Document GK7KM1xLZm9K2NgyK5NnRJZgY

Federal Register / VoL 51t No. 119 / Friday, June -20, 1986 / Rules and Regulations . 22719 I r* pliability and minor surface'defects-^wiU ' OSHA believes that employers should \ also affect protection, as will'poor maintenance and conditions of temperature and humidity.. . . Insofar as comfort is likely to increase respirator wear, positive pressure have the flexibility to use any of.the available respirators that provide' sufficient protection to reduce the respirators are superior to negative-pressure exposures to levels below the PEL because they are more likely to be accepted Furthermore, the safety problems Many commenters presented information on fit-testing requirements. for respirators (Exs. 263; 330; 123-A; 90233: 302; 322; 328; Trs. 6/21, p. 75: 6/29. p. 232; 7/2, p. 25; 7/3, p. 48; 7/10, p. 299; 7/ 11, p. 119). Several commenters by workers for regular use. (Ex. 330) associated with the use of supplied-air recommended that quantitative fit Many commenlers requested that the selection of respirators be dictated by respirators cannot be ignored. OSHA believes that respirators should be the exposure levels that exist in the workplace environment (Exs. 90-160; 90-173; 90-182; 339; Tr. 7/12, p. 338). For . selected that both provide adequate protection from exposure to airborneasbestos fibers and minimize the risk of example, the Industrial Safety accident and injury potentially caused Equipment.Association stated: by the use of cumbersome supplied-air respirators. In addition, OSHA has The type of respirators to be required for historically used a tiered approach to employees engaged in spraying, demolition, and removal operations should depend on the airborne exposure levels measured for each the application of respiratory protection in nearly all standards governing exposed person and the proper type of occupational health hazards. (See, for respirator should be selected accordingly. If example. 29 CFR 1910.1047, ethylene testing be required. For example, NIOSH commented, ", . . we want to reiterate our position that we recommend a quantitative respirator fit-testing program as previously stated in comments on the proposed lead standard" (Ex. 117-A). Conversely, the Asbestos Information As6ociation/North America (A1A/NA) staled that the record does not support that quantitative fit-testing procedures are more effective in providing good respirator Fit than sound qualitative Fit- such measures are not possible, a supplied-' oxide; 29 CFR 1910.1017, vinyl chloride; testing procedures. The AIA/NA air respirator should be required.. . . and 29 CFR 1910.1045, acrylonitrile). commented (hat there is no need for Techniques have progressed so that relatively low levels of asbestos can be maintained in the workplace. Rather than required air-supplied respirators in all removal and demolition operations, the type uf respiratory protection selected should correspond to the highest concentration of Therefore. OSHA has developed the protocol contained in Table D-4 of the standard for the application of respirators, which: (1) Allovys the use of negativepressure air-purifying respirators fitting protocols to be rigidly specified in the final standard, because techniques are widely published in industrial hygiene publications and because the 29 CFR 1910.134 requirement that the respirator be worn in a test atmosphere asbestos anticipated in the particular equipped with high-efficiency filters for as part of the training workplace. (F.x. BO-182] concentrations, of asbestos fibers less program . . . would allow employers Similarly, Richard Roll, Assistant Vice than 10 times the PEL Ihe flexibility to take advantage of President for Bell Communications (2) Allows the use of full-facepiece improvements in fit-testing procedures Research, stated: air-purifying respirators with high- in future years" (Ex. 328). Ihe requirements of the present standard Tor a supplied air respirator whenever asbestos is removed are over restrictive in many work situations. Almost all' efficiency filters for concentrations of asbestos fibers less than 50 times the PEL (3) Allows the use of'powered air- Many commenters favored the use of either quantitative or qualitative fit- . testing procedures or both. The BCTD's recommended standard requires maintenance activities on asbestos covered purifying respirators with high-efficiency quantitative fit testing to be performed piping and equipment involve the removal of filters or half-mask supplied-air on an employee before he or she begins. some of the asbestos insulation material. Work practices (wet methods, enclosure, vacuum systems) have been developed to minimize the potential for employee exposure in those situations. It ntakes no sense to; require supplied air respirators in these work operations merely on the technicality that respirators operated in the positivepressure mode for concentrations of asbestos fibers less than 100 times the . PEL (4) Requires the use of full-facepiece supplied-air respirators operated in the any asbestos-related work and'at least annually thereafter, and whenever an employee's facial features change or other conditions of wear affect fit. The BCTD's standard requires daily qualitative fit testing, using methods that some'asbestos material wilt be removed. positive-pressure mode or full-facepiece are adequate to ensure a proper fit for Respirator selection should be a function of self-contained breathing apparatus half-mask negative-pressure respirators. airborne fiber concentration rather than category of work. (Ex. 90-173) operated in the positive^pressure mode for concentrations of asbestos fibers An article published in the American Industrial Hygiene Journal in February, . Julia L. Phillips, an.Attorney with the that exceed 100 times the PEL 1983 (K. E. Hardis, C. A. Cadena, C. A. j Environment, Materials and Logistics Data presented by the Building Bhd Carlson, R. A. da Roza, and B. ]. Held; { Division of E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Construction Trades Department, AFL- American.lndustrial Hygiene . . ) \Company noted that air line respirators C10 (Ex; 330) indicated that the proper Association Journal (44) February, 1983) and self-contained.breathing apparatus use of respirators may depend, to a large presented data on the effectiveness of i had significant disadvantages when extent, on the workers comfort and qualitative fit-testing protocols for ' used in asbestos abatement projects (Ex. preference for various types of detecting poorly Fitting facepieces with ! 339). Ms. Phillips stated: respirators. Therefore OSHA has protection factors greater than 10. This I Air line respirators of. sclfcontained breathing apparatus (SCBA) create safety hazards in a complicated [asbcstos| removal required that employers provide powered air-purifying respirators for employees who request them for article reported that for a fit-factor of 10, 93 to 100 percent of poorly fitting' half mask respirators could be detected by operation where workers are constantly concentrations of asbestos Fibers less qualitative methods. The article also climbing or descending ladders or scaffolding oecause of the increased risk of tripping and tailing. (Ex. 339) than 100 times the PEL OSHA believes that this provision will increase the effectiveness of respiratory protection reported that, when used (o'test for a fit factor of 100, qualitative.methods were capable of detecting only 23 to 46 OSHA agrees that positive-pressure programs while allowing employers to percent of the inadequately fitting full- supplied-air respirators provide ar '" select the most cost-effective respiratory facepiece respirators. greater level of protection than do half protection options that will reduce Therefore, based on these data. mask negative-pressure respirators. exposure to below the PEL OSHA has allowed in paragraphs vi 'r i:;. *i.!| , "M i ifSi; i SJ g8 iji , ir \\ *: Vh iif . a. GLEASON-000967