Document JJzXJNObvk8VLX2Rbz2jYRaZO

STATEMENT OF THE TEXTILE WORKERS DMCM OF AHZRICA, AFL-CIO ON THE PROPOSED STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DUST UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL SAPETI L HEALTH ACT FEBRUART 11, 1972 Tho Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires the Secretary of Labor to promulgate standards dealing with toxic natorials so that the stand ard "most adequately assures that no employee will suffer material impair ment of health or functional capacity even if ouch employee has regular exposure to tne hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of his working life." /Section 6 (b) (5J7 We submit that the standard proposed by the Assistant Secretary for exposure to asbestos dust (Federal Register. Volume 37, IIo. 7, January 12, 1972} fails to fulfill the requirements of the Act. The concentration limit proposed for as eight-hour day of 5 fibers longer than 5 microns per milliliter (time-weighted average) is far in excess of a safe limit for regular exposure to this hazard* The British Occupational Hygiene Society subcommittee report on Hygienic Standards for Chrysotile Asbestos Dust finds that a time-weighted average concentration of 1Q0 fibers/ milliliter-years would reduce the risk of developing asbestosis to less than 1 percent. This yields a limit of 2 fibersA>1 averaged over a 50-year per iod. This finding has been confirmed in the criteria package compiled on asbestos by the Rational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Surely there oaa be no justification for establishing a standard of 5 fibers/ml. Indeed, the standard of 2 fibers does not prorido a safe limit since it Is based entirely on protecting exposed workers from aabestosis. In spite of the faot that there is dear evidence that workers exposed to asbestos are at risk to cancer, no data have been oompilod to define tho level of exposure which would reduce the cancer risk to negligible proper- ' BH-1 -2- tlona. (See Appendix I, Standards for Occupational Asbestos Exposure. by Dr. I.J. Sellkoff and D.A. Holaday.) The order of magnitude by which the permissible Unit baaed on asbestosis needs to be reduced to achieve protection against the risk of cancer is indicated by the fact that in tho British Asbestos Regulations the recommended linit for crocidolitc asbestos (which is known to be as sociated with mesotkalial tumors) is 0.2 fiber/cnP while the comparable linit for chrysotlle and amosite asbestos is 2 fibers/cnP. (See P.G. Harries, "Asbestos Dust Concentrations in Ship Repairing," Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 14, 1971, p. 253.) The association between asbestos exposure and cancer among work ers in the Doited States has been thoroughly docunented. Hammond, Sellkoff and Churg.have found that the number of deaths from cancer among members of the New York and Newark locals of the asbestos Insulation union who were exposed to asbestos dust 20 years or longer was 3 times the expected number (i.e., deaths based upon age specific rates for D.S. white males). Deaths from cancer of the lung and pleura .(the most frequent cancer observed among these workers) were 7 times the expeoted number. (See Table 6 In Appendix I.) Workers exposed to asbestos dust in factories have also been found to suffer high risks of death due to cancer. Sellkoff, Hammond and Churg have found that deaths from cancer among workers employed in an amosite asbestos products factory in an eastern city of the United States were 5 times tho number expeoted while the death rate from cancer of the lung, pleura, bronchus and trachea was 11 times the expected rate. (I.J. Sellkoff, E.C. Hammond, J. Churg, "Mortality Experience of Amosite Asbestos Factory Workers," presented at IVth International Pneumoconiosis Conference, ILO, Bucharest, 1971*) In light of the evidence of association between asbostoa dust -3- exposura and cancer It la clearly inappropriate to set u standard for asbea tos baaed solely on the risk of ashestosis. Dr. Sellkoff's studies among insulation workers in Bov York and Newark show that more than half of the observed deaths among the asbestos insulation workers studied between 1963 and June 30, 1971 were due to cancer. Asbestosis was responsible for 12 percent of the observed deaths. A standard of 5 fibers per milliliter would be equivalent to a license to kill. This level of contamination is no lower than the level currently prevailing in many workplaces where workers are suffering from excessive death rates due to cancer and asbestosis. The conclusion is inescapable that an appropriate standard far asbestos dust exposure must be directed at aero dust* This is the conclu sion which two industrialists expressed at the 1964 Conference on "Biological Effects of Asbestos" at the New York Academy of Sciences: C.G. Mdlngley (British Belting and Asbestos Ltd., Cleckhaaton, England): "We do not believe there is any safe limit. We have our ideas as to how low we can get and ve are always striving to get right down to aero ..." John Wells (U.S. Rubber Co., Newnan, Ga.): "Our own conclusion, as we began seeing what was happening in our own process, was that the only safe amount of asbestos dust exposure was aero and that the efforts in terms of achieving that lay basically in engineering, and, second ly, in education. But as far as a safe level of asbestos test Is concerned, our own conclusion in Hcgansville, Ga., is that there is no safe level. The safe level is nil and anything above the safe level represents certain risk." ("Biological Effects of Asbestos," Annals of the Bew York Academy of Sciences. 