Document 8V1KpJMeGp91gyZ3xewYaYVGd

OSHA's new asbestos standard remains in a holding pattern In a news conference held last April, NIOSH Director Dr. An thony Robbins and then-Assistant Secretary of Labor -- OSHA Eula Bingham announced the findings of a joint NIOSH/OSHA asbestos work group which had concluded that the OSHA asbestos standard should be revised substantially. The group recommended that OSHA lower the asbestos permissible ex posure level (PEL) from 2 million fibers per cubic meter of air to 100,000 fibers, and eliminate from the workplace all exposure from new non-essential uses of asbestos. Bingham said the work group's report "demands corrective ac tion" and pledged that OSHA would "move with all deliberate speed" to amend the 2-million-fiber standard. Bingham did not say what PEL OSHA would propose but. given her statement that the pro posal would be developed "pur suant to the OSHA cancer policy," most OSHA observers concluded that the agency would endorse the 100,000-fiber limit. The asbestos work group was formed in 1979 to review asbestos health research conducted since 1976, when NIOSH recommended lowering the standard to 100.000 fi bers. The group found that all com mercial and several non-commer cial forms of asbestos cause disease. It reconfirmed NIOSH's position that there is no safe exposure limit for asbestos and that the PEL should be set at the lowest reliably detectable level -- 100,000 fibers. In recommending a more strin gent standard, the group admitted that "no adequate epidemiological information is available on the jdisease experience of workers exposed below the current standard and fol lowed for a sufficient period to iden tify long-latent effects." Neverthe Industry officials warn a revised asbestos standard would require expensive new engi neering controls and put some operations out of business. less, the group found the 2-millionfiber standard inadequate for these reasons: The 2-million-fiber standard was set in 1969 by the British Occu pational Hygiene Society to minimize asbestosis, but follow-up studies showed the standard would not prevent "a large incidence of asbestosis." All levels of asbestos exposure studied to date had shown asbestos-related disease, leading the group to conclude that asbestos exhibited a linear dose-response curve, that is, no level below which clinical effects did not occur. Members of asbestos worker households and persons living near asbestos-contaminated areas, often subject only to low-level or inter mittent exposure to asbestos, had contracted asbestos-related dis eases. "Studies of duration of expo sure suggest that even at very short exposure periods (l day to 3 months) significant disease can oc cur," the group found. Response to the NIOSH/OSHA report from the asbestos industry was swift and critical. "We fully concur with the goal of protecting workers in the asbestos industry from health-related risks," Asbes tos Information Association/North America (AIA/NA) President Thomas A. Dougherty said, "but we cannot find in the NIOSH report any justification for the proposed decrease to a. 1 fiber [per cubic cen timeter) standard." He charged: "The NIOSH recommendation . . . is based almost entirely on epidemiologic evidence from worker populations exposed to as bestos at levels many times greater than those experienced in industry today." Johns-Manville Corp. disputed the idea that no safe exposure level for asbestos exists: "In those asbestos-using plants where our knowledge of the need to control asbestos was such that comprehen BRG 0414 sive environmental controls were installed from the very beginning of their operations, no cases of asbestos-related disease have been diagnosed in employees working with asbestos in those operations alone. Because of this we can say with confidence that we are not creating a future disease problem and that it is possible to work with asbestos without hazard." (J-M of ficials told Occupational Hazards that no asbestosis has been con tracted by employees working ex clusively at plants built since 1957.) J-M stated that both studies of people exposed to naturally occur ring asbestos and certain occupa tional studies showed that asbestos can be used "without hazard" and verified that "the important ele ment in asbestos-related disease is dose." The company charged that workers evidencing asbestosrelated disease recently were re flecting "the high levels ofexposure of past decades. . . ." J-M faulted the NIOSH/OSHA report for failing to "emphasize the role of smoking in disease occurrence and fail[ing]to distinguish between past conditions and the present situation in the workplace." AIA/NA President Dougherty warned that a 100,000--fiber standard would not be feasible in many workplaces. In practical terms, said Dougherty, the pro posed PEL would amount "to a ban on the use of asbestos" in such situ ations and would be "detrimental" to the U.S. economy. Update A year has passed, since the OSHA/NIOSH report was issued, but there has been little news about revising the OSHA asbestos stan dard. despite the air of urgency sur rounding the report's release. Steve Simon, OSHA project officer for the asbestos standard, said former OSHA-boss Eula Bingham had in tended to publish an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in early 1981, but the changeover in administrations has stalled that ac tion. Simon said he did now know what action the Reagan Administra tion's OSHA team would take on asbestos. Simon said the agency was work ing on an asbestos risk assessment using three different modeling tech niques to generate dose-response curves for asbestos PELs of 2 mil lion. 500.000, and 100,000 fibers. Simon reported all three PELs showed some risk of asbestosrelated disease. NIOSH is conduct ing a separate risk assessment. Members of the asbestos work group remain convinced that a strong case can be made for a new asbestos standard. "I think if we don't have data on asbestos, then we don't have data to control any hazardous substance. Probably, the data on asbestos is the strongest we have," claimed John Dement, assis tant director of NIOSH's Division of Respiratory Disease Studies. Dement reported that he and re searchers from the University of North Carolina School of Public Health had recently completed a retrospective cohort study of 768 asbestos textile workers employed in a plant between 1940 and 1965. and followed them through 1975. Of the 191 deaths observed, 26 were due to lung cancer, while only 7.47 had been expected. There were 18 deaths from non-malignant respira tory disease, compared to the 6.85 expected. The study concluded: "The current OSHA exposure standard of 2.0 fibers/cc is based on an allowable lifetime exposure of 100 fiber/cc x years (i.e.. 2.0 fibers/cc for 50 years). Based on data from this study, elevated risks are predicted for lung cancer and for non-malignant respiratory diseases at this exposure level." The study's authors acknowledged that this was based on a cumulative dose concept and that historic exposures at the plant "have been considerably above 2.0 fibers/cc." "1 think we're in a period where, if we're going to wait and count bodies, we're going to have to wait years until we really demonstrate a risk below the 2-fiber level," said Richard A. Lemen, special assistant to the director for standards devel opment, NIOSH, and chairman of the OSHA/NIOSH asbestos work group. "But the evidence that is available to date indicates there is a problem below the 2-fiber level." Lemen said there was evidence of lung tissue changes and decrease in pulmonary function among workers Asbestos manufacturers believe engi neering controls and other measures used to reach OSHA's 2 fiber/c3 standard are adequate to protect workers' health. reportedly exposed to the 2-fiber level only and that people with very limited exposure had developed mesothelioma. Amid some reports in Washing ton that OSHA would not proceed with a new asbestos standard, we asked Lemen what he had heard. "I talked to Bailus Walker [OSHA di rector of health standards! last week, and he told me that they were going to go ahead and promulgate an asbestos standard." Lemen replied. "I would hope that they do, even if the revisions are confined only to our recommendations on medical surveillance and monitoring and things of that nature." Walker could not be reached for comment. Johns-Manville officials told Oc cupational Hazards they do not ex pect OSHA to promulgate a 100.000-fiber standard, especially in light of the Supreme Court's ben zene decision, but they do forecast "some tightening" of the asbestos standard in the next 4 years. How much tightening occurs in the midst of the present sensitivity to the cost of government may well depend as much on economics as on medical science. BRG 0415