Document 44QK6vzw14yYvMoYXoVXnp9ja

mmmi. . . ....................................................................... R. Grace ;&^Coj>{"Grace") is concerned that the Divi-r * sion of Labor rand|ihdustry may unintentionally include prohi bitions or restrictions on products containing trace quan-4? ''^ {tities of naturally occurring asbestos contaminants in its . occupational asbestos standard when it adopts the require ments of revised 29 C.F.R. 1910.100T and new 1926. In this letter, Grace urges the Division to endorse the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration's ("OSHA's") enforce ment guidelines (Attachment A) limiting the requirements of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001, 1926 to activities posing asbestos risk to worker health. As written, the new federal OSHA standards, 51 Fed. Reg. 22,612 (June 20, 1986), may be interpreted to apply to many activities that pose no unreasonable health risk because certain provisions do not define "asbestos-containing mate rials." First, both 1910.1001(f)(1)(vii) and 1926.58(g)(2)(iii) provide that (mjaterials containing asbestos, tremolite, anttiophyllite, or actinolite shall ^- not be applied by sprayed methods. Second, the construction standard establishes several require ments in 1926.58(e)(6) & (j)(2) (negative pressure enclo sures, designation of competent persons, and decontamination areas) for any asbestos "removal, demolition and renovation operations" unless they are "small-scale, short-duration." Third, the provisions in both the construction standard ( 1926.58(1)) and the general industry standard ( 1910.1001(b)) for housekeeping (regulating clean-up methods In certain situations [1, OSHA will not enforce the provisions of the standard which prohibit the spraying of asbestoscontaining products. These situations will be limited to cases where the em ployer can show that the "fiber" concen tration of the product is less than 0.1% by weight, is a natural contaminant, and where objective data . . . indicate that . . . employee exposures will not exceed the action level of 0.1 f/cc. The intent of 1926.58(j)(2) is to re quire a decontamination area and the other facilities listed above [clean rooms and showers) only where a regulated area is established. OSHA [] did not intend its housekeeping and waste disposal provisions to be re quired for de minimis situations. As explained above, if materials contain only trace natural contaminants . . . 10045380 f` -v;V j St?' )Y *IV;' ; i_*f:V. .;: ' ;V->J a i /' tv.-; ./.-' ;v t h**-7? ,* 'rj.o.vc ' "-r>r; :';' ''. - i'V'S"#:i a'i K %c"'.'> v 1 t`-\*.;' i*` J * SS251, =* is*? I . .'**-. '.**... ,4<*. .. :.v;:>'V^'i;,t>v- * a. l` . *V WSti consistent; rnmmzite^r^fulS't^.'o ___.r..y-MIy:^^ftts:Mai:|l^1piB`koii';endorsejthese^^/ .' ',; ;v policies 'ty^pSfopting' a' lower'^ iimf ^^u^o'ff vin its asbestos' standardif^lxherfexplicitly ^in the'regulation or in InterZfM?-<. ' pretive guidelines. ' : "' V- ' ` ' -:V .: I. GRACE'S INTEREST IN MARYLAND'S' ' ASBESTOS REGULATIONS. ________ Grace mines vermiculite in Libby, Montana and Enoree, South Carolina and uses vermiculite in the manufacture of a number of construction, industrial and horticultural products. When mined, vermiculite ore contains tremolite. a form of asbestos, but the ore first undergoes a process of beneficiation and then is ''expanded," so that the levels of tremolite contamination are but parts per million (ppm) in Grace vermi culite products. No Grace vermiculite-based product contains more than 50 ppm asbestiform tremolite fiber (0.005% by weight). Grace vermiculite-containing products are used for sev eral purposes. Perhaps the largest and most important use is in Monokoto*, a product that has several unique proper ties makingfdLt partic\;larly suitable for structural steel fireproofin^l# The great majority of,structural steel fire^,;".X proofing applied today in Maryland is Monokote** and virtually ;' every office building constructed here over the past twenty years has been protected with this material. No product presently on the market provides equal performance in modern steel fCcime buildings at comparable cost. - \ lerst'andi ng of OSHA ' s'. clarifications (^ns^that spray applications are prohibited`^because they 'ybuId^e^*asbestos-coritaining materials. " As OSHA^itse 1 f and other agencies have recognized, however, such an interpretatiori ybuld be both impractical and unnecessary. II. THE UBIQUITY OF TRACE ASBESTOS CONTAMINATION. Naturally-occurring asbestos is ubiquitous and found in trace quantities in a wide variety of minerals. As mineral ogists have long recognized, both serpentine rock, which usually contains some proportion of chrysotile (asbestiform serpentine), and