mr. Kirby recommended that it's ``prudent 
to * * * assume that all floor tile materials contain asbestos, unless 
you can prove the contrary * * *'' (Tr. 124-125). According to Mr. 
Kirby, negating the presence of asbestos content in flooring material 
entails a complex and expensive process; ``taking those materials, 
having them ashed, using high temperature ashing techniques, and then 
the residue could be analyzed by transmission electron microscopy.'' 
Other evidence in the record indicated the prevalence of asbestos 
containing flooring material. An EPA 1988 survey, cited in the HEI 
report, reported that 42% of public and commercial buildings within the 
U.S. contain asbestos containing floor tile (Ex. 1-344).
    A review of the comments and evidence demonstrates that there is a 
high degree of prevalence of asbestos-containing flooring and that 
there are diagnostic difficulties in identifying asbestos fibers in 
flooring material. Consequently, OSHA is changing its approach and the 
final standard provides that the employers shall assume in removing 
flooring that it contains asbestos and take the specific precautions 
unless the employer demonstrates that the flooring materials are not 
asbestos-containing. Such a showing must be based on analysis which is 
likely to reveal the asbestos content of the flooring material, the 
backing and the mastic. No one protocol for analysis is specified, but 
the standard requires that a certified industrial hygienist (CIH) or 
project designer certify the analytical results.
    OSHA believes that the final standard's provisions relating to 
flooring removal are more comprehensive and protective than the 
proposal's. There, an exemption for flooring removals from the NPE 
requirement was conditioned merely on compliance with certain work 
practices recommended by the Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). 
These practices included a prohibition of sanding of floor or backing, 
use of a HEPA vacuum cleaner before and after removal, prohibition of 
dry sweeping, application of new material over old tiles without 
removal if possible, wet removal of residual felt, and bagging and 
disposal of waste in 6 mil plastic containers. The new final provisions 
allow removal to be performed by these methods, but also allow various 
heating methods to be used, or any other means of loosening floor 
tiles, without breakage. Unlike the proposal, an employer cannot 
proceed without negative air or critical barriers, merely using non-
aggressive work practices and wet methods, unless his pre-job 
evaluation shows that similar floor removals (in the same building or 
of the same materials and mastics) were successfully completed by work 
crews with adequate training and experience in working under these 
conditions.
    OSHA noted in the proposal that data provided by RFCI showed that 
where jobs followed their recommended practices, mean exposures to 
workers were between 0.0045 and 0.03 f/cc for workers performing floor 
tile removal, removal of resilient sheet flooring, or removal of 
cutback adhesive. During the rulemaking, additional data were submitted 
showing exposure levels during flooring removals. David Kirby, OSHA 
witness from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) said that he has used 
the RFCI work practices successfully, maintaining personal sampling 
fiber levels at an average of 0.0075 f/cc (range 0.001 to 0.029) (Tr. 
99). When asked what additional precautions were taken at his 
facilities during these operations, he replied that ``we do use 
regulated areas in the sense that we don't allow anyone in the area as 
we're doing the work, and we also require workers to wear respiratory 
protection as they're doing this activity, but yet we don't feel like 
there is * * * a need for negative pressure enclosures.'' (Tr. 124). 
BCTD, in its post-hearing brief argued that the RFCI methods 
specifically, and ``non-aggressive'' flooring removal methods 
generally, do not always result in exposure levels which are acceptable 
(Ex. 143). It cited various studies or project results submitted to the 
record. Some of these results were given in terms of structures per 
square centimeter, a convention of TEM. For example, Richard Kelly of 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory objected to allowing the use of 
RFCI methods to control asbestos exposure during removal of asbestos 
containing mastic (Ex. 11, #22). He reported that during removals in 
which only the mastic contained asbestos, he had measured (by TEM) 
fiber levels of 33 s/cc during dry power chipping of VAT and 0.9 s/cc 
during wet hand removal in what he called a ``real-world application of 
the RFCI procedures.'' He noted that the floor was not pre-vacuumed nor 
was a heat gun used as described in the recommended practices. Under 
its AHERA rule, EPA defines ``structure'' as a microscopic bundle, 
cluster, fiber or matrix which may contain asbestos. OSHA notes that 
such structures may be smaller and/or thinner than the asbestos fibers 
required to be counted under the OSHA reference method. A general 
summary of the results of these studies shows that most of the exposure 
levels were below the proposed PELs when measured using the OSHA 
reference method (e. g., Gobbell, 1991, exposure range, 0.01 to 0.035: 
AT &T, 1990, non-detected to 0.019).
    Some other studies of floor removals entered into the record showed 
higher exposure levels of ``structures'' as detected by TEM, and 
defined by EPA. As noted above, counts of structures are not comparable 
to fiber counts, and OSHA believes that most ``structure'' counts 
result in significantly higher fiber counts than would be counted by 
PCM.
    A related issue is whether flooring material should be analyzed by 
TEM, rather than by PCM. As pointed out by BCTD and other participants, 
floor tile tends to generate smaller fibers which often cannot be 
detected under PCM; and TEM detects these shorter asbestos fibers (and 
the thinner asbestos fibers, which PCM cannot distinguish [Ex. 143, p. 
147 citing Tr. 3468; Tr 3751, Tr. 3279, Tr. 473-474]. In the 1986 
rulemaking OSHA considered the issue of the relative toxicity of short 
asbestos fibers, which were not required to be counted under the OSHA 
definition of ``fiber.'' Then, the Agency stated that ``* * * animal 
studies * * * in particular the recent work by Dr. Davis, point to a 
clear relationship between fiber dimension and disease potential. The 
finding in these studies that thin fibers, (having an aspect ratio of 
at least 3:1) greater than 5 m in length are associated with 
elevated incidence of cancer and lung fibrosis is also consistent with 
current knowledge regarding lung clearance mechanisms, i.e., that 
shorter fibers are easily phagocytized and removed from lung tissue'' 
(51 FR at 22613). Dosages used in OSHA's risk assessment extrapolated 
from studies of human exposure, attempted to transform or reconstruct 
fiber counts to correlate with fiber counts using current conventions 
of counting fibers only longer than 5 m, using PCM. Similar to 
the conclusions reached by OSHA in the preamble to its 1986 asbestos 
rule, the HEI report of 1991 found that ``experimental results 
described in this review indicate that short fiber preparations have a 
lower toxicity than long fiber preparations, but do not exclude their 
contribution to the lesions caused by the smaller number of long fibers 
in the tail of the fiber length distribution * * * individual fibers 
shorter than approximately 5 m appear to possess much less 
toxicity than those longer than 5 m'' (Ex. 1-344, p. 6-76).
    The HEI Report also noted that the exposure-response relationship 
reported in the literature which served as the basis for estimation of 
risk had exposure expressed in terms of fibers greater than 5 
m in length ( Ex. 1-344). These aspects of OSHA's risk 
assessment, and counting protocols were not challenged in the 
litigation following the 1986 rules, therefore were not remanded to 
OSHA for reconsideration in the Court of Appeal's 1988 decision. The 
only study submitted in its entirety, (see Freed et al, Ex. 143 at Att. 
B), is of limited relevance; it is a case study, which was undertaken 
to show that asbestos fiber may produce DIP (desquamative interstitial 
pneumonia) as well as asbestosis. The authors note that ``although over 
90% of the 820 million fibers of wet lung tissue were 3 m or 
less in length, sufficient numbers of fibers greater than 5 m 
in length were present, which could also account for the tissue 
response'' (Ex. 143, Att B at 332). Resolution of whether short or long 
fibers are counted is not necessary for the purposes of this revised 
standard, because OSHA finds that work practices and controls are 
needed when working on floors regardless of the measurement method 
used. OSHA does not change its conclusion and retains the provisions 
that airborne asbestos measurements taken during flooring operations 
shall use the same methodology as in the 1986 standard.
    The Agency's analysis of data submitted showing exposure levels 
during flooring removal, shows a general correlation between lower 
levels and ``non-aggressive'' methods, and higher levels and 
``aggressive methods.'' For example, Mary Finn of Chart Services, an 
asbestos consulting company, testified that ``if breakage is minimized, 
obviously exposures are going to go down'' (Tr. 3765). Ms. Finn 
submitted area sampling data from flooring removal operations which had 
a mean of 0.056 f/cc as an 8-hour time-weighted average (Ex. 9-18). She 
also presented data on area TEM counts taken during four operations 
involving drilling through VAT--the mean for the four samples was 0.3 
structures/cc (2 samples were below the limit of detection and one 
value was 1.01 f/cc), while all four samples were below the limit of 
detection when measured by PCM. BCTD cited various studies showing high 
fiber levels during flooring removal (Ex. 143 at 151-153). One, the 
Cook data, showed some high short term levels on one job, it was 
unclear what work practices were used, other jobs done by the same firm 
showed exposure values less than the PELs (see Ex. 35 and 119S). The 
Rosby data showed short term data which were well within the PEL 
excursion limit (Ex. 119 U). Other data pointed to by BCTD as 
indicating the unreliability of exposure reductions using non-
aggressive methods, merely shows that EPA clearance levels were not 
achieved (Ex. 7-132), that exceedances were possible (Ex. 7-137 [it is 
noted that an exposure of .11 f/cc is considered in compliance with 
OSHA's PEL, and that TEM fiber counts were elevated (Ex. 119T)].
    In addition to the Environ data contracted for and submitted by 
RFCI and Armstrong, which was interpreted differently by the submitter 
and by BCTD, these and other interested parties submitted additional 
data showing exposure levels during various kinds of asbestos-
containing flooring removal. Low exposure levels were obtained in a New 
York State Department of Health Study, for floor tile removal using 
automated infrared heating, (followed by hand scraping)(see Ex. 7-100). 
As noted above, OSHA is allowing removal to be performed using heat, so 
long as tiles are not broken during the removal process. Under contract 
with EPA, PEI Associates performed a study which was described in a 
report entitled ``Evaluation of Tile and Mastic Removal at Fort Sill'' 
(Ex. 1-330). TEM was used to measure fiber levels resulting from use of 
several different methods to remove tile and/or mastic. They found that 
``airborne asbestos levels averaged 0.135 structures per cubic 
centimeter (s/cc) during dry tile removal, 0.066 s/cc during wet tile 
removal, 0.247 s/cc during removal of mastic using citric acid and 
towels and 0.326 s/cc during sand machine mastic removals. No PCM 
measurements were presented, and the proportion of the TEM-measured 
fibers exceeding 5 m in length was not reported.
    The question of whether a negative pressure enclosure should be 
required for floor tile removal, was considered during the rulemaking. 
Some participants, including asbestos abatement consultant, Marshall 
Marcus recommended negative pressure enclosures as a matter of course 
for asbestos containing flooring removal (See e.g., Tr. 3796 and Ex. 7-
37, 7-92). OSHA notes that its final rule now requires bystander 
protection, when excessive exposure levels are measured or expected. 
The questionable benefits to flooring removal employees of working 
within a enclosure are discussed in the general discussion on NPEs in 
this preamble. OSHA also notes that some exposure data submitted 
concerning flooring removal exposure levels, contained relatively high 
exposures for work within enclosures (see e.g., Ex. 7-134A) and that 
removing flooring using dry ice in a negative pressure enclosure can 
result in toxic buildups within the enclosure (see Tr. 202). Therefore 
OSHA is not generally requiring flooring removal to be done within 
NPEs. However, where flooring material is removed using ``aggressive 
methods,'' higher fiber levels have been reported, at least as measured 
by TEM (see Ex 11, #22 and 9-18). The Agency concludes that the use of 
aggressive floor removal techniques in which the material is not 
removed intact, such as mechanical chipping of floor tile and shot-
blast removal of mastic, are likely to result in the release of larger 
amounts of fibers and must be performed within negative-pressure 
enclosures or the equivalent. EPA has concluded similarly:

    Removal of VAT (or other known or assumed ACM flooring or its 
adhesive) which involves sanding, grinding, mechanical chipping, 
drilling, cutting or abrading the material has a high probability of 
rendering the material friable and capable of releasing asbestos 
fibers. Therefore, removal projects which employ any of these 
techniques (other than small-scale-short-duration) must be conducted 
as response actions, including use of a project designer, accredited 
persons, and air clearance (55 FR 48409).

In response to concerns that the RFCI work practices will not be 
followed, it should be pointed out that the alternate to their use is 
full enclosure of the operation which is likely to be considered more 
burdensome than the work practices.

Transite Removal

    Removal of transite panels is considered a Class II activity in 
this revised standard. As such, they are required to be removed using 
certain practices and controls. These are: the intact removal of 
transite panels; the use of wet methods followed by wrapping of the 
panels in plastic; and the lowering of panels to the ground without 
breakage. These provisions are in essence the same one proposed by OSHA 
in 1990 when allowing an exemption from the NPE requirements. The 1990 
proposal presented the comments of OSHA field personnel which suggested 
that removal of transite panels, without regard to quantity, should be 
exempt from the negative-pressure enclosure requirement as long as the 
transite is removed without cutting or otherwise abrading the material 
(Ex. 1-59). This suggestion was supported by numerous participants (Ex. 
7-6, 7-9, 7-23, 7-42, 7-43, 7-47, 7-52, 7-62, 7-63, 7-74, 7-79, 7-86, 
7-95, 7-99, 7-103, 7-106, 7-108, 7-111, 7-112, 7-125, 7-128, 7-134, 7-
144, 7-146, 7-140).
    Additional work practices such as wrapping panels and lowering them 
intact, were suggested in this proceeding and are incorporated in the 
revised standards [see comments of Robert Welch of Columbia Gas System 
who recommended wrapping intact transite panels in sheeting and 
lowering them intact to the ground avoiding breakage (Ex. 7-23); and, 
comments of Edward Karpetian of the Los Angeles Department of Power and 
Water, who recommended that in addition, the material be HEPA vacuumed 
and wrapped (Ex. 7-42)]. As noted in prior discussion of the general 
provisions covering construction activities, negative pressure 
enclosures are not required for Class II activities, unless they are 
performed along with a Class I activity for which an NPE is required.
    The rulemaking record contains strong evidence showing low 
exposures resulting from transite panel removal when appropriate work 
practices are followed. The submission of the American Paper Institute 
and the National Forest Products Association contained sampling data 
taken during the removal of transite panels from paper machine hoods 
(Ex. 7-74). Wet methods were used and the area was regulated. Personal 
and area samples were well below 0.1 f/cc, with the 23 personal samples 
having an average of 0.012 f/cc (not time-weighted). Rose Simpson of 
Lubrizol stated that ``area monitoring samples taken during transite 
removal operations at our facilities indicate exposure levels well 
below the current 0.2 f/cc and the proposed 0.1 f/cc limits'' (Ex. 7-
86). OSHA witness David Kirby of Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated 
in his comments that personal air monitoring during transite panel 
removal resulted in average fiber level of 0.008 f/cc (8 hr. TWA) (Ex. 
7-111). And in a post-hearing submission (Ex. 105), he presented the 
fiber levels (measured by PCM) generated during non-enclosed transite 
removal performed wet at ORNL, which ranged from <0.031 to <0.082 f/cc 
(mean=0.058 f/cc) (see also Ex. 140, where the Dow Chemical Company 
claimed transite removal real time levels did not exceed 0.07 f/c).
    As described above, most data show that if performed intact, 
transite removal will result in exposures well below the PELs. Some 
evidence, however, was presented showing exceedances. Paul Heffernan of 
Kaselaan & D'Angelo Associates, Inc. stated:

    * * * removal of transite panels which are not cut or broken 
should not be generically allowed. Many transite panels used in 
interior wall construction consist of very rough inner surfaces from 
which asbestos fiber is readily released into the air. Kaselaan & 
D'Angelo Associates has monitored the removal of 18'' by 36'' 
transite panels which were held in place with screws. The transite 
panels were removed intact by removing the screws and lifting the 
relatively small panels to the floor where they were placed in 
boxes. The exposed surface of each panel was first wet with amended 
water before removing the screws. The job was performed within 
negative pressure containment. Airborne fiber levels exceeding 1.0 
f/cc were measured. Transite panel removal has potential for fiber 
release even when the panels are not broken (Ex. 7-36).

    As noted above in the flooring material discussion, OSHA is 
requiring job by job evaluation of each Class II job, including 
transite panel removal projects, by a competent person, as part of the 
requirements to perform an initial exposure assessment. As detailed 
above, the data submitted to the record show that transite panel 
removal without cutting usually results in very low exposure levels. 
Building and facility records of past removals of similar material will 
alert on-site competent persons to the exposure potential of the panels 
in their facilities. For rare cases, when the evaluation of material, 
condition, crew and past exposure data do not support a ``negative 
exposure assessment,'' (i.e., that excessive exposures may be 
expected), additional precautions are required by the standard, 
including critical barriers, and respirator use.
    OSHA believes that these provisions will protect employees against 
significant exposures, are feasible, and are supported by the record. 
In particular OSHA finds that quantity limitations on transite panel 
removal would not tend to reduce risk, and in some cases may increase 
fiber levels. For example, Richard Olson of Dow Co. pointed out that if 
transite panel removal were to be exempted from the negative pressure 
enclosure requirement and the cutoff remained at 9 square feet as 
proposed, it would be necessary to cut nearly every piece of material 
removed or always use a negative-pressure enclosure (Ex. 7-103).

Cementitious Asbestos-Containing Siding (CACS)

    The removal of cementitious asbestos-containing siding is a Class 
II activity. OSHA is requiring the same work practices for shingle 
removal as for transite panel removal. OSHA did not propose specific 
work practices for removal of CACS, either to exempt this activity from 
the negative pressure enclosure requirement or to qualify as a SSSD 
activity. However, many participants representing a wide spectrum of 
interests, including states, federal agencies, and asbestos industry 
organizations, recommended that OSHA exempt CACS removal from the 
requirement to establish negative-pressure enclosures; (See e.g. 
asbestos coordinator for Florida (Ex. 7-6); Navy Office of Chief of 
Operations (Ex. 7-52); Asbestos Information Association/North America 
(Ex. 7-120); New York City Department of Environmental Protection (Ex. 
126); and, The Army Corps of Engineers who also submitted the data from 
a study of fiber levels generated during CACS removals Ex. 1-307).
    In the Army Corps of Engineers' study cited above, three mechanical 
CACS asbestos removal methods and the manual method were evaluated by 
monitoring during removal of the siding. The three methods were: 1) 
super wet: the siding was thoroughly wetted with water on the outfacing 
and back side; 2) mist: a measured amount of water was applied to the 
outfacing side of the siding only; and, 3) encapsulation: an EPA-
approved commercially available encapsulant was applied at or above the 
recommended application rate. These removals took place inside 
enclosures and the hand method was also evaluated. Samples were 
measured using TEM and results of area samples indicated all were less 
than 0.005 or below the limit of detection. Two personal samples taken 
``while removing cement-asbestos siding shingles from Building 523'' 
yielded 8 hour time-weighted averages of 0.008 and 0.012 f/cc.
    Other data show low exposures during CACS removal. One where 
approximately 110,000 square feet, in total of CACS were moved from 43 
college campus dormitory buildings prior to demolition. The average 
bulk analysis of the CACS was 17%. No outdoor area samples were higher 
than 0.01 f/cc by PCM for the duration of the project. The 80 personal 
samples collected during the project had an arithmetic average of 0.049 
f/cc with a standard deviation of 0.041. The geometric mean was 0.04 f/
cc with not TEM data available (Ex. 7-132A). The study authors 
concluded that ``CACS removal, even though outside where dilution is 
assumed significant, should be done carefully, using as a minimum the 
abatement techniques described in this paper.'' These included wetting, 
dropcloths, and a 20-foot wide regulated area. OSHA agrees and believes 
that the methods required by the standard will reduce risk 
significantly for exposed workers.
    Results of this study and others show that CACS removal can be 
performed using work practices which minimize exposure to workers and 
that containment in NPEs is neither necessary or appropriate in most 
cases to protect the workers performing the removals or working nearby. 
However, it is clear that Class II work practices are necessary to keep 
exposures low.
    OSHA has coupled CACS removal with transite panel removal in the 
regulatory provisions establishing mandatory work practices for the 
removal of these materials.

Roofing Operations

    The final construction standard classifies removal of roofing 
material which contains asbestos as a Class II operation. As such, 
specific exposure assessment and work practices must be performed. The 
record shows that these work practices can be feasibly implemented and 
are necessary to effectively reduce airborne asbestos levels from 
roofing removal projects. They consist of continual misting of cutting 
machines during use, keeping roofing materials intact during removal, 
using wet methods, immediately lowering unwrapped or unbagged roofing 
material to a covered receptacle using a dust-tight chute, or 
immediately wrapping roofing material in plastic sheeting, and lowering 
it to ground by the end of the work shift.
    In addition, unless the employer can demonstrate that it is not 
feasible, the roof level heating and ventilation air intake and 
discharge sources must be isolated, HEPA filtered, or extended beyond 
the regulated area, or mechanical systems must be shut down and vents 
sealed with 6 mil plastic. OSHA has taken into account concerns that 
isolating air intakes may cause heat build-up in the building (Ex. 7-
7). As for all Class II work, respirators must be worn if material 
cannot be removed in an intact state, or if wet methods are not used. 
In addition, regulated areas must be established pursuant to the 
provisions of paragraph (e).
    These provisions are similar to the conditions proposed by OSHA 
which would have allowed an exemption from the proposed negative 
pressure enclosure requirement providing implementation of specific 
control methods which would have applied to all non-exempt removal 
jobs. In the proposal, the Agency stated that it did not believe that 
requiring use of negative pressure enclosures on roofs would result in 
more than a de minimis benefit to workers removing roofing or to other 
employees in their vicinity. That the safety hazards which might be 
imposed by their use on roofs would outweigh the benefits (55 FR at 
29719). The Agency proposed that employers engaged in roofing 
operations take additional steps to reduce employee exposure to 
asbestos. These steps included use of dust-tight chutes to lower debris 
from the roof to the ground, or immediate bagging and lowering of 
debris rather than dumping it from a height. Wetting would also be 
required where feasible to reduce contamination. The Agency felt that 
these measures had been shown to be effective in reducing employee and 
bystander exposures during roofing operations.
    There was general support for the exemption of roofing operations 
from the NPE requirement (Ex. 7-1, 7-12, 7927, 7-36, 7-39, 7-43, 7-52, 
7-95). BCTD acknowledged that negative-pressure enclosures are 
infeasible for most roofing operations. OSHA also believes that 
categorizing roofing removals as Class II work is well supported by the 
record. Some data show exceedances of the new PEL in roofing operations 
(see Ex. 9-34 QQ, cited by BCTD, Ex. 143 at 135). Other data show 
roofing removals, where proper work practices are followed, generate 
low exposure levels, e.g., data submitted by NCRA, collected by SRI 
shows many exposures were below the revised PEL, most jobs used wet 
methods (Ex. 9-31A).
    A health survey submitted by the BCTD showed asbestos related 
diseases and deaths among roofers in the period from 1976-1989 (Ex. 119 
QQ). That study is evidence that proper protective practices are 
necessary to protect workers. However, diseases resulted from past 
exposures both removing and installing asbestos-containing roofing 
without protective requirements and do not necessarily predict worker 
health from lower exposures resulting primarily from removal work 
performed more protectively.
    In addition participants supported required work practices (see Ex. 
7-120, 7-132, 7-36). BCTD preferred adoption by OSHA of the 
recommendations made by the labor representatives of ACCSH which are 
more rigorous than the work practices proposed by OSHA. The additional 
practices would include: establishing the entire roof as a regulated 
area; cutting or removing ACM using hand methods whenever possible; 
equipping all powered tools with a HEPA vacuum system or a misting 
device; HEPA vacuuming all loose dust left by the sawing operation; 
and, isolating all roof-level air intake and discharge sources, or 
shutting down all mechanical systems and sealing off all outside vents 
using two layers of 6 mil polyethylene (Ex. 34). As noted above, OSHA 
has adopted most of these additional work practices in the final 
regulations. OSHA is not requiring the entire roof to be designated as 
a regulated area: the portion to be removed may be a small part of the 
entire roof. The regulated area should encompass that portion of the 
roof where dust and debris from the removal is likely to accumulate.
    One issue concerning required controls is whether OSHA should 
prohibit power cutting on roofing materials containing asbestos. 
Information in the record is inconclusive on whether power cutting 
usually results in higher exposure levels than hand cutting. A 
representative of the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) 
testified that ``we're finding extremely low readings (on the power 
cutter); * * * it appears to us that the cutting of the material seals 
the edges because of the heat of the blade of the cutter, mixing with 
the asphalt'' (Tr. 2427). Other data were submitted to show that power 
cutting elevates asbestos fiber levels compared to hand cutting; 
however OSHA believes that some of these conclusions may overstate the 
results of limited experimentation. For example, one study was 
presented as suggesting that power cutting elevated fiber levels over 
hand cutting (Ex 1-357). OSHA regards this study as not definitive. The 
differences in fiber levels in the breathing zones of workers were only 
marginally statistically significant, and there was another variable in 
the study's protocol which may have effected the outcome. OSHA 
recognizes the bound nature of the asbestos in most roofing materials, 
however, it also understands the physical principles involved in 
cutting of these materials and that such actions release fibers.
    Because of this mixed record, OSHA concludes that no prohibition of 
power cutting is called for as long as the other specified precautions 
including misting are carefully followed. The standard allows power 
cutting, but also requires that sections of roofing material shall be 
cut into the largest pieces which can be feasibly handled for disposal 
pursuant to the standard. Requiring misting of power tools in all 
situations except where a competent person determines that misting may 
decrease safety is expected to help reduce exposure levels from power 
cutting.
    The general requirement that all asbestos work be performed wet, 
unless the employer can demonstrate lack of feasibility applies to 
roofing operations. A discussion of this provision is found above in 
the discussion on paragraph (g)(1)(i)(B). As noted there, ``flooding'' 
is not required; ``misting'' of cut areas is sufficient to control 
dust.
    OSHA believes that these precautions are necessary to protect 
employees who remove roofing materials against elevated exposures in 
normal circumstances. The record shows, however, that elevated 
exposures may occur where damaged or friable roofing material is 
removed. [See SRI report, recommending the use of respirators where 
roofing material is ``uncharacterized and aged'' (Ex. 9-31A at 20)]. 
Under such circumstances, the competent person's determination must be 
that the normal precautions are not sufficient. Steven Phillips, 
counsel to the NCRA agreed: ``(w)hen you're working with 
uncharacterized and aged roofing materials, that is * * * where you 
have no idea what the exposures may be because you have no historical 
data; you haven't worked with that particular material; * * * (there 
are) the normal OSHA requirements of doing initial job site monitoring 
and having respirators until you have good, reliable, job site 
monitoring'' (Tr. 2463). In such atypical circumstances, additional 
precautions, including respirator use and more extensive wetting, will 
be necessary. NRCA's objection to the routine use of respirators on 
roofing jobs, as recommended by BCTD, was based on its view that 
respirator use on roofs often compromises worker safety, because 
respirators reduce ``downward visibility'' of the wearer (Tr. 2463). 
OSHA agrees that in some roofing conditions, limitations from wearing 
respirators might occur. When respirator use is necessary because of 
the condition of the roofing material, but respirators cannot be safely 
worn because of great heat, cold, or high winds, etc., such roofing 
jobs shall not be performed until they can be done safely. The Agency 
has concluded that ``routine'' respirator use is not required, because 
as discussed above the required work practices will keep exposures low 
in normal circumstances; but where historic data, experience of the 
crew, or the condition of the roof indicate the possibility of higher 
exposures, then respirator use is required.
    Various studies which were submitted support OSHA's classification 
of roofing removal as a Class II activity. They show that most measured 
exposures are lower than many studies showing removal of Class I 
materials; but still may be significant. In most cases levels below the 
new PELs can be routinely expected with minimum controls.
    SRI evaluated air monitoring reports from 79 roofing removal 
operations, 560 personal and 353 area samples (Ex. 9-31). All samples, 
except 24 were well below the new PEL of 0.1 f/cc. Fourteen samples 
were collected for 30 minutes or less (and were below the excursion 
limit). When the remaining sample measurements were calculated as 8 
hour time-weighted averages, they also did not exceed the PEL. The 
remaining samples did not exceed 0.1 f/cc. The contractors concluded, 
``there appears to be no pressing need for air monitoring at the start 
of each job, negative pressure enclosures, or wetting. However the use 
of half-mask respirators is recommended until the source of the fibers 
in the few samples where concentrations were above 0.1 f/cc can be 
defined.'' They added that ``exposure to asbestos should be minimized 
until more (or better) information is available; the use of respirators 
seems a prudent compromise when working with uncharacterized and aged 
roofing materials.''
    The submission of Preston Quirk of Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc. 
included a study entitled ``Airborne Levels During Non-Friable 
Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) Removal'' which was presented at the 
1990 meeting of the National Asbestos Council (Ex. 7-133a). One section 
of this study presented the sampling measurements taken during removal 
of asbestos-containing roofing felt and flashing using a wet prying and 
peeling technique with no enclosure. Five area samples averaged 0.007 
f/cc by PCM and 0.008 s/cm3 by TEM. Five personal samples averaged 
0.024 f/cc by PCM and 0.304 f/cc by TEM. It was reported that the 
personal TEM samples had 0.124 s/cm3 of structure greater than or equal 
to 5 m.
    BCTD submitted a study by D. Hogue and K. Rhodes entitled 
``Evaluation of Asbestos Fiber Release from Built-up Roof Removal 
Projects'' (Ex. 34, VV) in which roofing operations were monitored 
using both PCM and TEM methods of measurement. The authors stressed the 
``non-scientific'' nature of the study and noted that they had measured 
only a limited number of samples. They described a project involving 
removal of a 15% asbestos roof from a hospital in which a several 
control methods were used. Area samples were taken at ``high,'' 
``medium,'' and ``low'' locations and most were measured using the PCM 
method. During mechanical removal, the arithmetic mean concentration 
was 0.16 f/cc (not time-weighted); and during manual removal the 
average was 0.1 f/cc (non-weighted). Personal samples were measured 
only by TEM and the 3 taken during manual removal averaged 0.11 f/cc 
(also not weighted). In another section of this report the authors 
describe a ``Controlled removal of asbestos containing built-up roofing 
materials without containment with engineering and work practice 
controls and extensive sampling and analysis by transmission electron 
microscopy,'' however, the specific engineering and work practice 
controls employed are not described. Nonetheless, the resulting 
measurements, both PCM and TEM, are well below the PEL except one 
sample in which the TEM concentration was 0.1 s/cc.
    NIOSH described an evaluation of airborne asbestos fibers during 
the tear-off of an old asbestos shingle roof from a residential 
building (HETA 84-321-1590, Ex. 44). Seventeen personal breathing-zone 
samples were collected for approximately two hours. For 5 tear-off 
workers the fiber concentrations ranged from 0.04 to 0.16 f/cc, 
arithmetic mean 0.09 f/cc; for two clean-up workers the fiber 
concentrations ranged from 0.13 to 0.16 f/cc, arithmetic mean 0.14 f/
cc; and, for the 5 workers applying new shingles the concentration 
ranged from 0.03 to 0.08 f/cc with a mean of 0.05 f/cc. In this 
evaluation, NIOSH concluded that there was a hazard from exposure to 
airborne asbestos fibers during the tear-off of an asbestos shingle 
roof and recommended several practices to reduce worker exposure.
    OSHA notes that in some cases, the author of the above studies 
recommend more rigorous controls than the final standards require. 
Largely, this was based on evaluations of roofing removal exposure 
potential based on small numbers of TEM measurements. As stated 
elsewhere in this document, OSHA has based its risk assessment, and 
relative exposure profiles on the results of many studies which relied 
on PCM values. OSHA considered TEM in the 1986 standard and concluded 
that it was quite expensive and not fully validated. More importantly, 
OSHA believes that the roofing studies submitted show the relatively 
low levels of asbestos fibers emitted during removal work when proper 
controls are used. The small number of exceedances which occurred 
reflect poor work practices and ``uncharacterized and aged material.''
    The purpose of the regulated area in the asbestos standards is to 
prevent asbestos contamination of other parts of the workplace and to 
limit exposure to only those specially trained employees who need to 
work in the area. While OSHA does not want to shut down the entire 
building when asbestos work is done on the roof, asbestos entering the 
ventilation system during roofing work is clearly unacceptable. OSHA 
expects good judgment to be used by the competent person in striving to 
achieve the intent of the standard. OSHA requires that roof level 
heating and ventilation air intake sources must be isolated. The 
employer would also have the option to shut down the ventilation system 
and seal it with plastic. Only necessary work should be done on the 
roof while asbestos materials are being removed, and the locations of 
the work should be selected to minimize exposures, such as upwind of 
the asbestos work. OSHA agrees that the 20 foot barrier approach 
recommended by Mr. Collins (Ex. 7-52) has merit, but believes the exact 
determination should be made on site, and could vary depending upon 
working conditions.
    OSHA concludes that removal of roofing material containing asbestos 
requires the use of controls to reduce significant risk. Simple 
procedures will reduce exposure levels substantially and, for the most 
part, will reduce levels below the PELs. OSHA believes that it is 
appropriate to require specification work practices for removal of 
asbestos-containing roofing material, regardless of measure exposure 
levels. As discussed above, these controls were recommended by 
rulemaking participants, although there was some disagreement regarding 
the need for some of the controls.
    The final standard requires the use of wet methods and continuously 
misting cutting machines during use and loose dust left by the sawing 
operation is to be HEPA vacuumed immediately. Some commenters were 
concerned that water could create safety hazards, so the standard 
reflects that the competent person could determine that misting the 
cutting machine, or other wet methods, should not be used. If wet 
methods are not used the respiratory protection provision of this 
standard, paragraph (h) requires that respirators be used regardless of 
exposure level. This provision is based upon OSHA's finding that dry 
disturbance or removal of asbestos containing material has large 
potential to expose workers and is in accordance with that of EPA 
NESHAP. Other controls include removing the roofing material in an 
intact state to the extent feasible, immediately lower unbagged or 
unwrapped roofing material to the ground via dust-tight chute, crane or 
hoist, or wrapping the roofing material in plastic sheeting and 
lowering it to the ground, transferring materials immediately to a 
closed receptacle in a manner so as to preclude the dispersion of dust, 
and sealing off air intakes to the building prior to doing any roofing 
removal.
    OSHA concludes from the studies that exposures can go over the PEL 
and create significant risk in circumstances when appropriate 
precautions are not take. Consequently, they support OSHA requirement 
for some specific work practices in all circumstances.

Methods of Compliance for Class III Asbestos Work

    The newly revised construction and shipyard employment standards 
continue to regulate exposure to employees engaged in repairing and 
maintaining building components which contain previously installed 
asbestos containing material. In the 1986 construction standard, most 
of these jobs were called ``small-scale, short-duration operations,'' 
but, as discussed above, OSHA was instructed by the Court of Appeals to 
clarify the cut-offs for that designation. Now, OSHA has determined 
that separate regulatory treatment of repair and maintenance operations 
will not be limited by arbitrary duration and amount-of-material-
disturbed criteria. Instead, they are called ``Class III operations,'' 
and are defined as ``repair and maintenance operations which may 
involve intentional disturbance of ACM, including PACM'' (see Green 
Book, Ex. 1-183). The major difference between the newly revised repair 
and maintenance definitions, is that the amount of material and/or the 
time the operation takes are no longer the criteria for inclusion in 
the class.
    The revised and expanded definitions of the various terms in the 
Category III definition enhance its clarity. Since Category III 
includes maintenance, repair, some renovation and other operations 
which disturb ACM, and PACM, a definition of ``disturb'' is provided. 
Although ``removal'' activities are designated Category I or II, the 
incidental cutting away of small amounts of ACM or PACM to access 
mechanical or structural components for repair or maintenance, is 
considered Category III.
    Examples of work which are considered Category III are contained in 
various studies submitted by participants to prove or disprove how 
risky asbestos disturbing repair and maintenance work is. OSHA has 
evaluated the data from a number of sources to estimate the degree of 
exposure of workers to previously installed asbestos building material 
during various types of activities. Most studies showed lower levels of 
exposure than Category I and II work. For example, the Safe Building 
Alliance submitted a study by its consultant Price (Ex. 151). He 
compiled sampling data from numerous sources including OSHA compliance 
data, and obtained questionnaire information from building owners. The 
questionnaires solicited information on the frequency and duration of 
specific activities. These activities included, maintenance/repair of 
boilers, air handling units, heat exchangers, tanks; repair/replacement 
of pipe insulation including removal of small amounts of ACM; and, 
valve or gasket replacement, of activities above suspended ceilings 
such as connections and/or extensions for telecommunication/computer 
networks; adjustment/repair of HVAC systems; and, testing/cleaning/
replacing smoker or heat detectors. The final activities which may 
result in ACM contact such as repairing/replacing lighting fixtures and 
replacing ceiling tiles. The data were used to calculate potential 
exposure hours (PEH) which is the product of the annual frequency of an 
activity and the duration of that activity in hours. For all activities 
in all buildings in the data set, Price calculated a PEH of 91 hours 
per year and a PEH per worker of 19 hours per year per worker. Eight-
hour time weighted averages were also reported as presented in Table 
III.

     Table III.--Asbestos Fiber Levels During Maintenance Activities    
                                [Ex. 151]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           8-hour     Median      PEH/  
          Location of activity              TWA        PEH       worker 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above ceilings.........................      0.029         13          5
In utility spaces......................      0.031         13          2
Other..................................      0.018          6         <1
OSHA data..............................      0.027         --  .........
All activities.........................  .........         74         19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Price concluded that small-scale, short duration activities take up a 
relatively small proportion of a typical worker's time in that in 80% 
of the buildings he studied, less than 22% of total time is spent on 
these activities in a year, and that ``on a per worker basis, in 80 
percent of the buildings the number of potential exposure hours total 
slightly less than 4 percent of a work year'' (Ex. 151, Appendix A, p. 
12).
    OSHA notes that BCTD objected to various aspects of the Price study 
in its post-hearing brief (Ex. 143) and concluded that the study 
``demonstrated that in some buildings exposure hours can be very high * 
* *'' (Ex. 143, p. 112). However, OSHA views the study as supporting 
its view that when properly controlled, most kinds of routine 
maintenance involving ACM results in low exposure levels.
    A recent study by Kaselaan and d'Angelo Associates for Real 
Estate's Environmental Action League in 1991 was reviewed (Ex. 123). 
The contractors looked at historical data from 5 commercial buildings 
in which the activities sampled were reported as ``small-scale, short 
duration.'' The operations were performed ``almost exclusively'' within 
mini-enclosures and most were performed by ``trained and experienced 
asbestos abatement workers, who are more used to the larger full-scale 
asbestos abatement procedures'' and not by building maintenance 
workers. The data are summarized in Table IV.

 Table IV.--Asbestos Fiber Levels in 5 Buildings During ``Small-Scale'' 
                               Operations                               
                                [Ex. 123]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              No. of   Average    8 hr. 
            Building designation             samples  exposure     TWA  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  One-C....................       76     0.073     0.025
1500.......................................       25     0.055     0.01 
645........................................       49     0.011     0.003
28.........................................       19     0.02      0.003
1114.......................................        7     0.023     0.007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(From Ex. 123, p. 1)                                                    

The authors also pointed out that because air monitoring and third 
party oversight during these activities, they probably represented 
situations in which proper precautions were taken. They concluded that 
``the data presented indicates the necessity of controlling asbestos 
exposure during the type of [small-scale, short duration] activities 
represented in this study. However if appropriately performed * * * 
exposures well below the current OSHA exposure limits can be 
maintained'' (Ex. 123, p. 26).

  Table V.--Asbestos Fiber Levels During Various Maintenance Activities 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Personal samples:         
                                   -------------------------------------
           Type of work              No. of                             
                                    samples     Mean          Range     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air handling unit preventive                                            
 maintenance......................       87     0.0942     0.0087-0.6805
Miscellaneous repair..............       48     0.1272     0.0039-0.5496
Miscellaneous installation........       20     0.1742     0.0049-0.8395
Clean-up of ACM debris............        8     0.2030     0.0414-0.6246
Cable pulling.....................        9     0.0544     0.0240-0.0985
Relamping.........................        9     0.0469     0.0205-0.0929
Generator testing.................       18     0.0843     0.0075-0.2261
Fire alarm testing................        4     0.1654     0.0836-0.2693
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA also notes that although exposures ranges above the PEL for 
some activities, mean levels were, in most case, much lower.
    Dr. Morton Corn of Johns Hopkins University submitted summaries of 
monitoring results from samples taken during a variety of operation and 
maintenance activities from 5 buildings (Ex. 162-52). The 8-hour time-
weighted averages of the personal samples for each building are 
presented in the Table VI.

  Table VI.--Asbestos Fiber Levels During O&M Operations in 5 Buildings 
                               [Ex 162-52]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Operation/building #        1        2         3         4        5   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiling removal/                                                        
 installation...........     0.015    0.003     0.008     0.03   .......
Electrical/plumbing work     0.06     0.003     0.006     0.008     0.04
HVAC work...............     0.02   .......     0.003     0.01      0.02
Miscellaneous work......     0.008    0.004     0.01      0.09   .......
Remove/encapsulate......     0.06     0.003     0.002  ........  .......
Run cable...............     0.02     0.002     0.08      0.01     0.03 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Hour Time-Weighted Averages                                           
Personal Samples                                                        
--indicates data not provided                                           

The report contained limited information as to specific controls in 
place during the sampling periods; however, Dr. Corn stated that ``* * 
* the controls for the 5 buildings were minimal O&M controls'' (Ex. 
162-52).
    The submission of Mr. Saul, Assistant Commissioner for Occupational 
Safety and Health, State of Maryland included a summary of the 
monitoring results conducted for Maryland employees performing building 
maintenance activities (ex. 162-44). A total of 207 samples analyzed by 
PCM during May 1988 to June 1990 were analyzed. The real-time values 
fell into the exposure categories presented in Table VI.

     Table VII.--Asbestos Fiber Levels During Maintenance Activities    
                              [Ex. 162-44]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                Fibers/cubic centimeter                   No.       of  
                                                        samples  samples
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<0.01.................................................      125     60.4
0.01-0.04.............................................       30     14.5
0.05-0.09.............................................       24     11.6
0.10-0.20.............................................       24     11.6
>0.20.................................................        4      1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

During these activities, workers were required to wear personal 
protective equipment. In his discussion of the study results, Mr. Saul 
explained that the four values in excess of 0.2 f/cc resulted from: a 
removal in which wet methods could not be employed, wetting painted 
surfaces, removing and wetting metal enclosed pipe lagging, and 
improperly sealing of a mini-enclosure. He further concluded that these 
data indicate that the work practices used by these workers are 
generally effective during these maintenance-type asbestos activities.
    In addition to the above studies showing relatively low exposures, 
almost all below the revised PELs, other submissions showed the 
potential for Class III work to exceed the PEL.
    BCTD submitted studies including those by Keyes and Chesson which 
reported results of a series of experiments designed to determine fiber 
levels in asbestos-containing buildings during simulated activities 
(Ex.9-34 OO, PP and 7-53). They demonstrated (using transmission 
electron microscopic measurements) that use of dry methods in a room 
containing damaged ACM and visible dust and debris elevated the fiber 
level in air significantly, that physical activity (playing ball) 
within such an area increased fiber levels and that cable pulling 
activities also raised fiber counts.
    HEI submitted an analysis of a data set provided to them by 
Hygienetics, Inc. which contained data on airborne asbestos fiber 
concentrations during various maintenance activities performed under an 
operations and maintenance (O&M) program in a large U.S. hospital (Ex. 
162-6). During the period of study, all maintenance work in areas with 
ACM in the hospital required a permit issued by the Hygienetics project 
manager on site. The authors concluded ``* * * spatial and temporal 
proximity to maintenance work was an important determinate of PCM fiber 
levels'' (Ex. 1-344, p. 1.8). Jobs involving removal of ACM resulted in 
higher fiber levels than non-removal jobs [personal samples: mean, 
removal jobs=0.166 f/cc, non-removal=0.0897 f/cc (Ex. 1-344 p. 1.6)]. 
HEI concluded that these activities resulted in increased fiber levels 
(Ex. 1-344, p. 1.8).
    OSHA has reviewed and evaluated all available information 
pertaining to maintenance, repair, and other asbestos-disturbing 
activities within buildings classified as ``Class III'' and has 
concluded that some of these activities can result in significant risk 
from exposure of workers. The range of activities and exposure 
potential encompassed by a Class III designation is wide.
    The studies generally show that when protective work practices are 
used by trained workers, exposures are greatly reduced. Thus, OSHA is 
requiring various work practices and protective measures to reduce 
exposure to asbestos containing material (or material which is presumed 
to contain asbestos) and that workers must receive training in courses 
which include the appropriate techniques to use in handling and/or 
avoiding such disturbances. OSHA concludes that these are effective, 
feasible controls needed to reduce significant risk.
    Paragraph (g)(8) sets out these requirements. Again, wet methods 
are required; local exhaust ventilation is required, if feasible; Where 
the material OSHA has found to be of high-risk, TSI and surfacing 
material, is drilled, cut, abraded, sanded, chipped, broken or sawed, 
dropcloths and isolation methods such as mini-enclosures or glove bags 
must be used; and respirators must be worn; and where a negative 
exposure assessment has not been produced, dropcloths and plastic 
barriers (tenting or equivalent) must be used. OSHA believes these 
mandatory practices will protect employees who perform Class III work 
from significant risk of asbestos-related effects.

Class IV Work

    As defined in paragraph (b), Class IV work consists of 
``maintenance and custodial work'' where employees contact ACM and 
PACM, including activities to clean up waste and debris containing ACM 
and PACM. Examples of such work are sweeping, mopping, dusting, 
cleaning, and vacuuming of asbestos containing materials such as 
resilient flooring, or any surface where asbestos-containing dust has 
accumulated; stripping and buffing of asbestos containing resilient 
flooring, and clean-up after Class I, II, and III work, or other 
asbestos construction work such as the installation of new asbestos-
containing materials. Clean-up of waste and debris during a removal 
job, or other Class job, is Class IV work. Because in these cases the 
employee doing the clean-up is within the regulated area and subject to 
the same exposure conditions as the employees actually doing the 
removal, paragraph (9)(1) requires the custodial employee to be 
provided with the same respiratory protection as the employees 
performing the removal or other asbestos work.
    Generally, exposures for Class IV work are lower than for other 
classes. Data in the record show this general exposure profile (see for 
example, Kominsky study, Ex. 119 I, where carpet ``naturally 
contaminated'' for year by friable, TSI and surfacing ACM was cleaned 
using three cleaning methods; all personal samples were below 0.022 f/
cc; using allowable methods resulted in the highest personal sample of 
0.019 f/cc; see also, data in Ex. 162-52). Other data show even lower 
exposures for custodial work (see for example, Wickman et al, Ex. L163, 
where the authors conclude: ``This study determined that custodians who 
performed routine activities in buildings which contained friable 
asbestos materials were not exposed to levels of airborne asbestos 
which approached the OSHA action level of 0.1 f/cc. The arithmetic mean 
value for 38 personal samples, analyzed by TEM, was 0.0009 s/cc, 8 hour 
TWA for structure lengths greater than 5 m'' ( Id at 20). The 
much higher exposure data from the earlier Sawyer study, (Ex. 84-262A), 
showed exposure levels ranging to 4.0 f/cc for dry dusting of 
bookshelves under friable ACM. As noted above, at this rulemaking 
hearing Sawyer noted that the conditions in the building he studied 
were unrepresentative of other buildings in the U.S. (Tr. 2157).
    OSHA believes the Wickman report is the most complete study 
available concerning custodial exposures. Because the study was 
submitted into the record after the close of the post-hearing comment 
periods, OSHA is not relying on it to prove the extent of exposures 
anticipated in most custodial work. Rather, OSHA views the Wickman 
study as confirming its view that Class IV activities result in reduced 
exposure and thus, reduced risk compared to activities of other 
classes. Because maintenance work involving active ``disturbances'' is 
Class III work, the ``contact'' with ACM which constitutes Class IV 
work will be either with intact materials, or in cleaning-up debris 
from friable material or from material which has been disturbed. The 
latter activities present the higher risk potential. OSHA acknowledges 
that evidence of asbestos disease among school custodians and 
maintenance workers has been submitted to this record (See e.g., 
references cited in SEIU's post hearing brief, Ex. 144). The Agency 
believes that significant exposures to custodians result from Class III 
work or when they clean up accumulations of friable material. 
Therefore, these revisions contain several requirements aimed at 
reducing custodial exposures when cleaning up asbestos debris and waste 
material.
    OSHA believes that the work practices and precautions prescribed in 
these regulations will virtually eliminate significant health risks for 
custodial workers, and will cure any confusion about which protections 
and which standards will apply to custodial worker (see submission of 
SEIU, Ex. 144).
    Custodial work is covered in all three standards. Housekeeping 
provisions in the general industry standard, paragraph (k), cover 
custodians in public and commercial buildings, in manufacturing and 
other industrial facilities, where construction activity is not taking 
place. To avoid confusion, and to cover clean-up, and other 
housekeeping on construction sites, which properly is covered under the 
construction standard, similar ``housekeeping'' provisions are included 
in the construction and shipyard standards as well (Paragraph (1). 
These housekeeping provisions are discussed separately. The specific 
provisions in paragraph (g), relating to Class IV work in the 
construction standard relate to construction work only, and are not 
necessarily limited to housekeeping. Like all other construction work, 
competent person supervision of Class IV work is required, exposure 
assessments of clean-up of waste and debris, and use of HEPA filtered 
vacuums, in paragraph (g)(1) apply.
    Particular requirements were adopted in response to concerns of 
some participants. These are paragraph (g)(9) which requires specific 
awareness training for Class IV workers. Under the 1986 standard, 
training was not required unless employees were exposed above the 
action level, then 0.1 f/cc. Two labor organizations representing 
employees who perform Class IV work, SEIU and AFSCME, and other 
participants, (see e.g., Ex. 141, 144), noted that custodial workers 
needed training, separate from other building service workers, such as 
maintenance workers (Ex. 141 at 49), generally referred to as 
``awareness training.'' The record shows the lack of awareness that 
material contained asbestos contributed to asbestosis (Tr. 959 ff). 
Paragraph (g)(9) of the construction and shipyard standards requires 
that Class IV asbestos jobs be performed by employees trained according 
to the awareness training set out in the training section, (k)(8). The 
general industry standard, also requires that employees who work in 
areas where ACM or PACM is present, also be so trained, in paragraph 
(j).
    In addition, paragraph (g) requires employees cleaning up waste and 
debris in a regulated area where respirators are required to be worn to 
also wear respirators. This restatement of the provision in paragraph 
(e)(4) relating to regulated areas emphasizes that clean-up workers in 
large-scale jobs must wear respirators, even though the actual removal 
is completed. Paragraph (g)(g)(iv) offers significant protection to 
custodians. As pointed out by participants, custodians have swept up 
``insulation debris which had fallen to the floor because it was so 
badly deteriorated * * * with no knowledge or concern about asbestos 
hazards * * *'' (see testimony of Ervin Arp at Tr. 962-969). This new 
provision requires that ``(e)mployees cleaning up waste and debris in 
an area where friable TSI and surfacing ACM is accessible, shall assume 
that such waste and debris contains high-risk ACM. Since paragraph (k) 
requires that such ACM and PACM be visibly labelled, OSHA believes that 
custodial workers will be spared the consequences of being required to 
clean-up unidentified materials, which in fact contain asbestos.
    Various participants asked OSHA to require an employer to adopt and 
operations and management (O&M) program to protect custodial and 
maintenance workers. The Agency notes that the 1986 standard contained, 
in non-mandatory Appendix G, such a program, which listed precautionary 
actions which the Agency recommended.
    OSHA has not adopted an explicit O&M program requirement in these 
standards. Rather, the Agency has adopted enforceable provisions which 
cover the major elements of the previous non-mandatory program in the 
appendix, and of various programs suggested by participants in this 
rulemaking. For example, the new requirement that maintenance and 
custodial work be the subject of exposure assessments, [see paragraph 
(f)(2)], requires the competent person to evaluate operations which may 
expose employees to asbestos, in order to minimize exposure. The 
requirement is ``operation'' based; rather than, as in an O&M program, 
status-based. However, any active disturbance constitutes an operation. 
Although each ``operation'' must be covered by an exposure assessment, 
operations can be grouped. Cleaning up debris in an area containing 
deteriorating ACM on a daily basis, need not be evaluated each day. An 
assessment of such activity can be made on a general basis, covering 
procedures for wet sweeping and vacuuming, disposal, and instructions 
to detect deterioration of material which contributes to the debris. 
Additionally, labelling of ACM and PACM usually considered part of an 
O&M program, is separately required, as is training of custodial 
workers. Specific jobs may require specific instructions; the breadth 
of some are indicated by O&M documents generated by the EPA ``Green 
Book'' (Ex. 1-183, EPA 20T-2003, July 1990 and NIBS Ex. 1-371). OSHA 
believes that competent person supervision of activities under this 
standard will provide appropriate work practices to be followed for 
relatively small, less hazardous exposure situations. The Agency is 
requiring however, in the training provisions, that when Class III and 
IV workers are trained, that the contents of the EPA or state approved 
courses for such workers, as the relate to the work to be performed, be 
part of the required training material [paragraph (k)(v)(D)].
    The issue of passive exposure, that is where active contact or 
disturbance of ACM is not a contributing factor to asbestos fiber 
release, is covered by the various notification and identification 
provisions in the standard which will allow employees to identify 
asbestos-containing material. These are discussed later in this 
preamble.
    In OSHA's expert view, these provisions constitute major components 
of operations and maintenance programs recommended; are aimed at the 
more significant sources of exposure for custodial workers, and most 
importantly, are enforceable. For all these reasons, OSHA believes an 
explicit requirement for an O&M program, such as suggested by AFSCME 
(Ex. 141 at 36), would add little benefit to employee health (see e.g., 
Tr.3500).
    In each standard, OSHA is requiring specific work practices and a 
choice of engineeromg cpmtrp; however, OSHA is aware that some asbestos 
control systems may be patented. OSHA has not considered the existence 
of patents or their validity in evaluating the need for those controls. 
OSHA believes that all employers will have a variety of controls 
available to them and that new types could be developed.

(8) Respiratory Protection

Paragraph (g) General Industry
    The 1986 general industry standard required respirator use where 
engineering and work practice controls are being installed, in 
emergencies, and to reduce exposures to or below the PELs where 
feasible engineering controls and work practices could not achieve 
these reductions. Additionally, certain operations i.e., cutting in 
plants, were shown to have greater difficulties in achieving low 
exposures without respirator use. OSHA therefore allowed routine 
respirator use in those segments to reach the PELS, rather than, as in 
other general industry segments, only where the employer shows that 
feasible engineering and work practice controls cannot achieve 
compliance with the PELs. OSHA now believes that engineering and work 
practices in the few remaining production sectors can achieve lower 
levels than predicted in 1986, in part because of the mandatory work 
practices now included in the methods of compliance section. Therefore, 
allowing respirator use at higher measured exposures for a few 
operations should not result in less protection for those employees 
since their ambient exposure levels are expected to be reduced.
    Paragraph (h) Construction Standard and Shipyard Employment 
Standard.
    The respirator provisions in the construction and shipyard 
employment standards are changed in several respects. First, in 
addition to the conditions listed in the 1986 standards, where 
exposures exceed the PELs, required respirator use now is triggered by 
kinds of activities even where the PELs are not exceeded. These are: 
Class I work, Class II work where the ACM is not removed substantially 
intact; all Class II and III work where the employer cannot produce a 
negative exposure assessment; and all Class IV work carried out in 
areas where respirators are required to be worn. OSHA has based these 
decisions on the demonstrated variability during asbestos work, and on 
the need to protect workers who are disturbing asbestos-containing 
material with the greatest potential for significant fiber release. In 
addition, monitoring results for many jobs are not available in a 
timely fashion. By requiring routine respirator use in jobs which OSHA 
finds are likely to result in hazardous airborne asbestos levels, such 
as floor tile removal, where most tiles are broken, OSHA is providing 
reasonable supplemental protection to employees when certainty 
concerning exposure levels is not possible.
    The kind of respirators required for these ``conditions of use'' 
are set out in paragraphs (h)(iv) and (v). In one situation, as 
explained below, Class I removals where excessive levels are predicted, 
``supplied air respirators operated in the positive pressure mode'' are 
required, because these jobs have the highest exposure potential, due 
to their size, duration and the kinds of material involved. Other jobs 
where higher than usual exposures may occur include, where employees 
are inexperienced, where TSI and surfacing ACM is disturbed, and where 
other ACM is broken up during removal. Paragraph (h)(1) states the 
requirement for supplemental respirator use for these activities as 
well. These additional respirator requirements conform to OSHA's 
findings on this record, of the specific conditions which contribute to 
and are predictive of, higher exposures.
    As discussed more fully in the classification section, the data 
submitted to the record show that in almost all cases of removals and 
disturbances of non-high-risk ACM, exposure levels are well below the 
protection factor limits for negative-pressure half-mask respirators, 
the type required for certain kinds of Class II and III work.
    BCTD has recommended that OSHA require the use of ``the most 
effective respirator that is feasible under the circumstances'' and 
further that OSHA require ``supplied air respirators which are tight 
fitting and in a pressure demand mode with either auxiliary SCBA or a 
HEPA egress cartridge * * * except in limited circumstances which 
include lack of feasibility because of the configuration of the work 
environment or an uncorrectable safety hazard'' (Ex. 143 at 65-69). 
BCTD does recognize safety hazards due to the tripping hazard of air 
lines to which SARs are attached and define certain activities in which 
PAPRs may be used instead. (Ex. 143 at 71). BCTD also contended that 
the protection factors used by OSHA to assign respirator classes are 
contrary to record evidence.
    The Court found that OSHA's judgment about supplied air respirators 
was properly within its discretion. It expressed concern that OSHA's 
respirator requirements did appear to require only that the combined 
effect of engineering and work practice controls and respirators limit 
exposure only as low as the PEL where significant risk remained (838 
F.2d at 1274).
    OSHA responded to these issues in a Federal Register publication of 
5 February 1990 (55 FR 3727), in which the Agency reaffirmed its 
position concerning effectiveness levels of respirators, pointed out 
flaws in studies BCTD used to conclude that protection factors are 
inadequate, and noted that OSHA is revising and updating its general 
respirator standard. OSHA also noted that implementation of the entire 
respirator program would result in exposures below the PEL. That was 
OSHA's final statement of position on these issues and it was not 
judicially challenged.
    In evaluating the respiratory protection needs dictated by the new 
system of ranking for asbestos operations by ``class,'' OSHA has 
concluded that there are circumstances in which the highest level of 
respiratory protection must be used. These are Class I jobs for which a 
negative exposure assessment (i.e. exposures will be less than the PEL) 
has not been made. Inexperienced workers removing large amounts of TSI 
or surfacing ACM are at the high end of the risk spectrum and must have 
additional protection afforded by the supplied air respirator. OSHA 
notes that joint EPA-NIOSH recommendations would require a supplied air 
respirator in even more extensive circumstances, i.e., all 
``abatement'' work and maintenance and some repair work (EPA/NIOSH 
Guide, referenced at Ex. 143, p. 69). The Agency''s decision balances 
the acknowledge potential safety hazards of supplied air respirators 
with the need for more protection in the most risky asbestos jobs. The 
Court of Appeals has agreed that such judgments are properly within the 
discretion of the Agency (858 F2d at 1274). In situations where the 
competent person makes a determination that exposures in Class I jobs 
will be less than the PELs, the standard requires that a half-mask air 
purifying, non-disposable respirator equipped with a high efficiency 
filter must be used. There are two reasons for this requirement: 
exposures less than the PEL have been determined to result in 
significant risk, the record shows that Class I work may result in 
substantial exposures even when good conditions exist, and the 
variability usually results in some high exposures. However, although 
all classes of asbestos work are potentially risky, OSHA has used 
discretion, and has limited the supplied air respirator provision to 
the highest risk situations, Class I work where it cannot be predicted 
that exposures will not exceed the PEL. This approach does not leave 
workers doing other classes of work unprotected. The respirator 
selection Table D-4, applies to all situations other than Class I work. 
As the worker(s) gain experience in the use of control methodology, and 
data accrues documenting low fiber levels, use of less protective 
respirators may be allowed.
    Furthermore, OSHA has based this conclusion on the demonstrated 
variability of exposures in the construction industry (Ex. 143, p. 63, 
CONSAD report p. 2.18, Tr. 2156, 2157, Tr. 4571, Ex. 7-57). The 
contractor Consad reported ``while many of the construction jobs 
monitored did not produce exposure levels above the proposed PEL of 0. 
1 f/cc, these data also provide continued evidence that exposure levels 
can be highly variable in construction work and can exceed the proposed 
PEL * * * for many of the construction activities examined here'' (Ex. 
8, 2.18-20).
Shipyard Employment Standard
    Paragraph (h). SESAC has recommended the deletion of the 
qualitative fit test from the shipyard employment asbestos standard. 
Their rationale is as follows:

    The Committee has determined that advances in quantitative fit 
testing instrumentation have made this procedure accessible to 
shipyards conducting asbestos operations at a cost which is not 
overly burdensome ($5,000-6,000 at the low end). Because 
quantitative fit testing provides a better evaluation of fit among 
respirators than qualitative methods, and does not rely on 
subjective determination by the employees, qualitative fit testing 
methods have been deleted as acceptable alternatives * * * (Ex. 7-
77).
    They further recommended, based on the recent developments in 
technology that the use of test chambers, and the requirement for use 
of aerosols be deleted. They also offered an additional definition: 
``challenge agent'' means the air contaminant, or parameter, which is 
measured for comparison inside and outside of the respirator 
facepiece.'' These are reasonable suggestions, but as they have general 
application outside shipyards, OSHA indicated this in its notice of 
February 5, 1990 in its partial response to the Court. The Agency is 
``still planning to revise and update its general respiratory standard, 
and believes that continuing to enforce the current asbestos respirator 
requirements during this interim period will not expose employees to 
unnecessary risk'' (55 FR 3728, February 5, 1990). Therefore, OSHA will 
not delete the qualitative fit test from the asbestos standard(s), but 
will consider the issue in the context of the general respiratory 
standard.
    SESAC objected to the requirement that a powered, air-purifying 
respirator be supplied in lieu of a negative-pressure respirator when 
the employee chooses it and when it will provide adequate protection. 
They felt that the employer should be allowed to provide an airline 
respirator or powered air-purifying respirator. They reasoned that most 
employers already will have airline respirators in stock and will not 
need to purchase or maintain any other type of respirator. In 
evaluating similar comments in the rulemaking for the 1986 revised 
asbestos rule, OSHA stated:

    OSHA agrees that positive-pressure supplied-air respirators 
provide a greater level of protection than do half-mask negative-
pressure respirators. OSHA believes that employers should have the 
flexibility to use any of the available respirators that provide 
sufficient protection to reduce the exposures to levels below the 
PEL. Furthermore, the safety problems associated with the use of 
supplied-air respirators cannot be ignored. OSHA believes that 
respirators should be selected that both provide adequate protection 
from exposure to airborne asbestos fibers and minimize the risk of 
accident and injury potentially caused by the use of cumbersome 
supplied-air respirators (51 FR p. 22719, June 20, 1986, p. 22719).

    After that rulemaking, BCTD challenged OSHA's refusal to make air 
supplied respirators mandatory. The Court accepted OSHA's explanation--
that supplied-air respirators had hazards of its own, and stated ``this 
sort of judgment * * * (is) within OSHA's discretion in the absence of 
evidence supporting the view that the incremental asbestos safety gains 
plainly exceed the incremental non-asbestos hazards'' (838 F.2d at 
1274). OSHA reiterated these reasons in its January 28, 1990 response 
to the Court's remand.
    As discussed above, OSHA has determined on this record that 
supplied air respirators are required for Class I work where a negative 
exposure assessment is not forthcoming, but not for other Class I work. 
Therefore, shipyard employees doing the most hazardous work must wear 
this most protective respirator as well.

(9) Protective Clothing

    Paragraph (h) General Industry. OSHA is making no changes in the 
protective clothing provisions for general industry. Paragraph (i) 
Construction and Shipyard Standards.
    There are several protective clothing issues in this rulemaking. 
The first issue involves the impact of the Class system on the personal 
protective clothing provisions. The existing standard requires that 
protective clothing be provided and worn when exposures exceed the PEL. 
The revised standards maintain this requirement. In addition, the 
revised standards require the use of personal protective clothing when 
Class I work is performed and when Class III work involving TSI and 
surfacing ACM is performed in the absence of a negative exposure 
assessment. OSHA believes that this change brings the standard in line 
with OSHA's 1986 intentions wherein the Agency believed that removal of 
thermal insulation and surfacing materials would result in exposures 
that exceed the PEL. This rulemaking record shows that some employers 
have developed control strategies that can reduce exposures below the 
PELs, for most of the time. However, as previously discussed, work with 
high-risk materials has substantial potential for over-exposure. 
Furthermore, studies have documented that in the past workers have 
brought asbestos contaminated clothing home with them and thereby 
caused exposure and asbestos-related disease among family members. OSHA 
believes that this standard must prevent such conditions, and the 
nature of Class I work and Class III work with high risk materials 
merits special consideration. Nearly all rulemaking participants agree 
on this point.
    OSHA notes however, that the judgment to require protective 
clothing for asbestos work is a subjective one, to some extent, 
requiring judgment on the part of the competent person. The hazard from 
asbestos is associated with inhalation of fibers that are in the air, 
not from asbestos that comes in contact with the skin, like some other 
chemical that OSHA has regulated (such as methylenedianiline and 
benzene), which are absorbed through the skin and are systemic toxins. 
Asbestos fibers that are on clothing can become airborne, so OSHA 
continues to believe that situations where airborne fiber levels are 
high are also those which are likely to contaminate clothing. 
Therefore, the regulation continues the requirement for protective 
clothing and its proper disposal/cleaning. OSHA does not believe, 
however, that protective clothing is required for every operation 
involving asbestos.
    In the 1986 standards OSHA did not require that protective clothing 
be impermeable; in fact, OSHA responded to concerns that disposable 
clothing which was impermeable not be permitted because it was claimed 
to contribute to heat stress (see discussion at 51 FR 22722). Although 
the issue was not remanded to OSHA by the Court, several participants 
in the current rulemaking focussed comment on the issue of whether OSHA 
should require work clothing during asbestos work be impermeable to 
asbestos fibers in each of its asbestos standards. Most of those who 
addressed the issue expressed support for having such a requirement 
(Exs. 7-10, 7-67, 7-69, 7-138, 7-192, 7-195, 1-242, Tr. 1122, 1142, 
1950, 3003 and 3156). It should also be noted that several of these 
commenters were manufacturers of such fabric or clothing. They also 
encouraged OSHA to set a requirement that all garments meet the 
requirements of the ANSI standard 101-1985.
    Charles Salzenberg of Dupont presented a study which was performed 
at their behest by A.D. Little which indicated that neither shampooing 
the hair nor showering following simulated asbestos exposure completely 
removed fibers from hair or skin (Ex. 76) to support their request for 
an impermeable clothing requirement. In response to questioning about 
heat stress, he stated that:

    We've had projects for years on improving the breathability of 
Tyvek and in fact we have some material that exhibits improved 
breathability and the problem you always get when you get more 
breathability, you get more asbestos. There doesn't seem * * * a way 
to have a perfect filter that keeps out all fibrous material but 
lets a lot of air through * * * (Tr. 3444).

    OSHA continues to believe that heat stress is also a concern in use 
of protective clothing made of impervious fabric. It should again be 
noted that the route of exposure of asbestos fibers which creates a 
health hazard is inhalation, not skin absorption. The Agency reiterates 
its belief that non-disposable work clothes provide sufficient 
protection provided they are properly cleaned after work and laundered. 
The Agency agrees that disposable fiber-impermeable clothing can be 
safely worn if ``employers * * * use appropriate work-rest regimens and 
provide heat stress monitoring * * *'' (51 FR 22722). However, OSHA 
does not believe that totally impermeable clothing is a necessary 
requirement for asbestos work.

(10) Hygiene Facilities and Practices

    Paragraph (j) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards.
    OSHA is changing the decontamination requirements in minor details 
to correspond to its new system of categorizing asbestos work according 
to its potential risk. The primary requirement that asbestos abatement 
workers be decontaminated following their work using a 3-part system--
an equipment room, a shower room, and a clean room, is retained. Thus, 
most workers performing Class I work, removing TSI or surfacing ACM or 
PACM, as before, must use a shower adjacent to and connected with the 
work area.
    With the introduction of new provisions identifying 4 classes of 
asbestos work, it is necessary that OSHA modify its requirement for 
hygiene facilities and practices to reflect these changes. OSHA 
continues in its belief that the requirements must be proportional to 
the magnitude and likelihood of asbestos exposure. Therefore the most 
hazardous asbestos operations--those involving removal of more than 
threshold amounts of thermal system insulation or sprayed-on or 
troweled-on surfacing materials must employ a decontamination room 
adjacent to the regulated area (most often, a negative-pressure 
enclosure) consisting of an equipment room, shower room, and clean room 
in series through which workers must enter and exit the work area, as 
required in the 1986 standard.
    For Class I asbestos work, OSHA has further determined, based on 
its consideration of the rulemaking record, that there are 3 exceptions 
to the requirement that the shower facility be located immediately 
contiguous to the work area. These include, outdoor work (See Ex. 7-21, 
7-99, 7-145), shipboard work (Ex. 7-77 and see discussion below), and 
situations where the employer shows such an arrangement is infeasible. 
OSHA will again allow in these limited circumstances the workers to 
enter the equipment room, remove contamination from their worksuits 
using a portable HEPA vacuum or change to a clean non-contaminated 
workclothing, and then proceed to the non-contiguous shower area. 
Outdoor work affected by this requirement will occur mainly in 
industrial facilities such as refineries and electrical power plants 
when specified work practices are employed and following outdoor 
asbestos work.
    OSHA intends that HEPA-vacuuming procedures be performed carefully 
and completely remove any visible ACM/PACM from the surface of the 
worker's work suit, including foot and head coverings, skin, hair and 
any material adhering to the respirator.
    Also for Class I work involving less than 10 square feet or 25 
linear feet of TSI or surfacing ACM (the thresholds referenced above), 
during which exposures are unlikely to exceed the PELs for which there 
is a negative exposure assessment, OSHA is allowing less burdensome 
decontamination procedures which it believes are compatible with the 
scheme to classify asbestos work according to risk potential. In these 
operation, an equipment room or area must be set up adjacent to the 
work area for decontamination use. The floor of the area/room must be 
covered with an impermeable (e.g., plastic) dropcloth and be large 
enough to accommodate equipment cleaning and removal of PPE without 
spread of fibers beyond the area. The worker must HEPA vacuum 
workclothing, hair, head covering as described above and dispose of 
clothing and waste properly. Thus, only if the employer shows that for 
these smaller dimension jobs that the PEL is unlikely to be exceed may 
the decontamination procedure be abbreviated.
    For asbestos operations which are Class II and III which are likely 
to exceed the PELs and for which a negative exposure assessment is not 
produced, showering is required, but may be performed in a facility 
which is non-contiguous to the work area. Use of dropcloths, HEPA 
vacuuming of workclothing and surfaces as above or the donning of clean 
workclothing prior to moving to a non-contiguous shower is required.
    Following those Class II, III and IV jobs which the employer 
demonstrates are unlikely to exceed the PELs and for which a negative 
exposure assessment has been produced, the worker must HEPA vacuum his 
clothing on an impermeable dropcloth and perform other clean-up on the 
dropcloth avoiding the spread of any contamination. However, showering 
is not required.
    OSHA is also concerned that workers performing clean-up (Class IV 
work) following larger abatement work receive appropriate 
decontamination. Therefore, employees who perform Class IV work in a 
regulated area must comply with the hygiene practice which the higher 
classification of work being performed in the regulated area requires.
Shipyard Employment Standards; Paragraph (i)
    In other comments the Shipyards Employment Standards Advisory 
Committee objected to the requirement in the 1986 standard that showers 
be located contiguous to the work area. They said that this was not a 
part of the general industry standard and that they wished to continue 
to provide showers in fixed facilities on shore; that although 
contiguous showers may not be technologically infeasible, it was 
impractical. They further stated that change rooms required under the 
general industry asbestos standard cannot be provided on ships and that 
the worker must be allowed to remove contaminated clothing in an 
equipment room as in the construction standard (Ex. 7-77).
    The Committee suggested several specific steps to the 
decontamination process required of workers following work in a 
shipboard asbestos activity. According to these recommendations, the 
employer shall ensure that employees who work within regulated area 
exit as follows:

    Remove asbestos from their protective clothing using a HEPA 
vacuum as they move into the equipment room;
    Enter the equipment room and remove their decontaminated outer 
layer of protective clothing and place them in the receptacles 
provided for that purpose;
    Enter the decontamination room and perform personal HEPA 
vacuuming;
    Remove respirator after exiting decontamination room;
    Wash their face and hands prior to eating or drinking;
    If they are not going to make another entry into the regulated 
area that day, proceed to the shower area and change room; and,
    Don street clothing (Ex. 7-77).

    OSHA believes these are reasonable suggestions. The final standard 
permits this approach based on the flexibility permitted by the 
language. Those who shower at remote facilities are required to 
decontaminate their protective clothing prior to proceeding to the 
remote showers. The Committee also recommended that, for the sake of 
modesty, the worker must be allowed to continue to wear the underwear 
which he had worn under his protective clothing during the process of 
decontaminating his clothing--removing them when entering the shower. 
The 1986 standards are silent on this point and it seems reasonable 
that persons would be allowed to continue to wear his/her underwear 
during HEPA vacuuming and removal of protective clothing.
    The committee pointed out that the general industry standard 
requires lunchrooms, while the construction standard requires lunch 
areas, and that areas were sufficient. OSHA agrees that it is 
unnecessary to build lunchrooms in shipyard facilities, so long as the 
area provided for food consumption is not so close to the work area 
that asbestos contamination is likely. In that case, areas are 
insufficient and an enclosed room must be provided which is free of 
contamination.

(11) Communication of Hazards to Employees

    Paragraph (j) General Industry. Paragraph (k) Construction and 
Shipyard Employment Standards.
    The ``communication of hazards'' provisions of the standards 
contain many revisions. The Court in 1988 had remanded two information 
transfer issues for OSHA's reconsideration. These were to extend the 
reporting and information transfer requirements and to require 
construction employers to notify OSHA of asbestos work. As discussed 
earlier, OSHA has decided not to require general pre-job notification 
to the Agency. However, the Agency has expanded required notifications 
among owners, employers and employees. Basically, the general industry 
standard has been upgraded to the more extensive notification 
requirements of the construction standard and the shipyard employment 
standards. Consequently this preamble section discusses the issues 
together. In the shipyard standard the ``building owner'' may be a 
vessel owner or a building owner. OSHA notes that in shipyards vessels 
undergoing repair may be owned by foreign entities, as well as by 
entities subject to the Act's jurisdiction. When a foreign-owned vessel 
is repaired in an American shipyard, the employer (either the shipyard 
or an outside contractor) must either treat materials defined as PACM 
as asbestos-containing or sample the suspect material and analyze it to 
determine whether or not it contains asbestos.
    An overview of these revisions follows. The construction and 
shipyard standards now require that employers who discover the presence 
of material which is ACM or is presumed ACM (PACM) on the worksite, 
must notify the project or building owner. On worksites having multi-
employers, the person who discovers the material also is to notify the 
other employers. An employer on a multi-employer worksite who is 
planning Class I or Class II asbestos work is to inform all the other 
employers on the site of the presence of ACM to which employees of 
those employers might reasonably be expected to be exposed. They are to 
be informed of the location and quantity of these materials and the 
measures to be taken to protect them from exposure.
    The 1986 construction standard required employers to notify other 
employers on multi-employer worksites of the existence and location of 
asbestos work, but was silent on the notification role of building 
owners. OSHA was concerned that building owners were ``outside the 
domain of the OSH Act.'' As noted above, this is a specific issue 
remanded for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. Now, upon 
reconsideration, OSHA believes that it has authority to require 
building owners [as defined in paragraph (b)] who are statutory 
employers, to take necessary and appropriate action to protect 
employees other than their own. In the 1990 proposal OSHA pointed to 
other standards in which it has required building owners and other 
employers who are not the direct employers of the employees exposed to 
particular hazards, to warn of defects, take remedial action, or 
provide information to the directly employing employer. It cited the 
Hazard Communication Standard's requirement that manufacturers provide 
information to downstream employers (29 CFR 1910.1200) and the Powered 
Platform standard which requires the building owner to assure the 
contract employer that the building and equipment conform to specified 
design criteria as examples (29 CFR 1910.66(c).)
    OSHA believes that the building or project owner is the best and 
often the only source of information concerning the location of 
asbestos installed in structures; therefore, OSHA is requiring the 
owner to receive, maintain, and communicate knowledge of the location 
and amount of ACM or PACM to employers of employees who may be exposed. 
OSHA acknowledges that in shipyards, foreign vessel owners are not 
``statutory employers'' and thus, are not covered by these standards. 
In such cases, the employer performing the ``refit'' must either 
presume that TSI and surfacing material are asbestos-containing, or 
have the material tested. When turn-around time must be minimized, the 
case in many overhauls, OSHA expects that the jobs will be performed in 
conformity with this standard without testing.
    The final rule provides a comprehensive notification scheme for 
affected parties--building owners, contract employers and employees, 
which will assure that information concerning the presence, location, 
and quantity of ACM or PACM in buildings is communicated in a timely 
manner to protect employees who work with or in the vicinity of such 
materials. Before Class I, II, or III work is initiated, building and/
or project owners must notify their own employees and employers who are 
bidding on such work, of the quantity and location of ACM and PACM 
present in such areas. Owners also must notify their own employees who 
work in or adjacent to such jobs.
    Employers, who are not owners, planning any such covered activity 
must notify the owner of the location and quantity of ACM and PACM 
known or later discovered. The building owner must keep records of all 
information received through this notification scheme, or through other 
means, which relates to the presence, location and quantity of ACM and 
PACM in the owner's building/project or vessel and transfer all such 
information to successive owners. OSHA reaffirms its finding of the 
1986 standard that an employee's presence in the workplace places him 
at increased risk from asbestos exposure regardless of whether he/she 
is actually working with asbestos or is just in the vicinity of such 
material.
    OSHA has defined ``building owner'' to include these lessees who 
control the management and recordkeeping functions of a building /
facility/vessel. It is not OSHA's intention to exempt the owner from 
notification requirements by allowing a lessee to comply. Rather when 
the owner has transferred the management of the building to a long-term 
lessee, that lessee is the more appropriate party to receive, transmit, 
and retain information about in-place asbestos. When a lease has 
expired, any records in the lessee's possession must be transferred to 
the owner or the subsequent lessee exercising similar managerial 
authority. The expanded notification provisions also require that on 
multi-employer worksites, any employer planning to perform work which 
will be in a regulated area, before starting, must notify the building 
owner of the location of the ACM and the protective measures taken; 
upon discovering unexpected ACM, they must provide similar 
notification; and, upon work completion they must provide to the owner 
a written record of the remaining ACM at the site.
    OSHA has included a provision that within 10 days of the completion 
of Class I or II asbestos work, the employer of the employees who 
performed the work shall inform the owner and employers of employees 
who will be working in the area of the current location and quantity of 
PACM and/or ACM remaining in the former regulated area and shall also 
inform him/her of the final monitoring results taken in that operation. 
OSHA has determined that the employer of employees reoccupying the area 
must have this information in order to provide the appropriate 
protection to his/her workers.
    To provide effective notification in Class III asbestos operations, 
OSHA is building upon its earlier requirement to post warning signs in 
regulated areas. Now since all Class III work must be conducted in a 
regulated area all maintenance-type operations will be posted with 
signs, which state the fact that asbestos exposing activities are 
present. OSHA considers site posting to be a particularly effective 
means to alert employees of hazardous areas where relatively short-term 
repair and maintenance activities are taking place. OSHA believes that 
site posting will adequately notify potentially affected employees who 
are not working on the operation, but are working within the area or 
adjacent to it.

Identification of Asbestos-containing Materials in Buildings and 
Facilities

    In addition to the ``notification'' issues just discussed, OSHA 
addresses a related widespread concern expressed by participants in 
this rulemaking: how to ensure that workers in buildings and facilities 
with previously installed asbestos containing products, are not exposed 
to asbestos fibers merely because they have no knowledge of where such 
products were installed. OSHA has found that such workers, primarily 
maintenance workers and custodians, but also contract workers such as 
plumbers, carpenters and sheet metal workers and workers in industrial 
facilities have shown historic disease patterns which in large part 
resulted from exposure to previously installed asbestos. (see 
discussions elsewhere in this preamble of data submitted by BCTD, 
AFSCME, SEIU and others). In its 1990 proposal OSHA raised the issue of 
how to identify previously installed asbestos and asked for comments 
and recommendations (55 FR 29730). OSHA opened the record for 
supplemental comments in November 1992, in a notice which also set out 
OSHA's preliminary views on how to effectively protect workers from 
unknowing exposure to previously installed ACM (57 FR 49657). There, 
OSHA proposed to require employers to presumptively identify certain 
widely prevalent and more risky materials. These are thermal system 
insulation, and sprayed-on and troweled-on surfacing materials, in 
buildings built between 1920 and 1980. These materials were to be 
termed ``presumed asbestos containing materials'' (PACM) and were to be 
treated as asbestos containing for all purposes of the standard. OSHA 
would have allowed building owners and employers to rebut these 
presumptions using building records and/or bulk sampling.
    The final provisions which are included in all three standards, 
like OSHA's 1992 approach, require building owners and employers to 
presume that thermal system insulation (TSI) and sprayed-on and 
troweled-on surfacing materials contain asbestos, unless rebutted 
pursuant to the criteria in the standard. Additionally, OSHA is 
requiring in its mandatory work practices for flooring material 
containing asbestos, that employers assume that resilient flooring 
material consisting of vinyl sheeting, and vinyl and asphalt containing 
tile installed before 1980 also be presumed to contain asbestos (see 
discussion in the ``Methods of Compliance'' section). Unlike the 
proposal, buildings constructed before 1920 are not excluded from these 
requirements. Also rebuttal criteria have been changed. Unlike the 
approach OSHA suggested in the November, 1992 notice, building records 
may not be relied upon to rebut the presumption of asbestos containing 
material and more detailed instructions are supplied for the inspection 
process.
    OSHA believes that these provisions will protect employees in 
buildings and facilities from the consequences of unknowing significant 
exposure to asbestos in the most cost-effective manner.
    Participants supported OSHA's ``presumptive'' approach to 
identifying asbestos-containing material; in particular, designating 
only TSI and surfacing ACM for presumptive treatment (see e.g., utility 
companies such as Southern Cal. Edison, Ex. 162-4; Con Edison, Ex. 162-
54; Duke Power, Ex. 162-57; property management companies and 
associations, e.g., JMB Properties, Ex. 162-29; trade associations, 
e.g., O.R.C., Ex. 162-12; International Council of Shopping Centers, 
Ex. 162-58).
    As stated in the November 1992, OSHA continues to believe that the 
major advantage of such a regulatory approach is that the materials and 
buildings/facilities with the greatest risk potential would be 
automatically targeted for mandatory communication and control 
procedures, and possible testing. Focusing on high-risk building/
facility situations avoids the dilution of resources and attention 
which might result from requiring broader inspections. Other building/
facility areas and material would not be exempt from the standard's 
control requirements; however, they would not be presumptively 
considered to contain asbestos. If a building owner or employer has 
actual knowledge of the asbestos content of materials, they must comply 
with the protective provisions in the standard. Similarly if there is 
good cause to know that material is asbestos containing the employer 
and/or building owner is deemed to know that fact. The current 
enforcement rules governing ``employer knowledge'' would be applied in 
a contested case to determine the application of the asbestos standard 
to other materials or building/facility areas which the employer claims 
he did not know contained asbestos.
    OSHA believes that this presumptive approach allows building/
facility owners whose buildings/facilities contain PACM and other 
employers of employees potentially exposed to PACM flexibility to 
choose the most cost-effective way to protect employees. They may treat 
the material as if it contains asbestos and provide appropriate 
required training to the custodial staff; test the material and rebut 
the presumptions; or combine strategies.
    OSHA considered a number of approaches to insure that workers do 
not become exposed to asbestos unknowingly. As noted in the 1992 
notice, one option was clarifying in the preamble to the final rule the 
current enforcement policy that a prudent building/facility owner or 
other employer exercising ``due diligence'' is expected to identify 
certain asbestos-containing materials in his/her building/facility 
before disturbing them. After reviewing the record, OSHA believes its 
presumption approach is more protective. ``Due diligence,'' is, in 
part, a legal defense, invoked by and in order to shelter employers 
against OSHA citation. Thus in the past, employers who were wrongly 
informed by building owners about the asbestos content of thermal 
system insulation successfully argued in some cases that they had 
exercised ``due diligence.'' OSHA believes that the protection of 
employees must not depend on the good faith of their employers whose 
information sources may be defective. By requiring that TSI and 
troweled- and sprayed-on surfacing material be handled as if they 
contain asbestos, employees will be protected from the consequences of 
their employers relying on erroneous information about the most risky 
asbestos materials. Of course, ``due diligence'' would also require 
employers to investigate whether other building material about which 
there was information suggesting asbestos content, was in fact 
asbestos-containing. A building owner/employer, for other materials, 
also may presume they are asbestos-containing, label and treat work 
with them as asbestos work, without testing the material for asbestos 
content.
    Another option OSHA considered was requiring a comprehensive AHERA-
type (EPA's schools rule) building/facility inspection. AHERA (Asbestos 
Hazard Emergency Response Act, 40 CFR 735) requires that all school 
buildings be visually inspected for asbestos-containing building 
materials (ACBM) by an EPA-accredited inspector and that inventory of 
the locations of these materials be maintained. Under AHERA, school 
maintenance and custodial staff who may encounter ACBM in the course of 
their work receive at least 2 hours of awareness training, and for 
staff who conduct activities which disturb ACBM, an additional 14.
    Requiring comprehensive building and facility inspections like EPA 
does under AHERA was recommended by participants presenting labor 
interests (e.g., AFSCME Ex. 162-11; SEIU, 162-28; AFL-CIO, Ex. 162-36; 
BCTD, Ex. 162-42): by engineering, management and asbestos abatement 
firms, (e.g., Abatement Systems, Inc. Ex. 162-8, California Association 
of Asbestos Professionals, Ex. 162-27); and by representatives of state 
health agencies (e.g., North Carolina Department of Health and Natural 
Resources, Ex. 162-46; N.Y.C. Department of Environmental Protection, 
Ex. 162-47).
    Although there was substantial support for a comprehensive 
inspection requirement, OSHA believes that the regulatory approach in 
these final standards will achieve equivalent or superior protection to 
exposed workers at much reduced cost.
    The reasons are as follows. A comprehensive wall-to-wall inspection 
requirement is found to be unnecessary to protect employees against 
risks of exposure from asbestos-containing building material of which 
they are unaware. Such an inspection requirement would be very costly, 
may be overly broad, the results may not be correct or timely, would 
not necessarily focus on potential sources of asbestos exposure which 
present significant risks to employees, and its great expense may 
divert resources from active protection of workers who actually disturb 
asbestos. First, OSHA does not believe that protecting employees in 
buildings from significant asbestos exposure requires that all suspect 
materials in buildings first be identified. Although all asbestos-
containing materials may release fibers when their matrices are 
disturbed, certain materials are known to be more easily damaged or to 
suffer more deterioration, and thus cause higher airborne fiber levels 
than others. As discussed in the November 1992 notice, OSHA determined 
that thermal system insulation (TSI) and sprayed on and troweled on 
surfacing materials are such materials. They are potentially more 
friable, are much more prevalent, are more accessible and are the 
subject of more maintenance and repair activities than are other 
asbestos containing materials. They are widely prevalent. A 1984 EPA 
study limited to residential, commercial and public buildings 
nationally, found about three quarters of such buildings had asbestos-
containing TSI, and over one quarter of the buildings contained 
sprayed-on or troweled-on asbestos containing surfacing material (see 
also studies cited in the HEI Report, Ex. 1-344, p. 4-6 to 4-10). The 
materials are usually accessible. Surfacing material was applied for 
decorative and acoustical purposes early on, and was later applied as 
insulation coating to protect structural steel during fires. The HEI 
Report in summarizing studies conducted in New York, California, and 
Philadelphia stated that ``(i)mportant findings from these studies 
include the frequent use of friable surfacing in multi-storied 
buildings and the high proportion of damage to thermal systems 
insulation, most of which is accessible only to maintenance personnel 
(HEI Report, Ex. 1-344, p. 4-8 to 10). The accessibility of thermal 
system insulation is not limited to employees who directly disturb it 
to repair or replace the piping and infrastructure it covers. As noted 
by a participant: in industrial settings there are many sources of 
fiber release including vibration (people often walk on pipes), 
exposure to the elements, fans and processes, leaks, process leaks, and 
releases through joints in metal cladding (Ex. 12-7, Respirable Fibers 
Management Consultancy, Inc.).
    The data submitted to OSHA indicate that these two materials have 
high exposure potential. For example, the potential of surfacing 
material to become friable and result in sizable exposures was shown by 
the Yale Architecture School data, which involved exposure to a ``fully 
exposed acoustical material,'' a ``Spanish moss type material'' of low 
density and high friability (Tr. 2168). Dr. Sawyer, whose study showed 
very high exposures to custodial employees from exposure to dust and 
debris from this material, noted that its use in the building was 
unrepresentative, and that the material usually is ``used primarily as 
a fireproofing material on structural steel that was concealed.'' (Id). 
Work in ceiling spaces containing sprayed asbestos show elevated 
exposure levels (see e.g., studies discussed in HEI, Ex. 1-344, p. 4-
74). Data showing high exposure levels from TSI are ample and are 
discussed in detail in the preamble discussion on methods of 
compliance.
    The data in this record showing exposures to other kinds of 
asbestos containing material such as gaskets, wallboard, roofing and 
siding materials show that generally, exposures to these products under 
comparable controls are lower than those released by the materials 
designated by OSHA as ``high hazard'' and for which the presumption 
applies. The ``high-hazard'' materials are much more prevalent in 
buildings and facilities, disturbances of them are more common. 
Therefore OSHA believes that a targeted approach to presuming the 
presence of high hazard previously installed asbestos containing 
materials in buildings which are likely to contain them will provide 
equivalent protection to potentially exposed employees than a 
requirement to inspect all buildings and facilities for all asbestos 
containing materials. Some building owners will continue to conduct 
comprehensive surveys, others, when cost is an issue, will rely on 
presumptions to protect employees from potential exposure to high-risk 
ACM, TSI and surfacing materials.
    In addition, even an up-front inspection rule must be targeted to 
be productive. Since not all facilities contain asbestos materials, an 
attempt should be made to designate those facilities and buildings 
where it unlikely that ACM will be found, otherwise the information 
yield from inspections will be unconnected to worker protection. OSHA 
is using a temporal cut-off of 1980 for its presumption rule. As 
discussed later, this date was supported by the record, since buildings 
constructed afterwards are much less likely to contain even stockpiled 
asbestos containing materials. In 1975, under the authority of the 
Clean Air Act, EPA banned the use of spray-applied ACM as insulation 
and the use of asbestos-containing pipe lagging and in 1978 extended 
the ban to all uses of sprayed-on asbestos. In this regard OSHA notes 
that the purpose of a cut-off is not to state a date after which it is 
certain that no asbestos-containing material has been installed in 
buildings. Rather, it is to designate when it becomes unlikely that 
asbestos-containing materials have been used in construction. OSHA 
believes that 1980 is a reasonable date for marking that probability. 
As noted above, employers and building owners are still required to 
investigate materials installed after 1980 when they suspect they may 
be asbestos-containing.
    As discussed above, OSHA additionally refined its presumption by 
recognizing two broad categories of building materials as ``high-risk'' 
and thus that the consequences of a false negative identification 
supported a such materials be treated as asbestos-containing unless 
reliable information showed the absence of asbestos. These kinds of 
materials are TSI and sprayed-on, troweled-on, or otherwise applied 
surfacing materials. Although as noted the version of an inspection 
rule urged by most proponents would require inspection for all 
potential asbestos-containing materials, some participants suggested an 
inspection requirement which would also concentrate on more potentially 
hazardous materials first. One suggestion was to, first require 
inspection of steel structures with sprayed on fireproofing constructed 
before 1975, next of sprayed-on acoustic ceiling installed before 1980 
(e.g., Ex. 162-27). In the Agency's view, phasing in inspection 
requirements may provide less certainty and protection than its 
presumption approach. Requiring a ``presumption'' is an immediate 
source of protection. Any inspection program takes time and significant 
resources. Additionally, if inspection of categories of potentially 
high risk material are delayed under a phased-in-approach, protection 
is denied pending the start-up date. If judicial challenge is made 
employers may hold back on any inspections hoping for a court to 
invalidate the requirement. Even more importantly, evidence in the 
record also indicates that inspection data sometimes are not reliable. 
In particular, the Westat Report which evaluated a large sample of 
school inspections under AHERA, found that although on the whole 
inspections identified most asbestos-containing materials, ``high-
risk'' surfacing material was unidentified as asbestos containing in 
36% of the inspections studied (Ex. 1-326 p. 326). Since surfacing 
material has been found by OSHA, based on this record to be a high 
hazard material, OSHA is reluctant to rely on inspections alone to 
identify it. A presumptive approach requires that material which looks 
like sprayed on or troweled on surfacing material, be handled with 
care, without waiting for inspections or relying on the results of 
inspections which may not correctly identify it.
    The Agency asked for comment on its intention to designate thermal 
system insulation and sprayed-on or troweled-on surfacing material as 
``high-risk material.'' Several of those responding to the notice felt 
the list was too limited and should include all suspect materials ( 
Exs. 162-11, 162-16, 162-18, 162-24, 162-28, 162-33, 162-36, 162-39, 
162-42, 162-44, 162-45, 162-46, 162-57). Some, suggested using the list 
EPA included in its ``Green Book'' entitled Managing Asbestos in Place 
(Ex. 162-35, 162-42, 162-44).
    G. Siebert of the Office of the Secretary of Defense offered an 
alternate plan--a tiered approach in which thermal system insulation 
and sprayed-on or troweled-on surfacing materials would be considered 
high-risk PACM and would be labeled and notification carried out: other 
material which may contain asbestos (Ex. 162-13). He suggested that 
other material, should be handled as ACM unless sampling indicates that 
it does not contain asbestos, but that it not be required to be 
labeled.
    As suggested, OSHA considered extending its presumption requirement 
to other kinds of building materials which may contain asbestos. A 
limited extension has been made in two cases. Because of its 
accessibility and prevalence, the frequent difficulty of identifying 
its asbestos content and the frequency of maintenance activity which 
may disturb it matrix. The Agency is requiring that resilient flooring 
installed before 1980 be presumed to contain asbestos unless rebutted 
pursuant to the standard. Debris which is present in rooms, enclosures 
or areas where PACM or high risk ACM is present and not intact, is 
assumed to be asbestos-containing. Other building materials which may 
contain asbestos such as roofing material, ceiling tiles and 
miscellaneous products listed in EPA's ``Green Book'' have not been 
found to be both as widely prevalent and easily disturbed and damaged 
as are TSI and surfacing material or as widely prevalent, accessible 
and frequently disturbed as resilient flooring.
    Therefore, OSHA believes little additional benefit will result from 
treating all such building materials which uncommonly contain asbestos 
as if they do, rather than concentrating resources on protecting 
employees from exposure to materials when there is actual knowledge or 
reason to believe they contain asbestos. OSHA notes in this regard that 
an employer or building owner's duty to investigate the possibility 
that a material contains asbestos is stronger when the consequences of 
failing to inquire is increased hazard to employees. For example, in 
the case where a large section of damaged ceiling tiles installed 
before 1980 is to be removed, an employer may not ignore the 
possibility that the tiles are asbestos-containing. By not including 
some building materials in the presumption OSHA is not reducing an 
employer's duty to exercise ``due diligence'' when exposing employees 
to such kinds of materials. The Agency has determined merely that the 
record does not compel the adoption of a presumption for such 
materials; in any such specific case, circumstances may require the 
employer or building owner to sample and analyze building materials for 
asbestos content, or to treat the material as if it is asbestos-
containing under the standard.
    On a different issue, OSHA is not specifying in the regulatory text 
the qualifications of the person who may designate materials as PACM. 
Under AHERA, inspections are required to be conducted by certified 
inspectors (40 CFR 763, also see recent revisions of Model 
Accreditation under ASHARA, 59 FR 5236-5260, February 3, 1994). The 
Agency has found that designation of the kinds of building materials as 
PACM is not an inspection. This process does not require technical 
training: thermal system insulation is easily recognized; sprayed on or 
troweled on surfacing material likewise is identifiable. Neither EPA's 
revised MAP nor OSHA requires specific training or accreditation of 
persons who only visually inspect the condition of ACM/PACM.
    OSHA emphasizes that the presumption must apply even where it 
appears to knowledgeable building personnel, that material is not 
asbestos-containing and is composed of other materials, such as 
fiberglass. Therefore, OSHA has not adopted the suggestion of some 
participants to specify that certain materials such as fiberglass and 
neoprene, because they are easily identifiable, should not be included 
in the presumption (see Ex. 162-57). OSHA notes that HEI distinguished 
a ``visual survey,'' i.e., the identification of suspect materials from 
more complete surveys, and notes that ``this type of survey may 
minimize the need for trained consultants.'' (HEI, Ex. 1-344, at 5.1)
    Some participants suggested that OSHA include the condition of the 
material in its ``high-risk'' category to be subject to the 
presumption. Although the condition of the material influences its risk 
potential, OSHA continues its practice of not distinguishing materials 
based on their friability. However, the condition of the material is 
relevant to whether debris, in the presence of ACM, must be presumed to 
be asbestos containing. The standard requires that debris in an 
enclosed area where TSI or surfacing ACM is present, and not intact, be 
presumed to be asbestos-containing.
    OSHA has not used friability to distinguish among asbestos 
containing materials. First, OSHA mainly regulates active disturbances 
of asbestos, and uses exposure levels as one element in assigning risk-
based requirements. Since the friability of material will influence 
exposure levels, friability is partly subsumed by this reference to 
exposure levels. Second, the term's precise meaning is unclear, and 
thus, confusing to the regulated community. The EPA experience in 
distinguishing risk categories based on friability indicates the 
complexity of using this concept. In 1973 the EPA-NESHAP had regulated 
only friable ACM, but later issued a clarification which stated:

    * * *Even though the regulations address only material that is 
presently friable, it does not limit itself to material that is 
friable at the time of notification. Rather, if at any point during 
the renovation of demolition additional friable asbestos material is 
* * * created from non-friable forms, this additional friable 
material becomes subject to the regulations from the time of 
creation (Ex. 1-239, p. 48406).

    Third, OSHA's risk categories which are based on the type of 
material include the potential for friability. For example, surfacing 
material is loosely bound and therefore is potentially more friable 
than are other materials and thus is considered to present high risk.
    The revised rule also allows the building/facility owner or 
employer to demonstrate, pursuant to specific criteria, that the 
material does not contain asbestos. The criteria, specified in 
paragraph (k)(4)(ii) are similar to the inspection protocols for 
schools in AHERA, such as sampling and analysis by a certified building 
inspector.
    OSHA also considered allowing the use of specific information in 
the building/facility owner's possession relating to construction 
specifications to rebut the presumption. However, many who made 
submissions during the supplementary comment period, pointed out to the 
Agency that building records were rarely adequate to convincingly 
establish the absence of ACM in buildings and recommended that they 
should not be used for rebutting the presumption (Ex. 162-2, 162-4, 
162-5, 162-7, 162-11, 162-12, 162-13, 162-19, 162-22, 162-24, 162-25, 
162-27, 162-31, 162-32, 162-33, 162-36, 162-39, 162-42, 162-44, 162-45, 
162-46, 162-54). Some felt that building records might be useful in 
confirming, but not rebutting, the presumption, while others deemed the 
only reliable records were comprised of an AHERA-like comprehensive 
building survey with bulk sampling data (Ex. 162-1, 162-12, 162-13, 
162-24, 162-27, 162-36, 162-50, 162-58). An owner of commercial 
properties observed that he had often found it easier to sample the 
PACM than to locate adequate documentation (Ex. 162-29). A group of 
environmental lawyers recommended that since EPA in its NESHAP rule 
declined to rely on building records, OSHA should also for consistency 
(Ex. 162-22). Members of a consulting firm, noted that before 1980, 
materials containing less than 5% asbestos by volume were said to be 
asbestos-free (by EPA). Thus, such materials would be unlikely to 
appear on building records if they had contained less than 5% asbestos 
(Ex. 162-7).
    In considering the numerous comments on the subject, most of which 
affirmed the general inadequacy of building records to rebut the 
presumption, OSHA has not included this as a method to establish that a 
building material does not contain asbestos.
    Paragraphs (k)(1)(ii) and (k)(2)(ii) set out the notification 
provisions for owners and employers. They instruct them concerning who 
must be notified of the presence of ACM/PACM and how. Briefly, owners 
must notify employers who bid for work in or, as tenants, will occupy 
space where ACM/PACM is present. The owner must also notify employees 
who will perform work subject to this standard in such areas before 
such work is begun. This work consists of Class I through IV asbestos 
work, and the installation of new asbestos-containing material. Similar 
provisions apply to employers who are not owners. [Paragraph 
(k)(2)(ii)].
    The BCTD suggested that notice of ACM take place early in the 
contracting process (Ex. 162-42) and a representative of the Interstate 
Natural Gas Association agreed that pre-bid notification of contractors 
was needed (Ex. 162-9). OSHA agrees. Requiring notification to 
prospective contractors at bid time will improve employee protection. 
Knowledge about asbestos presence gained after bidding may cause the 
bidder to dilute protection in order to salvage the bid. Contractors 
may lose time and money if they conscientiously stop a job when 
asbestos is discovered. Other participants echoed these reasons (see, 
e.g., NCRA, Tr. 2430-2432; Testimony of C. Gowan, Tr. 834-835.) 
Notifying employers leasing space containing ACM was also recommended 
(Ex 162-29).
    The standard provides that notification may be either in writing or 
via a personal communication between the owner and persons owed 
notification or their authorized representatives. OSHA expects that in 
the case of contracts for work to be performed, notifications will be 
included in the bid documents. In other cases it may be ``faxed,'' 
telephoned or otherwise communicated. OSHA believes these 
notifications, supplemented by clarified labeling requirements [see 
(k)(7)(vii)], and regulated area posting, will provide ample 
information to workers so they will not inadvertently be exposed.
    During the rulemaking, participants raised various issues 
concerning notification. Several participants wanted accessibility to 
be a consideration in the approach (Exs. 162-5, 162-11, 162-14, 162-23, 
162-29, 162-30, 162-33, 162-42, 162-49, 162-55, 162-58, 162-59), and 
BCTD suggested that ``accessible'' be defined as ``material subject to 
disturbance by building or facility occupants or maintenance personnel 
or workers performing renovation, repair or demolition inside and/or 
outside buildings'' (Ex. 162-42).
    Most agreed that PACM and/or ACM within areas such as mechanical 
rooms and boiler rooms should be labeled. For example, Mr. Olson of Dow 
Chemical Company supported the posting of areas where those who may be 
exposed will see it before working there (Ex. 162-17). A representative 
from the Department of Defense felt that general posting in public 
areas would alarm building occupants and over time, lead to reduced 
credibility and effectiveness (Ex. 162-13). This was echoed in the 
comments of J. Thornton of Newport News Shipbuilding who felt that 
signs ``may breed complacency'' (Ex. 162-21). One participant worried 
that perhaps a tenant considering renewing his lease who had been 
notified of PACM within the building might choose to relocate even 
though there really was no asbestos-containing materials actually 
present in the building (Ex. 162-20). OSHA has decided that 
``accessibility'' is relevant to posting information concerning the 
location of in-place asbestos. Paragraph (k)(7)(vii) requires labels to 
be attached at ``accessible locations.'' OSHA agrees with BCTD's 
definition as well.
    Some representatives of contractor interests recommended that OSHA 
use as a model for notification the California regulation by which the 
building owner provides written notification to all building employees, 
tenants, and contractors (Exs. 162-27, 162-32).
    As noted below, paragraph (k)(7)(vii) requires previously installed 
asbestos products to be labelled in most circumstances; either visibly 
labeled in accordance with the standard, when feasible, or that 
information required on the label be posted as close to the installed 
product as feasible. Information concerning other previously-installed 
asbestos-containing products must be posted in mechanical rooms or 
other areas which are accessible where such material is present; or if 
the products are installed in other areas, the building owner must 
otherwise make such information available to employees who perform work 
covered by this standard. The provision exempts from labeling and 
posting those products which the manufacturer demonstrates cannot 
release fibers in excess of the PELs. OSHA has found that this 
exemption will never apply to PACM (TSI or surfacing ACM); rarely will 
it apply to other asbestos containing materials, because on this 
record, disturbance of ACM can exceed the PEL. As noted in the comments 
summarized above, there will be cases where labeling of such materials 
is not feasible. In such case, the standard requires that signs or 
labels be displayed as close as feasible to such materials. 
Additionally, housekeeping workers must be informed that all resilient 
flooring material they clean, buff or otherwise maintain may contain 
asbestos.
    OSHA believes that the strategy for the flow of information 
regarding the presence and location of asbestos-containing or presume-
asbestos-containing materials it has developed in this revision of its 
standards will assure that workers who might be exposed to asbestos 
within public and commercial buildings and/or facilities will be 
informed of the potential for such exposure and through the training 
provisions will be made aware of the practices they are to use to avoid 
exposure.
    To further assure the responsible transfer of information, OSHA is 
requiring that records of the work performed, the location and quantity 
of ACM or PACM remaining at the completion of the work, and data 
supporting any rebuttal of the presumption that a material contains 
asbestos, are to be maintained by the building/facility owner and are 
to be transferred to successive owners of the building/facility. 
Further, in the event that ACM/PACM is inadvertently encountered, OSHA 
has included a requirement for timely notification. If during the 
course of asbestos work ACM or PACM is discovered at a worksite, within 
24 hours of finding such material, information as to its location and 
quantity are to be conveyed to the building owner and any other 
employers at the site.

Shipyard Standard

    In the reopening of the record for supplemental comments in 
November 1992, OSHA asked for comment on the application of the 
proposed scheme for shipyards. There were few specific responses. J. 
Curran, State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and 
Natural Resources (Ex. 162-46) and BCTD (Ex. 162-42) supported applying 
the construction standard to shipyards. Mr. Siebert, a representative 
of the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, agreed with others 
in wanting a separate standard for shipyards to be developed by SESAC 
(Ex. 162-13).
    OSHA has accepted these suggestions and has issued a separate, 
final standard for shipyards. Its specific provisions are discussed in 
appropriate places in the preamble. It is more similar to the new 
construction standard than to the general industry standard.

