Document LE67jRvJxZraMGokMgv7Xz9X

t<nj' pr*fi**4 ^ dtcti PROPOSED RULES separately coded In the lntema- pleted hi 1966. Becent measurements, peared that the recognized, continuing classlflcation of diseamn. It may wring modern fiber-counting methods, Important health hazard of asbestosis at lor one death In several thou- were correlated with earlier dust assess could be controlled on the basis of cur raand In the absence of an euflronmental ments using other toflmlfnim This al rent obser--tions. or occupational asbestos exposure, m lowed estimates of 4-19 flben/ml to be It was known at the time that asbes some groups of aabeetos wortera. It may made Of worker's eraosnrea since 1M3 tosls was not the only disease that could account for one death In ten. In the factory (Berry. 1973), These re- oocur as the result of asbestos exposure. Once established, the other aabestoa ported data carried considerable weight Beports were available that workers so y associated cancers differ little from thoee because information cm both exposures exposed were also at Increased risk of ?: occurring In the general population, al and their effects wen available. More developing esveral types of cancer, and though there may be variations in the over, all of the 290 Individuals examined these reports bad demonstrated that location of the primary site. Appropriate rayed by the company medical de- such risks were present during the use .t' . treatment and prognosis follow for the bad been employed for at least of asbestos In the United States, In fac particular tumor. There la very limited 10 yean; 112 had been employed for 20 tory production of asbestos products, and long term survival from lung cancer years or more. There had thus been some In their subsequent use (Mancuso and therapy; and only somewhat better from opportunity to observe the Incidence of Coulter. 1983; SeUkoff, Churg and Ham treated canoer of the colon car rectum. asbestosls associated with longer expo mond, 1964; Enteriine and Kendrick. Asbestoete and asbestos cancer-- sure to asbestos, a factor of some im 1969). However, these data bad nokjet whether It be lung- cancer, pleural meso portance since abnormal findings are been fully evaluated in terms of .the thelioma. peritoneal mesothelioma, can often not seen until a significant period extent or nsk m large carts of the asbes cer of the stomach, colon, rectum--usu- of time has elapsed from first exposure. tos industry In the United States and r ally do not become clinically evident until The Committee of the British Occupa there were few data which would allow more than 20 yean have passed from tional Hygiene Society, In evaluating the judgment concerning Intensity and ex- onset of exposure. This time-frame Is Information given to It an the recorded teSt'&rspMUre to asDestos in relation now widely recognised. While some such exposures In this plant and the infre so sne subsequent nax oi asDestos-MSo- cancers may appear during the second quency of disease among the workers ex ouN0gccr. Tne unusn occupational decade following onset of occupational posed to dust at these levels, came to the uygiene Society's Committee had recog exposure, peak Incidence is often not conclusion that, by lowering the per nised this problem In Great Britain as noted until 'the tO-years-from-onset mitted level still further, to a ssr/mi well, but developed Its standard based on point, or later. This is true both with as a time-weighted average. information related to the risk of devel regular, long-term asbestos work, and coma oe permitted to work In such en oping asbestosls, noting In Its report following short-term, brief or totermlt- vironments tor a full working life-time (1968) that It was "not posslbler at this - tent exposures. While variations in the (go years) Without substantial rtek~nf. time, to specify an air concentration time of occurrence may depend upon In developing asbestosls. It was calculated which Is kgawn wnrb* I'M M iwreran tensity and duration of exposure,1 with that workers exposed to 100 flber- nut. in'seicing its standard, usha noped heavier exposure often being enunciated years/ml, that Is, to 2 fibers/ml for 80 that reduction of exposure levels de with shorter latency periods, variations years, 4 flbers/ml for 25 years, or 10 signed to prevent asbestosls would also v among individual cases make It Impos flbers/ml for 10 years) wpuld have a 1% servo to control the hazard of asbestosls- sible to predict the latency period for risk of developing early signs of as aesoclatert cancer. In this, it placed con the risk of any particular worker. bestosls. siderable reliance on an additional facet B. PUOX HISTORY The British Committee published In of the British experience. Concurrently, 1968 Its report "Hygiene Standards for a published report from the same fac In 1971. In