DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

RIN: 1218-AB25

Occupational Exposure to Asbestos

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department ofLabor.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: These final standards amend the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration's (OSHA's) standards issued June 17, 1986 (51 FR 22612,29 CFR 1910.1001, June 20, 1986) for occupational exposure to asbestos ingeneral industry, and the construction industry, 29 CFR 1926.1101 (previously1926.58). In addition, they include a separate standard covering occupationalexposure to asbestos in the shipyard industry, (29 CFR 1915.1001). Majorrevisions in these standards include a reduced time-weighted-averagepermissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter (f/cc) forall asbestos work in all industries, a new classification scheme for asbestosconstruction and shipyard industry work which ties mandatory work practicesto work classification, a presumptive asbestos identification requirement for"high hazard" asbestos containing building materials, limited notificationrequirements for employers who use unlisted compliance methods in high riskasbestos abatement work, and mandatory methods of control for brake andclutch repair.

Most of the revisions in these amended standards are the final response toan order of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,Building and Construction Trades Department v. Brock, 838 F. 2d 1258, (D.C.Cir 1988), which had upheld the 1986 standards in major respects, but whichhad remanded certain issues for reconsideration. OSHA had made earlierchanges in response to the court order on December 14, 1989 (54 FR 52024,December 20, 1989), and on February 5, 1990 (55 FR 3724).

OSHA believes that these final standards fully address all of the concernsof the participants in this rulemaking and are responsive to all issuesremanded by the court for reconsideration.

DATES: The effective date of these amendments is October 11, 1994.Various start-up dates are specified in the standards.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, Director ofInformation and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3647, 200 ConstitutionAvenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 219-8151.

Supplementary Information:

Table of Contents

I. Regulatory History II. Pertinent Legal Authority III. Summary andExplanation of Revised Standards a. General Issues b. Regulatory Text IssuesIV. Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis V.Clearance of Information Collection Requirements VI. Authority andSignature VII. Amended Standards

I. Regulatory History

OSHA has regulated asbestos several times as more information has becomeavailable. Asbestos rulemakings marked the early years of the Agency. A 12f/cc permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos was included in theinitial promulgation on May 29, 1971 (36 FR 10466) of OSHA standards pursuantto Section 6(a) of the Act. In response to a petition by the Industrial UnionDepartment of the AFL-CIO, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS)on asbestos on December 7, 1971, which established a PEL of 5 f/cc as an8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) and a peak exposure level of 10 f/cc.

In June 1972, OSHA promulgated a new final standard that established an8-hour TWA PEL of 5 f/cc and a ceiling limit of 10 f/cc. These limits wereintended primarily to protect employees against asbestosis, and it was hopedthat they would provide some incidental degree of protection against asbestosinduced forms of cancer. Effective July 1976, OSHA's 8-hour TWA limit wasreduced to 2 f/cc and this limit remained in effect up to the effective dateof the revised 1986 standards.

In October 1975, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (40 FR47652) to revise the asbestos standard because the Agency believed that"sufficient medical and scientific evidence has been accumulated to warrantthe designation of asbestos as a human carcinogen" and that advances inmonitoring and protective technology made re-examination of the standard"desirable." This proposal would have reduced the 8-hour TWA to 0.5 f/cc andimposed a ceiling limit of 5 f/cc for 15 minutes. The 1975 proposal wouldhave applied to all industries except construction.

At that time no separate proposal applicable to the construction industrywas developed by the Agency.

On May 24, 1983 OSHA consulted with the Advisory Committee for ConstructionSafety and Health ("ACCSH") concerning the applicability of any new asbestosstandard to the construction industry. ACCSH endorsed OSHA's position thatany new PEL adopted for general industry should also apply to theconstruction industry (Ex. 84-424).

On November 4, 1983 OSHA published an ETS for asbestos (48 FR 51096). TheETS marked a new regulatory initiative, related to, but not part of the 1975proceeding. The ETS was held invalid by the U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals forthe Fifth Circuit on March 7, 1984.

Subsequently, OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (49 FR 1416,April 10, 1984) for a standard covering occupational exposure to asbestos inall work places subject to the Act. Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act, theETS also served as a proposed rule. On June 17, 1986, OSHA issued two revisedstandards, one governing occupational exposure to asbestos in generalindustry workplaces, the other applicable to construction workplaces (51 FR22612 et seq., June 20, 1986). Effective July 21, 1986, the revised standardsamended OSHA's previous asbestos standard issued in 1972. The 1986 standardsexplicitly applied to occupational exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite,anthophyllite and actinolite. After a subsequent and separate rulemakingproceeding OSHA has deleted these minerals from the scope of the asbestosstandards. (57 FR 24310, June 8, 1992).

The separate comprehensive asbestos standards for general industry andconstruction which were issued in 1986 shared the same permissible exposurelimit (PEL) and most ancillary requirements. Both standards reduced the8-hour time weighted average (TWA) PEL tenfold to 0.2 f/cc from the previous2 f/cc limit. Specific provisions were added in the construction standard tocover unique hazards relating to asbestos abatement and demolition jobs.

Several major participants in the rulemaking proceeding including theAFL-CIO, the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) of theAFL-CIO, and the Asbestos Information Association (AIA), challenged variousprovisions of the revised standards. On February 2, 1988, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia issued its decision upholding most majorchallenged provisions, but remanding certain issues to OSHA forreconsideration (BCTD, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258). The Court determinedthat OSHA had not adequately explained why it was not adopting certainrecommended provisions in light of evidence suggesting that those provisionswould be feasible to implement and would provide more than a de minimisbenefit for worker health. The Court also ordered OSHA to clarify theregulatory text for two provisions and found one provision, a ban of sprayingasbestos-containing products, unsupported by the record. In addition, OSHA'sfailure to adopt a short-term exposure limit (STEL) was ordered to bereconsidered within 60 days of the Court's mandate. In partial response, OSHAissued a STEL of 1 f/cc measured over a 30-minute sampling period, onSeptember 14, 1988 (53 FR 35610).

In response to additional petitions by BCTD and the AFL-CIO, the Court, inan October 30, 1989 order, divided the remand issues into three categories asfollows. With respect to three issues, the Court ordered OSHA to take actionby December 14, 1989. These issues were:

Issue 1. formally delete the ban on the spraying of asbestos-containingmaterials;

Issue 2. clarify that periodic monitoring in the construction industry mustbe resumed after conditions change; and

Issue 3. Clarify the exemption for "small-scale, short duration operations"from the negative-pressure enclosure requirements of the constructionstandard to limit the exemption to work operations where it is impractical toconstruct an enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment.

OSHA issued its response on these issues on December 14, 1989 (54 FR 52024,December 20, 1989). In that document OSHA (1) removed the ban on the sprayingof asbestos-containing materials; (2) changed the regulatory text to clarifythat construction employers must resume periodic monitoring whenever therehas been a change in process, control equipment, personnel or work practicesthat may result in new or additional asbestos exposure; and (3) explained whyOSHA was not amending the regulatory text to clarify the limited exemptionfor "small-scale, short-duration operations" in the construction industrystandard, but instead would institute rulemaking on this issue.

With respect to the second group of issues, the Court ordered OSHA tocomplete its response on the existing record by January 28, 1990. Theseissues are:

Issue 4. The possibility of further regulations governing employee smokingcontrols;

Issue 5. The effectiveness levels of various respirators and OSHA's policyof requiring respirators to protect workers at only PEL level; and

Issue 6. The possibility of bi-lingual warnings and labels for employerswith a significant number of non-English-speaking employees.

The Court stated that if OSHA determines that these issues could not beresolved on the existing record, OSHA may explain why and commence newrulemaking instead.

On January 28, 1990, OSHA issued its response on these issues (55 FR 3724,February 5, 1990). In that document, OSHA: (1) prohibited workplace smokingin areas where occupational exposure to asbestos takes place; expandedtraining requirements to include information about available smokingcessation programs; required the distribution of self-help smoking cessationmaterial; and, required a written opinion by the physician stating that theemployee has been advised of the combined dangers of smoking and working withasbestos; (2) explained how and why the 1986 respiratory protection standardswill reduce employee risk below that remaining solely as a result of the PEL,and that the effectiveness levels of respirators are under review; and (3)required employers to ensure that employees working in or near regulatedareas understand warning signs, and required training programs tospecifically instruct employees as to the content and presence of signs andlabels.

Finally, as to the third group of three remaining remand issues, the Courtordered OSHA to resolve these issues after rulemaking. These issues are:

Issue 7. The establishment of operation-specific permissible exposure limits;

Issue 8. The extension of reporting and information transfer requirements;and

Issue 9. The expansion of the competent person requirement to all employersengaged in any kind of construction work.

In addition, the Court granted OSHA's unopposed request to publish theNotice of Proposed Rulemaking on this group of issues on April 13, 1990, toallow sufficient time to consult with the Advisory Committee on ConstructionSafety and Health (ACCSH). Under the Construction Safety Act (40 USC 333) andregulations in 29 CFR 1911.10 and 29 CFR 1912.3, OSHA was required to consultwith that committee in the formulation of regulatory proposals which wouldapply to employment in construction. OSHA presented the proposed regulatorytext and pertinent explanatory materials to the ACCSH and consulted with themon March 14, 1990. The Committee submitted comments and suggestions whichwere discussed in the proposal. The Court, on May 2, 1990 granted OSHA'sfurther motion and extended the time to issue the proposal until July 12,1990, in order to allow coordination of the proposal with other regulatoryagencies, in particular EPA.

The proposed revisions were published July 20, 1990 (55 FR 29712). The datefor close of the public comment period in the NPRM was September 25, 1990with the public hearing scheduled to commence October 23, 1990. However,several interested parties requested additional time for comment on the NPRMdue to the breadth of issues it presented. OSHA felt the objective ofdeveloping a complete rulemaking record would be served and extended theperiod for submission of public comments and for notices to appear at theinformal hearing until December 3, 1990. The Agency also rescheduled theinformal hearing to begin January 23, 1991. In the notice extending the timeperiods, OSHA also explained more clearly that the ACCSH report referenced inthe NPRM was submitted by the labor representatives on that committee and notby the committee as a whole (55 FR p. 38703, September 20, 1990).

The informal hearing was held for 13 days from January 23 to February 8,1991. At the close of the hearing Administrative Law Judge Sheldon Lipson setApril 12, 1991 as the close of the post-hearing comment period and June 12,1991 as the close of the post-hearing briefing period. Subsequently onrequest, Judge Lipson extended these periods to April 26 and June 26respectively. BCTD requested OSHA extend the post-hearing briefing period 4weeks to allow additional time to fully address all issues of concern due tothe extent and complexity of the records. OSHA granted this request andnotified participants that the post-hearing briefing period was extended toJuly 24, 1991.

On November 3, 1992, by Federal Register notice, OSHA re-opened thecomment period to allow supplementary public comment on options to protectworkers from inadvertent exposure to asbestos in buildings (57 FR 49697).This issue, not part of the Court's remand order, was broached by the Agencyin the preamble to the proposal, and had been the subject of litigationbrought by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) against EPA. In 1988the Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO petitioned theEnvironmental Protection Agency for regulation of asbestos in public andcommercial buildings and subsequently sued the Agency. This resulted in theconvening of a series of "Policy Dialogue" meetings established by EPA in anattempt to reach agreement on issues concerning asbestos in public andcommercial buildings. As discussed in the NPRM of July 20, 1990, OSHA and avariety of other interested parties participated in the meetings which tookplace between May 1989 and May 1990. These groups included realty interests,lenders and insurance interests, unions, asbestos manufacturers, publicinterest groups, asbestos consultants and contractors and states. The groupfailed to agree on all issues, but did generally agree that the presence ofasbestos should be known to building service workers. The major area ofdisagreement in the group dealt with the characterization of risk to generalbuilding occupants and office workers. The group also did not agree on theneed for specific federal asbestos inspection requirements.

SEIU and other unions also participated in this rulemaking and urged OSHA toissue a building inspection rule. After discussions with EPA and review ofthe record concerning how best to protect employees against unknowingexposure the Agency published a request for comment on a regulatory approachto protect building service workers. The approach would require certainhigh-risk materials in accessible building/facility areas be designatedpresumptive asbestos containing materials and thus be treated as if theycontained asbestos, until or unless the presumption was rebutted throughsampling or specific information in the owner's possession relation toconstruction specifications. The notice also asked for comments on the HealthEffects Institute (HEI) report which had been submitted to the record afterthe close of the post-hearing briefing periods. The notice resulted insubmission of an additional 60 sets of comments, and the comment periodclosed on January 4, 1993.

The record of this rulemaking consists of over 55,000 pages. OSHA has workedclosely with EPA so that the regulations of both agencies are compatible tothe extent OSHA's mandate allows.

II. Pertinent Legal Authority

Authority for issuance of this standard is found primarily in sections 6(b),8(c), and 8(g)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (theAct), 29 U.S.C. 655(b), 657(c), and 657(g)(2) and in the Construction SafetyAct, 40 U.S.C. 333. Section 6(b)(5) governs the issuance of occupationalsafety and health standards dealing with toxic materials or harmful physicalagents. Section 3(8) of the Act defines an occupational safety and healthstandard as:

* * * A standard which requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one ormore practices, means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonablynecessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and placesof employment.

The Supreme Court has said that section 3(8) applies to all permanentstandards promulgated under the Act and requires the Secretary, beforeissuing any standard, to determine that it is reasonably necessary andappropriate to remedy a significant risk of material health impairment.Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607(1980).

The "significant risk" determination constitutes a finding that, absent thechange in practices mandated by the standard, the workplaces in questionwould be "unsafe" in the sense that workers would be threatened with asignificant risk of harm. Id. at 642. A significant risk finding, however,does not require mathematical precision or anything approaching scientificcertainty if the "best available evidence" does not warrant that degree ofproof. Id. at 655-656; 29 U.S. 655 (b)(5). Rather, the Agency may base itsfinding largely on policy considerations and has considerable leeway with thekinds of assumptions it applies in interpreting the data supporting it, Id.655-656; 29 U.S. 655(b)(5). The Court's opinion indicates that riskassessments, which may involve mathematical estimates with some inherentuncertainties, are a means of demonstrating the existence of significantrisk.

The court further stated:

It is the Agency's responsibility to determine in the first instance what itconsiders to be a "significant" risk. Some risks are plainly acceptable andothers are plainly unacceptable. If, for example, the odds are one in abillion that a person will die from cancer by taking a drink of chlorinatedwater, the risk clearly could not be considered significant. On the otherhand, if the odds are one in a thousand that regular inhalation of gasolinevapors that are 2% benzene will be fatal a reasonable person might wellconsider the risk significant and take the appropriate steps to decrease oreliminate it. (I.U.D. v A.P.I., 448 U.S. et 655).

OSHA has always considered that a working lifetime risk of death of over 1per 1000 from occupational causes is significant. This has been consistentlyupheld by the courts. See the recent discussion in the cadmium preamble 57 FR42102, 42204 and the earlier asbestos preambles.

OSHA believes that compliance with these final amendments to reduce the PELto 0.1 f/cc as a time-weighted average measured over 8 hours will furtherreduce a significant health risk which existed after imposing a 0.2 f/cc PEL.OSHA's risk assessment accompanying the 1986 standard, showed that loweringthe TWA PEL from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc reduces the asbestos cancer mortalityrisk from lifetime exposure from 64 deaths per 1,000 workers to 7 deaths per1,000 workers. OSHA estimated that the incidence of asbestosis would be 5cases per 1,000 workers exposed for a working lifetime under the TWA PEL of0.2 f/cc. Counterpart risk figures for 20 years of exposure are excess cancerrisks of 4.5 per 1,000 workers and an estimated asbestosis incidence of 2cases per 1,000 workers.

OSHA's risk assessment also showed that reducing exposures to 0.1 f/cc wouldreduce excess cancer risk to 3.4 per 1,000 workers and a 20 year exposurerisk to 2.3 per 1,000 workers. OSHA concludes therefore that reducing theexposure limit to 0.1 f/cc will further reduce significant risk.

OSHA's current estimates of employee exposure in the various operationscovered by these standards are referenced in the Regulatory Impact Analysisfound later in this document. Additional exposure estimates, based on recordevidence are referenced throughout this document in the relevant preamblediscussion concerning each operation.

In the Court of Appeals litigation, AIA challenged OSHA's use of the PEL tocalculate the residual risk remaining after the standard is implemented. AIAcontended that workers would actually be exposed to average levelssignificantly below the PEL because employers would be required to engineerdown to levels well below the PEL to assure that random fluctuations wouldnot result in an OSHA compliance officer measuring an exposure level over thePEL during a routine inspection. Therefore, AIA contended, in calculatingresidual risk, OSHA should assume that employees will be exposed to averagelevels that are between one-half and one-quarter of the PEL. The Courtimplied that such an argument might have merit if factually supported andsuggested that OSHA should make its own calculations of the relation betweenpermissible exposure limit and the actual exposures such a limit wouldproduce. (838 F.2d at 1266) Having carefully considered the issue, OSHAconcludes it would be unrealistic to base its risk assessment on theassumption that employers will engineer to levels significantly below thePEL. First, as discussed below, the PEL of 0.1 f/cc is at the limit offeasibility for those workplaces in which asbestos levels are most difficultto control, and an assumption that average exposures will be substantiallybelow the PEL will clearly be unrealistic for such workplaces. Second, OSHAfound in issuing the 1986 standard that AIA's argument about uncontrollablefluctuations was exaggerated because such fluctuations could be minimizedthrough proper inspection and maintenance of engineering controls and throughproper training and supervision of employees whose work practices affectedexposure levels. (51 FR at 22653). Third, OSHA's enforcement policy givesemployers the opportunity to show that a compliance officer's measurementover the PEL is unrepresentatively high and does not justify a citation, thusalleviating any concern employers might have that they will be cited on thebasis of a single measurement that results from uncontrollable fluctuations.Fourth, even if some employers are sufficiently risk-averse to engineer downto well below the PEL to avoid a slight risk of citation, OSHA cannot base arealistic risk assessment on the assumption that most employers will do so.

The 0.1 f/cc level leaves a remaining significant risk. However as discussedbelow, and in earlier documents, OSHA believes this is the practical lowerlimit of feasibility for measuring asbestos levels reliably. However the workpractices and engineering controls specified below for specific operationsand required respirator use will in OSHA's view further reduce the risk. Asdiscussed below, OSHA has carefully reviewed all the public suggestions tofurther reduce significant risk and has adopted those which have merit.

After OSHA has determined that a significant risk exists and that such riskcan be reduced or eliminated by the proposed standard, it must set thestandard "which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible on the basisof the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer materialimpairment of health* * *," Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Supreme Court hasinterpreted this section to mean that OSHA must enact the most protectivestandard necessary to eliminate a significant risk of material healthimpairment, subject to the constraints of technological and economicfeasibility. American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 452U.S. 490(1981). The Court held that "cost-benefit analysis is not required bythe statute because feasibility analysis is." Id. at 509.

Authority to issue this standard is also found in section 8(c) of the Act.In general, this section gives the Secretary authority to require employersto make, keep, and preserve records regarding activities related to the Act.In particular, section 8(c)(3) gives the Secretary authority to requireemployers to "maintain accurate records of employee exposures to potentiallytoxic materials or harmful physical agents which are required to be monitoredor measured under section 6." Provisions of OSHA standards which require themaking and maintenance of records of medical examinations, exposuremonitoring, and the like are issued pursuant to section 8(c) of the Act.

Because the revisions to the asbestos standards are reasonably related tothese statutory goals, the Secretary finds that these standards are necessaryand appropriate to carry out is responsibilities under the Act.

"Response to recommendations of public to further reduce risk": As notedabove, this rulemaking proceeding is a response to a remand order of theCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court determined that in theearlier 1986 rulemaking, OSHA had not sufficiently explained its decisionsnot to adopt certain regulatory provisions recommended by participants inthat rulemaking. In particular, the Court of Appeals held that it is OSHA's"duty to keep adding measures so long as they afford benefit and arefeasible, up to the point where (it) no longer finds significant risk," andthat it is OSHA's duty to consider the reasonableness of adopting them. 838F.2d at 1269. The Court noted that OSHA need not justify its failure to adoptall suggested provisions: rather, the Agency must defend not adopting onlythose provisions demonstrated by their advocates, "to be feasible toimplement and will provide more than a de minimis benefit for worker health."The Court further explained, "(n)aturally the force of the evidence andargument that OSHA must offer to defend its choice will vary with the forceof the proponent's evidence and argument." Id at 1271.

In this final rule, based upon the record evidence, OSHA is adopting certainregulatory recommendations made in the earlier rulemaking, is rejecting otherrecommendations, and is issuing other provisions which are based on, but arealtered versions of yet other recommendations in the earlier rulemaking. Inaddition, new, different and expanded provisions also have been urged foradoption by participants in this rulemaking. These participants representlabor, public interest and industry interests. The Agency is adopting,rejecting and changing these recommendations as well.

A large portion of this preamble is devoted to the Agency's explanations ofthese regulatory decisions. OSHA believes that its reasons when it hasadopted or has not adopted recommended provisions are well supported by theevidence and that the reasons for its choices are stronger than the contraryarguments. In general, OSHA believes that the extent of its burden to refuteclaims of benefit for a recommended provision depends on the extent of thesupporting data. If the data are valid and extensive, OSHA's burden isgreater. If however, the claim of benefit is based on opinion, refutation byOSHA need not be grounded in data, but may be based on OSHA's well reasonedand expert contrary opinion.

In sum, OSHA's decision not to adopt recommended provisions to reduceasbestos related risk reflects the Agency's expert judgment, often whereavailable data creates considerable uncertainty, that the provisions wouldnot offer more than de minimis benefit in reducing a still significant risk.Many recommendations were unsupported by data showing benefit. For example,it was recommended to prohibit high speed burnishing of asbestos-containingfloor tile. However, the data do not show a measurable reduction of airborneasbestos fiber levels, based on actual fiber counts using such practices.Other recommended provisions simply do not reduce a still significant risk.For example, requiring very low clearance samples (analyzed by transmissionelectron microscopy) to deregulate all "regulated areas" to assure thatEPA/AHERA level of 0.01 f/cc is met does not appear to be necessary to reducea significant risk to employees. There is an extremely low (althoughspeculative) risk of asbestos related disease estimated at such clearancelevels, and, there is evidence that immediate clearance sampling does notpredict later concentration levels.

OSHA discusses the recommendations made by participants in the preamblesections which cover the recommended provisions. The following is a list ofthe major recommendations made by public which are discussed later:

1. Recommendations for a mandatory building inspection program:

Recommended by BCTD (Ex. 143, Att. A); Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc. (7- 149),Service Employees International Union (SEIU) (Ex. 144); American Federationof State, County and Municipal Employees, (AFSCME, Ex. 141); ORC, or assumeit is asbestos (Ex. 145), SBA, limited to employers whose work duties involvecontact with ACM shall assure that all ACM in workplace is identified, neednot inspect building areas constructed since 1980.

2. Mandatory notification to OSHA by employers of all removal, renovation,and abatement work: Recommended by BCTD, (Ex. 143, Att. A at 3), TheCourdith-Roberts Group, (L7-185); Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc. (7-149).

3. Mandatory use of negative pressure enclosures in regulated areas, exceptfor small-scale, short-duration operations and other limited circumstances:Recommended by BCTD, (Ex. 143 Att A at 5).

4. Mandatory procedures for deregulating regulated areas including mandatoryclearance sampling. Recommended by BCTD, (Ex. 143, Att. A at 6); AFSCME (Ex.141).

5. OSHA accreditation of training and OSHA designated detailed trainingcurricula. Recommended by BCTD (Ex. 143 Att. A at 8) 6. Reduction of PELbelow 0.1 f/c. Recommended by Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc. (Ex. 7-149).

7. Require that required protective clothing be impervious. Recommended byMelco, Inc. (L7-187), J.Loften, Asbestos Workers Local Union #16 (Ex. 137).

8. Specific training for maintenance and custodial workers in buildings thatcontain asbestos-containing material. Recommended by SEIU. (Ex. 144 at 14).

9. Requirement that building owner respond to knowledge of asbestos inbuilding by establishing O&M plan. Recommended by SEIU (Ex. 144 at 17);AFSCME, (Ex. 141).

10. Change in medical surveillance requirements for maintenance andcustodial workers in ACM buildings -- they exceed the 30 day limit.Recommended by AFSCME, (Ex. 141).

11. Reduce action level to 0.05 f/cc. Recommended by BCTD. (Ex.143).

12. Reduce STEL to 0.5 f/cc over 30 minutes. Recommended by BCTD.(Ex.143), also by SESAC and NIOSH (Ex. 7-77, 125).

13. Require most effective respirators feasible in all asbestos work.Recommended by BCTD. (Ex. 143).

14. Require more specific and protective brake repair procedures.Recommended by Clayton Associates, Inc. (Ex. 148).

15. Regulate activities involving "friable" asbestos-containing materialdifferently from those involving "non-friable" asbestos. Recommended byEdison Electric Institute, (Ex. 7-145 , at e.g., 8 for quantity cut-offs forSSSD activities.) 16. A clearance fiber level of 0.04 f/cc was recommended bySESAC who stated that such a requirement was needed to "ensure that theasbestos work area is safe to enter by unprotected personnel after theasbestos work operation is completed." (Ex. 7-77).

Relationship to Indoor Air Quality Proposed Rule

On April 5, 1994 at 59 FR 15968, OSHA proposed a new standard for indoor airquality. The proposed regulation included a clause making brief reference toasbestos. See Paragraph (d)(8) at page 16036. That reference was unintendedas OSHA, intends to cover all asbestos issues in the final asbestos rulewhere full consideration has been given to them. OSHA will not create newrequirements in a final Indoor Air Quality Standard that are specificallydesigned to control asbestos exposures, and will announce that it iswithdrawing the asbestos clause in paragraph (d)(8) at the commencement ofthe indoor air hearing. Accordingly there is no need for parties to submitasbestos-related materials into the Indoor Air record.

III. Summary and Explanation of Revised Standards

These final standards constitute OSHA's response to the remaining issuesraised for the Agency's reconsideration by the United States Court of Appealsfor the D.C. Circuit. The specific issues raised by the Court are: theestablishment of operation-specific permissible exposure limits; theextension of reporting and information transfer requirements; the expansionof the competent person requirement to all employers engaged in any kind ofconstruction work; and, the clarification of the small scale, short durationoperation exemption from the requirement to establish a negative-pressureenclosure. For convenience OSHA is summarizing here its response to each ofthese issues. They are discussed in depth below. Also discussed below are theother changes OSHA has made which are not in direct response to the remand.

Issue 7. "Establishment of Operation Specific Exposure Limits": The courtremand causes OSHA to consider establishing operation-specific permissibleexposure limits to the extent feasible, as needed to eliminate significantrisk of illnesses caused by asbestos exposure. OSHA proposed to decrease thePEL to a uniform 0.1 f/cc. OSHA believes that this limit is feasible for mostindustry sectors to reach most of the time (55 FR 29720). However, OSHAexplained that PELs lower than 0.1 f/cc are difficult to reliably measure.However OSHA has followed a more effective approach to lowering exposures forthose sections and operations where lower exposures can be achieved. Thisapproach is triggering protective provisions based on the kind of operationundertaken, rather than measured exposure levels. This approach is consistentwith some other health standards (e.g., lead, coke ovens).

A major reason for this approach for construction and shipyards is thatmeasured levels of exposure often fail to define risk and are often notreceived before the work is completed. This was partly explained in theproposal. There OSHA noted that for removal jobs, highly variable amounts ofasbestos are generated, "reducing the predictability of exposure levels fromone monitoring event to the next. Moreover, measured asbestos levels oftencannot be used to determine the need for (specific controls) . . . because ofthe time required by the laboratory to complete the test and report theresults." (55 FR at 29715-16). Thus, it would be unproductive to leaveemployees unprotected while initial monitoring results are being analyzed;and in many cases, even prompt reporting of exposure levels during thesetting up of the controls would not predict exposures during the actualremoval.

A significant risk remains at the PEL of 0.1 f/cc, and it is feasible toattain lower levels for some workers exposed to asbestos. OSHA has thereforeconsidered whether to establish different PELs for different operations basedon the lowest exposure limits that can feasibly be achieved in thoseoperations and that are needed to eliminate significant risk. OSHA hasdecided not to do so because the operation-specific work practices mandatedin the standard will be a most cost-effective means of assuring thatsignificant risk is eliminated to the extent feasible.

Asbestos has been the subject of extensive rulemaking by OSHA and otheragencies, and the operations that expose employees to asbestos are well knownand thoroughly studied. Moreover, given the shift away from asbestos productswherever substitutes are available, it appears unlikely that major new useswill be found for asbestos in the future. OSHA has therefore been able tofocus its rulemaking effort on evaluating the work practices that will bestreduce asbestos exposures in the specific operations that expose workers toasbestos. The result is a standard that relies heavily on mandated workpractices that will, in most situations, result in employee exposure wellbelow the PEL. In effect, the mandated work practices will assure that eachasbestos worker is exposed to the lowest feasible level for the operation inwhich that worker is engaged. This approach was taken in the 1986construction standard. There, OSHA "tiered" its construction standard "toapply increasingly stringent requirements to those work operations associatedwith the highest exposures." (51 FR at 23706). Rather than twoclassifications as in 1986 (small-scale and abatement work), OSHA now dividesconstruction work into four classes and has made additional limiteddistinctions based on measurable variables such as amount of materialdisturbed.

Since OSHA's approach assures that each employee is exposed to the lowestfeasible level of asbestos, no additional protection would be gained byestablishing a series of different PELs for different operations. Such anapproach would add cost and complexity to employers' compliance duties and toOSHA's enforcement duties without benefiting worker health. PELs lower than0.1 f/cc would be particularly unsuitable as compliance criteria because itis difficult to reliably measure lower levels. Because such measurements areunreliable, if lower PELs were established, measurements taken by employersand by OSHA would provide an uncertain basis for determining whetheremployers have fulfilled their compliance duties. However, both employers andOSHA can easily determine whether the work practices prescribed in thestandard are being followed. The mandated work practices thus assure thatemployees are better protected than a series of different PELs while reducingcompliance burdens on employers and easing the agency's enforcement burden.Therefore, rather than set operation-specific permissible exposure limits,OSHA proposed to further reduce risk by requiring certain additional workpractices. The operations for which mandatory work practices are requiredwould otherwise result in employee exposure that is significant. OSHAbelieves that these controls are feasible, reasonable, and necessary.

OSHA also proposed, in the general industry standard, to link the dates whenengineering controls would be required to reach the new lower PEL with theEPA Ban and Phase-out Rule. This linkage is no longer an option since theFifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated the ban and it is not yetclear which asbestos-containing products will no longer remain in commerce,and staged phase-outs of asbestos containing products are not required.

Issue 3. "Small Scale Short Duration Definition": The Court asked that OSHAclarify the exemption for "small scale, short duration operations" from thenegative-pressure enclosure (NPE) requirements of the construction standard.The negative pressure enclosure requirements are a substantial set ofrequirements. They include creating a system of regulated areas with a sealedwork area under negative pressure, decontamination facilities and procedures,clean room facilities and procedures and shower facilities, and otherpractices to reduce worker exposure and spread of contamination outside thework area. In that standard, NPEs were required for all removal, demolitionand renovation work except for small scale short duration operations.

The Court suggested, based on its view of the Agency's earlier intent, thatOSHA limit the exemption to work operations where it is impractical toconstruct an enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment.In an earlier response to the remand order, published in the FederalRegister (54 FR 52024, December 20, 1989), OSHA declined to amend theregulatory text on the small-scale, short duration issue, without conductingsupplemental notice and comment rulemaking. The Agency explained "thatexplicitly limiting the exemption to situations where negative pressureenclosures are impractical might not reduce employee risk from asbestosexposure." (54 FR at 52026). OSHA stated that in the supplemental rulemaking,it intended "to discuss the effectiveness and drawbacks of negative-pressureenclosure, glove bags, and alternative control systems; and to specify moreclearly under what circumstances various control systems may be used." (54 FRat 5207). OSHA also noted that the small-scale, short duration issue isrelated to the scope of the "competent person" requirement, which the 1986standard lifted for operations which conformed to the exception, and thuscombined consideration of both issues would be appropriate.

Accordingly, in July 1990, OSHA proposed related changes in both provisions"small scale, short duration" operations would be redefined in terms ofgeneral criteria, as well as the 1986 approach of listing specific examples.However, the underlying premise remained the same as in the 1986 standard:i.e. exemptions to the negative-pressure enclosure requirement for removal,renovation and demolition projects and limited to jobs which conformed tospecified criteria. "Competent" persons, according to the 1990 proposal, wereto be required as supervisors on all asbestos-related construction worksites,instead of as in the 1986 standard, that required competent persons only fornon "small-scale, short term jobs." Required training for competent persons,would vary, however, depending on the kind of asbestos-related job needingsupervision.

The final provisions resolving these issues, are different from theproposal. Four classes of increasingly hazardous types of constructionactivity are matched with increasingly stringent control requirements. ClassI asbestos work means activities involving the removal of asbestos containingmaterial (ACM) and presumed asbestos containing material (PACM) which is"high risk." Class II asbestos work means activities involving the removal ofACM and PACM which is not "high risk." Class III asbestos work meansactivities involving repair and maintenance where ACM and PACM is disturbed.Class IV asbestos work means maintenance and custodial activities duringwhich employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up waste anddebris containing ACM and PACM. Each class includes work with similarexposure levels and with similar exposure risks. Each has a prescribed set ofcontrols and work practices. Basically only Class I work, high-riskactivities, require negative-pressure enclosures. The standard allows otherdesignated proven control systems in limited circumstances and provides foryet-to-be-developed systems if certain backstop provisions are met. Asindicated in its earlier responses to the Court, and its public notices ofproposed rulemaking, OSHA has evaluated available control technologies andhas concluded that the use of negative- pressure control enclosures should beregulated in terms of when they are required rather than when they are not.

In a major departure from the language of both the 1986 standard and theproposal, OSHA is deleting the term "small scale, short duration" from theregulatory text. Instead, the agency is distinguishing high- from lower-riskoperations through the use of the classification system described above. Workthat was exempted from the negative pressure enclosure requirements in theexisting standard because it was of "small-scale, short-duration" areconsidered to be Class II and Class III work in this amendment. The agencyfinds that the term "small-scale, short term" is too limiting, is confusing,and cannot be defined with sufficient precision to serve the purpose ofdistinguishing high risk asbestos-disturbing activity from activity ofreduced risk.

The term is limiting because it focuses on a fraction of the circumstancesand criteria which define lower risk work with asbestos- containing material.For example, removing asbestos-containing products like transite panels,likely will not result in significant exposure, even if conducted for morethan one day, if there is use of a few simple controls. As much as the scopeand duration of the job, the materials themselves, their condition and thework-practices used define hazard potential. OSHA had tried to include theseconcepts under the "small-term, short-duration" exception in the currentstandard, by reference to examples. However, the breadth of the examples ledthe court to observe that "the exception as now worded seems to erase therule." (838 F. 2d at 1279).

In the 1990 proposal OSHA tried to identify the conditions and operationswhich separated higher risk work with ACM from lower risk work in itssmall-scale, short-term definition. Still anchoring the distinction however,was OSHA's belief that the time a job took, and the amount of materialinvolved, primarily determined risk. Based on the record of this proceeding,OSHA now finds that these are relevant, but not exclusive, factors.

OSHA finds also that use of the term is confusing. In 1986, in its list ofactivities considered "small-scale, short-term," OSHA listed some which areneither small-scale or short-term, but were regarded as lower risk, such asroofing work. To cure this confusion, OSHA proposed, in 1990 to limit the"small-scale, short duration" exemption to a subset of renovation, removaland demolition operations which took less time, and/or involved small areas.Even for these activities a temporal or volume cutoff was difficult todefine, and the proposed definition contained numerical criteria, whichvaried depending on which activity was defined. In addition, it proposed toexempt other activities, such as roofing, regardless of the size of theproject, from the negative-pressure enclosure requirement. EPA uses the term"small-scale, short-duration" to describe cut-offs which are much higher thanthose proposed by OSHA for its reporting requirements for asbestosrenovation, demolition and removal work under NESHAPS. And under EPA's workerprotection rule which applied to state and local government workers in OSHAnon-state plan states, reporting requirements for asbestos "abatement"projects, do not apply to projects involving "less than 3 linear feet or 3square feet of friable asbestos material." (40 CFR 763.124).

Many objections to the proposed definition were received by the Agency.After reviewing this record, and in light of the variety of interpretationsof the term "small-scale, short-duration," OSHA determined that it isinappropriate to use that term as the equivalent of lower risk activities.Once OSHA decided to include other control methods in the "preferredcategory" for high risk asbestos work, neither a "small-scale,short-duration" definition nor an exemption from negative-pressure enclosurerequirement was central to OSHA's regulatory scheme. As explained more fullybelow, although OSHA no longer uses the term "small -- scale, short-term" toexempt activities from universal requirements, OSHA uses the related terms"small-scale" and "reduced exposure potential" as part of a largerclassification scheme.

Issue 8. "The extension of reporting and information and transferrequirements":

A. Notification to OSHA

OSHA had proposed expanded notification and reporting provisions in responseto the Court's remand order concerning two issues. The first is whether OSHAshould require employers to give the Agency advance notification ofasbestos-related jobs. BCTD, in the 1984 rulemaking had suggested that OSHAshould require all construction industry employers to file reports concerningany building demolition, renovation or removal project involving asbestosprior to beginning such a project. Two health enhancing benefits of a noticerequirement were advanced by BCTD. One, is the help such information wouldprovide the Agency in targeting inspections. The other is a claimed reductionin risk because of the consciousness-raising and self-education provided bythe notice process.

The Court noted that the BCTD proposal would "arguably generate betterinformation for "selecting targets for inspection and that it was based on"uncontradicted (and unanalyzed) evidence of non-de minimis benefits."(relating to compliance enhancement). (838 F.2d at 1278). It remanded theissue to the Agency for further explanation or rebuttal.

OSHA responded in 1990, by proposing a new provision to require employers tonotify OSHA in writing prior to engaging in demolition, renovation, andremoval operations which are not small-scale, short-term operations. OSHA'sproposed notice requirement shared many core elements with EPA's then currentand proposed notification requirements under NESHAPS. OSHA noted that "(t)heproposed notification is modeled after the notification requirementconcerning asbestos abatement projects that occur in conjunction withbuilding demolition and renovation operations. OSHA noted further that"(e)mployers can satisfy the OSHA (proposed) notification requirement simplyby forwarding a copy of the EPA form to the OSHA area office when complyingwith EPA's asbestos NESHAP." (55 FR at 29731). Both EPA's and OSHA'sproposed, notification requirements would exempt less extensive operations.In OSHA's case, the exemption would have applied to small-scale,short-duration operations as otherwise defined in the standard. EPA's cutoffsare annual amounts: 260 linear feet on pipes and 160 square feet on otherfacility components. OSHA noted that many asbestos jobs would meet thenotification requirements of both agencies, however there would be anindeterminate, yet significant number for which EPA notification would not becalled for, but OSHA's proposed requirement would apply.

Most public comment opposed the requirement. The major objection was theburden on the employer from completing and mailing the notification form.Further, some commenters questioned the overall usefulness of thenotification requirement in promoting compliance (See comments ofShipbuilder's Council of America Ex. 7-2.) BCTD continued to argue forextensive reporting requirements for the reasons stated above. A few othercommenters supported its position. (Ex. 7-5, 7-6, 7-34, 7-64, 7-95, 7-118,7-132, 7-149, 141, 144).

OSHA has carefully reviewed all the comments. Based on the review andsubsequent developments, the final regulation scales down OSHA's proposednotice requirements. OSHA is now requiring advance notification of Class I(mainly large-scale removals) only when the employer intends to utilizecontrols other than a negative pressure enclosure which meets therequirements of paragraph (g) of this standard, and in some circumstances,where modifications of glove bag systems, glove box systems and other controlsystems described in paragraph (g) are made.

There are a number of reasons for OSHA's decisions. OSHA believes that thepotential benefits in direct risk reduction from a separate OSHA reportingrequirement are unlikely. There are already extensive EPA and state reportingrequirements which OSHA requirements would partly duplicate. The EPA andstate requirements already create any incentive to comply that such reportscould create. Similar OSHA reports would not increase this benefit.Information which may be useful to OSHA in targeting inspections can beretrieved by information-sharing with the EPA while avoiding overlappingreports. OSHA notes that the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that federalagencies avoid clearly duplicative reporting requirements. Various commentschallenge the value of duplicative requirements (e.g., Ex. 7-17, 7-20, 7-22,7-28, 7-39, 7-46, 7-47, 7-50, 7-54, 7-72, 7-74, 7-76, 7-77, 7-78, 7-79, 7-81,7-86, 7-87, 7-88, 7-89, 7-102, 7-103, 7-108, 7-112, 7-125, 7-133, 142, 147).Thus, although OSHA's and EPA's reporting requirements are only partiallyduplicative, these considerations have influenced OSHA's decision not torequire extensive pre-job reporting. OSHA is concerned that in reviewing thevolume of reports which may be spawned by a separate OSHA requirement whichexceeded the EPA requirements would strain OSHA area offices enforcementresources and drain such resources from other enforcement efforts. However,OSHA finds that advance reporting is appropriate where information is relatedto new or modified control methods for Class I work. In such cases,heightened attention to the data supporting their use will result from therequirement to send them to OSHA.

BCTD's contrary view that compliance would be enhanced was based in part onits contractor's report, submitted after the 1984 hearing. The reportestimated that an advance reporting requirement would reduce "the number ofworkers with TWA exposures over 0.1 f/cc" up to 30% in drywall removal anddemolition, and lesser amounts in other construction work. These estimateswere based on the opinions of a seven person "focus group" which includedthree representatives of member unions of BCTD. No methodology was presentedfor deriving these quantitative estimates, and no supporting data has beensubmitted in either rulemaking (see brief Ex. 143 at 198). The Court referredto the report in its decision as uncontradicted, but that was because it wassubmitted late in the rulemaking procedures.

The Agency believes based on its experience that these estimates of specificquantifiable benefits are speculative. But more importantly, the now-existingEPA and state reporting requirements and OSHA's use of that data fortargeting inspections will achieve those benefits without duplicativereporting requirements. Further, OSHA made various changes to the finalstandard which will also achieve some of these benefits. These include theexpanded provisions on hazard communication, which will alert employees inall asbestos renovation, removal and maintenance work that presumed asbestoscontaining material is present; that require competent persons to evaluatethe work site before work is begun, by informing employers that OSHA issetting up information sharing systems with EPA to access employer noticessent to that Agency, and that require employers who use new and modifiedcontrol systems to notify OSHA.

Help for OSHA in targeting inspections from the submission of advancereports is the other claimed benefit from a reporting requirement. Someparticipants claimed that because pre-job reporting was helpful to EPA intargeting its inspections for compliance with NESHAP requirements, an OSHApre-job reporting would similarly benefit this Agency. EPA did not testify atthe hearing, but available information shows that its reporting systemprovides useful information to that Agency's enforcement program. NESHAPSreporting is made mostly to 45 state agencies, delegated by EPA to implementthe asbestos NESHAP. Reporting in EPA Region II, is directly to the RegionalOffice. These reports are the source of two data bases: the National AsbestosRegistry System (NARS), which develops a historical record of asbestoscontractors, updated quarterly: and the ACTS system, which is a local database on the compliance history of each contractor. OSHA is informed that ACTSis a tool that delegated agencies may use for day-to-day tracking of asbestosactivities. EPA's evaluation of the reports submitted to it and otherinformation used in its NESHAP enforcement effort constitute a valuableresource for OSHA.

In 1991 both agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to shareinformation which will aid their enforcement efforts. Pursuant to that MOU,OSHA is developing with EPA an information sharing system based on thereports submitted both to EPA and to various states upon delegation from EPAto access that information to help OSHA target asbestos removal jobs. OSHAalso believes that at this time some EPA delegated states, and OSHA stateplan states have worked out ways to share notifications. OSHA believes thatutilizing the EPA data to assist in targeting inspections will be moreeffective than duplicative reporting requirements.

The Agency believes, based on its own enforcement experience that a limitednotification requirement may enhance compliance in specified circumstances.Employers who choose to use new or modified control technology to reduceexposures in Class I asbestos work, must notify OSHA in advance, using EPA'sNESHAP reporting form. Such information about new and/or modified asbestoscontrol technology submitted to OSHA by employers who wish to use it willprovide accessible information for the Agency to use to evaluate suchtechnologies. OSHA believes that requiring employers to routinely submit tothe Agency their data in support of claims of the effectiveness of newtechnology will help OSHA, employers and employees and their representativesto evaluate its effectiveness promptly.

Shipyard Employment Standard

One area of the proposed standard to which SESAC raised objection was therequirement that OSHA be notified 10 days prior to initiating work on largescale asbestos operations. In addition to reiterating many of the objectionsto the provision raised by others, they pointed out that often they mustimmediately work on ships which enter their shipyards and turn them aroundquickly and that the delay caused by the notification would be overlyburdensome. As OSHA explained above, notification of OSHA is required onlywhen Class I operations are undertaken and alternate methods of control,other than the negative-pressure enclosure methodology, is to be employed.This provision applies both in the construction and shipyard employmentstandards.

B. Notification of Other Employers and Subsequent Owners

The Court remanded the issue of whether OSHA should, as recommended by BCTD,require employers contracting asbestos-related work to establish, maintainand transfer to building owners written records of the presence and locationsof asbestos or asbestos products, in order to facilitate identification andprevention of asbestos hazards. As noted in the 1990 remand proposal, theCourt remanded this issue so that the Agency may reach "its own judgment onthe issue" of whether it was legally empowered to adopt such a requirement(See BCTD v. Brock, supra at 1278). OSHA concludes that BCTD has made apersuasive case for the need to expand the notification provisions to otheremployer and building owners and from them to subsequent employers withexposed employees. This is a necessary way to informing subsequent employersthat their employees are at risk of asbestos exposure and of the need to takeappropriate precautions. Requiring building owners to maintain and providethis information is by far the most effective way of notifying employers ofexposed employees who are doing work many years after the asbestos wasidentified.

OSHA has developed an information transfer scheme concerning the presence ofasbestos in buildings and structures which may present a hazard to employeeswhich is more comprehensive than the recommendation of BCTD. The approachplaces the primary compliance burden on the building and/or facility owner,even though the employees at risk may not be the owner's direct employees.Thus, this final standard confirms OSHA's tentative view in the proposal,that it has authority to require building owners who are statutory employersto take necessary and appropriate remedial action such as notifying otheremployers, to protect employees other than their own (see 55 FR at 29729).

The proposed hazard communication provision limited the building owner'scommunication obligations to "available" information concerning the presenceand location of asbestos. Now, in the final standard, the building owner mustcommunicate his knowledge of the presence and location of ACM, based on"available" information, and, new to the final standard, of the presence andlocation of certain high risk materials, which are presumed to containasbestos (PACM), unless the building was constructed or renovated after 1979or is rebutted using laboratory analysis. Further details of this provisionare spelled out later in this preamble.

Issue 9. "Competent Person". The Court remanded to OSHA to determine whetheremployers engaged in any kind of asbestos related construction work should berequired to designate "competent persons" to oversee safety measures, orwhether, as in the 1986 standard, employers should only be required todesignate trained "competent persons" for asbestos removal, demolition, andrenovations operations that are not small-scale, short duration. The courtrequested that OSHA either expand the "competent person" requirement orprovide a more persuasive explanation of its refusal to do so.

OSHA proposed in 1990 to expand the requirement. Under the proposal,supervision of all asbestos construction worksites by a "competent person"would be required; the training of a competent person would be keyed to thekind of asbestos operation. However, the proposal left undecided whetheronsite, continuous supervision of all asbestos-related work would be requiredfor all asbestos work. The final standard resolves these issues. A"competent" person, as defined in the general construction standards, mustsupervise all work under the asbestos construction standard. That person mustbe "capable of identifying existing asbestos * * * hazards in the workplace,and has the authority to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them ** *" 29 CFR 1926.58[b].

OSHA reiterates its statement in the proposal that "all construction siteemployees would benefit from the presence of a competent person to overseeasbestos-related work" (55 FR at 29726). However, the need for on-sitesupervision varies with the hazard potential of the work undertaken. Allworkers performing Class I construction work must have continuous access toan on-site supervisor, who meets the training requirements for designation asa "competent person" under this standard. Supervision for Class II and IIIwork does not always require a continuous on-site "competent person,"therefore the standard requires inspections at "sufficient" intervals and atemployee request. Supervision of installation of asbestos containingconstruction materials and Class IV work must also be accomplished bycomplying with the "generic" requirement for "frequent and regular"inspection [Paragraph (0)(2)].

Training for "competent persons" can be accomplished in a number of ways andmeet the standard's performance requirements. For Class I, II and III work,the "competent person" must take a course such as a course under the EPAModel Accreditation Plan for accredited contractor/supervisor, projectdesigner or management planner course, or their equivalent in content,duration, and criteria for success. Class IV work may be part of largerconstruction projects, in which case the competent person trained tosupervise the project should supervise the on-site cleanup activities whichconstitute the Class IV work.

Explanation of Provisions of the Final Standards

The following is a provision-by-provision discussion of the revised asbestosstandards. Thus all the provisions in all three standards: general industry,construction and shipyard employment, relating to a topic will be discussedunder the heading for that topic. For example, under the scope heading, thescope of the general industry standard will be first discussed, then thescope of the construction standard, and finally the scope of the shipyardemployment standard. Similarly, under the methods of compliance heading, theprovisions in each standard relating to that topic will be discussed. Where adiscussion applies to all three or to two of the separate standards it willbe so noted and will not be repeated for each standard. OSHA believes thatthis format will help the public understand where and why the variousstandards contain different provisions relating to the same subject matter.Further, it will avoid repetition in explanations where a common policyrationale applies to more than one asbestos standard.

(1) Scope and Application

Paragraph (a). General Industry Standard. 29 CFR 1910.1001. The generalindustry standard covers all activities (except agriculture), covered by theAct which are not otherwise covered by the construction asbestos standard, 29CFR 1926.1101, and the new shipyard employment standard, 29 CFR 1915.1001.Consequently, marine terminals and longshoring would be covered by thegeneral industry standard if asbestos were being loaded, unloaded or stored.The asbestos construction standard, in existence since 1986, lists activitieswhich it covers. This includes construction activities though they may takeplace at a factory or agricultural premises. The new shipyard employmentstandard, likewise lists its covered activities.

Formerly, the general industry standard had been considered the genericasbestos standard. However, because of dramatic changes in the market forasbestos containing products, the standard now covers only four industrysegments, three of which are distinct from each other, and all arediminishing in volume and employee population. Brake and clutch repair is theactivity engaged in by the largest group of asbestos exposed workers,although most of them are exposed sporadically and at low levels. Nextlargest is custodial workers who do not perform their duties as part ofconstruction activities, but clean surfaces, sweep, buff and vacuum floorsand wash walls and windows in manufacturing plants and a wide variety ofpublic and commercial buildings. Although in the preamble to the proposal andthroughout this proceeding OSHA and most commenters had treated these workersas part of the construction work force, OSHA concludes that pure custodialwork is not a construction activity, and should be regulated under thegeneral industry standard. However, to avoid misinterpretation or forpurposes of clarity of duties to affected parties, OSHA also is includingprovisions protecting custodial workers who may unknowingly contactasbestos-containing material in the construction and shipyard employmentstandards. In this way, there will be no advantage to interpreting coverageunder any one of the asbestos standards, rather than another.

The primary and secondary manufacture of asbestos containing products,completes the roster of identifiable general industry sectors. Once, alongwith installers of asbestos-containing products, the core of theasbestos-exposed work force, asbestos-containing product manufacturingemployees are rapidly dwindling in number. OSHA expands on this theme its oneconomic analysis later in this document. At the time of the proposal, EPAhad prohibited, at three stated intervals from August 1990 to August 1996,the future manufacture, importation, processing and distribution in commerceof asbestos in almost all products (54 FR at 29460, July 12, 1989).Subsequently the ban was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals forthe Fifth Circuit. EPA has interpreted the decision as invalidating onlythose portions of the ban for products that were manufactured or imported atthe time of the decision. Despite the remaining legitimacy of manufacture anduse of asbestos-containing products, the industries which make and maintainthem and the employees who are employed in those industries are decliningrapidly and dramatically.

Paragraph (a) Construction Standard. 29 CFR 1926.1101. Theconstruction standard covers (but is not limited to) the following activitiesinvolving asbestos: demolition, removal, alteration, repair, maintenance,installation, clean-up, transportation, disposal, and storage. It has beenredesignated 29 CFR 1926.1101 to reflect the reorganization of healthstandards covering construction made June 30, 1993 (58 FR 35076). The scopeand application remain generally unchanged from the proposal and earlierstandard. However, 3 issues arose. First, new language, proposed in 1990 isretained in the final. "* * * coverage under this standard shall be based onthe nature of the work operation involving asbestos exposure, not on theprimary activity of the employer." This point was made clearly in thepreamble to the 1986 standards; however, it was not specifically stated inthe regulatory text and subsequently some confusion arose among the regulatedcommunity. Therefore, it is included as a clarification of the intendedapplication of the standards. Asbestos work which involves removal, repair,maintenance or demolition is therefore explicitly regulated by theconstruction standard even if such work is performed within a facilityotherwise regulated under the general industry standard.

Certain commenters stated that maintenance and custodial work should not beregulated by the construction standard, because they are not constructionoperations. OSHA notes that it has made a distinction between maintenance andcustodial work, that maintenance work is covered in the construction andshipyard employment standards, and that custodial work is covered in allthree standards, when it is incidental to work otherwise covered by astandard.

"Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Soil": Prior to the publication of the 1990asbestos proposal, OSHA received submissions describing asbestos depositswhich occur as natural formations in the U.S. and that when disturbed, forexample during earthmoving projects or during mining operations, drilling,blasting or sawing operations, the asbestos in the deposit can becomeairborne and expose workers to significant levels of asbestos fibers (Ex.3-10, 3-11). The Agency proposed to clarify that such activities were coveredunder its asbestos construction standard and that methods of control were tobe employed to avoid worker exposure during disturbances of naturallyoccurring asbestos deposits. OSHA sought additional information regarding anyadditional provisions it would adopt to protect workers engaged in theseactivities. In the proposal, the Agency also requested any information onappropriate methods to use to determine the presence of asbestos in soils,the effectiveness of wet and/or other methods to control worker exposures andinformation on effective decontamination methods for exposed workers.

There were relatively few comments received on this issue. Some felt thatasbestos in soil resulted in negligible exposures and that wetting to preventfugitive emissions during earth moving would be sufficient control (e.g., Ex.7-6). Another participant said there was a lack of control technology andcalled for further study to determine the extent and location of problems(Ex. 7-63). The industrial hygienists who had raised the issue of workerexposure to naturally occurring asbestos, described the occurrence ofasbestos in the soil of Fairfax County, Virginia (Ex. 7-143). They reportedthat water misting during disturbance of asbestos-containing soils waseffective in controlling exposures. They recommended the use of negativepressure air purifying respirators, protective clothing and showers tocontrol exposures.

OSHA finds that the record indicates that certain construction sites inmostly well-defined areas contain deposits of naturally occurring asbestos.In such areas, airborne asbestos during earthmoving activities may result insignificant exposures. In such cases, wetting of the excavation site, oftenrequired by local authorities, should be sufficient to suppress measurableairborne asbestos concentrations. Information regarding the presence ofasbestos in the vicinity of construction sites may be available from stateenvironmental agencies, the United States Geological Survey, and the Bureauof Mines.

In the absence of information which is readily available showing asbestoscontamination of soil in the immediate vicinity of a construction site, theemployer is not required to take any action under this standard.

Paragraph (a) Shipyard Employment Asbestos Standard. 29 CFR 1915.1001.:

Workers engaged in shipyard industry activities, i.e. shipbuilding, shiprepair, and other work in shipyards, who are exposed to asbestos have beenprotected by inclusion in 1986 general industry and construction standardspublished in 1986. Like in other non-construction industries, OSHA intendedemployees working in shipyards to be protected by the general industrystandard, except for those operations which were specifically listed ascovered by the construction standard, i.e. renovation, removal, demolitionand repair.

In 1988, OSHA convened the Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee(SESAC), comprised of members from labor, private industry, state and federalgovernment, and professional and trade associations. The Committee's charterdirected it "to develop a single set of comprehensive health and safetystandards for Shipyards."

In the 1990 NPRM, OSHA sought information and comment on how best to provideequivalent protection to workers engaged in shipyard activities. The Agencynoted that although it had considered these operations to be regulated underthe general industry standard in the 1986 rulemaking, subsequentconsiderations led OSHA to observe that many shipyard industry activities areconstruction-like in nature.

In response, SESAC drafted alternative regulatory text which it submitted tothis rulemaking docket with the recommendation that it be adopted as avertical asbestos standard for shipyards (29 CFR 1915, Ex. 7-77). TheCommittee stated: "Maritime is neither general industry nor construction --it is maritime. "This committee was formed by the Secretary of Labor with theobjective in its charter to "recommend * * * one comprehensive set ofstandards* * *for the shipbuilding, ship repair and shipbreaking industries** *" (Advisory Committee Charter).

Additional comment and testimony on this issue was submitted during therulemaking. For example, Charles Sledge, Jr. of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard inhis testimony stated that he did not feel that shipyard industry work meetsthe definition of construction work defined in 29 CFR 1910.12 (Ex. 28).Although he preferred keeping shipyard industry operations under the generalindustry asbestos standard, he recommended that OSHA apply theSESAC-recommended standard to shipyard activities rather than theconstruction asbestos standard. He pointed out that most asbestos work inshipyards takes place in fixed locations and does not have the transientnature of true construction work. Mr. Sledge also felt that shipyards havedeveloped ways to stay below the PEL and that any change would result inrequiring expensive alterations of facilities, and a need for additionaltraining.

Several commentors including F. Losey of the Shipbuilders Council of America(Ex. 7-2), D. Knecht of Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding (Ex. 7-22), and C. Kleinof Newport News Shipbuilding (Ex. 7-71) encouraged OSHA to adopt theSESAC-recommended regulatory text for shipyards (Ex. 7-2).

J. Collins of Naval Operations objected to OSHA's proposal to apply theconstruction asbestos standard to shipyard industry because he consideredsome of the provisions infeasible on vessels (Ex. 7-52). In his opinion theconstruction standard requires showers be located at the entrance to theregulated area and that this was not reasonable on small ships likesubmarines. Other comments, (apparently by others) in this submissionexpressed the view that shipyard industry activities should be regulatedunder the construction standard since they are often identical toconstruction work. To the same effect see Ex. 7-52.

BCTD stated in its testimony that:

* * * [It] agrees with OSHA that, because the manner in which maritimeemployees work with and are exposed to asbestos is similar to the experienceof construction employees, the provisions of the construction standard shouldapply in that industry. In particular, whenever the likelihood exists thatasbestos-containing materials will be disturbed in ship repair andrenovation, that activity should be conducted under a negative air apparatus.[Ex. 34, p.2]

The rulemaking process revealed that there was confusion in the shipyardindustry sector as to which of the standards applied to the variousactivities within the shipyard. In his testimony, the Chairman of theShipyard Employment Standards Committee said: "In the case of asbestos, both1910 and 1926 are both applied in various shipyard operations. This isconfusing to the shipyard work force who are required to follow one set ofrules one day and another set the next day." (Tr. 337) In the currentrevision of the asbestos standards, OSHA has determined that a separatevertical standard for shipyards is appropriate. OSHA understands that manyspokespeople for the shipyard industry believe that compliance with OSHA'sasbestos standards will be facilitated in shipyards if only one standardapplies to those workplaces. Because OSHA wishes to promote compliance, andbecause the Agency acknowledges that some shipyard conditions are unique,OSHA is issuing a standard that will apply only to shipyard industries. It isneither less nor more rigorous than the general industry and constructionstandards. How it differs from the two other asbestos standards will bediscussed under the topic heading for each substantive provision, in thepreamble text which follows. The recommendations will be discussed morefully, following a summary of the relatively small number of commentsreceived by the Agency.

Most provisions in the final shipyard standard include some relevantprovisions similar to the revised construction standard. In addition OSHA hasincorporated some of the specific recommendations made by the ShipyardsEmployment Standards Advisory Committee discussed below.

Relatedly, the Great Lakes Carriers Associates, representing fleets on theGreat Lakes, wanted assurance that asbestos exposures of seamen aboardvessels will continue to be regulated by the Coast Guard under an existingMemorandum of Understanding between the Coast Guard and OSHA (Ex. 7-8). OSHAdoes not intend to alter the agreement it has with the Coast Guard. Rather,the maritime standard under discussion concerns shipbuilding, ship repair andship-breaking activities (29 CFR part 1915, Shipyards).

(2) Definitions

Paragraph (b) General Industry, Construction and ShipyardEmployment. OSHA has deleted some definitions which appear in the 1986standards, and has added others. Alphabetically, the changes are asfollows:

The 1986 standards contained an "action level" of 0.1 f/cc, one half the PELof 0.2 f/cc. The action level provides a "trigger" for certain duties, suchas monitoring, medical surveillance and training. The Court of Appeals forthe District of Columbia Circuit instructed OSHA to consider reducing theaction level to 0.05 f/cc should the PEL be reduced to 0.1 f/cc. In mostsingle-substance air contaminant standards it has issued, OSHA has set anaction level equal to half the PEL. The action level triggers duties ofmonitoring, medical surveillance, and training, and assures that workers whoare not exposed at or above the PEL but who may nevertheless be exposed tolevels that present a risk to their health receive a degree of protection.The action level thus helps to reduce residual risk that may remain at thePEL.

In these standards, OSHA has taken a different approach to protectingworkers exposed to levels of asbestos below the PEL. Instead of a numericalaction level, employer duties involving training and medical surveillance aretriggered by exposure to ACM or PACM or by the type of work being done.Additionally, work practices also are required regardless of measuredexposure levels. OSHA considers this approach to better protect employeesthan an action level, which triggers training and medical surveillance dutiesbased on monitoring results. OSHA's approach is particularly appropriate forasbestos because in many cases, asbestos levels below the PEL cannot bereliably measured, and duties tied to an action level might therefore betriggered by measurements of dubious accuracy.

In the 1990 proposal, OSHA did not propose an action level based on itstentative conclusion that workplace asbestos concentrations below the PELcould not be reliably and reproducibily measured (55 FR 29722). The Agencyasked for comment on the advisability of setting an action level of 0.05f/cc, and specifically asked whether the methodology for measuring airborneasbestos levels had advanced sufficiently to allow reliable and reproduciblemeasurements at that level. Evidence subsequently submitted to the rulemakingrecord indicated that levels as low as 0.05 f/cc could not be consistentlymeasured reliably. The rulemaking reinforces OSHA's tentative conclusion thatworkplace asbestos levels of 0.05 f/cc cannot be measured reliably (see NIOSHTr. 215, SESAC Tr. 345). Because employers cannot obtain reliable andreproducible measurements of airborne asbestos levels at concentrations of0.05 f/cc, it would be infeasible to base training and medical surveillancerequirements on worker exposure to asbestos at such a level. OSHA thereforedeclines to establish an action level of 0.05 f/ cc. OSHA recognizes in somecircumstances the general advantages of an action level, and if futuremonitoring technology is developed which would allow reliable, consistentdeterminations at lower fiber levels, OSHA will reconsider whether an actionlevel would be appropriate for the asbestos standard and whether action undersection (6)(b)(7) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act which directsOSHA to "make appropriate modification in the * * * requirements relating to* * * monitoring or measuring * * * as may be warranted by experience,information, or medical or technological developments acquired subsequent tothe promulgation of the relevant standard" is appropriate.

The agency has, however, included provisions that require training andmedical surveillance of employees exposed below the PEL. Thus, like standardsthat contain an action level, these standards use training and medicalsurveillance to reduce the residual significant risk that remains at the PEL.The general industry standard requires that all employees who work in areaswhere ACM or PACM is present be given a prescribed level of awarenesstraining. The construction and shipyard standards require training of allworkers who install asbestos-containing products and all workers who performClass I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV work. These training requirementsassure that all employees who are potentially exposed to more than de minimisconcentrations of asbestos can recognize conditions and activities that canlead to asbestos exposure, know of the hazards associated with asbestosexposure, and are trained to utilize the means prescribed by the standard tominimize their exposure.

With respect to medical surveillance, the construction and shipyardstandards require medical surveillance of all workers who, for a combinedtotal of 30 days per year or more, engage in Class I, II, or III work, or whoare exposed above the PEL or excursion limit. Additionally employees who wearnegative pressure respirators are provided with medical surveillance. Thegeneral industry standard requires medical surveillance of all workersexposed above the PEL or excursion level, with no 30-day per year limitation.In crafting these provisions, OSHA has attempted to assure that those workersfor whom medical surveillance will provide relevant information and benefitare entitled to it. In construction and shipyard work, employees who do notengage in Class I, II, or III work are unlikely to be exposed above 0.05 f/cc(the potential "action level") because the work practices mandated in thestandard should result in negligible asbestos exposure to workers who do notspecifically engage in asbestos-related work. Employees who engage in onlyClass IV work also should not be exposed above 0.05 f/cc because of the lowerasbestos exposures associated with such work. OSHA therefore believes thatthe construction and shipyard provisions target medical surveillance where itis needed.

In general industry, the vast majority of workers who are exposed below thePEL will also be exposed below 0.05 f/cc. The work practices mandated forbrake and clutch repair, by far the largest general industry segment subjectto the standard, should result in virtually all such workers being exposedbelow 0.05 f/cc. Another large general industry segment, custodial workers,will also be generally exposed below 0.05 f/cc. While some small number ofworkers in both categories as well as in the manufacturing of asbestosproducts may be exposed between 0.05 f/cc and 0.10 f/cc on some days, thedifficulty of obtaining reliable and reproducible measurements at thoselevels makes it difficult to identify those workers accurately. Therefore, ifmedical surveillance were triggered by exposure above 0.05 f/cc, theemployees subject to such surveillance would likely be chosen on the basis ofthe vagaries of the monitoring process rather than on any realisticassessment of the risk that they face. OSHA therefore concludes that it wouldbe infeasible, and would not reduce significant risk, to require medicalsurveillance for workers in general industry exposed below the PEL orexcursion limit.

David Kirby of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated his belief that:

I'm not sure if the analytical methodology will be able to support this dueto the level of accuracy that's normally associated with trying to takesamples under the normal procedures at that level." (Tr. 105)

NIOSH too testified that "[i]n NIOSH's judgment, the establishment of a PELor an action level below 0.1 fiber per cc for most industrial or constructionwork sites would be difficult at this period of time" (Tr. 215). Additionaldoubt was voiced by the chairman of the Shipyard Employment StandardsAdvisory Committee, "* * * an action level, that is 0.05 fibers per cc, isnot appropriate or reasonable due to inconsistencies and non-reproducibilitywith the sampling and analytical methodology" and noted concern that shipyardenvironments were especially likely to have high levels of background dustwhich could overload sampling devices, making determinations at that levelmore difficult (Tr. 345). Other commenters supported the proposed deletion ofan action level (Ex. 7-2, 7-39, 7-99,7-104, 7-120, 7-146).

Asbestos

In 1992 OSHA amended the definition of "asbestos" from the 1986 standards.The non-asbestiform varieties of the minerals actinolite, tremolite andanthophyllite are no longer included in the definition of asbestos. In 1986OSHA determined that although tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite existin different forms, all forms of these minerals would continue to beregulated. Following promulgation of the rule, several parties requested anadministrative stay of the standard claiming that OSHA improperly includednon-asbestiform minerals. A temporary stay insofar as the standards apply tothe non-asbestos forms of tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite was grantedand the Agency initiated rulemaking, proposing to remove these forms from thescope of the asbestos standards. Following a public comment period and publichearing, OSHA issued its final decision to delete non-asbestiform tremolite,anthophyllite and actinolite from the scope of the asbestos standards (57 FR24310, June 8, 1992). The Agency, in evaluating the record, found that"evidence is lacking to conclude that non-asbestiform tremolite,anthophyllite and actinolite present the same type or magnitude of healtheffect as asbestos," and that the failure to regulate them as asbestos doesnot present a significant risk to employees.

Classification of Asbestos Work (Classes I-IV)

In the Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards, OSHA is addingdefinitions for four classes of activities which trigger different provisionsin the standard. Those activities presenting the greatest risk are designatedClass I work, with decreasing risk potential attaching to each successiveclass. The Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards regulate Class I,II and III work; all three standards regulate Class IV work.

"Class I" work is defined as activities involving the removal of thermalsystem insulation and sprayed-on or troweled-on or otherwise appliedsurfacing ACM (asbestos-containing material) and PACM (presumedasbestos-containing material); "Class II asbestos work" is defined as removalof ACM or PACM which is not TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM; "Class III asbestoswork" is defined as repair and maintenance operations which are likely todisturb ACM, or PACM; Class IV operations are custodial and housekeepingoperations where minimal contact with ACM and/or PACM may occur.

Class I asbestos work involves removal of surfacing materials sprayed ortroweled or otherwise applied to surfaces, and removal of thermal systeminsulation. Surfacing materials include, for example, decorative plaster onceilings or acoustical ACM on decking or fireproofing on structural members.Thermal system insulation includes, for example, ACM applied to pipes,boilers, tanks and ducts. Based on the record, OSHA has determined that theprevalence of these materials and their likelihood of significant fiberrelease when disturbed, requires rigorous control methods which OSHA has setout in the standards.

Class II asbestos work involves removal of any other asbestos-

containing material -- which is not TSI or surfacing ACM. Examples of ClassII work are removal of floor or ceiling tiles, siding, roofing, transitepanels. EPA refers to these materials as "miscellaneous ACM" in the "GreenBook." (Ex. 1-183) Work practices and other control measures to be employedin removing these materials are discussed later in this preamble under themethods of compliance section.

Class III asbestos work are defined as repair and maintenance activitiesinvolving intentional disturbance of ACM/PACM. Class III is limited toincidental cutting away of small amounts (less than a single standard wastebag) of ACM/PACM, for example, to access an electrical box for repair.

The first three classes of asbestos work are intended to cover the kinds ofasbestos work which under the 1986 construction standard were designated"asbestos removal, demolition, and renovation operations," including"small-scale, short-duration operations, such as pipe repair, valvereplacement, installing electrical conduits, installing or removing drywall,roofing, and other general building maintenance or renovation."

The classes are exclusive. For example, the stripping of 50 linear feet ofthermal system insulation, which has not been positively identified asnon-asbestos containing material is Class I, for it is the removal of PACM.Repair of a valve covered by ACM is Class III, since "removal" is not takingplace. Removal of roofing material containing ACM is Class II, since roofingmaterial is not high-risk ACM. OSHA believes dividing activities by "Classes"will be clearer than the prior system in the 1986 standard which prescribeddifferent precautions for "small scale, short duration work," which it thendefined by example. As noted in several places in this document this wasconfusing to employers, to the Court and to OSHA itself. A more extensivediscussion of the "Class" system of designating work with asbestos-containingmaterials is contained in the discussion on "Methods of Compliance"provisions later in this preamble.

Class IV work is defined as maintenance and custodial activities duringwhich employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up waste anddebris containing ACM and PACM. This includes dusting surfaces, vacuumingcarpets, mopping floors, cleaning up ACM or PACM materials from thermalsystem insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM. Workers may contact ACM or PACM whenperforming a wide variety of routine jobs that result in incidentaldisturbance, such as changing a battery in a smoke detector attached to aceiling containing ACM or PACM, polishing floors containing asbestos, andchanging a light bulb in a fixture attached to an asbestos containingceiling.

For custodial work, the Class IV characterization applies to situationswhere there is an indication that surfaces are contaminated with ACM or PACM.One indication would be identification of the ACM or PACM sources of thedebris or dust; such as visibly damaged, or degraded, ACM or PACM in thevicinity. Visibly damaged, degraded, or friable ACM or PACM are indicationsthat surface dust could contain asbestos, and Class IV protection applies.OSHA requires in (g)(9) that such dust or debris be assumed to be ACM orPACM. Another indication could be an analytical test to determine whether thesurface dust itself contains asbestos. Since dust of carpets may not bevisible, visible dust on other surfaces along with the presence of ACM/PACMnearby would indicate that cleaning the carpet is Class IV work.

The general industry standard also includes requirements for maintenance andcustodial operations which mirror Class IV requirements in the constructionstandard. These would apply to activities which are not traditionally viewedas construction activities, and which, as contended by certain participantsin this proceeding, may not be covered by the Construction Safety Act (40U.S.C. 333). As further discussed in the preamble discussion relating toparagraph (a), Scope and Application, examples of these activities areclean-up in areas where asbestos-containing dust or debris is present andremoving light fixtures located near "high risk" surfacing material.

Some Class IV work was covered by the earlier standards, yet the coveragewas incomplete. The general industry standard regulated housekeepingactivities, and housekeeping activities were also included in theconstruction standard to be covered if they were part of a construction job.Precautionary maintenance guidelines to avoid disturbing ACM were addressedin Appendix G of the construction standard. OSHA believes that the switchfrom the regulated "housekeeping" activities to the Class IV definition isclearer and reduces loopholes. The custodial activities covered in eitherevent can clearly create asbestos dust and expose custodial employees to thatdust. Data in the record show that custodial activities can produce notinsignificant asbestos exposure levels. Therefore, the work practicesrequired to reduce that dust are clearly necessary to reduce significant riskto custodial workers.

By establishing a Class IV, OSHA is rejecting various recommendations thatsome activities, potentially involving asbestos disturbance, would result inde minimis risk, and as such should not be regulated (See further discussionconcerning Methods of Compliance). The new definition of Class IV work, theremoval of the non-mandatory appendix, and coverage of these activities bothunder general industry standard and the construction standard and shipyardemployment standards clarify the standards' application to such work.

OSHA requested comments on setting a cut-off for asbestos-containingmaterial with minimal asbestos content. There was overwhelming support for a1% cutoff for ACM which would be consistent with EPA rules. The HazardCommunication Standard labeling and training provisions require labeling ofmaterials which contain more than 0.1% asbestos. EPA defines asbestoscontaining material as: "Any material containing more than one percentasbestos." (NESHAP and Green Book p. 30). OSHA has no information to indicatewhat proportion of building materials fall into the category of containingmore than 0.1% and less than 1.0% asbestos. EPA has listed building materialsby their asbestos content and among those included on the list, onlysurfacing ACM ranged down to 1% (and up to 95%) (EPA "Purple Book," Ex.1-282). Some participants, including NIOSH have expressed concern that even1% may be below the accuracy level for optical microscopic methods. (Ex.7-145, 162-39). Among those who dealt with the issue, most supported the 1.0%cutoff, most citing its consistency with EPA (Ex. 7-5, 7-6, 7-21, 7-43, 7-51,7-74, 7-76, 7-99, 7-106, 7-111, 7-120, 7-137, 151, 162-59, 162-29). OSHAagrees that a cutoff of 1.0% asbestos is appropriate for asbestos containingbuilding materials and has included this value in its definitions of ACM.

Closely Resemble

Included in the construction and shipyard employment standards is adefinition for the term "closely resemble," which is the term used in theregulatory text to limit the use of historic exposure data to predictexposures. It is defined as circumstances where "the major workplaceconditions which have contributed to the levels of historic asbestos exposureare no more protective than in the current workplace." OSHA's intent is toallow data reflecting past exposures to be used to predict current exposuresonly when the conditions of the earlier job were not more protective, i.e.,employees were not better trained, work practices were not used moreconsistently, and no more supervision was present.

Competent Person

OSHA has amended the definition of "competent person" in the constructionstandard and included it in the Shipyard Employment Standard as a "qualifiedperson." The definition is based on the definition of "competent person" inthe general construction standard, 29 CFR 1926.32(f), i.e. "one who iscapable of identifying existing asbestos hazards in the workplace and who hasthe authority to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them," but addsa specific training qualification. The training provisions require acompetent person take a course which meets the requirements of EPA's ModelAccreditation Plan (40 CFR 763, Subpart E). OSHA believes that specifictraining is needed so a "competent person" will have adequate knowledge toperform the competent person's responsibilities for Class I and II work. AClass II and Class IV "competent person" must undergo "Operations andMaintenance" (O&M) training as developed by EPA. Further discussion of theseissues is found later in this document.

The revised definition deletes from the definition a list of duties to beperformed by the competent person. Duties are more appropriately set out inother regulatory paragraphs which are prescriptive, rather than in the"definition" section. In response to the court's remand, OSHA has alsoexpanded the scope of the competent persons's duties so that a competentperson must supervise all asbestos activities under the constructionstandard. As noted, these requirements are set forth in other regulatoryparagraphs which govern conditions of work in covered activities.

The shipyard employment standard does not use the term "competent person,"because that term has a unique definition under Part 1915. OSHA has acceptedSECSAC's recommendation that the term "qualified person" should be used todesignate a person with the same duties under the shipyard employmentstandard.

Critical Barriers

OSHA is adding a definition for the term "critical barriers" whose use isrequired in certain asbestos operations. These are defined as plasticsheeting or equivalent material placed over openings to the work area. Thesebarriers are effective when they seal all openings into a work area. Criticalbarriers can be other physical barriers sufficient to prevent airborneasbestos in a work area from migrating to an adjacent area.

Disturbance

OSHA has added a definition for "disturbance" to all three standards todistinguish it from removal. In this definition disturbance means any contactwith ACM/PACM which releases fibers or which alters its position orarrangement. It also includes operations which disrupt the matrix or renderit friable or which generate visible debris from it. A quantitative cutoff ofdisturbance is given -- the amount of ACM/PACM so disturbed may not exceedthe amount that can be contained within one standard sized glove bag or wastebag. OSHA believes that certain jobs, e.g., repairing leaking valves, oftenrequire asbestos to be cut away to gain access to a component. If the amountof asbestos so "disturbed" is contained in one bag, Class I precautions arenot necessary.

Glove Bag

The term "glove bag" is also defined in the standards as a plastic bag-likeenclosure affixed around ACM with glove-like appendages through whichmaterial and tools may be handled.

Homogeneous Area

The presumption that a material contains asbestos may be rebutted bysampling a "homogeneous" area of the presumed ACM to determine its asbestoscontent. OSHA has defined "homogeneous area" in much the same way it isdefined by EPA as an area of surfacing material or thermal system insulationthat is uniform in color and texture.

Industrial Hygienist

A definition for "Industrial Hygienist" is included in the standards as aprofessional person qualified by education, training, and experience toanticipate, recognize, evaluate and develop controls for occupational healthhazards.

Initial Exposure Assessment

"Initial Exposure Assessment," including "Negative Initial ExposureAssessment" are terms used in the construction and in the shipyard standards.It means a required assessment by a "competent person" concerning theexposure potential of a specific asbestos job, or series of similar asbestosjobs. A "Negative Initial Exposure Assessment" is such an assessment in whichit is concluded that employee exposures during the job are likely to beconsistently below the PELs. Assessments must be based on information anddata which are allowed pursuant to criteria in paragraph (f). The results of"Initial monitoring," no longer required for each job, should be considered,but do not necessarily constitute an adequate "assessment" if they would notrepresent all worst-case employee exposures during the entire job.

Modification

Alternatives or modifications to listed control methods are allowed when theemployer demonstrates that such a "modification" still provides equivalentworker protection. OSHA does not intend that changes in a control methodwhich decrease the safety margin of a material or omitting a procedure bepermitted by calling it a "modification." A "modification" means a changed oraltered procedure, material which replaces a procedure, material or componentof a required system. For example, a new test proven successful in detectingleaks might be substituted for required "smoke tests." Omission of aprocedure or component, or a reduction in the stringency or strength of amaterial or component is not considered a "modification" under this section.

Presumed Asbestos-Containing Material (PACM)

In all three standards, "presumed asbestos containing material," "PACM"

means thermal system insulation and sprayed on and/or troweled or otherwiseapplied surfacing material in buildings constructed no later than 1980. OSHAhas found that these materials are "high risk" if asbestos-containing. OSHAbases this on the record, including the HEI Report which states that "thermalsystem insulation and surface treatments (fireproofing, acoustical anddecorative finishes) stand out in importance for their potential for fiberrelease and subsequent exposure to [building] occupants" (Ex. 1-344, p. 4-5).Although these materials may have been installed in small quantities after1980, OSHA finds that their installation is unlikely after that date.

Project Designer

OSHA has adopted a definition like that of EPA for a "Project Designer"

-- a person who has successfully completed the training requirements for anabatement project designer established by 40 USC 763.90(g).

Removal

"Removal" means all operations where ACM and/or PACM is removed from abuilding component, regardless of the reason for the removal. It includesthose maintenance, repair, renovation and demolition activities where ACMand/or PACM removal is incidental to the primary reason for the project, aswell as where removal of ACM and/or PACM is the primary reason for theproject. Removal should be distinguished from "disturbance" which includes"cutting away" a small amount of ACM or PACM.

Regulated Area

"Regulated area" is included in all three standards. All three, like the1986 standards, require the establishment of such an area where the employerbelieves that the PEL will be exceeded. Now, the construction and shipyardemployment standards add that such area must be established also where ClassI, II and III activities will take place, regardless of exposure levels.Also, the specific actions required of the employer to demarcate a regulatedarea are deleted from the definition, and are placed in the appropriateprescriptive paragraph, in this case paragraph (e)(6).

(3) Permissible Exposure Limits

Paragraph (c) General Industry, Construction and Shipyard Standards.In all three standards, the eight hour time-weighted average permissibleexposure limit is changed from an eight hour time weighted average (TWA) of0.2 f/cc to a TWA of 0.1 f/cc in the revised final rules. As noted in the1990 proposal and in the preamble discussion above, OSHA's decision to reducethe PEL across the board responds to the Court's directive to considerwhether to establish operation-specific exposure limits, since the Courtnoted that on the record of the 1986 standards, it appeared feasible toreduce the PEL to 0.1 f/cc limit in many industry sectors. OSHA has rejected"operation-specific" PELs for the wide variety of operations that exposeemployees to asbestos. OSHA proposed and these final standards adopt requiredoperation-specific work practices, in addition to an across-the-board PELreduction to 0.1 f/cc. OSHA expects that the risk reduction accomplished bythis two-pronged approach will be at least as great as wouldoperation-specific PELs. First, the required controls are found to be capableof achieving maximum exposure reduction on an operation-by-operation basis.Second, since OSHA has found that specific work practices are feasible, theAgency expects a higher compliance rate and thus, greater risk reduction thanif practices were not specified. Third, in operations where particularcontrols are specified, the PEL is a backstop; alerting employers whereadditional controls are needed or closer surveillance is required; in alloperations the PEL is a measurable and comparable value, which cannot beexceeded without further action by the employer to reduceexposures.

At the time of the proposal in 1990, the question of whether the proposedPEL reduction would reduce a still significant risk had already been given atentative answer by the Court. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, inremanding the issue of lowering the PEL to the Agency, noted that based onthe 1984 risk assessment, the excess risk stemming from average exposures of0.1 f/cc "could well be found significant." BCTD v. Brock, 838 F.2nd at1266." (55 FR at 29714).

In the proposal, OSHA stated that it believes "that compliance with proposedamendments to reduce the PEL to 0.1 f/cc as a time-weighted average measuredover 8 hours would further reduce a significant health risk which existsafter imposing a 0.2 f/cc PEL" (55 FR 29714, July 20, 1990). OSHA's 1984 riskassessment showed that lowering the TWA PEL from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc reducedthe asbestos cancer mortality risk from lifetime exposure from 64 to 6.7deaths per 1,000 workers. OSHA estimated that the incidence of asbestosiswould be 5 cases per 1,000 workers exposed for a working lifetime under theTWA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. Counterpart risk figures for 20 years of exposure areexcess cancer risks of 4.5 per 1,000 workers and an estimated asbestosisincidence of 2 cases per 1,000 workers.

OSHA's risk assessment also showed that reducing exposure to 0.1 f/ cc wouldfurther reduce, but not eliminate, significant risk. The excess cancer riskat that level would be reduced to a lifetime risk of 3.4 per 1,000 workersand a 20 year exposure risk of 2.3 per 1,000 workers. Consequentlysignificant risk would be reduced substantially. However, OSHA concludedtherefore that continued exposure to asbestos at the TWA permitted level andaction level would still present residual risks to employees which aresignificant.

The Court did not ask and OSHA did not undertake to review its earlier riskassessment in the proposal. At the hearing in January, 1991, Mr. Martonik,spokesperson for OSHA was asked by Mr. Hardy, representing the Safe BuildingAlliance (SBA), if OSHA was planning to update the earlier risk assessment aspart of this proceeding. Mr. Hardy stated that "a number of parties havesuggested to OSHA that its risk assessment from 1984, as relied on in the1986 final rule, is outdated" (Tr. 30). Mr. Martonik responded that "we willhave to consider all information we receive and determine relevance in thisrulemaking after the record is closed. (Ibid).

Other parties questioned OSHA's continuing reliance on the 1984 riskassessment. The Asbestos Information Association (AIANA) testified that"OSHA's 1984 risk assessment fails to take into account the scientificcommunity's consensus that chrysotile exposures hold lower risk than theAgency estimates * * * we do not believe that the risk assessment that is sixyears old relies on the best available evidence." AIANA requested OSHA toconvene experts, as part of this hearing process "to revise its asbestos riskassessment." (Tr. 530), this was the major objection to OSHA's earlier riskassessment. Some participants voiced similar objections. (Ex. 7-88, 7-110,7-104, 7-120, Ex. 145, 151), while others were of the opinion that chrysotilehad the same potency as other forms of asbestos (see Ex. 119 C, 1-136, 125,Att. 6, 143 Att C, 143 Att. D.).

Although as noted above, the issue of the continuing validity of OSHA'searlier risk assessment was not remanded to the Agency for reconsideration,implicit in OSHA's proposal to lower the PEL to 0.1 f/ cc is OSHA'sdetermination based on the 1984 risk assessment, that the lower exposurelimit is necessary to reduce a still significant occupational risk.

After a comprehensive review of the evidence submitted concerning thevalidity of the 1984 risk assessment, OSHA has determined that it willcontinue to rely on the earlier analysis. The Agency believes that thestudies used to derive risk estimates remain valid and reliable, and thatOSHA's decision to not separate fiber types for purposes of risk analysis isneither scientifically nor regulatorily incorrect.

There are at least three reasons for OSHA's decision not to separate fibertypes. First, OSHA believes that the evidence in the record supports similarpotency for chrysotile and amphiboles with regard to lung cancer andasbestosis. The evidence submitted in support of the claim that chrysotileasbestos is less toxic than other asbestos fiber types is related primarilyto mesothelioma. This evidence is unpersuasive, and it provides aninsufficient basis upon which to regulate that fiber type less stringently.

As OSHA explained in the preamble to the 1986 standards,

* * * to summarize the data on risk differential by asbestos fiber type,human epidemiological studies have suggested that occupational exposure toamphiboles is associated with a greater risk of mesothelioma than is exposureto chrysotile * * * No clear risk differential for lung cancer or otherasbestos-related disease has been demonstrated by epidemiological studies.Animal experiments, however, have indicated that chrysotile is a more potentcarcinogen than amphiboles when administered by inhalation or intrapleuralinjection * * * (51 FR at 22628).

OSHA agreed with the testimony of Dr. Davis, who stated that "the evidencecannot answer * * * with certainty * * * if "one fiber * * * of amphibole(is) more dangerous than one fiber * * * of chrysotile." (Ibid).

Second, as stated in the 1986 asbestos standard, even if OSHA were to acceptthe premise (which it does not), that chrysotile may present a lower cancerrisk than other asbestos fiber types, occupational exposure to chrysotileasbestos still presents a significant risk of disease at the revised PEL (See51 FR 22649, 22652). In particular, asbestosis, the disabling and often fatalfibrosis of the deep portions of the lung, is caused by exposure to all typesof asbestos. The evidence on this is strong and no new information has beenpresented to contradict this. As stated above, OSHA estimated asbestosisrisks at 0.2 f/cc exposures as an unacceptably high 5 cases per 1000 workers.Thus, asbestosis risks alone justify the regulation for chrysotile.

Lung cancer risks associated with chrysotile exposures are also high -- 6.7lung cancer deaths per 1000 workers exposed to 0.2 f/cc for a full workinglifetime. OSHA notes that SBA's witness, Dr. K. Crump acknowledged that"(t)here's not a clear difference, * * * even in humans, for lung cancer * ** in terms of distinguishing the potency of amphiboles vs. chrysotile." (Tr.4220).

Third, the record shows that employees are likely to be exposed to mixedfiber types at most construction and shipyard industry worksites most of thetime. Assigning a higher PEL to chrysotile would present the Agency andemployers with analytical difficulties in separately monitoring exposures todifferent fiber types. Thus, regulating different fiber types at differinglevels, would require more monitoring all the time and would produce limitedbenefits (51 FR 22682).

Consequently, OSHA believes that its conclusion to treat all asbestos fibersas having a similar potency in the occupational setting remains valid. Mostof the evidence submitted to the remand rulemaking duplicated evidencesubmitted to the 1986 standards' record, or was cumulative to the earlierbody of evidence. For example AIANA appended its 1988 submission to the EPA,consisting of numerous studies and reports. Some of these documents wereconsidered by OSHA in the prior rulemaking. There, OSHA had stated that the1983 Berry and Newhouse study of friction materials manufacturing workerswhich found nonsignificant increases in lung cancer mortality, wasinconsistent with other studies showing that low level asbestos exposureresulted in excess lung cancer mortality, because of the relatively shortfollow up period used (51 FR 22618).

Other studies involved lung burden analyses of mesothelioma victims,apparently showing that the pulmonary content of chrysotile was within therange of the general population, whereas amphibole content was significantlyelevated compared to the general population (see e.g. Churg, MalignantMesothelioma in British Columbia in 1982, Cancer, 2/85, 672). OSHA noted inthe preamble to the 1986 rule, that there is a difference in tissue retentionwhich would account for the autopsy results and cited a study by Glyseth etal. (Doc. 33-C, Ex. 312) which supported that explanation. OSHA also notedthat "the differential lung retention of various fiber types has beendemonstrated in animals," citing a study by Wagner which found that animalsexposed to chrysotile fibers developed lung cancer even though a smalleramount of chrysotile was retained in the lung compared to similar tests withamphiboles.

Dr. Weill believed that "these differences in tissue persistence may whollyor partially explain the observations [that exposure to amphiboles areassociated with a higher prevalence of mesothelioma] in human * * *population * * *. Non-confirmation of fiber type differences in animalexperiments may be related to the much shorter life span * * * [ofexperimental animals, which would not allow] the effects of varyingtissue-persistence to be expressed" (Doc. 33-C, Ex. 99, p.18; 51 FR 22628).Therefore OSHA had reviewed and evaluated in the earlier rulemaking a portionof the evidence submitted by proponents of differential regulation of fibertypes, and had rejected the claim that chrysotile should be regulated lessstringently.

Some new evidence on the issue of differential risks of asbestos fiber typeswas submitted by both supporters and detractors of that theory.

In support of the position that chrysotile asbestos exposure is equivalentin risk to amphibole asbestos exposure, BCTD submitted studies whichindicated excess mesothelioma cases in workers exposed solely to chrysotileasbestos (see Ex. 119 C, 1-136, 125, Att.6, 143 Att C, 143 Att. D). Insupport of the opposing claim that chrysotile has reduced carcinogenicpotential, AIANA and SBA submitted additional evidence. For example, AIANAsubmitted the World Health Organization's 1989 working report whichrecommended that the exposure limit for chrysotile should be reduced to 1f/cc or below (8 hour TWA), where it was recommended that exposure tocrocidolite and amosite asbestos be prohibited (Ex. 21 A, p. 9). Inparticular, two papers by Mossman, et. al, are cited as the basis for theclaim that a scientific "consensus" believes that chrysotile carries areduced carcinogenic risk (Ex. 1-153, 151). Thus AIANA states that "sinceOSHA issued its 1984 asbestos risk assessment, the scientific consensus thatchrysotile asbestos poses lesser risks has solidified" (Ex. 142 at 3).

However, OSHA notes that various participants in this rulemaking, includingNIOSH and Dr. Nicholson, disputed the existence of such a consensus. Dr.Nicholson and others including Dr. Landrigan, in a letter to Science, (Ex.1-155), dispute various interpretations of data in Mossman et al.'s paper,and challenge the conclusion that chrysotile asbestos carries little cancerrisk. Nicholson et al, point out that human studies show excess lung cancerrisk that is proportionate to exposure across all fiber types, and thatanimal tests confirm these relationships. OSHA believes that the scientificcommunity has not achieved "consensus" on these issues.

Among the studies submitted in support of the lowered risk of chrysotileasbestos, are those of Churg, and others showing that the lung burden ofmesothelioma victims is predominantly amphibole, even though high chrysotileexposure levels were reported. As noted above, this line of argument waspresented in the earlier asbestos rulemaking, and OSHA had concluded thatlung burden studies are inconclusive. Additional response to this argument isprovided by Dement who notes that "(t)he biological significance ofpost-mortem lung fiber burden data has yet to be established. These data arenot useful as a predictor of disease for several reasons. Chrysotile is knownto split longitudinally and partially dissolve in the lung whereas amphibolesremain in the lungs for years without significant dissolution * * *.Measurements of tissue fiber burdens many years after first exposure may bearno relationship to the carcinogenic events which likely have taken place manyyears before clinical manifestation of cancer." (Ex. 1-273) BCTD pointed outin its post-hearing brief, that "Dr. Landrigan testified, while theobservation that chrysotile does not last as long in the lungs as other formsof asbestos is not new knowledge (Tr. 1074), there is recent evidence thatchrysotile is "the most effective of the three major fiber types at migratingto the pleura, that it is present in substantial amounts in pleural plaquesand mesotheliomas, even in circumstances where it is not present or minimallypresent in the lungs themselves" (Tr. 1074).

The Agency also notes that the HEI report, in summing up its discussion ofits literature search of studies examining the issue of the relative potencyof chrysotile in inducing mesothelioma, stated: "(t)he evidence thatchrysotile rarely causes pleural mesothelioma is not conclusive "* * * andconcluded that the absence of mesothelioma in one of the "two cohorts ofheavily exposed asbestos workers who worked only with chrysotile * * * seemslikely to be due at least in part to chance" (Ex. 1-344 p. 6-23).

HEI concluded that "the mesothelioma risk for chrysotile was an issue ofdisagreement; some members of the Literature Review Panel held the view thata lower estimate should be recommended, as it would be more consistent withavailable data. The crucial issues, neither of which can be resolvedunequivocally, are (1) what proportion of the mesotheliomas observed ingroups such as the U.K. textile workers and the U.S. insulation workers werecaused by their exposure to crocidolite or amosite; and (2) whether the bestgeneral estimate of the ratio of mesothelioma to excess lung cancer caused bychrysotile is provided by the Quebec miners and millers (about 1:4 or 1:5),or by the South Carolina textile workers handling Quebec fiber (zero)" (Ex.1-344 p. 6-32).

Thus, although there is some evidence linking chrysotile to a lowermesothelioma rate than some amphibole fiber types, OSHA believes that thereis insufficient evidence to show that chrysotile does not present asignificant mesothelioma risk to exposed employees. Furthermore, the majordisease linked to asbestos exposure, lung cancer, occurs at the samefrequency among employees exposed to equivalent doses of chrysotile or toamphibole asbestos fiber types. Indeed, evaluation of all of the evidenceindicates that chrysotile asbestos presents a similar significant risk oflung cancer and asbestosis as other forms of asbestos. Since these adversehealth effects constitute the majority of diseases related to asbestosexposure, OSHA is still of the opinion that chrysotile exposure should betreated the same as other forms of asbestos.

In addition to contentions that OSHA's risk assessment had overstatedasbestos risks because it treated the risks from all asbestos fiber typesequally, other contentions were made that the earlier risk assessment mayhave understated the risks from asbestos, because it ignored evidence of theincidence of pleural plaques, and other asbestos disease which occurred inworkers exposed at low levels, primarily as building custodians. The earlierrisk assessment in 1984 focused on whether there was a significant risk ofcancer and asbestosis at various levels of cumulative exposure. During thishearing, various labor groups stated their position that the presence ofpleural plaques in asbestos exposed employees is not only a marker ofasbestos exposure, but also an independent "material impairment" because theyare associated with a greater risk of lung function impairment and pleuriticpain. Pleural plaques are focal areas of fibrous thickening of the pleura,the membrane lining the lung. Further, suggestions were made that OSHA shouldreduce its PELS to correspond to these increased risks of "materialimpairment" which occurred at lower exposure levels (see e.g., Ex. 143 at35-37).

Evidence submitted during the rulemaking consisted of testimony and studieswhich in the view of some participants showed lung function decrement andresulting excess disease among workers exposed at low levels. For exampleBCTD witness Dr. Christine Oliver described various studies and concluded:

Pleural plaques * * * were a predictor for increased mortality from lungcancer and malignant mesothelioma in subsequent years * * * pleural plaqueshave also been shown to be associated with decrement in lung function * * *At the very least, pleural plaques are a marker for exposure, sufficient toincrease risk for lung cancer and for malignant mesothelioma, and they havealso been associated with loss of lung function (Tr. 1035-6).

Dr. Oliver recommended medical surveillance of those exposed to asbestos intheir capacity as custodians in buildings.

The studies considered by Dr. Oliver consisted of one involving 120 Bostonpublic school custodians (Tr. 1026) which she conducted and found pleuralplaques in 33% (N = 40) of the group. Further she noted that in 21% (of the40, or 12 individuals) there was no known exposure to asbestos outside workas school custodian. In 18% of the group and 17 % of those with no outsideexposure to asbestos, she observed a restrictive pulmonary defect,significantly associated with duration of employment as school custodian.Other studies described by Dr. Oliver, in the docket include: a study of 666New York school custodians, reporting only x-ray data (Ex. 47). For allgroups of workers, the lung abnormality seen on x-ray was associated withduration of work as custodian: a study of 1,117 insulation workers (likely tohave had extensive asbestos exposure) by Dr. Irving Selikoff, in whichworkers were followed for up to 27 years prospectively, in which pleuralplaques were found and which were concluded to be predictive of lung cancermortality (Tr. 1036 and Ex. 124A): a study, by Balmes (Ex. 124 DD, Tr. 1036,Ex. 1-374) of approximately 900 school district employees in California weredetermined as likely to have been exposed to asbestos. The authors concluded,"More than 11 percent of workers known to have sustained exposure to ACM inschool building, without history of exposure to asbestos prior to schooldistrict employment, and with at least 10 years of employment with thedistrict had radiographic evidence of parenchymal asbestosis and/orasbestos-related pleural thickening" (Ex. 1-374, p. 547). After adjusting forsmoking and age, the relative risk was 1.3 times greater for those with 10years or more employment compared with those who had just begun working forthe school district.

In addition to the occurrence of pleural plaques which are viewed aspresenting an independent material impairment of health due to low levelasbestos exposures, Dr. Oliver cited other studies which correlated low levelasbestos exposure with mesothelioma. Thus, a study by Dr. H. Anderson (Tr.1032 and Ex. 124 EE, Ex. 1-374 using information on mesothelioma cases from aWisconsin Cancer Registry, analyzed 359 deaths from 1959 to 1989. Using deathcertificate occupational information, the researchers hypothesized 41 aslikely to have been exposed to asbestos in buildings. For 10 (34%), no otherlikely source of asbestos exposure was identified. The paper concluded that"individuals occupationally exposed to in-place ACBM are at risk for thesubsequent development of mesothelioma" (Ex. 1-374, p. 570).

SBA submitted a critique of these studies which they commissioned by Drs. H.Weill and J. Hughes (Ex. 122). They suggested potential biases in thesestudies, that Dr. Oliver's study subjects were volunteers, the study had alow participation rate, they had used a non-standard classification system,and did not adequately account for age in relating restriction to lungfunction. These reviewers concluded that spirometric functional measurementswere not related to the presence of plaques and that reduced lung volumecould result from other factors. Drs. Weill and Hughes also examined theother studies, and argued that Dr. Selikoff's were "fatally flawed" due tothe potential for development of unmeasured changes during the 27 year periodof follow-up, and that both the Anderson and Balmes studies failed toadequately adjust for age, smoking and other direct asbestos exposures. Otherreports cited by BCTD were dismissed because of potential sources of bias.

Dr. Oliver rebutted these arguments (Ex 143, Attachment F). She argued thatshe had adequate controls, adequately accounted for age and demonstrated thatpleural plaques were significantly associated with both latency and durationof work as custodian in the total group and in the group with no known otherexposure, that lung restriction was significantly associated with duration ofwork as a custodian, and that pleural plaques mark increased risk for lungcancer mortality.

Dr. Levin also responded to the reviewer's criticism of his studies with Dr.Selikoff (Ex. 143, Attachment G). He pointed out that all x-rays had beenread by a single reader, Dr. Selikoff, and that there is no evidence thatsmoking without asbestos exposure increases appearance of the small irregularopacities in the lung seen on the x-rays in their study. He further notedthat in his study only actively working custodians were included and weretherefore a "survivor" group and would therefore not be expected to reportpulmonary dysfunction frequently. He claimed that relatively unexposedsubject groups would not be expected to have more than an upper limit of 3%pleural plaques.

Dr. Anderson also responded to the Weill/Hughes comments (Ex. 143,Attachment H). He asserted that the review fails to explain how biases wouldsignificantly increase odds ratios in the study, that misclassification oftenis random and biases toward not detecting a difference between the study andcontrol groups. He also questioned existence of evidence that smoking withoutasbestos exposure causes pleural thickening or irregular opacities.

The review of available literature, including the studies mentioned above bythe Health Effects Institute, resulted in its the estimation that theprevalence of pleural plaques in the general population to be about 5% (Ex.1-344, p. A2-9). Although HEI advised caution in interpreting the existingstudies due to lack of specificity and sensitivity of methods used andcouched its conclusions in cautious terms, they concluded: "* * * there isnow persuasive evidence implicating asbestos-related pleural disease as anindependent cause or indicator of functional impairment and possibly evendisability * * * On the individual level, pleural disease may be the onlyindication of asbestos exposure, may explain symptoms and functionimpairment, and may predict future deterioration in lung function" (Ex. 1-344p. A2-12).

OSHA agrees that health effects such as lung function impairment andpleuritic pain would be considered "material impairment," if substantialevidence supports the link to pleural plaques. OSHA concludes that thescientific data indicate that pleural plaques are primarily associated withasbestos exposure, and that they have occurred and still may at relativelylow exposure levels.

However, OSHA does not believe that the data are available to permit OSHA todo a separate risk assessment for these effects which would in a major wayadd to the present assessment. The risk assessment on which OSHA has basedits significant risk determinations for the 1986 and newly revised standards,calculated the incidence of mesothelioma, lung and other cancers andasbestosis, diseases based on a substantial amount of both mortality andexposure data. The data concerning lung function decrement and pleuralplaques lack exposure information and would make quantitative risk estimatesfor these health effects less precise than the data for other forms ofasbestos-related disease upon which OSHA is relying.

A separate risk assessment is also unnecessary. OSHA believes that therevised regulations are already regulating at the margin of what is feasible,in terms of levels to be achieved, and controls which are required. OSHA hasimposed necessary, feasible and well supported work practices for custodialwork, which should reduce custodial exposures well below the historic levels(indeterminate) which may have been experienced by the workers studied in theabove reports.

More generally, there would be remaining significant risk at this new 0.1f/cc exposure limit if there were not other provisions to these standards.However, the exposure limit is accompanied by mandated work practice controlsand requirements for hazard communication, training and other provisions.Together these will very substantially reduce that remaining significantrisk, although the exact amount of that reduction cannot be quantified. Inaddition, it would be difficult to measure accurately in the industrialsetting levels lower than those in these standards. OSHA believes itsapproach of setting a PEL which is reliably measurable, yet, imposing workpractices and ancillary provisions for operations regardless of measuredfiber levels will result in risk reduction well below that expected from justenforcing the 0.1 f/cc PEL. Thus, a lower PEL would not produce significantworker benefit.

(4) Multi-Employer Worksites

Paragraph (d) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards. OSHA isretitling paragraph (d) "multi-employer worksites." The first provision, thesame regulatory text as in the 1986 construction standard, requires that anemployer whose work requires the establishment of a regulated area mustinform other on-site employers of the asbestos work, and how other employeeswill be protected from hazards stemming from that work. In addition, newprovisions follow which set out the compliance responsibilities of employerson multi-employer worksites.

In 1990, OSHA had proposed more comprehensive provisions governingcommunication of asbestos hazards among all employers, building and facilityowners and employees, in a revised paragraph (d). These final standardsexpand communication provisions but repositions them in paragraph (k),"communication of hazards." A discussion of those provisions is found belowin this preamble under that heading.

Paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) set out the compliance responsibilities ofemployers on multi-employer worksites. They acknowledge that on asbestos worksites, like other construction sites, employees exposed to a hazard are notalways the employees of the employer who created the hazard.

Paragraph (d)(2) incorporates the rules now applied in enforcement actionsgoverning multi-employer construction sites generally, to assure that allemployees on such a site receive the protection intended by thestandards.(See Gelco Builders, Inc. 6 BNA 1104). The standard explicitlyrequires asbestos hazards to be abated "by the contractor who created orcontrols the source of asbestos contamination."

In addition, paragraph (d)(3) sets forth the duties of the employer ofemployees who are exposed to asbestos hazards, but who did not create thesource of contamination. One, such employer may request the contractor withcontrol of the hazard to take corrective action. For example, if there is abreach of an enclosure within which asbestos work is being performed, theemployer of employees working outside that enclosure should request theasbestos contractor who erected the enclosure to repair the breachimmediately, as required by paragraph (d)(2). If the repair is not made, andif employees working outside the enclosure are exposed to asbestos in morethan de minimis amounts, the employer of those employees should either removethem from the worksite pending repairs, or consider his employees to beworking within a regulated area and comply with the provisions of paragraph(e) governing exposure assessments and monitoring of employees who workwithin such areas. If the employer of employees exposed to asbestos becauseof the failure of controls installed by another contractor, is the generalcontractor of the construction project, as such he has supervisory controlover the entire worksite including the regulated area, and is responsible forviolations which could be abated or prevented by the exercise of suchsupervisory capacity.

Paragraph (d)(3) of the construction standard states the enforcement rulethat regardless of who created a hazard, the employer of exposed employees isrequired to comply with applicable protective provisions to protect hisemployees. An example recited in the regulatory text presents the situationof employees working immediately adjacent to a Class I regulated area. Ifthere is a breach of the enclosure or the critical barriers surrounding theasbestos work, employees working immediately adjacent to the work may beexposed to asbestos. The employer responsible for erecting the enclosure isrequired to insure its integrity. However, in the event that such repair isdelayed or not made, the employer of the exposed "bystander employees" mustdesignate a "competent person" to evaluate the exposure potential, conductinitial monitoring or an "exposure assessment," and supervise other requiredprotective actions. The evaluation may include the amount of time andfrequency adjacent workers are exposed. For example, although passing througha contaminated area on the way to perform non-asbestos related activities istechnically work which exposes employees to asbestos, the competent person'sevaluation properly may conclude that no appreciable exposure is possiblebecause of the brevity of the "work" in the area.

(5) Regulated Areas

Paragraph (e) General Industry, Construction and Shipyard EmploymentStandards. Regulated areas are a traditional component of OSHA healthstandards. They segregate both the work and the worker so as to betterregulate the work, and to protect uninvolved employees from exposure. The1986 standards required regulated areas for work above the PELs and inconstruction, for demolition, renovation and removal activities. The finalstandards require that regulated areas be established where the PELS arelikely to be exceeded, and under the construction and shipyard employmentstandards, where Class I, II and III asbestos work is performed. Theserequirements are substantively similar to those proposed in 1990.

The basic requirements of the regulated areas are the same for all threestandards, They are changed from the current standard to more coherentlyreflect the rest of the standard's provisions. For example, paragraph (e)(2)which requires the regulated area to be "demarcated to minimize the number ofpersons within the area, and to protect persons outside the area fromexposure to airborne concentrations of asbestos" has been changed in twoways. The phrase "in any manner," has been deleted. Since, paragraph (g)requires critical barriers for Class I and II work, and paragraph (k)requires warning signs outside regulated areas, demarcation must incorporatebarriers and signs where otherwise required.

OSHA has also deleted the phrase "in excess of the TWA and/or excursionlimit" in the construction and shipyard employment standards to describe thelevel of protection intended to be offered persons outside the regulatedarea. Since OSHA has determined that a still significant risk remains belowthe PELS, intended protection should not be limited to protecting down tothese levels. OSHA noted in its 1990 proposal that in the constructionstandard, "the regulated area controls are proposed to apply even whenexposures may be less than the newly proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc" (55 FR at29716), however, no change was proposed for the "demarcation" provision.Paragraph (e)(3) is unchanged and continues to limit access to regulatedareas to "authorized persons."

The final regulated area requirements for construction and shipyard industrydelete former and proposed (e)(6), which dictated when negative pressureenclosures (NPEs) must be erected, and various duties required of the"competent persons" to ensure integrity of the regulated area and enclosure.Under OSHA's former approach, negative pressure enclosures were, in manycases, how construction employers should have demarcated their regulatedareas. OSHA focused on the role of such enclosures in providing "bystanderprotection." In these final standards, OSHA is repositioning the NPEprovisions to paragraph (g), "methods of compliance." There, these systemsare required to reduce exposures of the employees who are disturbing theasbestos who are inside the enclosures, as well as employees outside theenclosure.

(6) Exposure Assessment and Monitoring

Paragraph (d) General Industry. There are no changes to the exposuremonitoring provisions of the General Industry Standard.

Paragraph (f) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standard. To conform withthe newly revised approach to categorization of asbestos work, and to reflectthe difficulties of reliably estimating asbestos exposures based on limitedpast or current exposure monitoring, the requirements for exposure monitoringin the 1986 standard have been changed. First, there is a general requirementthat all employers who have a workplace covered by this standard conduct an"initial exposure assessment" at the beginning of each asbestos job[(paragraph (f)(2)]. Exceptions to this requirement exist only for most ClassIV work. The "assessment" must be conducted by the "competent person." Thepurposes of these "assessments" are to predict whether exposure levels duringthe planned asbestos work can be expected to exceed the PELs, and thuswhether additional monitoring, and other precautions are required.

"Initial assessments" are different from "initial monitoring" required inthe 1986 standards. "Initial monitoring" as used for processes in generalindustry, was rationally relied on to estimate future exposures for thatpurpose. Historic monitoring data were considered second-best data. The newrequirement for "initial exposure assessments" acknowledges that initialexposure monitoring in many cases cannot adequately predict all futureexposures on construction jobs. Even if monitoring results wereinstantaneously available, the value of early exposure monitoring inpredicting later exposures over a multi-day asbestos job is limited.First-day exposures are likely to be lower than later exposures, because theyreflect early set-up rather than removal activities, conducted in relativelyclean areas before disturbance may contaminate the regulated area.

One purpose of the initial exposure assessment is to identify which asbestosjobs are likely to exceed the PEL in time for employers to install andimplement the extra controls required to reduce such exposures. Suchadditional controls may consist of ventilation which redirects the air awayfrom the over-exposed employees, and mandatory protective clothing andhygiene facilities associated with donning and removing such gear. Evenemployers who are planning to install full negative pressure enclosures withair flushing technology must conduct initial exposure assessments. This willinsure that the "competent person" has reviewed the success of controls inpast projects, in order to evaluate the planned controls for the currentproject. Testimony and comment to the record emphasized that the evaluationof industrial hygienists or other properly trained personnel was essential todecision making on how best to protect workers. For example, David Kirby ofOak Ridge National Laboratory, agreed with the statement that before there isany operation involving asbestos containing material, the industrial hygienestaff makes a determination as to whether that's likely to be a high risk,relatively high risk or a low risk operation (Tr. 197). Other participantsendorsed requiring advance assessment of asbestos-disturbing jobs (see e.g.,ORC, Ex. 145, p. 6).

The former "initial monitoring" provisions allowed use of historic data.OSHA now requires the evaluation of data from earlier asbestos jobs toestimate exposures on new jobs. However, the "data" reviewed are more thanair monitoring results. This record has convinced the Agency thatconsideration of factors in successfully controlling asbestos exposures needsto be a part of the assessment. In addition to measurement results, theassessment must review relevant controls and conditions, factors thatinfluence the degree of exposure. These include, but are not limited to, thedegree and quality of supervision and of employee training, techniques usedfor wetting the ACM in the various circumstances encountered, placing andrepositioning the ventilation equipment, and impacts due to weatherconditions. The assessment therefore must be based on the competent person'sreview of all aspects of the employer's performance doing similar jobs. Onlyif similar controls are used and the work supervised by the same or similarlytrained personnel, may past data be relied on. In addition, the results ofinitial monitoring required if feasible, must inform the competent person'sassessment. Judgment of the "competent person" is required when reviewingrecords of past work. For example, even where an employer's earlier glove bagremovals produced some exposures above the PEL, if more recent glove bagremovals by the same crew show no exceedances, the "competent person" may bewarranted in predicting that the current job performed by the same crew willbe well controlled and exposures will not exceed the PELs.

The other basis allowed for an initial exposure assessment is "objectivedata" to show that it is, in effect, impossible for a job to result inexcessive exposures. The 1986 standard, 1926.58, paragraph (f)(2)(ii),allowed such data to demonstrate that the "product or material containingasbestos cannot release * * * (excessive) concentrations * * *." Since therecord of this proceeding shows that almost all asbestos products may in timebecome hazardous, if for example, their matrix becomes disturbed, theactivity, as well as the material, is the exposure-limiting factor. OSHAtherefore now allows a showing that a specific activity involving a productis incapable of producing exceedances. The "objective data" must demonstratethat under "the work conditions having the greatest potential for releasingasbestos," an activity coupled with a specific material, simply cannot resultin excessive concentrations.

OSHA cannot predict all the combinations of activity and product which willmeet this test. OSHA believes instead that construction employers should begiven the responsibility for making these determinations for their particularwork. However, on the record of this proceeding, they would appear to belimited to Class IV activities, or certain Class III activities such aslimited removal of intact asbestos containing gaskets using wet methods andcontainment methods. OSHA notes that under no conditions can a Class Iremoval qualify for this exemption; based on the record of this rulemaking,every removal activity involving TSI and surfacing ACM is capable ofreleasing fibers above the PEL.

There are separate provisions regarding a "negative initial exposureassessment" which is a demonstration that the activity involving the asbestosmaterial is unlikely under all foreseeable conditions to result inconcentrations above the PELs.

The competent person must exercise judgment in performing these exposureassessments. For example, if initial monitoring is evaluated the first day'smeasurements which reflect set-up activities may not adequately predict laterexposures on a removal job. The competent person should examine both thefirst day's exposures and comparable full job exposure data from othercomparable jobs, before a conclusion is reached that exposures on that jobwill not exceed the PELs.

In large measure, the required bases for making a "negative exposureassessment" in the revised construction standard are the same criteria whichwould, under the 1986 standard, have allowed an employer to claim anexemption from initial monitoring based on "historic data." The standardmakes it more difficult to base an initial exposure assessment on historicdata than did the previous provision for initial determination. Now, theassessment must consider, the experience and training of the crews.Therefore, the standard now requires that a negative exposure assessment mustcompare crews with comparable experience and training, an employer cannotcompare untrained and inexperienced crews. And no "negative exposureassessment" can be made if the crews which disturb asbestos in the currentjob are untrained. OSHA believes that a major factor in the effectiveness ofall control systems for removing asbestos-containing materials is theexperience and training of the contractor and employees. Evidence in therecord shows dramatic reductions in exposure levels as untrained employeeslearned proper glove bag techniques (see e.g., the NIOSH study, Ex. 125).

The lack of a "negative exposure determination" usually indicates thatworkers are not experienced/trained or that a job is complex. In suchsituations, additional protections, less dependent on experience of theworkers, or the complexity of the job, should be required. Thus, criticalbarriers are required in all Class I and II work, and for Class III work,plastic barriers are required, where negative exposure assessments are notproduced. If the employer cannot assure that levels will be minimized,protection against migration of asbestos dust must be provided. Similarly, ifexcessive levels are possible, employees in all classes must be protected byrespirator use and the standard so requires.

OSHA believes its approach balances the concern that asbestos exposurelevels vary from job to job and may be non-predictive of future levels withthe Agency's knowledge gained from long-term enforcement of the asbestosstandard, that different employers have different "track records." Thenegative initial exposure assessment provisions require consideration offactors which have been identified as influencing the variability of results.In fact, one commenter stated that "* * * it is invalid to predict that anyparticular operation is always below the PEL," identified criticalcontributing variables as "the materials, work practices and experience ofthe crew" (Ex. 7-52). OSHA is requiring the "negative exposure assessment" tobe based on these, among other, factors. OSHA emphasizes that a "negativeexposure assessment" does not predict exposure levels beyond a particularjob. A new assessment must be produced each time another job is undertaken.Employers may evaluate repetitive operations with highly similarcharacteristics, as one job, such as cable pulling in the same building, solong as the historic data used also reflect repetitive operations of the sameduration and frequency.

In sum, OSHA believes data specific to the building, contractor andemployees is helpful in predicting exposures when the same variables apply.The lack of such data should require additional precautions. Additionally,unless there is a "negative exposure assessment," the employer must continueto conduct periodic monitoring. Periodic monitoring, in a change from the1986 construction standard, now is required within the regulated areas ofClass I and Class II asbestos jobs and for Class III asbestos work where theinitial assessment projects that the PEL is reasonably likely to be exceeded.In these operations the employer is to perform daily monitoringrepresentative of the exposure of each workers performing these tasks. Theprovisions allowing discontinuance of monitoring, additional monitoring,observation of monitoring are unchanged.

Although not a remanded issue, several participants discussed the subject ofa clearance fiber level to determine when a regulated area could bereoccupied following asbestos operations. Some supported use of a clearancelevel with aggressive sampling and analysis in accredited laboratories (Ex.141, 143). Most who supported a clearance level stated support for the AHERAlevel of 0.01 f/cc or background fiber level (40 CFR 736.90). Arepresentative of the US Navy felt that measurement of the quality ofabatement -- a clearance level -- was needed, but that it should not beconsidered to be a "health standard" (Ex. 7-52). In a similar vein, theResilient Floor Covering Institute (Ex. 147, Tr. 279) and a representative ofthe American Paper Institute pointed out that a permissible exposure limitand a clearance level are not the same and should not be confused; the formeris health-based and the latter a measure of cleanliness (Ex. 7-74). Mr.Churchill an asbestos consultant, supported a clearance requirement and feltthat the person performing this measurement should be an independent entity(Ex. 7-95). As mentioned earlier, the Shipyard Employment Standards AdvisoryCommittee recommended adoption of a clearance level of 0.04 f/ cc measurednon-aggressively (Ex. 7-77). The submission of the Monsanto Company expressedtheir desire that OSHA not adopt a clearance requirement (Ex. 7-125).

OSHA has not included a provision for a specific "clearance level" in theserevised standards. In reviewing the record, there is no clear evidence of alinkage between such a requirement and subsequent lessening of workerexposure. Clearly, regulated areas must be cleaned following asbestos work.However, designation of a specific fiber level which must be attained beforean area can be reoccupied does not appear to be necessary for worker healthwhen all other provisions of the standard are complied with. Meeting therequirements of the standards will protect workers and bystander employeesand will prevent the migration of fibers from the work area. The docketcontains some data indicating that attainment of a clearance level (eitherbackground or 0.01 f/cc) does not conclusively predict fiber levels whichwill occur in formerly regulated areas (Ex. 1-23, 162-19). Therefore, OSHAhas not included a quantitative cutoff to determine whether a work area hasbeen adequately cleaned to allow re-entry, rather the standards now requirethat the information regarding the final monitoring of the prior work beprovided to those reoccupying the area. However, OSHA recognizes the need foradequate cleaning of the worksite following disturbance/removal of asbestos.

(7) Methods of Compliance

Paragraph (f) General Industry. OSHA proposed several changes to themethods of compliance provisions.

One was to require specific work practice and engineering controls for brakeand clutch repair; another was to regulate the maintenance ofasbestos-containing flooring by prohibiting certain kinds of work practicesand requiring others; the third was to require that engineering and workpractice controls to achieve the newly reduced PEL of 0.1 f/cc be phased-into coincide with the imposition of the EPA ban for various industrial sectorswhich manufacture asbestos containing material (see 55 FR 29721-29726). Thefinal general industry standard retains the conceptual outline of theseproposed changes; however the details differ.

Brake and Clutch Repair

OSHA is adding a mandatory appendix to its asbestos standard for generalindustry and to the shipyard employment standard. This appendix specifies theengineering controls and work practices to be followed during brake andclutch work. Two methods of control are "preferred," the enclosure/HEPAvacuum method and the low pressure/recycle method. In operations in whichsuch work is infrequent (i.e., establishments performing fewer than 5 brakejobs per week), simple wet methods are included among the "preferred"controls. Also, use of "equivalent" methods of control is permitted.

In the July 20, 1990 proposed revision of the general industry asbestosstandard, OSHA proposed that the employer comply with the standard byimplementing one of three specified methods of engineering controls and workpractices to control asbestos exposure during automotive brake and clutchrepair and assembly operations. These methods were the enclosed cylinder/HEPAvacuum system, the spray can/ solvent system, and the wet brush-recyclemethod. Detailed requirements for these three methods were set out inproposed Appendix F. Once having properly used one of these methods, theemployer would have been exempt from other requirements of the standard. OSHApreliminarily found that the use of these methods would routinely result inexposure levels below the PEL. The proposal also would have allowed theemployer to comply with the standard by using an "equivalent" method, whichfollows written procedures, which the employer demonstrates can achieveresults equivalent to Method A, [the enclosed cylinder/HEPA vacuum system,Proposed 1910.1001 (f)(x)]. This proposed revision differed from the 1986standard in two ways. The earlier standard set out two methods of reducingexposure in a non-mandatory appendix. Secondly, the controls themselves aresomewhat different; one method, the wet brush-recycle method, was added; theenclosed cylinder/HEPA vacuum system was revised, and the spray can/solventsystem is retained. OSHA endorsed these three methods based primarily on theresults of a NIOSH study completed after the 1986 standard which found thatall three methods effectively reduced exposure levels during brake drumservicing operations to below the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc (Ex. 1-112).

In the final standard OSHA lists two "preferred methods," the wet-brushrecycle methods and the enclosure/HEPA vacuum system. OSHA is deleting thesolvent/spray method from the list of preferred methods. OSHA still islisting the above two methods as "preferred," but the description of thesemethods is more generic than in the proposal, so as not to preclude use ofmethods which differ from those described in the proposal in minor ways whichare unlikely to affect their efficiency. In addition, specific trainingprovisions are added to ensure that work practices are effectively followed.

Like the proposal, "equivalent" methods are allowed so long as requiredtraining is held. The employer must show that the "equivalent" method canreliably achieve exposures below the PEL in the workplace conditions wherethe method is sought to be used. In addition employers using such"equivalent" methods must demonstrate by exposure data from their workplacesusing the equivalent method, or by reference to exposure data representingconditions similar to their workplace that the anticipated exposure reductionin fact, has been achieved. OSHA believes that these changes will allowemployers to choose among various proven approaches and encourage thedevelopment of new devices and practices which effectively reduce exposuresin brake and clutch repair facilities.

Considerable comment and testimony were submitted to the record by thepublic concerning OSHA's proposed revisions on protection for automotiverepair workers. Information concerning additional methods to achieve asbestoscontrol during brake repair was submitted. These additional methods includeHEPA vacuum systems without an enclosed cylinder (Ex. 7-104), using waterspray instead of solvent spray (Ex. 7-104, 7-04), enclosures shaped otherthan cylindrically (Ex. 7-127), and collecting the drips of sprays from thesolvent spray method (Ex. 1-84).

Some commenters claimed that OSHA should not require any specific method ofreducing airborne asbestos exposure to brake and clutch repair workers, butmerely require that the PEL be achieved (Ex. 7-31, 7-43, 7-79, 7-104, 7-146).Other commenters pointed out that most brake service operations are performedby small businesses that lack resources to evaluate control devices (Ex.1-112). Evidence submitted concerning the airborne asbestos fiber levelsproduced by the use of most of the suggested methods showed exposuresconsistently below the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc.

