Document 1m4QVnX5dJbnvyvQJrD93oxZ

IM.A1 STIFF'S EXHIBIT K.W.Nalaon Vico President Environmental Affairs February 6# 1976 cr Docket Officer Docket H-033 U.S. Department of Labor Room N3620 200 Constitution Avenue# NW Washington# DC 20210 ..-- Dear Sir: oo v? frHi CO ~on S *n Cml ca c-es ASARCO Incorporated hereby submits its comments with regard to the October 9, 1975, notice of proposed rulemaking# as set forth in the Federal Register# Volume 40, No. 197, and requests an informal hearing on this proposed revision to the asbestos standard. Very truly yours, :7 n o pi c KWN/jak enclosure (submitted in quadruplicate) V jS: > ASARCO Incoroorated 120 Broadway Newark. N.Y 10005 (2l2)73?-<wsn * O 4. rnnry cr n nnnn749 Comments of ASARCO Incorporated on the OSHA Proposed Asbestos Standard as contained in the Federal Register Vol. 40, No. 197 (October 9, 1975) ASARCO Incorporated, hereafter also termed the Company, is a large' non-ferrous metals producer and operates two asbestos'cement plants, among others.. Both plants produce asbestos-cement pipe which is used in a variety.of commercial and industrial applications. These plants are new and modern (one constructed - in 1967 and one in 1971). incorporating high-velocity local ventilation with baghouse controls. The Company welcomes this opportunity to submit the following comments on the OSHA proposed asbestos standard: Paragraph (b)(1) '. . ` \` '* The' definition of "asbestos," although technically correct, unnecessarily includes tremol'ite, anthophyllite, and actinolite . as regulated substances. The medical data (to date) do not `support the' inclusion of the. above. . Paragraph (c) (1) ** , ** ** The 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 0.5 fibers .per cubic centimeter is too stringent. The "0.5" figure.appears to'have no basis in fact. Asarco believes that evidence is needed to justify changing the existing 2 fiber/cc standard. ' Simply to- lower number standards without evidence of need and ASARCO ELP 0000750 2- thercby to cause great unnecessary, expense to industry without discernible benefit creates waste of dollars and energy that could be more productively used. Paragraph <d) The "work area where a person may be' exposed, to airborne concentrations of asbestos fiber..." (emphasis added) is much too general and vague. As an illustration, employees at some Asarco metal smelters repair brake linings, or make bonded asbestos gaskets, or use asbestos rope caulking on an irregular basis for short periods of time (1-15 minutes). Exposure samples show very low concentrations of asbestos. /See Table 1/ Designation of these areas as "regulated areas" and maintenance . of a roster borders on the ridiculous. 'Asarco suggests that the language be changed to /'work area where asbestos is regularly and routinely handled and airborne concentrations of asbestos fiber exceed, the standard." Paragraph (e) (1) ' ' As in paragraph (d), the need for monitoring "where asbestos fibers may Jpe. released" is too general and vague. The Company ` *i suggests that initial monitoring be required.for industries normally and/or routinely using asbestos, or where a qualified . industrial hygienist could reasonably expect the two limits prescribed in paragraph (c)' to be exceeded. ; ASARCO ELP 0000751 i. -3- '^-zJ Paragraph (e) (2) (i) and (ii) Monthly sampling i-s much too frequent and burdensome. Asarco's two asbestos-cement plants employ about 210 people of which 200 may be exposed above the proposed 0.5 fiber/cc standard. For accuate counting and construction of an 8-hour time-weighted average, as many as 5- samples per employee per shift may be needed (as noted in Appendix B, Section IV, .paragraph A of the proposed standard). Therefore, Asarco's two small asbestoscement plants may need to collect .1000 samples per month at an estimated- cost of $50 per sample plus salaries for two additional technicians for a total of $52,000 per month, costs which can positively be termed "unreasonable." , Asarco suggests monitoring every 'three months in areas exceeding the 2 fiber/cc 8-hour time-weighted average (as . previously proposed by Asarco). Annual plant surveys are also suggested. Paragraph (e) (3) * V . . ..... The membrane filter method, using phase contrast illumina tion, is basically inadequate for asbestos sampling. OSHA should recognize this and make some provision in this paragraph for alternative and improved methods. Asarco notes that the proposed -'asbestos standard is the only new standard that does not contain 'a paragraph on the "Accuracy of Measurement" (which usually . requires an accuracy to a confidence level of 95%). To illustrate ASARCO ELP 0000752 I4 the inadequacies of the membrane filter method, OSHA should examine the results of the NIOSH PAT.program, an interlaboratory testing program which gives out known samples to a number of .laboratories. Asarco's Department of Environmental Sciences Laboratory participates in this program. Data supplied from PAT (consisting of.histograms or asbestos.fiber counts) show that a 'given count of fibers by the membrane filter method is considered valid if it is within 35% of the mean value. In addition, the membrane filter method does not positively identify any fiber