Document 9JEGz5pvr5q02MX48gj6Q2j5V

FILE NAME Manville JMA DATE 1972-1973 DOC JMA047 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Asbestos Information Association Reports Asbestos Information Association 22 East 40th Street New York Y. 10016 212 661-8200 a pe ah _ fee North America 10465 cn RIDI ef @ July 12 1972 DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 552 PENGAD 552 TO ' AIA MEMBER COMPANIES AIA AIA ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL COUNSEL CONTROL COMMITTEE James Armstrong E. C. Bratt G. G. Gabrielson Bernard Gross Jr. J. Hall H. M. Jackson W. N. Johnson A. R. Hooker C. A. Neumann G. W. Nickel Clifford Seymour J. R. Stetson Philip Weinstein G. W. Wright M.D. - Bendix Corporation - H. K. Porter Company Inc. - Nicolet Industries Inc. - American Bilt Rite Rubber Company - GAF Corporation - Manville Corporation - Union Carbide Corporation . - The Flintkote Company - Kentile Floors Incorporated - Armstrong Cork Company - The Carborundum Company - Congoleum Industries Inc. ~ Evertox Incorporated - St. Luke's Hospital Gentlemen Inadvertently the list of locked asbestos containing products which was to have been attached to our July 5 mailing was not included Attached therefore is the list as originally promised It has come to our attention that a number of companies still have questions concerning whether certain asbestos- containing products which they manufacture should or should not be labeled The standard is rather indefinite in that it calls for warning lables on products which during any reasonably foreseeable use may create airborne concentrations of asbestos in excess of prescribed limits The Occupational Safety and Health Act itself states that any standard promulgated ... shall prescribe the use of labels or other appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that employees are apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed relevant symptoms and appropriate emergency treatments and proper conditions and precautions of safe use or exposure Quite obviously the rather simple > > . ry ! Sponsored by Atlas Actorsting Co Cement Asbestos Prulurts Prulurts Co C - the Product Product C'nFA In Co { GAF Corp. Johns Manville Corp National Cipsum Co Panace ( ob aid aid Paytests Paytests Manhattan Inu warning label prescribed in the regulations does not all of the criteria described in the law which only to the problem reet adds Each company will have to decide for itself whether a particular product requires a there should be uniformity on label er not this subject Obviously because if one company decides to label a certain product and another company decides not to label the same product the latter company whould be placed in a most untenable position with OSHA It is our understanding that OSHA is planning to use the list of locked products submitted by Dr. Fred Fundsack of 1 at the March hhaasshas its labeling criteria the hearing If this list is followed difficulties with OSHA should be few intermit entlyNevertheless there are always products which do not fit any list or which may produce levels in excess of the standard at one step in the application or handling process For example the field cutting or trimming of asbestos Spipe might produce levels in excess of the standard but for the the man doing the actual cutting and only very intermittently or rarely Thus to place a warning label on asbestos pipe would be quite misleading in that it would alarm all those handling the product when only Hone man has a potential excess exposure exposure Our recommendations to you on labeling would thus be as J ' follows 7 If the product is included on the list of nonlocked products , it should be labeled If a product is not included on the list of locked products be a border line case occasional handling or but you consider it to or if the product has an fabrication problem the following options are open a Label it and be on the safe side b Do not label it and hope OSHA doesn't question your decision C. Conduct tests to determine if the use of the product does indeed produce levels in i excess of the standard Chances are that -More- most product uses of this type will meet the and the eight hour TH tandard of five fibers that most problems will be in meeting ten fiber ceiling standard If tests obviously determine that neither standard is exceeded the product obviously need not be labeled The test results Hould be kept in readiness in casc an OSHA inspector questions your decision If the eight hour time weighted average is above five fibers per cc then the product should be labeled If the ceiling value is above ten fibers cc which is the more likely of the two per possibilities then the use of the product should be examined to determine 1 how far above ten fibers per cc is the ceiling 2 does this particular work practice value or use of the product occur frequently intermittently or only rarely 3 can the product be applied cut trimmed