Document RJk1J6M8KQmve8MoLEwyaBvdk

Irnc*' lheneedforextenslve|ush?IcatioR. r.:-tr ..*.,..<0 -- >wUH.s<neai Into a new . /the program. Through ,, the comments submitted In response to However, weatherizstlon projects trill ; Ai) f 440.15 entitled "Subgrantees**. and ` ' the NO] snd through other : be monitored to determine the ' ramming 6 440.14 "State Finns**. This communications, DOE is owarn thut \ reasonableness of the costs requested > reorganisation eliminates the indefinite smicc to lowdncomr renters needs to ' and approved. Additional (uitlhcation -"beading "Administrative Requirement** be increased. Somr 55 percent of the fWlIl ho required if monitoring results , -; v.: and place* In it* place two hooding* . lowdncomc population is composed of / indicate that grantees do not exercise -\v< Which give a more precise indication of " tenters, yet only 10 percent of the hemes sufficient financial accountability or . ';.;-,5-Amn2 . cojumKoj-vov-*.*-!?!jji) r-cM ; *,>! `; * e- . "> '` smarm . accordance* ; by the audit f _ h Section 440.2t(bjJ * Sectinn 44P.. . ^CtntncihThis is n | ^composed of pnraj* ^ previous acr.Uun.Tl ' andumsrd. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT Friday `;j November 4,1983 M Part VII e ^Department of Labor . , Occupational Safety and Health ^Administration ; . . .^Occupational Exposure to Asbestos; ^Emergency Temporary standard -vi's-Aomo .- ^Js<o3)t!ij-Nt)V-tJ-H:iwji \\ ;rnr_j<se sun . . . . * , _ JO ft w w^ ,61088 Fads DEPARTMENT OF j > :'-;-Occii*tional Saw ` /^Atbninlatrauoft -MCffl Part 1910 MDock*tWo.tWW01 i OccopationalC . - ri'; ACtHCV; Occupation 1 .^Administration (OSH ACnOM; Emergency l suauuitv: OSHA is u * .v-;: emergency temporary *-*- reduce the peimiaaibH '**. (PEL) for asbestos fro ;^C'than 8 micrometers) p centimeter (2 f/ccj as a V? weighted average, to 0 t , v'. period of tbs emergent^ -V ^employers may use all] control methods, such % .riftmtro!s. work practla **= i /Protective equipment t * x. limit cfO fibers per a (0^ f/cc). Training proj, ;. required to be institute) : The basis for this B1L j / determination that cont| -'Y-exposura to asbestos ti . ^conditions that exceed! r grave danger of develj \ induced cancer and ash exposed employees. an_ -v emergency standard is a protect them. The ETSs . proposal to revise the c . - standard pursuant to s -/>* 6ic)oflheAct ./ ' This notice also reqm - l^tVn the appropriateness c ^provision* of thaETSeal /-V ' Revisions to the asbestosl 'IM addition.OSHA will s '; separate notice of prt ' that further explains tb consideration for the p< standard and which raist. ' additional Isiuet regatdid application ofcertain prot -^-a^estos atandard to the c_ -industry.That notice will! . comments and will schedJ ' . ^.Julemaking hearing pursui ` (b) of tht Act concernlngl ''..i* permanent revision to tha f standard, I DATtC The effective date 1 - :> ^November 4.1963. Comma *** .j^ avidence concerning the p ' j>;>;tevfilons to the permanent! * Pp> *wde by the ETS must be if ' ' -^before January 3.19B4. As a _ .^<wm publish a notice ofprc% ' . ^rvalemsklRg shortly that vriQ V^.dates for submissions to th^ ;?&. dodcct tot the issues raised] V tvm m. Wuei OTi'TOfr, ' }\. .'?}" V v V:-1 * ' ^.y:, - ;v i v ` 'v'. *v? - * * .. - ' ' ' . ef Ait CtKtr Hutto MsWW U Tiiret at - **'"* ` totartiw 20 Tilrt ef Itowuu " ' '' J` ; Yy. i{V. m . - > . t.* . v^W OF (MCBIBEATO AVDIBED ' ... ,po llftUto rltA ntlNtn tar V-r.3 a V* t < 'J ; - -,s ^ V. 1- If '"'yJ ' ' * ' - ' V;mmMMMMMMMMMHMHBfMM^ .> \Vtc);-i -'** Ac**- of0.5 f/cc :.**+*;*+ -! ........ " *to-- or - s-amiii nsani km-sov- Inn n Ml.'] '- fprmtUTOH (o take such action upon j 2* VJ 5JrcffirlroTcch do nol need to gel approval from DOE before tiling it but -j'iSiose <u1 * 1 federal RegUter / Vol 48. No. 215 / Friday, November 4,1963 / Rulee and Regulations ^DEPARTMENTOFUBOfl : if;Occupational Safetyand Health .'-;*4WmWitraOoo . .MOMMettWrittencommenUahouId ; , be tubmlllrd lo the Docket Officer. /\T Docket No. H-GI3C. Room 5-4212. US. V5;- Dtpertment oflabor. Third Street and axbnloili) among currently axpoxed 'worker, which are attrtbutabla to contfnoed exponim under pwaent '-wrnkii^ conditions. OSHA estimated MCFR Pert 1910 ^:1OorttrtNO.IMN0I : - ; . Constitution Avenue, N.W,, Washington,''-, tbe number ofcancer deaths avoided iy-4, D.C 2021A > . throush lowering of the exposure to OS ''i; PON TUttmniNSOMATiON CONTACT: tics. based one months, l-year. 20-year ^^aPeeupeDontlExpouniloikibeita* James F. Foster. Director. Office of :.-*nd 45-yesr periods of exposures at Infonnatlon and Consumer Affairs. ' Afoarent levels,* The predicted cancer , .'^TMltMCy: Occupation Safety and Health OSHA US. Department oflabor. Room "deaths avoided that result from these '.^AdutnlatratiDn (OSHA). labor. ' N-3832.200 Constitution Avenue, NW. periods of exposure are respectively 2101 yg<ACTION; Emergency temporary atandard. Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) ' S23-8IS1. ' 428.5725 and 7015. A more detslled & discussion xA these estimate* is found in . S^ NUMMAJry: OSHA is Issuing an - r eunnuNtiiTAXYairoaisaTrorc " .-^tbe section*. Quantitative Risk Analysis ' ' .emergency temporary atandard (RTS) to ;>iseduce thepetmlsslbleexposure limit ,Table cfCootaMa . ' v (Section V], Crave Danger (Section 111 . . V Ab and Need for an ETS (Section til 8). , -' fPEL) fors.br.lo. from 2 fibers (longer . I Introduction ' V "'4 Risks of this magnitude at permitted and T v than S micrometers) per cubic ' fSL lexsl Authority and Btdtground actual exposure levels defined a . > ^Umcler (2 f/J ea anVlihi-hmn linle-^im^^XlS^, f"lh'6,8 v/.f* situation which demanded Immediate Vi weighted average, to OS f/cc. During the . bnki) foranCTS : * & period of the emetgsncy standard. >4*employer* may me *1} practicable SupportingDocumentation: ' --'control method*, such a> engineering X' tV. Occupational Health Date - - ^ controls. work practice* and personal V.QuanMiHvsRUkAnatyal* * ,.fc protective equipment to meet the new " '^1* limit ofOS fibers per cubic centimeter . (H0.8 f/cc). Training programs arree,a;l`tJo0 y,VI. Technical and Economic Feasibility *A. Technical Feasibility B. Economic Feasibility ' ,iX1LCnvtronntentalImpact.Regutatory - refulatory action. EvatuaUon ofthe ; - Vmevant adenURc data, policy l\considerations end exposure patterns of j .viworiceri hat convinced OSHA that '^continued exposure *1 the current PEL 7^ and under actual workplace conditions ^^constitutes a "grave danger** to ' ` - employees, and that an ETS is needed to fJ protect them. VDL Summary and Explanation ol the ETS ` The ETS requires that employees may . ^/'detWTnhuUon that continued employee > tX- Public PartWpaUort Asthority and . f.s not be exposed to concentration* of - ' exposure to asbestos under current .> Signature; and Eart 1010 (Ameoded) kiv, asbestos exceeding OS f/cc on an 6-hour *: 4 conditions that exceed 05 f/cc presents ' .)} grava dangerofdeveloping asbestes- ivt Introduction \ t. time*weighed avarage bails, and . ;/'.' permits the employer to draosa among V fc5 Induced cancer and asbestos)* to V This is an emergency temporary , ^. engineering controls, work practices and .</ exposed employee*, and that an - & standard (ETS) issued pursuant to respirators to reduce exposures to the / emergency standard is necessary to ^ aection 6(c) ofthe Occupational Safety V new PEL. However, the requirement in , d protect them. The ETTS tervet alto at a ' * end Health Act of1870 (the Ad) (M ; | lOtCLlOOtlc) to utilize feasible proposal to revise the current asbestos :SUti156;29U.aC.eS$J,lhe ' - engineering controls and work practices - * atandsrd pursuant to section 6(b) and ; Construction Safety Act (Pub. L. 01-M; .. to reduce exposure levels to 2 f/cc *v >'U 6(c) of the Act . V 40 U5.C. 333). the Longshoremen's and remains bteuect under this temporary This notice alto request* comments f. Harbor Workers Compensation Act (33 standard. The ETS also requires Vfcotbe appropriateness of including the -D.C941k theSecretaryofLebor'a . employers to institute a training program . V' provision* of the ETS at permanent Order No. 6-83 (46 FR 35736). and 29 within thirty days of the effective date revisions to the asbestos standard In ' T3R Part toil. This emergency standard of thia emergency standard. The training ~ * addition, OSHA will toon publish a .. consists ofrevisions to the existing ,, ^progam will Include instruction on separate notice ofproposed rulemaking ' Standard covering occupational ; v mpirotor fitting and use. handling of * > ^tbat fartherexplains the luue* under , exposure to asbestos, 29 CFR 1910.1001* . asbestos* medical Information, tht ' ` f consideration for the permanent ~ . f* la order to protect employee* from a >*> relationship between smoking and tung / standard and which raises some : r*rP>v*dangerbomo(mtinuedexpottne .'./cancer, and a review of the asbestos ^ additional ittuet regarding the *'; to asbestos at current exposure tevels. ' standard. The ETS applies to all ~ r ^application ofcertain provisions of the . A'- OSHA has determined that workers industries covered by the Act including ' yr i asbestos standard to the construction exposed to asbestos under exposure >' '."general industry**, construction and \... vlnduttry.ThBt notice will invite public ; ^condition* existing under the current ^maritime industries. comments and will schedule a " atandard face a grave danger of '.v*'.rulemakingbearingpursuant to Section ' 'developing incurable cancer and . * OStiA It awarr. ofcoMnt. Uul SfCtkn 6{c)ol r 6(b) of Ihe Act concerning the proposed '' asbeitoiis. Further, OSHA has found ' 0Act iMta UwrffacUv* Uaw ofn EISto* ^ * permanent revUion to the asbetto* , t tost an immediate reduction in exposure , feontka m.dO_S__ItAce^dodeslhtt a_gn*e dan.ger . * *. standard. ___ - Irorol. lo 0.5 f/cc Of b.low U nccr.Mty / 'OATtt: The effective dale for this ETS is toprotect such employees from thia >:' November 4.1063. Comment* and grave danger.ThereforaOSHA is 1icwpm. tW/Vrncy bridnr*it Hp^repttkt t 'akabtebwntdRMnsftDtMeiBK>}ns .----e-v--i-d--e--n-c--e--c--o--n--c-e--r-n--in--g--t-h--e--p--r-o--p--o--t-e--d ^Issuing this ETS to compel reduced . .-m* maaddee by the EETls5 must be received on or ssitituuaattiioonn.. ; beforofanuary 3,1961. As noted. OSHA " OSHA** detenninatiem that a grave `* anohrtxxrsplrtrd wihhln Smoaihs. m t)ut therr ' will publish a notice ofproposed . '^rulemaking shortly that will set due *?