Document 7O19qQGe9w6JE4XEDOV91Zo6B

/* Internal Correspondence V F.J. Solan, Jt. Denver CHQ Dm :i February 1^75 (660) From ''K- iir..js J- - i.' no Copfca. D. Pouuatiwe Hn* i '.j Cliffs Su*ct. ::%,:ron,me?:tal legislation u.k. .. 1 would refer to the enclosed copy of the recent Governmental Act entitled *- Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (effective 1 April 1975) Your particular attention is drawn to Paragraph 6 (Pages 5, 6 & 7) Paragraph 15(2) Page 13 and Schedule 3 Paragraph 1(4) Page 95. 1 would suggest that as-this Act.could affect a number of J-H products and materials ioported into the U.K. that this should be urgently drawn to the attention of all divisions. binary of part of Paragraph 6 indicate* chat all substancaa or products of/or containing hazardous materials oust be so indicated by the ioporter/seller to the ultimate purchaser/user, to enable the latter to take such action aa may be necessary to protect their personnel. * * * ` - I.-**- >' - - V ^ Suggestions here from U.K. manufacturers of asbestos-containing materials are that all their literature and/or invoices will carry indications that their use may under certain conditions have to conform to the Asbestos Regulations 1969* I also attach for information a copy of an internal memo by rhe legal adviser to T & N sent to all their subsidiaries In the U.K. t7U have not <* yew eeciieo any precise similar memo as sent out by Cspe to their Encs: Health ft Safety at Work etc Act 1974 T ft N Memo . .. Cape Memo l. II ' iM TUi.'ll J. >1. Alkili:i-:i .-"I YTO m./Mi ii MI.V/A l.l l i MAW.I II MTU ICO jiiii/ii;:ii/u<:/i : c;/ IIKll/AN/JCJo/i /.? j 1`rnlth '-"r-W 3fili J.'jnu.'.r/ V.ir!: AlI i .Among thr or':!; -i r.r.,j 1 (idtios imposed by the health am 1 Safety at i.'ori; etc. Act vuh effect from l.st April 197!) ic that contain'd in C whereby manufacturers and suppliers are rcciuimi to nukr available to cuntoincrs adequ ate information to ensure that products will be safe and without risk to health when properly used. Early action is called for in this connection in view of the need io prepare and possibly print the warnings and information required coii])lcd. with the fact that it is our intention to seek, through the relevant trado associations, the adoption of standard practices wherever possiblo. i I'know that in some casos individual Unit Companies have already given consideration to tho action required under Section 6 and the purpose of this noto is to bring you tin--*. date with the w*y in which thpso most closoly concerned at T&N bcliovo tlic problem should be tackled. At the same time, thought has been given to tho possible ncod to label certain products9 the use of which might give rise to health risks, Gonorally, these questions havo been considered in relation to asbestos and asbestos based products and in tho ease of Unit Companies whoso products give rise to different hazards this circular is accompaniod by a separate note. Section 6 It is propos&d to xecoiiutiujiu to tho Asbestos Inform ation Committee (AlC), who arc already considering tho whole question, that tho asbestos industry should be advised to adopt a paragraph along tho following lines (modified as appropriate to tako account of tho particular materials concorded in each ease) lor inclusion in sales literature- uuu ut. a postscript to Conditions of Sale. However* boforc tho proposal is put forward formally 1 should bo grateful for your comments so that Taxi's representatives on tho AlC can bo cortain that Unit Company viowe arc adequately taken into account!- "Health and Safety nt Work etc. Act 1^7** vakst::o prooucis arc /^asbcitor and in co**-;on vj n Ml nfnrr - <1 r.ra t x 1 ?. \rr ^ Co r t w i n n |** r. t j . with mu h i< i t.i - r i o I nM|ii i rn procwn- t ion-, to Wo i. >!.*- i l' niMii ' tw.it t.Woy will Wr n.'dc ami vithuul to WrultW u.i<n prop' rjy u*cd. Tho 1 i c t<> i... o l Uo A f.Wi* . t o f. i :i ll;suarr.li Council Which 'I'WCr ` __________>. !