etc. in another fashion does not exceed such that the ceiling level ten fibers per cc After these questions have been answered it will be up to the indivial company involved to weigh each answer carefully and to arrive at a Does decision based on the simple proposition this product or its use place the health of workmen in jeopardy Obviously if the answer is yes the product should be labeled If on the other hand you honestly believe that the anter is No then you should not feel constrained to label the product nevertheless you must be prepared to defend your position with OSHA should they question it There are a number of ways that you can place your company in a better defensive position should OSHA challenge your decision not to label a particular product The basic idea would be for you to alert the purchasers of this particular product that one or more operations in the handling application cutting etc. of the product might produce levels in excess of the standard and that -More- precautions should be taken This could be done through personal contact between industry salesmen and customers or in the form of an instruction sheet delivered with the order that might specify certain work practices or types of machinery that should be used to keep dust levels low The instruction sheet for example might say nothing more than Powered bench says without collectors should not be used in cutting this product If this is impractable operator should be provided with a U.S. Bureau of Mines approved respirator An approach of this type or one somewhat similar would indicate to OSHA should the question arise good faith on your part With regard to the coordination of industry labeling practices if your company has decided to label a product not included on the attached locked list I would appreciate being notified of this decision and the rationale behind it as soon as possible so that with other companies product a uniform position can be established in the industry manufacturing the same wmIf you please have feel any questions or problems free to contact us at any with regard to time I would labeling not advise your asking OSHA for a decision on whether or not to label a certain product Almost assuredly they will tell you to label any border line product and that decision will become binding for the rest of the industry as well Very truly yours Malt Matthew M. Swetonic Executive Secretary Enclosure NON Eh Th . CONTACHING 1 PRODU PHOU G A WARNING LABEL if ; ACOUSTICAL PRODUCTS Dry spray type Foamed asbestos SILICATE SHEETS Low density shects CECMEMNTESNTS CEMENTS less than ft _ INSULATIONSDry Gypsum joint cements Insulating cements INSULATIONS Low density calcium silicate binders Corrugated paper 4 Low density magnesia binders High temperature blocks & bricks PAPERS & FELTS Y Commercial grades unsaturated Roofing felts unsaturated Gaskets unsaturated or Millboards unsaturated not encapsulated encapsulated or uncoated kd STUCCO & PLASTER Dry Dry mix mix cement stucco decorative plaster TEXTILES unsaturated or uncoated Braided Cloth Listing Wicks Yarn products ASBESTOS FIBER BAGS 1 . ATA MEMBER COMPANIES 14353 14353 RECEIVED JAN 1973 14353 BP Te eet ke E. C. Bratt George Barge H. Randolph Brown J. D. Christian A. H. Fay J. K. Whittaker W. E. Gatewood A. R. Hocker J. H. Marsh C. G. Morgan C. A. Neumann J. L. Rainey J. W. Rawlings Kurt Schwarz F. J. Solon Jr. Wes Sauerland S. D. Weaver Paul Weiner J. R. Stetson - H. K. Porter - Atlas Asbestos Company - Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company - Cassiar Asbestos Corporation Ltd. - National Gypsum Company - Nicolet Industries Inc. - Certain Products Corporation - The Flintkote Company - Raybestos - North American Asbestos Corporation - Kentile Floors Inc. - American Asbestos Textile Corporation - Union Carbide Corporation - Supradur Manufacturing Corporation - Manville Corporation - Jim Walter Corporation - Cement Asbestos Products Company - GAF Corporation - Congoleum Industries Inc. AIA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMMITTEE E. M. Fenner Ike Weaver Frank Zimmerman W. J. Dickson W. Fassuliotis Ralph Lanz John Myers Wes Sauerland - Manville Corporation - Raybestos - National Gypsum - Flintkote Company - GAF Corporation - Nicolet Industries Inc. - Union Carbide Corporation - Jim Walter Corporation AIA LEGAL COUNSEL Bradley Walls - Burns VanKirk Jube & Kafer AIA PUBLIC RELATIONS COUNSEL Jack Steinberg Mike Isser Tony Federico C. L. Forbes Cunningham & Walsh I H 1 1 " 11 11 1 AIA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CONSULTANT C. L. Sheckler Ve & om CC A. E. Alpine G. M. Armstrong James Armstrong A. A. Cross Hugh Dawson J. Hall S. Holmes Wilfred Howard Michael F. Howe H. M. Jackson Art Neilson S. Monoky P. V. Pelnar M. D. F. L. Pundsack Ivan Sabourin Hans Weill M. D. G. W. Wright M. D. I. C. Campbell J. A. Gossip Certain Products Corporation American Asbestos Textile Corporation Bendix Corporation