Document QkO1zzmR08DL93dk6rpJo6kGk

ST0069893 Friday, July 20,. 1990 - * .r .. v. .r-.-;- , -i. V> -V PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT Part II ***;. * * ' * l Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926 Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, TremoUte, Anthophyllite and ActlnoHte; Proposed Rule 377500 . '^KST. ST0069894 29712 Federal Resistor / VoL 55. No. 140 / Friday, July 20,.1990 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF LABOR industry willinquire OSHA to institute. Officer. Docket H-033-e. Occupational -TOlama king ^-Safety and Health Administration. 200 Occupational Safety and Health OSHA published its jesolution. oIC. - '-Constitution Avenue NW, room N2825. Administration three additional issues on February 3L~ ' Washington. DC 20210; telephone (202)- 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926 1990 (55 FR 3724). These included: Expanding its ban on workplace ^ 523-7894. j -Notices of intention to appearat the [Docfcat Number H-033-e] nmnlring awH adding training . _ ..hearing, testimony, and documentary requirements covering the availahfStycf ' evidence should be submitted in . RIN 1218-AB25 smoking control programs: explaining. _ quadruplicate to Mr. Tom HalL Division Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremoilte, Anthophytiits and Aettnotite how and why OSHA's respiratory-';; , ofConsumer Affairs. Docket H-033-e. requirements will result in risk being; . Occupational Safety and Health reduced below that remaining at the-.. ~~ "Administration. 200 Constitution agency; Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Department of Labor. ACTiOtc Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of hearing. PEL: adding a requirement that-. __lfu ' Avenue NW, room N3647. Washington. employers assure that employees *'=- DC 20210; telephone (2021-523-8615. woridng in or contiguous to regulated , All written materials received and areas comprehend required warning notices of intention to appear will ba signs and labels.. - available for inspection and copying in OSHA has determined that four - tha Docket Office, room N2825 at the summary: The Occupational Safety and remanded issues cannot be resolved on above address. Health Administration (OSHA) is the existing record and that their f- * ~ The informal public hearing will begin conducting supplemental rulemaking on resoiution.will require new rulemaking. at 930 a.m. on October 23.1990 at the its standards issued funs 17.1986 (51FR These issues which are addressed in* fallowing location: Auditorium. U.S. 22812. June 20.1888) for occupational this proposal are: The establishmeat of Department of Labor. Frances Perkins exposure to asbestos, tremoiite. operation-specific permissible sn puture -- Building. 200 Constitution Avenue NW, anthophyilite and actinolite in general industry, 29 CFR 19101001, and in the limits: the extension of reporting sndinfozmation transfer rvgntraowira' the 'Washington. DC 20210. Submission of Comments to the construction industry, 29 CFR 192858. expansion of the competent person Docket OSHA has established Docket These standards revised the 1972 requirement to all workers engaged tit. H-033 for asbestos rulemaking evidence. asbestos standard, reduced the any kind of construction work: and the Although the final decisions regarding permissible exposure limit (PEL) from clarification of the exemption far "small- the issues considered in this rulemaking 25 to 0.2 fibers per cubic centimeter (f/ scale. short duration operations*' which will be based on the entire H-033 cc) time-weighted average (TWA) arid was deferred-from the Agency*! - i - docket. OSHA has established a updated other requirements. On December 20,1989 response (54 FR - ^anbeategory, H-033-e far purposes of February 2.1988 the United States Court 52024). referencing evidence specifically related of Appeals for the District of Columbia OSHA is proposing the following to this proceeding on certain rulemaking Circuit upheld most aspects of the regulatory approaches to resolve these issues remanded for reconsideration. standard but remanded the case to' i bans: Lowering the PEL to 0.1 f/cc far Tfia list of asbestos rulemaking OSHA on several issues. Bunding and afi-employees, specifying work practices ssbeategories is as follows: Construction Trades Department v. --toreduce exposures in brake and clutch Brock. 838 F. 2d 1253. (DC Or 1988). As repair and service: requiring additional a part of its response to this decision, on communication of asbestos hazards . - HgV Bnlamakmg 1975 Rulemaking H-033C1888 Rulemaking September 14.1988. OSHA Issued a . among building owners, employers and H-033O-- Non-asbestifonn minerals issues short term excursion limit (STEL) for employees and requiring notification of H-033eCourt remand issues. asbestos of 1.0 f/cc averaged over a 30 minute sampling period (53 FR 35310). In June and July 1989. the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the AFL-QO and the AFLCIO petitioned the Court to order OSHA to resoive ail remand issues on tha record of the 1988 rulemaking proceeding. The Court, on October 30. OSHA prior to removaL demolition, or renovation operations; requiring ' oversight of all construction operations by a competent person and of smallscale. short duration operations by. a.' specifically trained competent person: and more explicitly defining the smallscale. short duration and other exemptions from the negative-pressure FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACR James F. Foster. Director of Information nri Consumer Affairs. Occupational Safety enH Health Administration. U.S. Department of Labor, room N3649. 200 Constitution Avenue. NW, Washington. DC202ia SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1989. ordered OSHA to take action on enclosure requirement. Tibia of Contents three of the remand issues by December dates: Comments concerning this notice L Regulatory History 14.1989. three other issues by January and notices of intention to appear at the ELPertinent Legal Authority 28.1990. and the remaining issues by public hearing must be postmarked on HL Summary and Explanation of Proposed February 27.1990. OSHA issued its response on the First three remand issues on December 14.1989 (54 FR 52024. December 20,1989). These included; Removing the ban on spraying of asbestos containing materials; changing the regulatory text to clarify when construction employers must resume periodic monitoring; and explaining that the clarification of the or before September 25.199a Parties requesting more than 10 minutes for. their presentation at the hearing, and parties planning to present documentary evidence at the hearing must submit the full text of their testimony and all documentary evidence not later than September 25.1990. The hearing will take place in Washington. DC and will begin at 930 in. on October 23.199a Amendments IV. Summary of the Regulatory impact and . Flexibility Analysis V. Clearance of Information Collection Requirements VL Public Participation VIL Authority and Signature VSL Proposed Amended Standards L Regnlatory History - .'On June 17.1988. OSHA issued exemption for "small-scale, ihort- addresses: Comments should ba revised standards governing ourancn' operations in the construction submitted in quadruplicate to the docket occupational exposure to asbestos. 377501 Federal Resister / VoL 55. No. 140 / Friday, fuly 20. 1990 / Proposed Rules 23713 tremoiite. anthophyllite nd actinolite for general Industry and construction (51 FR 22812 et leq, June 28.1388). Effective July 21.1388. the revised standards amended OSHA's previous asbestos standard issued in 1972. On October 17.1388. OSHA published a partial stay of the revised standards insofar as they appiy to-occupanonai exposure to non-asbeattform tremoiite. anthophyllite andactinolite (51 FR 37002). which were inchided in the scope o the 1988 standards. The stay has been extended to November 30.1990 (see 54 FR 30704). to enable OSHA to complete rulemaking on these nan-asbestiform minerals. The partial stay continues to appiy to the 1988 standards and all amendments thereto, including the amendments proposed in this notice. On February 12.1990 (55 FR 4938) OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which OSHA proposed to delete non-asbeshfonn tremoiite. anthophyllite and actinoiite from the scope of the asbestos standard and is considering alternative approaches to regulation of these nan-asbestiform ' minerals. OSHA is not considering in this proceeding the issues of economic and/or technical feasibility of these proposed revisions as they would apply to-industries using nrm-asbestiform minerals. Extension of these revisions to nortasbestifarm minerals would require determination of these issues in a further proceeding. Therefore OSHA does not intend to apply the proposed revisions to the asbestos standards to the regulation of the non-asbeshform minerals at the end of this proceeding. In the proposed regulatory text to the asbestos standards. OSHA is treating the referencing of the non-asoestifann mineral* in two ways. One. it is excluding them from the text of the provisions reducing the TWA PEL: and from new provisions for which there are not now counterparts, such as requiring notification to OSHA for large-scale construction projects, and mandatory work practices for brake repair in the general industry. Two. it is continuing to reference the non-asbeshform minerals in the regulatory text of provisions which are revised versions of current provisions which include specific mention of non-asbeshform minerals. The reason for the continued reference is the revised provisions is to avoid confusion if OSHA presented both the old and new text each version applicable to separate minerals. At the conclusion of the separate rulemaking .relating to regulation of these nonasbeshform minerals (Docket H-033d), OSHA will make appropriate changes in the entire regulatory text of the revised asbestos standards to reflect the outcome of that proceeding and thus to remove reference of the nonasbeshfonnK if appropriate. Separate comprehensive standards for general industry and construction were issued in 1988 which shared the same permissible exposure limit (PEL) and most ancillary requirements. The standards reduced the 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) PEL tenfold to 82 f/cc fromthe previous 2 f/cc limit Specific provisions were~added in the mnatMii-Kfm -alanriard to COVCT Unique hazards relating to asbestos abatement and demolition jobs. Several major participants in the rulemaking proceeding including the AFL-QO. the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of the AFLQO. and the Asbestos Information Association (AIA). challenged various provisions of the revised standards. On February 2.1988. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its decision upholding most major challenged provisions, but remanding rorturn issnes to OSHA for reconsideration {BCTD. AFL-CIO v. Brock. 838 F2d 1258). The Court held that where nilemeking participants had . recommended reguiatory-provisiona which, on the record, appeared to be feasible and to confer more than a de mfnu&iv benefit in reducing significant risk. OSHA must either adopt them, refute the evidence of feasibility or benefit or more persuasively explain why OSHA did not adopt the provisions. The Court also ordered OSHA to clarify the regulatory text for two provisions and found one provision, a ban of spraying asbestos-containing products, unsupported by the record. In addition. OSHA's failure to adopt a short-term exposure limit (STEL) was ordered to be reconsidered within 60 days of the Court's mandate. In partial response. OSHA issued a STEL of 1 f/cc measured over a 30-minute sampling period, on September 14.1988 (53 FR 35610). On June 10 and July 18,1389. ECID and the AFL-QO petitioned the Court to enforce its remand order by ordering OSHA to resolve ail remand issues on the record of the 1988 rulemaking proceeding within 7 to 60 days; The Court in an October 381989 order, divided the remand issues into three categories as follows. With respect to three issues, the Court ordered OSHA to take action by December 14.1989. These issues were: Issue L Formally delete the ban on the (praying of asbestos-containing materials Issue 2. Clarify that periodic mnnitaring in the conetructioa lnduitry must be resumedalter conditions change; and Issue 3. Clarify the exemption for "smailscaie.short duration operationa" tram the negative-presaure enclosure requirements of the construction standard to limit the exemption to work operetions where it is impractical to constract an enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment. OSHA issued its response on these issues on December 14.1989 (54 FR 52024. December 281989). In that document OSHA (1) removed the ban on the spraying of asbestos-containing materials: (2) changed the regulatory textto.clarify that emntnrinn employers must resume periodic monitoring whenever there has been a change in process, control equipment, personnel cr work practices that may result in new or additional asbestos exposure: and (3} explained why OSHA was not amending the regulatory text to clarify the limited exemption for "smallscale. short-duration operations" in the construction industry standard, but instead would institute rulemaking cn this issue. With respect to the second group of issues, the Court ordered OSHA to complete its response on the existing record by January 281998 These issues are: ........ ' - Issue 4. The possibility of further regulations governing employee smoking controls; Im s. The effectiveness levels of various--| respirators and OSHA's policy of requiring j respirators to protect srniters at only PEL __ level: and . -- ' -- Issue S. The possibility ofbttingual ' CTi warnings and labels for employers with a t q significant number of nao-EngUah-ipeaking employees. . The Court stated that if OSHA determines that these issues could not w be resoived on the existing record. OSHA may explain why and commence new rulemaking instead. On January 28 1998 OSHA issued its response on these issues (55 FR 3724. February 5,1990). In that document. OSHA: (1) Prohibited workplace smoking in areas where occupational exposure to asbestos takes place: expanded training requirements to include information about available smoking cessation pmgrHnty required tint distribution of self-help smoking cessation material: required a written opinion by the physician stating that the employee has been advised of the combined dangers of smoking and working with asbestos: (2) Explained how and why the 1988 respiratory protection standards will reduce employee risk below that remaining solely as a result of the PEL. and that the effectiveness levels of respirators are under review; and 377502 29714 FedmjJgamter'/ VoLhS. Na. up / Friday. July 20. 1990 / Propped. Rale* ST0069896 i'3) Required employers to ensure that employees wricking in or near regulated sreu understand warning signs, end required training |IIII{JIIIII1 to specifically instruct employees as to the content and presence of signs and labels. Finally, as to the third group of three remaining remand tha Court ordered OSHA to resolve Hpb issues after miemsking. These issues are: ISSUB 7. tiu tphH.hiMMl q opoXBtiOD* specific pennuahiinqjcanra Issue a The ixtniuQ af repeating and mfonnanoa transfer qiiiriwpwf ma Issue 9. The expansion of tha competent person requirement to all empioyen engaged in any kind of consumlon wore. In addition, the Court granted QSHA's unopposed request to publish the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking an this group of issues on April 1X19901 to allow sufficient time to consult with the. Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH). Under the Construction Safety Act (40 USC 333) and regulations in 29 CFR 1911.10 and 29 CFR19128. OSHA was required to consult with that committee in the formulation of regulatory proposals which would apply to employment In construction. OSHA presented the proposed regulatory text and pertinent explanatory materials to the ACCSH and consulted with them on March 14. 1990. The Committee aubmittEd comments and suggestions which are discussed, where appropriate, throughout ttrfa narrative. Tha - Committee's draft of a revised regulatory text and other submissions are available as Exhibit 1-125. The Court, on May 2.1990 granted OSHA'a further motion and extended the time to issue the proposal until July 12.1990. in order to allow coordination of the proposal with other regulatory agencies, in particular EPA. CL Pertinent Legal Authority Authority for issuance of this standard is found primarily in sections 4(b)(2). 6(b). 8(c). and 8(g)(2) of the Occupational Safety end Health Act of 1970 (the Act). 23 U.S.C. 643(b)(2). 653(b). 657(c), and 657(g)(2) and in the Construction Safety Act. 40 U.S.C. 333. Section S(b)(57 governs the issuance of occupational safety and health standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents. Section 3(8) of the Act defines an occupational safety and health standard as: * * * * standard which requires condition!, or the adoption or us of one or mors practices, means, methods, operanoas. or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment ana places of employment. The SupnmsCourt hn old that iwtinn 3(8) sppbos to ail permanent standards promnignod under the Act and requires thfi Secmcnr, befoni toons asy standard, to determine that it is reasonably necessary and appropriate to remedy g significant risk of material health. ispakiseni. Industrial Uhlan Department r. American Petroleum Institute. *aU5.607 (1330). The "significant risk" determination Constitutes a finding that, ahupnt tha change is practices mandated by the standard, (he workplaces in question would be "unsafe" In the sense that workers would be threatened with a significant risk of harm. Id. at 642. A significant risk finding, however, does not require mathematical precision or anything approaching scientific ce^tlnt7 II fits "best available evidence* does not wanant that degree of proof. Id. t 655-65B: 29 U.S. BK(b)(5). Rather, the Agency may base its finding largely on potior considerations and has considerable leeway with the kinds of assumption* It applies in interpreting the data supporting tt. Id. 655-658:23 U.S. K5f")(8J. Tha Court's opinion indicates P^fkk assessments, which may involve mathematical estimates with soma inherent uncertainties, are a means of demonstrating the existence of significant risk. OSHA believes that compliance with proposed amendments to reduce the PEL to 0.1 f/cc as a time-weighted average measured over 8 hoars would further re^c* * lifltiflcant health risk which oMtsaftar imposing a 02 f/cc PHOSHA a risk assessment showed that lowering tha TWA PEL from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc reduces the asbestos cancer mmUltty risk from lifetime exposure from 64 dsaths per 1900 workers to 7 death* per t.OOO workers. OSHA estimated that the incidence of asbestosis would be S cases per UOOO workers exposed for a working iifetime under the TWA PEL of 09 f/cc. Counterpart risk figures for 20 years of exposure ara excess nmrpr risks of 4.5 per 1.000 workers and an estimated asbestosu Incidence of 2 cases per 1.000 workers. OSHA rule assessment also showed the persistence of a significant risk at the 0.1 tfop action level. The excess cancer risk remaining at that level is a lifetime risk of 3.4 per 1900 workers and a 20 year exposure risk of 29 per 1.000 workers, QS1 (A concludes therefore that exposure to asbestos at the TWA parntlttad level and action level PI]esn,i tusldual risks to employees w"5h *lt significant. Tne DC Circuit Court of Appeals uffirmod QSHA's conclusion that the excess rlk .1f--- averace 377503 exposures of 0.1 f/cc "could well be. - found significant.'* BCTD v. Brock. 83ft F-2ndatl28a. OSHA also finds, following the analysis suggested by the DC Court of Appeals that '* Implied real exposures" triggered by a Ol f/cc PEL would still present s fli^nifiggnt rick. The Court - noted that "there is no legal basis for totally disregarding a gap between real- world average exposures and nominal legal ceilings" in the. .gmfii-anra nf 4 rialr at that nnmiml . limit (838 F-2ad At 1286). OSHA found in the preamble to the 1988 standards that a ratio of about 2 to 1 between a PEL and a resulting average exposure level was exaggerated.. because there is significant controllable exposure level fluctuation, which such a prediction ignores (51FS at 22853).In Us preamble to tha asbestos "ban" regulation. EPA noted that OSHA'a own inspection data do not support tha - assertion that careent exposures ara significantly below tha PEL (54 FR at 29474. July 12.1389). Thus OSHA. rnnrlurina that measured exposures for. asbestos-exposed workers wnereempioyers are attempting rrrmpliam-j with a (11 f/cc TWA limit would most likely on the average be no less than 0873 f/cc. Using linear proportionality to previously ralmiatpd risks, theses predictions in ft lifetime (45 year) . excess risk of about 28 per 1.000 - workers, and an excess cancer risk for 20 years of more than 18 per 1800 workers. OSHA believes these risks ere dearly not insignificant Further. OSHA does not issue citations unless the PEL plus an allowance for variability, is exceeded. After OSHA has determined that a significant risk exists and that such risk ran 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 employee will suffer material impairment of health * * ***, section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Supreme Court ha interpreted *hi section to mean that OSHA must enact the most protective standard necessary to pliminaie a . significant risk of material health, impairment, subject to the constraints of technological and economic feasibility. American Textile Manufacturers Institute. Inc. v. Donovan. 452-LLS. j 490(1981). The Court held that "cost j benefit analysis is not required by the j statute because feasibility analysis is." J Id. at 509. { Authority to issue this standard is t also found in section 8(c) of the Act. In 1 general, this secticn gives the Secretary I I ST0069897 Federal Hamster/ VaL S3. No. 143J Fddax. fuiy 2S.33BO:( Proposed. Rules 23713 aumarny to requite fiuuioyeratn.make, keen, end preservereccnis regarding = cnvities related to the Act fa parpeniir. section 8(c)f3lgrve* tha Seaetaryagmngty to reqmgg employera to "maintain accurate record* of' employee exposures to poWanaiiy trade material* or harmful physical agent* which are recurred to be monitored or -easured under section &.* Provisions of OSHA standards which repair* the making and mawnraanr* of reeorda of medical examinations- axpoanre monitoring. and the hit*are issued pursuant to teoinn flic} of the Act. The Secretary's antoonty to issue thi* proposed standard ia farther supported by the general rulemaking authority granted in aecaoa 8fg)(2) of the Ad. qp A&hfiixos SlA&dftici is reasonably related to thesestatutory. gnl Sprrptary that thi* . standard is necessary nrf appropriate to Carry out her Tvvpnoai'nifiHga the Act In. aririiHnn- nwrinn S(T>]pJ of fK Art provides tor OSHA standards to apply to construction and other workplaces aa well as in general industry. IV. Summary gyptutiarwui rtf the Pmpr--d Amoruin -- n. . This document constitutes-OSHA's response on the third group ofremand issues and on. the issue of exemption of "smafl-scatfc short duration operations* from the negative-pies sure enclosing and other requirements, deferred from the December 20.1989 response. In this proposal OSHA is defining the term "smad-scaJe. abort term operations* differently. Kmifog conditions for the exempuon to spccfic situations aoH limiting the exemption to thenegatrrepressure enclosure requirement. OSHA :s also proposing narrowly-focused exemptions far roofing operations, floor tile removal operations, and where erection of an enclosure is infeasible. OSHA f* clarifying the regulatory text such that aside from the specific exemptions tost mentioned, all employers engaged in demohtion. renovation, and removal operations must establish a negative-pressure enclosure for that opera Don. regarsiess at exposure level* at lia site. Tld* requirement will also respond to the Court remand issue 7 by requiring opergnca-vperrfui mnTrof* to reduce risk. operanon-specific permissible exposure lierrf- QSHAi* proposing to lower the permissible exposure tiimt for the nuixn union industry end general industry to QJ. f/cc as as 8-hour tuneweighted average. OSHA It adding specific central and work practices applicable to rartain-TgaMiums that anil appiy regnruira* of thgirxnoaura teveL tbs* fnrtl>reTMiiiriwg aodBsettponm -- OSHA beheve* thatth(a0.1 f/cc PEL Is. feaaihl*nfi r twaiiii v*d nmg pngtupn ma rfintmia ina ws* practices specified in tha proposed standard.. On issue a. tbs extenzxarai reporting and Infmiitatirwi trim afar iwpi bunrata. OSHA provision* in the ttanrtarda to require omasa of budding* In immiirwrjitw Iiimwuk infnnratiwi mmtiiingtlm location os' asbestosto occnpesta of the. building when rmtptnpliKng aabestoe- related work. Employers conducting major construction activities which disturb asbestos are also to rrmtrrmrririrt* information regarding asbestos hazards and steps being taken to reduce exposurerisks to employees and employers iikely to be exposed. OSHA is also proposing a requirement that all employer* in nnruawniL Cf-t ahort.term ftMwnlirinn rpniwnring, and removal operations notify OSHA prior to rnnmwrpiiiml nf vgorir. On issna fl. OftHA Is clarifying that a competent ppmnn will ha required on. sites which, are exempted from the negative-pressure enclosure requirement, fn nn'mtinn dm rintfpi of. tha competent par-arm and the attendant training requirements must ha matched to tha unique nature of the. hazards and ~ protective measures at each. site. A. Proposed Requirement for Enclosure -- .=; - - Tieissue of'when a negative-pressure enclosure must be established for removal renovation, and demolition operations was origins fly remanded to OSHA by the Court ofAppeals, for Agency clarification based on the earner ruimaking record [BCTD at 1279). OSHA responded in its DecemberZX 1989 notice that additional rulemaking was required to evaluate the effectiveness and drawbacks of negative-pressure enclosures, end technological advances in these controls (54 FR at 52D67J. This rulemaking will also allow OSHA to examine the experience with alternatives, such as glove bag* and negative-pressure glove boxes, which were either unavailable or had limited performance data in 1380. Based on its preliminary review of the 1988 record, relevant policy rnnMihftlintH, and tha atilt limited data concerning the effectiveness of the control system* mentioned above.. OSHA is proposing clarifying revision* to paragraph (e)(0) of the construction standard, i 193888. They wifi require employers to establish negativepressure enclosures before commencing any asbestos remneaLdeumnifam and renovation operation, rexarriiesaof the exposure level. rmh--m spea&ca&y:-' exempted. CEHA i*also paopoeng to clarify the exemptions-from thfs-requirement as fodowscSmelfecale. short-duration operations which meet newly proposed specification niteria; operations where the erection cd ; negsnve-pressure rnrlnauiea am . infeaaihiec mnfing mHWtils removal job* iinlft> the tssSstmlsds hoereRE. OSHA ie proposing tec. separately requirethat. `iraiJimitHfc. persons" superrisa ahmuuvai.' renovation, and draintiring jobs, even if they ereexempcfmm.tfcaBsgBitare*pressure rarinyrrmiegTierrorac.' . The basis for the 1986TeqnnesBent for negative-pressure endoames for' asbestos removal, demolition, and lesiuvaticn was conclusive wind evidence that asbesto*present* - significant risk even *t level* weii bekrw the permissible exposure limit SEnce asbestos disturbed during sbatemrat and renovation activities HKelywmdd spread beyond the point wherethe asbestos ia-handled to poaea risk to other workers engaged oo theworksite, containment and otherprecautions' would be needed if the risk to -; bystanders i* determined to bfti significant.For typicalrenovation, removal, and demolition job* tha- amount of xibestoa requiring containment Is sabstantiwL Th-- appheatimofnegativu pimnirosnsiirrs that asbestos fibera remain braid* even If a leak develop* in the enclosure shell. In1988. OSHA believed based calimited reports of experience using such euriosurea for asbestos work, that thafuS enclosures which enclose*.lha work and the workers and limits sores*, would be effective is eimnrintof asbestos. In addition, change mean* attached to the full eaciosarafor removal of contaminated clothing and equipment were expected to farther reduce the spread of contamination. The negative-pressure system draw*the contaminated air into a filter priorto venting to the outside, which might reduce exposures to employee* within the enclosure to some as yet ' For the same reasons as in 1968. this proposal rrmfrrmg* the requirement that renovation, removal, and demoUtfen job* be conducted within a faS negativepressure enclosure. Additionally, the regulatory text makes explicit that fuB negative-pressure endosnra most be estabhshed regardless of measured asbestos levels. OSHA note* that removal job* generate highly variable amounts of asbestos, reducing the 377504 ST0069898 :97ie Federal Register / VoL 55,- No. 140 / Friday. July 20. .1990-/ Proposed. Rulea. predictability of exposure levels from 341 et sea). However OSHA has not yet one-momtaring event to the next been able to estimate the risk to Moreover; measured asbestos levels - bystander employees. OSHA recognizes cannot be used to determent the need that the above information is not for a full-negative-pressure enclosure.' necessarily representative of bystander because of the time required by the employee exposures and requests testing laboratory to complete the test comment on: (1) Level of exposure to and report the results. bystander employees: (2] the number of As stated above, renovation, removal, affected employees; and. (3) frequency and demolitionjobs typically involve of exposure of any given employee.: handling substantial quantities of In an EPA-study described by Breen - asbestos. General.contamination of the et ai (Exh. 1-23} in 1988. elevated levels workplace has resulted fromfailure to ofasbestos fibers (up to 18 f/cc by TEM) confine asbestos using strictregulated * were detected Immediately outside - area procedures, and asbestos-related some of thebarriers which separated diseases have been found in workers of the asbestos removal work area from a different trade exposed to asbestos the remainder of the schooL contamination from the activities of In a submission to OSHA of the asbestos worker*. Negative-pressure Asbestos Abatement Council-AWCl enclosures, when used properly, limited (Exh. 1-142J. monitoring data from a this exposure. OSHA believes that large number of abatement projects installing negative-pressure enclosures were presented. These data consistently in asbestos abatement work is now Indicated that exposures outside the recognized as prudent practice by the- negative-pressure enclosures were much asbestos abatement industry, and is lower than inside, with exposures in the generally done by abatement decontamination areas being contractor*, even when jobs an not intermediate. For example, during a covered by OSHA's standard. Is this removal operation within a sub proposal targeted to those situations basement. the personal samples ranged when theseoontractor* believe . . rfrom 0.03 to 0.07 f/cc while the area negative-pressure enclosures an _ - .-samples within the enclosure were appropriate?.. -r. between 0.12. and 015 f/ccrthe Most Importantly, as noted above and decontamination chamber levei'was less by the Court significant risk exists at than 0.01 f/cc the bag load-out chamber. - levels below the PELTherefore OJJI f/cc and the sample taken at the requiring that the spread of asbestos be negative air exhaust was less than OJJI contained when it is likely, even if not f/cc. -- - certain; that the PEL would be exceeded Much abatement work is undertaken ishoth appropriate and necessary to . tn basement areas of commercial reduce Still igTnfif3intrik tn hyntanripi- buildings. Large numbers of Janitorial employees. Therefore, this specification workers work in such areas during and also partially responds to remand issue after removal activities. Large-scale 7 which calls for establishing operation- renovation of commercial buildings spedfic PELs. Although a separate PEL exposes many adjacent workers to is not proposed for removal, demolition, asbestos contamination including other and renovation, the regulated area workers in construction trades, such as controls an proposed to apply even electrician*, carpenters, drywallers. as when exposures may be less than the well as employees working in adjacent newly proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc. OSHA office or commercial space and believes that the nature of all asbestos removal projects, e.g. scraping away communication workers (see e.g. docket H-033& Tr. June 28.1984 at 348 et seq}. asbestos from soiid surfaces, results in substantial asbestos fiber release, and regulated area controls found in the asbestos standard and this proposed modification an necessary. . OSHA seeks comment on applying the requirements for negative pressure enclosure for all removaL demolition and renovation jobs which involve asbestos. OSHA also seeks comments Information submitted to the 1988 on whether any additional controls, rulemaking and the Agency's such as respirator use. should also be a subsequent enforcement experience, specification for employees performing study results, and public comment show these operations. that asbestos fiber contamination occurs Since the revised asbestos standards outside the immediate area of abatement unless means are-provided to contain the abatement activity. In 1988, testimony was pnsented that then was were issued in 1988. OSHA has been.. contacted informally by various asbestos abatement contractors who have asked the Agency to comment on significant secondary contamination of work areas adjacent to asbestos removal operations. (Tr. June 28,1984 at the patentability of a system to establish required negative-pressure enclosures. OSHA believes that the Issue of patentability should.be appropriately determined by the.LLS. Patent Office. HTirf through otheradministrativB or Judicial proceedings where any inch dnim would be formally reviewed. The Agency adopted the requirement to erect negative-pressure enclosures in 1988. in part because of the Agency's institutional knowledge that the application of the general principles of negative-pressure would assure that asbestos- fibers would tend to remain in an enclosure placed under negative-- - pressure, if that enclosure were - - - damaged. Neither in the 1988* : requirement, norinthis proposal, did ar does the Agency intend that the* negative-pressure enclosure requirement be met by any specific combination or configuration of barriers: fans.