Document 5LJxXB7LoVBGD79Vpmo8RxGnJ

l^PLMKnff^ )fjjliXHB " Federal Register J^Wol. SI. No. 119 / Friday. June 20. 1966 / Rules and Regulation*_______ 22813 OSHA ha* decided to iasue two separate standard* regulating occupational exposure to asbestos. Iremolile. anthophyllile. and actinolite: One that applies to workplaces in general industry (including maritime) and another covering construction worksites. In promulgating two separate standards for general industry and construction. OSHA is acting in accordance with the recommendation* of the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health (CACOSH). which has reviewed and commented on several versions of the new standard in the construction industry, most recently during CACOSH* deliberations on October 17. 1985. in Washington, DC. These standards will be codified at 29 CFR 1910.1001 for general industry and at 29 CFR 1928.58 for the construction industry. OSHA has developed separate standards for these two industry groupings in recognition of the vastly different conditions prevailing in the workplaces covered by general industry and construction standards. As the April 1984 notice pointed out (49 FR14127 et seq.). OSHA's existing asbestos standard (29 CFR 1910.1001) was more suitable for fixed-site manufacturing workplaces and a workforce composed of long-term employees, rather than for the short-term projects and highly mobile workforce characteristic of the construction industry. Support for a separate OSHA standard for construction came from all interested parties in this rulemaking, including the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the AFLCIO (Ex 87-2): CACOSH (Ex. 84-424); the Asbestos Informalioo Association (EX. 84-307); the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) (Ex. 84457): The Safe State Program. University of Alabama (Ex. 601.X); and the AFLCIO Steering Committee on Safety and Occupational Health (Ex. 806JC). These commenters supported separate standards for these two industry groupings because employee exposures to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllile. and actinolite, appropriate methods of controlling exposures, and prevailing workplace conditions are substantially different in workplaces in construction and general industry. Although the Summary and Explanation section of the preamble for the construction industry (Section XI of the preamble) discusses the record evidence as it applies to specific provisions of the final rule for construction, the reasons given by these commenters in support of a separate standard for construction can be summarized briefly as follows: (1) Tha construction industry is characterized by non-fixed worksites that are temporary in nature and differ from those In general industry in regard to site conditions, size and scope of tasks, methods of operation, and environmental conditions. (2) Employees In the construction industry often do not remain In construction or in the employ of the same employer for a long period of time, in contrast to employees in fixed-site manufacturing facilities. (3) The unique characteristics of construction operations may make it necessary to tailor some of the requirements traditionally included in OSHA health standards to the specific needs of the construction industry. OSHA finds merit in these arguments, and in response to the nearly unanimous support for separate standards for general Industy and construction, the Agency is issuing separata final rules covering these respective workplaces. In addition. OSHA has tailored the requirements of the final construction standard to reflect differences In operations of various types within the construction industry itself. The record demonstrated these Intra-industry differences in construction exposure and work conditions by pointing to the generally low exposures and wellcontrolled conditions prevailing in construction operations Involving the installation of new asbestos-containing products and comparing them with those typical of major demolition, renovation, and asbestos removal construction operations. In recognition of this wide diversity in construction projects, the Agency has specifically identified in the final rule those additional requirements that apply to construction operations involving asbestos abatement activities. Requirements governing these potentially high-hazard operations are grouped separately In the construction standard under a heading dearly labeled "for removal, demolition, and renovation operations." For example, paragraphs (IKl) through fi)(3) of the standard are grouped under the title "Protective clothing" and apply to all construction operations other than removal, demolition, and renovation operations, while paragraph (i)(4) is titled "Protective clothing for asbestos removal, demolition, and renovation operations"and applies only to such operations. Similarly, paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) contain OSHA's requirements for regulated areas on construction project* other than removal, demolition, and renovation operation*, while paragraph (e)(8) specifies the more extensive and stringent requirements for the enclosed negative-pressure regulated areas required for removal, demolition, and renovation operations. OSHA believes that tiering the construction standard to reflect differences In workplace conditions within this industry will simultaneously provide appropriate employee protection and encourage voluntary employer compliance