Cape Asbestos Company Ltd. Hill & Knowlton UK Limited GAF Corporation Turner Brothers Asbestos Asbestos Information Committee England Turner & Newell Manville Corporation Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Certain Products Institute of Occupational & Environmental Manville Corporation Manville Legal Counsel Tulane University St. Luke's Hospital Q.A.M.A. Q.A.M.A. Health Asbestos Information Association America 22 East 40th Street New York N. Y. 10016 212-689-3378 November 27 1972 BDBD BDBD Gentlemen On Wednesday November 8 I traveled to Washington with a of asbestos filter manufacturers to meet with members group of the Food and Drug Administration's recently established task force on asbestos The FDA representatives at the included Dr. R. Schaffner Director of the Office meeting Cassola Dr. A. D. Berneking of Product Technology Dr. Armand Mr. Taylor Quinn of the FDA Office of Compliance and Mr. Milo Prochaska of of the meeting which was requested by the filter The purpose discuss FDA plans with industry at my suggestion was to regard to Dr. Selikoff's recent findings electron microscope sized asbestos fibers in a number of injectable drugs the result of the drugs having been filtered presumably and also the use through cellulose filter pads of containing filters in the food and beverage processing industry The meeting lasted for approximately hour and a half an afternoon meeting was held with a an dditional FDA people in Rockville Maryland which I did not attend and the basic points discussed and attitudes expressed can be summarized as follows 1 The use of asbestos filter pads and media is extremely widespread a copy of a brief description of the industry prepared by of the industry leaders and distributed one at the meeting is attached The FDA thought that asbestos filters were people hardly used at all 2 The FDA representatives indicated that they knew very little about asbestos and that most had been assigned to the task force within the past few months te. Despite this admitted lack of experience and knowledge they said that their basic goal was to identify and ban any and all asbestoscontaining products that come in direct contact with foods drugs or beverages during stage of the thus release processing procedure and fibers into the finished any could product This would include not only asbestos filters but also such products as gaskets used in pressure cookers in the This last item is their soup industry etc. example not mine In response to a direct question from me Dr. Berneking stated that the FDA considers any exposure to matter what the asbestos to be hazardous no level and that the FDA feels no obligation to produce evidence or even a logical argument for the banning of any asbestoscontaining product According to him if a product contains asbestos that's evidence enough I pointed out to the group existed in our environment that asbestos has for probably millions of years so that there is a measurable back- ground level to which people have been exposed both in the air they breathe and in the water they drink throughout man's history on the planet This point seemed to imprss the FDA representatives and they agreed that if the industry could prove to the FDA's satisfaction that the use of asbestos filters would not result in concentrations of asbestos in the finished level of product greater than the background asbestos normally found in water they would not ban the use of such filters Fortunately the filter industry assures me that a relatively cost filter system can be added to existing asbestos filter systems to catch any fibers released from the asbestos filter The industry was given sixty days to prepare data for the FDA on the use of filters and on levels of asbestos in water and air background background levels I agreed to collect the data on and also on the health effects of the ingestion of asbestos fibers While it appears likely that containing filter media will not be banned by the FDA some filters sort of and control practices standard will be promulgated requiring the use of filters the disturbing thing about the FDA's attitude toward asbestos is their stated intention to ban containing products whether or not evidence indicates that a ban is necessary the In medical fact the FDA people admitted to us that they had intended to propose a complete ban of asbestos filters within a few weeks had not the industry stepped in with information on filters background levels etc. The general philosophy of the FDA seems to be enough about the health effects of asbestos to decide whether a use is safe or not therefore we don't know intelligently we will ban all containing products unless the industry can to us that the ban is unnecessary This guilty until prove proven innocent philosophy will quite obviously very difficult for the industry to contend with in prove its dealings with the FDA in the future Sincerely Malt Matthew M. Swetonic BD BD BDBD Cellulose