Training

    Paragraph (k)(8) covers training. It expands the training 
provisions of the current standard considerably. One, training must be 
given to virtually all employees who are actively exposed to asbestos, 
i.e. whose exposure is the result of performing Class I through IV 
work, or who install new asbestos products. Under the unrevised 
standard, training was triggered by exposure above the action level, 
i.e. 0.1 f/cc, the new PEL. As discussed above, OSHA has determined 
that there is a still significant risk at this level. Further, the 
Agency's experience in enforcing its health and safety standards, along 
with testimony, comment, and data in this record clearly establish that 
training of employees is a vital component of any successful program to 
control exposures to asbestos and other toxic substances. Participants 
agreed (see e.g., testimony of Dr. Sawyer at Tr. 2164 ``. . . (T)rain 
the worker. I think is the most important factor.'') There was 
substantial record support to expand training. Among those who 
advocated additional OSHA training requirements were: P. Heffernan of 
Kaselaan and D'Angelo (Ex. 7-36), K. Churchill of California 
Association of Asbestos Professionals (Ex. 7-95), D. Kirby of Oak Ridge 
National Lab (Ex. 77-111), E. Krause of the United Union of Roofers, 
Waterproofers (Ex. 7-115), G. Lofton of Heat and Frost Insulators and 
Asbestos Workers Union (Ex. 7-118), P. Curran of North Carolina State 
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (Ex. 7-118), 
W. Dundulis of the State of Rhode Island Department of Health (Ex. 7-
124), BCTD (Ex. 119), American Federation of State, County and 
Municipal Employees (Ex. 141), Service Employees International Unions, 
AFL-CIO (Ex. 144), National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health (Tr. 230).
    Participants supported training all employees who handle asbestos, 
rather than waiting for significant exposures to trigger it [see e.g., 
testimony of D. Kirby, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ``You need to 
have awareness training of . . . custodial and maintenance'' people, 
(Tr 122); and, R. Lemen, NIOSH, who supported ``. . . approved training 
courses for all workers who are routinely handling asbestos containing 
material, (Tr. 231)].''
    The second major expansion of training requirements covers 
curriculum method and length of training. Before, in the 1986 standard, 
OSHA merely required that certain topics be covered in the training 
program.
    Subsequently, as OSHA noted in its proposal, and participants noted 
in their comments, EPA's training requirements under the Asbestos 
Hazard Response Act (AHERA) become the standard for the asbestos 
abatement industry. Under AHERA, at the time of the proposal:

    . . . Inspectors must take a 3-day training course; management 
planners must take the inspection course plus an additional 2 days 
devoted to management planning; and abatement project designers are 
required to have at least 3 days of training. In addition, asbestos 
abatement contractors and supervisors must take a 4-day training 
course and asbestos abatement workers are required to take a 3-day 
training course. For all disciplines, persons seeking accreditation 
must also pass an examination and participate in annual re-training 
courses. A complete description of accreditation requirements can be 
found in the Model Accreditation Plan at 40 CFR part 763, subpart E, 
appendix C.I.1.A. through E. (54 Fr, November 29, 1989 at 49190).

    More recently, EPA has published an interim rule updating its Model 
Accreditation Plan (MAP) (59 FR 5236-5260, February 3, 1994) pursuant 
to the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA). 
Under the revisions, the length of certain courses has increased, i.e. 
asbestos abatement workers now must take a 4-day, rather than a 3-day 
course. Additionally, the entire MAP now applies to work in ``public 
and commercial buildings as well as in schools,'' and requires more 
``hands-on'' training. For example, for abatement workers 14 hours of 
hands-on training must be included in the 4-day training course.
    The training provisions in the new standard correspond to the class 
of work performed. For Class I and II work, employers must provide 
employees with a training course which is the equivalent in curriculum, 
training method and length to the EPA MAP worker training described 
above. Keying OSHA required training to the AHERA program was supported 
by many participants; in many sections of the country, most training is 
now done using AHERA accreditation as the standard for quality, (see 
e.g., testimony of Daniel Swartzman, School of Public Health, Univ. of 
Ill, Tr. at 486. et seq.). and because AHERA training as noted above, 
is the recognized standard for quality in asbestos work (see. must be 
trained in the proposal, OSHA asked for comment on whether OSHA should 
provide model curricula and certification for training, and on whether 
and how OSHA training requirements should be reconciled with those of 
EPA (55 FR 29726-28).
    Much debate on these issues occurred in this rulemaking. Some, most 
prominently, BCTD, (Ex. 143 at 220 et seq, see also Tr. 483; Tr. 1142, 
Tr. 3547) stated that OSHA should develop model curricula and certify 
training courses for asbestos workers. Reasons for this were given as: 
OSHA's earlier training requirements are inadequate; that ``Ahera has 
proved successful, but needs improvement,'' and that AHERA should be 
improved by more ``hands-on'' training and testing and longer training 
(see Ex. 143 at 232).
    The Agency notes that participants agreeing and disagreeing with 
the need for OSHA certification of trainers and courses agreed with 
BCTD's reasons. For example, R. Chadwick the President of Local Union 
22 of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and 
Asbestos Workers, in a letter to OSHA stated that since OSHA stipulated 
no specific minimum period of training, ``Most abatement contractors 
show a 2-hour film and classify the workers being trained'' (Ex. 1-
175). OSHA agreed with the above comment that its 1986 training 
requirements fairly can be considered ``bare-bones.''
    Although BCTD argued that the AHERA model needed improvement, BCTD 
acknowledged its success in improving worksite conditions (see Ex. 143 
at 240, citing Ex. 7-52). EPA itself has improved its training program. 
As noted above, it recently issued improved model curricula, increasing 
the training requirements. In particular, the new MAP contains specific 
``hands-on'' training requirements in each major course, including 
those of workers and supervisors (59 FR 5236-60, February 3, 1994). EPA 
also increased the number of training hours and now requires 4-day 
training of workers, and 5-day training of supervisors. Other 
disciplines of the AHERA program also have increased training 
requirements.
    OSHA has reviewed recommendations carefully and has concluded that 
requiring OSHA to certify training courses and trainers would consume a 
disproportionate share of OSHA's resources. Further, establishing 
another system for certifying asbestos trainers and workers when 
another agency has a similar program in place would be duplicative of 
effort as well. OSHA's concerns regarding duplication of effort is also 
addressed in this preamble in the section on the notification of OSHA 
vis-a-vis that of EPA under NESHAP.
    In addition, other entities have already developed more stringent 
curricula than those under AHERA. The HEI Report noted that under AHERA 
each state develops ``training and certification programs for 
inspectors, management planner, asbestos abatement workers and 
supervisors that were at least as stringent as the AHERA model'' (Ex. 
1-344, p. 5-51). It further found that a ``number of states have 
developed other requirements that exceeded the AHERA requirement'' and 
that ``* * * in some states AHERA certification are required for any 
asbestos-related work''--not just for schools.
    Paragraphs (k)(8)(i)-(v) cover curricula and length of course 
requirement. They allow flexibility in the new training provisions. 
Courses equivalent to those of AHERA (ASHARA) may be substituted, but 
must be equivalent in curriculum, training method, and length to that 
of the EPA plan. Thus, employers who in-house training program meets 
these requirements does not need send all workers off-site for the 
required training. Several commentaries objected to requiring that all 
training take place in EPA or state approved training centers, most 
also praised job-specific training as superior (e.g., Ex. 7-21, 7-39, 
7-50, 7-99, 7-100, 7-102, 7-103, 7-108, 7-150).

Training Requirements for Employees Performing Class III and IV Work:

    In these standards OSHA does not define the term ``custodian'' nor 
do the requirements differ based on the job title. OSHA agrees that in 
some facilities there is a clear distinction between custodial workers 
who as a participant noted, ``may only * * * strip or buff floor tile 
or replace light bulbs in fixtures located below ACM'' and maintenance 
workers ``who * * * work on building materials or systems that contain 
asbestos''. (ICSC, Ex. 162-58 at 10). Relying on job title, however, to 
assign duties is inexact and potentially non-protective. Rather in 
these standards, the nature of the operations performed by that worker 
determine the level of training required, regardless of job title; 
janitor, custodian, or maintenance worker. Those who perform only Class 
IV work must receive at least 2 hours of awareness training, and those 
who do Class III work must be given 16 hours of training equivalent in 
content and length to the 16 hour operations and maintenance course 
developed by EPA (see 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2).
    Workers performing these activities may be employees of the 
building owners or other employers such as outside housekeeping 
contractors, or trade contractors such as plumbing, electrical, or air 
conditioning contractors. They must be trained to use appropriate 
measures to avoid exposure to airborne asbestos.
    OSHA in the November 3, 1992 notice, stated that it was considering 
a training requirement modelled after that of the awareness training 
required by EPA in its AHERA rule. OSHA further noted that in its 
training requirements under AHERA, EPA distinguishes between the duties 
and training of custodial workers and the additional duties and 
training needs of maintenance and service workers (40 CFR Parts 763). 
OSHA, too, believes that building/facility workers, who frequently 
disturb asbestos containing material need more extensive training.
    Many who commented during the supplemental comment period agreed 
that OSHA should use AHERA as a general model for drafting training 
requirements for building/facility workers (e.g., Ex. 162-13, 162-15, 
162-16, 162-18, 162-24, 162-27, 162-30, 162-35, 162-42, 162-44, 162-
45,162-46). Others, felt the existing OSHA training requirements were 
adequate (e.g., Ex. 162-4, 162-22). Some objected to OSHA specifying a 
time period in its training requirements (Ex. 162-4, 162-12, 162-17, 
162-25, 162-50, 162-55, 162-57). BCTD argued that AHERA training was 
inadequate for OSHA's purposes, and that any employee in a building 
containing either ACM or PACM who does not intentionally handle the 
material should receive at least 4 hours of awareness training and that 
any worker who disturbs ACM during repair, renovation, demolition or 
maintenance work needs the full 5-day training course (Ex. 162-42).
    Under the training provisions of AHERA, all members of the 
maintenance and custodial staffs (of schools) who may work in a 
building containing ACBM are required to receive at least 2 hours of 
``awareness'' training whether or not they are required to work with it 
(40 CFR 763.92). Those who conduct an activity which will result in 
disturbance of ACBM shall receive both the awareness training and 14 
additional hours of training.
    EPA set as a minimum that the awareness training cover:

--information of uses and forms of asbestos in buildings;
--information on health effects of exposure to asbestos;
--location of ACBM in building where employee works;
--recognition of deteriorating or damaged ACBM; and,
--the identity of person responsible for management of ACBM.

    While the more extensive training needed by those who might disturb 
ACM include in addition:

--description of proper methods to handle ACBM;
--information on respirator protection
--the provisions of the AHERA rule; and,
--hands-on training on the use of protective equipment and work 
practices

    Information in this rulemaking discussed above shows that workers 
who have performed work now designated Class III and IV have developed 
asbestos-related disease. Because as noted above, training is one of 
the most powerful instruments to protect workers, OSHA believes that 
its former training provisions must be improved by incorporating 
additional curricula such as covered in the AHERA courses for such 
workers. Imposing time criteria for courses will help insure that 
sufficient time for instruction is provided. More time can always be 
allotted, as needed.

(12) Housekeeping

    Paragraph (k) General Industry Standard. Paragraph (l) Construction 
and Shipyard Employment Standards:
    Housekeeping practices have been shown to be effective means of 
reducing employee exposure to asbestos. OSHA is specifying that the now 
required cleaning of floors and surfaces on which dust containing 
asbestos can accumulate be performed at least once per shift in primary 
and secondary manufacturing. In addition to the current requirement 
that a vacuum containing a HEPA-filter must be used, where feasible, 
wet methods must also be used for clean-up. Once asbestos dust is 
entrained, it can accumulate on surfaces leading to potentially 
substantial levels of exposure. Routine removal of dust can greatly 
reduce these accumulations and the risks that they pose.
    There was little over-all objection to this provision from the 
participants in the rulemaking process. However, the Asbestos 
Information Association asked that OSHA not revise the current 
housekeeping requirements which specify that all surfaces be maintained 
as free as practicable of accumulation of dusts and wastes containing 
asbestos (Ex. 142, p. 7). They argue that if OSHA requires once per 
shift vacuuming, it would lead to less effective housekeeping efforts 
since vacuuming might then occur at a later time in the areas most in 
need of housekeeping than occurs with current cleanup whenever a fiber 
accumulation occurs.'' OSHA is unconvinced by this argument. If the 
employer believes that more frequent cleanup is needed, it should be 
performed. The standard merely requires that vacuuming be done no less 
often than once per shift. The employer can determine when during a 
shift, vacuuming is most useful and perform it then.

Flooring Maintenance Requirements

    There are now a new Secs. 1926.1101 (g)(2)(iv) and 
1910.1001(f)(1)(xi), which prohibit the sanding of floor tiles 
containing asbestos. Further, only low abrasion pads may be used at 
speeds lower than 300 rpm in ``stripping'' operations, and stripping of 
unwaxed or unfinished floor tile containing asbestos is prohibited. 
OSHA believes that without such restrictions this type of mechanized 
activity may result in the release of significant levels of asbestos 
fibers into the air. In addition, the new provisions allow asbestos-
containing floors to be mechanically buffed without limitation on the 
speed of the buffing machine, so long as the floor has sufficient 
finish to preclude contact between the pad and the asbestos-containing 
material. In most cases, at least 3 layers of wax will provide that 
margin. If the manufacturer's instructions specify a thicker wax layer, 
those instructions must be followed. (See testimony of J. Harless of 
Pioneer Eclipse, ISSA).
    These requirements are changed in some respects from the July, 1990 
proposal, which would have further restricted stripping and burnishing 
activities. The prohibition concerning ``sanding'' of asbestos-
containing floors was supported by ISSA and others, and it unchanged 
from the proposal. (See Ex. 136D). The changes from the proposal 
reflect the comments and data submitted to the record. The data show 
that now permitted activities are not expected to result in the release 
of significant asbestos contamination. In addition, since OSHA's 
proposal had used various terms relating to floor care imprecisely, the 
final provisions conform the language to the common understandings of 
the floor care industry. Thus, ``stripping'' is defined as a wet 
process to remove the floor polish or finish using chemical strippers, 
or abrasive pads. (See Ex. 136D, ISSA's comments). ``Burnishing'' is 
dry buffing of floor polish by a high-speed rotary disc machine or 
otherwise.
    The core requirements of OSHA's new provisions are that no 
``sanding'', i.e. the abrading of asbestos-containing material to even 
out the surface, is allowed: that ``stripping'' of finishes of 
asbestos-containing flooring must be conducted wet using the least 
abrasive pad possible; and that burnishing may be performed only on 
floors which have sufficient finish so that the pad does not contact 
the unfinished asbestos-containing material. OSHA believes that these 
three principles of asbestos-containing floor maintenance are 
sufficiently clear and flexible to apply to all kinds of floor 
maintenance activities, even if the activity is described using 
different terminology.
    OSHA is basing these provisions primarily on the results of studies 
submitted during the rulemaking. Thus, in the most thorough and 
detailed study submitted to date on this topic, BCTD furnished a copy 
of a study by T. Marxhausen and S. Shaffer entitled ``Vinyl Asbestos 
Tile: A study of airborne asbestos concentrations during routine floor 
maintenance activities.'' (Ex. 119X) In this study both TEM and PCM 
measurements were made during several operations. The results are 
briefly summarized in Table VIII.

  Table VIII. Asbestos Fiber Levels During Floor Maintenance Activities 
                               [Ex. 119K]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Location                       TEM s/cc   PCM f/cc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room F1 during low speed with red pad..............     0.069     0.0215
Room F2 during high speed scrub with white pad.....      .533      .016 
Room F2 during stripping with black pad............     1.450      .0045
Room F1 during stripping with black pad............     1.153      .007 
Room F1 during high speed burnishing with white pad                     
 (after finish build-up)...........................      .069   \1\     
Room F2 during high speed scrub with white pad.....      .533      .016 
Room F2 during high speed scrub with white pad                          
 (after finish build-up)...........................      .111   \1\     
Room F1 during high speed scrub with white pad                          
 (after finish build-up)...........................      .130      .034 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not available.                                                       

    The authors found that approximately 97% of the asbestos structures 
observed during all analyses were less than 5 microns in length (and 
would therefore not be seen by PCM). They concluded that 
``Concentrations were low during low speed scrubs and burnishing of 
freshly built-up, new floor finishes. High speed scrub results were 
highest on the worn floor but dropped to approximately one-fifth this 
level on freshly built-up surfaces.'' The authors noted that although 
high speed scrubs and burnishing operations used the same machine and 
pad, the fiber levels observed in high speed scrub operations were 
higher than during burnishing. They hypothesized that this had been due 
to condition of the floor tested or that ``the limited amount of 
cleaning solution causes the higher values observed during high speed 
scrubbing operations.'' They expressed serious concern about the 
elevated TEM measurements during some of these operations and called 
for more extensive study.
    S. Wong, Director of Environmental Health and Safety Branch of the 
Los Angeles Unified School District submitted a report of a study in 
which fiber levels were measured by TEM during various floor 
maintenance activities (Ex. 7-11). Using a pass-fail criterion of 5 
samples less than or equal to 70 structures per square millimeter (the 
AHERA clearance level), she found that 5 of 7 stripping pads failed. 
She also found that use of a brush with a rotary powered scrubbing 
machine passed and that various stripping solution used in conjunction 
with the brush also passed. Repeated use of a pad which initially 
passed, continued to do so. In a final test using one of the stripping 
solutions and 7 other brushes, all failed. However, neither the OSHA 
PEL nor action level was exceeded. The report concluded with several 
recommendations: (1) all VAT floor maintenance using powered equipment 
be performed using wet methods exclusively; (2) that use of aggressive 
pads results in release of fibers from previously applied wax (They 
found 5% fibers in the old wax scraped from baseboards.) and their use 
should be discontinued; (3) schools continue to use only the off-white 
or pink pad which passed for buffing; (4) recommends discontinuance of 
use of power equipment to strip wax from floors unless they do not 
contain asbestos; and, (5) alter maintenance program to perform 
frequent damp mopping and less frequent stripping.
    Both studies cited above were conducted after the A.F. Meyer study 
discussed in the proposal, which was conducted in October 1989, and 
which showed slightly elevated asbestos levels after routine buffing 
(with standard red buffing pad and standard buffing solution) and 
stripping. No levels, however, exceeded OSHA's proposed PELs. Two 
methods were used for stripping: (1) standard stripping mixture mopped 
on and standard black stripping pad, and (2) mist spray of stripper 
solution and standard black stripping pad. As noted in the proposal, 
the stripping conducted using a mist spray of stripping solution and 
the more abrasive pad resulted in significantly higher asbestos fiber 
airborne concentrations than the first method.
    On January 25, 1990, in response to the A.F. Meyer study, EPA 
published a ``Recommended Interim Guidance for Maintenance of Asbestos-
Containing Floor Coverings,'' (Ex. 1-108) outlining its analysis of the 
Meyer's findings. The Agency concluded that, although there was ``no 
clear evidence'' that ``routine'' stripping significantly elevated 
levels of asbestos fibers, it observed that higher levels did occur 
after a stripping machine was used on a relatively dry, unwaxed floor.
    Work practices recommended by EPA in the same guidance memo 
emphasize the same precautions contained in OSHA's final standards: 
viz. that the least abrasive pad be used for stripping, and that low 
speed equipment be used for stripping of floors.
    OSHA notes that ACCSH's recommendations for work practices in floor 
maintenance also echo the themes of wet stripping, using the least 
abrasive pad for stripping, limiting the speed of the machine and 
prohibiting floor sanding, which are the core requirements in this 
standard. (Ex. 1-126).
    In a change from the proposal, OSHA is permitting high speed 
buffing of finished floors containing asbestos material. A number of 
participants pointed out to OSHA that buffing, although performed at 
high speed, is done on 3 to 5 layers of wax, unlike sanding, and that 
the wax, not the tile, is polished in this process. (Ex. 7-19, 7-80, 7-
84, 7-90, 7-100, 7-107, 7-123, 7-142, 7-188, 125D, 147 and Tr. at 
3599). Michael B. Wheeler Chief Executive Officer of Essential 
Industries Inc., stated that:

    Stripping is expensive, labor and material-intensive, and, in 
the context of vinyl asbestos tile something we wish to keep to a 
minimum. Ultra high speed maintenance techniques allow workers in 
heavy trafficked stores to strip their finished floors every 10-18 
months as compared to every 2-3 months using older low speed 
techniques. (Ex. 7-188).

    He went on to explain that these high speed techniques also reduce 
the labor requirements by at least half. He cited studies using low 
speed spray buffing techniques on finished VAT which yielded fiber 
levels ranging from 0.015 to 0.025 f/cc and quoted the WRC-TV report 
that ``just buffing an already waxed floor does not throw up any 
asbestos from the asbestos tile.'' In addition, ISSA described 
additional floor maintenance procedures which increase the glossiness 
of the floor--spray buffing (done at 175-300 rpm) and burnishing (done 
at 300-2,000 rpm). ISSA stated that if there is finish on the floor 
surface, these procedures do not generate unsafe levels of fibers 
because they do not contact the floor itself. They oppose OSHA's 
proposed changes prohibiting speeds of more than 190 rpm in floor 
machines, particularly due to increased costs in time and money. (Ex. 
136D).
    Based on this record, OSHA believes that employees who burnish and/
or buff floors using high speed floor machines will be exposed to 
minimal asbestos fiber concentrations if the floor machines are used to 
polish finished or polished floors, and if the pad does not contact the 
unpolished floor. Industry also claims that the use of high speed 
buffing will increase the intervals where stripping is required, and 
thus, may reduce risk to employees who perform floor maintenance, but 
OSHA is not relying on this speculative benefit.

(13) Medical Surveillance

    Paragraph (l) General Industry Standard. Paragraph (m) Construction 
and Shipyard Employment Standards.
    No changes were made to this section. The medical surveillance 
provisions in the 1986 construction standard are now also included in 
the shipyard employment standard.

(14) Recordkeeping

    Paragraph (m) General Industry Standard. Paragraph (n) Construction 
and Shipyard Employment Standards. The recordkeeping provisions now 
include provisions (n)(5) and (n)(6) which require maintenance of data 
used to rebut the presumption that a contains asbestos, i.e., the 
building owner/employer who relies on data to demonstrate that PACM is 
not asbestos-containing must maintain the data upon which he relied for 
as long as they are used to rebut the presumption. In addition, where 
the building owner has received or provided information concerning the 
location, amount and identify of ACM and PACM, he must maintain written 
records of them and their content for the duration of ownership and 
must transfer them to successive owners.

(15) Competent Person

    Paragraph (o) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards.
    OSHA is adopting as final provisions most of the proposed changes 
to the 1986 construction standard's requirements concerning the 
designation of a ``competent person'' on certain construction 
worksites. The term ``competent person'' is derived from the generic 
construction standard's provisions. Under these, employers must 
designate a ``competent person'' on all construction worksites to 
conduct ``frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, materials, 
and equipment'' as part of required safety and health programs 
(Sec. 1926.20). At the suggestion of SESAC, OSHA has designated that 
the person who performs the shipyard duties analogous to the competent 
person in the construction standard will be termed a ``qualified 
person.'' For the purposes of the present discussion these terms are 
equivalent and will be discussed as ``competent person.'' The 1986 
asbestos construction standard appeared to limit this requirement. 
``Competent person'' supervision was required only at removal, 
demolition, and renovation operations which were not ``small-scale, 
short-duration,'' but under the asbestos standard, the competent person 
was to be specially trained in asbestos hazards, and perform various 
duties mainly involving the setting up and control of the NPE, and the 
supervision of workers within the enclosure (formerly 
1926.58(e)(6)(ii)).
    The Court of Appeals, agreeing with BCTD, instructed OSHA to either 
expand the ``competent person'' requirement or explain more 
persuasively why it refused to do so. OSHA agrees that for all 
construction work involving asbestos exposure under this standard, a 
``competent person'' who is specially trained in asbestos related work 
conditions, should either be available to employees or be present on 
the work site. Like other provisions in this standard, the more risky 
asbestos work deserves a more protective provision; so employees 
performing Class I and II work will have the benefit of a ``competent 
person'' on the worksite, to the extent necessary to perform his duties 
as set out in paragraph (o). Employees performing Class III and IV 
work, will be entitled to access to a ``competent person'' as needed.
    Two issues regarding the ``competent person'' were discussed during 
the rulemaking. One was the training required; and two, whether or not 
the competent person needs to be present throughout the operation.
    As to the second issue, the standard requires in paragraph (o) (2) 
and (3), that the competent person must perform the ``frequent and 
regular inspections of the job sites, material and equipment'' to 
accomplish ``health and safety programs,'' which are otherwise required 
by the general construction provision in Sec. 1926.20(b)(2). Although 
no elaboration of this provision is provided, OSHA intends that in all 
work covered by this standard, including Class IV work and work not 
included in a ``Class,'' a competent person insures, by inspecting the 
worksite, that workers exposed to asbestos are protected by the 
relevant provisions of this standard, and that they are informed 
pursuant to paragraph (k) of this standard about the presence and 
location of ACM and PACM. Additionally, paragraph (o)(3) requires that 
in Class I operations the ``competent person'' must make on-site 
inspections at least once during the workshift and any time at employee 
request. In addition, the list of specific duties of the ``competent 
person'' in paragraph (o)(3)(i) for Class I and II work includes 
specific language requiring the required supervision of various 
controls and work practices to be made through ``on-site inspection.''
    The record supports the need for on-site supervision of setting up 
of controls. Chip D'Angelo, when asked what were his major concern 
about glove bags, testified that ``Just the act of attaching * * * 
concerns us * * * a lot of times the material is so overly dry and very 
loose * * * simply attaching the bag can create some problems * * * 
Removing the bag, if not done properly and evacuated properly and 
twisted properly, actually expels fibers out into the air'' (Tr. 3126). 
For example, he/she must be present when a glove bag is attached and 
determine that a smoke test is passed and again be present when the bag 
is removed. It is not necessary that the competent person continually 
watch the operation, rather that he oversees its proper completion. 
OSHA has not specified the ratio of on-site supervisors to abatement 
workers. Mr. Booher of Exxon Company, testified that ``if you have 
three glove bag operations going on next to one another, in close 
proximity to one another, that one competent person can handle up to 
three jobs effectively'' (Tr. 2677). The Agency believes that various 
operations need closer supervision than others; the exposure assessment 
should clarify how close supervision needs to be. So long as the 
specific activities in the standard requiring inspection are covered, 
the extent of the required inspections are up to the judgment of the 
``competent person.''
    Training for the competent person is the same for those who 
supervise Class I and II asbestos work under the standard. The training 
must be obtained in a course which is the equivalent of the EPA 
supervisor course. Unlike the training requirements for workers for 
Class II jobs which may concentrate on a particular kind of material if 
that is the only asbestos work which an employee does, the ``competent 
person'' supervising Class II jobs must be trained comprehensively in 
all aspects of asbestos related construction work. Thus, for example, a 
flooring removal supervisor must be informed about all asbestos removal 
control methods: this is the person who must evaluate a prospective job 
to assure that the PELs will not be exceeded, who must choose among 
available controls to reduce exposures, and must know how to supervise 
extensive control systems if they are needed for high exposure Class II 
work.
    The training requirements of persons supervising Class III work are 
different. Most Class III work is maintaining or renovating building 
components. Supervisors of such work need not be trained in methods of 
abating asbestos material on a large scale. The EPA asbestos in schools 
rules, now updated to encompass commercial and public buildings 
requires that maintenance workers in asbestos-containing buildings be 
trained in a 16-hour course which includes; proper asbestos-related 
work practices, waste handling and disposal, respirator use, 
decontamination procedures, and the content of applicable Federal, 
state and local asbestos regulations. All Class III workers and their 
supervisors must take such a course, which covers all control measures 
required for Class III work. In this regard OSHA notes comments which 
stated that training supervisors of plumbers, pipefitters, and sheet 
metal workers, who are engaged in projects of incidental removal that 
are small scale and short term, in full enclosure techniques is 
wasteful (see e.g. Ex. 7-151, 152, 153).
    Although the formal training for supervisors and workers in Class 
III work is the same, additional criteria for ``competency'' contained 
in the general construction standard distinguish worker and supervisor 
on all asbestos jobs, including Class III.
    Thus, the ``competent person'' must be ``capable of identifying 
existing and predictable hazards * * * which are * * * hazardous to 
employees, and (have) authorization to take prompt corrective measures 
to eliminate them'' (29 CFR 1926.32(f)). Also, the ``competent person'' 
must be designated by the employer (29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2)). OSHA notes 
that the ``competency'' of the competent person is independent of the 
training required. ``Competency'' as well as training is required. 
Thus, a ``competent person'' is not merely someone with a specified 
level of training but connotes a high level of knowledge of worksite 
safety and health issues as well.
    The need for a high degree of expertise for Class III work was 
acknowledged by labor representatives. (See ACCSH reference in the 
proposal at 55 FR 29727, and R. Gobbell's testimony (Tr. 4318). 
Employer representatives questioned the need for this uniform training 
requirements for competent persons supervising all asbestos work, but 
also acknowledged that supervisors of maintenance projects needed 
training in the control methods required (See e.g.Ex. 7-151, 7-152, 
153); others stated that in-house training was often superior to EPA's 
(see e.g. Amoco Corporation, Ex. 7-37); and that trained competent 
persons should be allowed to train other workers (Gulf Power Company, 
Ex. 7-50). OSHA is allowing in-house training so long as it meets the 
criteria for curriculum, length, and method of training contained in 
the standard.
    Training for ``competent persons'' for Class IV work depends on 
when that work is performed. When Class IV workers perform their duties 
in facilities and buildings where no other asbestos work is taking 
place, the ``competent person'' supervising them must be trained in an 
EPA accredited course on operations and maintenance workers or its 
equivalent, much as for Class III work. If clean-up work is done within 
a regulated area, supervision of the clean-up must be conducted by the 
``competent person'' who is supervising the asbestos job for which the 
area was established, which in most cases will be Class I and II work.
    A number of participants in the rulemaking, primarily representing 
industry interests, objected to the proposed requirement for a 
competent person specifically trained in an EPA-approved course to 
oversee workers performing small-scale, short duration asbestos jobs. 
These included: J. Bavan of Michigan Consumers Power (Ex 7-21), Mr. 
Quanstrom of Amoco Corporation who felt in-house training was often 
superior to EPA's (Ex. 7-37), and others contain virtually identical 
comments in which the plumbing contractors state their support.
    Based on the record evidence, OSHA concludes that its expansion of 
the competent person requirements and additional requirements for 
training are appropriate.

Shipyard Employment Standard

    SESAC agreed that asbestos operations should be overseen by 
personnel who have the qualifications to ensure that asbestos 
operations are performed safely; however, they noted in their 
submission (Ex. 7-77) that in existing OSHA shipyard standards, the 
term competent person(s) has been used to refer to a person who is 
uniquely qualified to perform entry tests preparatory to entering 
enclosed and confined spaces and felt that the use of this term as 
employed in the asbestos standard would cause confusion. They suggested 
that the competent person be called a ``qualified'' person in the 
shipyard standard. OSHA does not object to this substitution of terms, 
but notes that all requirements for competent/qualified person(s) are 
to be equivalent.
    SESAC also pointed to a process which may be the general case in 
large operations, in which the duties of the shipyard qualified person 
are shared or divided between two or more persons. That is, in some of 
the larger companies represented on the committee, a training 
department (not a person) is responsible for ensuring that employees 
are trained and another department is responsible for setting up the 
regulated area, while an industrial hygiene department conducts all 
monitoring. SESAC recommended that this be specifically allowed. OSHA 
feels that the current regulatory language permits utilizing this 
organization of responsibilities and agrees with the suggestion that it 
is appropriate for shipyards.

(p) Dates

    The amendments to the General Industry and Construction Standards 
and the new Shipyard Employment Standard become effective 60 days after 
date of publication in the Federal Register. All existing provisions 
remain in effect (including coverage of Shipyards by the General 
Industry Standard) until the new provision's start-up dates. Various 
start-up dates are set forth in the standards. Where there is no start-
up date for a provision, the start-up date is the effective date. If 
any new or amended provision is stayed by OSHA or a court or vacated by 
a court, the pre-existing provision becomes binding again.

Appendices

    Appendices A, C, D, E, and F of the General Industry Standard are 
binding. Appendices A, C, D, and E of the Construction Standard are 
binding. Appendices A, C, D, E, J, and L are binding in the Shipyard 
Employment Standard. Appendices B, H, I, and J of the General Industry 
Standard are not binding. Appendices B, F, H, I, and K of the 
Construction Standard are not binding. Appendices B, F, H, I, and K of 
the Shipyard Employment Standard are not binding. They are intended 
neither to add to or detract from binding requirements.
    Shipyard Employment Standard. With respect to the appendices to the 
standard, SESAC recommended inclusion of the appendix dealing with work 
practices and engineering controls for automotive brake and clutch 
repair and assembly in the shipyard standard. OSHA agrees that this 
appendix is appropriate to the shipyard employment standard, since 
these activities occur within shipyards and has included this as 
appendix L in the shipyard employment standard. OSHA further notes that 
this appendix has been amended subsequent to consideration by SESAC, 
and therefore differs from the alternate regulatory language suggested 
by the committee. For example, the Agency no longer considers the 
solvent spray can a preferred method for controlling asbestos 
contamination and will not include it in either standard.

Appendix A

    All changes indicated in this document are to be made to Appendix A 
of the asbestos standards and all changes are the same for 1910.1001, 
1915.1001, and 1926.1101.
    In the explanatory paragraph at the beginning of Appendix A phrase:
    ``(such as the NIOSH 7400 Method)''
is replaced with:
    ``(such as Appendix B of this regulation, the most current version 
of the OSHA method ID-160, or the most current version of the NIOSH 
Method 7400).''
    This change is made to assure that the analytical methodologies 
followed are the most current and reliable available. Appendix B of 
this standard has been updated and is the most current version of OSHA 
ID-160. This method was written to adhere to the language of Appendix A 
so that there would be no confusion about the limits of the sampling 
and analytical parameters such as flow rates. So long as parameters 
consistent with Appendix A are used, there will be no analytical 
differences between ID-160 and NIOSH 7400 methods.
    Sampling and Analytical Procedure paragraph 2:
    The following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph:
    ``Do not reuse or reload cassettes for asbestos sample 
collection.''

The practice of reusing cassettes can result in lower estimates of 
employee exposure. Adequate cleaning of the cassettes cannot be 
assured. Fibers from the cassette may become dislodged and be collected 
on the filter during subsequent sampling. Employee exposure assessments 
are often assessed based on a small number of fibers. This is because 
it is not possible in every work place to use single cassettes for an 
entire work shift due to excess dust in the air. This is significant 
for occupational exposures, because the background fiber concentration 
must be subtracted from the compliance sample. If fugitive fibers from 
used cassettes were deposited on the blank filter, the background 
estimate would be artificially high and the employee exposure will be 
underestimated when the background concentration is subtracted as 
required. Elimination of the practice of reusing cassettes will 
eliminate this source of error, thereby better assessing employee 
exposure. A requirement that cassette reuse not be allowed is added to 
the end of paragraph 2 of Appendix A.
    Paragraph 11 is revised as follows:

    11. Each set of samples taken will include 10% field blanks or a 
minimum of 2 field blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot 
as the filters used for sample collection. The field blank results 
shall be averaged and subtracted from the analytical results before 
reporting. A set consists of any sample or group of samples for 
which an evaluation for this standard must be made. Any samples 
represented by a field blank having a fiber count in excess of the 
detection limit of the method being used shall be rejected.

The original wording of the standard was inadequate to apply 
meaningfully to certain sampling practices, such as continuous 
sampling. This change establishes that the blanks are to be field 
blanks. This wording also establishes when blanks are to be taken. The 
specific practice to be followed for blank correction is outlined in 
Appendix B, the detailed analytical method. Each time an evaluation of 
work place exposure is made for the purposes of this standard, the 
samples used in that evaluation must be represented by valid blanks 
taken in the work space where the compliance samples were taken.
    The following changes apply to the Quality Control Section.
    Paragraph 2 is renumbered 2(a). Since the standard was promulgated, 
the lack of a specific requirement to participate the Program for 
Analytical Testing (PAT) has led to confusion with the requirement that 
laboratories participate in a round robin using samples taken from real 
world samples.
    A second paragraph is added directly following 2(a) and is denoted 
2(b).

    2(b) All laboratories should participate in a national sample 
testing scheme such as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program 
(PAT), the Asbestos Registry sponsored by the American Industrial 
Hygiene Association (AIHA).

This is a requirement of OSHA method ID-160 and NIOSH 7400. This 
requirement was originally left out of the standard because of the 
uncertain status of the PAT program at the time of promulgation of the 
standard. Inclusion at this time is to make it clear that the required 
participation in a round robin indicated in paragraph 2(a) is not 
satisfied by participation in the PAT program. Such participation is 
however, highly desirable and may be required for private 
accreditation.
    Since the original promulgation of the asbestos standards, there 
have been several improvements and refinements to the analytical 
procedure. Two major analytical methods reflect these changes and 
continue to be updated as necessary. The changes are mostly procedural, 
providing safer analysis and clearer descriptions of the procedures 
that are to be carried out. As a result, Appendix A and Appendix B have 
been updated to reflect the most recent refinements.
    Changes to the mandatory asbestos method Appendix A are intended to 
clarify some of the requirements of the method. Wording has been 
inserted to indicate what methods are acceptable. A definition of what 
constitutes a ``set'' of asbestos samples was added to more clearly 
define when blank samples are to be taken and to reinforce that they 
are to be field samples.
    Paragraph 11 is amended to clarify what a set of samples is and 
when it is necessary to take blank samples.
    An early draft version of NIOSH method 7400 was used for the model 
of Appendix B. There were several problems with the method including 
the potentially dangerous practice of boiling acetone. This appendix 
has been replaced entirely with the most current version of OSHA method 
ID-160 Asbestos in Air. The OSHA ID-160 give the same results as NIOSH 
7400 when used within the sampling constraints imposed by Appendix A, 
notably the flow rate limits of between 0.5 and 5 liters per minute for 
the 25 mm cassette and 1 to 5 for the 37 mm cassette. The counting 
rules are functionally the same for both methods. Use of Appendix B, 
OSHA ID-160 or NIOSH method 7400 when used within the constraints of 
Appendix A are all acceptable and equivalent. Appendix B is the same as 
OSHA method ID-160 on the date of publication of these changes. It, 
like NIOSH method 7400, is subject to change when such changes will 
result in better methodology.
    As the PEL has been lowered to 0.1 fiber/cc, there is an increased 
concern about sample overloading as voiced by several commentors such 
as the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Such overloading 
is the presence of non-asbestos dust on the surface of the filter 
obscuring the filter surface. Such dust has been shown to decrease the 
number of fibers counted even before the surface is fully obscured. 
Some employers have taken samples in such a way that there are no 
representative samples for the work being performed because all of the 
filters have been obscured by excess dust. The intention of Appendix A 
is to provide for the most precise measurement possible while allowing 
for the fact that many work places have an exceeding amount of non-
asbestos dust. Appendix A suggests that a sample be collected such that 
there are a minimum of 100 fibers/mm\2\. In many work places this is 
not possible. It is preferable to collect a sample that can be used to 
estimate the asbestos concentration even if it is with a higher than 
ideal error level than it is to collect a large volume and completely 
obscure the filter rendering the sample useless.
    An acceptable weight of dust on the filter is highly dependent on 
the average particle size of the dust. Very small particles such as 
those from diesel exhaust will quickly obscure the filter with very 
little weight (much less than 1 mg on the filter). On the other hand, 
large particles may load the weight up beyond several milligrams with 
little loss in fiber count. For 5 micrometer diameter particles with a 
density of 3, 25% of the filter area will be obscured with a total 
weight on the filter of 1mg. Increasing the average diameter of the 
particles to 10 micrometers will double the allowable weight to 2mg. It 
is very important for the person conducting sampling to be careful 
about the dust levels in the air. It is acceptable to take a series of 
samples to model the work place air when serial sampling will result in 
samples that can be used. Serial sampling has the additional benefit 
that higher asbestos concentrations can be measured by reducing the 
volume of air drawn through each filter.

Appendix G

    OSHA is removing appendix G from the construction standard. The 
rulemaking proceeding and the Agency's experience enforcing the 
unrevised standard showed that this ``non-mandatory'' appendix was 
unclear and that portions of it belonged in the regulatory text. Former 
appendix G covered controls for all four classes of asbestos work. 
Therefore, OSHA has extracted the main provisions covering various 
controls and practices required for each class and placed them as 
discussed in the regulatory text applying to each operation covered.
    OSHA knows that some employers would like additional guidance on 
specifications for required work practices and controls. The EPA 
``Greenbook,'' (Ex. 1-183), NIBS Guidance Manual (Ex. 1-371) and other 
sources of specific work practices are available.

Appendix J

    OSHA method ID-191 for bulk asbestos analysis has been included as 
Appendix J, to provide a suggested uniform method for the 
identification of asbestos. This method uses polarized light optics on 
a phase contrast microscope. Using this methodology, fibers visible in 
phase contrast illumination can be viewed to assess whether there might 
be potential for asbestos exposure from a material which can be 
measured by a phase contrast counting method. This method also contains 
the criteria used by OSHA to differentiate between asbestiform and non-
habit of minerals. The text of the method is informational and explains 
its limitations and proper use.

Environmental Assessment; Findings of No Significant Impact

    OSHA has reviewed the environmental impact in accordance with the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
NEPA regulations (40 CFR Part 1500), and OSHA's NEPA compliance 
procedures (29 CFR Part 11).
    As a result of this review, OSHA has determined that these 
regulations will have no impact on air, water or soil quality, plant or 
animal life, or the use of land or aspects of the external environment. 
Therefore, OSHA concludes there will be no significant impact on the 
general quality of the human environment outside the workplace, 
particularly in terms of ambient air quality, water quality, or solid 
waste disposal. No comments made at the public hearing or submitted to 
the record contradict this conclusion.

State Plan Requirements

    The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA-approved 
occupational safety and health plans must revise their existing 
standards within six months of the publication date of the final 
standards or show OSHA why there is no need for action, e.g., because 
existing state standards are already ``at least as effective'' as the 
new Federal standards. These States are: California, Connecticut (State 
and local government workers only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, 
Maryland, Michigan Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (State and 
local government workers only), North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, 
Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington and Wyoming. Until such 
time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide 
interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate.

Federalism

    The standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 
12866 (52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. This Order 
requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting 
State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions 
that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only 
when there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a 
problem of national scope. The Order provides for preemption of State 
law only if there is a clear constitutional authority and the presence 
of a problem of national scope. Additionally, the Order provides for 
preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressional intent 
for the agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the 
extent possible.
    Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 
expresses Congress' clear intent to preempt State laws relating to 
issues with respect to which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational 
safety or health standards. Under the OSH Act a State can avoid 
preemption only if it submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan 
for the development of such standards and their enforcement. 
Occupational safety and health standards developed by such Plan-States 
must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe 
and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal 
standards.
    The Federally promulgated Asbestos standard is drafted so that 
workers in every State would be protected by general, performance-
oriented standards. To the extent that there are State or regional 
peculiarities that could alter work practices, States with occupational 
safety and health plans approved under section 18 of the OSH Act would 
be able to develop their own State standards to deal with any special 
problems. Moreover, the performance nature of this final standard, of 
and by itself, allows for flexibility by States and contractors to 
provide as much safety as possible using varying methods consonant with 
conditions in each State.
    In short, there is a clear national problem related to occupational 
safety and health of workers. While the individual States, if all 
acted, might be able collectively to deal with the safety problems 
involved; most have not elected to do so in the twenty-three years 
since the enactment if the OSH Act. Those States which have elected to 
participate under section 18 of the OSHA Act would not be preempted by 
this final regulation and would be able to deal with special, local 
conditions within the framework provided by this performance-oriented 
standard while ensuring that their standards are at least as effective 
as the Federal standard.

IV. Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Introduction

    In this final revision to the asbestos standard for construction, 
general industry and shipyards, OSHA is lowering the permissible 
exposure limit in all affected industry sectors to 0.1 f/cc as an 8-
hour time-weighted average. In addition, OSHA is revising ancillary 
requirements in the current standard to respond to three issues 
remanded to the Agency by the Court. These issues involved expanded 
competent person training, clarification of the definition for small-
scale, short-duration construction projects, and reporting and transfer 
requirements in construction. Also, permissible controls in brake and 
clutch operations are addressed in a revision to the standard for 
general industry.
    Executive Order 12866 requires that a regulatory impact analysis be 
prepared for any regulation that meets the criteria for a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' Among these criteria, relevant to this rulemaking 
is the requirement that the rule have an annual effect on the economy 
of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities.
    Consistent with these requirements, OSHA has made a determination 
that the final revised standard will constitute a significant 
regulatory action. Accordingly, OSHA has prepared this Final Regulatory 
Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to demonstrate the 
technological and economic feasibility of the final revision.

B. Industry Profile

Characteristics and Properties of Asbestos
    Asbestos is the generic term applied to a group of naturally-
occurring, fibrous silicates characterized by high tensile 
strength,1 flexibility, and resistance to thermal, chemical, and 
electrical conditions. According to the Bureau of Mines, a number of 
silicates occur naturally in fibrous form, however, not all of these 
mineral forms are labeled asbestos. Historically, only minerals with 
(1) commercial importance (2) a crystalline structure with fiber growth 
along two planes (i.e., lengthwise) and (3) sufficient fiber growth 
such that the fibers can be identified, separated, and processed, are 
given the name asbestos [Campbell, 1977].

    \1\Tensile strength is defined as the resistance of a material 
to a force tending to tear it apart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Asbestos silicates are divided into two mineral groups: serpentine 
and amphiboles. Both groups are widely distributed in the earth's crust 
in many igneous and metamorphic rocks. In rare instances, these mineral 
deposits contain sufficient quantities of usable asbestiform minerals 
rendering it profitable to mine for commercial asbestos. Some types of 
commercial asbestos have the properties of softness, silkiness and 
flexibility that, among other uses, permits them to be spun into thread 
from which cloth can be woven. This variety, found in the serpentine 
group and given the name chrysotile, is by far the most abundant of the 
asbestos minerals, comprising over 90 percent of world production. Five 
other commercial varieties--riebeckite (crocidolite), grunerite 
(amosite), anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite--belong to the 
amphibole group and, unlike the serpentines, are characterized by hard 
and brittle fibers. Chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite all have 
extremely high tensile strengths and have been used extensively as 
reinforcers in cements, resins, and plastics.
Asbestos Production, Consumption, and Use
    In the production process, asbestos ore is mined and then milled to 
achieve a homogeneous, graded input. Raw asbestos is shipped to primary 
industries to be processed into intermediate or finished products. For 
some goods, secondary manufacturing may be necessary to complete the 
production process. The finished product is then sold to construction/
consumer industries for application, installation or erection without 
further modification.
    Domestically used asbestos fibers are technically classified into 
seven quality categories, or grades, with the longer, higher-strength 
fibers given lower-numbered grade levels.
    Table 1 presents the 1992 distribution of asbestos consumption in 
the United States, by end use, type and grade. Historically, Grades 1, 
2 and 3 were used for relatively refined uses such as textiles, 
electrical insulation, and pharmaceutical and beverage filters. With 
the introduction of ceramic fibers, fibrous glass, cellulose fibers and 
other substitutes, use of asbestos in these and other products has 
declined in recent years. As Table 1 shows, U.S. consumption of 
chrysotile asbestos is concentrated in Grade 7, whose shorter, lower-
strength fibers are used as reinforcers in coatings and compounds, 
clutch facings and brake linings (friction products), packing and 
gaskets, and roofing products.

                                             Table 1.--U.S. Asbestos Consumption by End Use, Type and Grade                                             
                                                                 [Thousand metric tons]                                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chrysotile                                                              
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------                           Total  
                      End use                                                                                 Total    Crocidolite  Other (c)   asbestos
                                                      Grade 3    Grade 4    Grade 5    Grade 6    Grade 7     (a)(b)                              (d)   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991 total.........................................       <0.1        2.7        1.8        2.1       27.0       33.8         0.3         0.5         34
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992:                                                                                                                                                   
    Asbestos--cement pipe..........................  .........        0.9        0.3  .........  .........        1.2         0.5   .........        1.7
    Asbestos--cement sheet.........................  .........  .........  .........       <0.1  .........       <0.1  ...........  .........       <0.1
    Coatings and Compounds.........................       <0.1       <0.1  .........  .........        0.9        0.9  ...........  .........        0.9
    Friction products..............................  .........       <0.1        0.7        0.4        8.8        9.9  ...........  .........        9.9
    Packing and gaskets............................  .........       <0.1        0.6       <0.1        2.6        3.3  ...........  .........        3.3
    Paper..........................................  .........  .........  .........       <0.1       <0.1       <0.1  ...........  .........       <0.1
    Plastics.......................................       <0.1  .........  .........  .........  .........       <0.1  ...........  .........       <0.1
    Roofing products...............................  .........       <0.1  .........       <0.1       16.3       16.3  ...........  .........         16
    Other..........................................       <0.1        0.3       <0.1  .........        0.2        0.6  ...........  .........        0.6
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total (b)....................................       <0.1        1.3        1.7        0.5       28.7       32.3         0.5   .........         33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Mines, based on data provided by the Asbestos Institute, Montreal, Canada, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the U.S. Bureau of
  Mines asbestos producer survey.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                        
(a)Includes one ton of Grades 1 and 2 chrysotile for packing and gaskets.                                                                               
(b)Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.                                                                                    
(c)Source: Bureau of the Census. Includes unspecified fiber type and end use.                                                                           
(d)Does not include ``Other.''                                                                                                                          

    Total U.S. asbestos consumption declined 6 percent in 1992 from a 
level of roughly 35 thousand metric tons2 a year earlier. Of the 
32.8 thousand metric tons used in final products in 1992, 31.6 thousand 
metric tons were imported, at a value of $7.2 million dollars (not 
shown in table). World production in 1992 was an estimated 3.1 million 
metric tons [Bureau of Mines, 1993, Table 1].

    \2\According to the Bureau of Mines, 1991 apparent consumption 
of asbestos in the United States was 34,765 metric tons [Bureau of 
Mines, 1993, Table 1]. Total consumption shown in Table 1, taken 
from another Bureau of Mines table, differs from the first estimate 
by roughly 800 metric tons. The difference may be partly accounted 
for by the exclusion of the ``Other'' category from the 1991 total 
in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a final 
rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit 
the future manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution of 
asbestos in almost all products. The Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule (40 
CFR 763.160) was scheduled to eliminate asbestos in most commercial 
products in three stages over seven years beginning in 1990 and ending 
in 1996. EPA's asbestos rule was challenged in U.S. court by the 
asbestos industry. In October 1991, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals vacated and remanded most of the ban and phaseout rule to EPA. 
As a result of the Court decision, most asbestos products are no longer 
subject to the ban and phaseout rule. The Court chose to let stand 
EPA's authority to ban products that no longer are being produced in or 
imported into the United States.
    Consumption of asbestos products in the United States has declined 
in recent years due to technological, regulatory and economic factors. 
U.S. manufacturers have modified product design to either (1) 
accommodate the use of asbestos substitutes or (2) eliminate the need 
for fibrous materials altogether. Examples of asbestos substitutes 
include aramid fiber, carbon fiber, cellulose fiber, ceramic fiber, 
fibrous glass, organic fiber, steel fibers, and wollastonite. The 
following products have been successfully introduced as alternatives to 
asbestos: aluminum, vinyl and wood siding; aluminum and fiberglass 
sheet; asphalt coatings; ductile iron pipe; polyvinylchloride pipe; 
prestressed and reinforced concrete pipe; and semimetallic brakes. 
Although the introduction of asbestos substitutes and alternatives 
enables manufacturers to avoid contact with asbestos, many of these 
surrogates pose occupational health hazards of varying degrees.
    Despite the decline in U.S. consumption of asbestos, foreign 
markets continue to demand U.S. asbestos products. The export and re-
export of asbestos fibers and asbestos products from the United States 
was valued at $140.8 million in 1992, an increase of 14 percent from 
the 1991 level. Leading importers of American asbestos materials were 
Canada, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Germany. At the same 
time, three members of the European Community--Germany, the 
Netherlands, and Italy--are taking legislative steps to ban the use of 
asbestos. Effective dates for the ban initiatives ranged from July 1993 
to 1995. In addition, Finland and Poland are phasing out the 
importation and use of asbestos [Canadian Mineral Yearbook, 1993, p. 
10.4].
Asbestos Exposure in General Industry
    OSHA has determined that the following general industry groups will 
be affected by the revision to the asbestos standard: primary 
manufacture of asbestos friction materials (SIC 3292); primary 
manufacture of asbestos gaskets and packings (SIC 3053); primary 
manufacture of asbestos adhesives, sealants, and coatings (SIC 2952); 
primary manufacture of asbestos-reinforced plastics (SIC 3089); general 
automotive repair (SICs 551, 554 and 753) and shipbuilding and repair 
(SIC 3731).
    In addition, secondary gaskets and packings and secondary auto 
remanufacturing fall under the scope of the revised standard. However, 
few impacts, if any, are anticipated for these industry groups due to 
their low current exposure levels (below the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc).
    Primary Manufacturing. Primary manufacturers use asbestos fiber as 
a raw material in the production of an intermediate product to be 
further processed or fabricated into a finished product. As shown in 
Table 2, two processes--fiber introduction and product finishing/dry 
mechanical--are common to all primary manufacturing operations and, 
according to risk profiles in earlier reports [RTI, 1985; ICF, 1988], 
have a high potential for generating airborne asbestos fiber.

 Table 2.--Estimated Population at Risk From Occupational Exposure to Asbestos During Manufacturing, Automotive 
                                             Repair, and Ship Repair                                            
                                              [By industry/process]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Number of 
                                                                           Number of     Number of    full-time-
              Sector                           Process group               affected       workers     equivalent
                                                                        establishments    exposed      exposed  
                                                                                                      workers(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
         General Industry                                                                                       
                                                                                                                
Primary manufacturing:                                                                                          
    Friction materials............  All...............................             25         1,415        1,415
                                    Introduction......................                          323          323
                                    Wet Mechanical....................                          390          390
                                    Dry Mechanical....................                          389          389
                                    Other.............................                          313          313
    Gaskets and packings..........  All...............................              9           168          168
                                    Introduction......................                           63           63
                                    Wet Mechanical....................                           23           23
                                    Dry Mechanical....................                           39           39
                                    Other.............................                           43           43
    Coatings and sealants.........  All...............................             75         1,181        1,181
                                    Introduction......................                          803          803
                                    Other.............................                          378          378
    Plastics......................  All...............................              1            18           18
                                    Introduction......................                            4            4
                                    Wet Mechanical....................                            1            1
                                    Dry Mechanical....................                            2            2
                                    Other.............................                           11           11
Secondary manufacturing:                                                                                        
    Gaskets and packings..........  Dry Mechanical....................             71         2,142        2,142
    Auto remanufacturing..........  Dry Mechanical....................             62         1,761        1,761
Services:                                                                                                       
    Automotive repair.............  Dry Mechanical....................        329,000       676,000      126,750
                                                                                                                
             Shipyards                                                                                          
                                                                                                                
Ship repair.......................  All...............................             18           985          241
                                    Wet Removal/Repair................                          788          193
                                    Dry Removal/Repair................                          197           48
                                                                       -----------------------------------------
      Total.......................    ................................        329,261       683,670      133,676
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on CONSAD, 1990, and OSHA, 1994.       
                                                                                                                
(a) Totals in this column show the number of full-time-equivalent workers exposed to abestos at any level.      

    Friction materials. Asbestos friction products include brake 
linings (i.e. linings for drum brakes, disc pads for disc brakes, and 
brake blocks), clutch facings, and industrial linings for equipment and 
appliances. Based on EPA survey data [ICF, 1988] and discussion with 
industry experts, OSHA and CONSAD estimate that 25 plants, employing a 
total of 1,415 workers, currently manufacture primary friction 
materials [CONSAD, 1990; OSHA, 1994].
    Gaskets and packings. Asbestos gaskets are used in static 
situations to avoid leakage, whereas asbestos packings are used in 
dynamic applications, such as pumps and valves, to control leakage 
where motion takes place. According to OSHA and CONSAD's profile of the 
industry, 130 production workers in 7 establishments are exposed to 
asbestos.
    Coatings and sealants. Asbestos fiber is used as a filler and 
reinforcer in asphalt and tar-based surface coatings. These products 
are then used as roof sealants, waterproofing coatings, automobile 
undercoatings, protective coatings for underground pipelines, anti-
condensation coatings for low-temperature refrigeration services and 
fireproofing for structural steel. OSHA estimates that 1,181 production 
workers in 75 coatings and sealants plants are affected by the revised 
standard.
    Primary manufacture of plastics. Asbestos-reinforced plastic 
molding compounds are used in the electronic, automotive, and printing 
industries. Primary manufacturers of asbestos-reinforced plastics 
produce molding compounds in pellet or flake form. These plastics are 
used in commutators and rotors in electrical and automotive 
applications. Based on OSHA and CONSAD's industry profile [CONSAD, 
1990; OSHA, 1994], OSHA projects that one plastics plant, employing 
eighteen workers, will be affected by the revised standard.
    Automotive repair. The general automotive repair and service sector 
includes establishments involved in brake and clutch repair work and 
maintenance. The major source of asbestos exposure in this sector 
occurs when compressed air is used for blowing the residual dust from 
the brake lining assembly. In addition, minor exposures in brake repair 
can occur during spray applications and when handling cloths and other 
supplies contaminated with asbestos fibers. Replacement of clutch 
assemblies can also lead to fiber release. CONSAD estimates that 
approximately 329,000 automobile repair shops and garages, brake and 
clutch repair establishments, and motor vehicle dealers, employing 
676,000 workers, will be affected by the revision to the asbestos 
standard. OSHA is mandating specific engineering controls and work 
practices that will affect this sector.
    Shipbuilding and repairing--historical contact with asbestos in 
shipyard work. The revision to the shipyard asbestos standard affects 
the shipbuilding and repairing industry, SIC 3731. Shipbuilding and 
repairing is a large-scale manufacturing activity that requires both 
skilled and unskilled labor. Shipyard work can be categorized into 
three main operations: (1) ship construction, (2) ship repair, and (3) 
ship overhaul. Asbestos exposure occurs during those conversion, 
repair, or overhaul operations where asbestos-containing components are 
removed or repaired.
    Asbestos products were used extensively on American ships from the 
early 1940s through the late 1970s in joiner bulkhead systems in living 
space; for insulation of steam and hot water pipes, boilers, and tanks 
in machinery space; in ceiling tile; and in fire-resistant sheets in 
bulkheads [RTI, 1985]. However, after 1973, new specifications reduced 
the use of asbestos on ships regulated by the Maritime Administration 
(MARAD). Use of asbestos was only permitted in insulation cement in 
lagging for machinery casings and in lagging cloth.
    Since 1978, specifications for government-subsidized ships have 
required the elimination of all asbestos lagging and insulation 
materials. Therefore, current ship building activities ordinarily do 
not generate any worker exposure to asbestos. However, OSHA believes 
that all ships delivered before 1975 contain extensive asbestos 
insulation materials, and that ships delivered between 1975 and 1978 
contain asbestos in the form of insulating cement on machinery casings. 
Potential asbestos exposures occur when workers contact these materials 
during maintenance and repair activities [OSHA, 1986].
    Occupational exposure to asbestos. The greatest potential for 
occupational exposure to asbestos occurs during removal activities due 
to sawing, tearing, cutting, and scraping operations. Additional 
sources of asbestos exposure, involving a small number of shipyard 
workers, occur during repair activities such as removal and 
installation of gaskets [OSHA, 1986]. Whenever possible, asbestos is 
thoroughly wetted during removal activities. However, wet removal in 
nuclear reactor compartments is not permitted because of possible 
radiation contamination.
    Shipyards are owned by both the private sector and the U.S. Navy. 
Private sector shipyards can be classified into three categories: (1) 
major shipyards engaged in construction and/or repair with drydocking 
facilities; (2) smaller ``second-tier'' shipyards that service inland 
waterways and coastal commerce and that build and repair smaller 
vessels; and (3) ``topside'' repair facilities that work on ships while 
they remain in the water.
    The number of reported firms in SIC 3731, Ship Building and 
Repairing, has differed in recent years among traditional data sources. 
Many ``firms'' classified within the industry are very small, perform 
shipyard work only intermittently, or are marginal firms with short 
tenure. The 1987 Census of Manufactures included 590 shipyards (287 
with twenty or more employees) operated by 547 companies [Dept. of 
Commerce, 1990a]. The Commerce Department's 1993 Industrial Outlook 
estimates a total of 585 establishments [U.S. Industrial Outlook, 
1993]. However, in 1987, the Commission on Merchant Marine and Defense 
reported the existence of only 305 ``working'' shipyards [Merchant 
Marine Commission, 1987]. In their 1991 Report on Survey of U.S. 
Shipbuilding and Repair Facilities, the Maritime Administration 
reported that ``over 200 privately-owned firms are involved in 
repairing ships in the United States'' [Dept. of Transportation, 1991]. 
In addition to the private-sector shipyards, there are currently eight 
Navy-owned shipyards and two Navy-owned ship repair facilities [U.S. 
Industrial Outlook, 1993].
    Employment in the shipbuilding and repair industry--as high as 
184,000 in 1981--was 118,000 in October 1992 according to the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics [BLS, 1993]. Employment has also declined in 
government-owned shipyards. In 1990 the five largest firms employed 
81,000 workers while the 12 largest firms (all with at least 1,000 
workers) employed 98,000 workers [Dept. of Transportation, 1990].
    The largest percentage of asbestos work is performed in major 
shipyards [OSHA, 1991 (Ocken, p. 395)]. OSHA and CONSAD identified a 
range of 13 to 23 major shipyards as potentially affected by the 
revision to the asbestos standard [OSHA, 1994]. These establishments 
employ approximately 74,000 to 80,500 workers, of which an estimated 
three percent, or 2,220 to 2,415 workers, perform maintenance and 
repair activities [RTI, 1985; OSHA, 1994].
    As shown in Table 2, OSHA analyzed impacts in two areas of ship 
repair: wet removal/repair and dry removal/repair. Dry removal and 
repair occur in ship compartments, such as in nuclear powered vessels, 
where wet methods are infeasible. Based on OSHA and CONSAD's profile of 
the ship repair industry, OSHA estimates that 18 shipyards, employing 
985 workers, are affected by the revised standard.
    Market conditions in the shipbuilding industry. During the 1980s, 
the shipbuilding industry experienced a sharp decline in output due to 
(1) competition from subsidized foreign shipbuilders; (2) decreased 
demand for new ships caused by excess supply; (3) the elimination of 
some subsidies for U.S. shipbuilders; and (4) a relaxation of the 
requirements for foreign ships entering the U.S. commercial fleet. No 
commercial ships were built in the United States between 1985 and 1990, 
and only four have been built or under construction since 1990. 
However, due to the requirements of the Jones Act, American shipyards 
still build all vessels used in domestic commerce--smaller ships, 
barges, and tugboats. Industry forecasts also predict that the demand 
for commercial ships will ``increase significantly'' during the 1990s 
due to the need for replacement of an aging world merchant fleet [U.S. 
Industrial Outlook, 1993]. It remains to be seen what fraction of this 
business may be won by U.S. shipbuilders.
    In contrast to the declining market for commercial ship 
construction, the market for ship repair and conversion work is strong. 
The U.S. Industrial Outlook reports that ``the demand for some ship 
repair services * * * exceeds what is currently available in certain 
areas.'' In addition, investments by U.S. shipyards to improve, expand, 
and modernize repairing facilities are proceeding. Investment in fiscal 
year 1992 was $215 million, contrasted with $176 million for purchases 
of plant, machinery and equipment in 1991 [U.S. Industrial Outlook, 
1993].
Asbestos in Construction
    The construction industry is the principal market for asbestos 
materials and products in the United States, accounting for 68 percent 
of the asbestos consumed in 1992 [Bureau of Mines, 1993]. Asbestos 
products used in construction include asbestos-cement pipe, asbestos-
cement sheet, coatings, compounds, packings, and roofing products.
    With the decline in consumption of raw asbestos in U.S. 
manufacturing coupled with the introduction of asbestos substitutes 
into product design, the asbestos construction industry has shifted 
away from activities associated with installing asbestos products. 
Instead, in the last decade concern over the public risk presented by 
damaged asbestos in place, as well as the practical need to maintain 
aging interior sections in commercial and residential buildings, has 
directed the asbestos construction industry to the areas of demolition, 
removal, and renovation. In addition, custodial personnel occasionally 
come into contact with asbestos during their housekeeping duties.
    The construction industry is comprised of a large number of firms: 
approximately 536,300 establishments in 1987, employing just over 5 
million workers [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. Of this industry total, 
423,500 establishments, or 79 percent, employed fewer than 10 workers, 
while only 9.3 percent had 20 or more employees. The prevalence of 
small firms is partially related to the ease of entry into the 
construction industry. To establish a construction firm generally 
requires minimal capitalization; many firms, in fact, achieve success 
by carrying little overhead and adapting their services to industry 
trends. Furthermore, a sizable share of proprietorships in the industry 
are composed of self-employed individuals who contract their own 
services, and who shift back and forth from employee status to self-
employment status as opportunities change.
    In construction, unlike manufacturing, the typical industry end-
product is highly differentiated and is produced at a site selected by 
the purchaser. Due to this degree of product specificity, each worksite 
usually has its own pattern of material use, building methods, and 
number and mix of workers. Thus, considerable variation may exist in 
actual worker use of, or contact with, asbestos materials and products. 
Although the occasional use of asbestos products appears to be the 
norm--particularly given the changing material use patterns in new 
construction--some workers (e.g. asbestos pipe installers and 
abatement/removal specialists) continually come into contact with 
asbestos materials and products.
    Worker mobility, resulting in considerable shifting among both job 
sites and employers is another characteristic of the industry. Workers 
tend to identify with their craft or occupation, not with their 
employer [Lange and Mills, 1979]. Cyclical changes in the economy and 
seasonal work patterns cause variability of job opportunities, with a 
large portion of workers frequently entering and exiting the industry. 
Collectively, these factors make it very difficult to estimate the 
total number of workers exposed to asbestos and the duration of their 
exposure.
    Based upon profiles of the asbestos construction industry by OSHA 
and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994; CONSAD, 1990], OSHA in this final RIA has 
estimated the number of construction workers potentially exposed in the 
areas affected by the standard--that is, where asbestos products are 
installed, replaced, removed, or managed in place. Affected 
construction activities are found within the following general sectors: 
new construction; abatement and demolition; building renovation and 
remodeling; routine maintenance; and custodial work. Table 3 presents 
OSHA's profile of the population at risk from occupational exposure to 
asbestos in construction. Below are descriptions of the construction 
activities categorized within the general sectors affected by OSHA's 
revised asbestos standard.

  Table 3.--Estimated Population at Risk From Occupational Exposure to  
    Asbestos During New Constructuion, Abatement, Renovation, Routine   
                Maintenance Work and Custodial Activities               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Annual       Annual                 
                                  number of    number of    Annual full-
                                   workers      workers        time-    
     Construction activity       potentially  potentially    equivalent 
                                   exposed      exposed    person--years
                                    (lower       (upper     of exposure 
                                    bound)       bound)         (a)     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
New Construction...............          494        4,260         2,377 
    A/C Pipe Installation......          224        2,100         1,162 
    A/C Sheet Installation.....          270        2,160         1,215 
Asbestos Abatement and                                                  
 Demolition....................       55,101       79,361        21,295 
    Asbestos Removal...........       44,491       66,476        16,518 
    Encapsulation..............        4,610        6,885         1,615 
    Demolition.................        6,000        6,000         3,163 
Renovation/Remodeling..........       60,735       95,914        60,735 
    Drywall Renovation.........       51,300       51,300        51,300 
    Built-Up Roofing Removal...        2,235       19,444         2,235 
    Removal of Flooring                                                 
     Products..................        7,200       25,170         7,200 
Routine Maintenance in Public,                                          
 Commercial and Residential                                             
 Buildings.....................      128,867      740,237        25,771 
    Repair/Replace Ceiling                                              
     Tiles.....................       13,686       38,650           725 
    Repair/Adjust HVAC/Lighting       39,434       60,793         2,091 
    Other Work Above Drop                                               
     Ceilings..................        4,847        5,636           299 
    Repair Boiler..............        7,218      180,984         1,126 
    Repair Plumbing............        7,218      180,984         1,126 
    Repair Roofing.............       24,040      127,621         2,404 
    Repair Drywall.............        3,576       80,231         3,576 
    Repair Flooring............       28,848       65,338        14,424 
Routine Maintenance in                                                  
 Industrial Facilities.........      243,454      631,046         2,711 
    Remove/Install Gaskets,                                             
     Small Scale...............       58,122       61,623           378 
    Remove/Install Gaskets,                                             
     Large Scale...............       11,083      109,662           211 
    Remove/Repair Boiler                                                
     Insulation, Small.........       22,204       26,172           169 
    Remove/Repair Boiler                                                
     Insulation, Large.........        4,156       48,827            79 
    Remove/Repair Pipe                                                  
     Insulation, Small.........       22,204       26,172           169 
    Remove/Repair Pipe                                                  
     Insulation, Large.........        4,156       48,827            79 
    Miscellaneous Maintenance,                                          
     Small.....................       44,593       49,957           312 
    Miscellaneous Maintenance,                                          
     Large.....................        8,312       89,974           158 
    Miscel. Telecommunications                                          
     Maintenance, Small........       32,544       48,240           354 
    Miscel. Telecommunications                                          
     Maintenance, Large........       36,080      121,592           802 
Custodial Work in Public,                                               
 Commercial and Residential                                             
 Buildings:                                                             
    Sweeping, cleaning, dusting                                         
     activities................    1,126,000    3,665,000       223,160 
Custodial Work in Industrial                                            
 Facilities:                                                            
    Sweeping, cleaning, dusting                                         
     activities................      143,355      535,768        31,442 
                                ----------------------------------------
      Total....................    1,758,006    5,751,586       367,491 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based
  on OSHA, 1986, and OSHA, 1994.                                        
                                                                        
(a) Totals in this column show the number of full-time-equivalent       
  workers exposed to asbestos at any level.                             

    New construction. New construction activities account for the bulk 
of asbestos materials and products consumed in a typical year. Major 
products include asbestos-cement pipe, asbestos-cement sheet, coatings 
and compounds, and roofing products. As depicted in Table 1, these 
construction products comprised over half (19 thousand metric tons) of 
the total U.S. asbestos consumption in 1992.3

    \3\Total consumption of asbestos-cement sheet was approximated 
as 50 metric tons for the purpose of this calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Asbestos-cement pipe. Asbestos-cement pipe (A/C pipe) is used 
chiefly for transporting drinking water in a pressurized condition and 
to provide drainage for storm water, sewage and other liquid waste. 
Approximately 90 percent of A/C pipe purchases are of pressure water 
pipe [AIA, Ex. 117, 1991]. A/C pipe is also used in industrial 
applications, to carry gaseous products, and as an electrical conduit 
for heating, cooling and gas venting [ICF, 1988].
    Use of A/C pipe in the United States is concentrated in the 
Mountain, Pacific and Southwest regions. In 1991, the Asbestos 
Information Association commented [Ex. 117] that ``pre-cut, pre-tapped 
pipe has received tremendous marketplace acceptance and represents a 
large majority of sales.'' This is significant because the use of pre-
cut, pre-tapped pipe may reduce or eliminate some types of field 
fabrication activities.
    A/C pipe is composed of 15-25 percent asbestos, 42-53 percent 
Portland cement, and 34-40 percent ground silica sand. The use of raw 
asbestos in the production of A/C pipe fluctuated somewhat but remained 
fairly constant during the mid-1980s (26,100 metric tons in 1983, 
37,000 metric tons in 1984, 32,691 metric tons in 1985) [ICF, 1988] but 
has declined dramatically since: 7,900 metric tons in 1989, 1,700 
metric tons in 1992 [Bureau of Mines, 1993]. The use of substitutes for 
asbestos and the overall slump in new construction in the early 1990s 
probably account for much of the decline in asbestos consumption in A/C 
pipe. Based on OSHA and CONSAD's profile of the industry, OSHA 
estimates that 224 to 2,100 workers, or an average of 1,162 workers, 
are exposed to asbestos during installation of A/C pipe.
    Asbestos-cement sheet. Asbestos-cement sheet (A/C sheet) has a 
variety of uses as a structural, technical and decorative material in 
large residential buildings, electrical utilities, industrial plants, 
schools, and hospitals. A/C sheet includes flat sheet, corrugated 
sheet, and roofing and side shingles. Of these four main types of A/C 
sheet, all, as of the date of ICF's market survey, were produced in the 
United States with the exception of corrugated sheet [ICF, 1988]. 
According to ICF, flat A/C sheet has the following principal 
applications:
     Wall lining in factories and agricultural buildings
     Fire-resistant walls
     Curtain walls
     Industrial partitions
     Soffit material (covering the underside of structural 
components
     Interior and exterior decorative paneling. Specialized 
applications of flat A/C sheet include its use in cooling towers, as 
laboratory table tops and fume hoods, and as a component of vaults, 
ovens, safes, heaters, and boilers.
    Asbestos-cement shingles are used as siding and roofing for 
residential and commercial buildings. According to results from ICF's 
market survey, demand for roofing shingles represents 70 percent of 
consumption in the A/C shingle market while demand for siding shingles 
constitute the remainder of the market.
    A/C sheet may contain anywhere from 15 to 40 percent asbestos, in 
combination with cement and, occasionally, silica [Cogley, et al., 
1982]. In recent years, manufacturers have substituted other materials 
for asbestos in the production of A/C sheet; meanwhile, due to unit 
price differences, alternative construction components such as pre-cast 
concrete and cement/wood board have replaced A/C sheet in the building 
industry [OSHA, 1986]. Together, these factors have contributed to a 
decline in asbestos consumption in the A/C sheet market from levels of 
roughly 11,000 metric tons of raw asbestos in the early 1980s [OSHA, 
1986] to a 1992 consumption of under 100 metric tons (see Table 1). 
OSHA estimates that, the population at risk during A/C sheet 
installation ranges from 270 to 2,160 workers, or an average of 1,215 
employees.
    Asbestos abatement and demolition. Increased health concerns 
regarding the potential release of asbestos fibers have prompted a 
desire to remove or encapsulate such materials in existing buildings. 
In response to this demand, a variety of specialty contractors and 
construction trades have become active in asbestos abatement, 
particularly in schools, where EPA regulations have indirectly 
generated a large market for this type of service.
    The asbestos abatement industry experienced extraordinary growth in 
the 1980s due to legal, regulatory, economic and health-related 
factors. Rifkin-Wernick Associates [Rifkin-Wernick, 1990], specialists 
in analyzing the asbestos industry, estimate that combined public and 
private building ownership spent $4.2 billion in 1989 for services and 
products related to asbestos abatement in their properties. This level 
of abatement expenditures represented an increase of 24 percent over 
levels in 1988. According to Rifkin-Wernick, asbestos construction 
activities associated with demolition, renovation, and operations and 
maintenance accounted for around 90 percent of abatement expenditures; 
the remainder of abatement expenditures satisfied legal or economic 
considerations while addressing lower-level safety concerns.
    Rifkin-Wernick reports that approximately 50 percent of asbestos 
abatement business in 1989 occurred in eight states: California, New 
York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. Of the 
$4.2 billion in abatement expenditures in 1989, commercial buildings 
(offices, retail establishments, hotels/motels and warehouses) 
accounted for $1.4 billion in abatement services. Industrial buildings 
accounted for nearly $1 billion in asbestos abatement expenditures, 
while abatement in schools totalled $800 million, or roughly one-fifth 
of the industry.
    In early 1990, 2,100 asbestos abatement contractors operated in the 
United States under either state certification or some other license. 
Rifkin-Wernick estimates that abatement contractors in 1989 employed 
161,000 workers, of which 98,000 were full-time. Firm size in the 
industry was generally small: 80 percent of contractors employ fewer 
than 50 people and over half of asbestos contractors have no part-time 
employees.
    Contractor revenues in 1989 totalled $3.6 billion. Rifkin-Wernick 
classified contractors by revenue size and geographic radius of 
operation. National contractors are defined as conducting business 
beyond 1,000 miles of headquarters and with revenues above $20 million. 
Regional contractors, in Rifkin-Wernick's classification system, tend 
to operate 250 to 1,000 miles from the main office and earn revenues of 
$5 million to $20 million. Finally, local contractors operate primarily 
within a 250-mile radius of home and earn under $5 million. Table 4 
presents Rifkin-Wernick's 1990 assessment of contractor market 
concentration for two earlier years and market projection for 1994.

                     Table 4.--Market Concentration                     
                               [1987-1994]                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 1994   
                                             1987     1989   (projected)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Contractors:                                                  
  National...............................        8       20          15 
  Regional...............................      100      200         150 
  Local..................................    1,200    1,872         500 
                                          ------------------------------
      Total..............................    1,308    2,092         665 
Revenues ($ Million):                                                   
  National...............................     $155     $832      $1,050 
  Regional...............................      362    1,720       2,250 
  Local..................................      517    1,086         470 
                                          ------------------------------
      Total..............................    1,034    3,638       3,770 
Market Share (%)                                                        
  National...............................      15%      23%         28% 
  Regional...............................      35%      47%         60% 
  Local..................................      50%      30%         12% 
                                          ------------------------------
      Total..............................     100%     100%        100% 
Revenues Per Contractor ($ Million):                                    
  National...............................    $19.3    $41.6       $70.0 
  Regional...............................      3.6      8.6        15.0 
  Local..................................      0.4      0.6         0.9 
                                          ------------------------------
      Total..............................      0.8      1.7         5.7 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Rifkin-Wernick, 1990.                                           

    In developing its profile of the abatement and demolition industry, 
OSHA [OSHA, 1994], recognized the growth in market specialization 
observed by Rifkin-Wernick and other experts. Therefore, OSHA applied 
lower-bound worker population estimates to the cost and benefit 
analysis. For all of abatement and demolition, OSHA estimates a full-
time workforce of 21,295 persons.4

    \4\OSHA notes that its estimate for the number of full-time 
abatement workers is lower than Rifkin-Wernick's 1989 estimate. OSHA 
believes that this discrepancy may possibly be due to three factors: 
1) the cyclical decline in the industry during the recession of 
1990-1991 and subsequent slow recovery; 2) increased specialization 
among abatement workers and the adoption of labor-saving 
technologies and work practices; and 3) the inclusion of abatement 
workers in other activity groups within OSHA's industry profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Renovation and remodeling. The principal general renovation 
activities that entail occupational exposure to asbestos are: the 
demolition of drywall (including removal of transite panels), the 
removal of built-up roofing containing asbestos roofing felts, and the 
removal of asbestos flooring products. OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] 
estimate that anywhere from 60,735 to 95,914 workers--all of whom are 
full-time professionals--may be at risk from asbestos exposure during 
renovation and remodeling. OSHA believes that specialization has 
emerged in the industry to the extent that a lower-bound estimate of 
the workforce is appropriate in this impact analysis. Consequently, 
OSHA estimates that 60,735 full-time-equivalent workers in renovation 
and remodeling of asbestos-containing buildings are affected by the 
revised standard.
    Drywall demolition. The occupational exposure to asbestos 
associated with the demolition and renovation of drywall results 
primarily from the release of asbestos fibers from the spackling, tape, 
and joint compounds used to produce a smooth surface across the entire 
wall. Although the use of asbestos in drywall tape and spackling 
compound is now prohibited, asbestos-containing finishing materials 
were routinely used in drywall application through the early 1970s. 
Thus, the demolition and renovation of drywall in any building 
constructed prior to the mid-1970s is likely to expose workers to 
friable asbestos.
    On occasion, drywall renovation involves contact with sprayed- and 
troweled-on fireproofing and other asbestos surfacing material. 
Information on the frequency of contact with high-risk asbestos-
containing material during drywall renovation is limited but suggests 
that a minor percentage of projects are affected [CONSAD, 1985]. OSHA 
estimates that 20 percent of drywall renovations involve contact with 
high-risk ACM. A breakdown of the worker population for drywall 
renovation is given below under BENEFITS.
    Built-up roofing removal. Built up roofs constructed with asbestos 
roofing felts generally have long useful lives of 20 or more years. 
CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990] used Bureau of Mines data on production of 
roofing felt in the 1960s to estimate that approximately 80,000 tons of 
asbestos-containing roofing products will be removed annually.
    Removal of asbestos flooring products. Asbestos flooring products, 
also termed ``resilient floor coverings,'' include vinyl/asbestos floor 
tile, asphalt/asbestos floor tile, and sheet flooring backed with 
asbestos felt. Asbestos flooring products are estimated to be in over 
3.6 million buildings [EPA, 1984]. Although these floors have a useful 
life of approximately 25-30 years, they are generally replaced more 
often [RFCI, 1990].
    Routine maintenance in public, commercial and residential 
buildings. Routine building maintenance activities can involve exposure 
to asbestos because of the presence of products containing asbestos. 
Worker exposure can be a result of direct contact with the asbestos 
materials and products or can result from disturbance of settled dust 
in the vicinity of asbestos-containing materials (for example, when 
work above a drop ceiling is performed where asbestos-containing 
insulation or fireproofing was used). Maintenance activities that can 
involve asbestos exposure include: adjustment or repair of HVAC 
ductwork or lighting (above a drop ceiling); replacement of drop 
ceiling tiles; repair of leaking water or steam pipes; boiler 
maintenance or repair activities; and repairs to roofing, drywall or 
flooring. Workers at risk during these activities include in-house 
building maintenance personnel, contract maintenance crews, and special 
trades contractors. Based on an industry profile by CONSAD [CONSAD, 
1990], OSHA estimates that anywhere from 128,867 workers to 740,237 
workers are potentially exposed while performing routine maintenance 
activities in public, commercial and residential buildings.
    For this economic impact analysis, OSHA assumed that owners of 
affected buildings will minimize compliance costs by applying 
maintenance personnel--whether in-house or contract--to asbestos 
projects on a full-time basis, where possible. Under this assumption, 
the absolute number of affected workers would equal the lower-bound 
estimate for the population at risk (128,867 workers). In terms of 
person-years of exposure (number of persons exposed over a year of 
eight-hour days), the lower-bound population at risk equates to 25,771 
full-time-equivalent persons, as shown in Column 3 in Table 3.
    Renovation, maintenance, and repair operations comprise a 
significant portion of total construction activity. In 1987, receipts 
from maintenance and repair operations alone were $50.4 billion, or 10 
percent of total construction receipts [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b].
    Routine maintenance in industrial facilities. In general industry, 
routine maintenance and repair can involve the disturbance of asbestos-
containing materials and products (ACM), including such products as 
gaskets, pipe and boiler insulation, electronic components and 
structural building materials. Asbestos industrial materials and 
products are most widely used in (1) the manufacture of malt beverages, 
paper products, chemicals, petroleum products, glass and ceramics, iron 
and steel, and fabricated metal products; (2) telephone communications; 
(3) electric utilities; and (4) other public utilities (gas, water, 
sanitary services). Occupational exposure to asbestos fibers can occur 
among maintenance workers directly involved in disturbance of ACM as 
well as among production workers near the maintenance work site.
    For this final analysis of the costs and benefits of the revised 
asbestos standard, OSHA identified five general types of routine 
maintenance in industrial facilities, listed below.
     Gasket removal and installation
     Boiler removal and installation
     Pipe removal and installation
     Miscellaneous maintenance
     Miscellaneous telecommunications maintenance
    Miscellaneous maintenance includes the variety of building 
maintenance (ceiling work, roofing, drywall, etc.) described above 
under Routine Maintenance in Public, Commercial, and Residential 
Buildings. Miscellaneous telecommunications maintenance includes 1) 
removal of electronic components, particularly line card resistors, 
insulated with asbestos and 2) placement or removal of communications 
wire and cable.
    Table 3 presents the range of workers in general industry 
potentially exposed to asbestos during routine maintenance tasks. In 
this impact analysis, OSHA assumes that, to minimize compliance costs, 
affected establishments will concentrate asbestos maintenance duties 
among a group of trained specialists. Shown in Column 3 in the table 
are OSHA's estimates for full-time populations at risk for each 
maintenance activity. For all of general industry, a total of 2,711 
full-time-equivalent persons perform construction-related duties.
    Custodial work in public, commercial and residential buildings. 
Asbestos exposure in public and commercial buildings can occur during a 
variety of tasks involving disturbance of asbestos or asbestos-
containing materials, in addition to routine maintenance activities 
described above. Custodial work in buildings with ACM can include any 
of the following types of activities: sweeping; cleaning; dusting; 
mopping; vacuuming; stripping and buffing of vinyl-asbestos floor tile; 
and clean-up after asbestos removal or other significant asbestos 
construction work.
    A recent EPA-sponsored study of asbestos exposure among custodial 
workers in Missouri reports frequency and duration of custodial 
activities [Wickman, et al., 1992]. Modeling a custodial worker profile 
on the Missouri study and on building survey data from EPA, OSHA and 
CONSAD estimated the range of workers potentially at risk [OSHA, 1994]. 
OSHA estimates that anywhere from 1.1 million to 3.7 million workers 
are at risk from asbestos exposure during custodial work.
    OSHA believes that there is presently little specialization in 
asbestos custodial work and that the actual number of workers at risk 
approximates the average of the lower-bound and upper-bound number of 
workers. In terms of person-years of exposure over work weeks 
consisting of eight-hour days, OSHA estimates that 223,160 full-time-
equivalent workers are at risk during custodial disturbance of asbestos 
or asbestos-containing materials.
    Custodial work in industrial facilities. Custodial work in 
industrial facilities largely resembles custodial work in public, 
commercial, and residential buildings and was identically modeled by 
CONSAD. The workforce at risk performing custodial activities in 
industrial facilities ranges from 143,355 to 535,768 workers, as shown 
in Table 3. Taking the average of this range and calculating the full-
time-equivalent population, OSHA estimates that 31,442 person-years of 
exposure occur in general industry annually during custodial work.

C. Assessment of Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Alternatives 
Introduction

    The declared purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) 
Act of 1970 is ``* * * to assure so far as possible every working man 
and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to 
preserve our human resources * * *'' Thus, the Act requires the 
Secretary of Labor, when promulgating occupational safety and health 
standards for toxic materials or harmful physical agents, to set the 
standard `` * * * that most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, 
on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will 
suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity * * *'' On 
the basis of this congressional directive, OSHA has responded to the 
Court of Appeals by issuing a final revision to the asbestos standard, 
the intent of which is to further reduce the adverse health effects 
associated with occupational exposure to asbestos. This chapter reviews 
regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives that OSHA considered and 
found to be inadequate for full remediation of the occupational hazards 
of asbestos.
Private Markets and Occupational Health
    Economic theory suggests that the need for government regulation is 
greatly reduced where private markets work efficiently and effectively 
to allocate health and safety resources. The theory typically assumes 
perfectly competitive labor markets where workers, having perfect 
knowledge of job risks and being perfectly mobile among jobs, command 
wage premiums that fully compensate for any risk of future harm. Thus, 
theoretically, the costs of occupational injury and illness are borne 
initially by the firms responsible for the hazardous workplace 
conditions and, ultimately, by the consumers who pay higher prices for 
the final goods and services produced by these firms. With all costs 
internalized, private employers have an incentive to reduce hazards 
wherever the cost of hazard abatement is less than the cost of the 
expected injury or illness. The resultant level of safety and health is 
considered ``efficient'' in the sense that it minimizes the sum of the 
costs of hazard prevention and of injury or illness. Perfectly 
competitive labor markets, however, do not exist for many industrial 
markets. OSHA, therefore, believes that it must take appropriate 
actions to provide greater worker protection against exposures to toxic 
substances.
    Evidence indicates that market forces have not been effective in 
reducing excessive occupational exposure to asbestos, thereby 
contributing to the development of diseases related to it. In spite of 
the hazards associated with asbestos, the social costs of production 
have not been internalized, in part because of market imperfections and 
the existence of externalities. Consequently, the amount of protection 
that the private market will offer to workers differs from the socially 
desired level, for the following reasons.
    First, evidence on occupational health hazards in general suggests 
that, in the absence of immediate or clear-cut danger, employees and 
employers have little incentive to seek or provide information on the 
potential long-term effects of exposure. When relevant information is 
provided, however, employers and employees might still find informed 
decision making a difficult task, especially where long latency periods 
precede the development of disease. Moreover, if signs and symptoms are 
nonspecific--that is, if an illness could be job-related or could have 
other causes--employees and employers may not link disease with 
exposure.
    Second, even if workers were fully informed of the health risks 
associated with exposure to asbestos, many face limited employment 
options. Non-transferability of occupational skills and high regional 
unemployment rates sharply reduce a worker's expectation of obtaining 
alternative employment quickly or easily. A worker employed in 
resurfacing automobile brakes, for example, could find it difficult to 
apply occupational skills to a new job in searching for a safer 
workplace. In many regions of the country, the practical choice for 
workers is not between a safe job and a better paying but more 
hazardous position, but simply between employment and unemployment at 
the prevailing rates of pay and risk. In addition to the fear of 
substantial income loss from prolonged periods of unemployment, the 
high costs of relocation, the reluctance to break family and community 
ties, and the growth of institutional factors such as pension plans and 
seniority rights serve to elevate the cost of job transfer.
    In addition to the market imperfections, externalities result in 
employers and employees settling for an inefficiently low level of 
protection from toxic substances. For the competitive market to 
function efficiently, only workers and their employers should be 
affected by the level of safety and health provided in market 
transactions. In the case of occupational safety and health, however, 
society shares part of the financial burden of occupationally induced 
diseases, including the costs of premature death, excess sickness, and 
disability. Individuals who suffer from occupationally related illness 
are cared for and compensated by society through taxpayer support of 
social programs, including welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. 
These combined factors of labor market imperfections and the existence 
of externalities prevent the market from delivering an optimal supply 
of healthful working conditions in industries where asbestos hazards 
exist.
Tort Liability and Asbestos Litigation
    Greater reliance on the use of liability under tort law is one of 
the examples of a non-regulatory alternative identified and set forth 
by the Office of Management and Budget guidelines for implementing 
Executive Orders 12866 and 12291. Prosser [Prosser, 1971] describes a 
tort, in part, as a ``civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for 
which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for 
damages,'' although he says that ``a really satisfactory definition has 
yet to be found.''
    If the tort system effectively applied, it would allow a worker 
whose health has been adversely affected by occupational exposure to 
asbestos to sue and recover damages from the employer. Furthermore, the 
tort system would shift the liability of direct costs of occupational 
disease from the worker to the firm under certain specific 
circumstances. The tort system has had limited success in shifting the 
cost of occupational disease. The limitations of the system are 
discussed in the following paragraphs.
    Asbestos product liability litigation as a means of reducing worker 
exposure to asbestos has proven effective in some areas, but cumbersome 
to resolve. The difficulties are inherent in the litigation process as 
it relates to asbestos products and in the nature of the diseases 
associated with asbestos.
    With very limited exceptions, however, the tort system is not a 
viable alternative in dealings between employees and their employers. 
All states have legislation providing that Workers' Compensation is 
either the exclusive or principal remedy available to employees against 
their employers. Thus, tort law can only be applied to third-party 
suppliers of a hazardous substance. It is often difficult, however, to 
demonstrate cause, which is a necessary prerequisite for the successful 
application of tort liability against these suppliers.
    First, knowledge of the worker exposure must exist. The worker and/
or the physician must be aware of both the magnitude and duration of 
exposure to asbestos and the causal link between the disease and the 
occupational exposure. Furthermore, it could be extremely difficult to 
isolate the role of occupational exposures in causing the disease, 
especially if workers are exposed to many toxic substances. Second, the 
liable party must be identifiable, but workers may have several 
employers over a working lifetime. Third, the scientific and medical 
evidence available to support the contention that the disease was 
caused by job-related exposure must withstand judicial standards for 
proof of causality. This task is very difficult because of the long 
latency periods associated with asbestos-related diseases.
    The costs associated with producing information and with litigation 
itself may be quite substantial. First, information is a public good, 
which means that once produced it can be transmitted inexpensively to 
any number of individuals without diminishing the quality or quantity 
of the information. It is, therefore, difficult to control distribution 
once the information is produced. A producer of information may find 
that information produced at great expense can be acquired freely by 
potential customers, and that, consequently, the market for the 
information has virtually disappeared. As a result, public goods are 
typically underproduced relative to what is considered economically 
efficient. This general undersupply of information adversely affects 
the workers' awareness of the cause of their illness and thus reduces 
the likelihood that they will pursue tort liability suits.
    Second, legal proceedings impose costs on both plaintiffs and 
defendants. Victims of torts must incur legal fees associated with 
bringing about court action. In deciding whether to sue, the victim 
must be sure that the size of the claim will be large enough to cover 
legal expenses. In effect, the plaintiff is likely to face substantial 
transaction costs in the form of legal expenses. These are commonly set 
at a 33 percent contingency for the plaintiff's lawyer, plus legal 
expenses. The accused firm must also pay for its defense. A report 
prepared by the Research Triangle Institute [RTI, 1982], contains some 
data pertaining to legal costs and the size of awards. One 
investigator, for example, found that an average ratio of legal costs 
to proceeds was 37 percent for a sample of cases. The data, however, do 
not separate legal fees paid by the defendants and plaintiffs.
    The majority of occupational disease tort activity has involved 
workers exposed to asbestos. These employees could avoid the exclusive 
remedy of Workers' Compensation by suing suppliers, whereas asbestos 
exposures are best controlled by employers.
    In a consolidated class-action case in 1990, a Texas court awarded 
more than $3.5 million in compensatory damages to 2,366 workers who had 
been exposed to asbestos in refineries. Punitive damages were to be 
awarded on the basis of gross negligence on the part of the suppliers 
[Dallas Morning News, 1990].
    In 1993, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit involving future 
personal injury claims against 20 asbestos product manufacturers 
represented by the Center for Claims Resolution (Carlough v. Amchem 
Products, Inc). It would provide $1 billion over the next ten years to 
settle about 100,000 claims as people exposed to the manufacturers' 
products contract asbestos-related conditions. Payments would depend on 
the type of condition and attorneys' fees would be capped at 25 percent 
of each payment [BNA, 1993]. The settlement was reached by parties 
aware of the decades-long impasses in asbestos litigation that have 
frustrated the tort liability process.
    It is unusual for insurance and liability costs to be borne in full 
by the specific employer responsible for the risk involved. For firms 
using insurance, the premium determination process is such that 
premiums only partially reflect changes in risk associated with changes 
in asbestos or other hazardous exposures. This results in the so-called 
``moral hazard problem,'' which is the risk that arises from the 
possible dishonesty or imprudence of the insured. As the insured has 
paid for an insurance company to assume some of his or her risks, he or 
she has less reason to exercise the diligence necessary to avoid 
losses. This transfer of risk is a fundamental source of imperfection 
in markets.
    For firms that self-insure or carry liability insurance with a 
large deductible, the costs of a single claim may be fully borne by the 
firm. Very small firms, and large firms with a large number of claims, 
however, may fail to meet the full costs by declaring bankruptcy, as 
has happened with Johns Manville and other former asbestos producers. 
The attempts at financial restructuring by defendants of asbestos 
litigation further reduce the chances that workers who contract 
asbestos-related diseases as employees of these companies or as 
employees of companies that used their products will collect 
compensation [Washington Post, 1990].
Workers' Compensation
    The Workers' Compensation system came about as the result of 
perceived inadequacies in liability or insurance systems to compel 
employers to prevent occupational disease or compensate workers fully 
for their losses. This system was designed to internalize some of the 
social costs of production, but in reality it has fallen short of 
compensating workers adequately for occupationally related disease. 
Thus, society shares the burden of occupationally related adverse 
health effects, premature mortality, excess morbidity, and disability 
through taxpayer support of social programs such as welfare, Social 
Security disability payments, and Medicare.
Government Regulations and Rejected Alternative Standards
    In order to compensate for market imperfections (some of which are 
detailed above), a number of federal and state regulations have been 
promulgated in the attempt to improve the allocation of resources. 
While some of these regulations may have a limiting effect on 
occupational exposures to asbestos, OSHA does not believe that these 
regulations obviate the need for an OSHA standard regulating 
occupational exposure to asbestos.
    OSHA's current permissible exposure level (PEL) for asbestos of 0.2 
fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) does not eliminate all significant 
risk to workers. Given the recent health evidence of carcinogenic and 
non-carcinogenic hazards, OSHA believes that to fully protect workers 
it is necessary to lower the asbestos PEL and establish ancillary 
provisions.
    For public, commercial, residential and industrial buildings, OSHA 
rejected, on the basis of cost and feasibility considerations, 
alternative approaches requiring owners to conduct up-front inspections 
for asbestos-containing materials or to inspect before ACM is 
disturbed. These approaches have also been examined by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. An analysis by EPA's contractor [Abt, 
1992] projected potential compliance costs of $13.2 billion to $16.2 
billion for an up-front survey approach and potential costs of $3.2 
billion to $14.5 billion for an identify-before-disturb option. OSHA's 
approach, instead, specifies parameters for making reasonable 
assumptions about the presence of asbestos-containing materials within 
building components and notifying and protecting maintenance workers, 
custodians and building occupants as prescribed elsewhere in the 
revised standard.

D. Benefits of the Revision to the Final Asbestos Standard Introduction

    The inhalation of asbestos fiber has been clearly associated with 
three clinical conditions: asbestosis, mesothelioma (a cancer of the 
lining of the chest or abdomen), and lung cancer. Studies have also 
observed increased gastrointestinal cancer risk. Risk from cancer at 
other sites, such as the larynx, pharynx, and kidneys, is also 
suspected.
    Initial exposure limits for asbestos were based on efforts to 
reduce asbestosis which was known to be associated with asbestos 
exposure. The reduction in cases of asbestosis, however, resulted in 
workers living long enough to develop cancers that are now recognized 
as associated with asbestos exposure. The following discussion of the 
benefits associated with a reduction in exposures, therefore, focuses 
on the number of cancer cases avoided within the exposed work force. 
The results are expressed in terms of deaths avoided because these 
cancers almost always result in death.
Methodology
    OSHA calculated expected benefits following promulgation of the 
final revised asbestos standard for workers employed in the general 
industry, shipyards, and construction sectors. In this benefits 
analysis, the following types of preventable asbestos-related cancer 
mortalities were evaluated: (1) Preventable lung cancers, (2) 
preventable mesotheliomas, and (3) preventable gastrointestinal 
cancers. The risk assessment used to derive OSHA's estimate of the 
number of cancers prevented is discussed in Chapter 5 of the regulatory 
impact analysis of the 1986 final asbestos standard [OSHA, 1986]. For 
this analysis, OSHA updated the 1986 risk assessment to include 1991 
data on the gender and age distribution within affected industry 
sectors [BLS, 1991] and the 1991 mortality rates associated with 
malignant neoplasms of respiratory and intrathoracic organs [NCHS, 
1993].
    The benefits of a reduction in the PEL depend upon current exposure 
levels, the number of workers exposed, and the risk associated with 
each exposure level. OSHA's estimates for current exposures, the number 
of full-time equivalent workers exposed, and the exposure levels after 
compliance with the revision to the final rule are presented in Table 5 
for general industry and shipyards and Table 6 for construction.

