Document xxDpXMQ94k13jmN22O3garbg

hfry/ >; * a Irnc* ' ^ptVtVRIf (SAsuuible request without S the program. Through the need for extensive {ustirication. r.:-tr w >wUHs<neai Into a new ,, the comments submitted In response to However, weatherfxatlon projects will At) f 440.15 entitled "Subgrantees**. and 1 ' the NO] snd through other : be monitored to determine the ' $ renaming 6 440.14 "State Plans**. This ' communications. DOB is aware thut \ reasonableness of the costs requested > reorganisation eliminates the indefinite sen ice to low'tncome renters nerds to ' and approved. Additional Justification "" heeding "Administrative Requirements'* be increased. Somr 55 percent of the ?will he required if monitoring results -; v.: end places In its place two headings . lowdncomc population (s composed of / indicate that grantees do not exercise Which give e more precise indication of tenters, yet only 10 percent of the homes .* sufficient financial accountability or ';.;-,5-Amn2 ,eojttM)fw-Kov-*JM5:iwit hmanlik . accordance v by the audit f h Section 440.2t(bjJ * Sectinn 44P.. . Council: This is n | ^composed of pnragi previous section. Hi ' andumsrd. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT Friday `;j November 4,1983 M Part VII e ^Department of Labor . , Occupational Safety and Health ^Administration ; . .^Occupational Exposure to Asbestos; ^Emergency Temporary standard -vi's-Aomo .- ^.Js<o3)t!ij-Nt)V-tJ-H:iwji . Hu . >. - ... - w.~- JO ft m .51088 --yi Met S* OEPAflTltENT OF | . 5-;-Oeeiijtlonl Saf.1 ;feJWmW*traHon ;MCFR Put 1910 '..f%|OocMNaiHnwi I OcegprtcK^it . - ri'; ACtHCV; Occupation I Administration (OSH v~!-'ACTIOM; Emergency l :;1* suauumn osha is u ;*: emergency temporarj ^ reduce the permlssibH (PEL) for asbestos fro ;^C'than S micrometers)! centimeter (2 f/cc) as a weighted average, to 0 t ; v'. period of tbs emergent^ V ^employers may use alii control methods, such % . controls, work practla **=i ^Protective equipment t - limit of0 fibers per a o? (OS f/cc). Training proj, ;. required to be institute) The basis for this B1L determination that conj * ;exposure to asbestos ti . i- conditions that exceed fl r grave danger of develj \ Induced cancer and ash exposed employees. an_ -v emergency standard Is a protect them. The ETSs . proposal to revise the c . - standard pursuant to s 6ic)oflheAct This notice also reqm - l^Vn the appropriateness c provisions of the CTS as! /-V ' Revisions to the asbestos! 'IM addition.OSHA will s ; ^ separate notice of pnr ' that further explains tb .><consideration for the pi :,.a% "Standard and which rata. ' -v,radditional Issues regatdia ^application ofcertain pnn -^-asbestos standard to the c_ -industry.That notice will! . comments and will tchcdJ ' rulemaking hearing pursui ` of the Act concerning! permanent revision to the f standard. ] DATtC The effective date 1 - :> ^November 4.1963. Comma *** .jC' AVidence concerning tho p ' j>;>;teviilons to the permanent! .*-p.- aude by the ETS must be tf ` *' -^before January 3.19B4. As a .^*win publish a notice ofprc% rulemaking shortly that wiQ V^.dates for submissions to thL ;?&. docket tot the Issues raised! ; :^S-Anut0 ;,;JXWmJW-N V few . wn- (Sun OTi'TOfr, I V* fcri-V? < .J; - -,s ^ * ' . -c ' j tf *'I CKKtr 0*rn Msww'u AM U ` Astariao 20 ftsrg of exposure .wt \vtc): Moa ................... --- ' .......--.. a: yV ^V. m . - > . A.* . v^W ~7 f'UH-M OF (MCBIKATHJ AVOIDED M llftttai rlU ntlNtn for mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmimm^ - i ;\*vVfi. New 3f4of0.5 f/cc : ^ 'ini^^n---- or fprmtUTOH (o take auch action upon - s-amiii twain km-sov-.Mfclj 2* Inn n Ml.'] VJ tircTCctroTcch do nol need to gel approval from DOE before tiling it but -j'Siose <u1 * 1 federal RegUter / Vol 48. No. 215 / Friday, November 4,1963 / Rulee and Regulations ^DEPARTMENTOFUBOfl MOMMettWrittencommenUahouId axbnioiii) among currently expoted ' he aubroltled to the Docket OUlcw. .'worker. which are attributable to if;Occupational Safety and Heetm AT Docket No. H-G13C. Room 5-4212. US. contfnoed exponim under pwaent .'-;*4WmWitraOoo V5;- Depertment oflabor. Third Street and '-*nnklngrandll!onaOSHAeaMmnted Mem Pert 1910 ^:1OorttrtNO.IMN0I ; . Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,''-, the number ofcancer deaths avoided D.C 2021A .tbroujh lowering of the exposure to OS ' T V foe TUATHtA MeoMUTKM CONTACT: >. f/cc. based on B monlhs, 1-yesr, 20-ycsr James F. Foster. Director. Office of '..-and 4S-year periods of exposures at ^^aPeeupeDontlExpouniloikibeita* ^ infomiatlon and Consumer Affairs. " current levels.* The predicted cancer .'^TMltMCy: Occupation Safety and Health OSHA. US. Deparlmenl oflabor. Room "deaths avoided that result from these '.^AdutnlatratiDn (OSHA). labor. N-3832. 200 Constitution Avenue, NW. ./ periods of exposure ere respectively 2101 yg<ACTION: Emergency temporary atandard. Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) ' S23-8IS1. ' 428.5725 and 7015. A more detslled & discussion of these estimates it found in . -^ uamanv; OSHA is Issuing an 4waninitiiTMiVMSOiWAtioic ' ' ' .emergency temporary atandard (RTS) to ;>iseduce thepetmltslbfoexposure limit . ,Table cfCooteak , -' fPEL) foraibeslos from 2 fibers (longer . I Introduction ?>'than S micrometers) per cubic fSL lexsl Authority and Btdtground . > ^Umcler (2 f/J ea anVlihi-hmu linle-^im^^XlS^, f"lh'6,8 ,-^tbe section*. Quantitative Risk Analysis (Section V], Crave Danger (Section ill , . V Ak and Need for an ETS (Section HI 8). V "'4 Risks of this magnitude at permitted and actual exposure levels defined a v/.f* eltuatlon which demanded immediate Vi weighted average, to OS f/cc. During the . foranCTS * & period of the emetgtncy standard, employer* may me all practicable SupportingDocumentation: -v'eontrol method!, such a> engineering X' tV. Occupation*! Ketlth Date ^ control*. work practice* and personal V.QuanMatlva Risk Analysis ,.fc protective equipment to meet the new ' '^1* limit ofOS fibers per cubic centimeter . (H0.8 f/cc). Training programs arree,a;l`tJo0 y,VI Technical and Economic Feasibility rA.Technical Feasibility B. Economic Feasibility ' ,iX1Lenvironmental Impact.Regutatory - refulatory action. Evaluation ofthe - Vmevant actenURc data, policy l\considerations and exposure patterns of j workers hat convinced OSHA that '^ continued exposure at the current PEL 7^ and under actual workplace conditions rU.ccmsUhites a "grave danger** to ' ` - employees, and Chat an ETS it needed to fJ protect them. VDL Summary and Explanation ol the ETS J ` The ETS requires that employees may . ../determination that continued employee > {& Public Participation, Authority and fnot be exposed to concentrations of -' exposure to asbestos under current .> Signature; and Esrt 1010 (Ameoded) kiv, asbestos exceeding OS f/cc on an 6-hour * 4 conditions that exceed 05 f/cc presents ' .)}a grav dangerofdeveloping asbestes- m> t. Introduction V fc5 Induced cancer and asbestos)* to V This is an emergency temporary \ t. time*weighed avtragt bails and ^ permit* the employer to draosa among ^ engineering control*, work practices and .</ exposed employees, and that an & atandard (ETS) issued pursuant to ' respirators to reduce exposures to the / emergency standard it necessary to ^ lection 6(c) ofthe Occupational Safety V new PEL. However, (he requirement bt . '<-i protect them. The ETTS serve* alto at a ' * and Health Act of1670 (the Ad) (M ; 110t0.HXn(c) to utilize feasible proposal to revise the current asbestos .;SUL 150&29U3.C.6S5), the ' - engineering controls and work practice* - * atandard putauant to section 6(b) and ; Construction Safety Act (Pub. L. 01-M; .. |o reduce exposure levels to 2 f/cc ; > 6(c) of tha Act V 40 U-S-C. 333}. the Longihoremen's and remains hi effect tinder this temporary This notice alto request* comments ?. Harbor Workers Compensation Act (33 standard The ETS alto requires /foe the appropriateness of including the V DS.C 011), the Secretary of Labor** employers to institute a training program . v' provision* of the ETS as permanent > Order No. 6-83 (46 FR 35736). and 29 within thirty daya of dm effective dste /V revisions to the asbestos standsrcL In ' . T3R Part toil. This emergency standard of this emergency standard. The training * addition, OSHA will toon publish a . corolsls ofrevisions to the exiitlng , , ^progam wit) Include instruction on separate notice ofproposed rulemaking ' Standard covering occupational s setpirator fitting and use. handling of * > ^tbat fartherexplains the luue* under , . 4 axposura to asbettos, 29 CFR 1910.1001* . asbeatoe* medical Information, tha ' ` f consideration for the permanent . f* In order to protect employees from a >*> eslatiomhip between smoking and fung standard and which raises some :,t` pave dinger bora continued exposure cancer, and a review of the asbestos *r additional issues regarding (he * ; to asbestos at current exposure tevels. ' standard. The ETS applies to all ~ -r ^application ofcertain provisions of the A'- OSHA has determined that workers industries covered by the Act including ' yr i asbestos standard to the construction . exposed to asbestos under exposure w "."general industry**, constmction and vlndustry.ThBt notice will invite public ; V-conditlon* existing under the current s^maritime industries. V, comment* and witl schedule a " ^ atandard face a grave danger of '.-.' '.rulemakingbearingpursuant to Section ' 'developing incurable cancer and . * OS)tA h awarr. ofcoant. Uul Srctkn 6{c)ol ` r 6(b) of the Act concerning the proposed '' asbeitoils. Further, OSHA has found ' 0Act iMta UwrffacUv* Unc ofan EISto* ^ * permanent revision to tha asbettos , that an immediate reduction in exposure . xknfta andO_S_IIAceadodeslhtt a_gn*e danger \ * *. standard. - Iwtl.ln 0.5 f/cc Of b.low U nret.Mty T 'D*T*$:Th# effective date for this ETS Is toprotect such employee* from till* >:' November 4.1063. Comment* and grave danger.ThereforaOSHA is v,1icwpm. tW/Vrncy it Hpprepttkt t 'akabtebwntdRMnsftDtMeiBK>}nx .----e-v--i-d--e--n-c--e--c--o--n--c-e--r-n--in--g--t-h--e--p--r-o--p-o--s--e--d ^issuing this ETS to compel reduced "*Wmade by the EETISS must be received on or aituatlon. ; before January 3,1961. As noted. OSHA OSHA** detetminatiem that a grave `' anohroirsptrtrd whhln amoaihs. m that therr will publish a notice ofproposed ^'danger currently exists Is predicated wiHhvttns^toSRsti^ioQfDrMpawdnnptoim. . '^rulemaking shortly that wiU set due *?