with the final rule. In publishing these two revised standards governing occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite in construction and in general industry. OSHA is acting to regulate a hazard widely recognized by other Federal agencies, health experts, and the general public The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated regulations controlling asbestos under the Clean Air Act the Toxic Substance* Control Act and the Clean Water Act. Under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacture. Importation, and processing of asbestos-cement pipe and fittings, roofing felts, flooring felts (and felt-backed sheet flooring), vinylasbestos floor tile, and asbestos clothing (51 FR 3738-3759). These uses would be prohibited because EPA believes that safer, economically competitive substitutes for these products are available, and that "the manufacture, processing, and use of asbestos products leaves a legacy of asbestos in the ambient air" (51 FR 3739). In addition. EPA is proposing to establish a permit system to phase out all other asbestos products. Under this system, EPA would permit current miners or importers to mine or import a specific quantity of asbestos. EPA would require this quantity to decline every year until, after 10 years, mining or importation would only be permitted under a specific exemption for those asbestos applications for which no substitutes had been developed. EPA Is also considering requiring labeling for all asbestos products that are not banned, Including products manufactured pursuant to permits issued by EPA during the phase-down period, or pursuant to an exemption process. Emissions of asbestos to the ambient air are controlled under section 112 of the Clean Air Act which establishes National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Regulations in 40 CFR Part 61. Subpart M. specify control requirements for most asbestos 10002143 22614 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 119 / Friday. June 20. I960 / Rules and Regulations emissions, including work practices that average (TWA) and a peak exposure separate proposal applicable to the must be followed to minimize the level of 10 f/cc. construction industry, no such proposal release of asbestos fibers during the In June 1972. OSHA promulgated s was published. handling of asbestos waste materials. - new final standard that established an In 1978. the National Institute for EPA regulations promulgated under the 8-hour time-weighted average PEL of 5 Occupational Safety and Health i'oxic Substances Control Act (40 CFR f/cc and a ceiling limit of 10 f/cc. These (N10SH). and in I960 a NIOSH/OSHA Part 763. Subpart F) address the problem limits were intended primarily to protect task force, recommended that OSHA of asbestos construction materials used employees against asbeslosis, and it reduce the permissible exposure limit in schools. These regulations require was hoped that they would provide for asbestos to 0.1 f/cc. based on that all schools be inspected to some incidental degree of protection evidence of the carcinogenicity of determine the presence and quantity of against asbestos induced forms of asbestos (Ex. 84-320). OSHA has asbestos-containing materials in school cancer. Effective July 1976. OSHA's 6- considered these recommendations in facilities. Corrective actions are left to hour TWA limit was reduced to 2 f/cc determining what regulatory response is the discretion of school officials. EPA and this limit remained in effect up to necessary to provide exposed regulations promulgated under the Clean the present; the final rules published employees with effective protection. Water Act set standards for asbestos today revise the PEL for 8-hour On May 24,1963. OSHA consulted levels in effluents to navigable waters. employee exposures to asbestos, with the Advisory Committee for Throughout this rulemaking, OSHA tremolite, anthophyllile, and actinolite Construction Safety and Health has consulted with the EPA on various to a level of 0.2 fiber/cc (referred to as "CACOSH") concerning regulatory aspects of dealing with the OSHA's 1972 asbestos standard was the applicability of any new asbestos asbestos hazard. EPA has reviewed and reviewed by the court and upheld in all standard to the construction industry. critiqued OSHA's quantitative risk major respects; however, the court CACOSH endorsed OSHA's position assessment for asbestos (Exs. 64-292. remanded two issues for OSHA's that any new PEL adopted for general 66-6), and both EPA and OSHA belong reconsideration (IUD v. Hodgson. 449 F. industry should also apply to the to the Federal Asbestos Task Force, 2d 467 (CADC1974)). These issues were construction industry (Ex. 64-424). On established in June 1983. to coordinate whether the July 1976 effective date lor November 4.1963, OSHA published an Federal regulatory actions with regard the 2 f/cc standard should be Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to asbestos. The Consumer Product accelerated for some industries and for asbestos (46 FR 51086). The ETC Safety Commission is also a member of whether the standard's 3-year retention marked a new regulatory initiative, this task force because of its mandate to period for employee exposure related to, but not part of. the 1975 protect consumers from health and monitoring records was adequate. In proceeding. The ETS was held invalid safety hazards. response to the remand. OSHA by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for C. State Plan Revisions increased the record retention period to the Fifth Circuit on March 7,1964. 