Document rBEDXMODZR28YjdDOwbvNxK67
FILE NAME: No Safe Threshold (NST)
DATE: 1986 & 1994
DOC#: NST004
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: PowerPoint of Federal Register Notices from OSHA Asbestos Proposals
OSHA 1986 and 1994
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Hearth Adm inistration
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 19M Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, TrameNta, Anthoptiyflrte, and Acflnollta; Final Rules
22bl2
F i l e n i fiegfater t VoL SI. No. 118 ! Frida
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration
June 20t 1086 ittniUa
d iv i ilei, indicai i
iployerc jpaeum monitoring result lata that the ixpoeurea of ilayeee do noi exceed lha
-- . . . . . . . . . .jf. W e eeue page namber-
B. Summary
ha employer la not
Punuant to tectlona 4(b)(1), #(b], ft(ek
imply wtlb Deny of lie
and B(c| of the Occupational Safety and
Halremanla. Tho 03 f/ec ft- Health A d of 1979 (the AclJ (M SlaL
idea significant riak bom ISAt IB3. ISSO 1590; 29 U.S C ft, 955.
li cenelderad by OSHA, ibltanUel evidence la the
057), the Conatructlon Safely Act (40 WS t *33), the Longahortmeria and
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
(Docket No. H-033C1
Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolits, Anthophyllite, and Actlnollte
tola, lo be lha lowest level
Rr The emended (Jibed today take effect xcept the following itch contain Infunnatloii Iremente which ere under )JJca of Manugentent end : it n a iw i ;d)|i|, jdlfJ).
i(jj. (giriHO. umi. nk >nd
*-*S |0(if. (f)(J|. [f)(k [k)(4|. (mk end (n|.
iddltlOr.il copiai of Ehtee . contact OSHA Office of A Department of Labor. 09 ConaUtuVon Avenue, on, DC b e t a Telephone
separala nudanti and p u l i i nlcmcrils at m ig m [Summary and Explimllon filoni] hare been developed la ippljr lagenirtJ nd-jatry (Including tninlioi*) and is enrutmctlon. beeauae Eh* difference ji expovurn and workplace condition In geoeral
Induicry and eonitrudlon warkeltea wnrranl pani irttunenl. The leniin il will br codified In CFR Part 1910 end lBaft. OSHA l Graerif Industry and Conitruction etandiid. reapeelively. Tht beai b r promulgnttoo of jteae rvgnlarlcna I* a driarmlnotjon by ib* A,titani Secretary Ihel
emplpyeoa axpoaed to aibtilon tremaElt*. 9nlhaphyible. end cOndUlt f a n n eigniflcant rtik lo Ibau health u d that Cheta final aundaid wdl ubllintlaUy duce that riak. Th* record in tbit rulemaking demonatratea
that employee occupatiooidjr axpoaed to la b el lot re at nak of developLog such dhfonK dlaaaan as botisela, lung cancer, pleural and peritoneal mnaihelloma, and |alm InteeEtnei cancer.
The itandardt ateo provide for requirement for method, of compIlanca, perianal protective equlpcnent,
employee monitoring, medical eitrvtlllancr. communication of beiarda lo employe, regulated aro*, hem*keeping procedure, and
fo b tir im i io b u * tsow cow tact.
Mr. lin e e F. F oil, Dlreclor, Office of Information arid Consumer Affaire. OSHA. U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-JS37.100 Conatituboo Avenue. MW, Waehingtoii, DC HK10. Telephone (399) 52W151.
auhPLEUiHTwtY infoumathm:
L Introduction
A. The ferm ai o f Thit Document (the Preamble)
The preamble ecccfiipenying tbeie revteed standard la divided Into 19 parte, numbered f through SUI, Tho fallowing la a table of contini!:
L InacdurUnn ELRegulatory Kinsey m. Pertinent Legai Authority IV ilcelrh Effect V. Qeftntftadve Hiik Aaemmtal VL Spulicene# of Rlk Vn Final EcoeooJc Impact u d Rtgulatiny
Flexibility Anefyita vm.evtnnaieiitai Impact A itn ioerl XX. Sunderdi Recnaaiodml 1 OSHA by
taltmled Panin 31 Summary ud &pLanaPoai of 1bReiftaad
Studimi for Conoral tuhutty 30. Summery u d Bxptuarion be e ftivtud
Sleodard for tb Cominiettori Induetry XU Authority u d Signature XU! Amended Standard
Harbor Warkara1Companiatlon Act 1-33 U.S.C 41k Ebt Secretary of Labor1 Order No. 9-83 (4ft FH J57M). and 29 CFR Part 1911. thcae final standard hereby amend and revise Che current
u b u to a etanderd. 29 CFR 191911001. This u f i so fellawa publication of
ptopoaed notice on November 1. 1983
(49 FR 51084) and on April 10.1984 149 FR 1411ft) and the holding of a public hearing to provide tho public wlth an opportunity lo comment on three propsaed revtaion. The bearing! were held bom fune 19 lo july 10.1964. In Waebingion. DC Mote than 55.009 page ud leetLmony and comment were received mio the record of thit rulemaking and hav been analyzed by He Agency In developing these final tendini. Bated ne Ihla cord OSHA
baa determined that employe exposed to hmi po. tremoli*. inlhopbyllii*. and acttncdiia at the exuting permlaribta expo** limit (PEL] of t fitter o n cubie centimeter of >lr (t f/ccj at vocimitea m tb* ooaatrucdon tad maritlat Industrial end Is acneraj iruhieuy workplace face a significant riak 14 their health end that thaao final ataadaida will wbalantJilly diaci that riak. Evidence In the cord of Ibia proceeding boa ih own that oopdoynaa axpoaed at the nvtaad Ilasskird' PH, of <U fiber/cc ramaln at ilgniflram riak of Incumjig a chronic
exporora-roLatod dlaaiH, but oonaldenUosa of ieoalbtfily have cosatntoed OSHA Is at the reviaad PEL- at tbe U fiber/cc lavoL
Tha etudard laauod Is 1971 defined eabeetoa at cbryaotlla. crocidoLite, rootlta. trmnobta. enthophyllile, and aettnodaa. All of It rainatria raynaaaol a baueaid Is worker, u d the lu lle d Hondard continua In regulate all of tbasL However, omo form of the* mmerali o n no longer Included in Lhade finition of the word "aabnaioa'1, f i o folatory taxi drttriy pacifica that Ih tudardi apply to occupatlotul xporon to aebeeto*. tremolile, anihophyllit. ecd acfinollle. In ih* proanbla, bownar. where (ha word
recordkeeping. An "actloo" levai of Oil
Reference to tbe rulenuking record "fiabelo^ fa card thii abould be
fIce u* an ft-hour Bme-weighled avenge a n in the taxi of the proambia, and lha Interpreted a i applying to tramolfto.
It eeiabUflied ai the level bevo which following abbreviation bevo been uaed; anthophyllf . and actlnollte aa wefi
zasm
Federal Reglet er / VoL St. Jfa. lift; /.F H day, June. 20, mae. y Rule and Regulation
emiaaianj, Including work practice ihfil aunt be follow! io nlnlnitn the wlfliM e f ibeatOfl fiber) dannj (he
eve-rego (TWA) K i4 peak exposure lev] of 10 f/cc,
[r June 1972, OSHA promulgated a
parst* propouJ applicable lo the coa*traction Induey, do tueh prepcal wai pubtiihed.
in June 1972 OSHA promulgated a new final standard that established an 9-hour time*weighted average PEL of g f/cc and a railing Omit o f 10 f/ec* These limits were intended primarily to proteo employees against asbestosie, audit was hoped that they would provide some incidental degree of protection against asbestos induced forms of
cancer*
Mexico. S t w York. North Carolina. Oregon. Puerto Rico. South Carolina, Tenn*****, Utah, Varment, Virginia, the Virgin iland, Washington, and Wyoming. (In Connecticut and New York, the plan cover only Stale and local government employees.)
ELO i^ ihlory Hlthuy
OSHA hen regulated aabeHo* tinea
1771, A 12 f/cc p+rmluihls expo!*
limit [PQ.] far saheetce whs included la
the Initial promulgation on May 29.1971
( FR
uf OSHA landards
pureaaal to Seclicn S(b] of (bo A ct In
Repaare in a petition by the IntfuiQial
Union Department of the AFL-aO.
OSHA issued an ETS on aabeala* oa
December 7,1971, which eats birthed a
PEL of i f/c c aa an 3-hnur time-weighted
average to 04 f/cc and bnpored a celling limit of 5 f/cc for 15 mlnnla.
Tha bail* for Cba 1975 propM ah
reduction Id tha panalHula p a e o n limit to 0.5 f/cc w ai OEHA'i thorvcurracl policy far carcinogen* that
Burned that no *afe threshold level w*a dmonatrabla u d therefor* that tin Act required the Agency to Wt the PEL
I aval aa low t i lechnclogically and! economically feasible. This policy war refected by the Supreme Cncrt In the be&xuan dedaioB\fl/D v*A P f, *4BU A tttPM O O [#* thodbawaUn of th* implies tide* o f tint bcnxvsa dedaJaa for OSHA nihmiJdag is th* bl^iflcaac*-of Riik auction of the protmlifii wtrtioa VI). Tha 1071 propnaal would h iv e
applied 1 all Ujduefcriea CKoapr
comntndfoB. Farther, although OSHA announced Lie intention to develop t
pun aunt to ootic* and ledfotl 6(b) of tb* Ad (29 IT.SC 555(b|(3]J. The
bearing* were presided over by AdmfnletnBve Law Judge Robert C. Mahoney. Foetfarartag nboJistoiM of data, commenta, and brief were received through November 1,1994, The
entire record. Including c w 340 exhibit! and appnndmaufy SSW jm g of m aterial, w u certified by jtidjpe
Mahoney on September 27, ISAS, In i c e n d u a with 29 CFR1711-17, Copie* of ms (ertale tentalned In (fa* record may bi- obtained from the OSHA Dcdcit
Office, Rood N3670, UJJlDepartment of Labor. 200 ConatHnton Avenue. NW , W sihingtai DC 202m Theet Usai iLamircJ* m occupa UaaaJ poetar* to fiabetoe In cosa Inaction. aad general Indotry a n baaed on a thorough ecu*Idataden of Ihe entire record of thli
Friday June 20, 1994
ederal Register / VoL s i. No, 115 / Friday, fune 20. 1SS6 / Rules end Regulations
22615
iding material* ed on in the November &Mnotices. the record testing, and ill written xhibita received.