as being asbestos. Only asbestos-like fibers are counted. Asarco has found that fiberglass and even finely dispersed toilet paper fibers may be counted as asbestos using the membrane filter method.. Unfortunately, the proposed asbestos standard of 0.5 fibers/.cc is an absolute number. The regulation should address itself to the cbiicept of standard deviation and/or experimental error. These are concepts which are inherently important in any analytical measurement and should be included, especially with an inadequate method like the membrane filter method. Paragraph (f) (1) .' ' ' ** * The two asbestos-cement plants, operated by Asarco, already * *i use high-velocity pick up ventilation and total enclosure of the process, where feasible. The older plant, constructed in 1967, recently installed a new ventilation system to comply with the existing asbestos standard of 2 fibers/cc (taking effect^ in ASARCO ELP 0000753 . *' -5- 1976). In fact, the system is so new that air sampling data are not yet available. Air sampling data are available for the "plant <constructed in 1971. This plant uses the best available engineering control technology, in our opinion. The results ' of 'the latest regular six-month asbestos survey of this plant " are shown below. -ASARCO Lab No. Sample No. 1297 2001 1298 2002 1299 * 1300 1301 2005 2006 2008 . . 1302 2010 1303 3002 . ""a 1304. 1305 3003 3004 1306 4000- 1307 4002 1308 4003 1309 4004 1310- 5001 ' 1311. -* 1312 ' 5002 6001 1313 6002- * 1314 6004 1315 _________ .1.6006 1316 8005' Sampling Rate 2 L/min. - 120 tain. it 120 f n m 120 120 IT It v 120 n * 120 ti If 120 120 m 110 tv 105 w *. ' 90 m it * M M It M t . 105 90 120 120 90 90 120 M It It M 1* It ft 110 ft If 240 n Fiber/cnr 0.67 0.82 0.32 0.18 0.10 0.01 0.20 1.12 0.36 0.20 0.30 1.10 2.52 0.12 0.24 0.21 0.14 0.20 0.48 ' 0.01 A blank filter was also counted and was found to be very low. The blank was subtracted from the above results. As can be seen# even with the most modern technology, six of the * ..twenty samples (30%) exceed the OSHA proposed limit of 0*5 fibers/cc. Thus, full compliance with the 0.5 fibers/cc limit using engineering controls' is not only highly doubtful# but promises to be prohibitive from a cost standpoint. ASARCO ELP 0000754 I -6 Paragraph (4) (i) \ Wet methods are specified "insofar as practicable." However, so far as Asarco can determine the definition of "practicable" has never been fully delineated by OSHA. This paragraph should be expanded and clarified to include the concept of economic feasibili as an integral part of any definition of "practicable." Paragraph (f) (6) Measurements to demonstrate the effectiveness of the ventila tion system every three months are unneeded because the technology involved with high velocity ventilation minimizes the possibility of accretions or build-ups which would alter the effectiveness of the system. An annual survey would be adequate. Another set of ventilation measurements within five days of *!any change of production, process, or control" is vague and much too general. At asbestos cement plants, production and process chemistry can change on an hour-to-hour basis although exposures will not change and ventilation volumes will not change. Asarco recommends that this requirement be deleted. ` Paragraph (g) . Asarco disagrees with OSHA over .the use of respirators and . feels that respirators are a viable compliance method. We f. urge that compliance with whatever standard is ultimately adopted should include the use of respirators to augment reasonably available engineering controls. , .. ASARCO ELP 0000755 -7- Paragraph (g) (3)(iv) Asarco feels that this entire paragraph is unnecessary. The Company's experience has been that employees unable to function while wearing a respirator will report to their safety personnel# who will make every effort to rotate them to another job." However, we do hot believe *OSHA has. the authority to require that an employee be given the same seniority status and rate of .pay. This mandate also removes a viable respirator use enforce ment: technique which would require that an employee\use a respirator and, if his respirator.use does not improve, then he can be transferred to a lower paying job. Paragraph (h) The requirement for protective clothing for employees exposed above the limit of 0.5 fibers/cc is ridiculous because the standard is so low that virtually no deposition of asbestos fibers is likely. t `Asarco suggests that personal protective clothing be provided only for employees exposed above the ceiling concentration of 5 fibers. Paragraph (i) (6) The prohibition of smoking or non-food chewing material in * , 1 * regulated areas is virtually impossible to enforce. Paragraph (j)(1) ' * . OSHA should be aware that many states require that medical examinations be provided at no cost to the employee.' This is the case where the two asbestos-cement plants are operated by ASARCO ELP 0000756 Asarco. Therefore, the language which makes medical examinations "available at the employers cost" is superfluous. The present language requires pre-placement, annual, and termination medical exams for employees working "in an area exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers." This