20 years (41 FR 11504). and the passage Subsequently. OSHA published a ( The 25 states and territories with their of time mooted the acceleration issue. notice of proposed rulemaking (49 FR . own OSHA-approved occupational In October 1975. OSHA published a 14116, April 10.1964) for a standard safety and health plans must revise their notice of proposed rulemaking (40 FR covering occupational exposure to existing standard within 6 months of 47652) to revise the asbestos standard asbestos in all of the industries this publication date or show OSHA because the Agency believed that governed by the Act: maritime, why there is no need for action; for "sufficient medical and scientific construction, and general industry. example, because an existing Stale evidence has been accumulated to Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act. the standard covering this area is already warrant the designation of asbestos as a ETC also served as a proposed rule. "at least as effective" as the revised human carcinogen" and that advances Public hearings were held in Federal standards. These states or in monitoring and protective technology Washington. D.C.. from June 19 to July territories are: Alaska, Arizona. made reexamination of the standard 10.1964. to provide interested parties California. Connecticut. Hawaii. "desirable." This proposal would have and the public with the opportunity to Indiana. Iowa. Kentucky. Maryland. reduced the 6-hourtime-weighted comment on the proposed revisions, Michigan. Minnesota, Nevada, New average to 0.5 f/cc and imposed a ceiling pursuant to notice and section 6(b) of Mexico, New York. North Carolina. limit of 5 f/cc for 15 minutes. the Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(3)). The Oregon. Puerto Rico. South Carolina, The basis for the 1975 proposal's hearings were presided over by Tennessee. Utah. Vermont. Virginia, the reduction in the permissible exposure Administrative Law Judge Robert C. Virgin Islands. Washington, and limit to 0.5 f/cc was OSHA's then- Mahoney. Post-hearing submissions of Wyoming. (In Connecticut and New current policy for carcinogens that data, comments, and briefs were York, the plan covers only State and assumed that no safe threshold level received through November 1.1984. The local government employees.) was demonstrable and therefore that the entire record, including over 340 exhibits . Regulatory History Act required the Agency to set the PEL and approximately 55,000 pages of at a level as low as technologically and material, was certified by Judge OSHA has regulated asbestos since economically feasible. This policy was Mahoney on September 27,1985, in 1971. A12 f/cc permissible exposure rejected by the Supreme Court in the accordance with 29 CFR 191117. Copies limit (PEL) for asbestos was included in benzene decision (IUD v. API, 448 U.S. of materials contained in the record may the initial promulgation on May 29.1971 601 (i960)) (see the discussion of the be obtained from the OSHA Docket (36 FR 10466) of OSHA standards implications of the benzene decision for Office, Room N3670. U.S. Department of pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. In OSHA rulemaking in the Significance of Labor. 200 Constitution Avenue. NW., Response to a petition by the Industrial Risk section of the preamble, section Washington. DC 20210. These final Union Department of the AFL-CIO. VI). The 1975 proposal would have standards on occupational exposure to OSHA issued an ETS on asbestos on applied to all industries except asbestos in construction and general December 7.1971, which established a construction. Further, although OSHA industry are based on a thorough PEL of 5 f/cc as an 6-hour time-weighted announced its intention to develop a consideration of the entire record of this 10002144 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 119 / Friday, June 20. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 22615 proceeding. Including material* discussed or relied on in the November 1983 and April 1964 notice*, the record of the informal bearing, and all written comments and exhibits received. III. Pertinent Legal Authority The primary purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 > U.SC. 651 et seq.) (the Act) i* to assure, o far a* possible, safe and healthful working conditions for every American worker over the period of bis or her working lifetime. One means prescribed by the Congress to achieve this goal Is the mandate given to. and the concomitant authority vested in. the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory safety and health standards. The Congress specifically mandated that: Th* Secretary. In promulgating standards dealing with loxJc materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employe* will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity even if such employee hat regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life. Development of standards under this subsection shall be bated upon research, demonstrations, experiments, and such other information as may be appropriate. In addition to the attainment of the highest degree of health and safety protection for the employee, other consideration* shall be the latest available scientific data in th* field, the feasibility of standards, and experience gained under this and other health and safety laws. (Section 6(b)(5)) Where appropriate, OSHA standards are required to include provisions for labels or other appropriate forms of warning to apprise employees of hazards, suitable protective equipment exposure control procedures, monitoring and measuring of employee exposure, employee access to the results of monitoring, appropriate medical examinations, and training and education. Moreover, where a standard prescribes medical examinations or other teats, they must be available at no cost to the employee (Section 6(b)(7)). Standards may also prescribe recordkeeping requirements where necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding occupational accidents and illnesses (Section 6(c)). In vacating OSHA's revision to its benzene standard, the Supreme Court required in Industrial Union Deportment. AFL-C1Q v. American Petroleum Institute. 