Document JrpxDN7xOeJ1kJDby7gJjNeQX

FILE NAME Manville JMA DATE 1975-1976 DOC JMA298 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Memo & Letters - Comments to OSHA with BC Notes 7/6/98 7/5/98 Comments to OSHA 1975 Comments selected by J.M. re 1975 OSHA proposed lowering of asbestos exposure limit including Mobil Oil Zidell Explorations shipbreakers Standard Oil Indiana Borg Warner Thiokol 3M a JM Manville 2836 2836 axxaxx Internal Correspondence To P. Kotin M.D. W. B. Reitze E. M. Fenner N. W. Hendry G. W. Wright M.D. From R. P. Carter Date January 7 1976 Copies Subject COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO OSHA IN RESPONSE TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF ASBESTOS STANDARD As of December 22 sixty comments were received by OSHA in response to its October 9 1975 proposed amendment of the asbestos standard Twenty of these comments were merely requests for extensions of the comment period such requests ranged from 30 to 240 days Of the 46 substantive comments submitted only 14 warrant circulation and review Most of the comments submitted are not particularly meaningful and for the most part represent emotional pleas None of the comments are of the magnitude and depth being contemplated by M The two most meaningful comments were submitted by Robert A. Curtis and Dr. Clark Cooper Several good comments were submitted arguing against the proposed requirement for annual sputum cytologic examinations Copies of those comments relating to the activities of the committees which you head are attached Please circulate copies of these comments to members of your committees where appropriate Consideration should be given to contacting some of the authors of these comments to pursue their data and arguments in more detail I would appreciate receiving your recommendations as to the appropriate individuals to initiate these contacts -- R. P. Carter jh - INDUSTRIAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION INC 1901 N. MOORE STREET ARLINGTON VA 22209 . 703 525-1695 25 December 1 1975 Docket Officer 973 Docket 033 973 Occupational Safety and Health Administration U. S. Department of Labor D a 7 Room 3620 200 Constitution Avenue N. W. Washington C. 20210 DOCKET DOCKET DOCKET 15 15 MM . , " Dear Sir OFFICE 9 : OFFICE 3 The Industrial Safety Equipment Association representing the major manufacturerosf respiratory protective devices in the United States desires to submit the following comments concerning the Proposed Revised Standard on Occupational Exposure to Asbestos 1910.1001 of the Proposed Revised Standard contains a table designated as Table I that lists the types of respirators which employers must require employees to use for respiratory protection against various levels of airborne asbestos Federal Register Vol 40 No. 197 October 9 1975 page 47662 It is recommended that Table I be revised as follows TABLE I : ote, RESPIRATORY PROTECTION AGAINST ASBESTOS Condition or Airborne Concentration of Asbestos Dust or mist not fibers per cubic in excess of 10 centimeter of air Required Respirator ; a: A reusable purifying respirator equip- ped with a quarter facepiece or halfmask facepiece and a high efficiency filter An airline respirator equipped with a mask facepiece or half facepiece ted in the demand flow mode quarter- opera- C combination respirator equipped with a quarter facepiece or a mask facepiece which includes a reusable purifying respirator equipped with a highefficiency filter and an airline respirator operated in the demand flow mode Dust or mist not fibers per cubic in excess of 50 centimeter of air Dust or mist in excess of 500 fibers per cubic centimeter of air or unknown concentration ~* D hose mask without blower or with blower ecuipped with a quarter facepiece or halfmask facepiece E contained breathing apparatus equipped with a quarmask facepiece or half facepiece operated in the demand flow mode A reusable purifying respirator equipped with a fullfacepiece and a high efficiency filter An airline respirator equioped with a full facepiece operated in the demand flow mode C combination respirator equip- ped with a full facepiece which includes a reusable purifying respirator equipped with a efficiency filter and an > airline respirator operated in the demand flow mode D hose mask without blower or with blower equipped with a full facepiece E contained breathing apparatus equipped with a full facepiece operated in the demar flow mode An airline respirator equipped with a quarter facepiece a mask facepiece full facepiece helmet or hood op- erated in the continuous flow mode An airline respirator equipped with a quarter facepiece mask facepiece or full facepiece operated in the pres- demand flow mode C contained breathing ap- paratus equipped with a quarter mask facepiece mask face- piece or full facepiece operate in the pressure flow or other positive pressure mod flo mode a D combination respirator equipped with a quarter face- piece or full facepiece which includes an airline respirator operated in the continuous flow