-exhaust systems, or entry/egress wav*.'The illustrations and explanatory text In non-mandatory appendix F are - illustrative only. Different devices.* systems, and materials and configurations may be used to create enclosures, to establish negative- pressure. and to erect attached decontamination facilities. OSHA is interested in information, comments and. data on whether the.. costs of erecting required pnriosnrea; or of any other asbestos abatement technology, are-affected by the -- existence of patents and..if so. haw such additional costs affect the feasibility of thw standards. ____ - ... - 1.'Other Controls . . - - , L'. .^T I* . ; OSHA Is also considering whether alternative control methods should be allowed far renovation, removal and demolition operations in lieu of negative-pressure enclosures. These include: a. Glove bass. OSHA is proposing to require negative-pressure walk-in enclosures unless specific exemption criteria are met because other, more limited, containment systems do not yet appear to be equally effective-in . protecting removal and bystander employees. OSHA has received - inquiries and faced enforcement situations where employers were using glove bags instead of waik-in enclosures for removal operations where negative- pressure enclosures appeared feasible. Glove bags are sealed compartments with attached inner gloves used for handling fpftntn XXL&tfiXi&is asbestos, such as insulated piping and valves with asbestos gasVets-The glove bag also relies on the principle of containment.' Tools and wetting agents' are enclosed in the bag which is then sealed around the pipe or other fixture. After completion of the task, the bag is 377505 ST0069899 Federal gjTgortttr / VoL 55. No. 140 / Friday |uiy 20.1990 / Proposed- Rdes 23717 * Jt t c dlapscd and properly disposed aL OSHA nates that ths* sat cast and/or TMuw--m --m-fc . DtstisBixs hreahas* sohlrsiugs. prewar* endosares titan was the case under the 1969 regulations. n^vanrampg tn thw gglpuiyr m rrrnAirrj c. Afeivtechakgks.VBioBS OSHA provided s general discussion erecting a fall mdostas where a giore rnnmrfiie*iirp>h-- OSHA of of the fustificatinafat some nwnptiona bag can be installed.There are aka .. the devetopmeatcf ImxwUve asbrstna from negative pressure enclosures in. its potemmi advantage* to the employe* if removal techmqne* in partimbir. one th.. hag [impufiy rfpaiy^- trranrflwt technique wjrtjrw mWnpilartmaa. Decembc*2a.lS9FedaralKsgiatar.notiomThere OSHA explainedwhy it quit ffw4 iinf wniiira tha fall endoSUZe placed aioundxpip* sactint.winds twnpld pmp.ii nrrm rip.finittn at lh*- which contains, both the and the asbestos, the glow bag separates the worker from the mnanmim. Available data indicate* that glove bags in use may not always proride adequate protection. Forexample; N10SH Health Hazard Evaluation* as glove beg* confirm the-fact that if improperly used. as employee can puncture the bag with toots or sharp debris therebygenerating high exposures in the employee * hfrinug zone fEx. 1-1.1-2.1-20.1-22]. Wh3e NIOSH has also shown that employees can improve their performance using glove bags over time, the potential far remains high. OSHA shares NKJSFT* concern about the poor pei fm imnrj of glove bags in cmrtamzng asbestos is the hands of poorly trained or infrequent users. b. do ve boxes. A promising. refinement of the glove bag is the glove box or rigid glove bag. that cas.be subfected to negative-pressure without collapsing, as is the case with, glove bags composed of fonhl* plastic materials. This type of equipment appears to the advantages of removal ofthe worker from thie aftwitn* and pmtrtirm frrrm ahptnm.umirfL may be expelled thmngh a pandnre. At this time, however. OSHA is unaware of any published studies of experience with this equipment, tnrinding pntpntfar exposures during dismaniiiiig.nr disposal of removed asbestos. Because the current data concerning the performance of glove boxes and bags in controlling asbestos exposure are limited and incanciiiaiva.OSHA. believes that the general requirement that full negative-pressure enclosures must be provided to protect workers from asbestos exposure in activities covered by this standard mnHmiw to be necessary. As described below, there arc limited situations where glove bags must be used in addition to lha protection afforded by full enclosures or encloses endpraindes waterto bw_ sprayed onftiuz planes cnmnietrfy guiroundingthe pdwwarfc.f2atin that worker expoeutes ere dtHmsrirally reduced bm beeamBrimfnfmuieiina rnBrwniny<tiyitwi^ y^rtfjrhw hunt used hra*tt-fcsht|il*ewfHnth* record (Exh.l-13afrhi>*B*ec.expiBuie data has notyet been sniiniiltrd. OSHA Is Iw w.iii'ulnyll farfamuitiiw awi nil ig *hnm tt<4 nthfp tipw techniques forremovingasbestos.Data rrinfJHwwf iinlitw.fr expoenrer and area exposnies tbonld also be sannattetLSinca the Agency - now does-imi have adrqnant dale to evaluate the effectiveness or feudality of then*new tec&xzxi$xm^ this firepoui does not xndnd* them, lb* Agency wdl inwiirfw1 pwwwHn^ Ww twjinnkwy irr^m fiwt w+mTtf+mni fry witunt1 sepparted by dm record developed in this ndemaking. 2. Proposed Exemptions from the Negative-pressure Enclosure Requirement In additionto clarifying the negative- pwbawryy mnelnmarr* yniTyfflwvt in paragraph (e)(6). OSHA is proposing four seta of drcnmstance* where employers engaged in asbestosdemolition. renovation. and removal operations are exempted from that requirement. These proposed exemptionsare fort small-scale, shortduratian operation*; roofing operations, floor tile removal operations, and TWp.tTV-p>P MUM WlfilKUM is infeasible.These exemptions were included in the original negativepressure enclosure requirement or in the original definition of smail-scale, shortduration operations. The proposal specifies mote descry the conditions an employer mast meet to qualify for an exemption. Since the exemption* would be conditioned on compiianor with aewiy required protective measures, inch as local containment and vrurk practices. OSHA believes that employees who work an or near exempt smaO-iiM fe; iloitdintnu exemptiotr and initiate rulemaking ratherthan limiting thn pypmptinn In operattonx where it is impractical to constructs negative-pressure endosure beesuse of the configuration of the work environment. First the Agency stated Its bellefr based on its experience in enforcing the rnnufrurttnn taTirfnrri. that TTmfffrt^ fFlfl exemption only to situations where negative-pressure enclosures are impractical might not reduce employee risk from asbestos exposure. Second. OSHA described the practical Emits placed on the scope of the existing . small-scale, afcnrt-rfiimtinn exemption believes that in fight of the evidence existing in the record, the proposed.' exemptions should be aaxrowlydefined ta isolate those cases wherenegative- . pressure endosures do not appearlUdy tO afifi mnrp than a.fle tnUUSUX . im-rpmpnt tr> employe* or bystander worker protection. They represent cases wherepypr*i.-qlity nr iimipfi suggests that steps other than exaction of a walk-in enclosure be taken, to - protect workers from the nabs of- asbestos. - ----------- a. Clarification of tha. Sanli-Smlr. Short Duration Exemption. OSHAis proposing to clarify and modify tha vf.rrpnnn from, the requirement* oi paragraph (e)(6) in the case of amsd- icaie. short duration operations-Th* Agency is both providing general criteria and spemncally identifying certain operations which wdl not require negative pressure walk-in endosares. The proposed definition states that these operauons indude "only those demolition, renovation, repair.. rnamlynanrr unri removal opCZatinSS which affect smaii surfaces or vohates uf material containing asbestos. . tremouts. authopnyilite. or acrinniita'* and which are unlikely to expos* - bystander workers to significant . amounts oi asbestos, ana which will be completed within one work shift. OSHA as a substitute where no feasible operations will ba protected from is identifying in the regulatory text alternative exists. Nevertheless.in light significant asbestos exposure. OSHA individual rnnVs which would be of the known limitations of glove bags, also believes that the proposed specific rbwunrd to be exempt The definition these exemptions hove been narrowly exemption provisions represent s lists such modified by cut-offs lor drawn. OSHA seeks additional narrowing of the 1S60. more general time required for completion, and/or comment and date on th preliminary exemptrva regulatory language. amount of asbestos disturbed or area of determination inducing any proven Therefore fewer removal employees ore operations. Thus the proposed text of improvements to glove bcg/box design expected to work without negntive the new definition would exempt 377506 29718 Federal..Resister 7 VoL-55. No; 14f/ Friday. July 20..1990./ Proposed.Rulea . * * * repair of asbestos on piping that ia leu - than 21 linear ieeC repair or mnorai of . '. . aabeatoa paaei that ia lea* than# square feet: pipe valve repair or replacement of pipe velvet containing aabeatoa gaskets or electrical work that diatnrbe aabeatoa that ia completed bp one workerh>less than four - hatua: removal of arywail which la completed for the faality within an eight-hoar workday; renovation protects involving enacappmg of pipes and tile removal that ia completed in leu than four hourarand installation of condoitrthatis completed within an eight ' - hour work shift. - ----- Hie Agency bases the above definition on both specific suggestions in the record from its field personnel who have observed asbestos operations, and its general enfomement and consultative experience with the 1986 and 197Z~' asbestos standards. The proposed criteria eraintended to reflect realistic workplace operations. Here is no- attempt to define operations which rareiyexist' - -- *.'.* - Several additional suggestions and observations were received from field personnel relating to the. proposed definition of small scale, short duration operations-Comment and additional Information and data are sought by OSHA on these suggestions. Theyare as follower - ' . '"ir "--".------- (1) Removal of transite panels should be exempt from, thenegative-pressure cndoanrerequirement es.long as the - transite is temoved without cutting or otherwise abrading the material:- (2} Inclusion of size or square footage criterion in the definition of smaH-seaie, short duration operations renders it too inflexible, not allowing adequate use of professional judgment: (3) There should be no linear footage limit for removal of asbestos insulation on pipe as long as proper giove bag . techniques are used; (4) Adopt the NESHAP reporting criteria as the cutoff for OSHA's small-. scale, snort duration operations; (5} Remove exemptions and require negative-pressure enclosures on ail projects^ (6) Mini-enclosures should not be included as a suggested method for use in small-scale, short duration jobs: and [7] OSHA should require area monitoring to assess the success of containment and the extent of dean-up. In addition. OSHA is considering extending the exemption to other operations which are truly small-scale, short-term, even though they may not be listed in the praposed standard. For example, the employer should be able to demonstrate that the daimed exemption applies to a non-recurring operation which does not expose bystander employees to asbestos and which is completed in less than a day by not more than 1 person; orin less, than4 - hours by not mans than.2 employees and which is not expected to release asbestos ia excess of the PEE. OSHA seeks cnmmment on these general criteria and whether they should be induded In the regulatory text- - This proposed definitionreplaces .a similar, but more general definition by example in current 29 CFR 192&58. . which appeared to consider all. operations inch, as pipe repair, valve - replacement installing electrical conduits. inatallmj or removing drywall. roofing, and other general building maintenance or renovation as "smallscale. shnrtduration'!. The Courtof Appeals stated that OSHA had not . drawn the parameters of the exemption with enough spedfidty. The new definition attempts to add greater specificity for many of the operations . originally defined as operations involving small-scale, short-duration exposures;. The Agency believes that the amount of asbestos contamination released . during repair and maintenance activities Is often of the same magnitnde as other "renovation" or removal jobs. The work operations too are similar, calling for identical work practices, isolation, techniques or local ventilation controls. Based on its experience, the Agency cannot now define a cutoff, either in temporal: spatial, or other-terms, which can be classified as always assuring de minimis exposure potential. Thus, the proposal considers all repair and maintenance which will disturb asbestos-containing matprinl as requiring appropriate work practices and other controls to protect the worker. In addition. OSHA believes the proposed expansion of the competent person requirement to Include oversight of small-scale, short duration operations will also enhance protection of repair and maintenance workers. OSHA seeks comment on the inclusion of these activities as small-scale, short duration operations. OSHA also solicits information and comment on the validity of listing specific operations and how well the listed criteria correlate with actual practice. For example, is it usual, or even possible, for one worker to perform electrical work which disturbs asbestos In four hours, or are two workers or more time commonly needed for small jobs? Should four hours of floor tile or. ceiling tile removal qualify as a smallscale. short duration job? Are other repair, renovation or maintenance jobs which are unlisted, capable of being identified in terms of time, manpower and/or area of disturbance? Should they too be earmarked for an exemption from the negative pressure requirement? Are.- the general criteria under consideration for additional small-scale, short duration operetionaappropriate and sufficiently detailed?.. In addition. OSHA seeks comment on whether s volume amountof asbestos should be specified in the new definition of small-scale, short duration, operations. What difficulties in volume, determination would likely be encountered? OSHA also.requests . _ comments on the ACCSH . recommendation, described below-that. OSHA Hpfinp small-scale, short-term operations primarily in terms of the amountof asbestos disturbed, rather. than the surface area of the structural members from which the asbestos is.. removed. The Agency believes that this suggestion deserves consideration as an alternative to the proposed regulatory text India enforcement of the 1988 standards. OSHA has observed that some employers have-divided large- scale asbestos abatement jobs into e series of smaller jobs so as to claim an exemption from the negative pressure enclosure requirement In order to make dear that the exemption does notapply in such circumstances, the proposal identifies qualifying jobs as those that: are completed within stated timeframes and specifically requires that joba muat be "non-repetitive" to qualify as "small- scale, short duration." OSHA is. nonetheless, requesting comments on thl potential problem and the desirability of induding specific - alternative language in the definition of small-scale, short-duration operations to address these concerns. In order to assure that workers . engaged in small-scale, short-duration operations receive adequate protection from significant asbestos exposure. OSHA has proposed to require, alternative protective strategies. The proposed provision for small-scale, short-duration operations requires that the employer use a feasible containment or endosure method, where appropriate, such as glove bags. induding negative- pressure glove boxes. mini-endo3ures. or wet methods to reduce worker - exposure to asbestos and to minimize any spread of contamination beyond the immediate work area. For some of the operations identified in the definition, additional protection should be easily employed; for example, glove bags can .be used, in pipe removal and valve replacement in additioru this proposal specifically would newly require that appropriately trained competent persons supervise small-scale, short duration . operations. As discussed below, OSHA 377507 ST006990I Federal Register/ VoL.55. No. 140 / Friday, July 20. 1990 / Proposed Rules 29719 is proposing that a competent person s pedal]y trained for small-scale, ahortduratton operations most be present at' the work site to assure that workers engaged in these jobs are protected from hazards of asbestos. In its March 14.1990 recommendation. ACCSH offered two alternatives as definitions for small-scale; short duration operations. These are as The Agency requests comments on the relative menti of the proposed definition of small-scale, short^iuration operations, end those of ACCSH. and on its application of the definition to removal renovation and demolition operations; In particular, the Agency encourages comment on individual elements of the definition and requests submission of any data on the exposures 3. Double bagging, wrapping in two layers of d mil polyethylene, or containerizing ail warts material: and requiring all bags, wrapped material and drums be lowered to the ground using t hoist or crane: 7. Isolating ail roof level air intake and discharge sources or shotting down all mechanical systems and sealing off all ontsida vents using two layers of fl mil polyethylene. follows: potentially associated with any of these OSHA invites comments on whether it y Small scale, short-danCan operation means an operation which meets all of the operations. should require employers to adopt ail b. OtherProposed Exemptions to the the above provisions, and whether they > following requirements: Negative-Pressure Enclosure are feasible in roofing removal ; (1) A mainlminn. repair, or renovation Requirement OSHA is also proposing a operations; task where the removal, handling or - second exemption from the negative- Additionally OSHA is proposing to treatment of asbestos is not the primary goal pressure enclosure requirement for exempt removal of asbestos containing j of the fob. roofing operations. This would appiy floor tile from the negative-pressure . j (2) An activity where employees' exposures to tabestot can he kept below the action level via worker.isolation techniques and . methods described in Appendix G. (3) An operation which has been included almost entirely to the removal of asbestos-containing roofing material. OSHA does not believe that requiring negative-pressure enclosures will result enclosure requirement In the preamble to the 1986 standards. OSHA stated that "data obtained * * * Indicate that when the recommendations of the in the employer's or building owner's in more than a de minimis benefit to Resilient Floor Covering Institute (e.g, asbestos mamtmanra program, as required workers removing roofing or to other wet sweeping and handling, and in Appendix G.. (4) The opereuon is nan-repetitive. Le. not one of a senes of smaii-teaie or short- duration jobs which if performed at one time . would not constitute a mi|-nie short- duration operation. (5) Where tha operation results in the removal or disturbance of asbestos or asbestos-containing malarial the ammml of asbestos or asbestos-containing material may not exceedcubic feet ta. tha amount of asbestos or asbestos-containing material that would be contained in a ______gallon sealed drum. .. - - The second definition suggested by ACCSH contains the same langnage as the first except that (5] is replaced with the following: * (5) Where the operation results in tha removal of asbestos or asbestos-containing material, the amount of asbestos or asbestoscontaining material shall not exceed that which can be contained In a tingle glove bag containing not more than two seta of gloves. OSHA expects that the removal and renovation operations that qualify for the exemption typically will be secondary to the normal business conducted on the premises or by the employer. -- Demolition work is not expected to be exempt under the small-scale, short duration definition. However, some demolition work may be exempt under the proposed provisions covering the configuration of the work environment which make the erection of an enclosure infeasible. OSHA notes that to the extent that stripping of asbestos is employees in their vicinity. Such installation might posa safety hazards to workers stationed on roois or scaffolding: thru it is unlikely that there will be any potential net safety and: health benefit from the use of such enclosures. OSHA is proposing that employers engaged in roofing operations taka specific additional steps to reduce employee exposure to asbestos. These include use of airtight chutes to lower debris from the roof to the ground, or Immediate bagging and lowering of debris rather than dumping it from a height Wetting would be required where feasible to reduce contamination. These methods have been shown to successfully reduce employee and bystander worker exposures. OSHA notes that roofing materials often contain a high percentage of asbestos and if severely weathered, can be quite friable and fibers potentially airborne. Therefore, it Is essential that all other feasible methods be employed to protect workers from asbestos exposure during roofing operations. ACCSH suggested the addition of the following to the reguiatorytext describing the exemption of roofing operations from the negative-pressure enciosure requirement: In sooting operations, where the employer shall institute all feasible controls to muumi7e exposures including: 1. Establishing the enure roof as a regulated area: 2- Using wet methods prior to and during tha cutting nd handling of asbestos- prohibiting powersending and blowing asbestos dust) were followed average TWA airborne fiber concentration were below the 0.2 f/cc PEL duringthe removal of the oid floor." In a recent submission to OSHA from.Environ Corporation on behalf of the Resilient Floor Covering Institute and other, mean exposures were between 0X048 and 0.03 f/cc for workers performing floor tile removal, removal of resilient sheet flooring, or removal of cutback adhesive. These measurements were made during removals which employed work practices recommended by the Resilient Floor Covering Institute. These practices included a prohibition of sanding of floor or residual felt backing, use a of a HEPA vacuum cleaner before nnrl after removal, prohibition of dry sweeping, application of new material over old tiles without removal if possible, wet removal of residual felt, and bagging and disposal of waste in 6 mil plastic containers. Further, the Resilient Floor Coveting Institute recommends that unless absolutely positive that a floor is a non-asbestos product, assume it contains asbestos and treat it in the manner prescribed. OSHA Is not proposing to Include this requirement in this proposal however. OSHA requests information and data regarding this issue, including any information on the use of the date of installation or manufacture of the floor material in determining whether or not it is likely to contain asbestos. OSHA also required prior to demolition, such ' containing roofing material (ACRMJ: seeks information as to safe, effective activity is considered removal work under OSHA'i standard and must be contained in a negative-pressure enclosure, unless a specific exemption applies. 3. Cutting or removing ACRM using hand methods whenever possible: 4. Equipping all powered tools with a HEPA vacuum system or a misting device: 5. HEPA vacuuming ell loose dust left by the sawing operation: methods for removal of adherent floor tiles. In the studies submitted to OSHA measurements were made of the exposures of bystanders--industrial 377508 T .1* ST0069902 29720 Federal JUasaiar. / VoL S5.^No. 140 /"Friday, fuly 20.. lSSO1. / Proposed- Rnies hygienists sad supervisory personnel.:' Their 8 hour-TWA wereera lower than those ax the workers removeis. with means in the three operations ranging from (10043 to 0.023 f/cc. Therefore. OSHA is proposing-to exempt soch removals from the requirement to establish a negahre- pressure-enclosure. As In the case of roofing operations OSHA does not feel that requiring encfesnreswiil offer more than a de minimis benefit to workers performing Hoar tile rexsoval nnrto.. bystander emaioyuj. OSHA proposes to require that employers eng^jed hr these operations must follow the work practices described by the Bgii<nr Floor Covering Institute to reduce employee exposure to <" OSHA is siso mindful of the potential that detenoratedasbestos containing flooring, backing and adhesives might have for release of asbestosfibers. OSHA reqnpita-jnfhrrrmnrm rwvtho 1avI of this exposure and comment-on the necessity far negative-pressure enclosure and hygiene frilitig in instances of flooring .removals in winch the material is likely to release a significant amomrof asbestos fibers. OSHA also aniirits mimnwil on *h adequacy of tha work practices of the Resilient Floor Covering institute to control worker exposure. OSHA seeks Information In any irtilHnnil ^ measures to be takenlo assure employee safety while performing these operations. ..y ifr.Yc---r :: A fourth exemption from tha ssgalive- presssra enclosure trqurrt!ntnt -- " proposed by OSHA would be wherever an employer demonstrates that such m measure is infeasible. This.exception was included in the 1988 standard and is restated in this proposal to make dear that OSHA standards promulgated under section 0(b)(5) of the Occupauonai Safety and Health Act must be "feasible." as defined by the courts. OSHA's feasibility analysis indicates that very few activities will qualify for this exemption. OSHA seeks comments on factors other than work configuration which might render the establishment of negative pressure walk-in enclosures infeasible. OSHA is narrowly dpfimng <md qualifying these exemptions in order to clarify the conditions under which negative-pressure mciosnTes are not required to provide significant worker protection- In these narrowly-drawn dreamstances. localized contentment methods and work practices, if consdeotiousiy used, should reduce exposure to levels equivalent to those achieved with negative pressure c.-.cicrures and associated ventilation systems. OSHA notes hereras it advised the Court of Appeals, that it is using this mlpmalring tn riisrm fha-sfft-rtrraipn and drawbacks of negative-pressure-. enclosures. glove bags, and alternative control systems: and to speafymore dearly under what circumstances various control systemsmay be used. Also. OSHA is considering new technology unavailable in 1988. such as negative-pressure glove bags, which appear to offer improved employee protection in certain circumstances either as an alternative to walk-in endosures. or as required in lieu of conventional "glove bags". These data along with evidence on experience with these systems may limit rather than expand tha walk-in enclosure requirement provide further justification foe the proposed exemptions, or provide, a basis for expandmgthe scope or number of exemptions. OSHA also requests informationand data on work practices and installation techniques to improve the performance of glove bags and similar equipment Additional OSHA is concerned about potential electrical and slipping hazards which may result from use of wet methods and seeks comment and information regarding these potential hazards. In roofing operations and situations _ where establishment of a negative- " , pressure enclosure is determined to be infeasible, the hazard that asbestos exposure always presents to employees and bystander workers remains. Therefore, these operations are exempt only from the requirement to establish the walk-in negative-pressure enclosure and not from other worker protective requirements, such as training, work practices, decontamination, showers, clean room, and equipment room. OSHA seeks comment as to the extent to which these requirements should apply to short-term, smail-scale operations. Under the 1966 standards, an employer exempted from the negativepressure enclosure requirement on the basis that the operation qualified as a smaii-scaie. short-duration operation was also exempted from the competent person requirement As described more fully below. OSHA Is proposing revisions to the construction standard . which will require the presence of competent persons on ail construction sites subject to this standard. Thus, none of the proposed Hinited exemptions from the negative-pressure enclosure requirement would exempt employers from the newly clarified and expanded competent person requirements. 3. ProposedLowering ofPen rihfm Exposure Limit. . . ... .. The Court of Appeals inUCTTZ AFL- CIO v. Brock remanded for reconsideration the issue of wnethera permissible exposure limitJawer then 0.2 f/cc was warranted in those = industries where evidence in thexecord demonstrated general feasibility of attaining a lower ieveL The Court was interested in better understanding the Agency's rationale for determiningthat 0.2 f/cc PEL should be applied across ell industry Hnp. including the.weight given to such factors as administrative difficulty of excessive disaggregation or excessive random fluctuations in exposure levelsrepresented tn the data. In response. OSHA is proposing a two- part revision. It is reducing across the board the time-weighted average permissible exposure limit to 02.1/cc. and is also proposing operation-specific work practices and controls wmchmuat he employed, regardless of exposure levels achieved. The basis for the' reduced PEL of 0.1 f/cc is OSHA's review of compliance data, newstudies available since 1988, and supervening events such, as the refinement and development of cfmtml OSHA believes that it Is feasible for moat industry sectors to reach thezedneed P33- Theproposed required operation- specific work practices are for certain industry sectors where evidence'now points to the success of such practices in reducing exposures, and thnaLZisk..' OSHA believes combining a general performance approach of exposure reduction along with specifying proven control strategies will yield maximum benefit to all employees woo may be exposed to asbestos and will avoid administrative and policy concerns relating to enforcing different PELS in different sectors. OSHA also notes the observation that a significant proportion of the personal (8-hour TWA) monitoring samples in its IMIS compliance data since 1988 (Exh. 4) fell within the range of 0.1 to 02 f/ce, for example, in asbestos product manufacturing (SIC 3292) approximately 20% were within this range and 22% of those within SIC 1799 (special trade contractors) also were. In its risk assessment described in the 1966 Asbestos Standard. OSHA found that lifetime,exposure at 02 f/cc.(8-hr TWA) resulted in 7 excess deaths due to cancer per 1.000 workers. .Reduction to a 0.1 f/cc PEL reduces this estimate to 3 excess mnrpr deaths per 12)00workers. Although rids is a substantial reiludfon. significant risk would remain even at the new PEL Thus, the newiy required 377509 --- j r y ijf ^ - iy it - ; n W iih -fl# itj'ftflli t i- i-- ST0069903 Federal Redater / VoL 55. No. 140 / Friday. July 20. 1990 / Proposed Rules 29721 work practices target those operations where they may retrace exposures below the new PEL as weiL Recently, EPA prohibited, at three staged intervals horn August 1690 to August 1996. the future manufacture, importation, processing and distribution in commerce of asbestos in almost all . products (54 FR at 2346a fuly 12.1989). However, the ban would not affect abatement activities involving asbestos or the servicing of asbestos brake and clutch. OSHA requests comment on the proposed reduction in the PEL in light of this ban. OSHA is concerned that the reduction of the PEL would require in some cases, installation of major control systems whose costs would accelerate EPA's scheduled phase-out of various asbestos-producing sectors. Therefore. OSHA is proposing allowing the reduced PEL to be met through the use of respiratory protection for all primary and secondary manufacturing sectors until the dates schedules for phase-out for each sector when engineering controls would be required. In this way. the reduced PEL would not impose engineering control costs on any general industry sector in a way that would change EPA's scheduled phase-out. Either an industry sector would shut down on or before the effective date of the ban. so the engineering control requirement would be irrelevant, or the ban's enective date would have been stayed or lifted, in which case the phase-out schedule would have been changed by supervening events, outside OSHA's purview. The dates when engineering controls would be required which correspond with the EPA schedules ban are as follows: Stage 1. August 27.