response to a netltlfm of Chrysotile Asbestos" for the prevention tory by Its medical director and recog toe Industrial nnlnn n.primwtr*vr- Of Asbestosls" In 1968. At ths rime there nized statisticians (knot. Holmes. Doll erjn OfiTTA mni.lHT.w1 HwlmTimt of Sr comparable nature In Hill. 1968) had* indicated that no a atomdnrd regulating occupational ex *T muted States, wnlle extensive icant increase in cancer mortality posure to aaheatns. At that time. It had clinical and epidemiological studies of KM been found among workers first eni- been TJ1 --tahllaheri that ashwrtnsls was the health effects of asbestos exposure on fl|6y*l1 friTLhlfl "plain a major cause of disability and death American workers bad been made, com when the Improved conditions mandated among workers regularly exposed to as- paratively few dust counts had been by the 1931 Factory Regulations came bestos dust In occupational circum recorded during the years In which the Into effect. stances In the United States, where the exposure of these workers had occurred. Since the promulgation of the UJ3. principal opportunity for such exposure Moreover, rtimt muni* that hiul hf*n permanent asbestos standard, considera occurred In the manufacture of asbestos ' `taken had utilised ywiinimi-- nthw than ble new Information has been forthcom products, and their use (Mancuso and the new membranefllter counting meth ing on the toxic effects of asbestos. This Coulter. 1963; SeUkoff, Cburg and Ham ods. rot these reasons, NIOSH, in Its has been In two areas; in the widen mond, 1984; SeUkoff, 1969; Enteriine and evaluation of considerations relating to a ing spectrum of cancers associated with 'Kendrick. 1967; SeUkoff, Hammond and standard for occupational exposure to asbestos exposure, and In various mani Cburg. 1968). The hazard of lung scar asbestos (NIOSH, Criteria Document, festations of asbestos disease in Indi ring resulting from the. Inhalation of 1971) stated that the recommendation of viduals exposed to relatively low con asbestos I"*hetna1"1 hart hwm * wm- the British Occupational Hygiene Soci centrations of dusk This exten ttrming nmhiem from the time of its first ety was "given great weight In the devel sion of the Initial data within recent Identification- (Departmental Commit opment of this standard." years now requires refocusing of OSHA's tee. 1907: Cooke 1W<- MmmBiw and The asbestos standard set by OSHA concerns from a primary function of pre race. 1931 apd Thrown. et al In 1972 was thus based on a number of vention of asbestosls with the expecta Data suggest that the Incidence of well-characterized observations. Lung tion of concomitant reduction in the in asbestools would be markedly diminished scarring ("asbestosls") bad been de cidence of asbestos-associated cancer, to by reduction of occupational exposure to scribed as an Important complication of a new orientation, that of primary con Identified levels, in factories and during occupational exposure to asbestos during cern with the prevention of asbestos- mid product use. Th*` British Occupa the original descriptions of the problem cancer. There is an additional logic In tional Hygiene Brwietv reported In 1968 In Oreat Britain. It bod been found this reorientation. Reduction of as -(Subcommittee on Asbestos, British Oc equally Important In U.8. studies In the bestos exposure to levels sufficient to pre cupational Hygiene Society, 1968) that 1930's, and more recent Investigations in vent asbestosls Is known, at least in some It bad been given data by a single large the 1960's had demonstrated that It had Instances, to be Insufficient to prevent mqfyrtrtn* tortile min which Indicated that continued as a serious problem. However, asbestos-cancer. On the other hand, a there was comparatively little clinical from the British Occupational Hygiene reduction of asbestos exposure to an ex and/or roentgenological Vidiiep-- *r - Society's evaluation of factory data re tent sufficient to prevent asbestos-asso bestools at this factory In a survey com lating the incidence of disease It ap ciated cancer will also prevent asbestosis. nOUAl RECISTft, VOt. 40, NO. 1*7--THURSOAr, OCTOBER V, 1975 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT AL-965 PROPOSED RULES 476M nm new observations should not (U-, In many groups of asbestos workers, of workers In a British asbestos factor)', oeHA's parlor fdcas on the pre approximately 20% of all deaths are where calculations predicted that be vention Of eibestosk, rignfffrarvt caused by lung neoplasma. This has been tween 10 and 11 percent of deaths would itmonary *nA/r "Wrr.1 yflffinr true both among asbestos produet fac- be due to mes>,.ue!ioma (Newhouse and - -not t>e" ,rl f--*w~ nt Xnw- ' toy wotkers (Sellkoff. Harnmnml and Berry. 1975). Jeyeirihort-lenp. intermittent mmm Cbnrg, 1972; and NlchOlson. 