mode or pressure mode an an auxiliary contained breathing apparatus operated in the pressure flow mode or other positive mode pressure flow Firefighting A contained breathing apparatus equipped with a full facepiece operated in the pres- demand flow mode or other positive pressure flow mode Note efficiency filter means a against 0.3um size airborne particles filter at least 09.97 efficient Reusable purifying respirators and powered purifying respirators equipped with dust filters mist filters and mist ' filters are approved by NIOSH and MESA under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11 for dusts mists and which have a permissible hour time dusts and mists respectively weighted average concentra- tion not less than 0.5 mg or not less than 2 million particles per cubic foot Since 1910.1001 of the Proposed Revised Standard Lists a permissible hour time weighted average concen- tration for asbestos fibers of 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter or 500,000 fibers per cubic meter Federal Register Vol 40 No. 197 October 9 1975 page 47660 which is equivalent to 14,158 fibers per cubic foot the mentioned respirators with dust filters mist filters and mist filters approved by NIOSH and MESA under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11 cannot be used legally for res- piratory protection against airborne asbestos and thus were not listed in the suggested revision of Table I. Since single purifying respirators equipped with dust filters mist filters and mist filters which are approved by NIOSH and MESA under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11 for respiratory protection against pneumoconiosis and producing dusts mists and dusts and mists are tested against silica dust silica mist or silica dust and silica mist respectively with the same particle sizes and concentrations as are used in testing reusable pur- ifying respirators and powered purifying respirators equipped with dust filters mist filters and mist filters and are allowed to have penetrations of dust and mist particles equivalent to those allowed for the mentioned reusable purifying respira- tors and powered purifying respirators the cited single purifying respirators should not be used for respiratory protection against airborne asbestos and thus were not listed in the suggested revision of Table I. Under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11 reusable purifying respirators and powered puri- _4_ fying respirators which are approved by NIOSH and MESA for res- piratory protection against airborne particles having a permis- sible hour time weighted average concentration less than 0.5 m3 and less than 2 million particles per cubic foot must be equipped with efficiency filters and since the permissible hour time weighted average concentration for airborne asbes- tos given in the Proposed Revised Standard is equivalent to 14,153 fibers per cubic foot respirators which can be used against airborne asbestos are the only types of purifying legally for respiratory protection the reusable purifying respir- ators and the powered purifying respirators equipped with efficiency filters 1910.1001 of the Proposed Revised Standard states that res- pirators shall be selected from among those approved by the lia- tional Institute for Occupational Safety and Health U.S. Depart- ment of Health Education and Welfare under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11 Federal Register Vol 40 No. 197 October 0 1975 page 47660 It is pointed out that under the provisions of 30 CFR Part 11 respirators are approved jointly by both the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare and the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration Administration U.S. Department of Interior and thus 1910 - 1001 of the Proposed Revised Standard should be corrected 4 WilchenWiflchenf Tours Wilchenf Frank E. Wilcher Wilchenf Executive Director FEW Come Mobil Oil Corporation RECHIVED RECHIVED 150 EAST 42ND STREET NEW YORK NEW YORK 10017 VICE PRESIDENT EMPLOYEE RELATIONS DOCKET OFFICE December 4 1975 U. S. Department of Labor OSHA Docket Officer Docket 033 Room N 3620 200 Constitution Avenue N. W. Washington D. C. 20210 PROPOSED REVISION - OSHA STANDARD 1910.1001 ASBESTOS Gentlemen Pursuant to the Federal Register Volume 40 No. 197 pages 4766047665 proposing revisions to the permanent standard for asbestos Mobil Oil Corporation E. 42nd Street New York N. Y. 10017 requests the following comments and suggestions be introduced into the record and duly considered in the matter of the proposed standard 1 1910.1001 General - The proposed standard differs in organization and requirements from those on ketones toluene and lead therefore working contrary to the NIOSH Standards Completion Project objective of enabling the employer to better understand and comply with existing OSHA safety and health standards 2. 