Various comments concerned the "wet brush-recycle method." A developer of anenclosure method for brake/clutch repair asbestos control, recommended thatthe term be broadened to allow "more latitude in design preference for themanufacturer" (Ex. 162-41). He suggested that the name be changed to "lowpressure/wet cleaning" method. He also asked that OSHA use a more generalterm to describe the preferred enclosure method, objecting to specificationof its shape as cylindrical. OSHA agrees that the shape of the enclosure neednot be specified and that the term suggested, "negative pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum system," was appropriate.

Similarly, R. Wagner of BP of America felt that it was not necessary thatthe wet brush/recycle method actually include a brush and presentedmonitoring results indicating effective fiber control when spraying on thesolution without brushing (Ex. 7-24). OSHA agrees that, although a brush isuseful in cleaning the components, the preferred method will be designatedlow pressure/wet cleaning and will not specify the use of a brush.

A manufacturer of a low pressure/wet cleaning apparatus, objected to OSHArequiring use of an aqueous solution in the machine (Ex. 162-1). OSHAunderstands that the organic solution in the apparatus is a degreaser used asa parts cleaner. Mr. Swartz in testimony explained that solvents are used asdegreasers, but that most brake work does not require degreasing -- heestimated that only once per 200 to 300 brake jobs would such a solvent beneeded (Tr. 1843). OSHA has determined that it will maintain the requirementthat aqueous solutions be used in this procedure to control asbestos fiberlevels. OSHA further warns of the potential danger of solvent use in theseoperations and that use of solvents, which are often flammable and may becarcinogenic, must be undertaken with great care. OSHA also stresses the needfor low pressure application of the solution to the surfaces during thisoperation to avoid asbestos fiber release and the necessity that theasbestos-contaminated solution not be allowed to dry on surfaces.

A manufacturer of a wet brush-recycle type brake cleaner, Hilgren of KleerFlo, offered the following advice to users of this method regarding disposalof waste: "Our recommended method of disposal is to simply add adsorbentmaterial such as "floor-dry" to the waste bag. Then direct the flow throughbrush into the bag containing the absorbent material. Allow the machine topump the solution from the reservoir" (Ex. 7-117).

Most relevant comments supported the effectiveness of two of the threeproposed "preferred" methods: the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method and the wetwash/recycle system. However, substantial opposition was directed at OSHA'spreference for the solvent spray system. For example, George Swartz, Directorof Safety for Midas International Corporation testified that "the utilizationof an aerosol system is ludicrous" (Tr. 1840). One, some of the solvents usedin commercial preparations are suspect carcinogens. Two, use of a spray candoes not reliably control exposures due to asbestos dust in the brakeassembly, because of the difficulties of removing the drum, and that afterremoval asbestos containing dust in the assembly cannot easily be reached bya aerosolized spray. Three, certain solvent sprays, according to Mr. Swartz,can damage friction material and the rubber parts of the cups which force thebrake shoe out to the drum (Tr.1840-46). Another witness, James E. Clayton,testified that "you can't take a can of compressed solution like this (Gunkbrake cleaner) and just spray it on dry dust without it getting into theair." (id at 1914-15).

The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) agreed in itspost-hearing comment that the use of spray can with certain solvents ispotentially dangerous, and suggested that nonhazardous sprays or aerosols beallowed (Ex. 150). Another participant described an occasion in which thespray can was accidentally dropped, punctured, and released solvent into thework area (Ex. 7-24). The safety director at Fruehauf Trailer Operations,asked "why is it necessary to use a solvent as opposed to water? * * * whycouldn't it be used in place of a solvent in the performance of brake andclutch work?" (Ex. 7-4). Mr. Swartz agreed that "simple water and detergentcan be as effective" (Ex. 1-176) However, he insisted that it be a gentlemist of water and that resulting drips be caught and proper disposal carriedout (Tr. 1852).

OSHA agrees with these comments and witnesses. The Agency notes that some ofthe solvents contained in the spray cans used to spray brake assembliespresent significant health risks. As a matter of public health policy, it isbetter not to list as preferred, a compliance method which introduces anotherhazardous substance into the breathing zone of the worker.

Further, the effectiveness of the solvent/spray method is compromised by thereported need to use additional force to remove asbestos deposited in thebrake assembly, which the spray cannot reach. Additionally, comment andtestimony indicate that the force of the aerosol spray by itself can makeairborne the asbestos-containing dust. OSHA noted in the proposal, that thespray/solvent can method produced the highest airborne concentrations of themethods tested by NIOSH (55 FR at 29724). OSHA notes that although it basedits endorsement of the solvent/spray method on the NIOSH study, as Mr. Swartzpointed out, "the issue of the residual dust left in a drum, I don't think,was properly addressed in that study * * * (In) the real world, * * * themechanic will either dump it on the ground or he'll dump it in a garbage can.At the end of the day he's going to sweep the floor, and he's sweeping thedust up" (Id at 1845).

Thus, in this final standard the spray/solvent can method is no longer a"preferred method," the use of which will exempt employers from otherprovisions of the standard. Although the standard does not prohibit the useof solvent sprays in brake and clutch repair to control asbestos exposure,employers will have to comply with other provisions in the asbestos and otherstandards when using the method. Initial monitoring must be undertaken toassure that exposures are likely to remain under the PEL, provisions of thehazard communication standard relating to communicating the hazard potentialof the solvent used, and training employees in avoiding exposure to suchsolvent must be complied with. Employees must be specifically informed thatthe solvent/spray method is not preferred, and OSHA's reasons for thatdecision must be explained to them, as part of that training. Employers mustprovide for the prompt cleanup of all asbestos containing liquid or debriswhich is produced by any brake cleaning method, including a solvent/spray.Thus, solvent-wetted asbestos containing material must be HEPA vacuumed whenit reaches the ground, because waiting will result in dried and airbornedust.

Among the methods tested by NIOSH was the use of a HEPA vacuum alone,without enclosure. The National Automobile Dealers Associationrepresentative, D. Greenhaus, encouraged OSHA to include this in its list ofpreferred methods of asbestos control in brake work stating that this was themethod already in use in many places (Ex. 7-104). The Sheehy (NIOSH) studynoted that" * * * the drums must be removed before the vacuum cleaner can beused, thus there is a potential for asbestos release during drum removal"(Ex. 1-112), and P. Carpenter of Nilfisk stated "[t]he greatest potential forexposure occurs when the brake drum is first removed" (Ex. 7-140). OSHAagrees that the potential for exposure during drum removal before the HEPAvacuum can be used precludes listing including this as a preferred method.Moreover, NIOSH found that HEPA systems alone do not clean the brakecomponents as effectively as the other methods (Ex. 1-112). Mr. Greenhausalso recommended that OSHA prohibit three activities during brake operations:dry brushing, air hose cleaning and use of non-HEPA vacuums. NIOSH agreedthat such prohibitions are necessary and OSHA concurs.

One related issue is whether to require respirator use for employees whenchanging filters or bags from vacuums. OSHA proposed that they not berequired when changing HEPA filters, noting that filter changes occurredinfrequently, recorded fiber levels during changes were not excessive, andother requirements triggered by respirator use, such as medical examinationsand fit testing procedures, did not appear to confer any significant benefitto employees. One participant, Mr. Clayton, who initially disagreed withOSHA's proposal not to require respirators for filter changes, clarified thatthe ancillary requirements for a respirator program, "would scare everybodyaway from wanting to do it * * * and would be a rather heavy burden for mostemployers" (Tr. 1931). Mr. Clayton pointed out that exposure potentialexisted not only during filter changes, but during vacuum bag changes aswell. He further pointed out that although HEPA filter changes wereinfrequent, bags "could be changed as often as every three to five weeks by ashop" (Id at 1929). Mr. Clayton described two systems of ensuring that bagchanging does not expose employees to asbestos containing dust. Under onesystem the bag is collected under negative pressure; under the other the bagis made from non-woven material and is "virtually undestructible." OSHA hasconcluded that so long as filters and vacuum bags are changed using workpractices to minimize rupture and spillage, exposure from that activity willbe de minimis, and respirator use is not required to protect employees.Accordingly, additional work practices relating to filter changes, when avacuum is used, are included in the standard.

OSHA is allowing another method to be used in shops in which brake workcomprises only a minor portion of the workload, and thus where employeeexposure is infrequent and minimal. For those shops in which brake work isinfrequent, OSHA has determined to allow the use of a wet method of controlas a "preferred" method. Therefore, in facilities in which no more than 5pairs of brakes or 5 clutches, or some combination totaling 5, are repairedeach week, the mechanic/technician may control potential asbestos exposurethrough the use of a pump sprayer (bottle) containing water or amended waterto wet down the drum or clutch housing before it is removed and to controlfiber release during subsequent activities. The mechanic may use otherimplements to deliver the water such as a garden hose; however, the resultingwaste water generated must be caught and properly disposed of withoutallowing it to dry on any surfaces. OSHA anticipates that the use of a spraybottle will be adequate to control the dust without generating a large volumeof waste water, however any waste water generated must be disposed ofproperly. OSHA applied a qualitative analysis using its risk managementexpertise in making the decision that allows less effective controls forfacilities that do 5 or fewer brake and 5 or fewer clutch repair jobs perweek. Relevant factors were the magnitude of the risk of asbestos causeddisease estimated in the 1986 risk assessment at levels of exposure invehicle repair facilities, the duration of exposure, and the practicality ofusing controls in the industry.

In describing the usual work practices of mechanics performing brake jobs,Mr. Swartz of Midas Corporation reported that it was occasionally necessaryfor the mechanic/technician to dislodge a "frozen" brake drum; this wasusually performed by striking it with a hammer (Ex. 1-176). When performedwithin an enclosure under negative pressure, this operation would be unlikelyto expose the worker to asbestos fibers; however, when using the othermethods it is essential that the exterior of the drum, especially around theseams, be thoroughly wetted to minimize fiber release. OSHA concurs and thuswill require that before attempts are made to dislodge a "frozen" brake drum,the drum must be thoroughly wetted.

Other comments were received which dealt with minor alterations in wordingwhich would render the requirements clearer and more specific and some ofthese have been incorporated into the language of Appendix F (Appendix L inthe shipyard employment standard). Several participants noted that additionalactivities, such as inspection and disassembly of brakes could also result inexposure and should be included. Mr. Swartz explained that brakes arefrequently checked to determine whether they are defective and this involvesremoval of the drums and results in potential exposure to asbestos-containingdust (Tr. 1843). OSHA agrees that these activities should be covered by therule and has included them in the language of the final rule. Therefore thefollowing activities will be listed and will require implementation of theprovisions of the mandatory appendix F (appendix L in the shipyard employmentstandard): clutch and brake inspection, disassembly, repair and assembly.

Mr. Swartz also testified that brake shoes are recycled and new frictionmaterial is placed on re-used metal frames (Tr. 1871). A letter forwarded toOSHA by EPA Brian Putnam, whose work experience included 4 years ofdelivering auto parts to garages and service stations, stated:

* * * it is my observation that auto parts employees face significantexposure to asbestos from brake shoe cores, brake drums, and clutches. Notonly do they store cores for exchange with the manufacturers, most also turnbrake drums which come in with a * * * coating of dust on them (Ex. 1-133).

The asbestos standard 1910.1001(k)(1) states that "all surfaces shall bemaintained as free as practicable of accumulations of dusts and wastecontaining asbestos," and subsequently in (k)(6) specifically states thatitems consigned for disposal which are contaminated shall be sealed inimpermeable bags or other closed impermeable containers. In order to includematerials which are contaminated and scheduled for recycling, not disposal,the phrase "or recycling" is added to this provision (k)(6), which now is asfollows: Waste, scrap, debris, bags, containers, equipment and clothingcontaminating with asbestos consigned for disposal or recycling, shall becollected and disposed of in sealed impermeable bags, or other closed,impermeable containers.

Engineering controls and good work practices should be implemented at alltimes during brake servicing. Because of the health hazards associated withasbestos exposure, these actions must be considered even when the workerbelieves that the brake shoes do not contain asbestos.

OSHA received several comments pointing out a need for training requirementsfor brake and clutch mechanics. For example J. Clayton of Clayton Associates,Inc supported a training requirement for brake and clutch repair workersciting as examples that New Jersey required one day training for mechanicsand that Maryland requires training for those covered under its asbestosprogram. He estimated the cost of training at $150 and noted that certifiedinstructors were required in both these states (Ex. 7-127). OSHA agrees thatworkers exposed to asbestos must be trained in appropriate ways to avoidexposure to airborne asbestos fibers. Therefore, OSHA has provided amandatory appendix outlining the work practices to be used in performingthese operations, and has included a requirement that brake and clutch repairworkers receive training in the appropriate use of these work practices.

Floor Maintenance

Paragraph (k)(7) General Industry Standard. The 1986 standard contained noprovisions specifically covering work practices on asbestos containingflooring materials. In 1990, OSHA proposed in paragraph (f)(xi) severallimitations on buffing and sanding asbestos containing flooring. In thehousekeeping section of the final OSHA is prohibiting or limiting three workpractices relating to floor maintenance for asbestos-containing flooringmaterials and those assumed to contain asbestos. They are: (i) sanding ofasbestos-containing floor material is prohibited; (ii) stripping of finishesshall be conducted using low abrasion pads at speed lower than 300 rpm andwet methods; and, (iii) burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only onasbestos-containing flooring which has sufficient finish so that the padcannot contact the asbestos-containing material.

OSHA had proposed to allow asbestos containing floor tile to be buffed onlywith "low abrasion pads at speeds of 190 rpm or less" (See 55 FR at 22752).However, after a review of the record OSHA believes that restricting sandingof floor materials, limiting the speed and abrasiveness of the pads andspecifying use of wet methods for stripping floors, and allowing buffing onlyon finished floors will protect floor care workers from exposure to airborneasbestos fibers while performing the maintenance and will minimize futureexposures due to deteriorating flooring caused by inadequate maintenance.

Paragraph (g) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards:

The "methods of compliance" provisions are the core of the revisedstandards. They set generic, operation-specific and exposure triggeredrequirements for conducting asbestos work. In the 1986 construction standard,provisions dictating engineering controls and work practices for mostconstruction jobs were contained in paragraph (e), governing the "regulatedarea." OSHA believes that paragraph (g), the methods of compliance section,is a more logical home for these provisions.

Most of the requirements in paragraph (g) are instructions to use specifiedwork practices. The work practice approach to controlling asbestos exposurein construction activities is widely endorsed. It is the model for NESHAPregulation under EPA (see 40 CFR 60.143), most state regulations andvoluntary consensus guidelines. OSHA has tried to formulate work practicerequirements as simple, flexible instructions, embodying the basic controlstrategies for asbestos dust suppression. These are to wet it down, containthe disturbance, and isolate the operation. The work practice-engineeringcontrols which are listed and described in the regulation are the ones whichthe rulemaking record confirms are used, understood, and effective.

OSHA expects that modifications and innovations in asbestos controltechnology will be developed. The standards provide for this by setting upgeneral criteria for alternative controls, and an easily met procedure toallow the use of effective alternatives. Paragraph (g)(6) governsalternatives for Class I control methods, and paragraph (g)(7)(vi) for ClassII methods. For both classes, detailed written demonstrations of theeffectiveness of the alternative/modification are required and evaluations bydesignated persons are required. Alternatives for Class I work require a morerigorous demonstration of effectiveness, and advance notice to OSHA of theiruse. OSHA intends these requirements to be capable of being met bywell-designed and tested alternative control methods. They are meant toexclude short-cut methods which hope to evade the other provisions in thestandard. By their inclusion, OSHA is stating its policy view that industryhas demonstrated its responsible innovative capability in the past, and willcontinue to do so.

The first provision in the construction methods of compliance paragraph,(g)(1)(i), requires that three basic and simple controls be utilized in alloperations covered by the construction standard, regardless of exposurelevels in those operations. These provisions apply to, for example, employerswho install asbestos-containing material (no Class designation), clean upasbestos-containing debris at a construction site (Class IV), repair a boilercovered with asbestos-containing TSI (Class I or III), and removeasbestos-containing surfacing material (Class I).

The controls required are: use of HEPA filtered vacuums to collect debrisand visible dust; use of wet methods to control asbestos fiber dispersion;and prompt disposal of asbestos contaminated waste materials.

OSHA has imposed these controls to reduce airborne contamination by asbestosfibers disturbed during construction activities. However fibers are released,contamination can be reduced by suppressing asbestos containing dusts, and/orcollecting them before they dry and are able to migrate.

OSHA believes that most employers will be able to use wet methods, inhandling asbestos-containing materials to reduce the airborne migration offibers. The use of wet methods to control airborne asbestos was notexplicitly required in the 1986 construction standard. It was mentioned amongthe control measures which could be used to keep down fiber levels during"maintenance and renovation projects in environments that do not lendthemselves to the construction of negative-pressure enclosures" (51 FR22711). In the Method of Compliance section, OSHA presented use of wetmethods among a list of engineering and work practice controls from which anemployer could choose when seeking to comply with the PEL. The 1972 asbestosstandard had required the use of wet methods to the extent practicable toreduce the release of asbestos fibers unless the usefulness of the productwould be diminished by the use of such methods. On reconsideration, OSHA nowfinds the use of wet methods to be an inexpensive, generally feasible, andhighly effective way to control release of asbestos fibers and returns to theearlier requirement for its use in all feasible situations.

There is overwhelming record support for the use of wet methods (e.g., Exs.7-1, 7-34, 7-37, 7-51, 7-52, 7-74, 7-86, 7-89, 7-99, 7-132, 119P, 143, Tr.223, 722 and 756). Representatives of most sectors, expressed support for arequirement for wet methods.(e.g., transite panel removal, Ex.7-74; removalof asbestos packing, Ex. 7-99; floor tile maintenance, Ex 7-132; custodial ormaintenance work, Ex. 162-4, 162-25; floor tile and sheet removal, Ex 7-132;sheet gasket removal, Ex 119; cutting of transite pipe, Ex.117, Tab 6 at 5,Tab 7 at 1). B. Kynock of the AIR Coalition endorsed the use of wet methods,stating: "wetting of material is still considered a state of the artengineering control -- using wet methods -- because it is the one definitiveway we can keep fiber levels to a minimum" (Tr. 3574). Evidence submittedinto the record concerning a variety of asbestos jobs showed significantdecreases in exposure levels when wet methods were used, compared to when thework was done dry [see e.g., re: sheet gasket removal (Ex.119-P)]. In thestudy by Paik et al, 1982 (Ex. 84-204) sprayed-on asbestos containingmaterial was removed from eleven buildings, in one dry methods were employeddue to electrical considerations while wet methods were employed in the otherbuildings. The dry method resulted in a geometric mean fiber level of 16.4f/cc, while during the use of wet methods the geometric mean was 0.5 f/cc.OSHA notes that the OSHA PEL at the time the samples were taken was 2.0 f/cc.

Exxon (EUSA) submitted extensive sampling data indicating low fiber countsduring outdoor removals in which wet methods were used (Ex. 38). Exxon alsosubmitted sampling data from the outdoor removal of pipeline wrap fromunderground lines in which wetting was the primary means of control and inwhich 30 personal samples had an average fiber level less than 0.03 f/cc (Ex.127). It is noted that Exxon also submitted specific additional workpractices used in conjunction with wet methods to control fiber levels.

Requiring wet methods is consistent with EPA's regulatory scheme. Wetmethods are required by EPA for removal and demolition jobs falling withinthe jurisdictional limits of NESHAP, and are recommended by that Agency aspart of a basic "O&M" program for building custodians and maintenanceworkers. (EPA, Managing Asbestos In Place, Ex. 1-183, p. 18-19).

EPA/NESHAP, which requires facility owners and/or operators to controlasbestos fiber emissions by wetting prior, to during, and afterdemolition/removal, has provided guidance in a pamphlet entitled"Asbestos/NESHAP Adequately Wet Guidance" (EPA 340/1-90-019, December 1990,Ex. 1-300). In this booklet two exceptions to wetting are described: whentemperature at the point of wetting if below freezing, and, when use of waterwould unavoidably damage equipment or present a safety hazard. In the lattercase, local exhaust ventilation and collection systems to capture fibers mustbe used.

Others voiced reservation regarding a universal requirement for use of wetmethods. E. Downey of US West, Inc. felt that in the case oftelecommunications industry and computer systems, use of wet methods wouldnot be practical, particularly in roofing operations (Ex. 7-79). J. Collinsof the US Navy Office of Operations and others recommended ground faultcircuit use for avoiding the electrical hazards presented by use of wetmethods (Ex. 7-52).

OSHA will allow employers to claim infeasibility if they cannot use wetmethods due to conditions such as electrical hazards, hot surfaces, and thepresence of technical equipment which cannot tolerate moisture.

The use of wet methods for roofing was a major issue in this proceeding.Steven Phillips, counsel to the National Roofing Contractors Associationtestified:

We have submitted for the record a report performed by SRI * * * theirrecommendation was that there is no improvement on asbestos emissions andthere are safety hazards involved in putting workers on roofs when wetmethods are utilized * * * (Tr. 2456).

The National Roofing Contractor's Association (NRCA) cited four reasons notto require wetting on roofs: "the introduction of water on the roof createssafety hazards, such as slipping; water on the roof can enter the buildingand cause damage and electrical hazards; the introduction of water on theroof can damage the roof system (e.g., by soaking insulation boards); the SRIInternational study reveals that roofing work involving wetting does notappear to produce either higher or lower concentrations than work performeddry. We believe this is because of the nature of roof systems. They areapplied and in place to repel water. Thus, water (amended or unamended) doesnot penetrate the material -- it just rolls off of it" (Ex. 7-112, p. 21).

Some participants suggested that using wet methods on roofs should berecommended, but not required, because of safety concerns. For instance, theasbestos administrator for Florida, noted that using wet methods on a slopedroof may be more of a hazard to the workers, than the benefits gained (Ex.7-6).

In contrast, NIOSH recommended that before an operation (tear-off ofasbestos-containing roofing material), the roof should be wetted with wateror other wetting agent (Ex. 44). BCTD noted in its post-hearing brief that"the majority of the jobs reported in the SRI Study, submitted by NRCA,employed wet methods" (Ex. 143, citing Ex. 9-31A). Various submissions notedthat power cutting of built-up roofing is the standard method used to removeroofing material. Use of this method generates dust which may containasbestos (Ex. 1-357, 7-95, 7-96, 7-115). The Paik study and other evidencedemonstrate that wetting does substantially reduce exposure. OSHA believesthat continuous misting of the cutting blade during the cutting operation,whether performed by hand or by machine will help to control dust. Fieldobservations of such procedures have shown that little water is pooled as aresult of the misting process (Ex. 1-313), and that in most circumstances,evaporation will quickly occur. Therefore, OSHA does not believe that therequirement to mist the cutting blade will create a slipping hazard on roofsunder most circumstances. If, however, a competent person determines that thespecific conditions of a roofing job (e.g. a steeply sloping roof, or belowfreezing temperatures) combined with the water resulting from any misting,would create a slipping hazard, misting may be omitted, if other precautionsare followed, such as equipping the power tool with a HEPA vacuum system, orusing hand methods.

The National Roofing Contractors Association said that currently there is noHEPA vacuum attached roofing cutter (Ex. 146). However, a wide variety ofpower tools have been fitted with local exhaust systems that work very well,including those used on tools for asbestos work. The 1972 asbestos standardrequired the use of local exhaust ventilation on all hand-operated or poweredtools which may produce or release asbestos fibers in excess of thepermissible exposure limit (37 FR 11320). The 1986 standard affirmed therequirement for ventilation for tools (51 FR 22715). We again reaffirm ithere. To the extent feasible, tools used for working with ACM must beequipped with local exhaust ventilation. Some development work may be needed,but HEPA vacuum systems have been designed for many similar uses.

Other Basic Controls

The other basic controls in (g)(1), required for all operations under thestandard are intended to reduce exposure caused by resuspension of asbestosfibers which have settled. The first is the requirement in (g)(1)(i) to usevacuum cleaners equipped with HEPA filters or other methods to collect debrisand visible dust containing ACM or PACM before the material dries, whichprevents the resuspension of fibers. This requirement complements theprohibition in (g)(2)(iii), which prohibits dry clean-up, including sweepingand shoveling, of dust and debris containing ACM or PACM. Although "wet"sweeping is not prohibited, it is not preferred, and may not be used to"collect" visible dust and debris. Nor may dry ACM or PACM-containing dust ordebris be collected by means other than vacuuming with a HEPA filteredvacuum.

There was substantial record support for these requirements. As noted abovethese procedures apply to all asbestos operations. In removal operations, therequirement to use wet methods in the removal [(g)(1)(ii)] will help assurethat resulting debris and dust can be collected before they dry out or arevacuumed up using vacuums equipped with HEPA filters (g)(1)(i). Even ifoperations are conducted within negative pressure enclosures, debris and dustshould not remain uncollected for the entire work shift, because theresuspension of asbestos fibers from these sources creates additional newexposures for employees. If the work is performed within glove bags, leaks inthe bags may create dust and debris. Fallen debris can be spread to parts ofthe building and thereby create widespread contamination. If the collectionbags or devices required by other provisions fail or fall short, promptcollection of the dust and debris will limit the exposure to workers fromsuch failure. If the negative pressure within the enclosure lapses, promptcollection of dust and debris will protect employees outside the enclosurefrom resuspended fibers. For these reasons, OSHA believes that carefultreatment of asbestos waste and visible dust must be followed in allconstruction and shipyard industry operations which expose employees toasbestos.

OSHA notes that for demolition and renovation work which is covered underNESHAP (40 CFR 61 Subpart M), all ACM must be kept wet until sealed in aleak-tight container which includes an appropriate label. OSHA is extendingthis requirement to all jobs under the standard, and now requires that allasbestos-contaminated waste be promptly disposed of in leak tight containers[(g)(1)(iii)].

Requirements for Operations Which May Exceed the PELs

Paragraph (g)(2) applies to situations where it is expected that exposuresmay exceed the PEL, and thus additional controls are required to keepexposures at or below the PEL. Paragraph (g)(2) requires that local exhaustventilation equipped with HEPA filter dust collection systems be installedfor fixed processes involving asbestos handling and for power tools used ininstalling, or otherwise handling asbestos containing materials. In addition,enclosure or isolation of the asbestos releasing process must take place.These controls were listed as optional in the 1986 standard. They are nowrequired, because of their proven ability to reduce dust levels in virtuallyall occupational environments. These controls, in particular, apply toconstruction activities involving the installation of new asbestos-containingconstruction materials, and in some cases the removal of previously installedmaterial.

R.J. Pigg, President of the Asbestos Information Assn. of North America,testified that "the tools that we use, (for cutting asbestos-cement pipe asrecommended work practices) are those that can be fitted with vacuumattachments. We have studies that relate to those recommended work practicesthat * * * support, when they're being followed, that you're well below thePEL" (Tr. 558-9).

In addition, paragraph (g)(2) requires that where the exposures are expectedto be above the PEL, ventilation to move contaminated air away from exposedemployees in the regulated areas toward a HEPA filtration or collectiondevice is required. This requirement is adapted from the current standardwhich lists "general ventilation systems" as one of the control methods to beused to achieve the PEL. However, OSHA believes that the term "air sweepingaway from exposed employees toward a HEPA filtered exhaust device" is moreappropriate and effective. Further, it removes the interpretative possibilitythat using a general building ventilation system to ventasbestos-contaminated air, would be acceptable under the standard. A similarrequirement is also aimed at Class I jobs which cannot produce a negativeinitial exposure assessment [see (g)(4)(F)].

Prohibitions

Paragraph (g)(3) sets out four prohibitions for all work under the standard.One prohibition, relating to high-speed abrasive disc saws, is made morespecific; one, prohibiting dry sweeping and dry clean-up of ACM and PACM isadded; and, one prohibiting employee rotation is expanded to apply to allattempts to reduce exposure, not, as in the 1986 standard, to reach the PEL.OSHA finds these changes will help reduce employee exposures and areconsistent with the revisions to the standards.

Controls for Asbestos Jobs According to Their Classification

The next set of requirements in the "Methods of Compliance" beginning atparagraph-(g)(4), are keyed to the four classes of construction activities,Class I through IV, relating to previously installed ACM and PACM, defined inparagraph (b). The scheme is risk-based with Class I as the most hazardous,and Class IV the least so.

Class I asbestos work consists of the "removal" of asbestos-containing TSIand surfacing material and of PACM, including demolition operations involvingthese materials. Class II work consists of the "removal" of all otherasbestos-containing materials, including resilient flooring presumed tocontain asbestos. Class III work consists of the "disturbance" of allpreviously installed asbestos-containing building materials and PACM. ClassIV work consists of housekeeping and custodial work in contact withpreviously installed ACM and PACM, and the clean-up of debris on constructionsites.

All asbestos work under the construction and shipbuilding standards is notin the "class system." The installation of new asbestos-containing productsdoes not carry a class designation, and thus the class-specific requirementsdo not apply to that activity. Work covered by the general industry standardis not included in the "class system" as well.

OSHA also notes that the differences in controls required among classes isnot great. Further, the Agency believes that the risk overlap betweenadjoining classes is neither frequent nor large, and that the standard allowsthe employer flexibility in most such cases. The regulation requiresjob-by-job evaluation of regulated projects, and gives the competent personsome leeway in easing some requirements when it appears that the project canbe done especially safely.

The following examples illustrate how operations involving potentialasbestos disturbance are to be classified. If an insulated pipe is leaking,and less than one standard glove bag's worth of TSI is "disturbed" (seedefinition in paragraph B) in order to repair the leak, it is a Category IIIjob. If the TSI is stripped from a section of piping to inspect all thepiping in an area for leaks, it is a Class I job. If the section of pipingrequired to be stripped is less than 25 feet, it is still a Class I job, butcritical barriers may not be required if the initial exposure assessment is"negative" [see (g)(4)(i)(B)]. If it is not clear which category the workbelongs, the employer should assume the higher, more restrictive, categoryapplies, and should comply with the listed work practices and controls forthat category. OSHA believes that most asbestos work will fit easily into thecategories which are defined.

OSHA found that the term "small-scale, short-duration," insufficient todistinguish lower risk asbestos operations which allow exemptions fromgenerally required controls.

A historical perspective is useful to clarify this issue. In 1986, OSHArequired that all removal, renovation, and demolition operations, except for"small-scale, short duration" operations, be conducted within negativepressure enclosures [29 CFR 1926.58(e)(6)(1986)]. The scope of both therequirement and the exemption was unclear. The requirement did not explicitlyapply to "maintenance or repair" operations, though most of the examplesgiven were in that category. The examples cited in the exemption includedpipe repair, valve replacement, installing electrical conduits, installing orremoving drywall, roofing, and other general building maintenance operations.In addition, OSHA maintained that it was not possible to specify withprecision the exact size of a "small-scale" maintenance job or to pinpointthe time involved in a "short-duration" task.

The Court of Appeals stated that OSHA had not drawn the parameters of theexemption with enough specificity and that "the exception as now worded seemsto erase the rule." As noted above the Court remanded the issue to OSHA to"clarify the exemption for "small scale, short duration operations" from thenegative-pressure enclosure requirements. Further the Court suggested thatOSHA limit the exemption to "work operations where it is impractical toconstruct an enclosure because of the configuration of the work environment,"stated by OSHA in the preamble to the 1986 rule, as the intended scope of theexemption (51 FR at 22,711,2).

However, the consequences of qualifying for the exemption were less clearwhen the regulatory text was consulted. Section (e)(6) of the 1986 standardallowed "small-scale, short-duration operations" to be exempt from thenegative pressure enclosure requirement for removal, demolition, andrenovations operations. However, some contractors successfully argued inenforcement actions, that a NPE was a particularized kind of a "regulatedarea" which the overriding general provision required only in "work areaswhere airborne concentrations of asbestos exceed or can reasonably beexpected to exceed the TWA and/or excursion limit" (Section (e)(1)). Toimpart certainty to the requirement OSHA issued a compliance directive whichtriggered the requirement at the PEL, and attempted to clarify the kind ofoperations which would qualify for the exemption, in a job where exceedancesof the PEL were expected.

In its July 20, 1990 proposal, OSHA would have required NPEs based on thetype of work to be done; and sought to clarify the definition of small-scale,short duration operations by proposing specific cutoffs for "small" and"short." In addition, general criteria were proposed which were intended toamplify the exemptive criteria: operations must be "non-repetitive, affectsmall surfaces or volumes of material containing asbestos * * * not expectedto expose bystanders to significant amounts of asbestos * * * completedwithin one work day." Cutoffs for specific operations were: repair or removalof asbestos on pipes: 21 linear feet; repair or removal of asbestos panel; 9square feet: pipe valves containing asbestos gaskets or electrical work thatdisturbs asbestos: one worker, four hours, removal of drywall: one workday,endcapping of pipes and tile removal: four hours, and installation ofconduits: eight-hour work shift.

Many participants agreed that using only the duration, and size of a job didnot adequately characterize risk. Some argued that all asbestos jobs wererisky, indeed there should be little regulatory distinction made. Forexample, NIOSH spokesperson, Richard Lemen, expressed the view that "evenwith short duration, small-term jobs we still feel that there is a risk tothe worker, not only from the one time exposures, but from the potential ofthat worker doing multiple jobs over periods of time * * * which increase theexposure each time and the lung burden of asbestos to each of those exposures* * * we still feel that * * * [these jobs] should be treated as protectivelyas the other type of jobs." (Tr. 244), [See to the same effect the testimonyof Mr. Cook, an abatement contractor who testified for the BCTD and LynnMcDonald, representing the Sheet-Metal Workers Union, (Tr. 829ff)].

The proposed definition of small-scale, short duration operations includedspecification of the number of square and linear feet of asbestos-containingmaterial. There were numerous objections raised to the proposed values.

Several participants suggested that the NESHAP cutoff of 260 square or 160linear feet, used by EPA for notification, be used as the cutoff forsmall-scale work (Ex. 7-9, 7-21, 7-39, 7-52, 7-113, 103, 1-53, 1-55). Otherssuch as Edward Palagyi, a Florida State Asbestos Coordinator, felt that thiscutoff was too high for OSHA to use in its definition (Ex. 7-6).

Several alternate amounts of material were suggested. Christopher Corrado ofthe Long Island Lighting Company (Ex. 7-29), James Foley of the New YorkPower Authority (Ex. 7-31) and Robert Brothers of Eastman Kodak (Ex. 7-81)recommended that OSHA adopt the amounts used by New York in its small-scaledefinition -- 25 linear and 10 square feet. William Dundulis of the RhodeIsland Department of Health felt that to avoid confusion, OSHA should adoptthe same cutoff that EPA used in its Worker Protection Rule -- 3 linear and 3square feet (7-124). Others suggested that the amount of material be definedby the amount of asbestos-containing waste generated by the activity. Forexample, Preston Quirk of Gobbell Hays suggested cutoff maximum of 55 gallondrum or 1 cubic yard of ACM waste material (Ex. 7-34), while OSHA witnessDavid Kirby suggested 3 glove bags worth of waste material or 10 linear feetas the cutoff of a small-scale job (Ex. 7-111). BCTD suggested "the lesser of(a) a yield of no more than 1-1/3 cubic feet (10 gallons) ofasbestos-containing waste material, or (b) a maximum length of 2 feet or amaximum area of no more than 8 square feet of material containing asbestos."Noting that the amount of material covering a pipe varies with its diameter,(and the thickness of the material) BCTD calculated that removal of 1 inch ofinsulation from common pipe dimensions can vary from 1.37 to 5.04 cubic feetof waste. (Ex 143 at 131).

Although OSHA believes that the amount of waste material generated by a jobmay be a valid index of its exposure potential, the Agency agrees withparticipants who pointed out the difficulties of estimating the amount ofwaste material in advance of the job. [e.g., testimony of Chip D'Angelo, anasbestos consultant, (Tr. 3086), Paul Fiduccia, representing a number of realestate and building owner interests, (Tr. 791); Paul Heffernan of Kaselaanand D'Angelo Associates, (Ex. 7-36)].

Various other quantitative limits were suggested which were tied to specificmaterials; (e.g. transite panels, 32 square feet (Ex. 7-94), 48 square feet(7-96). Mr. Churchill, representing the California Association of AsbestosProfessionals, suggested 9 square and 9 linear feet as cutoffs forsmall-scale jobs (Ex. 7-95 and Tr. 3468).

Charles Kelly of Edison Electric Institute asked whether complete removal ofa pipe which might exceed 21 feet in length, but which involved removal ofless than 2 feet of insulation at either end to enable cutting the pipelength for removal would be considered a small-scale job (Ex. 156).

Many additional commentators and hearing participants discussed these issuesduring this rulemaking proceeding. Some commented that the duration cutoffswere not realistic or protective. Other participants asked for clarificationon whether duration of the job included preparation and cleanup. Also,Captain John Collins of the US Navy felt that employers would abuse theexemption by assigning many employees to a job in order to complete it in ashort time period (Ex. 7-52), and suggested that instead of specifying thenumber of persons and the number of hours, OSHA should set the limit in termsof man-hours [see also Churchill at Tr. 3468, ORC at Tr. 3181, Kynock of AIRCoalition (Tr. 3539)].

Daniel Bart of GTE Service Corporation expressed concern that by having atime limitation for small-scale, short duration operations in the definition,the installation of telephone cables in buildings might no longer beconsidered short duration (Ex. 7-87). Dr. Michael Crane of ConsolidatedEdison, New York objected to the requirement that an operation benon-repetitive in order to qualify as small-scale, short duration (Ex. 7-76).He said, "(t)here are jobs * * * not part of an overall asbestos removal butare performed many times in the course of day during routine maintenance thatmust be done in generation stations and other utility facilities" [see alsothe suggestion of Paul Heffernan of Kaselaan&D'Angelo to adopt the conceptof "functional space" as designated under AHERA, and defining anon-repetitive operation as occurring once within such a functional space(Ex. 7-36)]. Some also asked if OSHA intended preparation time and clean-uptime be included in the duration limits for SSSD (Ex. 7-108).

Several participants noted that most asbestos work would not be assigned toa single worker, and SSSD should include only jobs completed by 2 employeesin one work shift (Ex. 7-31): Preston Quirk of Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc.suggested that a maximum of 3 workers be allowed (Ex. 7-34). OrganizationResources Counselors, Inc. (ORC) maintained that the specification of thenumber of workers was not necessary, as long as the employer had acomprehensive safety and health plan. (Ex. 7-99).

The views on these defining variables has influenced the Agency's decisionto broaden and realign its job classification system based on relative risk.Based on this record and the agency's experience in enforcing the 1986standard's provisions on small-scale, short duration work, OSHA is droppingthe term "small-scale, short term" work from the regulatory text. The agencyfinds that the term "small-scale, short term" is too limiting, has been shownto be confusing, and cannot be defined with sufficient precision to serve thepurpose of distinguishing high risk asbestos-disturbing activity fromactivity of reduced risk.

The term is limiting because it focuses on a fraction of the circumstancesand criteria which define lower risk work with asbestos- containing material.OSHA has found that thermal system insulation (TSI) and surfacing materialare the asbestos-containing building materials likely to produce significantemployee exposure. On the other hand, removing asbestos-containing productslike transite panels, likely will not result in significant exposure, even ifconducted for more than one day, under minimum controls. As much as the scopeand duration of the job, the materials themselves, their condition and thework-practices used define hazard potential.

OSHA's organization of asbestos jobs into categories is based on the moreobjective criteria, such as the type of material to be disturbed and the typeof activity. Factors which are more subjective, such as condition, and crewexperience are part of the required pre-job assessment by a "competentperson." Not concentrating on the amount of asbestos material or the time thejob takes, avoids serious objections raised by rulemaking participants to thetime- or volume-based definition in the proposal. For example, a frequentcomplaint was that the duration of the operation should not be specified inthe definition of small-scale activities because this might create incentivesto perform the work more hurriedly and in a more hazardous manner when theworker must meet defined time schedules (Ex. 7-18, 7-35, 7-37, 7-43, 7-50,7-52, 7-54, 7-63, 7-74, 7-76, 7-81, 7-87, 7-89, 7-95, 7-99, 7-106, 7-112,7-124, 7-128, 7-135, 7-139, 7-146, 7-151, 143, Tr. 417). (In a few regulatoryprovisions, however, OSHA still relies on the amount of material to beremoved to indicate risk, and thus, the protections required. These are theexemption from critical barriers from low-exposure Class I jobs [seeparagraph (g)(4) and in defining "disturbance"]).

This classification system is OSHA's response to the Court's remand issue ofhow to clarify the term "small-scale, short duration." (see also precedingdiscussion of classes of asbestos work under "Definitions.")

Class I Work

Class I work, i.e., the "removal" of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM, must beperformed using procedures in paragraph (g)(4) and using a control methodwhich is listed in paragraph (g)(5) of the standard. If another controlmethod is used, or if a listed control method is "modified," the standard inparagraph (g)(6) requires that a certified industrial hygienist (CIH), orlicensed professional engineer who is a "project designer," certify thecontrol method using the criteria set out in the regulatory text. Therequirements of (g)(4) are: for Class I jobs, preparation must be supervisedby a competent person, dropcloths must be used and HVAC systems must beisolated. The area must be set up using "critical barriers' either as part ofa negative pressure enclosure system, or as a supplemental barrier to anotherlisted system which isolates the asbestos disturbance in a different way.Other barriers or isolation methods may be used to prevent asbestosmigration. The effectiveness of such methods must be proven by visualinspection and clearance or perimeter monitoring (see e.g., Ex. 9-34 cc). Asnoted below, OSHA believes that the size of the removal job alone does notpredict the risk to workers. However, if a job is smaller, the chances arereduced that isolation barriers provided by glove bags or boxes will fail.

OSHA was reluctant to limit glove bag removals without critical barriersonly to maintenance projects, where as NIOSH noted, it is more likely thatcrews will be untrained (Ex. 125). Rather, OSHA has followed the lead of somestates, which allow removals involving less than 25 linear feet of TSI, and10 square feet of other material to be handled without critical barriers,unless the glove bags or enclosure loses its integrity (see e.g., 12 NYCRR56) or where a negative exposure assessment has not been produced. Suchprojects are class I removals, and workers required to perform them must betrained in an EPA-accredited training course or equivalent; OSHA believesthat the work force performing these relatively minor removals is the samework force performing major removals, thus the jobs will be well-conductedand critical barriers will be unnecessary.

In addition, where the employer cannot demonstrate that a Class I job islikely not to overexpose employees, the employer must ventilate the regulatedarea to move contaminated air away from employee breathing zones.

Paragraph (g)(5) sets out five listed control methods which OSHA hasevaluated during this rulemaking. The Agency finds that using these methodspursuant to the limitations and specifications in the paragraph is likely toeffectively control employee exposures when performing Class I work. Thefirst control system listed for Class I work is the Negative PressureEnclosure System (or NPE). The extent to which OSHA should require thesesystems for major asbestos work was a remanded issue. As discussed in detailbelow, OSHA has found that NPEs, when constructed and used according to thecriteria in this standard, can be effective in protecting employees withinand outside the enclosure.

Other listed systems also may be used for Class I work under statedlimitations. Paragraph (g)(5) sets out these limitations. These systems are:glove bag systems, negative-pressure glove bag systems, negative pressureglove box systems, the water spray process system, and a mini- enclosuresystem. OSHA emphasizes the use of the term "system." Each method consists oftangible materials and devices; and of procedures and practices. All thelisted elements must be complied with before OSHA's finding of effectivenessare relevant. Other, unspecified control methods, "alternative controlmethods," may be used if additional notification is given OSHA, and if aspecially trained "project designer" or a certified industrial hygienistcertifies that the controls will be protective.

Participants in this rulemaking requested that OSHA's revisions allowalternative systems. OSHA agrees that asbestos removal technology isevolving. If another control method is used, or if a listed control method is"modified," the standard requires that a certified industrial hygienist orlicensed professional engineer who is also qualified as a project designercertify the control method using the criteria set out in the regulatory text.Additional discussion of these issues is found later in this document.

Specific Issues Relating to Methods of Compliance

1. A major issue in this proceeding is when NPEs should be required. In the1990 proposal OSHA would have required the erection of negative pressureenclosures for all asbestos removal jobs, except for "small scale shortduration work." This proposal responded to the Court's order for OSHA toclarify the conditions under which negative pressure enclosures were requiredin the 1986 standard (see discussion on Issue #3).

The major rationale in the 1986 standard for requiring negative pressureenclosures was to ensure that contamination from large-scale asbestosprojects did not spread beyond the work area. OSHA there stated that "generalcontamination of the workplace has resulted from failure to confine asbestosusing strict regulated area procedures, and asbestos-related diseases havebeen found in workers of a different trade exposed to asbestos contaminationfrom the activities of asbestos workers." (55 FR at 29716). The effectivenessof NPEs in protecting employees working within the enclosure was not theexplicit basis for their adoption in the 1986 rule.

In the 1990 proposal, OSHA primarily based the requirement for universalNPEs for major asbestos work on limited data relating to contamination ofworkspaces adjacent to asbestos work, and reports of historic diseaseexperienced by employers in trades other than asbestos work who workedalongside asbestos workers. OSHA stated however, that the Agency "has notbeen able to estimate the risk to bystander employees * * *" and asked forcomment and data on their exposure (55 FR 29716). OSHA also asked forinformation about alternatives to work in full containment, such as glove bagand box systems and "new technologies" (55 FR 29717). Although OSHA proposedmore tightly drawn exemptions to the required use of negative pressureenclosures, the Agency also raised the possibility that data to be submittedabout alternative control systems might result in a limitation, rather thanan expansion of the walk-in enclosure requirements (55 FR 29720).

Further the 1990 proposal specifically focused on whether work withinwalk-in enclosures was the optimum method to protect asbestos workers. It iswidely accepted that employees who disturb asbestos, and who contactdeteriorated asbestos during their work are most at risk (see e.g., Ex.1-344, p. 1-12). In its earlier response to the Court's remand, OSHA notedthat the "record of the 1986 standard contains no data concerning whetheremployees working within the negative pressure enclosures also benefit fromreduced exposure, whether working inside enclosures may introduce otherpotential work hazards such as heat stress. Further rulemaking is necessaryto develop this information." (54 FR 52026, Dec. 20, 1989). In the proposal,OSHA reiterated this statement and again raised this issue (55 FR 29715).

The rulemaking record reflected this two-part inquiry. Data and comment weresubmitted concerning the effectiveness of NPEs in protecting employees withinthe enclosure, and their effectiveness in protecting "bystander" employeesand adjacent areas from asbestos contamination. The record presents a mixedcase on both issues. First, very limited data were submitted showing thatemployees working within the enclosures experienced reduced asbestos levelsbecause of the enclosures themselves, or the ventilation provided by negativeair machines, in spite of claims that the enclosures and ventilation producesuch results. In fact claims were made that in comparing work withinenclosures to work without enclosures, "enclosures consistently came outhigher in terms of what the person inside the enclosure is exposed to"(Exxon, Tr. 2678). However, the record contains some data which show thatproperly designed and installed NPEs may limit the spread of asbestoscontamination to adjacent areas and employees. However, the record alsodemonstrates that other systems, properly installed and performed by trainedemployees will also limit the spread of asbestos contamination. These arediscussed in depth below.

Based on this record and on the Agency's experience and expertise, OSHA hasconcluded that although negative pressure enclosure systems are effective inmany circumstances in protecting workers both within and outside theenclosure, other systems are equally effective in designated circumstances.Additionally, the demonstration in this rulemaking that other systems can beeffective, supports regulatory provisions which do not stifle continueddevelopment and refinement of control strategies for asbestos work.

2. Effectiveness of NPEs in Protecting Employees Working Within the Enclosure

As noted above, little data were submitted showing that employees workingwithin the enclosure have reduced exposures because of the enclosure itself,or other components of the NPE system. Although much data was alluded toduring the hearing, e.g., "* * * 10 years of real, real projects with roomsfull of data, * * * we have some nice summaries that I can give you * **."(Tr. 3133). However, none of these data was submitted to the record. Also,NIOSH testified during the rulemaking hearing, "we are not aware of anystudies evaluating their (negative pressure enclosures) effectiveness ordelineating important parameters such as minimum pressure differential,minimum air flow, or maximum volumes feasible for various barrier materials."(Tr. 228). BCTD noted a study in which "two MIT researchers estimated "thattotal exposures using the HEPA negative pressure system might be aboutfour-fold less than they would be without the system" (Ex. 143 at 90). OSHAnotes that this estimate was derived from "assumptions" of the study team,and was unsupported by exposure data. Further, the baseline exposure modelwas based on a much earlier study of activities cleaning up contamination ina building. During this rulemaking hearing, the author of that studydescribed it as "extremely unique, * * * not representative of buildings inthe United States" (Tr. 2157). OSHA therefore regards the MIT exposurereduction estimate as unsupported and too speculative to serve as a basis forregulatory decision making.

Exposure data submitted to this rulemaking record which reflected personalsamples within negative pressure enclosures do not support the view thatworking within such enclosures by itself will ensure reduced employeeexposure. In fact, data were submitted which showed that employees workingwithin negative pressure enclosures under some circumstances were exposed toexcessive levels of asbestos (see below). OSHA recognizes that a showing ofelevated levels from any one project or series of projects does not indictthe control method as the cause of such elevations. However, numeroussubmissions from various sources which show elevated exposure levels with noindication of improper system installation indicates that in operation, theuse of negative pressure enclosure systems does not assure effective exposurereduction to the employees performing the work.

Thus, Union Carbide submitted 1,000 exposure measurements "generallyobtained from jobs where insulation was removed from piping of 1" -14"diameter and from other miscellaneous jobs removing asbestos from vessels"(Ex. 7-108). More than one half of the samples were over the proposed PEL of0.1 f/cc, and most of those were over the previous PEL of 0.2 f/cc.Additional data showing high exposures within negative pressure enclosurescompared to relatively low exposure levels for glove bag use were submittedby Arco Products, Inc. (Ex. 7-139) and Grayling (7-144). The Arco submissioncontained monitoring results from 9 personal samples taken within theenclosure. These ranged from 0.01 to 0.44 f/cc with a mean on 0.28 f/cc.Lower exposure levels for work within NPEs was shown by data submitted by theAsbestos Abatement Council, presenting data incorporating air monitoringresults for over 200 projects, collected from four different contractors overan eight year time period. These data showed area samples ranging from 0.12to 0.15 f/cc, while personal samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.07 f/cc (Ex.1-142).

Various reasons were advanced for the presence of elevated exposure levelswithin negative pressure enclosures. Thus Dr. Sawyer testified "I have seenconfigurations that not only don't work maintaining the enclosure integrity,but they actually can increase fiber burdens in the contamination area * * *(t)his involves * * * a HEPA filter by itself without a drive mechanism,without a fan to force air through it" (Tr. 2176). "I can anecdotally tellyou what I've seen out there, but a lot of the systems just don't work, andsome of them can actually increase the hazard to workers" (Id at 2177-78).

In view of the disparity in the submitted data, OSHA concludes that negativepressure enclosure systems, like other control systems which depend on properinstallation, design and supervision for effectiveness, can vary inprotection they afford to employees working within. Unlike engineeringsystems permanently installed which are capitalized by the facility owner,negative pressure systems are installed for the duration of the job, andeconomic pressures are exerted to hold down the time and cost of theinstallation.

Thus, the support for the use of NPEs to reduce employee exposure is mixed.OSHA is also concerned that other health and safety hazards may result fromwork in negative pressure enclosure systems. For example, problems with toxicadhesives were noted in the record. Levels of methylene chloride, used toseal poly sheeting to underlying surfaces to contain work areas have beenmeasured at over the PEL for that substance (Ex. 1-24). Some of thepolyethylene used for sheeting may be combustible (Ex. 7-18). Certainindustries reported particular hazards of NPEs. For example, a representativeof Arco Products Co. commented that in the gasoline industry hazardsincluded: build-up of gases inside the enclosure, heat stress, fire hazards,lack of good ventilation, difficulty in working with mobile equipment,difficulties in communicating and exiting during emergencies (Ex. 7-139).

Various solutions to these problem were suggested. Thus, it was suggestedthat less toxic adhesives be substituted for methylene chloride; that polysheets can be attached without adhesives (BCTD, Ex. 143); that heat stress beeliminated by increasing the number of air changes per hour within theenclosure; that a transparent window be installed in each enclosure tofacilitate communication (Ex. 7-6); and other such adaptations. Certain ofthese suggestions were criticized as ineffective. For example, Union Carbidestated in its post-hearing submission, "(w)e have observed that even when 8to 12 air changes per hour are provided to the enclosure, on certain days theinside of the enclosure temperature has risen as high as 140 degrees F. Theheat stress situation is further exacerbated by the body coveralls worn bythe workers" (Ex. 113 p. 6).

OSHA believes that some of these potential problems attributable to negativepressure enclosures may be averted. However, the record also indicates thatthe use of this control technique shares with other asbestos control methods,a primary reliance upon the skill and training of designers and workers toassure its effectiveness. In addition, under some circumstances even theproper use of negative pressure enclosures can introduce additional hazardsinto the workplace.

One feature of some negative pressure enclosure systems, negative airventilation, was singled out by some participants as the primary means ofreducing exposures to employees working within them. OSHA notes however, thatthe requirement for NPEs as adopted in the 1986 rule, did not contain anycriteria for such ventilation, and that the rationale for requiring NPEs didnot rest on the capability of ventilation to reduce employee exposure.Therefore, OSHA regards the recommendation for requiring special ventilationas a new claim, to be supported by evidence and testimony submitted to thisrecord.

One of the main characteristics of the negative pressure enclosure system isthat the air pressure inside the enclosure is less than outside theenclosure. This pressure difference is created by a fan exhausting air,through a filter, from inside the enclosure to outside the enclosure. Undernegative pressure, any leaks in the walls of the enclosure will result inclean air coming into the enclosure, rather than contaminated air leaking tothe outside. The system is primarily designed to keep asbestos fromcontaminating the building. As stated earlier, this approach does not appearto improve working conditions inside the enclosure. Negative air ventilationdraws clean air from outside the enclosure at sufficient quantities and atstrategic locations, so as to provide clean air in the worker's breathingzone. Support for negative air ventilation was submitted by numerousparticipants. For example, Mr. D'Angelo testified that "negative airventilation is the single most effective engineering control reducing workerexposure as well as reducing the risk to adjacent bystanders or otheroperations." Further, he recommended a minimum of 8 and up to 20 air changesper hour to assure appropriate ventilation is maintained (Tr. 3078, 3087).This process, "which has expanded on the negative pressure enclosure, (is)called air flush methodology" (Tr. 3085).

Other participants also supported the use of "air flushing" techniques, ordirected make-up air. Chip D'Angelo, an asbestos abatement consultantdescribed the principle as moving airborne fibers out of the work area withair velocity, thereby "flushing" the area by bringing in air from sourcesoutside the enclosure additional to that brought through the decontaminationchamber. He further described moving the air away from the worker and towardthe negative air filtration machines and directing the moving air to "deadspots" in the enclosure by use of baffles and flexiducts (Tr. 3035) (seeBCTD, Ex. 143 p. 90, and citations therein). Mr. Cook, an asbestos abatementcontractor, appearing for the BCTD, testified that "it's a fairly easytechnology to implement, depending on the situation."(Tr. 805). Mr. Medaglia,president of an engineering firm suggested adding to the definition of anegative pressure enclosure, the phrase "* * * all areas within the enclosureare swept by the flowing air towards the exhaust fans * * *" (Tr. 3052).Other support was provided by New Jersey White Lung Association (Tr. 601-2),NIOSH (Tr. 228 and 257), R. Sawyer (Tr. 2161), D. Kirby (Tr. 170), GlobalConsumer Services (Tr. 2341) and J. Cook of QSI International (Tr. 804.)However, some engineers who testified did not utilize the technique;

Exxon noted in its testimony that "you can't, quite honestly, get enoughvolume of air velocity to convince yourself you are going to get good equalmixing within an entire enclosure" (Tr. 2680); and NIOSH noted in itssubmitted testimony, that "we are not aware of any studies evaluating theireffectiveness (NPE's) or delineating important parameters such as * * *minimum air flow" (Ex. 9). NIOSH recommended that OSHA incorporate into therule for negative-pressure enclosures, design requirements for air-flowpatterns within the enclosure to move airborne particles away from theworker" (Ibid).

Although "air flushing" is the ventilation approach most recommended for usewithin negative pressure systems, actual data showing its success is limited.In recognition of the support from engineers who have utilized these systems,OSHA is requiring a performance based version of "air flushing" as acomponent of the negative pressure enclosure system. OSHA is also requiringventilation which "directs the air away from exposed employees" when othercontrols are used for Class I work where no there is insufficient data tosupport a "negative exposure assessment."

Participants also argued that the use of negative pressure systems understated circumstances was unnecessary and would not contribute to employeeprotection against asbestos exposure. Working outdoors was one suchcircumstance. Amoco submitted data in which 95% amosite was removed from anoutdoor pipe run without negative pressure enclosure in which most samplesindicated very low fiber levels (Ex. 7-39). However, the following workpractices were also used: restricted access, immediate and double bagging ofdebris or use of airtight chutes, barricaded area, use of HEPA equippedvacuums, respirator, decontamination procedures, and training and supervisionof the operation by a competent person.

OSHA believes that outdoor Class I work may be safely done withoutenclosures. Therefore, paragraph (g) allows all outdoor Class I work to beconducted using other control methods, such as a glove bag system, so long asthe specifications and work practices for such systems are followed. Inaddition, decontamination procedures for all Class I work, outdoors as wellas indoors, including decontamination facilities and showers, must be madeavailable for all Class I work, including that performed outdoors.

As discussed above, the negative pressure enclosure requirement in the 1986standard lacked specificity. BCTD recommended that OSHA specify the number ofair changes per hour required in the negative pressure enclosure (Ex. 143, p.94). They reasoned that this would improve ventilation within the enclosureand reduce worker exposure. Union Carbide testified that they use 8 to 12changes per hour (Tr. 2255) and Chip D'Angelo recommended 10 changes per hour(Ex. 99). New Jersey White Lung Association representative suggested 8changes per hour (Tr. 482). BCTD and others also proposed that the negativepressure differential be increased from the recommended 0.02 column incheswater in Appendix F (Ex. 143, p. 95) "because of fluctuations inside theenclosure."

In several published articles, Spicer and D'Angelo expressed their supportfor these recommendations and further suggested that pressure measurements bemade at several points within the enclosure (Ex. 9-34 NN, Tr. 3126). The useof a manometer to measure the pressure differential between the enclosure andthe area outside the enclosure was also supported by BCTD and D'Angelo andSpicer primarily because this device would provide immediate notice if therewere a loss of pressure and therefore increased potential for fiber escape(Ex. 143, p. 96 and Ex. 9-34 NN). He estimated the cost of a manometer at$20.00 (Tr. 3078).

BCTD submitted additional recommendations which it felt would improvenegative pressure enclosure use:

-- Use additional air filtration machines in areas of especially high
fiber concentrations, to serve as "scrubbers"
-- Use at least one negative air filtration machine per room in
multi-room enclosures
-- Provide an independent power source and back-up HEPA unit for use in
case of failure
-- Smoke test the enclosure for leaks
-- Pre-filter inlet air (Ex. 143, p. 97)

Most of these recommendations appear to be beneficial. Requiring smoketesting to detect leaks is adopted by the Agency as part of required set-upprocedures when such enclosures are used. Others, such as requiring"additional air filtration machines * * * where exposures are especiallyhigh" appear to be sound engineering advice but would present enforcementproblems, if included in the regulatory text (Ex. 143). Instead, as part ofthe mandatory criteria for NPEs, when used to control exposure in Class Ijobs, the Agency is requiring "competent persons" to oversee the installationof such systems, and employees to be protected within such enclosures byventilation systems which minimize their asbestos exposure. OSHA believesthat its provisions on negative pressure systems will protect employeesworking within them.

Based on the above extensive analysis of the many studies and comments, OSHAhas concluded that NPEs are not appropriate as a universal requirement. Theyusually protect bystanders well, but not always workers within theenclosures, and can sometimes create other problems. Consequently, OSHA ispermitting alternatives to NPEs in appropriate circumstances and is upgradingrequirements for NPEs when they are used.

Also, OSHA believes that various alternative requirements in this finalrevised standard triggered by Class I, II, and III work, some of which arecomponents of negative pressure systems will protect adjacent or "bystander"employees under most situations. Thus, mandatory critical barriers for mostClass I, some Class II and III work will bar passage of fugitive asbestosfibers; and, clarifying the responsibilities of the various employers on amulti-employer worksite, paragraph (d) will protect all work site employeesfrom fugitive emissions.

3. What Other Control Systems Can be Allowed for Asbestos Work WhichInvolves High Risk Materials?

OSHA is allowing other control systems for Category I asbestos work, butonly under stated conditions. Thus, the second asbestos control systempermitted for use for Category I asbestos work is a glove bag system whichmeets the requirements of the standard, and is used only in the limitedsituations listed in paragraph (g), i.e. straight runs of piping and toremove intact TSI.

Other technologies recommended by the accredited project designer orcompetent person based on supporting data showing their effectiveness mayalso be used. Whenever a technology is used which is not referenced in thestandards, the employer must notify OSHA before the asbestos job, and includein the notification the basis for the project designer's or certifiedindustrial hygienist's decision that the new technology will be equallyeffective as other technologies referenced in the appendix. Daily personaland periphery area monitoring must be conducted for all such jobs, as well asclearance samples at the termination of the abatement job.

Glove Bag Systems

The decision to allow increased glove bag use is based on the considerablecomment and evidence submitted during this proceeding concerning the safetyand effectiveness of glove bag use. OSHA had proposed to permit onlysmall-scale, short duration removals to be conducted using glove bags;however the Agency noted that it was considering whether alternatives,including glove bags, to negative pressure enclosures for renovation, removaland demolition operations should be allowed (55 FR at 29716).

In the 1986 standard, glove bag effectiveness was considered too uncertainto allow as a preferred control. Therefore OSHA relegated glove bag use tosmall-scale, short duration jobs, or jobs exempt from the negative pressureenclosure requirement because of the configuration of the work environment.However OSHA noted that glove bag use could generally be expected to reduceexposures to below 0.1 f/ cc (51 FR 22711).

In the preamble to its proposed amendments the Agency noted that availabledata indicated that glove bags in use may not always provide adequateprotection. In large part, the Agency based this preliminary evaluation onthe results of an evaluation performed by NIOSH in which improperly usedglove bags resulted in excessive fiber counts.

As noted above, this final construction standard expands the conditions inwhich glove bag use is allowed. Now, glove bag use for removal of TSI andsurfacing ACM is allowed without quantity limitation for intact TSI forstraight runs of piping.

OSHA believes these decisions are well supported by this rulemaking record.Many participants urged OSHA to expand the conditions for permitting glovebag use. For example the Dow Chemical Company stated, "removal of asbestoscontaining material from pipes or pipelines can best be accomplished with theuse of glove bags in all instances, not just when pipes are elevated.Needless to say, the employees carrying out the operation must be trained andadequately supervised to the glove bags properly." (Ex. 7-103). The AmericanPaper Institute and the National Forest Products Association stated that"(w)e fully agree with the field personnel that there should be no linearfootage limit for the removal of asbestos insulation on pipe when properglove bag techniques are used" (Ex. 7-74 at 9). The National Insulation andAbatement Contractors Association commented "(a) skilled asbestos abatementmechanic can certainly remove in excess of 21 linear feet in properly usedglove bags in as safe a manner as he or she can less than 21 feet. * * * (i)naddition, the implied restriction against glove bag use outside ofsmall-scale, short-duration work ignores the advances made in glove bagpractices and worker skills" (Ex 7-72 at 2).

Mr. Vest of the U.S. Air Force commented: "(t)he regulation should clearlyallow for * * * operations that are not small-scale, short duration but arealso not within the purview of the full requirements for a regulated area. Webelieve multiple glove bag operations would fall into this category; thisin-between category should require training and additional procedures, butnot necessarily "negative pressure enclosures." James Snyder, representingthe American Paper Institute, maintained that there should be no linear limitas long as proper glove bag techniques were used (Ex. 7-74). Exhibits 7-9,7-19, 7-21, 7-26, 7-32, 7-33, 7-50, 7-63, 7-72, 7-73, 7-74, 7-76, 7-95, 7-99,7-102, 7-103, 7-106, 7-107, 7-120, 7-121, 7-125, 7-128, 7-130, 7-139, 7-144,and 7-146 also supported expanded glove bag use.

In addition, to these generalized statements of support for expanded use ofglove bags, participants submitted data to show the effectiveness of glovebags in protecting workers. For example, the U.S. Air Force, introduced data(Ex. 3-9). The large majority of measurement were below 0.1 f/cc. Only 54 ofthe 370 measurements sets were over 0.1 f/cc, some of which were within thesampling and analytical error margin of 25%.

Dr. Vernon Rose of the University of Alabama at Birmingham submitted a paperentitled: "Analysis of PCM asbestos air monitoring results for a majorabatement project" (Ex. 7-194), in which over 2000 sampling results werepresented, taken over a five year period during which thermal systeminsulation was removed from a single building. This study provides veryextensive data on closely observed work which the authors described as "* * *ideal conditions existed to support the proper abatement of ACM" (Ex. 7-194).However, they also noted that the environment was generally quite dusty andthat since the results were PCM counts, they might overestimate the trueexposure level. The results are summarized Table I.

Except for those taken within the negative pressure enclosure, all samplemeans, including those taken at and away from glove bags are well below thenew PEL of 0.1 f/cc.

In OSHA's view, the large amount of data contained in this studydemonstrating that exposure levels at the glove bag consistently were wellbelow the PEL of 0.1 f/cc supports the effectiveness of glove bags inprotecting the asbestos worker.

Additional data were submitted by Grayling Industries and Control ResourceSystems, Inc., glove bag manufacturers (Ex. 7-144). Personal breathing zonemeasurements representing varied removals are almost all below OSHA'sproposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc. After the hearing, Grayling submitted letters fromsome of the contractors and organizations in charge of the projects for whichdata was submitted, which detailed the procedures followed by employeesduring the jobs where low exposure levels were recorded. (Ex. 111). Theseconditions correspond to the specifications and work practices which OSHA isrequiring in this standard for glove bag use.

Virtually all of the participants who opposed expanded use of glove bags forremoval jobs, cited the NIOSH study referred to above. (See e.g. Ex. 143 at98-100). The study was conducted jointly by NIOSH and EPA in 1985, and itsresults were made public, as a Health Hazard Evaluation (Exs. 1-1, 1-2,1-20). It has also formed the basis for NIOSH's institutional position onglove bags published as "An Evaluation Glove Bag Containment in AsbestosRemoval" in October 1990. (submitted post-hearing as Ex. 125). Based on thedata and analysis in that document, NIOSH's spokesperson, Richard Lementestified at the rulemaking hearing:

NIOSH has found that airborne fibers are released in the work place whenglove bags are used to remove asbestos pipe. Although the reasons for thesereleases were not determined, the study indicated that glove bags did notcontrol asbestos exposures as anticipated. Thus, NIOSH strongly supports OSHAin requiring that negative-pressure enclosures be used in conjunction withglove bags. Furthermore, NIOSH recommends that OSHA require the use ofrespiratory protection when glove bags are used. At a minimum, NIOSHrecommends that workers should be required to wear the most protectiveair-purifying respirators * * * (Tr. 229)

The study evaluated the removal of asbestos containing pipe lagging usingglove bags from four public school buildings. The data were obtained duringweek-long surveys in each of the buildings. According to the abstract in theevaluation: "the same work crew removed asbestos-containing pipe lagging inall four schools. Personal exposures to airborne fibers were determined usingthe NIOSH method" (Ex. 125). NIOSH summarized the results: "* * * In three ofthe four facilities studied, workers were exposed to airborne asbestosconcentrations above the OSHA PEL. Only in the last building where theremoval took place, were exposure levels reduced to below the new OSHA PELs."

Interpretation of the results of this study varied. BCTD viewed the study assupporting its view that glove bags should not be permitted for other thansmall scale, short duration jobs because they do not provide reliableprotection for bystanders. (Ex. 143, p. 98). HEI concluded, based on theNIOSH study, that "* * * glove bags should never be used as a stand aloneabatement isolation procedure for long pipe runs" (HEI, Ex. 1-344, p. 5-48).Clearly these results call into question any expansion of permitted glove baguse. However, after paying close attention to the conditions, personnel andequipment utilized in the NIOSH study, and to the rest of the record, OSHAbelieves that glove bag systems, when properly deployed and supplemented bybarriers, are capable of protecting both the abatement worker and bystanderemployee.

Details of the improper usage in the NIOSH study were pointed out byGrayling and CI and by the NIOSH investigators themselves; "the methodsemployed by workers * * * violated current state-of the art glove bagprocedures * * * (t)he glove bags contained over four times the recommendedmaterial, they were opened up and slid down the pipe, * * * (t)hey were usedas a receptacle rather than as a glove bag, * * * the envelope was slit tospeed the removal process, * * * bags were being sealed while removal wastaking place * * *" and other improper procedures (Ex. 130, Ex. 125). Inaddition, although NIOSH noted "[w]orker training and experience areimportant components in a reliable system of control measure, * * * (in thisstudy) the work crew was not trained in the proper use of glove bags" (Ex.125, p. 20).

Representatives of the glove bag industry also noted that since the studywas undertaken in 1985-86, the equipment used by the workers, has beenreplaced by better designed and more protective equipment and materials. Forexample, one of the glove bags used in the study employed a zipperedconnection system, which "promote(s) the free flow of contaminated air fromthe glove bag during removal * * *," and the "one-size fits all" glove baghas been replaced by a "greater number of designs and configurations of glovebags * * * (for) T's, elbows, valves, verticals and extended runs" (Ex. 130,p. 3).

The study showed that by the time the removal activity reached the fourth(final) building, the work crew, having been "trained" by a variety ofon-the-job methods, such as "trial and error," advice from the survey team,and watching a videotape, exposure levels were dramatically reduced. Thepre-removal levels were not lower at the final facility, approximately thesame amount of asbestos was removed as in the other operations and theauthors stated that the lagging was in generally good condition throughoutthe study -- lending further credence to the hypothesis that the use ofimproved work practices led to generation of lower fiber levels. The reportconcluded with a list of recommendations for work practices for glove baguse.

OSHA believes that the NIOSH study should be viewed as a demonstration ofpoor work practices by untrained employees. The Agency notes that althoughthe NIOSH study contains carefully presented and analyzed exposure data, thestudy design was compromised by the intervention of the investigators ininstructing the workers. Further, since the workers were untrained, and forthe most part did not use the glove bags correctly to attempt to isolate thedisturbances, the study is of limited utility in identifying problems ofglove bag systems when they are used correctly.

NIOSH speculated that ignorance of proper glove bag procedures was commonfor plant maintenance personnel, asbestos operations and maintenancepersonnel, and many asbestos removal contractors who use glove bags onlyoccasionally" (Ex. 125, p. 53). If indeed this is so, it suggests that shortof prohibiting glove-bag removals entirely, restricting permitted usage to,for example, maintenance work (small- scale, short-duration work) may resultin limiting permitted glove bag work to where it is likely to be performedincorrectly. It also suggests that, the frequency of glove bag work, ratherthan the size of the removal project is more relevant to its effectiveness.Other participants echoed this caution, for example, David Kirby of Oak RidgeNational Laboratory testified that glove bag usage should be conditioned onshowing quarterly frequency of glove bag usage (Tr. 116-17).

OSHA concludes that when conscientiously used by well-trained,well-supervised personnel, glove bags can effectively reduce asbestos fiberrelease. The NIOSH study demonstrated clearly that the obverse is also true;when glove bags are used improperly by untrained or insufficiently trainedworkers, airborne fiber levels can become significantly elevated.Consequently, based on this extensive evidence and analysis, OSHA ispermitting wider use of glove bag technology in the final standard, but isincluding additional requirements to improve the effectiveness of their use.The Agency notes that the new regulatory text prescribing the specificationsand work practices for allowable glove bag removals would prohibit the kindof removal activity observed in the NIOSH study.

Based on its study, NIOSH recommended detailed work practices andspecifications for glove bag use. OSHA has incorporated the majorrecommendations into the standard, either as part of the overall requirementsfor asbestos removal, or as required components of permitted glove bagsystems. For example, NIOSH recommends that workers "spray frequently duringthe removal process so that newly exposed surfaces are wetted." OSHA requiresthat all work be performed using wet methods. "Wet methods" are defined as,applying sufficient water to ACM and PACM during the work operation so thatfibers, if released, are prevented from becoming airborne. Otherrecommendations likewise are covered by more generic requirements.

For Class I work in which glove bags are used, OSHA is requiring that 2persons perform the glove bag removal. BCTD recommended that 2 personsperform glove bag work stating that "* * * the operation can be hard-pressedto adjust the HEPA vacuum flow rates or water pressure in the sprayer whilehis/her hands are in the bag" (Ex. 143, p. 125). BCTD also felt that properdecontamination required a "buddy system" involving a second worker.

Exxon representative, Mr. Booher, testified that their practices is to have2 persons per glove bag (Tr. 2673). Mr. Sledge of Naval Sea Systems Commandtestified that two personal normally perform glove bag operations in theirfacilities, usually using glove bags under negative pressure (Tr. 420). OSHAagrees and believes that proper use of glove bags in removing high-risk ACM(TSI and surfacing ACM) requires at least two persons. The Agency also notesthat required training of employees must cover detailed glove bag procedures.Many of the detailed work practices recommended by NIOSH are advisory, i.e.use "sprayer of sufficient length," will be covered in training, and/or areencompassed by more general requirements.

Other Systems

Although glove bag systems were the alternative system most discussed duringthe rulemaking, participants submitted data on other systems which wereclaimed to effectively isolate asbestos dust during removal. The Agency hasreviewed the data and comment on these submissions and has listed fouradditional systems as permitted for Class I work under stated circumstancesin paragraph (g)(5). The Agency emphasizes that the listing of any system isnot an endorsement by OSHA. The listing merely indicates that variouscombinations of engineering controls and work practices represented by thesesystems, when properly carried out, and when all other provisions of thesestandards, e.g., training, competent person supervision, exposure assessmentsand respirator use where required, are found by the Agency on this record toconstitute effective means of controlling employee exposure to asbestos.

Two of the systems are modifications of glove bag systems. One, a negativepressure glove bag system, was presented as an alternative by severalparticipants. One witness stated that "the nuclear ship repair industry hasused pipe containment glove bags for years * * * all of this work has beenrequired to be performed with constant negative pressure being maintainedinside the glove bag during removal operations" (Tr. 3028). A paneltestifying on behalf of Union Carbide described a negative-pressure glove bagtechnology which they have developed (Tr. 2192 and Ex. 7-108). M. Patel, anindustrial hygienist at Union Carbide, described it in his written testimony:

The glove bag system is used as follows: The glove bag is connected to theglove/hose connector. All the tools needed to remove asbestos are placed inthe inner pouch of the glove bag. The bag is installed on a pipe utilizingthe zipper provided at the top. The shoulder is fastened on both ends of theglove bag with tourniquets. The rest of the system is connected. Theinsulation is wetted with amended water using the portable garden sprayer.The asbestos is cut and falls through the open sliding gate valve andcollects in the waste bag. Vacuum in the bag and in the rest of the system isadjusted to prevent collapse of the bag. When the asbestos waste collected inthe bag is almost full, the sliding gate valve is closed as the vacuum in thesystem is slowly controlled by adjusting the splitter valve, and the bag iscarefully sealed and removed. A new bag is installed and the sliding gatevalve opened. When all asbestos inside the glove bag is removed, the pipe andthe wall of the glove bag above the middle zipper inside the bag are rinsedwith amended water. The middle zipper is closed to isolate the uppercompartment while vacuum is still being pulled.

The tourniquet on either end of the glove bag is loosened and the bag ismoved to the next position. The middle portion of the bag is unzipped and thework is continued Ex. 9-43).

The panel members reported that the mean value of the exposure for themodified negative-pressure glove bag was 0.02 f/cc.

In a post-hearing submission, Union Carbide submitted a large number ofadditional measurements from various operations supporting the relativeeffectiveness of their negative-pressure glove bag method of asbestoscontrol. These data showed both glove bags and negative pressure glove bagpersonal exposure levels were low, and well below those for negative pressureenclosures as measured by the company.

Some of the exposure monitoring results showed personal samples above thenew PEL of 0.1 f/cc. Union Carbide suggested, that employees performing ClassI work using the modified negative pressure glove-bag, wear respiratoryprotection. OSHA is requiring that all employees who perform Class I workwear respirators.

Additional data on negative pressure glove bags showing effective exposurereductions was submitted by others, including NIOSH (Ex. 1-125, 1-126)."Opinion evidence" was that negative pressure glove bags, when properly used,offered an additional margin of safety over non-negative pressure glove bags(see e.g., testimony of David Kirby, Tr. 188).

Based on these data, OSHA is allowing negative pressure glove bags for ClassI work, subject to similar limitations as "regular" glove bags.

Another method allowed for Class I work is the negative pressure glove box.This isolation device, is a rigid containment, unlike the glove bag, which ismade of flexible material. Because it can be constructed of strong,impermeable material, common glove bag failures due to holes, leaks andcollapse, would theoretically be avoided.

Mark Mazzara of SDS International Builders submitted several documentsdescribing a negative pressure glove box, which his firm was marketing. Theaccompanying brochures described it as follows:

* * * system allows for the removal of ACM on pipes by creating a closedwork area around the pipe section to be worked on. * * * consists of workbox, together with a pressure barrier generated by the systems inherentNegative Pressure filtration system. The Work Box is a maneuverable elementof sturdy metal construction that is positioned around the unit of pipe to beworked on * * * [it] is fitted with standard gloved apertures allowing foraccess into the closed system for the asbestos workers. At the base of theWork Box is an aperture feeding into a bagging outlet into which theliberated ACM is passed. This allows for easy bagging of the ACM and itssubsequent disposal. * * * [it] is attached to a * * * negative pressuregenerator, that allows the creation of the pressure barrier that allows thecreation of the closed system, preventing the escape of hazards materialsinto surrounding area (Ex. 7-98).

The submissions contained numerous sampling results indicating that lowfiber levels were maintained during the use of this device. Accompanyingthese was a letter from the State of New Jersey in which the Division ofBuilding and Construction (Frank J. Kuzniacki) stated that he felt that thedevice "provided a safe and cost effective alternative to standard glove bagremoval."

The last method specifically listed for Class I use is designated the "waterspray" process. In submissions to the docket and in testimony at the publichearing, representatives of Hydrous Dust Control Systems, Inc. described analternate method of control for use in work on asbestos covered pipes whichthey called the Portam Process. This process relies on water spray to providea barrier between the worker and the ACM. In written materials it wasdescribed as follows:

Engineered designed sprays are configured so as to create a liquid barrieron every plane. The spray is so designed as to throw a heavy droplet ofliquid giving it both velocity and direction. On at least one of these planes* * * the heavy water droplets are forced into collision creating a very fineaerosol which is contained within liquid barriers. A water containment deviceis placed around the spray rails with an open access and double drainfacility. A vacuum hose is connected to the drain facility creating a slightpressure differential (negative pressure), in the contained area. When watercovers the drain area the pressure differential is maximized in the drainhose pulling the waste and water very rapidly to the remote interceptor. Thismovement creates a shock pulse which is quite visual and is reflected at theworkhead. The sudden movement of air within the work zone helps to stimulatedthe fine aerosol droplets creating eddy current. These eddy currents promotea 360 deg. precipitation around the pipe (Ex. 1-171).

Data were presented showing that use of this system achieved consistentlylow exposure levels. However, the complexity of the system, and itsuniqueness require, as the manufacturer recommends, additional training foreffective use. Therefore OSHA is allowing this system to be used only byworkers who are trained in a supplemental 40 hour training course in thespecific use of this system, including at least 8 hours of which must behands-on training. Although BCTD stated that this system possessed a highpotential for exposure because it is not a sealed system, (Ex. 143, at 103),OSHA believes that the technology of the water spray system is sufficientlyproven by the data submitted.

Other specific systems which do not easily fit the descriptions of the abovesystems were discussed during the rulemaking. Some, such as the "LyonsTrough" appear promising, however, the data submitted are too limited forOSHA to determine effectiveness in the rulemaking. Several TEM and PCMmeasurements were made during a "controlled demonstration" which lasted 31minutes and during "field evaluation" of 29 minutes. The personal sample fromthe former was below the limit of detection by PCM, and the personal samplefrom the latter measured 0.002 f/cc by PCM (Ex. 135).

Other methods appeared too limited in application to be "generically"approved by OSHA, and/or appeared highly dependent on worker behavior toavoid failure. Such a system, devised by Tenneco, is a modified glovebag/mini-enclosure to facilitate safe removal of small amounts of asbestosfireproofing above ceiling tiles (Ex. 65 A-P). In its post-hearing brief, theBCTD objected to the use of the Tenneco device for two reasons. First,because it was held as close as possible to the ceiling and did not fitagainst it, they felt there was potential for fiber escape; and second, theyquestioned how effective it would be if one of the workers holding it up gottired and dropped it. (Ex. 143, p. 103). OSHA agrees; the device may be usedtherefore only as an alternative control method pursuant to the requirementsfor certification in paragraph (g)(6).

Mini-Enclosures

Mini-enclosures, the other control method allowed for Class I work issupported by a submission by BCTD which described a portable isolationenclosure developed by J. Streiter of Southern Insulation Inc. (Ex. 119, #5).OSHA notes, however, that mini-enclosures are manufactured by other companiesand this rule does not limit use of the device to any particularmanufacturer. In an accompanying trade paper article the portable enclosureis described as: "a cubicle with an extendable shroud that fits on top. AHEPA filtration system drew air down from the ceiling. Inside the enclosurewas a suited man; opposite was a trapped door with a bag attached * * * theworker remove[d] the tile, clean[ed] off the grid and deposit[ed] everythingin the bag after opening the trap door. Suction would pull the door shut.Within the enclosure was a shower attachment * * *" The submission alsocontained air sampling data obtained during use of this apparatus whileremoving ceiling tiles from a Virginia building. The results indicated thatfiber levels averaged less than 0.01 f/cc. However, as pointed out by BCTD inits post-hearing brief there was failure to achieve clearance (0.01 f/ccunder AHERA) in this building following use of the device which "necessitatedevacuation of the work areas on several occasions." As explained elsewhere inthis document, OSHA is not requiring AHERA clearance levels to be achievedfor Class I work. If such requirements must be met, the employer shouldemploy all applicable controls which in some cases may exceed those in thesestandards.

Class II Work

Class II asbestos work is defined as activities involving the removal of ACMor PACM which is not TSI or surfacing ACM. According to the definition, thisincludes, but is not limited to, the removal of asbestos-containingwallboard, floor tile and sheeting, gaskets, joint compounds, roofing felts,roofing and siding shingles, and construction mastics.

OSHA has found that the exposure potential from Class II work is generallylower than for Class I work, when removal is conducted under substantiallysimilar conditions. Consequently, if the employer shows, that in anyparticular job, that well-trained and experienced workers, with anestablished "track record" of keeping exposures low will perform thatremoval, the required controls are less stringent than those required forClass I removals.

Removal of materials which are not TSI or surfacing ACM may be handled bycomplying with work practice and engineering control requirements for ClassII in paragraph (g)(7), and the generic requirements for all asbestos work in(g)(1) of the standard. Additionally, methods allowed for Class I removalsmay be used for Class II work, unless the system cannot be adapted for ClassII work, such as in the case of the water spray process system. Glovebags/boxes can be installed around some materials covered by the Class IIdesignation, such as gaskets and ceiling tiles. It is OSHA's intent to allowClass I methods to be used for removing Class II materials when nomodification in the apparatus is required, without special notice to OSHA.

As Class II work, removal of asbestos-containing material such as floortiles and roofing will not be subject to quantity cut-offs for using certaincontrol methods. This is similar to the proposal, which would have allowedthese materials to be removed using mandated work practices, and exemptedcompliant jobs from negative pressure enclosure requirements. Under the finalstandard, other materials classified as "miscellaneous" by EPA such astransite panel and valves/gaskets may be removed without quantity limitationso long as Class II work practices are followed. Additionally, the standardallows all other materials (except TSI and surfacing ACM) to be removed usingthe generic work practices in paragraph (g)(1) which require wet methods,HEPA vacuuming and prompt waste disposal, and pursuant to additional controlsin (g)(2) if the PEL may be exceeded.

Paragraphs (g)(7)(i) and (ii) establish "setting-up" requirements whichapply to all removals of all Class II materials. These include therequirement that a competent person supervise the work and that where anegative exposure assessment cannot be produced or changed conditions duringthe job indicate elevated fiber levels, critical barriers or other isolationmethods must be used or where the ACM is not removed in a substantiallyintact.

OSHA is also listing specific work practices for some kinds of Class II workwhich are common, such as removing flooring material or roofing material, asproposed. The generic list of work practices for all operations under thisstandard in paragraph (g)(1), covers most specific practices set out for eachkind of removal. However, since both OSHA and participants believe thatstating how each kind of material must be removed in specific terms willenhance compliance, paragraph (g)(7)(2) restates the relevant genericrequirements in terms specific to each activity. For example, using wetmethods for all asbestos work, unless the employer can show wet methods areinfeasible, is now required, in the generic requirements, for all asbestoswork [see (g)(1)]. However, wet methods encompass a range of work practices.For example, when removing material which is bound in a matrix, misting maybe appropriate. Removing ACM or PACM which is not so bound, or wheredeterioration of the ACM has occurred, would require more aggressive wetting.

Thus, in the paragraph applying to flooring removal, the employer must mistthe "snip point" used for cutting sheet flooring. For roofing removal, theblades of all powered tools must be continually misted during use. OSHAbelieves these more specific directions will help insure that work is doneprotectively.

OSHA proposed to require use of wet methods to remove sheet floor covering.RFCI guidelines state that floor tile is to be removed by prying up an edgebut no mention of the use of water on the floor tile is made. The revisedstandards require the use of wet methods wherever feasible includingoperations involving the removal of all floor covering materials known orpresumed to contain asbestos. P. Quirk, an asbestos consultant, recommendedthat "Floor tile and sheet removal must utilize wet methods for all work"(Ex. 3-34). A representative of the Resilient Floor and Decorative CoveringUnion expressed a similar view that "the floor should be kept adequately wetduring the entire operation" (Ex. 7-37). Based on this support, OSHA hasconcluded that most flooring removals must be performed using wet methodswhen feasible and has included this requirement in the final with oneexception. The exception allows floor tiles to be removed intact using heat.

Specific Work Practices for Specific Class II Operations

As discussed above, certain precautions are always required for all workunder these construction and shipyard standards in paragraph (g)(1). Theseare HEPA equipped vacuums, wet methods, and prompt disposal of waste anddebris. Additional provisions apply to the removal of all Class II material[Paragraph (g)(7)]. These are required critical barriers in designated indooractivities and dropcloths in all.

OSHA also includes more detailed work practices for specific Class IIactivities, such as the removal of roofing materials and resilient flooringmaterial. Most of these requirements are more specific applications ofgeneral industrial principles for handling dust- generating materials,asbestos in particular. OSHA and many participants believe that employers arehelped by specific work practice requirements so long as they do not restrictcommon sense accommodations to unique workplace conditions. The followingdiscussion show the reasons for and support of OSHA's decisions for specificwork practices for removal or disturbing ACM or PACM.

Flooring Operations

Flooring operations are separately discussed because of the amount ofinterest in these activities manifest during the rulemaking, and theprevalence of asbestos-containing flooring materials in buildings. Because ofthe prevalence of asbestos-containing flooring, the frequency which it ismaintained and removed, and the possibility of exposure if improperly done,specific requirements for flooring are needed to reduce significant risk tothe extent feasible.

Removal of asbestos containing flooring materials is a Class II asbestosjob. As such, it must be performed using the operation specific controls setout in paragraph (g)(ii)(a), or when called for by an "exposure assessmentusing "alternative" controls. Additional controls must be used if theemployer does not produce a "negative exposure assessment" prior to thebeginning of the job, if during the job, there is reasonable belief that apermissible exposure level will be exceeded, or if methods are used which areexpected to result in flooring material breaking or otherwise removed in anon-intact state. The required controls in large part mirror those of theproposal which were based on work practice recommended by the ResilientFlooring Covering Institute (RFCI). Additional "non-aggressive" practices areallowed, in response to supporting data and to commenters such as MichaelMurphy of Monsanto who asked that OSHA "* * * allow the use of otherpractices which achieve comparable results" (Ex. 7-125).

OSHA believes that these provisions are necessary and appropriate to reducerisk to workers who perform this type of activity. The relative level of riskof removing asbestos-containing flooring was considered in the rulemaking.OSHA has not classified asbestos containing flooring as "high risk." Thedegree of risk from removing these materials depends on the kind of removalactivity performed, and on the condition of the material. Data relating toflooring removal show overall lower levels than TSI and surfacing ACM (seee.g., Ex. 7-100; 7-132). Thus, EPA recently included resilient floorcovering, in its lowest risk category (Category I non-friable ACM). HoweverEPA concluded that "if these materials are in poor condition and are friableor they are subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting or abrading, they are tobe treated as friable asbestos materials (55 FR at 48409). The OSHA recordsupports these findings.

Opinions of some asbestos abatement experts familiar with a range ofasbestos removal projects agreed with the basis for EPA's and OSHA'sclassification scheme. Marshall Marcus stated that flooring removals, whenwell conducted are likely to involve lower exposures than removals of othertypes of interior asbestos containing materials; whereas Mary Finn emphasizedthat removing of flooring tile, because it cannot be saturated easily, may,when aggressively removed, result in significant exposures (see testimony ofMarshall Marcus, Tr. 3794 and Mary Finn Tr. 3765).

OSHA's approach of requiring those removal methods which are unlikely toelevate exposures was challenged by participants who contended that methodsfor removing flooring cannot be determined at the beginning of the project.This might occur when employees discover during the project that flooring isresistant to removal. This may be difficult to predict in advance, as pointedout by BCTD (Ex. 143 at 155, citing testimony of asbestos contractor andconsultant Marshall Marcus, Tr. 3794 and others). OSHA acknowledges that suchdifficulties may occur. However, as pointed out by Mary Finn, many of thevariables contributing to exposures are available for consideration at theinception of the project; "* * * the predictability of how aggressive onemust remove floor tile varies from job to job depending on the age of theparticular materials, depending on the wear that it's undergone and dependingon the techniques that the particular contractor and his workers might use"(Tr. 3744).

Also, OSHA notes that much of the project data submitted show consistency inpractices over the entire project. In cases where more aggressive methods areresorted to mid-job, OSHA requires a "mid-course correction:" a re-evaluationof the exposure potential by the competent person, and the installation ofadditional controls if the projection is that the exposures will exceed thePEL.

Most "aggressive" techniques, such as "shot-blasting" may be used only afteran evaluation showed that less aggressive methods are not feasible. Even ifthe evaluation of the "aggressive" method shows exposures will be below thePEL, the employees must still install critical barriers or otherwise isolatethe removal operation [paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2)], and employees must wearrespirators. This is required regardless of when such "aggressive" methodswere used, at the inception, or mid-way into a removal job.

Specific "non-aggressive" control methods are allowed and preferred forremoving flooring materials (tile, sheet, and mastics) which contain asbestosand those materials for which the employer/ building owner has not verifiedthe absence of asbestos. The controls are "non-aggressive" work practices,and include the practices which under OSHA's proposal would have allowed anexemption from the requirement to erect a negative pressure enclosure forflooring material removal (see 55 FR at 29719).

OSHA did not propose to require employers to assume that vinyl or asphalttile or resilient flooring was asbestos containing, although the RFCIrecommended that such an assumption be made. OSHA asked for comments on thisissue.

Several industrial hygienists agreed that the recommendation should befollowed. For example, David Kirby, industrial hygienist, Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, testified that an ongoing survey of ORNL facilities showed that"90 percent of our floor tile either contained asbestos or the masticmaterial that's used to attach them to the floors contained asbestos." Mr.Kirby recommended that it's "prudent to * * * assume that all floor tilematerials contain asbestos, unless you can prove the contrary * * *" (Tr.124-125). According to Mr. Kirby, negating the presence of asbestos contentin flooring material entails a complex and expensive process; "taking thosematerials, having them ashed, using high temperature ashing techniques, andthen the residue could be analyzed by transmission electron microscopy."Other evidence in the record indicated the prevalence of asbestos containingflooring material. An EPA 1988 survey, cited in the HEI report, reported that42% of public and commercial buildings within the U.S. contain asbestoscontaining floor tile (Ex. 1-344).

A review of the comments and evidence demonstrates that there is a highdegree of prevalence of asbestos-containing flooring and that there arediagnostic difficulties in identifying asbestos fibers in flooring material.Consequently, OSHA is changing its approach and the final standard providesthat the employers shall assume in removing flooring that it containsasbestos and take the specific precautions unless the employer demonstratesthat the flooring materials are not asbestos-containing. Such a showing mustbe based on analysis which is likely to reveal the asbestos content of theflooring material, the backing and the mastic. No one protocol for analysisis specified, but the standard requires that a certified industrial hygienist(CIH) or project designer certify the analytical results.

OSHA believes that the final standard's provisions relating to flooringremoval are more comprehensive and protective than the proposal's. There, anexemption for flooring removals from the NPE requirement was conditionedmerely on compliance with certain work practices recommended by the ResilientFloor Covering Institute (RFCI). These practices included a prohibition ofsanding of floor or backing, use of a HEPA vacuum cleaner before and afterremoval, prohibition of dry sweeping, application of new material over oldtiles without removal if possible, wet removal of residual felt, and baggingand disposal of waste in 6 mil plastic containers. The new final provisionsallow removal to be performed by these methods, but also allow variousheating methods to be used, or any other means of loosening floor tiles,without breakage. Unlike the proposal, an employer cannot proceed withoutnegative air or critical barriers, merely using non-aggressive work practicesand wet methods, unless his pre-job evaluation shows that similar floorremovals (in the same building or of the same materials and mastics) weresuccessfully completed by work crews with adequate training and experience inworking under these conditions.

OSHA noted in the proposal that data provided by RFCI showed that where jobsfollowed their recommended practices, mean exposures to workers were between0.0045 and 0.03 f/cc for workers performing floor tile removal, removal ofresilient sheet flooring, or removal of cutback adhesive. During therulemaking, additional data were submitted showing exposure levels duringflooring removals. David Kirby, OSHA witness from Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory (ORNL) said that he has used the RFCI work practices successfully,maintaining personal sampling fiber levels at an average of 0.0075 f/cc(range 0.001 to 0.029) (Tr. 99). When asked what additional precautions weretaken at his facilities during these operations, he replied that "we do useregulated areas in the sense that we don't allow anyone in the area as we'redoing the work, and we also require workers to wear respiratory protection asthey're doing this activity, but yet we don't feel like there is * * * a needfor negative pressure enclosures." (Tr. 124). BCTD, in its post-hearing briefargued that the RFCI methods specifically, and "non-aggressive" flooringremoval methods generally, do not always result in exposure levels which areacceptable (Ex. 143). It cited various studies or project results submittedto the record. Some of these results were given in terms of structures persquare centimeter, a convention of TEM. For example, Richard Kelly ofLawrence Livermore National Laboratory objected to allowing the use of RFCImethods to control asbestos exposure during removal of asbestos containingmastic (Ex. 11, #22). He reported that during removals in which only themastic contained asbestos, he had measured (by TEM) fiber levels of 33 s/ccduring dry power chipping of VAT and 0.9 s/cc during wet hand removal in whathe called a "real-world application of the RFCI procedures." He noted thatthe floor was not pre-vacuumed nor was a heat gun used as described in therecommended practices. Under its AHERA rule, EPA defines "structure" as amicroscopic bundle, cluster, fiber or matrix which may contain asbestos. OSHAnotes that such structures may be smaller and/or thinner than the asbestosfibers required to be counted under the OSHA reference method. A generalsummary of the results of these studies shows that most of the exposurelevels were below the proposed PELs when measured using the OSHA referencemethod (e. g., Gobbell, 1991, exposure range, 0.01 to 0.035: AT &T, 1990,non-detected to 0.019).

Some other studies of floor removals entered into the record showed higherexposure levels of "structures" as detected by TEM, and defined by EPA. Asnoted above, counts of structures are not comparable to fiber counts, andOSHA believes that most "structure" counts result in significantly higherfiber counts than would be counted by PCM.

A related issue is whether flooring material should be analyzed by TEM,rather than by PCM. As pointed out by BCTD and other participants, floor tiletends to generate smaller fibers which often cannot be detected under PCM;and TEM detects these shorter asbestos fibers (and the thinner asbestosfibers, which PCM cannot distinguish [Ex. 143, p. 147 citing Tr. 3468; Tr3751, Tr. 3279, Tr. 473-474]. In the 1986 rulemaking OSHA considered theissue of the relative toxicity of short asbestos fibers, which were notrequired to be counted under the OSHA definition of "fiber." Then, the Agencystated that "* * * animal studies * * * in particular the recent work by Dr.Davis, point to a clear relationship between fiber dimension and diseasepotential. The finding in these studies that thin fibers, (having an aspectratio of at least 3:1) greater than 5 um in length are associated withelevated incidence of cancer and lung fibrosis is also consistent withcurrent knowledge regarding lung clearance mechanisms, i.e., that shorterfibers are easily phagocytized and removed from lung tissue" (51 FR at22613). Dosages used in OSHA's risk assessment extrapolated from studies ofhuman exposure, attempted to transform or reconstruct fiber counts tocorrelate with fiber counts using current conventions of counting fibers onlylonger than 5 um, using PCM. Similar to the conclusions reached by OSHA inthe preamble to its 1986 asbestos rule, the HEI report of 1991 found that"experimental results described in this review indicate that short fiberpreparations have a lower toxicity than long fiber preparations, but do notexclude their contribution to the lesions caused by the smaller number oflong fibers in the tail of the fiber length distribution * * * individualfibers shorter than approximately 5 um appear to possess much less toxicitythan those longer than 5 um" (Ex. 1-344, p. 6-76).

The HEI Report also noted that the exposure-response relationship reportedin the literature which served as the basis for estimation of risk hadexposure expressed in terms of fibers greater than 5 um in length (Ex.1-344). These aspects of OSHA's risk assessment, and counting protocols werenot challenged in the litigation following the 1986 rules, therefore were notremanded to OSHA for reconsideration in the Court of Appeal's 1988 decision.The only study submitted in its entirety, (see Freed et al, Ex. 143 at Att.B), is of limited relevance; it is a case study, which was undertaken to showthat asbestos fiber may produce DIP (desquamative interstitial pneumonia) aswell as asbestosis. The authors note that "although over 90% of the 820million fibers of wet lung tissue were 3 um or less in length, sufficientnumbers of fibers greater than 5 um in length were present, which could alsoaccount for the tissue response" (Ex. 143, Att B at 332). Resolution ofwhether short or long fibers are counted is not necessary for the purposes ofthis revised standard, because OSHA finds that work practices and controlsare needed when working on floors regardless of the measurement method used.OSHA does not change its conclusion and retains the provisions that airborneasbestos measurements taken during flooring operations shall use the samemethodology as in the 1986 standard.

The Agency's analysis of data submitted showing exposure levels duringflooring removal, shows a general correlation between lower levels and"non-aggressive" methods, and higher levels and "aggressive methods." Forexample, Mary Finn of Chart Services, an asbestos consulting company,testified that "if breakage is minimized, obviously exposures are going to godown" (Tr. 3765). Ms. Finn submitted area sampling data from flooring removaloperations which had a mean of 0.056 f/cc as an 8-hour time-weighted average(Ex. 9-18). She also presented data on area TEM counts taken during fouroperations involving drilling through VAT -- the mean for the four sampleswas 0.3 structures/cc (2 samples were below the limit of detection and onevalue was 1.01 f/cc), while all four samples were below the limit ofdetection when measured by PCM. BCTD cited various studies showing high fiberlevels during flooring removal (Ex. 143 at 151-153). One, the Cook data,showed some high short term levels on one job, it was unclear what workpractices were used, other jobs done by the same firm showed exposure valuesless than the PELs (see Ex. 35 and 119S). The Rosby data showed short termdata which were well within the PEL excursion limit (Ex. 119 U). Other datapointed to by BCTD as indicating the unreliability of exposure reductionsusing non-aggressive methods, merely shows that EPA clearance levels were notachieved (Ex. 7-132), that exceedances were possible (Ex. 7-137 [it is notedthat an exposure of .11 f/cc is considered in compliance with OSHA's PEL, andthat TEM fiber counts were elevated (Ex. 119T)].

In addition to the Environ data contracted for and submitted by RFCI andArmstrong, which was interpreted differently by the submitter and by BCTD,these and other interested parties submitted additional data showing exposurelevels during various kinds of asbestos-containing flooring removal. Lowexposure levels were obtained in a New York State Department of Health Study,for floor tile removal using automated infrared heating, (followed by handscraping)(see Ex. 7-100). As noted above, OSHA is allowing removal to beperformed using heat, so long as tiles are not broken during the removalprocess. Under contract with EPA, PEI Associates performed a study which wasdescribed in a report entitled "Evaluation of Tile and Mastic Removal at FortSill" (Ex. 1-330). TEM was used to measure fiber levels resulting from use ofseveral different methods to remove tile and/or mastic. They found that"airborne asbestos levels averaged 0.135 structures per cubic centimeter(s/cc) during dry tile removal, 0.066 s/cc during wet tile removal, 0.247s/cc during removal of mastic using citric acid and towels and 0.326 s/ccduring sand machine mastic removals. No PCM measurements were presented, andthe proportion of the TEM-measured fibers exceeding 5 um in length was notreported.

The question of whether a negative pressure enclosure should be required forfloor tile removal, was considered during the rulemaking. Some participants,including asbestos abatement consultant, Marshall Marcus recommended negativepressure enclosures as a matter of course for asbestos containing flooringremoval (See e.g., Tr. 3796 and Ex. 7-37, 7-92). OSHA notes that its finalrule now requires bystander protection, when excessive exposure levels aremeasured or expected. The questionable benefits to flooring removal employeesof working within a enclosure are discussed in the general discussion on NPEsin this preamble. OSHA also notes that some exposure data submittedconcerning flooring removal exposure levels, contained relatively highexposures for work within enclosures (see e.g., Ex. 7-134A) and that removingflooring using dry ice in a negative pressure enclosure can result in toxicbuildups within the enclosure (see Tr. 202). Therefore OSHA is not generallyrequiring flooring removal to be done within NPEs. However, where flooringmaterial is removed using "aggressive methods," higher fiber levels have beenreported, at least as measured by TEM (see Ex 11, #22 and 9-18). The Agencyconcludes that the use of aggressive floor removal techniques in which thematerial is not removed intact, such as mechanical chipping of floor tile andshot-blast removal of mastic, are likely to result in the release of largeramounts of fibers and must be performed within negative-pressure enclosuresor the equivalent. EPA has concluded similarly:

Removal of VAT (or other known or assumed ACM flooring or its adhesive)which involves sanding, grinding, mechanical chipping, drilling, cutting orabrading the material has a high probability of rendering the materialfriable and capable of releasing asbestos fibers. Therefore, removal projectswhich employ any of these techniques (other than small-scale-short-duration)must be conducted as response actions, including use of a project designer,accredited persons, and air clearance (55 FR 48409).

In response to concerns that the RFCI work practices will not be followed,it should be pointed out that the alternate to their use is full enclosure ofthe operation which is likely to be considered more burdensome than the workpractices.

Transite Removal

Removal of transite panels is considered a Class II activity in this revisedstandard. As such, they are required to be removed using certain practicesand controls. These are: the intact removal of transite panels; the use ofwet methods followed by wrapping of the panels in plastic; and the loweringof panels to the ground without breakage. These provisions are in essence thesame one proposed by OSHA in 1990 when allowing an exemption from the NPErequirements. The 1990 proposal presented the comments of OSHA fieldpersonnel which suggested that removal of transite panels, without regard toquantity, should be exempt from the negative-pressure enclosure requirementas long as the transite is removed without cutting or otherwise abrading thematerial (Ex. 1-59). This suggestion was supported by numerous participants(Ex. 7-6, 7-9, 7-23, 7-42, 7-43, 7-47, 7-52, 7-62, 7-63, 7-74, 7-79, 7-86,7-95, 7-99, 7-103, 7-106, 7-108, 7-111, 7-112, 7-125, 7-128, 7-134, 7-144,7-146, 7-140).

Additional work practices such as wrapping panels and lowering them intact,were suggested in this proceeding and are incorporated in the revisedstandards [see comments of Robert Welch of Columbia Gas System whorecommended wrapping intact transite panels in sheeting and lowering themintact to the ground avoiding breakage (Ex. 7-23); and, comments of EdwardKarpetian of the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water, who recommendedthat in addition, the material be HEPA vacuumed and wrapped (Ex. 7-42)]. Asnoted in prior discussion of the general provisions covering constructionactivities, negative pressure enclosures are not required for Class IIactivities, unless they are performed along with a Class I activity for whichan NPE is required.

The rulemaking record contains strong evidence showing low exposuresresulting from transite panel removal when appropriate work practices arefollowed. The submission of the American Paper Institute and the NationalForest Products Association contained sampling data taken during the removalof transite panels from paper machine hoods (Ex. 7-74). Wet methods were usedand the area was regulated. Personal and area samples were well below 0.1f/cc, with the 23 personal samples having an average of 0.012 f/cc (nottime-weighted). Rose Simpson of Lubrizol stated that "area monitoring samplestaken during transite removal operations at our facilities indicate exposurelevels well below the current 0.2 f/cc and the proposed 0.1 f/cc limits" (Ex.7-86). OSHA witness David Kirby of Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated inhis comments that personal air monitoring during transite panel removalresulted in average fiber level of 0.008 f/cc (8 hr. TWA) (Ex. 7-111). And ina post-hearing submission (Ex. 105), he presented the fiber levels (measuredby PCM) generated during non-enclosed transite removal performed wet at ORNL,which ranged from < 0.031 to < 0.082 f/cc (mean = 0.058 f/cc) (see also Ex.140, where the Dow Chemical Company claimed transite removal real time levelsdid not exceed 0.07 f/c).

As described above, most data show that if performed intact, transiteremoval will result in exposures well below the PELs. Some evidence, however,was presented showing exceedances. Paul Heffernan of Kaselaan&D'AngeloAssociates, Inc. stated:

* * * removal of transite panels which are not cut or broken should not begenerically allowed. Many transite panels used in interior wall constructionconsist of very rough inner surfaces from which asbestos fiber is readilyreleased into the air. Kaselaan&D'Angelo Associates has monitored theremoval of 18" by 36" transite panels which were held in place with screws.The transite panels were removed intact by removing the screws and liftingthe relatively small panels to the floor where they were placed in boxes. Theexposed surface of each panel was first wet with amended water beforeremoving the screws. The job was performed within negative pressurecontainment. Airborne fiber levels exceeding 1.0 f/cc were measured. Transitepanel removal has potential for fiber release even when the panels are notbroken (Ex. 7-36).

As noted above in the flooring material discussion, OSHA is requiring job byjob evaluation of each Class II job, including transite panel removalprojects, by a competent person, as part of the requirements to perform aninitial exposure assessment. As detailed above, the data submitted to therecord show that transite panel removal without cutting usually results invery low exposure levels. Building and facility records of past removals ofsimilar material will alert on-site competent persons to the exposurepotential of the panels in their facilities. For rare cases, when theevaluation of material, condition, crew and past exposure data do not supporta "negative exposure assessment," (i.e., that excessive exposures may beexpected), additional precautions are required by the standard, includingcritical barriers, and respirator use.

OSHA believes that these provisions will protect employees againstsignificant exposures, are feasible, and are supported by the record. Inparticular OSHA finds that quantity limitations on transite panel removalwould not tend to reduce risk, and in some cases may increase fiber levels.For example, Richard Olson of Dow Co. pointed out that if transite panelremoval were to be exempted from the negative pressure enclosure requirementand the cutoff remained at 9 square feet as proposed, it would be necessaryto cut nearly every piece of material removed or always use anegative-pressure enclosure (Ex. 7-103).

Cementitious Asbestos-Containing Siding (CACS)

The removal of cementitious asbestos-containing siding is a Class IIactivity. OSHA is requiring the same work practices for shingle removal asfor transite panel removal. OSHA did not propose specific work practices forremoval of CACS, either to exempt this activity from the negative pressureenclosure requirement or to qualify as a SSSD activity. However, manyparticipants representing a wide spectrum of interests, including states,federal agencies, and asbestos industry organizations, recommended that OSHAexempt CACS removal from the requirement to establish negative-pressureenclosures; (See e.g. asbestos coordinator for Florida (Ex. 7-6); Navy Officeof Chief of Operations (Ex. 7-52); Asbestos Information Association/NorthAmerica (Ex. 7-120); New York City Department of Environmental Protection(Ex. 126); and, The Army Corps of Engineers who also submitted the data froma study of fiber levels generated during CACS removals Ex. 1-307).

In the Army Corps of Engineers' study cited above, three mechanical CACSasbestos removal methods and the manual method were evaluated by monitoringduring removal of the siding. The three methods were: 1) super wet: thesiding was thoroughly wetted with water on the outfacing and back side; 2)mist: a measured amount of water was applied to the outfacing side of thesiding only; and, 3) encapsulation: an EPA-approved commercially availableencapsulant was applied at or above the recommended application rate. Theseremovals took place inside enclosures and the hand method was also evaluated.Samples were measured using TEM and results of area samples indicated allwere less than 0.005 or below the limit of detection. Two personal samplestaken "while removing cement-asbestos siding shingles from Building 523"yielded 8 hour time-weighted averages of 0.008 and 0.012 f/cc.

Other data show low exposures during CACS removal. One where approximately110,000 square feet, in total of CACS were moved from 43 college campusdormitory buildings prior to demolition. The average bulk analysis of theCACS was 17%. No outdoor area samples were higher than 0.01 f/cc by PCM forthe duration of the project. The 80 personal samples collected during theproject had an arithmetic average of 0.049 f/cc with a standard deviation of0.041. The geometric mean was 0.04 f/ cc with not TEM data available (Ex.7-132A). The study authors concluded that "CACS removal, even though outsidewhere dilution is assumed significant, should be done carefully, using as aminimum the abatement techniques described in this paper." These includedwetting, dropcloths, and a 20-foot wide regulated area. OSHA agrees andbelieves that the methods required by the standard will reduce risksignificantly for exposed workers.

Results of this study and others show that CACS removal can be performedusing work practices which minimize exposure to workers and that containmentin NPEs is neither necessary or appropriate in most cases to protect theworkers performing the removals or working nearby. However, it is clear thatClass II work practices are necessary to keep exposures low.

OSHA has coupled CACS removal with transite panel removal in the regulatoryprovisions establishing mandatory work practices for the removal of thesematerials.

Roofing Operations

The final construction standard classifies removal of roofing material whichcontains asbestos as a Class II operation. As such, specific exposureassessment and work practices must be performed. The record shows that thesework practices can be feasibly implemented and are necessary to effectivelyreduce airborne asbestos levels from roofing removal projects. They consistof continual misting of cutting machines during use, keeping roofingmaterials intact during removal, using wet methods, immediately loweringunwrapped or unbagged roofing material to a covered receptacle using adust-tight chute, or immediately wrapping roofing material in plasticsheeting, and lowering it to ground by the end of the work shift.

In addition, unless the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible,the roof level heating and ventilation air intake and discharge sources mustbe isolated, HEPA filtered, or extended beyond the regulated area, ormechanical systems must be shut down and vents sealed with 6 mil plastic.OSHA has taken into account concerns that isolating air intakes may causeheat build-up in the building (Ex. 7-7). As for all Class II work,respirators must be worn if material cannot be removed in an intact state, orif wet methods are not used. In addition, regulated areas must be establishedpursuant to the provisions of paragraph (e).

These provisions are similar to the conditions proposed by OSHA which wouldhave allowed an exemption from the proposed negative pressure enclosurerequirement providing implementation of specific control methods which wouldhave applied to all non-exempt removal jobs. In the proposal, the Agencystated that it did not believe that requiring use of negative pressureenclosures on roofs would result in more than a de minimis benefit to workersremoving roofing or to other employees in their vicinity. That the safetyhazards which might be imposed by their use on roofs would outweigh thebenefits (55 FR at 29719). The Agency proposed that employers engaged inroofing operations take additional steps to reduce employee exposure toasbestos. These steps included use of dust-tight chutes to lower debris fromthe roof to the ground, or immediate bagging and lowering of debris ratherthan dumping it from a height. Wetting would also be required where feasibleto reduce contamination. The Agency felt that these measures had been shownto be effective in reducing employee and bystander exposures during roofingoperations.

There was general support for the exemption of roofing operations from theNPE requirement (Ex. 7-1, 7-12, 7927, 7-36, 7-39, 7-43, 7-52, 7-95). BCTDacknowledged that negative-pressure enclosures are infeasible for mostroofing operations. OSHA also believes that categorizing roofing removals asClass II work is well supported by the record. Some data show exceedances ofthe new PEL in roofing operations (see Ex. 9-34 QQ, cited by BCTD, Ex. 143 at135). Other data show roofing removals, where proper work practices arefollowed, generate low exposure levels, e.g., data submitted by NCRA,collected by SRI shows many exposures were below the revised PEL, most jobsused wet methods (Ex. 9-31A).

A health survey submitted by the BCTD showed asbestos related diseases anddeaths among roofers in the period from 1976-1989 (Ex. 119 QQ). That study isevidence that proper protective practices are necessary to protect workers.However, diseases resulted from past exposures both removing and installingasbestos-containing roofing without protective requirements and do notnecessarily predict worker health from lower exposures resulting primarilyfrom removal work performed more protectively.

In addition participants supported required work practices (see Ex. 7-120,7-132, 7-36). BCTD preferred adoption by OSHA of the recommendations made bythe labor representatives of ACCSH which are more rigorous than the workpractices proposed by OSHA. The additional practices would include:establishing the entire roof as a regulated area; cutting or removing ACMusing hand methods whenever possible; equipping all powered tools with a HEPAvacuum system or a misting device; HEPA vacuuming all loose dust left by thesawing operation; and, isolating all roof-level air intake and dischargesources, or shutting down all mechanical systems and sealing off all outsidevents using two layers of 6 mil polyethylene (Ex. 34). As noted above, OSHAhas adopted most of these additional work practices in the final regulations.OSHA is not requiring the entire roof to be designated as a regulated area:the portion to be removed may be a small part of the entire roof. Theregulated area should encompass that portion of the roof where dust anddebris from the removal is likely to accumulate.

One issue concerning required controls is whether OSHA should prohibit powercutting on roofing materials containing asbestos. Information in the recordis inconclusive on whether power cutting usually results in higher exposurelevels than hand cutting. A representative of the National RoofingContractors Association (NRCA) testified that "we're finding extremely lowreadings (on the power cutter); * * * it appears to us that the cutting ofthe material seals the edges because of the heat of the blade of the cutter,mixing with the asphalt" (Tr. 2427). Other data were submitted to show thatpower cutting elevates asbestos fiber levels compared to hand cutting;however OSHA believes that some of these conclusions may overstate theresults of limited experimentation. For example, one study was presented assuggesting that power cutting elevated fiber levels over hand cutting (Ex1-357). OSHA regards this study as not definitive. The differences in fiberlevels in the breathing zones of workers were only marginally statisticallysignificant, and there was another variable in the study's protocol which mayhave effected the outcome. OSHA recognizes the bound nature of the asbestosin most roofing materials, however, it also understands the physicalprinciples involved in cutting of these materials and that such actionsrelease fibers.

Because of this mixed record, OSHA concludes that no prohibition of powercutting is called for as long as the other specified precautions includingmisting are carefully followed. The standard allows power cutting, but alsorequires that sections of roofing material shall be cut into the largestpieces which can be feasibly handled for disposal pursuant to the standard.Requiring misting of power tools in all situations except where a competentperson determines that misting may decrease safety is expected to help reduceexposure levels from power cutting.

The general requirement that all asbestos work be performed wet, unless theemployer can demonstrate lack of feasibility applies to roofing operations. Adiscussion of this provision is found above in the discussion on paragraph(g)(1)(i)(B). As noted there, "flooding" is not required; "misting" of cutareas is sufficient to control dust.

OSHA believes that these precautions are necessary to protect employees whoremove roofing materials against elevated exposures in normal circumstances.The record shows, however, that elevated exposures may occur where damaged orfriable roofing material is removed. [See SRI report, recommending the use ofrespirators where roofing material is "uncharacterized and aged" (Ex. 9-31Aat 20)]. Under such circumstances, the competent person's determination mustbe that the normal precautions are not sufficient. Steven Phillips, counselto the NCRA agreed: "(w)hen you're working with uncharacterized and agedroofing materials, that is * * * where you have no idea what the exposuresmay be because you have no historical data; you haven't worked with thatparticular material; * * * (there are) the normal OSHA requirements of doinginitial job site monitoring and having respirators until you have good,reliable, job site monitoring" (Tr. 2463). In such atypical circumstances,additional precautions, including respirator use and more extensive wetting,will be necessary. NRCA's objection to the routine use of respirators onroofing jobs, as recommended by BCTD, was based on its view that respiratoruse on roofs often compromises worker safety, because respirators reduce"downward visibility" of the wearer (Tr. 2463). OSHA agrees that in someroofing conditions, limitations from wearing respirators might occur. Whenrespirator use is necessary because of the condition of the roofing material,but respirators cannot be safely worn because of great heat, cold, or highwinds, etc., such roofing jobs shall not be performed until they can be donesafely. The Agency has concluded that "routine" respirator use is notrequired, because as discussed above the required work practices will keepexposures low in normal circumstances; but where historic data, experience ofthe crew, or the condition of the roof indicate the possibility of higherexposures, then respirator use is required.

Various studies which were submitted support OSHA's classification ofroofing removal as a Class II activity. They show that most measuredexposures are lower than many studies showing removal of Class I materials;but still may be significant. In most cases levels below the new PELs can beroutinely expected with minimum controls.

SRI evaluated air monitoring reports from 79 roofing removal operations, 560personal and 353 area samples (Ex. 9-31). All samples, except 24 were wellbelow the new PEL of 0.1 f/cc. Fourteen samples were collected for 30 minutesor less (and were below the excursion limit). When the remaining samplemeasurements were calculated as 8 hour time-weighted averages, they also didnot exceed the PEL. The remaining samples did not exceed 0.1 f/cc. Thecontractors concluded, "there appears to be no pressing need for airmonitoring at the start of each job, negative pressure enclosures, orwetting. However the use of half-mask respirators is recommended until thesource of the fibers in the few samples where concentrations were above 0.1f/cc can be defined." They added that "exposure to asbestos should beminimized until more (or better) information is available; the use ofrespirators seems a prudent compromise when working with uncharacterized andaged roofing materials."

The submission of Preston Quirk of Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc. included astudy entitled "Airborne Levels During Non-Friable Asbestos-ContainingMaterial (ACM) Removal" which was presented at the 1990 meeting of theNational Asbestos Council (Ex. 7-133a). One section of this study presentedthe sampling measurements taken during removal of asbestos-containing roofingfelt and flashing using a wet prying and peeling technique with no enclosure.Five area samples averaged 0.007 f/cc by PCM and 0.008 s/cm3 by TEM. Fivepersonal samples averaged 0.024 f/cc by PCM and 0.304 f/cc by TEM. It wasreported that the personal TEM samples had 0.124 s/cm3 of structure greaterthan or equal to 5 um.

BCTD submitted a study by D. Hogue and K. Rhodes entitled "Evaluation ofAsbestos Fiber Release from Built-up Roof Removal Projects" (Ex. 34, VV) inwhich roofing operations were monitored using both PCM and TEM methods ofmeasurement. The authors stressed the "non-scientific" nature of the studyand noted that they had measured only a limited number of samples. Theydescribed a project involving removal of a 15% asbestos roof from a hospitalin which a several control methods were used. Area samples were taken at"high," "medium," and "low" locations and most were measured using the PCMmethod. During mechanical removal, the arithmetic mean concentration was 0.16f/cc (not time-weighted); and during manual removal the average was 0.1 f/cc(non-weighted). Personal samples were measured only by TEM and the 3 takenduring manual removal averaged 0.11 f/cc (also not weighted). In anothersection of this report the authors describe a "Controlled removal of asbestoscontaining built-up roofing materials without containment with engineeringand work practice controls and extensive sampling and analysis bytransmission electron microscopy," however, the specific engineering and workpractice controls employed are not described. Nonetheless, the resultingmeasurements, both PCM and TEM, are well below the PEL except one sample inwhich the TEM concentration was 0.1 s/cc.

NIOSH described an evaluation of airborne asbestos fibers during thetear-off of an old asbestos shingle roof from a residential building (HETA84-321-1590, Ex. 44). Seventeen personal breathing-zone samples werecollected for approximately two hours. For 5 tear-off workers the fiberconcentrations ranged from 0.04 to 0.16 f/cc, arithmetic mean 0.09 f/cc; fortwo clean-up workers the fiber concentrations ranged from 0.13 to 0.16 f/cc,arithmetic mean 0.14 f/ cc; and, for the 5 workers applying new shingles theconcentration ranged from 0.03 to 0.08 f/cc with a mean of 0.05 f/cc. In thisevaluation, NIOSH concluded that there was a hazard from exposure to airborneasbestos fibers during the tear-off of an asbestos shingle roof andrecommended several practices to reduce worker exposure.

OSHA notes that in some cases, the author of the above studies recommendmore rigorous controls than the final standards require. Largely, this wasbased on evaluations of roofing removal exposure potential based on smallnumbers of TEM measurements. As stated elsewhere in this document, OSHA hasbased its risk assessment, and relative exposure profiles on the results ofmany studies which relied on PCM values. OSHA considered TEM in the 1986standard and concluded that it was quite expensive and not fully validated.More importantly, OSHA believes that the roofing studies submitted show therelatively low levels of asbestos fibers emitted during removal work whenproper controls are used. The small number of exceedances which occurredreflect poor work practices and "uncharacterized and aged material."

The purpose of the regulated area in the asbestos standards is to preventasbestos contamination of other parts of the workplace and to limit exposureto only those specially trained employees who need to work in the area. WhileOSHA does not want to shut down the entire building when asbestos work isdone on the roof, asbestos entering the ventilation system during roofingwork is clearly unacceptable. OSHA expects good judgment to be used by thecompetent person in striving to achieve the intent of the standard. OSHArequires that roof level heating and ventilation air intake sources must beisolated. The employer would also have the option to shut down theventilation system and seal it with plastic. Only necessary work should bedone on the roof while asbestos materials are being removed, and thelocations of the work should be selected to minimize exposures, such asupwind of the asbestos work. OSHA agrees that the 20 foot barrier approachrecommended by Mr. Collins (Ex. 7-52) has merit, but believes the exactdetermination should be made on site, and could vary depending upon workingconditions.

OSHA concludes that removal of roofing material containing asbestos requiresthe use of controls to reduce significant risk. Simple procedures will reduceexposure levels substantially and, for the most part, will reduce levelsbelow the PELs. OSHA believes that it is appropriate to require specificationwork practices for removal of asbestos-containing roofing material,regardless of measure exposure levels. As discussed above, these controlswere recommended by rulemaking participants, although there was somedisagreement regarding the need for some of the controls.

The final standard requires the use of wet methods and continuously mistingcutting machines during use and loose dust left by the sawing operation is tobe HEPA vacuumed immediately. Some commenters were concerned that water couldcreate safety hazards, so the standard reflects that the competent personcould determine that misting the cutting machine, or other wet methods,should not be used. If wet methods are not used the respiratory protectionprovision of this standard, paragraph (h) requires that respirators be usedregardless of exposure level. This provision is based upon OSHA's findingthat dry disturbance or removal of asbestos containing material has largepotential to expose workers and is in accordance with that of EPA NESHAP.Other controls include removing the roofing material in an intact state tothe extent feasible, immediately lower unbagged or unwrapped roofing materialto the ground via dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or wrapping the roofingmaterial in plastic sheeting and lowering it to the ground, transferringmaterials immediately to a closed receptacle in a manner so as to precludethe dispersion of dust, and sealing off air intakes to the building prior todoing any roofing removal.

OSHA concludes from the studies that exposures can go over the PEL andcreate significant risk in circumstances when appropriate precautions are nottake. Consequently, they support OSHA requirement for some specific workpractices in all circumstances.

