Document nmmooop100QKYeY3oMbo655K6

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 22709 asbestos roofing paper and felts, the with the BCTD'8 contention that 0.1 f/cc for construction does not.establish a removal of asbestos-containing building is a feasible BrhourTWA PEL and has ceiling or short-term exposure limit for materials during repair and demolition identified a number of operations in asbestos. This differs from the existing activities, and the removal of asbestos construction where such an exposure asbestos standard, which Imposes a jj insulation during abatement projects.. level cannot be achieved through the use ceiling limit of 10 f/cc, and from the OSHA believes that by promulgating a of engineering controls and work April proposal, which would have revised PEL of 0.2 f/cc, it has fulfilled its practices. By promulgating an 6-hour retained this requirement. OSHA's ; mandate to protect workers from the TWA PEL of 0.2 f/cc, OSHA is also decision not to promulgate a celling or !j harmful effects of asbestos exposure concurring with the recommendation short-term limit for either the general within the confines of technological made by the Advisory Committee for industry or construction standard is feasibility.' Construction Safety and Health discussed at length in Section X of this ) i The vast majority of rulemaking . (CACOSH) that any reduction made in preamble (Summary and Explanation for t participants were in favor of reducing. f the 2.0 f/cc PEL Organizations that the asbestos PEL for general industry a Revised Standard for General also applies to the construction industry. Industry). To summarize, OSHA is not | supported a reduction in the PEL Specifically, CACOSH stated this view promulgating a short-term exposure limit j included the Advisory Committee for as follows; for asbestos because toxicological and ' s Construction Safety and Health (Ex. 84f. 424). the National Institute for i f Occupational Safety and Health, (Tr. 6/ Because alt employees deserve equal protection against the effects of a given toxic material, the same exposure limits should be dose-response evidence fail to show that short-term exposure to asbestos is associated with an independent or . | 21; pp. 59,65), the Associated General applied to all industries, including greater adverse health effect than is J Contractors of America (Ex. 84-457), the construction. (Ex. B4-233. p. 5) exposure to the corresponding 8-hour V Building and Construction Trades > Department, AFL-CIO (Exs. 277: 330; Tr. : i 6/27, p. 72), the United Association of ) Journeymen and Apprentices of the . } Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry (Tr. 6/ 27, p. 120). the International Association f of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental i Iron Works (Tr. 6/27, p. 108), the United ] Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (Tr. 6/26, p. 157), the jf International Union of Bricklayers and i Allied Craftsmen (Tr. 6/26, p. 119), the : , International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Tr. 7/3, pp. 161-182), the United j : Steelworkers of-America (Tr. 7/3, p. 132), the International Brotherhood of i Boilermakers (Tr. 7/3, p. 174)1 the Another issue discussed in the April notice was the need to promulgate different PELs for different types of asbestos fiber. As discussed in Section IV (Health Effects), epidemiologic data suggest that exposure to amphiboles, particularly crocidolite, is associated with a higher risk of mortality from mesothelioma than is exposure to chrysolite. The United Kingdom and the Province of Ontario have both, promulgated lower PELs for crocidolite than for other types of asbestos minerals, based on these data (Exs. 84379, 84-223). Comments that OSHA received on this issue recommended against the TWA level; that is, there is no evidence that exposure to asbestos results in a "dose-rate" effect. ThiB is reflected In OSHA's risk models for lung cancer and mesothelioma, which associate health risk with cumulative dose. The decision not to promulgate a short-term exposure limit for asbestos is consistent with OSHA's recent policy decision described in the Supplemental Statement of Reasons for the Final Rule for Ethylene Oxide (50 FR 64), in which OSHA established that short-term exposure limits for-ioxic substances arenot Warranted in the absence of health evidence demonstrating a dose-rate effect. National Constructors Association (Tr. 7/12, p. 142), Organization ResourcesCounselors.(Ex. 123-A), the Oil, promulgation of different PELs for the different forms of asbestos. For example. NIOSH (Tr. 8/21), ORC (Ex. Paragraph (d)--Communication Among Employers 1 !t Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union j ' (Tr. 6/26, p. 9), and the Asbestos. ( Information Association of North . i America (Tr. 7/6, p. 10). 123-A), and A1A lEx. 328) did not believe thst the scientific evidence warranted this approach. OSHA agrees with this assessment of the evidence. Paragraph (d) of the revised rule requires that, on multi-employer construction worksites, employers performing asbestos work requiring the . Most of these organizations (Trs. 8/26, Although a differential risk by fiber type establishment of a regulated area inform : p, .9; 8/27, p. 120; 6/27, p. 108; 6/27. p. for mesothelioma is suggested by the other employers on the site of the nature 157; 6/27. p. 119; 7/3, pp. 161-162; 7/3, p. human studies, no differential risk is of their work with asbestos and of the , 132; 7/3, p. 174; 7/3, p. 158) supported the evident for lung cancer. In addition, existence of and requirements standard recommended bv the BCTD animal inhalation and injection studies pertaining to regulated areas. This ,, jj (Exs. 227; 330; Tr. 6/27, p. 72) that the 8- suggest that chrysotile, and not the provision is new and has been included | hour TWA PEL be reduced to 0.1 f/cc. amphiboles. pose the greatest hazard. to minimize the exposure of employees . : 3, This recommendation was based on the As discussed in Section IV, a number of. working near the asbestos work area. 5 .. significant risk of death from mechanisms have been proposed to For example, plumbers, electricians, 6 cancer and other health impairments explain these human and animal results. carpenters, and workers from other 5 due to occupational exposures to OSHA has found that these results and construction trades frequently work w asbestos . . ." in the construction the scientific community's current level alongside of employees installing . S industry (Ex. 330, p. 31): The-BCTD of understanding of the mechanisms asbestos-containing materials, and $ argued that OSHA's belief, as expressed - leading to asbestos-related disease are paragraph (d) intends that employers * in the April notice, that the 0.5 and 0.2 f/ insufficient to justify the establishment engaged in asbestos work notify the .|. cc alternative PEL'S were the lowest that of different PELs for the different employers responsible for the safety and j |. could be achieved through-the use of asbestos minerals. Accordingly, in the health of these nearby workers of the : y engineering controls and work practices revised rule,, the Agency has retained . hazards of asbestos. OSHA has j |: ". . . is no. longer valid (since) it is the concept of the existing asbestos included this provision after reviewing * contrary to the weight of evidence standard that one PEL be established for the record evidence on the hazards and ) |. contained in the record . . ." (Ex. 330, p. all types of-asbestos minerals. health effects.associated with the ; 31). As discussed above and in Section As with the revised standard for incidental exposure of employees and - ? VII of this Preamble, OSHA disagrees general industry, the revised standard bystanders who were not themselves . .1 i GLEASON-000957