Filter Material Asbestos fibers have been in use as filter media since at least 1887 - 85 years ago First cellulose pads since 1917 - used in brewing wines etc. extensively in Europe First manufacture of cellulose filter pads in the United States was 1931-32 again for potable products Uses spread over the years to include not only wines and whiskeys but also foods beverages chemicals lotions tonics oils pharmaceuticals soaps etc. In July 1937 experimental use of cellulose pads for the preparation of infusion fluids started at New York University Surgical Division of Bellevue Hospital in New York City Supervision of a 42 month trial was done by Drs Co Tui and A. M. Wright and written up in a report in the September 1942 issue of the Annals of Surgery Prior to 1937 there had been no truly effective way of filtering intravenous solutions to achieve nonpyrogenicity on a production basis This new technique allowed for the processing of large quantities of solutions such as sodium citrate dextrose heparin blood plasma as well as all the antibiotics which came along starting during World War II There were practical difficulties encountered during this trial work and the most serious difficulty noted was the presence of shreds and particles in the filtrate While the injection of solutions containing these particles into numerous experi- mental animals caused no detectable symptons their presence was none the less objectionable After 16 months of evaluation the difficulty was overcome by the use of an aloxite fiber eliminator between the cellulose filter and the collecting chamber Among some of the rejected filters were Jena Chamberland and Berkefeld filters The ability of cellulose pads to remove pyrogens as well as other less critical contaminant is due to adsorption or adhesion and not to sieving The uniqueness of this type of filter media is a result of the electrophoretic characterisitcs of the media This is all due to the positive charge of the chrysotile fibers which are blended in with the cellulose to form a firm filtration bed with depth and strength fibers The grade and quality of asbestos fiber used in filtration is high and the price of said material is also expensive Generally the asbestos is cleaned and acid treated to remove leachables As an industry we would be interested in a less expensive and less controversial material for manufacture of filter media We have seen many new products enter the scene but nothing to take the place of what we have Asbestos filter media is being used in the manufacture of hundreds of products offered by every segment of industry handling free flowing liquids As an example one manufacturer of loose ee asbestos filter media considers the vegetable oil industry probably their single greatest outlet one customer alone producing one million pounds of edible fats and oils per day Another industry is the production of wines - consider the fact that two manufacturers of cellulose pads and loose media located plants in California primarily serving the wine industry To sum up these comments our filter media serves a definite need to not only the economy but to mankind Consider the fact that penicillin would not have been as readily available during World War II Also millions of filter pads were used by the armed forces for drinking water with one small filter unit per platoon Water from ditches being typhoid free after filtration with cellulose pads * E. C. Bratt ' George Barge H. Randolph Brown J. D. Christian A. H. Fay J. K. Whittaker W. E. Gatewood A. R. Hocker J. H. Marsh C. G. Morgan C. A. Neumann J. L. Rainey J. W. Rawlings Kurt Schwarz F. J. Solon Jr. Wes Sauerland S. D. Weaver Paul Weiner J. R. Stetson EMW1EMW7 176x6EMxW176x het het het b - H. | yi\lo K. Porter Ik Ik I}k Ik F : 5 - Atlas Asbestos Company - Uvalde Rock Asphalt Company - Cassiar Asbestos Corporation Ltd. - National Gypsum Company - Nicolet Industries Inc. - Certain Products Corporation - The Flintkote Company ~ Raybestos - North American Asbestos Corporation - Kentile Floors Inc. - American Asbestos Textile Corporation - Union Carbide Corporation - Supradur Manufacturing Corporation * Manville Corporation - Jim Walter Corporation - Cement Asbestos Products Company - GAF Corporation - Congoleum Industries Inc. BBD D AIA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMMITTEE E. M. Fenner Ike Weaver Frank Zimmerman W. J. Dickson W. Fassuliotis Ralph Lanz John Myers Wes Sauerland - Manville Corporation - Raybestos - National Gypsum : - Flintkote Company - GAF Corporation AM Nicolet Industries Inc. - Union Carbide Corporation Bark Jim Walter Corporation AIA LEGAL COUNSEL Bradley Walls - Burns Vankirk Jube & Kafer AIA PUBLIC RELATIONS COUNSEL Jack Steinberg Mike Isser Tony Federico C. L. Forbes Cunningham & Walsh w 10 1 11 11 1 11 tt - AIA ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CONSULTANT C. L. Sheckler - Owe tre 1 . CC A. E. Alpine G. M. Armstrong James A. A. Armstrong