Methods of Compliance for Class III Asbestos Work

The newly revised construction and shipyard employment standards continue toregulate exposure to employees engaged in repairing and maintaining buildingcomponents which contain previously installed asbestos containing material.In the 1986 construction standard, most of these jobs were called"small-scale, short-duration operations," but, as discussed above, OSHA wasinstructed by the Court of Appeals to clarify the cut-offs for thatdesignation. Now, OSHA has determined that separate regulatory treatment ofrepair and maintenance operations will not be limited by arbitrary durationand amount-of-material-disturbed criteria. Instead, they are called "ClassIII operations," and are defined as "repair and maintenance operations whichmay involve intentional disturbance of ACM, including PACM" (see Green Book,Ex. 1-183). The major difference between the newly revised repair andmaintenance definitions, is that the amount of material and/or the time theoperation takes are no longer the criteria for inclusion in the class.

The revised and expanded definitions of the various terms in the CategoryIII definition enhance its clarity. Since Category III includes maintenance,repair, some renovation and other operations which disturb ACM, and PACM, adefinition of "disturb" is provided. Although "removal" activities aredesignated Category I or II, the incidental cutting away of small amounts ofACM or PACM to access mechanical or structural components for repair ormaintenance, is considered Category III.

Examples of work which are considered Category III are contained in variousstudies submitted by participants to prove or disprove how risky asbestosdisturbing repair and maintenance work is. OSHA has evaluated the data from anumber of sources to estimate the degree of exposure of workers to previouslyinstalled asbestos building material during various types of activities. Moststudies showed lower levels of exposure than Category I and II work. Forexample, the Safe Building Alliance submitted a study by its consultant Price(Ex. 151). He compiled sampling data from numerous sources including OSHAcompliance data, and obtained questionnaire information from building owners.The questionnaires solicited information on the frequency and duration ofspecific activities. These activities included, maintenance/repair ofboilers, air handling units, heat exchangers, tanks; repair/replacement ofpipe insulation including removal of small amounts of ACM; and, valve orgasket replacement, of activities above suspended ceilings such asconnections and/or extensions for telecommunication/computer networks;adjustment/repair of HVAC systems; and, testing/cleaning/ replacing smoker orheat detectors. The final activities which may result in ACM contact such asrepairing/replacing lighting fixtures and replacing ceiling tiles. The datawere used to calculate potential exposure hours (PEH) which is the product ofthe annual frequency of an activity and the duration of that activity inhours. For all activities in all buildings in the data set, Price calculateda PEH of 91 hours per year and a PEH per worker of 19 hours per year perworker. Eight-hour time weighted averages were also reported as presented inTable III.

Price concluded that small-scale, short duration activities take up arelatively small proportion of a typical worker's time in that in 80% of thebuildings he studied, less than 22% of total time is spent on theseactivities in a year, and that "on a per worker basis, in 80 percent of thebuildings the number of potential exposure hours total slightly less than 4percent of a work year" (Ex. 151, Appendix A, p. 12).

OSHA notes that BCTD objected to various aspects of the Price study in itspost-hearing brief (Ex. 143) and concluded that the study "demonstrated thatin some buildings exposure hours can be very high * * *" (Ex. 143, p. 112).However, OSHA views the study as supporting its view that when properlycontrolled, most kinds of routine maintenance involving ACM results in lowexposure levels.

A recent study by Kaselaan and d'Angelo Associates for Real Estate'sEnvironmental Action League in 1991 was reviewed (Ex. 123). The contractorslooked at historical data from 5 commercial buildings in which the activitiessampled were reported as "small-scale, short duration." The operations wereperformed "almost exclusively" within mini-enclosures and most were performedby "trained and experienced asbestos abatement workers, who are more used tothe larger full-scale asbestos abatement procedures" and not by buildingmaintenance workers. The data are summarized in Table IV.

The authors also pointed out that because air monitoring and third partyoversight during these activities, they probably represented situations inwhich proper precautions were taken. They concluded that "the data presentedindicates the necessity of controlling asbestos exposure during the type of[small-scale, short duration] activities represented in this study. Howeverif appropriately performed * * * exposures well below the current OSHAexposure limits can be maintained" (Ex. 123, p. 26).

OSHA also notes that although exposures ranges above the PEL for someactivities, mean levels were, in most case, much lower.

Dr. Morton Corn of Johns Hopkins University submitted summaries ofmonitoring results from samples taken during a variety of operation andmaintenance activities from 5 buildings (Ex. 162-52). The 8-hour time-weighted averages of the personal samples for each building are presented inthe Table VI.

The report contained limited information as to specific controls in placeduring the sampling periods; however, Dr. Corn stated that "* * * thecontrols for the 5 buildings were minimal O&M controls" (Ex. 162-52).

The submission of Mr. Saul, Assistant Commissioner for Occupational Safetyand Health, State of Maryland included a summary of the monitoring resultsconducted for Maryland employees performing building maintenance activities(ex. 162-44). A total of 207 samples analyzed by PCM during May 1988 to June1990 were analyzed. The real-time values fell into the exposure categoriespresented in Table VI.

During these activities, workers were required to wear personal protectiveequipment. In his discussion of the study results, Mr. Saul explained thatthe four values in excess of 0.2 f/cc resulted from: a removal in which wetmethods could not be employed, wetting painted surfaces, removing and wettingmetal enclosed pipe lagging, and improperly sealing of a mini-enclosure. Hefurther concluded that these data indicate that the work practices used bythese workers are generally effective during these maintenance-type asbestosactivities.

In addition to the above studies showing relatively low exposures, almostall below the revised PELs, other submissions showed the potential for ClassIII work to exceed the PEL.

BCTD submitted studies including those by Keyes and Chesson which reportedresults of a series of experiments designed to determine fiber levels inasbestos-containing buildings during simulated activities (Ex.9-34 OO, PP and7-53). They demonstrated (using transmission electron microscopicmeasurements) that use of dry methods in a room containing damaged ACM andvisible dust and debris elevated the fiber level in air significantly, thatphysical activity (playing ball) within such an area increased fiber levelsand that cable pulling activities also raised fiber counts.

HEI submitted an analysis of a data set provided to them by Hygienetics,Inc. which contained data on airborne asbestos fiber concentrations duringvarious maintenance activities performed under an operations and maintenance(O&M) program in a large U.S. hospital (Ex. 162-6). During the period ofstudy, all maintenance work in areas with ACM in the hospital required apermit issued by the Hygienetics project manager on site. The authorsconcluded "* * * spatial and temporal proximity to maintenance work was animportant determinate of PCM fiber levels" (Ex. 1-344, p. 1.8). Jobsinvolving removal of ACM resulted in higher fiber levels than non-removaljobs [personal samples: mean, removal jobs = 0.166 f/cc, non-removal = 0.0897f/cc (Ex. 1-344 p. 1.6)]. HEI concluded that these activities resulted inincreased fiber levels (Ex. 1-344, p. 1.8).

OSHA has reviewed and evaluated all available information pertaining tomaintenance, repair, and other asbestos-disturbing activities withinbuildings classified as "Class III" and has concluded that some of theseactivities can result in significant risk from exposure of workers. The rangeof activities and exposure potential encompassed by a Class III designationis wide.

The studies generally show that when protective work practices are used bytrained workers, exposures are greatly reduced. Thus, OSHA is requiringvarious work practices and protective measures to reduce exposure to asbestoscontaining material (or material which is presumed to contain asbestos) andthat workers must receive training in courses which include the appropriatetechniques to use in handling and/or avoiding such disturbances. OSHAconcludes that these are effective, feasible controls needed to reducesignificant risk.

Paragraph (g)(8) sets out these requirements. Again, wet methods arerequired; local exhaust ventilation is required, if feasible; Where thematerial OSHA has found to be of high-risk, TSI and surfacing material, isdrilled, cut, abraded, sanded, chipped, broken or sawed, dropcloths andisolation methods such as mini-enclosures or glove bags must be used; andrespirators must be worn; and where a negative exposure assessment has notbeen produced, dropcloths and plastic barriers (tenting or equivalent) mustbe used. OSHA believes these mandatory practices will protect employees whoperform Class III work from significant risk of asbestos-related effects.

Class IV Work

As defined in paragraph (b), Class IV work consists of "maintenance andcustodial work" where employees contact ACM and PACM, including activities toclean up waste and debris containing ACM and PACM. Examples of such work aresweeping, mopping, dusting, cleaning, and vacuuming of asbestos containingmaterials such as resilient flooring, or any surface whereasbestos-containing dust has accumulated; stripping and buffing of asbestoscontaining resilient flooring, and clean-up after Class I, II, and III work,or other asbestos construction work such as the installation of newasbestos-containing materials. Clean-up of waste and debris during a removaljob, or other Class job, is Class IV work. Because in these cases theemployee doing the clean-up is within the regulated area and subject to thesame exposure conditions as the employees actually doing the removal,paragraph (9)(1) requires the custodial employee to be provided with the samerespiratory protection as the employees performing the removal or otherasbestos work.

Generally, exposures for Class IV work are lower than for other classes.Data in the record show this general exposure profile (see for example,Kominsky study, Ex. 119 I, where carpet "naturally contaminated" for year byfriable, TSI and surfacing ACM was cleaned using three cleaning methods; allpersonal samples were below 0.022 f/ cc; using allowable methods resulted inthe highest personal sample of 0.019 f/cc; see also, data in Ex. 162-52).Other data show even lower exposures for custodial work (see for example,Wickman et al, Ex. L163, where the authors conclude: "This study determinedthat custodians who performed routine activities in buildings which containedfriable asbestos materials were not exposed to levels of airborne asbestoswhich approached the OSHA action level of 0.1 f/cc. The arithmetic mean valuefor 38 personal samples, analyzed by TEM, was 0.0009 s/cc, 8 hour TWA forstructure lengths greater than 5 um" ( Id at 20). The much higher exposuredata from the earlier Sawyer study, (Ex. 84-262A), showed exposure levelsranging to 4.0 f/cc for dry dusting of bookshelves under friable ACM. Asnoted above, at this rulemaking hearing Sawyer noted that the conditions inthe building he studied were unrepresentative of other buildings in the U.S.(Tr. 2157).

OSHA believes the Wickman report is the most complete study availableconcerning custodial exposures. Because the study was submitted into therecord after the close of the post-hearing comment periods, OSHA is notrelying on it to prove the extent of exposures anticipated in most custodialwork. Rather, OSHA views the Wickman study as confirming its view that ClassIV activities result in reduced exposure and thus, reduced risk compared toactivities of other classes. Because maintenance work involving active"disturbances" is Class III work, the "contact" with ACM which constitutesClass IV work will be either with intact materials, or in cleaning-up debrisfrom friable material or from material which has been disturbed. The latteractivities present the higher risk potential. OSHA acknowledges that evidenceof asbestos disease among school custodians and maintenance workers has beensubmitted to this record (See e.g., references cited in SEIU's post hearingbrief, Ex. 144). The Agency believes that significant exposures to custodiansresult from Class III work or when they clean up accumulations of friablematerial. Therefore, these revisions contain several requirements aimed atreducing custodial exposures when cleaning up asbestos debris and wastematerial.

OSHA believes that the work practices and precautions prescribed in theseregulations will virtually eliminate significant health risks for custodialworkers, and will cure any confusion about which protections and whichstandards will apply to custodial worker (see submission of SEIU, Ex. 144).

Custodial work is covered in all three standards. Housekeeping provisions inthe general industry standard, paragraph (k), cover custodians in public andcommercial buildings, in manufacturing and other industrial facilities, whereconstruction activity is not taking place. To avoid confusion, and to coverclean-up, and other housekeeping on construction sites, which properly iscovered under the construction standard, similar "housekeeping" provisionsare included in the construction and shipyard standards as well (Paragraph(1). These housekeeping provisions are discussed separately. The specificprovisions in paragraph (g), relating to Class IV work in the constructionstandard relate to construction work only, and are not necessarily limited tohousekeeping. Like all other construction work, competent person supervisionof Class IV work is required, exposure assessments of clean-up of waste anddebris, and use of HEPA filtered vacuums, in paragraph (g)(1) apply.

Particular requirements were adopted in response to concerns of someparticipants. These are paragraph (g)(9) which requires specific awarenesstraining for Class IV workers. Under the 1986 standard, training was notrequired unless employees were exposed above the action level, then 0.1 f/cc.Two labor organizations representing employees who perform Class IV work,SEIU and AFSCME, and other participants, (see e.g., Ex. 141, 144), noted thatcustodial workers needed training, separate from other building serviceworkers, such as maintenance workers (Ex. 141 at 49), generally referred toas "awareness training." The record shows the lack of awareness that materialcontained asbestos contributed to asbestosis (Tr. 959 ff). Paragraph (g)(9)of the construction and shipyard standards requires that Class IV asbestosjobs be performed by employees trained according to the awareness trainingset out in the training section, (k)(8). The general industry standard, alsorequires that employees who work in areas where ACM or PACM is present, alsobe so trained, in paragraph (j).

In addition, paragraph (g) requires employees cleaning up waste and debrisin a regulated area where respirators are required to be worn to also wearrespirators. This restatement of the provision in paragraph (e)(4) relatingto regulated areas emphasizes that clean-up workers in large-scale jobs mustwear respirators, even though the actual removal is completed. Paragraph(g)(g)(iv) offers significant protection to custodians. As pointed out byparticipants, custodians have swept up "insulation debris which had fallen tothe floor because it was so badly deteriorated * * * with no knowledge orconcern about asbestos hazards * * *" (see testimony of Ervin Arp at Tr.962-969). This new provision requires that "(e)mployees cleaning up waste anddebris in an area where friable TSI and surfacing ACM is accessible, shallassume that such waste and debris contains high-risk ACM. Since paragraph (k)requires that such ACM and PACM be visibly labeled, OSHA believes thatcustodial workers will be spared the consequences of being required toclean-up unidentified materials, which in fact contain asbestos.

Various participants asked OSHA to require an employer to adopt andoperations and management (O&M) program to protect custodial and maintenanceworkers. The Agency notes that the 1986 standard contained, in non-mandatoryAppendix G, such a program, which listed precautionary actions which theAgency recommended.

OSHA has not adopted an explicit O&M program requirement in these standards.Rather, the Agency has adopted enforceable provisions which cover the majorelements of the previous non-mandatory program in the appendix, and ofvarious programs suggested by participants in this rulemaking. For example,the new requirement that maintenance and custodial work be the subject ofexposure assessments, [see paragraph (f)(2)], requires the competent personto evaluate operations which may expose employees to asbestos, in order tominimize exposure. The requirement is "operation" based; rather than, as inan O&M program, status-based. However, any active disturbance constitutes anoperation. Although each "operation" must be covered by an exposureassessment, operations can be grouped. Cleaning up debris in an areacontaining deteriorating ACM on a daily basis, need not be evaluated eachday. An assessment of such activity can be made on a general basis, coveringprocedures for wet sweeping and vacuuming, disposal, and instructions todetect deterioration of material which contributes to the debris.Additionally, labeling of ACM and PACM usually considered part of an O&Mprogram, is separately required, as is training of custodial workers.Specific jobs may require specific instructions; the breadth of some areindicated by O&M documents generated by the EPA "Green Book" (Ex. 1-183, EPA20T-2003, July 1990 and NIBS Ex. 1-371). OSHA believes that competent personsupervision of activities under this standard will provide appropriate workpractices to be followed for relatively small, less hazardous exposuresituations. The Agency is requiring however, in the training provisions, thatwhen Class III and IV workers are trained, that the contents of the EPA orstate approved courses for such workers, as the relate to the work to beperformed, be part of the required training material [paragraph (k)(v)(D)].

The issue of passive exposure, that is where active contact or disturbanceof ACM is not a contributing factor to asbestos fiber release, is covered bythe various notification and identification provisions in the standard whichwill allow employees to identify asbestos-containing material. These arediscussed later in this preamble.

In OSHA's expert view, these provisions constitute major components ofoperations and maintenance programs recommended; are aimed at the moresignificant sources of exposure for custodial workers, and most importantly,are enforceable. For all these reasons, OSHA believes an explicit requirementfor an O&M program, such as suggested by AFSCME (Ex. 141 at 36), would addlittle benefit to employee health (see e.g., Tr.3500).

In each standard, OSHA is requiring specific work practices and a choice ofengineering control however, OSHA is aware that some asbestos control systemsmay be patented. OSHA has not considered the existence of patents or theirvalidity in evaluating the need for those controls. OSHA believes that allemployers will have a variety of controls available to them and that newtypes could be developed.

(8) Respiratory Protection

Paragraph (g) General Industry

The 1986 general industry standard required respirator use where engineeringand work practice controls are being installed, in emergencies, and to reduceexposures to or below the PELs where feasible engineering controls and workpractices could not achieve these reductions. Additionally, certainoperations i.e., cutting in plants, were shown to have greater difficultiesin achieving low exposures without respirator use. OSHA therefore allowedroutine respirator use in those segments to reach the PELS, rather than, asin other general industry segments, only where the employer shows thatfeasible engineering and work practice controls cannot achieve compliancewith the PELs. OSHA now believes that engineering and work practices in thefew remaining production sectors can achieve lower levels than predicted in1986, in part because of the mandatory work practices now included in themethods of compliance section. Therefore, allowing respirator use at highermeasured exposures for a few operations should not result in less protectionfor those employees since their ambient exposure levels are expected to bereduced.

Paragraph (h) Construction Standard and Shipyard EmploymentStandard. The respirator provisions in the construction and shipyardemployment standards are changed in several respects. First, in addition tothe conditions listed in the 1986 standards, where exposures exceed the PELs,required respirator use now is triggered by kinds of activities even wherethe PELs are not exceeded. These are: Class I work, Class II work where theACM is not removed substantially intact; all Class II and III work where theemployer cannot produce a negative exposure assessment; and all Class IV workcarried out in areas where respirators are required to be worn. OSHA hasbased these decisions on the demonstrated variability during asbestos work,and on the need to protect workers who are disturbing asbestos-containingmaterial with the greatest potential for significant fiber release. Inaddition, monitoring results for many jobs are not available in a timelyfashion. By requiring routine respirator use in jobs which OSHA finds arelikely to result in hazardous airborne asbestos levels, such as floor tileremoval, where most tiles are broken, OSHA is providing reasonablesupplemental protection to employees when certainty concerning exposurelevels is not possible.

The kind of respirators required for these "conditions of use" are set outin paragraphs (h)(iv) and (v). In one situation, as explained below, Class Iremovals where excessive levels are predicted, "supplied air respiratorsoperated in the positive pressure mode" are required, because these jobs havethe highest exposure potential, due to their size, duration and the kinds ofmaterial involved. Other jobs where higher than usual exposures may occurinclude, where employees are inexperienced, where TSI and surfacing ACM isdisturbed, and where other ACM is broken up during removal. Paragraph (h)(1)states the requirement for supplemental respirator use for these activitiesas well. These additional respirator requirements conform to OSHA's findingson this record, of the specific conditions which contribute to and arepredictive of, higher exposures.

As discussed more fully in the classification section, the data submitted tothe record show that in almost all cases of removals and disturbances ofnon-high-risk ACM, exposure levels are well below the protection factorlimits for negative-pressure half-mask respirators, the type required forcertain kinds of Class II and III work.

BCTD has recommended that OSHA require the use of "the most effectiverespirator that is feasible under the circumstances" and further that OSHArequire "supplied air respirators which are tight fitting and in a pressuredemand mode with either auxiliary SCBA or a HEPA egress cartridge * * *except in limited circumstances which include lack of feasibility because ofthe configuration of the work environment or an uncorrectable safety hazard"(Ex. 143 at 65-69). BCTD does recognize safety hazards due to the trippinghazard of air lines to which SARs are attached and define certain activitiesin which PAPRs may be used instead. (Ex. 143 at 71). BCTD also contended thatthe protection factors used by OSHA to assign respirator classes are contraryto record evidence.

The Court found that OSHA's judgment about supplied air respirators wasproperly within its discretion. It expressed concern that OSHA's respiratorrequirements did appear to require only that the combined effect ofengineering and work practice controls and respirators limit exposure only aslow as the PEL where significant risk remained (838 F.2d at 1274).

OSHA responded to these issues in a Federal Register publication of 5February 1990 (55 FR 3727), in which the Agency reaffirmed its positionconcerning effectiveness levels of respirators, pointed out flaws in studiesBCTD used to conclude that protection factors are inadequate, and noted thatOSHA is revising and updating its general respirator standard. OSHA alsonoted that implementation of the entire respirator program would result inexposures below the PEL. That was OSHA's final statement of position on theseissues and it was not judicially challenged.

In evaluating the respiratory protection needs dictated by the new system ofranking for asbestos operations by "class," OSHA has concluded that there arecircumstances in which the highest level of respiratory protection must beused. These are Class I jobs for which a negative exposure assessment (i.e.exposures will be less than the PEL) has not been made. Inexperienced workersremoving large amounts of TSI or surfacing ACM are at the high end of therisk spectrum and must have additional protection afforded by the suppliedair respirator. OSHA notes that joint EPA-NIOSH recommendations would requirea supplied air respirator in even more extensive circumstances, i.e., all"abatement" work and maintenance and some repair work (EPA/NIOSH Guide,referenced at Ex. 143, p. 69). The Agency"s decision balances the acknowledgepotential safety hazards of supplied air respirators with the need for moreprotection in the most risky asbestos jobs. The Court of Appeals has agreedthat such judgments are properly within the discretion of the Agency (858 F2dat 1274). In situations where the competent person makes a determination thatexposures in Class I jobs will be less than the PELs, the standard requiresthat a half-mask air purifying, non-disposable respirator equipped with ahigh efficiency filter must be used. There are two reasons for thisrequirement: exposures less than the PEL have been determined to result insignificant risk, the record shows that Class I work may result insubstantial exposures even when good conditions exist, and the variabilityusually results in some high exposures. However, although all classes ofasbestos work are potentially risky, OSHA has used discretion, and haslimited the supplied air respirator provision to the highest risk situations,Class I work where it cannot be predicted that exposures will not exceed thePEL. This approach does not leave workers doing other classes of workunprotected. The respirator selection Table D-4, applies to all situationsother than Class I work. As the worker(s) gain experience in the use ofcontrol methodology, and data accrues documenting low fiber levels, use ofless protective respirators may be allowed.

Furthermore, OSHA has based this conclusion on the demonstrated variabilityof exposures in the construction industry (Ex. 143, p. 63, CONSAD report p.2.18, Tr. 2156, 2157, Tr. 4571, Ex. 7-57). The contractor Consad reported"while many of the construction jobs monitored did not produce exposurelevels above the proposed PEL of 0. 1 f/cc, these data also provide continuedevidence that exposure levels can be highly variable in construction work andcan exceed the proposed PEL * * * for many of the construction activitiesexamined here" (Ex. 8, 2.18-20).

Shipyard Employment Standard

Paragraph (h). SESAC has recommended the deletion of the qualitative fittest from the shipyard employment asbestos standard. Their rationale is asfollows:

The Committee has determined that advances in quantitative fit testinginstrumentation have made this procedure accessible to shipyards conductingasbestos operations at a cost which is not overly burdensome ($5,000-6,000 atthe low end). Because quantitative fit testing provides a better evaluationof fit among respirators than qualitative methods, and does not rely onsubjective determination by the employees, qualitative fit testing methodshave been deleted as acceptable alternatives * * * (Ex. 7-77).

They further recommended, based on the recent developments in technologythat the use of test chambers, and the requirement for use of aerosols bedeleted. They also offered an additional definition: "challenge agent" meansthe air contaminant, or parameter, which is measured for comparison insideand outside of the respirator facepiece." These are reasonable suggestions,but as they have general application outside shipyards, OSHA indicated thisin its notice of February 5, 1990 in its partial response to the Court. TheAgency is "still planning to revise and update its general respiratorystandard, and believes that continuing to enforce the current asbestosrespirator requirements during this interim period will not expose employeesto unnecessary risk" (55 FR 3728, February 5, 1990). Therefore, OSHA will notdelete the qualitative fit test from the asbestos standard(s), but willconsider the issue in the context of the general respiratory standard.

SESAC objected to the requirement that a powered, air-purifying respiratorbe supplied in lieu of a negative-pressure respirator when the employeechooses it and when it will provide adequate protection. They felt that theemployer should be allowed to provide an airline respirator or poweredair-purifying respirator. They reasoned that most employers already will haveairline respirators in stock and will not need to purchase or maintain anyother type of respirator. In evaluating similar comments in the rulemakingfor the 1986 revised asbestos rule, OSHA stated:

OSHA agrees that positive-pressure supplied-air respirators provide agreater level of protection than do half-mask negative-pressure respirators.OSHA believes that employers should have the flexibility to use any of theavailable respirators that provide sufficient protection to reduce theexposures to levels below the PEL. Furthermore, the safety problemsassociated with the use of supplied-air respirators cannot be ignored. OSHAbelieves that respirators should be selected that both provide adequateprotection from exposure to airborne asbestos fibers and minimize the risk ofaccident and injury potentially caused by the use of cumbersome supplied-airrespirators (51 FR p. 22719, June 20, 1986, p. 22719).

After that rulemaking, BCTD challenged OSHA's refusal to make air suppliedrespirators mandatory. The Court accepted OSHA's explanation -- thatsupplied-air respirators had hazards of its own, and stated "this sort ofjudgment * * * (is) within OSHA's discretion in the absence of evidencesupporting the view that the incremental asbestos safety gains plainly exceedthe incremental non-asbestos hazards" (838 F.2d at 1274). OSHA reiteratedthese reasons in its January 28, 1990 response to the Court's remand.

As discussed above, OSHA has determined on this record that supplied airrespirators are required for Class I work where a negative exposureassessment is not forthcoming, but not for other Class I work. Therefore,shipyard employees doing the most hazardous work must wear this mostprotective respirator as well.

(9) Protective Clothing

Paragraph (h) General Industry. OSHA is making no changes in the protectiveclothing provisions for general industry. Paragraph (i) Construction andShipyard Standards.

There are several protective clothing issues in this rulemaking. The firstissue involves the impact of the Class system on the personal protectiveclothing provisions. The existing standard requires that protective clothingbe provided and worn when exposures exceed the PEL. The revised standardsmaintain this requirement. In addition, the revised standards require the useof personal protective clothing when Class I work is performed and when ClassIII work involving TSI and surfacing ACM is performed in the absence of anegative exposure assessment. OSHA believes that this change brings thestandard in line with OSHA's 1986 intentions wherein the Agency believed thatremoval of thermal insulation and surfacing materials would result inexposures that exceed the PEL. This rulemaking record shows that someemployers have developed control strategies that can reduce exposures belowthe PELs, for most of the time. However, as previously discussed, work withhigh-risk materials has substantial potential for over-exposure. Furthermore,studies have documented that in the past workers have brought asbestoscontaminated clothing home with them and thereby caused exposure andasbestos-related disease among family members. OSHA believes that thisstandard must prevent such conditions, and the nature of Class I work andClass III work with high risk materials merits special consideration. Nearlyall rulemaking participants agree on this point.

OSHA notes however, that the judgment to require protective clothing forasbestos work is a subjective one, to some extent, requiring judgment on thepart of the competent person. The hazard from asbestos is associated withinhalation of fibers that are in the air, not from asbestos that comes incontact with the skin, like some other chemical that OSHA has regulated (suchas methylenedianiline and benzene), which are absorbed through the skin andare systemic toxins. Asbestos fibers that are on clothing can becomeairborne, so OSHA continues to believe that situations where airborne fiberlevels are high are also those which are likely to contaminate clothing.Therefore, the regulation continues the requirement for protective clothingand its proper disposal/cleaning. OSHA does not believe, however, thatprotective clothing is required for every operation involving asbestos.

In the 1986 standards OSHA did not require that protective clothing beimpermeable; in fact, OSHA responded to concerns that disposable clothingwhich was impermeable not be permitted because it was claimed to contributeto heat stress (see discussion at 51 FR 22722). Although the issue was notremanded to OSHA by the Court, several participants in the current rulemakingfocused comment on the issue of whether OSHA should require work clothingduring asbestos work be impermeable to asbestos fibers in each of itsasbestos standards. Most of those who addressed the issue expressed supportfor having such a requirement (Exs. 7-10, 7-67, 7-69, 7-138, 7-192, 7-195,1-242, Tr. 1122, 1142, 1950, 3003 and 3156). It should also be noted thatseveral of these commenters were manufacturers of such fabric or clothing.They also encouraged OSHA to set a requirement that all garments meet therequirements of the ANSI standard 101-1985.

Charles Salzenberg of Dupont presented a study which was performed at theirbehest by A.D. Little which indicated that neither shampooing the hair norshowering following simulated asbestos exposure completely removed fibersfrom hair or skin (Ex. 76) to support their request for an impermeableclothing requirement. In response to questioning about heat stress, he statedthat:

We've had projects for years on improving the breathability of Tyvek and infact we have some material that exhibits improved breathability and theproblem you always get when you get more breathability, you get moreasbestos. There doesn't seem * * * a way to have a perfect filter that keepsout all fibrous material but lets a lot of air through * * * (Tr. 3444).

OSHA continues to believe that heat stress is also a concern in use ofprotective clothing made of impervious fabric. It should again be noted thatthe route of exposure of asbestos fibers which creates a health hazard isinhalation, not skin absorption. The Agency reiterates its belief thatnon-disposable work clothes provide sufficient protection provided they areproperly cleaned after work and laundered. The Agency agrees that disposablefiber-impermeable clothing can be safely worn if "employers * * * useappropriate work-rest regimens and provide heat stress monitoring * * *" (51FR 22722). However, OSHA does not believe that totally impermeable clothingis a necessary requirement for asbestos work.

(10) Hygiene Facilities and Practices

Paragraph (j) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards.

OSHA is changing the decontamination requirements in minor details tocorrespond to its new system of categorizing asbestos work according to itspotential risk. The primary requirement that asbestos abatement workers bedecontaminated following their work using a 3-part system -- an equipmentroom, a shower room, and a clean room, is retained. Thus, most workersperforming Class I work, removing TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM, as before,must use a shower adjacent to and connected with the work area.

With the introduction of new provisions identifying 4 classes of asbestoswork, it is necessary that OSHA modify its requirement for hygiene facilitiesand practices to reflect these changes. OSHA continues in its belief that therequirements must be proportional to the magnitude and likelihood of asbestosexposure. Therefore the most hazardous asbestos operations -- those involvingremoval of more than threshold amounts of thermal system insulation orsprayed-on or troweled-on surfacing materials must employ a decontaminationroom adjacent to the regulated area (most often, a negative-pressureenclosure) consisting of an equipment room, shower room, and clean room inseries through which workers must enter and exit the work area, as requiredin the 1986 standard.

For Class I asbestos work, OSHA has further determined, based on itsconsideration of the rulemaking record, that there are 3 exceptions to therequirement that the shower facility be located immediately contiguous to thework area. These include, outdoor work (See Ex. 7-21, 7-99, 7-145), shipboardwork (Ex. 7-77 and see discussion below), and situations where the employershows such an arrangement is infeasible. OSHA will again allow in theselimited circumstances the workers to enter the equipment room, removecontamination from their worksuits using a portable HEPA vacuum or change toa clean non-contaminated workclothing, and then proceed to the non-contiguousshower area. Outdoor work affected by this requirement will occur mainly inindustrial facilities such as refineries and electrical power plants whenspecified work practices are employed and following outdoor asbestos work.

OSHA intends that HEPA-vacuuming procedures be performed carefully andcompletely remove any visible ACM/PACM from the surface of the worker's worksuit, including foot and head coverings, skin, hair and any material adheringto the respirator.

Also for Class I work involving less than 10 square feet or 25 linear feetof TSI or surfacing ACM (the thresholds referenced above), during whichexposures are unlikely to exceed the PELs for which there is a negativeexposure assessment, OSHA is allowing less burdensome decontaminationprocedures which it believes are compatible with the scheme to classifyasbestos work according to risk potential. In these operation, an equipmentroom or area must be set up adjacent to the work area for decontaminationuse. The floor of the area/room must be covered with an impermeable (e.g.,plastic) dropcloth and be large enough to accommodate equipment cleaning andremoval of PPE without spread of fibers beyond the area. The worker must HEPAvacuum workclothing, hair, head covering as described above and dispose ofclothing and waste properly. Thus, only if the employer shows that for thesesmaller dimension jobs that the PEL is unlikely to be exceed may thedecontamination procedure be abbreviated.

For asbestos operations which are Class II and III which are likely toexceed the PELs and for which a negative exposure assessment is not produced,showering is required, but may be performed in a facility which isnon-contiguous to the work area. Use of dropcloths, HEPA vacuuming ofworkclothing and surfaces as above or the donning of clean workclothing priorto moving to a non-contiguous shower is required.

Following those Class II, III and IV jobs which the employer demonstratesare unlikely to exceed the PELs and for which a negative exposure assessmenthas been produced, the worker must HEPA vacuum his clothing on an impermeabledropcloth and perform other clean-up on the dropcloth avoiding the spread ofany contamination. However, showering is not required.

OSHA is also concerned that workers performing clean-up (Class IV work)following larger abatement work receive appropriate decontamination.Therefore, employees who perform Class IV work in a regulated area mustcomply with the hygiene practice which the higher classification of workbeing performed in the regulated area requires.

Shipyard Employment Standards; Paragraph (i)

In other comments the Shipyards Employment Standards Advisory Committeeobjected to the requirement in the 1986 standard that showers be locatedcontiguous to the work area. They said that this was not a part of thegeneral industry standard and that they wished to continue to provide showersin fixed facilities on shore; that although contiguous showers may not betechnologically infeasible, it was impractical. They further stated thatchange rooms required under the general industry asbestos standard cannot beprovided on ships and that the worker must be allowed to remove contaminatedclothing in an equipment room as in the construction standard (Ex. 7-77).

The Committee suggested several specific steps to the decontaminationprocess required of workers following work in a shipboard asbestos activity.According to these recommendations, the employer shall ensure that employeeswho work within regulated area exit as follows:

Remove asbestos from their protective clothing using a HEPA vacuum as theymove into the equipment room;

Enter the equipment room and remove their decontaminated outer layer ofprotective clothing and place them in the receptacles provided for thatpurpose;

Enter the decontamination room and perform personal HEPA vacuuming;

Remove respirator after exiting decontamination room;

Wash their face and hands prior to eating or drinking;

If they are not going to make another entry into the regulated area thatday, proceed to the shower area and change room; and, Don street clothing(Ex. 7-77).

OSHA believes these are reasonable suggestions. The final standard permitsthis approach based on the flexibility permitted by the language. Those whoshower at remote facilities are required to decontaminate their protectiveclothing prior to proceeding to the remote showers. The Committee alsorecommended that, for the sake of modesty, the worker must be allowed tocontinue to wear the underwear which he had worn under his protectiveclothing during the process of decontaminating his clothing -- removing themwhen entering the shower. The 1986 standards are silent on this point and itseems reasonable that persons would be allowed to continue to wear his/herunderwear during HEPA vacuuming and removal of protective clothing.

The committee pointed out that the general industry standard requireslunchrooms, while the construction standard requires lunch areas, and thatareas were sufficient. OSHA agrees that it is unnecessary to build lunchroomsin shipyard facilities, so long as the area provided for food consumption isnot so close to the work area that asbestos contamination is likely. In thatcase, areas are insufficient and an enclosed room must be provided which isfree of contamination.

(11) Communication of Hazards to Employees

Paragraph (j) General Industry. Paragraph (k) Construction and ShipyardEmployment Standards.

The "communication of hazards" provisions of the standards contain manyrevisions. The Court in 1988 had remanded two information transfer issues forOSHA's reconsideration. These were to extend the reporting and informationtransfer requirements and to require construction employers to notify OSHA ofasbestos work. As discussed earlier, OSHA has decided not to require generalpre-job notification to the Agency. However, the Agency has expanded requirednotifications among owners, employers and employees. Basically, the generalindustry standard has been upgraded to the more extensive notificationrequirements of the construction standard and the shipyard employmentstandards. Consequently this preamble section discusses the issues together.In the shipyard standard the "building owner" may be a vessel owner or abuilding owner. OSHA notes that in shipyards vessels undergoing repair may beowned by foreign entities, as well as by entities subject to the Act'sjurisdiction. When a foreign-owned vessel is repaired in an Americanshipyard, the employer (either the shipyard or an outside contractor) musteither treat materials defined as PACM as asbestos-containing or sample thesuspect material and analyze it to determine whether or not it containsasbestos.

An overview of these revisions follows. The construction and shipyardstandards now require that employers who discover the presence of materialwhich is ACM or is presumed ACM (PACM) on the worksite, must notify theproject or building owner. On worksites having multi-employers, the personwho discovers the material also is to notify the other employers. An employeron a multi-employer worksite who is planning Class I or Class II asbestoswork is to inform all the other employers on the site of the presence of ACMto which employees of those employers might reasonably be expected to beexposed. They are to be informed of the location and quantity of thesematerials and the measures to be taken to protect them from exposure.

The 1986 construction standard required employers to notify other employerson multi-employer worksites of the existence and location of asbestos work,but was silent on the notification role of building owners. OSHA wasconcerned that building owners were "outside the domain of the OSH Act." Asnoted above, this is a specific issue remanded for reconsideration by theCourt of Appeals. Now, upon reconsideration, OSHA believes that it hasauthority to require building owners [as defined in paragraph (b)] who arestatutory employers, to take necessary and appropriate action to protectemployees other than their own. In the 1990 proposal OSHA pointed to otherstandards in which it has required building owners and other employers whoare not the direct employers of the employees exposed to particular hazards,to warn of defects, take remedial action, or provide information to thedirectly employing employer. It cited the Hazard Communication Standard'srequirement that manufacturers provide information to downstream employers(29 CFR 1910.1200) and the Powered Platform standard which requires thebuilding owner to assure the contract employer that the building andequipment conform to specified design criteria as examples (29 CFR1910.66(c).) OSHA believes that the building or project owner is the best andoften the only source of information concerning the location of asbestosinstalled in structures; therefore, OSHA is requiring the owner to receive,maintain, and communicate knowledge of the location and amount of ACM or PACMto employers of employees who may be exposed. OSHA acknowledges that inshipyards, foreign vessel owners are not "statutory employers" and thus, arenot covered by these standards. In such cases, the employer performing the"refit" must either presume that TSI and surfacing material areasbestos-containing, or have the material tested. When turn-around time mustbe minimized, the case in many overhauls, OSHA expects that the jobs will beperformed in conformity with this standard without testing.

The final rule provides a comprehensive notification scheme for affectedparties -- building owners, contract employers and employees, which willassure that information concerning the presence, location, and quantity ofACM or PACM in buildings is communicated in a timely manner to protectemployees who work with or in the vicinity of such materials. Before Class I,II, or III work is initiated, building and/ or project owners must notifytheir own employees and employers who are bidding on such work, of thequantity and location of ACM and PACM present in such areas. Owners also mustnotify their own employees who work in or adjacent to such jobs.

Employers, who are not owners, planning any such covered activity mustnotify the owner of the location and quantity of ACM and PACM known or laterdiscovered. The building owner must keep records of all information receivedthrough this notification scheme, or through other means, which relates tothe presence, location and quantity of ACM and PACM in the owner'sbuilding/project or vessel and transfer all such information to successiveowners. OSHA reaffirms its finding of the 1986 standard that an employee'spresence in the workplace places him at increased risk from asbestos exposureregardless of whether he/she is actually working with asbestos or is just inthe vicinity of such material.

OSHA has defined "building owner" to include these lessees who control themanagement and recordkeeping functions of a building / facility/vessel. It isnot OSHA's intention to exempt the owner from notification requirements byallowing a lessee to comply. Rather when the owner has transferred themanagement of the building to a long-term lessee, that lessee is the moreappropriate party to receive, transmit, and retain information about in-placeasbestos. When a lease has expired, any records in the lessee's possessionmust be transferred to the owner or the subsequent lessee exercising similarmanagerial authority. The expanded notification provisions also require thaton multi-employer worksites, any employer planning to perform work which willbe in a regulated area, before starting, must notify the building owner ofthe location of the ACM and the protective measures taken; upon discoveringunexpected ACM, they must provide similar notification; and, upon workcompletion they must provide to the owner a written record of the remainingACM at the site.

OSHA has included a provision that within 10 days of the completion of ClassI or II asbestos work, the employer of the employees who performed the workshall inform the owner and employers of employees who will be working in thearea of the current location and quantity of PACM and/or ACM remaining in theformer regulated area and shall also inform him/her of the final monitoringresults taken in that operation. OSHA has determined that the employer ofemployees reoccupying the area must have this information in order to providethe appropriate protection to his/her workers.

To provide effective notification in Class III asbestos operations, OSHA isbuilding upon its earlier requirement to post warning signs in regulatedareas. Now since all Class III work must be conducted in a regulated area allmaintenance-type operations will be posted with signs, which state the factthat asbestos exposing activities are present. OSHA considers site posting tobe a particularly effective means to alert employees of hazardous areas whererelatively short-term repair and maintenance activities are taking place.OSHA believes that site posting will adequately notify potentially affectedemployees who are not working on the operation, but are working within thearea or adjacent to it.

Identification of Asbestos-containing Materials in Buildings and Facilities

In addition to the "notification" issues just discussed, OSHA addresses arelated widespread concern expressed by participants in this rulemaking: howto ensure that workers in buildings and facilities with previously installedasbestos containing products, are not exposed to asbestos fibers merelybecause they have no knowledge of where such products were installed. OSHAhas found that such workers, primarily maintenance workers and custodians,but also contract workers such as plumbers, carpenters and sheet metalworkers and workers in industrial facilities have shown historic diseasepatterns which in large part resulted from exposure to previously installedasbestos. (see discussions elsewhere in this preamble of data submitted byBCTD, AFSCME, SEIU and others). In its 1990 proposal OSHA raised the issue ofhow to identify previously installed asbestos and asked for comments andrecommendations (55 FR 29730). OSHA opened the record for supplementalcomments in November 1992, in a notice which also set out OSHA's preliminaryviews on how to effectively protect workers from unknowing exposure topreviously installed ACM (57 FR 49657). There, OSHA proposed to requireemployers to presumptively identify certain widely prevalent and more riskymaterials. These are thermal system insulation, and sprayed-on andtroweled-on surfacing materials, in buildings built between 1920 and 1980.These materials were to be termed "presumed asbestos containing materials"(PACM) and were to be treated as asbestos containing for all purposes of thestandard. OSHA would have allowed building owners and employers to rebutthese presumptions using building records and/or bulk sampling.

The final provisions which are included in all three standards, like OSHA's1992 approach, require building owners and employers to presume that thermalsystem insulation (TSI) and sprayed-on and troweled-on surfacing materialscontain asbestos, unless rebutted pursuant to the criteria in the standard.Additionally, OSHA is requiring in its mandatory work practices for flooringmaterial containing asbestos, that employers assume that resilient flooringmaterial consisting of vinyl sheeting, and vinyl and asphalt containing tileinstalled before 1980 also be presumed to contain asbestos (see discussion inthe "Methods of Compliance" section). Unlike the proposal, buildingsconstructed before 1920 are not excluded from these requirements. Alsorebuttal criteria have been changed. Unlike the approach OSHA suggested inthe November, 1992 notice, building records may not be relied upon to rebutthe presumption of asbestos containing material and more detailedinstructions are supplied for the inspection process.

OSHA believes that these provisions will protect employees in buildings andfacilities from the consequences of unknowing significant exposure toasbestos in the most cost-effective manner.

Participants supported OSHA's "presumptive" approach to identifyingasbestos-containing material; in particular, designating only TSI andsurfacing ACM for presumptive treatment (see e.g., utility companies such asSouthern Cal. Edison, Ex. 162-4; Con Edison, Ex. 162-54; Duke Power, Ex.162-57; property management companies and associations, e.g., JMB Properties,Ex. 162-29; trade associations, e.g., O.R.C., Ex. 162-12; InternationalCouncil of Shopping Centers, Ex. 162-58).

As stated in the November 1992, OSHA continues to believe that the majoradvantage of such a regulatory approach is that the materials andbuildings/facilities with the greatest risk potential would be automaticallytargeted for mandatory communication and control procedures, and possibletesting. Focusing on high-risk building/ facility situations avoids thedilution of resources and attention which might result from requiring broaderinspections. Other building/ facility areas and material would not be exemptfrom the standard's control requirements; however, they would not bepresumptively considered to contain asbestos. If a building owner or employerhas actual knowledge of the asbestos content of materials, they must complywith the protective provisions in the standard. Similarly if there is goodcause to know that material is asbestos containing the employer and/orbuilding owner is deemed to know that fact. The current enforcement rulesgoverning "employer knowledge" would be applied in a contested case todetermine the application of the asbestos standard to other materials orbuilding/facility areas which the employer claims he did not know containedasbestos.

OSHA believes that this presumptive approach allows building/ facilityowners whose buildings/facilities contain PACM and other employers ofemployees potentially exposed to PACM flexibility to choose the mostcost-effective way to protect employees. They may treat the material as if itcontains asbestos and provide appropriate required training to the custodialstaff; test the material and rebut the presumptions; or combine strategies.

OSHA considered a number of approaches to insure that workers do not becomeexposed to asbestos unknowingly. As noted in the 1992 notice, one option wasclarifying in the preamble to the final rule the current enforcement policythat a prudent building/facility owner or other employer exercising "duediligence" is expected to identify certain asbestos-containing materials inhis/her building/facility before disturbing them. After reviewing the record,OSHA believes its presumption approach is more protective. "Due diligence,"is, in part, a legal defense, invoked by and in order to shelter employersagainst OSHA citation. Thus in the past, employers who were wrongly informedby building owners about the asbestos content of thermal system insulationsuccessfully argued in some cases that they had exercised "due diligence."OSHA believes that the protection of employees must not depend on the goodfaith of their employers whose information sources may be defective. Byrequiring that TSI and troweled- and sprayed-on surfacing material be handledas if they contain asbestos, employees will be protected from theconsequences of their employers relying on erroneous information about themost risky asbestos materials. Of course, "due diligence" would also requireemployers to investigate whether other building material about which therewas information suggesting asbestos content, was in fact asbestos-containing.A building owner/employer, for other materials, also may presume they areasbestos-containing, label and treat work with them as asbestos work, withouttesting the material for asbestos content.

Another option OSHA considered was requiring a comprehensive AHERA-type(EPA's schools rule) building/facility inspection. AHERA (Asbestos HazardEmergency Response Act, 40 CFR 735) requires that all school buildings bevisually inspected for asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) by anEPA-accredited inspector and that inventory of the locations of thesematerials be maintained. Under AHERA, school maintenance and custodial staffwho may encounter ACBM in the course of their work receive at least 2 hoursof awareness training, and for staff who conduct activities which disturbACBM, an additional 14.

Requiring comprehensive building and facility inspections like EPA doesunder AHERA was recommended by participants presenting labor interests (e.g.,AFSCME Ex. 162-11; SEIU, 162-28; AFL-CIO, Ex. 162-36; BCTD, Ex. 162-42): byengineering, management and asbestos abatement firms, (e.g., AbatementSystems, Inc. Ex. 162-8, California Association of Asbestos Professionals,Ex. 162-27); and by representatives of state health agencies (e.g., NorthCarolina Department of Health and Natural Resources, Ex. 162-46; N.Y.C.Department of Environmental Protection, Ex. 162-47).

Although there was substantial support for a comprehensive inspectionrequirement, OSHA believes that the regulatory approach in these finalstandards will achieve equivalent or superior protection to exposed workersat much reduced cost.

The reasons are as follows. A comprehensive wall-to-wall inspectionrequirement is found to be unnecessary to protect employees against risks ofexposure from asbestos-containing building material of which they areunaware. Such an inspection requirement would be very costly, may be overlybroad, the results may not be correct or timely, would not necessarily focuson potential sources of asbestos exposure which present significant risks toemployees, and its great expense may divert resources from active protectionof workers who actually disturb asbestos. First, OSHA does not believe thatprotecting employees in buildings from significant asbestos exposure requiresthat all suspect materials in buildings first be identified. Although allasbestos-containing materials may release fibers when their matrices aredisturbed, certain materials are known to be more easily damaged or to suffermore deterioration, and thus cause higher airborne fiber levels than others.As discussed in the November 1992 notice, OSHA determined that thermal systeminsulation (TSI) and sprayed on and troweled on surfacing materials are suchmaterials. They are potentially more friable, are much more prevalent, aremore accessible and are the subject of more maintenance and repair activitiesthan are other asbestos containing materials. They are widely prevalent. A1984 EPA study limited to residential, commercial and public buildingsnationally, found about three quarters of such buildings had asbestos-containing TSI, and over one quarter of the buildings contained sprayed-on ortroweled-on asbestos containing surfacing material (see also studies cited inthe HEI Report, Ex. 1-344, p. 4-6 to 4-10). The materials are usuallyaccessible. Surfacing material was applied for decorative and acousticalpurposes early on, and was later applied as insulation coating to protectstructural steel during fires. The HEI Report in summarizing studiesconducted in New York, California, and Philadelphia stated that "(i)mportantfindings from these studies include the frequent use of friable surfacing inmulti-storied buildings and the high proportion of damage to thermal systemsinsulation, most of which is accessible only to maintenance personnel (HEIReport, Ex. 1-344, p. 4-8 to 10). The accessibility of thermal systeminsulation is not limited to employees who directly disturb it to repair orreplace the piping and infrastructure it covers. As noted by a participant:in industrial settings there are many sources of fiber release includingvibration (people often walk on pipes), exposure to the elements, fans andprocesses, leaks, process leaks, and releases through joints in metalcladding (Ex. 12-7, Respirable Fibers Management Consultancy, Inc.).

The data submitted to OSHA indicate that these two materials have highexposure potential. For example, the potential of surfacing material tobecome friable and result in sizable exposures was shown by the YaleArchitecture School data, which involved exposure to a "fully exposedacoustical material," a "Spanish moss type material" of low density and highfriability (Tr. 2168). Dr. Sawyer, whose study showed very high exposures tocustodial employees from exposure to dust and debris from this material,noted that its use in the building was unrepresentative, and that thematerial usually is "used primarily as a fireproofing material on structuralsteel that was concealed." (Id). Work in ceiling spaces containing sprayedasbestos show elevated exposure levels (see e.g., studies discussed in HEI,Ex. 1-344, p. 4-74). Data showing high exposure levels from TSI are ample andare discussed in detail in the preamble discussion on methods of compliance.

The data in this record showing exposures to other kinds of asbestoscontaining material such as gaskets, wallboard, roofing and siding materialsshow that generally, exposures to these products under comparable controlsare lower than those released by the materials designated by OSHA as "highhazard" and for which the presumption applies. The "high-hazard" materialsare much more prevalent in buildings and facilities, disturbances of them aremore common. Therefore OSHA believes that a targeted approach to presumingthe presence of high hazard previously installed asbestos containingmaterials in buildings which are likely to contain them will provideequivalent protection to potentially exposed employees than a requirement toinspect all buildings and facilities for all asbestos containing materials.Some building owners will continue to conduct comprehensive surveys, others,when cost is an issue, will rely on presumptions to protect employees frompotential exposure to high-risk ACM, TSI and surfacing materials.

In addition, even an up-front inspection rule must be targeted to beproductive. Since not all facilities contain asbestos materials, an attemptshould be made to designate those facilities and buildings where it unlikelythat ACM will be found, otherwise the information yield from inspections willbe unconnected to worker protection. OSHA is using a temporal cut-off of 1980for its presumption rule. As discussed later, this date was supported by therecord, since buildings constructed afterwards are much less likely tocontain even stockpiled asbestos containing materials. In 1975, under theauthority of the Clean Air Act, EPA banned the use of spray-applied ACM asinsulation and the use of asbestos-containing pipe lagging and in 1978extended the ban to all uses of sprayed-on asbestos. In this regard OSHAnotes that the purpose of a cut-off is not to state a date after which it iscertain that no asbestos-containing material has been installed in buildings.Rather, it is to designate when it becomes unlikely that asbestos-containingmaterials have been used in construction. OSHA believes that 1980 is areasonable date for marking that probability. As noted above, employers andbuilding owners are still required to investigate materials installed after1980 when they suspect they may be asbestos-containing.

As discussed above, OSHA additionally refined its presumption by recognizingtwo broad categories of building materials as "high-risk" and thus that theconsequences of a false negative identification supported a such materials betreated as asbestos-containing unless reliable information showed the absenceof asbestos. These kinds of materials are TSI and sprayed-on, troweled-on, orotherwise applied surfacing materials. Although as noted the version of aninspection rule urged by most proponents would require inspection for allpotential asbestos-containing materials, some participants suggested aninspection requirement which would also concentrate on more potentiallyhazardous materials first. One suggestion was to, first require inspection ofsteel structures with sprayed on fireproofing constructed before 1975, nextof sprayed-on acoustic ceiling installed before 1980 (e.g., Ex. 162-27). Inthe Agency's view, phasing in inspection requirements may provide lesscertainty and protection than its presumption approach. Requiring a"presumption" is an immediate source of protection. Any inspection programtakes time and significant resources. Additionally, if inspection ofcategories of potentially high risk material are delayed under aphased-in-approach, protection is denied pending the start-up date. Ifjudicial challenge is made employers may hold back on any inspections hopingfor a court to invalidate the requirement. Even more importantly, evidence inthe record also indicates that inspection data sometimes are not reliable. Inparticular, the Westat Report which evaluated a large sample of schoolinspections under AHERA, found that although on the whole inspectionsidentified most asbestos-containing materials, "high-risk" surfacing materialwas unidentified as asbestos containing in 36% of the inspections studied(Ex. 1-326 p. 326). Since surfacing material has been found by OSHA, based onthis record to be a high hazard material, OSHA is reluctant to rely oninspections alone to identify it. A presumptive approach requires thatmaterial which looks like sprayed on or troweled on surfacing material, behandled with care, without waiting for inspections or relying on the resultsof inspections which may not correctly identify it.

The Agency asked for comment on its intention to designate thermal systeminsulation and sprayed-on or troweled-on surfacing material as "high-riskmaterial." Several of those responding to the notice felt the list was toolimited and should include all suspect materials ( Exs. 162-11, 162-16,162-18, 162-24, 162-28, 162-33, 162-36, 162-39, 162-42, 162-44, 162-45,162-46, 162-57). Some, suggested using the list EPA included in its "GreenBook" entitled Managing Asbestos in Place (Ex. 162-35, 162-42, 162-44).

G. Siebert of the Office of the Secretary of Defense offered an alternateplan -- a tiered approach in which thermal system insulation and sprayed-onor troweled-on surfacing materials would be considered high-risk PACM andwould be labeled and notification carried out: other material which maycontain asbestos (Ex. 162-13). He suggested that other material, should behandled as ACM unless sampling indicates that it does not contain asbestos,but that it not be required to be labeled.

As suggested, OSHA considered extending its presumption requirement to otherkinds of building materials which may contain asbestos. A limited extensionhas been made in two cases. Because of its accessibility and prevalence, thefrequent difficulty of identifying its asbestos content and the frequency ofmaintenance activity which may disturb it matrix. The Agency is requiringthat resilient flooring installed before 1980 be presumed to contain asbestosunless rebutted pursuant to the standard. Debris which is present in rooms,enclosures or areas where PACM or high risk ACM is present and not intact, isassumed to be asbestos-containing. Other building materials which may containasbestos such as roofing material, ceiling tiles and miscellaneous productslisted in EPA's "Green Book" have not been found to be both as widelyprevalent and easily disturbed and damaged as are TSI and surfacing materialor as widely prevalent, accessible and frequently disturbed as resilientflooring.

Therefore, OSHA believes little additional benefit will result from treatingall such building materials which uncommonly contain asbestos as if they do,rather than concentrating resources on protecting employees from exposure tomaterials when there is actual knowledge or reason to believe they containasbestos. OSHA notes in this regard that an employer or building owner's dutyto investigate the possibility that a material contains asbestos is strongerwhen the consequences of failing to inquire is increased hazard to employees.For example, in the case where a large section of damaged ceiling tilesinstalled before 1980 is to be removed, an employer may not ignore thepossibility that the tiles are asbestos-containing. By not including somebuilding materials in the presumption OSHA is not reducing an employer's dutyto exercise "due diligence" when exposing employees to such kinds ofmaterials. The Agency has determined merely that the record does not compelthe adoption of a presumption for such materials; in any such specific case,circumstances may require the employer or building owner to sample andanalyze building materials for asbestos content, or to treat the material asif it is asbestos-containing under the standard.

On a different issue, OSHA is not specifying in the regulatory text thequalifications of the person who may designate materials as PACM. UnderAHERA, inspections are required to be conducted by certified inspectors (40CFR 763, also see recent revisions of Model Accreditation under ASHARA, 59 FR5236-5260, February 3, 1994). The Agency has found that designation of thekinds of building materials as PACM is not an inspection. This process doesnot require technical training: thermal system insulation is easilyrecognized; sprayed on or troweled on surfacing material likewise isidentifiable. Neither EPA's revised MAP nor OSHA requires specific trainingor accreditation of persons who only visually inspect the condition ofACM/PACM.

OSHA emphasizes that the presumption must apply even where it appears toknowledgeable building personnel, that material is not asbestos-containingand is composed of other materials, such as fiberglass. Therefore, OSHA hasnot adopted the suggestion of some participants to specify that certainmaterials such as fiberglass and neoprene, because they are easilyidentifiable, should not be included in the presumption (see Ex. 162-57).OSHA notes that HEI distinguished a "visual survey," i.e., the identificationof suspect materials from more complete surveys, and notes that "this type ofsurvey may minimize the need for trained consultants." (HEI, Ex. 1-344, at5.1) Some participants suggested that OSHA include the condition of thematerial in its "high-risk" category to be subject to the presumption.Although the condition of the material influences its risk potential, OSHAcontinues its practice of not distinguishing materials based on theirfriability. However, the condition of the material is relevant to whetherdebris, in the presence of ACM, must be presumed to be asbestos containing.The standard requires that debris in an enclosed area where TSI or surfacingACM is present, and not intact, be presumed to be asbestos-containing.

OSHA has not used friability to distinguish among asbestos containingmaterials. First, OSHA mainly regulates active disturbances of asbestos, anduses exposure levels as one element in assigning risk-based requirements.Since the friability of material will influence exposure levels, friabilityis partly subsumed by this reference to exposure levels. Second, the term'sprecise meaning is unclear, and thus, confusing to the regulated community.The EPA experience in distinguishing risk categories based on friabilityindicates the complexity of using this concept. In 1973 the EPA-NESHAP hadregulated only friable ACM, but later issued a clarification which stated:

* * * Even though the regulations address only material that is presentlyfriable, it does not limit itself to material that is friable at the time ofnotification. Rather, if at any point during the renovation of demolitionadditional friable asbestos material is * * * created from non-friable forms,this additional friable material becomes subject to the regulations from thetime of creation (Ex. 1-239, p. 48406).

Third, OSHA's risk categories which are based on the type of materialinclude the potential for friability. For example, surfacing material isloosely bound and therefore is potentially more friable than are othermaterials and thus is considered to present high risk.

The revised rule also allows the building/facility owner or employer todemonstrate, pursuant to specific criteria, that the material does notcontain asbestos. The criteria, specified in paragraph (k)(4)(ii) are similarto the inspection protocols for schools in AHERA, such as sampling andanalysis by a certified building inspector.

OSHA also considered allowing the use of specific information in thebuilding/facility owner's possession relating to construction specificationsto rebut the presumption. However, many who made submissions during thesupplementary comment period, pointed out to the Agency that building recordswere rarely adequate to convincingly establish the absence of ACM inbuildings and recommended that they should not be used for rebutting thepresumption (Ex. 162-2, 162-4, 162-5, 162-7, 162-11, 162-12, 162-13, 162-19,162-22, 162-24, 162-25, 162-27, 162-31, 162-32, 162-33, 162-36, 162-39,162-42, 162-44, 162-45, 162-46, 162-54). Some felt that building recordsmight be useful in confirming, but not rebutting, the presumption, whileothers deemed the only reliable records were comprised of an AHERA-likecomprehensive building survey with bulk sampling data (Ex. 162-1, 162-12,162-13, 162-24, 162-27, 162-36, 162-50, 162-58). An owner of commercialproperties observed that he had often found it easier to sample the PACM thanto locate adequate documentation (Ex. 162-29). A group of environmentallawyers recommended that since EPA in its NESHAP rule declined to rely onbuilding records, OSHA should also for consistency (Ex. 162-22). Members of aconsulting firm, noted that before 1980, materials containing less than 5%asbestos by volume were said to be asbestos-free (by EPA). Thus, suchmaterials would be unlikely to appear on building records if they hadcontained less than 5% asbestos (Ex. 162-7).

In considering the numerous comments on the subject, most of which affirmedthe general inadequacy of building records to rebut the presumption, OSHA hasnot included this as a method to establish that a building material does notcontain asbestos.

Paragraphs (k)(1)(ii) and (k)(2)(ii) set out the notification provisions forowners and employers. They instruct them concerning who must be notified ofthe presence of ACM/PACM and how. Briefly, owners must notify employers whobid for work in or, as tenants, will occupy space where ACM/PACM is present.The owner must also notify employees who will perform work subject to thisstandard in such areas before such work is begun. This work consists of ClassI through IV asbestos work, and the installation of new asbestos-containingmaterial. Similar provisions apply to employers who are not owners.[Paragraph (k)(2)(ii)].

The BCTD suggested that notice of ACM take place early in the contractingprocess (Ex. 162-42) and a representative of the Interstate Natural GasAssociation agreed that pre-bid notification of contractors was needed (Ex.162-9). OSHA agrees. Requiring notification to prospective contractors at bidtime will improve employee protection. Knowledge about asbestos presencegained after bidding may cause the bidder to dilute protection in order tosalvage the bid. Contractors may lose time and money if they conscientiouslystop a job when asbestos is discovered. Other participants echoed thesereasons (see, e.g., NCRA, Tr. 2430-2432; Testimony of C. Gowan, Tr. 834-835.)Notifying employers leasing space containing ACM was also recommended (Ex162-29).

The standard provides that notification may be either in writing or via apersonal communication between the owner and persons owed notification ortheir authorized representatives. OSHA expects that in the case of contractsfor work to be performed, notifications will be included in the biddocuments. In other cases it may be "faxed," telephoned or otherwisecommunicated. OSHA believes these notifications, supplemented by clarifiedlabeling requirements [see (k)(7)(vii)], and regulated area posting, willprovide ample information to workers so they will not inadvertently beexposed.

During the rulemaking, participants raised various issues concerningnotification. Several participants wanted accessibility to be a considerationin the approach (Exs. 162-5, 162-11, 162-14, 162-23, 162-29, 162-30, 162-33,162-42, 162-49, 162-55, 162-58, 162-59), and BCTD suggested that "accessible"be defined as "material subject to disturbance by building or facilityoccupants or maintenance personnel or workers performing renovation, repairor demolition inside and/or outside buildings" (Ex. 162-42).

Most agreed that PACM and/or ACM within areas such as mechanical rooms andboiler rooms should be labeled. For example, Mr. Olson of Dow ChemicalCompany supported the posting of areas where those who may be exposed willsee it before working there (Ex. 162-17). A representative from theDepartment of Defense felt that general posting in public areas would alarmbuilding occupants and over time, lead to reduced credibility andeffectiveness (Ex. 162-13). This was echoed in the comments of J. Thornton ofNewport News Shipbuilding who felt that signs "may breed complacency" (Ex.162-21). One participant worried that perhaps a tenant considering renewinghis lease who had been notified of PACM within the building might choose torelocate even though there really was no asbestos-containing materialsactually present in the building (Ex. 162-20). OSHA has decided that"accessibility" is relevant to posting information concerning the location ofin-place asbestos. Paragraph (k)(7)(vii) requires labels to be attached at"accessible locations." OSHA agrees with BCTD's definition as well.

Some representatives of contractor interests recommended that OSHA use as amodel for notification the California regulation by which the building ownerprovides written notification to all building employees, tenants, andcontractors (Exs. 162-27, 162-32).

As noted below, paragraph (k)(7)(vii) requires previously installed asbestosproducts to be labeled in most circumstances; either visibly labeled inaccordance with the standard, when feasible, or that information required onthe label be posted as close to the installed product as feasible.Information concerning other previously-installed asbestos-containingproducts must be posted in mechanical rooms or other areas which areaccessible where such material is present; or if the products are installedin other areas, the building owner must otherwise make such informationavailable to employees who perform work covered by this standard. Theprovision exempts from labeling and posting those products which themanufacturer demonstrates cannot release fibers in excess of the PELs. OSHAhas found that this exemption will never apply to PACM (TSI or surfacingACM); rarely will it apply to other asbestos containing materials, because onthis record, disturbance of ACM can exceed the PEL. As noted in the commentssummarized above, there will be cases where labeling of such materials is notfeasible. In such case, the standard requires that signs or labels bedisplayed as close as feasible to such materials. Additionally, housekeepingworkers must be informed that all resilient flooring material they clean,buff or otherwise maintain may contain asbestos.

OSHA believes that the strategy for the flow of information regarding thepresence and location of asbestos-containing or presume- asbestos-containingmaterials it has developed in this revision of its standards will assure thatworkers who might be exposed to asbestos within public and commercialbuildings and/or facilities will be informed of the potential for suchexposure and through the training provisions will be made aware of thepractices they are to use to avoid exposure.

To further assure the responsible transfer of information, OSHA is requiringthat records of the work performed, the location and quantity of ACM or PACMremaining at the completion of the work, and data supporting any rebuttal ofthe presumption that a material contains asbestos, are to be maintained bythe building/facility owner and are to be transferred to successive owners ofthe building/facility. Further, in the event that ACM/PACM is inadvertentlyencountered, OSHA has included a requirement for timely notification. Ifduring the course of asbestos work ACM or PACM is discovered at a worksite,within 24 hours of finding such material, information as to its location andquantity are to be conveyed to the building owner and any other employers atthe site.

Shipyard Standard

In the reopening of the record for supplemental comments in November 1992,OSHA asked for comment on the application of the proposed scheme forshipyards. There were few specific responses. J. Curran, State of NorthCarolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources (Ex.162-46) and BCTD (Ex. 162-42) supported applying the construction standard toshipyards. Mr. Siebert, a representative of the office of the AssistantSecretary of Defense, agreed with others in wanting a separate standard forshipyards to be developed by SESAC (Ex. 162-13).

OSHA has accepted these suggestions and has issued a separate, finalstandard for shipyards. Its specific provisions are discussed in appropriateplaces in the preamble. It is more similar to the new construction standardthan to the general industry standard.

Training

Paragraph (k)(8) covers training. It expands the training provisions of thecurrent standard considerably. One, training must be given to virtually allemployees who are actively exposed to asbestos, i.e. whose exposure is theresult of performing Class I through IV work, or who install new asbestosproducts. Under the unrevised standard, training was triggered by exposureabove the action level, i.e. 0.1 f/cc, the new PEL. As discussed above, OSHAhas determined that there is a still significant risk at this level. Further,the Agency's experience in enforcing its health and safety standards, alongwith testimony, comment, and data in this record clearly establish thattraining of employees is a vital component of any successful program tocontrol exposures to asbestos and other toxic substances. Participants agreed(see e.g., testimony of Dr. Sawyer at Tr. 2164 ". . . (T)rain the worker. Ithink is the most important factor.") There was substantial record support toexpand training. Among those who advocated additional OSHA trainingrequirements were: P. Heffernan of Kaselaan and D'Angelo (Ex. 7-36), K.Churchill of California Association of Asbestos Professionals (Ex. 7-95), D.Kirby of Oak Ridge National Lab (Ex. 77-111), E. Krause of the United Unionof Roofers, Waterproofers (Ex. 7-115), G. Lofton of Heat and Frost Insulatorsand Asbestos Workers Union (Ex. 7-118), P. Curran of North Carolina StateDepartment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (Ex. 7-118), W.Dundulis of the State of Rhode Island Department of Health (Ex. 7-124), BCTD(Ex. 119), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Ex.141), Service Employees International Unions, AFL-CIO (Ex. 144), NationalInstitute for Occupational Safety and Health (Tr. 230).

Participants supported training all employees who handle asbestos, ratherthan waiting for significant exposures to trigger it [see e.g., testimony ofD. Kirby, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "You need to have awareness trainingof . . . custodial and maintenance" people, (Tr 122); and, R. Lemen, NIOSH,who supported ". . . approved training courses for all workers who areroutinely handling asbestos containing material, (Tr. 231)]."

The second major expansion of training requirements covers curriculum methodand length of training. Before, in the 1986 standard, OSHA merely requiredthat certain topics be covered in the training program.

Subsequently, as OSHA noted in its proposal, and participants noted in theircomments, EPA's training requirements under the Asbestos Hazard Response Act(AHERA) become the standard for the asbestos abatement industry. Under AHERA,at the time of the proposal:

. . . Inspectors must take a 3-day training course; management planners musttake the inspection course plus an additional 2 days devoted to managementplanning; and abatement project designers are required to have at least 3days of training. In addition, asbestos abatement contractors and supervisorsmust take a 4-day training course and asbestos abatement workers are requiredto take a 3-day training course. For all disciplines, persons seekingaccreditation must also pass an examination and participate in annualre-training courses. A complete description of accreditation requirements canbe found in the Model Accreditation Plan at 40 CFR part 763, subpart E,appendix C.I.1.A. through E. (54 Fr, November 29, 1989 at 49190).

More recently, EPA has published an interim rule updating its ModelAccreditation Plan (MAP) (59 FR 5236-5260, February 3, 1994) pursuant to theAsbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA). Under therevisions, the length of certain courses has increased, i.e. asbestosabatement workers now must take a 4-day, rather than a 3-day course.Additionally, the entire MAP now applies to work in "public and commercialbuildings as well as in schools," and requires more "hands-on" training. Forexample, for abatement workers 14 hours of hands-on training must be includedin the 4-day training course.

The training provisions in the new standard correspond to the class of workperformed. For Class I and II work, employers must provide employees with atraining course which is the equivalent in curriculum, training method andlength to the EPA MAP worker training described above. Keying OSHA requiredtraining to the AHERA program was supported by many participants; in manysections of the country, most training is now done using AHERA accreditationas the standard for quality, (see e.g., testimony of Daniel Swartzman, Schoolof Public Health, Univ. of Ill, Tr. at 486. et seq.). and because AHERAtraining as noted above, is the recognized standard for quality in asbestoswork (see. must be trained in the proposal, OSHA asked for comment on whetherOSHA should provide model curricula and certification for training, and onwhether and how OSHA training requirements should be reconciled with those ofEPA (55 FR 29726-28).

Much debate on these issues occurred in this rulemaking. Some, mostprominently, BCTD, (Ex. 143 at 220 et seq, see also Tr. 483; Tr. 1142, Tr.3547) stated that OSHA should develop model curricula and certify trainingcourses for asbestos workers. Reasons for this were given as: OSHA's earliertraining requirements are inadequate; that "AHERA has proved successful, butneeds improvement," and that AHERA should be improved by more "hands-on"training and testing and longer training (see Ex. 143 at 232).

The Agency notes that participants agreeing and disagreeing with the needfor OSHA certification of trainers and courses agreed with BCTD's reasons.For example, R. Chadwick the President of Local Union 22 of the InternationalAssociation of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, in a letter toOSHA stated that since OSHA stipulated no specific minimum period oftraining, "Most abatement contractors show a 2-hour film and classify theworkers being trained" (Ex. 1-175). OSHA agreed with the above comment thatits 1986 training requirements fairly can be considered "bare-bones."

Although BCTD argued that the AHERA model needed improvement, BCTDacknowledged its success in improving worksite conditions (see Ex. 143 at240, citing Ex. 7-52). EPA itself has improved its training program. As notedabove, it recently issued improved model curricula, increasing the trainingrequirements. In particular, the new MAP contains specific "hands-on"training requirements in each major course, including those of workers andsupervisors (59 FR 5236-60, February 3, 1994). EPA also increased the numberof training hours and now requires 4-day training of workers, and 5-daytraining of supervisors. Other disciplines of the AHERA program also haveincreased training requirements.

OSHA has reviewed recommendations carefully and has concluded that requiringOSHA to certify training courses and trainers would consume adisproportionate share of OSHA's resources. Further, establishing anothersystem for certifying asbestos trainers and workers when another agency has asimilar program in place would be duplicative of effort as well. OSHA'sconcerns regarding duplication of effort is also addressed in this preamblein the section on the notification of OSHA vis-a-vis that of EPA underNESHAP.

In addition, other entities have already developed more stringent curriculathan those under AHERA. The HEI Report noted that under AHERA each statedevelops "training and certification programs for inspectors, managementplanner, asbestos abatement workers and supervisors that were at least asstringent as the AHERA model" (Ex. 1-344, p. 5-51). It further found that a"number of states have developed other requirements that exceeded the AHERArequirement" and that "* * * in some states AHERA certification are requiredfor any asbestos-related work" -- not just for schools.

Paragraphs (k)(8)(i)-(v) cover curricula and length of course requirement.They allow flexibility in the new training provisions. Courses equivalent tothose of AHERA (ASHARA) may be substituted, but must be equivalent incurriculum, training method, and length to that of the EPA plan. Thus,employers who in-house training program meets these requirements does notneed send all workers off-site for the required training. Severalcommentaries objected to requiring that all training take place in EPA orstate approved training centers, most also praised job-specific training assuperior (e.g., Ex. 7-21, 7-39, 7-50, 7-99, 7-100, 7-102, 7-103, 7-108,7-150).

Training Requirements for Employees Performing Class III and IV Work:

In these standards OSHA does not define the term "custodian" nor do therequirements differ based on the job title. OSHA agrees that in somefacilities there is a clear distinction between custodial workers who as aparticipant noted, "may only * * * strip or buff floor tile or replace lightbulbs in fixtures located below ACM" and maintenance workers "who * * * workon building materials or systems that contain asbestos". (ICSC, Ex. 162-58 at10). Relying on job title, however, to assign duties is inexact andpotentially non-protective. Rather in these standards, the nature of theoperations performed by that worker determine the level of training required,regardless of job title; janitor, custodian, or maintenance worker. Those whoperform only Class IV work must receive at least 2 hours of awarenesstraining, and those who do Class III work must be given 16 hours of trainingequivalent in content and length to the 16 hour operations and maintenancecourse developed by EPA (see 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2).

Workers performing these activities may be employees of the building ownersor other employers such as outside housekeeping contractors, or tradecontractors such as plumbing, electrical, or air conditioning contractors.They must be trained to use appropriate measures to avoid exposure toairborne asbestos.

OSHA in the November 3, 1992 notice, stated that it was considering atraining requirement modelled after that of the awareness training requiredby EPA in its AHERA rule. OSHA further noted that in its trainingrequirements under AHERA, EPA distinguishes between the duties and trainingof custodial workers and the additional duties and training needs ofmaintenance and service workers (40 CFR Parts 763). OSHA, too, believes thatbuilding/facility workers, who frequently disturb asbestos containingmaterial need more extensive training.

Many who commented during the supplemental comment period agreed that OSHAshould use AHERA as a general model for drafting training requirements forbuilding/facility workers (e.g., Ex. 162-13, 162-15, 162-16, 162-18, 162-24,162-27, 162-30, 162-35, 162-42, 162-44, 162- 45,162-46). Others, felt theexisting OSHA training requirements were adequate (e.g., Ex. 162-4, 162-22).Some objected to OSHA specifying a time period in its training requirements(Ex. 162-4, 162-12, 162-17, 162-25, 162-50, 162-55, 162-57). BCTD argued thatAHERA training was inadequate for OSHA's purposes, and that any employee in abuilding containing either ACM or PACM who does not intentionally handle thematerial should receive at least 4 hours of awareness training and that anyworker who disturbs ACM during repair, renovation, demolition or maintenancework needs the full 5-day training course (Ex. 162-42).

Under the training provisions of AHERA, all members of the maintenance andcustodial staffs (of schools) who may work in a building containing ACBM arerequired to receive at least 2 hours of "awareness" training whether or notthey are required to work with it (40 CFR 763.92). Those who conduct anactivity which will result in disturbance of ACBM shall receive both theawareness training and 14 additional hours of training.

EPA set as a minimum that the awareness training cover:

-- information of uses and forms of asbestos in buildings;
-- information on health effects of exposure to asbestos;
-- location of ACBM in building where employee works;
-- recognition of deteriorating or damaged ACBM; and,
-- the identity of person responsible for management of ACBM.

While the more extensive training needed by those who might disturb ACMinclude in addition:

-- description of proper methods to handle ACBM;
-- information on respirator protection
-- the provisions of the AHERA rule; and,
-- hands-on training on the use of protective equipment and work practices

Information in this rulemaking discussed above shows that workers who haveperformed work now designated Class III and IV have developedasbestos-related disease. Because as noted above, training is one of the mostpowerful instruments to protect workers, OSHA believes that its formertraining provisions must be improved by incorporating additional curriculasuch as covered in the AHERA courses for such workers. Imposing time criteriafor courses will help insure that sufficient time for instruction isprovided. More time can always be allotted, as needed.

(12) Housekeeping

Paragraph (k) General Industry Standard. Paragraph (l) Construction andShipyard Employment Standards:

Housekeeping practices have been shown to be effective means of reducingemployee exposure to asbestos. OSHA is specifying that the now requiredcleaning of floors and surfaces on which dust containing asbestos canaccumulate be performed at least once per shift in primary and secondarymanufacturing. In addition to the current requirement that a vacuumcontaining a HEPA-filter must be used, where feasible, wet methods must alsobe used for clean-up. Once asbestos dust is entrained, it can accumulate onsurfaces leading to potentially substantial levels of exposure. Routineremoval of dust can greatly reduce these accumulations and the risks thatthey pose.

There was little over-all objection to this provision from the participantsin the rulemaking process. However, the Asbestos Information Associationasked that OSHA not revise the current housekeeping requirements whichspecify that all surfaces be maintained as free as practicable ofaccumulation of dusts and wastes containing asbestos (Ex. 142, p. 7). Theyargue that if OSHA requires once per shift vacuuming, it would lead to lesseffective housekeeping efforts since vacuuming might then occur at a latertime in the areas most in need of housekeeping than occurs with currentcleanup whenever a fiber accumulation occurs." OSHA is unconvinced by thisargument. If the employer believes that more frequent cleanup is needed, itshould be performed. The standard merely requires that vacuuming be done noless often than once per shift. The employer can determine when during ashift, vacuuming is most useful and perform it then.

Flooring Maintenance Requirements

There are now a new Sec. Sec. 1926.1101 (g)(2)(iv) and 1910.1001(f)(1)(xi),which prohibit the sanding of floor tiles containing asbestos. Further, onlylow abrasion pads may be used at speeds lower than 300 rpm in "stripping"operations, and stripping of unwaxed or unfinished floor tile containingasbestos is prohibited. OSHA believes that without such restrictions thistype of mechanized activity may result in the release of significant levelsof asbestos fibers into the air. In addition, the new provisions allowasbestos-containing floors to be mechanically buffed without limitation onthe speed of the buffing machine, so long as the floor has sufficient finishto preclude contact between the pad and the asbestos-containing material. Inmost cases, at least 3 layers of wax will provide that margin. If themanufacturer's instructions specify a thicker wax layer, those instructionsmust be followed. (See testimony of J. Harless of Pioneer Eclipse, ISSA).

These requirements are changed in some respects from the July, 1990proposal, which would have further restricted stripping and burnishingactivities. The prohibition concerning "sanding" of asbestos-containingfloors was supported by ISSA and others, and it unchanged from the proposal.(See Ex. 136D). The changes from the proposal reflect the comments and datasubmitted to the record. The data show that now permitted activities are notexpected to result in the release of significant asbestos contamination. Inaddition, since OSHA's proposal had used various terms relating to floor careimprecisely, the final provisions conform the language to the commonunderstandings of the floor care industry. Thus, "stripping" is defined as awet process to remove the floor polish or finish using chemical strippers, orabrasive pads. (See Ex. 136D, ISSA's comments). "Burnishing" is dry buffingof floor polish by a high-speed rotary disc machine or otherwise.

The core requirements of OSHA's new provisions are that no "sanding", i.e.the abrading of asbestos-containing material to even out the surface, isallowed: that "stripping" of finishes of asbestos-containing flooring must beconducted wet using the least abrasive pad possible; and that burnishing maybe performed only on floors which have sufficient finish so that the pad doesnot contact the unfinished asbestos-containing material. OSHA believes thatthese three principles of asbestos-containing floor maintenance aresufficiently clear and flexible to apply to all kinds of floor maintenanceactivities, even if the activity is described using different terminology.

OSHA is basing these provisions primarily on the results of studiessubmitted during the rulemaking. Thus, in the most thorough and detailedstudy submitted to date on this topic, BCTD furnished a copy of a study by T.Marxhausen and S. Shaffer entitled "Vinyl Asbestos Tile: A study of airborneasbestos concentrations during routine floor maintenance activities." (Ex.119X) In this study both TEM and PCM measurements were made during severaloperations. The results are briefly summarized in Table VIII.

The authors found that approximately 97% of the asbestos structures observedduring all analyses were less than 5 microns in length (and would thereforenot be seen by PCM). They concluded that "Concentrations were low during lowspeed scrubs and burnishing of freshly built-up, new floor finishes. Highspeed scrub results were highest on the worn floor but dropped toapproximately one-fifth this level on freshly built-up surfaces." The authorsnoted that although high speed scrubs and burnishing operations used the samemachine and pad, the fiber levels observed in high speed scrub operationswere higher than during burnishing. They hypothesized that this had been dueto condition of the floor tested or that "the limited amount of cleaningsolution causes the higher values observed during high speed scrubbingoperations." They expressed serious concern about the elevated TEMmeasurements during some of these operations and called for more extensivestudy.

S. Wong, Director of Environmental Health and Safety Branch of the LosAngeles Unified School District submitted a report of a study in which fiberlevels were measured by TEM during various floor maintenance activities (Ex.7-11). Using a pass-fail criterion of 5 samples less than or equal to 70structures per square millimeter (the AHERA clearance level), she found that5 of 7 stripping pads failed. She also found that use of a brush with arotary powered scrubbing machine passed and that various stripping solutionused in conjunction with the brush also passed. Repeated use of a pad whichinitially passed, continued to do so. In a final test using one of thestripping solutions and 7 other brushes, all failed. However, neither theOSHA PEL nor action level was exceeded. The report concluded with severalrecommendations: (1) all VAT floor maintenance using powered equipment beperformed using wet methods exclusively; (2) that use of aggressive padsresults in release of fibers from previously applied wax (They found 5%fibers in the old wax scraped from baseboards.) and their use should bediscontinued; (3) schools continue to use only the off-white or pink padwhich passed for buffing; (4) recommends discontinuance of use of powerequipment to strip wax from floors unless they do not contain asbestos; and,(5) alter maintenance program to perform frequent damp mopping and lessfrequent stripping.

Both studies cited above were conducted after the A.F. Meyer study discussedin the proposal, which was conducted in October 1989, and which showedslightly elevated asbestos levels after routine buffing (with standard redbuffing pad and standard buffing solution) and stripping. No levels, however,exceeded OSHA's proposed PELs. Two methods were used for stripping: (1)standard stripping mixture mopped on and standard black stripping pad, and(2) mist spray of stripper solution and standard black stripping pad. Asnoted in the proposal, the stripping conducted using a mist spray ofstripping solution and the more abrasive pad resulted in significantly higherasbestos fiber airborne concentrations than the first method.

On January 25, 1990, in response to the A.F. Meyer study, EPA published a"Recommended Interim Guidance for Maintenance of Asbestos-Containing FloorCoverings," (Ex. 1-108) outlining its analysis of the Meyer's findings. TheAgency concluded that, although there was "no clear evidence" that "routine"stripping significantly elevated levels of asbestos fibers, it observed thathigher levels did occur after a stripping machine was used on a relativelydry, unwaxed floor.

Work practices recommended by EPA in the same guidance memo emphasize thesame precautions contained in OSHA's final standards: viz. that the leastabrasive pad be used for stripping, and that low speed equipment be used forstripping of floors.

OSHA notes that ACCSH's recommendations for work practices in floormaintenance also echo the themes of wet stripping, using the least abrasivepad for stripping, limiting the speed of the machine and prohibiting floorsanding, which are the core requirements in this standard. (Ex. 1-126).

In a change from the proposal, OSHA is permitting high speed buffing offinished floors containing asbestos material. A number of participantspointed out to OSHA that buffing, although performed at high speed, is doneon 3 to 5 layers of wax, unlike sanding, and that the wax, not the tile, ispolished in this process. (Ex. 7-19, 7-80, 7-84, 7-90, 7-100, 7-107, 7-123,7-142, 7-188, 125D, 147 and Tr. at 3599). Michael B. Wheeler Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Essential Industries Inc., stated that:

Stripping is expensive, labor and material-intensive, and, in the context ofvinyl asbestos tile something we wish to keep to a minimum. Ultra high speedmaintenance techniques allow workers in heavy trafficked stores to striptheir finished floors every 10-18 months as compared to every 2-3 monthsusing older low speed techniques. (Ex. 7-188).

He went on to explain that these high speed techniques also reduce the laborrequirements by at least half. He cited studies using low speed spray buffingtechniques on finished VAT which yielded fiber levels ranging from 0.015 to0.025 f/cc and quoted the WRC-TV report that "just buffing an already waxedfloor does not throw up any asbestos from the asbestos tile." In addition,ISSA described additional floor maintenance procedures which increase theglossiness of the floor -- spray buffing (done at 175-300 rpm) and burnishing(done at 300-2,000 rpm). ISSA stated that if there is finish on the floorsurface, these procedures do not generate unsafe levels of fibers becausethey do not contact the floor itself. They oppose OSHA's proposed changesprohibiting speeds of more than 190 rpm in floor machines, particularly dueto increased costs in time and money. (Ex. 136D).

Based on this record, OSHA believes that employees who burnish and/ or bufffloors using high speed floor machines will be exposed to minimal asbestosfiber concentrations if the floor machines are used to polish finished orpolished floors, and if the pad does not contact the unpolished floor.Industry also claims that the use of high speed buffing will increase theintervals where stripping is required, and thus, may reduce risk to employeeswho perform floor maintenance, but OSHA is not relying on this speculativebenefit.

(13) Medical Surveillance

Paragraph (l) General Industry Standard. Paragraph (m) Construction andShipyard Employment Standards.

No changes were made to this section. The medical surveillance provisions inthe 1986 construction standard are now also included in the shipyardemployment standard.

(14) Recordkeeping

Paragraph (m) General Industry Standard. Paragraph (n) Construction andShipyard Employment Standards. The recordkeeping provisions now includeprovisions (n)(5) and (n)(6) which require maintenance of data used to rebutthe presumption that a contains asbestos, i.e., the building owner/employerwho relies on data to demonstrate that PACM is not asbestos-containing mustmaintain the data upon which he relied for as long as they are used to rebutthe presumption. In addition, where the building owner has received orprovided information concerning the location, amount and identify of ACM andPACM, he must maintain written records of them and their content for theduration of ownership and must transfer them to successive owners.

(15) Competent Person

Paragraph (o) Construction and Shipyard Employment Standards. OSHAis adopting as final provisions most of the proposed changes to the 1986construction standard's requirements concerning the designation of a"competent person" on certain construction worksites. The term "competentperson" is derived from the generic construction standard's provisions. Underthese, employers must designate a "competent person" on all constructionworksites to conduct "frequent and regular inspections of the job sites,materials, and equipment" as part of required safety and health programs(Sec. 1926.20). At the suggestion of SESAC, OSHA has designated that theperson who performs the shipyard duties analogous to the competent person inthe construction standard will be termed a "qualified person." For thepurposes of the present discussion these terms are equivalent and will bediscussed as "competent person." The 1986 asbestos construction standardappeared to limit this requirement. "Competent person" supervision wasrequired only at removal, demolition, and renovation operations which werenot "small-scale, short-duration," but under the asbestos standard, thecompetent person was to be specially trained in asbestos hazards, and performvarious duties mainly involving the setting up and control of the NPE, andthe supervision of workers within the enclosure (formerly1926.58(e)(6)(ii)).

The Court of Appeals, agreeing with BCTD, instructed OSHA to either expandthe "competent person" requirement or explain more persuasively why itrefused to do so. OSHA agrees that for all construction work involvingasbestos exposure under this standard, a "competent person" who is speciallytrained in asbestos related work conditions, should either be available toemployees or be present on the work site. Like other provisions in thisstandard, the more risky asbestos work deserves a more protective provision;so employees performing Class I and II work will have the benefit of a"competent person" on the worksite, to the extent necessary to perform hisduties as set out in paragraph (o). Employees performing Class III and IVwork, will be entitled to access to a "competent person" as needed.

Two issues regarding the "competent person" were discussed during therulemaking. One was the training required; and two, whether or not thecompetent person needs to be present throughout the operation.

As to the second issue, the standard requires in paragraph (o)(2) and (3),that the competent person must perform the "frequent and regular inspectionsof the job sites, material and equipment" to accomplish "health and safetyprograms," which are otherwise required by the general construction provisionin Sec. 1926.20(b)(2). Although no elaboration of this provision is provided,OSHA intends that in all work covered by this standard, including Class IVwork and work not included in a "Class," a competent person insures, byinspecting the worksite, that workers exposed to asbestos are protected bythe relevant provisions of this standard, and that they are informed pursuantto paragraph (k) of this standard about the presence and location of ACM andPACM. Additionally, paragraph (o)(3) requires that in Class I operations the"competent person" must make on-site inspections at least once during theworkshift and any time at employee request. In addition, the list of specificduties of the "competent person" in paragraph (o)(3)(i) for Class I and IIwork includes specific language requiring the required supervision of variouscontrols and work practices to be made through "on-site inspection."

The record supports the need for on-site supervision of setting up ofcontrols. Chip D'Angelo, when asked what were his major concern about glovebags, testified that "Just the act of attaching * * * concerns us * * * a lotof times the material is so overly dry and very loose * * * simply attachingthe bag can create some problems * * * Removing the bag, if not done properlyand evacuated properly and twisted properly, actually expels fibers out intothe air" (Tr. 3126). For example, he/she must be present when a glove bag isattached and determine that a smoke test is passed and again be present whenthe bag is removed. It is not necessary that the competent person continuallywatch the operation, rather that he oversees its proper completion. OSHA hasnot specified the ratio of on-site supervisors to abatement workers. Mr.Booher of Exxon Company, testified that "if you have three glove bagoperations going on next to one another, in close proximity to one another,that one competent person can handle up to three jobs effectively" (Tr.2677). The Agency believes that various operations need closer supervisionthan others; the exposure assessment should clarify how close supervisionneeds to be. So long as the specific activities in the standard requiringinspection are covered, the extent of the required inspections are up to thejudgment of the "competent person."

Training for the competent person is the same for those who supervise ClassI and II asbestos work under the standard. The training must be obtained in acourse which is the equivalent of the EPA supervisor course. Unlike thetraining requirements for workers for Class II jobs which may concentrate ona particular kind of material if that is the only asbestos work which anemployee does, the "competent person" supervising Class II jobs must betrained comprehensively in all aspects of asbestos related construction work.Thus, for example, a flooring removal supervisor must be informed about allasbestos removal control methods: this is the person who must evaluate aprospective job to assure that the PELs will not be exceeded, who must chooseamong available controls to reduce exposures, and must know how to superviseextensive control systems if they are needed for high exposure Class II work.

The training requirements of persons supervising Class III work aredifferent. Most Class III work is maintaining or renovating buildingcomponents. Supervisors of such work need not be trained in methods ofabating asbestos material on a large scale. The EPA asbestos in schoolsrules, now updated to encompass commercial and public buildings requires thatmaintenance workers in asbestos-containing buildings be trained in a 16-hourcourse which includes; proper asbestos-related work practices, waste handlingand disposal, respirator use, decontamination procedures, and the content ofapplicable Federal, state and local asbestos regulations. All Class IIIworkers and their supervisors must take such a course, which covers allcontrol measures required for Class III work. In this regard OSHA notescomments which stated that training supervisors of plumbers, pipefitters, andsheet metal workers, who are engaged in projects of incidental removal thatare small scale and short term, in full enclosure techniques is wasteful (seee.g. Ex. 7-151, 152, 153).

Although the formal training for supervisors and workers in Class III workis the same, additional criteria for "competency" contained in the generalconstruction standard distinguish worker and supervisor on all asbestos jobs,including Class III.

Thus, the "competent person" must be "capable of identifying existing andpredictable hazards * * * which are * * * hazardous to employees, and (have)authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them" (29 CFR1926.32(f)). Also, the "competent person" must be designated by the employer(29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2)). OSHA notes that the "competency" of the competentperson is independent of the training required. "Competency" as well astraining is required. Thus, a "competent person" is not merely someone with aspecified level of training but connotes a high level of knowledge ofworksite safety and health issues as well.

The need for a high degree of expertise for Class III work was acknowledgedby labor representatives. (See ACCSH reference in the proposal at 55 FR29727, and R. Gobbell's testimony (Tr. 4318). Employer representativesquestioned the need for this uniform training requirements for competentpersons supervising all asbestos work, but also acknowledged that supervisorsof maintenance projects needed training in the control methods required (Seee.g.Ex. 7-151, 7-152, 153); others stated that in-house training was oftensuperior to EPA's (see e.g. Amoco Corporation, Ex. 7-37); and that trainedcompetent persons should be allowed to train other workers (Gulf PowerCompany, Ex. 7-50). OSHA is allowing in-house training so long as it meetsthe criteria for curriculum, length, and method of training contained in thestandard.

Training for "competent persons" for Class IV work depends on when that workis performed. When Class IV workers perform their duties in facilities andbuildings where no other asbestos work is taking place, the "competentperson" supervising them must be trained in an EPA accredited course onoperations and maintenance workers or its equivalent, much as for Class IIIwork. If clean-up work is done within a regulated area, supervision of theclean-up must be conducted by the "competent person" who is supervising theasbestos job for which the area was established, which in most cases will beClass I and II work.

A number of participants in the rulemaking, primarily representing industryinterests, objected to the proposed requirement for a competent personspecifically trained in an EPA-approved course to oversee workers performingsmall-scale, short duration asbestos jobs. These included: J. Bavan ofMichigan Consumers Power (Ex 7-21), Mr. Quanstrom of Amoco Corporation whofelt in-house training was often superior to EPA's (Ex. 7-37), and otherscontain virtually identical comments in which the plumbing contractors statetheir support.

Based on the record evidence, OSHA concludes that its expansion of thecompetent person requirements and additional requirements for training areappropriate.

Shipyard Employment Standard

SESAC agreed that asbestos operations should be overseen by personnel whohave the qualifications to ensure that asbestos operations are performedsafely; however, they noted in their submission (Ex. 7-77) that in existingOSHA shipyard standards, the term competent person(s) has been used to referto a person who is uniquely qualified to perform entry tests preparatory toentering enclosed and confined spaces and felt that the use of this term asemployed in the asbestos standard would cause confusion. They suggested thatthe competent person be called a "qualified" person in the shipyard standard.OSHA does not object to this substitution of terms, but notes that allrequirements for competent/qualified person(s) are to be equivalent.

SESAC also pointed to a process which may be the general case in largeoperations, in which the duties of the shipyard qualified person are sharedor divided between two or more persons. That is, in some of the largercompanies represented on the committee, a training department (not a person)is responsible for ensuring that employees are trained and another departmentis responsible for setting up the regulated area, while an industrial hygienedepartment conducts all monitoring. SESAC recommended that this bespecifically allowed. OSHA feels that the current regulatory language permitsutilizing this organization of responsibilities and agrees with thesuggestion that it is appropriate for shipyards.

(p) Dates

The amendments to the General Industry and Construction Standards and thenew Shipyard Employment Standard become effective 60 days after date ofpublication in the Federal Register. All existing provisions remain ineffect (including coverage of Shipyards by the General Industry Standard)until the new provision's start-up dates. Various start-up dates are setforth in the standards. Where there is no start-up date for a provision, thestart-up date is the effective date. If any new or amended provision isstayed by OSHA or a court or vacated by a court, the pre-existing provisionbecomes binding again.

Appendices

Appendices A, C, D, E, and F of the General Industry Standard are binding.Appendices A, C, D, and E of the Construction Standard are binding.Appendices A, C, D, E, J, and L are binding in the Shipyard EmploymentStandard. Appendices B, H, I, and J of the General Industry Standard are notbinding. Appendices B, F, H, I, and K of the Construction Standard are notbinding. Appendices B, F, H, I, and K of the Shipyard Employment Standard arenot binding. They are intended neither to add to or detract from bindingrequirements.

Shipyard Employment Standard. With respect to the appendices to thestandard, SESAC recommended inclusion of the appendix dealing with workpractices and engineering controls for automotive brake and clutch repair andassembly in the shipyard standard. OSHA agrees that this appendix isappropriate to the shipyard employment standard, since these activities occurwithin shipyards and has included this as appendix L in the shipyardemployment standard. OSHA further notes that this appendix has been amendedsubsequent to consideration by SESAC, and therefore differs from thealternate regulatory language suggested by the committee. For example, theAgency no longer considers the solvent spray can a preferred method forcontrolling asbestos contamination and will not include it in eitherstandard.

Appendix A

All changes indicated in this document are to be made to Appendix A of theasbestos standards and all changes are the same for 1910.1001, 1915.1001, and1926.1101.

In the explanatory paragraph at the beginning of Appendix A phrase:

"(such as the NIOSH 7400 Method)" is replaced with:

"(such as Appendix B of this regulation, the most current version of theOSHA method ID-160, or the most current version of the NIOSH Method 7400)."

This change is made to assure that the analytical methodologies followed arethe most current and reliable available. Appendix B of this standard has beenupdated and is the most current version of OSHA ID-160. This method waswritten to adhere to the language of Appendix A so that there would be noconfusion about the limits of the sampling and analytical parameters such asflow rates. So long as parameters consistent with Appendix A are used, therewill be no analytical differences between ID-160 and NIOSH 7400 methods.

Sampling and Analytical Procedure paragraph 2:

The following sentence is added to the end of the paragraph:

"Do not reuse or reload cassettes for asbestos sample collection."

The practice of reusing cassettes can result in lower estimates of employeeexposure. Adequate cleaning of the cassettes cannot be assured. Fibers fromthe cassette may become dislodged and be collected on the filter duringsubsequent sampling. Employee exposure assessments are often assessed basedon a small number of fibers. This is because it is not possible in every workplace to use single cassettes for an entire work shift due to excess dust inthe air. This is significant for occupational exposures, because thebackground fiber concentration must be subtracted from the compliance sample.If fugitive fibers from used cassettes were deposited on the blank filter,the background estimate would be artificially high and the employee exposurewill be underestimated when the background concentration is subtracted asrequired. Elimination of the practice of reusing cassettes will eliminatethis source of error, thereby better assessing employee exposure. Arequirement that cassette reuse not be allowed is added to the end ofparagraph 2 of Appendix A.

Paragraph 11 is revised as follows:

11. Each set of samples taken will include 10% field blanks or a minimum of2 field blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot as the filters usedfor sample collection. The field blank results shall be averaged andsubtracted from the analytical results before reporting. A set consists ofany sample or group of samples for which an evaluation for this standard mustbe made. Any samples represented by a field blank having a fiber count inexcess of the detection limit of the method being used shall be rejected.

The original wording of the standard was inadequate to apply meaningfully tocertain sampling practices, such as continuous sampling. This changeestablishes that the blanks are to be field blanks. This wording alsoestablishes when blanks are to be taken. The specific practice to be followedfor blank correction is outlined in Appendix B, the detailed analyticalmethod. Each time an evaluation of work place exposure is made for thepurposes of this standard, the samples used in that evaluation must berepresented by valid blanks taken in the work space where the compliancesamples were taken.

The following changes apply to the Quality Control Section.Paragraph 2 is renumbered 2(a). Since the standard was promulgated, the lackof a specific requirement to participate the Program for Analytical Testing(PAT) has led to confusion with the requirement that laboratories participatein a round robin using samples taken from real world samples.

A second paragraph is added directly following 2(a) and is denoted 2(b).

2(b) All laboratories should participate in a national sample testing schemesuch as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT), the AsbestosRegistry sponsored by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

This is a requirement of OSHA method ID-160 and NIOSH 7400. This requirementwas originally left out of the standard because of the uncertain status ofthe PAT program at the time of promulgation of the standard. Inclusion atthis time is to make it clear that the required participation in a roundrobin indicated in paragraph 2(a) is not satisfied by participation in thePAT program. Such participation is however, highly desirable and may berequired for private accreditation.

Since the original promulgation of the asbestos standards, there have beenseveral improvements and refinements to the analytical procedure. Two majoranalytical methods reflect these changes and continue to be updated asnecessary. The changes are mostly procedural, providing safer analysis andclearer descriptions of the procedures that are to be carried out. As aresult, Appendix A and Appendix B have been updated to reflect the mostrecent refinements.

Changes to the mandatory asbestos method Appendix A are intended to clarifysome of the requirements of the method. Wording has been inserted to indicatewhat methods are acceptable. A definition of what constitutes a "set" ofasbestos samples was added to more clearly define when blank samples are tobe taken and to reinforce that they are to be field samples.

Paragraph 11 is amended to clarify what a set of samples is and when it isnecessary to take blank samples.

An early draft version of NIOSH method 7400 was used for the model ofAppendix B. There were several problems with the method including thepotentially dangerous practice of boiling acetone. This appendix has beenreplaced entirely with the most current version of OSHA method ID-160Asbestos in Air. The OSHA ID-160 give the same results as NIOSH 7400 whenused within the sampling constraints imposed by Appendix A, notably the flowrate limits of between 0.5 and 5 liters per minute for the 25 mm cassette and1 to 5 for the 37 mm cassette. The counting rules are functionally the samefor both methods. Use of Appendix B, OSHA ID-160 or NIOSH method 7400 whenused within the constraints of Appendix A are all acceptable and equivalent.Appendix B is the same as OSHA method ID-160 on the date of publication ofthese changes. It, like NIOSH method 7400, is subject to change when suchchanges will result in better methodology.

As the PEL has been lowered to 0.1 fiber/cc, there is an increased concernabout sample overloading as voiced by several commentors such as the AmericanIndustrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Such overloading is the presence ofnon-asbestos dust on the surface of the filter obscuring the filter surface.Such dust has been shown to decrease the number of fibers counted even beforethe surface is fully obscured. Some employers have taken samples in such away that there are no representative samples for the work being performedbecause all of the filters have been obscured by excess dust. The intentionof Appendix A is to provide for the most precise measurement possible whileallowing for the fact that many work places have an exceeding amount ofnon-asbestos dust. Appendix A suggests that a sample be collected such thatthere are a minimum of 100 fibers/mm(2). In many work places this is notpossible. It is preferable to collect a sample that can be used to estimatethe asbestos concentration even if it is with a higher than ideal error levelthan it is to collect a large volume and completely obscure the filterrendering the sample useless.

An acceptable weight of dust on the filter is highly dependent on theaverage particle size of the dust. Very small particles such as those fromdiesel exhaust will quickly obscure the filter with very little weight (muchless than 1 mg on the filter). On the other hand, large particles may loadthe weight up beyond several milligrams with little loss in fiber count. For5 micrometer diameter particles with a density of 3, 25% of the filter areawill be obscured with a total weight on the filter of 1mg. Increasing theaverage diameter of the particles to 10 micrometers will double the allowableweight to 2mg. It is very important for the person conducting sampling to becareful about the dust levels in the air. It is acceptable to take a seriesof samples to model the work place air when serial sampling will result insamples that can be used. Serial sampling has the additional benefit thathigher asbestos concentrations can be measured by reducing the volume of airdrawn through each filter.

Appendix G

OSHA is removing appendix G from the construction standard. The rulemakingproceeding and the Agency's experience enforcing the unrevised standardshowed that this "non-mandatory" appendix was unclear and that portions of itbelonged in the regulatory text. Former appendix G covered controls for allfour classes of asbestos work. Therefore, OSHA has extracted the mainprovisions covering various controls and practices required for each classand placed them as discussed in the regulatory text applying to eachoperation covered.

OSHA knows that some employers would like additional guidance onspecifications for required work practices and controls. The EPA "Greenbook,"(Ex. 1-183), NIBS Guidance Manual (Ex. 1-371) and other sources of specificwork practices are available.

Appendix J

OSHA method ID-191 for bulk asbestos analysis has been included as AppendixJ, to provide a suggested uniform method for the identification of asbestos.This method uses polarized light optics on a phase contrast microscope. Usingthis methodology, fibers visible in phase contrast illumination can be viewedto assess whether there might be potential for asbestos exposure from amaterial which can be measured by a phase contrast counting method. Thismethod also contains the criteria used by OSHA to differentiate betweenasbestiform and non-habit of minerals. The text of the method isinformational and explains its limitations and proper use.

Environmental Assessment; Findings of No Significant Impact

OSHA has reviewed the environmental impact in accordance with therequirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPAregulations (40 CFR Part 1500), and OSHA's NEPA compliance procedures (29 CFRPart 11).

As a result of this review, OSHA has determined that these regulations willhave no impact on air, water or soil quality, plant or animal life, or theuse of land or aspects of the external environment. Therefore, OSHA concludesthere will be no significant impact on the general quality of the humanenvironment outside the workplace, particularly in terms of ambient airquality, water quality, or solid waste disposal. No comments made at thepublic hearing or submitted to the record contradict this conclusion.

State Plan Requirements

The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA-approved occupationalsafety and health plans must revise their existing standards within sixmonths of the publication date of the final standards or show OSHA why thereis no need for action, e.g., because existing state standards are already "atleast as effective" as the new Federal standards. These States are:California, Connecticut (State and local government workers only), Hawaii,Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico,New York (State and local government workers only), North Carolina,Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington and Wyoming.Until such time as a State standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provideinterim enforcement assistance, as appropriate.

Federalism

The standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (52FR 41685; October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. This Order requires thatagencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options,consult with States prior to taking any actions that would restrict Statepolicy options, and take such actions only when there is clear constitutionalauthority and the presence of a problem of national scope. The Order providesfor preemption of State law only if there is a clear constitutional authorityand the presence of a problem of national scope. Additionally, the Orderprovides for preemption of State law only if there is a clear Congressionalintent for the agency to do so. Any such preemption is to be limited to theextent possible.

Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), expressesCongress' clear intent to preempt State laws relating to issues with respectto which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety or healthstandards. Under the OSH Act a State can avoid preemption only if it submits,and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of such standardsand their enforcement. Occupational safety and health standards developed bysuch Plan-States must, among other things, be at least as effective inproviding safe and healthful employment and places of employment as theFederal standards.

The Federally promulgated Asbestos standard is drafted so that workers inevery State would be protected by general, performance-oriented standards. Tothe extent that there are State or regional peculiarities that could alterwork practices, States with occupational safety and health plans approvedunder section 18 of the OSH Act would be able to develop their own Statestandards to deal with any special problems. Moreover, the performance natureof this final standard, of and by itself, allows for flexibility by Statesand contractors to provide as much safety as possible using varying methodsconsonant with conditions in each State.

In short, there is a clear national problem related to occupational safetyand health of workers. While the individual States, if all acted, might beable collectively to deal with the safety problems involved; most have notelected to do so in the twenty-three years since the enactment if the OSHAct. Those States which have elected to participate under section 18 of theOSHA Act would not be preempted by this final regulation and would be able todeal with special, local conditions within the framework provided by thisperformance-oriented standard while ensuring that their standards are atleast as effective as the Federal standard.

IV. Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Introduction

In this final revision to the asbestos standard for construction, generalindustry and shipyards, OSHA is lowering the permissible exposure limit inall affected industry sectors to 0.1 f/cc as an 8-hour time-weighted average.In addition, OSHA is revising ancillary requirements in the current standardto respond to three issues remanded to the Agency by the Court. These issuesinvolved expanded competent person training, clarification of the definitionfor small-scale, short-duration construction projects, and reporting andtransfer requirements in construction. Also, permissible controls in brakeand clutch operations are addressed in a revision to the standard for generalindustry.

Executive Order 12866 requires that a regulatory impact analysis be preparedfor any regulation that meets the criteria for a "significant regulatoryaction." Among these criteria, relevant to this rulemaking is the requirementthat the rule have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more oradversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, orState, local, or tribal governments or communities.

Consistent with these requirements, OSHA has made a determination that thefinal revised standard will constitute a significant regulatory action.Accordingly, OSHA has prepared this Final Regulatory Impact and RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis to demonstrate the technological and economicfeasibility of the final revision.

B. Industry Profile

Characteristics and Properties of Asbestos

Asbestos is the generic term applied to a group of naturally-occurring,fibrous silicates characterized by high tensile strength,(1) flexibility, andresistance to thermal, chemical, and electrical conditions. According to theBureau of Mines, a number of silicates occur naturally in fibrous form,however, not all of these mineral forms are labeled asbestos. Historically,only minerals with (1) commercial importance (2) a crystalline structure withfiber growth along two planes (i.e., lengthwise) and (3) sufficient fibergrowth such that the fibers can be identified, separated, and processed, aregiven the name asbestos [Campbell, 1977].

__________

Footnote(1) Tensile strength is defined as the resistance of a material to aforce tending to tear it apart.

Asbestos silicates are divided into two mineral groups: serpentine andamphiboles. Both groups are widely distributed in the earth's crust in manyigneous and metamorphic rocks. In rare instances, these mineral depositscontain sufficient quantities of usable asbestiform minerals rendering itprofitable to mine for commercial asbestos. Some types of commercial asbestoshave the properties of softness, silkiness and flexibility that, among otheruses, permits them to be spun into thread from which cloth can be woven. Thisvariety, found in the serpentine group and given the name chrysotile, is byfar the most abundant of the asbestos minerals, comprising over 90 percent ofworld production. Five other commercial varieties -- riebeckite(crocidolite), grunerite (amosite), anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite -- belong to the amphibole group and, unlike the serpentines, arecharacterized by hard and brittle fibers. Chrysotile, amosite, andcrocidolite all have extremely high tensile strengths and have been usedextensively as reinforcers in cements, resins, and plastics.

Asbestos Production, Consumption, and Use

In the production process, asbestos ore is mined and then milled to achievea homogeneous, graded input. Raw asbestos is shipped to primary industries tobe processed into intermediate or finished products. For some goods,secondary manufacturing may be necessary to complete the production process.The finished product is then sold to construction/ consumer industries forapplication, installation or erection without further modification.

Domestically used asbestos fibers are technically classified into sevenquality categories, or grades, with the longer, higher-strength fibers givenlower-numbered grade levels.

Table 1 presents the 1992 distribution of asbestos consumption in the UnitedStates, by end use, type and grade. Historically, Grades 1, 2 and 3 were usedfor relatively refined uses such as textiles, electrical insulation, andpharmaceutical and beverage filters. With the introduction of ceramic fibers,fibrous glass, cellulose fibers and other substitutes, use of asbestos inthese and other products has declined in recent years. As Table 1 shows, U.S.consumption of chrysotile asbestos is concentrated in Grade 7, whose shorter,lower-strength fibers are used as reinforcers in coatings and compounds,clutch facings and brake linings (friction products), packing and gaskets,and roofing products.

Total U.S. asbestos consumption declined 6 percent in 1992 from a level ofroughly 35 thousand metric tons(2) a year earlier. Of the 32.8 thousandmetric tons used in final products in 1992, 31.6 thousand metric tons wereimported, at a value of $7.2 million dollars (not shown in table). Worldproduction in 1992 was an estimated 3.1 million metric tons [Bureau of Mines,1993, Table 1].

__________

Footnote(2) According to the Bureau of Mines, 1991 apparent consumption ofasbestos in the United States was 34,765 metric tons [Bureau of Mines, 1993,Table 1]. Total consumption shown in table 1, taken from another Bureau ofMines table, differs from the first estimate by roughly 800 metric tons. Thedifference may be partly accounted for by the exclusion of the "Other"category from 1991 total in Table 1.

In July 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule undersection 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit the futuremanufacture, importation, processing, and distribution of asbestos in almostall products. The Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule (40 CFR 763.160) wasscheduled to eliminate asbestos in most commercial products in three stagesover seven years beginning in 1990 and ending in 1996. EPA's asbestos rulewas challenged in U.S. court by the asbestos industry. In October 1991, theU.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded most of the ban andphaseout rule to EPA. As a result of the Court decision, most asbestosproducts are no longer subject to the ban and phaseout rule. The Court choseto let stand EPA's authority to ban products that no longer are beingproduced in or imported into the United States.

Consumption of asbestos products in the United States has declined in recentyears due to technological, regulatory and economic factors. U.S.manufacturers have modified product design to either (1) accommodate the useof asbestos substitutes or (2) eliminate the need for fibrous materialsaltogether. Examples of asbestos substitutes include aramid fiber, carbonfiber, cellulose fiber, ceramic fiber, fibrous glass, organic fiber, steelfibers, and wollastonite. The following products have been successfullyintroduced as alternatives to asbestos: aluminum, vinyl and wood siding;aluminum and fiberglass sheet; asphalt coatings; ductile iron pipe;polyvinylchloride pipe; prestressed and reinforced concrete pipe; andsemimetallic brakes. Although the introduction of asbestos substitutes andalternatives enables manufacturers to avoid contact with asbestos, many ofthese surrogates pose occupational health hazards of varying degrees.

Despite the decline in U.S. consumption of asbestos, foreign marketscontinue to demand U.S. asbestos products. The export and re-export ofasbestos fibers and asbestos products from the United States was valued at$140.8 million in 1992, an increase of 14 percent from the 1991 level.Leading importers of American asbestos materials were Canada, Japan, Mexico,the United Kingdom, and Germany. At the same time, three members of theEuropean Community -- Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy -- are takinglegislative steps to ban the use of asbestos. Effective dates for the baninitiatives ranged from July 1993 to 1995. In addition, Finland and Polandare phasing out the importation and use of asbestos [Canadian MineralYearbook, 1993, p. 10.4].

Asbestos Exposure in General Industry

OSHA has determined that the following general industry groups will beaffected by the revision to the asbestos standard: primary manufacture ofasbestos friction materials (SIC 3292); primary manufacture of asbestosgaskets and packings (SIC 3053); primary manufacture of asbestos adhesives,sealants, and coatings (SIC 2952); primary manufacture of asbestos-reinforcedplastics (SIC 3089); general automotive repair (SICs 551, 554 and 753) andshipbuilding and repair (SIC 3731).

In addition, secondary gaskets and packings and secondary autoremanufacturing fall under the scope of the revised standard. However, fewimpacts, if any, are anticipated for these industry groups due to their lowcurrent exposure levels (below the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc).

"Primary Manufacturing." Primary manufacturers use asbestos fiber as a rawmaterial in the production of an intermediate product to be further processedor fabricated into a finished product. As shown in Table 2, two processes --fiber introduction and product finishing/dry mechanical -- are common to allprimary manufacturing operations and, according to risk profiles in earlierreports [RTI, 1985; ICF, 1988], have a high potential for generating airborneasbestos fiber.

"Friction materials." Asbestos friction products include brake linings (i.e.linings for drum brakes, disc pads for disc brakes, and brake blocks), clutchfacings, and industrial linings for equipment and appliances. Based on EPAsurvey data [ICF, 1988] and discussion with industry experts, OSHA and CONSADestimate that 25 plants, employing a total of 1,415 workers, currentlymanufacture primary friction materials [CONSAD, 1990; OSHA, 1994].

"Gaskets and packings." Asbestos gaskets are used in static situations toavoid leakage, whereas asbestos packings are used in dynamic applications,such as pumps and valves, to control leakage where motion takes place.According to OSHA and CONSAD's profile of the industry, 130 productionworkers in 7 establishments are exposed to asbestos.

"Coatings and sealants." Asbestos fiber is used as a filler and reinforcerin asphalt and tar-based surface coatings. These products are then used asroof sealants, waterproofing coatings, automobile undercoatings, protectivecoatings for underground pipelines, anti-condensation coatings forlow-temperature refrigeration services and fireproofing for structural steel.OSHA estimates that 1,181 production workers in 75 coatings and sealantsplants are affected by the revised standard.

"Primary manufacture of plastics." Asbestos-reinforced plastic moldingcompounds are used in the electronic, automotive, and printing industries.Primary manufacturers of asbestos-reinforced plastics produce moldingcompounds in pellet or flake form. These plastics are used in commutators androtors in electrical and automotive applications. Based on OSHA and CONSAD'sindustry profile [CONSAD, 1990; OSHA, 1994], OSHA projects that one plasticsplant, employing eighteen workers, will be affected by the revised standard.

"Automotive repair." The general automotive repair and service sectorincludes establishments involved in brake and clutch repair work andmaintenance. The major source of asbestos exposure in this sector occurs whencompressed air is used for blowing the residual dust from the brake liningassembly. In addition, minor exposures in brake repair can occur during sprayapplications and when handling cloths and other supplies contaminated withasbestos fibers. Replacement of clutch assemblies can also lead to fiberrelease. CONSAD estimates that approximately 329,000 automobile repair shopsand garages, brake and clutch repair establishments, and motor vehicledealers, employing 676,000 workers, will be affected by the revision to theasbestos standard. OSHA is mandating specific engineering controls and workpractices that will affect this sector.

"Shipbuilding and repairing -- historical contact with asbestos in shipyardwork." The revision to the shipyard asbestos standard affects theshipbuilding and repairing industry, SIC 3731. Shipbuilding and repairing isa large-scale manufacturing activity that requires both skilled and unskilledlabor. Shipyard work can be categorized into three main operations: (1) shipconstruction, (2) ship repair, and (3) ship overhaul. Asbestos exposureoccurs during those conversion, repair, or overhaul operations whereasbestos-containing components are removed or repaired.

Asbestos products were used extensively on American ships from the early1940s through the late 1970s in joiner bulkhead systems in living space; forinsulation of steam and hot water pipes, boilers, and tanks in machineryspace; in ceiling tile; and in fire-resistant sheets in bulkheads [RTI,1985]. However, after 1973, new specifications reduced the use of asbestos onships regulated by the Maritime Administration (MARAD). Use of asbestos wasonly permitted in insulation cement in lagging for machinery casings and inlagging cloth.

Since 1978, specifications for government-subsidized ships have required theelimination of all asbestos lagging and insulation materials. Therefore,current ship building activities ordinarily do not generate any workerexposure to asbestos. However, OSHA believes that all ships delivered before1975 contain extensive asbestos insulation materials, and that shipsdelivered between 1975 and 1978 contain asbestos in the form of insulatingcement on machinery casings. Potential asbestos exposures occur when workerscontact these materials during maintenance and repair activities [OSHA,1986].

"Occupational exposure to asbestos." The greatest potential for occupationalexposure to asbestos occurs during removal activities due to sawing, tearing,cutting, and scraping operations. Additional sources of asbestos exposure,involving a small number of shipyard workers, occur during repair activitiessuch as removal and installation of gaskets [OSHA, 1986]. Whenever possible,asbestos is thoroughly wetted during removal activities. However, wet removalin nuclear reactor compartments is not permitted because of possibleradiation contamination.

Shipyards are owned by both the private sector and the U.S. Navy. Privatesector shipyards can be classified into three categories: (1) major shipyardsengaged in construction and/or repair with drydocking facilities; (2) smaller"second-tier" shipyards that service inland waterways and coastal commerceand that build and repair smaller vessels; and (3) "topside" repairfacilities that work on ships while they remain in the water.

The number of reported firms in SIC 3731, Ship Building and Repairing, hasdiffered in recent years among traditional data sources. Many "firms"classified within the industry are very small, perform shipyard work onlyintermittently, or are marginal firms with short tenure. The 1987 Census ofManufactures included 590 shipyards (287 with twenty or more employees)operated by 547 companies [Dept. of Commerce, 1990a]. The CommerceDepartment's 1993 Industrial Outlook estimates a total of 585 establishments[U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1993]. However, in 1987, the Commission on MerchantMarine and Defense reported the existence of only 305 "working" shipyards[Merchant Marine Commission, 1987]. In their 1991 Report on Survey of U.S.Shipbuilding and Repair Facilities, the Maritime Administration reported that"over 200 privately-owned firms are involved in repairing ships in the UnitedStates" [Dept. of Transportation, 1991]. In addition to the private-sectorshipyards, there are currently eight Navy-owned shipyards and two Navy-ownedship repair facilities [U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1993].

Employment in the shipbuilding and repair industry -- as high as 184,000 in1981 -- was 118,000 in October 1992 according to the Bureau of LaborStatistics [BLS, 1993]. Employment has also declined in government-ownedshipyards. In 1990 the five largest firms employed 81,000 workers while the12 largest firms (all with at least 1,000 workers) employed 98,000 workers[Dept. of Transportation, 1990].

The largest percentage of asbestos work is performed in major shipyards[OSHA, 1991 (Ocken, p. 395)]. OSHA and CONSAD identified a range of 13 to 23major shipyards as potentially affected by the revision to the asbestosstandard [OSHA, 1994]. These establishments employ approximately 74,000 to80,500 workers, of which an estimated three percent, or 2,220 to 2,415workers, perform maintenance and repair activities [RTI, 1985; OSHA, 1994].

As shown in Table 2, OSHA analyzed impacts in two areas of ship repair:

wet removal/repair and dry removal/repair. Dry removal and repair occur inship compartments, such as in nuclear powered vessels, where wet methods areinfeasible. Based on OSHA and CONSAD's profile of the ship repair industry,OSHA estimates that 18 shipyards, employing 985 workers, are affected by therevised standard.

"Market conditions in the shipbuilding industry." During the 1980s, theshipbuilding industry experienced a sharp decline in output due to (1)competition from subsidized foreign shipbuilders; (2) decreased demand fornew ships caused by excess supply; (3) the elimination of some subsidies forU.S. shipbuilders; and (4) a relaxation of the requirements for foreign shipsentering the U.S. commercial fleet. No commercial ships were built in theUnited States between 1985 and 1990, and only four have been built or underconstruction since 1990. However, due to the requirements of the Jones Act,American shipyards still build all vessels used in domestic commerce --smaller ships, barges, and tugboats. Industry forecasts also predict that thedemand for commercial ships will "increase significantly" during the 1990sdue to the need for replacement of an aging world merchant fleet [U.S.Industrial Outlook, 1993]. It remains to be seen what fraction of thisbusiness may be won by U.S. shipbuilders.

In contrast to the declining market for commercial ship construction, themarket for ship repair and conversion work is strong. The U.S. IndustrialOutlook reports that "the demand for some ship repair services * * * exceedswhat is currently available in certain areas." In addition, investments byU.S. shipyards to improve, expand, and modernize repairing facilities areproceeding. Investment in fiscal year 1992 was $215 million, contrasted with$176 million for purchases of plant, machinery and equipment in 1991 [U.S.Industrial Outlook, 1993].

Asbestos in Construction

The construction industry is the principal market for asbestos materials andproducts in the United States, accounting for 68 percent of the asbestosconsumed in 1992 [Bureau of Mines, 1993]. Asbestos products used inconstruction include asbestos-cement pipe, asbestos-cement sheet, coatings,compounds, packings, and roofing products.

With the decline in consumption of raw asbestos in U.S. manufacturingcoupled with the introduction of asbestos substitutes into product design,the asbestos construction industry has shifted away from activitiesassociated with installing asbestos products. Instead, in the last decadeconcern over the public risk presented by damaged asbestos in place, as wellas the practical need to maintain aging interior sections in commercial andresidential buildings, has directed the asbestos construction industry to theareas of demolition, removal, and renovation. In addition, custodialpersonnel occasionally come into contact with asbestos during theirhousekeeping duties.

The construction industry is comprised of a large number of firms:

approximately 536,300 establishments in 1987, employing just over 5 millionworkers [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. Of this industry total, 423,500establishments, or 79 percent, employed fewer than 10 workers, while only 9.3percent had 20 or more employees. The prevalence of small firms is partiallyrelated to the ease of entry into the construction industry. To establish aconstruction firm generally requires minimal capitalization; many firms, infact, achieve success by carrying little overhead and adapting their servicesto industry trends. Furthermore, a sizable share of proprietorships in theindustry are composed of self-employed individuals who contract their ownservices, and who shift back and forth from employee status toself-employment status as opportunities change.

In construction, unlike manufacturing, the typical industry end-product ishighly differentiated and is produced at a site selected by the purchaser.Due to this degree of product specificity, each worksite usually has its ownpattern of material use, building methods, and number and mix of workers.Thus, considerable variation may exist in actual worker use of, or contactwith, asbestos materials and products. Although the occasional use ofasbestos products appears to be the norm -- particularly given the changingmaterial use patterns in new construction -- some workers (e.g. asbestos pipeinstallers and abatement/removal specialists) continually come into contactwith asbestos materials and products.