446 U.S. 601.65 L Ed. 2d 1010.100 S. Ct. 2644 (I960), that before the issuance of a new or revised standard pursuant to section 6(b)(5) of the Act. OSHA must make two threshold findings. OSHA must find that a significant risk exists under the current standard and that the issuance of a new standard would reduce or eliminate that risk. The Court stated: Ws agree . . . that subsection 3(8) require* th* Secretary to find, as a threshold matter, that tbs toxic substance In question poses a significant health risk In the workplace and that s new. lower standard U therefor* ''reasonably neceaaaiy or appropriate to provide safe and healthful employment and placet of employment.'* 448 U.S. 807 at 814-15:85 L Ed. 2d 1010 at 1018- 1S. The Court alto stated: . .. Before he can promulgate any permanent health or safety standard, th* Secretary (of Labor] is required to make a threshold finding that a place of employment it uoaafe--in the tense that significant risks are present and can ha sliminatsd or lessened by change in practices. . . . (448 US. st 642.65 L Ed. 2d at 1085) The decision, although it recognized the uncertainties involved, indicated that the determination of "significant risk" should if at all possible, be established on the basis of an analysis of the beat available evidence through such means ns quantitative risk assessments. However, in making that determination, the Supreme Court in its general guidance for the future noted that . . . The requirement that a ''significant" risk be identified is not a mathematical str*lt)acket It ta the Agency's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what it consider* to be a "significant risk." (448 US si 655.65 L Ed. 2d at 1043) It pointed out that while OSHA . . . must support its finding* that a certain level of risk exists by substantial evidence, we recognize that it* determination that a particular level of risk ta "significant" will be based largely on policy considerations. (448 U.S. at 656.65 L Ed. 2d at 1043. a. 62) Finally, the Court pointed out that ... OSHA is not required to support it* finding that a algnlllcanl risk exists with anything approaching adentifie certainty. Although the Agency's finding* must be supported by substantial evidence. * OSHA [has] eome leeway where its findings must be mad* oo th* frontiers af scientific knowledge. (446 U5. at 656.66 L Ed. 2d at 1043) In the only concrete example of significance, the Court stated: Some risks are plainly acceptable and other* an plainly unacceptable, if. for example the odds an one in a billion that a penon 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 an on* In s thousand that regular inhalation of gasoline vapor* that an 2% benzene will be fatal a nasooable penon might well consider the nsk significant and lake appropriate step* to decrease or eliminate It. (Id. st 655. 656 L Ed. 2d at 1043.) 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 employees will suffer material impairment of health. . (section 6(b)(5) of the Act). The Supreme Court hat interpreted this section to mean that OSHA mutt enact the most protective standard possible to eliminate a significant risk of material health Impairment, subfect only to the constraints of technological and economic feasibility. (American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan. 452 U.S. 490 (1961)). Moreover, section 4(b)(2) of the Act provides for OSHA standards to apply to construction, maritime, and other workplaces where the Secretary determines that these standard* are more effective than the existing standards that would otherwise apply to these workplaces. The Secretary so finds, and these standard* will therefore apply to all workplace* where the Secretary has authority to regulate. IV. Health Effects A. Overview ofAsbestos-Related Diseases OSHA is aware of no instance in which exposure to a toxic substance has more clearly demonstrated detrimental health effects on humans than has asbestos exposure. The diseases caused by asbestos exposure are lifethreatening or disabling. Among these disases are lung cancer, cancer of the mesothelial lining of the pleura and peritoneum, aabestoais. and gastrointestinal cancer. Of all of the disease* caused by asbestos, lung cancer constitutes the greatest health risk for American asbestos workers. Lung cancer baa been responsible for more than half of the excess mortality from asbestos exposure in some occupational cohorts. The relationship between lung cancer and asbestos exposure has been established in numerous epidemiologic studies of diverse groups. Asbestosinduced lung cancer usually has a latency period in excess of 20 years, and this cancer may be manifested 'at a younger age than is true for lung cancer victims who are not exposed to asbestos (Craighead et al. Ex. 84-033). Few cases of lung cancer are curable, despite advances in medical and surgical 10002145 Federal Register / Vol 51. No. 119 / Friday. June 20. 