Call us today for a free and confidential consultation. We'll discuss your specific case and give you honest answers to your important questions.
Our toll-free number is (800) 933-2244. We look forward to helping you.
Asbestos Concentration On Marine Vessels
IV. Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A. Introduction
In this final revision to the asbestos standard for construction,
general industry and shipyards, OSHA is lowering the permissible exposure
limit in all 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 standard to respond to three issues remanded
to the Agency by the Court. These issues involved expanded competent
person training, clarification of the definition for small- scale,
short-duration construction projects, and reporting and transfer
requirements in construction. Also, permissible controls in brake and
clutch operations are addressed in a revision to the standard for general
industry.
Executive Order 12866 requires that a regulatory impact analysis be
prepared for any regulation that meets the criteria for a "significant
regulatory action." Among these criteria, relevant to this rulemaking is
the requirement that the rule have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities.
Consistent with these requirements, OSHA has made a determination that
the final revised standard will constitute a significant regulatory
action. Accordingly, OSHA has prepared this Final Regulatory Impact and
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to demonstrate the technological and
economic feasibility 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, and resistance to thermal, chemical, and electrical
conditions. According to the Bureau 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 with fiber growth along two planes
(i.e., lengthwise) and (3) sufficient fiber growth such that the fibers
can be identified, separated, and processed, are given the name asbestos
[Campbell, 1977].
__________
Footnote(1) Tensile strength is defined as the resistance of a material
to a force tending to tear it apart.
Asbestos silicates are divided into two mineral groups: serpentine and
amphiboles. Both groups are widely distributed in the earth's crust in
many igneous and metamorphic rocks. In rare instances, these mineral
deposits contain sufficient quantities of usable asbestiform minerals
rendering it profitable to mine for commercial asbestos. Some types of
commercial asbestos have the properties of softness, silkiness and
flexibility that, among other uses, permits them to be spun into thread
from which cloth can be woven. This variety, found in the serpentine group
and given the name chrysotile, is by far the most abundant of the asbestos
minerals, comprising over 90 percent of world production. Five other
commercial varieties--riebeckite (crocidolite), grunerite (amosite),
anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite--belong to the amphibole group
and, unlike the serpentines, are characterized by hard and brittle fibers.
Chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite all have extremely high tensile
strengths and have been used extensively as reinforcers in cements,
resins, and plastics.
Asbestos Production, Consumption, and Use
In the production process, asbestos ore is mined and then milled to
achieve a homogeneous, graded input. Raw asbestos is shipped to primary
industries to be 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 for application, installation or erection without
further modification.
Domestically used asbestos fibers are technically classified into seven
quality categories, or grades, with the longer, higher-strength fibers
given lower-numbered grade levels.
Table 1 presents the 1992 distribution of asbestos consumption in the
United States, by end use, type and grade. Historically, Grades 1, 2 and 3
were used for relatively refined uses such as textiles, electrical
insulation, and pharmaceutical and beverage filters. With the introduction
of ceramic fibers, fibrous glass, cellulose fibers and other substitutes,
use of asbestos in these 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.
Table 1.--U.S. Asbestos Consumption
[Thousand metro]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
End use
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991 total....................................... <0.1 2.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992:
Asbestos--cement pipe.......................... ....... 0.9
Asbestos--cement sheet......................... ....... ...... ....
Coatings and Compounds......................... <0.1 <0.1 ....
Friction products.............................. ....... <0.1
Packing and gaskets............................ ....... <0.1
Paper.......................................... ....... ...... ....
Plastics....................................... <0.1 ...... ....
Roofing products............................... ....... <0.1 ....
Other.......................................... <0.1 0.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (b).................................... <0.1 1.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Mines, based on data provided by the Asbestos
Institute Mines asbestos producer survey.
(a)Includes one ton of Grades 1 and 2 chrysotile for packing and
gaskets.
(b)Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
(c)Source: Bureau of the Census. Includes unspecified fiber type and end
use.
(d)Does not include "Other."
Total U.S. asbestos consumption declined 6 percent in 1992 from a level
of roughly 35 thousand metric tons(2) a year earlier. Of the 32.8
thousand metric tons used in final products in 1992, 31.6 thousand metric
tons were imported, at a value of $7.2 million dollars (not shown in
table). World production 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
of asbestos 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 of Mines table, differs from the first estimate by roughly 800
metric tons. The difference may be partly accounted for by the exclusion
of the "Other" category from the 1991 total in Table 1.
In July 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule
under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit the future
manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution of asbestos in
almost all products. The Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule (40 CFR 763.160)
was scheduled to eliminate asbestos in most commercial products in three
stages over seven years beginning in 1990 and ending in 1996. EPA's
asbestos rule was challenged in U.S. court by the asbestos industry. In
October 1991, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded
most of the ban and phaseout rule to EPA. As a result of the Court
decision, most asbestos products are no longer subject to the ban and
phaseout rule. The Court chose to let stand EPA's authority to ban
products that no longer are being produced in or imported into the United
States.
Consumption of asbestos products in the United States has declined in
recent years due to technological, regulatory and economic factors. U.S.
manufacturers have modified product design to either (1) accommodate the
use of asbestos substitutes or (2) eliminate the need for fibrous
materials altogether. Examples of asbestos substitutes include aramid
fiber, carbon fiber, cellulose fiber, ceramic fiber, fibrous glass,
organic fiber, steel fibers, and wollastonite. The following products have
been successfully introduced 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; and semimetallic brakes. Although the introduction of asbestos
substitutes and alternatives enables manufacturers to avoid contact with
asbestos, many of these surrogates pose occupational health hazards of
varying degrees.
Despite the decline in U.S. consumption of asbestos, foreign markets
continue to demand U.S. asbestos products. The export and re- export of
asbestos 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 the European Community--Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy--are taking
legislative steps to ban the use of asbestos. Effective dates for the ban
initiatives ranged from July 1993 to 1995. In addition, Finland and Poland
are phasing out the importation and use of asbestos [Canadian Mineral
Yearbook, 1993, p. 10.4].
Asbestos Exposure in General Industry
OSHA has determined that the following general industry groups will be
affected by the revision to the asbestos standard: primary manufacture of
asbestos friction materials (SIC 3292); primary manufacture of asbestos
gaskets and packings (SIC 3053); primary manufacture of asbestos
adhesives, sealants, and coatings (SIC 2952); primary manufacture of
asbestos-reinforced plastics (SIC 3089); general automotive repair (SICs
551, 554 and 753) and shipbuilding and repair (SIC 3731).
In addition, secondary gaskets and packings and secondary auto
remanufacturing fall under the scope of the revised standard. However, few
impacts, if any, are anticipated for these industry groups due to their
low current exposure levels (below the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc).
Primary Manufacturing. Primary manufacturers use asbestos fiber as a raw
material in the production of an intermediate product to be further
processed or fabricated into a finished product. As shown in Table 2, two
processes--fiber introduction and product finishing/dry mechanical--are
common to all primary manufacturing operations and, according to risk
profiles in earlier reports [RTI, 1985; ICF, 1988], have a high potential
for generating airborne asbestos fiber.
Table 2.--Estimated Population at Risk From Occupational Exposure to
Asbestos Repair, and Ship Repair
(For Table 2, Estimated Population at Risk From Occupational Exposure to
Asbestos Repair, and Ship Repair, see paper copy)
Friction materials. Asbestos friction products include brake linings
(i.e. linings for drum brakes, disc pads for disc brakes, and brake
blocks), clutch facings, and industrial linings for equipment and
appliances. Based on EPA survey data [ICF, 1988] and discussion with
industry experts, OSHA and CONSAD estimate that 25 plants, employing a
total of 1,415 workers, currently manufacture primary friction materials
[CONSAD, 1990; OSHA, 1994].
Gaskets and packings. Asbestos gaskets are used in static situations to
avoid 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 production
workers in 7 establishments are exposed to asbestos.
Coatings and sealants. Asbestos fiber is used as a filler and reinforcer
in asphalt and tar-based surface coatings. These products are then used as
roof sealants, waterproofing coatings, automobile undercoatings,
protective coatings for underground pipelines, anti- condensation coatings
for low-temperature refrigeration services and fireproofing for structural
steel. OSHA estimates that 1,181 production workers in 75 coatings and
sealants plants are affected by the revised standard.
Primary manufacture of plastics. Asbestos-reinforced plastic molding
compounds are used in the electronic, automotive, and printing industries.
Primary manufacturers of asbestos-reinforced plastics produce molding
compounds in pellet or flake form. These plastics are used in commutators
and rotors in electrical and automotive applications. Based on OSHA and
CONSAD's industry profile [CONSAD, 1990; OSHA, 1994], OSHA projects that one plastics plant, employing eighteen workers, will be affected by the
revised standard.
Automotive repair. The general automotive repair and service sector
includes establishments involved in brake and clutch repair work and
maintenance. The major source of asbestos exposure in this sector occurs
when compressed air is used for blowing the residual dust from the brake
lining assembly. In addition, minor exposures in brake repair can occur
during spray applications and when handling cloths and other supplies
contaminated with asbestos fibers. Replacement of clutch assemblies can
also lead to fiber release. CONSAD estimates that approximately 329,000
automobile repair shops and garages, brake and clutch repair
establishments, and motor vehicle dealers, employing 676,000 workers, will
be affected by the revision to the asbestos standard. OSHA is mandating
specific engineering controls and work practices that will affect this
sector.
Shipbuilding and repairing--historical contact with asbestos in shipyard
work. The revision to the shipyard asbestos standard affects the
shipbuilding and repairing industry, SIC 3731. Shipbuilding and repairing
is a large-scale manufacturing activity that requires both skilled and
unskilled labor. Shipyard work can be categorized into three main
operations: (1) ship construction, (2) ship repair, and (3) ship overhaul.
Asbestos exposure occurs during those conversion, repair, or overhaul
operations where asbestos-containing components are removed or repaired.