Worker mobility, resulting in considerable shifting among both job sites andemployers is another characteristic of the industry. Workers tend to identifywith their craft or occupation, not with their employer [Lange and Mills,1979]. Cyclical changes in the economy and seasonal work patterns causevariability of job opportunities, with a large portion of workers frequentlyentering and exiting the industry. Collectively, these factors make it verydifficult to estimate the total number of workers exposed to asbestos and theduration of their exposure.

Based upon profiles of the asbestos construction industry by OSHA and CONSAD[OSHA, 1994; CONSAD, 1990], OSHA in this final RIA has estimated the numberof construction workers potentially exposed in the areas affected by thestandard -- that is, where asbestos products are installed, replaced,removed, or managed in place. Affected construction activities are foundwithin the following general sectors: new construction; abatement anddemolition; building renovation and remodeling; routine maintenance; andcustodial work. Table 3 presents OSHA's profile of the population at riskfrom occupational exposure to asbestos in construction. Below aredescriptions of the construction activities categorized within the generalsectors affected by OSHA's revised asbestos standard.

"New construction." New construction activities account for the bulk ofasbestos materials and products consumed in a typical year. Major productsinclude asbestos-cement pipe, asbestos-cement sheet, coatings and compounds,and roofing products. As depicted in Table 1, these construction productscomprised over half (19 thousand metric tons) of the total U.S. asbestosconsumption in 1992.(3)

__________

Footnote(3) Total consumption of asbestos-cement sheet was approximated as50 metric tons for the purpose of this calculation.

"Asbestos-cement pipe." Asbestos-cement pipe (A/C pipe) is used chiefly fortransporting drinking water in a pressurized condition and to providedrainage for storm water, sewage and other liquid waste. Approximately 90percent of A/C pipe purchases are of pressure water pipe [AIA, Ex. 117,1991]. A/C pipe is also used in industrial applications, to carry gaseousproducts, and as an electrical conduit for heating, cooling and gas venting[ICF, 1988].

Use of A/C pipe in the United States is concentrated in the Mountain,Pacific and Southwest regions. In 1991, the Asbestos Information Associationcommented [Ex. 117] that "pre-cut, pre-tapped pipe has received tremendousmarketplace acceptance and represents a large majority of sales." This issignificant because the use of pre-cut, pre-tapped pipe may reduce oreliminate some types of field fabrication activities.

A/C pipe is composed of 15-25 percent asbestos, 42-53 percent Portlandcement, and 34-40 percent ground silica sand. The use of raw asbestos in theproduction of A/C pipe fluctuated somewhat but remained fairly constantduring the mid-1980s (26,100 metric tons in 1983, 37,000 metric tons in 1984,32,691 metric tons in 1985) [ICF, 1988] but has declined dramatically since:7,900 metric tons in 1989, 1,700 metric tons in 1992 [Bureau of Mines, 1993].The use of substitutes for asbestos and the overall slump in new constructionin the early 1990s probably account for much of the decline in asbestosconsumption in A/C pipe. Based on OSHA and CONSAD's profile of the industry,OSHA estimates that 224 to 2,100 workers, or an average of 1,162 workers, areexposed to asbestos during installation of A/C pipe.

"Asbestos-cement sheet." Asbestos-cement sheet (A/C sheet) has a variety ofuses as a structural, technical and decorative material in large residentialbuildings, electrical utilities, industrial plants, schools, and hospitals.A/C sheet includes flat sheet, corrugated sheet, and roofing and sideshingles. Of these four main types of A/C sheet, all, as of the date of ICF'smarket survey, were produced in the United States with the exception ofcorrugated sheet [ICF, 1988]. According to ICF, flat A/C sheet has thefollowing principal applications:

* Wall lining in factories and agricultural buildings *Fire-resistant walls * Curtain walls * Industrial partitions * Soffitmaterial (covering the underside of structural components * Interior andexterior decorative paneling. Specialized applications of flat A/C sheetinclude its use in cooling towers, as laboratory table tops and fume hoods,and as a component of vaults, ovens, safes, heaters, and boilers.

Asbestos-cement shingles are used as siding and roofing for residential andcommercial buildings. According to results from ICF's market survey, demandfor roofing shingles represents 70 percent of consumption in the A/C shinglemarket while demand for siding shingles constitute the remainder of themarket.

A/C sheet may contain anywhere from 15 to 40 percent asbestos, incombination with cement and, occasionally, silica [Cogley, et al., 1982]. Inrecent years, manufacturers have substituted other materials for asbestos inthe production of A/C sheet; meanwhile, due to unit price differences,alternative construction components such as pre-cast concrete and cement/woodboard have replaced A/C sheet in the building industry [OSHA, 1986].Together, these factors have contributed to a decline in asbestos consumptionin the A/C sheet market from levels of roughly 11,000 metric tons of rawasbestos in the early 1980s [OSHA, 1986] to a 1992 consumption of under 100metric tons (see Table 1). OSHA estimates that, the population at risk duringA/C sheet installation ranges from 270 to 2,160 workers, or an average of1,215 employees.

"Asbestos abatement and demolition." Increased health concerns regarding thepotential release of asbestos fibers have prompted a desire to remove orencapsulate such materials in existing buildings. In response to this demand,a variety of specialty contractors and construction trades have become activein asbestos abatement, particularly in schools, where EPA regulations haveindirectly generated a large market for this type of service.

The asbestos abatement industry experienced extraordinary growth in the1980s due to legal, regulatory, economic and health-related factors.Rifkin-Wernick Associates [Rifkin-Wernick, 1990], specialists in analyzingthe asbestos industry, estimate that combined public and private buildingownership spent $4.2 billion in 1989 for services and products related toasbestos abatement in their properties. This level of abatement expendituresrepresented an increase of 24 percent over levels in 1988. According toRifkin-Wernick, asbestos construction activities associated with demolition,renovation, and operations and maintenance accounted for around 90 percent ofabatement expenditures; the remainder of abatement expenditures satisfiedlegal or economic considerations while addressing lower-level safetyconcerns.

Rifkin-Wernick reports that approximately 50 percent of asbestos abatementbusiness in 1989 occurred in eight states: California, New York, Texas,Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. Of the $4.2 billion inabatement expenditures in 1989, commercial buildings (offices, retailestablishments, hotels/motels and warehouses) accounted for $1.4 billion inabatement services. Industrial buildings accounted for nearly $1 billion inasbestos abatement expenditures, while abatement in schools totaled $800million, or roughly one-fifth of the industry.

In early 1990, 2,100 asbestos abatement contractors operated in the UnitedStates under either state certification or some other license. Rifkin-Wernickestimates that abatement contractors in 1989 employed 161,000 workers, ofwhich 98,000 were full-time. Firm size in the industry was generally small:80 percent of contractors employ fewer than 50 people and over half ofasbestos contractors have no part-time employees.

Contractor revenues in 1989 totaled $3.6 billion. Rifkin-Wernick classifiedcontractors by revenue size and geographic radius of operation. Nationalcontractors are defined as conducting business beyond 1,000 miles ofheadquarters and with revenues above $20 million. Regional contractors, inRifkin-Wernick's classification system, tend to operate 250 to 1,000 milesfrom the main office and earn revenues of $5 million to $20 million. Finally,local contractors operate primarily within a 250-mile radius of home and earnunder $5 million. Table 4 presents Rifkin-Wernick's 1990 assessment ofcontractor market concentration for two earlier years and market projectionfor 1994.

In developing its profile of the abatement and demolition industry, OSHA[OSHA, 1994], recognized the growth in market specialization observed byRifkin-Wernick and other experts. Therefore, OSHA applied lower-bound workerpopulation estimates to the cost and benefit analysis. For all of abatementand demolition, OSHA estimates a full-time workforce of 21,295 persons.(4)

__________

Footnote(4) OSHA notes that its estimate for the number of full-timeabatement workers is lower than Rifkin-Wernick's 1989 estimate. OSHA believesthat this discrepancy may possibly be due to three factors: 1) the cyclicaldecline in the industry during the recession of 1990-1991 and subsequent slowrecovery; 2) increased specialization among abatement workers and theadoption of labor-saving technologies and work practices; and 3) theinclusion of abatement workers in other activity groups within OSHA'sindustry profile.

"Renovation and remodeling." The principal general renovation activitiesthat entail occupational exposure to asbestos are: the demolition of drywall(including removal of transite panels), the removal of built-up roofingcontaining asbestos roofing felts, and the removal of asbestos flooringproducts. OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] estimate that anywhere from 60,735 to95,914 workers -- all of whom are full-time professionals -- may be at riskfrom asbestos exposure during renovation and remodeling. OSHA believes thatspecialization has emerged in the industry to the extent that a lower-boundestimate of the workforce is appropriate in this impact analysis.Consequently, OSHA estimates that 60,735 full-time-equivalent workers inrenovation and remodeling of asbestos-containing buildings are affected bythe revised standard.

"Drywall demolition." The occupational exposure to asbestos associated withthe demolition and renovation of drywall results primarily from the releaseof asbestos fibers from the spackling, tape, and joint compounds used toproduce a smooth surface across the entire wall. Although the use of asbestosin drywall tape and spackling compound is now prohibited, asbestos-containingfinishing materials were routinely used in drywall application through theearly 1970s. Thus, the demolition and renovation of drywall in any buildingconstructed prior to the mid-1970s is likely to expose workers to friableasbestos.

On occasion, drywall renovation involves contact with sprayed- andtroweled-on fireproofing and other asbestos surfacing material. Informationon the frequency of contact with high-risk asbestos-containing materialduring drywall renovation is limited but suggests that a minor percentage ofprojects are affected [CONSAD, 1985]. OSHA estimates that 20 percent ofdrywall renovations involve contact with high-risk ACM. A breakdown of theworker population for drywall renovation is given below under BENEFITS.

"Built-up roofing removal." Built up roofs constructed with asbestos roofingfelts generally have long useful lives of 20 or more years. CONSAD [CONSAD,1990] used Bureau of Mines data on production of roofing felt in the 1960s toestimate that approximately 80,000 tons of asbestos-containing roofingproducts will be removed annually.

"Removal of asbestos flooring products." Asbestos flooring products, alsotermed "resilient floor coverings," include vinyl/asbestos floor tile,asphalt/asbestos floor tile, and sheet flooring backed with asbestos felt.Asbestos flooring products are estimated to be in over 3.6 million buildings[EPA, 1984]. Although these floors have a useful life of approximately 25-30years, they are generally replaced more often [RFCI, 1990].

"Routine maintenance in public, commercial and residential buildings."

Routine building maintenance activities can involve exposure to asbestosbecause of the presence of products containing asbestos. Worker exposure canbe a result of direct contact with the asbestos materials and products or canresult from disturbance of settled dust in the vicinity ofasbestos-containing materials (for example, when work above a drop ceiling isperformed where asbestos-containing insulation or fireproofing was used).Maintenance activities that can involve asbestos exposure include: adjustmentor repair of HVAC ductwork or lighting (above a drop ceiling); replacement ofdrop ceiling tiles; repair of leaking water or steam pipes; boilermaintenance or repair activities; and repairs to roofing, drywall orflooring. Workers at risk during these activities include in-house buildingmaintenance personnel, contract maintenance crews, and special tradescontractors. Based on an industry profile by CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990], OSHAestimates that anywhere from 128,867 workers to 740,237 workers arepotentially exposed while performing routine maintenance activities inpublic, commercial and residential buildings.

For this economic impact analysis, OSHA assumed that owners of affectedbuildings will minimize compliance costs by applying maintenance personnel --whether in-house or contract -- to asbestos projects on a full-time basis,where possible. Under this assumption, the absolute number of affectedworkers would equal the lower-bound estimate for the population at risk(128,867 workers). In terms of person-years of exposure (number of personsexposed over a year of eight-hour days), the lower-bound population at riskequates to 25,771 full-time-equivalent persons, as shown in Column 3 in Table3.

Renovation, maintenance, and repair operations comprise a significantportion of total construction activity. In 1987, receipts from maintenanceand repair operations alone were $50.4 billion, or 10 percent of totalconstruction receipts [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b].

"Routine maintenance in industrial facilities." In general industry, routinemaintenance and repair can involve the disturbance of asbestos- containingmaterials and products (ACM), including such products as gaskets, pipe andboiler insulation, electronic components and structural building materials.Asbestos industrial materials and products are most widely used in (1) themanufacture of malt beverages, paper products, chemicals, petroleum products,glass and ceramics, iron and steel, and fabricated metal products; (2)telephone communications; (3) electric utilities; and (4) other publicutilities (gas, water, sanitary services). Occupational exposure to asbestosfibers can occur among maintenance workers directly involved in disturbanceof ACM as well as among production workers near the maintenance work site.

For this final analysis of the costs and benefits of the revised asbestosstandard, OSHA identified five general types of routine maintenance inindustrial facilities, listed below.

* Gasket removal and installation

* Boiler removal and installation

* Pipe removal and installation

* Miscellaneous maintenance

* Miscellaneous telecommunications maintenance

Miscellaneous maintenance includes the variety of building maintenance(ceiling work, roofing, drywall, etc.) described above under "RoutineMaintenance in Public, Commercial, and Residential Buildings." Miscellaneoustelecommunications maintenance includes 1) removal of electronic components,particularly line card resistors, insulated with asbestos and 2) placement orremoval of communications wire and cable.

Table 3 presents the range of workers in general industry potentiallyexposed to asbestos during routine maintenance tasks. In this impactanalysis, OSHA assumes that, to minimize compliance costs, affectedestablishments will concentrate asbestos maintenance duties among a group oftrained specialists. Shown in Column 3 in the table are OSHA's estimates forfull-time populations at risk for each maintenance activity. For all ofgeneral industry, a total of 2,711 full-time-equivalent persons performconstruction-related duties.

"Custodial work in public, commercial and residential buildings."

Asbestos exposure in public and commercial buildings can occur during avariety of tasks involving disturbance of asbestos or asbestos-containingmaterials, in addition to routine maintenance activities described above.Custodial work in buildings with ACM can include any of the following typesof activities: sweeping; cleaning; dusting; mopping; vacuuming; stripping andbuffing of vinyl-asbestos floor tile; and clean-up after asbestos removal orother significant asbestos construction work.

A recent EPA-sponsored study of asbestos exposure among custodial workers inMissouri reports frequency and duration of custodial activities [Wickman, etal., 1992]. Modeling a custodial worker profile on the Missouri study and onbuilding survey data from EPA, OSHA and CONSAD estimated the range of workerspotentially at risk [OSHA, 1994]. OSHA estimates that anywhere from 1.1million to 3.7 million workers are at risk from asbestos exposure duringcustodial work.

OSHA believes that there is presently little specialization in asbestoscustodial work and that the actual number of workers at risk approximates theaverage of the lower-bound and upper-bound number of workers. In terms ofperson-years of exposure over work weeks consisting of eight-hour days, OSHAestimates that 223,160 full-time-equivalent workers are at risk duringcustodial disturbance of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials.

"Custodial work in industrial facilities." Custodial work in industrialfacilities largely resembles custodial work in public, commercial, andresidential buildings and was identically modeled by CONSAD. The workforce atrisk performing custodial activities in industrial facilities ranges from143,355 to 535,768 workers, as shown in Table 3. Taking the average of thisrange and calculating the full-time-equivalent population, OSHA estimatesthat 31,442 person-years of exposure occur in general industry annuallyduring custodial work.

C. Assessment of Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Alternatives Introduction

The declared purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970is "* * * to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in theNation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our humanresources * * *" Thus, the Act requires the Secretary of Labor, whenpromulgating occupational safety and health standards for toxic materials orharmful physical agents, to set the standard " * * * that most adequatelyassures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence,that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functionalcapacity * * *" On the basis of this congressional directive, OSHA hasresponded to the Court of Appeals by issuing a final revision to the asbestosstandard, the intent of which is to further reduce the adverse health effectsassociated with occupational exposure to asbestos. This chapter reviewsregulatory and non-regulatory alternatives that OSHA considered and found tobe inadequate for full remediation of the occupational hazards of asbestos.

Private Markets and Occupational Health

Economic theory suggests that the need for government regulation is greatlyreduced where private markets work efficiently and effectively to allocatehealth and safety resources. The theory typically assumes perfectlycompetitive labor markets where workers, having perfect knowledge of jobrisks and being perfectly mobile among jobs, command wage premiums that fullycompensate for any risk of future harm. Thus, theoretically, the costs ofoccupational injury and illness are borne initially by the firms responsiblefor the hazardous workplace conditions and, ultimately, by the consumers whopay higher prices for the final goods and services produced by these firms.With all costs internalized, private employers have an incentive to reducehazards wherever the cost of hazard abatement is less than the cost of theexpected injury or illness. The resultant level of safety and health isconsidered "efficient" in the sense that it minimizes the sum of the costs ofhazard prevention and of injury or illness. Perfectly competitive labormarkets, however, do not exist for many industrial markets. OSHA, therefore,believes that it must take appropriate actions to provide greater workerprotection against exposures to toxic substances.

Evidence indicates that market forces have not been effective in reducingexcessive occupational exposure to asbestos, thereby contributing to thedevelopment of diseases related to it. In spite of the hazards associatedwith asbestos, the social costs of production have not been internalized, inpart because of market imperfections and the existence of externalities.Consequently, the amount of protection that the private market will offer toworkers differs from the socially desired level, for the following reasons.

First, evidence on occupational health hazards in general suggests that, inthe absence of immediate or clear-cut danger, employees and employers havelittle incentive to seek or provide information on the potential long-termeffects of exposure. When relevant information is provided, however,employers and employees might still find informed decision making a difficulttask, especially where long latency periods precede the development ofdisease. Moreover, if signs and symptoms are nonspecific -- that is, if anillness could be job-related or could have other causes -- employees andemployers may not link disease with exposure.

Second, even if workers were fully informed of the health risks associatedwith exposure to asbestos, many face limited employment options.Non-transferability of occupational skills and high regional unemploymentrates sharply reduce a worker's expectation of obtaining alternativeemployment quickly or easily. A worker employed in resurfacing automobilebrakes, for example, could find it difficult to apply occupational skills toa new job in searching for a safer workplace. In many regions of the country,the practical choice for workers is not between a safe job and a betterpaying but more hazardous position, but simply between employment andunemployment at the prevailing rates of pay and risk. In addition to the fearof substantial income loss from prolonged periods of unemployment, the highcosts of relocation, the reluctance to break family and community ties, andthe growth of institutional factors such as pension plans and seniorityrights serve to elevate the cost of job transfer.

In addition to the market imperfections, externalities result in employersand employees settling for an inefficiently low level of protection fromtoxic substances. For the competitive market to function efficiently, onlyworkers and their employers should be affected by the level of safety andhealth provided in market transactions. In the case of occupational safetyand health, however, society shares part of the financial burden ofoccupationally induced diseases, including the costs of premature death,excess sickness, and disability. Individuals who suffer from occupationallyrelated illness are cared for and compensated by society through taxpayersupport of social programs, including welfare, Social Security, and Medicare.These combined factors of labor market imperfections and the existence ofexternalities prevent the market from delivering an optimal supply ofhealthful working conditions in industries where asbestos hazards exist.

Tort Liability and Asbestos Litigation

Greater reliance on the use of liability under tort law is one of theexamples of a non-regulatory alternative identified and set forth by theOffice of Management and Budget guidelines for implementing Executive Orders12866 and 12291. Prosser [Prosser, 1971] describes a tort, in part, as a"civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the court willprovide a remedy in the form of an action for damages," although he says that"a really satisfactory definition has yet to be found."

If the tort system effectively applied, it would allow a worker whose healthhas been adversely affected by occupational exposure to asbestos to sue andrecover damages from the employer. Furthermore, the tort system would shiftthe liability of direct costs of occupational disease from the worker to thefirm under certain specific circumstances. The tort system has had limitedsuccess in shifting the cost of occupational disease. The limitations of thesystem are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Asbestos product liability litigation as a means of reducing worker exposureto asbestos has proven effective in some areas, but cumbersome to resolve.The difficulties are inherent in the litigation process as it relates toasbestos products and in the nature of the diseases associated with asbestos.

With very limited exceptions, however, the tort system is not a viablealternative in dealings between employees and their employers. All stateshave legislation providing that Workers' Compensation is either the exclusiveor principal remedy available to employees against their employers. Thus,tort law can only be applied to third-party suppliers of a hazardoussubstance. It is often difficult, however, to demonstrate cause, which is anecessary prerequisite for the successful application of tort liabilityagainst these suppliers.

First, knowledge of the worker exposure must exist. The worker and/ or thephysician must be aware of both the magnitude and duration of exposure toasbestos and the causal link between the disease and the occupationalexposure. Furthermore, it could be extremely difficult to isolate the role ofoccupational exposures in causing the disease, especially if workers areexposed to many toxic substances. Second, the liable party must beidentifiable, but workers may have several employers over a working lifetime.Third, the scientific and medical evidence available to support thecontention that the disease was caused by job-related exposure must withstandjudicial standards for proof of causality. This task is very difficultbecause of the long latency periods associated with asbestos-relateddiseases.

The costs associated with producing information and with litigation itselfmay be quite substantial. First, information is a public good, which meansthat once produced it can be transmitted inexpensively to any number ofindividuals without diminishing the quality or quantity of the information.It is, therefore, difficult to control distribution once the information isproduced. A producer of information may find that information produced atgreat expense can be acquired freely by potential customers, and that,consequently, the market for the information has virtually disappeared. As aresult, public goods are typically underproduced relative to what isconsidered economically efficient. This general undersupply of informationadversely affects the workers' awareness of the cause of their illness andthus reduces the likelihood that they will pursue tort liability suits.

Second, legal proceedings impose costs on both plaintiffs and defendants.Victims of torts must incur legal fees associated with bringing about courtaction. In deciding whether to sue, the victim must be sure that the size ofthe claim will be large enough to cover legal expenses. In effect, theplaintiff is likely to face substantial transaction costs in the form oflegal expenses. These are commonly set at a 33 percent contingency for theplaintiff's lawyer, plus legal expenses. The accused firm must also pay forits defense. A report prepared by the Research Triangle Institute [RTI,1982], contains some data pertaining to legal costs and the size of awards.One investigator, for example, found that an average ratio of legal costs toproceeds was 37 percent for a sample of cases. The data, however, do notseparate legal fees paid by the defendants and plaintiffs.

The majority of occupational disease tort activity has involved workersexposed to asbestos. These employees could avoid the exclusive remedy ofWorkers' Compensation by suing suppliers, whereas asbestos exposures are bestcontrolled by employers.

In a consolidated class-action case in 1990, a Texas court awarded more than$3.5 million in compensatory damages to 2,366 workers who had been exposed toasbestos in refineries. Punitive damages were to be awarded on the basis ofgross negligence on the part of the suppliers [Dallas Morning News, 1990].

In 1993, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit involving future personalinjury claims against 20 asbestos product manufacturers represented by theCenter for Claims Resolution (Carlough v. Amchem Products, Inc). It wouldprovide $1 billion over the next ten years to settle about 100,000 claims aspeople exposed to the manufacturers' products contract asbestos-relatedconditions. Payments would depend on the type of condition and attorneys'fees would be capped at 25 percent of each payment [BNA, 1993]. Thesettlement was reached by parties aware of the decades-long impasses inasbestos litigation that have frustrated the tort liability process.

It is unusual for insurance and liability costs to be borne in full by thespecific employer responsible for the risk involved. For firms usinginsurance, the premium determination process is such that premiums onlypartially reflect changes in risk associated with changes in asbestos orother hazardous exposures. This results in the so-called "moral hazardproblem," which is the risk that arises from the possible dishonesty orimprudence of the insured. As the insured has paid for an insurance companyto assume some of his or her risks, he or she has less reason to exercise thediligence necessary to avoid losses. This transfer of risk is a fundamentalsource of imperfection in markets.

For firms that self-insure or carry liability insurance with a largedeductible, the costs of a single claim may be fully borne by the firm. Verysmall firms, and large firms with a large number of claims, however, may failto meet the full costs by declaring bankruptcy, as has happened with JohnsManville and other former asbestos producers. The attempts at financialrestructuring by defendants of asbestos litigation further reduce the chancesthat workers who contract asbestos-related diseases as employees of thesecompanies or as employees of companies that used their products will collectcompensation [Washington Post, 1990].

Workers' Compensation

The Workers' Compensation system came about as the result of perceivedinadequacies in liability or insurance systems to compel employers to preventoccupational disease or compensate workers fully for their losses. Thissystem was designed to internalize some of the social costs of production,but in reality it has fallen short of compensating workers adequately foroccupationally related disease. Thus, society shares the burden ofoccupationally related adverse health effects, premature mortality, excessmorbidity, and disability through taxpayer support of social programs such aswelfare, Social Security disability payments, and Medicare.

Government Regulations and Rejected Alternative Standards

In order to compensate for market imperfections (some of which are detailedabove), a number of federal and state regulations have been promulgated inthe attempt to improve the allocation of resources. While some of theseregulations may have a limiting effect on occupational exposures to asbestos,OSHA does not believe that these regulations obviate the need for an OSHAstandard regulating occupational exposure to asbestos.

OSHA's current permissible exposure level (PEL) for asbestos of 0.2 fibersper cubic centimeter (f/cc) does not eliminate all significant risk toworkers. Given the recent health evidence of carcinogenic andnon-carcinogenic hazards, OSHA believes that to fully protect workers it isnecessary to lower the asbestos PEL and establish ancillary provisions.

For public, commercial, residential and industrial buildings, OSHA rejected,on the basis of cost and feasibility considerations, alternative approachesrequiring owners to conduct up-front inspections for asbestos-containingmaterials or to inspect before ACM is disturbed. These approaches have alsobeen examined by the Environmental Protection Agency. An analysis by EPA'scontractor [Abt, 1992] projected potential compliance costs of $13.2 billionto $16.2 billion for an up-front survey approach and potential costs of $3.2billion to $14.5 billion for an identify-before-disturb option. OSHA'sapproach, instead, specifies parameters for making reasonable assumptionsabout the presence of asbestos-containing materials within buildingcomponents and notifying and protecting maintenance workers, custodians andbuilding occupants as prescribed elsewhere in the revised standard.

D. Benefits of the Revision to the Final Asbestos Standard Introduction

The inhalation of asbestos fiber has been clearly associated with threeclinical conditions: asbestosis, mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining of thechest or abdomen), and lung cancer. Studies have also observed increasedgastrointestinal cancer risk. Risk from cancer at other sites, such as thelarynx, pharynx, and kidneys, is also suspected.

Initial exposure limits for asbestos were based on efforts to reduceasbestosis which was known to be associated with asbestos exposure. Thereduction in cases of asbestosis, however, resulted in workers living longenough to develop cancers that are now recognized as associated with asbestosexposure. The following discussion of the benefits associated with areduction in exposures, therefore, focuses on the number of cancer casesavoided within the exposed work force. The results are expressed in terms ofdeaths avoided because these cancers almost always result in death.

Methodology

OSHA calculated expected benefits following promulgation of the finalrevised asbestos standard for workers employed in the general industry,shipyards, and construction sectors. In this benefits analysis, the followingtypes of preventable asbestos-related cancer mortalities were evaluated: (1)Preventable lung cancers, (2) preventable mesotheliomas, and (3) preventablegastrointestinal cancers. The risk assessment used to derive OSHA's estimateof the number of cancers prevented is discussed in Chapter 5 of theregulatory impact analysis of the 1986 final asbestos standard [OSHA, 1986].For this analysis, OSHA updated the 1986 risk assessment to include 1991 dataon the gender and age distribution within affected industry sectors [BLS,1991] and the 1991 mortality rates associated with malignant neoplasms ofrespiratory and intrathoracic organs [NCHS, 1993].

The benefits of a reduction in the PEL depend upon current exposure levels,the number of workers exposed, and the risk associated with each exposurelevel. OSHA's estimates for current exposures, the number of full-timeequivalent workers exposed, and the exposure levels after compliance with therevision to the final rule are presented in Table 5 for general industry andshipyards and Table 6 for construction.

OSHA calculated annual preventable cancers associated with the revisedstandard through a five-step procedure. First, OSHA estimated baselineoccupational exposure levels -- in terms of 8-hour time-weighted averagefiber levels -- for all affected sectors using data from the record and fromprevious asbestos regulatory impact analyses. Then, applying theOSHA/Nicholson risk assessment model to baseline exposures and the associatedpopulations at risk, OSHA calculated baseline cancers among affected workers.In the third step, OSHA estimated occupational exposure levels as a result ofcompliance with the final standard, using assigned protection factors fordesignated controls. OSHA then projected total residual cancers followingpromulgation of the standard. Finally, OSHA calculated the number ofcompliance-related preventable cancers by subtracting the number of residualcancers from the number of baseline cancers.

Occupational Exposure Profile

For each sector affected by the revised asbestos standard, OSHA assessedcurrent occupational exposures using data from past regulatory impactanalyses and the rulemaking records for this final standard and for previousOSHA asbestos standards. Principal sources of exposure data for this finalRIA were Economic and Technological Profile Related to OSHA's RevisedPermanent Asbestos Standard for the Construction Industry and AsbestosRemoval and Routine Maintenance Projects in General Industry prepared byOSHA's contractor CONSAD Research Corporation [CONSAD, 1985]; EconomicAnalysis of the Proposed Revisions to the OSHA Asbestos Standards forConstruction and General Industry, also by CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990]; OSHA's 1986final asbestos regulatory impact analysis [OSHA, 1986]; and OSHA's regulatoryanalysis of the excursion limit [OSHA, 1988].

Average exposures and the range of exposures reported in CONSAD [CONSAD,1985, 1990] and OSHA [1986] were developed from a review of the record forthe rulemaking proceeding that led to promulgation of the current OSHAasbestos standard. Baseline exposures described in the literature andreported by CONSAD in 1985 generally reflected the use of minimal engineeringcontrols and the virtual absence of respiratory protection. These baselineexposures were reported by OSHA in its 1986 RIA and served to establishbaseline risk estimates for affected workers prior to compliance with thefinal standard promulgated in 1986. In its 1986 RIA, OSHA assumed that thecontrols implied by compliance with the 1986 standard would result inspecified rates of effectiveness and would lead to benefits in preventablecancers.

In this final RIA for the revised asbestos standard, OSHA developed anexposure profile for affected occupational groups using representative datafrom the 1986 RIA, from CONSAD reports [1985, 1990] and from the rulemakingrecord. For each affected sector, OSHA estimated baseline exposures using thefollowing assumptions: (1) Where reasonable and appropriate, engineeringcontrols and work practices assigned in the 1986 RIA were assumed to be incurrent use; (2) where engineering controls and work practices were notsufficient to reduce maximum exposures to a PEL of 0.2 f/cc and an excursionlevel of 1.0 f/ cc, OSHA assumed that the least-cost respiratory protectionwould be applied. OSHA's baseline exposure profile for this revision to theasbestos standard thus reflects industry application of controls, workpractices and respirators to achieve permissible limits established under theOSHA 1986 and 1988 rulemakings.

Table 5 presents average baseline exposure levels for general industry andshipyards and Table 6 presents average baseline exposure levels forconstruction. Tables 5 and 6, in addition, show average baseline exposurelevels in the absence of respiratory protection and other primary controlsand work practices (Column 2 in Table 5, Column 3 in Table 6), taken fromrepresentative data in the rulemaking record (see [CONSAD, 1985] and [CONSAD,1984]). Also shown in Table 6 are representative exposure levels (Column 4)in the absence of respiratory protection. Fiber levels prior to respiratoruse were estimated by applying, to potential mean exposure levels (Column 3),protection factors for wet methods, glove bags and other controls judgedcurrently in use, at hypothetical application levels of 100 percent.

Mean exposures in nearly all sectors are estimated to be at or below thecurrent PEL and excursion limit, consistent with the assumptions in the 1986RIA and 1988 excursion limit analysis of 100 percent compliance with thefinal standards. For most of the sectors presented in the tables, OSHA'sestimated current exposure levels were determined by applying, to baselineexposures in the absence of controls, protection factors ranging from 10 to1000, adjusted to reflect current application of controls. In that real-worldapplication of engineering controls and work practices is under 100 percentin nearly all asbestos construction sectors, mean current exposure levels(Column 5) can exceed representative (hypothetical) fiber levels absentrespirators (Column 4).

Also shown in Tables 5 and 6 are OSHA's estimated exposure levels followingthe final revision to the standard. OSHA projected exposure levels for eachaffected General Industry, Shipyards, and Construction activity by applyingprotection factors to average baseline exposures. OSHA calculated protectionfactors for each activity by assuming that controls have a multiplicativeeffect in reducing exposures, that is, the cumulative protection provided bya set of controls is the product of individual protection factors. OSHAassigned protection factors to all significant controls and calculatedcumulative protection factors for all affected sectors. Cumulative protectionfactors were then applied to baseline exposures in order to determineexposures resulting from compliance with the final revised standard. As shownin Column 3 in Table 5 and in Column 5 in Table 6, projected exposures arequite low (some below the level of detection), commensurate with the highdegree of protection provided by the controls required by, or, in some cases,implied by the revised standard.

Estimates of Cancers Prevented, by Industry

"Benefits to workers in direct contact with asbestos." Tables 5 and 6present OSHA's estimated annual benefits to employees affected by the revisedstandard. Quantified benefits represent the total of avoided cases of deathfrom lung cancers, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal cancers. In generalindustry and shipyards, OSHA projects that wider use of engineering controls,work practices and respiratory protection will result in 2.1 avoided cancerdeaths. In construction, expected benefits total 40.5 avoided cancers. Ofthese total avoided deaths resulting from compliance with the revisedconstruction standard, 26.3 deaths will be avoided through protection ofpersonnel directly exposed to asbestos-containing material. However, OSHA'sanalysis does not quantify benefits among those workers that may besecondarily exposed while present at sites where asbestos work is being done.Among workers secondarily exposed are construction tradespersons -- forexample, plumbers, electricians, and ceiling tile installers -- whoseactivities can be complementary to, or immediately succeed, asbestos work.Since OSHA's revised asbestos standard will reduce ambient asbestos levels atthese sites, any exposure among these workers would also be reduced.

In custodial work in industrial buildings and in commercial and residentialbuildings, where 13.5 avoided cancers are projected, estimated baselineaverage exposures (0.046 f/cc) lie below the revised PEL and are derived fromdata in the asbestos exposure literature [Wickman, et al. 1992]. OSHA'sestimate of current exposures to custodians and other building serviceworkers recognizes that these workers may not be receiving the protectionafforded other "construction" workers who encounter asbestos on a morefrequent basis. Service workers may, in fact, at times be exposed to asbestosat levels exceeding the current PEL and excursion limit. OSHA believes thatemployees performing custodial duties such as cleaning, sweeping, dusting,vacuuming and floor maintenance presently receive minimal protection fromasbestos exposure. This revised asbestos standard explicitly addresses risksto employees performing custodial tasks; consequently, in this final analysisOSHA examined the occupational risks and estimated the expected benefits toservice workers in industrial, commercial and residential buildings.

"Long-term exposures to building occupants." Data from the asbestos exposureliterature reveal that ambient outdoor exposures to asbestos are quite low,averaging roughly 0.00007 f/cc. Regarding indoor exposures, the HealthEffects Institute -- Asbestos Research reports that for 1,377 air samplesfrom 198 different buildings with asbestos-containing materials (ACM), meanexposures were on the order of 0.00027 f/cc, with 90th and 95th percentilesof 0.0007 f/cc and 0.0014 f/cc [HEI-AR, 1991].

The HEI-AR report indicates that improper handling of asbestos fibers cancontribute significantly to higher exposure levels to building occupants,even after completion of all asbestos removal jobs at a building. Of 18building projects where interior perimeter samples were taken, asbestoslevels increased in 12 buildings after abatement. The higher exposures wereattributed to leakages in glove bags and improper work practices. While theeffect of these removal efforts on exposures varied widely, some exposuresincreased by a factor of 750 [HEI-AR, 1991, p. 5-30]. In at least one case, abuilding with previously non-detectable asbestos levels later was found tohave detectable levels of airborne asbestos.

OSHA believes that the controls mandated by the standard -- such as negativepressure enclosures, wet methods, critical barriers, and HEPA vacuums, toname a few of the more protective controls -- not only should help lowerexposures to employees working in and around them, but should also be nearly100 percent effective in preventing migration of stray asbestos. Controlsrequired by the revised standard are therefore expected to enhance protectionof service workers and building occupants. While any building owner canchoose to have ACM removed from a property, owners of buildings with higherconcentrations of asbestos, and therefore greater exposure potential forbuilding employees and occupants, are relatively more likely to opt forremoval.

Low-level asbestos concentrations can become elevated and remain elevatedfor long periods of time, as residual asbestos is disturbed. Recent long-termdata suggest that after a year's time, exposure levels cease to fall and mayactually rise [Wall Street Journal, 1993]. If new asbestos fibers arecontinually introduced to the general building environment, backgroundasbestos levels could remain elevated and potentially increase.

Based on the Environmental Protection Agency's 1984 survey of buildings[EPA, 1984], OSHA estimates that approximately 156 million maintenance andcustodial projects occur annually in 648,000 commercial and residentialbuildings in which friable asbestos may be disturbed [OSHA, 1994]. Buildingscontaining friable asbestos constitute less than 20 percent of all buildingswith asbestos-containing materials and are believed to have the highestexposure levels. Applying data from the Energy department and Census bureau,OSHA estimates that an average of 18 employees per building are at riskannually from stray asbestos exposures in commercial buildings with friableasbestos, yielding an estimated total population of 11.7 million employees(648,000 buildings x 18 employees per building) [Dept. of Energy, 1986;Dept. of Commerce, 1993]. In this analysis OSHA assumed, based on data fromHEI-AR on the distribution of asbestos exposures in public buildings, thathigher-risk buildings have a mean current baseline exposure of 0.0014 f/cc(95th percentile of HEI-AR data), in the absence of OSHA-mandated controls.OSHA further assumed that the use of OSHA controls would lower meanbackground asbestos exposures to levels (0.00035 f/cc) projected by OSHA forcustodial workers. Applying these exposure levels to the asbestos risk model,OSHA estimated that 14.2 cancers would be prevented annually among buildingoccupants. It should be noted that this estimate is based solely on exposuresto employees working in commercial and residential buildings and does notinclude exposures to residents and other non-employees, such as students, whomay also be exposed while in these buildings.

Other Health Benefits

"Asbestosis." Applying pre- and post-regulation exposures to the asbestosisrisk model detailed in the 1986 RIA, OSHA estimates that compliance with therevised final rule will prevent approximately 14 cases of disablingasbestosis annually, among workers directly exposed to asbestos in generalindustry, shipyards, and construction. In addition, non-quantified benefitsof avoided cases of asbestosis are anticipated for building occupants andothers secondarily exposed. As these cases represent disabilities and notdeaths, they are not included in the total estimated benefits. Asbestosiscases often lead to tremendous societal costs in terms of health care, workerproductivity, and in the quality of life to the affected individual. Theirprevention, therefore, would have a positive economic effect.

"Reduction of solvent exposures." Presently, approximately 25 percent ofauto service establishments rely upon solvent sprays to control asbestosexposure. The most commonly used solvent has been 1-1-1 trichloroethane, aneurotoxin. OSHA attempted to establish a short-term exposure limit for thissubstance in the 1989 Air Contaminants rulemaking [54 FR 2333], but thatrulemaking was stayed by the courts for technical reasons. The revision tothe final asbestos rule, by discouraging the use of solvent spray as acontrol method, will prevent peak trichloroethane exposures to over 150,000workers. Moreover, 1-1-1 trichloroethane, a chlorofluorocarbon, has beenlinked with depletion of the ozone layer, thereby possibly contributing todevelopment of skin cancers. Partly as a result of this, some automotiveservice establishments have switched to a spray based on perchloroethylene, aflammable carcinogen. OSHA believes that as these establishments selectcontrol technologies that are feasible alternatives to solvent spray, therewill be reduced risks of cancer and fires (from rags contaminated withsolvent) as a consequence of the revision to the standard.

Economic Benefits

"Building reoccupation." Significant economic benefits may be derived fromlowering asbestos exposures to long-term building occupants. The more rapidlythat building owners, whether private or public, can put theirasbestos-contaminated building areas back into use, the sooner they canderive explicit or implicit "rental" value. For example, the HEI-AR reportdiscusses an asbestos abatement job at a college building with pre-abatementexposure levels of 0.0002 f/cc [HEI-AR, 1991, p. 5-37]. Shortly afterabatement, exposure levels of 0.065 f/cc were measured. After 26 weeks,exposure levels were measured at 0.0008 f/cc. Reoccupation occurred after 35weeks, when exposures had decreased to 0.0004 f/cc. In this example, thebuilding was not deemed usable for eight months, until exposures began toapproach pre-abatement levels.

EPA's asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP) require that asbestos be lowered to specified levels (although notas low as pre-abatement levels) before certain buildings can be reoccupied.These requirements have been built into many asbestos abatement contracts forliability reasons. OSHA calculated, as a hypothetical example, that ifreoccupation of portions of 5,000 office buildings, with an annual rentalvalue of $100,000 each, were delayed for 6 months in order for asbestoslevels to settle, there would be a deadweight economic loss of $250 millionto building owners and society.

"Asbestos liability savings." As discussed in the section on REGULATORY ANDNON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES, asbestos liability has become a major area oftort litigation. Roughly $8 billion has been spent on asbestos litigation inthe last decade [Wall Street Journal, 1992; OSHA, 1986]. The dollar amount ofawards has exploded in the last decade. Industry observers forecast that upto $80 billion will be spent on asbestos abatement over the next 20 years,largely as a result of a fear of lawsuits [Wall Street Journal, 1992].

Building owners commission asbestos removal in an attempt to eliminate, orat least reduce, the probability of future lawsuits. Although the likelihoodof future lawsuits is uncertain, building owners presumably calculate thatthe "expected" cost of such lawsuits would run over $4 billion a year, onaverage (using the 20-year forecast given above). If an individual buildingowner spends $50,000 to remove the asbestos from a building to avertpotential future lawsuits, the owner may be implicitly calculating that suchan expenditure will effectively eliminate a 5 percent chance that the ownerwill have to pay out over $1 million in a lawsuit.

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that such attempts to reduce theprobability of lawsuits, in the absence of proper protections, may be invain. As discussed elsewhere in this BENEFITS section, recent evidencesuggests that such removal attempts, in the absence of proper protections,may actually increase building occupants' exposure to asbestos. Ultimately,exposure to asbestos is the impetus for lawsuits. While it might be arguable,from an exposure standpoint, that the building owner's most economical choicewould be to encapsulate existing asbestos, the path of minimizing liabilityis driving many building owners to actually remove the asbestos. It appearsthat successful avoidance of liability is guaranteed only by taking allfeasible measures to minimize exposures to occupants during removal. Thus,spending an additional $5,000 for worker health to complete a $50,000 removaloperation could ultimately prevent a $1 million lawsuit.

This analysis suggests, then, that the asbestos standard's requirements forengineering controls and work practices, including the use of negativepressure enclosures and other isolation efforts, if successful in avertinglawsuits, would have a market value of upwards of $4 billion a year (theminimum value of averting lawsuits). Note that there need not actually beover $4 billion a year in lawsuits; the market behavior of owners willing topay for asbestos abatement simply reflects the market value to those ownersof minimizing the likelihood of lawsuits, in effect acting as a type ofinsurance policy. Moreover, as discussed above, it is not necessary that suchefforts be 100 percent successful in preventing lawsuits -- the estimatedeffectiveness in reducing the probability or value of potential lawsuitspossesses considerable value. Additionally, it is not necessary that suchcontrols dramatically reduce exposures to building occupants, although OSHA'sanalysis indicates that they will, as long as it is established that allfeasible measures were taken to minimize asbestos exposures to buildingoccupants so that owner negligence cannot be the grounds of a lawsuit. Ifinstituting the asbestos controls mandated by the OSHA standard were onlymarginally effective in reducing the probability of lawsuits, say by 10percent, the use of these preventative measures would still possess a valueof over $400 million.

Finally, asbestos removal efforts reflect concern over liability claims frombuilding occupants, and perhaps custodians and maintenance personnel. It doesnot include the value of prevented claims from workers who must remove theasbestos. The revised asbestos standard eliminates significant risk to theextent feasible, as defined by law, and thereby minimizes secondary liabilitycreated by attempts to minimize primary liability.

E. Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs

This section examines the technological feasibility and estimated costs ofcompliance for the final revised asbestos standard.

Technological Feasibility

"General industry." OSHA's 1986 Regulatory Impact Analysis [OSHA, 1986]described in detail the controls that would be necessary in order to achievea PEL of 0.2 f/cc in each of the affected sectors in general industry. OSHAdetermined that compliance with the 0.2 f/cc PEL was feasible through the useof wet methods, engineering controls, and housekeeping practices. Inaddition, for the following operations compliance with the PEL of 0.2 f/ccwas generally not achievable without the use of respirators: the drymechanical process in A/C pipe manufacturing and the dry mechanical, wetmechanical, and nuclear ripout processes in ship repair. Compliance with the1.0 f/cc excursion limit promulgated in the 1988 rulemaking was also expectedto lead to occasional respirator use in high-exposure activities throughoutprimary and secondary manufacturing [OSHA, 1988].

For the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc, some manufacturing operations will need tosupplement engineering controls and work practices with respiratoryprotection. In all, 2,345 workers (or less than 1 percent of the 682,685workers exposed in all affected industry sectors) in general industry areexpected to need respirators at least part of the workday in order tomaintain exposures below the revised PEL. Since all affected employers ingeneral industry will be able to comply with the proposed PEL through the useof engineering controls or, where necessary, respirators, OSHA concludes thatthe proposed PEL is technologically feasible.

In addition to respirators, ancillary controls will also be needed inaffected industry/process groups as a result of the lowering of the PEL.These controls include:

* Regulated areas;

* Disposable protective clothing and gloves;

* Changerooms and lockers;

* Shower rooms;

* Lunch areas; and

* Annual update of the written compliance program.

All ancillary controls required by the revised general industry standard arecurrently in extensive use throughout industry and are thereforetechnologically feasible.

Paragraph (k)(7) Care of asbestos-containing flooring material, prohibitsfor the first time, sanding and high-speed (greater than 300 RPM) strippingof floor material. This new housekeeping paragraph also requires thatburnishing and dry buffing of asbestos-containing flooring be performed onlywhen a finish on the flooring is sufficient to prevent contact with ACM.Evidence from the record indicates that many building maintenance personnelare currently meeting these requirements (Tr. 2/7/91 at 4256-4270, Ex. 7-91).Therefore, new Paragraph (k)(7) is technologically feasible.

Lastly, the final revision to the current standard requires certainengineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch repair andservices. These requirements include the mandatory use of a negative pressureenclosure/HEPA vacuum method, a low pressure/wet cleaning method, or analternate method capable of reducing exposure levels to or below levelsachieved by the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method. Brake shops performing fewerthan six brake or clutch repair jobs per week are permitted to use Method [D]Wet Methods in revised Appendix F of 1910.1001. According to the NationalAutomobile Dealers Association, both the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method and thelow pressure/wet cleaning method are currently in use throughout theautomotive brake and clutch repair industry (Ex. 7-104); therefore, therevised control requirements for brake and clutch repair are judged by OSHAto be technological feasible.

"Construction." The evaluation of technological feasibility in constructionfocused on the various combinations of engineering controls, work practices,and respiratory protection necessary to reduce current exposures to achievecompliance with the final PEL of 0.1 f/cc. In addition, OSHA examined anumber of engineering controls, work practices, and ancillary requirementswhich will directly and indirectly contribute to reducing employee exposures.Exposures to asbestos in the construction industry were classified into sixactivity categories:

* "New construction" -- including the installation of asbestos/cement (A/C)pipe and sheet. New construction falls under Class III asbestos work asdefined in the revised asbestos standard.

* "Asbestos abatement" -- including both asbestos removal and encapsulationwith a polymeric coating, or enclosure. Asbestos abatement falls underasbestos work Classes I and III as defined in the revised standard.

* "Demolition" -- involving asbestos removal prior to the demolition of allor part of a building or industrial facility that contains asbestosmaterials. Demolition falls under asbestos work Class I as defined in therevised standard.

* "General building renovation and remodeling" -- including drywalldemolition involving the removal of pipe and boiler insulation, fireproofing,drywall tape and spackling, acoustical plasters, transite panels, built-uproofing and flooring products. Renovation and remodeling generally involvecontact with generic building materials and would therefore fall underasbestos work Class II as defined in the revised standard.

* "Routine facility maintenance in commercial/residential buildings and ingeneral industry" -- including maintenance and repair activities involvingdisturbance of asbestos materials and products (for example, repair ofleaking steam pipes, ceiling tiles, roofing, drywall, or flooring; oradjustment of HVAC equipment above suspended ceilings). Routine maintenancefalls under Class III asbestos work as defined in the revised standard whenasbestos-containing materials (ACM) are disturbed during the maintenanceactivity; and under Class IV asbestos work as defined in the revised standardwhen maintenance involves minor, incidental contact with ACM.

* "Custodial Work" -- including sweeping, dusting and other housekeepingduties that occasionally expose building maintenance and custodial personnelto asbestos. Custodial work falls under Class IV asbestos work as defined inthe revised standard.

To support the regulatory impact analysis for the 1986 asbestos standard,CONSAD derived baseline exposure levels for each construction activity from adatabase that included personal and area air samples, OSHA inspectionreports, expert testimony, and various published reports [CONSAD, 1990]. Thetechnological feasibility assessments for this final revised standard wereinfluenced by expected exposure reduction following the promulgation of the1986 asbestos standard, and by a review of the literature, includingsubmittals to the OSHA docket (H-033e).

OSHA determined in 1986 that, for a variety of construction activities, itwas feasible to reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc through the use ofavailable engineering controls and work practices (i.e., without the need forrespiratory protection). These construction activities included:

* Asbestos/cement (A/C) pipe installation;

* Asbestos/cement (A/C) sheet installation;

* Floor products installation;

* Plumbing repairs in commercial/residential buildings;

* Floor repairs in commercial/residential buildings;

* Gasket removal and installation in general industry; and

* Pipe insulation repairs in general industry.

For the remaining activities, respiratory protection was necessary in orderto reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc. OSHA assumed that employers wouldchoose the most cost-effective approach and supply their workers withhalf-mask supplied-air respirators (or full-facepiece supplied-airrespirators for asbestos removal projects) in order to eliminate the need forexposure monitoring [OSHA, 1986]. Thus, in the 1986 RIA, OSHA assumed thatworkers in many higher-risk construction activities would be providedsupplied-air respirators.

OSHA now believes that the prior analytical assumption of widespread use ofsupplied-air respirators may not be consistent with field experience. OSHAbelieves that supplied-air respirators are used in many constructionactivities -- particularly removal and demolition, where exposures tend to behighest. For other construction activities where peak exposures are generallylower and episodic, many abatement and maintenance personnel appear to becomplying with the current standard using a combination of engineeringcontrols, work practices and lighter respirators.

Construction employers also appear to meet the requirements for dailymonitoring (1926.58(f)(3) in the current standard) by compiling historicalexposure data documenting compliance with the current OSHA PEL duringrepresentative projects. OSHA anticipates that some construction employerswill meet the requirements of revised Paragraph (f) Exposure assessments andmonitoring, through the use of selective initial monitoring to establish anhistorical exposure data record, which can form the basis for achieving allnecessary requirements of the standard. Where exposures may exceed levelsdocumented by objective data, additional respiratory protection may benecessary, and is judged by OSHA to be technologically feasible based onfield experience and information in the rulemaking record [Corn, 1992;HEI-AR, 1992].

As in the standard for general industry, OSHA is proposing the prohibitionof high-speed sanding and the use of highly abrasive pads during asbestosfloor tile work. In CONSAD's 1985 study [CONSAD 1985] and in OSHA's 1986 RIA[OSHA, 1986], exposures during floor tile installation, removal, and sandingwere reported to be generally below 0.2 f/cc when the recommendations of theResilient Floor Covering Institute were followed. These recommended practicesincluded wet sweeping and handling, and the prohibition of power sanding andblowing asbestos dust. OSHA estimated current exposures in floor repair at0.024 f/cc under the assumption that the Institute's recommended practiceshave been adopted by a majority of establishments. Therefore, the prohibitionof high-speed sanding in the current proposal is not expected tosignificantly affect floor repair.

With the final PEL of 0.1 f/cc, additional respiratory protection may benecessary. Specifically, some projects involving A/C pipe installation, A/Csheet installation, floor removal, floor repair, large-scale gasket removal,pipe repair, and custodial work in industrial, commercial and residentialbuildings would require the use of half-mask respirators to meet the revisedPEL. In addition, drywall demolition projects may need to upgrade theirrespiratory protection to full-facepiece negative-pressure respirators tomeet the lower permissible exposure limit.

Assessing current respirator usage and predicted demand under the revisedstandard, OSHA concludes that nearly all construction activities will requirerespiratory protection during at least part of the project-day in order tocomply with the 0.1 f/cc PEL. Based on the lower-bound exposure estimatesprovided in the literature and reported in CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990, 1985], itappears that a variety of routine maintenance activities and some abatementjobs may be able to achieve the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc without respirators.From its analysis of current exposures, OSHA anticipates that only insmall-scale gasket removal and installation will respiratory protection notbe necessary for most project-days.

The other incremental controls necessary to comply with OSHA's finalasbestos standard, include (depending upon the construction activity):

* HEPA vacuums or HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems;
* Wet methods;
* Glove bags;
* Regulated areas (air-tight or demarcated with caution signs);
* Critical barriers;
* Protective disposable clothing;
* Impermeable drop cloths;
* Decontamination area (adjacent to regulated area or remote showers
and changerooms);
* Lunch areas;
* Competent person supervision;
* Training;
* Medical exams;
* Recordkeeping (exposure assessment, medical exams and training);
* Notification of building owners and employees by contractors;
* Notification of contractors and building occupants by building
owners;

Based on information in the record and in OSHA's inspection files, OSHAobserves that many construction employers currently apply these controls invaried combinations and at varied levels of utilization. OSHA estimated thatfor construction employers, rates of current compliance range from roughly 20percent to 80 percent, depending on the control requirement and constructionactivity. Therefore, OSHA believes all controls are technologically feasiblefor the appropriate construction activities. In conclusion, therefore, OSHAprojects that the final revisions to the asbestos construction standard willbe technologically feasible because all of the provisions, including thelowered PEL, can be met using existing engineering controls, respiratoryprotection and work practices.

"Shipyards." Historically, exposure to asbestos in shipyards took placeduring shipbuilding and ship repair. At present, the majority of asbestosactivity aboard maritime vessels involves repair and maintenance of machineryand plumbing with asbestos insulation. In this final rulemaking, the revisedasbestos standard for shipyards, Sec. 1915.1001, applies most of therequirements given in the revised asbestos construction standard.

For the two main shipyard activities affected by the revised asbestosstandard -- wet removal/repair and dry removal/repair -- comment in therecord [Ex. 7-77, Ex. 7-85] suggests that employers are able to achieve therevised PEL of 0.1 f/cc through the use of engineering controls and, wherenecessary, respiratory protection. The OSHA Shipyard Employment StandardsAdvisory Committee [Ex. 7-77] commented that on many shipyard projects,exposure levels have been reduced to levels considerably below the revisedPEL. Moreover, to a large extent employers appear to be currently applyingthe ancillary controls and work practices required in the revisedconstruction standard (and applied to the revised shipyard standard) [Ex.9-23]. Therefore, on the basis of evidence in the record, OSHA believes therevised shipyard standard is technologically feasible.

Compliance Costs

OSHA estimated the costs of complying with the final revisions to theasbestos standard for general industry, construction and shipyards. OSHA'scost assumptions and methodologies are based upon an OSHA/CONSAD technicalanalysis of the final rule [OSHA, 1994]; OSHA's PRIA [OSHA, 1990]; CONSAD'sfinal report supporting the PRIA [1990]; the rulemaking record; and previousregulatory analyses performed by OSHA [OSHA, 1986], CONSAD [CONSAD, 1985] andResearch Triangle Institute [RTI, 1985].

Cost data for control mechanisms were obtained from published price lists ofequipment suppliers and from other information collected by OSHA and CONSAD.Wage data were taken from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of LaborStatistics' Employment and Earnings (BLS, 1993a) and Employment Cost Indexesand Levels (BLS, 1993b). Unit costs are expressed, as appropriate, on aper-establishment, -crew, -project, -worker, project-day, and worker-daybasis, using industry profile data presented in the OSHA/CONSAD technicalanalysis [OSHA, 1994] and in CONSAD's prior analyses [CONSAD, 1990, 1985].

To derive estimates of the annual incremental compliance costs for therevised asbestos standard, the estimated unit cost factors for the controlswere multiplied by the estimated number of required control resources. Inorder to develop net annual compliance cost estimates, these gross annualcost estimates were then adjusted using estimates of current application ofcontrols. Costs were estimated on an annual basis, with total annual costscalculated as the sum of annualized initial costs and annual recurring costs.Initial costs were annualized over the service life of the equipment oradministrative activity, at a discount rate of 10 percent.

The section below presents the estimated costs to general industry, followedby the costs to construction and to shipyards.

"General industry." In developing the annual compliance cost estimates forgeneral industry, unit cost estimates were first developed for each of thecontrol practices and ancillary measures required by the revised standard foreach of the industry/process groups affected by the proposed standard. Theannual compliance costs for each affected industry/process group were thencomputed by combining the unit cost data with the number of units of eachtype of control practice needed per year to achieve compliance with OSHA'sproposed standard. Compliance costs were also adjusted to reflect currentcompliance with the required control practices.

"Manufacturing." The industry/process groups in manufacturing with exposuresabove the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc will require the implementation of a set ofuniform control practices, including written compliance programs, regulatedareas, respirators (including the respirator unit, accessories, fit testingand cleaning), disposable protective clothing and gloves, change rooms andlockers, shower rooms, and lunch rooms. Other controls, while necessary forcompliance with the revised standard, are also required by the currentasbestos standard and, thus, will not create an incremental burden. Controlsassumed by OSHA to be currently in place include periodic monitoring;prescribed methods of compliance; employee information and training; medicalsurveillance; and recordkeeping.

The revised asbestos standard for general industry imposes new communicationrequirements for building and facility owners. In particular, under Paragraph(j)(2)(ii), owners are required to maintain records of information concerningthe presence, location and quantity of asbestos-containing material (ACM) andpresumed asbestos-containing material (PACM). Under Paragraph (j)(2)(iii),owners of buildings and facilities are required to inform employers ofemployees who perform housekeeping activities in the presence of ACM or PACMof the presence and location of the ACM or PACM in the area. In thisregulatory analysis OSHA treats housekeeping and custodial activities ingeneral industry as construction activities. OSHA's estimated compliancecosts for information requirements pertaining to housekeeping/custodialactivities are discussed below in the section on compliance costs for therevised construction standard.

Brake and clutch repair. As in the existing OSHA asbestos standard forgeneral industry, automotive repair work is regulated in revised Sec.1910.1001. In Paragraph (f)(3) employers performing six or more brake orclutch jobs per week are required to use a negative pressure enclosure/HEPAvacuum method, a low pressure/wet cleaning method, or an alternate methodproven to achieve results equivalent to those for the enclosure/HEPA vacuummethod. OSHA assessed the extent to which control practices are being appliedduring brake and clutch repair in the automotive services industry andidentified the additional resources needed to reach full compliance with therevised standard.

Based on OSHA's and CONSAD's assessment of current industry practice, OSHAbelieves that only a small fraction of auto repair shops perform fewer thansix brake or clutch inspections per week [OSHA, 1994]. Thus, OSHA anticipatesthat few shops will qualify for the exemption from engineering controlsmandated in revised Appendix F. OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] estimate that 65percent of brake shops currently use wet methods and solvent spray systemsduring brake and clutch work. Under the revised standard, these shops wouldhave to switch to one of the fiber control methods permitted in Appendix F.

For this cost analysis, OSHA assumed most of the shops currently not incompliance with the revised rule, will adopt the low pressure/ wet cleaningmethod as the least expensive option permitted in the revised standard. OSHAestimates that incremental expenditures for equipment, supplies and labortime will total $11.2 million per year.

Comment in the record [Ex. L162-61] points to the potential for substantialcost offsets from use of the low pressure/wet cleaning method. These costoffsets include the reduced need for solvent; reductions in costs associatedwith housekeeping and with laundering and disposal of contaminated rags andother articles; and improved operating efficiencies. Because of potentialcost savings, use of the low pressure/wet cleaning method has grown in recentyears. Moreover, concern over the effect of 1-1-1 trichloroethane on theozone layer has led to a phase-out of the solvent, forcing brake shops todiscontinue use of the solvent spray method. Of concern to occupationalhealth specialists is the regular use of solvents among a workforce withminimal protection from exposures. In sum, OSHA believes that cost offsetsand environmental and health concerns combine to mitigate the direct costsfacing brake shops who must switch to alternative asbestos control systems.

"Current work practices." In addition to work practices in automotiveservices that meet the revised standard, certain work practices that wererequired by OSHA's previous standard with a PEL of 2.0 f/cc, and are requiredby the current standard, as well as by the proposed revisions to the currentstandard (e.g. wet handling and the collection, disposal, and labeling ofwastes in sealed, impermeable bags), are also not identified as additionalcosts. OSHA believes that wet methods (to the extent that they are feasible),and the use of HEPA vacuums for housekeeping in primary and secondarymanufacturing, are already widely in use.

"Total costs for general industry." To derive estimates of the annualincremental compliance costs for the industry/process groups affected by therevised general industry standard, the estimated unit cost factors were firstmultiplied by estimates of the resources necessary to achieve compliance forthat industry/process group. These gross annual cost estimates were thenadjusted to account for current compliance rates which were first projectedin the 1986 RIA [OSHA, 1986] and were modified as a result of compliance withthe excursion limit rule in 1988 [OSHA, 1988] and evidence from therulemaking record.

For each of the manufacturing processes in the affected industries, CONSADestimated the number of plants with exposures above the revised PEL of 0.1f/cc (the number of plants needing controls), the number of processes to becontrolled, the number of work stations to be controlled, the number ofworkers directly exposed, worker-days of exposure per year, and the directworker-hours of exposure per year. These estimates are based on: the numberof establishments in each industry sector, determined by CONSAD frominformation presented in EPA's ban and phase-out rule [ICF, 1988], and fromcontacts with industry experts; the percentage of processes within plantswith exposures above the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc and requiring controls; andfinally, characteristics concerning the number of processes per plant, workstations per process, workers per work station, and the frequency andduration of each process in these affected industries. The resource estimatesused to develop annual compliance costs are developed in detail in [CONSAD,1990, Table 3.11].

Based on OSHA and CONSAD's analysis [OSHA, 1994; CONSAD, 1990], OSHAestimates that annual costs of compliance in general industry will total$14.8 million. Table 7 presents compliance costs by control practice, foreach industry process, for the industry sector as a whole, and for all ofgeneral industry. Examining compliance costs by sector, it can be seen thatthe largest compliance expenditures will be in auto repair ($11.2 million),followed by friction materials ($2.2 million) and coatings and sealants ($1.2million).

Comparing costs per provision along the bottom row of the table, incrementalcosts for engineering controls in auto repair represent the leadingexpenditure. Other controls bearing significant costs are half- maskrespirators ($1.4 million), disposable protective clothing and gloves ($1.1million), change rooms and lockers ($563 thousand), and shower rooms ($418thousand).

For secondary manufacture of gaskets and packings and secondary autoremanufacturing, where exposures currently are below the revised PEL, OSHAanticipates little or no incremental costs. Therefore, impacts onestablishments in these industry groups will be insignificant.

"Construction." Within the construction industry, 24 unique activities willcome under the scope of the proposed revision. These construction activitiesare found in new construction, asbestos abatement and building demolition,general building renovation and remodeling, and routine facility maintenanceand custodial work in public, commercial, and residential buildings and ingeneral industry. Although the construction activities under consideration inthis study will require the implementation of different control practicesand/or combinations of these practices, the basic characteristics ofavailable control practices are relatively uniform, and the options forcombining control practices in the construction industry and during routinemaintenance and repair activities in general industry are limited in number.

The control mechanisms considered in this analysis include:

* Shrouded tools with HEPA vacuums;
* HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems;
* HEPA vacuums;
* Glove bags;
* Critical barriers (including the materials and labor for setting up
and taking down;
* Regulated areas;
* Respirators (including the respirator unit, accessories, fit testing,
cleaning, and training);
* Disposable protective clothing and gloves;
* Impermeable drop cloths;
* Wet methods (including the sprayer, wetting agent, and labor);
* Decontamination areas (or clean changerooms);
* Lunch areas;
* Training;
* Use of competent person supervision;
* Exposure assessments and monitoring;
* Medical exams;
* Recordkeeping;
* Labeling of installed asbestos products;
* Notification of building owners and employees by contractors; and
* Notification of contractors and building occupants by building
owners.

Certain work practices that have been required since OSHA's earlier asbestosstandards (e.g., wet handling and the collection and disposal of waste insealed, impermeable bags) are not included as cost elements.

For each major provision of the revised construction standard, below, OSHApresents cost estimates by type of engineering or administrative control,work practice or personal protective equipment, where appropriate.

(c) "Permissible exposure limits." The revised asbestos constructionstandard lowers the permissible exposure limit from 0.2 fiber per cubiccentimeter to 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hourtime-weighted average. The revised standard retains the current excursionlimit of 1.0 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as averaged over a samplingperiod of thirty minutes.

After reviewing both (1) the literature on risk to asbestos in theconstruction industry and (2) the earlier OSHA rulemaking record (DocketH-033c), CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990, Table 2.8] reported representative exposurelevels by construction activity that formed the basis of OSHA's riskestimates in the PRIA. CONSAD presented the range of exposure levels in theabsence of respiratory protection for each construction activity. From theraw exposure data, OSHA [1986, 1990] developed arithmetic mean estimates,against which the proposed PELs were compared. OSHA then assigned engineeringand respiratory controls as required and implied by the earlier rules.

For this final regulatory impact analysis, OSHA adjusted CONSAD's baseline(pre-1986) exposure levels to reflect likely controls applied since OSHApromulgated final asbestos rules in 1986 and 1988. In adjusting exposuresfrom baseline levels, OSHA attempted to represent realistic reductions infiber levels under a regulatory regime consisting of a 0.2 f/cc eight-hourPEL, a 0.1 f/cc eight-hour action level, a 1.0 f/cc thirty-minute excursionlevel, and ancillary controls and procedures. OSHA's adjusted baselineexposures were presented in Section D.

OSHA's revised PEL is expected to lead to wider use of respirators inconstruction. In particular, OSHA anticipates increased usage of half-maskand full-face cartridge respirators as a result of the revised PEL. For someactivities where average exposures are projected to be below the PEL due tothe use of engineering controls and work practices, respirators may benecessary where peak exposures occur. OSHA conservatively applied half-maskcartridge respirators, with a protection factor of 10, where peak exposurescan exceed ten times the revised PEL; OSHA applied full-facepiece cartridgerespirators for activities where peak exposures can exceed 50 times therevised PEL. In all, annual respirator costs will total $24.9 million.Included in this total cost are expenditures for the respirator unit,accessories, filters, training (costs assigned under Paragraph (k)Communication of hazards), cleaning and fit testing.

(d) "Multi-employer worksites." Revised Paragraph (d) expands upon thecurrent requirement that an employer performing asbestos work in a regulatedarea inform other employers on the site of the nature of the employer's workwith asbestos and the existence of, and rules pertaining to, regulated areas.In addition, Paragraph (d) requires * Abatement of asbestos hazards by thecontractor controlling the source of the contamination -- (d)(2) *Protection of employees adjacent to asbestos worksite -- (d)(3) * Dailyassessment by adjacent employers of integrity of enclosures or effectivenessof other control methods relied on by the primary asbestos contractor --(d)(4) * Supervisory authority by general contractors over the work of theasbestos contractor on the asbestos worksite -- (d)(5).

OSHA anticipates significant compliance costs for three of the fouradditional requirements in the revised paragraph on multi-employer worksites.For provisions (d)(2) and (d)(3), OSHA believes that compliance with therequirements for PELs [Paragraph (c)] and initial exposure assessment[Paragraph (j)] will ensure compliance with these areas. Regarding dailyassessment of work areas, required by (d)(4), OSHA considers these duties tofall under the supervision of competent persons. Compliance costs forcompetent persons are discussed below under Paragraph (o).

For Paragraph (d)(5), OSHA assumes that after promulgation of the revisedstandard, asbestos contractors will achieve full compliance and, therefore,that general contractors will rarely need to exercise authority over employeeprotection.

(e) "Regulated areas." Paragraph (e) specifies the controls required forconstruction activities designated as regulated areas. OSHA anticipatesincremental costs for all construction work defined in the revised standardas Class I, II or III. Incremental costs for regulated areas will stem fromthe need for caution and warning signs and caution tape at the perimeter ofwork areas, as required by (e)(2) Demarcation and (k)(6) Signs. OSHAanticipates total costs of $15.8 million for caution and warning signs.

(f) "Exposure assessments and monitoring." Revised Paragraph (f) alterscurrent requirements for initial exposure monitoring, periodic monitoring,termination of monitoring, additional monitoring, employee notification ofsampling results, and observation of monitoring. OSHA anticipates thatfollowing promulgation of this revised standard, many employers willinitially monitor higher-risk sites -- under conditions of full applicationof controls -- in order to establish compliance with the revised PEL of 0.1f/cc. Results from initial monitoring can be used as historical, objectivedata for compliance purposes, consistent with revised (f)(1)(iii) Negativeinitial exposure assessment.

To estimate monitoring costs in construction, OSHA assumed -- for activitieswhere objective data has not been established -- that employers conductingClass I, II or III work, will purchase monitoring equipment, train asupervisor to conduct monitoring, and have three representative exposuresamples analyzed by a laboratory. OSHA assumed that employers conductingClass IV activities will hire an outside industrial hygiene technician tomonitor workers and collect three exposure samples. Basing cost analysis onthese assumptions, OSHA projects total incremental compliance costs of $40.1million for exposure monitoring.

(g) "Methods of Compliance." In revised Paragraph (g) Methods of compliance,OSHA has significantly expanded the structure and content of the regulatorytext in the current standard. Revised Paragraph (g) prescribes specificengineering controls and work practices for each of the four asbestosconstruction classes defined in the standard. To satisfy the requirements forancillary controls, employers are expected to purchase or otherwise adopt thefollowing types of controls and practices: HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems;HEPA vacuums; wet methods; airtight (negative-pressure) regulated areas; dropcloths; mini enclosures; critical barriers; and glove bag systems (with HEPAvacuums). Included in the cost of each control are expenditures for basicequipment, accessories, construction supplies (for barriers and enclosures),smoke testers (for negative-pressure enclosures), and incremental laborresources needed to implement the control, to smoke test (where necessary)and to disassemble the control.

Incremental compliance costs associated with engineering controls and workpractices are anticipated for all construction activities affected by therevised standard. The combination of controls vary by activity, depending oncurrent exposure levels, the extent of current compliance assumed by OSHA,and the construction class (as defined in the revised standard) for the workactivity. OSHA projects the following annual compliance costs for methods ofcompliance:

* HEPA vacuum/ventilation systems -- $15.3 million

* HEPA vacuums -- $32.5 million

* Wet methods -- $55.2 million

* Airtight regulated areas -- $2.2 million

* Drop cloths -- $13.8 million

* Mini enclosures -- $41.6 million

* Critical barriers -- $22.2 million

* Glovebag systems -- $4.5 million.

(h) "Respiratory protection." Revised Paragraph (h) mandates the use ofrespirators under particular circumstances during asbestos construction work.As prescribed in the standard, respirators must be worn (1) during all ClassI work; (2) during all Class III work when TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM isbeing disturbed; (3) during all Class II and III asbestos jobs where wetmethods are not used or where insufficient or inadequate data preventsdevelopment of a negative exposure assessment; or (4) in emergencies. Forthis final regulatory impact analysis, OSHA identified an additional need forrespirators in new construction, during removal and repair of flooringproducts, during routine maintenance in general industry, and duringcustodial work in industrial, commercial and residential buildings.Respirators were assigned to construction activities where baseline exposureranges suggested workers would occasionally exceed the revised PEL.Incremental compliance costs for respirators were presented above under (c)Permissible exposure limits.

(i) "Protective clothing." Paragraph (i) in this final rulemaking has beenrevised such that protective clothing will be required for all Class Iactivities and in Class III activities where thermal system insulation orsurfacing ACM/PACM is being disturbed in which a negative exposure assessmenthas not been produced, in addition to the requirement that clothing be wornwhen the PEL or excursion limit (EL) is exceeded. OSHA anticipates anadditional need for protective clothing in the following constructionactivities where workers may occasionally exceed the PEL:

* A/C pipe installation

* A/C sheet installation

* Remove flooring products

* Repair flooring

* Custodial work in industrial buildings

* Custodial work in public, commercial and residential buildings.

OSHA assumes that to provide protective clothing to employees as required bythe standard, employers will minimize costs by providing to each employee oneset of disposable clothing and gloves for each worker-day. For disposal,clothing can be combined with other contaminated waste and sealed inimpermeable bags. Summing incremental costs for protective disposableclothing, OSHA estimates total costs of $17.9 million associated with revisedParagraph (i).

(j) "Hygiene facilities and practices for employees." Revised Paragraph (j)provides for decontamination areas, equipment rooms, showers, change rooms,and lunch areas for Class I activities. Class II and Class III activities mayconduct decontamination in adjacent areas on impermeable drop cloths, withclothing and equipment cleaned with HEPA vacuums. Decontamination followingClass IV activities must be at least as stringent as required for the classof activity within which the Class IV work is being performed.

OSHA anticipates that Class I hygiene requirements will apply for the firsttime to boiler repair, pipe repair and miscellaneous maintenance in generalindustry. Annual compliance costs will total $5.5 million for equipment andlabor involved with the hygiene facilities in Class I work.

Employers can decontaminate Class II and Class III work using drop clothsand HEPA vacuums, controls required under (g) Methods of compliance. OSHA'sestimated costs for drop cloths and HEPA vacuums were presented above in thediscussion of revised Paragraph (g).

OSHA assumes that decontamination following Class IV work conducted inregulated areas will be provided by the primary contractor at the job site.Costs for decontamination of Class IV employees, then would be captured bythe total decontamination costs for the activity in the regulated area. Inaddition, OSHA assumed that drop cloths and HEPA vacuums will be needed bycustodians following higher-risk activities outside regulated areas. Costsfor drop cloths and HEPA vacuums were presented under (g) Methods ofcompliance, above.

(k) "Communication of hazards." Revised Paragraph (k) supplements theexisting hazard-communication requirements in the asbestos standard byintroducing provisions for notification of building and facility owners,contractors, employees and building occupants of the presence, location andquantity of asbestos-containing material (ACM) or presumedasbestos-containing material (PACM). The final revisions to (k) also includetraining requirements that mirror the training required under the EPA ASHARAlegislation, for employees working around ACM or PACM. Training requiredunder revised Paragraph (k) appears to strengthen the content of trainingrequired under existing (k) by explicitly referencing the EPA ModelAccreditation Plan (MAP) and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) workerprotection training.(5)

__________

Footnote(5) Revised Paragraph (k) allows employers to substitute -- forClass II activities working with generic building materials -- trainingsuitable to the removal or disturbance of that category of building material.

For this final regulatory impact analysis, OSHA identified incrementalcompliance costs for employee training and notifications involvingbuilding/facility owners, construction employers, construction employees, andbuilding occupants. For the purpose of cost estimation, OSHA categorizedemployee training into three groups: (1) Classes I and II, (2) Class III, and(3) Class IV.(6) For each of the three categories of training required by therevised standard, OSHA estimated compliance costs as follows:

__________

Footnote(6) Class I training was assumed to require a total of 32 hours,whereas Class II training was assumed to require a total of 24 hours. Totalcosts for Class I and Class II training are combined in this discussion.

* Class I/II -- $51.8 million

* Class III -- $35.9 million

* Class IV -- $22.6 million.

In that OSHA's training requirements parallel the requirements mandated inEPA's MAP regulation, OSHA attributes to the EPA regulation, training costsin this final revision to the OSHA asbestos construction standard.

To estimate compliance costs of the new notification requirements in revisedParagraph (k), OSHA identified seven unique types of notifications. OSHAassumed that notification among affected parties could involve memos, phonecalls, notices or other lower-cost means of communication, ranging in labortime from three to five minutes per project. The types of notifications aregiven below, along with OSHA's estimated total annual compliance cost.

* Notification by contractor to building owner prior to start of project --high-risk ACM -- $305 thousand

* Notification by contractor to building owner prior to start of project -- low-risk ACM -- $5.0 million

* Notification by contractors to employees -- $394 thousand

* Notification by contractor to building owner regarding asbestos remaining in building -- $397thousand

* Notification by building owner to building occupants -- high-riskACM -- $612 thousand

* Notification by building owner to building occupants -- low-risk ACM -- $22.3 million

* Notification by building owner to allcontractors in building --

$6.1 million.

In addition to requirements for notification, Paragraph (k)(2)(iii) requiresowners to maintain records of all information indicating the presence,location and quantity of ACM and PACM in the building. OSHA estimatedrecordkeeping costs of $9.7 million to comply with revised (k).

(l) "Housekeeping." Paragraph (l) is expanded in this final revision to theasbestos construction standard to include a section on care ofasbestos-containing flooring material. Included in the new section are aprohibition on sanding of asbestos-containing material; work practicesspecifying wet methods for floor stripping and adequate floor finish forburnishing and dry buffing; and a requirement that dusting and dry sweepingbe performed with HEPA vacuums. OSHA anticipates incremental compliance costsassociated with using wet methods and HEPA vacuums during housekeepingduties. Costs for the use of wet methods during custodial work is included inthe total costs for wet methods given under (g), above, and are expected tobe $55.2 million. Costs for the use of HEPA vacuums during custodial work isincluded in the total costs for HEPA vacuums given under (g), above, and areexpected to be $32.5 million.

(m) "Medical surveillance." Revised Paragraph (m) provides that medicalexams be given for all employees whose exposures exceed the PEL or excursionlimit for 30 or more days per year, or who are required by the standard towear negative pressure respirators. For this final RIA, OSHA recognized theextent to which medical exams are currently provided to employees. Therefore,incremental costs were estimated only for employees in those constructionactivities which previously did not qualify for medical exams but which nowappear to meet the qualifications. Activities qualifying for medical examsunder the revised standard include the following (along with estimated annualcompliance costs):

* A/C pipe installation -- $59 thousand

* A/C sheet installation -- $61 thousand

* Floor removal -- $828 thousand * Floor repair -- $6.5 million

* Large-scale gasket removal in general industry -- $702 thousand

* Pipe repair in general industry -- $1.9 million.

Estimated compliance costs for Paragraph (m) include costs for medical examsand for recordkeeping. In all, $10.1 million in annual costs for medicalsurveillance are expected for affected construction activities.

(n) "Recordkeeping." Revised Paragraph (n) requires that employers establishand maintain records of objective data (in compliance with (f)), exposuremeasurements, medical surveillance, and training. Revised Paragraph (n) alsoprovides for availability and transfer of records. Incremental recordkeepingcosts for each of these areas were presented above.

(o) "Competent person." Paragraph (o) is a new section of the constructionstandard and provides for competent person training and supervision for ClassI, II, and III activities. Consistent with the distinctions among activityclasses in (o), OSHA identified two levels of competent person training:Class I/II and Class III. OSHA estimates that costs for annual Class I/IIcompetent person supervision will be $13.5 million; OSHA estimates annualcosts of $6.0 million for Class III competent person supervision. OSHA'sestimates of competent person training costs are based on an analysis byEPA's contractor Abt Associates [Abt, 1993], of the costs and benefits of theEPA Model Accreditation Plan regulation.

In addition to competent person supervision, the revised standard requiresthat the person evaluating compliance methods that are alternatives to thosein (g) Methods of compliance, be qualified as a project designer[(g)(6)(ii)]. OSHA estimated the costs for training project designers forClass I activities. At an annual cost of $171 thousand, the training burdenimplied by this requirement is attributed to the EPA MAP regulation, whichprovides for training of project designers and other competent persons.

"Total construction costs." Based on OSHA's preliminary regulatory impactanalysis [OSHA, 1990], preliminary analysis by CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990], andcost analysis of the revised standard by OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994], OSHAestimated total costs of compliance with the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc and theancillary requirements pertaining to regulated areas, methods of compliance,respiratory protection, hygiene facilities, communication of hazards andcompetent person training. The estimated compliance costs, by controlrequirement, are shown in Table 8 for each major construction sector. OSHA'sestimate of total cost, $476.4 million, is the average cost for a range ofconstruction workers potentially at risk in each of the activities affectedby the standard (see [CONSAD, 1990, Appendix A] and [OSHA, 1994]). Thisestimate of incremental costs, however, includes the training costs -- forworkers, supervisors, project designers and competent persons -- that wouldotherwise be incurred through compliance with the EPA Model AccreditationPlan regulation. Excluding EPA-related training costs, OSHA estimates that$346.5 million in incremental costs are attributed to the OSHA constructionstandard. Table 9 presents total annual compliance costs by constructionactivity, for requirements unique to the revised OSHA construction standard.

"Shipyards." The revised standard for shipyards largely resembles therevised construction standard. OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] identified twoshipyard activities -- wet removal/repair/installation and dryremoval/repair/installation aboard vessels -- where significant contact withasbestos can take place. CONSAD's cost analysis assumes asbestos removal willbe performed by abatement specialists currently complying with requirementsin the existing asbestos general industry standard (under which asbestoscontact during shipbuilding and repairing is presently regulated).Specifically, abatement specialists in shipyards are believed to be currentlyusing the following controls at near-100 percent level:

* HEPA vacuums
* Wet methods (where feasible)
* Regulated areas with caution signs
* Respirators (full-facepiece cartridge respirators and full-facepiece
supplied-air respirators)
* Disposable protective clothing and gloves
* Decontamination units
* Lunch areas
* Training (General Industry standard)
* Exposure monitoring (daily)
* Medical Exams
* Written compliance plan.

For affected shipyards, OSHA's cost analysis assigned engineering controlsand work practices required or implied by the revised asbestos standard. OSHAanticipates incremental costs associated with airtight regulated areas; dropcloths; critical barriers; glove bag systems; worker training and competentperson training (Class I); initial exposure monitoring and development ofobjective data; and notification requirements. In all, OSHA projects annualincremental compliance costs of approximately $229 thousand for theshipbuilding and repairing sector. Of these costs, $137 thousand areassociated with training required by the EPA Model Accreditation Planregulation mandated by the ASHARA legislation. Therefore, net OSHA-relatedannual costs for ship repair under the revised asbestos standard are expectedto total approximately $93 thousand (after rounding). Compliance costs forship repair are presented in Table 10 by control requirements for affectedshipboard activities.

Aggregate incremental compliance costs. As described above, OSHA estimatedcompliance costs associated with the revised asbestos standard for GeneralIndustry, Construction and Shipyards. Total annual costs for each of thethree main parts of the asbestos standard are as follows (excludingEPA-related training costs):

* General Industry -- $14.8 million
* Construction -- $346.5 million
* Shipyards -- $93 thousand.

Summing compliance costs across affected sectors, OSHA estimates that annualincremental compliance costs of $361.4 million will result followingpromulgation of the rule.

The next section applies these estimates of incremental compliance costs foran analysis of the economic impacts of the revised asbestos standard.

F. Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Introduction

OSHA examined the impacts of compliance costs on payroll, sales and profitsfor firms in general industry, shipyards and construction affected by therevision to the asbestos standard. OSHA's economic impact analysis ispresented below.

Data Sources and Methodology

OSHA used a variety of financial indicators and sources of statistical datato assess the impacts on the affected industries. Payroll data for primarymanufacturing industries and real estate industries were taken from CountyBusiness Patterns, 1990 [Dept. of Commerce, 1993]. Payroll data forconstruction industries were taken from the 1987 Census of Construction,[Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. Data on sales were obtained from Dun andBradstreet's Marketing Information computer database [Dun and Bradstreet,1992a] for the following industry groups:

* Primary asbestos manufacturing;
* Automotive repair;
* Shipyards;
* Selected groups in general industry where the disturbance of asbestos
during routine maintenance falls under the construction standard;

Selected real estate industries. Data on net value of constructionwork (a statistic approximating the sales volume of construction firms) forthe construction sector were taken from the "1987 Census of Construction"[Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. OSHA derived pre-tax profit rates using Dun andBradstreet post-tax return-on-sales data from Dun's Insight computer database[Dun and Bradstreet, 1992b] and the 1987 tax code. Pre-tax profits werecalculated using a formula that contains the marginal corporate tax rates for1993.

Impacts in General Industry and Shipyards

"Primary manufacturing." OSHA has determined that the following fourindustries in primary manufacturing would be affected by the revision to theasbestos standard: SIC 3292, Friction Materials; SIC 3053, Gaskets andPackings; SIC 2952, Coatings and Sealants; and SIC 3089, Plastics. OSHA hasconcluded that there will be no incremental costs for the secondarymanufacturing industries identified in the preliminary regulatory impactanalysis because these manufacturers are believed to have already achievedexposure reductions that bring them into compliance with OSHA's new PEL of0.1 f/cc.

OSHA compared the incremental compliance costs anticipated for the fouraffected primary manufacturing industries with three financial indicators:(1) Annual payroll per firm, (2) dollar value of sales per firm and (3)pre-tax profits per firm. The comparison with annual payroll conveys themagnitude of compliance costs relative to labor costs. The comparison withsales provides a measure of the extent to which prices would rise to maintainprofit levels if a firm is able to pass 100 percent of incremental costsforward to buyers. If firms, for competitive reasons, are unable to passcosts forward and must instead absorb the full impact internally, pre-taxprofits would be expected to fall. The comparison with pre-tax profits thusillustrates the maximum financial impact if the firm absorbs 100 percent ofthe incremental compliance costs.

Table 11 presents the estimated impact of compliance costs in relation toannual payroll, sales, and pre-tax profits per plant in primarymanufacturing. Compliance costs as a percentage of sales are modest,averaging 0.6 percent for affected establishments in primary manufacturing(Column 7). However, as shown in Column 8 in the table, profit impacts arerelatively high for two sectors: friction materials (26.2 percent) andgaskets and packings (7.3 percent). For reasons given below, OSHA believesthat profit impacts will be minimized by the ability of firms to pass forwardcosts to consumers. The small increases in product prices (less than 2percent) necessary to cover the increased costs of production would beunlikely to affect the demand for these products.

As evidenced by the disappearance of domestic production of variousasbestos-based product lines (e.g., A/C pipe and A/C sheet) over the lastseveral years and the dramatic reduction in the production of other products(e.g., asbestos-containing plastics), many former producers and consumers ofasbestos are increasingly substituting other materials for asbestos. Themarket forces behind increased substitution appear to be related to legalissues, such as liability, and regulatory concerns, such as the attemptedEnvironmental Protection Agency asbestos ban, rather than strictly the effectof product substitution. Even when asbestos-based products are much cheaperthan non-asbestos-based products, demand and supply are shifting away fromasbestos-based products.

Primary manufacturers appear to have the latitude to raise prices on theirproducts in the short run, but may substitute away from asbestos entirely inthe long run. In the friction materials industry, substitute products can bedifficult to develop, suggesting a limited cross-elasticity of demand thatpermits costs to be fairly easily passed along to consumers. For otherindustries, since the substitution of inputs generally occurs at the site offormerly asbestos-based production, any incremental economic impacts fromthis rule should be minimal.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA also examined theimpacts on small establishments in primary manufacturing to determine if theywould be adversely affected by the final standard. Using data for firms with19 or fewer employees, OSHA compared compliance costs with annual payroll,sales, and pre-tax profits for affected industries identified as containingsmall establishments. The affected industries include small firms producingasbestos gaskets and packings in SIC 3053, Gaskets, Packing, and SealingDevices and producing asbestos coatings and sealants in SIC 2952, AsphaltFelts and Coatings. OSHA has determined that there are currently no smallproducers of asbestos friction materials and asbestos plastics.

Small-firm impacts for primary manufacturing are shown in Table 11. Under afull cost-pass-through scenario, OSHA projects that compliance costs would be1.1 percent of sales for gaskets and packings and that compliance costs wouldbe 0.6 percent of sales for coatings and sealants. Costs as a percentage ofpre-tax profits, shown in the last column of Table 11, are significantlyhigher, suggesting that severe profit reductions could be felt by any smallfirms unable to pass forward incremental compliance costs. However, asdiscussed above, OSHA believes these firms will be able to pass along most ofthe costs of compliance by raising prices and will therefore suffer minimaleconomic impact.

"Automotive repair." Economic impacts in establishments performingautomotive brake and clutch repair, presented in Table 12, are expected to beminor as a result of compliance with the revised standard for generalindustry. As a percentage of sales, compliance costs average 0.01 percent forindustry overall and for affected small establishments. As for the worst-casefinancial impact, compliance costs as a percentage of profits would average0.21 percent for all of industry and would average 0.26 percent for smallestablishments. On the basis of these impact estimates, OSHA has thereforeconcluded that overall impacts in automotive repair will be modest and thatthere will be no significant differential effect on small businesses as aresult of the final standard.

"Ship repair." The impacts of the revision to the asbestos standard onestablishments involved in ship repair are expected to be minimal. Table 13shows that average price impacts would be 0.07 percent for all establishmentsand would be 0.1 percent for small establishments if firms were able tocharge increased operating costs to their customers, i.e., ship owners. Atthe opposite extreme in terms of potential financial impact, compliance costsas a percentage of profits would average 0.8 percent for firms of all sizesin ship repair and would average 1.2 percent for small firms in ship repair.Thus, OSHA has concluded that there will be no significant differentialeffect on small businesses involved in ship repair as a result of the finalstandard.

Impacts Associated With the Revised Construction Standard

"Impacts in the Construction Industry." OSHA estimated economic impacts inconstruction using three economic impact measures, calculated for eachaffected industry group. The first measure is the ratio of the average annualcompliance cost per affected establishment (or per exposed constructionworker) to an estimate of the average payroll per establishment (or perconstruction worker). As explained above, this measure compares the projectedcompliance costs to labor costs normally incurred by the establishment.

The second impact measure is the ratio of the average annual compliance costper affected establishment (or per exposed construction worker) to anestimate of the net dollar value of construction work or sales for an averageestablishment (or per construction worker). This ratio indicates therelationship of the compliance costs to an establishment or worker's outputand indicates the maximum impact on prices assuming 100 percent pass-throughof the compliance costs to the consumer.

The third economic impact statistic calculated by OSHA for constructionmeasures the effect of compliance costs on profits. Profit impacts werecalculated at the industry level by dividing into compliance costs perestablishment, the estimated pre-tax profit per establishment. This indexreveals the maximum potential impact on profits under the assumption thatcompliance costs are fully absorbed by the affected firm. Profit impacts areparticularly meaningful when establishments face highly-competitiveconditions which prevent the pass-through of compliance costs to customers.

Annual incremental compliance costs per construction firm were estimatedusing the costs presented above for new construction; asbestos abatement anddemolition; general building renovation; routine maintenance in public,commercial, and residential buildings; and custodial work in public,commercial, residential, and industrial buildings (routine maintenance inindustrial facilities is analyzed separately below). Table 14 presentsaverage per-worker and per-firm costs and impacts for all affectedconstruction sectors. Table 15 shows estimated costs and impacts for smallestablishments in affected construction sectors.

Based on OSHA and CONSAD's estimates of the number of affected firms, crews,and workers performing each construction activity and the number of projectsconducted by each firm in a year [OSHA, 1994], annual costs forestablishments of average size are expected to range from $190 per buildingfor SIC 6512, Operators of Nonresidential Buildings to $2,283 per firm in SIC1752, Floor Laying and Other Floor Work, Not Elsewhere Classified.(7) Asshown in Table 14, costs as a percentage of payroll, sales, and profits aregenerally low on both a per-worker and per-establishment basis when averagedacross a range of firms in affected industries. Costs as a percentage ofsales per establishment average 0.13 percent and do not exceed 0.6 percent inany industry. For the impact scenario where cost pass-through is notpossible, OSHA projects that profit reductions would average 2.4 percent andwould be below 5 percent for all but one industry, floor laying and floorwork. For flooring contractors in SIC 1752, profit impacts could exceed 9percent if employers were forced to fully absorb compliance costs out ofretained revenues and were not able to pass costs forward. OSHA believes,however, that profit impacts will not be as severe as depicted in thisworst-case scenario, for two reasons.

__________

Footnote(7) Compliance costs for firms in SICs 6512 and 6513 were estimatedon a per-building basis, rather than a per-firm basis, due to insufficientdata on numbers of buildings owned per firm in these industry groups.

First, it appears that there are few services that compete with floormaintenance directly, and therefore demand for services provided by theindustry is relatively inelastic. Secondly, all floor-laying establishmentsare treated uniformly by the revised standard. Because no individual firmfaces unfair regulatory treatment by the revised standard, cost impacts areexpected across the majority of industry. Consequently, most affected firmsshould be able to pass forward costs to customers without significantredistribution of market share. As indicated in Table 14, cost impacts onprices (sales) would be minimal under a full cost-pass-through scenario.

Annual costs for small establishments are expected to range from $128 perbuilding for SIC 6512, Operators of Nonresidential Buildings to $723 per firmin SIC 1711, Plumbing, Heating and Air-Conditioning, as shown in Table 15,Column 4. Small-firm compliance costs as a percentage of payroll, sales, andprofits are fairly modest on both a per-worker and per-establishment basis.Costs as a percentage of sales per establishment average 0.13 percent and donot exceed 0.3 percent in any industry, whereas, for the case of zero costpass-through, costs as a percentage of profits average 2.4 percent. OSHA hasconcluded that no differential adverse impact will be experienced by smallfirms in any construction sector when compared to larger firms because thecosts of compliance are expected to be roughly equivalent on a per-workerbasis.

"Routine maintenance in industrial facilities." In profiling asbestosmaintenance activities within general industry, OSHA and CONSAD have assumedthat the majority of the work would be performed by plant and maintenancepersonnel within the establishment. Under this assumption, incremental costsattributed to requirements in the revised construction standard that pertainto these maintenance tasks would financially impact general industry.Therefore, economic impacts associated with routine maintenance in generalindustry are included in this section on impacts under the constructionstandard. Impacts in affected general industry sectors are shown in Tables 16and 17.

Economic impacts from costs of compliance in industrial facilities werecomputed in terms of price impacts and profit impacts. As shown in Table 16,average economic impacts across all affected establishments are expected tobe minimal. Price impacts -- costs as a percentage of sales -- would average0.01 percent if firms were able to pass forward all compliance costs toconsumers. If full cost pass-through is not achievable and affected firmsmust finance compliance expenditures from retained earnings, OSHA anticipatesthat profit impacts would be no greater than 0.21 percent.

Table 17 presents economic impacts on small firms in general industry whereroutine asbestos maintenance takes place. The results suggest that no seriouseconomic consequences are expected from compliance with the revision to thefinal rule. Impacts on sales average 0.01 percent, whereas impacts on profitsaverage 0.21 percent and are no higher than 0.7 percent for any industrygroup. Therefore, OSHA concludes that there will be no significantdifferential effect on small businesses in general industry performingroutine maintenance involving contact with asbestos-containing materials.

Conclusion

In this section OSHA presented economic impact projections for affectedindustry groups in general industry, shipyards and construction. Economicimpact measures calculated by OSHA expressed percentage effects of compliancecosts on payroll, sales, and profits. On the basis of OSHA's analysis of theeconomic effects of the revised asbestos standard, OSHA has determined thatimpacts will be modest for most affected industry groups. Therefore, OSHAjudges the revised asbestos standard to be economically feasible.

References

Abt Associates. [Abt, 1993]. Interim Rule to Revise the Asbestos ModelAccreditation Plan: Regulatory Impact Analysis. Final Draft.Prepared for Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Office of Prevention,Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May1993.

Abt Associates. [Abt, 1992]. EPA Asbestos in Public Buildings Regulations:

Right-to-Know Rule Options; Estimated Costs. Final Draft. Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention,Pesticides and Toxic Substances. February 1992.

The American Heritage Dictionary. [American Heritage Dictionary, 1982].

Second College Edition. Boston, Ma.: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1982. Arrow,K.J. [Arrow, 1971]. Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing. Chicago:

Markham Publishing Company, 1971. Asbestos Information Association. [AIA,1991]. Post-hearing submission.

Docket H-033E, Ex. 117. April 24, 1991. Bureau of National Affairs. [BNA,1993]. "AFL-CIO Given Role in Settling Personal Injury Claims Against 20Firms." Occupational Safety and Health Reporter. October 6, 1993, p. 488.

Campbell, W.J., R.L. Blake, L.L. Brown, E.E. Cather, and J.J. Sjoberg.[Campbell, 1977] Selected Silicate Minerals and Their AsbestiformVarieties. Mineralogical Definitions and Identification-Characterization.Information Circular 8751, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.College Park, Md. 1977.

Canadian Mineral Yearbook. [Canadian Mineral Yearbook, 1993]. "Asbestos."Mineral Policy Sector, EMR Canada. 1993. Chelius, J.R.[Chelius, 1977]. Workplace Safety and Health: The Role of Workers'Compensation. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for PublicPolicy Research, 1977.

Cogley, D., N. Krussel, R. McInnes, P. Anderson, and R. Bell. [Cogley, etal., 1982]. Life Cycle of Asbestos in Commercial and Industrial UseIncluding Estimates of Releases to Air, Water, and Land. Prepared by GCACorporation, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of ToxicSubstances, under Contract No. 68-02-3268. Washington, D.C., February 1982.OSHA Docket H-033c. Exhibit 84-161.

Commission on Merchant Marine and Defense. [Merchant Marine Commission,1987]. First Report of the Commission on Merchant Marine andDefense, Appendices. Washington, D.C., September 30, 1987.

CONSAD and General Research Corp. [CONSAD and GRC, 1982]. EmployerCompensation and Control Systems, Final Report, 1982. Prepared forthe U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.Pittsburgh: Consad Research Corporation; and McLean, Virginia: GeneralResearch Corporation, 1982. CONSAD Research Corporation. [CONSAD, 1990].Economic Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the OSHA Asbestos Standardsfor Construction and General Industry. Final Report. Contract NumberJ-9-F-8-0033, Task Order 4, Option Year 1. July 27, 1990. Docket H-033e, Ex.8.

CONSAD Research Corporation. [CONSAD, 1985]. Economic and TechnologicalProfile Related to OSHA's Revised Permanent Asbestos Standard forthe Construction Industry and Asbestos Removal and Routine MaintenanceProjects in General Industry. Final Report. Contract Number J-9-F-4-0024,December 31, 1985. Docket H-033e, Ex. 1-229.

CONSAD Research Corporation and Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc.[CONSAD, 1984]. Asbestos Task Order for Construction Alternatives.Final Report. Contract Number J-9-F-4-0024, May 25, 1984; Addendum to FinalReport, June 14, 1984. Supplement, July 31, 1984. Docket H-033e, Ex.1-227.

Corn, Mort, Ph.D. [Corn, 1992]. Letter to John Martonik with attacheddata. School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University.December 28, 1992. Docket H-033e, Ex. 162-52.

Dallas Morning News. [Dallas Morning News, 1990]. "Asbestos firms loseclass-action lawsuit." March 31, 1990. Discher, David P.; Kleinmann,G.G.; and Foster, F.J. [Discher, et al., 1975]. National Occupational HazardSurvey-Pilot Study for Development of an Occupational Disease SurveillanceMethod. Report No. NIOSH-75-162. Sponsored by the National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health, Department of Environmental Health. Seattle:University of Washington, May 1975.

Dun and Bradstreet. [Dun and Bradstreet, 1992a]. Dun's MarketingInformation computer database. Dun's Marketing Service. 1992. Dunand Bradstreet. [Dun and Bradstreet, 1992b]. Dun's Insight -- IndustryStatistics and Financial Analysis System. Dun's Analytical Services. Dun andBradstreet Credit Services. 1992. Health Effects Institute -- AsbestosResearch. [HEI-AR, 1992].

Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: Supplementary Analyses ofSelected Data Previously Considered by the Literature Review Panel.Cambridge, Ma. Docket H-033e, Ex. 162-6a.

Health Effects Institute -- Asbestos Research. [HEI, 1991] Asbestos inPublic and Commercial Buildings: A Literature Review and Synthesisof Current Knowledge. Cambridge, Ma. Docket H-033e, Ex. 1-344.1991.

ICF Incorporated. [ICF, 1988]. Asbestos Exposure Assessment. RevisedReport. Prepared for Chemical Engineering Branch, Office ofPesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March21, 1988.

Lange, J.E. and D.Q. Mills, ed. The Construction Industry. Lexington, Ma.:

Lexington Books, 1979. Morris, G.E. [RTI, 1982]. Tort Liability and WorkerHealth: An Examination of the Economic, Legal and Scientific IssuesSurrounding the Occupational Disease Protection Afforded by Tort Law, FinalReport. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety andHealth Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis. Research Triangle Park,North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute, 1982.

National Center for Health Statistics. [NCHS, 1993]. Unpublished 1991Mortality Rate Data for Malignant Neoplasms of Respiratory andIntrathoracic Organs by Five-Year Age Groups and Gender. FacsimileTransmission. December 22, 1993.

National Roofing Contractors Association. [NRCA, 1990]. Comments of theNational Roofing Contractors Association to the Occupational Safetyand Health Administration regarding the July 20, 1990 Notice of ProposedRulemaking. November 29, 1990. Docket H-033e, Ex. 7-112.

Prosser, William Lloyd. [Prosser, 1971]. Handbook of the Law of Torts. 4thed. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1971. Rea, S.A. Jr. [Rea,1981]. "Workmen's Compensation and Occupational Safety under ImperfectInformation". Am Econ Rev 71:80-93, March 1981.

Research Triangle Institute. [RTI, 1985]. Regulatory Impact Analysis ofthe Proposed OSHA Asbestos Standard. Prepared for the U.S.Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. ContractNumber J-9-F-4-0027. Research Triangle Park, N.C. September 1985. DocketH-033e, Ex. 1-228.

Rifkin-Wernick Associates. [Rifkin-Wernick, 1990]. Market Opportunities inAsbestos Abatement: A New Look at an Industry in Transition. AStrategic Intelligence Report. Jenkintown, Pa. 1990. Spence, M., andZeckhauser, R. [Spence and Zeckhauser, 1971].

"Insurance, Information and Individual Action". Am Econ Rev 61:380-387,

1971. U.S. Bureau of Mines. [Bureau of Mines, 1993] "Asbestos in 1992."Mineral Industry Surveys. Branch of Industrial Minerals and Branch of DataCollection and Coordination, Department of the Interior. Washington D.C.April 1993.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. [Chamber of Commerce, 1987]. 1987 Analysis ofWorkers' Compensation Laws. Washington, D.C., 1987. U.S. Department ofCommerce. [Dept. of Commerce, 1993]. County Business Patterns, 1990. Bureauof the Census. 1993.

U.S. Department of Commerce. International Trade Administration. 1993 U.S.Industrial Outlook. 34th Annual Edition. U.S. Department of Commerce. [Dept.of Commerce, 1990a] Bureau of the Census. Industry Series MC87-I-37-C. Censusof Manufactures: Shipbuilding and Repairing (Industry 3731). Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1990.

U.S. Department of Commerce. [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. 1987 Census ofConstruction Industries. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.,March 1990.

U.S. Department of Energy. [Dept. of Energy, 1986]. NonresidentialBuildings Energy Consumption Survey: Characteristics of CommercialBuildings. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 1986.

U.S. Department of Labor. [BLS, 1993a]. Employment and Earnings. Bureau ofLabor Statistics. Vol. 40, No.1. January 1993. U.S. Department of Labor.[BLS, 1993b]. Employment Cost Indexes and Levels, 1975-93. Bureau of LaborStatistics. Bulletin 2434. September 1993.

U.S. Department of Labor. [BLS, 1991]. Occupational Mobility. Bureau ofLabor Statistics. January 1991. U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1994].OSHA/CONSAD Technical Analysis of Final Revisions to the OSHA StandardCovering Occupational Exposure to Asbestos. Prepared by U.S. Department ofLabor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis and CONSAD Research Corporationunder Contract Number J-9-F-1-0011, Option Year 2, Task Order 1. March 1994.

U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1991]. "Informal Public Hearing onProposed Rule on Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite,Anthophyllite and Actinolite," before the Honorable Sheldon Lipson,Administrative Law Judge, Washington, D.C., January 25, 1991. U.S. Departmentof Labor. [OSHA, 1990]. "29 CFR 1910 and 1926; Occupational Exposure toAsbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite and Actinolite; Proposed Rule." FederalRegister, Vol. 55, No. 140. July 20, 1990.

U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1988]. "Occupational Exposure toAsbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite; Final Rules;Amendment." Occupational Safety and Health Administration. FederalRegister, Vol. 53, No. 178. September 14, 1988.

U.S. Department of Labor. [OSHA, 1986]. Final Regulatory Impact andRegulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Revised Asbestos Standard.Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis.June 11, 1986. Docket H-033c, Ex. 346.

U.S. Department of Transportation. [Dept. of Transportation, 1991].Maritime Administration. Report on Survey of U.S. Shipbuilding andRepair Facilities, 1991, prepared by Office of Ship Construction, Division ofProduction, Washington, D.C. 1991.

U.S. Department of Transportation. [Dept. of Transportation, 1990].Maritime Administration. Report on Survey of U.S. Shipbuilding andRepair Facilities, 1990, prepared by Office of Ship Construction, Division ofProduction, Washington, D.C. 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [EPA, 1985]. Guidance forControlling Asbestos-Containing Materials in Buildings.EPA-560/5-85-024. Washington, D.C. 1985.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [EPA, 1984]. Asbestos in Buildings:

A National Survey of Asbestos-Containing Friable Materials.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances. EPA560/5-84-006. October 1984.

Wall Street Journal. [Wall Street Journal, 1993]. "Though Risk Falls,

Removing Asbestos Doesn't Guarantee Substance Is Gone." March 22, 1993. WallStreet Journal. [Wall Street Journal, 1992]. "Litigation Abuse Is DestroyingMy Company." July 15, 1992.

Washington Post. [Washington Post, 1990]. "Overhaul of Manville Fund Set."

November 20, 1990. pp. D1, D7. Wickman, Arthur R., et al. [Wickman, et al.,1992]. "Exposure of Custodial Employees to Airborne Asbestos." Bureau ofEnvironmental Epidemiology, Missouri Department of Health. Technical Reportfor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and ToxicSubstances. 1992.

Young, L.R. [Young, 1983]. "Job-Related Disease Case Refused". Journal ofCommerce: April 19, 1983.

V. Clearance of Information Collection Requirements

5 CFR 1320 sets forth procedures for agencies to follow in obtaining OMBclearance for information collection requirements under the PaperworkReduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The final Asbestos standard requiresthe employer to allow OSHA access to records and under certain circumstances,requires employers to submit notifications to the Agency. OMB has reviewedand approved the collection of information requirements for occupationalexposure to Asbestos for Construction (29 CFR 1926.1101) and Shipyards (29CFR 1915.1001) under OMB clearance numbers 1218-0134 and 1218-0195respectively. The OMB clearances expire in July 1997. There were no newinformation collection requirements for General industry 29 CFR 1910.1001,currently approved under 1218-0133. The Asbestos General industry clearanceexpires in March 1996.

VI. Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, AssistantSecretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department ofLabor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6(b), 8(c), and 8(g) of theOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Sec.107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act,40 U.S.C. 333); Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33U.S.C. 941); and 29 CFR Part 1911; 29 CFR Part 1910, 1915 and 1926 areamended as set forth below.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910, 1915 and 1926

Asbestos, Cancer, Carcinogen, Construction industry, Health, Hazardousmaterials, Labeling, Occupational Safety and Health, Protective Equipment,Respiratory Protection, Signs and symbols.

Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of July, 1994.

Joseph A. Dear
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

VII. Amended Standards: Regulatory Text

OSHA hereby amends 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915 and 1926 as follows:

PART 1910 -- OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

1. The authority citation of Subpart B of Part 1910 continues to read:

Authority: Secs. 4, 6 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and HealthAct, 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Walsh-Healey Act, 41 U.S.C. 35 et seq; ServiceContract Act of 1965, 41 U.S.C. 351 et seq; sec. 107, Contract Work Hours andSafety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act), 40 U.S.C. 333; sec. 41,Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 941; NationalFoundation of Arts and Humanities Act, 20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.; Secretary ofLabor's Order Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 1911), 9-83 (48 FR 35736),or 1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable.

1a. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 1910.19 is revised to read as follows:

1910.19. Special provisions for air contaminants.

(a) Asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dust. Section1910.1001 shall apply to the exposure of every employee to asbestos,tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dust in every employment and placeof employment covered by Sec. 1910.16, in lieu of any different standard onexposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dust whichwould otherwise be applicable by virtue of any of those sections.

* * * * *

2. The authority citation of subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1910 continues to readas follows:

Authority: Secs 6, 8 Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C.655, 657: Secretary of Labor's Order 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 9-76 (41 FR 25059),9-83 [48 FR 35736] or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.

All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety andHealth Act, except those substances which have exposure limits listed inTables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The latter were issued undersection 6(a) [29 U.S.C. 655(a)].

Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-1 and Z-3 not issued under 29 CFR part 1911except for the arsenic (organic compounds), benzene, and cotton dustlistings.

Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of Contract Work Hours andSafety Standards Act, 40 U.S.C. 333.

Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. or 29 CFR part 1911; alsoissued under 5 U.S.C. 653.

Section 1910.1003 through 1910.1018 also issued under 29 CFR 653.

Section 1910.1025 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653 and 5 U.S.C. 553.

Section 1910.1028 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.

Section 1910.1030 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.

Section 1910.1043 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

Section 1910.1045 and 1910.1047 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.Section 1910.1048 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653.

Sections 1910.1200, 1910.1499 and 1910.1500 also issued under 5 U.S.C.

553.

Section 1910.1450 is also issued under sec. 6(b), 8(c) and 8(g)(2), Pub. L.91-596, 84 Stat. 1593, 1599, 1600; 29 U.S.C. 655, 657.

3. Section 1910.1001 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (p) (allthe text preceding the appendices) to read as follows:

1910.1001 Asbestos.

(a) Scope and application. (1) This section applies to all occupationalexposures to asbestos in all industries covered by the Occupational Safetyand Health Act, except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) and (3) of thissection.

(2) This section does not apply to construction work as defined in 29 CFR1910.12(b). (Exposure to asbestos in construction work is covered by 29 CFR1926.58.) (3) This section does not apply to ship repairing, shipbuilding andshipbreaking employments and related employments as defined in 29 CFR 1915.4.(Exposure to asbestos in these employments is covered by 29 CFR 1915.191).

(b) Definitions. "Asbestos" includes chrysotile, amosite,crocidolite, tremolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos,and any of these minerals that have been chemically treated and/oraltered.

"Asbestos-containing material (ACM)" means any material containing more than1% asbestos.

"Assistant Secretary" means the Assistant Secretary of Labor forOccupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.

"Authorized person" means any person authorized by the employer and requiredby work duties to be present in regulated areas.

"Building/facility owner" is the legal entity, including a lessee, whichexercises control over management and record keeping functions relating to abuilding and/or facility in which activities covered by this standard takeplace.

"Director" means the Director of the National Institute for OccupationalSafety and Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or designee.

"Employee exposure" means that exposure to airborne asbestos that wouldoccur if the employee were not using respiratory protective equipment.

"Fiber" means a particulate form of asbestos 5 micrometers or longer,with alength-to-diameter ratio of at least 3 to 1.

"High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter" means a filter capable oftrapping and retaining at least 99.97 percent of 0.3 micrometer diametermono-disperse particles.

"Industrial hygienist" means a professional qualified by education,training, and experience to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and developcontrols for occupational health hazards.

"PACM" means thermal system insulation, sprayed on or troweled on surfacingmaterial and debris in work areas where such material is present.

"Regulated area" means an area established by the employer to demarcateareas where airborne concentrations of asbestos exceed, or there is areasonable possibility they may exceed, the permissible exposure limits.

(c) Permissible exposure limit (PELS) -- (1) Time-weighted average limit(TWA). The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborneconcentration of asbestos excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air asan eight (8)-hour time-weighted average (TWA) as determined by the methodprescribed in Appendix A of this section, or by an equivalent method.

(2) Excursion limit. The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposedto an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 1.0 fiber per cubiccentimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged over a sampling period of thirty (30)minutes.

(d) Exposure monitoring. -- (1) General. (i) Determinations of employeeexposure shall be made from breathing zone air samples that arerepresentative of the 8-hour TWA and 30-minute short-term exposures of eachemployee.

(ii) Representative 8-hour TWA employee exposures shall be determined on thebasis of one or more samples representing full-shift exposures for each shiftfor each employee in each job classification in each work area.Representative 30-minute short-term employee exposures shall be determined onthe basis of one or more samples representing 30 minute exposures associatedwith operations that are most likely to produce exposures above the excursionlimit for each shift for each job classification in each work area.

(2) Initial monitoring. (i) Each employer who has a workplace or workoperation covered by this standard, except as provided for in paragraphs(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(iii) of this section, shall perform initial monitoringof employees who are, or may reasonably be expected to be exposed to airborneconcentrations at or above the TWA permissible exposure limit and/orexcursion limit.

(ii) Where the employer has monitored after March 31, 1992, for the TWApermissible exposure limit and/or the excursion limit, and the monitoringsatisfies all other requirements of this section, the employer may rely onsuch earlier monitoring results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph(d)(2)(i) of this section.

(iii) Where the employer has relied upon objective data that demonstratethat asbestos is not capable of being released in airborne concentrations ator above the TWA permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit under theexpected conditions of processing, use, or handling, then no initialmonitoring is required.

(3) Monitoring frequency (periodic monitoring) and patterns. After theinitial determinations required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section,samples shall be of such frequency and pattern as to represent withreasonable accuracy the levels of exposure of the employees. In no case shallsampling be at intervals greater than six months for employees whoseexposures may reasonably be foreseen to exceed the TWA permissible exposurelimit and/or excursion limit.

(4) Changes in monitoring frequency. If either the initial or the periodicmonitoring required by paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this sectionstatistically indicates that employee exposures are below the TWA permissibleexposure limit and/or excursion limit, the employer may discontinue themonitoring for those employees whose exposures are represented by suchmonitoring.

(5) Additional monitoring. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(4) of this section, the employer shall institute theexposure monitoring required under paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(3) of thissection whenever there has been a change in the production, process, controlequipment, personnel or work practices that may result in new or additionalexposures above the TWA permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit orwhen the employer has any reason to suspect that a change may result in newor additional exposures above the action level and/or excursion limit.

(6) Method of monitoring. (i) All samples taken to satisfy the monitoringrequirements of paragraph (d) of this section shall be personal samplescollected following the procedures specified in Appendix A.

(ii) All samples taken to satisfy the monitoring requirements of paragraph(d) of this section shall be evaluated using the OSHA Reference Method (ORM)specified in Appendix A of this section, or an equivalent counting method.

(iii) If an equivalent method to the ORM is used, the employer shall ensurethat the method meets the following criteria:

(A) Replicate exposure data used to establish equivalency are collected inside-by-side field and laboratory comparisons; and

(B) The comparison indicates that 90% of the samples collected in the range0.5 to 2.0 times the permissible limit have an accuracy range of plus orminus 25 percent of the ORM results at a 95% confidence level as demonstratedby a statistically valid protocol; and

(C) The equivalent method is documented and the results of the comparisontesting are maintained.

(iv) To satisfy the monitoring requirements of paragraph (d) of thissection, employers must use the results of monitoring analysis performed bylaboratories which have instituted quality assurance programs that includethe elements as prescribed in Appendix A of this section.

(7) Employee notification of monitoring results. (i) The employer shall,within 15 working days after the receipt of the results of any monitoringperformed under the standard, notify the affected employees of these resultsin writing either individually or by posting of results in an appropriatelocation that is accessible to affected employees.

(ii) The written notification required by paragraph (d)(7)(i) of thissection shall contain the corrective action being taken by the employer toreduce employee exposure to or below the TWA and/or excursion limit, wherevermonitoring results indicated that the TWA and/or excursion limit had beenexceeded.

(e) Regulated Areas. -- (1) Establishment. The employer shall establishregulated areas wherever airborne concentrations of asbestos and/or PACM arein excess of the TWA and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) ofthis section.

(2) Demarcation. Regulated areas shall be demarcated from the rest of theworkplace in any manner that minimizes the number of persons who will beexposed to asbestos.

(3) Access. Access to regulated areas shall be limited to authorized personsor to persons authorized by the Act or regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(4) Provision of respirators. Each person entering a regulated area shall besupplied with and required to use a respirator, selected in accordance withparagraph (g)(2) of this section.

(5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees do noteat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in the regulatedareas.

(f) Methods of compliance. -- (1) Engineering controls and work practices.(i) The employer shall institute engineering controls and work practices toreduce and maintain employee exposure to or below the TWA and/or excursionlimit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, except to the extent thatsuch controls are not feasible.

(ii) Wherever the feasible engineering controls and work practices that canbe instituted are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below theTWA and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, theemployer shall use them to reduce employee exposure to the lowest levelsachievable by these controls and shall supplement them by the use ofrespiratory protection that complies with the requirements of paragraph (g)of this section.

(iii) For the following operations, wherever feasible engineering controlsand work practices that can be instituted are not sufficient to reduce theemployee exposure to or below the TWA and/or excursion limit prescribed inparagraph (c) of this section, the employer shall use them to reduce employeeexposure to or below 0.5 fiber per cubic centimeter of air (as an eight-hourtime-weighted average) or 2.5 fibers/cc for 30 minutes (short-term exposure)and shall supplement them by the use of any combination of respiratoryprotection that complies with the requirements of paragraph (g) of thissection, work practices and feasible engineering controls that will reduceemployee exposure to or below the TWA and to or below the excursion limitpermissible prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section: Coupling cutoff inprimary asbestos cement pipe manufacturing; sanding in primary and secondaryasbestos cement sheet manufacturing; grinding in primary and secondaryfriction product manufacturing; carding and spinning in dry textileprocesses; and grinding and sanding in primary plastics manufacturing.

(iv) Local exhaust ventilation. Local exhaust ventilation and dustcollection systems shall be designed, constructed, installed, and maintainedin accordance with good practices such as those found in the AmericanNational Standard Fundamentals Governing the Design and Operation of LocalExhaust Systems, ANSI Z9.2-1979.

(v) Particular tools. All hand-operated and power-operated tools which wouldproduce or release fibers of asbestos, such as, but not limited to, saws,scorers, abrasive wheels, and drills, shall be provided with local exhaustventilation systems which comply with paragraph (f)(1)(iv) of this section.

(vi) Wet methods. Insofar as practicable, asbestos shall be handled, mixed,applied, removed, cut, scored, or otherwise worked in a wet state sufficientto prevent the emission of airborne fibers so as to expose employees tolevels in excess of the TWA and/or excursion limit, prescribed in paragraph(c) of this section, unless the usefulness of the product would be diminishedthereby.

(vii) [Reserved] (viii) Particular products and operations. Noasbestos cement, mortar, coating, grout, plaster, or similar materialcontaining asbestos, shall be removed from bags, cartons, or other containersin which they are shipped, without being either wetted, or enclosed, orventilated so as to prevent effectively the release of airborne fibersof.

(ix) Compressed air. Compressed air shall not be used to remove asbestos ormaterials containing asbestos unless the compressed air is used inconjunction with a ventilation system which effectively captures the dustcloud created by the compressed air.

(x) Flooring. Sanding of asbestos-containing flooring material is prohibited.

(2) Compliance program. (i) Where the TWA and/or excursion limit isexceeded, the employer shall establish and implement a written program toreduce employee exposure to or below the TWA and to or below the excursionlimit by means of engineering and work practice controls as required byparagraph (f)(1) of this section, and by the use of respiratory protectionwhere required or permitted under this section.

(ii) Such programs shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to reflectsignificant changes in the status of the employer's compliance program.

(iii) Written programs shall be submitted upon request for examination andcopying to the Assistant Secretary, the Director, affected employees anddesignated employee representatives.

(iv) The employer shall not use employee rotation as a means of compliancewith the TWA and/or excursion limit.(3) Specific compliance methods for brake and clutch repair:

(i) Engineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch repair andservice. During automotive brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repairand assembly operations, the employer shall institute engineering controlsand work practices to reduce employee exposure to materials containingasbestos using a negative pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum system method or lowpressure/wet cleaning method, which meets the detailed requirements set outin Appendix F to this section. The employer may also comply using anequivalent method which follows written procedures which the employerdemonstrates can achieve results equivalent to Method A in Appendix F to thissection. For facilities in which no more than 5 pair of brakes or 5 clutchesare inspected, disassembled, repaired, or assembled per week, the method setforth in paragraph [D] of Appendix F of this section may be used.

(ii) The employer may also comply by using an equivalent method whichfollows written procedures, which the employer demonstrates can achieveequivalent exposure reductions as do the two "preferred methods." Suchdemonstration must include monitoring data conducted under workplaceconditions closely resembling the process, type of asbestos containingmaterials, control method, work practices and environmental conditions whichthe equivalent method will be used, or objective data, which document thatunder all reasonably foreseeable conditions of brake and clutch repairapplications, the method results in exposures which are equivalent to themethods set out in Appendix F to this section.

(g) Respiratory protection -- (1) General. The employer shall providerespirators, and ensure that they are used, where required by this section.Respirators shall be used in the following circumstances:

(i) During the interval necessary to install or implement feasibleengineering and work practice controls;

(ii) In work operations, such as maintenance and repair activities, or otheractivities for which engineering and work practice controls are not feasible;

(iii) In work situations where feasible engineering and work practicecontrols are not yet sufficient to reduce exposure to or below the TWA and/orexcursion limit; and

(iv) In emergencies. (2) Respirator selection. (i) Where respiratorsare required under this section, the employer shall select and provide, at nocost to the employee, the appropriate respirator as specified in Table 1. Theemployer shall select respirators from among those jointly approved as beingacceptable for protection by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)and by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11.

(ii) The employer shall provide a powered, air-purifying respirator in lieuof any negative pressure respirator specified in Table 1 whenever:

(A) An employee chooses to use this type of respirator; and

(B) This respirator will provide adequate protection to the employee.

Note: a. Respirators assigned for high environmental concentrationsmay be used at lower concentrations, or when required respirator use isindependent of concentration.

b. A high efficiency filter means a filter that is at least 99.97 percentefficient against mono-dispersed particles of 0.3 micrometers in diameter orlarger.

(3) Respirator program. (i) Where respiratory protection is required, theemployer shall institute a respirator program in accordance with 29 CFR1910.134(b), (d), (e), and (f).

(ii) The employer shall permit each employee who uses a filter respirator tochange the filter elements whenever an increase in breathing resistance isdetected and shall maintain an adequate supply of filter elements for thispurpose.

(iii) Employees who wear respirators shall, be permitted to leave theregulated area to wash their faces and respirator facepieces whenevernecessary to prevent skin irritation associated with respirator use.

(iv) No employee shall be assigned to tasks requiring the use of respiratorsif, based upon his or her most recent examination, an examining physiciandetermines that the employee will be unable to function normally wearing arespirator, or that the safety or health of the employee or other employeeswill be impaired by the use of a respirator. Such employee shall be assignedto another job or given the opportunity to transfer to a different positionwhose duties he or she is able to perform with the same employer, in the samegeographical area and with the same seniority, status, and rate of pay theemployee had just prior to such transfer, if such a different position isavailable.

(4) Respirator fit testing. (i) The employer shall ensure that therespirator issued to the employee exhibits the least possible facepieceleakage and that the respirator is fitted properly.

(ii) For each employee wearing negative pressure respirators, employersshall perform either quantitative or qualitative face fit tests at the timeof initial fitting and at least every six months thereafter. The qualitativefit tests may be used only for testing the fit of half-mask respirators wherethey are permitted to be worn, and shall be conducted in accordance withAppendix C of this section. The tests shall be used to select facepieces thatprovide the required protection as prescribed in Table 1, in paragraph(g)(2)(ii) of this section.

(h) Protective work clothing and equipment -- (1) Provision and use. If anemployee is exposed to asbestos above the TWA and/or excursion limit, orwhere the possibility of eye irritation exists, the employer shall provide atno cost to the employee and ensure that the employee uses appropriateprotective work clothing and equipment such as, but not limited to:

(i) Coveralls or similar full-body work clothing;

(ii) Gloves, head coverings, and foot coverings; and

(iii) Face shields, vented goggles, or other appropriate protectiveequipment which complies with 1910.133 of this Part.

