Document 1Q28GGeOwjarVz1Z2q3Rx0r6Z

Title 23--LABOR Chopter XVII--Occupational Safety ond Heolth Admini(rdlion, Depart ment of labor PAtT 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDAtDS Standard for Exposure to Aibtiloi Dust__ On December 7. 197ir*n emergency temporary standard concerning exposure to asbestoa fibers xu published la the FrotSAt Rrcisrrx (36 FiVj3207). In soeordshce with section g(cn_3) ot the WUliams-Slelger Occuptslonsl Ssletr snd Heslth Act ol 1970. s notice ol proposed rulemaking regarding a permanent standard for exposure to asbestos fibers a ss published in the Fedexal Reciste* on January 12. 1972 (37 FJl. 466). The no tice united Interested pefjbns to submit both orally and In an tine, data. news, and arguments concerning the proposal. On or about January 24, 1972. the Ad visory Committee on Asbestos Dust was established and requested to mate writ ten recommendations a-itgjretard to the proposed standard on asbestos. On or about February 1. 1972, the Department of Health. Education, and Welfare trans mitted to the Secretary of Labor a cri teria document containing Recommends- NOTEi The preamble to the permanent" asbestos atandard, issued June 7, 1372, is reproduced for informs* tion. It was not included In the republlcatlbn of the standard on June 77, 1974, but directly relate*. pro viding background consider ation! for oshA's exposure to asbestos dust ^regulation tUt.ES AND * EMULATIONS tions for aa Occupational Exposure Standard for Asbestos by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Public notice was given of the receipt of the recommendations and their availability for Inspection and cooymg. On or about February 2S. 1972, the Advisory Committee on Asbestos Dust submitted Us written recommendations to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Pursuant to the notice of rule making, a hearing was held on March 14 through 17. 1972. for the purpose of receiving oral data, views, and arguments concerning the proposed standard. On or about March 31. 1972. the presiding hearing ex aminer certified to the Assistant Secre tary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health the record of the proceeding. The record includes preheanng written comments, a transcript of the oral pres entations made at the hearing, and nu merous exhibits received during the course of the hearing or within the pe riod allowed after the dose of the hearing. The proposed standard dealt with (1) permissible concentrations of asbestos fibers: 12> methods of compliance: <3) warning signs: H) monitoring; til med ical examinations: and t6) recordkeeptng. Each of these major proposals elic ited comments, arguments, objections, and counterproposals. They all have been examined and considered. 1. Acceptable concentrations of asbes tos dust. The proposed standard would limit occupational exposure to l-hour time-weighted average (TWA) airborne concentrations of asbestos dust not ex ceeding five fibers longer than five micrometers per milliliter. Concentra tions above five fibers but not to exceed 10 fibers (celling concentration) would be permitted up to IS minutes m an hour, but for not more than S hours In any one t-hour day. NIOSH In effect has recommenced that the five-fiber TWA and 10-fiber peak concentrations be permitted only for 2 years: thereafter. TWA concentra tions should be not more than 2 fibers per cubic centimeter (cm.*) of air. and peak concentrations should not exceed 10 fibera/em.*. with no time restriction. Numerous objections and counterpro posals have been made, with regard to both the limits of asbestos fiber concen trations and the time periods to comply with them. Some, for example, have rec ommended return to a 12-fiber standard of an earlier day; i.e.. a level adopted under the Walah-Healey Public Con tracts Act in 1969. Others have recom mended a two-fiber standard to become effective in 6 months, then a one-fiber standard for 3 years, and finally a aerofiber standard after 3 yean. These rec ommendations give a fair Indication of the wide spread of the counterproposals. No one has disputed that exposure to asbestos of high enough mtensity and long enough duration la causally related to asbestosls and cancers. The dispute la aa to the determination of a specific level below which exposure la safe. Various studies attempting to establish quantita tive relations between specific levels of 11318 exposure to asbestos fibers and the ap pearance of advene biological manifesuuona. such aa asbestosls. lung cancers, and mesothelioma, have given rise to controversy aa to the validity of the measuring techniques used and the relia bility of the relations attempted to be established. Because of the long lapse of time between onset of exposure and biological manifestations, we have now evidence of the consequences of exposure, but we do not have. In general, accurate measures of the levels of exposure oc curring 20 or 30 yean ago. which have given nse to these consequences. There are also controversies