Asbestos products were used extensively on American ships from the early
1940s through the late 1970s in joiner bulkhead systems in living space;
for insulation of steam and hot water pipes, boilers, and tanks in
machinery space; in ceiling tile; and in fire-resistant sheets in
bulkheads [RTI, 1985]. However, after 1973, new specifications reduced the
use of asbestos on ships regulated by the Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Use of asbestos was only permitted in insulation cement in lagging for
machinery casings and in lagging cloth.
Since 1978, specifications for government-subsidized ships have required
the elimination of all asbestos lagging and insulation materials.
Therefore, current ship building activities ordinarily do not generate any
worker exposure to asbestos. However, OSHA believes that all ships
delivered before 1975 contain extensive asbestos insulation materials, and
that ships delivered between 1975 and 1978 contain asbestos in the form of
insulating cement on machinery casings. Potential asbestos exposures occur
when workers contact these materials during maintenance and repair
activities [OSHA, 1986].
Occupational exposure to asbestos. The greatest potential for
occupational exposure 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 activities such as removal and installation of gaskets
[OSHA, 1986]. Whenever possible, asbestos is thoroughly wetted during
removal activities. However, wet removal in nuclear reactor compartments
is not permitted because of possible radiation contamination.
Shipyards are owned by both the private sector and the U.S. Navy.
Private sector shipyards can be classified into three categories: (1)
major shipyards engaged in construction and/or repair with drydocking
facilities; (2) smaller "second-tier" shipyards that service inland
waterways and coastal commerce and that build and repair smaller vessels;
and (3) "topside" repair facilities that work on ships while they remain
in the water.
The number of reported firms in SIC 3731, Ship Building and Repairing,
has differed in recent years among traditional data sources. Many "firms"
classified within the industry are very small, perform shipyard work only
intermittently, or are marginal firms with short tenure. The 1987 Census
of Manufactures included 590 shipyards (287 with twenty or more employees)
operated by 547 companies [Dept. of Commerce, 1990a]. The Commerce
Department's 1993 Industrial Outlook estimates a total of 585
establishments [U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1993]. However, in 1987, the
Commission on Merchant Marine 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 United States" [Dept. of Transportation, 1991].
In addition to the private-sector shipyards, there are currently eight
Navy-owned shipyards and two Navy-owned ship repair facilities [U.S.
Industrial Outlook, 1993].
Employment in the shipbuilding and repair industry--as high as 184,000
in 1981--was 118,000 in October 1992 according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics [BLS, 1993]. Employment has also declined in government-owned
shipyards. In 1990 the five largest firms employed 81,000 workers while
the 12 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 23 major shipyards as potentially affected by the revision to the asbestos
standard [OSHA, 1994]. These establishments employ approximately 74,000 to 80,500 workers, of which an estimated three percent, or 2,220 to 2,415
workers, 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 in
ship compartments, such as in nuclear powered vessels, where wet methods
are infeasible. Based on OSHA and CONSAD's profile of the ship repair
industry, OSHA estimates that 18 shipyards, employing 985 workers, are
affected by the revised standard.
Market conditions in the shipbuilding industry. During the 1980s, the
shipbuilding industry experienced a sharp decline in output due to (1)
competition from subsidized foreign shipbuilders; (2) decreased demand for
new ships caused by excess supply; (3) the elimination of some subsidies
for U.S. shipbuilders; and (4) a relaxation of the requirements for
foreign ships entering the U.S. commercial fleet. No commercial ships were
built in the United States between 1985 and 1990, and only four have been
built or under construction 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 the demand for commercial ships will "increase
significantly" during the 1990s due to the need for replacement of an
aging world merchant fleet [U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1993]. It remains to
be seen what fraction of this business may be won by U.S. shipbuilders.
In contrast to the declining market for commercial ship construction,
the market for ship repair and conversion work is strong. The U.S.
Industrial Outlook reports that "the demand for some ship repair services
* * * exceeds what is currently available in certain areas." In addition,
investments by U.S. shipyards to improve, expand, and modernize repairing
facilities are proceeding. 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
and products in the United States, accounting for 68 percent of the
asbestos consumed in 1992 [Bureau of Mines, 1993]. Asbestos products used in construction include asbestos-cement pipe, asbestos- cement sheet,
coatings, compounds, packings, and roofing products.
With the decline in consumption of raw asbestos in U.S. manufacturing
coupled with the introduction of asbestos substitutes into product design,
the asbestos construction industry has shifted away from activities
associated with installing asbestos products. Instead, in the last decade
concern over the public risk presented by damaged asbestos in place, as
well as the practical need to maintain aging interior sections in
commercial and residential buildings, has directed the asbestos
construction industry to the areas of demolition, removal, and renovation.
In addition, custodial personnel occasionally come into contact with
asbestos during their housekeeping duties.
The construction industry is comprised of a large number of firms:
approximately 536,300 establishments in 1987, employing just over 5
million workers [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b]. Of this industry total,
423,500 establishments, or 79 percent, employed fewer than 10 workers,
while only 9.3 percent had 20 or more employees. The prevalence of small
firms is partially related to the ease of entry into the construction
industry. To establish a construction firm generally requires minimal
capitalization; many firms, in fact, achieve success by carrying little
overhead and adapting their services to industry trends. Furthermore, a
sizable share of proprietorships in the industry are composed of
self-employed individuals who contract their own services, and who shift
back and forth from employee status to self- employment status as
opportunities change.
In construction, unlike manufacturing, the typical industry end- product
is highly differentiated and is produced at a site selected by the
purchaser. Due to this degree of product specificity, each worksite
usually has its own pattern of material use, building methods, and number
and mix of workers. Thus, considerable variation may exist in actual
worker use of, or contact with, asbestos materials and products. Although
the occasional use of asbestos products appears to be the
norm--particularly given the changing material use patterns in new
construction--some workers (e.g. asbestos pipe installers and
abatement/removal specialists) continually come into contact with asbestos
materials and products.
Worker mobility, resulting in considerable shifting among both job sites
and employers is another characteristic of the industry. Workers tend to
identify with their craft or occupation, not with their employer [Lange
and Mills, 1979]. Cyclical changes in the economy and seasonal work
patterns cause variability of job opportunities, with a large portion of
workers frequently entering and exiting the industry. Collectively, these
factors make it very difficult to estimate the total number of workers
exposed to asbestos and the duration 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 number of construction workers potentially exposed in the areas
affected by the standard--that is, where asbestos products are installed,
replaced, removed, or managed in place. Affected construction activities
are found within the following general sectors: new construction;
abatement and demolition; building renovation and remodeling; routine
maintenance; and custodial work. Table 3 presents OSHA's profile of the
population at risk from occupational exposure to asbestos in construction.
Below are descriptions of the construction activities categorized within
the general sectors affected by OSHA's revised asbestos standard.
Table 3.--Estimated Population at Risk From Occupational Exposure to
Asbestos During New Constructuion, Abatement, Renovation, Routine
Maintenance Work and Custodial Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Annual
number of number of Annual full-
workers workers time-Construction
potentially potentially activities
exposed exposed equivalent
(lower (upper person--years
bound) bound) of exposure (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction............... 494 4,260 2,377
A/C Pipe Installation...... 224 2,100 1,162
A/C Sheet Installation..... 270 2,160 1,215
Asbestos Abatement and
Demolition.................... 55,101 79,361 21,295
Asbestos Removal........... 44,491 66,476 16,518
Encapsulation.............. 4,610 6,885 1,615
Demolition................. 6,000 6,000 3,163
Renovation/Remodeling.......... 60,735 95,914 60,735
Drywall Renovation......... 51,300 51,300 51,300
Built-Up Roofing Removal... 2,235 19,444 2,235
Removal of Flooring
Products.................. 7,200 25,170 7,200
Routine Maintenance in Public,
Commercial and Residential
Buildings..................... 128,867 740,237 25,771
Repair/Replace Ceiling
Tiles..................... 13,686 38,650 725
Repair/Adjust HVAC/Lighting 39,434 60,793 2,091
Other Work Above Drop
Ceilings.................. 4,847 5,636 299
Repair Boiler.............. 7,218 180,984 1,126
Repair Plumbing............ 7,218 180,984 1,126
Repair Roofing............. 24,040 127,621 2,404
Repair Drywall............. 3,576 80,231 3,576
Repair Flooring............ 28,848 65,338 14,424
Routine Maintenance in
Industrial Facilities......... 243,454 631,046 2,711
Remove/Install Gaskets,
Small Scale............... 58,122 61,623 378
Remove/Install Gaskets,
Large Scale............... 11,083 109,662 211
Remove/Repair Boiler
Insulation, Small......... 22,204 26,172 169
Remove/Repair Boiler
Insulation, Large......... 4,156 48,827 79
Remove/Repair Pipe
Insulation, Small......... 22,204 26,172 169
Remove/Repair Pipe
Insulation, Large......... 4,156 48,827 79
Miscellaneous Maintenance,
Small..................... 44,593 49,957 312
Miscellaneous Maintenance,
Large..................... 8,312 89,974 158
Miscel. Telecommunications
Maintenance, Small........ 32,544 48,240 354
Miscel. Telecommunications
Maintenance, Large........ 36,080 121,592 802
Custodial Work in Public,
Commercial and Residential
Buildings:
Sweeping, cleaning, dusting
activities................ 1,126,000 3,665,000 223,160
Custodial Work in Industrial
Facilities:
Sweeping, cleaning, dusting
activities................ 143,355 535,768 31,442
----------------------------------------
Total.................... 1,758,006 5,751,586 367,491
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based
on OSHA, 1986, and OSHA, 1994.
(a) Totals in this column show the number of full-time-equivalent
workers exposed to asbestos at any level.