1980 / Rule* and Regulations 22679 -witnesses. OSliA has concluded that chemically modified asbestos should be regulated in the same manner as unmodified asbestos. To make this intent clear, the phrase "and any of these minerals that has been chemically treated and/or altered" has been added to the definition of asbestos. OSHA currently regulates all forms of tremolite, actinolile, and anthophyllite as asbestos. Some commentera, most notably representatives of the R.T. Vanderbilt Company, have strongly encouraged OSHA to revise its definition of asbestos to make it mineralogically correct. They have encouraged the Agency to emend the definition to make it clear that only the "asbeatifonn" varieties of tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolile are considered to be asbestos (Ex. 337). The Agency raised this Issue in the April proposal. A number of commenters supported the addition of the term "asbestiform" (Ex. 90-3: 90-143; 90-180) or the term "fibrous" (Ex. 90-37; 117A) to the definition. Some urged OSHA to adopt the definition of another governmental Agency (Ex. 90-143:90-161; 90-167) or to adopt a mineralogies! definition (Ex. BO37; 90-162; 90-179; 230 p. 13). The modification of the definition to read tremolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, and actinolite asbestos would eliminate other forms of tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite from the definition of asbestos. OSHA has regulated all of these minerals as asbestos since 1972. The elimination of these minerals from the scope of the standard could only be Justified by evidence that exposure to these minerals would not present a health ` hazard to exposed workers. Therefore, in its deliberations. OSHA examined the data in the record to determine whether or not there is evidence that workers exposed to these minerals are at risk for adverse health effects. Both Dr. Mearl Stanton and Dr. William Smith have investigated the carcinogenicity of termoiite in experimental animals. Dr. Stanton's experiments (Ex. 84-195) demonstrated that tremolite asbestos is highly carcinogenic when implanted in the pleurae of rats. He also tested two samples of talc that did not induce tumors. These two samples were certified by Dr. Ann Wylie (Ex. 337 Att 2) to be tremolitic talcs which "usually contain approximately 30-50% nonasbestiform tremolite by weight, and small quantities of nonasbestiform anthoohyllite and fibrous talc" (Ex. 337 Att 2). Dr. William Smith also conducted a series of experimental carcinogenicity studies In hamsters fEx. 64-194: 306). These studies examined the effect of intrapleural injections ofa number of minerals including asbestifonn and nonasbestiform tremolite. In these studies, samples of asbestifonn tremolite and a sample of nonasbestiform tremolite induced tumor formation in hamsters while other samples of nonasbestiform tremolite did not (Ex. 84-194). In addition to the experimental animal studies, much of the support to eliminate some forms of tremolite. actinolite. and anthophyllite from the definition of asbestos has focused on epidemiological studies of exposed workers. Particular attention has been paid to two prospective mortality studies at a New York state talc mine and milL The November proposal discussed both studies in great detail. Briefly, the NIOSH Investigators (Brown. Dement and Wagoner Ex. 8425) concluded that there were significant excesses of lung cancer mortality and of mortality due to nonmalignant respiratory disease. In the opinion of the investigators, this increase could not be accounted for by smoking history alone. They also reported that asbestos was present in the mine and mill. Stille and Tabershaw, studying a larger cohort employed at the same facility, concluded that the lung cancer excess observed was not statistically significant and was "consistent with a smoking effect" (Ex. 84-196). A number of reports, analyses, and letters to the editor that discussed the strengths and shortcomings of the two studies were placed in the record and were discussed in the November proposal (Exa. 84-217; 84-218; 84-231; 64-257; 84-375, 306.337). (For a detailed discussion see 48 FR 51117-51120.) Several other authors have investigated the mortality and morbidity associated with anthophyllite and tremolite exposures. Studies by Kleinfeld el al (Ex. 84-181). Kiviluoto et ol. (Ex. 64-161). Gamble el al. (Ex. 64161) and others were discussed in the November proposal. In general these studies have found an excess mortality and/or morbidity associated with exposures to these minerals. OSHA has examined the data in the record that addresses the relationship between the health of workers and exposure to tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite. Then is epidemiological evidence in the record that shows that tremolite exposed workers an at risk for both death and disease. The results in experimental animals indicate that under test conditions that same samples of nonasbestiform tremolite induce tumor formation while others do not. Therefore, OSHA concludes that exposure to all forms of tremolite. anthophyllite and actinolile should be regulated under this standsrd. The Agency recognizes that Ihc minerals tremolite. actinolite