-1990: flooring ieit roofing feit pipeline wrap sbestoelcement IA/C) flat theet A/C corrugated iheel vinyl/asbestot floor uie asbestot ciotiung new ubestoa ororiucta Stage 2. August 25.1993: beater-aod gaskets (except specialty Industrial gaskets) sheet gaskets (except specialty industrial gaskets | clutch facings automauc transmission components commercial and industrial friction products drum brake linings (original equipment market) disc brake pads for light- and mediumweight vehicles Stage 3. August 23.199& A/C pipe commercial paper corrugated paper rollboard millboard A/C shingie specialty paper roof coatings non-roof coatings brake blocks drum brake lining (aftennarketl disc brake pads (aftermarket) OSHA notes that other revised requirements of the standards will become effective in all industries on the effective date for all revisions of the standards. OSHA requests information and comment on this approach, especially concerning costs of additional respirator programs that a lower PEL would trigger and whether such costs are feasible for sectors schedules for banning. In addition to the proposed requirement for respirator use in general industry just discussed. OSHA is considering whether it should require employers in designated construction operations to use respiratory protection regardless of measured exposures, because variability in exposures is a particular concern and/or because the controls primarily utilized are not considered sufficiently reliable. For example, in constructionshould OSHA as proposed in mandatory appendix G. require employees working with glove bags always to use respirators because of the possibility of bag leakage? Should employees removing large amounts of asbestoscontaining materials wear respirators because exposure levels are expected to vary so that one day's measurements cannot be considered predictive of future exposures? The Agency seeks comments on expanding the operations in the general industry and construction standards for which respirators should be required, based on the nature of the operation. Commentors should consider whether also requiring respirators, in addition to engineering and work practice controls, would undercut the incentives for employers and employees to install and conscientiously appiy such controls. Would employers and employees tend to rely instead on respirators as their major source of protection? OSHA stated in its February 5.1990 response (55 FR at 3724). that: In addition to the problematic nature of respirator use. reliance on engineering and work practice controls for asbestos is preferable because they measurably reduce exposures of employees directly involved in asbestos producing operations, reduce or eliminate bystander exposures, avoid the deposit of asbestos dust on work surfaces and employee clothing which results in further exposures, and include methods of controls such as substitution, or fully bonded asbestos-containing materials which will eliminate or reduce future asbestos exposures. The Agency will consider requiring additional respirator use. in light of these concerns. In the case of general industry standards, the affected industries can be divided into two general categories: (1) The asbestos brake and clutch repair and service sector, which employs weil over 9096 of general industry employees covered by the standard, and (2) numerous processing and manufacturing sectors, which account for relatively few workers and are declining in product volume and employee populations. For the former sector, as described below, employers must use one of several combinations of engineering controls and work practices which are set out in the standard, to reduce exposures below the proposed permissible exposure limit. For the iatter group of industries, in general. OSHA believes that those that continue in operation will be able to achieve the proposed PEL using existing engineering controls and work practices. OSHA also believes that most construction operations will be increasingly abie to achieve the proposed reduced PEL. if they conscientiously follow the work practices required in the proposaL As noted above. OSHA acknowledges that in the largest construction sector, abatement operations, variability in exposures because of changing conditions make exposure predictions uncertain. Routine maintenance work may achieve compliance with the proposed reduced PEL where deterioration of asbestos materials is limited and where the work practices in appendix G axe followed (Docket H033c. Exh. 3 at 32-33). Although OSHA is proposing a reduced PEL for this sector. OSHA believes that additional specifications for required work practices will be equally important to assure reduced exposures. OSHA notes that the 1986 record contains data showing reduced exposures during abatement activities and subsequent comment contends that exposure below 0.1 f/cc can be routinely obtained during some major renovation projects (Exh 3-3 and Exh. 84-474. Table A.11) and that "minor" removal activities would be able to comply with 0.1 f/cc on a TWA basis. Docket H-033C. Exh. 84-474, Table 3.10. OSHA is interested in exploring which control devices and work practices demonstrate such reductions in exposure and the conditions of the worksites where low levels were consistently achieved. Installation of new asbestoscontaining construction materials, based on OSHA's enforcement data, and data in the 1988 record is predicted to be able 377510 'I0669001S 29722 Federal-Rooster i VoL S3. No. 140 / Friday. July 2a 1990 / Proposed Rules to easily meet the new exposure limit of 0.1 f/cc (see 61 FR 22862-22683). In the 19SS asbestos standards, an action level of 0.1 f/cc. half the PEL. triggers monitoring, medical surveillance and training. The Court instructed OSHA to consider reducing the action level to 0.05 f/cc. should the PEL be reduced to 0.1 f/cc. ACCSH. too. has recommended an action level of 0.05 f/ cc. However, for two reasons OSHA is not here proposing a reduced action leveL First one technical issue that OSHA must address in resolving this question is whether the variability of sampling would render such measurements unreliable for triggering requirements at an action level of 005 f/ cc. OSHA believes that especially at the infrequent intervals dictated in the OSHA standard, measurements at such low levels would not be sufficiently reproducible to be readily enforceable. OSHA noted in iti STEL notice (53 FR 35610. September 14.1988) that the excursion limit promulgated. 1 f/cc. measured over 30 minntp* which corresponded to a time-weighted average of 0063 f/cc. was the lowest reliahle level of detection. The second reason is that OSHA does not believe that more than a de minimis benefit would result bom a 035 f/cc action level which would effectively require only medical surveillance and monitoring to be instituted at that leveL In regard to training. OSHA believes that in the two largest employee sectors, brake repair in the general industry standard and abatement work in the construction standard, actual training would not be significantly affected by a reduced action leveL First OSHA believes many removaL renovation and demolition workers are now required to be trained because they are being exposed at or above the current action leveL The enhancement of supervisory training in this proposal will additionally protect these employees. Secondly. OSHA does not believe that a reduction of the action level would lead to an expansion of training ior brake repair workers, because based on OSHA's data, mast such workers have exposures below 0.05 f/cc. In ita role. Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools (52 FR at 41826. October 30.1987), EPA noted that the limit of reliable quantitation of the PCM method is 0.01 f/cc. However, at least Ove samples are required for clearance and all must be below this limit. OSHA feels that for a single workplace monitoring sample, the limit of reliability for the method is substantially above 0.01 f/cc. Comment on this issue is remiested. OSHA Is seeking comment on the reduction of the PEL to 0.1 f/cc m oil industries and omitting the action level of one-naif the PEL from the requirements. OSHA additionally requests comment on the alternative of setting operation-specific PELS rather than lowering the PEL to 0.1 f/cc across the board and prescribing operationspecific work practices. In addition. OSHA seeks information regarding improvement of the methodology for measuring airborne asbestos levels, specifically whether it has advanced sufficiently to allow reliable and reproducible measurements at an action of level of005 f/cc. In addition. OSHA seeks comments on the ACCSH proposal that the STEL be lowered to 03 f/cc measured over a 30 minute period. OSHA Is considering some minor Tnnftifiratirw tft aviating laboratory methods of asbestos fiber measurement and a new description. OSHA lab method ID 160 which will provide a safer method and a more complete procedure to follow. These are in the Docket (H033e) as Exhibit 1-129. L The Proposed Standard for the Automotive Brake and Clutch Service Industry As noted above. OSHA is proposing to lower the permissible exposure level for all general industry including the automotive broke and clutch service and repair sectors to Ol f/cc as an 6-hour time weighted average. Evidence in the 1986 record demonstrates that exposures below 0.1 f/cc can be achieved using one or more combinations of currently available engineering controls and work practices now included in nan-mandatory appendix F to the existing standard. OSHA is now proposing to make three methods, as an alternative and in a revised formulation, mandatory requirements. In addition. OSHA proposes to allow the use of equivalent engineering controls or work practices if the employer can demonstrate that the use of such methods will reduce employee exposure to the same level as the use of the specified methods. Since OSHA believes that the available evidence shows that either of the three methods can reliably reduce exposures to or below 005 f/cc. the employer must demonstrate that alternate methods can achieve at least the same level of performance. Lise of these or equivalent methods will significantly reduce the risks of asbestos exposure for employees in this largest of the general industry sectors which use materials containing asbestos, tremolite. enthophyilite. or ectinolite. The rationale far this proposal is as follows, in 2968. OSHA established a uniform PEL of 02 f/cc for mU general industry sectors. The Agency found that brake mod clutch repair could achieve exposure levels below 02 f/cc fay utilizing solvent-spray and KEPA- vacuum methods. The Court asked OSHA to re-examine its PEL for this industry in light of the 1986 record. In re examining the feasibility data in the record at the time of its original determination and a subsequent study by the National institute for Occupational Safety and Health - (NIOSH) on the exposure levels that can be consistently achieved in brake and clutch repair operations, the Agency believes that the previously recommended combinations of engineering controls and work practices must be made mandatory in order to reduce the significant risk posed by asbestos, in addition to reducing thrPEL for this sector. OSHA Is adding the wet brush-recycle method to the two - recommended work practices, based on the findings in the NIOSH study that this wet method can also reduce asbestos exposures. - Brake repair workers are the largest group of workers occupationally exposed to asbestos in general Industry. Data in the National Occupational Hazard Survey by NIOSH estimates that 150.000 brake mechanics and garage workers in the United States are * potentially exposed to asbestos during brake servicing operations. (The difference between this and OSHA's estimate of the number of employees at 526396 may be that OSHA did not convert the number of brake repair workers to full-time equivalents. The OSHA estimates included ail potentially exposed auto repair workers, both clutch and brake repair workers.) Workers who repair brakes and dutches made with asbestos are exposed to asbestos fibers because as brakes and clutches deteriorate with wear, asbestos fibers become airborne as asbestos dust Asbestos dust on automotive brake and clutch parts is easily disturbed during servicing. Based on the 1986 rulemaking record and additional data. OSHA believes that it is feasible for the automotive brake and dutch service industry to reduce exposures to below 0.1 f/cc by using engineering controls and work practices specified in the proposed standard. This determination is baaed in part on data obtained from the OSHA IMIS compliance data base and from a November 22.1982 study by NIOSH used to determine the feasibility of the 1985 standard's general industry PEL of 377511 ST0069905 Federal Regular / VoL 55. No. 140 / Friday. July 20. 1990 / PraDoseri Rules 29723 0^2 f/cc. The OSHA data contained 47 institute the enclosed cylinder/HEPA- commercially available, while the observations of asbesms fiber release resulting from brake servicing operations with a mean 8-honr TWA filter vacuum system method, a solvent mist/spray can system method, a wet brush-recycle method or any equivalent solvent misi/spray can system is easily and inpvnpnivpiy inataligd. Other mpth/ida ag ftpvnnpH below, may be exposure of 0.03 f/cc. during the period method of engineering control and work acceptable nnnrmia if used according to 1979 through 1984. Analysis of OSHA practices which will prevent worker the specifications in the appendix, to compliance data collected from 1988 exposure in excess of 0.05 /cc during bring exposures of employees engaged through 1989 yielded a mean of 012121/ brake and clutch servicing operations. in brake and dutch repair to below the co as 8-honr TWA in those samples in Farh method consists of engineering proposed PEL If the rulemaking record which any fiber was detected. The controls which must be installed and provides sufficient supporting evidence, NIOSH study demonstrated that average maintained. work practices which such additional equivalent performance exposures were below 0.1 f/cc when must be closely followed if the full methods may be specified in dip final using either the solvent mist/spray can protection of the control method is to be rule as wel method, the HE'A-filtervacuum system achieved. As the NIOSH study describes a. EarJoeed cyhodar/HEPA vacuum methods or the wet brasn-recyrie in detaiL workers can inadvertently system method. Paragraph (f)(l){x) of method. circumvent the protection provided thp proposed standard instrade sa In addition, a December 1969 article using even those methods that rely most employer to comply with the standard *' entitled "Control of Asbestos Exposure on engineering controls (eg. the through the use of the enclosed During Brake Drum Service" (Ex. 1-112) enclosed cylinder/HEPA-filter vacuum cylinder/HEPA-filter vacuum system t epulis the results of a NIOSH study method) il certain work practices are specified in the proposed appendix. This quantifying the level of mechanics' not scrupulously applied The proposed control method consists of a cylinder exposure to asbestos during brake drum revision to thg standard inrhirip* designed to enclose the brake or clutch servicing operations using several addition of a mandatory appendix parts during the servicing of the parts. different control techniques, including which sets out required pngingering The cylinder must also be designed to the HEPA-filter vacuum system, the controls and work practices which must prevent the release of asbestos fibers solvent mist/spray can system. anH the be followed when performing hrake end into the worker's breathing zone. The wet brush-recytae method. The Btndy clutch repair operations ning the cylinder mmt have viewing ports and examined the application of the control specified methods. impermeable sleeves through which tt techniques to a range of vehicle hrake OSHA notes that NIOSH has worker nan aannie tH* brake gnri Hutch repair operations. Eighty-three samples rpmTnmpmipri that while removing servicing. An HEPA-filter vacuum is of airborne asbestos fibers from the rnntaining and disposing of HEPA filters fitted nntn a mm prnrm inside the TTwnanirV personal breathing zones mwi rlnring these mpthnria of brake cylinder. A compressed air hose with a y ware collected during the brake repair, employees wear respirators. nar-lp jj fiHgrl nntn the cylinder end servicing operations and analyzed using OSHA is not adopting that compressed air is used to loosen ? both phase contrast microscopy (PCM) and transmission electron microscopy recommendation in thi proposal. We note that filler changes occur asbestos dust from the parts. The VaCimm is hpR tO remove gnfi nnntain (TEM). The concentrations measured Infrequently (from monthly to more than the loosened material apart from the ranged from less than 0.013 f/cc to 0JJS2 yearly intervals) and there is no parts ann the cylinder. f/cc using TEM for all control methods. reported data in the record Asieel cylinder/vacuum enclosure TEM yields consistently higher exposure demonstrating that exposures during system was nn* of the five control estimates than PCM. The results of the these operations approach the PEL and/ methods used in the NIOSH study. The study demonstrated that the proposed or excursion levels. OSHA notes that steel cylinder/HEPA-filter vacuum PEL of 0.1 f/cc can be met using feasible requiring respirators triggers other enclosure mnMtfri o, besides the steel engineering control and work practice protective provisions of the standard cylinder, a jingle glove at one end of the methods. OSHA acknowledges that the OSHA does not believe that requiring cylinder and an adjustable seal on the record may aiso support the feasible the regulatory package of respirator- other end. While using the steel redaction of exposures in this industry based requirements during these cylinder/ vacuum enclosure in a hrake !o 0.05 f/cc using the proposed work operations would confer any significant drum servicing operation, the arithmetic practices and therefore proposes to add benefit Instead OSHA requests mean concentration of airborne mandatory' work practice reqmrements information concerning recommended asbestos fibers, resulting from the in this sector. Rather than reducing the work practices employed during filter servicing operation, in the personal PEL fcr this sector to 0iJ5 f/cc. OSHA changes to assure that employees samples was less than it044 f/cc using has chosen to specify the work practices handling asbestos contaminated filters TEM detection. The study reported that and controls which appear to be most in brake repair and in other operations brake dust was observed escaping from effective in reducing exposures and will are not unnecessarily exposed to the seal of the steel cylinder during the in fact have that effect The advantages asbestos. cleaning of the brake parts with of this approach are the relative administrative ease in enforcing a specification standard and OSHA'* biriief that reliance on measurements at widely spaced intervals and of doubtful reliability at lower levels would not give employers and employees significant information or protection over the proposed approach. The proposed standard for the OSHA has specified three methods that employers may use to achieve compliance, the HEPA-flller vacuum system, the solvent mist/spray can. and the wet brush-recycle method These three methods have been used successfully for several years and have been studied by NIOSH and privets researchers, as indicated in the record [Ex. 84-283. Ex. 90-148). The enclosed compressed air. The problem of scraping a jKpjina oust from the seals of the steel cylinder would be mitigated by the use of respiratory pquipmpnt as specified in the appendix or greater care when directing the spray of compressed air. An unpublished study of a cylinder held nnripr negative-pressure end the equivalent method described by NIOSH below indicate promising results lor automotive brake and service industry cylinder/HEPA-filter vacuum method reduction of employee exposures in this specifies that the employer shall and wet brush-recycle method are operation. Since the type of cylinder 377512 s IU U b jy U b 23724 Federal Register-/ VoL-55. No. 140 / Friday, July 20^1990:/ - PtOpoaeaLRulea -- which has already beenin wide use - attached to a nozzle), and a catch basin. exposure when maintaining and demonstrates successful achievement of An aqueous solution containing an replacing the vacuum filter and when levels below the permissible exposure organic solvent is pumped out of the cleamnglhe enclosure. Caremost be limit. CSHA is not proposing at this time nozzie or the bristles of the brush and taken, through the nse of work practices that negative-pressure cylinders be the fluid and brush are used to wash specified in the appendix, to prevent required. down the dost in the brake assembly exposures maintenance and. b.- Satvent/spray can system method. into a catch basin. The fluid In the catch ' replacement of the system parts. Paragraph of the proposal basin is returned to a reservoir and Anotherproblem of the system is that it allows an employer to comply with the recirculated. Using TEM detection, the may not be used an all larger brake proposed standard through the use of a arithmetic mean concentration of systems. solvent mist/sprayran system"as asbestos fibers in the personal samples The HEPA-filter equipped vacnum specified izt appendix F. as a control was less than 0013 f/cc. The wet brush/ cleaner method is used tn vacuum dust method.-This system cansxsta of an . recycle system can-be used on all sizes from inside the brake drumandfrom . aerosoi or-pump spray can filled with a of brake systems and limited wetting around tire brake assembiy^befare and solvent or solvent solution. The spray. can be done with the brake drum in during servicing, as well as dust that can is used to dispense the solvent or' place. The wetted brake dust is rinsed falls to the floor and work area. No solvent solution in order to wet the down into the catch basin which yields enclosure, compressed air. or wet brake or dutch parts. The wetted parts better control of asbestos fibers when methods are used in this control method. are wiped dean with a doth winch is the brake drnm is removed for further - The use of this control method resulted disposed of according to ways specified cleaning and servicing. The problem in an arithmetic mean concentration of in paragraph (k) of the standard or - with this system is that the method asbestos fibers in personal samples of laundered in a way to prevent the involves a more problematic cleanup 0022 f/cc mring TEM detection. One release of asbestos fibers in excess of and disposal. The aqueous asbestos problem with this method is that in the &1 f/cc PEL The solvent mist/spray contaminated waste must be disposed of order to use the vacuum the drums mus can system can be used concurrently in a way which does not violate any be removed before cleaning and this with a local exhaust ventilation system OSHA waste disposal or EPA hazardous presents a potential for release of to limit the escape of airborne asbestos waste disposal standards. The article asbestos fibers: There is also the fibers into the ambient air. but since the recommends that any spill of the potential for exposure during the method achieves levels well below the contaminated solution be cleaned up maintenance and replacement of the PEL without using local exhaust . using an HEPA filtervacnum or. vacuum filter and parts. The vacuum ventilation. OSHA is not proposing to thorough wet mopping and re-mopping. cleaner does not use compressed air nor requite engineering controls for what The use of this control method resulted does it generate dust that would need to appears tn Be a de minimis reduction in in the lowest concentrations of airborne be contained, as in the'vacmmi Exposure over the basic approach. asbestos fibers among ail the control enclosure systems. The.vacuumcleaners In the NIOSH study, the aerosol ' methods used in the NIOSH study. can be used on brake drums deny size. solvent mist/spray can system consisted ^.Equivalent methods. OSHA has fix addition to the preferred methods. of the spray can Med with solvent information sbout potential "equivalent"' OSHA is proposing to allow employers without the nse of a ventilation system. methods. The NIOSH study describes to achieve compliance using any other The wetted parts were wiped dean by two alternate engineering controls (a methods equivalent to the solvent spray, 8ome-mechanics using this control glove box/ vacuum enclosure method, wet brush-recycle, and/or HEPA filter method and washed with the aerosol and a HEPA-filter vacuum without vaenmm methods, and any other solvent by other mechanics. The use of enclosure), which may qualify as preferred method specified in the final the aerosol spray can yielded the suitable equivalent methods. Results of standard. Appendix F alsorequires that highest concentrations of ambient the study demonstrated that these the equivalent method of engineering asbestos fibers of the four other control control methods are capable of keeping control and work practices comply with methods used in the stndy. The use of the mechanics' asbestos exposure level housekeeping standards of paragraph the aerosol spray can method in the to less than OHS f/cc. These methods (k) of the standard and labeling study yielded arithmetic mean asbestos and their characteristics are described requirements of paragraph (j)(2)(li] of fiber concentrations of 0052 f/cc using below. -- the standard. TEM detection. The principal The giove box/vacuum enclosure Unlike the use of the three specified advantages of the solvent mist/spray can method are its low cost and the capability to use it on all sizes of brake drums: therefore it is a recommended control method. The problem with the method consists of an adjustabie-height clear plastic, two-glove box with an overlapping neoprene seal: a double motor HEPA filter-equipped vacuum unit: and connections inside the box for methods, the employer must demonstrate that the equivalent method reduces employee exposures in that work place to levels approximating the expected reduction achieved through system is that too much force from the solvent spray may cause the suspension of asbestos dust in the air. While the use an air hose and a vacuum hose. In the study, the glove box was fitted over thebrake drum and backing plate on all' the preferred methods. OSHA Is not proposing to use the PEL'ax the benchmark for equivalency since, as of a local exhaust ventilation system vehicles except a large truck. Using TEM noted above, the reference methods ant would catch the suspended dust. OSHA detection, the arithmetic mean likely available substitute methods believes that work practices are a concentration of personal samples was reduce asbestos concentration levels tc practical and immediately applicable substitute. &02L f/cc. The article notes the glove bax/vacuum enclosure as s superior below the PEL Based on the evidence available to it. the Agency believes tha a Wet brush-recycle method. The wet control method because the two gloves these reference methods can routinely brush/recyde method used in the of the system allow both hands to reduce exposures to or below OJJS f/cc. NIOSH study consists of a Quid manipulate parts and tools within the OSHA therefore has proposed to requb reservoir, a pump, a delivery system enclosure. The primary problem with that the employers proof of (either a iow velocity nozzie or a brush this control method is the potential for "equivalency ' demonstrate that the 377513 ST0069907 Fadatai Hegntar / VoL 55. No. 140 / Friday. July 20.1990 / Proposed Raid 29725 methodJ canabia idnaaaif vdneving such exposure ieveiz-Tbs .. standard would require tfa*t."Sudi . demonstratiaa shallfnrJwdw Tmmitnrmfl data amdocted tmri*riwifilMa cnnriitinnn rinsply wnihliwq *hm process, type af asbestos containing materials, control method, work, practices and eztvirnninsiital enmtitirma when the equivalent methcd will be used* * *" Further, the method must be lgproandhde and the numberof - measurements should be adequate to be valid. Alan it must be demonstrated that the "equivalent" method reanita in exposures which are "equal to or less than the exposures w wilting from the use of Method A. tha Enclosed. Cyhnder/HEPA Vecsnm System Method, as set for in Ex. 1-112 (Sheeny. J.W. XU Cooper. OM. O'Brien. 1353. Control ofAsbestos Exposures-During Brake Drum Service.AppLind. Hjj, 4:313-315) In addition: an aquivslent method most b* used acoondmg to. mannfm (in m tp*y?nrnhnw* ths*' employer mast imnari employees in wane practices and provide the method in eHiitpn fnim tn the employee tn ensure its mmrr gn, mi employ appropriate housekeeping methods. OSHA also is considsing.urhetber the employer shonld be required to request a variance pursuant la section 6(d) in the Act In order to prove that this., method Is "equivalent". OSHA seeks information as to what criteria should be included in the standard tn ensure that a methodmeets these testa. Comment on thi is sought The Agency is requesting comments on each of the methods described as a preferred rrmrml method for brake and clutch repair operations. OSHA requests iafomanon on any experiences in use of techniques which should be added to the specifications far engineering controls or.work practices. In particular. OSHA is asking for comments on the seed for local exhaust ventilation during use of the solvent spray ran method. Additionally, OSHA is requesting comments on the utility of specifying the described equivalent methods as designated control methods. OSHA seeks comment on whether there are additional work practice* OSHA should require which would effectively reduce asbestos exposure. Further. OSHA - requests comment on the appropriateness of lowering-tha permissible exposure limit ta brake nH clutch repair to 0.05 f/cc. d. Additional housekeeping requirements. Housekeeping practices hare been shows to be effective means of reducing employee exposure tn . asbestos, trcmoute. actinoiite and anthopbyitita. Coasaqaandy. OSHA it proposing ta speedy thatthe now required daazdng of floors and surfaces on which dmi containing asbestos,can aaonnnlata be perfbooadAt least ones par ihiftiapmuxysDd secondary mnmrfai Jill lay fri tn riw current requiresmiiiat swcbib eoDtsioieg a HEPA-filterszsat be used. OSHA is. proposing thatwhere feasible, wt methods most also ba naad far dean-up. Ones asbeatns dost ta etinmed. it can accmaaiats 5-- --ieadzo^ to poteotiaUy substantial lavela of exposure. Routins removal of dost can greatly rednee these aiauininlafirms and the risks thet they pose. proposing sew 192Jt5S(g){2Xlv) and 19m001(fl(lXxi). which Wouid prohibit the sanding and/or buffing of floortiles connmingasugaiui with m^u'ipeeu sandersfbnSen). fat accordance with only low abrasion pads may he used at speeds iower than ISO tpm m these operations. OSHA believes that without suchrestrictions this type of mechanised activitymay result hi the release of levels of asbestos fibers into tfaa air. which may pose a significant risk to workers and tn bystander employees. OSHA is also requiring that employers inform employees that high-speed floor buffing may expose them to asbestos. In October 1589. AE. Meyer and Associates. , an W -Tpgtirmni hpulth andsafety rrmmlinnt. conducted.a study on the presenceand amnimt of asbestos fiber released ham routine buffing (with standard red buffing pad and standard buffing solution) and stripping, two methods: (1) With standard stripping mixture mopped on and standard black atripping paid, and (2) with mist spray of stripper solution and standard black stripping pad) of vinyl asbestos floor hIas in a Maryland public school. The tests conducted before, during, and after these buffing and stripping operations indicated the following results, published in "Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tile Study--Routine Buffing and Stripping Operations for WRC-TV Washington''. Air samples collected in the lest classroom before any buffing or stripping were performed detected airborne fiber densities of 3Q.5 and 413 structures per mm* (QXH and 0.015 structures per cc). Asbestos densities of air samples collected inside the work area during the first stripping operation were 91X5 and 223d structures per mm1 (0.025 and 0X122 structures per cc). Air samples collected during the second stripping operation indicated airborne fiber densities of 236.167X5 and 2752162 structures per mm-* (77.5 and 832struenmes per cc). Airsamples collected after the finalstripping npwnrina inriirjitpd airhnm* fihpr - densities of 1372 and1522 per mm* (0X145 and 0X16 structures per cc). On January 25.1990. in response to the A-F. Meyerstudy, EPA published "Recommended Interim Guidance for Maintenance of Asbestoa-Gnntaining Floor Coverings." (Ex. 1-106) outlining its analysis of the Meyer's findings. The Agency concluded that although there was "no dear evidence" that "routine" stripping significantly elevated levels of asbestos fibers, it observed that higher levels did occur after a stripping mmrhirm was used on a relatively dry, unwaxed floor.- Work practices recnaimenried by EPA in th* mm guidance -mwmn unsure that the least ahrashre pad available is used to strip wax cr finish coat froenasbestos-oimsinin; flnnre. EPA also suggests that sanding equipment be operated infretroendT and at slow speeds (ejp. 175-190 rpm) to prevent a sudden violent distmbenca of asbestos fibers. On the basis of these and other data. OSHA believes that-sandingvinyl floor tiles would likely release high levels of asbestos and. msome cases, asbestos fibers in concentrations in excessof the OSHA proposed permissible exposure limit of 0.1 f/cc. Therefore, OSHA is proposing this prohibition of high speed muting. The data indicate that-knw speed sanding (l.e- less than 190 rpm) or buffing would not result in levels of airborne asbestos that pose significant exposure risks to employees involved in routine operations, maintenance and repair activities. OSHA'a proposed action would reduce the risk bom exposure to airborne asbestos fibers with only minimal losses in benefits (i.e.. dirtier floors and/or longer cleaning times by hand). OSHA also notes that ACCSH recommended these restrictions, as weii as more specific work practices. These recommendations are as follows: The snipping of wax or finish coat from asbestos-containing floor coverings shall be performed as infrequently as possible. When this operation is performed, the floor shall be kept adequately wet daring the audio operation. Prior to machine operation, an emulsion of r*i--niral snipper m vrstar stall) be applied to the floor with a map to aaften the wax or finish coat. Following stripping nrl p--nr jq ppiirarinn of ihs W WUQT coat the floor shall be thoroughly dean, while wet The machine shall be equipped with the least abrasive pad possible for the operation. shall be run at speeds no greater than 190 rpm. Stripping shall cease when the old surface coat ta removed so as to prevent overstepping. Machines with an 377514 4f. ST00G9908 29726 Federal Register7. VoL-55,-No. 140 ./ Friday, fuly 20.