Cross Hugh Dawson J. Hall S. Holmes Wilfred Howard , Howe Michael F. H. M. Jacksonv Art Neilson S. Monoky P. V. Pelnar M. D. F. L. Pundsack Ivan Sabourin Hans Weill M. D. G. W. Wright M. D. I. C. Campbell J. A. Gossip Martin Sandecki George P. Vogel Certain Products Corporation American Asbestos Textile Corporation Bendix Corporation Cape Asbestos Company Ltd. Hill & Knowlton UK Limited GAF Corporation Turner Brothers Asbestos Asbestos Information Committee England Turner & Newell Manville Corporation Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Certain Products Institute of Occupational & Environmental Manville Corporation Manville Legal Counsel Tulane University St. Luke's Hospital Q.A.M.A. Q.A.M.A. Congoleum Industries Ertel Engineering Inc. Health Asbestos Information Association North America 22 East 40th Street New York N. Y. 10016 212-689-3378 December 6 1972 BD BD Gentlemen On November 13 a memo was concerning a proposed rule that would establish a two distributed by the Association making by the Bureau of Mines fiber asbestos dust standard in coal mines throughout the United States Since that memo was distributed the Association has gathered a considerable body of information with regard not only to the proposed rule making but also with regard to an upcoming proposal from the Bureau for a new asbestos dust standard in asbestos mines and mills The basic facts are as follows Responsibility for the promulgation of health and safety standards within the Department of the Interior is centered in the Bureau of Mines Health and Safety Division headed by Donald the Metal Schlick Under Schlick are two and Metal Safety and Health main branches Branch which has authority for asbestos mines Arthur Nelson and the Coal Mine and mills headed by Safety and Health Branch headed by John W. Crawford Each branch has departments one dealing with safety and the The health division of the Coal Mines Safety two main other with and Health health Branch is headed Metal and by Murray Metal Jacobsen Safety and The health division of the Health Branch is headed by Dr. Aurel Goodwin To compound this division of responsibility each Branch under different statutory authority The basic olpaewragtoevserning the activities of the Coal Mine Branch is the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 and for the Metal and Metal Branch the basic law is the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act of 1966 A simple chart outlining the organization of the Bureau in these two health areas is attached The the most basic difference between the authority granted to Bureau under the two Congressional acts listed above is that the Coal Mine Safety and Health Branch has absolutely no authority mines This to develop and revise health standards for coal authority is vested solely in the Department of Health Education and Welfare specifically Institute of Occupational Safety and Health law states that The Secretary of Health in the National NIOSH The Education and Welfare shall ... develop and revise as may be appropriate imporved life and mandatory health standards for the prevention of occupational the protection of diseases of coal miners Mandatory health standards which the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare develops or revises shall be transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior and shall thereupon be published in the of the Interior as proposed Federal Register mandatory health by the Secretary standards The law further states that any comments received by the Department of the Interior with regard to a proposed coal mine health standard will not be reviewed by Interior but shall be transmitted to HEW for consideration and that HEW needs has sole authority for deciding whether a proposed health modific moa dit fii cao tin on In addition if a public hearing is called for on a proposed coal mine health standard HEW runs the hearing not Interior and once again the final decision on the standard rests with HEW Thus while the proposed two fiber asbestos standard in coal mines was published by the Department of the Interior and will be enforced by the Bureau of Mines the standard itself was prepared by NIOSH Interior had no say in the matter at all Fortunately this mines and mills is not the case with regard to The Metal and Nonmetallic Mine asbestos Safety Act places sole in mines of responsibility for developing health standards this type on the Department of the Interior HEW is not mentioned in the act at all not even as a consulting or recommendatory body The law does allow the formation of Advisory Committees to assist in the development of standards and a nine member three management three labor and committee three is in state representatives permanent advisory existance for the review of proposed metal and metal mine health standards With regard to the uses of asbestos in coal mines attached are copies of three articles the first dating back