- ,, dates for submissions to the asbesto* -V; upon quantitative risk estimate* In this -/*';? record which point to a Urge number of ir h> OSlIX` upAfifuct --d hidipWBttmntplyirm ' v.tridi At*ftttvtarjrdirrethr*and couple)Wi tidnA*klnfopfmr*nJ*Uad#fdwlt)ibi* ; docket for the issues raised therein. ^>^xcesa deaths from cancer (and SM" ootV* ofmETShodcan b*dow. S'AntttO %CnMf0tttt.NOV-*M4;l*.3A) rrw. if*. vu lute i ;aCR DEATHS AfOlKO ii risk cstlwtcs for posurks * ..; - > s' . _ V. o' -5 ,/ec . tins' 1 lev 20 jrurs 45 itsrs il '\ r ' 8 ,117 1 '31 ;*T1 I8 -m - 2* -174 \ . j` . <84 ~ - l ~ i " i9 41 exposed . able to J present (estimated avoided bosure to as pear, 20-yesr (sutes at led cancer om these actively 210, betalled Is It found in I*k Analysis ectjon III JctionlUB). (milled and Ida nmediate ,' Jofiha jy 1 patterns of ` |\ that ntPEL londftions 1*needed to pyees miy pn of land-hour Vd e among [cticesand b to the Kment in practice* 1/cc Iporary fc program pedate hd lung Istos [eluding land (irr to pllhmqdi k) ndun) |hcrp lioyir*. fin* ily litlKnun thuw two entitle.. ftrspunsclo AdditionalComment# TnrrR^*iilnco Program. Each DOE received comment* in reiponre to program Ip separate nd distinct by tow. '' the NOl which II was not able to - . S-AIMII2 O)(0l)(W-KOV-M-l5:im few tn tsi: *$ Federal Beglrter / Vot 40. No. 215 / Friday. November 4. 1B83 / Rule. and Regulallon___SlM7 ,< Aa provided in 29 CFR19S322. the 2 : C.I^yilAuthoritytodBack{ttxe>d exposed workers theirlives. OSHA ; ;j? Stele. with their own OSHA-.pproved A ' ^occnp.tlotul ufety and he*!lh plan. era ' LegalAultiontr i ' , : Stares the genuine concern expressed . by the petition and letters from union* 'ifCTpnarf to idopl* comp.ruble . , " SectlonBlc) ofthe Act provide* for / representing thousands ofemployees . i'c t.ndrdwll}itn30dyof thl. ,^mmedUlelydraleemer8tncy t who are directly faced with Ins threat of j-publlutlon date. The,e St.te. .re; fc temporary at.nd.rd. in certain : asbestos-related disease from continued '-JpA!tk, Arizona, Cillfomte, Connecticut eiramuUnce.. The SccreI.ry h.. the - exposure. And OSHA concludes that , (forStatendtoco)government - nlharilyfoluueiurfi.tl.ndard. fiilure to issue this ETS may cost a V: employee. only). H.w.tl, Indlaru. low.. without rutemiklng, Ifbe determine. ' cumber ofexposed worker* their lives. 1';* Kentucky. M.rylend. Mlchlg.ii. i (*J h.lemployw. e*xpo.ed tograve . In August 1983. OSHA completed a 1 'U Mlnnnot., Nev.d., New Mexico, North danger from expoture to >ub>t.nw or i. comprehensive risk assessment based ' ,Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South , -agent. determined to be toxlcor - on numerous human studies which - HjCaroIlna.Tenne.aee. Utah. Vermont. 41 pny.lc.lly harmful or from newhir.nl.. estimated the number of excess death* .! ' -'Virginia. Virgin l.laoda. Wa.hlogton. : end (B) ihil .uch emergency etandard I. . bom tha three major asbestos-related ` *;^and Wyoming. ' Alio. In retporua to the emergency --if*condllloni faced byexpoaed worker., ` Decenary to protect employee* from auch danger." 29 USC. essfc))]). Ihua, : tehxepdoa.unrgee_ar_nm_du_ia_t_lmb__eu_"_tf_rboem"g"rwavoerk."enr ot >&* fWtaMP mforeement -j jgjL .IgrUticint end Uw'regM.tion ", J . moat be "Keceuary" to edd^M "audi cancers, ta* long cancer, mesothelioma and gastrointestinal cancer, at the , current permissible exposure level of2 f/cc and at various reduced exposure ^ levels OSHA placed this document he*toa 1* h.ndled ..'i danger." not merely reaaonably "Quantitative Risk Assessment for Asbe*tos*Re)ted Cancers*** in the ; The temporary provlalona that me ' , necetwry ofappropriate toprovldeMla * Asbestos docket In August 1083 (Ex. 64- -being added to tho exlatlng adwato* `. employment- to addition, aa In aecllon 349). OSHA subsequently revised this ? ftfiEatendard preKribea the ma|or - e(b)pennonenlelndardaOSHAmey ' i.r^ componenta ofin occupational aafely ImpoM requirement, in tha emergency ?domjment (See Ex. 64-382). Z History oftheAsbestos Standard " < i-nd health atanderd. to genaral mMtof ;. etendard only to the extent that they OSHA has regulated asbestos since .4*. fl current requirement! remain "fea.Ible" wllhln toe meaning ol aectlon 1071. A12 f/cc limit for asbestos was ; Jeennaffected by the emergency temporary v {b)|5) ofthe Act. . .-'Vatandird. However, compliance wllh The Fifth Circuit hit eophulred tha included in die initial promulgation of OSHA standards pursuant to section > .aoma requirement, wlllbetrlggeiedby -: Importance ofthe aevertty of heallb :j--;dienewexpo.unrllmilofasf/cc .. effect. In OSllA'a con.lderallon of ' iji inttead ofthe former PEL of 2 f/cc. For whither an EIS fa appropriate; (*) of th* Aa on May 29,1071136FR 10466). In response to a patltfon by tha Industrial Union Department of the .-t4mmple. requirement, to* a. <*anga -------- thad.niworinemMe.perm.uent. AFL-Cia OSHA issued an ETS on oom.remalnuniffectedbytheEIS raU)ccnrequence.h>worker..oppoud asbestos on December 7,1971. which . <md th* trigger level for duinge room* Soessilycunbt*andfleetlRgefrcUottbrir 1 ^rnwitnp the former PEL of 2 f/cc ' * beahh. becocnes important tn the yAit fl 1810.100l(d|H)I. However, the CIS ' consideration^thenecessity for etoertency ' i require* tht where concentration* may " \<t exceed tht new PEL. the employer must post sign* indicating sudi location* > measure* Idmeet a grave damcr." Florida ' /Vocft CrtmrraAtsocfctkm. Inc. v. United 'StottsDeportmentofLabor489* P.2& t32 ; iCASi . established a PELof S f/ccon a time* weighted averag* basis and peak exposures of 10 f/cc. The current standard, promulgated in June 1972. first established an 8-hour v time-weighted average PEL of5 f/cc and ^Utnatooiikiien. ' . > OSHA based It* decisions concerning ..-^appropriate provision* for the ETS on it* - v^deteRsrfMtkm* ol the kind sod degree of ^protectiveaction needed to protect Jti^la- gsoaaintfMst sa gcrave ddanngaetrfs*nndii the ^ v feasibility of instituting thee provisions OSHA also ha* interpreted relevant fudidal dedilons to require that it* evaluation of th* gravity of the danger ,and the necessity for emergency action ' must be made in the context ofactual ' workplace conditions. a celling limit of10 f/cc. The limits wet* intended primarily to protect employee* . against asbestos!*, and 1! wa* hoped - that they would provide some incidental degree of protection against cancer. Effective July 1076. the TWA limit was reduced by the standard to 2 f/cc. This - "^.during tlm period o! the ETS - & Background .V limit ha* remtlned in effect since that jv*'- Under section |b) of the Act OSHA , t. Events Uodlnf to the ETS In June, shortly schedule an tofomuil { > 1883. OSHA received a petition for an tulemaking hearing on the proposed ; EVS from the International Association time.The standard also Includes provision* covering methods of cofflDlisnce* monitoring, medical ` / vjpermanent changes to th* standard. `"of Machinists and Aerospace Worker* - aurvelUsncs and housekeeping. >OSl(A will also propose other revision* (Ex*. 84-244J. Subsequently letters Court review of rids standard upheld 1lao^the_aus_b1.e_smt.o--s-- st.and-Xarbd-Xtihka.t.w...itlillbge i*r. '; sup. poratti.n. g ath Iis. pelitkm__wer* rece.1ived - aR major provision*, but remanded two \ - ^explained in the separate notice of ? from IB other unions (Ex. 84-284 to 84- ; issues for OSHA'* reconsideration. tUD A Vpropcracd rulemaking. Application of - 204.64-387 to 64-30t). The petition - v. Hodgson, 499 F. 2d 487 (CADC1074). A certain provisions of the asbestos y^t requnted an ETS to reduce the PEL to " These Issue* were whether the July 1076 ^r.;^*tanduid to the construction industry 0.1 f/cc. to modify some existing work . date for the 2 f/cc standard should be A^wUl be raised at that time. OSHA - apractic* requirements* and to require ' accelerated for some Industrie* and tha ; lyianllclpstes that this notice will be *V- othw protective provisions ragsrales* of adequacy of the 3 year retention period .-^`published shortly. OSHA is now * >i xposureleveL The main reasons set *. for expoture monitoring record*. ,/^cceptingwriUencommentsonthue . X forth hi the petition and supporting > Subsequently. OSHA Increased this . A^issoes raised in the ETS which are letl*r*re that continued exposure retention period to 20years (41FR - relevant to revising the permanent rule. .' wider current workplace condition* ` 11504) and tho acceleration isaua t Hw Secretary must promulgsto a A constitutes a grave danger and that . became moot ' ^ section 8{h) standard no Inter than *lx ^ delaying remedial action until a After reviewing tha then available months after publication of the A permanent standard Is promulgated acientillc data. In October 1075 OSHA . vv^emergencystandard. - ' . ;v ` - would cost large numbers of currently* * ` published a notice ofproposed ` A'*-AWIiO ;,00*5ilWK0>.KDy*4y-Hi2^) re* m. sstsai ~ Ftteral Rntitw / Vot 48. No. 215 / Frtday, November 4.1963/ Rule. nd ReguUtlon. 51097 - ' Alliousi the muttj tn T.hU* rfww -r 2 .fjftfcwa bmrfiU OSHA betlrvn toe .' .-> omber ofde.th. voidedtrader tki. >; tuKanuio.) for^x month., 1B2 tor 1 , jn.r,241Bfor20yemndU13(br4S erotken wduM teuufa) cs.txxpt.Mir ]Mntodlc.t.agr.vedi{erimJ Mfl). A. .tiled .bom, OSHA hu ' stnultetetot. ETS edkin. ' minuteddutata2f/ccInet V amp!ojretaxjx>Mdovnawtxktnj Witlme of45yam are predicted ta -/ t:T*bie < < kavaanaxcaurideofdytetfnracancer . efMtolOCDandflfcsntractlnsdlMMI^ 0. Cmcer Otitttt AvoliiM atth O.S f/ce ETS ' ' j atonto.1. of 50 In 1000; amptoyeei axptned over20yean art predicted to iAttwiej Coaplttoce with bit 2 f/ce Stvitterd fcanaxoencancertldtof44tolOOO and a dtriblta* aibnlut. riik of approximately 22 In iota Evan at - - V-f'i 'lwJuttrjr Sector '^i %6 aontht T ye.r . 20 yt.rt 45 yurt axporum laitlnfona yaar, an aitlmated 3 etnploym out of1DOO art predicted to JgpfrlmrrMmifecitirliig 1T . If* . ` die of aibetloe related cancer, and than b a)M addlllonat riik ofdmioptnf ,>^{i|Sor4rjt Mvftcturlns IT -.31 : 'i vie* .'-,i aibHttxrta Rldu at toa 2 f/cs laval hava . haan acknowltdped a. unacceptaMa by Aftenurket '>* /--e w -.J v : ~ fotherlovemnant. which hat* nducad ' ' thatr permtutbte laval.baton 2f/t .