Document XRxwvKL7LLGeD6nR9x7DRRVEx

FILE NAME: Flooring (FLR) DATE: 2003 May 7 DOC#: FLR031 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter from OSHA to Mr. Daniel Peders with Answers to Questions Concerning Aggressive Removal of AsbestosContaining Flooring Material VLS. Department pf Labot Occupational Safety & Health Adm inistration wwWtQsha.gov m M**yOSHA. Search Standard In te rp re ta tio n 05/07/2003 - Aggressive vs non-aggressive removal of asbestoscontaining flooring material; negative exposure assessment methods for direct and indirect employee exposures. Standard interpretations - Table of Contents Standard Number: 1926.1101 Hay 7. 2003 Hr. Daniel C Peders ' Environmental Project Manager Environmental Division Construction and Maintenance Management, nc. 3i7o independence Road., Station 86 Cleveland, OH 44105 D E P O S ITIO N EXHIBIT ^ (h ^ o u i aU " / * jt 3 f o o Dear Mr. -&eders; This is a final response to your September 23, 2002 letter Concerning aggressive removal of asbestos-containing flooring material. You ask some questions about the regulation of this process by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's '33SHA's) Construction Asbestos Standard, 29 CFR 192S..U01, This letter constitutes OSHA'slnterpretatlon only of the requirements discussed and may not be applicable- to any scenario or issue not delineated within your original correspondence. Yobr paraphrased issues are followed by our responses. Q uestion 1: Are "nonaggresslve" control methods preferred for removing flooring materials (tile, sheet, and mastics) that contain asbestos? Reply: Yes. * ?er 1926.li01(g)(8)(i)(G ), ''Tiles shall fee removed intact, unless the employer demonstrates that intact removal is not possible" * Per 1926.11O1(0)(8)(O(C), " Resilient sheeting shall be removed by cutting with wetting of the snip point and wetting during delamination. Rip-up of resilient sheet floor material is prohibited" ; and * Per l926,H 01 (g)(8)(i)(A ), the backing of flooring must not be sanded. Question 2: Are shotblasting, use of a mechanical chipping device, a mechanical rotating blade, or any method other than manual scraping all aggressive techniques for removing flooring materials? Reply: According to 1926.1101(b), ''Aggressive method means removal or disturbance of http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweh/owadisp.showdocument?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&pj... 10/4/2006 building materia* by sanding, abrading, grinding or other method that breaks, crumbles, or disintegrates intact ACM," Ail three of the specific methods you mentioned break, crumble, or disintegrate the flooring materials. As to some method other' than manual scraping for removing flooring materials, if the employer knows o f a method that does not break, crumble, or disintegrate the flooring materials, then that method would not be considered an aggressive method for removing the materials. Q uestion 3; When "aggressive" techniques are used even though "nonaggressive" methods are feasible, are the "aggressive" methods considered "alternative" work practices that are regulated by 1926.1l01{g)(8)(vi) as well as (g)i8)(i)(F)? Reply: The standard does not permit using aggressive techniques to remove asbestoscontaining flooring material if nonaggressive techniques are feasible. You may use an aggressive method oniy if it is the only feasible method. The aggressive methods processes are covered by I9 2 6 ,ii0 i(g )(8 )(v ij, Alternative work Practices and Controls. If mechanical chipping is the aggressive method used, then 1.926.1 i0 l(g )(8 )(i)(F ) and (g)(8){vi) apply. Mechanical chipping must be performed in a negative pressure enclosure which meets the. requirements o f 1926.110.1 (g)(5)(i}. A ssum ption; Procedures set forth at I9 2 6 .ll0 i(f}(2 )(iii> for producing a negative exposure assessment (NEA) may be used to provide employee exposure data required by 926.1101 to X S K v i), [Mote: You assume that those procedures - 1926.1101 (f)(2)(Hi) - could be used to demonstrate that, under conditions that closely resemble the conditions under which durrent or modified engineering and work practice controls are to be used, employee exposure w ill not exceed the permissible exposure lim its /PELS) under any anticipated circumstances.] ` Reply: The objective data described at 1926,1101 (f)(2 }(iii)(A ) is not relevant to the ! uanon; >t is meant to demonstrate that, the product or m aterial containing asbestos inerais or the