and anthophyllite exist in different forms. Further, the Agency has concluded that all forms of these minerals should continue to be regulated for the reasons staled above. Therefore. OSHA is amending the definition of asbestos in recognition that different mineral forms exist and adding a definition for tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite to make ft dear that all of the mineral forms come under the scope of the standard. Action Level In the final standard the action level has been set at 0.1 f/cc which triggers the monitoring, medical, and employee information and training requirements. This level is consistent with the trigger currently applied to the medical surveillance provision of the asbestos standard, so it represents no real change to the standard with regard to this provision, but merely clarifies OSHA's policy. This provision is also consistent with other OSHA health standards which trigger monitoring, medical, and training requirements at the action level (e.g,, arsenic, 1910.1018; lead. 1910.1025; acrylonitrile, 1910.1045: and ethylene oxide 1910.1047). Regulated areas, hygiene facilities, and protective clothing are triggered at the PEL consistent with past OSHA rulemaking. (See, for example, inorganic arsenic. 1910.1016). Representatives of industry, labor and government endorsed the action level concept. Many participants suggested that a 0.1 f/cc action level should be maintained as an appropriate level for the implementation of medical urveillance |Exs. 88-4.90-49.98-163. 90-174.98-160,156D. 328]. Some commenters were of the opinion that the 0.1 level should trigger implementation of other provisions as well, such as training (Exs. 86-4,98-49.98-163,90174,90-180,158D, 326). Some commenters were of the opinion that the 0.1 level should trigger implementation of other provisions as well, such as training (Exs. 66-4,292,326). regulated areas (Exs. 88-4.98-49. 292]. monitoring (66-4. 292.328|, hygiene facilities and protective clothing requirements (Exs. 68-4. 292]. Other industry spokespersons believed that the action level was overh burdensome, stating their opinion that if the permissible exposure level were a level that adequately protects workers, no action level should be required (Exs 90-138. 90-1G6. 90-166). 10002146 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 119 / Friday. |unc 20. I960 / Rules and Regulations 22699 potential safety and health problems involves the cooperation of employees, the success of such a program is highly dependent upon the employee's understanding of the hazards attendant to thHt job. Finally, given the evidence of the carcinogenicity of asbestos. OSHA believes that these signs will not cause undue alarm. This is especially so when balanced against the positive results anticipated, as described above. For all of the reasons set forth OSHA believes that it is appropriate to use precautionary signs which warn of a cancer hazard. The standard also requires that all raw materials, mixtures, scrap, waste, debris, and other products containing asbestos Fibers, or their containers, be labeled with the appropriate information: DANCER--CONTAINS ASBESTOS FIBERS: AVOID CREATINC DUST; CANCER AND LUNC DISEASE HAZARD The new standard allows two exceptions to the labeling and material safety data sheets (MSDS) requirements: no label or MSDS is required in those instances where: (1) 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 (including handling, storage, disposal, processing, or transportation) employee exposure will remain below the action level: or (2) asbestos is present in a product in concentrations less than 0.1%. The exceptions provided in the revised standard are based, in part on the exception given in the existing standard and are consistent with guidance provided in OSHA's Hazard Communication standard (1910.1200). The existing asbestos standard provides that ... no label it required where asbestos fibers have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, binder, or other material to that during any reasonably foreseeable use. handling, storage, disposal, processing, or transportation, no airborne concentrations of asbestos Fibers in excess of the exposure limits provided in paragraph (b) |PEI.| of this seeIion will be released |110 I001(g)(2)|i)| This is changed slightly in the revised rule so that airborne concentrations must be kept below the action level rather than the PEL. As discussed earlier, an action level has been added to this rule to trigger a number of provisions, such as medical surveillance 8nd monitoring, in part, because OSHA feels exposures at the action level may still pose significant risk to workers, and so keeping exposures below this level is important for worker protection. Therefore. OSHA has changed the exception to the labeling requirement to be consistent with the introduction of an action level in the revised rule. It is OSHA's belief that materials that have been treated in the manner described in the exception (auch aa bonding or coating) would not generally releaae airborne concentrations of aabeatoa above the action level, and that the change in the regulatory language should not impose any additional obligations upon employers exempt under the existing rule. OSHA has added another exception to labeling, for materials containing less than 0.1% aabeatoa. The exception was added in response to concerns expressed by a number of participants that asbestos is a trace contaminant in a number of materials and products (see. for example, Grace. Ex 344-10) and that labeling such products would constitute an undue burden on employers. In choosing the percent exemption. OSHA has taken general guidance from its Hazard Communication rule which specifies that a mixture shall be considered hazardous if a carcinogen is present in concentrations in excess of 0.1% (1910.1200fd)(5)fiv)|. While other percentages were suggested to the record (for example. 