Document 3em3m5K7aDR6pXX162kaqe6pa

UC 149-2 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE iECEJVEi APR 2 0 197T METALS DIVISION To {Name) Mr. T. R. Alexander Division Corporate Distr. - 6th Floor Location New York, NY P.O.BOX 579-4G25 HOYALAVE., NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK 14337 Data originating Dept. April 19, 1978 "Calidria" Asbestos copy to Messrs C. R. Allenbach T. W. Carmody W. G. Kahler W. E. Martin R. M. Mitchel1 J. L. Myers A. C. Sada E. W. Shortridge J. J. Sibley \JtT C. Thurber File Dear Mr. Alexander: Mr. Myers has asked me to respond to your letter of March 14, 1978 on the above-noted subject. I am very much involved in the drafting of an asbestos industry response by the Asbestos Information Association/North America. A copy of a preliminary analysis of the proposed regulation and a draft AIA/NA response are enclosed. In the response we wish to make the points of lack of proper documentation of "unreasonable risk" and the unsuitability of rigid containers for the record in case it is necessary to move into the courts. The real immediate problems are the definition of "occupational exposure to asbestos" and the ban on the use of open trucks. The requirement that only the consignee may unload also presents some problems. The basic strategy is to try to trade off considerably more extensive labelling for relaxation in the requirements. This approach was selected on a tentative basis by the AIA/NA Executive Committee to see how it looked on paper. It is quite likely that considerable revision in the draft may occur, so your comments are requested. I have discussed the question of a Union Carbide response with Mr. Thurber. Our feeling is that if the AIA/NA response is satisfactory to UCC interests, there is little to be gained by a separate response. If not, we will respond separately. I will stay in contact with you as this matter is finalized. Very truly yours, HBR/rmm Encs. Harrison B. Rhodes UCC 009181 PROPOSED RULES FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO, 42--THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 1973 'i <4910-60] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' Moltriali Ttgmpeiiolion Bureau [49 CFR Port* 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177] - [Docket No. HM-1G0; Notice No. 78-31 TRANSPORTATION Of ASBESTOS AGENCY: Materials Transportation Bureau, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemak ing. SUMMARY: The amendments pro posed herein would require certain kinds of asbestos to be shipped by all modes in non-specification, rigid, air tight packagings, such as metal or fiber drums; or in bags when shipped in closed freight containers. The proposals are intended to reduce the risks to property and to the public health and safety associated with the genera tion of airborne concentrations of as bestos that may result from the pack aging and handling of asbestos fiber shipments. The available data clearly indicates that regular, long term exposure to aribome concentrations of asbestos fibers poses a range of carcino genic and other serious health risks: and recent studies suggest that these dangers are also associated with expo sures that are low-level, brief or inter mittent. DATE: Comments must be received on or before May 2,1973. ADDRESS COMMENTS TO: Dockets Section. Office of Hazardous Materials Operations, Department of Transpor tation, Washington, D.C. 20590. It is requested that five copies be submit ted. ' -. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan I. Roberts, Director. Office of Hazardous Materials Operations, 2100 Second Streets SW,, Washing ton, D.C. 20590, 202-428-0656. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. ' Background--Produccton/Con* sumption/Transpoktation Patterns Asbestos is a generic term used to describe a number of naturally occuring fibrous, hydrated mineral silicates. It Includes chrysolite, crocidolite, amtsite, anthophyilite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, and actinolite asbestos. These are aU asbestlfonn minerals which, when crushed, produce asbes tos fibers with various chemical and physical properties. Asbestos fibers are generally charac terized by high tensile strength and flexibility; and favorable chemical resistance, heat and frictional properties. Certain grades of asbestos can be spun and woven, while others can be . laid and pressed to form paper, or used for structural reinforcement of materi- i : i \ j Rigid, airtight packaging required except bags can be used when shipped in closed freight containers. Regular, long-term exposures pose a range of carcinogenic and other serious health risks, recent studies suggest these dangers are also associated with low-level, brief, or intermittent exposures. Note the use of the word "suggest". General comments on the movement of asbestosSeem to be reasonably correct. vyCC 009182 als such as cement, plastic, asphalt and tile. The asbestos content of these latter products ranges from 5 to 15 percent by weight. Although asbestos is adaptable to more than 2,000 uses, the construction industry accounts for