New construction. New construction activities account for the bulk of
asbestos materials and products consumed in a typical year. Major products
include asbestos-cement pipe, asbestos-cement sheet, coatings and
compounds, and roofing products. As depicted in Table 1, these
construction products comprised over half (19 thousand metric tons) of the
total U.S. asbestos consumption in 1992.(3)
__________
Footnote(3) Total consumption of asbestos-cement sheet was approximated
as 50 metric tons for the purpose of this calculation.
Asbestos-cement pipe. Asbestos-cement pipe (A/C pipe) is used chiefly
for transporting drinking water in a pressurized condition and to provide
drainage for storm water, sewage and other liquid waste. Approximately 90
percent 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 gaseous
products, 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
Association commented [Ex. 117] that "pre-cut, pre-tapped pipe has
received tremendous marketplace acceptance and represents a large majority of sales." This is significant because the use of pre- cut, pre-tapped
pipe may reduce or eliminate some types of field fabrication activities.
A/C pipe is composed of 15-25 percent asbestos, 42-53 percent Portland
cement, and 34-40 percent ground silica sand. The use of raw asbestos in
the production of A/C pipe fluctuated somewhat but remained fairly
constant during 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 construction in the early 1990s probably account for
much of the decline in asbestos consumption 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, are exposed to asbestos during
installation of A/C pipe.
Asbestos-cement sheet. Asbestos-cement sheet (A/C sheet) has a variety
of uses as a structural, technical and decorative material in large
residential buildings, electrical utilities, industrial plants, schools,
and hospitals. A/C sheet includes flat sheet, corrugated sheet, and
roofing and side shingles. Of these four main types of A/C sheet, all, as
of the date of ICF's market survey, were produced in the United States
with the exception of corrugated sheet [ICF, 1988]. According to ICF, flat
A/C sheet has the following principal applications:
* Wall lining in factories and agricultural buildings
* Fire-resistant walls
* Curtain walls
* Industrial partitions
* Soffit material (covering the underside of structural components
* Interior and exterior decorative paneling. Specialized applications
of flat A/C sheet include 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
and commercial buildings. According to results from ICF's market survey,
demand for roofing shingles represents 70 percent of consumption in the
A/C shingle market while demand for siding shingles constitute the
remainder of the market.
A/C sheet may contain anywhere from 15 to 40 percent asbestos, in
combination with cement and, occasionally, silica [Cogley, et al., 1982].
In recent years, manufacturers have substituted other materials for
asbestos in the production of A/C sheet; meanwhile, due to unit price
differences, alternative construction components such as pre-cast concrete
and cement/wood board have replaced A/C sheet in the building industry
[OSHA, 1986]. Together, these factors have contributed to a decline in
asbestos consumption in the A/C sheet market from levels of roughly 11,000
metric tons of raw asbestos in the early 1980s [OSHA, 1986] to a 1992
consumption of under 100 metric tons (see Table 1). OSHA estimates that,
the population at risk during A/C sheet installation ranges from 270 to
2,160 workers, or an average of 1,215 employees.
Asbestos abatement and demolition. Increased health concerns regarding
the potential release of asbestos fibers have prompted a desire to remove
or encapsulate such materials in existing buildings. In response to this
demand, a variety of specialty contractors and construction trades have
become active in asbestos abatement, particularly in schools, where EPA
regulations have indirectly generated a large market for this type of
service.
The asbestos abatement industry experienced extraordinary growth in the
1980s due to legal, regulatory, economic and health-related factors.
Rifkin-Wernick Associates [Rifkin-Wernick, 1990], specialists in analyzing
the asbestos industry, estimate that combined public and private building
ownership spent $4.2 billion in 1989 for services and products related to
asbestos abatement in their properties. This level of abatement
expenditures represented an increase of 24 percent over levels in 1988.
According to Rifkin-Wernick, asbestos construction activities associated
with demolition, renovation, and operations and maintenance accounted for
around 90 percent of abatement expenditures; the remainder of abatement
expenditures satisfied legal or economic considerations while addressing
lower-level safety concerns.
Rifkin-Wernick reports that approximately 50 percent of asbestos
abatement business in 1989 occurred in eight states: California, New York,
Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. Of the $4.2
billion in abatement expenditures in 1989, commercial buildings (offices,
retail establishments, hotels/motels and warehouses) accounted for $1.4
billion in abatement services. Industrial buildings accounted for nearly
$1 billion in asbestos abatement expenditures, while abatement in schools
totalled $800 million, or roughly one-fifth of the industry.
In early 1990, 2,100 asbestos abatement contractors operated in the
United States under either state certification or some other license.
Rifkin-Wernick estimates that abatement contractors in 1989 employed
161,000 workers, of which 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 of asbestos contractors have no part-time employees.
Contractor revenues in 1989 totalled $3.6 billion. Rifkin-Wernick
classified contractors by revenue size and geographic radius of operation.
National contractors are defined as conducting business beyond 1,000 miles
of headquarters and with revenues above $20 million. Regional contractors,
in Rifkin-Wernick's classification system, tend to operate 250 to 1,000
miles from 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 earn under $5 million. Table 4 presents Rifkin-Wernick's 1990
assessment of contractor market concentration for two earlier years and
market projection for 1994.
Table 4.--Market Concentration
[1987-1994]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 1987 1989 (projected)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Contractors:
National............................... 8 20 15
Regional............................... 100 200 150
Local.................................. 1,200 1,872 500
------------------------------
Total.............................. 1,308 2,092 665
Revenues ($ Million):
National............................... $155 $832 $1,050
Regional............................... 362 1,720 2,250
Local.................................. 517 1,086 470
------------------------------
Total.............................. 1,034 3,638 3,770
Market Share (%)
National............................... 15% 23% 28%
Regional............................... 35% 47% 60%
Local.................................. 50% 30% 12%
------------------------------
Total.............................. 100% 100% 100%
Revenues Per Contractor ($ Million):
National............................... $19.3 $41.6 $70.0
Regional............................... 3.6 8.6 15.0
Local.................................. 0.4 0.6 0.9
------------------------------
Total.............................. 0.8 1.7 5.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Rifkin-Wernick, 1990.
In developing its profile of the abatement and demolition industry, OSHA
[OSHA, 1994], recognized the growth in market specialization observed by
Rifkin-Wernick and other experts. Therefore, OSHA applied lower-bound
worker population estimates to the cost and benefit analysis. For all of
abatement and demolition, OSHA estimates a full- time workforce of 21,295
persons.(4)
__________
Footnote(4) OSHA notes that its estimate for the number of full-time
abatement workers is lower than Rifkin-Wernick's 1989 estimate. OSHA
believes that this discrepancy may possibly be due to three factors: 1)
the cyclical decline in the industry during the recession of 1990-1991 and
subsequent slow recovery; 2) increased specialization among abatement
workers and the adoption of labor-saving technologies and work practices;
and 3) the inclusion of abatement workers in other activity groups within
OSHA's industry profile.
Renovation and remodeling. The principal general renovation activities
that entail occupational exposure to asbestos are: the demolition of
drywall (including removal of transite panels), the removal of built-up
roofing containing asbestos roofing felts, and the removal of asbestos
flooring products. OSHA and CONSAD [OSHA, 1994] estimate that anywhere
from 60,735 to 95,914 workers--all of whom are full-time
professionals--may be at risk from asbestos exposure during renovation and
remodeling. OSHA believes that specialization has emerged in the industry
to the extent that a lower-bound estimate of the workforce is appropriate
in this impact analysis. Consequently, OSHA estimates that 60,735
full-time-equivalent workers in renovation and remodeling of
asbestos-containing buildings are affected by the revised standard.
Drywall demolition. The occupational exposure to asbestos associated
with the demolition and renovation of drywall results primarily from the
release of asbestos fibers from the spackling, tape, and joint compounds
used to produce a smooth surface across the entire wall. Although the use
of asbestos in drywall tape and spackling compound is now prohibited,
asbestos-containing finishing materials were routinely used in drywall
application through the early 1970s. Thus, the demolition and renovation
of drywall in any building constructed prior to the mid-1970s is likely to
expose workers to friable asbestos.
On occasion, drywall renovation involves contact with sprayed- and
troweled-on fireproofing and other asbestos surfacing material.
Information on the frequency of contact with high-risk asbestos-
containing material during drywall renovation is limited but suggests that
a minor percentage of projects are affected [CONSAD, 1985]. OSHA estimates that 20 percent of drywall renovations involve contact with high-risk ACM. A breakdown of the worker population for drywall renovation is given below under BENEFITS.
Built-up roofing removal. Built up roofs constructed with asbestos
roofing felts 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 to estimate that approximately 80,000 tons of
asbestos-containing roofing products will be removed annually.
Removal of asbestos flooring products. Asbestos flooring products, also
termed "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 25-30 years, they are generally replaced more often [RFCI,
1990].
Routine maintenance in public, commercial and residential buildings.
Routine building maintenance activities can involve exposure to asbestos
because of the presence of products containing asbestos. Worker exposure
can be a result of direct contact with the asbestos materials and products
or can result from disturbance of settled dust in the vicinity of
asbestos-containing materials (for example, when work above a drop ceiling
is performed where asbestos-containing insulation or fireproofing was
used). Maintenance activities that can involve asbestos exposure include:
adjustment or repair of HVAC ductwork or lighting (above a drop ceiling);
replacement of drop ceiling tiles; repair of leaking water or steam pipes;
boiler maintenance or repair activities; and repairs to roofing, drywall
or flooring. Workers at risk during these activities include in-house
building maintenance personnel, contract maintenance crews, and special
trades contractors. Based on an industry profile by CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990], OSHA estimates that anywhere from 128,867 workers to 740,237 workers are potentially exposed while performing routine maintenance activities in public, commercial and residential buildings.
For this economic impact analysis, OSHA assumed that owners of affected
buildings 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 affected workers would equal the lower-bound estimate for the
population at risk (128,867 workers). In terms of person-years of exposure
(number of persons exposed over a year of eight-hour days), the
lower-bound population at risk equates to 25,771 full-time-equivalent
persons, as shown in Column 3 in Table 3.