- . dates for submissions to the asbestos - 'danger currently exists Is predicated -V; upon quantitative risk estimates in this -/*';? record which point to a Urge number of wiSU)vtkD)tApknprT>tFctiDafarrxpawdnnpio}Tnt. -.* ta OS1IA` *pArtfi>ci --d Hidgeenttmntplyirm 'v.tridi AI*R4attarjrdirrcHirandce<Rp)e)Wi ttUnA*klnfopfmr*nJ*Uad#fdwlt)ibiS * -1 docket for the issues raised therein, ^^arxeess deaths from cancer (and - , tS, m"orUh ofmETShodcan b*dMp. -' 6-Aottto ^aiMfoyxay-Nov-sMadsjs) - rrw . if*, auu rule i :aCR DEATHS AV01CE0 ilae risk cstlaitcs for posurks * V -.; - > s' tins' . _ V. o' *5 ,,ec 1 lev 20 jrurs . 45 ittrs .' \ r il ' 8 1 '31 I8 1 .'11T ;*T1 -m `x 2* -174 \ . j` *// . <84 ~ - l ~ i " i9 41 % 4^ exposed . . able to , [pretent \ (estimated avoided bosun to as pear, 20-yer burrs at led cancer om these ` actively 210. jtetalted Is Is found in I*k Analysis ectjon III JctionlUB). Irmittedand Ida nmediate ,' Jofihe jy - 1 patterns of ` |\ that . ntPEL londitions . 1 *needed to pyeet may pnof lanS-hour fid . e among jeticesand b to the menlfn Ipractice* fee ficpporroagrryam pedate hd lung Asters [eluding land ilfp Jo Mlhmqdi I inthn) thrrp bioyir*. nrsponscioASditional Comment# ^n^*wi!cnUujelwoen!llte. TOBg^MistenccErogram, Each DOE received comment* in response to program Ip separate and distinct by tow. '* the NOl which II was not able to - . ;ADIII2 OD(m)(n>-NOV--l5:5^> frm tn tsi: ' Fodetal Beglrtcr / Vot 40. No. 215 / Friday. Norcmber 4. 1B83 / Rule. and Regulallon___SlM7 ,< Aa provided In 29 OH 1953.22. tbe 24 Utagil Authority aadBadtgRwad exposed workers theirlives. OSHA ; ;j? State. with their own OSHA-approved . . . i, 'Ifsttccupatlonalaafelyind health planaara A. legalAuthority > : Stares the genuine concern expressed . by the petition and letters from union* -'ifexpected to adopt a comparable . , " SecttoBlc) ofthe Act provide* for representing thoussnds ofemployees . i'c atandard within 30diyi of till ,^mmedUlelydraleemer8tncy t who are directly faced with the threat of 1iJwbllc*!lon<I.te.,nieSUtere: fe temporary atandard* in certain : asbestos-related disease from continued Ala*Vi, Arizona, California. Connecticut dramuUncM. The SccreI.ryh.. the - axposure. And OSHA concludes that , y fforState nd toco) government *U*-V,;n.dar^ fsiiure to issue this ETS may cost a V: employee. only). Hawaii. Indiana. loan. without rulemaking, ifbe determine* ' number ofexposed worketa their lives. r; Kentucky. Marylend. Michigan. i i (*) lhalemployee. areoxpoaed tograv* . In August 1983. OSHA completed a 1 ,i Mlnne*ota, Nevada, New Mexico. North danger from expoeure fo aubitance* or i. comprehensive risk assessment based ' '.^Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico. South h vffCarolina. Tetmeee, Utah. Vermont, , : genldetermined lobe toxlcor - on numerous human studies which 41 phyilcally bannful or from new hazard*. estimated the cumber of excess deaths '-'.Virginia, Virgin lalaoda, Wuhington, : end (B) dial auch emergency etandard lx . bom the three major asbestos-related ` *;^nd Wyoming. . ' oeceaiary to protect employee* from auch danger." 29 USC. e5Sfc)|l). Thu*. Alao. In retponat to the emergency ` the dinger mul be "from" worker t-'-tjecondllloni faced by expoeed worker*. : expo*ore _e_n_d_i_t_m__t_a_t_be "gravt." not etepplngupItxmfotcement * jgjL.Ij^nciniand dw'regbi.tion ; - J . mo*t be "Seceuary" fo add^M "auch cancers, to., long cancer, mesothelioma and gsitrointesUnsl cancer, at the , , current permissible exposure level of2 f/cc end at various reduced exposure , levels OSHA placed this document . "Quantitative Risk Assessment for .' :i dinger." not merely rextonxbly Asbestos*Re)ted Cancers*** in the . ; The temporary provliioni that are * > oaceMatyorapptoprUtetoptovideaat* * Asbestos docket in August 1083 (Ex. 64 -'ft b*big xdded to tho exlitlng eibexto* 1. employment. In addition. * In lection 349). OSHA subsequently revised this c ftfitolxndird preacribea the m*|or - Bfb) permanent atandard.. OSHA may ?domjment (See Ex. 64-392). ' i.;^ component! ofin occepitimilMfely tmpo*e requirement! In thi emergency Z History oftheAsbestosStandard , " < i-nd health itindeid. In general mo*t of ;. itandird only lo the extent that they am OSHA has regulated asbestos since '.4*. fl current requirement! remain "feaalble" wllhin die meaning ol tectlon : h.eenaffected by the emergency temporary V 6(b)|5) ofthe Act. 1071. A12 f/cc limit for asbestos was Included in die Initial promulgation of . .-^-etandard. However, compliance wllh ' The Fifth Circuit hat eophaiiied thi OSHA standards pursuant to section > .eoma requirement* will be triggered by -: fntportance ofthe aevertty of health .:--- thenewexpo*uretlmitofasf/cc .. tffectl in OSHA'a conllderetlon of ' iji inttead dthe former PEL o! 2 f/cc. For whether an ETO ti appropriate; 8(a) of th* Act, on May 29.1071136FR 10466). In response to a petition by the Industrial Union Department of the .-femonnple. requirement, lodtai dang. -------- th,d.ni*roNncurat>te.penn.nl AFL-CtO. OSHA issued an ETS on W *n*femoln unaffected by the ETS ... er t.ul eoniequence* to worker*.oppoaed . <md th* trigger level for change rooms SoeasilycunbteandfleetlRgeffecUOTtbrir 1 ^remains the former PEL of 2 f/cc ' * health, becocnes important tn the yAit fl 1&20.1COl(d)H)p However* the CIS ' constderarionrdthenecessity for emergency ' i requires that where concentrations may > measure* Idmeet a grave danfFT." Florida ' \<t exceed tht new PEL. the employer must *Y; post signs indicatingsuch locations - ' /VocA Crtmw*Atsocfctkm. Inc. v. United .; 'Stotts Deportmentoflot/or, icasj. 4S9S P^d. 132 . asbestos on December 7,1071. which " established a PELof S f/ccon a timeweighted average basis and peak , exposures of 10 f/cc. The current standard, promulgated in June 1972. Erst established an 8-hour v time-weighted average PEL of5 f/cc and ' . > OSHA based Its decisions concerning .-^appropriate provisions for the ETS on its - v^deteRsrfiutkmt of the kind sod degree of . prolwihre aetkm needed to protect / Jti^l'segaatltntiststcargarvaevde>dannDgerfanndtthhe ' - ^ feasibility of instituting these provisions - "^.during tlm period o! the ETS OSHA also has interpreted relevant fudida! decisions to require that its ' valuation of the gravity of the danger ,and the necessity for emergency action const be made in the context ofactual ' workplace conditions. . - & Background ' a ceiling limit of10 f/cc. The limits wet* intended primarily to protect employees . against asbestosis, and It was hoped - that they would provide some incidental degree of protection against cancer. Effective July 1976 the TWA limit was reduced by the standard to 2 f/cc. This :v limit has remained In effect since that Under section {b)o!the Act OSHA , 1. Events Uodfntto the ETS In June, time. The standard alto includes mrill shortly sd>edu!e an infomuil { > 1883. OSHA reeved a petition for an provision* covering methods of . tulemakhig hearing on the proposed v ; ETS from the International Association comnliance, monitoring, medical ` / vjpermsnent changes to the standard* `"of Machinists and Aerospace Worker* - SurvelUancs and housekeeping. CoSHAwUUIsoproposaolherrevlslon* (Ex*. 84-2441* Subsequently letters Court review of this standard upheld . v ^ ie the asbestos standard that will be V'supporting this petitkm were received ' aO major provisions, but remanded two - ^ explained in the separate notice of from IB other unions (Ex. 84-284 to 84- ; issues for OSHA's reconsideration. WD A Vproposcd rulemaking. Application of - 204.64-387 to St-391), The petition - v. Hodgson, 499 P. 2d 487 (CADC1074). A Y certain provisions of the asbestos Arequested an ETS to reduce the PEL to " These Issues were whether the July 1978 ^r.;^standaid to the construction industry 0.1 f/cc. to modify some existing work * date for the 2 f/cc atandard should be . be raised at that time. OSHA - b. practice requirements* and to require ' accelerated for some industries and the ; j ^^anticipates that this notice will be y *V- othw protective provisions Tegsroless of adequacy of the 3 year retention period published shortly. OSIIA it now * < exposure level The main reasons set for exposure monitoring records. ,, ^ecc^ttingwrittencommentsonthose / X forth in the petition and supporting > Subsequently. OSHA Increased this . AHsttraisedin the CTS which are ' tetters are that continued exposure ; _ retention period to 20years (41 PR - M relevant to revising the permanent rule. .' etvdcr current workplace conditions .. "11504) and the acceleration issue t Hut Secretary must promulgate a -v- constitutes a grave danger and that .* . became moot ` ' A. section ft{h) atandard no later than six ^ delaying remedial action until a After reviewing the then available ' \ months after publication of the - A permanent standard Is promulgated ^ * scientific date. In October 1975 OSHA . vv^entergencystandard. - ' . ;v ` - would cost large numbers of currently* * ` published a notice ofproposed ` ^.'S-AWIJO ;,00*5iiWK0>.KDy-O-Hi2^) .* few ' . ssu-at "" ~ Faderal Rnliter / Vot 48. No. 215 / FHday, November 4.1963/ Rule* and ReguUtlonx 51097 . ' ; Although the ratulta In Tihla-I thow , Jftar, 2I15for2Dyrar,*nd3513for4S wrotlm would remain nsatxnitaMir r 2 .fjftfcwer bnwfila OSHA bellrvn ft# , - yaanindlcalaagravedansarimj MytuAiitatedabom.OSHA hat ' .-> omber ofdeatla avoided trader tkla . : DtcaulUta tbli ETS aclkn. '; ' Mllmaled that at a 2 f/cc level -;t;;?,eoarta)fcflxiDonflu,lMDrt eotplojeM axpoaed over a wraklnj . . . UfillmeoT45year* are predicted to -/ Table 0. Cmccr Otittit AaottlM allh O.S f/ce ETS ' < kavt an txcauridtordytetfrom cancer . ofM to 1000 and ofcontracting dlubllna ' j nb*l1o*1a of 50 In 1000; employeei oxpofcd ovar20y*r ar predicted to iMWAttij Coapllaoca utth the 2 f/ce Standard : kire excel* cancer rids of44 in 1DOO * ~ and a dliabtlng aibeitoaia riaV of ,; approximately 22 In lOOtl Even at - v'f'< 'Induttrjr Sector >:.v ;!.6 *inth* T year , 20 ytart 45 years ..r.axpoiureiUiHntoneyair.anejllinited 3 etnploytti out of1000 art predicted to fS^Frltary mufacturlns %$ m . m . ` die of aibeatoa relatad cancer, and than b alto additional rtak ofdavtlopbig /^gStcsrdarji aitivfccturlns IT Jjl': ?i vie* ; .'-,i aibHtotlt. Rlalu al tha 2 f/cs laval have . batn acVnowladged a cniceaptibla by ,'l^yfart'owotltrt Afttnurktl ' : ~ fotharfovammanta which har* nducad " - thalr patmlMlbta laval* below 2 f/i .`ftl|feSliIpbuHdlBsyRepiir 1 0 0 >*aW timed m the for an answer. -S-AWII2 24(Q1X05-SOV-*V15:J3^J) ' ' few m. wt:*j . ` , __ .