nearly two- thirds of the United States (U.S.) as- bestos fiber consumption. The remain- ing 33 percent is utilized in a myriad of industrial and consumer products. During the ten-year period ending 1976. the total amount of new asbestos Introduced into the U.S. transporta- tion system averaged approximately 1,700.000 short tons annually. Slightly more than half this tonnage consists - of crude or milled asbestos fibers, with the remainder consisting of asbestos contained in products manufactured in whole or in part from asbestos. There is, of course, a lag between the time a shipment of asbestos fibers enters the transportation system and the time that shipment enters the transportation system as a manufac tured product. Growth in the utilization and trans portation of asbestos is expected to slowly Increase at a rate of about 2 percent per year. - During the entire history of the as bestos industry in the United States, domestic sources have been able to meet only a small percentage of U.S. requirements. Roughly SO percent of the total U.S. industrial demand for all grades and types of asbestos fibers is thus dependent on foreign Imports-- with Canada being the major source of supply. In 1975, 93 percent of U.S. Im ports came from Canada with the next largest suppliers being the Republic of South Africa (3 percent) and the U.S.S.R. (2 percent). Eight other coun- tries shipped smaller amounts of as- bestos to the U.S. in 1975. ' The transportation pattern for as bestos is characterized by three dis- tinct stages: ' In the first stage, asbestos ore is transported from the mine site to a milling plant where the ore is crushed and processed into fibers. Of the five mills operating In the U.S. as of late 1976. three are located at the mines, but the other two are 32 and 52 miles distant. Transportation is reported to be by open-hopper vehicles such as dump trucks. The second stage is characterized by the shipment of crude or milled asbes tos fibers from the mills (mostly for; eign) to industries that use asbestos hi the products they manufacture. The largest industry in this category (SIC 3292) as of 1972 consisted of 142 estab lishments primarily engaged in the manufacture of asbestos textiles, as bestos building materials, asbestos in sulating materials for covering boilers and pipes, and other products com posed wholly or chiefly of asbestos fibers. Other industries receiving as bestos fibers are mainly industries en gaged in the production of asphalt felts and coatings (SIC 2952), hard surface floor coverings (SIC 3996), gas kets (SIC 3293), and paper products (SIC 2261). j ! | | ! j j ! j j j j j j j j i t ; ] j j I 2- General comments on the movement of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Seem to be reasonably correct. Three stages of transport noted: 1, Ore to mill. 2, Fiber to user. 3, Finished, asbestos-containing products. Transportation of ore to the mill site. Two U.S. mills "reported" to transport ore in "open-hopper" vehicles. Transport of crude or milled fiber to various users. UCC 009183 .. .. -3- These Industries generally receive their shipments or asbestos fibers In pressure packed. live-ply paper or woven vinyl bags weighing about 100 lbs. per bag. with the bags glue-locked Discussion of Fiber Shipment - Although much of to each other and shrink-wrapped to a pallet (wrapped with a film of plastic which is then shrunk). In the aggre this appears to be correct, there are several important inaccuracies: gate, rail shipments handle about 80 1. 3-ply bags of both sized and unsized percent of all milled asbestos fibers en tering the U.S. transportation system, Kraft paper are quite widely used. with merchant vessel shipments ac counting for the remaining 20 percent. Packaging for ocean transportation, 2. In some parts of the country substantial shipments from producer to customers both for imported and exported asbes tos fibers, is changing to containeriza tion. All shipments, for example, from are made in bags on uncovered flatbed trucks. the Union of South Africa have been reported to be containerized. Although 3. A myriad of smaller users are supplied rail shipments of asbestos fibers are with bagged fiber from warehouses in not yet being containerized, the major ity of such shipments are made in open trucks. sealed, railroad box cars which are routed for the most part direct to the asbestos products manufacturing in dustries. The third stage in the transporta tion of asbestos involves the shipment of manufactured products made wholly or in part from asbestos. Ap proximately 61 percent of the asbestos used In manufactured products is j Transport of Finished Products - Note particularly firmly Imbedded or "locked in" such products as floor tiles, asbestos cement pipes and sheets, floor products and | the statement ", . . it is not known whether the j transportation of products in either category under plastics. These products generate less i current conditions presents an unreasonable risk airborne fibers than asbestos manufac tured products that are friable or in powder form, although at the present | to the public