Renovation, maintenance, and repair operations comprise a significant
portion of total construction activity. In 1987, receipts from maintenance
and repair operations alone were $50.4 billion, or 10 percent of total
construction receipts [Dept. of Commerce, 1990b].
Routine maintenance in industrial facilities. In general industry,
routine maintenance and repair can involve the disturbance of asbestos-
containing materials and products (ACM), including such products as
gaskets, pipe and boiler insulation, electronic components and structural
building materials. Asbestos industrial materials and products are most
widely used in (1) the manufacture 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 public utilities (gas, water, sanitary services).
Occupational exposure to asbestos fibers can occur among maintenance
workers directly involved in disturbance of ACM as well as among
production workers near the maintenance work site.
For this final analysis of the costs and benefits of the revised
asbestos standard, OSHA identified five general types of routine
maintenance in industrial 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 Routine
Maintenance in Public, Commercial, and Residential Buildings.
Miscellaneous telecommunications maintenance includes 1) removal of
electronic components, particularly line card resistors, insulated with
asbestos and 2) placement or removal of communications wire and cable.
Table 3 presents the range of workers in general industry potentially
exposed to asbestos during routine maintenance tasks. In this impact
analysis, OSHA assumes that, to minimize compliance costs, affected
establishments will concentrate asbestos maintenance duties among a group
of trained specialists. Shown in Column 3 in the table are OSHA's
estimates for full-time populations at risk for each maintenance activity.
For all of general industry, a total of 2,711 full-time-equivalent persons
perform construction-related duties.
Custodial work in public, commercial and residential buildings. Asbestos
exposure in public and commercial buildings can occur during a variety of
tasks involving disturbance of asbestos or asbestos- containing materials,
in addition to routine maintenance activities described above. Custodial
work in buildings with ACM can include any of the following types of
activities: sweeping; cleaning; dusting; mopping; vacuuming; stripping and
buffing of vinyl-asbestos floor tile; and clean-up after asbestos removal
or other significant asbestos construction work.
A recent EPA-sponsored study of asbestos exposure among custodial
workers in Missouri reports frequency and duration of custodial activities
[Wickman, et al., 1992]. Modeling a custodial worker profile on the
Missouri study and on building survey data from EPA, OSHA and CONSAD
estimated the range of workers potentially at risk [OSHA, 1994]. OSHA
estimates that anywhere from 1.1 million to 3.7 million workers are at
risk from asbestos exposure during custodial work.
OSHA believes that there is presently little specialization in asbestos
custodial work and that the actual number of workers at risk approximates
the average of the lower-bound and upper-bound number of workers. In terms
of person-years of exposure over work weeks consisting of eight-hour days,
OSHA estimates that 223,160 full-time- equivalent workers are at risk
during custodial disturbance of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials.
Custodial work in industrial facilities. Custodial work in industrial
facilities largely resembles custodial work in public, commercial, and
residential buildings and was identically modeled by CONSAD. The workforce
at risk performing custodial activities in industrial facilities ranges
from 143,355 to 535,768 workers, as shown in Table 3. Taking the average
of this range and calculating the full- time-equivalent population, OSHA
estimates that 31,442 person-years of exposure occur in general industry
annually during custodial work.
C. Assessment of Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Alternatives
Introduction
The declared purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of
1970 is "* * * to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in
the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human
resources * * *" Thus, the Act requires the Secretary of Labor, when
promulgating occupational safety and health standards for toxic materials
or harmful physical agents, to set the standard " * * * that most
adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best
available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of
health or functional capacity * * *" On the basis of this congressional
directive, OSHA has responded to the Court of Appeals by issuing a final
revision to the asbestos standard, the intent of which is to further
reduce the adverse health effects associated with occupational exposure to
asbestos. This chapter reviews regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives
that OSHA considered and found to be 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
greatly reduced where private markets work efficiently and effectively to
allocate health and safety resources. The theory typically assumes
perfectly competitive labor markets where workers, having perfect
knowledge of job risks and being perfectly mobile among jobs, command wage premiums that fully compensate for any risk of future harm. Thus,
theoretically, the costs of occupational injury and illness are borne
initially by the firms responsible for the hazardous workplace conditions
and, ultimately, by the consumers who pay higher prices for the final
goods and services produced by these firms. With all costs internalized,
private employers have an incentive to reduce hazards wherever the cost of
hazard abatement is less than the cost of the expected injury or illness.
The resultant level of safety and health is considered "efficient" in the
sense that it minimizes the sum of the costs of hazard prevention and of
injury or illness. Perfectly competitive labor markets, however, do not
exist for many industrial markets. OSHA, therefore, believes that it must
take appropriate actions to provide greater worker protection against
exposures to toxic substances.
Evidence indicates that market forces have not been effective in
reducing excessive occupational exposure to asbestos, thereby contributing
to the development of diseases related to it. In spite of the hazards
associated with asbestos, the social costs of production have not been
internalized, in part because of market imperfections and the existence of
externalities. Consequently, the amount of protection that the private
market will offer to workers differs from the socially desired level, for
the following reasons.
First, evidence on occupational health hazards in general suggests that,
in the absence of immediate or clear-cut danger, employees and employers
have little incentive to seek or provide information on the potential
long-term effects of exposure. When relevant information is provided,
however, employers and employees might still find informed decision making
a difficult task, especially where long latency periods precede the
development of disease. Moreover, if signs and symptoms are
nonspecific--that is, if an illness could be job-related or could have
other causes--employees and employers may not link disease with exposure.
Second, even if workers were fully informed of the health risks
associated with exposure to asbestos, many face limited employment
options. Non-transferability of occupational skills and high regional
unemployment rates sharply reduce a worker's expectation of obtaining
alternative employment quickly or easily. A worker employed in resurfacing
automobile brakes, for example, could find it difficult to apply
occupational skills to a 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 better paying but more hazardous position, but
simply between employment and unemployment at the prevailing rates of pay
and risk. In addition to the fear of substantial income loss from
prolonged periods of unemployment, the high costs of relocation, the
reluctance to break family and community ties, and the growth of
institutional factors such as pension plans and seniority rights serve to
elevate the cost of job transfer.
In addition to the market imperfections, externalities result in
employers and employees settling for an inefficiently low level of
protection from toxic substances. For the competitive market to function
efficiently, only workers and their employers should be affected by the
level of safety and health provided in market transactions. In the case of
occupational safety and health, however, society shares part of the
financial burden of occupationally induced diseases, including the costs
of premature death, excess sickness, and disability. Individuals who
suffer from occupationally related illness are cared for and compensated
by society through taxpayer support of social programs, including welfare,
Social Security, and Medicare. These combined factors of labor market
imperfections and the existence of externalities prevent the market from
delivering an optimal supply of healthful 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 the
examples of a non-regulatory alternative identified and set forth by the
Office of Management and Budget guidelines for implementing Executive
Orders 12866 and 12291. Prosser [Prosser, 1971] describes a tort, in part,
as a "civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the court
will provide 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
health has been adversely affected by occupational exposure to asbestos to
sue and recover damages from the employer. Furthermore, the tort system
would shift the liability of direct costs of occupational disease from the
worker to the firm under certain specific circumstances. The tort system
has had limited success in shifting the cost of occupational disease. The
limitations of the system are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Asbestos product liability litigation as a means of reducing worker
exposure to asbestos has proven effective in some areas, but cumbersome to
resolve. The difficulties are inherent in the litigation process as it
relates to asbestos products and in the nature of the diseases associated
with asbestos.
With very limited exceptions, however, the tort system is not a viable
alternative in dealings between employees and their employers. All states
have legislation providing that Workers' Compensation is either the
exclusive or principal remedy available to employees against their
employers. Thus, tort law can only be applied to third-party suppliers of
a hazardous substance. It is often difficult, however, to demonstrate
cause, which is a necessary prerequisite for the successful application of
tort liability against these suppliers.
First, knowledge of the worker exposure must exist. The worker and/ or
the physician must be aware of both the magnitude and duration of exposure
to asbestos and the causal link between the disease and the occupational
exposure. Furthermore, it could be extremely difficult to isolate the role
of occupational exposures in causing the disease, especially if workers
are exposed to many toxic substances. Second, the liable party must be
identifiable, but workers may have several employers over a working
lifetime. Third, the scientific and medical evidence available to support
the contention that the disease was caused by job-related exposure must
withstand judicial standards for proof of causality. This task is very
difficult because of the long latency periods associated with
asbestos-related diseases.
The costs associated with producing information and with litigation
itself may be quite substantial. First, information is a public good,
which means that once produced it can be transmitted inexpensively to any
number of individuals without diminishing the quality or quantity of the
information. It is, therefore, difficult to control distribution once the
information is produced. A producer of information may find that
information produced at great expense can be acquired freely by potential
customers, and that, consequently, the market for the information has
virtually disappeared. As a result, public goods are typically
underproduced relative to what is considered economically efficient. This
general undersupply of information adversely affects the workers'
awareness of the cause of their illness and thus 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 court action. In deciding whether to sue, the victim must
be sure that the size of the claim will be large enough to cover legal
expenses. In effect, the plaintiff is likely to face substantial
transaction costs in the form of legal expenses. These are commonly set at
a 33 percent contingency for the plaintiff's lawyer, plus legal expenses.
The accused firm must also pay for its 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 to proceeds was 37 percent for a
sample of cases. The data, however, do not separate legal fees paid by the
defendants and plaintiffs.
The majority of occupational disease tort activity has involved workers
exposed to asbestos. These employees could avoid the exclusive remedy of
Workers' Compensation by suing suppliers, whereas asbestos exposures are
best controlled 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 to asbestos in refineries. Punitive damages were to be awarded on
the basis of gross negligence on the part of the suppliers [Dallas Morning
News, 1990].