``jt^feStiipbutldlBsyttep.tr* 1 0 0 s_ >*aW timed m the for an answer. -S-AWII2 24(Q1X05-SOV-*V15:J3^J) ' few m. wijsj . ----m__________ ___________ ippllcnblc. and no to be presented ddiUanalEA or EIS is requited | 51068 Federal Register / Vot 48* No. 215 / Friday, November 4,1963 / Rules and Regulations . rulemaking to revise the asbestos made by the EIS and toe additional . asbestos-related disease to the current landard because OSHA believed that ;* proposed amendments raised in the asbestos-exposed working population, ^'%v>nsttT5cient medical and scientific. notice ofproposed ruTemsking to be comparing these risks to other /-^ evklenca had been accumulated to /' spublIahedsooaThemlof subieclaof occupational risks, applying relevant *'% warrant the designation ofasbestos as a the 6(b) rolemaking will be: reducing the policy considerations, and reviewing all V' .:&*bumon carcinogen** and that advances permissible exposure limit, revis--ing*tuh"e relevant Judicial decisions forguidance, . monitoring and protective technology definitions ofasbestos and asbestos - (ha agency hat determined that both , made reexamination of the ttendird fibers. reassessing the methods of prong* ofthe statutory test are met and ''f^'**detlrabte.** This proposal would have ^toompUance to achieve such limits. ' ' -i ; that an EIS should be promulgated. ' ''^reduced die time-weighted average to jpPtvfetag the provisions regarding For purposes of darity. the discussion . v.i>QJ5 f/cc and imposed a ceiling limit of 5 '^nnpbator selection, revising the ? ~ ft divided into two parts. "Crave . - : V;^<f/cc for IS minutes (40 FR47&52). t^oampting and analytical method to , Danger** and "The Need foran ETS." ...: The baits for the 17S proposal* Improve reliability, and adding a : OSHA believes, however, that th /. r vj-reduced permissible level of03 f/ccwas training requirement OSHA will also * factor* whkh Indicate that a substance '* OSHA's then current policy for raise tssoes regarding tha application of constitutes a grave danger an related to ;j K^carcinogens that no safe threshold level ; the permanent standard to the amd overlapthose which determine that ' -*/$ was demonstrable and. therefore, the construction industry. As previously ;Vt|-Act required OSHA to set the PEL as - stated. OSHA will toon publish a an ETS is necessary. . . , \t ww as technologically and economically - separate notice ofproposed rtdemsklng A Crave flower , . V* feasible. Ibis police was rejected by the to further explain these issues. . y&iSupreme Court fn the benzene decision m rui'.o^.urrt.um - Wt?UD vt. API 446US. 601 (1060)). OSHA J&OSHA aRational# for the ETS *y?^lindted the proposed revisions in the ^ OSHA has determined that prevailing %>.^-t07Sootioa to all industries except - V conditions involving workerexposure to : / ivjconttnxdkm. No hearing was scheduled v sfrbome asbestos dust fustier the .rtir-i^on the 1973 proposal Also, although ,<'protmd|0on ofan emergency OSHA announced ita Intention to ' ^temporary standard. OSHA estimates ^.^vtorelop a separate proposed revision Y'i that approximately 375X00 workers are *'' /.^applicable to the construction Industry* ' exposed to asbestos at various levels '/r^wosodipfoposalhasbeenpublishedto ..r...(.T...a..b..l.e...1..)..,.r..a..n..g..i.n..g...f.r..o..m....a...h..i.g..h...v..a..l.u...e...o..f 'V>`date. r ' 20 f/ee to below 0-5 f/cc. OSHA has V OSHA is basing its present decision to * estimated that under current exposure / issue an EIS, and to propose revisions conditions asbestos-exposed workers W:rto the permanent standard covering all facean axtraordlnari.ly hi^gh risk of employees, on information and analyses contracting asbestos-related cancer *<1 which postdate the 1875 proposal /-^whether the risk Is computed over a .* -Jrtttrefcre. this ETC marks anew ' y< working lifetime ofexposure or for regulatory initiative, related to. but not " - exposure periods as short as 6 months. >\y< pah of the W75proceeding. On May 24. ; * The average excess cancer risks for aU 1063. OSHA consulted the Construction workers exposed above 05 f/cc using , ,.\v'Advisory Committee for Occupational available exposure data and relying on . V v? Safety and Health (CACOSH) , ^;tbe risk assessment are estimated as /^concerning applicability ofanew approximately lOSexcetscancer deaths , asbestos standard for the construction * = per1000workers for45years of :$iIndustry. CAGOSH endorsed OSHA's . exposure. 133 deaths per tOOQ workers Exposition lhat changes in the PEL made for 20 years, 10per 1000 workers for 1 *r>for genera) industry shoutd also apply to year, and 6 per 1000 workers for6 `>>^4be construction tndusby.f^HA is also - months ofexposure. ^//^ Indudingtlw comments and data OSHA believes that risks oftheae -1. c/fi received In response to the 1875 notice - magnitudes, taking Into account ali . t In the record of this proceeding, with the relevant considerations such as total : OSHA has determined that the risk to . workers from exposures to asbestos at s conditions that exist In the workplace pose a grave dangerofdeath from cancer and ofsevere disability from the hmg disease, asbestosls. In making a fcrave danger" determination, the < severity of die disease produced by exposure to the regulated substance and the magnitude of the predicted risk* of disease most be considered. In addition. - the Supreme Court has suggested that a determination of "grave danger" Indicates a situettai where the risk is -more thsn "significant** {{VD v.API. eup/on.45). ' OSHA has applied that analytic approach endorsed by the Supreme Court for "significant risk" determinations Hi evaluating toe gravity ' oftoe danger faced by asbestos-exposed workers. The Sepreme Court gave some general guidance as to the process to be followed. It recognized tost while tot Agency must support its finding that a certain level ofrisk exists with substantial evidence it also recognized toil it* determination that a particular . level of risk la "significant" will be based largely on policy considerations \WD v. API 448 US.655.656, n. 62). /. >X^wnderstsnding that some eommenters cumbers ofworkers at risk and quality OSHA believes, therefore, that its I Buy have changed their positions based ofsupporting data, constitute an determinations regarding the magnitude ' ;i'y-on intervening scientific developments ^'emergency situation which requires ofthe risk faced by employees should. ; /&and policy shifts. ?Immediate response by the agency. 1 lo the extent possible, rely on . fn the decision to Issue an ETS, the f The Ad states that when certain - quantitative expressions of that risk, .-'Agency has reviewed this regulatory < Statutory criteria are met. OSHA is utilizing the best available data. V-v- history ofasbestos. However, the authorised to respond to an emergency ~ The Court stated that the significant ~ , Agency bases the decision to Issue an ,v situation by tuning an ETS. The two- ride determination required by ths OSH "iv'ETSontheactualemefgency conditions , pronged statutory lest for an ETS la that Act is "not a mathematical stralt|acket," `.i'y/ which now confront exposed wmkera. - (t) employees must be exposed to a _ and "OSHA Is not requited to support ' .`i -,- on epidemiologic studies that provide . grave danger from exposure to Its finding that a significant risk exists data to make numerical estimates of substances oragents determined to be ' with anything approaching scientific - and on interpretations of these toxic or physidslly harmful and that (2) certainty. * *A reviewing court fit) to ^.studies using quantitative risk analysis. an emergency standard is necessary to . give OSHA some leeway where Ita r ^.The Rulemakingto Eevisctho y protect employees from such dangers. findings must be made on the frontlera ipi^PfwtancntSlandaniTheC{b\ h AfterevalustJngaUtheevidence . ofadenllfic knowledge (and that) *** V . ^tuletnahlng Initiated by this proposal is . available to the agency concerning the the Agency is free to use conservative ^intendedtobclimiledtotherevislons ;;-1everity and magnitude of the risk of * assumptions In interpreting the data . s /;S-AWIt0; 0066(WK0j-NaV-Sy-I4J2^*) 'f' ' vi ' /' rr*w m. sun,' . . rSlDQB Federal Roaster / Vot 46, No. 215 / Friday. November 4, Ifl63 / Rule* and Regulations exposures maybe reduced to below OS ' a gap in protection between the put. winb* needed foroanyyeua.Por V f/cc and tot benefitsoftoe ETSwill be y expiration ofthe EIS and the Imposttioo mri^tonon-aibeiloabnlwaand s.'* CTTTrip"odt"riy jn^Teasedt Fhrthr*. an oftoe permanent standard for a , -; ETS by rutae ofthe Ktkn lUelf.end t Mb.trace efreedydetermined to pretest dot* bdnt In new vehicle* In the next ' theccompnytasenlorcraen!progrem. atrarredenger. ' atmal ytatx. Old vehicle*, conUtelo* , '\ -vwffl radoufrtedly booit the tocentive*to OSHA <Uo beUere. that It b belpftd - sdiexto. paita. win remain in e for .y txxap\y with all trottetiw ptordtiom at ' toanslate the extent ofrid mdllnt uny yean thereafter. BaOc at al found theaibettoeeUndard . : lromUfrUmeeipo*mperk)dofJOrad cter halfofall muItUtory boildhtj* . * (b)OSHArelectedrri]riji|oniorre)y ^ ASyeintntheabwnceofthUEIS. A. aonreyed (M out of127| cont.Ined beylrtniey SectionCIb)ruln.VIny ^_~$hown inTable, to.nd tt. these rUhs (prayed on ubetto.matatial fEx. M- V 'C'.taoaKdlot>ton*iMtbe(tesdarato 'v^anaxtnotdinaillyblih. iB2).The potentill foraibeito. - reduce the PEL a. an toiderpaU ', ;i Ynpotaa to thayrava drayer fraed by j 4. OtherFodort Indicating aNeedfar ji nsETS. AUboo* wodrw expwura to , axponm axl.U a*fong u athextoa rtmalnj tn tbeu bulldlnu. Rraovalkm .. .j-aabeUoa-expoiedwotlm. Bejbmlng - r^eriIn*ptocee<)ln*. retull.lnna '<.^be(tt hi. been dadlnhi oter lba ; nrn OSHAbeUne, that axporare ' worit in the building aocn a. relocating . wdU and atKtrlciIwMnt.will moll tn ' '. '*"*'* . Emptoyee.wocid .till corUmi. tob. '''vCoCKlItloti.win conthnia topmenl yrava .'^danaeTin theDCffnlore unV..an . r..- eoottaned expotora forcaipenttn, . painten. aiactridrai. tahoren, iht^ r' 'vexpo<I to thoetmdiUora which ^Vaaerfencyttandardlapnmtiltatad. - BaUtwothanandothara. ,;> Jdefine a raw danger for at hut tha - A OBHAbaw* Iht. nndlni on Ita Tbtrafcn. OSHA doe. notbaftna t; pendency of tbatuleouilnj. In OSHA. ;^nbattonofexponiralsfoniuitIsn. ' that major axpowra fatal taducBona a *;: ` axpeiienca. eoo^Wlnf Bjb) ndemaUnc. . 'aibaitoa km --u--"-- iir- aotlnltatedbyanS-- ' -------------- ;, S-A04I12 OK.SOIXW.NOV-M.lS tJJt) m. UJ OqbiniXAtion Art. 42 U&C 170) riseq. "DOE" main, Die Department of Eocryy. ' Federal RokIiIct / Vol. M. No. 215 / Friday, November 4,1683 / Rule* and Regulations ' S1QB9 >; >> with tnpect to carcinogen*, riding . *j these disease* am lung cancer, cancer of levels which wmkera currently face. '-ij't-tTTorontheildeoJomprotection .i^tlwmesothelial lining ofthe pleura and . Most ofthe results of these calculations : Mlher thtn cnderprotection" |W9 US it -. peritoneum, and asbestos!