0.25%, Ex. 344-16). OSHA found no other data to override considerations of safety given in the generic standard and. hence, in the interest of the protection of worker health, has maintained the 0.1% recommendation. The signs and labels requirements discussed above are consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act. which prescribes the use of labels or other appropriate forms of warning to apprise employees of the hazards to which they are exposed. Rulemaking participants generally supported OSHA's requirement for signs and labels. |Exs. 146. 233. 236. 312. 86-4.90-174.92-38). There were no significant issues raised to the contrary. Information and Training The Final standard requires employers to provide a training program for all employees expected to be exposed to airborne asbestos at or above the action level of O.t f/cc. The training requirement in the standard is patterned after OSHA's Hazard Communication standard [29 CFR 1910.1200(h) (1) and (2)). Information and training are to be provided at the time of initial assignment and at least annually to employees who are exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos at or above the action level. The content of the training program is intended to inform employees of: (1) The hazards to which they are exposed: (2) the necessary steps to protect themselves, including those to be token during emergency situations: (3) the proper use and limitation of respirators and protective equipment; (4) a description of medical examinations and their purpose: (S) implementation of work practices and the use of available engineering controls: (G) the contents of this standard and (7) the added risk of lung cancer due to the combination of cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure. Section 6(b)(7) of the Act makes it clear that these are appropriate goals for an employee training program, and the Final standard includes such provisions. The employer is required to make a copy of the standard available to affected employees and their representatives. This requirement, in combination with the review provided for as part of the training program, is intended to ensure that employees understand their rights and duties undci this standard. The employer is also required to provide, upon request, all materials relating to the training program to the Assistant Secretary and Director. This it intended to provide an objective check oFcompliancc with the requirements under this paragraph. OSHA recognizes that asbestos may be only one of a number of substances to which an employee may be exposed simultaneously in the workplace. The education and training requirements in this standard contain those elements OSHA has determined to be basic. The fin mat and content of the required training and information program arc neither rigid nor extensive. An employer may. if desired, incorporate the required information for asbestos into an existing program of training and education to be provided to employees. The final standard requires that the training progiam be provided at least annually. OSIIA believes that an annual training program is both necessary and sufficient to ensure that employees maintain a continuing awareness of the hazards of asbestos and their rights and duties under the standard. To increase the effectiveness of training goals the final standard requires that the training material be made available, without cost, to all affected employees or their representatives. The final training provision is virtually identical to thHt proposed, except that the requirement is triggeied 10002147 22612 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 119 / Friday. June 20. 1986 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Paris 1910 and 1926 (Docket No. H-0J3C1 Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremottte, Anthophyllite, and Acttnottte agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. ACTION: Final rules. Summary: In these Final standards, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amends its present standard (29 CFR 1910.1001) regulating occupational exposure to asbestos. The standards published today establish a permissible exposure limit of 0.2 fiber per cubic centimeter of sir (f/cc). determined as an 8-hour timeweighted average airborne concentration. The standards apply to all Industries covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act including the construction and maritime Industries and general Industry. Separate standards and separate statements of reasons (Summary and Explanation sections) have been developed to apply to general industry (including maritime) and to construction, because the differences in exposure and workplace conditions in general industry and construction worksites warrant separate treatment. The standards will be codified in 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926. OSHA's General Industry and Construction standards, respectively. The basis for promulgation of these regulations is a determination by the