In 1993, a settlement was reached in a lawsuit involving future personal
injury claims against 20 asbestos product manufacturers represented by the
Center for Claims Resolution (Carlough v. Amchem Products, Inc). It would
provide $1 billion over the next ten years to settle about 100,000 claims
as people exposed to the manufacturers' products contract asbestos-related
conditions. Payments would depend on the type of condition and attorneys'
fees would be capped at 25 percent of each payment [BNA, 1993]. The
settlement was reached by parties aware of the decades-long impasses in
asbestos litigation that have frustrated the tort liability process.
It is unusual for insurance and liability costs to be borne in full by
the specific employer responsible for the risk involved. For firms using
insurance, the premium determination process is such that premiums only
partially reflect changes in risk associated with changes in asbestos or
other hazardous exposures. This results in the so-called "moral hazard
problem," which is the risk that arises from the possible dishonesty or
imprudence of the insured. As the insured has paid for an insurance
company to assume some of his or her risks, he or she has less reason to
exercise the diligence necessary to avoid losses. This transfer of risk is
a fundamental source of imperfection in markets.
For firms that self-insure or carry liability insurance with a large
deductible, the costs of a single claim may be fully borne by the firm.
Very small firms, and large firms with a large number of claims, however,
may fail to meet the full costs by declaring bankruptcy, as has happened
with Johns Manville and other former asbestos producers. The attempts at
financial restructuring by defendants of asbestos litigation further
reduce the chances that workers who contract asbestos-related diseases as
employees of these companies or as employees of companies that used their
products will collect compensation [Washington Post, 1990].
Workers' Compensation
The Workers' Compensation system came about as the result of perceived
inadequacies in liability or insurance systems to compel employers to
prevent occupational disease or compensate workers fully for their losses.
This system was designed to internalize some of the social costs of
production, but in reality it has fallen short of compensating workers
adequately for occupationally related disease. Thus, society shares the
burden of occupationally related adverse health effects, premature
mortality, excess morbidity, and disability through taxpayer support of
social programs such as welfare, Social Security disability payments, and
Medicare.
Government Regulations and Rejected Alternative Standards
In order to compensate for market imperfections (some of which are
detailed above), a number of federal and state regulations have been
promulgated in the attempt to improve the allocation of resources. While
some of these regulations may have a limiting effect on occupational
exposures to asbestos, OSHA does not believe that these regulations
obviate the need for an OSHA standard regulating occupational exposure to
asbestos.
OSHA's current permissible exposure level (PEL) for asbestos of 0.2
fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc) does not eliminate all significant risk
to workers. Given the recent health evidence of carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic hazards, OSHA believes that to fully protect workers it
is necessary 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
approaches requiring owners to conduct up-front inspections for
asbestos-containing materials or to inspect before ACM is disturbed. These
approaches have also been examined by the Environmental Protection Agency.
An analysis by EPA's contractor [Abt, 1992] projected potential compliance
costs of $13.2 billion to $16.2 billion for an up-front survey approach
and potential costs of $3.2 billion to $14.5 billion for an
identify-before-disturb option. OSHA's approach, instead, specifies
parameters for making reasonable assumptions about the presence of
asbestos-containing materials within building components and notifying and
protecting maintenance workers, custodians and building 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 three
clinical conditions: asbestosis, mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining of
the chest or abdomen), and lung cancer. Studies have also observed
increased gastrointestinal cancer risk. Risk from cancer at other sites,
such as the larynx, pharynx, and kidneys, is also suspected.
Initial exposure limits for asbestos were based on efforts to reduce
asbestosis which was known to be associated with asbestos exposure. The
reduction in cases of asbestosis, however, resulted in workers living long
enough to develop cancers that are now recognized as associated with
asbestos exposure. The following discussion of the benefits associated
with a reduction in exposures, therefore, focuses on the number of cancer
cases avoided within the exposed work force. The results are expressed in
terms of deaths avoided because these cancers almost always result in
death.
Methodology
OSHA calculated expected benefits following promulgation of the final
revised asbestos standard for workers employed in the general industry,
shipyards, and construction sectors. In this benefits analysis, the
following types of preventable asbestos-related cancer mortalities were
evaluated: (1) Preventable lung cancers, (2) preventable mesotheliomas,
and (3) preventable gastrointestinal cancers. The risk assessment used to
derive OSHA's estimate of the number of cancers prevented is discussed in
Chapter 5 of the regulatory impact analysis of the 1986 final asbestos
standard [OSHA, 1986]. For this analysis, OSHA updated the 1986 risk
assessment to include 1991 data on the gender and age distribution within
affected industry sectors [BLS, 1991] and the 1991 mortality rates
associated with malignant neoplasms of respiratory 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
exposure level. OSHA's estimates for current exposures, the number of
full-time equivalent workers exposed, and the exposure levels after
compliance with the revision to the final rule are presented in Table 5
for general industry and shipyards and Table 6 for construction.
(For Table 5, see paper copy)
Table 6.--Estimated Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Reduction in
Cancer
(For Table 6, Estimated Occupational Exposure to Asbesots and
Reduction in Cancer, see paper copy)
OSHA calculated annual preventable cancers associated with the revised
standard through a five-step procedure. First, OSHA estimated baseline
occupational exposure levels--in terms of 8-hour time-weighted average
fiber levels--for all affected sectors using data from the record and from
previous asbestos regulatory impact analyses. Then, applying the
OSHA/Nicholson risk assessment model to baseline exposures and the
associated populations at risk, OSHA calculated baseline cancers among
affected workers. In the third step, OSHA estimated occupational exposure
levels as a result of compliance with the final standard, using assigned
protection factors for designated controls. OSHA then projected total
residual cancers following promulgation of the standard. Finally, OSHA
calculated the number of compliance-related preventable cancers by
subtracting the number of residual cancers from the number of baseline
cancers.
Occupational Exposure Profile
For each sector affected by the revised asbestos standard, OSHA assessed
current occupational exposures using data from past regulatory impact
analyses and the rulemaking records for this final standard and for
previous OSHA asbestos standards. Principal sources of exposure data for
this final RIA were Economic and Technological Profile Related to OSHA's
Revised Permanent Asbestos Standard for the Construction Industry and
Asbestos Removal and Routine Maintenance Projects in General Industry
prepared by OSHA's contractor CONSAD Research Corporation [CONSAD, 1985]; Economic Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the OSHA Asbestos Standards for Construction and General Industry, also by CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990]; OSHA's 1986 final asbestos regulatory impact analysis [OSHA, 1986]; and OSHA's regulatory analysis 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 for the rulemaking proceeding that led to promulgation of the current OSHA asbestos standard. Baseline exposures described in the literature and
reported by CONSAD in 1985 generally reflected the use of minimal
engineering controls and the virtual absence of respiratory protection.
These baseline exposures were reported by OSHA in its 1986 RIA and served
to establish baseline risk estimates for affected workers prior to
compliance with the final standard promulgated in 1986. In its 1986 RIA,
OSHA assumed that the controls implied by compliance with the 1986
standard would result in specified rates of effectiveness and would lead
to benefits in preventable cancers.
In this final RIA for the revised asbestos standard, OSHA developed an
exposure profile for affected occupational groups using representative
data from the 1986 RIA, from CONSAD reports [1985, 1990] and from the
rulemaking record. For each affected sector, OSHA estimated baseline
exposures using the following assumptions: (1) Where reasonable and
appropriate, engineering controls and work practices assigned in the 1986
RIA were assumed to be in current use; (2) where engineering controls and
work practices were not sufficient to reduce maximum exposures to a PEL of
0.2 f/cc and an excursion level of 1.0 f/ cc, OSHA assumed that the
least-cost respiratory protection would be applied. OSHA's baseline
exposure profile for this revision to the asbestos standard thus reflects
industry application of controls, work practices and respirators to
achieve permissible limits established under the OSHA 1986 and 1988
rulemakings.
Table 5 presents average baseline exposure levels for general industry
and shipyards and Table 6 presents average baseline exposure levels for
construction. Tables 5 and 6, in addition, show average baseline exposure
levels in the absence of respiratory protection and other primary controls
and work practices (Column 2 in Table 5, Column 3 in Table 6), taken from
representative 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
respirator use were estimated by applying, to potential mean exposure
levels (Column 3), protection factors for wet methods, glove bags and
other controls judged currently in use, at hypothetical application levels
of 100 percent.
Mean exposures in nearly all sectors are estimated to be at or below the
current PEL and excursion limit, consistent with the assumptions in the
1986 RIA and 1988 excursion limit analysis of 100 percent compliance with
the final standards. For most of the sectors presented in the tables,
OSHA's estimated current exposure levels were determined by applying, to
baseline exposures in the absence of controls, protection factors ranging
from 10 to 1000, adjusted to reflect current application of controls. In
that real-world application of engineering controls and work practices is
under 100 percent in nearly all asbestos construction sectors, mean
current exposure levels (Column 5) can exceed representative
(hypothetical) fiber levels absent respirators (Column 4).
Also shown in Tables 5 and 6 are OSHA's estimated exposure levels
following the final revision to the standard. OSHA projected exposure
levels for each affected General Industry, Shipyards, and Construction
activity by applying protection factors to average baseline exposures.