*. to addition* for Goncer are presented to Table 11 in workers exposed to asbestos are at the risk assessment section of this ! "" In the * ofaibelto*. th* dot* V> Increased risk ofgastrointestinal cancer, document. ' mdiUe ne oftmntud breadth and ;Vi as shown by epidemiologicstudies. ' Iha table sett forth predicted excess high quality. However, becante rid Although celo-rectal cancermay be lifetime cancer risks for exposures of . *>f%^4twsiB){i)titKlf Involve* toiny ^-4 curable Udetected In an early stage, ' ooe year, 20 years and 45 years. Risks /'^ncertilnUe*. OSHA nude certain othergastrointestinal cancers are for exposures of months are closely ^^aftramptiona in its analysis and /"r asualty fatal OSHA also balltve* that approximated by one-half tha risks for ^Vyavalostion of theae data. In tnctilng ' asbestos might induce cancers at other ^exposures of one year. Although average , i>^ihe risk for stbealot-expoaed workers, sites, which an also often fatal exposures in demolition and renovation OSHA has attempted to use realistic Of these, lung cancer constitutes the ' are estimated at 20 f/cc. the table ,:>&assumptions, although tha court stated ,, y greatest health risk for American presents risks only for selected exposure , ^ that the Agency was free to use ' -'*Vnservllveassumptions**in asbestos workers and has accounted for * levels up to 10 f/ec. *^_i_o_r_e.t.h..i_n__h_a_lf.o..fe.xc.e. ss mortality in These calculations show that the risks ^ Interpreting data. OSHA. fas many cases,; - some occupational cohorts. About 90% ofasbestos-related disease are '. - has indicated where different . -Voflung cancer patients die within 5 - alarmingly high at current occupational . '|yassampticma may produce different - yarn of diagnosis. Mesothelioma is an . exposure levels. For example, an ' wr results. In addition OSHA cautions that incurable cancer which is usually fatal . j\ estimated total cancer risk of205 excess * v within a year after diagnosis. It is 'i. deaths per 1000workers exists for v cpidemlologically linked lo asbestos worker* exposed for a 45-year lifetime _ "on -exposure, and occurs very rarely,ifat -v at IQ f/cc, a level which currently exists ti&r'the frontiers ofscience,** they should ba all in persons neverexposed to cm tome construction sites. At 5 f/cc. the asbestos, Asbestos!*,a type of ^exposure levels which are considered ; risk faced by asbestos-exposed pulmonary fibrosis. It usually non- ^average In shipbuilding and repair, the workers and not as precise fixed '-i tavarslble. Its advanced stages are * a; a predictions of the numberof workers -X disabling, and can bs fatal. OSHA -i\risk ofdeveloping asbestos-related ;v cancer for a 45-year exposure period is V who will actually develop disease. i ^.concludes that all these diseases are vTI9 excess deaths per 1000 workers. At OSHA has evaluated the kinds of ^^.dangers presented by asbestos vary serious, and that tha excess mortality bom such saver* diseases y*> the current permissible level of2 f/cc *i srfilch also represents actual exposure .f * .^exposure, the quantification of those most ba considered an Important factor . levels In such industries secondary ^dangers under present asbestos ,\>&exposure conditions, the quality of the 1 v, data on which risk estimates are baaed. comparison ofasbestos risks to other occupational risks, end relevant policy '; v-'nd legal considerations in concluding ,* '%- that workers are exposed to a grave endanger from asbestos. . ; 1. Nature ofOne Disease*.As stated above, the ruiture of the disease . ^>axsotiated with exposure to a toxic ' v substance Is one ofthe most important ' w-"* elements OSHA evaluates In V;**v'+-vf''`.docDc.wqncvweraooauuaomt2olnrremnacr.rirdkaogrunekDemeieukelsttraeiirrptslriioscgnoatnsoincaorutaguaneiuslsvntnardeemiepesoDdgisonronuaeeitrisgfim.alnxrfmReactpeavatoaaiuioxlessvyrtrlstekeeeidreslees,yvoiaendsOneooxtnfwt(lDoSpnfsEgeochfHetaexxasrhivp.ctriAunas6eowhrkc4blresodhee-aus.f3peaisrsrc0irercunehi2isevlgdt)keds.itdoabstyfa-.`..v.'-^?^v:/.r-*gfpepecyalaheaeasebpbMTsatalrpuicrikmhpOroiriuceseloedOdalat,saprs.twiOtieetnroiainihodwrgsdnginitsaocadaosokshrnpfpksaf0deOaoecrr1xeeeprriSnpesemmedHotxffrosefoacspAondneuirrnarnbstoraeaevsegdi4sehxflucbio5eerasacryr-vhtaanmyswehotkcilaspiraeehngtnasrerIihicsddt,ecnlhrwmeakxeispinadhnjkoot.agthTstoinh*sub2er*9er Allhcwghi22fi/feccii*tti'wcuiroilPS.for *PPmdnute Ant^poU.Ktu.lnn.nn /y^. determining whether a grave danger .;^-xktx.Thisfactorw*idiscusedln - co.nditions var.y widely, mostl.y b.v ^/^fforidaPe^CnmersA^ociotitn/ac. ftoduriry segment As explslned later ja i'/ir UnitedStates DepartmentofLabor. fids document and as set forth inTable ; > - mapra. The court, to overruling OSHA'a ^ t average ambient exposure levels in ^;rA;orginojhosph*te pesticide ETS. various Industries include high exposure ' ->~j^cb*erved: levels sud) as 2t>f/cc in drywall ' /J V* Vie fried any ttggntioa thit deaths mutt ^ -x.4 occur before health and safety standards may be adopted. Nevertheless the dangerof / mcurobJe.permanent, orfatalconsequences removal renovation and demolition: 5 / f/cc to shipbuilding and repair; mid range exposure levels such at 2 f/cc to secondary fabricatingof cement sheet * workers receive 20 yean of exposure. Counterpart risk - calculations using a 20-yearexposure period are: for workers exposed to IQ f/ , t40 excesscancer deaths per 1000 workers; forexposures to 5 f/cc, t05 excess cancer deaths per 1000 workers : and for exposures to 2 f/cc, 44 excess , cancer deaths per 1000 workers. '* OSHA also estimated risks of to workers, as opposedto cosilycmabfe and packing and gaskets and paper products ` developing cancer for a one year period V ^fleeting effect*on theirhealth, become* and rebuilding and refacing brakes; 1 of exposures! various levels to which ` y'-" important in theeoosfderotion ofthe f/cc for dry processing of textiles: and T. employees are exposed.Tha counterpart ' necessity foeemergency measures tofacet a lower exLpDoOsSIu--r-e---l-e---v--e--l-s---s--u--c--h---a--s---O---A---f-/cc ' risks for ex.posures to ID f/. cc for one ' danger. 4S9F2nd at 132|eaphasl / ^ added) ,. and 02 f/cc to tha manufacture of floor.J yearare: 15 excess cancer deaths per ' in*. *; 1000 workers: to 5 f/cc, 7 excess cancer OSHA Is aware of no Instances (n Because OSHA Is required to consider / deaths per 1000 workers and to 2 f/cc, 3 v.'- '.vc which exposure to a toxic substance bat the actual danger faced by workers to ;> excess cancer deaths per1000 workers, ' ; 2?; 'more dearly demonstrated detrimental assessing whether exposure Ids >s' - Even at current workplace exposure - health effects on humans then baa , substancepresents a "grave danger**, levelswhldi are Ins than the current /V^aabestos axposure. The diseases caused OSHA looked at the risk ofdeveloping * PEL. extraordinarily high riska of y- by asbestos exposures are (n Urge part disease not only at the 2 f/cc ' t's> disease exist At 0.5 f/cc. 17 excess - ^'life-threatening or disabling. Among ~ permissible level but at all exposure '' 4' cancer deaths per 1000 workers are \ I^S-AMUO COShXO)-NOV-#5-l422:H) , r* ^ Vd._4& Wa 215 / Friday, November 4,1PB3 / Rules and Regulation! 61091 ' ; ^ respirators (with a protection factor IV. OccapxtiuI liMlth DU '' ^ exceeding 10) must be worn drops from Jttral,(,,hnlMidda not tern to 1 s*-s 20f/cctl0timeathefomerPLof2f/ .. f'ccJtoSf/ccllOtimeathenewfELofaS ^ AMOCtlot-rthl*!Diteates. .. atcirictloQ U ,Iw cocmwmly found In ^ f/cc). Uicrefoce OSHA bellrvM lhl AAntrampoKninncnuantimber penota who hiv* bm ntpoud to . '.V, toon woritcr, will wnt man protective ,v- mt^nlora node, th, ETS ths tindv , the current pennMBrt *Un<UrA that , ; thtir Ktn.1 ejqx*m Imti Mill b . ofdiubUrigid fiUldlwuo. Amooj - KbMto,(Cr,!*h,^li!t^.lB2:E!t.MtteM<Uu,K,hiiiscit)nr.cincRor CM). fr,mwolbtU.Iliningcfth,pltcr,id .A^oiUhptilinooatyflbttMl, jwHoMnaMdwbefttalmhAo . cnudbyth*ccuma1,Utcr,ri>,,ta, i*;reducedtobdoiasf/eeKl ,: >eottwnnt!> thl IhrirrtDa will b* " g.*H^.nt?^l.?.nc*?"_9t*11.thf. . ' '/ reduad nea mort thn (h, alcuUtkm* 4- MbnlMli not*fnm itiacbwuof lwth upon txntlon lo cjuno,!^ *-;i"ilodJc,te. b,llh--r-t-i-k---l-o--r--A--m---w---i-a--r-n--.--i-b--jntloo, v rffatau of nrata ltnI4 wiptailoijf ' > '_foQan,c<rd!,t:cUai(sptulkm.n] OSHA find, bo tht requiring ` v'MrtlnlngprojnKntoboUuUtattd,, .;'i.q!iily wpowIblBhooeof lh roort - >"irfIecUveimftod,ofnM*lBltinjtla .:* .v?t4 benefldil Input rf th, mpoiar, nwlailon <uid of,tt th, prntKtlv, ' ^ ptovliion, ofth, cmrrnt .landird. Thta. -- ';s .tb, cootnt of tU, ETS hM bn chon .woticn.bmg Gvuxrhu bm mponilbl, forantlulfofth, now t:i ihttb. Oflm. ubnloil, I, a prognutn v. dUMtwnwrtlnth, ibwnncf natulltyfcomubnloinpowntn , eecttourt mnoMt*. Bymplom, of ioeeup,tloof cohort*. Th, reUtlonthlp bclwm Ittnq uncr 'ud ubnto, Mpntn tu bnn MlnhtMwd by nmnnott* *pidn . Modin of dhrwMiroiipfc AtbuUw* '> thM,M v* mxtnn, of bnalh. co^i, ftllfw, mf qm IhUih, of.Ichw. Wtwo Ih* flbtoli womta, ihortnn, of bmthoccun mn ,t mL C -i.-. " > th, tnol eFTfrcllvs rfwtt-lKtn.U |089 lily face, lalculalions fable 11 to ' bf this tted excess blDTHOf pra. Risks cclosely e risks for Lgh average [renovation Table Id exposure V* , :iP faith*risks e upational . Ian EG5 excess sfor I ilfetima ntly exists |Sf/cc.th* lsidered pair, the , ated beriodft Ikera. At 12 f/cc "* kposure * fcndary , kin* f risk ts r * leaths |xposur when ft to 20 knottier fn-Tbe ate bsure lo 10 f/ Itooo 105 "prker* cess Brnign!. except that the Secretary may /5-A04U2 * OOSitOiKOj-NOV-W-IMJ^O) rnn **. nu*s Subgrantec* means an entity Bumagins a weatherization project Vcuthcrization Project" means a -.4 project conducted tn a single t geographical area which undertakes to, 8_1_0_90____F_ed_e_ra_l_R_e_gi_st_er_/_Vol 40, No, 215 / Friday, November 4, 1083 / Rules and Regulations ^ & predicted for a 45-yearlifetime * ^^anhestos were compared to those to -.1 hazard, where the data are considered Vt/cxposure, and 11 excess cancerdeada fcontrorgroups not exposed to - ;; / both avatiable and reliable. v* per 1000 workers fora 20-year exposure /asbestos or to those ofgenera! The risk ofexcess mortality estimated ^period. - r/^populations such as VS, mates. Studies . as a result ofexposure to asbestos at tbe V OSKA notes that the above `*7*y ofsuch design art able to provide direct {conditions to the workplace today /-r&caJeutaUona are for cancer risk only, la /estimate* ofexcess risk. ' appears to be substantially higher than ' '^addition, asbestos-exposed workers face :The studies used by OSHA to deriving other riska experienced by worker* from /; jj' a (Ugh risk ofdeveloping ashestoils, a ^dose-response relationships for its risk : occupational injury hazards. The -j disabling and often fatal disease. ^.assessment covered a variety ofwork ' National Safety Council (NSC) ha* . r*> Predictions concerning the estimated v -^attuitkm* and industrial processes. Ibis , reported the annual death rates to 1081 augnltude of the asbestos!