Document DGBzBQ461LDpZkvEXzbx2wz5Q

FILE NAME: Talc (TALC) DATE: 1973 DOC#: TALC441 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Memo RE Tremolite in Talc 7-4 jo W -" *"' * O&w E6lD Center pungaCKTo: F. L _ p&D center FfCXIV . s p c tU Pvugnst 201 1<)V* *v ?le*: tN TA^c THKiO1-1"2 . h*' t X r e v ie w ^ ^ ,.aSKed tfcat vanderbrlt nur decrsrot y.groun'J i ' ^ o l i W I s ** " d since " " bf-Ss" t'e o W ical iea9/ ^ e r ! ' V* 1- -- y-*3 w e ir r^ - j,s ai n tn e r .^6 gn _ 0 - ^otn1 , v V* & " e ^ e"San<J? ^ -t & * > amphl F. L, Pundsack August 28, 1973 area of attack by reclassification of tremolite through minaralogioal or structurai definition. Any approach to disassociation will require medical evidence.'1 Although no Research representatives were present at this meeting, I heartily agr- e with the conclusions of the group. On January 11, 1973 S. Speil , R. S'. Lamar, N. B. Sheffel, and B. L. Smith were given a presentation at the New York offices of R. T. Vanderbilt of the story put together by Hr. . S. Smith, Vanderbilt geologist, to "prove" that tremolite, especially -that present .in th Vanderbilt Company Jew York State talc, was not asbestos. Unfortunately, this presentation gave'no technical evidence to support Vanderbil . s position. The photomicrographs showed that the particles of tremolite were, indeed, much shorter than chrysotile fibers and did have an aspect ratio IL/D) less than that of crocxdolite and amosite used commercialiy. However, the L / D f o r many particles was definitely over 3 (the present limit esta blished by ACGIH and accepted by OSHA) and, therefore, they would be included in the category of "fibers'. Many of these particles had L/D's greater than 10. It is conceivable that the presentation would have an impact on the layman, but assuredly not on any person having technical competence in the field of asbestos or asbestos regulation. The presentation relied heavily on layman-type definitions of a "fiber" from various encyclopedias and a list of asbestos minerals proposed by Mr. Thompson which he indicated came from THE FEDERAI, REGISTER and which included tremolite and actinolite as non-fibrous varieties. This information is in cluded as Attachment B. ' in the amphibole field, amosite and .crocidolite fibers have their non-fibrous counterparts with specific ^ ^ ^ i ^ L t h o cummingtonite'and riebeckite, respectively. normally, antho phyllite, tremolite, and actinolite are used fco Jf^de any occurrence-of these amphiboles whether fibrous o*. non fibrous. At this meeting I indicated that J-M could :n o t t e c h n i cal ly Vanderbilt's position. Mr. Harvey stated that the i~lc Producers had scheduled a meeting in early February to develop new definitions of asbestos, talc, and commercial talc which they would propose for acceptance by an ASTM Subcommittee c Paints and Pigments. Once accepted, this would serve a c springboard to foster approval by Government-regulatingJ oies. I pointed out that definitions for asbestos and for the term "fiber" already.existed under the auspices of othe ASTM groups and agreed to'supply this information, as we a CRMC-HT-TALC-000053 - V F. L. Pundsack August 28, 1973 to p a rtic ip a te in the Fo b ru .gr * Subsequently, X ^ o n t nRheatos fiber" under rations relating to asbestos taoer i, which fiber was defined h the definition of t iber fo:t . -at least ni23 in which an u/u oi ai- * ,, S ' s e are included as Attachment C. ASTM D2946- 71T s wo u as under ASTM 10.0 was speci- At the February 5 .tin, none ^ S f ^ l t h a t tar e ? U e U-srSnerasbrestoH. ' During the discussion I empha- si.zcci1 X. t h a t one o f th e , . $ > - ' | m o eH ? e ' " i i d th e c o n c o m ita n t 5 f i b e r s / c c TLV e s t a b U s h e by th<2 ^.CGXHf . ? th a t trem oU te p a r tic le s could be C la s s e n s " or-fibrous depending upon the /D here should be to . vidual particle and that the -hrust^^ fche 3;1 currently -attempt to establish a nigner / ce x suggested 3. th a t we *?n^ d^ " 4 ! y " h is S u ! d eo n iy CS a d to a ^ "i t ^ r t i c ^ i c i r a n f s S i n t L i c debate; . ,, ,,n, nr to the Bureau of Mines 4 . -that any P ^ ^ a t i o n to arranged at Vanderbilt `s behest Symposium .which had _ed^cai evidence -regarding the amphibole fibers; and, . " ite ana other . a -0 ,i of c^^mercial talc 5. that we propose a single def^ of "talc and, therefore, which would m c l u d differentiating between "pure falc'an^tafc TflbroS)-Tremolitc as defined by the ACGIh in general these 'recommendations were J^g^eStatively accepted Z prosen tation^tQ1the Talc^Produ cers Association, - "Industrial talc is a product varying in mineral Mgg(Sig02Q) (0h ^4J compos~-rij.t--ion f--rom the m d ,, nd oo