health and safety. The two categories : of products referred to are those with "locked-in" time, it is not known whether the transportation of products in either category under current conditions pre- fiber and those which are friable. The use of "unreasonable risk" rather than zero risk is also sents an unreasonable risk to the noteworthy. public health and safety. As defined in the Department of Commerce's 1972 Census of Transportation, approxi mately 92 percent of asbestos manu factured products are shipped by motor vehicle, with rail and all other modes accounting for about 7 percent and 1 percent, respectively. - n. Genesal Effects of Airborne As bestos Exposdre/Evieence of Acci dental Release of Asbestos Fibers . The MTB believes it to be firmly es tablished that asbestos, in its several commercial forms, pose3 serious health hazards to individuals subject to long term exposure to airborne as bestos concentrations. As noted in the 1972 preamble of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard on asbestos (37 FR 11318): "No one has disputed that ex posure to asbestos of high enough du- ration Is causally related to asbestosis and. cancers *. Recent new evi1 dence, however; as reported by OSHA, not only tends to confirm this finding but also suggests that serious potential health risks are involved with even rel atively low-level, brief or intermittent exposure to airborne asbestos concen trations. Although there is no detailed Information available on the amount of asbestos fibers released in transpor- tation, the MTB believes that, in con- "Recent new evidence" cited by OSHA is given as the basis for serious potential health risks with "relatively low-level, brief, or inter mittent exposure. It is stated that, "Although there is no detailed information available on the amount of asbestos fibers released in _ transportation" the MTB believes that "tFere is sufficient basis for establishing regulatory control. UCC 009184 sideratton of the carcinogenic and other health hazards associated with asbestos, there is a sufficient basis for establishing regulatory control of as bestos in transportation. III. Relationship to HM-14S On December 9. 1976, the MTB pub lished an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (41 FR 53824) in Docket No. HM-145 entitled "Environmental and Health Effects Materials." In that Notice, the MTB announced that it was considering whether new or addi tional transportation controls are nec essary for certain classes of materials > which are not generally subject to the I existing Hazardous Materials Regula- tions. A large number of comments were received in Docket HM-145. The MTB has concluded that a considerable amount of time and effort is still needed in staff evaluation of these comments before It will be in a posi tion to issue a notice or notices of pro posed rulemaking for environmental and health effects materials, either on a comprehensive or on a selective basis. .. Several comments on HM-145, how ever, were specifically directed to the Idea that transportation regulatory controls for asbestos be established as soon as possible, with the suggestion that asbestos be addressed on an indi- vidual basis, rather than writing until the eventual resolution of Docket HM- 145, The MTB agrees with the urgen- cy of the views expressed on this matter, and therefore asbestos is being treated separately under this proposed rulemaking. IV. Quantitative Versus Qualitative Standards In determining that there is a need for transportation controls on asbes tos, the MTB has considered the desir ability and practicality of utilizing Quantitative or Qualitative- emission criteria or some combination of the two, either as developed by the MTB or as developed by other agencies. Currently, quantitative permissible exposure limits for asbestos, as pro mulgated by the Environmental Pro tection Agency (EPA> have not been established for environmental or non- occupational settings. The EPA's standard for airborne asbestos emissions falls under its "no visible emissions'* criterion. This is in contrast to the Quantitative criteria established by OSHA for airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers in occupational or Worksite conditions. The criteria of OSHA consist of an 8-hour time weighted average standard, and a maximum "ceiling concentration" standard. Both standards are to some extent based on the ability of current devices to measure asbestos airborne concentrations in a systematic, mean Ingful manner, and are not directly based on any causal or threshold rela tionship between the standards and the probability of contracting an as bestos induced disease. : : : , , | i i i { ; : , i , i i ( ! ! ! i ; I ' j ` 4- - Large number of responses require time for comprehensive study. Several comments urged immediate controls on asbestos. MTB agrees and is treating asbestos separately. Notes that EPA uses "no visible emissions" standard and OSHA a numerical standard. Claims that both standards are conditioned by measurement device limitations and are not directly based on health risk. UCC 009185 5- The MT3 