|al Authority
impose of the ioly and Health Act (20 lO((be Ac!] ri to assure, e, safe and healthful ins (Or every American period oiliij Driver . Clno means prescribed to achieve this goal ia Bn to. and trie bority vested in. the
thteihafd findings. QSHA must find that a signifies.-.! risk exists under the current standard and that the issuance Of a new! standard would reduce or eliminate (hat risk. The Court stated:
We agree . . . that subsection J{3J reijuiKi the Secretary find, a> a threshold raatar. that the toxic substance In. question poses a stgnirc&Rt health risk tn the weHfcpfa snd that c new.lowernandi-d is therefore "reasonably necessary or appropriate lo provide safe and healthful employment sfid places of employment." S US. K17at G1S-1S;65 L. Ed. Zd 1010et 101*19,
The Court also stated:
. . . Before be can poxnulgste any
might veil c o n sid er th e risk sig n ifican t an d lake appropriate steps ro decrease or
elintinale tL (Id. it S S i S S S t- Ed. 2d a t 1043]
After OSHA has determined that a significant risk exis's and that such risk can be reduced or eliminated by (he proposed standard, it must set the standard "which most adequately assures, tc the extent feasible on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employe will suffer material impairment of health , . (section Gib]5] of the Act). The Supreme Court has interpreted this section to mean that OSH,\ must enact the most protective standerd passible to eliminate a
OSHA is aware of no instance in
Mite
b!y
which exposure to a toxic substance bus plyto more dearly demonstrated detrimental teforc
health effects on humans than has
asbestos
exposure*
The
diseases
caused
c has flfH
lu Slid
29 C F fl Parts 1910 and 1929
O ccupational E xposure to A sb esto ,
T rsrao lK*, A n th o p b y lllt , and A c tfn o lltsr Final P u le s
I prortdilSvrs. inOfliSorieg if employee exposure,
to the results of cpriate medico! (id training and pver, where a slandard wri eruimir.allons er mus.' be available at no pyee (Section 6(b](7]). ileo prescribe rquircrt.enis where Srcprisl* for tho ha Act or for developing irtfing occupational (nesses (Section % ]), SHA's revision to its id. the Supreme Court Wrfj/ Union 1-CfO v, /iittenacm ale. U S. 301.6S L. H. Cl. 2 0 (1993]. that
Bee of a new or revised
mt to section 6{b)|5) o f must make two
`V*fecegroethat Its determination the! a parhcLh r trucIof cttlr If `iijriitcanr wilt e based largely un policy CrasidCralioas. (8 US. at S5S.63 I. Ed. 2d si 1043. n. 62]
Finally, the Court pointed out that - - . OSHA Is Dot required to suppuri ics finding that a signiriMat risk exists with tr.ylitng approaching scientific certainly. Aiihuugh Hit Aj'rpvys finding: mesi be support'd by sshf`antiai evidence. . . OSHA (has) seme leeway w!:*:e its findings blast be made on the Emmiera of sdentile knowledge, [448 U5. al BM. L Ed. 2d at 1043J
lit the only eonctete example r significance, the Court stated:
Some risks are plainly acceptable mad others are plainly unacceptable. If, [or example, the oddt are C:if in * billion dial a penen will die from csacer by taking a drink ofchlorineled water, the risk cleariycould not be considered significant. On ihe other hand, ifthe odds are one in a iHousemi lbet regular tnhaialloii o gasoline vepors that are 24Xbenzene wiii be fatai, a reasonable person
threatening or disabling. Among these disuses are tur.gear.rec, cancer of the
mesothtJat lining of the pleura a.nJ peritoneum, ashes!osis. ana gastrointestinal cencer. Of 11Of the diseases caused by asbestos, lung cancer constitutes tha greatest health risk for American asbestos workers, bung cancer has been responsible fur mors than half of the excess mortality from asbestos exposure in sooi occupational cohorts
The relaiionship between lung cancer
and asbestos exposure has been established ;n numerous epidemiologic Studies of diverse groups. Asbestos-
induced lung cancer ust'iiiy ha* a latency period in excess of 20 years, and this cancer may be manifested at a younger age than is true for lung cancer
viciims who ere not exposed la asbestos
(Criighssd et aL. Ex. 54-033). Few cases of lung cancer are curable, despise
advances in medical and surgical
Fh f jI R e d il / VdL 51. No. 11B f Friday. Jum 20. 19Sa ( Rutea ;.iyj Kegutecle**!
225 Ej
a C ! t % , iii-Iuriiitg rnilL-.-iala
d'ucjs-i- d orrt-1!-ci an i th* N o v e^tW 1355 onJ April 3M4 nciicw , ftc .t o ; ni
of ih f in fo fro l feiar'rg- nd all w-t1.1Ien coTiE-nii. and oui Ib lis lu c x iw L
r. P w lltc-.l I e s t i Aulhoniti1
"Hie p r^K uy p u p a se c f '1* O ciuM IipruJ S lr rv und
A-:l [SS
a ti,S <, 5S1 4swj-, J [3be A ct' fs 1-d -i-csur*.
t J i : a i pruiible, j.i't and fatal Ibfnl
urerkir^j ;podii?er5 for (^nr A nw rltan wnwltiti.er ilc p e s ia d e fh ii atinar
u w H iy felfmt- 0 f ?n*ln pfi v f iW by flue O: -gieES lo chieve i b -jonl ii iha u t M gi wm re, t a d kn
ponminilnnlnuihorily m iied ln>lht SeCKldir uM bur -la m i mandatory
aM y nnd hraUh iiands-nfs. T V
Gw f t s u p e a fita ily r a n d a l f d lhatr
Thn *=x4ary. a pr:n d ^ .i!!u {liandardi
> d U tt *mlh UHSQrrjiSriifd Jr fc-ttefiiJ
Firpncal jrrr# tp d irlk * nbwv-Jir. *hti ici lie tlarjJc J whJd J jcjI *ile lujldy
m i r a i v It n im l Ji'i s 11, rrt iha b n .'ie t
Jk best atiSfifei ft n id i nee. lira; iw u n lflj/c t
Mit rdfrr rr-aiirfij Inpalrtani - i l ^ i a n n
barfl'iQra*
"j*ran if t i t l r
buraggalir n p iu M m Ihi rx.rd drah wsaii
Lij t T- aunii= b h r !kc pnicc u Tisis
iv:iS iit Iftu [Vralppnrre or.aafeife in fe r
l! il w ic c'iw . r." _ be b istd jxu-. K t jn ii. xncralrjtIrn i fljpMfciqiall. md nu;bi rrtir
iife-rialim 11 n i j be iM fiR ltjlr [a edsiiiHi r.i it# h i^ r.ia -rtl'ir> hr.-:ri'
d=ap ar kialib and n V:j jra iitiitn h r it-=
cdfJiifHr. o i l e r sliR b* die
ItJuL iv.nr.ih'La icirnlrfe dal In Ihi r E. i-r
tsaSty a! iij-'d ii i. <3t u veritiK i jiin o e tttF -Jut nn1 -.iImc and
II-Vii. |B*d:i 1'Jl
Vrbc ni ap-pea prist*, O H A in d s n b .
r n il u in l w I r i j * p rw W on* Ifcr
tjb e 'i ec- oihci Dpp*apr"*e !e (octih oT
KKrt".inE w ir .n r > i
of
n rds.ppdlablr pralfclk-r qisljnrjent.
K p o s u n coAlroi pctK odurji. a a n l bating and in*!?L.-j:y a f tn n L 'i.'Mi aKpiura,
eo jlo y ee i :h b is ine re w in :t meeilrin^. appr-apriala radical
ew m inalians, nd Irii-iagiTid o& untiM . V w eover. w h r r t a sMOjS I p m c rib e i mr-"-nnl .liiiT.ir.a.Iimn ar
olhe-r tesla, they m as1b e sv a llib le a t no este Id ib* u .npiuiae fjtc il n e{M[r|J_
Sl^ndardn - j y dIso p n icribu ri>3c:dl-rpiiiij cp>qiineii-nlj rvticre
n K K s u v a r ap^ropitabe 1er ihc
eri'rnwme-ii af ih ftft T ordo nlnpinj! iisrnrranliscx rirJnrdiD.I;
OE d e n ls a r d Lffnes- fSeclicm Sfe)], In v-jd* u ne O sa IA' re stsbsc. t s Us
boiDti; alacdilrd, i h t Euptlnee CCurL
lequimd in isd ilsicS (vnibn iljiiiifiiiirt AFL-C.I-O v. , l r.ri'uan
r'e'rci'eiLin wfrtaite, +14 U, M L OS L
Ed. 2d in :ii. l i u H. Q . i + i |
irai;
tydnre l.hr w siinnce nf h ra w o r r r s s id
lia n de rd pursuant lo m s .lci 5b)|E] nf
the Acl (SHA m ust mefc* l o
ibreshnU findings. JSHA muai TcjI t!hai
a iiVrlat-ani. riife. tnciiln under d e ittttU tftiiidt'd tad t d * !t***jUM e t a new lUafiaid wanld redoteor liminai* dba*. r L
r i a ll uvtl aainief tb*.' (enlbmal aud Jaba jpnraJrTel rispa hs j r r . TM * if *1TM E iL iT d . n j i i n i i t L r-d.-d ai k h *I
AfierjOSHA b iftennlnnd j f 4
We -1JTM . . -i Um tiiVn
trailer. tiI lhe So^
iSH* o^ntrrani ' e w n+ ^li:e and + J e
ditreonr 'rea u n r bIy Erprcpilila In r-ul*i
r
icd pUu
miDDT u D |* -ij U-
14
Tlic Cuurt hImj u n i
. 1 . n-rriT te car. 1 pririu rn l Ornbi uf e
Secnluy f'jT Le _:| 1: mdxi 10 IIrJlrfl S-.i :
El liluc--in Lhl iera ireiwMir.itrdwnbIkiiintll bj j d-ar-i-t U.5. ai i i ii ts L EiL i
The d e tliiv c . altf li.e uncertainiii in iLll ill* dlilRKI93l
daTsiKuLL IaJtal i-.djal^ du Ids !
loJibr b-sl avalla bI wfa n tv n i qiHU Tsie.-SBenis. I3ma dai r areatwR, tb*
ruTJanidante fi tha
- . TT>en r|d ie r ir
n i l M
11 ni
lUwl.lal. U : ika.r
is lMeint r*. in iht fi
ti n t.ir r i !rj be -1 "sif
U SU. ES L J&J.d a:
lr pain la J ib
. > i n>.5i wur^Lvi ii !*! r r n i i i - .i i i i ^ ie rruvj * !hil ila i
Wnci l* r h n I c i n i kiO L r^ ix iin piHn US. iiiS . C l. Krii2
FlnOly. tba GaH
. .1 CIL\ i K brJl-R ihil 4 .-ir.ij trMi9| lp;rc.airy
lituif ihe ftcnu tiw viK iayS i-bs'n OalUi |b*i| u r .1 ii r H/:a! ba t ,nia -:n `i l l e/jr. l6u(jt. (if IT.5L.