Assistant Secretary that employees exposed to asbestos, tremolite. anthophyllite, and actinolite face a significant risk to their health and that these final standards will substantially reduce that risk. The record in this rulemaking demonstrates that employees occupationally exposed to asbestos are at risk of developing such chronic diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal cancer. The standards also provide for requirements for methods of compliance, personal protective equipment, employee monitoring, medical surveillance, communication of hazards to employees, regulated areas, housekeeping procedures, and recordkeeping. An "action" level of 0.1 f/cc as an 8-hour time-weighted average Is established as the level above which employers must initiate certain compliance activities, such as employee training and medical surveillance. Where the employer can demonstrate, by means of exposure monitoring results or historical data, that the exposures of his or her employees do not exceed the action level, the employer is not obligated to comply with many of the standard's requirements. The 0.2 f/cc 8hour limit reduces significant risk from exposure and is considered by OSHA. based upon substantial evidence in the record as a whole, to be the lowest level feasible. effective date: The amended standards published today take affect July 21,1986, except the following paragraphs which contain information collection requirements which are under review at the Office of Management and Budget 29 CFR 1910.1001 (d)(2), (dX9). (d)(5). (d)(7). (f)(2). (g)(3)(i). (j)(5). (1). and (m); 29 CFR 1926J8 (f)(2). (HP). (fK). (b)(3)(J). (k)(3), (k)(4). (m). and (n). ADDRESS: For additional copies of these final standards, contact: OSHA Office of Publications, U.S. Department of Labor. Room S-4203,200 Constitution Avenue, NW,, Washington. DC 20210. Telephone (202)523-9687. FOR FURTHER REFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster. Director. Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, OSHA. U.S. Department of Labor. Room N-3637,200 Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington. DC 20210. Telephone (202) 523-8151. SUPPLEMENTAAV MFORMATION: L Introduction A. The Format of This Document (the Preamble) . The preamble accompanying these revised standards Is divided into 13 parts, numbered 1 through Xiil. The following is a table of contents: I. Introduction 0. Regulstory History ID. Pertinent Legal Authority IV. Health Effects V. Quantitative Risk Assessment VI. Significance of Risk VII. Final Economic Impact, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis VIII. Environmental Impact Assessment IX. Standards Recommended to OSHA by Interested Parties X. Summary and Explanation of the Revised Standard for Ceneral Industry XI. Summary and Explanation for a Revised Standard for the Construction Industry XU. Authority and Signature XiU. Amended Standards References to the rulemaking record are in the text of the preamble, and the following abbreviations have been used: 1. Ex.: Exhibit number in Docket H033C. Docket H-033C is located in Room N3670 at the Department of labor. 2- TR.: Transcript date and page number. B. Summary Pursuant to sections 4(b)(2). 6(b). 6(c). and 8(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (84 Stat. 1562,1593.1596,1599; 29 U.S.C. 653. 655. 857), the Construction Safety Act (40 U.S.C. 333), the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), the Secretary of Labor's Order No. 9-83 (48 FR 35738). and 29 CFR Part 1911. these final standards hereby amend and revise the current acbeatoa standard, 29 CFR 1910.1001. This action follows publication of proposed notices on November 4.1983 (48 FR 51065) and on April 10.1984 (49 FR 14116) and the holding of a public hearing to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on these proposed revisions. The bearings were held from June 19 to July 10.1984, in Washington. DC More than 55.000 pages of testimony and comments were received into the record of this rulemaking and have been analyzed by the Agency in developing these final standards. Based on this record. OSHA has determined that employees exposed to asbestos, tremolite. anthophyllite. and actinolite at the existing permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 2 fibers per cubic centimeter of air (2 f/cc) at worksites in the construction and maritime industries and in general industry workplaces face a significant risk to their health and that these final standards will substantially reduce that risk. Evidence in the record of this proceeding has shown that employees exposed at the revised standards' PEL of 0-2 fiber/cc remain at significant risk of incurring a chronic exposure-related disease, but considerations of feasibility have constrained OSHA to aet the revised PEL at the 0.2 fiber/cc level. The standard issued in 1971 defined asbestos as chiyaotile. croddolite, amoaite, tremolite. anthophyllite. and actinolite. Ail of these minerals represent a hazard to workers, snd the revised standard continues to regulate all of them. However, some forms of these minerals ere no huger included in the definition of the word "asbestos". The regulatory text clearly specifies that the standards apply to occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite. anthophyllite, and actinolite. In the preamble, however, where the word "asbestos" is used this should be interpreted as applying to tremolite. anthophyllite, and actinolitr as well. 10002148