-1990 / Proposed Rales abrasive cad ihail not be used on ocwaxed instrucnng-empioyees in how to or mmmahed floors. .. . - recognize- and avoid unsafe conditions Comments on this suggested expansion of the provisions are requested. C The Proposed Expansion of the Competent Person Requirement and makingthem aware-of the safety and health regulations applicable to their work: OSHA has determined that these general safety and health-related duties apply to all job sites where A competent person is denned in the worker exposure to asbestos occurs. current asbestos construction standard Therefore, at every construction (28 CFR1928L58 fb)) as "* * * one who asbestos job site, an employer must, is capable of identifying existing - comply with these worker protection. asbestos - * 'hazardsin the requirements^ The proposed revisions in. workplace, and has the authoritytotake - this asbestos rulemaking clarify the - - prompt corrective measures to eliminate general responsibilities of the competent them-* * ".TSe current standard person by referencing the General. requires employers to designate - Provisions for Safety and Health. competent persons to oversee-large- In addition, the 1988 rulemaking scale removal, demoiitioa and renovation operations such operations record documented the need to specify the prerequisite training necessary for occur at job sites at which employers are aiso required to establish negativepressure enciosunes-Speria lly. designated training is requiredfor such "competent persons'*; Exempt from competent person requirements are small-scale, short-duration removal, renovation and demolition operations where negative-pressure enclosures are not erected. In. Building and ' Construction Tirades Department. AFLCIO v. Brock (DC Cir. Peb 2,1988), the Court remanded to-OSHA. the question ofwhether employers engaged in any land of asbestos related construction work should be required to designate "campetentpersans" to oversee safety measures. . OSHA agrees that all construction site employees would benefit from the presence of a competent person to oversee asbestos-related work.: Therefore. OSHA Is proposing to expand the competent person requirements to require supervision of all asbestos construction work sites by a "competent person'' whose qualifications are keyed to the kind of asbestos operation. First the proposed revisions in this asbestos rulemaking clarify the general competent persons who will be working at those sites where there is likely to be substantial exposure to asbestos. Thus . as noted above, in addition to the general competent person required at all job sites, the current standard requires employers to designate a competent person specifically for asbestos removal, demolition,and renovation work except for small-scale, short term jobs. The duties of.the competent person who will oversee asbestos-related jobs include setting up a regulated area, enclosure, or appropriate containment, ensuring the. . integrity of the enclosure or containment, controlling entry to aiuf exit from the enclosure, and supervising, compliance with this standard. The competent person must also ba trained in how to identify, recognize, handle, and remove asbestos, in. a comprehensive course such as the one conducted by an EPA Asbestos Training Center, a 5-cLay course (29 CFR 1928-53 (e)(8)(iii). OSHA notes that ACCSH recommended that a comparably trained competent person be assigned to every construction work site, not just abatement operations, and that installation of new aBbestos-containing materials requires the presence of a trained competent person. . responsibilities of the competent person OSHA Is proposing to expand the by referenciEg the General Provisions current competent person provisions of for Safety and Health. Currently, the the asbestos standard to require the General Safety and Health Provisions designation of a specially trained for Construction (29 CFR 132&2D et sea.) competent person et all renovation, require employers to designate a removal and demolition operations competent person to ensure compliance covered by the standard. The proposed with general safety and health revisions also clarify the responsibilities requirements at every construction job of competent persons at such sites and site. The competent person's duties in specify the training and qualifications this regard include prohibiting the use of required to equip a competent person to machinery or tools not in compliance fulfill these duties. The proposed with safety standards, identifying end revisions tier the training requirements. removing all machinery or tools not In Competent persons for small-scale, compliance with safety standards, short-duration operations need not allowing only trained or otherwise receive the same training as those for qualified employees to operate large-scale asbestos operations; - equipment and machinery, and however, some competent persons who will be overseeing small-scaie. short- duration operations may find the - additionaLtraining usefuLThns.training for small-scale, short-duration .. operations need not include setting up large-scale enclosures or containment large-scale removal, demolition, and. repair techniques, or other topics . applicable only to large-scale operations.- . To ensurethat competent persons- receive training; prospective competent persona will.be required tocamplete a. comprehensive training-Couxse*OSHA is not proposing at this time to require specific curriculaor OSHA accreditation for these training courses.- Numerous sources currently offer coursesthat. cover the topics listed above; for example, those courses designed to meet the requirements of EFA's Asbestos - Pontatning Materials in Schools. Standard (40 CFR part 783). EPA's Model Accreditation Plan specifies curricula for courses directed at.. asbestos inspectors, management planners, project designers, abatement contractors, supervisors, workers, and operations and maintenance personnel. The Model Plan specifies the required length of each course and the minimum 1itpria the course must satisfy in order to receive EPA accreditation-- Specifically ETA stated the. following; ..i.v: r.;- .>i . \. * * * inspectors must take a 3-day training course: management planners must take the inspection course plus an additional 2 days devoted to management planning; and abatement project designers are required to have at least 3 days of training, in addition, asbestos abatement contractors and supervisors must take a 4-day training course and asbestos abatement workers are required to take a 3-day training course. For ail disciplines, persons seeking accreditation must aiso pass an examination and participate in annual re-training courses. A complete description of accreditation requirements rJtn be found in the Model Accreditation Plan at 40 CFR part 763. subpart E. appendix C.L1-A. through E. (54 FR November 29.1989 at 49190). EPA. up until October 15.1989. required accreditation for training programs offered to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 763. By that time. EPA had accredited 1.362 courses-States will continue to certify courses with assistance from.EPA. Courses designed to train asbestos abatement supervisors and operations and maintenance personnel are likely to be sufficient training for competent persons. Courses for supervisory 377515 Federal -Resister / Vol..55, No.. 140 / Friday. July 20- 1990- / ProDOsed Rules 29727 personnel generally lasrfrola 4 to 5 . set forth in.paragraph 00(3) (111) and-(iv) of regarding the qualification and; ~ days, whereas tnose toroperations-ana. this secnonas wed as in tne ioilowmip i certification of employers ana --amtenanse personnel last about 2.... (i) Assessing the estimated level of potential, employees:- _ .... .. -.. y. -4 days. The supervisory courses cover ail aspects of employee heaith and safety, use of protscnve equipment. recognition and'handiing of asbestos; and. asbestos exposure through a.imowiedge of percentage weight of asbestos in noesiotcontaining material, friability, age. deterioration and location. (ii) Personal air monitoring requirements and (1) All training of employees endemployers. required by paragraphs (k)____ and____ shall be provided by individuals knowledgeable and experienced in the - f- emergency procedures^These courses ' procedures, and the knowledge of PEL and may be sufficient for competent persons action levels: construction trade involved, possessing academic credentials anal or field experience overseeingiarge-scaie.asbestos^ - (iii) The degree of protection afforded by in tebeetos work, trained in teaching skills, operations- Operations ami minpnnnrj different type* of respirators, and the and certified as meeting all such.. courses-generaily cover recognition, and. identification of asbestos, small-scale. removal techniques, employee safety .. feasibility.of different types of respirators for different asbesios-feiatedoperations.- . . (iv) Preparing t work are* for asbestos work, farinding defining the regulated areas.- qualifications. Instructors providing training of employees and employers engaged in asbestos removal renovation or demolition aboil be accredited as meeting requirements and health, emergency procedures, and constructing negative-pressure enclosures, no less stringent than those contained in the glove-bag techniques. These courses, otherwise isolating work areas to prevent- EPA model contractor-accreditation plan (52 may be sufficient for training competent employee, bystander or public exposure, FR15878.1987). persons to oversee small-scale, short- establishing dn-fmiswinsrinn trees, and (2) Instructors providing training in sir. $ duration asbestos operations.Same, preparing work areas after completion of monitoring requirements and procedures . 3 ? asbestos training programs aiso offer . courses specifically for small-scale, short-duration operations or restrictedhandler operations. These courses cover issues specific to smafUscele and short- work. (v)Jhnployee and employer training., examineturn and certification requirements and procedures, and qualification requirements for instructors. (vt) Banding and insurance requirements must be certified industrial hygienists- Instructors providing instruction on the health effects of asbestos and on medical surveillance program requirements and'- procedures moat be either industrial - hygienists-or certified heaith professionals. T 4' duration removal operations as weil as general employee safety techniques; Some asbestos training facilities aiso offer.training that is custom-designed for for employers engaged in asbestos work. (vii) Reporting, recordkeeping and record transfer requirements. (viiif Supervisory techniques and Finally, the Committee also described its proposed OSHA overaight.of training programs, examinations and specific job sites or types of operations. procedure*. . -v-- certification: As a more extensive alternative. (lx) Contract specifications. (1) Employee and employer training . ACCSH submitted the following (xj Requirementa and procedures for *. recommendations for training of * competent persons: .1^.]___- providing information to employees and their designated representatives. (xi) All other duties and functions of curricula. course outlines manuals, descxiption of tffitrmng mythrufa and ftf . hands-on fatalities, examinations and- |i) Prior to performing or supervising sny competent persons contained in thia examination procedure*, and certifications work arreted by this rectum, the competent Standard. and certification procedures, es-well as the person snail be trained, examined and-, (2) The training required by this paragraph names, telephone number* and addresses of certified in accordance with the requirements shall include both classroom-type training the employer's competent persons and of ' for the training, examination and hands-on performance-type training. instructors of employee and employer: - certification of employers set for in paragraph * 1of this 2standard.' (il) For small-scale, snort-duration operations, the competent person shall he trained, examined and certified in all aspects of asbestos work applicable to small-scale short-duranon operations. '"^fading the (3) Examination and Certification, (i) Prior to engaging in any work covered by this section, employer* shall be examined by qualified instructors not employed by such employer or by any company affiliated with such employer, on all subjects as to which, training is required by this paragraph. The training, shall be provided,to OSHAjipaa request. OSHA may require changes in any of these items for the purpose of assuring that employees, employer* end instructors possess the qualifications set forth in this section. / "* -- contents of tHrstandard. subpart C of part '.928. and section SB of part 1928 (Hazard Communication Standard). the identification of asbestos, the ability to determine whether an operation meets the requirements of this section for tiesignauon as a amaii-acaie. shon-durauon operation. procedures for setting up and use of glove bags and minienciosurea. ose of wet methods, and all other controls, techniques, work oracnces and other requirements of appendix C of this Standard. examination shall include both written questions and answers and hands-on proficiency evaluation. (ii) Certifications issued to employers by qualified instructor* shall contain the name, address sad telephone number of the employer so certified, the name, address and telephone number, and certification dates and number*, of all competent persons employed by the employer, the name, address and telephone number of the instructors who provided the employer training and OSHA believes that the recommendations of ACCSH pertaining to the competent person and training and certification requirements, deserve careful consideration. Therefore. OSHA requests comment on these recommendations. Additionally. OSHA requests comments, including suggested alternatives, on several questions related to training: Are courses The ACCSH further recommended the examinations and who issued the available that are sufficient to cover the following regarding the training, examination, and certification of employer*: certification, the date of issuance of certification, and statement that the ' certification is valid for one year oniy. (41 Access to Training Materials. The requirements for specially tailored competent persona? Is the training offered in courses adaptable to small- (1) This paragraph applies to all competent employer shall make readily available to scale. short-duration operations? Should persons engaged in. or supervising, work affected employees and their designated OSHA supply modeljugjcula for covered by this secuon. The training., representatives, without cost, ail written. . trairirtgrUo existing competSaCperson examination and certification of all of the employer'a competent persons shall constitute compliance by that employer with the requirementa of this paragraph. materials related to the employer training program and a copy of the employer's certification. curricula and requirements-need to be updated by Incorporating training, in new technologies? Should OSHA \ (2) Prior to engaging in any work covered by Although not specifically an issue in jnire certification of training courses? } this secuon. employers shall be trained, the Court remand. OSHA is presenting Could QSHA's required training be examinee, and certified in ail of the suoiects the following ACCSH recommendations efxectiveivTflcorparated iniojiaining 377516 25728 Parfatar Senator t VoL55. No. 149-'f Frfssy. July 20. 1035 / ffftooaeg Rrfea that meets current EPA- asbcato* deeoataimnatran nrocedtsoa enitnencr procaismest waste disnosar uroceuures. be required far employees in ail asbestos lenawaLdegnitnoB anoior removat opezadansi OSHA andidanaiiy request*,csanmemcnsd aspect*of it* proposed competentperson reomiameos anti all 11 rn g r*s i y ni,h|ll-|iiirrin the-use or theta-control* ,nw proceourcc. OTTbe putpose. eiecdam fitting tesmts; "aiBwmnnnniiipWmiiy unitffmitabans-of respirators. (Of Medicsf surveaTencg program- - reuaireaiemm (H) the contents of thia standard, including competent person requirement raises qo appendfces;.andof192ft-(Hasanr feasibility issue. TTm gcnerai r;rrntp>^yT'rrn "MTnnmtPnt Cflrrmin11 ieaflow StatzdsriT. STtQSUrtCofpart T92B fGenarsr construction-Safety antr Health rewnreiiuait require*-- spectaA teaming. A*--tad. requiring addfetomdtasting foe gaperraorcof staaft-irsie-. short durationoperaboos waad cared a-16- Standards! and 191TU0 (Employes Access to Expomre'RecEBTir and Employer Mediod fTeeonwt (rvfrNutwithatanding paragraph- (IcjfS)(".)'. In hoarasbestos-controi course; OSHA (k)(3]ffiIF, prior tg commemaig ashestoa wurk helieree tftsttfcmmifrfiiT-riTte-trgimTiy at any pmjw*nr hiilMfrrv- everyempioyee- can be met either byexisting resources shall be trained by-the employer in ail proper or by training F**r*i-rrrr tnrna-qriprl tr> and applicable fob-specuic work practices meet any demand* created by tins'\ mdndiuit rupriatmjrprotection, .wins' area amendment-Coalmen* on this,is requested. hi atkixixazx ns its sscazmrendaaozi* for -training or competent persons. ACCSH has recommended the faUdwmy reyarding naming, of aiTexposed emergency, and waste disposal procedures. Employers anal! mrtailow-any-employee to peil'uuu' win rat the piujeer or Pudding sales* the erntricryer aes received such yoixuecnc naming: (v) The training required By paragraphs workers: (k)(3) (iii) andffv) shall include both (3) Empioyee infarmadaa and Training, (i) The empttryennaB tnrtitttte: a tratinng progtamfbra&eu3uin7tBejeiJCea to uiboRifi cmmennatioos ifubuua rod(hail program. exawuiadngand-MBflgrtoimimpuuems: Thgatnafoversfraff notaffair any noaCCTtlfled empio'y tg w-pcriona wen k coveted by thia seetiott. Tubecertified, employee* must be-trainedand asHaanctiae provided-bekne classroom-typetraining and hands-on. _performance-type nettling. (4) Examnsaticn and Certification, ft] The - emnmariotr requited by parsgrapn (k}(jJ ball Include both,written questions and answers end hands-on proficiency .. - evaluation.--- ------------ -1------------- -- flifCertificalioiis issued to employees by qualified instructor* shall contain the name, addresr and telephonenumberof iha employee: the-name, adihesrand telephone numiig of the employer, the-type of ashestoa (ti>Trainnnr, exemmadae and certification work in which the employeris engaged, the halt be provided by equalled Instructor date of issuance of the certification, the prior to tba ttmeoi initui iwomicm by the name: address and telephone number of the employertmiss* tl>*tninioy*Ba*be*n- instructors'whu provided the training ana. provided equivalent-trainms. examination examination and issued the certification, and and certification within the oreseama 11 a stalemenrthat-the certification Is valid for months, ana at least ammsliv-lheFeHilrr one year omy. and that fo b-speafic training (inJ-The teaming program (had be- must be provided by the employee's condnclad m s manner tnet the employee is ahJiMyi rmtumsanrt TVeempinyer-enell employers at every protect and building during the year the certification is in effect. ensure that each employed*, trauma and (5) Access to Training Materials, fi) The examined in the following: employer shaQ make readily available to ail (A) Methods for recognizing asbestos. anA affected employees, and their designated physical charactensdca of asbestos nri representatives, without cost.ail written asbestos-containing matenah materials relating to the employee training (B) The health effect* associated with asbestos. (C) The relationship between mnirinn and program. (ij) Employees shall have access to copies of examinations they have taken, including BvimTiiiriBn grades and instructor comments. (D) The names, arirtrsssea. and talaphone numbers of public health arganrratiana which provide infnrmnhnn materials and/or conducr programs concerning smoking cessation. The empioyg may distribute the list of such organisation* contained in appendix ( to comply with-this requirement. (EiThe nature adopmatiaac thatcanid resell tit harmful exposes* to asbestos; and the importance of control* to. muumizft such exposures. Inf-Inrimff .ngtp^rrr^T mnrmla work practices, protective equipment Designated employee representatives shall have access to such Information, except for individually identifiable exam results which shall bar made available only with, the employee's author!ration. - (6) Employee Retesting. The employer shall allow trainees to ba retested at reasonable Interval* and-shall adopt written procedures for this purpose which shall ba made available to trainee* and their designated representatives^ (ndodine respirators and protective clothing, OSHA Invites comments on these housekeeping procedure*, hygiene facilities. proposed expansions of the training requirements- fbrasbestor-extxised Toricgrs.ReieunyrOSHA reamed tftat Congress is considering extending the training requirements of EPA*s mie pertaining;to Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools-f52 FTTflSZS. October3d. TS87]- pursuant tnthe Asbestos Hazard Response Act (AHERA) fa publicand commercial buddings. The EPA rule requires maintenance and custodial staff to receive- at feast 2 boars ofawareness training and that staffwidefe will disturb asbestos-containing bmldbigmateriala receive an additional. Tf hours of iMiufrrg- Further, it requires accreditation of persons who inspect for ACM in school buildings; who prepare management plans- for such schools; and/or who design, or conduct response actions: Accreditation is gained from a State that has instituted'a program at least as stringent as the requirements of the EPA's Modei Plan (52 FR15375; April 3tX 13SXJ or by passing an EPAapproved training course an examination consistent with the Model Plan. The. Plan requires persona seeking accreditation to taka an initial coursepass an examination and participate, in continuing education. . OSHA realizes that iTadoptecL these requirements will EReiy impact the training o workers ccrveredunder the OSHA Standard and wishes to ramprife any differences or inconsistencies in the training requirements, forsahesttw workers which might lead to confusion or misunderstanding. Therefore: OSHA seeks comment as to how to best apply the training requirements to ensure worker protection and cnnrrifnate. them with those of other agencies. OSHA seeks comment on the question oi whether OSHA should adopt simiutr training requirements fbr asbestoa workers' covered under its-standard as those specified in AHERA. Training programs required in the asbestos standards ara to ba. provided by the employers, who also must ensure the participation oi affected enpioyees. As discussed above, most major elements of the required OSHA training program are covered by an a*bearnsworker training program required under AHERA. However, the AHERA-required training exceeds in breadth and length, of training sessions, the OSHA requirements. Above. OSHA has asked for comments on whether the AHERA worker training and certificaliairthould be required also by OSHA. OSHA now require* that employers provide ell training except far initial trainingunder the construction standard if an employee has received "equivalent 377517 I 669001S Federal Resister t Vol. 55. X'o. 140 / Fridav. fuiv 20. 1S90 / Proposed Rules 29720 -ainir.s wuhin the orevtous 12 months." ;:3 CFR 5 1923-58tk)(3)(ii)). This is in recognition oi the fact that many abatement workers change employers ireouenuv. Thus, requiring duplicate training from each new employer at each new iob would be oi de minimis benefit to emnioyees. The intent however, of this excepncn was not to shift to the emnioyee the cost of required OSHA training, nor to encourage him/her to obtain, at employee expense AHERA certification within 12 months of appiymg for work covered by the OSHA standards. OSHA has been informed that in. certain regions employers are requiring AHERA certification as a condition of employment for abatement work covered by OSHA standards. The Agency is Interested in comments and informanon concerning how widespread such a practice is: whether the reason is to shift the OSHA training cost to employees, or whether there are other reasons: wnether such a pracnce results In little or no job site training: and if so. how employee health and safety are affected. D. Proposed Extension of Reporting and Information Transfer Requirements 1. Notification and Reporting Requirements OSHA is proposing expanded notification and reporting provisions in the construcnon standard to respond to the Court of Appeals remand order and to incorporate some recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Construction (Exhibit 1-126). The Court's decision dealt with two notification and reporting issues. First 3CTD has asked OSHA to require employers contracting asbestos-reiated work to establish, maintain and transfer to buiiding owners written records of the presence and locations of asbestos or asbestos products. La order to facilitate identification and prevention of Bsbesios hazards. The Court remanded this issue so that the Agency reach "its own judgment on the issue" of whether it was legally empowered to adopt such a requirement ( See 3CTD v. Brock, supra at 1228). The second issue is whether OSHA should require all construction industry employers to file reports with it prior to engaging in any asbestos work, as maintained by ECTD. The Court remanded the issue for consideration on remand, after finding that the record contains "uncontradicted (and unanaiyzed) evidence of non-cre minimis benefits" (/a). The following discussion explains OSHA's proposal as it pertains to terrain oi these issues. First OSHA discusses us expanded orovisions dealing with notification by and between employers and buiiding owners in order to facilitate identification of and protection from asbestos in buildings. Second. OSHA discusses proposed orovisions requiring some construction employers to report asbestos-reiated worx to the Agency before it is begun. 1 Communication Among Employers. Employees and Building Owners a. Notification to and from building owners. Current regulations, in paragraph (d). require employers to notify other employers in the building of the existence and location of asbestos work. However, the Agency had applied a narrower definition to the term "employer" based on its concern that building owners were "outside the domain oi the OSH Act" (OSHA Brief at 961. As noted above, the Court remanded this issue to OSHA for further consideranon in light of the statutory prescription that standards are to require conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations, or processes reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employments and places of employment" (29 U.S.C. 652(8)). Upon further analysis, the Agency believes that it has authority to require buiiding owners who ere statutory employers to take necessary and appropriate remedial action such as notifying other employers, to protect employees other than their own. in other standards OSHA has required buiiding owners and other employers who are not the direct employers of the employees exposed to a pameuiar hazard, to warn of defects, take remedial acnon or provide information to the directly employing employer. For instance, the Hazard Communication standard requires that manufacturers provide informanon to downstream employers to protect their employees (29 CFR 1910.1200). The powered platform standard, promuieated in 1989. (54 FR 31408. July 28. 1989. at 341412-3) requires the building owner to assure the contract employer that the building and equipment conform to specified design criteria. Because it is evident that the building or project owner is the best and often the oniy source of information concerning the location of asbestos Installed in structures, OSHA believes it is appropriate to require the owner to receive, maintain, and communicate knowledge of the location and amount of asbestos-containing materials, to employers of emnioyees who may be exposeo- b. Communication provisions. OSHA is proposing a comorehensive notification scheme for affected parties--buiiding owners, contract employers and employees, to assure that informanon concerning the presence, location and quanntv of asbestos- containing material in buildings is communicated appropriately and in a timeiy manner to protect employees who wili worx with or m the vicinity of such materials. OSHA has reviewed and incorporated in the regulatory text many suggestions recommended by ACCSH at its March 14.1990 meeung. The highlights of the proposed notification seneme are as follows. Before non-smail-scaie. short duration renovation, removal or demolition operations take place, building and/or project owners must notify their own employees and employers whose employees may work in or contiguous to the areas of such onerations. of the quantity and locauon of asbestoscontaining materials present in such areas. Employers who have not received notice from the buiiding owner of impending asbesios-reiated activity, must notify the buiiding owner if the employer is piannmg any such covered activity and of the iocation and quantity of asbestos material known or later discovered. The building owner must keep record of all information received through this notification scheme, or throuzh other means, which relates to the presence, location and quantity of asbestos-containing materials in his/her building and must transfer ail such information to successive owners. Other employers may not normally be aware of oroiects going on in other parts of the buiidina, including regulated areas. Staff and crews not working directly with asbestos, tremobte. anthoohyilite. or actinolite may nevertheless come into proximity with the resruiated areas, and these staff are imiikeiy to be aware of the hazards of these substances and of appropriate^ protection measures. Because the safety end health of his or her employees in the workplace is the responsibility of the building owner, the Agency believes that the building owner must also notify his/her employees who may work near where the work with asbestos is being done. OSHA believes that the employee's presence in the workplace places Him at increased risk from asbestos exposure regardless of whether he/she is actually working with asbestos. Additionally, the proposal expands OSHA's current employer notification 377518 ST00699I 2 ZZ720 FaderazRneisrer:/ VoL 5c. Na 140 / Fddav. [ujy 23.-1390-/ Ptnoojed Rales roquireaentaeHMeh arrpty cmv miun- -mpioyeea mini oe-mioEmenar the.- - designed in suca a wav teat it will smpioyer worxsites. Any employer reason for the pronibtnea. te. mat high improve me tareenng aLHsnecoass and planning to persona wont which wui be speed buffing may release saceaio*. heighten employer awueoeaa ot in a regmaten area^aeiora starting. must libers. applicable requirements without notify the bunding owner of the iocanan. OSHA requests comments-on the imposing unwarranted burden* on of asbestos and. protective measures, proposed notification requirements. In employer* or strains on limited-Agency- takeni(Paragraph (d)(2J(i)]; upon addition. OSHA invites comments on enforcement resources. OSHA tiiscoven&a unexpected asbestos, must setting a cutoff for asbeatos-camaining concludes that such, crovtsion*. will imaeniaipiv pronne similar nouficauoa -atenaiwiih minimalaabestoa content. substantially improve woncer protection. ((d)[2)[iii)}; ana. upon. watt completion For example, is 022. asbestos minimum, Consistent with the propose* must provide to list owner a wniten as provided in the Hazard NESHAP revision j54 FR at stt. farmery record of the remaining asbestos at the site (td](2)(rw)J_ Communication Standard appropriate to this standard? fir addition. OSHA IQ. 1989). in whim ERA proposed a uniform it>-day period lorwritten To provide notification in imaii-acaie. short-term operaPons and to matte this notification scheme eiiective.OSHA.is building upon its requirement to post regulated areas to encourage posting of smail-scata. short duration operational Thus, nooncation requirements far these seeks comment as whether the Agency should require building owners ta determine the presence. location *mrf amount ofasbestos within their hnilrifngg fKHA rprptg^M infnmatfnn on experience and costs involved in. such a requirement. notification. OSHA is sisshauy proposing* 10-day requirement The written, nncfeatioa supplied tn OSHA mint mrhrn> tire-Tram^- Hnrireinr ami telephone number of the emnhiygc the location ai the facility wnerg tire operation, wifi, occurr the scheduled start operations will be- met li appropnate- 3. Proposed Reqmzementz.for Notifying and commedan. date* at the operation! a signa which inform about the factthat OSHA of Demotition. Renovation, or deai'j ianon ot the fam lily an windtr the asbestos exposing acnvines are present Removal Operations. operation is ta occmimmudingra size, are pontixi- nfTrtA rmirir ntftnniing to be a parncuiariv effective-mean* toaiert employees Ol naTaniniia araoa. Beeauae. by tiefinitioa. smau-scaie. short-term acuitities present greatiy reduced hazard potennaL OSHA believes that site posting will adequately notify potentially affected employees who are not working on the operation.. The expanded notification provisions are limited to the construction standard because the pnmarypurpose of the proposed expanded notification provision* ls to protect employees from asbestos exposure resulting iram construction activities which disturb previously rntH*r* iHihpiUnawnntnimn^ materials in structures and buildinas. OSHA is proposing to add a new provision to the standards that wril require employers to provide OSHA with written notification pnor trr engaging hr any budding demolition, renovation, and removal operations which involve materials containing asbestos, trwnonte. antbophyllite. or actinoiile Operation* which meet theproposed definition ofsmall-scaie. short duration operations are exempt from this notification requirement The Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTDT. AFL-CIO. suggested that OSHA should require all eixutiucliui! industry employers to file reports concerningany building demolition, renovation or removal project involving asbestos or.or to age. number of Hours, now the facility 13 used et present and. was bbb in. the paste the procedure nsec ur detect the presence of asbestos tnmmnj-ig the facility; the esnmated amrnmrpf matenals containing asbestos: a description of the piannen operation, including method* that wQi.be used to perform the demolition, renovation, or- removal activity; a dasiziptinn.cwark practices ana engineering ennturis ta be used to comply with the OSHA worker protection standards for the construction industry; certification that a competent person as required by paragraph (a I ofthis section wilET supervise the operation described in the notification. ' ' - Given the comolexitv of some Buildinc The ACCSH identified employees who perform, security services as renmrin*- beginning such project BCTD believed that information generated by such demolition* and renovation.wark.it is possible that some asbestos-may cot be notification of in-piace asbestos- reports would enable the Agency to discovered until ftpr the work ha* cootaming materials. OSHA has no more eindendy enforce the regulations, begum therefore. OSHA is considering information indicating that such which, would have m* sifect of whether notification should also include employees fane increased hazards horn increasing employer compliance and a descrintion of the procedures, to be esbesios exposures in buildings.above decreasing the nsk to workers. 