____________ XppIJcnble. and no to be presented additional EA or EIS is required. | 51068 Federal Renter / Vot 48, No. 215 / Friday, November 4,1963 / Rule* and Regulations . rulemaking to revise the asbestos made by the EIS and toe additional . asbestos^elated disease to the current tandardbecause OSHA believed that ;* proposed amendments raised in the asbestos-exposed working population, ^'%v>nsuT5cient medical and scientific. notice ofprop^ osed tuTemskto_g to be comparing these riska to other ' Y*^.vk!encchadbeenccamuIstedto /' spubll*hedsooaThemfof subleclaof : ocmipathmal risks, applying mlevant warrant the designation ofasbestos as a the 6(b) rolemaking wit! be: reducing the policy considerations, and reviewing all V' ^6*tuiman carcinogen" and that advances permissible exposure limit, revisi--ng*tuh"e relevant Judicial decisions forguidance, to monitoring and protective technology definitions ofasbestos and asbestos - tha agency hat determined that both , . made reexamination of the ttcndsrd fiber*. reassessing the methods of -- - prongs ofthe statutory test are met and '''^"deslrabte.** Ibis proposal would have .^compliance to achieve such limits, ' j ; that an EIS should be promulgated. ' ''^reduced die time-weighted average to ^pPtvistag the provisions regaining For purposes of darity, the discussion . v.t>0J5 f/cc and imposed a celling limit of 5 ^Mspirator selection, revising the ~ ft divided into two parts. "Crave . Vtf;\f/cc for IS minutes (40 FR 47&S2). t^oampling and analytical method to , Danger** and **Tbe Need foran ETS." V^^TbebaslsfortheldTSproposara Improve reliability, and adding a : OSHA believes, however, that tha r vj-reduced permissible level of03 f/ccwas training requirement OSHA will also * factor* which indicate that a substance '* OSHA's then current policy for raise tesoet regarding the applicatioo of constitute* a grave danger an related to ;j K^carcinogens that no safe threshold level ; the permanent standard to the . and overlapthose which determine that ' -*/$ was demonstrable and. therefore, the ;Vt|-Act required OSHA to set the PEL as construction industry. As previously . - stated. OSHA will soon publish a an ETS is necessary. .. , \t *w as technologically and economically - separate notice ofproposed rulemaking A Crave Dagger , - ' V* feasible. This policy was rejected by the to further explain these issues. . ^Supreme Court in the beroene decision m ruf.u^.urrt.um - ' ^5t?UD vt. API 446US. 601 (1060)). OSHA J&OSHAsRational# for the ETS `y?limited the proposed revisions in the ^ OSHA has determined that prevailing %> ^-t07S notice to all industries except - V conditions involving workerexposure to : / ivjconttnxdkm. No hearing was scheduled v airborne asbestos dust fststl^r the > _r-fr,.n the 1973 proposal Also, although ,<'protmd|0on ofan emergency OSHA announced Its intention to ' ^.temporary standard OSHA estimates ' .^develop a separate proposed revision /'; that approximately 37WXJ0workers are ~ /.^-applicable to the construction Industry* ' exposed to asbestos at various levels '/r^wosodiproposalhasbeenpublishedto ..r...(.T...a..b..l.e...1..)..,.r..a..n..g..i.n..g...f.r..o..m....a...h..i.g..h...v..a..l.u...e...o..f 'V>`date. r ' 20 f/cc to below 0-5 f/cc. OSHA has V OSHA is basing its present decision to estimated that under current exposure / issue an EIS, and to propose revisions conditions asbeslos-exposed workers to the permanent standard covering all factanaxtrsordbiari.lyh,,ighrlskof employees, on information and analyses contracting asbestos-related cancer which postdate the 1875 proposal /-^whether tire risk to computed over . .* -Jrti*refcre. this ETC marks anew ' y< working lifetime ofexposure or for ,f,U regulatory initiative, related to, but cot exposure periods as short as 6 months. >\-f< pah of the tB7Sproceeding. On May 24. ; * The average excess cancer risks for aU 1063. OSHA consulted the Construction - worker*exposed above 05 f/cc using , ,> ,v .Advisory CotmnUtee for Occupational available exposure data and relying on . >;* Safety and Health ICACOSH) , ;*^tbe risk assessment are estimated as /^concerning applicability ofanew approximately tOSexcetscancer deaths , asbestos standard for the construction *" per1000workers for45years of :$iIndustry. CAGOSH endorsed OSHA's exposure. 138 deads per 1000 workers . reposition that changes In the PEL made for 20 years, 10per 1000 workers for 1 *r>for general industry shoutd also apply to year. and 6 per 1000 workers for6 ' ^ vf.^he construction industry. OSHA is also - months ofexposure. '*75induding the comments and data OSHA believes that rides oftbeae ; -1. received in response to the 1875 notice - magnitudes, taking Into account all . In the record of this proceeding, with the relevant considerations such as total ' OSHA has determined that the risk to . worker* from exposure* to asbestos at s conditions that exist to the workplace pose a grave dangerofdeath from cancer and ofsevere disability from tha hmg disease, asbestosla. In making a fcrave danger^* determination, the < severity of die disease produced by exposure to the regulated substance and the magnitude of the predicted risk* of disease most be considered. In addition. tha Supreme Court has suggested that a determination of "grave danger" indicates a situation where the risk is . -lore thsn "slgnificanr {{VD v.API. supra n. 45). . ' OSHA has applied that analytic approach endorsed by the Supreme Court for "significant risk" . determinations to evaluating toe gravity ' ofthe danger faced by asbestos-exposed workers. The Supreme Court gave some general guidance as to the process to be followed It recognized that while tot Agency must support its finding that a certain level ofrisk exists with substantia! evidence (I also recognized tost it* determination that a particular . level of risk Is "significant" will be based largely on policy considerations VUD r. API. 448 US.655.656. n. 62). /. ^X^smderstsndint that some eommenters cumbers ofworkers at risk and quality OSHA believes, therefore, that its I may have dumged their positions based ofsupporting data, constitute an ~ determinations regarding the magnitude ' ;i'y-on intervening sdentlfk developments remergency situation which requires ., ofthe risk faced by employees should. / /&and policy shifts. .. r^Immediate response by the agency. - 1 lo the extent possible, rely on . - to the decision to issue an ETS, tha f The Ad states that when certain -quantitative expressions of that risk, .-.'Agency has reviewed this regulatory < Statutory criteria are met. OSHA is ' oriliring the best available data. history ofasbestos. However, the v~e.,uthorised to respond to an emergency ~ The Court stated that the significant ~ , Agency bases the decision to Issue an aJtuatlon by issuing an ETS. The two* ride determination required by tha OSH "Iv'ETSontheactualemergency conditions , pronged statutory lest fw an ETS is that Act is "not a mathematical stralt|acket." which now confront exposed woikera. - (t) employees must be exposed to a .. _ and "OSHA Is not requited to support ' ,`i -,- on epidemiologic studies that provide . grave danger from exposure to Its finding that a significant risk exists 1 data to make numerical estimates of substances oragents determined to be ' wilh anything approaching scientific . - ^.riik* and on interpretations of these toxic or physlrislly harmful and that (2) certainty. * *A reviewing court fit) to studies using quantitative risk analysis. on emergency standard is necessary to give OSHA some leeway where Its r ^.The Rulemakingto Eevisctho y protect employees from such dangers. findings must be made on the frontiers ipi^PfwtancntSlandaniTheC{b\ ' - h AfterevalustJngaUtheevideuce . ofsdenllfic knowledge fond thafl *** ' -.v' tulemaVing initiated by this proposal is . available to the agency concerning the .. the Agency it free to use conservative ^intendedtobclimiledtotherevisions T^aeverity ard magnitude of the risk of ` assumptions to interpreting the data . s /;S-AWIt0; 0066(WK0j-NaV-Sy-I4J2^*) /' ' r<*> m. SUn,' . . . ' " ' ' ' vi ' . '* rSlDQB Federal Roaster / Vot 46, No. 215 / Friday* November 4, Ifl63 / Rule* and Regulation* V exposure* maybe reduced to below OS ' a gap in protection between the ' pert, willb* needed fornumyyeate.Por 1 V f/cc and the benefitsoftoe ETSwill be y expiration ofthe EIS and the ImporttkiQ ewlt^toiwn*aibeloebr.kend s CTrreipnftdfaity tngfyssfrd,Ffrrthf*. an 1 oftoe permanent standard for a' , - ETS by nitme ofthe *ctkn lUelf.end t Md).trace efreedydetermined to pretest dot* bdnt In new vehicle* In the next ' 1 the .cramp.nytajenlarcement progrem. afrwedrager. - ' etmal yten. Old vehicle*, conUtaln* , '\ -vwffl radoufrtedly booit th. Incentive*to OSHA <Uo beUere. that It b belpftd - e*tDx peitf. will remin in e F, ' : comply with all trottetiw pnvMoni at ' tomslate the extent ofriifc mnlllnt any yean thereafter. EtOc t el found '-.if; theaibettoeeUndard . : lromUfrUmeeipo*mperk)dofJOrad oter halfclall multUtory buildlnjx . * (b)OSHAre)ectedrriirin|oninere)y ^ ASyeintntheabwnceofthUEIS. A, acnreyedfM out of127| coat.Ined - beylrtnin. SectionCIb)ruln.VIny ^sl~*bownlaTab!e*UandU.tlienilih* qayedonaxhe*>atnata>la1(Ex.Bt> V proceed!nj.tomriw!th.lrad.rd to ^ ,^ar extraordinjully h!|h., azhlhe potential foraibeitoa V*. reduce the PEL a an laaderpat* tetporaa to therave drayer fraed by .. .j-aabeUo*expoied wotlm. Beylcnlnj . - r^ethIn*proceedinyi retull.lnna j4. OtherFodortIndicating aNeedfar jieaETS. AUboo* woAw expraure to '<.^bettt hi. been dadlnlni oter the ' ; nrn OSHA beUne, that exporare , axpomm ax!.U a*tons u Mhexloa rtmatiu In tbeu bulldlne.. Rraovallon woriciatbebBlIdinaanraaaTelocallns . wa!Uandeiectricalwirinf.winremi!tiii ' ' ; . '; '*"*'* . Employee, wotM .till cocUmi. tob. '^' eocidltloii,win continue topmenl pave .'^deneeTln theDear fnlure unV.. an . r..- , eoelteied expoKia forcarpenter,. palnten. electrldrai. lihoren, ihed r' ,'vexpod to tho ctxidiUcira which ^ Veaertencyttendardlepnmultatad. - natal worker* and others. ' _;>;defineeiraBdeieffofetlutthe - Ao6HAbeelhtnndlnionlle ' /, Thtrafcn. OSHA doe, notbaSna t; pendency of dwnuetsaUit(. In OSHA a .