bellsves that its proposed non-specification packaging standards as applied to the transportation of as bestos fiber is an effective and effi cient means of precluding potential problems associated with asbestos air borne emissions occurring during transportation; and that they are con sistent with the standards of bath EPA and OSHA. I I V. Scope and Impact The standards as herein proposed would .only apply to the transportation of what are generally regarded as milled or crude asbestos fibers, but would exclude asbestos contained in a natural or artificial binding-material and manufactured products containing asbestos. In light of the regulatory controls already in existence or under consider ation by other federal agencies, and until such time as the MTB has more specific and concrete information that the normal packaging and handling of these forms of asbestos is such as to create unreasonable asbestos exposure problems, the MTB does not believe their, specific regulation In transportation is warranted. In reviewing the potential Inflationary and economic Impacts associated with the proposed rule, the MTB has determined that such impacts will he minimal. Based on the foregoing discussion of the production and trans-portatlon pattern for asbestos ship ments, it is,clear that the only aspect . of that pattern which might csperience a cost impact pertains to import and export shipments by merchant vessel. This follows from the fact that the proposed rule would generally re quire all such shipments to be contain erized In contrast to packaging alter natives now available to shippers. However, the cost-differential between these alternative cargo handling meth ods fs not only very small, but a sig nificant portion of such shipments are already containerized, or being con tainerized. As proposed herein, a new paper shipping name "Asbestos" would be added to the list of hazardous materi als in 49 CFR 172.101. The proposed classification for "asbestos" would be as an ORM-C (Other Regulated Mate rial, Group, C). Primary drafters of this document are A. W. Grella, Technology Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Oper ations; J, S. Nalevanko, Economist, Materials Transportation Bureau; and Douglas A. Crockett. Office of the Chief Council, Research and Special Programs Directorate. In consideration of the foregoing. Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 172 through 177 would be amended as follows: . : i : ; j i ; 1 i j ; Proposal is claimed to be an effective and efficient way to prevent potential problems and is consistent with both OSHA and EPA standards. Standard applies only to milled or crude fibers. Bound asbestos and manufactured products excluded. Specific transportation regulation not needed at this time. Potential inflationary and economic impacts are alleged to be minimal. Main change will be the use of containers in ocean shipments and this is to a considerable extent the current practice. UCC,.009186 X* C 03 O r-*' P COr-- 3a> CL) p a> to _ E P <u c-- t^-. X3 ao P to CL O >> f- c P to <j CD P V) CD OJ to T-- CD JO P ro O. o *P" to i-- a> CL > O-i-- ro <D to >> 4- CD i-- _ PP c <D "O *r" r* P 0) o to CD x: o 1-- -O to P to c r^. CD E go CL p-* P to i-- c Sn m 4-- P dJ ro XI p> o tc s: <d oor p >1-- CD ro _g J-- P O P T3 to CD p P oj *p- Cl 3 to cr Cl CD P cr> G 0) r* p CL id CL to -C to <D JO to co r-- -o O CD cp r* p3 ro cr - CD Pp a) >v p oc 2o ' ii e c h d> ^4 3 ri j tr O <J S ''OK cJ u E u 6/ to 4-N B * Jl 1 tl W t- ^ u U> *. H 4 dm - 40 ** 'H c T3 b4 * 4-r fci o u 4t > m tn h- 60 U ^k b 2? ' ' 41 Oft ' ' 16 c * - .3 cS; Ko* b b k< - e EC 'i- c c w tftw W ABU BW ftm 4 S ' UE - d ^4 Vi 9tr ' ** V) bt wu . d* C m UiHvt. . - . B M , ^H .. . BS J2 *' o o H nr*<- tA O CO D _Q to CO CD P rr_-- O c 'r P O to X? c ro i CO O P to CD X) to r0 CJ P *r* f--" O E CD P P o CO o p to CD JO to to a? r" 11. " C> u JouiLr--^s to p o CD to 3 CD _G P CD P O a CD --3 to cn *r^ r0 P> 0) P to id E r-- p <o ai i-- o P c <D *p^ P rO E r-- ro P *r^ aj O XJ r- P -Q P PP *o O P oO *r- r-- P r0 f* PC 3 PP to CD O _ P r-- x> 5 CD X? to 3 P CD CJ 3 xt o p >5 CL r-- P to o CJ p P x> r~ QJ CJ ~o CD `r-* a. > to o p to CL r" to QJ r^ P O O to O PP P a> Cl to > CD CD CD O jQ 2= X to O Lli JC CD _Q ro P CL 0) u u ro >> -- O CD P to to CD iO ca * cr cn ro u to D. P -C cn <-- P P to XJ r* to co p *r- a; Pc r* CO <o *r-- P PO CJ CD EP <u -c P cr -I-- *1-- 3 OJ cr p <U 4-- P XJ o CD r-- to to O to i-- CO CJ 0 I X J, 2? S i0|--U5 < 3 XO < Oui s < ^ PC t*ft3o in 2 3ng Q 5< i-- < Mo < < 5' <* H . o nNUoSi 5B.-2S a ^ 3 nl !U & *a. i>s* *rODtJ *P* l~ r **. X is _ 41 sC 11 <NN ^iij o v IS: Sc i- -J .m < <- 52Oo <P = S k to 6fl ^ rt * * ctX M s0 -pu* w li '^i eoj a> u TJ 0) *o *0 *3 pr4st.) &tus xSOCyi Xiwaw5so; >fVh? Cii i " 0* 3*2 f .-TS S -S3 E 4>` E u-a| 53 o -HU UCC 009187 PART 174--CARRIAGE BY RAH 3. Subpart Heading M would be added immediately following 5 174.B12 to read as follows; SubpoH M^Oetaited SipvirfmpMi.for Oth*r Rvgutoted Material* 4. 