Document 2JO7OwgB4bNZOVmNKK3Lr7KMg

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 22717 (1) During the interval necessary to issues regarding the appropriate use of install or implement Feasible engineering respirators (Exs. 78; 90-113; 90-160; 90- and work practice controls; . 173; 90-182; 90-238; 92-3; 90-13; 92-25; (2) In operations such as maintenance 123-A: 147; 189; 181; 195; 208; 298; 308; and repair activities for which 311-E; 311-G; 313; 328; 330; Trs. 6/19, p. engineering and work practice controls 102; 6/20,6/25. p. 15; 6/28. p. 78; 6/29, p. are not Feasible: 196; 7/2, p. 23; 7/3. p. 44; 7/12. p. 338). (3) In work situations in which These commenters addressed four major feasible engineering and work practice issues: controls are not yet sufficient to reduce (1) The use of disposable respirators: exposure to or below the PEI.; and (2) The selection of appropriate filter (4) In emergencies. media for air-purifying respirators; The language of paragarph (h)(1) has (3) The use of Type "C" supplied-air been revised from that of the existing respirators; and standard to conform to standard (4) Requirements for qualitative or language used in more recent OSHA quantitative fit testing. rulemakings! Employers are required Several commenters advocated the under paragraph (h)(2) of the revised use of disposable respirators for rule to select appropriate respirators -protection against asbestos exposure based on employee exposure levels that (Exs. 84-457; 311; 328; 341; Tr. 7/10, p. exist in the workplace. The required 126). For example, the Asbestos respirators range from half-mask air- Information Association/North America purifying respirators equipped with stated: high-efficiency filters for concentrations that do not exceed 10 times the PEL. to full-facepiece supplied-air respirators or The record of this proceeding shows that employers in primary and secondary manufacturing industries commonly provide SCBA when the concentration of negative pressure single use or reusable asbestos fibers exceeds 100 times the PEL. Employers are required to select respirators from those that are approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration under the provision9 of 30 CFR Part 11. In addition, employers are required to provide powered air-purifying respirators at the request of employees whenever sucha respirator will provide adequate protection for the concentration existing in the workplace. Under paragraph (h)(3), employers are required to institute a Respiratory Protection program as required under 29 respirators to workers who request them. AlA/NA recommends that this practice be codified in the Revised Asbestos Standard to allow workers to achieve an additional margin of health protection if they so desire. (Kx. 328].. The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) stated that "certain air-purifying negativepressure half-mask disposable respirators should remain in the proposed asbestos respirator selection table for use (during exposures of] up to 10 times the permissible exposure level". (Ex. 341). E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Cdmpany CFR.1910.134: The required program is provided the results of a comparative to include (1) criteria for changing filter Btudy of the performance of various elements for air-purifying respirators,'(2) respirators, including disposable single a policy permitting employees time to use half-mask air-purifying respirators leave work areas to wash their Faces and self-contained breathing apparatus and respirator facepieces to prevent (Ex. 339),,DuPont concluded that two of skin irritation, and (3) a policy For the three disposable respirators tested reassigning employees to other jobs if a achieved a protection factor of at least physician determines that the employee 10 during tests performed in the course cannot function normally while wearing of actual asbestos removal operations.' . a. respirator. Under paragraph (h)(4), the . DuPont's conclusion was based on revised standard requires that comparison's of the concentration of employees perform qualitative or fibrous materials inside the respirator' quantitative fit testing for all employees and outside the respirator in the required to wear a negative-pressure operator's breathing zone (Ex. 339). respirator. The requirements for.the use, Based on the data presented in their selection, program-elements; and fit report, DuPorit.concluded that negative- testing of respirators are the same, as pressure single-use respirators can those contained in the general industry provide adequate protection against standard and are substantially similar to Concentrations of asbestos fibers less the requirements contained in other than 10 times the PEL and should be recent OSHA health standards (see for allowed. The DuPont data are discussed example 29 CFR 1910.1043, Cotton Dust). at length in Section IX oF this preamble Many cbmmenters who submitted (Summary'and Explanation For a - ihFormation to OSHA during the Revised Standard For General Industry). rulemaking proceedings addressed After reviewing this study, OSHA found that inconsistencies in the data and the failure of the study to show adequate protection factors for other types of respirators render the study inconclusive. Many commenters opposed the use of reusable or disposable air-purifying respirators for any airborne asbestos exposure, because they felt that the protection provided by such respirators is inadequate (Exs. 117-A; 150; 151:123A: 92-8: 277; 330: Trs. 6/20, p. 196: 6/21. pp. 74-75; 6/25, pp. 17-18; 6/29. p-106; 7/ 3. pp. 160-181; 7/3, p. 193; 7/3. p. 50; 7/ 11. pp. 98-99). For example, The Building and Construction Trades Department, AFI^ CIO. offered the following comments: In particular, the throw-away of disposable paper half-masks are nut acceptable. In addition to providing field use protection factors too low for any serious consideration for wear in asbestos-exposed work throw away or disposable paper half-masks offer little comfort. In pne 1974 study. 97 miners wore disposable masks over a combined periud of 248 person-shifts of work and rated their acceptability. Seventy-six miners rated the ubiquitous 3M 8710,' which currently accounts for Rhout 80 percent of the disposable dust musk market.. . . Sixty: seven of the 97 miners found it unacceptable. Forty-seven found it too fragile. Thirty-eight said it was too hot. Fourteen said it got wet and stuck to their faces. Eleven simply said that it was uncomfortable.. . . The . researchers concluded that whether or not . . the respirator was comfortable to wear was of paramount importance (to the workers)-- even more so than protection--and that a comfortable respirator will be put on sooner and removed later than one that is not.. . . The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades found similar patterns of dislike of disposable dust masks among its members in a respirator preference and use survey conducted in 1980. : . While 40. percent of the 032 members responding in the survey wore the disposable dust mask most, over 50 percent'liked it least. By contrast, over 70 percent liked air-lines most. Respondents rated the air-tine masks highest in protection.-fit arid'ease of breathing; the dust mask was rated lowest.in each of these categories--even lower than'widely despised reusable cartridge half-mask. (Ex. 330) Jeffrey Pauli, of the School of Hygiene and Puhlic Health of Johns Hopkins University, reported: 1 am (in agreement) with the'Slate of Maryland bn theirposilion on disposable respirators. 1 don't think that they can be reliably ... fit checked'on the faccof the employee.... I don't like the fact that most of them can't be ... fit checked to provide somp sense of assurance that it is fitting the face. (Tr. 7/11, p. 98) Agreeing with Mr. Paul. David Kirby,' representing the AlabamaSafe State Program.-expressed the following GLEASON-000965