(2) Removal and storage. (i) The employer shall ensure that employees removework clothing contaminated with asbestos only in change rooms provided inaccordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

(ii) The employer shall ensure that no employee takes contaminated workclothing out of the change room, except those employees authorized to do sofor the purpose of laundering, maintenance, or disposal.

(iii) Contaminated work clothing shall be placed and stored in closedcontainers which prevent dispersion of the asbestos outside the container.

(iv) Containers of contaminated protective devices or work clothing whichare to be taken out of change rooms or the workplace for cleaning,maintenance or disposal, shall bear labels in accordance with paragraph(j)(2)of this section.

(3) Cleaning and replacement. (i) The employer shall clean, launder, repair,or replace protective clothing and equipment required by this paragraph tomaintain their effectiveness. The employer shall provide clean protectiveclothing and equipment at least weekly to each affected employee.

(ii) The employer shall prohibit the removal of asbestos from protectiveclothing and equipment by blowing or shaking. (iii) Laundering ofcontaminated clothing shall be done so as to prevent the release of airbornefibers of asbestos in excess of the permissible exposure limits prescribed inparagraph (c) of this section.

(iv) Any employer who gives contaminated clothing to another person forlaundering shall inform such person of the requirement in paragraph(h)(3)(iii) of this section to effectively prevent the release of airbornefibers of asbestos in excess of the permissible exposure limits.

(v) The employer shall inform any person who launders or cleans protectiveclothing or equipment contaminated with asbestos of the potentially harmfuleffects of exposure to asbestos.

(vi) Contaminated clothing shall be transported in sealed impermeable bags,or other closed, impermeable containers, and labeled in accordance withparagraph (j) of this section.

(i) Hygiene facilities and practices -- (1) Change rooms. (i) The employershall provide clean change rooms for employees who work in areas where theirairborne exposure to asbestos is above the TWA and/or excursion limit.

(ii) The employer shall ensure that change rooms are in accordance with1910.141(e) of this part, and are equipped with two separate lockers orstorage facilities, so separated as to prevent contamination of theemployee's street clothes from his protective work clothing and equipment.

(2) Showers. (i) The employer shall ensure that employees who work in areaswhere their airborne exposure is above the TWA and/or excursion limit showerat the end of the work shift.

(ii) The employer shall provide shower facilities which comply with1910.141(d)(3) of this part.

(iii) The employer shall ensure that employees who are required to showerpursuant to paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section do not leave the workplacewearing any clothing or equipment worn during the work shift.

(3) Lunchrooms. (i) The employer shall provide lunchroom facilities foremployees who work in areas where their airborne exposure is above the TWAand/or excursion limit.

(ii) The employer shall ensure that lunchroom facilities have a positivepressure, filtered air supply, and are readily accessible to employees.

(iii) The employer shall ensure that employees who work in areas where theirairborne exposure is above the PEL and/or excursion limit wash their handsand faces prior to eating, drinking or smoking.

(iv) The employer shall ensure that employees do not enter lunchroomfacilities with protective work clothing or equipment unless surface asbestosfibers have been removed from the clothing or equipment by vacuuming or othermethod that removes dust without causing the asbestos to become airborne.

(4) Smoking in work areas. The employer shall ensure that employees do notsmoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to asbestos becauseof activities in that work area.

(j) Communication of hazards to employees -- Introduction. This sectionapplies to the communication of information concerning asbestos hazards ingeneral industry to facilitate compliance with this standard. Asbestosexposure in general industry occurs in a wide variety of industrial andcommercial settings. Employees who manufacture asbestos-containing productsmay be exposed to asbestos fibers. Employees who repair and replaceautomotive brakes and clutches may be exposed to asbestos fibers. Inaddition, employees engaged in housekeeping activities in industrialfacilities with asbestos product manufacturing operations, and in public andcommercial buildings with installed asbestos containing materials may beexposed to asbestos fibers. Most of these workers are covered by this generalindustry standard, with the exception of state or local governmentalemployees in non-state plan states. It should be noted that employees whoperform housekeeping activities during and after construction activities arecovered by the asbestos construction standard, 29 CFR 1926.1101, formerly1926.58). However, housekeeping employees, regardless of industrydesignation, should know whether building components they maintain may exposethem to asbestos. The same hazard communication provisions will protectemployees who perform housekeeping operations in all three asbestosstandards; general industry, construction, and shipyard employment. As notedin the construction standard, building owners are often the only and/or bestsource of information concerning the presence of previously installedasbestos containing building materials. Therefore they, along with employersof potentially exposed employees, are assigned specific information conveyingand retention duties under this section.

(1) Installed Asbestos Containing Material. Employers and building ownersare required to treat installed TSI and sprayed on and troweled- on surfacingmaterials as ACM for purposes of this standard. These materials aredesignated "presumed ACM or PACM", and are defined in paragraph (B) of thisstandard. Asphalt and vinyl flooring material installed no later than 1980also must be treated as asbestos- containing. The employer or building ownermay demonstrate that PACM and flooring material do not contain asbestos bycomplying with paragraph (j)(6) of this section.

(2) Duties of employers and building and facility owners. (i) Employers andbuilding and facility owners shall exercise due diligence in complying withthese requirements to inform employers and employees about the presence andlocation of ACM and PACM.

(ii) Building and facility owners shall maintain records of all informationrequired to be provided pursuant to this section and/or otherwise known tothe building owner concerning the presence, location and quantity of ACM andPACM in the building/facility. Such records shall be kept for the duration ofownership and shall be transferred to successive owners.

(iii) Building and facility owners shall inform employers of employees, andemployers shall inform employees who will perform housekeeping activities inareas which contain ACM and/or PACM of the presence and location of ACM andPACM in such areas. Identification of ACM and PACM shall be made by anindustrial hygienists or by persons whose skill and experience with respectto identification of asbestos hazards, is the equivalent to that ofindustrial hygienists and so can be demonstrated by the owner.

(3) Warning signs. (i) Posting. Warning signs shall be provided anddisplayed at each regulated area. In addition, warning signs shall be postedat all approaches to regulated areas so that an employee may read the signsand take necessary protective steps before entering the area.

(ii) Sign specifications. The warning signs required by paragraph (j)(1)(i)of this section shall bear the following information:

(iii) [Reserved] (iv) The employer shall ensure that employeesworking in and contiguous to regulated areas comprehend the warning signsrequired to be posted by paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section. Means to ensureemployee comprehension may include the use of foreign languages, pictographsand graphics.

(4) Warning labels. (i) Labeling. Warning labels shall be affixed to all rawmaterials, mixtures, scrap, waste, debris, and other products containingasbestos fibers, or to their containers.

(ii) Label specifications. The labels shall comply with the requirements of29 CFR 1910.1200(f) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, and shallinclude the following information:

(5) Material safety data sheets. Employers who are manufacturers orimporters of asbestos or asbestos products shall comply with the requirementsregarding development of material safety data sheets as specified in 29 CFR1910.1200(g) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, except as provided byparagraph (j)(4) of this section.

(6) The provisions for labels required by paragraph (j)(2) of this sectionor for material safety data sheets required by paragraph (j)(5) of thissection do not apply where:

(i) Asbestos fibers have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, binder,or other material provided that the manufacturer can demonstrate that duringany reasonably foreseeable use, handling, storage, disposal, processing, ortransportation, no airborne concentrations of fibers of asbestos in excess ofthe TWA permissible exposure level and/or excursion limit will be released or(ii) Asbestos is present in a product in concentrations less than 1.0%. (7)Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall institute atraining program for all employees who are exposed to airborne concentrationsof asbestos at or above the PEL and/or excursion limit and ensure theirparticipation in the program.

(ii) Training shall be provided prior to or at the time of initialassignment and at least annually thereafter.

(iii) The training program shall be conducted in a manner which the employeeis able to understand. The employer shall ensure that each employee isinformed of the following:

(A) The health effects associated with asbestos exposure;

(B) The relationship between smoking and exposure to asbestos producing lungcancer:

(C) The quantity, location, manner of use, release, and storage of asbestos,and the specific nature of operations which could result in exposure toasbestos;

(D) The engineering controls and work practices associated with theemployee's job assignment;

(E) The specific procedures implemented to protect employees from exposureto asbestos, such as appropriate work practices, emergency and clean-upprocedures, and personal protective equipment to be used;

(F) The purpose, proper use, and limitations of respirators and protectiveclothing, if appropriate;

(G) The purpose and a description of the medical surveillance programrequired by paragraph (l) of this section;

(H) The content of this standard, including appendices. (I) Thenames, addresses and phone numbers of public health organizations whichprovide information, materials, and/or conduct programs concerning smokingcessation. The employer may distribute the list of such organizationscontained in Appendix I to this section, to comply with thisrequirement.

(J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the meaningof the required legends for such signs and labels.

(iv) The employer shall also provide, at no cost to employees who performhousekeeping operations in a facility which contains ACM or PACM, an asbestosawareness training course, which shall at a minimum contain the followingelements: health effects of asbestos, locations of ACM and PACM in thebuilding/facility, recognition of ACM and PACM damage and deterioration,requirements in this standard relating to housekeeping, and proper responseto fiber release episodes, to all employees who are or will work in areaswhere ACM and/or PACM is present. Each such employee shall be so trained atleast once a year.

(v) Access to information and training materials. (A) The employershall make a copy of this standard and its appendices readily availablewithout cost to all affected employees.

(B) The employer shall provide, upon request, all materials relating to theemployee information and training program to the Assistant Secretary and thetraining program to the Assistant Secretary and the Director.

(C) The employer shall inform all employees concerning the availability ofself-help smoking cessation program material. Upon employee request, theemployer shall distribute such material, consisting of NIH Publication No.89-1647, or equivalent self-help material, which is approved or published bya public health organization listed in Appendix I to this section.

(8) Criteria to rebut the designation of installed material as PACM. (i) Atany time, an employer and/or building owner may demonstrate, for purposes ofthis standard, that PACM does not contain asbestos. Building owners and/oremployers are not required to communicate information about the presence ofbuilding material for which such a demonstration pursuant to the requirementsof paragraph (j)(8)(ii) of this section has been made. However, in all suchcases, the information, data and analysis supporting the determination thatPACM does not contain asbestos, shall be retained pursuant to paragraph (n)of this section.

(ii) An employer or owner may demonstrate that PACM does not containasbestos by the following:

(A) Having a completed inspection conducted pursuant to the requirements ofAHERA (40 CFR 763, Subpart E) which demonstrates that no asbestos is presentin the material;

(B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which demonstrate thatno asbestos is present in the material. Such tests shall include analysis of3 bulk samples of each homogeneous area of PACM collected in a randomlydistributed manner. The tests, evaluation and sample collection shall beconducted by an accredited inspector or by a CIH. Analysis of samples shallbe performed by persons or laboratories with proficiency demonstrated bycurrent successful participation in a nationally recognized testing programsuch as the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) ofthe National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Round Robinfor bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene Association(AIHA) or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin testing program.

(iii) The employer and/or building owner may demonstrate that flooringmaterial including associated mastic and backing does not contain asbestos,by a determination of an industrial hygienist based upon recognizedanalytical techniques showing that the material is asbestos free.

(k) Housekeeping. (1) All surfaces shall be maintained as free aspracticable of accumulations of dusts and waste containing asbestos.

(2) All spills and sudden releases of material containing asbestos shall becleaned up as soon as possible.

(3) Surfaces contaminated with asbestos may not be cleaned by the use ofcompressed air.

(4) Vacuuming. HEPA-filtered vacuuming equipment shall be used forvacuuming. The equipment shall be used and emptied in a manner whichminimizes the reentry of asbestos into the workplace.

(5) Shoveling, dry sweeping and dry clean-up of asbestos may be used onlywhere vacuuming and/or wet cleaning are not feasible.

(6) Waste disposal. Waste, scrap, debris, bags, containers, equipment, andclothing contaminated with asbestos consigned for disposal, shall becollected, recycled and disposed of in sealed impermeable bags, or otherclosed, impermeable containers.

(7) Care of asbestos-containing flooring material. (i) Sanding ofasbestos-containing floor material is prohibited. (ii) Stripping of finishesshall be conducted using low abrasion pads at speed lower than 300 rpm andwet methods.

(iii) Burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only on asbestos-containing flooring which has sufficient finish so that the pad cannotcontact the asbestos-containing material.

(iv) Dust and debris in an area containing TSI or surfacing ACM/ PACM orvisibly deteriorated ACM, shall not be dusted or swept dry, or vacuumedwithout using a HEPA filter.

(1) Medical surveillance -- (1) General -- (i) Employees covered. Theemployer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all employees whoare or will be exposed to airborne concentrations of fibers of asbestos at orabove the TWA and/or excursion limit.

(ii) Examination by a physician. (A) The employer shall ensure that allmedical examinations and procedures are performed by or under the supervisionof a licensed physician, and shall be provided without cost to the employeeand at a reasonable time and place.

(B) Persons other than licensed physicians, who administer the pulmonaryfunction testing required by this section, shall complete a training coursein spirometry sponsored by an appropriate academic or professionalinstitution.

(2) Pre-placement examinations. (i) Before an employee is assigned to anoccupation exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers at or abovethe TWA and/or excursion limit, a pre-placement medical examination shall beprovided or made available by the employer.

(ii) Such examination shall include, as a minimum, a medical and workhistory; a complete physical examination of all systems with emphasis on therespiratory system, the cardiovascular system and digestive tract; completionof the respiratory disease standardized questionnaire in Appendix D, Part 1;a chest roentgenogram (posterior- anterior 14 x 17 inches); pulmonaryfunction tests to include forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratoryvolume at 1 second (FEV(1.0)); and any additional tests deemed appropriate bythe examining physician. Interpretation and classification of chestroentgenogram shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix E to thissection.

(3) Periodic examinations. (i) Periodic medical examinations shall be madeavailable annually.

(ii) The scope of the medical examination shall be in conformance with theprotocol established in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section, except that thefrequency of chest roentgenogram shall be conducted in accordance with Table2, and the abbreviated standardized questionnaire contained in, Part 2 ofAppendix D to this section shall be administered to the employee.

(4) Termination of employment examinations. (i) The employer shall provide,or make available, a termination of employment medical examination for anyemployee who has been exposed to airborne concentrations of fibers ofasbestos at or above the TWA and/or excursion limit.

(ii) The medical examination shall be in accordance with the requirements ofthe periodic examinations stipulated in paragraph (l)(3) of this section, andshall be given within 30 calendar days before or after the date oftermination of employment.

(5) Recent examinations. No medical examination is required of any employee,if adequate records show that the employee has been examined in accordancewith any of paragraphs ((l)(2) through (l)(4)) of this section within thepast 1 year period. A pre- employment medical examination which was requiredas a condition of employment by the employer, may not be used by thatemployer to meet the requirements of this paragraph, unless the cost of suchexamination is borne by the employer.

(6) Information provided to the physician. The employer shall provide thefollowing information to the examining physician:

(i) A copy of this standard and Appendices D and E. (ii) Adescription of the affected employee's duties as they relate to theemployee's exposure.

(iii) The employee's representative exposure level or anticipated exposurelevel.

(iv) A description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment usedor to be used.

(v) Information from previous medical examinations of the affected employeethat is not otherwise available to the examining physician.

(7) Physician's written opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain a writtensigned opinion from the examining physician. This written opinion shallcontain the results of the medical examination and shall include:

(A) The physician's opinion as to whether the employee has any detectedmedical conditions that would place the employee at an increased risk ofmaterial health impairment from exposure to asbestos;

(B) Any recommended limitations on the employee or upon the use of personalprotective equipment such as clothing or respirators; and

(C) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of theresults of the medical examination and of any medical conditions resultingfrom asbestos exposure that require further explanation or treatment.

(D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of theincreased risk of lung cancer attributable to the combined effect of smokingand asbestos exposure.

(ii) The employer shall instruct the physician not to reveal in the writtenopinion given to the employer specific findings or diagnoses unrelated tooccupational exposure to asbestos.

(iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the physician's written opinionto the affected employee within 30 days from its receipt.

(m) Recordkeeping. -- (1) Exposure measurements. NOTE: The employer mayutilize the services of competent organizations such as industry tradeassociations and employee associations to maintain the records required bythis section. (i) The employer shall keep an accurate record of allmeasurements taken to monitor employee exposure to asbestos as prescribed inparagraph (d) of this section.

(ii) This record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The date of measurement;

(B) The operation involving exposure to asbestos which is being monitored;

(C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their accuracy;

(D) Number, duration, and results of samples taken;

(E) Type of respiratory protective devices worn, if any; and

(F) Name, social security number and exposure of the employees whoseexposure are represented.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for at least thirty (30)years, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(2) Objective data for exempted operations. (i) Where the processing, use,or handling of products made from or containing asbestos is exempted fromother requirements of this section under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of thissection, the employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record ofobjective data reasonably relied upon in support of the exemption.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following:

(A) The product qualifying for exemption;

(B) The source of the objective data;

(C) The testing protocol, results of testing, and/or analysis of thematerial for the release of asbestos;

(D) A description of the operation exempted and how the data support theexemption; and

(E) Other data relevant to the operations, materials, processing, oremployee exposures covered by the exemption.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for the duration of theemployer's reliance upon such objective data.

(3) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and maintain anaccurate record for each employee subject to medical surveillance byparagraph (l)(1)(i) of this section, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The name and social security number of the employee;

(B) Physician's written opinions;

(C) Any employee medical complaints related to exposure to asbestos; and

(D) A copy of the information provided to the physician as required byparagraph (l)(6) of this section.

(iii) The employer shall ensure that this record is maintained for theduration of employment plus thirty (30) years, in accordance with 29 CFR1910.20.

(4) Training. The employer shall maintain all employee training records forone (1) year beyond the last date of employment of that employee.

(5) Availability. (i) The employer, upon written request, shall make allrecords required to be maintained by this section available to the AssistantSecretary and the Director for examination and copying.

(ii) The employer, upon request shall make any exposure records required byparagraph (m)(1) of this section available for examination and copying toaffected employees, former employees, designated representatives and theAssistant Secretary, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20(a) through (e) and (g)through (i).

(iii) The employer, upon request, shall make employee medical recordsrequired by paragraph (m)(2) of this section available for examination andcopying to the subject employee, to anyone having the specific writtenconsent of the subject employee, and the Assistant Secretary, in accordancewith 29 CFR 1910.20.

(6) Transfer of records. (i) The employer shall comply with the requirementsconcerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 1910.20(h).

(ii) Whenever the employer ceases to do business and there is no successoremployer to receive and retain the records for the prescribed period, theemployer shall notify the Director at least 90 days prior to disposal ofrecords and, upon request, transmit them to the Director.

(n) Observation of monitoring -- (1) Employee observation. The employershall provide affected employees or their designated representatives anopportunity to observe any monitoring of employee exposure to asbestosconducted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) Observation procedures. When observation of the monitoring of employeeexposure to asbestos requires entry into an area where the use of protectiveclothing or equipment is required, the observer shall be provided with and berequired to use such clothing and equipment and shall comply with all otherapplicable safety and health procedures.

(o) Dates -- (1) Effective date. This standard shall become effectiveOctober 11, 1994.

(2) The provisions of 29 CFR 1910.1001 remain in effect until the start-updates of the equivalent provisions of this standard.

(3) Start-up dates. All obligations of this standard commence on theeffective date except as follows:

(i) Exposure monitoring. Initial monitoring required by paragraph (d)(2) ofthis section shall be completed as soon as possible but no later than January9, 1995.

(ii) Regulated areas. Regulated areas required to be established byparagraph (e) of this section as a result of initial monitoring shall be setup as soon as possible after the results of that monitoring are known and notlater than February 8, 1995.

(iii) Respiratory protection. Respiratory protection required by paragraph(g) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but no later thanJanuary 9, 1995.

(iv) Hygiene and lunchroom facilities. Construction plans for change rooms,showers, lavatories, and lunchroom facilities shall be completed as soon aspossible but no later than July 10, 1995.

(v) Employee information and training. Employee information and trainingshall be provided as soon as possible but not later than April 10, 1995.

(vi) Medical surveillance. Medical surveillance not previously required byparagraph (l) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but nolater than January 9, 1995.

(vii) Compliance program. Written compliance programs required by paragraph(f)(2) of this section shall be completed and available for inspection andcopying as soon as possible but no later than February 8, 1995.

(viii) Methods of compliance. The engineering and work practice controls asrequired by paragraph (f)(1) shall be implemented as soon as possible but nolater than April 10, 1995.

(p) Appendices. (1) Appendices A, C, D, E, and F to this section areincorporated as part of this section and the contents of these Appendices aremandatory.

(2) Appendices B, F, G, H, I, and J to this section are informational andare not intended to create any additional obligations not otherwise imposedor to detract from any existing obligations.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number1218-0133)

Appendix A to 1910.1001 [Amended]

4. Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by the revising the secondsentence of the introductory paragraph to read as follows:

* * * The sampling and analytical methods described below represent theelements of the available monitoring methods (such as Appendix B of theirregulation, the most current version of the OSHA method ID-160, or the mostcurrent version of the NIOSH Method 7400). * * * * * * * *

5. Paragraph 2. of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 entitledSampling and Analytical Procedure is amended by adding the following sentenceto the end:

* * * * *

2. * * * Do not reuse or reload cassettes for asbestos sample collection.

* * * * *

6. Paragraph 11 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 entitledSampling and Analytical Procedure is revised to read as follows:

* * * * *

11. Each set of samples taken will include 10% field blanks or a minimum of2 field blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot as the filters usedfor sample collection. The field blank results shall be averaged andsubtracted from the analytical results before reporting. A set consists ofany sample or group of samples for which an evaluation for this standard mustbe made. Any samples represented by a field blank having a fiber count inexcess of the detection limit of the method being used shall be rejected.

* * * * *

7. Paragraph 2 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1001 entitledQuality Control Procedures is amended by redesignating it as paragraph 2a andby adding paragraph 2b to read as follows:

* * * * *

2.b. All laboratories should also participate in a national sample testingscheme such as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT), or theAsbestos Registry sponsored by the American Industrial Hygiene Association(AIHA).

* * * * *

8. Appendix B of 1910.1001 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix B to 1910.1001 -- Detailed Procedures for Asbestos Sampling andAnalysis -- Non-mandatory

Analytical Procedure: A portion of the sample filter is cleared and preparedfor asbestos fiber counting by Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) at 400X.

Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method are fordescriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by USDOL-OSHA.Similar products from other sources can be substituted.

1. Introduction

This method describes the collection of airborne asbestos fibers usingcalibrated sampling pumps with mixed-cellulose ester (MCE) filters andanalysis by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Some terms used are unique tothis method and are defined below:

Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos includeschrysotile, crocidolite, amosite (cummingtonite- grunerite asbestos),tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, and any ofthese minerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered. The precisechemical formulation of each species will vary with the location from whichit was mined. Nominal compositions are listed:

Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos which meets the criteria specified belowfor a fiber.

Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to it's diameter (e.g. 3:1,5:1 aspect ratios).

Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by comminution of minerals,especially those characterized by parallel sides and a moderate aspect ratio(usually less than 20:1).

Detection Limit: The number of fibers necessary to be 95% certain that theresult is greater than zero.

Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of excluding certainkinds of fibers from the fiber count because they do not appear to beasbestos.

Fiber: A particle that is 5 um or longer, with a length- to-width ratio of 3to 1 or longer.

Field: The area within the graticule circle that is superimposed on themicroscope image.

Set: The samples which are taken, submitted to the laboratory, analyzed, andfor which, interim or final result reports are generated.

Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite: The non-asbestos form of theseminerals which meet the definition of a fiber. It includes any of theseminerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered.

Walton-Beckett Graticule: An eyepiece graticule specifically designed forasbestos fiber counting. It consists of a circle with a projected diameter of100 # 2 um (area of about 0.00785 mm(2)) with a crosshair having tic-marks at3-um intervals in one direction and 5-um in the orthogonal direction. Thereare marks around the periphery of the circle to demonstrate the proper sizesand shapes of fibers. This design is reproduced in Figure 2. The disk isplaced in one of the microscope eyepieces so that the design is superimposedon the field of view.

1.1. History

Early surveys to determine asbestos exposures were conducted using impingercounts of total dust with the counts expressed as million particles per cubicfoot. The British Asbestos Research Council recommended filter membranecounting in 1969. In July 1969, the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Healthpublished a filter membrane method for counting asbestos fibers in the UnitedStates. This method was refined by NIOSH and published as P&CAM 239. On May29, 1971, OSHA specified filter membrane sampling with phase contrastcounting for evaluation of asbestos exposures at work sites in the UnitedStates. The use of this technique was again required by OSHA in 1986. Phasecontrast microscopy has continued to be the method of choice for themeasurement of occupational exposure to asbestos.

1.2. Principle

Air is drawn through a MCE filter to capture airborne asbestos fibers. Awedge shaped portion of the filter is removed, placed on a glass microscopeslide and made transparent. A measured area (field) is viewed by PCM. All thefibers meeting a defined criteria for asbestos are counted and considered ameasure of the airborne asbestos concentration.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

There are four main advantages of PCM over other methods:

(1) The technique is specific for fibers. Phase contrast is a fiber countingtechnique which excludes non-fibrous particles from the analysis.

(2) The technique is inexpensive and does not require specialized knowledgeto carry out the analysis for total fiber counts.

(3) The analysis is quick and can be performed on-site for rapiddetermination of air concentrations of asbestos fibers.

(4) The technique has continuity with historical epidemiological studies sothat estimates of expected disease can be inferred from long-termdeterminations of asbestos exposures.

The main disadvantage of PCM is that it does not positively identifyasbestos fibers. Other fibers which are not asbestos may be included in thecount unless differential counting is performed. This requires a great dealof experience to adequately differentiate asbestos from non-asbestos fibers.Positive identification of asbestos must be performed by polarized light orelectron microscopy techniques. A further disadvantage of PCM is that thesmallest visible fibers are about 0.2 um in diameter while the finestasbestos fibers may be as small as 0.02 um in diameter. For some exposures,substantially more fibers may be present than are actually counted.

1.4. Workplace Exposure

Asbestos is used by the construction industry in such products as shingles,floor tiles, asbestos cement, roofing felts, insulation and acousticalproducts. Non-construction uses include brakes, clutch facings, paper,paints, plastics, and fabrics. One of the most significant exposures in theworkplace is the removal and encapsulation of asbestos in schools, publicbuildings, and homes. Many workers have the potential to be exposed toasbestos during these operations.

About 95% of the asbestos in commercial use in the United States ischrysotile. Crocidolite and amosite make up most of the remainder.Anthophyllite and tremolite or actinolite are likely to be encountered ascontaminants in various industrial products.

1.5. Physical Properties

Asbestos fiber possesses a high tensile strength along its axis, ischemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. It has a highelectrical resistance and good sound absorbing properties. It can be weavedinto cables, fabrics or other textiles, and also matted into asbestos papers,felts, or mats.

2. Range and Detection Limit

2.1. The ideal counting range on the filter is 100 to 1,300 fibers/mm(2).With a Walton-Beckett graticule this range is equivalent to 0.8 to 10fibers/field. Using NIOSH counting statistics, a count of 0.8 fibers/fieldwould give an approximate coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.13.

2.2. The detection limit for this method is 4.0 fibers per 100 fields or 5.5fibers/mm(2). This was determined using an equation to estimate the maximumCV possible at a specific concentration (95% confidence) and a Lower ControlLimit of zero. The CV value was then used to determine a correspondingconcentration from historical CV vs fiber relationships. As an example:

Lower Control Limit (95% Confidence) = AC - 1.645(CV)(AC)

Where:

AC = Estimate of the airborne fiber concentration (fibers/cc)

Setting the Lower Control Limit = 0 and solving for CV:

0 = AC - 1.645(CV)(AC) CV = 0.61

This value was compared with CV vs. count curves. The count at which CV =0.61 for Leidel-Busch counting statistics or for an OSHA Salt Lake TechnicalCenter (OSHA-SLTC) CV curve (see Appendix A for further information) was 4.4fibers or 3.9 fibers per 100 fields, respectively. Although a lower detectionlimit of 4 fibers per 100 fields is supported by the OSHA-SLTC data, bothdata sets support the 4.5 fibers per 100 fields value.

3. Method Performance -- Precision and Accuracy

Precision is dependent upon the total number of fibers counted and theuniformity of the fiber distribution on the filter. A general rule is tocount at least 20 and not more than 100 fields. The count is discontinuedwhen 100 fibers are counted, provided that 20 fields have already beencounted. Counting more than 100 fibers results in only a small gain inprecision. As the total count drops below 10 fibers, an accelerated loss ofprecision is noted.

At this time, there is no known method to determine the absolute accuracy ofthe asbestos analysis. Results of samples prepared through the ProficiencyAnalytical Testing (PAT) Program and analyzed by the OSHA-SLTC showed nosignificant bias when compared to PAT reference values. The PAT samples wereanalyzed from 1987 to 1989 (N=36) and the concentration range was from 120 to1,300 fibers/mm(2).

4. Interferences

Fibrous substances, if present, may interfere with asbestos analysis.

Some common fibers are:

Fiber glass anhydrite plant fibers. Perlite veins.

Gypsum............................. Some synthetic fibers.

Membrane structures................ Sponge spicules and diatoms.

Microorganisms..................... Wollastonite.

The use of electron microscopy or optical tests such as polarized light, anddispersion staining may be used to differentiate these materials fromasbestos when necessary.

5. Sampling

5.1. Equipment

5.1.1. Sample assembly (The assembly is shown in Figure 3). Conductivefilter holder consisting of a 25-mm diameter, 3-piece cassette having a 50-mmlong electrically conductive extension cowl. Backup pad, 25-mm, cellulose.Membrane filter, mixed-cellulose ester (MCE), 25-mm, plain, white, 0.8- to1.2-um pore size.

Notes: (a) Do not re-use cassettes. (b) Fully conductive cassettesare required to reduce fiber loss to the sides of the cassette due toelectrostatic attraction.(c) Purchase filters which have been selected by the manufacturer forasbestos counting or analyze representative filters for fiber backgroundbefore use. Discard the filter lot if more than 4 fibers/100 fields arefound.(d) To decrease the possibility of contamination, the sampling system(filter-backup pad-cassette) for asbestos is usually preassembled by themanufacturer.

5.1.2. Gel bands for sealing cassettes.

5.1.3. Sampling pump. Eachpump must be a battery operated, self-contained unit small enough to beplaced on the monitored employee and not interfere with the work beingperformed. The pump must be capable of sampling at 2.5 liters per minute(L/min) for the required sampling time.

5.1.4. Flexible tubing, 6-mm bore.

5.1.5. Pump calibration.Stopwatch and bubble tube/burette or electronic meter.

5.2. SamplingProcedure

5.2.1. Seal the point where the base and cowl of each cassette meet(see Figure 3) with a gel band or tape.

5.2.2. Charge the pumps completely before beginning.

5.2.3. Connecteach pump to a calibration cassette with an appropriate length of 6-mm boreplastic tubing. Do not use luer connectors -- the type of cassette specifiedabove has built-in adapters.

5.2.4. Select an appropriate flow rate for the situation being monitored.The sampling flow rate must be between 0.5 and 5.0 L/min for personalsampling and is commonly set between 1 and 2 L/min. Always choose a flow ratethat will not produce overloaded filters.

5.2.5. Calibrate each sampling pump before and after sampling with acalibration cassette in-line (Note: This calibration cassette should be fromthe same lot of cassettes used for sampling). Use a primary standard (e.g.bubble burette) to calibrate each pump. If possible, calibrate at thesampling site.

Note: If sampling site calibration is not possible, environmentalinfluences may affect the flow rate. The extent is dependent on the type ofpump used. Consult with the pump manufacturer to determine dependence onenvironmental influences. If the pump is affected by temperature and pressurechanges, use the formula in Appendix B to calculate the actual flow rate.

5.2.6. Connect each pump to the base of each sampling cassette with flexibletubing. Remove the end cap of each cassette and take each air sample openface. Assure that each sample cassette is held open side down in theemployee's breathing zone during sampling. The distance from the nose/mouthof the employee to the cassette should be about 10 cm. Secure the cassette onthe collar or lapel of the employee using spring clips or other similardevices.

5.2.7. A suggested minimum air volume when sampling to determine TWAcompliance is 25 L. For Excursion Limit (30 min sampling time) evaluations, aminimum air volume of 48 L is recommended.

5.2.8. The most significant problem when sampling for asbestos isoverloading the filter with non-asbestos dust. Suggested maximum air samplevolumes for specific environments are:

Caution: Do not overload the filter with dust. High levels of non-fibrousdust particles may obscure fibers on the filter and lower the count or makecounting impossible. If more than about 25 to 30% of the field area isobscured with dust, the result may be biased low. Smaller air volumes may benecessary when there is excessive non-asbestos dust in the air.

While sampling, observe the filter with a small flashlight. If there is avisible layer of dust on the filter, stop sampling, remove and seal thecassette, and replace with a new sampling assembly. The total dust loadingshould not exceed 1 mg.

5.2.9. Blank samples are used to determine if any contamination has occurredduring sample handling. Prepare two blanks for the first 1 to 20 samples. Forsets containing greater than 20 samples, prepare blanks as 10% of thesamples. Handle blank samples in the same manner as air samples with oneexception: Do not draw any air through the blank samples. Open the blankcassette in the place where the sample cassettes are mounted on the employee.Hold it open for about 30 seconds. Close and seal the cassette appropriately.Store blanks for shipment with the sample cassettes.

5.2.10. Immediately after sampling, close and seal each cassette with thebase and plastic plugs. Do not touch or puncture the filter membrane as thiswill invalidate the analysis.

5.2.11. Attach a seal (OSHA-21 or equivalent) around each cassette in such away as to secure the end cap plug and base plug. Tape the ends of the sealtogether since the seal is not long enough to be wrapped end-to-end. Alsowrap tape around the cassette at each joint to keep the seal secure.

5.3. Sample Shipment

5.3.1. Send the samples to the laboratory with paperwork requesting asbestosanalysis. List any known fibrous interferences present during sampling on thepaperwork. Also, note the workplace operation(s) sampled.

5.3.2. Secure and handle the samples in such that they will not rattleduring shipment nor be exposed to static electricity. Do not ship samples inexpanded polystyrene peanuts, vermiculite, paper shreds, or excelsior. Tapesample cassettes to sheet bubbles and place in a container that will cushionthe samples without rattling.

5.3.3. To avoid the possibility of sample contamination, always ship bulksamples in separate mailing containers.

6. Analysis

6.1. Safety Precautions

6.1.1. Acetone is extremely flammable and precautions must be taken not toignite it. Avoid using large containers or quantities of acetone. Transferthe solvent in a ventilated laboratory hood. Do not use acetone near any openflame. For generation of acetone vapor, use a spark free heat source.

6.1.2. Any asbestos spills should be cleaned up immediately to preventdispersal of fibers. Prudence should be exercised to avoid contamination oflaboratory facilities or exposure of personnel to asbestos. Asbestos spillsshould be cleaned up with wet methods and/ or a High EfficiencyParticulate-Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum.

Caution: Do not use a vacuum without a HEPA filter -- It will disperse fineasbestos fibers in the air.

6.2. Equipment

6.2.1. Phase contrast microscope with binocular or trinocular head.

6.2.2. Widefield or Huygenian 10X eyepieces (Note: The eyepiece containingthe graticule must be a focusing eyepiece. Use a 40X phase objective with anumerical aperture of 0.65 to 0.75).

6.2.3. Kohler illumination (if possible) with green or blue filter.

6.2.4. Walton-Beckett Graticule, type G-22 with 100 plus or minus 2 umprojected diameter.

6.2.5. Mechanical stage. A rotating mechanical stage is convenientfor use with polarized light. 6.2.6. Phase telescope. 6.2.7. Stage micrometerwith 0.01-mm subdivisions. 6.2.8. Phase-shift test slide, mark II (Availablefrom PTR optics Ltd., and also McCrone).

6.2.9. Precleaned glass slides, 25 mm X 75 mm. One end can be frosted forconvenience in writing sample numbers, etc., or paste-on labels can be used.

6.2.10. Cover glass #1 1/2.

6.2.11. Scalpel (#10, curved blade).

6.2.12. Fine tipped forceps.

6.2.13. Aluminum block for clearing filter (seeAppendix D and Figure 4).

6.2.14. Automatic adjustable pipette, 100- to 500-uL.

6.2.15.Micropipette, 5 uL.

6.3. Reagents

6.3.1. Acetone (HPLC grade).

6.3.2. Triacetin (glycerol triacetate).

6.3.3. Lacquer or nail polish.

6.4. Standard Preparation

A way to prepare standard asbestos samples of known concentration has notbeen developed. It is possible to prepare replicate samples of nearly equalconcentration. This has been performed through the PAT program. Theseasbestos samples are distributed by the AIHA to participating laboratories.

Since only about one-fourth of a 25-mm sample membrane is required for anasbestos count, any PAT sample can serve as a "standard" for replicatecounting.

6.5. Sample Mounting

Note: See Safety Precautions in Section 6.1. before proceeding. Theobjective is to produce samples with a smooth (non-grainy) background in amedium with a refractive index of approximately 1.46. The technique belowcollapses the filter for easier focusing and produces permanent mounts whichare useful for quality control and interlaboratory comparison.

An aluminum block or similar device is required for sample preparation. Adrawing is shown in Figure 4.

6.5.1. Heat the aluminum block to about 70 deg. C. The hot block should notbe used on any surface that can be damaged by either the heat or fromexposure to acetone.

6.5.2. Ensure that the glass slides and cover glasses are free of dust andfibers.

6.5.3. Remove the top plug to prevent a vacuum when the cassette is opened.Clean the outside of the cassette if necessary. Cut the seal and/or tape onthe cassette with a razor blade. Very carefully separate the base from theextension cowl, leaving the filter and backup pad in the base.

6.5.4. With a rocking motion cut a triangular wedge from the filter usingthe scalpel. This wedge should be one-sixth to one- fourth of the filter.Grasp the filter wedge with the forceps on the perimeter of the filter whichwas clamped between the cassette pieces. DO NOT TOUCH the filter with yourfinger. Place the filter on the glass slide sample side up. Staticelectricity will usually keep the filter on the slide until it is cleared.

6.5.5. Place the tip of the micropipette containing about 200 uL acetoneinto the aluminum block. Insert the glass slide into the receiving slot inthe aluminum block. Inject the acetone into the block with slow, steadypressure on the plunger while holding the pipette firmly in place. Wait 3 to5 seconds for the filter to clear, then remove the pipette and slide from thealuminum block.

6.5.6. Immediately (less than 30 seconds) place 2.5 to 3.5 uL of triacetinon the filter (Note: Waiting longer than 30 seconds will result in increasedindex of refraction and decreased contrast between the fibers and thepreparation. This may also lead to separation of the cover slip from theslide).

6.5.7. Lower a cover slip gently onto the filter at a slight angle to reducethe possibility of forming air bubbles. If more than 30 seconds have elapsedbetween acetone exposure and triacetin application, glue the edges of thecover slip to the slide with lacquer or nail polish.

6.5.8. If clearing is slow, warm the slide for 15 min on a hot plate havinga surface temperature of about 50 deg.C to hasten clearing. The top of thehot block can be used if the slide is not heated too long.

6.5.9. Counting may proceed immediately after clearing and mounting arecompleted.

6.6. Sample Analysis

Completely align the microscope according to the manufacturer'sinstructions. Then, align the microscope using the following generalalignment routine at the beginning of every counting session and more oftenif necessary.

6.6.1. Alignment

(1) Clean all optical surfaces. Even a small amount of dirt cansignificantly degrade the image.

(2) Rough focus the objective on a sample.

(3) Close down the fieldiris so that it is visible in the field of view. Focus the image of the iriswith the condenser focus. Center the image of the iris in the field ofview.

(4) Install the phase telescope and focus on the phase rings. Criticallycenter the rings. Misalignment of the rings results in astigmatism which willdegrade the image.

(5) Place the phase-shift test slide on the microscope stage and focus onthe lines. The analyst must see line set 3 and should see at least parts of 4and 5 but, not see line set 6 or 6. A microscope/microscopist combinationwhich does not pass this test may not be used.

6.6.2. Counting Fibers

(1) Place the prepared sample slide on the mechanical stage of themicroscope. Position the center of the wedge under the objective lens andfocus upon the sample.

(2) Start counting from one end of the wedge and progress along a radialline to the other end (count in either direction from perimeter to wedgetip). Select fields randomly, without looking into the eyepieces, by slightlyadvancing the slide in one direction with the mechanical stage control.

(3) Continually scan over a range of focal planes (generally the upper 10 to15 um of the filter surface) with the fine focus control during each fieldcount. Spend at least 5 to 15 seconds per field.

(4) Most samples will contain asbestos fibers with fiber diameters less than1 um. Look carefully for faint fiber images. The small diameter fibers willbe very hard to see. However, they are an important contribution to the totalcount.

(5) Count only fibers equal to or longer than 5 um. Measure the length ofcurved fibers along the curve.

(6) Count fibers which have a length to width ratio of 3:1 orgreater.

(7) Count all the fibers in at least 20 fields. Continue countinguntil either 100 fibers are counted or 100 fields have been viewed; whicheveroccurs first. Count all the fibers in the final field.

(8) Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton- Beckettgraticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing the boundaryonce, having one end within the circle shall receive a count of 1/2. Do notcount any fiber that crosses the graticule boundary more than once. Rejectand do not count any other fibers even though they may be visible outside thegraticule area. If a fiber touches the circle, it is considered to cross theline.

(9) Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual fibers can beclearly identified and each individual fiber is clearly not connected toanother counted fiber. See Figure 2 for counting conventions.

(10) Record the number of fibers in each field in a consistent way such thatfilter non-uniformity can be assessed.

(11) Regularly check phase ring alignment.

(12) When an agglomerate(mass of material) covers more than 25% of the field of view, reject thefield and select another. Do not include it in the number of fieldscounted.

(13) Perform a "blind recount" of 1 in every 10 filter wedges (slides).Re-label the slides using a person other than the original counter.

6.7. Fiber Identification

As previously mentioned in Section 1.3., PCM does not provide positiveconfirmation of asbestos fibers. Alternate differential counting techniquesshould be used if discrimination is desirable. Differential counting mayinclude primary discrimination based on morphology, polarized light analysisof fibers, or modification of PCM data by Scanning Electron or TransmissionElectron Microscopy.

A great deal of experience is required to routinely and correctly performdifferential counting. It is discouraged unless it is legally necessary.Then, only if a fiber is obviously not asbestos should it be excluded fromthe count. Further discussion of this technique can be found in reference8.10.

If there is a question whether a fiber is asbestos or not, follow the rule:

"WHEN IN DOUBT, COUNT."

6.8. Analytical Recommendations -- Quality Control System

6.8.1. Allindividuals performing asbestos analysis must have taken the NIOSH course forsampling and evaluating airborne asbestos or an equivalent course.

6.8.2. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall set up a slidetrading arrangement with at least two other laboratories in order to compareperformance and eliminate inbreeding of error. The slide exchange occurs atleast semiannually. The round robin results shall be posted where allanalysts can view individual analyst's results.

6.8.3. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall participate in theProficiency Analytical Testing Program, the Asbestos Analyst Registry orequivalent.

6.8.4. Each analyst shall select and count prepared slides from a "slidebank". These are quality assurance counts. The slide bank shall be preparedusing uniformly distributed samples taken from the workload. Fiber densitiesshould cover the entire range routinely analyzed by the laboratory. Theseslides are counted blind by all counters to establish an original standarddeviation. This historical distribution is compared with the qualityassurance counts. A counter must have 95% of all quality control samplescounted within three standard deviations of the historical mean. This countis then integrated into a new historical mean and standard deviation for theslide.

The analyses done by the counters to establish the slide bank may be usedfor an interim quality control program if the data are treated in a properstatistical fashion.

7. CALCULATIONS

7.1. Calculate the estimated airborne asbestos fiber concentration on thefilter sample using the following formula: Where:

AC = Airborne fiber concentration

Note: The collection area of a filter is seldom equal to 385 mm(2).It is appropriate for laboratories to routinely monitor the exact diameterusing an inside micrometer. The collection area is calculated according tothe formula:

Area = Pie(d/2)(2)

7.2. Short-cut Calculation

Since a given analyst always has the same interpupillary distance, thenumber of fields per filter for a particular analyst will remain constant fora given size filter. The field size for that analyst is constant (i.e. theanalyst is using an assigned microscope and is not changing the reticle).

For example, if the exposed area of the filter is always 385 mm(2) and thesize of the field is always 0.00785 mm(2), the number of fields per filterwill always be 49,000. In addition it is necessary to convert liters of airto cc. These three constants can then be combined such that ECA/(1,000 XMFA)=49. The previous equation simplifies to:

7.3. Recount Calculations

As mentioned in step 13 of Section 6.6.2., a "blind recount" of 10% of theslides is performed. In all cases, differences will be observed between thefirst and second counts of the same filter wedge. Most of these differenceswill be due to chance alone, that is, due to the random variability(precision) of the count method. Statistical recount criteria enables one todecide whether observed differences can be explained due to chance alone orare probably due to systematic differences between analysts, microscopes, orother biasing factors.

The following recount criterion is for a pair of counts that estimate AC infibers/cc. The criterion is given at the type-I error level. That is, thereis 5% maximum risk that we will reject a pair of counts for the reason thatone might be biased, when the large observed difference is really due tochance.

Reject a pair of counts if:

If a pair of counts are rejected by this criterion then, recount the rest ofthe filters in the submitted set. Apply the test and reject any other pairsfailing the test. Rejection shall include a memo to the industrial hygieniststating that the sample failed a statistical test for homogeneity and thetrue air concentration may be significantly different than the reportedvalue.

7.4. Reporting Results

Report results to the industrial hygienist as fibers/cc. Use two significantfigures. If multiple analyses are performed on a sample, an average of theresults is to be reported unless any of the results can be rejected forcause.

8. References

8.1. Dreesen, W.C., et al, U.S. Public Health Service: A Study of Asbestosisin the Asbestos Textile Industry, (Public Health Bulletin No. 241), USTreasury Dept., Washington, DC, 1938.

8.2. Asbestos Research Council: The Measurement of Airborne Asbestos Dust bythe Membrane Filter Method (Technical Note), Asbestos Research Council,Rockdale, Lancashire, Great Britain, 1969.

8.3. Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Brown, T.A., Equipment and Procedure forMounting Millipore Filters and Counting Asbestos Fibers by Phase ContrastMicroscopy, Bureau of Occupational Health, U.S. Dept. of Health, Educationand Welfare, Cincinnati, OH, 1969.

8.4. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd ed., Vol. 1 (DHEW/ NIOSH Pub.No. 77-157-A). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,Cincinnati, OH, 1977. pp. 239-1-239-21.

8.5. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1001. 1971.

8.6. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, andActinolite. Final Rule, Federal Register 51:119 (20 June 1986).pp.22612-22790.

8.7. Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite, Code of FederalRegulations 1910.1001. 1988. pp 711-752.

8.8. Criteria for a Recommended Standard -- Occupational Exposure toAsbestos (DHEW/NIOSH Pub. No. HSM 72-10267), National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health NIOSH, Cincinnati,OH, 1972. pp. III-1-III-24.

8.9. Leidel, N.A., Bayer,S.G., Zumwalde, R.D.,Busch, K.A., USPHS/NIOSHMembrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne Asbestos Fibers (DHEW/NIOSHPub. No. 79-127). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,Cincinnati, OH, 1979.

8.10. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in Analysis ofAsbestos and Quartz, Analytical Techniques in Occupational Health Chemistry,edited by D.D. Dollberg and A.W. Verstuyft. Wash. D.C.: American ChemicalSociety, (ACS Symposium Series 120) 1980. pp. 13-41.

Quality Control

The OSHA asbestos regulations require each laboratory to establish a qualitycontrol program. The following is presented as an example of how theOSHA-SLTC constructed its internal CV curve as part of meeting thisrequirement. Data for the CV curve shown below is from 395 samples collectedduring OSHA compliance inspections and analyzed from October 1980 throughApril 1986.

Each sample was counted by 2 to 5 different counters independently of oneanother. The standard deviation and the CV statistic was calculated for eachsample. This data was then plotted on a graph of CV vs. fibers/mm(2). A leastsquares regression was performed using the following equation:

CV = antilog1(10)[A(log(10)(x))(2) + B(log(10)(x)) + C]

where:

x = the number of fibers/mm(2) Application of least squares gave:

A = 0.182205 B = -0.973343 C = 0.327499

CV = antilog(10)[0.182205(log(10)(x))(2) - 0.973343(log(10)(x)) + 0.327499]

Sampling Pump Flow Rate Corrections

This correction is used if a difference greater than 5% in ambienttemperature and/or pressure is noted between calibration and sampling sitesand the pump does not compensate for the differences.

Walton-Beckett Graticule

When ordering the Graticule for asbestos counting, specify the exact discdiameter needed to fit the ocular of the microscope and the diameter (mm) ofthe circular counting area. Instructions for measuring the dimensionsnecessary are listed:

(1) Insert any available graticule into the focusing eyepiece and focus sothat the graticule lines are sharp and clear.

(2) Align the microscope.

(3) Place a stage micrometer on themicroscope object stage and focus the microscope on the graduatedlines.

(4) Measure the magnified grid length, PL (um), using the stage micrometer.

(5) Remove the graticule from the microscope and measure its actual gridlength, AL (mm). This can be accomplished by using a mechanical stage fittedwith verniers, or a jeweler's loupe with a direct reading scale.

(6) Let D=100 um. Calculate the circle diameter, d(c)(mm), for theWalton-Beckett graticule and specify the diameter when making a purchase:

Example: If PL=108 um, AL=2.93 mm and D=100 um, then,

(7) Each eyepiece-objective-reticle combination on the microscope must becalibrated. Should any of the three be changed (by zoom adjustment,disassembly, replacement, etc.), the combination must be recalibrated.Calibration may change if interpupillary distance is changed. Measure thefield diameter, D (acceptable range: 100 plus or minus 2 um) with a stagemicrometer upon receipt of the graticule from the manufacturer. Determine thefield area (mm(2)).

Field Area = pie(D/2)2 If D = 100 - um = 0.1 mm, then Field Area = pie(0.1mm/2)(2) = 0.00785 mm(2)

The Graticule is available from: Graticules Ltd., Morley Road, Tonbridge TN9IRN, Kent, England (Telephone 011-44-732-359061). Also available from PTROptics Ltd., 145 Newton Street, Waltham, MA 02154 [telephone (617) 891-6000]or McCrone Accessories and Components, 2506 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL60616 [phone (312)-842-7100]. The graticule is custom made for eachmicroscope.

9. Appendix D to Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by revising the first sentence toread as follows:

Appendix D to 1910.1001 -- Medical Questionnaires; Mandatory

This mandatory appendix contains the medical questionnaires that must beadministered to all employees who are exposed to asbestos above thepermissible exposure limit, and who will therefore be included in theiremployer's medical surveillance program. * * * * * * * *

10. Appendix F to Sec. 1910.1001 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix F to Sec. 1910.1001 -- Work Practices and Engineering Controlsfor Automotive Brake and Clutch Inspection, Disassembly, Repair and Assembly -- Mandatory

This mandatory appendix specifies engineering controls and work practicesthat must be implemented by the employer during automotive brake and clutchinspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly operations. Proper use of theseengineering controls and work practices will reduce employees' asbestosexposure below the permissible exposure level during clutch and brakeinspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly operations. The employer shallinstitute engineering controls and work practices using either the method setforth in paragraph [A] or paragraph [B] of this appendix, or any other methodwhich the employer can demonstrate to be equivalent in terms of reducingemployee exposure to asbestos as defined and which meets the requirementsdescribed in paragraph [C] of this appendix, for those facilities in which nomore than 5 pairs of brakes or 5 clutches are inspected, disassembled,reassembled and/or repaired per week, the method set forth in paragraph [D]of this appendix may be used:

[A] Negative Pressure Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum System Method

(1) The brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and assemblyoperations shall be enclosed to cover and contain the clutch or brakeassembly and to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the worker'sbreathing zone.

(2) The enclosure shall be sealed tightly and thoroughly inspected for leaksbefore work begins on brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, andassembly.

(3) The enclosure shall be such that the worker can clearly see theoperation and shall provide impermeable sleeves through which the worker canhandle the brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair and assembly. Theintegrity of the sleeves and ports shall be examined before work begins.

(4) A HEPA-filtered vacuum shall be employed to maintain the enclosure undernegative pressure throughout the operation. Compressed-air may be used toremove asbestos fibers or particles from the enclosure.

(5) The HEPA vacuum shall be used first to loosen the asbestos containingresidue from the brake and clutch parts and then to evacuate the loosenedasbestos containing material from the enclosure and capture the material inthe vacuum filter.

(6) The vacuum's filter, when full, shall be first wetted with a fine mistof water, then removed and placed immediately in an impermeable container,labeled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this section and disposed ofaccording to paragraph (k) of this section.

(7) Any spills or releases of asbestos containing waste material from insideof the enclosure or vacuum hose or vacuum filter shall be immediately cleanedup and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of the section.

[B] Low Pressure/Wet Cleaning Method

(1) A catch basin shall be placed under the brake assembly, positioned toavoid splashes and spills.

(2) The reservoir shall contain water containing an organic solvent orwetting agent. The flow of liquid shall be controlled such that the brakeassembly is gently flooded to prevent the asbestos-containing brake dust frombecoming airborne.

(3) The aqueous solution shall be allowed to flow between the brake drum andbrake support before the drum is removed.

(4) After removing the brake drum, the wheel hub and back of the brakeassembly shall be thoroughly wetted to suppress dust.

(5) The brake support plate, brake shoes and brake components used to attachthe brake shoes shall be thoroughly washed before removing the old shoes.

(6) In systems using filters, the filters, when full, shall be first wettedwith a fine mist of water, then removed and placed immediately in animpermeable container, labeled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of thissection and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section.

(7) Any spills of asbestos-containing aqueous solution or anyasbestos-containing waste material shall be cleaned up immediately anddisposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section.

(8) The use of dry brushing during low pressure/wet cleaning operations isprohibited.

[C] Equivalent Methods

An equivalent method is one which has sufficient written detail so that itcan be reproduced and has been demonstrated that the exposures resulting fromthe equivalent method are equal to or less than the exposures which wouldresult from the use of the method described in paragraph [A] of thisappendix. For purposes of making this comparison, the employer shall assumethat exposures resulting from the use of the method described in paragraph[A] of this appendix shall not exceed 0.004 f/cc, as measured by the OSHAreference method and as averaged over at least 18 personal samples.

[D] Wet Method.

(1) A spray bottle, hose nozzle, or other implement capable of delivering afine mist of water or amended water or other delivery system capable ofdelivering water at low pressure, shall be used to first thoroughly wet thebrake and clutch parts. Brake and clutch components shall then be wiped cleanwith a cloth.

(2) The cloth shall be placed in an impermeable container, labelledaccording to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the standard and then disposed ofaccording to paragraph (k) of the standard, or the cloth shall be launderedin a way to prevent the release of asbestos fibers in excess of 0.1 fiber percubic centimeter of air.

(3) Any spills of solvent or any asbestos containing waste material shall becleaned up immediately according to paragraph (k) of the standard. (4) Theuse of dry brushing during the wet method operations is prohibited.

Appendix G to 1910.1001 [Amended]

11. Appendix G of Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by replacing the phrase "0.2f/cc" with the phrase "0.1 f/cc" in paragraph I. D. entitled "Permissibleexposure:"..

12. Appendix G of Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by replacing the phrase "0.2f/cc" with the phrase "0.1 f/cc" in paragraph III.A. entitled "Respirators:".

13. Appendix G of Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by revising paragraph III. B. toread as follows:

III. * * * B. Protective clothing: You are required to wearprotective clothing in work areas where asbestos fiber concentrations exceedto permissible exposure limit.

* * * * *

Appendix H to Sec. 1910.1001 [Amended]

14. Appendix H of Sec. 1910.1001 is amended by revising the first sentenceof the second paragraph of section IV. entitled Surveillance and PreventiveConsiderations to read as follows:

* * * * *

The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance program for allemployees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at or above the permissibleexposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air). * * * * * ** *

15. Appendix J to Sec. 1910.1001 is added to read as follows:

Appendix J to Sec. 1910.1001 -- Polarized Light Microscopy of Asbestos --Non-Mandatory)

Method number: ID-191 Matrix: Bulk

Collection Procedure

Collect approximately 1 to 2 grams of each type of material and place intoseparate 20 mL scintillation vials.

Analytical Procedure

A portion of each separate phase is analyzed by gross examination,phase-polar examination, and central stop dispersion microscopy.

Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method are fordescriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by USDOL-OSHA.Similar products from other sources may be substituted.

1. Introduction

This method describes the collection and analysis of asbestos bulk materialsby light microscopy techniques including phase- polar illumination andcentral-stop dispersion microscopy. Some terms unique to asbestos analysisare defined below:

Amphibole: A family of minerals whose crystals are formed by long, thinunits which have two thin ribbons of double chain silicate with a bruciteribbon in between. The shape of each unit is similar to an "I beam". Mineralsimportant in asbestos analysis include cummingtonite-grunerite, crocidolite,tremolite-actinolite and anthophyllite.

Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos includeschrysotile, cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos (amosite), anthophylliteasbestos, tremolite asbestos, crocidolite, actinolite asbestos and any ofthese minerals which have been chemically treated or altered. The precisechemical formulation of each species varies with the location from which itwas mined. Nominal compositions are listed:

Chrysotile........................Mg(3)Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4)

Crocidolite (Riebeckite asbestos)................................Na(2)Fe(3)(2)+Fe(2)(3)+Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Cummingtonite-Grunerite asbestos (Amosite)................................(Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Tremolite-Actinolite asbestos................................Ca(2)(Mg,Fe)(5)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Anthophyllite asbestos................................(Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos meeting the criteria for a fiber. (Seesection 3.5.)

Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to itsdiameter usually defined as "length : width", e.g. 3:1.

Brucite: A sheet mineral with the composition Mg(OH)(2).

CentralStop Dispersion Staining (microscope): This is a dark field microscopetechnique that images particles using only light refracted by the particle,excluding light that travels through the particle unrefracted. This isusually accomplished with a McCrone objective or other arrangement whichplaces a circular stop with apparent aperture equal to the objective aperturein the back focal plane of the microscope.

Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by the comminution of minerals,especially those characterized by relatively parallel sides and moderateaspect ratio.

Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of excluding certainkinds of fibers from a phase contrast asbestos count because they are notasbestos.

Fiber: A particle longer than or equal to 5 um with a length to width ratiogreater than or equal to 3:1. This may include cleavage fragments. (seesection 3.5 of this appendix).

Phase Contrast: Contrast obtained in the microscope by causing lightscattered by small particles to destructively interfere with unscatteredlight, thereby enhancing the visibility of very small particles and particleswith very low intrinsic contrast.

Phase Contrast Microscope: A microscope configured with a phase mask pair tocreate phase contrast. The technique which uses this is called Phase ContrastMicroscopy (PCM).

Phase-Polar Analysis: This is the use of polarized light in a phase contrastmicroscope. It is used to see the same size fibers that are visible in airfilter analysis. Although fibers finer than 1 um are visible, analysis ofthese is inferred from analysis of larger bundles that are usually present.

Phase-Polar Microscope: The phase-polar microscope is a phase contrastmicroscope which has an analyzer, a polarizer, a first order red plate and arotating phase condenser all in place so that the polarized light image isenhanced by phase contrast.

Sealing Encapsulant: This is a product which can be applied, preferably byspraying, onto an asbestos surface which will seal the surface so that fiberscannot be released.

Serpentine: A mineral family consisting of minerals with the generalcomposition Mg(3)(Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4) having the magnesium in brucite layer overa silicate layer. Minerals important in asbestos analysis included in thisfamily are chrysotile, lizardite, antigorite.

1.1. History

Light microscopy has been used for well over 100 years for the determinationof mineral species. This analysis is carried out using specialized polarizingmicroscopes as well as bright field microscopes. The identification ofminerals is an on-going process with many new minerals described each year.The first recorded use of asbestos was in Finland about 2500 B.C. where thematerial was used in the mud wattle for the wooden huts the people lived inas well as strengthening for pottery. Adverse health aspects of the mineralwere noted nearly 2000 years ago when Pliny the Younger wrote about the poorhealth of slaves in the asbestos mines. Although known to be injurious forcenturies, the first modern references to its toxicity were by the BritishLabor Inspectorate when it banned asbestos dust from the workplace in 1898.Asbestosis cases were described in the literature after the turn of thecentury. Cancer was first suspected in the mid 1930's and a causal link tomesothelioma was made in 1965. Because of the public concern for worker andpublic safety with the use of this material, several different types ofanalysis were applied to the determination of asbestos content. Lightmicroscopy requires a great deal of experience and craft. Attempts were madeto apply less subjective methods to the analysis. X-ray diffraction waspartially successful in determining the mineral types but was unable toseparate out the fibrous portions from the non-fibrous portions. Also, theminimum detection limit for asbestos analysis by X-ray diffraction (XRD) isabout 1%. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) was no more successful. Theseprovide useful corroborating information when the presence of asbestos hasbeen shown by microscopy; however, neither can determine the differencebetween fibrous and non-fibrous minerals when both habits are present. Thesame is true of Infrared Absorption (IR).

When electron microscopy was applied to asbestos analysis, hundreds offibers were discovered present too small to be visible in any lightmicroscope. There are two different types of electron microscope used forasbestos analysis: Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and TransmissionElectron Microscope (TEM). Scanning Electron Microscopy is useful inidentifying minerals. The SEM can provide two of the three pieces ofinformation required to identify fibers by electron microscopy: morphologyand chemistry. The third is structure as determined by Selected Area ElectronDiffraction -- SAED which is performed in the TEM. Although the resolution ofthe SEM is sufficient for very fine fibers to be seen, accuracy of chemicalanalysis that can be performed on the fibers varies with fiber diameter infibers of less than 0.2 um diameter. The TEM is a powerful tool to identifyfibers too small to be resolved by light microscopy and should be used inconjunction with this method when necessary. The TEM can provide all threepieces of information required for fiber identification. Most fibers thickerthan 1 um can adequately be defined in the light microscope. The lightmicroscope remains as the best instrument for the determination of mineraltype. This is because the minerals under investigation were first describedanalytically with the light microscope. It is inexpensive and gives positiveidentification for most samples analyzed. Further, when optical techniquesare inadequate, there is ample indication that alternative techniques shouldbe used for complete identification of the sample.

1.2. Principle

Minerals consist of atoms that may be arranged in random order or in aregular arrangement. Amorphous materials have atoms in random order whilecrystalline materials have long range order. Many materials are transparentto light, at least for small particles or for thin sections. The propertiesof these materials can be investigated by the effect that the material has onlight passing through it. The six asbestos minerals are all crystalline withparticular properties that have been identified and cataloged. These sixminerals are anisotropic. They have a regular array of atoms, but thearrangement is not the same in all directions. Each major direction of thecrystal presents a different regularity. Light photons travelling in each ofthese main directions will encounter different electrical neighborhoods,affecting the path and time of travel. The techniques outlined in this methoduse the fact that light traveling through fibers or crystals in differentdirections will behave differently, but predictably. The behavior of thelight as it travels through a crystal can be measured and compared with knownor determined values to identify the mineral species. Usually, PolarizedLight Microscopy (PLM) is performed with strain-free objectives on abright-field microscope platform. This would limit the resolution of themicroscope to about 0.4 um. Because OSHA requires the counting andidentification of fibers visible in phase contrast, the phase contrastplatform is used to visualize the fibers with the polarizing elements addedinto the light path. Polarized light methods cannot identify fibers finerthan about 1 um in diameter even though they are visible. The finest fibersare usually identified by inference from the presence of larger, identifiablefiber bundles. When fibers are present, but not identifiable by lightmicroscopy, use either SEM or TEM to determine the fiber identity.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of light microcopy are:

(a) Basic identification of the materials was first performed by lightmicroscopy and gross analysis. This provides a large base of publishedinformation against which to check analysis and analytical technique.

(b) The analysis is specific to fibers. The minerals present can exist inasbestiform, fibrous, prismatic, or massive varieties all at the same time.Therefore, bulk methods of analysis such as X-ray diffraction, IR analysis,DTA, etc. are inappropriate where the material is not known to be fibrous.

(c) The analysis is quick, requires little preparation time, and can beperformed on-site if a suitably equipped microscope is available.

The disadvantages are:

(a) Even using phase-polar illumination, not all the fibers present may beseen. This is a problem for very low asbestos concentrations whereagglomerations or large bundles of fibers may not be present to allowidentification by inference.

(b) The method requires a great degree of sophistication on the part of themicroscopist. An analyst is only as useful as his mental catalog of images.Therefore, a microscopist's accuracy is enhanced by experience. Themineralogical training of the analyst is very important. It is the basis onwhich subjective decisions are made.

(c) The method uses only a tiny amount of material for analysis. This maylead to sampling bias and false results (high or low). This is especiallytrue if the sample is severely inhomogeneous.

(d) Fibers may be bound in a matrix and not distinguishable as fibers soidentification cannot be made.

1.4. Method Performance

1.4.1. This method can be used for determination of asbestos content from 0to 100% asbestos. The detection limit has not been adequately determined,although for selected samples, the limit is very low, depending on the numberof particles examined. For mostly homogeneous, finely divided samples, withno difficult fibrous interferences, the detection limit is below 1%. Forinhomogeneous samples (most samples), the detection limit remains undefined.NIST has conducted proficiency testing of laboratories on a national scale.Although each round is reported statistically with an average, controllimits, etc., the results indicate a difficulty in establishing precisionespecially in the low concentration range. It is suspected that there issignificant bias in the low range especially near 1%. EPA tried to remedythis by requiring a mandatory point counting scheme for samples less than10%. The point counting procedure is tedious, and may introduce significantbiases of its own. It has not been incorporated into this method.

1.4.2. The precision and accuracy of the quantitation tests performed inthis method are unknown. Concentrations are easier to determine in commercialproducts where asbestos was deliberately added because the amount is usuallymore than a few percent. An analyst's results can be "calibrated" against theknown amounts added by the manufacturer. For geological samples, the degreeof homogeneity affects the precision.

1.4.3. The performance of the method is analyst dependent. The analyst mustchoose carefully and not necessarily randomly the portions for analysis toassure that detection of asbestos occurs when it is present. For this reason,the analyst must have adequate training in sample preparation, and experiencein the location and identification of asbestos in samples. This is usuallyaccomplished through substantial on-the-job training as well as formaleducation in mineralogy and microscopy.

1.5. Interferences

Any material which is long, thin, and small enough to be viewed under themicroscope can be considered an interference for asbestos. There areliterally hundreds of interferences in workplaces. The techniques describedin this method are normally sufficient to eliminate the interferences. Ananalyst's success in eliminating the interferences depends on propertraining.

Asbestos minerals belong to two mineral families: the serpentines and theamphiboles. In the serpentine family, the only common fibrous mineral ischrysotile. Occasionally, the mineral antigorite occurs in a fibril habitwith morphology similar to the amphiboles. The amphibole minerals consist ofa score of different minerals of which only five are regulated by federalstandard: amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestosand actinolite asbestos. These are the only amphibole minerals that have beencommercially exploited for their fibrous properties; however, the rest canand do occur occasionally in asbestiform habit.

In addition to the related mineral interferences, other minerals common inbuilding material may present a problem for some microscopists: gypsum,anhydrite, brucite, quartz fibers, talc fibers or ribbons, wollastonite,perlite, attapulgite, etc. Other fibrous materials commonly present inworkplaces are: fiberglass, mineral wool, ceramic wool, refractory ceramicfibers, kevlar, nomex, synthetic fibers, graphite or carbon fibers, cellulose(paper or wood) fibers, metal fibers, etc.

Matrix embedding material can sometimes be a negative interference. Theanalyst may not be able to easily extract the fibers from the matrix in orderto use the method. Where possible, remove the matrix before the analysis,taking careful note of the loss of weight. Some common matrix materials are:vinyl, rubber, tar, paint, plant fiber, cement, and epoxy. A further negativeinterference is that the asbestos fibers themselves may be either too smallto be seen in Phase contrast Microscopy (PCM) or of a very low fibrousquality, having the appearance of plant fibers. The analyst's ability to dealwith these materials increases with experience.

1.6. Uses and Occupational Exposure

Asbestos is ubiquitous in the environment. More than 40% of the land area ofthe United States is composed of minerals which may contain asbestos.Fortunately, the actual formation of great amounts of asbestos is relativelyrare. Nonetheless, there are locations in which environmental exposure can besevere such as in the Serpentine Hills of California.

There are thousands of uses for asbestos in industry and the home. Asbestosabatement workers are the most current segment of the population to haveoccupational exposure to great amounts of asbestos. If the material isundisturbed, there is no exposure. Exposure occurs when theasbestos-containing material is abraded or otherwise disturbed duringmaintenance operations or some other activity. Approximately 95% of theasbestos in place in the United States is chrysotile.

Amosite and crocidolite make up nearly all the difference. Tremolite andanthophyllite make up a very small percentage. Tremolite is found inextremely small amounts in certain chrysotile deposits. Actinolite exposureis probably greatest from environmental sources, but has been identified invermiculite containing, sprayed-on insulating materials which may have beencertified as asbestos-free.

1.7. Physical and Chemical Properties

The nominal chemical compositions for the asbestos minerals were given inSection 1. Compared to cleavage fragments of the same minerals, asbestiformfibers possess a high tensile strength along the fiber axis. They arechemically inert, non- combustible, and heat resistant. Except forchrysotile, they are insoluble in Hydrochloric acid (HCl). Chrysotile isslightly soluble in HCl. Asbestos has high electrical resistance and goodsound absorbing characteristics. It can be woven into cables, fabrics orother textiles, or matted into papers, felts, and mats.

1.8. Toxicology (This Section is for Information Only and Should Not BeTaken as OSHA Policy)

Possible physiologic results of respiratory exposure to asbestos aremesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum, interstitial fibrosis, asbestosis,pneumoconiosis, or respiratory cancer. The possible consequences of asbestosexposure are detailed in the NIOSH Criteria Document or in the OSHA AsbestosStandards 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR 1926.1101.

2. Sampling Procedure

2.1. Equipment for Sampling

(a) Tube or cork borer sampling device

(b) Knife

(c) 20 mLscintillation vial or similar vial

(d) Sealing encapsulant

2.2. Safety Precautions

Asbestos is a known carcinogen. Take care when sampling. While in anasbestos-containing atmosphere, a properly selected and fit- testedrespirator should be worn. Take samples in a manner to cause the least amountof dust. Follow these general guidelines:

(a) Do not make unnecessary dust.

(b) Take only a small amount (1 to2 g).

(c) Tightly close the sample container.

(d) Use encapsulant to seal thespot where the sample was taken, if necessary.

2.3. Sampling Procedure

Samples of any suspect material should be taken from an inconspicuous place.Where the material is to remain, seal the sampling wound with an encapsulantto eliminate the potential for exposure from the sample site. Microscopyrequires only a few milligrams of material. The amount that will fill a 20 mLscintillation vial is more than adequate. Be sure to collect samples from alllayers and phases of material. If possible, make separate samples of eachdifferent phase of the material. This will aid in determining the actualhazard. DO NOT USE ENVELOPES, PLASTIC OR PAPER BAGS OF ANY KIND TO COLLECTSAMPLES. The use of plastic bags presents a contamination hazard tolaboratory personnel and to other samples. When these containers are opened,a bellows effect blows fibers out of the container onto everything, includingthe person opening the container.

If a cork-borer type sampler is available, push the tube through thematerial all the way, so that all layers of material are sampled. Somesamplers are intended to be disposable. These should be capped and sent tothe laboratory. If a non-disposable cork borer is used, empty the contentsinto a scintillation vial and send to the laboratory. Vigorously andcompletely clean the cork borer between samples.

2.4 Shipment

Samples packed in glass vials must not touch or they might break in shipment.

(a) Seal the samples with a sample seal (such as the OSHA 21) over the endto guard against tampering and to identify the sample.

(b) Package the bulk samples in separate packages from the air samples. Theymay cross-contaminate each other and will invalidate the results of the airsamples.

(c) Include identifying paperwork with the samples, but not in contact withthe suspected asbestos.

(d) To maintain sample accountability, ship the samples by certified mail,overnight express, or hand carry them to the laboratory.

3. Analysis

The analysis of asbestos samples can be divided into two major parts:

sample preparation and microscopy. Because of the different asbestos usesthat may be encountered by the analyst, each sample may need differentpreparation steps. The choices are outlined below. There are severaldifferent tests that are performed to identify the asbestos species anddetermine the percentage. They will be explained below.

3.1. Safety

(a) Do not create unnecessary dust. Handle the samples in HEPA- filterequipped hoods. If samples are received in bags, envelopes or otherinappropriate container, open them only in a hood having a face velocity ator greater than 100 fpm. Transfer a small amount to a scintillation vial andonly handle the smaller amount.

(b) Open samples in a hood, never in the open lab area.

(c) Index ofrefraction oils can be toxic. Take care not to get this material on the skin.Wash immediately with soap and water if this happens.

(d) Samples that have been heated in the muffle furnace or the drying ovenmay be hot. Handle them with tongs until they are cool enough to handle.

(e) Some of the solvents used, such as THF (tetrahydrofuran), are toxic andshould only be handled in an appropriate fume hood and according toinstructions given in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

3.2. Equipment

(a) Phase contrast microscope with 10x, 16x and 40x objectives, 10xwide-field eyepieces, G-22 Walton-Beckett graticule, Whipple disk, polarizer,analyzer and first order red or gypsum plate, 100 Watt illuminator, rotatingposition condenser with oversize phase rings, central stop dispersionobjective, Kohler illumination and a rotating mechanical stage.

(b) Stereo microscope with reflected light illumination, transmitted lightillumination, polarizer, analyzer and first order red or gypsum plate, androtating stage.

(c) Negative pressure hood for the stereo microscope

(d) Mufflefurnace capable of 600 deg.C

(e) Drying oven capable of 50 -- 150 deg.C

(f)Aluminum specimen pans

(g) Tongs for handling samples in the furnace

(h) Highdispersion index of refraction oils (Special for dispersionstaining.)

n = 1.550

n = 1.585

n = 1.590

n = 1.605

n = 1.620

n = 1.670

n =1.680

n = 1.690

(i) A set of index of refraction oils from about n=1.350 to n=2.000 inn=0.005 increments. (Standard for Becke line analysis.)

(j) Glass slides withpainted or frosted ends 1 x 3 inches 1mm thick, precleaned.

(k) Cover Slips 22 x 22 mm, #1 1/2

(l) Paper clips or dissectionneedles

(m) Hand grinder

(n) Scalpel with both #10 and #11 blades

(o) 0.1molar HCl

(p) Decalcifying solution (Baxter Scientific Products)Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid,

Tetrasodium................................. 0.7 g/l Sodium Potassium

Tartrate................... 8.0 mg/liter Hydrochloric

Acid........................... 99.2 g/liter Sodium

Tartrate............................. 0.14 g/liter

(q) Tetrahydrofuran (THF)

(r) Hotplate capable of 60 deg.C

(s)Balance

(t) Hacksaw blade

(u) Ruby mortar and pestle

3.3. Sample Pre-Preparation

Sample preparation begins with pre-preparation which may include chemicalreduction of the matrix, heating the sample to dryness or heating in themuffle furnace. The end result is a sample which has been reduced to a powderthat is sufficiently fine to fit under the cover slip. Analyze differentphases of samples separately, e.g., tile and the tile mastic should beanalyzed separately as the mastic may contain asbestos while the tile maynot.

(a) Wet samples

Samples with a high water content will not give the proper dispersion colorsand must be dried prior to sample mounting. Remove the lid of thescintillation vial, place the bottle in the drying oven and heat at 100 deg.Cto dryness (usually about 2 h). Samples which are not submitted to the lab inglass must be removed and placed in glass vials or aluminum weighing pansbefore placing them in the drying oven.

(b) Samples With Organic Interference -- Muffle Furnace

These may include samples with tar as a matrix, vinyl asbestos tile, or anyother organic that can be reduced by heating. Remove the sample from the vialand weigh in a balance to determine the weight of the submitted portion.Place the sample in a muffle furnace at 500 deg.C for 1 to 2 h or until allobvious organic material has been removed. Retrieve, cool and weigh again todetermine the weight loss on ignition. This is necessary to determine theasbestos content of the submitted sample, because the analyst will be lookingat a reduced sample.

Note: Heating above 600 deg.C will cause the sample to undergo astructural change which, given sufficient time, will convert the chrysotileto forsterite. Heating even at lower temperatures for 1 to 2 h may have ameasurable effect on the optical properties of the minerals. If the analystis unsure of what to expect, a sample of standard asbestos should be heatedto the same temperature for the same length of time so that it can beexamined for the proper interpretation.

(c) Samples With Organic Interference -- THF

Vinyl asbestos tile is the most common material treated with this solvent,although, substances containing tar will sometimes yield to this treatment.Select a portion of the material and then grind it up if possible. Weigh thesample and place it in a test tube. Add sufficient THF to dissolve theorganic matrix. This is usually about 4 to 5 mL. Remember, THF is highlyflammable. Filter the remaining material through a tared silver membrane, dryand weigh to determine how much is left after the solvent extraction. Furtherprocess the sample to remove carbonate or mount directly.

(d) Samples With Carbonate Interference

Carbonate material is often found on fibers and sometimes must be removed inorder to perform dispersion microscopy. Weigh out a portion of the materialand place it in a test tube. Add a sufficient amount of 0.1 M HCl ordecalcifying solution in the tube to react all the carbonate as evidenced bygas formation; i.e., when the gas bubbles stop, add a little more solution.If no more gas forms, the reaction is complete. Filter the material outthrough a tared silver membrane, dry and weigh to determine the weight lost.

3.4. Sample Preparation

Samples must be prepared so that accurate determination can be made of theasbestos type and amount present. The following steps are carried out in thelow-flow hood (a low-flow hood has less than 50 fpm flow):

(1) If the sample has large lumps, is hard, or cannot be made to lie under acover slip, the grain size must be reduced. Place a small amount between twoslides and grind the material between them or grind a small amount in a cleanmortar and pestle. The choice of whether to use an alumina, ruby, or diamondmortar depends on the hardness of the material. Impact damage can alter theasbestos mineral if too much mechanical shock occurs. (Freezer mills cancompletely destroy the observable crystallinity of asbestos and should not beused). For some samples, a portion of material can be shaved off with ascalpel, ground off with a hand grinder or hack saw blade.

The preparation tools should either be disposable or cleaned thoroughly. Usevigorous scrubbing to loosen the fibers during the washing. Rinse theimplements with copious amounts of water and air- dry in a dust-freeenvironment.

(2) If the sample is powder or has been reduced as in (1) above, it is readyto mount. Place a glass slide on a piece of optical tissue and write theidentification on the painted or frosted end. Place two drops of index ofrefraction medium n=1.550 on the slide. (The medium n=1.550 is chosen becauseit is the matching index for chrysotile. Dip the end of a clean paper-clip ordissecting needle into the droplet of refraction medium on the slide tomoisten it. Then dip the probe into the powder sample. Transfer what stickson the probe to the slide. The material on the end of the probe should have adiameter of about 3 mm for a good mount. If the material is very fine, lesssample may be appropriate. For non-powder samples such as fiber mats, forcepsshould be used to transfer a small amount of material to the slide. Stir thematerial in the medium on the slide, spreading it out and making thepreparation as uniform as possible. Place a cover-slip on the preparation bygently lowering onto the slide and allowing it to fall "trapdoor" fashion onthe preparation to push out any bubbles. Press gently on the cover slip toeven out the distribution of particulate on the slide. If there isinsufficient mounting oil on the slide, one or two drops may be placed nearthe edge of the coverslip on the slide. Capillary action will draw thenecessary amount of liquid into the preparation. Remove excess oil with thepoint of a laboratory wiper.

Treat at least two different areas of each phase in this fashion. Chooserepresentative areas of the sample. It may be useful to select particularareas or fibers for analysis. This is useful to identify asbestos in severelyinhomogeneous samples.

When it is determined that amphiboles may be present, repeat the aboveprocess using the appropriate high-dispersion oils until an identification ismade or all six asbestos minerals have been ruled out. Note that percentdetermination must be done in the index medium 1.550 because amphiboles tendto disappear in their matching mediums.

3.5. Analytical Procedure

Note: This method presumes some knowledge of mineralogy and opticalpetrography.

The analysis consists of three parts: The determination of whether there isasbestos present, what type is present and the determination of how much ispresent. The general flow of the analysis is:

(1) Gross examination.

(2) Examination under polarized light on thestereo microscope.

(3) Examination by phase-polar illumination on thecompound phase microscope.

(4) Determination of species by dispersion stain. Examination by Becke lineanalysis may also be used; however, this is usually more cumbersome forasbestos determination.

(5) Difficult samples may need to be analyzed by SEM or TEM, or the resultsfrom those techniques combined with light microscopy for a definitiveidentification. Identification of a particle as asbestos requires that it beasbestiform. Description of particles should follow the suggestion ofCampbell. (Figure 1)

For the purpose of regulation, the mineral must be one of the six mineralscovered and must be in the asbestos growth habit. Large specimen samples ofasbestos generally have the gross appearance of wood. Fibers are easilyparted from it. Asbestos fibers are very long compared with their widths. Thefibers have a very high tensile strength as demonstrated by bending withoutbreaking. Asbestos fibers exist in bundles that are easily parted, showlongitudinal fine structure and may be tufted at the ends showing "bundle ofsticks" morphology. In the microscope some of these properties may not beobservable. Amphiboles do not always show striations along their length evenwhen they are asbestos. Neither will they always show tufting. They generallydo not show a curved nature except for very long fibers. Asbestos andasbestiform minerals are usually characterized in groups by extremely highaspect ratios (greater than 100:1). While aspect ratio analysis is useful forcharacterizing populations of fibers, it cannot be used to identifyindividual fibers of intermediate to short aspect ratio. Observation of manyfibers is often necessary to determine whether a sample consists of "cleavagefragments" or of asbestos fibers.

Most cleavage fragments of the asbestos minerals are easily distinguishablefrom true asbestos fibers. This is because true cleavage fragments usuallyhave larger diameters than 1 um. Internal structure of particles larger thanthis usually shows them to have no internal fibrillar structure. In addition,cleavage fragments of the monoclinic amphiboles show inclined extinctionunder crossed polars with no compensator. Asbestos fibers usually showextinction at zero degrees or ambiguous extinction if any at all.Morphologically, the larger cleavage fragments are obvious by their blunt orstepped ends showing prismatic habit. Also, they tend to be acicular ratherthan filiform.

Where the particles are less than 1 um in diameter and have an aspect ratiogreater than or equal to 3:1, it is recommended that the sample be analyzedby SEM or TEM if there is any question whether the fibers are cleavagefragments or asbestiform particles.

Care must be taken when analyzing by electron microscopy because theinterferences are different from those in light microscopy and maystructurally be very similar to asbestos. The classic interference is betweenanthophyllite and biopyribole or intermediate fiber. Use the samemorphological clues for electron microscopy as are used for light microscopy,e.g. fibril splitting, internal longitudinal striation, fraying, curvature,etc.

(1) Gross examination:

Examine the sample, preferably in the glass vial. Determine the presence ofany obvious fibrous component. Estimate a percentage based on previousexperience and current observation. Determine whether any pre-preparation isnecessary. Determine the number of phases present. This step may be carriedout or augmented by observation at 6 to 40 x under a stereo microscope.

(2) After performing any necessary pre-preparation, prepare slides of eachphase as described above. Two preparations of the same phase in the sameindex medium can be made side-by-side on the same glass for convenience.Examine with the polarizing stereo microscope. Estimate the percentage ofasbestos based on the amount of birefringent fiber present.

(3) Examine the slides on the phase-polar microscopes at magnifications of160 and 400 x . Note the morphology of the fibers. Long, thin, very straightfibers with little curvature are indicative of fibers from the amphibolefamily. Curved, wavy fibers are usually indicative of chrysotile. Estimatethe percentage of asbestos on the phase-polar microscope under conditions ofcrossed polars and a gypsum plate. Fibers smaller than 1.0 um in thicknessmust be identified by inference to the presence of larger, identifiablefibers and morphology. If no larger fibers are visible, electron microscopyshould be performed. At this point, only a tentative identification can bemade. Full identification must be made with dispersion microscopy. Details ofthe tests are included in the appendices.

(4) Once fibers have been determined to be present, they must be identified.Adjust the microscope for dispersion mode and observe the fibers. Themicroscope has a rotating stage, one polarizing element, and a system forgenerating dark-field dispersion microscopy (see Section 4.6. of thisappendix). Align a fiber with its length parallel to the polarizer and notethe color of the Becke lines. Rotate the stage to bring the fiber lengthperpendicular to the polarizer and note the color. Repeat this process forevery fiber or fiber bundle examined. The colors must be consistent with thecolors generated by standard asbestos reference materials for a positiveidentification. In n=1.550, amphiboles will generally show a yellow tostraw-yellow color indicating that the fiber indices of refraction are higherthan the liquid. If long, thin fibers are noted and the colors are yellow,prepare further slides as above in the suggested matching liquids listedbelow:

Where more than one liquid is suggested, the first is preferred;

however, in some cases this liquid will not give good dispersion color. Takecare to avoid interferences in the other liquid; e.g., wollastonite inn=1.620 will give the same colors as tremolite. In n=1.605 wollastonite willappear yellow in all directions. Wollastonite may be determined under crossedpolars as it will change from blue to yellow as it is rotated along its fiberaxis by tapping on the cover slip. Asbestos minerals will not change in thisway.

Determination of the angle of extinction may, when present, aid in thedetermination of anthophyllite from tremolite. True asbestos fibers usuallyhave 0 deg. extinction or ambiguous extinction, while cleavage fragments havemore definite extinction.

Continue analysis until both preparations have been examined and all presentspecies of asbestos are identified. If there are no fibers present, or thereis less than 0.1% present, end the analysis with the minimum number of slides(2).

(5) Some fibers have a coating on them which makes dispersion microscopyvery difficult or impossible. Becke line analysis or electron microscopy maybe performed in those cases. Determine the percentage by light microscopy.TEM analysis tends to overestimate the actual percentage present.

(6) Percentage determination is an estimate of occluded area, tempered bygross observation. Gross observation information is used to make sure thatthe high magnification microscopy does not greatly over- or under- estimatethe amount of fiber present. This part of the analysis requires a great dealof experience. Satisfactory models for asbestos content analysis have not yetbeen developed, although some models based on metallurgical grain-sizedetermination have found some utility. Estimation is more easily handled insituations where the grain sizes visible at about 160 x are about the sameand the sample is relatively homogeneous.

View all of the area under the cover slip to make the percentagedetermination. View the fields while moving the stage, paying attention tothe clumps of material. These are not usually the best areas to performdispersion microscopy because of the interference from other materials. But,they are the areas most likely to represent the accurate percentage in thesample. Small amounts of asbestos require slower scanning and more frequentanalysis of individual fields.

Report the area occluded by asbestos as the concentration. This estimatedoes not generally take into consideration the difference in density of thedifferent species present in the sample. For most samples this is adequate.Simulation studies with similar materials must be carried out to applymicrovisual estimation for that purpose and is beyond the scope of thisprocedure.

(7) Where successive concentrations have been made by chemical or physicalmeans, the amount reported is the percentage of the material in the "assubmitted" or original state. The percentage determined by microscopy ismultiplied by the fractions remaining after pre-preparation steps to give thepercentage in the original sample. For example:

Step 1. 60% remains after heating at 550 deg.C for 1 h.

Step 2. 30%of the residue of step 1 remains after dissolution of carbonate in 0.1 mHCl.

Step 3. Microvisual estimation determines that 5% of the sample ischrysotile asbestos.

The reported result is:

R = (Microvisual result in percent) x (Fraction remaining after step 2) x(Fraction remaining of original sample after step 1) R = (5) x (.30) x(.60)=0.9%

(8) Report the percent and type of asbestos present. For samples whereasbestos was identified, but is less than 1.0%, report "Asbestos present,less than 1.0%." There must have been at least two observed fibers or fiberbundles in the two preparations to be reported as present. For samples whereasbestos was not seen, report as "None Detected."

Auxiliary Information

Because of the subjective nature of asbestos analysis, certain concepts andprocedures need to be discussed in more depth. This information will help theanalyst understand why some of the procedures are carried out the way theyare.

4.1. Light

Light is electromagnetic energy. It travels from its source in packetscalled quanta. It is instructive to consider light as a plane wave. The lighthas a direction of travel. Perpendicular to this and mutually perpendicularto each other, are two vector components. One is the magnetic vector and theother is the electric vector. We shall only be concerned with the electricvector. In this description, the interaction of the vector and the mineralwill describe all the observable phenomena. From a light source such amicroscope illuminator, light travels in all different direction from thefilament.

In any given direction away from the filament, the electric vector isperpendicular to the direction of travel of a light ray. While perpendicular,its orientation is random about the travel axis. If the electric vectors fromall the light rays were lined up by passing the light through a filter thatwould only let light rays with electric vectors oriented in one directionpass, the light would then be POLARIZED.

Polarized light interacts with matter in the direction of the electricvector. This is the polarization direction. Using this property it ispossible to use polarized light to probe different materials and identifythem by how they interact with light.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant at about 2.99 x 10(8) m/s. Whenlight travels in different materials such as air, water, minerals or oil, itdoes not travel at this speed. It travels slower. This slowing is a functionof both the material through which the light is traveling and the wavelengthor frequency of the light. In general, the more dense the material, theslower the light travels. Also, generally, the higher the frequency, theslower the light will travel. The ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum tothat in a material is called the index of refraction (n). It is usuallymeasured at 589 nm (the sodium D line). If white light (light containing allthe visible wavelengths) travels through a material, rays of longerwavelengths will travel faster than those of shorter wavelengths, thisseparation is called dispersion. Dispersion is used as an identifier ofmaterials as described in Section 4.6.

4.2. Material Properties

Materials are either amorphous or crystalline. The difference between thesetwo descriptions depends on the positions of the atoms in them. The atoms inamorphous materials are randomly arranged with no long range order. Anexample of an amorphous material is glass. The atoms in crystallinematerials, on the other hand, are in regular arrays and have long rangeorder. Most of the atoms can be found in highly predictable locations.Examples of crystalline material are salt, gold, and the asbestos minerals.

It is beyond the scope of this method to describe the different types ofcrystalline materials that can be found, or the full description of theclasses into which they can fall. However, some general crystallography isprovided below to give a foundation to the procedures described.

With the exception of anthophyllite, all the asbestos minerals belong to themonoclinic crystal type. The unit cell is the basic repeating unit of thecrystal and for monoclinic crystals can be described as having three unequalsides, two 90 deg. angles and one angle not equal to 90 deg.. Theorthorhombic group, of which anthophyllite is a member has three unequalsides and three 90 deg. angles. The unequal sides are a consequence of thecomplexity of fitting the different atoms into the unit cell. Although theatoms are in a regular array, that array is not symmetrical in alldirections. There is long range order in the three major directions of thecrystal. However, the order is different in each of the three directions.This has the effect that the index of refraction is different in each of thethree directions. Using polarized light, we can investigate the index ofrefraction in each of the directions and identify the mineral or materialunder investigation. The indices alpha, beta, and gamma are used to identifythe lowest, middle, and highest index of refraction respectively. The xdirection, associated with alpha is called the fast axis. Conversely, the zdirection is associated with gamma and is the slow direction. Crocidolite hasalpha along the fiber length making it "length-fast". The remainder of theasbestos minerals have the gamma axis along the fiber length. They are called"length-slow". This orientation to fiber length is used to aid in theidentification of asbestos.

4.3. Polarized Light Technique

Polarized light microscopy as described in this section uses the phase-polarmicroscope described in Section 3.2. A phase contrast microscope is fittedwith two polarizing elements, one below and one above the sample. Thepolarizers have their polarization directions at right angles to each other.Depending on the tests performed, there may be a compensator between thesetwo polarizing elements. A compensator is a piece of mineral with knownproperties that "compensates" for some deficiency in the optical train. Lightemerging from a polarizing element has its electric vector pointing in thepolarization direction of the element. The light will not be subsequentlytransmitted through a second element set at a right angle to the firstelement. Unless the light is altered as it passes from one element to theother, there is no transmission of light.

4.4. Angle of Extinction

Crystals which have different crystal regularity in two or three maindirections are said to be anisotropic. They have a different index ofrefraction in each of the main directions. When such a crystal is insertedbetween the crossed polars, the field of view is no longer dark but shows thecrystal in color. The color depends on the properties of the crystal. Thelight acts as if it travels through the crystal along the optical axes. If acrystal optical axis were lined up along one of the polarizing directions(either the polarizer or the analyzer) the light would appear to travel onlyin that direction, and it would blink out or go dark. The difference indegrees between the fiber direction and the angle at which it blinks out iscalled the angle of extinction. When this angle can be measured, it is usefulin identifying the mineral. The procedure for measuring the angle ofextinction is to first identify the polarization direction in the microscope.A commercial alignment slide can be used to establish the polarizationdirections or use anthophyllite or another suitable mineral. This mineral hasa zero degree angle of extinction and will go dark to extinction as it alignswith the polarization directions. When a fiber of anthophyllite has gone toextinction, align the eyepiece reticle or graticule with the fiber so thatthere is a visual cue as to the direction of polarization in the field ofview. Tape or otherwise secure the eyepiece in this position so it will notshift.

After the polarization direction has been identified in the field of view,move the particle of interest to the center of the field of view and align itwith the polarization direction. For fibers, align the fiber along thisdirection. Note the angular reading of the rotating stage. Looking at theparticle, rotate the stage until the fiber goes dark or "blinks out". Againnote the reading of the stage. The difference in the first reading and thesecond is an angle of extinction.

The angle measured may vary as the orientation of the fiber changes aboutits long axis. Tables of mineralogical data usually report the maximum angleof extinction. Asbestos forming minerals, when they exhibit an angle ofextinction, usually do show an angle of extinction close to the reportedmaximum, or as appropriate depending on the substitution chemistry.

4.5. Crossed Polars with Compensator

When the optical axes of a crystal are not lined up along one of thepolarizing directions (either the polarizer or the analyzer) part of thelight travels along one axis and part travels along the other visible axis.This is characteristic of birefringent materials.

The color depends on the difference of the two visible indices of refractionand the thickness of the crystal. The maximum difference available is thedifference between the alpha and the gamma axes. This maximum difference isusually tabulated as the birefringence of the crystal.

For this test, align the fiber at 45 deg. to the polarization directions inorder to maximize the contribution to each of the optical axes. The colorsseen are called retardation colors. They arise from the recombination oflight which has traveled through the two separate directions of the crystal.One of the rays is retarded behind the other since the light in thatdirection travels slower. On recombination, some of the colors which make upwhite light are enhanced by constructive interference and some are suppressedby destructive interference. The result is a color dependent on thedifference between the indices and the thickness of the crystal. The propercolors, thicknesses, and retardations are shown on a Michel- Levy chart. Thethree items, retardation, thickness and birefringence are related by thefollowing relationship:

R = t(n gamma -- n alpha) R = retardation, t = crystal thickness in um, andn alpha, n alpha, gamma = indices of refraction.

Examination of the equation for asbestos minerals reveals that the visiblecolors for almost all common asbestos minerals and fiber sizes are shades ofgray and black. The eye is relatively poor at discriminating different shadesof gray. It is very good at discriminating different colors. In order tocompensate for the low retardation, a compensator is added to the light trainbetween the polarization elements. The compensator used for this test is agypsum plate of known thickness and birefringence. Such a compensator whenoriented at 45 deg. to the polarizer direction, provides a retardation of 530nm of the 530 nm wavelength color. This enhances the red color and gives thebackground a characteristic red to red-magenta color. If this "full-wave"compensator is in place when the asbestos preparation is inserted into thelight train, the colors seen on the fibers are quite different. Gypsum, likeasbestos has a fast axis and a slow axis. When a fiber is aligned with itsfast axis in the same direction as the fast axis of the gypsum plate, the rayvibrating in the slow direction is retarded by both the asbestos and thegypsum. This results in a higher retardation than would be present for eitherof the two minerals. The color seen is a second order blue. When the fiber isrotated 90 deg. using the rotating stage, the slow direction of the fiber isnow aligned with the fast direction of the gypsum and the fast direction ofthe fiber is aligned with the slow direction of the gypsum. Thus, one rayvibrates faster in the fast direction of the gypsum, and slower in the slowdirection of the fiber; the other ray will vibrate slower in the slowdirection of the gypsum and faster in the fast direction of the fiber. Inthis case, the effect is subtractive and the color seen is a first orderyellow. As long as the fiber thickness does not add appreciably to the color,the same basic colors will be seen for all asbestos types except crocidolite.In crocidolite the colors will be weaker, may be in the opposite directions,and will be altered by the blue absorption color natural to crocidolite.Hundreds of other materials will give the same colors as asbestos, andtherefore, this test is not definitive for asbestos. The test is useful indiscriminating against fiberglass or other amorphous fibers such as somesynthetic fibers. Certain synthetic fibers will show retardation colorsdifferent than asbestos; however, there are some forms of polyethylene andaramid which will show morphology and retardation colors similar to asbestosminerals. This test must be supplemented with a positive identification testwhen birefringent fibers are present which can not be excluded by morphology.This test is relatively ineffective for use on fibers less than 1 um indiameter. For positive confirmation TEM or SEM should be used if no largerbundles or fibers are visible.

4.6. Dispersion Staining

Dispersion microscopy or dispersion staining is the method of choice for theidentification of asbestos in bulk materials. Becke line analysis is used bysome laboratories and yields the same results as does dispersion staining forasbestos and can be used in lieu of dispersion staining. Dispersion stainingis performed on the same platform as the phase-polar analysis with theanalyzer and compensator removed. One polarizing element remains to definethe direction of the light so that the different indices of refraction of thefibers may be separately determined. Dispersion microscopy is a dark-fieldtechnique when used for asbestos. Particles are imaged with scattered light.Light which is unscattered is blocked from reaching the eye either by theback field image mask in a McCrone objective or a back field image mask inthe phase condenser. The most convenient method is to use the rotating phasecondenser to move an oversized phase ring into place. The ideal size for thisring is for the central disk to be just larger than the objective entryaperture as viewed in the back focal plane. The larger the disk, the lessscattered light reaches the eye. This will have the effect of diminishing theintensity of dispersion color and will shift the actual color seen. Thecolors seen vary even on microscopes from the same manufacturer. This is dueto the different bands of wavelength exclusion by different mask sizes. Themask may either reside in the condenser or in the objective back focal plane.It is imperative that the analyst determine by experimentation with asbestosstandards what the appropriate colors should be for each asbestos type. Thecolors depend also on the temperature of the preparation and the exactchemistry of the asbestos. Therefore, some slight differences from thestandards should be allowed. This is not a serious problem for commercialasbestos uses. This technique is used for identification of the indices ofrefraction for fibers by recognition of color. There is no direct numericalreadout of the index of refraction. Correlation of color to actual index ofrefraction is possible by referral to published conversion tables. This isnot necessary for the analysis of asbestos. Recognition of appropriate colorsalong with the proper morphology are deemed sufficient to identify thecommercial asbestos minerals. Other techniques including SEM, TEM, and XRDmay be required to provide additional information in order to identify othertypes of asbestos.

Make a preparation in the suspected matching high dispersion oil, e.g.,n=1.550 for chrysotile. Perform the preliminary tests to determine whetherthe fibers are birefringent or not. Take note of the morphological character.Wavy fibers are indicative of chrysotile while long, straight, thin, frayedfibers are indicative of amphibole asbestos. This can aid in the selection ofthe appropriate matching oil. The microscope is set up and the polarizationdirection is noted as in Section 4.4. Align a fiber with the polarizationdirection. Note the color. This is the color parallel to the polarizer. Thenrotate the fiber rotating the stage 90 deg. so that the polarizationdirection is across the fiber. This is the perpendicular position. Again notethe color. Both colors must be consistent with standard asbestos minerals inthe correct direction for a positive identification of asbestos. If only oneof the colors is correct while the other is not, the identification is notpositive. If the colors in both directions are bluish-white, the analyst haschosen a matching index oil which is higher than the correct matching oil,e.g. the analyst has used n=1.620 where chrysotile is present. The next loweroil (Section 3.5.) should be used to prepare another specimen. If the colorin both directions is yellow-white to straw-yellow-white, this indicates thatthe index of the oil is lower than the index of the fiber, e.g. thepreparation is in n=1.550 while anthophyllite is present. Select the nexthigher oil (Section 3.5.) and prepare another slide. Continue in this fashionuntil a positive identification of all asbestos species present has been madeor all possible asbestos species have been ruled out by negative results inthis test. Certain plant fibers can have similar dispersion colors asasbestos. Take care to note and evaluate the morphology of the fibers orremove the plant fibers in pre-preparation. Coating material on the fiberssuch as carbonate or vinyl may destroy the dispersion color. Usually, therewill be some outcropping of fiber which will show the colors sufficient foridentification. When this is not the case, treat the sample as described inSection 3.3. and then perform dispersion staining. Some samples will yield toBecke line analysis if they are coated or electron microscopy can be used foridentification.

5. References

5.1. Crane, D.T., Asbestos in Air, OSHA method ID160, Revised November 1992.

5.2. Ford, W.E., Dana's Textbook of Mineralogy; Fourth Ed.; John Wiley andSon, New York, 1950, p. vii.

5.3. Selikoff,.I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic Press, NewYork, 1978, pp. 3,20.

5.4. Women Inspectors of Factories. Annual Report for 1898, H.M. StatisticalOffice, London, p. 170 (1898).

5.5. Selikoff, I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic Press, NewYork, 1978, pp. 26,30.

5.6. Campbell, W.J., et al, Selected Silicate Minerals and Their AsbestiformVarieties, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,Information Circular 8751, 1977.

5.7. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR1926.58.

5.8. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; AsbestosNESHAP Revision, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 224, 20 November 1990, p.48410.

5.9. Ross, M. The Asbestos Minerals: Definitions, Description, Modes ofFormation, Physical and Chemical Properties and Health Risk to the MiningCommunity, Nation Bureau of Standards Special Publication, Washington, D.C.,1977.

5.10. Lilis, R., Fibrous Zeolites and Endemic Mesothelioma in Cappadocia,Turkey, J. Occ Medicine, 1981, 23,(8),548-550.

5.11. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos -- 1972, U.S. Department of Health,Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control,National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, HSM-72-10267.

5.12. Campbell, W.J., et al, Relationship of Mineral Habit to SizeCharacteristics for Tremolite Fragments and Fibers, United States Departmentof the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 8367, 1979.

5.13. Mefford, D., DCM Laboratory, Denver, private communication, July 1987.

5.14. Deer, W.A., Howie, R.A., Zussman, J., Rock Forming Minerals, Longman,Thetford, UK, 1974.

5.15. Kerr, P.F., Optical Mineralogy; Third Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.

5.16. Veblen, D.R. (Ed.), Amphiboles and Other Hydrous Pyriboles --Mineralogy, Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol 9A, Michigan, 1982, pp 1-102.

5.17. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in the Analysis ofAsbestos and Quartz, ACS Symposium Series, No. 120, Analytical Techniques inOccupational Health Chemistry, 1979.

5.18. Polarized Light Microscopy, McCrone Research Institute, Chicago, 1976.

5.19. Asbestos Identification, McCrone Research Institute, G&G printers,Chicago, 1987.

5.20. McCrone, W.C., Calculation of Refractive Indices from DispersionStaining Data, The Microscope, No 37, Chicago, 1989.

5.21. Levadie, B. (Ed.), Asbestos and Other Health Related Silicates, ASTMTechnical Publication 834, ASTM, Philadelphia 1982.

5.22. Steel, E. and Wylie, A., Riordan, P.H. (Ed.), MineralogicalCharacteristics of Asbestos, Geology of Asbestos Deposits, pp. 93-101,SME-AIME, 1981.

5.23. Zussman, J., The Mineralogy of Asbestos, Asbestos: Properties,Applications and Hazards, pp. 45-67 Wiley, 1979.

Shipyards

PART 1915 -- [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation of 29 CFR part 1915 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (33U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); sec. 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.553); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 35736)or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.

2. Section 1915.1001 is revised to read as follows:

1915.1001 Asbestos.

(a) Scope and application. This section regulates asbestos exposure in allshipyard employment work as defined in 29 CFR 1915, including but not limitedto the following:

(1) Demolition or salvage of structures, vessels, and vessel sections whereasbestos is present;

(2) Removal or encapsulation of materials containing asbestos;

(3) Construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, or renovation of vessels,vessel sections, structures, substrates, or portions thereof, that containasbestos;

(4) Installation of products containing asbestos;

(5) Asbestos spill/emergency cleanup; and

(6) Transportation, disposal, storage, containment of and housekeepingactivities involving asbestos or products containing asbestos, on the site orlocation at which construction activities are performed.

(7) Coverage under this standard shall be based on the nature of the workoperation involving asbestos exposure.

(b) Definitions. "Aggressive" method means removal or disturbance ofbuilding/vessel materials by sanding, abrading, grinding, or other methodthat breaks, crumbles, or otherwise disintegrates intact ACM.

"Amended water" means water to which surfactant (wetting agent) has beenadded to increase the ability of the liquid to penetrate ACM.

"Asbestos" includes chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite asbestos,anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and any of these minerals thathas been chemically treated and/or altered. For purposes of this standard,"asbestos" includes PACM, as defined below.

"Asbestos-containing material, (ACM)" means any material containing morethan one percent asbestos.

"Assistant Secretary" means the Assistant Secretary of Labor forOccupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.

"Authorized person" means any person authorized by the employer and requiredby work duties to be present in regulated areas.

"Building/facility owner" is the legal entity, including a lessee, whichexercises control over management and record keeping functions relating to abuilding and/or facility in which activities covered by this standard takeplace.

"Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH)" means one certified in thecomprehensive practice of industrial hygiene by the American Board ofIndustrial Hygiene.

"Class I asbestos work" means activities involving the removal of thermalsystem insulation or surfacing ACM/PACM.

"Class II asbestos work" means activities involving the removal of ACM whichis neither TSI or surfacing ACM. This includes, but is not limited to, theremoval of asbestos-containing wallboard, floor tile and sheeting, roofingand siding shingles, and construction mastics.

"Class III asbestos work means" repair and maintenance operations, where"ACM", including TSI and surfacing ACM and PACM, may be disturbed.

"Class IV asbestos work" means maintenance and custodial activities duringwhich employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up waste anddebris containing ACM and PACM.

"Clean room" means an uncontaminated room having facilities for the storageof employees' street clothing and uncontaminated materials and equipment.

"Closely resemble" means that the major workplace conditions which havecontributed to the levels of historic asbestos exposure, are no moreprotective than conditions of the current workplace.

"Competent person" see "Qualified person"

"Critical barrier" means one or more layers of plastic sealed over allopenings into a work area or any other physical barrier sufficient to preventairborne asbestos in a work area from migrating to an adjacent area.

"Decontamination area" means an enclosed area adjacent and connected to theregulated area and consisting of an equipment room, shower area, and cleanroom, which is used for the decontamination of workers, materials, andequipment that are contaminated with asbestos.

"Demolition" means the wrecking or taking out of any load-supportingstructural member and any related razing, removing, or stripping of asbestosproducts.

"Director" means the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or designee.

"Disturbance" means contact which releases fibers from ACM or PACM or debriscontaining ACM or PACM. This term includes activities that disrupt the matrixof ACM or PACM, render ACM or PACM friable, or generate visible debris.Disturbance includes cutting away small amounts of ACM and PACM, no greaterthan the amount which can be contained in one standard sized glove bag orwaste bag, in order to access a building or vessel component. In no eventshall the amount of ACM or PACM so disturbed exceed that which can becontained in one glove bag or waste bag which shall not exceed 60 inches inlength and width.

"Employee exposure" means that exposure to airborne asbestos that wouldoccur if the employee were not using respiratory protective equipment.

"Equipment room (change room)" means a contaminated room located within thedecontamination area that is supplied with impermeable bags or containers forthe disposal of contaminated protective clothing and equipment.

"Fiber" means a particulate form of asbestos, 5 micrometers or longer, witha length-to-diameter ratio of at least 3 to 1.

"Glovebag" means an impervious plastic bag-like enclosure affixed around anasbestos-containing material, with glove-like appendages through whichmaterial and tools may be handled.

"High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter" means a filter capable oftrapping and retaining at least 99.97 percent of all mono-dispersed particlesof 0.3 micrometers in diameter.

"Homogeneous area" means an area of surfacing material or thermal systeminsulation that is uniform in color and texture.

"Industrial hygienist" means a professional qualified by education,training, and experience to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and developcontrols for occupational health hazards.

"Intact" means that the ACM has not crumbled, been pulverized, or otherwisedeteriorated so that it is no longer likely to be bound with its matrix.

"Modification for purposes of paragraph (g)(6)(2)," means a changed oraltered procedure, material or component of a control system, which replacesa procedure, material or component of a required system. Omitting a procedureor component, or reducing or diminishing the stringency or strength of amaterial or component of the control system is not a "modification" forpurposes of paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section.

"Negative Initial Exposure Assessment" means a demonstration by theemployer, which complies with the criteria in paragraph (f)(iii) of thissection, that employee exposure during an operation is expected to beconsistently below the PELs.

"PACM" means "presumed asbestos containing material". "PresumedAsbestos Containing Material" means thermal system insulation and surfacingmaterial found in buildings, vessels, and vessel sections constructed nolater than 1980. The designation of a material as "PACM" may be rebuttedpursuant to paragraph (k)(4) of this section.

"Project Designer" means a person who has successfully completed thetraining requirements for an abatement project designer established by 40U.S.C. Sec. 763.90(g).

"Qualified person" means, in addition to the definition in 29 CFR1926.32(f), one who is capable of identifying existing asbestos hazards inthe workplace and selecting the appropriate control strategy for asbestosexposure, who has the authority to take prompt corrective measures toeliminate them, as specified in 29 CFR 1926.32(f); in addition, for Class I,II, III, and IV work, who is specially trained in a training course whichmeet the criteria of EPA's Model Accreditation Plan (40 CFR Part 763) forproject designer or supervisor, or its equivalent.

"Regulated area" means an area established by the employer to demarcateareas where Class I, II, and III asbestos work is conducted, and anyadjoining area where debris and waste from such asbestos work accumulate; anda work area within which airborne concentrations of asbestos, exceed or canreasonably be expected to exceed the permissible exposure limit. Requirementsfor regulated areas are set out in paragraph (e)(6) of this section.

"Removal" means all operations where ACM and/or PACM is taken out orstripped from structures or substrates, and includes demolition operations.

"Renovation" means the modifying of any existing vessel, vessel section,structure, or portion thereof.

"Repair" means overhauling, rebuilding, reconstructing, or reconditioning ofvessels, vessel sections, structures or substrates, including encapsulationor other repair of ACM or PACM attached to structures or substrates.

"Surfacing material" means material that is sprayed, troweled-on orotherwise applied to surfaces (such as acoustical plaster on ceilings andfireproofing materials on structural members, or other materials on surfacesfor acoustical, fireproofing, and other purposes).

"Surfacing ACM" means surfacing material which contains more than 1%asbestos.

"Thermal system insulation (TSI)" means ACM applied to pipes, fittings,boilers, breeching, tanks, ducts or other structural components to preventheat loss or gain.

"Thermal system insulation ACM" is thermal system insulation which containsmore than 1% asbestos.

(c) Permissible exposure limits (PELS) -- (1) Time-weighted average limit(TWA). The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborneconcentration of asbestos in excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of airas an eight (8) hour time-weighted average (TWA), as determined by the methodprescribed in Appendix A of this section, or by an equivalent method.

(2) Excursion limit. The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposedto an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 1.0 fiber per cubiccentimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged over a sampling period of thirty (30)minutes, as determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A of thissection, or by an equivalent method.

(d) Multi-employer worksites. (1) On multi-employer worksites, an employerperforming work requiring the establishment of a regulated area shall informother employers on the site of the nature of the employer's work withasbestos and/or PACM, of the existence of and requirements pertaining toregulated areas, and the measures taken to ensure that employees of suchother employers are not exposed to asbestos.

(2) Asbestos hazards at a multi-employer work site shall be abated by thecontractor who created or controls the source of asbestos contamination. Forexample, if there is a significant breach of an enclosure containing Class Iwork, the employer responsible for erecting the enclosure shall repair thebreach immediately.

(3) In addition, all employers of employees exposed to asbestos hazardsshall comply with applicable protective provisions to protect theiremployees. For example, if employees working immediately adjacent to a ClassI asbestos job are exposed to asbestos due to the inadequate containment ofsuch job, their employer shall either remove the employees from the areauntil the enclosure breach is repaired; or perform an initial exposureassessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

(4) All employers of employees working adjacent to regulated areasestablished by another employer on a multi-employer work- site, shall takesteps on a daily basis to ascertain the integrity of the enclosure and/or theeffectiveness of the control method relied on by the primary asbestoscontractor to assure that asbestos fibers do not migrate to such adjacentareas.

(5) All general contractors on a shipyard project which includes workcovered by this standard shall be deemed to exercise general supervisoryauthority over the work covered by this standard, even though the generalcontractor is not qualified to serve as the asbestos "qualified person" asdefined by paragraph (b) of this section. As supervisor of the entireproject, the general contractor shall ascertain whether the asbestoscontractor is in compliance with this standard, and shall require suchcontractor to come into compliance with this standard when necessary.

(e) Regulated areas (1) All Class I, II and III asbestos work shall beconducted within regulated areas. All other operations covered by thisstandard shall be conducted within a regulated area where airborneconcentrations of asbestos exceed, or there is a reasonable possibility theymay exceed a PEL. Regulated areas shall comply with the requirements ofparagraphs (e)(2), (3), (4) and (5) of this section.

(2) Demarcation. The regulated area shall be demarcated in any manner thatminimizes the number of persons within the area and protects persons outsidethe area from exposure to airborne concentrations of asbestos. Where criticalbarriers or negative pressure enclosures are used, they may demarcate theregulated area. Signs shall be provided and displayed pursuant to therequirements of paragraph (k)(6) of this section.

(3) Access. Access to regulated areas shall be limited to authorized personsand to persons authorized by the Act or regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(4) Respirators. All persons entering a regulated area where employees arerequired pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section to wear respiratorsshall be supplied with a respirator selected in accordance with paragraph(h)(2) of this section.

(5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees do noteat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in the regulatedarea.

(6) Qualified Persons. The employer shall ensure that all asbestos workperformed within regulated areas is supervised by a qualified person, asdefined in paragraph (b) of this section. The duties of the qualified personare set out in paragraph (o) of this section.

(f) Exposure assessments and monitoring -- (1) General monitoring criteria.

(i) Each employer who has a workplace of work operation where exposuremonitoring is required under this section shall perform monitoring todetermine accurately the airborne concentrations of asbestos to whichemployees may be exposed.

(ii) Determinations of employee exposure shall be made from breathing zoneair samples that are representative of the 8-hour TWA and 30-minuteshort-term exposures of each employee.

(iii) Representative 8-hour TWA employee exposure shall be determined on thebasis of one or more samples representing full-shift exposure for employeesin each work area. Representative 30-minute short-term employee exposuresshall be determined on the basis of one or more samples representing 30minute exposures associated with operations that are most likely to produceexposures above the excursion limit for employees in each work area.

(2) Initial Exposure Assessment.

(i) Each employer who has a workplace orwork operation covered by this standard shall ensure that a "qualifiedperson" conducts an exposure assessment immediately before or at theinitiation of the operation to ascertain expected exposures during thatoperation or workplace. The assessment must be completed in time to complywith requirements which are triggered by exposure data or the lack of a"negative exposure assessment," and to provide information necessary toassure that all control systems planned are appropriate for that operationand will work properly.

(ii) Basis of Initial Exposure Assessment: The initial exposure assessmentshall be based on data derived from the following sources:

(A) If feasible, the employer shall monitor employees and base the exposureassessment on the results of exposure monitoring which is conducted pursuantto the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.

(B) In addition, the assessment shall include consideration of allobservations, information or calculations which indicate employee exposure toasbestos, including any previous monitoring conducted in the workplace, or ofthe operations of the employer which indicate the levels of airborne asbestoslikely to be encountered on the job. However, the assessment may concludethat exposures are likely to be consistently below the PELs only as aconclusion of a "negative exposure assessment" conducted pursuant toparagraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.

(C) For Class I asbestos work, until the employer conducts exposuremonitoring and documents that employees on that job will not be exposed inexcess of the PELs, or otherwise makes a negative exposure assessmentpursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, the employer shall presumethat employees are exposed in excess of the TWA and excursion limit.

(iii) Negative Initial Exposure Assessment: For any one specific asbestosjob which will be performed by employees who have been trained in compliancewith the standard, the employer may demonstrate that employee exposures willbe below the PELs by data which conform to the following criteria;

(A) Objective data demonstrating that the product or material containingasbestos minerals or the activity involving such product or material cannotrelease airborne fibers in concentrations exceeding the TWA and excursionlimit under those work conditions having the greatest potential for releasingasbestos; or

(B) Where the employer has monitored prior asbestos jobs for thePEL and the excursion limit within 12 months of the current or projected job,the monitoring and analysis were performed in compliance with the asbestosstandard in effect; and the data were obtained during work operationsconducted under workplace conditions "closely resembling" the processes, typeof material, control methods, work practices, and environmental conditionsused and prevailing in the employer's current operations, the operations wereconducted by employees whose training and experience are no more extensivethan that of employees performing the current job, and these data show thatunder the conditions prevailing and which will prevail in the currentworkplace there is a high degree of certainty that employee exposures willnot exceed the TWA and excursion limit; or

(C) The results of initialexposure monitoring of the current job made from breathing zone air samplesthat are representative of the 8- hour TWA and 30-minute short-term exposuresof each employee covering operations which are most likely during theperformance of the entire asbestos job to result in exposures over the PELs.

(3) Periodic monitoring.

(i) Class I and II operations. The employer shallconduct daily monitoring that is representative of the exposure of eachemployee who is assigned to work within a regulated area who is performingClass I or II work, unless the employer pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) ofthis section, has made a negative exposure assessment for the entireoperation.

(ii) All operations under the standard other than Class I and II operations.The employer shall conduct periodic monitoring of all work where exposuresare expected to exceed a PEL, at intervals sufficient to document thevalidity of the exposure prediction.

(iii) Exception: When all employees required to be monitored daily areequipped with supplied-air respirators operated in the positive- pressuremode, the employer may dispense with the daily monitoring required by thisparagraph. However, employees performing Class I work using a control methodwhich is not listed in paragraph (g)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section orusing a modification of a listed control method, shall continue to bemonitored daily even if they are equipped with supplied-air respirators.

(4)(i) Termination of monitoring. If the periodic monitoring required byparagraph (f)(3) of this section reveals that employee exposures, asindicated by statistically reliable measurement, are below the permissibleexposure limit and excursion limit the employer may discontinue monitoringfor those employees whose exposures are represented by such monitoring.

(ii) Additional monitoring. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph(f)(2) and (3), and (f)(4) of this section, the employer shall institute theexposure monitoring required under paragraph (f)(3) of this section wheneverthere has been a change in process, control equipment, personnel or workpractices that may result in new or additional exposures above thepermissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit or when the employer hasany reason to suspect that a change may result in new or additional exposuresabove the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit. Such additionalmonitoring is required regardless of whether a "negative exposure assessment"was previously produced for a specific job.

(5) Observation of monitoring.

(i) The employer shall provide affectedemployees and their designated representatives an opportunity to observe anymonitoring of employee exposure to asbestos conducted in accordance with thissection.

(ii) When observation of the monitoring of employee exposure to asbestosrequires entry into an area where the use of protective clothing or equipmentis required, the observer shall be provided with and be required to use suchclothing and equipment and shall comply with all other applicable safety andhealth procedures.

(g) Methods of compliance -- (1) Engineering controls and work practices forall operations covered by this section. The employer shall use the followingengineering controls and work practices in all operations covered by thissection, regardless of the levels of exposure:

(i) Vacuum cleaners equipped with HEPA filters to collect all debris anddust containing ACM or PACM; and,

(ii) Wet methods, or wetting agents, tocontrol employee exposures during asbestos handling, mixing, removal,cutting, application, and cleanup, except where employers demonstrate thatthe use of wet methods is infeasible due to for example, the creation ofelectrical hazards, equipment malfunction, and, in roofing, slipping hazards;and

(iii) Prompt clean-up and disposal of wastes and debris contaminated withasbestos in leak-tight containers.

(2) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this sectionabove, the employer shall use the following control methods to achievecompliance with the TWA permissible exposure limit and excursion limitprescribed by paragraph (c) of this section;

(i) Local exhaust ventilation equipped with HEPA filter dust collectionsystems;

(ii) Enclosure or isolation of processes producing asbestos dust;

(iii) Ventilation of the regulated area to move contaminated air away fromthe breathing zone of employees and toward a filtration or collection deviceequipped with a HEPA filter;

(iv) Use of other work practices and engineering controls that the AssistantSecretary can show to be feasible.

(v) Wherever the feasible engineering and work practice controls describedabove are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below thepermissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c)of this section, the employer shall use them to reduce employee exposure tothe lowest levels attainable by these controls and shall supplement them bythe use of respiratory protection that complies with the requirements ofparagraph (h) of this section.

(3) Prohibitions. The following work practices and engineering controlsshall not be used for work related to asbestos or for work which disturbs ACMor PACM, regardless of measured levels of asbestos exposure or the results ofinitial exposure assessments:

(i) High-speed abrasive disc saws that are not equipped with point of cutventilator or enclosures with HEPA filtered exhaust air.

(ii) Compressed air used to remove asbestos, or materials containingasbestos, unless the compressed air is used in conjunction with an enclosedventilation system designed to capture the dust cloud created by thecompressed air.

(iii) Dry sweeping, shoveling or other dry clean-up of dust and debriscontaining ACM and PACM.

(iv) Employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to asbestos.

(4) Class I Requirements. In addition to the provisions of paragraphs (g)(1)and (2) of this section, the following engineering controls and workpractices and procedures shall be used.

(i) All Class I work, including the installation and operation of thecontrol system shall be supervised by a qualified person as defined inparagraph (b) of this section;

(ii) For all Class I jobs involving the removal of more than 25 linear or 10square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM; for all other Class I jobs,where the employer cannot produce a negative exposure assessment pursuant toparagraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, or where employees are working inareas adjacent to the regulated area, while the Class I work is beingperformed, the employer shall use one of the following methods to ensure thatairborne asbestos does not migrate from the regulated area:

(A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the regulatedarea: or

(B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation method whichprevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated area, asverified by perimeter area surveillance during each work shift at eachboundary of the regulated area, showing no visible asbestos dust; andperimeter area monitoring showing that clearance levels contained in 40 CFRPart 763, Subpart E of the EPA Asbestos in Schools Rule are met, or thatperimeter area levels, measured by (PCM) are no more than background levelsrepresenting the same area before the asbestos work began. The results ofsuch monitoring shall be made known to the employer no later than 24 hoursfrom the end of the work shift represented by such monitoring.

(iii) For all Class I jobs, HVAC systems shall be isolated in the regulatedarea by sealing with a double layer of 6 mil plastic or the equivalent;

(iv) For all Class I jobs, impermeable dropcloths shall be placed onsurfaces beneath all removal activity;

(v) For all Class I jobs, all objects within the regulated area shall becovered with impermeable dropcloths or plastic sheeting which is secured byduct tape or an equivalent.

(vi) For all Class I jobs where the employer cannot produce a negativeexposure assessment or where exposure monitoring shows the PELs are exceeded,the employer shall ventilate the regulated area to move contaminated air awayfrom the breathing zone of employees toward a HEPA filtration or collectiondevice.

(5) Specific Control Systems for Class I Work. In addition, Class I asbestoswork shall be performed using one or more of the following control methodspursuant to the limitations stated below:

(i) Negative Pressure Enclosure (NPE) systems: NPE systems shall be usedwhere the configuration of the work area does not make the erection of theenclosure infeasible, with the following specifications and work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) The negative pressure enclosure (NPE) may be of anyconfiguration,

(2) At least 4 air changes per hour shall be maintained in theNPE,

(3) A minimum of -0.02 column inches of water pressure differential,relative to outside pressure, shall be maintained within the NPE as evidencedby manometric measurements,

(4) The NPE shall be kept under negative pressurethroughout the period of its use, and

(5) Air movement shall be directed awayfrom employees performing asbestos work within the enclosure, and toward aHEPA filtration or a collection device.