10*35
!V. Health Effects
A. OveniewfAshesQs-Eelaed Diseases
OSHA is aware of no instance in which exposure to a toxic substance has more clearly demonstrated detrimental health effects on humans than has asbestos exposure* The diseases caused by asbestos exposure are lifethreatening or disabling. Among these disases are lung cancer, cancer of the msothlial lining of the pleura and peritoneum, asbestos is. and gastrointestinal cancer. Of all of the
bi Iba Osaly cunran!i^Tmp^o^^^^^^ T.irrir=cr_ t># Ccurl slated:
m ra raa am pfcilr-'y ari+pnUL Dfrf lkrtrti EM ^Ivnlr Lrir>.pi+d L fw c*a .'J*. lbs oJa ara in J K111--n i x ! .j r 'r x ir ixilj dix jiCTl taHc*f by '.akuia; a n r`c :{ a in r1sard wairr. its r jk cSnaiiy cadd a rt ba p ira n jfra i a U r tiir, O i.le lljt.-
EL4b'.:sbd in. nu.Trfi finsiaiiijju. Siydifa f diiariM a r ? i j j , /.tasl.Q-f.
^'iL'crd irins D=car b i* 4 y h*a n P ira c y jurioS r.Ti s h h ci 2D y ck fi. Jrtd this- C-ir.CH n.A>' b mUnTfelAd si a lOiisar ti han I inie for lurg eamccr a lrriru t>no ara-rtat xpoifx n 3 f \ m ;ijj
hard, ilia c rdd j w it i a Ihartf d nkwi rsplac!i.>?. .ji!:n (jfji; iln ! Ttcp:ra that t-t
b n m i w l| be raiai. 4 rf jwj'.Ic f-:-ncn
l & t i i l m d fit nl_ Ek. B4-C23|. F*w c a * ii
cC uii ii> .rr r c u rn b lr. d cip li.
nrlvrm- i'-i in --cdiil itnH
1
3096-B Federal f e i s t e r f Voi, 5g, No. 155 / Wednesday, Augas; ;Q, ifl94 / Rufes md Regulation*
uf Stal, County *nd Municipal Em ploy m s . [AFSCMZ, Ex. M i); OEC. e r iisunui il Ss lahcslcs lEx. :45). S3a . lim iteli La em ployers w hose w a rt duties involve contact w ith ACM shnil saure
that oll AC3A Ln w rkplace Ls id c n tlS !, need not Insjxsct building usa* constructcc etnea I DEO.
2. M andatory notlflcafeo to OSHA by
employees of uil reiraviJ, reno vatirm, and abatem ent w o rt: Saxxirrirrirned by
BCT3. Ctx. 143, A'.:. A i t 3), Thu
C uitrdIlb -Robaria G roup, (L 7 -I5 ): GobbeiL H ays P u u u , Inc. (7--149),
3. Mandatory uw of M o tive p m i r a
enclosures in regulated areas, except fot knulJ-acjt!.ii, aliuti-duratine opemtsems
wd -ether lirai ted cireunmLmees:
*g. a Crq'jn n tlty uut-oife.iar SSSD fOlvfei es.)
10. A clearance flb er level ofO,C4 i' ce WS5 Koairtmeoded. by SE5AC w ha statori that stich a rcquIrerranT WS a w d e d to '"unsure that [ho sbestr.s '*nrk rei i s ite io ite r b u n p t irc tid poMunael after lha asheaifti work cpnratliir. Isr.wnpleced,'" [Ex. "-77).
Pelatiotiikip ti>In<k*>rArc Quolily Propositi fid e
O n A p ril 5. IS M at 33 FR I5S6B, OSHA proposed n new standard farin a o r eii (quality. Tlw properted regulation included. a clause m aking turici ?c.rcrcE.cc to asbesto). 5
Faragrapb [d)Ca] n p ig e 16359. That r tjc x to r t wa& ont^pdvd e s OSHA,____
o f the l i n e (S FR 28720). However,
CSKA splaliwd thet PiX s lower than 0.1 Pee are LfUcult !o reliably moasnre.
However OSHA ban follow! a nanni idfecUve ap p ro ach to lowering
xpOittra* tot tJwis* awSt-Oni and aperali cas where lower expoturas can b nchievnd. T h is approach is thQpering protective provisions based on ibe kind of operation undertaken, rather trim measured exposure levels. This
Hpp roach is-cnnyixTvr.L w ith sem e ether
b e n lii standards (n.g_, lead, coke everts). A majur reason far this apprtmirii for
construction o-nd shipyards is that
measured levels of exposure often lail to defin* risk and are ciflen act! received before the w w k is completed. This wa* ftftrt Iv HTT>1-ti-i^ri in S?~ nt-rynrv:! 'T^u-w.
A significant risk remains at the PEL
of 0.1 f/cc, and it is feasible to attain lower levels for some workers exposed to asbestos.
iBj|AJuii LUu n .niuyB u u iim m u;
building by esublistiriK O tM pian . ReCDtinnsiKied hy SETLliEx. 144 17);
AF5CME. [Ex. 141). 10. Change in tn e c ic it sutihILiik h
TequcrctnccU far m t interlinee and <SJStHia.l woxkcrs in ACM fcuiEHiiijis-- ihey txiteed ih* 30 <i*y limi",,
K ew n u ien d cd by AFSCME, .Est. H I} . 11. Reduce aebon Inve to 6-05 f/cc,
RaKmeacuridud by 3C7D. (Sx. 143). * 12. Reduce 5TEL ta Cl5 f/cc nv#r 30
mir.u.1fcs. JbKXiinniended byBCTD. [Ex.
143), lis e by SESAC a rri NKJ5H (Ex, ? -
7 7 ,l2 S k 13. Requure m ost e tii lv sp ira tiiri
fuasjL' in 'a ll asbestos w otk.
SccoraiEBadad by BCTO. [Ex. 143?. 14. StquLra m e re spectric and
prctectlve braie repais procedures. Fecoiain.en.ried hy C liytqp A ssociates.
[TIC-X, 146J. 15. Regalata iriir itia s invijlvlng
"fh h b le" aBteil *i -ceri ;ainia g a a ie ria l di lirent y From tho$# Invov'ltg "'aon-
friable" asbesins. Rfoatnmcndcd by Edison Electric Enstiiate, [Ex. 7-1 4 5 , at
^i.iuwiipm injjujiL lajujuil mmu, mu extern-.!tjn fl[ltp o itk l(i i'ld infarataliM transfer re^rirem ents; riie exp artsLon of
thecoTopereot paraott tequirernenr to i l l employers engaged in any kind of oonstrweiic-n work: an d . th e d a n ilc iiio n of the small scat*, short duraliort Ap*Mi1MHXHfipLion from, the requirem ent to establish, a tj"gsttvBpressurc enclosure. For con venienoa
OSHA Is sum mari sisig cere :U response to each o f tc*e issues. They nr* d iscureed in depth below. A k a discussed below are iba other change*
QSHA h as m ade w hich ara act La direct iftipun-, -q. ijc rranand.
/Lure 7. fistohfkJunenF c f O peration
Sporj/j'c Expos-or* Limits; The court reiDthd causes OSHA to rn n sld ti esLiblisbing opera tio n .specifin perm lssiblB axpesur* liteiLts to th e
exte.U feasible, as needed to eltrainAte Sijpufimni risk of illnesses caused by asbestos exposure, OSHA proposed to decrease the PEL to G uniform D.l Ifcc. OSHA 1 lie vs* Lha; this lim it is feasible for most indiMiry sectors ;a re* ch m o st
Ul|jy[yil [ f l l l UH!1dl!!l!BUL histtd pii lb iflwfts.: e r p o ta re lim its that can fetsibty be achieved in thnsu Dpcmnac.5 and that a.* it k Arri to e lim itile significant, risk. CSHA rus d ec id ed net to do sa bacasi* [he Operation-specific werk practices unaudited in t i e standard wil! lw a most smid-MilWriv nteoni ofessirring thu significant risk is ciLmtnatvJ to the extant fcnible,
Aabmltte b n beer, the suitfcct cf extensive rulemaking by 05KA and Other agMCjiff. an d the cpesati-ass that
expose nspbysss le ibestcs ere w U
kcwwa m i looratighiy studied. Mcrcov it, given the ahiil aw ay from
asbestos prod-.ters w b srev fr iubstitLles 474 4vi lbili, it eppeara o r Likely that ma|(3r Dtw uses v-iA b i found for UbeetO* in lite future. OSHA has
a r e is w bsfla able to foriti Lis ratjcm iking tU int pa rvuluating i t e warit p ractice* th atv ritl best reduci cxhiiAjcs ftX'jtiMiinis in dss specific opera iians {hit expose workar* :o
isbcslcs. The resuLt is a standard Uwl
Register ) Vo}. 59, No. 133 / IVediWsdiy, August id, 1994 / Rules tuid Rrtjuiaiinns 40S79
e x p o s u r t c .d k n w risk !i>*n the ARSBCJ1 liifliiflt 1 * * we do nc-1 iw iievc that cho risk assessm ent lim s slx years o.rtl relies dq the best ava.Uble
caanm answer * 1 * With certainty
rnortaUcy. iMcaus* of the rrlacivvly jb o r t,
* 4 Ii "tir.* fiber * * o f Mtnplubote Callow u p p eriod uwh3 [51 FR 61B).
