Document J39NegayY2Vy4zoL63JD4wV7O

FILE NAME: ICI DATE: 1976 Sept 21 DOC#: ICI043 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Meeting Notes-Asbestos Hygiene Committee /<- f** *> 'ocjetkt* <; <J i- 9, /k -*u j-- < * l u * 4 ' * 7.1.9* Cricklewood 21 September, 1976 B.O.H.S. Asbestos/Bygiene Standard Committee 1. I attended the last meeting of this ooomlttee on 13 September, 1976 as an observer. As usual a massive amount of documentation arrived u-ring the week prior to the meeting so It was not possible to circulate it for comment. 2. It was obvious that Dr S. Roach (Secretary) was pressing for a standard to be agreed at that meeting. His proposal was for the standard for chrysotile to be 0.9 fibres/cc (1968 Standard 2 fibres/ oo) based on the previous documentation plus a further 7 years extension since 1968. It was based on a straight dose/response linear relationship of 45 fibre years for the first signs of asbestosis i.e. crepitations in 1% of the population. 3. This was, however, challenged by Julian Peto of Oxford University who said that it was based only on employed population and did not take into account the fact that the disease progressed and oases oame to light after exposure had oeased. He made the statistical calculation that taking this faot into aooount the Standard should be of the order of 0.25 - 0.3 fibres/oc (12.5 - 15 fibre years). 4. Dr Roach commented that the industry could not afford such a low c/ standard, but the committee agreed that it was outside their terms ~ of reference to pronounce on this suggestion, and they could only recommend on a standard that was statistically viable. 5. The documentation so far has been based on background asbestos in air sampling as near to the breathing zones of the operators as possible. T.A.C. have now also carried out a lot of personal sampling alongside background monitoring, and are feeding the results into a computer to try and obtain a factor between personal and background sampling. The information could also affeot the standard recommended as most air sampling is now of the personal type. 6. It will be many years before confirmation of any effeots from long term exposure to low concentrations is evident. In the meantime it will take at least another one meeting of the committee before a new standard if finally reoommended.