^nbettonofexponualsfonnetlsn. ' that tn)ot axpomna latrdn^cUoua V;: - ` experience, enoplrtln* Bjb) ndeoaUnfi nbeiloe km ------ --"-- iir. eotlnltetedbyral- ' OqbiniXAtion Art. 42 U&C 170) riseq. ;, S-A04II2 OK.SOIXW.NOV-M.lS tJJt) m. UJ ' .. - , "DOE" mean, Die Department of Eocryy. . ' Federal Renter / Vol. 4H No. 215 / Friday, November 4, 1683 / Rule* and Regulations ' S1QB9 >; >> with tnpect to carcfnogenfc rWtlng . * j these diseases am lung cancer, cancer of levels which woikers currently face. '-ij't-tTTorontheildeoJomprotection tbs mesothetiil lining ofthe pleura and . Most ofthe results of these calculations : rather thtn ttnderprottetfcm" 1*88 US t peritoneum, and asbestoif*. to addition, for cancer are presented to Table 11 in /.'v)6SS,BSe). workers exposed to asbestos are at the risk assessment aection of this ! "" In the omofubeitoi, tht dot* - V> increased risk ofgastrointestinal cancer, document. -Mi vflbte ere of cnemial breadth ind ai shown by epidemiologicstudies. : ' The table seta forth predicted excess high quality. However, because riak Although celo-rectal cancermay be lifetime cancer risks for exposures of . *>f%^4twsiB){i)titKlf Involve* toiny ^-4 curable Udetected In an early stage, ' ooe year, 20 years and 45 yearn. Risks /'^ncertilnUe*. OSHA nude certain othergastrointestinal cancers are -y for exposures of months are closely .^'^assumptions in its analysis and /"r areally fatal OSHA also bsllave* that approximated by one-half tha risks for ~>.'>**fo*tion of these data, In tmtilng ' asbestos might induce cancers at other ^exposures of one year. Although average , i>^ihe risk for asbestos-exposed workers, tiles, which an alio often fatal exposures in demolition and renovation OSHA has attempted to use realistic Of these, lung cancer constitutes the ' are estimated al 20 f/cc. the table awswnptlons, although thacoortslated ,, y greatest health risk for American presents risks only for selected exposure , ^ that the Agency was free to use , asbestos workers and has accounted for levels up to 10 f/cc. ---'eoTtservallve assumptions" In '^*_o___ .t.h..a_n__h_a_lf.o..fe.xc.e.ss mortalit,,y in ' These calculations show that the risks Interpreting data. OSHA. fas many cases, - some occupational cohort!. About 90% ofaibestowelated disease are '. - has Indicated where differenl . -Voflung cancer patients die within 5 - alarmingly high at current occupational . '^assumptions may produce different - yaart of diagnosis. Mesothelioma Is an . exposure levels. For example, an : ' wr results. In addition OSHA cautions that incurable cancer which is usually fatal . estimated total cancer risk of205 excess ' ' ' ' ..... 'i. deaths per 1000workers exists for v cpldealologlcafly linked to asbeatoa . . ............................ _ "on -exposure, and occurs very rarely. If at ti&r'the frontiers ofadencer they ahould be ell in persons neverexposed to ulimol flnwmitwH>ww r>T tK Am*u as*bes`tos, A.sb.e.sto.slt, a t.y.pe of A-q&eftiifc faced by asbestos-exposed . ^pulmonary fibrosis. It usually non- workers and not as precise fixed '-A tamsible. it* advanced stages are * a; a predictions of the numberof workers -X disabling, and can be fatal OSHA workers exposed for a 45-year lifetime -v at IQ f/cc, a level which currently exists cm tome construction sites. At 5 f/cc. the ^-exposure levels which are considered ^ average In shipbuilding and repair, the "-3* risk ofdeveloping asbestos-related ;v cancer for a 45-year exposure period is V who will actually develop disease. i ^.conclude* that al) these diseetes are \V143 excess deaths per 1000 workers. At OSHA baa evaluated the kinds of vary serious, and that tha excess tha current permissible level of2 f/cc ^^.dangers presented by asbestos mortality horn aoch severe diseases *! sriiich also represents actual exposure .f * .^exposure, the quantification of those must ba considered an Important factor . levels in such industries as secondary * ^dangers under present asbestos ., ^exposure conditions, the quality of the 1 v, data on which risk estimates are based. comparison ofasbestos risks to other occupational risks, end relevant policy '; v^'nd legal considerations in concluding ,* '%- that workers are exposed to grave endanger from asbestos. ' .. ; 1. NatureofOne Disease*. As stated ;above, the ireture ofthe disease . '. ^>assodated with exposure to a toxic ' * ' ' v aubatance Is one ofthe most important V;^^v-f''.nodcDc.wqcvwuraoeoauaom2moltnrrancre.rirdkagouneekDreimeukelstrtaeiirirptslrocisongatsnoincaourtguaaneiuslsvnnatrdeemiepesDodgisonronuaeeitrisgfim.alnxrfmReactpeavatoaaiuioxlessvyrtrlsteekeeidsrelee,syvtoaendsOneooxtnfwt(lDoSpnfsEgecohfHetaexxasrihvp.ctriAuns6etowhrkc4blrseodhee-au.fs3peaisrsrc0irecruenhi2iselvdg't)kds.eitdoabs- tyfa.:.-..`..v.'-i?^,^-/-r/egfptepcyaashaeaeebptbaTsailrrpucmrikhp1roiriuceselo0eaddlat,sa0prst.witiee0tnroiainihodwrgadnginitsacadsoosokhn*pfrpsaf6deOkaocrrxtleeepriSrnpeemmeidHotxffraoefoacspAondneuirrnarnbstoraesevsegdi4ahexflucbio5aeersacryr-mvhatanyswehoktcliasnpiraeehgtnaasrerUihcdd,ectnhirweakxmeispaindhnjtkoo.aghtTstoinshsbu2ear9er ' w-"* elements OSHA evaluates in /y^. determining whether a grave danger Allhcwgh122 ff//cccc 1Ustth' e cunrnl P'EL for Ant^poU.Ktu.lnn.nn * .ppmclm.tc ' %>'j^cb*enred: * /.;^^xkt*.TWsfactorwasdiscusedin - co.nditions var-y widel'y, m.oatly bv . ^/^fforidaPe^CnmersA^ociotitn/ac. ftoduriiy segment Aa explained later la i'/ir UnitedStates DepartmentofLabor. fids document and as set forth inTable ; > - mapra. The court, to overruling OSHA'a ^ t average ambient exposure levels in .^rAr^Ssnophosphate pesticide ETS. - various Industries include hitfi exposure tevelssuchasZOf/ccindrywall . workers receive 20 years of exposure. Counterpart riak . calculations using a 20-yearexposure period are: for workers exposed to IQ f/ , t40 excesscancer deaths per 1000 wotkera; forexposures to 5 f/cc, tQS ' /J V* We rr}fct any ttggntioa that deaths mutt ^ -x.4 occur before health and safety standards may be adopted. Nevertheless, the dangerof / mcurobJe.permanent, orfatalconsequences removal renovation and demolition: 5 / excess cancer deaths per 1000 workers f/cc to shipbuilding and repair; mid : and for exposures to 2 f/cc, 44 excess range exposure levels such at 2 f/cc to , cancer deaths per 1000 workers. secondary fabricatingof cement sheet '* OSHA also estimated risks of to workers, as opposedto cosilycrnabfe and packing and gaskets and paper products ` developing cancer for a on* year period V ^fleetingeffect*on theirhealth, become* and rebuilding and refacing brakes; 1 of exposures! various levels to which ` '*' important tn theconsfderairon of(be - f/cc for dry processing of textiles: and T. employee* are exposed.The counterpart ' necessityfoeemergency measures tofacet a ' "'"'i-danger 419F2nd at 132|eaphaals x laonwde0r2exf)proastuorethle/mvealsnusufacchtausreOoAfff/lcocor.'' tyiaekasraforer:eIxSpaoxsucareiss ctoanIDcefr/cdceafothrsopneer / ^ added) ' me. *; 1000 workers: to ft f/cc, 7 excess cancer - ^ ^ OSHA is aware of no instances in Because OSHA Is required to considerdeaths per 1000 workers and to 2 f/cc, 3 v.V.vc which exposure to a toxic substance has the actual danger faced by workers to ;> excess cancer deaths per10DO workers. ' ; 2?; 'more dearly demonstrated detrimental * assessing whether exposure Id a >s' - Even at current workplace exposure - health effects on humans than has , substancepresents e "grave danger**, level*which are Ins than the current /V^aabestos axjtoture. The diseases caused OSHA looked at tire risk ofdeveloping ' PEL. extraordinarily high risks of ' xC- by asbestos exposures are in Urge part disease not only at the 2 f/cc ' t's> eHsease exist At 0.5 f/cc. 17 excess > ^'life-threatening or disabling. Among permissible level but at all exposure *' 4' cancer deaths per 1000 workers are V1*SA0IIID C047>XO)-NOV-#y-l4i2:33) .- - . ` `- ^ Vd. 48. Wft 215 t Frid,y. November 4,1963 / Rule, and Itegiiltlton, 6109) mptnlor, (with protUoo fctor IV. Occopxtkvu! Ifufth Del. ... I'Jttralllv.hunlenddanotuetntci '' excantlng 10) rnial be worn drop, bora :.-.20f/cc|10UmetlhefonnerPl.ol2f/ *' <x)loSf/cetl0tlijUjeoewPELota5 t.AtoatanehtKUUtauet. - .. aldrictloQ U ,Iw cncmwmly found In ^ f/cc). "Therefore OSHA believe, th.1 fbbMtraeiipoKffeuncmea number ..penotn who have been exputd to . '.V, raor.woritcr. wll) wnt man prolectlwi -na^rtlor,nad th, ETS tb,D tinder . ; the corrent pennMenl rtdtUrA tht _ their ectetl expotur, teret. Mill be ^Rdocediobetowasf/ceand ' ,: >eoeqoent!> llul Ibelrrida will be ' ' '/ reduced ma more then (be ulcuUtion* rfdiubUngid fiUl dlwuei. Amoef - bMto>(Cr!*hc^lt!t^,lB2:E!t.MtbeudiM,w,r, funs cancer, cucttof nr)) fremerolheU.! lining ofthe pitar, id ..A*eo,UI,ptdn)coyflbnl, jKHowtaMdwbeftraJuihAo .ewMdbyftteccumifiUonofertieilOi tl*1`01 r bet, fnth, bmp. Adven, effect, of g.*H^.nt?^l.?.nc*?".9t*11.thf. . - ubnlial, mtf,bora ahortneuof 4 hwith upon tuition to ejuno,!^ 1 Iodic,le. . . - b,llh-r-t-i-k-t-o-e-A--m--e--ri-c-a--.-ib- jntlltox, . ' .. .foQan,c<rdl,ccUai(sinulkm.,nd *"'*:*- OSHA find, ,Ho tint requiring e - v v'MrlnlngpfojnKnlobeln,Utatedi .;';.q!tiIyempoIblBl,M>eof Uieroort -i. iysenecUvemeftodjofnjradBltiojlla ".^-'ribenencttl Input of the txpoiare - -.jj^ftedoeBoo end ofell the protective Z ^ provliioni ofthe cmrwit ilendud. Thta. -- ';s .the cootut of tU, ETS h bero clion .wraian. brag amorhu bent tetponilbleforoverluffofthe ncew nrart.IIly from eibeitMexpoure In , ob occupation,)cohorts The reUilonthlp betwm loss uncr nd ubnto, axpomro tu butt Mtabltefwd by mmwrota mfdnn _ Modin of dhiMHiroiipw AtbnUa- fy. dntb. Oftro. ubntoil, i, a prognulvt v;.<BmM.eronfnthaatenc*of ccetlniad ntporora, Bymplom, of dlM,Mut dtortnu, of brulb. cot^i, '> fallfn., end vijw fcallm, ofalchwu. Whin tha flbrotl, wotMta, ihoitnn, of fcmth occur, mn at imLC -i.-' - the tno.1 effective ihorl-term ,ti |089 lily face. , lalculaUon* fable 11 to ' bflhto : [ted excess liorescf pr*. Risks c dotely e risks for Lgh average Renovation Table ' Id exposure V* , :iP faith*risks - e upationa) . In ~ pfl5 excess sfor ' . , I ilfetlma ptly exists |Sf/cc.tb* lsidered pair, the , tried beriodft Iker*. At . 12 f/cc "* kposure * bndary , king f l f, risk ts ' leaths |xposur when * ft to 20 knottier fn.Tbe < ate , bsure lo 10 f/ liooo 105 "brker* cess Brnign!. except that the Secretary euty Subgranlec* means an entity Bumagins a weilherizatlon project /5-A04U2 * OOSitOiKOj-NOV-W-IMJ^O) rnn **. nu*s . . Vcuthcrization Project" means a -.4 project conducted tn a single t geographical area which tmdartakes to, 8_1_0_90___F_e_d_er_a_l K_a_g_is_te_r _/_Vol 40, No, 215 / Friday, November 4, 1083 / Rules and Regulations ^ & predicted for a 45-yearlifetime * ^^anhestos were compared to those to -.1 hazard, where the data are considered VtV, exposure, and 11 excess cancerdeada fcontrorgroups not exposed to ;; / both available and reliable. v* per 1000 workers fora 20-year exposure /asbestos or to those ofgenera! `` The risk ofexcess mortality estimated ^period. ' - r ..