* risk have ' > variety Improves the predictive value of ' from work accidents to a variety of / been performed by OSHA and are tot risk assessment because it lessens - industries (Ex. 64-339). Using the NSC ^discussed in tbe risk assessment section * or eliminates the possibility that the < data OSHA bas reviewed the annual & nT this document. Accordingly. OSHA : t results were unique to any one ^' mortality from work accidents per 1000 ^estimates that at 2 f/cc. SO worker* per -r.^occupational situation or wen in fact workers to several industries to light of ".^1000 exposed to asbestos for 45 year* ` . aberrational. The occupational setting 'tha excess cancer mortality from a & trill develop disabling asbestos!*. At OS studied were: workers exposed at a tingle year ofexposure to asbestos par ' * :<? f/cc for 45 years. It (s estimated that 12 chrysolite textile plant from 1030-1075 Z 1000writers. For example, in the high :; */workers per 1000 wiU develop disabling (Dement efcLExs. 84-038 and 84-037); ' risk occupations ofagriculture end ;,?!ibe*iasls. Asbestos!* risks can also be ' Canadian workers at an asbestos V Bdnlng-qoaiTytag. the annual mortality /}|*astimated for exposures for durations cement facility (Flnkelstain Ex.64-240); rates from work eeddenta were 044 end /'T** shorter than 45 years, for example, toe ^-.Italian chrysolite miners and miller* . 045 per tOOQ workers respectively in * .0< r<isk ovjf dwisMaubiliungs aiubtiatoius>lis firwomu %. who worked daring 1038-1965 {Rublno '' 1981 (Ex. 84-330). In contrast, the death exposure to 10 f/cc for224 years it 12 -J f ol Ex.84-68); workers in an asbestos Tate from work accidents for al) 'ceases per 1000 worker*. OSHA'* ... cement pipe plant (Weill Hat. Ex. 84- ^ industries combined was 0.12 per2000 *-"\*eatimates of the magnitude of the -vc206); workers to an asbestos production worker* to 1982. c asbestos!* risk are based on sound data . plant and asbestos cement (ripe factory OSHA hts estimated tost toe lifetime /. v* from good epidemiological studies. ?<- (Henderson and Enterito* Ex. 84-48); risk forone year ofexposure to 2 f/cc of OSHA believes, however, that the *fJ. British worker* manufacturing asbestos asbestos it about 3 excess cancer deaths r.5? confidence which can be placed to ,-/ textile products (Peto Ex. 84-2fidh per 1000 exposed worker* during the predictions ofasbestos!* risk Is not as asbestos miners and miller* to Quebec, ' remalnderoftha workers'lifetiraes (Ex. , treat as for the predictions ofcancer /...Canada (Liddell otet. Ex. 64-59); and to 4-349). Thus, asbestos workers' risk of ./ y risk. This is because toe cancer risk ^estimates are based on a larger and more varied data base and are derived thaThetford Mines,Canada (Nicholson excess cancer mortality from a single aJal Ex. 84*72); and workers ; year ofexposure to 2 f/cc is roughly S manufacturing asbestos friction !; times higher than tits risk ofaccidents! )./v from dose^xtrepolatlon models that are materials(Barry and Newhousa Ex. 64- *ioccupations) fatalities from one year of v' ;v/ belterestablished Because OSHA has 21 . . employment to agriculture and mining* , ^4;determined that the risks forcancer - "Well-conducted epidemiologic ~ quarrying. . -fii alone indicate a grave danger, toe studies tout show a positive association As shown to Table 2, OSHA estimate* ;-V additional risks of devetoping asbestos!* between n agent and disease are .; that many workers are exposed to : -/ not necessary to justify this ETS. - *accepled as the most convincing / asbestos to the vidnity of2 f/cc. In V A* However. OSHA has considered that evidence about human risk** (Risk * addition, OSHA calculated toe avenge . toe additional and Independent risk cf ; Assessment to toe Federal Government; ; excess cancer risk to workers exposed VXdeveloping asbestos!* increase* toe 'yv Managing th Process, National at conditions thet exist In the workplace / danger faced by exposed workers and .> Research CotmclL 1063. p. 21. Ex. 84- ' ; today (for those abore 04 f/cc and using f underscores the gravHy of the health '322JL -to# scenario described to Table 3). ' vythreat* to cmployeespcecd by asbestos. ' No extrapolation from animal data to OSHA estimates that 10 excess cancer /-) % QualityofData on Which Riik v human data is necessary to order to deaths will occur per 1000 workers fori . i-i. firi/motes ore Based Tbe underlying ^show carcinogenicity oTasbestos. For year exposure; tout the average risk to ' data upon which the quanlllstlveritk / most subttancas. OSHA must Infer workers (exposed above 04 f/cc) in the ^^ssessmemaforasbeatosare based are human health effects, such as ;/> workplace today Is approximately 20 .. Ihigh quality epidemiologic studies, conducted in occupational ^environments. OSHA emphttlm that .? ?'the data bases for asbestos are of i.'|;tmttsual quality and site. Unlike most potential occupational carcinogens, ^asbestos has been studied often and . '4,4thoroughly for evaluation ofUs ejects - * r;Xr-on occupational populations. carcinogenicity, from animal data. `'s times the annual fatal accident rates to / The reaultsofthls risk assessment . agriculture and mtotngquanying. .> performed by OSHA agree well with These comparisons are striking. They '/, other recent risk assessments performed show that the estimated risk ofdying or - ; .by other governments! and outside cancer from asbestos exposure at levels j <acfentisis (see Adieson and Gardner) - ? existing at the workplace today far V 1 (Ex. 64-218 and 84-243): EPA (Ex. 84- exceeds tha accidental death rata to tha . 1180); Kang and Chu (Ex.64-001h Selikoff riskiest of industries.Although the ; ^of al (64-002); and CHAP(Ex. 84-256). estimated mortality rates for cancer dua ^ ' In deriving these quantitative . * 4. Cbmporof/veAno/ys/s. Insight Into . to asbestos exposure are not completely estimates for cancer risk. OSHA utilized toe magnitude of the risk associated / comparable to the total actual ` -^eleven studies for tbe calculation of tha with asbestos exposure can be gained -/ accidental fatalities, toe review Is -/.V.^huqf cancer risk, four ofwhich were also * by reviewing other occupational risks. 'dearly useful In showing that toe ; j v^vsed to calculate too mesothelioma risk. . OSHA believes it Is instructive to ; /-magnitude of the asbestos risk is grave. ' investigations Involved McohortM studies compare asbestos risks with other ;On* exsmple of predicted cancer risk ;/* .where tbe frequencies ofvarious types woikplsco hazards agreed on as as a result of occupational exposure Is 4^t cfcancer* to worker* exposed to presenting an unusually high degree of tha following cancer risk estimated from V/ S-AfMIiO . jflOSStWXQJ-NOV-SJ-IS^JTj -rnw f**. w-uai . - . * . 81100 '?-> Teiit.il Ragllltf / Vol, 4B. No. 215 / Friday. Novembgf 4, 1883 / Rule, and Regul.llon, .:4Snenl*<d.lB83){Eii!ilb,844IXM- fobrt NIOS1I/OSHA Atfwllo, Work ' - tr.pol.lion model. r valid - 'ie9.M-02aM-037).linuliUonwork Croup that (htre h.i do level of ` Minton of th* mbtetra of J*nItlcnt (Sdlkorrel U 1870} (Exhibit &4-OQO), tupumi, lo rtbwlwbelnwwhich heidlhrblo. -% ^ilpbolldin* (Sclikottet L 107B; Biol ,1 riinkad effect* did net occur end . Expoiiu* d.1. fnqtKtilly ire nal -\.v - 1,1880;T^non el *L. lseo) (Exhlbll, nmmR>tdal,ELcTatnba,(wr m,IUbt, forvroifcm .xpout) befor, . " B^OBl, M-iao, Bt-IK}, ,nd In a mitly ,: cable cKitlmettr (al f/cc). bam) on Ih* 187a Whrr. hl.loric.1 mqxaor, dal* ofMberto, prodticli trumifutering ... ItelUtlom ofcomnl IsdiiwIo^M cf : onnaU.bte,thad.Uo(lih,v,uch - ^^vfadiatrk* tlwn rt 1C8D; tbsdenon : KUKtlni ate coocnttntlani ot : boIUtlos, u b*vin( bwn cdlrclrd nd ni Enteriitifc 1CT; MrJVxM ind - cbntM.Tbt 1879 nport o(th, * csilyzed uttaK iodoitrUl byglen. K'.McDDn.l4lB7a:8e)dm.nirtUlB79: ."^AArUmyConmilttMof th.H..llhKVil .r tocfmlqM* no longtr tn om orhiving . -''ii. ttobtniaort!. 1W9; Acbnan,tU '^/8dirt)rCammlnlanoftbeUnIlR) bnnconKtedtoimlyMexnMiofth* ' :A---^>IQidimh(iriuttntrfrndtointIiI> ! woAill. or hnlsg bn collKltd oo ''`-B4-0C7. R4-0B2.W-1Q3). iwetion .,lh.lIJC Commit[M,Wd to th. only * ftvocciloot fltewtote, or I(HouIdbonotKlthlsnbOTper ^iHducUoaolthtBritUhduidirdror nmutty. nllmiln ofdoH4*tpoDH ^aibiccenUnwln'.wrhldiUfluctBieBt 'VMheilo. lo 1 f/cs foechrytttllt.0-5 f/cc biHd on nldemlotagle itndlM win OSHA U eqululinl lo 2 . fii- Ic* vsoilt*. ud (X2 f/cc forerocMolttt., luv, blrlybraid rang, oftncntalnly. . fiber, pweoblciMlM oflr. - CnrtMUy, il ippetr, lhl th United OSHA oral iximbu the bwl r.llbl 'V;4Becra,hnmB$ljn!lh,fnbmit '-/KbigtJoiDnujr lawn th, PEL lor . dal, on npoiurrmponM is aniv, t a cablemtltroflrveiy hour, d^xmdtof ^duyntOttoOB. dtlnnlnallon ofilgimlaact ofride, .-.j on phyiJc.1 nntkxi. tb* cttttwil OSHA ' j 1 EvaluationofKkk. OSHA',Hrl - dttpll, iohKtnl ind torrlUbl, - r PEL for >bwto, .How. woriiw, to . In *n.ly?!a tit ri>V of dlwu. From inh.lt Zmillion nibeitoi fiber, ptrhmtr' --------------------------- -------------------------- (atfl ; provisla ^ Officer i taking Inti S-A04I12 ] .'few r.| V .: occupation , radiatlon.1 :1;,v tatallty raf **;* the maxim <;f'.axpoiure t to 17 to 291 on the Bio)] >:rSr Radiation J V .; FRI902).I .^standards . require thal to toe lowefl '--`chievsblei t/.VALARAp `/percent ofr ^iraxposures id ' /^maximumpi ./'w>V cancer deatl -.t' level are 1.7l > >Vxpo*ed47jT 45 years U OSHA to red " `y death* per id ;*' at agezsiExJ .-recalculation fd ';?** cancer risk tq '4, conditions thi today (for tin] ;^'j%yearexpoiun deaths perlOL ' ^ calculated byl W cancer deaths! to existing c '*' those worker* - 04 f/cc of atb ^ . cumber ofwo ; grester than Q .; :/ioook Therefore. tL ' / f/cc for asbestl '.v C* more than r maximum p : . V risk and about I \ * 'k; estimated canq r * toe workers ex: ,.v,v-iiUngconciitfl . y-i* excess cancer rl . times higher! - heed by 05 perq /!