1910.1001 b 1 - The minerals listed in the definition for asbestos sufficiently define the material and therefore the addition of and every product containing any of these minerals does not appear to be required 3 1910.1001 c ~ We have reviewed the Background Material contained in the Proposed Rulemaking and concur with the OSHA belief that sufficient medical and scientific evidence has now been accumulated to warrant designation of asbestos asa human carcinogen However we are unable to follow the rationale proposed by OSHA to reduce the permissible exposure from 5 fibers to 0.5 fiber per cubic centimeter of air Mobil Since the proposed reduction is significant from that in effect since July 7 1972 and the effective level as of July 1 1976 OSHA should be required to produce the scientific data exposure of 0.5 used in determining the proposed permissible fiber per cubic centimeter of air c 1910.1001 2 - Comments contained in 3 above apply to the proposed establishment of a ceiling concentration of 5 fibers per cubic centimeter of air as opposed to 10 fibers contained in the existing standard 1910.1001 ) - The words may be appearing on line 2 should be deleted and replaced with the word is 1910.100e1 4 i - After the word exposure appearing on line 6 add if in excess of limits prescribed in c 1910.1001 e 4 ii - Language requiring the employee to be notified of corrective action should be deleted . Notification could be interpreted to be a very brief verbal or written procedure or detailed explanation concerning extensive engineering studies etc. It is suggested that the following be substituted for the deleted sentence Records covering action taken by the employer shall be kept on file at the facility 1910.1001 f 6 - The requirement to perform measurements demonstrating a mechanical ventilation systems effectiveness on a month basis should be deleted It is suggested the following be inserted in its place The employer shall perform tests as required an accordance with recognized engineering practice to determine adequacy of ventilation systems 1910.1001 iii - After the word use on line 5 add at a frequency to be determined by the employer 1910.1001 8 3 iv - After the word insert the word regularly be Lo. on line 1 1910.1001 c 3 iv - This section contains superfluous language as it applies to the assignment of tasks requiring the use of a respirator and be incumbent upon the employer to establish program in accordance with 1910.134 employees to it should only a respirator 3 12 In addition the words appearing on lines 9 & 10 with To the maximum extent beginning possible should be deleted and replaced with If a vacancy exists 1910.1001 h & - The word assure the word ahall should be deleted and appearing after replaced with the word require since the employer may not be able to the conditions assure requested herein but could require them as a condition of employment 13. 14. 1910.1001 1 1 - Following the word provided on line 8 add unless disposable protective equipmenatppeisariunsged 1910.1001 j 1 - The requirement that if an employee refuses a required medical examination the employer shall inform the employee of the possible health consequences of such refusal and obtain a signed statement should have the term obtain deleted and replaced with the term require since an employer may not be able to obtain a signed statement from the employee but can require a signed statement as a condition of employment 15. 16. 1910.1001 j 2 - Insert in excess of the exposure limits after the word concentrations appearing on line 5 1910.1001 after the j 3- Insert in excess of the word fibers appearing on line 5 exposure limits 17. 18. 1910.1001 after the j 4- Insert in excess of the word Tibers appearing on line 6 exposure limits on 1910.1001 ) 6 ii - The requirement that the physician's written opinion shall not reveal specific medical findings or diagnoses unrelated to exposure to ... is not since it would indicate that the only results obtairneeadlifsrtoimc a medical examination performed a periodic basis would be to reveal specific findings related to the proposed standard This does not allow the employer sufficient latitude to use periodic examinations to uncover or diagnose various problems related to the employee's health . 19. 1910.1001 j 2 & - In these sections there is - reference to a sputum cytology examination It is recommended that either the requirement for this test be eliminated or standards for examination be provided either as an Appendix or by reference to the scientific literature Mcbil 20 1910.1001 k 1 i - After the word insert the word regularly employees on line 4 21 1910.1001 k 1 ii - The reference to annual training should be retarded to indicate that training will be given prior to assignment in the workplace and thereafter when changes occur in the operations or materials being handled which could affect the employee 22 1910.1001 n 1 i F - Since records being maintained are to provide the employer and representatives of OSHA or NIOSH with information concerning employee exposure it is suggested that the employer be given the option of using the employee's payroll number in place of the social security number Additionally it should be noted that in standards covering other carcinogens there is no reference to recordkeeping of employee exposure using a social security number or any other reference 23. 