///popolsUons such as US. males. Studies . at a result ofexposure to esbestos at tbe V OSKA notes that the above `*7*y ofsuch design art able to provide direct {condition* to the workplace today /-.acalculation* are for cancer risk only, la /ostimates ofexcess risk. '' appears to be substantially higher than '* ^addition, asbestoa^xposed workers face =The studies used by OSHA to deriving other riika experienced by workers from /: jj' a "(Ug*h ri`s`k o*fd`eve`lop`ing aibestos-ls, a ^riose-rtsponsarelsttonshlpsforltsrisk : occupational injury hazards. The -i disabling and often fatal disease. ' ^.assessmentcoveredavaristyofwork ' National Safety Council (NSC) his . r*> Predictions concerning the estimated situation* and industrial processes. Ibis , reported the annual death rates to 1081 ./^magnitude of tha asbestos)* risk have ' '> variety Improves the predictive value of ' from work accidents to a variety of / been performed by OSHA and are tot risk assessment beesuse (t lessens - industries (Ex. 64-339). Using the NSC ^discussed in tbe risk assessment section * or eliminates the possibility that the < data OSHA baa reviewed toe annus) & nT this document. Accordingly. OSHA : t resultt were unique to any one vmortality from work accidents per 1000 estimates that at 2 f/cc, SO worker* per -r.^occupational situation or wen in fact workers to several Industries to lijtot of ' ^/rlO"OOexpose`d'to as*bes`tos 'for 4"5" year* \ aberraUonalTh# occupational setting* 'tha excess cancer mortality from a $ tail! develop disabling asbestos!*. At 05 studied were: workers exposed at a single year ofexposure to asbestos par ' * 'vf f/cc for 4S years. It (s estimated that 12 chrysolite textile plant from 1030-1075 / 1000writers. For example, in the high - ./-workers per 1000 will develop disabling (Dement el c/. Ex*. 64-035 and 84-037); ' risk occupations ofagriculture and /flashestoils. Asbettotlt risks can also be ' Canadian workers at an asbestos V Bdnlng-qoaiTytag. the annual mortality 's ^-ettimsledforexpoiuresfofdursthms . cement facility (Ftoielstain Ex. 64-240); rates from work accidents were 0.54 and shorter than 45 years. For example, toe ^.Italian chiysoUla miners and millers . <155 per tOOQ workers respectively in * .0< T*tak ovjf dwisMaubiliungs aiubtiatious>il* firwomu who worked daring 1030-1965 {Rubino '' 1981 (Ex. 84-330). In contrast, the death exposure to 10 f/cc for 226 years to 12 -J f ol Ex. 84-68); workers In an asbestos rate from work accidents for el) 'ceases per 1000 worker*. OSHA** //.cement pipe plant (Weill Hat. Ex. ^ industries combined was 0.12 per2000 ~`";Aestimates of the magnitude of the -vc206); workers to an asbestos production worker* to 2981. c aibestosls risk are based on sound data . plant and asbestos cement (ripe factory OSHA has estimated toat toe lifetime /. v* from good epidemiological studies. , v- (Henderson and Enteriine Ex. M-4Sh risk forone year ofexposure to 2 f/cc of OSHA believes, however, that the ^ British workers manufacturing asbestos asbestos is about 3 excess cancer deaths f?,? confidence which can be placed to textile products (Pelo Ex. 84-2fidh per 1000 exposed worker* during the predictions ofasbestotls risk Is not as asbestos miners and millers to Qutbea ' remainderoftha workers'lifetlraes (Ex. , treat as for the predictions ofcancer /...Canada (Liddell otet. Ex. 64-59): and to 4-349). Thus, asbestos wotkert* risk of y risk. This is because tbe cancer risk ^estimates are based on a larger and theThetford Mines,Canada (Nicholson excess cancer mortality from a single *;- oJal Ex. 84*72): and workers '; ; year ofexposure to 2 f/cc U roughly S more varied data base and are derived manufacturing asbestos friction I - times higher thin toe risk ofaccidental )./v from dose^xtrepolaUon models that are tnaterisls (Barry and Newhousa Ex. 84> -1occupational fatalities from one year ol v' ;v/ belterestablished Because OSHA has 21 . . employment to agriculture and mining* , /-^determined that the risks forcancer - "Well-conducted epidemiologic ~ quarrying. , alone indicate a grave danger, toe ' studies tout show a positive association As shown to Table 2, OSHA estimate* ;-V `- additional risks of devetoping aibestosls between en agent and a disease are . . tout many worker* are exposed to : -/re not necessary to justify this ETS. - *accepled as the most convincing / asbestos to the vidnity of2 f/cc. In ..^However, OSHA has considered that ^vfdence about human Hsk** (fUsk * addition, OSHA calculsted the avenge ... tot additional and Independent risk cf ;.^Assessment to toe Federal Government: ; excess cancer risk to worker* exposed VXdeveloping aibestosls increases the - ^ Managing the Process. Nations) at conditions toat exist In the workplace ,r danger faced by exposed worker* and fleseanto Council 1063. p. 21. Ex. 84- - ; lodsy (for those above <X5 f/cc and using ' underscores the gravity cS the health `322), -the scenario described In Table 3). ' ^threats to employrespceed by asbestos. ' No extrapolation from animal data to OSHA estimates that 10 excess cancer /-) % QualityofDataon Which Riik v human data is necessary to order to deaths will occur per 1000 workers fori . <4 fisf/motee ore Based Tbe underlying ^show cardnogenicityoTasbestos. For year exposure; tous the average risk to ' data upon which the quanlllatlveritk / most substances. OSHA must Infer workers (exposed above 05 f/cc) in the ^^assessmemeforaibestosare based are human health effects, such as workpiece today la epproximatsly 20 .. Ihigh quality epidemiologic studies. > 4 >. conducted in occupstionsl *->! ^environments. OSHA emphstlm that ,? ?-the data bases for asbestos are of '.carcinogenicity, from animal data. ,-; /t rimes the annual fatal accident rates to / The results ofthis risk assessment . agriculture and rnfritog-quarrying. .1 performed by OSHA agree well with ' These comparisons are striking. They '/, other recent risk assessments performed w that the estimated risk ofdying or / ^'||tmusua! quality and size. Unlike most potential occupational carcinogens, asbestos has been studied often and . '/^thoroughly for evaluation ofUs ejects - ,-;?/^oh occupational populations. - ; .by other governments! and outside ; cancer from asbestos exposure at levels cacientiiis (ses Achescn and Gardner) - ? existing at the workplace today far ' (Ex. 64-215 end 84-243): EPA (Ex. 84 exceeds the acddental death rate to the . *.160); Kang and Chu (Ex. M-OOlh Selikoff riskiest of industries.Although the ; ^of al (54-002); and CHAP(Ex. 84-256). estimated mortality rates for cancer due .*'2*>* hi deriving these quantitative . ' 4. ComparativeAnalytic Insight Into * to asbestos exposure are not completely ./.^estimates for cancer risk. OSHA utilized the magnitude ofthe risk associated /comparable to the total actual `-V&eleven studies for tbe calculation of tha with asbestos exposure can be gained -/ accidental fatalities, the review ts -//V.^huqf cancer risk, four ofwhich were also * by reviewing other occupational risks. 'dearly useful In showing that the ; vsed to calculate the mesothelioma risk. . OSHA believes it Is instructive to ; /-magnitude of too asbestos risk is grave. investigations Involved "cohort** studies compare asbestos risks with other ; :. One example of predicted cancer risk '/-` where tbe frequencies ofvarious types /I woikplaco hazards agreed on as as a result of occupational exposure Is /X*.fcancers to worker* exposed to v presenting an unusually high degree of the following cancer risk estimated from V/ S-AOIIIO . j0lWXQl-NtlV-3-|4*22:>7 '> * -rnn me. as-uai .- . * . 81100 feim1 Weghtot / Vol. 4B. No. 215 / Friday. November 4, 1883 / Rule, and Begul.llom .:4SHnenl*<d.lB83){Eii!ilb>8-4IXM- (otelNIOSH/OSHAArimlnWoik ' - oxlnpobllon mode), ra valid 169. M-02tt 84-037). In,ul.Uon work /-.Croup .toted Hurt Ultra wu no Iwel a! * (ndlnton of th, ubieties of J*nItlcnt (SeKkorrel ,U 1870} [Exhibit &4-OQO), emxnui. to wblo.below which - heidlhrbki. -% ^ilpbolldin* (Selikottet L 107B; Biol ti idinkad effect* did net occur end Expoiiu, del, freqoenlly are nal 1880;T^non el L. 1S60) (Exhlbll. incaameiRMal'ELoTainberaper utbbbforwoiktnupowdbefora . '.iig M-OBt, M-10S. 64-162). ,nd In a nitty .: cable antlmettr (0.1 f/cc}. bared on th, tU7a Wh hllloticl exporol, d.l, ' .f' ii ofMberto. prodticli rrumif.rtttring ... ItelUtlom olcurrant lediiwIo^M of : an ralUbb, ths dita ofltn hive *uch - '^^vindiatriei tine, rt ,1.1C8D; Hrodenon - roecrin..lr concentration, ot . - : fimlutlos, u tuvin, be*n collecled and ,y}.*>` rod Enlerlita. 1CT; Mrjkxnld ,nd - ^lettiM. Tbe 1879 nport o(th, . * aiufyzed wIor fadnltUl hy,len K'-'McDon,ld.lB7a:8eldm.ne1UlB79: --."/AdvUoiy Cornelltte of end ,r tocSmlqo.* no longtr to tbe orhdrlng ;-'fj: HoUmootL 1B79; Acheron.1 ri. ->/8tfelyCom!!dirimofl)Un]ted / btrocoOKlidlninljrMebareuoHht ' :A-- 61)(Ej*1Wu 64-1*8.84-OM. *4-154, lanfiom. hereeturreferradto in th! < ! wmkiltooe bavin* bun collroled oo 64-067. R4-OB2.44-103). i wetion ailhellJC Commit[M,Wd to the onlyafneocciUoiu.11ienfom.of It .Hould bo noted Bill Sllbcrri per v/'rtducUooof th. BHIUh lpdrd for cectMlty, eillnule. ofdo-mpone ' / --J; cable eenllmtler. which U lb, cmrent 'VMbeilo, lo 1 f/ce forchrytetlle, OB f/cc bawd on epldemlolojlctodlM win - OSHA .Undird, U equl*linl to 2 /./l lo, vsoilt*. ud 1U f/ce forerocldoltte., fcava a blrlybroad rants ofuncertainly. . fiber, percoble jneler oflr. ' ir/ - CnrranUy, il ppeer lhl tb Unlled : OSHA total examine the bwl arelbbb -V;4Becra*hnmB$lm!lbefnbmit* " ^/KbigdoiDnujr town Ow PEL for . dal, on upotuit-mpoiu*to niv* at a cable rotltrof,lr eiy hour, d^xmdto, :/cbryiotU.to(LE. ' ' dabtmliullon ofdfimlaace ofriik. .-.j on phyikel nertlon. tb. entrant OSHA V - r PEL for etbeilo, .How. worker, to Evaluation ofKkk. OSHA', flrl - duplls Inhttenl and teeelbbb In eulyUa of riik of dlwu, from Mub Z million ubnlo, fiber, ptrbottr' ------------------------------ -------------1--------- W"a ; provilla ^ Officer i taking Inti S*A04H2 | .'few r.l V .: occupation , radiation.1 fatality raf themaxln; exposure i *to 17 to 291 ontheBioH ;.Vv-i*RadlBllon C V .; FRI902).I '\/'*iandflrdi f . require thsl : totoelowefl / achievable! t-// ALARAp `/percent ofr '/ji-axposure* id * /^maximumpi ./ w>V cancer deatl level ara1.7l > >Vxpo$ed47jT 45 years ti ' OSHA to real " '// deaths per id ;*' at ageZSIExJ calculation fl ' ';?