174.840 would be added to read as follows: 171.840 Special loading and handling re quirements for asbestos. Asbestos must be loaded, handled, and any asbestos contamination of rail cars removed, in a manner that will prevent occupational exposure to air borne asbestos particles. (See 173.1090 of this subchapter.) PART 175--CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT 6. 175.640 would be added to read as follows: 175.640 Special requirements for other regulated materials. Asbestos must be loaded, handled, and any asbestos contamination of air craft removed, in a manner that will prevent occupational exposure to air borne asbestos . particles. (See 173.1090 of this subchapter.) - * PART 176--CARRIAGE BY VESSEt 6. 176.906 would be added to read as follows: 176.906 Stowage and handling of asbes tos. Asbestos must be stowed, handled and any asbestos contamination of ves sels removed', in a manner that will prevent occupational exposure to air borne asbestos particles. (See } 173.1090 of this subchapter.) - 7. 177.844 T\'ouid be added to read as follows: - f 177.844 Other regulated materials. Asbestos must be loaded, handled, and any asbestos contamination of transport vehicles removed, fn a manner that will prevent occupational exposure to airborne asbestos parti-' cles. (See 173.10SQ of this sub chapter.) Authority: (18 U.S.C. 1803, 1804.1803: 49 CFR 1.53(e) and paragraph (a)(4) ol Appen dix A to Part 102). Note.--The Materials Transportation ' Bureau has determined that this document does not contain a major proposal requiring preparation of an Economic Impact Statemerit under Executive Order 11821 and OMB Circular A-107. Issued In Washington, D.C.. on Feb ruary 23.1978. Alan I. Roberts. Director, Office ofHazardous Materials Operations. fFR Doc. 78-5277 Filed 3-1-78; 8:45 am] 7- - *The same basic wording is used for ail four paragraphs, i.e., zero occupational exposure is required for loading, handling, and during the removal of any asbestos contamination. This requirement far exceeds the present or any proposed 0SHA requirements. It is also vague and possible unenforce able. Asbestos is ubiquitous and "occupational exposure" is not defined. There is no way to comply with the regulation as written. Compliance with this requirement could also be interpreted to mean that only rigid or at least fiber-pack containers must be used. Bags do become torn in shipment occasionally and there would be no way to clean up. UCC 009188 DRAFT 4/18/78 Docket Section Office of Hazardous Materials Operations Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590 Re: Proposed Changes in Paragraphs 49 CFR Parts 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177 - "Transportation of Asbestos" as Published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 42 - Thursday, March 2, 1978 Gentlemen: The Asbestos Information Association/North America, an incorporated, non-profit organization of 58 firms and corporations engaged in the mining or milling or asbestos fiber and in the manufacture or processing of asbestos-containing products, submits these comments on the proposed regulations regarding the transportation of asbestos. The Department of Transportation should be aware that substantial changes in the packaging and shipping of asbestos have been made over the past ten years. The jute bags used formerly have been replaced by strong, multiwall kraft paper bags and woven or film plastic bags. In some cases the paper bag is also covered or lined with plastic. The bags are stacked as unitized loads on pallets and the pallets are often covered with plastic film. Pellets, compressed blocks, coarse ground asbestos, and water-wetted asbestos have been developed to control dust emissions in specific applications. The AIA/NA believes that industry practices in the transportation of asbestos have evolved to a point where there is no significant hazard to the worker or unreasonable risk to the public. Worker safety is well covered by the present OSHA asbestos regulations 29 CFR 1910.1001. The only further regulatory requirement that may be appropriate is proper labelling of containers to prevent possible accidental overexposure to persons who are unaware that asbestos is present. It is recognized, however, that public policy today supports the concept of "cradle to grave" regulation of hazardous substances. Accordingly, although we do not believe more regulations are necessary, we wish to offer our full cooperation in the writing of a standard which will protect the workers and the public and at the same time not place unnecessary economic burdens on small business or on the American consumer who ultimately must pay the cost. Our comments are offer*! in this spirit. i The four areas in the proposed regulations that are listed below cause particular concern. Each area will, be discussed and several suggested changes in the regulation are provided: 1. The finding of "unreasonable risk" to the public. 2. The concept of rigid, airtight packaging as an appropriate container for asbestos. 3. The lack of definition of "occupational exposure to asbestos." 