[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
Q