* C l. .> o ......... i.. . from tin* h nv i ro j i'.:< m <. ,i i Control Co.-ir,j t ton ,f mo Council, ll^i I'ark London V.l. or 1 rom ^V/.C Construction Matcnahs I-wf_iy Section 1 r. (*); SrW.oHulo " , !V- 1 (fr) Theso provisions enable tho Secretary of State to make regulations requi nn<; tho laWn I 1 1.1^ o I' any' mi' <r. t anco VluJe } t 1 r, unlikely that thi.** power will bo cxcrrjr.cd on the 1st April 1W'7.0 it i i> iuiown that asbestos is hih on tho list of subh t. me c regarded .is O-iV'.crous in the workplace by the r.tcLwj-y 1 n::ic c tor.i te anci accordingly aabcr.tor. products oro thoufint likely to i>c tho subject of a labelling obligation at a fairly early date. Tho AIC believes that it would bo wise for tho Afthestos industry to anticipate the likoly leftal requirement by the introduction of a label at this stago in a form vith which it is itsolf satisfied in the bcliof that this will roduce significantly the risk of the imposition of a label by locislntivo action. It is sugGostod that tho labol should tako the following form: - WARNING Avoid creating dust- Contains asbestos fibres Breathing asbestos dust nay cause serious discaso /7\\ ([ // ZAA \\ Vj \r- rV c_> TAKE CARE WITH ASBESTOS Similar wording already nppoars ortTabols in use by asbostos fibre producers both within TAN and elsewhere throughout tho world. Will you please let mo know your vi.ws with ri-gir.l to tho 'form of tho proposed label and la Hie rccoc.s-n.ta t . an '( c 1 rv j i nil mnl 1 It M I'llii r :i n I >f > . > I fi J- r1 A rrr<>nl C r.'in.i da "Wor K! .j. A .. J ; ; \<>r, r; mm*- cli>) lcr,/;rd the validity of tilt* "2 fitrr" t. 11 .> l.i r ' .1 .. <>c 1 :i t nJ wi Hi t he Hr i l i ;.h A t. o ^ Ho(jiil;il lonn, which g'<w r r. r r t. t i r> r i ?. i r, 1 *' *i ;t * h >>:. o *> f.tr Imk'*, , and indeed all w-rK <> anv ` .'............. . : -"du - * "*'*.*'1 Kihfd*i: . 'il>- geti't-.! d f 'f :hc { to;;r-.' w.*r i-.t 5 j 1 (.id i n;, it I id i 1 j ^ V v i I In r-11> - 1.1 * i ' ` 'i: * h > . Tho Standard r-r '.rr.niend i f: far u. - by II II inspiictoi ilc in applying 111 c 1 '"'I'l f- 1 ? t i on l.'ir^My b.:-**] a{J a report of the British f)rnip;i I i ruvil Myr,',no Snrinty on lfygLcnc Sl.if/J.ircls far chry&ot i.l c asbcto:> d n *-: . The I'.OifS basor! Ihnr f i nd j on tho hr a 1 * h of a group of 290 male asbestos textile workers at TBA in Hochdale "M 30th June 19^6, all of whom had been employed an "scheduled art'.'ij" at TBA for over 10 years since ist January 1933* The curnul.iLivc asunsfo* dust levels at various processes were then related to the medical history of the groups of workers who haa been employed in them. The TV programme gave the impression that the BOffS sub-commi 11 oe based ) their findings on a of the i-iays oi these workers. In fact they discarded the x-rays and based their findings on the earliest clinical symptoms of disease. If x-rays had'been used to determine the standard, it would have been less stringent. ! Vhat is relevant is the fact .that in those areas of the TBA factory / where we know the asbestos dust concentrations to have been about 2 fibres/ml (i.e. about the level of the standard^,/* for many years, there has been no abnormal medical history. Actually the BOIIS did not produce a "2 fibre" standard at all. Vhat they did was to produce a 100 fibre year standard. This can be expressed in various ways, e.n. to run n risk of incurring the cnrlivit clinical signs of asbestosis, at a concentration of 2 I/ml a man nas to work for 50 years t= 2 x 50 a 100 fibre ycars/ml ' at a concentration uf 4 f/ml a man has to work for 25 year* e 4 x 25 = 100 fibre years/ml at u conccittrn lion of 10 f/ml u man has to work foi J o yo.ir* a 10 X 10 = IOO fibre y i-a rt/: I In HftCrml H'j ) i * * * # Iht.iiim- nl the < Imhi; I ng f.Ti I mil nl Wtrtk, o llpti tlio 2 f/ml suintl.ini h.s I f the vast majority of burkcni a * lftr^o built-in margin of .