1975) and <c) Gastro-hUesttnat cancer Gastro gjgfflather. it should emphasise the lncom- . : among users of these products (Sellkoff, intestinal cancers (cancer of the stom iS^blete perspectives of the current standard Hammond and fieldman. 1973). The ex ach, colon and rectum) are also In derived from considerations concerned act percentage varies with dreumstanees creased In incidence among asbestos with prevention of asbestos-related lung of exposure, age of the workers, duration workers, but the Increase Is lev pro - scarring rather then those needed far at the workers' exposure *"d, perhaps nounced than that of lung cancer or r ttte prevention of asbestos-associated most of all, according to the duration mesothelioma. A number of studies now 'tancer. particularly mesothelioma... \. `from the onset of their asbestoe work Indicate that the increase Is on the order ; c..SH*:ieew;ivianfiai.''i;,\v. history, in -.have seen adrtltton.the last several years the dlecovery of another alt- of two or three times the number of ex pected tumors (Sellkoff, Hammond and ' <1> Asbestorts.'Subsequent to the hear- V leal variable affecting the tnddenoe of Seldman, 1873; Ehnes, 1968). Although rings on the current standard, uncertainty' lung cancer among asbestos workers. In this increased risk Is relatively limited, lias arisen as to whether the 1966, Sellkoff, Hammond and Cburg re especially when compared with lung British asbestos standard and the man ported that <" r*TMer was not cancer and mesothelioma. It Is neverthe dated 2 fiber,-ml UA standard provides - oantiy Increased m less of considerable Importance since a effective protection even against asbesto- bestos workers with no hlstnrv of yig. twn- nr three-fold increase In such com ais. The data from Great Britain ob arette smoking although when such his- mon tumors becomes an important cause tained In 1968 Indicated that little clini tory was present, the incidence of lung or aeatn for me workers involved. . cal disease. Including x-ray evidence of asbestosls, had occurred among workers first employed In that factory at time after 1833, when important Im provements in work practices had been cancer increased markedly over what would be expected among other cigarette smokers. In the absence of asbestoe ex posure. Thus, these scientists calculated ttat an asbestos worker who smoked cig It has been suggested that other tu mors are also increased In Incidence among asbestos workers, particularly cancers of the larynx (Stall and McGill. 1972.; Newhouse, 1973) and neoplasms of achieved, in 1872, results of evaluation of arettes had M time* the risk of dying of the oropharynx (Sellkoff, Hammond and new x-rays that bad been taken in 1870, of the work force then employed In the * as compared with lfltsln- Cburg, 1970), and of the esophagus (Se muai without cigarette smoking or llkoff. Hammond, and Seldman, 1973 >. same factory, were reported as showing that many now had abnormal nmUrty either In the lung or in coverings of the lung pleurae (Lewinsohn, 1872). There was thus a dlffq-"~ *-- prevalence Of ahnnrmul r-mv flnrifng. aMonfe workers x-raved in 1866 as re ported to the British Occupational Hy giene Society, and evaluation of other x-rays of workers In the same factory four years later. Additionally,' (ltniwii data are becom ing available concerning asbestos lung scarring in Individuals exposed at levels much lower than those of occupational circumstances. Among 210 family con- taCt8-5l *onne! asbestos fflfflArv'S^V. era. 38% have been reported to have x- ray changes characteristic 6f "asbestos exposure (Anderson, Sellkoff, Lllls and Daum, 1875). <2) Cancer. In December 1BV2, Impor tant new lnfnmiMm asbestos canceffl was presented at the conference on the BfniwUeai wffec*. e Asbestos, sponsored by the Twterpnttannl Agency ior wesearen on cancer of the World Jteatw tjrgpnrrnnr'n At TMi con ference, and subsequently, data on large groups of asbestos workers became avail able (Sellkoff. TTmmiwwwt arul 1873; Enterilnc. 1972), As expected, the h|gh risk nr hmnrhngenIr cerelnnmt mesothelioma persisted among factory employees and insulators. Moreover, /these later studies confirmed the excess gastrointestinal cancer H&t had 'Been joUggested earlier, and extended the spec- ;3trum of asbestos related cancers. . <a) lung cancer. The most Important '^cancer afflicting asbestos workers Is can cer of the lung, although mesothelioma has attracted considerable attention be cause ef the high frequency among as t work. This ending nag been con firmed by larger studies (Hammond and Sellkoff, 1973) where, again. It was found that non-smoking asbestos workers had few lung cancers while those who smoked iwii much more lung epneer than would have been expected bad they not been asbestos workers. Calculations suggest that elprgttew.moklng asbestos workers