OSHA calculated protection factors for each activity by assuming that
controls have a multiplicative effect in reducing exposures, that is, the
cumulative protection provided by a set of controls is the product of
individual protection factors. OSHA assigned protection factors to all
significant controls and calculated cumulative protection factors for all
affected sectors. Cumulative protection factors were then applied to
baseline exposures in order to determine exposures resulting from
compliance with the final revised standard. As shown in Column 3 in Table
5 and in Column 5 in Table 6, projected exposures are quite low (some
below the level of detection), commensurate with the high degree 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 6
present OSHA's estimated annual benefits to employees affected by the
revised standard. Quantified benefits represent the total of avoided cases
of death from lung cancers, mesothelioma, and gastrointestinal cancers. In
general industry and shipyards, OSHA projects that wider use of
engineering controls, work practices and respiratory protection will
result in 2.1 avoided cancer deaths. In construction, expected benefits
total 40.5 avoided cancers. Of these total avoided deaths resulting from
compliance with the revised construction standard, 26.3 deaths will be
avoided through protection of personnel directly exposed to
asbestos-containing material. However, OSHA's analysis does not quantify
benefits among those workers that may be secondarily exposed while present
at sites where asbestos work is being done. Among workers secondarily
exposed are construction tradespersons--for example, plumbers,
electricians, and ceiling tile installers--whose activities can be
complementary to, or immediately succeed, asbestos work. Since OSHA's
revised asbestos standard will reduce ambient asbestos levels at these
sites, any exposure among these workers would also be reduced.
In custodial work in industrial buildings and in commercial and
residential buildings, where 13.5 avoided cancers are projected, estimated
baseline average exposures (0.046 f/cc) lie below the revised PEL and are
derived from data in the asbestos exposure literature [Wickman, et al.
1992]. OSHA's estimate of current exposures to custodians and other
building service workers recognizes that these workers may not be
receiving the protection afforded other "construction" workers who
encounter asbestos on a more frequent basis. Service workers may, in fact,
at times be exposed to asbestos at levels exceeding the current PEL and
excursion limit. OSHA believes that employees performing custodial duties
such as cleaning, sweeping, dusting, vacuuming and floor maintenance
presently receive minimal protection from asbestos exposure. This revised
asbestos standard explicitly addresses risks to employees performing
custodial tasks; consequently, in this final analysis OSHA examined the
occupational risks and estimated the expected benefits to service workers
in industrial, commercial and residential buildings.
Long-term exposures to building occupants. Data from the asbestos
exposure literature reveal that ambient outdoor exposures to asbestos are
quite low, averaging roughly 0.00007 f/cc. Regarding indoor exposures, the
Health Effects Institute--Asbestos Research reports that for 1,377 air
samples from 198 different buildings with asbestos- containing materials
(ACM), mean exposures were on the order of 0.00027 f/cc, with 90th and
95th percentiles of 0.0007 f/cc and 0.0014 f/cc [HEI-AR, 1991].
The HEI-AR report indicates that improper handling of asbestos fibers
can contribute significantly to higher exposure levels to building
occupants, even after completion of all asbestos removal jobs at a
building. Of 18 building projects where interior perimeter samples were
taken, asbestos levels increased in 12 buildings after abatement. The
higher exposures were attributed to leakages in glove bags and improper
work practices. While the effect of these removal efforts on exposures
varied widely, some exposures increased by a factor of 750 [HEI-AR, 1991,
p. 5-30]. In at least one case, a building with previously non-detectable
asbestos levels later was found to have detectable levels of airborne
asbestos.
OSHA believes that the controls mandated by the standard--such as
negative pressure enclosures, wet methods, critical barriers, and HEPA
vacuums, to name a few of the more protective controls--not only should
help lower exposures to employees working in and around them, but should
also be nearly 100 percent effective in preventing migration of stray
asbestos. Controls required by the revised standard are therefore expected
to enhance protection of service workers and building occupants. While any
building owner can choose to have ACM removed from a property, owners of
buildings with higher concentrations of asbestos, and therefore greater
exposure potential for building employees and occupants, are relatively
more likely to opt for removal.
Low-level asbestos concentrations can become elevated and remain
elevated for long periods of time, as residual asbestos is disturbed.
Recent long-term data suggest that after a year's time, exposure levels
cease to fall and may actually rise [Wall Street Journal, 1993]. If new
asbestos fibers are continually introduced to the general building
environment, background asbestos 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 and custodial projects occur annually in 648,000 commercial and residential
buildings in which friable asbestos may be disturbed [OSHA, 1994].
Buildings containing friable asbestos constitute less than 20 percent of
all buildings with asbestos-containing materials and are believed to have
the highest exposure levels. Applying data from the Energy department and
Census bureau, OSHA estimates that an average of 18 employees per building are at risk annually from stray asbestos exposures in commercial buildings with friable asbestos, 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 from HEI- AR on the distribution of asbestos exposures in
public buildings, that higher-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 mean background asbestos exposures to levels (0.00035 f/cc) projected by OSHA for custodial workers. Applying these exposure levels to the asbestos risk model, OSHA estimated that 14.2 cancers would be prevented annually among building occupants. It should be noted that this estimate is based solely on exposures to employees working in
commercial and residential buildings and does not include exposures to
residents and other non-employees, such as students, who may also be
exposed while in these buildings.
Other Health Benefits
Asbestosis. Applying pre- and post-regulation exposures to the
asbestosis risk model detailed in the 1986 RIA, OSHA estimates that
compliance with the revised final rule will prevent approximately 14 cases
of disabling asbestosis annually, among workers directly exposed to
asbestos in general industry, shipyards, and construction. In addition,
non-quantified benefits of avoided cases of asbestosis are anticipated for
building occupants and others secondarily exposed. As these cases
represent disabilities and not deaths, they are not included in the total
estimated benefits. Asbestosis cases often lead to tremendous societal
costs in terms of health care, worker productivity, and in the quality of
life to the affected individual. Their prevention, therefore, would have a
positive economic effect.
Reduction of solvent exposures. Presently, approximately 25 percent of
auto service establishments rely upon solvent sprays to control asbestos
exposure. The most commonly used solvent has been 1-1-1 trichloroethane, a
neurotoxin. OSHA attempted to establish a short-term exposure limit for
this substance in the 1989 Air Contaminants rulemaking [54 FR 2333], but
that rulemaking was stayed by the courts for technical reasons. The
revision to the final asbestos rule, by discouraging the use of solvent
spray as a control method, will prevent peak trichloroethane exposures to
over 150,000 workers. Moreover, 1-1-1 trichloroethane, a
chlorofluorocarbon, has been linked with depletion of the ozone layer,
thereby possibly contributing to development of skin cancers. Partly as a
result of this, some automotive service establishments have switched to a
spray based on perchloroethylene, a flammable carcinogen. OSHA believes
that as these establishments select control technologies that are feasible
alternatives to solvent spray, there will be reduced risks of cancer and
fires (from rags contaminated with solvent) as a consequence of the
revision to the standard.
Economic Benefits
Building reoccupation. Significant economic benefits may be derived from
lowering asbestos exposures to long-term building occupants. The more
rapidly that building owners, whether private or public, can put their
asbestos-contaminated building areas back into use, the sooner they can
derive explicit or implicit "rental" value. For example, the HEI-AR report
discusses an asbestos abatement job at a college building with
pre-abatement exposure levels of 0.0002 f/cc [HEI-AR, 1991, p. 5- 37].
Shortly after abatement, exposure levels of 0.065 f/cc were measured.
After 26 weeks, exposure levels were measured at 0.0008 f/cc. Reoccupation
occurred after 35 weeks, when exposures had decreased to 0.0004 f/cc. In
this example, the building was not deemed usable for eight months, until
exposures began to approach pre-abatement levels.
EPA's asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) require that asbestos be lowered to specified levels (although
not as low as pre-abatement levels) before certain buildings can be
reoccupied. These requirements have been built into many asbestos
abatement contracts for liability reasons. OSHA calculated, as a
hypothetical example, that if reoccupation of portions of 5,000 office
buildings, with an annual rental value of $100,000 each, were delayed for
6 months in order for asbestos levels to settle, there would be a
deadweight economic loss of $250 million to building owners and society.
Asbestos liability savings. As discussed in the section on REGULATORY
AND NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES, asbestos liability has become a major area of tort litigation. Roughly $8 billion has been spent on asbestos
litigation in the last decade [Wall Street Journal, 1992; OSHA, 1986]. The
dollar amount of awards has exploded in the last decade. Industry
observers forecast that up to $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,
or at least reduce, the probability of future lawsuits. Although the
likelihood of future lawsuits is uncertain, building owners presumably
calculate that the "expected" cost of such lawsuits would run over $4
billion a year, on average (using the 20-year forecast given above). If an
individual building owner spends $50,000 to remove the asbestos from a
building to avert potential future lawsuits, the owner may be implicitly
calculating that such an expenditure will effectively eliminate a 5
percent chance that the owner will have to pay out over $1 million in a
lawsuit.
Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that such attempts to reduce the
probability of lawsuits, in the absence of proper protections, may be in
vain. As discussed elsewhere in this BENEFITS section, recent evidence
suggests 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 choice would be to encapsulate existing asbestos, the path
of minimizing liability is driving many building owners to actually remove
the asbestos. It appears that successful avoidance of liability is
guaranteed only by taking all feasible measures to minimize exposures to
occupants during removal. Thus, spending an additional $5,000 for worker
health to complete a $50,000 removal operation could ultimately prevent a
$1 million lawsuit.
This analysis suggests, then, that the asbestos standard's requirements
for engineering controls and work practices, including the use of negative
pressure enclosures and other isolation efforts, if successful in averting
lawsuits, would have a market value of upwards of $4 billion a year (the
minimum value of averting lawsuits). Note that there need not actually be
over $4 billion a year in lawsuits; the market behavior of owners willing
to pay for asbestos abatement simply reflects the market value to those
owners of minimizing the likelihood of lawsuits, in effect acting as a
type of insurance policy. Moreover, as discussed above, it is not
necessary that such efforts be 100 percent successful in preventing
lawsuits--the estimated effectiveness in reducing the probability or value
of potential lawsuits possesses considerable value. Additionally, it is
not necessary that such controls dramatically reduce exposures to building
occupants, although OSHA's analysis indicates that they will, as long as
it is established that all feasible measures were taken to minimize
asbestos exposures to building occupants so that owner negligence cannot
be the grounds of a lawsuit. If instituting the asbestos controls mandated
by the OSHA standard were only marginally effective in reducing the
probability of lawsuits, say by 10 percent, the use of these preventative
measures would still possess a value of over $400 million.
