Document pm0dYK024KGJeX1QLGbbnX4RE

22648 Federal Register /. Vol. 51, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1986 / Rules and Regulations significant risks of asbestos-related exposure levels andshorterdurationa claimed that significant risk would be cancer mortality and asbestosis morbidity are not eliminated, at the exposure level that is permitted under the new standard; however, the reduction in the risk of asbestos-related death and disease brought about by promulgation of the new standard ,1s both significant and dramatic. The observation that significant risk is not eliminated under the new. permissible exposure level of0.2 f/cc led some rulemaking participants to urge OSHA to promulgate an even lower permissible exposure limit. For example, in its post-hearing brief, the Building and Construction Trades Department of the typically found in industry today. Failure to account for differential risks posed by different types of asbestos fiber. Failure to distinguish between the cancer mortality risk for asbestos-exposed workers who smoke and those who do not Regarding the use of past exposure data or the current PEL of 2 f/cc to estimate risk levels, the ORC commented as follows; . . . ORC recommends that estimates of risk be based on exposures. . . that are relevant to 1984 workplace conditions-.11 is important to know as accurately as possible what the actual risk is at today's exposure levels, but this is not possible unless we recognize the factors in the risk equation that eliminated at a new PEL of 0.5 f/cc. OSHA agrees that the record indicates that the actual exposure conditions and employment patterns ol many workers today do not conform to the exposure and duration characteristics underlying, the lifetime exposure assumption used in the Agency's risk assessment. However, when determining whether a hazardous substances poses a significant risk and that reduction of a PEL is warranted. OSHA must consider what degree of risk would be permitted by the existing standard, even though many workers may in fact be at lesser risk because AFL-CIO agreed with OSHA's findings have changed from 1944 to 1934. (Ex. 123-A, their employers have chosen to reduce on the significance of risk; p. 12) their exposures to levels below those . . . OSHA's estimates point to two conclusions. First, lowering the PEL from its present level will significantly reduce the risk of mortality from lung cancer, mesothelioma and gastrointestinal cancer. This Is especially Similarly, the A1A7NA stated: OSHA further errs toward over-prediction of risk by assuming, without substantiation, that workers will experience exposures at the level of the standard for up to 45 years. In required by that standard. It is for this reason that OSHA bases its determinations of significant risk on exposure to a PEL and not on reported exposure conditions. However, it should evident at the BCTD-rccommcndcd PEL of fact, the record evidence indicates (that) be noted that OSHA does analyze 100,000 fibers per cubic meter (0.1 f/cc) where exposures wilt average significantly below current exposure conditions in 01 fewer deaths,per 1.000 workers wilt occur. Second, while under. . . |the Benzene decision] it is unnecessary to find the existence of a significant risk at intermediate levels above the new PEL . . ., a significant risk exists even at this lowest of potential PEL'S. (Ex. 330, p. 11) any standard. ... As would be predicted from accepted technological feasibility and industrial hygiene practice control, average workplace exposures to asbestos have been found to be one-fourth or tees of a given standard (based on OSHA field monitoring results). . . . More detailed data from the United Kindom confirm that under its former workplaces.when assessing the potential benefits of new regulations, as required by Executive Order 12091. For example, in this rulemaking, OSHA has quantified the benefits of the new standard, taking into account current occupational exposure conditions (see OSHA agrees with the BCTD that a 2 f/cc standard, average exposures in all but Section VII). signifiant risk ol asbestos related disease would exist even under a standard having a permissible exposure limit of 0.1 f/cc. As OSHA explained in the April notice in the Summary and Explanation sections of the preamble to the filial standards for asbestos for General Industry and Construction, OSHA's decision to promulgate a permissible exposure limit of 0.2 f/cc is not based on a determination that significant risk is eliminated at this level. Given dial a significant risk of harm persists even at very low levels of lifetime exposure to asbestos, OSHA'b decision to promulgate a PEL of 0.2 f/cc is based on a determination that this level is the lowest level that can feasibly be attained in operations in workplaces in both general industry and construction. textile manufacturing were but one-tenth the PEL, and in textile generation--the most difficult to control--exposures averaged onefourth the standard. (Ex. 328, pp. 22-23) ORC and AIA/NA also objected to the use of a 45-year exposure duration for estimating risks. ORC commented that "(tjhe majority of 1984 exposure are intermittent, and 4-5 days per month would be on the high side for an industry-wide average" (Ex. 123-A, p. 14). The ALA/NA argued as follows: OSHA's significant risk findings are also predicated on an assumed 45-year lifetime exposure. Although 45-year exposures are theoretically possible, the evidence in the record demonstrates that only a very small minority of workers will be exposed that long. The vast majority of esbestos-expospd workers wilt experience fewer then 10 years (of) exposure. As Dr. Nicholson notes at the hearing, approximately half of all workers The.use of the lifetime exposure (45year) assumption has also been standard in determining significant risk in previous OSHA rulemakings. OSHA has several reasons for using a lifetime exposure assumption. First, the use of a 45-year lifetime exposure duration is based on guidance given in the OSH Act. As specified in Section 6(b)(5): "The Secretary in promulgating standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall set the standard which most adequately assures to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health of functional capacity even ifsuch employee has regular^xposure to the; hazard dealt with by such standardfor the period of his woricing lije" Some c6mr.*-oters, such as leave an Industry within six months, and the (emphasis added). OSHA believes that Organization Kesources Counselors, Inc. remaining half work in a given industry it is reasonable to assume that a person (ORC) (Ex. 1Z:i-A) and the Asbestos Information Association of North between eight and twelve years. (Ex. 328, p. 1-24) begins work at age 20 and continues until the age of 85. a 45-year span of I America. (AIA/NA) (Ex. 328), argued The ALA/NA concluded that the actual employment. Under Section 6(b)(5) of that'OSHA overstated the risk of risk to workers exposed to asbestos Is the Act. OSHA is compelled to disease from asbestos exposure. approximately one-sixteenth that promulgate standards that ensure that Specifically, they objected to the predicted by OSHA, because "... employees, even those exposed to the following: average exposures over and average hazardous agent for their entire working OSHA's use of past exposure levels, or working life will be for one-fourth the the 2 f/cc PEL coupled with the assumption of time at one-fourth the level of OSHA's lifetime, are at the lowest risk that can feasibly be attained. Therefore, OSHA's lifetime exposure duration, as benchmarks . lifetime exposure predictions" (Ex. 328, determinations of significant risk must for determining risk, rather than the lower p. 1-25). For this reason, the AIA/NA take into account the fact that many GLEASON-000896