haw. ftpnrmrtmatalY eight times the risk of develoulng lung cancer compared to other smokers. *?b) Pleural and peritoneal maothe- Homo. In 1960, Wagner. Sleggs and Mardemonstrated an Important esso- elation between asbestos exposure and pleural mesothelioma. This cancer, which appears to be unrelated to smok ing, had previously been considered to be a very rare tumor. Numerous reports have confirmed the finding of Wagner md his colleagues that mesothelioma pan be wnmnntv associated with asbes tos exposure. A subsequent report by Entirvr'np and Smither, 1964. concerning -workers in a British asbestos factory demonstrated that the same tumor could be commonly found In the Midomen (peritoneal mesothelioma), as well as in the chest. The exact risk of death of these In variably fatal neoplasms has not been as well defined as has lung cancer, al though recording of cases from hospitals near one huge asbestos factory has Indi cated that it must be very common in.deed (Borow, Conston. Livomese and jBchalet, 1973). Information available from the experience of asbestos insula tion workers suggests that approximately five to seven percent of deaths may be due to this neoplasm (Hammond, Sell koff and Cburg, 1965; Sellkoff, Ham mond and Seldman 1973). More recently. However, data concerning these neo plasms are less extensive than for lung cancer, mesothelioma and gastro-intes- tinal cancer and further experiences are awaited. In any case, they are not very common tumors In general and any In crease does not weigh heavily on the overall cancer risk of asbestos workers. Considering all neoplasms, among some groups of asbestos workers, em ployed either In asbestos factory work or in the use of asbestos products, as much as 40 to 45 percent of all deaths have been due to one or another type of can cer, an approximately three-fold or four fold increase. Of significant Importance, new data have recently been made available con cerning the cancer risk of workers at the textile mill reviewed for the British standard. Including those workers firs! employed after 1933 (Howard, Klnlen. Lewinsobn, Peto and Doll, 1975). It was found that there was excess mortality from lung cancer among those workers who entered scheduled areas after ! January 1933. There was "dear evidence of some excess of lung cancer and res piratory deaths among those first ex posed between 1933 and 1950." Equally important was the finding that "there still appears to be an excess of deaths due to lung cancer after 15 or more years' exposure" even among those first ex posed in 1951 and subsequently. Indeed, it is known that mesothelioma deaths have occurred among the specific group of 290 workers whose experience prior to 1968 had led to the development of the current standard, as detailed above (Brody, J.E.. 1974). There are further data indicating the necessity ior revaluation of the asbestos standard, albeit less directly derived from asbestos worker exposure. This in bestos workers and Infrequent occurrence It has been suggested that this estimate formation is derived from occurrence of In the population as a whole. ' Is too low, on the basis of the experience asbestos cancer among Individuals ex- KDStAl HMMSTH, VOL 40, NO. 1V7--THUSSDAT, OCTOStt V, 1V7S mtOPOSED RULES , jam levels of asbestos, as In en- m. Czetax* Conshiesstkhw Cohcexhihc theoretically may exist, but it has not wtai circumstances, or to brief or . CaacxHoexHicXTT . been demonstrated. ilttent exposures to higher levels, is of the history of asbestos ___mng individuals In a large , of cases of mesothelioma in Orest and South Africa have provided that brief or intermittent exto asbestos may, after the pas* Sgoge of decades, result In mesothelioma TfOreenberg and Lloyd Davies, 1974; {Webster, 1973). In such circumstances, jfflt appears that the lifetime exposure was Sqm than the 100 fiber-years/ml envis aged by the current standard. The same - discrepancy between present projected ttaposures and the risk of asbestos cancer exists when considering cases of meso In the case of asbestos, we are dealing with a substance that poses a range of health risks to the working population. These include the threat at cancer, as well as asbestosls. In considering the controversial Issue of carcinogenicity. OSHA Is relying upon not only the new data reviewed above, but the tending scientific principles and opinions be lieved to reflect the research conclusions of International cancer experts, which were developed since or not known to OSHA at the time that the original standard was promulgated. 