Finally, asbestos removal efforts reflect concern over liability claims
from building occupants, and perhaps custodians and maintenance personnel.
It does not include the value of prevented claims from workers who must
remove the asbestos. The revised asbestos standard eliminates significant
risk to the extent feasible, as defined by law, and thereby minimizes
secondary liability created by attempts to minimize primary liability.
E. Technological Feasibility and Compliance Costs
This section examines the technological feasibility and estimated costs
of compliance 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
achieve a PEL of 0.2 f/cc in each of the affected sectors in general
industry. OSHA determined that compliance with the 0.2 f/cc PEL was
feasible through the use of wet methods, engineering controls, and
housekeeping practices. In addition, for the following operations
compliance with the PEL of 0.2 f/cc was generally not achievable without
the use of respirators: the dry mechanical process in A/C pipe
manufacturing and the dry mechanical, wet mechanical, and nuclear ripout
processes in ship repair. Compliance with the 1.0 f/cc excursion limit
promulgated in the 1988 rulemaking was also expected to lead to occasional
respirator use in high-exposure activities throughout primary and
secondary manufacturing [OSHA, 1988].
For the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc, some manufacturing operations will need
to supplement engineering controls and work practices with respiratory
protection. In all, 2,345 workers (or less than 1 percent of the 682,685
workers exposed in all affected industry sectors) in general industry are
expected to need respirators at least part of the workday in order to
maintain exposures below the revised PEL. Since all affected employers in
general industry will be able to comply with the proposed PEL through the
use of engineering controls or, where necessary, respirators, OSHA
concludes that the proposed PEL is technologically feasible.
In addition to respirators, ancillary controls will also be needed in
affected 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
are currently in extensive use throughout industry and are therefore
technologically feasible.
Paragraph (k)(7) Care of asbestos-containing flooring material,
prohibits for the first time, sanding and high-speed (greater than 300
RPM) stripping of floor material. This new housekeeping paragraph also
requires that burnishing and dry buffing of asbestos-containing flooring
be performed only when a finish on the flooring is sufficient to prevent
contact with ACM. Evidence from the record indicates that many building
maintenance personnel are 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 certain
engineering controls and work practices for brake and clutch repair and
services. These requirements include the mandatory use of a negative
pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum method, a low pressure/wet cleaning method, or an alternate method capable of reducing exposure levels to or below levels achieved by the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method. Brake shops
performing fewer than 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 National Automobile Dealers Association, both
the enclosure/HEPA vacuum method and the low pressure/wet cleaning method are currently in use throughout the automotive brake and clutch repair
industry (Ex. 7-104); therefore, the revised control requirements for
brake and clutch repair are judged by OSHA to be technological feasible.
Construction. The evaluation of technological feasibility in
construction focused on the various combinations of engineering controls,
work practices, and respiratory protection necessary to reduce current
exposures to achieve compliance with the final PEL of 0.1 f/cc. In
addition, OSHA examined a number of engineering controls, work practices,
and ancillary requirements which will directly and indirectly contribute
to reducing employee exposures. Exposures to asbestos in the construction
industry were classified into six activity categories:
* New construction--including the installation of asbestos/cement
(A/C) pipe and sheet. New construction falls under Class III asbestos work
as defined in the revised asbestos standard.
* Asbestos abatement--including both asbestos removal and
encapsulation with a polymeric coating, or enclosure. Asbestos abatement
falls under asbestos work Classes I and III as defined in the revised
standard.
* Demolition--involving asbestos removal prior to the demolition of
all or part of a building or industrial facility that contains asbestos
materials. Demolition falls under asbestos work Class I as defined in the
revised standard.
* General building renovation and remodeling--including drywall
demolition involving the removal of pipe and boiler insulation,
fireproofing, drywall tape and spackling, acoustical plasters, transite
panels, built-up roofing and flooring products. Renovation and remodeling
generally involve contact with generic building materials and would
therefore fall under asbestos work Class II as defined in the revised
standard.
* Routine facility maintenance in commercial/residential buildings and
in general industry--including maintenance and repair activities involving
disturbance of asbestos materials and products (for example, repair of
leaking steam pipes, ceiling tiles, roofing, drywall, or flooring; or
adjustment of HVAC equipment above suspended ceilings). Routine
maintenance falls under Class III asbestos work as defined in the revised
standard when asbestos- containing materials (ACM) are disturbed during
the maintenance activity; and under Class IV asbestos work as defined in
the revised standard when maintenance involves minor, incidental contact
with ACM.
* Custodial Work--including sweeping, dusting and other housekeeping
duties that occasionally expose building maintenance and custodial
personnel to asbestos. Custodial work falls under Class IV asbestos work
as defined in the revised standard.
To support the regulatory impact analysis for the 1986 asbestos
standard, CONSAD derived baseline exposure levels for each construction
activity from a database that included personal and area air samples, OSHA
inspection reports, expert testimony, and various published reports
[CONSAD, 1990]. The technological feasibility assessments for this final
revised standard were influenced by expected exposure reduction following
the promulgation of the 1986 asbestos standard, and by a review of the
literature, including submittals to the OSHA docket (H-033e).
OSHA determined in 1986 that, for a variety of construction activities,
it was feasible to reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc through the use of
available engineering controls and work practices (i.e., without the need
for respiratory 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
order to reach the current PEL of 0.2 f/cc. OSHA assumed that employers
would choose the most cost-effective approach and supply their workers
with half-mask supplied-air respirators (or full- facepiece supplied-air
respirators for asbestos removal projects) in order to eliminate the need
for exposure monitoring [OSHA, 1986]. Thus, in the 1986 RIA, OSHA assumed that workers in many higher-risk construction activities would be provided supplied-air respirators.
OSHA now believes that the prior analytical assumption of widespread use
of supplied-air respirators may not be consistent with field experience.
OSHA believes that supplied-air respirators are used in many construction
activities--particularly removal and demolition, where exposures tend to
be highest. For other construction activities where peak exposures are
generally lower and episodic, many abatement and maintenance personnel
appear to be complying with the current standard using a combination of
engineering controls, work practices and lighter respirators.
Construction employers also appear to meet the requirements for daily
monitoring (1926.58(f)(3) in the current standard) by compiling historical
exposure data documenting compliance with the current OSHA PEL during
representative projects. OSHA anticipates that some construction employers
will meet the requirements of revised Paragraph (f) Exposure assessments
and monitoring, through the use of selective initial monitoring to
establish an historical exposure data record, which can form the basis for
achieving all necessary requirements of the standard. Where exposures may
exceed levels documented by objective data, additional respiratory
protection may be necessary, and is judged by OSHA to be technologically
feasible based on field experience and information in the rulemaking
record [Corn, 1992; HEI-AR, 1992].
As in the standard for general industry, OSHA is proposing the
prohibition of high-speed sanding and the use of highly abrasive pads
during asbestos floor tile work. In CONSAD's 1985 study [CONSAD 1985] and in OSHA's 1986 RIA [OSHA, 1986], exposures during floor tile installation,
removal, and sanding were reported to be generally below 0.2 f/cc when the
recommendations of the Resilient Floor Covering Institute were followed.
These recommended practices included wet sweeping and handling, and the
prohibition of power sanding and blowing asbestos dust. OSHA estimated
current exposures in floor repair at 0.024 f/cc under the assumption that
the Institute's recommended practices have been adopted by a majority of
establishments. Therefore, the prohibition of high-speed sanding in the
current proposal is not expected to significantly affect floor repair.
With the final PEL of 0.1 f/cc, additional respiratory protection may be
necessary. Specifically, some projects involving A/C pipe installation,
A/C sheet installation, floor removal, floor repair, large-scale gasket
removal, pipe repair, and custodial work in industrial, commercial and
residential buildings would require the use of half-mask respirators to
meet the revised PEL. In addition, drywall demolition projects may need to
upgrade their respiratory protection to full-facepiece negative-pressure
respirators to meet the lower permissible exposure limit.
Assessing current respirator usage and predicted demand under the
revised standard, OSHA concludes that nearly all construction activities
will require respiratory protection during at least part of the
project-day in order to comply with the 0.1 f/cc PEL. Based on the
lower-bound exposure estimates provided in the literature and reported in
CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990, 1985], it appears that a variety of routine
maintenance activities and some abatement jobs 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 in small-scale gasket removal and
installation will respiratory protection not be necessary for most
project-days.
The other incremental controls necessary to comply with OSHA's final
asbestos 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, OSHA
observes that many construction employers currently apply these controls
in varied combinations and at varied levels of utilization. OSHA estimated
that for construction employers, rates of current compliance range from
roughly 20 percent to 80 percent, depending on the control requirement and
construction activity. Therefore, OSHA believes all controls are
technologically feasible for the appropriate construction activities. In
conclusion, therefore, OSHA projects that the final revisions to the
asbestos construction standard will be technologically feasible because
all of the provisions, including the lowered PEL, can be met using
existing engineering controls, respiratory protection and work practices.
Shipyards. Historically, exposure to asbestos in shipyards took place
during shipbuilding and ship repair. At present, the majority of asbestos
activity aboard maritime vessels involves repair and maintenance of
machinery and plumbing with asbestos insulation. In this final rulemaking,
the revised asbestos standard for shipyards, Sec. 1915.1001, applies most
of the requirements given in the revised asbestos construction standard.
For the two main shipyard activities affected by the revised asbestos
standard--wet removal/repair and dry removal/repair--comment in the record
[Ex. 7-77, Ex. 7-85] suggests that employers are able to achieve the
revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc through the use of engineering controls and, where
necessary, respiratory protection. The OSHA Shipyard Employment Standards Advisory Committee [Ex. 7-77] commented that on many shipyard projects, exposure levels have been reduced to levels considerably below the revised PEL. Moreover, to a large extent employers appear to be currently applying the ancillary controls and work practices required in the revised
construction standard (and applied to the revised shipyard standard) [Ex.