(B) Work Practices:

(1) Before beginning work within the enclosure and at the beginning of eachshift, the NPE shall inspected for breaches and smoke-tested for leaks, andany leaks sealed.

(2) Electrical circuits in the enclosure shall be deactivated, unlessequipped with ground-fault circuit interrupters.

(ii) Glove bag systems, shall be used to remove PACM and/or ACM fromstraight runs of piping with the following specifications and work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) Glovebags shall be made of 6 mil thick plastic and shall be seamless atthe bottom.

(2) [Reserved] (B) Work Practices:

(1) Each glovebag shall beinstalled so that it completely covers the circumference of pipe or otherstructure where the work is to be done.

(2) Glovebags shall be smoke-tested for leaks and any leaks sealed prior touse.

(3) Glovebags may be used only once and may not be moved.

(4)Glovebags shall not be used on surfaces whose temperature exceeds 150deg..

(5) Prior to disposal, glovebags shall be collapsed by removing air withinthem using a HEPA vacuum.

(6) Before beginning the operation, loose and friable material adjacent tothe glovebag/box operation shall be wrapped and sealed in two layers of sixmil plastic or otherwise rendered intact.

(7) Where system uses attached waste bag, such bag shall be connected tocollection bag using hose or other material which shall withstand pressure ofACM waste and water without losing its integrity:

(8) Sliding valve or other device shall separate waste bag from hose toensure no exposure when waste bag is disconnected:

(9) At least two persons shall perform Class I glovebag removals.

(iii) Negative Pressure Glove Bag Systems. Negative pressure glove bagsystems shall be used to remove ACM or PACM from piping.

(A) Specifications: In addition to specifications for glove bags systemsabove, negative pressure glove bag systems shall attach HEPA vacuum system orother device to bag to prevent collapse during removal.

(B) Work Practices:

(1) The employer shall comply with the work practices for glove bag systemsin paragraph (g)(5)(ii)(B)(2) of this section,

(2) The HEPA vacuum cleaner orother device used to prevent collapse of bag during removal shall runcontinually during the operation.

(3) Where a separate waste bag is used along with a collection bag anddiscarded after one use, the collection bag may be reused if rinsed cleanwith amended water before reuse.

(iv) Negative Pressure Glove Box systems: Negative pressure glove boxesshall be used to remove ACM or PACM from pipe runs with the followingspecifications and work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) Glove boxes shall be constructed with rigid sides and made from metal orother material which can withstand the weight of the ACM and PACM and waterused during removal:

(2) A negative pressure generator shall be used to create negative pressurein system:

(3) An air filtration unit shall be attached to the box:

(4) The box shall be fitted with gloved apertures:

(5) An aperture at the base of the box shall serve as a bagging outlet forwaste ACM and water:

(6) A back-up generator shall be present on site:

(7) Waste bags shall consist of 6 mil thick plastic double-bagged beforethey are filled or plastic thicker than 6 mil.

(B) Work practices:

(1) At least two persons shall perform the removal:

(2) The box shall be smoke tested prior to each use:

(3) Loose or damaged ACM adjacent to the box shall be wrapped and sealed intwo layers of 6 mil plastic prior to the job, or otherwise made intact priorto the job.

(4) A HEPA filtration system shall be used to maintain pressure barrier inbox.

(v) Water Spray Process System: A water spray process system may be used forremoval of ACM and PACM from cold line piping if, employees carrying out suchprocess have completed a 40-hour separate training course in its use, inaddition to training required for employees performing Class I work. Thesystem shall meet the following specifications and shall be performed byemployees using the following work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) Piping from which insulation will be removed shall be surrounded on 3sides by rigid framing,

(2) A 360 degree water spray, delivered throughnozzles supplied by a high pressure separate water line, shall be formedaround the piping.

(3) The spray shall collide to form a fine aerosol which provides a liquidbarrier between workers and the ACM and PACM.

(B) Work Practices:

(1) The system shall be run for at least 10 minutes before removal begins.

(2) All removal shall take place within the barrier.

(3) The systemshall be operated by at least three persons, one of whom shall not performremoval but shall check equipment, and ensure proper operation of thesystem.

(4) After removal, the ACM and PACM shall be bagged while still inside thewater barrier.

(vi) A small walk-in enclosure which accommodates no more than two persons(mini-enclosure) may be used if the disturbance or removal can be completelycontained by the enclosure, with the following specifications and workpractices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) The fabricated or job-made enclosure shall be constructed of 6 milplastic or equivalent:

(2) The enclosure shall be placed under negative pressure by means of a HEPAfiltered vacuum or similar ventilation unit:

(B) Work practices:

(1) Before use, the minienclosure shall be inspected for leaks and smoketested to detect breaches, and breaches sealed.

(2) Before reuse, the interior shall be completely washed with amended waterand HEPA-vacuumed.

(3) During use air movement shall be directed away from the employee'sbreathing zone within the minienclosure.

(6) Alternative control methods for Class I work. Class I work may beperformed using a control method which is not referenced in paragraph (g)(5)of this section, or which modifies a control method referenced in paragraph(g)(5) of this section, if the following provisions are complied with:

(i) The control method shall enclose, contain or isolate the processes orsource of airborne asbestos dust, or otherwise capture or redirect such dustbefore it enters the breathing zone of employees.

(ii) A certified industrial hygienist or licensed professional engineer whois also qualified as a project designer as defined in paragraph (b) of thissection, shall evaluate the work area, the projected work practices and theengineering controls and shall certify in writing that: the planned controlmethod is adequate to reduce direct and indirect employee exposure to belowthe PELs under worst- case conditions of use, and that the planned controlmethod will prevent asbestos contamination outside the regulated area, asmeasured by clearance sampling which meets the requirements of EPA's Asbestosin Schools Rule issued under AHERA, or perimeter monitoring which meets thecriteria in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section.

(A) Where the TSI or surfacing material to be removed is 25 linear or 10square feet or less , the evaluation required in paragraph (g)(6) of thissection may be performed by a "qualified person", and may omit considerationof perimeter or clearance monitoring otherwise required.

(B) The evaluation of employee exposure required in paragraph (g)(6) of thissection, shall include and be based on sampling and analytical datarepresenting employee exposure during the use of such method under worst-caseconditions and by employees whose training and experience are equivalent toemployees who are to perform the current job.

(iii) Before work which involves the removal of more than 25 linear or 10square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM/PACM is begun using an alternative methodwhich has been the subject of a paragraph (g)(6) required evaluation andcertification, the employer shall send a copy of such evaluation andcertification to the national office of OSHA, Office of Technical Supportm,Room N3653, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210.

(7) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class II work.

(i)All Class II work, shall be supervised by a qualified person as defined inparagraph (b) of this section.

(ii) For all indoor Class II jobs, where the employer has not produced anegative exposure assessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of thissection, or where during the job changed conditions indicate there may beexposure above the PEL or where the employer does not remove the ACM in asubstantially intact state, the employer shall use one of the followingmethods to ensure that airborne asbestos does not migrate from the regulatedarea;

(A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the regulatedarea; or,

(B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation methodwhich prevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated area, asverified by perimeter area monitoring or clearance monitoring which meets thecriteria set out in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section.

(iii) Impermeable dropcloths shall be placed on surfaces beneath all removalactivity;

(iv) All Class II asbestos work shall be performed using the work practicesand requirements set out above in paragraph (g)(3)(i) through (v) of thissection.

(8) Additional Controls for Class II work. Class II asbestos work shall alsobe performed by complying with the work practices and controls designated foreach type of asbestos work to be performed, set out in this paragraph. Wheremore than one control method may be used for a type of asbestos work, theemployer may choose one or a combination of designated control methods. ClassII work also may be performed using a method allowed for Class I work, exceptthat glove bags and glove boxes are allowed if they fully enclose the ClassII material to be removed.

(i) For removing vinyl and asphalt flooring/deck materials which contain ACMor for which in buildings constructed not later than 1980, the employer hasnot verified the absence of ACM pursuant to paragraph (g)(8)(i)(I): theemployer shall ensure that employees comply with the following work practicesand that employees are trained in these practices pursuant to paragraph(k)(8) of this section:

(A) Flooring/deck materials or its backing shall not be sanded.

(B)Vacuums equipped with HEPA filter, disposable dust bag, and metal floor tool(no brush) shall be used to clean floors.

(C) Resilient sheeting shall be removed by cutting with wetting of the snippoint and wetting during delamination. Rip-up of resilient sheet floormaterial is prohibited.

(D) All scraping of residual adhesive and/or backing shall be performedusing wet methods.

(E) Dry sweeping is prohibited.

(F) Mechanical chipping isprohibited unless performed in a negative pressure enclosure which meets therequirements of paragraph (g)(5)(iv) of this section.

(G) Tiles shall be removed intact, unless the employer demonstrates thatintact removal is not possible.

(H) When tiles are heated and can be removed intact, wetting may be omitted.

(I) Resilient flooring/deck material in buildings/vessels constructed nolater than 1980, including associated mastic and backing shall be assumed tobe asbestos-containing unless an industrial hygienist determines that it isasbestos-free using recognized analytical techniques.

(ii) For removing roofing material which contains ACM the employer shallensure that the following work practices are followed:

(A) Roofing material shall be removed in an intact state to the extentfeasible.

(B) Wet methods shall be used where feasible.

(C) Cutting machinesshall be continuously misted during use, unless a competent person determinesthat misting substantially decreases worker safety.

(D) All loose dust left by the sawing operation must be HEPA vacuumedimmediately.

(E) Unwrapped or unbagged roofing material shall be immediately lowered tothe ground via covered, dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or placed in animpermeable waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and lowered to ground nolater than the end of the work shift.

(F) Upon being lowered, unwrapped material shall be transferred to a closedreceptacle in such manner so as to preclude the dispersion of dust.

(G) Roof level heating and ventilation air intake sources shall be isolatedor the ventilation system shall be shut down.

(iii) When removing cementitious asbestos-containing siding, shingles(CACS), or transite panels containing ACM, the employer shall ensure that thefollowing work practices are followed:

(A) Cutting, abrading or breaking siding, shingles, or transite panels shallbe prohibited unless the employer can demonstrate that methods less likely toresult in asbestos fiber release cannot be used.

(B) Each panel or shingle shall be sprayed with amended water prior toremoval.

(C) Unwrapped or unbagged panels or shingles shall be immediately lowered tothe ground via covered dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or placed in animpervious waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and lowered to the groundno later than the end of the work shift.

(D) Nails shall be cut with flat, sharp instruments.

(iv) Whenremoving gaskets containing ACM, the employer shall ensure that the followingwork practices are followed:

(A) If a gasket is visibly deteriorated and unlikely to be removed intact,removal shall be undertaken within a glovebag as described in paragraph(g)(5)(ii) of this section.

(B) The gasket shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water prior to itsremoval.

(C) The wet gasket shall be immediately placed in a disposalcontainer.

(D) Any scraping to remove residue must be performed wet.

(v) Whenperforming any other Class II removal of asbestos containing material forwhich specific controls have not been listed in paragraph (g)(8)(iv)(A)through (D) of this section, the employer shall ensure that the followingwork practices are complied with.

(A) The material shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water prior andduring its removal.

(B) The material shall be removed in an intact state unless the employerdemonstrates that intact removal is not possible.

(C) Cutting, abrading or breaking the material shall be prohibited unlessthe employer can demonstrate that methods less likely to result in asbestosfiber release are not feasible.

(D) Asbestos-containing material removed, shall be immediately bagged orwrapped, or kept wetted until transferred to a closed receptacle, no laterthan the end of the work shift.

(vi) Alternative Work Practices and Controls. Instead of the work practicesand controls listed in paragraphs (g)(8)(i) through (v) of this section, theemployer may use different or modified engineering and work practice controlsif the following provisions are complied with.

(A) The employer shall demonstrate by data representing employee exposureduring the use of such method under conditions which closely resemble theconditions under which the method is to be used, that employee exposure willnot exceed the PELs under any anticipated circumstances.

(B) A qualified person shall evaluate the work area, the projected workpractices and the engineering controls, and shall certify in writing, thatthe different or modified controls are adequate to reduce direct and indirectemployee exposure to below the PELs under all expected conditions of use andthat the method meets the requirements of this standard. The evaluation shallinclude and be based on data representing employee exposure during the use ofsuch method under conditions which closely resemble the conditions underwhich the method is to be used for the current job, and by employees whosetraining and experience are equivalent to employees who are to perform thecurrent job.

(9) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class III asbestos work.Class III asbestos work shall be conducted using engineering and workpractice controls which minimize the exposure to employees performing theasbestos work and to bystander employees.

(i) The work shall be performed using wet methods.

(ii) To theextent feasible, the work shall be performed using local exhaustventilation.

(iii) Where the disturbance involves drilling, cutting, abrading, sanding,chipping, breaking, or sawing of thermal system insulation or surfacingmaterial, the employer shall use impermeable dropcloths and shall isolate theoperation using mini-enclosures or glove bag systems pursuant to paragraph(g)(5) of this section.

(iv) Where the employer does not demonstrate by a negative exposureassessment performed in compliance with paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this sectionthat the PELs will not be exceeded, or where monitoring results showexceedances of a PEL, the employer shall contain the area using impermeabledropcloths and plastic barriers or their equivalent, or shall isolate theoperation using mini-enclosure or glove bag systems pursuant to paragraph(g)(5) of this section.

(v) Employees performing Class III jobs which involve the disturbance of TSIor surfacing ACM or PACM or where the employer does not demonstrate by a"negative exposure assessment" in compliance with paragraph (e)(4)(iii) ofthis section that the PELs will not be exceeded or where monitoring resultsshow exceedances of the PEL, shall wear respirators which are selected, usedand fitted pursuant to provisions of paragraph (h) of this section.

(10) Class IV asbestos work. Class IV asbestos jobs shall be conducted byemployees trained pursuant to the asbestos awareness training program set outin paragraph (k)(8) of this section. In addition, all Class IV jobs shall beconducted in conformity with the requirements set out in paragraph (g)(1) ofthis section, mandating wet methods, HEPA vacuums, and prompt clean up ofdebris containing ACM or PACM.

(i) Employees cleaning up debris and waste in a regulated area whererespirators are required shall wear respirators which are selected, used andfitted pursuant to provisions of paragraph (h) of this section.

(ii) Employers of employees cleaning up waste and debris in an area wherefriable TSI or surfacing ACM/PACM is accessible, shall assume that such wasteand debris contain asbestos.

(11) Specific compliance methods for brake and clutch repair: (i)Engineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch repair andservice. During automotive brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repairand assembly operations, the employer shall institute engineering controlsand work practices to reduce employee exposure to materials containingasbestos using a negative pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum system method or lowpressure/wet cleaning method, which meets the detailed requirements set outin Appendix L to this section. The employer may also comply using anequivalent method which follows written procedures which the employerdemonstrates can achieve results equivalent to Method A. For facilities inwhich no more than 5 pair of brakes or 5 clutches are inspected,disassembled, repaired, or assembled per week, the method set for inparagraph [D] of Appendix L to this section may be used.

(ii) The employer may also comply by using an equivalent method whichfollows written procedures, which the employer demonstrates can achieveequivalent exposure reductions as do the two "preferred methods." Suchdemonstration must include monitoring data conducted under workplaceconditions closely resembling the process, type of asbestos containingmaterials, control method, work practices and environmental conditions whichthe equivalent method will be used, or objective data, which document thatunder all reasonably foreseeable conditions of brake and clutch repairapplications, the method results in exposures which are equivalent to themethods set out in Appendix L.

(h) Respiratory protection (1) General. The employer shall providerespirators, and ensure that they are used, where required by this section.Respirators shall be used in the following circumstances:

(i) During all Class I asbestos jobs.

(ii) During all Class II workwhere the ACM is not removed in a substantially intact state.

(iii) During all Class II and III work which is not performed using wetmethods.

(iv) During all Class II and III asbestos jobs where the employer does notproduce a "negative exposure assessment".

(v) During all Class III jobs where TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is beingdisturbed.

(vi) During all Class IV work performed within regulated areas whereemployees performing other work are required to wear respirators.

(vii) During all work covered by this section where employees are exposedabove the TWA or excursion limit.

(viii) In emergencies.

(2) Respirator selection.

(i) Whererespirators are used, the employer shall select and provide, at no cost tothe employee, the appropriate respirator as specified in Table 1, and shallensure that the employee uses the respirator provided.

(ii) The employer shall select respirators from among those jointly approvedas being acceptable for protection by the Mine Safety and HealthAdministration (MSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11.

(iii) The employer shall provide a tight fitting powered, air-purifyingrespirator in lieu of any negative-pressure respirator specified in Table 1whenever:

(A) An employee performing Class I, II or III work chooses to use this typeof respirator; and

(B) This respirator will provide adequate protection to the employee.

(iv) In addition to the above selection criterion, the employer shallprovide a half-mask air purifying respirator, other than a disposablerespirator, equipped with high efficiency filters whenever the employeeperforms the following activities: Class II and III asbestos jobs where theemployer does not produce a negative exposure assessment; and Class III jobswhere TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is being disturbed.

(v) In addition to the above selection criteria, the employer shall providea full facepiece supplied air respirator operated in the pressure demand modeequipped with an auxiliar76y positive pressure self-contained breathingapparatus for all employees within the regulated area where Class I work isbeing performed for which a negative exposure assessment has not beenproduced.

(3) Respirator program. (i) Where respiratory protection is used, theemployer shall institute a respirator program in accordance with 29 CFR1910.134(b), (d), (e), and (f).

(ii) The employer shall permit each employee who uses a filter respirator tochange the filter elements whenever an increase in breathing resistance isdetected and shall maintain an adequate supply of filter elements for thispurpose.

(iii) Employees who wear respirators shall be permitted to leave work areasto wash their faces and respirator facepieces whenever necessary to preventskin irritation associated with respirator use.

(iv) No employee shall be assigned to tasks requiring the use of respiratorsif, based on his or her most recent examination, an examining physiciandetermines that the employee will be unable to function normally wearing arespirator, or that the safety or health of the employee or of otheremployees will be impaired by the use of a respirator. Such employee shall beassigned to another job or given the opportunity to transfer to a differentposition the duties of which he or she is able to perform with the sameemployer, in the same geographical area, and with the same seniority, status,and rate of pay and other job benefits he or she had just prior to suchtransfer, if such a different position is available.

(4) Respirator fit testing. (i) The employer shall ensure that therespirator issued to the employee exhibits the least possible facepieceleakage and that the respirator is fitted properly.

(ii) Employers shall perform either quantitative or qualitative face fittests at the time of initial fitting and at least every 6 months thereafterfor each employee wearing a negative-pressure respirator. The qualitative fittests may be used only for testing the fit of half-mask respirators wherethey are permitted to be worn, or of full-facepiece air purifying respiratorswhere they are worn at levels at which half-facepiece air purifyingrespirators are permitted. Qualitative and quantitative fit tests shall beconducted in accordance with Appendix C of this section. The tests shall beused to select facepieces that provide the required protection as prescribedin Table 1, in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section.

(i) Protective clothing (1) General. The employer shall provide and requirethe use of protective clothing, such as coveralls or similar whole-bodyclothing, head coverings, gloves, and foot coverings for any employee exposedto airborne concentrations of asbestos that exceed the TWA and/or excursionlimit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, or for which a requirednegative exposure assessment is not produced, and for any employee performingClass I operations which involve the removal of over 25 linear or 10 squarefeet of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM.

(2) Laundering. (i) The employer shall ensure that laundering ofcontaminated clothing is done so as to prevent the release of airborneasbestos in excess of the TWA or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c)of this section.

(ii) Any employer who gives contaminated clothing to another person forlaundering shall inform such person of the requirement in paragraph (i)(2)(i)of this section to effectively prevent the release of airborne asbestos inexcess of the TWA excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of thissection.

(3) Contaminated clothing. Contaminated clothing shall be transported insealed impermeable bags, or other closed, impermeable containers, and belabeled in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section.

(4) Inspection of protective clothing. (i) The qualified person shallexamine worksuits worn by employees at least once per workshift for rips ortears that may occur during performance of work.

(ii) When rips or tears are detected while an employee is working, rips andtears shall be immediately mended, or the worksuit shall be immediatelyreplaced.

(j) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. (1) Requirements foremployees performing Class I asbestos jobs.

(i) Decontamination areas: For all Class I jobs involving over 25 linear or10 square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM, the employer shall establisha decontamination area that is adjacent and connected to the regulated areafor the decontamination of such employees. The decontamination area shallconsist of an equipment room, shower area, and clean room in series. Theemployer shall ensure that employees enter and exit the regulated areathrough the decontamination area.

(A) Equipment room. The equipment room shall be supplied with impermeable,labeled bags and containers for the containment and disposal of contaminatedprotective equipment.

(B) Shower area. Shower facilities shall be provided which comply with 29CFR 1910.141(d)(3), unless the employer can demonstrate that they are notfeasible. The showers shall be adjacent both to the equipment room and theclean room, unless the employer can demonstrate that this location is notfeasible. Where the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible tolocate the shower between the equipment room and the clean room, or where thework is performed outdoors, or when the work involving asbestos exposuretakes place on board a ship, the employers shall ensure that employees:

(1) Remove asbestos contamination from their worksuits in the equipment roomusing a HEPA vacuum before proceeding to a shower that is not adjacent to thework area; or (2) Remove their contaminated worksuits in the equipment room,then don clean worksuits, and proceed to a shower that is not adjacent to thework area.

(C) Clean change room. The clean room shall be equipped with a locker orappropriate storage container for each employee's use. When the employer candemonstrate that it is not feasible to provide a clean change area adjacentto the work area, or where the work is performed outdoors, or when the worktakes place aboard a ship, the employer may permit employees engaged in ClassI asbestos jobs to clean their protective clothing with a portableHEPA-equipped vacuum before such employees leave the regulated area. Suchemployees however must then change into street clothing in clean change areasprovided by the employer which otherwise meet the requirements of thissection.

(ii) Decontamination area entry procedures. The employer shall ensure thatemployees:

(A) Enter the decontamination area through the clean room;

(B) Remove and deposit street clothing within a locker provided for theiruse; and

(C) Put on protective clothing and respiratory protection before leaving theclean room.

(D) Before entering the regulated area, the employer shall ensure thatemployees pass through the equipment room.

(iii) Decontamination area exit procedures. The employer shall ensure that:

(A) Before leaving the regulated area, employees shall remove all grosscontamination and debris from their protective clothing.

(B) Employees shall remove their protective clothing in the equipment roomand deposit the clothing in labeled impermeable bags or containers.

(C) Employees shall not remove their respirators in the equipmentroom.

(D) Employees shall shower prior to entering the clean room.

(E) Aftershowering, employees shall enter the clean room before changing into streetclothes.

(iv) Lunch Areas. Whenever food or beverages are consumed at the worksitewhere employees are performing Class I asbestos work, the employer shallprovide lunch areas in which the airborne concentrations of asbestos arebelow the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit.

(2) Requirements for Class I work involving less than 25 linear or 10 squarefeet of TSI or surfacing and PACM, and for Class II and Class III asbestoswork operations where exposures exceed a PEL or where there is no negativeexposure assessment produced before the operation.

(i) The employer shall establish an equipment room or area that is adjacentto the regulated area for the decontamination of employees and theirequipment which is contaminated with asbestos which shall consist of an areacovered by a impermeable drop cloth on the floor/deck or horizontal workingsurface.

(ii) The area must be of sufficient size as to accommodate cleaning ofequipment and removing personal protective equipment without spreadingcontamination beyond the area (as determined by visible accumulations).

(iii) Workclothing must be cleaned with a HEPA vacuum before it is removed.

(iv) All equipment and surfaces of containers filled with ACM must becleaned prior to removing them from the equipment room or area.

(v) The employer shall ensure that employees enter and exit the regulatedarea through the equipment room or area.

(3) Requirements for Class IV work. Employers shall ensure that employeesperforming Class IV work within a regulated area comply with the hygienepractice required of employees performing work which has a higherclassification within that regulated area. Otherwise employers of employeescleaning up debris and material which is TSI or surfacing ACM or identifiedas PACM shall provide decontamination facilities for such employees which arerequired by paragraph (j)(2) of this section.

(4) Smoking in work areas. The employer shall ensure that employees do notsmoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to asbestos becauseof activities in that work area.

(k) Communication of hazards.

Note: This section applies to the communication of informationconcerning asbestos hazards in shipyard employment activities to facilitatecompliance with this standard. Most asbestos-related shipyard activitiesinvolve previously installed building materials. Building/vessel owners oftenare the only and/or best sources of information concerning them. Therefore,they, along with employers of potentially exposed employees, are assignedspecific information conveying and retention duties under this section.Installed Asbestos Containing Building/Vessel Material: Employers andbuilding/vessel owners are required to treat TSI and sprayed or troweled onsurfacing materials as asbestos-containing unless the employer, by complyingwith paragraph (k)(4) of this section determines that the material is notasbestos-containing. Asphalt or vinyl flooring/decking material installed inbuildings or vessels no later than 1980 must also be considered as asbestoscontaining unless the employer/owner, pursuant to paragraph (g), of thissection determines it is not asbestos containing. If the employer orbuilding/vessel owner has actual knowledge or should have known, through theexercise of due diligence, that materials other than TSI and sprayed-on ortroweled-on surfacing materials are asbestos-containing, they must be treatedas such. When communicating information to employees pursuant to thisstandard, owners and employers shall identify "PACM" as ACM. Additionalrequirements relating to communication of asbestos work on multi-employerworksites are set out in paragraph (d) of this standard.

(1) Duties of building/vessel and facility owners. (i) Before work subjectto this standard is begun, building/vessel and facility owners shall identifythe presence, location and quantity of ACM, and/or PACM at the work site. Allthermal system insulation and sprayed on or troweled on surfacing materialsin buildings/vessels or substrates constructed no later than 1980 shall beidentified as PACM. In addition, resilient flooring/decking materialinstalled no later than 1980 shall also be identified as asbestos-containing.

(ii) Building/vessel and/or facility owners shall notify the followingpersons of the presence, location and quantity of ACM or PACM, at work sitesin their buildings/facilities/vessels. Notification either shall be inwriting or shall consist of a personal communication between the owner andthe person to whom notification must be given or their authorizedrepresentatives:

(A) Prospective employers applying or bidding for work whose employeesreasonably can be expected to work in or adjacent to areas containing suchmaterial;

(B) Employees of the owner who will work in or adjacent to areas containingsuch material:

(C) On multi-employer worksites, all employers of employees who will beperforming work within or adjacent to areas containing such materials;

(D) Tenants who will occupy areas containing such materials.

(2)Duties of employers whose employees perform work subject to this standard inor adjacent to areas containing ACM and PACM. Building/vessel and facilityowners whose employees perform such work shall comply with these provisionsto the extent applicable.

(i) Before work in areas containing ACM and PACM is begun, employers shallidentify the presence, location, and quantity of ACM, and/or PACM therein.

(ii) Before work under this standard is performed employers of employees whowill perform such work shall inform the following persons of the location andquantity of ACM and/or PACM present at the work site and the precautions tobe taken to insure that airborne asbestos is confined to the area.

(A) Owners of the building/vessel or facility;

(B) Employees who will perform such work and employers of employees who workand/or will be working in adjacent areas;

(iii) Within 10 days of the completion of such work, the employer whoseemployees have performed work subject to this standard, shall inform thebuilding/vessel or facility owner and employers of employees who will beworking in the area of the current location and quantity of PACM and/or ACMremaining in the former regulated area and final monitoring results, if any.

(3) In addition to the above requirements, all employers who discover ACMand/or PACM on a work site shall convey information concerning the presence,location and quantity of such newly discovered ACM and/or PACM to the ownerand to other employers of employees working at the work site, within 24 hoursof the discovery.

(4) Criteria to rebut the designation of installed material as PACM. (i) Atany time, an employer and/or building/vessel owner may demonstrate, forpurposes of this standard, that PACM does not contain asbestos.Building/vessel owners and/or employers are not required to communicateinformation about the presence of building material for which such ademonstration pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (k)(4)(ii) of thissection has been made. However, in all such cases, the information, data andanalysis supporting the determination that PACM does not contain asbestos,shall be retained pursuant to paragraph (n) of this section.

(ii) An employer or owner may demonstrate that PACM does not containasbestos by the following:

(A) Having a completed inspection conducted pursuant to the requirements ofAHERA (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E) which demonstrates that the material isnot ACM;

(B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which demonstrate thatno asbestos is present in the material. Such tests shall include analysis of3 bulk samples of each homogeneous area of PACM collected in a randomlydistributed manner. The tests, evaluation and sample collection shall beconducted by an accredited inspector or by a CIH. Analysis of samples shallbe performed by persons or laboratories with proficiency demonstrated bycurrent successful participation in a nationally recognized testing programsuch as the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) ofthe National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Round Robinfor bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene Association(AIHA), or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin testing program..

(5) At the entrance to mechanical rooms/areas in which employees reasonablycan be expected to enter and which contain TSI or surfacing ACM and PACM, thebuilding/vessel owner shall post signs which identify the material which ispresent, its location, and appropriate work practices which, if followed,will ensure that ACM and/or PACM will not be disturbed.

(6) Signs. (i) Warning signs that demarcate the regulated area shall beprovided and displayed at each location where a regulated area is required tobe established by paragraph (e) of this section. Signs shall be posted atsuch a distance from such a location that an employee may read the signs andtake necessary protective steps before entering the area marked by the signs.

(ii) The warning signs required by (k)(6) of this section shall bear thefollowing information.

(7) Labels. (i) Labels shall be affixed to all products containing asbestosand to all containers containing such products, including waste containers.Where feasible, installed asbestos products shall contain a visible label.

(ii) Labels shall be printed in large, bold letters on a contrastingbackground.

(iii) Labels shall be used in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR1910.1200(f) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, and shall contain thefollowing information:

(iv) [Reserved]

(v) Labels shall contain a warning statement againstbreathing asbestos fibers.

(vi) The provisions for labels required by paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through(k)(2)(iii) of this section do not apply where:

(A) Asbestos fibers have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, binder,or other material, provided that the manufacturer can demonstrate that,during any reasonably foreseeable use, handling, storage, disposal,processing, or transportation, no airborne concentrations of asbestos fibersin excess of the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit will bereleased, or (B) Asbestos is present in a product in concentrations less than1.0 percent by weight.

(vii) When a building/vessel owner/or employer identifies previouslyinstalled PACM and/or ACM, labels or signs shall be affixed or posted so thatemployees will be notified of what materials contain PACM and/or ACM. Theemployer shall attach such labels in areas where they will clearly be noticedby employees who are likely to be exposed, such as at the entrance tomechanical rooms/areas. Signs required by paragraph (k)(5) of this sectionmay be posted in lieu of labels so long as they contain information requiredfor labelling.

(8) Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall, at no cost tothe employee,institute a training program for all employees who installasbestos containing products and for all employees who perform Class Ithrough IV asbestos operations, and shall ensure their participation in theprogram.

(ii) Training shall be provided prior to or at the time of initialassignment and at least annually thereafter.

(iii) Training for Class I and II operations shall be the equivalent incurriculum, training method and length to the EPA Model Accreditation Plan(MAP) asbestos abatement worker training (40 CFR Pt. 763, Subpt. E, App. C).For employers whose Class II work with asbestos-containing material involvesonly the removal and/or disturbance of one generic category ofbuilding/vessel material, such as roofing materials, flooring/deck materials,siding materials or transite panels, instead, such employer is required totrain employees who perform such work by providing a training course whichincludes as a minimum all the elements included in paragraph (k)(8)(v) ofthis section and in addition, the specific work practices and engineeringcontrols set forth in paragraph (g) of this section which specifically relateto that material category. Such course shall include "hands-on" training andshall take at least 8 hours.

(iv) Training for Class III employees shall be the equivalent in curriculumand training method to the 16-hour Operations and Maintenance coursedeveloped by EPA for maintenance and custodial workers who conduct activitiesthat will result in the disturbance of ACM. [See 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2)]. Suchcourse shall include "hands-on" training in the use of respiratory protectionand work practices and shall take at least 16 hours.

(v) Training for employees performing Class IV operations shall be theequivalent in curriculum and training method to the awareness training coursedeveloped by EPA for maintenance and custodial workers who work in buildingscontaining asbestos- containing material. (See 40 CFR 763.92 (a)(1)). Suchcourse shall include available information concerning the locations of PACMand ACM, and asbestos-containing flooring material, or flooring materialwhere the absence of asbestos has not been certified; and instruction inrecognition of damage, deterioration, and delamination of asbestos containingbuilding materials. Such course shall take at least 2 hours.

(vi) The training program shall be conducted in a manner that the employeeis able to understand. In addition to the content required by provisions inparagraph (k)(8)(iii) of this section, the employer shall ensure that eachsuch employee is informed of the following:

(A) Methods of recognizing asbestos, including the requirement in paragraph(k)(1) of this section to presume that certain building materials containasbestos.;

(B) The health effects associated with asbestos exposure;

(C) The relationship between smoking and asbestos in producing lung cancer;

(D) The nature of operations that could result in exposure to asbestos, theimportance of necessary protective controls to minimize exposure including,as applicable, engineering controls, work practices, respirators,housekeeping procedures, hygiene facilities, protective clothing,decontamination procedures, emergency procedures, and waste disposalprocedures, and any necessary instruction in the use of these controls andprocedures; where Class II and IV work will be or is performed, the contentsof EPA 20T-2003, "Managing Asbestos In- Place" July 1990 or its equivalent incontent;

(E) The purpose, proper use, fitting instructions, and limitations ofrespirators as required by 29 CFR 1910.134;

(F) The appropriate work practices for performing the asbestos job;

(G) Medical surveillance program requirements; and

(H) The content of this standard, including appendices.

(I) Thenames, addresses and phone numbers of public health organizations whichprovide information, materials and/or conduct programs concerning smokingcessation. The employer may distribute the list of such organizationscontained in Appendix J, to comply with this requirement.

(J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the meaningof the required legends for such signs and labels.

(9) Access to training materials. (i) The employer shall make readilyavailable to affected employees without cost written materials relating tothe employee training program, including a copy of this regulation.

(ii) The employer shall provide to the Assistant Secretary and the Director,upon request, all information and training materials relating to the employeeinformation and training program.

(iii) The employer shall inform all employees concerning the availability ofself-help smoking cessation program material. Upon employee request, theemployer shall distribute such material, consisting of NIH Publication No,89-1647, or equivalent self-help material, which is approved or published bya public health organization listed in Appendix J.

(1) Housekeeping -- (1) Vacuuming. Where vacuuming methods are selected,HEPA filtered vacuuming equipment must be used. The equipment shall be usedand emptied in a manner that minimizes the reentry of asbestos into theworkplace.

(2) Waste disposal. Asbestos waste, scrap, debris, bags, containers,equipment, and contaminated clothing consigned for disposal shall becollected and disposed of in sealed, labeled, impermeable bags or otherclosed, labeled, impermeable containers.

(3) Care of asbestos-containing flooring/deck material. (i) All vinyl andasphalt flooring/deck material shall be maintained in accordance with thisparagraph unless the building/facility owner demonstrates, pursuant toparagraph (g) that the flooring/deck does not contain asbestos.

(i) Sanding of flooring/deck material is prohibited.

(ii) Strippingof finishes shall be conducted using low abrasion pads at speed lower than300 rpm and wet methods.

(iii) Burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only on flooring/ deckwhich has sufficient finish so that the pad cannot contact the flooring/deckmaterial.

(4) Dust and debris in an area containing accessible thermal systeminsulation or surfacing material or visibly deteriorated ACM. (i) shall notbe dusted or swept dry, or vacuumed without using a HEPA filter;

(ii) shall be promptly cleaned up and disposed in leak tightcontainers.

(m) Medical surveillance -- (1) General -- (i) Employees covered.The employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all employeeswho for a combined total of 30 or more days per year are engaged in Class I,II, and III work or are exposed at or above the permissible exposure limit orexcursion limit, and for employees who wear negative pressure respiratorspursuant to the requirements of this section.

(ii) Examination by a physician.

(A) The employer shall ensure that allmedical examinations and procedures are performed by or under the supervisionof a licensed physician, and are provided at no cost to the employee and at areasonable time and place.

(B) Persons other than such licensed physicians who administer the pulmonaryfunction testing required by this section shall complete a training course inspirometry sponsored by an appropriate academic or professional institution.

(2) Medical examinations and consultations -- (i) Frequency. The employershall make available medical examinations and consultations to each employeecovered under paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this section on the following schedules:

(A) Prior to assignment of the employee to an area where negative-pressure respirators are worn;

(B) When the employee is assigned to an area where exposure to asbestos maybe at or above the permissible exposure for 30 or more days per year, amedical examination must be given within 10 working days following thethirtieth day of exposure;

(C) And at least annually thereafter.

(D) If the examining physiciandetermines that any of the examinations should be provided more frequentlythan specified, the employer shall provide such examinations to affectedemployees at the frequencies specified by the physician.

(E) Exception: No medical examination is required of any employee ifadequate records show that the employee has been examined in accordance withthis paragraph within the past 1-year period.

(ii) Content. Medical examinations made available pursuant to paragraphs(m)(2)(i)(A) through (m)(2)(i)(C) of this section shall include:

(A) A medical and work history with special emphasis directed to thepulmonary, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal systems.

(B) On initial examination, the standardized questionnaire contained in Part1 of Appendix D to this section and, on annual examination, the abbreviatedstandardized questionnaire contained in Part 2 of Appendix D to this section.

(C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and gastrointestinalsystems, including a chest ,x-ray to be administered at the discretion of thephysician, and pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC) andforced expiratory volume at one second (FEV(1)). Interpretation andclassification of chest roentgenogram shall be conducted in accordance withAppendix E to this section.

(D) Any other examinations or tests deemed necessary by the examiningphysician.

(3) Information provided to the physician. The employer shall provide thefollowing information to the examining physician:

(i) A copy of this standard and Appendices D, E, G, and I to this section;

(ii) A description of the affected employee's duties as they relate to theemployee's exposure;

(iii) The employee's representative exposure level or anticipated exposurelevel;

(iv) A description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment usedor to be used; and

(v) Information from previous medical examinations of the affected employeethat is not otherwise available to the examining physician.

(4) Physician's written opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain a writtenopinion from the examining physician. This written opinion shall contain theresults of the medical examination and shall include:

(A) The physician's opinion as to whether the employee has any detectedmedical conditions that would place the employee at an increased risk ofmaterial health impairment from exposure to asbestos;

(B) Any recommended limitations on the employee or on the use of personalprotective equipment such as respirators; and

(C) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of theresults of the medical examination and of any medical conditions that mayresult from asbestos exposure.

(D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of theincreased risk of lung cancer attributable to the combined effect of smokingand asbestos exposure.

(ii) The employer shall instruct the physician not to reveal in the writtenopinion given to the employer specific findings or diagnoses unrelated tooccupational exposure to asbestos.

(iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the physician's written opinionto the affected employee within 30 days from its receipt.

(n) Recordkeeping -- (1) Objective data relied on pursuant to paragraph (f)of this section.

(i) Where the employer has relied on objective data thatdemonstrate that products made from or containing asbestos are not capable ofreleasing fibers of asbestos in concentrations at or above the permissibleexposure limit and/or excursion limit under the expected conditions ofprocessing, use, or handling to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f) ofthis section, the employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record ofobjective data reasonably relied upon in support of the exemption.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The product qualifying for exemption;

(B) The source of the objective data;

(C) The testing protocol, results of testing, and/or analysis of thematerial for the release of asbestos;

(D) A description of the operation exempted and how the data support theexemption; and

(E) Other data relevant to the operations, materials, processing, oremployee exposures covered by the exemption.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for the duration of theemployer's reliance upon such objective data.

(2) Exposure measurements. (i) The employer shall keep an accurate record ofall measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to asbestos as prescribedin paragraph (f) of this section. Note: The employer may utilize the servicesof qualified organizations such as industry trade associations and employeeassociations to maintain the records required by this section.

(ii) This record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The date of measurement;

(B) The operation involving exposure to asbestos that is being monitored;

(C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their accuracy;

(D) Number, duration, and results of samples taken;

(E) Type of protective devices worn, if any; and

(F) Name, social security number, and exposure of the employees whoseexposures are represented.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for at least thirty (30)years, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(3) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and maintain anaccurate record for each employee subject to medical surveillance byparagraph (m) of this section, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The name and social security number of the employee;

(B) A copy of the employee's medical examination results, including themedical history, questionnaire responses, results of any tests, andphysician's recommendations.

(C) Physician's written opinions;

(D) Any employee medical complaints related to exposure to asbestos; and

(E) A copy of the information provided to the physician as required byparagraph (m) of this section.

(iii) The employer shall ensure that this record is maintained for theduration of employment plus thirty (30) years, in accordance with 29 CFR1910.20.

(4) Training records. The employer shall maintain all employee trainingrecords for one 1 year beyond the last date of employment by that employer.

(5) Data to Rebut PACM:

(i) Where the building owner and employer have relied on data to demonstratethat PACM is not asbestos-containing, such data shall be maintained for aslong as they are relied upon to rebut the presumption.

(ii) [Reserved]

(6) Records of Required Notification. (i) Where thebuilding/vessel owner has communicated and received information concerningthe identity, location and quantity of ACM and PACM, written records of suchnotifications and their content shall be maintained by the owner for theduration of ownership and shall be transferred to successive owners of suchbuildings/facilities/vessels.

(ii) [Reserved]

(7) Availability. (i) The employer, upon writtenrequest, shall make all records required to be maintained by this sectionavailable to the Assistant Secretary and the Director for examination andcopying.

(ii) The employer, upon request, shall make any exposure records required byparagraphs (f) and (n) of this section available for examination and copyingto affected employees, former employees, designated representatives, and theAssistant Secretary, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20(a) through (e) and (g)through (i).

(iii) The employer, upon request, shall make employee medical recordsrequired by paragraphs (m) and (n) of this section available for examinationand copying to the subject employee, anyone having the specific writtenconsent of the subject employee, and the Assistant Secretary, in accordancewith 29 CFR 1910.20.

(8) Transfer of records. (i) The employer shall comply with the requirementsconcerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 1910.20 (h).

(ii) Whenever the employer ceases to do business and there is no successoremployer to receive and retain the records for the prescribed period, theemployer shall notify the Director at least 90 days prior to disposal and,upon request, transmit them to the Director.

(o) Qualified person. (1) General. On all shipyard worksites covered by thisstandard, the employer shall designate a qualified person, having thequalifications and authorities for ensuring worker safety and health requiredby Subpart C, General Safety and Health Provisions for Construction (29 CFR1926.20 through 1926.32).

(2) Required Inspections by the Qualified Person. Sec. 1926.20(b)(2) whichrequires health and safety prevention programs to provide for frequent andregular inspections of the job sites, materials, and equipment to be made byqualified persons, is incorporated.

(3) Additional Inspections. In addition, the qualified person shall makefrequent and regular inspections of the job sites, in order to perform theduties set out in paragraph (p)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. For Class Ijobs, on-site inspections shall be made at least once during each work shift,and at any time at employee request. For Class II and III jobs, on-siteinspections shall be made at intervals sufficient to assess whetherconditions have changed, and at any reasonable time at employee request.

(i) On all worksites where employees are engaged in Class I or II asbestoswork, the qualified person designated in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) ofthis section shall perform or supervise the following duties, as applicable:

(A) Set up the regulated area, enclosure, or other containment;

(B) Ensure (by on-site inspection) the integrity of the enclosure orcontainment;

(C) Set up procedures to control entry to and exit from the enclosure and/orarea;

(D) Supervise all employee exposure monitoring required by this section andensure that it is conducted as required by paragraph (f) of this section;

(E) Ensure that employees working within the enclosure and/or using glovebags wear protective clothing and respirators as required by paragraphs (h)and (i) of this section;

(F) Ensure through on-site supervision, that employees set up and removeengineering controls, use work practices and personal protective equipment incompliance with all requirements;

(G) Ensure that employees use the hygiene facilities and observe thedecontamination procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this section;

(H) Ensure that though on-site inspection engineering controls arefunctioning properly and employees are using proper work practices; and

(I) Ensure that notification requirements in paragraph (f)(6) of thissection are met.

(4) Training for the competent person;

(i) For Class I and II asbestos work the qualified person shall be trainedin all aspects of asbestos removal and handling, including: abatement,installation, removal and handling; the contents of this standard; theidentification of asbestos; removal procedures, where appropriate; and otherpractices for reducing the hazard. Such training shall be obtained in acomprehensive course for supervisors, such as a course conducted by an EPA orstate-approved training provider, certified by the EPA or a state, or ancourse equivalent in stringency, content, and length.

(ii) For Class III asbestos work operations, the qualified person shall betrained in aspects of asbestos handling appropriate for the nature of thework, to include procedures for setting up glove bags and mini-enclosures,practices for reducing asbestos exposures, use of wet methods, the contentsof this standard, and the identification of asbestos. Such training shall beobtained in a comprehensive course for supervisors, such as a courseconducted by an EPA or state-approved training provider, certified by the EPAor a state, or an equivalent in stringency, content, and length.

(p) Appendices. (1) Appendices A, C, D, and E to this section areincorporated as part of this section and the contents of these appendices aremandatory.

(2) Appendices B, F, H, I, J, and K to this section are informational andare not intended to create any additional obligations not otherwise imposedor to detract from any existing obligations.

(q) Dates. (1) This standard shall become effective October 11,1994. (2) The provisions of 29 CFR 1926.58 and 29 CFR 1910.1001 remain ineffect until the start-up dates of the equivalent provisions of thisstandard.

(3) Start-up dates: All obligations of this standard commence on theeffective date except as follows:

(i) Methods of compliance. The engineering and work practice controlsrequired by paragraph (g) of this section shall be implemented as soon aspossible but no later than April 10, 1995.

(ii) Respiratory protection. Respiratory protection required by paragraph(h) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but no later thanFebruary 8, 1995.

(iii) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. Hygiene facilities andpractices required by paragraph (j) of this section shall be provided as soonas possible but no later than February 8, 1995.

(iv) Communication of hazards. Identification, notification, labeling andsign posting, and training required by paragraph (k) of this section shall beprovided as soon as possible, but no later than April 10, 1995.

(v) Housekeeping. Housekeeping practices and controls required by paragraph(l) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible, but no later thanJanuary 9, 1995.

(vi) Medical surveillance required by paragraph (m) of this section shall beprovided as soon as possible, but no later than January 9, 1995.

(vii) The designation and training of competent persons required byparagraph (o) of this section shall completed as soon as possible but nolater than April 10, 1995.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number1218-0195)

Appendix A to 1915.1001. OSHA Reference Method. -- Mandatory

This mandatory appendix specifies the procedure for analyzing air samplesfor asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite and specifies qualitycontrol procedures that must be implemented by laboratories performing theanalysis. The sampling and analytical methods described below represent theelements of the available monitoring methods (such as appendix B to thissection, the most current version of the OSHA method ID-60, or the mostcurrent version of the NIOSH 7400 method) which OSHA considers to beessential to achieve adequate employee exposure monitoring while allowingemployers to use methods that are already established within theirorganizations. All employers who are required to conduct air monitoring underparagraph (f) of this section are required to utilize analytical laboratoriesthat use this procedure, or an equivalent method, for collecting andanalyzing samples.

Sampling and Analytical Procedure

1. The sampling medium for air samples shall be mixed cellulose ester filtermembranes. These shall be designated by the manufacturer as suitable forasbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite counting. See below forrejection of blanks.

2. The preferred collection device shall be the 25-mm diameter cassette withan open-faced 50-mm extension cowl. The 37-mm cassette may be used ifnecessary but only if written justification for the need to use the 37-mmfilter cassette accompanies the sample results in the employee's exposuremonitoring record. Do not reuse or reload cassettes for asbestos samplecollection.

3. An air flow rate between 0.5 liter/min and 2.5 liters/min shall beselected for the 25-mm cassette. If the 37-mm cassette is used, an air flowrate between 1 liter/min and 2.5 liters/min shall be selected.

4. Where possible, a sufficient air volume for each air sample shall becollected to yield between 100 and 1,300 fibers per square millimeter on themembrane filter. If a filter darkens in appearance or if loose dust is seenon the filter, a second sample shall be started.

5. Ship the samples in a rigid container with sufficient packing material toprevent dislodging the collected fibers. Packing material that has a highelectrostatic charge on its surface (e.g., expanded polystyrene) cannot beused because such material can cause loss of fibers to the sides of thecassette.

6. Calibrate each personal sampling pump before and after use with arepresentative filter cassette installed between the pump and the calibrationdevices.

7. Personal samples shall be taken in the "breathing zone" of the employee(i.e., attached to or near the collar or lapel near the worker's face).

8. Fiber counts shall be made by positive phase contrast using a microscopewith an 8 to 10 X eyepiece and a 40 to 45 X objective for a totalmagnification of approximately 400 X and a numerical aperture of 0.65 to0.75. The microscope shall also be fitted with a green or blue filter.

9. The microscope shall be fitted with a Walton-Beckett eyepiece graticulecalibrated for a field diameter of 100 micrometers (+/- 2 micrometers).

10. The phase-shift detection limit of the microscope shall be about 3degrees measured using the HSE phase shift test slide as outlined below.

a. Place the test slide on the microscope stage and center it under thephase objective.

b. Bring the blocks of grooved lines into focus.

Note: Theslide consists of seven sets of grooved lines (ca. 20 grooves to each block)in descending order of visibility from sets 1 to 7, seven being the leastvisible. The requirements for asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, andactinolite counting are that the microscope optics must resolve the groovedlines in set 3 completely, although they may appear somewhat faint, and thatthe grooved lines in sets 6 and 7 must be invisible. Sets 4 and 5 must be atleast partially visible but may vary slightly in visibility betweenmicroscopes. A microscope that fails to meet these requirements has eithertoo low or too high a resolution to be used for asbestos, tremolite,anthophyllite, and actinolite counting.

c. If the image deteriorates, clean and adjust the microscope optics. If theproblem persists, consult the microscope manufacturer.

11. Each set of samples taken will include 10 percent blanks or a minimum of2 blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot as the filters used forsample collection. The field blank results shall be averaged and subtractedfrom the analytical results before reporting. Any samples represented by ablank having a fiber count in excess of the detection limit of the methodbeing used shall be rejected.

12. The samples shall be mounted by the acetone/triacetin method or a methodwith an equivalent index of refraction and similar clarity.

13. Observe the following counting rules.

a. Count only fibers equalto or longer than 5 micrometers. Measure the length of curved fibers alongthe curve.

b. Count all particles as asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolitethat have a length-to-width ratio (aspect ratio) of 3:1 or greater.

c. Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton- Beckettgraticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing the boundaryonce, having one end within the circle, shall receive the count of one half(1/2). Do not count any fiber that crosses the graticule boundary more thanonce. Reject and do not count any other fibers even though they may bevisible outside the graticule area.

d. Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual fibers can beidentified by observing both ends of an individual fiber.

e. Count enough graticule fields to yield 100 fibers. Count a minimum of 20fields; stop counting at 100 fields regardless of fiber count.

14. Blind recounts shall be conducted at the rate of 10 percent.

Quality Control Procedures

1. Intra-laboratory program. Each laboratory and/or each company with morethan one microscopist counting slides shall establish a statisticallydesigned quality assurance program involving blind recounts and comparisonsbetween microscopists to monitor the variability of counting by eachmicroscopist and between microscopists. In a company with more than onelaboratory, the program shall include all laboratories and shall alsoevaluate the laboratory-to-laboratory variability.

2. a. Interlaboratory program. Each laboratory analyzing asbestos,tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite samples for compliance determinationshall implement an interlaboratory quality assurance program that as aminimum includes participation of at least two other independentlaboratories. Each laboratory shall participate in round robin testing atleast once every 6 months with at least all the other laboratories in itsinterlaboratory quality assurance group. Each laboratory shall submit slidestypical of its own work load for use in this program. The round robin shallbe designed and results analyzed using appropriate statistical methodology.

b. All laboratories should participate in a national sample testing schemesuch as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program (PAT), the AsbestosRegistry sponsored by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

3. All individuals performing asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, andactinolite analysis must have taken the NIOSH course for sampling andevaluating airborne asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite dustor an equivalent course.

4. When the use of different microscopes contributes to differences betweencounters and laboratories, the effect of the different microscope shall beevaluated and the microscope shall be replaced, as necessary.

5. Current results of these quality assurance programs shall be posted ineach laboratory to keep the microscopists informed.

Appendix B to Sec. 1915.1001 -- Detailed Procedures for Asbestos Samplingand Analysis (Non-mandatory)

Analytical Procedure: A portion of the sample filter is cleared and preparedfor asbestos fiber counting by Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) at 400X.

Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method are fordescriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by USDOL-OSHA.Similar products from other sources can be substituted.

1. Introduction

This method describes the collection of airborne asbestos fibers usingcalibrated sampling pumps with mixed-cellulose ester (MCE) filters andanalysis by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Some terms used are unique tothis method and are defined below: Asbestos: A term for naturally occurringfibrous minerals. Asbestos includes chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite(cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos), tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos,anthophyllite asbestos, and any of these minerals that have been chemicallytreated and/or altered. The precise chemical formulation of each species willvary with the location from which it was mined. Nominal compositions arelisted:

Chrysotile.................... Mg(3)Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4)

Crocidolite................... Na(2)Fe(3)(2)+Fe(2)(3)+Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Amosite....................... (Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Tremolite-actinolite.......... Ca(2)(Mg,Fe)(5)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Anthophyllite................. (Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos which meets the criteria specified belowfor a fiber.

Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to it's diameter (e.g. 3:1,5:1 aspect ratios).

Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by comminution of minerals,especially those characterized by parallel sides and a moderate aspect ratio(usually less than 20:1).

Detection Limit: The number of fibers necessary to be 95% certain that theresult is greater than zero.

Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of excluding certainkinds of fibers from the fiber count because they do not appear to beasbestos.

Fiber: A particle that is 5 um or longer, with a length-to-width ratio of 3to 1 or longer.

Field: The area within the graticule circle that is superimposed on themicroscope image.

Set: The samples which are taken, submitted to the laboratory, analyzed, andfor which, interim or final result reports are generated.

Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite: The non-asbestos form of theseminerals which meet the definition of a fiber. It includes any of theseminerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered.

Walton-Beckett Graticule: An eyepiece graticule specifically designed forasbestos fiber counting. It consists of a circle with a projected diameter of100 plus or minus 2 um (area of about 0.00785 mm(2)) with a crosshair havingtic-marks at 3-um intervals in one direction and 5-um in the orthogonaldirection. There are marks around the periphery of the circle to demonstratethe proper sizes and shapes of fibers. This design is reproduced in Figure 2.The disk is placed in one of the microscope eyepieces so that the design issuperimposed on the field of view.

1.1. History

Early surveys to determine asbestos exposures were conducted using impingercounts of total dust with the counts expressed as million particles per cubicfoot. The British Asbestos Research Council recommended filter membranecounting in 1969. In July 1969, the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Healthpublished a filter membrane method for counting asbestos fibers in the UnitedStates. This method was refined by NIOSH and published as P&CAM 239. On May29, 1971, OSHA specified filter membrane sampling with phase contrastcounting for evaluation of asbestos exposures at work sites in the UnitedStates. The use of this technique was again required by OSHA in 1986. Phasecontrast microscopy has continued to be the method of choice for themeasurement of occupational exposure to asbestos.

1.2. Principle

Air is drawn through a MCE filter to capture airborne asbestos fibers. Awedge shaped portion of the filter is removed, placed on a glass microscopeslide and made transparent. A measured area (field) is viewed by PCM. All thefibers meeting a defined criteria for asbestos are counted and considered ameasure of the airborne asbestos concentration.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

There are four main advantages of PCM over other methods:

(1) The technique is specific for fibers. Phase contrast is a fiber countingtechnique which excludes non-fibrous particles from the analysis.

(2) The technique is inexpensive and does not require specialized knowledgeto carry out the analysis for total fiber counts.

(3) The analysis is quick and can be performed on-site for rapiddetermination of air concentrations of asbestos fibers.

(4) The technique has continuity with historical epidemiological studies sothat estimates of expected disease can be inferred from long-termdeterminations of asbestos exposures.

The main disadvantage of PCM is that it does not positively identifyasbestos fibers. Other fibers which are not asbestos may be included in thecount unless differential counting is performed. This requires a great dealof experience to adequately differentiate asbestos from non-asbestos fibers.Positive identification of asbestos must be performed by polarized light orelectron microscopy techniques. A further disadvantage of PCM is that thesmallest visible fibers are about 0.2 um in diameter while the finestasbestos fibers may be as small as 0.02 um in diameter. For some exposures,substantially more fibers may be present than are actually counted.

1.4. Workplace Exposure

Asbestos is used by the construction industry in such products as shingles,floor tiles, asbestos cement, roofing felts, insulation and acousticalproducts. Non-construction uses include brakes, clutch facings, paper,paints, plastics, and fabrics. One of the most significant exposures in theworkplace is the removal and encapsulation of asbestos in schools, publicbuildings, and homes. Many workers have the potential to be exposed toasbestos during these operations.

About 95% of the asbestos in commercial use in the United States ischrysotile. Crocidolite and amosite make up most of the remainder.Anthophyllite and tremolite or actinolite are likely to be encountered ascontaminants in various industrial products.

1.5. Physical Properties

Asbestos fiber possesses a high tensile strength along its axis, ischemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. It has a highelectrical resistance and good sound absorbing properties. It can be weavedinto cables, fabrics or other textiles, and also matted into asbestos papers,felts, or mats.

2. Range and Detection Limit

2.1. The ideal counting range on the filter is 100 to 1,300 fibers/mm(2).With a Walton-Beckett graticule this range is equivalent to 0.8 to 10fibers/field. Using NIOSH counting statistics, a count of 0.8 fibers/fieldwould give an approximate coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.13.

2.2. The detection limit for this method is 4.0 fibers per 100 fields or 5.5fibers/mm(2). This was determined using an equation to estimate the maximumCV possible at a specific concentration (95% confidence) and a Lower ControlLimit of zero. The CV value was then used to determine a correspondingconcentration from historical CV vs fiber relationships. As an example:

Lower Control Limit (95% Confidence) = AC -- 1.645(CV)(AC)

Where:

AC = Estimate of the airborne fiber concentration (fibers/cc)

Setting the Lower Control Limit = 0 and solving for CV:

0 = AC -- 1.645(CV)(AC) CV = 0.61 This value was compared with CV vs. countcurves. The count at which CV = 0.61 for Leidel-Busch counting statistics(8.9.) or for an OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center (OSHA-SLTC) CV curve (seeAppendix A for further information) was 4.4 fibers or 3.9 fibers per 100fields, respectively. Although a lower detection limit of 4 fibers per 100fields is supported by the OSHA-SLTC data, both data sets support the 4.5fibers per 100 fields value.

3. Method Performance -- Precision and Accuracy

Precision is dependent upon the total number of fibers counted and theuniformity of the fiber distribution on the filter. A general rule is tocount at least 20 and not more than 100 fields. The count is discontinuedwhen 100 fibers are counted, provided that 20 fields have already beencounted. Counting more than 100 fibers results in only a small gain inprecision. As the total count drops below 10 fibers, an accelerated loss ofprecision is noted.

At this time, there is no known method to determine the absolute accuracy ofthe asbestos analysis. Results of samples prepared through the ProficiencyAnalytical Testing (PAT) Program and analyzed by the OSHA-SLTC showed nosignificant bias when compared to PAT reference values. The PAT samples wereanalyzed from 1987 to 1989 (N=36) and the concentration range was from 120 to1,300 fibers/mm(2).

4. Interferences

Fibrous substances, if present, may interfere with asbestosanalysis. Some common fibers are:

Fiber glass........................ Perlite veins.

Anhydrite plant fibersgypsum...... Some synthetic fibers.

Membrane structures................Sponge spicules and diatoms.

Microorganisms.....................Wollastonite.

The use of electron microscopy or optical tests such as polarized light, anddispersion staining may be used to differentiate these materials fromasbestos when necessary.

5. Sampling

5.1. Equipment

5.1.1. Sample assembly (The assembly is shown in Figure 3). Conductivefilter holder consisting of a 25-mm diameter, 3-piece cassette having a 50-mmlong electrically conductive extension cowl. Backup pad, 25-mm, cellulose.Membrane filter, mixed-cellulose ester (MCE), 25-mm, plain, white, 0.8- to1.2-um pore size.

Notes: (a) DO NOT RE-USE CASSETTES. (b) Fully conductivecassettes are required to reduce fiber loss to the sides of the cassette dueto electrostatic attraction.(c) Purchase filters which have been selected by the manufacturer forasbestos counting or analyze representative filters for fiber backgroundbefore use. Discard the filter lot if more than 4 fibers/100 fields arefound.(d) To decrease the possibility of contamination, the sampling system(filter-backup pad-cassette) for asbestos is usually preassembled by themanufacturer.

5.1.2. Gel bands for sealing cassettes.

5.1.3. Sampling pump. Eachpump must be a battery operated, self-contained unit small enough to beplaced on the monitored employee and not interfere with the work beingperformed. The pump must be capable of sampling at 2.5 liters per minute(L/min) for the required sampling time.

5.1.4. Flexible tubing, 6-mm bore.

5.1.5. Pump calibration.Stopwatch and bubble tube/burette or electronic meter.

5.2. Sampling Procedure

5.2.1. Seal the point where the base and cowl of each cassette meet (seeFigure 3) with a gel band or tape.

5.2.2. Charge the pumps completely before beginning.

5.2.3. Connecteach pump to a calibration cassette with an appropriate length of 6-mm boreplastic tubing. Do not use luer connectors -- the type of cassette specifiedabove has built-in adapters.

5.2.4. Select an appropriate flow rate for the situation being monitored.The sampling flow rate must be between 0.5 and 5.0 L/min for personalsampling and is commonly set between 1 and 2 L/min. Always choose a flow ratethat will not produce overloaded filters.

5.2.5. Calibrate each sampling pump before and after sampling with acalibration cassette in-line (Note: This calibration cassette should be fromthe same lot of cassettes used for sampling). Use a primary standard (e.g.bubble burette) to calibrate each pump. If possible, calibrate at thesampling site.

Note: If sampling site calibration is not possible, environmentalinfluences may affect the flow rate. The extent is dependent on the type ofpump used. Consult with the pump manufacturer to determine dependence onenvironmental influences. If the pump is affected by temperature and pressurechanges, use the formula in Appendix B to this section to calculate theactual flow rate.

5.2.6. Connect each pump to the base of each sampling cassette with flexibletubing. Remove the end cap of each cassette and take each air sample openface. Assure that each sample cassette is held open side down in theemployee's breathing zone during sampling. The distance from the nose/mouthof the employee to the cassette should be about 10 cm. Secure the cassette onthe collar or lapel of the employee using spring clips or other similardevices.

5.2.7. A suggested minimum air volume when sampling to determine TWAcompliance is 25 L. For Excursion Limit (30 min sampling time) evaluations, aminimum air volume of 48 L is recommended.

5.2.8. The most significant problem when sampling for asbestos isoverloading the filter with non-asbestos dust. Suggested maximum air samplevolumes for specific environments are:

Caution: Do not overload the filter with dust. High levels of non-fibrousdust particles may obscure fibers on the filter and lower the count or makecounting impossible. If more than about 25 to 30% of the field area isobscured with dust, the result may be biased low. Smaller air volumes may benecessary when there is excessive non-asbestos dust in the air.

While sampling, observe the filter with a small flashlight. If there is avisible layer of dust on the filter, stop sampling, remove and seal thecassette, and replace with a new sampling assembly. The total dust loadingshould not exceed 1 mg.

5.2.9. Blank samples are used to determine if any contamination has occurredduring sample handling. Prepare two blanks for the first 1 to 20 samples. Forsets containing greater than 20 samples, prepare blanks as 10% of thesamples. Handle blank samples in the same manner as air samples with oneexception: Do not draw any air through the blank samples. Open the blankcassette in the place where the sample cassettes are mounted on the employee.Hold it open for about 30 seconds. Close and seal the cassette appropriately.Store blanks for shipment with the sample cassettes.

5.2.10. Immediately after sampling, close and seal each cassette with thebase and plastic plugs. Do not touch or puncture the filter membrane as thiswill invalidate the analysis.

5.2.11. Attach a seal (OSHA-21 or equivalent) around each cassette in such away as to secure the end cap plug and base plug. Tape the ends of the sealtogether since the seal is not long enough to be wrapped end-to-end. Alsowrap tape around the cassette at each joint to keep the seal secure.

5.3. Sample Shipment

5.3.1. Send the samples to the laboratory with paperwork requesting asbestosanalysis. List any known fibrous interferences present during sampling on thepaperwork. Also, note the workplace operation(s) sampled.

5.3.2. Secure and handle the samples in such that they will not rattleduring shipment nor be exposed to static electricity. Do not ship samples inexpanded polystyrene peanuts, vermiculite, paper shreds, or excelsior. Tapesample cassettes to sheet bubbles and place in a container that will cushionthe samples without rattling.

5.3.3. To avoid the possibility of sample contamination, always ship bulksamples in separate mailing containers.

6. Analysis

6.1. Safety Precautions

6.1.1. Acetone is extremely flammable and precautions must be taken not toignite it. Avoid using large containers or quantities of acetone. Transferthe solvent in a ventilated laboratory hood. Do not use acetone near any openflame. For generation of acetone vapor, use a spark free heat source.

6.1.2. Any asbestos spills should be cleaned up immediately to preventdispersal of fibers. Prudence should be exercised to avoid contamination oflaboratory facilities or exposure of personnel to asbestos. Asbestos spillsshould be cleaned up with wet methods and/ or a High EfficiencyParticulate-Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum.

Caution: Do not use a vacuum without a HEPA filter -- It will disperse fineasbestos fibers in the air.

6.2. Equipment

6.2.1. Phase contrast microscope with binocular or trinocular head.

6.2.2. Widefield or Huygenian 10X eyepieces (NOTE: The eyepiece containingthe graticule must be a focusing eyepiece. Use a 40X phase objective with anumerical aperture of 0.65 to 0.75).

6.2.3. Kohler illumination (if possible) with green or blue filter.6.2.4. Walton-Beckett Graticule, type G-22 with 100 plus or minus 2 umprojected diameter.

6.2.5. Mechanical stage. A rotating mechanical stage is convenient for usewith polarized light.

6.2.6. Phase telescope.

6.2.7. Stage micrometer with 0.01-mmsubdivisions.

6.2.8. Phase-shift test slide, mark II (Available from PTRoptics Ltd., and also McCrone).

6.2.9. Precleaned glass slides, 25 mm X 75 mm. One end can be frosted forconvenience in writing sample numbers, etc., or paste-on labels can be used.

6.2.10. Cover glass #1 1/2.

6.2.11. Scalpel (#10, curved blade).

6.2.12. Fine tipped forceps.

6.2.13. Aluminum block for clearing filter (seeAppendix D and Figure 4).

6.2.14. Automatic adjustable pipette, 100- to 500-uL.

6.2.15.Micropipette, 5 uL.

6.3. Reagents

6.3.1. Acetone (HPLC grade).

6.3.2. Triacetin (glycerol triacetate).

6.3.3. Lacquer or nail polish.

6.4. Standard Preparation

A way to prepare standard asbestos samples of known concentration has notbeen developed. It is possible to prepare replicate samples of nearly equalconcentration. This has been performed through the PAT program. Theseasbestos samples are distributed by the AIHA to participating laboratories.

Since only about one-fourth of a 25-mm sample membrane is required for anasbestos count, any PAT sample can serve as a "standard" for replicatecounting.

6.5. Sample Mounting

Note: See Safety Precautions in Section 6.1. before proceeding. Theobjective is to produce samples with a smooth (non-grainy) background in amedium with a refractive index of approximately 1.46. The technique belowcollapses the filter for easier focusing and produces permanent mounts whichare useful for quality control and interlaboratory comparison.

An aluminum block or similar device is required for samplepreparation.

6.5.1. Heat the aluminum block to about 70 deg. C. The hot blockshould not be used on any surface that can be damaged by either the heat orfrom exposure to acetone.

6.5.2. Ensure that the glass slides and cover glasses are free of dust andfibers.

6.5.3. Remove the top plug to prevent a vacuum when the cassette is opened.Clean the outside of the cassette if necessary. Cut the seal and/or tape onthe cassette with a razor blade. Very carefully separate the base from theextension cowl, leaving the filter and backup pad in the base.

6.5.4. With a rocking motion cut a triangular wedge from the filter usingthe scalpel. This wedge should be one-sixth to one- fourth of the filter.Grasp the filter wedge with the forceps on the perimeter of the filter whichwas clamped between the cassette pieces. DO NOT TOUCH the filter with yourfinger. Place the filter on the glass slide sample side up. Staticelectricity will usually keep the filter on the slide until it is cleared.

6.5.5. Place the tip of the micropipette containing about 200 uL acetoneinto the aluminum block. Insert the glass slide into the receiving slot inthe aluminum block. Inject the acetone into the block with slow, steadypressure on the plunger while holding the pipette firmly in place. Wait 3 to5 seconds for the filter to clear, then remove the pipette and slide from thealuminum block.

6.5.6. Immediately (less than 30 seconds) place 2.5 to 3.5 uL of triacetinon the filter (Note: Waiting longer than 30 seconds will result inincreased index of refraction and decreased contrast between the fibers andthe preparation. This may also lead to separation of the cover slip from theslide).

6.5.7. Lower a cover slip gently onto the filter at a slight angle to reducethe possibility of forming air bubbles. If more than 30 seconds have elapsedbetween acetone exposure and triacetin application, glue the edges of thecover slip to the slide with lacquer or nail polish.

6.5.8. If clearing is slow, warm the slide for 15 min on a hot plate havinga surface temperature of about 50 deg. C to hasten clearing. The top of thehot block can be used if the slide is not heated too long.

6.5.9. Counting may proceed immediately after clearing and mounting arecompleted.

6.6. Sample Analysis

Completely align the microscope according to the manufacturer'sinstructions. Then, align the microscope using the following generalalignment routine at the beginning of every counting session and more oftenif necessary.

6.6.1. Alignment

(1) Clean all optical surfaces. Even a small amount of dirt cansignificantly degrade the image.

(2) Rough focus the objective on a sample.

(3) Close down the fieldiris so that it is visible in the field of view. Focus the image of the iriswith the condenser focus. Center the image of the iris in the field ofview.

(4) Install the phase telescope and focus on the phase rings. Criticallycenter the rings. Misalignment of the rings results in astigmatism which willdegrade the image.

(5) Place the phase-shift test slide on the microscope stage and focus onthe lines. The analyst must see line set 3 and should see at least parts of 4and 5 but, not see line set 6 or 6. A microscope/microscopist combinationwhich does not pass this test may not be used.

6.6.2. Counting Fibers

(1) Place the prepared sample slide on the mechanical stage of themicroscope. Position the center of the wedge under the objective lens andfocus upon the sample.

(2) Start counting from one end of the wedge and progress along a radialline to the other end (count in either direction from perimeter to wedgetip). Select fields randomly, without looking into the eyepieces, by slightlyadvancing the slide in one direction with the mechanical stage control.

(3) Continually scan over a range of focal planes (generally the upper 10 to15 um of the filter surface) with the fine focus control during each fieldcount. Spend at least 5 to 15 seconds per field.

(4) Most samples will contain asbestos fibers with fiber diameters less than1 um. Look carefully for faint fiber images. The small diameter fibers willbe very hard to see. However, they are an important contribution to the totalcount.

(5) Count only fibers equal to or longer than 5 um. Measure the length ofcurved fibers along the curve.

(6) Count fibers which have a length to width ratio of 3:1 orgreater.

(7) Count all the fibers in at least 20 fields. Continue countinguntil either 100 fibers are counted or 100 fields have been viewed; whicheveroccurs first. Count all the fibers in the final field.

(8) Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton- Beckettgraticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing the boundaryonce, having one end within the circle shall receive a count of 1/2. Do notcount any fiber that crosses the graticule boundary more than once. Rejectand do not count any other fibers even though they may be visible outside thegraticule area. If a fiber touches the circle, it is considered to cross theline.

(9) Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual fibers can beclearly identified and each individual fiber is clearly not connected toanother counted fiber. See Figure 2 for counting conventions.

(10) Record the number of fibers in each field in a consistent way such thatfilter non-uniformity can be assessed.

(11) Regularly check phase ring alignment.

(12) When an agglomerate(mass of material) covers more than 25% of the field of view, reject thefield and select another. Do not include it in the number of fieldscounted.

(13) Perform a "blind recount" of 1 in every 10 filter wedges (slides).Re-label the slides using a person other than the original counter.

6.7. Fiber Identification

As previously mentioned in Section 1.3., PCM does not provide positiveconfirmation of asbestos fibers. Alternate differential counting techniquesshould be used if discrimination is desirable. Differential counting mayinclude primary discrimination based on morphology, polarized light analysisof fibers, or modification of PCM data by Scanning Electron or TransmissionElectron Microscopy.

A great deal of experience is required to routinely and correctly performdifferential counting. It is discouraged unless it is legally necessary.Then, only if a fiber is obviously not asbestos should it be excluded fromthe count. Further discussion of this technique can be found in reference8.10.

If there is a question whether a fiber is asbestos or not, follow the rule:

"WHEN IN DOUBT, COUNT."

6.8. Analytical Recommendations -- Quality Control System

6.8.1. All individuals performing asbestos analysis must have taken theNIOSH course for sampling and evaluating airborne asbestos or an equivalentcourse.

6.8.2. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall set up a slidetrading arrangement with at least two other laboratories in order to compareperformance and eliminate inbreeding of error. The slide exchange occurs atleast semiannually. The round robin results shall be posted where allanalysts can view individual analyst's results.

6.8.3. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall participate in theProficiency Analytical Testing Program, the Asbestos Analyst Registry orequivalent.

6.8.4. Each analyst shall select and count prepared slides from a "slidebank". These are quality assurance counts. The slide bank shall be preparedusing uniformly distributed samples taken from the workload. Fiber densitiesshould cover the entire range routinely analyzed by the laboratory. Theseslides are counted blind by all counters to establish an original standarddeviation. This historical distribution is compared with the qualityassurance counts. A counter must have 95% of all quality control samplescounted within three standard deviations of the historical mean. This countis then integrated into a new historical mean and standard deviation for theslide.

The analyses done by the counters to establish the slide bank may be usedfor an interim quality control program if the data are treated in a properstatistical fashion.

7. Calculations

7.1. Calculate the estimated airborne asbestos fiber concentration on thefilter sample using the following formula:

Note: The collection area of a filter is seldom equal to 385 mm(2). Itis appropriate for laboratories to routinely monitor the exact diameterusing an inside micrometer. The collection area is calculated according tothe formula:

Area = Pie(d/2)(2)

7.2. Short-cut Calculation

Since a given analyst always has the same interpupillary distance, thenumber of fields per filter for a particular analyst will remain constant fora given size filter. The field size for that analyst is constant (i.e. theanalyst is using an assigned microscope and is not changing the reticle).

For example, if the exposed area of the filter is always 385 mm(2) and thesize of the field is always 0.00785 mm(2), the number of fields per filterwill always be 49,000. In addition it is necessary to convert liters of airto cc. These three constants can then be combined such that ECA/(1,000 X MFA)= 49. The previous equation simplifies to:

7.3. Recount Calculations

As mentioned in step 13 of Section 6.6.2., a "blind recount" of 10% of theslides is performed. In all cases, differences will be observed between thefirst and second counts of the same filter wedge. Most of these differenceswill be due to chance alone, that is, due to the random variability(precision) of the count method. Statistical recount criteria enables one todecide whether observed differences can be explained due to chance alone orare probably due to systematic differences between analysts, microscopes, orother biasing factors.

The following recount criterion is for a pair of counts that estimate AC infibers/cc. The criterion is given at the type-I error level. That is, thereis 5% maximum risk that we will reject a pair of counts for the reason thatone might be biased, when the large observed difference is really due tochance.

Reject a pair of counts if:

If a pair of counts are rejected by this criterion then, recount the rest ofthe filters in the submitted set. Apply the test and reject any other pairsfailing the test. Rejection shall include a memo to the industrial hygieniststating that the sample failed a statistical test for homogeneity and thetrue air concentration may be significantly different than the reportedvalue.

7.4. Reporting Results

Report results to the industrial hygienist as fibers/cc. Use two significantfigures. If multiple analyses are performed on a sample, an average of theresults is to be reported unless any of the results can be rejected forcause.

8. References

8.1. Dreesen, W.C., et al, U.S. Public Health Service: A Study of Asbestosisin the Asbestos Textile Industry, (Public Health Bulletin No. 241), USTreasury Dept., Washington, DC, 1938.

8.2. Asbestos Research Council: The Measurement of Airborne Asbestos Dust bythe Membrane Filter Method (Technical Note), Asbestos Research Council,Rockdale, Lancashire, Great Britain, 1969.

8.3. Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Brown, T.A., Equipment and Procedure forMounting Millipore Filters and Counting Asbestos Fibers by Phase ContrastMicroscopy, Bureau of Occupational Health, U.S. Dept. of Health, Educationand Welfare, Cincinnati,OH,1969.

8.4. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd ed., Vol. 1 (DHEW/ NIOSH Pub.No. 77-157-A). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,Cincinnati, OH, 1977.pp.239-1-239-21.

8.5. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1001. 1971.

8.6. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, andActinolite. Final Rule, Federal Register 51: 119 (20 June 1986).pp.22612-22790.

8.7. Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite, Code of FederalRegulations 1910.1001. 1988. pp 711-752.

8.8. Criteria for a Recommended Standard -- Occupational Exposure toAsbestos (DHEW/NIOSH Pub. No. HSM 72-10267), National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health NIOSH, Cincinnati, OH, 1972. pp. III-1-III-24.

8.9. Leidel, N.A., Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Busch, K.A., USPHS/NIOSHMembrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne Asbestos Fibers (DHEW/NIOSHPub. No. 79-127). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,Cincinnati, OH, 1979.

8.10. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in Analysis ofAsbestos and Quartz, Analytical Techniques in Occupational Health Chemistry,edited by D.D. Dollberg and A.W. Verstuyft. Wash. D.C.: American ChemicalSociety, (ACS Symposium Series 120) 1980. pp. 13-41.

Quality Control

The OSHA asbestos regulations require each laboratory to establish a qualitycontrol program. The following is presented as an example of how theOSHA-SLTC constructed its internal CV curve as part of meeting thisrequirement. Data for the CV curve shown below is from 395 samples collectedduring OSHA compliance inspections and analyzed from October 1980 throughApril 1986.

Each sample was counted by 2 to 5 different counters independently of oneanother. The standard deviation and the CV statistic was calculated for eachsample. This data was then plotted on a graph of CV vs. fibers/mm(2). A leastsquares regression was performed using the following equation:

CV=antilog(10)[A(log(10)(x))(2) + B(log(10)(x)) + C]

Where:

x = the number of fibers/mm(2)

Application of least squares gave:

A = 0.182205
B = - 0.973343
C = 0.327499

Using these values, the equation becomes:

CV = antilog(10)[0.182205(log(10)

(x))(2) - 0.973343(log (10)(x)) + 0.327499]

Sampling Pump Flow Rate Corrections

This correction is used if a difference greater than 5% in ambienttemperature and/or pressure is noted between calibration and sampling sitesand the pump does not compensate for the differences.

Walton-Beckett Graticule

When ordering the Graticule for asbestos counting, specify the exact discdiameter needed to fit the ocular of the microscope and the diameter (mm) ofthe circular counting area. Instructions for measuring the dimensionsnecessary are listed:

(1) Insert any available graticule into the focusing eyepiece and focus sothat the graticule lines are sharp and clear.

(2) Align the microscope.

(3) Place a stage micrometer on themicroscope object stage and focus the microscope on the graduatedlines.

(4) Measure the magnified grid length, PL (um), using the stage micrometer.

(5) Remove the graticule from the microscope and measure its actual gridlength, AL (mm). This can be accomplished by using a mechanical stage fittedwith verniers, or a jeweler's loupe with a direct reading scale.

(6) Let D=100 um. Calculate the circle diameter, d(c)(mm), for theWalton-Beckett graticule and specify the diameter when making a purchase:

Example: If PL=108 um, AL=2.93 mm and D=100 um, then,

(7) Each eyepiece-objective-reticle combination on the microscope must becalibrated. Should any of the three be changed (by zoom adjustment,disassembly, replacement, etc.), the combination must be recalibrated.Calibration may change if interpupillary distance is changed.

Measure the field diameter, D (acceptable range: 100 plus or minus 2 um)with a stage micrometer upon receipt of the graticule from the manufacturer.Determine the field area (mm(2)).

Field Area = Pie(D/2)(2) If D = 100 um = 0.1 mm, then Field Area = Pie(0.1mm/2)(2) = 0.00785 mm(2)

The Graticule is available from: Graticules Ltd., Morley Road, Tonbridge TN9IRN, Kent, England (Telephone 011-44-732-359061). Also available from PTROptics Ltd., 145 Newton Street, Waltham, MA 02154 [telephone (617) 891-6000]or McCrone Accessories and Components, 2506 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL60616 [phone (312) 842-7100]. The graticule is custom made for eachmicroscope.

Appendix C to 1915.1001 -- Qualitative and Quantitative Fit TestingProcedures. Mandatory

Qualitative Fit Test Protocols

I. Isoamyl Acetate Protocol

A. Odor threshold screening. 1. Three 1-liter glass jars with metal lids(e.g. Mason or Bell jars) are required.

2. Odor-free water (e.g. distilled or spring water) at approximately 25deg.C shall be used for the solutions.

3. The isoamyl acetate (IAA)(also known as isopentyl acetate) stock solutionis prepared by adding 1 cc of pure IAA to 800 cc of odor free water in a1-liter jar and shaking for 30 seconds. This solution shall be prepared newat least weekly.

4. The screening test shall be conducted in a room separate from the roomused for actual fit testing. The two rooms shall be well ventilated but shallnot be connected to the same recirculating ventilation system.

5. The odor test solution is prepared in a second jar by placing 0.4 cc ofthe stock solution into 500 cc of odor free water using a clean dropper orpipette. Shake for 30 seconds and allow to stand for two to three minutes sothat the IAA concentration above the liquid may reach equilibrium. Thissolution may be used for only one day.

6. A test blank is prepared in a third jar by adding 500 cc of odor freewater.

7. The odor test and test blank jars shall be labelled 1 and 2 for jaridentification. If the labels are put on the lids they can be periodicallypeeled, dried off and switched to maintain the integrity of the test.

8. The following instructions shall be typed on a card and placed on thetable in front of the two test jars (i.e. 1 and 2): "The purpose of this testis to determine if you can smell banana oil at a low concentration. The twobottles in front of you contain water. One of these bottles also contains asmall amount of banana oil. Be sure the covers are on tight, then shake eachbottle for two seconds. Unscrew the lid of each bottle, one at a time, andsniff at the mouth of the bottle. Indicate to the test conductor which bottlecontains banana oil."

9. The mixtures used in the IAA odor detection test shall be prepared in anarea separate from where the test is performed, in order to prevent olfactoryfatigue in the subject.

10. If the test subject is unable to correctly identify the jar containingthe odor test solution, the IAA qualitative fit test may not be used.

11. If the test subject correctly identifies the jar containing the odortest solution, the test subject may proceed to respirator selection and fittesting.

B. Respirator Selection. 1. The test subject shall be allowed to pick themost comfortable respirator from a selection including respirators of varioussizes from different manufacturers. The selection shall include at least fivesizes of elastomeric half facepieces, from at least two manufacturers.

2. The selection process shall be conducted in a room separate from thefit-test chamber to prevent odor fatigue. Prior to the selection process, thetest subject shall be shown how to put on a respirator, how it should bepositioned on the face, how to set strap tension and how to determine a"comfortable" respirator. A mirror shall be available to assist the subjectin evaluating the fit and positioning of the respirator. This instruction maynot constitute the subject's formal training on respirator use, as it is onlya review.

3. The test subject should understand that the employee is being asked toselect the respirator which provides the most comfortable fit. Eachrespirator represents a different size and shape and, if fit properly andused properly will provide adequate protection.

4. The test subject holds each facepiece up to the face and eliminates thosewhich obviously do not give a comfortable fit. Normally, selection will beginwith a half-mask and if a good fit cannot be found, the subject will be askedto test the full facepiece respirators. (A small percentage of users will notbe able to wear any half-mask.) 5. The more comfortable facepieces are noted;the most comfortable mask is donned and worn at least five minutes to assesscomfort. All donning and adjustments of the facepiece shall be performed bythe test subject without assistance from the test conductor or other person.Assistance in assessing comfort can be given by discussing the points in #6below. If the test subject is not familiar with using a particularrespirator, the test subject shall be directed to don the mask several timesand to adjust the straps each time to become adept at setting proper tensionon the straps.

6. Assessment of comfort shall include reviewing the following points withthe test subject and allowing the test subject adequate time to determine thecomfort of the respirator:

* Positioning of mask on nose. * Room for eye protection. *Room to talk. * Positioning mask on face and cheeks.

* Chin properly placed. * Strap tension. * Fit across nosebridge. * Distance from nose to chin. * Tendency to slip. *Self-observation in mirror.

8. The test subject shall conduct theconventional negative and positive-pressure fit checks (e.g. see ANSIZ88.2-1980). Before conducting the negative- or positive-pressure test thesubject shall be told to "seat" the mask by rapidly moving the head fromside-to-side and up and down, while taking a few deep breaths.

9. The test subject is now ready for fit testing.

10. After passingthe fit test, the test subject shall be questioned again regarding thecomfort of the respirator. If it has become uncomfortable, another model ofrespirator shall be tried.

11. The employee shall be given the opportunity to select a differentfacepiece and be retested if the chosen facepiece becomes increasinglyuncomfortable at any time.

C. Fit test. 1. The fit test chamber shall be similar to a clear 55 gal drumliner suspended inverted over a 2 foot diameter frame, so that the top of thechamber is about 6 inches above the test subject's head. The inside topcenter of the chamber shall have a small hook attached.

2. Each respirator used for the fitting and fit testing shall be equippedwith organic vapor cartridges or offer protection against organic vapors. Thecartridges or masks shall be changed at least weekly.

3. After selecting, donning, and properly adjusting a respirator, the testsubject shall wear it to the fit testing room. This room shall be separatefrom the room used for odor threshold screening and respirator selection, andshall be well ventilated, as by an exhaust fan or lab hood, to preventgeneral room contamination.

4. A copy of the following test exercises and rainbow passage shall be tapedto the inside of the test chamber:

Test Exercises

i. Breathe normally.

ii. Breathe deeply. Be certain breaths are deepand regular.

iii. Turn head all the way from one side to the other. Inhale oneach side. Be certain movement is complete. Do not bump the respiratoragainst the shoulders.

iv. Nod head up-and-down. Inhale when head is in the full up position(looking toward ceiling). Be certain motions are complete and made aboutevery second. Do not bump the respirator on the chest.

v. Talking. Talk aloud and slowly for several minutes. The followingparagraph is called the Rainbow Passage. Reading it will result in a widerange of facial movements, and thus be useful to satisfy this requirement.Alternative passages which serve the same purpose may also be used.

vi. Jogging in place. vii. Breathe normally.

Rainbow Passage

When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism andform a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautifulcolors. These take the shape of a long round arch, with its path high above,and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon. There is, according tolegend, a boiling pot of gold at one end. People look, but no one ever findsit. When a man looks for something beyond reach, his friends say he islooking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

5. Each test subject shall wear the respirator for at a least 10 minutesbefore starting the fit test.

6. Upon entering the test chamber, the test subject shall be given a 6 inchby 5 inch piece of paper towel or other porous absorbent single ply material,folded in half and wetted with three- quarters of one cc of pure IAA. Thetest subject shall hang the wet towel on the hook at the top of the chamber.

7. Allow two minutes for the IAA test concentration to be reached beforestarting the fit-test exercises. This would be an appropriate time to talkwith the test subject, to explain the fit test, the importance ofcooperation, the purpose for the head exercises, or to demonstrate some ofthe exercises.

8. Each exercise described in #4 above shall be performed for at least oneminute.

9. If at any time during the test, the subject detects the banana-like odorof IAA, the test has failed. The subject shall quickly exit from the testchamber and leave the test area to avoid olfactory fatigue.

10. If the test is failed, the subject shall return to the selection roomand remove the respirator, repeat the odor sensitivity test, select and puton another respirator, return to the test chamber, and again begin theprocedure described in the c(4) through c(8) above. The process continuesuntil a respirator that fits well has been found. Should the odor sensitivitytest be failed, the subject shall wait about 5 minutes before retesting. Odorsensitivity will usually have returned by this time.

11. If a person cannot pass the fit test described above wearing a half-maskrespirator from the available selection, full facepiece models must be used.

12. When a respirator is found that passes the test, the subject breaks thefaceseal and takes a breath before exiting the chamber. This is to assurethat the reason the test subject is not smelling the IAA is the good fit ofthe respirator facepiece seal and not olfactory fatigue.

13. When the test subject leaves the chamber, the subject shall remove thesaturated towel and return it to the person conducting the test. To keep thearea from becoming contaminated, the used towels shall be kept in aself-sealing bag so there is no significant IAA concentration buildup in thetest chamber during subsequent tests.

14. At least two facepieces shall be selected for the IAA test protocol. Thetest subject shall be given the opportunity to wear them for one week tochoose the one which is more comfortable to wear.

15. Persons who have successfully passed this fit test with a half-maskrespirator may be assigned the use of the test respirator in atmospheres withup to 10 times the PEL of airborne asbestos. In atmospheres greater than 10times, and less than 100 times the PEL (up to 100 ppm), the subject must passthe IAA test using a full face negative pressure respirator. (Theconcentration of the 1AA inside the test chamber must be increased by tentimes for QLFT of the full facepiece.) 16. The test shall not be conducted ifthere is any hair growth between the skin the facepiece sealing surface.

17. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory fit, then theyshall be altered or removed so as to eliminate interference and allow asatisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is still not attained, the testsubject must use a positive-pressure respirator such as powered air-purifyingrespirators, supplied air respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus.

18. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during the tests, sheor he shall be referred to a physician trained in respirator diseases orpulmonary medicine to determine whether the test subject can wear arespirator while performing her or his duties.

19. Qualitative fit testing shall be repeated at least every sixmonths.

20. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may beaffected, qualitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when the testsubject has a:

(1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more, (2) Significant facialscarring in the area of the facepiece seal, (3) Significant dental changes;i.e.; multiple extractions without prothesis, or acquiring dentures, (4)Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or (5) Any other condition that mayinterfere with facepiece sealing.

D. Recordkeeping. A summary of all testresults shall be maintained in each office for 3 years. The summary shallinclude:

(1) Name of test subject. (2) Date of testing. (3) Name of the testconductor. (4) Respirators selected (indicate manufacturer, model, size andapproval number).(5) Testing agent.

II. Saccharin Solution Aerosol Protocol

A. Respirator selection. Respirators shall be selected as described insection IB (respirator selection) above, except that each respirator shall beequipped with a particulate filter.

B. Taste Threshold Screening. 1. An enclosure about head andshoulders shall be used for threshold screening (to determine if theindividual can taste saccharin) and for fit testing. The enclosure shall beapproximately 12 inches in diameter by 14 inches tall with at least the frontclear to allow free movement of the head when a respirator is worn.

2. The test enclosure shall have a three-quarter inch hole in front of thetest subject's nose and mouth area to accommodate the nebulizer nozzle.

3. The entire screening and testing procedure shall be explained to the testsubject prior to conducting the screening test.

4. During the threshold screening test, the test subject shall don the testenclosure and breathe with open mouth with tongue extended.

5. Using a DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer or equivalent,the test conductor shall spray the threshold check solution into theenclosure. This nebulizer shall be clearly marked to distinguish it from thefit test solution nebulizer.

6. The threshold check solution consists of 0.83 grams of sodium saccharin,USP in water. It can be prepared by putting 1 cc of the test solution (see C7 below) in 100 cc of water.

7. To produce the aerosol, the nebulizer bulb is firmly squeezed so that itcollapses completely, then is released and allowed to fully expand.

8. Ten squeezes of the nebulizer bulb are repeated rapidly and then the testsubject is asked whether the saccharin can be tasted.

9. If the first response is negative, ten more squeezes of the nebulizerbulb are repeated rapidly and the test subject is again asked whether thesaccharin can be tasted.

10. If the second response is negative ten more squeezes are repeatedrapidly and the test subject is again asked whether the saccharin can betasted.

11. The test conductor will take note of the number of squeezes required toelicit a taste response.

12. If the saccharin is not tasted after 30 squeezes (Step 10), thesaccharin fit test cannot be performed on the test subject.

13. If a taste response is elicited, the test subject shall be asked to takenote of the taste for reference in the fit test.

14. Correct use of the nebulizer means that approximately 1 cc of liquid isused at a time in the nebulizer body.

15. The nebulizer shall be thoroughly rinsed in water, shaken dry, andrefilled at least every four hours.

C. Fit test. 1. The test subject shall don and adjust the respirator withoutthe assistance from any person.

2. The fit test uses the same enclosure described in IIB above.

3.Each test subject shall wear the respirator for a least 10 minutes beforestarting the fit test.

4. The test subject shall don the enclosure while wearing the respiratorselected in section IB above. This respirator shall be properly adjusted andequipped with a particulate filter.

5. The test subject may not eat, drink (except plain water), or chew gum for15 minutes before the test.

6. A second DeVilbiss Model 40 Inhalation Medication Nebulizer is used tospray the fit test solution into the enclosure. This nebulizer shall beclearly marked to distinguish it from the screening test solution nebulizer.

7. The fit test solution is prepared by adding 83 grams of sodium saccharinto 100 cc of warm water.

8. As before, the test subject shall breathe with mouth open and tongueextended.

9. The nebulizer is inserted into the hole in the front of the enclosure andthe fit test solution is sprayed into the enclosure using the same techniqueas for the taste threshold screening and the same number of squeezes requiredto elicit a taste response in the screening. (See B8 through B10 above).

10. After generation of the aerosol read the following instructions to thetest subject. The test subject shall perform the exercises for one minuteeach.

i. Breathe normally. ii. Breathe deeply. Be certain breaths are deepand regular. iii. Turn head all the way from one side to the other. Becertain movement is complete. Inhale on each side. Do not bump the respiratoragainst the shoulders.iv. Nod head up-and-down. Be certain motions are complete. Inhale when headis in the full up position (when looking toward the ceiling). Do not to bumpthe respirator on the chest.v. Talking. Talk aloud and slowly for several minutes. The followingparagraph is called the Rainbow Passage. Reading it will result in a widerange of facial movements, and thus be useful to satisfy this requirement.Alternative passages which serve the same purpose may also be used.vi. Jogging in place. vii. Breathe normally.

Rainbow Passage

When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism andform a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautifulcolors. These take the shape of a long round arch, with its path high above,and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon. There is, according tolegend, a boiling pot of gold at one end. People look, but no one ever findsit. When a man looks for something beyond his reach, his friends say he islooking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

11. At the beginning of each exercise, the aerosol concentration shall bereplenished using one-half the number of squeezes as initially described inC9.

12. The test subject shall indicate to the test conductor if at any timeduring the fit test the taste of saccharin is detected.

13. If the saccharin is detected the fit is deemed unsatisfactory and adifferent respirator shall be tried.

14. At least two facepieces shall be selected by the IAA test protocol. Thetest subject shall be given the opportunity to wear them for one week tochoose the one which is more comfortable to wear.

15. Successful completion of the test protocol shall allow the use of thehalf mask tested respirator in contaminated atmospheres up to 10 times thePEL of asbestos. In other words this protocol may be used assign protectionfactors no higher than ten.

16. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth between theskin and the facepiece sealing surface.

17. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory fit, then theyshall be altered or removed so as to eliminate interference and allow asatisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is still not attained, the testsubject must use a positive-pressure respirator such as powered air-purifyingrespirators, supplied air respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus.

18. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during the tests, sheor he shall be referred to a physician trained in respirator diseases orpulmonary medicine to determine whether the test subject can wear arespirator while performing her or his duties.

19. Qualitative fit testing shall be repeated at least every sixmonths.

20. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may beaffected, qualitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when the testsubject has a:

(1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more, (2) Significant facialscarring in the area of the facepiece seal, (3) Significant dental changes;i.e.; multiple extractions without prothesis, or acquiring dentures, (4)Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or (5) Any other condition that mayinterfere with facepiece sealing.

D. Recordkeeping. A summary of all testresults shall be maintained in each office for 3 years. The summary shallinclude:

(1) Name of test subject (2) Date of testing. (3) Name of testconductor. (4) Respirators selected (indicate manufacturer, model, size andapproval number).(5) Testing agent.

III. Irritant Fume Protocol

A. Respirator selection. Respirators shall be selected as described insection IB above, except that each respirator shall be equipped with acombination of high-efficiency and acid-gas cartridges.

B. Fit test. 1. The test subject shall be allowed to smell a weakconcentration of the irritant smoke to familiarize the subject with thecharacteristic odor.

2. The test subject shall properly don the respirator selected as above, andwear it for at least 10 minutes before starting the fit test.

3. The test conductor shall review this protocol with the test subjectbefore testing.

4. The test subject shall perform the conventional positive pressure andnegative pressure fit checks (see ANSI Z88.2 1980). Failure of either checkshall be cause to select an alternate respirator.

5. Break both ends of a ventilation smoke tube containing stannicoxychloride, such as the MSA part #5645, or equivalent. Attach a short lengthof tubing to one end of the smoke tube. Attach the other end of the smoketube to a low pressure air pump set to deliver 200 milliliters per minute.

6. Advise the test subject that the smoke can be irritating to the eyes andinstruct the subject to keep the eyes closed while the test is performed.

7. The test conductor shall direct the stream of irritant smoke from thetube towards the faceseal area of the test subject. The person conducting thetest shall begin with the tube at least 12 inches from the facepiece andgradually move to within one inch, moving around the whole perimeter of themask.

8. The test subject shall be instructed to do the following exercises whilethe respirator is being challenged by the smoke. Each exercise shall beperformed for one minute.

i. Breathe normally. ii. Breathe deeply. Be certain breaths are deepand regular. iii. Turn head all the way from one side to the other. Becertain movement is complete. Inhale on each side. Do not bump the respiratoragainst the shoulders.iv. Nod head up-and-down. Be certain motions are complete and made everysecond. Inhale when head is in the full up position (looking toward ceiling).Do not bump the respirator against the chest.v. Talking. Talk aloud and slowly for several minutes. The followingparagraph is called the Rainbow Passage. Reading it will result in a widerange of facial movements, and thus be useful to satisfy this requirement.Alternative passages which serve the same purpose may also be used.

Rainbow Passage

When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism andform a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautifulcolors. These take the shape of a long round arch, with its path high above,and its two end apparently beyond the horizon. There is, according to legend,a boiling pot of gold at one end. People look, but no one ever finds it. Whena man looks for something beyond his reach, his friends say he is looking forthe pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

vi. Jogging in Place. vii. Breathe normally.

9. The test subjectshall indicate to the test conductor if the irritant smoke is detected. Ifsmoke is detected, the test conductor shall stop the test. In this case, thetested respirator is rejected and another respirator shall beselected.

10. Each test subject passing the smoke test (i.e. without detecting thesmoke) shall be given a sensitivity check of smoke from the same tube todetermine if the test subject reacts to the smoke. Failure to evoke aresponse shall void the fit test.

11. Steps B4, B9, B10 of this fit test protocol shall be performed in alocation with exhaust ventilation sufficient to prevent general contaminationof the testing area by the test agents.

12. At least two facepieces shall be selected by the IAA test protocol. Thetest subject shall be given the opportunity to wear them for one week tochoose the one which is more comfortable to wear.

13. Respirators successfully tested by the protocol may be used incontaminated atmospheres up to ten times the PEL of asbestos.

14. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth between theskin and the facepiece sealing surface.

15. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactory fit, then theyshall be altered or removed so as to eliminate interference and allow asatisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is still not attained, the testsubject must use a positive-pressure respirator such as powered air-purifyingrespirators, supplied air respirator, or self-contained breathing apparatus.

16. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during the tests, sheor he shall be referred to a physician trained in respirator diseases orpulmonary medicine to determine whether the test subject can wear arespirator while performing her or his duties.

17. Qualitative fit testing shall be repeated at least every sixmonths.

18. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may beaffected, qualitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when the testsubject has a:

(1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more, (2) Significant facialscarring in the area of the facepiece seal, (3) Significant dental changes;i.e.; multiple extractions without prothesis, or acquiring dentures, (4)Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or (5) Any other condition that mayinterfere with facepiece sealing.

D. Recordkeeping. A summary of all testresults shall be maintained in each office for 3 years. The summary shallinclude:

(1) Name of test subject (2) Date of testing. (3) Name of testconductor. (4) Respirators selected (indicate manufacturer, model, size andapproval number).(5) Testing agent

Quantitative Fit Test Procedures

1. General

a. The method applies to the negative-pressure non-powered air-purifyingrespirators only.

b. The employer shall assign one individual who shall assume the fullresponsibility for implementing the respirator quantitative fit test program.

2. Definition

a. "Quantitative Fit Test" means the measurement of the effectiveness of arespirator seal in excluding the ambient atmosphere. The test is performed bydividing the measured concentration of challenge agent in a test chamber bythe measured concentration of the challenge agent inside the respiratorfacepiece when the normal air purifying element has been replaced by anessentially perfect purifying element.

b. "Challenge Agent" means the air contaminant introduced into a testchamber so that its concentration inside and outside the respirator may becompared.

c. "Test Subject" means the person wearing the respirator for quantitativefit testing.

d. "Normal Standing Position" means standing erect and straight with armsdown along the sides and looking straight ahead.

e. "Fit Factor" means the ratio of challenge agent concentration outsidewith respect to the inside of a respirator inlet covering (facepiece orenclosure).

3. Apparatus

a. Instrumentation. Corn oil, sodium chloride or other appropriate aerosolgeneration, dilution, and measurement systems shall be used for quantitativefit test.

b. Test chamber. The test chamber shall be large enough to permit all testsubjects to freely perform all required exercises without distributing thechallenge agent concentration or the measurement apparatus. The test chambershall be equipped and constructed so that the challenge agent is effectivelyisolated from the ambient air yet uniform in concentration throughout thechamber.

c. When testing air-purifying respirators, the normal filter or cartridgeelement shall be replaced with a high-efficiency particular filter suppliedby the same manufacturer.

d. The sampling instrument shall be selected so that a strip chart recordmay be made of the test showing the rise and fall of challenge agentconcentration with each inspiration and expiration at fit factors of at least2,000.

e. The combination of substitute air-purifying elements (if any), challengeagent, and challenge agent concentration in the test chamber shall be suchthat the test subject is not exposed in excess of PEL to the challenge agentat any time during the testing process.

f. The sampling port on the test specimen respirator shall be placed andconstructed so that there is no detectable leak around the port, a free airflow is allowed into the sampling line at all times and so there is nointerference with the fit or performance of the respirator.

g. The test chamber and test set-up shall permit the person administeringthe test to observe one test subject inside the chamber during the test.

h. The equipment generating the challenge atmosphere shall maintain theconcentration of challenge agent constant within a 10 percent variation forthe duration of the test.

i. The time lag (interval between an event and its being recorded on thestrip chart) of the instrumentation may not exceed 2 seconds.

j. The tubing for the test chamber atmosphere and for the respiratorsampling port shall be the same diameter, length and material. It shall bekept as short as possible. The smallest diameter tubing recommended by themanufacturer shall be used.

k. The exhaust flow from the test chamber shall pass through ahigh-efficiency filter before release to the room.

l. When sodium chloride aerosol is used, the relative humidity inside thetest chamber shall not exceed 50 percent.

4. Procedural Requirements

a. The fitting of half-mask respirators should be started with those havingmultiple sizes and a variety of interchangeable cartridges and canisters suchas the MSA Comfo II-M, Norton M, Survivair M, A-O M, or Scott-M. Use eitherof the tests outlined below to assure that the facepiece is properlyadjusted.

(1) Positive pressure test. With the exhaust port(s) blocked, the negativepressure of slight inhalation should remain constant for several seconds.

(2) Negative pressure test. With the intake port(s) blocked, the negativepressure slight inhalation should remain constant for several seconds.

b. After a facepiece is adjusted, the test subject shall wear the facepiecefor at least 5 minutes before conducting a qualitative test by using eitherof the methods described below and using the exercise regime described in5.a., b., c., d. and e.

(1) Isoamyl acetate test. When using organic vapor cartridges, the testsubject who can smell the odor should be unable to detect the odor of isoamylacetate squirted into the air near the most vulnerable portions of thefacepiece seal. In a location which is separated from the test area, the testsubject shall be instructed to close her/his eyes during the test period. Acombination cartridge or canister with organic vapor and high-efficiencyfilters shall be used when available for the particular mask being tested.The test subject shall be given an opportunity to smell the odor of isoamylacetate before the test is conducted.

(2) Irritant fume test. When using high-efficiency filters, the test subjectshould be unable to detect the odor of irritant fume (stannic chloride ortitanium tetrachloride ventilation smoke tubes) squirted into the air nearthe most vulnerable portions of the facepiece seal. The test subject shall beinstructed to close her/ his eyes during the test period.

c. The test subject may enter the quantitative testing chamber only if sheor he has obtained a satisfactory fit as stated in 4.b. of this Appendix.

d. Before the subject enters the test chamber, a reasonably stable challengeagent concentration shall be measured in the test chamber.

e. Immediately after the subject enters the test chamber, the challengeagent concentration inside the respirator shall be measured to ensure thatthe peak penetration does not exceed 5 percent for a half-mask and 1 percentfor a full facepiece.

f. A stable challenge agent concentration shall be obtained prior to theactual start of testing.

1. Respirator restraining straps may not be over-tightened for testing. Thestraps shall be adjusted by the wearer to give a reasonably comfortable fittypical of normal use.

5. Exercise Regime. Prior to entering the test chamber, the test subjectshall be given complete instructions as to her/his part in the testprocedures. The test subject shall perform the following exercises, in theorder given, for each independent test.

a. Normal Breathing (NB). In the normal standing position, without talking,the subject shall breathe normally for at least one minute.

b. Deep Breathing (DB). In the normal standing position the subject shall dodeep breathing for at least one minute pausing so as not to hyperventilate.

c. Turning head side to side (SS). Standing in place the subject shallslowly turn his/her head from side between the extreme positions to eachside. The head shall be held at each extreme position for at least 5 seconds.Perform for at least three complete cycles.

d. Moving head up and down (UD). Standing in place, the subject shall slowlymove his/her head up and down between the extreme position straight up andthe extreme position straight down. The head shall be held at each extremeposition for at least 5 seconds. Perform for at least three complete cycles.

e. Reading (R). The subject shall read out slowly and loud so as to be heardclearly by the test conductor or monitor. The test subject shall read the"rainbow passage" at the end of this section.

f. Grimace (G). The test subject shall grimace, smile, frown, and generallycontort the face using the facial muscles. Continue for at least 15 seconds.

g. Bend over and touch toes (B). The test subject shall bend at the waistand touch toes and return to upright position. Repeat for at least 30seconds.

h. Jogging in place (J). The test subject shall perform jog in place for atleast 30 seconds.

i. Normal Breathing (NB). Same as exercise a.

Rainbow Passage

When the sunlight strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism andform a rainbow. The rainbow is a division of white light into many beautifulcolors. These take the shape of a long round arch, with its path high above,and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon. There is, according tolegend, a boiling pot of gold at one end. People look, but no one ever findsit. When a man looks for something beyond reach, his friends say he islooking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

6. The test shall be terminated whenever any single peak penetration exceeds5 percent for half-masks and 1 percent for full facepieces. The test subjectmay be refitted and retested. If two the three required tests are terminated,the fit shall be deemed inadequate. (See paragraph 4.h.).

7. Calculation of Fit Factors

a. The fit factor determined by the quantitative fit test equals the averageconcentration inside the respirator.

b. The average test chamber concentration is the arithmetic average of thetest chamber concentration at the beginning and of the end of the test.

c. The average peak concentration of the challenge agent inside therespirator shall be the arithmetic average peak concentrations for each ofthe nine exercises of the test which are computed as the arithmetic averageof the peak concentrations found for each breath during the exercise.

d. The average peak concentration for an exercise may be determinedgraphically if there is not a great variation in the peak concentrationsduring a single exercise.

8. Interpretation of Test Results.

The fit factor measured by the quantitative fit testing shall be the lowestof the three protection factors resulting from three independent tests.

9. Other Requirements

a. The test subject shall not be permitted to wear a half-mask or fullfacepiece mask if the minimum fit factor of 100 or 1,000, respectively,cannot be obtained. If hair growth or apparel interfere with a satisfactoryfit, then they shall be altered or removed so as to eliminate interferenceand allow a satisfactory fit. If a satisfactory fit is still not attained,the test subject must use a positive-pressure respirator such as powered air-purifying respirators, supplied air respirator, or self-contained breathingapparatus.

b. The test shall not be conducted if there is any hair growth between theskin and the facepiece sealing surface.

c. If a test subject exhibits difficulty in breathing during the tests, sheor he shall be referred to a physician trained in respirator diseases orpulmonary medicine to determine whether the test subject can wear arespirator while performing her or his duties.

d. The test subject shall be given the opportunity to wear the assignedrespirator for one week. If the respirator does not provide a satisfactoryfit during actual use, the test subject may request another QNFT which shallbe performed immediately.

e. A respirator fit factor card shall be issued to the test subject with thefollowing information:

(1) Name

(2) Date of fit test.

(3) Protection factors obtainedthrough each manufacturer, model and approval number of respiratortested.

(4) Name and signature of the person that conducted the test.

f.Filters used for qualitative or quantitative fit testing shall be replacedweekly, whenever increased breathing resistance is encountered, or when thetest agent has altered the integrity of the filter media.

Organic vapor cartridges/canisters shall be replaced daily or sooner ifthere is any indication of breakthrough by the test agent.

10. In addition, because the sealing of the respirator may be affected,quantitative fit testing shall be repeated immediately when the test subjecthas a:

(1) Weight change of 20 pounds or more, (2) Significant facialscarring in the area of the facepiece seal, (3) Significant dental changes;i.e.; multiple extractions without prothesis, or acquiring dentures, (4)Reconstructive or cosmetic surgery, or (5) Any other condition that mayinterfere with facepiece sealing.

11. Recordkeeping

A summary of all test results shall be maintained in for 3 years. Thesummary shall include:

(1) Name of test subject (2) Date of testing. (3) Name of the testconductor. (4) Fit factors obtained from every respirator tested (indicatemanufacturer, model, size and approval number).

Appendix D to 1915.1001 -- Medical Questionnaires. Mandatory

This mandatory appendix contains the medical questionnaires that must beadministered to all employees who are exposed to asbestos, tremolite,anthophyllite, actinolite, or a combination of these minerals above thepermissible exposure limit (0.1 f/cc), and who will therefore be included intheir employer's medical surveillance program. Part 1 of the appendixcontains the Initial Medical Questionnaire, which must be obtained for allnew hires who will be covered by the medical surveillance requirements. Part2 includes the abbreviated Periodical Medical Questionnaire, which must beadministered to all employees who are provided periodic medical examinationsunder the medical surveillance provisions of the standard.

                              Part 1                   INITIAL MEDICAL QUESTIONNAIRE1.  NAME ________________________________________________________________2.  SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER # ____________________________________________3.  CLOCK NUMBER ________________________________________________________4.  PRESENT OCCUPATION __________________________________________________5.  PLANT _______________________________________________________________6.  ADDRESS _____________________________________________________________7.  _____________________________________________________________________        (Zip Code)8.  TELEPHONE NUMBER ____________________________________________________9.  INTERVIEWER _________________________________________________________10. DATE ________________________________________________________________11. Date of Birth _______________________________________________________                  Month      Day     Year12. Place of Birth ______________________________________________________13. Sex                                 1. Male    ___                                        2. Female  ___14. What is your marital status?        1. Single  ___  4. Separated/                                        2. Married ___      Divorced ___                                        3. Widowed ___15. Race                                1. White ___   4. Hispanic ___                                        2. Black ___   5. Indian   ___                                        3. Asian ___   6. Other    ___16.  What is the highest grade completed in school? _____________________     (For example 12 years is completion of high school)OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY17A.  Have you ever worked full time (30 hours     1. Yes ___  2. No ___      per week or more) for 6 months or more?      IF YES TO 17A:  B.  Have you ever worked for a year or more in   1. Yes ___  2. No ___      any dusty job?                               3. Does Not Apply ___      Specify job/industry _______________ Total Years Worked __________      Was dust exposure: 1. Mild  ____  2. Moderate ____  3. Severe ____  C.  Have you ever been exposed to gas or         1. Yes ___  2. No ___      chemical fumes in your work?      Specify job/industry ______________________ Total Years Worked ___      Was exposure :     1. Mild  ____  2. Moderate ____  3. Severe ____  D.  What has been your usual occupation or job  --  the one you have      worked at the longest?      1. Job occupation ________________________________________________      2. Number of years employed in this occupation ___________________      3. Position/job title ____________________________________________      4. Business, field or industry ___________________________________(Record on lines the years in which you have worked in any of theseindustries, e.g. 1960-1969)Have you ever worked:                                 YES        NO  E.   In a mine? .........................          _____      _____  F.   In a quarry? .......................          _____      _____  G.   In a foundry? ......................          _____      _____  H.   In a pottery? ......................          _____      _____  I.   In a cotton, flax or hemp mill? ....          _____      _____  J.   With asbestos? .....................          _____      _____18.  PAST MEDICAL HISTORY                                                      YES        NO  A. Do you consider yourself to be in good health?  _____      _____         If "NO" state reason __________________________________________  B. Have you any defect of vision? ...............  _____      _____         If "YES" state nature of defect _______________________________  C. Have you any hearing defect? .................  _____      _____         If "YES" state nature of defect ______________________________  D. Are you suffering from or have you ever suffered from:                                                      YES        NO     a.  Epilepsy (or fits, seizures, convulsions)?  _____      _____     b.  Rheumatic fever?                            _____      _____     c.  Kidney disease?                             _____      _____     d.  Bladder disease?                            _____      _____     e.  Diabetes?                                   _____      _____     f.  Jaundice?                                   _____      _____19.  CHEST COLDS AND CHEST ILLNESSES19A. If you get a cold, does it "usually" go to your     chest?  (Usually means more than 1/2 the time)                            1. Yes ___  2. No ___  3. Don't get colds ___20A. During the past 3 years, have you had any chest illnesses     that have kept you off work, indoors at home, or in bed?                            1. Yes ___  2. No ___        IF YES TO 20A:  B. Did you produce phlegm with any of these chest illnesses?                            1. Yes ___  2. No ___  3. Does Not Apply ___  C. In the last 3 years, how many such illnesses with (increased)     phlegm did you have which lasted a week or more?           Number of illnesses ___     No such illnesses   ___21.  Did you have any lung trouble before the age of 16?                            1. Yes ___  2. No ___22.  Have you ever had any of the following?     1A.  Attacks of bronchitis?                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___          IF YES TO 1A:      B. Was it confirmed by a doctor?               1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___      C. At what age was your first attack?             Age in Years   ___                                                        Does Not Apply ___     2A. Pneumonia (include bronchopneumonia)?       1. Yes ___  2. No ___         IF YES TO 2A:      B. Was it confirmed by a doctor?               1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___      C. At what age did you first have it?             Age in Years   ___                                                        Does Not Apply ___     3A. Hay Fever?                                  1. Yes ___  2. No ___         IF YES TO 3A:      B. Was it confirmed by a doctor?               1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___      C. At what age did it start?                      Age in Years   ___                                                        Does Not Apply ___23A. Have you ever had chronic bronchitis?           1. Yes ___  2. No ___         IF YES TO 23A:  B. Do you still have it?                           1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___  C.  Was it confirmed by a doctor?                  1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___  D. At what age did it start?                          Age in Years   ___                                                        Does Not Apply ___24A. Have you ever had emphysema?                    1. Yes ___  2. No ___          IF YES TO 24A:  B. Do you still have it?                           1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___  C. Was it confirmed by a doctor?                   1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___  D. At what age did it start?                          Age in Years   ___                                                        Does Not Apply ___25A. Have you ever had asthma?                       1. Yes ___  2. No ___          IF YES TO 25A:  B. Do you still have it?                           1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___  C. Was it confirmed by a doctor?                   1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___  D. At what age did it start?                          Age in Years   ___                                                        Does Not Apply ___  E. If you no longer have it, at what age did it stop?                                                        Age stopped    ___                                                        Does Not Apply ___26.  Have you ever had:  A. Any other chest illness?                        1. Yes ___  2. No ___        If yes, please specify ___________________________________________  B. Any chest operations?                           1. Yes ___  2. No ___        If yes, please specify ___________________________________________  C. Any chest injuries?                             1. Yes ___  2. No ___        If yes, please specify ___________________________________________27A. Has a doctor ever told you that you had heart trouble?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___         IF YES TO 27A:  B. Have you ever had treatment for heart trouble in the past 10 years?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___28A. Has a doctor told you that you had high blood pressure?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___         IF YES TO 28A:  B. Have you had any treatment for high blood pressure (hypertension)     in the past 10 years?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does Not Apply ___29.  When did you last have your chest X-rayed?            (Year) ___  ___  ___  ___30.  Where did you last have your chest X-rayed (if known)?     _____________________________________________________________________     What was the outcome? _______________________________________________FAMILY HISTORY31.  Were either of your natural parents ever told by a doctor that they     had a chronic lung condition such as:                             FATHER                     MOTHER                    1. Yes  2. No  3. Don't    1. Yes  2. No  3. Don't                                      know                       know  A. Chronic Bronchitis?                       ___    ___     ___         ___     ___    ___  B. Emphysema?        ___    ___     ___         ___     ___    ___  C. Asthma?           ___    ___     ___         ___     ___    ___  D. Lung cancer?      ___    ___     ___         ___     ___    ___  E. Other chest conditions?                       ___    ___     ___         ___     ___    ___  F. Is parent currently alive?                       ___    ___     ___         ___     ___    ___  G. Please Specify    ___ Age if Living          ___ Age if Living                       ___ Age at Death           ___ Age at Death                       ___ Don't Know             ___ Don't Know  H. Please specify cause of death     ____________________________________     __________________________COUGH32A. Do you usually have a cough? (Count a cough with first smoke or on     first going out of doors.  Exclude clearing of throat.) (If no,     skip to question 32C.)                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___  B. Do you usually cough as much as 4 to 6 times a day 4 or more days     out of the week?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___  C. Do you usually cough at all on getting up or first thing in the     morning?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___  D. Do you usually cough at all during the rest of the day or at night?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___IF YES TO ANY OF ABOVE (32A, B, C, OR D,), ANSWER THE FOLLOWING.  IF NOTO ALL, CHECK "DOES NOT APPLY" AND SKIP TO NEXT PAGE  E. Do you usually cough like this on most days for 3 consecutive     months or more during the year?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does not apply ___  F. For how many years have you had the cough?        Number of years ___                                                       Does not apply  ___33A. Do you usually bring up phlegm from your chest?     (Count phlegm with the first smoke or on first going out of doors.     Exclude phlegm from the nose.  Count swallowed phlegm.)  (If no,     skip to 33C)                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___  B. Do you usually bring up phlegm like this as much as twice a day 4     or more days out of the week?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___  C. Do you usually bring up phlegm at all on getting up or first thing     in the morning?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___  D. Do you usually bring up phlegm at all on during the rest of the day     or at night?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___IF YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE (33A, B, C, OR D), ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:IF NO TO ALL, CHECK "DOES NOT APPLY" AND SKIP TO 34A  E. Do you bring up phlegm like this on most days for 3 consecutive     months or more during the year?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does not apply ___  F. For how many years have you had trouble with phlegm?                                                       Number of years ___                                                       Does not apply  ___EPISODES OF COUGH AND PHLEGM34A. Have you had periods or episodes of (increased*) cough and phlegm     lasting for 3 weeks or more each year?     *(For persons who usually have cough and/or phlegm)                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___     IF YES TO 34A  B. For how long have you had at least 1 such episode per year?                                                       Number of years ___                                                       Does not apply  ___WHEEZING35A. Does your chest ever sound wheezy or whistling              1. When you have a cold?               1. Yes ___  2. No ___              2. Occasionally apart from colds?      1. Yes ___  2. No ___              3. Most days or nights?                1. Yes ___  2. No ___         IF YES TO 1, 2, or 3 in 35A  B. For how many years has this been present?                                                       Number of years ___                                                       Does not apply  ___36A. Have you ever had an attack of wheezing that has made you feel short     of breath?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___         IF YES TO 36A  B. How old were you when you had your first such attack?                                                       Age in years   ___                                                       Does not apply ___  C. Have you had 2 or more such episodes?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does not apply ___  D. Have you ever required medicine or treatment for the(se) attack(s)?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does not apply ___BREATHLESSNESS37.  If disabled from walking by any condition other than heart or lung     disease, please describe and proceed to question 39A.     Nature of condition(s) ______________________________________________     _____________________________________________________________________38A. Are you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on the level     or walking up a  slight hill?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___     IF YES TO 38A  B. Do you have to walk slower than people of your age on the level     because of breathlessness?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does not apply ___  C. Do you ever have to stop for breath when walking at your own pace     on the level?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does not apply ___  D. Do you ever have to stop for breath after walking about 100 yards     (or after a few minutes) on the level?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does not apply ___  E. Are you too breathless to leave the house or breathless on dressing     or climbing one flight of stairs?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does not apply ___TOBACCO SMOKING39A. Have you ever smoked cigarettes?  (No means less than 20 packs of     cigarettes or 12 oz. of tobacco in a lifetime or less than 1     cigarette a day for 1 year.)                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___     IF YES TO 39A  B. Do you now smoke cigarettes (as of one month ago)                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___                                                     3. Does not apply ___  C. How old were you when you first started regular cigarette smoking?                                                        Age in years   ___                                                        Does not apply ___  D. If you have stopped smoking cigarettes completely, how old were you     when you stopped?                                                Age stopped            ___                                                Check if still smoking ___                                                Does not apply         ___  E. How many cigarettes do you smoke per day now?                                                Cigarettes per day     ___                                                Does not apply         ___  F. On the average of the entire time you smoked, how many cigarettes did     you smoke per day?                                                Cigarettes per day     ___                                                Does not apply         ___  G. Do or did you inhale the cigarette smoke?                                                1. Does not apply      ___                                                2. Not at all          ___                                                3. Slightly            ___                                                4. Moderately          ___                                                5. Deeply              ___40A. Have you ever smoked a pipe regularly?     (Yes means more than 12 oz. of tobacco in a lifetime.)                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___     IF YES TO 40A:FOR PERSONS WHO HAVE EVER SMOKED A PIPE  B. 1. How old were you when you started to smoke a pipe regularly?                                                                   Age ___     2. If you have stopped smoking a pipe completely, how old were you        when you stopped?                                          Age stopped                  ___                                          Check if still smoking pipe  ___                                          Does not apply               ___   C. On the average over the entire time you smoked a pipe, how much pipe      tobacco did you smoke per week?                                                          ___ oz. per week        (a standard pouch of tobacco contains 1 1/2 oz.)                                                        ___ Does not apply   D. How much pipe tobacco are you smoking now?                                         oz. per week                  ___                                         Not currently smoking a pipe  ___   E. Do you or did you inhale the pipe smoke?                                                     1. Never smoked   ___                                                     2. Not at all     ___                                                     3. Slightly       ___                                                     4. Moderately     ___                                                     5. Deeply         ___41A. Have you ever smoked cigars regularly?                                                     1. Yes ___  2. No ___     (Yes means more than 1 cigar a week for a year)     IF YES TO 41AFOR PERSONS WHO HAVE EVER SMOKED A CIGARS  B. 1. How old were you when you started           Age ___        smoking cigars regularly?     2. If you have stopped smoking cigars          Age stopped       ___        completely, how old were you when           Check if still        you stopped.                                smoking cigars    ___                                                    Does not apply    ___  C. On the average over the entire time you        Cigars per week   ___     smoked cigars, how many cigars did you         Does not apply    ___     smoke per week?  D. How many cigars are you smoking per week       Cigars per week   ___     now?                                           Check if not                                                    smoking cigars                                                    currently         ___  E. Do or did you inhale the cigar smoke?       1. Never smoked      ___                                                 2. Not at all        ___                                                 3. Slightly          ___                                                 4. Moderately        ___                                                 5. Deeply            ___Signature ____________________________   Date _____________________                                Part 2                    PERIODIC MEDICAL QUESTIONNAIRE1.   NAME _______________________________________________________________2.   SOCIAL SECURITY #       ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___    ___  ___3.   CLOCK NUMBER                        ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___  ___4.   PRESENT OCCUPATION __________________________________________________5.   PLANT ______________________________________________________________6.   ADDRESS ____________________________________________________________7.   ____________________________________________________________________                                                         (Zip Code)8.   TELEPHONE NUMBER ___________________________________________________9.   INTERVIEWER  _______________________________________________________10.  DATE ___________________________  ___   ___   ___   ___     ___  ___11.  What is your marital status?      1. Single  ___   4. Separated/.                                       2. Married ___      Divorced ___                                       3. Widowed ___12.  OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY12A. In the past year, did you work    1. Yes ___       2. No ___     full time (30 hours per week     or more) for 6 months or more?     IF YES TO 12A:12B. In the past year, did you work    1. Yes ___       2. No ___     in a dusty job?                   3. Does not Apply ___12C. Was dust exposure:     1. Mild ___   2. Moderate ___  3. Severe ___12D. In the past year, were you        1. Yes ___       2. No ___     exposed to gas or chemical     fumes in your work?12E. Was exposure:          1. Mild ___   2. Moderate ___  3. Severe ___12F. In the past year,     what was your:         1. Job/occupation? _________________________                            2. Position/job title? _____________________13.  RECENT MEDICAL HISTORY13A. Do you consider yourself to     be in good health?                Yes  ___        No ___     If NO, state reason ______________________________________________13B. In the past year, have you     developed:                                        Yes     No                                    Epilepsy?          ___    ___                                    Rheumatic fever?   ___    ___                                    Kidney disease?    ___    ___                                    Bladder disease?   ___    ___                                    Diabetes?          ___    ___                                    Jaundice?          ___    ___                                    Cancer?            ___    ___14.  CHEST COLDS AND CHEST ILLNESSES14A. If you get a cold, does it "usually" go to your chest?     (usually means more than 1/2 the time)                                                  1. Yes ___   2. No ___                                                  3. Don't get colds ___15A. During the past year, have you had     any chest illnesses that have kept you       1. Yes ___   2. No ___     off work, indoors at home, or in bed?        3. Does Not Apply  ___     IF YES TO 15A:15B. Did you produce phlegm with any              1. Yes ___   2. No ___     of these chest illnesses?                    3. Does Not Apply  ___15C. In the past year, how many such              Number of illnesses ___     illnesses with (increased) phlegm            No such illnesses   ___     did you have which lasted a week     or more?16.  RESPIRATORY SYSTEM     In the past year have you had:                         Yes or No       Further Comment on Positive                                                  Answers     Asthma                _____     Bronchitis            _____     Hay Fever             _____     Other Allergies       _____                         Yes or No       Further Comment on Positive                                                  Answers     Pneumonia             _____     Tuberculosis          _____     Chest Surgery         _____     Other Lung Problems   _____     Heart Disease         _____     Do you have:                         Yes or No       Further Comment on Positive                                                  Answers     Frequent colds        _____     Chronic cough         _____     Shortness of breath     when walking or     climbing one flight     or stairs             _____     Do you:     Wheeze                _____     Cough up phlegm       _____     Smoke cigarettes      _____   Packs per day ____  How many years ___Date __________________    Signature ____________________________________

Appendix E to 1915.1001 -- Interpretation and Classification of ChestRoentgenograms. Mandatory

(a) Chest roentgenograms shall be interpreted and classified in accordancewith a professionally accepted classification system and recorded on aRoentgenographic Interpretation Form. *Form CSD/NIOSH (M) 2.8.