   Table 5.--Estimated Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Reduction in Cancer Risk in General Industry and   
                           Shipyards as a Result of the Final Revision to the Standard                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Representative                                       
                                               Number of      exposure       Current      Level of              
                                               full-time-   levels absent    exposure   exposure (f/  Reduction 
                   Sector                      equivalent    respiratory    level (f/    cc) after    in cancer 
                                                exposed    protection (f/      cc)       final rule     deaths  
                                                workers          cc)                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Industry:                                                                                               
  Primary Manufacturing:                                                                                        
    Friction Materials......................        1,415         0.1419        0.0390      0.00651       0.0510
    Gaskets and Packings....................          168         0.0999        0.0430      0.00718       0.0067
    Coatings and Sealants...................        1,181         0.0970        0.0420      0.00701       0.0458
    Plastics................................           18         0.0638        0.0540      0.00902       0.0009
  Services:                                                                                                     
    Automotive Repair.......................      126,750          0.017        0.0170      0.00294       1.9768
Shipyards:                                                                                                      
    Wet Removal/Repair......................          193           0.42        0.1162      0.00739       0.0244
    Dry Removal/Repair......................           48            3.7        0.1889      0.01202       0.0099
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................      129,774  ..............  ...........  ...........         2.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on CONSAD, 1990, Table 3.2, OSHA   
  1986, Table V-1, and the rulemaking record.                                                                   


  Table 6.--Estimated Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Reduction in Cancer Risk in Construction as a Result of the Final Revision to the Standard  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Potential                                                        
                                                                      Number of Full-  mean fiber  Representative      Mean         Mean                
                                                  Construction             time-        exposure   fiber exposure    current      exposure    Reduction 
                  Sector                    classification under the    equivalent        with         absent        exposure   level after   in cancer 
                                                 final standard           exposed       minimal      respiratory    level (f/    final rule     deaths  
                                                                          workers     controls (f/ protection (f/      cc)         (f/cc)               
                                                                                          cc)            cc)                                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction:                                                                                                                                       
    Asbestos/Cement Pipe..................  ........................           1,162         0.38          0.035        0.0350      0.00253        0.044
    Asbestos/Cement Sheet.................  ........................           1,215          0.2           0.13        0.1000      0.00723        0.131
Asbestos Abatement and Demolition:                                                                                                                      
    Removal of High-Risk Materials........  I                                 16,518         12.0           3.09        0.1801      0.01042        3.246
    Asbestos Encapsulation................  III                                1,615         0.22           0.22        0.0220      0.01890        0.006
    Demolition............................  I                                  3,163          9.9           0.61        0.0413      0.00069        0.149
General Building Renovation:                                                                                                                            
    Drywall Renovation/Removal of High-     I                                 10,260          3.4         0.2061        0.1619      0.00936        1.813
     Risk ACM.                                                                                                                                          
    Drywall Renovation....................  II                                41,040         0.15          0.009        0.1130      0.00654        5.061
    Built-up Roofing Removal..............  II                                 2,235         0.12           0.03        0.0900      0.00625        0.217
    Floor Products Removal................  II                                 7,200        0.495           0.03        0.0399      0.00022        0.331
Routine Maintenance in Public, Commercial                                                                                                               
 and Residential Buildings:                                                                                                                             
    Repair/Replace Ceiling Tiles..........  III, IV                              725         0.45          0.027        0.0714      0.00182        0.058
    Repair/Adjust Ventilation/Lighting....  III, IV                            2,091         0.31          0.019        0.0319      0.00081        0.075
    Other Work Above Drop Ceiling.........  III, IV                              299         0.31          0.019        0.0492      0.00125        0.017
    Repair Boiler.........................  I, III                             1,126         1.62           0.07        0.1624      0.00939        0.200
    Repair Plumbing.......................  I, III                             1,126         1.62           0.07        0.1624      0.00142        0.210
    Repair Roofing........................  II, III                            2,404         0.12           0.03        0.0900      0.00625        0.233
    Repair Drywall........................  II, III                            3,576         0.15          0.009        0.1130      0.00016        0.467
Repair Flooring...........................  II, III                           14,424         0.25          0.018        0.0240      0.00032        0.396
Routine Maintenance in Industrial                                                                                                                       
 Facilities:                                                                                                                                            
    Removal/Install Gaskets (Small).......  III                                  378         0.44           0.05        0.0386      0.00045        0.017
    Removal/Install Gaskets (Large).......  II, III                              211         0.44           0.05        0.0924      0.00012        0.023
    Remove/Repair Pipe Insulation (Small).  III                                  169         1.62           0.07        0.2730      0.00014        0.053
    Remove/Repair of Pipe Insulation        I, III                                79         1.62           0.07        0.2730      0.00005        0.025
     (Large).                                                                                                                                           
    Remove/Repair Boiler Insulation         III                                  169         1.23           0.05        0.0866      0.00501        0.016
     (Small).                                                                                                                                           
    Remove/Repair Boiler Insulation         I, III                                79         1.23           0.05        0.0866      0.00120        0.008
     (Large).                                                                                                                                           
    Miscellaneous Routine Maintenance       III, IV                              312        0.294           0.03        0.0618      0.00036        0.022
     Activities (Small).                                                                                                                                
    Miscellaneous Routine Maintenance       I, II, III, IV                       158        0.294           0.03        0.0618      0.00009        0.011
     Activities (Large).                                                                                                                                
    Miscel. Telecommunications Maint.       IV                                   354         0.31          0.019        0.0651      0.00249        0.026
     (Small).                                                                                                                                           
    Miscel. Telecommunications Maint.       II, IV                               802         0.31          0.019        0.0381      0.00059        0.035
     (Large).                                                                                                                                           
Custodial Work in Public/Commercial/        IV                               223,160  ...........         0.0459       a0.0459      0.00035       11.764
 Residential Buildings.                                                                                                                                 
Custodial Work in Industrial Facilities...  IV                                31,442  ...........         0.0459       a0.0459      0.00035        1.657
Building Occupants........................  ........................      11,664,000  ...........  ..............      a0.0014      0.00035       14.172
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................  ........................      12,031,491  ...........  ..............  ...........  ...........        40.48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on CONSAD, 1990, Table 2.10, OSHA, 1986, Table V--2, and the rulemaking    
  record.                                                                                                                                               
aEstimated current exposures for this population exclude the application of respiratory protection.                                                     

    OSHA calculated annual preventable cancers associated with the 
revised standard through a five-step procedure. First, OSHA estimated 
baseline occupational exposure levels--in terms of 8-hour time-weighted 
average fiber levels--for all affected sectors using data from the 
record and from previous asbestos regulatory impact analyses. Then, 
applying the OSHA/Nicholson risk assessment model to baseline exposures 
and the associated populations at risk, OSHA calculated baseline 
cancers among affected workers. In the third step, OSHA estimated 
occupational exposure levels as a result of compliance with the final 
standard, using assigned protection factors for designated controls. 
OSHA then projected total residual cancers following promulgation of 
the standard. Finally, OSHA calculated the number of compliance-related 
preventable cancers by subtracting the number of residual cancers from 
the number of baseline cancers.
Occupational Exposure Profile
    For each sector affected by the revised asbestos standard, OSHA 
assessed current occupational exposures using data from past regulatory 
impact analyses and the rulemaking records for this final standard and 
for previous OSHA asbestos standards. Principal sources of exposure 
data for this final RIA were Economic and Technological Profile Related 
to OSHA's Revised Permanent Asbestos Standard for the Construction 
Industry and Asbestos Removal and Routine Maintenance Projects in 
General Industry prepared by OSHA's contractor CONSAD Research 
Corporation [CONSAD, 1985]; Economic Analysis of the Proposed Revisions 
to the OSHA Asbestos Standards for Construction and General Industry, 
also by CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990]; OSHA's 1986 final asbestos regulatory 
impact analysis [OSHA, 1986]; and OSHA's regulatory analysis of the 
excursion limit [OSHA, 1988].
    Average exposures and the range of exposures reported in CONSAD 
[CONSAD, 1985, 1990] and OSHA [1986] were developed from a review of 
the record for the rulemaking proceeding that led to promulgation of 
the current OSHA asbestos standard. Baseline exposures described in the 
literature and reported by CONSAD in 1985 generally reflected the use 
of minimal engineering controls and the virtual absence of respiratory 
protection. These baseline exposures were reported by OSHA in its 1986 
RIA and served to establish baseline risk estimates for affected 
workers prior to compliance with the final standard promulgated in 
1986. In its 1986 RIA, OSHA assumed that the controls implied by 
compliance with the 1986 standard would result in specified rates of 
effectiveness and would lead to benefits in preventable cancers.
    In this final RIA for the revised asbestos standard, OSHA developed 
an exposure profile for affected occupational groups using 
representative data from the 1986 RIA, from CONSAD reports [1985, 1990] 
and from the rulemaking record. For each affected sector, OSHA 
estimated baseline exposures using the following assumptions: (1) Where 
reasonable and appropriate, engineering controls and work practices 
assigned in the 1986 RIA were assumed to be in current use; (2) where 
engineering controls and work practices were not sufficient to reduce 
maximum exposures to a PEL of 0.2 f/cc and an excursion level of 1.0 f/
cc, OSHA assumed that the least-cost respiratory protection would be 
applied. OSHA's baseline exposure profile for this revision to the 
asbestos standard thus reflects industry application of controls, work 
practices and respirators to achieve permissible limits established 
under the OSHA 1986 and 1988 rulemakings.
    Table 5 presents average baseline exposure levels for general 
industry and shipyards and Table 6 presents average baseline exposure 
levels for construction. Tables 5 and 6, in addition, show average 
baseline exposure levels in the absence of respiratory protection and 
other primary controls and work practices (Column 2 in Table 5, Column 
3 in Table 6), taken from representative data in the rulemaking record 
(see [CONSAD, 1985] and [CONSAD, 1984]). Also shown in Table 6 are 
representative exposure levels (Column 4) in the absence of respiratory 
protection. Fiber levels prior to respirator use were estimated by 
applying, to potential mean exposure levels (Column 3), protection 
factors for wet methods, glove bags and other controls judged currently 
in use, at hypothetical application levels of 100 percent.
    Mean exposures in nearly all sectors are estimated to be at or 
below the current PEL and excursion limit, consistent with the 
assumptions in the 1986 RIA and 1988 excursion limit analysis of 100 
percent compliance with the final standards. For most of the sectors 
presented in the tables, OSHA's estimated current exposure levels were 
determined by applying, to baseline exposures in the absence of 
controls, protection factors ranging from 10 to 1000, adjusted to 
reflect current application of controls. In that real-world application 
of engineering controls and work practices is under 100 percent in 
nearly all asbestos construction sectors, mean current exposure levels 
(Column 5) can exceed representative (hypothetical) fiber levels absent 
respirators (Column 4).
    Also shown in Tables 5 and 6 are OSHA's estimated exposure levels 
following the final revision to the standard. OSHA projected exposure 
levels for each affected General Industry, Shipyards, and Construction 
activity by applying protection factors to average baseline exposures. 
OSHA calculated protection factors for each activity by assuming that 
controls have a multiplicative effect in reducing exposures, that is, 
the cumulative protection provided by a set of controls is the product 
of individual protection factors. OSHA assigned protection factors to 
all significant controls and calculated cumulative protection factors 
for all affected sectors. Cumulative protection factors were then 
applied to baseline exposures in order to determine exposures resulting 
from compliance with the final revised standard. As shown in Column 3 
in Table 5 and in Column 5 in Table 6, projected exposures are quite 
low (some below the level of detection), commensurate with the high 
degree of protection provided by the controls required by, or, in some 
cases, implied by the revised standard.
Estimates of Cancers Prevented, by Industry
    Benefits to workers in direct contact with asbestos. Tables 5 and 6 
present OSHA's estimated annual benefits to employees affected by the 
revised standard. Quantified benefits represent the total of avoided 
cases of death from lung cancers, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal 
cancers. In general industry and shipyards, OSHA projects that wider 
use of engineering controls, work practices and respiratory protection 
will result in 2.1 avoided cancer deaths. In construction, expected 
benefits total 40.5 avoided cancers. Of these total avoided deaths 
resulting from compliance with the revised construction standard, 26.3 
deaths will be avoided through protection of personnel directly exposed 
to asbestos-containing material. However, OSHA's analysis does not 
quantify benefits among those workers that may be secondarily exposed 
while present at sites where asbestos work is being done. Among workers 
secondarily exposed are construction tradespersons--for example, 
plumbers, electricians, and ceiling tile installers--whose activities 
can be complementary to, or immediately succeed, asbestos work. Since 
OSHA's revised asbestos standard will reduce ambient asbestos levels at 
these sites, any exposure among these workers would also be reduced.
    In custodial work in industrial buildings and in commercial and 
residential buildings, where 13.5 avoided cancers are projected, 
estimated baseline average exposures (0.046 f/cc) lie below the revised 
PEL and are derived from data in the asbestos exposure literature 
[Wickman, et al. 1992]. OSHA's estimate of current exposures to 
custodians and other building service workers recognizes that these 
workers may not be receiving the protection afforded other 
``construction'' workers who encounter asbestos on a more frequent 
basis. Service workers may, in fact, at times be exposed to asbestos at 
levels exceeding the current PEL and excursion limit. OSHA believes 
that employees performing custodial duties such as cleaning, sweeping, 
dusting, vacuuming and floor maintenance presently receive minimal 
protection from asbestos exposure. This revised asbestos standard 
explicitly addresses risks to employees performing custodial tasks; 
consequently, in this final analysis OSHA examined the occupational 
risks and estimated the expected benefits to service workers in 
industrial, commercial and residential buildings.
    Long-term exposures to building occupants. Data from the asbestos 
exposure literature reveal that ambient outdoor exposures to asbestos 
are quite low, averaging roughly 0.00007 f/cc. Regarding indoor 
exposures, the Health Effects Institute--Asbestos Research reports that 
for 1,377 air samples from 198 different buildings with asbestos-
containing materials (ACM), mean exposures were on the order of 0.00027 
f/cc, with 90th and 95th percentiles of 0.0007 f/cc and 0.0014 f/cc 
[HEI-AR, 1991].
    The HEI-AR report indicates that improper handling of asbestos 
fibers can contribute significantly to higher exposure levels to 
building occupants, even after completion of all asbestos removal jobs 
at a building. Of 18 building projects where interior perimeter samples 
were taken, asbestos levels increased in 12 buildings after abatement. 
The higher exposures were attributed to leakages in glove bags and 
improper work practices. While the effect of these removal efforts on 
exposures varied widely, some exposures increased by a factor of 750 
[HEI-AR, 1991, p. 5-30]. In at least one case, a building with 
previously non-detectable asbestos levels later was found to have 
detectable levels of airborne asbestos.
    OSHA believes that the controls mandated by the standard--such as 
negative pressure enclosures, wet methods, critical barriers, and HEPA 
vacuums, to name a few of the more protective controls--not only should 
help lower exposures to employees working in and around them, but 
should also be nearly 100 percent effective in preventing migration of 
stray asbestos. Controls required by the revised standard are therefore 
expected to enhance protection of service workers and building 
occupants. While any building owner can choose to have ACM removed from 
a property, owners of buildings with higher concentrations of asbestos, 
and therefore greater exposure potential for building employees and 
occupants, are relatively more likely to opt for removal.
    Low-level asbestos concentrations can become elevated and remain 
elevated for long periods of time, as residual asbestos is disturbed. 
Recent long-term data suggest that after a year's time, exposure levels 
cease to fall and may actually rise [Wall Street Journal, 1993]. If new 
asbestos fibers are continually introduced to the general building 
environment, background asbestos levels could remain elevated and 
potentially increase.
    Based on the Environmental Protection Agency's 1984 survey of 
buildings [EPA, 1984], OSHA estimates that approximately 156 million 
maintenance and custodial projects occur annually in 648,000 commercial 
and residential buildings in which friable asbestos may be disturbed 
[OSHA, 1994]. Buildings containing friable asbestos constitute less 
than 20 percent of all buildings with asbestos-containing materials and 
are believed to have the highest exposure levels. Applying data from 
the Energy department and Census bureau, OSHA estimates that an average 
of 18 employees per building are at risk annually from stray asbestos 
exposures in commercial buildings with friable asbestos, yielding an 
estimated total population of 11.7 million employees (648,000 buildings 
 x  18 employees per building) [Dept. of Energy, 1986; Dept. of 
Commerce, 1993]. In this analysis OSHA assumed, based on data from HEI-
AR on the distribution of asbestos exposures in public buildings, that 
higher-risk buildings have a mean current baseline exposure of 0.0014 
f/cc (95th percentile of HEI-AR data), in the absence of OSHA-mandated 
controls. OSHA further assumed that the use of OSHA controls would 
lower mean background asbestos exposures to levels (0.00035 f/cc) 
projected by OSHA for custodial workers. Applying these exposure levels 
to the asbestos risk model, OSHA estimated that 14.2 cancers would be 
prevented annually among building occupants. It should be noted that 
this estimate is based solely on exposures to employees working in 
commercial and residential buildings and does not include exposures to 
residents and other non-employees, such as students, who may also be 
exposed while in these buildings.
Other Health Benefits
    Asbestosis. Applying pre- and post-regulation exposures to the 
asbestosis risk model detailed in the 1986 RIA, OSHA estimates that 
compliance with the revised final rule will prevent approximately 14 
cases of disabling asbestosis annually, among workers directly exposed 
to asbestos in general industry, shipyards, and construction. In 
addition, non-quantified benefits of avoided cases of asbestosis are 
anticipated for building occupants and others secondarily exposed. As 
these cases represent disabilities and not deaths, they are not 
included in the total estimated benefits. Asbestosis cases often lead 
to tremendous societal costs in terms of health care, worker 
productivity, and in the quality of life to the affected individual. 
Their prevention, therefore, would have a positive economic effect.
    Reduction of solvent exposures. Presently, approximately 25 percent 
of auto service establishments rely upon solvent sprays to control 
asbestos exposure. The most commonly used solvent has been 1-1-1 
trichloroethane, a neurotoxin. OSHA attempted to establish a short-term 
exposure limit for this substance in the 1989 Air Contaminants 
rulemaking [54 FR 2333], but that rulemaking was stayed by the courts 
for technical reasons. The revision to the final asbestos rule, by 
discouraging the use of solvent spray as a control method, will prevent 
peak trichloroethane exposures to over 150,000 workers. Moreover, 1-1-1 
trichloroethane, a chlorofluorocarbon, has been linked with depletion 
of the ozone layer, thereby possibly contributing to development of 
skin cancers. Partly as a result of this, some automotive service 
establishments have switched to a spray based on perchloroethylene, a 
flammable carcinogen. OSHA believes that as these establishments select 
control technologies that are feasible alternatives to solvent spray, 
there will be reduced risks of cancer and fires (from rags contaminated 
with solvent) as a consequence of the revision to the standard.
Economic Benefits
    Building reoccupation. Significant economic benefits may be derived 
from lowering asbestos exposures to long-term building occupants. The 
more rapidly that building owners, whether private or public, can put 
their asbestos-contaminated building areas back into use, the sooner 
they can derive explicit or implicit ``rental'' value. For example, the 
HEI-AR report discusses an asbestos abatement job at a college building 
with pre-abatement exposure levels of 0.0002 f/cc [HEI-AR, 1991, p. 5-
37]. Shortly after abatement, exposure levels of 0.065 f/cc were 
measured. After 26 weeks, exposure levels were measured at 0.0008 f/cc. 
Reoccupation occurred after 35 weeks, when exposures had decreased to 
0.0004 f/cc. In this example, the building was not deemed usable for 
eight months, until exposures began to approach pre-abatement levels.
    EPA's asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) require that asbestos be lowered to specified 
levels (although not as low as pre-abatement levels) before certain 
buildings can be reoccupied. These requirements have been built into 
many asbestos abatement contracts for liability reasons. OSHA 
calculated, as a hypothetical example, that if reoccupation of portions 
of 5,000 office buildings, with an annual rental value of $100,000 
each, were delayed for 6 months in order for asbestos levels to settle, 
there would be a deadweight economic loss of $250 million to building 
owners and society.
    Asbestos liability savings. As discussed in the section on 
REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES, asbestos liability has 
become a major area of tort litigation. Roughly $8 billion has been 
spent on asbestos litigation in the last decade [Wall Street Journal, 
1992; OSHA, 1986]. The dollar amount of awards has exploded in the last 
decade. Industry observers forecast that up to $80 billion will be 
spent on asbestos abatement over the next 20 years, largely as a result 
of a fear of lawsuits [Wall Street Journal, 1992].
    Building owners commission asbestos removal in an attempt to 
eliminate, or at least reduce, the probability of future lawsuits. 
Although the likelihood of future lawsuits is uncertain, building 
owners presumably calculate that the ``expected'' cost of such lawsuits 
would run over $4 billion a year, on average (using the 20-year 
forecast given above). If an individual building owner spends $50,000 
to remove the asbestos from a building to avert potential future 
lawsuits, the owner may be implicitly calculating that such an 
expenditure will effectively eliminate a 5 percent chance that the 
owner will have to pay out over $1 million in a lawsuit.
    Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that such attempts to reduce 
the probability of lawsuits, in the absence of proper protections, may 
be in vain. As discussed elsewhere in this BENEFITS section, recent 
evidence suggests that such removal attempts, in the absence of proper 
protections, may actually increase building occupants' exposure to 
asbestos. Ultimately, exposure to asbestos is the impetus for lawsuits. 
While it might be arguable, from an exposure standpoint, that the 
building owner's most economical choice would be to encapsulate 
existing asbestos, the path of minimizing liability is driving many 
building owners to actually remove the asbestos. It appears that 
successful avoidance of liability is guaranteed only by taking all 
feasible measures to minimize exposures to occupants during removal. 
Thus, spending an additional $5,000 for worker health to complete a 
$50,000 removal operation could ultimately prevent a $1 million 
lawsuit.
    This analysis suggests, then, that the asbestos standard's 
requirements for engineering controls and work practices, including the 
use of negative pressure enclosures and other isolation efforts, if 
successful in averting lawsuits, would have a market value of upwards 
of $4 billion a year (the minimum value of averting lawsuits). Note 
that there need not actually be over $4 billion a year in lawsuits; the 
market behavior of owners willing to pay for asbestos abatement simply 
reflects the market value to those owners of minimizing the likelihood 
of lawsuits, in effect acting as a type of insurance policy. Moreover, 
as discussed above, it is not necessary that such efforts be 100 
percent successful in preventing lawsuits--the estimated effectiveness 
in reducing the probability or value of potential lawsuits possesses 
considerable value. Additionally, it is not necessary that such 
controls dramatically reduce exposures to building occupants, although 
OSHA's analysis indicates that they will, as long as it is established 
that all feasible measures were taken to minimize asbestos exposures to 
building occupants so that owner negligence cannot be the grounds of a 
lawsuit. If instituting the asbestos controls mandated by the OSHA 
standard were only marginally effective in reducing the probability of 
lawsuits, say by 10 percent, the use of these preventative measures 
would still possess a value of over $400 million.
    Finally, asbestos removal efforts reflect concern over liability 
claims from building occupants, and perhaps custodians and maintenance 
personnel. It does not include the value of prevented claims from 
workers who must remove the asbestos. The revised asbestos standard 
eliminates significant risk to the extent feasible, as defined by law, 
and thereby minimizes secondary liability created by attempts to 
minimize primary liability.

E. Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs

    This section examines the technological feasibility and estimated 
costs of compliance for the final revised asbestos standard.
Technological Feasibility
    General industry. OSHA's 1986 Regulatory Impact Analysis [OSHA, 
1986] described in detail the controls that would be necessary in order 
to achieve a PEL of 0.2 f/cc in each of the affected sectors in general 
industry. OSHA determined that compliance with the 0.2 f/cc PEL was 
feasible through the use of wet methods, engineering controls, and 
housekeeping practices. In addition, for the following operations 
compliance with the PEL of 0.2 f/cc was generally not achievable 
without the use of respirators: the dry mechanical process in A/C pipe 
manufacturing and the dry mechanical, wet mechanical, and nuclear 
ripout processes in ship repair. Compliance with the 1.0 f/cc excursion 
limit promulgated in the 1988 rulemaking was also expected to lead to 
occasional respirator use in high-exposure activities throughout 
primary and secondary manufacturing [OSHA, 1988].
    For the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc, some manufacturing operations will 
need to supplement engineering controls and work practices with 
respiratory protection. In all, 2,345 workers (or less than 1 percent 
of the 682,685 workers exposed in all affected industry sectors) in 
general industry are expected to need respirators at least part of the 
workday in order to maintain exposures below the revised PEL. Since all 
affected employers in general industry will be able to comply with the 
proposed PEL through the use of engineering controls or, where 
necessary, respirators, OSHA concludes that the proposed PEL is 
technologically feasible.
    In addition to respirators, ancillary controls will also be needed 
in affected industry/process groups as a result of the lowering of the 
PEL. These controls include:
     Regulated areas;
     Disposable protective clothing and gloves;
     Changerooms and lockers;
     Shower rooms;
     Lunch areas; and
     Annual update of the written compliance program.
    All ancillary controls required by the revised general industry 
standard are currently in extensive use throughout industry and are 
therefore technologically feasible.
    Paragraph (k)(7) Care of asbestos-containing flooring material, 
prohibits for the first time, sanding and high-speed (greater than 300 
RPM) stripping of floor material. This new housekeeping paragraph also 
requires that burnishing and dry buffing of asbestos-containing 
flooring be performed only when a finish on the flooring is sufficient 
to prevent contact with ACM. Evidence from the record indicates that 
many building maintenance personnel are currently meeting these 
requirements (Tr. 2/7/91 at 4256-4270, Ex. 7-91). Therefore, new 
Paragraph (k)(7) is technologically feasible.
    Lastly, the final revision to the current standard requires certain 
engineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch repair and 
services. These requirements include the mandatory use of a negative 
pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum method, a low pressure/wet cleaning 
method, or an alternate method capable of reducing exposure levels to 
or below levels achieved by the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method. Brake 
shops performing fewer than six brake or clutch repair jobs per week 
are permitted to use Method [D] Wet Methods in revised Appendix F of 
1910.1001. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, 
both the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method and the low pressure/wet cleaning 
method are currently in use throughout the automotive brake and clutch 
repair industry (Ex. 7-104); therefore, the revised control 
requirements for brake and clutch repair are judged by OSHA to be 
technological feasible.
    Construction. The evaluation of technological feasibility in 
construction focused on the various combinations of engineering 
controls, work practices, and respiratory protection necessary to 
reduce current exposures to achieve compliance with the final PEL of 
0.1 f/cc. In addition, OSHA examined a number of engineering controls, 
work practices, and ancillary requirements which will directly and 
indirectly contribute to reducing employee exposures. Exposures to 
asbestos in the construction industry were classified into six activity 
categories:

     New construction--including the installation of 
asbestos/cement (A/C) pipe and sheet. New construction falls under 
Class III asbestos work as defined in the revised asbestos standard.
     Asbestos abatement--including both asbestos removal and 
encapsulation with a polymeric coating, or enclosure. Asbestos 
abatement falls under asbestos work Classes I and III as defined in 
the revised standard.
     Demolition--involving asbestos removal prior to the 
demolition of all or part of a building or industrial facility that 
contains asbestos materials. Demolition falls under asbestos work 
Class I as defined in the revised standard.
     General building renovation and remodeling--including 
drywall demolition involving the removal of pipe and boiler 
insulation, fireproofing, drywall tape and spackling, acoustical 
plasters, transite panels, built-up roofing and flooring products. 
Renovation and remodeling generally involve contact with generic 
building materials and would therefore fall under asbestos work 
Class II as defined in the revised standard.
     Routine facility maintenance in commercial/residential 
buildings and in general industry--including maintenance and repair 
activities involving disturbance of asbestos materials and products 
(for example, repair of leaking steam pipes, ceiling tiles, roofing, 
drywall, or flooring; or adjustment of HVAC equipment above 
suspended ceilings). Routine maintenance falls under Class III 
asbestos work as defined in the revised standard when asbestos-
containing materials (ACM) are disturbed during the maintenance 
activity; and under Class IV asbestos work as defined in the revised 
standard when maintenance involves minor, incidental contact with 
ACM.
     Custodial Work--including sweeping, dusting and other 
housekeeping duties that occasionally expose building maintenance 
and custodial personnel to asbestos. Custodial work falls under 
Class IV asbestos work as defined in the revised standard.

To support the regulatory impact analysis for the 1986 asbestos 
standard, CONSAD derived baseline exposure levels for each construction 
activity from a database that included personal and area air samples, 
OSHA inspection reports, expert testimony, and various published 
reports [CONSAD, 1990]. The technological feasibility assessments for 
this final revised standard were influenced by expected exposure 
reduction following the promulgation of the 1986 asbestos standard, and 
by a review of the literature, including submittals to the OSHA docket 
(H-033e).
    OSHA determined in 1986 that, for a variety of construction 
activities, it was feasible to reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc 
through the use of available engineering controls and work practices 
(i.e., without the need for respiratory protection). These construction 
activities included:
     Asbestos/cement (A/C) pipe installation;
     Asbestos/cement (A/C) sheet installation;
     Floor products installation;
     Plumbing repairs in commercial/residential buildings;
     Floor repairs in commercial/residential buildings;
     Gasket removal and installation in general industry; and
     Pipe insulation repairs in general industry.
    For the remaining activities, respiratory protection was necessary 
in order to reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc. OSHA assumed that 
employers would choose the most cost-effective approach and supply 
their workers with half-mask supplied-air respirators (or full-
facepiece supplied-air respirators for asbestos removal projects) in 
order to eliminate the need for exposure monitoring [OSHA, 1986]. Thus, 
in the 1986 RIA, OSHA assumed that workers in many higher-risk 
construction activities would be provided supplied-air respirators.
    OSHA now believes that the prior analytical assumption of 
widespread use of supplied-air respirators may not be consistent with 
field experience. OSHA believes that supplied-air respirators are used 
in many construction activities--particularly removal and demolition, 
where exposures tend to be highest. For other construction activities 
where peak exposures are generally lower and episodic, many abatement 
and maintenance personnel appear to be complying with the current 
standard using a combination of engineering controls, work practices 
and lighter respirators.
    Construction employers also appear to meet the requirements for 
daily monitoring (1926.58(f)(3) in the current standard) by compiling 
historical exposure data documenting compliance with the current OSHA 
PEL during representative projects. OSHA anticipates that some 
construction employers will meet the requirements of revised Paragraph 
(f) Exposure assessments and monitoring, through the use of selective 
initial monitoring to establish an historical exposure data record, 
which can form the basis for achieving all necessary requirements of 
the standard. Where exposures may exceed levels documented by objective 
data, additional respiratory protection may be necessary, and is judged 
by OSHA to be technologically feasible based on field experience and 
information in the rulemaking record [Corn, 1992; HEI-AR, 1992].
    As in the standard for general industry, OSHA is proposing the 
prohibition of high-speed sanding and the use of highly abrasive pads 
during asbestos floor tile work. In CONSAD's 1985 study [CONSAD 1985] 
and in OSHA's 1986 RIA [OSHA, 1986], exposures during floor tile 
installation, removal, and sanding were reported to be generally below 
0.2 f/cc when the recommendations of the Resilient Floor Covering 
Institute were followed. These recommended practices included wet 
sweeping and handling, and the prohibition of power sanding and blowing 
asbestos dust. OSHA estimated current exposures in floor repair at 
0.024 f/cc under the assumption that the Institute's recommended 
practices have been adopted by a majority of establishments. Therefore, 
the prohibition of high-speed sanding in the current proposal is not 
expected to significantly affect floor repair.
    With the final PEL of 0.1 f/cc, additional respiratory protection 
may be necessary. Specifically, some projects involving A/C pipe 
installation, A/C sheet installation, floor removal, floor repair, 
large-scale gasket removal, pipe repair, and custodial work in 
industrial, commercial and residential buildings would require the use 
of half-mask respirators to meet the revised PEL. In addition, drywall 
demolition projects may need to upgrade their respiratory protection to 
full-facepiece negative-pressure respirators to meet the lower 
permissible exposure limit.
    Assessing current respirator usage and predicted demand under the 
revised standard, OSHA concludes that nearly all construction 
activities will require respiratory protection during at least part of 
the project-day in order to comply with the 0.1 f/cc PEL. Based on the 
lower-bound exposure estimates provided in the literature and reported 
in CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990, 1985], it appears that a variety of routine 
maintenance activities and some abatement jobs may be able to achieve 
the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc without respirators. From its analysis of 
current exposures, OSHA anticipates that only in small-scale gasket 
removal and installation will respiratory protection not be necessary 
for most project-days.
    The other incremental controls necessary to comply with OSHA's 
final asbestos standard, include (depending upon the construction 
activity):
     HEPA vacuums or HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems;
     Wet methods;
     Glove bags;
     Regulated areas (air-tight or demarcated with caution 
signs);
     Critical barriers;
     Protective disposable clothing;
     Impermeable drop cloths;
     Decontamination area (adjacent to regulated area or remote 
showers and changerooms);
     Lunch areas;
     Competent person supervision;
     Training;
     Medical exams;
     Recordkeeping (exposure assessment, medical exams and 
training);
     Notification of building owners and employees by 
contractors;
     Notification of contractors and building occupants by 
building owners;
    Based on information in the record and in OSHA's inspection files, 
OSHA observes that many construction employers currently apply these 
controls in varied combinations and at varied levels of utilization. 
OSHA estimated that for construction employers, rates of current 
compliance range from roughly 20 percent to 80 percent, depending on 
the control requirement and construction activity. Therefore, OSHA 
believes all controls are technologically feasible for the appropriate 
construction activities. In conclusion, therefore, OSHA projects that 
the final revisions to the asbestos construction standard will be 
technologically feasible because all of the provisions, including the 
lowered PEL, can be met using existing engineering controls, 
respiratory protection and work practices.
    Shipyards. Historically, exposure to asbestos in shipyards took 
place during shipbuilding and ship repair. At present, the majority of 
asbestos activity aboard maritime vessels involves repair and 
maintenance of machinery and plumbing with asbestos insulation. In this 
final rulemaking, the revised asbestos standard for shipyards, 
Sec. 1915.1001, applies most of the requirements given in the revised 
asbestos construction standard.
    For the two main shipyard activities affected by the revised 
asbestos standard--wet removal/repair and dry removal/repair--comment 
in the record [Ex. 7-77, Ex. 7-85] suggests that employers are able to 
achieve the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc through the use of engineering 
controls and, where necessary, respiratory protection. The OSHA 
Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee [Ex. 7-77] commented 
that on many shipyard projects, exposure levels have been reduced to 
levels considerably below the revised PEL. Moreover, to a large extent 
employers appear to be currently applying the ancillary controls and 
work practices required in the revised construction standard (and 
applied to the revised shipyard standard) [Ex. 9-23]. Therefore, on the 
basis of evidence in the record, OSHA believes the revised shipyard 
standard is technologically feasible.
Compliance Costs
    OSHA estimated the costs of complying with the final revisions to 
the asbestos standard for general industry, construction and shipyards. 
OSHA's cost assumptions and methodologies are based upon an OSHA/CONSAD 
technical analysis of the final rule [OSHA, 1994]; OSHA's PRIA [OSHA, 
1990]; CONSAD's final report supporting the PRIA [1990]; the rulemaking 
record; and previous regulatory analyses performed by OSHA [OSHA, 
1986], CONSAD [CONSAD, 1985] and Research Triangle Institute [RTI, 
1985].
    Cost data for control mechanisms were obtained from published price 
lists of equipment suppliers and from other information collected by 
OSHA and CONSAD. Wage data were taken from the U.S. Department of 
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment and Earnings (BLS, 
1993a) and Employment Cost Indexes and Levels (BLS, 1993b). Unit costs 
are expressed, as appropriate, on a per-establishment, -crew, -project, 
-worker, project-day, and worker-day basis, using industry profile data 
presented in the OSHA/CONSAD technical analysis [OSHA, 1994] and in 
CONSAD's prior analyses [CONSAD, 1990, 1985].
    To derive estimates of the annual incremental compliance costs for 
the revised asbestos standard, the estimated unit cost factors for the 
controls were multiplied by the estimated number of required control 
resources. In order to develop net annual compliance cost estimates, 
these gross annual cost estimates were then adjusted using estimates of 
current application of controls. Costs were estimated on an annual 
basis, with total annual costs calculated as the sum of annualized 
initial costs and annual recurring costs. Initial costs were annualized 
over the service life of the equipment or administrative activity, at a 
discount rate of 10 percent.
    The section below presents the estimated costs to general industry, 
followed by the costs to construction and to shipyards.
    General industry. In developing the annual compliance cost 
estimates for general industry, unit cost estimates were first 
developed for each of the control practices and ancillary measures 
required by the revised standard for each of the industry/process 
groups affected by the proposed standard. The annual compliance costs 
for each affected industry/process group were then computed by 
combining the unit cost data with the number of units of each type of 
control practice needed per year to achieve compliance with OSHA's 
proposed standard. Compliance costs were also adjusted to reflect 
current compliance with the required control practices.
    Manufacturing. The industry/process groups in manufacturing with 
exposures above the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc will require the 
implementation of a set of uniform control practices, including written 
compliance programs, regulated areas, respirators (including the 
respirator unit, accessories, fit testing and cleaning), disposable 
protective clothing and gloves, change rooms and lockers, shower rooms, 
and lunch rooms. Other controls, while necessary for compliance with 
the revised standard, are also required by the current asbestos 
standard and, thus, will not create an incremental burden. Controls 
assumed by OSHA to be currently in place include periodic monitoring; 
prescribed methods of compliance; employee information and training; 
medical surveillance; and recordkeeping.
    The revised asbestos standard for general industry imposes new 
communication requirements for building and facility owners. In 
particular, under Paragraph (j)(2)(ii), owners are required to maintain 
records of information concerning the presence, location and quantity 
of asbestos-containing material (ACM) and presumed asbestos-containing 
material (PACM). Under Paragraph (j)(2)(iii), owners of buildings and 
facilities are required to inform employers of employees who perform 
housekeeping activities in the presence of ACM or PACM of the presence 
and location of the ACM or PACM in the area. In this regulatory 
analysis OSHA treats housekeeping and custodial activities in general 
industry as construction activities. OSHA's estimated compliance costs 
for information requirements pertaining to housekeeping/custodial 
activities are discussed below in the section on compliance costs for 
the revised construction standard.
    Brake and clutch repair. As in the existing OSHA asbestos standard 
for general industry, automotive repair work is regulated in revised 
Sec. 1910.1001. In Paragraph (f)(3) employers performing six or more 
brake or clutch jobs per week are required to use a negative pressure 
enclosure/HEPA vacuum method, a low pressure/wet cleaning method, or an 
alternate method proven to achieve results equivalent to those for the 
enclosure/HEPA vacuum method. OSHA assessed the extent to which control 
practices are being applied during brake and clutch repair in the 
automotive services industry and identified the additional resources 
needed to reach full compliance with the revised standard.
    Based on OSHA's and CONSAD's assessment of current industry 
practice, OSHA believes that only a small fraction of auto repair shops 
perform fewer than six brake or clutch inspections per week [OSHA, 
1994]. Thus, OSHA anticipates that few shops will qualify for the 
exemption from engineering controls mandated in revised Appendix F. 
OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] estimate that 65 percent of brake shops 
currently use wet methods and solvent spray systems during brake and 
clutch work. Under the revised standard, these shops would have to 
switch to one of the fiber control methods permitted in Appendix F.
    For this cost analysis, OSHA assumed most of the shops currently 
not in compliance with the revised rule, will adopt the low pressure/
wet cleaning method as the least expensive option permitted in the 
revised standard. OSHA estimates that incremental expenditures for 
equipment, supplies and labor time will total $11.2 million per year.
    Comment in the record [Ex. L162-61] points to the potential for 
substantial cost offsets from use of the low pressure/wet cleaning 
method. These cost offsets include the reduced need for solvent; 
reductions in costs associated with housekeeping and with laundering 
and disposal of contaminated rags and other articles; and improved 
operating efficiencies. Because of potential cost savings, use of the 
low pressure/wet cleaning method has grown in recent years. Moreover, 
concern over the effect of 1-1-1 trichloroethane on the ozone layer has 
led to a phase-out of the solvent, forcing brake shops to discontinue 
use of the solvent spray method. Of concern to occupational health 
specialists is the regular use of solvents among a workforce with 
minimal protection from exposures. In sum, OSHA believes that cost 
offsets and environmental and health concerns combine to mitigate the 
direct costs facing brake shops who must switch to alternative asbestos 
control systems.
    Current work practices. In addition to work practices in automotive 
services that meet the revised standard, certain work practices that 
were required by OSHA's previous standard with a PEL of 2.0 f/cc, and 
are required by the current standard, as well as by the proposed 
revisions to the current standard (e.g. wet handling and the 
collection, disposal, and labeling of wastes in sealed, impermeable 
bags), are also not identified as additional costs. OSHA believes that 
wet methods (to the extent that they are feasible), and the use of HEPA 
vacuums for housekeeping in primary and secondary manufacturing, are 
already widely in use.
    Total costs for general industry. To derive estimates of the annual 
incremental compliance costs for the industry/process groups affected 
by the revised general industry standard, the estimated unit cost 
factors were first multiplied by estimates of the resources necessary 
to achieve compliance for that industry/process group. These gross 
annual cost estimates were then adjusted to account for current 
compliance rates which were first projected in the 1986 RIA [OSHA, 
1986] and were modified as a result of compliance with the excursion 
limit rule in 1988 [OSHA, 1988] and evidence from the rulemaking 
record.
    For each of the manufacturing processes in the affected industries, 
CONSAD estimated the number of plants with exposures above the revised 
PEL of 0.1 f/cc (the number of plants needing controls), the number of 
processes to be controlled, the number of work stations to be 
controlled, the number of workers directly exposed, worker-days of 
exposure per year, and the direct worker-hours of exposure per year. 
These estimates are based on: the number of establishments in each 
industry sector, determined by CONSAD from information presented in 
EPA's ban and phase-out rule [ICF, 1988], and from contacts with 
industry experts; the percentage of processes within plants with 
exposures above the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc and requiring controls; 
and finally, characteristics concerning the number of processes per 
plant, work stations per process, workers per work station, and the 
frequency and duration of each process in these affected industries. 
The resource estimates used to develop annual compliance costs are 
developed in detail in [CONSAD, 1990, Table 3.11].
    Based on OSHA and CONSAD's analysis [OSHA, 1994; CONSAD, 1990], 
OSHA estimates that annual costs of compliance in general industry will 
total $14.8 million. Table 7 presents compliance costs by control 
practice, for each industry process, for the industry sector as a 
whole, and for all of general industry. Examining compliance costs by 
sector, it can be seen that the largest compliance expenditures will be 
in auto repair ($11.2 million), followed by friction materials ($2.2 
million) and coatings and sealants ($1.2 million).

                                       Table 7.--Estimated Annual Costs of Compliance for General Industry Sectors                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Annual                Half mask                                                  Total   
                                                              update of   Install    cartridge  Disposable    Change                            annual  
            Industry/Process groups             Engineering    written   regulated  respirator  protective    rooms/     Shower     Lunch    incremental
                                                  controls   compliance    areas     with HEPA   clothing/   lockers     rooms      areas      control  
                                                               program                filter      gloves                                        costs   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friction Materials:                                                                                                                                     
    All.......................................            0      $1,298       $712    $826,124    $676,611    339,772    252,090    111,397   $2,207,954
    Introduction..............................            0         325        178     188,578     154,449     77,548     57,544     25,428      504,050
    West Mechanical...........................            0         325        178     227,695     186,486     93,634     69,481     30,703      608,501
    Dry Mechanical............................            0         325        178     227,111     186,008     93,394     69,303     30,624      606,942
    Other.....................................            0         325        178     182,740     149,667     75,147     55,763     24,641      488,460
Gasets and Packings:                                                                                                                                    
    All.......................................            0         350        184      72,979      59,771     30,011     22,269     11,086      196,651
    Introduction..............................            0         117         61      36,782      30,125     15,125     11,224      5,588       99,021
    West Mechanical...........................            0         117         61      13,428      10,998      5,522      4,098      2,040       36,264
    Dry Mechanical............................            0         117         61      22,770      18,649      9,363      6,948      3,459       61,367
    Other.....................................            0           0          0           0           0          0          0          0            0
Coatings and Sealants:                                                                                                                                  
    All.......................................            0         974        565     468,818     383,971    192,789    143,059     24,006    1,214,182
    Introduction..............................            0         974        565     468,818     383,971    192,789    143,059     24,006    1,214,182
    Other.....................................            0           0          0           0           0          0          0          0            0
Plastics:                                                                                                                                               
    All.......................................            0          13          5       1,168         956        480        356        149        3,128
    Introduction..............................            0           0          0           0           0          0          0          0            0
    West Mechanical...........................            0           0          0           0           0          0          0          0            0
    Dry Mechanical............................            0          13          5       1,168         956        480        356        149        3,128
    Other.....................................            0           0          0           0           0          0          0          0            0
Auto Repair:                                                                                                                                            
    Dry Mechanical............................   11,165,431           0          0           0           0          0          0          0   11,165,431
      Total...................................   11,165,431       2,635      1,465   1,369,090   1,121,309    563,002    417,775    146,639   24,787,345
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on OSHA, 1994                                                              

    Comparing costs per provision along the bottom row of the table, 
incremental costs for engineering controls in auto repair represent the 
leading expenditure. Other controls bearing significant costs are half-
mask respirators ($1.4 million), disposable protective clothing and 
gloves ($1.1 million), change rooms and lockers ($563 thousand), and 
shower rooms ($418 thousand).
    For secondary manufacture of gaskets and packings and secondary 
auto remanufacturing, where exposures currently are below the revised 
PEL, OSHA anticipates little or no incremental costs. Therefore, 
impacts on establishments in these industry groups will be 
insignificant.
    Construction. Within the construction industry, 24 unique 
activities will come under the scope of the proposed revision. These 
construction activities are found in new construction, asbestos 
abatement and building demolition, general building renovation and 
remodeling, and routine facility maintenance and custodial work in 
public, commercial, and residential buildings and in general industry. 
Although the construction activities under consideration in this study 
will require the implementation of different control practices and/or 
combinations of these practices, the basic characteristics of available 
control practices are relatively uniform, and the options for combining 
control practices in the construction industry and during routine 
maintenance and repair activities in general industry are limited in 
number.
    The control mechanisms considered in this analysis include:
     Shrouded tools with HEPA vacuums;
     HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems;
     HEPA vacuums;
     Glove bags;
     Critical barriers (including the materials and labor for 
setting up and taking down;
     Regulated areas;
     Respirators (including the respirator unit, accessories, 
fit testing, cleaning, and training);
     Disposable protective clothing and gloves;
     Impermeable drop cloths;
     Wet methods (including the sprayer, wetting agent, and 
labor);
     Decontamination areas (or clean changerooms);
     Lunch areas;
     Training;
     Use of competent person supervision;
     Exposure assessments and monitoring;
     Medical exams;
     Recordkeeping;
     Labeling of installed asbestos products;
     Notification of building owners and employees by 
contractors; and
     Notification of contractors and building occupants by 
building owners.
    Certain work practices that have been required since OSHA's earlier 
asbestos standards (e.g., wet handling and the collection and disposal 
of waste in sealed, impermeable bags) are not included as cost 
elements.
    For each major provision of the revised construction standard, 
below, OSHA presents cost estimates by type of engineering or 
administrative control, work practice or personal protective equipment, 
where appropriate.
    (c) Permissible exposure limits. The revised asbestos construction 
standard lowers the permissible exposure limit from 0.2 fiber per cubic 
centimeter to 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour 
time-weighted average. The revised standard retains the current 
excursion limit of 1.0 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as averaged 
over a sampling period of thirty minutes.
    After reviewing both (1) the literature on risk to asbestos in the 
construction industry and (2) the earlier OSHA rulemaking record 
(Docket H-033c), CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990, Table 2.8] reported 
representative exposure levels by construction activity that formed the 
basis of OSHA's risk estimates in the PRIA. CONSAD presented the range 
of exposure levels in the absence of respiratory protection for each 
construction activity. From the raw exposure data, OSHA [1986, 1990] 
developed arithmetic mean estimates, against which the proposed PELs 
were compared. OSHA then assigned engineering and respiratory controls 
as required and implied by the earlier rules.
    For this final regulatory impact analysis, OSHA adjusted CONSAD's 
baseline (pre-1986) exposure levels to reflect likely controls applied 
since OSHA promulgated final asbestos rules in 1986 and 1988. In 
adjusting exposures from baseline levels, OSHA attempted to represent 
realistic reductions in fiber levels under a regulatory regime 
consisting of a 0.2 f/cc eight-hour PEL, a 0.1 f/cc eight-hour action 
level, a 1.0 f/cc thirty-minute excursion level, and ancillary controls 
and procedures. OSHA's adjusted baseline exposures were presented in 
Section D.
    OSHA's revised PEL is expected to lead to wider use of respirators 
in construction. In particular, OSHA anticipates increased usage of 
half-mask and full-face cartridge respirators as a result of the 
revised PEL. For some activities where average exposures are projected 
to be below the PEL due to the use of engineering controls and work 
practices, respirators may be necessary where peak exposures occur. 
OSHA conservatively applied half-mask cartridge respirators, with a 
protection factor of 10, where peak exposures can exceed ten times the 
revised PEL; OSHA applied full-facepiece cartridge respirators for 
activities where peak exposures can exceed 50 times the revised PEL. In 
all, annual respirator costs will total $24.9 million. Included in this 
total cost are expenditures for the respirator unit, accessories, 
filters, training (costs assigned under Paragraph (k) Communication of 
hazards), cleaning and fit testing.
    (d) Multi-employer worksites. Revised Paragraph (d) expands upon 
the current requirement that an employer performing asbestos work in a 
regulated area inform other employers on the site of the nature of the 
employer's work with asbestos and the existence of, and rules 
pertaining to, regulated areas. In addition, Paragraph (d) requires
     Abatement of asbestos hazards by the contractor 
controlling the source of the contamination--(d)(2)
     Protection of employees adjacent to asbestos worksite--
(d)(3)
     Daily assessment by adjacent employers of integrity of 
enclosures or effectiveness of other control methods relied on by the 
primary asbestos contractor--(d)(4)
     Supervisory authority by general contractors over the work 
of the asbestos contractor on the asbestos worksite--(d)(5).
    OSHA anticipates significant compliance costs for three of the four 
additional requirements in the revised paragraph on multi-employer 
worksites. For provisions (d)(2) and (d)(3), OSHA believes that 
compliance with the requirements for PELs [Paragraph (c)] and initial 
exposure assessment [Paragraph (j)] will ensure compliance with these 
areas. Regarding daily assessment of work areas, required by (d)(4), 
OSHA considers these duties to fall under the supervision of competent 
persons. Compliance costs for competent persons are discussed below 
under Paragraph (o).
    For Paragraph (d)(5), OSHA assumes that after promulgation of the 
revised standard, asbestos contractors will achieve full compliance 
and, therefore, that general contractors will rarely need to exercise 
authority over employee protection.
    (e) Regulated areas. Paragraph (e) specifies the controls required 
for construction activities designated as regulated areas. OSHA 
anticipates incremental costs for all construction work defined in the 
revised standard as Class I, II or III. Incremental costs for regulated 
areas will stem from the need for caution and warning signs and caution 
tape at the perimeter of work areas, as required by (e)(2) Demarcation 
and (k)(6) Signs. OSHA anticipates total costs of $15.8 million for 
caution and warning signs.
    (f) Exposure assessments and monitoring. Revised Paragraph (f) 
alters current requirements for initial exposure monitoring, periodic 
monitoring, termination of monitoring, additional monitoring, employee 
notification of sampling results, and observation of monitoring. OSHA 
anticipates that following promulgation of this revised standard, many 
employers will initially monitor higher-risk sites--under conditions of 
full application of controls--in order to establish compliance with the 
revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc. Results from initial monitoring can be used as 
historical, objective data for compliance purposes, consistent with 
revised (f)(1)(iii) Negative initial exposure assessment.
    To estimate monitoring costs in construction, OSHA assumed--for 
activities where objective data has not been established--that 
employers conducting Class I, II or III work, will purchase monitoring 
equipment, train a supervisor to conduct monitoring, and have three 
representative exposure samples analyzed by a laboratory. OSHA assumed 
that employers conducting Class IV activities will hire an outside 
industrial hygiene technician to monitor workers and collect three 
exposure samples. Basing cost analysis on these assumptions, OSHA 
projects total incremental compliance costs of $40.1 million for 
exposure monitoring.
    (g) Methods of Compliance. In revised Paragraph (g) Methods of 
compliance, OSHA has significantly expanded the structure and content 
of the regulatory text in the current standard. Revised Paragraph (g) 
prescribes specific engineering controls and work practices for each of 
the four asbestos construction classes defined in the standard. To 
satisfy the requirements for ancillary controls, employers are expected 
to purchase or otherwise adopt the following types of controls and 
practices: HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems; HEPA vacuums; wet methods; 
airtight (negative-pressure) regulated areas; drop cloths; mini 
enclosures; critical barriers; and glove bag systems (with HEPA 
vacuums). Included in the cost of each control are expenditures for 
basic equipment, accessories, construction supplies (for barriers and 
enclosures), smoke testers (for negative-pressure enclosures), and 
incremental labor resources needed to implement the control, to smoke 
test (where necessary) and to disassemble the control.
    Incremental compliance costs associated with engineering controls 
and work practices are anticipated for all construction activities 
affected by the revised standard. The combination of controls vary by 
activity, depending on current exposure levels, the extent of current 
compliance assumed by OSHA, and the construction class (as defined in 
the revised standard) for the work activity. OSHA projects the 
following annual compliance costs for methods of compliance:
     HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems--$15.3 million
     HEPA vacuums--$32.5 million
     Wet methods--$55.2 million
     Airtight regulated areas--$2.2 million
     Drop cloths--$13.8 million
     Mini enclosures--$41.6 million
     Critical barriers--$22.2 million
     Glovebag systems--$4.5 million.
    (h) Respiratory protection. Revised Paragraph (h) mandates the use 
of respirators under particular circumstances during asbestos 
construction work. As prescribed in the standard, respirators must be 
worn (1) during all Class I work; (2) during all Class III work when 
TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is being disturbed; (3) during all Class 
II and III asbestos jobs where wet methods are not used or where 
insufficient or inadequate data prevents development of a negative 
exposure assessment; or (4) in emergencies. For this final regulatory 
impact analysis, OSHA identified an additional need for respirators in 
new construction, during removal and repair of flooring products, 
during routine maintenance in general industry, and during custodial 
work in industrial, commercial and residential buildings. Respirators 
were assigned to construction activities where baseline exposure ranges 
suggested workers would occasionally exceed the revised PEL. 
Incremental compliance costs for respirators were presented above under 
(c) Permissible exposure limits.
    (i) Protective clothing. Paragraph (i) in this final rulemaking has 
been revised such that protective clothing will be required for all 
Class I activities and in Class III activities where thermal system 
insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM is being disturbed in which a negative 
exposure assessment has not been produced, in addition to the 
requirement that clothing be worn when the PEL or excursion limit (EL) 
is exceeded. OSHA anticipates an additional need for protective 
clothing in the following construction activities where workers may 
occasionally exceed the PEL:
     A/C pipe installation
     A/C sheet installation
     Remove flooring products
     Repair flooring
     Custodial work in industrial buildings
     Custodial work in public, commercial and residential 
buildings.
    OSHA assumes that to provide protective clothing to employees as 
required by the standard, employers will minimize costs by providing to 
each employee one set of disposable clothing and gloves for each 
worker-day. For disposal, clothing can be combined with other 
contaminated waste and sealed in impermeable bags. Summing incremental 
costs for protective disposable clothing, OSHA estimates total costs of 
$17.9 million associated with revised Paragraph (i).
    (j) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. Revised 
Paragraph (j) provides for decontamination areas, equipment rooms, 
showers, change rooms, and lunch areas for Class I activities. Class II 
and Class III activities may conduct decontamination in adjacent areas 
on impermeable drop cloths, with clothing and equipment cleaned with 
HEPA vacuums. Decontamination following Class IV activities must be at 
least as stringent as required for the class of activity within which 
the Class IV work is being performed.
    OSHA anticipates that Class I hygiene requirements will apply for 
the first time to boiler repair, pipe repair and miscellaneous 
maintenance in general industry. Annual compliance costs will total 
$5.5 million for equipment and labor involved with the hygiene 
facilities in Class I work.
    Employers can decontaminate Class II and Class III work using drop 
cloths and HEPA vacuums, controls required under (g) Methods of 
compliance. OSHA's estimated costs for drop cloths and HEPA vacuums 
were presented above in the discussion of revised Paragraph (g).
    OSHA assumes that decontamination following Class IV work conducted 
in regulated areas will be provided by the primary contractor at the 
job site. Costs for decontamination of Class IV employees, then would 
be captured by the total decontamination costs for the activity in the 
regulated area. In addition, OSHA assumed that drop cloths and HEPA 
vacuums will be needed by custodians following higher-risk activities 
outside regulated areas. Costs for drop cloths and HEPA vacuums were 
presented under (g) Methods of compliance, above.
    (k) Communication of hazards. Revised Paragraph (k) supplements the 
existing hazard-communication requirements in the asbestos standard by 
introducing provisions for notification of building and facility 
owners, contractors, employees and building occupants of the presence, 
location and quantity of asbestos-containing material (ACM) or presumed 
asbestos-containing material (PACM). The final revisions to (k) also 
include training requirements that mirror the training required under 
the EPA ASHARA legislation, for employees working around ACM or PACM. 
Training required under revised Paragraph (k) appears to strengthen the 
content of training required under existing (k) by explicitly 
referencing the EPA Model Accreditation Plan (MAP) and Operations and 
Maintenance (O&M) worker protection training.5

    \5\Revised Paragraph (k) allows employers to substitute--for 
Class II activities working with generic building materials--
training suitable to the removal or disturbance of that category of 
building material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final regulatory impact analysis, OSHA identified 
incremental compliance costs for employee training and notifications 
involving building/facility owners, construction employers, 
construction employees, and building occupants. For the purpose of cost 
estimation, OSHA categorized employee training into three groups: (1) 
Classes I and II, (2) Class III, and (3) Class IV.6 For each of 
the three categories of training required by the revised standard, OSHA 
estimated compliance costs as follows:

    \6\Class I training was assumed to require a total of 32 hours, 
whereas Class II training was assumed to require a total of 24 
hours. Total costs for Class I and Class II training are combined in 
this discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Class I/II--$51.8 million
     Class III--$35.9 million
     Class IV--$22.6 million.
    In that OSHA's training requirements parallel the requirements 
mandated in EPA's MAP regulation, OSHA attributes to the EPA 
regulation, training costs in this final revision to the OSHA asbestos 
construction standard.
    To estimate compliance costs of the new notification requirements 
in revised Paragraph (k), OSHA identified seven unique types of 
notifications. OSHA assumed that notification among affected parties 
could involve memos, phone calls, notices or other lower-cost means of 
communication, ranging in labor time from three to five minutes per 
project. The types of notifications are given below, along with OSHA's 
estimated total annual compliance cost.
     Notification by contractor to building owner prior to 
start of project--high-risk ACM--$305 thousand
     Notification by contractor to building owner prior to 
start of project--low-risk ACM--$5.0 million
     Notification by contractors to employees--$394 thousand
     Notification by contractor to building owner regarding 
asbestos remaining in building--$397 thousand
     Notification by building owner to building occupants--
high-risk ACM--$612 thousand
     Notification by building owner to building occupants--low-
risk ACM--$22.3 million
     Notification by building owner to all contractors in 
building--$6.1 million.
    In addition to requirements for notification, Paragraph (k)(2)(iii) 
requires owners to maintain records of all information indicating the 
presence, location and quantity of ACM and PACM in the building. OSHA 
estimated recordkeeping costs of $9.7 million to comply with revised 
(k).
    (l) Housekeeping. Paragraph (l) is expanded in this final revision 
to the asbestos construction standard to include a section on care of 
asbestos-containing flooring material. Included in the new section are 
a prohibition on sanding of asbestos-containing material; work 
practices specifying wet methods for floor stripping and adequate floor 
finish for burnishing and dry buffing; and a requirement that dusting 
and dry sweeping be performed with HEPA vacuums. OSHA anticipates 
incremental compliance costs associated with using wet methods and HEPA 
vacuums during housekeeping duties. Costs for the use of wet methods 
during custodial work is included in the total costs for wet methods 
given under (g), above, and are expected to be $55.2 million. Costs for 
the use of HEPA vacuums during custodial work is included in the total 
costs for HEPA vacuums given under (g), above, and are expected to be 
$32.5 million.
    (m) Medical surveillance. Revised Paragraph (m) provides that 
medical exams be given for all employees whose exposures exceed the PEL 
or excursion limit for 30 or more days per year, or who are required by 
the standard to wear negative pressure respirators. For this final RIA, 
OSHA recognized the extent to which medical exams are currently 
provided to employees. Therefore, incremental costs were estimated only 
for employees in those construction activities which previously did not 
qualify for medical exams but which now appear to meet the 
qualifications. Activities qualifying for medical exams under the 
revised standard include the following (along with estimated annual 
compliance costs):
     A/C pipe installation--$59 thousand
     A/C sheet installation--$61 thousand
     Floor removal--$828 thousand
     Floor repair--$6.5 million
     Large-scale gasket removal in general industry--$702 
thousand
     Pipe repair in general industry--$1.9 million.
    Estimated compliance costs for Paragraph (m) include costs for 
medical exams and for recordkeeping. In all, $10.1 million in annual 
costs for medical surveillance are expected for affected construction 
activities.
    (n) Recordkeeping. Revised Paragraph (n) requires that employers 
establish and maintain records of objective data (in compliance with 
(f)), exposure measurements, medical surveillance, and training. 
Revised Paragraph (n) also provides for availability and transfer of 
records. Incremental recordkeeping costs for each of these areas were 
presented above.
    (o) Competent person. Paragraph (o) is a new section of the 
construction standard and provides for competent person training and 
supervision for Class I, II, and III activities. Consistent with the 
distinctions among activity classes in (o), OSHA identified two levels 
of competent person training: Class I/II and Class III. OSHA estimates 
that costs for annual Class I/II competent person supervision will be 
$13.5 million; OSHA estimates annual costs of $6.0 million for Class 
III competent person supervision. OSHA's estimates of competent person 
training costs are based on an analysis by EPA's contractor Abt 
Associates [Abt, 1993], of the costs and benefits of the EPA Model 
Accreditation Plan regulation.
    In addition to competent person supervision, the revised standard 
requires that the person evaluating compliance methods that are 
alternatives to those in (g) Methods of compliance, be qualified as a 
project designer [(g)(6)(ii)]. OSHA estimated the costs for training 
project designers for Class I activities. At an annual cost of $171 
thousand, the training burden implied by this requirement is attributed 
to the EPA MAP regulation, which provides for training of project 
designers and other competent persons.
    Total construction costs. Based on OSHA's preliminary regulatory 
impact analysis [OSHA, 1990], preliminary analysis by CONSAD [CONSAD, 
1990], and cost analysis of the revised standard by OSHA and CONSAD 
[OSHA, 1994], OSHA estimated total costs of compliance with the revised 
PEL of 0.1 f/cc and the ancillary requirements pertaining to regulated 
areas, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, hygiene 
facilities, communication of hazards and competent person training. The 
estimated compliance costs, by control requirement, are shown in Table 
8 for each major construction sector. OSHA's estimate of total cost, 
$476.4 million, is the average cost for a range of construction workers 
potentially at risk in each of the activities affected by the standard 
(see [CONSAD, 1990, Appendix A] and [OSHA, 1994]). This estimate of 
incremental costs, however, includes the training costs--for workers, 
supervisors, project designers and competent persons--that would 
otherwise be incurred through compliance with the EPA Model 
Accreditation Plan regulation. Excluding EPA-related training costs, 
OSHA estimates that $346.5 million in incremental costs are attributed 
to the OSHA construction standard. Table 9 presents total annual 
compliance costs by construction activity, for requirements unique to 
the revised OSHA construction standard.

 Table 8.--Annual Incremental Compliance Costs for OSHA's Revised Asbestos Standard for the Construction Industry, by Construction Category and Control 
                                                                       Requirement                                                                      
                                                                     [1993 Dollars]                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Routine     Routine maintenance in        Custodial work                  
                                                                            maintenance    industrial facilities  --------------------------            
                                                    Asbestos    Renovation   in public, --------------------------                                      
       Control requirements              New       abatement       and       commercial                                                         Total   
                                    construction      and       remodeling      and                                 Industrial   Commercial             
                                                   demolition               residential     Small        Large                                          
                                                                             buildings                                                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shrouded Tools with HEPA Vacuums..             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
HEPA Vacuum/Ventilation System....             0            0            0    6,101,389    1,745,131    7,486,046            0            0   15,332,566
HEPA Vacuums......................        66,299            0            0            0            0            0            0   32,390,934   32,457,232
Wet Methods.......................             0      231,880    2,915,085   10,345,233    1,108,748       90,855    4,918,735   35,612,096   55,222,631
Regulated Areas (airtight, caution                                                                                                                      
 signs)...........................             0            0            0            0            0    2,202,151            0            0    2,202,151
Regulated Areas (caution signs)...        15,186            0      590,382   14,799,401      356,074       70,977            0            0   15,832,020
Drop Cloths.......................         5,827      104,631      672,569   12,328,518      485,648      185,059            0            0   13,782,253
Mini Enclosure....................             0            0            0   18,697,300   22,594,232      330,484            0            0   41,622,016
Critical Barriers.................             0      217,689    2,334,830   18,579,270      981,128       90,433            0            0   22,203,349
Glove Bag Systems (with HEPA                                                                                                                            
 Vacuums).........................             0      659,397            0    1,595,562    1,089,599    1,162,580            0            0    4,507,137
Glove Boxes (negative pressure)...             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Water Spray Procedure.............             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Half-Mask Cartridge Respirator                                                                                                                          
 with HEPA Filter.................       216,632            0    5,142,466    4,325,224      109,150       47,250      657,345   12,590,269   23,088,335
Full-Facepiece Respirator with                                                                                                                          
 HEPA Filter......................             0            0            0    1,813,700            0            0            0            0    1,813,700
Half-Mask Supplied-Air Respirator.             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Powered Air Purifying Respirator..             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Full-Facepiece Supplied-Air                                                                                                                             
 Respirator.......................             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Disposable Protective Clothing and                                                                                                                      
 Gloves...........................       306,734            0    1,542,240    3,089,621            0            0    1,052,339   11,950,203   17,941,137
Decontamination Area..............             0            0            0            0            0    5,492,864            0            0    5,492,864
Decontamination Area (remote)                                                                                                                           
 (daily trailer rental)...........             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Decontamination Area--O&M.........             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Lunch Areas.......................             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Training, Classes I and II........             0    8,156,068   39,015,163            0            0    4,632,551            0            0   51,803,782
Training, Class III...............       730,015    1,765,151            0   20,803,053   11,970,925      604,582            0            0   35,873,727
Training, Class IV................             0            0            0    1,909,387      634,756      200,519    3,218,249   16,652,584   22,615,494
Competent Person--Classes I and II             0      336,078    7,676,841            0    4,526,017      922,183            0            0   13,461,119
Competent Person--Project Designer             0      171,383            0            0            0            0            0            0      171,383
Competent Person--Class III.......        79,518            0            0    5,888,344            0            0            0            0    5,967,862
Exposure Monitoring (initial):                                                                                                                          
    Classes I, II and III.........        60,953      124,351    2,534,806    3,834,764   14,682,484    5,665,859      651,090            0   27,554,307
    Class IV......................             0            0            0      659,296            0            0            0   11,794,913   12,454,209
Exposure Monitoring (additional)..             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Exposure Monitoring (daily).......             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Medical Exams.....................       120,243            0      827,712    6,542,885    1,657,783      965,266            0            0   10,113,889
Labelling of installed asbestos                                                                                                                         
 products.........................             0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Notification by Contractor to                                                                                                                           
 Building Owner--High-Risk ACM....             0      255,474            0            0            0       49,774            0            0      305,247
Notification by Contractor to                                                                                                                           
 Building Owner--Low-Risk ACM.....         2,297            0      128,549    4,748,303      148,207       12,895            0            0    5,040,250
Notification by Contractor to                                                                                                                           
 Employees........................             0       39,777      321,371            0            0       33,313            0            0      394,462
Notification by Contractor to                                                                                                                           
 Building Owner...................             0       39,777      321,371            0            0       35,618            0            0      396,766
Notification by Building Owners to                                                                                                                      
 Building Occupants--High-Risk ACM             0      500,611            0            0            0      111,407            0            0      612,018
Notification by Building Owners to                                                                                                                      
 Building Occupants--Low-Risk ACM.        10,320       35,263      577,646   21,337,003      285,450       65,051            0            0   22,310,735
Notification by Building Owners to                                                                                                                      
 All Contractors..................         2,812       20,853      157,393    5,813,761       77,778       24,152            0            0    6,096,749
Recordkeeping by Building Owners..         4,489       33,288      251,245    9,280,442      141,188       31,143            0            0    9,741,794
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals......................     1,621,325   12,691,671   65,009,669  172,492,455   62,594,296   30,513,011   10,497,757  120,990,999  476,411,184
                                   =====================================================================================================================
      Totals Net of EPA-Related                                                                                                                         
       Training...................       811,792    2,262,991   18,317,665  143,891,671   45,462,598   24,153,177    7,279,509  104,338,415  346,517,816
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on OSHA, 1994; CONSAD, 1990; and the rulemaking record.                         


 Table 9.--Net Compliance Costs for OSHA's Revised Asbestos Construction
                                Standard                                
                [By Construction Activity, 1993 Dollars]                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Construction activity                     Annual cost 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction:                                                       
  A/C Pipe Installation.................................        $578,189
  A/C Sheet Installation................................         233,602
Abatement and Demolition:                                               
  Removal...............................................       1,089,688
  Encapsulation.........................................          77,611
  Demolition............................................       1,095,692
Remodeling and Renovation:                                              
  Drywall Renovation....................................       4,697,904
  Remove Roofing Felts & Coatings.......................         436,077
  Remove Flooring Products..............................      13,183,683
Routine Maintenance in Public, Commercial, and                          
 Residential Buildings:                                                 
  Repair ceiling tiles..................................       9,136,115
  Repair HV AC/lighting.................................      15,612,401
  Other Work/Drop Ceiling...............................       3,937,675
  Repair Boiler.........................................      16,711,380
  Repair Plumbing.......................................      21,730,412
  Repair Roofing........................................       8,392,722
  Repair Drywall........................................      23,276,376
  Repair Flooring.......................................      45,094,590
Routine Maintenance in Industrial Facilities:                           
  Remove Gaskets (Small-Scale)..........................      10,490,046
  Remove Gaskets (Large-Scale)..........................       2,113,420
  Repair Boilers (Small-Scale)..........................       1,307,159
  Repair Boilers (Large-Scale)..........................      14,134,324
  Repair Pipe (Small-Scale).............................       3,229,996
  Repair Pipe (Large-Scale).............................       2,574,361
  Miscellaneous Maintenance (Small-Scale)...............      22,462,603
  Miscellaneous Maintenance (Large-Scale)...............       4,602,548
  Telecommunications Maintenance (Small-Scale)..........       7,972,794
  Telecommunications Maintenance (Large-Scale)..........         728,523
Custodial Work in Public, Commercial and Residential                    
 Buildings..............................................     104,338,415
Custodial Work in Industrial Facilities.................       7,279,509
                                                         ---------------
      All Activities....................................     346,517,816
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis,  
  based on OSHA, 1994; CONSAD, 1990; and the rulemaking record.         

    Shipyards. The revised standard for shipyards largely resembles the 
revised construction standard. OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] identified 
two shipyard activities--wet removal/repair/installation and dry 
removal/repair/installation aboard vessels--where significant contact 
with asbestos can take place. CONSAD's cost analysis assumes asbestos 
removal will be performed by abatement specialists currently complying 
with requirements in the existing asbestos general industry standard 
(under which asbestos contact during shipbuilding and repairing is 
presently regulated). Specifically, abatement specialists in shipyards 
are believed to be currently using the following controls at near-100 
percent level:
     HEPA vacuums
     Wet methods (where feasible)
     Regulated areas with caution signs
     Respirators (full-facepiece cartridge respirators and 
full-facepiece supplied-air respirators)
     Disposable protective clothing and gloves
     Decontamination units
     Lunch areas
     Training (General Industry standard)
     Exposure monitoring (daily)
     Medical Exams
     Written compliance plan.
    For affected shipyards, OSHA's cost analysis assigned engineering 
controls and work practices required or implied by the revised asbestos 
standard. OSHA anticipates incremental costs associated with airtight 
regulated areas; drop cloths; critical barriers; glove bag systems; 
worker training and competent person training (Class I); initial 
exposure monitoring and development of objective data; and notification 
requirements. In all, OSHA projects annual incremental compliance costs 
of approximately $229 thousand for the shipbuilding and repairing 
sector. Of these costs, $137 thousand are associated with training 
required by the EPA Model Accreditation Plan regulation mandated by the 
ASHARA legislation. Therefore, net OSHA-related annual costs for ship 
repair under the revised asbestos standard are expected to total 
approximately $93 thousand (after rounding). Compliance costs for ship 
repair are presented in Table 10 by control requirements for affected 
shipboard activities.

 Table 10.--Estimated Incremental Compliance Costs for Affected Sectors 
                      in Shipbuilding and Repairing                     
           [By Activity and Control Requirement, 1993 Dollars]          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Wet removal   Dry removal           
                                    with repair   with repair           
                                        and           and        Totals 
                                   installation  installation           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEPA Vacuum/Ventilation System...        7,236             0       7,236
HEPA Vacuums.....................            0             0           0
Wet Methods......................            0             0           0
Regulated Areas (airtight,                                              
 caution signs)..................        4,294         1,073       5,367
Regulated Areas (caution signs)..            0             0           0
Drop Cloths......................          179            45         224
Critical Barriers................          385            96         481
Glove Bag Systems (with HEPA                                            
 Vacuums)........................       56,132        13,750      69,882
Respirators......................            0             0           0
Disposable Protective Clothing                                          
 and Gloves......................            0             0           0
Decontamination Areas............            0             0           0
Lunch Areas......................            0             0           0
Training--Class I................      105,280        26,270     131,550
Competent Person Training........        3,294             0       3,294
Competent Person--Project                                               
 Designer........................        1,680             0       1,680
Exposure Monitoring (initial)....        8,983             0       8,983
Exposure Monitoring (semi-annual)            0             0           0
Medical exams--Initial and                                              
 Recurring.......................            0             0           0
Notification by Contractor to                                           
 Facility Owner--High Risk ACM...           89            22         112
Notification by Contractor to                                           
 Facility Owner--Low-Risk ACM....            0             0           0
Notification by Contractor to                                           
 Employees.......................           15             4          19
Notification by Contractor to                                           
 Facility Owner..................           15             4          19
Notification by Facility Owner to                                       
 Facility Occupants--High-Risk                                          
 ACM.............................          187            47         234
Notification by Facility Owner to                                       
 Facility Occupants--Low-Risk ACM            0             0           0
Notification by Facility Owner to                                       
 Contractors.....................            7             2           9
Recordkeeping by Facility Owner..           12             3          15
                                  --------------------------------------
      Totals.....................      187,790        41,316     229,105
                                  ======================================
      Totals Net of EPA--Related                                        
       Training..................       77,535        15,046      92,581
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office or Regulatory Analysis, based 
  on OSHA, 1994; OSHA, 1986; and RTI, 1985.                             

    Aggregate incremental compliance costs. As described above, OSHA 
estimated compliance costs associated with the revised asbestos 
standard for General Industry, Construction and Shipyards. Total annual 
costs for each of the three main parts of the asbestos standard are as 
follows (excluding EPA-related training costs):
     General Industry--$14.8 million
     Construction--$346.5 million
     Shipyards--$93 thousand.
    Summing compliance costs across affected sectors, OSHA estimates 
that annual incremental compliance costs of $361.4 million will result 
following promulgation of the rule.
    The next section applies these estimates of incremental compliance 
costs for an analysis of the economic impacts of the revised asbestos 
standard.

F. Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Introduction

    OSHA examined the impacts of compliance costs on payroll, sales and 
profits for firms in general industry, shipyards and construction 
affected by the revision to the asbestos standard. OSHA's economic 
impact analysis is presented below.
Data Sources and Methodology
    OSHA used a variety of financial indicators and sources of 
statistical data to assess the impacts on the affected industries. 
Payroll data for primary manufacturing industries and real estate 
industries were taken from County Business Patterns, 1990 [Dept. of 
Commerce, 1993]. Payroll data for construction industries were taken 
from the 1987 Census of Construction, [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. Data 
on sales were obtained from Dun and Bradstreet's Marketing Information 
computer database [Dun and Bradstreet, 1992a] for the following 
industry groups:
     Primary asbestos manufacturing;
     Automotive repair;
     Shipyards;
     Selected groups in general industry where the disturbance 
of asbestos during routine maintenance falls under the construction 
standard;
    Selected real estate industries.
    Data on net value of construction work (a statistic approximating 
the sales volume of construction firms) for the construction sector 
were taken from the 1987 Census of Construction [Dept. of Commerce, 
1990b]. OSHA derived pre-tax profit rates using Dun and Bradstreet 
post-tax return-on-sales data from Dun's Insight computer database [Dun 
and Bradstreet, 1992b] and the 1987 tax code. Pre-tax profits were 
calculated using a formula that contains the marginal corporate tax 
rates for 1993.
Impacts in General Industry and Shipyards
    Primary manufacturing. OSHA has determined that the following four 
industries in primary manufacturing would be affected by the revision 
to the asbestos standard: SIC 3292, Friction Materials; SIC 3053, 
Gaskets and Packings; SIC 2952, Coatings and Sealants; and SIC 3089, 
Plastics. OSHA has concluded that there will be no incremental costs 
for the secondary manufacturing industries identified in the 
preliminary regulatory impact analysis because these manufacturers are 
believed to have already achieved exposure reductions that bring them 
into compliance with OSHA's new PEL of 0.1 f/cc.
    OSHA compared the incremental compliance costs anticipated for the 
four affected primary manufacturing industries with three financial 
indicators: (1) Annual payroll per firm, (2) dollar value of sales per 
firm and (3) pre-tax profits per firm. The comparison with annual 
payroll conveys the magnitude of compliance costs relative to labor 
costs. The comparison with sales provides a measure of the extent to 
which prices would rise to maintain profit levels if a firm is able to 
pass 100 percent of incremental costs forward to buyers. If firms, for 
competitive reasons, are unable to pass costs forward and must instead 
absorb the full impact internally, pre-tax profits would be expected to 
fall. The comparison with pre-tax profits thus illustrates the maximum 
financial impact if the firm absorbs 100 percent of the incremental 
compliance costs.
    Table 11 presents the estimated impact of compliance costs in 
relation to annual payroll, sales, and pre-tax profits per plant in 
primary manufacturing. Compliance costs as a percentage of sales are 
modest, averaging 0.6 percent for affected establishments in primary 
manufacturing (Column 7). However, as shown in Column 8 in the table, 
profit impacts are relatively high for two sectors: friction materials 
(26.2 percent) and gaskets and packings (7.3 percent). For reasons 
given below, OSHA believes that profit impacts will be minimized by the 
ability of firms to pass forward costs to consumers. The small 
increases in product prices (less than 2 percent) necessary to cover 
the increased costs of production would be unlikely to affect the 
demand for these products.

             Table 11.--Estimated Economic Impacts in General Industry as a Result of the Revision to the General Industry Asbestos Standard            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Pre-tax                Compliance  Compliance  Compliance
                                                 Incremental                                    profit   Annual pre-  costs as a  costs as a  costs as a
                  SIC industry                     cost per   Annual payroll   Annual sales    rate per  tax profits  percent of  percent of  percent of
                                                    plant        per plant       per plant      plant     per plant     payroll    sales per  profit per
                                                                                              (percent)                per plant     plant       plant  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Impacts on all Establishments:                                                                                                                  
  Primary Manufacturing:                                                                                                                                
    3292  Friction Materials...................     $88,318       $2,057,964      $5,607,900      a6.0      $337,040        4.3         1.6        26.2 
    3053  Gaskets and Packings.................      21,800        1,676,355       4,994,641       6.0       297,329        1.3         0.4         7.3 
    2952  Coatings and Sealants................      16,189        1,591,747       6,950,262       5.4       372,085        1.0         0.2         4.4 
    3089  Plastics.............................       3,128        1,103,931       4,915,434       6.3       308,295        0.3         0.1         1.0 
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Averages.................................      33,128        1,154,988       4,990,845       6.2       309,953        1.8         0.6         9.6 
Impacts on Small Establishments:                                                                                                                        
  Primary Manufacturing:                                                                                                                                
    3053  Gaskets and Packings.................      11,722          285,158       1,035,835       4.7        48,339        4.1         1.1        24.2 
    2952  Coatings and Sealants................      10,275          112,239       1,674,208       4.3        72,207        9.2         0.6        14.2 
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Averages.................................      10,389          226,695       1,266,665       4.5        56,969        8.8         0.7        15.0 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis; Dun and Bradstreet, 1992a, 1992b; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993.                 
aThe profit rate for SIC 3292 was not available in Dun's Insight. Shown in the table is the profit rate for SIC 32, Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete    
  Products.                                                                                                                                             

    As evidenced by the disappearance of domestic production of various 
asbestos-based product lines (e.g., A/C pipe and A/C sheet) over the 
last several years and the dramatic reduction in the production of 
other products (e.g., asbestos-containing plastics), many former 
producers and consumers of asbestos are increasingly substituting other 
materials for asbestos. The market forces behind increased substitution 
appear to be related to legal issues, such as liability, and regulatory 
concerns, such as the attempted Environmental Protection Agency 
asbestos ban, rather than strictly the effect of product substitution. 
Even when asbestos-based products are much cheaper than non-asbestos-
based products, demand and supply are shifting away from asbestos-based 
products.
    Primary manufacturers appear to have the latitude to raise prices 
on their products in the short run, but may substitute away from 
asbestos entirely in the long run. In the friction materials industry, 
substitute products can be difficult to develop, suggesting a limited 
cross-elasticity of demand that permits costs to be fairly easily 
passed along to consumers. For other industries, since the substitution 
of inputs generally occurs at the site of formerly asbestos-based 
production, any incremental economic impacts from this rule should be 
minimal.
    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA also 
examined the impacts on small establishments in primary manufacturing 
to determine if they would be adversely affected by the final standard. 
Using data for firms with 19 or fewer employees, OSHA compared 
compliance costs with annual payroll, sales, and pre-tax profits for 
affected industries identified as containing small establishments. The 
affected industries include small firms producing asbestos gaskets and 
packings in SIC 3053, Gaskets, Packing, and Sealing Devices and 
producing asbestos coatings and sealants in SIC 2952, Asphalt Felts and 
Coatings. OSHA has determined that there are currently no small 
producers of asbestos friction materials and asbestos plastics.
    Small-firm impacts for primary manufacturing are shown in Table 11. 
Under a full cost-pass-through scenario, OSHA projects that compliance 
costs would be 1.1 percent of sales for gaskets and packings and that 
compliance costs would be 0.6 percent of sales for coatings and 
sealants. Costs as a percentage of pre-tax profits, shown in the last 
column of Table 11, are significantly higher, suggesting that severe 
profit reductions could be felt by any small firms unable to pass 
forward incremental compliance costs. However, as discussed above, OSHA 
believes these firms will be able to pass along most of the costs of 
compliance by raising prices and will therefore suffer minimal economic 
impact.
    Automotive repair. Economic impacts in establishments performing 
automotive brake and clutch repair, presented in Table 12, are expected 
to be minor as a result of compliance with the revised standard for 
general industry. As a percentage of sales, compliance costs average 
0.01 percent for industry overall and for affected small 
establishments. As for the worst-case financial impact, compliance 
costs as a percentage of profits would average 0.21 percent for all of 
industry and would average 0.26 percent for small establishments. On 
the basis of these impact estimates, OSHA has therefore concluded that 
overall impacts in automotive repair will be modest and that there will 
be no significant differential effect on small businesses as a result 
of the final standard.

 Table 12.--Economic Impacts Resulting From the Revision to the Asbestos Standard, for Establishments Performing
                                             Brake and Clutch Repair                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pre-tax   Compliance  Compliance
                                      Compliance                    Pre-tax      profit   costs as a  costs as a
            SIC industry               cost per   Sales per firm     profit       rate    percent of  percent of
                                         firm                                  (percent)     sales      profits 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Impacts on all                                                                                          
 Establishments:                                                                                                
  Brake and Clutch Repair:                                                                                      
    551  New and Used Car Dealers...        $34       $9,577,612     $129,551       1.4       a0.00        0.03 
    554  Gasoline Service Stations..         34          939,870       23,220       2.5       a0.00        0.15 
    753  Automotive Repair Shops....         34          223,065       12,810       5.7        0.02        0.26 
      Averages......................         34        1,347,958       27,269       4.4        0.01        0.21 
Impacts on Small Establishments:                                                                                
  Brake and Clutch Repair:                                                                                      
    551  New and Used Car Dealers...         34        2,589,089       30,460       1.2       a0.00        0.11 
    554  Gasoline Service Stations..         34          669,395       16,538       2.5        0.01        0.21 
    753  Automotive Repair Shops....         34          197,139       11,321       5.7        0.02        0.30 
      Averages......................         34          467,607       13,916       4.5        0.01        0.26 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office or Regulatory Analysis; Dun and Bradstreet 1992a, 1992b; U.S.        
  Department of Commerce, 1993.                                                                                 
aImpacts presented as 0.00% are projected to be below 0.01%.                                                    

    Ship repair. The impacts of the revision to the asbestos standard 
on establishments involved in ship repair are expected to be minimal. 
Table 13 shows that average price impacts would be 0.07 percent for all 
establishments and would be 0.1 percent for small establishments if 
firms were able to charge increased operating costs to their customers, 
i.e., ship owners. At the opposite extreme in terms of potential 
financial impact, compliance costs as a percentage of profits would 
average 0.8 percent for firms of all sizes in ship repair and would 
average 1.2 percent for small firms in ship repair. Thus, OSHA has 
concluded that there will be no significant differential effect on 
small businesses involved in ship repair as a result of the final 
standard.

Table 13.--Economic Impacts on Establishments Performing Ship Repair as a Result of the Revision to the Asbestos
                                                    Standard                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Pre-tax   Compliance  Compliance
                                   Compliance                                    profit   costs as a  costs as a
          SIC industry              cost per   Sales per firm  Pre-tax profit     rate    percent of  percent of
                                      firm                                     (percent)     sales      profits 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Impacts on All                                                                                          
 Establishments:                                                                                                
  Ship Repair:                                                                                                  
    3731  Shipbuilding and                                                                                      
     Repair.....................      $12,728     $19,439,148      $1,570,840       8.1        0.07        0.81 
Impacts on Small Establishments:                                                                                
  Ship Repair:                                                                                                  
    3731  Shipbuilding and                                                                                      
     Repair.....................       12,728      12,751,431       1,030,419       8.1        0.10        1.24 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis; Dun and Bradstreet 1992a, 1992b; U.S.        
  Department of Commerce, 1993.                                                                                 

Impacts Associated With the Revised Construction Standard
    Impacts in the Construction Industry. OSHA estimated economic 
impacts in construction using three economic impact measures, 
calculated for each affected industry group. The first measure is the 
ratio of the average annual compliance cost per affected establishment 
(or per exposed construction worker) to an estimate of the average 
payroll per establishment (or per construction worker). As explained 
above, this measure compares the projected compliance costs to labor 
costs normally incurred by the establishment.
    The second impact measure is the ratio of the average annual 
compliance cost per affected establishment (or per exposed construction 
worker) to an estimate of the net dollar value of construction work or 
sales for an average establishment (or per construction worker). This 
ratio indicates the relationship of the compliance costs to an 
establishment or worker's output and indicates the maximum impact on 
prices assuming 100 percent pass-through of the compliance costs to the 
consumer.
    The third economic impact statistic calculated by OSHA for 
construction measures the effect of compliance costs on profits. Profit 
impacts were calculated at the industry level by dividing into 
compliance costs per establishment, the estimated pre-tax profit per 
establishment. This index reveals the maximum potential impact on 
profits under the assumption that compliance costs are fully absorbed 
by the affected firm. Profit impacts are particularly meaningful when 
establishments face highly-competitive conditions which prevent the 
pass-through of compliance costs to customers.
    Annual incremental compliance costs per construction firm were 
estimated using the costs presented above for new construction; 
asbestos abatement and demolition; general building renovation; routine 
maintenance in public, commercial, and residential buildings; and 
custodial work in public, commercial, residential, and industrial 
buildings (routine maintenance in industrial facilities is analyzed 
separately below). Table 14 presents average per-worker and per-firm 
costs and impacts for all affected construction sectors. Table 15 shows 
estimated costs and impacts for small establishments in affected 
construction sectors.

                              Table 14.--Average Economic Impacts of the Revision to the Asbestos Standard for Construction                             
                                                            [All Establishments, by Industry]                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Compliance cost per worker                   Compliance cost per establishment as a  
                                                                       as a percentage of:                                  percentage of:              
                                                                  ----------------------------               -------------------------------------------
                                                       Compliance                Net value of    Compliance                  Net value of               
                     SIC industry                       cost per   Construction  construction     cost per     Construction  construction      Pretax   
                                                         worker     payroll per     work or    establishment      worker        work or     profits per 
                                                                      worker       sales per                   payroll per     sales per   establishment
                                                                                    worker                    establishment     estab.                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1623  Heavy Construction, except Highways............        $484        2.34          0.53         $1,898          0.55           0.13          2.39   
1711  Plumbing, Heating, Air Conditioning............         860        3.93          0.91          1,357          0.92           0.21          4.36   
1731  Electrical Work................................         699        2.95          0.82          1,397          0.72           0.20          3.58   
1742  Plastering, Drywall, and Insulation............         356        1.78          0.51            716          0.29           0.08          1.87   
1752  Floor Laying and Floor Work, N.E.C.............       1,005        5.40          1.03          2,283          2.89           0.55          9.47   
1761  Roofing, Siding, and Sheet Metal Work..........         135        0.81          0.18            324          0.27           0.06          1.21   
1795  Wrecking and Demolition Work...................          25        0.15          0.03            683          0.43           0.10          1.75   
1799  Special Trade Contractors, N.E.C...............          25        0.16          0.04            683          0.70           0.16          2.67   
6512  Operators of Nonresidential Buildings..........          51        0.30          0.05            190          0.21           0.03          0.29   
6513  Operators of Apartment Buildings...............          59        0.35          0.10            220          0.24           0.06          1.15   
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Averages.......................................         422        1.96          0.48            782          0.55           0.13          2.37   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on OSHA, 1994; Dun and Bradstreet, 1992a, 1992b; U.S. Department of Commerce,  
  1993.                                                                                                                                                 


                                  Table 15.--Economic Impacts of the Revision to the Asbestos Standard for Construction                                 
                                                           [Small Establishments, by Industry]                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Compliance cost per worker                   Compliance cost per establishment as a  
                                                                       as a percentage of:                                  percentage of:              
                                                                  ----------------------------               -------------------------------------------
                                                       Compliance                Net value of    Compliance                  Net value of               
                     SIC industry                       cost per   Construction  construction     cost per     Construction  construction     Pre-tax   
                                                         worker     payroll per     work or    establishment      worker        work or     profits per 
                                                                      worker       sales per                   payroll per     sales per   establishment
                                                                                    worker                    establishment     estab.                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1623  Heavy Construction, except Highways............        $484         2.56          0.52          $667           0.43           0.09          1.75  
1711  Plumbing, Heating, Air Conditioning............         860         4.81          1.00           723           1.12           0.23          4.78  
1731  Electrical Work................................         699         3.80          0.94           656           0.93           0.23          4.12  
1742  Plastering, Drywall, and Insulation............         356         2.20          0.53           271           0.36           0.09          1.93  
1752  Floor Laying and Floor Work, N.E.C.............       1,005         2.94          0.52           699           1.57           0.28          4.78  
1761  Roofing, Siding, and Sheet Metal Work..........         135         1.00          0.20           181           0.33           0.07          1.34  
1795  Wrecking and Demolition Work...................          25         0.16          0.03           316           0.46           0.10          1.74  
1799  Special Trade Contractors, N.E.C...............          25         0.18          0.04           427           0.79           0.17          2.74  
6512  Operators of Nonresidential Buildings..........          61         0.37          0.05           128           0.25           0.03          0.33  
6513  Operators of Apartment Buildings...............          68         0.41          0.11           163           0.32           0.07          1.19  
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Averages.......................................         388         2.17          0.48           386           0.62           0.13          2.41  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on OSHA, 1994; Dun and Bradstreet, 1992a, 1992b; U.S. Department of Commerce,  
  1993.                                                                                                                                                 

    Based on OSHA and CONSAD's estimates of the number of affected 
firms, crews, and workers performing each construction activity and the 
number of projects conducted by each firm in a year [OSHA, 1994], 
annual costs for establishments of average size are expected to range 
from $190 per building for SIC 6512, Operators of Nonresidential 
Buildings to $2,283 per firm in SIC 1752, Floor Laying and Other Floor 
Work, Not Elsewhere Classified.7 As shown in Table 14, costs as a 
percentage of payroll, sales, and profits are generally low on both a 
per-worker and per-establishment basis when averaged across a range of 
firms in affected industries. Costs as a percentage of sales per 
establishment average 0.13 percent and do not exceed 0.6 percent in any 
industry. For the impact scenario where cost pass-through is not 
possible, OSHA projects that profit reductions would average 2.4 
percent and would be below 5 percent for all but one industry, floor 
laying and floor work. For flooring contractors in SIC 1752, profit 
impacts could exceed 9 percent if employers were forced to fully absorb 
compliance costs out of retained revenues and were not able to pass 
costs forward. OSHA believes, however, that profit impacts will not be 
as severe as depicted in this worst-case scenario, for two reasons.

    \7\Compliance costs for firms in SICs 6512 and 6513 were 
estimated on a per-building basis, rather than a per-firm basis, due 
to insufficient data on numbers of buildings owned per firm in these 
industry groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, it appears that there are few services that compete with 
floor maintenance directly, and therefore demand for services provided 
by the industry is relatively inelastic. Secondly, all floor-laying 
establishments are treated uniformly by the revised standard. Because 
no individual firm faces unfair regulatory treatment by the revised 
standard, cost impacts are expected across the majority of industry. 
Consequently, most affected firms should be able to pass forward costs 
to customers without significant redistribution of market share. As 
indicated in Table 14, cost impacts on prices (sales) would be minimal 
under a full cost-pass-through scenario.
    Annual costs for small establishments are expected to range from 
$128 per building for SIC 6512, Operators of Nonresidential Buildings 
to $723 per firm in SIC 1711, Plumbing, Heating and Air-Conditioning, 
as shown in Table 15, Column 4. Small-firm compliance costs as a 
percentage of payroll, sales, and profits are fairly modest on both a 
per-worker and per-establishment basis. Costs as a percentage of sales 
per establishment average 0.13 percent and do not exceed 0.3 percent in 
any industry, whereas, for the case of zero cost pass-through, costs as 
a percentage of profits average 2.4 percent. OSHA has concluded that no 
differential adverse impact will be experienced by small firms in any 
construction sector when compared to larger firms because the costs of 
compliance are expected to be roughly equivalent on a per-worker basis.
    Routine maintenance in industrial facilities. In profiling asbestos 
maintenance activities within general industry, OSHA and CONSAD have 
assumed that the majority of the work would be performed by plant and 
maintenance personnel within the establishment. Under this assumption, 
incremental costs attributed to requirements in the revised 
construction standard that pertain to these maintenance tasks would 
financially impact general industry. Therefore, economic impacts 
associated with routine maintenance in general industry are included in 
this section on impacts under the construction standard. Impacts in 
affected general industry sectors are shown in Tables 16 and 17.

   Table 16.--Average Economic Impacts on the Revision to the Asbestos  
  Standard for Construction on Establishments in General Industry Where 
                Routine Asbestos Maintenance is Performed               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Compliance cost per     
                                           establishment as a percentage
                            Compliance                  of:             
      SIC Industry           cost per    -------------------------------
                           establishment                      Pre-tax   
                                             Sales per      profits per 
                                           establishment   establishment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2082  Malt Beverages....            $229           a0.00           a0.00
26  Paper Products......           3,742            0.02            0.31
28  Chemicals...........             697           a0.00            0.04
29  Petroleum Refining..             584           a0.00            0.01
321  Flat Glass.........             651           a0.00            0.07
322  Glass and Glassware             651            0.01            0.07
323  Products of                                                        
 Purchased Glass........             651            0.02            0.31
331  Steel Works, Blast                                                 
 Furnaces, and Mills....           1,036           a0.00            0.08
332  Iron and Steel                                                     
 Foundries..............           1,036            0.01            0.23
34  Fabricated Metal                                                    
 Products...............             326            0.01            0.12
4813  Telephone                                                         
 Communications.........             525           a0.00           a0.00
4911  Electric Services.           1,122           a0.00            0.02
493  Comb. Electric,                                                    
 Gas, and Other                                                         
 Utilities..............           1,300            0.01            0.12
492  Gas Production and                                                 
 Distribution...........             363           a0.00            0.01
4941  Water Supply......             264            0.01            0.08
495  Sanitary Services..             327            0.01            0.15
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Averages..........             897            0.01            0.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis; OSHA, 1994; Dun and       
  Bradstreet, 1992a, 1992b; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1993.          
aImpacts presented as 0.00% are projected to be below 0.01%.            


Table 17.--Economic Impacts of the Revision to the Asbestos Standard for
 Construction on Small Establishments in General Industry Where Routine 
                    Asbestos Maintenance is Performed                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Compliance cost per     
                                           establishment as a percentage
                            Compliance                  of              
      SIC Industry           cost per    -------------------------------
                           establishment                      Pre-tax   
                                             Sales per      profits per 
                                           establishment   establishment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2082  Malt Beverages....            $229            0.01            0.28
26  Paper Products......             229            0.01            0.11
28  Chemicals...........             229            0.01            0.10
29  Petroleum Refining..             229           a0.00            0.02
321  Flat Glass.........             229            0.01            0.12
322  Glass and Glassware             229            0.01            0.16
323  Products of                                                        
 Purchased Glass........             229            0.04            0.68
331  Steel Works, Blast                                                 
 Furnaces, and Mills....             229           a0.00            0.06
332  Iron and Steel                                                     
 Foundries..............             229            0.01            0.11
34  Fabricated Metal                                                    
 Products...............             229            0.02            0.32
4813  Telephone                                                         
 Communications.........             496            0.01            0.04
4911  Electric Services.             221           a0.00            0.03
493  Comb. Electric,                                                    
 Gas, and Other                                                         
 Utilities..............             221            0.01            0.13
492  Gas Production and                                                 
 Distribution...........             243           a0.00            0.03
4941  Water Supply......             243            0.03            0.27
495  Sanitary Service...             243            0.04            0.41
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Averages..........             280            0.01            0.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis; 
  OSHA, 1994; Dun and Bradstreet, 1992a, 1992b; U.S. Department of      
  Commerce, 1993.                                                       
aImpacts presented as 0.00% are projected to be below 0.01%.            

    Economic impacts from costs of compliance in industrial facilities 
were computed in terms of price impacts and profit impacts. As shown in 
Table 16, average economic impacts across all affected establishments 
are expected to be minimal. Price impacts--costs as a percentage of 
sales--would average 0.01 percent if firms were able to pass forward 
all compliance costs to consumers. If full cost pass-through is not 
achievable and affected firms must finance compliance expenditures from 
retained earnings, OSHA anticipates that profit impacts would be no 
greater than 0.21 percent.
    Table 17 presents economic impacts on small firms in general 
industry where routine asbestos maintenance takes place. The results 
suggest that no serious economic consequences are expected from 
compliance with the revision to the final rule. Impacts on sales 
average 0.01 percent, whereas impacts on profits average 0.21 percent 
and are no higher than 0.7 percent for any industry group. Therefore, 
OSHA concludes that there will be no significant differential effect on 
small businesses in general industry performing routine maintenance 
involving contact with asbestos-containing materials.
Conclusion
    In this section OSHA presented economic impact projections for 
affected industry groups in general industry, shipyards and 
construction. Economic impact measures calculated by OSHA expressed 
percentage effects of compliance costs on payroll, sales, and profits. 
On the basis of OSHA's analysis of the economic effects of the revised 
asbestos standard, OSHA has determined that impacts will be modest for 
most affected industry groups. Therefore, OSHA judges the revised 
asbestos standard to be economically feasible.

References

Abt Associates. [Abt, 1993]. Interim Rule to Revise the Asbestos 
Model Accreditation Plan: Regulatory Impact Analysis. Final Draft. 
Prepared for Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of 
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. May 1993.
Abt Associates. [Abt, 1992]. EPA Asbestos in Public Buildings 
Regulations: Right-to-Know Rule Options; Estimated Costs. Final 
Draft. Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. February 1992.
The American Heritage Dictionary. [American Heritage Dictionary, 
1982]. Second College Edition. Boston, Ma.: Houghton Mifflin 
Company. 1982.
Arrow, K.J. [Arrow, 1971]. Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing. 
Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1971.
Asbestos Information Association. [AIA, 1991]. Post-hearing 
submission. Docket H-033E, Ex. 117. April 24, 1991.
Bureau of National Affairs. [BNA, 1993]. ``AFL-CIO Given Role in 
Settling Personal Injury Claims Against 20 Firms.'' Occupational 
Safety and Health Reporter. October 6, 1993, p. 488.
Campbell, W.J., R.L. Blake, L.L. Brown, E.E. Cather, and J.J. 
Sjoberg. [Campbell, 1977] Selected Silicate Minerals and Their 
Asbestiform Varieties. Mineralogical Definitions and Identification-
Characterization. Information Circular 8751, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Mines. College Park, Md. 1977.
Canadian Mineral Yearbook. [Canadian Mineral Yearbook, 1993]. 
``Asbestos.'' Mineral Policy Sector, EMR Canada. 1993.
Chelius, J.R. [Chelius, 1977]. Workplace Safety and Health: The Role 
of Workers' Compensation. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise 
Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977.
Cogley, D., N. Krussel, R. McInnes, P. Anderson, and R. Bell. 
[Cogley, et al., 1982]. Life Cycle of Asbestos in Commercial and 
Industrial Use Including Estimates of Releases to Air, Water, and 
Land. Prepared by GCA Corporation, for the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, under Contract No. 
68-02-3268. Washington, D.C., February 1982. OSHA Docket H-033c. 
Exhibit 84-161.
Commission on Merchant Marine and Defense. [Merchant Marine 
Commission, 1987]. First Report of the Commission on Merchant Marine 
and Defense, Appendices. Washington, D.C., September 30, 1987.
CONSAD and General Research Corp. [CONSAD and GRC, 1982]. Employer 
Compensation and Control Systems, Final Report, 1982. Prepared for 
the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration. Pittsburgh: Consad Research Corporation; and McLean, 
Virginia: General Research Corporation, 1982.
CONSAD Research Corporation. [CONSAD, 1990]. Economic Analysis of 
the Proposed Revisions to the OSHA Asbestos Standards for 
Construction and General Industry. Final Report. Contract Number J-
9-F-8-0033, Task Order 4, Option Year 1. July 27, 1990. Docket H-
033e, Ex. 8.
CONSAD Research Corporation. [CONSAD, 1985]. Economic and 
Technological Profile Related to OSHA's Revised Permanent Asbestos 
Standard for the Construction Industry and Asbestos Removal and 
Routine Maintenance Projects in General Industry. Final Report. 
Contract Number J-9-F-4-0024, December 31, 1985. Docket H-033e, Ex. 
1-229.
CONSAD Research Corporation and Clayton Environmental Consultants, 
Inc. [CONSAD, 1984]. Asbestos Task Order for Construction 
Alternatives. Final Report. Contract Number J-9-F-4-0024, May 25, 
1984; Addendum to Final Report, June 14, 1984. Supplement, July 31, 
1984. Docket H-033e, Ex. 1-227.
Corn, Mort, Ph.D. [Corn, 1992]. Letter to John Martonik with 
attached data. School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins 
University. December 28, 1992. Docket H-033e, Ex. 162-52.
Dallas Morning News. [Dallas Morning News, 1990]. ``Asbestos firms 
lose class-action lawsuit.'' March 31, 1990.
Discher, David P.; Kleinmann, G.G.; and Foster, F.J. [Discher, et 
al., 1975]. National Occupational Hazard Survey-Pilot Study for 
Development of an Occupational Disease Surveillance Method. Report 
No. NIOSH-75-162. Sponsored by the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Environmental Health. 
Seattle: University of Washington, May 1975.
Dun and Bradstreet. [Dun and Bradstreet, 1992a]. Dun's Marketing 
Information computer database. Dun's Marketing Service. 1992.
Dun and Bradstreet. [Dun and Bradstreet, 1992b]. Dun's Insight--
Industry Statistics and Financial Analysis System. Dun's Analytical 
Services. Dun and Bradstreet Credit Services. 1992.
Health Effects Institute--Asbestos Research. [HEI-AR, 1992]. 
Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Analyses 
of Selected Data Previously Considered by the Literature Review 
Panel. Cambridge, Ma. Docket H-033e, Ex. 162-6a.
Health Effects Institute--Asbestos Research. [HEI, 1991] Asbestos in 
Public and Commercial Buildings: A Literature Review and Synthesis 
of Current Knowledge. Cambridge, Ma. Docket H-033e, Ex. 1-344. 1991.
ICF Incorporated. [ICF, 1988]. Asbestos Exposure Assessment. Revised 
Report. Prepared for Chemical Engineering Branch, Office of 
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. March 21, 1988.
Lange, J.E. and D.Q. Mills, ed. The Construction Industry. 
Lexington, Ma.: Lexington Books, 1979.
Morris, G.E. [RTI, 1982]. Tort Liability and Worker Health: An 
Examination of the Economic, Legal and Scientific Issues Surrounding 
the Occupational Disease Protection Afforded by Tort Law, Final 
Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis. 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute, 
1982.
National Center for Health Statistics. [NCHS, 1993]. Unpublished 
1991 Mortality Rate Data for Malignant Neoplasms of Respiratory and 
Intrathoracic Organs by Five-Year Age Groups and Gender. Facsimile 
Transmission. December 22, 1993.
National Roofing Contractors Association. [NRCA, 1990]. Comments of 
the National Roofing Contractors Association to the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration regarding the July 20, 1990 Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking. November 29, 1990. Docket H-033e, Ex. 7-112.
Prosser, William Lloyd. [Prosser, 1971]. Handbook of the Law of 
Torts. 4th ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1971.
Rea, S.A. Jr. [Rea, 1981]. ``Workmen's Compensation and Occupational 
Safety under Imperfect Information''. Am Econ Rev 71:80-93, March 
1981.
Research Triangle Institute. [RTI, 1985]. Regulatory Impact Analysis 
of the Proposed OSHA Asbestos Standard. Prepared for the U.S. 
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 
Contract Number J-9-F-4-0027. Research Triangle Park, N.C. September 
1985. Docket H-033e, Ex. 1-228.
Rifkin-Wernick Associates. [Rifkin-Wernick, 1990]. Market 
Opportunities in Asbestos Abatement: A New Look at an Industry in 
Transition. A Strategic Intelligence Report. Jenkintown, Pa. 1990.
Spence, M., and Zeckhauser, R. [Spence and Zeckhauser, 1971]. 
``Insurance, Information and Individual Action''. Am Econ Rev 
61:380-387, 1971.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. [Bureau of Mines, 1993] ``Asbestos in 1992.'' 
Mineral Industry Surveys. Branch of Industrial Minerals and Branch 
of Data Collection and Coordination, Department of the Interior. 
Washington D.C. April 1993.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. [Chamber of Commerce, 1987]. 1987 Analysis 
of Workers' Compensation Laws. Washington, D.C., 1987.
U.S. Department of Commerce. [Dept. of Commerce, 1993]. County 
Business Patterns, 1990. Bureau of the Census. 1993.
U.S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. 
1993 U.S. Industrial Outlook. 34th Annual Edition.
U.S. Department of Commerce. [Dept. of Commerce, 1990a] Bureau of 
the Census. Industry Series MC87-I-37-C. Census of Manufactures: 
Shipbuilding and Repairing (Industry 3731). Washington, D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, 1990.
U.S. Department of Commerce. [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. 1987 Census 
of Construction Industries. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C., 
March 1990.
U.S. Department of Energy. [Dept. of Energy, 1986]. Nonresidential 
Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Characteristics of Commercial 
Buildings. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 1986.
U.S. Department of Labor. [BLS, 1993a]. Employment and Earnings. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Vol. 40, No.1. January 1993.
U.S. Department of Labor. [BLS, 1993b]. Employment Cost Indexes and 
Levels, 1975-93. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bulletin 2434. 
September 1993.
U.S. Department of Labor. [BLS, 1991]. Occupational Mobility. Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. January 1991.
U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1994]. OSHA/CONSAD Technical 
Analysis of Final Revisions to the OSHA Standard Covering 
Occupational Exposure to Asbestos. Prepared by U.S. Department of 
Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis and CONSAD Research 
Corporation under Contract Number J-9-F-1-0011, Option Year 2, Task 
Order 1. March 1994.
U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1991]. ``Informal Public Hearing on 
Proposed Rule on Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, 
Anthophyllite and Actinolite,'' before the Honorable Sheldon Lipson, 
Administrative Law Judge, Washington, D.C., January 25, 1991.
U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1990]. ``29 CFR 1910 and 1926; 
Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite and 
Actinolite; Proposed Rule.'' Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 140. 
July 20, 1990.
U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1988]. ``Occupational Exposure to 
Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite; Final Rules; 
Amendment.'' Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Federal 
Register, Vol. 53, No. 178. September 14, 1988.
U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1986]. Final Regulatory Impact and 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Revised Asbestos Standard. 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory 
Analysis. June 11, 1986. Docket H-033c, Ex. 346.
U.S. Department of Transportation. [Dept. of Transportation, 1991]. 
Maritime Administration. Report on Survey of U.S. Shipbuilding and 
Repair Facilities, 1991, prepared by Office of Ship Construction, 
Division of Production, Washington, D.C. 1991.
U.S. Department of Transportation. [Dept. of Transportation, 1990]. 
Maritime Administration. Report on Survey of U.S. Shipbuilding and 
Repair Facilities, 1990, prepared by Office of Ship Construction, 
Division of Production, Washington, D.C. 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [EPA, 1985]. Guidance for 
Controlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings. EPA-560/5-
85-024. Washington, D.C. 1985.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [EPA, 1984]. Asbestos in 
Buildings: A National Survey of Asbestos-Containing Friable 
Materials. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic 
Substances. EPA 560/5-84-006. October 1984.
Wall Street Journal. [Wall Street Journal, 1993]. ``Though Risk 
Falls, Removing Asbestos Doesn't Guarantee Substance Is Gone.'' 
March 22, 1993.
Wall Street Journal. [Wall Street Journal, 1992]. ``Litigation Abuse 
Is Destroying My Company.'' July 15, 1992.
Washington Post. [Washington Post, 1990]. ``Overhaul of Manville 
Fund Set.'' November 20, 1990. pp. D1, D7.
Wickman, Arthur R., et al. [Wickman, et al., 1992]. ``Exposure of 
Custodial Employees to Airborne Asbestos.'' Bureau of Environmental 
Epidemiology, Missouri Department of Health. Technical Report for 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances. 1992.
Young, L.R. [Young, 1983]. ``Job-Related Disease Case Refused''. 
Journal of Commerce: April 19, 1983.

V. Clearance of Information Collection Requirements

    5 CFR 1320 sets forth procedures for agencies to follow in 
obtaining OMB clearance for information collection requirements under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The final Asbestos 
standard requires the employer to allow OSHA access to records and 
under certain circumstances, requires employers to submit notifications 
to the Agency. OMB has reviewed and approved the collection of 
information requirements for occupational exposure to Asbestos for 
Construction (29 CFR 1926.1101) and Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1001) under 
OMB clearance numbers 1218-0134 and 1218-0195 respectively. The OMB 
clearances expire in July 1997. There were no new information 
collection requirements for General industry 29 CFR 1910.1001, 
currently approved under 1218-0133. The Asbestos General industry 
clearance expires in March 1996.

VI. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, 
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210.
    Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); 
Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction 
Safety Act, 40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); and 29 CFR Part 1911; 29 CFR Part 
1910, 1915 and 1926 are amended as set forth below.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910, 1915 and 1926

    Asbestos, Cancer, Carcinogen, Construction industry, Health, 
Hazardous materials, Labeling, Occupational Safety and Health, 
Protective Equipment, Respiratory Protection, Signs and symbols.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of July, 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

VII. Amended Standards: Regulatory Text

    OSHA hereby amends 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915 and 1926 as follows:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation of Subpart B of Part 1910 continues to 
read:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Walsh-Healey Act, 41 U.S.C. 35 
et seq; Service Contract Act of 1965, 41 U.S.C. 351 et seq; sec. 
107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction 
Safety Act), 40 U.S.C. 333; sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' 
Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 941; National Foundation of Arts and 
Humanities Act, 20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.; Secretary of Labor's Order 
Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 1911), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 
1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable.

    1a. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1910.19 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.19.  Special provisions for air contaminants.