concerning the relative toxicity of the various kinds of asbestos, end varying hazards In dif ferent workplaces. It la fair to say that the controversy has centered In the area between a twofiber TWA concentration and five-fiber TWA concentration, with variations on the time needed for eomplitnce. Miny employer* support a five-fiber TWA. Most medical opinion 1* divided between a two-fiber standard and a five-fiber standard. In view of the undisputed grave con sequences from exposure to asbestos fibers, it Is essential that the exposure be regulated now. on the basis of the best evidence available now. even though it may not be aa good aa scientifically de sirable. An asbestos standard can be re evaluated in the light of the results of ongoing studies, and future studies, but cannot wait for them. Lives of employees are at stake. It 1* concluded that there should be one minimum standard of exposure to asbestos applicable to all workplaces ex posed to any kind, or mixture ol kinds, of asbestos. Reasons of practical ad ministration preclude a variety of stand ards for different kinds of asbestos and of workplaces. Also, while the evidence tends to show that crocidollte. for In stance. is more harmful than ehrysotile. the evidence Is not sufficient to establish separate standard! for varieties of asbestoa. Because there must be one standard governing exposure to all varieties of asbestos, and In workplaces apparently more hazardous than others; because tome present employees with regular ex posure to asbestos have probably al ready accumulated great doses of asbes tos fibers, due to higher levels of ex posure In the past; because It appears that levels of exposure which mar be safe with regard to asbestosls are not safe with regard to mesothelioma; be cause the statute requires the protection of every employee, even of one who may have regular exposure to asbestos during a working life which may reach, or even exceed. 40 years; and because of several other considerations which have been urged and are reflected in the record of the proceeding, the conflict In the medi cal, evidence is resolved in favor of the heslth of employees. As of July 1. 197*. TWA concentrations of asbestoa fibers longer than 9 micrometers will not be allowed to exceed two flbera/ce.. with a celling value of 10 flbers/ee. The current TWA concentrations of five fibers, and rtottai tioisTit. vot. 37, no. no--wionuoay, ;imi y, itn DUP 0905059 000'lSo KUIES AND HGUIATIONS celling concentrations of 10 flben/ee. fibers, so that these would not be released vtll be permitted until July 1. 187*. dur- in the normal use of the products, should -That will be a transitional period not be required to be labeled: and <2> 1 id necessary to allow employers to words such as "dinger" and "cancer*' are -axe the needed changes for earning unwamntedly alarming. ato compliance with the more stringent Both contentions have merit, and the iandard. -- standard has been changed accordingly. The record shows that the many woTk 4. Monitoring. The proposed standard operations subject to the single asbestos would have required personal monitor standard (textile, manufacturing. Indus- ing and environmental monltortng. rial, and marine lnstaDatlon. etc.) will Many Issues have been raised concerning meet yarylnc decrees of difficulty In the availability and reliability of meas omplymc with the standard. In soma uring Instruments, frequency of moni Xante, extensive redesicn and reloca toring. and conditions In which monitor tion of equipment may be needed. It in ing should be required. The adopted vars, however, the delay In the effective standard takes the objections into con late of the two-fiber standard win pro- sideration. It requires periodic monitor ide all employers a reasonable time to ing at intervals no longer than t months, comply. At the same time, so lone as tht thus allowing considerable time and dis elilng limit Is complied with, no harm cretion. and prescribes the use of the i reasonably expected to result from es- membrane filter method, which lx ah ac oxures durmt the transitional period. ceptable method for determination of 2. Methods o/ compliance. It has been asbestos fibers. cmted out by many persons, that pro^ It has also been recommended that ectlon against asbestos fibers Is best employees or their representatives should : tilned by controlling the generation of^ have an opportunity to observe the "ben first, and secondly, by controlling monltortng. The recommendation haa .re dispersion of released fibers into the been accepted. ambient air of the workplaces. Therefore, 6. Medical examinations. The pro -,e standard requires feasible techno- posed standard would only require an rgical controls and appropriate work appropriate medical examination an a radices as the primary means of com- periodic basis. The generality of the pro '.lance. Rotation of empioyeea aa a way posal haa attracted many objections and f meeting tha TWA concentration re- also many helpful comments. The recom