Document Z8JLjezKgwpxyL66v6Knnqe68

f 22652 . Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1986 / Rules and Regulations Table TO.--Estimated Number of Workers General Considerations Claims about technological feasibility . Exposed And Asbestos Exposure Levels in the Construction Industry--Contin ued Sector - Estimated No. of workers exposed Mean 8hour TWA exposure ievets (f/cc) Routine maintenance in com mercial and residential build- Rouline maintenance in general industry.....-........ ............. ....... Total__________ _______ 217.745 259.643 746.228 0.29 0.51 Sources: ATI (Exhibit 473): Butding Owners Survey (Ex. 64-474); Comad Phase f Report (Ex. 64-474); end 1962 Census of Constmction. As stated above. OSHA based its conclusion about the technological feasibility of the 0.2 f/cc level on the record evidence and data summarized later in this section. The following discussion sets out the legal and policy framework for making these determinations. Section 6(b)(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act provides that OSHA may promulgate standards to the extent that they are economically and technologically feasible. In meeting its statutory mandatte to set "feasible" standards. OSHA isguided by judicial made by participants in the rulemaking supported all exposure levels considered in the proposal, from 0.1 f/cc to 0.5 f/cc. Participants advanced policy arguments and evidence in support of their positions..For example, the AFL- CIO stated that the evidence showed that 0.1 f/cc was feasible for general industry to achieve primarily through engineering and work practice controls [see. for example, Exhibits 143 and 335). However, as detailed in the specific industry sector discussions, the evidence indicates that the 0.1 f/cc level is not currently feasible in most dry . operations in manufacturing and Technological Feasibility review of 14 years of Agency standards secondary processing of asbestos Introduction setting. According to the Supreme Court, products. In the construction activities of renovation and major abatement, a This analysis determines the extent to requirements may be imposed up to the proponent of a 0.1 f/cc level for which it is currently feasible to reach a limits of what is "technologically construction agrees with OSHA that permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.2 achievable." /American Textile Mfgs. supplemental respirator use will be fibers per cubic centimeter during Institute et al, 452 U.S., fn. 34,1981 necessary to meet that lower level [see affected work operations without the OSHA sec. 25,457.) Accordingly, OSHA Exhibit 330). Therefore. OSHA has use of respirators. The information in may promulgate standards which can be determined that a 0.1 f/cc may not be the public record provides the basis for met most of the time by the achievable in most operations without OSHA's determination that a PEL of 0.2 technologically advanced plants in an routine' respirator use. f/cc for an 8 hour time-weighed average industry. (See e.gAmerican Iron and In contrast, other participants (TWA) can be achieved, with a few Steel Inst, vs.OSHA .577 F. 2d 825. 932- . contended that a 0.2 f/cc level was exceptions, across the asbestos- 35 (3d Cir. 1978).) [/6/d, 5717 F. 2d at technologically infeasible in most products manufacturing industry. 835.) Current exposure levels in such manufacturing industries and. therefore, Exposure data indicate that some of the technologically advanced plants may that a 0.5 f/cc should be designated as plants in this industry have combined meet the PEL only one some measured the PEL Proponents of a 0.5 f/cc PEL did engineeringcontrols and prudent work days, yet that level may be considered not dispute reports of the levels of practices to reach exposure levels below feasible |/6/d; 577 F. 2d. at 835). In exposure currently being achieved in 0.2 f/cc. OSHA recognizes that some addition, in cases where data show the such industries. In fact, the major data show the'current difficulties of current industry exposure levels are in proponent of the 0.5 f/cc level, the reaching a 0.2 f/cc TWA, but OSHA excess of the new PEL, the new PEL is. Asbestos Information Association of believes compliance with the new PEL nevertheless, determined to be North America (A1A/NA) agreed that will become increasingly feasible in technologically feasible if substantial "OSHA's proposed PEL of 0.2 f/cc.is these operations. In the construction. evidence exists to show that companies close to the center of the best industry, the data show the capability of acting in good faith can develop the achievable exposure range for most meeting the PEL in most operations by . necessary technology to reach the new manufacturing workplaces [see Exhibit the conscientious application of PEL [United Steelworkers. 647 F. 2d at 312 A). Additionally. AIA-projects that engineering and work practice controls! 1269,1272). the incentive effect of a new reduced Based bn this analysis, OSHA has determined that compliance with the 0.2 f/cc PEL is feasible in most industries most of the time.through the use of.wet methods; engineering controls, and good housekeeping practices. There'are some operations, however, for which compliance through the use of engineering controls and work practices The D,C. Circuit has explained that the purpose-served by OSHA's'industry wide feasibility determination is to create "a general presumption of feasibility for an industry . . [is] that industry can;meet the PEL without relying on respirators" [847 F. 2d at 1296). In the case of asbestos, OSHA has . determined based oh this rulemaking PEL will result in "long term average exposures to typical asbestos product manufacturing workers . . .. in the neighborhood of 0.1 f/cc or below." AIA further projects that "(e)ven employees . in the most difficult to control industry workplaces would not experience . average exposure levels above 0.2 f/cc" [Exhibit 312 AJ. alone does not appear feasible at this record and guided by this body of AIA objected to Finding the 0.2 f/cc time. These situations are usually due to decisions that most industry sectors in level technologically feasible for two the inability of the operation to use wet most operations most of the time will be reasons. First, AIA defined a "feasible" methods (e.g.. textiles, nuclear rip-out able to meet a lime Weighted average exposure level as one in which an building repair, etc.), and the volume of PEL of 0.2 f/cc primarily through the employer will have a 95 percent level of dust generated (e.g., cutting operations application of currently available confidence that exposures on any day for A/C pipe and sanding A/C sheet). engineering and work practice controls. will not exceed-the PEL. Therefore, During these operations, therefore, Supplemental respirator use will be according to AIA, because airborne respiratory protection must also be used needed only occasionally. (Later, in this asbestos exposure levels fluctuate from until employers apply current section OSHA discusses on an industry day to day, setting a 0.5 f/cc PEL would technology more effectively or apply sector basis more detailed reasons and be necessary to assure that employers new technology to the control of evidence supporting these feasibility will not be subject to citation on. asbestos dust. determinations.) unrepresentative "high" days. The GLEASON-000900