Document X7L33n61epM24YDkxZY88q7Gy

22708 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1986 / Rules and Regulations OSHA's existing asbestos standard. The negative-pressure enclosure that constitutes the second type of regulated area defined and required by the revised rule (paragraph (e)(6)) is intended to provide employees engaged in the most hazardous asbestos operations-- asbestos abatement projects--with the greatest possible amount of protection, and also to protect members of the public and other workers on site who are not directly involved in the abatement project from bystander exposure to asbestos. These two types of regulated areas thus reflect the revised standard's use of the "tiering" concept: Increasing regulatory stringency with increasing hazard. "Competent person" is a term and concept widely used and recognized in the construction field. The final rule's definition of a competent person as one who is capable of identifying existing asbestos hazards in the workplace and who has the authority to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate, them is consistent with the definition in 29 CFR 1926.32(f), OSHA's safety and health standards for the construction industry. Support for the use of competent persons to oversee the detection and management of asbestos health hazards Is documented amply in the record, and is discussed in the summary and explanation for paragraph (e) below. The terms "clean room," "decontamination area," "equipment room," and "high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter" are self-explanatory end refer to hygiene areas and equipment in standard use in major asbestos abatement work and in the construction industry. A more detailed discussion of HEPA filters may be found in the explanation and summary sections of this preamble that deal with engineering controls [paragraph (g)(1)] and respirators [paragraph (h)].- "Removal," "renovation," and "repair" are terms that refer to those high-exposure operations involving the taking out, modification, or overhauling of previously installed friable asbestos materials, structures, and substrates. OSHA's definitions of these terms . reflect the sense and substance of ' procedures published by the Environmental Protection Agency as guidelines for certain renovation and "ripout" operations that rely primarily on work practices and engineering controls to reduce occupational exposures. For the purposes of this section, the meanings of these terms parallel those used in 40 CFR 61.141, EPA'sNESHAP Standard. In a post-hearing brief, the BCTD submitted a recommended standard to regulate asbestos in the construction industry. The brief contained definitions The determination that a reduction in for a.large group of terms that the BCTD the PEL for construction is necessary is felt were necessary to explicate the based on record evidence that shows . scope and purposes of their document. that occupational exposure to asbestos Ten of these terms are used in OSHA's increases the risk of mortality from lung revised rule, although they may be cancer; mesothelioma, gastrointestinal defined somewhat differently than in the cancer, and possibly other types of BCTD document. For various reasons, cancer. Asbestos is also the only known OSHA did not find it necessary to etiologic agent associated with include the remaining terms in the asbestosis, a progressive, fibrosing lung revised standard. For example, five of disease. the terms recommended by the BCTD-- The evidence demonstrating the . "category A products or processes," causal relationship between asbestos "category B products or processes," exposure and these diseases consists of "category C products or processes." several well-designed epidemiological "certified employee," and "certifying studies conducted within many different agent"--are concerned with aspects of a industry sectors, and of in vivo product categorization system based on the ambient air level of asbestos released through the handling of various products. OSHA has chosen not to incorporate such a system in the revised standard, because of its administrative complexity. In addition, maintaining OSHA's traditional health standard format to the extent possible facilitates compliance because employers are familiar with this format. Several other definitions recommended by the BCTD have not been included in the revised rule, because they are not used, e.g.. "containment," "fiber-year," "friable!... asbestos," "phase contrast microscopy," "qualified person," and "transmission electron microscopy." The terms "qualitative fit-test" and "quantitative fit-teBt" are defined in the text of the revised standard (paragraph (h)(4)(ii), Respirator Fit Testing) and are therefore not separately.defined in paragraph (b). Several terms recommended by the BCTD for inclusion in the definitions section of the revised rule are used within the body of the standard but have been not separately defined because OSHA deemed them selfexplanatory: "installation," "initial personal samples," "respirator," "salvage," and "spill." The terms "asbestos job," "asbestos product or process," "asbestos project," and "asbestos-related work" are also not defined specifically in the revised standard. because they are not used in the regulatory text. Paragraph (c)--Permissible Exposure . Limit laboratory experiments in which animals exposed either by inhalation or injection developed increased incidences of cancer and scarring of the lung. (The health effects evidence summarized above is presented in Section IV of this preamble.) The reduction in the PEL is also based on OSHA's finding that a significant risk of material impairment exists at the existing PEL of 2.0 f/cc (TWA), and that reducing the PEL would substantially reduce that risk. OSHA has determined in its quantitative risk assessment (see Section V) that lifetime exposure to an. 6-hour TWA of 2.0 f/cc would result in 64 excess deaths due to cancer per 1,000 workers, and 50 cases of asbestosis per 1.000 workers, an excess risk that is clearly significant and unacceptable. By comparison, lowering the PEL to 0.2 f/cc would reduce the risk by about 80 percent to 7 excess cancer deaths per 1.000 workers and 5 cases of asbestosis per 1,000 workers. In the April notice, OSHA proposed reducing the PEL to one of two alternative PELs (6.5 or 0.2 f/cc TWA,). As explained in that notice, because risk is not eliminated at either of these two alternative PELs, "OSHA's primary consideration for setting a PEL is whether the limit chosen is technically and economtcally feasible for the affected industries" (49 FR 14122).. OSHA is basing its decision to reduce the PEL to 0.2 f/cc for the construction industry-on evidence that the 0.2 f/cc limit is the lowest limit that can be achieved by the use of engineering In the revised rule regulating asbestos controls and work practices, This exposure in the construction industry, Ending is based on'evidence discussed OSHA has amended the permissible in Section VII of this preamble exposure limit (PEL) by lowering the existing 2 f/cc PEL contained in 29 CFR (Technological Feasibility and Economic Impact Assessment), which indicates 1910.1001(b)(2). Paragraph (c) of the that many operations in construction revised standard sets an B-hour time- would have difficulty in consistently weighted average (TWA) limit of 0.2 f./ meeting a lower PEL without the use of cc. which is the same PEL established in respirators. Some of these operations' the revised standard for general include the cutting and lathing of.A/C industry. pipe and sheet, the installation of GLEASON-000956