9-23]. Therefore, on the basis of evidence in the record, OSHA believes
the revised shipyard standard is technologically feasible.
Compliance Costs
OSHA estimated the costs of complying with the final revisions to the
asbestos standard for general industry, construction and shipyards. OSHA's
cost assumptions and methodologies are based upon an OSHA/CONSAD technical
analysis of the final rule [OSHA, 1994]; OSHA's PRIA [OSHA, 1990];
CONSAD's final report supporting the PRIA [1990]; the rulemaking record;
and previous regulatory analyses performed by OSHA [OSHA, 1986], CONSAD
[CONSAD, 1985] and Research Triangle Institute [RTI, 1985].
Cost data for control mechanisms were obtained from published price
lists of equipment suppliers and from other information collected by OSHA
and CONSAD. Wage data were taken from the U.S. Department of Labor's
Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment and Earnings (BLS, 1993a) and
Employment Cost Indexes and Levels (BLS, 1993b). Unit costs are expressed, as appropriate, on a per-establishment, -crew, -project, -worker,
project-day, and worker-day basis, using industry profile data presented
in the OSHA/CONSAD technical analysis [OSHA, 1994] and in CONSAD's prior analyses [CONSAD, 1990, 1985].
To derive estimates of the annual incremental compliance costs for the
revised asbestos standard, the estimated unit cost factors for the
controls were multiplied by the estimated number of required control
resources. In order to develop net annual compliance cost estimates, these
gross annual cost estimates were then adjusted using estimates of current
application of controls. Costs were estimated on an annual basis, with
total annual costs calculated as the sum of annualized initial costs and
annual recurring costs. Initial costs were annualized over the service
life of the equipment or administrative activity, at a discount rate of 10
percent.
The section below presents the estimated costs to general industry,
followed by the costs to construction and to shipyards.
General industry. In developing the annual compliance cost estimates for
general industry, unit cost estimates were first developed for each of the
control practices and ancillary measures required by the revised standard
for each of the industry/process groups affected by the proposed standard.
The annual compliance costs for each affected industry/process group were
then computed by combining the unit cost data with the number of units of
each type of control practice needed per year to achieve compliance with
OSHA's proposed standard. Compliance costs were also adjusted to reflect
current compliance with the required control practices.
Manufacturing. The industry/process groups in manufacturing with
exposures above the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc will require the
implementation of a set of uniform control practices, including written
compliance programs, regulated areas, respirators (including the
respirator unit, accessories, fit testing and cleaning), disposable
protective clothing and gloves, change rooms and lockers, shower rooms,
and lunch rooms. Other controls, while necessary for compliance with the
revised standard, are also required by the current asbestos standard and,
thus, will not create an incremental burden. Controls assumed by OSHA to
be currently in place include periodic monitoring; prescribed methods of
compliance; employee information and training; medical surveillance; and
recordkeeping.
The revised asbestos standard for general industry imposes new
communication requirements for building and facility owners. In
particular, under Paragraph (j)(2)(ii), owners are required to maintain
records of information concerning the presence, location and quantity of
asbestos-containing material (ACM) and presumed asbestos-containing
material (PACM). Under Paragraph (j)(2)(iii), owners of buildings and
facilities are required to inform employers of employees who perform
housekeeping activities in the presence of ACM or PACM of the presence and
location of the ACM or PACM in the area. In this regulatory analysis OSHA
treats housekeeping and custodial activities in general industry as
construction activities. OSHA's estimated compliance costs for information
requirements pertaining to housekeeping/custodial activities are discussed
below in the section on compliance costs for the revised construction
standard.
Brake and clutch repair. As in the existing OSHA asbestos standard for
general industry, automotive repair work is regulated in revised Sec.
1910.1001. In Paragraph (f)(3) employers performing six or more brake or
clutch jobs per week are required to use a negative pressure
enclosure/HEPA vacuum method, a low pressure/wet cleaning method, or an
alternate method proven to achieve results equivalent to those for the
enclosure/HEPA vacuum method. OSHA assessed the extent to which control
practices are being applied during brake and clutch repair in the
automotive services industry and identified the additional resources
needed to reach full compliance with the revised standard.
Based on OSHA's and CONSAD's assessment of current industry practice,
OSHA believes that only a small fraction of auto repair shops perform
fewer than six brake or clutch inspections per week [OSHA, 1994]. Thus,
OSHA anticipates that few shops will qualify for the exemption from
engineering controls mandated in revised Appendix F. OSHA and CONSAD
[OSHA, 1994] estimate that 65 percent of brake shops currently use wet
methods and solvent spray systems during brake and clutch work. Under the
revised standard, these shops would have 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 in
compliance with the revised rule, will adopt the low pressure/ wet
cleaning method as the least expensive option permitted in the revised
standard. OSHA estimates that incremental expenditures for equipment,
supplies and labor time will total $11.2 million per year.
Comment in the record [Ex. L162-61] points to the potential for
substantial cost offsets from use of the low pressure/wet cleaning method.
These cost offsets include the reduced need for solvent; reductions in
costs associated with housekeeping and with laundering and disposal of
contaminated rags and other articles; and improved operating efficiencies.
Because of potential cost savings, use of the low pressure/wet cleaning
method has grown in recent years. Moreover, concern over the effect of
1-1-1 trichloroethane on the ozone layer has led to a phase-out of the
solvent, forcing brake shops to discontinue use of the solvent spray
method. Of concern to occupational health specialists is the regular use
of solvents among a workforce with minimal protection from exposures. In
sum, OSHA believes that cost offsets and environmental and health concerns
combine to mitigate the direct costs facing brake shops who must switch to
alternative asbestos control systems.
Current work practices. In addition to work practices in automotive
services that meet the revised standard, certain work practices that were
required by OSHA's previous standard with a PEL of 2.0 f/cc, and are
required by the current standard, as well as by the proposed revisions to
the current standard (e.g. wet handling and the collection, disposal, and
labeling of wastes in sealed, impermeable bags), are also not identified
as additional costs. OSHA believes that wet methods (to the extent that
they are feasible), and the use of HEPA vacuums for housekeeping in
primary and secondary manufacturing, are already widely in use.
Total costs for general industry. To derive estimates of the annual
incremental compliance costs for the industry/process groups affected by
the revised general industry standard, the estimated unit cost factors
were first multiplied by estimates of the resources necessary to achieve
compliance for that industry/process group. These gross annual cost
estimates were then adjusted to account for current compliance rates which
were first projected in the 1986 RIA [OSHA, 1986] and were modified as a
result of compliance with the excursion limit rule in 1988 [OSHA, 1988]
and evidence from the rulemaking record.
For each of the manufacturing processes in the affected industries,
CONSAD estimated the number of plants with exposures above the revised PEL of 0.1 f/cc (the number of plants needing controls), the number of
processes to be controlled, the number of work stations to be controlled,
the number of workers directly exposed, worker-days of exposure per year,
and the direct worker-hours of exposure per year. These estimates are
based on: the number of establishments in each industry sector, determined
by CONSAD from information presented in EPA's ban and phase-out rule [ICF, 1988], and from contacts with industry experts; the percentage of
processes within plants with exposures above the proposed PEL of 0.1 f/cc
and requiring controls; and finally, characteristics concerning the number
of processes per plant, work stations per process, workers per work
station, and the frequency and duration of each process in these affected
industries. The resource estimates used 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], OSHA estimates that annual costs of compliance in general industry will total
$14.8 million. Table 7 presents compliance costs by control practice, for
each industry process, for the industry sector as a whole, and for all of
general industry. Examining compliance costs by sector, it can be seen
that the largest compliance expenditures will be in auto repair ($11.2
million), followed by friction materials ($2.2 million) and coatings and
sealants ($1.2 million).
(For Table 7, see paper copy)
Comparing costs per provision along the bottom row of the table,
incremental costs for engineering controls in auto repair represent the
leading expenditure. Other controls bearing significant costs are half-
mask respirators ($1.4 million), disposable protective clothing and gloves
($1.1 million), change rooms and lockers ($563 thousand), and shower rooms
($418 thousand).
For secondary manufacture of gaskets and packings and secondary auto
remanufacturing, where exposures currently are below the revised PEL, OSHA
anticipates little or no incremental costs. Therefore, impacts on
establishments in these industry groups will be insignificant.
Construction. Within the construction industry, 24 unique activities
will come under the scope of the proposed revision. These construction
activities are found in new construction, asbestos abatement and building
demolition, general building renovation and remodeling, and routine
facility maintenance and custodial work in public, commercial, and
residential buildings and in general industry. Although the construction
activities under consideration in this study will require the
implementation of different control practices and/or combinations of these
practices, the basic characteristics of available control practices are
relatively uniform, and the options for combining control practices in the
construction industry and during routine maintenance 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
asbestos standards (e.g., wet handling and the collection and disposal of
waste in sealed, impermeable bags) are not included as cost elements.
For each major provision of the revised construction standard, below,
OSHA presents cost estimates by type of engineering or administrative
control, work practice or personal protective equipment, where
appropriate.
(c) Permissible exposure limits. The revised asbestos construction
standard lowers the permissible exposure limit from 0.2 fiber per cubic
centimeter to 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as an eight-hour
time-weighted average. The revised standard retains the current excursion
limit of 1.0 fiber per cubic centimeter of air as averaged over a sampling
period of thirty minutes.
After reviewing both (1) the literature on risk to asbestos in the
construction industry and (2) the earlier OSHA rulemaking record (Docket
H-033c), CONSAD [CONSAD, 1990, Table 2.8] reported representative exposure
levels by construction activity that formed the basis of OSHA's risk
estimates in the PRIA. CONSAD presented the range of exposure levels in
the absence of respiratory protection for each construction activity. From
the raw exposure data, OSHA [1986, 1990] developed arithmetic mean
estimates, against which the proposed PELs w