more than a year ago from Occupational Safety and Health Reporter The use in question is that of asbestos cloth and roll board for the lining of strip mining shovels while under repair NIOSH investigated the situation and found no concentration of asbestos higher than 1.41 fibers per cc With the above facts of events leading to coal mines in mind it is easy the recommended two to see the progression fiber standard in 1 HEW NIOSH has sole authority to set health standards for coal mines 2 The NIOSH position as set forth in the Criteria Package is that two fibers is the only safe limit for exposure to asbestos 3 NIOSH was asked by the United Mine Workers to investigate the use of asbestos in the repair of strip mine shovels 4 The results of their investigation showed that feasibility was not a problem with regard to a two fiber standard 5 NIOSH consequently proposed a two fiber standard for coal mine operations With NIOSH reviewing whatever comments are submitted to the of the Interior on the proposed standard it is Dheigphalrytmeunntlikely that they will reverse their decision and the standard to five Nevertheless it is important cthhaantgethe asbestos industry submit data and comments on this within period allowed under subject to date is the law the last date for submissDeiceo mbn er 22 The Association will be submitting comments as will others in While it would appear that there is little the industry it is vital that the industry place itself hope for success for medical reasons to any standard on record as being opposed lower than five If not our silence can be used against us While investigating the proposed coal mine standard we learned that a new standard was also being prepared for asbestos mines and mills Consequently a meeting was held in Washington on December 5 with Dr. Aurel Goodwin see chart Attending Manville on behalf of the industry were Mike Donovan of Bill Johnson of Union Carbide Bill Fassuliotis of GAF and Matt Swetonic of AIA proposed an half and The meeting lasted for approximately was quite friendly and informal as well as being extremely informative The single most important piece of information the exact wording of the new asbestos standard obtained was and which will be which has been by the Bureau within three to published in the Federal Regissttearndaprrdobaibslyas follows six weeks The new proposed The Time Weighted Average airborne concentration of asbestos dust to which employees are exposed shall not exceed five fibers per milliliter greater than five microns in length as determined by the membrane filter method at 400-450 X magnification four millimeter objective phase contrast illumination Concentrations above five fibers per milliliter but not to exceed ten fibers per milliliter may be permitted up to a total of 15 minutes in an hour for up to five hours in an eight hour day You may recognize the above as being the same exact wording contained in the OSHA emergency standard of December 7 1971 The new proposed standard was developed by Dr. Goodwin some- time last spring was approved by his Advisory Committee in July and has spent the last five months climbing the Bureau's ladder of red tape the asbestos standard is only one part of a whole package of proposed alterations and modifications of existing standards which probably explains the five months delay Dr. Goodwin is none hopeful that the package will be published before the end of the year but January is probably more realistic Other information obtained from Dr. Goodwin can be summarized as follows 1. He has studied the NIOSH Criteria Package and other medical data on asbestos including Dr. McDonald's study and is convinced that whatever the reason the mining of chrysotile asbestos is less hazardous than either manu- facturing or insulation work He also indicated that he would like to meet with Dr. McDonald to discuss his study further 2 Dr. Goodwin has no data on the feasibility of two vs. five fibers in mining and milling operations The technical feasibility of the proposed standard was not taken into account in its development 3 The proposed asbestos standard was rubber stamped by the Advisory Committee without objection from the three labor people on the committee two from the Steelworkers and one from the Electrical Workers No member of the Advisory Committee has any first hand knowledge of asbestos mining operations or of the asbestoshealth question 4 The Cement Lime and Gypsum Workers Union has been pressuring Dr. Goodwin to develop an entire set of regulations on asbestos similar to the OSHA regulations Strangely enough they have not shown interest in the two vs. five fibers controversy of standards He considers Dr. Goodwin said that such a set is completely out of the question them unnecessary as well as im- practical 5 When the proposed standard is published all interested parties will have 45 days to submit comments Dr. Goodwin asked that the industry submit as much data as possible