`/exposed to redq asbestos!* forth /^.-significance of (3 exposure. *>v,'At04f/cc,< > excess cancer d -workers exp ^ approximately 7] 4?, cancer risk faci . .workers exp Ends that these d 'sX atrongly support! /workers exposecT - J ;-vsbove04 f/cc aril )71 significant risk al ; of dying from can - 8. Conclusion. ( . ./ ve danger" is| . j'*i and policy coiuidj -.tArHllo frw m MUu ->>>?.cardnoyRwil,auiuy , i'f'j. tnrafoRullon of l.n 1 _cdl. liBcm vrilh i T total dose. ExposureJ flitch ilrarufonnalk ' ''-- -Duy aid (he develops - hare Dol cured tbe d aome IqiUoch. uiinj. npoir*iuyovertia ,i& watlchnl to produce r -'4.' viah. For Ihl. niion. a ; -: !pldeffilo)aglil(omlto ? -'*:ipo,iire to * cardmr . -v In rtUUon t '.v)mo,ur. t \ fa Edition loconuj ' '%' inlcntitya!txpmir "?-' la relation Id dlHii " mpojure t, often lated It the _ Niger muy determine, after taking 45a account the amount of fund* ______ _ ppilcnUon mccu l p itrhllan* Office Manager ha* reserved requirement* of this part, funds pursuant to paragraph (b) of this (Approved by die Office of Msfttgement and section, theOperatloo* Office Manager , Budget coder Control Number IBM-0027) ' S-AQUU '0027(01KOA-NOV-W-15.13:44) rl tn. W1I41 Federal KegUler / Vol. 46. No. 215 / Friday, November 4,1003 / Rulesand Regulations S1091 . ^ occupathmtl exposure to Ionizing '>>detennlntk that the magnitude of the promulgation of an ETS setting a 05 f/cc - radiation. Tbe estimated excess canter' tastimatedrisk to exposed workers i> \y PEL may avoid 5725 cancerdeaths vr fatality rata from 47year* ofexposure to ^alarmingly high constitutes the major -V assuming 20year* exposure to asbestos the maximum permissible occupational ,* component of tba^greva danger" oftha current workforce at current v >.*2 exposure to Ionizing radiation (Srema) finding. TtraoveraU extraordinary condition# and 7W5 cancer deaths ."-4-iet7to28per1000vroikert(CommUtee -^degree ofrisk, the extent that very high - 'assuming 45 years exposure. - ,* on the Biological Effect* of Ionizing risk la found in many asbestos using ' OSHA is aware, of course, that *dl<ttlon (BEIR) (H predictions, see 48 Vr Industries, and tbs unusually high (Section 6{c) of the Act limit* the ' {;> H11902). However* most radiation ;Arcuality of the data utilized to make effective time ofan ETS to 6 months, ~ atandard* (unlike OSHA standards) ciaae asseismenta pretent a very strong ^ and OSHA concludes that * grave . >>;/require that exposure limit* be reduced .4 evidentiary basis for "grave danger" danger exists and an ETS is necessary " iV\to the lowftst level reasonably -v finding, fust as importantly, the unique , van ifOSHA focuses exclusively on ' >*>.Vchievab)e below the exposure limit (tbe 1 gravity ofasbestos-caused diseases, in fills six month period. However, tha ALARA principle). Approximately OS - percent ofradiation workers have *c exposure* leu than coe-tenth the .' particular cancer, such as mesothelioma which is linked almost exclusively to - - asbestos exposure, slrongly supports . ' Agency believes it la appropriate to calculate benefits deriving from an ETS asifig lifetime risks from 20 and 45 years v'eg! maximum permitted limit The excess " * CSHA'a finding ofgrave dinger. Also ofexposure to the PEL of05 f/cc ,^c*ncefdeth*atona'tenlhtbepermUled - OSHA'a comparison ol the risk of }. yf level ore 1.7 to 2J0 per1000workers ' .^asbestos-relateddisease to other v V; t-f*'vi exposed47year*. Asbestos exposures ' ^Industrial risk* underscore# the ; ^t&of45yearato2f/ccarepredlctedtv ?;Vxtraordinari!y high risk estimated Tor * OSHA to result in 64 excess cancer $* sbe*to expoture. OSHA has also . .'^deatlu per1000 workers beginning work pooled the eonmnw of workere about established by the ETS. Although the ETS expire* within 6 months. Section <^c) requires that rulemaking on a permanent standard alto be completed within 6 months, so that there wilt ba do : mt age 25 (Ex. 64-392). OSHA'# ^current workplace conditions and tha TV. Jrcalculatkrti for the average excess . A^-itumerou* petitions for an BIS from `/'^cancer risk to worker exposed at , ^tmtons representag tnsny exposed gap in protection for exposed employees. InOSHA'sexperience and > Judgment, complying with this statutory : conditions that exist in the workplace .HWtwkera. Finally OSHA haa relled on ita directive and completing rulemaking for >2 \ ^-'today (for thoae above 05 f/cc) for a 45*.' *xperisnc* to evaluating and regulating . a permanent standard within 6 months ` v1year exposure, la 196 excess cancer > hazards in recognizing the of an ETS has and can bs done. - /^.afeaths per 1000 workers. This figure was ' extraordinary degree ofrisk currently . OSHA also believes, based on Its >/^ircalculated by taking the number of meed bywheato* worker* and In experience, that it is very likely that the : cancer deaths estimated from expoture V *teimWng that euch risk commute* PEL established after 6(b) rulemaking "*$ to existing conditions for 4S years for danger to tboseworkere. . will be no higher than 05 f/cc. tha ETS . ^S^vtt.o...s...a...w...o..r..k..e..rasetxposseeddttooggrreeaatteerrtthhaann Needforan SIS limitTherefore. OSHA believes that the . p * ILS f/ccof asbestos and dividing by the v:'f.Bnber ol workers exposed to asbestos ^greater than 05 f/cc (multiplied by -v OSHA haa determined that this ETS is -accessary to protect employees from - ETS will result in s reduced lifetime workerexposures of05 f/cc orlower for 20 or 45 years, and that the benefits >*- grave danger, the second prong of the derived from there exposure reductions . Therefore* tha excess cancer risk at 2 f/cc for asbesto* worker* Is estimated more than twice as high as tbe O^smximumpermitted radiation cancer ^v^UHak and about 2S timet hl^urrthan the Act** test of OSHA'a exercise of Us ETS ;.. authority(Sectkm 6(c) of the Act). As Vexplained in detail tbe effect of thia ETS fa to save many Uvea which would ctbervrisa ba lost to asbestos-related - dliaaae ifcurrent working condition* ` i>V;a)imaledcancerriskof9Spercentof r dte workersexposed to radiation. At ^ y'v^oxlsting conditions, asbestos workers* * ' .^''excess cancer risks are estimated to be c y 85 tlmeahf^ier than the ameerrisk . ;ware oat changed OSHA believes that employee* can be adequately protected against mis grave dangeronly by Issuing .- >an E1S.This it because soother Agency .^.action and no other foreseeable emit !*>*&% faced by 95 percent of the workere f{y would reault te sufficiently reduced ^/^exposed to radiation. The risk of / - rv \ asbestos exposures that would aUeviata y* asbestos!* further Increases the -i\? die grave danger. Further, the provisions for these time periods are appropriately attributed to OSHA's promulgatlonof fids emergency standard, a. Employee Exposuttt, To derive ' there estimates ofnumbers of lives saved. OSHA depended on Its knowledge of the following factors:(1) The employee expoture level* from the ambient asbestos air concentration* in fire workplace; (2) the number of workers exposed at die various asbestos levels; (3) the duration of the exposure; and (4) the probability of the disease (or '^iolgnincance of the risk from asbestos *:->2 of toe ETS are tailored to effect tha the risk) associated with the cumulativa . - -/exposure. '' T 'J1' At 05 f/cc. OSHA estimates that 17 ttecesusy exposure reduction! .-4- expeditiously. , exposure. - Employee exposure levels are /T.&vxce**cancer deaths will occur in 1000 <, ' t^Uvee Savedbytuning anSIS, conventionally measured in terms oftha /-^Vavorkera exposed 45 years. This riak la `v;<HA has estimated die number of % <, number ofasbestos fibers that are 5 --4 ~-;Pproxlm*lely 7 times hl^ier than the >death* avoided as a result ofan ETS - microns or more in length In one cubic ^ifcaneer riak faced by 95 percent of the >i*vhich would reduce the PEL to 05 f/cc centimeter ofair. f/cc. fn these terms, an * v workers exposed to radiation. OSliA '" (seeTable# 2 and 3). For cancer only. ambient concentration may teem to be a ' . find* that these comparative risks ' bated on continuing exposures under small amount ofasbestos. However. In strongly support OSHA's finding that currently existing conditions for 6 physical terms 20 f/cc equals 2J0005QO ^avorkersexposedtoairconcentretlons ;- months, the potential number oflives `%...ja.--b--o--v--e--0--5---f-/-c--c--a--r-e---fa---r-a--b--o--v-e---t-h--e-p--o--in--t--o--f saved la estimated as approximately ..yv^aignincan! risk and are at grave danger ; 210 Bated on continuing exposures at ' fiber* per cubic meter (f/m*). Humsnt inhale about one cubic meter of air per hour, depending on degree of physical . r;,w"-ofdying from cancer, :i > currently existing conditions for 1 year, . ' activity.Thus, at this concentration, a 5. Conclusion. OSHA** finding of n the potential number of lives saved is worker would Inhale roughly 16.000,000 y. >f;^grave danger** I* based on evidentiary . . estimated at approximately420 Also. * fiber*. 5 microns or more in length* over v^^aod policy cotif[derations. OSHA'a ^OSHA has estimated that the 1 an eight hour workday. 'r- S-A0I1K> *Sf04XQ^NOV-*.t't422>40) Vrm rr >ni:*3 /jjiljjs Ttimi Reciter / Vol. 48, No. 215 / Friday, November 4. 1883 / Rule, and Rcgul.llon. 51101 .7Os "rcfoofMicil. .iinma (Jut Uw ritk of eonvnllnsmpcf tof/cchj.bnn eont.ct. of th. amorit. wortcen. tnmlomulkia of target rail, to c.nco' . ' K(gnUd u nuijing ftom 1.1 to IS Pmtumb!y. f.rally contact, racclved '-Jtctl. inemtet with Incrum tn the -:.I dependlns on th. Induthy .tudlmi by h th.ltexpontra to aibnto. from duit lot.! doM.x{xtira.Ktv) after *--. 8wKJritut.fK.nj.ndChii.Ex.et-l: : cuiUd hontt on the wotker'a dolhtng. "if-- tninforauUoo h* UlmpUc HunnudetiL. Ex. 64-277; McDonald, .. pedlly dttrinj th. Unndering of duity ; My *td th. ifevtlopnwit ofMnc. btrt i Iidd.Il, CIUm, Eji.Kd. and McDould, datbM. Abont * tO-fotd tnenua to not crowd the etnen.Thni. in Ex. 64-055). Forntmqtls. tolng prevalence ofpltur.1 thWcenlnj mw lniUncn, tutej tout cumnlitlv. `%y;.