24. 1910.1001 n 2 i B - This section implies that the employer will accept the employees interpretation of the causal relationship between the employee complaint exposure to asbestos It is suggested that stated as follows any employee's medical and the employee this is more properly condition determined by medical evaluation to have resulted from exposure to asbestos 1910.1001 n 3 ii records for at least 3 be changed to " - The requirement years is excessive to maintain and the 3 these should 25. 1910.1001 n 4 i B - Comment contained in 22 above applies to this section 26. 1910.1001 ii - The requirement to maintain these records for at least 3 years is not consistent with other existing and proposed standards and should be changed to read that This record shall be maintained until replaced by a more recent record 27. 1910.1001 n 6 ii - It is our opinion that the record- keeping requirements will impose a significant administrative burden upon the employer as well as leading to additional costs The employer should have the right to recover these costs from a requesting party as it pertains to providing copies of the data and time expended in conducting the necessary search for data Mobil -5- 28. 1910.1001 0 1 - The information contained in this section appears to be directed to area monitoring rather than personal monitoring that would be required under this standar Therefore it should be reworded to reflect the observations possible under personal monitoring Although we have advisory and not not reviewed the appendices in detail since they are intended to be obligatory it should be noted that the requirement contained in Appendix B II B stating that " Employees involved in clean up operations should be restricted from the area until since clean up it means has been completed is impossible to comply with that no employees can enter the area to initiate clean up activities We believe that the word not should be inserted after the word employees on line 1 The comments contained herein detail of the proposed standard and suggest prudent and feasible standard our objections to specific changes which could evolve sections a more Sincerely DEM oH Petor Krist Vice President Employee Relations _ " ey 3333 . foo So rt LES 12 W. MOODY AVENU PORTLAND OREGON 07201 228.8 AREA CODE 50 November 26 1975 Docket Officer Docket 033 U. S. Department of Labor Room 3620 200 Constitution Avenue Washington D. C. 20210 N.W. Re Proposed Revision of 29 CFR 1910.1001 the Standard for Occupational Exposure to Asbestos Gentlemen wd ee| On DOCKET DOCKET DOCKET DOCKET 8 OFFICE HI OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE 1:50 1:50 7 1:50 1:50 : a AVED AVED AVED c This company respectfully wishes to express its views and objections to 29 CFR 1910.1001 d 2 iv which requires job rotation or transfer without change in rate of pay seniority status or geographical area for employees found unable to function normally as a result of having to wear a respirator This company company is in the breaking business is a degree of asbestos asbestos exposure and a high turnover The first sentence of the protested standard reads where there of workmen No employee shall be assigned to ing the use of respirators if based tasks requir- upon his most recent examination an examining physician deter- mines that the employee will be unable to function normally wearing a respirator or that the safety or health of the employee or other employees will be impaired by his use of a respirator We have no objection to this part as it directly relates to the health and safety of an employee . We do object to the next important sentence as this is loaded with labor explosiveness and is not rightly a part of these health and safety regulations This requirement is a social welfare problem and more properly belongs in labor legislation or TELEX 036-701 + CABLE CODE ZIDELL PORTLAND Docket Officer U.S. Department of Labor Re 29 CFR 1910.1001 November 26 1975 Page Two regulations The sentence reads Such employee shall be rotated to another job or given the opportunity to transfer to a different whose duties he is able to perform with the position area and same employer in the same geographical with the same seniority status and rate of pay he had just prior to such transfer if such a different position is available This provision deals with seniority status rates of pay and other features of which are functions of labor relations and not health and safety These features all involve the rights of workmen and by their inclusion in these regulations would tend to destroy the workmen's basic rights to bargain collectively on these points Further such provisions would create conflicts in the of most labor contracts and would lead to fil- present provisions of substantial labor unrest ing of grievances and the fostering Employees in breaking that are exposed to asbestos are