amphibole minerals (e.g.. asbestiform treraolite, crocidolite. or amosite) occur very widely in sedimen tary. igneous and metamorphic rock formations throughout the world. Such occurrences are typically rich enough to be mined for asbestos production in only a few areas, but trace levels are found widely in many mineral formations. As.i(Uiiiversity of Maryland Frofessor of Geology Dr. Ann Wylie Jtest-ified at the OSHA hearings on its new asbestos > standarclr^rApprbximately thirty percent of the rocks found in the continental United States contain amphibcles [i.e. asbestos] as major constituents . . . lit] would be practi cally impossible to produce a commercial product from rock '"W'jwiwp V'V\. l043582 My*'*-.*1"*- Recognizing that products containing trace contaminant concentrations do not pose a significant threat to human health, regulatory agencies in addition to federal OSHA have consistently excluded trace contaminant levels of asbestos from more general asbestos regulations. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA's") asbestos Clean Air Act National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollu tants ("NESHAPS"), including the spraying ban and waste dis posal requirements, applies only to products containing more than 1% asbestos. 40 C.F.R. 5 61.140 et seq. ft Jr" 1/ Testimony in the 1984 Hearings on- the OSHA Asbestos ;^ Standard, OSHA Ex. 230, at 3, 9. 2/ See National Academy of Sciences, Asbestiform Fibers (1984).1 10045583 I-;'-"- i: u Si-' A ; i ^ \onyri^ t%- y$*': ' ' ? . .'s - ' - ?.v '5\ .-" v. ** * />;*' .'^>.*.Ci(if`,' '"?) 1*3 rCliS*7C. V"''- :-'-;'^:*4>- if.A? wm?' ' :'* L. iv-.;<*?. ?*1 .;*- * * EPA*s ''information When Y EPAV' collected comprehehsiye|xiata on as- ' bestps^in5l982 in :preparatlpn'; for its rulemakings to ban and "phase out asbes tos, it excluded from the required data information on mixtures which "contain .- asbestos as a contaminant or impurity." 40 C.F.R. 763.63(b). 3. ERA'S Proposed Ban on Asbestos. Although proposing to ban and phase out asbestos use, EPA was careful to emphasize that the proposal did not apply to asbestos such as that encountered "in connection with mining of another substance such as vermiculite" that was "an unintended contaminant or impurity." 51 Fed. Reg. 3738, 3754, proposed 40 C.F.R. 763.143(g) at 3757 (Jan. 29, 1986). 4. CPSC. v Although rejecting a *1% cutoff . below, which asbestos would; be permissi\ ble ih'patching compounds, - the CPSC em phasized it did not intend to ban patch ing compounds in which there were un avoidable trace amounts of asbestos. 42 Fed. Reg. 63,354, 63,357 (Dec. 15, 1977). Similarly, CPSC's enforcement policy for the labeling of household products containing asbestos applies only where the asbestos has been ;: ' <? r-a*-: ry. 10045584 S* Very truly yours, John S. Hamilton, Jr. f 10045585 J eir h'ip ISiiilil! ;r. r^-rp' : * ^XC<H9iX` rJvtfX.O^* ^c'-cxmcE' &&&& $&&!&&&;;: a; XGib>Acx-r jzcoc^esrx^ {SKJQEHfr;.. rr*; m?* . '" . `\ MXXS leekingiinterpr^atror l^^yi^ionsvcontalnS&^^t'fief^^^'a'c'd^Coi* ^I^MaS^l^POSMlipStMasDestos^itrendltte'Manthdphylli^i^SiSaL ic.^^o^te^i^aue<iyjun'e|2Of(51fFR^22612 J'Mspecli fcaily^yourlcwj; of': the';?i^!standardsTaayf fMd^a^tivities thatfpose'no asbes tosrisk to worker health: and*** ?not; intendedxbytythe Occupational;Safety Health {Administration (OSHA) to 'be covered by the^new/s tandards '>^P!^i3! Your^letter raised interpretive issues about tnree provisions The first provision states that: "Materials containing asbestos, treaolite, anthophyllite, or actinolite shall not be applied by spray methods' (S1910.1001(f)(1)(vii) and 1926.58(g){2)(iiiJ). As you pointed out, other government agencies which have restrict ed the application of asbestos materials by prohibiting spraying have included a percentage-by-weight exclusion. Your concern is that, since the OSHA provisions do not contain an exclusion, the OSHA regulation will inappropriately apply to a wide variety of sprayed products that contain trace amounts of naturally occur ring levels of asbestos which you term 'de-minimis.' OSHA recognizes that some mineral products that are sprayed may contain such small amounts of asbestos as to be considered de-minimis' for purposes of administering these standards. * 4.In certain situations, therefore, OSHA will not enforce the pro visions of the standards which prohibit the spraying of ashes-V; .f'X^lltos^containing'products. >,, These situations will be limited to' ? \ \ peases where the employer can show that the 'fiber' concentra-; : '* /.ytion^of the product is less that 0.1% by weight, is a natural 'contaminant, and where objective data (as described in 51 FR 22712) indicate that, under foreseeable handling and usage, employee exposures will not exceed the action level of 0.1 f/cc. For purposes of administering the standards, OSHA compliance officers will be instructed that, in such situations, they should not issue a citation because of the de-minimis nature oT employee exposure. 