4. TBE LATXNCT OF CAECXHOOEKIC In previous rulemaking proceedings, OSHA has considered these Issues and determined that in tbe absence of evi dence to establish a safe level on the basis of present knowledge, employee ex posure must be reduced as low as feasible. (See the preambles to the carcinogen standards 29 CFR 1910.1003-10016 (39 ITt 3758); the vinyl chloride standard 39 CFR 1910.1018 (39 FR 35892); the coke oven emissions proposal (40 FR 32268), and the beryllium proposal.) OSHA welcomes all views and com ments on these subjects.. IV. Pbrtthswt Legal Authomty thelioma resulting from household can- EITECTS The primary purpose of the Act is to - tact to asbestos among members of '- families of asbestos workers (LUling. ton, 1974) or among residents living In the vicinity of asbestos plants. 'Of considerable industrial importance. in been the recent description of ~as` <*> nvn<r ..htnhnllrtlng and ' ahin repair workers, few of whom actu ally work with asbestos, but many of |f whom were, in the MSt. Inadvertently T mwi tp the asbestos dust resulting tfam Lb* use 61 asoestos products by a relatively lew or their wore mates.~m iSU. hames or tne hoyai Navy reported cases of mesothelioma among shipyard workers at the Royal Navy dockyard In Devonport, In trades which did not di In humans, the Utencyperiod for chemical carcinogens may well extend between 30 to 40 or more years. Analo gous periods exist for test animals. This means that the dlesase may undergo a long development before a tumor is ac tually detected. At that point, It has reached a stage where removal of the worker from the workplace may be of no avail and where treatment may be extremely difficult. If not futile. Prudent policy would therefore aeem to Indicate that every reasonable measure should be taken to eliminate human exposure to chemical compounds as soon as their carcinogenic nature is identified. assure, so far as possible, safe and healthful working conditions for every working man and woman. One means prescribed by Congress to achieve this goal is the authority vested in the Secre tary of Labor to set mandatory safety and health standards pursuant to Sec tion 6(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b). The standards setting process permits the participation of Interested parties in the consideration of medical data, In dustrial processes and other factors rele vant to the identification of hazards and the selection of appropriate control measures. Occupational safety and health standards provide notice of the permitted exposure levels and provide rectly Involve worker exposure to as b. v*siAn.iTY nr nramoosi. snscxra- a basis for ensuring the existence of safe bestos. but In which there had been oc HLTTT nr BXLSTIOir TO 3HX pONCXFT-Or and healthful workplaces. Section 6(b) casional opportunity for exposure merely A THXXSHOLD ' (6) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b) (5). pro . by virtue of working In the same areas. This original finding has been widely confirmed and numerous cases of meso thelioma have since been reported in former shipyard workers (Whltwell and Rawcllffe, 1970; McEwen et al. 1970; Stumphlus, 1908; Greenberg and Lloyd Davies, 1974). Studies of populations of current shipyard workers have shown much radiological evidence of asbestos . abnormalities among workers In trades . #miy indirectly exposed to asbestos In the yards (Sheers and Templeton, 1969; Wletcher, 1973). fsuiam et al (1975). studying the mor Cancer. development may be influ enced.by such factors as the differing susceptibility of various body organs. In animal studies it has been found that individual variability in response to car cinogens is great depending upon factors such as age, sex, hormonal status, diet, and genetic factors. Thus, in the work ing population, bertaln groups, such as those already biologically compromised, may be more susceptible than other groups. . c. a "thxxshoxjj" uxxt Because of the variability of individ vides that: The Secretary, ta promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall sat the standard which most adequately as sures, to the extent feaalble, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material Impairment of health or functional capacity even U such employes has regular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of his work ing life. Development of standards under this subsection shall be based upon research, demonstrations, experiments and such other information as may be appropriate. In addi tion to the attainment at the highest degree of health and safety protection for the em tality and reviewing the chest x-rays of 439 underground metal miners exposed to an asbestiform mineral, found three eim the fisk of malignant respiratory disease than expected. Tbe liber concen tratlons averaged 0.24 flbers/mL Further, evidence has Indicated that asbestos also acts as a lung carcinogen at levels much below those which will produce asbestosls. Two surveys of ship yard workers who had x-ray evidence of pleural plaques, but generally not of pul monary fibrosis, showed a 2D-fold excess r risk of death from lung cancer and high risk of mesothelioma. (Fletcher, 1973; Edge, 1975). In a study of the mortality experience of a large TJJB. asbestos prod ucts manufacturing facility, it was found' ual response to carcinogens and other factors, the concept of a "no effect" or "threshold level" may have little real ignwinannft an the basis of existing ployee, other considerations shah be the latest available scientific data In the field, the feasibility of tbs standards, and expe rience gained under this and other health and safety laws. knowledge. While some level, below which exposure to a carcinogen does Sections 3(b) (5) and (6), 20. 