4. Shipment in uncovered vehicles and the ban on handling by anyone except the consignee. UCC 009189 2- - The Finding of Unreasonable Risk to the Puhlic . The:Act of 1974 requires the finding of "an unreasonable risk to the public" as the statutory basis for the promulgation of a regulation. The March 2, 1978 DOT Proposal, Part II, makes the following statement: . "The MTB believes it to be firmly established that asbestos in its several commercial forms, poses serious health hazards to individuals subject to long term exposure to airborne asbestos concentrations. As noted in the 1972 preamble of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration . (OSHA) standard on asbestos (37 FR 11318): "No one has disputed that exposure to asbestos of high enough duration is causally related to asbestosis and .cancers." . . Recent new evidence, however, as reported by OSHA, not only tends to confirm this finding but also suggests that serious potential health risks are involved with even relatively low-level, brief or intermittent exposure to airborne asbestos concentra tions." (Emphasis added) The claim is first made that asbestos "... poses serious health hazards to individuals subject to long-term exposure to asbestos concentrations." As a matter of fact, mankind has been exposed to naturally-occurring low concentrations of asbestos for as long as we have been on earth. There are no known or identified health hazards from this low exposure. The statement as it stands, without some identification of concentration is both incorrect and basically meaningless. This same deficiency, i.e. no consideration of concentration, is evident in the incorrect quotation from OSHA (27 FR 11318) cited next and which should have read: . "No one has disputed that exposure to asbestos of high enough intensity and long enough duration is causally related to asbestosis and cancers." (Underlined words omitted in proposed rulemaking.) It should be noted that, although the OSHA statement above is much closer to correct, there is still considerable dispute among reputable experts concerning the roles of asbestos type, fiber size, and smoking in the asbestos-cancer relationship. Finally, a reference is made to "recent new evidence" reported by OSHA which "also suggests" serious potential health risks from relatively low-level, brief, or intermittent exposure. The Asbestos Information Association/North America^) provided comments to OSHA on this "new evidence" (copy attached) with the following conclusions: (1) Asbestos Industry Response to Occupational Safety and Health Administration on Proposed Revision to Asbestos Standard 29 DFR, Part 1910, April 9, 1976, Page. UCC 009190 -3- "Review of the literature indicated that no credible epidemiological studies have been published which would suggest an excess of malignant tumors among persons exposed to no more than 2 asbestos fibers per cc of air (TWA), using the prescribed membrane filter test method. This is a fact simply because there have yet been identified for study no populations the exposure experience of which consistently has been as low as 2 fibers. Since all populations studied to date have been exposed to substantially higher concentrations of airborne asbestos, we can conclude only that an excess of all types of asbestos disease is associated with levels of expousre significantly higher than the level currently mandated to become effective on July 1, 1976." The MTB concludes this section of the preamble with the statement; "Although there is no detailed information available on the amount of asbestos fibers released in transportation, the MTB believes that, in consideration of the carcinogenic and other health hazards associated with asbestos, there is , a sufficient basis for establishing regulatory control of asbestos in transportation." (Emphasis added) The justification for the regulation is thus based on: 1. Inaccurate statements regarding long-term exposure which do not consider concentration. 2. Disputed "new evidence" which "suggests" but certainly does not demonstrate any hazard from an undefined low-level, brief, or intermittent exposure. ' 3. No_ information on the asbestos exposure level in the transportation activities to be regulated. We submit that this is neither sufficient evidence nor sufficient documenta tion to meet the statutory requirement of the finding of "unreasonable risk" needed to promulgate a regulation. Rigid, Airtight Packages to Transport Asbestos Although substantial and very important exceptions are made, the DOT proposal specifies "rigid, airtight packagings" as the basic container for asbestos. This concept presents several serious problems. Asbestos is a fibrous material that packs in shipment which makes it very difficult to remove from rigid containers. There is a serious possibility for increased worker exposure. There are no existing mechanical devices to remove the asbestos from this type of container and it would also be very cumbersome. If not impossible to empty rigid containers in the dumping hoods for bags that are now in widespread use. New equipment, not now in existence, would have to be developed. UQC ,009191. -4- As discussed previously, asbestos today is typically shipped in bags