activity Involving such product or material cannot release airborne fibers in ooncenbatlons exceeding either PEl under those work conditions having the greatest potential >or releasing asbestos. T h e l9 2 6 .li0 1 (g )(8 ;(vl) requirements are what cover your <?xarnpie` The data collected pursuant to l9 2 6 .U 0 i(g }(8 )(v i) is meant to aoiisn that the different or modified engineering and work practice controls to be used will keep employee exposures below the asbestos PELS. T 9 2 6 .1 i0 i(f)(2 )(iii)(6 ) sets forth the criteria that prior employee exposure wtoring data for specific asbestos jobs must meet in order to demonstrate that employee m/vuU Wl- k iJe,0W the asbestos PHi.s in current jobs, in a case where the different or u nea engineering arid work practice controls to be used in a current job are the same as i f b'. ^ sa Vu 8re correct that, If the monitoring data meet the criteria set forth at a i ^ empiYer maY use the data from the previous job for demonstrating r ir f ' f yee exp0sures tn tfie current job will not exceed the PELS for that previous Job's However< employer must also determine that employee exposure will not exceed the PEU under any anticipated circumstances. Before different or modified engineering and work practice controls are used, the employer must have a competent person evaluate the work area, the projected work practices, and the engineering controls, and certify in writing that the different or modified controls are adequate to reduce direct and indirect employee exposure to at or below the PELS under all expected conditions per i9 2 6 .U 0 l(g )(8 )(v i)(B }, The monitoring strategy set out at i9 2 6 .n ci(f)(2 )(iH )(C ) is the appropriate way to verify that, the competent person was http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_tablessINTERPRETATIONS&p_i... 10/4/2006 corvee. Q uestion 4: what are the meanings of the terms "direct employee" and "indirect employee" in 1926.1101(g)(6) (vOiB), Reply: A "direct employee" is an employee of the employer performing the asbestos job or an empioyee o f that employer who is working nearby. An "indirect employee." is employed by an employer other than the employer performing the asbestos job who works nearby and could be exposed. Q uestion 5: if an employer who wit! be, performing a Class H asbestos job intends to use different or modified engineering and work practice controls per 1926.1101(g)(8)(vl>, who is responsible for providing the data showing that "indirect empioyee" exposures wfi* be below the asbestos PELS? Reply: The employer performing the Class I I asbestos job is responsible for data showing that "indirect employee" exposures w ill be below the asbestos . ..Ls. Q uestion 6: Is the employer who w ill be using different or modified engineering arid wrk practice controls, per l9 2 6 .U 0 1 (9 )(8 )(vi), required to relate to the employer or -~.ie "indirect employees" that alternative controls are being used? Reply; Yes. per I9 2 6 .n 0 i(k )(3 )(li) and (0(8). the employer must inform employers & employees, who work, and/or w ill be working in areas adjacent to where the ashes :-> takes place of the. locations, of the asbestos and of the precautions necessary to ensur' ' v airborne asbestos Is confined to the designated area. Also, per X 9 26.110l(d )(l;, vn m ' employer worksites, an employer perform ing work requiring the establishment o f a ^ ^ regulated area shall inform other employers on the site of,,, the measures taxes to ensure that employees o f such other employers are not exposed to asbestos." Scenario: Acme Abatement, Inc, is performing mechanical removal o f asbestos-containing fioor tile and shotbiasting o f asbestos containing mastic. These work methods were chosen based on efficiency, the large square footage of the work, etc., not on feasibility. The mechanical removal and shotbiasting is to be performed in an area where plant processes must remain uninterrupted. The removal area has been spilt into two work area to accommodate the needs o f the plant. The mechanical removal of fioor tile and shotblasting of the mastic is performed under foil containment with negative pressure. The plant continues to operate in the other adjacent haif of the space. The plant's employees work for AAA Paper Packing Company. Acme Abatement, Inc. has a legitimate ^ negative exposure assessment (NA) for its empioyee exposures for the asbestos work mey are performing. Q uestion 7; Is this sufficient to proceed? Reply; (Note; We w ill