21. 22. not cause cancer, may conceivably exist and 24 of tbe Act reflect Congress recog for any one individual, other individuals nition that conclusive medical or scienti in the working population may have fic evidence, including causative factors, cancer induced by doses so low as to be effectively mro. This is not to say that researchers will, never find a threshold level for a carcinogenic sub stance, but it does mean that the thresh epidemiological studies or dose-response data, may not exist for many toxic ma terials or harmful physical agents. Nevertheless, standards cannot be post poned because definitive medical or old concept for carcinogens Is, at pres ent, more a matter of responsible regu- latory policy than a prerise, scientific ' aclenUflc evidence is not currently available. Indeed, while final standards are to be based on the best available evi dence, the legislative history makes It that workers In low-dust are** with a mlnlintun risk Of d*th (mm Mtwwtnrishad the same High rtm or death from various cancers as workers In dustier These theoretical concepts have a bearing on the asbestos issue, particu larly as to the question of the existence, or nonexistence, of a threshold level of dear that "it is not intended that the Secretary be paralyzed by debate sur rounding diverse medical opinion." H-Rpt. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong.. 2d Ses sion. p. 18 (1970). This Congressional areas (Nicholson, 1975). carcinogenic effect. A "no effect" level Judgment has been supported by the FEDERAL KEOISftl, VOL 40, NO. 1V7--THUfiSOAY, OCTOM1 V..1V7S 1195 Current Report Atbestos OSHA PROPOSAL HAS ALTERNATIVE LIMITS, CONSIDERS `FLEXIBILITY* IN COMPLIANCE The Occupational Safety and Health Administration April '10 issued a proposed rule for occupational exposure to -asbestos containing two alternative permissible exposure limits of 0,2 fibers ppr cubic centimeter of air or 0.5 f/cc as an eight-bour time-weighted average. This supplemental proposal, together with the agency's Nov. 4 notice of emergency temporary rulemaking on asbes tos, constitute proposed revisions to the permanent standard regulating occupational exposure to asbestos in general industry, the maritime industry, and the construction indus try, according to OSHA (49 FR 14116). A 1975 notice of proposed rulemaking, which had excluded the construction industry, was withdrawn and replaced with this proposaL OSHA noted that the emergency standard -- which was struck down by a U.S. appeals court in March on the grounds that the agency failed to show any necessity for emergency acfl2n.(ll OSHC 1817) -- had set a 0.5 fiber limit At that time, available evidence indicated that this level was the lowest attainable. However, the agency's current regulatory analysis indicates that for most industries, a lower limit of 0.2 f/cc is feasible, the notice stated. In addition, OSHA is "considering allowing flexibility" in the methods chosen to achieve compliance with a PEL below two f/cc. The agency is considering allowing respira tors to be used in place of engineering controls or work practices to reduce worker exposure to the lower PELs of 0.5,0.2, or 0.1 f/cc, rather than considering respirators as a supplemental method to be used only after engineering controls and work practices have achieved maximum feasi ble results. Engineering controls and work practices, howev er, remain the mandated methods of achieving air concen trations of two f/cc. An informal rulemaking hearing is scheduled to be held at 10 am. on June 19 at the Department of Labor, the notice stated. In addition to believing that employees exposed to asbes tos at the previous two f/cc limit face a significant risk to their health, OSHA stated that it "also believes that a significant risk remains at exposures to the proposed alter native PELs." However, recent available evidence indicates that either 0.2 f/cc or 0.5 f/cc is an appropriate limit to propose in light of feasibility limitations, particularly re garding asbestos measurement accuracy at low levels, ac cording to the notice. At the conclusion of the rulemaking, OSHA plans to adopt PEL which reflects evidence in the record concerning