(b) Roentgenograms shall be interpreted and classified only by a B-reader, aboard eligible/certified radiologist, or an experienced physician with knownexpertise in pneumoconioses.

(c) All interpreters, whenever interpreting chest roentgenograms made underthis section, shall have immediately available for reference a complete setof the ILO-U/C International Classification of Radiographs forPneumoconioses, 1980.

Appendix F to 1915.1001 -- Work Practices and Engineering Controls forClass I Asbestos Operations Non-Mandatory

This is a non-mandatory appendix to the asbestos standards for constructionand for shipyards. It describes criteria and procedures for erecting andusing negative pressure enclosures for Class I Asbestos Work, when NPEs areused as an allowable control method to comply with paragraph (g)(5)(i) ofthis section. Many small and variable details are involved in the erection ofa negative pressure enclosure. OSHA and most participants in the rulemakingagreed that only the major, more performance oriented criteria should be mademandatory. These criteria are set out in paragraph (g) of this section. Inaddition, this appendix includes these mandatory specifications andprocedures in its guidelines in order to make this appendix coherent andhelpful. The mandatory nature of the criteria which appear in the regulatorytext is not changed because they are included in this "non-mandatory"appendix. Similarly, the additional criteria and procedures included asguidelines in the appendix, do not become mandatory because mandatorycriteria are also included in these comprehensive guidelines.

In addition, none of the criteria, both mandatory and recommended, are meantto specify or imply the need for use of patented or licensed methods orequipment. Recommended specifications included in this attachment should notdiscourage the use of creative alternatives which can be shown to reliablyachieve the objectives of negative-pressure enclosures.

Requirements included in this appendix, cover general provisions to befollowed in all asbestos jobs, provisions which must be followed for allClass I asbestos jobs, and provisions governing the construction and testingof negative pressure enclosures. The first category includes the requirementfor use of wet methods, HEPA vacuums, and immediate bagging of waste; Class Iwork must conform to the following provisions:

* oversight by competent person * use of critical barriers overall openings to work area * isolation of HVAC systems * use ofimpermeable dropcloths and coverage of all objects within regulatedareas

In addition, more specific requirements for NPEs include:

* maintenance of -0.02 inches water gauge within enclosure *manometric measurements * air movement away from employees performingremoval work * smoke testing or equivalent for detection of leaks and airdirection * deactivation of electrical circuits, if not provided withground-fault circuit interrupters.

Planning the Project

The standard requires that an exposure assessment be conducted before theasbestos job is begun Sec. 1915.1001(f)(1). Information needed for thatassessment, includes data relating to prior similar jobs, as applied to thespecific variables of the current job. The information needed to conduct theassessment will be useful in planning the project, and in complying with anyreporting requirements under this standard, when significant changes arebeing made to a control system listed in the standard, [see paragraph (k) ofthis section], as well as those of USEPA (40 CFR Part 61, subpart M). Thus,although the standard does not explicitly require the preparation of awritten asbestos removal plan, the usual constituents of such a plan, i.e., adescription of the enclosure, the equipment, and the procedures to be usedthroughout the project, must be determined before the enclosure can beerected. The following information should be included in the planning of thesystem:

A physical description of the work area;

A description of the approximate amount of material to be removed;

A schedule for turning off and sealing existing ventilation systems;

Personnel hygiene procedures;

A description of personal protective equipment and clothing to worn byemployees;

A description of the local exhaust ventilation systems to be used and howthey are to be tested;

A description of work practices to be observed by employees;

An air monitoring plan;

A description of the method to be used to transport waste material; and

The location of the dump site.

Materials and Equipment Necessary for Asbestos Removal

Although individual asbestos removal projects vary in terms of the equipmentrequired to accomplish the removal of the materials, some equipment andmaterials are common to most asbestos removal operations.

Plastic sheeting used to protect horizontal surfaces, seal HVAC openings orto seal vertical openings and ceilings should have a minimum thickness of 6mils. Tape or other adhesive used to attach plastic sheeting should be ofsufficient adhesive strength to support the weight of the material plus allstresses encountered during the entire duration of the project withoutbecoming detached from the surface.

Other equipment and materials which should be available at the beginning ofeach project are:

-- HEPA Filtered Vacuum is essential for cleaning the work area after theasbestos has been removed. It should have a long hose capable of reachingout-of-the-way places, such as areas above ceiling tiles, behind pipes, etc.

-- Portable air ventilation systems installed to provide the negative airpressure and air removal from the enclosure must be equipped with a HEPAfilter. The number and capacity of units required to ventilate an enclosuredepend on the size of the area to be ventilated. The filters for thesesystems should be designed in such a manner that they can be replaced whenthe air flow volume is reduced by the build-up of dust in the filtrationmaterial. Pressure monitoring devices with alarms and strip chart recordersattached to each system to indicate the pressure differential and the lossdue to dust buildup on the filter are recommended.

-- Water sprayers should be used to keep the asbestos material as saturatedas possible during removal; the sprayers will provide a fine mist thatminimizes the impact of the spray on the material.

-- Water used to saturate the asbestos containing material can be amended byadding at least 15 milliliters (1/4 ounce) of wetting agent in 1 liter (1pint) of water. An example of a wetting agent is a 50/50 mixture ofpolyoxyethylene ether and polyoxyethylene polyglycol ester.

-- Backup power supplies are recommended, especially for ventilation systems.

-- Shower and bath water should be with mixed hot and cold water faucets.Water that has been used to clean personnel or equipment should either befiltered or be collected and discarded as asbestos waste. Soap and shampooshould be provided to aid in removing dust from the workers' skin and hair.

-- See paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section for appropriate respiratoryprotection and protective clothing. -- See paragraph (k) of this section for required signs and labels.

Preparing the Work Area

Disabling HVAC Systems: The power to the heating, ventilation, and airconditioning systems that service the restricted area must be deactivated andlocked off. All ducts, grills, access ports, windows and vents must be sealedoff with two layers of plastic to prevent entrainment of contaminated air.

Operating HVAC Systems in the Restricted Area: If components of a HVACsystem located in the restricted area are connected to a system that willservice another zone during the project, the portion of the duct in therestricted area must be sealed and pressurized. Necessary precautions includecaulking the duct joints, covering all cracks and openings with two layers ofsheeting, and pressurizing the duct throughout the duration of the project byrestricting the return air flow. The power to the fan supplying the positivepressure should be locked "on" to prevent pressure loss.

Sealing Elevators: If an elevator shaft is located in the restricted area,it should be either shut down or isolated by sealing with two layers ofplastic sheeting. The sheeting should provide enough slack to accommodate thepressure changes in the shaft without breaking the air-tight seal.

Removing Mobile Objects: All movable objects should be cleaned and removedfrom the work area before an enclosure is constructed unless moving theobjects creates a hazard. Mobile objects will be assumed to be contaminatedand should be either cleaned with amended water and a HEPA vacuum and thenremoved from the area or wrapped and then disposed of as hazardous waste.

Cleaning and Sealing Surfaces: After cleaning with water and a HEPA vacuum,surfaces of stationary objects should be covered with two layers of plasticsheeting. The sheeting should be secured with duct tape or an equivalentmethod to provide a tight seal around the object.

Bagging Waste: In addition to the requirement for immediate bagging of wastefor disposal, it is further recommended that the waste material bedouble-bagged and sealed in plastic bags designed for asbestos disposal. Thebags should be stored in a waste storage area that can be controlled by theworkers conducting the removal. Filters removed from air handling units andrubbish removed from the area are to be bagged and handled as hazardouswaste.

Constructing the Enclosure

The enclosure should be constructed to provide an air-tight seal aroundducts and openings into existing ventilation systems and around penetrationsfor electrical conduits, telephone wires, water lines, drain pipes, etc.Enclosures should be both airtight and watertight except for those openingsdesigned to provide entry and/ or air flow control.

Size: An enclosure should be the minimum volume to encompass all of theworking surfaces yet allow unencumbered movement by the worker(s), provideunrestricted air flow past the worker(s), and ensure walking surfaces can bekept free of tripping hazards.

Shape: The enclosure may be any shape that optimizes the flow of ventilationair past the worker(s).

Structural Integrity: The walls, ceilings and floors must be supported insuch a manner that portions of the enclosure will not fall down during normaluse.

Openings: It is not necessary that the structure be airtight; openings maybe designed to direct air flow. Such openings should be located at a distancefrom active removal operations. They should be designed to draw air into theenclosure under all anticipated circumstances. In the event that negativepressure is lost, they should be fitted with either HEPA filters to trap dustor automatic trap doors that prevent dust from escaping the enclosure.Openings for exits should be controlled by an airlock or a vestibule.

Barrier Supports: Frames should be constructed to support all unsupportedspans of sheeting.

Sheeting: Walls, barriers, ceilings, and floors should be lined with twolayers of plastic sheeting having a thickness of at least 6 mil.

Seams: Seams in the sheeting material should be minimized to reduce thepossibilities of accidental rips and tears in the adhesive or connections.All seams in the sheeting should overlap, be staggered and not be located atcorners or wall-to- floor joints. Areas Within an Enclosure: Each enclosureconsists of a work area, a decontamination area, and waste storage area. Thework area where the asbestos removal operations occur should be separatedfrom both the waste storage area and the contamination control area byphysical curtains, doors, and/or airflow patterns that force any airbornecontamination back into the work area.

See paragraph (j) of Sec. 1915.1001 for requirements for hygiene facilities.

During egress from the work area, each worker should step into the equipmentroom, clean tools and equipment, and remove gross contamination from clothingby wet cleaning and HEPA vacuuming. Before entering the shower area, footcoverings, head coverings, hand coverings, and coveralls are removed andplaced in impervious bags for disposal or cleaning. Airline connections fromairline respirators with HEPA disconnects and power cables from powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) will be disconnected just prior to entering theshower room.

Establishing Negative Pressure Within the Enclosure

Negative Pressure: Air is to be drawn into the enclosure under allanticipated conditions and exhausted through a HEPA filter for 24 hours a dayduring the entire duration of the project.

Air Flow Tests: Air flow patterns will be checked before removal operationsbegin, at least once per operating shift and any time there is a questionregarding the integrity of the enclosure. The primary test for air flow is totrace air currents with smoke tubes or other visual methods. Flow checks aremade at each opening and at each doorway to demonstrate that air is beingdrawn into the enclosure and at each worker's position to show that air isbeing drawn away from the breathing zone.

Monitoring Pressure Within the Enclosure: After the initial air flowpatterns have been checked, the static pressure must be monitored within theenclosure. Monitoring may be made using manometers, pressure gauges, orcombinations of these devices. It is recommended that they be attached toalarms and strip chart recorders at points identified by the design engineer.

Corrective Actions: If the manometers or pressure gauges demonstrate areduction in pressure differential below the required level, work shouldcease and the reason for the change investigated and appropriate changesmade. The air flow patterns should be retested before work begins again.

Pressure Differential: The design parameters for static pressuredifferentials between the inside and outside of enclosures typically rangefrom 0.02 to 0.10 inches of water gauge, depending on conditions. All zonesinside the enclosure must have less pressure than the ambient pressureoutside of the enclosure (-0.02 inches water gauge differential). Designspecifications for the differential vary according to the size,configuration, and shape of the enclosure as well as ambient and mechanicalair pressure conditions around the enclosure.

Air Flow Patterns: The flow of air past each worker shall be enhanced bypositioning the intakes and exhaust ports to remove contaminated air from theworker's breathing zone, by positioning HEPA vacuum cleaners to draw air fromthe worker's breathing zone, by forcing relatively uncontaminated air pastthe worker toward an exhaust port, or by using a combination of methods toreduce the worker's exposure.

Air Handling Unit Exhaust: The exhaust plume from air handling units shouldbe located away from adjacent personnel and intakes for HVAC systems.

Air Flow Volume: The air flow volume (cubic meters per minute) exhausted(removed) from the workplace must exceed the amount of makeup air supplied tothe enclosure. The rate of air exhausted from the enclosure should bedesigned to maintain a negative pressure in the enclosure and air movementpast each worker. The volume of air flow removed from the enclosure shouldreplace the volume of the container at every 5 to 15 minutes. Air flow volumewill need to be relatively high for large enclosures, enclosures with awkwardshapes, enclosures with multiple openings, and operations employing severalworkers in the enclosure.

Air Flow Velocity: At each opening, the air flow velocity must visibly"drag" air into the enclosure. The velocity of air flow within the enclosuremust be adequate to remove airborne contamination from each worker'sbreathing zone without disturbing the asbestos-containing material onsurfaces.

Airlocks: Airlocks are mechanisms on doors and curtains that control the airflow patterns in the doorways. If air flow occurs, the patterns throughdoorways must be such that the air flows toward the inside of the enclosure.Sometimes vestibules, double doors, or double curtains are used to preventair movement through the doorways. To use a vestibule, a worker enters achamber by opening the door or curtain and then closing the entry beforeopening the exit door or curtain.

Airlocks should be located between the equipment room and shower room,between the shower room and the clean room, and between the waste storagearea and the outside of the enclosure. The air flow between adjacent roomsmust be checked using smoke tubes or other visual tests to ensure the flowpatterns draw air toward the work area without producing eddies.

Monitoring for Airborne Concentrations

In addition to the breathing zone samples taken as outlined in paragraph (f)of Sec. 1915.1001 , samples of air should be taken to demonstrate theintegrity of the enclosure, the cleanliness of the clean room and showerarea, and the effectiveness of the HEPA filter. If the clean room is shown tobe contaminated, the room must be relocated to an uncontaminated area.

Samples taken near the exhaust of portable ventilation systems must be donewith care.

General Work Practices

Preventing dust dispersion is the primary means of controlling the spread ofasbestos within the enclosure. Whenever practical, the point of removalshould be isolated, enclosed, covered, or shielded from the workers in thearea. Waste asbestos containing materials must be bagged during orimmediately after removal; the material must remain saturated until the wastecontainer is sealed.

Waste material with sharp points or corners must be placed in hard air-tightcontainers rather than bags.

Whenever possible, large components should be sealed in plastic sheeting andremoved intact.

Bags or containers of waste will be moved to the waste holding area, washed,and wrapped in a bag with the appropriate labels.

Cleaning the Work Area

Surfaces within the work area should be kept free of visible dust and debristo the extent feasible. Whenever visible dust appears on surfaces, thesurfaces within the enclosure must be cleaned by wiping with a wet sponge,brush, or cloth and then vacuumed with a HEPA vacuum.

All surfaces within the enclosure should be cleaned before the exhaustventilation system is deactivated and the enclosure is disassembled. Anapproved encapsulate may be sprayed onto areas after the visible dust hasbeen removed.

Appendix G to 1915.1001 [Reserved]

Appendix H to Sec. 1915.1001 -- Substance Technical Information forAsbestos. Non-Mandatory

I. Substance Identification

A. Substance: "Asbestos" is the name of a class of magnesium-silicateminerals that occur in fibrous form. Minerals that are included in this groupare chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremoliteasbestos, and actinolite asbestos.

B. Asbestos is and was used in the manufacture of heat-resistant clothing,automotive brake and clutch linings, and a variety of building materialsincluding floor tiles, roofing felts, ceiling tiles, asbestos-cement pipe andsheet, and fire-resistant drywall. Asbestos is also present in pipe andboiler insulation materials and in sprayed-on materials located on beams, incrawlspaces, and between walls.

C. The potential for an asbestos-containing product to release breathablefibers depends largely on its degree of friability. Friable means that thematerial can be crumbled with hand pressure and is therefore likely to emitfibers. The fibrous fluffy sprayed- on materials used for fireproofing,insulation, or sound proofing are considered to be friable, and they readilyrelease airborne fibers if disturbed. Materials such as vinyl-asbestos floortile or roofing felt are considered non-friable if intact and generally donot emit airborne fibers unless subjected to sanding, sawing and otheraggressive operations. Asbestos -- cement pipe or sheet can emit airbornefibers if the materials are cut or sawed, or if they are broken.

D. Permissible exposure: Exposure to airborne asbestos fibers may not exceed0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter of air (0.1 f/cc) averaged over the 8-hourworkday, and 1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air (1.0 f/cc) averaged over a30 minute work period.

II. Health Hazard Data

A. Asbestos can cause disabling respiratory disease and various types ofcancers if the fibers are inhaled. Inhaling or ingesting fibers fromcontaminated clothing or skin can also result in these diseases. The symptomsof these diseases generally do not appear for 20 or more years after initialexposure.

B. Exposure to asbestos has been shown to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma,and cancer of the stomach and colon. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer of thethin membrane lining of the chest and abdomen. Symptoms of mesotheliomainclude shortness of breath, pain in the walls of the chest, and/or abdominalpain.

III. Respirators and Protective Clothing

A. Respirators: You are required to wear a respirator when performing tasksthat result in asbestos exposure that exceeds the permissible exposure limit(PEL) of 0.1 f/cc and when performing certain designated operations.Air-purifying respirators equipped with a high-efficiency particulate air(HEPA) filter can be used where airborne asbestos fiber concentrations do notexceed 1.0 f/cc; otherwise, more protective respirators such as air-supplied,positive-pressure, full facepiece respirators must be used. Disposablerespirators or dust masks are not permitted to be used for asbestos work. Foreffective protection, respirators must fit your face and head snugly. Youremployer is required to conduct fit test when you are first assigned arespirator and every 6 months thereafter. Respirators should not be loosenedor removed in work situations where their use is required.

B. Protective Clothing: You are required to wear protective clothing in workareas where asbestos fiber concentrations exceed the permissible exposurelimit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cc.

IV. Disposal Procedures and Clean-up

A. Wastes that are generated by processes where asbestos is present include:

1. Empty asbestos shipping containers. 2. Process wastes such ascuttings, trimmings, or reject materials. 3. Housekeeping waste fromwet-sweeping or HEPA-vacuuming. 4. Asbestos fireproofing or insulatingmaterial that is removed from buildings.

5. Asbestos-containing building products removed during building renovationor demolition.

6. Contaminated disposable protective clothing.

B. Empty shippingbags can be flattened under exhaust hoods and packed into airtight containersfor disposal. Empty shipping drums are difficult to clean and should besealed.

C. Vacuum bags or disposable paper filters should not be cleaned, but shouldbe sprayed with a fine water mist and placed into a labeled waste container.

D. Process waste and housekeeping waste should be wetted with water or amixture of water and surfactant prior to packaging in disposable containers.

E. Asbestos-containing material that if removed from buildings must bedisposed of in leak-tight 6-mil plastic bags, plastic-lined cardboardcontainers, or plastic-lined metal containers. These wastes, which areremoved while wet, should be sealed in containers before they dry out tominimize the release of asbestos fibers during handling.

V. Access to Information

A. Each year, your employer is required to inform you of the informationcontained in this standard and appendices for asbestos. In addition, youremployer must instruct you in the proper work practices for handlingasbestos-containing materials, and the correct use of protective equipment.

B. Your employer is required to determine whether you are being exposed toasbestos. Your employer must treat exposure to thermal system insulation andsprayed-on and trowled-on surfacing material as asbestos exposure, unlessresults of laboratory analysis show that the material does not containasbestos. You or your representative has the right to observe employeemeasurements and to record the results obtained. Your employer is required toinform you of your exposure, and, if you are exposed above the permissibleexposure limit, he or she is required to inform you of the actions that arebeing taken to reduce your exposure to within the permissible limit.

C. Your employer is required to keep records of your exposures and medicalexaminations. These exposure records must be kept for at least thirty (30)years. Medical records must be kept for the period of your employment plusthirty (30) years.

D. Your employer is required to release your exposure and medical records toyour physician or designated representative upon your written request.

Appendix I to 1915.1001 -- Medical Surveillance Guidelines for Asbestos,Non-Mandatory

I. Route of Entry

Inhalation, ingestion.

II. Toxicology

Clinical evidence of the adverse effects associated with exposure toasbestos is present in the form of several well- conducted epidemiologicalstudies of occupationally exposed workers, family contacts of workers, andpersons living near asbestos mines. These studies have shown a definiteassociation between exposure to asbestos and an increased incidence of lungcancer, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, gastrointestinal cancer, andasbestosis. The latter is a disabling fibrotic lung disease that is causedonly by exposure to asbestos. Exposure to asbestos has also been associatedwith an increased incidence of esophageal, kidney, laryngeal, pharyngeal, andbuccal cavity cancers. As with other known chronic occupational diseases,disease associated with asbestos generally appears about 20 years followingthe first occurrence of exposure: There are no known acute effects associatedwith exposure to asbestos.

Epidemiological studies indicate that the risk of lung cancer among exposedworkers who smoke cigarettes is greatly increased over the risk of lungcancer among non-exposed smokers or exposed nonsmokers. These studies suggestthat cessation of smoking will reduce the risk of lung cancer for a personexposed to asbestos but will not reduce it to the same level of risk as thatexisting for an exposed worker who has never smoked.

III. Signs and Symptoms of Exposure Related Disease

The signs and symptoms of lung cancer or gastrointestinal cancer induced byexposure to asbestos are not unique, except that a chest X-ray of an exposedpatient with lung cancer may show pleural plaques, pleural calcification, orpleural fibrosis. Symptoms characteristic of mesothelioma include shortnessof breath, pain in the walls of the chest, or abdominal pain. Mesotheliomahas a much longer latency period compared with lung cancer (40 years versus15- 20 years), and mesothelioma is therefore more likely to be found amongworkers who were first exposed to asbestos at an early age. Mesothelioma isalways fatal.

Asbestosis is pulmonary fibrosis caused by the accumulation of asbestosfibers in the lungs. Symptoms include shortness of breath, coughing, fatigue,and vague feelings of sickness. When the fibrosis worsens, shortness ofbreath occurs even at rest. The diagnosis of asbestosis is based on a historyof exposure to asbestos, the presence of characteristics radiologic changes,end-inspiratory crackles (rales), and other clinical features of fibrosinglung disease. Pleural plaques and thickening are observed on X-rays takenduring the early sates of the disease. Asbestosis is often a progressivedisease even in the absence of continued exposure, although this appears tobe a highly individualized characteristic. In severe cases, death may becaused by respiratory or cardiac failure.

IV. Surveillance and Preventive Considerations

As noted above, exposure to asbestos have been linked to an increased riskof lung cancer, mesothelioma, gastrointestinal cancer, and asbestosis amongoccupationally exposed workers. Adequate screening tests to determine anemployee's potential for developing serious chronic diseases, such as acancer, from exposure to asbestos do not presently exist. However, sometests, particularly chest X-rays and pulmonary function tests, may indicatethat an employee has been overexposed to asbestos increasing his or her riskof developing exposure related chronic diseases. It is important for thephysician to become familiar with the operating conditions in whichoccupational exposure to asbestos is likely to occur. This is particularlyimportant in evaluating medical and work histories and in conducting physicalexaminations. When an active employee has been identified as having beenoverexposed to asbestos measures taken by the employer to eliminate ormitigate further exposure should also lower the risk of serious long-termconsequences.

The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance program for allemployees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at or above the permissibleexposure limits (0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air) for 30 or more daysper year and for all employees who are assigned to wear a negative-pressurerespirator. All examinations and procedures must be performed by or under thesupervision of licensed physician at a reasonable time and place, and at nocost to the employee.

Although broad latitude is given to the physician in prescribing specifictests to be included in the medical surveillance program, OSHA requiresinclusion of the following elements in the routine examination, (i) Medicaland work histories with special emphasis directed to symptoms of therespiratory system, cardiovascular system, and digestive tract.

(ii) Completion of the respiratory disease questionnaire contained inAppendix D to this section.

(iii) A physical examination including a chest roentgenogram and pulmonaryfunction test that include measurement of the employee's forced vitalcapacity (FYC) and forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV(1)).

(iv) Any laboratory or other test that the examining physician deems bysound medical practice to be necessary.

The employer is required to make the prescribed tests available at leastannually to those employees covered; more often than specified if recommendedby the examining physician; and upon termination of employment.

The employer is required to provide the physician with the followinginformation: A copy of this standard and appendices; a description of theemployee's duties as they relate to asbestos exposure; the employee'srepresentative level of exposure to asbestos; a description of any personalprotective and respiratory equipment used; and information from previousmedical examinations of the affected employee that is not otherwise availableto the physician. Making this information available to the physician will aidin the evaluation of the employee's health in relation to assigned duties andfitness to wear personal protective equipment, if required.

The employer is required to obtain a written opinion from the examiningphysician containing the results of the medical examination; the physician'sopinion as to whether the employee has any detected medical conditions thatwould place the employee at an increased risk of exposure-related disease;any recommended limitations on the employee or on the use of personalprotective equipment; and a statement that the employee has been informed bythe physician of the results of the medical examination and of any medicalconditions related to asbestos exposure that require further explanation ortreatment. This written opinion must not reveal specific findings ordiagnoses unrelated to exposure to asbestos, and a copy of the opinion mustbe provided to the affected employee.

Appendix J to 1915.1001 -- Smoking Cessation Program Information forAsbestos -- Non-Mandatory

The following organizations provide smoking cessation information.

1. The National Cancer Institute operates a toll-free Cancer InformationService (CIS) with trained personnel to help you. Call 1-800-4-CANCER* toreach the CIS office serving your area, or write: Office of CancerCommunications, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health,Building 31, Room 10A24, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.

2. American Cancer Society, 3340 Peachtree Road, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia30026, (404) 320-3333.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is a voluntary organization composed of 58divisions and 3,100 local units. Through "The Great American Smokeout" inNovember, the annual Cancer Crusade in April, and numerous educationalmaterials, ACS helps people learn about the health hazards of smoking andbecome successful ex-smokers.

3. American Heart Association, 7320 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75231,(214) 750-5300.

The American Heart Association (AHA) is a voluntary organization with130,000 members (physicians, scientists, and laypersons) in 55 state andregional groups. AHA produces a variety of publications and audiovisualmaterials about the effects of smoking on the heart. AHA also has developed aguidebook for incorporating a weight- control component into smokingcessation programs.

4. American Lung Association, 1740 Broadway, New York, New York 10019, (212)245-8000.

A voluntary organization of 7,500 members (physicians, nurses, andlaypersons), the American Lung Association (ALA) conducted numerous publicinformation programs about the health effects of smoking. ALA has 59 stateand 85 local units. The organization actively supports legislation andinformation campaigns for non- smokers' rights and provides help for smokerswho want to quit, for example, through "Freedom From Smoking," a self-helpsmoking cessation program.

5. Office on Smoking and Health, U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices 5600 Fishers Lane, Park Building, Room 110, Rockville, Maryland20857.

The Office on Smoking and Health (OSHA) is the Department of Health andHuman Services' lead agency in smoking control. OSHA has sponsoreddistribution of publications on smoking-related topics, such as free flyerson relapse after initial quitting, helping a friend or family member quitsmoking, the health hazards of smoking, and the effects of parental smokingon teenagers.

* In Hawaii, on Oahu call 524-1234 (call collect from neighboring islands),Spanish-speaking staff members are available during daytime hours to callersfrom the following areas: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey(area code 201), New York, and Texas. Consult your local telephone directoryfor listings of local chapters.

Appendix K to 1915.1001 -- Polarized Light Microscopy of Asbestos --(Non-Mandatory)

Method number: ID-191 Matrix: Bulk

Collection Procedure

Collect approximately 1 to 2 grams of each type of material and place intoseparate 20 mL scintillation vials.

Analytical Procedure

A portion of each separate phase is analyzed by gross examination,phase-polar examination, and central stop dispersion microscopy.

Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method are fordescriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by USDOL-OSHA.Similar products from other sources may be substituted.

1. Introduction

This method describes the collection and analysis of asbestos bulk materialsby light microscopy techniques including phase- polar illumination andcentral-stop dispersion microscopy. Some terms unique to asbestos analysisare defined below:

Amphibole: A family of minerals whose crystals are formed by long, thinunits which have two thin ribbons of double chain silicate with a bruciteribbon in between. The shape of each unit is similar to an "I beam". Mineralsimportant in asbestos analysis include cummingtonite-grunerite, crocidolite,tremolite-actinolite and anthophyllite.

Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos includeschrysotile, cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos (amosite), anthophylliteasbestos, tremolite asbestos, crocidolite, actinolite asbestos and any ofthese minerals which have been chemically treated or altered. The precisechemical formulation of each species varies with the location from which itwas mined. Nominal compositions are listed:

Chrysotile....................... Mg(3)Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4)

Crocidolite(Riebeckite asbestos) ...............................Na(2)Fe(3)(2)+Fe(2)(3)+Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Cummingtonite-Grunerite asbestos(Amosite) ............................... (Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Tremolite-Actinolite asbestos ...............................Ca(2)(Mg,Fe)(5)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Anthophyllite asbestos...........(Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos meeting the criteria for a fiber. (Seesection 3.5.)

Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to itsdiameter usually defined as "length : width", e.g. 3:1.

Brucite: A sheet mineral with the composition Mg(OH)(2).

CentralStop Dispersion Staining (microscope): This is a dark field microscopetechnique that images particles using only light refracted by the particle,excluding light that travels through the particle unrefracted. This isusually accomplished with a McCrone objective or other arrangement whichplaces a circular stop with apparent aperture equal to the objective aperturein the back focal plane of the microscope.

Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by the comminution of minerals,especially those characterized by relatively parallel sides and moderateaspect ratio.

Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of excluding certainkinds of fibers from a phase contrast asbestos count because they are notasbestos.

Fiber: A particle longer than or equal to 5 um with a length to width ratiogreater than or equal to 3:1. This may include cleavage fragments. (seesection 3.5 of this appendix).

Phase Contrast: Contrast obtained in the microscope by causing lightscattered by small particles to destructively interfere with unscatteredlight, thereby enhancing the visibility of very small particles and particleswith very low intrinsic contrast.

Phase Contrast Microscope: A microscope configured with a phase mask pair tocreate phase contrast. The technique which uses this is called Phase ContrastMicroscopy (PCM).

Phase-Polar Analysis: This is the use of polarized light in a phase contrastmicroscope. It is used to see the same size fibers that are visible in airfilter analysis. Although fibers finer than 1 um are visible, analysis ofthese is inferred from analysis of larger bundles that are usually present.

Phase-Polar Microscope: The phase-polar microscope is a phase contrastmicroscope which has an analyzer, a polarizer, a first order red plate and arotating phase condenser all in place so that the polarized light image isenhanced by phase contrast.

Sealing Encapsulant: This is a product which can be applied, preferably byspraying, onto an asbestos surface which will seal the surface so that fiberscannot be released.

Serpentine: A mineral family consisting of minerals with the generalcomposition Mg(3)(Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4) having the magnesium in brucite layer overa silicate layer. Minerals important in asbestos analysis included in thisfamily are chrysotile, lizardite, antigorite.

1.1. History

Light microscopy has been used for well over 100 years for the determinationof mineral species. This analysis is carried out using specialized polarizingmicroscopes as well as bright field microscopes. The identification ofminerals is an on-going process with many new minerals described each year.The first recorded use of asbestos was in Finland about 2500 B.C. where thematerial was used in the mud wattle for the wooden huts the people lived inas well as strengthening for pottery. Adverse health aspects of the mineralwere noted nearly 2000 years ago when Pliny the Younger wrote about the poorhealth of slaves in the asbestos mines. Although known to be injurious forcenturies, the first modern references to its toxicity were by the BritishLabor Inspectorate when it banned asbestos dust from the workplace in 1898.Asbestosis cases were described in the literature after the turn of thecentury. Cancer was first suspected in the mid 1930's and a causal link tomesothelioma was made in 1965. Because of the public concern for worker andpublic safety with the use of this material, several different types ofanalysis were applied to the determination of asbestos content. Lightmicroscopy requires a great deal of experience and craft. Attempts were madeto apply less subjective methods to the analysis. X-ray diffraction waspartially successful in determining the mineral types but was unable toseparate out the fibrous portions from the non-fibrous portions. Also, theminimum detection limit for asbestos analysis by X-ray diffraction (XRD) isabout 1%. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) was no more successful. Theseprovide useful corroborating information when the presence of asbestos hasbeen shown by microscopy; however, neither can determine the differencebetween fibrous and non-fibrous minerals when both habits are present. Thesame is true of Infrared Absorption (IR).

When electron microscopy was applied to asbestos analysis, hundreds offibers were discovered present too small to be visible in any lightmicroscope. There are two different types of electron microscope used forasbestos analysis: Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and TransmissionElectron Microscope (TEM). Scanning Electron Microscopy is useful inidentifying minerals. The SEM can provide two of the three pieces ofinformation required to identify fibers by electron microscopy: morphologyand chemistry. The third is structure as determined by Selected Area ElectronDiffraction -- SAED which is performed in the TEM. Although the resolution ofthe SEM is sufficient for very fine fibers to be seen, accuracy of chemicalanalysis that can be performed on the fibers varies with fiber diameter infibers of less than 0.2 um diameter. The TEM is a powerful tool to identifyfibers too small to be resolved by light microscopy and should be used inconjunction with this method when necessary. The TEM can provide all threepieces of information required for fiber identification. Most fibers thickerthan 1 um can adequately be defined in the light microscope. The lightmicroscope remains as the best instrument for the determination of mineraltype. This is because the minerals under investigation were first describedanalytically with the light microscope. It is inexpensive and gives positiveidentification for most samples analyzed. Further, when optical techniquesare inadequate, there is ample indication that alternative techniques shouldbe used for complete identification of the sample.

1.2. Principle

Minerals consist of atoms that may be arranged in random order or in aregular arrangement. Amorphous materials have atoms in random order whilecrystalline materials have long range order. Many materials are transparentto light, at least for small particles or for thin sections. The propertiesof these materials can be investigated by the effect that the material has onlight passing through it. The six asbestos minerals are all crystalline withparticular properties that have been identified and cataloged. These sixminerals are anisotropic. They have a regular array of atoms, but thearrangement is not the same in all directions. Each major direction of thecrystal presents a different regularity. Light photons travelling in each ofthese main directions will encounter different electrical neighborhoods,affecting the path and time of travel. The techniques outlined in this methoduse the fact that light traveling through fibers or crystals in differentdirections will behave differently, but predictably. The behavior of thelight as it travels through a crystal can be measured and compared with knownor determined values to identify the mineral species. Usually, PolarizedLight Microscopy (PLM) is performed with strain-free objectives on abright-field microscope platform. This would limit the resolution of themicroscope to about 0.4 um. Because OSHA requires the counting andidentification of fibers visible in phase contrast, the phase contrastplatform is used to visualize the fibers with the polarizing elements addedinto the light path. Polarized light methods cannot identify fibers finerthan about 1 um in diameter even though they are visible. The finest fibersare usually identified by inference from the presence of larger, identifiablefiber bundles. When fibers are present, but not identifiable by lightmicroscopy, use either SEM or TEM to determine the fiber identity.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of light microcopy are:

(a) Basic identification of the materials was first performed by lightmicroscopy and gross analysis. This provides a large base of publishedinformation against which to check analysis and analytical technique.

(b) The analysis is specific to fibers. The minerals present can exist inasbestiform, fibrous, prismatic, or massive varieties all at the same time.Therefore, bulk methods of analysis such as X-ray diffraction, IR analysis,DTA, etc. are inappropriate where the material is not known to be fibrous.

(c) The analysis is quick, requires little preparation time, and can beperformed on-site if a suitably equipped microscope is available.

The disadvantages are:

(a) Even using phase-polar illumination, not all the fibers present may beseen. This is a problem for very low asbestos concentrations whereagglomerations or large bundles of fibers may not be present to allowidentification by inference.

(b) The method requires a great degree of sophistication on the part of themicroscopist. An analyst is only as useful as his mental catalog of images.Therefore, a microscopist's accuracy is enhanced by experience. Themineralogical training of the analyst is very important. It is the basis onwhich subjective decisions are made.

(c) The method uses only a tiny amount of material for analysis. This maylead to sampling bias and false results (high or low). This is especiallytrue if the sample is severely inhomogeneous.

(d) Fibers may be bound in a matrix and not distinguishable as fibers soidentification cannot be made.

1.4. Method Performance

1.4.1. This method can be used for determination of asbestos content from 0to 100% asbestos. The detection limit has not been adequately determined,although for selected samples, the limit is very low, depending on the numberof particles examined. For mostly homogeneous, finely divided samples, withno difficult fibrous interferences, the detection limit is below 1%. Forinhomogeneous samples (most samples), the detection limit remains undefined.NIST has conducted proficiency testing of laboratories on a national scale.Although each round is reported statistically with an average, controllimits, etc., the results indicate a difficulty in establishing precisionespecially in the low concentration range. It is suspected that there issignificant bias in the low range especially near 1%. EPA tried to remedythis by requiring a mandatory point counting scheme for samples less than10%. The point counting procedure is tedious, and may introduce significantbiases of its own. It has not been incorporated into this method.

1.4.2. The precision and accuracy of the quantitation tests performed inthis method are unknown. Concentrations are easier to determine in commercialproducts where asbestos was deliberately added because the amount is usuallymore than a few percent. An analyst's results can be "calibrated" against theknown amounts added by the manufacturer. For geological samples, the degreeof homogeneity affects the precision.

1.4.3. The performance of the method is analyst dependent. The analyst mustchoose carefully and not necessarily randomly the portions for analysis toassure that detection of asbestos occurs when it is present. For this reason,the analyst must have adequate training in sample preparation, and experiencein the location and identification of asbestos in samples. This is usuallyaccomplished through substantial on-the-job training as well as formaleducation in mineralogy and microscopy.

1.5. Interferences

Any material which is long, thin, and small enough to be viewed under themicroscope can be considered an interference for asbestos. There areliterally hundreds of interferences in workplaces. The techniques describedin this method are normally sufficient to eliminate the interferences. Ananalyst's success in eliminating the interferences depends on propertraining.

Asbestos minerals belong to two mineral families: the serpentines and theamphiboles. In the serpentine family, the only common fibrous mineral ischrysotile. Occasionally, the mineral antigorite occurs in a fibril habitwith morphology similar to the amphiboles. The amphibole minerals consist ofa score of different minerals of which only five are regulated by federalstandard: amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestosand actinolite asbestos. These are the only amphibole minerals that have beencommercially exploited for their fibrous properties; however, the rest canand do occur occasionally in asbestiform habit.

In addition to the related mineral interferences, other minerals common inbuilding material may present a problem for some microscopists: gypsum,anhydrite, brucite, quartz fibers, talc fibers or ribbons, wollastonite,perlite, attapulgite, etc. Other fibrous materials commonly present inworkplaces are: fiberglass, mineral wool, ceramic wool, refractory ceramicfibers, kevlar, nomex, synthetic fibers, graphite or carbon fibers, cellulose(paper or wood) fibers, metal fibers, etc.

Matrix embedding material can sometimes be a negative interference. Theanalyst may not be able to easily extract the fibers from the matrix in orderto use the method. Where possible, remove the matrix before the analysis,taking careful note of the loss of weight. Some common matrix materials are:vinyl, rubber, tar, paint, plant fiber, cement, and epoxy. A further negativeinterference is that the asbestos fibers themselves may be either too smallto be seen in Phase contrast Microscopy (PCM) or of a very low fibrousquality, having the appearance of plant fibers. The analyst's ability to dealwith these materials increases with experience.

1.6. Uses and Occupational Exposure

Asbestos is ubiquitous in the environment. More than 40% of the land area ofthe United States is composed of minerals which may contain asbestos.Fortunately, the actual formation of great amounts of asbestos is relativelyrare. Nonetheless, there are locations in which environmental exposure can besevere such as in the Serpentine Hills of California.

There are thousands of uses for asbestos in industry and the home. Asbestosabatement workers are the most current segment of the population to haveoccupational exposure to great amounts of asbestos. If the material isundisturbed, there is no exposure. Exposure occurs when theasbestos-containing material is abraded or otherwise disturbed duringmaintenance operations or some other activity. Approximately 95% of theasbestos in place in the United States is chrysotile.

Amosite and crocidolite make up nearly all the difference. Tremolite andanthophyllite make up a very small percentage. Tremolite is found inextremely small amounts in certain chrysotile deposits. Actinolite exposureis probably greatest from environmental sources, but has been identified invermiculite containing, sprayed-on insulating materials which may have beencertified as asbestos-free.

1.7. Physical and Chemical Properties

The nominal chemical compositions for the asbestos minerals were given inSection 1. Compared to cleavage fragments of the same minerals, asbestiformfibers possess a high tensile strength along the fiber axis. They arechemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. Except for chrysotile,they are insoluble in Hydrochloric acid (HCl). Chrysotile is slightly solublein HCl. Asbestos has high electrical resistance and good sound absorbingcharacteristics. It can be woven into cables, fabrics or other textiles, ormatted into papers, felts, and mats.

1.8. Toxicology (This Section is for Information Only and Should Not BeTaken as OSHA Policy)

Possible physiologic results of respiratory exposure to asbestos aremesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum, interstitial fibrosis, asbestosis,pneumoconiosis, or respiratory cancer. The possible consequences of asbestosexposure are detailed in the NIOSH Criteria Document or in the OSHA AsbestosStandards 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR 1926.1101.

2. Sampling Procedure

2.1. Equipment for Sampling

(a) Tube or cork borer sampling device (b) Knife (c) 20 mLscintillation vial or similar vial (d) Sealing encapsulant

2.2. Safety Precautions

Asbestos is a known carcinogen. Take care when sampling. While in anasbestos-containing atmosphere, a properly selected and fit- testedrespirator should be worn. Take samples in a manner to cause the least amountof dust. Follow these general guidelines:

(a) Do not make unnecessary dust. (b) Take only a small amount (1 to2 g). (c) Tightly close the sample container. (d) Use encapsulant to seal thespot where the sample was taken, if necessary.

2.3. Sampling procedure

Samples of any suspect material should be taken from an inconspicuous place.Where the material is to remain, seal the sampling wound with an encapsulantto eliminate the potential for exposure from the sample site. Microscopyrequires only a few milligrams of material. The amount that will fill a 20 mLscintillation vial is more than adequate. Be sure to collect samples from alllayers and phases of material. If possible, make separate samples of eachdifferent phase of the material. This will aid in determining the actualhazard. DO NOT USE ENVELOPES, PLASTIC OR PAPER BAGS OF ANY KIND TO COLLECTSAMPLES. The use of plastic bags presents a contamination hazard tolaboratory personnel and to other samples. When these containers are opened,a bellows effect blows fibers out of the container onto everything, includingthe person opening the container.

If a cork-borer type sampler is available, push the tube through thematerial all the way, so that all layers of material are sampled. Somesamplers are intended to be disposable. These should be capped and sent tothe laboratory. If a non-disposable cork borer is used, empty the contentsinto a scintillation vial and send to the laboratory. Vigorously andcompletely clean the cork borer between samples.

2.4 Shipment

Samples packed in glass vials must not touch or they might break in shipment.

(a) Seal the samples with a sample seal (such as the OSHA 21) over the endto guard against tampering and to identify the sample.

(b) Package the bulk samples in separate packages from the air samples. Theymay cross-contaminate each other and will invalidate the results of the airsamples.

(c) Include identifying paperwork with the samples, but not in contact withthe suspected asbestos.

(d) To maintain sample accountability, ship the samples by certified mail,overnight express, or hand carry them to the laboratory.

3. Analysis

The analysis of asbestos samples can be divided into two major parts:

sample preparation and microscopy. Because of the different asbestos usesthat may be encountered by the analyst, each sample may need differentpreparation steps. The choices are outlined below. There are severaldifferent tests that are performed to identify the asbestos species anddetermine the percentage. They will be explained below.

3.1. Safety

(a) Do not create unnecessary dust. Handle the samples in HEPA- filterequipped hoods. If samples are received in bags, envelopes or otherinappropriate container, open them only in a hood having a face velocity ator greater than 100 fpm. Transfer a small amount to a scintillation vial andonly handle the smaller amount.

(b) Open samples in a hood, never in the open lab area.

(c) Index ofrefraction oils can be toxic. Take care not to get this material on the skin.Wash immediately with soap and water if this happens.

(d) Samples that have been heated in the muffle furnace or the drying ovenmay be hot. Handle them with tongs until they are cool enough to handle.

(e) Some of the solvents used, such as THF (tetrahydrofuran), are toxic andshould only be handled in an appropriate fume hood and according toinstructions given in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

3.2. Equipment

(a) Phase contrast microscope with 10x, 16x and 40x objectives, 10xwide-field eyepieces, G-22 Walton-Beckett graticule, Whipple disk, polarizer,analyzer and first order red or gypsum plate, 100 Watt illuminator, rotatingposition condenser with oversize phase rings, central stop dispersionobjective, Kohler illumination and a rotating mechanicalstage. (See Figure1).

(b) Stereo microscope with reflected light illumination, transmitted lightillumination, polarizer, analyzer and first order red or gypsum plate, androtating stage.

(c) Negative pressure hood for the stereo microscope

(d) Mufflefurnace capable of 600 deg.C

(e) Drying oven capable of 50-150 deg.C

(f)Aluminum specimen pans

(g) Tongs for handling samples in the furnace

(h) Highdispersion index of refraction oils (Special for dispersionstaining.)

n = 1.550 n = 1.585 n = 1.590 n = 1.605 n = 1.620 n = 1.670 n = 1.680 n =1.690

(i) A set of index of refraction oils from about n=1.350 to n=2.000 inn=0.005 increments. (Standard for Becke line analysis.)

(j) Glass slides withpainted or frosted ends 1 x 3 inches 1mm thick, precleaned.

(k) Cover Slips 22 x 22 mm, #1 1/2

(l) Paper clips or dissectionneedles

(m) Hand grinder

(n) Scalpel with both #10 and #11 blades

(o) 0.1molar HCl

(p) Decalcifying solution (Baxter Scientific ProductsEthylenediaminetetraacetic Acid,

Tetrasodium.............................. 0.7 g/l Sodium Potassium

Tartrate................ 8.0 mg/liter Hydrochloric

Acid........................ 99.2 g/liter Sodium

Tartrate.......................... 0.14 g/liter

(q) Tetrahydrofuran (THF)

(r) Hotplate capable of 60 deg.C

(s)Balance

(t) Hacksaw blade

(u) Ruby mortar and pestle

3.3. Sample Pre-Preparation

Sample preparation begins with pre-preparation which may include chemicalreduction of the matrix, heating the sample to dryness or heating in themuffle furnace. The end result is a sample which has been reduced to a powderthat is sufficiently fine to fit under the cover slip. Analyze differentphases of samples separately, e.g., tile and the tile mastic should beanalyzed separately as the mastic may contain asbestos while the tile maynot.

(a) Wet Samples

Samples with a high water content will not give the proper dispersion colorsand must be dried prior to sample mounting. Remove the lid of thescintillation vial, place the bottle in the drying oven and heat at 100 deg.Cto dryness (usually about 2 h). Samples which are not submitted to the lab inglass must be removed and placed in glass vials or aluminum weighing pansbefore placing them in the drying oven.

(b) Samples With Organic Interference -- Muffle Furnace

These may include samples with tar as a matrix, vinyl asbestos tile, or anyother organic that can be reduced by heating. Remove the sample from the vialand weigh in a balance to determine the weight of the submitted portion.Place the sample in a muffle furnace at 500 deg.C for 1 to 2 h or until allobvious organic material has been removed. Retrieve, cool and weigh again todetermine the weight loss on ignition. This is necessary to determine theasbestos content of the submitted sample, because the analyst will be lookingat a reduced sample.

Notes: Heating above 600 deg.C will cause the sample to undergo astructural change which, given sufficient time, will convert the chrysotileto forsterite. Heating even at lower temperatures for 1 to 2 h may have ameasurable effect on the optical properties of the minerals. If the analystis unsure of what to expect, a sample of standard asbestos should be heatedto the same temperature for the same length of time so that it can beexamined for the proper interpretation.

(c) Samples With Organic Interference -- THF

Vinyl asbestos tile is the most common material treated with this solvent,although, substances containing tar will sometimes yield to this treatment.Select a portion of the material and then grind it up if possible. Weigh thesample and place it in a test tube. Add sufficient THF to dissolve theorganic matrix. This is usually about 4 to 5 mL. Remember, THF is highlyflammable. Filter the remaining material through a tared silver membrane, dryand weigh to determine how much is left after the solvent extraction. Furtherprocess the sample to remove carbonate or mount directly.

(d) Samples With Carbonate Interference

Carbonate material is often found on fibers and sometimes must be removed inorder to perform dispersion microscopy. Weigh out a portion of the materialand place it in a test tube. Add a sufficient amount of 0.1 M HCl ordecalcifying solution in the tube to react all the carbonate as evidenced bygas formation; i.e., when the gas bubbles stop, add a little more solution.If no more gas forms, the reaction is complete. Filter the material outthrough a tared silver membrane, dry and weigh to determine the weight lost.

3.4. Sample Preparation

Samples must be prepared so that accurate determination can be made of theasbestos type and amount present. The following steps are carried out in thelow-flow hood (a low-flow hood has less than 50 fpm flow):

(1) If the sample has large lumps, is hard, or cannot be made to lie under acover slip, the grain size must be reduced. Place a small amount between twoslides and grind the material between them or grind a small amount in a cleanmortar and pestle. The choice of whether to use an alumina, ruby, or diamondmortar depends on the hardness of the material. Impact damage can alter theasbestos mineral if too much mechanical shock occurs. (Freezer mills cancompletely destroy the observable crystallinity of asbestos and should not beused). For some samples, a portion of material can be shaved off with ascalpel, ground off with a hand grinder or hack saw blade.

The preparation tools should either be disposable or cleaned thoroughly. Usevigorous scrubbing to loosen the fibers during the washing. Rinse theimplements with copious amounts of water and air- dry in a dust-freeenvironment.

(2) If the sample is powder or has been reduced as in 1) above, it is readyto mount. Place a glass slide on a piece of optical tissue and write theidentification on the painted or frosted end. Place two drops of index ofrefraction medium n=1.550 on the slide. (The medium n=1.550 is chosen becauseit is the matching index for chrysotile. Dip the end of a clean paper-clip ordissecting needle into the droplet of refraction medium on the slide tomoisten it. Then dip the probe into the powder sample. Transfer what stickson the probe to the slide. The material on the end of the probe should have adiameter of about 3 mm for a good mount. If the material is very fine, lesssample may be appropriate. For non-powder samples such as fiber mats, forcepsshould be used to transfer a small amount of material to the slide. Stir thematerial in the medium on the slide, spreading it out and making thepreparation as uniform as possible. Place a cover-slip on the preparation bygently lowering onto the slide and allowing it to fall "trapdoor" fashion onthe preparation to push out any bubbles. Press gently on the cover slip toeven out the distribution of particulate on the slide. If there isinsufficient mounting oil on the slide, one or two drops may be placed nearthe edge of the coverslip on the slide. Capillary action will draw thenecessary amount of liquid into the preparation. Remove excess oil with thepoint of a laboratory wiper.

Treat at least two different areas of each phase in this fashion. Chooserepresentative areas of the sample. It may be useful to select particularareas or fibers for analysis. This is useful to identify asbestos in severelyinhomogeneous samples.

When it is determined that amphiboles may be present, repeat the aboveprocess using the appropriate high- dispersion oils until an identificationis made or all six asbestos minerals have been ruled out. Note that percentdetermination must be done in the index medium 1.550 because amphiboles tendto disappear in their matching mediums.

3.5. Analytical procedure

Note: This method presumes some knowledge of mineralogy and opticalpetrography.

The analysis consists of three parts: The determination of whether there isasbestos present, what type is present and the determination of how much ispresent. The general flow of the analysis is:

(1) Gross examination.

(2) Examination under polarized light on thestereo microscope.

(3) Examination by phase-polar illumination on thecompound phase microscope.

(4) Determination of species by dispersion stain. Examination by Becke lineanalysis may also be used; however, this is usually more cumbersome forasbestos determination.

(5) Difficult samples may need to be analyzed by SEM or TEM, or the resultsfrom those techniques combined with light microscopy for a definitiveidentification. Identification of a particle as asbestos requires that it beasbestiform. Description of particles should follow the suggestion ofCampbell. (Figure 1)

For the purpose of regulation, the mineral must be one of the six mineralscovered and must be in the asbestos growth habit. Large specimen samples ofasbestos generally have the gross appearance of wood. Fibers are easilyparted from it. Asbestos fibers are very long compared with their widths. Thefibers have a very high tensile strength as demonstrated by bending withoutbreaking. Asbestos fibers exist in bundles that are easily parted, showlongitudinal fine structure and may be tufted at the ends showing "bundle ofsticks" morphology. In the microscope some of these properties may not beobservable. Amphiboles do not always show striations along their length evenwhen they are asbestos. Neither will they always show tufting. They generallydo not show a curved nature except for very long fibers. Asbestos andasbestiform minerals are usually characterized in groups by extremely highaspect ratios (greater than 100:1). While aspect ratio analysis is useful forcharacterizing populations of fibers, it cannot be used to identifyindividual fibers of intermediate to short aspect ratio. Observation of manyfibers is often necessary to determine whether a sample consists of "cleavagefragments" or of asbestos fibers.

Most cleavage fragments of the asbestos minerals are easily distinguishablefrom true asbestos fibers. This is because true cleavage fragments usuallyhave larger diameters than 1 um. Internal structure of particles larger thanthis usually shows them to have no internal fibrillar structure. In addition,cleavage fragments of the monoclinic amphiboles show inclined extinctionunder crossed polars with no compensator. Asbestos fibers usually showextinction at zero degrees or ambiguous extinction if any at all.Morphologically, the larger cleavage fragments are obvious by their blunt orstepped ends showing prismatic habit. Also, they tend to be acicular ratherthan filiform.

Where the particles are less than 1 um in diameter and have an aspect ratiogreater than or equal to 3:1, it is recommended that the sample be analyzedby SEM or TEM if there is any question whether the fibers are cleavagefragments or asbestiform particles.

Care must be taken when analyzing by electron microscopy because theinterferences are different from those in light microscopy and maystructurally be very similar to asbestos. The classic interference is betweenanthophyllite and biopyribole or intermediate fiber. Use the samemorphological clues for electron microscopy as are used for light microscopy,e.g. fibril splitting, internal longitudinal striation, fraying, curvature,etc.

(1) Gross examination:

Examine the sample, preferably in the glass vial. Determine the presence ofany obvious fibrous component. Estimate a percentage based on previousexperience and current observation. Determine whether any pre-preparation isnecessary. Determine the number of phases present. This step may be carriedout or augmented by observation at 6 to 40 x under a stereo microscope.

(2) After performing any necessary pre-preparation, prepare slides of eachphase as described above. Two preparations of the same phase in the sameindex medium can be made side-by-side on the same glass for convenience.Examine with the polarizing stereo microscope. Estimate the percentage ofasbestos based on the amount of birefringent fiber present.

(3) Examine the slides on the phase-polar microscopes at magnifications of160 and 400 x . Note the morphology of the fibers. Long, thin, very straightfibers with little curvature are indicative of fibers from the amphibolefamily. Curved, wavy fibers are usually indicative of chrysotile. Estimatethe percentage of asbestos on the phase-polar microscope under conditions ofcrossed polars and a gypsum plate. Fibers smaller than 1.0 um in thicknessmust be identified by inference to the presence of larger, identifiablefibers and morphology. If no larger fibers are visible, electron microscopyshould be performed. At this point, only a tentative identification can bemade. Full identification must be made with dispersion microscopy. Details ofthe tests are included in the appendices.

(4) Once fibers have been determined to be present, they must be identified.Adjust the microscope for dispersion mode and observe the fibers. Themicroscope has a rotating stage, one polarizing element, and a system forgenerating dark-field dispersion microscopy (see Section 4.6. of thisappendix). Align a fiber with its length parallel to the polarizer and notethe color of the Becke lines. Rotate the stage to bring the fiber lengthperpendicular to the polarizer and note the color. Repeat this process forevery fiber or fiber bundle examined. The colors must be consistent with thecolors generated by standard asbestos reference materials for a positiveidentification. In n=1.550, amphiboles will generally show a yellow tostraw-yellow color indicating that the fiber indices of refraction are higherthan the liquid. If long, thin fibers are noted and the colors are yellow,prepare further slides as above in the suggested matching liquids listedbelow:

Where more than one liquid is suggested, the first is preferred;

however, in some cases this liquid will not give good dispersion color. Takecare to avoid interferences in the other liquid; e.g., wollastonite inn=1.620 will give the same colors as tremolite. In n=1.605 wollastonite willappear yellow in all directions. Wollastonite may be determined under crossedpolars as it will change from blue to yellow as it is rotated along its fiberaxis by tapping on the cover slip. Asbestos minerals will not change in thisway.

Determination of the angle of extinction may, when present, aid in thedetermination of anthophyllite from tremolite. True asbestos fibers usuallyhave 0 deg. extinction or ambiguous extinction, while cleavage fragments havemore definite extinction.

Continue analysis until both preparations have been examined and all presentspecies of asbestos are identified. If there are no fibers present, or thereis less than 0.1% present, end the analysis with the minimum number of slides(2).

(5) Some fibers have a coating on them which makes dispersion microscopyvery difficult or impossible. Becke line analysis or electron microscopy maybe performed in those cases. Determine the percentage by light microscopy.TEM analysis tends to overestimate the actual percentage present.

(6) Percentage determination is an estimate of occluded area, tempered bygross observation. Gross observation information is used to make sure thatthe high magnification microscopy does not greatly over- or under-estimatethe amount of fiber present. This part of the analysis requires a great dealof experience. Satisfactory models for asbestos content analysis have not yetbeen developed, although some models based on metallurgical grain-sizedetermination have found some utility. Estimation is more easily handled insituations where the grain sizes visible at about 160 x are about the sameand the sample is relatively homogeneous.

View all of the area under the cover slip to make the percentagedetermination. View the fields while moving the stage, paying attention tothe clumps of material. These are not usually the best areas to performdispersion microscopy because of the interference from other materials. But,they are the areas most likely to represent the accurate percentage in thesample. Small amounts of asbestos require slower scanning and more frequentanalysis of individual fields.

Report the area occluded by asbestos as the concentration. This estimatedoes not generally take into consideration the difference in density of thedifferent species present in the sample. For most samples this is adequate.Simulation studies with similar materials must be carried out to applymicrovisual estimation for that purpose and is beyond the scope of thisprocedure.

(7) Where successive concentrations have been made by chemical or physicalmeans, the amount reported is the percentage of the material in the "assubmitted" or original state. The percentage determined by microscopy ismultiplied by the fractions remaining after pre-preparation steps to give thepercentage in the original sample. For example:

Step 1. 60% remains after heating at 550 deg.C for 1 h.

Step 2. 30%of the residue of step 1 remains after dissolution of carbonate in 0.1 mHCl.

Step 3. Microvisual estimation determines that 5% of the sample ischrysotile asbestos.

The reported result is:

(8) Report the percent and type of asbestos present. For samples whereasbestos was identified, but is less than 1.0%, report "Asbestos present,less than 1.0%." There must have been at least two observed fibers or fiberbundles in the two preparations to be reported as present. For samples whereasbestos was not seen, report as "None Detected."

Auxiliary Information

Because of the subjective nature of asbestos analysis, certain concepts andprocedures need to be discussed in more depth. This information will help theanalyst understand why some of the procedures are carried out the way theyare.

4.1. Light

Light is electromagnetic energy. It travels from its source in packetscalled quanta. It is instructive to consider light as a plane wave. The lighthas a direction of travel. Perpendicular to this and mutually perpendicularto each other, are two vector components. One is the magnetic vector and theother is the electric vector. We shall only be concerned with the electricvector. In this description, the interaction of the vector and the mineralwill describe all the observable phenomena. From a light source such amicroscope illuminator, light travels in all different direction from thefilament.

In any given direction away from the filament, the electric vector isperpendicular to the direction of travel of a light ray. While perpendicular,its orientation is random about the travel axis. If the electric vectors fromall the light rays were lined up by passing the light through a filter thatwould only let light rays with electric vectors oriented in one directionpass, the light would then be POLARIZED.

Polarized light interacts with matter in the direction of the electricvector. This is the polarization direction. Using this property it ispossible to use polarized light to probe different materials and identifythem by how they interact with light. The speed of light in a vacuum is aconstant at about 2.99 x 10(8) m/s. When light travels in different materialssuch as air, water, minerals or oil, it does not travel at this speed. Ittravels slower. This slowing is a function of both the material through whichthe light is traveling and the wavelength or frequency of the light. Ingeneral, the more dense the material, the slower the light travels. Also,generally, the higher the frequency, the slower the light will travel. Theratio of the speed of light in a vacuum to that in a material is called theindex of refraction (n). It is usually measured at 589 nm (the sodium Dline). If white light (light containing all the visible wavelengths) travelsthrough a material, rays of longer wavelengths will travel faster than thoseof shorter wavelengths, this separation is called dispersion. Dispersion isused as an identifier of materials as described in Section 4.6.

4.2. Material Properties

Materials are either amorphous or crystalline. The difference between thesetwo descriptions depends on the positions of the atoms in them. The atoms inamorphous materials are randomly arranged with no long range order. Anexample of an amorphous material is glass. The atoms in crystallinematerials, on the other hand, are in regular arrays and have long rangeorder. Most of the atoms can be found in highly predictable locations.Examples of crystalline material are salt, gold, and the asbestos minerals.

It is beyond the scope of this method to describe the different types ofcrystalline materials that can be found, or the full description of theclasses into which they can fall. However, some general crystallography isprovided below to give a foundation to the procedures described.

With the exception of anthophyllite, all the asbestos minerals belong to themonoclinic crystal type. The unit cell is the basic repeating unit of thecrystal and for monoclinic crystals can be described as having three unequalsides, two 90 deg. angles and one angle not equal to 90 deg.. Theorthorhombic group, of which anthophyllite is a member has three unequalsides and three 90 deg. angles. The unequal sides are a consequence of thecomplexity of fitting the different atoms into the unit cell. Although theatoms are in a regular array, that array is not symmetrical in alldirections. There is long range order in the three major directions of thecrystal. However, the order is different in each of the three directions.This has the effect that the index of refraction is different in each of thethree directions. Using polarized light, we can investigate the index ofrefraction in each of the directions and identify the mineral or materialunder investigation. The indices alpha, beta, and gamma are used to identifythe lowest, middle, and highest index of refraction respectively. The xdirection, associated with alpha is called the fast axis. Conversely, the zdirection is associated with gamma and is the slow direction. Crocidolite hasalpha along the fiber length making it "length-fast". The remainder of theasbestos minerals have the gamma axis along the fiber length. They are called"length-slow". This orientation to fiber length is used to aid in theidentification of asbestos.

4.3. Polarized Light Technique

Polarized light microscopy as described in this section uses the phase-polarmicroscope described in Section 3.2. A phase contrast microscope is fittedwith two polarizing elements, one below and one above the sample. Thepolarizers have their polarization directions at right angles to each other.Depending on the tests performed, there may be a compensator between thesetwo polarizing elements. A compensator is a piece of mineral with knownproperties that "compensates" for some deficiency in the optical train. Lightemerging from a polarizing element has its electric vector pointing in thepolarization direction of the element. The light will not be subsequentlytransmitted through a second element set at a right angle to the firstelement. Unless the light is altered as it passes from one element to theother, there is no transmission of light.

4.4. Angle of Extinction

Crystals which have different crystal regularity in two or three maindirections are said to be anisotropic. They have a different index ofrefraction in each of the main directions. When such a crystal is insertedbetween the crossed polars, the field of view is no longer dark but shows thecrystal in color. The color depends on the properties of the crystal. Thelight acts as if it travels through the crystal along the optical axes. If acrystal optical axis were lined up along one of the polarizing directions(either the polarizer or the analyzer) the light would appear to travel onlyin that direction, and it would blink out or go dark. The difference indegrees between the fiber direction and the angle at which it blinks out iscalled the angle of extinction. When this angle can be measured, it is usefulin identifying the mineral. The procedure for measuring the angle ofextinction is to first identify the polarization direction in the microscope.A commercial alignment slide can be used to establish the polarizationdirections or use anthophyllite or another suitable mineral. This mineral hasa zero degree angle of extinction and will go dark to extinction as it alignswith the polarization directions. When a fiber of anthophyllite has gone toextinction, align the eyepiece reticle or graticule with the fiber so thatthere is a visual cue as to the direction of polarization in the field ofview. Tape or otherwise secure the eyepiece in this position so it will notshift.

After the polarization direction has been identified in the field of view,move the particle of interest to the center of the field of view and align itwith the polarization direction. For fibers, align the fiber along thisdirection. Note the angular reading of the rotating stage. Looking at theparticle, rotate the stage until the fiber goes dark or "blinks out". Againnote the reading of the stage. The difference in the first reading and thesecond is an angle of extinction.

The angle measured may vary as the orientation of the fiber changes aboutits long axis. Tables of mineralogical data usually report the maximum angleof extinction. Asbestos forming minerals, when they exhibit an angle ofextinction, usually do show an angle of extinction close to the reportedmaximum, or as appropriate depending on the substitution chemistry.

4.5. Crossed Polars With Compensator

When the optical axes of a crystal are not lined up along one of thepolarizing directions (either the polarizer or the analyzer) part of thelight travels along one axis and part travels along the other visible axis.This is characteristic of birefringent materials.

The color depends on the difference of the two visible indices of refractionand the thickness of the crystal. The maximum difference available is thedifference between the alpha and the gamma axes. This maximum difference isusually tabulated as the birefringence of the crystal.

For this test, align the fiber at 45 deg. to the polarization directions inorder to maximize the contribution to each of the optical axes. The colorsseen are called retardation colors. They arise from the recombination oflight which has traveled through the two separate directions of the crystal.One of the rays is retarded behind the other since the light in thatdirection travels slower. On recombination, some of the colors which make upwhite light are enhanced by constructive interference and some are suppressedby destructive interference. The result is a color dependent on thedifference between the indices and the thickness of the crystal. The propercolors, thicknesses, and retardations are shown on a Michel-Levy chart. Thethree items, retardation, thickness and birefringence are related by thefollowing relationship:

R = t(n gamma -- n alpha) R = retardation, t = crystal thickness in um, andn alpha, gamma = indices of refraction.

Examination of the equation for asbestos minerals reveals that the visiblecolors for almost all common asbestos minerals and fiber sizes are shades ofgray and black. The eye is relatively poor at discriminating different shadesof gray. It is very good at discriminating different colors. In order tocompensate for the low retardation, a compensator is added to the light trainbetween the polarization elements. The compensator used for this test is agypsum plate of known thickness and birefringence. Such a compensator whenoriented at 45 deg. to the polarizer direction, provides a retardation of 530nm of the 530 nm wavelength color. This enhances the red color and gives thebackground a characteristic red to red-magenta color. If this "full-wave"compensator is in place when the asbestos preparation is inserted into thelight train, the colors seen on the fibers are quite different. Gypsum, likeasbestos has a fast axis and a slow axis. When a fiber is aligned with itsfast axis in the same direction as the fast axis of the gypsum plate, the rayvibrating in the slow direction is retarded by both the asbestos and thegypsum. This results in a higher retardation than would be present for eitherof the two minerals. The color seen is a second order blue. When the fiber isrotated 90 deg. using the rotating stage, the slow direction of the fiber isnow aligned with the fast direction of the gypsum and the fast direction ofthe fiber is aligned with the slow direction of the gypsum. Thus, one rayvibrates faster in the fast direction of the gypsum, and slower in the slowdirection of the fiber; the other ray will vibrate slower in the slowdirection of the gypsum and faster in the fast direction of the fiber. Inthis case, the effect is subtractive and the color seen is a first orderyellow. As long as the fiber thickness does not add appreciably to the color,the same basic colors will be seen for all asbestos types except crocidolite.In crocidolite the colors will be weaker, may be in the opposite directions,and will be altered by the blue absorption color natural to crocidolite.Hundreds of other materials will give the same colors as asbestos, andtherefore, this test is not definitive for asbestos. The test is useful indiscriminating against fiberglass or other amorphous fibers such as somesynthetic fibers. Certain synthetic fibers will show retardation colorsdifferent than asbestos; however, there are some forms of polyethylene andaramid which will show morphology and retardation colors similar to asbestosminerals. This test must be supplemented with a positive identification testwhen birefringent fibers are present which can not be excluded by morphology.This test is relatively ineffective for use on fibers less than 1 um indiameter. For positive confirmation TEM or SEM should be used if no largerbundles or fibers are visible.

4.6. Dispersion Staining

Dispersion microscopy or dispersion staining is the method of choice for theidentification of asbestos in bulk materials. Becke line analysis is used bysome laboratories and yields the same results as does dispersion staining forasbestos and can be used in lieu of dispersion staining. Dispersion stainingis performed on the same platform as the phase-polar analysis with theanalyzer and compensator removed. One polarizing element remains to definethe direction of the light so that the different indices of refraction of thefibers may be separately determined. Dispersion microscopy is a dark-fieldtechnique when used for asbestos. Particles are imaged with scattered light.Light which is unscattered is blocked from reaching the eye either by theback field image mask in a McCrone objective or a back field image mask inthe phase condenser. The most convenient method is to use the rotating phasecondenser to move an oversized phase ring into place. The ideal size for thisring is for the central disk to be just larger than the objective entryaperture as viewed in the back focal plane. The larger the disk, the lessscattered light reaches the eye. This will have the effect of diminishing theintensity of dispersion color and will shift the actual color seen. Thecolors seen vary even on microscopes from the same manufacturer. This is dueto the different bands of wavelength exclusion by different mask sizes. Themask may either reside in the condenser or in the objective back focal plane.It is imperative that the analyst determine by experimentation with asbestosstandards what the appropriate colors should be for each asbestos type. Thecolors depend also on the temperature of the preparation and the exactchemistry of the asbestos. Therefore, some slight differences from thestandards should be allowed. This is not a serious problem for commercialasbestos uses. This technique is used for identification of the indices ofrefraction for fibers by recognition of color. There is no direct numericalreadout of the index of refraction. Correlation of color to actual index ofrefraction is possible by referral to published conversion tables. This isnot necessary for the analysis of asbestos. Recognition of appropriate colorsalong with the proper morphology are deemed sufficient to identify thecommercial asbestos minerals. Other techniques including SEM, TEM, and XRDmay be required to provide additional information in order to identify othertypes of asbestos.

Make a preparation in the suspected matching high dispersion oil, e.g., n =1.550 for chrysotile. Perform the preliminary tests to determine whether thefibers are birefringent or not. Take note of the morphological character.Wavy fibers are indicative of chrysotile while long, straight, thin, frayedfibers are indicative of amphibole asbestos. This can aid in the selection ofthe appropriate matching oil. The microscope is set up and the polarizationdirection is noted as in Section 4.4. Align a fiber with the polarizationdirection. Note the color. This is the color parallel to the polarizer. Thenrotate the fiber rotating the stage 90 deg. so that the polarizationdirection is across the fiber. This is the perpendicular position. Again notethe color. Both colors must be consistent with standard asbestos minerals inthe correct direction for a positive identification of asbestos. If only oneof the colors is correct while the other is not, the identification is notpositive. If the colors in both directions are bluish-white, the analyst haschosen a matching index oil which is higher than the correct matching oil,e.g. the analyst has used n = 1.620 where chrysotile is present. The nextlower oil (Section 3.5.) should be used to prepare another specimen. If thecolor in both directions is yellow-white to straw-yellow-white, thisindicates that the index of the oil is lower than the index of the fiber,e.g. the preparation is in n = 1.550 while anthophyllite is present. Selectthe next higher oil (Section 3.5.) and prepare another slide. Continue inthis fashion until a positive identification of all asbestos species presenthas been made or all possible asbestos species have been ruled out bynegative results in this test. Certain plant fibers can have similardispersion colors as asbestos. Take care to note and evaluate the morphologyof the fibers or remove the plant fibers in pre-preparation. Coating materialon the fibers such as carbonate or vinyl may destroy the dispersion color.Usually, there will be some outcropping of fiber which will show the colorssufficient for identification. When this is not the case, treat the sample asdescribed in Section 3.3. and then perform dispersion staining. Some sampleswill yield to Becke line analysis if they are coated or electron microscopycan be used for identification.

5. References

5.1. Crane, D.T., Asbestos in Air, OSHA method ID160, Revised November 1992.

5.2. Ford, W.E., Dana's Textbook of Mineralogy; Fourth Ed.; John Wiley andSon, New York, 1950, p. vii.

5.3. Selikoff,.I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic Press, NewYork, 1978, pp. 3, 20.

5.4. Women Inspectors of Factories. Annual Report for 1898, H.M. StatisticalOffice, London, p. 170 (1898).

5.5. Selikoff,.I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic Press, NewYork, 1978, pp. 26, 30.

5.6. Campbell, W.J., et al, Selected Silicate Minerals and Their AsbestiformVarieties, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,Information Circular 8751, 1977.

5.7. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR1926.58.

5.8. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; AsbestosNESHAP Revision, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 224, 20 November 1990, p.48410.

5.9. Ross, M. The Asbestos Minerals: Definitions, Description, Modes ofFormation, Physical and Chemical Properties and Health Risk to the MiningCommunity, Nation Bureau of Standards Special Publication, Washington, D.C.,1977.

5.10. Lilis, R., Fibrous Zeolites and Endemic Mesothelioma in Cappadocia,Turkey, J. Occ Medicine, 1981, 23, (8) ,548-550.

5.11. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos -- 1972, U.S. Department of HealthEducation and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control,National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, HSM-72-10267.

5.12. Campbell,W.J., et al, Relationship of Mineral Habit to SizeCharacteristics for Tremolite Fragments and Fibers, United States Departmentof the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 8367, 1979.

5.13. Mefford, D., DCM Laboratory, Denver, private communication, July 1987.

5.14. Deer, W.A., Howie, R.A., Zussman, J., Rock Forming Minerals, Longman,Thetford, UK, 1974.

5.15. Kerr, P.F., Optical Mineralogy; Third Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.

5.16. Veblen, D.R. (Ed.), Amphiboles and Other Hydrous Pyriboles --Mineralogy, Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol 9A, Michigan, 1982, pp 1-102.

5.17. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in the Analysis ofAsbestos and Quartz, ACS Symposium Series, No. 120, Analytical Techniques inOccupational Health Chemistry, 1979.

5.18. Polarized Light Microscopy, McCrone Research Institute, Chicago, 1976.

5.19. Asbestos Identification, McCrone Research Institute, G&G printers,Chicago, 1987.

5.20. McCrone, W.C., Calculation of Refractive Indices from DispersionStaining Data, The Microscope, No 37, Chicago, 1989.

5.21. Levadie, B. (Ed.), Asbestos and Other Health Related Silicates, ASTMTechnical Publication 834, ASTM, Philadelphia 1982.

5.22. Steel, E. and Wylie, A., Riordan, P.H. (Ed.), MineralogicalCharacteristics of Asbestos, Geology of Asbestos Deposits, pp. 93-101,SME-AIME, 1981.

5.23. Zussman, J., The Mineralogy of Asbestos, Asbestos: Properties,Applications and Hazards, pp. 45-67 Wiley, 1979.

Appendix L to 1915.1001 -- Work Practices and Engineering Controls forAutomotive Brake and Clutch Inspection, Disassembly, Repair and Assembly --Mandatory

This mandatory appendix specifies engineering controls and work practicesthat must be implemented by the employer during automotive brake and clutchinspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly operations. Proper use of theseengineering controls and work practices will reduce employees' asbestosexposure below the permissible exposure level during clutch and brakeinspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly operations. The employer shallinstitute engineering controls and work practices using either the method setforth in paragraph [A] or paragraph [B] of this appendix, or any other methodwhich the employer can demonstrate to be equivalent in terms of reducingemployee exposure to asbestos as defined and which meets the requirementsdescribed in paragraph [C] of this appendix, for those facilities in which nomore than 5 pairs of brakes or 5 clutches are inspected, disassembled,reassembled and/or repaired per week, the method set forth in paragraph [D]of this appendix may be used:

[A] Negative Pressure Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum System Method

(1) The brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, and assemblyoperations shall be enclosed to cover and contain the clutch or brakeassembly and to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the worker'sbreathing zone.

(2) The enclosure shall be sealed tightly and thoroughly inspected for leaksbefore work begins on brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair, andassembly.

(3) The enclosure shall be such that the worker can clearly see theoperation and shall provide impermeable sleeves through which the worker canhandle the brake and clutch inspection, disassembly, repair and assembly. Theintegrity of the sleeves and ports shall be examined before work begins.

(4) A HEPA-filtered vacuum shall be employed to maintain the enclosure undernegative pressure throughout the operation. Compressed-air may be used toremove asbestos fibers or particles from the enclosure.

(5) The HEPA vacuum shall be used first to loosen the asbestos containingresidue from the brake and clutch parts and then to evacuate the loosenedasbestos containing material from the enclosure and capture the material inthe vacuum filter.

(6) The vacuum's filter, when full, shall be first wetted with a fine mistof water, then removed and placed immediately in an impermeable container,labeled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this section and disposed ofaccording to paragraph (k) of this section.

(7) Any spills or releases of asbestos containing waste material from insideof the enclosure or vacuum hose or vacuum filter shall be immediately cleanedup and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of the section.

[B] Low Pressure/Wet Cleaning Method

(1) A catch basin shall be placed under the brake assembly, positioned toavoid splashes and spills.

(2) The reservoir shall contain water containing an organic solvent orwetting agent. The flow of liquid shall be controlled such that the brakeassembly is gently flooded to prevent the asbestos-containing brake dust frombecoming airborne.

(3) The aqueous solution shall be allowed to flow between the brake drum andbrake support before the drum is removed.

(4) After removing the brake drum, the wheel hub and back of the brakeassembly shall be thoroughly wetted to suppress dust.

(5) The brake support plate, brake shoes and brake components used to attachthe brake shoes shall be thoroughly washed before removing the old shoes.

(6) In systems using filters, the filters, when full, shall be first wettedwith a fine mist of water, then removed and placed immediately in animpermeable container, labeled according to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of thissection and disposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section.

(7) Any spills of asbestos-containing aqueous solution or anyasbestos-containing waste material shall be cleaned up immediately anddisposed of according to paragraph (k) of this section.

(8) The use of dry brushing during low pressure/wet cleaning operations isprohibited.

[C] Equivalent Methods

An equivalent method is one which has sufficient written detail so that itcan be reproduced and has been demonstrated that the exposures resulting fromthe equivalent method are equal to or less than the exposures which wouldresult from the use of the method described in paragraph [A] of thisappendix. For purposes of making this comparison, the employer shall assumethat exposures resulting from the use of the method described in paragraph[A] of this appendix shall not exceed 0.004 f/cc, as measured by the OSHAreference method and as averaged over at least 18 personal samples.

[D] Wet Method

(1) A spray bottle, hose nozzle, or other implement capable of delivering afine mist of water or amended water or other delivery system capable ofdelivering water at low pressure, shall be used to first thoroughly wet thebrake and clutch parts. Brake and clutch components shall then be wiped cleanwith a cloth.

(2) The cloth shall be placed in an impermeable container, labelledaccording to paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this section and then disposed ofaccording to paragraph (k) of this section, or the cloth shall be launderedin a way to prevent the release of asbestos fibers in excess of 0.1 fiber percubic centimeter of air.

(3) Any spills of solvent or any asbestos containing waste material shall becleaned up immediately according to paragraph (k) of this section.

(4) The use of dry brushing during the wet method operations is prohibited.

Construction

PART 1926 -- [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation of subpart Z of 29 CFR part 1926 continues to readas follows:

Authority: Sections 6 and 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29U.S.C. 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Orders Nos. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) or 1-90 (55 FR 9033) as applicable; and 29CFR part 1911.

Section 1926.1102 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911;also issued under 5 U.S.C. 653.

Section 1926.1103 through 1926.1118 also issued under 29 U.S.C.6653. Section 1926.1128 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653. Section 1926.1145and 1926.1147 also issued under 29 U.S.C. 653. Section 1926.1148 also issuedunder 29 U.S.C. 653.

2. Section 1926.58 Asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite isredesignated as Sec. 1926.1101 Asbestos and Sec. 1926.58 is reserved.

3. Section 1926.1101 is amended by revising the section heading andparagraphs (a) through (p) (all the text preceding the appendices) and byadding paragraph (q) to read as follows:

1926.1101 Asbestos.

(a) Scope and application. This section regulates asbestos exposure in allwork as defined in 29 CFR 1910.12(b), including but not limited to thefollowing:

(1) Demolition or salvage of structures where asbestos is present;

(2) Removal or encapsulation of materials containing asbestos;

(3) Construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, or renovation ofstructures, substrates, or portions thereof, that contain asbestos;

(4) Installation of products containing asbestos;

(5) Asbestos spill/emergency cleanup; and

(6) Transportation, disposal, storage, containment of and housekeepingactivities involving asbestos or products containing asbestos, on the site orlocation at which construction activities are performed.

(7) Coverage under this standard shall be based on the nature of the workoperation involving asbestos exposure.

(b) Definitions. "Aggressive method" means removal or disturbance ofbuilding material by sanding, abrading, grinding or other method that breaks,crumbles, or disintegrates intact ACM.

"Amended water" means water to which surfactant (wetting agent) has beenadded to increase the ability of the liquid to penetrate ACM.

"Asbestos" includes chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite asbestos,anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and any of these minerals thathas been chemically treated and/or altered. For purposes of this standard,"asbestos" includes PACM, as defined below.

"Asbestos-containing material (ACM)", means any material containing morethan one percent asbestos.

"Assistant Secretary" means the Assistant Secretary of Labor forOccupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, or designee.

"Authorized person" means any person authorized by the employer and requiredby work duties to be present in regulated areas.

"Building/facility owner" is the legal entity, including a lessee, whichexercises control over management and record keeping functions relating to abuilding and/or facility in which activities covered by this standard takeplace.

"Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH)" means one certified in thecomprehensive practice of industrial hygiene by the American Board ofIndustrial Hygiene.

"Class I asbestos work" means activities involving the removal of TSI andsurfacing ACM and PACM.

"Class II asbestos work" means activities involving the removal of ACM whichis not thermal system insulation or surfacing material. This includes, but isnot limited to, the removal of asbestos-containing wallboard, floor tile andsheeting, roofing and siding shingles, and construction mastics.

"Class III asbestos work" means repair and maintenance operations, where"ACM", including thermal system insulation and surfacing material, is likelyto be disturbed.

"Class IV asbestos work" means maintenance and custodial activities duringwhich employees contact ACM and PACM and activities to clean up waste anddebris containing ACM and PACM.

"Clean room" means an uncontaminated room having facilities for the storageof employees' street clothing and uncontaminated materials and equipment.

"Closely resemble" means that the major workplace conditions which havecontributed to the levels of historic asbestos exposure, are no moreprotective than conditions of the current workplace.

"Competent person" means, in addition to the definition in 29 CFR 1926.32(f), one who is capable of identifying existing asbestos hazards in theworkplace and selecting the appropriate control strategy for asbestosexposure, who has the authority to take prompt corrective measures toeliminate them, as specified in 29 CFR 1926.32(f): in addition, for Class Iand Class II work who is specially trained in a training course which meetthe criteria of EPA's Model Accreditation Plan (40 CFR 763) for projectdesigner or supervisor, or its equivalent and, for Class II and Class IVwork, who is trained in an operations and maintenance (O&M) course developedby EPA [40 CFR 763.92 (a)(2)].

"Critical barrier" means one or more layers of plastic sealed over allopenings into a work area or any other similarly placed physical barriersufficient to prevent airborne asbestos in a work area from migrating to anadjacent area.

"Decontamination area" means an enclosed area adjacent and connected to theregulated area and consisting of an equipment room, shower area, and cleanroom, which is used for the decontamination of workers, materials, andequipment that are contaminated with asbestos.

"Demolition" means the wrecking or taking out of any load-supportingstructural member and any related razing, removing, or stripping of asbestosproducts.

"Director" means the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safetyand Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or designee.

"Disturbance" means contact which releases fibers from ACM or PACM or debriscontaining ACM or PACM. This term includes activities that disrupt the matrixof ACM or PACM, render ACM or PACM friable, or generate visible debris.Disturbance includes cutting away small amounts of ACM and PACM, no greaterthan the amount which can be contained in one standard sized glove bag orwaste bag in order to access a building component. In no event shall theamount of ACM or PACM so disturbed exceed that which can be contained in oneglove bag or waste bag which shall not exceed 60 inches in length and width.

"Employee exposure" means that exposure to airborne asbestos that wouldoccur if the employee were not using respiratory protective equipment.

"Equipment room (change room)" means a contaminated room located within thedecontamination area that is supplied with impermeable bags or containers forthe disposal of contaminated protective clothing and equipment.

"Fiber" means a particulate form of asbestos, 5 micrometers or longer, witha length-to-diameter ratio of at least 3 to 1.

"Glovebag" means an impervious plastic bag-like enclosure affixed around anasbestos-containing material, with glove-like appendages through whichmaterial and tools may be handled.

"High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter" means a filter capable oftrapping and retaining at least 99.97 percent of all mono-dispersed particlesof 0.3 micrometers in diameter.

"Homogeneous area" means an area of surfacing material or thermal systeminsulation that is uniform in color and texture.

"Industrial hygienist" means a professional qualified by education,training, and experience to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and developcontrols for occupational health hazards.

"Intact" means that the ACM has not crumbled, been pulverized, or otherwisedeteriorated so that it is no longer likely to be bound with its matrix.

"Modification for purposes of paragraph (g)(6)(ii)," means a changed oraltered procedure, material or component of a control system, which replacesa procedure, material or component of a required system. Omitting a procedureor component, or reducing or diminishing the stringency or strength of amaterial or component of the control system is not a "modification" forpurposes of paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section.

"Negative Initial Exposure Assessment" means a demonstration by theemployer, which complies with the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of thissection, that employee exposure during an operation is expected to beconsistently below the PELs.

"PACM" means "presumed asbestos containing material". "PresumedAsbestos Containing Material" means thermal system insulation and surfacingmaterial found in buildings constructed no later than 1980. The designationof a material as "PACM" may be rebutted pursuant to paragraph (k)(4) of thissection.

"Project Designer" means a person who has successfully completed thetraining requirements for an abatement project designer established by 40U.S.C. Sec. 763.90(g).

"Regulated area" means: an area established by the employer to demarcateareas where Class I, II, and III asbestos work is conducted, and anyadjoining area where debris and waste from such asbestos work accumulate; anda work area within which airborne concentrations of asbestos, exceed or thereis a reasonable possibility they may exceed the permissible exposure limit.Requirements for regulated areas are set out in paragraph (e)(6) of thissection.

"Removal" means all operations where ACM and/or PACM is taken out orstripped from structures or substrates, and includes demolition operations.

"Renovation" means the modifying of any existing structure, or portionthereof.

"Repair" means overhauling, rebuilding, reconstructing, or reconditioning ofstructures or substrates, including encapsulation or other repair of ACM orPACM attached to structures or substrates.

"Surfacing material" means material that is sprayed, troweled-on orotherwise applied to surfaces (such as acoustical plaster on ceilings andfireproofing materials on structural members, or other materials on surfacesfor acoustical, fireproofing, and other purposes).

"Surfacing ACM" means surfacing material which contains more than 1%asbestos.

"Thermal system insulation (TSI)" means ACM applied to pipes, fittings,boilers, breeching, tanks, ducts or other structural components to preventheat loss or gain.

"Thermal system insulation ACM" is thermal system insulation which containsmore than 1% asbestos.

(c) Permissible exposure limits (PELS) -- (1) Time-weighted average limit(TWA). The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposed to an airborneconcentration of asbestos in excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of airas an eight (8) hour time-weighted average (TWA), as determined by the methodprescribed in Appendix A of this section, or by an equivalent method.

(2) Excursion limit. The employer shall ensure that no employee is exposedto an airborne concentration of asbestos in excess of 1.0 fiber per cubiccentimeter of air (1 f/cc) as averaged over a sampling period of thirty (30)minutes, as determined by the method prescribed in Appendix A of thissection, or by an equivalent method.

(d) Multi-employer worksites. (1) On multi-employer worksites, an employerperforming work requiring the establishment of a regulated area shall informother employers on the site of the nature of the employer's work withasbestos and/or PACM, of the existence of and requirements pertaining toregulated areas, and the measures taken to ensure that employees of suchother employers are not exposed to asbestos.

(2) Asbestos hazards at a multi-employer work site shall be abated by thecontractor who created or controls the source of asbestos contamination. Forexample, if there is a significant breach of an enclosure containing Class Iwork, the employer responsible for erecting the enclosure shall repair thebreach immediately.

(3) In addition, all employers of employees exposed to asbestos hazardsshall comply with applicable protective provisions to protect theiremployees. For example, if employees working immediately adjacent to a ClassI asbestos job are exposed to asbestos due to the inadequate containment ofsuch job, their employer shall either remove the employees from the areauntil the enclosure breach is repaired; or perform an initial exposureassessment pursuant to (f)(1) of this section.

(4) All employers of employees working adjacent to regulated areasestablished by another employer on a multi-employer work-site, shall takesteps on a daily basis to ascertain the integrity of the enclosure and/or theeffectiveness of the control method relied on by the primary asbestoscontractor to assure that asbestos fibers do not migrate to such adjacentareas.

(5) All general contractors on a construction project which includes workcovered by this standard shall be deemed to exercise general supervisoryauthority over the work covered by this standard, even though the generalcontractor is not qualified to serve as the asbestos "competent person" asdefined by paragraph (b) of this section. As supervisor of the entireproject, the general contractor shall ascertain whether the asbestoscontractor is in compliance with this standard, and shall require suchcontractor to come into compliance with this standard when necessary.

(e) Regulated areas -- (1) All Class I, II and III asbestos work shall beconducted within regulated areas. All other operations covered by thisstandard shall be conducted within a regulated area where airborneconcentrations of asbestos exceed, or there is a reasonable possibility theymay exceed a PEL. Regulated areas shall comply with the requirements ofparagraphs (2), (3),(4) and (5) of this section.

(2) Demarcation. The regulated area shall be demarcated in any manner thatminimizes the number of persons within the area and protects persons outsidethe area from exposure to airborne concentrations of asbestos. Where criticalbarriers or negative pressure enclosures are used, they may demarcate theregulated area. Signs shall be provided and displayed pursuant to therequirements of paragraph (k)(6) of this section.

(3) Access. Access to regulated areas shall be limited to authorized personsand to persons authorized by the Act or regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(4) Respirators. All persons entering a regulated area where employees arerequired pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section to wear respiratorsshall be supplied with a respirator selected in accordance with paragraph(h)(2) of this section.

(5) Prohibited activities. The employer shall ensure that employees do noteat, drink, smoke, chew tobacco or gum, or apply cosmetics in the regulatedarea.

(6) Competent Persons. The employer shall ensure that all asbestos workperformed within regulated areas is supervised by a competent person, asdefined in paragraph (b) of this section. The duties of the competent personare set out in paragraph (o) of this section.

(f) Exposure assessments and monitoring -- (1) General monitoring criteria.(i) Each employer who has a workplace of work operation where exposuremonitoring is required under this section shall perform monitoring todetermine accurately the airborne concentrations of asbestos to whichemployees may be exposed.

(ii) Determinations of employee exposure shall be made from breathing zoneair samples that are representative of the 8-hour TWA and 30-minuteshort-term exposures of each employee.

(iii) Representative 8-hour TWA employee exposure shall be determined on thebasis of one or more samples representing full-shift exposure for employeesin each work area. Representative 30-minute short-term employee exposuresshall be determined on the basis of one or more samples representing 30minute exposures associated with operations that are most likely to produceexposures above the excursion limit for employees in each work area.

(2) Initial Exposure Assessment. (i) Each employer who has a workplace orwork operation covered by this standard shall ensure that a "competentperson" conducts an exposure assessment immediately before or at theinitiation of the operation to ascertain expected exposures during thatoperation or workplace.

The assessment must be completed in time to comply with requirements whichare triggered by exposure data or the lack of a "negative exposureassessment," and to provide information necessary to assure that all controlsystems planned are appropriate for that operation and will work properly.

(ii) Basis of Initial Exposure Assessment: The initial exposure assessmentshall be based on data derived from the following sources:

(A) If feasible, the employer shall monitor employees and base the exposureassessment on the results of exposure monitoring which is conducted pursuantto the criteria in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section.

(B) In addition, the assessment shall include consideration of allobservations, information or calculations which indicate employee exposure toasbestos, including any previous monitoring conducted in the workplace, or ofthe operations of the employer which indicate the levels of airborne asbestoslikely to be encountered on the job. However, the assessment may concludethat exposures are likely to be consistently below the PELs only as aconclusion of a "negative exposure assessment" conducted pursuant to(f)(2)(iii) of this section.

(C) For Class I asbestos work, until the employer conducts exposuremonitoring and documents that employees on that job will not be exposed inexcess of the PELs, or otherwise makes a negative exposure assessmentpursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, the employer shall presumethat employees are exposed in excess of the TWA and excursion limit.

(iii) Negative Exposure Assessment: For any one specific asbestos job whichwill be performed by employees who have been trained in compliance with thestandard, the employer may demonstrate that employee exposures will be belowthe PELs by data which conform to the following criteria;

(A) Objective data demonstrating that the product or material containingasbestos minerals or the activity involving such product or material cannotrelease airborne fibers in concentrations exceeding the TWA and excursionlimit under those work conditions having the greatest potential for releasingasbestos; or (B) Where the employer has monitored prior asbestos jobs for thePEL and the excursion limit within 12 months of the current or projected job,the monitoring and analysis were performed in compliance with the asbestosstandard in effect; and the data were obtained during work operationsconducted under workplace conditions "closely resembling" the processes, typeof material, control methods, work practices, and environmental conditionsused and prevailing in the employer's current operations, the operations wereconducted by employees whose training and experience are no more extensivethan that of employees performing the current job, and these data show thatunder the conditions prevailing and which will prevail in the currentworkplace there is a high degree of certainty that employee exposures willnot exceed the TWA and excursion limit; or (C) The results of initialexposure monitoring of the current job made from breathing zone air samplesthat are representative of the 8- hour TWA and 30-minute short-term exposuresof each employee covering operations which are most likely during theperformance of the entire asbestos job to result in exposures over the PELs.

(3) Periodic monitoring. (i) Class I and II operations. The employer shallconduct daily monitoring that is representative of the exposure of eachemployee who is assigned to work within a regulated area who is performingClass I or II work, unless the employer pursuant to (f)(2)(iii) of thissection, has made a negative exposure assessment for the entire operation.

(ii) All operations under the standard other than Class I and II operations.The employer shall conduct periodic monitoring of all work where exposuresare expected to exceed a PEL, at intervals sufficient to document thevalidity of the exposure prediction.

(iii) Exception: When all employees required to be monitored daily areequipped with supplied-air respirators operated in the positive- pressuremode, the employer may dispense with the daily monitoring required by thisparagraph. However, employees performing Class I work using a control methodwhich is not listed in paragraph (g)(4)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section orusing a modification of a listed control method, shall continue to bemonitored daily even if they are equipped with supplied-air respirators.

(4)(i) Termination of monitoring. If the periodic monitoring required byparagraph (f)(3) of this section reveals that employee exposures, asindicated by statistically reliable measurement, are below the permissibleexposure limit and excursion limit the employer may discontinue monitoringfor those employees whose exposures are represented by such monitoring.

(ii) Additional monitoring. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph(f)(2) and (3), and (f)(4) of this section, the employer shall institute theexposure monitoring required under paragraph (f)(3) of this section wheneverthere has been a change in process, control equipment, personnel or workpractices that may result in new or additional exposures above thepermissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit or when the employer hasany reason to suspect that a change may result in new or additional exposuresabove the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit. Such additionalmonitoring is required regardless of whether a "negative exposure assessment"was previously produced for a specific job.

(5) Observation of monitoring. (i) The employer shall provide affectedemployees and their designated representatives an opportunity to observe anymonitoring of employee exposure to asbestos conducted in accordance with thissection.

(ii) When observation of the monitoring of employee exposure to asbestosrequires entry into an area where the use of protective clothing or equipmentis required, the observer shall be provided with and be required to use suchclothing and equipment and shall comply with all other applicable safety andhealth procedures.

(g) Methods of compliance -- (1) Engineering controls and work practices forall operations covered by this section. The employer shall use the followingengineering controls and work practices in all operations covered by thissection, regardless of the levels of exposure:

(i) Vacuum cleaners equipped with HEPA filters to collect all debris anddust containing ACM or PACM; and, (ii) Wet methods, or wetting agents, tocontrol employee exposures during asbestos handling, mixing, removal,cutting, application, and cleanup, except where employers demonstrate thatthe use of wet methods is infeasible due to for example, the creation ofelectrical hazards, equipment malfunction, and, in roofing, slipping hazards;and

(iii) Prompt clean-up and disposal of wastes and debris contaminated withasbestos in leak-tight containers.

(2) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this section, theemployer shall use the following control methods to achieve compliance withthe TWA permissible exposure limit and excursion limit prescribed byparagraph (c) of this section;

(i) Local exhaust ventilation equipped with HEPA filter dust collectionsystems;

(ii) Enclosure or isolation of processes producing asbestos dust;

(iii) Ventilation of the regulated area to move contaminated air away fromthe breathing zone of employees and toward a filtration or collection deviceequipped with a HEPA filter;

(iv) Use of other work practices and engineering controls that the AssistantSecretary can show to be feasible.

(v) Wherever the feasible engineering and work practice controls describedabove are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below thepermissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c)of this section, the employer shall use them to reduce employee exposure tothe lowest levels attainable by these controls and shall supplement them bythe use of respiratory protection that complies with the requirements ofparagraph (h) of this section.

(3) Prohibitions. The following work practices and engineering controlsshall not be used for work related to asbestos or for work which disturbs ACMor PACM, regardless of measured levels of asbestos exposure or the results ofinitial exposure assessments:

(i) High-speed abrasive disc saws that are not equipped with point of cutventilator or enclosures with HEPA filtered exhaust air.

(ii) Compressed air used to remove asbestos, or materials containingasbestos, unless the compressed air is used in conjunction with an enclosedventilation system designed to capture the dust cloud created by thecompressed air.

(iii) Dry sweeping, shoveling or other dry clean-up of dust and debriscontaining ACM and PACM.

(iv) Employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to asbestos.

(4) Class I Requirements. In addition to the provisions of paragraphs (g)(1)and (2) of this section, the following engineering controls and workpractices and procedures shall be used.

(i) All Class I work, including the installation and operation of thecontrol system shall be supervised by a competent person as defined inparagraph (b) of this section;

(ii) For all Class I jobs involving the removal of more than 25 linear or 10square feet of thermal system insulation or surfacing material; for all otherClass I jobs, where the employer cannot produce a negative exposureassessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, or whereemployees are working in areas adjacent to the regulated area, while theClass I work is being performed, the employer shall use one of the followingmethods to ensure that airborne asbestos does not migrate from the regulatedarea:

(A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the regulatedarea: or

(B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation method whichprevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated area, asverified by perimeter area surveillance during each work shift at eachboundary of the regulated area, showing no visible asbestos dust; andperimeter area monitoring showing that clearance levels contained in 40 CFRPart 763, Subpt. E, of the EPA Asbestos in Schools Rule are met, or thatperimeter area levels, measured by (PCM) are no more than background levelsrepresenting the same area before the asbestos work began. The results ofsuch monitoring shall be made known to the employer no later than 24 hoursfrom the end of the work shift represented by such monitoring.

(iii) For all Class I jobs, HVAC systems shall be isolated in the regulatedarea by sealing with a double layer of 6 mil plastic or the equivalent;

(iv) For all Class I jobs, impermeable dropcloths shall be placed onsurfaces beneath all removal activity;

(v) For all Class I jobs, all objects within the regulated area shall becovered with impermeable dropcloths or plastic sheeting which is secured byduct tape or an equivalent.

(vi) For all Class I jobs where the employer cannot produce a negativeexposure assessment, or where exposure monitoring shows that a PEL isexceeded, the employer shall ventilate the regulated area to movecontaminated air away from the breathing zone of employees toward a HEPAfiltration or collection device.

(5) Specific control methods for Class I work. In addition, Class I asbestoswork shall be performed using one or more of the following control methodspursuant to the limitations stated below:

(i) Negative Pressure Enclosure (NPE) systems: NPE systems shall be usedwhere the configuration of the work area does not make the erection of theenclosure infeasible, with the following specifications and work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) The negative pressure enclosure (NPE) may be of anyconfiguration,

(2) At least 4 air changes per hour shall be maintained in theNPE,

(3) A minimum of -0.02 column inches of water pressure differential,relative to outside pressure, shall be maintained within the NPE as evidencedby manometric measurements,

(4) The NPE shall be kept under negative pressurethroughout the period of its use, and

(5) Air movement shall be directed awayfrom employees performing asbestos work within the enclosure, and toward aHEPA filtration or a collection device.

(B) Work Practices:

(1) Before beginning work within the enclosure and at the beginning of eachshift, the NPE shall be inspected for breaches and smoke-tested for leaks,and any leaks sealed.

(2) Electrical circuits in the enclosure shall be deactivated, unlessequipped with ground-fault circuit interrupters.

(ii) Glove bag systems shall be used to remove PACM and/or ACM from straightruns of piping with the following specifications and work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) Glovebags shall be made of 6 mil thick plastic and shall be seamless atthe bottom.

(2) [Reserved]

(B) Work Practices:

(1) Each glovebag shall beinstalled so that it completely covers the circumference of pipe or otherstructure where the work is to be done.

(2) Glovebags shall be smoke-tested for leaks and any leaks sealed prior touse.

(3) Glovebags may be used only once and may not be moved. (4)Glovebags shall not be used on surfaces whose temperature exceeds 150deg..

(5) Prior to disposal, glovebags shall be collapsed by removing air withinthem using a HEPA vacuum.

(6) Before beginning the operation, loose and friable material adjacent tothe glovebag/box operation shall be wrapped and sealed in two layers of sixmil plastic or otherwise rendered intact, (7) Where system uses attachedwaste bag, such bag shall be connected to collection bag using hose or othermaterial which shall withstand pressure of ACM waste and water without losingits integrity:

(8) Sliding valve or other device shall separate waste bag from hose toensure no exposure when waste bag is disconnected:

(9) At least two persons shall perform Class I glovebag removals.

(iii) Negative Pressure Glove Bag Systems. Negative pressure glove bagsystems shall be used to remove ACM or PACM from piping.

(A) Specifications: In addition to specifications for glove bag systemsabove, negative pressure glove bag systems shall attach HEPA vacuum systemsor other devices to bag to prevent collapse during removal.

(B) Work Practices: (1) The employer shall comply with the work practicesglove bag systems in paragraph (g)(5)(ii)(B)(2) of this section.

(2) The HEPA vacuum cleaner or other device used to prevent collapse of bagduring removal shall run continually during the operation.

(3) Where a separate waste bag is used along with a collection bag anddiscarded after one use, the collection bag may be reused if rinsed cleanwith amended water before reuse.

(iv) Negative Pressure Glove Box Systems: Negative pressure glove boxesshall be used to remove ACM or PACM from pipe runs with the followingspecifications and work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) Glove boxes shall be constructed with rigid sides and made from metal orother material which can withstand the weight of the ACM and PACM and waterused during removal:

(2) A negative pressure generator shall be used to create negative pressurein system:

(3) An air filtration unit shall be attached to the box:

(4) The box shall be fitted with gloved apertures:

(5) An aperture at the base of the box shall serve as a bagging outlet forwaste ACM and water:

(6) A back-up generator shall be present on site:

(7) Waste bags shall consist of 6 mil thick plastic double-bagged beforethey are filled or plastic thicker than 6 mil.

(B) Work practices:

(1) At least two persons shall perform the removal:

(2) The box shall be smoke tested prior to each use:

(3) Loose or damaged ACM adjacent to the box shall be wrapped and sealed intwo layers of 6 mil plastic prior to the job, or otherwise made intact priorto the job.

(4) A HEPA filtration system shall be used to maintain pressure barrier inbox.

(v) Water Spray Process System. A water spray process system may be used forremoval of ACM and PACM from cold line piping if, employees carrying out suchprocess have completed a 40-hour separate training course in its use, inaddition to training required for employees performing Class I work. Thesystem shall meet the following specifications and shall be performed byemployees using the following work practices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) Piping shall be surrounded on 3 sides by rigid framing,

(2) A360 degree water spray, delivered through nozzles supplied by a high pressureseparate water line, shall be formed around the piping.

(3) The spray shall collide to form a fine aerosol which provides a liquidbarrier between workers and the ACM and PACM.

(B) Work Practices:

(1) The system shall be run for at least 10 minutes before removal begins.

(2) All removal shall take place within the water barrier.

(3) Thesystem shall be operated by at least three persons, one of whom shall notperform removal, but shall check equipment, and ensure proper operation ofthe system.

(4) After removal, the ACM and PACM shall be bagged while still inside thewater barrier.

(vi) A small walk-in enclosure which accommodates no more than two persons(mini-enclosure) may be used if the disturbance or removal can be completelycontained by the enclosure with the following specifications and workpractices.

(A) Specifications:

(1) The fabricated or job-made enclosure shall be constructed of 6 milplastic or equivalent:

(2) The enclosure shall be placed under negative pressure by means of a HEPAfiltered vacuum or similar ventilation unit:

(B) Work practices:

(1) Before use, the minienclosure shall be inspected for leaks and smoketested to detect breaches, and breaches sealed.

(2) Before reuse, the interior shall be completely washed with amended waterand HEPA-vacuumed..

(3) During use air movement shall be directed away from the employee'sbreathing zone within the minienclosure.

(6) Alternative control methods for Class I work. Class I work may beperformed using a control method which is not referenced in paragraph (g)(5)of this section, or which modifies a control method referenced in paragraph(g)(5)of this section, if the following provisions are complied with:

(i) The control method shall enclose, contain or isolate the processes orsource of airborne asbestos dust, or otherwise capture or redirect such dustbefore it enters the breathing zone of employees.

(ii) A certified industrial hygienist or licensed professional engineer whois also qualified as a project designer as defined in paragraph (b) of thissection, shall evaluate the work area, the projected work practices and theengineering controls and shall certify in writing that the planned controlmethod is adequate to reduce direct and indirect employee exposure to belowthe PELs under worst-case conditions of use, and that the planned controlmethod will prevent asbestos contamination outside the regulated area, asmeasured by clearance sampling which meets the requirements of EPA's Asbestosin Schools rule issued under AHERA, or perimeter monitoring which meets thecriteria in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section.

(A) Where the TSI or surfacing material to be removed is 25 linear or 10square feet or less , the evaluation required in paragraph (g)(6) of thissection may be performed by a "competent person", and may omit considerationof perimeter or clearance monitoring otherwise required.

(B) The evaluation of employee exposure required in paragraph (g)(6) of thissection, shall include and be based on sampling and analytical datarepresenting employee exposure during the use of such method under worst-caseconditions and by employees whose training and experience are equivalent toemployees who are to perform the current job.

(iii) Before work which involves the removal of more than 25 linear or 10square feet of thermal system insulation or surfacing material is begun usingan alternative method which has been the subject of a paragraph (g)(6)required evaluation and certification, the employer shall send a copy of suchevaluation and certification to the national office of OSHA, Office ofTechnical Support, Room N3653, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC20210.

(7) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class II work. (i)All Class II work, shall be supervised by a competent person as defined inparagraph (b) of this section.

(ii) For all indoor Class II jobs, where the employer has not produced anegative exposure assessment pursuant to paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of thissection, or where during the job changed conditions indicate there may beexposure above the PEL or where the employer does not remove the ACM in asubstantially intact state, the employer shall use one of the followingmethods to ensure that airborne asbestos does not migrate from the regulatedarea;

(A) Critical barriers shall be placed over all openings to the regulatedarea; or, (B) The employer shall use another barrier or isolation methodwhich prevents the migration of airborne asbestos from the regulated area, asverified by perimeter area monitoring or clearance monitoring which meets thecriteria set out in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(B)(2) of this section.

(iii) Impermeable dropcloths shall be placed on surfaces beneath all removalactivity;

(iv) All Class II asbestos work shall be performed using the work practicesand requirements set out above in paragraph (g)(3)(i) through (v) of thissection.

(8) Additional Controls for Class II work. Class II asbestos work shall alsobe performed by complying with the work practices and controls designated foreach type of asbestos work to be performed, set out in this paragraph. Wheremore than one control method may be used for a type of asbestos work, theemployer may choose one or a combination of designated control methods. ClassII work also may be performed using a method allowed for Class I work, exceptthat glove bags and glove boxes are allowed if they fully enclose the ClassII material to be removed.

(i) For removing vinyl and asphalt flooring materials which contain ACM orfor which in buildings constructed no later than 1980, the employer has notverified the absence of ACM pursuant to paragraph (g)(8)(i)(I) of thissection. The employer shall ensure that employees comply with the followingwork practices and that employees are trained in these practices pursuant toparagraph (k)(8):

(A) Flooring or its backing shall not be sanded.

(B) Vacuumsequipped with HEPA filter, disposable dust bag, and metal floor tool (nobrush) shall be used to clean floors.

(C) Resilient sheeting shall be removed by cutting with wetting of the snippoint and wetting during delamination. Rip-up of resilient sheet floormaterial is prohibited.

(D) All scraping of residual adhesive and/or backing shall be performedusing wet methods.

(E) Dry sweeping is prohibited.

(F) Mechanical chipping isprohibited unless performed in a negative pressure enclosure which meets therequirements of paragraph (g)(5)(iv) of this section.

(G) Tiles shall be removed intact, unless the employer demonstrates thatintact removal is not possible.

(H) When tiles are heated and can be removed intact, wetting may be omitted.

(I) Resilient flooring material including associated mastic and backingshall be assumed to be asbestos-containing unless an industrial hygienistdetermines that it is asbestos-free using recognized analytical techniques.

(ii) For removing roofing material which contains ACM the employer shallensure that the following work practices are followed:

(A) Roofing material shall be removed in an intact state to the extentfeasible.

(B) Wet methods shall be used where feasible.

(C) Cutting machinesshall be continuously misted during use, unless a competent person determinesthat misting substantially decreases worker safety.

(D) All loose dust left by the sawing operation must be HEPA vacuumedimmediately.

(E) Unwrapped or unbagged roofing material shall be immediately lowered tothe ground via covered, dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or placed in animpermeable waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and lowered to ground nolater than the end of the work shift.

(F) Upon being lowered, unwrapped material shall be transferred to a closedreceptacle in such manner so as to preclude the dispersion of dust.

(G) Roof level heating and ventilation air intake sources shall be isolatedor the ventilation system shall be shut down.

(iii) When removing cementitious asbestos-containing siding and shingles ortransite panels containing ACM, the employer shall ensure that the followingwork practices are followed:

(A) Cutting, abrading or breaking siding, shingles, or transite panels,shall be prohibited unless the employer can demonstrate that methods lesslikely to result in asbestos fiber release cannot be used.

(B) Each panel or shingle shall be sprayed with amended water prior toremoval.

(C) Unwrapped or unbagged panels or shingles shall be immediately lowered tothe ground via covered dust-tight chute, crane or hoist, or placed in animpervious waste bag or wrapped in plastic sheeting and lowered to the groundno later than the end of the work shift.

(D) Nails shall be cut with flat, sharp instruments.

(iv) Whenremoving gaskets containing ACM, the employer shall ensure that the followingwork practices are followed:

(A) If a gasket is visibly deteriorated and unlikely to be removed intact,removal shall be undertaken within a glovebag as described in paragraph(g)(5)(ii) of this section.

(B) The gasket shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water prior to itsremoval.

(C) The wet gasket shall be immediately placed in a disposalcontainer.

(D) Any scraping to remove residue must be performed wet.

(v) Whenperforming any other Class II removal of asbestos containing material forwhich specific controls have not been listed in paragraph (g)(8)(iv)(A)through (D) of this section, the employer shall ensure that the followingwork practices are complied with.

(A) The material shall be thoroughly wetted with amended water prior andduring its removal.

(B) The material shall be removed in an intact state unless the employerdemonstrates that intact removal is not possible.

(C) Cutting, abrading or breaking the material shall be prohibited unlessthe employer can demonstrate that methods less likely to result in asbestosfiber release are not feasible.

(D) Asbestos-containing material removed, shall be immediately bagged orwrapped, or kept wetted until transferred to a closed receptacle, no laterthan the end of the work shift.

(vi) Alternative Work Practices and Controls. Instead of the work practicesand controls listed in paragraph (g)(8)(i) through (v) of this section, theemployer may use different or modified engineering and work practice controlsif the following provisions are complied with.

(A) The employer shall demonstrate by data representing employee exposureduring the use of such method under conditions which closely resemble theconditions under which the method is to be used, that employee exposure willnot exceed the PELs under any anticipated circumstances.

(B) A competent person shall evaluate the work area, the projected workpractices and the engineering controls, and shall certify in writing, thatthe different or modified controls are adequate to reduce direct and indirectemployee exposure to below the PELs under all expected conditions of use andthat the method meets the requirements of this standard. The evaluation shallinclude and be based on data representing employee exposure during the use ofsuch method under conditions which closely resemble the conditions underwhich the method is to be used for the current job, and by employees whosetraining and experience are equivalent to employees who are to perform thecurrent job.

(9) Work Practices and Engineering Controls for Class III asbestos work.Class III asbestos work shall be conducted using engineering and workpractice controls which minimize the exposure to employees performing theasbestos work and to bystander employees.

(i) The work shall be performed using wet methods.

(ii) To theextent feasible, the work shall be performed using local exhaustventilation.

(iii) Where the disturbance involves drilling, cutting, abrading, sanding,chipping, breaking, or sawing of thermal system insulation or surfacingmaterial, the employer shall use impermeable dropcloths, and shall isolatethe operation using mini-enclosures or glove bag systems pursuant toparagraph (g)(5) of this section.

(iv) Where the employer does not produce a "negative exposure assessment"for a job, or where monitoring results show the PEL has been exceeded, theemployer shall contain the area using impermeable dropcloths and plasticbarriers or their equivalent, or shall isolate the operation using a controlsystem listed in and in compliance with paragraph (g)(5) of this section.

(v) Employees performing Class III jobs, which involve the disturbance ofthermal system insulation or surfacing material, or where the employer doesnot produce a "negative exposure assessment" or where monitoring results showa PEL has been exceeded, shall wear respirators which are selected, used andfitted pursuant to provisions of paragraph (h) of this section.

(10) Class IV asbestos work. Class IV asbestos jobs shall be conducted byemployees trained pursuant to the asbestos awareness training program set outin paragraph (k)(8) of this section. In addition, all Class IV jobs shall beconducted in conformity with the requirements set out in paragraph (g)(1) ofthis section, mandating wet methods, HEPA vacuums, and prompt clean up ofdebris containing ACM or PACM.

(i) Employees cleaning up debris and waste in a regulated area whererespirators are required shall wear respirators which are selected, used andfitted pursuant to provisions of paragraph (h) of this section.

(ii) Employers of employees who clean up waste and debris in, and employersin control of, areas where friable thermal system insulation or surfacingmaterial is accessible, shall assume that such waste and debris containasbestos.

(h) Respiratory protection -- (1) General. The employer shall providerespirators, and ensure that they are used, where required by this section.Respirators shall be used in the following circumstances:

(i) During all Class I asbestos jobs.

(ii) During all Class II workwhere the ACM is not removed in a substantially intact state,

(iii) Duringall Class II and III work which is not performed using wet methods.

(iv) During all Class II and III asbestos jobs where the employer does notproduce a "negative exposure assessment".

(v) During all Class III jobs where TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is beingdisturbed.

(vi) During all Class IV work performed within regulated areas whereemployees performing other work are required to wear respirators.

(vii) During all work covered by this section where employees are exposedabove the TWA or excursion limit.

(viii) In emergencies.

(2) Respirator selection. (i) Whererespirators are used, the employer shall select and provide, at no cost tothe employee, the appropriate respirator as specified in Table 1 in paragraph(h)(2)(iii) of this section, and shall ensure that the employee uses therespirator provided.

(ii) The employer shall select respirators from among those jointly approvedas being acceptable for protection by the Mine Safety and HealthAdministration (MSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11.

(iii) The employer shall provide a tight fitting powered, air-purifyingrespirator in lieu of any negative-pressure respirator specified in Table 1whenever:

(A) An employee chooses to use this type of respirator; and

(B) This respirator will provide adequate protection to the employee.

(iv) In addition to the above selection criterion, the employer shallprovide a half-mask air purifying respirator, other than a disposablerespirator, equipped with high efficiency filters whenever the employeeperforms the following activities: Class II and III asbestos jobs where theemployer does not produce a negative exposure assessment; and Class III jobswhere TSI or surfacing ACM or PACM is being disturbed.

(v) In addition to the above selection criteria, the employer shall providea full facepiece supplied air respirator operated in the pressure demand modeequipped with an auxiliary positive pressure self- contained breathingapparatus for all employees within the regulated area where Class I work isbeing performed for which a negative exposure assessment has not beenproduced.

(3) Respirator program. (i) Where respiratory protection is used, theemployer shall institute a respirator program in accordance with 29 CFR1910.134(b), (d), (e), and (f).

(ii) The employer shall permit each employee who uses a filter respirator tochange the filter elements whenever an increase in breathing resistance isdetected and shall maintain an adequate supply of filter elements for thispurpose.

(iii) Employees who wear respirators shall be permitted to leave work areasto wash their faces and respirator facepieces whenever necessary to preventskin irritation associated with respirator use.

(iv) No employee shall be assigned to tasks requiring the use of respiratorsif, based on his or her most recent examination, an examining physiciandetermines that the employee will be unable to function normally wearing arespirator, or that the safety or health of the employee or of otheremployees will be impaired by the use of a respirator. Such employee shall beassigned to another job or given the opportunity to transfer to a differentposition the duties of which he or she is able to perform with the sameemployer, in the same geographical area, and with the same seniority, status,and rate of pay and other job benefits he or she had just prior to suchtransfer, if such a different position is available.

(4) Respirator fit testing. (i) The employer shall ensure that therespirator issued to the employee exhibits the least possible facepieceleakage and that the respirator is fitted properly.

(ii) Employers shall perform either quantitative or qualitative face fittests at the time of initial fitting and at least every 6 months thereafterfor each employee wearing a negative-pressure respirator. The qualitative fittests may be used only for testing the fit of half-mask respirators wherethey are permitted to be worn, or of full-facepiece air purifying respiratorswhere they are worn at levels at which half-facepiece air purifyingrespirators are permitted. Qualitative and quantitative fit tests shall beconducted in accordance with Appendix C. The tests shall be used to selectfacepieces that provide the required protection as prescribed in Table 1 inparagraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section.

(i) Protective clothing -- (1) General. The employer shall provide andrequire the use of protective clothing, such as coveralls or similarwhole-body clothing, head coverings, gloves, and foot coverings for anyemployee exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos that exceed the TWAand/or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, or forwhich a required negative exposure assessment is not produced, and for anyemployee performing Class I operations which involve the removal of over 25linear or 10 square feet of TSI or surfacing ACM and PACM.

(2) Laundering. (i) The employer shall ensure that laundering ofcontaminated clothing is done so as to prevent the release of airborneasbestos in excess of the TWA or excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c)of this section.

(ii) Any employer who gives contaminated clothing to another person forlaundering shall inform such person of the requirement in paragraph (i)(2)(i)of this section to effectively prevent the release of airborne asbestos inexcess of the TWA and excursion limit prescribed in paragraph (c) of thissection.

(3) Contaminated clothing. Contaminated clothing shall be transported insealed impermeable bags, or other closed, impermeable containers, and belabeled in accordance with paragraph (k) of this section.

(4) Inspection of protective clothing. (i) The competent person shallexamine worksuits worn by employees at least once per workshift for rips ortears that may occur during performance of work.

(ii) When rips or tears are detected while an employee is working, rips andtears shall be immediately mended, or the worksuit shall be immediatelyreplaced.

(j) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. (1) Requirements foremployees performing Class I asbestos jobs involving over 25 linear or 10square feet of Tsi or surfacing ACM and PACM.

(i) Decontamination areas: the employer shall establish a decontaminationarea that is adjacent and connected to the regulated area for thedecontamination of such employees. The decontamination area shall consist ofan equipment room, shower area, and clean room in series. The employer shallensure that employees enter and exit the regulated area through thedecontamination area.

(A) Equipment room. The equipment room shall be supplied with impermeable,labeled bags and containers for the containment and disposal of contaminatedprotective equipment.

(B) Shower area. Shower facilities shall be provided which comply with 29CFR 1910.141(d)(3), unless the employer can demonstrate that they are notfeasible. The showers shall be adjacent both to the equipment room and theclean room, unless the employer can demonstrate that this location is notfeasible.

Where the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible to locate theshower between the equipment room and the clean room, or where the work isperformed outdoors, the employers shall ensure that employees:

(1) Remove asbestos contamination from their worksuits in the equipment roomusing a HEPA vacuum before proceeding to a shower that is not adjacent to thework area; or (2) Remove their contaminated worksuits in the equipment room,then don clean worksuits, and proceed to a shower that is not adjacent to thework area.