(is) eidjt dtfigftmua Own one fiber
CJt&ifr irdi'i involved lung Ita rtisi
" * " a f chuysoLiic." [ri>Zd)_ ^
analyses o f rnesDtheliorcidvietijMr
After a comprehensive review of the evidence submitted concerning the validity of the 1984 risk assessment* OSKA has determined that it w ill continue to rely on the earlier analysis. The Agency believes that the studies used to derive risk estimates remain valid and reliable and that GSHA's decision to not separate fiber types for purposes of risk analysis is neither scientifically nor regulatorily incorrect.
' - * So e!fjrri*kdiirmn.tia! farming
center cr cA tr ibejiatnU m d a ve ivi h*4
been rrio istn : : by cp ji=^iii!s*l
sludies, Annual exptrimsr.is. however. t i d t
Lniiaied ihei c ^ -jw lia !i i iuwc peon;
o iirrin ^ p . tmphlijol.ii when
adrsiiUsMttd hy inhdeliac^ar^iiurapleuial
ln|ectloc
,ax F3 if. UBiny
O SfiA agreed w ith tb* test! pipciy nf nr, Davis, utw aiaced Ural "Lhe evidence
a n d reports. Sam e of toes*-rocunWiUS '`v?TM *i<**r*d by OSHA in the p rio r rulem aking- There, D5HA Ltd. ULed th at t i e 1S33 Berry an d fJtw housa M`jd y of friction cu*eri*ls iHonu&CtUriiig workers w hich fo u n d ncunsifiii {leant irccrctasde in. IdflJJ cancer
fflGflility, was inconsistent w ith o ijer
_siu d lw show ing that Low level asbestos exposure resalted in exoMS lung cancer
ift iC ppart c I the ncpcsiug a im tfct? ch ry so t-e m s rwittcwi eamijiDgenjc potential. AtANA and SBA s u b sitte d adiiLlicnuI evidence. F a r example. AJAXA sub m ated (lie W orld fieiJLh ` O rg in tzatlcrfs tpRQvrijrlcjnjjj report w iiicii recom m ended tfaj t Che xpoejr*
limit fer ckrysctlle ittould be reduced to
l Pcc cr bclaw fa tm arT W A jl w hs re is. w*s recom m ended th at exposure to
Fderal R cs^ ct t \d \. 59, Np, t33 / Wednesday August !, 1994 ( Hules un! RegusalLDns 40S79
exposures held b w ? risk than th ARSBcy tim a; * * * w do nei ixievo tha.1 tim risk assessm ent ilmt ja six years od L a s so the te s t iv* ilable vldiittc*-" AlAN`A requawud CS3L\ io convene tip t n s , as p irt of tis hearing
a m ^ u s u lM im k d ^ _
canniw asurwae * 1 * w il t cenainiy * * * I '"ssisa fiter " 1 " <it Miriptjtote
(a) ciare tUiigvrou* Oin one ber * ' * afekiysot3o." tildl- ,,
Second, es suited Ir. die 1966 asbestos
rtmndar,BVMiClStL44ffiffl touecvpl jfcjajmjfHfctjMI ly h ~ ^ i* r ^ i - m J A j t ______
mortality, Icausa of the n>l*tivly short -
fallen* u p p eriod u sed [SI Fft 2Z610). O ther alud* involved lung tu re en
inalj'ses o f mesothelioma vLuvr
ap p a n asly showing ihaL the pulmonary oonteiit of ctrj'Sthe w w ithin the
Second, as stated in the 1986 asbestos standard, even if OSrfA-Were to accept the premise (which it does not), that chrysotile may present a lower cancer risk than other asbestos liber types,
occupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos still presents a signiScant risk of disease at the revised PEL
iiw c ilttd uiifca yea ! rick sf
meth*!k:reJi shin yexpcs-in to chr/sotile
" * ' iiff dear riak differentia! fashing (ssnsir or other iitcsiai-m bim i oiwiM hti
bwn ce-JCSstratKl by cpi=iii}^[p|
Undies, Animal
feaw rw . tiw*
intfitaicd ihsl chryjotjia is a icons peter,;
yiminSHiri that; unphlboles when
adraiuiswttii i y i nhslnlioc ar lntrapleujol
Inltctlar. * * 1 S iF 3 2sin>.
CSfiA agreed wish tb* l*st!eiany of nr, Us vis. who slated rJtsl "1115 ovidcrme
appended I t i i y w ii&lriLSiiac Ls the b_rA. caruLseiuig o f iu i^iimxciu* jitwcTie$
u d repartSwSasne of these dacunsfcnss w*r eor^jdvnid byQSHA in the prior rulemaking- Thar, C5 HA had v.aied th at l i e 1933 Berry an d fJewhouse s-Vudy of ir id ia n m l e n i l s naom iiscluring wiiri.erv w hich Ebund nonsignificant mscrrajiH n IMeg cancer inurtaiily, w as inconsistent xvilh cjijar o d ie s show ing that Low level asbestos exposure resulted in excusa king cancer
cilirvsnri I a s h [S** E x 113 C, 1 136. I J 5 , Act.6. IS 3 A n C , 1*3 ASt, DJ.
JL apport c f Che nepesing Claim ska; chcysoCle bas r e d i d ewGifliigttniG potential, AiANA and S8A scbiiiinid. additional evidesine. F a r exnmpi,
AJAXA siibmELlfid tlie Wueid fieilLh Ocgpiiizaticn's i ^ihoworking rep$ft
wkidh. rocwnuDHided tha1th* WMW4 Limit fer chrysctile shxnrid be rccuccd: m 1 Ucc er M w ia boorTWA). whire t
w * t reccmmKijded th alt expasmre to
Register ) Vo}. 59, No. 133 / Wednesday, August ip, 1334 ( Rules and Re-sjulations 40979
exposuMS h cid Lawa-i rlk !fe5 th*
AgSBcy iim a t t * * ` wa do nci
beeve ihr.! k o risk aiitsim ci.it i;mt 15
slx yenrs old lie s n a tke b e it iVBilsble
v|d*iiciL,,AlAN`A requftstad CSilA 10
cottvenc ti-pens, m p u l o t i 'iis h#jhc.g
rooess "1i>nrwts* its ashcstos risk
B ftu /acn ;." Ti, S30J, ebb w as tite
najfiiP
t OSHA 's e-ixLer r.ik
tssassaiML iks.ut fm cipdE U Vltcd
iEraiUi cbiauiioni. (ELx T-aa. 7 - u a . 7-
1M , 7-120. Ex. 145,351}, wliile utkers
Wfits c i Lin GpLnjua th it dirysotl.l tiad
ths u n r potcncjr as othet f o m a f
ivbestcs ( s E x 119 C. 1-135, 123. ACL
caan *iijrw * * * wilhce-naLnrty ' 4 |{ -c rJ Gbei * o i ccip. lhioote (is) gib-jT ;i;ig.uroua Own one Qber ' afchiysatilc." [Bildl- ,
Second. suited Ir tke 1988 iifcoslos m ndftrri,eveni f O S ftA -Korn tdeecupi th e prem ia lw htcb it joes not}, that
cluysotiie may present * loww Ciiltet * risk lim;: other asbestos b e r types,
OMupfltioiu] exposure us m -io itl fc* ita * i aresents a signJilcMit risk o f teem * ai tbc revised FEI. (See 51 F it 22649, 22852). in particular. *&*$tOus. Ibe disabling and often fetal fibrosis raf that deep pprtl-ans of the jung, te re n te d
rnurtality. Iiocauae af the rrlctivcly sh o rt,
follow u p p eriod used (51 FA 22CIB). Ol&er sttodies involved lung burden
analyses of mestehebosao. vicihnaP apparently showing ibai the pubnooery
oorsteiit o fc h ri'HiPie w w wiUiLalbe range s i the general population, wlwhMS tempihbole co n ten t w as significantly elevated com pere i to the- rierai
population (it* e g. Cheng, Malignant M esothelioma in British Columbia in 1962, Cancer, 2/83, 672). OSHA notad in tha pream ble to the 1986 rule, tk ii ' there is 1 ifferenfia in tissue retention
Some new evidence on the issue of
differential risks of asbestos Eber types was submitted by both supporters and detractors of that theory-
UILLILP0|ljJ jl
asbcElosis. The evidence a h b a illed in support of tke claim that eh-yioti] justiecCOS is less loxic tk a n u tk tr lib ettn * fther types is related piimaHly to mwoLheltoma. This evidence * uapeesunsiv, and il provides an. tr.sufn.dent bas U upon w h it h to
refjyJste i t i i Ebr type lees stringently. OSKA explairifd ]a 4 priatabic
to the w s& stindm tls,
* * to mnurrarire the data oa Ssk dif6a.*stial by sdi-fig* fiber typ*. b umaa epidetnioLcglcal suidfM Itlve m sprR ri that rxcupa ttcral erpesure Its imphi balnt c n t K i i t d i with 1 y ea r rick, of mclh*UcT.a than it etpcv.Ta to dtrysotile ' " * So cltar risk diiretitial faching cancer cr c k rr asbesiai-ncUted diiwne has btwr, emocstn-.td by ep k=iio5siwl studies. Animat trcpehmoMS. b&wovcr, indicated ihsi thrysotlta is a marc potent v*rcinar- Uisc atnphiboles wbco adminJswrtd iy 1nhalatinc ar uumpliumL Injsctloc * * * St FS it 2:&2n>-
CSKA agreed w ith th e tectlinony of Dr. Llavis. t o o slated first ''Lhe avideoce
sxposunts ta diiiersnl fiber types. T tu c. riii3ating diiierent fiber types at diilecing levels, would nseiiire more mor-itoriaa alt tke tim e se d would produce lim ited benefits (51 FR 22682).