*xpoKn my ovBitit. th. etpomre. >/,.ijfndttopro(}uc.tncfMtdc.ixar < eorarenlon hetot.ofJ:l tol*. M cxnraUti*. poKirn of20 opctyr. - ; coold rtng. 6txa 20f/cc-jrMn to lOOf/ eootn.red to control. *ru obrarrad In fanny contact, ofwuktn with only <XMyt ofexponr.vrithlntb.uno.lt. -> HiV. For tW teoa wmo . ,V ccjrtin factory. ^vopldwilolo^it.omit th. Ulw yit. of Hw BritUh Ocotp.Hon.1 Hyglmo Eulmatod aibnto. npoum lev.1. of * .?'pouintoaardnogetilnutyH*d . iortmllI>tnrUUontoearatiUtlv. ' : 1'svwtpo ' : fn.ddltlootoemmilith'.wcpotttr.. tntcniltyolmtpoiur. tain b. .xwnlned - r*,,''>lnri!kllontoclliH.lnlall3rof . xsmm(onon.ppmilrolMby- ' ' ;'p^j.lurtIme-tnf^iMwuHrrWA'.). -.A-lteOSifAPaormbmpncaWo omtlartw (2 f/cc). tn >taa------ 8ocWyCnmmltlnooAd>Hlox ' .eoodocUdaihidyofdiat eoncwtniUon.annndti*entrant tnathod. and Mitacka! natbod. JE*. 84- * jC 024].Cotnrakf.ctonforiiUlodcd Mtlltod. to entrant method. *nral:007, It 2A andla, danendlneon Ik, tiUtorictlmtdxn. : Forubrntoai ^ - ftmlly contact, and conummlty nwrabtr. olnervrt to b. t riui of rubnlo. nlaUd dUeira hra not been ttporrad. OSHA coddera It vny likely tut lh. cnmul.llv* nponm ofth. family conltcU end ceotmtrally raembn. wueIra thin 100 f/co-ynn. ` Saldman " ' Sulsscquq Stmnhsll prep* whonhaliidentl If *7re productil Stab which shall f %-aresft ooinm] ' ftfm wuai Wesv-Oependlh* o proee*p toTsacoud . >/,,'.fiber* Imthin 5 atcnL 'Vt^beinhjori. etsumiftf tfl r^asbetloiSberBaretesa ' OSHA antinues to a */, . lor convenience but i .'^.fxtmcnau estimates 1 .-'^eoncenraiioft* given! , *,ii\oo!y aj *my of view ~^KconcefiiuHons and sL s evsluexw without inti eanhq ri the units. I >" - OSHA iaedexistin A^aslimste vmkerasb each afieded industr. ' Indudec'pvemment < iEx. 64-GC-and Ex. B*] -` HS studies resorted In tbJ Health Hicurd Evslua| cocnpUana data (Ex. e reviewed .he lnformati| > Id ere Iht *.380 Resesn V*'V (TH) report `V <' primary bisis for exp ` because tm ATI estim^ OSHA to re the most c ';; dditlDn. rr> used a lari ' ^:X^different dKa sources tl .exposure situates, ind /^vfrrterviewn. rciatlng doc jV^lodustrial Hifirne surve >- Using th- ;m report a ^Vvzefrrence, CSHA compa_ - with other nposure infej ' .^available S^each t * * Jt-AWllo :.noaKM-N(iv| '> rrw w,. tots* . : 51102 Fedeal RejIrtB Ikm ii ..-i-ffend effort, ihonkte eontlnw.^ 1 .'radoci.rtwilo.di3J to m low! ''' % poartble. At thl. Rtge It U Imp }i< xl.t. definitely the dm Unde tudequ.t..bec.n>t!t>introdd n recent, and It b tsenU.l to L troop, expowd to cw IneU Ini taprov. Um d.t. recnuiy for. 1 !-v fortnulatlon ofbetter titndud.'] v_02ap.l08). ''- FlnhnUt.ln (Ex-U-OM) .tt . ,'v` developnwnt of cortomwhle (a V'~x ube.lo.l..niDitttTMOnluloa' t cement production *wktt In r i iCa.'Cto cuimtlallvn expocoe. ff/ct . f>rAD workete In the xndy col lent ISyeue ofetunure. I '"* eritnUfaraUblK^ Regulations ' 51091 lion of an ETS setting a 0.5 f/cc luvoid 6725 cancer deaths 120 years exposure to asbestos , pent workforce at current p and ms cancer death* . " ,, [as year* exposure. '".-v s aware, ofcourse, that fc) of the Act limits the me ofan EIS to 6 months. \ concludes that a grave ists and an ETS Is necessary DIA focuses exclusively on Inlb period. However, the lievcs It is appropriate to [eneflts deriving from an ETS we risks from 20 and 45 years Ho lh PEL of0.5 f/cc I by the ETS. Although the V within 6 months. Section s that rulemaking on standard also be completed piths, so that there will be no . riion for exposed In OSHA*t experience and Implying with this statutory p completing rulemelting for I standard within 0 months |s and can be done, o believes, based on Its hat ft Is very likely that the bed after 6(b) rulemaking her than 0.5 f/cc. the ETS Ire. OSHA believes that the lit In a reduced lifetime lures of05 f/ccor lower for T and that the benefits the** exposure reductions periods are appropriately >5HA** promulgation of f standard. 5 Exposures. To derive |s ofnumbers of Uvea jjedonlts wing factors: (II s level* from the Fconcentratkra* in I (2) the number of fed at the various asbestos luratkm of the exposure: lability ofthe disease (or feted with the cumulative posura levels are measured In terms of the btos fibers that are 5 J In length In one cubic r. f/cc. fn these terms, an ration may seem to be a I asbestos. However. In B.O f/cc equals 2j000,00Q meter (f/m*L Humans | cubic meter of air per Ion degree of physical 2 I this concentration, a fiats roughly 16.000400 lor more in length, over Ikday. Uatloni' ' 51101 Lit* worker. gonUct. received .1 from duit worker', dolhfng. 1 tiundnlng of daily UdlDcreuein llhlckmlng |wuoiervedtn jrllh only p* .motile ilevdiaf nunlly ; ' lbe.tri.il of luhive not been den it very likely lporufel of the Immunity InlOOf/ec-yt.n, ndKnimond(Ex. Ulllyofsa) kmmnployri H5.Seldgiinl' HSUte*)ich shall indicate projected VS>A0I1IZ 002WJIKDJ-NOV-M3:U^) *? m. M-ts ____ __ nmounuji comply substantially with the provisions fund*. Federal and non-FederaL of the Act or this part and should be sxpectcd to b applied to the program; - replaced, such finding shall bo treated ' 51092 - Federal Register / Vol 48. No. 215 / Friday. November 4,1983 / Rule* and Regulations Nobt-Dependix* on the industrial ^example, specific reports wera found for emergency PEL Alternative exposure process.pto7MJMOOOOadditionalasbestos : asbestos cement manufacturing (Ex. 64- , distributions used for sensitivity . ObersIeuthmScBteronstDleflgthRayalw * be tnfesled. aisumfng thitMX olairborne `i'ftf asbestos fibers are kss than S microns. r, . / 218). textile manufacturing (Ex. 84-267), ' > removal of sprayed asbestos material from buildings (Ex. 64-262), and brake . analysis will be provided in the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis. . OSHA believes that the exposure '' OSHA continue* toeseths term. f/cc. .v* repair(Exs. 64-263.64-208). The , estimates are relatively good, given the ' for convenience bo! caution* that the ^Asbestos Information Association * state ofthe art of worker exposure , ;v*7umerical estimates of air provided data concerning exposures estimation techniques and dsta ,n concentrations given (n these terms are during field fabrication and installation . available today. OSHA Is not aware of - V<mty one way ofviewing asbestos r* trfasbestos cement pipe and aheet in . ^.concentrations and should not be > V* evaluated without interpreting the /j ^cwanlng of the units. V ^controlled conditions (Ex. 84-205). Tha * Environmental Sciences Laboratory (Ex. .x 64-002) also made best estimates of . OSHA used existing Information to workerexposure in various industries ~ r?*- estimate worker asbestos exposure in ' -/fneIB7S. each affected industry. Data sources fadoded government contractor report* '/-%V (Ex. 64-C02 and Ex. 84-COO). various tludJes reported hi the literature. NtOSH . 'V Health Hazard Evaluations, and OSHA 5, ^compliance data (Ex. 84-335). OSHA ' tC- fevitwed the information, and decided to use the 1080 Research Triangle ' V-Institute (RT!) report (Ex. 84-009) aa the * fa addition. OSHA used Its own Held vfaspaction experience to estimate exposures. OSHA reviewed selectod . caw filetand obtained Information that listed OSHA asbestos measurement* ,'during compliant* inspections from 8/1/ i 79 to 5/51/83 (Exs. 64-354.84-355). ' OSHA adjusted tha RTI eatimata os . any other available current exposure - estimates. Industrial hygiene reports of operations In the same Industty. but at , different work sites. Invariably report ~ different asbestos exposures among the workers. OSHA reviewed these reports and made dediions regarding typical industry practices. For soma operation*. - such as brake relining. several reports ,, were available with complete , descriptions of the working environment - and OSHA was able to use these to make direct exposure estimates. Other reports, such aa "Removal of fre-fonned !' i primary basis for exposure estimates . -^appropriate. based upon a qualitative '.'Asbestos Insulation'* (Ex. 64-206). *; because the RTI estimates appear to v-lodgment as to which data best - described careful processes for asbestos ,, OSHA to be the most comprehensive. In represent existing exposure conditions. handling that did no) appear , odd)lion. RTI used a Urge number of >J OSHA** exposure estimates are based. , representative of tha methods used . yJL different data sources to make their i therefore. upon a substantial data base '), throughout Industry, since tha reported ` ^ie^oture estimates. Including _ end upon considerable experience In ..-asy*! Interviews, existingdocumentation, and ' enforcing the existing asbeslos Industrial hygiene surveys ofworksites. v,, v Using the RTI report as tha primary ,, v* reference. OSHA compared RH data f. leveli In ead1 induitiy to calculate the . vrith other exposure huormation cumber oldeatha avoided by reducing > available foeeach industry. For ;t Hi. axpoaure from current kveU to th. -air concentrations were not consistent with other reports showing higher employee exposure to tibetto. by ' .induitrytegmenb , : -muio coo. MR-IMI ' r S-AUtlO . <BW(OtXOJ.SOV--Ua?:) VPM m. . ` 51102 Fnhni ll^tltr / Vol 48, Nft. 215 / Friday. November 4.1B83 / Rule. nd Regulnllnn. : - and effort, rixmld be continued to bated upon aubalanHal medical i ` IPtl-lOBr.MocUlity waaobaerved reduce .<be!o* dull to u low a levri .. evidence of arven dliablllty from the ' " during the period 1S4I-1P73. Cumulative ' poiilble. At this tt.ft* it li tmpoulbl. to diteau. / sxpoturea. expretted in mlllloru of -, - Mile definitely that the .UntUrd i. Dement and colleague* conducted a parririnparcuhicfootofalrllme* '* /fnadequi1e,bec.uuIt. Introduction I. detailed .tody ofplant procetteaand year, vxpoted (mpef-yean). were i' *o recent, and It taetwntUUo follow op doit control method! at a chrytoilla utlmated for etch man included In the group* enroied to low Iml.In order to texttfo pUnt during 1830-1B7S (Ex. M- * study cohort. Meanexpoture* for 6 >: Improve the date neceiuiy for the 038.84-037L Expoiur. hltloriei were -' annul*11v* expoeure ettegorie* wtra 02. ' ' fomul.llon of better .Undud." (Ex. M- conilrocted for uch worker nd lS2.3S2.fl0B,andB70mpcl-yeara. . 020, p, tQO). MtlnutMofIndlvtdual comaltllv* V-Hammed et*h(Ex 01-277] .uggnted : Hnkel>teIn(Ex.M-OM)<twUedtb. ' xpoturettatermtoff/cc-day*were b-a mpefto f/ceconvenlon factor of lriA ; '' development ofconspennbi. (certllled) mide.AfterlBMiexpotur.Uv.lt - foracement plantBacauw cement and ' ubeilo.lt among 157 Onl.rio ubetto. tautUy vnr. to th. renge olB-10 f/cc. : oflwr miner*] partlcln bur* been ' cement production worker* In relation Wotfcenwns categorized u recrivlng sxtenthttlynKd In atbeilo* product! ` -- to caunm.Uve expoum (1/ccyein). , i sxpotureaoften than 1000; 100IMO.O00; ' runufacturing. utlng a converalco factor d-j.