assume that the existence of, "a legitimate NEA for Acme Abatement, Inc. employees" means Acme Abatement, Inc. has compiled with 1926.110l(g )(8 }{v i):A ) and (B) with respect to its own employees. Also, you have not identified the mechanical means used to remove the fioor tile, but we w ill assume that it is aggressive.) No, Acme Abatement, Inc. may not proceed with the mechanical removal o f the fioor tile and the sandblasting o f the mastic fo r the following reasons: It Is feasible to remove the floor tile and mastic by nonaggresslve means. * Acme has not compiled with 1926,It01(g)i8)(v'0(A ) and (B) with respect to the AAA http://wwwosha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show document?p_table=iNTERPRETATIONS&pJ . 1Of4/2006 Paper Packing Comapany employees in that ft has not estabhsheo viVieJiM Ofteh exposures w ill be below the asbestos PELS. Q uestion 8; Because the NBA in the asbestos removal area is below the PELS, is it correct to say that the exposure outside the work area wifi be below the PELS? Reply: (Note: Again, we will assume that the existence of, "a legitimate NEA for Acme Abatement, Inc. employees" means Acme Abatement, inc. has compiled with 1926.1101(g) (S}(vi)(A5 and (B) with respect to its own employees.) In order for it to be correct to say to that the exposure outside the work area will be below the PELs, Acme Abatement, Inc. must have compiled with 1926.1 l0 1 (g )(8 )(vi)(A ) and (B) with respect, to the indirect employees. it is the competent person's responsibility to determine whether complying with 1926.1101 (g)(8)(vi)(A) and (B) with respect to Acme Abatement Inc. employees has also resulted In complying with 1926.110l(g)(8)(vi)(A) and (B) with respect to the indirect employees. Per 1926.1l0l(g)(8)(vi)(B ), the competent person must certify in writing that the different or modified controls are adequate to reduce direct, and indirect employee exposure below the PEi.s under aii expected conditions of use. Q uestion 9: If the NEA from within the asbestos removal work area is not adequate to identify the exposure for "indirect" workers outside the removal area, whose responsibility s it to collect tiie necessary data (assuming air m onitoring): Acme Abatement, Inc. or AAA Paper Packing Company? Reply: You presented a scenario where Acme Abatement, Inc. is aggressively removing asbestos-containing Poor tile and asbestos-containing mastic although it is feasible to remove these materials by nonaggressive means. As we indicated in our reply to Question i, it is illegal to remove asbestos-containing flooring material by aggressive means when it can be removed by nonaggressive means. Even if it -were iegal for Acme Abatement, Inc, to aggressively remove tire flooring material because no nonaggressive method is feasible, it must not proceed with the operation until a qualified competent person provides information in writing indicating that AAA Paper Packing Company's employee exposures to asbestos w ill be below the PELS. Per i9 2 6 .ll0 i iQ}(B)(vi)<B), the competent person must certify in writing that the controls are adequate to achieve this result. If Acme Abatement, Inc. violates the Construction Asbestos Standard and proceeds to remove the asbestos-containing flooring material without determining that AAA Paper Packing Company's employee exposures wiii be below the asbestos PELS, then AAA Paper Packing Company must implement whatever measures are necessary to protect its employees per (d)(3). Since your scenario indicates that AAA Paper Packing Company does not have the option o f moving its employees from the area, AAA Paper Packing Company must produce its own assessment o f its employees' exposures and provide, them with whatever personal protective equipment they require for their level of exposure. Scenario: Typical background (environmental, area, ambient) air sampling performed outside the asbestos work area is done with high volume pumps (8-16 iters) flowing through PCM cassettes set or, a stand to be approximately the height of the breathing zone. Q uestion 10: If air monitoring data is required to establish "Indirect" employee exposure, will this type of sampling satisfy this requirement or w ill monitoring need to be performed as personal samples on the "indirect" employee? Reply: if the airborne asbestos concentrations at all points outside the asbestos work area http://www osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&pi... 10/4/2006 wa w.ss then 0 A fiber per cubic centimeler ot bit (tjCtoI*3) 'dS (SstsrK\\ws4 tUn tiiathod ^ascribed in Appendix A to the Construction Asbestos Standard, 1926.1101, then it might .