    (a) Asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dust. 
Section 1910.1001 shall apply to the exposure of every employee to 
asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dust in every 
employment and place of employment covered by Sec. 1910.16, in lieu of 
any different standard on exposure to asbestos, tremolite, 
anthophyllite, and actinolite dust which would otherwise be applicable 
by virtue of any of those sections.
* * * * *
    2. The authority citation of subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910 
continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs 6, 8 Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 
U.S.C. 655, 657: Secretary of Labor's Order 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 9-76 
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 [48 FR 35736] or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as 
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
    All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act, except those substances which have exposure 
limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The 
latter were issued under section 6(a) [29 U.S.C. 655(a)].
    Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553. Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-1 and Z-3 not issued 
under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic (organic compounds), 
benzene, and cotton dust listings.
    Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of Contract Work 
Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 333.
    Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. or 29 CFR part 
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1003 through 1910.1018 also issued under 29 CFR 
653.
    Section 1910.1025 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653 and 5 U.S.C. 
553.
    Section 1910.1028 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1030 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1043 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
    Section 1910.1045 and 1910.1047 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1910.1048 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Sections 1910.1200, 1910,1499 and 1910.1500 also issued under 5 
U.S.C. 553.
    Section 1910.1450 is also issued under sec. 6(b), 8(c) and 
8(g)(2), Pub. L. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1593, 1599, 1600; 29 U.S.C. 655, 
657.

    3. Section 1910.1001 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through 
(p) (all the text preceding the appendices) to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.1001  Asbestos.

    (a) Scope and application. (1) This section applies to all 
occupational exposures to asbestos in all industries covered by the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act, except as provided in paragraph 
(a)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (2) This section does not apply to construction work as defined in 
29 CFR 1910.12(b). (Exposure to asbestos in construction work is 
covered by 29 CFR 1926.58.)
    (3) This section does not apply to ship repairing, shipbuilding and 
shipbreaking employments and related employments as defined in 29 CFR 
1915.4. (Exposure to asbestos in these employments is covered by 29 CFR 
1915.191).
    (b) Definitions.
    Asbestos includes chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite 
asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and any of these 
minerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered.
    Asbestos-containing material (ACM) means any material containing 
more than 1% asbestos.
    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.
    Authorized person means any person authorized by the employer and 
required by work duties to be present in regulated areas.
    Building/facility owner is the legal entity, including a lessee, 
which exercises control over management and record keeping functions 
relating to a building and/or facility in which activities covered by 
this standard take place.
    Director means the Director of the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, or designee.
    Employee exposure means that exposure to airborne asbestos that 
would occur if the employee were not using respiratory protective 
equipment.
    Fiber means a particulate form of asbestos 5 micrometers or 
longer,with a length-to-diameter ratio of at least 3 to 1.
    High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter means a filter 
capable of trapping and retaining at least 99.97 percent of 0.3 
micrometer diameter mono-disperse particles.
    Industrial hygienist means a professional qualified by education, 
training, and experience to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and develop 
controls for occupational health hazards.
    PACM means thermal system insulation, sprayed on or troweled on 
surfacing material and debris in work areas where such material is 
present.
    Regulated area means an area established by the employer to 
demarcate areas where airborne concentrations of asbestos exceed, or 
there is a reasonable possibility they may exceed, the permissible 
exposure limits.
    (c) Permissible exposure limit (PELS)--(1) Time-weighted average 
limit (TWA). The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to 
an airborne concentration of asbestos excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air as an eight (8)-hour time-weighted average (TWA) as 
determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A of this section, or 
by an equivalent method.
    (2) Excursion limit. The employer shall ensure that no employee is 
exposed to an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 1.0 fiber 
per cubic centimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged over a sampling period 
of thirty (30) minutes.
    (d) Exposure monitoring.--(1) General. (i) Determinations of 
employee exposure shall be made from breathing zone air samples that 
are representative of the 8-hour TWA and 30-minute short-term exposures 
of each employee.
    (ii) Representative 8-hour TWA employee exposures shall be 
determined on the basis of one or more samples representing full-shift 
exposures for each shift for each employee in each job classification 
in each work area. Representative 30-minute short-term employee 
exposures shall be determined on the basis of one or more samples 
representing 30 minute exposures associated with operations that are 
most likely to produce exposures above the excursion limit for each 
shift for each job classification in each work area.
    (2) Initial monitoring. (i) Each employer who has a workplace or 
work operation covered by this standard, except as provided for in 
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(iii) of this section, shall perform 
initial monitoring of employees who are, or may reasonably be expected 
to be exposed to airborne concentrations at or above the TWA 
permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit.
    (ii) Where the employer has monitored after March 31, 1992, for the 
TWA permissible exposure limit and/or the excursion limit, and the 
monitoring satisfies all other requirements of this section, the 
employer may rely on such earlier monitoring results to satisfy the 
requirements of paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Where the employer has relied upon objective data that 
demonstrate that asbestos is not capable of being released in airborne 
concentrations at or above the TWA permissible exposure limit and/or 
excursion limit under the expected conditions of processing, use, or 
handling, then no initial monitoring is required.
    (3) Monitoring frequency (periodic monitoring) and patterns. After 
the initial determinations required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this 
section, samples shall be of such frequency and pattern as to represent 
with reasonable accuracy the levels of exposure of the employees. In no 
case shall sampling be at intervals greater than six months for 
employees whose exposures may reasonably be foreseen to exceed the TWA 
permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit.
    (4) Changes in monitoring frequency. If either the initial or the 
periodic monitoring required by paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this 
section statistically indicates that employee exposures are below the 
TWA permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit, the employer may 
discontinue the monitoring for those employees whose exposures are 
represented by such monitoring.
    (5) Additional monitoring. Notwithstanding the provisions of 
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(4) of this section, the employer shall 
institute the exposure monitoring required under paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 
and (d)(3) of this section whenever there has been a change in the 
production, process, control equipment, personnel or work practices 
that may result in new or additional exposures above the TWA 
permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit or when the employer 
has any reason to suspect that a change may result in new or additional 
exposures above the action level and/or excursion limit.
    (6) Method of monitoring. (i) All samples taken to satisfy the 
monitoring requirements of paragraph (d) of this section shall be 
personal samples collected following the procedures specified in 
Appendix A.
    (ii) All samples taken to satisfy the monitoring requirements of 
paragraph (d) of this section shall be evaluated using the OSHA 
Reference Method (ORM) specified in Appendix A of this section, or an 
equivalent counting method.
    (iii) If an equivalent method to the ORM is used, the employer 
shall ensure that the method meets the following criteria:
    (A) Replicate exposure data used to establish equivalency are 
collected in side-by-side field and laboratory comparisons; and
    (B) The comparison indicates that 90% of the samples collected in 
the range 0.5 to 2.0 times the permissible limit have an accuracy range 
of plus or minus 25 percent of the ORM results at a 95% confidence 
level as demonstrated by a statistically valid protocol; and
    (C) The equivalent method is documented and the results of the 
comparison testing are maintained.
    (iv) To satisfy the monitoring requirements of paragraph (d) of 
this section, employers must use the results of monitoring analysis 
performed by laboratories which have instituted quality assurance 
programs that include the elements as prescribed in Appendix A of this 
section.
    (7) Employee notification of monitoring results. (i) The employer 
shall, within 15 working days after the receipt of the results of any 
monitoring performed under the standard, notify the affected employees 
of these results in writing either individually or by posting of 
results in an appropriate location that is accessible to affected 
employees.
    (ii) The written notification required by paragraph (d)(7)(i) of 
this section shall contain the corrective action being taken by the 
employer to reduce employee exposure to or below the TWA and/or 
excursion limit, wherever monitoring results indicated that the TWA 
and/or excursion limit had been exceeded.
    (e) Regulated Areas.--(1) Establishment. The employer shall 
establish regulated areas wherever airborne concentrations of asbestos 
and/or PACM are in excess of the TWA and/or excursion limit prescribed 
in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Demarcation. Regulated areas shall be demarcated from the rest 
of the workplace in any manner that minimizes the number of persons who 
will be exposed to asbestos.
    (3) Access. Access to regulated areas shall be limited to 
authorized persons or to persons authorized by the Act or regulations 
issued pursuant thereto.
    (4) Provision of respirators. Each person entering a regulated area 
shall be supplied with and required to use a respirator, selected in 
accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    (5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees 
do not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in 
the regulated areas.
    (f) Methods of compliance.--(1) Engineering controls and work 
practices. (i) The employer shall institute engineering controls and 
work practices to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below the 
TWA and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, 
except to the extent that such controls are not feasible.
    (ii) Wherever the feasible engineering controls and work practices 
that can be instituted are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure 
to or below the TWA and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) 
of this section, the employer shall use them to reduce employee 
exposure to the lowest levels achievable by these controls and shall 
supplement them by the use of respiratory protection that complies with 
the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section.
    (iii) For the following operations, wherever feasible engineering 
controls and work practices that can be instituted are not sufficient 
to reduce the employee exposure to or below the TWA and/or excursion 
limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, the employer shall 
use them to reduce employee exposure to or below 0.5 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air (as an eight-hour time-weighted average) or 2.5 
fibers/cc for 30 minutes (short-term exposure) and shall supplement 
them by the use of any combination of respiratory protection that 
complies with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section, work 
practices and feasible engineering controls that will reduce employee 
exposure to or below the TWA and to or below the excursion limit 
permissible prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section: Coupling 
cutoff in primary asbestos cement pipe manufacturing; sanding in 
primary and secondary asbestos cement sheet manufacturing; grinding in 
primary and secondary friction product manufacturing; carding and 
spinning in dry textile processes; and grinding and sanding in primary 
plastics manufacturing.
    (iv) Local exhaust ventilation. Local exhaust ventilation and dust 
collection systems shall be designed, constructed, installed, and 
maintained in accordance with good practices such as those found in the 
American National Standard Fundamentals Governing the Design and 
Operation of Local Exhaust Systems, ANSI Z9.2-1979.
    (v) Particular tools. All hand-operated and power-operated tools 
which would produce or release fibers of asbestos, such as, but not 
limited to, saws, scorers, abrasive wheels, and drills, shall be 
provided with local exhaust ventilation systems which comply with 
paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (vi) Wet methods. Insofar as practicable, asbestos shall be 
handled, mixed, applied, removed, cut, scored, or otherwise worked in a 
wet state sufficient to prevent the emission of airborne fibers so as 
to expose employees to levels in excess of the TWA and/or excursion 
limit, prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, unless the 
usefulness of the product would be diminished thereby.
    (vii) [Reserved]
    (viii) Particular products and operations. No asbestos cement, 
mortar, coating, grout, plaster, or similar material containing 
asbestos, shall be removed from bags, cartons, or other containers in 
which they are shipped, without being either wetted, or enclosed, or 
ventilated so as to prevent effectively the release of airborne fibers 
of.
    (ix) Compressed air. Compressed air shall not be used to remove 
asbestos or materials containing asbestos unless the compressed air is 
used in conjunction with a ventilation system which effectively 
captures the dust cloud created by the compressed air.
    (x) Flooring. Sanding of asbestos-containing flooring material is 
prohibited.
    (2) Compliance program. (i) Where the TWA and/or excursion limit is 
exceeded, the employer shall establish and implement a written program 
to reduce employee exposure to or below the TWA and to or below the 
excursion limit by means of engineering and work practice controls as 
required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and by the use of 
respiratory protection where required or permitted under this section.
    (ii) Such programs shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to 
reflect significant changes in the status of the employer's compliance 
program.
    (iii) Written programs shall be submitted upon request for 
examination and copying to the Assistant Secretary, the Director, 
affected employees and designated employee representatives.
    (iv) The employer shall not use employee rotation as a means of 
compliance with the TWA and/or excursion limit.
    (3) Specific compliance methods for brake and clutch repair:
    (i) Engineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch 
repair and service. During automotive brake and clutch inspection, 
disassembly, repair and assembly operations, the employer shall 
institute engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee 
exposure to materials containing asbestos using a negative pressure 
enclosure/HEPA vacuum system method or low pressure/wet cleaning 
method, which meets the detailed requirements set out in Appendix F to 
this section. The employer may also comply using an equivalent method 
which follows written procedures which the employer demonstrates can 
achieve results equivalent to Method A in Appendix F to this section. 
For facilities in which no more than 5 pair of brakes or 5 clutches are 
inspected, disassembled, repaired, or assembled per week, the method 
set forth in paragraph [D] of Appendix F of this section may be used.
    (ii) The employer may also comply by using an equivalent method 
which follows written procedures, which the employer demonstrates can 
achieve equivalent exposure reductions as do the two ``preferred 
methods.'' Such demonstration must include monitoring data conducted 
under workplace conditions closely resembling the process, type of 
asbestos containing materials, control method, work practices and 
environmental conditions which the equivalent method will be used, or 
objective data, which document that under all reasonably foreseeable 
conditions of brake and clutch repair applications, the method results 
in exposures which are equivalent to the methods set out in Appendix F 
to this section.
    (g) Respiratory protection--(1) General. The employer shall provide 
respirators, and ensure that they are used, where required by this 
section. Respirators shall be used in the following circumstances:
    (i) During the interval necessary to install or implement feasible 
engineering and work practice controls;
    (ii) In work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities, 
or other activities for which engineering and work practice controls 
are not feasible;
    (iii) In work situations where feasible engineering and work 
practice controls are not yet sufficient to reduce exposure to or below 
the TWA and/or excursion limit; and
    (iv) In emergencies.
    (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respirators are required under 
this section, the employer shall select and provide, at no cost to the 
employee, the appropriate respirator as specified in Table 1. The 
employer shall select respirators from among those jointly approved as 
being acceptable for protection by the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration (MSHA) and by the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH) under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11.
    (ii) The employer shall provide a powered, air-purifying respirator 
in lieu of any negative pressure respirator specified in Table 1 
whenever:
    (A) An employee chooses to use this type of respirator; and
    (B) This respirator will provide adequate protection to the 
employee.

          Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for Asbestos Fibers          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airborne concentration of                                               
asbestos or conditions of               Required respirator             
           use                                                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in excess of 1 f/cc    Half-mask air purifying respirator other than
 (10) X PEL), or            a disposable respirator, equipped with high 
 otherwise as required      efficiency filters.                         
 independent of exposure                                                
 pursuant to (h)(2)(iv).                                                
Not in excess of 5 f/cc    Full facepiece air-purifying respirator      
 (50 X PEL).                equipped with high efficiency filters.      
Not in excess of 10 f/cc   Any powered air-purifying respirator equipped
 (100 X PEL).               with high efficiency filters or any supplied
                            air respirator operated in continuous flow  
                            mode.                                       
Not in excess of 100 f/cc  Full facepiece supplied air respirator       
 (1,000 X PEL).             operated in pressure demand mode.           
Greater than 100 f/cc      Full facepiece supplied air respirator       
 (1,000 X PEL) or unknown   operated in pressure demand mode, equipped  
 concentration.             with an auxiliary positive pressure self-   
                            contained breathing apparatus.              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: a. Respirators assigned for high environmental concentrations may 
  be used at lower concentrations, or when required respirator use is   
  independent of concentration.                                         
b. A high efficiency filter means a filter that is at least 99.97       
  percent efficient against mono-dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers 
  in diameter or larger.                                                

    (3) Respirator program. (i) Where respiratory protection is 
required, the employer shall institute a respirator program in 
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134(b), (d), (e), and (f).
    (ii) The employer shall permit each employee who uses a filter 
respirator to change the filter elements whenever an increase in 
breathing resistance is detected and shall maintain an adequate supply 
of filter elements for this purpose.
    (iii) Employees who wear respirators shall, be permitted to leave 
the regulated area to wash their faces and respirator facepieces 
whenever necessary to prevent skin irritation associated with 
respirator use.
    (iv) No employee shall be assigned to tasks requiring the use of 
respirators if, based upon his or her most recent examination, an 
examining physician determines that the employee will be unable to 
function normally wearing a respirator, or that the safety or health of 
the employee or other employees will be impaired by the use of a 
respirator. Such employee shall be assigned to another job or given the 
opportunity to transfer to a different position whose duties he or she 
is able to perform with the same employer, in the same geographical 
area and with the same seniority, status, and rate of pay the employee 
had just prior to such transfer, if such a different position is 
available.
    (4) Respirator fit testing. (i) The employer shall ensure that the 
respirator issued to the employee exhibits the least possible facepiece 
leakage and that the respirator is fitted properly.
    (ii) For each employee wearing negative pressure respirators, 
employers shall perform either quantitative or qualitative face fit 
tests at the time of initial fitting and at least every six months 
thereafter. The qualitative fit tests may be used only for testing the 
fit of half-mask respirators where they are permitted to be worn, and 
shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix C of this section. The 
tests shall be used to select facepieces that provide the required 
protection as prescribed in Table 1, in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this 
section.
    (h) Protective work clothing and equipment--(1) Provision and use. 
If an employee is exposed to asbestos above the TWA and/or excursion 
limit, or where the possibility of eye irritation exists, the employer 
shall provide at no cost to the employee and ensure that the employee 
uses appropriate protective work clothing and equipment such as, but 
not limited to:
    (i) Coveralls or similar full-body work clothing;
    (ii) Gloves, head coverings, and foot coverings; and
    (iii) Face shields, vented goggles, or other appropriate protective 
equipment which complies with 1910.133 of this Part.
    (2) Removal and storage. (i) The employer shall ensure that 
employees remove work clothing contaminated with asbestos only in 
change rooms provided in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this 
section.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that no employee takes contaminated 
work clothing out of the change room, except those employees authorized 
to do so for the purpose of laundering, maintenance, or disposal.
    (iii) Contaminated work clothing shall be placed and stored in 
closed containers which prevent dispersion of the asbestos outside the 
container.
    (iv) Containers of contaminated protective devices or work clothing 
which are to be taken out of change rooms or the workplace for 
cleaning, maintenance or disposal, shall bear labels in accordance with 
paragraph(j)(2) of this section.
    (3) Cleaning and replacement. (i) The employer shall clean, 
launder, repair, or replace protective clothing and equipment required 
by this paragraph to maintain their effectiveness. The employer shall 
provide clean protective clothing and equipment at least weekly to each 
affected employee.
    (ii) The employer shall prohibit the removal of asbestos from 
protective clothing and equipment by blowing or shaking. (iii) 
Laundering of contaminated clothing shall be done so as to prevent the 
release of airborne fibers of asbestos in excess of the permissible 
exposure limits prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (iv) Any employer who gives contaminated clothing to another person 
for laundering shall inform such person of the requirement in paragraph 
(h)(3)(iii) of this section to effectively prevent the release of 
airborne fibers of asbestos in excess of the permissible exposure 
limits.
    (v) The employer shall inform any person who launders or cleans 
protective clothing or equipment contaminated with asbestos of the 
potentially harmful effects of exposure to asbestos.
    (vi) Contaminated clothing shall be transported in sealed 
impermeable bags, or other closed, impermeable containers, and labeled 
in accordance with paragraph (j) of this section.
    (i) Hygiene facilities and practices--(1) Change rooms. (i) The 
employer shall provide clean change rooms for employees who work in 
areas where their airborne exposure to asbestos is above the TWA and/or 
excursion limit.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that change rooms are in accordance 
with 1910.141(e) of this part, and are equipped with two separate 
lockers or storage facilities, so separated as to prevent contamination 
of the employee's street clothes from his protective work clothing and 
equipment.
    (2) Showers. (i) The employer shall ensure that employees who work 
in areas where their airborne exposure is above the TWA and/or 
excursion limit shower at the end of the work shift.
    (ii) The employer shall provide shower facilities which comply with 
1910.141(d)(3) of this part.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that employees who are required to 
shower pursuant to paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section do not leave the 
workplace wearing any clothing or equipment worn during the work shift.
    (3) Lunchrooms. (i) The employer shall provide lunchroom facilities 
for employees who work in areas where their airborne exposure is above 
the TWA and/or excursion limit.
    (ii) The employer shall ensure that lunchroom facilities have a 
positive pressure, filtered air supply, and are readily accessible to 
employees.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that employees who work in areas 
where their airborne exposure is above the PEL and/or excursion limit 
wash their hands and faces prior to eating, drinking or smoking.
    (iv) The employer shall ensure that employees do not enter 
lunchroom facilities with protective work clothing or equipment unless 
surface asbestos fibers have been removed from the clothing or 
equipment by vacuuming or other method that removes dust without 
causing the asbestos to become airborne.
    (4) Smoking in work areas. The employer shall ensure that employees 
do not smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to 
asbestos because of activities in that work area.
    (j) Communication of hazards to employees--Introduction. This 
section applies to the communication of information concerning asbestos 
hazards in general industry to facilitate compliance with this 
standard. Asbestos exposure in general industry occurs in a wide 
variety of industrial and commercial settings. Employees who 
manufacture asbestos-containing products may be exposed to asbestos 
fibers. Employees who repair and replace automotive brakes and clutches 
may be exposed to asbestos fibers. In addition, employees engaged in 
housekeeping activities in industrial facilities with asbestos product 
manufacturing operations, and in public and commercial buildings with 
installed asbestos containing materials may be exposed to asbestos 
fibers. Most of these workers are covered by this general industry 
standard, with the exception of state or local governmental employees 
in non-state plan states. It should be noted that employees who perform 
housekeeping activities during and after construction activities are 
covered by the asbestos construction standard, 29 CFR 1926.1101, 
formerly 1926.58). However, housekeeping employees, regardless of 
industry designation, should know whether building components they 
maintain may expose them to asbestos. The same hazard communication 
provisions will protect employees who perform housekeeping operations 
in all three asbestos standards; general industry, construction, and 
shipyard employment. As noted in the construction standard, building 
owners are often the only and/or best source of information concerning 
the presence of previously installed asbestos containing building 
materials. Therefore they, along with employers of potentially exposed 
employees, are assigned specific information conveying and retention 
duties under this section.
    (1) Installed Asbestos Containing Material. Employers and building 
owners are required to treat installed TSI and sprayed on and troweled-
on surfacing materials as ACM for purposes of this standard. These 
materials are designated ``presumed ACM or PACM'', and are defined in 
paragraph (B) of this standard. Asphalt and vinyl flooring material 
installed no later than 1980 also must be treated as asbestos-
containing. The employer or building owner may demonstrate that PACM 
and flooring material do not contain asbestos by complying with 
paragraph (j)(6) of this section.
    (2) Duties of employers and building and facility owners. (i) 
Employers and building and facility owners shall exercise due diligence 
in complying with these requirements to inform employers and employees 
about the presence and location of ACM and PACM.
    (ii) Building and facility owners shall maintain records of all 
information required to be provided pursuant to this section and/or 
otherwise known to the building owner concerning the presence, location 
and quantity of ACM and PACM in the building/facility. Such records 
shall be kept for the duration of ownership and shall be transferred to 
successive owners.
    (iii) Building and facility owners shall inform employers of 
employees, and employers shall inform employees who will perform 
housekeeping activities in areas which contain ACM and/or PACM of the 
presence and location of ACM and PACM in such areas. Identification of 
ACM and PACM shall be made by an industrial hygienists or by persons 
whose skill and experience with respect to identification of asbestos 
hazards, is the equivalent to that of industrial hygienists and so can 
be demonstrated by the owner.
    (3) Warning signs. (i) Posting. Warning signs shall be provided and 
displayed at each regulated area. In addition, warning signs shall be 
posted at all approaches to regulated areas so that an employee may 
read the signs and take necessary protective steps before entering the 
area.
    (ii) Sign specifications. The warning signs required by paragraph 
(j)(1)(i) of this section shall bear the following information:

DANGER

ASBESTOS

CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD

AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY

RESPIRATORS AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING

ARE REQUIRED IN THIS AREA

    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The employer shall ensure that employees working in and 
contiguous to regulated areas comprehend the warning signs required to 
be posted by paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section. Means to ensure 
employee comprehension may include the use of foreign languages, 
pictographs and graphics.
    (4) Warning labels. (i) Labeling. Warning labels shall be affixed 
to all raw materials, mixtures, scrap, waste, debris, and other 
products containing asbestos fibers, or to their containers.
    (ii) Label specifications. The labels shall comply with the 
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200(f) of OSHA's Hazard Communication 
standard, and shall include the following information:

DANGER

CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS

AVOID CREATING DUST

CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD

    (5) Material safety data sheets. Employers who are manufacturers or 
importers of asbestos or asbestos products shall comply with the 
requirements regarding development of material safety data sheets as 
specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(g) of OSHA's Hazard Communication 
standard, except as provided by paragraph (j)(4) of this section.
    (6) The provisions for labels required by paragraph (j)(2) of this 
section or for material safety data sheets required by paragraph (j)(5) 
of this section do not apply where:
    (i) Asbestos fibers have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, 
binder, or other material provided that the manufacturer can 
demonstrate that during any reasonably foreseeable use, handling, 
storage, disposal, processing, or transportation, no airborne 
concentrations of fibers of asbestos in excess of the TWA permissible 
exposure level and/or excursion limit will be released or
    (ii) Asbestos is present in a product in concentrations less than 
1.0%.
    (7) Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall 
institute a training program for all employees who are exposed to 
airborne concentrations of asbestos at or above the PEL and/or 
excursion limit and ensure their participation in the program.
    (ii) Training shall be provided prior to or at the time of initial 
assignment and at least annually thereafter.
    (iii) The training program shall be conducted in a manner which the 
employee is able to understand. The employer shall ensure that each 
employee is informed of the following:
    (A) The health effects associated with asbestos exposure;
    (B) The relationship between smoking and exposure to asbestos 
producing lung cancer:
    (C) The quantity, location, manner of use, release, and storage of 
asbestos, and the specific nature of operations which could result in 
exposure to asbestos;
    (D) The engineering controls and work practices associated with the 
employee's job assignment;
    (E) The specific procedures implemented to protect employees from 
exposure to asbestos, such as appropriate work practices, emergency and 
clean-up procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used;
    (F) The purpose, proper use, and limitations of respirators and 
protective clothing, if appropriate;
    (G) The purpose and a description of the medical surveillance 
program required by paragraph (l) of this section;
    (H) The content of this standard, including appendices.
    (I) The names, addresses and phone numbers of public health 
organizations which provide information, materials, and/or conduct 
programs concerning smoking cessation. The employer may distribute the 
list of such organizations contained in Appendix I to this section, to 
comply with this requirement.
    (J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the 
meaning of the required legends for such signs and labels.
    (iv) The employer shall also provide, at no cost to employees who 
perform housekeeping operations in a facility which contains ACM or 
PACM, an asbestos awareness training course, which shall at a minimum 
contain the following elements: health effects of asbestos, locations 
of ACM and PACM in the building/facility, recognition of ACM and PACM 
damage and deterioration, requirements in this standard relating to 
housekeeping, and proper response to fiber release episodes, to all 
employees who are or will work in areas where ACM and/or PACM is 
present. Each such employee shall be so trained at least once a year.
    (v) Access to information and training materials.
    (A) The employer shall make a copy of this standard and its 
appendices readily available without cost to all affected employees.
    (B) The employer shall provide, upon request, all materials 
relating to the employee information and training program to the 
Assistant Secretary and the training program to the Assistant Secretary 
and the Director.
    (C) The employer shall inform all employees concerning the 
availability of self-help smoking cessation program material. Upon 
employee request, the employer shall distribute such material, 
consisting of NIH Publication No. 89-1647, or equivalent self-help 
material, which is approved or published by a public health 
organization listed in Appendix I to this section.
    (8) Criteria to rebut the designation of installed material as 
PACM. (i) At any time, an employer and/or building owner may 
demonstrate, for purposes of this standard, that PACM does not contain 
asbestos. Building owners and/or employers are not required to 
communicate information about the presence of building material for 
which such a demonstration pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 
(j)(8)(ii) of this section has been made. However, in all such cases, 
the information, data and analysis supporting the determination that 
PACM does not contain asbestos, shall be retained pursuant to paragraph 
(n) of this section.
    (ii) An employer or owner may demonstrate that PACM does not 
contain asbestos by the following:
    (A) Having a completed inspection conducted pursuant to the 
requirements of AHERA (40 CFR 763, Subpart E) which demonstrates that 
no asbestos is present in the material;
    (B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which 
demonstrate that no asbestos is present in the material. Such tests 
shall include analysis of 3 bulk samples of each homogeneous area of 
PACM collected in a randomly distributed manner. The tests, evaluation 
and sample collection shall be conducted by an accredited inspector or 
by a CIH. Analysis of samples shall be performed by persons or 
laboratories with proficiency demonstrated by current successful 
participation in a nationally recognized testing program such as the 
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of the 
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Round 
Robin for bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene 
Association (AIHA) or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin 
testing program.
    (iii) The employer and/or building owner may demonstrate that 
flooring material including associated mastic and backing does not 
contain asbestos, by a determination of an industrial hygienist based 
upon recognized analytical techniques showing that the material is 
asbestos free.
    (k) Housekeeping. (1) All surfaces shall be maintained as free as 
practicable of accumulations of dusts and waste containing asbestos.
    (2) All spills and sudden releases of material containing asbestos 
shall be cleaned up as soon as possible.
    (3) Surfaces contaminated with asbestos may not be cleaned by the 
use of compressed air.
    (4) Vacuuming. HEPA-filtered vacuuming equipment shall be used for 
vacuuming. The equipment shall be used and emptied in a manner which 
minimizes the reentry of asbestos into the workplace.
    (5) Shoveling, dry sweeping and dry clean-up of asbestos may be 
used only where vacuuming and/or wet cleaning are not feasible.
    (6) Waste disposal. Waste, scrap, debris, bags, containers, 
equipment, and clothing contaminated with asbestos consigned for 
disposal, shall be collected, recycled and disposed of in sealed 
impermeable bags, or other closed, impermeable containers.
    (7) Care of asbestos-containing flooring material.
    (i) Sanding of asbestos-containing floor material is prohibited.
    (ii) Stripping of finishes shall be conducted using low abrasion 
pads at speed lower than 300 rpm and wet methods.
    (iii) Burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only on asbestos-
containing flooring which has sufficient finish so that the pad cannot 
contact the asbestos-containing material.
    (iv) Dust and debris in an area containing TSI or surfacing ACM/
PACM or visibly deteriorated ACM, shall not be dusted or swept dry, or 
vacuumed without using a HEPA filter.
    (1) Medical surveillance--(1) General--(i) Employees covered. The 
employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all 
employees who are or will be exposed to airborne concentrations of 
fibers of asbestos at or above the TWA and/or excursion limit.
    (ii) Examination by a physician. (A) The employer shall ensure that 
all medical examinations and procedures are performed by or under the 
supervision of a licensed physician, and shall be provided without cost 
to the employee and at a reasonable time and place.
    (B) Persons other than licensed physicians, who administer the 
pulmonary function testing required by this section, shall complete a 
training course in spirometry sponsored by an appropriate academic or 
professional institution.
    (2) Pre-placement examinations. (i) Before an employee is assigned 
to an occupation exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers 
at or above the TWA and/or excursion limit, a pre-placement medical 
examination shall be provided or made available by the employer.
    (ii) Such examination shall include, as a minimum, a medical and 
work history; a complete physical examination of all systems with 
emphasis on the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system and 
digestive tract; completion of the respiratory disease standardized 
questionnaire in Appendix D, Part 1; a chest roentgenogram (posterior-
anterior 14 x 17 inches); pulmonary function tests to include forced 
vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at 1 second 
(FEV(1.0)); and any additional tests deemed appropriate by the 
examining physician. Interpretation and classification of chest 
roentgenogram shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix E to this 
section.
    (3) Periodic examinations. (i) Periodic medical examinations shall 
be made available annually.
    (ii) The scope of the medical examination shall be in conformance 
with the protocol established in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, 
except that the frequency of chest roentgenogram shall be conducted in 
accordance with Table 2, and the abbreviated standardized questionnaire 
contained in, Part 2 of Appendix D to this section shall be 
administered to the employee.

                                   Table 2.--Frequency of Chest Roentgenogram                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Age of employee                            
      Years since first exposure       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                15 to 35                  35+ to 40                  45+        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 10...............................  Every 5 years...........  Every 5 years...........  Every 5 years.      
10+...................................  Every 5 years...........  Every 2 years...........  Every 1 year.       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Termination of employment examinations. (i) The employer shall 
provide, or make available, a termination of employment medical 
examination for any employee who has been exposed to airborne 
concentrations of fibers of asbestos at or above the TWA and/or 
excursion limit.
    (ii) The medical examination shall be in accordance with the 
requirements of the periodic examinations stipulated in paragraph 
(l)(3) of this section, and shall be given within 30 calendar days 
before or after the date of termination of employment.
    (5) Recent examinations. No medical examination is required of any 
employee, if adequate records show that the employee has been examined 
in accordance with any of paragraphs ((l)(2) through (l)(4)) of this 
section within the past 1 year period. A pre- employment medical 
examination which was required as a condition of employment by the 
employer, may not be used by that employer to meet the requirements of 
this paragraph, unless the cost of such examination is borne by the 
employer.
    (6) Information provided to the physician. The employer shall 
provide the following information to the examining physician:
    (i) A copy of this standard and Appendices D and E.
    (ii) A description of the affected employee's duties as they relate 
to the employee's exposure.
    (iii) The employee's representative exposure level or anticipated 
exposure level.
    (iv) A description of any personal protective and respiratory 
equipment used or to be used.
    (v) Information from previous medical examinations of the affected 
employee that is not otherwise available to the examining physician.
    (7) Physician's written opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain a 
written signed opinion from the examining physician. This written 
opinion shall contain the results of the medical examination and shall 
include:
    (A) The physician's opinion as to whether the employee has any 
detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an 
increased risk of material health impairment from exposure to asbestos;
    (B) Any recommended limitations on the employee or upon the use of 
personal protective equipment such as clothing or respirators; and
    (C) A statement that the employee has been informed by the 
physician of the results of the medical examination and of any medical 
conditions resulting from asbestos exposure that require further 
explanation or treatment.
    (D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the 
physician of the increased risk of lung cancer attributable to the 
combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure.
    (ii) The employer shall instruct the physician not to reveal in the 
written opinion given to the employer specific findings or diagnoses 
unrelated to occupational exposure to asbestos.
    (iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the physician's written 
opinion to the affected employee within 30 days from its receipt.
    (m) Recordkeeping.--(1) Exposure measurements. NOTE: The employer 
may utilize the services of competent organizations such as industry 
trade associations and employee associations to maintain the records 
required by this section. (i) The employer shall keep an accurate 
record of all measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to 
asbestos as prescribed in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (ii) This record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The date of measurement;
    (B) The operation involving exposure to asbestos which is being 
monitored;
    (C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their 
accuracy;
    (D) Number, duration, and results of samples taken;
    (E) Type of respiratory protective devices worn, if any; and
    (F) Name, social security number and exposure of the employees 
whose exposure are represented.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain this record for at least thirty 
(30) years, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.
    (2) Objective data for exempted operations. (i) Where the 
processing, use, or handling of products made from or containing 
asbestos is exempted from other requirements of this section under 
paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, the employer shall establish and 
maintain an accurate record of objective data reasonably relied upon in 
support of the exemption.
    (ii) The record shall include at least the following:
    (A) The product qualifying for exemption;
    (B) The source of the objective data;
    (C) The testing protocol, results of testing, and/or analysis of 
the material for the release of asbestos;
    (D) A description of the operation exempted and how the data 
support the exemption; and
    (E) Other data relevant to the operations, materials, processing, 
or employee exposures covered by the exemption.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain this record for the duration of 
the employer's reliance upon such objective data.
    (3) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and 
maintain an accurate record for each employee subject to medical 
surveillance by paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section, in accordance with 
29 CFR 1910.20.
    (ii) The record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The name and social security number of the employee;
    (B) Physician's written opinions;
    (C) Any employee medical complaints related to exposure to 
asbestos; and
    (D) A copy of the information provided to the physician as required 
by paragraph (l)(6) of this section.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that this record is maintained for 
the duration of employment plus thirty (30) years, in accordance with 
29 CFR 1910.20.
    (4) Training. The employer shall maintain all employee training 
records for one (1) year beyond the last date of employment of that 
employee.
    (5) Availability. (i) The employer, upon written request, shall 
make all records required to be maintained by this section available to 
the Assistant Secretary and the Director for examination and copying.
    (ii) The employer, upon request shall make any exposure records 
required by paragraph (m)(1) of this section available for examination 
and copying to affected employees, former employees, designated 
representatives and the Assistant Secretary, in accordance with 29 CFR 
1910.20 (a) through (e) and (g) through (i).
    (iii) The employer, upon request, shall make employee medical 
records required by paragraph (m)(2) of this section available for 
examination and copying to the subject employee, to anyone having the 
specific written consent of the subject employee, and the Assistant 
Secretary, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.
    (6) Transfer of records. (i) The employer shall comply with the 
requirements concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 
1910.20(h).
    (ii) Whenever the employer ceases to do business and there is no 
successor employer to receive and retain the records for the prescribed 
period, the employer shall notify the Director at least 90 days prior 
to disposal of records and, upon request, transmit them to the 
Director.
    (n) Observation of monitoring--(1) Employee observation. The 
employer shall provide affected employees or their designated 
representatives an opportunity to observe any monitoring of employee 
exposure to asbestos conducted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (2) Observation procedures. When observation of the monitoring of 
employee exposure to asbestos requires entry into an area where the use 
of protective clothing or equipment is required, the observer shall be 
provided with and be required to use such clothing and equipment and 
shall comply with all other applicable safety and health procedures.
    (o) Dates--(1) Effective date. This standard shall become effective 
October 11, 1994.
    (2) The provisions of 29 CFR 1910.1001 remain in effect until the 
start-up dates of the equivalent provisions of this standard.
    (3) Start-up dates. All obligations of this standard commence on 
the effective date except as follows:
    (i) Exposure monitoring. Initial monitoring required by paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section shall be completed as soon as possible but no 
later than January 9, 1995.
    (ii) Regulated areas. Regulated areas required to be established by 
paragraph (e) of this section as a result of initial monitoring shall 
be set up as soon as possible after the results of that monitoring are 
known and not later than February 8, 1995.
    (iii) Respiratory protection. Respiratory protection required by 
paragraph (g) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but 
no later than January 9, 1995.
    (iv) Hygiene and lunchroom facilities. Construction plans for 
change rooms, showers, lavatories, and lunchroom facilities shall be 
completed as soon as possible but no later than July 10, 1995.
    (v) Employee information and training. Employee information and 
training shall be provided as soon as possible but not later than April 
10, 1995.
    (vi) Medical surveillance. Medical surveillance not previously 
required by paragraph (l) of this section shall be provided as soon as 
possible but no later than January 9, 1995.
    (vii) Compliance program. Written compliance programs required by 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall be completed and available for 
inspection and copying as soon as possible but no later than February 
8, 1995.
    (viii) Methods of compliance. The engineering and work practice 
controls as required by paragraph (f)(1) shall be implemented as soon 
as possible but no later than April 10, 1995.
    (p) Appendices. (1) Appendices A, C, D, E, and F to this section 
are incorporated as part of this section and the contents of these 
Appendices are mandatory.
    (2) Appendices B, F, G, H, I, and J to this section are 
informational and are not intended to create any additional obligations 
not otherwise imposed or to detract from any existing obligations.

    (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1218-0133)

Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 [Amended]

    4. Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by the revising the 
second sentence of the introductory paragraph to read as follows:

    * * * The sampling and analytical methods described below 
represent the elements of the available monitoring methods (such as 
Appendix B of their regulation, the most current version of the OSHA 
method ID-160, or the most current version of the NIOSH Method 
7400). * * *
* * * * *
    5. Paragraph 2. of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 
entitled Sampling and Analytical Procedure is amended by adding the 
following sentence to the end:
* * * * *
    2. * * * Do not reuse or reload cassettes for asbestos sample 
collection.
* * * * *
    6. Paragraph 11 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 
entitled Sampling and Analytical Procedure is revised to read as 
follows:
* * * * *
    11. Each set of samples taken will include 10% field blanks or a 
minimum of 2 field blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot 
as the filters used for sample collection. The field blank results 
shall be averaged and subtracted from the analytical results before 
reporting. A set consists of any sample or group of samples for 
which an evaluation for this standard must be made. Any samples 
represented by a field blank having a fiber count in excess of the 
detection limit of the method being used shall be rejected.
* * * * *
    7. Paragraph 2 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 
entitled Quality Control Procedures is amended by redesignating it as 
paragraph 2a and by adding paragraph 2b to read as follows:
* * * * *
    2.b. All laboratories should also participate in a national 
sample testing scheme such as the Proficiency Analytical Testing 
Program (PAT), or the Asbestos Registry sponsored by the American 
Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).
* * * * *
    8. Appendix B of 1910.1001 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix B to Sec. 1910.1001--Detailed Procedures for Asbestos 
Sampling and Analysis--Non-mandatory

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Air        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix:                                                                 
  OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits:                                     
    Time Weighted Average.........................  0.1 fiber/cc        
    Excursion Level (30 minutes)..................  1.0 fiber/cc        
Collection Procedure:                                                   
    A known volume of air is drawn through a 25-mm diameter cassette    
containing a mixed-cellulose ester filter. The cassette must be equipped
 with an electrically conductive 50-mm extension cowl. The sampling time
   and rate are chosen to give a fiber density of between 100 to 1,300  
                        fibers/mm2 on the filter.                       
Recommended Sampling Rate.........................  0.5 to 5.0 liters/  
                                                     minute (L/min)     
Recommended Air Volumes:                                                
    Minimum.......................................  25 L                
    Maximum.......................................  2,400 L             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analytical Procedure: A portion of the sample filter is cleared 
and prepared for asbestos fiber counting by Phase Contrast 
Microscopy (PCM) at 400X.
    Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method 
are for descriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by 
USDOL-OSHA. Similar products from other sources can be substituted.

1. Introduction

    This method describes the collection of airborne asbestos fibers 
using calibrated sampling pumps with mixed-cellulose ester (MCE) 
filters and analysis by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Some terms 
used are unique to this method and are defined below:
    Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. 
Asbestos includes chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite (cummingtonite-
grunerite asbestos), tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, 
anthophyllite asbestos, and any of these minerals that have been 
chemically treated and/or altered. The precise chemical formulation 
of each species will vary with the location from which it was mined. 
Nominal compositions are listed:

Chrysotile.........................  Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4                      
Crocidolite........................  Na2 Fe32+Fe23+ Si8O22(OH)2         
Amosite............................  (Mg,Fe)7 Si8O22 (OH)2              
Tremolite-actinolite...............   Ca2(Mg,Fe)5 Si8O22 (OH)2          
Anthophyllite......................  (Mg,Fe)7 Si8O22 (OH)2              
                                                                        

    Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos which meets the criteria 
specified below for a fiber.
    Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to it's 
diameter (e.g. 3:1, 5:1 aspect ratios).
    Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by comminution of 
minerals, especially those characterized by parallel sides and a 
moderate aspect ratio (usually less than 20:1).
    Detection Limit: The number of fibers necessary to be 95% 
certain that the result is greater than zero.
    Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of 
excluding certain kinds of fibers from the fiber count because they 
do not appear to be asbestos.
    Fiber: A particle that is 5 m or longer, with a length-
to-width ratio of 3 to 1 or longer.
    Field: The area within the graticule circle that is superimposed 
on the microscope image.
    Set: The samples which are taken, submitted to the laboratory, 
analyzed, and for which, interim or final result reports are 
generated.
    Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite: The non-asbestos form 
of these minerals which meet the definition of a fiber. It includes 
any of these minerals that have been chemically treated and/or 
altered.
    Walton-Beckett Graticule: An eyepiece graticule specifically 
designed for asbestos fiber counting. It consists of a circle with a 
projected diameter of 100 # 2 m (area of about 0.00785 
mm2) with a crosshair having tic-marks at 3-m 
intervals in one direction and 5-m in the orthogonal 
direction. There are marks around the periphery of the circle to 
demonstrate the proper sizes and shapes of fibers. This design is 
reproduced in Figure 2. The disk is placed in one of the microscope 
eyepieces so that the design is superimposed on the field of view.

1.1. History

    Early surveys to determine asbestos exposures were conducted 
using impinger counts of total dust with the counts expressed as 
million particles per cubic foot. The British Asbestos Research 
Council recommended filter membrane counting in 1969. In July 1969, 
the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health published a filter 
membrane method for counting asbestos fibers in the United States. 
This method was refined by NIOSH and published as P & CAM 239. On 
May 29, 1971, OSHA specified filter membrane sampling with phase 
contrast counting for evaluation of asbestos exposures at work sites 
in the United States. The use of this technique was again required 
by OSHA in 1986. Phase contrast microscopy has continued to be the 
method of choice for the measurement of occupational exposure to 
asbestos.

1.2. Principle

    Air is drawn through a MCE filter to capture airborne asbestos 
fibers. A wedge shaped portion of the filter is removed, placed on a 
glass microscope slide and made transparent. A measured area (field) 
is viewed by PCM. All the fibers meeting a defined criteria for 
asbestos are counted and considered a measure of the airborne 
asbestos concentration.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

    There are four main advantages of PCM over other methods:
    (1) The technique is specific for fibers. Phase contrast is a 
fiber counting technique which excludes non-fibrous particles from 
the analysis.
    (2) The technique is inexpensive and does not require 
specialized knowledge to carry out the analysis for total fiber 
counts.
    (3) The analysis is quick and can be performed on-site for rapid 
determination of air concentrations of asbestos fibers.
    (4) The technique has continuity with historical epidemiological 
studies so that estimates of expected disease can be inferred from 
long-term determinations of asbestos exposures.
    The main disadvantage of PCM is that it does not positively 
identify asbestos fibers. Other fibers which are not asbestos may be 
included in the count unless differential counting is performed. 
This requires a great deal of experience to adequately differentiate 
asbestos from non-asbestos fibers. Positive identification of 
asbestos must be performed by polarized light or electron microscopy 
techniques. A further disadvantage of PCM is that the smallest 
visible fibers are about 0.2 m in diameter while the finest 
asbestos fibers may be as small as 0.02 m in diameter. For 
some exposures, substantially more fibers may be present than are 
actually counted.

1.4. Workplace Exposure

    Asbestos is used by the construction industry in such products 
as shingles, floor tiles, asbestos cement, roofing felts, insulation 
and acoustical products. Non-construction uses include brakes, 
clutch facings, paper, paints, plastics, and fabrics. One of the 
most significant exposures in the workplace is the removal and 
encapsulation of asbestos in schools, public buildings, and homes. 
Many workers have the potential to be exposed to asbestos during 
these operations.
    About 95% of the asbestos in commercial use in the United States 
is chrysotile. Crocidolite and amosite make up most of the 
remainder. Anthophyllite and tremolite or actinolite are likely to 
be encountered as contaminants in various industrial products.

1.5. Physical Properties

    Asbestos fiber possesses a high tensile strength along its axis, 
is chemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. It has a 
high electrical resistance and good sound absorbing properties. It 
can be weaved into cables, fabrics or other textiles, and also 
matted into asbestos papers, felts, or mats.

2. Range and Detection Limit

    2.1. The ideal counting range on the filter is 100 to 1,300 
fibers/mm\2\. With a Walton-Beckett graticule this range is 
equivalent to 0.8 to 10 fibers/field. Using NIOSH counting 
statistics, a count of 0.8 fibers/field would give an approximate 
coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.13.
    2.2. The detection limit for this method is 4.0 fibers per 100 
fields or 5.5 fibers/mm\2\. This was determined using an equation to 
estimate the maximum CV possible at a specific concentration (95% 
confidence) and a Lower Control Limit of zero. The CV value was then 
used to determine a corresponding concentration from historical CV 
vs fiber relationships. As an example:

Lower Control Limit (95% Confidence) = AC - 1.645(CV)(AC)
Where:

AC = Estimate of the airborne fiber concentration (fibers/cc) 
Setting the Lower Control Limit = 0 and solving for CV:
0 = AC - 1.645(CV)(AC)
CV = 0.61

    This value was compared with CV vs. count curves. The count at 
which CV = 0.61 for Leidel-Busch counting statistics or for an OSHA 
Salt Lake Technical Center (OSHA-SLTC) CV curve (see Appendix A for 
further information) was 4.4 fibers or 3.9 fibers per 100 fields, 
respectively. Although a lower detection limit of 4 fibers per 100 
fields is supported by the OSHA-SLTC data, both data sets support 
the 4.5 fibers per 100 fields value.

3. Method Performance--Precision and Accuracy

    Precision is dependent upon the total number of fibers counted 
and the uniformity of the fiber distribution on the filter. A 
general rule is to count at least 20 and not more than 100 fields. 
The count is discontinued when 100 fibers are counted, provided that 
20 fields have already been counted. Counting more than 100 fibers 
results in only a small gain in precision. As the total count drops 
below 10 fibers, an accelerated loss of precision is noted.
    At this time, there is no known method to determine the absolute 
accuracy of the asbestos analysis. Results of samples prepared 
through the Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT) Program and 
analyzed by the OSHA-SLTC showed no significant bias when compared 
to PAT reference values. The PAT samples were analyzed from 1987 to 
1989 (N=36) and the concentration range was from 120 to 1,300 
fibers/mm\2\.

4. Interferences

    Fibrous substances, if present, may interfere with asbestos 
analysis.
    Some common fibers are:

Fiber glass anhydrite plant fibers.  Perlite veins.                     
Gypsum.............................  Some synthetic fibers.             
Membrane structures................  Sponge spicules and diatoms.       
Microorganisms.....................  Wollastonite.                      
                                                                        

    The use of electron microscopy or optical tests such as 
polarized light, and dispersion staining may be used to 
differentiate these materials from asbestos when necessary.

5. Sampling

5.1. Equipment

    5.1.1. Sample assembly (The assembly is shown in Figure 3). 
Conductive filter holder consisting of a 25-mm diameter, 3-piece 
cassette having a 50-mm long electrically conductive extension cowl. 
Backup pad, 25-mm, cellulose. Membrane filter, mixed-cellulose ester 
(MCE), 25-mm, plain, white, 0.8- to 1.2-m pore size.
    Notes: (a) Do not re-use cassettes.
    (b) Fully conductive cassettes are required to reduce fiber loss 
to the sides of the cassette due to electrostatic attraction.
    (c) Purchase filters which have been selected by the 
manufacturer for asbestos counting or analyze representative filters 
for fiber background before use. Discard the filter lot if more than 
4 fibers/100 fields are found.
    (d) To decrease the possibility of contamination, the sampling 
system (filter-backup pad-cassette) for asbestos is usually 
preassembled by the manufacturer.
    5.1.2. Gel bands for sealing cassettes.
    5.1.3. Sampling pump.
    Each pump must be a battery operated, self-contained unit small 
enough to be placed on the monitored employee and not interfere with 
the work being performed. The pump must be capable of sampling at 
2.5 liters per minute (L/min) for the required sampling time.
    5.1.4. Flexible tubing, 6-mm bore.
    5.1.5. Pump calibration.
    Stopwatch and bubble tube/burette or electronic meter.
    5.2. Sampling Procedure
    5.2.1. Seal the point where the base and cowl of each cassette 
meet (see Figure 3) with a gel band or tape.
    5.2.2. Charge the pumps completely before beginning.
    5.2.3. Connect each pump to a calibration cassette with an 
appropriate length of 6-mm bore plastic tubing. Do not use luer 
connectors--the type of cassette specified above has built-in 
adapters.
    5.2.4. Select an appropriate flow rate for the situation being 
monitored. The sampling flow rate must be between 0.5 and 5.0 L/min 
for personal sampling and is commonly set between 1 and 2 L/min. 
Always choose a flow rate that will not produce overloaded filters.
    5.2.5. Calibrate each sampling pump before and after sampling 
with a calibration cassette in-line (Note: This calibration cassette 
should be from the same lot of cassettes used for sampling). Use a 
primary standard (e.g. bubble burette) to calibrate each pump. If 
possible, calibrate at the sampling site.

    Note: If sampling site calibration is not possible, 
environmental influences may affect the flow rate. The extent is 
dependent on the type of pump used. Consult with the pump 
manufacturer to determine dependence on environmental influences. If 
the pump is affected by temperature and pressure changes, use the 
formula in Appendix B to calculate the actual flow rate.

    5.2.6. Connect each pump to the base of each sampling cassette 
with flexible tubing. Remove the end cap of each cassette and take 
each air sample open face. Assure that each sample cassette is held 
open side down in the employee's breathing zone during sampling. The 
distance from the nose/mouth of the employee to the cassette should 
be about 10 cm. Secure the cassette on the collar or lapel of the 
employee using spring clips or other similar devices.
    5.2.7. A suggested minimum air volume when sampling to determine 
TWA compliance is 25 L. For Excursion Limit (30 min sampling time) 
evaluations, a minimum air volume of 48 L is recommended.
    5.2.8. The most significant problem when sampling for asbestos 
is overloading the filter with non-asbestos dust. Suggested maximum 
air sample volumes for specific environments are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Air vol. 
                         Environment                              (L)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal operations (visible dust)..................  100       
Asbestos removal operations (little dust)...................  240       
Office environments.........................................  400       
                                                              to        
                                                              2,400     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Caution: Do not overload the filter with dust. High levels of 
non-fibrous dust particles may obscure fibers on the filter and 
lower the count or make counting impossible. If more than about 25 
to 30% of the field area is obscured with dust, the result may be 
biased low. Smaller air volumes may be necessary when there is 
excessive non-asbestos dust in the air.
    While sampling, observe the filter with a small flashlight. If 
there is a visible layer of dust on the filter, stop sampling, 
remove and seal the cassette, and replace with a new sampling 
assembly. The total dust loading should not exceed 1 mg.
    5.2.9. Blank samples are used to determine if any contamination 
has occurred during sample handling. Prepare two blanks for the 
first 1 to 20 samples. For sets containing greater than 20 samples, 
prepare blanks as 10% of the samples. Handle blank samples in the 
same manner as air samples with one exception: Do not draw any air 
through the blank samples. Open the blank cassette in the place 
where the sample cassettes are mounted on the employee. Hold it open 
for about 30 seconds. Close and seal the cassette appropriately. 
Store blanks for shipment with the sample cassettes.
    5.2.10. Immediately after sampling, close and seal each cassette 
with the base and plastic plugs. Do not touch or puncture the filter 
membrane as this will invalidate the analysis.
    5.2.11. Attach a seal (OSHA-21 or equivalent) around each 
cassette in such a way as to secure the end cap plug and base plug. 
Tape the ends of the seal together since the seal is not long enough 
to be wrapped end-to-end. Also wrap tape around the cassette at each 
joint to keep the seal secure.

5.3. Sample Shipment

    5.3.1. Send the samples to the laboratory with paperwork 
requesting asbestos analysis. List any known fibrous interferences 
present during sampling on the paperwork. Also, note the workplace 
operation(s) sampled.
    5.3.2. Secure and handle the samples in such that they will not 
rattle during shipment nor be exposed to static electricity. Do not 
ship samples in expanded polystyrene peanuts, vermiculite, paper 
shreds, or excelsior. Tape sample cassettes to sheet bubbles and 
place in a container that will cushion the samples without rattling.
    5.3.3. To avoid the possibility of sample contamination, always 
ship bulk samples in separate mailing containers.

6. Analysis

6.1. Safety Precautions

    6.1.1. Acetone is extremely flammable and precautions must be 
taken not to ignite it. Avoid using large containers or quantities 
of acetone. Transfer the solvent in a ventilated laboratory hood. Do 
not use acetone near any open flame. For generation of acetone 
vapor, use a spark free heat source.
    6.1.2. Any asbestos spills should be cleaned up immediately to 
prevent dispersal of fibers. Prudence should be exercised to avoid 
contamination of laboratory facilities or exposure of personnel to 
asbestos. Asbestos spills should be cleaned up with wet methods and/
or a High Efficiency Particulate-Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum.
    Caution: Do not use a vacuum without a HEPA filter--It will 
disperse fine asbestos fibers in the air.

6.2. Equipment

    6.2.1. Phase contrast microscope with binocular or trinocular 
head.
    6.2.2. Widefield or Huygenian 10X eyepieces (Note: The eyepiece 
containing the graticule must be a focusing eyepiece. Use a 40X 
phase objective with a numerical aperture of 0.65 to 0.75).
    6.2.3. Kohler illumination (if possible) with green or blue 
filter.
    6.2.4. Walton-Beckett Graticule, type G-22 with 100  
2 m projected diameter.
    6.2.5. Mechanical stage.
    A rotating mechanical stage is convenient for use with polarized 
light.
    6.2.6. Phase telescope.
    6.2.7. Stage micrometer with 0.01-mm subdivisions.
    6.2.8. Phase-shift test slide, mark II (Available from PTR 
optics Ltd., and also McCrone).
    6.2.9. Precleaned glass slides, 25 mm X 75 mm. One end can be 
frosted for convenience in writing sample numbers, etc., or paste-on 
labels can be used.
    6.2.10. Cover glass #1 \1/2\.
    6.2.11. Scalpel (#10, curved blade).
    6.2.12. Fine tipped forceps.
    6.2.13. Aluminum block for clearing filter (see Appendix D and 
Figure 4).
    6.2.14. Automatic adjustable pipette, 100- to 500-L.
    6.2.15. Micropipette, 5 L.

6.3. Reagents

    6.3.1. Acetone (HPLC grade).
    6.3.2. Triacetin (glycerol triacetate).
    6.3.3. Lacquer or nail polish.

6.4. Standard Preparation

    A way to prepare standard asbestos samples of known 
concentration has not been developed. It is possible to prepare 
replicate samples of nearly equal concentration. This has been 
performed through the PAT program. These asbestos samples are 
distributed by the AIHA to participating laboratories.
    Since only about one-fourth of a 25-mm sample membrane is 
required for an asbestos count, any PAT sample can serve as a 
``standard'' for replicate counting.

6.5. Sample Mounting

    Note: See Safety Precautions in Section 6.1. before proceeding. 
The objective is to produce samples with a smooth (non-grainy) 
background in a medium with a refractive index of approximately 
1.46. The technique below collapses the filter for easier focusing 
and produces permanent mounts which are useful for quality control 
and interlaboratory comparison.

    An aluminum block or similar device is required for sample 
preparation. A drawing is shown in Figure 4.
    6.5.1. Heat the aluminum block to about 70 deg. C. The hot block 
should not be used on any surface that can be damaged by either the 
heat or from exposure to acetone.
    6.5.2. Ensure that the glass slides and cover glasses are free 
of dust and fibers.
    6.5.3. Remove the top plug to prevent a vacuum when the cassette 
is opened. Clean the outside of the cassette if necessary. Cut the 
seal and/or tape on the cassette with a razor blade. Very carefully 
separate the base from the extension cowl, leaving the filter and 
backup pad in the base.
    6.5.4. With a rocking motion cut a triangular wedge from the 
filter using the scalpel. This wedge should be one-sixth to one-
fourth of the filter. Grasp the filter wedge with the forceps on the 
perimeter of the filter which was clamped between the cassette 
pieces. DO NOT TOUCH the filter with your finger. Place the filter 
on the glass slide sample side up. Static electricity will usually 
keep the filter on the slide until it is cleared.
    6.5.5. Place the tip of the micropipette containing about 200 
L acetone into the aluminum block. Insert the glass slide 
into the receiving slot in the aluminum block. Inject the acetone 
into the block with slow, steady pressure on the plunger while 
holding the pipette firmly in place. Wait 3 to 5 seconds for the 
filter to clear, then remove the pipette and slide from the aluminum 
block.
    6.5.6. Immediately (less than 30 seconds) place 2.5 to 3.5 
L of triacetin on the filter (Note: Waiting longer than 30 
seconds will result in increased index of refraction and decreased 
contrast between the fibers and the preparation. This may also lead 
to separation of the cover slip from the slide).
    6.5.7. Lower a cover slip gently onto the filter at a slight 
angle to reduce the possibility of forming air bubbles. If more than 
30 seconds have elapsed between acetone exposure and triacetin 
application, glue the edges of the cover slip to the slide with 
lacquer or nail polish.
    6.5.8. If clearing is slow, warm the slide for 15 min on a hot 
plate having a surface temperature of about 50  deg.C to hasten 
clearing. The top of the hot block can be used if the slide is not 
heated too long.
    6.5.9. Counting may proceed immediately after clearing and 
mounting are completed.

6.6. Sample Analysis

    Completely align the microscope according to the manufacturer's 
instructions. Then, align the microscope using the following general 
alignment routine at the beginning of every counting session and 
more often if necessary.

6.6.1. Alignment

    (1) Clean all optical surfaces. Even a small amount of dirt can 
significantly degrade the image.
    (2) Rough focus the objective on a sample.
    (3) Close down the field iris so that it is visible in the field 
of view. Focus the image of the iris with the condenser focus. 
Center the image of the iris in the field of view.
    (4) Install the phase telescope and focus on the phase rings. 
Critically center the rings. Misalignment of the rings results in 
astigmatism which will degrade the image.
    (5) Place the phase-shift test slide on the microscope stage and 
focus on the lines. The analyst must see line set 3 and should see 
at least parts of 4 and 5 but, not see line set 6 or 6. A 
microscope/microscopist combination which does not pass this test 
may not be used.

6.6.2. Counting Fibers

    (1) Place the prepared sample slide on the mechanical stage of 
the microscope. Position the center of the wedge under the objective 
lens and focus upon the sample.
    (2) Start counting from one end of the wedge and progress along 
a radial line to the other end (count in either direction from 
perimeter to wedge tip). Select fields randomly, without looking 
into the eyepieces, by slightly advancing the slide in one direction 
with the mechanical stage control.
    (3) Continually scan over a range of focal planes (generally the 
upper 10 to 15 m of the filter surface) with the fine focus 
control during each field count. Spend at least 5 to 15 seconds per 
field.
    (4) Most samples will contain asbestos fibers with fiber 
diameters less than 1 m. Look carefully for faint fiber 
images. The small diameter fibers will be very hard to see. However, 
they are an important contribution to the total count.
    (5) Count only fibers equal to or longer than 5 m. 
Measure the length of curved fibers along the curve.
    (6) Count fibers which have a length to width ratio of 3:1 or 
greater.
    (7) Count all the fibers in at least 20 fields. Continue 
counting until either 100 fibers are counted or 100 fields have been 
viewed; whichever occurs first. Count all the fibers in the final 
field.
    (8) Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton-
Beckett graticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing 
the boundary once, having one end within the circle shall receive a 
count of \1/2\. Do not count any fiber that crosses the graticule 
boundary more than once. Reject and do not count any other fibers 
even though they may be visible outside the graticule area. If a 
fiber touches the circle, it is considered to cross the line.
    (9) Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual 
fibers can be clearly identified and each individual fiber is 
clearly not connected to another counted fiber. See Figure 2 for 
counting conventions.
    (10) Record the number of fibers in each field in a consistent 
way such that filter non-uniformity can be assessed.
    (11) Regularly check phase ring alignment.
    (12) When an agglomerate (mass of material) covers more than 25% 
of the field of view, reject the field and select another. Do not 
include it in the number of fields counted.
    (13) Perform a ``blind recount'' of 1 in every 10 filter wedges 
(slides). Re-label the slides using a person other than the original 
counter.

6.7. Fiber Identification

    As previously mentioned in Section 1.3., PCM does not provide 
positive confirmation of asbestos fibers. Alternate differential 
counting techniques should be used if discrimination is desirable. 
Differential counting may include primary discrimination based on 
morphology, polarized light analysis of fibers, or modification of 
PCM data by Scanning Electron or Transmission Electron Microscopy.
    A great deal of experience is required to routinely and 
correctly perform differential counting. It is discouraged unless it 
is legally necessary. Then, only if a fiber is obviously not 
asbestos should it be excluded from the count. Further discussion of 
this technique can be found in reference 8.10.
    If there is a question whether a fiber is asbestos or not, 
follow the rule:
    ``WHEN IN DOUBT, COUNT.''
    6.8. Analytical Recommendations--Quality Control System
    6.8.1. All individuals performing asbestos analysis must have 
taken the NIOSH course for sampling and evaluating airborne asbestos 
or an equivalent course.
    6.8.2. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall set up 
a slide trading arrangement with at least two other laboratories in 
order to compare performance and eliminate inbreeding of error. The 
slide exchange occurs at least semiannually. The round robin results 
shall be posted where all analysts can view individual analyst's 
results.
    6.8.3. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall 
participate in the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program, the 
Asbestos Analyst Registry or equivalent.
    6.8.4. Each analyst shall select and count prepared slides from 
a ``slide bank''. These are quality assurance counts. The slide bank 
shall be prepared using uniformly distributed samples taken from the 
workload. Fiber densities should cover the entire range routinely 
analyzed by the laboratory. These slides are counted blind by all 
counters to establish an original standard deviation. This 
historical distribution is compared with the quality assurance 
counts. A counter must have 95% of all quality control samples 
counted within three standard deviations of the historical mean. 
This count is then integrated into a new historical mean and 
standard deviation for the slide.
    The analyses done by the counters to establish the slide bank 
may be used for an interim quality control program if the data are 
treated in a proper statistical fashion.

7. CALCULATIONS

    7.1. Calculate the estimated airborne asbestos fiber 
concentration on the filter sample using the following formula:
where:

AC=Airborne fiber concentration
TR10AU94.000


FB=Total number of fibers greater than 5 m counted
FL=Total number of fields counted on the filter
BFB=Total number of fibers greater than 5 m counted in the 
blank
BFL=Total number of fields counted on the blank
ECA=Effective collecting area of filter (385 mm\2\ nominal for a 25-
mm filter.)
FR=Pump flow rate (L/min)
MFA=Microscope count field area (mm\2\). This is 0.00785 mm\2\ for a 
Walton-Beckett Graticule.
T=Sample collection time (min)
1,000=Conversion of L to cc
    Note: The collection area of a filter is seldom equal to 385 
mm\2\. It is appropriate for laboratories to routinely monitor the 
exact diameter using an inside micrometer. The collection area is 
calculated according to the formula:

Area=(d/2)\2\

7.2. Short-cut Calculation

    Since a given analyst always has the same interpupillary 
distance, the number of fields per filter for a particular analyst 
will remain constant for a given size filter. The field size for 
that analyst is constant (i.e. the analyst is using an assigned 
microscope and is not changing the reticle).
    For example, if the exposed area of the filter is always 385 
mm\2\ and the size of the field is always 0.00785 mm\2\, the number 
of fields per filter will always be 49,000. In addition it is 
necessary to convert liters of air to cc. These three constants can 
then be combined such that ECA/(1,000 X MFA)=49. The previous 
equation simplifies to:
TR10AU94.001



7.3. Recount Calculations

    As mentioned in step 13 of Section 6.6.2., a ``blind recount'' 
of 10% of the slides is performed. In all cases, differences will be 
observed between the first and second counts of the same filter 
wedge. Most of these differences will be due to chance alone, that 
is, due to the random variability (precision) of the count method. 
Statistical recount criteria enables one to decide whether observed 
differences can be explained due to chance alone or are probably due 
to systematic differences between analysts, microscopes, or other 
biasing factors.
    The following recount criterion is for a pair of counts that 
estimate AC in fibers/cc. The criterion is given at the type-I error 
level. That is, there is 5% maximum risk that we will reject a pair 
of counts for the reason that one might be biased, when the large 
observed difference is really due to chance.
    Reject a pair of counts if:
TR10AU94.002


    Where:
    AC1=lower estimated airborne fiber concentration
    AC2=higher estimated airborne fiber concentration
    ACavg=average of the two concentration estimates
    CVFB=CV for the average of the two concentration estimates
    If a pair of counts are rejected by this criterion then, recount 
the rest of the filters in the submitted set. Apply the test and 
reject any other pairs failing the test. Rejection shall include a 
memo to the industrial hygienist stating that the sample failed a 
statistical test for homogeneity and the true air concentration may 
be significantly different than the reported value.

7.4. Reporting Results

    Report results to the industrial hygienist as fibers/cc. Use two 
significant figures. If multiple analyses are performed on a sample, 
an average of the results is to be reported unless any of the 
results can be rejected for cause.

8. References

    8.1. Dreesen, W.C., et al, U.S. Public Health Service: A Study 
of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry, (Public Health 
Bulletin No. 241), US Treasury Dept., Washington, DC, 1938.
    8.2. Asbestos Research Council: The Measurement of Airborne 
Asbestos Dust by the Membrane Filter Method (Technical Note), 
Asbestos Research Council, Rockdale, Lancashire, Great Britain, 
1969.
    8.3. Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Brown, T.A., Equipment and 
Procedure for Mounting Millipore Filters and Counting Asbestos 
Fibers by Phase Contrast Microscopy, Bureau of Occupational Health, 
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Cincinnati, OH, 1969.
    8.4. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd ed., Vol. 1 (DHEW/
NIOSH Pub. No. 77-157-A). National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health, Cincinnati, OH, 1977. pp. 239-1-239-21.
    8.5. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1001. 
1971.
    8.6. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, 
Anthophyllite, and Actinolite. Final Rule, Federal Register 51:119 
(20 June 1986). pp.22612-22790.
    8.7. Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite, Code of 
Federal Regulations 1910.1001. 1988. pp 711-752.
    8.8. Criteria for a Recommended Standard--Occupational Exposure 
to Asbestos (DHEW/NIOSH Pub. No. HSM 72-10267), National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH, Cincinnati,OH, 1972. pp. 
III-1-III-24.
    8.9. Leidel, N.A., Bayer,S.G., Zumwalde, R.D.,Busch, K.A., 
USPHS/NIOSH Membrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne Asbestos 
Fibers (DHEW/NIOSH Pub. No. 79-127). National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, 1979.
    8.10. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in 
Analysis of Asbestos and Quartz, Analytical Techniques in 
Occupational Health Chemistry, edited by D.D. Dollberg and A.W. 
Verstuyft. Wash. D.C.: American Chemical Society, (ACS Symposium 
Series 120) 1980. pp. 13-41.

Quality Control

    The OSHA asbestos regulations require each laboratory to 
establish a quality control program. The following is presented as 
an example of how the OSHA-SLTC constructed its internal CV curve as 
part of meeting this requirement. Data for the CV curve shown below 
is from 395 samples collected during OSHA compliance inspections and 
analyzed from October 1980 through April 1986.
    Each sample was counted by 2 to 5 different counters 
independently of one another. The standard deviation and the CV 
statistic was calculated for each sample. This data was then plotted 
on a graph of CV vs. fibers/mm2. A least squares regression was 
performed using the following equation:

CV=antilog110[A(log10(x))2+B(log10(x))+C]

where:
    x=the number of fibers/mm2
Application of least squares gave:
    A=0.182205
    B=-0.973343
    C=0.327499
Using these values, the equation becomes:
    CV=antilog10 [0.182205(log10 
(x))2-0.973343(log10 (x))+0.327499]

Sampling Pump Flow Rate Corrections

    This correction is used if a difference greater than 5% in 
ambient temperature and/or pressure is noted between calibration and 
sampling sites and the pump does not compensate for the differences.
TR10AU94.003


Where:
Qact=actual flow rate
Qcal=calibrated flow rate (if a rotameter was used, the 
rotameter value)
Pcal=uncorrected air pressure at calibration
Pact=uncorrected air pressure at sampling site
Tact=temperature at sampling site (K)
Tcal=temperature at calibration (K)

Walton-Beckett Graticule

    When ordering the Graticule for asbestos counting, specify the 
exact disc diameter needed to fit the ocular of the microscope and 
the diameter (mm) of the circular counting area. Instructions for 
measuring the dimensions necessary are listed:
    (1) Insert any available graticule into the focusing eyepiece 
and focus so that the graticule lines are sharp and clear.
    (2) Align the microscope.
    (3) Place a stage micrometer on the microscope object stage and 
focus the microscope on the graduated lines.
    (4) Measure the magnified grid length, PL (m), using 
the stage micrometer.
    (5) Remove the graticule from the microscope and measure its 
actual grid length, AL (mm). This can be accomplished by using a 
mechanical stage fitted with verniers, or a jeweler's loupe with a 
direct reading scale.
    (6) Let D=100 m. Calculate the circle diameter, dc 
(mm), for the Walton-Beckett graticule and specify the diameter when 
making a purchase:
TR10AU94.004


Example: If PL=108 m, AL=2.93 mm and D=100 m, 
then,
TR10AU94.005


    (7) Each eyepiece-objective-reticle combination on the 
microscope must be calibrated. Should any of the three be changed 
(by zoom adjustment, disassembly, replacement, etc.), the 
combination must be recalibrated. Calibration may change if 
interpupillary distance is changed. Measure the field diameter, D 
(acceptable range: 1002 m) with a stage 
micrometer upon receipt of the graticule from the manufacturer. 
Determine the field area (mm2).

Field Area=(D/2)2
If D=100 m=0.1 mm, then
Field Area=(0.1 mm/2)2=0.00785 mm2

    The Graticule is available from: Graticules Ltd., Morley Road, 
Tonbridge TN9 IRN, Kent, England (Telephone 011-44-732-359061). Also 
available from PTR Optics Ltd., 145 Newton Street, Waltham, MA 02154 
[telephone (617) 891-6000] or McCrone Accessories and Components, 
2506 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60616 [phone (312)-842-7100]. The 
graticule is custom made for each microscope.
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

                   Counts for the Fibers in the Figure                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Structure                                                             
     No.        Count                      Explanation                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1 to 6.....         1  Single fibers all contained within the circle.  
 7..........     \1/2\  Fiber crosses circle once.                      
 8..........         0  Fiber too short.                                
 9..........         2  Two crossing fibers.                            
10..........         0  Fiber outside graticule.                        
11..........         0  Fiber crosses graticule twice.                  
12..........     \1/2\  Although split, fiber only crosses once.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TR10AU94.006


    9. Appendix D to Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by revising the first 
sentence to read as follows:

Appendix D to 1910.1001--Medical Questionnaires; Mandatory

    This mandatory appendix contains the medical questionnaires that 
must be administered to all employees who are exposed to asbestos 
above the permissible exposure limit, and who will therefore be 
included in their employer's medical surveillance program. * * *
* * * * *
    10. Appendix F to Sec. 1910.1001 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix F to Sec. 1910.1001--Work Practices and Engineering 
Controls for Automotive Brake and Clutch Inspection, Disassembly, 
Repair and Assembly--Mandatory

    This mandatory appendix specifies engineering controls and work 
practices that must be implemented by the employer during automotive 
brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly 
operations. Proper use of these engineering controls and work 
practices will reduce employees' asbestos exposure below the 
permissible exposure level during clutch and brake inspection, 
disassembly, repair, and assembly operations. The employer shall 
institute engineering controls and work practices using either the 
method set forth in paragraph [A] or paragraph [B] of this appendix, 
or any other method which the employer can demonstrate to be 
equivalent in terms of reducing employee exposure to asbestos as 
defined and which meets the requirements described in paragraph [C] 
of this appendix, for those facilities in which no more than 5 pairs 
of brakes or 5 clutches are inspected, disassembled, reassembled 
and/or repaired per week, the method set forth in paragraph [D] of 
this appendix may be used:

[A] Negative Pressure Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum System Method

    (1) The brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and 
assembly operations shall be enclosed to cover and contain the 
clutch or brake assembly and to prevent the release of asbestos 
fibers into the worker's breathing zone.
    (2) The enclosure shall be sealed tightly and thoroughly 
inspected for leaks before work begins on brake and clutch 
inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly.
    (3) The enclosure shall be such that the worker can clearly see 
the operation and shall provide impermeable sleeves through which 
the worker can handle the brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, 
repair and assembly. The integrity of the sleeves and ports shall be 
examined before work begins.
    (4) A HEPA-filtered vacuum shall be employed to maintain the 
enclosure under negative pressure throughout the operation. 
Compressed-air may be used to remove asbestos fibers or particles 
from the enclosure.
    (5) The HEPA vacuum shall be used first to loosen the asbestos 
containing residue from the brake and clutch parts and then to 
evacuate the loosened asbestos containing material from the 
enclosure and capture the material in the vacuum filter.
    (6) The vacuum's filter, when full, shall be first wetted with a 
fine mist of water, then removed and placed immediately in an 
impermeable container, labeled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of 
this section and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this 
section.
    (7) Any spills or releases of asbestos containing waste material 
from inside of the enclosure or vacuum hose or vacuum filter shall 
be immediately cleaned up and disposed of according to paragraph (k) 
of the section.

[B] Low Pressure/Wet Cleaning Method

    (1) A catch basin shall be placed under the brake assembly, 
positioned to avoid splashes and spills.
    (2) The reservoir shall contain water containing an organic 
solvent or wetting agent. The flow of liquid shall be controlled 
such that the brake assembly is gently flooded to prevent the 
asbestos-containing brake dust from becoming airborne.
    (3) The aqueous solution shall be allowed to flow between the 
brake drum and brake support before the drum is removed.
    (4) After removing the brake drum, the wheel hub and back of the 
brake assembly shall be thoroughly wetted to suppress dust.
    (5) The brake support plate, brake shoes and brake components 
used to attach the brake shoes shall be thoroughly washed before 
removing the old shoes.
    (6) In systems using filters, the filters, when full, shall be 
first wetted with a fine mist of water, then removed and placed 
immediately in an impermeable container, labeled according to 
paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this section and disposed of according to 
paragraph (k) of this section.
    (7) Any spills of asbestos-containing aqueous solution or any 
asbestos-containing waste material shall be cleaned up immediately 
and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section.
    (8) The use of dry brushing during low pressure/wet cleaning 
operations is prohibited.

[C] Equivalent Methods

    An equivalent method is one which has sufficient written detail 
so that it can be reproduced and has been demonstrated that the 
exposures resulting from the equivalent method are equal to or less 
than the exposures which would result from the use of the method 
described in paragraph [A] of this appendix. For purposes of making 
this comparison, the employer shall assume that exposures resulting 
from the use of the method described in paragraph [A] of this 
appendix shall not exceed 0.004 f/cc, as measured by the OSHA 
reference method and as averaged over at least 18 personal samples.

[D] Wet Method.

    (1) A spray bottle, hose nozzle, or other implement capable of 
delivering a fine mist of water or amended water or other delivery 
system capable of delivering water at low pressure, shall be used to 
first thoroughly wet the brake and clutch parts. Brake and clutch 
components shall then be wiped clean with a cloth.
    (2) The cloth shall be placed in an impermeable container, 
labelled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the standard and then 
disposed of according to paragraph (k) of the standard, or the cloth 
shall be laundered in a way to prevent the release of asbestos 
fibers in excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air.
    (3) Any spills of solvent or any asbestos containing waste 
material shall be cleaned up immediately according to paragraph
    (k) of the standard.
    (4) The use of dry brushing during the wet method operations is 
prohibited.

Appendix G to Sec. 1910.1001 [Amended]

    11. Appendix G of Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by replacing the phrase 
``0.2 f/cc'' with the phrase ``0.1 f/cc'' in paragraph I. D. entitled 
``Permissible exposure:''..
    12. Appendix G of Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by replacing the phrase 
``0.2 f/cc'' with the phrase ``0.1 f/cc'' in paragraph III.A. entitled 
``Respirators:''.
    13. Appendix G of Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by revising paragraph 
III. B. to read as follows:
    III. * * *
    B. Protective clothing: You are required to wear protective 
clothing in work areas where asbestos fiber concentrations exceed to 
permissible exposure limit.
* * * * *

Appendix H to Sec. 1910.1001 [Amended]

    14. Appendix H of Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by revising the first 
sentence of the second paragraph of section IV. entitled Surveillance 
and Preventive Considerations to read as follows:
* * * * *
    The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance 
program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at 
or above the permissible exposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air). * * *
* * * * *
    15. Appendix J to Sec. 1910.1001 is added to read as follows:

Appendix J to Sec. 1910.1001--Polarized Light Microscopy of 
Asbestos--Non-Mandatory)

Method number: ID-191
Matrix: Bulk

Collection Procedure

    Collect approximately 1 to 2 grams of each type of material and 
place into separate 20 mL scintillation vials.

Analytical Procedure

    A portion of each separate phase is analyzed by gross 
examination, phase-polar examination, and central stop dispersion 
microscopy.
    Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method 
are for descriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by 
USDOL-OSHA. Similar products from other sources may be substituted.

1. Introduction

    This method describes the collection and analysis of asbestos 
bulk materials by light microscopy techniques including phase- polar 
illumination and central-stop dispersion microscopy. Some terms 
unique to asbestos analysis are defined below:
    Amphibole: A family of minerals whose crystals are formed by 
long, thin units which have two thin ribbons of double chain 
silicate with a brucite ribbon in between. The shape of each unit is 
similar to an ``I beam''. Minerals important in asbestos analysis 
include cummingtonite-grunerite, crocidolite, tremolite-actinolite 
and anthophyllite.
    Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. 
Asbestos includes chrysotile, cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos 
(amosite), anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, crocidolite, 
actinolite asbestos and any of these minerals which have been 
chemically treated or altered. The precise chemical formulation of 
each species varies with the location from which it was mined. 
Nominal compositions are listed:

Chrysotile
Mg3Si2O5(OH)4
Crocidolite (Riebeckite asbestos)
Na2Fe2+3Fe3+2Si8O22(OH)2
Cummingtonite-Grunerite asbestos (Amosite)
(Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2
Tremolite-Actinolite asbestos
Ca2(Mg,Fe)5Si8O22(OH)2
Anthophyllite asbestos
(Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2

    Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos meeting the criteria for a 
fiber. (See section 3.5.)
    Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to its diameter 
usually defined as ``length : width'', e.g. 3:1.
    Brucite: A sheet mineral with the composition Mg(OH)2.
    Central Stop Dispersion Staining (microscope): This is a dark 
field microscope technique that images particles using only light 
refracted by the particle, excluding light that travels through the 
particle unrefracted. This is usually accomplished with a McCrone 
objective or other arrangement which places a circular stop with 
apparent aperture equal to the objective aperture in the back focal 
plane of the microscope.
    Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by the comminution 
of minerals, especially those characterized by relatively parallel 
sides and moderate aspect ratio.
    Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of 
excluding certain kinds of fibers from a phase contrast asbestos 
count because they are not asbestos.
    Fiber: A particle longer than or equal to 5 m with a 
length to width ratio greater than or equal to 3:1. This may include 
cleavage fragments. (see section 3.5 of this appendix).
    Phase Contrast: Contrast obtained in the microscope by causing 
light scattered by small particles to destructively interfere with 
unscattered light, thereby enhancing the visibility of very small 
particles and particles with very low intrinsic contrast.
    Phase Contrast Microscope: A microscope configured with a phase 
mask pair to create phase contrast. The technique which uses this is 
called Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM).
    Phase-Polar Analysis: This is the use of polarized light in a 
phase contrast microscope. It is used to see the same size fibers 
that are visible in air filter analysis. Although fibers finer than 
1 m are visible, analysis of these is inferred from 
analysis of larger bundles that are usually present.
    Phase-Polar Microscope: The phase-polar microscope is a phase 
contrast microscope which has an analyzer, a polarizer, a first 
order red plate and a rotating phase condenser all in place so that 
the polarized light image is enhanced by phase contrast.
    Sealing Encapsulant: This is a product which can be applied, 
preferably by spraying, onto an asbestos surface which will seal the 
surface so that fibers cannot be released.
    Serpentine: A mineral family consisting of minerals with the 
general composition Mg3(Si2O5(OH)4 having the 
magnesium in brucite layer over a silicate layer. Minerals important 
in asbestos analysis included in this family are chrysotile, 
lizardite, antigorite.

1.1. History

    Light microscopy has been used for well over 100 years for the 
determination of mineral species. This analysis is carried out using 
specialized polarizing microscopes as well as bright field 
microscopes. The identification of minerals is an on-going process 
with many new minerals described each year. The first recorded use 
of asbestos was in Finland about 2500 B.C. where the material was 
used in the mud wattle for the wooden huts the people lived in as 
well as strengthening for pottery. Adverse health aspects of the 
mineral were noted nearly 2000 years ago when Pliny the Younger 
wrote about the poor health of slaves in the asbestos mines. 
Although known to be injurious for centuries, the first modern 
references to its toxicity were by the British Labor Inspectorate 
when it banned asbestos dust from the workplace in 1898. Asbestosis 
cases were described in the literature after the turn of the 
century. Cancer was first suspected in the mid 1930's and a causal 
link to mesothelioma was made in 1965. Because of the public concern 
for worker and public safety with the use of this material, several 
different types of analysis were applied to the determination of 
asbestos content. Light microscopy requires a great deal of 
experience and craft. Attempts were made to apply less subjective 
methods to the analysis. X-ray diffraction was partially successful 
in determining the mineral types but was unable to separate out the 
fibrous portions from the non-fibrous portions. Also, the minimum 
detection limit for asbestos analysis by X-ray diffraction (XRD) is 
about 1%. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) was no more 
successful. These provide useful corroborating information when the 
presence of asbestos has been shown by microscopy; however, neither 
can determine the difference between fibrous and non-fibrous 
minerals when both habits are present. The same is true of Infrared 
Absorption (IR).
    When electron microscopy was applied to asbestos analysis, 
hundreds of fibers were discovered present too small to be visible 
in any light microscope. There are two different types of electron 
microscope used for asbestos analysis: Scanning Electron Microscope 
(SEM) and Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM). Scanning Electron 
Microscopy is useful in identifying minerals. The SEM can provide 
two of the three pieces of information required to identify fibers 
by electron microscopy: morphology and chemistry. The third is 
structure as determined by Selected Area Electron Diffraction--SAED 
which is performed in the TEM. Although the resolution of the SEM is 
sufficient for very fine fibers to be seen, accuracy of chemical 
analysis that can be performed on the fibers varies with fiber 
diameter in fibers of less than 0.2 m diameter. The TEM is 
a powerful tool to identify fibers too small to be resolved by light 
microscopy and should be used in conjunction with this method when 
necessary. The TEM can provide all three pieces of information 
required for fiber identification. Most fibers thicker than 1 
m can adequately be defined in the light microscope. The 
light microscope remains as the best instrument for the 
determination of mineral type. This is because the minerals under 
investigation were first described analytically with the light 
microscope. It is inexpensive and gives positive identification for 
most samples analyzed. Further, when optical techniques are 
inadequate, there is ample indication that alternative techniques 
should be used for complete identification of the sample.

1.2. Principle

    Minerals consist of atoms that may be arranged in random order 
or in a regular arrangement. Amorphous materials have atoms in 
random order while crystalline materials have long range order. Many 
materials are transparent to light, at least for small particles or 
for thin sections. The properties of these materials can be 
investigated by the effect that the material has on light passing 
through it. The six asbestos minerals are all crystalline with 
particular properties that have been identified and cataloged. These 
six minerals are anisotropic. They have a regular array of atoms, 
but the arrangement is not the same in all directions. Each major 
direction of the crystal presents a different regularity. Light 
photons travelling in each of these main directions will encounter 
different electrical neighborhoods, affecting the path and time of 
travel. The techniques outlined in this method use the fact that 
light traveling through fibers or crystals in different directions 
will behave differently, but predictably. The behavior of the light 
as it travels through a crystal can be measured and compared with 
known or determined values to identify the mineral species. Usually, 
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) is performed with strain-free 
objectives on a bright-field microscope platform. This would limit 
the resolution of the microscope to about 0.4 m. Because 
OSHA requires the counting and identification of fibers visible in 
phase contrast, the phase contrast platform is used to visualize the 
fibers with the polarizing elements added into the light path. 
Polarized light methods cannot identify fibers finer than about 1 
m in diameter even though they are visible. The finest 
fibers are usually identified by inference from the presence of 
larger, identifiable fiber bundles. When fibers are present, but not 
identifiable by light microscopy, use either SEM or TEM to determine 
the fiber identity.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

    The advantages of light microcopy are:
    (a) Basic identification of the materials was first performed by 
light microscopy and gross analysis. This provides a large base of 
published information against which to check analysis and analytical 
technique.
    (b) The analysis is specific to fibers. The minerals present can 
exist in asbestiform, fibrous, prismatic, or massive varieties all 
at the same time. Therefore, bulk methods of analysis such as X-ray 
diffraction, IR analysis, DTA, etc. are inappropriate where the 
material is not known to be fibrous.
    (c) The analysis is quick, requires little preparation time, and 
can be performed on-site if a suitably equipped microscope is 
available.
    The disadvantages are:
    (a) Even using phase-polar illumination, not all the fibers 
present may be seen. This is a problem for very low asbestos 
concentrations where agglomerations or large bundles of fibers may 
not be present to allow identification by inference.
    (b) The method requires a great degree of sophistication on the 
part of the microscopist. An analyst is only as useful as his mental 
catalog of images. Therefore, a microscopist's accuracy is enhanced 
by experience. The mineralogical training of the analyst is very 
important. It is the basis on which subjective decisions are made.
    (c) The method uses only a tiny amount of material for analysis. 
This may lead to sampling bias and false results (high or low). This 
is especially true if the sample is severely inhomogeneous.
    (d) Fibers may be bound in a matrix and not distinguishable as 
fibers so identification cannot be made.

1.4. Method Performance

    1.4.1. This method can be used for determination of asbestos 
content from 0 to 100% asbestos. The detection limit has not been 
adequately determined, although for selected samples, the limit is 
very low, depending on the number of particles examined. For mostly 
homogeneous, finely divided samples, with no difficult fibrous 
interferences, the detection limit is below 1%. For inhomogeneous 
samples (most samples), the detection limit remains undefined. NIST 
has conducted proficiency testing of laboratories on a national 
scale. Although each round is reported statistically with an 
average, control limits, etc., the results indicate a difficulty in 
establishing precision especially in the low concentration range. It 
is suspected that there is significant bias in the low range 
especially near 1%. EPA tried to remedy this by requiring a 
mandatory point counting scheme for samples less than 10%. The point 
counting procedure is tedious, and may introduce significant biases 
of its own. It has not been incorporated into this method.
    1.4.2. The precision and accuracy of the quantitation tests 
performed in this method are unknown. Concentrations are easier to 
determine in commercial products where asbestos was deliberately 
added because the amount is usually more than a few percent. An 
analyst's results can be ``calibrated'' against the known amounts 
added by the manufacturer. For geological samples, the degree of 
homogeneity affects the precision.
    1.4.3. The performance of the method is analyst dependent. The 
analyst must choose carefully and not necessarily randomly the 
portions for analysis to assure that detection of asbestos occurs 
when it is present. For this reason, the analyst must have adequate 
training in sample preparation, and experience in the location and 
identification of asbestos in samples. This is usually accomplished 
through substantial on-the-job training as well as formal education 
in mineralogy and microscopy.

1.5. Interferences

    Any material which is long, thin, and small enough to be viewed 
under the microscope can be considered an interference for asbestos. 
There are literally hundreds of interferences in workplaces. The 
techniques described in this method are normally sufficient to 
eliminate the interferences. An analyst's success in eliminating the 
interferences depends on proper training.
    Asbestos minerals belong to two mineral families: the 
serpentines and the amphiboles. In the serpentine family, the only 
common fibrous mineral is chrysotile. Occasionally, the mineral 
antigorite occurs in a fibril habit with morphology similar to the 
amphiboles. The amphibole minerals consist of a score of different 
minerals of which only five are regulated by federal standard: 
amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos and 
actinolite asbestos. These are the only amphibole minerals that have 
been commercially exploited for their fibrous properties; however, 
the rest can and do occur occasionally in asbestiform habit.
    In addition to the related mineral interferences, other minerals 
common in building material may present a problem for some 
microscopists: gypsum, anhydrite, brucite, quartz fibers, talc 
fibers or ribbons, wollastonite, perlite, attapulgite, etc. Other 
fibrous materials commonly present in workplaces are: fiberglass, 
mineral wool, ceramic wool, refractory ceramic fibers, kevlar, 
nomex, synthetic fibers, graphite or carbon fibers, cellulose (paper 
or wood) fibers, metal fibers, etc.
    Matrix embedding material can sometimes be a negative 
interference. The analyst may not be able to easily extract the 
fibers from the matrix in order to use the method. Where possible, 
remove the matrix before the analysis, taking careful note of the 
loss of weight. Some common matrix materials are: vinyl, rubber, 
tar, paint, plant fiber, cement, and epoxy. A further negative 
interference is that the asbestos fibers themselves may be either 
too small to be seen in Phase contrast Microscopy (PCM) or of a very 
low fibrous quality, having the appearance of plant fibers. The 
analyst's ability to deal with these materials increases with 
experience.

1.6. Uses and Occupational Exposure

    Asbestos is ubiquitous in the environment. More than 40% of the 
land area of the United States is composed of minerals which may 
contain asbestos. Fortunately, the actual formation of great amounts 
of asbestos is relatively rare. Nonetheless, there are locations in 
which environmental exposure can be severe such as in the Serpentine 
Hills of California.
    There are thousands of uses for asbestos in industry and the 
home. Asbestos abatement workers are the most current segment of the 
population to have occupational exposure to great amounts of 
asbestos. If the material is undisturbed, there is no exposure. 
Exposure occurs when the asbestos-containing material is abraded or 
otherwise disturbed during maintenance operations or some other 
activity. Approximately 95% of the asbestos in place in the United 
States is chrysotile.
    Amosite and crocidolite make up nearly all the difference. 
Tremolite and anthophyllite make up a very small percentage. 
Tremolite is found in extremely small amounts in certain chrysotile 
deposits. Actinolite exposure is probably greatest from 
environmental sources, but has been identified in vermiculite 
containing, sprayed-on insulating materials which may have been 
certified as asbestos-free.

1.7. Physical and Chemical Properties

    The nominal chemical compositions for the asbestos minerals were 
given in Section 1. Compared to cleavage fragments of the same 
minerals, asbestiform fibers possess a high tensile strength along 
the fiber axis. They are chemically inert, non- combustible, and 
heat resistant. Except for chrysotile, they are insoluble in 
Hydrochloric acid (HCl). Chrysotile is slightly soluble in HCl. 
Asbestos has high electrical resistance and good sound absorbing 
characteristics. It can be woven into cables, fabrics or other 
textiles, or matted into papers, felts, and mats.

1.8. Toxicology (This Section is for Information Only and Should Not Be 
Taken as OSHA Policy)

    Possible physiologic results of respiratory exposure to asbestos 
are mesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum, interstitial fibrosis, 
asbestosis, pneumoconiosis, or respiratory cancer. The possible 
consequences of asbestos exposure are detailed in the NIOSH Criteria 
Document or in the OSHA Asbestos Standards 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR 
1926.1101.

2. Sampling Procedure

2.1. Equipment for Sampling

    (a) Tube or cork borer sampling device
    (b) Knife
    (c) 20 mL scintillation vial or similar vial
    (d) Sealing encapsulant

2.2. Safety Precautions

    Asbestos is a known carcinogen. Take care when sampling. While 
in an asbestos-containing atmosphere, a properly selected and fit-
tested respirator should be worn. Take samples in a manner to cause 
the least amount of dust. Follow these general guidelines:
    (a) Do not make unnecessary dust.
    (b) Take only a small amount (1 to 2 g).
    (c) Tightly close the sample container.
    (d) Use encapsulant to seal the spot where the sample was taken, 
if necessary.

2.3. Sampling Procedure

    Samples of any suspect material should be taken from an 
inconspicuous place. Where the material is to remain, seal the 
sampling wound with an encapsulant to eliminate the potential for 
exposure from the sample site. Microscopy requires only a few 
milligrams of material. The amount that will fill a 20 mL 
scintillation vial is more than adequate. Be sure to collect samples 
from all layers and phases of material. If possible, make separate 
samples of each different phase of the material. This will aid in 
determining the actual hazard. DO NOT USE ENVELOPES, PLASTIC OR 
PAPER BAGS OF ANY KIND TO COLLECT SAMPLES. The use of plastic bags 
presents a contamination hazard to laboratory personnel and to other 
samples. When these containers are opened, a bellows effect blows 
fibers out of the container onto everything, including the person 
opening the container.
    If a cork-borer type sampler is available, push the tube through 
the material all the way, so that all layers of material are 
sampled. Some samplers are intended to be disposable. These should 
be capped and sent to the laboratory. If a non-disposable cork borer 
is used, empty the contents into a scintillation vial and send to 
the laboratory. Vigorously and completely clean the cork borer 
between samples.

2.4 Shipment

    Samples packed in glass vials must not touch or they might break 
in shipment.
    (a) Seal the samples with a sample seal (such as the OSHA 21) 
over the end to guard against tampering and to identify the sample.
    (b) Package the bulk samples in separate packages from the air 
samples. They may cross-contaminate each other and will invalidate 
the results of the air samples.
    (c) Include identifying paperwork with the samples, but not in 
contact with the suspected asbestos.
    (d) To maintain sample accountability, ship the samples by 
certified mail, overnight express, or hand carry them to the 
laboratory.

3. Analysis

    The analysis of asbestos samples can be divided into two major 
parts: sample preparation and microscopy. Because of the different 
asbestos uses that may be encountered by the analyst, each sample 
may need different preparation steps. The choices are outlined 
below. There are several different tests that are performed to 
identify the asbestos species and determine the percentage. They 
will be explained below.

3.1. Safety

    (a) Do not create unnecessary dust. Handle the samples in HEPA-
filter equipped hoods. If samples are received in bags, envelopes or 
other inappropriate container, open them only in a hood having a 
face velocity at or greater than 100 fpm. Transfer a small amount to 
a scintillation vial and only handle the smaller amount.
    (b) Open samples in a hood, never in the open lab area.
    (c) Index of refraction oils can be toxic. Take care not to get 
this material on the skin. Wash immediately with soap and water if 
this happens.
    (d) Samples that have been heated in the muffle furnace or the 
drying oven may be hot. Handle them with tongs until they are cool 
enough to handle.
    (e) Some of the solvents used, such as THF (tetrahydrofuran), 
are toxic and should only be handled in an appropriate fume hood and 
according to instructions given in the Material Safety Data Sheet 
(MSDS).

3.2. Equipment

    (a) Phase contrast microscope with 10x, 16x and 40x objectives, 
10x wide-field eyepieces, G-22 Walton-Beckett graticule, Whipple 
disk, polarizer, analyzer and first order red or gypsum plate, 100 
Watt illuminator, rotating position condenser with oversize phase 
rings, central stop dispersion objective, Kohler illumination and a 
rotating mechanical stage.
    (b) Stereo microscope with reflected light illumination, 
transmitted light illumination, polarizer, analyzer and first order 
red or gypsum plate, and rotating stage.
    (c) Negative pressure hood for the stereo microscope
    (d) Muffle furnace capable of 600  deg.C
    (e) Drying oven capable of 50--150  deg.C
    (f) Aluminum specimen pans
    (g) Tongs for handling samples in the furnace
    (h) High dispersion index of refraction oils (Special for 
dispersion staining.)

    n = 1.550
    n = 1.585
    n = 1.590
    n = 1.605
    n = 1.620
    n = 1.670
    n = 1.680
    n = 1.690

    (i) A set of index of refraction oils from about n=1.350 to 
n=2.000 in n=0.005 increments. (Standard for Becke line analysis.)
    (j) Glass slides with painted or frosted ends 1 x 3 inches 1mm 
thick, precleaned.
    (k) Cover Slips 22 x 22 mm, #1\1/2\
    (l) Paper clips or dissection needles
    (m) Hand grinder
    (n) Scalpel with both #10 and #11 blades
    (o) 0.1 molar HCl
    (p) Decalcifying solution (Baxter Scientific Products) 
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid,

Tetrasodium
0.7 g/l
Sodium Potassium Tartrate
8.0 mg/liter
Hydrochloric Acid
99.2 g/liter
Sodium Tartrate
0.14 g/liter

    (q) Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
    (r) Hotplate capable of 60  deg.C
    (s) Balance
    (t) Hacksaw blade
    (u) Ruby mortar and pestle

3.3. Sample Pre-Preparation

    Sample preparation begins with pre-preparation which may include 
chemical reduction of the matrix, heating the sample to dryness or 
heating in the muffle furnace. The end result is a sample which has 
been reduced to a powder that is sufficiently fine to fit under the 
cover slip. Analyze different phases of samples separately, e.g., 
tile and the tile mastic should be analyzed separately as the mastic 
may contain asbestos while the tile may not.

(a) Wet samples 

    Samples with a high water content will not give the proper 
dispersion colors and must be dried prior to sample mounting. Remove 
the lid of the scintillation vial, place the bottle in the drying 
oven and heat at 100  deg.C to dryness (usually about 2 h). Samples 
which are not submitted to the lab in glass must be removed and 
placed in glass vials or aluminum weighing pans before placing them 
in the drying oven.

(b) Samples With Organic Interference--Muffle Furnace 

    These may include samples with tar as a matrix, vinyl asbestos 
tile, or any other organic that can be reduced by heating. Remove the 
sample from the vial and weigh in a balance to determine the weight of 
the submitted portion. Place the sample in a muffle furnace at 500 
deg.C for 1 to 2 h or until all obvious organic material has been 
removed. Retrieve, cool and weigh again to determine the weight loss on 
ignition. This is necessary to determine the asbestos content of the 
submitted sample, because the analyst will be looking at a reduced 
sample.

    Note: Heating above 600  deg.C will cause the sample to undergo 
a structural change which, given sufficient time, will convert the 
chrysotile to forsterite. Heating even at lower temperatures for 1 
to 2 h may have a measurable effect on the optical properties of the 
minerals. If the analyst is unsure of what to expect, a sample of 
standard asbestos should be heated to the same temperature for the 
same length of time so that it can be examined for the proper 
interpretation.

(c) Samples With Organic Interference--THF 

    Vinyl asbestos tile is the most common material treated with 
this solvent, although, substances containing tar will sometimes 
yield to this treatment. Select a portion of the material and then 
grind it up if possible. Weigh the sample and place it in a test 
tube. Add sufficient THF to dissolve the organic matrix. This is 
usually about 4 to 5 mL. Remember, THF is highly flammable. Filter 
the remaining material through a tared silver membrane, dry and 
weigh to determine how much is left after the solvent extraction. 
Further process the sample to remove carbonate or mount directly.

(d) Samples With Carbonate Interference 

    Carbonate material is often found on fibers and sometimes must 
be removed in order to perform dispersion microscopy. Weigh out a 
portion of the material and place it in a test tube. Add a 
sufficient amount of 0.1 M HCl or decalcifying solution in the tube 
to react all the carbonate as evidenced by gas formation; i.e., when 
the gas bubbles stop, add a little more solution. If no more gas 
forms, the reaction is complete. Filter the material out through a 
tared silver membrane, dry and weigh to determine the weight lost.

3.4. Sample Preparation

    Samples must be prepared so that accurate determination can be 
made of the asbestos type and amount present. The following steps 
are carried out in the low-flow hood (a low-flow hood has less than 
50 fpm flow):
    (1) If the sample has large lumps, is hard, or cannot be made to 
lie under a cover slip, the grain size must be reduced. Place a 
small amount between two slides and grind the material between them 
or grind a small amount in a clean mortar and pestle. The choice of 
whether to use an alumina, ruby, or diamond mortar depends on the 
hardness of the material. Impact damage can alter the asbestos 
mineral if too much mechanical shock occurs. (Freezer mills can 
completely destroy the observable crystallinity of asbestos and 
should not be used). For some samples, a portion of material can be 
shaved off with a scalpel, ground off with a hand grinder or hack 
saw blade.
    The preparation tools should either be disposable or cleaned 
thoroughly. Use vigorous scrubbing to loosen the fibers during the 
washing. Rinse the implements with copious amounts of water and air-
dry in a dust-free environment.
    (2) If the sample is powder or has been reduced as in (1) above, 
it is ready to mount. Place a glass slide on a piece of optical 
tissue and write the identification on the painted or frosted end. 
Place two drops of index of refraction medium n=1.550 on the slide. 
(The medium n=1.550 is chosen because it is the matching index for 
chrysotile. Dip the end of a clean paper-clip or dissecting needle 
into the droplet of refraction medium on the slide to moisten it. 
Then dip the probe into the powder sample. Transfer what sticks on 
the probe to the slide. The material on the end of the probe should 
have a diameter of about 3 mm for a good mount. If the material is 
very fine, less sample may be appropriate. For non-powder samples 
such as fiber mats, forceps should be used to transfer a small 
amount of material to the slide. Stir the material in the medium on 
the slide, spreading it out and making the preparation as uniform as 
possible. Place a cover-slip on the preparation by gently lowering 
onto the slide and allowing it to fall ``trapdoor'' fashion on the 
preparation to push out any bubbles. Press gently on the cover slip 
to even out the distribution of particulate on the slide. If there 
is insufficient mounting oil on the slide, one or two drops may be 
placed near the edge of the coverslip on the slide. Capillary action 
will draw the necessary amount of liquid into the preparation. 
Remove excess oil with the point of a laboratory wiper.
    Treat at least two different areas of each phase in this 
fashion. Choose representative areas of the sample. It may be useful 
to select particular areas or fibers for analysis. This is useful to 
identify asbestos in severely inhomogeneous samples.
    When it is determined that amphiboles may be present, repeat the 
above process using the appropriate high-dispersion oils until an 
identification is made or all six asbestos minerals have been ruled 
out. Note that percent determination must be done in the index 
medium 1.550 because amphiboles tend to disappear in their matching 
mediums.

3.5. Analytical Procedure

    Note: This method presumes some knowledge of mineralogy and 
optical petrography.