uirement Is allowed only In stated ex- mendations of NIOSH and of the Advi cptlonal circumstances, because, as ar sory Committee on Asbestos Dust were -neral rule. It would be difficult to lm- much more specific with respect to both clement. Personal protective equipment frequency and type of medical examina uch as respirators, cannot be relied tions to be required. The comments vary ' n because, among other reasons, they aa to the class of employees to be ex / be so uncomfortable aa to be bur amined and as to the frequency of the densome. except for short periods of examinations. use. Therefore, it Is expected that res- The adopted standard requires medical olrmtors and shift rotation will be used examinations both at the beginning and urine the period necessary to Install m- tha termination of employments exposed neenr.g controls and to train employ- to concentrations of asbestos fibers, and es In sound work practices, but. after also requires annual medical examina echnologlcal compliance haa been tions of every employee exposed to air ohleved. their use must be limited to borne concentrations of asbestos. It haa peclzl work situations and emergencies.- been pointed out that in certain Indus there both are practicable, shift rota- tries. such as construction, an employee ,on Is required. may work for several employers during 3. Labeling. The proposed standard the same year. Accordingly, the standard lopped short of requiring labeling as- does not requira either preemployment, oestos and asbestos-containing product*. or termination, or periodic examlnaton The proposed standard would have rw- of any employee who haa been examined mired only warning signs at locations In accordance with the standard within i'her* asbestos hazard* axe present the past year. However, labeling, rather than wmralng One question which has been raised igns. has proved to be a point of oca- goes to whether the employer or the em roversy. Both NIOSH and the Adrta0(7 ployee should be allowed to choose the 'ommiltee on Asbestos Oust rscota- examining physician. The standard '.ended labels for asbestos products and glvas tha option to the employer. Since ontalnen. and these recommendations some employers already havt a medical ccsme very controversial in tha ooorea examination program in operation, and. f the proceeding. Uany counterpro- also, have medical departments with roposala have been made aa to the lan- some expertise In the diagnosis of abas uage of the warning as wen aa to the. tos-related diseases; It seems mar* roducta to be subject to the labeling reasonable to permit them to utilize the equlrementa. Employers, in genend. present programs snd expertlas. than to trongly contend that (1) finished pred permit an employee to choose a private icts which effectively entrap asbestos general practitioner. 11319 i. Records. The standard, as proposed and as adopted, requires maintenance of records of monltortng and of medical examinations. Most of the controverry m this area has revolved around the ques tion whether an employer should be al lowed to have access to the results eg the required medical examinations. The apprehension of those who have argued against employer access Is based on the expectation that some employers will uss the medical examinations as a means of screening employment applicants, and worse, as grounds for dischsrglng current employees, who show signs of being af fected bv exposure to asbestos. Since the purpose of the medical examinations It to monitor the health of employees ex posed to the hazards of abestos. em ployees cannot In reason be granted the privilege of refusing to disclose to their employers results of occupational expo sure. It does not make tense to require employers to provide medical examina tions if they cannot know and use tha results of the examinations. For that reasons the standard provides that em ployers may have a restricted access to tome medical information. On the other hand, there Is no Inten tion to allow employen to abuse medical Informauon obtained pursuant to the Act, to the detriment of employees. Therefore, the administration of medical records requirement win be closely watched, and. In cases eg abuas. appropriate action will be considered. The Issues discussed above art believed to be the major ones. Numerous other Is sues have been raised in the rulemattng proceedings. Some have bcei referred to incidentally. Many recommendations, for instance, about work practices, are ao obviously meritorious that that- /<m<tion needs no exposition hare. Other recommendations and many objections have not been adopted for a variety of reasons which should be manifest Sev eral, for Instance, have recommended the use of respirators only pursuant to a variance, or In cases of emergency and occasional short-term exposures. The recommendation with rexpact to vari ances undoubtedly has many merits, but Is considered administratively Im practical. DUP 0905060 ruiui tMimt, voc ir, no. iio--wroNiwar, juni r, in 00 0 ri. uw f