on 1 the safety of technical the five fiber level and 2 infeasibility of two fibers the He warned us that if he receives comments only in opposition to five fibers he will be forced to lower the standard but that if the comments are divided he will be able to justify his original proposal 6 Even if a public hearing is requested on the proposed asbestos standard Bureau of Mines regulations state that the request need not be honored if the standard in question was approved by a Bureau Advisory Committee The asbestos standard does of course have this type of approval Dr. Goodwin said that he is completely opposed to holding a public hearing on asbestos and he would not do so even if requested unless political pressure forced him into it 7 Dr. Goodwin said that he has been considering a regulation prohibiting the smoking in asbestos mines and mills He indicated that he would probably react favorably to a recommendation from the industry in its written comments on the standard for such a prohibition Finding out weeks in advance the contents of the proposed new asbestos mining and milling standard gives us a tremendous advantage that we have never enjoyed in the past and one that we should take advantage of All companies in the industry that have mining operations in the United States or in Canada should begin immediately to gather data operations on the While infeasibility of two fibers in Canadian mining operations are their obviously not directly affected by United States regulations things of this nature have an unpleasent habit of creeping across national borders as example witness the effect of the British two fiber standard on United States governmental thinking Those in a position to submit medical data on the proposed standard should begin now to compile their information and plan their mode of attack Consideration should also be smoking ban and whether it given to the possibility of the is advisable to include such a recommendation in our submissions The ceiling concentration section of the standard should also be looked at to determine proposed to the industry than whether it is more or less acceptable the more simple ceiling standard adopted by OSHA While Dr. Goodwin is opposed to a public hearing on the standard we should nevertheless not exclude the possibility that Dr. Selikoff and the unions can apply enough pressure to force him to hold one The only way that we can assure the continued being of the asbestos mining and milling industry in this country and perhaps in Canada as well is to apply to this standard worked so successfully for the same organized effort that the industry with regard to the OSHA standards While we have a distinct advantage in this situation in that we can the standard as proposed with perhaps some slight support modifications or additions to let down our guard in the face of the known strong opposition would be a serious mistake Sincerely Matthew M. Swetonic Enclosures DEPARTMENT OF THETHE INTERIOR| -- -- | BUREAU OF MINUS * * ** Re * Elbert Osborn Director t HEALTH AND SAFETY DIVISION a a *** * Donald Schlick Director METAL & METAL SAFETY 1 AND HEALTH BRANCH * * ,, + 4+ & BH Arthur Nelson COAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH 2 + BRANCH 0 * John W. Crawford DIVISION DIVISION * & he Dr. Aurel Goodwin ADVISORY COMMITTEE DIVISION i - > & BS | Murray Jacobsen T t t i] t STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT * ee HEW NIOSH SAFETY DIVISION 1 Statutory Authority Federal Metal and NonmetaliaNonmetalia Mine Safety Act of 1966 2 Statutory Authority Fedoral Coal Mine Health and Safety Safety Act of 1969 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER W W ' Coal Mines 10/21/71 . ASBESTOS DUST HAZARDS ARE SUBJECT OF JOINT NIOSH WORKERS RESEARCH The elimination of dust hazards in strip mining is the goal of work being conducted jointly by the United Mine Workers of America and the National Institute for Occupa- tional Safety and Health Two UMWA districts have investigated the use of asbestos to protect workers repairing shovels and other strip mining equipment UMWA president W.A. Boyle said Local union officers and union staff members have looked into the problem and based upon their findings we have called for help from the Institute which has responded affirmatively Investigation has shown that a huge amount of asbestos cloth and board are used to line the buckets of the big strip_shovels strip_shovels under repair which are heated 400 degrees Fahrenheit before the repairs are started Boyle said Heavy Asbestos dustis so dangerous the union said in a directive to UMWA districts that you are requestetdo determine as quickly as possible the existence if any of such exposure in your district All such information should be forwarded immediately to Dr. Lorin E. Kerr UMW occupational health director . Asbestos dust causes asbestosis as well as lung cancer the directive said oo Asbestos 1/6/72 1/6/72 MINE WORKERS HEALTH