Consequecdy. QSKA beliflVis that its conclusion to treei aii asbes'.os fibers as heving a sim ilar peter.ey io tb*
occtipatiooai setting m a le s valid. Wost o f the evidence submit ted to th* rci&Uad ru ltru -k in g Viplictled cvidenire subm itted to tke 1355 stan d ard s' o p rd , or was cumulative to the eariiorbody of evidence. ?ce cxamiple AtAWA ap|ieaided iLs I860 subtnLsSian La the E7A, consischtg iit mix:Mrau% Jillretire and reports Some of these docum ents wera erjt-.iiijHnjd tty OSH.A in. the prior
rulctnukinfl- Thera, OSHA hail stated that th e 1353 Berry an d dewhousa HUdy of friction m aferiils mDaufecturing workers w bick found nonsignificant tn c ru sa f in UJflficancer lnortaJity. was inconsistent urdli o ijf r
iiu d le s ihi7wfitg tiiat Low levei asbestos exposure resaked in bkoms lung cnocor
IL i 811ILL, 1U i a B B B g T T B W W W F !!^ -
Evidflnca sufcctitTBd by proponents of differcctia] regrjiition oE fiber types, and bad rejiKied the claim that chrysoLiic should.he teg-jilted lets tirsrjjently,
Sem e n ew ev idence on lb* tJMie- of diffcrer.tja) risks o f b e s ta s Ebcr types w as subm itted by both JU p p irttri and
d o rn o to rt a f that tbeacyi In s u p p o of the position that
d u y sctile asbestos exposure is equivalent i:i r i:.). ta umphibole asbistM exposure, BCTTD subm itted studies w hich indicac-nd cxesoo masolkelioina c a sts Ln w orkeis exposed solely 10 chrysotOe asbsw i,s*e E x 315 C, 1 -
1 3 5,125, A rt,5. 14 3 A rt Cr 243 Ait, DJ,
ill SUpport o f the acpcsing ciim t tk it chrj'suLlc has rdutd c a n hv.igttnic
potential. A.tANA ,wd SSA s u tm itifd addilionkl evidence. F ar example,
AJAXA suboiiLied the W orld K eilik 1
O rg an iiatlcn 's 1?H9 working report whichm cam m ended thatrh
lim it for chiysotile should be reduced ti>
I ffoc cr M o w (a h e a r TWA), where 1
w.ts roccm m ended th i t exposure to
,> ' 0 8 0
T e s t e r / VoL SfK frb. 1 5 1 J W f a a f r y .
> ^
TM d Re6 L-:a " or-s
ovaa m j-itcwacjmiMM >lter* it ts n o t
iacide nca ci pioural ylaaiies, Bad other
Among the studies submitted in support o f the lowered risk of chiysotile asbestos, are those o f Churgt and others showing that the lung burden of mesothelioma victims is predominantly amphibole, even though high chrysotile exposure levels were reported. A s noted
above this line of argument was presented in the earlier asbestos rulemaking, and OSHA had concluded that hmg burden studies are
inconclusive.
knowledge ^T- 1C?4t- tkcrw *4TWfcid rvic] truce that d uysotiW ts `'the most ?fT*ccivcf ihelhrw t major f lo o r ty p
al migrating to the pleura tb*t it is ores eat In substantial niiUDt ic p liu rai plaques anti .(Ti<xbeticPEjai,
m m risksH R ItW M BHPHII
ta r e allasbesiOS iSacrtypes equitly Ciher CE-atBCtioiiawere tuede that the oarB*i ris k assesKrwr-i m ay have
ujwl*r*tated-ihe risk to rn asbestos, K vj, r j i.t ipSOrtrd evidence cT
HIHUB BBHH-- , 1Ui. m m . JUULB
ducket include * study of COG NVw
York icsonf custctiiads. reporting only x-ray data (Ex* t7 f- Foe al! fr.*.ij* af walkers, the ] opr ahrmnaaiity ifleo ou x-ray TM associated. w ith duration; .f
FtWtentl Remisier ) Vo). 59, No, 133 / Wednesday, August ID, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 40979
exposunM t e id l u ro risk titan th
AjBBCy iUilBi'ftt. * * we do nel 'oeiieve th il d o o s i sscssm cnt limi jj six venrs o-'-d relies a a th b est .av.ilsble svldiiiie*." AlAN'A iequ*Mod C53L\ io con.vene e r p tn s , . p irt of t ' s hearing proceis "lo icvcs* its asbesto* risk asiA*jun.ii;.'` |Tf, S3 0J, b is w bs th
tnafor o b ^ t io u t OSHA '>scL ler r.sk
ts!5sai.Ki:, Some p m i i f d n u vmeed iEraiUt ofciHuiiDiu. (Ex. t- oo. 7 - u a , 7 1M , 7-120. Ex. 145. 351}. wirle ad isni w e C tlie apLnica tb*t chry sotti* had (he s i n e potency ss O'Jiet f o n cif .beale* rsmrEjt. 119 a 1-135, 125, ACL
6 .1 * 3 AttC. 3 Att. D.), -
A it in v g h a* tweed ahore, c u s u a -ai
cauri (V. Answee * * * w fth cen ati y 4 I f '"su. filxtr " 9 o f mciphjbote (ia) ciOiT d*;ig.uroua liu ti one [iter * * * afch iy satie." t&Idl- .
Second. as statoti ir. (he 1966 asbesto:
rtuDdkri.BvejiiiOStLAjfftft (oaetupl th piem ia Iwhich il xies u n ti that
cluy salile may prcser.t * lo w Cittee t ' risk, litu i oiher e s te s ic i ilb er rypes,
cnipktjoiuJ sxposure OctiuyuiFle
b i MCu SrtiQ u r e s d ts a SLji1flcAHt r is i o f Lsciti* ai tho r::vis e.j fez, (Sm 51 FR 22649, 22632). 5n parikular. ishistOM*. tbe disah lin g eu d often FMi fibrosi* nf th de*p parliti r i oFthe lung, is ratiMid bv uxpasum la kU ty p st <if ij&arfcs. The o vidco ca on thf-c & ro c g a n d s o n e w
inform alion b i s been jtP-taoied to______
mortaliiy. Isitutusa a t the rl*tiv*ly short .
follow u p peti od u sed [51 FR 22510). O tur studi*! involved lung lyirden
analyses of mesothelioma victim,,
apparently showing lhaL the pulmonary n ie n t oickrt,'iOtlJc wis within (he rinse of the general population, wlxntis amphibole content was sEgniGcautly elevated cam pire ta the asiWBl
population (see eg. Cburg, Malign d! Mesathelic-ma In British Colombia in
1962. C anter, 2/83, 672). OSHA neemi
its th* p raam h li to the 1986 rula, that (bare Is s difference is '.issue reiKntterv w h ich w ould accounr for ih. itiojrsy
results and cited a study by Clyscth m 6]. (Dot. 33-C . Ex. 312) which
suocoitc aai^aitftikaai m M *
OSHA believes that its conclusion to treat all asbestos fibers having a similar potency in the
occupational setting remains valid.
liber types !s related primarily to
c i M o l h e l ' o a i a . T h i s 'I d c n c * i s
unpersuBsiv*, ai;d it provides an insufficient basis upen which lo KR-jJarM tis i fiber type less strtngwitly,
ala- OSHA explasnd la pniam ili to -he 1556 Stindecds,
* * * ro tu m m a rire th e d a ta cm A sk d iiark n t.] b y sH erto fiber type, hum an ep icem m L c^Ica-siu d iw lu v ^ su ssw ted that rx c u p a ltc x o l e x p e s u n 1a im p h ib e : ie
U M d iu e d w ith i n e a re r ride s f m esoiheU cm a :h .n is ex p esure to c h r/s etile
* * * N o c ita r rH k difTem iiiia! C aching
cancer cr cih.tr is te sisi n:laiKil dinsne has
b een d e m o n s m itd b y cp-d=iio5SK vl studies. A n im alex p trtm tM S .h o w ev er, hi * i n d i u m ; ihai chryscK lis is nuire p eter,; c irc inagiir- ih a c am p h lb o ies w hen
a d ru in isu rtc lh y nhalalioc or in n a p liu ia l
Inlsctlor. ' ' * ISl F3 22&2Q).
O S H A iiuated w ith th * s m a n y q f n t.
U a v l s . -u t ii a i a t e d t h a t " L k e e v i d e n c e
prodnea limi1l bmn#Ilti (51 FR 22652). Consequer.dy. OSHIA b eliB V ia thai lbs
conclugloc to trSW JCasbeshK fibers as having a sim ilar potency In th*
oor.ipati soai ttin g tem nir.s Valid. West o f the evidence submitetd to the tkinthd
ri.lirnxlunii uplicaled evidence subm itted tc the 1966 standards"card , o r w m cumulative to the earlier body of evidence. ?oe example AtANA a p p e n d e d iLs 1963 snbmLsstac La the E r A . CEflSiSCiarg o f luir;:i>T-uij|. it lld i* .
arid reports. Same of these docurntn's wbTM eor.ifidvreiJ hy O S H A in the prior
rulemaking- There, OSHA had sle d
thai the 1933 Berry and dewhouse sl'jdy of riclion n ite riils illDQUfbCQL'jng w orkers w hich &umd n.onsi.:ii Scant incrftJWi in l'Jfifi cancer murtilLlv. was inconsistent urdh u ijer
siu d le t show ing lin t Low level asbestos exposure resalted in exoms Uingcnni.ur
!JU,LI.!!U!J.kJ.ikhJ.m ^ ..,,^ 1 1 ,,
Sem e now e-dderic* on lb* issue- of
dlffr*r.tiai risks o f tih estS s Ehcrtypc* was SL'amiHei by bath supporters and
iiACrm^ort s f that th-scryi In su p p o rt o( ibe poBidon that.
chryBctile asbestos exposure is equlvaLkitt i:i ri-A [n n_-nphibole asbrstH cxpocane. BCTD sukcaitled studies w h ic h ndicst-hd K XC H kmesotheliama e v e s in w orked exposed solely m
ch r,'sm ile ashei-ios (wee Ex. 915 C, 1 -
1 3 6,125, Act,6. 14 3 Act C, 1*3 Att, D),
ill i-iippart o f the ocpcsing d a im ;.hj`
chrysuLic has reduced (tan.inDgimic potential. A-lANA .md SBA s u b a itts d
a d d ilia n il evidence. F ar example.
`
AfAXA suttnlLlfid (lie W orld KeaJlh 1
Ocganizatlon'K IgRQ w orking rtpOft which, recom m ended tha r th . expo*are
lim it fer ch rysctile should be rccaccd frv
1 F.rcc cr below (a h o a r TW A), where ut w*S recom m ended th at exposure ro
February 29, 2008
Part IV
Department o f Labor
Mine Safety and H ealth A dm inistration 30 CFR P arts 56, 57, a n d 71 Asbestos Exposure Limit; Final Rule
PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT SOA 586 5
Exhibit 316
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
008/Rules and Regulations (c): asbestos standard (29 CFR 1910,1001).