1965, pp. 335-336.) The. engineering controls and ths "educational* prcgran needed to approach the aero level of asbeatos dust should be set forth In the standard. The proposed standard does contain a number of specifications for such a program but these are too limited to constitute an effective plan of action. The "particular operations and products" listed under paragraph (d) of Seetion 1910.93a should be expanded to cover all operations involved in the manufacture of asbestos products where asbestos dust may be generated. D.V. of Turner Brothers Asbestos Co.f Ltd., Rochdale, Rngland has provided a description of modern methods of asbestos textile manufacture which could fora the t'lla of a manual of approved practices which should bo part of the standard for asbestos dost exposure. Tbs following operational procedures are illustrative: (1) Use a ventilated booth for receiving and opening bags of asbestos fiber. Exhaust ventilation is to be ap plied at the dust-producing points. (2) Treat asbestos fiber with oil emulsion in blend ing drum for the purpose of suppressing dust in subsequent operations. (3) Enclose machinery used for opening and screening fiber. (4) Use mechanical bag filling machinery to transfer fiber to bags} snob bags are to be closed tightly while in transit. (5) Apply exhaust ventilation to each dust-producing . point on carding machines; maintain air speed of not lass than 3,000 feat per minute in ventilation pipes. (6) Use revolving brush fitted with exhaust ventila tion in olwaning or stripping of cards.. (7) Enclose spinning frames and apply exhaust venti lation. (8) Use dasp yarns In weaving and apply exhaust ventilation. (9} Totally enclose all oanveylag and handling of fiber. (Adapted from D.V. Hills, "Economics of Dust con trol," Annals of the Hew York Academy of Sciences. 1965, pp. 322-3347); In order to implement the specifications for particular operations. It is imperative that the requirements for warning signs, monitoring, medical examinations and records be strengthened. ^ u BH-1 -5- Warning Signs The proposed standard requires the posting of signs at least 50 feet in each direction froa the location where the hazard is present. However, no requirement is proposed for the labeling of begs or other containers. Such is necessary to inform any worker handling a container that the contents are hazardous. It should contain the following warning: DAKGER Contains asbestos. Asbestos dust may cause asbestosis and cancer. Container should not be opened so as to permit asbestos dust to enter the air. Use only with adequate ventilation and approved respiratory protective devices. Monitoring The proposed standard provides for personal and environmental moni toring in areas, "in which employees ere exposed to concentrations of asbestos dust in excess of the limits specified ..." However, no provision is made for monitoring to determine whether the specified limit is being exceeded. Without such a provision the proposed requirement is rendered meaningless. Workars exposed to asbestos dust should have the right to know whether they are being exposed to hazardous concentrations. The employer should be required to sample the air at each operation where there is a poten tial exposure at least once a week. If the eight-hour time-weighted average concentration of asbestos dost exoeeda the permissible level, he should be required to undertake Immediate measures to comply with the stated limit. There should be no temporary provision for permissible "excursions." The right of the employees or their representatives to observe the employer1a monitoring and to have access to the records thereof should be aet forth, in accordance with Section 8 (o) (3) of the Act, The e^loyer should be obligated to promptly notify any employee -6- vho has been, exposed to asbestos dust in concentrations which exceed the standard and fthnnia inform any eaployee who is being thna exposed of the eorreetlre action being taken* in accordance with Section 8 (c) (3) of the Act* Medical Braalnatlona. The proposed regulation requires the employer to "provide* or make available at his cost*" appropriate nedical examinations to any em ployee exposed to asbestos dust In excess of the stated Units. The Act states that "where appropriate* any such standard shall prescribe the type and frequency of nedical examinations or other tests which shall be made available, by the employer or at his cost* to employees ..." (Section 6 (b) (7)* emphasis added). The distinction between "providing" and "making available" ned ical examinations is quite significant. Ms are opposed to giving the employer the right to provide a medical examination} he wold thereby have access to the results* and could use them against the interests of the employees. The regulation should require the employer to sake available medical examinations at his cost. The results should be furnished only to the Secretary of Labor or the Secretory of Health* Education* and Wel fare* and* at tbs request of the employee, to his physician. The employer should not have access to the results of Individual medioal examinations. Rwprta The proposed standard requires employers to maintain reoords of the monitoring end medical examinations conducted pursuant to this regu lation. Access to the records is required for the Secretary of Labor and* la the case of nedical examinations* tho records are also to be nado avail able to the Soorotary of Hoalth* Education* and Wclfaro* and the employee's physician.