** cancer risk tq conditions thi / today (for thej ;^'j%yearexpoiun //deaths perlOL ' calculated byl 'v cancer deathtl /' to existing c > those workers, . - GS f/cc of atb ^ . cumber ofwo ; 'greaterthanO .; :/iogol " ' - Therefore. tL ' /f/cc for aabestj more than tr v^;;taxlmump : . V risk and about I *. * 'k; estimated canq r .4 rite workers ex ,.v,v-iiUngconditfl . y-i*excess cancer rl . rimes higher! placed by 05 perq /!/exposed to radq asbestosis furth ;>;>-*ignificance of (3 ` - exposure. ^/AtG5f/cc,< excess cancer d /.workers exp / approximately 7] 4?, cancer risk faci , workers exp v/-//Cnd* that these d . 'sX ttrongly supportJ /workers exposed* - /-vaboveO& f/cc aril )7: significant risk mm ; of dying from can - 5. Conclusion. < : \ /'I^grave danger" ul . and policy coneid SWI m MUu ->->?.cardmiyei)eil,auiua ,:" // tnnifoitulion of Ian 1 _cell, inamei with d ' lot.1 dote. Expomre / "fi. each a Iraiufnrroalk ' '1' awy ,kl (he develop, here Dole,ued the d aomehutaoce^uilnii , -> uporora nay overall eolficbnl hi produce r -'"4 ;' tbk. For this nnon, a _ apldeinlolatfibomlte ? 'upoiure to a catdmr . -v aairtillly In relation t -vmrooaura. fa addition locamul ' '%' inlcntitya!axpoiu " ?' la relillon Id dlnai " mpojure b often ad lated It the _ Niger muy determine, after taking k5 account the amount of fund* ________ ppnenilon meet* i . p irhllont Office Manager has reserved requirement* of this part fund* pursuant to paragraph (b) of this (Approved by die Office of Management and . tedlon. the Opwatlooa Office Manager - Budget underControl Number IBM-0027) ' S-AUIU '0027(01KOA-NOV-W-15.13:44) ri tn. wi: ; Federal Register / Vol. 4ft. No. 215 / FWday, November 4, 1003 / Rulesand Regulations___S1091 ^ occupathmat exposure to Ionizing '>>detennlntk that the magnitude of the promulgation of an ETS setting a 05 f/cc - radiation. Tfra estimated excess cancer' tetbrnatedrisk to exposed workers is \y PEL may avoid 5725 cancerdeaths vr fatality rata from 47years ofexposure to ^alarmingly high constitutes the major V assuming 20yea exposure to asbestos the maximum permissible occupational ,* component of tha^grava danger** 'v. ofdm current workforce at current v < * ? exposure to ionizing radiation (Sremi) fhodlng.lira overaUextraordinary ' / eonditkms and 7W5 cancer deaths ."-4-ltt7to28per1000woikere(CommUtea -^degree ofrisk, the extent that very high - 'assumingiSyeartexpoiurc. - ,* /. on the Biological Effect* of Ionizing -V risk ts found in many asbestos using ; ' OSHA is aware, of course, that Radiation (BEIR) IB predictions, tee 48 Vr Industries, and Ibt unusually high -v Section <Kc) of the Act limits the ' ' {;> H11902). However* most radiation .;fe:<xuallty of the data utilized to make effective time ofan ETS to 6 months, . - "atandards (unlike OSHA standards) three assessments present a very strong ^ and OSHA concludes that a grave - . >>;/ require that exposure limits be reduced ,-rf evidentiary basis for a "grave danger** danger exists and an ETS is necessary " :";^to the lowftst level reasonably --v finding, fust as importantly, the unique . even ifOSHA focuses exclusively on ' ^ achievable below the exposure limit (the 1 gravity ofBibestoa-caused diseases, in . this six month period. However, tha ALARA principle). Approximately OS .' particular cancer, such as mesothelioma - *,* percent ofradiation workers have ** which is linked almost exclusively to */. exposures leu than one-tenth tha - - asbestos exposure, strongly supports . ' maximum permitted limit The excess " * CSHA'a finding ofgrave danger. Also ' V^/CBncerdesthf atoRS'tenthtbepennUled - OSHA's comparison of the risk of v }. yf level ore 1.7 to 2J0 per1000workers ' .rvshefto**related disesss to other v V; t-v'vi exposed47yers. Asbestos exposures ' ^industrial risks underscores the .. ; ^t&of45yeato2f/ccarepredictedtv ^extraordinarily high rik estimated Tor ., OSHA to result in 64 excess cancer $* *bwtos exposure. OSHA has also . /: .'^deatlu per1000 workers beginning work footed tha ctmctms of workers about , : ;*&*! age 25 (Ex. 64-392). OSHA's ^current workplace conditions and tha TVA'-.rcalculatkm for the average excess . '\^**umwrou ptUtions for an BIS from `/'^cancer risk to worker exposed at v^stmionMpresentbgmsnyexpostd > : '^coculMofta that exist to the workplace .HWtwkera. Finally OSHA has reUedon its Agency believes it Is appropriate to calculate benefits deriving from an ETS using lifetime risks from 20 and 45 years ofexposure to the PEL of05 f/cc . established by the ETS. Although the ETS expires within 6 months. Section ftfc) requires that rulemaking on a ' permanent standard alto be completed within 6 months, so that there will ba no gap in protection for exposed employees. In OSHA'sexperience and Judgment, complying with this statutory directive and completing rulemaking for . >2 \ ^-'today (for those above 05 f/cc) for a 45*.' experisnea to evaluating and regulating . a permanent atanaard within 6 months `V^jfesr exposure. Is 196 excess cancer > *w*pl hazards in recognizing tbs of an ETS has and can ba done. - / ^deaths per 1000 workers. This figure was ' xtraordinarydegree ofrisk currently - OSHA also believes, based on Its ' .'^^ealculated by taking the number of ^acedbybetos workers and In > experience, that it is very likely that the : cancer deaths estimated from exposure V *teimWng that auch risk constitutes PEL established after 6(b) rulemaking "*$ to existing conditions for 4S years for danger to those workers. - ; will be no higher than 05 f/cc. tba ETS . vth..o..s..e...w...o..r..k..e..r.sseexxppoosseeddttooggrreeaatteerrtthhaann ,B Needforan ETS . ' 'V limitTherefore. OSHA believes that the fLS f/ccof asbestos and dividing by the v:'>.vncnberoI workers exposed to asbestos ETS will result in a reduced lifetime -v- OSHA has determined that this ETS is workerexposures of05 f/cc orlower for ^greater than 05 f/cc (multiplied by ,;-nciooo). '^necessaiy to protect employees from : >** grave danger, the second prong of the 20 or 45 years, and dial die benefits derived from these exposure reductions . Therefore* tha excess cancer risk at 2 f/cc for asbestos workers Is estimated more than twice as high as the ."^maximum permitted radiation cancer ^v^UHsk and about 2S times hi^urrthan tha ` i vV^eslimaled cancerrisk of95 percent of r dts workersexposed to radiation. At ^ y'v^existing conditions, asbestos workers* * ' A; ^excess cancer rbkt are estimated to be t *5 times higher than the cancerrisk ' ' Act's test of OSHA's exercise of Us ETS ;.. authority(Section 6(c) of the Act). As Vexplained in detail the effect of this ETS \. is to uve many lives which would .! otherwise barest to asbeslos'ietated . - diisaee Ifcurrent working conditions ' ' ;:Wrenot changed. OSHA believes that employees can be adequately protected against diis grave dangeronly by issuing .- >an EfS.This is because noother Agency . -w.action and no other foreseeable event for these time periods are appropriately attributed to OSHA's promulgatlonof this emergency standard, a. Employee Exposuttt, To derive ' these estimates ofnumbers of fives saved. OSHA depended on Its knowledge of the following factors:(1) The employee exposure levels from die ambient asbestos air concentrations in the workplace; (2) the number of , !*>*&% leced by W percent of the workere f{y ^/^exposed to radiation. Tha risk of y* asbestosis further Increases the /*' rv \ . aignlHcance of the riak from asbestos exposure. *. - >. would result to sufficiently reduced asbestos exposures that would alleviate die grew danger. Further, the provisions of the ETS are tailored to effect the ,: necesury exposure reductions . , workers exposed at die various asbestos levels; (3) the duration of the exposure; and {4} the probability of the disease (or the risk) associated with the cumulativa exposure. '' T 'J1' At 05 f/cc, OSHA estimates that 17 .-4- expeditiously. ' *' - Employee exposure levels are '/T.%xcesscancerdeatbwiUoaxirinlOOO <, ' 1. Uvee Savedbytuumg anETS. ^ conventionally measured in terms oftha _ *workers exposed 45 yesrs. This risk is `v;<HA has estimated die number of % < ; number ofasbestos fibers that are 5 V-4 ^ approximately7 times hitler than the >deaths avoided as a result ofan ETS ; - microns or mere in length In one cubic cancer risk faced by 65 percent of the ><whidt would reduce the PEL to 05 f/cc centimeter ofair. f/cc. fn these terms, an * v /<'. workers exposed to radiation. OSHA '" (seaTables 2 and 3). For cancer only. ambient concentration may teem to be a '. finds that these comparative risks * based on continuing exposures under small amount ofasbestos. However. In strongly su^ort OSHA's finding that currently existing conditions for 6 physical tarms, 20 f/cc equsls 2.000.000 ^arorkersexposedtoairconcentratlons ;- months, the potential number oflives ' fiber* per cubic meter (f/m*). Humana `^.j.a..-b--o--v--e---0--5---f-/-c--c--a--r-e---fa---r-a--b--o--v-e---t-h--e-p--o--in--t--o--f saved it estimated as approximately ' inhale about one cubic meter of air per ..yv^aignincan! risk and are at grave danger ; 210. Based on continuing exposures at hour, depending on degree of phyalcal . r;,w"-fdying from cancer, :i -- currently existing conditions for 1 year, . ' activity.Thus, at this concentration, a ~ *V' 5 Conchirtoti. OSHA** fimKr^t of n the potential number of lives saved is worker would Inhale roughly 16.000,000 y. >f;^grave danger** Is based on evidentiary .. estimated at approximately 426. Also. * fibers. 5 microns or more in length, over Vr'^^and policy conr[derations. OSHA's * OSHA has estimated that the . ; 1 an eight hour workday. r- S-AM1K> CCSVWXQ^NOV-*.'!'I422>40) Vrm rr >ni:*3 /jjiljjs Ttimi Reciter / Vol. 48. No. 215 / Friday, November 4. 1883 / Rule, and Rcgulillon, 51101 iinoa lh.1 th. riik of eonvnllnsmpcf tof/cchi.tmn eontict, of th, tmorit, wodem tnmlomulkia of target cell, to onco' . ' w|8ttd u tmngbig bom 1.-1 to , Emunubly. bmlly tontuct, lecclvn) '-Jtctl. Incmir with Incrum tn the -:.I dependlnj on th, Induthy .tudlmi by h thtiroxpantre to aibnto, fracn duit lot.! doM.EpourMrecrivri,fler *--. ttKJitutfKn*,ndChii.E*.e-l: : airitd hoin, on the wotker', dolhtng. -yweb , tr,rafofm.Uoo hti Ukwi pUc , Hnmdet^L Ex. 8*^77; McDoiulA pedlly dttrinj th, Unndering of duity ; Buy *td th, ifevtlopnwit ofcncw, btrt i UddtD, CIUm, Ejttm. and McOotufd, dotbM. Aboat * 10-fold tnenu, la oot crowd the cincn.Thni. la Ex. Fw mtmplB. tulrtg v previlrace ofplmtnil tWdtenlni I`?