Appendix A specifies basic elements of
a phase contrast microscopy (PCM)
Mine Safety and Health Administration
method for analyzing airborne asbestos samples, which includes the same basic analytical elements as those specified in MSHA's existing standards.
A sbestos tx p o su re Limit
ACTION: F i n a l
C! A lternv^nsidered
li. Rfisiiirilfv I'lmtihilih Analysis (RFA) ory SBREFA) liions
r u l e . :eMethod amble
Because the risk assessment used as the basis for MSHA's asbestos PELs relies on PCM-based methodology, MSHA will continue to use PCM as the primary methodology for analyzing air samples to determine compliance with the PELs. PCM provides a relatively quick and cost-effective analysis of asbestos samples. In addition, MSHA
LA's
will continue to follow-up w ith its
unnOTgromra com llllliUU. n rrs llimi v r n |JU1hiilliuiu UApusmiy iiiuilJ(PELs) for policy of using a transm ission electron
reduces the permissible exposure limits asbestos; incorporates the Occupational microscopy (TEM) analysis when PCM
for airborne asbestos fibers and makes Safety and Health Administration
results indicate a potential
clarifying changes to the existing________(QSHA) Reference Method (29 CFR_______overexposure.________________________
Although OSHA stated in the preamble
to its 1994 final rule (59 FR 40967) that
there is a remaining significant risk of
material impairment of health or
functional capacity at the 0.1 f/cc limit,
OSHA concluded that this
concentration is "the practical lower
limit of feasibility for measuring
asbestos levels reliably." MSHA agrees
w ith this conclusion. 111lilil m ill ILILIII 1uni! LiiLI IUIU III UI c ra m B B S 11U1J1L SO H ISB HIBH BB ! IJill,II l.llllllgl.fl
Permissible! Exposure Limits (PELs)
a reference to Appendix A of OSHA's were not contemplated in the proposed
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 41/Friday, February 29, 2008/Rules and Regulations
11285
rule and, therefore, are beyond the scope of this final rule.
B. Mineralogy and Analytical Methods for Asbestos
century among workers involved in the manufacturing or use of asbestoscontaining products. These studies identified the inhalation of asbestos as ^ h ^ a u s^ ^ sb esto sis^ ^ lo w l^
and those involving miners. One such review by Tweedale [2002] stated,
Asbestos has become the leading cause of occupational related cancer death, and the second most fatal manufactured carcinogen
A
search of peer-reviewed scientific
literature yielded many new articles15
that continue to demonstrate and
support findings of asbestos-induced
lung cancer, mesotheliomas, and
asbestosis, consistent with the
conclusions of OSHA and ATSDR.
Thus, in the scientific community, there
is compelling evidence of the adverse
health
effects of ^v.i..m...^...p...c..^...o..v...7..7..J1ITIJlI!I>)7suIsfist7!n^nH.n^
3Asbestos mineralogy was discussed more fully in tile proposed rule (70 FR 43952-43953).
*U .s. Bureau o f Mines (Campbell et ill.), 1977.
asbestos exposure. IIIIHINIuIdel.!
11Bolton el al,, 2002; OSHA, 1986. 12ATSDR, 2001; M anning et a i, 2002.
19Baron, 2001; Bolton et a i, 2002; Manning et a i,
2002; Nicholson, 2001; O sinubi et a i, 2000; Roach eta i, 2002.
13ATSDR, 2001; Peacock et al., 2000; Craighead
10ICRP, 1966; EPA, 1986; West, 2000 and 2003;
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 41/Friday February 29, 2008/Rules and Regulations
11287
III.
Asbestos
On March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15134),
MSHA published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking to obtain public
* *
`
asbestos in sedimentary rock. The U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) has reported
weathering or abrasion of asbestos-
`
" i
as a contaminant in others, The USGS estimates that, during 2006, manufacturers in the United States used
i i ii i i i i i i iii
>ofing
Exposures in Mines
A. Where Asbestos Is Found at Mines
ew
und ding i
Id
ce,
ation,
Asbestos exposure of miners can ung i
ctive
come from either naturally occurring
Id
I the of
hors
IM
asbestos
in
the
ore
or
host
rock
or
from
tiding heets ;ard
asbestos contained in manufactured osat
products.
1. Metal and Nonmetal Mines
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and other research organizations and scientists have noted the occurrence of cancers and asbestosis among miners involved in the mining and milling of commodities that contain asbestos.28 (See Table iV-3.) Although asbestos is no longer mined as a commodity in the United States, veins,
of their process stream and final product,33
2, Coal Mines
MSHA is aware of only one coal formation in the United States that contains naturally occurring asbestos; however, there is no coal mining in this formation.34The more likely exposure to asbestos in coal mining occurs at surface operations from introduced asbestos-containing materials (ACM).
personal air-sampling pump ana filtercassette assembly. This assembly is composed of a 50-mm static-reducing, electrically conductive, extension cowl
and a 0,8 pm pore size, 25-mm diameter, mixed cellulose ester (MCE) filter. Following standard sampling procedures, MSHA also submits blank
Filters for analysis. MSHA collects a sample over the
entire time the miner works; 10- to 12hour shifts are common. The time-
3.
Asbestos-Containing Materials
[727 F. 2d 415.1984). O SH A a dded specific provisions in Ilia
construction standard to cover unique hazards relating to asbestos abatement a nd demolition jobs,
211n iq s ii Would, 2003.
2DMSHA [Bank), 1980; Ross, 1978.
Meaksr et a l, 2003.
n`i MSHA (Sank), 1900; Amandus e ia/., Fort I, 1907.
GETF Report, pp. 17-1, 2003; Nolmi ef ah, 1909.
i-i Browjield et al., 19B5.
Tvisnrr lu compare a nnnsi s Bjqrosnre
aUSGS [Virta), 2007. 3,iCETF Report, pp. 12 a n d 15,2003. 37Leinen, 2003; Paustenbach et ah, 2003. nBEPA, 1986; EPA, 1993; EPA, October 2003.
(ACM)
F e d s j d _ ^ g g i g J g r ^ o |i ^ 3 JJ ^ o i_ ^ ^ F r i d a ^ i-J i |e b r u a r v 2 9 t ^ 0 0 0 ^ J < u l o s >^ n c ^ ^ e g u l a t i o n s ^ _ ^ 1 1 2 8 7
On March 29, 2 MSHA published proposed rulemak comment on how from exposure t o ; published the pro 2005 (70 FR 4395( hearings in Octobi
F. OSHA's Asbest
Like MSHA's, C PEL for occupatio asbestos dropped past several decac
Year
8-ho
Asbestos in manufactured products, such as electrical insulation, joint and packing compounds, automotive clutch and
1971 ...... 1971 .....
brake linings,37 and fireproof protective 1972.....
1983 ..... 1986 ..... 1994 .....
12 f/cc 5 f/cc 2f/CC 0.5 Vcc0.2 f/cc: 0.1 f/cc
clothing and w elding blankets, could Inaddition, onSe
present a hazard during activities at the OSHA promulgate
excursion limit of
period of 30 minu OSHA's 1986 st
mine site that may cause a release of tooccupationale)
asbestiform and n actinolite, tremoli On June 8,1992,
nonasbestiform t; from the scope oi (57 FR 24310).
III. Asbestos Expo
fibers,38
A. Where Asbestos Is Found at Mines
Asbestos exposure of miners can come from either asbestos in the ore t
oitort to s re ra dripuditrf him m hkaiy t contain asbestos minerals. They use knowledge of the geology of the area,
iulLf inlnaniihfiiiiii iiiul
B. Sampling Data and Exposure Calculations
i^^I\^vahiat(Misbestoj^)Xosurejui^
asbestos contained
products.
'
1. Metal and Nonmt
The presence of asbestos at
a mine indicates that there The National Inst
Occupational Safetj (NIOSH) and other i organizations and si
the occurrence of ct among miners invo and milling of comi asbestos.28 (See Tab
for exposure.
asbestos is no longe commodity in the United States, veins, pockets, or intrusions of asbestoscontaining minerals have been found in
IJLILIULU U|JUIULIU1HJ 1ILU1I I II LI LIULIULIU
asbestos-containing materials (ACM).
3. Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM)
hour shifts are common. The timeweighted average (TWA) PELs in MSHA's standards, however, are based
other ores in specific geographic regions, primarily in metamorphic or igneous rock.20 It is possible to find
Asbestos is a component in some commercial products and may bo found
on an 8-hour workday. Regardless of the actual shift length, MSHA calculates a full-shift concentration as if the fibers
3USGS, 1995.
had been collected over an 8-hour shift.
20U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit invalidated this rule on March 7,1984, in Asbestos
Information Association/North America v. OSHA
(727 F.2d 415, 1984).
21Roggli et at., 2002; Seiden et at., 2001; Amandus et at., Part 1,1987; A mandus et al,, Part
III, 1987; A mandus and Wheeler, Part II, 1987; Meoker et of., 2003.
For work schedules less than or greater than 8 hours, this technique allows MSHA to compare a m iner's exposure
27OSHA added specific provisions in the
32MSHA (Bank), 1980; Amandus et al,, Part I,
construction standard to cover unique hazards
1987.
15USGS (Virta), 2007.
relating to asbestos abatement and demolition jobs. " NIOSII WoRLD, 2003.
32GETF Report, pp. 17-18,2003; Nolan et al,, 1999.
10GETF Report, pp. 12 and 15, 2003. 17Leinen, 2003; Paustenbach et al., 2003.
" MSHA (Bank), 1980; Ross, 1978.