    The analysis consists of three parts: The determination of 
whether there is asbestos present, what type is present and the 
determination of how much is present. The general flow of the 
analysis is:
    (1) Gross examination.
    (2) Examination under polarized light on the stereo microscope.
    (3) Examination by phase-polar illumination on the compound 
phase microscope.
    (4) Determination of species by dispersion stain. Examination by 
Becke line analysis may also be used; however, this is usually more 
cumbersome for asbestos determination.
    (5) Difficult samples may need to be analyzed by SEM or TEM, or 
the results from those techniques combined with light microscopy for 
a definitive identification. Identification of a particle as 
asbestos requires that it be asbestiform. Description of particles 
should follow the suggestion of Campbell. (Figure 1)

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
TR10AU94.007



BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    For the purpose of regulation, the mineral must be one of the 
six minerals covered and must be in the asbestos growth habit. Large 
specimen samples of asbestos generally have the gross appearance of 
wood. Fibers are easily parted from it. Asbestos fibers are very 
long compared with their widths. The fibers have a very high tensile 
strength as demonstrated by bending without breaking. Asbestos 
fibers exist in bundles that are easily parted, show longitudinal 
fine structure and may be tufted at the ends showing ``bundle of 
sticks'' morphology. In the microscope some of these properties may 
not be observable. Amphiboles do not always show striations along 
their length even when they are asbestos. Neither will they always 
show tufting. They generally do not show a curved nature except for 
very long fibers. Asbestos and asbestiform minerals are usually 
characterized in groups by extremely high aspect ratios (greater 
than 100:1). While aspect ratio analysis is useful for 
characterizing populations of fibers, it cannot be used to identify 
individual fibers of intermediate to short aspect ratio. Observation 
of many fibers is often necessary to determine whether a sample 
consists of ``cleavage fragments'' or of asbestos fibers.
    Most cleavage fragments of the asbestos minerals are easily 
distinguishable from true asbestos fibers. This is because true 
cleavage fragments usually have larger diameters than 1 m. 
Internal structure of particles larger than this usually shows them 
to have no internal fibrillar structure. In addition, cleavage 
fragments of the monoclinic amphiboles show inclined extinction 
under crossed polars with no compensator. Asbestos fibers usually 
show extinction at zero degrees or ambiguous extinction if any at 
all. Morphologically, the larger cleavage fragments are obvious by 
their blunt or stepped ends showing prismatic habit. Also, they tend 
to be acicular rather than filiform.
    Where the particles are less than 1 m in diameter and 
have an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 3:1, it is recommended 
that the sample be analyzed by SEM or TEM if there is any question 
whether the fibers are cleavage fragments or asbestiform particles.
    Care must be taken when analyzing by electron microscopy because 
the interferences are different from those in light microscopy and 
may structurally be very similar to asbestos. The classic 
interference is between anthophyllite and biopyribole or 
intermediate fiber. Use the same morphological clues for electron 
microscopy as are used for light microscopy, e.g. fibril splitting, 
internal longitudinal striation, fraying, curvature, etc.
    (1) Gross examination:
    Examine the sample, preferably in the glass vial. Determine the 
presence of any obvious fibrous component. Estimate a percentage 
based on previous experience and current observation. Determine 
whether any pre- preparation is necessary. Determine the number of 
phases present. This step may be carried out or augmented by 
observation at 6 to 40 x  under a stereo microscope.
    (2) After performing any necessary pre-preparation, prepare 
slides of each phase as described above. Two preparations of the 
same phase in the same index medium can be made side-by-side on the 
same glass for convenience. Examine with the polarizing stereo 
microscope. Estimate the percentage of asbestos based on the amount 
of birefringent fiber present.
    (3) Examine the slides on the phase-polar microscopes at 
magnifications of 160 and 400 x . Note the morphology of the fibers. 
Long, thin, very straight fibers with little curvature are 
indicative of fibers from the amphibole family. Curved, wavy fibers 
are usually indicative of chrysotile. Estimate the percentage of 
asbestos on the phase-polar microscope under conditions of crossed 
polars and a gypsum plate. Fibers smaller than 1.0 m in 
thickness must be identified by inference to the presence of larger, 
identifiable fibers and morphology. If no larger fibers are visible, 
electron microscopy should be performed. At this point, only a 
tentative identification can be made. Full identification must be 
made with dispersion microscopy. Details of the tests are included 
in the appendices.
    (4) Once fibers have been determined to be present, they must be 
identified. Adjust the microscope for dispersion mode and observe 
the fibers. The microscope has a rotating stage, one polarizing 
element, and a system for generating dark-field dispersion 
microscopy (see Section 4.6. of this appendix). Align a fiber with 
its length parallel to the polarizer and note the color of the Becke 
lines. Rotate the stage to bring the fiber length perpendicular to 
the polarizer and note the color. Repeat this process for every 
fiber or fiber bundle examined. The colors must be consistent with 
the colors generated by standard asbestos reference materials for a 
positive identification. In n=1.550, amphiboles will generally show 
a yellow to straw-yellow color indicating that the fiber indices of 
refraction are higher than the liquid. If long, thin fibers are 
noted and the colors are yellow, prepare further slides as above in 
the suggested matching liquids listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Type of asbestos                    Index of refraction   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysotile..................................  n=1.550.                  
Amosite.....................................  n=1.670 r 1.680.          
Crocidolite.................................  n=1.690.                  
Anthophyllite...............................  n=1.605 nd 1.620.         
Tremolite...................................  n=1.605 and 1.620.        
Actinolite..................................  n=1.620.                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where more than one liquid is suggested, the first is preferred; 
however, in some cases this liquid will not give good dispersion 
color. Take care to avoid interferences in the other liquid; e.g., 
wollastonite in n=1.620 will give the same colors as tremolite. In 
n=1.605 wollastonite will appear yellow in all directions. 
Wollastonite may be determined under crossed polars as it will 
change from blue to yellow as it is rotated along its fiber axis by 
tapping on the cover slip. Asbestos minerals will not change in this 
way.
    Determination of the angle of extinction may, when present, aid 
in the determination of anthophyllite from tremolite. True asbestos 
fibers usually have 0 deg. extinction or ambiguous extinction, while 
cleavage fragments have more definite extinction.
    Continue analysis until both preparations have been examined and 
all present species of asbestos are identified. If there are no 
fibers present, or there is less than 0.1% present, end the analysis 
with the minimum number of slides (2).
    (5) Some fibers have a coating on them which makes dispersion 
microscopy very difficult or impossible. Becke line analysis or 
electron microscopy may be performed in those cases. Determine the 
percentage by light microscopy. TEM analysis tends to overestimate 
the actual percentage present.
    (6) Percentage determination is an estimate of occluded area, 
tempered by gross observation. Gross observation information is used 
to make sure that the high magnification microscopy does not greatly 
over- or under- estimate the amount of fiber present. This part of 
the analysis requires a great deal of experience. Satisfactory 
models for asbestos content analysis have not yet been developed, 
although some models based on metallurgical grain-size determination 
have found some utility. Estimation is more easily handled in 
situations where the grain sizes visible at about 160 x  are about 
the same and the sample is relatively homogeneous.
    View all of the area under the cover slip to make the percentage 
determination. View the fields while moving the stage, paying 
attention to the clumps of material. These are not usually the best 
areas to perform dispersion microscopy because of the interference 
from other materials. But, they are the areas most likely to 
represent the accurate percentage in the sample. Small amounts of 
asbestos require slower scanning and more frequent analysis of 
individual fields.
    Report the area occluded by asbestos as the concentration. This 
estimate does not generally take into consideration the difference 
in density of the different species present in the sample. For most 
samples this is adequate. Simulation studies with similar materials 
must be carried out to apply microvisual estimation for that purpose 
and is beyond the scope of this procedure.
    (7) Where successive concentrations have been made by chemical 
or physical means, the amount reported is the percentage of the 
material in the ``as submitted'' or original state. The percentage 
determined by microscopy is multiplied by the fractions remaining 
after pre-preparation steps to give the percentage in the original 
sample. For example:

    Step 1. 60% remains after heating at 550  deg.C for 1 h. Step 2. 
30% of the residue of step 1 remains after dissolution of carbonate 
in 0.1 m HCl.
    Step 3. Microvisual estimation determines that 5% of the sample 
is chrysotile asbestos.

    The reported result is:

    R=(Microvisual result in percent) x (Fraction remaining after 
step 2) x (Fraction remaining of original sample after step 1)
    R=(5) x (.30) x (.60)=0.9%

    (8) Report the percent and type of asbestos present. For samples 
where asbestos was identified, but is less than 1.0%, report 
``Asbestos present, less than 1.0%.'' There must have been at least 
two observed fibers or fiber bundles in the two preparations to be 
reported as present. For samples where asbestos was not seen, report 
as ``None Detected.''

Auxiliary Information

    Because of the subjective nature of asbestos analysis, certain 
concepts and procedures need to be discussed in more depth. This 
information will help the analyst understand why some of the 
procedures are carried out the way they are.

4.1. Light

    Light is electromagnetic energy. It travels from its source in 
packets called quanta. It is instructive to consider light as a 
plane wave. The light has a direction of travel. Perpendicular to 
this and mutually perpendicular to each other, are two vector 
components. One is the magnetic vector and the other is the electric 
vector. We shall only be concerned with the electric vector. In this 
description, the interaction of the vector and the mineral will 
describe all the observable phenomena. From a light source such a 
microscope illuminator, light travels in all different direction 
from the filament.
    In any given direction away from the filament, the electric 
vector is perpendicular to the direction of travel of a light ray. 
While perpendicular, its orientation is random about the travel 
axis. If the electric vectors from all the light rays were lined up 
by passing the light through a filter that would only let light rays 
with electric vectors oriented in one direction pass, the light 
would then be POLARIZED.
    Polarized light interacts with matter in the direction of the 
electric vector. This is the polarization direction. Using this 
property it is possible to use polarized light to probe different 
materials and identify them by how they interact with light.
    The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant at about 
2.99 x 10\8\ m/s. When light travels in different materials such as 
air, water, minerals or oil, it does not travel at this speed. It 
travels slower. This slowing is a function of both the material 
through which the light is traveling and the wavelength or frequency 
of the light. In general, the more dense the material, the slower 
the light travels. Also, generally, the higher the frequency, the 
slower the light will travel. The ratio of the speed of light in a 
vacuum to that in a material is called the index of refraction (n). 
It is usually measured at 589 nm (the sodium D line). If white light 
(light containing all the visible wavelengths) travels through a 
material, rays of longer wavelengths will travel faster than those 
of shorter wavelengths, this separation is called dispersion. 
Dispersion is used as an identifier of materials as described in 
Section 4.6.

4.2. Material Properties

    Materials are either amorphous or crystalline. The difference 
between these two descriptions depends on the positions of the atoms 
in them. The atoms in amorphous materials are randomly arranged with 
no long range order. An example of an amorphous material is glass. 
The atoms in crystalline materials, on the other hand, are in 
regular arrays and have long range order. Most of the atoms can be 
found in highly predictable locations. Examples of crystalline 
material are salt, gold, and the asbestos minerals.
    It is beyond the scope of this method to describe the different 
types of crystalline materials that can be found, or the full 
description of the classes into which they can fall. However, some 
general crystallography is provided below to give a foundation to 
the procedures described.
    With the exception of anthophyllite, all the asbestos minerals 
belong to the monoclinic crystal type. The unit cell is the basic 
repeating unit of the crystal and for monoclinic crystals can be 
described as having three unequal sides, two 90 deg. angles and one 
angle not equal to 90 deg.. The orthorhombic group, of which 
anthophyllite is a member has three unequal sides and three 90 deg. 
angles. The unequal sides are a consequence of the complexity of 
fitting the different atoms into the unit cell. Although the atoms 
are in a regular array, that array is not symmetrical in all 
directions. There is long range order in the three major directions 
of the crystal. However, the order is different in each of the three 
directions. This has the effect that the index of refraction is 
different in each of the three directions. Using polarized light, we 
can investigate the index of refraction in each of the directions 
and identify the mineral or material under investigation. The 
indices , , and  are used to identify the 
lowest, middle, and highest index of refraction respectively. The x 
direction, associated with  is called the fast axis. 
Conversely, the z direction is associated with  and is the 
slow direction. Crocidolite has  along the fiber length 
making it ``length-fast''. The remainder of the asbestos minerals 
have the  axis along the fiber length. They are called 
``length-slow''. This orientation to fiber length is used to aid in 
the identification of asbestos.

4.3. Polarized Light Technique

    Polarized light microscopy as described in this section uses the 
phase-polar microscope described in Section 3.2. A phase contrast 
microscope is fitted with two polarizing elements, one below and one 
above the sample. The polarizers have their polarization directions 
at right angles to each other. Depending on the tests performed, 
there may be a compensator between these two polarizing elements. A 
compensator is a piece of mineral with known properties that 
``compensates'' for some deficiency in the optical train. Light 
emerging from a polarizing element has its electric vector pointing 
in the polarization direction of the element. The light will not be 
subsequently transmitted through a second element set at a right 
angle to the first element. Unless the light is altered as it passes 
from one element to the other, there is no transmission of light.

4.4. Angle of Extinction

    Crystals which have different crystal regularity in two or three 
main directions are said to be anisotropic. They have a different 
index of refraction in each of the main directions. When such a 
crystal is inserted between the crossed polars, the field of view is 
no longer dark but shows the crystal in color. The color depends on 
the properties of the crystal. The light acts as if it travels 
through the crystal along the optical axes. If a crystal optical 
axis were lined up along one of the polarizing directions (either 
the polarizer or the analyzer) the light would appear to travel only 
in that direction, and it would blink out or go dark. The difference 
in degrees between the fiber direction and the angle at which it 
blinks out is called the angle of extinction. When this angle can be 
measured, it is useful in identifying the mineral. The procedure for 
measuring the angle of extinction is to first identify the 
polarization direction in the microscope. A commercial alignment 
slide can be used to establish the polarization directions or use 
anthophyllite or another suitable mineral. This mineral has a zero 
degree angle of extinction and will go dark to extinction as it 
aligns with the polarization directions. When a fiber of 
anthophyllite has gone to extinction, align the eyepiece reticle or 
graticule with the fiber so that there is a visual cue as to the 
direction of polarization in the field of view. Tape or otherwise 
secure the eyepiece in this position so it will not shift.
    After the polarization direction has been identified in the 
field of view, move the particle of interest to the center of the 
field of view and align it with the polarization direction. For 
fibers, align the fiber along this direction. Note the angular 
reading of the rotating stage. Looking at the particle, rotate the 
stage until the fiber goes dark or ``blinks out''. Again note the 
reading of the stage. The difference in the first reading and the 
second is an angle of extinction.
    The angle measured may vary as the orientation of the fiber 
changes about its long axis. Tables of mineralogical data usually 
report the maximum angle of extinction. Asbestos forming minerals, 
when they exhibit an angle of extinction, usually do show an angle 
of extinction close to the reported maximum, or as appropriate 
depending on the substitution chemistry.

4.5. Crossed Polars with Compensator

    When the optical axes of a crystal are not lined up along one of 
the polarizing directions (either the polarizer or the analyzer) 
part of the light travels along one axis and part travels along the 
other visible axis. This is characteristic of birefringent 
materials.
    The color depends on the difference of the two visible indices 
of refraction and the thickness of the crystal. The maximum 
difference available is the difference between the  and the 
 axes. This maximum difference is usually tabulated as the 
birefringence of the crystal.
    For this test, align the fiber at 45 deg. to the polarization 
directions in order to maximize the contribution to each of the 
optical axes. The colors seen are called retardation colors. They 
arise from the recombination of light which has traveled through the 
two separate directions of the crystal. One of the rays is retarded 
behind the other since the light in that direction travels slower. 
On recombination, some of the colors which make up white light are 
enhanced by constructive interference and some are suppressed by 
destructive interference. The result is a color dependent on the 
difference between the indices and the thickness of the crystal. The 
proper colors, thicknesses, and retardations are shown on a Michel-
Levy chart. The three items, retardation, thickness and 
birefringence are related by the following relationship:

R=t(n--n)
R=retardation, t=crystal thickness in m, and
n,=indices of refraction.

    Examination of the equation for asbestos minerals reveals that 
the visible colors for almost all common asbestos minerals and fiber 
sizes are shades of gray and black. The eye is relatively poor at 
discriminating different shades of gray. It is very good at 
discriminating different colors. In order to compensate for the low 
retardation, a compensator is added to the light train between the 
polarization elements. The compensator used for this test is a 
gypsum plate of known thickness and birefringence. Such a 
compensator when oriented at 45 deg. to the polarizer direction, 
provides a retardation of 530 nm of the 530 nm wavelength color. 
This enhances the red color and gives the background a 
characteristic red to red-magenta color. If this ``full-wave'' 
compensator is in place when the asbestos preparation is inserted 
into the light train, the colors seen on the fibers are quite 
different. Gypsum, like asbestos has a fast axis and a slow axis. 
When a fiber is aligned with its fast axis in the same direction as 
the fast axis of the gypsum plate, the ray vibrating in the slow 
direction is retarded by both the asbestos and the gypsum. This 
results in a higher retardation than would be present for either of 
the two minerals. The color seen is a second order blue. When the 
fiber is rotated 90 deg. using the rotating stage, the slow 
direction of the fiber is now aligned with the fast direction of the 
gypsum and the fast direction of the fiber is aligned with the slow 
direction of the gypsum. Thus, one ray vibrates faster in the fast 
direction of the gypsum, and slower in the slow direction of the 
fiber; the other ray will vibrate slower in the slow direction of 
the gypsum and faster in the fast direction of the fiber. In this 
case, the effect is subtractive and the color seen is a first order 
yellow. As long as the fiber thickness does not add appreciably to 
the color, the same basic colors will be seen for all asbestos types 
except crocidolite. In crocidolite the colors will be weaker, may be 
in the opposite directions, and will be altered by the blue 
absorption color natural to crocidolite. Hundreds of other materials 
will give the same colors as asbestos, and therefore, this test is 
not definitive for asbestos. The test is useful in discriminating 
against fiberglass or other amorphous fibers such as some synthetic 
fibers. Certain synthetic fibers will show retardation colors 
different than asbestos; however, there are some forms of 
polyethylene and aramid which will show morphology and retardation 
colors similar to asbestos minerals. This test must be supplemented 
with a positive identification test when birefringent fibers are 
present which can not be excluded by morphology. This test is 
relatively ineffective for use on fibers less than 1 m in 
diameter. For positive confirmation TEM or SEM should be used if no 
larger bundles or fibers are visible.

4.6. Dispersion Staining

    Dispersion microscopy or dispersion staining is the method of 
choice for the identification of asbestos in bulk materials. Becke 
line analysis is used by some laboratories and yields the same 
results as does dispersion staining for asbestos and can be used in 
lieu of dispersion staining. Dispersion staining is performed on the 
same platform as the phase-polar analysis with the analyzer and 
compensator removed. One polarizing element remains to define the 
direction of the light so that the different indices of refraction 
of the fibers may be separately determined. Dispersion microscopy is 
a dark-field technique when used for asbestos. Particles are imaged 
with scattered light. Light which is unscattered is blocked from 
reaching the eye either by the back field image mask in a McCrone 
objective or a back field image mask in the phase condenser. The 
most convenient method is to use the rotating phase condenser to 
move an oversized phase ring into place. The ideal size for this 
ring is for the central disk to be just larger than the objective 
entry aperture as viewed in the back focal plane. The larger the 
disk, the less scattered light reaches the eye. This will have the 
effect of diminishing the intensity of dispersion color and will 
shift the actual color seen. The colors seen vary even on 
microscopes from the same manufacturer. This is due to the different 
bands of wavelength exclusion by different mask sizes. The mask may 
either reside in the condenser or in the objective back focal plane. 
It is imperative that the analyst determine by experimentation with 
asbestos standards what the appropriate colors should be for each 
asbestos type. The colors depend also on the temperature of the 
preparation and the exact chemistry of the asbestos. Therefore, some 
slight differences from the standards should be allowed. This is not 
a serious problem for commercial asbestos uses. This technique is 
used for identification of the indices of refraction for fibers by 
recognition of color. There is no direct numerical readout of the 
index of refraction. Correlation of color to actual index of 
refraction is possible by referral to published conversion tables. 
This is not necessary for the analysis of asbestos. Recognition of 
appropriate colors along with the proper morphology are deemed 
sufficient to identify the commercial asbestos minerals. Other 
techniques including SEM, TEM, and XRD may be required to provide 
additional information in order to identify other types of asbestos.
    Make a preparation in the suspected matching high dispersion 
oil, e.g., n=1.550 for chrysotile. Perform the preliminary tests to 
determine whether the fibers are birefringent or not. Take note of 
the morphological character. Wavy fibers are indicative of 
chrysotile while long, straight, thin, frayed fibers are indicative 
of amphibole asbestos. This can aid in the selection of the 
appropriate matching oil. The microscope is set up and the 
polarization direction is noted as in Section 4.4. Align a fiber 
with the polarization direction. Note the color. This is the color 
parallel to the polarizer. Then rotate the fiber rotating the stage 
90 deg. so that the polarization direction is across the fiber. This 
is the perpendicular position. Again note the color. Both colors 
must be consistent with standard asbestos minerals in the correct 
direction for a positive identification of asbestos. If only one of 
the colors is correct while the other is not, the identification is 
not positive. If the colors in both directions are bluish-white, the 
analyst has chosen a matching index oil which is higher than the 
correct matching oil, e.g. the analyst has used n=1.620 where 
chrysotile is present. The next lower oil (Section 3.5.) should be 
used to prepare another specimen. If the color in both directions is 
yellow-white to straw-yellow-white, this indicates that the index of 
the oil is lower than the index of the fiber, e.g. the preparation 
is in n=1.550 while anthophyllite is present. Select the next higher 
oil (Section 3.5.) and prepare another slide. Continue in this 
fashion until a positive identification of all asbestos species 
present has been made or all possible asbestos species have been 
ruled out by negative results in this test. Certain plant fibers can 
have similar dispersion colors as asbestos. Take care to note and 
evaluate the morphology of the fibers or remove the plant fibers in 
pre- preparation. Coating material on the fibers such as carbonate 
or vinyl may destroy the dispersion color. Usually, there will be 
some outcropping of fiber which will show the colors sufficient for 
identification. When this is not the case, treat the sample as 
described in Section 3.3. and then perform dispersion staining. Some 
samples will yield to Becke line analysis if they are coated or 
electron microscopy can be used for identification.

5. References

    5.1. Crane, D.T., Asbestos in Air, OSHA method ID160, Revised 
November 1992.
    5.2. Ford, W.E., Dana's Textbook of Mineralogy; Fourth Ed.; John 
Wiley and Son, New York, 1950, p. vii.
    5.3. Selikoff,.I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic 
Press, New York, 1978, pp. 3,20.
    5.4. Women Inspectors of Factories. Annual Report for 1898, H.M. 
Statistical Office, London, p. 170 (1898).
    5.5. Selikoff, I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic 
Press, New York, 1978, pp. 26,30.
    5.6. Campbell, W.J., et al, Selected Silicate Minerals and Their 
Asbestiform Varieties, United States Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 8751, 1977.
    5.7. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 
29 CFR 1926.58.
    5.8. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 
Asbestos NESHAP Revision, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 224, 20 
November 1990, p. 48410.
    5.9. Ross, M. The Asbestos Minerals: Definitions, Description, 
Modes of Formation, Physical and Chemical Properties and Health Risk 
to the Mining Community, Nation Bureau of Standards Special 
Publication, Washington, D.C., 1977.
    5.10. Lilis, R., Fibrous Zeolites and Endemic Mesothelioma in 
Cappadocia, Turkey, J. Occ Medicine, 1981, 23,(8),548-550.
    5.11. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos--1972, U.S. Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for 
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health, HSM-72-10267.
    5.12. Campbell, W.J., et al, Relationship of Mineral Habit to 
Size Characteristics for Tremolite Fragments and Fibers, United 
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Information 
Circular 8367, 1979.
    5.13. Mefford, D., DCM Laboratory, Denver, private 
communication, July 1987.
    5.14. Deer, W.A., Howie, R.A., Zussman, J., Rock Forming 
Minerals, Longman, Thetford, UK, 1974.
    5.15. Kerr, P.F., Optical Mineralogy; Third Ed. McGraw-Hill, New 
York, 1959.
    5.16. Veblen, D.R. (Ed.), Amphiboles and Other Hydrous 
Pyriboles--Mineralogy, Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol 9A, Michigan, 
1982, pp 1-102.
    5.17. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in the 
Analysis of Asbestos and Quartz, ACS Symposium Series, No. 120, 
Analytical Techniques in Occupational Health Chemistry, 1979.
    5.18. Polarized Light Microscopy, McCrone Research Institute, 
Chicago, 1976.
    5.19. Asbestos Identification, McCrone Research Institute, G & G 
printers, Chicago, 1987.
    5.20. McCrone, W.C., Calculation of Refractive Indices from 
Dispersion Staining Data, The Microscope, No 37, Chicago, 1989.
    5.21. Levadie, B. (Ed.), Asbestos and Other Health Related 
Silicates, ASTM Technical Publication 834, ASTM, Philadelphia 1982.
    5.22. Steel, E. and Wylie, A., Riordan, P.H. (Ed.), 
Mineralogical Characteristics of Asbestos, Geology of Asbestos 
Deposits, pp. 93-101, SME-AIME, 1981.
    5.23. Zussman, J., The Mineralogy of Asbestos, Asbestos: 
Properties, Applications and Hazards, pp. 45-67 Wiley, 1979.
Shipyards

PART 1915--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation of 29 CFR part 1915 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation 
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); sec. 4 of the Administrative 
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as 
applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

    2. Section 1915.1001 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1915.1001  Asbestos.

    (a) Scope and application. This section regulates asbestos exposure 
in all shipyard employment work as defined in 29 CFR 1915, including 
but not limited to the following:
    (1) Demolition or salvage of structures, vessels, and vessel 
sections where asbestos is present;
    (2) Removal or encapsulation of materials containing asbestos;
    (3) Construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, or renovation of 
vessels, vessel sections, structures, substrates, or portions thereof, 
that contain asbestos;
    (4) Installation of products containing asbestos;
    (5) Asbestos spill/emergency cleanup; and
    (6) Transportation, disposal, storage, containment of and 
housekeeping activities involving asbestos or products containing 
asbestos, on the site or location at which construction activities are 
performed.
    (7) Coverage under this standard shall be based on the nature of 
the work operation involving asbestos exposure.
    (b) Definitions.
    Aggressive method means removal or disturbance of building/vessel 
materials by sanding, abrading, grinding, or other method that breaks, 
crumbles, or otherwise disintegrates intact ACM.
    Amended water means water to which surfactant (wetting agent) has 
been added to increase the ability of the liquid to penetrate ACM.
    Asbestos includes chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite 
asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and any of these 
minerals that has been chemically treated and/or altered. For purposes 
of this standard, ``asbestos'' includes PACM, as defined below.
    Asbestos-containing material, (ACM) means any material containing 
more than one percent asbestos.
    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.
    Authorized person means any person authorized by the employer and 
required by work duties to be present in regulated areas.
    Building/facility owner is the legal entity, including a lessee, 
which exercises control over management and record keeping functions 
relating to a building and/or facility in which activities covered by 
this standard take place.
    Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) means one certified in the 
comprehensive practice of industrial hygiene by the American Board of 
Industrial Hygiene.
    Class I asbestos work means activities involving the removal of 
thermal system insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM.
    Class II asbestos work means activities involving the removal of 
ACM which is neither TSI or surfacing ACM. This includes, but is not 
limited to, the removal of asbestos-containing wallboard, floor tile 
and sheeting, roofing and siding shingles, and construction mastics.
    Class III asbestos work means repair and maintenance operations, 
where ``ACM'', including TSI and surfacing ACM and PACM, may be 
disturbed.
    Class IV asbestos work means maintenance and custodial activities 
during which employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up 
waste and debris containing ACM and PACM.
    Clean room means an uncontaminated room having facilities for the 
storage of employees' street clothing and uncontaminated materials and 
equipment.
    Closely resemble means that the major workplace conditions which 
have contributed to the levels of historic asbestos exposure, are no 
more protective than conditions of the current workplace.
    Competent person see ``Qualified person''
    Critical barrier means one or more layers of plastic sealed over 
all openings into a work area or any other physical barrier sufficient 
to prevent airborne asbestos in a work area from migrating to an 
adjacent area.
    Decontamination area means an enclosed area adjacent and connected 
to the regulated area and consisting of an equipment room, shower area, 
and clean room, which is used for the decontamination of workers, 
materials, and equipment that are contaminated with asbestos.
    Demolition means the wrecking or taking out of any load-supporting 
structural member and any related razing, removing, or stripping of 
asbestos products.
    Director means the Director, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or 
designee.
    Disturbance means contact which releases fibers from ACM or PACM or 
debris containing ACM or PACM. This term includes activities that 
disrupt the matrix of ACM or PACM, render ACM or PACM friable, or 
generate visible debris. Disturbance includes cutting away small 
amounts of ACM and PACM, no greater than the amount which can be 
contained in one standard sized glove bag or waste bag, in order to 
access a building or vessel component. In no event shall the amount of 
ACM or PACM so disturbed exceed that which can be contained in one 
glove bag or waste bag which shall not exceed 60 inches in length and 
width.
    Employee exposure means that exposure to airborne asbestos that 
would occur if the employee were not using respiratory protective 
equipment.
    Equipment room (change room) means a contaminated room located 
within the decontamination area that is supplied with impermeable bags 
or containers for the disposal of contaminated protective clothing and 
equipment.
    Fiber means a particulate form of asbestos, 5 micrometers or 
longer, with a length-to-diameter ratio of at least 3 to 1.
    Glovebag means an impervious plastic bag-like enclosure affixed 
around an asbestos-containing material, with glove-like appendages 
through which material and tools may be handled.
    High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter means a filter 
capable of trapping and retaining at least 99.97 percent of all mono-
dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers in diameter.
    Homogeneous area means an area of surfacing material or thermal 
system insulation that is uniform in color and texture.
    Industrial hygienist means a professional qualified by education, 
training, and experience to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and develop 
controls for occupational health hazards.
    Intact means that the ACM has not crumbled, been pulverized, or 
otherwise deteriorated so that it is no longer likely to be bound with 
its matrix.
    Modification for purposes of paragraph (g)(6)(2), means a changed 
or altered procedure, material or component of a control system, which 
replaces a procedure, material or component of a required system. 
Omitting a procedure or component, or reducing or diminishing the 
stringency or strength of a material or component of the control system 
is not a ``modification'' for purposes of paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this 
section.
    Negative Initial Exposure Assessment means a demonstration by the 
employer, which complies with the criteria in paragraph (f)(iii) of 
this section, that employee exposure during an operation is expected to 
be consistently below the PELs.
    PACM means ``presumed asbestos containing material''.
    Presumed Asbestos Containing Material means thermal system 
insulation and surfacing material found in buildings, vessels, and 
vessel sections constructed no later than 1980. The designation of a 
material as ``PACM'' may be rebutted pursuant to paragraph (k)(4) of 
this section.
    Project Designer means a person who has successfully completed the 
training requirements for an abatement project designer established by 
40 U.S.C. Sec. 763.90(g).
    Qualified person means, in addition to the definition in 29 CFR 
1926.32(f), one who is capable of identifying existing asbestos hazards 
in the workplace and selecting the appropriate control strategy for 
asbestos exposure, who has the authority to take prompt corrective 
measures to eliminate them, as specified in 29 CFR 1926.32(f); in 
addition, for Class I, II, III, and IV work, who is specially trained 
in a training course which meet the criteria of EPA's Model 
Accreditation Plan (40 CFR Part 763) for project designer or 
supervisor, or its equivalent.
    Regulated area means an area established by the employer to 
demarcate areas where Class I, II, and III asbestos work is conducted, 
and any adjoining area where debris and waste from such asbestos work 
accumulate; and a work area within which airborne concentrations of 
asbestos, exceed or can reasonably be expected to exceed the 
permissible exposure limit. Requirements for regulated areas are set 
out in paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
    Removal means all operations where ACM and/or PACM is taken out or 
stripped from structures or substrates, and includes demolition 
operations.
    Renovation means the modifying of any existing vessel, vessel 
section, structure, or portion thereof.
    Repair means overhauling, rebuilding, reconstructing, or 
reconditioning of vessels, vessel sections, structures or substrates, 
including encapsulation or other repair of ACM or PACM attached to 
structures or substrates.
    Surfacing material means material that is sprayed, troweled-on or 
otherwise applied to surfaces (such as acoustical plaster on ceilings 
and fireproofing materials on structural members, or other materials on 
surfaces for acoustical, fireproofing, and other purposes).
    Surfacing ACM means surfacing material which contains more than 1% 
asbestos.
    Thermal system insulation (TSI) means ACM applied to pipes, 
fittings, boilers, breeching, tanks, ducts or other structural 
components to prevent heat loss or gain.
    Thermal system insulation ACM is thermal system insulation which 
contains more than 1% asbestos.
    (c) Permissible exposure limits (PELS)--(1) Time-weighted average 
limit (TWA). The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to 
an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air as an eight (8) hour time-weighted average (TWA), as 
determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A of this section, or 
by an equivalent method.
    (2) Excursion limit. The employer shall ensure that no employee is 
exposed to an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 1.0 fiber 
per cubic centimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged over a sampling period 
of thirty (30) minutes, as determined by the method prescribed in 
Appendix A of this section, or by an equivalent method.
    (d) Multi-employer worksites. (1) On multi-employer worksites, an 
employer performing work requiring the establishment of a regulated 
area shall inform other employers on the site of the nature of the 
employer's work with asbestos and/or PACM, of the existence of and 
requirements pertaining to regulated areas, and the measures taken to 
ensure that employees of such other employers are not exposed to 
asbestos.
    (2) Asbestos hazards at a multi-employer work site shall be abated 
by the contractor who created or controls the source of asbestos 
contamination. For example, if there is a significant breach of an 
enclosure containing Class I work, the employer responsible for 
erecting the enclosure shall repair the breach immediately.
    (3) In addition, all employers of employees exposed to asbestos 
hazards shall comply with applicable protective provisions to protect 
their employees. For example, if employees working immediately adjacent 
to a Class I asbestos job are exposed to asbestos due to the inadequate 
containment of such job, their employer shall either remove the 
employees from the area until the enclosure breach is repaired; or 
perform an initial exposure assessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section.
    (4) All employers of employees working adjacent to regulated areas 
established by another employer on a multi-employer work- site, shall 
take steps on a daily basis to ascertain the integrity of the enclosure 
and/or the effectiveness of the control method relied on by the primary 
asbestos contractor to assure that asbestos fibers do not migrate to 
such adjacent areas.
    (5) All general contractors on a shipyard project which includes 
work covered by this standard shall be deemed to exercise general 
supervisory authority over the work covered by this standard, even 
though the general contractor is not qualified to serve as the asbestos 
``qualified person'' as defined by paragraph (b) of this section. As 
supervisor of the entire project, the general contractor shall 
ascertain whether the asbestos contractor is in compliance with this 
standard, and shall require such contractor to come into compliance 
with this standard when necessary.
    (e) Regulated areas (1) All Class I, II and III asbestos work shall 
be conducted within regulated areas. All other operations covered by 
this standard shall be conducted within a regulated area where airborne 
concentrations of asbestos exceed, or there is a reasonable possibility 
they may exceed a PEL. Regulated areas shall comply with the 
requirements of paragraphs (e) (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this section.
    (2) Demarcation. The regulated area shall be demarcated in any 
manner that minimizes the number of persons within the area and 
protects persons outside the area from exposure to airborne 
concentrations of asbestos. Where critical barriers or negative 
pressure enclosures are used, they may demarcate the regulated area. 
Signs shall be provided and displayed pursuant to the requirements of 
paragraph (k)(6) of this section.
    (3) Access. Access to regulated areas shall be limited to 
authorized persons and to persons authorized by the Act or regulations 
issued pursuant thereto.
    (4) Respirators. All persons entering a regulated area where 
employees are required pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section to 
wear respirators shall be supplied with a respirator selected in 
accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    (5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees 
do not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in 
the regulated area.
    (6) Qualified Persons. The employer shall ensure that all asbestos 
work performed within regulated areas is supervised by a qualified 
person, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section. The duties of the 
qualified person are set out in paragraph (o) of this section.
    (f) Exposure assessments and monitoring--(1) General monitoring 
criteria. (i) Each employer who has a workplace of work operation where 
exposure monitoring is required under this section shall perform 
monitoring to determine accurately the airborne concentrations of 
asbestos to which employees may be exposed.
    (ii) Determinations of employee exposure shall be made from 
breathing zone air samples that are representative of the 8-hour TWA 
and 30-minute short-term exposures of each employee.
    (iii) Representative 8-hour TWA employee exposure shall be 
determined on the basis of one or more samples representing full-shift 
exposure for employees in each work area. Representative 30-minute 
short-term employee exposures shall be determined on the basis of one 
or more samples representing 30 minute exposures associated with 
operations that are most likely to produce exposures above the 
excursion limit for employees in each work area.
    (2) Initial Exposure Assessment. (i) Each employer who has a 
workplace or work operation covered by this standard shall ensure that 
a ``qualified person'' conducts an exposure assessment immediately 
before or at the initiation of the operation to ascertain expected 
exposures during that operation or workplace. The assessment must be 
completed in time to comply with requirements which are triggered by 
exposure data or the lack of a ``negative exposure assessment,'' and to 
provide information necessary to assure that all control systems 
planned are appropriate for that operation and will work properly.
    (ii) Basis of Initial Exposure Assessment: The initial exposure 
assessment shall be based on data derived from the following sources:
    (A) If feasible, the employer shall monitor employees and base the 
exposure assessment on the results of exposure monitoring which is 
conducted pursuant to the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this 
section.
    (B) In addition, the assessment shall include consideration of all 
observations, information or calculations which indicate employee 
exposure to asbestos, including any previous monitoring conducted in 
the workplace, or of the operations of the employer which indicate the 
levels of airborne asbestos likely to be encountered on the job. 
However, the assessment may conclude that exposures are likely to be 
consistently below the PELs only as a conclusion of a ``negative 
exposure assessment'' conducted pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of 
this section.
    (C) For Class I asbestos work, until the employer conducts exposure 
monitoring and documents that employees on that job will not be exposed 
in excess of the PELs, or otherwise makes a negative exposure 
assessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, the 
employer shall presume that employees are exposed in excess of the TWA 
and excursion limit.
    (iii) Negative Initial Exposure Assessment: For any one specific 
asbestos job which will be performed by employees who have been trained 
in compliance with the standard, the employer may demonstrate that 
employee exposures will be below the PELs by data which conform to the 
following criteria;
    (A) Objective data demonstrating that the product or material 
containing asbestos minerals or the activity involving such product or 
material cannot release airborne fibers in concentrations exceeding the 
TWA and excursion limit under those work conditions having the greatest 
potential for releasing asbestos; or
    (B) Where the employer has monitored prior asbestos jobs for the 
PEL and the excursion limit within 12 months of the current or 
projected job, the monitoring and analysis were performed in compliance 
with the asbestos standard in effect; and the data were obtained during 
work operations conducted under workplace conditions ``closely 
resembling'' the processes, type of material, control methods, work 
practices, and environmental conditions used and prevailing in the 
employer's current operations, the operations were conducted by 
employees whose training and experience are no more extensive than that 
of employees performing the current job, and these data show that under 
the conditions prevailing and which will prevail in the current 
workplace there is a high degree of certainty that employee exposures 
will not exceed the TWA and excursion limit; or
    (C) The results of initial exposure monitoring of the current job 
made from breathing zone air samples that are representative of the 8-
hour TWA and 30-minute short-term exposures of each employee covering 
operations which are most likely during the performance of the entire 
asbestos job to result in exposures over the PELs.
    (3) Periodic monitoring. (i) Class I and II operations. The 
employer shall conduct daily monitoring that is representative of the 
exposure of each employee who is assigned to work within a regulated 
area who is performing Class I or II work, unless the employer pursuant 
to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, has made a negative exposure 
assessment for the entire operation.
    (ii) All operations under the standard other than Class I and II 
operations. The employer shall conduct periodic monitoring of all work 
where exposures are expected to exceed a PEL, at intervals sufficient 
to document the validity of the exposure prediction.
    (iii) Exception: When all employees required to be monitored daily 
are equipped with supplied-air respirators operated in the positive-
pressure mode, the employer may dispense with the daily monitoring 
required by this paragraph. However, employees performing Class I work 
using a control method which is not listed in paragraph (g)(4) (i), 
(ii), or (iii) of this section or using a modification of a listed 
control method, shall continue to be monitored daily even if they are 
equipped with supplied-air respirators.
    (4)(i) Termination of monitoring. If the periodic monitoring 
required by paragraph (f)(3) of this section reveals that employee 
exposures, as indicated by statistically reliable measurement, are 
below the permissible exposure limit and excursion limit the employer 
may discontinue monitoring for those employees whose exposures are 
represented by such monitoring.
    (ii) Additional monitoring. Notwithstanding the provisions of 
paragraph (f) (2) and (3), and (f)(4) of this section, the employer 
shall institute the exposure monitoring required under paragraph (f)(3) 
of this section whenever there has been a change in process, control 
equipment, personnel or work practices that may result in new or 
additional exposures above the permissible exposure limit and/or 
excursion limit or when the employer has any reason to suspect that a 
change may result in new or additional exposures above the permissible 
exposure limit and/or excursion limit. Such additional monitoring is 
required regardless of whether a ``negative exposure assessment'' was 
previously produced for a specific job.
    (5) Observation of monitoring. (i) The employer shall provide 
affected employees and their designated representatives an opportunity 
to observe any monitoring of employee exposure to asbestos conducted in 
accordance with this section.
    (ii) When observation of the monitoring of employee exposure to 
asbestos requires entry into an area where the use of protective 
clothing or equipment is required, the observer shall be provided with 
and be required to use such clothing and equipment and shall comply 
with all other applicable safety and health procedures.
    (g) Methods of compliance--(1) Engineering controls and work 
practices for all operations covered by this section. The employer 
shall use the following engineering controls and work practices in all 
operations covered by this section, regardless of the levels of 
exposure:
    (i) Vacuum cleaners equipped with HEPA filters to collect all 
debris and dust containing ACM or PACM; and,
    (ii) Wet methods, or wetting agents, to control employee exposures 
during asbestos handling, mixing, removal, cutting, application, and 
cleanup, except where employers demonstrate that the use of wet methods 
is infeasible due to for example, the creation of electrical hazards, 
equipment malfunction, and, in roofing, slipping hazards; and
    (iii) Prompt clean-up and disposal of wastes and debris 
contaminated with asbestos in leak-tight containers.
    (2) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section above, the employer shall use the following control methods to 
achieve compliance with the TWA permissible exposure limit and 
excursion limit prescribed by paragraph (c) of this section;
    (i) Local exhaust ventilation equipped with HEPA filter dust 
collection systems;
    (ii) Enclosure or isolation of processes producing asbestos dust;
    (iii) Ventilation of the regulated area to move contaminated air 
away from the breathing zone of employees and toward a filtration or 
collection device equipped with a HEPA filter;
    (iv) Use of other work practices and engineering controls that the 
Assistant Secretary can show to be feasible.
    (v) Wherever the feasible engineering and work practice controls 
described above are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or 
below the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit prescribed 
in paragraph (c) of this section, the employer shall use them to reduce 
employee exposure to the lowest levels attainable by these controls and 
shall supplement them by the use of respiratory protection that 
complies with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this section.
    (3) Prohibitions. The following work practices and engineering 
controls shall not be used for work related to asbestos or for work 
which disturbs ACM or PACM, regardless of measured levels of asbestos 
exposure or the results of initial exposure assessments:
    (i) High-speed abrasive disc saws that are not equipped with point 
of cut ventilator or enclosures with HEPA filtered exhaust air.
    (ii) Compressed air used to remove asbestos, or materials 
containing asbestos, unless the compressed air is used in conjunction 
with an enclosed ventilation system designed to capture the dust cloud 
created by the compressed air.
    (iii) Dry sweeping, shoveling or other dry clean-up of dust and 
debris containing ACM and PACM.
    (iv) Employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to 
asbestos.
    (4) Class I Requirements. In addition to the provisions of 
paragraphs (g) (1) and (2) of this section, the following engineering 
controls and work practices and procedures shall be used.
    (i) All Class I work, including the installation and operation of 
the control system shall be supervised by a qualified person as defined 
in paragraph (b) of this section;
    (ii) For all Class I jobs involving the removal of more than 25 
linear or 10 square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM; for all other 
Class I jobs, where the employer cannot produce a negative exposure 
assessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, or where 
employees are working in areas adjacent to the regulated area, while 
the Class I work is being performed, the employer shall use one of the 
following methods to ensure that airborne asbestos does not migrate 
from the regulated area:
    (A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the 
regulated area: or
    (B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation method 
which prevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated 
area, as verified by perimeter area surveillance during each work shift 
at each boundary of the regulated area, showing no visible asbestos 
dust; and perimeter area monitoring showing that clearance levels 
contained in 40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E of the EPA Asbestos in Schools 
Rule are met, or that perimeter area levels, measured by (PCM) are no 
more than background levels representing the same area before the 
asbestos work began. The results of such monitoring shall be made known 
to the employer no later than 24 hours from the end of the work shift 
represented by such monitoring.
    (iii) For all Class I jobs, HVAC systems shall be isolated in the 
regulated area by sealing with a double layer of 6 mil plastic or the 
equivalent;
    (iv) For all Class I jobs, impermeable dropcloths shall be placed 
on surfaces beneath all removal activity;
    (v) For all Class I jobs, all objects within the regulated area 
shall be covered with impermeable dropcloths or plastic sheeting which 
is secured by duct tape or an equivalent.
    (vi) For all Class I jobs where the employer cannot produce a 
negative exposure assessment or where exposure monitoring shows the 
PELs are exceeded, the employer shall ventilate the regulated area to 
move contaminated air away from the breathing zone of employees toward 
a HEPA filtration or collection device.
    (5) Specific Control Systems for Class I Work. In addition, Class I 
asbestos work shall be performed using one or more of the following 
control methods pursuant to the limitations stated below:
    (i) Negative Pressure Enclosure (NPE) systems: NPE systems shall be 
used where the configuration of the work area does not make the 
erection of the enclosure infeasible, with the following specifications 
and work practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) The negative pressure enclosure (NPE) may be of any 
configuration,
    (2) At least 4 air changes per hour shall be maintained in the NPE,
    (3) A minimum of -0.02 column inches of water pressure 
differential, relative to outside pressure, shall be maintained within 
the NPE as evidenced by manometric measurements,
    (4) The NPE shall be kept under negative pressure throughout the 
period of its use, and
    (5) Air movement shall be directed away from employees performing 
asbestos work within the enclosure, and toward a HEPA filtration or a 
collection device.
    (B) Work Practices:
    (1) Before beginning work within the enclosure and at the beginning 
of each shift, the NPE shall inspected for breaches and smoke-tested 
for leaks, and any leaks sealed.
    (2) Electrical circuits in the enclosure shall be deactivated, 
unless equipped with ground-fault circuit interrupters.
    (ii) Glove bag systems, shall be used to remove PACM and/or ACM 
from straight runs of piping with the following specifications and work 
practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) Glovebags shall be made of 6 mil thick plastic and shall be 
seamless at the bottom.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) Work Practices:
    (1) Each glovebag shall be installed so that it completely covers 
the circumference of pipe or other structure where the work is to be 
done.
    (2) Glovebags shall be smoke-tested for leaks and any leaks sealed 
prior to use.
    (3) Glovebags may be used only once and may not be moved.
    (4) Glovebags shall not be used on surfaces whose temperature 
exceeds 150 deg..
    (5) Prior to disposal, glovebags shall be collapsed by removing air 
within them using a HEPA vacuum.
    (6) Before beginning the operation, loose and friable material 
adjacent to the glovebag/box operation shall be wrapped and sealed in 
two layers of six mil plastic or otherwise rendered intact.
    (7) Where system uses attached waste bag, such bag shall be 
connected to collection bag using hose or other material which shall 
withstand pressure of ACM waste and water without losing its integrity:
    (8) Sliding valve or other device shall separate waste bag from 
hose to ensure no exposure when waste bag is disconnected:
    (9) At least two persons shall perform Class I glovebag removals.
    (iii) Negative Pressure Glove Bag Systems. Negative pressure glove 
bag systems shall be used to remove ACM or PACM from piping.
    (A) Specifications: In addition to specifications for glove bags 
systems above, negative pressure glove bag systems shall attach HEPA 
vacuum system or other device to bag to prevent collapse during 
removal.
    (B) Work Practices:
    (1) The employer shall comply with the work practices for glove bag 
systems in paragraph (g)(5)(ii)(B)(2) of this section,
    (2) The HEPA vacuum cleaner or other device used to prevent 
collapse of bag during removal shall run continually during the 
operation.
    (3) Where a separate waste bag is used along with a collection bag 
and discarded after one use, the collection bag may be reused if rinsed 
clean with amended water before reuse.
    (iv) Negative Pressure Glove Box systems: Negative pressure glove 
boxes shall be used to remove ACM or PACM from pipe runs with the 
following specifications and work practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) Glove boxes shall be constructed with rigid sides and made from 
metal or other material which can withstand the weight of the ACM and 
PACM and water used during removal:
    (2) A negative pressure generator shall be used to create negative 
pressure in system:
    (3) An air filtration unit shall be attached to the box:
    (4) The box shall be fitted with gloved apertures:
    (5) An aperture at the base of the box shall serve as a bagging 
outlet for waste ACM and water:
    (6) A back-up generator shall be present on site:
    (7) Waste bags shall consist of 6 mil thick plastic double-bagged 
before they are filled or plastic thicker than 6 mil.
    (B) Work practices:
    (1) At least two persons shall perform the removal:
    (2) The box shall be smoke tested prior to each use:
    (3) Loose or damaged ACM adjacent to the box shall be wrapped and 
sealed in two layers of 6 mil plastic prior to the job, or otherwise 
made intact prior to the job.
    (4) A HEPA filtration system shall be used to maintain pressure 
barrier in box.
    (v) Water Spray Process System: A water spray process system may be 
used for removal of ACM and PACM from cold line piping if, employees 
carrying out such process have completed a 40-hour separate training 
course in its use, in addition to training required for employees 
performing Class I work. The system shall meet the following 
specifications and shall be performed by employees using the following 
work practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) Piping from which insulation will be removed shall be 
surrounded on 3 sides by rigid framing,
    (2) A 360 degree water spray, delivered through nozzles supplied by 
a high pressure separate water line, shall be formed around the piping.
    (3) The spray shall collide to form a fine aerosol which provides a 
liquid barrier between workers and the ACM and PACM.
    (B) Work Practices:
    (1) The system shall be run for at least 10 minutes before removal 
begins.
    (2) All removal shall take place within the barrier.
    (3) The system shall be operated by at least three persons, one of 
whom shall not perform removal but shall check equipment, and ensure 
proper operation of the system.
    (4) After removal, the ACM and PACM shall be bagged while still 
inside the water barrier.
    (vi) A small walk-in enclosure which accommodates no more than two 
persons (mini-enclosure) may be used if the disturbance or removal can 
be completely contained by the enclosure, with the following 
specifications and work practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) The fabricated or job-made enclosure shall be constructed of 6 
mil plastic or equivalent:
    (2) The enclosure shall be placed under negative pressure by means 
of a HEPA filtered vacuum or similar ventilation unit:
    (C) Work practices:
    (1) Before use, the minienclosure shall be inspected for leaks and 
smoke tested to detect breaches, and breaches sealed.
    (2) Before reuse, the interior shall be completely washed with 
amended water and HEPA-vacuumed.
    (3) During use air movement shall be directed away from the 
employee's breathing zone within the minienclosure.
    (6) Alternative control methods for Class I work. Class I work may 
be performed using a control method which is not referenced in 
paragraph (g)(5) of this section, or which modifies a control method 
referenced in paragraph (g)(5) of this section, if the following 
provisions are complied with:
    (i) The control method shall enclose, contain or isolate the 
processes or source of airborne asbestos dust, or otherwise capture or 
redirect such dust before it enters the breathing zone of employees.
    (ii) A certified industrial hygienist or licensed professional 
engineer who is also qualified as a project designer as defined in 
paragraph (b) of this section, shall evaluate the work area, the 
projected work practices and the engineering controls and shall certify 
in writing that: the planned control method is adequate to reduce 
direct and indirect employee exposure to below the PELs under worst-
case conditions of use, and that the planned control method will 
prevent asbestos contamination outside the regulated area, as measured 
by clearance sampling which meets the requirements of EPA's Asbestos in 
Schools Rule issued under AHERA, or perimeter monitoring which meets 
the criteria in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section.
    (A) Where the TSI or surfacing material to be removed is 25 linear 
or 10 square feet or less , the evaluation required in paragraph (g)(6) 
of this section may be performed by a ``qualified person'', and may 
omit consideration of perimeter or clearance monitoring otherwise 
required.
    (B) The evaluation of employee exposure required in paragraph 
(g)(6) of this section, shall include and be based on sampling and 
analytical data representing employee exposure during the use of such 
method under worst-case conditions and by employees whose training and 
experience are equivalent to employees who are to perform the current 
job.
    (iii) Before work which involves the removal of more than 25 linear 
or 10 square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM/PACM is begun using an 
alternative method which has been the subject of a paragraph (g)(6) 
required evaluation and certification, the employer shall send a copy 
of such evaluation and certification to the national office of OSHA, 
Office of Technical Supportm, Room N3653, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20210.
    (7) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class II work.
    (i) All Class II work, shall be supervised by a qualified person as 
defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (ii) For all indoor Class II jobs, where the employer has not 
produced a negative exposure assessment pursuant to paragraph 
(f)(4)(iii) of this section, or where during the job changed conditions 
indicate there may be exposure above the PEL or where the employer does 
not remove the ACM in a substantially intact state, the employer shall 
use one of the following methods to ensure that airborne asbestos does 
not migrate from the regulated area;
    (A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the 
regulated area; or,
    (B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation method 
which prevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated 
area, as verified by perimeter area monitoring or clearance monitoring 
which meets the criteria set out in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this 
section.
    (iii) Impermeable dropcloths shall be placed on surfaces beneath 
all removal activity;
    (iv) All Class II asbestos work shall be performed using the work 
practices and requirements set out above in paragraph (g)(3) (i) 
through (v) of this section.
    (8) Additional Controls for Class II work. Class II asbestos work 
shall also be performed by complying with the work practices and 
controls designated for each type of asbestos work to be performed, set 
out in this paragraph. Where more than one control method may be used 
for a type of asbestos work, the employer may choose one or a 
combination of designated control methods. Class II work also may be 
performed using a method allowed for Class I work, except that glove 
bags and glove boxes are allowed if they fully enclose the Class II 
material to be removed.
    (i) For removing vinyl and asphalt flooring/deck materials which 
contain ACM or for which in buildings constructed not later than 1980, 
the employer has not verified the absence of ACM pursuant to paragraph 
(g)(8)(i)(I): the employer shall ensure that employees comply with the 
following work practices and that employees are trained in these 
practices pursuant to paragraph (k)(8) of this section:
    (A) Flooring/deck materials or its backing shall not be sanded.
    (B) Vacuums equipped with HEPA filter, disposable dust bag, and 
metal floor tool (no brush) shall be used to clean floors.
    (C) Resilient sheeting shall be removed by cutting with wetting of 
the snip point and wetting during delamination. Rip-up of resilient 
sheet floor material is prohibited.
    (D) All scraping of residual adhesive and/or backing shall be 
performed using wet methods.
    (E) Dry sweeping is prohibited.
    (F) Mechanical chipping is prohibited unless performed in a 
negative pressure enclosure which meets the requirements of paragraph 
(g)(5)(iv) of this section.
    (G) Tiles shall be removed intact, unless the employer demonstrates 
that intact removal is not possible.
    (H) When tiles are heated and can be removed intact, wetting may be 
omitted.
    (I) Resilient flooring/deck material in buildings/vessels 
constructed no later than 1980, including associated mastic and backing 
shall be assumed to be asbestos-containing unless an industrial 
hygienist determines that it is asbestos-free using recognized 
analytical techniques.
    (ii) For removing roofing material which contains ACM the employer 
shall ensure that the following work practices are followed:
    (A) Roofing material shall be removed in an intact state to the 
extent feasible.
    (B) Wet methods shall be used where feasible.
    (C) Cutting machines shall be continuously misted during use, 
unless a competent person determines that misting substantially 
decreases worker safety.
    (D) All loose dust left by the sawing operation must be HEPA 
vacuumed immediately.
    (E) Unwrapped or unbagged roofing material shall be immediately 
lowered to the ground via covered, dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or 
placed in an impermeable waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and 
lowered to ground no later than the end of the work shift.
    (F) Upon being lowered, unwrapped material shall be transferred to 
a closed receptacle in such manner so as to preclude the dispersion of 
dust.
    (G) Roof level heating and ventilation air intake sources shall be 
isolated or the ventilation system shall be shut down.
    (iii) When removing cementitious asbestos-containing siding, 
shingles (CACS), or transite panels containing ACM, the employer shall 
ensure that the following work practices are followed:
    (A) Cutting, abrading or breaking siding, shingles, or transite 
panels shall be prohibited unless the employer can demonstrate that 
methods less likely to result in asbestos fiber release cannot be used.
    (B) Each panel or shingle shall be sprayed with amended water prior 
to removal.
    (C) Unwrapped or unbagged panels or shingles shall be immediately 
lowered to the ground via covered dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or 
placed in an impervious waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and 
lowered to the ground no later than the end of the work shift.
    (D) Nails shall be cut with flat, sharp instruments.
    (iv) When removing gaskets containing ACM, the employer shall 
ensure that the following work practices are followed:
    (A) If a gasket is visibly deteriorated and unlikely to be removed 
intact, removal shall be undertaken within a glovebag as described in 
paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (B) The gasket shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water prior 
to its removal.
    (C) The wet gasket shall be immediately placed in a disposal 
container.
    (D) Any scraping to remove residue must be performed wet.
    (v) When performing any other Class II removal of asbestos 
containing material for which specific controls have not been listed in 
paragraph (g)(8)(iv) (A) through (D) of this section, the employer 
shall ensure that the following work practices are complied with.
    (A) The material shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water 
prior and during its removal.
    (B) The material shall be removed in an intact state unless the 
employer demonstrates that intact removal is not possible.
    (C) Cutting, abrading or breaking the material shall be prohibited 
unless the employer can demonstrate that methods less likely to result 
in asbestos fiber release are not feasible.
    (D) Asbestos-containing material removed, shall be immediately 
bagged or wrapped, or kept wetted until transferred to a closed 
receptacle, no later than the end of the work shift.
    (vi) Alternative Work Practices and Controls. Instead of the work 
practices and controls listed in paragraphs (g)(8) (i) through (v) of 
this section, the employer may use different or modified engineering 
and work practice controls if the following provisions are complied 
with.
    (A) The employer shall demonstrate by data representing employee 
exposure during the use of such method under conditions which closely 
resemble the conditions under which the method is to be used, that 
employee exposure will not exceed the PELs under any anticipated 
circumstances.
    (B) A qualified person shall evaluate the work area, the projected 
work practices and the engineering controls, and shall certify in 
writing, that the different or modified controls are adequate to reduce 
direct and indirect employee exposure to below the PELs under all 
expected conditions of use and that the method meets the requirements 
of this standard. The evaluation shall include and be based on data 
representing employee exposure during the use of such method under 
conditions which closely resemble the conditions under which the method 
is to be used for the current job, and by employees whose training and 
experience are equivalent to employees who are to perform the current 
job.
    (9) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class III asbestos 
work. Class III asbestos work shall be conducted using engineering and 
work practice controls which minimize the exposure to employees 
performing the asbestos work and to bystander employees.
    (i) The work shall be performed using wet methods.
    (ii) To the extent feasible, the work shall be performed using 
local exhaust ventilation.
    (iii) Where the disturbance involves drilling, cutting, abrading, 
sanding, chipping, breaking, or sawing of thermal system insulation or 
surfacing material, the employer shall use impermeable dropcloths and 
shall isolate the operation using mini-enclosures or glove bag systems 
pursuant to paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
    (iv) Where the employer does not demonstrate by a negative exposure 
assessment performed in compliance with paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this 
section that the PELs will not be exceeded, or where monitoring results 
show exceedances of a PEL, the employer shall contain the area using 
impermeable dropcloths and plastic barriers or their equivalent, or 
shall isolate the operation using mini-enclosure or glove bag systems 
pursuant to paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
    (v) Employees performing Class III jobs which involve the 
disturbance of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM or where the employer does 
not demonstrate by a ``negative exposure assessment'' in compliance 
with paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section that the PELs will not be 
exceeded or where monitoring results show exceedances of the PEL, shall 
wear respirators which are selected, used and fitted pursuant to 
provisions of paragraph (h) of this section.
    (10) Class IV asbestos work. Class IV asbestos jobs shall be 
conducted by employees trained pursuant to the asbestos awareness 
training program set out in paragraph (k)(8) of this section. In 
addition, all Class IV jobs shall be conducted in conformity with the 
requirements set out in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, mandating wet 
methods, HEPA vacuums, and prompt clean up of debris containing ACM or 
PACM.
    (i) Employees cleaning up debris and waste in a regulated area 
where respirators are required shall wear respirators which are 
selected, used and fitted pursuant to provisions of paragraph (h) of 
this section.
    (ii) Employers of employees cleaning up waste and debris in an area 
where friable TSI or surfacing ACM/PACM is accessible, shall assume 
that such waste and debris contain asbestos.
    (11) Specific compliance methods for brake and clutch repair: (i) 
Engineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch repair and 
service. During automotive brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, 
repair and assembly operations, the employer shall institute 
engineering controls and work practices to reduce employee exposure to 
materials containing asbestos using a negative pressure enclosure/HEPA 
vacuum system method or low pressure/wet cleaning method, which meets 
the detailed requirements set out in Appendix L to this section. The 
employer may also comply using an equivalent method which follows 
written procedures which the employer demonstrates can achieve results 
equivalent to Method A. For facilities in which no more than 5 pair of 
brakes or 5 clutches are inspected, disassembled, repaired, or 
assembled per week, the method set for in paragraph [D] of Appendix L 
to this section may be used.
    (ii) The employer may also comply by using an equivalent method 
which follows written procedures, which the employer demonstrates can 
achieve equivalent exposure reductions as do the two ``preferred 
methods.'' Such demonstration must include monitoring data conducted 
under workplace conditions closely resembling the process, type of 
asbestos containing materials, control method, work practices and 
environmental conditions which the equivalent method will be used, or 
objective data, which document that under all reasonably foreseeable 
conditions of brake and clutch repair applications, the method results 
in exposures which are equivalent to the methods set out in Appendix L.
    (h) Respiratory protection (1) General. The employer shall provide 
respirators, and ensure that they are used, where required by this 
section. Respirators shall be used in the following circumstances:
    (i) During all Class I asbestos jobs.
    (ii) During all Class II work where the ACM is not removed in a 
substantially intact state.
    (iii) During all Class II and III work which is not performed using 
wet methods.
    (iv) During all Class II and III asbestos jobs where the employer 
does not produce a ``negative exposure assessment''.
    (v) During all Class III jobs where TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is 
being disturbed.
    (vi) During all Class IV work performed within regulated areas 
where employees performing other work are required to wear respirators.
    (vii) During all work covered by this section where employees are 
exposed above the TWA or excursion limit.
    (viii) In emergencies.
    (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respirators are used, the 
employer shall select and provide, at no cost to the employee, the 
appropriate respirator as specified in Table 1, and shall ensure that 
the employee uses the respirator provided.
    (ii) The employer shall select respirators from among those jointly 
approved as being acceptable for protection by the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration (MSHA) and the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under the provisions of 30 CFR 
Part 11.
    (iii) The employer shall provide a tight fitting powered, air-
purifying respirator in lieu of any negative-pressure respirator 
specified in Table 1 whenever:
    (A) An employee performing Class I, II or III work chooses to use 
this type of respirator; and
    (B) This respirator will provide adequate protection to the 
employee.

          Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for Asbestos Fibers          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airborne concentration of                                               
asbestos or conditions of               Required respirator             
           use                                                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in excess of 1 f/cc    Half-mask air purifying respirator other than
 (10) X PEL), or            a disposable respirator, equipped with high 
 otherwise as required      efficiency filters.                         
 independent of exposure                                                
 pursuant to (h)(2)(iv).                                                
Not in excess of 5 f/cc    Full facepiece air-purifying respirator      
 (50 X PEL).                equipped with high efficiency filters.      
Not in excess of 10 f/cc   Any powered air-purifying respirator equipped
 (100 X PEL).               with high efficiency filters or any supplied
                            air respirator operated in continuous flow  
                            mode.                                       
Not in excess of 100 f/cc  Full facepiece supplied air respirator       
 (1,000 X PEL).             operated in pressure demand mode.           
Greater than 100 f/cc      Full facepiece supplied air respirator       
 (1,000 X PEL) or unknown   operated in pressure demand mode, equipped  
 concentration.             with an auxiliary positive pressure self-   
                            contained breathing apparatus.              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: a. Respirators assigned for high environmental concentrations may 
  be used at lower concentrations, or when required respirator use is   
  independent of concentration.                                         
b. A high efficiency filter means a filter that is at least 99.97       
  percent efficient against mono-dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers 
  in diameter or larger.                                                

    (iv) In addition to the above selection criterion, the employer 
shall provide a half-mask air purifying respirator, other than a 
disposable respirator, equipped with high efficiency filters whenever 
the employee performs the following activities: Class II and III 
asbestos jobs where the employer does not produce a negative exposure 
assessment; and Class III jobs where TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is 
being disturbed.
    (v) In addition to the above selection criteria, the employer shall 
provide a full facepiece supplied air respirator operated in the 
pressure demand mode equipped with an auxiliar76y positive pressure 
self-contained breathing apparatus for all employees within the 
regulated area where Class I work is being performed for which a 
negative exposure assessment has not been produced.
    (3) Respirator program. (i) Where respiratory protection is used, 
the employer shall institute a respirator program in accordance with 29 
CFR 1910.134(b), (d), (e), and (f).
    (ii) The employer shall permit each employee who uses a filter 
respirator to change the filter elements whenever an increase in 
breathing resistance is detected and shall maintain an adequate supply 
of filter elements for this purpose.
    (iii) Employees who wear respirators shall be permitted to leave 
work areas to wash their faces and respirator facepieces whenever 
necessary to prevent skin irritation associated with respirator use.
    (iv) No employee shall be assigned to tasks requiring the use of 
respirators if, based on his or her most recent examination, an 
examining physician determines that the employee will be unable to 
function normally wearing a respirator, or that the safety or health of 
the employee or of other employees will be impaired by the use of a 
respirator. Such employee shall be assigned to another job or given the 
opportunity to transfer to a different position the duties of which he 
or she is able to perform with the same employer, in the same 
geographical area, and with the same seniority, status, and rate of pay 
and other job benefits he or she had just prior to such transfer, if 
such a different position is available.
    (4) Respirator fit testing. (i) The employer shall ensure that the 
respirator issued to the employee exhibits the least possible facepiece 
leakage and that the respirator is fitted properly.
    (ii) Employers shall perform either quantitative or qualitative 
face fit tests at the time of initial fitting and at least every 6 
months thereafter for each employee wearing a negative-pressure 
respirator. The qualitative fit tests may be used only for testing the 
fit of half-mask respirators where they are permitted to be worn, or of 
full-facepiece air purifying respirators where they are worn at levels 
at which half-facepiece air purifying respirators are permitted. 
Qualitative and quantitative fit tests shall be conducted in accordance 
with Appendix C of this section. The tests shall be used to select 
facepieces that provide the required protection as prescribed in Table 
1, in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Protective clothing (1) General. The employer shall provide and 
require the use of protective clothing, such as coveralls or similar 
whole-body clothing, head coverings, gloves, and foot coverings for any 
employee exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos that exceed the 
TWA and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, 
or for which a required negative exposure assessment is not produced, 
and for any employee performing Class I operations which involve the 
removal of over 25 linear or 10 square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM or 
PACM.
    (2) Laundering. (i) The employer shall ensure that laundering of 
contaminated clothing is done so as to prevent the release of airborne 
asbestos in excess of the TWA or excursion limit prescribed in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) Any employer who gives contaminated clothing to another person 
for laundering shall inform such person of the requirement in paragraph 
(i)(2)(i) of this section to effectively prevent the release of 
airborne asbestos in excess of the TWA excursion limit prescribed in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) Contaminated clothing. Contaminated clothing shall be 
transported in sealed impermeable bags, or other closed, impermeable 
containers, and be labeled in accordance with paragraph (k) of this 
section.
    (4) Inspection of protective clothing. (i) The qualified person 
shall examine worksuits worn by employees at least once per workshift 
for rips or tears that may occur during performance of work.
    (ii) When rips or tears are detected while an employee is working, 
rips and tears shall be immediately mended, or the worksuit shall be 
immediately replaced.
    (j) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. (1) 
Requirements for employees performing Class I asbestos jobs.
    (i) Decontamination areas: For all Class I jobs involving over 25 
linear or 10 square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM, the employer 
shall establish a decontamination area that is adjacent and connected 
to the regulated area for the decontamination of such employees. The 
decontamination area shall consist of an equipment room, shower area, 
and clean room in series. The employer shall ensure that employees 
enter and exit the regulated area through the decontamination area.
    (A) Equipment room. The equipment room shall be supplied with 
impermeable, labeled bags and containers for the containment and 
disposal of contaminated protective equipment.
    (B) Shower area. Shower facilities shall be provided which comply 
with 29 CFR 1910.141(d)(3), unless the employer can demonstrate that 
they are not feasible. The showers shall be adjacent both to the 
equipment room and the clean room, unless the employer can demonstrate 
that this location is not feasible. Where the employer can demonstrate 
that it is not feasible to locate the shower between the equipment room 
and the clean room, or where the work is performed outdoors, or when 
the work involving asbestos exposure takes place on board a ship, the 
employers shall ensure that employees:
    (1) Remove asbestos contamination from their worksuits in the 
equipment room using a HEPA vacuum before proceeding to a shower that 
is not adjacent to the work area; or
    (2) Remove their contaminated worksuits in the equipment room, then 
don clean worksuits, and proceed to a shower that is not adjacent to 
the work area.
    (C) Clean change room. The clean room shall be equipped with a 
locker or appropriate storage container for each employee's use. When 
the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible to provide a clean 
change area adjacent to the work area, or where the work is performed 
outdoors, or when the work takes place aboard a ship, the employer may 
permit employees engaged in Class I asbestos jobs to clean their 
protective clothing with a portable HEPA-equipped vacuum before such 
employees leave the regulated area. Such employees however must then 
change into street clothing in clean change areas provided by the 
employer which otherwise meet the requirements of this section.
    (ii) Decontamination area entry procedures. The employer shall 
ensure that employees:
    (A) Enter the decontamination area through the clean room;
    (B) Remove and deposit street clothing within a locker provided for 
their use; and
    (C) Put on protective clothing and respiratory protection before 
leaving the clean room.
    (D) Before entering the regulated area, the employer shall ensure 
that employees pass through the equipment room.
    (iii) Decontamination area exit procedures. The employer shall 
ensure that:
    (A) Before leaving the regulated area, employees shall remove all 
gross contamination and debris from their protective clothing.
    (B) Employees shall remove their protective clothing in the 
equipment room and deposit the clothing in labeled impermeable bags or 
containers.
    (C) Employees shall not remove their respirators in the equipment 
room.
    (D) Employees shall shower prior to entering the clean room.
    (E) After showering, employees shall enter the clean room before 
changing into street clothes.
    (iv) Lunch Areas. Whenever food or beverages are consumed at the 
worksite where employees are performing Class I asbestos work, the 
employer shall provide lunch areas in which the airborne concentrations 
of asbestos are below the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion 
limit.
    (2) Requirements for Class I work involving less than 25 linear or 
10 square feet of TSI or surfacing and PACM, and for Class II and Class 
III asbestos work operations where exposures exceed a PEL or where 
there is no negative exposure assessment produced before the operation.
    (i) The employer shall establish an equipment room or area that is 
adjacent to the regulated area for the decontamination of employees and 
their equipment which is contaminated with asbestos which shall consist 
of an area covered by a impermeable drop cloth on the floor/deck or 
horizontal working surface.
    (ii) The area must be of sufficient size as to accommodate cleaning 
of equipment and removing personal protective equipment without 
spreading contamination beyond the area (as determined by visible 
accumulations).
    (iii) Workclothing must be cleaned with a HEPA vacuum before it is 
removed.
    (iv) All equipment and surfaces of containers filled with ACM must 
be cleaned prior to removing them from the equipment room or area.
    (v) The employer shall ensure that employees enter and exit the 
regulated area through the equipment room or area.
    (3) Requirements for Class IV work. Employers shall ensure that 
employees performing Class IV work within a regulated area comply with 
the hygiene practice required of employees performing work which has a 
higher classification within that regulated area. Otherwise employers 
of employees cleaning up debris and material which is TSI or surfacing 
ACM or identified as PACM shall provide decontamination facilities for 
such employees which are required by paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
    (4) Smoking in work areas. The employer shall ensure that employees 
do not smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to 
asbestos because of activities in that work area.
    (k) Communication of hazards.

    Note: This section applies to the communication of information 
concerning asbestos hazards in shipyard employment activities to 
facilitate compliance with this standard. Most asbestos-related 
shipyard activities involve previously installed building materials. 
Building/vessel owners often are the only and/or best sources of 
information concerning them. Therefore, they, along with employers 
of potentially exposed employees, are assigned specific information 
conveying and retention duties under this section. Installed 
Asbestos Containing Building/Vessel Material: Employers and 
building/vessel owners are required to treat TSI and sprayed or 
troweled on surfacing materials as asbestos-containing unless the 
employer, by complying with paragraph (k)(4) of this section 
determines that the material is not asbestos-containing. Asphalt or 
vinyl flooring/decking material installed in buildings or vessels no 
later than 1980 must also be considered as asbestos containing 
unless the employer/owner, pursuant to paragraph (g), of this 
section determines it is not asbestos containing. If the employer or 
building/vessel owner has actual knowledge or should have known, 
through the exercise of due diligence, that materials other than TSI 
and sprayed-on or troweled-on surfacing materials are asbestos-
containing, they must be treated as such. When communicating 
information to employees pursuant to this standard, owners and 
employers shall identify ``PACM'' as ACM. Additional requirements 
relating to communication of asbestos work on multi- employer 
worksites are set out in paragraph (d) of this standard.

    (1) Duties of building/vessel and facility owners. (i) Before work 
subject to this standard is begun, building/vessel and facility owners 
shall identify the presence, location and quantity of ACM, and/or PACM 
at the work site. All thermal system insulation and sprayed on or 
troweled on surfacing materials in buildings/vessels or substrates 
constructed no later than 1980 shall be identified as PACM. In 
addition, resilient flooring/decking material installed no later than 
1980 shall also be identified as asbestos-containing.
    (ii) Building/vessel and/or facility owners shall notify the 
following persons of the presence, location and quantity of ACM or 
PACM, at work sites in their buildings/facilities/vessels. Notification 
either shall be in writing or shall consist of a personal communication 
between the owner and the person to whom notification must be given or 
their authorized representatives:
    (A) Prospective employers applying or bidding for work whose 
employees reasonably can be expected to work in or adjacent to areas 
containing such material;
    (B) Employees of the owner who will work in or adjacent to areas 
containing such material:
    (C) On multi-employer worksites, all employers of employees who 
will be performing work within or adjacent to areas containing such 
materials;
    (D) Tenants who will occupy areas containing such materials.
    (2) Duties of employers whose employees perform work subject to 
this standard in or adjacent to areas containing ACM and PACM. 
Building/vessel and facility owners whose employees perform such work 
shall comply with these provisions to the extent applicable.
    (i) Before work in areas containing ACM and PACM is begun, 
employers shall identify the presence, location, and quantity of ACM, 
and/or PACM therein.
    (ii) Before work under this standard is performed employers of 
employees who will perform such work shall inform the following persons 
of the location and quantity of ACM and/or PACM present at the work 
site and the precautions to be taken to insure that airborne asbestos 
is confined to the area.
    (A) Owners of the building/vessel or facility;
    (B) Employees who will perform such work and employers of employees 
who work and/or will be working in adjacent areas;
    (iii) Within 10 days of the completion of such work, the employer 
whose employees have performed work subject to this standard, shall 
inform the building/vessel or facility owner and employers of employees 
who will be working in the area of the current location and quantity of 
PACM and/or ACM remaining in the former regulated area and final 
monitoring results, if any.
    (3) In addition to the above requirements, all employers who 
discover ACM and/or PACM on a work site shall convey information 
concerning the presence, location and quantity of such newly discovered 
ACM and/or PACM to the owner and to other employers of employees 
working at the work site, within 24 hours of the discovery.
    (4) Criteria to rebut the designation of installed material as 
PACM. (i) At any time, an employer and/or building/vessel owner may 
demonstrate, for purposes of this standard, that PACM does not contain 
asbestos. Building/vessel owners and/or employers are not required to 
communicate information about the presence of building material for 
which such a demonstration pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 
(k)(4)(ii) of this section has been made. However, in all such cases, 
the information, data and analysis supporting the determination that 
PACM does not contain asbestos, shall be retained pursuant to paragraph 
(n) of this section.
    (ii) An employer or owner may demonstrate that PACM does not 
contain asbestos by the following:
    (A) Having a completed inspection conducted pursuant to the 
requirements of AHERA (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E) which demonstrates 
that the material is not ACM;
    (B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which 
demonstrate that no asbestos is present in the material. Such tests 
shall include analysis of 3 bulk samples of each homogeneous area of 
PACM collected in a randomly distributed manner. The tests, evaluation 
and sample collection shall be conducted by an accredited inspector or 
by a CIH. Analysis of samples shall be performed by persons or 
laboratories with proficiency demonstrated by current successful 
participation in a nationally recognized testing program such as the 
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of the 
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Round 
Robin for bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene 
Association (AIHA), or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin 
testing program..
    (5) At the entrance to mechanical rooms/areas in which employees 
reasonably can be expected to enter and which contain TSI or surfacing 
ACM and PACM, the building/vessel owner shall post signs which identify 
the material which is present, its location, and appropriate work 
practices which, if followed, will ensure that ACM and/or PACM will not 
be disturbed.
    (6) Signs. (i) Warning signs that demarcate the regulated area 
shall be provided and displayed at each location where a regulated area 
is required to be established by paragraph (e) of this section. Signs 
shall be posted at such a distance from such a location that an 
employee may read the signs and take necessary protective steps before 
entering the area marked by the signs.
    (ii) The warning signs required by (k)(6) of this section shall 
bear the following information.

DANGER

ASBESTOS

CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD

AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY

RESPIRATORS AND PROTECTION CLOTHING ARE REQUIRED IN THIS AREA

    (7) Labels. (i) Labels shall be affixed to all products containing 
asbestos and to all containers containing such products, including 
waste containers. Where feasible, installed asbestos products shall 
contain a visible label.
    (ii) Labels shall be printed in large, bold letters on a 
contrasting background.
    (iii) Labels shall be used in accordance with the requirements of 
29 CFR 1910.1200(f) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, and shall 
contain the following information:

DANGER

CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS

AVOID CREATING DUST

CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD

    (iv) [Reserved]
    (v) Labels shall contain a warning statement against breathing 
asbestos fibers.
    (vi) The provisions for labels required by paragraphs (k)(2) (i) 
through (k)(2) (iii) of this section do not apply where:
    (A) Asbestos fibers have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, 
binder, or other material, provided that the manufacturer can 
demonstrate that, during any reasonably foreseeable use, handling, 
storage, disposal, processing, or transportation, no airborne 
concentrations of asbestos fibers in excess of the permissible exposure 
limit and/or excursion limit will be released, or
    (B) Asbestos is present in a product in concentrations less than 
1.0 percent by weight.
    (vii) When a building/vessel owner/or employer identifies 
previously installed PACM and/or ACM, labels or signs shall be affixed 
or posted so that employees will be notified of what materials contain 
PACM and/or ACM. The employer shall attach such labels in areas where 
they will clearly be noticed by employees who are likely to be exposed, 
such as at the entrance to mechanical rooms/areas. Signs required by 
paragraph (k)(5) of this section may be posted in lieu of labels so 
long as they contain information required for labelling.
    (8) Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall, at 
no cost to the employee,institute a training program for all employees 
who install asbestos containing products and for all employees who 
perform Class I through IV asbestos operations, and shall ensure their 
participation in the program.
    (ii) Training shall be provided prior to or at the time of initial 
assignment and at least annually thereafter.
    (iii) Training for Class I and II operations shall be the 
equivalent in curriculum, training method and length to the EPA Model 
Accreditation Plan (MAP) asbestos abatement worker training (40 CFR Pt. 
763, Subpt. E, App. C). For employers whose Class II work with 
asbestos-containing material involves only the removal and/or 
disturbance of one generic category of building/vessel material, such 
as roofing materials, flooring/deck materials, siding materials or 
transite panels, instead, such employer is required to train employees 
who perform such work by providing a training course which includes as 
a minimum all the elements included in paragraph (k)(8)(v) of this 
section and in addition, the specific work practices and engineering 
controls set forth in paragraph (g) of this section which specifically 
relate to that material category. Such course shall include ``hands-
on'' training and shall take at least 8 hours.
    (iv) Training for Class III employees shall be the equivalent in 
curriculum and training method to the 16-hour Operations and 
Maintenance course developed by EPA for maintenance and custodial 
workers who conduct activities that will result in the disturbance of 
ACM. [See 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2)]. Such course shall include ``hands-on'' 
training in the use of respiratory protection and work practices and 
shall take at least 16 hours.
    (v) Training for employees performing Class IV operations shall be 
the equivalent in curriculum and training method to the awareness 
training course developed by EPA for maintenance and custodial workers 
who work in buildings containing asbestos- containing material. (See 40 
CFR 763.92 (a)(1)). Such course shall include available information 
concerning the locations of PACM and ACM, and asbestos-containing 
flooring material, or flooring material where the absence of asbestos 
has not been certified; and instruction in recognition of damage, 
deterioration, and delamination of asbestos containing building 
materials. Such course shall take at least 2 hours.
    (vi) The training program shall be conducted in a manner that the 
employee is able to understand. In addition to the content required by 
provisions in paragraph (k)(8)(iii) of this section, the employer shall 
ensure that each such employee is informed of the following:
    (A) Methods of recognizing asbestos, including the requirement in 
paragraph (k)(1) of this section to presume that certain building 
materials contain asbestos.;
    (B) The health effects associated with asbestos exposure;
    (C) The relationship between smoking and asbestos in producing lung 
cancer;
    (D) The nature of operations that could result in exposure to 
asbestos, the importance of necessary protective controls to minimize 
exposure including, as applicable, engineering controls, work 
practices, respirators, housekeeping procedures, hygiene facilities, 
protective clothing, decontamination procedures, emergency procedures, 
and waste disposal procedures, and any necessary instruction in the use 
of these controls and procedures; where Class II and IV work will be or 
is performed, the contents of EPA 20T-2003, ``Managing Asbestos In-
Place'' July 1990 or its equivalent in content;
    (E) The purpose, proper use, fitting instructions, and limitations 
of respirators as required by 29 CFR 1910.134;
    (F) The appropriate work practices for performing the asbestos job;
    (G) Medical surveillance program requirements; and
    (H) The content of this standard, including appendices.
    (I) The names, addresses and phone numbers of public health 
organizations which provide information, materials and/or conduct 
programs concerning smoking cessation. The employer may distribute the 
list of such organizations contained in Appendix J, to comply with this 
requirement.
    (J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the 
meaning of the required legends for such signs and labels.
    (9) Access to training materials. (i) The employer shall make 
readily available to affected employees without cost written materials 
relating to the employee training program, including a copy of this 
regulation.
    (ii) The employer shall provide to the Assistant Secretary and the 
Director, upon request, all information and training materials relating 
to the employee information and training program.
    (iii) The employer shall inform all employees concerning the 
availability of self-help smoking cessation program material. Upon 
employee request, the employer shall distribute such material, 
consisting of NIH Publication No, 89-1647, or equivalent self-help 
material, which is approved or published by a public health 
organization listed in Appendix J.
    (1) Housekeeping--(1) Vacuuming. Where vacuuming methods are 
selected, HEPA filtered vacuuming equipment must be used. The equipment 
shall be used and emptied in a manner that minimizes the reentry of 
asbestos into the workplace.
    (2) Waste disposal. Asbestos waste, scrap, debris, bags, 
containers, equipment, and contaminated clothing consigned for disposal 
shall be collected and disposed of in sealed, labeled, impermeable bags 
or other closed, labeled, impermeable containers.
    (3) Care of asbestos-containing flooring/deck material. (i) All 
vinyl and asphalt flooring/deck material shall be maintained in 
accordance with this paragraph unless the building/facility owner 
demonstrates, pursuant to paragraph (g) that the flooring/deck does not 
contain asbestos.
    (i) Sanding of flooring/deck material is prohibited.
    (ii) Stripping of finishes shall be conducted using low abrasion 
pads at speed lower than 300 rpm and wet methods.
    (iii) Burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only on flooring/
deck which has sufficient finish so that the pad cannot contact the 
flooring/deck material.
    (4) Dust and debris in an area containing accessible thermal system 
insulation or surfacing material or visibly deteriorated ACM. (i) shall 
not be dusted or swept dry, or vacuumed without using a HEPA filter;
    (ii) shall be promptly cleaned up and disposed in leak tight 
containers.
    (m) Medical surveillance--(1) General--(i) Employees covered. The 
employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all 
employees who for a combined total of 30 or more days per year are 
engaged in Class I, II, and III work or are exposed at or above the 
permissible exposure limit or excursion limit, and for employees who 
wear negative pressure respirators pursuant to the requirements of this 
section.
    (ii) Examination by a physician. (A) The employer shall ensure that 
all medical examinations and procedures are performed by or under the 
supervision of a licensed physician, and are provided at no cost to the 
employee and at a reasonable time and place.
    (B) Persons other than such licensed physicians who administer the 
pulmonary function testing required by this section shall complete a 
training course in spirometry sponsored by an appropriate academic or 
professional institution.
    (2) Medical examinations and consultations--(i) Frequency. The 
employer shall make available medical examinations and consultations to 
each employee covered under paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this section on the 
following schedules:
    (A) Prior to assignment of the employee to an area where negative-
pressure respirators are worn;
    (B) When the employee is assigned to an area where exposure to 
asbestos may be at or above the permissible exposure for 30 or more 
days per year, a medical examination must be given within 10 working 
days following the thirtieth day of exposure;
    (C) And at least annually thereafter.
    (D) If the examining physician determines that any of the 
examinations should be provided more frequently than specified, the 
employer shall provide such examinations to affected employees at the 
frequencies specified by the physician.
    (E) Exception: No medical examination is required of any employee 
if adequate records show that the employee has been examined in 
accordance with this paragraph within the past 1-year period.
    (ii) Content. Medical examinations made available pursuant to 
paragraphs (m)(2)(i) (A) through (m)(2)(i) (C) of this section shall 
include:
    (A) A medical and work history with special emphasis directed to 
the pulmonary, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal systems.
    (B) On initial examination, the standardized questionnaire 
contained in Part 1 of Appendix D to this section and, on annual 
examination, the abbreviated standardized questionnaire contained in 
Part 2 of Appendix D to this section.
    (C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and 
gastrointestinal systems, including a chest ,x-ray to be administered 
at the discretion of the physician, and pulmonary function tests of 
forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at one second 
(FEV(1)). Interpretation and classification of chest roentgenogram 
shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix E to this section.
    (D) Any other examinations or tests deemed necessary by the 
examining physician.
    (3) Information provided to the physician. The employer shall 
provide the following information to the examining physician:
    (i) A copy of this standard and Appendices D, E, G, and I to this 
section;
    (ii) A description of the affected employee's duties as they relate 
to the employee's exposure;
    (iii) The employee's representative exposure level or anticipated 
exposure level;
    (iv) A description of any personal protective and respiratory 
equipment used or to be used; and
    (v) Information from previous medical examinations of the affected 
employee that is not otherwise available to the examining physician.
    (4) Physician's written opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain a 
written opinion from the examining physician. This written opinion 
shall contain the results of the medical examination and shall include:
    (A) The physician's opinion as to whether the employee has any 
detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an 
increased risk of material health impairment from exposure to asbestos;
    (B) Any recommended limitations on the employee or on the use of 
personal protective equipment such as respirators; and
    (C) A statement that the employee has been informed by the 
physician of the results of the medical examination and of any medical 
conditions that may result from asbestos exposure.
    (D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the 
physician of the increased risk of lung cancer attributable to the 
combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure.
    (ii) The employer shall instruct the physician not to reveal in the 
written opinion given to the employer specific findings or diagnoses 
unrelated to occupational exposure to asbestos.
    (iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the physician's written 
opinion to the affected employee within 30 days from its receipt.
    (n) Recordkeeping--(1) Objective data relied on pursuant to 
paragraph (f) of this section. (i) Where the employer has relied on 
objective data that demonstrate that products made from or containing 
asbestos are not capable of releasing fibers of asbestos in 
concentrations at or above the permissible exposure limit and/or 
excursion limit under the expected conditions of processing, use, or 
handling to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section, 
the employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record of 
objective data reasonably relied upon in support of the exemption.
    (ii) The record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The product qualifying for exemption;
    (B) The source of the objective data;
    (C) The testing protocol, results of testing, and/or analysis of 
the material for the release of asbestos;
    (D) A description of the operation exempted and how the data 
support the exemption; and
    (E) Other data relevant to the operations, materials, processing, 
or employee exposures covered by the exemption.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain this record for the duration of 
the employer's reliance upon such objective data.
    (2) Exposure measurements. (i) The employer shall keep an accurate 
record of all measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to 
asbestos as prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section. Note: The 
employer may utilize the services of qualified organizations such as 
industry trade associations and employee associations to maintain the 
records required by this section.
    (ii) This record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The date of measurement;
    (B) The operation involving exposure to asbestos that is being 
monitored;
    (C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their 
accuracy;
    (D) Number, duration, and results of samples taken;
    (E) Type of protective devices worn, if any; and
    (F) Name, social security number, and exposure of the employees 
whose exposures are represented.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain this record for at least thirty 
(30) years, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.
    (3) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and 
maintain an accurate record for each employee subject to medical 
surveillance by paragraph (m) of this section, in accordance with 29 
CFR 1910.20.
    (ii) The record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The name and social security number of the employee;
    (B) A copy of the employee's medical examination results, including 
the medical history, questionnaire responses, results of any tests, and 
physician's recommendations.
    (C) Physician's written opinions;
    (D) Any employee medical complaints related to exposure to 
asbestos; and
    (E) A copy of the information provided to the physician as required 
by paragraph (m) of this section.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that this record is maintained for 
the duration of employment plus thirty (30) years, in accordance with 
29 CFR 1910.20.
    (4) Training records. The employer shall maintain all employee 
training records for one 1 year beyond the last date of employment by 
that employer.
    (5) Data to Rebut PACM:
    (i) Where the building owner and employer have relied on data to 
demonstrate that PACM is not asbestos-containing, such data shall be 
maintained for as long as they are relied upon to rebut the 
presumption.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (6) Records of Required Notification.
    (i) Where the building/vessel owner has communicated and received 
information concerning the identity, location and quantity of ACM and 
PACM, written records of such notifications and their content shall be 
maintained by the owner for the duration of ownership and shall be 
transferred to successive owners of such buildings/facilities/vessels.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (7) Availability. (i) The employer, upon written request, shall 
make all records required to be maintained by this section available to 
the Assistant Secretary and the Director for examination and copying.
    (ii) The employer, upon request, shall make any exposure records 
required by paragraphs (f) and (n) of this section available for 
examination and copying to affected employees, former employees, 
designated representatives, and the Assistant Secretary, in accordance 
with 29 CFR 1910.20(a) through (e) and (g) through (i).
    (iii) The employer, upon request, shall make employee medical 
records required by paragraphs (m) and (n) of this section available 
for examination and copying to the subject employee, anyone having the 
specific written consent of the subject employee, and the Assistant 
Secretary, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.
    (8) Transfer of records. (i) The employer shall comply with the 
requirements concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 1910.20 
(h).
    (ii) Whenever the employer ceases to do business and there is no 
successor employer to receive and retain the records for the prescribed 
period, the employer shall notify the Director at least 90 days prior 
to disposal and, upon request, transmit them to the Director.
    (o) Qualified person. (1) General. On all shipyard worksites 
covered by this standard, the employer shall designate a qualified 
person, having the qualifications and authorities for ensuring worker 
safety and health required by Subpart C, General Safety and Health 
Provisions for Construction (29 CFR 1926.20 through 1926.32).
    (2) Required Inspections by the Qualified Person. 
Sec. 1926.20(b)(2) which requires health and safety prevention programs 
to provide for frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, 
materials, and equipment to be made by qualified persons, is 
incorporated.
    (3) Additional Inspections. In addition, the qualified person shall 
make frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, in order to 
perform the duties set out in paragraph (p)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. For Class I jobs, on-site inspections shall be made at least 
once during each work shift, and at any time at employee request. For 
Class II and III jobs, on-site inspections shall be made at intervals 
sufficient to assess whether conditions have changed, and at any 
reasonable time at employee request.
    (i) On all worksites where employees are engaged in Class I or II 
asbestos work, the qualified person designated in accordance with 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall perform or supervise the 
following duties, as applicable:
    (A) Set up the regulated area, enclosure, or other containment;
    (B) Ensure (by on-site inspection) the integrity of the enclosure 
or containment;
    (C) Set up procedures to control entry to and exit from the 
enclosure and/or area;
    (D) Supervise all employee exposure monitoring required by this 
section and ensure that it is conducted as required by paragraph (f) of 
this section;
    (E) Ensure that employees working within the enclosure and/or using 
glove bags wear protective clothing and respirators as required by 
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section;
    (F) Ensure through on-site supervision, that employees set up and 
remove engineering controls, use work practices and personal protective 
equipment in compliance with all requirements;
    (G) Ensure that employees use the hygiene facilities and observe 
the decontamination procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this 
section;
    (H) Ensure that though on-site inspection engineering controls are 
functioning properly and employees are using proper work practices; and
    (I) Ensure that notification requirements in paragraph (f)(6) of 
this section are met.
    (4) Training for the competent person;
    (i) For Class I and II asbestos work the qualified person shall be 
trained in all aspects of asbestos removal and handling, including: 
abatement, installation, removal and handling; the contents of this 
standard; the identification of asbestos; removal procedures, where 
appropriate; and other practices for reducing the hazard. Such training 
shall be obtained in a comprehensive course for supervisors, such as a 
course conducted by an EPA or state-approved training provider, 
certified by the EPA or a state, or an course equivalent in stringency, 
content, and length.
    (ii) For Class III asbestos work operations, the qualified person 
shall be trained in aspects of asbestos handling appropriate for the 
nature of the work, to include procedures for setting up glove bags and 
mini-enclosures, practices for reducing asbestos exposures, use of wet 
methods, the contents of this standard, and the identification of 
asbestos. Such training shall be obtained in a comprehensive course for 
supervisors, such as a course conducted by an EPA or state-approved 
training provider, certified by the EPA or a state, or an equivalent in 
stringency, content, and length.
    (p) Appendices. (1) Appendices A, C, D, and E to this section are 
incorporated as part of this section and the contents of these 
appendices are mandatory.
    (2) Appendices B, F, H, I, J, and K to this section are 
informational and are not intended to create any additional obligations 
not otherwise imposed or to detract from any existing obligations.
    (q) Dates.
    (1) This standard shall become effective October 11, 1994.
    (2) The provisions of 29 CFR 1926.58 and 29 CFR 1910,1001 remain in 
effect until the start-up dates of the equivalent provisions of this 
standard.
    (3) Start-up dates: All obligations of this standard commence on 
the effective date except as follows:
    (i) Methods of compliance. The engineering and work practice 
controls required by paragraph (g) of this section shall be implemented 
as soon as possible but no later than April 10, 1995.
    (ii) Respiratory protection. Respiratory protection required by 
paragraph (h) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but 
no later than February 8, 1995.
    (iii) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. Hygiene 
facilities and practices required by paragraph (j) of this section 
shall be provided as soon as possible but no later than February 8, 
1995.
    (iv) Communication of hazards. Identification, notification, 
labeling and sign posting, and training required by paragraph (k) of 
this section shall be provided as soon as possible, but no later than 
April 10, 1995.
    (v) Housekeeping. Housekeeping practices and controls required by 
paragraph (l) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible, 
but no later than January 9, 1995.
    (vi) Medical surveillance required by paragraph (m) of this section 
shall be provided as soon as possible, but no later than January 9, 
1995.
    (vii) The designation and training of competent persons required by 
paragraph (o) of this section shall completed as soon as possible but 
no later than April 10, 1995.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1218-0195)

Appendix A to Sec. 1915.1001. OSHA Reference Method.--Mandatory

    This mandatory appendix specifies the procedure for analyzing 
air samples for asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite 
and specifies quality control procedures that must be implemented by 
laboratories performing the analysis. The sampling and analytical 
methods described below represent the elements of the available 
monitoring methods (such as appendix B to this section, the most 
current version of the OSHA method ID-60, or the most current 
version of the NIOSH 7400 method) which OSHA considers to be 
essential to achieve adequate employee exposure monitoring while 
allowing employers to use methods that are already established 
within their organizations. All employers who are required to 
conduct air monitoring under paragraph (f) of this section are 
required to utilize analytical laboratories that use this procedure, 
or an equivalent method, for collecting and analyzing samples.

Sampling and Analytical Procedure

    1. The sampling medium for air samples shall be mixed cellulose 
ester filter membranes. These shall be designated by the 
manufacturer as suitable for asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and 
actinolite counting. See below for rejection of blanks.
    2. The preferred collection device shall be the 25-mm diameter 
cassette with an open-faced 50-mm extension cowl. The 37-mm cassette 
may be used if necessary but only if written justification for the 
need to use the 37-mm filter cassette accompanies the sample results 
in the employee's exposure monitoring record. Do not reuse or reload 
cassettes for asbestos sample collection.
    3. An air flow rate between 0.5 liter/min and 2.5 liters/min 
shall be selected for the 25-mm cassette. If the 37-mm cassette is 
used, an air flow rate between 1 liter/min and 2.5 liters/min shall 
be selected.
    4. Where possible, a sufficient air volume for each air sample 
shall be collected to yield between 100 and 1,300 fibers per square 
millimeter on the membrane filter. If a filter darkens in appearance 
or if loose dust is seen on the filter, a second sample shall be 
started.
    5. Ship the samples in a rigid container with sufficient packing 
material to prevent dislodging the collected fibers. Packing 
material that has a high electrostatic charge on its surface (e.g., 
expanded polystyrene) cannot be used because such material can cause 
loss of fibers to the sides of the cassette.
    6. Calibrate each personal sampling pump before and after use 
with a representative filter cassette installed between the pump and 
the calibration devices.
    7. Personal samples shall be taken in the ``breathing zone'' of 
the employee (i.e., attached to or near the collar or lapel near the 
worker's face).
    8. Fiber counts shall be made by positive phase contrast using a 
microscope with an 8 to 10 X eyepiece and a 40 to 45 X objective for 
a total magnification of approximately 400 X and a numerical 
aperture of 0.65 to 0.75. The microscope shall also be fitted with a 
green or blue filter.
    9. The microscope shall be fitted with a Walton-Beckett eyepiece 
graticule calibrated for a field diameter of 100 micrometers (+/- 2 
micrometers).
    10. The phase-shift detection limit of the microscope shall be 
about 3 degrees measured using the HSE phase shift test slide as 
outlined below.
    a. Place the test slide on the microscope stage and center it 
under the phase objective.
    b. Bring the blocks of grooved lines into focus.

    Note: The slide consists of seven sets of grooved lines (ca. 20 
grooves to each block) in descending order of visibility from sets 1 
to 7, seven being the least visible. The requirements for asbestos, 
tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite counting are that the 
microscope optics must resolve the grooved lines in set 3 
completely, although they may appear somewhat faint, and that the 
grooved lines in sets 6 and 7 must be invisible. Sets 4 and 5 must 
be at least partially visible but may vary slightly in visibility 
between microscopes. A microscope that fails to meet these 
requirements has either too low or too high a resolution to be used 
for asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite counting.
    c. If the image deteriorates, clean and adjust the microscope 
optics. If the problem persists, consult the microscope 
manufacturer.
    11. Each set of samples taken will include 10 percent blanks or 
a minimum of 2 blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot as 
the filters used for sample collection. The field blank results 
shall be averaged and subtracted from the analytical results before 
reporting. Any samples represented by a blank having a fiber count 
in excess of the detection limit of the method being used shall be 
rejected.
    12. The samples shall be mounted by the acetone/triacetin method 
or a method with an equivalent index of refraction and similar 
clarity.
    13. Observe the following counting rules.
    a. Count only fibers equal to or longer than 5 micrometers. 
Measure the length of curved fibers along the curve.
    b. Count all particles as asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, 
and actinolite that have a length-to-width ratio (aspect ratio) of 
3:1 or greater.
    c. Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton-
Beckett graticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing 
the boundary once, having one end within the circle, shall receive 
the count of one half (\1/2\). Do not count any fiber that crosses 
the graticule boundary more than once. Reject and do not count any 
other fibers even though they may be visible outside the graticule 
area.
    d. Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual fibers 
can be identified by observing both ends of an individual fiber.
    e. Count enough graticule fields to yield 100 fibers. Count a 
minimum of 20 fields; stop counting at 100 fields regardless of 
fiber count.
    14. Blind recounts shall be conducted at the rate of 10 percent.

Quality Control Procedures

    1. Intra-laboratory program. Each laboratory and/or each company 
with more than one microscopist counting slides shall establish a 
statistically designed quality assurance program involving blind 
recounts and comparisons between microscopists to monitor the 
variability of counting by each microscopist and between 
microscopists. In a company with more than one laboratory, the 
program shall include all laboratories and shall also evaluate the 
laboratory-to-laboratory variability.
    2. a. Interlaboratory program. Each laboratory analyzing 
asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite samples for 
compliance determination shall implement an interlaboratory quality 
assurance program that as a minimum includes participation of at 
least two other independent laboratories. Each laboratory shall 
participate in round robin testing at least once every 6 months with 
at least all the other laboratories in its interlaboratory quality 
assurance group. Each laboratory shall submit slides typical of its 
own work load for use in this program. The round robin shall be 
designed and results analyzed using appropriate statistical 
methodology.
    b. All laboratories should participate in a national sample 
testing scheme such as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program 
(PAT), the Asbestos Registry sponsored by the American Industrial 
Hygiene Association (AIHA).
    3. All individuals performing asbestos, tremolite, 
anthophyllite, and actinolite analysis must have taken the NIOSH 
course for sampling and evaluating airborne asbestos, tremolite, 
anthophyllite, and actinolite dust or an equivalent course.
    4. When the use of different microscopes contributes to 
differences between counters and laboratories, the effect of the 
different microscope shall be evaluated and the microscope shall be 
replaced, as necessary.
    5. Current results of these quality assurance programs shall be 
posted in each laboratory to keep the microscopists informed.

Appendix B to Sec. 1915.1001--Detailed Procedures for Asbestos 
Sampling and Analysis (Non-mandatory)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Air        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix:                                                                 
  OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits:                                     
    Time Weighted Average.........................  0.1 fiber/cc        
    Excursion Level (30 minutes)..................  1.0 fiber/cc        
Collection Procedure:                                                   
    A known volume of air is drawn through a 25-mm diameter cassette    
containing a mixed-cellulose ester filter. The cassette must be equipped
 with an electrically conductive 50-mm extension cowl. The sampling time
   and rate are chosen to give a fiber density of between 100 to 1,300  
                        fibers/mm2 on the filter.                       
Recommended Sampling Rate.........................  0.5 to 5.0 liters/  
                                                     minute (L/min)     
Recommended Air Volumes:                                                
    Minimum.......................................  25 L                
    Maximum.......................................  2,400 L             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analytical Procedure: A portion of the sample filter is cleared 
and prepared for asbestos fiber counting by Phase Contrast 
Microscopy (PCM) at 400X.
    Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method 
are for descriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by 
USDOL-OSHA. Similar products from other sources can be substituted.

1. Introduction

    This method describes the collection of airborne asbestos fibers 
using calibrated sampling pumps with mixed-cellulose ester (MCE) 
filters and analysis by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Some terms 
used are unique to this method and are defined below: Asbestos: A 
term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos includes 
chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos), 
tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, and 
any of these minerals that have been chemically treated and/or 
altered. The precise chemical formulation of each species will vary 
with the location from which it was mined. Nominal compositions are 
listed:

Chrysotile.........................  Mg3Si2O5(OH)4                      
Crocidolite........................  Na2Fe32+Fe23+Si8O22(OH)2           
Amosite............................  (Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2                
Tremolite-actinolite...............  Ca2(Mg,Fe)5Si8O22(OH)2             
Anthophyllite......................  (Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2                
                                                                        

    Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos which meets the criteria 
specified below for a fiber.
    Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to it's 
diameter (e.g. 3:1, 5:1 aspect ratios).
    Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by comminution of 
minerals, especially those characterized by parallel sides and a 
moderate aspect ratio (usually less than 20:1).
    Detection Limit: The number of fibers necessary to be 95% 
certain that the result is greater than zero.
    Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of 
excluding certain kinds of fibers from the fiber count because they 
do not appear to be asbestos.
    Fiber: A particle that is 5 m or longer, with a length-
to-width ratio of 3 to 1 or longer.
    Field: The area within the graticule circle that is superimposed 
on the microscope image.
    Set: The samples which are taken, submitted to the laboratory, 
analyzed, and for which, interim or final result reports are 
generated.
    Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite: The non-asbestos form 
of these minerals which meet the definition of a fiber. It includes 
any of these minerals that have been chemically treated and/or 
altered.
    Walton-Beckett Graticule: An eyepiece graticule specifically 
designed for asbestos fiber counting. It consists of a circle with a 
projected diameter of 100  2 m (area of about 
0.00785 mm2) with a crosshair having tic-marks at 3-m 
intervals in one direction and 5-m in the orthogonal 
direction. There are marks around the periphery of the circle to 
demonstrate the proper sizes and shapes of fibers. This design is 
reproduced in Figure 2. The disk is placed in one of the microscope 
eyepieces so that the design is superimposed on the field of view.

1.1. History

    Early surveys to determine asbestos exposures were conducted 
using impinger counts of total dust with the counts expressed as 
million particles per cubic foot. The British Asbestos Research 
Council recommended filter membrane counting in 1969. In July 1969, 
the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health published a filter 
membrane method for counting asbestos fibers in the United States. 
This method was refined by NIOSH and published as P & CAM 239. On 
May 29, 1971, OSHA specified filter membrane sampling with phase 
contrast counting for evaluation of asbestos exposures at work sites 
in the United States. The use of this technique was again required 
by OSHA in 1986. Phase contrast microscopy has continued to be the 
method of choice for the measurement of occupational exposure to 
asbestos.

1.2. Principle

    Air is drawn through a MCE filter to capture airborne asbestos 
fibers. A wedge shaped portion of the filter is removed, placed on a 
glass microscope slide and made transparent. A measured area (field) 
is viewed by PCM. All the fibers meeting a defined criteria for 
asbestos are counted and considered a measure of the airborne 
asbestos concentration.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

    There are four main advantages of PCM over other methods:
    (1) The technique is specific for fibers. Phase contrast is a 
fiber counting technique which excludes non-fibrous particles from 
the analysis.
    (2) The technique is inexpensive and does not require 
specialized knowledge to carry out the analysis for total fiber 
counts.
    (3) The analysis is quick and can be performed on-site for rapid 
determination of air concentrations of asbestos fibers.
    (4) The technique has continuity with historical epidemiological 
studies so that estimates of expected disease can be inferred from 
long-term determinations of asbestos exposures.
    The main disadvantage of PCM is that it does not positively 
identify asbestos fibers. Other fibers which are not asbestos may be 
included in the count unless differential counting is performed. 
This requires a great deal of experience to adequately differentiate 
asbestos from non-asbestos fibers. Positive identification of 
asbestos must be performed by polarized light or electron microscopy 
techniques. A further disadvantage of PCM is that the smallest 
visible fibers are about 0.2 m in diameter while the finest 
asbestos fibers may be as small as 0.02 m in diameter. For 
some exposures, substantially more fibers may be present than are 
actually counted.

1.4. Workplace Exposure

    Asbestos is used by the construction industry in such products 
as shingles, floor tiles, asbestos cement, roofing felts, insulation 
and acoustical products. Non-construction uses include brakes, 
clutch facings, paper, paints, plastics, and fabrics. One of the 
most significant exposures in the workplace is the removal and 
encapsulation of asbestos in schools, public buildings, and homes. 
Many workers have the potential to be exposed to asbestos during 
these operations.
    About 95% of the asbestos in commercial use in the United States 
is chrysotile. Crocidolite and amosite make up most of the 
remainder. Anthophyllite and tremolite or actinolite are likely to 
be encountered as contaminants in various industrial products.

