Document 0qjamk7VnXo6BR21Q7kKY8gMO

FILE NAME: Rogers Corporation (ROG) DATE: 1977 Aug 3 DOC#: ROG043 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo RE National Bureau of Standards Asbestos Workshop - A Synopsis August 3, 197? S U B JE C T : National B ureau of Standards A sb esto s W orkshop - A Synopsis PROM: R T l.ee TO: N L G HHB R G B R E S H E B C A B E J J WA11 COM E H am e r M K upsaw JB O tfo ijCW&hLers R E S a n d e rs 1* B ack g ro u n d * On Ju ly 18, 19, and 20, I atten ded the ab o v e m entioned w ork sh op jo in tly sp o n so red by the N ational B u rea u of Stan d ard s and the O ccupational Safety and H ealth A dm in istration . T his m em o w ill offer a b rie f outline and su m m a ry of the salie n t topics d isc u sse d . U. Sum m ary. C o n sid e ra b le debate d evelop ed on d efin in g not only w hat is a s b e s to s * but on w hat c o n stitu te s a f i b e r . P r e s e n t o p tic a l m ic r o s c o p y u sin g the OSHA c rite r ia for m easu rin g " fib e r s " between 5 ~ 100^<m in length, with a length to width a sp e c t ra tio of 3:1, cannot delen iate a sb e sto s from asb e stifo rm m in e r a ls . C on sequ en tly, if other m a te r ia l i s p r e s e n t in the sam p le being te ste d , b e sid e s a s b e s t o s , it probably w ill be counted a s a s b e s to s . The U.S.- G eo lo g ical Su rv ey , Mine .S a fe ty A d m in istra tio n , and A S T M E -3 3 C om m ittee stro n g ly recom m en d ed changing the a s p e c t r a tio fro m 3:1 to 5:1 or 10:1. T h is move w as supported by sign ifican t m edical opinion, One point s t r e s s e d re p e a te d ly throughout the s e s s io n by the m e d ical r e s e a r c h e r s w as that no threshold lim it pertain in g to defining a no can cer threat was estab lish ed * How ever, se v e ra l re se a r c h e rs presented convincing d a ta that sh ow s " f i b e r s rT 0 .2 5 / t m (d ia m e te r) x > 8 ^ m (length) yielded s e v e r a l o r d e r s of m agn itu d e m ore c a n c e r s than th ose ap p ro ach in g the 3:1 a s p e c t r a tio of the " f e d e r a l f i b e r " d e fin itio n . It w as estab lish ed that the m edical con sen su s w as that carcin ogentic e ffe c ts upon hum ans w as n ot lim ited to a s b e s t o s , but probably is caused by any m aterial which is capable of becom ing fib ro u s (either naturally or o th e rw ise ), m e e ts the above c r u c ia l a s p e c t r a tio , and is highly r e s is ta n t to chem ical breakdown. M uch heated d is c u s s io n ce n te re d on the re le v a n c e of an im al im p lace m ent tests (Ames T e sts) v e rsu s anim al inhalation tests. A lm ost exclusively the im placem en t te sts show no threshold lim it fo r non-developm ent of can c e rs* w hereas inhalation te sts show very little actual carcinogentic development. A sim ila r situ ation e x ists relativ e to tob acco c arcin o g e n sity accordin g to M , Sch n eid exm an of the N atio n al C an c e r In stitu te , He state d that a n im a ls with su rg ic a lly Unplaced ta r s and nicotine develop high p ercen tages of lung Rogers-Gough 00361 NB5 - A sbestos Workshop Page 2 August 3* 197? c a n c e rs; w hereas to his know ledge, nobody w orldw ide* has conclusively shown that an im al inhalation of ta r s and nicotine has over caused a single incidence o f lung c a n c e r * {T h is sta te m e n t h as been r e c o r d e d 0x1 tape fo r p o s t e r i t y .) - S o ,it would ap p ear there is con sid erable d iv e rse opinion concerning the human e x p o su re relatio n s hip. with the an im al im p la cem ent te sts* OS HA d isc u sse d th eir cu rren t regu lation s and did state that the e x istin g 2. 0 fibers/cc, 8hour TX^V sta n d a rd w ould be lo w e re d ' ` sh ortly * no ta r g e t le v e l w as in d ic ate d , the OSHA r e p r e s e n ta tiv e (M r. W illard D ixon) did s ta te he doubted that they would in c o rp o ra te N IO SH 's 0 *1 f i b e r s / c c r e c o m m endation* Although M r , He Kir of the C o n su m e r P ro d u c ts S a fe ty C o m m issio n p re se n te d a d is c u s s io n on th eir m e c h a n ism fo r ev a lu a tin g c o n su m e r p ro d u ct sa fte y . B a sic a lly , their approach concerns degree of distribution of product con taining toxic m ate rial, epid em iological risk a s s e s s m e n t stu d ies, and a v a ila b ility of a lte rn a tiv e p ro d u c ts without tox ic m a t e r i a ls * Although the p o ten tial f o r a s b e s t o s , in th* s c a s e * to becom e a ir b o r n e is con sid ered if it is high* it i s ign ored if it is low * The r e c e n t bannin g of two a s b e s to s c o n taining p rod u cts o ffe rs e x am p le s of the above im p lied contradiction. A r t if ic ia l fir e p la c e a s h , fr e e fo rm a s b e s t o s , w a s banned b e c au se the . p o te n tial to becom e a irb o rn e w as high and the p ro d u c t fille d no c r it ic a l requirem ent, A s b e s t o s con tain in g patch in g com pounds w e re banned not b e c au se of the p o ten tial to becom e a irb o rn e (which w as low even in ap p licatio n , zero in u se , and m o d e ra te in d em o litio n ), but s o le ly b e c a u se s u b s titu te s not containing asb estos were available. T he im p li catio n s fo r the fu tu re in th is a re n a a r e foreb od in g* C o n sid e rab le d isc u ssio n centered on the a n a ly tic a l techniques, of detecting a sb e sto s* m easurin g p article siz e s and determ ining ph ysical/ch em ical p ro p e rtie s. F in a lly * a p resen tatio n w as m ade by I*. B ru ck m an of the Connecticut D e p a rtm e n t of E n v iro n m e n ta l P ro te c tio n p e rta in in g to th eir stu d ie s on developing a state-w ide am bient a sb e sto s level of 30 n an ogram s per cubic m e te r o f a i r . D u rin g the c o u r s e o f this d is c u s s io n , re fe r e n c e w as m ade to our MMD operation s (without m entioning us b y n a m e ) and som e com plim ents were paid to o u r en g in e e rin g e ffo r ts to co m p ly with e x is t in g re g u la tio n s* (T h is* too, h as been im m o r ta liz e d on tap e. ) M o st of the p r e se n ta tio n s w e re taped and a r e a v a ila b le in C o rp o rate E n gin eerin g to those who m ight wish to hear them. P le a se review Section XII of this re p o rt to d e te rm in e q u ality of ta p in g -- s o m e a r e g o o d --o th e rs a r e te rrib le . Rogers-Gough 00362