Document pegMO75MagnQ8NzZNZwyRK136

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 119 / Friday, )une 20, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 22717 (1) During the interval necessary to issues regarding the appropriate use of install or implement Feasible engineering respirators (Exs. 78; 90-113; 90-160; 90- and work practice controls: 173; 90-182: 90-238; 92-3; 90-13: 92-25: (2) In operations such as maintenance 123-A: 147; 169:181:195; 208; 298; 308: and repair activities for which 311-E; 311-G; 313; 328; 330, Trs. 6/19, p. engineering and work practice controls 102; 6/20, 6/25. p. 15; 6/26, p. 78; 6/29, p. are not feasible: 196; 7/2, p. 23: 7/3, p. 44; 7/12. p. 336). (3) In work situations in which These commenters addressed four major feasible engineering and work practice issues; I controls are not yet sufficient to reduce exposure to or below the PEL; and (1) The uise of disposable respirators; (2) The selection of appropriate Filter (4) In emergencies. media for air-purifying respirators; The language of paragarph (h)(1) has (3) The use of Type "C" supplied-air been revised from that of the existing respirators; and standard to conform to standard (4) Requirements for qualitative or f language used in more recent OSHA rulemakings! Employers are required quantitative fit testing. Several commenters advocated the i under paragraph (h)(2) of the revised rule to select appropriate respirators based on employee exposure levels that use of disposable respirators for protection against asbestos exposure (Exs. 84-457; 311; 328; 341; Tr. 7/10. p. exist in the workplace. The required 126). For example, the Asbestos respirators range from half-mask air- Information Association/North America ( purifying respirators equipped with stated; i ii i j. !f '5 high-efficiency filters for concentrations that do not exceed 10 times the PEL to full-facepiece supplied-air respirators or SCBA when the concentration of The record of this proceeding shows that employers in primary and secondary manufacturing industries commonly provide negative pressure single use or reusable asbestos fibers exceeds 100 times the respirators to workers who request them. ;t i , PEL. Employers are required to select respirators from those that are approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine Safety and Health Administration under theprovisions of 30 CFR Part 11. In addition, employers are required to provide powered air-purifying respirators at the request of employees whenever such a respirator will provide ALA/NA recommends that this practice be codified in the Revised Asbestos Standard to allow workers to achieve an additional margin of health protection if they so desire. (Ex. 328).. The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) stated that "certain air-purifying negativepressure half-mask disposable respirators should remain in the adequate protection for the proposed asbestos respirator selection concentration existing in the workplace. table for use (during exposures of] up to Under paragraph (h)(3), employers are 10 times the permissible exposure level". required to institute a Respiratory (Ex. 341). Protection program as required under 29 E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Cdmpany : CFR 1910.134; The required program is provided the results of a comparative to include (1) criteria for changing filter study of the performance of various elements for air-purifying respirators, (2) respirators, including disposable single- a policy permitting employees time to use half-mask air-purifying respirators . leave work areas.to wash their faces and self-contained breathing apparatus and respirator facepieces to prevent (Ex. 339),DuPont concluded that two of skin irritation, and (3) a policy for the three disposable respirators tested reassigning employees to other jobs if a achieved a protection factor of at least physician determines that the employee TO during tests performed in the course cannot function normally while wearing of actual asbestos removal operations. . a. respirator. Under paragraph (h)(4), the . DuPont's conclusion was based on .revised standard requires that comparison's of the concentration of employees perform qualitative or fibrous materials inside the respirator ' quantitative fit testing for all employees and outside the respirator in the required to wear a negative-pressure operator's breathing zone (Ex. 339). respirator. The requirements for the use, Based on the data presented in their selection, program elements, and fit . report, DuPoiit.concluded that negative- testing of respirators are the same, as pressure single-use respirators can those contained in the general industry provide adequate protection against standard and are substantially similar to concentrations of asbestos fibers less the requirements contained in other than 10 times the PEL and should be recent OSHA health standards (see for allowed. The DuPont data are discussed example 29 CFR 1910.1043, Cotton Dust). at length in Section IX of this preamble Many commenters who submitted (Summary'and Explanation for a information to OSHA during the Revised Standard for General Industry). rulemaking proceedings addressed After reviewing this study, OSHA found that inconsistencies in the data and the failure of the study to show adequate protection factors for other types of respirators render the study inconclusive. Many commenters opposed the use of reusable or disposable air-purifying respirators for any airborne asbestos exposure, because they felt that the protection provided by such respirators is inadequate (Exs. 117-A; 150:151; 123A: 92-8: 277; 330; Trs. 6/20, p. 196; 6/21, pp. 74-75; 6/25, pp. 17-18; 6/29 p. 106; 7/ 3, pp. 160-181; 7/3, p. 193; 7/3, p. 50; 7/ 11. pp. 98-99). For example. The Building and Construction Trades Department. AFI^CIO, offered the following comments; In particular, the throw-away of disposable paper half-masks are not acceptable, in addition to providing field use'protection factors too tow for any serious consideration for wear in asbestos-exposed work throw away or disposable paper half-masks offer little comfort. In pne 1974 study. 97 miners wore disposable masks over a combined period of 248 person-shirts of work and rated their acceptability. Seventy-six miners rated the ubiquitous 3M 8710/which currently accounts for about 80 percent of the disposable dust mask market.. . . Sixty; seven of the 97 miners found it unacceptable. Forty-seven found it too fragile. Thirty-eight said it was too hot. Fourteen SHid it got wet and stuck to their faces. Eleven simply said that il was uncomfortable.. . . The . researchers concluded that whether or not the respirator was comfortable to wear was of paramount importance (to the workers)-- even more so than protection--and that a comfortable respirator will be put on sooner and removed later than one that is not.. . . The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades found similar.paUerna of dislike of disposable dust masks among its members in a respirator preference and use survey conducted in 1980.. . . While 40 percent of thet632 members responding in the survey wore the disposable dust mask most, over SO percent liked il least. By contrast, over 70 percent liked air-lines most. Respondents rated the air-line masks highest in prolcbtion, Fit and ease of breathing; the dust mask was rated lowest in each of these categories--even lower lhanwidely despised reusable cartridge half-mask. (Ex. 330) Jeffrey Pauli, of the School of Hygiene and Public Health of Johns Hopkins University, reported: 1 am|in agreement] with the'Slate of Maryland on their-position on disposable respirators. I don't think that they can be reliably ... fit checked'on the faceof the employee.... I don't like the fact that most ' of them can't be . . .fit checked to provide some sense of assurance that it is fitting the face. (Tr. 7/11. p. 98) Agreeing with Mr. Paul, David Kirby, representing the AlabamaSafe State Program, expressed the following tl ' i rt i> ij.v, i1' i.- GLEASON-000965