1.5. Physical Properties

    Asbestos fiber possesses a high tensile strength along its axis, 
is chemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. It has a 
high electrical resistance and good sound absorbing properties. It 
can be weaved into cables, fabrics or other textiles, and also 
matted into asbestos papers, felts, or mats.

2. Range and Detection Limit

    2.1. The ideal counting range on the filter is 100 to 1,300 
fibers/mm2. With a Walton-Beckett graticule this range is 
equivalent to 0.8 to 10 fibers/field. Using NIOSH counting 
statistics, a count of 0.8 fibers/field would give an approximate 
coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.13.
    2.2. The detection limit for this method is 4.0 fibers per 100 
fields or 5.5 fibers/mm2. This was determined using an equation 
to estimate the maximum CV possible at a specific concentration (95% 
confidence) and a Lower Control Limit of zero. The CV value was then 
used to determine a corresponding concentration from historical CV 
vs fiber relationships. As an example:

Lower Control Limit (95% Confidence) = AC--1.645(CV)(AC)
Where:

AC = Estimate of the airborne fiber concentration (fibers/cc) 
Setting the Lower Control Limit = 0 and solving for CV:
0 = AC--1.645(CV)(AC)
CV = 0.61

    This value was compared with CV vs. count curves. The count at 
which CV = 0.61 for Leidel-Busch counting statistics (8.9.) or for 
an OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center (OSHA-SLTC) CV curve (see 
Appendix A for further information) was 4.4 fibers or 3.9 fibers per 
100 fields, respectively. Although a lower detection limit of 4 
fibers per 100 fields is supported by the OSHA-SLTC data, both data 
sets support the 4.5 fibers per 100 fields value.

3. Method Performance--Precision and Accuracy

    Precision is dependent upon the total number of fibers counted 
and the uniformity of the fiber distribution on the filter. A 
general rule is to count at least 20 and not more than 100 fields. 
The count is discontinued when 100 fibers are counted, provided that 
20 fields have already been counted. Counting more than 100 fibers 
results in only a small gain in precision. As the total count drops 
below 10 fibers, an accelerated loss of precision is noted.
    At this time, there is no known method to determine the absolute 
accuracy of the asbestos analysis. Results of samples prepared 
through the Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT) Program and 
analyzed by the OSHA-SLTC showed no significant bias when compared 
to PAT reference values. The PAT samples were analyzed from 1987 to 
1989 (N=36) and the concentration range was from 120 to 1,300 
fibers/mm2.

4. Interferences

    Fibrous substances, if present, may interfere with asbestos 
analysis.
    Some common fibers are:

Fiber glass........................  Perlite veins.                     
Anhydrite plant fibers gypsum......  Some synthetic fibers.             
Membrane structures................  Sponge spicules and diatoms.       
Microorganisms.....................  Wollastonite.                      
                                                                        

    The use of electron microscopy or optical tests such as 
polarized light, and dispersion staining may be used to 
differentiate these materials from asbestos when necessary.

5. Sampling

5.1. Equipment

    5.1.1. Sample assembly (The assembly is shown in Figure 3). 
Conductive filter holder consisting of a 25-mm diameter, 3-piece 
cassette having a 50-mm long electrically conductive extension cowl. 
Backup pad, 25-mm, cellulose. Membrane filter, mixed-cellulose ester 
(MCE), 25-mm, plain, white, 0.8- to 1.2-m pore size.

    Notes: (a) DO NOT RE-USE CASSETTES.
    (b) Fully conductive cassettes are required to reduce fiber loss 
to the sides of the cassette due to electrostatic attraction.
    (c) Purchase filters which have been selected by the 
manufacturer for asbestos counting or analyze representative filters 
for fiber background before use. Discard the filter lot if more than 
4 fibers/100 fields are found.
    (d) To decrease the possibility of contamination, the sampling 
system (filter-backup pad-cassette) for asbestos is usually 
preassembled by the manufacturer.

    5.1.2. Gel bands for sealing cassettes.
    5.1.3. Sampling pump.
    Each pump must be a battery operated, self-contained unit small 
enough to be placed on the monitored employee and not interfere with 
the work being performed. The pump must be capable of sampling at 
2.5 liters per minute (L/min) for the required sampling time.
    5.1.4. Flexible tubing, 6-mm bore.
    5.1.5. Pump calibration.
    Stopwatch and bubble tube/burette or electronic meter.

5.2. Sampling Procedure

    5.2.1. Seal the point where the base and cowl of each cassette 
meet (see Figure 3) with a gel band or tape.
    5.2.2. Charge the pumps completely before beginning.
    5.2.3. Connect each pump to a calibration cassette with an 
appropriate length of 6-mm bore plastic tubing. Do not use luer 
connectors--the type of cassette specified above has built-in 
adapters.
    5.2.4. Select an appropriate flow rate for the situation being 
monitored. The sampling flow rate must be between 0.5 and 5.0 L/min 
for personal sampling and is commonly set between 1 and 2 L/min. 
Always choose a flow rate that will not produce overloaded filters.
    5.2.5. Calibrate each sampling pump before and after sampling 
with a calibration cassette in-line (Note: This calibration cassette 
should be from the same lot of cassettes used for sampling). Use a 
primary standard (e.g. bubble burette) to calibrate each pump. If 
possible, calibrate at the sampling site.

    Note: If sampling site calibration is not possible, 
environmental influences may affect the flow rate. The extent is 
dependent on the type of pump used. Consult with the pump 
manufacturer to determine dependence on environmental influences. If 
the pump is affected by temperature and pressure changes, use the 
formula in Appendix B to this section to calculate the actual flow 
rate.

    5.2.6. Connect each pump to the base of each sampling cassette 
with flexible tubing. Remove the end cap of each cassette and take 
each air sample open face. Assure that each sample cassette is held 
open side down in the employee's breathing zone during sampling. The 
distance from the nose/mouth of the employee to the cassette should 
be about 10 cm. Secure the cassette on the collar or lapel of the 
employee using spring clips or other similar devices.
    5.2.7. A suggested minimum air volume when sampling to determine 
TWA compliance is 25 L. For Excursion Limit (30 min sampling time) 
evaluations, a minimum air volume of 48 L is recommended.
    5.2.8. The most significant problem when sampling for asbestos 
is overloading the filter with non-asbestos dust. Suggested maximum 
air sample volumes for specific environments are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Air vol. 
                         Environment                              (L)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal operations (visible dust)..................  100       
Asbestos removal operations (little dust)...................  240       
Office environments.........................................  400 to    
                                                               2,400    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Caution: Do not overload the filter with dust. High levels of 
non-fibrous dust particles may obscure fibers on the filter and 
lower the count or make counting impossible. If more than about 25 
to 30% of the field area is obscured with dust, the result may be 
biased low. Smaller air volumes may be necessary when there is 
excessive non-asbestos dust in the air.
    While sampling, observe the filter with a small flashlight. If 
there is a visible layer of dust on the filter, stop sampling, 
remove and seal the cassette, and replace with a new sampling 
assembly. The total dust loading should not exceed 1 mg.
    5.2.9. Blank samples are used to determine if any contamination 
has occurred during sample handling. Prepare two blanks for the 
first 1 to 20 samples. For sets containing greater than 20 samples, 
prepare blanks as 10% of the samples. Handle blank samples in the 
same manner as air samples with one exception: Do not draw any air 
through the blank samples. Open the blank cassette in the place 
where the sample cassettes are mounted on the employee. Hold it open 
for about 30 seconds. Close and seal the cassette appropriately. 
Store blanks for shipment with the sample cassettes.
    5.2.10. Immediately after sampling, close and seal each cassette 
with the base and plastic plugs. Do not touch or puncture the filter 
membrane as this will invalidate the analysis.
    5.2.11. Attach a seal (OSHA-21 or equivalent) around each 
cassette in such a way as to secure the end cap plug and base plug. 
Tape the ends of the seal together since the seal is not long enough 
to be wrapped end-to-end. Also wrap tape around the cassette at each 
joint to keep the seal secure.

5.3. Sample Shipment

    5.3.1. Send the samples to the laboratory with paperwork 
requesting asbestos analysis. List any known fibrous interferences 
present during sampling on the paperwork. Also, note the workplace 
operation(s) sampled.
    5.3.2. Secure and handle the samples in such that they will not 
rattle during shipment nor be exposed to static electricity. Do not 
ship samples in expanded polystyrene peanuts, vermiculite, paper 
shreds, or excelsior. Tape sample cassettes to sheet bubbles and 
place in a container that will cushion the samples without rattling.
    5.3.3. To avoid the possibility of sample contamination, always 
ship bulk samples in separate mailing containers.

6. Analysis

6.1. Safety Precautions

    6.1.1. Acetone is extremely flammable and precautions must be 
taken not to ignite it. Avoid using large containers or quantities 
of acetone. Transfer the solvent in a ventilated laboratory hood. Do 
not use acetone near any open flame. For generation of acetone 
vapor, use a spark free heat source.
    6.1.2. Any asbestos spills should be cleaned up immediately to 
prevent dispersal of fibers. Prudence should be exercised to avoid 
contamination of laboratory facilities or exposure of personnel to 
asbestos. Asbestos spills should be cleaned up with wet methods and/
or a High Efficiency Particulate-Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum.
    Caution: Do not use a vacuum without a HEPA filter--It will 
disperse fine asbestos fibers in the air.

6.2. Equipment

    6.2.1. Phase contrast microscope with binocular or trinocular 
head.
    6.2.2. Widefield or Huygenian 10X eyepieces (NOTE: The eyepiece 
containing the graticule must be a focusing eyepiece. Use a 40X 
phase objective with a numerical aperture of 0.65 to 0.75).
    6.2.3. Kohler illumination (if possible) with green or blue 
filter.
    6.2.4. Walton-Beckett Graticule, type G-22 with 100  
2 m projected diameter.
    6.2.5. Mechanical stage. A rotating mechanical stage is 
convenient for use with polarized light.
    6.2.6. Phase telescope.
    6.2.7. Stage micrometer with 0.01-mm subdivisions.
    6.2.8. Phase-shift test slide, mark II (Available from PTR 
optics Ltd., and also McCrone).
    6.2.9. Precleaned glass slides, 25 mm X 75 mm. One end can be 
frosted for convenience in writing sample numbers, etc., or paste-on 
labels can be used.
    6.2.10. Cover glass #1\1/2\.
    6.2.11. Scalpel (#10, curved blade).
    6.2.12. Fine tipped forceps.
    6.2.13. Aluminum block for clearing filter (see Appendix D and 
Figure 4).
    6.2.14. Automatic adjustable pipette, 100- to 500-L.
    6.2.15. Micropipette, 5 L.

6.3. Reagents

    6.3.1. Acetone (HPLC grade).
    6.3.2. Triacetin (glycerol triacetate).
    6.3.3. Lacquer or nail polish.

6.4. Standard Preparation

    A way to prepare standard asbestos samples of known 
concentration has not been developed. It is possible to prepare 
replicate samples of nearly equal concentration. This has been 
performed through the PAT program. These asbestos samples are 
distributed by the AIHA to participating laboratories.
    Since only about one-fourth of a 25-mm sample membrane is 
required for an asbestos count, any PAT sample can serve as a 
``standard'' for replicate counting.

6.5. Sample Mounting

    Note: See Safety Precautions in Section 6.1. before proceeding. 
The objective is to produce samples with a smooth (non-grainy) 
background in a medium with a refractive index of approximately 
1.46. The technique below collapses the filter for easier focusing 
and produces permanent mounts which are useful for quality control 
and interlaboratory comparison.
    An aluminum block or similar device is required for sample 
preparation.
    6.5.1. Heat the aluminum block to about 70 deg. C. The hot block 
should not be used on any surface that can be damaged by either the 
heat or from exposure to acetone.
    6.5.2. Ensure that the glass slides and cover glasses are free 
of dust and fibers.
    6.5.3. Remove the top plug to prevent a vacuum when the cassette 
is opened. Clean the outside of the cassette if necessary. Cut the 
seal and/or tape on the cassette with a razor blade. Very carefully 
separate the base from the extension cowl, leaving the filter and 
backup pad in the base.
    6.5.4. With a rocking motion cut a triangular wedge from the 
filter using the scalpel. This wedge should be one-sixth to one-
fourth of the filter. Grasp the filter wedge with the forceps on the 
perimeter of the filter which was clamped between the cassette 
pieces. DO NOT TOUCH the filter with your finger. Place the filter 
on the glass slide sample side up. Static electricity will usually 
keep the filter on the slide until it is cleared.
    6.5.5. Place the tip of the micropipette containing about 200 
L acetone into the aluminum block. Insert the glass slide 
into the receiving slot in the aluminum block. Inject the acetone 
into the block with slow, steady pressure on the plunger while 
holding the pipette firmly in place. Wait 3 to 5 seconds for the 
filter to clear, then remove the pipette and slide from the aluminum 
block.
    6.5.6. Immediately (less than 30 seconds) place 2.5 to 3.5 
L of triacetin on the filter (Note: Waiting longer than 30 
seconds will result in increased index of refraction and decreased 
contrast between the fibers and the preparation. This may also lead 
to separation of the cover slip from the slide).
    6.5.7. Lower a cover slip gently onto the filter at a slight 
angle to reduce the possibility of forming air bubbles. If more than 
30 seconds have elapsed between acetone exposure and triacetin 
application, glue the edges of the cover slip to the slide with 
lacquer or nail polish.
    6.5.8. If clearing is slow, warm the slide for 15 min on a hot 
plate having a surface temperature of about 50 deg. C to hasten 
clearing. The top of the hot block can be used if the slide is not 
heated too long.
    6.5.9. Counting may proceed immediately after clearing and 
mounting are completed.

6.6. Sample Analysis

    Completely align the microscope according to the manufacturer's 
instructions. Then, align the microscope using the following general 
alignment routine at the beginning of every counting session and 
more often if necessary.

6.6.1. Alignment

    (1) Clean all optical surfaces. Even a small amount of dirt can 
significantly degrade the image.
    (2) Rough focus the objective on a sample.
    (3) Close down the field iris so that it is visible in the field 
of view. Focus the image of the iris with the condenser focus. 
Center the image of the iris in the field of view.
    (4) Install the phase telescope and focus on the phase rings. 
Critically center the rings. Misalignment of the rings results in 
astigmatism which will degrade the image.
    (5) Place the phase-shift test slide on the microscope stage and 
focus on the lines. The analyst must see line set 3 and should see 
at least parts of 4 and 5 but, not see line set 6 or 6. A 
microscope/microscopist combination which does not pass this test 
may not be used.

6.6.2. Counting Fibers

    (1) Place the prepared sample slide on the mechanical stage of 
the microscope. Position the center of the wedge under the objective 
lens and focus upon the sample.
    (2) Start counting from one end of the wedge and progress along 
a radial line to the other end (count in either direction from 
perimeter to wedge tip). Select fields randomly, without looking 
into the eyepieces, by slightly advancing the slide in one direction 
with the mechanical stage control.
    (3) Continually scan over a range of focal planes (generally the 
upper 10 to 15 m of the filter surface) with the fine focus 
control during each field count. Spend at least 5 to 15 seconds per 
field.
    (4) Most samples will contain asbestos fibers with fiber 
diameters less than 1 m. Look carefully for faint fiber 
images. The small diameter fibers will be very hard to see. However, 
they are an important contribution to the total count.
    (5) Count only fibers equal to or longer than 5 m. 
Measure the length of curved fibers along the curve.
    (6) Count fibers which have a length to width ratio of 3:1 or 
greater.
    (7) Count all the fibers in at least 20 fields. Continue 
counting until either 100 fibers are counted or 100 fields have been 
viewed; whichever occurs first. Count all the fibers in the final 
field.
    (8) Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton-
Beckett graticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing 
the boundary once, having one end within the circle shall receive a 
count of \1/2\. Do not count any fiber that crosses the graticule 
boundary more than once. Reject and do not count any other fibers 
even though they may be visible outside the graticule area. If a 
fiber touches the circle, it is considered to cross the line.
    (9) Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual 
fibers can be clearly identified and each individual fiber is 
clearly not connected to another counted fiber. See Figure 2 for 
counting conventions.
    (10) Record the number of fibers in each field in a consistent 
way such that filter non-uniformity can be assessed.
    (11) Regularly check phase ring alignment.
    (12) When an agglomerate (mass of material) covers more than 25% 
of the field of view, reject the field and select another. Do not 
include it in the number of fields counted.
    (13) Perform a ``blind recount'' of 1 in every 10 filter wedges 
(slides). Re-label the slides using a person other than the original 
counter.

6.7. Fiber Identification

    As previously mentioned in Section 1.3., PCM does not provide 
positive confirmation of asbestos fibers. Alternate differential 
counting techniques should be used if discrimination is desirable. 
Differential counting may include primary discrimination based on 
morphology, polarized light analysis of fibers, or modification of 
PCM data by Scanning Electron or Transmission Electron Microscopy.
    A great deal of experience is required to routinely and 
correctly perform differential counting. It is discouraged unless it 
is legally necessary. Then, only if a fiber is obviously not 
asbestos should it be excluded from the count. Further discussion of 
this technique can be found in reference 8.10.
    If there is a question whether a fiber is asbestos or not, 
follow the rule:
    ``WHEN IN DOUBT, COUNT.''

6.8. Analytical Recommendations--Quality Control System

    6.8.1. All individuals performing asbestos analysis must have 
taken the NIOSH course for sampling and evaluating airborne asbestos 
or an equivalent course.
    6.8.2. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall set up 
a slide trading arrangement with at least two other laboratories in 
order to compare performance and eliminate inbreeding of error. The 
slide exchange occurs at least semiannually. The round robin results 
shall be posted where all analysts can view individual analyst's 
results.
    6.8.3. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall 
participate in the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program, the 
Asbestos Analyst Registry or equivalent.
    6.8.4. Each analyst shall select and count prepared slides from 
a ``slide bank''. These are quality assurance counts. The slide bank 
shall be prepared using uniformly distributed samples taken from the 
workload. Fiber densities should cover the entire range routinely 
analyzed by the laboratory. These slides are counted blind by all 
counters to establish an original standard deviation. This 
historical distribution is compared with the quality assurance 
counts. A counter must have 95% of all quality control samples 
counted within three standard deviations of the historical mean. 
This count is then integrated into a new historical mean and 
standard deviation for the slide.
    The analyses done by the counters to establish the slide bank 
may be used for an interim quality control program if the data are 
treated in a proper statistical fashion.

7. Calculations

    7.1. Calculate the estimated airborne asbestos fiber 
concentration on the filter sample using the following formula:

TR10AU94.027


Where:

AC = Airborne fiber concentration
FB = Total number of fibers greater than 5 m counted
FL = Total number of fields counted on the filter
BFB = Total number of fibers greater than 5 m counted in 
the blank
BFL = Total number of fields counted on the blank
ECA = Effective collecting area of filter (385 mm\2\ nominal for a 
25-mm filter.)
FR = Pump flow rate (L/min)
MFA = Microscope count field area (mm\2\). This is 0.00785 mm\2\ for 
a Walton-Beckett Graticule.
T = Sample collection time (min)
1,000 = Conversion of L to cc

    Note: The collection area of a filter is seldom equal to 385 
mm\2\. It is appropriate for laboratories to routinely monitor the 
exact diameter using an inside micrometer. The collection area is 
calculated according to the formula:
Area = (d/2)\2\

7.2. Short-cut Calculation

    Since a given analyst always has the same interpupillary 
distance, the number of fields per filter for a particular analyst 
will remain constant for a given size filter. The field size for 
that analyst is constant (i.e. the analyst is using an assigned 
microscope and is not changing the reticle).
    For example, if the exposed area of the filter is always 385 
mm\2\ and the size of the field is always 0.00785 mm\2\, the number 
of fields per filter will always be 49,000. In addition it is 
necessary to convert liters of air to cc. These three constants can 
then be combined such that ECA/(1,000 X MFA) = 49. The previous 
equation simplifies to:
TR10AU94.028



7.3. Recount Calculations

    As mentioned in step 13 of Section 6.6.2., a ``blind recount'' 
of 10% of the slides is performed. In all cases, differences will be 
observed between the first and second counts of the same filter 
wedge. Most of these differences will be due to chance alone, that 
is, due to the random variability (precision) of the count method. 
Statistical recount criteria enables one to decide whether observed 
differences can be explained due to chance alone or are probably due 
to systematic differences between analysts, microscopes, or other 
biasing factors.
    The following recount criterion is for a pair of counts that 
estimate AC in fibers/cc. The criterion is given at the type-I error 
level. That is, there is 5% maximum risk that we will reject a pair 
of counts for the reason that one might be biased, when the large 
observed difference is really due to chance.
    Reject a pair of counts if:
TR10AU94.029


Where:

AC1=lower estimated airborne fiber concentration
AC2=higher estimated airborne fiber concentration
ACavg=average of the two concentration estimates
CVFB=CV for the average of the two concentration estimates

    If a pair of counts are rejected by this criterion then, recount 
the rest of the filters in the submitted set. Apply the test and 
reject any other pairs failing the test. Rejection shall include a 
memo to the industrial hygienist stating that the sample failed a 
statistical test for homogeneity and the true air concentration may 
be significantly different than the reported value.

7.4. Reporting Results

    Report results to the industrial hygienist as fibers/cc. Use two 
significant figures. If multiple analyses are performed on a sample, 
an average of the results is to be reported unless any of the 
results can be rejected for cause.

8. References

    8.1. Dreesen, W.C., et al, U.S. Public Health Service: A Study 
of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry, (Public Health 
Bulletin No. 241), US Treasury Dept., Washington, DC, 1938.
    8.2. Asbestos Research Council: The Measurement of Airborne 
Asbestos Dust by the Membrane Filter Method (Technical Note), 
Asbestos Research Council, Rockdale, Lancashire, Great Britain, 
1969.
    8.3. Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Brown, T.A., Equipment and 
Procedure for Mounting Millipore Filters and Counting Asbestos 
Fibers by Phase Contrast Microscopy, Bureau of Occupational Health, 
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Cincinnati,OH,1969.
    8.4. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd ed., Vol. 1 (DHEW/
NIOSH Pub. No. 77-157-A). National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health, Cincinnati, OH, 1977.pp.239-1-239-21.
    8.5. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1001. 
1971.
    8.6. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, 
Anthophyllite, and Actinolite. Final Rule, Federal Register 51: 119 
(20 June 1986). pp.22612-22790.
    8.7. Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite, Code of 
Federal Regulations 1910.1001. 1988. pp 711-752.
    8.8. Criteria for a Recommended Standard--Occupational Exposure 
to Asbestos (DHEW/NIOSH Pub. No. HSM 72-10267), National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH, Cincinnati, OH, 1972. pp. 
III-1-III-24.
    8.9. Leidel, N.A., Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Busch, K.A., 
USPHS/NIOSH Membrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne Asbestos 
Fibers (DHEW/NIOSH Pub. No. 79-127). National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, 1979.
    8.10. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in 
Analysis of Asbestos and Quartz, Analytical Techniques in 
Occupational Health Chemistry, edited by D.D. Dollberg and A.W. 
Verstuyft. Wash. D.C.: American Chemical Society, (ACS Symposium 
Series 120) 1980. pp. 13-41.

Quality Control

    The OSHA asbestos regulations require each laboratory to 
establish a quality control program. The following is presented as 
an example of how the OSHA-SLTC constructed its internal CV curve as 
part of meeting this requirement. Data for the CV curve shown below 
is from 395 samples collected during OSHA compliance inspections and 
analyzed from October 1980 through April 1986.
    Each sample was counted by 2 to 5 different counters 
independently of one another. The standard deviation and the CV 
statistic was calculated for each sample. This data was then plotted 
on a graph of CV vs. fibers/mm\2\. A least squares regression was 
performed using the following equation:

CV=antilog10[A(log10(x))\2\+B(log10(x))+C]
Where:

x=the number of fibers/mm\2\

    Application of least squares gave:

A=0.182205
B=-0.973343
C=0.327499

    Using these values, the equation becomes:

CV = antilog10[0.182205(log10 (x))\2\-0.973343(log 
10(x))+0.327499]

Sampling Pump Flow Rate Corrections

    This correction is used if a difference greater than 5% in 
ambient temperature and/or pressure is noted between calibration and 
sampling sites and the pump does not compensate for the differences.
TR10AU94.030


Where:

Qact=actual flow rate
Qcal=calibrated flow rate (if a rotameter was used, the 
rotameter value)
Pcal=uncorrected air pressure at calibration
Pact=uncorrected air pressure at sampling site
Tact=temperature at sampling site (K)
Tcal=temperature at calibration (K)

Walton-Beckett Graticule

    When ordering the Graticule for asbestos counting, specify the 
exact disc diameter needed to fit the ocular of the microscope and 
the diameter (mm) of the circular counting area. Instructions for 
measuring the dimensions necessary are listed:
    (1) Insert any available graticule into the focusing eyepiece 
and focus so that the graticule lines are sharp and clear.
    (2) Align the microscope.
    (3) Place a stage micrometer on the microscope object stage and 
focus the microscope on the graduated lines.
    (4) Measure the magnified grid length, PL (m), using 
the stage micrometer.
    (5) Remove the graticule from the microscope and measure its 
actual grid length, AL (mm). This can be accomplished by using a 
mechanical stage fitted with verniers, or a jeweler's loupe with a 
direct reading scale.
    (6) Let D=100 m. Calculate the circle diameter, dc 
(mm), for the Walton-Beckett graticule and specify the diameter when 
making a purchase:
TR10AU94.031


    Example: If PL=108 m, AL=2.93 mm and D=100 m, 
then,
TR10AU94.032


    (7) Each eyepiece-objective-reticle combination on the 
microscope must be calibrated. Should any of the three be changed 
(by zoom adjustment, disassembly, replacement, etc.), the 
combination must be recalibrated. Calibration may change if 
interpupillary distance is changed.
     Measure the field diameter, D (acceptable range: 100 
2 m) with a stage micrometer upon receipt of 
the graticule from the manufacturer. Determine the field area 
(mm\2\).

Field Area=(D/2)\2\
If D=100 m=0.1 mm, then
Field Area=(0.1 mm/2)\2\=0.00785 mm\2\

    The Graticule is available from: Graticules Ltd., Morley Road, 
Tonbridge TN9 IRN, Kent, England (Telephone 011-44-732-359061). Also 
available from PTR Optics Ltd., 145 Newton Street, Waltham, MA 02154 
[telephone (617) 891-6000] or McCrone Accessories and Components, 
2506 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60616 [phone (312) 842-7100]. The 
graticule is custom made for each microscope.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
TR10AU94.008


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

                   Counts for the Fibers in the Figure                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Structure No.        Count                 Explanation             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 6................          1  Single fibers all contained within   
                                    the circle.                         
7.....................      \1/2\  Fiber crosses circle once.           
8.....................          0  Fiber too short.                     
9.....................          2  Two crossing fibers.                 
10....................          0  Fiber outside graticule.             
11....................          0  Fiber crosses graticule twice.       
12....................      \1/2\  Although split, fiber only crosses   
                                    once.                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix C to Sec. 1915.1001--Qualitative and Quantitative Fit 
Testing Procedures. Mandatory

Qualitative Fit Test Protocols

I. Isoamyl Acetate Protocol

    A. Odor threshold screening. 1. Three 1-liter glass jars with 
metal lids (e.g. Mason or Bell jars) are required.
    2. Odor-free water (e.g. distilled or spring water) at 
approximately 25  deg.C shall be used for the solutions.
    3. The isoamyl acetate (IAA) (also known as isopentyl acetate) 
stock solution is prepared by adding 1 cc of pure IAA to 800 cc of 
odor free water in a 1-liter jar and shaking for 30 seconds. This 
solution shall be prepared new at least weekly.
    4. The screening test shall be conducted in a room separate from 
the room used for actual fit testing. The two rooms shall be well 
ventilated but shall not be connected to the same recirculating 
ventilation system.
    5. The odor test solution is prepared in a second jar by placing 
0.4 cc of the stock solution into 500 cc of odor free water using a 
clean dropper or pipette. Shake for 30 seconds and allow to stand 
for two to three minutes so that the IAA concentration above the 
liquid may reach equilibrium. This solution may be used for only one 
day.
    6. A test blank is prepared in a third jar by adding 500 cc of 
odor free water.
    7. The odor test and test blank jars shall be labelled 1 and 2 
for jar identification. If the labels are put on the lids they can 
be periodically peeled, dried off and switched to maintain the 
integrity of the test.
    8. The following instructions shall be typed on a card and 
placed on the table in front of the two test jars (i.e. 1 and 2): 
``The purpose of this test is to determine if you can smell banana 
oil at a low concentration. The two bottles in front of you contain 
water. One of these bottles also contains a small amount of banana 
oil. Be sure the covers are on tight, then shake each bottle for two 
seconds. Unscrew the lid of each bottle, one at a time, and sniff at 
the mouth of the bottle. Indicate to the test conductor which bottle 
contains banana oil.''
    9. The mixtures used in the IAA odor detection test shall be 
prepared in an area separate from where the test is performed, in 
order to prevent olfactory fatigue in the subject.
    10. If the test subject is unable to correctly identify the jar 
containing the odor test solution, the IAA qualitative fit test may 
not be used.
    11. If the test subject correctly identifies the jar containing 
the odor test solution, the test subject may proceed to respirator 
selection and fit testing.
    B. Respirator Selection. 1. The test subject shall be allowed to 
pick the most comfortable respirator from a selection including 
respirators of various sizes from different manufacturers. The 
selection shall include at least five sizes of elastomeric half 
facepieces, from at least two manufacturers.
    2. The selection process shall be conducted in a room separate 
from the fit-test chamber to prevent odor fatigue. Prior to the 
selection process, the test subject shall be shown how to put on a 
respirator, how it should be positioned on the face, how to set 
strap tension and how to determine a ``comfortable'' respirator. A 
mirror shall be available to assist the subject in evaluating the 
fit and positioning of the respirator. This instruction may not 
constitute the subject's formal training on respirator use, as it is 
only a review.
    3. The test subject should understand that the employee is being 
asked to select the respirator which provides the most comfortable 
fit. Each respirator represents a different size and shape and, if 
fit properly and used properly will provide adequate protection.
    4. The test subject holds each facepiece up to the face and 
eliminates those which obviously do not give a comfortable fit. 
Normally, selection will begin with a half-mask and if a good fit 
cannot be found, the subject will be asked to test the full 
facepiece respirators. (A small percentage of users will not be able 
to wear any half-mask.)
    5. The more comfortable facepieces are noted; the most 
comfortable mask is donned and worn at least five minutes to assess 
comfort. All donning and adjustments of the facepiece shall be 
performed by the test subject without assistance from the test 
conductor or other person. Assistance in assessing comfort can be 
given by discussing the points in #6 below. If the test subject is 
not familiar with using a particular respirator, the test subject 
shall be directed to don the mask several times and to adjust the 
straps each time to become adept at setting proper tension on the 
straps.
    6. Assessment of comfort shall include reviewing the following 
points with the test subject and allowing the test subject adequate 
time to determine the comfort of the respirator:
     Positioning of mask on nose.
     Room for eye protection.
     Room to talk.
     Positioning mask on face and cheeks.
    7. The following criteria shall be used to help determine the 
adequacy of the respirator fit:
     Chin properly placed.
     Strap tension.
     Fit across nose bridge.
     Distance from nose to chin.
     Tendency to slip.
     Self-observation in mirror.
    8. The test subject shall conduct the conventional negative and 
positive-pressure fit checks (e.g. see ANSI Z88.2-1980). Before 
conducting the negative- or positive-pressure test the subject shall 
be told to ``seat'' the mask by rapidly moving the head from side-
to-side and up and down, while taking a few deep breaths.
    9. The test subject is now ready for fit testing.
    10. After passing the fit test, the test subject shall be 
questioned again regarding the comfort of the respirator. If it has 
become uncomfortable, another model of respirator shall be tried.
    11. The employee shall be given the opportunity to select a 
different facepiece and be retested if the chosen facepiece becomes 
increasingly uncomfortable at any time.
    C. Fit test. 1. The fit test chamber shall be similar to a clear 
55 gal drum liner suspended inverted over a 2 foot diameter frame, 
so that the top of the chamber is about 6 inches above the test 
subject's head. The inside top center of the chamber shall have a 
small hook attached.
    2. Each respirator used for the fitting and fit testing shall be 
equipped with organic vapor cartridges or offer protection against 
organic vapors. The cartridges or masks shall be changed at least 
weekly.
    3. After selecting, donning, and properly adjusting a 
respirator, the test subject shall wear it to the fit testing room. 
This room shall be separate from the room used for odor threshold 
screening and respirator selection, and shall be well ventilated, as 
by an exhaust fan or lab hood, to prevent general room 
contamination.
    4. A copy of the following test exercises and rainbow passage 
shall be taped to the inside of the test chamber:

Test Exercises

    i. Breathe normally.
    ii. Breathe deeply. Be certain breaths are deep and regular.
    iii. Turn head all the way from one side to the other. Inhale on 
each side. Be certain movement is complete. Do not bump the 
respirator against the shoulders.
    iv. Nod head up-and-down. Inhale when head is in the full up 
position (looking toward ceiling). Be certain motions are complete 
and made about every second. Do not bump the respirator on the 
chest.
    v. Talking. Talk aloud and slowly for several minutes. The 
following paragraph is called the Rainbow Passage. Reading it will 
result in a wide range of facial movements, and thus be useful to 
satisfy this requirement. Alternative passages which serve the same 
purpose may also be used.
    vi. Jogging in place.
    vii. Breathe normally.

Rainbow Passage

    When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a 
prism and form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light 
into many beautiful colors. These take the shape of a long round 
arch, with its path high above, and its two ends apparently beyond 
the horizon. There is, according to legend, a boiling pot of gold at 
one end. People look, but no one ever finds it. When a man looks for 
something beyond reach, his friends say he is looking for the pot of 
gold at the end of the rainbow.
    5. Each test subject shall wear the respirator for at a least 10 
minutes before starting the fit test.
    6. Upon entering the test chamber, the test subject shall be 
given a 6 inch by 5 inch piece of paper towel or other porous 
absorbent single ply material, folded in half and wetted with three-
quarters of one cc of pure IAA. The test subject shall hang the wet 
towel on the hook at the top of the chamber.
    7. Allow two minutes for the IAA test concentration to be 
reached before starting the fit-test exercises. This would be an 
appropriate time to talk with the test subject, to explain the fit 
test, the importance of cooperation, the purpose for the head 
exercises, or to demonstrate some of the exercises.
    8. Each exercise described in #4 above shall be performed for at 
least one minute.
    9. If at any time during the test, the subject detects the 
banana-like odor of IAA, the test has failed. The subject shall 
quickly exit from the test chamber and leave the test area to avoid 
olfactory fatigue.
    10. If the test is failed, the subject shall return to the 
selection room and remove the respirator, repeat the odor 
sensitivity test, select and put on another respirator, return to 
the test chamber, and again begin the procedure described in the 
c(4) through c(8) above. The process continues until a respirator 
that fits well has been found. Should the odor sensitivity test be 
failed, the subject shall wait about 5 minutes before retesting. 
Odor sensitivity will usually have returned by this time.
    11. If a person cannot pass the fit test described above wearing 
a half-mask respirator from the available selection, full facepiece 
models must be used.
    12. When a respirator is found that passes the test, the subject 
breaks the faceseal and takes a breath before exiting the chamber. 
This is to assure that the reason the test subject is not smelling 
the IAA is the good fit of the respirator facepiece seal and not 
olfactory fatigue.
    13. When the test subject leaves the chamber, the subject shall 
remove the saturated towel and return it to the person conducting 
the test. To keep the area from becoming contaminated, the used 
towels shall be kept in a self-sealing bag so there is no 
significant IAA concentration buildup in the test chamber during 
subsequent tests.
    14. At least two facepieces shall be selected for the IAA test 
protocol. The test subject shall be given the opportunity to wear 
them for one week to choose the one which is more comfortable to 
wear.
    15. Persons who have successfully passed this fit test with a 
half-mask respirator may be assigned the use of the test respirator 
in atmospheres with up to 10 times the PEL of airborne asbestos. In 
atmospheres greater than 10 times, and less than 100 times the PEL 
(up to 100 ppm), the subject must pass the IAA test using a full 
face negative pressure respirator. (The concentration of the 1AA 
inside the test chamber must be increased by ten times for QLFT of 
the full facepiece.)
    16. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth 
between the skin the facepiece sealing surface.
    17. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory fit, 
then they shall be altered or removed so as to eliminate 
interference and allow a satisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is 
still not attained, the test subject must use a positive-pressure 
respirator such as powered air-purifying respirators, supplied air 
respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus.
    18. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during 
the tests, she or he shall be referred to a physician trained in 
respirator diseases or pulmonary medicine to determine whether the 
test subject can wear a respirator while performing her or his 
duties.
    19. Qualitative fit testing shall be repeated at least every six 
months.
    20. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may be 
affected, qualitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when 
the test subject has a:
    (1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more,
    (2) Significant facial scarring in the area of the facepiece 
seal,
    (3) Significant dental changes; i.e.; multiple extractions 
without prothesis, or acquiring dentures,
    (4) Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or
    (5) Any other condition that may interfere with facepiece 
sealing.
    D. Recordkeeping. A summary of all test results shall be 
maintained in each office for 3 years. The summary shall include:
    (1) Name of test subject.
    (2) Date of testing.
    (3) Name of the test conductor.
    (4) Respirators selected (indicate manufacturer, model, size and 
approval number).
    (5) Testing agent.

II. Saccharin Solution Aerosol Protocol

    A. Respirator selection. Respirators shall be selected as 
described in section IB (respirator selection) above, except that 
each respirator shall be equipped with a particulate filter.
     B. Taste Threshold Screening.
    1. An enclosure about head and shoulders shall be used for 
threshold screening (to determine if the individual can taste 
saccharin) and for fit testing. The enclosure shall be approximately 
12 inches in diameter by 14 inches tall with at least the front 
clear to allow free movement of the head when a respirator is worn.
    2. The test enclosure shall have a three-quarter inch hole in 
front of the test subject's nose and mouth area to accommodate the 
nebulizer nozzle.
    3. The entire screening and testing procedure shall be explained 
to the test subject prior to conducting the screening test.
    4. During the threshold screening test, the test subject shall 
don the test enclosure and breathe with open mouth with tongue 
extended.
    5. Using a DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer or 
equivalent, the test conductor shall spray the threshold check 
solution into the enclosure. This nebulizer shall be clearly marked 
to distinguish it from the fit test solution nebulizer.
    6. The threshold check solution consists of 0.83 grams of sodium 
saccharin, USP in water. It can be prepared by putting 1 cc of the 
test solution (see C 7 below) in 100 cc of water.
    7. To produce the aerosol, the nebulizer bulb is firmly squeezed 
so that it collapses completely, then is released and allowed to 
fully expand.
    8. Ten squeezes of the nebulizer bulb are repeated rapidly and 
then the test subject is asked whether the saccharin can be tasted.
    9. If the first response is negative, ten more squeezes of the 
nebulizer bulb are repeated rapidly and the test subject is again 
asked whether the saccharin can be tasted.
    10. If the second response is negative ten more squeezes are 
repeated rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the 
saccharin can be tasted.
    11. The test conductor will take note of the number of squeezes 
required to elicit a taste response.
    12. If the saccharin is not tasted after 30 squeezes (Step 10), 
the saccharin fit test cannot be performed on the test subject.
    13. If a taste response is elicited, the test subject shall be 
asked to take note of the taste for reference in the fit test.
     14. Correct use of the nebulizer means that approximately 1 cc 
of liquid is used at a time in the nebulizer body.
     15. The nebulizer shall be thoroughly rinsed in water, shaken 
dry, and refilled at least every four hours.
    C. Fit test. 1. The test subject shall don and adjust the 
respirator without the assistance from any person.
     2. The fit test uses the same enclosure described in IIB above.
     3. Each test subject shall wear the respirator for a least 10 
minutes before starting the fit test.
    4. The test subject shall don the enclosure while wearing the 
respirator selected in section IB above. This respirator shall be 
properly adjusted and equipped with a particulate filter.
    5. The test subject may not eat, drink (except plain water), or 
chew gum for 15 minutes before the test.
    6. A second DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer 
is used to spray the fit test solution into the enclosure. This 
nebulizer shall be clearly marked to distinguish it from the 
screening test solution nebulizer.
    7. The fit test solution is prepared by adding 83 grams of 
sodium saccharin to 100 cc of warm water.
    8. As before, the test subject shall breathe with mouth open and 
tongue extended.
    9. The nebulizer is inserted into the hole in the front of the 
enclosure and the fit test solution is sprayed into the enclosure 
using the same technique as for the taste threshold screening and 
the same number of squeezes required to elicit a taste response in 
the screening. (See B8 through B10 above).
     10. After generation of the aerosol read the following 
instructions to the test subject. The test subject shall perform the 
exercises for one minute each.
    i. Breathe normally.
    ii. Breathe deeply. Be certain breaths are deep and regular.
    iii. Turn head all the way from one side to the other. Be 
certain movement is complete. Inhale on each side. Do not bump the 
respirator against the shoulders.
    iv. Nod head up-and-down. Be certain motions are complete. 
Inhale when head is in the full up position (when looking toward the 
ceiling). Do not to bump the respirator on the chest.
    v. Talking. Talk aloud and slowly for several minutes. The 
following paragraph is called the Rainbow Passage. Reading it will 
result in a wide range of facial movements, and thus be useful to 
satisfy this requirement. Alternative passages which serve the same 
purpose may also be used.
    vi. Jogging in place.
    vii. Breathe normally.

Rainbow Passage

    When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a 
prism and form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light 
into many beautiful colors. These take the shape of a long round 
arch, with its path high above, and its two ends apparently beyond 
the horizon. There is, according to legend, a boiling pot of gold at 
one end. People look, but no one ever finds it. When a man looks for 
something beyond his reach, his friends say he is looking for the 
pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
     11. At the beginning of each exercise, the aerosol 
concentration shall be replenished using one-half the number of 
squeezes as initially described in C9.
    12. The test subject shall indicate to the test conductor if at 
any time during the fit test the taste of saccharin is detected.
    13. If the saccharin is detected the fit is deemed 
unsatisfactory and a different respirator shall be tried.
    14. At least two facepieces shall be selected by the IAA test 
protocol. The test subject shall be given the opportunity to wear 
them for one week to choose the one which is more comfortable to 
wear.
    15. Successful completion of the test protocol shall allow the 
use of the half mask tested respirator in contaminated atmospheres 
up to 10 times the PEL of asbestos. In other words this protocol may 
be used assign protection factors no higher than ten.
    16. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth 
between the skin and the facepiece sealing surface.
    17. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory fit, 
then they shall be altered or removed so as to eliminate 
interference and allow a satisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is 
still not attained, the test subject must use a positive-pressure 
respirator such as powered air-purifying respirators, supplied air 
respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus.
    18. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during 
the tests, she or he shall be referred to a physician trained in 
respirator diseases or pulmonary medicine to determine whether the 
test subject can wear a respirator while performing her or his 
duties.
    19. Qualitative fit testing shall be repeated at least every six 
months.
     20. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may be 
affected, qualitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when 
the test subject has a:
    (1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more,
    (2) Significant facial scarring in the area of the facepiece 
seal,
     (3) Significant dental changes; i.e.; multiple extractions 
without prothesis, or acquiring dentures,
    (4) Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or
    (5) Any other condition that may interfere with facepiece 
sealing.
    D. Recordkeeping. A summary of all test results shall be 
maintained in each office for 3 years. The summary shall include:
    (1) Name of test subject
    (2) Date of testing.
    (3) Name of test conductor.
    (4) Respirators selected (indicate manufacturer, model, size and 
approval number).
    (5) Testing agent.

III. Irritant Fume Protocol

    A. Respirator selection. Respirators shall be selected as 
described in section IB above, except that each respirator shall be 
equipped with a combination of high-efficiency and acid-gas 
cartridges.
    B. Fit test. 1. The test subject shall be allowed to smell a 
weak concentration of the irritant smoke to familiarize the subject 
with the characteristic odor.
    2. The test subject shall properly don the respirator selected 
as above, and wear it for at least 10 minutes before starting the 
fit test.
    3. The test conductor shall review this protocol with the test 
subject before testing.
    4. The test subject shall perform the conventional positive 
pressure and negative pressure fit checks (see ANSI Z88.2 1980). 
Failure of either check shall be cause to select an alternate 
respirator.
    5. Break both ends of a ventilation smoke tube containing 
stannic oxychloride, such as the MSA part #5645, or equivalent. 
Attach a short length of tubing to one end of the smoke tube. Attach 
the other end of the smoke tube to a low pressure air pump set to 
deliver 200 milliliters per minute.
    6. Advise the test subject that the smoke can be irritating to 
the eyes and instruct the subject to keep the eyes closed while the 
test is performed.
    7. The test conductor shall direct the stream of irritant smoke 
from the tube towards the faceseal area of the test subject. The 
person conducting the test shall begin with the tube at least 12 
inches from the facepiece and gradually move to within one inch, 
moving around the whole perimeter of the mask.
    8. The test subject shall be instructed to do the following 
exercises while the respirator is being challenged by the smoke. 
Each exercise shall be performed for one minute.
    i. Breathe normally.
    ii. Breathe deeply. Be certain breaths are deep and regular.
    iii. Turn head all the way from one side to the other. Be 
certain movement is complete. Inhale on each side. Do not bump the 
respirator against the shoulders.
    iv. Nod head up-and-down. Be certain motions are complete and 
made every second. Inhale when head is in the full up position 
(looking toward ceiling). Do not bump the respirator against the 
chest.
    v. Talking. Talk aloud and slowly for several minutes. The 
following paragraph is called the Rainbow Passage. Reading it will 
result in a wide range of facial movements, and thus be useful to 
satisfy this requirement. Alternative passages which serve the same 
purpose may also be used.

Rainbow Passage

    When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a 
prism and form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light 
into many beautiful colors. These take the shape of a long round 
arch, with its path high above, and its two end apparently beyond 
the horizon. There is, according to legend, a boiling pot of gold at 
one end. People look, but no one ever finds it. When a man looks for 
something beyond his reach, his friends say he is looking for the 
pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
    vi. Jogging in Place.
    vii. Breathe normally.
    9. The test subject shall indicate to the test conductor if the 
irritant smoke is detected. If smoke is detected, the test conductor 
shall stop the test. In this case, the tested respirator is rejected 
and another respirator shall be selected.
    10. Each test subject passing the smoke test (i.e. without 
detecting the smoke) shall be given a sensitivity check of smoke 
from the same tube to determine if the test subject reacts to the 
smoke. Failure to evoke a response shall void the fit test.
    11. Steps B4, B9, B10 of this fit test protocol shall be 
performed in a location with exhaust ventilation sufficient to 
prevent general contamination of the testing area by the test 
agents.
    12. At least two facepieces shall be selected by the IAA test 
protocol. The test subject shall be given the opportunity to wear 
them for one week to choose the one which is more comfortable to 
wear.
    13. Respirators successfully tested by the protocol may be used 
in contaminated atmospheres up to ten times the PEL of asbestos.
    14. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth 
between the skin and the facepiece sealing surface.
    15. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory fit, 
then they shall be altered or removed so as to eliminate 
interference and allow a satisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is 
still not attained, the test subject must use a positive-pressure 
respirator such as powered air-purifying respirators, supplied air 
respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus.
    16. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during 
the tests, she or he shall be referred to a physician trained in 
respirator diseases or pulmonary medicine to determine whether the 
test subject can wear a respirator while performing her or his 
duties.
    17. Qualitative fit testing shall be repeated at least every six 
months.
    18. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may be 
affected, qualitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when 
the test subject has a:
    (1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more,
    (2) Significant facial scarring in the area of the facepiece 
seal,
    (3) Significant dental changes; i.e.; multiple extractions 
without prothesis, or acquiring dentures,
    (4) Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or
    (5) Any other condition that may interfere with facepiece 
sealing.
    D. Recordkeeping. A summary of all test results shall be 
maintained in each office for 3 years. The summary shall include:
    (1) Name of test subject
    (2) Date of testing.
    (3) Name of test conductor.
    (4) Respirators selected (indicate manufacturer, model, size and 
approval number).
    (5) Testing agent

Quantitative Fit Test Procedures

1. General

    a. The method applies to the negative-pressure non-powered air-
purifying respirators only.
    b. The employer shall assign one individual who shall assume the 
full responsibility for implementing the respirator quantitative fit 
test program.

2. Definition

    a. ``Quantitative Fit Test'' means the measurement of the 
effectiveness of a respirator seal in excluding the ambient 
atmosphere. The test is performed by dividing the measured 
concentration of challenge agent in a test chamber by the measured 
concentration of the challenge agent inside the respirator facepiece 
when the normal air purifying element has been replaced by an 
essentially perfect purifying element.
    b. ``Challenge Agent'' means the air contaminant introduced into 
a test chamber so that its concentration inside and outside the 
respirator may be compared.
    c. ``Test Subject'' means the person wearing the respirator for 
quantitative fit testing.
    d. ``Normal Standing Position'' means standing erect and 
straight with arms down along the sides and looking straight ahead.
    e. ``Fit Factor'' means the ratio of challenge agent 
concentration outside with respect to the inside of a respirator 
inlet covering (facepiece or enclosure).

3. Apparatus

    a. Instrumentation. Corn oil, sodium chloride or other 
appropriate aerosol generation, dilution, and measurement systems 
shall be used for quantitative fit test.
    b. Test chamber. The test chamber shall be large enough to 
permit all test subjects to freely perform all required exercises 
without distributing the challenge agent concentration or the 
measurement apparatus. The test chamber shall be equipped and 
constructed so that the challenge agent is effectively isolated from 
the ambient air yet uniform in concentration throughout the chamber.
    c. When testing air-purifying respirators, the normal filter or 
cartridge element shall be replaced with a high-efficiency 
particular filter supplied by the same manufacturer.
    d. The sampling instrument shall be selected so that a strip 
chart record may be made of the test showing the rise and fall of 
challenge agent concentration with each inspiration and expiration 
at fit factors of at least 2,000.
    e. The combination of substitute air-purifying elements (if 
any), challenge agent, and challenge agent concentration in the test 
chamber shall be such that the test subject is not exposed in excess 
of PEL to the challenge agent at any time during the testing 
process.
    f. The sampling port on the test specimen respirator shall be 
placed and constructed so that there is no detectable leak around 
the port, a free air flow is allowed into the sampling line at all 
times and so there is no interference with the fit or performance of 
the respirator.
    g. The test chamber and test set-up shall permit the person 
administering the test to observe one test subject inside the 
chamber during the test.
    h. The equipment generating the challenge atmosphere shall 
maintain the concentration of challenge agent constant within a 10 
percent variation for the duration of the test.
    i. The time lag (interval between an event and its being 
recorded on the strip chart) of the instrumentation may not exceed 2 
seconds.
    j. The tubing for the test chamber atmosphere and for the 
respirator sampling port shall be the same diameter, length and 
material. It shall be kept as short as possible. The smallest 
diameter tubing recommended by the manufacturer shall be used.
    k. The exhaust flow from the test chamber shall pass through a 
high-efficiency filter before release to the room.
    l. When sodium chloride aerosol is used, the relative humidity 
inside the test chamber shall not exceed 50 percent.

4. Procedural Requirements

    a. The fitting of half-mask respirators should be started with 
those having multiple sizes and a variety of interchangeable 
cartridges and canisters such as the MSA Comfo II-M, Norton M, 
Survivair M, A-O M, or Scott-M. Use either of the tests outlined 
below to assure that the facepiece is properly adjusted.
    (1) Positive pressure test. With the exhaust port(s) blocked, 
the negative pressure of slight inhalation should remain constant 
for several seconds.
    (2) Negative pressure test. With the intake port(s) blocked, the 
negative pressure slight inhalation should remain constant for 
several seconds.
    b. After a facepiece is adjusted, the test subject shall wear 
the facepiece for at least 5 minutes before conducting a qualitative 
test by using either of the methods described below and using the 
exercise regime described in 5.a., b., c., d. and e.
    (1) Isoamyl acetate test. When using organic vapor cartridges, 
the test subject who can smell the odor should be unable to detect 
the odor of isoamyl acetate squirted into the air near the most 
vulnerable portions of the facepiece seal. In a location which is 
separated from the test area, the test subject shall be instructed 
to close her/his eyes during the test period. A combination 
cartridge or canister with organic vapor and high-efficiency filters 
shall be used when available for the particular mask being tested. 
The test subject shall be given an opportunity to smell the odor of 
isoamyl acetate before the test is conducted.
    (2) Irritant fume test. When using high-efficiency filters, the 
test subject should be unable to detect the odor of irritant fume 
(stannic chloride or titanium tetrachloride ventilation smoke tubes) 
squirted into the air near the most vulnerable portions of the 
facepiece seal. The test subject shall be instructed to close her/
his eyes during the test period.
    c. The test subject may enter the quantitative testing chamber 
only if she or he has obtained a satisfactory fit as stated in 4.b. 
of this Appendix.
    d. Before the subject enters the test chamber, a reasonably 
stable challenge agent concentration shall be measured in the test 
chamber.
    e. Immediately after the subject enters the test chamber, the 
challenge agent concentration inside the respirator shall be 
measured to ensure that the peak penetration does not exceed 5 
percent for a half-mask and 1 percent for a full facepiece.
    f. A stable challenge agent concentration shall be obtained 
prior to the actual start of testing.
    1. Respirator restraining straps may not be over-tightened for 
testing. The straps shall be adjusted by the wearer to give a 
reasonably comfortable fit typical of normal use.
    5. Exercise Regime. Prior to entering the test chamber, the test 
subject shall be given complete instructions as to her/his part in 
the test procedures. The test subject shall perform the following 
exercises, in the order given, for each independent test.
    a. Normal Breathing (NB). In the normal standing position, 
without talking, the subject shall breathe normally for at least one 
minute.
    b. Deep Breathing (DB). In the normal standing position the 
subject shall do deep breathing for at least one minute pausing so 
as not to hyperventilate.
    c. Turning head side to side (SS). Standing in place the subject 
shall slowly turn his/her head from side between the extreme 
positions to each side. The head shall be held at each extreme 
position for at least 5 seconds. Perform for at least three complete 
cycles.
    d. Moving head up and down (UD). Standing in place, the subject 
shall slowly move his/her head up and down between the extreme 
position straight up and the extreme position straight down. The 
head shall be held at each extreme position for at least 5 seconds. 
Perform for at least three complete cycles.
    e. Reading (R). The subject shall read out slowly and loud so as 
to be heard clearly by the test conductor or monitor. The test 
subject shall read the ``rainbow passage'' at the end of this 
section.
    f. Grimace (G). The test subject shall grimace, smile, frown, 
and generally contort the face using the facial muscles. Continue 
for at least 15 seconds.
    g. Bend over and touch toes (B). The test subject shall bend at 
the waist and touch toes and return to upright position. Repeat for 
at least 30 seconds.
    h. Jogging in place (J). The test subject shall perform jog in 
place for at least 30 seconds.
    i. Normal Breathing (NB). Same as exercise a.

Rainbow Passage

    When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a 
prism and form a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light 
into many beautiful colors. These take the shape of a long round 
arch, with its path high above, and its two ends apparently beyond 
the horizon. There is, according to legend, a boiling pot of gold at 
one end. People look, but no one ever finds it. When a man looks for 
something beyond reach, his friends say he is looking for the pot of 
gold at the end of the rainbow.
    6. The test shall be terminated whenever any single peak 
penetration exceeds 5 percent for half-masks and 1 percent for full 
facepieces. The test subject may be refitted and retested. If two 
the three required tests are terminated, the fit shall be deemed 
inadequate. (See paragraph 4.h.).

7. Calculation of Fit Factors

    a. The fit factor determined by the quantitative fit test equals 
the average concentration inside the respirator.
    b. The average test chamber concentration is the arithmetic 
average of the test chamber concentration at the beginning and of 
the end of the test.
    c. The average peak concentration of the challenge agent inside 
the respirator shall be the arithmetic average peak concentrations 
for each of the nine exercises of the test which are computed as the 
arithmetic average of the peak concentrations found for each breath 
during the exercise.
    d. The average peak concentration for an exercise may be 
determined graphically if there is not a great variation in the peak 
concentrations during a single exercise.

8. Interpretation of Test Results.

    The fit factor measured by the quantitative fit testing shall be 
the lowest of the three protection factors resulting from three 
independent tests.

9. Other Requirements

    a. The test subject shall not be permitted to wear a half-mask 
or full facepiece mask if the minimum fit factor of 100 or 1,000, 
respectively, cannot be obtained. If hair growth or apparel 
interfere with a satisfactory fit, then they shall be altered or 
removed so as to eliminate interference and allow a satisfactory 
fit. If a satisfactory fit is still not attained, the test subject 
must use a positive-pressure respirator such as powered air-
purifying respirators, supplied air respirator, or self-contained 
breathing apparatus.
    b. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth 
between the skin and the facepiece sealing surface.
    c. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during the 
tests, she or he shall be referred to a physician trained in 
respirator diseases or pulmonary medicine to determine whether the 
test subject can wear a respirator while performing her or his 
duties.
    d. The test subject shall be given the opportunity to wear the 
assigned respirator for one week. If the respirator does not provide 
a satisfactory fit during actual use, the test subject may request 
another QNFT which shall be performed immediately.
    e. A respirator fit factor card shall be issued to the test 
subject with the following information:
    (1) Name
    (2) Date of fit test.
    (3) Protection factors obtained through each manufacturer, model 
and approval number of respirator tested.
    (4) Name and signature of the person that conducted the test.
    f. Filters used for qualitative or quantitative fit testing 
shall be replaced weekly, whenever increased breathing resistance is 
encountered, or when the test agent has altered the integrity of the 
filter media.
    Organic vapor cartridges/canisters shall be replaced daily or 
sooner if there is any indication of breakthrough by the test agent.
    10. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may be 
affected, quantitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately 
when the test subject has a:
    (1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more,
    (2) Significant facial scarring in the area of the facepiece 
seal,
    (3) Significant dental changes; i.e.; multiple extractions 
without prothesis, or acquiring dentures,
    (4) Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or
    (5) Any other condition that may interfere with facepiece 
sealing.

11. Recordkeeping

    A summary of all test results shall be maintained in for 3 
years. The summary shall include:
    (1) Name of test subject
    (2) Date of testing.
    (3) Name of the test conductor.
    (4) Fit factors obtained from every respirator tested (indicate 
manufacturer, model, size and approval number).

Appendix D to Sec. 1915.1001--Medical Questionnaires. Mandatory

    This mandatory appendix contains the medical questionnaires that 
must be administered to all employees who are exposed to asbestos, 
tremolite, anthophyllite, actinolite, or a combination of these 
minerals above the permissible exposure limit (0.1 f/cc), and who 
will therefore be included in their employer's medical surveillance 
program. Part 1 of the appendix contains the Initial Medical 
Questionnaire, which must be obtained for all new hires who will be 
covered by the medical surveillance requirements. Part 2 includes 
the abbreviated Periodical Medical Questionnaire, which must be 
administered to all employees who are provided periodic medical 
examinations under the medical surveillance provisions of the 
standard.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
TR10AU94.009


TR10AU94.010


TR10AU94.011


TR10AU94.012


TR10AU94.013


TR10AU94.014


TR10AU94.015


TR10AU94.016


TR10AU94.017


TR10AU94.018


TR10AU94.019


TR10AU94.020


TR10AU94.021


TR10AU94.022


TR10AU94.023


BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

Appendix E to Sec. 1915.1001--Interpretation and Classification of 
Chest Roentgenograms. Mandatory

    (a) Chest roentgenograms shall be interpreted and classified in 
accordance with a professionally accepted classification system and 
recorded on a Roentgenographic Interpretation Form. *Form CSD/NIOSH 
(M) 2.8.
    (b) Roentgenograms shall be interpreted and classified only by a 
B-reader, a board eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced 
physician with known expertise in pneumoconioses.
    (c) All interpreters, whenever interpreting chest roentgenograms 
made under this section, shall have immediately available for 
reference a complete set of the ILO-U/C International Classification 
of Radiographs for Pneumoconioses, 1980.

Appendix F to Sec. 1915.1001--Work Practices and Engineering 
Controls for Class I Asbestos Operations Non-Mandatory

    This is a non-mandatory appendix to the asbestos standards for 
construction and for shipyards. It describes criteria and procedures 
for erecting and using negative pressure enclosures for Class I 
Asbestos Work, when NPEs are used as an allowable control method to 
comply with paragraph (g)(5) (i) of this section. Many small and 
variable details are involved in the erection of a negative pressure 
enclosure. OSHA and most participants in the rulemaking agreed that 
only the major, more performance oriented criteria should be made 
mandatory. These criteria are set out in paragraph (g) of this 
section. In addition, this appendix includes these mandatory 
specifications and procedures in its guidelines in order to make 
this appendix coherent and helpful. The mandatory nature of the 
criteria which appear in the regulatory text is not changed because 
they are included in this ``non-mandatory'' appendix. Similarly, the 
additional criteria and procedures included as guidelines in the 
appendix, do not become mandatory because mandatory criteria are 
also included in these comprehensive guidelines.
    In addition, none of the criteria, both mandatory and 
recommended, are meant to specify or imply the need for use of 
patented or licensed methods or equipment. Recommended 
specifications included in this attachment should not discourage the 
use of creative alternatives which can be shown to reliably achieve 
the objectives of negative-pressure enclosures.
    Requirements included in this appendix, cover general provisions 
to be followed in all asbestos jobs, provisions which must be 
followed for all Class I asbestos jobs, and provisions governing the 
construction and testing of negative pressure enclosures. The first 
category includes the requirement for use of wet methods, HEPA 
vacuums, and immediate bagging of waste; Class I work must conform 
to the following provisions:
     oversight by competent person
     use of critical barriers over all openings to work area
     isolation of HVAC systems
     use of impermeable dropcloths and coverage of all 
objects within regulated areas
    In addition, more specific requirements for NPEs include:
     maintenance of -0.02 inches water gauge within 
enclosure
     manometric measurements
     air movement away from employees performing removal 
work
     smoke testing or equivalent for detection of leaks and 
air direction
     deactivation of electrical circuits, if not provided 
with ground-fault circuit interrupters.

Planning the Project

    The standard requires that an exposure assessment be conducted 
before the asbestos job is begun Sec. 1915.1001(f)(1). Information 
needed for that assessment, includes data relating to prior similar 
jobs, as applied to the specific variables of the current job. The 
information needed to conduct the assessment will be useful in 
planning the project, and in complying with any reporting 
requirements under this standard, when significant changes are being 
made to a control system listed in the standard, [see paragraph (k) 
of this section], as well as those of USEPA (40 CFR Part 61, subpart 
M). Thus, although the standard does not explicitly require the 
preparation of a written asbestos removal plan, the usual 
constituents of such a plan, i.e., a description of the enclosure, 
the equipment, and the procedures to be used throughout the project, 
must be determined before the enclosure can be erected. The 
following information should be included in the planning of the 
system:
    A physical description of the work area;
    A description of the approximate amount of material to be 
removed;
    A schedule for turning off and sealing existing ventilation 
systems;
    Personnel hygiene procedures;
    A description of personal protective equipment and clothing to 
worn by employees;
    A description of the local exhaust ventilation systems to be 
used and how they are to be tested;
    A description of work practices to be observed by employees;
    An air monitoring plan;
    A description of the method to be used to transport waste 
material; and
    The location of the dump site.

Materials and Equipment Necessary for Asbestos Removal

    Although individual asbestos removal projects vary in terms of 
the equipment required to accomplish the removal of the materials, 
some equipment and materials are common to most asbestos removal 
operations.
    Plastic sheeting used to protect horizontal surfaces, seal HVAC 
openings or to seal vertical openings and ceilings should have a 
minimum thickness of 6 mils. Tape or other adhesive used to attach 
plastic sheeting should be of sufficient adhesive strength to 
support the weight of the material plus all stresses encountered 
during the entire duration of the project without becoming detached 
from the surface.
    Other equipment and materials which should be available at the 
beginning of each project are:
    --HEPA Filtered Vacuum is essential for cleaning the work area 
after the asbestos has been removed. It should have a long hose 
capable of reaching out-of-the-way places, such as areas above 
ceiling tiles, behind pipes, etc.
    --Portable air ventilation systems installed to provide the 
negative air pressure and air removal from the enclosure must be 
equipped with a HEPA filter. The number and capacity of units 
required to ventilate an enclosure depend on the size of the area to 
be ventilated. The filters for these systems should be designed in 
such a manner that they can be replaced when the air flow volume is 
reduced by the build-up of dust in the filtration material. Pressure 
monitoring devices with alarms and strip chart recorders attached to 
each system to indicate the pressure differential and the loss due 
to dust buildup on the filter are recommended.
--Water sprayers should be used to keep the asbestos material as 
saturated as possible during removal; the sprayers will provide a 
fine mist that minimizes the impact of the spray on the material.
--Water used to saturate the asbestos containing material can be 
amended by adding at least 15 milliliters (\1/4\ ounce) of wetting 
agent in 1 liter (1 pint) of water. An example of a wetting agent is 
a 50/50 mixture of polyoxyethylene ether and polyoxyethylene 
polyglycol ester.
--Backup power supplies are recommended, especially for ventilation 
systems.
--Shower and bath water should be with mixed hot and cold water 
faucets. Water that has been used to clean personnel or equipment 
should either be filtered or be collected and discarded as asbestos 
waste. Soap and shampoo should be provided to aid in removing dust 
from the workers' skin and hair.
--See paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section for appropriate 
respiratory protection and protective clothing.
--See paragraph (k) of this section for required signs and labels.

Preparing the Work Area

    Disabling HVAC Systems: The power to the heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioning systems that service the restricted area must 
be deactivated and locked off. All ducts, grills, access ports, 
windows and vents must be sealed off with two layers of plastic to 
prevent entrainment of contaminated air.
    Operating HVAC Systems in the Restricted Area: If components of 
a HVAC system located in the restricted area are connected to a 
system that will service another zone during the project, the 
portion of the duct in the restricted area must be sealed and 
pressurized. Necessary precautions include caulking the duct joints, 
covering all cracks and openings with two layers of sheeting, and 
pressurizing the duct throughout the duration of the project by 
restricting the return air flow. The power to the fan supplying the 
positive pressure should be locked ``on'' to prevent pressure loss.
    Sealing Elevators: If an elevator shaft is located in the 
restricted area, it should be either shut down or isolated by 
sealing with two layers of plastic sheeting. The sheeting should 
provide enough slack to accommodate the pressure changes in the 
shaft without breaking the air-tight seal.
    Removing Mobile Objects: All movable objects should be cleaned 
and removed from the work area before an enclosure is constructed 
unless moving the objects creates a hazard. Mobile objects will be 
assumed to be contaminated and should be either cleaned with amended 
water and a HEPA vacuum and then removed from the area or wrapped 
and then disposed of as hazardous waste.
    Cleaning and Sealing Surfaces: After cleaning with water and a 
HEPA vacuum, surfaces of stationary objects should be covered with 
two layers of plastic sheeting. The sheeting should be secured with 
duct tape or an equivalent method to provide a tight seal around the 
object.
    Bagging Waste: In addition to the requirement for immediate 
bagging of waste for disposal, it is further recommended that the 
waste material be double-bagged and sealed in plastic bags designed 
for asbestos disposal. The bags should be stored in a waste storage 
area that can be controlled by the workers conducting the removal. 
Filters removed from air handling units and rubbish removed from the 
area are to be bagged and handled as hazardous waste.

Constructing the Enclosure

    The enclosure should be constructed to provide an air-tight seal 
around ducts and openings into existing ventilation systems and 
around penetrations for electrical conduits, telephone wires, water 
lines, drain pipes, etc. Enclosures should be both airtight and 
watertight except for those openings designed to provide entry and/
or air flow control.
    Size: An enclosure should be the minimum volume to encompass all 
of the working surfaces yet allow unencumbered movement by the 
worker(s), provide unrestricted air flow past the worker(s), and 
ensure walking surfaces can be kept free of tripping hazards.
    Shape: The enclosure may be any shape that optimizes the flow of 
ventilation air past the worker(s).
    Structural Integrity: The walls, ceilings and floors must be 
supported in such a manner that portions of the enclosure will not 
fall down during normal use.
    Openings: It is not necessary that the structure be airtight; 
openings may be designed to direct air flow. Such openings should be 
located at a distance from active removal operations. They should be 
designed to draw air into the enclosure under all anticipated 
circumstances. In the event that negative pressure is lost, they 
should be fitted with either HEPA filters to trap dust or automatic 
trap doors that prevent dust from escaping the enclosure. Openings 
for exits should be controlled by an airlock or a vestibule.
    Barrier Supports: Frames should be constructed to support all 
unsupported spans of sheeting.
    Sheeting: Walls, barriers, ceilings, and floors should be lined 
with two layers of plastic sheeting having a thickness of at least 6 
mil.
    Seams: Seams in the sheeting material should be minimized to 
reduce the possibilities of accidental rips and tears in the 
adhesive or connections. All seams in the sheeting should overlap, 
be staggered and not be located at corners or wall-to- floor joints. 
Areas Within an Enclosure: Each enclosure consists of a work area, a 
decontamination area, and waste storage area. The work area where 
the asbestos removal operations occur should be separated from both 
the waste storage area and the contamination control area by 
physical curtains, doors, and/or airflow patterns that force any 
airborne contamination back into the work area.
    See paragraph (j) of Sec. 1915.1001 for requirements for hygiene 
facilities.
    During egress from the work area, each worker should step into 
the equipment room, clean tools and equipment, and remove gross 
contamination from clothing by wet cleaning and HEPA vacuuming. 
Before entering the shower area, foot coverings, head coverings, 
hand coverings, and coveralls are removed and placed in impervious 
bags for disposal or cleaning. Airline connections from airline 
respirators with HEPA disconnects and power cables from powered air-
purifying respirators (PAPRs) will be disconnected just prior to 
entering the shower room.

Establishing Negative Pressure Within the Enclosure

    Negative Pressure: Air is to be drawn into the enclosure under 
all anticipated conditions and exhausted through a HEPA filter for 
24 hours a day during the entire duration of the project.
    Air Flow Tests: Air flow patterns will be checked before removal 
operations begin, at least once per operating shift and any time 
there is a question regarding the integrity of the enclosure. The 
primary test for air flow is to trace air currents with smoke tubes 
or other visual methods. Flow checks are made at each opening and at 
each doorway to demonstrate that air is being drawn into the 
enclosure and at each worker's position to show that air is being 
drawn away from the breathing zone.
    Monitoring Pressure Within the Enclosure: After the initial air 
flow patterns have been checked, the static pressure must be 
monitored within the enclosure. Monitoring may be made using 
manometers, pressure gauges, or combinations of these devices. It is 
recommended that they be attached to alarms and strip chart 
recorders at points identified by the design engineer.
    Corrective Actions: If the manometers or pressure gauges 
demonstrate a reduction in pressure differential below the required 
level, work should cease and the reason for the change investigated 
and appropriate changes made. The air flow patterns should be 
retested before work begins again.
    Pressure Differential: The design parameters for static pressure 
differentials between the inside and outside of enclosures typically 
range from 0.02 to 0.10 inches of water gauge, depending on 
conditions. All zones inside the enclosure must have less pressure 
than the ambient pressure outside of the enclosure (-0.02 inches 
water gauge differential). Design specifications for the 
differential vary according to the size, configuration, and shape of 
the enclosure as well as ambient and mechanical air pressure 
conditions around the enclosure.
    Air Flow Patterns: The flow of air past each worker shall be 
enhanced by positioning the intakes and exhaust ports to remove 
contaminated air from the worker's breathing zone, by positioning 
HEPA vacuum cleaners to draw air from the worker's breathing zone, 
by forcing relatively uncontaminated air past the worker toward an 
exhaust port, or by using a combination of methods to reduce the 
worker's exposure.
    Air Handling Unit Exhaust: The exhaust plume from air handling 
units should be located away from adjacent personnel and intakes for 
HVAC systems.
    Air Flow Volume: The air flow volume (cubic meters per minute) 
exhausted (removed) from the workplace must exceed the amount of 
makeup air supplied to the enclosure. The rate of air exhausted from 
the enclosure should be designed to maintain a negative pressure in 
the enclosure and air movement past each worker. The volume of air 
flow removed from the enclosure should replace the volume of the 
container at every 5 to 15 minutes. Air flow volume will need to be 
relatively high for large enclosures, enclosures with awkward 
shapes, enclosures with multiple openings, and operations employing 
several workers in the enclosure.
    Air Flow Velocity: At each opening, the air flow velocity must 
visibly ``drag'' air into the enclosure. The velocity of air flow 
within the enclosure must be adequate to remove airborne 
contamination from each worker's breathing zone without disturbing 
the asbestos-containing material on surfaces.
    Airlocks: Airlocks are mechanisms on doors and curtains that 
control the air flow patterns in the doorways. If air flow occurs, 
the patterns through doorways must be such that the air flows toward 
the inside of the enclosure. Sometimes vestibules, double doors, or 
double curtains are used to prevent air movement through the 
doorways. To use a vestibule, a worker enters a chamber by opening 
the door or curtain and then closing the entry before opening the 
exit door or curtain.
    Airlocks should be located between the equipment room and shower 
room, between the shower room and the clean room, and between the 
waste storage area and the outside of the enclosure. The air flow 
between adjacent rooms must be checked using smoke tubes or other 
visual tests to ensure the flow patterns draw air toward the work 
area without producing eddies.

Monitoring for Airborne Concentrations

    In addition to the breathing zone samples taken as outlined in 
paragraph (f) of Sec. 1915.1001 , samples of air should be taken to 
demonstrate the integrity of the enclosure, the cleanliness of the 
clean room and shower area, and the effectiveness of the HEPA 
filter. If the clean room is shown to be contaminated, the room must 
be relocated to an uncontaminated area.
    Samples taken near the exhaust of portable ventilation systems 
must be done with care.

General Work Practices

    Preventing dust dispersion is the primary means of controlling 
the spread of asbestos within the enclosure. Whenever practical, the 
point of removal should be isolated, enclosed, covered, or shielded 
from the workers in the area. Waste asbestos containing materials 
must be bagged during or immediately after removal; the material 
must remain saturated until the waste container is sealed.
    Waste material with sharp points or corners must be placed in 
hard air-tight containers rather than bags.
    Whenever possible, large components should be sealed in plastic 
sheeting and removed intact.
    Bags or containers of waste will be moved to the waste holding 
area, washed, and wrapped in a bag with the appropriate labels.

Cleaning the Work Area

    Surfaces within the work area should be kept free of visible 
dust and debris to the extent feasible. Whenever visible dust 
appears on surfaces, the surfaces within the enclosure must be 
cleaned by wiping with a wet sponge, brush, or cloth and then 
vacuumed with a HEPA vacuum.
    All surfaces within the enclosure should be cleaned before the 
exhaust ventilation system is deactivated and the enclosure is 
disassembled. An approved encapsulate may be sprayed onto areas 
after the visible dust has been removed.

Appendix G to Sec. 1915.1001 [Reserved]

Appendix H to Sec. 1915.1001--Substance Technical Information for 
Asbestos. Non-Mandatory

I. Substance Identification

    A. Substance: ``Asbestos'' is the name of a class of magnesium-
silicate minerals that occur in fibrous form. Minerals that are 
included in this group are chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, 
anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, and actinolite asbestos.
    B. Asbestos is and was used in the manufacture of heat-resistant 
clothing, automotive brake and clutch linings, and a variety of 
building materials including floor tiles, roofing felts, ceiling 
tiles, asbestos-cement pipe and sheet, and fire-resistant drywall. 
Asbestos is also present in pipe and boiler insulation materials and 
in sprayed-on materials located on beams, in crawlspaces, and 
between walls.
    C. The potential for an asbestos-containing product to release 
breathable fibers depends largely on its degree of friability. 
Friable means that the material can be crumbled with hand pressure 
and is therefore likely to emit fibers. The fibrous fluffy sprayed-
on materials used for fireproofing, insulation, or sound proofing 
are considered to be friable, and they readily release airborne 
fibers if disturbed. Materials such as vinyl-asbestos floor tile or 
roofing felt are considered non-friable if intact and generally do 
not emit airborne fibers unless subjected to sanding, sawing and 
other aggressive operations. Asbestos--cement pipe or sheet can emit 
airborne fibers if the materials are cut or sawed, or if they are 
broken.
    D. Permissible exposure: Exposure to airborne asbestos fibers 
may not exceed 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter of air (0.1 f/cc) 
averaged over the 8-hour workday, and 1 fiber per cubic centimeter 
of air (1.0 f/cc) averaged over a 30 minute work period.

II. Health Hazard Data

    A. Asbestos can cause disabling respiratory disease and various 
types of cancers if the fibers are inhaled. Inhaling or ingesting 
fibers from contaminated clothing or skin can also result in these 
diseases. The symptoms of these diseases generally do not appear for 
20 or more years after initial exposure.
    B. Exposure to asbestos has been shown to cause lung cancer, 
mesothelioma, and cancer of the stomach and colon. Mesothelioma is a 
rare cancer of the thin membrane lining of the chest and abdomen. 
Symptoms of mesothelioma include shortness of breath, pain in the 
walls of the chest, and/or abdominal pain.

III. Respirators and Protective Clothing

    A. Respirators: You are required to wear a respirator when 
performing tasks that result in asbestos exposure that exceeds the 
permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cc and when performing 
certain designated operations. Air-purifying respirators equipped 
with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter can be used 
where airborne asbestos fiber concentrations do not exceed 1.0 f/cc; 
otherwise, more protective respirators such as air-supplied, 
positive-pressure, full facepiece respirators must be used. 
Disposable respirators or dust masks are not permitted to be used 
for asbestos work. For effective protection, respirators must fit 
your face and head snugly. Your employer is required to conduct fit 
test when you are first assigned a respirator and every 6 months 
thereafter. Respirators should not be loosened or removed in work 
situations where their use is required.
    B. Protective Clothing: You are required to wear protective 
clothing in work areas where asbestos fiber concentrations exceed 
the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cc.

IV. Disposal Procedures and Clean-up

    A. Wastes that are generated by processes where asbestos is 
present include:
    1. Empty asbestos shipping containers.
    2. Process wastes such as cuttings, trimmings, or reject 
materials.
    3. Housekeeping waste from wet-sweeping or HEPA-vacuuming.
    4. Asbestos fireproofing or insulating material that is removed 
from buildings.
    5. Asbestos-containing building products removed during building 
renovation or demolition.
    6. Contaminated disposable protective clothing.
    B. Empty shipping bags can be flattened under exhaust hoods and 
packed into airtight containers for disposal. Empty shipping drums 
are difficult to clean and should be sealed.
    C. Vacuum bags or disposable paper filters should not be 
cleaned, but should be sprayed with a fine water mist and placed 
into a labeled waste container.
    D. Process waste and housekeeping waste should be wetted with 
water or a mixture of water and surfactant prior to packaging in 
disposable containers.
    E. Asbestos-containing material that if removed from buildings 
must be disposed of in leak-tight 6-mil plastic bags, plastic-lined 
cardboard containers, or plastic-lined metal containers. These 
wastes, which are removed while wet, should be sealed in containers 
before they dry out to minimize the release of asbestos fibers 
during handling.

V. Access to Information

    A. Each year, your employer is required to inform you of the 
information contained in this standard and appendices for asbestos. 
In addition, your employer must instruct you in the proper work 
practices for handling asbestos-containing materials, and the 
correct use of protective equipment.
    B. Your employer is required to determine whether you are being 
exposed to asbestos. Your employer must treat exposure to thermal 
system insulation and sprayed-on and trowled-on surfacing material 
as asbestos exposure, unless results of laboratory analysis show 
that the material does not contain asbestos. You or your 
representative has the right to observe employee measurements and to 
record the results obtained. Your employer is required to inform you 
of your exposure, and, if you are exposed above the permissible 
exposure limit, he or she is required to inform you of the actions 
that are being taken to reduce your exposure to within the 
permissible limit.
    C. Your employer is required to keep records of your exposures 
and medical examinations. These exposure records must be kept for at 
least thirty (30) years. Medical records must be kept for the period 
of your employment plus thirty (30) years.
    D. Your employer is required to release your exposure and 
medical records to your physician or designated representative upon 
your written request.

Appendix I to Sec. 1915.1001--Medical Surveillance Guidelines for 
Asbestos, Non-Mandatory

I. Route of Entry

    Inhalation, ingestion.

II. Toxicology

    Clinical evidence of the adverse effects associated with 
exposure to asbestos is present in the form of several well- 
conducted epidemiological studies of occupationally exposed workers, 
family contacts of workers, and persons living near asbestos mines. 
These studies have shown a definite association between exposure to 
asbestos and an increased incidence of lung cancer, pleural and 
peritoneal mesothelioma, gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis. 
The latter is a disabling fibrotic lung disease that is caused only 
by exposure to asbestos. Exposure to asbestos has also been 
associated with an increased incidence of esophageal, kidney, 
laryngeal, pharyngeal, and buccal cavity cancers. As with other 
known chronic occupational diseases, disease associated with 
asbestos generally appears about 20 years following the first 
occurrence of exposure: There are no known acute effects associated 
with exposure to asbestos.
    Epidemiological studies indicate that the risk of lung cancer 
among exposed workers who smoke cigarettes is greatly increased over 
the risk of lung cancer among non-exposed smokers or exposed 
nonsmokers. These studies suggest that cessation of smoking will 
reduce the risk of lung cancer for a person exposed to asbestos but 
will not reduce it to the same level of risk as that existing for an 
exposed worker who has never smoked.

III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure Related Disease

    The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer 
induced by exposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest 
X-ray of an exposed patient with lung cancer may show pleural 
plaques, pleural calcification, or pleural fibrosis. Symptoms 
characteristic of mesothelioma include shortness of breath, pain in 
the walls of the chest, or abdominal pain. Mesothelioma has a much 
longer latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus 15-
20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to be found 
among workers who were first exposed to asbestos at an early age. 
Mesothelioma is always fatal.
    Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of 
asbestos fibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath, 
coughing, fatigue, and vague feelings of sickness. When the fibrosis 
worsens, shortness of breath occurs even at rest. The diagnosis of 
asbestosis is based on a history of exposure to asbestos, the 
presence of characteristics radiologic changes, end-inspiratory 
crackles (rales), and other clinical features of fibrosing lung 
disease. Pleural plaques and thickening are observed on X-rays taken 
during the early sates of the disease. Asbestosis is often a 
progressive disease even in the absence of continued exposure, 
although this appears to be a highly individualized characteristic. 
In severe cases, death may be caused by respiratory or cardiac 
failure.

IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations

    As noted above, exposure to asbestos have been linked to an 
increased risk of lung cancer, mesothelioma, gastrointestinal 
cancer, and asbestosis among occupationally exposed workers. 
Adequate screening tests to determine an employee's potential for 
developing serious chronic diseases, such as a cancer, from exposure 
to asbestos do not presently exist. However, some tests, 
particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may indicate 
that an employee has been overexposed to asbestos increasing his or 
her risk of developing exposure related chronic diseases. It is 
important for the physician to become familiar with the operating 
conditions in which occupational exposure to asbestos is likely to 
occur. This is particularly important in evaluating medical and work 
histories and in conducting physical examinations. When an active 
employee has been identified as having been overexposed to asbestos 
measures taken by the employer to eliminate or mitigate further 
exposure should also lower the risk of serious long-term 
consequences.
    The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance 
program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at 
or above the permissible exposure limits (0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air) for 30 or more days per year and for all 
employees who are assigned to wear a negative-pressure respirator. 
All examinations and procedures must be performed by or under the 
supervision of licensed physician at a reasonable time and place, 
and at no cost to the employee.
    Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing 
specific tests to be included in the medical surveillance program, 
OSHA requires inclusion of the following elements in the routine 
examination,
    (i) Medical and work histories with special emphasis directed to 
symptoms of the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and 
digestive tract.
    (ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire 
contained in Appendix D to this section.
    (iii) A physical examination including a chest roentgenogram and 
pulmonary function test that include measurement of the employee's 
forced vital capacity (FYC) and forced expiratory volume at one 
second (FEV1).
    (iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician 
deems by sound medical practice to be necessary.
    The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available 
at least annually to those employees covered; more often than 
specified if recommended by the examining physician; and upon 
termination of employment.
    The employer is required to provide the physician with the 
following information: A copy of this standard and appendices; a 
description of the employee's duties as they relate to asbestos 
exposure; the employee's representative level of exposure to 
asbestos; a description of any personal protective and respiratory 
equipment used; and information from previous medical examinations 
of the affected employee that is not otherwise available to the 
physician. Making this information available to the physician will 
aid in the evaluation of the employee's health in relation to 
assigned duties and fitness to wear personal protective equipment, 
if required.
    The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the 
examining physician containing the results of the medical 
examination; the physician's opinion as to whether the employee has 
any detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an 
increased risk of exposure-related disease; any recommended 
limitations on the employee or on the use of personal protective 
equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed by 
the physician of the results of the medical examination and of any 
medical conditions related to asbestos exposure that require further 
explanation or treatment. This written opinion must not reveal 
specific findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos, 
and a copy of the opinion must be provided to the affected employee.

Appendix J to Sec. 1915.1001--Smoking Cessation Program Information 
for Asbestos--Non-Mandatory

    The following organizations provide smoking cessation 
information.
    1. The National Cancer Institute operates a toll-free Cancer 
Information Service (CIS) with trained personnel to help you. Call 
1-800-4-CANCER* to reach the CIS office serving your area, or write: 
Office of Cancer Communications, National Cancer Institute, National 
Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room 10A24, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892.
    2. American Cancer Society, 3340 Peachtree Road, N.E., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30026, (404) 320-3333.
    The American Cancer Society (ACS) is a voluntary organization 
composed of 58 divisions and 3,100 local units. Through ``The Great 
American Smokeout'' in November, the annual Cancer Crusade in April, 
and numerous educational materials, ACS helps people learn about the 
health hazards of smoking and become successful ex-smokers.
    3. American Heart Association, 7320 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75231, (214) 750-5300.
    The American Heart Association (AHA) is a voluntary organization 
with 130,000 members (physicians, scientists, and laypersons) in 55 
state and regional groups. AHA produces a variety of publications 
and audiovisual materials about the effects of smoking on the heart. 
AHA also has developed a guidebook for incorporating a weight-
control component into smoking cessation programs.
    4. American Lung Association, 1740 Broadway, New York, New York 
10019, (212) 245-8000.
    A voluntary organization of 7,500 members (physicians, nurses, 
and laypersons), the American Lung Association (ALA) conducted 
numerous public information programs about the health effects of 
smoking. ALA has 59 state and 85 local units. The organization 
actively supports legislation and information campaigns for non-
smokers' rights and provides help for smokers who want to quit, for 
example, through ``Freedom From Smoking,'' a self-help smoking 
cessation program.
    5. Office on Smoking and Health, U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services 5600 Fishers Lane, Park Building, Room 110, 
Rockville, Maryland 20857.
    The Office on Smoking and Health (OSHA) is the Department of 
Health and Human Services' lead agency in smoking control. OSHA has 
sponsored distribution of publications on smoking-related topics, 
such as free flyers on relapse after initial quitting, helping a 
friend or family member quit smoking, the health hazards of smoking, 
and the effects of parental smoking on teenagers.
    *In Hawaii, on Oahu call 524-1234 (call collect from neighboring 
islands),
    Spanish-speaking staff members are available during daytime 
hours to callers from the following areas: California, Florida, 
Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey (area code 201), New York, and Texas. 
Consult your local telephone directory for listings of local 
chapters.

Appendix K to Sec. 1915.1001--Polarized Light Microscopy of 
Asbestos--Non-Mandatory)

Method number: ID-191
Matrix: Bulk

Collection Procedure

    Collect approximately 1 to 2 grams of each type of material and 
place into separate 20 mL scintillation vials.

Analytical Procedure

    A portion of each separate phase is analyzed by gross 
examination, phase-polar examination, and central stop dispersion 
microscopy.
    Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method 
are for descriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by 
USDOL-OSHA. Similar products from other sources may be substituted.

1. Introduction

    This method describes the collection and analysis of asbestos 
bulk materials by light microscopy techniques including phase- polar 
illumination and central-stop dispersion microscopy. Some terms 
unique to asbestos analysis are defined below:
    Amphibole: A family of minerals whose crystals are formed by 
long, thin units which have two thin ribbons of double chain 
silicate with a brucite ribbon in between. The shape of each unit is 
similar to an ``I beam''. Minerals important in asbestos analysis 
include cummingtonite-grunerite, crocidolite, tremolite- actinolite 
and anthophyllite.
    Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. 
Asbestos includes chrysotile, cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos 
(amosite), anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, crocidolite, 
actinolite asbestos and any of these minerals which have been 
chemically treated or altered. The precise chemical formulation of 
each species varies with the location from which it was mined. 
Nominal compositions are listed:

Chrysotile
Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4
Crocidolite (Riebeckite asbestos)
Na2Fe2+3Fe3+2Si8O22(OH)2
Cummingtonite-Grunerite asbestos (Amosite)
(Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2
Tremolite-Actinolite asbestos
Ca2(Mg,Fe)5Si8O22(OH)2
Anthophyllite asbestos
(Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2

    Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos meeting the criteria for a 
fiber. (See section 3.5.)
    Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to its diameter 
usually defined as ``length : width'', e.g. 3:1.
    Brucite: A sheet mineral with the composition Mg(OH)2.
    Central Stop Dispersion Staining (microscope): This is a dark 
field microscope technique that images particles using only light 
refracted by the particle, excluding light that travels through the 
particle unrefracted. This is usually accomplished with a McCrone 
objective or other arrangement which places a circular stop with 
apparent aperture equal to the objective aperture in the back focal 
plane of the microscope.
    Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by the comminution 
of minerals, especially those characterized by relatively parallel 
sides and moderate aspect ratio.
    Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of 
excluding certain kinds of fibers from a phase contrast asbestos 
count because they are not asbestos.
    Fiber: A particle longer than or equal to 5 m with a 
length to width ratio greater than or equal to 3:1. This may include 
cleavage fragments. (see section 3.5 of this appendix).
    Phase Contrast: Contrast obtained in the microscope by causing 
light scattered by small particles to destructively interfere with 
unscattered light, thereby enhancing the visibility of very small 
particles and particles with very low intrinsic contrast.
    Phase Contrast Microscope: A microscope configured with a phase 
mask pair to create phase contrast. The technique which uses this is 
called Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM).
    Phase-Polar Analysis: This is the use of polarized light in a 
phase contrast microscope. It is used to see the same size fibers 
that are visible in air filter analysis. Although fibers finer than 
1 m are visible, analysis of these is inferred from 
analysis of larger bundles that are usually present.
    Phase-Polar Microscope: The phase-polar microscope is a phase 
contrast microscope which has an analyzer, a polarizer, a first 
order red plate and a rotating phase condenser all in place so that 
the polarized light image is enhanced by phase contrast.
    Sealing Encapsulant: This is a product which can be applied, 
preferably by spraying, onto an asbestos surface which will seal the 
surface so that fibers cannot be released.
    Serpentine: A mineral family consisting of minerals with the 
general composition Mg3(Si2O5(OH)4 having the 
magnesium in brucite layer over a silicate layer. Minerals important 
in asbestos analysis included in this family are chrysotile, 
lizardite, antigorite.

1.1. History

    Light microscopy has been used for well over 100 years for the 
determination of mineral species. This analysis is carried out using 
specialized polarizing microscopes as well as bright field 
microscopes. The identification of minerals is an on-going process 
with many new minerals described each year. The first recorded use 
of asbestos was in Finland about 2500 B.C. where the material was 
used in the mud wattle for the wooden huts the people lived in as 
well as strengthening for pottery. Adverse health aspects of the 
mineral were noted nearly 2000 years ago when Pliny the Younger 
wrote about the poor health of slaves in the asbestos mines. 
Although known to be injurious for centuries, the first modern 
references to its toxicity were by the British Labor Inspectorate 
when it banned asbestos dust from the workplace in 1898. Asbestosis 
cases were described in the literature after the turn of the 
century. Cancer was first suspected in the mid 1930's and a causal 
link to mesothelioma was made in 1965. Because of the public concern 
for worker and public safety with the use of this material, several 
different types of analysis were applied to the determination of 
asbestos content. Light microscopy requires a great deal of 
experience and craft. Attempts were made to apply less subjective 
methods to the analysis. X-ray diffraction was partially successful 
in determining the mineral types but was unable to separate out the 
fibrous portions from the non-fibrous portions. Also, the minimum 
detection limit for asbestos analysis by X-ray diffraction (XRD) is 
about 1%. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) was no more 
successful. These provide useful corroborating information when the 
presence of asbestos has been shown by microscopy; however, neither 
can determine the difference between fibrous and non-fibrous 
minerals when both habits are present. The same is true of Infrared 
Absorption (IR).
    When electron microscopy was applied to asbestos analysis, 
hundreds of fibers were discovered present too small to be visible 
in any light microscope. There are two different types of electron 
microscope used for asbestos analysis: Scanning Electron Microscope 
(SEM) and Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM). Scanning Electron 
Microscopy is useful in identifying minerals. The SEM can provide 
two of the three pieces of information required to identify fibers 
by electron microscopy: morphology and chemistry. The third is 
structure as determined by Selected Area Electron Diffraction--SAED 
which is performed in the TEM. Although the resolution of the SEM is 
sufficient for very fine fibers to be seen, accuracy of chemical 
analysis that can be performed on the fibers varies with fiber 
diameter in fibers of less than 0.2 m diameter. The TEM is 
a powerful tool to identify fibers too small to be resolved by light 
microscopy and should be used in conjunction with this method when 
necessary. The TEM can provide all three pieces of information 
required for fiber identification. Most fibers thicker than 1 
m can adequately be defined in the light microscope. The 
light microscope remains as the best instrument for the 
determination of mineral type. This is because the minerals under 
investigation were first described analytically with the light 
microscope. It is inexpensive and gives positive identification for 
most samples analyzed. Further, when optical techniques are 
inadequate, there is ample indication that alternative techniques 
should be used for complete identification of the sample.

1.2. Principle

    Minerals consist of atoms that may be arranged in random order 
or in a regular arrangement. Amorphous materials have atoms in 
random order while crystalline materials have long range order. Many 
materials are transparent to light, at least for small particles or 
for thin sections. The properties of these materials can be 
investigated by the effect that the material has on light passing 
through it. The six asbestos minerals are all crystalline with 
particular properties that have been identified and cataloged. These 
six minerals are anisotropic. They have a regular array of atoms, 
but the arrangement is not the same in all directions. Each major 
direction of the crystal presents a different regularity. Light 
photons travelling in each of these main directions will encounter 
different electrical neighborhoods, affecting the path and time of 
travel. The techniques outlined in this method use the fact that 
light traveling through fibers or crystals in different directions 
will behave differently, but predictably. The behavior of the light 
as it travels through a crystal can be measured and compared with 
known or determined values to identify the mineral species. Usually, 
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) is performed with strain-free 
objectives on a bright-field microscope platform. This would limit 
the resolution of the microscope to about 0.4 m. Because 
OSHA requires the counting and identification of fibers visible in 
phase contrast, the phase contrast platform is used to visualize the 
fibers with the polarizing elements added into the light path. 
Polarized light methods cannot identify fibers finer than about 
1m in diameter even though they are visible. The finest 
fibers are usually identified by inference from the presence of 
larger, identifiable fiber bundles. When fibers are present, but not 
identifiable by light microscopy, use either SEM or TEM to determine 
the fiber identity.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

    The advantages of light microcopy are:
    (a) Basic identification of the materials was first performed by 
light microscopy and gross analysis. This provides a large base of 
published information against which to check analysis and analytical 
technique.
    (b) The analysis is specific to fibers. The minerals present can 
exist in asbestiform, fibrous, prismatic, or massive varieties all 
at the same time. Therefore, bulk methods of analysis such as X-ray 
diffraction, IR analysis, DTA, etc. are inappropriate where the 
material is not known to be fibrous.
    (c) The analysis is quick, requires little preparation time, and 
can be performed on-site if a suitably equipped microscope is 
available.
    The disadvantages are:
    (a) Even using phase-polar illumination, not all the fibers 
present may be seen. This is a problem for very low asbestos 
concentrations where agglomerations or large bundles of fibers may 
not be present to allow identification by inference.
    (b) The method requires a great degree of sophistication on the 
part of the microscopist. An analyst is only as useful as his mental 
catalog of images. Therefore, a microscopist's accuracy is enhanced 
by experience. The mineralogical training of the analyst is very 
important. It is the basis on which subjective decisions are made.
    (c) The method uses only a tiny amount of material for analysis. 
This may lead to sampling bias and false results (high or low). This 
is especially true if the sample is severely inhomogeneous.
    (d) Fibers may be bound in a matrix and not distinguishable as 
fibers so identification cannot be made.

1.4. Method Performance

    1.4.1. This method can be used for determination of asbestos 
content from 0 to 100% asbestos. The detection limit has not been 
adequately determined, although for selected samples, the limit is 
very low, depending on the number of particles examined. For mostly 
homogeneous, finely divided samples, with no difficult fibrous 
interferences, the detection limit is below 1%. For inhomogeneous 
samples (most samples), the detection limit remains undefined. NIST 
has conducted proficiency testing of laboratories on a national 
scale. Although each round is reported statistically with an 
average, control limits, etc., the results indicate a difficulty in 
establishing precision especially in the low concentration range. It 
is suspected that there is significant bias in the low range 
especially near 1%. EPA tried to remedy this by requiring a 
mandatory point counting scheme for samples less than 10%. The point 
counting procedure is tedious, and may introduce significant biases 
of its own. It has not been incorporated into this method.
    1.4.2. The precision and accuracy of the quantitation tests 
performed in this method are unknown. Concentrations are easier to 
determine in commercial products where asbestos was deliberately 
added because the amount is usually more than a few percent. An 
analyst's results can be ``calibrated'' against the known amounts 
added by the manufacturer. For geological samples, the degree of 
homogeneity affects the precision.
    1.4.3. The performance of the method is analyst dependent. The 
analyst must choose carefully and not necessarily randomly the 
portions for analysis to assure that detection of asbestos occurs 
when it is present. For this reason, the analyst must have adequate 
training in sample preparation, and experience in the location and 
identification of asbestos in samples. This is usually accomplished 
through substantial on-the-job training as well as formal education 
in mineralogy and microscopy.

1.5. Interferences

    Any material which is long, thin, and small enough to be viewed 
under the microscope can be considered an interference for asbestos. 
There are literally hundreds of interferences in workplaces. The 
techniques described in this method are normally sufficient to 
eliminate the interferences. An analyst's success in eliminating the 
interferences depends on proper training.
    Asbestos minerals belong to two mineral families: the 
serpentines and the amphiboles. In the serpentine family, the only 
common fibrous mineral is chrysotile. Occasionally, the mineral 
antigorite occurs in a fibril habit with morphology similar to the 
amphiboles. The amphibole minerals consist of a score of different 
minerals of which only five are regulated by federal standard: 
amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos and 
actinolite asbestos. These are the only amphibole minerals that have 
been commercially exploited for their fibrous properties; however, 
the rest can and do occur occasionally in asbestiform habit.
    In addition to the related mineral interferences, other minerals 
common in building material may present a problem for some 
microscopists: gypsum, anhydrite, brucite, quartz fibers, talc 
fibers or ribbons, wollastonite, perlite, attapulgite, etc. Other 
fibrous materials commonly present in workplaces are: fiberglass, 
mineral wool, ceramic wool, refractory ceramic fibers, kevlar, 
nomex, synthetic fibers, graphite or carbon fibers, cellulose (paper 
or wood) fibers, metal fibers, etc.
    Matrix embedding material can sometimes be a negative 
interference. The analyst may not be able to easily extract the 
fibers from the matrix in order to use the method. Where possible, 
remove the matrix before the analysis, taking careful note of the 
loss of weight. Some common matrix materials are: vinyl, rubber, 
tar, paint, plant fiber, cement, and epoxy. A further negative 
interference is that the asbestos fibers themselves may be either 
too small to be seen in Phase contrast Microscopy (PCM) or of a very 
low fibrous quality, having the appearance of plant fibers. The 
analyst's ability to deal with these materials increases with 
experience.

1.6. Uses and Occupational Exposure

    Asbestos is ubiquitous in the environment. More than 40% of the 
land area of the United States is composed of minerals which may 
contain asbestos. Fortunately, the actual formation of great amounts 
of asbestos is relatively rare. Nonetheless, there are locations in 
which environmental exposure can be severe such as in the Serpentine 
Hills of California.
    There are thousands of uses for asbestos in industry and the 
home. Asbestos abatement workers are the most current segment of the 
population to have occupational exposure to great amounts of 
asbestos. If the material is undisturbed, there is no exposure. 
Exposure occurs when the asbestos-containing material is abraded or 
otherwise disturbed during maintenance operations or some other 
activity. Approximately 95% of the asbestos in place in the United 
States is chrysotile.
    Amosite and crocidolite make up nearly all the difference. 
Tremolite and anthophyllite make up a very small percentage. 
Tremolite is found in extremely small amounts in certain chrysotile 
deposits. Actinolite exposure is probably greatest from 
environmental sources, but has been identified in vermiculite 
containing, sprayed-on insulating materials which may have been 
certified as asbestos-free.

1.7. Physical and Chemical Properties

    The nominal chemical compositions for the asbestos minerals were 
given in Section 1. Compared to cleavage fragments of the same 
minerals, asbestiform fibers possess a high tensile strength along 
the fiber axis. They are chemically inert, non-combustible, and heat 
resistant. Except for chrysotile, they are insoluble in Hydrochloric 
acid (HCl). Chrysotile is slightly soluble in HCl. Asbestos has high 
electrical resistance and good sound absorbing characteristics. It 
can be woven into cables, fabrics or other textiles, or matted into 
papers, felts, and mats.

1.8. Toxicology (This Section is for Information Only and Should Not Be 
Taken as OSHA Policy)

    Possible physiologic results of respiratory exposure to asbestos 
are mesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum, interstitial fibrosis, 
asbestosis, pneumoconiosis, or respiratory cancer. The possible 
consequences of asbestos exposure are detailed in the NIOSH Criteria 
Document or in the OSHA Asbestos Standards 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 
CFR 1926.1101.

2. Sampling Procedure

2.1. Equipment for Sampling

    (a) Tube or cork borer sampling device
    (b) Knife
    (c) 20 mL scintillation vial or similar vial
    (d) Sealing encapsulant

2.2. Safety Precautions

    Asbestos is a known carcinogen. Take care when sampling. While 
in an asbestos-containing atmosphere, a properly selected and fit-
tested respirator should be worn. Take samples in a manner to cause 
the least amount of dust. Follow these general guidelines:
    (a) Do not make unnecessary dust.
    (b) Take only a small amount (1 to 2 g).
    (c) Tightly close the sample container.
    (d) Use encapsulant to seal the spot where the sample was taken, 
if necessary.

2.3. Sampling procedure

    Samples of any suspect material should be taken from an 
inconspicuous place. Where the material is to remain, seal the 
sampling wound with an encapsulant to eliminate the potential for 
exposure from the sample site. Microscopy requires only a few 
milligrams of material. The amount that will fill a 20 mL 
scintillation vial is more than adequate. Be sure to collect samples 
from all layers and phases of material. If possible, make separate 
samples of each different phase of the material. This will aid in 
determining the actual hazard. DO NOT USE ENVELOPES, PLASTIC OR 
PAPER BAGS OF ANY KIND TO COLLECT SAMPLES. The use of plastic bags 
presents a contamination hazard to laboratory personnel and to other 
samples. When these containers are opened, a bellows effect blows 
fibers out of the container onto everything, including the person 
opening the container.
    If a cork-borer type sampler is available, push the tube through 
the material all the way, so that all layers of material are 
sampled. Some samplers are intended to be disposable. These should 
be capped and sent to the laboratory. If a non-disposable cork borer 
is used, empty the contents into a scintillation vial and send to 
the laboratory. Vigorously and completely clean the cork borer 
between samples.

2.4 Shipment

    Samples packed in glass vials must not touch or they might break 
in shipment.
    (a) Seal the samples with a sample seal (such as the OSHA 21) 
over the end to guard against tampering and to identify the sample.
    (b) Package the bulk samples in separate packages from the air 
samples. They may cross-contaminate each other and will invalidate 
the results of the air samples.
    (c) Include identifying paperwork with the samples, but not in 
contact with the suspected asbestos.
    (d) To maintain sample accountability, ship the samples by 
certified mail, overnight express, or hand carry them to the 
laboratory.

3. Analysis

    The analysis of asbestos samples can be divided into two major 
parts: sample preparation and microscopy. Because of the different 
asbestos uses that may be encountered by the analyst, each sample 
may need different preparation steps. The choices are outlined 
below. There are several different tests that are performed to 
identify the asbestos species and determine the percentage. They 
will be explained below.

3.1. Safety

    (a) Do not create unnecessary dust. Handle the samples in HEPA-
filter equipped hoods. If samples are received in bags, envelopes or 
other inappropriate container, open them only in a hood having a 
face velocity at or greater than 100 fpm. Transfer a small amount to 
a scintillation vial and only handle the smaller amount.
    (b) Open samples in a hood, never in the open lab area.
    (c) Index of refraction oils can be toxic. Take care not to get 
this material on the skin. Wash immediately with soap and water if 
this happens.
    (d) Samples that have been heated in the muffle furnace or the 
drying oven may be hot. Handle them with tongs until they are cool 
enough to handle.
    (e) Some of the solvents used, such as THF (tetrahydrofuran), 
are toxic and should only be handled in an appropriate fume hood and 
according to instructions given in the Material Safety Data Sheet 
(MSDS).