*i?e bsc^9rouncl air sampling apparatus you described to show this to be .. :t 0 lows tnat ;f the airborne asbestos concentrations at all points outside the asbestos work area are less then 0.1 {/cm'3as determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A, then the "indirect" employee exposures are below the asbestos PcLs. Establishing that the "indirect" employee exposures are below the asbestos PELs *s extent, of Acme Abatement, Inc.'s obligation under 1926.1101 (g)(8)(vi}(B ). However, c Abatement, Inc. must establish that the background air sampling apparatus you descri e ; measures the same airborne asbestos concentrations as the method prescribed ini ApP A before there would be a possibility o f using the apparatus to establish that the ind r employee exposures are below the asbestos Pels. The method prescribed in Appendix A is called the OSHA Reference Method (ORM). Please note that OSHA has concerns about using Row rates above 10 liters per minute (L/m in) for collecting samples of airborne asbestos. There are indications that sampling at Row rates above 10 L/min yields lower asbestos concentration resuits than the ORM. The Construction Asbestos Standard does not include the procedure for establishing that the background air sampling apparatus measures the same airborne asbestos concentrations as the ORM, However, the procedure for establishing this equivalency is included in the General Industry Asbestos Standard at 19i0.1Q01(d)(6)(Hi). Per 19t0.100l(d)(6)(iiQ : If an equivalent method to the ORM is used, the employer shall ensure that the method meets toe following criteria: i91G.lQ0i(d)(6)(Ui){A): Replicate exposure data used to establish equivalency are collected in side-by-side field and laboratory comparisons; and 1910. j Q 0i(d)(6)(Hi)(B): The comparison indicates that 90% o f the samples collected in the range 0.5 to 2.0 times the permissible lim it have an accuracy range o f pins or minus 25 percent o f the ORM results a t a 95% confidence level as demonstrated by a statistically valid protocol; and 1910. i001(d}(6){lii)(C ): The equivalent method is documented and the results of the comparison testing are maintained. If Acme Abatement, Inc, establishes that the background air sampling apparatus you described measures the same airborne asbestos concentrations as toe method prescribed in Appendix A, it must then figure out how to position the apparatuses so that they can establish that the airborne asbestos concentrations at ail points outside the asbestos work area are less then 0.1 f/cm 3. Simply setting several o f the apparatuses on stands located just outside the asbestos work area, with their filters at approximately the height of the breathing zone, will not necessarily show that toe airborne asbestos concentrations at ail points outside the asbestos work area are less then 0.1 f/cm 5. As an example, such positioning of toe apparatuses might not detect that the asbestos concentrations outside the asbestos work area were above 0,1 f/ern3 if asbestos was escaping the asbestos work area ct a concentration above Q .l f/cnv* at a height above the breathing zone. I hank you for your interest m occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular http.//www osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_documetrt?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&pJ- 10/4/2006 circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obV*atjons. iVwsteltei institutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rides. Also, from tim e to time we update our guidance in response to new Information. To keep apprised o f such developments, you can consult OSHA's website a t h ttp ://wvrw.osha.qov. I f you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Heaithli'nforcement at 202-693-2190. Sincerely, John L. Henshaw Assistant Secretary (Corrected 5 /3 1 /2 0 0 5 . See the s / 18/2 0 0 5 let t er to Mr. C e ra jd je o n q regarding using aggressive methods for removing asbestos-containing m astic.) # Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents (AM acktoTcj?. yyww-ogha.gov Contact Us \ Freedom of Inform ation.Act \ j^ ^ o m er 1Di!Ain?.d.i5 Oc.cupatiooai Safety & Health Administration 200 Constitution Avenue, HW Washington, DC 20210 http.//www.(ha.gov/pls/os!haweh/owadispshnw_rirvnimftnf?p_tahi=TAiTRRPRP,TATIONS&p_i.-. 10/4/2006