health risk and technical and economic feasibility, and which may be higher or lower than the limits proposed. OSHA Seeks Comment The agency requested submission of written comments, data, and other evidence from interested persons on several major issues raised in the proceeding including: What exposure limits would provide protection of em ployees against known and suspected workplace hazards of asbestos and what feasibility limitations exist in setting any given limit Whether the permissible ceiling limit should be reduced and, if so, what the revised limit should be. To what extent, if any, should the standard be modified for workplaces which are of a non-fixed nature or otherwise engage a highly transient workforce. Whether the changes in the definitions of "asbestos" and "asbestos fiber" would clarify the standard's intended scope, and properly relate to known or suspected workplace hazards. Whether OSHA should modify the existing medical sur veillance provisions to change the frequency of or their content Whether an expanded medical removal program should be provided where, as a result of the medical surveillance program, it is determined that an employee is at an in creased risk of material impairment of health from further exposure to asbestos. Whether and under what circumstances it is feasible to reliably measure asbestos concentrations at levels of 0.1, OJt, and 0.5 f/cc. Whether the evidence associating asbestos exposure with lung cancer, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal cancer is adequate and whether OSHA's assessment of risk is scientifically valid. Whether regulatory distinctions should be made for dif ferent asbestos fiber types. Whether OSHA should require the use of engineering controls and work practices to reach the new permissible exposure limits. Whether the provisions of the proposed standard are cost-effective. Construction and Asbestos In addition, OSHA is considering three different ap proaches to the format of regulations governing asbestos exposures in the construction industry. The approaches are: to continue to apply the same standards as amended, to all industries, perhaps adjusting certain requirements for the construction industry, to limit the scope of an asbestos standard for the construction industry to setting permissible exposure limits, with additional protection provided by re course to relevant OSHA standards of general applicability, or to develop a separate standard for asbestos exposure in the asbestos industry. The agency is requesting comments concerning a number of major issues, including: Whether the TWA permissible exposure limit adopted for general industry should apply to the construction industry. Whether the present requirements for initial determina tions for each place of employment are feasible for con fixed workplaces that may exist for short periods of time. Whether any change from the present rule should be allowed concerning sampling frequency and patterns. Whether the nature of the exposure patterns in demoli tion necessitates special provisions. 4-12-84 Occupational Safety & Health Reporter ooas-ae37/S4/M+so 1196 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER Whether more explicit fit testing requirements should he mandated for construction employment and the content of such programs. Whether the present requirements for personal protec* live equipment are adequate to protect asbestos workers la the construction industry. What facilities and hygiene practices are appropriate to protect construction Industry employees exposed to asbestos. What, if any, recordkeeping requirements should be mandated for the construction Industry. Upon completion of this rulemaking, OSHA said it will consider whether changes in the present standard for the construction industry are warranted, and if so, what those changes should be and bow they should be made. OSHA may, on the basis of information submitted as part of this rulemaking, adopt specific changes in the current standard for the purpose of addressing unique construction industry con cerns. The agency also may issue a separate standard, in whole or in part, dealing with occupational exposures to asbestos in construction work, the notice remarked. In any case, OSHA stated that it intends to codify the asbestos construction standard at the place designated for construction standards, 29 CFR Part 1926. Written data, views, and arguments should be submitted by May 25 to the Docket Officer, Docket No. H-033C, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Depart ment of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20210. All material submitted will be available for public inspection at the above address. Persons desiring to participate at the hearing must file in quadruplicate a notice of intention to appear by May 10 addressed