<ifJwxiliit>tw.n^iifloUlcuntiliUv, < carrmlon fKtot, of1:1 to ts, ' ' eoamtred to control, wm obfrf In ';T,y;'.pOTur, my ovnitit, th. etpomre. >/,.ijfndttopro(}uc,tncfMtdc,ixar M crmiUti*, pomi of20 opctyrt ' ; coold rtng, btxa 20f/cc-)rMn to lDOf/ fenlly contact* ofwodtr* with only oo, ytu ofexpomn wldtln tin unotlt, '> HiV. For tW teoa wmo . ,V coTnn. factory. , ^vopldwilolo^it.omit th, Ulw yit, of 11>BBHtlihOcctip<Ugn1H^tt)a E*tlm*ted,ibnto*npontr,kv,l,of * ,pwui,lo,Mfrinoytilntilymof , iortmllI>tnrUUontoearaiiUtlv, ' ; I'sVWtpoiUW. . ' - : fnddlttoiitoeBmti]th',po,ttr,. tntcniltyolmtpoiur, om b* ,xiilned - r*,,''>lnri!jllontoclliH.lnlall3rof . xpoOTt*oflonippto*ijntrdby*. ' V^'C^-lnurtlme-tnt^iMwnuHrrWA',). AtTV ltie OSHA PEL of2 flbiin ptr cabio V omtlartw (2 f/cc), tn >taa------- ' * jC '' SoeWjf CommlttM oo Asbnlo. , ' coodocMaMvdjrofdiat eonustnUoniannndtnrctiinnt ^ tn*thodidUitixtelB,lbo(itEx.84- OZ<].CoDrakf,ctonforiitalodcd xulbodi to canmtiitrihod*wtr,1:007, It Z3, vid 12, d.prodiatoa th, ; Uitoridcutbod. - Forubmtoji tunOy contact, ,nd community awrnotr, ob*ervd to b, at riiitof tubnto, nlaUd dlieiM bur, not bent port). OSHA eotuldrr, it tmy tlkaly tbit th. cnmd.tlv, *itpo*ur*ioflh* fUhr conttct* td community mnbn, nIra thin 100 f/co-ynn^ ' Saldmin - - --- - Sulssrquq StmnhallprepM whonhalfidentl If *^e productil .Stall which shall f ' rvm ooinm] wum Wtts-HDependlhs o v'juf*processp to Tsanoud . >/,,'.fiber* Wnthin 5 atcnL ' be inhiaei assuming ti r^osbestoiSberBaratesa ' OSHA antinuea to J V. ;-46r convenience but i ..^>fwmen3U estimates 1 .-rvconcenrailofts given! , *,ii\oo!y aj *ay of view ;.;:'<coocenraiIona and sL s evsluaxw without inti eantrq ri the units. I >" - OSHA ^edexistin A^astimate vmkerasb oach afieded industr ' Indudec'pvemment < iEx. 64-ec.and Ex. B*l -`HS studies remrted in thJ Health Hicurd Evalua| compliant* data (Ex. e reviewed informal > toeseifa '.980 Resean ' v*'V (TH) report `V <' Primary bisis for exp ` '7;:' becausa tre ATI estim^ K*OSHA to re the most c ';; ^ addition. FT> used a laJ ' ^X^riiffefent d^a sources tl .exposure situates, ind ' '/^V4irtmie*w. rdstlng doc -j'V^lodustrial Hifivne survq Using fiKSTl report a /jVttfrrenca, CSHA compa_ ,<.!'With other exposure infcl ' .^available breach t * * J-AWtto ::raxuxQl-NOV| -> rrw w*. wt:* . x-y 81102 rodoal Regl*let effort, bok jeeoattmu.^ 1 .'ndoaiibnloadnRtoulowl ' '''% poMtble. At tbt* tag: It I, Imp }i< lilt, definitely tbit dm .Und* budequate.becaotUaintrodd w Kent, and It b eoenU.l to L ' *' tntup, emtoeed to cw level. In] taprov, Um d,t nsxtuiy for, fomuletlan ofbetter jt*ndtd'| `' . ereo D. tOOl. - ' Rnl;eltln (Ex-bl-OM) tt , ' development ofcoaoenuble (a ,; v Mbeto*l emnnj Ont.rio ' cement ptoduclloc *wktt* In r > to cumulative expome. (f/ci .>'AD worker* In the xndy cm i*nt IS^reu, ofnyuti. I ''SUte^lch shall indicate projected \S-A0I1U 002WJ1KDJ-NOV-M3:U^) Vrat m. w-u i . ____ __ nmounuji comply substantially with the provisions funds. Federal and non-Federah of the Act or this part end should be expected to be applied to the program; - replaced, such finding shall bo treated Regulations ' 51091 lion of an ETS selling a 0.5 f/cc tuvoIdS72S cancer deaths . l2Oyeaexp0i*re!0aibestof . yenl workforce at current p and ms cancer deaths . " [45 years exposure. ' ".-v aware, ofcourse, thsi *' fc) of the Act limits the ' |me ofan ETS to 6 months. \ concludes that a grave ists and an ETS Is necessary DIA focuses exclusively on Inlb period. However, the ' . lieves It is appropriate to pneflts deriving from an ETS tne risks from 20 and 45 years Ho lh PEL of0.5 f/cc I by the ETS. Although the V within 6 months. Section s that rulemaking on * standard also be completed piths, so that there will be no . riion for exposed V n OSHA's experience and mplying with this statutory Il completing rulsmsltlng for standard within 0 months sand can be done. , o believes, based on Its hat ft is very likely that the bed after 6(b) rulemaking her than 0.5 f/cc. the ETS Ire. OSHA believes that the lit In a reduced lifetime lures of05 f/ccor tower for Tend that the benefits Ihese exposure reductions periodsere appropriately >5HA* promulgation of . f standard. . 5 Exposures. To derive |s ofnumbers of Uvea jjedontts wing factors: (!) * s levels from tbs Fconcentritkms is I (2) the number of fed at the various asbestos luration of the exposure: lability ofthe disease (or feted with the cumulative -' poture levels are v measured in terms of the blot fibers that are 5 J in length In one cubic r. f/cc. fn these terms, an ration may seem to be a I asbestos. However, tn B.O f/cc equals ZjOOOXXM neter (f/m*), Humans cubic meter of elr per an degree of physical 2 this concentration, a mis roughly lfUMUKD or more In length, over kday. . LUtloni' '' 51101 llt.worken. gonUct. received - tlo.rnmdu>t , worker', dolhfng. 1 Iiundnlng ol dotty UdlDcreueln | thickening ' |wuoiervedtn grllh only pt .motile rlevittof multy ; be.triikof ` ' tehtve not been dertilveryilkely Ipoturet ofthe Immunity inlOOf/coymn. ptl Htmmortd (ExUlllyofsa) , ken employed t<5. Seldnitn.lt' ' S1092 - Federal Reciter / Vol 48. No. 215 / Friday. November 4,1983 / Rules and Regulations `.v NobL--OependlT*on the industrial ' ;xampfe. specific reports wera found for emergency PEL Alternative exposure process, iq>(o TaUDOtunoadditional asbestos : asbestos cement manufacturing (Ex. M , distributions used for sensitivity . CberaleuthinScBieronstoleflgthRayafeo ..:;btfa4ultdaiumlnfthatSWoIalfboma . `i'ftfasbestos fibers are less than 5 micron*. r ./ '> 218). textile manufacturing (Ex. 64-267), removal of grayed asbeatos material from buildings (Ex. 64-262), and brake . analysis will be provided in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis. . OSHA believes that the exposure '' OSHA continues toeseths term. f/cc. .v* repair(Ext. 64-263.64-208). The estimates are relatively good, given the for convenience bul cautions that the ^Asbestos Information Association * atste ofthe art of worker exposure - , ;v*7umerical estimates o! air .* ' provided data concerning exposures estimation techniques and data ' ,n concentrations given in these terms are during field fabrication and installation . available today. OSHA Is not aware of - V<mty one way ofviewing asbestos . * trfasbestos cement pipe and sheet in , any other available current exposure - . ^^concentrations and should not be V ^controlled conditions (Ex. 84-205). The > V* evaluated without interpreting the * Environmental Sciences Laboratory (Ex. ^mining of the units, .x 64-002) also made best estimates of . OSHA used existing Information to workerexposure in various industries ~ r?*- estimate worker asbestos exposure in ' -/fneIB7S. . each affected industry. Data sources ;>-t\ included government contractor reports '/-%V (Ex. 64-C02 and Ex. 84-COO). various *1udJe reported hi theliterature. NtOSH . "V; Health Hazard Evaluations, and OSHA 5 compliance dits (Ex. 84-355). OSHA '' tC-reviewed the information, and decided to use the 1080 Research Triangle * fa addition. OSHA used its own Held ^Inspection experience to estimate exposures. OSHA reviewed selected . case filetand obtained information that bated OSHA asbestos measurements ,'during compliance inspections from 8/1/ ; 79 to 5/51/83 (Exs. 64-354.84-355). - estimates. ,,, Industrial hygiene reports of . operations In the same industry, but at , different work sites. Invariably report ~ different asbestos exposures among the workers. OSHA revitwed these reports and made decisions regarding typical industry practices. For some operations. - such as brake relining. several reports . were available with complete , descriptions of the working environment < and OSHA was able to use these to make direct exposure estimates. Other 'V:;tiwtitute(RT))report(Ex.84-O09)asthe ' OSHA adjusted the RTI estimate os . reports, such as "Removal of fre-fonned '% i P^ra,ry1,1,11 for exposure estimates because the ftn estimates appear to . .appropriate, based upon a qualitative v-fodgmenl as to which data best : '.'Asbestos Insulation'* (Ex. 64-206). ~. described careful processes for asbestos OSHA to be the most comprehensive. In represent existing exposure conditions. handling that did not appear , addition. RTI used a large number of < '>; OSHA* exposure estimates are based, , , representative of the methods used . yJL different data sources to make their ; tbersfere, upon a substantial data base ' throughout Industry, since the reported ` ^exposure estimates, including ' _ and upon considerable experience in -air concentrations were not consistent '. ..-asy*! Interviews, existingdocumentation, and ' enforcing the existing asbestos industrial hygiene surveys ofworksites. v,, v Using the RTI report s tha primary . ,, V* reference. OSHA compared RTI date f. level, In tMtii Induiby In cilcuisl. the .>vwith other exposuroinfonnation ' cumber oldralh. avoided by reducing ?>|*valUbfe foretch Industry. For ;t Hi. poire from current kveU to Ih. with other reports showing higher employee expoaur. to .riiettotlqr ' .induitrytegmenb , "MUKl COO. - - , r S-AUtlO . aJWMXOJ-SOV--Ua?:) VPM Mv. U " . ` 51102 Fod.nl Hegliltr / Vol 48, Nft. 2IS / Friday. November 4.1B83 / Rule. nd Regulellnn. Mdeiromriwuld be continued to ; bated upon tubtltnlltl medlctl i ` 1B41-10B7. Mortality waaobeerved "-reduce .tbetlm duit to u Iowa levri.. evidence of Mven dliablllty from the - " during the period 1341-1073. Cumulative ' potilble. At this tl.yt It la tmpoulbl. to dlteau. / axpoturet, exptetted in mllllont of -, - Mile definitely that the tUndjrd I. . Dement and colleague, conducted a ptrtldtt par cubic fool olilrllmet '' toidequtle, bec.ut.lt. Introduction to detailed atady ofplant procettea and yean axpoted (mpef-yean). arete ' i k> recent, and It taetwntlalto follow tap dntl control melhodt at a chryaotllt animated for each man included In tb* group* enxited to low Iml.In order to textll* plant during 1830-1B7S (Ex. M- * study cohort. Mean expoturea for 6 >: taprove the dele necetuiy for the 038.84-037L Expotura hliloriet were -' cumultUv* expoeure ettegorie* war. 62. ' ' fomulillon of better tltndtrdt" (Ex. M- contUncttd for atrii wotktr and . 020, p, 100). - - MtlnutMofIndlvtdual eumulativa lS2.3SZ.eOB,andB76mpcf-yeara. "s' - Hammtd et ah (Ex 64-277] auggeated ;, flnkelileta (Ex- M-OWJ tltldled the ' axpoturetintermtoff/ce-dayiwera b-a mpefto f/ceconvettlon factor of lriA ; '' development ofcoospenithlt (certllled) Bad(.AflerlP4aaxpoiur.hivab ' - fora cement plant Bacaute cemtnl and etbetlotlt among 157 Onl.rloubetto. trtutlly wwa tn the ttnge ofB-10 f/cc. : .r olhtrmlnen] partldn hurt been ' ^-b-'cemenl production woriien In rriathm Worker*wan categorized aencatving axleettvafynied In aibetlot product! ` -* to cumintUve enpotaret (f/ccyein). , axpoturet often thin 1000; lOOtMO.000; ' manufacturing, uring a convertkm factor d j . All workw. In the rtudy cohort Iwd.t . laooMaooo: toooo-ioatah end : of 1:1,4 doea not appear to be .i -W.iilSyttttof.tpottire.OntiHo ' treater than100000f/ccdayi. Btcaut* :; rmmtontbla forHtnderton and ` " crilerlt for certifying ttbtihwlt, whkh * Daman! at al tndudtd holldiyt and EntarUna'aatudy cohort Utlng a factor mull. In th. .w.nfofdlwblllty amekandsfntbalranimate* of f/cc- . - ofI.