-. All workna In the hidy cohorthidt . laooo-iotioo; ^1000-100,000; and ; otlriAdoeanotappurtobs .< -J.il1$yit.ol.*pottir..Ont*Ho ain than lOQOOOf/ccdayi. Btcaut* tmiMMIubhforHinderaonand gcrilerl. for certifying ubtihul., which * mull. In Ih* awanfofdlubUlty manl at al Included holiday, and Entarilna'aitudy cohort. Utlnga factor reek*ndsfntba!rHtlnte*o!f/cc> - of1.1.4.02 mpa-yut. la roughly equal peniloM. me no! Intlextbl. and involve '< daya. their eatimata* ofemmda0ve toB7f/ccde WyeonildcratlDnofaucbfactonaab!-*-- -- ... ......... .-......... ^fore. the choice of ___ je uncertainties a midpoint unit risk forat) industrial , . . qruftWj rtus risk at this around this estimate of!* are such that processes (Kib&OI) Is a reasonable and lime. The high quality and well* . an appropriate estimate ofKt could He Justified choice. . ' * wpporled estimates of excess Hah of ; mortality from lung cancer. between 0003 and OJO. The estimates of K* given In Table 15 TTte best estimates of Ki and Km were utilised to estimate tha mortality from > mesothelioma and asbestos!* alone -- ate derived from studies with four of the exposures to varying concentrations of ''t sufficient bates upon which to ' five highest Kf. values. That is, there Is .*V". foatlfy this action. y wm bias fn examining the value of Ktt , asbestos for different time periods beginning at different ages. The , .l'r&E*timote*ofCancerMortality , *, * Independent of the Kt In the same calculations are age, Intensity and V studies because If is likely that these K* i A best estimate of Kl was calculated ' would tend to be slightly higher than 1' ** *h ofthe eleven epidemiologic & those derived from other studies* due to \.*X *tudle and an estimate of KH was ** the demonstrated high power of these ;-; nalculated fimn four of these studio . r:. studies lo detect risk. The arithmetic . 'tV (see Table S) [Ex. M-392). For each r mean or the K*s Is 4.96x10-* and the fhebest estimate for Kt and KMla geometric mean of the K* a is 2.9] xlQ-*. . ^molested along with a range of , To account fix some of this Idas when \ Uncftlnint>-. The ranges listed are those * estimating K*. it is useful to examine the / '- are the result ofestimates ofexposure , i V uncertainties (usually a factor of 2), * ratio of Km to K(. For the four studies for if which Kw was calculated, the range of `. v^imrthodologica! uncertainties that led to **' the ratios of Kk Id Kt is only two-fold $ Alternate evaluations of risk or exposure . Ifrom0.75x10-*to l.rgxtO'-J.Both the duration specific.Tables tOandll show the excess asbestos-related mortality fates from lung cancer, mesothelioma. and gastrointestinal cancer , (gastrointestinal cancer excess Is ' assumed to be 10 percent of the lung , cancer excess). In these calculations. Equation 1 and Equation 3 were used With values of Ki equal to OOt and K* equal to 1 x 10- and the 1977 US. male background lung cancer mortality rates. Because of age^pcriftc increases in lung v cancer rates in older men since 1977. -^s-Amito . ia> ll**) ,tn. )UU Federal Register / Vol. 4ft, Wo. 215 / Friday, November 4 1083 f Rulea and Regulations 61139 h respirators, and to assure tha! all such multiples of the reduced PEL of05 f/cc. * Authority and Signature Vemployees participate in the program *rather than multiples of the previous 2 f/ - This document was prepared under 'A-.' and are informed of specified categories ~.cc permissib, le lim..it.. For exa, m-ple. the direction ofThoroeG. Auchter, <.of information. OSHA considers this ; gpnwjd.IrpBlfidnjtt.pIf.tonin.y A..i.tnl Srott.ry of Labor for provision to be "necessary" within the -b.|arfn y1|tre..l,|w - Ocoip.llon.1 S.f,ly .nd Hnllh. US. . _>vmeaning of section 6(c) of the Act. to ;;tcdacetbe*rav*dsngerfacedby - DqMrtnwnl or Labor. 200 Corutltullon ' v asbestos exposed employees. The Pursuant to Sections (Hbh 0{c). 6(c) and , X; absence ofa training program " : -requirement in the asbestos standard . lias been pointed out as one of the -; respirators could be used where .^asbestos concentrations would not have 1 :4 exceeded 20 f/cc (10x the PEL of 2 f/cc). 6(g) of the Act 29 CFR 1910.1001 is amended by adding a new paragraph |k) as set forth below. f) ?. serious deficiencies of the current " . Similarly, powered air purifying *\ i, standard. OSHA believes that respirators may be used where asbestos (Sees. 6(b). 6(c). 8(c) and 4(g). Pub. L. 01*490.' participation In an adequate training - concentrations do not exceed 100 times SIStil- t$tt 1596.1569. IfiOtt 29 U.&C.6SS1 fi57i Sec. t07. PUb. U 01*54.63 Slat. S0 (40 .'-^program is essential for the protection of tire PEL. which at the new level of05 f/ US.C. 333): 20 CFR Part 1911: Secretary of . 4 . employees because most protective eels50f/cc.fterlously,employers . * - Labor's OrderNo. 943 (M PR 35736]) . -^. prtiviikmsenlUHhe employee as on could have used such respirators at Signed at Washington. D.C. this 2nd day of active participant. For example, many concentrations op to 200 f/cc. ' November 1063. , employees handling asbestos depend on itU likely that the main Impact ofthe ThomG.AadUw. ;' f effective work practices. Without , . reduced PEL on respirator choice will be , AssistonlSttretary oftabor. ' ^ training In applying these work la operations and industries where practices, employee protection would be exposure levels are between S f/cc and >pARTf9UMAWEND0) ^Inadequate. Where the employee plays a 20 f/cc. Fortneriy. employees exposed in _ ____ } more passive role in his protection such this range could use haU*mak air Sectlon19J0.100lofPsrt1910ofTitle os where engineeringcontrols are relied purifying respirators: now they must be 29 of the Coda of Federal Regulations is ' * on. training is also essential, because protected by a powered air purifying ? v* hereby amended by addinga new - : the empk^ee must know the sources of . respiratoror a full facepiece respirator, rv paragraph (k) reading at follows; :>*'*workplace asbestos contamination, and or they may use a supplied air : ; r. the health hazards of asbestos exposure. * respirator. ' 'pitftaiOOf Asbestos. ^ ~ - > In order to assess his own exposure - &.Rarvgraph(kt(6). Wamingsigns . situation and to help recognize when ^" engineering controls are no! operating .- during the ETS. The ETS require* that t. '-' (k) finergency temporary etandord legible signs warning of the health * effective November 4 1883.--\\) Scope. - properly. Certainly where housekeeping hazards of asbestos be displayed at ,i-This emergency temporary standard is plays an important role In control locations where airborne concentrations - issued pursuant to section 6(c) of the instruction about housekeeping 7; ^methods, forexample, frequent . ^ of asbestos fibers exceed the reduced exposure limit of 03 f/cc. No specific * Act and applies to all workplaces where t- > employees may be exposed to asbestos - ^ ' Vacuuming, is essential Perhaps most legend Is required signs for newly > In all Industries covered by the Act. Importanly. where employee protection . posted during the E1S. OSHA wishes to ' Including, general Industry, construction /^depends upon respirator use. OSHA'* v make as practicable as possible the ' j and maritime. Except to the extent "Yexperience shows that training rapid potting of signs, especially In ' ^modified by this emergency temporary ' ^vfetnployees in theuse. fitting and v. workplaces where there has been .^ standard all provisions of {1910.1001 / limitations ofrespirators Is critical to ? prevtoat non-complUnce and in areas ' remain in effect ,,j. the effectiveness of respirator 1 where asbestos concentrations were ft) Permissible levels ofexposure. . - ' protection. Accordingly this requirement formerly below the 2X) f/cc PEL. The B-hour tlme*waighted average ' ;* eppHes where ahbome concentrations - XL Piabllc PsrtldpfUoo * '".-i-are reasonsbly expected to exceed 05 f/ . ' 'r .r.siiiboma concentration of asbeatos fibers towhich any employee may be cc, even Ifemployees use respirator* to interested persons an Invited to .. ^ '^exposed shall not exceed one-half (05) V V reduce breathing rone concentration* * *^1 thereby comply with the ETS '.Vttbmit written data, views and -fiber, longer than S micrometers, per . arguments with respect to the revisions cubic centimeterof air, as determined I' A* *et forth in paragraph (k]{4) the to the asbestos standard made by the ^ ' by the method prescribed in paragraph * ^ employermust Inform the employee of FIS These comments must be * (e) ofthis section. . - the health effects of asbestos exposure: postmarked on or before January 3,1964 \ {2) Methods ofcompliance with the v * die relationship between asbestos and and sent to the Docket Officer. Docket r emergencytemporarystandard. .--smoking in producing lung cancer: the No. H-tmC, Occupational Safety A * Notwithstanding any other requirements .r tiperalion* exposing employees to Health Administration. US. Department of this section, compliance with the v ,, / asbestos fibers and necessary protective ofLabor. 200 Constitution Avenue, NW - reducedcxpofnrellmUofOLSf/ccshaM ; vsteps to minimize exposure: the purpose, .. Room S-6212. Washington. D.C 202ta be achieved by any feasible proper use. fitting instructions and - V The data, views and arguments that . combination of engineering control*. sknltaUoRs ofrespirators, and the ." > ore submitted wilt be available for ;: wwk practices, and personal protective . ' -'j-' contents ofaH the provisions of the ' / public inspection and copying at the -.equipment and devices. _ V-. Asbestos Standard at 1910.1001. . I ` above address. AH timely written * (4) Employee information and *' 5. Paragraph (hXSJRespiratory submission* win be made a part of the from/qg--fl) As soon as possible, but v prrtecfndb/fqg/AeE7S.TheErS ^ .< record ofthe proceeding. odds a new paragraph (k)(5) whlA - includes a table which ties respirator MirtofSubjects la 2*CFR Part 1H0 f; txrt later than thirty (XJ days from the . offcethre date of this emergency ' temporary standard, the employer shatl sclertlon to the 05f/cc PEL Underthe . Ocaipatiooal safety and health. , -- leslituteatralnlngprogramforaH ETS. the concentration cut-off* for Asbestos. Health, Emergency temporary employeesexposed to airborne V variouskinds ofrespiratorsare , ;>'standard. Cancer. cooamtniUotisofasbestos In excess of S-A04H0 fiW06X03-NOV--!421) .-SWW.; wr. tatzoi