OFFICER INDICATES CONCERN FOR EMERGENCY ASBESTOS STANDARD The recently promulgated emergency standard for ex- posine to asbestos dust is appreciably higher than the hazardous level specified in recent medical publications on the subject according to Lorin H. Kerr M.D. chief of the Department of Occupational Health for the United Mine Workers of America . Keir in letter to Assistant Labor Secretary George Guenther said the UMW is equally concerned that this emergency standard is restricted in its applicability to construction workers The standard wis published in the Federal Register December 7 1971 Current Report December 9 p 623 Noting that the standard does not affect coal miners because they are covered by the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act Kerr said the union is deeply disturbed about this standard in view of recent information concerning the concerning possible exposure of some strip miners to asbestos Ken urged that the standard be lowered to medically acceptable hazardous level at the earliest possible date and that it apply to all workers exposed to asbestos dust Coal Mines 3/23/72 3/23/72 3/23/72 UMWA SEEKS MORE INFORMATION FOLLOWING NIOSH ASBESTOS SURVEY An evaluation of asbestos hazards at the Hanna Coal Company Cadiz Ohio made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the request of the United Mine Workers has been accepted with reservations by Dr. Lorin E. Kerr UMWA Director of Occupational Health . At Kerr's request NIOSH made an investigation of potential exposures to asbestos among workmen who use asbestos cloth for msulation in welding operations in strip mining equipment repair The NIOSH Division of Tech- nical Services conducted the survey of the Hanna installa tion November 22-23 Investigation Results Personal and arca samples were taken to determine exposure to asbestos dust evolved from asbestos cloth and as insulation in the welding process Atmospheric samples also were collected and analyzed for welding fumes The results of the study showed the levels of asbestos ex posure to be well below the emergency hygienic standard of five fibers greater than five microns in length per cubic centimeter Dr. Bobby Craft acting director of the . Division of Technical Services wrote Kerr Samples collected for various metallic fume also were below recommended limits he said Therefore on the basis of the conditions observed at the time of this investigation it us concluded that this operation offers hitle serious potential for health risk Because the situation did not exceed the emergency hmits NIOSH did not recommend a change in operations but did state if a substitute material such as fiberglas or mineral wool is used the problem of asbestos could be alleviated This statement is made with the knowledge that the problem of welding such large masses of steel as is done at the workplace is a complex one and with the understanding that the personal safety of welders who who must have a heat insulation material to protect them from contact with the hot metal must be considered as well CONTINUED CONTINUED OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REPORTER ra Continued Continued Continued Est^ Est^ PREVIOTPREVIOT PAGE A type of ventilation recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists should be used for each welder when possible NIOSH said The exhausted air from such a set up should be released outside of the enclosure and in such a manner as to prevent the fumes from entering the workplace In cases where the recommended set is extremely difficult or impossible some effort should fumes from the breathing zone be made to remove the of the worker and to prevent a buildup of a cloud of fumes inside the en- closure Kerr's Response am dismayed to see the hazard being evaluated on the basis of the emergency standard of five fibers per milliliter Kerr wrote Craft The five fiber limit is an emergency standard but in the face of recommendations by NIOSH the standard should be two fibers he said It was heartening to note that the highest asbestos exposure was 1.41 fibers per cubic centimeter but in view of the extreme danger of asbestos the UMWA urges that any future studies be conducted on the basis of the two fiber level with a pervading recognition of the probable danger of any continued exposure to a level higher than one fiber The standards promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration are not applicablteo hazards covered by the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act Kerr said There is nothing in the report to indicate any exposures the men may have to asbestos welding The UMW has evidence of workers exposure to stacked batts of asbestos he other than having close said which should be included in the report Will you please forward this additional information to us along with there visions and strengthening of your recommendations for materials which can be substituted for asbestos Kerr said