ctnheerr"naturally asso to ;mmi<ixvxthtuturrrepes<s3 ooff__mm_iiann,,eear^/a.0l,r tofarilbcfriboaurnsoaumsi m in e r a ls as d e fin e d elated non-frbrous and/or frbrcu toy ASTM Designation D2946 /i. .TALC-000054 CRMC-HT- -4 - F. L. Fundsaok . August 28, 1973 Acceptance of this definition would automatically infer a change of the L/D of a fiber to 10:1 and eliminate many fremolite particles from the "fiber" category and, there- tore, from the asbestos category. However, a considerable percentage of the tremolite particles would still be classed as "asoestos fiber". Although ASTM'would probably accept this definition of talc, I frankly doubt whether Government agencies would. Subsequent to this meeting, R. S. Lamar on January 31, 1973, proposed to P. A. Martinson that we issue a. letter giving our position to our customers and the industry, and stating that tremolite is ar asbestos mineral. I commented at length on this letter on February 14 (see Attachment D) recommending that we not send out such a letter. The major thrust of my comment wrs addressed to the point that tremolite can be either fibrous or non-fibrous, i.e., either asbestos or not depending on the shape of each individual particle and that we should not categorically state that all tremolite was indeed asbestos. TlrTcidentally, some of my much earlier comments might be inter preted as indicating that all tremolite was asbestos.) ' t Since that time I have had essentially no contact with the tremolite in talc situation which has been Bill Streib's responsibility. My understanding is that at the Bureau of Mines Seminar in May 1973 the J-M presentation was restricted primarily to medical aspects, differentiating between the effects of tremolite and other asbestos fibers. I also under stand that the Vanderbilt presentation included the same story which was given to us in January, to "prove that tremolite was not asbestos", but possibly modified somewhat in the light of our discussions. ' . In July 1973 Vanderbilt through their.attorneys petitioned OSHA to modify asbestos standards promulgated pursuant to the OSHA Act. This is presented in Attachment n. I am entirely in accord with their petition to replace the word "tremolite" by "asbestiform, tremolite" to distinguish this from the non fibrous (by definition) forms of tremolite. In this way nonasbestiform tremolite and talc would be subject to the "mineral dust standard" and asbestiform tremolite would continue to be subject to the "asbestos standard". Their proposal summarized in Appendix I of Attachment E is based on the February' 5 meeting previously referred to and, there fore, is entirely acceptable although personally I see no . possibility of Government agencies changing the L/Ddefinition of a fiber from 3:1 to 10:1 except by the presentation of CRMC-HT-TALC-000055 -5- F. L. Pundsack August 28, 1973 valid medical evidence to support such a change. Some of the work that the QAMA is supporting at Fairleigh Dickenson and the work being done by Stanton on sized fibers prepared by us might serve as the basis for requesting such a proposed change which would, undoubtedly, be opposed by Selikoff on the basis of .the limited data available. Incidentally, I ha been told thirdhand that Vanderbilt secured concurrence of their original proposal to eliminate tremolite as an asbestos1 mineral from Governmental regula tions {EPA) and that this is supported by Appendices 9 and 10 of Attachment E. A close reading of these letters from EPA indicates the presence o'f "weasel words" since they both include the statement "the standard is applicable, however, to paint and coatings manufacturing when asbestos as defined by 40 CFR 61.20, with the above exception, is used in the manufacturing process". Tremolite is included as an asbestos mineral in 40 CFR 61, and even though both letters state that 40 CFR 61, National Emis sion Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, will be amended in order to properly clarify this situation, neither letter indicates that tremolite will be removed from the definition of 40 CFR 61.21. It-is hard to understand how industrial talc, some of which contains 50 per cent or more of tremolite. can be specifically excluded merely by calling this material talc (containing tremolite) rather than calling it tremolite {con taining talc). A copy of.the applicable portions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos is in cluded as Attachment F. In the J-M "crisis" meeting on August 24, 1973, to discuss the FDA decision to issue proposed standards on food grade talc which presumably would also include talc used in paper for wrapping f o o d s R . P. Carter stated, that he had been told by FDA middle-management personnel