4 Brownfield et al,, 1995.
'" EPA, 1986; EPA, 1993; EPA, October 2003.
is
a potential
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 41/Friday, February 29, 2008/Rules and Regulations
11289
The USGS has published a seri
maps showing historic asbestos prospects and natural asbestos occurrences in the United States. USGS published a map covering eastern states in 2005; the central in 2006; and the Rocky M ountain in 2007. These maps served as a j
for the investigation of possible naturally occurring asbestos with vicinity of mining operations. M,
MSHA has determined that OSHA's 1986 asbestos risk assessment (51 FR 22644) is applicable to asbestos
exposures in mining, In developing this found that stone mines and quarr
the predominate types of mining operations in the vicinity of natui
final rule, MSHA also evaluated studies occurring asbestos locations iden
on the maps. MSHA conducted fi sampling at these mines to screen
potential asbestos exposures. The results of the sampling indicated degree of asbestos at some of thes mining operations, but no widesj asbestos contamination. Althougi included on the USGS maps, MS! also surveyed two mines in El Do County, California. Sampling at o the mines resulted in two personf asbestos exposures greater than 0 confirmed by TEM analysis, and percent naturally occurring asbes an associated bulk sample. Air sa
published since OSHA completed its 1986 risk assessment, and studies that specifically focused on asbestos exposures of miners, These additional
at the other mine had low PCM fi results.
studies corroborate OSHA's conclusions D. Asbestos Take-Home Contami
The final rule, like the proposa
in its risk assessment. not address take-home contamina
In making this decision, MSHA
1)1^111111111111II IH id ii ui ni|_, u.l[immiui m ill
considered its enforcement experience; contamination.
is true regardless of the type of cancer,
comments and testimony on the
Commenters urged MSHA to expand e.g., lung, pleural or peritoneal
proposal; as well as OSHA, NIOSH, and the rulemaking to include specific
mesotheliomas, or gastrointestinal.
EPA publications and experience.30
requirements to prevent take-home
Although excess relative risk is linear in
MSHA based its determination to
contamination. NIOSH also encouraged dose, the excess mortality rates in Table
address asbestos take-home
MSHA to adopt measures included in IV -t are not.40
Table IV--1 -- Estimated Asb e st o s-R elated Cancer Mortality per 100,000 by Number of Years Exposed and Exposure Level
Asbestos fiber concentration (f/cc)
Cancer mortality per 100,000 exposed
Lung
Mesothelioma
Gastro intestinal
Total
'
1-year exposure
0.1 ........................................................................................................... 0.2 ........................................................................................................... 0.5 ........................................................................................................... 2.0 ........................................................................................................... 4.0 ........................................................................................................... 5.0 ...........................................................................................................
10.0 .........................................................................................................
7.2
6.9
0.7
14.8
14.4
13.8
1.4
29.6
36.1
34.6
3.6
74.3
144
138
14.4
296.4
288
275
28.8
591.8
360
344
36.0
740.0
715
684
71.5
1,470.5
20-year exposure
0.1 ........................................................................................................... 0.2 ........................................................................................................... 0.5 ........................................................................................................... 2.0 ........................................................................................................... 4.0 ...........................................................................................................
139 278 692 2,713 5,278
73 146 362 1,408 2,706
13.9
27.8 69.2 271.3
527.8
225.9 451.8 1,123.2 4,392.3 8,511.8
mNIOSH (Report to Congress) September 1995.
""Nicholson, p. 53, 1983.
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 41/Friday, February 29, 2008/Rules and Regulations
11289
The USGS has published a series of contamination, without promulgating its 1995 Roport to Congress on their
maps showing historic asbestos
new regulatory provisions, on the
Workers'Home Contamination Study
prospects and natural asbestos occurrences in the United States. The
following factors: There are no asbestos mines or
Conducted under the Workers'Family Protection Act. Other commenters,
USGS published a map covering the
mills currently operating in this country however, supported MSHA's decision
eastern states in 2005; the central states in 2006; and the Rocky Mountain states in 2007. These maps served as a guide
for the investigation of possible naturally occurring asbestos within the vicinity of mining operations. MSHA found that stone mines and quarries are the predominate types of mining operations in the vicinity of naturally occurring asbestos locations identified on the maps. MSHA conducted fiber sampling at these mines to sere
and different orebodies of the same commodity, such as vermiculite mining, are not consistent in the presence, amount, or dispersion of asbestiform minerals. Based on MSHA's recent enforcement sampling, asbestos
exposures in mining are low. (See Table III-l.)
The measures taken to prevent takehome contamination are varied.
Operators may choose the most effective iiMtlinrl fnr aliminatinn this ha7arrl
and stated that take-home contamination requirements could not be justified at this time.
IV. Application of OSHA's Risk Assessment to Mining
MSHA has determined that OSHA's 1986 asbestos risk assessment (51 FR 22644) is applicable to asbestos exposures in mining. In developing this ^inah^de^SH^ds^valuate^studies^
potential asbestos exposures. T results of the sampling indicate degree of asbestos at some of th mining operations, but no wide
1. Cancer Mortality
asbestos contamination. Althoi
included on the USGS maps, fv also surveyed two mines in El 1 County, California. Sampling a the mines resulted in two perse asbestos exposures greater than confirmed by TEM analysis, an percent naturally occurring asb an associated bulk sample. Air at the other mine had low PCM results.
D. Asbestos Take-Home Contai
In its 1986 risk assessment, OSHA estimated cancer mortality for workers exposed to asbestos at various cumulative exposures (i.e,, combining
The final rule, like the propo not address take-home contami In making this decision, MSHA considered its enforcement exp comments and testimony on th proposal; as well as OSHA, NIC EPA publications and experien MSHA based its determination address asbestos take-home
Table IV--1-- Estimated A;
exposure concentration and duration of exposure). MSHA has reproduced this data in Table IV--1. Table IV--1 shows that the estimated mortality from
asbestos-related cancer decreases
significantly by lowering exposure. This
0.1 .
is true regardless of the type of cancer,
0.2 .
0.5 . 2.0 . 4.0 .
e.g,, lung, pleural or peritoneal
5.0 . 10.0
mesotheliomas, or gastrointestinal.
0.1 .
139
73
13.9
225.9
0.2 .
278
146
27.8
451.8
0.5 .
692
362
69.2
1,123.2
2.0 .
2,713
1,408
271.3
4,392.3
4.0 .
5,278
2,706
527.8
8,511.8
:l"NIOSH (Report to Congress) September 1995.
"Nicholson, p. 53, 1983.
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 41/Friday, February 29, 2008/Rules and Regulations_____ 11289
Table
The USGS has published a series of
maps showing historic asbestos
prospects and natural asbestos
occurrences in the United States, The
USGS published a map covering the
eastern states in 2005; the central states
in 2006; and the Rocky Mountain states
in 2007. These maps served as a guide
for the investigation of possible
naturally nryurrirm
mritlim frlio
contamination, without promulgating new regulatory provisions, on the following factors:
There are no asbestos mines or
mills currently operating in this country and different ore bodies of the same commodity, such as vermiculite mining, are not consistent in the presence, amount, or dispersion of asbestiform
IV--1 --Estimated Asbestos-Related Cancer Mortality per Exposure Level
its 1995 Roport to Congress on their Workers' Home Contamination Study Conducted under the Workers'Family Protection Act. Other commenters, however, supported MSHA's decision and stated that take-home contamination requirements could not be justified at this time.
100,000 by Number
of
Y ears
Exposed
and
Asbestos fiber concentration (f/cc)
Cancer mortality per 100,000 exposed
Lung
Mesothelioma
Gastro intestinal
Total
1-year exposure
0.1
139
0.2
278
0.5
692
2.0
2,713
4.0
5,278
:>NIOSH (Report to Congress) September 1995,
4()Nicholson, p. 53,1983,
0.1 . 0.2 . 0.5 . 2.0 . 4.0 .
"NIOSH (Report to Congress) September 1995.
20-year exposure 40Nicholson, p. 53,1983.
139 278 692
2,713 5,278
73 146 362
1,408 2,706
73 146 362 1,408 2,706
13.9 27.8 69.2 271.3 527.8
225.9 451.8 1,123.2 4,392.3 8,511.8
13.9 27.8 69.2 271.3
527.8
225.9 451.8 1,123.2
4,392.3 8,511.8
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 41/Friday, February 29, 2008/Rules and Regulations
11289
Table
The USGS has published a series of maps showing historic asbestos prospects and natural asbestos occurrences in the United States, The USGS published a map covering the eastern states in 2005; the central states in 2006; and the Rocky Mountain states in 2007. These maps served as a guide fnr Hie iimwitiuntinn nf nrwsihie
contamination, without promulgating new regulatory provisions, on the following factors:
There are no asbestos mines or mills currently operating in this country and different ore bodies of the same commodity, such as vermiculite mining, are not consistent in the presence, a m ount, or dis persio n oi ashcstilorm
its 1995 Report to Congress on their Workers' Home Contamination Study Conducted under the Workers' Family Protection Act. Other commenters, however, supported MSHA's decision and stated that take-home contamination requirements could not
he justified at this time,
IV-1 .-- Estimated Asbestos-Related Cancer Mortality per 100,000 by Number
Exposure Level
of Y ears
Exposed
and
{KJ.1
u.u ....... 2.0 .. 4.0 .. 5.0 .. 10.0
0.1
2.0 4.0
210--yyeeaarreexxppoossuurree 6.9 Asbestos fiber concentration (f/cc)
Cancer mortality per 100,000
1 " ,n n -- HMesotheiioma
U U J U J--
intestinal
7.2
0.7
14.4
1.4
36.1
34.6
3.6
144
138
14.4
288
275
28.8
360
344
36.0
684
71.5
139 278 692 2,713 5,278
/f oV 1,408 I 2,706 I
13.9 27.8 69.2 271.3
527.8
exposed
w
14.8 29.6 74.3 296.4 591.8 740.0 1,470.5
225.9 451.8 1,123.2 4,392.3 8,511.8
NIOSH (Report to Congress) September 1995.
'Nicholson, p. 53,1983,
"NIO SH (Report to Congress) September 1995.
20-year exposure Nicholson, p. 53,1963.
139 278 692
2,713 5,278
73 146 362 1,408 2,706
13.9 27.8 69.2 271.3
527.8
225.9
451.8 1,123.2 4,392,3
8,511.8
Canadian miners and millers, Chrysotile
Canadian miners and millers, Chrysotile d theUnited
f
s some o f these
r|
onological order,
oatures o f each
Canadian miners and millers, Chrysotile re in MSHA's
Canadian miners and millers, Chrysotile sion(s) >d to age and expo-
i disease. eiliance and envlron-
3 preventable by re-
ancer from chrysotile
Italian miners, Chrysotile...................... otheliomas, at risk of nsulators), at risk of
larance and progres1!
interlobar fissures.
