Document YrM5xRdezD51QNOXonEN7xQQV

vtai-itE 22678 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1986 / Rules and Regulations It is important to note that coverage Further, construction work is tests for hemolytic potential and the by this standard because an employee's specifically defined to include, "the cytotoxic response of pulmonary asbestos exposure is "occupational" will erection of new electric transmission macrophages. SNA reported that the not impose unnecessary requirements. and distribution lines and equipment, treated chrysotile is less active in the In most cases where the source of and the alteration, conversion and tests than the untreated chrysotile (Ex. "occupational exposure" is unrelated to improvement of the existing 228, 227). The treated chrysotile is the employer's operations, the only transmission and distribution lines and currently being tested in longterm applicable requirement is to initially equipment." 29 CFR 1910.12(d). bioassays where animals are exposed to monitor the levels of exposure, set out in As noted above, ship repair and the material through inhalation and paragraph (d)(2) of this secton. In most shipbreaking activities are covered by injection (Ex. 338). of these situations, the employer would the general industry standard. OSHA At the hearing, Mr. Richard Letnen of not be required to monitor his believes the provisions of the general employees exposures, rather he may industry asbestos standard are estimate exposures using historical data ' appropriate for the operations involving or scientific expert opinion (d)(2)(iii). It asbestos which will occur on ships. is expected that building owners may be Automotive brake and clutch repair consulted to ascertain the identity, work is also covered by the general location and condition of asbestos industry standard. Based on data products in their buildings. Alihough submitted to the record it appears highly building owners, per se, do not incur any probable that most asbestos exposures specific obligations under this standard, for employees repairing and removing OSHA believes that they may be able to give reliable information concerning asbestos in some cases. OSHA did not explore in detail the complex area of asbestos contamination in buildings because the available evidence shows that buildings containing even disturbed asbestos expose employees to levels considerably below the action level adopted in this standard (e.g. Alliance for Safe Building Brief to EPA, Ex. 311-D.E). Also other brake linings will be less than 0.1 f/cc on a TYVA basis if employees use work practices and controls detailed in Appendix. F (see Section XII). These controls mainly involve using a solvent mist on the linings or using HEPAfiltered vacuums to remove the dust. Therefore, although covered by this standard, no other requirements are expected to apply to brake and clutch repair employers. 2. Paragraph (b). Definitions. NfOSH indicated that the results of the in vitro testing did not provide adequate data upon which to base any decision to exclude chemically treated asbestos from the standard (Tr. 6/21, p. 188). Dr. Arthur Langer. who has performed some of the in vitro testing on the chemically modified chrysotile. agreed that longterm bioassays are needed, and he called for additional in vitro testing and for tests to determine the stability of the chemically altered structure (Tr. 7/3, p. 97). Although Dr. Langer clearly stated that modified asbestos fibers should be regulated by the standard, he went on to state that "(t)he modification of asbestos should be viewed as an important factor in risk reduction in the future" (Ex. 220). In his testimony at the hearing. Mr. Mark Lalancette of SNA acknowledged the need for continuing regulation of chemically treated asbestos (Tr. 7/5, p. federal agencies, particularly EPA', are Asbestos 9). the SNA did not request that OSHA exploring in detail aspects of this problem (see EPA Docket Number OPTS-211012). For these reasons OSHA is not adopting specific regulatory language in this area and leaves open to evidence in enforcement proceedings . whether "occupational exposure" is involved and whether the employer adequately applied the relevant provisions of this standard to protect occupationally exposed employees. The two OSHA standards, general industry and construction concerning occupational exposure to'asbestos, are OSHA raised two issues in the April proposal concerning the definition of asbestos. One issue was the. addition of 'the phrase "and any of these minerals that has been chemically treated and/or altered" to the definition of asbestos. The other issue was the mineralogical "correctness" of the definition. Some investigators have hypothesized that in addition to the physical characteristics of the fiber, the surface chemical properties account for part of its biological activity (Exs. 226, 227A). This hypothesis has led to research with exclude phosphated chrysotile from the definition of asbestos, but requested that OSHA indicate that this particular modification of the definition be regarded as "only an interim measure designed to clarify the regulation's scope until full toxicological data are available to make distinctions" (Ex. 338). The SNA requested that OSHA "be receptive to reviewing such toxicology data when they are developed to determine the extent to which standard revisions are appropriate, given such new knowledge," (Ex. 338)*a request echoed intended to cover all industries covered the goal of reducing toxicity of asbestos by the Asbestos Information by the Act. The general industry by modifying the surface properties of Association (Ex. 328 p. 1-33). standard covers all.activities and the fiber. Although the reports of in vitro testing operations which are not covered by the Societe Nationale de l'Amiante (SNA), . are encouraging, they provide only a JS>I- construction standard. These industries a Canadian company that mines and small portion of the information if?*; and operations include ship repair and manufactures asbestos products, has necessary to evaluate chemically rebuilding, manufacturing, secondary been actively engaged jn the chemical modified asbestos. The Agency does not processing, and brake and clutch repair. modification of chrysotile fibers. They wish to discourage research that may It should be noted that the applicability have examined a number of possible lead to a reduction in risk from of the construction standard depends on reagents that might "passivate" (reduce -occupational exposure to asbestos, and the operations performed. Accordingly, the biological activity) chrysotile and any data that support a reduction in risk if the employees.of a manufacturer have focused on the use of phosphorus can be submitted to the Agency at any perform construction activities, their gas to modify fibers (Ex. 338). Their time. However, there is considerable exposures are covered by the process is a dry treatment using evidence that documents the construction standard. As discussed in phosphorus oxychloride (POCli) gas, carcinogenicity of asbestos and 't the preamble to.the construction and the treated product is a phosphated considerable evidence will be required standard, construction activities are chrysotile fiber which the SNA calls to document any claims of reduced defined in 29 CFR 3910.12(b) as work for "chrysophosphate" (Exs. 226). The toxicity of chemically modified construction, alteration and/or repair, . treated chrysotile has been compared asbestos. Therefore, based on the data including painting and decorating. with untreated chrysotile in in vitro in the record and the testimony of expert GLEASON-000926