responsible for preparing the regulations that they were in favor of issuing an interim . regulation which would continue the status quo for at least 2 tc 3 years while technical and medical evidence were being_ accumulated to insure a fair and reasonable set of regulations. However, they had been instructed.instead by their superior, the new Commissioner of FDA, to prepare proposed regulations restricting the use of talc-con t-aining asbestiform minerals for immediate publication. Carter 'was told that the entire technical and medical evidence presented by J-M and other^ industrial petitioners was completely ignored in this decision which was motivated by political pressure from the Environmen tal Defense Fund and other groups. CRMC-HT-TALC-000056 -6 p, l . Funds lack August 28, X973 Finally, to complete the Srecord, I am attaching a copy of Richards (Attachment G) my letter of August 9 , 1971, to F. D. difficulties with FDA pointing out the possibility of future before we purchased Grantham Talc, SS/rs Attachments A through G CRMC-HT-TALC-000057 til, ' l t fl> ! ' 'I " * - January 25, 1^73 I R F, J. Solon, Jr. H. M. Jackson K, M. Fenner W. ?..Reitze Dr, G. Wright . Dr. S. Spoil r. J." Leineweber , Dr. E, Marriner R. P, Carter V. L. Va Dcrbeek P. A. Martinson H. R. Keefe R. S. Lamar ,; N. B. Scheffel .w; J E. B. Smith 'J ' ' R. T. VANDERBILT ACTIVITIES FDA-OSHA REGULATIONS On January 11 as arranged by Norman B. Scheffel, a meeting was held at the R. T. Vanderbilt New York offices to observe a presentation of the by RTV to Government agencies concerning talc vs. asbestos. In attendance were Dr, Spell, R. S. Lamar, N. B. Scheffel, and E. B, Smith. The presentation consisted of a series of slides as photomicrographs comparing Vanderbilt New York State talc (Nytal 100, 200, 300, 400) , California talcs (Westal.101, 303, and 404), and beneficiated California talcs. Compared also were slides of asbestos minerals. In this presentation, it is the objective of Vanderbilt to establish that tremolite is non-fibrous and non-asbestoform in order to obtain an amendment or variance in the OSHA regulations to exclude tremolite. The presentation did contrast the particle shape of their talc mineral as compared to asbestos fibers but lacked any real scientific evidence to differentiate current definitions. Vanderbilt ha? made this presentation to the New York State Bureau Min attended by Dr. Jacquelin Messite, Merley, Sheffield, and Stein. Kleinfel aot present due Co his retirement. Vanderbilt has also made this presentation to Earl Goodwin at the U. S. Bureau of Mines. They have also made these present to EPA at Durham attended by Mr. Arthur Stevens, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Mines and Safety. Vanderbilt feels that they nave cast some doubt on the definition and are hopeful to pursue Government agency .award a new definit of "commercial" asbestos" as opposed to tremolite as an ^ e s t o ^ n e r a i ^ ^ Vanderbilt has also been in communication with the A.S.T.M. Commit I T c a l m i n g extender pigment. Presentation * d e by All, Harvey a t M was oriented towards the removal of tremolite from the asbestos definiti . ia their hope to obtain A.S.T.M. approval and use this approval with ot . Government agencies. . # Vanderbilt has justifiably been reluctant to tecUe SIOffl until m o confidence la developed iu their presentation. Dr. Spell was of consider^! helps, this meeting in pointing out the pitfalls and errors in Vanderbilt s thinking. I ^ concluded that** attack on tremolite vs. chrysotile must be medically oriented as opposed to a simple fiber definition or rede^ n " i ^ " ^ i o n suggested that a more appropriate approach, would be to obtain an excl CRMC-HT-TALC-000061 of tremolite based on scientific-or taedical reasons an opposed Co a redefinition separating trmoliC from chrysotile and/or asbestos. However, Vanderbilt intends to pursue the subject by enlisting the Tale Industry Association s help in developing an acceptable definition of.calc, asbestos, etc, at the meeting scheduled for February 5 in New York, In view of the expertise obtained by J-M people in this miweralogical area and the Government communications area, we urp* that Dr. Spell and additional environmental people at J-M attend the February 5 meeting in New York. Attached to this memo are some definitions that Bob Bacon has extracted from v a r i o u s ' encyclopedias and from the Federal Register concerning asbestos fibers. It is in this direction that RTV intends to proceed. We certainly question this attack and increased help from J-M to guide this program properly and . scientifically and not to the detriment of the talc industry. Earl B. Smith E3S:cks CRMC-HT-TALC-000062