-14.62 mpa-ynn la roughly equal penilont. kb no! MetlM* and Involve '< daya. their aatbnata* ofcamulatore to 67 f/cc* Wyconilder.tlDnof.uriitoctor.a.bl-*-- " -- ... ......... .-......... .Tore, the choice of je uncertainties a midpoint unit risk forat) industriat , . _ qii.mJj/) ihu risk at this lime. The high quality and well* around this estimate OWC* are such that processes (KibDOI) Is a reasonabls and . an appropriate estimate ofKt could He Justified choice. . ' * wpporled estimates of excess Hah of mortality from lung cancer. > mesothelioma and asbeitosi* alone between 0003 and 040. . TTte best estimates of Ki and Km were - Tha estimates of K* given In Table 15 utilized to estimate the mortality from *' are derived from studies with four of the exposures to varying concentrations of * ' 'x pwWc sufficient bases upon which to ' five highest K* values. That is, there Is V". fuallfy this action. y some bias In examining the value of K* , asbestos for different time periods beginning at different ages. The . .//-* E*timotr*ofCancerMortality , *, * Independent of the Kt In the same calculations are age, Intensity and `f^Abeat eatimate of K,.wa calculated V studies because If is likely that these K* ' would tend to be slightly higher than 1' ** *i ofthe eleven epidemiologic & those derived from other studies, due to Judies and an estimate of KH was ;-; calculated from four of Ihmrsludies . . ** r:. the demonstrated high power of these studies lo detect risk. The arithmetic . 'tV (see Table S) [Ex. **-392). For each r mean or the KM**< 4.96x10-* and the ' V*!wty* the best estimate for Kt and K is . indicated along with a range of v tmcfrtointy. The ranges listed are those / '- aTe the result ofestimates ofexposure , i V uncertainties (usually a factor of 2), -->*methodological uncertainties that led to $ -alternate evaluations of risk or exposure geometric mean of the K* a is 2.9] x10`*. , To account for some of this Idas when * astimating K*. it is useful to examine the * ratio of Km to K(. For the four studies for if which Kw was calculated, the range of **' the ratios of Kk to Kt is only two-fold . Ifrom 0.75x10 * to 1.79x10 *). Both the duration specific.Tables tOandll show the excess asbestos-related mortality fates from lung cancer, mesothelioma. and gastrointestinal cancer , (gastrointestinal cancer excess is ' assumed to be 10 percent of the lung , cancer excess). In these calculations. Equation 1 and Equation 3 were used With values of Ki equal to OOt and K* equal to 1 x 10- and the 1977 US. male background lung cancer mortality rates. Because of age-specific increases in lung v cancer rates in older men since 1977. v:s-AMito . ia> '' _ l***l ,n. S>uu . " Federal Register / Vol. 4ft, Wo. 215 / Friday. November 4 1083 / Rules and Regulations 51139 respirators, and to assure that all such multiples o! the reduced PEL of05 f/cc. * Authority end Signature Vemployees participate in the program * rather than multiples of the previous 2 f/ This document was prepared under 'A-.' and are Informed of specified categories v--vcc p' ermis.si,ble limit. For exa. m:ple. -\ k the direction ofThoroeG. Auchter, -v.ol information. OSHA considers this r; jpproml ir purifying rnplf.lor. m.)r A..i.tnl Sectary of Ubor for ^ provision to be "necessary" within the -b.|arfn y1|tre..l,|w - Ocoip.llon.1 S.f,ly .nd Hnllh. US. . _>vmeaning of section 6{c) of the Act, to '** reducethe grave danger faced by ; ` DqMrtnwnl or Labor. 200 Corutltullon ' v asbestos exposed employees. The ftirsuant to Sections (Hbh 0{c). 6(c) and , X; absence ofa training program ` - > respirators could be used where . 6(g) of the Act 29 CFR 1010.1001 is '' requirement in the asbestos standard - has been pointed out as one of the f) ?. serious deficiencies of the current .^asbestos concentrations would not have ' :4 exceeded 20 f/cc (10 x the PEL of 2 f/cc). amended by adding a new paragraph |k) as set forth below. / Similarly, powered air purifying ;\i standard. OSHA believes that - respirators may be used where asbestos '/-..participation In an adequate training - concentrations do not exceed 100 times (Secs. 6(b). 6(c). 8(c) and 4(g). Pub. L 91-590.' aiStat 1503.1590.1509.1600c 29 U.&C.6S&. 657; Sec 107. Pub. t. 01-54.63 St!. 96 (40 .'/program is essential for the protection of the PEL. which at the new level ofOSf/ - US.C 333): 20 CFR Part 1911: Secretary of . 4 . employees because most protective axis50f/cc.fterlously,employers . * - Labor's OrderNo. 943 (4a FK 35736]) . -^. prtiviikmsenlUt the employee as on could have used such respirators at ; Kfnedat Waifclnft0aD.C.tW2nddyof active participant. For example, many concentrations op to 200 f/cc. ' November 1063. . r employees handling asbestos depend on ft is likely that the main Impact ofthe Thorne G. AudUst. . - ;' f effective work practices. Without ' **training in applying these work , . reduced PEL on mpiralor choice will be , AssistonlSttretaryoftabor. la operations and industries where . . '' practices, employee protection would be exposure levels are between S f/cc and > PACT 19MMAMENDED) ' ^Inadequate. Where the employee plays a 20 f/cc. Formerly, employees exposed in _ ____ }* more passive role in hit protection suc*h this range could use half-mask air Section19J0.100lofPsrt1910ofTitle ,' as where engineeringcontrols are relied purifying respirators: now they must be <29 of the Cods of Federal Regulations is ' ** on. training is also essential, because protected by a powered air purifying ? v* hereby amended by addinga new - : the ectpk^ee must know the sources of . respiratoror a full facepiece respirator, .y paragraph (k) reading at follows; :>*'*workplace asbestos contamination, and : ; r. the health hazards of asbestos exposure, > In order to assess his own exposure or they may trse a supplied air ~ v * respirator. . - &.&arvgraph(kt(6). Wamingsigns . . 'pitftaiOOt Asbsstoa. situation and to help recognize when . - during the ETS. The ETS requires that .^ /. engineering controls are no! operating legible signs warning of the health ' (k) finergenty temporary ttandord * effective November4 1883.--\\) Scope. .properly. Certainly where housekeeping hazards of asbestos be displayed at . ,i-This emergency temporary standard is /-'/ plays an important role in control. . locations where airborne concentrations issued pursuant to section 6(c) of the *; instruction about housekeeping . . r-` of asbestos fibers exceed the reduced . * Act and applies to all workplaces where Tv^ymelhods. forexample, frequent exposure limit of 03 f/cc. No specific t- > employees may be exposed to asbestos - ^ ' Vacuuming, is essential. Perhaps moat legend it required signs for newly > In all industries covered by the Act. ImporUnly. where employee protection . posted during the ETS OSHA wishes to ' including, general industry, construction depends upon respirator use. OSHA'* v make as practicable as possible the , ; j and maritime. Except to the extent rV experience Shows that training ' ^'employees In theuse. fitting and /,, rapid posting of signs, especially to ' workplaces where there has been ' ' ^srodifted ' '/standard by this emergency temporary all provisions of {1910.1001 / limitations ofrespirators Is critical to ? previous non-compUance and in areas '/.remain In effect - ,,j. the effectiveness of respirator * * whew asbestos concentrations were (2) Perm/ss/6/e levels ofexposure. . . protection. Accordingly this requirement formerly below the 2X) f/cc PEL. ^ " Tht B-hour Ume-waighted average ' ;* applies where ahbome concentrations - XL FobUc Partldpstioo * are reasonably expected to exceed 05 f/ . ' 'T * .T.aiTbomaconcenIratiDn of asbestos fibers towhich any employee may be cc, even ifemployees use respirators to interested persons are invited to .. -''exposed shall not exceed one-half (05) V V reduce breathing rone concentrations . '.vubmit written data, views and ' -fiber, longer than S micrometers, per Vand thereby comply with the ET& . . arguments with respect to the revisions cubic centlmeterof air, as determined r - As set forth in paragraph (k){4) the to the asbestos standard made by the ^ ' by the method prescribed in paragraph ` ^ employermust inform the employee of . y - the health effects of asbestos exposure: v the relationship between asbestos and .--smoking in producing lung cancer: the FIS These comments must be * (e) ofthis section. postmarked on or before January 3,1964 *\ (3) Methods ofcompliance nith the and sent to the Docket Officer. Docket ' emergencytemporarystandard. No. If-cmC, Occupational Safety A * Notwithstanding any other requirements . r iterations exposing employees to Health Administration. US. Department of this section, compliance with the v ,, ; wbe*tos fibers and necessary protective ofLabor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW - reducedcxpofnreflmUofOLSf/ccshaH , ; vsteps to minimize exposure: the purpose, Room S-6212. Washington. D.C 202ta be achieved^ any feasible ' proper use. fitting instructions and - V The data, views and arguments that . combination of engineering controls. sknUaUons ofmplrators. and the '' a ~ > are submitted will be available for ;: wwk practices, and personal protective . ' contents ofall the provisions of the public inspection and copying at the /.equipment and devices. . _ V-. Asbestos Standard at 1910.1001. . I ` above address. AH timely written * (4) Employee information and '' *' 5. Paragraph(hXSJRespiratory submissions will be made a part of the fno/n/qg.--{<) As soon as possible, but ; protection during the E7S. The ETS ^ .< record ofthe proceeding. *; not later thin thirty (30J days from the adds a new paragraph (k)(5) which t * - includes a table vrhldr ties respirator MirtofSubject* k 2tCFR Part 1H0 _<. effective date of this emergency / ' temporary standard, the employer ahatl 9dectiontothe05f/ccFEkUnderthe . k Occupational safety and health. , festituteatralnlngprogramforaU ETS. the concentralloQ cot-offs for Asbestos. Health, Emergency temporary employee*exposed to airborne variouskinds ofresptmlw* are , ;>'standard. Cancer. cooamtniUotisofasbestos In excess of . S-AOIItO fiW06XD3-NOV-l3-!423) `rvm.i nr. wtzai .