*iiety. Tliore wore many other poinlh which the programme did not bring out* Tor oxasiplc, oT the 290 iiwni i ri the cohort only j2 had had cumulative exposures of loss than 100 fibre ycars/ml, and some of the longer servin' Men had had cumulative oxposux us of nearly 500 fibre ymrs/n) . It would not be unexpected for some of the men in the exposure cut< /jorlcs which far exceeded what ultimately was accepted as the "standard", to develop Babesiosis and its associated diseases. In those categories where the cumulative exposure has remained up to the standard, the health record remains good. Until 1968 when the HOMS Standard was published there was no recognised biological standard for asbestos. To criticise such a recently Introduced attempt to improve working conditions throughout all of British industry is not possible because of the obvious lack data which con be collected to verify or refute it since it came into genera* use in 1970. , The 7 lung cancer deaths in the cohort do not Indicate an excess of observed deaths compared to the number which would have been expected i a sample of the general population having the same iius-.bc* wf men in it with the same age distribution. It was not stated on the programme that all 7 men were cigarette smokers, and cigarette smoking Is known to increase the incidence of lung cancer in heavily exposed asbestos \nrkr* Mortality studies published relating to TBA indicate that as dust contt has improved sipce 1933 (when the Asbestos Industry Regulations, 1931, took effect), the incidence of asbestosis has rapidly declined and lung cancer now occurs at a rate no greater than is found in the general .population. The risk of anyone working in f&N factories (where the ROMS Standard is adhered to) getting lung cancer, is probably no greater thou that for tho general population. Three other points warrant comment. First, there is no danger whatever to the wives and families of TAN workers as a rosult of working to today's standards. The cases to which Or Selikoff reforrod on television were in a factory where dust levels were probably in hundreds of fibres. not In tho s i Itg 1 V figures t o which wc have been oper.a t i ng . So the dust on their c lotliing; won 1<I have OXpr.M'd relatives, when t hoy home, to dangerous levels of dust . Tbl s cannot happen in I hi* U.K. t oil.>\ t her. workers nr r Itnl e x nnsnl l < > ni.i siivi- ru lirrtit r.i 1 1 nil?, ul till ;* l ,ii V. Ml U Ml [ t; c 1 l I'M I |* I it c ;, ri ml hi** tm t j< t I * v.. u * 1: U < iiml-'imi Malt'd ovt-rn lit* In urn* - lln*v It.ivo 10 be 1.1 in d r i *| um'ci < ny n rrun lu. Iho sfrnml point i . th.it virwors ri.iy have formed Hie i inprcfis i on lli.it ft L 50^. of the asbestos Wf*rk'rji in t h c 2')*'. cohort oIum.'m! x-ray change* which, according : o hr t ns nhn o f TR\ , connote n . b>* t 05 i s , (T4*-~ncunr1 liieiilenr.? of-eh^nnen ' Dr bcwlnsohn is nt pains to point out thut not ail tin ch.mgcs which tie has Men arc tho^e of Jishc5fosi and thut tie has classified a vide range* of change.*' of similar .appearance under a broad descriptive heading. Many of the chang* are only of slight <) c/tcc ^nd may have nr t. tun#; to do with the effects o asbestos exposure. br lowin^ohn has always maintained that as no tempi has been made to retail.* those changes to cumulative dust exposure histories or to the clinical features of the population concerned, no conclusions can hr drawn with regard to the IJOHS Standard and th*so x-ray findings. 7t 1 ; unfortunate that Dr SMiVioff has steadfastly ref'ut'* d t o accept this explanation. The diagram in the TV film which showed millions of fibres being breathed in during a normal 8 hour day did not make the point that most of what is breathed in is also breathed out. Finally, the very dusty conditions shown at the beginning of the programme were not filmed at TBA at all. They were simulated conditions* using bags of flour mixed with cement dust, and bear no relation whatever to dust levels in the Rochdale factory.