Opinion ID: 163787
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Class II Asbestos Work

Text: 12 Tierdael first contends that the company did not engage in Class II asbestos removal work within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1101. To determine whether the OSHA Asbestos Standard is applicable, this court must first determine whether the regulation is clear or ambiguous. See Walker Stone Co., Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 156 F.3d 1076, 1080 (10th Cir.1998). When the meaning of a regulatory provision is clear on its face, the regulation must be enforced in accordance with its plain meaning. Id. If the regulation is ambiguous, this court must give substantial deference to the agency's interpretation of the regulation. Id. 13 Tierdael argues that the OSHA Asbestos Standard is unambiguous and that the plain language of the regulation does not encompass its October 30, 2000 pipe removal activity. Section 1926.1101 regulates asbestos exposure in all construction, alteration, and/or repair work. 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1101(a); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1910.12(b). The OSHA Asbestos Standard establishes four classifications for asbestos work, ranging from high risk Class I to low risk Class IV. 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1101(b). Class II asbestos work is defined as activity involving the removal of [asbestos-containing material] which is not thermal system insulation or surfacing material. Id. Removal is further defined as all operations where [asbestos-containing material] is taken out or stripped from structures or substrates, and includes demolition operations. Id. 14 Tierdael argues that its excavation work was not Class II asbestos work because the asbestos-containing pipe was not taken out or stripped from a structure or substrate since the removal took place from an excavated pipeline, not a building. On its face, the OSHA Asbestos Standard's definition of removal applies to Tierdael's activity on October 30, 2000. The plain and natural meaning of structure is [s]omething made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.2000). Tierdael removed a section of pipe which was part of a larger water pipeline system. This pipeline system is made up of a number of smaller sections of pipe. Accordingly, the overall pipeline system is a structure. Because the plain and natural meaning of structure 1 covers an underground pipeline, Tierdael's activity falls within the definition of Class II asbestos work. 2 Therefore, the ALJ's decision which upheld OSHA's interpretation was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 3 15 Even if the OSHA Asbestos Standard was ambiguous, this court gives substantial deference to OSHA's reasonable interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1101. Interstate Erectors, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 74 F.3d 223, 226 (10th Cir.1996). When the meaning of regulatory language is ambiguous, OSHA's interpretation will be given effect so long as it is reasonable in that it sensibly conforms to the purpose and wording of the regulations. Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 150-51, 111 S.Ct. 1171, 113 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991) (quotation omitted). 16 Tierdael challenges OSHA's definition of removal as inconsistent with the OSHA Asbestos Standard and its preamble, the history of asbestos remediation in buildings and structures, and parallel Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. However, OSHA's interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which is to assure so far as possible ... safe and healthful working conditions for every working man and woman in the Nation. Id. (quotation omitted). Tierdael's Asbestos Action Plan recognized the health risk associated with asbestos. This court simply cannot agree with Tierdael's suggestion, as presented by their expert, that the activity of breaking and removing the pipe even one inch outside of a building would not require compliance with the OSHA Asbestos Standard simply because the activity would not be Class II work, because the hazards of dealing with and handling asbestos-containing matter would still be present. OSHA's interpretation that removal of pipe from structures that are not buildings constitutes Class II work promotes safe and healthy working conditions for employees subject to potential asbestos exposure. Furthermore, OSHA's interpretation is consistent with the language of the regulation. Therefore, the Commission's conclusion was not unreasonable or against the purpose of the OSHA Asbestos Standard. By concluding that Tierdael's removal of the pipe constituted Class II asbestos work, neither the Commission nor the ALJ abused its discretion, acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or failed to act in accordance with the law.