3CTO used in the event that unexpected those facea by other building occnpants. also pointed out that workplace amount* of asbestos are discovered r. Therefore OSHA has not included these standard* for acrylonitrile and inorganic during the operation. Written employees m Hs notification scheme. arsenic require employers to supply the notification of such, a contingency plan Comments are requested on this address of their workplace, report the would enable the OSHA area office to approach. However employees who buff number of employees working within, evaluate whether the employer ia asbestos-containing floor tile, as part of the reguiated area, and describe each prepared to adequately handle such a a removal activity, woaid. he pen'omwtg, operation that will cause employee* to situation. OSHA seeks-comment on this a construction, operation, and at a ba exposed to the regulated mihglfl-nres. matter. 7r ". housekeeping function, would be The Court remanded the nouncation OSHA believes that employer performing a general industry operation. issue to OSHA for it to reconsider notification would act a* an. incentive Thus. OSHA ha* prohibited high-speed whether a notification requirement for employers to comply with.the worker buffing of asbestos-comaiaing floor-tile would increase compliance by protection standards and better enable in both, standards. The. newly proposed generating better information for them to police their workplace for prohibitions cannot ha suffimentiy targeting inspection* and by increasing, hazards. OSHA's objective in proposing protective unless employees know that seif-policing among employer*, who must these new notification.standard*is to the fioor is asbestos-containing. submit reports. OSHA is proposing to encourage compliance and. to-betier Therefore. OSRA has included in the institute a notification requirement, enforce compliance with health and provisions prohibiting high-speed based on its preliminary conclusion that safety standards through inspections a notification requirement can be and monitoring. Notification assists 377519 E I GG900 1S Federal SUarimT I Vol. No. 143./ Friday, iuiv 20. 3. SO / rTCDoaeri Rsiei 23721 . Sj,' ^ inferring CZCS TtEjETC 5>gWoTTtf proiecia are acneamea a . :g so aa f_'5v CSHA an I^am ana !gnmrm-mp ; ft* f~f rr.-rmnnTM7P wnn thp i yf- C-lwrnipri Liamggii ram .-* unmngn j iri accoruiiato rr;arrrenax a -ggrrats. j jt bnsea oa me mini aanoa COTuierim { S* the nouncanon. The aauscasian writ ! = iiso assist OSHA ia assessing me i 7'. success of us rmnanoa ana ice grams j V: nf fgrmmsmcg rnmno -ill inrsri i wu',n-t>"i rnmrrmnrTy. Tie proposed OSHA sonccsaoa stanaaidiBomres mat rise otcdowr prcTxoe rr.nrp ofas acoessa oroiema connecnsa wah an ui:y:ma 2-' * demolition. renovation or removal operation 10 days prior to oegmnmg i' such an ooeranom thus, prior notice gives OSHA the oopornmitv to emanate st- compliance efforts before ice re guieied k* prnviTy nrjunCy hpqirtg anri rly provides the opportunity for paevennve action as opposed to just ccmecrive i action. Zhe infn.-matin ir~nrip<i ia the notification would also provide flRWA witn written tcriicarion of how successful the reginations are in achieving nnrnniiflHrp fl"inro lip regulated parries. i The proposed*inTiTV-ninn i*modeled after the nmifj.-armn requirement < concpmiag asbestos aha tpaeni nmWr;<i that nrrar in mniunrrinn with building demolition and renovatioa operations as * *j contained in the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants r I (NESHAP) (40 CFR pen ffl.145). Employers m oil building desoikiaa operations, and in renovation operations involving amoants of-asbestos at leAot L50 linear feet on pipes and 160 square feet on oiocr lacmiy components must provide nonce of these <sne-amvn8 to the EPA. One of the ourpose* of me edification cf ?A is to assist the Agency in enforcing us regulations. EPA i is in the process of revising its rule to clarify its oociicatioa requiremems. Employers can satisfy the OSHA : r.cuficauon requirement sttnpiy by i :crwarcing a copy of the EPA form to me CSHA area office wrrea conroiymg with EPA's asoestos NESHAP. The individual items of infonneuoa requested in the proposed OSHA notification standard parade! the information requested in the Asbestos NESHAP notification requirements. OSHA recognizes that there are minor d ifferences to the content of the OSHA notification and the NESHAP notification hut does not believe that these diiferetKies wdl iroede tie achievement of OSHA's objective in promulgating the notificxtioa requirements, that is. to encourage compliance amar.s employers and to : -hi cate msaecacm .and acooonns. fommesi oa me asoposea taeinnn si rumftranna m OSHA is tesuested. In its proposed NESHAP rerrraioas54 FE 912. jararary 30. 2S89t. EPA protxjsea to ceanizs Jnriirinnai nnrmfxtirm if ttie demoiidaa or removal eroecauan'wiii begin one nt> sxBs-tttusbe one cnprifjpri in Ten ruipinsi mirtfrT-nTirm. OSHA reasea rasaum-- ss to wnether ris propaaed narmnuim leuuu emenu should be mmiaiiy znodazad. EPA has expressed the belief that the revusai at the Asbestos NESHAP to Liciude more strmsent notriicatxra reqthremeBs will serve to improve cnmaiiance tnuzin the resaiated commamryanri toimiuiw euioroemeai of the regulations 154 FR915. Jammy 10. 1SS9L EPA has increased -enforcement against employers who fail to compiy wtth aottdc&aoa reqmresaents: suria failure is a-cresr noaBao that can be cited even sf theopecaaaaiiaa bees completed by toe time the inspector arrives. The m*noer of notmcanon submissions baa increased snostannaiiv dmmp (be vest few veefs. from Z2SIZZ to 52371 beiweea 3985*and 19S& EPA expects to receive an estimated 60.000 r.ouficarions >b10B9l EPA attnbuies this inrrp.ase in nrmrV-ntirm mtomisarma to licreasing employer famdianty wwh the NESHAP rather than to merely increased numbers of Abatement a chons. Civea the number of nodnnahocts that the EPA receives each year. QSHAcen expect that.its offices woeid receive as many or more. Such a large number of responses could strain OSHA's nnmwHimmvp resoarces therefore. -OSHA may share enforcement unaaneuon with EPA. Informaooa caccgmng current requiremenis of local jurisdictions concerning reporting ot asbestos-work is reouested. EPA extended the major provisions of the 1586 asbestos standard to state and local government emoioyees not covered by the OSHA. standards in its worker protection ruie (52 FR 561B. February 25.1987L Among the few differences between the EPA ruie and the OSHA standard is the requirement that EPA be notified 10 days before tne start of an abatement project involving more than 3 linear feet or 3 square feet of friable asbestos. No notificahoa is required however, for jobs which do not involve friable asbestos. Comment is requested on this cut-off. as weil that the NESHAP cutoff notes above for the amount of asbestos far exemption from the notification requirements of this proposal. As noted above employers involved in oporcttcr.s defined as small scale. :hort ouracoa are exearex from trbs requiremezu to ootirr OSHA. There are a large ntnaoer of ysad-Gcate. saonduranon onrrecta rad such t7roveers are tvpicaiiy conroieted very qtuckiv. It is anticipated that tnanv Houficathma reoorred to OSHA wwi iavorve thoee operations whose size falls between toe OSHA-denned Btnatl-scaie. short daanon ooerauon ana EPA's mittnirtea for notification, as wed as those iarger operations wineb invotve asbestos, but for which notification of EPA is not required. Due to the potential for asbestos emissions m asbestos handling. EPA has proposed to darirv its definition of asbestos-containing material in its NESHAP regulation as follows: A aftfEtna-^pmainino matfrul mpflni iriabls asbeitoe material and nca-inaiia aabnioa motenai that peieotiaily can ba henken. crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder in the coune of ooerenon* regulated by this suboart. f54 FR93. january ia 1S391 As a remril of this change, more '.nfonnauan wni be provtoea to EPA and emaong notincatinn proesdnres improved. ACCSH agreed that QSHA shoidn rB-lEITB cre-iob nftfTfjrarrm tTOHl asbenus szptoym. out. cn a broader basis. Comments are reansstad on AOCSHs recommended reporting igque vaneats. OSHA has partidpsied in interagency initiatives to coordinate agency regmatsen invofvingconnnnnicatiDn and notiScation.H'A and OSHA. along with other -etrendea which resniate asbestos exposure, are continuing to coordinate their efforts by means of a Federal Asbestos Task Force. Minutes of some meetings of the task force are m the docket of tics proceeding (Exh. 1-------1. The most recent such effort was begun m 1983 when EPA established "Asbestos in Public and Commercial Building Policy Dialogue" whose purpose :s to obtain input from a variety of perspectives on the proniems and potential solution to problems related to esbestos in commercial and public buildings. Participants included representatives of the following: Realty mtanesu Lenders and insurance interest* Unions Asbestos manufacturers Public interest Asbasins consultants and contractors Status , Following a series of meeting* beid j between May 1969 and May 1990. the "Poiicv Diaicgne" group issued a draft final report on May 33.1990 lEx. 1-lriuj. The croup failed to reach a carasnsia on all issues, but did senerally agree an 377520 ST0069914 Federal .Register t Vol. 53. No. 140 / Friday, juiv 20. 109a / Fronosea Rules jome issues, mere was general agreement arsons ine parncnants mat me preseaca oi asbestos snouid be known to Buiitiing service workers. Union representatives, cozen representatives, asoestos consultants and contractors, and state omania felt that there snouid be a reouirement to notify workers ana bunding occnnants in aii dreamstances m accordance wim the likelihood of building workers of occupants aiaturoing asoestos. OSHA has recognized these general approaches in its proposed amendments. The maior area of disagreement among the participants in the Policy Dialogue Croup aeait with the characterization of risk to general building occupants and office workers. Unions, public interests, and asbestos consultants and contractors held that building occupants are at risk espedaiiv when the presence of asbestos is unknown and therefore subject to inadvertent disturbance, resuitinc in exposure. State, union, public interest representatives, and asbestos consultants and contractors believe that available data is insuffident to ailow the condusion that building occupants are generally safe, regardless oi how me asbestos is managed. -~ ' The representatives of realty, lenders, and insurance interests as well as those of asbestos manufacturers believe that the data do not show a significant health risk to general building occupants and that budding occupants are generally safe, irrespective of how the asbestos in the building is managed. Further, the latter group held that only building service personnel were at potenuai risk, from asbestos and therefore their exposure snouid be subject to regulation by OSHA. Union and arizen representatives believe it to be a public health problem, and that EPA should assume the primary regulatory roie. The need for a specific federal asbestos inspection requirement was also discussed by the Policy Dialogue Croup, but agreement could not be reached cn this point. In the preamble to its 1988 asbestos standards. OSHA stated that it "did not explore in detail the complex area of asbestos contamination in buildings because the available evidence snows that buildings containing eves disturbed asbestos expose employees (i.e. who are building occupants) to levels considerably below the action ievei adopted in this (the 1986) standard." OSHA seeks new Information which might be available concerning the risk to building occupants oresented by asbestos in buildings. Additionally. OSHA seexs comment requirement for estaoiishing a neganve- in the question of whether or not to preasiue eneosure. include as a requirement, the operanon OSHA recognizes the benefits of and maintenance (O & Ml program which was part of non-mandatory consistency with other regulatory agenaes in its. requirements ana seeks appendix C in the 1988 standard. This comments ana informaaoa from program incinded: Development of an parddnants to avoid inconsistencies or inventory of ail asbestos-containing conflicts. OSHA desires that the materials in me facility; periodic Agency * requirements be congruent examination of ail asbestos-containing with those of other agencies and materials to detect deterioration: wnxten minimize confusion. Comment on the - procedures for handling asbestos - proposed notification requirements is materials during the performance of requested. In particular. OSHA seeks to small-scale, short duration maintenance learn of any difficulties or confusion and renovation activities: written encountered by contractors seeking to procedures tor asbestos disposal and comply with the regulations of more emereenaes: ann a training program for than one agency. maintenance staff- In this rulemaking OSHA proposes to exclude this Z. Other Issues requirement from mandatory appendix 1. Scope and Application G. - OSHA believes that its requirements in the construction standard, as proposed to be revised are consistent with EPA's NESHAP requirements. OSHA's requirements are directed at reducing worker exposure from ail OSHA is proposing clarifying regulatory text to be inserted in the scope and application paragraph of the construcuon standard. This wouid unambiguously state that coverage under the construction standard is based on the nature of the work operations which disturb asbestos using operation involving asbestos, not on the effective work practices and engineering employer s primary activity (29 CFR controls in order to reduce still 1928.58 (a)(7)). This position in accord significant risks of asbestoa-reiated with the Agency's longstanding policy disease to exposed workers. EPA's requirements are primarily aimed at on this issue, and should assure that employers are aware of the fact that reducing asbestos emissions hum large- construction activities trigger the scaie renovation and demolition requirements of the construction activities in order to reduce risk to the general public from increases in ambient levels of asbestos. Therefore some, but standard. 2. Maritime Asbestos Activities not all. OSHA-covered asbestos related In its 1986 rulemaking. OSHA activities would be subject to NESHAP considered maritime asbestos requirements: and vice versa. Large- operations to be regulated under the scaie removal and renovation projects generai industry standard (1910.1001). involving iarge quantities of asbestos- Upon subsequent reconsideration. containing materials (ACM) wouid be OSHA has noted that many maritime covered under both regulations. activities are construction-like in nature. However, maintenance and repair Therefore. OSHA seeks information and activities disturbing small quantities of comment as to how best to provide ACM wouid not be subject to most equivalent protecnon to workers NESHAP requirements. A large-scale engaged in maritime activities. renovation job subject to both regulatory schemes wouid. in the 3. Naturaliy-Occumng Asbestos in Soil Agency's view, not be subject to In recent submissions to the asbestos inconsistent requirements. Thus, under docket (Exh. 3-10 and 3-11), OSHA has OSHA'a regulations, a negative pressure been informed that naturally occurring enclosure must be established: under asbestos deposits are present in areas of NESHAP. wet methods must be used for the United States and that when removal: under both standards, both ' disturbed, for example during Agenaes must be notified in advance, earthmovwg projects, mining and milling but OSHA wouid accept the EPA operations, drilling, blasting and rock notification form. OSHA requests sawing operations, the asbestos in the comment on whether it too should deposit can become airborne and explicitly require use of wet methods for expose workers performing these all abatement work. The Agency notes activities to- significant levels of that the proposed mandatory appendix asbestos fibers. OSHA proposes to G would require that an employer must consider that this exposure Is included use feasible wet methods to avail under its present construction standard himself of the small-scale, short duration for asbestos and that methods of control operation exemption from the be employed to avoid worker exposure 377521 ST00699I5 % Tsdsm Reerar / vVji, tic. Mo. 143 / Friday, iuiv 20.1230 / Protxaen Rates 23733 rranirruiv cccurrrm: aanew ceuoain .voich mignr become airocme during ci3turDance oi tbe deposits. OSHA toiicits comments on this matter. Are than additional ctr cnaneea requirements to tbe ncovtsions in tbe currant construction standard widen jhaaid be aooptgn in order ra protect workers encaged in these activities? Further. OSHA seeds information on the appropriate method ter deterannanon of the presence of asbestos in sen and the effectiveness of wet methods ana/or other methods in controlling wancer exposure. OSHA also requests information on effectivedecontamination methods for exposed workers. IV. Preliminary Reeuiatory impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysts: introduction In this proposed revision m the standards govermns occupational exposure to asbestos, tremome. antnoshyihta and actinolite. OSHA is seekina to tower the oermisnoie exposure iindt in ad affected industry sectors to 0.1 f/cc as an 8-horr nineweighted average: extend reporting and transfer requirements for employers engaged in asbestos removed, renovation and demolition: expand the competent person requirement to all employers m construction: require the establishment of negative-pressure enclosure*: require engineering and work-practice controls in the automotive brake and service industry: redefine small-scale. shortduration construction op era emu: add requirements for housekeeping in general industry: and prohibit high speed sanding oi asbestos floor the. This preliminary regulatory impact analysis fxammes the population at nsk and significance of nsk from exitstire to isoestos. the estimated costs of compliance, the projected reduction :n cancer cases as a result of lower exposures, and the estimated economic impacts of the proposed ride. Mucn of the analysis presented below is based uocn the draft final reoor. submitted to OSHA bv CON'SAD Researcn Corporation 12). Executive Older 12221 (45 FR 13197) requires that a reguiatory impart analysts be prepared for any proposed rppii'-n ;r-n *hnt p- nptQ f- --*ai" a fnr a "major rule." that is. one that wouid likely result in am anr.cal impact on the economy of S100 tmilmn or more, a major increase in cost or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state crrlocai government agencies, or geographic regions: or . -ratfauur advetae -effetas on compennon. employment investment, productivity timersnon. or on me ability of United Etates-basea entensnses tn comnete with foreignbased enterprisesm domestic or export markets. In aridiSon. me Reguiatory ITexibiiriy Act fi U.S.C. 01. ef trap.} requires an anaivsis of whether a regulation wui have a significant economic enact on a substantial cumber oismaii entices. Coasts tent with these requirements. OSHA has made a preliminary tieterminanon that the proposed revision will constitute a major rare. Accordingly. OSHA has prepared Oils Preliminary Reguiatory impact and Reguiatory Flexibility Anaiyus to demonstrate the technological ana economic feasibility of the proposed revision. Industry Profile Industry sectors affected by the proposed revision to the asbestos standard are found within primary manufacturing, secondary manufacturing, automotive brake end clutch repair, shipbuilding and ship repair, and construcnon. as identified in detail in tbe 1980 Reguiatory fmr-ac: Analysis (RIA) [1]. The tot!owing two sections briefly profile the sectors m general industry and construction affected by the proposed revision. General Industry Primary manufacturers use asbestos fiber as a raw material in the production of an intermediate product in bo funner processed or fabricated into a finished product. The following industries wuhin primary manufacturing will be imcacted by the proposal: Asbestos/cement oipe (A/C pipes asbestos/cement sheet (A/C sheet): asbestos friction materials; asbestos textile products: asbestos gaskets and packing: asbestos paper oroducis: asbestos aahesives. seaients. ana coatings: Er.d asbestos-reinforced plastic products. Two processes--fiber .ntroducuon and product finishutg/dry mechanical--are common to all primary manufacturing operaticna and have high potential for ger.craung airborne asbestos fiber. Secondary manufacturers modify or fabricate an asbestos product to yield a final or intermediate esbestos product. Processes that are employed to modify the product induce sowing, aniline, sanding. punching, pressing, routing, milling, and beveling, all of which tend to generate high dust ieveis. Secondary mamfacmrir.g activities where --pii-mnrmi uscncscres are expected to remain above me proposed 0.1 f/cc PEL without respiratory protecnon are in A/ C sheet, friction materials ana textile processing. The genemi automotive repair ana service sector induces establishments involved in brake and clutch repair work and maintenance. The major source of asbestos exposure m this sector occurs .when compressed air i* used for blowing tbs rewduai dust from the orexe rmmg esse^co^y. R.-: it ... -i- 11 Jit of dutch assemblies can also lend to nner release. OSHA esnmaredin iha 1888 RIA that aporoxHsa-teiy 2SS.000 autuiuuune repair acccs arm garages, brake and dutch repair establishment*, and motor vehicle dealers. emnxoTxn% 527.000 workers, are effected by the curium asbestos standard. OSKA proposes to mandate specific .nmnpp-rq nonmcis sr-.A work pcsccces that represent current use or practice for much of this tncustrr sector. According to titi-trry exaera. th industry structure e~a wont practices of the "primary mammacrarmg. secondary manufacturing, and service sectors have iinRjrgr-ng ami eg a si* changes xssse 1986. (Deiahs of three chemges are forthcoming.) In the future, the Environmental Protection Agency ban of ntmngj nil a ghgaiOB .-.xviiirii 154 PR 29460) would prombti. at staged intervals, the manufacture, importation, processing, and dismbulion in commerce of asbestos, and wtnod therefore teed to a fmthereiii.iination of occupational risk to asbestos in general industry. Moreover. OSHA predicted in 1986 that isoestos production would Rap-lir-g as a resah of the current standard. OSHArecuests tnrbfic comment on the current market structure wuhin primary and secondary roanufaenmna and he industry-outlook. OSHA's estimates of 'he number of workers ul genera, industry currently exposed to asbestos, and their exposure levels by pro cere within each activity, are shown in Table !. As the table indicates, approximately 568.000 workers tn general tndustiy wouid be affected by the proposen revision, with the overwhelming majority found in auto repair, fo:Trent exnosuras range from 0lOC7 f/cc for the wet mechanical process in plastic* tn 0A3 f/cc for fiber introduction m A/C sheet. OSHA estimates that more than half of the 43 processes in general industry are below the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc in the absence of respiratory protection. 377522 ragii.gMirtir : 76L22^a_140 r/: Fridav, jury^HOTaJOPaftosad-Riilea :-= TASue'.i.--Current Occupational Exposure Esttuatesfor General industry ~ '.'Ll'-"...- . - ' .1- fat InOmnr/Proc-- dnw 'T~< --------- ------------------ ^Industry proesss vuuos - . / NtlTMOl : Nurbarotf pwnn ' Wona * Inauwy - 1" ' Avarao*WSflm* I Ertm*t*oma*n.-i squrnwr* vomarwi *irw >< or t I xpo*tx*/>r 12 I sboveflLt W - l/oo-- -J- q. A/CPbc Al . Primary lausimp . t- ** .... " `Ofhar A/CShMT: A ** ------------ \ Tr-,........................... -- Mfeaen Hiwr.: At - - ---- ... .- ---------- - ...------ --- .. ... r>*w -- Qtmtn ano Pyjangt Al introoucaon - . ... . ? -r*- -511 - 6 . ts t : IBS i uri-: 4*2,1 - -.re 7 iil h-' i-.-ioe ,4 . Cl ^ * T 1 * . 1' 'ft - ` -e .1 ' ** ft i *. ^.ft LT . ,15ft 7 '' 2T 2B . , 103 " *i.*J*: :1 1 t 1 1 5V sr -51 51- ijeoi . .. M 240 7a 2.745 jcsru'it! : ~ iar 18 t- "Me 1C2 I 512.00 - 15.00 1 . ...cuaa 1 . ^18SL00| ' : Winn 1 : ..".PlOBZ. *0013220 -1 roej1' - ` -"'onor f* 4*^ tftSi 235 .15 0 '*220 - - - - o 15SL00 7no 2tno 2000 icano _ aiso : '0.139 ai47 .0.143. -159 7 21 a 103 4,601.00 SBLOO 24000 1 . 72000 ) 3.74540 " . - O.T41 -awe . -0.130 -0.130 fflOl 96 240 7a 3,745 006.00 -10200T ......- - -ai28 i 265 102 ST00699 I 6 Sareae OSHA (1. cn. V-2 and W7, tnd tcoancn Gl. --- - ----- * Exooam rwOy Machsnou nocaaa ot Pnmsrv A/C Plo* Manutacutnq and In trw Wet Mechanical and Dry Uecharacat procaeaea in SNo Repair reflect me use d hart-maaa cartnooe reaoratcra to euxaement enranaarrp motion and twit oracocea. ........ - -.*.* . * Estamaiad axpoeua n raxtaer Rioout ooenraona renect tne uaa ot auppuad-aa respyyors to mpptenient tngnaemq controls- and aorlt (ncdcaa. Construction "T The construction industry is the principal market for asbestos materials and products in the United States. The industry accounted for 50 percent of the demand for asbestos in 1984. and for 35 percent of the demand in 198S [2, p. 39]. Construction products Include A/C sheets and pipes, tiles, papers, coatings and sealants, ail used in a variety of buildings and structures. Since the early 1970s. the overall demand for these products has declined due to the availability of effective substitutes and to increased regulatory requirements 377523 ST00699I 7 'edaxati Jtaonor .7. VoL Na..lid:J Fridav. luiv 2H.1S9Q ) PnrDosaa. Rules 23735 cna restrictions. ?A'a 1389 asbestos ; ihanses m the economy ana. seasonal lamvaient neraon-vears of exnosure to . r_j win ban a/C iheen: rooting teits. .vonc patterns. Coiiecuveiv, tnese - asoestos lsee z. Table 3.91. The last - Scoring feits. pipeiins wrap..ana vinyi- factors make.it very aimmilt to estimate column snows OSHA's orotection of csoestos door nties eriecnve August 27. ihanctuainumber of affected. currant exposures in the wake of the 1390. wmle A/ C pipe, root caaangsana canstraction workers.- tnetr duration of 1988 standard and reflects anticipated snmgiai wui be banned rromuse emnioyment m the industry, ana the respirator usage (1. Table G-231. ' effective Augnat 1998.- . . .. duration at their exposure.. - Construction woraera who now wear - In construction. each work site- usually CONSAD estimated the number of respirators to comply with the currant : * has its own oattern of material use. . building metnoria. and.number and mix., workers potentially exposed in the activities affected by the proposed.-, asbestos rule will continue to need them to comply with the reauced PEL while of woncera. Considerable variation may revision using the following sources: in three construction activities--A/C exist in actual worker use of. or contact Productficw data;-building permit data: sheet installation thigh exposures only), .vith. asbestos matertais andproaucts. Z?A notification data for asoestos and routine gasket installation ana pipe i Whereas many wonear* m new- nanoral and renovation projects; census - insulation repair (regulated areas construedon and mmitunnnni face only data on thenumber of firms in the only}--respiratory protection may be ft occasional risk from working with, Industry and the number of buildings asbestos products, others fag, asbestos nationwide; construction costing. added and in two others--building demolition and drywail demolition-- pipe installers and abatement/removai manuals: and survey results (4. chapter upgrading of respirators may. be. specialists) condnoaily comemto 2] describing the frequencyof various necessary tor some workers. OSHA contact with asbestos. Worker mobility, construction activities, average crew notes that improved control technologies resulting in considerable shifting among sizes, and average duration of projects. have enabled construction teams to both job sites and employers, is another CONSAUs estimate of the population reach lower fiber levels than in the oast. characteristic of the industry; A exposed to asbestos in construction is OSHA requests construction, data that construction journeyman will often work shown in Table 2. The first column gives reflect currant exposures in-order to for a amerenr employer at each new ioo a range far the estimated number of - update.the ixuormanon upon which this site. Moreover, freouent entry and exit actual.workers at risk, while the second analysis is based . from the industry reflects cyclical column converts the range into rull-tima I ! i. ft,>. e- * Table 2.-Ioccupatonal Exposure to asbestosDurinq Construction and Routine Maintenance Work, by Acttvity momcr uuoaj >. ............. r ' T" ` - ,'-- * * . '" ~*. ri r*~ '"v * v* *V*'^ -.-.1.................................................... - - *" . -- / ** i "1^ -- --- Ccnumcwn acMy * ' -* . . -T" V" taCarnimnn . - - A1C. FVm hitillwn A/C tnatalam B<rft-Uo Hoofing inrauuson Umu nmnmni r .... IWmnmnn . Ganarat &skna Ranovryi Onnra* Demotion R,JU lf> RnnrtK} Ramnva) Routsw lAamammot n Commnrrul/Rnwnxmiw HVAO/I irjrmng Onw Wort Arm rvl r.a,taqa R-- Knar Ran-- Mamn] Ran-- Honfinq Ran-- OvM Ran-- Plnnrrtj Rom Uakitananca n Ganan* mrtsBy Ramrart/tnartl Oaakata (Small) Rmbm/Amm flndar Inuiim rSmafl) Rama/Raw fta mutun |SnW) ___ Mcauanaous Rouuia Wamsnanc* Xcovmam ifjnair) Rartrtrt/awrtA Ria> 0 aooal RaniM/flm fkWrt rtuagnn (Limai RamovaiRanar Pfrm oamnr ILao^l Ihra--na Roma Uaairananna Acstonaa {1 mai Induenr Tof" . : Tr -- ?* "- --' . 'Estimatad mrui .. . .poOToaov * eipoaan : ,7* viru?-' Esftmiad maK >m param naan, ol ^aoan --vcf. r- * t: - Esttmated 04* ram XOO> sura tav> ato.t/ cc " 2,W22S5 . ' 93-10.600 1225-8.760 280-1.895 55.101-79081 44.S1-6S.78 4,610-6.585 6.000 53S35-70.7L4 51200 2225-16.444 129.856-739.4A8 13.686-38.850 39.434-60.793 !.636-4.847 7218-160.984 7218-160.984 24.040-127.621 3.576-80J231 28.846-66238 162.602-428.474 58.675-55.600 25.043-21242 2SJU3-21242 , 47.717-42.669 t0.770-105.354 4.039-47.000 ' 4.-03&-47.000 : BP77-66J69 434054-1.404.758 ' *'z.460-2JS35 .955-1.130 '1225' 23a 17,144-25.448 0.035 *0.10 0.022 131246-19.790 1Z9S-1.935 2J04-3.721 0.021 0.022 0.001 531535--.. &L300-- - 2S.771-40.100 0.003 0.012 725-1.067 Z091-3J28S ' ' 299-469 1.126-1.720 1,126-1.720 2.404-3.740 3.576-5.862 1 <424-22.437 '1,497-2.619 363-130 163-61 -.163-61 300-100 208-855; 76-371 7*371 :.-153-69V. 0.045 0.006 0.006 0.018 0.011 0.012 0 075 0.02 0.08 0.025 non 0.004 0.08 0.02S 0.011 0-004 100.407-175.635 Sauce US. Cecx. at UCar, OSHA. Offies of Reguuiorv AnaJrw. caaao on CONSAO [2. Tabla 3.9] tn3 OSHA 11. TaM Q-201. w. 377524 0 I669001S .