3.2. Equipment

    (a) Phase contrast microscope with 10x, 16x and 40x objectives, 
10x wide-field eyepieces, G-22 Walton-Beckett graticule, Whipple 
disk, polarizer, analyzer and first order red or gypsum plate, 100 
Watt illuminator, rotating position condenser with oversize phase 
rings, central stop dispersion objective, Kohler illumination and a 
rotating mechanicalstage. (See Figure 1).
    (b) Stereo microscope with reflected light illumination, 
transmitted light illumination, polarizer, analyzer and first order 
red or gypsum plate, and rotating stage.
    (c) Negative pressure hood for the stereo microscope
    (d) Muffle furnace capable of 600  deg.C
    (e) Drying oven capable of 50-150  deg.C
    (f) Aluminum specimen pans
    (g) Tongs for handling samples in the furnace
    (h) High dispersion index of refraction oils (Special for 
dispersion staining.)

n=1.550
n=1.585
n=1.590
n=1.605
n=1.620
n=1.670
n=1.680
n=1.690

    (i) A set of index of refraction oils from about n=1.350 to 
n=2.000 in n=0.005 increments. (Standard for Becke line analysis.)
    (j) Glass slides with painted or frosted ends 1 x 3 inches 1mm 
thick, precleaned.
    (k) Cover Slips 22 x 22 mm, #1\1/2\
    (l) Paper clips or dissection needles
    (m) Hand grinder
    (n) Scalpel with both #10 and #11 blades
    (o) 0.1 molar HCl
    (p) Decalcifying solution (Baxter Scientific Products) 
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid,

Tetrasodium
0.7 g/l
Sodium Potassium Tartrate
8.0 mg/liter
Hydrochloric Acid
99.2 g/liter
Sodium Tartrate
0.14 g/liter

    (q) Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
    (r) Hotplate capable of 60  deg.C
    (s) Balance
    (t) Hacksaw blade
    (u) Ruby mortar and pestle

3.3. Sample Pre-Preparation

    Sample preparation begins with pre-preparation which may include 
chemical reduction of the matrix, heating the sample to dryness or 
heating in the muffle furnace. The end result is a sample which has 
been reduced to a powder that is sufficiently fine to fit under the 
cover slip. Analyze different phases of samples separately, e.g., 
tile and the tile mastic should be analyzed separately as the mastic 
may contain asbestos while the tile may not.

(a) Wet Samples

    Samples with a high water content will not give the proper 
dispersion colors and must be dried prior to sample mounting. Remove 
the lid of the scintillation vial, place the bottle in the drying 
oven and heat at 100  deg.C to dryness (usually about 2 h). Samples 
which are not submitted to the lab in glass must be removed and 
placed in glass vials or aluminum weighing pans before placing them 
in the drying oven.

(b) Samples With Organic Interference--Muffle Furnace

    These may include samples with tar as a matrix, vinyl asbestos 
tile, or any other organic that can be reduced by heating. Remove 
the sample from the vial and weigh in a balance to determine the 
weight of the submitted portion. Place the sample in a muffle 
furnace at 500  deg.C for 1 to 2 h or until all obvious organic 
material has been removed. Retrieve, cool and weigh again to 
determine the weight loss on ignition. This is necessary to 
determine the asbestos content of the submitted sample, because the 
analyst will be looking at a reduced sample.

    Notes: Heating above 600  deg.C will cause the sample to undergo 
a structural change which, given sufficient time, will convert the 
chrysotile to forsterite. Heating even at lower temperatures for 1 
to 2 h may have a measurable effect on the optical properties of the 
minerals. If the analyst is unsure of what to expect, a sample of 
standard asbestos should be heated to the same temperature for the 
same length of time so that it can be examined for the proper 
interpretation.

(c) Samples With Organic Interference--THF

    Vinyl asbestos tile is the most common material treated with 
this solvent, although, substances containing tar will sometimes 
yield to this treatment. Select a portion of the material and then 
grind it up if possible. Weigh the sample and place it in a test 
tube. Add sufficient THF to dissolve the organic matrix. This is 
usually about 4 to 5 mL. Remember, THF is highly flammable. Filter 
the remaining material through a tared silver membrane, dry and 
weigh to determine how much is left after the solvent extraction. 
Further process the sample to remove carbonate or mount directly.

(d) Samples With Carbonate Interference

    Carbonate material is often found on fibers and sometimes must 
be removed in order to perform dispersion microscopy. Weigh out a 
portion of the material and place it in a test tube. Add a 
sufficient amount of 0.1 M HCl or decalcifying solution in the tube 
to react all the carbonate as evidenced by gas formation; i.e., when 
the gas bubbles stop, add a little more solution. If no more gas 
forms, the reaction is complete. Filter the material out through a 
tared silver membrane, dry and weigh to determine the weight lost.

3.4. Sample Preparation

    Samples must be prepared so that accurate determination can be 
made of the asbestos type and amount present. The following steps 
are carried out in the low-flow hood (a low-flow hood has less than 
50 fpm flow):
    (1) If the sample has large lumps, is hard, or cannot be made to 
lie under a cover slip, the grain size must be reduced. Place a 
small amount between two slides and grind the material between them 
or grind a small amount in a clean mortar and pestle. The choice of 
whether to use an alumina, ruby, or diamond mortar depends on the 
hardness of the material. Impact damage can alter the asbestos 
mineral if too much mechanical shock occurs. (Freezer mills can 
completely destroy the observable crystallinity of asbestos and 
should not be used). For some samples, a portion of material can be 
shaved off with a scalpel, ground off with a hand grinder or hack 
saw blade.
    The preparation tools should either be disposable or cleaned 
thoroughly. Use vigorous scrubbing to loosen the fibers during the 
washing. Rinse the implements with copious amounts of water and air-
dry in a dust-free environment.
    (2) If the sample is powder or has been reduced as in 1) above, 
it is ready to mount. Place a glass slide on a piece of optical 
tissue and write the identification on the painted or frosted end. 
Place two drops of index of refraction medium n=1.550 on the slide. 
(The medium n=1.550 is chosen because it is the matching index for 
chrysotile. Dip the end of a clean paper-clip or dissecting needle 
into the droplet of refraction medium on the slide to moisten it. 
Then dip the probe into the powder sample. Transfer what sticks on 
the probe to the slide. The material on the end of the probe should 
have a diameter of about 3 mm for a good mount. If the material is 
very fine, less sample may be appropriate. For non-powder samples 
such as fiber mats, forceps should be used to transfer a small 
amount of material to the slide. Stir the material in the medium on 
the slide, spreading it out and making the preparation as uniform as 
possible. Place a cover-slip on the preparation by gently lowering 
onto the slide and allowing it to fall ``trapdoor'' fashion on the 
preparation to push out any bubbles. Press gently on the cover slip 
to even out the distribution of particulate on the slide. If there 
is insufficient mounting oil on the slide, one or two drops may be 
placed near the edge of the coverslip on the slide. Capillary action 
will draw the necessary amount of liquid into the preparation. 
Remove excess oil with the point of a laboratory wiper.
    Treat at least two different areas of each phase in this 
fashion. Choose representative areas of the sample. It may be useful 
to select particular areas or fibers for analysis. This is useful to 
identify asbestos in severely inhomogeneous samples.
    When it is determined that amphiboles may be present, repeat the 
above process using the appropriate high- dispersion oils until an 
identification is made or all six asbestos minerals have been ruled 
out. Note that percent determination must be done in the index 
medium 1.550 because amphiboles tend to disappear in their matching 
mediums.

3.5. Analytical procedure

    Note: This method presumes some knowledge of mineralogy and 
optical petrography.

    The analysis consists of three parts: The determination of 
whether there is asbestos present, what type is present and the 
determination of how much is present. The general flow of the 
analysis is:
    (1) Gross examination.
    (2) Examination under polarized light on the stereo microscope.
    (3) Examination by phase-polar illumination on the compound 
phase microscope.
    (4) Determination of species by dispersion stain. Examination by 
Becke line analysis may also be used; however, this is usually more 
cumbersome for asbestos determination.
    (5) Difficult samples may need to be analyzed by SEM or TEM, or 
the results from those techniques combined with light microscopy for 
a definitive identification. Identification of a particle as 
asbestos requires that it be asbestiform. Description of particles 
should follow the suggestion of Campbell. (Figure 1)

BILLING COCE 4510-26-P
TR10AU94.024



BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    For the purpose of regulation, the mineral must be one of the 
six minerals covered and must be in the asbestos growth habit. Large 
specimen samples of asbestos generally have the gross appearance of 
wood. Fibers are easily parted from it. Asbestos fibers are very 
long compared with their widths. The fibers have a very high tensile 
strength as demonstrated by bending without breaking. Asbestos 
fibers exist in bundles that are easily parted, show longitudinal 
fine structure and may be tufted at the ends showing ``bundle of 
sticks'' morphology. In the microscope some of these properties may 
not be observable. Amphiboles do not always show striations along 
their length even when they are asbestos. Neither will they always 
show tufting. They generally do not show a curved nature except for 
very long fibers. Asbestos and asbestiform minerals are usually 
characterized in groups by extremely high aspect ratios (greater 
than 100:1). While aspect ratio analysis is useful for 
characterizing populations of fibers, it cannot be used to identify 
individual fibers of intermediate to short aspect ratio. Observation 
of many fibers is often necessary to determine whether a sample 
consists of ``cleavage fragments'' or of asbestos fibers.
    Most cleavage fragments of the asbestos minerals are easily 
distinguishable from true asbestos fibers. This is because true 
cleavage fragments usually have larger diameters than 1 m. 
Internal structure of particles larger than this usually shows them 
to have no internal fibrillar structure. In addition, cleavage 
fragments of the monoclinic amphiboles show inclined extinction 
under crossed polars with no compensator. Asbestos fibers usually 
show extinction at zero degrees or ambiguous extinction if any at 
all. Morphologically, the larger cleavage fragments are obvious by 
their blunt or stepped ends showing prismatic habit. Also, they tend 
to be acicular rather than filiform.
    Where the particles are less than 1 m in diameter and 
have an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 3:1, it is recommended 
that the sample be analyzed by SEM or TEM if there is any question 
whether the fibers are cleavage fragments or asbestiform particles.
    Care must be taken when analyzing by electron microscopy because 
the interferences are different from those in light microscopy and 
may structurally be very similar to asbestos. The classic 
interference is between anthophyllite and biopyribole or 
intermediate fiber. Use the same morphological clues for electron 
microscopy as are used for light microscopy, e.g. fibril splitting, 
internal longitudinal striation, fraying, curvature, etc.
    (1) Gross examination:
    Examine the sample, preferably in the glass vial. Determine the 
presence of any obvious fibrous component. Estimate a percentage 
based on previous experience and current observation. Determine 
whether any pre-preparation is necessary. Determine the number of 
phases present. This step may be carried out or augmented by 
observation at 6 to 40 x  under a stereo microscope.
    (2) After performing any necessary pre-preparation, prepare 
slides of each phase as described above. Two preparations of the 
same phase in the same index medium can be made side-by-side on the 
same glass for convenience. Examine with the polarizing stereo 
microscope. Estimate the percentage of asbestos based on the amount 
of birefringent fiber present.
    (3) Examine the slides on the phase-polar microscopes at 
magnifications of 160 and 400 x . Note the morphology of the fibers. 
Long, thin, very straight fibers with little curvature are 
indicative of fibers from the amphibole family. Curved, wavy fibers 
are usually indicative of chrysotile. Estimate the percentage of 
asbestos on the phase-polar microscope under conditions of crossed 
polars and a gypsum plate. Fibers smaller than 1.0 m in 
thickness must be identified by inference to the presence of larger, 
identifiable fibers and morphology. If no larger fibers are visible, 
electron microscopy should be performed. At this point, only a 
tentative identification can be made. Full identification must be 
made with dispersion microscopy. Details of the tests are included 
in the appendices.
    (4) Once fibers have been determined to be present, they must be 
identified. Adjust the microscope for dispersion mode and observe 
the fibers. The microscope has a rotating stage, one polarizing 
element, and a system for generating dark-field dispersion 
microscopy (see Section 4.6. of this appendix). Align a fiber with 
its length parallel to the polarizer and note the color of the Becke 
lines. Rotate the stage to bring the fiber length perpendicular to 
the polarizer and note the color. Repeat this process for every 
fiber or fiber bundle examined. The colors must be consistent with 
the colors generated by standard asbestos reference materials for a 
positive identification. In n=1.550, amphiboles will generally show 
a yellow to straw-yellow color indicating that the fiber indices of 
refraction are higher than the liquid. If long, thin fibers are 
noted and the colors are yellow, prepare further slides as above in 
the suggested matching liquids listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Type of asbestos                    Index of refraction   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysotile..................................  n=1.550.                  
Amosite.....................................  n=1.670 r 1.680.          
Crocidolite.................................  n=1.690.                  
Anthophyllite...............................  n=1.605 nd 1.620.         
Tremolite...................................  n=1.605 and 1.620.        
Actinolite..................................  n=1.620.                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where more than one liquid is suggested, the first is preferred; 
however, in some cases this liquid will not give good dispersion 
color. Take care to avoid interferences in the other liquid; e.g., 
wollastonite in n=1.620 will give the same colors as tremolite. In 
n=1.605 wollastonite will appear yellow in all directions. 
Wollastonite may be determined under crossed polars as it will 
change from blue to yellow as it is rotated along its fiber axis by 
tapping on the cover slip. Asbestos minerals will not change in this 
way.
    Determination of the angle of extinction may, when present, aid 
in the determination of anthophyllite from tremolite. True asbestos 
fibers usually have 0 deg. extinction or ambiguous extinction, while 
cleavage fragments have more definite extinction.
    Continue analysis until both preparations have been examined and 
all present species of asbestos are identified. If there are no 
fibers present, or there is less than 0.1% present, end the analysis 
with the minimum number of slides (2).
    (5) Some fibers have a coating on them which makes dispersion 
microscopy very difficult or impossible. Becke line analysis or 
electron microscopy may be performed in those cases. Determine the 
percentage by light microscopy. TEM analysis tends to overestimate 
the actual percentage present.
    (6) Percentage determination is an estimate of occluded area, 
tempered by gross observation. Gross observation information is used 
to make sure that the high magnification microscopy does not greatly 
over- or under-estimate the amount of fiber present. This part of 
the analysis requires a great deal of experience. Satisfactory 
models for asbestos content analysis have not yet been developed, 
although some models based on metallurgical grain-size determination 
have found some utility. Estimation is more easily handled in 
situations where the grain sizes visible at about 160 x  are about 
the same and the sample is relatively homogeneous.
    View all of the area under the cover slip to make the percentage 
determination. View the fields while moving the stage, paying 
attention to the clumps of material. These are not usually the best 
areas to perform dispersion microscopy because of the interference 
from other materials. But, they are the areas most likely to 
represent the accurate percentage in the sample. Small amounts of 
asbestos require slower scanning and more frequent analysis of 
individual fields.
    Report the area occluded by asbestos as the concentration. This 
estimate does not generally take into consideration the difference 
in density of the different species present in the sample. For most 
samples this is adequate. Simulation studies with similar materials 
must be carried out to apply microvisual estimation for that purpose 
and is beyond the scope of this procedure.
    (7) Where successive concentrations have been made by chemical 
or physical means, the amount reported is the percentage of the 
material in the ``as submitted'' or original state. The percentage 
determined by microscopy is multiplied by the fractions remaining 
after pre-preparation steps to give the percentage in the original 
sample. For example:

Step 1. 60% remains after heating at 550  deg.C for 1 h.
Step 2. 30% of the residue of step 1 remains after dissolution of 
carbonate in 0.1 m HCl.
Step 3. Microvisual estimation determines that 5% of the sample is 
chrysotile asbestos.

    The reported result is:

R=(Microvisual result in percent) x (Fraction remaining after step 
2) x (Fraction remaining of original sample after step 1)
R =(5) x (.30) x (.60)=0.9%

    (8) Report the percent and type of asbestos present. For samples 
where asbestos was identified, but is less than 1.0%, report 
``Asbestos present, less than 1.0%.'' There must have been at least 
two observed fibers or fiber bundles in the two preparations to be 
reported as present. For samples where asbestos was not seen, report 
as ``None Detected.''

Auxiliary Information

    Because of the subjective nature of asbestos analysis, certain 
concepts and procedures need to be discussed in more depth. This 
information will help the analyst understand why some of the 
procedures are carried out the way they are.

4.1. Light

    Light is electromagnetic energy. It travels from its source in 
packets called quanta. It is instructive to consider light as a 
plane wave. The light has a direction of travel. Perpendicular to 
this and mutually perpendicular to each other, are two vector 
components. One is the magnetic vector and the other is the electric 
vector. We shall only be concerned with the electric vector. In this 
description, the interaction of the vector and the mineral will 
describe all the observable phenomena. From a light source such a 
microscope illuminator, light travels in all different direction 
from the filament.
    In any given direction away from the filament, the electric 
vector is perpendicular to the direction of travel of a light ray. 
While perpendicular, its orientation is random about the travel 
axis. If the electric vectors from all the light rays were lined up 
by passing the light through a filter that would only let light rays 
with electric vectors oriented in one direction pass, the light 
would then be POLARIZED.
    Polarized light interacts with matter in the direction of the 
electric vector. This is the polarization direction. Using this 
property it is possible to use polarized light to probe different 
materials and identify them by how they interact with light. The 
speed of light in a vacuum is a constant at about 2.99 x 10\8\ m/s. 
When light travels in different materials such as air, water, 
minerals or oil, it does not travel at this speed. It travels 
slower. This slowing is a function of both the material through 
which the light is traveling and the wavelength or frequency of the 
light. In general, the more dense the material, the slower the light 
travels. Also, generally, the higher the frequency, the slower the 
light will travel. The ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum to 
that in a material is called the index of refraction (n). It is 
usually measured at 589 nm (the sodium D line). If white light 
(light containing all the visible wavelengths) travels through a 
material, rays of longer wavelengths will travel faster than those 
of shorter wavelengths, this separation is called dispersion. 
Dispersion is used as an identifier of materials as described in 
Section 4.6.

4.2. Material Properties

    Materials are either amorphous or crystalline. The difference 
between these two descriptions depends on the positions of the atoms 
in them. The atoms in amorphous materials are randomly arranged with 
no long range order. An example of an amorphous material is glass. 
The atoms in crystalline materials, on the other hand, are in 
regular arrays and have long range order. Most of the atoms can be 
found in highly predictable locations. Examples of crystalline 
material are salt, gold, and the asbestos minerals.
    It is beyond the scope of this method to describe the different 
types of crystalline materials that can be found, or the full 
description of the classes into which they can fall. However, some 
general crystallography is provided below to give a foundation to 
the procedures described.
    With the exception of anthophyllite, all the asbestos minerals 
belong to the monoclinic crystal type. The unit cell is the basic 
repeating unit of the crystal and for monoclinic crystals can be 
described as having three unequal sides, two 90 deg. angles and one 
angle not equal to 90 deg.. The orthorhombic group, of which 
anthophyllite is a member has three unequal sides and three 90 deg. 
angles. The unequal sides are a consequence of the complexity of 
fitting the different atoms into the unit cell. Although the atoms 
are in a regular array, that array is not symmetrical in all 
directions. There is long range order in the three major directions 
of the crystal. However, the order is different in each of the three 
directions. This has the effect that the index of refraction is 
different in each of the three directions. Using polarized light, we 
can investigate the index of refraction in each of the directions 
and identify the mineral or material under investigation. The 
indices , , and  are used to identify the 
lowest, middle, and highest index of refraction respectively. The x 
direction, associated with  is called the fast axis. 
Conversely, the z direction is associated with  and is the 
slow direction. Crocidolite has  along the fiber length 
making it ``length-fast''. The remainder of the asbestos minerals 
have the  axis along the fiber length. They are called 
``length-slow''. This orientation to fiber length is used to aid in 
the identification of asbestos.

4.3. Polarized Light Technique

    Polarized light microscopy as described in this section uses the 
phase-polar microscope described in Section 3.2. A phase contrast 
microscope is fitted with two polarizing elements, one below and one 
above the sample. The polarizers have their polarization directions 
at right angles to each other. Depending on the tests performed, 
there may be a compensator between these two polarizing elements. A 
compensator is a piece of mineral with known properties that 
``compensates'' for some deficiency in the optical train. Light 
emerging from a polarizing element has its electric vector pointing 
in the polarization direction of the element. The light will not be 
subsequently transmitted through a second element set at a right 
angle to the first element. Unless the light is altered as it passes 
from one element to the other, there is no transmission of light.

4.4. Angle of Extinction

    Crystals which have different crystal regularity in two or three 
main directions are said to be anisotropic. They have a different 
index of refraction in each of the main directions. When such a 
crystal is inserted between the crossed polars, the field of view is 
no longer dark but shows the crystal in color. The color depends on 
the properties of the crystal. The light acts as if it travels 
through the crystal along the optical axes. If a crystal optical 
axis were lined up along one of the polarizing directions (either 
the polarizer or the analyzer) the light would appear to travel only 
in that direction, and it would blink out or go dark. The difference 
in degrees between the fiber direction and the angle at which it 
blinks out is called the angle of extinction. When this angle can be 
measured, it is useful in identifying the mineral. The procedure for 
measuring the angle of extinction is to first identify the 
polarization direction in the microscope. A commercial alignment 
slide can be used to establish the polarization directions or use 
anthophyllite or another suitable mineral. This mineral has a zero 
degree angle of extinction and will go dark to extinction as it 
aligns with the polarization directions. When a fiber of 
anthophyllite has gone to extinction, align the eyepiece reticle or 
graticule with the fiber so that there is a visual cue as to the 
direction of polarization in the field of view. Tape or otherwise 
secure the eyepiece in this position so it will not shift.
    After the polarization direction has been identified in the 
field of view, move the particle of interest to the center of the 
field of view and align it with the polarization direction. For 
fibers, align the fiber along this direction. Note the angular 
reading of the rotating stage. Looking at the particle, rotate the 
stage until the fiber goes dark or ``blinks out''. Again note the 
reading of the stage. The difference in the first reading and the 
second is an angle of extinction.
    The angle measured may vary as the orientation of the fiber 
changes about its long axis. Tables of mineralogical data usually 
report the maximum angle of extinction. Asbestos forming minerals, 
when they exhibit an angle of extinction, usually do show an angle 
of extinction close to the reported maximum, or as appropriate 
depending on the substitution chemistry.

4.5. Crossed Polars With Compensator

    When the optical axes of a crystal are not lined up along one of 
the polarizing directions (either the polarizer or the analyzer) 
part of the light travels along one axis and part travels along the 
other visible axis. This is characteristic of birefringent 
materials.
    The color depends on the difference of the two visible indices 
of refraction and the thickness of the crystal. The maximum 
difference available is the difference between the  and the 
 axes. This maximum difference is usually tabulated as the 
birefringence of the crystal.
    For this test, align the fiber at 45 deg. to the polarization 
directions in order to maximize the contribution to each of the 
optical axes. The colors seen are called retardation colors. They 
arise from the recombination of light which has traveled through the 
two separate directions of the crystal. One of the rays is retarded 
behind the other since the light in that direction travels slower. 
On recombination, some of the colors which make up white light are 
enhanced by constructive interference and some are suppressed by 
destructive interference. The result is a color dependent on the 
difference between the indices and the thickness of the crystal. The 
proper colors, thicknesses, and retardations are shown on a Michel-
Levy chart. The three items, retardation, thickness and 
birefringence are related by the following relationship: 

R = t(n--)
R = retardation, t = crystal thickness in m, and
, = indices of refraction.

    Examination of the equation for asbestos minerals reveals that 
the visible colors for almost all common asbestos minerals and fiber 
sizes are shades of gray and black. The eye is relatively poor at 
discriminating different shades of gray. It is very good at 
discriminating different colors. In order to compensate for the low 
retardation, a compensator is added to the light train between the 
polarization elements. The compensator used for this test is a 
gypsum plate of known thickness and birefringence. Such a 
compensator when oriented at 45 deg. to the polarizer direction, 
provides a retardation of 530 nm of the 530 nm wavelength color. 
This enhances the red color and gives the background a 
characteristic red to red-magenta color. If this ``full-wave'' 
compensator is in place when the asbestos preparation is inserted 
into the light train, the colors seen on the fibers are quite 
different. Gypsum, like asbestos has a fast axis and a slow axis. 
When a fiber is aligned with its fast axis in the same direction as 
the fast axis of the gypsum plate, the ray vibrating in the slow 
direction is retarded by both the asbestos and the gypsum. This 
results in a higher retardation than would be present for either of 
the two minerals. The color seen is a second order blue. When the 
fiber is rotated 90 deg. using the rotating stage, the slow 
direction of the fiber is now aligned with the fast direction of the 
gypsum and the fast direction of the fiber is aligned with the slow 
direction of the gypsum. Thus, one ray vibrates faster in the fast 
direction of the gypsum, and slower in the slow direction of the 
fiber; the other ray will vibrate slower in the slow direction of 
the gypsum and faster in the fast direction of the fiber. In this 
case, the effect is subtractive and the color seen is a first order 
yellow. As long as the fiber thickness does not add appreciably to 
the color, the same basic colors will be seen for all asbestos types 
except crocidolite. In crocidolite the colors will be weaker, may be 
in the opposite directions, and will be altered by the blue 
absorption color natural to crocidolite. Hundreds of other materials 
will give the same colors as asbestos, and therefore, this test is 
not definitive for asbestos. The test is useful in discriminating 
against fiberglass or other amorphous fibers such as some synthetic 
fibers. Certain synthetic fibers will show retardation colors 
different than asbestos; however, there are some forms of 
polyethylene and aramid which will show morphology and retardation 
colors similar to asbestos minerals. This test must be supplemented 
with a positive identification test when birefringent fibers are 
present which can not be excluded by morphology. This test is 
relatively ineffective for use on fibers less than 1 m in 
diameter. For positive confirmation TEM or SEM should be used if no 
larger bundles or fibers are visible.

4.6. Dispersion Staining

    Dispersion microscopy or dispersion staining is the method of 
choice for the identification of asbestos in bulk materials. Becke 
line analysis is used by some laboratories and yields the same 
results as does dispersion staining for asbestos and can be used in 
lieu of dispersion staining. Dispersion staining is performed on the 
same platform as the phase-polar analysis with the analyzer and 
compensator removed. One polarizing element remains to define the 
direction of the light so that the different indices of refraction 
of the fibers may be separately determined. Dispersion microscopy is 
a dark-field technique when used for asbestos. Particles are imaged 
with scattered light. Light which is unscattered is blocked from 
reaching the eye either by the back field image mask in a McCrone 
objective or a back field image mask in the phase condenser. The 
most convenient method is to use the rotating phase condenser to 
move an oversized phase ring into place. The ideal size for this 
ring is for the central disk to be just larger than the objective 
entry aperture as viewed in the back focal plane. The larger the 
disk, the less scattered light reaches the eye. This will have the 
effect of diminishing the intensity of dispersion color and will 
shift the actual color seen. The colors seen vary even on 
microscopes from the same manufacturer. This is due to the different 
bands of wavelength exclusion by different mask sizes. The mask may 
either reside in the condenser or in the objective back focal plane. 
It is imperative that the analyst determine by experimentation with 
asbestos standards what the appropriate colors should be for each 
asbestos type. The colors depend also on the temperature of the 
preparation and the exact chemistry of the asbestos. Therefore, some 
slight differences from the standards should be allowed. This is not 
a serious problem for commercial asbestos uses. This technique is 
used for identification of the indices of refraction for fibers by 
recognition of color. There is no direct numerical readout of the 
index of refraction. Correlation of color to actual index of 
refraction is possible by referral to published conversion tables. 
This is not necessary for the analysis of asbestos. Recognition of 
appropriate colors along with the proper morphology are deemed 
sufficient to identify the commercial asbestos minerals. Other 
techniques including SEM, TEM, and XRD may be required to provide 
additional information in order to identify other types of asbestos.
    Make a preparation in the suspected matching high dispersion 
oil, e.g., n=1.550 for chrysotile. Perform the preliminary tests to 
determine whether the fibers are birefringent or not. Take note of 
the morphological character. Wavy fibers are indicative of 
chrysotile while long, straight, thin, frayed fibers are indicative 
of amphibole asbestos. This can aid in the selection of the 
appropriate matching oil. The microscope is set up and the 
polarization direction is noted as in Section 4.4. Align a fiber 
with the polarization direction. Note the color. This is the color 
parallel to the polarizer. Then rotate the fiber rotating the stage 
90 deg. so that the polarization direction is across the fiber. This 
is the perpendicular position. Again note the color. Both colors 
must be consistent with standard asbestos minerals in the correct 
direction for a positive identification of asbestos. If only one of 
the colors is correct while the other is not, the identification is 
not positive. If the colors in both directions are bluish-white, the 
analyst has chosen a matching index oil which is higher than the 
correct matching oil, e.g. the analyst has used n = 1.620 where 
chrysotile is present. The next lower oil (Section 3.5.) should be 
used to prepare another specimen. If the color in both directions is 
yellow-white to straw-yellow-white, this indicates that the index of 
the oil is lower than the index of the fiber, e.g. the preparation 
is in n = 1.550 while anthophyllite is present. Select the next 
higher oil (Section 3.5.) and prepare another slide. Continue in 
this fashion until a positive identification of all asbestos species 
present has been made or all possible asbestos species have been 
ruled out by negative results in this test. Certain plant fibers can 
have similar dispersion colors as asbestos. Take care to note and 
evaluate the morphology of the fibers or remove the plant fibers in 
pre-preparation. Coating material on the fibers such as carbonate or 
vinyl may destroy the dispersion color. Usually, there will be some 
outcropping of fiber which will show the colors sufficient for 
identification. When this is not the case, treat the sample as 
described in Section 3.3. and then perform dispersion staining. Some 
samples will yield to Becke line analysis if they are coated or 
electron microscopy can be used for identification.

5. References

    5.1. Crane, D.T., Asbestos in Air, OSHA method ID160, Revised 
November 1992.
    5.2. Ford, W.E., Dana's Textbook of Mineralogy; Fourth Ed.; John 
Wiley and Son, New York, 1950, p. vii.
    5.3. Selikoff,.I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic 
Press, New York, 1978, pp. 3, 20.
    5.4. Women Inspectors of Factories. Annual Report for 1898, H.M. 
Statistical Office, London, p. 170 (1898).
    5.5. Selikoff,.I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic 
Press, New York, 1978, pp. 26, 30.
    5.6. Campbell, W.J., et al, Selected Silicate Minerals and Their 
Asbestiform Varieties, United States Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 8751, 1977.
    5.7. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 
29 CFR 1926.58.
    5.8. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 
Asbestos NESHAP Revision, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 224, 20 
November 1990, p. 48410.
    5.9. Ross, M. The Asbestos Minerals: Definitions, Description, 
Modes of Formation, Physical and Chemical Properties and Health Risk 
to the Mining Community, Nation Bureau of Standards Special 
Publication, Washington, D.C., 1977.
    5.10. Lilis, R., Fibrous Zeolites and Endemic Mesothelioma in 
Cappadocia, Turkey, J. Occ Medicine, 1981, 23, (8) ,548-550.
    5.11. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos--1972, U.S. Department 
of Health Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for 
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health, HSM-72-10267.
    5.12. Campbell,W.J., et al, Relationship of Mineral Habit to 
Size Characteristics for Tremolite Fragments and Fibers, United 
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Information 
Circular 8367, 1979.
    5.13. Mefford, D., DCM Laboratory, Denver, private 
communication, July 1987.
    5.14. Deer, W.A., Howie, R.A., Zussman, J., Rock Forming 
Minerals, Longman, Thetford, UK, 1974.
    5.15. Kerr, P.F., Optical Mineralogy; Third Ed. McGraw-Hill, New 
York, 1959.
    5.16. Veblen, D.R. (Ed.), Amphiboles and Other Hydrous 
Pyriboles--Mineralogy, Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol 9A, Michigan, 
1982, pp 1-102.
    5.17. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in the 
Analysis of Asbestos and Quartz, ACS Symposium Series, No. 120, 
Analytical Techniques in Occupational Health Chemistry, 1979.
    5.18. Polarized Light Microscopy, McCrone Research Institute, 
Chicago, 1976.
    5.19. Asbestos Identification, McCrone Research Institute, G & G 
printers, Chicago, 1987.
    5.20. McCrone, W.C., Calculation of Refractive Indices from 
Dispersion Staining Data, The Microscope, No 37, Chicago, 1989.
    5.21. Levadie, B. (Ed.), Asbestos and Other Health Related 
Silicates, ASTM Technical Publication 834, ASTM, Philadelphia 1982.
    5.22. Steel, E. and Wylie, A., Riordan, P.H. (Ed.), 
Mineralogical Characteristics of Asbestos, Geology of Asbestos 
Deposits, pp. 93-101, SME-AIME, 1981.
    5.23. Zussman, J., The Mineralogy of Asbestos, Asbestos: 
Properties, Applications and Hazards, pp. 45-67 Wiley, 1979.

Appendix L to Sec. 1915.1001--Work Practices and Engineering 
Controls for Automotive Brake and Clutch Inspection, Disassembly, 
Repair and Assembly--Mandatory

    This mandatory appendix specifies engineering controls and work 
practices that must be implemented by the employer during automotive 
brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly 
operations. Proper use of these engineering controls and work 
practices will reduce employees' asbestos exposure below the 
permissible exposure level during clutch and brake inspection, 
disassembly, repair, and assembly operations. The employer shall 
institute engineering controls and work practices using either the 
method set forth in paragraph [A] or paragraph [B] of this appendix, 
or any other method which the employer can demonstrate to be 
equivalent in terms of reducing employee exposure to asbestos as 
defined and which meets the requirements described in paragraph [C] 
of this appendix, for those facilities in which no more than 5 pairs 
of brakes or 5 clutches are inspected, disassembled, reassembled 
and/or repaired per week, the method set forth in paragraph [D] of 
this appendix may be used:

[A] Negative Pressure Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum System Method

    (1) The brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and 
assembly operations shall be enclosed to cover and contain the 
clutch or brake assembly and to prevent the release of asbestos 
fibers into the worker's breathing zone.
    (2) The enclosure shall be sealed tightly and thoroughly 
inspected for leaks before work begins on brake and clutch 
inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly.
    (3) The enclosure shall be such that the worker can clearly see 
the operation and shall provide impermeable sleeves through which 
the worker can handle the brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, 
repair and assembly. The integrity of the sleeves and ports shall be 
examined before work begins.
    (4) A HEPA-filtered vacuum shall be employed to maintain the 
enclosure under negative pressure throughout the operation. 
Compressed-air may be used to remove asbestos fibers or particles 
from the enclosure.
    (5) The HEPA vacuum shall be used first to loosen the asbestos 
containing residue from the brake and clutch parts and then to 
evacuate the loosened asbestos containing material from the 
enclosure and capture the material in the vacuum filter.
    (6) The vacuum's filter, when full, shall be first wetted with a 
fine mist of water, then removed and placed immediately in an 
impermeable container, labeled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of 
this section and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this 
section.
    (7) Any spills or releases of asbestos containing waste material 
from inside of the enclosure or vacuum hose or vacuum filter shall 
be immediately cleaned up and disposed of according to paragraph (k) 
of the section.

[B] Low Pressure/Wet Cleaning Method

    (1) A catch basin shall be placed under the brake assembly, 
positioned to avoid splashes and spills.
    (2) The reservoir shall contain water containing an organic 
solvent or wetting agent. The flow of liquid shall be controlled 
such that the brake assembly is gently flooded to prevent the 
asbestos-containing brake dust from becoming airborne.
    (3) The aqueous solution shall be allowed to flow between the 
brake drum and brake support before the drum is removed.
    (4) After removing the brake drum, the wheel hub and back of the 
brake assembly shall be thoroughly wetted to suppress dust.
    (5) The brake support plate, brake shoes and brake components 
used to attach the brake shoes shall be thoroughly washed before 
removing the old shoes.
    (6) In systems using filters, the filters, when full, shall be 
first wetted with a fine mist of water, then removed and placed 
immediately in an impermeable container, labeled according to 
paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this section and disposed of according to 
paragraph (k) of this section.
    (7) Any spills of asbestos-containing aqueous solution or any 
asbestos-containing waste material shall be cleaned up immediately 
and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section.
    (8) The use of dry brushing during low pressure/wet cleaning 
operations is prohibited.

[C] Equivalent Methods

    An equivalent method is one which has sufficient written detail 
so that it can be reproduced and has been demonstrated that the 
exposures resulting from the equivalent method are equal to or less 
than the exposures which would result from the use of the method 
described in paragraph [A] of this appendix. For purposes of making 
this comparison, the employer shall assume that exposures resulting 
from the use of the method described in paragraph [A] of this 
appendix shall not exceed 0.004 f/cc, as measured by the OSHA 
reference method and as averaged over at least 18 personal samples.

[D] Wet Method

    (1) A spray bottle, hose nozzle, or other implement capable of 
delivering a fine mist of water or amended water or other delivery 
system capable of delivering water at low pressure, shall be used to 
first thoroughly wet the brake and clutch parts. Brake and clutch 
components shall then be wiped clean with a cloth.
    (2) The cloth shall be placed in an impermeable container, 
labelled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this section and then 
disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section, or the cloth 
shall be laundered in a way to prevent the release of asbestos 
fibers in excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air.
    (3) Any spills of solvent or any asbestos containing waste 
material shall be cleaned up immediately according to paragraph (k) 
of this section.
    (4) The use of dry brushing during the wet method operations is 
prohibited.

Construction

PART 1926--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation of subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1926 
continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 6 and 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act, 
29 U.S.C. 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Orders Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 
8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 9033) 
as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Section 1926.1102 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1926.1103 through 1926.1118 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 
6653.
    Section 1926.1128 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1926.1145 and 1926.1147 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.
    Section 1926.1148 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.

    2. Section 1926.58 Asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and 
actinolite is redesignated as Sec. 1926.1101 Asbestos and Sec. 1926.58 
is reserved.
    3. Section 1926.1101 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a) through (p) (all the text preceding the appendices) and 
by adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:


Sec. 1926.1101  Asbestos.

    (a) Scope and application. This section regulates asbestos exposure 
in all work as defined in 29 CFR 1910.12(b), including but not limited 
to the following:
    (1) Demolition or salvage of structures where asbestos is present;
    (2) Removal or encapsulation of materials containing asbestos;
    (3) Construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, or renovation of 
structures, substrates, or portions thereof, that contain asbestos;
    (4) Installation of products containing asbestos;
    (5) Asbestos spill/emergency cleanup; and
    (6) Transportation, disposal, storage, containment of and 
housekeeping activities involving asbestos or products containing 
asbestos, on the site or location at which construction activities are 
performed.
    (7) Coverage under this standard shall be based on the nature of 
the work operation involving asbestos exposure.
    (b) Definitions.
    Aggressive method means removal or disturbance of building material 
by sanding, abrading, grinding or other method that breaks, crumbles, 
or disintegrates intact ACM.
    Amended water means water to which surfactant (wetting agent) has 
been added to increase the ability of the liquid to penetrate ACM.
    Asbestos includes chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite 
asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and any of these 
minerals that has been chemically treated and/or altered. For purposes 
of this standard, ``asbestos'' includes PACM, as defined below.
    Asbestos-containing material (ACM), means any material containing 
more than one percent asbestos.
    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.
    Authorized person means any person authorized by the employer and 
required by work duties to be present in regulated areas.
    Building/facility owner is the legal entity, including a lessee, 
which exercises control over management and record keeping functions 
relating to a building and/or facility in which activities covered by 
this standard take place.
    Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) means one certified in the 
comprehensive practice of industrial hygiene by the American Board of 
Industrial Hygiene.
    Class I asbestos work means activities involving the removal of TSI 
and surfacing ACM and PACM.
    Class II asbestos work means activities involving the removal of 
ACM which is not thermal system insulation or surfacing material. This 
includes, but is not limited to, the removal of asbestos-containing 
wallboard, floor tile and sheeting, roofing and siding shingles, and 
construction mastics.
    Class III asbestos work means repair and maintenance operations, 
where ``ACM'', including thermal system insulation and surfacing 
material, is likely to be disturbed.
    Class IV asbestos work means maintenance and custodial activities 
during which employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up 
waste and debris containing ACM and PACM.
    Clean room means an uncontaminated room having facilities for the 
storage of employees' street clothing and uncontaminated materials and 
equipment.
    Closely resemble means that the major workplace conditions which 
have contributed to the levels of historic asbestos exposure, are no 
more protective than conditions of the current workplace.
    Competent person means, in addition to the definition in 29 CFR 
1926.32 (f), one who is capable of identifying existing asbestos 
hazards in the workplace and selecting the appropriate control strategy 
for asbestos exposure, who has the authority to take prompt corrective 
measures to eliminate them, as specified in 29 CFR 1926.32(f): in 
addition, for Class I and Class II work who is specially trained in a 
training course which meet the criteria of EPA's Model Accreditation 
Plan (40 CFR 763) for project designer or supervisor, or its equivalent 
and, for Class II and Class IV work, who is trained in an operations 
and maintenance (O&M) course developed by EPA [40 CFR 763.92 (a)(2)].
    Critical barrier means one or more layers of plastic sealed over 
all openings into a work area or any other similarly placed physical 
barrier sufficient to prevent airborne asbestos in a work area from 
migrating to an adjacent area.
    Decontamination area means an enclosed area adjacent and connected 
to the regulated area and consisting of an equipment room, shower area, 
and clean room, which is used for the decontamination of workers, 
materials, and equipment that are contaminated with asbestos.
    Demolition means the wrecking or taking out of any load-supporting 
structural member and any related razing, removing, or stripping of 
asbestos products.
    Director means the Director, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or 
designee.
    Disturbance means contact which releases fibers from ACM or PACM or 
debris containing ACM or PACM. This term includes activities that 
disrupt the matrix of ACM or PACM, render ACM or PACM friable, or 
generate visible debris. Disturbance includes cutting away small 
amounts of ACM and PACM, no greater than the amount which can be 
contained in one standard sized glove bag or waste bag in order to 
access a building component. In no event shall the amount of ACM or 
PACM so disturbed exceed that which can be contained in one glove bag 
or waste bag which shall not exceed 60 inches in length and width.
    Employee exposure means that exposure to airborne asbestos that 
would occur if the employee were not using respiratory protective 
equipment.
    Equipment room (change room) means a contaminated room located 
within the decontamination area that is supplied with impermeable bags 
or containers for the disposal of contaminated protective clothing and 
equipment.
    Fiber means a particulate form of asbestos, 5 micrometers or 
longer, with a length-to-diameter ratio of at least 3 to 1.
    Glovebag means an impervious plastic bag-like enclosure affixed 
around an asbestos-containing material, with glove-like appendages 
through which material and tools may be handled.
    High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter means a filter 
capable of trapping and retaining at least 99.97 percent of all mono-
dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers in diameter.
    Homogeneous area means an area of surfacing material or thermal 
system insulation that is uniform in color and texture.
    Industrial hygienist means a professional qualified by education, 
training, and experience to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and develop 
controls for occupational health hazards.
    Intact means that the ACM has not crumbled, been pulverized, or 
otherwise deteriorated so that it is no longer likely to be bound with 
its matrix.
    Modification for purposes of paragraph (g)(6)(ii), means a changed 
or altered procedure, material or component of a control system, which 
replaces a procedure, material or component of a required system. 
Omitting a procedure or component, or reducing or diminishing the 
stringency or strength of a material or component of the control system 
is not a ``modification'' for purposes of paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this 
section.
    Negative Initial Exposure Assessment means a demonstration by the 
employer, which complies with the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of 
this section, that employee exposure during an operation is expected to 
be consistently below the PELs.
    PACM means ``presumed asbestos containing material''.
    Presumed Asbestos Containing Material means thermal system 
insulation and surfacing material found in buildings constructed no 
later than 1980. The designation of a material as ``PACM'' may be 
rebutted pursuant to paragraph (k)(4) of this section.
    Project Designer means a person who has successfully completed the 
training requirements for an abatement project designer established by 
40 U.S.C. Sec. 763.90(g).
    Regulated area means: an area established by the employer to 
demarcate areas where Class I, II, and III asbestos work is conducted, 
and any adjoining area where debris and waste from such asbestos work 
accumulate; and a work area within which airborne concentrations of 
asbestos, exceed or there is a reasonable possibility they may exceed 
the permissible exposure limit. Requirements for regulated areas are 
set out in paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
    Removal means all operations where ACM and/or PACM is taken out or 
stripped from structures or substrates, and includes demolition 
operations.
    Renovation means the modifying of any existing structure, or 
portion thereof.
    Repair means overhauling, rebuilding, reconstructing, or 
reconditioning of structures or substrates, including encapsulation or 
other repair of ACM or PACM attached to structures or substrates.
    Surfacing material means material that is sprayed, troweled-on or 
otherwise applied to surfaces (such as acoustical plaster on ceilings 
and fireproofing materials on structural members, or other materials on 
surfaces for acoustical, fireproofing, and other purposes).
    Surfacing ACM means surfacing material which contains more than 1% 
asbestos.
    Thermal system insulation (TSI) means ACM applied to pipes, 
fittings, boilers, breeching, tanks, ducts or other structural 
components to prevent heat loss or gain.
    Thermal system insulation ACM is thermal system insulation which 
contains more than 1% asbestos.
    (c) Permissible exposure limits (PELS)--(1) Time-weighted average 
limit (TWA). The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to 
an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air as an eight (8) hour time-weighted average (TWA), as 
determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A of this section, or 
by an equivalent method.
    (2) Excursion limit. The employer shall ensure that no employee is 
exposed to an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 1.0 fiber 
per cubic centimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged over a sampling period 
of thirty (30) minutes, as determined by the method prescribed in 
Appendix A of this section, or by an equivalent method.
    (d) Multi-employer worksites. (1) On multi-employer worksites, an 
employer performing work requiring the establishment of a regulated 
area shall inform other employers on the site of the nature of the 
employer's work with asbestos and/or PACM, of the existence of and 
requirements pertaining to regulated areas, and the measures taken to 
ensure that employees of such other employers are not exposed to 
asbestos.
    (2) Asbestos hazards at a multi-employer work site shall be abated 
by the contractor who created or controls the source of asbestos 
contamination. For example, if there is a significant breach of an 
enclosure containing Class I work, the employer responsible for 
erecting the enclosure shall repair the breach immediately.
    (3) In addition, all employers of employees exposed to asbestos 
hazards shall comply with applicable protective provisions to protect 
their employees. For example, if employees working immediately adjacent 
to a Class I asbestos job are exposed to asbestos due to the inadequate 
containment of such job, their employer shall either remove the 
employees from the area until the enclosure breach is repaired; or 
perform an initial exposure assessment pursuant to (f)(1) of this 
section.
    (4) All employers of employees working adjacent to regulated areas 
established by another employer on a multi-employer work-site, shall 
take steps on a daily basis to ascertain the integrity of the enclosure 
and/or the effectiveness of the control method relied on by the primary 
asbestos contractor to assure that asbestos fibers do not migrate to 
such adjacent areas.
    (5) All general contractors on a construction project which 
includes work covered by this standard shall be deemed to exercise 
general supervisory authority over the work covered by this standard, 
even though the general contractor is not qualified to serve as the 
asbestos ``competent person'' as defined by paragraph (b) of this 
section. As supervisor of the entire project, the general contractor 
shall ascertain whether the asbestos contractor is in compliance with 
this standard, and shall require such contractor to come into 
compliance with this standard when necessary.
    (e) Regulated areas--(1) All Class I, II and III asbestos work 
shall be conducted within regulated areas. All other operations covered 
by this standard shall be conducted within a regulated area where 
airborne concentrations of asbestos exceed, or there is a reasonable 
possibility they may exceed a PEL. Regulated areas shall comply with 
the requirements of paragraphs (2), (3),(4) and (5) of this section.
    (2) Demarcation. The regulated area shall be demarcated in any 
manner that minimizes the number of persons within the area and 
protects persons outside the area from exposure to airborne 
concentrations of asbestos. Where critical barriers or negative 
pressure enclosures are used, they may demarcate the regulated area. 
Signs shall be provided and displayed pursuant to the requirements of 
paragraph (k)(6) of this section.
    (3) Access. Access to regulated areas shall be limited to 
authorized persons and to persons authorized by the Act or regulations 
issued pursuant thereto.
    (4) Respirators. All persons entering a regulated area where 
employees are required pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section to 
wear respirators shall be supplied with a respirator selected in 
accordance with paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    (5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees 
do not eat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in 
the regulated area.
    (6) Competent Persons. The employer shall ensure that all asbestos 
work performed within regulated areas is supervised by a competent 
person, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section. The duties of the 
competent person are set out in paragraph (o) of this section.
    (f) Exposure assessments and monitoring--(1) General monitoring 
criteria. (i) Each employer who has a workplace of work operation where 
exposure monitoring is required under this section shall perform 
monitoring to determine accurately the airborne concentrations of 
asbestos to which employees may be exposed.
    (ii) Determinations of employee exposure shall be made from 
breathing zone air samples that are representative of the 8-hour TWA 
and 30-minute short-term exposures of each employee.
    (iii) Representative 8-hour TWA employee exposure shall be 
determined on the basis of one or more samples representing full-shift 
exposure for employees in each work area. Representative 30-minute 
short-term employee exposures shall be determined on the basis of one 
or more samples representing 30 minute exposures associated with 
operations that are most likely to produce exposures above the 
excursion limit for employees in each work area.
    (2) Initial Exposure Assessment. (i) Each employer who has a 
workplace or work operation covered by this standard shall ensure that 
a ``competent person'' conducts an exposure assessment immediately 
before or at the initiation of the operation to ascertain expected 
exposures during that operation or workplace.
    The assessment must be completed in time to comply with 
requirements which are triggered by exposure data or the lack of a 
``negative exposure assessment,'' and to provide information necessary 
to assure that all control systems planned are appropriate for that 
operation and will work properly.
    (ii) Basis of Initial Exposure Assessment: The initial exposure 
assessment shall be based on data derived from the following sources: 
(A) If feasible, the employer shall monitor employees and base the 
exposure assessment on the results of exposure monitoring which is 
conducted pursuant to the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this 
section.
    (B) In addition, the assessment shall include consideration of all 
observations, information or calculations which indicate employee 
exposure to asbestos, including any previous monitoring conducted in 
the workplace, or of the operations of the employer which indicate the 
levels of airborne asbestos likely to be encountered on the job. 
However, the assessment may conclude that exposures are likely to be 
consistently below the PELs only as a conclusion of a ``negative 
exposure assessment'' conducted pursuant to (f)(2)(iii) of this 
section.
    (C) For Class I asbestos work, until the employer conducts exposure 
monitoring and documents that employees on that job will not be exposed 
in excess of the PELs, or otherwise makes a negative exposure 
assessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, the 
employer shall presume that employees are exposed in excess of the TWA 
and excursion limit.
    (iii) Negative Exposure Assessment: For any one specific asbestos 
job which will be performed by employees who have been trained in 
compliance with the standard, the employer may demonstrate that 
employee exposures will be below the PELs by data which conform to the 
following criteria;
    (A) Objective data demonstrating that the product or material 
containing asbestos minerals or the activity involving such product or 
material cannot release airborne fibers in concentrations exceeding the 
TWA and excursion limit under those work conditions having the greatest 
potential for releasing asbestos; or
    (B) Where the employer has monitored prior asbestos jobs for the 
PEL and the excursion limit within 12 months of the current or 
projected job, the monitoring and analysis were performed in compliance 
with the asbestos standard in effect; and the data were obtained during 
work operations conducted under workplace conditions ``closely 
resembling'' the processes, type of material, control methods, work 
practices, and environmental conditions used and prevailing in the 
employer's current operations, the operations were conducted by 
employees whose training and experience are no more extensive than that 
of employees performing the current job, and these data show that under 
the conditions prevailing and which will prevail in the current 
workplace there is a high degree of certainty that employee exposures 
will not exceed the TWA and excursion limit; or
    (C) The results of initial exposure monitoring of the current job 
made from breathing zone air samples that are representative of the 8-
hour TWA and 30-minute short-term exposures of each employee covering 
operations which are most likely during the performance of the entire 
asbestos job to result in exposures over the PELs.
    (3) Periodic monitoring. (i) Class I and II operations. The 
employer shall conduct daily monitoring that is representative of the 
exposure of each employee who is assigned to work within a regulated 
area who is performing Class I or II work, unless the employer pursuant 
to (f)(2)(iii) of this section, has made a negative exposure assessment 
for the entire operation.
    (ii) All operations under the standard other than Class I and II 
operations. The employer shall conduct periodic monitoring of all work 
where exposures are expected to exceed a PEL, at intervals sufficient 
to document the validity of the exposure prediction.
    (iii) Exception: When all employees required to be monitored daily 
are equipped with supplied-air respirators operated in the positive-
pressure mode, the employer may dispense with the daily monitoring 
required by this paragraph. However, employees performing Class I work 
using a control method which is not listed in paragraph (g)(4) (i), 
(ii), or (iii) of this section or using a modification of a listed 
control method, shall continue to be monitored daily even if they are 
equipped with supplied-air respirators.
    (4) (i) Termination of monitoring. If the periodic monitoring 
required by paragraph (f)(3) of this section reveals that employee 
exposures, as indicated by statistically reliable measurement, are 
below the permissible exposure limit and excursion limit the employer 
may discontinue monitoring for those employees whose exposures are 
represented by such monitoring.
    (ii) Additional monitoring. Notwithstanding the provisions of 
paragraph (f) (2) and (3), and (f)(4) of this section, the employer 
shall institute the exposure monitoring required under paragraph (f)(3) 
of this section whenever there has been a change in process, control 
equipment, personnel or work practices that may result in new or 
additional exposures above the permissible exposure limit and/or 
excursion limit or when the employer has any reason to suspect that a 
change may result in new or additional exposures above the permissible 
exposure limit and/or excursion limit. Such additional monitoring is 
required regardless of whether a ``negative exposure assessment'' was 
previously produced for a specific job.
    (5) Observation of monitoring. (i) The employer shall provide 
affected employees and their designated representatives an opportunity 
to observe any monitoring of employee exposure to asbestos conducted in 
accordance with this section.
    (ii) When observation of the monitoring of employee exposure to 
asbestos requires entry into an area where the use of protective 
clothing or equipment is required, the observer shall be provided with 
and be required to use such clothing and equipment and shall comply 
with all other applicable safety and health procedures.
    (g) Methods of compliance--(1) Engineering controls and work 
practices for all operations covered by this section. The employer 
shall use the following engineering controls and work practices in all 
operations covered by this section, regardless of the levels of 
exposure:
    (i) Vacuum cleaners equipped with HEPA filters to collect all 
debris and dust containing ACM or PACM; and,
    (ii) Wet methods, or wetting agents, to control employee exposures 
during asbestos handling, mixing, removal, cutting, application, and 
cleanup, except where employers demonstrate that the use of wet methods 
is infeasible due to for example, the creation of electrical hazards, 
equipment malfunction, and, in roofing, slipping hazards; and
    (iii) Prompt clean-up and disposal of wastes and debris 
contaminated with asbestos in leak-tight containers.
    (2) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section, the employer shall use the following control methods to 
achieve compliance with the TWA permissible exposure limit and 
excursion limit prescribed by paragraph (c) of this section;
    (i) Local exhaust ventilation equipped with HEPA filter dust 
collection systems;
    (ii) Enclosure or isolation of processes producing asbestos dust;
    (iii) Ventilation of the regulated area to move contaminated air 
away from the breathing zone of employees and toward a filtration or 
collection device equipped with a HEPA filter;
    (iv) Use of other work practices and engineering controls that the 
Assistant Secretary can show to be feasible.
    (v) Wherever the feasible engineering and work practice controls 
described above are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or 
below the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit prescribed 
in paragraph (c) of this section, the employer shall use them to reduce 
employee exposure to the lowest levels attainable by these controls and 
shall supplement them by the use of respiratory protection that 
complies with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this section.
    (3) Prohibitions. The following work practices and engineering 
controls shall not be used for work related to asbestos or for work 
which disturbs ACM or PACM, regardless of measured levels of asbestos 
exposure or the results of initial exposure assessments:
    (i) High-speed abrasive disc saws that are not equipped with point 
of cut ventilator or enclosures with HEPA filtered exhaust air.
    (ii) Compressed air used to remove asbestos, or materials 
containing asbestos, unless the compressed air is used in conjunction 
with an enclosed ventilation system designed to capture the dust cloud 
created by the compressed air.
    (iii) Dry sweeping, shoveling or other dry clean-up of dust and 
debris containing ACM and PACM.
    (iv) Employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to 
asbestos.
    (4) Class I Requirements. In addition to the provisions of 
paragraphs (g) (1) and (2) of this section, the following engineering 
controls and work practices and procedures shall be used.
    (i) All Class I work, including the installation and operation of 
the control system shall be supervised by a competent person as defined 
in paragraph (b) of this section;
    (ii) For all Class I jobs involving the removal of more than 25 
linear or 10 square feet of thermal system insulation or surfacing 
material; for all other Class I jobs, where the employer cannot produce 
a negative exposure assessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of 
this section, or where employees are working in areas adjacent to the 
regulated area, while the Class I work is being performed, the employer 
shall use one of the following methods to ensure that airborne asbestos 
does not migrate from the regulated area:
    (A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the 
regulated area: or
    (B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation method 
which prevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated 
area, as verified by perimeter area surveillance during each work shift 
at each boundary of the regulated area, showing no visible asbestos 
dust; and perimeter area monitoring showing that clearance levels 
contained in 40 CFR Part 763, Subpt. E, of the EPA Asbestos in Schools 
Rule are met, or that perimeter area levels, measured by (PCM) are no 
more than background levels representing the same area before the 
asbestos work began. The results of such monitoring shall be made known 
to the employer no later than 24 hours from the end of the work shift 
represented by such monitoring.
    (iii) For all Class I jobs, HVAC systems shall be isolated in the 
regulated area by sealing with a double layer of 6 mil plastic or the 
equivalent;
    (iv) For all Class I jobs, impermeable dropcloths shall be placed 
on surfaces beneath all removal activity;
    (v) For all Class I jobs, all objects within the regulated area 
shall be covered with impermeable dropcloths or plastic sheeting which 
is secured by duct tape or an equivalent.
    (vi) For all Class I jobs where the employer cannot produce a 
negative exposure assessment, or where exposure monitoring shows that a 
PEL is exceeded, the employer shall ventilate the regulated area to 
move contaminated air away from the breathing zone of employees toward 
a HEPA filtration or collection device.
    (5) Specific control methods for Class I work. In addition, Class I 
asbestos work shall be performed using one or more of the following 
control methods pursuant to the limitations stated below:
    (i) Negative Pressure Enclosure (NPE) systems: NPE systems shall be 
used where the configuration of the work area does not make the 
erection of the enclosure infeasible, with the following specifications 
and work practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) The negative pressure enclosure (NPE) may be of any 
configuration,
    (2) At least 4 air changes per hour shall be maintained in the NPE,
    (3) A minimum of -0.02 column inches of water pressure 
differential, relative to outside pressure, shall be maintained within 
the NPE as evidenced by manometric measurements,
    (4) The NPE shall be kept under negative pressure throughout the 
period of its use, and
    (5) Air movement shall be directed away from employees performing 
asbestos work within the enclosure, and toward a HEPA filtration or a 
collection device.
    (B) Work Practices:
    (1) Before beginning work within the enclosure and at the beginning 
of each shift, the NPE shall be inspected for breaches and smoke-tested 
for leaks, and any leaks sealed.
    (2) Electrical circuits in the enclosure shall be deactivated, 
unless equipped with ground-fault circuit interrupters.
    (ii) Glove bag systems shall be used to remove PACM and/or ACM from 
straight runs of piping with the following specifications and work 
practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) Glovebags shall be made of 6 mil thick plastic and shall be 
seamless at the bottom.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) Work Practices:
    (1) Each glovebag shall be installed so that it completely covers 
the circumference of pipe or other structure where the work is to be 
done.
    (2) Glovebags shall be smoke-tested for leaks and any leaks sealed 
prior to use.
    (3) Glovebags may be used only once and may not be moved.
    (4) Glovebags shall not be used on surfaces whose temperature 
exceeds 150 deg..
    (5) Prior to disposal, glovebags shall be collapsed by removing air 
within them using a HEPA vacuum.
    (6) Before beginning the operation, loose and friable material 
adjacent to the glovebag/box operation shall be wrapped and sealed in 
two layers of six mil plastic or otherwise rendered intact,
    (7) Where system uses attached waste bag, such bag shall be 
connected to collection bag using hose or other material which shall 
withstand pressure of ACM waste and water without losing its integrity:
    (8) Sliding valve or other device shall separate waste bag from 
hose to ensure no exposure when waste bag is disconnected:
    (9) At least two persons shall perform Class I glovebag removals.
    (iii) Negative Pressure Glove Bag Systems. Negative pressure glove 
bag systems shall be used to remove ACM or PACM from piping.
    (A) Specifications: In addition to specifications for glove bag 
systems above, negative pressure glove bag systems shall attach HEPA 
vacuum systems or other devices to bag to prevent collapse during 
removal.
    (B) Work Practices: (1) The employer shall comply with the work 
practices glove bag systems in paragraph (g)(5)(ii)(B)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) The HEPA vacuum cleaner or other device used to prevent 
collapse of bag during removal shall run continually during the 
operation.
    (3) Where a separate waste bag is used along with a collection bag 
and discarded after one use, the collection bag may be reused if rinsed 
clean with amended water before reuse.
    (iv) Negative Pressure Glove Box Systems: Negative pressure glove 
boxes shall be used to remove ACM or PACM from pipe runs with the 
following specifications and work practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) Glove boxes shall be constructed with rigid sides and made from 
metal or other material which can withstand the weight of the ACM and 
PACM and water used during removal:
    (2) A negative pressure generator shall be used to create negative 
pressure in system:
    (3) An air filtration unit shall be attached to the box:
    (4) The box shall be fitted with gloved apertures:
    (5) An aperture at the base of the box shall serve as a bagging 
outlet for waste ACM and water:
    (6) A back-up generator shall be present on site:
    (7) Waste bags shall consist of 6 mil thick plastic double-bagged 
before they are filled or plastic thicker than 6 mil.
    (B) Work practices:
    (1) At least two persons shall perform the removal:
    (2) The box shall be smoke tested prior to each use:
    (3) Loose or damaged ACM adjacent to the box shall be wrapped and 
sealed in two layers of 6 mil plastic prior to the job, or otherwise 
made intact prior to the job.
    (4) A HEPA filtration system shall be used to maintain pressure 
barrier in box.
    (v) Water Spray Process System. A water spray process system may be 
used for removal of ACM and PACM from cold line piping if, employees 
carrying out such process have completed a 40-hour separate training 
course in its use, in addition to training required for employees 
performing Class I work. The system shall meet the following 
specifications and shall be performed by employees using the following 
work practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) Piping shall be surrounded on 3 sides by rigid framing,
    (2) A 360 degree water spray, delivered through nozzles supplied by 
a high pressure separate water line, shall be formed around the piping.
    (3) The spray shall collide to form a fine aerosol which provides a 
liquid barrier between workers and the ACM and PACM.
    (B) Work Practices:
    (1) The system shall be run for at least 10 minutes before removal 
begins.
    (2) All removal shall take place within the water barrier.
    (3) The system shall be operated by at least three persons, one of 
whom shall not perform removal, but shall check equipment, and ensure 
proper operation of the system.
    (4) After removal, the ACM and PACM shall be bagged while still 
inside the water barrier.
    (vi) A small walk-in enclosure which accommodates no more than two 
persons (mini-enclosure) may be used if the disturbance or removal can 
be completely contained by the enclosure with the following 
specifications and work practices.
    (A) Specifications:
    (1) The fabricated or job-made enclosure shall be constructed of 6 
mil plastic or equivalent:
    (2) The enclosure shall be placed under negative pressure by means 
of a HEPA filtered vacuum or similar ventilation unit:
    (B) Work practices:
    (1) Before use, the minienclosure shall be inspected for leaks and 
smoke tested to detect breaches, and breaches sealed.
    (2) Before reuse, the interior shall be completely washed with 
amended water and HEPA-vacuumed..
    (3) During use air movement shall be directed away from the 
employee's breathing zone within the minienclosure.
    (6) Alternative control methods for Class I work. Class I work may 
be performed using a control method which is not referenced in 
paragraph (g)(5) of this section, or which modifies a control method 
referenced in paragraph (g)(5)of this section, if the following 
provisions are complied with:
    (i) The control method shall enclose, contain or isolate the 
processes or source of airborne asbestos dust, or otherwise capture or 
redirect such dust before it enters the breathing zone of employees.
    (ii) A certified industrial hygienist or licensed professional 
engineer who is also qualified as a project designer as defined in 
paragraph (b) of this section, shall evaluate the work area, the 
projected work practices and the engineering controls and shall certify 
in writing that the planned control method is adequate to reduce direct 
and indirect employee exposure to below the PELs under worst-case 
conditions of use, and that the planned control method will prevent 
asbestos contamination outside the regulated area, as measured by 
clearance sampling which meets the requirements of EPA's Asbestos in 
Schools rule issued under AHERA, or perimeter monitoring which meets 
the criteria in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section.
    (A) Where the TSI or surfacing material to be removed is 25 linear 
or 10 square feet or less , the evaluation required in paragraph (g)(6) 
of this section may be performed by a ``competent person'', and may 
omit consideration of perimeter or clearance monitoring otherwise 
required.
    (B) The evaluation of employee exposure required in paragraph 
(g)(6) of this section, shall include and be based on sampling and 
analytical data representing employee exposure during the use of such 
method under worst-case conditions and by employees whose training and 
experience are equivalent to employees who are to perform the current 
job.
    (iii) Before work which involves the removal of more than 25 linear 
or 10 square feet of thermal system insulation or surfacing material is 
begun using an alternative method which has been the subject of a 
paragraph (g)(6) required evaluation and certification, the employer 
shall send a copy of such evaluation and certification to the national 
office of OSHA, Office of Technical Support, Room N3653, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.
    (7) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class II work.
    (i) All Class II work, shall be supervised by a competent person as 
defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (ii) For all indoor Class II jobs, where the employer has not 
produced a negative exposure assessment pursuant to paragraph 
(f)(4)(iii) of this section, or where during the job changed conditions 
indicate there may be exposure above the PEL or where the employer does 
not remove the ACM in a substantially intact state, the employer shall 
use one of the following methods to ensure that airborne asbestos does 
not migrate from the regulated area;
    (A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the 
regulated area; or,
    (B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation method 
which prevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated 
area, as verified by perimeter area monitoring or clearance monitoring 
which meets the criteria set out in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this 
section.
    (iii) Impermeable dropcloths shall be placed on surfaces beneath 
all removal activity;
    (iv) All Class II asbestos work shall be performed using the work 
practices and requirements set out above in paragraph (g)(3) (i) 
through (v) of this section.
    (8) Additional Controls for Class II work. Class II asbestos work 
shall also be performed by complying with the work practices and 
controls designated for each type of asbestos work to be performed, set 
out in this paragraph. Where more than one control method may be used 
for a type of asbestos work, the employer may choose one or a 
combination of designated control methods. Class II work also may be 
performed using a method allowed for Class I work, except that glove 
bags and glove boxes are allowed if they fully enclose the Class II 
material to be removed.
    (i) For removing vinyl and asphalt flooring materials which contain 
ACM or for which in buildings constructed no later than 1980, the 
employer has not verified the absence of ACM pursuant to paragraph 
(g)(8)(i)(I) of this section. The employer shall ensure that employees 
comply with the following work practices and that employees are trained 
in these practices pursuant to paragraph (k)(8):
    (A) Flooring or its backing shall not be sanded.
    (B) Vacuums equipped with HEPA filter, disposable dust bag, and 
metal floor tool (no brush) shall be used to clean floors.
    (C) Resilient sheeting shall be removed by cutting with wetting of 
the snip point and wetting during delamination. Rip-up of resilient 
sheet floor material is prohibited.
    (D) All scraping of residual adhesive and/or backing shall be 
performed using wet methods.
    (E) Dry sweeping is prohibited.
    (F) Mechanical chipping is prohibited unless performed in a 
negative pressure enclosure which meets the requirements of paragraph 
(g)(5)(iv) of this section.
    (G) Tiles shall be removed intact, unless the employer demonstrates 
that intact removal is not possible.
    (H) When tiles are heated and can be removed intact, wetting may be 
omitted.
    (I) Resilient flooring material including associated mastic and 
backing shall be assumed to be asbestos-containing unless an industrial 
hygienist determines that it is asbestos-free using recognized 
analytical techniques.
    (ii) For removing roofing material which contains ACM the employer 
shall ensure that the following work practices are followed:
    (A) Roofing material shall be removed in an intact state to the 
extent feasible.
    (B) Wet methods shall be used where feasible.
    (C) Cutting machines shall be continuously misted during use, 
unless a competent person determines that misting substantially 
decreases worker safety.
    (D) All loose dust left by the sawing operation must be HEPA 
vacuumed immediately.
    (E) Unwrapped or unbagged roofing material shall be immediately 
lowered to the ground via covered, dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or 
placed in an impermeable waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and 
lowered to ground no later than the end of the work shift.
    (F) Upon being lowered, unwrapped material shall be transferred to 
a closed receptacle in such manner so as to preclude the dispersion of 
dust.
    (G) Roof level heating and ventilation air intake sources shall be 
isolated or the ventilation system shall be shut down.
    (iii) When removing cementitious asbestos-containing siding and 
shingles or transite panels containing ACM, the employer shall ensure 
that the following work practices are followed:
    (A) Cutting, abrading or breaking siding, shingles, or transite 
panels, shall be prohibited unless the employer can demonstrate that 
methods less likely to result in asbestos fiber release cannot be used.
    (B) Each panel or shingle shall be sprayed with amended water prior 
to removal.
    (C) Unwrapped or unbagged panels or shingles shall be immediately 
lowered to the ground via covered dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or 
placed in an impervious waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and 
lowered to the ground no later than the end of the work shift.
    (D) Nails shall be cut with flat, sharp instruments.
    (iv) When removing gaskets containing ACM, the employer shall 
ensure that the following work practices are followed:
    (A) If a gasket is visibly deteriorated and unlikely to be removed 
intact, removal shall be undertaken within a glovebag as described in 
paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (B) The gasket shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water prior 
to its removal.
    (C) The wet gasket shall be immediately placed in a disposal 
container.
    (D) Any scraping to remove residue must be performed wet.
    (v) When performing any other Class II removal of asbestos 
containing material for which specific controls have not been listed in 
paragraph (g)(8)(iv) (A) through (D) of this section, the employer 
shall ensure that the following work practices are complied with.
    (A) The material shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water 
prior and during its removal.
    (B) The material shall be removed in an intact state unless the 
employer demonstrates that intact removal is not possible.
    (C) Cutting, abrading or breaking the material shall be prohibited 
unless the employer can demonstrate that methods less likely to result 
in asbestos fiber release are not feasible.
    (D) Asbestos-containing material removed, shall be immediately 
bagged or wrapped, or kept wetted until transferred to a closed 
receptacle, no later than the end of the work shift.
    (vi) Alternative Work Practices and Controls. Instead of the work 
practices and controls listed in paragraph (g)(8) (i) through (v) of 
this section, the employer may use different or modified engineering 
and work practice controls if the following provisions are complied 
with.
    (A) The employer shall demonstrate by data representing employee 
exposure during the use of such method under conditions which closely 
resemble the conditions under which the method is to be used, that 
employee exposure will not exceed the PELs under any anticipated 
circumstances.
    (B) A competent person shall evaluate the work area, the projected 
work practices and the engineering controls, and shall certify in 
writing, that the different or modified controls are adequate to reduce 
direct and indirect employee exposure to below the PELs under all 
expected conditions of use and that the method meets the requirements 
of this standard. The evaluation shall include and be based on data 
representing employee exposure during the use of such method under 
conditions which closely resemble the conditions under which the method 
is to be used for the current job, and by employees whose training and 
experience are equivalent to employees who are to perform the current 
job.
    (9) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class III asbestos 
work. Class III asbestos work shall be conducted using engineering and 
work practice controls which minimize the exposure to employees 
performing the asbestos work and to bystander employees.
    (i) The work shall be performed using wet methods.
    (ii) To the extent feasible, the work shall be performed using 
local exhaust ventilation.
    (iii) Where the disturbance involves drilling, cutting, abrading, 
sanding, chipping, breaking, or sawing of thermal system insulation or 
surfacing material, the employer shall use impermeable dropcloths, and 
shall isolate the operation using mini-enclosures or glove bag systems 
pursuant to paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
    (iv) Where the employer does not produce a ``negative exposure 
assessment'' for a job, or where monitoring results show the PEL has 
been exceeded, the employer shall contain the area using impermeable 
dropcloths and plastic barriers or their equivalent, or shall isolate 
the operation using a control system listed in and in compliance with 
paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
    (v) Employees performing Class III jobs, which involve the 
disturbance of thermal system insulation or surfacing material, or 
where the employer does not produce a ``negative exposure assessment'' 
or where monitoring results show a PEL has been exceeded, shall wear 
respirators which are selected, used and fitted pursuant to provisions 
of paragraph (h) of this section.
    (10) Class IV asbestos work. Class IV asbestos jobs shall be 
conducted by employees trained pursuant to the asbestos awareness 
training program set out in paragraph (k)(8) of this section. In 
addition, all Class IV jobs shall be conducted in conformity with the 
requirements set out in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, mandating wet 
methods, HEPA vacuums, and prompt clean up of debris containing ACM or 
PACM.
    (i) Employees cleaning up debris and waste in a regulated area 
where respirators are required shall wear respirators which are 
selected, used and fitted pursuant to provisions of paragraph (h) of 
this section.
    (ii) Employers of employees who clean up waste and debris in, and 
employers in control of, areas where friable thermal system insulation 
or surfacing material is accessible, shall assume that such waste and 
debris contain asbestos.
    (h) Respiratory protection--(1) General. The employer shall provide 
respirators, and ensure that they are used, where required by this 
section. Respirators shall be used in the following circumstances:
    (i) During all Class I asbestos jobs.
    (ii) During all Class II work where the ACM is not removed in a 
substantially intact state,
    (iii) During all Class II and III work which is not performed using 
wet methods.
    (iv) During all Class II and III asbestos jobs where the employer 
does not produce a ``negative exposure assessment''.
    (v) During all Class III jobs where TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is 
being disturbed.
    (vi) During all Class IV work performed within regulated areas 
where employees performing other work are required to wear respirators.
    (vii) During all work covered by this section where employees are 
exposed above the TWA or excursion limit.
    (viii) In emergencies.
    (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respirators are used, the 
employer shall select and provide, at no cost to the employee, the 
appropriate respirator as specified in Table 1 in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) 
of this section, and shall ensure that the employee uses the respirator 
provided.
    (ii) The employer shall select respirators from among those jointly 
approved as being acceptable for protection by the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration (MSHA) and the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under the provisions of 30 CFR 
Part 11.
    (iii) The employer shall provide a tight fitting powered, air-
purifying respirator in lieu of any negative-pressure respirator 
specified in Table 1 whenever:
    (A) An employee chooses to use this type of respirator; and
    (B) This respirator will provide adequate protection to the 
employee.

          Table 1.--Respiratory Protection for Asbestos Fibers          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Airborne concentration of asbestos                                     
        or conditions of use                 Required respirator        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in excess of 1 f/cc (10 X PEL),  Half-mask air purifying respirator 
 or otherwise as required             other than a disposable           
 independent of exposure pursuant     respirator, equipped with high    
 to (h)(2)(iv).                       efficiency filters.               
Not in excess of 5 f/cc (50 X PEL).  Full facepiece air-purifying       
                                      respirator equipped with high     
                                      efficiency filters.               
Not in excess of 10 f/cc (100 X      Any powered air-purifying          
 PEL).                                respirator equipped with high     
                                      efficiency filters or any supplied
                                      air respirator operated in        
                                      continuous flow mode.             
Not in excess of 100 f/cc (1,000 X   Full facepiece supplied air        
 PEL).                                respirator operated in pressure   
                                      demand mode.                      
Greater than 100 f/cc (1,000 X PEL)  Full facepiece supplied air        
 or unknown concentration.            respirator operated in pressure   
                                      demand mode, equipped with an     
                                      auxiliary positive pressure self- 
                                      contained breathing apparatus.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: a. Respirators assigned for high environmental concentrations may 
  be used at lower concentrations, or when required respirator use is   
  independent of concentration.                                         
b. A high efficiency filter means a filter that is at least 99.97       
  percent efficient against mono-dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers 
  in diameter or larger.                                                

    (iv) In addition to the above selection criterion, the employer 
shall provide a half-mask air purifying respirator, other than a 
disposable respirator, equipped with high efficiency filters whenever 
the employee performs the following activities: Class II and III 
asbestos jobs where the employer does not produce a negative exposure 
assessment; and Class III jobs where TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is 
being disturbed.
    (v) In addition to the above selection criteria, the employer shall 
provide a full facepiece supplied air respirator operated in the 
pressure demand mode equipped with an auxiliary positive pressure self-
contained breathing apparatus for all employees within the regulated 
area where Class I work is being performed for which a negative 
exposure assessment has not been produced.
    (3) Respirator program. (i) Where respiratory protection is used, 
the employer shall institute a respirator program in accordance with 29 
CFR 1910.134(b), (d), (e), and (f).
    (ii) The employer shall permit each employee who uses a filter 
respirator to change the filter elements whenever an increase in 
breathing resistance is detected and shall maintain an adequate supply 
of filter elements for this purpose.
    (iii) Employees who wear respirators shall be permitted to leave 
work areas to wash their faces and respirator facepieces whenever 
necessary to prevent skin irritation associated with respirator use.
    (iv) No employee shall be assigned to tasks requiring the use of 
respirators if, based on his or her most recent examination, an 
examining physician determines that the employee will be unable to 
function normally wearing a respirator, or that the safety or health of 
the employee or of other employees will be impaired by the use of a 
respirator. Such employee shall be assigned to another job or given the 
opportunity to transfer to a different position the duties of which he 
or she is able to perform with the same employer, in the same 
geographical area, and with the same seniority, status, and rate of pay 
and other job benefits he or she had just prior to such transfer, if 
such a different position is available.
    (4) Respirator fit testing. (i) The employer shall ensure that the 
respirator issued to the employee exhibits the least possible facepiece 
leakage and that the respirator is fitted properly.
    (ii) Employers shall perform either quantitative or qualitative 
face fit tests at the time of initial fitting and at least every 6 
months thereafter for each employee wearing a negative-pressure 
respirator. The qualitative fit tests may be used only for testing the 
fit of half-mask respirators where they are permitted to be worn, or of 
full-facepiece air purifying respirators where they are worn at levels 
at which half-facepiece air purifying respirators are permitted. 
Qualitative and quantitative fit tests shall be conducted in accordance 
with Appendix C. The tests shall be used to select facepieces that 
provide the required protection as prescribed in Table 1 in paragraph 
(h)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Protective clothing--(1) General. The employer shall provide 
and require the use of protective clothing, such as coveralls or 
similar whole-body clothing, head coverings, gloves, and foot coverings 
for any employee exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos that 
exceed the TWA and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of 
this section, or for which a required negative exposure assessment is 
not produced, and for any employee performing Class I operations which 
involve the removal of over 25 linear or 10 square feet of TSI or 
surfacing ACM and PACM.
    (2) Laundering. (i) The employer shall ensure that laundering of 
contaminated clothing is done so as to prevent the release of airborne 
asbestos in excess of the TWA or excursion limit prescribed in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) Any employer who gives contaminated clothing to another person 
for laundering shall inform such person of the requirement in paragraph 
(i)(2)(i) of this section to effectively prevent the release of 
airborne asbestos in excess of the TWA and excursion limit prescribed 
in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) Contaminated clothing. Contaminated clothing shall be 
transported in sealed impermeable bags, or other closed, impermeable 
containers, and be labeled in accordance with paragraph (k) of this 
section.
    (4) Inspection of protective clothing. (i) The competent person 
shall examine worksuits worn by employees at least once per workshift 
for rips or tears that may occur during performance of work.
    (ii) When rips or tears are detected while an employee is working, 
rips and tears shall be immediately mended, or the worksuit shall be 
immediately replaced.
    (j) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. (1) 
Requirements for employees performing Class I asbestos jobs involving 
over 25 linear or 10 square feet of Tsi or surfacing ACM and PACM.
    (i) Decontamination areas: the employer shall establish a 
decontamination area that is adjacent and connected to the regulated 
area for the decontamination of such employees. The decontamination 
area shall consist of an equipment room, shower area, and clean room in 
series. The employer shall ensure that employees enter and exit the 
regulated area through the decontamination area.
    (A) Equipment room. The equipment room shall be supplied with 
impermeable, labeled bags and containers for the containment and 
disposal of contaminated protective equipment.
    (B) Shower area. Shower facilities shall be provided which comply 
with 29 CFR 1910.141(d)(3), unless the employer can demonstrate that 
they are not feasible. The showers shall be adjacent both to the 
equipment room and the clean room, unless the employer can demonstrate 
that this location is not feasible.
    Where the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible to 
locate the shower between the equipment room and the clean room, or 
where the work is performed outdoors, the employers shall ensure that 
employees:
    (1) Remove asbestos contamination from their worksuits in the 
equipment room using a HEPA vacuum before proceeding to a shower that 
is not adjacent to the work area; or
    (2) Remove their contaminated worksuits in the equipment room, then 
don clean worksuits, and proceed to a shower that is not adjacent to 
the work area.
    (C) Clean change room. The clean room shall be equipped with a 
locker or appropriate storage container for each employee's use. When 
the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible to provide a clean 
change area adjacent to the work area or where the work is performed 
outdoors, the employer may permit employees engaged in Class I asbestos 
jobs to clean their protective clothing with a portable HEPA-equipped 
vacuum before such employees leave the regulated area. Such employees 
however must then change into street clothing in clean change areas 
provided by the employer which otherwise meet the requirements of this 
section.
    (ii) Decontamination area entry procedures. The employer shall 
ensure that employees:
    (A) Enter the decontamination area through the clean room;
    (B) Remove and deposit street clothing within a locker provided for 
their use; and
    (C) Put on protective clothing and respiratory protection before 
leaving the clean room.
    (D) Before entering the regulated area, the employer shall ensure 
that employees pass through the equipment room.
    (iii) Decontamination area exit procedures. The employer shall 
ensure that:
    (A) Before leaving the regulated area, employees shall remove all 
gross contamination and debris from their protective clothing.
    (B) Employees shall remove their protective clothing in the 
equipment room and deposit the clothing in labeled impermeable bags or 
containers.
    (C) Employees shall not remove their respirators in the equipment 
room.
    (D) Employees shall shower prior to entering the clean room.
    (E) After showering, employees shall enter the clean room before 
changing into street clothes.
    (iv) Lunch Areas. Whenever food or beverages are consumed at the 
worksite where employees are performing Class I asbestos work, the 
employer shall provide lunch areas in which the airborne concentrations 
of asbestos are below the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion 
limit.
    (2) Requirements for Class I work involving less than 25 linear or 
10 square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM and PACM, and for Class II and 
Class III asbestos work operations where exposures exceed a PEL or 
where there is no negative exposure assessment produced before the 
operation.
    (i) The employer shall establish an equipment room or area that is 
adjacent to the regulated area for the decontamination of employees and 
their equipment which is contaminated with asbestos which shall consist 
of an area covered by a impermeable drop cloth on the floor or 
horizontal working surface.
    (ii) The area must be of sufficient size as to accommodate cleaning 
of equipment and removing personal protective equipment without 
spreading contamination beyond the area (as determined by visible 
accumulations).
    (iii) Workclothing must be cleaned with a HEPA vacuum before it is 
removed.
    (iv) All equipment and surfaces of containers filled with ACM must 
be cleaned prior to removing them from the equipment room or area.
    (v) The employer shall ensure that employees enter and exit the 
regulated area through the equipment room or area.
    (3) Requirements for Class IV work. Employers shall ensure that 
employees performing Class IV work within a regulated area comply with 
the hygiene practice required of employees performing work which has a 
higher classification within that regulated area. Otherwise employers 
of employees cleaning up debris and material which is TSI or surfacing 
ACM or identified as PACM shall provide decontamination facilities for 
such employees which are required by paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
    (4) Smoking in work areas. The employer shall ensure that employees 
do not smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to 
asbestos because of activities in that work area.
    (k) Communication of hazards. NOTE: This section applies to the 
communication of information concerning asbestos hazards in 
construction activities to facilitate compliance with this standard. 
Most asbestos-related construction activities involve previously 
installed building materials. Building owners often are the only and/or 
best sources of information concerning them. Therefore, they, along 
with employers of potentially exposed employees, are assigned specific 
information conveying and retention duties under this section. 
Installed Asbestos Containing Building Material. Employers and building 
owners are required to treat TSI and sprayed or troweled on surfacing 
materials in buildings as asbestos-containing, unless they determine in 
compliance with paragraph (k)(4) of this section that the material is 
not asbestos-containing. Asphalt and vinyl flooring material installed 
no later than 1980 must also be considered as asbestos containing 
unless the employer, pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section 
determines that it is not asbestos-containing. If the employer/building 
owner has actual knowledge, or should have known through the exercise 
of due diligence, that other materials are asbestos-containing, they 
too must be treated as such. When communicating information to 
employees pursuant to this standard, owners and employers shall 
identify ``PACM'' as ACM. Additional requirements relating to 
communication of asbestos work on multi-employer worksites are set out 
in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (1) Duties of building and facility owners. (i) Before work subject 
to this standard is begun, building and facility owners shall identify 
the presence, location and quantity of ACM, and/or PACM at the work 
site. All thermal system insulation and sprayed on or troweled on 
surfacing m2aterials in buildings or substrates constructed no later 
than 1980 shall also be identified as asbestos-containing. In addition 
resilient flooring material installed not later than 1980 shall also be 
identified as asbestos-containing.
    (ii) Building and/or facility owners shall notify the following 
persons of the presence, location and quantity of ACM or PACM, at the 
work sites in their buildings and facilities. Notification either shall 
be in writing, or shall consist of a personal communication between the 
owner and the person to whom notification must be given or their 
authorized representatives:
    (A) Prospective employers applying or bidding for work whose 
employees reasonably can be expected to work in or adjacent to areas 
containing such material;
    (B) Employees of the owner who will work in or adjacent to areas 
containing such material:
    (C) On multi-employer worksites, all employers of employees who 
will be performing work within or adjacent to areas containing such 
materials;
    (D) Tenants who will occupy areas containing such material.
    (2) Duties of employers whose employees perform work subject to 
this standard in or adjacent to areas containing ACM and PACM. 
Building/facility owners whose employees perform such work shall comply 
with these provisions to the extent applicable.
    (i) Before work in areas containing ACM and PACM is begun; 
employers shall identify the presence, location, and quantity of ACM, 
and/or PACM therein.
    (ii) Before work under this standard is performed employers of 
employees who will perform such work shall inform the following persons 
of the location and quantity of ACM and/or PACM present in the area and 
the precautions to be taken to insure that airborne asbestos is 
confined to the area.
    (A) Owners of the building/facility;
    (B) Employees who will perform such work and employers of employees 
who work and/or will be working in adjacent areas.
    (iii) Within 10 days of the completion of such work, the employer 
whose employees have performed work subject to this standard, shall 
inform the building/facility owner and employers of employees who will 
be working in the area of the current location and quantity of PACM 
and/or ACM remaining in the area and final monitoring results, if any.
    (3) In addition to the above requirements, all employers who 
discover ACM and/or PACM on a worksite shall convey information 
concerning the presence, location and quantity of such newly discovered 
ACM and/or PACM to the owner and to other employers of employees 
working at the work site, within 24 hours of the discovery.
    (4) Criteria to rebut the designation of installed material as 
PACM. (i) At any time, an employer and/or building owner may 
demonstrate, for purposes of this standard, that PACM does not contain 
asbestos. Building owners and/or employers are not required to 
communicate information about the presence of building material for 
which such a demonstration pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 
(k)(4)(ii) of this section has been made. However, in all such cases, 
the information, data and analysis supporting the determination that 
PACM does not contain asbestos, shall be retained pursuant to paragraph 
(n) of this section.
    (ii) An employer or owner may demonstrate that PACM does not 
contain asbestos by the following: (A) Having an completed inspection 
conducted pursuant to the requirements of AHERA (40 CFR Part 763, 
Subpart E) which demonstrates that the material is not ACM;
    (B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which 
demonstrate that no asbestos is present in the material. Such tests 
shall include analysis of 3 bulk samples of each homogeneous area of 
PACM collected in a randomly distributed manner. The tests, evaluation 
and sample collection shall be conducted by an accredited inspector or 
by a CIH. Analysis of samples shall be performed by persons or 
laboratories with proficiency demonstrated by current successful 
participation in a nationally recognized testing program such as the 
National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) of the 
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Round 
Robin for bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene 
Association (AIHA) or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin 
testing program.
    (5) At the entrance to mechanical rooms/areas in which employees 
reasonably can be expected to enter and which contain thermal system 
insulation and surfacing ACM/PACM, the building owner shall post signs 
which identify the material which is present, its location, and 
appropriate work practices which, if followed, will ensure that ACM 
and/or PACM will not be disturbed.
    (6) Signs. (i) Warning signs that demarcate the regulated area 
shall be provided and displayed at each location where a regulated area 
is required to be established by paragraph (e) of this section. Signs 
shall be posted at such a distance from such a location that an 
employee may read the signs and take necessary protective steps before 
entering the area marked by the signs.
    (ii) The warning signs required by (k)(6) of this section shall 
bear the following information.

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                         
                                 DANGER                                 
                                ASBESTOS                                
                     CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD                     
                        AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY                       
      RESPIRATORS AND PROTECTION CLOTHING ARE REQUIRED IN THIS AREA     
                                                                        

    (7) Labels. (i) Labels shall be affixed to all products containing 
asbestos and to all containers containing such products, including 
waste containers. Where feasible, installed asbestos products shall 
contain a visible label.
    (ii) Labels shall be printed in large, bold letters on a 
contrasting background.
    (iii) Labels shall be used in accordance with the requirements of 
29 CFR 1910.1200(f) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, and shall 
contain the following information:

                                 DANGER                                 
                        CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS                        
                           AVOID CREATING DUST                          
                     CANCER AND LUNG DISEASE HAZARD                     
                                                                        

    (iv) [Reserved]
    (v) Labels shall contain a warning statement against breathing 
asbestos fibers.
    (vi) The provisions for labels required by paragraphs (k)(2)(i) 
through (k)(2)(iii) do not apply where:
    (A) Asbestos fibers have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, 
binder, or other material, provided that the manufacturer can 
demonstrate that, during any reasonably foreseeable use, handling, 
storage, disposal, processing, or transportation, no airborne 
concentrations of asbestos fibers in excess of the permissible exposure 
limit and/or excursion limit will be released, or
    (B) Asbestos is present in a product in concentrations less than 
1.0 percent by weight.
    (vii) When a building owner/or employer identifies previously 
installed PACM and/or ACM, labels or signs shall be affixed or posted 
so that employees will be notified of what materials contain PACM and/
or ACM. The employer shall attach such labels in areas where they will 
clearly be noticed by employees who are likely to be exposed, such as 
at the entrance to mechanical room/areas. Signs required by paragraph 
(k)(5) of this section may be posted in lieu of labels so long as they 
contain information required for labelling.
    (8) Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall, at 
no cost to the employee, institute a training program for all employees 
who install asbestos containing products and for all employees who 
perform Class I through IV asbestos operations, and shall ensure their 
participation in the program.
    (ii) Training shall be provided prior to or at the time of initial 
assignment and at least annually thereafter.
    (iii) Training for Class I and II operations shall be the 
equivalent in curriculum, training method and length to the EPA Model 
Accreditation Plan (MAP) asbestos abatement worker training (40 CFR 
Part 763, Subpart E, Appendix C.). For employers whose Class II work 
with asbestos-containing material involves only the removal and/or 
disturbance of one generic category of building material, such as 
roofing materials, flooring materials, siding materials or transite 
panels, instead, such employer is required to train employees who 
perform such work by providing a training course which includes as a 
minimum all the elements included in paragraph (k)(8)(vi) of this 
section and in addition, the specific work practices and engineering 
controls set forth in paragraph (g) which specifically relate to that 
category. Such course shall include ``hands-on'' training and shall 
take at least 8 hours.
    (iv) Training for Class III employees shall be the equivalent in 
curriculum and training method to the 16-hour Operations and 
Maintenance course developed by EPA for maintenance and custodial 
workers who conduct activities that will result in the disturbance of 
ACM. [See 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2)]. Such course shall include ``hands-on'' 
training in the use of respiratory protection and work practices and 
shall take at least 16 hours.
    (v) Training for employees performing Class IV operations shall be 
the equivalent in curriculum and training method to the awareness 
training course developed by EPA for maintenance and custodial workers 
who work in buildings containing asbestos- containing material. [See 40 
CFR 763.92 (a)(1)]. Such course shall include available information 
concerning the locations of PACM and ACM, and asbestos-containing 
flooring material, or flooring material where the absence of asbestos 
has not been certified; and instruction in recognition of damage, 
deterioration, and delamination of asbestos containing building 
materials. Such a course shall take at least 2 hours.
    (vi) The training program shall be conducted in a manner that the 
employee is able to understand. In addition to the content required by 
provisions in paragraph (k)(8)(iii) of this section, the employer shall 
ensure that each such employee is informed of the following:
    (A) Methods of recognizing asbestos, including the requirement in 
paragraph (k)(1) of this section to presume that certain building 
materials contain asbestos;
    (B) The health effects associated with asbestos exposure;
    (C) The relationship between smoking and asbestos in producing lung 
cancer;
    (D) The nature of operations that could result in exposure to 
asbestos, the importance of necessary protective controls to minimize 
exposure including, as applicable, engineering controls, work 
practices, respirators, housekeeping procedures, hygiene facilities, 
protective clothing, decontamination procedures, emergency procedures, 
and waste disposal procedures, and any necessary instruction in the use 
of these controls and procedures; including where Class III and IV work 
is performed, the contents of ``Managing Asbestos In Place (EPA 20T-
2003, July 1990) or its equivalent in content.
    (E) The purpose, proper use, fitting instructions, and limitations 
of respirators as required by 29 CFR 1910.134;
    (F) The appropriate work practices for performing the asbestos job;
    (G) Medical surveillance program requirements; and
    (H) The content of this standard, including appendices.
    (I) The names, addresses and phone numbers of public health 
organizations which provide information, materials and/or conduct 
programs concerning smoking cessation. The employer may distribute the 
list of such organizations contained in Appendix J to this section, to 
comply with this requirement.
    (J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the 
meaning of the required legends for such signs and labels.
    (9) Access to training materials. (i) The employer shall make 
readily available to affected employees without cost, written materials 
relating to the employee training program, including a copy of this 
regulation.
    (ii) The employer shall provide to the Assistant Secretary and the 
Director, upon request, all information and training materials relating 
to the employee information and training program.
    (iii) The employer shall inform all employees concerning the 
availability of self-help smoking cessation program material. Upon 
employee request, the employer shall distribute such material, 
consisting of NIH Publication No, 89-1647, or equivalent self-help 
material, which is approved or published by a public health 
organization listed in Appendix J to this section.
    (l) Housekeeping--(1) Vacuuming. Where vacuuming methods are 
selected, HEPA filtered vacuuming equipment must be used. The equipment 
shall be used and emptied in a manner that minimizes the reentry of 
asbestos into the workplace.
    (2) Waste disposal. Asbestos waste, scrap, debris, bags, 
containers, equipment, and contaminated clothing consigned for disposal 
shall be collected and disposed of in sealed, labeled, impermeable bags 
or other closed, labeled, impermeable containers.
    (3) Care of asbestos-containing flooring material. (i) All vinyl 
and asphalt flooring material shall be maintained in accordance with 
this paragraph unless the building/facility owner demonstrates, 
pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section that the flooring does not 
contain asbestos.
    (i) Sanding of flooring material is prohibited.
    (ii) Stripping of finishes shall be conducted using low abrasion 
pads at speed lower than 300 rpm and wet methods.
    (iii) Burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only on flooring 
which has sufficient finish so that the pad cannot contact the flooring 
material.
    (4) Dust and debris in an area containing accessible thermal system 
insulation or surfacing material or visibly deteriorated ACM:
    (i) shall not be dusted or swept dry, or vacuumed without using a 
HEPA filter;
    (ii) shall be promptly clean up and disposed in leak tight 
containers.
    (m) Medical surveillance--(1) General--(i) Employees covered. The 
employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all 
employees who for a combined total of 30 or more days per year are 
engaged in Class I, II and III work or are exposed at or above the 
permissible exposure limit or excursion limit, and for employees who 
wear negative pressure respirators pursuant to the requirements of this 
section.
    (ii) Examination by a physician. (A) The employer shall ensure that 
all medical examinations and procedures are performed by or under the 
supervision of a licensed physician, and are provided at no cost to the 
employee and at a reasonable time and place.
    (B) Persons other than such licensed physicians who administer the 
pulmonary function testing required by this section shall complete a 
training course in spirometry sponsored by an appropriate academic or 
professional institution.
    (2) Medical examinations and consultations-(i) Frequency. The 
employer shall make available medical examinations and consultations to 
each employee covered under paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this section on the 
following schedules:
    (A) Prior to assignment of the employee to an area where negative-
pressure respirators are worn;
    (B) When the employee is assigned to an area where exposure to 
asbestos may be at or above the permissible exposure for 30 or more 
days per year, a medical examination must be given within 10 working 
days following the thirtieth day of exposure;
    (C) And at least annually thereafter.
    (D) If the examining physician determines that any of the 
examinations should be provided more frequently than specified, the 
employer shall provide such examinations to affected employees at the 
frequencies specified by the physician.
    (E) Exception: No medical examination is required of any employee 
if adequate records show that the employee has been examined in 
accordance with this paragraph within the past 1-year period.
    (ii) Content. Medical examinations made available pursuant to 
paragraphs (m)(2)(i)(A) through (m)(2)(i)(C) of this section shall 
include:
    (A) A medical and work history with special emphasis directed to 
the pulmonary, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal systems.
    (B) On initial examination, the standardized questionnaire 
contained in Part 1 of Appendix D to this section, and, on annual 
examination, the abbreviated standardized questionnaire contained in 
Part 2 of Appendix D to this section.
    (C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and 
gastrointestinal systems, including a chest roentgenogram to be 
administered at the discretion of the physician, and pulmonary function 
tests of forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume at 
one second (FEV(1)). Interpretation and classification of chest shall 
be conducted in accordance with Appendix E to this section.
    (D) Any other examinations or tests deemed necessary by the 
examining physician.
    (3) Information provided to the physician. The employer shall 
provide the following information to the examining physician:
    (i) A copy of this standard and Appendices D, E, G, and I to this 
section;
    (ii) A description of the affected employee's duties as they relate 
to the employee's exposure;
    (iii) The employee's representative exposure level or anticipated 
exposure level;
    (iv) A description of any personal protective and respiratory 
equipment used or to be used; and
    (v) Information from previous medical examinations of the affected 
employee that is not otherwise available to the examining physician.
    (4) Physician's written opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain a 
written opinion from the examining physician. This written opinion 
shall contain the results of the medical examination and shall include:
    (A) The physician's opinion as to whether the employee has any 
detected medical conditions that would place the employee at an 
increased risk of material health impairment from exposure to asbestos;
    (B) Any recommended limitations on the employee or on the use of 
personal protective equipment such as respirators; and
    (C) A statement that the employee has been informed by the 
physician of the results of the medical examination and of any medical 
conditions that may result from asbestos exposure.
    (D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the 
physician of the increased risk of lung cancer attributable to the 
combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure.
    (ii) The employer shall instruct the physician not to reveal in the 
written opinion given to the employer specific findings or diagnoses 
unrelated to occupational exposure to asbestos.
    (iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the physician's written 
opinion to the affected employee within 30 days from its receipt.
    (n) Recordkeeping--(1) Objective data relied on pursuant to 
paragraph (f) to this section. (i) Where the employer has relied on 
objective data that demonstrate that products made from or containing 
asbestos are not capable of releasing fibers of asbestos in 
concentrations at or above the permissible exposure limit and/or 
excursion limit under the expected conditions of processing, use, or 
handling to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f), the employer 
shall establish and maintain an accurate record of objective data 
reasonably relied upon in support of the exemption.
    (ii) The record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The product qualifying for exemption;
    (B) The source of the objective data;
    (C) The testing protocol, results of testing, and/or analysis of 
the material for the release of asbestos;
    (D) A description of the operation exempted and how the data 
support the exemption; and
    (E) Other data relevant to the operations, materials, processing, 
or employee exposures covered by the exemption.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain this record for the duration of 
the employer's reliance upon such objective data.
    (2) Exposure measurements. (i) The employer shall keep an accurate 
record of all measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to 
asbestos as prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section. NOTE: The 
employer may utilize the services of competent organizations such as 
industry trade associations and employee associations to maintain the 
records required by this section.
    (ii) This record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The date of measurement;
    (B) The operation involving exposure to asbestos that is being 
monitored;
    (C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their 
accuracy;
    (D) Number, duration, and results of samples taken;
    (E) Type of protective devices worn, if any; and
    (F) Name, social security number, and exposure of the employees 
whose exposures are represented.
    (iii) The employer shall maintain this record for at least thirty 
(30) years, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.
    (3) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and 
maintain an accurate record for each employee subject to medical 
surveillance by paragraph (m) of this section, in accordance with 29 
CFR 1910.20.
    (ii) The record shall include at least the following information:
    (A) The name and social security number of the employee;
    (B) A copy of the employee's medical examination results, including 
the medical history, questionnaire responses, results of any tests, and 
physician's recommendations.
    (C) Physician's written opinions;
    (D) Any employee medical complaints related to exposure to 
asbestos; and
    (E) A copy of the information provided to the physician as required 
by paragraph (m) of this section.
    (iii) The employer shall ensure that this record is maintained for 
the duration of employment plus thirty (30) years, in accordance with 
29 CFR 1910.20.
    (4) Training records. The employer shall maintain all employee 
training records for one 1 year beyond the last date of employment by 
that employer.
    (5) Data to Rebut PACM. Where the building owner and employer have 
relied on data to demonstrate that PACM is not asbestos-containing, 
such data shall be maintained far as long as they are relied upon to 
rebut the presumption.
    (6) Records of Required Notifications. Where the building owner has 
communicated and received information concerning the identification, 
location and quantity of ACM and PACM, written records of such 
notifications and their content shall be maintained by the building 
owner for the duration of ownership and shall be transferred to 
successive owners of such buildings/facilities.
    (7) Availability. (i) The employer, upon written request, shall 
make all records required to be maintained by this section available to 
the Assistant Secretary and the Director for examination and copying.
    (ii) The employer, upon request, shall make any exposure records 
required by paragraphs (f) and (n) of this section available for 
examination and copying to affected employees, former employees, 
designated representatives, and the Assistant Secretary, in accordance 
with 29 CFR 1910.20(a) through (e) and (g) through (i).
    (iii) The employer, upon request, shall make employee medical 
records required by paragraphs (m) and (n) of this section available 
for examination and copying to the subject employee, anyone having the 
specific written consent of the subject employee, and the Assistant 
Secretary, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.
    (8) Transfer of records. (i) The employer shall comply with the 
requirements concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 1910.20 
(h).
    (ii) Whenever the employer ceases to do business and there is no 
successor employer to receive and retain the records for the prescribed 
period, the employer shall notify the Director at least 90 days prior 
to disposal and, upon request, transmit them to the Director.
    (o) Competent person--(1) General. On all construction worksites 
covered by this standard, the employer shall designate a competent 
person, having the qualifications and authorities for ensuring worker 
safety and health required by Subpart C, General Safety and Health 
Provisions for Construction (29 CFR 1926.20 through 1926.32).
    (2) Required Inspections by the Competent Person. Section 
1926.20(b)(2) which requires health and safety prevention programs to 
provide for frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, 
materials, and equipment to be made by competent persons, is 
incorporated.
    (3) Additional Inspections. In addition, the competent person shall 
make frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, in order to 
perform the duties set out below in paragraph (p)(3)(i) and (ii) of 
this section. For Class I jobs, on-site inspections shall be made at 
least once during each work shift, and at any time at employee request. 
For Class II and III jobs, on-site inspections shall be made at 
intervals sufficient to assess whether conditions have changed, and at 
any reasonable time at employee request.
    (i) On all worksites where employees are engaged in Class I or II 
asbestos work, the competent person designated in accordance with 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall perform or supervise the 
following duties, as applicable:
    (A) Set up the regulated area, enclosure, or other containment;
    (B) Ensure (by on-site inspection) the integrity of the enclosure 
or containment;
    (C) Set up procedures to control entry to and exit from the 
enclosure and/or area;
    (D) Supervise all employee exposure monitoring required by this 
section and ensure that it is conducted as required by paragraph (f) of 
this section;
    (E) Ensure that employees working within the enclosure and/or using 
glove bags wear protective clothing and respirators as required by 
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section;
    (F) Ensure through on-site supervision, that employees set up and 
remove engineering controls, use work practices and personal protective 
equipment in compliance with all requirements;
    (G) Ensure that employees use the hygiene facilities and observe 
the decontamination procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this 
section;
    (H) Ensure that though on-site inspection engineering controls are 
functioning properly and employees are using proper work practices; 
and,
    (I) Ensure that notification requirement in paragraph (f)(6) of 
this section are met.
    (4) Training for the competent person. (i) For Class I, and II 
asbestos work the competent person shall be trained in all aspects of 
asbestos removal and handling, including: abatement, installation, 
removal and handling; the contents of this standard; the identification 
of asbestos; removal procedures, where appropriate; and other practices 
for reducing the hazard. Such training shall be obtained in a 
comprehensive course for supervisors, such as a course conducted by an 
EPA or state-approved training provider, certified by the EPA or a 
State, or an course equivalent in stringency, content and length.
    (ii) For Class III and IV asbestos work, the competent person shall 
be trained in aspects of asbestos handling appropriate for the nature 
of the work, to include procedures for setting up glove bags and mini-
enclosures, practices for reducing asbestos exposures, use of wet 
methods, the contents of this standard, and the identification of 
asbestos. Such training shall include successful completion of a course 
equivalent in curriculum and training method to the 16-hour Operations 
and Maintenance course developed by EPA for maintenance and custodial 
workers [See 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2)], or its equivalent in stringency, 
content and length. Competent persons for Class III and IV work, may 
also be trained pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (o)(4)(i) of 
this section.
    (p) Appendices. (1) Appendices A, C, D, and E to this section are 
incorporated as part of this section and the contents of these 
appendices are mandatory.
    (2) Appendices B, F, H, I, J, and K to this section are 
informational and are not intended to create any additional obligations 
not otherwise imposed or to detract from any existing obligations.
    (q) Dates. (1) This standard shall become effective October 11, 
1994.
    (2) The provisions of 29 CFR 1926.58 remain in effect until the 
start-up dates of the equivalent provisions of this standard.
    (3) Start-up dates: All obligations of this standard commence on 
the effective date except as follows:
    (i) Methods of compliance. The engineering and work practice 
controls required by paragraph (g) of this section shall be implemented 
as soon as possible but no later than April 10, 1995.
    (ii) Respiratory protection. Respiratory protection required by 
paragraph (h) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but 
no later than February 8, 1995.
    (iii) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. Hygiene 
facilities and practices required by paragraph (j) of this section 
shall be provided as soon as possible but no later than February 8, 
1995.
    (iv) Communication of hazards. Identification, notification, 
labeling and sign posting, and training required by paragraph (k) of 
this section shall be provided as soon as possible, but no later than 
April 10, 1995.
    (v) Housekeeping. Housekeeping practices and controls required by 
paragraph (l) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible, 
but no later than January 9, 1995.
    (vi) Medical surveillance required by paragraph (m) of this section 
shall be provided as soon as possible, but no later than January 9, 
1995.
    (vii) The designation and training of competent persons required by 
paragraph (o) of this section shall completed as soon as possible but 
no later than April 10, 1995.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 1218-0133)

Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101  [Amended]

    4. Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101 is amended by the revising the 
second sentence of the introductory paragraph to read as follows:

    * * * The sampling and analytical methods described below 
represent the elements of the available monitoring methods (such as 
Appendix B of this regulation, the most current version of the OSHA 
method ID-160, or the most current version of the NIOSH Method 
7400). * * *

Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101  [Amended]

    5. Paragraph 2. of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101 
entitled Sampling and Analytical Procedure is amended by adding the 
following sentence to the end:
* * * * *
    2.* * * Do not reuse or reload cassettes for asbestos sample 
collection.
* * * * *

Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101  [Amended]

    6. Paragraph 11 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101 
entitled Sampling and Analytical Procedure is revised to read as 
follows:
* * * * *
    11. Each set of samples taken will include 10% field blanks or a 
minimum of 2 field blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot 
as the filters used for sample collection. The field blank results 
shall be averaged and subtracted from the analytical results before 
reporting. A set consists of any sample or group of samples for 
which an evaluation for this standard must be made. Any samples 
represented by a field blank having a fiber count in excess of the 
detection limit of the method being used shall be rejected.
* * * * *

Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101  [Amended]

    7. Paragraph 2 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101 
entitled Quality Control Procedures is redesignated as paragraph 2a and 
by adding paragraph 2b to read as follows:
* * * * *
    2. * * *
    b. All laboratories should also participate in a national sample 
testing scheme such as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program 
(PAT), or the Asbestos Registry sponsored by the American Industrial 
Hygiene Association (AIHA).
* * * * *
    E. Appendix B of Sec. 1926.1101 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix B to Sec. 1926.1101. Sampling and Analysis. Non-mandatory

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Air        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix:                                                                 
  OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits:                                     
    Time Weighted Average.........................  0.1 fiber/cc        
    Excursion Level (30 minutes)..................  1.0 fiber/cc        
Collection Procedure:                                                   
    A known volume of air is drawn through a 25-mm diameter cassette    
containing a mixed-cellulose ester filter. The cassette must be equipped
 with an electrically conductive 50-mm extension cowl. The sampling time
   and rate are chosen to give a fiber density of between 100 to 1,300  
                        fibers/mm2 on the filter.                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Sampling Rate.........................  0.5 to 5.0 liters/  
                                                     minute (L/min)     
Recommended Air Volumes:                                                
    Minimum.......................................  25 L                
    Maximum.......................................  2,400 L             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analytical Procedure:
    A portion of the sample filter is cleared and prepared for 
asbestos fiber counting by Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) at 400X.
    Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method 
are for descriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by 
USDOL-OSHA. Similar products from other sources can be substituted.