language is much too general and has been a very great problem to Asarco in attempting to comply with the existing standard. As stated previously in the comments on paragraph (d), employees at some Asarco metal smelters repair brake linings, or make bonded asbestos gaskets, or use asbestos rope caulking on an irregular basis for short periods of time (1-15 minutes). Exposure samples show very low concentrations of asbestos. Asarco feels that medical examinations should only be required for employees thatworkin areas exceeding the 8-hour TWA or the ceiling limit. Paragraph (j) 'combined with paragraph (n) essentially constitute a massive epidemiological study which OSHA is requiring that industry finance to justify OSHA*s number of 0.5 fibers/cc. This responsibility should be placed on OSHA and NIOSH and not on industry. ,, *- ' .' 'Paragraph (j)(6) ' > In this day of malpractice suits and lack of occupational ^ health physicians, Asarco feels that many local physicians would be * reluctant to provide a written opinion for every employee examined. Asarco suggests that OSHA investigate this problem more thoroughly before including it with any of the proposed standards. Asarco ASARCO ELP 0000757  feels that it is obvious that a physician will err on the side . of caution, making some men needlessly unemployable because of the written opinion. Paragraph (m)(1) The language requiring that exposed surface "be maintained ' free of accumulations of asbestos fibers, which, if dispersed, would create an airborne concentration in excess of the exposure limits" is much too vague- Any minor spill of asbestos fibers could violate this requirement, especially at the"low number standard proposed by OSHA. The language should be clarified to say that "all exposed surfaces in the place of employment will be' kept reasonably clean and spills should be cleaned up with caution to avoid dispersing asbestos fibers." Paragraph (m)(2) OSHA should recognize that other types of waste disposal .X methods, such as pallatizing, or otherwise bonding asbestos waste, are possible, OSHA should not limit the waste disposal methods to sealed impermeable bags or other containers. EPA's NESHAP program has recognized that pelletizing or bonding asbestos waste ** 4 is essentially harmless. This section needs to be rewritten'to reflect these facts. Paragraph (n) The entire section on record keeping is unduly onerous. As stated previously, OSHA appears to be requiring a massive epidemiological study to justify the proposed standard. ASAHCOELP 0000758 c Ll -10- The records of mechanical ventilation measurements and employee training should hot be required .to be kept more than one year. Paragraph (n)(6)(ii) Although Asarco agrees that exposure measurements should be available to employees, the Company feels that the language "designated representatives"should be clarified to read "legally designated representatives" which would allow greater confidentiality t of these records. Paragraph (n)(7)(ii) ' The need to notify, by letter, every employee and former employee of a transfer of records would be a Herculean task for ` many industries. For example, one of the company's asbestos cement plants has a 70% turnover rate.' Therefore, the number of former employees is very high. Asarco feels that the transfer of records should be advertised in the legal notices of local papers. ASARCO ELP 0000759 .* .' bs Title ;Brickmason Brickmason Job or cberation Mixing asbestos cement dust with water* n it " Frequency of Operation Sampling Time Date (Min.) Asbestos Fibers (*5 i\/cm3 Air) 8-Hr. Tin* Weighted Average (*5 u/em3 Air) ** Once/week 7/31 1 3.40 0.007 Once/week 1/13 ' 4 4.7 0.04 ' Brick- * mason * Bricking up load settler and working in No. 1 blast Brickmason Caulking Blast Furnace Part of usual duties 10/10 470 Part of usual duties 1/21 102 0.02 . 0.020 - 0.4 0.085 . Brickmason Machine Shop Welder Same as above Punching asbestos gaskets in blacksmith's shop Twice/month 10/10 469 Twice/month 10/10 112++ * 0.03 * .0.15 0.029 0.035 Mechanic ,,* j Drilling, counte rs inking,and riveting brake shoes for zinc plant crane Twice/month; 10/10 108 - 0.16 *. 0.036 . .' * * * NOTE- + +/ NOTE: A hand-held sample was also collected from the cloud of dust generated during the dumping of the dry cement. This 1-minute sample contained 6.11 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air and represents the maximum possible exposur The 8-hour average exposure would be 0.013 fibers >5 u/cm3 air. The 8-hour averages assume that employees received no further exposures to asbestos fibers in the remainder of their work shift. OSKA Standards for Asbestos: 8-hour time-weighted average airborne concentrat - 5.0 fibers >5 ulong per cm3 of air. Ceiling concentration (not to be exceeded) 10.0 fibers >5 t^long per cm3 of a Sampling times generally represent the entire length of operation. Usualy time for operation is two to three hours. All employees were observed to wear respirators during these operations. The employees also reported that respirators were routinely worn during such activities. Good respirator use would, of course, result in lower individual exposures than the concentrations of asbestos fibers reported. ASARCO ELP 0000760