Document O37MBoOpkBgM9zBV3yMXpgwYL

r Federal Register / VoL 51. No, 119 / Friday, June 20. 3986 / Rules and Regulations 22719 t' pliability and minor'surface defects--will OSHA believes that employers should i 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 requirementsfor respirators (Exs. 263; 330; 123-A; 90233; 302; 322; 328; Trs. 8/21, p. 75; 0/29, 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 commenters requested that the respirators cannot be ignored. OSHA testing be required. For example. NIOSH selection of respirators be dictated by believes that respirators should be commented, ", . . we want to reiterate the exposure levels that exist in the selected that both provide adequate our position that we recommend a workplace environment (Exs. 90-160; 90-173. 90-182; 339; Tr. 7/12. p. 338). For example, the Industrial Safety protection from exposure to airborne, asbestos fibers and minimize the risk of accident and injury potentially caused quantitative respirator fit-testing program as previously stated in comments on the proposed lead Equipment Association staled: by the use of cumbersome supplied-air standard" (Ex. 117-A). respirators. In addition, OSHA has Conversely, the Asbestos Information i The type of respirators to be required for employees engaged in spraying, demolition, and removal operations should depend on the airborne exposure levels measured for each historically used a tiered approach to the application of respiratory protection in nearly all standards governing Association/North America (A1A/NA) stated that the record does not support that quantitative flt-testing procedures ? exposed person and the proper type of respirator should be selected accordingly. If occupational health hazards. (See, for example. 29 CFR 1910.1047. ethylene 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 nir respirator should be required.. . . and 29 CFR 1910.1045. acrylonitrile). commented that 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 Therefore. OSHA has developed the protocol contained in Table D-4 of the standard for the application of respirators, which: (1) Allows the use of negative- 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 correspond to the highest concentration of pressure air-purifying respirators respirator be worn in a test atmosphere asbestos anticipated in the particular equipped with high-efficiency filters for as part of the training workplace. (Ex. 99-182) concentrations, of asbestos Fibers less program . . . would allow employers Similarly, Richard Roll, Assistant Vice than 10 times the PEL. the 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). The requirements of the present standard $ for a supplied air respirator whenever asbestos is removed are over restrictive in many work situations. Almost alb 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. respirators operated In the positive- Work practices (wet methods, enclosure, vacuum systems) have been developed to minimize the potential for employee exposure- pressure mode for concentrations of asbestos fibers less than 100 times the in those situations. It makes no sense to- . PEL. require supplied air respirators in these work (4) Requires the use of full-facepiece operations merely on the technicality that Bupplied-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 will 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 airborne fiber concentration rather than operated in the positive:pressure mode category of work. (Ex. 90-173) for concentrations of asbestos fibers half-mask negative-pressure respirators. An article published in the American Industrial Hygiene Journal in February, . Julia L. Phillips, an Attorney with the that exceed 1(M tigies the PEL. 1983 (K. E. Hardis, C. A. Cadena, C. A. j Environment, Materials and Logistics Data presented by the Building and Carlson, R. A. da Roza, and B.). Held; | Division of E. f. DuPont de Nemours and Construction Trades Department, AFL- ' American.Industrial Hygiene . . j Company noted that air line respirators CIO (Exl 330) indicated that the proper Association Journal (44) February, 1983) ' and self-contained breathing apparatus had significant disadvantages when Juse of respirators may depend, to a large presented data on the effectiveness of I 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 j 339). Ms. Phillips stated: respirators. Therefore OSHA has protection factors greater than 10. This 1 Air line respirators or. selbconlained breathing apparatus (SCBA) create safety required that employers provide powered air-purifying respirators for article reported that for a fit-factor of 10, 93 to 100 percent of poorly fitting'half hazards in a complicated (asbestos| removal employees who request them for 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 than 100 times the PEL. OSHA believes oecause of the increased risk of tripping and that this provision will increase the i 4, tailing. (Ex. 339) effectiveness of respiratory protection reported that, when used to test for a fit factor of 100, qualitative.methods were capable of detecting only 23 to 48 OSHA agrees that positive-pressure programs while allowing employers to percent of the inadequately fitting full- supplied-aif respirators provide a 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 ;.i. :,j Ufi i/-|| 1 t %\ KJ-i Hi Vr.- i H di.lL GLEASON-000967