1. Introduction

    This method describes the collection of airborne asbestos fibers 
using calibrated sampling pumps with mixed-cellulose ester (MCE) 
filters and analysis by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Some terms 
used are unique to this method and are defined below: Asbestos: A 
term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos includes 
chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos), 
tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, and 
any of these minerals that have been chemically treated and/or 
altered. The precise chemical formulation of each species will vary 
with the location from which it was mined. Nominal compositions are 
listed:

Chrysotile.........................  Mg3(Si2O5(OH)4                      
Crocidolite........................  Na2Fe32+Fe23+Si8O22(OH)2           
Amosite............................  (Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2                
Tremolite-actinolite...............  Ca2(Mg,Fe)5Si8O22(OH)2             
Anthophyllite......................  (Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2                
                                                                        

    Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos which meets the criteria 
specified below for a fiber.
    Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to it's 
diameter (e.g. 3:1, 5:1 aspect ratios).
    Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by comminution of 
minerals, especially those characterized by parallel sides and a 
moderate aspect ratio (usually less than 20:1).
    Detection Limit: The number of fibers necessary to be 95% 
certain that the result is greater than zero.
    Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of 
excluding certain kinds of fibers from the fiber count because they 
do not appear to be asbestos.
    Fiber: A particle that is 5 m or longer, with a length-
to-width ratio of 3 to 1 or longer.
    Field: The area within the graticule circle that is superimposed 
on the microscope image.
    Set: The samples which are taken, submitted to the laboratory, 
analyzed, and for which, interim or final result reports are 
generated.
    Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite: The non-asbestos form 
of these minerals which meet the definition of a fiber. It includes 
any of these minerals that have been chemically treated and/or 
altered.
    Walton-Beckett Graticule: An eyepiece graticule specifically 
designed for asbestos fiber counting. It consists of a circle with a 
projected diameter of 1002 m (area of about 
0.00785 mm2) with a crosshair having tic-marks at 3-m 
intervals in one direction and 5-m in the orthogonal 
direction. There are marks around the periphery of the circle to 
demonstrate the proper sizes and shapes of fibers. This design is 
reproduced in Figure 2. The disk is placed in one of the microscope 
eyepieces so that the design is superimposed on the field of view.

1.1. History

    Early surveys to determine asbestos exposures were conducted 
using impinger counts of total dust with the counts expressed as 
million particles per cubic foot. The British Asbestos Research 
Council recommended filter membrane counting in 1969. In July 1969, 
the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Health published a filter 
membrane method for counting asbestos fibers in the United States. 
This method was refined by NIOSH and published as P & CAM 239. On 
May 29, 1971, OSHA specified filter membrane sampling with phase 
contrast counting for evaluation of asbestos exposures at work sites 
in the United States. The use of this technique was again required 
by OSHA in 1986. Phase contrast microscopy has continued to be the 
method of choice for the measurement of occupational exposure to 
asbestos.

1.2. Principle

    Air is drawn through a MCE filter to capture airborne asbestos 
fibers. A wedge shaped portion of the filter is removed, placed on a 
glass microscope slide and made transparent. A measured area (field) 
is viewed by PCM. All the fibers meeting a defined criteria for 
asbestos are counted and considered a measure of the airborne 
asbestos concentration.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

    There are four main advantages of PCM over other methods:
    (1) The technique is specific for fibers. Phase contrast is a 
fiber counting technique which excludes non-fibrous particles from 
the analysis.
    (2) The technique is inexpensive and does not require 
specialized knowledge to carry out the analysis for total fiber 
counts.
    (3) The analysis is quick and can be performed on-site for rapid 
determination of air concentrations of asbestos fibers.
    (4) The technique has continuity with historical epidemiological 
studies so that estimates of expected disease can be inferred from 
long-term determinations of asbestos exposures.
    The main disadvantage of PCM is that it does not positively 
identify asbestos fibers. Other fibers which are not asbestos may be 
included in the count unless differential counting is performed. 
This requires a great deal of experience to adequately differentiate 
asbestos from non-asbestos fibers. Positive identification of 
asbestos must be performed by polarized light or electron microscopy 
techniques. A further disadvantage of PCM is that the smallest 
visible fibers are about 0.2 m in diameter while the finest 
asbestos fibers may be as small as 0.02 m in diameter. For 
some exposures, substantially more fibers may be present than are 
actually counted.

1.4. Workplace Exposure

    Asbestos is used by the construction industry in such products 
as shingles, floor tiles, asbestos cement, roofing felts, insulation 
and acoustical products. Non-construction uses include brakes, 
clutch facings, paper, paints, plastics, and fabrics. One of the 
most significant exposures in the workplace is the removal and 
encapsulation of asbestos in schools, public buildings, and homes. 
Many workers have the potential to be exposed to asbestos during 
these operations.
    About 95% of the asbestos in commercial use in the United States 
is chrysotile. Crocidolite and amosite make up most of the 
remainder. Anthophyllite and tremolite or actinolite are likely to 
be encountered as contaminants in various industrial products.

1.5. Physical Properties

    Asbestos fiber possesses a high tensile strength along its axis, 
is chemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. It has a 
high electrical resistance and good sound absorbing properties. It 
can be weaved into cables, fabrics or other textiles, and also 
matted into asbestos papers, felts, or mats.

2. Range and Detection Limit

    2.1. The ideal counting range on the filter is 100 to 1,300 
fibers/mm\2\. With a Walton-Beckett graticule this range is 
equivalent to 0.8 to 10 fibers/field. Using NIOSH counting 
statistics, a count of 0.8 fibers/field would give an approximate 
coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.13.
    2.2. The detection limit for this method is 4.0 fibers per 100 
fields or 5.5 fibers/mm\2\. This was determined using an equation to 
estimate the maximum CV possible at a specific concentration (95% 
confidence) and a Lower Control Limit of zero. The CV value was then 
used to determine a corresponding concentration from historical CV 
vs fiber relationships. As an example:

Lower Control Limit (95% Confidence) = AC--1.645(CV)(AC)
Where:
AC=Estimate of the airborne fiber concentration (fibers/cc) Setting 
the Lower Control Limit=0 and solving for CV:
0=AC--1.645(CV)(AC)
CV=0.61
    This value was compared with CV vs. count curves. The count at 
which CV = 0.61 for Leidel-Busch counting statistics or for an OSHA 
Salt Lake Technical Center (OSHA-SLTC) CV curve (see Appendix A for 
further information) was 4.4 fibers or 3.9 fibers per 100 fields, 
respectively. Although a lower detection limit of 4 fibers per 100 
fields is supported by the OSHA-SLTC data, both data sets support 
the 4.5 fibers per 100 fields value.

3. Method Performance--Precision and Accuracy

    Precision is dependent upon the total number of fibers counted 
and the uniformity of the fiber distribution on the filter. A 
general rule is to count at least 20 and not more than 100 fields. 
The count is discontinued when 100 fibers are counted, provided that 
20 fields have already been counted. Counting more than 100 fibers 
results in only a small gain in precision. As the total count drops 
below 10 fibers, an accelerated loss of precision is noted.
    At this time, there is no known method to determine the absolute 
accuracy of the asbestos analysis. Results of samples prepared 
through the Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT) Program and 
analyzed by the OSHA-SLTC showed no significant bias when compared 
to PAT reference values. The PAT samples were analyzed from 1987 to 
1989 (N=36) and the concentration range was from 120 to 1,300 
fibers/mm\2\.

4. Interferences

    Fibrous substances, if present, may interfere with asbestos 
analysis.
    Some common fibers are:


fiber glass........................  perlite veins                      
anhydrite plant fibers                                                  
gypsum.............................  some synthetic fibers              
membrane structures................  sponge spicules and diatoms        
microorganisms.....................  wollastonite                       
                                                                        


    The use of electron microscopy or optical tests such as 
polarized light, and dispersion staining may be used to 
differentiate these materials from asbestos when necessary.

5. Sampling

5.1. Equipment

    5.1.1. Sample assembly (The assembly is shown in Figure 3). 
Conductive filter holder consisting of a 25-mm diameter, 3-piece 
cassette having a 50-mm long electrically conductive extension cowl. 
Backup pad, 25-mm, cellulose. Membrane filter, mixed-cellulose ester 
(MCE), 25-mm, plain, white, 0.8- to 1.2-m pore size.

    Notes:
(a) DO NOT RE-USE CASSETTES.
(b) Fully conductive cassettes are required to reduce fiber loss to 
the sides of the cassette due to electrostatic attraction.
(c) Purchase filters which have been selected by the manufacturer 
for asbestos counting or analyze representative filters for fiber 
background before use. Discard the filter lot if more than 4 fibers/
100 fields are found.
(d) To decrease the possibility of contamination, the sampling 
system (filter-backup pad-cassette) for asbestos is usually 
preassembled by the manufacturer.

    5.1.2. Gel bands for sealing cassettes.
    5.1.3. Sampling pump.
    Each pump must be a battery operated, self-contained unit small 
enough to be placed on the monitored employee and not interfere with 
the work being performed. The pump must be capable of sampling at 
2.5 liters per minute (L/min) for the required sampling time.
    5.1.4. Flexible tubing, 6-mm bore.
    5.1.5. Pump calibration.
    Stopwatch and bubble tube/burette or electronic meter.
    5.2. Sampling Procedure
    5.2.1. Seal the point where the base and cowl of each cassette 
meet (see Figure 3) with a gel band or tape.
    5.2.2. Charge the pumps completely before beginning.
    5.2.3. Connect each pump to a calibration cassette with an 
appropriate length of 6-mm bore plastic tubing. Do not use luer 
connectors--the type of cassette specified above has built-in 
adapters.
    5.2.4. Select an appropriate flow rate for the situation being 
monitored. The sampling flow rate must be between 0.5 and 5.0 L/min 
for personal sampling and is commonly set between 1 and 2 L/min. 
Always choose a flow rate that will not produce overloaded filters.
    5.2.5. Calibrate each sampling pump before and after sampling 
with a calibration cassette in-line (Note: This calibration cassette 
should be from the same lot of cassettes used for sampling). Use a 
primary standard (e.g. bubble burette) to calibrate each pump. If 
possible, calibrate at the sampling site.

    Note: If sampling site calibration is not possible, 
environmental influences may affect the flow rate. The extent is 
dependent on the type of pump used. Consult with the pump 
manufacturer to determine dependence on environmental influences. If 
the pump is affected by temperature and pressure changes, use the 
formula in Appendix B to calculate the actual flow rate.

    5.2.6. Connect each pump to the base of each sampling cassette 
with flexible tubing. Remove the end cap of each cassette and take 
each air sample open face. Assure that each sample cassette is held 
open side down in the employee's breathing zone during sampling. The 
distance from the nose/mouth of the employee to the cassette should 
be about 10 cm. Secure the cassette on the collar or lapel of the 
employee using spring clips or other similar devices.
    5.2.7. A suggested minimum air volume when sampling to determine 
TWA compliance is 25 L. For Excursion Limit (30 min sampling time) 
evaluations, a minimum air volume of 48 L is recommended.
    5.2.8. The most significant problem when sampling for asbestos 
is overloading the filter with non-asbestos dust. Suggested maximum 
air sample volumes for specific environments are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Environment                         Air Vol. (L)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal operations (visible dust)..........  100.              
Asbestos removal operations (little dust)...........  240.              
Office environments.................................  400 to 2,400.     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAUTION: Do not overload the filter with dust. High levels of 
non-fibrous dust particles may obscure fibers on the filter and 
lower the count or make counting impossible. If more than about 25 
to 30% of the field area is obscured with dust, the result may be 
biased low. Smaller air volumes may be necessary when there is 
excessive non-asbestos dust in the air.
    While sampling, observe the filter with a small flashlight. If 
there is a visible layer of dust on the filter, stop sampling, 
remove and seal the cassette, and replace with a new sampling 
assembly. The total dust loading should not exceed 1 mg.
    5.2.9. Blank samples are used to determine if any contamination 
has occurred during sample handling. Prepare two blanks for the 
first 1 to 20 samples. For sets containing greater than 20 samples, 
prepare blanks as 10% of the samples. Handle blank samples in the 
same manner as air samples with one exception: Do not draw any air 
through the blank samples. Open the blank cassette in the place 
where the sample cassettes are mounted on the employee. Hold it open 
for about 30 seconds. Close and seal the cassette appropriately. 
Store blanks for shipment with the sample cassettes.
    5.2.10. Immediately after sampling, close and seal each cassette 
with the base and plastic plugs. Do not touch or puncture the filter 
membrane as this will invalidate the analysis.
    5.2.11. Attach a seal (OSHA-21 or equivalent) around each 
cassette in such a way as to secure the end cap plug and base plug. 
Tape the ends of the seal together since the seal is not long enough 
to be wrapped end-to-end. Also wrap tape around the cassette at each 
joint to keep the seal secure.

5.3. Sample Shipment

    5.3.1. Send the samples to the laboratory with paperwork 
requesting asbestos analysis. List any known fibrous interferences 
present during sampling on the paperwork. Also, note the workplace 
operation(s) sampled.
    5.3.2. Secure and handle the samples in such that they will not 
rattle during shipment nor be exposed to static electricity. Do not 
ship samples in expanded polystyrene peanuts, vermiculite, paper 
shreds, or excelsior. Tape sample cassettes to sheet bubbles and 
place in a container that will cushion the samples without rattling.
    5.3.3. To avoid the possibility of sample contamination, always 
ship bulk samples in separate mailing containers.

6. Analysis

6.1. Safety Precautions

    6.1.1. Acetone is extremely flammable and precautions must be 
taken not to ignite it. Avoid using large containers or quantities 
of acetone. Transfer the solvent in a ventilated laboratory hood. Do 
not use acetone near any open flame. For generation of acetone 
vapor, use a spark free heat source.
    6.1.2. Any asbestos spills should be cleaned up immediately to 
prevent dispersal of fibers. Prudence should be exercised to avoid 
contamination of laboratory facilities or exposure of personnel to 
asbestos. Asbestos spills should be cleaned up with wet methods and/
or a High Efficiency Particulate-Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum.
    CAUTION: Do not use a vacuum without a HEPA filter--It will 
disperse fine asbestos fibers in the air.

6.2. Equipment

    6.2.1. Phase contrast microscope with binocular or trinocular 
head.
    6.2.2. Widefield or Huygenian 10X eyepieces (NOTE: The eyepiece 
containing the graticule must be a focusing eyepiece. Use a 40X 
phase objective with a numerical aperture of 0.65 to 0.75).
    6.2.3. Kohler illumination (if possible) with green or blue 
filter.
    6.2.4. Walton-Beckett Graticule, type G-22 with 100 
2 m projected diameter.
    6.2.5. Mechanical stage. A rotating mechanical stage is 
convenient for use with polarized light.
    6.2.6. Phase telescope.
    6.2.7. Stage micrometer with 0.01-mm subdivisions.
    6.2.8. Phase-shift test slide, mark II (Available from PTR 
optics Ltd., and also McCrone).
    6.2.9. Precleaned glass slides, 25 mm X 75 mm. One end can be 
frosted for convenience in writing sample numbers, etc., or paste-on 
labels can be used.
    6.2.10. Cover glass #1\1/2\.
    6.2.11. Scalpel (#10, curved blade).
    6.2.12. Fine tipped forceps.
    6.2.13. Aluminum block for clearing filter (see Appendix D and 
Figure 4).
    6.2.14. Automatic adjustable pipette, 100- to 500-L.
    6.2.15. Micropipette, 5 L.

6.3. Reagents

    6.3.1. Acetone (HPLC grade).
    6.3.2. Triacetin (glycerol triacetate).
    6.3.3. Lacquer or nail polish.

6.4. Standard Preparation

    A way to prepare standard asbestos samples of known 
concentration has not been developed. It is possible to prepare 
replicate samples of nearly equal concentration. This has been 
performed through the PAT program. These asbestos samples are 
distributed by the AIHA to participating laboratories.
    Since only about one-fourth of a 25-mm sample membrane is 
required for an asbestos count, any PAT sample can serve as a 
``standard'' for replicate counting.
    6.5. Sample Mounting
    Note: See Safety Precautions in Section 6.1. before proceeding. 
The objective is to produce samples with a smooth (non-grainy) 
background in a medium with a refractive index of approximately 
1.46. The technique below collapses the filter for easier focusing 
and produces permanent mounts which are useful for quality control 
and interlaboratory comparison.

    An aluminum block or similar device is required for sample 
preparation.
    6.5.1. Heat the aluminum block to about 70 deg.C. The hot block 
should not be used on any surface that can be damaged by either the 
heat or from exposure to acetone.
    6.5.2. Ensure that the glass slides and cover glasses are free 
of dust and fibers.
    6.5.3. Remove the top plug to prevent a vacuum when the cassette 
is opened. Clean the outside of the cassette if necessary. Cut the 
seal and/or tape on the cassette with a razor blade. Very carefully 
separate the base from the extension cowl, leaving the filter and 
backup pad in the base.
    6.5.4. With a rocking motion cut a triangular wedge from the 
filter using the scalpel. This wedge should be one-sixth to one-
fourth of the filter. Grasp the filter wedge with the forceps on the 
perimeter of the filter which was clamped between the cassette 
pieces. DO NOT TOUCH the filter with your finger. Place the filter 
on the glass slide sample side up. Static electricity will usually 
keep the filter on the slide until it is cleared.
    6.5.5. Place the tip of the micropipette containing about 200 
L acetone into the aluminum block. Insert the glass slide 
into the receiving slot in the aluminum block. Inject the acetone 
into the block with slow, steady pressure on the plunger while 
holding the pipette firmly in place. Wait 3 to 5 seconds for the 
filter to clear, then remove the pipette and slide from the aluminum 
block.
    6.5.6. Immediately (less than 30 seconds) place 2.5 to 3.5 
L of triacetin on the filter (NOTE: Waiting longer than 30 
seconds will result in increased index of refraction and decreased 
contrast between the fibers and the preparation. This may also lead 
to separation of the cover slip from the slide).
    6.5.7. Lower a cover slip gently onto the filter at a slight 
angle to reduce the possibility of forming air bubbles. If more than 
30 seconds have elapsed between acetone exposure and triacetin 
application, glue the edges of the cover slip to the slide with 
lacquer or nail polish.
    6.5.8. If clearing is slow, warm the slide for 15 min on a hot 
plate having a surface temperature of about 50 deg.C to hasten 
clearing. The top of the hot block can be used if the slide is not 
heated too long.
    6.5.9. Counting may proceed immediately after clearing and 
mounting are completed.

6.6. Sample Analysis

    Completely align the microscope according to the manufacturer's 
instructions. Then, align the microscope using the following general 
alignment routine at the beginning of every counting session and 
more often if necessary.

6.6.1. Alignment

    (1) Clean all optical surfaces. Even a small amount of dirt can 
significantly degrade the image.
    (2) Rough focus the objective on a sample.
    (3) Close down the field iris so that it is visible in the field 
of view. Focus the image of the iris with the condenser focus. 
Center the image of the iris in the field of view.
    (4) Install the phase telescope and focus on the phase rings. 
Critically center the rings. Misalignment of the rings results in 
astigmatism which will degrade the image.
    (5) Place the phase-shift test slide on the microscope stage and 
focus on the lines. The analyst must see line set 3 and should see 
at least parts of 4 and 5 but, not see line set 6 or 6. A 
microscope/microscopist combination which does not pass this test 
may not be used.

6.6.2. Counting Fibers

    (1) Place the prepared sample slide on the mechanical stage of 
the microscope. Position the center of the wedge under the objective 
lens and focus upon the sample.
    (2) Start counting from one end of the wedge and progress along 
a radial line to the other end (count in either direction from 
perimeter to wedge tip). Select fields randomly, without looking 
into the eyepieces, by slightly advancing the slide in one direction 
with the mechanical stage control.
    (3) Continually scan over a range of focal planes (generally the 
upper 10 to 15 m of the filter surface) with the fine focus 
control during each field count. Spend at least 5 to 15 seconds per 
field.
    (4) Most samples will contain asbestos fibers with fiber 
diameters less than 1 m. Look carefully for faint fiber 
images. The small diameter fibers will be very hard to see. However, 
they are an important contribution to the total count.
    (5) Count only fibers equal to or longer than 5 m. 
Measure the length of curved fibers along the curve.
    (6) Count fibers which have a length to width ratio of 3:1 or 
greater.
    (7) Count all the fibers in at least 20 fields. Continue 
counting until either 100 fibers are counted or 100 fields have been 
viewed; whichever occurs first. Count all the fibers in the final 
field.
    (8) Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton-
Beckett graticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing 
the boundary once, having one end within the circle shall receive a 
count of \1/2\. Do not count any fiber that crosses the graticule 
boundary more than once. Reject and do not count any other fibers 
even though they may be visible outside the graticule area. If a 
fiber touches the circle, it is considered to cross the line.
    (9) Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual 
fibers can be clearly identified and each individual fiber is 
clearly not connected to another counted fiber. See Figure 2 for 
counting conventions.
    (10) Record the number of fibers in each field in a consistent 
way such that filter non-uniformity can be assessed.
    (11) Regularly check phase ring alignment.
    (12) When an agglomerate (mass of material) covers more than 25% 
of the field of view, reject the field and select another. Do not 
include it in the number of fields counted.
    (13) Perform a ``blind recount'' of 1 in every 10 filter wedges 
(slides). Re-label the slides using a person other than the original 
counter.

6.7. Fiber Identification

    As previously mentioned in Section 1.3., PCM does not provide 
positive confirmation of asbestos fibers. Alternate differential 
counting techniques should be used if discrimination is desirable. 
Differential counting may include primary discrimination based on 
morphology, polarized light analysis of fibers, or modification of 
PCM data by Scanning Electron or Transmission Electron Microscopy.
    A great deal of experience is required to routinely and 
correctly perform differential counting. It is discouraged unless it 
is legally necessary. Then, only if a fiber is obviously not 
asbestos should it be excluded from the count. Further discussion of 
this technique can be found in reference 8.10.
    If there is a question whether a fiber is asbestos or not, 
follow the rule:
    ``WHEN IN DOUBT, COUNT.''

6.8. Analytical Recommendations--Quality Control System

    6.8.1. All individuals performing asbestos analysis must have 
taken the NIOSH course for sampling and evaluating airborne asbestos 
or an equivalent course.
    6.8.2. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall set up 
a slide trading arrangement with at least two other laboratories in 
order to compare performance and eliminate inbreeding of error. The 
slide exchange occurs at least semiannually. The round robin results 
shall be posted where all analysts can view individual analyst's 
results.
    6.8.3. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall 
participate in the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program, the 
Asbestos Analyst Registry or equivalent.
    6.8.4. Each analyst shall select and count prepared slides from 
a ``slide bank''. These are quality assurance counts. The slide bank 
shall be prepared using uniformly distributed samples taken from the 
workload. Fiber densities should cover the entire range routinely 
analyzed by the laboratory. These slides are counted blind by all 
counters to establish an original standard deviation. This 
historical distribution is compared with the quality assurance 
counts. A counter must have 95% of all quality control samples 
counted within three standard deviations of the historical mean. 
This count is then integrated into a new historical mean and 
standard deviation for the slide.
    The analyses done by the counters to establish the slide bank 
may be used for an interim quality control program if the data are 
treated in a proper statistical fashion.

7. Calculations

    7.1. Calculate the estimated airborne asbestos fiber 
concentration on the filter sample using the following formula:
TR10AU94.033


where:
AC=Airborne fiber concentration
FB=Total number of fibers greater than 5 m counted
FL=Total number of fields counted on the filter
BFB=Total number of fibers greater than 5 m counted in the 
blank
BFL=Total number of fields counted on the blank
ECA=Effective collecting area of filter (385 mm\2\ nominal for a 25-
mm filter.)
FR=Pump flow rate (L/min)
MFA=Microscope count field area (mm\2\). This is 0.00785 mm\2\ for a 
Walton-Beckett Graticule.
T=Sample collection time (min)
1,000=Conversion of L to cc
    Note: The collection area of a filter is seldom equal to 385 
mm\2\. It is appropriate for laboratories to routinely monitor the 
exact diameter using an inside micrometer. The collection area is 
calculated according to the formula:

Area=(d/2)\2\

7.2. Short-Cut Calculation

    Since a given analyst always has the same interpupillary 
distance, the number of fields per filter for a particular analyst 
will remain constant for a given size filter. The field size for 
that analyst is constant (i.e. the analyst is using an assigned 
microscope and is not changing the reticle).
    For example, if the exposed area of the filter is always 385 
mm\2\ and the size of the field is always 0.00785 mm2 the 
number of fields per filter will always be 49,000. In addition it is 
necessary to convert liters of air to cc. These three constants can 
then be combined such that ECA/(1,000 x MFA)=49. The previous 
equation simplifies to:
TR10AU94.034



7.3. Recount Calculations

    As mentioned in step 13 of Section 6.6.2., a ``blind recount'' 
of 10% of the slides is performed. In all cases, differences will be 
observed between the first and second counts of the same filter 
wedge. Most of these differences will be due to chance alone, that 
is, due to the random variability (precision) of the count method. 
Statistical recount criteria enables one to decide whether observed 
differences can be explained due to chance alone or are probably due 
to systematic differences between analysts, microscopes, or other 
biasing factors.
    The following recount criterion is for a pair of counts that 
estimate AC in fibers/cc. The criterion is given at the type-I error 
level. That is, there is 5% maximum risk that we will reject a pair 
of counts for the reason that one might be biased, when the large 
observed difference is really due to chance.
    Reject a pair of counts if:
TR10AU94.035


Where:
AC1=lower estimated airborne fiber concentration
AC2=higher estimated airborne fiber concentration
ACavg=average of the two concentration estimates
CVFB=CV for the average of the two concentration estimates

    If a pair of counts are rejected by this criterion then, recount 
the rest of the filters in the submitted set. Apply the test and 
reject any other pairs failing the test. Rejection shall include a 
memo to the industrial hygienist stating that the sample failed a 
statistical test for homogeneity and the true air concentration may 
be significantly different than the reported value.

7.4. Reporting Results

    Report results to the industrial hygienist as fibers/cc. Use two 
significant figures. If multiple analyses are performed on a sample, 
an average of the results is to be reported unless any of the 
results can be rejected for cause.

8. References

    8.1. Dreesen, W.C., et al., U.S. Public Health Service: A Study 
of Asbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry (Public Health 
Bulletin No. 241), U.S. Treasury Dept., Washington, DC, 1938.
    8.2. Asbestos Research Council: The Measurement of Airborne 
Asbestos Dust by the Membrane Filter Method (Technical Note), 
Asbestos Research Council, Rockdale, Lancashire, Great Britain, 
1969.
    8.3. Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Brown, T.A., Equipment and 
Procedure for Mounting Millipore Filters and Counting Asbestos 
Fibers by Phase Contrast Microscopy, Bureau of Occupational Health, 
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Cincinnati, OH, 1969.
    8.4. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd ed., Vol. 1 (DHEW/
NIOSH Pub. No. 77-157-A). National Institute for Occupational Safety 
and Health, Cincinnati, OH, 1977. pp. 239-1--239-21.
    8.5. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1001. 
1971.
    8.6. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, 
Anthophyllite, and Actinolite. Final Rule, Federal Register 51:119 
(20 June 1986). pp. 22612-22790.
    8.7. Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite, Code of 
Federal Regulations 1910.1001. 1988. pp. 711-752.
    8.8. Criteria for a Recommended Standard--Occupational Exposure 
to Asbestos (DHEW/NIOSH Pub. No. HSM 72-10267), National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, Cincinnati, OH, 1972. pp. 
III-1--III-24.
    8.9. Leidel, N.A., Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Busch, K.A., 
USPHS/NIOSH Membrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne Asbestos 
Fibers (DHEW/NIOSH Pub. No. 79-127). National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH, 1979.
    8.10. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in 
Analysis of Asbestos and Quartz, Analytical Techniques in 
Occupational Health Chemistry, edited by D.D. Dollberg and A.W. 
Verstuyft. Wash. D.C.: American Chemical Society, (ACS Symposium 
Series 120) 1980. pp. 13-41.

Quality Control

    The OSHA asbestos regulations require each laboratory to 
establish a quality control program. The following is presented as 
an example of how the OSHA-SLTC constructed its internal CV curve as 
part of meeting this requirement. Data for the CV curve shown below 
is from 395 samples collected during OSHA compliance inspections and 
analyzed from October 1980 through April 1986.
    Each sample was counted by 2 to 5 different counters 
independently of one another. The standard deviation and the CV 
statistic was calculated for each sample. This data was then plotted 
on a graph of CV vs. fibers/mm\2\. A least squares regression was 
performed using the following equation:

CV=antilog10[A(log10(x))2+B(log10(x))+C]

where:
x=the number of fibers/mm\2\

    Application of least squares gave:
A=0.182205
B=0.973343
C=0.327499

    Using these values, the equation becomes:

CV=antilog10[0.182205(log10(x))\2\
  -0.973343(log10(x))+0.327499]

Sampling Pump Flow Rate Corrections

    This correction is used if a difference greater than 5% in 
ambient temperature and/or pressure is noted between calibration and 
sampling sites and the pump does not compensate for the differences.
TR10AU94.036


Where:

Qact=actual flow rate
Qcal=calibrated flow rate (if a rotameter was used, the 
rotameter value)
Pcal=uncorrected air pressure at calibration
Pact=uncorrected air pressure at sampling site
Tact=temperature at sampling site (K)
Tcal=temperature at calibration (K)

Walton-Beckett Graticule

    When ordering the Graticule for asbestos counting, specify the 
exact disc diameter needed to fit the ocular of the microscope and 
the diameter (mm) of the circular counting area. Instructions for 
measuring the dimensions necessary are listed:
    (1) Insert any available graticule into the focusing eyepiece 
and focus so that the graticule lines are sharp and clear.
    (2) Align the microscope.
    (3) Place a stage micrometer on the microscope object stage and 
focus the microscope on the graduated lines.
    (4) Measure the magnified grid length, PL (m), using 
the stage micrometer.
    (5) Remove the graticule from the microscope and measure its 
actual grid length, AL (mm). This can be accomplished by using a 
mechanical stage fitted with verniers, or a jeweler's loupe with a 
direct reading scale.
    (6) Let D=100 m. Calculate the circle diameter, dc 
(mm), for the Walton-Beckett graticule and specify the diameter when 
making a purchase:
TR10AU94.037


Example: If PL=108 m, AL=2.93 mm and D=100 m, 
then,
TR10AU94.038


    (7) Each eyepiece-objective-reticle combination on the 
microscope must be calibrated. Should any of the three be changed 
(by zoom adjustment, disassembly, replacement, etc.), the 
combination must be recalibrated. Calibration may change if 
interpupillary distance is changed.
    Measure the field diameter, D (acceptable range: 
1002 m) with a stage micrometer upon receipt of 
the graticule from the manufacturer. Determine the field area 
(mm2).
Field Area=(D/2)\2\
If D=100 m=0.1 mm, then
Field Area=(0.1 mm/2)\2\=0.00785 mm\2\

    The Graticule is available from: Graticules Ltd., Morley Road, 
Tonbridge TN9 IRN, Kent, England (Telephone 011-44-732-359061). Also 
available from PTR Optics Ltd., 145 Newton Street, Waltham, MA 02154 
[telephone (617) 891-6000] or McCrone Accessories and Components, 
2506 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60616 [phone (312)-842-7100]. The 
graticule is custom made for each microscope.

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
TR10AU94.025



BILLING CODE 4510-26-C

                   Counts for the Fibers in the Figure                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structure No.   Count                     Explanation                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 6.......       1  Single fibers all contained within the Circle.   
7............   \1/2\  Fiber crosses circle once.                       
8............       0  Fiber too short.                                 
9............       2  Two crossing fibers.                             
10...........       0  Fiber outside graticule.                         
11...........       0  Fiber crosses graticule twice.                   
12...........   \1/2\  Although split, fiber only crosses once.         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix D to Sec. 1926.1101 [Amended]

    9. Appendix D to Sec. 1926.1101 is revised to read as follows:

    This mandatory appendix contains the medical questionnaires that 
must be administered to all employees who are exposed to asbestos 
above the permissible exposure limit, and who will therefore be 
included in their employer's medical surveillance program.* * *

    10. Appendix F to Sec. 1926.1101 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix F to Sec. 1926.1101. Work Practices and Engineering 
Controls for Class I Asbestos Operations.--Non-mandatory

    This is a non-mandatory appendix to the asbestos standards for 
construction and for shipyards. It describes criteria and procedures 
for erecting and using negative pressure enclosures for Class I 
Asbestos Work, when NPEs are used as an allowable control method to 
comply with paragraph (g)(5)(i) of this section. Many small and 
variable details are involved in the erection of a negative pressure 
enclosure. OSHA and most participants in the rulemaking agreed that 
only the major, more performance oriented criteria should be made 
mandatory. These criteria are set out in paragraph (g) of this 
section. In addition, this appendix includes these mandatory 
specifications and procedures in its guidelines in order to make 
this appendix coherent and helpful. The mandatory nature of the 
criteria which appear in the regulatory text is not changed because 
they are included in this ``non-mandatory'' appendix. Similarly, the 
additional criteria and procedures included as guidelines in the 
appendix, do not become mandatory because mandatory criteria are 
also included in these comprehensive guidelines.
    In addition, none of the criteria, both mandatory and 
recommended, are meant to specify or imply the need for use of 
patented or licensed methods or equipment. Recommended 
specifications included in this attachment should not discourage the 
use of creative alternatives which can be shown to reliably achieve 
the objectives of negative-pressure enclosures.
    Requirements included in this appendix, cover general provisions 
to be followed in all asbestos jobs, provisions which must be 
followed for all Class I asbestos jobs, and provisions governing the 
construction and testing of negative pressure enclosures. The first 
category includes the requirement for use of wet methods, HEPA 
vacuums, and immediate bagging of waste; Class I work must conform 
to the following provisions:
     oversight by competent person
     use of critical barriers over all openings to work area
     isolation of HVAC systems
     use of impermeable dropcloths and coverage of all 
objects within regulated areas
    In addition, more specific requirements for NPEs include:
     maintenance of -0.02 inches water gauge within 
enclosure
     manometric measurements
     air movement away from employees performing removal 
work
     smoke testing or equivalent for detection of leaks and 
air direction
     deactivation of electrical circuits, if not provided 
with ground-fault circuit interrupters.

Planning the Project

    The standard requires that an exposure assessment be conducted 
before the asbestos job is begun [Sec. 1926.1101 (f)(1)]. 
Information needed for that assessment, includes data relating to 
prior similar jobs, as applied to the specific variables of the 
current job. The information needed to conduct the assessment will 
be useful in planning the project, and in complying with any 
reporting requirements under this standard, when significant changes 
are being made to a control system listed in the standard, [see also 
those of USEPA (40 CFR 61, subpart M). Thus, although the standard 
does not explicitly require the preparation of a written asbestos 
removal plan, the usual constituents of such a plan, i.e., a 
description of the enclosure, the equipment, and the procedures to 
be used throughout the project, must be determined before the 
enclosure can be erected. The following information should be 
included in the planning of the system:

A physical description of the work area;
A description of the approximate amount of material to be removed;
A schedule for turning off and sealing existing ventilation systems;
Personnel hygiene procedures;
A description of personal protective equipment and clothing to be 
worn by employees;
A description of the local exhaust ventilation systems to be used 
and how they are to be tested;
A description of work practices to be observed by employees;
An air monitoring plan;
A description of the method to be used to transport waste material; 
and
The location of the dump site.

Materials and Equipment Necessary for Asbestos Removal

    Although individual asbestos removal projects vary in terms of 
the equipment required to accomplish the removal of the materials, 
some equipment and materials are common to most asbestos removal 
operations.
    Plastic sheeting used to protect horizontal surfaces, seal HVAC 
openings or to seal vertical openings and ceilings should have a 
minimum thickness of 6 mils. Tape or other adhesive used to attach 
plastic sheeting should be of sufficient adhesive strength to 
support the weight of the material plus all stresses encountered 
during the entire duration of the project without becoming detached 
from the surface.
    Other equipment and materials which should be available at the 
beginning of each project are:

--HEPA Filtered Vacuum is essential for cleaning the work area after 
the asbestos has been removed. It should have a long hose capable of 
reaching out-of-the-way places, such as areas above ceiling tiles, 
behind pipes, etc.
--Portable air ventilation systems installed to provide the negative 
air pressure and air removal from the enclosure must be equipped 
with a HEPA filter. The number and capacity of units required to 
ventilate an enclosure depend on the size of the area to be 
ventilated. The filters for these systems should be designed in such 
a manner that they can be replaced when the air flow volume is 
reduced by the build-up of dust in the filtration material. Pressure 
monitoring devices with alarms and strip chart recorders attached to 
each system to indicate the pressure differential and the loss due 
to dust buildup on the filter are recommended.
--Water sprayers should be used to keep the asbestos material as 
saturated as possible during removal; the sprayers will provide a 
fine mist that minimizes the impact of the spray on the material.
--Water used to saturate the asbestos containing material can be 
amended by adding at least 15 milliliters (\1/4\ ounce) of wetting 
agent in 1 liter (1 pint) of water. An example of a wetting agent is 
a 50/50 mixture of polyoxyethylene ether and polyoxyethylene 
polyglycol ester.
--Backup power supplies are recommended, especially for ventilation 
systems.
--Shower and bath water should be with mixed hot and cold water 
faucets. Water that has been used to clean personnel or equipment 
should either be filtered or be collected and discarded as asbestos 
waste. Soap and shampoo should be provided to aid in removing dust 
from the workers' skin and hair.
--See paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section for appropriate 
respiratory protection and protective clothing.
--See paragraph (k) of this section for required signs and labels.

Preparing the Work Area

    Disabling HVAC Systems: The power to the heating, ventilation, 
and air conditioning systems that service the restricted area must 
be deactivated and locked off. All ducts, grills, access ports, 
windows and vents must be sealed off with two layers of plastic to 
prevent entrainment of contaminated air.
    Operating HVAC Systems in the Restricted Area: If components of 
a HVAC system located in the restricted area are connected to a 
system that will service another zone during the project, the 
portion of the duct in the restricted area must be sealed and 
pressurized. Necessary precautions include caulking the duct joints, 
covering all cracks and openings with two layers of sheeting, and 
pressurizing the duct throughout the duration of the project by 
restricting the return air flow. The power to the fan supplying the 
positive pressure should be locked ``on'' to prevent pressure loss.
    Sealing Elevators: If an elevator shaft is located in the 
restricted area, it should be either shut down or isolated by 
sealing with two layers of plastic sheeting. The sheeting should 
provide enough slack to accommodate the pressure changes in the 
shaft without breaking the air-tight seal.
    Removing Mobile Objects: All movable objects should be cleaned 
and removed from the work area before an enclosure is constructed 
unless moving the objects creates a hazard. Mobile objects will be 
assumed to be contaminated and should be either cleaned with amended 
water and a HEPA vacuum and then removed from the area or wrapped 
and then disposed of as hazardous waste.
    Cleaning and Sealing Surfaces: After cleaning with water and a 
HEPA vacuum, surfaces of stationary objects should be covered with 
two layers of plastic sheeting. The sheeting should be secured with 
duct tape or an equivalent method to provide a tight seal around the 
object.
    Bagging Waste: In addition to the requirement for immediate 
bagging of waste for disposal, it is further recommended that the 
waste material be double-bagged and sealed in plastic bags designed 
for asbestos disposal. The bags should be stored in a waste storage 
area that can be controlled by the workers conducting the removal. 
Filters removed from air handling units and rubbish removed from the 
area are to be bagged and handled as hazardous waste.

Constructing the Enclosure

    The enclosure should be constructed to provide an air-tight seal 
around ducts and openings into existing ventilation systems and 
around penetrations for electrical conduits, telephone wires, water 
lines, drain pipes, etc. Enclosures should be both airtight and 
watertight except for those openings designed to provide entry and/
or air flow control.
    Size: An enclosure should be the minimum volume to encompass all 
of the working surfaces yet allow unencumbered movement by the 
worker(s), provide unrestricted air flow past the worker(s), and 
ensure walking surfaces can be kept free of tripping hazards.
    Shape: The enclosure may be any shape that optimizes the flow of 
ventilation air past the worker(s).
    Structural Integrity: The walls, ceilings and floors must be 
supported in such a manner that portions of the enclosure will not 
fall down during normal use.
    Openings: It is not necessary that the structure be airtight; 
openings may be designed to direct air flow. Such openings should be 
located at a distance from active removal operations. They should be 
designed to draw air into the enclosure under all anticipated 
circumstances. In the event that negative pressure is lost, they 
should be fitted with either HEPA filters to trap dust or automatic 
trap doors that prevent dust from escaping the enclosure. Openings 
for exits should be controlled by an airlock or a vestibule.
    Barrier Supports: Frames should be constructed to support all 
unsupported spans of sheeting.
    Sheeting: Walls, barriers, ceilings, and floors should be lined 
with two layers of plastic sheeting having a thickness of at least 6 
mil.
    Seams: Seams in the sheeting material should be minimized to 
reduce the possibilities of accidental rips and tears in the 
adhesive or connections. All seams in the sheeting should overlap, 
be staggered and not be located at corners or wall-to-floor joints. 
Areas Within an Enclosure: Each enclosure consists of a work area, a 
decontamination area, and waste storage area. The work area where 
the asbestos removal operations occur should be separated from both 
the waste storage area and the contamination control area by 
physical curtains, doors, and/or airflow patterns that force any 
airborne contamination back into the work area.
    See paragraph (j) of this section for requirements for hygiene 
facilities.
    During egress from the work area, each worker should step into 
the equipment room, clean tools and equipment, and remove gross 
contamination from clothing by wet cleaning and HEPA vacuuming. 
Before entering the shower area, foot coverings, head coverings, 
hand coverings, and coveralls are removed and placed in impervious 
bags for disposal or cleaning. Airline connections from airline 
respirators with HEPA disconnects and power cables from powered air-
purifying respirators (PAPRs) will be disconnected just prior to 
entering the shower room.

Establishing Negative Pressure Within the Enclosure

    Negative Pressure: Air is to be drawn into the enclosure under 
all anticipated conditions and exhausted through a HEPA filter for 
24 hours a day during the entire duration of the project.
    Air Flow Tests: Air flow patterns will be checked before removal 
operations begin, at least once per operating shift and any time 
there is a question regarding the integrity of the enclosure. The 
primary test for air flow is to trace air currents with smoke tubes 
or other visual methods. Flow checks are made at each opening and at 
each doorway to demonstrate that air is being drawn into the 
enclosure and at each worker's position to show that air is being 
drawn away from the breathing zone.
    Monitoring Pressure Within the Enclosure: After the initial air 
flow patterns have been checked, the static pressure must be 
monitored within the enclosure. Monitoring may be made using 
manometers, pressure gauges, or combinations of these devices. It is 
recommended that they be attached to alarms and strip chart 
recorders at points identified by the design engineer.
    Corrective Actions: If the manometers or pressure gauges 
demonstrate a reduction in pressure differential below the required 
level, work should cease and the reason for the change investigated 
and appropriate changes made. The air flow patterns should be 
retested before work begins again.
    Pressure Differential: The design parameters for static pressure 
differentials between the inside and outside of enclosures typically 
range from 0.02 to 0.10 inches of water gauge, depending on 
conditions. All zones inside the enclosure must have less pressure 
than the ambient pressure outside of the enclosure (-0.02 inches 
water gauge differential). Design specifications for the 
differential vary according to the size, configuration, and shape of 
the enclosure as well as ambient and mechanical air pressure 
conditions around the enclosure.
    Air Flow Patterns: The flow of air past each worker shall be 
enhanced by positioning the intakes and exhaust ports to remove 
contaminated air from the worker's breathing zone, by positioning 
HEPA vacuum cleaners to draw air from the worker's breathing zone, 
by forcing relatively uncontaminated air past the worker toward an 
exhaust port, or by using a combination of methods to reduce the 
worker's exposure.
    Air Handling Unit Exhaust: The exhaust plume from air handling 
units should be located away from adjacent personnel and intakes for 
HVAC systems.
    Air Flow Volume: The air flow volume (cubic meters per minute) 
exhausted (removed) from the workplace must exceed the amount of 
makeup air supplied to the enclosure. The rate of air exhausted from 
the enclosure should be designed to maintain a negative pressure in 
the enclosure and air movement past each worker. The volume of air 
flow removed from the enclosure should replace the volume of the 
container at every 5 to 15 minutes. Air flow volume will need to be 
relatively high for large enclosures, enclosures with awkward 
shapes, enclosures with multiple openings, and operations employing 
several workers in the enclosure.
    Air Flow Velocity: At each opening, the air flow velocity must 
visibly ``drag'' air into the enclosure. The velocity of air flow 
within the enclosure must be adequate to remove airborne 
contamination from each worker's breathing zone without disturbing 
the asbestos-containing material on surfaces.
    Airlocks: Airlocks are mechanisms on doors and curtains that 
control the air flow patterns in the doorways. If air flow occurs, 
the patterns through doorways must be such that the air flows toward 
the inside of the enclosure. Sometimes vestibules, double doors, or 
double curtains are used to prevent air movement through the 
doorways. To use a vestibule, a worker enters a chamber by opening 
the door or curtain and then closing the entry before opening the 
exit door or curtain.
    Airlocks should be located between the equipment room and shower 
room, between the shower room and the clean room, and between the 
waste storage area and the outside of the enclosure. The air flow 
between adjacent rooms must be checked using smoke tubes or other 
visual tests to ensure the flow patterns draw air toward the work 
area without producing eddies.

Monitoring for Airborne Concentrations

    In addition to the breathing zone samples taken as outlined in 
paragraph (f) of this section, samples of air should be taken to 
demonstrate the integrity of the enclosure, the cleanliness of the 
clean room and shower area, and the effectiveness of the HEPA 
filter. If the clean room is shown to be contaminated, the room must 
be relocated to an uncontaminated area.
    Samples taken near the exhaust of portable ventilation systems 
must be done with care.

General Work Practices

    Preventing dust dispersion is the primary means of controlling 
the spread of asbestos within the enclosure. Whenever practical, the 
point of removal should be isolated, enclosed, covered, or shielded 
from the workers in the area. Waste asbestos containing materials 
must be bagged during or immediately after removal; the material 
must remain saturated until the waste container is sealed.
    Waste material with sharp points or corners must be placed in 
hard air-tight containers rather than bags.
    Whenever possible, large components should be sealed in plastic 
sheeting and removed intact.
    Bags or containers of waste will be moved to the waste holding 
area, washed, and wrapped in a bag with the appropriate labels.

Cleaning the Work Area

    Surfaces within the work area should be kept free of visible 
dust and debris to the extent feasible. Whenever visible dust 
appears on surfaces, the surfaces within the enclosure must be 
cleaned by wiping with a wet sponge, brush, or cloth and then 
vacuumed with a HEPA vacuum.
    All surfaces within the enclosure should be cleaned before the 
exhaust ventilation system is deactivated and the enclosure is 
disassembled. An approved encapsulate may be sprayed onto areas 
after the visible dust has been removed.

    11. Appendix G to Sec. 1926.1101 is removed and reserved.
    12. Appendix H of Sec. 1926.1101 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix H to Sec. 1915.1001--Substance Technical Information for 
Asbestos. Non-Mandatory

I. Substance Identification

    A. Substance: ``Asbestos'' is the name of a class of magnesium-
silicate minerals that occur in fibrous form. Minerals that are 
included in this group are chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, 
anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, and actinolite asbestos.
    B. Asbestos is and was used in the manufacture of heat-resistant 
clothing, automotive brake and clutch linings, and a variety of 
building materials including floor tiles, roofing felts, ceiling 
tiles, asbestos-cement pipe and sheet, and fire-resistant drywall. 
Asbestos is also present in pipe and boiler insulation materials and 
in sprayed-on materials located on beams, in crawlspaces, and 
between walls.
    C. The potential for an asbestos-containing product to release 
breathable fibers depends largely on its degree of friability. 
Friable means that the material can be crumbled with hand pressure 
and is therefore likely to emit fibers. The fibrous fluffy sprayed-
on materials used for fireproofing, insulation, or sound proofing 
are considered to be friable, and they readily release airborne 
fibers if disturbed. Materials such as vinyl-asbestos floor tile or 
roofing felt are considered non-friable if intact and generally do 
not emit airborne fibers unless subjected to sanding, sawing and 
other aggressive operations. Asbestos-cement pipe or sheet can emit 
airborne fibers if the materials are cut or sawed, or if they are 
broken.
    D. Permissible exposure: Exposure to airborne asbestos fibers 
may not exceed 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter of air (0.1 f/cc) 
averaged over the 8-hour workday, and 1 fiber per cubic centimeter 
of air (1.0 f/cc) averaged over a 30 minute work period.

II. Health Hazard Data

    A. Asbestos can cause disabling respiratory disease and various 
types of cancers if the fibers are inhaled. Inhaling or ingesting 
fibers from contaminated clothing or skin can also result in these 
diseases. The symptoms of these diseases generally do not appear for 
20 or more years after initial exposure.
    B. Exposure to asbestos has been shown to cause lung cancer, 
mesothelioma, and cancer of the stomach and colon. Mesothelioma is a 
rare cancer of the thin membrane lining of the chest and abdomen. 
Symptoms of mesothelioma include shortness of breath, pain in the 
walls of the chest, and/or abdominal pain.

III. Respirators and Protective Clothing

    A. Respirators: You are required to wear a respirator when 
performing tasks that result in asbestos exposure that exceeds the 
permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cc and when performing 
certain designated operations. Air-purifying respirators equipped 
with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter can be used 
where airborne asbestos fiber concentrations do not exceed 1.0 f/cc; 
otherwise, more protective respirators such as air-supplied, 
positive-pressure, full facepiece respirators must be used. 
Disposable respirators or dust masks are not permitted to be used 
for asbestos work. For effective protection, respirators must fit 
your face and head snugly. Your employer is required to conduct fit 
test when you are first assigned a respirator and every 6 months 
thereafter. Respirators should not be loosened or removed in work 
situations where their use is required.
    B. Protective Clothing: You are required to wear protective 
clothing in work areas where asbestos fiber concentrations exceed 
the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cc.

IV. Disposal Procedures and Clean-up

    A. Wastes that are generated by processes where asbestos is 
present include:
    1. Empty asbestos shipping containers.
    2. Process wastes such as cuttings, trimmings, or reject 
materials.
    3. Housekeeping waste from wet-sweeping or HEPA-vacuuming.
    4. Asbestos fireproofing or insulating material that is removed 
from buildings.
    5. Asbestos-containing building products removed during building 
renovation or demolition.
    6. Contaminated disposable protective clothing.
    B. Empty shipping bags can be flattened under exhaust hoods and 
packed into airtight containers for disposal. Empty shipping drums 
are difficult to clean and should be sealed.
    C. Vacuum bags or disposable paper filters should not be 
cleaned, but should be sprayed with a fine water mist and placed 
into a labeled waste container.
    D. Process waste and housekeeping waste should be wetted with 
water or a mixture of water and surfactant prior to packaging in 
disposable containers.
    E. Asbestos-containing material that if removed from buildings 
must be disposed of in leak-tight 6-mil plastic bags, plastic-lined 
cardboard containers, or plastic-lined metal containers. These 
wastes, which are removed while wet, should be sealed in containers 
before they dry out to minimize the release of asbestos fibers 
during handling.

V. Access to Information

    A. Each year, your employer is required to inform you of the 
information contained in this standard and appendices for asbestos. 
In addition, your employer must instruct you in the proper work 
practices for handling asbestos-containing materials, and the 
correct use of protective equipment.
    B. Your employer is required to determine whether you are being 
exposed to asbestos. Your employer must treat exposure to thermal 
system insulation and sprayed-on and trowled-on surfacing material 
as asbestos exposure, unless results of laboratory analysis show 
that the material does not contain asbestos. You or your 
representative has the right to observe employee measurements and to 
record the results obtained. Your employer is required to inform you 
of your exposure, and, if you are exposed above the permissible 
exposure limit, he or she is required to inform you of the actions 
that are being taken to reduce your exposure to within the 
permissible limit.
    C. Your employer is required to keep records of your exposures 
and medical examinations. These exposure records must be kept for at 
least thirty (30) years. Medical records must be kept for the period 
of your employment plus thirty (30) years.
    D. Your employer is required to release your exposure and 
medical records to your physician or designated representative upon 
your written request.

Appendix I of 1926.1101 [Amended]

    13. Appendix I of Sec. 1926.1101 is amended by revising the first 
sentence of the second paragraph of section IV. entitled Surveillance 
and Preventive Consideration to read as follows:
* * * * *
    The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance 
program for all employees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at 
or above the permissible exposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air). * * *
* * * * *
    14. Appendix K to Sec. 1926.1101 is added to read as follows:

Appendix K to Sec. 1926.1101--Polarized Light Microscopy of 
Asbestos (Non-Mandatory)

Method number:
    ID-191
Matrix: Bulk
Collection Procedure:
    Collect approximately 1 to 2 grams of each type of material and 
place into separate 20 mL scintillation vials.
Analytical Procedure:
    A portion of each separate phase is analyzed by gross 
examination, phase-polar examination, and central stop dispersion 
microscopy.

    Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method 
are for descriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by 
USDOL-OSHA. Similar products from other sources may be substituted.

1. Introduction

    This method describes the collection and analysis of asbestos 
bulk materials by light microscopy techniques including phase- polar 
illumination and central-stop dispersion microscopy. Some terms 
unique to asbestos analysis are defined below:
    Amphibole: A family of minerals whose crystals are formed by 
long, thin units which have two thin ribbons of double chain 
silicate with a brucite ribbon in between. The shape of each unit is 
similar to an ``I beam''. Minerals important in asbestos analysis 
include cummingtonite-grunerite, crocidolite, tremolite-actinolite 
and anthophyllite.
    Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. 
Asbestos includes chrysotile, cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos 
(amosite), anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, crocidolite, 
actinolite asbestos and any of these minerals which have been 
chemically treated or altered. The precise chemical formulation of 
each species varies with the location from which it was mined. 
Nominal compositions are listed:

Chrysotile
Mg3Si2O5(OH)4
Crocidolite (Riebeckite asbestos)
Na2Fe2+3Fe3+2Si8O22(OH)2
Cummingtonite-Grunerite asbestos (Amosite)
(Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2
Tremolite-Actinolite asbestos
Ca2(Mg,Fe)5Si8O22(OH)2
Anthophyllite asbestos
(Mg,Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2

    Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos meeting the criteria for a 
fiber. (See section 3.5. of this Appendix)
    Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to its diameter 
usually defined as ``length : width'', e.g. 3:1.
    Brucite: A sheet mineral with the composition Mg(OH)2.
    Central Stop Dispersion Staining (microscope): This is a dark 
field microscope technique that images particles using only light 
refracted by the particle, excluding light that travels through the 
particle unrefracted. This is usually accomplished with a McCrone 
objective or other arrangement which places a circular stop with 
apparent aperture equal to the objective aperture in the back focal 
plane of the microscope.
    Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by the comminution 
of minerals, especially those characterized by relatively parallel 
sides and moderate aspect ratio.
    Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of 
excluding certain kinds of fibers from a phase contrast asbestos 
count because they are not asbestos.
    Fiber: A particle longer than or equal to 5 m with a 
length to width ratio greater than or equal to 3:1. This may include 
cleavage fragments. (see section 3.5 of this appendix).
    Phase Contrast: Contrast obtained in the microscope by causing 
light scattered by small particles to destructively interfere with 
unscattered light, thereby enhancing the visibility of very small 
particles and particles with very low intrinsic contrast.
    Phase Contrast Microscope: A microscope configured with a phase 
mask pair to create phase contrast. The technique which uses this is 
called Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM).
    Phase-Polar Analysis: This is the use of polarized light in a 
phase contrast microscope. It is used to see the same size fibers 
that are visible in air filter analysis. Although fibers finer than 
1 m are visible, analysis of these is inferred from 
analysis of larger bundles that are usually present.
    Phase-Polar Microscope: The phase-polar microscope is a phase 
contrast microscope which has an analyzer, a polarizer, a first 
order red plate and a rotating phase condenser all in place so that 
the polarized light image is enhanced by phase contrast.
    Sealing Encapsulant: This is a product which can be applied, 
preferably by spraying, onto an asbestos surface which will seal the 
surface so that fibers cannot be released.
    Serpentine: A mineral family consisting of minerals with the 
general composition Mg3(Si2O5(OH)4 having the 
magnesium in brucite layer over a silicate layer. Minerals important 
in asbestos analysis included in this family are chrysotile, 
lizardite, antigorite.

1.1. History

    Light microscopy has been used for well over 100 years for the 
determination of mineral species. This analysis is carried out using 
specialized polarizing microscopes as well as bright field 
microscopes. The identification of minerals is an on-going process 
with many new minerals described each year. The first recorded use 
of asbestos was in Finland about 2500 B.C. where the material was 
used in the mud wattle for the wooden huts the people lived in as 
well as strengthening for pottery. Adverse health aspects of the 
mineral were noted nearly 2000 years ago when Pliny the Younger 
wrote about the poor health of slaves in the asbestos mines. 
Although known to be injurious for centuries, the first modern 
references to its toxicity were by the British Labor Inspectorate 
when it banned asbestos dust from the workplace in 1898. Asbestosis 
cases were described in the literature after the turn of the 
century. Cancer was first suspected in the mid 1930's and a causal 
link to mesothelioma was made in 1965. Because of the public concern 
for worker and public safety with the use of this material, several 
different types of analysis were applied to the determination of 
asbestos content. Light microscopy requires a great deal of 
experience and craft. Attempts were made to apply less subjective 
methods to the analysis. X-ray diffraction was partially successful 
in determining the mineral types but was unable to separate out the 
fibrous portions from the non-fibrous portions. Also, the minimum 
detection limit for asbestos analysis by X-ray diffraction (XRD) is 
about 1%. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) was no more 
successful. These provide useful corroborating information when the 
presence of asbestos has been shown by microscopy; however, neither 
can determine the difference between fibrous and non-fibrous 
minerals when both habits are present. The same is true of Infrared 
Absorption (IR).
    When electron microscopy was applied to asbestos analysis, 
hundreds of fibers were discovered present too small to be visible 
in any light microscope. There are two different types of electron 
microscope used for asbestos analysis: Scanning Electron Microscope 
(SEM) and Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM). Scanning Electron 
Microscopy is useful in identifying minerals. The SEM can provide 
two of the three pieces of information required to identify fibers 
by electron microscopy: morphology and chemistry. The third is 
structure as determined by Selected Area Electron Diffraction--SAED 
which is performed in the TEM. Although the resolution of the SEM is 
sufficient for very fine fibers to be seen, accuracy of chemical 
analysis that can be performed on the fibers varies with fiber 
diameter in fibers of less than 0.2 m diameter. The TEM is 
a powerful tool to identify fibers too small to be resolved by light 
microscopy and should be used in conjunction with this method when 
necessary. The TEM can provide all three pieces of information 
required for fiber identification. Most fibers thicker than 1 
m can adequately be defined in the light microscope. The 
light microscope remains as the best instrument for the 
determination of mineral type. This is because the minerals under 
investigation were first described analytically with the light 
microscope. It is inexpensive and gives positive identification for 
most samples analyzed. Further, when optical techniques are 
inadequate, there is ample indication that alternative techniques 
should be used for complete identification of the sample.

1.2. Principle

    Minerals consist of atoms that may be arranged in random order 
or in a regular arrangement. Amorphous materials have atoms in 
random order while crystalline materials have long range order. Many 
materials are transparent to light, at least for small particles or 
for thin sections. The properties of these materials can be 
investigated by the effect that the material has on light passing 
through it. The six asbestos minerals are all crystalline with 
particular properties that have been identified and cataloged. These 
six minerals are anisotropic. They have a regular array of atoms, 
but the arrangement is not the same in all directions. Each major 
direction of the crystal presents a different regularity. Light 
photons travelling in each of these main directions will encounter 
different electrical neighborhoods, affecting the path and time of 
travel. The techniques outlined in this method use the fact that 
light traveling through fibers or crystals in different directions 
will behave differently, but predictably. The behavior of the light 
as it travels through a crystal can be measured and compared with 
known or determined values to identify the mineral species. Usually, 
Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) is performed with strain-free 
objectives on a bright-field microscope platform. This would limit 
the resolution of the microscope to about 0.4 m. Because 
OSHA requires the counting and identification of fibers visible in 
phase contrast, the phase contrast platform is used to visualize the 
fibers with the polarizing elements added into the light path. 
Polarized light methods cannot identify fibers finer than about 
1m in diameter even though they are visible. The finest 
fibers are usually identified by inference from the presence of 
larger, identifiable fiber bundles. When fibers are present, but not 
identifiable by light microscopy, use either SEM or TEM to determine 
the fiber identity.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

    The advantages of light microcopy are:
    (a) Basic identification of the materials was first performed by 
light microscopy and gross analysis. This provides a large base of 
published information against which to check analysis and analytical 
technique.
    (b) The analysis is specific to fibers. The minerals present can 
exist in asbestiform, fibrous, prismatic, or massive varieties all 
at the same time. Therefore, bulk methods of analysis such as X-ray 
diffraction, IR analysis, DTA, etc. are inappropriate where the 
material is not known to be fibrous.
    (c) The analysis is quick, requires little preparation time, and 
can be performed on-site if a suitably equipped microscope is 
available.
    The disadvantages are:
    (a) Even using phase-polar illumination, not all the fibers 
present may be seen. This is a problem for very low asbestos 
concentrations where agglomerations or large bundles of fibers may 
not be present to allow identification by inference.
    (b) The method requires a great degree of sophistication on the 
part of the microscopist. An analyst is only as useful as his mental 
catalog of images. Therefore, a microscopist's accuracy is enhanced 
by experience. The mineralogical training of the analyst is very 
important. It is the basis on which subjective decisions are made.
    (c) The method uses only a tiny amount of material for analysis. 
This may lead to sampling bias and false results (high or low). This 
is especially true if the sample is severely inhomogeneous.
    (d) Fibers may be bound in a matrix and not distinguishable as 
fibers so identification cannot be made.

1.4. Method Performance

    1.4.1. This method can be used for determination of asbestos 
content from 0 to 100% asbestos. The detection limit has not been 
adequately determined, although for selected samples, the limit is 
very low, depending on the number of particles examined. For mostly 
homogeneous, finely divided samples, with no difficult fibrous 
interferences, the detection limit is below 1%. For inhomogeneous 
samples (most samples), the detection limit remains undefined. NIST 
has conducted proficiency testing of laboratories on a national 
scale. Although each round is reported statistically with an 
average, control limits, etc., the results indicate a difficulty in 
establishing precision especially in the low concentration range. It 
is suspected that there is significant bias in the low range 
especially near 1%. EPA tried to remedy this by requiring a 
mandatory point counting scheme for samples less than 10%. The point 
counting procedure is tedious, and may introduce significant biases 
of its own. It has not been incorporated into this method.
    1.4.2. The precision and accuracy of the quantitation tests 
performed in this method are unknown. Concentrations are easier to 
determine in commercial products where asbestos was deliberately 
added because the amount is usually more than a few percent. An 
analyst's results can be ``calibrated'' against the known amounts 
added by the manufacturer. For geological samples, the degree of 
homogeneity affects the precision.
    1.4.3. The performance of the method is analyst dependent. The 
analyst must choose carefully and not necessarily randomly the 
portions for analysis to assure that detection of asbestos occurs 
when it is present. For this reason, the analyst must have adequate 
training in sample preparation, and experience in the location and 
identification of asbestos in samples. This is usually accomplished 
through substantial on-the-job training as well as formal education 
in mineralogy and microscopy.

1.5. Interferences

    Any material which is long, thin, and small enough to be viewed 
under the microscope can be considered an interference for asbestos. 
There are literally hundreds of interferences in workplaces. The 
techniques described in this method are normally sufficient to 
eliminate the interferences. An analyst's success in eliminating the 
interferences depends on proper training.
    Asbestos minerals belong to two mineral families: the 
serpentines and the amphiboles. In the serpentine family, the only 
common fibrous mineral is chrysotile. Occasionally, the mineral 
antigorite occurs in a fibril habit with morphology similar to the 
amphiboles. The amphibole minerals consist of a score of different 
minerals of which only five are regulated by federal standard: 
amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos and 
actinolite asbestos. These are the only amphibole minerals that have 
been commercially exploited for their fibrous properties; however, 
the rest can and do occur occasionally in asbestiform habit.
    In addition to the related mineral interferences, other minerals 
common in building material may present a problem for some 
microscopists: gypsum, anhydrite, brucite, quartz fibers, talc 
fibers or ribbons, wollastonite, perlite, attapulgite, etc. Other 
fibrous materials commonly present in workplaces are: fiberglass, 
mineral wool, ceramic wool, refractory ceramic fibers, kevlar, 
nomex, synthetic fibers, graphite or carbon fibers, cellulose (paper 
or wood) fibers, metal fibers, etc.
    Matrix embedding material can sometimes be a negative 
interference. The analyst may not be able to easily extract the 
fibers from the matrix in order to use the method. Where possible, 
remove the matrix before the analysis, taking careful note of the 
loss of weight. Some common matrix materials are: vinyl, rubber, 
tar, paint, plant fiber, cement, and epoxy. A further negative 
interference is that the asbestos fibers themselves may be either 
too small to be seen in Phase contrast Microscopy (PCM) or of a very 
low fibrous quality, having the appearance of plant fibers. The 
analyst's ability to deal with these materials increases with 
experience.

1.6. Uses and Occupational Exposure

    Asbestos is ubiquitous in the environment. More than 40% of the 
land area of the United States is composed of minerals which may 
contain asbestos. Fortunately, the actual formation of great amounts 
of asbestos is relatively rare. Nonetheless, there are locations in 
which environmental exposure can be severe such as in the Serpentine 
Hills of California.
    There are thousands of uses for asbestos in industry and the 
home. Asbestos abatement workers are the most current segment of the 
population to have occupational exposure to great amounts of 
asbestos. If the material is undisturbed, there is no exposure. 
Exposure occurs when the asbestos-containing material is abraded or 
otherwise disturbed during maintenance operations or some other 
activity. Approximately 95% of the asbestos in place in the United 
States is chrysotile.
    Amosite and crocidolite make up nearly all the difference. 
Tremolite and anthophyllite make up a very small percentage. 
Tremolite is found in extremely small amounts in certain chrysotile 
deposits. Actinolite exposure is probably greatest from 
environmental sources, but has been identified in vermiculite 
containing, sprayed-on insulating materials which may have been 
certified as asbestos-free.

1.7. Physical and Chemical Properties

    The nominal chemical compositions for the asbestos minerals were 
given in Section 1. Compared to cleavage fragments of the same 
minerals, asbestiform fibers possess a high tensile strength along 
the fiber axis. They are chemically inert, non-combustible, and heat 
resistant. Except for chrysotile, they are insoluble in Hydrochloric 
acid (HCl). Chrysotile is slightly soluble in HCl. Asbestos has high 
electrical resistance and good sound absorbing characteristics. It 
can be woven into cables, fabrics or other textiles, or matted into 
papers, felts, and mats.

1.8. Toxicology (This Section is for Information Only and Should Not Be 
Taken as OSHA Policy)

    Possible physiologic results of respiratory exposure to asbestos 
are mesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum, interstitial fibrosis, 
asbestosis, pneumoconiosis, or respiratory cancer. The possible 
consequences of asbestos exposure are detailed in the NIOSH Criteria 
Document or in the OSHA Asbestos Standards 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 
CFR 1926.1101.

2. Sampling Procedure

2.1. Equipment for sampling

    (a) Tube or cork borer sampling device
    (b) Knife
    (c) 20 mL scintillation vial or similar vial
    (d) Sealing encapsulant

2.2. Safety Precautions

    Asbestos is a known carcinogen. Take care when sampling. While 
in an asbestos-containing atmosphere, a properly selected and fit-
tested respirator should be worn. Take samples in a manner to cause 
the least amount of dust. Follow these general guidelines:
    (a) Do not make unnecessary dust.
    (b) Take only a small amount (1 to 2 g).
    (c) Tightly close the sample container.
    (d) Use encapsulant to seal the spot where the sample was taken, 
if necessary.

2.3. Sampling Procedure

    Samples of any suspect material should be taken from an 
inconspicuous place. Where the material is to remain, seal the 
sampling wound with an encapsulant to eliminate the potential for 
exposure from the sample site. Microscopy requires only a few 
milligrams of material. The amount that will fill a 20 mL 
scintillation vial is more than adequate. Be sure to collect samples 
from all layers and phases of material. If possible, make separate 
samples of each different phase of the material. This will aid in 
determining the actual hazard. DO NOT USE ENVELOPES, PLASTIC OR 
PAPER BAGS OF ANY KIND TO COLLECT SAMPLES. The use of plastic bags 
presents a contamination hazard to laboratory personnel and to other 
samples. When these containers are opened, a bellows effect blows 
fibers out of the container onto everything, including the person 
opening the container.
    If a cork-borer type sampler is available, push the tube through 
the material all the way, so that all layers of material are 
sampled. Some samplers are intended to be disposable. These should 
be capped and sent to the laboratory. If a non-disposable cork borer 
is used, empty the contents into a scintillation vial and send to 
the laboratory. Vigorously and completely clean the cork borer 
between samples.

2.4  Shipment

    Samples packed in glass vials must not touch or they might break 
in shipment.
    (a) Seal the samples with a sample seal (such as the OSHA 21) 
over the end to guard against tampering and to identify the sample.
    (b) Package the bulk samples in separate packages from the air 
samples. They may cross-contaminate each other and will invalidate 
the results of the air samples.
    (c) Include identifying paperwork with the samples, but not in 
contact with the suspected asbestos.
    (d) To maintain sample accountability, ship the samples by 
certified mail, overnight express, or hand carry them to the 
laboratory.

3. Analysis

    The analysis of asbestos samples can be divided into two major 
parts: sample preparation and microscopy. Because of the different 
asbestos uses that may be encountered by the analyst, each sample 
may need different preparation steps. The choices are outlined 
below. There are several different tests that are performed to 
identify the asbestos species and determine the percentage. They 
will be explained below.

3.1. Safety

    (a) Do not create unnecessary dust. Handle the samples in HEPA-
filter equipped hoods. If samples are received in bags, envelopes or 
other inappropriate container, open them only in a hood having a 
face velocity at or greater than 100 fpm. Transfer a small amount to 
a scintillation vial and only handle the smaller amount.
    (b) Open samples in a hood, never in the open lab area.
    (c) Index of refraction oils can be toxic. Take care not to get 
this material on the skin. Wash immediately with soap and water if 
this happens.
    (d) Samples that have been heated in the muffle furnace or the 
drying oven may be hot. Handle them with tongs until they are cool 
enough to handle.
    (e) Some of the solvents used, such as THF (tetrahydrofuran), 
are toxic and should only be handled in an appropriate fume hood and 
according to instructions given in the Material Safety Data Sheet 
(MSDS).

3.2. Equipment

    (a) Phase contrast microscope with 10x, 16x and 40x objectives, 
10x wide-field eyepieces, G-22 Walton-Beckett graticule, Whipple 
disk, polarizer, analyzer and first order red or gypsum plate, 100 
Watt illuminator, rotating position condenser with oversize phase 
rings, central stop dispersion objective, Kohler illumination and a 
rotating mechanical stage.
    (b) Stereo microscope with reflected light illumination, 
transmitted light illumination, polarizer, analyzer and first order 
red or gypsum plate, and rotating stage.
    (c) Negative pressure hood for the stereo microscope
    (d) Muffle furnace capable of 600 deg.C
    (e) Drying oven capable of 50--150 deg.C
    (f) Aluminum specimen pans
    (g) Tongs for handling samples in the furnace
    (h) High dispersion index of refraction oils (Special for 
dispersion staining.)

    n=1.550
    n=1.585
    n=1.590
    n=1.605
    n=1.620
    n=1.670
    n=1.680
    n=1.690

    (i) A set of index of refraction oils from about n=1.350 to 
n=2.000 in n=0.005 increments. (Standard for Becke line analysis.)
    (j) Glass slides with painted or frosted ends 1x3 inches 1mm 
(thick, precleaned.
    (k) Cover Slips 22x22 mm, #1\1/2\
    (l) Paper clips or dissection needles
    (m) Hand grinder
    (n) Scalpel with both #10 and #11 blades
    (o) 0.1 molar HCl
    (p) Decalcifying solution (Baxter Scientific Products) 
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid,

Tetrasodium
0.7 g/l
Sodium Potassium Tartrate
8.0 mg/liter
Hydrochloric Acid
99.2 g/liter
Sodium Tartrate
0.14 g/liter

    (q) Tetrahydrofuran (THF)
    (r) Hotplate capable of 60 deg.C
    (s) Balance
    (t) Hacksaw blade
    (u) Ruby mortar and pestle

3.3. Sample Pre-Preparation

    Sample preparation begins with pre-preparation which may include 
chemical reduction of the matrix, heating the sample to dryness or 
heating in the muffle furnace. The end result is a sample which has 
been reduced to a powder that is sufficiently fine to fit under the 
cover slip. Analyze different phases of samples separately, e.g., 
tile and the tile mastic should be analyzed separately as the mastic 
may contain asbestos while the tile may not.
    (a) Wet Samples
    Samples with a high water content will not give the proper 
dispersion colors and must be dried prior to sample mounting. Remove 
the lid of the scintillation vial, place the bottle in the drying 
oven and heat at 100 deg.C to dryness (usually about 2 h). Samples 
which are not submitted to the lab in glass must be removed and 
placed in glass vials or aluminum weighing pans before placing them 
in the drying oven.

(b) Samples With Organic Interference--Muffle Furnace

    These may include samples with tar as a matrix, vinyl asbestos 
tile, or any other organic that can be reduced by heating. Remove 
the sample from the vial and weigh in a balance to determine the 
weight of the submitted portion. Place the sample in a muffle 
furnace at 500 deg.C for 1 to 2 h or until all obvious organic 
material has been removed. Retrieve, cool and weigh again to 
determine the weight loss on ignition. This is necessary to 
determine the asbestos content of the submitted sample, because the 
analyst will be looking at a reduced sample.

    Note: Heating above 600 deg.C will cause the sample to undergo a 
structural change which, given sufficient time, will convert the 
chrysotile to forsterite. Heating even at lower temperatures for 1 
to 2 h may have a measurable effect on the optical properties of the 
minerals. If the analyst is unsure of what to expect, a sample of 
standard asbestos should be heated to the same temperature for the 
same length of time so that it can be examined for the proper 
interpretation.

(c) Samples With Organic Interference--THF

    Vinyl asbestos tile is the most common material treated with 
this solvent, although, substances containing tar will sometimes 
yield to this treatment. Select a portion of the material and then 
grind it up if possible. Weigh the sample and place it in a test 
tube. Add sufficient THF to dissolve the organic matrix. This is 
usually about 4 to 5 mL. Remember, THF is highly flammable. Filter 
the remaining material through a tared silver membrane, dry and 
weigh to determine how much is left after the solvent extraction. 
Further process the sample to remove carbonate or mount directly.

(d) Samples With Carbonate Interference

    Carbonate material is often found on fibers and sometimes must 
be removed in order to perform dispersion microscopy. Weigh out a 
portion of the material and place it in a test tube. Add a 
sufficient amount of 0.1 M HCl or decalcifying solution in the tube 
to react all the carbonate as evidenced by gas formation; i.e., when 
the gas bubbles stop, add a little more solution. If no more gas 
forms, the reaction is complete. Filter the material out through a 
tared silver membrane, dry and weigh to determine the weight lost.

3.4. Sample Preparation

    Samples must be prepared so that accurate determination can be 
made of the asbestos type and amount present. The following steps 
are carried out in the low-flow hood (a low-flow hood has less than 
50 fpm flow):
    (1) If the sample has large lumps, is hard, or cannot be made to 
lie under a cover slip, the grain size must be reduced. Place a 
small amount between two slides and grind the material between them 
or grind a small amount in a clean mortar and pestle. The choice of 
whether to use an alumina, ruby, or diamond mortar depends on the 
hardness of the material. Impact damage can alter the asbestos 
mineral if too much mechanical shock occurs. (Freezer mills can 
completely destroy the observable crystallinity of asbestos and 
should not be used). For some samples, a portion of material can be 
shaved off with a scalpel, ground off with a hand grinder or hack 
saw blade.
    The preparation tools should either be disposable or cleaned 
thoroughly. Use vigorous scrubbing to loosen the fibers during the 
washing. Rinse the implements with copious amounts of water and air-
dry in a dust-free environment.
    (2) If the sample is powder or has been reduced as in (1) above, 
it is ready to mount. Place a glass slide on a piece of optical 
tissue and write the identification on the painted or frosted end. 
Place two drops of index of refraction medium n=1.550 on the slide. 
(The medium n=1.550 is chosen because it is the matching index for 
chrysotile. Dip the end of a clean paper-clip or dissecting needle 
into the droplet of refraction medium on the slide to moisten it. 
Then dip the probe into the powder sample. Transfer what sticks on 
the probe to the slide. The material on the end of the probe should 
have a diameter of about 3 mm for a good mount. If the material is 
very fine, less sample may be appropriate. For non-powder samples 
such as fiber mats, forceps should be used to transfer a small 
amount of material to the slide. Stir the material in the medium on 
the slide, spreading it out and making the preparation as uniform as 
possible. Place a cover-slip on the preparation by gently lowering 
onto the slide and allowing it to fall ``trapdoor'' fashion on the 
preparation to push out any bubbles. Press gently on the cover slip 
to even out the distribution of particulate on the slide. If there 
is insufficient mounting oil on the slide, one or two drops may be 
placed near the edge of the coverslip on the slide. Capillary action 
will draw the necessary amount of liquid into the preparation. 
Remove excess oil with the point of a laboratory wiper.
    Treat at least two different areas of each phase in this 
fashion. Choose representative areas of the sample. It may be useful 
to select particular areas or fibers for analysis. This is useful to 
identify asbestos in severely inhomogeneous samples.
    When it is determined that amphiboles may be present, repeat the 
above process using the appropriate high-dispersion oils until an 
identification is made or all six asbestos minerals have been ruled 
out. Note that percent determination must be done in the index 
medium 1.550 because amphiboles tend to disappear in their matching 
mediums.

3.5. Analytical procedure

    Note: This method presumes some knowledge of mineralogy and 
optical petrography.

    The analysis consists of three parts: The determination of 
whether there is asbestos present, what type is present and the 
determination of how much is present. The general flow of the 
analysis is:
    (1) Gross examination.
    (2) Examination under polarized light on the stereo microscope.
    (3) Examination by phase-polar illumination on the compound 
phase microscope.
    (4) Determination of species by dispersion stain. Examination by 
Becke line analysis may also be used; however, this is usually more 
cumbersome for asbestos determination.
    (5) Difficult samples may need to be analyzed by SEM or TEM, or 
the results from those techniques combined with light microscopy for 
a definitive identification.
    Identification of a particle as asbestos requires that it be 
asbestiform. Description of particles should follow the suggestion 
of Campbell. (Figure 1)

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
TR10AU94.026



BILLING CODE 4510-26-C
    For the purpose of regulation, the mineral must be one of the 
six minerals covered and must be in the asbestos growth habit. Large 
specimen samples of asbestos generally have the gross appearance of 
wood. Fibers are easily parted from it. Asbestos fibers are very 
long compared with their widths. The fibers have a very high tensile 
strength as demonstrated by bending without breaking. Asbestos 
fibers exist in bundles that are easily parted, show longitudinal 
fine structure and may be tufted at the ends showing ``bundle of 
sticks'' morphology. In the microscope some of these properties may 
not be observable. Amphiboles do not always show striations along 
their length even when they are asbestos. Neither will they always 
show tufting. They generally do not show a curved nature except for 
very long fibers. Asbestos and asbestiform minerals are usually 
characterized in groups by extremely high aspect ratios (greater 
than 100:1). While aspect ratio analysis is useful for 
characterizing populations of fibers, it cannot be used to identify 
individual fibers of intermediate to short aspect ratio. Observation 
of many fibers is often necessary to determine whether a sample 
consists of ``cleavage fragments'' or of asbestos fibers.
    Most cleavage fragments of the asbestos minerals are easily 
distinguishable from true asbestos fibers. This is because true 
cleavage fragments usually have larger diameters than 1 m. 
Internal structure of particles larger than this usually shows them 
to have no internal fibrillar structure. In addition, cleavage 
fragments of the monoclinic amphiboles show inclined extinction 
under crossed polars with no compensator. Asbestos fibers usually 
show extinction at zero degrees or ambiguous extinction if any at 
all. Morphologically, the larger cleavage fragments are obvious by 
their blunt or stepped ends showing prismatic habit. Also, they tend 
to be acicular rather than filiform.
    Where the particles are less than 1 m in diameter and 
have an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 3:1, it is recommended 
that the sample be analyzed by SEM or TEM if there is any question 
whether the fibers are cleavage fragments or asbestiform particles.
    Care must be taken when analyzing by electron microscopy because 
the interferences are different from those in light microscopy and 
may structurally be very similar to asbestos. The classic 
interference is between anthophyllite and biopyribole or 
intermediate fiber. Use the same morphological clues for electron 
microscopy as are used for light microscopy, e.g. fibril splitting, 
internal longitudinal striation, fraying, curvature, etc.
    (1) Gross examination:
    Examine the sample, preferably in the glass vial. Determine the 
presence of any obvious fibrous component. Estimate a percentage 
based on previous experience and current observation. Determine 
whether any pre-preparation is necessary. Determine the number of 
phases present. This step may be carried out or augmented by 
observation at 6 to 40 x  under a stereo microscope.
    (2) After performing any necessary pre-preparation, prepare 
slides of each phase as described above. Two preparations of the 
same phase in the same index medium can be made side-by-side on the 
same glass for convenience. Examine with the polarizing stereo 
microscope. Estimate the percentage of asbestos based on the amount 
of birefringent fiber present.
    (3) Examine the slides on the phase-polar microscopes at 
magnifications of 160 and 400 x . Note the morphology of the fibers. 
Long, thin, very straight fibers with little curvature are 
indicative of fibers from the amphibole family. Curved, wavy fibers 
are usually indicative of chrysotile. Estimate the percentage of 
asbestos on the phase-polar microscope under conditions of crossed 
polars and a gypsum plate. Fibers smaller than 1.0 m in 
thickness must be identified by inference to the presence of larger, 
identifiable fibers and morphology. If no larger fibers are visible, 
electron microscopy should be performed. At this point, only a 
tentative identification can be made. Full identification must be 
made with dispersion microscopy. Details of the tests are included 
in the appendices.
    (4) Once fibers have been determined to be present, they must be 
identified. Adjust the microscope for dispersion mode and observe 
the fibers. The microscope has a rotating stage, one polarizing 
element, and a system for generating dark-field dispersion 
microscopy (see Section 4.6. of this appendix). Align a fiber with 
its length parallel to the polarizer and note the color of the Becke 
lines. Rotate the stage to bring the fiber length perpendicular to 
the polarizer and note the color. Repeat this process for every 
fiber or fiber bundle examined. The colors must be consistent with 
the colors generated by standard asbestos reference materials for a 
positive identification. In n=1.550, amphiboles will generally show 
a yellow to straw-yellow color indicating that the fiber indices of 
refraction are higher than the liquid. If long, thin fibers are 
noted and the colors are yellow, prepare further slides as above in 
the suggested matching liquids listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Type of asbestos                   Index of refraction        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysotile.........................  n=1.550.                           
Amosite............................  n=1.670 r 1.680.                   
Crocidolite........................  n=1.690.                           
Anthophyllite......................  n=1.605 nd 1.620.                  
Tremolite..........................  n=1.605 and 1.620.                 
Actinolite.........................  n=1.620.                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where more than one liquid is suggested, the first is preferred; 
however, in some cases this liquid will not give good dispersion 
color. Take care to avoid interferences in the other liquid; e.g., 
wollastonite in n=1.620 will give the same colors as tremolite. In 
n=1.605 wollastonite will appear yellow in all directions. 
Wollastonite may be determined under crossed polars as it will 
change from blue to yellow as it is rotated along its fiber axis by 
tapping on the cover slip. Asbestos minerals will not change in this 
way.
    Determination of the angle of extinction may, when present, aid 
in the determination of anthophyllite from tremolite. True asbestos 
fibers usually have 0 deg. extinction or ambiguous extinction, while 
cleavage fragments have more definite extinction.
    Continue analysis until both preparations have been examined and 
all present species of asbestos are identified. If there are no 
fibers present, or there is less than 0.1% present, end the analysis 
with the minimum number of slides (2).
    (5) Some fibers have a coating on them which makes dispersion 
microscopy very difficult or impossible. Becke line analysis or 
electron microscopy may be performed in those cases. Determine the 
percentage by light microscopy. TEM analysis tends to overestimate 
the actual percentage present.
    (6) Percentage determination is an estimate of occluded area, 
tempered by gross observation. Gross observation information is used 
to make sure that the high magnification microscopy does not greatly 
over- or under- estimate the amount of fiber present. This part of 
the analysis requires a great deal of experience. Satisfactory 
models for asbestos content analysis have not yet been developed, 
although some models based on metallurgical grain-size determination 
have found some utility. Estimation is more easily handled in 
situations where the grain sizes visible at about 160 x  are about 
the same and the sample is relatively homogeneous.
    View all of the area under the cover slip to make the percentage 
determination. View the fields while moving the stage, paying 
attention to the clumps of material. These are not usually the best 
areas to perform dispersion microscopy because of the interference 
from other materials. But, they are the areas most likely to 
represent the accurate percentage in the sample. Small amounts of 
asbestos require slower scanning and more frequent analysis of 
individual fields.
    Report the area occluded by asbestos as the concentration. This 
estimate does not generally take into consideration the difference 
in density of the different species present in the sample. For most 
samples this is adequate. Simulation studies with similar materials 
must be carried out to apply microvisual estimation for that purpose 
and is beyond the scope of this procedure.
    (7) Where successive concentrations have been made by chemical 
or physical means, the amount reported is the percentage of the 
material in the ``as submitted'' or original state. The percentage 
determined by microscopy is multiplied by the fractions remaining 
after pre-preparation steps to give the percentage in the original 
sample. For example:

Step 1. 60% remains after heating at 550  deg.C for 1 h.
Step 2. 30% of the residue of step 1 remains after dissolution of 
carbonate in 0.1 m HCl.
Step 3. Microvisual estimation determines that 5% of the sample is 
chrysotile asbestos.

    The reported result is:

R=(Microvisual result in percent)  x  (Fraction remaining after step 
2)  x  (Fraction remaining of original sample after step 1)
R=(5) x (.30) x (.60)=0.9%

    (8) Report the percent and type of asbestos present. For samples 
where asbestos was identified, but is less than 1.0%, report 
``Asbestos present, less than 1.0%.'' There must have been at least 
two observed fibers or fiber bundles in the two preparations to be 
reported as present. For samples where asbestos was not seen, report 
as ``None Detected.''

Auxiliary Information

    Because of the subjective nature of asbestos analysis, certain 
concepts and procedures need to be discussed in more depth. This 
information will help the analyst understand why some of the 
procedures are carried out the way they are.

4.1. Light

    Light is electromagnetic energy. It travels from its source in 
packets called quanta. It is instructive to consider light as a 
plane wave. The light has a direction of travel. Perpendicular to 
this and mutually perpendicular to each other, are two vector 
components. One is the magnetic vector and the other is the electric 
vector. We shall only be concerned with the electric vector. In this 
description, the interaction of the vector and the mineral will 
describe all the observable phenomena. From a light source such a 
microscope illuminator, light travels in all different direction 
from the filament.
    In any given direction away from the filament, the electric 
vector is perpendicular to the direction of travel of a light ray. 
While perpendicular, its orientation is random about the travel 
axis. If the electric vectors from all the light rays were lined up 
by passing the light through a filter that would only let light rays 
with electric vectors oriented in one direction pass, the light 
would then be POLARIZED.
    Polarized light interacts with matter in the direction of the 
electric vector. This is the polarization direction. Using this 
property it is possible to use polarized light to probe different 
materials and identify them by how they interact with light.
    The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant at about 
2.99 x 108 m/s. When light travels in different materials such 
as air, water, minerals or oil, it does not travel at this speed. It 
travels slower. This slowing is a function of both the material 
through which the light is traveling and the wavelength or frequency 
of the light. In general, the more dense the material, the slower 
the light travels. Also, generally, the higher the frequency, the 
slower the light will travel. The ratio of the speed of light in a 
vacuum to that in a material is called the index of refraction (n). 
It is usually measured at 589 nm (the sodium D line). If white light 
(light containing all the visible wavelengths) travels through a 
material, rays of longer wavelengths will travel faster than those 
of shorter wavelengths, this separation is called dispersion. 
Dispersion is used as an identifier of materials as described in 
Section 4.6.

4.2. Material Properties

    Materials are either amorphous or crystalline. The difference 
between these two descriptions depends on the positions of the atoms 
in them. The atoms in amorphous materials are randomly arranged with 
no long range order. An example of an amorphous material is glass. 
The atoms in crystalline materials, on the other hand, are in 
regular arrays and have long range order. Most of the atoms can be 
found in highly predictable locations. Examples of crystalline 
material are salt, gold, and the asbestos minerals.
    It is beyond the scope of this method to describe the different 
types of crystalline materials that can be found, or the full 
description of the classes into which they can fall. However, some 
general crystallography is provided below to give a foundation to 
the procedures described.
    With the exception of anthophyllite, all the asbestos minerals 
belong to the monoclinic crystal type. The unit cell is the basic 
repeating unit of the crystal and for monoclinic crystals can be 
described as having three unequal sides, two 90 deg. angles and one 
angle not equal to 90 deg.. The orthorhombic group, of which 
anthophyllite is a member has three unequal sides and three 90 deg. 
angles. The unequal sides are a consequence of the complexity of 
fitting the different atoms into the unit cell. Although the atoms 
are in a regular array, that array is not symmetrical in all 
directions. There is long range order in the three major directions 
of the crystal. However, the order is different in each of the three 
directions. This has the effect that the index of refraction is 
different in each of the three directions. Using polarized light, we 
can investigate the index of refraction in each of the directions 
and identify the mineral or material under investigation. The 
indices , , and  are used to identify the 
lowest, middle, and highest index of refraction respectively. The x 
direction, associated with  is called the fast axis. 
Conversely, the z direction is associated with  and is the 
slow direction. Crocidolite has  along the fiber length 
making it ``length-fast''. The remainder of the asbestos minerals 
have the  axis along the fiber length. They are called 
``length-slow''. This orientation to fiber length is used to aid in 
the identification of asbestos.

4.3. Polarized Light Technique

    Polarized light microscopy as described in this section uses the 
phase-polar microscope described in Section 3.2. A phase contrast 
microscope is fitted with two polarizing elements, one below and one 
above the sample. The polarizers have their polarization directions 
at right angles to each other. Depending on the tests performed, 
there may be a compensator between these two polarizing elements. A 
compensator is a piece of mineral with known properties that 
``compensates'' for some deficiency in the optical train. Light 
emerging from a polarizing element has its electric vector pointing 
in the polarization direction of the element. The light will not be 
subsequently transmitted through a second element set at a right 
angle to the first element. Unless the light is altered as it passes 
from one element to the other, there is no transmission of light.

4.4. Angle of Extinction

    Crystals which have different crystal regularity in two or three 
main directions are said to be anisotropic. They have a different 
index of refraction in each of the main directions. When such a 
crystal is inserted between the crossed polars, the field of view is 
no longer dark but shows the crystal in color. The color depends on 
the properties of the crystal. The light acts as if it travels 
through the crystal along the optical axes. If a crystal optical 
axis were lined up along one of the polarizing directions (either 
the polarizer or the analyzer) the light would appear to travel only 
in that direction, and it would blink out or go dark. The difference 
in degrees between the fiber direction and the angle at which it 
blinks out is called the angle of extinction. When this angle can be 
measured, it is useful in identifying the mineral. The procedure for 
measuring the angle of extinction is to first identify the 
polarization direction in the microscope. A commercial alignment 
slide can be used to establish the polarization directions or use 
anthophyllite or another suitable mineral. This mineral has a zero 
degree angle of extinction and will go dark to extinction as it 
aligns with the polarization directions. When a fiber of 
anthophyllite has gone to extinction, align the eyepiece reticle or 
graticule with the fiber so that there is a visual cue as to the 
direction of polarization in the field of view. Tape or otherwise 
secure the eyepiece in this position so it will not shift.
    After the polarization direction has been identified in the 
field of view, move the particle of interest to the center of the 
field of view and align it with the polarization direction. For 
fibers, align the fiber along this direction. Note the angular 
reading of the rotating stage. Looking at the particle, rotate the 
stage until the fiber goes dark or ``blinks out''. Again note the 
reading of the stage. The difference in the first reading and the 
second is an angle of extinction.
    The angle measured may vary as the orientation of the fiber 
changes about its long axis. Tables of mineralogical data usually 
report the maximum angle of extinction. Asbestos forming minerals, 
when they exhibit an angle of extinction, usually do show an angle 
of extinction close to the reported maximum, or as appropriate 
depending on the substitution chemistry.

4.5. Crossed Polars with Compensator

    When the optical axes of a crystal are not lined up along one of 
the polarizing directions (either the polarizer or the analyzer) 
part of the light travels along one axis and part travels along the 
other visible axis. This is characteristic of birefringent 
materials.
    The color depends on the difference of the two visible indices 
of refraction and the thickness of the crystal. The maximum 
difference available is the difference between the  and the 
 axes. This maximum difference is usually tabulated as the 
birefringence of the crystal.
    For this test, align the fiber at 45 deg. to the polarization 
directions in order to maximize the contribution to each of the 
optical axes. The colors seen are called retardation colors. They 
arise from the recombination of light which has traveled through the 
two separate directions of the crystal. One of the rays is retarded 
behind the other since the light in that direction travels slower. 
On recombination, some of the colors which make up white light are 
enhanced by constructive interference and some are suppressed by 
destructive interference. The result is a color dependent on the 
difference between the indices and the thickness of the crystal. The 
proper colors, thicknesses, and retardations are shown on a Michel-
Levy chart. The three items, retardation, thickness and 
birefringence are related by the following relationship:

R=t(n-n)
R=retardation, t=crystal thickness in m, and
n,=indices of refraction.

    Examination of the equation for asbestos minerals reveals that 
the visible colors for almost all common asbestos minerals and fiber 
sizes are shades of gray and black. The eye is relatively poor at 
discriminating different shades of gray. It is very good at 
discriminating different colors. In order to compensate for the low 
retardation, a compensator is added to the light train between the 
polarization elements. The compensator used for this test is a 
gypsum plate of known thickness and birefringence. Such a 
compensator when oriented at 45 deg. to the polarizer direction, 
provides a retardation of 530 nm of the 530 nm wavelength color. 
This enhances the red color and gives the background a 
characteristic red to red-magenta color. If this ``full-wave'' 
compensator is in place when the asbestos preparation is inserted 
into the light train, the colors seen on the fibers are quite 
different. Gypsum, like asbestos has a fast axis and a slow axis. 
When a fiber is aligned with its fast axis in the same direction as 
the fast axis of the gypsum plate, the ray vibrating in the slow 
direction is retarded by both the asbestos and the gypsum. This 
results in a higher retardation than would be present for either of 
the two minerals. The color seen is a second order blue. When the 
fiber is rotated 90 deg. using the rotating stage, the slow 
direction of the fiber is now aligned with the fast direction of the 
gypsum and the fast direction of the fiber is aligned with the slow 
direction of the gypsum. Thus, one ray vibrates faster in the fast 
direction of the gypsum, and slower in the slow direction of the 
fiber; the other ray will vibrate slower in the slow direction of 
the gypsum and faster in the fast direction of the fiber. In this 
case, the effect is subtractive and the color seen is a first order 
yellow. As long as the fiber thickness does not add appreciably to 
the color, the same basic colors will be seen for all asbestos types 
except crocidolite. In crocidolite the colors will be weaker, may be 
in the opposite directions, and will be altered by the blue 
absorption color natural to crocidolite. Hundreds of other materials 
will give the same colors as asbestos, and therefore, this test is 
not definitive for asbestos. The test is useful in discriminating 
against fiberglass or other amorphous fibers such as some synthetic 
fibers. Certain synthetic fibers will show retardation colors 
different than asbestos; however, there are some forms of 
polyethylene and aramid which will show morphology and retardation 
colors similar to asbestos minerals. This test must be supplemented 
with a positive identification test when birefringent fibers are 
present which can not be excluded by morphology. This test is 
relatively ineffective for use on fibers less than 1 m in 
diameter. For positive confirmation TEM or SEM should be used if no 
larger bundles or fibers are visible.

4.6. Dispersion Staining

    Dispersion microscopy or dispersion staining is the method of 
choice for the identification of asbestos in bulk materials. Becke 
line analysis is used by some laboratories and yields the same 
results as does dispersion staining for asbestos and can be used in 
lieu of dispersion staining. Dispersion staining is performed on the 
same platform as the phase-polar analysis with the analyzer and 
compensator removed. One polarizing element remains to define the 
direction of the light so that the different indices of refraction 
of the fibers may be separately determined. Dispersion microscopy is 
a dark-field technique when used for asbestos. Particles are imaged 
with scattered light. Light which is unscattered is blocked from 
reaching the eye either by the back field image mask in a McCrone 
objective or a back field image mask in the phase condenser. The 
most convenient method is to use the rotating phase condenser to 
move an oversized phase ring into place. The ideal size for this 
ring is for the central disk to be just larger than the objective 
entry aperture as viewed in the back focal plane. The larger the 
disk, the less scattered light reaches the eye. This will have the 
effect of diminishing the intensity of dispersion color and will 
shift the actual color seen. The colors seen vary even on 
microscopes from the same manufacturer. This is due to the different 
bands of wavelength exclusion by different mask sizes. The mask may 
either reside in the condenser or in the objective back focal plane. 
It is imperative that the analyst determine by experimentation with 
asbestos standards what the appropriate colors should be for each 
asbestos type. The colors depend also on the temperature of the 
preparation and the exact chemistry of the asbestos. Therefore, some 
slight differences from the standards should be allowed. This is not 
a serious problem for commercial asbestos uses. This technique is 
used for identification of the indices of refraction for fibers by 
recognition of color. There is no direct numerical readout of the 
index of refraction. Correlation of color to actual index of 
refraction is possible by referral to published conversion tables. 
This is not necessary for the analysis of asbestos. Recognition of 
appropriate colors along with the proper morphology are deemed 
sufficient to identify the commercial asbestos minerals. Other 
techniques including SEM, TEM, and XRD may be required to provide 
additional information in order to identify other types of asbestos.
    Make a preparation in the suspected matching high dispersion 
oil, e.g., n=1.550 for chrysotile. Perform the preliminary tests to 
determine whether the fibers are birefringent or not. Take note of 
the morphological character. Wavy fibers are indicative of 
chrysotile while long, straight, thin, frayed fibers are indicative 
of amphibole asbestos. This can aid in the selection of the 
appropriate matching oil. The microscope is set up and the 
polarization direction is noted as in Section 4.4. Align a fiber 
with the polarization direction. Note the color. This is the color 
parallel to the polarizer. Then rotate the fiber rotating the stage 
90 deg. so that the polarization direction is across the fiber. This 
is the perpendicular position. Again note the color. Both colors 
must be consistent with standard asbestos minerals in the correct 
direction for a positive identification of asbestos. If only one of 
the colors is correct while the other is not, the identification is 
not positive. If the colors in both directions are bluish-white, the 
analyst has chosen a matching index oil which is higher than the 
correct matching oil, e.g. the analyst has used n=1.620 where 
chrysotile is present. The next lower oil (Section 3.5.) should be 
used to prepare another specimen. If the color in both directions is 
yellow-white to straw-yellow-white, this indicates that the index of 
the oil is lower than the index of the fiber, e.g. the preparation 
is in n=1.550 while anthophyllite is present. Select the next higher 
oil (Section 3.5.) and prepare another slide. Continue in this 
fashion until a positive identification of all asbestos species 
present has been made or all possible asbestos species have been 
ruled out by negative results in this test. Certain plant fibers can 
have similar dispersion colors as asbestos. Take care to note and 
evaluate the morphology of the fibers or remove the plant fibers in 
pre-preparation. Coating material on the fibers such as carbonate or 
vinyl may destroy the dispersion color. Usually, there will be some 
outcropping of fiber which will show the colors sufficient for 
identification. When this is not the case, treat the sample as 
described in Section 3.3. and then perform dispersion staining. Some 
samples will yield to Becke line analysis if they are coated or 
electron microscopy can be used for identification.

5. References

5.1. Crane, D.T., Asbestos in Air, OSHA method ID160, Revised 
November 1992.
5.2. Ford, W.E., Dana's Textbook of Mineralogy; Fourth Ed.; John 
Wiley and Son, New York, 1950, p. vii.
5.3. Selikoff, I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic 
Press, New York, 1978, pp. 3,20.
5.4. Women Inspectors of Factories. Annual Report for 1898, H.M. 
Statistical Office, London, p. 170 (1898).
5.5. Selikoff,.I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic 
Press, New York, 1978, pp. 26,30.
5.6. Campbell, W.J., et al, Selected Silicate Minerals and Their 
Asbestiform Varieties, United States Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 8751, 1977.
5.7. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 
CFR 1926.58.
5.8. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 
Asbestos NESHAP Revision, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 224, 20 
November 1990, p. 48410.
5.9. Ross, M. The Asbestos Minerals: Definitions, Description, Modes 
of Formation, Physical and Chemical Properties and Health Risk to 
the Mining Community, Nation Bureau of Standards Special 
Publication, Washington, D.C., 1977.
5.10. Lilis, R., Fibrous Zeolites and Endemic Mesothelioma in 
Cappadocia, Turkey, J. Occ Medicine, 1981, 23,(8),548-550.
5.11. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos--1972, U.S. Department of 
Health Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for 
Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Health, HSM-72-10267.
5.12. Campbell,W.J., et al, Relationship of Mineral Habit to Size 
Characteristics for Tremolite Fragments and Fibers, United States 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 
8367, 1979.
5.13. Mefford, D., DCM Laboratory, Denver, private communication, 
July 1987.
5.14. Deer, W.A., Howie, R.A., Zussman, J., Rock Forming Minerals, 
Longman, Thetford, UK, 1974.
5.15. Kerr, P.F., Optical Mineralogy; Third Ed. McGraw-Hill, New 
York, 1959.
5.16. Veblen, D.R. (Ed.), Amphiboles and Other Hydrous Pyriboles--
Mineralogy, Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol 9A, Michigan, 1982, pp 1-102.
5.17. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in the 
Analysis of Asbestos and Quartz, ACS Symposium Series, No. 120, 
Analytical Techniques in Occupational Health Chemistry, 1979.
5.18. Polarized Light Microscopy, McCrone Research Institute, 
Chicago, 1976.
5.19. Asbestos Identification, McCrone Research Institute, G & G 
printers, Chicago, 1987.
5.20. McCrone, W.C., Calculation of Refractive Indices from 
Dispersion Staining Data, The Microscope, No 37, Chicago, 1989.
5.21. Levadie, B. (Ed.), Asbestos and Other Health Related 
Silicates, ASTM Technical Publication 834, ASTM, Philadelphia 1982.
5.22. Steel, E. and Wylie, A., Riordan, P.H. (Ed.), Mineralogical 
Characteristics of Asbestos, Geology of Asbestos Deposits, pp. 93-
101, SME-AIME, 1981.
5.23. Zussman, J., The Mineralogy of Asbestos, Asbestos: Properties, 
Applications and Hazards, pp. 45-67 Wiley, 1979.

[FR Doc. 94-18863 Filed 8-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P