*3733 Tsderar ifemter t Vol. 55. N'a. l-?0 7 Fririav, fttiyZO: 1750 / Prsguseg Roles . .'on-Kevuiatcrv Mteaiuw - Because there remains a. risk, ta workers from asbestos exposures at isveis beiow the current permissible exposure ievet anri oca to the failure oi compensation systems, tort Uiutanon. and other asency actions to eliminate this risk. OSKA believes that regulatory action is appropriate, in. the next three sections, the weaknesses to the aitemanves to GSHA regulation are presented. Compensation Systems The long latency period associated with manv asbestos-related diseases contributes to the uncertainty regardinn the occupationai nature of such diseases and violates the time constraints specified by some states for filing a claim for Workers' Compensation. Moreover, particularly with hmg rnru-jr it may be diffTcsll Jo orove th^ illness is asbestos-reiated. For examnie.in.ut least one study, oniv 33 percent of the population of worsen with asoestosreiated disease hied a Worker's Compensation claim, and only IS percent of those wno filed received some benefits pnor to death. Tort Litigation Employees with an asbestos-reiated disease may file a product hainntv suit against a third-party mannfacinrcr. processor, distributor, sales firms. Installer, agency, or contractor. In many rages, however.nnppr,i- of information may prevent tha initiation of a suit. For example, when a worker is removing or repairing asbestos products installed years ago, he or she may not be aware tne proouo. contained asbestos: thus, no "IcnowTT' exoosnre wot have occursa. Also, the cost of litigation may be a prohibiting factor in the initiation of iitigauon. represetrnng a significant transaction cost to the defendant. Such litigation is encrmousiy exoensive--as high as SI billion is the euriy ISSCs--and does nothing in itself to protect the health of workers. However, the prospect of litigation has sparked significant protective strategics by insurers, employers and other government ennnes. Other Agency Efforts Notable among efforts by other governmental bodies to regulate contact with asbestos is the Environmental Protection Agency's phased has. of asbestos products. If the ban goes into effect as scheduled, maoyproducts used in construction, and manufactured for commercial use would no longer appear beginning in 1990. As primary and jecontiary proaucuon of asbestos- sontnifling protracts is eiimntated. the risk to uroancccn mincers is reauceu. Similarly. the reporceinent of ascestos materials wrth non-esbestos substitutes in new cons ti ucnon and renovattotr mix eliminate much of the risk that remains to workers in those sector* However, many of the protracts affected by the E?A rnie wiii not be banned fora number of years. Furthermore, oarming these product* wtfl not reduce asbestos exposures to worses encountering asbestos installed prior to the bam Thus, there remama a risk to the hemth of workers in general industry and construction desorte EPA's scheduled ban of asbestos product* Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs Tedaabgical Feasibility General Industry QSHA's 1986 R1A describes in detail the controls that would, be necessary m order to achieve a PEL of 02 E'en tn each of the affectea secern tn general industry. OSHA determined that compliance with the 0.2 f/cc PEL was feasible through the use of wet methods, engineering controls, and housekeeping practices. There were two operations (fiber introduction and dry mechanical) for which compliance with the PEL of 0.2 f/cc was not achievable without the use of respirators. These operations are found in primary A/C pipe manufacturing, primary and secondary A/C sheet manufacturing, primary and secondary motion products manufacturing, primary textiles manufacturing, and primary plastics manufacturing. (Table 1 shows the estimated exposure levels following implementation of the 1988 exposure limit or 02 f/cc.) For the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc. some manufacturing operations wiil neeo ;o supplement engineering controls and work practices with respiratory protection, in aiL 222155 workers (about 4 percent of the 557.233 workers exposed in these industry sectors) in general industry are expected to neeo respirators at least part of the workday in order to maintain exposures below the. proposed PEL. Since all affected employers m general industry will be able to comply with the proposed PEL through the era of engineering controls or. where necessary, respirators, OSHA concludes that the proposed PEL is technologically feasible. Ia addition to-iespualois. ancillary controls will also be needed in these lndnstry/process groups as a result of the lowering of the PEL. These controls include: Regulated areas: Disposable nrotective clothing: fTjarropronrn/Tnrkprg- Showers; Lunch areas.-and. Animat usdate oi the written compliance program. Moreover, the proposed housekeeping provision tor primary and secondary manufacturing mandates that ail floors and surfaces nave to be cleaned at least once per sniff with a vacuum containing a HEPA-filter. Where feasible, this housekeeping practice ia to be combined with wet methods. However, the 1988 RIA assumed that good hemsekeeping practices woaid be usea in orderto reduce occupationai exposures to the current PEL of 02 f/cc. these hemsekeeping practices included the use of vacuums equipped with HEPA-filtera ta achieve conmhance with'the current PEL of 0.2 f/cm The proposed new housekeeping requirements are already assumed to be in effect and are. therefore, tecnnoiogicaily feasible. Finally, the proposed revision to the current standard requires certain engineering controls and work practices for brake ana dutch repair and services. TllSSe rpnTrrpmpnfg inrJtiHtt. tjtg mandatory use of an endosed cylinder/ HEPA vacuum system method, a solvent system method, or an equivalent method to reduce employee exposure. The solvent system method was judged to be technologically feasible in OSHA's 1986 BTA Huri thp mpthnri remains. . technologically feasible at the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc. This feasibility assessment for general industry does not consider the impacts c the proposed rensjans.cn the production and use of oozMsoestiform tremoute. acunoiite ana anthophyilits. If these tnree minerals are brought under the scope of die asbestos standard in future miemakmg. an assessment regarding the feasible application of the ruie with respect to these minerals wiil be conducted. Construction The evaluation cf technological feasibility in constructionfocaaed on the various combinations, of engineering concols. work practices, and respiratory protection necessary to reduce current exposures to achieve compliance with the proposed PEL of CL1 f/cc. In addition, a number of engineering controls, work . practices; and ancillary requirements which typically do trot dSrectfy contribute to reducing employee exposures were examined._ Exposures to asbestos is the construction industry were classified into rive activity categones: 377525 tstr Fedarai Register / ''ol. 3. No. 140 / Friday. iuiv 20. 1S90 / Prooosea Rules 23737 ' ,Vswconstructed--nrinrii-ig tee nstauanan ox vmvi/asoestoa xioor me. aspnait roorina feits ana coaunas. ana ssoestos/cement (A/Cl pipe ana sheet. ' Asbestos aoatement--including both asbestos removal and encapsulation with a pctymenc manna. or enclosure. Demolition--invoivina asbestos removal pnor to the demolition oi ail or part of a building or industrial facility that contsuxxs asbestos materials. General buiidingrenovation ar.d remodeling--inciudina drywail demolition invoivina tne removal of pipe and boiler msuiadon. fireproofing, drywail tape and spackiing. and acouadcai niasters. and the removal of built-up roaring. Routine facility maintenance in commercial/residential buildings and in general industry--including maintenance and repair activities involving disturbance of asbestos materials and products I for example, repair oi leaking steam pipes, ceiling tiles, roofing, crywaii or rioorina: or adjustment oi HVAC equipment above suspended cetiinasj. To support the resuiatory impact analysis for the 1986 asoestos standard. CONSAD denved baseline exposure leveis for each construction activity from a database that included personal and area air samples. OSHA inspection reports, expert testimony, and various published reports (2. pp. 46-471. The technological feasibility assessments for the present proposal were influenced by expected exposure reduction following the promulgation of the 1986 asbestos standard. OSHA determined in 1988 that, for a variety of construction activities, it was feasible to reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc througn the use-of available engineering controls and work practices (Le_ without the neea for respiratory protection). These construction activities mciuded: Asbestos/cement (A/C) pipe installation! Asbestos/cement (A/C) sheet installation; Floor products installation! Plumbing repairs m commercial/ residential buildings: Floor repairs m commercial/ residential buiidincs: Casket removal and installation in general industry: and Pipe msuiadon repairs in general Industry. For the remaining activities, respiratory protecnon was necessary in order to reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc. OSHA assumed that employers would choose the most cost-effective approach and supply their workers with half-mask junoued-air resmratora tor fullfncemece sunpuea-aitresxurators for asbestos removal Drojects) in oraer to 3liminete the need for exoosure monitoring (1. p. VI-361. Thus, for many construction acnvities. workers are assumea to be.already using suppliedair resmratora. OSHA Is proposing the prohibition of high-apeea sanding ana the use of highly abrasive pads during asbestos floor ale work. In CONSAD's 19B5 study [3. p. 4.17] ana in OSHA's RLA [1. p. G-Z7I. exposures daring floor die installation, removal and sanding were reported to be generally below 0.1 f/cc when the recommendations of the Resilient Floor Covering institute were followed. These recommended practices included wet sweeping and handling, and the prohibition of power sanding and blowing asbestos dust. OSHA estimated current exposures in floor repair at 0.02 f/cc nnder the aasumpnon that the Institute's recommended pracnces were being widely adopted. Therefore, the prohibition of high-speed sanding in the current proposal is not expected to significantly affect floor repair. OSHA requests comment on the potential impact from prohibiting high-speed sanding and the use of highly abrasive pads. With the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc. additional respiratory protection may be necessary. Specifically, building demolition projects and drywail demolition projects may need to upgrade their respiratory protection from halfmask suppiied-air to full-facepiece supplied-air to meet the lower permissible exposure limit. In sum. certain construction activities may require respiratory protecnon in order to comply with the 0.1 f/cc PEL The following activities would not need respiratory protection; A/C pipe Installation projects; floor products installation projects: plumbing repairs in commeraai/restdenuai buildings: floor repairs in commercial/resiaennal buildings; and smaii-Bcaie. shortduration pipe insulation and gaBket removal and installation projects in general industry. In addition, some routine maintenance activities, some minor removal activities, and some major abatement jobs may be able to achieve the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc without respirators. The other incremental controls necessary to comply with OSHA's proposed asbestos standard, include (depending upon the construction activity): HEPA vacuums or HEPA vacuum/ ventilation systems: Glove bags: Reauiatea areas iair-Qght or demareatea wun cauaaa signs b Protective aisposaoie clothing; Decontamination area (adjacent to regulated area or remote showers and changeroomsi: Lunch areas: Competent person (40-hour or 16- hour training); Training: Medical exams: Recordkeeping (medical exams and training): Notification of building owners by contractors; Notification of occupants by building owners: and Notification to OSHA area office by contractor. With the exception of the last three, these controls are discussed in detail in OSHA's 1986 RIA and all are deemed feasible for the appropriate construction activities. In conclusion, therefore. OSHA projects that the proposed revisions to the asbestos construction standard will be tecnnologically feasible because ail of the provisions, including the lowered PEL can be met using existing engineering controls.. respiratory protection and work practices. The preceding feasibility GO --I CD assessment does not apply to CD construction jobs where materials CTi containing non-asbestifonn tremoiite, actinolite and anthopnyllite are . installed, removed or repaired. If these CO LD three minerals are brought imfW the scope of the asbestos standard in future LO rulemaking, an assessment regarding the feasible application of the rule with respect to these minerals will be conducted. Compliance Costs OSHA has estimated the costs of complying with the proposed revisions to the asbestos standard for general industry and construction. OSHA's cost assumouons and methodologies are based upon CONSAD'a draft final report (2) and the previous regulatory analyses performed by OSHA [1], CONSAD [3] and Research Triangle Institute (5). The section below presents the estimated costs to general Industry, followed by the costs to construction. General Industry In developing the annual compliance costestimates. unit cost estimates were first developed for each of the control practices and ancillary measures required by the proposed PEL for each of the industry/process groups affected by the proposed standard. The annual compliance costs for each affected industry/process group were then 377526 TOO69920 ~BOwrai Raghner / VpL.fio. Na 140 / Friday. iuhr 20. 1090 / Priroosea Rule* oeveiooeo ay Gommcmg tee nmreast* data wun the numner ox nnitx o eaca type oi control nracocs needed oer year lo acnieve compliance witnQSHA'a proposea. stanaard. Comnuanca coat* were ajso aaiustea to refiect current compliance with the required control practicea- The industry/process group* wuh exposures aoove tne proposed PEL o 0.1 f/cc Will rapture the imTiiprapnrnrir\r> of a set of uniform control practice*, including written compliance programs, regulated areas, resonators (including the respirator unit, accessories, fit testing and cleaning}, disoosahle protective clothing and gloves, change rooms and lockers, shower roam*, ana lunch rooms. Other controls, while necessary for compliance with the proposed standard, are also required by the csrrenr asbestos standard and. fhrrx. are not Incremental cannula: SpecricaiTy, the use of a soerect s ystem as one of the mamiaturr engmeermg controls in sum repair services is not considered an incremental burden since OSHA included compliance costs for use of the solvent spray method in ail affected brake establishments in the 1988 RIA and in the 1988 excursion limit anemia. In addition, certain wont practices that were recuired by OSHA's previous standard with * PEL of 2JJ f/cc. and are required by the current standard, as weO as by the proposed tension* to the current standard (eg. wet handling and the collection. dirpoaaL ad labelling of wastes in sealed, impermeable bags), are also not identified as additional costs. It is also assumed that wet methods (to the extent that they are IsssihieL am the use of HEPA vacuums for bouaexeetsrse in pomsry arwf secondary r-arrm'arrtrrrro- axe already in use. in order to Petser estimate current compliance wuh the proposed requirement for per-amit cleanup wuh HEPA vacuums. OSHA request* iniozmanon on the frequency with which HEPA vacuum* are used for hausexcelling in general industry. To derive estimate* oi tha rnmimi incremental compliance costs tar the industry;process groups affected by the proposed PEL ai 0.1 f/cc. die estimated unit cost factor* were first multiplied by estimates oi tha resources necessary to achieve cnrgmiaTLra for that industry/ process group. These gross annual cost estimates were than adjusted to account for current cosmiionca rates (sea CQMSAQ12. Tahla 2d2i> which were first nroiected la the 13S6 RIA and are modified as a result of tha Regulatory Impact Anaivtia for the excursion limit .-tie in 1233 (53 FR 255101. For eaco of ihp mamif.-ir-liiririq processes in the aiTpctpri industries. CONSAD esnmaied thp nunibet of piants wuh exposures above the propoied PEL of OJ. f/cc (the number of plants nppn'ing controls). the number of processes to be controlled, the number of work stations to be controlled, the number oi workers directly exposed, worker-days of exposure per year, and the direct worker-hour* of exposure per year. These estimates are based oru Tha number of establishments as presented in OSHA's 1SS3 Regulatory Impact Analysis: tie percentage of processes within piants with exposures above the propasea PEL of 0.1 f/cc and requiring csmrtnsttrnn finally, characteristics coscsmmz the numoer of processes per plant, work stations oer process, workers per wont station, and the frequency and duration of each process in these affected industries. Tha resource estimates used to develop annual compliance costa are developed in detail in CGIVEAITs draft final renort [2. Table 2.12J. Based os CQMSAD's analysis (2}. OSHA estimates that annual cost* of compliance in general Industry will total 524.4 million. Table 3 presents compliance costs bv control practice, for each industry process, far the industry //) sector as a whole, and for aO of general industry. As can bo seen by comparing costs per provision along the bottom row of the table, respiratory protection--principally in primary arid secondary friction materials production--represents approximately half of the total compliance costs. Protecuve clofhing/gjovea. and change rooms/Iocxers would be the next two costliest provisions. atS-LS milKnn and St2 million, respectively. However they are not expected to he incurred because their effective dates coincide with phase-out of affected industries pursuant to the EPA ban. Of the 24.4 million in total coat* for general industry, 5174 million are projected for primary and secondary materials, where the combination, of a reiattvefy large population at risk and high, per-process exposure levels necessitate the use of greater controls. Table 3.--Estimated Compliance Costs for Affected Sectors in General Industry IndLs&v/Proces* orcxca AjTnxai toaata oi i reran comoaanca i procra/n ' Instad rooustod ttSSS doearsl Hart mu* cannoca resonrtor finer 1Dtsoouow proraca^a i canny 1 poms j Crjnc* rooms/ kxun Shower roorrra Tots* annual const u costs ^tn*ry Martrfacsjnnc A/C Pea: Ai_____________ rrtroaucoan__ Wat mac&ancai Dry mecnanea. Otfwr__________ A/C SNwt AS_____________ tnoooucoon____ Wat macnafcof Dry mecnarwcsi. Otfwr_______ Fncoorr Mtfwnsx M_________ irrroCtJCDcn____ Wat cmcfiancai Off mecnsnicM. CtTwr__________ Terufw*: III!! y.34 67 0 67 0 547 323.734 1152.557 t;s;.2ii m 23,734 11.658 13.162 o0 00 23 0 170*38 148.049 00 a0 S323 81 61 81 81 5225 St 58 50 54 529T.712 12*43 204.20 51*71 188*71 STT4.3S2 6X00 15*07 20.143 74*98 599.700 4.389 13.168 17.557 4.565 SZ7*3 688 686 688 686 UO St.320 me 330 330 330 S2S S8.8S4.592 137.663 344.158 1032X74 5.370033 SO 5Z3C2.SOO 46.040 115.10t 345*03 1.798.055 S308.159 52.145.363 42*38 107*48 321.737 1.573,431 5266*60 JI313S2 6,465 k 0 94.817 S63.424 21732 8*77 11.163 41.088 51.498*47 29*31 74*27 224*80 1.167*09 S169.7E3 S18.168 1,032 ft tt.138 0 510*39 48Z I 1,445 1*26 7.068 5439*23 59.143 0 430,090 0 580.704 2S.67B 7&761 102*03 375*61 5260.938 5*38 13*44 39.133 203*44 513.0W.X2 262.766 685*31 1.964.143 10*12,003 S2S.731 5768.58 377527 I 2G69Q01S ~z6aai Krasatr/ jrirj rir-ssea^?hs 23739 -A3L 2.--caTiWATED COMPLIANCE CCCTSPCX APfcCTED SECTCRS IsENEHAL INJ3USTHY--JofiPjaiea [1989 doftrsj IrouKrv/Process vow 1 Ammi ! warn ot 1 | wraran i t 1 program 1 >*mrri ~*nn 7rv nw-narar-*) Clw Focr Tie: An dinar Gasksts ana Packings AJ Lumwim W ffMflWKRi . Csier Faoer AJ W* mmami Tn# wwmifrji - Ji J j J 1 2 : i i . : Corcnos ana Saaiara: An rrrrs-.M-rm rw*-ar Plastcx All lrwi?i-r.--i Wftl mBfmnrsi Cry rrmmtmrmi Omar Secondary Manutacaxmg: A7C chflfir Drv mflrruirBmi Frteaon murin dry munvmril Ciartan ana nams Ory macnancn__ Orv mocrvww Auta Ramanuracnam^ AO Dry mflrnAfrirsw Cemc* Sectprs Au r-pw Dry morrmr*. She Reoar All trvJLKTry Tams ai *0 1 o I1 so 1 ol 01 0| S723 1 ziz i 242 1 ZiZ l 01 1 2M 1 o1 236 1 01 01 j ;i < 01 S54 0 0 MI 0 sana $533 1 SO i S6S8 1 JO so 0 0 S3 3 ol oI 0l MM7 1 'rtsal rsgutsifld i 1 1 1 | 1 0 3 * JO 0 0 0 S334 1 111 111 til 0 570 3 70 0 0 iZ4 0 JIB 0 0 19 0 J73 $375 SO SO 50 so 0 0 ;o 0! 0i S3.C29 1 Halt worn canmoa rasorator wtoi HEPA lstar | . ! ; 1 01 0 0 S3 t 01 01 0 $402X81 1 154X71 1 154X71 1 22X19 I 0 UA 09A 0 48X24 1 01 0 Si 781 810 -..731X191 0 n 8QQ 0 0 S0299 0 2X44,482 SO so so so 0 0 so 0u 1 Ctsoosaole pTOfOCOV comma/ j 1 0 306.159 1 0 SO 0 0 0 J157.763 20.723 1 60.728 1 sexie 0 no 1>u 1 0i 13.1&4 1 01 0 osaxeo 0 S50L416 0 0 50.415 0 S17Q 771 S330X78 SO S3 SO so 0 0 so $4X91.520 Canes -ooma/ looters i * ( 1 01 238X60 1 0 11 SO 1 01 01 01 1 S137.517 1 2.931 1 52.931 1 31.S55 1 01 1 *73.410 0| 23.410 1 01 0 550*223 550X53 3 543.543 | 0| 0 43X43 0 234365 $767,110 SO 50 so SO 0 0 33 54X16263 S7>o*w room 1 1 | Totalonnuai Linen areas i j conra ccss 1 1 16X763 1 0 0i 25.731 1 0 0 753X81 0 * S3 000 000 000 S1C8.137 1 <1X22 1 41.622 24X32 0 114X92 0 14X92 0 0 518228 1 6X48 1 6X46 1 3.73S 0 7X312 0 2X12 3 0 I323L068 318749 316,749 169X70 0 $110*087 0 110X87 0 0 23S3.048 1 256.048 3 $27X55 0 0 27X55 1 01 315JJ1B 1 S2S7.2S8 1 SO 1 S3 I so UX22S 1 A3.7S t 0 5X343.717 3X48,717 0 S4X9S 0 ~0 4.695 0 207.679 0 0 207X79 0 5X545 SIOOXOS so so so $387,687 $4X60X35 $686 SO so 0I 0 I1 S3 | | 50 1 o} 31 0| 52X31X61 1 so so 00 00 S3 so so 01 o o $485,167 so o o o $243CX04O Saurur C3MSAD C2. Tails 2.13]. It should be noted that for the products addressed m this analysis. the EPA scheduled ban will lead to an eventual elimination of exposures in general industry and a corresDonding reduction in impacts from OSHA's proposal. Construction Within the construction industry. 21 unique activities will come under the scope of the proposed revision. These construction activities are found in new construction. asbestos abatement demolition, general building renovation and remodeling, and routine facility maintenance in commercial/residential buildings and in general industry. Allhough the construction activities under cotiaidexaucn in this study will require the implementation of different control pracnces and/or combinations of these practices, the basic characteristics of available control practices are relatively uniform, and the options for combining control pracnces In the construction industry and during routine maintenance and repair activities in general industry are Limited ia nranbex. - The control mechanisms considered in this analysis include shrouded tools with HEPA vacuums; HEPA vacuum/ ventilation systems; HEPA vacuums; giove bags: regulated areas; respirators (including the respirator unit. accessories, fit testing, cleaning, and training); disposable protective clothing and gloves: decontamination areas (or ciean chsngerooms); iunch areas; training; use of competent persons exposure monitoring; medical exams recordkeeping; labelling of installed asbestos products; notification to building owners by contractors: notification to building occupants by building owners: and notification to OSHA. Certain work practices that were required by OSHA's original standard with a PEL of 2.0 f/cc fe.g., wet handling and the collection and disposal of waste in sealed, impermeable bags) are not included as cost elements. 377528 ST0069922 ederai'Rbeistar /';'7oL':S3U?ra. 340^ 1590 /;?SJD0sed Rules Tost aata for ccntroi mechanisms vere oDiaiaea from published ones lists cf eouicmenr suopiiers ana from otner miarmcncn cciiectea. aeveioDea. ana rresentea in the crevious studies ov CCNSAD [3. 4j. RTI [4] AND OSHA flj. These unit ccst estimates. aiona with the key assumeuens. are summarized in CCNSAD 13. Tables 3.14 threugn 3.17]. Unit costs are exnressei. as appropriate, on a per-estaoiishment. -crew, -project. worxer. project-cay, and worxer-riay basis. To derive estimates oi the annual incremental ccmotiance costs for the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc. the estimated unit cost factors for the controls were multiplied by the estimated number of required control resources, in order to develop net annual compliance cost estimates, these gross annual cost estimates were men adjusted using estimates of current application of controls. Unit costs expressea m 1984 dollars were aciustea to 1989 dollars 'cams appropriate proaucer once deflators ana wage indices. As indicated in the proposal. EPA notification requirements are sufficient for OSHA nonneanon requirements: thus, to the extent that contractors are coofyiria EPA when removal demolition, or renovation work is tcnductea. no additional incremental cost is assumed. Moreover, in situations where one type of equipment or control requirement is replaced with another (e.g-- respirators or increased competent person training), the incremental control cost Is calculated as the difference m ccst between the two types of equipment or control. This assumes that there will be a sufficient phase-in period so that the full useful life of the already purchased equipment or control can be realized. To the extent that this is not possible, the incremental control cost estimates would be higher to reflect the current non-recoverable value of the capital equipment or control that is now obsolete. Based on CONSAD's analysis [2], OSHA estimated the costs of compliance with the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc ana the proposea additional requirements for competent person training and nonficanon. The estimated compliance costs, by control requirement are shown m Table 4 for each major construction sector. OSHA's estimate of total cost S103.9 million, is the average cost for a range of construction workers potentially at risk in each of the aenvities affected by the standard fsee CON'SAD [2. pp. 92-95]). As can be seen in the last column of Table 4. comnetent person training will entail the greatest incremental costs: 54.4 million, or 52.4 percent of overall costs m this sector. For competent person training, it was assumed that comprehensive training for large-scale jobs would require five days of training conducted by an EPA-cemfied asbestos training center, or an equivalent course. The cost for the five-day certification course was estimated by CONSAD [2. p. 148] to be S1.506 per trainee (or $600 for the cost of the course. $758 for five-day salary including fringe benefits, and S250 in travel expenses). For small-scale jobs, two days of training was assumed at a total cost of $702 per trainee ($300 per course. $302 for saiary/fringe benefits, and S100 in travel expenses). Competent person training costs will be encounterea picmaniy in routine maintenance activities in general industry (S28.5 million) and in routine maintenance in commercial and residential buildings ($18.4 million). Table 4.--Estimated Compliance Costs tor Affected AcnvmES in Construction [1383 dollars] Control raoursmems Haw oonsoucaon " Aabastoa abatamara bamoaoon Renowoon rsmooeang Routlna mart commensal recoanoai Routna maiuananca genartf rausrv Srnal Lsrga Ecflrrwtad knwnantaJ cost Stnuoaa Boa wan KEPA HFPA wnmv wrmisn-w |niam HFPA RmyiHfl atm* lirwrt rmmnn nai Ragusaa areas loamruaa. esuaon ans)_i Glow* r*r-i Hall man tirud at mnmtrv Fid tacaoaca rmo a* raooramr_________ CtsEnam nrgnrrv nnrrwin/mnvwm Decornanwuaon area lasacsm to nguaiao 1 *rm*\ Deccma/nnaoon am iremote) (caVy tracer reman Linen areas Trsnng zj&cmx* momonng Made* exams LabotSnq c* nsaaad loaaraa oroauca^___ Noefiemnn id tudn} cwnm. Noeftcsoon c ouxSnq occupants MnB6rjram *1 nSHA ToM Scuck CONSAD L2. TaNa 3501. 0 0 0 0 1C3.480 0 2.355.084 0 1.012522 0 2.475.507 0 0 650.643 [1.123.1531 0 0 23 rue 28jue o 8032.775 0 0 0 0 0 1539.145 (2.504.662) 1282J70 0 0 0 0 0 1583.701 0 0 0 283.725 283.725 244.333 3.433545 0 0 0 0 0 0 (21.414.8591 19545531 0 0 0 0 0 5,448542 0 0 0 600,147 600.147 800.198 5580.006 0 0 0 0 0 25575.938 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1.175.853) 18*420,712 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.120.795 0 0 0 0 0 1.528541 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25524534 0 0 0 0 0 0 23.750.775 0 1.800.841 (1.706.5991 3.515.148 (18.4471 460.097 1,185.035 0 18502 7,068524 1,606.878 0 24510 3588564 0 0 0 465534 486534 831.067 13.118588 0 1.800341 (1.708.5991 3316.14-8 65.033 29.401.419 (18.873.401) 21.808.502 1,031524 7.068.924 4.082.485 0 (1,151.043) 54.407596 (1,123.153) 0 0 1558.4S3 1558.453 1.978502 103.833584 The next costliest provision is the requirement for the use of feasible containment systems (glove bags, minienclosures) where negative-pressure enclosures are not feasible. CONSAD estimated that the costs for glove bass (at 58i>4 per bag) in asbestos abatement and demolition, routine maintenance in commercial/residential buildings, and routine maintenance in general industry total $29.4 million. - OSHA is proposing to revise tha definition of small-scale, short-duration maintenaca jobs from an activity- specific definition (pipe repair, valve replacement Installing electrical conduits, etc.) to one that refers to repair of piping of less than 21 feet: repair or removal of asbestos panel that is less than 9 square feet pipe valve repair, gasket repair or removal or asbestos- 377529 Federal JLasistar -.4^, >?vo 143 ft Fridsv, -/utv^20LL3990 /. PrtrooBesT-ftuJes 25741 *5 X. . -t $ I* ;*> 'V if i . dated eiecmcni wont that can oe tmpietea cv one wancer m toss man :cur hours: removal ci drvwaii within an light-hour worictiav. renovation protects involving enticaoping oi pipes and die removal that can as ccmmeted in iess :han tonr hcura: and installation ox conduits that can be completed within an eight-hour work shift The coats associated with the revised cehnincn for amaii-scaie. short-dursncn construction activities are an estimated S1T.1 million and are found cury m routine maintenance in general industry'. Of this totai cost. SL7 n-!TM are associated with estaoiishmg deconiammanon areas. S3Ji mitiian are associated with the requirement for an air-dght regulated area, wnile S1.3 million are attributed to the difference between comprehensive and amaii-scaie competent person training. The remaining costs involve noahcanon of building owners, occur:ants, and OSHA (SCO miiiion). the sunpiesentai use ox respirator (Sid mniioni ana the costs for proxecnve cicthfcig ana gioves (S1S.402I and emnioyee tranrmg ($24.3101 associated with estaoiising a regulated area. In terms of construcucn sectors, tin largest compliance costs. $45.9 miiiion. are associated with routine asbestos maintenance in general industry. For firms in manufacturmg. eiactr.c udlides and other utilities that replace gaskets, remove boiler insula boa. or perform other asbeatoe-reiated maintenance operations (see (1. Chapter 2) and (3, pp. 3.46-3.58J for a discussion oi these general industry sectoral ccmpnanca with the proposed revision to the construction standard wtii entail tmnnetent cereon gaming (gSd r.uiicai. usa ox decants nunatmn areas (23d miiiimiL snn erecnon ox' airtignt regulated areas i$15 miiiion). Cantractnre .nerfcrmmg routine maintenance work in commeraai/ resiriennai buiidings wui face costs oi 43.1 miiiion. Of these totai compuance costs, incremental exoenses of S23.9 million for giove bags and $17.2 million for cnmoeteni nerson gaining (or a gross cost of SI8.4 million sunus Sid million for current manager trainingj wiil be incurred. Compliance costs for the remaining meior construction sectors--new construction, asbestos abatement and demolition, and renovation and remodeling--are expected to totai $14.5 million, incremental training for competent persons represents S7-5 million of the total costs in these three sectors; while incremental notification costs will be S2d million. Benefits The inhalation of asbestos xeber has been cieariv associated with three clinical conditions: Asbestosis. mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining of the chest or abdomen), and lung cancer. Studies have aiso observed increased gastrointestinal cancer nak. Risk from cancer at other sites, such as the larynx pharynx and kidneys, is aiso suspected Initial exposure iimits for asbestos were based on efforts to reduca asbestosis which was known to be associated with asbestos exposure. The reduction in cases of asbestosis. however, resuited in workers living long enough to develop cancers that are now recognized as associated with asbestos exposure. Fee following discussion of the benents associated witn a redaction in exposures, msreicre. focuses on tne number of cancer cases avoided within the exposed worx force. The results are expressed in terms of deaths avoided because tnese cancers almost always resuit in death. The benents oi a reduction in the PEL depend upon current exposure ieveis. the number of workers exposed, and the risk associated with each exposure leveL Current ambient air-level estimates for generai industry and construenan were estimated by CONSAD by applying the respiratory controls protected in the 1983 R1A to the estimated exposures prior to the 1988 standard and assuming 100 percent effectiveness (2. Table 3.91. These current exposures, the estimated number of workers exposed to asbestos. and the estimated exposure ieveis after compliance with the deposed ruie are presented in Tables 5 and 0 for generai industry and construcnon. respeenveiy. The estimates oi the projected exposure levels after compliance with the preposed rule of C.1 f/cc are based upon CONSAD's [2] application of moreextensive respirator use. The Agency estimated in 1383 that a number of establishments would usa engineering controls, work practices and respirators in order to lower exposures below the current X1 f/cc action ieveL Hence, most employees are now estimated to be exposed below 0.1 f/cc. CONSAD estimates that any additional exposure reductions which resuit from the proposed rule wiil be the result of Increased respirator use. Table 5 Eanrotea Oronnorai Eocwm to Agotga *no fieducaoo n Carcef Sts* in General tnluzsv aa a Beaut at Proocaea Baviaion tc SlancaiO (AmjM Averaoaa OSMA/CCf^SAD Ci^rem txDomxw cssmami Sector Estimated Na of tooaod worxars Esftnst* ea c-rram XDO-Slil leywa (tfect EiSnrted lewt at axponniU ccl txm pn>poaed (um Easmated reouo* !Jon n cancer Oeatm Primary Maojfaaurc: Aaftama/Camanl Pma Pnritrtn Mjfftftfl'n TmmkM Flnnr nie Cmbt* am Pr.wrr* Pmw Ca*lma ana .