which contain 100 pounds or roughly 2 cubic feet. The equivalent rigid container would be a 15-gallon open-head drum equipped with a gasket and seal ring to.make it dust tight. This type of container, in large lots, costs $3 each in fiberboard and nearly $6 each in metal. Use of these containers would thus add a cost of $60 per ton of asbestos for fiberboard and $120 per ton for metal. If, for reasons to be discussed latter,all 750,000 tons per year of asbestos used in the United States had to be shipped in this way, fifteen million drums would be required at a cost of $45,000,000 to $90,000,000, depending upon the choice of material. There is also an obvious problem of the disposal of 15 million rigid containers. Return shipment of a rail car of empty air, i.e drums, from the user to the supplier would, for example, cost approximately $____ _each coast to coast and $each from Houston to California by rail and or . respectively by common carrier truck. There would also be damage that would make some portion of the containers unusable. It is thus our position that rigid containers are not practical packaging for asbestos. If present methods are proven to be inadequate, better non-rigid containers are a more reasonable and appropriate route. If such changes are really necessary, we will be glad to cooperate in their development. Definition of Occupational Exposure to Asbestos Potentially, the most far reaching impact of the proposal results from the wording, which occurs with only minor variations to identify the type of carrier, in Parts 174, 175, 176 and 177. This is illustrated by Paragraph 177.844; "Asbestos must be loaded, handled, and any asbestos contamination of transport vehicles removed, in a manner that will prevent occupational exposure to airborne asbestos particles." {Emphasis added) If it is assumed that "prevent occupational exposure" means what it implies, i.e. zero exposure, some very fundamental problems result. First, asbestos is ubiquitous in the environment and there are no workplaces where there is zero occupational exposure to asbestos. Second, zero or any other extremely low-level exposure requirement, as a practical matter would preclude the use of bag and compressed block packaging. Although relatively rare, with the very large volume of asbestos shipped an occasional broken bag can occur. There is no provision for this in a zero exposure standard. The use of fiber drums would reduce this probability and metal drums would reduce it still further but it would still not be eliminated entirely. The present wording is thus so vague that it can neither be complied with nor enforced. As a minimum requirement to make this provision workable it is necessary to define an allowable numerical level of exposure including both time-weighted average and ceiling, define a fiber as to length and aspect ratio, and specify an appropriate method of concentration measurement. Additional requirements for work practices, respiratory protection, etc. may also be useful. / UCC 009192 5- - Shipment in Uncovered Vehicles - Unloading by Consignee Only The requirement that bags cannot be transported in open vehicles also presents some serious problems, particularly to small businesses. There are two areas to consider: 1. Shipment of TL amounts of palletized bags on flatbed trucks. 2. Shipment of LTL Quantities either as pallets or individual bags from warehouses to small users. The flatbed truck shipments are the result of specific transportation needs and are handled by both contract and common carriers. Examples include, but are not limted to, the movement of product from the mill to the rail shipping point, deliveries to larger users within a limited geographical area from an asbestos mill, and backhaul of asbestos from the supplier to the asbestos user's plant. In this type of thipment the pallets generally are protected by one or more of the following procedures: 1. The pallets are shrink or stretch wrapped with plastic film. 2. The individual bags are enclosed in plastic film prior to palletizing. 3. The entire load is protected with a canvas or plastic cover. The shipments from warehouses are typically less than truckload, i.e. from a few bags to a few pallets. Although the total tonnage is a relatively modest percentage of the total U.S. usage, it is estimated that 500-10QQ business, many of them small, are serviced in this manner. Examples include manufactures Of caulks, adhesives, sealants, mastics, reinforced plastics and high-performance specialty industrial coatings. In these cases asbestos is typically used to provide unique properties to a small part of the product line. Although some of this asbestos is transported in closed trucks, a very substantial proportion is not. In this situation the pallets generally are covered with plastic film. Similarly, where individual bags are handled, they too are either covered or lined with plastic film. The DOT concern here seems to be the need to avoid airborne asbestos emissions to the environment from the moving vehicle. If this is the case, it is more reasonable and appropriate to require that