Document QJBQYbe7ne4e3zbD576B2jVbR

22654; ' Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1986 / Rules and Regulations equally importanlin showing why fluctuations occur. ' occasional excursions above the PEL are greatly overstated. . . OSHA believes, however, that an employer's demonstration that an inspector^ one-day sample is unrepresentative, in most cases, should consist of a series of full-shift measurements of the exposure of the Sampling Error The second contention made by AIA is that the sampling and analytic method for monitoring asbestos is so imprecise at lower levels that employers cannot employee under consideration. These with confidence evaluate whether they measurements should consist of all valid are in compliancy. As discussed in great measurements of the employee under detail in the measurement section. consideration taken within the last year OSHA has determined that the revised and should show that on only relatively . phase contrast method set out in this rare occasions could random standard can reliably measure asbestos fluctuations result in measured TWA exposures below the action tevel of 0.1 concentrations above the PEL . . f/cc if the procedures and. protocols set Where the OSHA inspection or other information shows that the employer's . exposure control programs and equipment are broken or are poorly maintained, where housekeeping programs have not been instituted or are inadequate, or where training programs do not exist or do not meet the standard, it is likely that OSHA's one-day measurements accurately reflect high exposure conditions that are not due to random exposure fluctuations but that are the result of the inadequacies of the employer's protective program. Consequently, citation is appropriate in such circumstances and no reinspection will.be performed regardless of the employer's past measurements results. It should be noted that the calculations of probable overexposures out in the appendix are conscientiously followed. OSHA acknowledges, however, that this sampling and analytic method for measuring asbestos has the. potential for error. OSHA, therefore, will add a value that is equivalent to the sampling and analytical error (SAE) of the method to the exposure level measured by an OSHA inspector and will not cite for overexposure unless the measurement exceeds the PEL plus the SAE. As discussed in the section on method of measurement, OSHA believes that the record supports retaining the former SAE of 25 percent [OSHA Industrial Hygiene Technical Manual, 1984, p. A240; see discussion in. method of measurement section, infra]. OSHA, therefore, will not cite an employer for overexposure unless the measured one- referred to in the above discussion are based oh data from measurements taken in 1983 and earlier. Evidence in the day's overexposure exceeds 0.25 f/cc-- that is, the PEL of 0.2 f/cc plus the SAE of 0.05 f/cc. Since the sampling and record shows a gradual decline in analytical error.potential can also result asbestos levels over the last 5 years although the same technology is being in measurements that.are lower than the actual concentrations, the application of used (e.g., compare data on the fiber, receiving process in Exhibit 84-442 . against the more recent data in Exhibit. 225). OSHA anticipates that, in general, . exposure levels and the probability of the SAE always will give the benefit of the doubt to the employer and assume that actual concentrations are less by 25 percent of the measured results. OSHA believes this additional margin will add overexposures will decline as'employers to the assurance an employer has about more conscientiously apply all the his capability for compliance and will available controls and adopt whatever . further reduce the possibility that he will new technology may become available. In this regard OSHA points to a new technique for reducing dust during be unfairly vulnerable to an OSHA citation., OSHA has also required a number of abatement activity. The details of which practices that will standardize sample were submitted to OSHA after the analysis. These include specifications of record was closed (see.CACOSH, a procedure for analysis and laboratory Exhibit. 344-18). OSHA believes that quality control programs. even minor refinements of existing technology will help employers achieve Summary. lower asbestos dust levels and will ' demonstrate that the concern'for In summary, OSHA has determined that the 0.2 f/cc PEL is technologically possible unfair citations due to day to day variability is illusory, feasible and will not result in an unfair issuance of a citation to the Based on all these considerations, conscientious employer. OSHA's OSHA believes that AIA's concerns analysis of each affected industry sector about the issuance of citations due to is presented below. In this analysis. OSHA concentrated on the revised PEL of 0.2 f/cc. As stated above, most the comments received by the Agency agree that 0.5 f/cc is feasible. Some comments, including those of the AFL-CIO'[Exhibit No. 335), argued that a PEL of 0.1 f/cc is feasible, but most of the ''best" plant exposure data indicate that average exposures at many stations (e.g;, most dry mechanical operations) are in excess of 0.1 f/cc and cannot be reduced using current controls and practices. Tables 11 and 12 summarize OSHA's findings concerning the feasibility of reducing worker exposures to below the 0.2 f/cc PEL. They show that over 99 percent of the affected employees in general industry are expected to be below the PEL Exposures for over onehalf of the affected employees in construction sectors could be reduced to that level. OSHA. therefore, has determined that it is feasible for most industry sectors to comply with the 0.2 f/cc PEL most of the time. Table tl.--Feasibility Summary Table tor General Industry; Projection of Work ers Exposed Below and Above 0.2 f/cc Following the Promulgation of the - Standard and the adoption of Engineer ing Controls and Work Practices industry sector Total Mo. . of asbestos- exposed workers Projected No. of workers exposed ` to asbestos levels below 0.2 f/cc Projected No. ot workers exposed . to asbestos levels above 0.2 f/cc* Primary manufacturing: A/C pipe......-........... A/C sheet*..........-.... Textiles..................... Floor tile------ ---- -- Coatings.....-..... -..... Friction....-............. Paper--..................... Gaskets............ ....... Plastics..................... Sublolal.............. ... Secondary . . manufacturing: A/C sheet....______ Textiles.................... Friction-.-...-- --.... Gaskots_____ _____ Plastics................... Auto remanufacturing Subtotal.-.-___ -- Service and repair: Ship repair-----------Auto repair............... Subtotal................ Grand totals..-.... 51? 203 414 276 1.327 5.104 387 315 324 8,861 34$ 172 1.504 9.972 2.450 4.750 19.193 15,000 526.996 541.998 570.052 409 150 123 276 1.327 4.777 397 315 278 6.042 , 103 53 290 0 0 327 0 0 46 819 230 143 1.003 9.972 ' 2.450 4.750 18.546 12.434 526.996 539.434 566.022 1 115 29 SOI 0 .0 0 645 2.566 0 Z566 4.030 * Estimates derived from RTI survey data presented in Appendix 0 Of the Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (flfAj. Source:- U S. Department o tabor. OSHA. Office ol Regu latory Analysis. GLEASON-000902