^ntonti PlMo-> Seconoary ManutactufDC AMen/OM ShaM Fnrarm Prnmr>iK GnJteu arm Pnunrrt Tmrtimt 512 159 4.801 405 270 306 330 1.327 322 00596 0.1435 0.01304 0.0207 00560 0.1222 0.0606 0.0931 0.0700 345 1.456 8,741 170 2.420 aiaio 0.10200.0480 0.1370 o.oeso 0.0600 0.0142 0.0130 0.0207 00560 00243 0.0467 0.0187 0X700 00120 0.0100 0.0430 0.0140 00650 aoc2 0027 0.729 o.ooo a ooo OC39 0.007 0.128 0.000 01349 0.173 0.000 0.027 acoo C/3 --I CD CD Ct O CD ro CO 377530 ST0069924 13742 7aderai*afidsiar Friday juhe.29i il990 Vi.FroDOsaa.'iB.aiea Tables--Continued 532TWM Occuocaonai Eaoam D Assam Ana Reduction Cancer Risk in General kidussv as a Resist of Prooosea flevwon to Stanaara (Anraial Areraoea Dang CSHA/CCN&AO OsTsra cxoosire cssmasai Samoa: Sector Estimat i Estimated 1 No. or i goosed i women i . ! EstimatM current dJQO- sure levets (f/co i ( i 1 i i | ed lew ot eno> sure it/ ccj after pro posed 1 Estimated reduc tion n cancer deems rule 4,669 i j 26.998 1 15.000 j i 0.0766 I 0.01 0 1 0.0197 j 0.0788 0.0150 0.0197 0.000 0.000 0.000 Tctal--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i 68.289 L 1 1.180 Soixur U.S. Oeoartment a Laser. CSKA. Office ot Regmaiory Analysis, oasea on CONSAD (2. TaWa 2.8J ana CSKA [1. TaSie V-2i Table 6 EstinaiM rv-- ^jnrrji Emoairaa to Asoestoa ana Reducoan n Cancv Rak kt Constmcaon as a Result ot Prooosea Rerwon to Sianaanl Secsar ^ Estimat- Esttmeted i eo fuS ama i CLTTTjnt curve- i ixoo lent ! sue womers l levem {t/cci Estimat ed leal of exsosura if/ cc) after propawa aw Estimated reduction n cancer oeaens New Conatnjcaorc AhMAur^mM Ptw Asoeco* Abatement na Damonbore nmrumn General BUJdlnq Rencvaoorr Drvwas Oemnwinn .......... Rouone Mamanenoe n Commeroaf end Resaenoai BuiWngs: RffrMr/ArtRfla Vnmatinn/l inrmnn r?tsw Witt Ahr*w fimn fAunr) R*mr Rrtiflr Pf*r ^uTTSTcm Rmmt Amfm cn*r Ovw*d QpfMfl' PlmTrrvj Routine Maintenance r Genera incustv: m Anaor insmMn iSmain ?wnov*mMr nt Pum mniietian ifim*ill khacetlaneoiA Roucne Maintenance Aarvmm jSstjuii RAmnv*/lrtrH rUttmv fl JUTMI Aemnv*/flftrj*r A^lnr vwiaannn It *r<Mi Romnve/Reoair ot Pro* irtamanon iLaroai Miscellaneous Routine Maintenance Aeovroe-t n Total ... .................... . 1.043 220 0.0350 0.1000 0.0020 16.518 3.163 3.163 30030 0.0020 0.0060 51.330 7.735 0.0340 0.0010 896 2.esa 384 1.423 1.423 3.073 4 816 18 430 0X060 0.0(30 0.0030 C.K20 C.3110 C.C010 0.3080 0.3200 347 0 3400 107 3 3120 *07 0.3110 200 0 0020 29 0.0800 224 0.0120 224 C 0110 414 0 0020 113.311 . 0.0350 0.0010 0X020 0.0030 0X020 0.0010 0.0030 0.0010 0.0050 0.0030 0.0030 0.0020 0.0110 0.0010 0.0080 0.0200 0.0400 0.0120 0.0110 00020 0.0008 0.0120 0.0001 0.0020 0X00 0.157 onoo 0.000 0X00 0X20 1X5fl 0.000 onoo 0X00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 0.000 3.000 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.003 3000 2.291 Some: U.S. Deoartment ot LaSor. OSHA. Office of Reouiattxv Anatvsa. based on CONSAO [2. Table 2.101 and OSHA 11. Table V-21. Cancers avtsoed n crywaa oemovoon were on$naify misreoortaa in c~e 1386 R1A. Theae oenents anomd be reaiaed unoer trrs prooosed nde aa a result of ncreasea resomor use. In construction. exposure reductions in the general industry maintenance sector are anticipated as a result of the reclassification of some jobs as "large scale". Since regulated areas would now be required for these jobs, it is estimated that suppiied-air respirators would be used to avoid the need for exposure monitoring. As can be seen in comparing Columns 2 and 3 of Table 0. exposure reductions would also occur in A/C sheet Installation, building demolition and drywail demolition in response to the lowered PEL In these three sectors some jobs produce exposures above 0.1 f/cc, and therefore respirator upgrading would be anticipated, again to avoid the need for exposure monitoring. In general 377531 ST0069925 /TTfffrdsed^nleg 29743 r.nuscv iT=bIe 51. exposure reanctions _~a to 2 remit ox tie use ot respirators in resocnse to tee lower PEL. A ciscusBioa of tie nsx assessment used for OSHA's estimate of the nurnoer :: cancers prevented by the oroposea ruie is cresentea in OSHA's 1988 R1A 11. pp. V'-5/V-13|. OSHA undated the 1888 r.sk assessment to include 1387 mortality rates id. Table 6-5L Based upon tnis revised risk assessment. OSHA ha8 estimated the number of deaths from mesothelioma, itmz cancer and gastrointestinal cancer prevented by tee exposure reauctions resulting from toe proposed niie. The estimated reducuona in cancers--based upon CON'SAD'a assumption of 100 percent effectiveness of respirators--are presented in Tables & ana 8. OSHA esnmates that reducing the PEL from the current 0-2 f/cc level to 0.1 f/cc will prevent 1.2 cancer deaths m general .ntiusrv ana 22 cancer ceatha m construction. or a total of 22 cancer beams oer year. CSHA aiso estimates that adoption of the proposed rule wouid prevent cases of disabling asbestosis. As these cases represent disabilities and not deaths, they are not included in the total estimated benefits. Asbestosis cases often lead to tremendous societal costs in terms of health care, worker productivity, and in the ouaiity of Life to the enacted individual. Their prevention, therefore, wouid have a positive value. Similarly. OSHA's analysis does not quantify benefits among those incidentally exposed. Many construction workers, for example, can be exposed to asbestos while present at sites where asbestos work is being done. Since OSHA's revised asbestos standard will reduce ambient asbestos ievels at these sites, exposure among these workers will aiso be reduced. Aiso. to the extent that r.egauve pressure enclosures and grove oacs reauce the release of asbestos fibers, the standard will help prevent accidental and long-term exposure to those permanently employed in other pans of buildings m which asbestos-reiated construction work is being performed. OSHA requests public comment on the effect of negative pressure enclosures on these secondary and tertiary exposures to asbestos. There are other provisions of the standard for which benefits are difficult. to quantify. Tbs provision for a competent person, for example, would help ensure the integrity of negative pressure enclosures, which in turn reduce asbestos exposures. The provision for notification of building r.vnere couia lead to a retraction in cases ot acmcental exposure. To the extent these provisions may reduce potential exposures, additional benefits.. ~.vouid be expected. Public comment is requested on the potential benefits from the more-extensive competent person training and from the requirements for building owner and occupant noniicanon, in addition. OSHA wiii quantify the risks and benefits to bystander emnioyees in the final rule and requests data on the current levei of exposures to such employees, the number of exposed employees end the frequency of exposure.-'' Economic Inroad and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis OSHA has examined the impacts of the costs of compliance on sales and profits for the firms in general industry and construction affected by the proposed revision to the asbestos standard. OSHA's analysis of the economic mroacts. based noon the analysis in CON'SAD'a draft report (2], are presented below. General Industry CONSAD compared the compliance costs anticipated for general industry with three financial indicators: annual payroll, value of shipments and pre-tax profits. The comparison with annual payroll conveys the magnitude of compliance costs relative to labor costs. The comparison with value of shipments provides a measure of the extent to which prices wouid rise to maintain profit levels assuming firms are aoie to pass 100 percent of incremental costs forward to buyers. If firms, for competitive reasons, axe unable to pass costs forward and must instead absorb the full impact internally, pre-tax profits would be expected to fall. Table 7 prerents the estimated impact of compliance costs on annual payroll, value of shipments and pre-tax profits. The figures for payroll and shipments are taken from preliminary 1987 census data for the industry groups within which primary and secondary asbestos manufacturing are classified (see CONSAD [2, table 2.15]. CONSAD derived pre-tax profits using Dun and Bradstreet post-tax reram-on-sales data, census data on value of shipments, and the 1987 lax coda. Post-tax profits were derived by multiplying post-tax returns on sale by value of shipments. CONSAD then calculated pre-tax profits using a formula that contains the marginal corporate tax rates for 1987 [2, pp. 71- 73- Table 7.--Estimated Economic im pacts in General industry as A Re sult Of The Revision To The Gener al Industry Assestcs Standard 'rypuitry group confforcoss as a pgranrana oc ! Anrut 1 a 1 Pre-tax payroll ! 1 proms 1 i manta i 1 Prtnarv Uyitfmmg ! A/C Rea A/C Shew FricSort Malawi____ Tsxffia Glim A Fading__ | Paper Conns A Somocs-i Plaaaca Seconea/v Manuracomx A/C Shorn Fricacn Kibhm -* 5.4 143 U3 3.5 0.0 03 LZ 1.7 5-8 no 1.4 13 A 3.5 as *ao 03 I 14 21.8 21.4 6.7 5.5 22.1 0.1 .3 *8.1 0.4 6.8 1A 23.8 0.0 ao Sotrcer CONSAD fZ Tabto Z161. * Im&aca n onmarv moot manuractuma are less plan Q.1 percent ot eayrou ana value ot smomema. Incremental control costs are not expected to exceed 0 percent of payroll and 2 percent of vaiue of shipments for most of the industry groups, suggesting that pnee increeses as a result of the proposed revision wouid not be significant if market conditions enable firms to adjust prices upward without loss of sales. However, if competitive factors prevent a pass-forward of costs, the impacts on profits could be large, as seen in the last column of Table 7. The percentage of profits represented by incremental costs exceeds 58 percent for primary friction and textile manufacturing and exceeds 20 percent for primary A/C pipe, primary A/C sheet gaskets and packing, and eeconaary friction materisiia. Because the mantel structure probably falls somewhere between the extremes of perfect competition (full cost absorption) and monopoly (full cost pass-forward 1. OSHA anticipates that some, but no: u:L of the inelemental costs would be passed forward, helping to lessen the impact on profits. However, the precise effect on profits is difficult to estimate at this time. In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act OSHA also examined the impacts on small establishments to determine if they would be adversely affected by the proposed standards. CONSAD compared compliance costs, for small firms with small-firm annual payroll, value of shipments and pre-tax profits for the industries identified in OSHA's 1988 RIA as containing small establishments. (The Industries with no email firms include A/C pipe. A/C sheet friction materials and textiles in 377532 ST 0069926 I friction. ^ . r'Mmiiii in umnrLry rnjrmrartnrmg ) nmutffirrim tnc nroposea revision to ' 'hassbestoastandard*. ___ -- n. Tmail.nrm irrmartt rrre tnmmrmi tnrinarry shows tn Table & r^imniunf costs ____ JABLE8 as a percentage of smaii-fimt snimnssts range front 04 for paper manmaminng to 7A far eecondary AJC ahat on final ftna *n Gttv ; oi tra Wp am s oa GnmntayMMatl ntannfacmnna. Costs as s. percentage of - pre-tax nrohts. shown in tha isst column a wanM or of-Tablaa. are significantly higWjuggesnng that several profit redactions InoatTr^oto Ann 1 vnuaar pMWl iwwn Prout prows ranlri he felt by 1>n rmmi flmm mrnriia . to pass forward their incremental ' enmpuanna costs. These regaits shoald pPtw^ --TWV . . r*i ... ' *. r.. be viewed as preliminary, however, and are independent of die enacts from the Gonal 3TS 1 - 53 1753 ZPA ben. As the scharinied EPA...... prohibitions of manufactured andimported asbestos pnxincts go into effect producaon worker exposures * pf^_-____ , pCosaoao*. __ ______________i ^ Mi ScoonoHv 'X3 ns It3 ou 73 - IS mo 83 ' 1403 would be expected tn rir-i<n. Imima trr . a-reonroon in the umber of FTi'm* impacted by the niia. OSHA retmests `MiMWfBt fm tha imrtarrm in ynnwii ''Vfl ** . fC^' "5SiLJ iae 7> Sounc CONSAD 12, TsUa 2.181.. 1574- .... ^,lAatE9 ^Gaatraaxm - ; CONSAD estimated economic: , impacts m caastrucnon by comparing incremental compilenee costa with per* i-a payroll. net receipts and profits. Pint nrmnal mcxegientai control costs pet firm.were esomatad using the costs presented above-for new construction, asbestos aDalament nmi demolition, renovation/remodeling routine rnaintpnnm m rmnnunrul/imiriiinliil buddings. (Routine mmntnnnwn iQ- generai industry is analyzed separately below.) Table 9 gives the estimated costs per exposed worker and per ** affected firm or crew (CohmmaSand 8); Based on CONSAO's esdmate-ef the - manher of affected firms within each camsmiction activity, costs arrexpected to range from S17 per firm far asbestos encapsulation tn ST.418 per firm for- drywaii repair (for aenvitiee incarrmg camniiflccc casts (. " tngwwniw Ctna Ooes ParAlWewa Rrm In Conasucaan <1963 r-o: . -ati jso*:ott '.".-mid a.IT ii, .'-^-1? "iaea'-s* r--x.mnsyuew -C.T.r.v..; .. - r--t J W-.- ^ oP`A/CSww Ownsism ; ^TRooftiq F* I floor Producs i ' Sim. Honpin ftm-tx) BooSn*. Sterna___________ Rouon* l flmwHon--inwun Caen* Tlaa. Racar HVAC or ugrang. .OOarWcrtt Atom Prop CoUq. Aow ftjnmg. nooar RooSng -- Rton Hoonng. HamorW/Roow at BoSor tnauoaon (nnaSI. Rmm/Am ol Oalw mw Qnpaf_ riamou/Tlaou otfla* Nnooi [imm_ r ol Pton kaonsanOnua__ ' Tool___________ ` TotW ter (8 Acsnou. Annum hncrwnsntw ~ COTB Nat4 CX90SM COWS 100***? NadSftSCMd Hrrrmor avw* AnnuW - Ann hcramon- .. . . OOOVW .j oosaoar U4* com tomon ' S7WOU - wonwr* Arm or r^dwnr (OoSorml 1 *-- . % ' -s I -n a*.-1 >. --' " 0 . 5.773 1,488 usiesi SAM - 1373 . 77gl4 ijea 248 a HA- NA 6P32.773 12359 3491 . -if id-7T HA466 0 4437 313 NA 1352 1,747441 5.484 2.450 32 713 4240 5.7M 1 ZAS0 7 17 iett.784 SJX0 2450 4 274 67T 3.I33JA5 1l S7g32 2.450 51 1.401 .C--.-l.-.--. -- 4J7B.1BO 51300 601S29 10340 sjeaooe _ BZ140 17.100 89 ' 238 2473 | 74- 324 19378 . Jf 275 2.1*1 JOS 13388 1X588 7.17SJ92 39.434 | 19.717 1.023438 5338 2318 1J13J15 7313. 7318 0 7318 7318 ijesAeo 24340 12020 M..M9.6SS 3378 0 2&34S 43.120JS6 . 129358 3378 14^424 80377 . p- -s-i nr. 'V SSSJ99 58373 2J2B.122I UX770 i 2S22A.5.1A1 2SJH3 :: TJiaees , 4339 0 25343 `'8il2a*79 8377" tzxo 4308 rzjta. .<206 72393 <206 r" 937SI2 47^17 72993 -T S.12BS7S 1 SP77 . <206 2fl.750.773 158378 72393 ia,116J7 | 2&S2S 4305 45467463 133303 | 77.198 . laLssxsai 271387 182384 182 182 182 364 *182. 384 182 182 00 191 381 7)419 7.418 00 ,r-. -- 534 r* - r- I 238. 601 1307 346 1312 1,741 . O' ' . 0 . 2 271 ' SO-' 13 . : 1308 1333 . 171- 366 ' 710 4348 250 54 *383' - : 587 Sower CONSAD C2. Tm XL 3.10. ate 3.191. 377533 L26G9001S T2darai>&0ais*ar'/ r'^vL ss. ild. l-UXtf'VFridav.. Riiv^20_;iS90 /3Prt?r:>HMflfi!e3 -!3W5 lucaomic imnacia were escmatea ov innann? me Der-tiim mcementai :;sis imvro m Table 9) as a percentage :i payroll, net receima ana arertax ' rronts. Table 10 presentsrCONSAD's ierivatjon o: earmnss oer estabiiahment us construction, as in tne-anpact- - analysis ior general industry, pre-tax profits for each industry group were derived using post-tax reram-on-saies measures from fJun ana Bra as treet ana net aoiJar value oi construction lsee me explanation aooveu Annual oayroii was taken freer 1988 County Business Pcttsrr.3. --.................. .. Table.10.--Next Oollah value and Pre-Tax Profits Per Establishment in Construction SC Code <=;n Farm# SIC IUI-Tmum **n*r C.K^ lUl^nnitmM Aiirftnrt SfC 1542--fiorv^esoamNi >-C 16--mmvv r^msmjrr-mn SIC 1623--Water A Sewer SIC 1629--Not Bsewnere - SJC 17--Soeoal Trade Contractors SiC 1711--Znjmam. Meatma A vc_ SC 1721---Rwumg A racer M*nrnq SIC 17S2--Poor tavww RIC 1761--Sc*mnn A Srisvi 'I-C 1756 --irwfl Riatrttm Fr*n ~lC 1739--Mo* filWWTWB ClAfOOTMeL A3 InrSjstrv Segments Souixa CONSAO (Z Tat)* 3223. NA--Data not tvaaaow. 1 Numoer i d 1 esiaoearv-i mens | j i 159.160 1 oi rw I 6.147 1 21.C87 1 7,112 1 31279 1 24.618 1 9.866 1 14.753 1 162.464 1 , 69.581 1 , 23344 | 2390 1 25.527 1 *357 1 3.7S9 1 23316 t Z4&2Q2 1 i Nixnoerof emoiovws L | i Numurof construction wonurs i- Anrual oayroo 1 tie* oonar ; i | Eadmaiad ior construction 1 VBJU* Of consgucooo .1 Net aouar v&jua oer i i Post-tax return on 1 prpomrws poar woman - ont estaoksrw i S4M (mousartas at 1 rriMancs or I ment j ^percent) doom | oooarsi j mom Cffwuaanoa of dotarmi l 1397387 1 403316 1 - 79238 1 173274 1 144290 | 490.167 1 496.660 1 195290 1 239.790 | 1329311 1 61Z376 1 170.033 1 45.796 1 232.591 1 14.417 1 52.522 | *91378 | 3.116278 1 . 332.191 -312699 592388 81.387 111.921 | 366L916 | 405228 1 164.878 1 240,752 | 1.053.928 1 468873 1 146l440 1 .. 35411 i 138280 1 ... .11283 1 50.732 1 155.149 1 2291247 | 1i 17,447.811 1 113.641.096 1 *4A7t*62 I- 27364.692 1 1,101268 1 5.940.761 1 12Z7252 1 28,478.030 1 Z5236.15 1 11268238 1 7.347.996 1 40.001275 1 9.243.157 1 33215.751 1 3.450217 1 14270.114 1 5.732.740 1 21.445.637 1 20.649.141.1 54.198.661 1 10.267.131 I 4Z876.843 r 2.414.900 1 7.413.863 t 562.410 1 . 3.433.141 i 2.16C497 1 . 13-821*810 1 1892324.1 1.475294 1 5.106.700 1 Z484.677 1 10.695.672 1 47.340.109 1 233255.508 1 i 714.005 1 - 306C403 1 729.106 1 1250202 1 1.584,117 ( 1286.708 1 1262284 1 1.470950 1 1.453.646 1 518.197 | 616215 1 247.591 1 400194 1 539.346 I 671275 1 1.358226 1 447.210 1 675272 1 15 292 A 7 - --------- 32 1 4.6 i 312 852 2-7 512 3.0 - 4.5 . 452 . 902 5-3 108.0 4.5 00.2 4 8 292 3.7 282 6-2 10.1 4.6 I 4.0 54 23.1 25* 512 4.0 1 75.0 62 | 33.7 NA| 352 Table 11 shows the impacts fay affected construction activity, by activity group, and for ail groups m the analysis. Costs as a percentage oi net receipts (Column 2) are under 0.5 percent for ail activities except for A/C sheet installation (0.3 percent) and drywail repair (1.1 percent). The results suggest that if incremental control costs were fully passed throush to building owners--as is believed to be the case throughout much of construction--the effects on prices and rents wouid be minor, inroacts on profits (Column 3) are significant m A/C sheet installation and drywaii repair, but OSHA believes mat the assumpuon of zero cost pass-throuah underlying this impact measure is not directly applicable in construction. Profit impacts are shown to demonstrate possibie resuits under extreme conditions. Table 11.--Economic Impacts in Construction [EjcSjdmq Roman* Maintenance n General InauaoyJ Industry sector Incremental control coats par nrm a* a percentage of: Payrod per fVTTXA) Net r*. - cecrta per firnvs| Pre-tax proms oer frmxat New Construcoorc VC Ptoe mstanaoonA/C Sheet tnetmumnn Roofing Fell mstanaoon_______ Floor Proeucts Insuuiaaon________ Stmtouti Ausoestoa Abatement And Oemotroorc Ramovsi Dflmmmrr Renovuton/ Pemodeuna &yrae-Oerno<ft)on^, Rflmovfl SiAflnjo Sctfrtntrt 0.0 02 0.0 1.4 0.5 OlO 0 5^ 1.0 0.20^ 02 0.0 0.3 02 IZ3 0.0 09 0.0 C.O C.3 5 0.1 ? 0 ooi 0 0 0.1 1 9 0-2 4.0 ao - ' 0.3 0.0 C 9 ao C-fl Table 11 .--Economic Impacts in Construction--Continued CEacOusng Rouen* Maintenance n General inounryJ ............ Industry sector bxrwTwma conX cosa per nrm as a percentage . . ot-.. Psyroa per fttmts) Net re. cestts per firmul Pre-tax proms oer ftrmrsl Routine uamenanca: Commercial/ R--onrmnr Remote/Reoas/ Reoiace Ceding Reoor HVAC or bgnornj Other worn Atmv* Recar Plumocng__ fleoar Total tar AS AcOvnea , ai 02 02 0.1 0.0 03 5.4 0.0 0.4 24 0.0 0.5 0.1 1.0 o.t 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 at 1*1 i.t 21.0 0.0 0.0 ai 1.5 0.1 .. 1.6 Some*: CONSAO CZ TaW* 3-233. - . (a) Th* *varao* annual Deyro*. net recants. and samstad pretax proms per Itrm at* *138.718. *67527Z and *35268. resoecovwv. Theee value* cr* averages across til construction norsny leg- m*rrt what* ssnosto* oncosts* may ocua (See TabMUL NA--Data not avatlabla.' 377534 ST00G9920 '^SA id IZSOUr ~r>r thn manlawnr rin-rinrlitv anainaia. OSHA. detfinumea in. 1SS811. YU--ia rint fhw mmnniy QI1311 m rn.nrrnmnn average unaa tea employeeA.-IhaSL. ua inroads described wiii affect -'Winmimimiy Sinaii firms. Routine Maintenance in General Industry CDNSAD assumed that routins asatudna maintenance in general industryts perfonaed by plant and Uncigrrhta MitiTnimm. incremental cnata m tNia mnw gru expected in impact general induazxv, aesnua the riamnranfm oi idea* maintenance acnvities within the construction industry, incremental costs per effected ptanf are given m Table & and pre-tax profits for affected industry searns are shown in Table 1 As in tha analysis above. inrrrmTrai costs rn expressed as a percentage of animal naywriL wit* if imrinMm ami m n-tnr pronta (hamtmnaaawen axnxuued.at. e mdastey tevelLahown ui Tabia.13.. Impacts tm valaa oi shipment*. are negligible (Column ze tha cost ratios are all under 0.1 percent. The third column gives the mflmrnmn reduction in profits under the assumption that 100 percent of Incremental costs are absorbed . internally. As the table snows, impacts on profits are generally Less than 0.5 psccsti Table. 12.--Annual Payroll. Value, of Shfuemtb. and Pre-Tax Profits For General Industry Sectors Pertorminq Routine Asbestos Maintenance ... ... - " v'Industry (SICCodel * r` /; AnajH oavroi per warn Ortfbcn* of dottn Value 0* | -- --"f Bttnatatfor*- iNomans oar plain (rmttoris otoouarar 1 1 j roaStas raturr-f torpremsoer cm. . r-o -eanr salaa tpeccare) 1 (faouaanacd %(,. aam a'. .. , , $101.56 I **". r .*** -.. 510.11 __ . 2 SK 2.07 1 17.07 1 1800 1 T7 3.7 f 2L7 V $2351 T.029 1,145 1 77 f S7.S8 4 2.7 > 2582 Gi*i*fcarOTC*fc321. 322. 2221__ ____ ___ ___ --____________________________________________ rabnmnw metal poaucts (34). -- 1.72 4.71 0.9S 73) t 2544. 1 111 1 4* 620 i.s 1.372 4.8 247 Beeafa Hnca (491)________ _ Bactrte UtSBea r(SS>- 3.05 - 34 23.41 NA NA 4353 '73 NA Offer Public UttSaa ' Ga production and efagtouDon (492). wear aucoy (494)__________ Senary wrren (485)______ tno 0.17 - 037 24.18 NA NA 7.0 : J-a ' 1.008 NA ' NA Somat CCNSAO (2 Tattfa 3357. --........ - ................................ .......... *=W Glaaa/oaranaca (SIC 321. 222 and 3231. data for SIC 321 and 322 use* for iron are Steal (SIC 301 and *gi, data fee SJC.33 neck far Qe**r Sorvtcsa (SC 481) and Gaa Praraasoa (SIC 43SX acaer data tor pretax pnxta uHaett for offer unttfea. data for StC 48 uaad. NA--Oaa not avauaoaa^.. .... _ ' Table 13.--Economic Impacts in Gen eral Industry Sectors Performing Routine Asbestos Maintenance Indusffy (SIC cods) Anruai rcrerrtsnm corrga cd*3 oar ovanuai as a percemaoe oc AnruiJ P*>to per pun Vatu* of- mems per ptv* c^t, pra-ux pTDrns per P4*nt Manifac&mq: Malt (alconocc bovarapaa (20821_ 0.006 0.001 Paper proauca (26)__( 0.022 I C.0C3 1 r 0.023 C.0C3 Pstoitun refirwiQ (2S) r 0.033 0X0T Qtass/cerwracs (321. 322 3231____ Iron and atsel (331. T 0.C34 - 0. X. C. 8. 332) 0.013 O.OC2 Fasncaud mstai pradjea na 0.C33 C.003 Electnc Utetea: : ... Eitrax serveaa (481) ' CJS18 1 0X02 o.02r 0X58 0.GS2 0.223. 0.(28 0.043 0.146 0.014 .>. . Table 13.--Econoluc Impacts in Gen eral Industry Sectors Performing Routine Asbestos Maintenance-- Continued :. (ndustnr (SIC coos) Aoruoi ixrememaf comrot coss per piarma) aa a percemaoa oc Anneal parted P plant Value of mo menta pec plain Erfmaiad pr*u 1 proeza per piant Copnb^sHon etectrts. 9ss, and otner miirti** OtSar Public IrtBDaa: Gaa prodjctlon and iutmon (4921 _ Watar acaaxy (484)__ Sandary aarwoaa (496) 0.010 0.050 0X50 0.181 NA 0.CC2 NA NA KA 0X68 NA -, - NA Socror CONSAO C2. Tabla 3361. (a) Tha overall mcre--mal control coat oar articl ed plant (S3B41 was iraSad at tneaa camaannre tor ail ttdusmea mcaot faorcatad metal orooucts wners tna overaa mcrememal control coat per artocted plan* fcr anted acalir orofacta (S38CT waa utStratf tree all Bam ai tree noiaay pancm orry aaeaacae oroteca (sea labia 10). NA--Data not avstasla to eafcolata percantagat Tha economic impacts on small firms (under 20 employees) in general industry performing routine asbestos maintenance are presented in Tables 14 and IE The data indicate no serums economic consequences as a resort of the proposed rule change. 377535 "Vr ST0069929 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 143-/ Fr.riavi iurr 20. 1990 / PrCToaea Roles20737 "ABLE 14.--ANNUAL PAYROLL. VALUE OF SHIPMENTS. AND PRE-TAX PROFITS FOR SMALL PlRMS IN GENERAL INDUSTRY SECTORS Performing Routine asbestos Maintenance Irduarv (SIC ccoel Annual payroo oer ciam (mritons 01 doUarat Estimates vatu* o! sruomenta per oam (muttons of ooiiarsi Post-tax ream on sales (percemi I Estimated 1 pretax prams oer plane - (ttiousanoe at OOlarsl Manutactunna: Eieanc utumea; Ftflrmc Mrvroa <4011 Omar Puooc uctmeac WMr nmrv <4011 32.30 0.16 0.16 020 0.14 0.18 0.14 024 021 021 ons 0.10 38.17 0.95 ' Z79 Z13 023 0.48 0.38 224 NA 423 NA NA 1.7 $175 3.7 42 XT 172 27 79 4.9 19 33 19 40 18 NA 335 7.0 NA NA 177 7.0 NA 7n NA Sara: CCNSAD [2 Tuple 327J. NA--Oau not ivasaou. Table 15.--Economic impacts For Small Firms in General industry Sectors Performing Routine Asbestos Maintenance Industry (SIC code) Annual incremental contra costs par pianusl as a oercernage oc Annual payroa oer piam. Value of snioments per pram Estimated pre-tax profit* per pfant Uarvtaeunr Mas (alconoac) beverages (2082)---------------------------- Paper preauea (26)----------------------------------------------- Qwmcaia (28)___________________________________ Peeoeixn leneig (29)___________________________ Glass/caanscs (321. 32Z 3231------------------------------ Iron and aM (331. 332) '. . ------ Fsbneated metal proeuca (34)_____________________ Eiectnc (mimes: Bectnc services (491)------------------------------------------- Combranon etecmc. gas. and otner irauoes (483)-----Other Pupae (mime* Gas production and dianou&on (492)----------------------- Water suoory (4941____ ___________________________ Samar* tenaces 1495) -..... ... . - 0.012 0223 0229 0.183 0281 ai93 0281 0.153 0.174 0.174 0.732 0.368 0.006 0.039 0.013 0.017 am 0JJ73 0.096 0.016 NA 0.009 NA NA 0209 0.869 0213 0.481 1.824 1.924 Z047 0109 NA 0-207 NA NA Soiree: CONSAD CZ Tapia 32SL -- <-alawns tar ail ndustnes amoa all antaJI plants (a) The ovwaa nciarnemai const* coa oer atlacted own tor amail-acaie protects (S368) was used n these eatonaaona lor pertorm onr* smau-acaje onxects Isee fade 101. NA--Oata not avauaoe d cacuaia oercemaoe. References (1) U.S. Dept, of Labor. OSHA. Office of Reguia'.orv Analysis, finalRegulatory Impact and Reguioiarv Flexibility Analysis of the Revised Asbestos Standard. 1988. (2) CONSAD Research Corporanon. Economic Analysis of Lbs Proposed Revisions to die OSHA Asbestos Standards for Construction and General Industry. Draft Finai Report Contract Number [-0-r-a-0033. April 1990. (3) CONSAD Research Corporanon. Economic and Technological Profile Related to OSHA's Revised Permanent Asbestos Standard for the Construction industry and Asbestos Removal end Routine Maintenance Projects in General Industry. Final Report. Contract Number [-9-F-4-0024. December 21. 1985. (4) CONSAD Research Corporation and Caylon Environmental Consultants. Inc. Asbestos Task Order for Construction Alternatives. Final Report. Contract Number ) 0 P 4 0024. May 22.1984: Addendum to Hhal Report June 14.1984. (5) Research Triangle Institute. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed OSH-i Asbestos Standard prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. September 1985. . (8) Vital Statistics of the United States 1937, Volume Q--Mortality. Part B. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Canters For Disease Control National Center Far Health Statistics. 1939. V. Clearance of Information Collection Requirements On March 31.1983 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published 5 CFR part 1320. implementing the information collection provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 198a 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (48 FR13666). Part 132a which became effective on April 3a 1983 and was revised May 10.1988 (53 FR 16618) sets forth procedures for agencies to follow in obtaining OMB clearance for information collection requirements. OMB has approved information collection requests for existing asbestos standards in accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 377536 "48 ~'sdtKm.iasdxmej .VoL C5..Z.'a. 1A3. / "ridnv. idv 22.1230./ Trmcaen ibbe* Act m-Apr maimi mimru>r 1213--(HU 5. A statement of the troutionthat will Additionally, since the nearing is ana 1213-0134. ha taicpn with respect tn eacn inane primarily for information gathering and OSHA Is seeidne clearance for the addressed: clarification, it is an informal asbestos conscrucnoa i 12U5ofil which 3. Whether the party intends to submit administrative proceeaing. rather than resnures emnioyws to noofv QSHA area documentary evidence, ana if so. a brief an atiiutiicanve one. Ihe technical rules offices 10 days prior to removal, oamruiiirm- qi renovations operations of .Asbestoa OSHA estimates 343.015 .vritten notification* wni be received summary of that evidence. riling of Testimony and Evidence - Before Hearings of evidence, for example, do no: appiy. The regulations that govern hearings and the pre-neanng guidelines to be issued for tins hearing wiii ensure annuaiiv by the Agency. Public reporting .Any parry requesting more than 10 fairness and due process and also burden for this collection is esnmated to minutes for a presentation at the facilitate the deveiooment of a clear, average 1 hour per response for the hearings or who wiil submit accurate and complete record. Those Construction industry. ffnffimpmBty ainripni-p mint nmiririn in -lies and guidelines, will be interpreted Send comments regarding this burden quaoniMseate the- eompiete text of the in a manner that furthers that estimate and/or other aspects of this testimony, tilehiding any documentary development Thus, questions of collection of informanon. inducing evidence to be presented at the hearing, relevance, procedure and panicination suggestions for reaucxnn icis harden to la the OSHA Division of Consumer generally will be decided ao aa to favor the Office of Information Management. Affairs. This matenai must be- - development of the record.- -` Department of Labor, room N-1301.2C0 postmarked by September 25.1990. and The hearing wiil be conducted in. Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington. will be available for inspection and accordance with 29 CFR part 19U. The DC 20210t and to the Office of^ copying at the. OSHA Technical Data Soaring will he presided over by an - Center Docket Office. Each such- Adsrtinstretrre Law judge who makes Office of Management ana Budget. submission wiil be reviewed in light of no decision or recommendation on the Washington. DC 2C503. the amount of time requested in tne menu of OSHA's oroposaLThe VL Public Pnrtirination Notice of Hearing _ notice at intention to appear, in those jpgfanrpg WQffi tr*p infnrrr.flnnn contained in the submission aoes not resnansinility of dm Administrative Law judge is in ensure -m trip hpn--nq . proceeds at a reasooaoie pace and in an Purenant to section 6{b](3) of the Act. justify the amount of time requested, a orderly manner. The Administrative an opportunity to submit oral testimony more appropriate amount of time wiii be Law judge, therefore, wiil have ail the coacrming the issues raised by the allocated and the participant will be powers necessary and appropriate to proposed standard will be provided at notified of that fact conduct a full and fair informal hearing an iniormai public hearing scheduled to Any paity who has not substantially as provided in 29 CFR pan 1911 ' begin at 9:30 aan. at the time and place complied with this requirement may be including the powers: -- ' - aa iollows: Washington. DC: October 22. limited to a 10 minute presentation. Any (lj To regulate the coarse of the 1S8Q. The Auditorium. Frances Perkins party who has not filed e notice of proceedings: ------ --- "*.9rA" Department of Labor Building. 29? intention to appear may be allowed to ' [2J To dispose of procedural requests, Constitution Avenue. NW, Washington. testify, as time permits, at the discretion abjections ana emnearable matters: DC 20210. _______ . of tha Administrative Law judge. -- (3j To confine the presentations to the Notice of Intention to Appear All persons desiring to partidpate at the hearings must file in quadruplicate a Notice of Intention to Appear, postmarked on or before September 25. 1590. addressed to Mr. Tom Hail. OSHA Division of Consumer Affairs. Docket No. H-033e. room N-3647. UB. Department of Labor. Third Street and Constitution Ave.. NW, Washington. DC 2C210: telephone 202-523-8015. The Notice of Intention to Appear also may be transmitted by facsimile to 202-523-- 5046 or (for FTS] to 3-523-5686. provided the original and 4 copies of the notice are sent to the above address thereafter. Notices of intention in app^-nr. which, will bd available for inspection. anH copying at the OSHA Docket Office OSH.A emphasires that the hearing is open to the public, and that interested persona are welcome tn attend. However, only persons who have filed proper notices of intention to appear at the hearing will be entitled to ask Questions nri otherwise oamcinate fully in the proceeding. Conduct end Nature of Hearings The hearings will commence at 9:30 am, on October 23.1990. At that time, any procedural matters relating to tha proceeding will be resawed. The nature of an informal hearing is established in the Legislative history of section 6 of the Act and is reflected by the OSHA hearing regulations (see 29 CFR 1911.15(a)]. Although the presiding officer is an Administrative Law judge T-mnprs pertinent to the issues raised; [4]To regulate the conduct of those present at the hearing by appropriate means: (5J tn the fudge's discretion, to question and permit tha questioning of any witness and to Limit the time for questioning: and (6)In the judge's discretion, to keep the record open for a reasonable, stated time to receive written information and additional data, views, and arguments from any persons who has participated in the orai proceedings. Written Comments Interested persona are invited to submit written comments on the issues raised in the proposaL Written comments must be postmarked by (room. N2625L telephone 222-523-7394. mini contain the following information: and questioning by interestad persons is September 25.1990 and submitted fn allowed on cruoai issues, tha quadruplicate to the Docket Office. 1-The name, address, and telephone number of each person, to appear. proceeding shall remain informal and legislative in nature. Tha Agency's Docket Number H-033e, room N-2E2S. UB. Department of Labor. 200 2. The capacity in which tin* person will appear: .- . intent, in essence, is to provide as opportunity for effective oral Constitution Avan:if, NW, Washington. DC 20210. The telephone number of tha 3. The approximate amount of time presentations which, can proceed Docket Office is (202) 523-7884. end its requested for the presentation: expeditiously, in tha absence of rigid hours of operation ere 6:15 are. to 4.45 4. The specific issues that will he procedures which impede or protract tha p.m , Monday through Friday, except addressed: rulemaking process. Federal holidays. Comments limited to T0069930 cn 377537 ST006993 I 'zrierui Ravister i '^oL uo. J^o. 140 ( Fti'dnv. rniv 253. 