(C) Clean change room. The clean room shall be equipped with a locker orappropriate storage container for each employee's use. When the employer candemonstrate that it is not feasible to provide a clean change area adjacentto the work area or where the work is performed outdoors, the employer maypermit employees engaged in Class I asbestos jobs to clean their protectiveclothing with a portable HEPA-equipped vacuum before such employees leave theregulated area. Such employees however must then change into street clothingin clean change areas provided by the employer which otherwise meet therequirements of this section.

(ii) Decontamination area entry procedures. The employer shall ensure thatemployees:

(A) Enter the decontamination area through the clean room;

(B) Remove and deposit street clothing within a locker provided for theiruse; and

(C) Put on protective clothing and respiratory protection before leaving theclean room.

(D) Before entering the regulated area, the employer shall ensure thatemployees pass through the equipment room.

(iii) Decontamination area exit procedures. The employer shall ensure that:

(A) Before leaving the regulated area, employees shall remove all grosscontamination and debris from their protective clothing.

(B) Employees shall remove their protective clothing in the equipment roomand deposit the clothing in labeled impermeable bags or containers.

(C) Employees shall not remove their respirators in the equipmentroom.

(D) Employees shall shower prior to entering the clean room.

(E) Aftershowering, employees shall enter the clean room before changing into streetclothes.

(iv) Lunch Areas. Whenever food or beverages are consumed at the worksitewhere employees are performing Class I asbestos work, the employer shallprovide lunch areas in which the airborne concentrations of asbestos arebelow the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit.

(2) Requirements for Class I work involving less than 25 linear or 10 squarefeet of TSI or surfacing ACM and PACM, and for Class II and Class IIIasbestos work operations where exposures exceed a PEL or where there is nonegative exposure assessment produced before the operation.

(i) The employer shall establish an equipment room or area that is adjacentto the regulated area for the decontamination of employees and theirequipment which is contaminated with asbestos which shall consist of an areacovered by a impermeable drop cloth on the floor or horizontal workingsurface.

(ii) The area must be of sufficient size as to accommodate cleaning ofequipment and removing personal protective equipment without spreadingcontamination beyond the area (as determined by visible accumulations).

(iii) Workclothing must be cleaned with a HEPA vacuum before it is removed.

(iv) All equipment and surfaces of containers filled with ACM must becleaned prior to removing them from the equipment room or area.

(v) The employer shall ensure that employees enter and exit the regulatedarea through the equipment room or area.

(3) Requirements for Class IV work. Employers shall ensure that employeesperforming Class IV work within a regulated area comply with the hygienepractice required of employees performing work which has a higherclassification within that regulated area. Otherwise employers of employeescleaning up debris and material which is TSI or surfacing ACM or identifiedas PACM shall provide decontamination facilities for such employees which arerequired by paragraph (j)(2) of this section.

(4) Smoking in work areas. The employer shall ensure that employees do notsmoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to asbestos becauseof activities in that work area.

(k) Communication of hazards. NOTE: This section applies to thecommunication of information concerning asbestos hazards in constructionactivities to facilitate compliance with this standard. Most asbestos-relatedconstruction activities involve previously installed building materials.Building owners often are the only and/or best sources of informationconcerning them. Therefore, they, along with employers of potentially exposedemployees, are assigned specific information conveying and retention dutiesunder this section. Installed Asbestos Containing Building Material.Employers and building owners are required to treat TSI and sprayed ortroweled on surfacing materials in buildings as asbestos-containing, unlessthey determine in compliance with paragraph (k)(4) of this section that thematerial is not asbestos-containing. Asphalt and vinyl flooring materialinstalled no later than 1980 must also be considered as asbestos containingunless the employer, pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section determinesthat it is not asbestos-containing. If the employer/building owner has actualknowledge, or should have known through the exercise of due diligence, thatother materials are asbestos-containing, they too must be treated as such.When communicating information to employees pursuant to this standard, ownersand employers shall identify "PACM" as ACM. Additional requirements relatingto communication of asbestos work on multi-employer worksites are set out inparagraph (d) of this section.

(1) Duties of building and facility owners. (i) Before work subject to thisstandard is begun, building and facility owners shall identify the presence,location and quantity of ACM, and/or PACM at the work site. All thermalsystem insulation and sprayed on or troweled on surfacing m2aterials inbuildings or substrates constructed no later than 1980 shall also beidentified as asbestos-containing. In addition resilient flooring materialinstalled not later than 1980 shall also be identified asasbestos-containing.

(ii) Building and/or facility owners shall notify the following persons ofthe presence, location and quantity of ACM or PACM, at the work sites intheir buildings and facilities. Notification either shall be in writing, orshall consist of a personal communication between the owner and the person towhom notification must be given or their authorized representatives:

(A) Prospective employers applying or bidding for work whose employeesreasonably can be expected to work in or adjacent to areas containing suchmaterial;

(B) Employees of the owner who will work in or adjacent to areas containingsuch material:

(C) On multi-employer worksites, all employers of employees who will beperforming work within or adjacent to areas containing such materials;

(D) Tenants who will occupy areas containing such material.

(2)Duties of employers whose employees perform work subject to this standard inor adjacent to areas containing ACM and PACM. Building/facility owners whoseemployees perform such work shall comply with these provisions to the extentapplicable.

(i) Before work in areas containing ACM and PACM is begun; employers shallidentify the presence, location, and quantity of ACM, and/or PACM therein.

(ii) Before work under this standard is performed employers of employees whowill perform such work shall inform the following persons of the location andquantity of ACM and/or PACM present in the area and the precautions to betaken to insure that airborne asbestos is confined to the area.

(A) Owners of the building/facility;

(B) Employees who will perform such work and employers of employees who workand/or will be working in adjacent areas.

(iii) Within 10 days of the completion of such work, the employer whoseemployees have performed work subject to this standard, shall inform thebuilding/facility owner and employers of employees who will be working in thearea of the current location and quantity of PACM and/or ACM remaining in thearea and final monitoring results, if any.

(3) In addition to the above requirements, all employers who discover ACMand/or PACM on a worksite shall convey information concerning the presence,location and quantity of such newly discovered ACM and/or PACM to the ownerand to other employers of employees working at the work site, within 24 hoursof the discovery.

(4) Criteria to rebut the designation of installed material as PACM. (i) Atany time, an employer and/or building owner may demonstrate, for purposes ofthis standard, that PACM does not contain asbestos. Building owners and/oremployers are not required to communicate information about the presence ofbuilding material for which such a demonstration pursuant to the requirementsof paragraph (k)(4)(ii) of this section has been made. However, in all suchcases, the information, data and analysis supporting the determination thatPACM does not contain asbestos, shall be retained pursuant to paragraph (n)of this section.

(ii) An employer or owner may demonstrate that PACM does not containasbestos by the following: (A) Having an completed inspection conductedpursuant to the requirements of AHERA (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E) whichdemonstrates that the material is not ACM;

(B) Performing tests of the material containing PACM which demonstrate thatno asbestos is present in the material. Such tests shall include analysis of3 bulk samples of each homogeneous area of PACM collected in a randomlydistributed manner. The tests, evaluation and sample collection shall beconducted by an accredited inspector or by a CIH. Analysis of samples shallbe performed by persons or laboratories with proficiency demonstrated bycurrent successful participation in a nationally recognized testing programsuch as the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) ofthe National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Round Robinfor bulk samples administered by the American Industrial Hygiene Association(AIHA) or an equivalent nationally-recognized round robin testing program.

(5) At the entrance to mechanical rooms/areas in which employees reasonablycan be expected to enter and which contain thermal system insulation andsurfacing ACM/PACM, the building owner shall post signs which identify thematerial which is present, its location, and appropriate work practiceswhich, if followed, will ensure that ACM and/or PACM will not be disturbed.

(6) Signs. (i) Warning signs that demarcate the regulated area shall beprovided and displayed at each location where a regulated area is required tobe established by paragraph (e) of this section. Signs shall be posted atsuch a distance from such a location that an employee may read the signs andtake necessary protective steps before entering the area marked by the signs.

(ii) The warning signs required by (k)(6) of this section shall bear thefollowing information.

(7) Labels. (i) Labels shall be affixed to all products containing asbestosand to all containers containing such products, including waste containers.Where feasible, installed asbestos products shall contain a visible label.

(ii) Labels shall be printed in large, bold letters on a contrastingbackground.

(iii) Labels shall be used in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR1910.1200(f) of OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, and shall contain thefollowing information:

(iv) [Reserved]

(v) Labels shall contain a warning statement againstbreathing asbestos fibers.

(vi) The provisions for labels required by paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through(k)(2)(iii) do not apply where:

(A) Asbestos fibers have been modified by a bonding agent, coating, binder,or other material, provided that the manufacturer can demonstrate that,during any reasonably foreseeable use, handling, storage, disposal,processing, or transportation, no airborne concentrations of asbestos fibersin excess of the permissible exposure limit and/or excursion limit will bereleased, or (B) Asbestos is present in a product in concentrations less than1.0 percent by weight.

(vii) When a building owner/or employer identifies previously installed PACMand/or ACM, labels or signs shall be affixed or posted so that employees willbe notified of what materials contain PACM and/ or ACM. The employer shallattach such labels in areas where they will clearly be noticed by employeeswho are likely to be exposed, such as at the entrance to mechanicalroom/areas. Signs required by paragraph (k)(5) of this section may be postedin lieu of labels so long as they contain information required for labelling.

(8) Employee information and training. (i) The employer shall, at no cost tothe employee, institute a training program for all employees who installasbestos containing products and for all employees who perform Class Ithrough IV asbestos operations, and shall ensure their participation in theprogram.

(ii) Training shall be provided prior to or at the time of initialassignment and at least annually thereafter.

(iii) Training for Class I and II operations shall be the equivalent incurriculum, training method and length to the EPA Model Accreditation Plan(MAP) asbestos abatement worker training (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E,Appendix C.). For employers whose Class II work with asbestos-containingmaterial involves only the removal and/or disturbance of one generic categoryof building material, such as roofing materials, flooring materials, sidingmaterials or transite panels, instead, such employer is required to trainemployees who perform such work by providing a training course which includesas a minimum all the elements included in paragraph (k)(8)(vi) of thissection and in addition, the specific work practices and engineering controlsset forth in paragraph (g) which specifically relate to that category. Suchcourse shall include "hands-on" training and shall take at least 8 hours.

(iv) Training for Class III employees shall be the equivalent in curriculumand training method to the 16-hour Operations and Maintenance coursedeveloped by EPA for maintenance and custodial workers who conduct activitiesthat will result in the disturbance of ACM. [See 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2)]. Suchcourse shall include "hands-on" training in the use of respiratory protectionand work practices and shall take at least 16 hours.

(v) Training for employees performing Class IV operations shall be theequivalent in curriculum and training method to the awareness training coursedeveloped by EPA for maintenance and custodial workers who work in buildingscontaining asbestos- containing material. [See 40 CFR 763.92 (a)(1)]. Suchcourse shall include available information concerning the locations of PACMand ACM, and asbestos-containing flooring material, or flooring materialwhere the absence of asbestos has not been certified; and instruction inrecognition of damage, deterioration, and delamination of asbestos containingbuilding materials. Such a course shall take at least 2 hours.

(vi) The training program shall be conducted in a manner that the employeeis able to understand. In addition to the content required by provisions inparagraph (k)(8)(iii) of this section, the employer shall ensure that eachsuch employee is informed of the following:

(A) Methods of recognizing asbestos, including the requirement in paragraph(k)(1) of this section to presume that certain building materials containasbestos;

(B) The health effects associated with asbestos exposure;

(C) The relationship between smoking and asbestos in producing lung cancer;

(D) The nature of operations that could result in exposure to asbestos, theimportance of necessary protective controls to minimize exposure including,as applicable, engineering controls, work practices, respirators,housekeeping procedures, hygiene facilities, protective clothing,decontamination procedures, emergency procedures, and waste disposalprocedures, and any necessary instruction in the use of these controls andprocedures; including where Class III and IV work is performed, the contentsof "Managing Asbestos In Place (EPA 20T-2003, July 1990) or its equivalent incontent.

(E) The purpose, proper use, fitting instructions, and limitations ofrespirators as required by 29 CFR 1910.134;

(F) The appropriate work practices for performing the asbestos job;

(G) Medical surveillance program requirements; and

(H) The content of this standard, including appendices.

(I) Thenames, addresses and phone numbers of public health organizations whichprovide information, materials and/or conduct programs concerning smokingcessation. The employer may distribute the list of such organizationscontained in Appendix J to this section, to comply with thisrequirement.

(J) The requirements for posting signs and affixing labels and the meaningof the required legends for such signs and labels.

(9) Access to training materials. (i) The employer shall make readilyavailable to affected employees without cost, written materials relating tothe employee training program, including a copy of this regulation.

(ii) The employer shall provide to the Assistant Secretary and the Director,upon request, all information and training materials relating to the employeeinformation and training program.

(iii) The employer shall inform all employees concerning the availability ofself-help smoking cessation program material. Upon employee request, theemployer shall distribute such material, consisting of NIH Publication No,89-1647, or equivalent self-help material, which is approved or published bya public health organization listed in Appendix J to this section.

(l) Housekeeping -- (1) Vacuuming. Where vacuuming methods are selected,HEPA filtered vacuuming equipment must be used. The equipment shall be usedand emptied in a manner that minimizes the reentry of asbestos into theworkplace.

(2) Waste disposal. Asbestos waste, scrap, debris, bags, containers,equipment, and contaminated clothing consigned for disposal shall becollected and disposed of in sealed, labeled, impermeable bags or otherclosed, labeled, impermeable containers.

(3) Care of asbestos-containing flooring material. (i) All vinyl and asphaltflooring material shall be maintained in accordance with this paragraphunless the building/facility owner demonstrates, pursuant to paragraph (g) ofthis section that the flooring does not contain asbestos.

(i) Sanding of flooring material is prohibited.

(ii) Stripping offinishes shall be conducted using low abrasion pads at speed lower than 300rpm and wet methods.

(iii) Burnishing or dry buffing may be performed only on flooring which hassufficient finish so that the pad cannot contact the flooring material.

(4) Dust and debris in an area containing accessible thermal systeminsulation or surfacing material or visibly deteriorated ACM:

(i) shall not be dusted or swept dry, or vacuumed without using a HEPAfilter;

(ii) shall be promptly clean up and disposed in leak tightcontainers.

(m) Medical surveillance -- (1) General -- (i) Employees covered.The employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for all employeeswho for a combined total of 30 or more days per year are engaged in Class I,II and III work or are exposed at or above the permissible exposure limit orexcursion limit, and for employees who wear negative pressure respiratorspursuant to the requirements of this section.

(ii) Examination by a physician.

(A) The employer shall ensure that allmedical examinations and procedures are performed by or under the supervisionof a licensed physician, and are provided at no cost to the employee and at areasonable time and place.

(B) Persons other than such licensed physicians who administer the pulmonaryfunction testing required by this section shall complete a training course inspirometry sponsored by an appropriate academic or professional institution.

(2) Medical examinations and consultations-(i) Frequency. The employer shallmake available medical examinations and consultations to each employeecovered under paragraph (m)(1)(i) of this section on the following schedules:

(A) Prior to assignment of the employee to an area where negative-pressure respirators are worn;

(B) When the employee is assigned to an area where exposure to asbestos maybe at or above the permissible exposure for 30 or more days per year, amedical examination must be given within 10 working days following thethirtieth day of exposure;

(C) And at least annually thereafter. (D) If the examining physiciandetermines that any of the examinations should be provided more frequentlythan specified, the employer shall provide such examinations to affectedemployees at the frequencies specified by the physician.

(E) Exception: No medical examination is required of any employee ifadequate records show that the employee has been examined in accordance withthis paragraph within the past 1-year period.

(ii) Content. Medical examinations made available pursuant to paragraphs(m)(2)(i)(A) through (m)(2)(i)(C) of this section shall include:

(A) A medical and work history with special emphasis directed to thepulmonary, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal systems.

(B) On initial examination, the standardized questionnaire contained in Part1 of Appendix D to this section, and, on annual examination, the abbreviatedstandardized questionnaire contained in Part 2 of Appendix D to this section.

(C) A physical examination directed to the pulmonary and gastrointestinalsystems, including a chest roentgenogram to be administered at the discretionof the physician, and pulmonary function tests of forced vital capacity (FVC)and forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV(1)). Interpretation andclassification of chest shall be conducted in accordance with Appendix E tothis section.

(D) Any other examinations or tests deemed necessary by the examiningphysician.

(3) Information provided to the physician. The employer shall provide thefollowing information to the examining physician:

(i) A copy of this standard and Appendices D, E, G, and I to this section;

(ii) A description of the affected employee's duties as they relate to theemployee's exposure;

(iii) The employee's representative exposure level or anticipated exposurelevel;

(iv) A description of any personal protective and respiratory equipment usedor to be used; and

(v) Information from previous medical examinations of the affected employeethat is not otherwise available to the examining physician.

(4) Physician's written opinion. (i) The employer shall obtain a writtenopinion from the examining physician. This written opinion shall contain theresults of the medical examination and shall include:

(A) The physician's opinion as to whether the employee has any detectedmedical conditions that would place the employee at an increased risk ofmaterial health impairment from exposure to asbestos;

(B) Any recommended limitations on the employee or on the use of personalprotective equipment such as respirators; and

(C) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of theresults of the medical examination and of any medical conditions that mayresult from asbestos exposure.

(D) A statement that the employee has been informed by the physician of theincreased risk of lung cancer attributable to the combined effect of smokingand asbestos exposure.

(ii) The employer shall instruct the physician not to reveal in the writtenopinion given to the employer specific findings or diagnoses unrelated tooccupational exposure to asbestos.

(iii) The employer shall provide a copy of the physician's written opinionto the affected employee within 30 days from its receipt.

(n) Recordkeeping -- (1) Objective data relied on pursuant to paragraph (f)to this section. (i) Where the employer has relied on objective data thatdemonstrate that products made from or containing asbestos are not capable ofreleasing fibers of asbestos in concentrations at or above the permissibleexposure limit and/or excursion limit under the expected conditions ofprocessing, use, or handling to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f),the employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record of objectivedata reasonably relied upon in support of the exemption.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The product qualifying for exemption;

(B) The source of the objective data;

(C) The testing protocol, results of testing, and/or analysis of thematerial for the release of asbestos;

(D) A description of the operation exempted and how the data support theexemption; and

(E) Other data relevant to the operations, materials, processing, oremployee exposures covered by the exemption.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for the duration of theemployer's reliance upon such objective data.

(2) Exposure measurements. (i) The employer shall keep an accurate record ofall measurements taken to monitor employee exposure to asbestos as prescribedin paragraph (f) of this section. NOTE: The employer may utilize the servicesof competent organizations such as industry trade associations and employeeassociations to maintain the records required by this section.

(ii) This record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The date of measurement;

(B) The operation involving exposure to asbestos that is being monitored;

(C) Sampling and analytical methods used and evidence of their accuracy;

(D) Number, duration, and results of samples taken;

(E) Type of protective devices worn, if any; and

(F) Name, social security number, and exposure of the employees whoseexposures are represented.

(iii) The employer shall maintain this record for at least thirty (30)years, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(3) Medical surveillance. (i) The employer shall establish and maintain anaccurate record for each employee subject to medical surveillance byparagraph (m) of this section, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20.

(ii) The record shall include at least the following information:

(A) The name and social security number of the employee;

(B) A copy of the employee's medical examination results, including themedical history, questionnaire responses, results of any tests, andphysician's recommendations.

(C) Physician's written opinions;

(D) Any employee medical complaints related to exposure to asbestos; and

(E) A copy of the information provided to the physician as required byparagraph (m) of this section.

(iii) The employer shall ensure that this record is maintained for theduration of employment plus thirty (30) years, in accordance with 29 CFR1910.20.

(4) Training records. The employer shall maintain all employee trainingrecords for one 1 year beyond the last date of employment by that employer.

(5) Data to Rebut PACM. Where the building owner and employer have relied ondata to demonstrate that PACM is not asbestos-containing, such data shall bemaintained far as long as they are relied upon to rebut the presumption.

(6) Records of Required Notifications. Where the building owner hascommunicated and received information concerning the identification, locationand quantity of ACM and PACM, written records of such notifications and theircontent shall be maintained by the building owner for the duration ofownership and shall be transferred to successive owners of suchbuildings/facilities.

(7) Availability. (i) The employer, upon written request, shall make allrecords required to be maintained by this section available to the AssistantSecretary and the Director for examination and copying.

(ii) The employer, upon request, shall make any exposure records required byparagraphs (f) and (n) of this section available for examination and copyingto affected employees, former employees, designated representatives, and theAssistant Secretary, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.20(a) through (e) and (g)through (i).

(iii) The employer, upon request, shall make employee medical recordsrequired by paragraphs (m) and (n) of this section available for examinationand copying to the subject employee, anyone having the specific writtenconsent of the subject employee, and the Assistant Secretary, in accordancewith 29 CFR 1910.20.

(8) Transfer of records. (i) The employer shall comply with the requirementsconcerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR 1910.20 (h).

(ii) Whenever the employer ceases to do business and there is no successoremployer to receive and retain the records for the prescribed period, theemployer shall notify the Director at least 90 days prior to disposal and,upon request, transmit them to the Director.

(o) Competent person -- (1) General. On all construction worksites coveredby this standard, the employer shall designate a competent person, having thequalifications and authorities for ensuring worker safety and health requiredby Subpart C, General Safety and Health Provisions for Construction (29 CFR1926.20 through 1926.32).

(2) Required Inspections by the Competent Person. Section 1926.20(b)(2)which requires health and safety prevention programs to provide for frequentand regular inspections of the job sites, materials, and equipment to be madeby competent persons, is incorporated.

(3) Additional Inspections. In addition, the competent person shall makefrequent and regular inspections of the job sites, in order to perform theduties set out below in paragraph (p)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. ForClass I jobs, on-site inspections shall be made at least once during eachwork shift, and at any time at employee request. For Class II and III jobs,on-site inspections shall be made at intervals sufficient to assess whetherconditions have changed, and at any reasonable time at employee request.

(i) On all worksites where employees are engaged in Class I or II asbestoswork, the competent person designated in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) ofthis section shall perform or supervise the following duties, as applicable:

(A) Set up the regulated area, enclosure, or other containment;

(B) Ensure (by on-site inspection) the integrity of the enclosure orcontainment;

(C) Set up procedures to control entry to and exit from the enclosure and/orarea;

(D) Supervise all employee exposure monitoring required by this section andensure that it is conducted as required by paragraph (f) of this section;

(E) Ensure that employees working within the enclosure and/or using glovebags wear protective clothing and respirators as required by paragraphs (h)and (i) of this section;

(F) Ensure through on-site supervision, that employees set up and removeengineering controls, use work practices and personal protective equipment incompliance with all requirements;

(G) Ensure that employees use the hygiene facilities and observe thedecontamination procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this section;

(H) Ensure that though on-site inspection engineering controls arefunctioning properly and employees are using proper work practices; and,

(I)Ensure that notification requirement in paragraph (f)(6) of this section aremet.

(4) Training for the competent person. (i) For Class I, and II asbestos workthe competent person shall be trained in all aspects of asbestos removal andhandling, including: abatement, installation, removal and handling; thecontents of this standard; the identification of asbestos; removalprocedures, where appropriate; and other practices for reducing the hazard.Such training shall be obtained in a comprehensive course for supervisors,such as a course conducted by an EPA or state-approved training provider,certified by the EPA or a State, or an course equivalent in stringency,content and length.

(ii) For Class III and IV asbestos work, the competent person shall betrained in aspects of asbestos handling appropriate for the nature of thework, to include procedures for setting up glove bags and mini- enclosures,practices for reducing asbestos exposures, use of wet methods, the contentsof this standard, and the identification of asbestos. Such training shallinclude successful completion of a course equivalent in curriculum andtraining method to the 16-hour Operations and Maintenance course developed byEPA for maintenance and custodial workers [See 40 CFR 763.92(a)(2)], or itsequivalent in stringency, content and length. Competent persons for Class IIIand IV work, may also be trained pursuant to the requirements of paragraph(o)(4)(i) of this section.

(p) Appendices. (1) Appendices A, C, D, and E to this section areincorporated as part of this section and the contents of these appendices aremandatory.

(2) Appendices B, F, H, I, J, and K to this section are informational andare not intended to create any additional obligations not otherwise imposedor to detract from any existing obligations.

(q) Dates. (1) This standard shall become effective October 11,1994.

(2) The provisions of 29 CFR 1926.58 remain in effect until thestart-up dates of the equivalent provisions of this standard.

(3) Start-up dates: All obligations of this standard commence on theeffective date except as follows:

(i) Methods of compliance. The engineering and work practice controlsrequired by paragraph (g) of this section shall be implemented as soon aspossible but no later than April 10, 1995.

(ii) Respiratory protection. Respiratory protection required by paragraph(h) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible but no later thanFebruary 8, 1995.

(iii) Hygiene facilities and practices for employees. Hygiene facilities andpractices required by paragraph (j) of this section shall be provided as soonas possible but no later than February 8, 1995.

(iv) Communication of hazards. Identification, notification, labeling andsign posting, and training required by paragraph (k) of this section shall beprovided as soon as possible, but no later than April 10, 1995.

(v) Housekeeping. Housekeeping practices and controls required by paragraph(l) of this section shall be provided as soon as possible, but no later thanJanuary 9, 1995.

(vi) Medical surveillance required by paragraph (m) of this section shall beprovided as soon as possible, but no later than January 9, 1995.

(vii) The designation and training of competent persons required byparagraph (o) of this section shall completed as soon as possible but nolater than April 10, 1995.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number1218-0133)

Appendix A to 1926.1101 [Amended]

4. Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101 is amended by the revising the secondsentence of the introductory paragraph to read as follows:

* * * The sampling and analytical methods described below represent theelements of the available monitoring methods (such as Appendix B of thisregulation, the most current version of the OSHA method ID-160, or the mostcurrent version of the NIOSH Method 7400). * * *

Appendix A to 1926.1101 [Amended]

5. Paragraph 2. of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101 entitledSampling and Analytical Procedure is amended by adding the following sentenceto the end:

* * * * *

2.* * * Do not reuse or reload cassettes for asbestos sample collection. * * * * *

Appendix A to 1926.1101 [Amended]

6. Paragraph 11 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101 entitledSampling and Analytical Procedure is revised to read as follows:

* * * * *

11. Each set of samples taken will include 10% field blanks or a minimum of2 field blanks. These blanks must come from the same lot as the filters usedfor sample collection. The field blank results shall be averaged andsubtracted from the analytical results before reporting. A set consists ofany sample or group of samples for which an evaluation for this standard mustbe made. Any samples represented by a field blank having a fiber count inexcess of the detection limit of the method being used shall be rejected.

* * * * *

Appendix A to 1926.1101 [Amended]

7. Paragraph 2 of the section of Appendix A to Sec. 1926.1101 entitledQuality Control Procedures is redesignated as paragraph 2a and by addingparagraph 2b to read as follows:

* * * * *

2. * * * b. All laboratories should also participate in a nationalsample testing scheme such as the Proficiency Analytical Testing Program(PAT), or the Asbestos Registry sponsored by the American Industrial HygieneAssociation (AIHA).

* * * * *

E. Appendix B of Sec. 1926.1101 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix B to 1926.1101. Sampling and Analysis. Non-mandatory

Analytical Procedure:

A portion of the sample filter is cleared and prepared for asbestos fibercounting by Phase Contrast Microscopy (PCM) at 400X.

Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method are fordescriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by USDOL-OSHA.Similar products from other sources can be substituted.

1. Introduction

This method describes the collection of airborne asbestos fibers usingcalibrated sampling pumps with mixed-cellulose ester (MCE) filters andanalysis by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Some terms used are unique tothis method and are defined below: Asbestos: A term for naturally occurringfibrous minerals. Asbestos includes chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite(cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos), tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos,anthophyllite asbestos, and any of these minerals that have been chemicallytreated and/or altered. The precise chemical formulation of each species willvary with the location from which it was mined. Nominal compositions arelisted:

Chrysotile.................... Mg(3)Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4)

Crocidolite................... Na(2)Fe(3)(2) + Fe(2)(3) + Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Amosite....................... (Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Tremolite-actinolite.......... Ca(2)(Mg,Fe)(5)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Anthophyllite................. (Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos which meets the criteria specified belowfor a fiber.

Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of a fiber to it's diameter (e.g. 3:1,5:1 aspect ratios).

Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by comminution of minerals,especially those characterized by parallel sides and a moderate aspect ratio(usually less than 20:1).

Detection Limit: The number of fibers necessary to be 95% certain that theresult is greater than zero.

Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of excluding certainkinds of fibers from the fiber count because they do not appear to beasbestos.

Fiber: A particle that is 5 um or longer, with a length-to-width ratio of 3to 1 or longer.

Field: The area within the graticule circle that is superimposed on themicroscope image.

Set: The samples which are taken, submitted to the laboratory, analyzed, andfor which, interim or final result reports are generated.

Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite: The non-asbestos form of theseminerals which meet the definition of a fiber. It includes any of theseminerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered.

Walton-Beckett Graticule: An eyepiece graticule specifically designed forasbestos fiber counting. It consists of a circle with a projected diameter of100 plus or minus 2 um (area of about 0.00785 mm(2)) with a crosshair havingtic-marks at 3-um intervals in one direction and 5-um in the orthogonaldirection. There are marks around the periphery of the circle to demonstratethe proper sizes and shapes of fibers. This design is reproduced in Figure 2.The disk is placed in one of the microscope eyepieces so that the design issuperimposed on the field of view.

1.1. History

Early surveys to determine asbestos exposures were conducted using impingercounts of total dust with the counts expressed as million particles per cubicfoot. The British Asbestos Research Council recommended filter membranecounting in 1969. In July 1969, the Bureau of Occupational Safety and Healthpublished a filter membrane method for counting asbestos fibers in the UnitedStates. This method was refined by NIOSH and published as P&CAM 239. On May29, 1971, OSHA specified filter membrane sampling with phase contrastcounting for evaluation of asbestos exposures at work sites in the UnitedStates. The use of this technique was again required by OSHA in 1986. Phasecontrast microscopy has continued to be the method of choice for themeasurement of occupational exposure to asbestos.

1.2. Principle

Air is drawn through a MCE filter to capture airborne asbestos fibers. Awedge shaped portion of the filter is removed, placed on a glass microscopeslide and made transparent. A measured area (field) is viewed by PCM. All thefibers meeting a defined criteria for asbestos are counted and considered ameasure of the airborne asbestos concentration.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

There are four main advantages of PCM over other methods:

(1) The technique is specific for fibers. Phase contrast is a fiber countingtechnique which excludes non-fibrous particles from the analysis.

(2) The technique is inexpensive and does not require specialized knowledgeto carry out the analysis for total fiber counts.

(3) The analysis is quick and can be performed on-site for rapiddetermination of air concentrations of asbestos fibers. (4) The techniquehas continuity with historical epidemiological estimates of expected diseasecan be inferred from long-term determinations of asbestos exposures.

The main disadvantage of PCM is that it does not positively identifyasbestos fibers. Other fibers which are not asbestos may be included in thecount unless differential counting is performed. This requires a great dealof experience to adequately differentiate asbestos from non-asbestos fibers.Positive identification of asbestos must be performed by polarized light orelectron microscopy techniques. A further disadvantage of PCM is that thesmallest visible fibers are about 0.2 um in diameter while the finestasbestos fibers may be as small as 0.02 um in diameter. For some exposures,substantially more fibers may be present than are actually counted.

1.4. Workplace Exposure

Asbestos is used by the construction industry in such products as shingles,floor tiles, asbestos cement, roofing felts, insulation and acousticalproducts. Non-construction uses include brakes, clutch facings, paper,paints, plastics, and fabrics. One of the most significant exposures in theworkplace is the removal and encapsulation of asbestos in schools, publicbuildings, and homes. Many workers have the potential to be exposed toasbestos during these operations.

About 95% of the asbestos in commercial use in the United States ischrysotile. Crocidolite and amosite make up most of the remainder.Anthophyllite and tremolite or actinolite are likely to be encountered ascontaminants in various industrial products.

1.5. Physical Properties

Asbestos fiber possesses a high tensile strength along its axis, ischemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. It has a highelectrical resistance and good sound absorbing properties. It can be weavedinto cables, fabrics or other textiles, and also matted into asbestos papers,felts, or mats.

2. Range and Detection Limit

2.1. The ideal counting range on the filter is 100 to 1,300 fibers/mm(2).With a Walton-Beckett graticule this range is equivalent to 0.8 to 10fibers/field. Using NIOSH counting statistics, a count of 0.8 fibers/fieldwould give an approximate coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.13.

2.2. The detection limit for this method is 4.0 fibers per 100 fields or 5.5fibers/mm(2). This was determined using an equation to estimate the maximumCV possible at a specific concentration (95% confidence) and a Lower ControlLimit of zero. The CV value was then used to determine a correspondingconcentration from historical CV vs fiber relationships. As an example:

Lower Control Limit (95% Confidence) = AC -- 1.645(CV)(AC)

Where:

AC = Estimate of the airborne fiber concentration (fibers/cc) Setting the

Lower Control Limit = 0 and solving for CV:

0 = AC - 1.645(CV)(AC) CV = 0.61

This value was compared with CV vs. count curves. The count at which CV =0.61 for Leidel-Busch counting statistics or for an OSHA Salt Lake TechnicalCenter (OSHA-SLTC) CV curve (see Appendix A for further information) was 4.4fibers or 3.9 fibers per 100 fields, respectively. Although a lower detectionlimit of 4 fibers per 100 fields is supported by the OSHA-SLTC data, bothdata sets support the 4.5 fibers per 100 fields value.

3. Method Performance -- Precision and Accuracy

Precision is dependent upon the total number of fibers counted and theuniformity of the fiber distribution on the filter. A general rule is tocount at least 20 and not more than 100 fields. The count is discontinuedwhen 100 fibers are counted, provided that 20 fields have already beencounted. Counting more than 100 fibers results in only a small gain inprecision. As the total count drops below 10 fibers, an accelerated loss ofprecision is noted.

At this time, there is no known method to determine the absolute accuracy ofthe asbestos analysis. Results of samples prepared through the ProficiencyAnalytical Testing (PAT) Program and analyzed by the OSHA-SLTC showed nosignificant bias when compared to PAT reference values. The PAT samples wereanalyzed from 1987 to 1989 (N=36) and the concentration range was from 120 to1,300 fibers/mm(2).

4. Interferences

Fibrous substances, if present, may interfere with asbestosanalysis. Some common fibers are:

fiber glass........................ perlite veins anhydrite plant fibersgypsum............................. some synthetic fibers membranestructures................ sponge spicules and diatomsmicroorganisms..................... wollastonite

The use of electron microscopy or optical tests such as polarized light, anddispersion staining may be used to differentiate these materials fromasbestos when necessary.

5. Sampling

5.1. Equipment

5.1.1. Sample assembly (The assembly is shown in Figure 3). Conductivefilter holder consisting of a 25-mm diameter, 3-piece cassette having a 50-mmlong electrically conductive extension cowl. Backup pad, 25-mm, cellulose.Membrane filter, mixed-cellulose ester (MCE), 25-mm, plain, white, 0.8- to1.2-um pore size.

Notes:

(a) DO NOT RE-USE CASSETTES. (b) Fully conductive cassettes are required toreduce fiber loss to the sides of the cassette due to electrostaticattraction.

(c) Purchase filters which have been selected by the manufacturer forasbestos counting or analyze representative filters for fiber backgroundbefore use. Discard the filter lot if more than 4 fibers/ 100 fields arefound.

(d) To decrease the possibility of contamination, the sampling system(filter-backup pad-cassette) for asbestos is usually preassembled by themanufacturer.

5.1.2. Gel bands for sealing cassettes.

5.1.3. Sampling pump. Eachpump must be a battery operated, self-contained unit small enough to beplaced on the monitored employee and not interfere with the work beingperformed. The pump must be capable of sampling at 2.5 liters per minute(L/min) for the required sampling time.

5.1.4. Flexible tubing, 6-mm bore.

5.1.5. Pump calibration.Stopwatch and bubble tube/burette or electronic meter.

5.2. SamplingProcedure

5.2.1. Seal the point where the base and cowl of each cassette meet(see Figure 3) with a gel band or tape.

5.2.2. Charge the pumps completely before beginning.

5.2.3. Connecteach pump to a calibration cassette with an appropriate length of 6-mm boreplastic tubing. Do not use luer connectors -- the type of cassette specifiedabove has built-in adapters.

5.2.4. Select an appropriate flow rate for the situation being monitored.The sampling flow rate must be between 0.5 and 5.0 L/min for personalsampling and is commonly set between 1 and 2 L/min. Always choose a flow ratethat will not produce overloaded filters.

5.2.5. Calibrate each sampling pump before and after sampling with acalibration cassette in-line (Note: This calibration cassette should be fromthe same lot of cassettes used for sampling). Use a primary standard (e.g.bubble burette) to calibrate each pump. If possible, calibrate at thesampling site.

Note: If sampling site calibration is not possible, environmentalinfluences may affect the flow rate. The extent is dependent on the type ofpump used. Consult with the pump manufacturer to determine dependence onenvironmental influences. If the pump is affected by temperature and pressurechanges, use the formula in Appendix B to calculate the actual flow rate.

5.2.6. Connect each pump to the base of each sampling cassette with flexibletubing. Remove the end cap of each cassette and take each air sample openface. Assure that each sample cassette is held open side down in theemployee's breathing zone during sampling. The distance from the nose/mouthof the employee to the cassette should be about 10 cm. Secure the cassette onthe collar or lapel of the employee using spring clips or other similardevices.

5.2.7. A suggested minimum air volume when sampling to determine TWAcompliance is 25 L. For Excursion Limit (30 min sampling time) evaluations, aminimum air volume of 48 L is recommended.

5.2.8. The most significant problem when sampling for asbestos isoverloading the filter with non-asbestos dust. Suggested maximum air samplevolumes for specific environments are:

CAUTION: Do not overload the filter with dust. High levels of non-fibrousdust particles may obscure fibers on the filter and lower the count or makecounting impossible. If more than about 25 to 30% of the field area isobscured with dust, the result may be biased low. Smaller air volumes may benecessary when there is excessive non-asbestos dust in the air.

While sampling, observe the filter with a small flashlight. If there is avisible layer of dust on the filter, stop sampling, remove and seal thecassette, and replace with a new sampling assembly. The total dust loadingshould not exceed 1 mg.

5.2.9. Blank samples are used to determine if any contamination has occurredduring sample handling. Prepare two blanks for the first 1 to 20 samples. Forsets containing greater than 20 samples, prepare blanks as 10% of thesamples. Handle blank samples in the same manner as air samples with oneexception: Do not draw any air through the blank samples. Open the blankcassette in the place where the sample cassettes are mounted on the employee.Hold it open for about 30 seconds. Close and seal the cassette appropriately.Store blanks for shipment with the sample cassettes.

5.2.10. Immediately after sampling, close and seal each cassette with thebase and plastic plugs. Do not touch or puncture the filter membrane as thiswill invalidate the analysis.

5.2.11. Attach a seal (OSHA-21 or equivalent) around each cassette in such away as to secure the end cap plug and base plug. Tape the ends of the sealtogether since the seal is not long enough to be wrapped end-to-end. Alsowrap tape around the cassette at each joint to keep the seal secure.

5.3. Sample Shipment

5.3.1. Send the samples to the laboratory with paperwork requesting asbestosanalysis. List any known fibrous interferences present during sampling on thepaperwork. Also, note the workplace operation(s) sampled.

5.3.2. Secure and handle the samples in such that they will not rattleduring shipment nor be exposed to static electricity. Do not ship samples inexpanded polystyrene peanuts, vermiculite, paper shreds, or excelsior. Tapesample cassettes to sheet bubbles and place in a container that will cushionthe samples without rattling.

5.3.3. To avoid the possibility of sample contamination, always ship bulksamples in separate mailing containers.

6. Analysis

6.1. Safety Precautions

6.1.1. Acetone is extremely flammable and precautions must be taken not toignite it. Avoid using large containers or quantities of acetone. Transferthe solvent in a ventilated laboratory hood. Do not use acetone near any openflame. For generation of acetone vapor, use a spark free heat source.

6.1.2. Any asbestos spills should be cleaned up immediately to preventdispersal of fibers. Prudence should be exercised to avoid contamination oflaboratory facilities or exposure of personnel to asbestos. Asbestos spillsshould be cleaned up with wet methods and/ or a High EfficiencyParticulate-Air (HEPA) filtered vacuum.

CAUTION: Do not use a vacuum without a HEPA filter -- It will disperse fineasbestos fibers in the air.

6.2. Equipment

6.2.1. Phase contrast microscope with binocular or trinocular head.

6.2.2. Widefield or Huygenian 10X eyepieces (NOTE: The eyepiece containingthe graticule must be a focusing eyepiece. Use a 40X phase objective with anumerical aperture of 0.65 to 0.75).

6.2.3. Kohler illumination (if possible) with green or blue filter.

6.2.4. Walton-Beckett Graticule, type G-22 with 100 plus or minus 2 umprojected diameter.

6.2.5. Mechanical stage. A rotating mechanical stage is convenient for usewith polarized light.

6.2.6. Phase telescope.

6.2.7. Stage micrometer with 0.01-mmsubdivisions.

6.2.8. Phase-shift test slide, mark II (Available from PTRoptics Ltd., and also McCrone).

6.2.9. Precleaned glass slides, 25 mm X 75 mm. One end can be frosted forconvenience in writing sample numbers, etc., or paste-on labels can be used.

6.2.10. Cover glass #1 1/2.

6.2.11. Scalpel (#10, curved blade).

6.2.12. Fine tipped forceps.

6.2.13. Aluminum block for clearing filter (seeAppendix D and Figure 4).

6.2.14. Automatic adjustable pipette, 100- to 500-uL.

6.2.15.Micropipette, 5 uL.

6.3. Reagents

6.3.1. Acetone (HPLC grade).

6.3.2. Triacetin (glycerol triacetate).

6.3.3. Lacquer or nail polish.

6.4. Standard Preparation

A way to prepare standard asbestos samples of known concentration has notbeen developed. It is possible to prepare replicate samples of nearly equalconcentration. This has been performed through the PAT program. Theseasbestos samples are distributed by the AIHA to participating laboratories.

Since only about one-fourth of a 25-mm sample membrane is required for anasbestos count, any PAT sample can serve as a "standard" for replicatecounting.

6.5. Sample Mounting Note: See Safety Precautions in Section

6.1. before proceeding. The objective is to produce samples with a smooth(non-grainy) background in a medium with a refractive index of approximately1.46. The technique below collapses the filter for easier focusing andproduces permanent mounts which are useful for quality control andinterlaboratory comparison.

An aluminum block or similar device is required for samplepreparation.

6.5.1. Heat the aluminum block to about 70 deg.C. The hot blockshould not be used on any surface that can be damaged by either the heat orfrom exposure to acetone.

6.5.2. Ensure that the glass slides and cover glasses are free of dust andfibers.

6.5.3. Remove the top plug to prevent a vacuum when the cassette is opened.Clean the outside of the cassette if necessary. Cut the seal and/or tape onthe cassette with a razor blade. Very carefully separate the base from theextension cowl, leaving the filter and backup pad in the base.

6.5.4. With a rocking motion cut a triangular wedge from the filter usingthe scalpel. This wedge should be one-sixth to one- fourth of the filter.Grasp the filter wedge with the forceps on the perimeter of the filter whichwas clamped between the cassette pieces. DO NOT TOUCH the filter with yourfinger. Place the filter on the glass slide sample side up. Staticelectricity will usually keep the filter on the slide until it is cleared.

6.5.5. Place the tip of the micropipette containing about 200 uL acetoneinto the aluminum block. Insert the glass slide into the receiving slot inthe aluminum block. Inject the acetone into the block with slow, steadypressure on the plunger while holding the pipette firmly in place. Wait 3 to5 seconds for the filter to clear, then remove the pipette and slide from thealuminum block.

6.5.6. Immediately (less than 30 seconds) place 2.5 to 3.5 uL of triacetinon the filter (NOTE: Waiting longer than 30 seconds will result in increasedindex of refraction and decreased contrast between the fibers and thepreparation. This may also lead to separation of the cover slip from theslide).

6.5.7. Lower a cover slip gently onto the filter at a slight angle to reducethe possibility of forming air bubbles. If more than 30 seconds have elapsedbetween acetone exposure and triacetin application, glue the edges of thecover slip to the slide with lacquer or nail polish.

6.5.8. If clearing is slow, warm the slide for 15 min on a hot plate havinga surface temperature of about 50 deg.C to hasten clearing. The top of thehot block can be used if the slide is not heated too long.

6.5.9. Counting may proceed immediately after clearing and mounting arecompleted.

6.6. Sample Analysis

Completely align the microscope according to the manufacturer'sinstructions. Then, align the microscope using the following generalalignment routine at the beginning of every counting session and more oftenif necessary.

6.6.1. Alignment

(1) Clean all optical surfaces. Even a small amount of dirt cansignificantly degrade the image.

(2) Rough focus the objective on a sample.

(3) Close down the fieldiris so that it is visible in the field of view. Focus the image of the iriswith the condenser focus. Center the image of the iris in the field ofview.

(4) Install the phase telescope and focus on the phase rings. Criticallycenter the rings. Misalignment of the rings results in astigmatism which willdegrade the image.

(5) Place the phase-shift test slide on the microscope stage and focus onthe lines. The analyst must see line set 3 and should see at least parts of 4and 5 but, not see line set 6 or 6. A microscope/microscopist combinationwhich does not pass this test may not be used.

6.6.2. Counting Fibers

(1) Place the prepared sample slide on the mechanical stage of themicroscope. Position the center of the wedge under the objective lens andfocus upon the sample.

(2) Start counting from one end of the wedge and progress along a radialline to the other end (count in either direction from perimeter to wedgetip). Select fields randomly, without looking into the eyepieces, by slightlyadvancing the slide in one direction with the mechanical stage control.

(3) Continually scan over a range of focal planes (generally the upper 10 to15 um of the filter surface) with the fine focus control during each fieldcount. Spend at least 5 to 15 seconds per field.

(4) Most samples will contain asbestos fibers with fiber diameters less than1 um. Look carefully for faint fiber images. The small diameter fibers willbe very hard to see. However, they are an important contribution to the totalcount.

(5) Count only fibers equal to or longer than 5 um. Measure the length ofcurved fibers along the curve.

(6) Count fibers which have a length to width ratio of 3:1 orgreater.

(7) Count all the fibers in at least 20 fields. Continue countinguntil either 100 fibers are counted or 100 fields have been viewed; whicheveroccurs first. Count all the fibers in the final field.

(8) Fibers lying entirely within the boundary of the Walton- Beckettgraticule field shall receive a count of 1. Fibers crossing the boundaryonce, having one end within the circle shall receive a count of 1/2. Do notcount any fiber that crosses the graticule boundary more than once. Rejectand do not count any other fibers even though they may be visible outside thegraticule area. If a fiber touches the circle, it is considered to cross theline.

(9) Count bundles of fibers as one fiber unless individual fibers can beclearly identified and each individual fiber is clearly not connected toanother counted fiber. See Figure 2 for counting conventions.

(10) Record the number of fibers in each field in a consistent way such thatfilter non-uniformity can be assessed.

(11) Regularly check phase ring alignment.

(12) When an agglomerate(mass of material) covers more than 25% of the field of view, reject thefield and select another. Do not include it in the number of fieldscounted.

(13) Perform a "blind recount" of 1 in every 10 filter wedges (slides).Re-label the slides using a person other than the original counter.

6.7. Fiber Identification

As previously mentioned in Section 1.3., PCM does not provide positiveconfirmation of asbestos fibers. Alternate differential counting techniquesshould be used if discrimination is desirable. Differential counting mayinclude primary discrimination based on morphology, polarized light analysisof fibers, or modification of PCM data by Scanning Electron or TransmissionElectron Microscopy.

A great deal of experience is required to routinely and correctly performdifferential counting. It is discouraged unless it is legally necessary.Then, only if a fiber is obviously not asbestos should it be excluded fromthe count. Further discussion of this technique can be found in reference8.10.

If there is a question whether a fiber is asbestos or not, follow the rule:

"WHEN IN DOUBT, COUNT."

6.8. Analytical Recommendations -- Quality Control System

6.8.1. All individuals performing asbestos analysis must have taken theNIOSH course for sampling and evaluating airborne asbestos or an equivalentcourse.

6.8.2. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall set up a slidetrading arrangement with at least two other laboratories in order to compareperformance and eliminate inbreeding of error. The slide exchange occurs atleast semiannually. The round robin results shall be posted where allanalysts can view individual analyst's results.

6.8.3. Each laboratory engaged in asbestos counting shall participate in theProficiency Analytical Testing Program, the Asbestos Analyst Registry orequivalent.

6.8.4. Each analyst shall select and count prepared slides from a "slidebank". These are quality assurance counts. The slide bank shall be preparedusing uniformly distributed samples taken from the workload. Fiber densitiesshould cover the entire range routinely analyzed by the laboratory. Theseslides are counted blind by all counters to establish an original standarddeviation. This historical distribution is compared with the qualityassurance counts. A counter must have 95% of all quality control samplescounted within three standard deviations of the historical mean. This countis then integrated into a new historical mean and standard deviation for theslide.

The analyses done by the counters to establish the slide bank may be usedfor an interim quality control program if the data are treated in a properstatistical fashion.

7. Calculations

7.1. Calculate the estimated airborne asbestos fiber concentration on thefilter sample using the following formula:

Note: The collection area of a filter is seldom equal to 385 mm(2).It is appropriate for laboratories to routinely monitor the exact diameterusing an inside micrometer. The collection area is calculated according tothe formula:

Area = Pie(d/2)(2)

7.2. Short-Cut Calculation

Since a given analyst always has the same interpupillary distance, thenumber of fields per filter for a particular analyst will remain constant fora given size filter. The field size for that analyst is constant (i.e. theanalyst is using an assigned microscope and is not changing the reticle).

For example, if the exposed area of the filter is always 385 mm(2) and thesize of the field is always 0.00785 mm(2) the number of fields per filterwill always be 49,000. In addition it is necessary to convert liters of airto cc. These three constants can then be combined such that ECA/(1,000 xMFA)=49. The previous equation simplifies to:

7.3. Recount Calculations

As mentioned in step 13 of Section 6.6.2., a "blind recount" of 10% of theslides is performed. In all cases, differences will be observed between thefirst and second counts of the same filter wedge. Most of these differenceswill be due to chance alone, that is, due to the random variability(precision) of the count method. Statistical recount criteria enables one todecide whether observed differences can be explained due to chance alone orare probably due to systematic differences between analysts, microscopes, orother biasing factors.

The following recount criterion is for a pair of counts that estimate AC infibers/cc. The criterion is given at the type-I error level. That is, thereis 5% maximum risk that we will reject a pair of counts for the reason thatone might be biased, when the large observed difference is really due tochance.

Reject a pair of counts if:

Where:

AC(1) = lower estimated airborne fiber concentration
AC(2) = higher estimated airborne fiber concentration
AC(avg) = average of the two concentration estimates
CV(FB) = CV for the average of the two concentration estimates

If a pair of counts are rejected by this criterion then, recount the rest ofthe filters in the submitted set. Apply the test and reject any other pairsfailing the test. Rejection shall include a memo to the industrial hygieniststating that the sample failed a statistical test for homogeneity and thetrue air concentration may be significantly different than the reportedvalue.

7.4. Reporting Results

Report results to the industrial hygienist as fibers/cc. Use two significantfigures. If multiple analyses are performed on a sample, an average of theresults is to be reported unless any of the results can be rejected forcause.

8. References

8.1. Dreesen, W.C., et al., U.S. Public Health Service: A Study ofAsbestosis in the Asbestos Textile Industry (Public Health Bulletin No. 241),U.S. Treasury Dept., Washington, DC, 1938.

8.2. Asbestos Research Council: The Measurement of Airborne Asbestos Dust bythe Membrane Filter Method (Technical Note), Asbestos Research Council,Rockdale, Lancashire, Great Britain, 1969.

8.3. Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Brown, T.A., Equipment and Procedure forMounting Millipore Filters and Counting Asbestos Fibers by Phase ContrastMicroscopy, Bureau of Occupational Health, U.S. Dept. of Health, Educationand Welfare, Cincinnati, OH, 1969.

8.4. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd ed., Vol. 1 (DHEW/ NIOSH Pub.No. 77-157-A). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,Cincinnati, OH, 1977. pp. 239-1 -- 239-21.

8.5. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1001. 1971.

8.6. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, andActinolite. Final Rule, Federal Register 51:119 (20 June 1986). pp.22612-22790.

8.7. Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite, Code of FederalRegulations 1910.1001. 1988. pp. 711-752.

8.8. Criteria for a Recommended Standard -- Occupational Exposure toAsbestos (DHEW/NIOSH Pub. No. HSM 72-10267), National Institute forOccupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, Cincinnati, OH, 1972. pp. III-1 --III-24.

8.9. Leidel, N.A., Bayer, S.G., Zumwalde, R.D., Busch, K.A., USPHS/NIOSHMembrane Filter Method for Evaluating Airborne Asbestos Fibers (DHEW/NIOSHPub. No. 79-127). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,Cincinnati, OH, 1979.

8.10. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in Analysis ofAsbestos and Quartz, Analytical Techniques in Occupational Health Chemistry,edited by D.D. Dollberg and A.W. Verstuyft. Wash. D.C.: American ChemicalSociety, (ACS Symposium Series 120) 1980. pp. 13-41.

Quality Control

The OSHA asbestos regulations require each laboratory to establish a qualitycontrol program. The following is presented as an example of how theOSHA-SLTC constructed its internal CV curve as part of meeting thisrequirement. Data for the CV curve shown below is from 395 samples collectedduring OSHA compliance inspections and analyzed from October 1980 throughApril 1986.

Each sample was counted by 2 to 5 different counters independently of oneanother. The standard deviation and the CV statistic was calculated for eachsample. This data was then plotted on a graph of CV vs. fibers/mm(2). A leastsquares regression was performed using the following equation:

CV = antilog(10) [(log(10)(x))(2) + B(log(10)(x)) + C]

where: x = the number of fibers/mm(2) Application of least squares gave:

A = 0.182205 B = 0.973343 C = 0.327499

Using these values, the equation becomes:

CV = antilog(10) [0.182205(log(10)(x))(2)

- 0.973343(log(10)(x)) + 0.327499]

Sampling Pump Flow Rate Corrections

This correction is used if a difference greater than 5% in ambienttemperature and/or pressure is noted between calibration and sampling sitesand the pump does not compensate for the differences.

Walton-Beckett Graticule

When ordering the Graticule for asbestos counting, specify the exact discdiameter needed to fit the ocular of the microscope and the diameter (mm) ofthe circular counting area. Instructions for measuring the dimensionsnecessary are listed:

(1) Insert any available graticule into the focusing eyepiece and focus sothat the graticule lines are sharp and clear.

(2) Align the microscope.

(3) Place a stage micrometer on themicroscope object stage and focus the microscope on the graduatedlines.

(4) Measure the magnified grid length, PL (um), using the stage micrometer.

(5) Remove the graticule from the microscope and measure its actual gridlength, AL (mm). This can be accomplished by using a mechanical stage fittedwith verniers, or a jeweler's loupe with a direct reading scale.

(6) Let D = 100 um. Calculate the circle diameter, d(c)(mm), for theWalton-Beckett graticule and specify the diameter when making a purchase:

Example: If PL = 108 um, AL = 2.93 mm and D = 100 um, then,

(7) Each eyepiece-objective-reticle combination on the microscope must becalibrated. Should any of the three be changed (by zoom adjustment,disassembly, replacement, etc.), the combination must be recalibrated.Calibration may change if interpupillary distance is changed.

Measure the field diameter, D (acceptable range: 100 plus or minus 2 um)with a stage micrometer upon receipt of the graticule from the manufacturer.Determine the field area (mm(2)).

Field Area = Pie(D/2)(2) If D = 100 um = 0.1 mm, then Field Area = Pie(0.1mm/2)(2) = 0.00785mm(2)

The Graticule is available from: Graticules Ltd., Morley Road, Tonbridge TN9IRN, Kent, England (Telephone 011-44-732-359061). Also available from PTROptics Ltd., 145 Newton Street, Waltham, MA 02154 [telephone (617) 891-6000]or McCrone Accessories and Components, 2506 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL60616 [phone (312)-842-7100]. The graticule is custom made for eachmicroscope.

Appendix D to 1926.1101 [Amended]

9. Appendix D to 1926.1101 is revised to read as follows:

This mandatory appendix contains the medical questionnaires that must beadministered to all employees who are exposed to asbestos above thepermissible exposure limit, and who will therefore be included in theiremployer's medical surveillance program.* * *

10. Appendix F to 1926.1101 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix F to 1926.1101. Work Practices and Engineering Controls forClass I Asbestos Operations. -- Non-mandatory

This is a non-mandatory appendix to the asbestos standards for constructionand for shipyards. It describes criteria and procedures for erecting andusing negative pressure enclosures for Class I Asbestos Work, when NPEs areused as an allowable control method to comply with paragraph (g)(5)(i) ofthis section. Many small and variable details are involved in the erection ofa negative pressure enclosure. OSHA and most participants in the rulemakingagreed that only the major, more performance oriented criteria should be mademandatory. These criteria are set out in paragraph (g) of this section. Inaddition, this appendix includes these mandatory specifications andprocedures in its guidelines in order to make this appendix coherent andhelpful. The mandatory nature of the criteria which appear in the regulatorytext is not changed because they are included in this "non-mandatory"appendix. Similarly, the additional criteria and procedures included asguidelines in the appendix, do not become mandatory because mandatorycriteria are also included in these comprehensive guidelines.

In addition, none of the criteria, both mandatory and recommended, are meantto specify or imply the need for use of patented or licensed methods orequipment. Recommended specifications included in this attachment should notdiscourage the use of creative alternatives which can be shown to reliablyachieve the objectives of negative-pressure enclosures.

Requirements included in this appendix, cover general provisions to befollowed in all asbestos jobs, provisions which must be followed for allClass I asbestos jobs, and provisions governing the construction and testingof negative pressure enclosures. The first category includes the requirementfor use of wet methods, HEPA vacuums, and immediate bagging of waste; Class Iwork must conform to the following provisions:

* oversight by competent person * use of critical barriers overall openings to work area * isolation of HVAC systems * use ofimpermeable dropcloths and coverage of all objects within regulated areas Inaddition, more specific requirements for NPEs include: * maintenance of-0.02 inches water gauge within enclosure * manometric measurements * airmovement away from employees performing removal work * smoke testing orequivalent for detection of leaks and air direction * deactivation ofelectrical circuits, if not provided with ground-fault circuitinterrupters.

Planning the Project

The standard requires that an exposure assessment be conducted before theasbestos job is begun [Sec. 1926.1101 (f)(1)]. Information needed for thatassessment, includes data relating to prior similar jobs, as applied to thespecific variables of the current job. The information needed to conduct theassessment will be useful in planning the project, and in complying with anyreporting requirements under this standard, when significant changes arebeing made to a control system listed in the standard, [see also those ofUSEPA (40 CFR 61, subpart M). Thus, although the standard does not explicitlyrequire the preparation of a written asbestos removal plan, the usualconstituents of such a plan, i.e., a description of the enclosure, theequipment, and the procedures to be used throughout the project, must bedetermined before the enclosure can be erected. The following informationshould be included in the planning of the system:

A physical description of the work area; A description of the approximateamount of material to be removed; A schedule for turning off and sealingexisting ventilation systems; Personnel hygiene procedures; A description ofpersonal protective equipment and clothing to be worn by employees;

A description of the local exhaust ventilation systems to be used and howthey are to be tested;

A description of work practices to be observed by employees; An airmonitoring plan; A description of the method to be used to transport wastematerial; and The location of the dump site.

Materials and Equipment Necessary for Asbestos Removal

Although individual asbestos removal projects vary in terms of the equipmentrequired to accomplish the removal of the materials, some equipment andmaterials are common to most asbestos removal operations.

Plastic sheeting used to protect horizontal surfaces, seal HVAC openings orto seal vertical openings and ceilings should have a minimum thickness of 6mils. Tape or other adhesive used to attach plastic sheeting should be ofsufficient adhesive strength to support the weight of the material plus allstresses encountered during the entire duration of the project withoutbecoming detached from the surface.

Other equipment and materials which should be available at the beginning ofeach project are:

-- HEPA Filtered Vacuum is essential for cleaning the work area after theasbestos has been removed. It should have a long hose capable of reachingout-of-the-way places, such as areas above ceiling tiles, behind pipes, etc.

-- Portable air ventilation systems installed to provide the negative airpressure and air removal from the enclosure must be equipped with a HEPAfilter. The number and capacity of units required to ventilate an enclosuredepend on the size of the area to be ventilated. The filters for thesesystems should be designed in such a manner that they can be replaced whenthe air flow volume is reduced by the build-up of dust in the filtrationmaterial. Pressure monitoring devices with alarms and strip chart recordersattached to each system to indicate the pressure differential and the lossdue to dust buildup on the filter are recommended.

-- Water sprayers should be used to keep the asbestos material as saturatedas possible during removal; the sprayers will provide a fine mist thatminimizes the impact of the spray on the material.

-- Water used to saturate the asbestos containing material can be amended byadding at least 15 milliliters (1/4 ounce) of wetting agent in 1 liter (1pint) of water. An example of a wetting agent is a 50/50 mixture ofpolyoxyethylene ether and polyoxyethylene polyglycol ester.

-- Backup power supplies are recommended, especially for ventilation systems.

-- Shower and bath water should be with mixed hot and cold water faucets.Water that has been used to clean personnel or equipment should either befiltered or be collected and discarded as asbestos waste. Soap and shampooshould be provided to aid in removing dust from the workers' skin and hair.

-- See paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section for appropriate respiratoryprotection and protective clothing.

-- See paragraph (k) of this section for required signs and labels.

Preparing the Work Area

Disabling HVAC Systems: The power to the heating, ventilation, and airconditioning systems that service the restricted area must be deactivated andlocked off. All ducts, grills, access ports, windows and vents must be sealedoff with two layers of plastic to prevent entrainment of contaminated air.

Operating HVAC Systems in the Restricted Area: If components of a HVACsystem located in the restricted area are connected to a system that willservice another zone during the project, the portion of the duct in therestricted area must be sealed and pressurized. Necessary precautions includecaulking the duct joints, covering all cracks and openings with two layers ofsheeting, and pressurizing the duct throughout the duration of the project byrestricting the return air flow. The power to the fan supplying the positivepressure should be locked "on" to prevent pressure loss.

Sealing Elevators: If an elevator shaft is located in the restricted area,it should be either shut down or isolated by sealing with two layers ofplastic sheeting. The sheeting should provide enough slack to accommodate thepressure changes in the shaft without breaking the air-tight seal.

Removing Mobile Objects: All movable objects should be cleaned and removedfrom the work area before an enclosure is constructed unless moving theobjects creates a hazard. Mobile objects will be assumed to be contaminatedand should be either cleaned with amended water and a HEPA vacuum and thenremoved from the area or wrapped and then disposed of as hazardous waste.

Cleaning and Sealing Surfaces: After cleaning with water and a HEPA vacuum,surfaces of stationary objects should be covered with two layers of plasticsheeting. The sheeting should be secured with duct tape or an equivalentmethod to provide a tight seal around the object.

Bagging Waste: In addition to the requirement for immediate bagging of wastefor disposal, it is further recommended that the waste material bedouble-bagged and sealed in plastic bags designed for asbestos disposal. Thebags should be stored in a waste storage area that can be controlled by theworkers conducting the removal. Filters removed from air handling units andrubbish removed from the area are to be bagged and handled as hazardouswaste.

Constructing the Enclosure

The enclosure should be constructed to provide an air-tight seal aroundducts and openings into existing ventilation systems and around penetrationsfor electrical conduits, telephone wires, water lines, drain pipes, etc.Enclosures should be both airtight and watertight except for those openingsdesigned to provide entry and/ or air flow control.

Size: An enclosure should be the minimum volume to encompass all of theworking surfaces yet allow unencumbered movement by the worker(s), provideunrestricted air flow past the worker(s), and ensure walking surfaces can bekept free of tripping hazards.

Shape: The enclosure may be any shape that optimizes the flow of ventilationair past the worker(s).

Structural Integrity: The walls, ceilings and floors must be supported insuch a manner that portions of the enclosure will not fall down during normaluse.

Openings: It is not necessary that the structure be airtight; openings maybe designed to direct air flow. Such openings should be located at a distancefrom active removal operations. They should be designed to draw air into theenclosure under all anticipated circumstances. In the event that negativepressure is lost, they should be fitted with either HEPA filters to trap dustor automatic trap doors that prevent dust from escaping the enclosure.Openings for exits should be controlled by an airlock or a vestibule.

Barrier Supports: Frames should be constructed to support all unsupportedspans of sheeting.

Sheeting: Walls, barriers, ceilings, and floors should be lined with twolayers of plastic sheeting having a thickness of at least 6 mil.

Seams: Seams in the sheeting material should be minimized to reduce thepossibilities of accidental rips and tears in the adhesive or connections.All seams in the sheeting should overlap, be staggered and not be located atcorners or wall-to-floor joints. Areas Within an Enclosure: Each enclosureconsists of a work area, a decontamination area, and waste storage area. Thework area where the asbestos removal operations occur should be separatedfrom both the waste storage area and the contamination control area byphysical curtains, doors, and/or airflow patterns that force any airbornecontamination back into the work area.

See paragraph (j) of this section for requirements for hygiene facilities.

During egress from the work area, each worker should step into the equipmentroom, clean tools and equipment, and remove gross contamination from clothingby wet cleaning and HEPA vacuuming. Before entering the shower area, footcoverings, head coverings, hand coverings, and coveralls are removed andplaced in impervious bags for disposal or cleaning. Airline connections fromairline respirators with HEPA disconnects and power cables from powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) will be disconnected just prior to entering theshower room.

Establishing Negative Pressure Within the Enclosure

Negative Pressure: Air is to be drawn into the enclosure under allanticipated conditions and exhausted through a HEPA filter for 24 hours a dayduring the entire duration of the project.

Air Flow Tests: Air flow patterns will be checked before removal operationsbegin, at least once per operating shift and any time there is a questionregarding the integrity of the enclosure. The primary test for air flow is totrace air currents with smoke tubes or other visual methods. Flow checks aremade at each opening and at each doorway to demonstrate that air is beingdrawn into the enclosure and at each worker's position to show that air isbeing drawn away from the breathing zone.

Monitoring Pressure Within the Enclosure: After the initial air flowpatterns have been checked, the static pressure must be monitored within theenclosure. Monitoring may be made using manometers, pressure gauges, orcombinations of these devices. It is recommended that they be attached toalarms and strip chart recorders at points identified by the design engineer.

Corrective Actions: If the manometers or pressure gauges demonstrate areduction in pressure differential below the required level, work shouldcease and the reason for the change investigated and appropriate changesmade. The air flow patterns should be retested before work begins again.

Pressure Differential: The design parameters for static pressuredifferentials between the inside and outside of enclosures typically rangefrom 0.02 to 0.10 inches of water gauge, depending on conditions. All zonesinside the enclosure must have less pressure than the ambient pressureoutside of the enclosure (-0.02 inches water gauge differential). Designspecifications for the differential vary according to the size,configuration, and shape of the enclosure as well as ambient and mechanicalair pressure conditions around the enclosure.

Air Flow Patterns: The flow of air past each worker shall be enhanced bypositioning the intakes and exhaust ports to remove contaminated air from theworker's breathing zone, by positioning HEPA vacuum cleaners to draw air fromthe worker's breathing zone, by forcing relatively uncontaminated air pastthe worker toward an exhaust port, or by using a combination of methods toreduce the worker's exposure.

Air Handling Unit Exhaust: The exhaust plume from air handling units shouldbe located away from adjacent personnel and intakes for HVAC systems.

Air Flow Volume: The air flow volume (cubic meters per minute) exhausted(removed) from the workplace must exceed the amount of makeup air supplied tothe enclosure. The rate of air exhausted from the enclosure should bedesigned to maintain a negative pressure in the enclosure and air movementpast each worker. The volume of air flow removed from the enclosure shouldreplace the volume of the container at every 5 to 15 minutes. Air flow volumewill need to be relatively high for large enclosures, enclosures with awkwardshapes, enclosures with multiple openings, and operations employing severalworkers in the enclosure.

Air Flow Velocity: At each opening, the air flow velocity must visibly"drag" air into the enclosure. The velocity of air flow within the enclosuremust be adequate to remove airborne contamination from each worker'sbreathing zone without disturbing the asbestos-containing material onsurfaces.

Airlocks: Airlocks are mechanisms on doors and curtains that control the airflow patterns in the doorways. If air flow occurs, the patterns throughdoorways must be such that the air flows toward the inside of the enclosure.Sometimes vestibules, double doors, or double curtains are used to preventair movement through the doorways. To use a vestibule, a worker enters achamber by opening the door or curtain and then closing the entry beforeopening the exit door or curtain.

Airlocks should be located between the equipment room and shower room,between the shower room and the clean room, and between the waste storagearea and the outside of the enclosure. The air flow between adjacent roomsmust be checked using smoke tubes or other visual tests to ensure the flowpatterns draw air toward the work area without producing eddies.

Monitoring for Airborne Concentrations

In addition to the breathing zone samples taken as outlined in paragraph (f)of this section, samples of air should be taken to demonstrate the integrityof the enclosure, the cleanliness of the clean room and shower area, and theeffectiveness of the HEPA filter. If the clean room is shown to becontaminated, the room must be relocated to an uncontaminated area.

Samples taken near the exhaust of portable ventilation systems must be donewith care.

General Work Practices

Preventing dust dispersion is the primary means of controlling the spread ofasbestos within the enclosure. Whenever practical, the point of removalshould be isolated, enclosed, covered, or shielded from the workers in thearea. Waste asbestos containing materials must be bagged during orimmediately after removal; the material must remain saturated until the wastecontainer is sealed.

Waste material with sharp points or corners must be placed in hard air-tightcontainers rather than bags.

Whenever possible, large components should be sealed in plastic sheeting andremoved intact.

Bags or containers of waste will be moved to the waste holding area, washed,and wrapped in a bag with the appropriate labels.

Cleaning the Work Area

Surfaces within the work area should be kept free of visible dust and debristo the extent feasible. Whenever visible dust appears on surfaces, thesurfaces within the enclosure must be cleaned by wiping with a wet sponge,brush, or cloth and then vacuumed with a HEPA vacuum.

All surfaces within the enclosure should be cleaned before the exhaustventilation system is deactivated and the enclosure is disassembled. Anapproved encapsulate may be sprayed onto areas after the visible dust hasbeen removed.

11. Appendix G to Sec. 1926.1101 is removed and reserved.

12.Appendix H of Sec. 1926.1101 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix H to 1915.1001 -- Substance Technical Information for Asbestos.Non-Mandatory

I. Substance Identification

A. Substance: "Asbestos" is the name of a class of magnesium- silicateminerals that occur in fibrous form. Minerals that are included in this groupare chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremoliteasbestos, and actinolite asbestos.

B. Asbestos is and was used in the manufacture of heat-resistant clothing,automotive brake and clutch linings, and a variety of building materialsincluding floor tiles, roofing felts, ceiling tiles, asbestos-cement pipe andsheet, and fire-resistant drywall. Asbestos is also present in pipe andboiler insulation materials and in sprayed-on materials located on beams, incrawlspaces, and between walls.

C. The potential for an asbestos-containing product to release breathablefibers depends largely on its degree of friability. Friable means that thematerial can be crumbled with hand pressure and is therefore likely to emitfibers. The fibrous fluffy sprayed- on materials used for fireproofing,insulation, or sound proofing are considered to be friable, and they readilyrelease airborne fibers if disturbed. Materials such as vinyl-asbestos floortile or roofing felt are considered non-friable if intact and generally donot emit airborne fibers unless subjected to sanding, sawing and otheraggressive operations. Asbestos-cement pipe or sheet can emit airborne fibersif the materials are cut or sawed, or if they are broken.

D. Permissible exposure: Exposure to airborne asbestos fibers may not exceed0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter of air (0.1 f/cc) averaged over the 8-hourworkday, and 1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air (1.0 f/cc) averaged over a30 minute work period.

II. Health Hazard Data

A. Asbestos can cause disabling respiratory disease and various types ofcancers if the fibers are inhaled. Inhaling or ingesting fibers fromcontaminated clothing or skin can also result in these diseases. The symptomsof these diseases generally do not appear for 20 or more years after initialexposure.

B. Exposure to asbestos has been shown to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma,and cancer of the stomach and colon. Mesothelioma is a rare cancer of thethin membrane lining of the chest and abdomen. Symptoms of mesotheliomainclude shortness of breath, pain in the walls of the chest, and/or abdominalpain.

III. Respirators and Protective Clothing

A. Respirators: You are required to wear a respirator when performing tasksthat result in asbestos exposure that exceeds the permissible exposure limit(PEL) of 0.1 f/cc and when performing certain designated operations.Air-purifying respirators equipped with a high-efficiency particulate air(HEPA) filter can be used where airborne asbestos fiber concentrations do notexceed 1.0 f/cc; otherwise, more protective respirators such as air-supplied,positive-pressure, full facepiece respirators must be used. Disposablerespirators or dust masks are not permitted to be used for asbestos work. Foreffective protection, respirators must fit your face and head snugly. Youremployer is required to conduct fit test when you are first assigned arespirator and every 6 months thereafter. Respirators should not be loosenedor removed in work situations where their use is required.

B. Protective Clothing: You are required to wear protective clothing in workareas where asbestos fiber concentrations exceed the permissible exposurelimit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cc.

IV. Disposal Procedures and Clean-up

A. Wastes that are generated by processes where asbestos is present include:

1. Empty asbestos shipping containers.

2. Process wastes such ascuttings, trimmings, or reject materials.

3. Housekeeping waste fromwet-sweeping or HEPA-vacuuming.

4. Asbestos fireproofing or insulatingmaterial that is removed from buildings.

5. Asbestos-containing building products removed during building renovationor demolition.

6. Contaminated disposable protective clothing.

B. Empty shippingbags can be flattened under exhaust hoods and packed into airtight containersfor disposal. Empty shipping drums are difficult to clean and should besealed.

C. Vacuum bags or disposable paper filters should not be cleaned, but shouldbe sprayed with a fine water mist and placed into a labeled waste container.

D. Process waste and housekeeping waste should be wetted with water or amixture of water and surfactant prior to packaging in disposable containers.

E. Asbestos-containing material that if removed from buildings must bedisposed of in leak-tight 6-mil plastic bags, plastic-lined cardboardcontainers, or plastic-lined metal containers. These wastes, which areremoved while wet, should be sealed in containers before they dry out tominimize the release of asbestos fibers during handling.

V. Access to Information

A. Each year, your employer is required to inform you of the informationcontained in this standard and appendices for asbestos. In addition, youremployer must instruct you in the proper work practices for handlingasbestos-containing materials, and the correct use of protective equipment.

B. Your employer is required to determine whether you are being exposed toasbestos. Your employer must treat exposure to thermal system insulation andsprayed-on and trowled-on surfacing material as asbestos exposure, unlessresults of laboratory analysis show that the material does not containasbestos. You or your representative has the right to observe employeemeasurements and to record the results obtained. Your employer is required toinform you of your exposure, and, if you are exposed above the permissibleexposure limit, he or she is required to inform you of the actions that arebeing taken to reduce your exposure to within the permissible limit.

C. Your employer is required to keep records of your exposures and medicalexaminations. These exposure records must be kept for at least thirty (30)years. Medical records must be kept for the period of your employment plusthirty (30) years.

D. Your employer is required to release your exposure and medical records toyour physician or designated representative upon your written request.

Appendix I of 1926.1101 [Amended]

13. Appendix I of Sec. 1926.1101 is amended by revising the first sentenceof the second paragraph of section IV. entitled Surveillance and PreventiveConsideration to read as follows:

* * * * *

The employer is required to institute a medical surveillance program for allemployees who are or will be exposed to asbestos at or above the permissibleexposure limit (0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air). * * * * * ** *

14. Appendix K to Sec. 1926.1101 is added to read as follows:

Appendix K to 1926.1101 -- Polarized Light Microscopy of Asbestos(Non-Mandatory)

Method number: ID-191 Matrix: Bulk Collection Procedure: Collectapproximately 1 to 2 grams of each type of material and place into separate20 mL scintillation vials.

Analytical Procedure: A portion of each separate phase is analyzed bygross examination, phase-polar examination, and central stopdispersion microscopy.

Commercial manufacturers and products mentioned in this method are fordescriptive use only and do not constitute endorsements by USDOL-OSHA.Similar products from other sources may be substituted.

1. Introduction

This method describes the collection and analysis of asbestos bulk materialsby light microscopy techniques including phase- polar illumination andcentral-stop dispersion microscopy. Some terms unique to asbestos analysisare defined below:

Amphibole: A family of minerals whose crystals are formed by long, thinunits which have two thin ribbons of double chain silicate with a bruciteribbon in between. The shape of each unit is similar to an "I beam". Mineralsimportant in asbestos analysis include cummingtonite-grunerite, crocidolite,tremolite-actinolite and anthophyllite.

Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos includeschrysotile, cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos (amosite), anthophylliteasbestos, tremolite asbestos, crocidolite, actinolite asbestos and any ofthese minerals which have been chemically treated or altered. The precisechemical formulation of each species varies with the location from which itwas mined. Nominal compositions are listed:

Chrysotile..................... Mg(3)Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4)

Crocidolite(Riebeckite asbestos) ............................. Na(2)Fe(3)(2) + Fe(2)(3)+ Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Cummingtonite-Grunerite asbestos (Amosite)............................. (Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Tremolite-Actinolite asbestos .............................Ca(2)(Mg,Fe)(5)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Anthophyllite asbestos............................. (Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(2)2(OH)(2)

Asbestos Fiber: A fiber of asbestos meeting the criteria for a fiber. (Seesection 3.5. of this Appendix) Aspect Ratio: The ratio of the length of afiber to its diameter usually defined as "length : width", e.g. 3:1.

Brucite: A sheet mineral with the composition Mg(OH)(2). CentralStop Dispersion Staining (microscope): This is a dark field microscopetechnique that images particles using only light refracted by the particle,excluding light that travels through the particle unrefracted. This isusually accomplished with a McCrone objective or other arrangement whichplaces a circular stop with apparent aperture equal to the objective aperturein the back focal plane of the microscope.

Cleavage Fragments: Mineral particles formed by the comminution of minerals,especially those characterized by relatively parallel sides and moderateaspect ratio.

Differential Counting: The term applied to the practice of excluding certainkinds of fibers from a phase contrast asbestos count because they are notasbestos.

Fiber: A particle longer than or equal to 5 um with a length to width ratiogreater than or equal to 3:1. This may include cleavage fragments. (seesection 3.5 of this appendix).

Phase Contrast: Contrast obtained in the microscope by causing lightscattered by small particles to destructively interfere with unscatteredlight, thereby enhancing the visibility of very small particles and particleswith very low intrinsic contrast.

Phase Contrast Microscope: A microscope configured with a phase mask pair tocreate phase contrast. The technique which uses this is called Phase ContrastMicroscopy (PCM).

Phase-Polar Analysis: This is the use of polarized light in a phase contrastmicroscope. It is used to see the same size fibers that are visible in airfilter analysis. Although fibers finer than 1 um are visible, analysis ofthese is inferred from analysis of larger bundles that are usually present.

Phase-Polar Microscope: The phase-polar microscope is a phase contrastmicroscope which has an analyzer, a polarizer, a first order red plate and arotating phase condenser all in place so that the polarized light image isenhanced by phase contrast.

Sealing Encapsulant: This is a product which can be applied, preferably byspraying, onto an asbestos surface which will seal the surface so that fiberscannot be released.

Serpentine: A mineral family consisting of minerals with the generalcomposition Mg(3)(Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4) having the magnesium in brucite layer overa silicate layer. Minerals important in asbestos analysis included in thisfamily are chrysotile, lizardite, antigorite.

1.1. History

Light microscopy has been used for well over 100 years for the determinationof mineral species. This analysis is carried out using specialized polarizingmicroscopes as well as bright field microscopes. The identification ofminerals is an on-going process with many new minerals described each year.The first recorded use of asbestos was in Finland about 2500 B.C. where thematerial was used in the mud wattle for the wooden huts the people lived inas well as strengthening for pottery. Adverse health aspects of the mineralwere noted nearly 2000 years ago when Pliny the Younger wrote about the poorhealth of slaves in the asbestos mines. Although known to be injurious forcenturies, the first modern references to its toxicity were by the BritishLabor Inspectorate when it banned asbestos dust from the workplace in 1898.Asbestosis cases were described in the literature after the turn of thecentury. Cancer was first suspected in the mid 1930's and a causal link tomesothelioma was made in 1965. Because of the public concern for worker andpublic safety with the use of this material, several different types ofanalysis were applied to the determination of asbestos content. Lightmicroscopy requires a great deal of experience and craft. Attempts were madeto apply less subjective methods to the analysis. X-ray diffraction waspartially successful in determining the mineral types but was unable toseparate out the fibrous portions from the non-fibrous portions. Also, theminimum detection limit for asbestos analysis by X-ray diffraction (XRD) isabout 1%. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) was no more successful. Theseprovide useful corroborating information when the presence of asbestos hasbeen shown by microscopy; however, neither can determine the differencebetween fibrous and non-fibrous minerals when both habits are present. Thesame is true of Infrared Absorption (IR).

When electron microscopy was applied to asbestos analysis, hundreds offibers were discovered present too small to be visible in any lightmicroscope. There are two different types of electron microscope used forasbestos analysis: Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and TransmissionElectron Microscope (TEM). Scanning Electron Microscopy is useful inidentifying minerals. The SEM can provide two of the three pieces ofinformation required to identify fibers by electron microscopy: morphologyand chemistry. The third is structure as determined by Selected Area ElectronDiffraction -- SAED which is performed in the TEM. Although the resolution ofthe SEM is sufficient for very fine fibers to be seen, accuracy of chemicalanalysis that can be performed on the fibers varies with fiber diameter infibers of less than 0.2 um diameter. The TEM is a powerful tool to identifyfibers too small to be resolved by light microscopy and should be used inconjunction with this method when necessary. The TEM can provide all threepieces of information required for fiber identification. Most fibers thickerthan 1 um can adequately be defined in the light microscope. The lightmicroscope remains as the best instrument for the determination of mineraltype. This is because the minerals under investigation were first describedanalytically with the light microscope. It is inexpensive and gives positiveidentification for most samples analyzed. Further, when optical techniquesare inadequate, there is ample indication that alternative techniques shouldbe used for complete identification of the sample.

1.2. Principle

Minerals consist of atoms that may be arranged in random order or in aregular arrangement. Amorphous materials have atoms in random order whilecrystalline materials have long range order. Many materials are transparentto light, at least for small particles or for thin sections. The propertiesof these materials can be investigated by the effect that the material has onlight passing through it. The six asbestos minerals are all crystalline withparticular properties that have been identified and cataloged. These sixminerals are anisotropic. They have a regular array of atoms, but thearrangement is not the same in all directions. Each major direction of thecrystal presents a different regularity. Light photons travelling in each ofthese main directions will encounter different electrical neighborhoods,affecting the path and time of travel. The techniques outlined in this methoduse the fact that light traveling through fibers or crystals in differentdirections will behave differently, but predictably. The behavior of thelight as it travels through a crystal can be measured and compared with knownor determined values to identify the mineral species. Usually, PolarizedLight Microscopy (PLM) is performed with strain-free objectives on abright-field microscope platform. This would limit the resolution of themicroscope to about 0.4 um. Because OSHA requires the counting andidentification of fibers visible in phase contrast, the phase contrastplatform is used to visualize the fibers with the polarizing elements addedinto the light path. Polarized light methods cannot identify fibers finerthan about 1 um in diameter even though they are visible. The finest fibersare usually identified by inference from the presence of larger, identifiablefiber bundles. When fibers are present, but not identifiable by lightmicroscopy, use either SEM or TEM to determine the fiber identity.

1.3. Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of light microcopy are:

(a) Basic identification of the materials was first performed by lightmicroscopy and gross analysis. This provides a large base of publishedinformation against which to check analysis and analytical technique.

(b) The analysis is specific to fibers. The minerals present can exist inasbestiform, fibrous, prismatic, or massive varieties all at the same time.Therefore, bulk methods of analysis such as X-ray diffraction, IR analysis,DTA, etc. are inappropriate where the material is not known to be fibrous.

(c) The analysis is quick, requires little preparation time, and can beperformed on-site if a suitably equipped microscope is available.

The disadvantages are:

(a) Even using phase-polar illumination, not all the fibers present may beseen. This is a problem for very low asbestos concentrations whereagglomerations or large bundles of fibers may not be present to allowidentification by inference.

(b) The method requires a great degree of sophistication on the part of themicroscopist. An analyst is only as useful as his mental catalog of images.Therefore, a microscopist's accuracy is enhanced by experience. Themineralogical training of the analyst is very important. It is the basis onwhich subjective decisions are made.

(c) The method uses only a tiny amount of material for analysis. This maylead to sampling bias and false results (high or low). This is especiallytrue if the sample is severely inhomogeneous.

(d) Fibers may be bound in a matrix and not distinguishable as fibers soidentification cannot be made.

1.4. Method Performance

1.4.1. This method can be used for determination of asbestos content from 0to 100% asbestos. The detection limit has not been adequately determined,although for selected samples, the limit is very low, depending on the numberof particles examined. For mostly homogeneous, finely divided samples, withno difficult fibrous interferences, the detection limit is below 1%. Forinhomogeneous samples (most samples), the detection limit remains undefined.NIST has conducted proficiency testing of laboratories on a national scale.Although each round is reported statistically with an average, controllimits, etc., the results indicate a difficulty in establishing precisionespecially in the low concentration range. It is suspected that there issignificant bias in the low range especially near 1%. EPA tried to remedythis by requiring a mandatory point counting scheme for samples less than10%. The point counting procedure is tedious, and may introduce significantbiases of its own. It has not been incorporated into this method.

1.4.2. The precision and accuracy of the quantitation tests performed inthis method are unknown. Concentrations are easier to determine in commercialproducts where asbestos was deliberately added because the amount is usuallymore than a few percent. An analyst's results can be "calibrated" against theknown amounts added by the manufacturer. For geological samples, the degreeof homogeneity affects the precision.

1.4.3. The performance of the method is analyst dependent. The analyst mustchoose carefully and not necessarily randomly the portions for analysis toassure that detection of asbestos occurs when it is present. For this reason,the analyst must have adequate training in sample preparation, and experiencein the location and identification of asbestos in samples. This is usuallyaccomplished through substantial on-the-job training as well as formaleducation in mineralogy and microscopy.

1.5. Interferences

Any material which is long, thin, and small enough to be viewed under themicroscope can be considered an interference for asbestos. There areliterally hundreds of interferences in workplaces. The techniques describedin this method are normally sufficient to eliminate the interferences. Ananalyst's success in eliminating the interferences depends on propertraining.

Asbestos minerals belong to two mineral families: the serpentines and theamphiboles. In the serpentine family, the only common fibrous mineral ischrysotile. Occasionally, the mineral antigorite occurs in a fibril habitwith morphology similar to the amphiboles. The amphibole minerals consist ofa score of different minerals of which only five are regulated by federalstandard: amosite, crocidolite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestosand actinolite asbestos. These are the only amphibole minerals that have beencommercially exploited for their fibrous properties; however, the rest canand do occur occasionally in asbestiform habit.

In addition to the related mineral interferences, other minerals common inbuilding material may present a problem for some microscopists: gypsum,anhydrite, brucite, quartz fibers, talc fibers or ribbons, wollastonite,perlite, attapulgite, etc. Other fibrous materials commonly present inworkplaces are: fiberglass, mineral wool, ceramic wool, refractory ceramicfibers, kevlar, nomex, synthetic fibers, graphite or carbon fibers, cellulose(paper or wood) fibers, metal fibers, etc.

Matrix embedding material can sometimes be a negative The analyst may not beable to easily extract the from the matrix in order to use the method. Wherepossible, the matrix before the analysis, taking careful note of the loss ofweight. Some common matrix materials are: vinyl, rubber, tar, paint, plantfiber, cement, and epoxy. A further negative interference is that theasbestos fibers themselves may be either too small to be seen in Phasecontrast Microscopy (PCM) or of a very low fibrous quality, having theappearance of plant fibers. The analyst's ability to deal with thesematerials increases with experience.

1.6. Uses and Occupational Exposure

Asbestos is ubiquitous in the environment. More than 40% of the land area ofthe United States is composed of minerals which may contain asbestos.Fortunately, the actual formation of great amounts of asbestos is relativelyrare. Nonetheless, there are locations in which environmental exposure can besevere such as in the Serpentine Hills of California.

There are thousands of uses for asbestos in industry and the home. Asbestosabatement workers are the most current segment of the population to haveoccupational exposure to great amounts of asbestos. If the material isundisturbed, there is no exposure. Exposure occurs when theasbestos-containing material is abraded or otherwise disturbed duringmaintenance operations or some other activity. Approximately 95% of theasbestos in place in the United States is chrysotile.

Amosite and crocidolite make up nearly all the difference. Tremolite andanthophyllite make up a very small percentage. Tremolite is found inextremely small amounts in certain chrysotile deposits. Actinolite exposureis probably greatest from environmental sources, but has been identified invermiculite containing, sprayed-on insulating materials which may have beencertified as asbestos-free.

1.7. Physical and Chemical Properties

The nominal chemical compositions for the asbestos minerals were given inSection 1. Compared to cleavage fragments of the same minerals, asbestiformfibers possess a high tensile strength along the fiber axis. They arechemically inert, non-combustible, and heat resistant. Except for chrysotile,they are insoluble in Hydrochloric acid (HCl). Chrysotile is slightly solublein HCl. Asbestos has high electrical resistance and good sound absorbingcharacteristics. It can be woven into cables, fabrics or other textiles, ormatted into papers, felts, and mats.

1.8. Toxicology (This Section is for Information Only and Should Not BeTaken as OSHA Policy)

Possible physiologic results of respiratory exposure to asbestos aremesothelioma of the pleura or peritoneum, interstitial fibrosis, asbestosis,pneumoconiosis, or respiratory cancer. The possible consequences of asbestosexposure are detailed in the NIOSH Criteria Document or in the OSHA AsbestosStandards 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR 1926.1101.

2. Sampling Procedure

2.1. Equipment for sampling

(a) Tube or cork borer sampling device (b) Knife (c) 20 mLscintillation vial or similar vial (d) Sealing encapsulant

2.2. Safety Precautions

Asbestos is a known carcinogen. Take care when sampling. While in anasbestos-containing atmosphere, a properly selected and fit- testedrespirator should be worn. Take samples in a manner to cause the least amountof dust. Follow these general guidelines:

(a) Do not make unnecessary dust. (b) Take only a small amount (1 to2 g). (c) Tightly close the sample container. (d) Use encapsulant to seal thespot where the sample was taken, if necessary.

2.3. Sampling Procedure

Samples of any suspect material should be taken from an inconspicuous place.Where the material is to remain, seal the sampling wound with an encapsulantto eliminate the potential for exposure from the sample site. Microscopyrequires only a few milligrams of material. The amount that will fill a 20 mLscintillation vial is more than adequate. Be sure to collect samples from alllayers and phases of material. If possible, make separate samples of eachdifferent phase of the material. This will aid in determining the actualhazard. DO NOT USE ENVELOPES, PLASTIC OR PAPER BAGS OF ANY KIND TO COLLECTSAMPLES. The use of plastic bags presents a contamination hazard tolaboratory personnel and to other samples. When these containers are opened,a bellows effect blows fibers out of the container onto everything, includingthe person opening the container.

If a cork-borer type sampler is available, push the tube through thematerial all the way, so that all layers of material are sampled. Somesamplers are intended to be disposable. These should be capped and sent tothe laboratory. If a non-disposable cork borer is used, empty the contentsinto a scintillation vial and send to the laboratory. Vigorously andcompletely clean the cork borer between samples.

2.4 Shipment

Samples packed in glass vials must not touch or they might break in shipment.

(a) Seal the samples with a sample seal (such as the OSHA 21) over the endto guard against tampering and to identify the sample.

(b) Package the bulk samples in separate packages from the air samples. Theymay cross-contaminate each other and will invalidate the results of the airsamples.

(c) Include identifying paperwork with the samples, but not in contact withthe suspected asbestos.

(d) To maintain sample accountability, ship the samples by certified mail,overnight express, or hand carry them to the laboratory.

3. Analysis

The analysis of asbestos samples can be divided into two major parts:

sample preparation and microscopy. Because of the different asbestos usesthat may be encountered by the analyst, each sample may need differentpreparation steps. The choices are outlined below. There are severaldifferent tests that are performed to identify the asbestos species anddetermine the percentage. They will be explained below.

3.1. Safety

(a) Do not create unnecessary dust. Handle the samples in HEPA- filterequipped hoods. If samples are received in bags, envelopes or otherinappropriate container, open them only in a hood having a face velocity ator greater than 100 fpm. Transfer a small amount to a scintillation vial andonly handle the smaller amount.

(b) Open samples in a hood, never in the open lab area.

(c) Index ofrefraction oils can be toxic. Take care not to get this material on the skin.Wash immediately with soap and water if this happens.

(d) Samples that have been heated in the muffle furnace or the drying ovenmay be hot. Handle them with tongs until they are cool enough to handle.

(e) Some of the solvents used, such as THF (tetrahydrofuran), are toxic andshould only be handled in an appropriate fume hood and according toinstructions given in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

3.2. Equipment

(a) Phase contrast microscope with 10x, 16x and 40x objectives, 10xwide-field eyepieces, G-22 Walton-Beckett graticule, Whipple disk, polarizer,analyzer and first order red or gypsum plate, 100 Watt illuminator, rotatingposition condenser with oversize phase rings, central stop dispersionobjective, Kohler illumination and a rotating mechanical stage.

(b) Stereo microscope with reflected light illumination, transmitted lightillumination, polarizer, analyzer and first order red or gypsum plate, androtating stage.

(c) Negative pressure hood for the stereo microscope

(d) Mufflefurnace capable of 600 deg.C

(e) Drying oven capable of 50 -- 150 deg.C

(f)Aluminum specimen pans (g) Tongs for handling samples in the furnace

(h) Highdispersion index of refraction oils (Special for dispersion staining.) n =1.550 n = 1.585 n = 1.590 n = 1.605 n = 1.620 n = 1.670 n = 1.680 n =1.690

(i) A set of index of refraction oils from about n=1.350 to n=2.000 inn=0.005 increments. (Standard for Becke line analysis.)

(j) Glass slides withpainted or frosted ends 1x3 inches 1mm (thick, precleaned.

(k) Cover Slips 22x22 mm, #1 1/2

(l) Paper clips or dissectionneedles

(m) Hand grinder

(n) Scalpel with both #10 and #11 blades

(o) 0.1molar HCl

(p) Decalcifying solution (Baxter Scientific Products)Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid,

Tetrasodium............................ 0.7 g/l

Sodium Potassium Tartrate.............. 8.0 mg/liter

Hydrochloric Acid...................... 99.2 g/liter

Sodium Tartrate........................ 0.14 g/liter

(q) Tetrahydrofuran (THF)

(r) Hotplate capable of 60 deg.C

(s)Balance

(t) Hacksaw blade

(u) Ruby mortar and pestle

3.3. Sample Pre-Preparation

Sample preparation begins with pre-preparation which may include chemicalreduction of the matrix, heating the sample to dryness or heating in themuffle furnace. The end result is a sample which has been reduced to a powderthat is sufficiently fine to fit under the cover slip. Analyze differentphases of samples separately, e.g., tile and the tile mastic should beanalyzed separately as the mastic may contain asbestos while the tile maynot.

(a) Wet Samples Samples with a high water content will not give theproper dispersion colors and must be dried prior to sample mounting. Removethe lid of the scintillation vial, place the bottle in the drying oven andheat at 100 deg.C to dryness (usually about 2 h). Samples which are notsubmitted to the lab in glass must be removed and placed in glass vials oraluminum weighing pans before placing them in the drying oven.

(b) Samples With Organic Interference -- Muffle Furnace

These may include samples with tar as a matrix, vinyl asbestos tile, or anyother organic that can be reduced by heating. Remove the sample from the vialand weigh in a balance to determine the weight of the submitted portion.Place the sample in a muffle furnace at 500 deg.C for 1 to 2 h or until allobvious organic material has been removed. Retrieve, cool and weigh again todetermine the weight loss on ignition. This is necessary to determine theasbestos content of the submitted sample, because the analyst will be lookingat a reduced sample.

Note: Heating above 600 deg.C will cause the sample to undergo astructural change which, given sufficient time, will convert the chrysotileto forsterite. Heating even at lower temperatures for 1 to 2 h may have ameasurable effect on the optical properties of the minerals. If the analystis unsure of what to expect, a sample of standard asbestos should be heatedto the same temperature for the same length of time so that it can beexamined for the proper interpretation.

(c) Samples With Organic Interference -- THF

Vinyl asbestos tile is the most common material treated with this solvent,although, substances containing tar will sometimes yield to this treatment.Select a portion of the material and then grind it up if possible. Weigh thesample and place it in a test tube. Add sufficient THF to dissolve theorganic matrix. This is usually about 4 to 5 mL. Remember, THF is highlyflammable. Filter the remaining material through a tared silver membrane, dryand weigh to determine how much is left after the solvent extraction. Furtherprocess the sample to remove carbonate or mount directly.

(d) Samples With Carbonate Interference

Carbonate material is often found on fibers and sometimes must be removed inorder to perform dispersion microscopy. Weigh out a portion of the materialand place it in a test tube. Add a sufficient amount of 0.1 M HCl ordecalcifying solution in the tube to react all the carbonate as evidenced bygas formation; i.e., when the gas bubbles stop, add a little more solution.If no more gas forms, the reaction is complete. Filter the material outthrough a tared silver membrane, dry and weigh to determine the weight lost.

3.4. Sample Preparation

Samples must be prepared so that accurate determination can be made of theasbestos type and amount present. The following steps are carried out in thelow-flow hood (a low-flow hood has less than 50 fpm flow):

(1) If the sample has large lumps, is hard, or cannot be made to lie under acover slip, the grain size must be reduced. Place a small amount between twoslides and grind the material between them or grind a small amount in a cleanmortar and pestle. The choice of whether to use an alumina, ruby, or diamondmortar depends on the hardness of the material. Impact damage can alter theasbestos mineral if too much mechanical shock occurs. (Freezer mills cancompletely destroy the observable crystallinity of asbestos and should not beused). For some samples, a portion of material can be shaved off with ascalpel, ground off with a hand grinder or hack saw blade.

The preparation tools should either be disposable or cleaned thoroughly. Usevigorous scrubbing to loosen the fibers during the washing. Rinse theimplements with copious amounts of water and air- dry in a dust-freeenvironment.

(2) If the sample is powder or has been reduced as in (1) above, it is readyto mount. Place a glass slide on a piece of optical tissue and write theidentification on the painted or frosted end. Place two drops of index ofrefraction medium n=1.550 on the slide. (The medium n=1.550 is chosen becauseit is the matching index for chrysotile. Dip the end of a clean paper-clip ordissecting needle into the droplet of refraction medium on the slide tomoisten it. Then dip the probe into the powder sample. Transfer what stickson the probe to the slide. The material on the end of the probe should have adiameter of about 3 mm for a good mount. If the material is very fine, lesssample may be appropriate. For non-powder samples such as fiber mats, forcepsshould be used to transfer a small amount of material to the slide. Stir thematerial in the medium on the slide, spreading it out and making thepreparation as uniform as possible. Place a cover-slip on the preparation bygently lowering onto the slide and allowing it to fall "trapdoor" fashion onthe preparation to push out any bubbles. Press gently on the cover slip toeven out the distribution of particulate on the slide. If there isinsufficient mounting oil on the slide, one or two drops may be placed nearthe edge of the coverslip on the slide. Capillary action will draw thenecessary amount of liquid into the preparation. Remove excess oil with thepoint of a laboratory wiper.

Treat at least two different areas of each phase in this fashion. Chooserepresentative areas of the sample. It may be useful to select particularareas or fibers for analysis. This is useful to identify asbestos in severelyinhomogeneous samples.

When it is determined that amphiboles may be present, repeat the aboveprocess using the appropriate high-dispersion oils until an identification ismade or all six asbestos minerals have been ruled out. Note that percentdetermination must be done in the index medium 1.550 because amphiboles tendto disappear in their matching mediums.

3.5. Analytical procedure

Note: This method presumes some knowledge of mineralogy and opticalpetrography.

The analysis consists of three parts: The determination of whether there isasbestos present, what type is present and the determination of how much ispresent. The general flow of the analysis is:

(1) Gross examination.

(2) Examination under polarized light on thestereo microscope.

(3) Examination by phase-polar illumination on thecompound phase microscope.

(4) Determination of species by dispersion stain. Examination by Becke lineanalysis may also be used; however, this is usually more cumbersome forasbestos determination.

(5) Difficult samples may need to be analyzed by SEM or TEM, or the resultsfrom those techniques combined with light microscopy for a definitiveidentification.

Identification of a particle as asbestos requires that it be asbestiform.Description of particles should follow the suggestion of Campbell. (Figure 1)

For the purpose of regulation, the mineral must be one of the six mineralscovered and must be in the asbestos growth habit. Large specimen samples ofasbestos generally have the gross appearance of wood. Fibers are easilyparted from it. Asbestos fibers are very long compared with their widths. Thefibers have a very high tensile strength as demonstrated by bending withoutbreaking. Asbestos fibers exist in bundles that are easily parted, showlongitudinal fine structure and may be tufted at the ends showing "bundleofsticks" morphology. In the microscope some of these properties may not beobservable. Amphiboles do not always show striations along their length evenwhen they are asbestos. Neither will they always show tufting. They generallydo not show a curved nature except for very long fibers. Asbestos andasbestiform minerals are usually characterized in groups by extremely highaspect ratios (greater than 100:1). While aspect ratio analysis is useful forcharacterizing populations of fibers, it cannot be used to identifyindividual fibers of intermediate to short aspect ratio. Observation of manyfibers is often necessary to determine whether a sample consists of "cleavagefragments" or of asbestos fibers.

Most cleavage fragments of the asbestos minerals are easily distinguishablefrom true asbestos fibers. This is because true cleavage fragments usuallyhave larger diameters than 1 um. Internal structure of particles larger thanthis usually shows them to have no internal fibrillar structure. In addition,cleavage fragments of the monoclinic amphiboles show inclined extinctionunder crossed polars with no compensator. Asbestos fibers usually showextinction at zero degrees or ambiguous extinction if any at all.Morphologically, the larger cleavage fragments are obvious by their blunt orstepped ends showing prismatic habit. Also, they tend to be acicular ratherthan filiform.

Where the particles are less than 1 um in diameter and have an aspect ratiogreater than or equal to 3:1, it is recommended that the sample be analyzedby SEM or TEM if there is any question whether the fibers are cleavagefragments or asbestiform particles.

Care must be taken when analyzing by electron microscopy because theinterferences are different from those in light microscopy and maystructurally be very similar to asbestos. The classic interference is betweenanthophyllite and biopyribole or intermediate fiber. Use the samemorphological clues for electron microscopy as are used for light microscopy,e.g. fibril splitting, internal longitudinal striation, fraying, curvature,etc.

(1) Gross examination:

Examine the sample, preferably in the glass vial. Determine the presence ofany obvious fibrous component. Estimate a percentage based on previousexperience and current observation. Determine whether any pre-preparation isnecessary. Determine the number of phases present. This step may be carriedout or augmented by observation at 6 to 40 x under a stereo microscope.

(2) After performing any necessary pre-preparation, prepare slides of eachphase as described above. Two preparations of the same phase in the sameindex medium can be made side-by-side on the same glass for convenience.Examine with the polarizing stereo microscope. Estimate the percentage ofasbestos based on the amount of birefringent fiber present.

(3) Examine the slides on the phase-polar microscopes at magnifications of160 and 400 x . Note the morphology of the fibers. Long, thin, very straightfibers with little curvature are indicative of fibers from the amphibolefamily. Curved, wavy fibers are usually indicative of chrysotile. Estimatethe percentage of asbestos on the phase-polar microscope under conditions ofcrossed polars and a gypsum plate. Fibers smaller than 1.0 um in thicknessmust be identified by inference to the presence of larger, identifiablefibers and morphology. If no larger fibers are visible, electron microscopyshould be performed. At this point, only a tentative identification can bemade. Full identification must be made with dispersion microscopy. Details ofthe tests are included in the appendices.

(4) Once fibers have been determined to be present, they must be identified.Adjust the microscope for dispersion mode and observe the fibers. Themicroscope has a rotating stage, one polarizing element, and a system forgenerating dark-field dispersion microscopy (see Section 4.6. of thisappendix). Align a fiber with its length parallel to the polarizer and notethe color of the Becke lines. Rotate the stage to bring the fiber lengthperpendicular to the polarizer and note the color. Repeat this process forevery fiber or fiber bundle examined. The colors must be consistent with thecolors generated by standard asbestos reference materials for a positiveidentification. In n=1.550, amphiboles will generally show a yellow tostraw-yellow color indicating that the fiber indices of refraction are higherthan the liquid. If long, thin fibers are noted and the colors are yellow,prepare further slides as above in the suggested matching liquids listedbelow:

Where more than one liquid is suggested, the first is preferred;however, in some cases this liquid will not give good dispersion color. Takecare to avoid interferences in the other liquid; e.g., wollastonite inn=1.620 will give the same colors as tremolite. In n=1.605 wollastonite willappear yellow in all directions. Wollastonite may be determined under crossedpolars as it will change from blue to yellow as it is rotated along its fiberaxis by tapping on the cover slip. Asbestos minerals will not change in thisway.

Determination of the angle of extinction may, when present, aid in thedetermination of anthophyllite from tremolite. True asbestos fibers usuallyhave 0 deg. extinction or ambiguous extinction, while cleavage fragments havemore definite extinction.

Continue analysis until both preparations have been examined and all presentspecies of asbestos are identified. If there are no fibers present, or thereis less than 0.1% present, end the analysis with the minimum number of slides(2).

(5) Some fibers have a coating on them which makes dispersion microscopyvery difficult or impossible. Becke line analysis or electron microscopy maybe performed in those cases. Determine the percentage by light microscopy.TEM analysis tends to overestimate the actual percentage present.

(6) Percentage determination is an estimate of occluded area, tempered bygross observation. Gross observation information is used to make sure thatthe high magnification microscopy does not greatly over- or under- estimatethe amount of fiber present. This part of the analysis requires a great dealof experience. Satisfactory models for asbestos content analysis have not yetbeen developed, although some models based on metallurgical grain-sizedetermination have found some utility. Estimation is more easily handled insituations where the grain sizes visible at about 160 x are about the sameand the sample is relatively homogeneous.

View all of the area under the cover slip to make the percentagedetermination. View the fields while moving the stage, paying attention tothe clumps of material. These are not usually the best areas to performdispersion microscopy because of the interference from other materials. But,they are the areas most likely to represent the accurate percentage in thesample. Small amounts of asbestos require slower scanning and more frequentanalysis of individual fields.

Report the area occluded by asbestos as the concentration. This estimatedoes not generally take into consideration the difference in density of thedifferent species present in the sample. For most samples this is adequate.Simulation studies with similar materials must be carried out to applymicrovisual estimation for that purpose and is beyond the scope of thisprocedure.

(7) Where successive concentrations have been made by chemical or physicalmeans, the amount reported is the percentage of the material in the "assubmitted" or original state. The percentage determined by microscopy ismultiplied by the fractions remaining after pre-preparation steps to give thepercentage in the original sample. For example:

Step 1. 60% remains after heating at 550 deg.C for 1 h. Step 2. 30% of theresidue of step 1 remains after dissolution of carbonate in 0.1 m HCl.

Step 3. Microvisual estimation determines that 5% of the sample ischrysotile asbestos.

The reported result is:

(8) Report the percent and type of asbestos present. For samples whereasbestos was identified, but is less than 1.0%, report "Asbestos present,less than 1.0%." There must have been at least two observed fibers or fiberbundles in the two preparations to be reported as present. For samples whereasbestos was not seen, report as "None Detected."

Auxiliary Information

Because of the subjective nature of asbestos analysis, certain concepts andprocedures need to be discussed in more depth. This information will help theanalyst understand why some of the procedures are carried out the way theyare.

4.1. Light

Light is electromagnetic energy. It travels from its source in packetscalled quanta. It is instructive to consider light as a plane wave. The lighthas a direction of travel. Perpendicular to this and mutually perpendicularto each other, are two vector components. One is the magnetic vector and theother is the electric vector. We shall only be concerned with the electricvector. In this description, the interaction of the vector and the mineralwill describe all the observable phenomena. From a light source such amicroscope illuminator, light travels in all different direction from thefilament.

In any given direction away from the filament, the electric vector isperpendicular to the direction of travel of a light ray. While perpendicular,its orientation is random about the travel axis. If the electric vectors fromall the light rays were lined up by passing the light through a filter thatwould only let light rays with electric vectors oriented in one directionpass, the light would then be POLARIZED.

Polarized light interacts with matter in the direction of the electricvector. This is the polarization direction. Using this property it ispossible to use polarized light to probe different materials and identifythem by how they interact with light.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant at about 2.99 x 10(8) m/s. Whenlight travels in different materials such as air, water, minerals or oil, itdoes not travel at this speed. It travels slower. This slowing is a functionof both the material through which the light is traveling and the wavelengthor frequency of the light. In general, the more dense the material, theslower the light travels. Also, generally, the higher the frequency, theslower the light will travel. The ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum tothat in a material is called the index of refraction (n). It is usuallymeasured at 589 nm (the sodium D line). If white light (light containing allthe visible wavelengths) travels through a material, rays of longerwavelengths will travel faster than those of shorter wavelengths, thisseparation is called dispersion. Dispersion is used as an identifier ofmaterials as described in Section 4.6.

4.2. Material Properties

Materials are either amorphous or crystalline. The difference between thesetwo descriptions depends on the positions of the atoms in them. The atoms inamorphous materials are randomly arranged with no long range order. Anexample of an amorphous material is glass. The atoms in crystallinematerials, on the other hand, are in regular arrays and have long rangeorder. Most of the atoms can be found in highly predictable locations.Examples of crystalline material are salt, gold, and the asbestos minerals.

It is beyond the scope of this method to describe the different types ofcrystalline materials that can be found, or the full description of theclasses into which they can fall. However, some general crystallography isprovided below to give a foundation to the procedures described.

With the exception of anthophyllite, all the asbestos minerals belong to themonoclinic crystal type. The unit cell is the basic repeating unit of thecrystal and for monoclinic crystals can be described as having three unequalsides, two 90 deg. angles and one angle not equal to 90 deg.. Theorthorhombic group, of which anthophyllite is a member has three unequalsides and three 90 deg. angles. The unequal sides are a consequence of thecomplexity of fitting the different atoms into the unit cell. Although theatoms are in a regular array, that array is not symmetrical in alldirections. There is long range order in the three major directions of thecrystal. However, the order is different in each of the three directions.This has the effect that the index of refraction is different in each of thethree directions. Using polarized light, we can investigate the index ofrefraction in each of the directions and identify the mineral or materialunder investigation. The indices alpha, beta, and gamma are used to identifythe lowest, middle, and highest index of refraction respectively. The xdirection, associated with alpha is called the fast axis. Conversely, the zdirection is associated with gamma and is the slow direction. Crocidolite hasalpha along the fiber length making it "length-fast". The remainder of theasbestos minerals have the gamma axis along the fiber length. They are called"length-slow". This orientation to fiber length is used to aid in theidentification of asbestos.

4.3. Polarized Light Technique

Polarized light microscopy as described in this section uses the phase-polarmicroscope described in Section 3.2. A phase contrast microscope is fittedwith two polarizing elements, one below and one above the sample. Thepolarizers have their polarization directions at right angles to each other.Depending on the tests performed, there may be a compensator between thesetwo polarizing elements. A compensator is a piece of mineral with knownproperties that "compensates" for some deficiency in the optical train. Lightemerging from a polarizing element has its electric vector pointing in thepolarization direction of the element. The light will not be subsequentlytransmitted through a second element set at a right angle to the firstelement. Unless the light is altered as it passes from one element to theother, there is no transmission of light.

4.4. Angle of Extinction

Crystals which have different crystal regularity in two or three maindirections are said to be anisotropic. They have a different index ofrefraction in each of the main directions. When such a crystal is insertedbetween the crossed polars, the field of view is no longer dark but shows thecrystal in color. The color depends on the properties of the crystal. Thelight acts as if it travels through the crystal along the optical axes. If acrystal optical axis were lined up along one of the polarizing directions(either the polarizer or the analyzer) the light would appear to travel onlyin that direction, and it would blink out or go dark. The difference indegrees between the fiber direction and the angle at which it blinks out iscalled the angle of extinction. When this angle can be measured, it is usefulin identifying the mineral. The procedure for measuring the angle ofextinction is to first identify the polarization direction in the microscope.A commercial alignment slide can be used to establish the polarizationdirections or use anthophyllite or another suitable mineral. This mineral hasa zero degree angle of extinction and will go dark to extinction as it alignswith the polarization directions. When a fiber of anthophyllite has gone toextinction, align the eyepiece reticle or graticule with the fiber so thatthere is a visual cue as to the direction of polarization in the field ofview. Tape or otherwise secure the eyepiece in this position so it will notshift.

After the polarization direction has been identified in the field of view,move the particle of interest to the center of the field of view and align itwith the polarization direction. For fibers, align the fiber along thisdirection. Note the angular reading of the rotating stage. Looking at theparticle, rotate the stage until the fiber goes dark or "blinks out". Againnote the reading of the stage. The difference in the first reading and thesecond is an angle of extinction.

The angle measured may vary as the orientation of the fiber changes aboutits long axis. Tables of mineralogical data usually report the maximum angleof extinction. Asbestos forming minerals, when they exhibit an angle ofextinction, usually do show an angle of extinction close to the reportedmaximum, or as appropriate depending on the substitution chemistry.

4.5. Crossed Polars with Compensator

When the optical axes of a crystal are not lined up along one of thepolarizing directions (either the polarizer or the analyzer) part of thelight travels along one axis and part travels along the other visible axis.This is characteristic of birefringent materials.

The color depends on the difference of the two visible indices of refractionand the thickness of the crystal. The maximum difference available is thedifference between the alpha and the gamma axes. This maximum difference isusually tabulated as the birefringence of the crystal.

For this test, align the fiber at 45 deg. to the polarization directions inorder to maximize the contribution to each of the optical axes. The colorsseen are called retardation colors. They arise from the recombination oflight which has traveled through the two separate directions of the crystal.One of the rays is retarded behind the other since the light in thatdirection travels slower. On recombination, some of the colors which make upwhite light are enhanced by constructive interference and some are suppressedby destructive interference. The result is a color dependent on thedifference between the indices and the thickness of the crystal. The propercolors, thicknesses, and retardations are shown on a Michel- Levy chart. Thethree items, retardation, thickness and birefringence are related by thefollowing relationship:

R = t(n gamma - n alpha) R = retardation, t = crystal thickness in um, and nalpha, gamma = indices of refraction.

Examination of the equation for asbestos minerals reveals that the visiblecolors for almost all common asbestos minerals and fiber sizes are shades ofgray and black. The eye is relatively poor at discriminating different shadesof gray. It is very good at discriminating different colors. In order tocompensate for the low retardation, a compensator is added to the light trainbetween the polarization elements. The compensator used for this test is agypsum plate of known thickness and birefringence. Such a compensator whenoriented at 45 deg. to the polarizer direction, provides a retardation of 530nm of the 530 nm wavelength color. This enhances the red color and gives thebackground a characteristic red to red-magenta color. If this "full-wave"compensator is in place when the asbestos preparation is inserted into thelight train, the colors seen on the fibers are quite different. Gypsum, likeasbestos has a fast axis and a slow axis. When a fiber is aligned with itsfast axis in the same direction as the fast axis of the gypsum plate, the rayvibrating in the slow direction is retarded by both the asbestos and thegypsum. This results in a higher retardation than would be present for eitherof the two minerals. The color seen is a second order blue. When the fiber isrotated 90 deg. using the rotating stage, the slow direction of the fiber isnow aligned with the fast direction of the gypsum and the fast direction ofthe fiber is aligned with the slow direction of the gypsum. Thus, one rayvibrates faster in the fast direction of the gypsum, and slower in the slowdirection of the fiber; the other ray will vibrate slower in the slowdirection of the gypsum and faster in the fast direction of the fiber. Inthis case, the effect is subtractive and the color seen is a first orderyellow. As long as the fiber thickness does not add appreciably to the color,the same basic colors will be seen for all asbestos types except crocidolite.In crocidolite the colors will be weaker, may be in the opposite directions,and will be altered by the blue absorption color natural to crocidolite.Hundreds of other materials will give the same colors as asbestos, andtherefore, this test is not definitive for asbestos. The test is useful indiscriminating against fiberglass or other amorphous fibers such as somesynthetic fibers. Certain synthetic fibers will show retardation colorsdifferent than asbestos; however, there are some forms of polyethylene andaramid which will show morphology and retardation colors similar to asbestosminerals. This test must be supplemented with a positive identification testwhen birefringent fibers are present which can not be excluded by morphology.This test is relatively ineffective for use on fibers less than 1 um indiameter. For positive confirmation TEM or SEM should be used if no largerbundles or fibers are visible.

4.6. Dispersion Staining

Dispersion microscopy or dispersion staining is the method of choice for theidentification of asbestos in bulk materials. Becke line analysis is used bysome laboratories and yields the same results as does dispersion staining forasbestos and can be used in lieu of dispersion staining. Dispersion stainingis performed on the same platform as the phase-polar analysis with theanalyzer and compensator removed. One polarizing element remains to definethe direction of the light so that the different indices of refraction of thefibers may be separately determined. Dispersion microscopy is a dark-fieldtechnique when used for asbestos. Particles are imaged with scattered light.Light which is unscattered is blocked from reaching the eye either by theback field image mask in a McCrone objective or a back field image mask inthe phase condenser. The most convenient method is to use the rotating phasecondenser to move an oversized phase ring into place. The ideal size for thisring is for the central disk to be just larger than the objective entryaperture as viewed in the back focal plane. The larger the disk, the lessscattered light reaches the eye. This will have the effect of diminishing theintensity of dispersion color and will shift the actual color seen. Thecolors seen vary even on microscopes from the same manufacturer. This is dueto the different bands of wavelength exclusion by different mask sizes. Themask may either reside in the condenser or in the objective back focal plane.It is imperative that the analyst determine by experimentation with asbestosstandards what the appropriate colors should be for each asbestos type. Thecolors depend also on the temperature of the preparation and the exactchemistry of the asbestos. Therefore, some slight differences from thestandards should be allowed. This is not a serious problem for commercialasbestos uses. This technique is used for identification of the indices ofrefraction for fibers by recognition of color. There is no direct numericalreadout of the index of refraction. Correlation of color to actual index ofrefraction is possible by referral to published conversion tables. This isnot necessary for the analysis of asbestos. Recognition of appropriate colorsalong with the proper morphology are deemed sufficient to identify thecommercial asbestos minerals. Other techniques including SEM, TEM, and XRDmay be required to provide additional information in order to identify othertypes of asbestos.

Make a preparation in the suspected matching high dispersion oil, e.g.,n=1.550 for chrysotile. Perform the preliminary tests to determine whetherthe fibers are birefringent or not. Take note of the morphological character.Wavy fibers are indicative of chrysotile while long, straight, thin, frayedfibers are indicative of amphibole asbestos. This can aid in the selection ofthe appropriate matching oil. The microscope is set up and the polarizationdirection is noted as in Section 4.4. Align a fiber with the polarizationdirection. Note the color. This is the color parallel to the polarizer. Thenrotate the fiber rotating the stage 90 deg. so that the polarizationdirection is across the fiber. This is the perpendicular position. Again notethe color. Both colors must be consistent with standard asbestos minerals inthe correct direction for a positive identification of asbestos. If only oneof the colors is correct while the other is not, the identification is notpositive. If the colors in both directions are bluish-white, the analyst haschosen a matching index oil which is higher than the correct matching oil,e.g. the analyst has used n=1.620 where chrysotile is present. The next loweroil (Section 3.5.) should be used to prepare another specimen. If the colorin both directions is yellow-white to straw-yellow-white, this indicates thatthe index of the oil is lower than the index of the fiber, e.g. thepreparation is in n=1.550 while anthophyllite is present. Select the nexthigher oil (Section 3.5.) and prepare another slide. Continue in this fashionuntil a positive identification of all asbestos species present has been madeor all possible asbestos species have been ruled out by negative results inthis test. Certain plant fibers can have similar dispersion colors asasbestos. Take care to note and evaluate the morphology of the fibers orremove the plant fibers in pre-preparation. Coating material on the fiberssuch as carbonate or vinyl may destroy the dispersion color. Usually, therewill be some outcropping of fiber which will show the colors sufficient foridentification. When this is not the case, treat the sample as described inSection 3.3. and then perform dispersion staining. Some samples will yield toBecke line analysis if they are coated or electron microscopy can be used foridentification.

5. References

5.1. Crane, D.T., Asbestos in Air, OSHA method ID160, Revised November1992.

5.2. Ford, W.E., Dana's Textbook of Mineralogy; Fourth Ed.; John Wileyand Son, New York, 1950, p. vii.

5.3. Selikoff, I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic Press,New York, 1978, pp. 3,20.

5.4. Women Inspectors of Factories. Annual Report for 1898, H.M.Statistical Office, London, p. 170 (1898).

5.5. Selikoff,.I.J., Lee, D.H.K., Asbestos and Disease, Academic Press, NewYork, 1978, pp. 26,30.

5.6. Campbell, W.J., et al, Selected Silicate Minerals and TheirAsbestiform Varieties, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau ofMines, Information Circular 8751, 1977.

5.7. Asbestos, Code of Federal Regulations, 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 29 CFR1926.58.

5.8. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; AsbestosNESHAP Revision, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 224, 20 November 1990, p.48410.

5.9. Ross, M. The Asbestos Minerals: Definitions, Description, Modes ofFormation, Physical and Chemical Properties and Health Risk to the MiningCommunity, Nation Bureau of Standards Special Publication, Washington, D.C.,1977.

5.10. Lilis, R., Fibrous Zeolites and Endemic Mesothelioma in Cappadocia,Turkey, J. Occ Medicine, 1981, 23,(8),548-550.

5.11. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos -- 1972, U.S. Department of HealthEducation and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control,National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, HSM-72-10267.

5.12. Campbell,W.J., et al, Relationship of Mineral Habit to SizeCharacteristics for Tremolite Fragments and Fibers, United States Departmentof the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 8367, 1979.

5.13. Mefford, D., DCM Laboratory, Denver, private communication, July 1987.

5.14. Deer, W.A., Howie, R.A., Zussman, J., Rock Forming Minerals, Longman,Thetford, UK, 1974.

5.15. Kerr, P.F., Optical Mineralogy; Third Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.

5.16. Veblen, D.R. (Ed.), Amphiboles and Other Hydrous Pyriboles --Mineralogy, Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol 9A, Michigan, 1982, pp 1-102.

5.17. Dixon, W.C., Applications of Optical Microscopy in the Analysis ofAsbestos and Quartz, ACS Symposium Series, No. 120, Analytical Techniques inOccupational Health Chemistry, 1979.

5.18. Polarized Light Microscopy, McCrone Research Institute, Chicago, 1976.

5.19. Asbestos Identification, McCrone Research Institute, G&G printers,Chicago, 1987.

5.20. McCrone, W.C., Calculation of Refractive Indices from DispersionStaining Data, The Microscope, No 37, Chicago, 1989.

5.21. Levadie, B. (Ed.), Asbestos and Other Health Related Silicates, ASTMTechnical Publication 834, ASTM, Philadelphia 1982.

5.22. Steel, E. and Wylie, A., Riordan, P.H. (Ed.), MineralogicalCharacteristics of Asbestos, Geology of Asbestos Deposits, pp. 93-101,SME-AIME, 1981.

5.23. Zussman, J., The Mineralogy of Asbestos, Asbestos: Properties,Applications and Hazards, pp. 45-67 Wiley, 1979.

[FR Doc. 94-18863 Filed 8-8-94; 8:45 am]