10045586 -Xt ! ... (S1910l001(k) -.and 51926.58(1) rcspectiyely)$p|Asljyoagtated. infyour$le11er, these arelhouselceeping^pcovis^lonslyhich cequlate clean-up-methods and waste'disposal and.areofyparticular concern t'o:>you;jif; they apply to activities involvingfallfsTaterials containihafahy amount of asbestos, however :small^^#1tv-' The Agency believes that proper housekeeping`'and'disposal practices are essential parts of any effective asbestos coutrol program. OSHA, however, did not intend its housekeeping and waste disposal provisions to be required for de-minimis situations. As explained above, if materials contain only trace natural contaminants of asbestos (defined as products with less than 0.1% asbestos by dry weight), and if employers can show, based upon objective data that employee exposure to such materials, during anticipated usage and handling, cannot exceed the action level, then the housekeeping and waste disposal provisions will not be cited. Also, in an earlier letter to OSHA, dated November 14, 1985, concerning the draft revised standards, you expressed concern that the scope of the revised standards would include nonasbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. The revised standards have included these non-asbestiform minerals in their scope. .You should note, however, that the revised standard only regulates fibrous forms of these minerals (defined as having a length-to-width ratio greater than 3 to 1). Further, on July 18, 1986, OSHA granted a temporary nine-month stay of the effective date of the revised standards (until April 21, 1987) insofar as they apply to occupational exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. The purpose of the stay is to allow OSHA to review newly submitted information and to institute supplemental rulemaking on whether these minerals should continue to be regulated as presenting the same health risk as asbestos. 10045587 s ,-* ^ 'V\ : . -'v.-i&vt-&SiWi/^t:-c.-.';<'-.i?r'*! 10045588 ip l *> r. .yv". SUBJECT* BPOCE HILLENERAND, TDirector Federal-State Operations California's Asbestos Standard j; tf t " " " Ct' 't we have been contacted by an attorney representing theV.Jt.Crace Company who is concerned about a probleo with the pending revision to the California asbestos standard. On August 14, 1?86, in response to a Question from Grace, OSHA issued the attached policy interpretation with regard to the spray acplicatlon of materials that have only trace aeount of asbestos. The new asbestos standard prohibits spraying of materials that contain asbestos without setting any niniaua amounts. In our letter we Indicated that our compliance policy would be that the spraying Drohicition does not apply to products wnere the fiber concentration is less than 0.1% by weight. Ve understand that W.R. Grace has discussed this issue with Cal/CSKA officials who indicated their philosophical willingness to honor this interpretation but felt that if they did Federal 0HA would find tbeir standard "net at least as effective*, while we believe that this issue would best be handled through an Adalnlstrative Interpretation, we would not object to adoptioa of this provision by CA1/OSHA. Please discuss this issue with the State and rate then aware Of OSliA's position. Ke understand that fcary Lou Smith, of the Standards Board, has had discussions with Grace representatives on this issue. If we nay be of assistance, please contact Barbara Bryant. Attachment s [ 004558? nrj'W.'). m. I, II. ................ ,1 I,.............. . .. . $1^^ IWcIoaod ?ararcoptfimj^sarrii ponds ac effi^n^oorfaa t1onalOff1cm ^^concaraingan iatsrpMtatioa^ofJ'theXraTlaVd^eaYea toa atandardaffo -Qk^gtutxil indoatry^aodjeonatraetion* -.1>?ederalp,0SHA la laterpratlag Ipl :;:|&the*provlaions bleh|f'rolilble the apraylngof materials containing ;:|^aaVaatoa as aot applylng^to'-, products having a iber eoae a c ratioa ; ' ?g*f ?! thaa d.lX';by|waight. - -.? vM^' ` ' ' ^ Tba V. 1. Grace Company requested and received this clarificationand have alaca bad dlseoseloas vleb Mary Loo Smith coacaraiaftbo adoption of tbla provision by Cal/OSHA la Ita aabaatoa standard* Za accordance with Broca BllZaabraad'a request, va hereby advise you that vs voold have ao objection to such aa action* . If tbara ara qoaatlons or concarna regarding tbla matter, please do aot bealtata to contact our Office of Technical support. j S%t&Skt Bosaall 1. Svanaon laglonal Administrator Incloeorae i !00A5590 U 0\