Italian miners, Chrysotile...................... yiRs. story cancer, ss by retirement age.
radiographic abnor-
77, up to 100-200 x
'
lignant respiratory dis-
C a n a d ia n m in e rs a n d m ille rs , C h ry s o tile ........... >graphjc abnormalities
!' and lung cancer, rmal lung volume and
In d ia n m in e rs a n d m ille rs , C h ry s o tile .................... cnaenstoSthMelRiosm. as as co-
rground mines; higher Ictive lung Impairment
more common in mil-
raphy and mineralogy amphiboles.
il differences In fiber
C anadian
m iners and m illers, Chrysotile
...........
ig disease, radiologic nore common in mill-
|
malities with improve-
tion, especially short
C an a d ian m iners and m illers, Chrysotile
...........
da icer of the pleura, and
Indian m iners and trem olite.
B razilian m iners and
m illers, Chrysotile and m ille rs , C h ry s o tile ..............
stated that there is isk related to fiber i risk assessment is )priate for the O SH A risk adverse health
ies TEM analysis
j
C an a d ian m iners and m illers, C hrysotile,
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 41/Friday, February 29, 2008/Rules and Regulations
11291
effects of asbestos exposure. MSHA recognizes that there are uncertainties in any risk assessment. MSHA concluded, however, that these studies provide further support of the significant risk of
adverse health effects following exposure to asbestos.
MSHA reviewed the mining studies described in OSHA's asbestos risk assessment, as woll as other studies that involved the exposure of miners to asbestos. Most of these studies were conducted in Canada, although some have been conducted in Australia, Indio,
Italy, South Africa, and the United States. Table IV-3 lists some of these mining studies, in chronological order, and gives the salient features of each study. These studies are in MSHA's rulemaking docket.
T able IV .- 3 -- Selected Stu d ie s Involving M iners Expo sed to Asbestos
Author(s), year of publication
Rossiter eta/., 1972 .
Becklake, 1979 ............... Gibbs and du Toit, 1979 . Irwig et al., 1979 .
Study group, type of asbestos
Canadian miners and millers, Chrysotile .
Canadian miners and millers, Chrysotile........ Canadian and South African miners,
Chrysotile. South African miners, Amosite and Crocidolite
Major finding(s) or conclusion(s)
Radiographic changes (opacities) related to age and expo sure.
Weak relationship between exposure and disease. Need for workplace epidemiologic surveillance and environ
mental programs. Parenchymal radiographic abnormalities preventable by re-
MSHA concludes that exposure to
asbestos, a known human carcinogen,
results in similar disease endpoints
regardless of the occupation that has
been studied.
\t
Nayebzadeh et ai, 2001 . Ramanathan and Subramanian,
2001.
Bagatln et al., 2005 ......... Nayebzadeh et al., 2006 . Sullivan, 2007 .................
Canadian miners and millers, Chrysotile ........
Indian miners and millers, Chrysotile and tremolite.
Brazilian miners and millers, Chrysotile..........
Canadian miners and Tremolite, Amosite.
U.S. miners, millers, Tremolite.
millers, Chrysotile, and processors,
Respiratory disease related to regional differences in fiber
concentration and not dimension. Increased risk of cancer, restrictive lung disease, radiologic
changes, and breathing difficulties; more common in mill ing.
Decreased risk of non-malignant abnormalities with improve ments in workplace conditions.
Possible use of lung fiber concentration, especially short tremolite fibers, to predict fibrosis grade.
Increased mortality from asbestosis, cancer of the pleura, and lung cancer that were dose-related.
MSHA found that many of the observations presented in these mining studies (e.g., age of first exposure, latency, radiologic changes) are consistent with those from the studies OSHA relied on in its risk assessment, as well as studies of other asbestosexposed factory and insulation workers.
MSHA concludes that exposure to asbestos, a known human carcinogen, results in similar disease endpoints regardless of the occupation that has been studied. Because there is evidence of asbestos-related disease among miners, MSHA is applying the OSHA risk assessment to the mining industry.
Some commenters stated that there is a differential health risk related to fiber type and that OSHA's risk assessment is not adequate or appropriate for the mining industry. The OSHA risk assessment addresses adverse health effects from exposure to six asbestos minerals. MSHA applies TEM analysis
11292
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 41/Friday, February 29, 2008/Rules and Regulations
to its PCM results to determine exposure to these same six asbestos minerals. Exposure of miners to these asbestos minerals, at the same concentrations and length of exposures as workers in other industries, can be expected to result in the same disease endpoints as quantified in OSHA's risk assessment. (See section II.C and II,D of this preamble and chapter III of the REA.)
Some commcnters also expressed
concern regarding the health risks of fibrous minerals that are not currently regulated under MSHA's existing standards and suggested that MSHA conduct a new risk assessment to include them. MSHA considered these comments and determined that a new risk assessment is not necessary for this
exposure levels currently existing in mines warrant regulatory action. The criteria for this evaluation are established by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) and related court decisions.45
Section 101(a) of the Mine Act requires MSHA " * * * to develop, promulgate, and revise * * * improved mandatory health or safety standards for the protection of life and prevention of injuries in coal or other mines." Further, section 101(a)(6)(A) provides that--
The Secretary, in promulgating mandatory standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physical agents under this subsection, shall set standards which most adequately assure on the basis of the best available evidence that no miner will suffer material impairment of health or functional
hour TWA PEL to 0.1 f/cc, MSHA will reduce the risk of asbestos-related cancers from 6.4 percent to 0.34 percent and the risk of asbestosis from 5.0 percent to 0.25 percent. MSHA considers this reduction to be substantial.
V. Section-hy-Section Analysis o f Final Rule
The final rule is substantively the same as the proposed rule. To make the standard easier to read, however, MSHA has divided the requirements in the final standards into throe paragraphs: Definitions, Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), and Measurement o f Airborne Fiber Concentration. For 56/ 57.5001(b), the metal and nonmetal
the term asbestos in MSHA's
existing standards and this final rule is
limited to the following six:
Chrysotile (serpentine asbestos,
white
asbestos).
industry. 'MSHA's Regulatory Economic Analysis (REA) contains a more indepth discussion of the Agency's methodology and conclusions. MSHA placed the REA in the rulemaking docket and posted it on the Asbestos Single Source Page at http:// www.msha.gov/asbestos/asbestos.htm. MSHA also placed OSHA's risk assessment in its rulemaking docket.
C. Characterization o f the Risk to Miners
After reviewing the evidence of adverse health effects associated with exposure to asbestos, MSHA evaluated that evidence to ascertain whether
4:1Sullivan, 2007. 44NIOSH (HETA/MHETA), 1990; NIOSH
(Technical Report), 1980.
\i ) m i! ujqjuMJu iminjis insrgmnean risk of incurring any of these material impairments? Based on OSHA's risk assessment, MSHA has determined that a significant health risk exists for miners exposed to asbestos at MSHA's existing 8-hour TWA PEL of 2 f/cc. Over a 45year working life, exposure at this level can be expected to result in a 6.4 percent incidence of cancer (lung cancer, mesotheliomas, and gastrointestinal cancer) and a 5.0 percent incidence of asbestosis.
(3) Will this final rule substantially reduce such risks? By lowering the 8-
45Industrial Union Department, A FL-CIO v. American Petivloum Institute, 448 U.S. 607,100 S.ct. 2844 (1980) ("Benzene case")
40American Thoracic Society, 2004; Delpierre et al,, 2002.
white asbestos). Cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos
(amosite, brown asbestos). Crocidolite (riebeckite asbestos,
blue asbestos). Anthophylite asbestos (asbestiform
anthophyllite). Tremolite asbestos (asbestiform
tremolite). Actinolite asbestos (asbestiform
actinolite). Like the proposal, the final rule makes
several clarifying changes to the existing regulatory language. They have no impact on the minerals that MSHA regulates as asbestos. This more precise
47Leake et al., 1997; Meeker et a/., 2003.
4" ATSDR, p.136, 2001; NIOSH Pocket Guide, 2003.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
O S H A 3 S H A QuickTakes Newsiette Q rsS Feeds Q Flint This Page
Occupational Safety & Health Administration We Can Help
Home
Woifcers
Regulations
Enforcement
Data & Statistics
Training
A to Z Index |En espanol |Contact Us |FAQs |About OSHA
Publications
Newsroom
W hat's New |O ffices
Small Business
An i
durnq th e m anufacture o f a s b e c s products (such as tw tk e s , frrtio n products, insulation, and o th e r bukding m otertafe) and d u m g a z c r c tw brafte and d u tch re p a r w ork.
W h a t a rc th e h a za rd s o f a sbestos?
Asbestos s w d recograed as a hearth hazard and to use ts now highty re p jts te d bv bo th GMA and CPA Asbestos fibers associated vrtth these h e a th ra te are to e s n a il to be seen w ith Che raked eye. B reathing asbestos fib e rs can cause a bukdup o ' sca r-tke b s u e in th e lungs caked asC etloss and re su lt ir loss o f kin g fu n c to r th a t < *ten progresses to d is a tn itv and death. Asbestos also c a u s s career o f th e lung and o th e r diseases such as mesothekom a o f th e ckeura nN ch is a fa ta l m ahgrant tu m o r of th e m em brane Irin g th e ca n ty d th e lung o r stom ach. C pdem M agic evidence la s increasingly tfn w n th a t a i ssbesK x lib e r types, rrtu d rg th e m ost com m oriy Load fo rm o f a n rio s . ctry s a tite , causes m esxhekom a n
humans.-"*1^
W h a t ca n be d o n e to re d u ce th e h a za rd s o f a sb e sto s ?
A .
1'..Iiw1i::r '.- k i'i.
094A . Use th is chedckst to
d e te rm re co m p ia ro e to th e
asbestos standard.
O th e r R e la te d T o p ics
Caicnoaeti h a fa tm i aU Isviti '.fcrarriE h a fa tw i M m ___________
There is no "safe" level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposures as short in duration as a few days have caused mesothelioma in humans. Every occupational exposure to asbestos can cause injury [or] disease; every occupational exposure to asbestos contributes to the risk of getting an asbestos related disease.
3 tom m ar SP, Mendereor DW, KJcbc K, Dodson RF. 'Chapter 43: Neopasms o f the fk e j-a .' In : Tom ashitokl JF ]r ., od. D al and Hamma-s A d a m o ? atto b cv, 3rd Ea tto ri. Ncn T o rt spm uor, 2dob.
26