this packaging be such that there is no visible leakage of asbestos or to cover the entire load in a manner that prevents asbestos from reaching the environment. This can and is being achieved in open vehicles today. Prohibition of their use is not needed. The requirement that bags shipped in closed trucks must be unloaded only by the consignee also impacts the small volume user adversely. Common carrier shipments of small lots cannot be transferred or consolidated by the carrier. We believe that today's asbestos packaging combined with proper warning labels to protect the worker from serious exposure in the rare case of accidental damage to a shipment satisfies that statutory requirement of "no unreasonable risk"and this added limitation is excessive. UCC ;009193 ' " ' ` v " 6- - In conclusion, the only area in the transportation of asbestos by present procedures where there is a potential for serious over-exposure is an accident where the container is badly damaged and where personnel unfamiliar or untrained in the handling of asbestos are involved. We believe it is neither necessary nor practical to require very expensive containers that do not completely eliminate the possibility of risk. Unnecessary risk to the public can be avoided by proper warning labels on the present containers. To this end it will be recommended that an ORM-C label in a form to be described in the next section be required for the largest container in any asbestos shipment. By largest container is meant the bag if a single bag is shipped, the pallet or pallets in a LTL or LCL shipment, or the truck, rail car or container for CL, TL, or full container shipments. In this way proper precautions can be taken if an accident should occur. Recommended Changes in Proposed Regulations Before suggesting changes it should be stated that the AIA/NA is in complete agreement with the DOT decision to exclude finished products with bound fiber from the regulation. With appropriate and we believe very reasonable changes in the definition of "occupational exposure to asbestos" there is a viable alternative to rigid containers so this requirement, although inappropriate, would not present serious compliance difficulties. With these comments and reservations the following changes in the proposed standard are suggested: Recommended Changes in Proposed Regulations Before suggesting changes it should be stated that the AIA/NA is in complete agreeemtn with the DOT decision to exclude finished products with bound fiber from the regulation. With appropriate and we believe very reasonable changes in the definition of "occupational exposure to asbestos" there is a viable alternative to rigid containers so this requirement would not present serious difficulties. With these comments and reservations the following changes in the proposed standard are suggested: Paragrah 173.1090(b)(2) would be modified to read: (2) Bags when in closed freight containers, motor vehicles, or rail cars provided that each container is labelled in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 172.101 with the . label specified in Paragraph 173.1090(c)(4). A new Paragraph 173.1090(b)(3) would be added: (3) Bags when in open motor vehicles provided they are covered or are of such construction that there is no visible leakage of asbestos and provided each container is labelled in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 172.101 with the label specified in Paragraph 173.1090(c)(4). A new Paragraph 173.1090(b)(4) would be added to define the special label. The telephone contact referred to would be provided by the asbestos shipper. The person contacted would be able to advise on safe procedures if an emergency occurs. Thus: 7 UCC 009194 -7- (b)(4) The label required by paragraph 173.1090(b).(2) and (3) shall state; ORM-C CAUTION Contains Asbestos Fibers Avoid Creating Dust Breathing Asbestos Dust May Cause Serious Bodily Harm IN THE EVENT OF EMERGENCY Use Water to Prevent Dust Contact (Telephone Number) for Instructions The other change recommended deals with Paragraphs 174.840, 175.640, 176.906 and 177.844. In each case the following words should be added at the end of each paragraph: . .in excess of the levels specified in Paragraph (b)(2) and (3), CFR 29, 1910.1001." In making this recommendation it is recognized that the present 0SHA standard referenced may not be directly appropriate to the employment conditions encountered in the transportation industry and that the DOT may wish to develop a more suitable standard. The asbestos industry will be glad to cooperate in any such effort as it has in the past and continues to do with 0SHA. The foregoing approach was selected because it came from an already well defined regulation and' this is a simple and direct method to provide the minimum definition of numerical levels (TWA and ceiling), fiber, and method of measurement needed to make the proposal workable. We want to thank you for this opportunity to express our views on this important rulemaking. We will be glad to provide any further information or clarification requested. Very truly yours, UCC 009195