to Tom Han, OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs, Docket No. H-033C, Room N-3635, DOL, Third SL and Constitution Ave, N.W, Washington, D.C 20210; telephone (202) 523-8024. The notice of proposed rulemaking appears in the Full Text section of this issue Lead D.C. APPEALS COURT WILL VACATE STAY; OSHA TO DETERMINE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE PLANS A draft order that would vacate a current stay of two lead standard provisions for primary and secondary smelters and battery manufacturers was submitted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to the Uff. Court of Ap peals for the District of Columbia Circuit. OSHA was directed by the appeals court April < to write the draft order, at a bearing before Circuit Judges Wilkey, Mikva and Bork in the case of United Steelworkers of America v. Auchter (Nos. 83-1022 and 83-1126)l The court indicated it will use the OSHA draft document as the basis for an official court order vacating the stay effective June 1. The court also noted that the order would be issued "without prejudice" to rulemaking on related topics. OSHA spokeswoman Susan Fleming told BNA April 10 that the court order is expected soon. In ordering OSHA to submit a draft order, the appeals court gave attorneys for the union and for the industry groups involved an opportunity to review and comment on the draft This review was to have been completed by 5 pjn. April 10. The smelting and battery manufacturing industries were granted the administrative stay in December 1982. The stay relieved employers in those industries from having to com ply with lad standard provisions at 29 CFR 1910.1025(eX3Xii)(B) and (E) which require employers to teO OSHA how they specifically intend to achieve compliance with the lad standard, and wbat schedule they will follow in implementing the compliance program (Reference File, 31:8422). In granting the stay in response to industry petition*.. OSHA noted that it was at that time conducting a general evaluation of the lad standard, which bad been issued the Carter Administration in 1978. The stay, OSHA said, was intended to spare employers in the smelting and battery manufacturing industries any unnecessary costs that they might incur in complying with requirements that went*-' "under agency reconsideration" (Current Report, Dee. 9, 1982, p. 563). The United Steelworkers of America filed suit against the agency, contending that Assistant Secretary Thorne Auchter did not have authority to issue the interim and final stays. The union also argued that OSHA's reason for granting the stay was no longer valid, since the agency had not issued a revised lad standard. Notice Superseded Prior to the hearing. OSHA had written a notice far publication in the Federal Register proposing to vacate the administrative stay, and asking for public comment on the proposal within 30 days. In that notice, OSHA acknowledged that it had not issued a proposal to modify the compliance plan requirements of the lad standard. It also noted a recent initiative by the Steelworkers, ASARCO, and the agency to develop tripartite agreements on lad controls at ASARCO plants (Current Report, Feb. 2, p. 947). Such efforts to determine feasible engineering con trols "will be aided by the development of compliance plans," the notice said. The notice was filed with the Federal Register the morning of April 6, before the haring, but then withdrawn after the court issued its order for a draft document from OSHA lifting the stay. OSHA spokeswoman Fleming noted that the agency now must determine the date on which employers in the smelting and battery manufacturing industries must have their com pliance plans ready. OSHA is preparing a notice for the Federal Register that will propose an effective date for the compliance plan requirements, and request public comment. Fleming said that the notice probably will appear "within the next week or so," after the appals court formally issues its order vacating the stay. OSHA Deputy Administrator Patrick Tysoc told BNA In February that a proposed lad standard revision currently under review by the Office of Management and Budget would give a five-year extension to secondary lad smelters for installing engineering controls (Current Report, Feb. 23* p. 1014) Tyson, who currently is serving as acting admint*n trator for the agency, said April 10 that "if we do make any changes to the lad standard involving compliance dead lines, we will make appropriate revisions to the provision* covering compliance plans." Electrical Safety HEARING PARTICIPANTS ASK OSHA TO RELY ON NEC FOR ELECTRICAL SAFETY STANDARDS Numerous participants in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's public bearing on the agency's pro- 4-12-84 Copyright C1984 by The Bureau of National Affaire, Inc. 00SS-S337/S4/SO+.3O