1290 I TVoriiweii icafet 23749 : 2 Dasea or mss m lensrrn znav aiso be --immmd dt facamuia to 1202] 523lyid cr ::orFTS) ta 3-523-5048. provided the ongmoi ana 4 comes of the comment ;ra sent to me Docket Officer tnereafter. '.Vritten sucmijsians must dearfy ;cennfv the issues raised in tins Notice which ere eariressea end the position taken on each issue. .All materiais sunnutted will be available for inspection and copying at inis aaoress. All timely submissions will be pan of the record of the proceeding. Certification of Record endFled Determincdnn After Hearing Following the dose of the posthearing comment period, the preaiding Administrative Law fudge will candy the record of the hearing to the Assistant Secretary of Labor ter Occupational Safety and Health. The proposed stantiardwiil ba reviewed in Kent of ail testimony nnH written submissions received as part of the record and a standard will ba issued based on the enure record of the proceeding, including the wnrtea comments and data received from the public. State Plan Applicability The 25 States with their own OSHAapprovea occupational safety and health plana must adopt a comparable standard within six months of tha publication date of a final revised standard. These States include: Alaska. Arizona. California. Gannearing (ha state and local government employees only), Hawaii Indiana Iowa. Kentucky. Maryland. Michigan. Minnesota. Nevada. New Mexico. New York (for State and local government employees iniy). North Carolina. Oregon. Puerto F.lco. Scuta Carolina. Tennessee. Utah. Vermont. Virginia. Virgin kianrli Washington, and Wyoming. List of Subjects 29 CFF. Pert 1910 Asbestos. Cancer. Health. Labecog. Occupational safety and health. Protecuve equipment. P.espiratary protection. Signs and symbols. 29 CFR Port 1929 Asbestos. Cancer. Construction industry. Hazardous matpni Health. Labeling. Occupational safety and health. Protective equipment. Respiratory protection, signs and symbols. VTL Authority and Signature This document was prepared under the direction of Gerard P. Scanned. Assistant Secretary cf Labor for Occupational Safety ana Health. U-S. Department of Labor. 2/20 Constttntion Avenue. NW.. Washington. DC 22222. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 0. and S of the Occupational Safety ana Health Act of 1970 129 U.S.C. 535. G53. 657), secuon 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act [Construcuon Safety Actl (40 U.S.C. 233), the Longsnore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 942). 23 CFR Part 2911 and Secretary of Labor'* Order No. 1-SO (55 FR 9033). It is hereby proposed to amend 23 CFR parts 1910 and 1923 as set forth below. Signed at Washington DC. this 12th day of Juiy.'l93CL Gerald F. Scanned. A.vtistartSecretary ofLabor. Proposed Amended Standards Part 1910 of titie 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations would be amended as follows: PART 1910--(AMENDED T Suhoart Z--[ AmenoedT 1. The auihorirv citation for subpart Z of pan 1910 woaid be revised to read aa follows: Authority: Secs. 6. 8. Occcnanonni Safety and Health Act 29 U.S.C. 55.657: Seernary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 6754k. 6-76141 FR 25059). 9-33 148 FR 35736) or 1-00 (55 FR 9033) as applicable: ana 29 CFR part 1911. All of subpan Z issued under section 6(b) cf the Occupational Safety and Health Act 29 U.S.C. eSSfbl. exonrt t&osa substances listed in the Final Rule Limns enhuan ai Table Z-l-A which bar* nautical limits listed in the Transitional Limits columns of Table Z-l-A Table Z-2 or Table Z-3. Tha latter was issued andez Secaoa Ole) (23 U.S.C. 555 (a)L Section 19102000. the Trans:twnsi Liaril* columns of Table Z-l-A Table Z-2 and Z-J aiso issued rmrier 6 UAC. 553. Secuon 1910.1000. Table Z-l-A Z-2 and Z-3 not Issued under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic, benzene, cotton dust ar.d formaldehyde listings. Section 1910.1001 also issued under Sec. 107 of Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act 40 U.S.C. 333. Section 191CL1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 55 or 20 CFR pan 1911: aiso issued under 5 U.S.C. 353. Section 1910.1003 through 1910.101S aho issued under 29 U.S.C. 53. Section 1910:1025 also issued under 29 U.S.C. E53 and 5 U3.C. 553. Section 1910.1023 aiso issued under 29 UAG 53. Section 19100043 also issued under 5 LLS.C. 551 el seq. Sections 19100045 and 19100047 also Issued under 29 U.S.C. 53. Section 19IIXIH also Issued under 29 U.S.C. 33. Sections 1910.1290.1910.1499 end 1910.1500 also Isaued 5 U S-C. 553. Fart 1310 oi titie 23 Code of Federsi Regulations is heresy amended as follows: 2. Section 131C.1CC1 wonid be amended br revismg paragraph (c)(1), ,f/fl), (p;(l) and '2). arm aunentiix F and adding paragrapc3 fct(3), (f)(I)fx), (xi) and (xii). ana tk;(7), (=,'(4) ana (o)(5), as fallows: 5 191021001 Agtiestaa. tremoitta. amnoocjidt*. *a ctmciita. t r (c) Permissible exposure limits lPELS}--;1) Time-weighted average limit (TWAI for asbestos. The employer ahaii ensure that no employee ia exposed to aa airborne ccncentration of asbestos in excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight (8}-honr time-weighted average (TWA) as determined far the method prescribed in appendix A of this section, or by an equivaient mimed. * (3J Time-weighted average limit (TWA] fortremaute ar.tnanhyilita and ctsinahie. The employer a nail ensure that no employes is exposed to an airborne concentration of tremoiite. anihophyilite. aennoiite or a combination of these minerals in excess of 022 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight (8)-hoar cme-weighted average (TWA) aa determined by tha method prescribed in appendix A of this section, or by an equivaient method. (f) Methods of Compliance--{1) Engineering controls ana work practices, (i) The employer snail institute engineering controis and work practices to reduce and maintain employee exposure to or below the exposure limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, except to the extent that auch controls are not feasible and pursuant to paragraph (fjfseiij of this section. 9* (x) Engineering controis and work practices far brake and clutch repair end service. During automotive brake and dutch repair operations, the employer shah institute engineering controis and work practices to reduce employee exposure to materials rrmmiHTnq asbesros using an enclosed cylinder/HEPA vacuum system method, solvent system method or wet bnisbrecyde method, which meets the detailed requirements set out in Appendix F. The employer may also compiy using an equivalent method, which follows written procedures, which the emdover demonstrates can achieve results equivaient to Method A in 377538 J AopenoixF as set onto..Exhibit.1-112__ (Sheenv, j.;V. T.Z. Ccoper.D. M._ CBrien. 1S39. Ccutrci of Asbestos Exposure During Brake Drum Semes. App. inti. riyg. 4:313-313). Such. demonstration mnai t^rriria TnnrmnriTi^ date conducted imder.workplace conditions cioseiy resembling the process, type oi asbestos containing materials, control rnemocu work practices and esnronmental ccnriitiona when the equivalent oetnod wiil be ttsed. or objective date, which documents that under all foreseeable conditions oi brake and clutch repair applications, the method results in exposures which are equivalent to the resuits of Method A cited above. i (xi)(A) Eoor die rmrginin^ asbestos may be trailed and/or sanded only with low-abrasion pads at speeds'of ISO rum or less. Buffing and/or sanding of such... tile or material at speeds greater than 190 or using highly abrasive pads are prohibited. ---- (31 Emnioyers shall inform enmioyees buffing anti/or sanamg Boor tile or material containing asbestos that non- compliance with paragraph ff)(fl(xi)(A) may result in exnosura to asbestos fibers. 's-siiSissw'ic : .. [xil) For the following industry sectors up to and Including the following dates. the employer may comply with the - revised TVVA PEL of 0.1 f/ccby any 'combination of respiratory protection tfiat complies witfcfthe requirements of* ' paragraph (g) of this section; work 0 practices and feasible engineering controls. ' August 27. 3530 " '' Flooring felt Roofing felt Pipeline wrao Asbestos/cemeut (AJC, Eat sheet AyC corrugated aheet :" : Vlnyl/aabetio* fiocr the _<, Asbestos doming - -..--j.-j,. New asbeito* protiucri August 21. 3333 Beater-add gaskets (except specialty lndascnai g&ixetM) w - - . Sheet gussets (except specialty industrial gaskets) dutch fa ccgs Antcmanc transmission components Commensal sen industrial friction products Drum crake linings (original equipment market) . . ..loji-js- Jiaeau:j-is.-c^.viVj Disc brake pads for light- sod medium, weight vehicles .. . __ ________________ August 22. 3396 A/C pipe Commercial paper Corrugated paper Rollboard Millboard A/C ahingle Specialty paper "ooi caanngs --____ .\'oa-root coating* _ Brake blocks Dram brake linings (afiermancet) Disc brake peas (aftsrmarxet) t L (k) Housekeeping. t * [7] In primary and secondary manufacturing operations. Boors and surfaces shall be cleaned at least onca per shift with a vacuum containing a KEPA-filLer. combined, where feasible, with wet methods. (o) Dates. - (4) The requirements of paragraphs (c)(1). (f)(l)(x) and (xi) and (p) (1) and (Z) shall be complied with (insert date 60 days from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register). * (5) The requirements of paragraphs (i) (1), (2). and (3) which are triggered by this 0.1 f/cc TWA PEL shall be comnned with by the following dates for the following industry sectors; August 27. zsso Flooring fait Roofing felt -- -- Pipeline wrap Asbestos/cement (A/C) flat sheet A/C corrugated sheet ..... -Vhrjri/asbeetos floor tile -V - .Asbestosclothing --- Naw asbestos products- ;,7r - - ' Beater-odd gaskets (except ipedalty- industrial gaskets) :.-v i '. --i Sheet gaskets (except specialty industrial' gukati) QuU fannot Automatic transmission components. Ccamermai and industrial friction products Drum brake linings (onginai equipment merket) Disc braxe pads for light- nd medium weight vehicles . ... August 23.1336 AyC pipe Commensal paper Corrugated paper .. Rollboard ", Millboard A/C shingle Specialty paper Roof coatings .c . 2 , ^ ; . i v. ; <- Non-roof coatings Brake blocks .i. Dmre hwaiea llntnpa (aftm-msi-irat). .;.;J Disc brake pads (aftermarket) (p) Appendices. (1) Appendices A. C, D. E. and F to the section are -. Incorporated as part of this section and the contents of these Appendices are mandatory. (2) Appendices B. G and H to this section are informational and are not Intended to create any additional obligations not otnerwtse unnosetror m detract from any existing obligations. -* I . Appendix F to i 19HL1D01--Work Practices and Engineering Controls for .Automotive Brake ana Clutch Repair and Asseznniv--Mandatory This mandatory appendix specifies nmniTng rrmrmls end work practices that must be implemented by the employer during atnnmouv* brake and dutch repur.and assembly operations. Proper use ot these engineering controls and work practices will reduce employees1 asbestos exoosure below the permissible exposure isvei during dutch and brake repair and assembly operations. The employer shall lnsntuta engxseeang controls and work practices using either the method set forth in paragraph (A) or.. paragraph (B). or paragraph (CJ. or any other method which the employer can demonstrate to be equivalent hi terms of reducing emnioyee exposure to asbestos aa defined ana which meets the requirements described in paragraph [D]: [A] Enclosed CyUcrier/HEPA Vacuum System Method (1) The brake and dutch assembly and repair work shall be enclosed in a cylinder desuzued to cover -nd endoss the wheel/ brake assembly and repair to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the worker's breathing sone. -' v* 1: . . (2) The cytmder shell be sealed tightly and thoroughly inspected for leeks before work begins an brake end dutch repair and assembly. . uvim.-ismcy - (3)Tha cylinder shell have viewing parts.to provide visibility and impermeahia sleeves thprrnuh which the worker mn handW (fie brake and dutch assembly and repair. Tha Integrity of the sleeves and ports shall be aximinrd before work begins;.. . (4) A HEPA-filtered vacuum with a compressed-air hose and tuszie that fits into a cotxnecnon on tha cylinder snail be used to remova asbestos fibers or particles from tea cylinder. "r- (5) The vacuum deaner shall be used first to loosen the asbestos containing residua from the brake and dutch parti and then to evacuate the loosened asbestos containing material from the cylinder end capture tha tn th vacuum filter. (6) The vacuum's filter, when full, shall be first wetted with a fine mist of water, then removed and placed Immediately In an Impermeable container, labeled according to paragraph (J)(Z)[11] of this section and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section.- ' `=-1 ..-`'rr-icscrit .* -- . (7) Any spills or releasee o asbestos containing wasta malarial from.inside of tha cylinder or vacuum hose or vacuum filter hH be Immediately deaned up and disposed of according to paragraph (V) of tha standard. _ ... [B] Spray Can/Solvent System Method (1) The spray can/solvent system shall be used to first wet the brake and dutch parts. 377539 ST0069932 l ST00G9933 i )ii 71 \> t t` I 1 7.gfgai Remster t VoL 55. :,'o. 140 L Isidnv. jury .20. .1SQ / rTtmosea Ruka 23251 .Tea. tea oraxe ana cax: tans man ca tow clean wrm a com. \Z] The cieth rireii be oraceti a an 'muerttmaoie container. leoeued scmnicai to riraerana li)(2)(H) ci lia cxncara sna then lisposea of accoraimj to sarasraso Ik) of tha iiannaro. a ms rima man be iatmoaiso a a vay to prevent' - .<* rr:rja of aaoanna :a exceu oi 0.1fiber per nnio centimeter at eir. .j) Any aDuie of solvent or err asbestos --Tumi-o waits matenai r-aii be deanea no ' -- mrnixlerv accortuns a Twragtspn (V) at tha stanuaro. (4) The use of ary hroimnq rirmna mivmt spray operations is prombited. [C] Wet Erush-Recyce Method (1) A cotnh basin snail be pieced tniar the brake assenmv, pcisinnnan m avoid aniauaa end spuis. (2) The reservoir shail wwtin water containmj? an organic eorreat or weirn.u agent. The new of Head shall be controlled such that the brass assemnry is s1 ."ires flooded throuen tne bustles of the brush to prevent me asoeatoi-containing erase ansi from becoming srbente. (3) The aaueoas saionon snail be allowed to flow between tne otass onus erase supper: neiore tee arum is remavea. (4) After removing me brake drum, the wheel hub and back ci the brake assembly shall be thoronznly werted fo suupreas dust. (5) The brake auupcrr plate. brake shoes and brake axnponents esed to artsca the brake soon snail be thaosznfy waseed before resovmg me old shoes. (6) In systems vrmo hhere. the fibers, wnen hill, shell be fim wenxo with e fine mu oi water, men removed and placed lmmematefy in an tmpenneaoie container, labeled accorain? to paragraph (j)[2);il) of this section and rtinrwen of atxonxmg to psragreph (k) of this secnao. (7) Any spills of Hint uni i mils i n | aqueous toioooa or any ssnesinscontatnmg waste maiemai shell ba cleaned op inmediateiy arq duooioc, ot anwmg to paragrepn (k) of this secnan. 5) The use of dry brnstmg daring wet bnisb-rrcvcse eperanoms a prohibited. (D) Equivalent Methods An eouivaieni mathoc is ooe which has sufficient wnrten detail so that It can oe rcprooucea end has been aemonstratea that the exposures iei-ltj from me equivalent method are eooai to or free than the exposures resuimre from the ose of Method A the Enclosed CvUnder/HEPA Vacamn Svsteni Method, as set form m Exhibit 1-112 ; Sheeny. M.I- TXh Cooper. lLM. O'Brien. 1989. Control of Asbestoa Exposure During Brake Drum Service. Appi led. Hyg. 4313319). PART 1926--i(AtfENDCD) Subpart D--(Amended) 1 The authority citation far subpart D of 23 CFR pan 1923 would ba revised to read as follows: Authority. Secs. 4.8. & OccinauanaJ Safety and Health Act of 1970 (13 1'S.C. 833. 633. :37k Sec 1C7. Cuanats vVaacHcors ana Safety Stanaards Ad iConstracson Safetv .3ctL 40 U.S.G. C31 ana Secretary of Labor's Oder* 12-71 (33 FK 87541 8-79 f FR 22S91. 33 (48 FR 5S7361 or lr9t> (55 FR 9033J. as a rnucabia. Sec. WTBSilc) arm 1823-38 also i sued under 39 CFR part 1313. 4. Seeded 19Z&28 would be amended by addins paragraph fe](7], adding a r.ew aefinition to paragrapd (b), adding paragraphs (cr(3)t and (g](2J('v); revising paragraphs (cj(Xi (d), (e)(lj and (6); redesignating paragraphs (o) ana ip] as paragrapna (q) nH (r] nnri revising newiy redesignated paragraphs fr} (I) and (2): and adding paragraphs (o), [p] and (qJ[4J as loHowb: { 1B2&5S Attests*, tremoitta. artmoony**. sad sanies. (a) Scene ana Application. t (7] Coverage under this standard shall be based on the nature of the wont operation involving asbestos exposure, not on tire granary activity of the employer. (b) Definitions. t Small-scale, snort-duration operations means only those demolition, renovation, repair, maintpnnnr.fi. and removal operations winch are nanrepetitive. affect small surfaces or volumes of material containing asbestos, tremoiite. anthophyllite. or actinoiite. and will be completed within one work day. and are not expected to expose bystander employees to significant amounts of asbestos. Tha following operations are included within tha definition of small-scale, ah on-duration: Repair or removal of asbestos on pipes that is less than 21 linear feed repair or removal of asbestos panei that Is less than 9 square feet; pipe vaive repair or replacement of pipe valves containing asbestos gaskets or electrical work that disturbs asbestos that is completed by one worker in less tu.nn four hours: removal of drywari which is completed for the facility within an eight-hour workday renovation projects involving enticapping of pipes and tile removal that Is completed in less than four hours: and installation of conduits that is. completed within an eight haur work shift. I * (c) Permissible exposure limits (PELs)--(1) Tima-weighted average limit (TWA} far asbestos. Tha employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of Ckl fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight (8)-hour time-weighted average (TWA) as determined by the method prescribed in aopenmx A of this seenon. or oy an ^CSiYAieCU mpttvwiy tills (3) Time-ieeishted average (TWA) far mematns. antnonnyiiite ana aetmabte. The emrnnvers snail ensure tnat no employee a exposed to an stroerne concentration of tremonte. ontnoohyilita. aermoute. or a --iTnmHnnrm ot these minerals in excess of <X2 5tier per cnoic centimeter of air at an eight (S)^hoar rime-weighted average (TWA) as determined by the method prescribed In appendix A of tfcfs section, or by an equivalent method. (d) Communication amortpemployers and owner*--(1) Notification by owners. (i) Project or braiding owners shall provide notification of available information concerning the presence, location, and quantity of asbestos cantaming materials on a prospective job site to the foflowing persona before work covered by this section is performed and with reenect to new construcnon connects for wora covered by this seercm. before the execution of the contract. This requirement does not appiy to work and contracts for work which con3tmrte smail-scaie. short term operanon as denned in paragraph (b] of rhii section: (A) Employers working on the project or in the building, or prospective employers applying or bidding for work covered by tin's section whose employees reasonably can be expected to work in or contiguous to areas containing such material: and (B] Employees of tha owner who work in or contiguous to areas where work covered by this section will be performed. [iij Upon receipt of notification pursuant to oaragraph (d)(2) of this section, protect and building owners shall immediately provide written notification of any additional Information obtained concerning tha presence, iocanan. and quannry oi asbestos or asbestos-containing materials to the persons specified in Paragraph (d)(l)(i) of tins section and of protective measures to be taken to the extent that such project or building owner previously failed to provide the notification required by paragraph (dKUM. ., (iii) Project and building owners snail maintain records of all information provided pursuant to this section or otherwise concerning the presence, location, and quanuty oi asbestos- containing materials in the building. Such records shall be kept for the duration of ownership and shall be transferred to successive owners of such buildings. 377540 -r. 'ICGC9001S ^27S2. -aoerBAj%aP3Tgr-r;Vbk^5vusixhl2gTf- Frr&cvaruhx2G^JS90 tsj?asBbTsaa ';) Notification bvEmniarvessrii] Ary cmmoyer planning to par-term any wont covered bv inis section exesot for smail- jcaia. short miration ooeraaens as - danced in Daragrapn fo) of tins section. snaiL cnor to me commencement ox such worx. notify the protect or ogliding owner of the presence.- iocaccnasa quantity of asbestos-contaimng materials on me job site, the nature of operations reasonably expected to resuit in exposure to asbestos ana the measures to be taken by theemoioyer to protea other employees and maiding occupants from exposure to inch materials, to the extent theowner previously has not noticed suca. empioyer pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section. . -. (il] On muiti-employer worksites, ac employer planning^to perform any work covered by this section except fcrsmail- scaie. short duration operations as denned in paragraph fb) of this section, ahaii inform all other employers- on me site of the presence, iocanoc. and quantity of asbestos or asoesms* containing materials to which empioyees of such employers reasonably can be expected to be exposed, the nature of operations reasonably expected to result in such exposures, and the measures taken by the employer to protea such empioyees from such exposures! 'r 7__ (ill) Any employer who discovers the presence in the workplace of material containing asbestos, acdnolite. tremoiite. or anthophylllte. shall ; t.. \ immediately notify as required by ..... paragraph'(d)(2)(ij of this section, the projea or building owner and. on multi- empioyer sites, other emnioyers as required by paragraph (i]L-![Li) of this secnon. {iv) Following the completion of work covered by the notification requirements of paragraph (d)(2) (I). (li) and (iii) of this secnon. by any employer, the employer snail orovide to the protect or building owner a written record of the presence, location find quantity of asbestos- containing material on the job site as of the time of such compiebon of work. (3) Other Notification Requirements. (i) Before commencing smail-9caie. short duranon demolition, renovation, repair, removal and maintenance operations as defined In paragraph fb) of this section, the employer shall notify the building owner: and all employers and'' employees who may reasonably be expected to work in or contiguous to the regulated area of the presence of asbestos and the need for protective equipment before entering the work area. (ii) Notification to the building owner reqmrea by paragrapn (d|(3)(i) of tins lection maybe maae in writing or r veroaiiy. _____ 7 ' '. ; (iii) Notification to emoioyees and emnioyers resumed by paragraph 'd)(3)(i) of this secnoirwui be -. considerea satisfied, by tne posting of wanuna signs reamed fay paragraph. (k) (l) of this secnon.. (e) Regulated areas--{1) General. Except for asbestos removal demolition, mmnronanrg and renovation operations, the employer shall establish a regulated area in work areas where airborne concentrations of asbestos, tremoiite. anthophyilite. acdnolite. or a combination of these minerals exceed or can reasonably be expeaed to exceed the permissible exposure-limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. __ . " -- *-* " /-- "* - .-- (6) Herniated areas for asbestos removaL maintenance, demolition, ana renovation operations, (i) All asbestos removal demoution. maintpnwnrp and renovanon operanona shall be treated as regulated areas anri shall compiy with the requirements of paragraphs (e) (l) (2) (3) and (5) of this section. (U) In addition, the employer shall establish negative-pressure enclosures before commencing any removal demolition, maintenance, and renovation operation, except as provide'd In paragraph {e)(8)(iii) of this section. '''"'.'7 ` (iii) Exceptions to negative-pressure enclosure requirements. The employer is not required to install negative-pressure enclosures in the following work situations: ------ -- ........... (A) Where establishing a negative- pressure enclosure is not feasible, because of the configuration of the work area, in such situations, the emoiover shall Institute all feasible additional controls to reduce the exposure to asbestos of workers engaged In the removaL demoution. or renovation operation and minimize the spread of contamination to workers not engaged in the removaL demolition, or renovation. (B) In roofing, where the employer shall institute ail feasible additional controls to reduce employee exposure, such as using wet methods to the extent feasible, immediately bagging all asbestos containing materials, and lowering asbestos containing materials to the ground level using airtight chutes. (CJ In small-scale, short-duration operations, as defined in paragraph (b). where the employer uses altemanve feasible containment or enclosures, such as glove bags or mini-enclosures pursuant to the requirements in appencix G of this secuon. anti uses feasible wet methods to handle, irmtali. disturb, ana/or. remove asbestos- - containingmaterial pursuant to the - requirements in appendix G of this section- ... (D) In removal of asbestos-containing floor tile or flooring material where the employer shall Institute the following work pracuces: [1] Floonng or its backing may not be sanded to remove them from the floor [2] Vacuums equipped with a KEPA filter, disposable dust bag. and metal floor tooi (no brush) shall be used to clean floors: ' [3] All sheet removal snail be done using detergent solution: r* [4] All felt scraping shall be done wet: [5] All scraping of residual adhesive shall be performed wee.. .-.i,-.. (fl) Dry sweeping is prohibited.- - (g) Methods of Compliance. . (2)(lv)(A) Floor nie containing asbestos may be buffed only with lowabrasion pads at speeds of 190 rpm or less. Fluffing of such tile or material at speeds greater than 190 rpm or using highly abrasive pads are prohibited. (B) Employers shall inform employees - - buffing floor tile containing asbestos that non-compiianc8 with paragraph (g](2)(iv)(A) may result in exposure to asbestos fibers. - - *--"--lrf--__ ~ * - ' - -"**'*-" . - to..'. ... .uw.-.-s-! oi-tr. (o) Competent person--(1) General On all construction worksites covered by this standard, the employer shall designate a competent person, having the qualifications and authorities for ensuring worker safety and health required by subpan C. General Safety ami Health Provisions for Construction (29 CFR 1923.30 through 1928.32). (2) Reauirements for asbestos removal, demolition, maintenance, and renovation operations, (i) On all worksites where employees are engaged in removaL demolition, and renovation of asbestos, tremoiite. anthophyilite. and actinoiite. the competent person desienated in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section shall also perform or supervise the following duties, as applicable: (A) Set up the regulated area, enclosure, or containment . (B) Ensure the integrity of the enclosure or containment: (C) Control entry to and exit from the enclosure and/or area: 7 .*m71 (D) Supervise all employee exposure monitoring required by this section and ensure that It is conducted as required by paragrapn lO: 377541 ST0069935 --~icrai -Rcg-y`iA^5rr^:'*r3;fr r::jhiV:-mr.rf20ti1C9Q r-ftCTflgegrMw ~ `^3753 z.\ rmscre mat emmoyees wonung within me enclosure ana/or using giove bass wear orotecnve clothing ana respirators as required by parasrapha lh) ana nl of this secnon: fF) Ensure mat employees are trained In the use of engineering controls, worx practices, and personal protecnve equipment: (G) Ensure mat employees use the hygiene laciiities ana observe me decontamination procedures specified in paragrepn (j) of this secnon; (H) Ensure mat engineering controls are functioning properly: ana. (I) Ensure mat notification requirement in paragraph (f)(6) are men (ii)(A) The comoetent person snaii be trained in ail aspects of asbestos, tremome. anmopbyilite. or actinoiita handling relevant to the specific work involved, including abatement, installation, removal and handling; the contents of this standard: the idonuficapon of asbestos, tremoiite. anmonbyiiite. or acnnoiite: removai procedures, where appropriate: and other pracnces for reducing the hazard. Such training shall be obtained in a cotnprenensive course, such as a course conducted by an EPA Asbestos Training Center, cernfied by the EPA or a State, or an equivalent course. (B) For small-scale, short-duration operations. the competent person snail be trained in aspects of asbestos removai appropriate for smail-scaie. short-duration work, to include procedures for setting up giove bags and mini-enciosures. practices for reducing asbestos exposures, use of wet methods, the cements of this standard, and the identification of asbestos, anmophyilite. or acnnoiite. Such training shall be obtained in an aDpropnate course, such as a course conducted by an EPA Asbestos Training Center for supervisors of smail-scaie. shortduranon work, or an eauivaient course. (p) No'.-ficction to OSHA--(1) Genera. Before engaging m tiemouuca. renovation. or removal of materials containing asbestos, tremoiite. anthcphyiiite. or actinoiite which do not meet the definition of smail-scaie. shertduranon eperauons. the employer snail provide the OSHA Area Office with written nonce of intention to demolish, renovate, or remove asbestos-containing mater.ai. (2) Method of notification. The employer snail ensure that OSHA receives written nonce at least 10 vorxing aays oefore removal, demolition. or renovanon. or orner related activities suen as site preparation wnich would disturn asoestos wtii begin. ;3) Content. The employer shall include the following in the nonce: (i) Name, address, and teleDhone number of employer (ii) Type of operation: demolition, renovanon. or removal: (iii) Description of the facility including the size (square feet) and number of floors, age. and present or prior use of the fadiity: (iv) Procedure employed to detect the presence of matenais containing asbestos: (v) Estimate of the amount of matenais containing asbestos, including separately identified noti-friable material, to be affected by the demolition, renovanon. or removai. in linear feet or area (square feet): (vi) Locanon anti address of the facility wnere demolition, renovanon. or removai will occur (vii) Scheduled starting and completion date: (viiil Description of planned demoution. renovation. or removai work to be performed and methods to be employed including demolition, renovanon. or removai techniques to be used and description of affected facility components: (Lx) Description of work practices and engineering controls to be used to compiy with the requirements of this standard: (x) A certification that only a competent person trained as required by paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(A) of this secnon will supervise the demolition, renovanon. or removai activity desenoed in this notification: and (xi) Description of procedures to be followed m the event that unexpected asbestos is found. (4) Coapnor.ee with EFA reporting. An employer reoomng to the Environmental Protection Agency's National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos (40 CFR part 61.146) may satisfy the notification requirements contained in this paragraph by forwarding a copy of the EPA notification to the OSHA area office. (q) Dotes. 4) The reouirements of oaragraons (c)(1). (d). (e) (1) ana (61. (g)(2)(ivMo) ana (p) shall be commied with by (insert date 60 days from ouoiication of final niie in Federal Register). ** (r) Appendices. 11) Appenaices A. C. . E. and G to this secnon are incorporated as cart of this section and the contents of these appenaices are mandatory. (2) Appendices B. F. H. and I to this section are infonnanonai and are not Intended to create any additional obligations not otherwise imposed or to detract from any existing obligations. **v 5 1928J3 Apponarx G (Amended) S. Appendix G. io 1926-58 would be revised by changing its heading to "Mandatory:" by removing the introductory paragraph; in the secnon under the heacung "Giove Bags" by replacing the phrase "action ievei" with "PEL" in tne first ana third sentences: removing the secnons enntied "Enclosure." "Maintenance Program" and "Prohibited Activities": and by revising the secnon under the heading "Definition of Email-Scale. Short Duranon Activities" to read as follows: Smail-scaie. shart-duraaon operations means otuv those aemoution. renovanon. repair, maintenance, and removai operations which are non-repeunve. affect snail surfaces or volumes of material containing asbestos, tremoiite. anihoohyilite. or actinoiite. and will be completed within one work day. and are not expected to expose bystanders to significant amounts of asbestos. The following operanons are Included within the definition of smail-scaie. short auranon: Repair or removai of asbestos on pipes that is less than 21 linear feet repair or removal of asbestos panel that is less than 9 square feet pipe vaive repair or replacement of pipe vaives containing asbestos gasxets or eiectncai worx that disturbs ssoestos mat is completed by one worker in leas than four hours: removal of drywail which ia completed for the facility within an eight-hour workday: renovation projects involving endcapping of pipes and tile removal that is completed in less than four hours: and installation of conduits that is completed within an eight-hour work shift." * t t* [FR Doc. 90-16687 Filed 7-13-90:1:27 pm| BfUJMQ COOt iSlO-rt-H 377542 f (j0 G9 9 3 G <0 (L O2 0) O rr O <3 rr h> 3 iQ r> X \ri SS \ \ 'NJ 0X \ P lease P rin t C le a rly