in most cases laborers and by the very heavy and dirty is very high Experience nature of the work the labor turnover desires not to perform a certain duty shows that if any employee that effect By forcing he can always find a doctor to certify to employer would have to this provision on employers wherein the could create a find another job for the employee the provision less desir- situation whereby men would find a way to get aawnady stfirlolm maintain able duties which require wearing respirators there would no one to do the work a job Eventually It is not believed that the Occupational rSe afletaytaindonHesalth Act of 1970 intended to inject itself into the field This belief is reinforced and made made by the Occupational Safety and Review 8 1972 OSHRC Docket No. 1503 clear by a decision Commission on November At that time this august body heard a noise abatement to abate case wherein the Evening News Association had elected administrative controls The Detroit Printing their noise by method of abatement per- Pressmen Local No. 13 objected to this ad Docket Officer U.S. Re Department of Labor 29 CFR 1910.1001 November 26 1975 Page Three mitted in job virtue by OSHA regulations because sudden unilateral changes functions which employees have become accustomed to by of seniority and standing practice tend to foster unrest was to in the The Commission pointed out that the assure so nation safety far and as possible every healthful working congressional purpose working man and woman conditions The Commission went on to say that this matter before it ..related to problems of labor management relations and not to problems of Occupational Safety and Health Labor relations matters are the federal not within government our jurisdiction Another agency of is statutorily empowered to deal with labor relations matters It is clear then the provision in the proposal regulation we have pointed out is a matter dealing with labor relations and not one of safety and health and does not belong in these regula- tions The OSHA Review Commission remarks that labor relations are not within OSHA's jurisdiction and empowered to deal with such matters there are federal agencies Therefore it is recommended that the second sentence of 29 CFR 1910.1001 d 2 iv c be deleted Respectfully ZIDELL EXPLORATIONS INC WSC Wannen h Howe Warren L. Howe Jr. Safety Director J.J. Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union 35 ANTHONY MAZZOCCHI DIRECTOR CITIZENSHIP LEGISLATIVE OCPARTMENT 1126 - 16TH STREET N. W. WASHINGTON D. C. 20036 PHONE 202 223-5770 December 5 1975 Docket Officer Docket 033 Occupational Safety and Health Administration U. S. Department of Labor Room 3620 200 Constitution Ave. W. Washington D. C. 20210 RE Proposed Standard for Asbestos Docket 033 Dear Sir e2 74 DOCRET : 8 DOCRET EIVED OFFICE PM EIVED OFFICE 1:46 EIVED OFFICE 1:46 1 \ The Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union objects to several provisions of the Proposed Asbestos Standard Some of our objections are 1. The failure of the proposed permissible exposure limit to protect workers against asbestosinduced cancer 2. The failure to provide employees with access to the written compliance program 3. The failure to require engineering controls work practices caution signs and labels housekeeping special clothing clothing change rooms clothes lockers and showers wherever asbestos is used instead of just where the exposure limits are exceeded and 4. The failure to require transfer to another job with protection of seniority and rate of pay as a result of a medical examination which shows a physical impairment For the above reasons and others we hereby request that a public hearing be held so that we may fully present our objections cc George Taylor AFL Sheldon Samuels IUD Sincerely yours iL ; Marzocchi ... Anthony Marzoc hi \ ...Director Citizenship Department Paul D. Halley Halley Director RECEIVED RECEIVED RECEIVED RECEIVED RECEIVED RECEIVED RECEIVED 75 75 DEDECC V PM 1:36 1:36 1:36 1:36 OFFICE DOCKET DOCKET DOCKET OFFICE OOFFICE FICE 36 Standard Oil Company Indiana 200 East flandolph DrivU Post Post Office Office Box 55910910 Chicago Illinois 60680 Environmental Health Services Division of Medical and Environmental Health Services Services Services Department Department Department December 2 1975 i, veneeas Docket Officer Docket 1-033 U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Room 3620 200 Constitution N.W. Washington 20210 Administration Dear Sir The Standard Oil Company Indiana recommends the following changes to of the proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standard as published in the Federal Register October 9 1975 the for provisions Asbestos 1 _ B Monitoring -- The proposed standard on monitoring is not appropriate for operations involving the incidental removal of insulation and coverings containing asbestos and should be modified Monthly monitoring would be required under paragraph e 2 even though appropriate respiratory protection and protective clothing are specified in paragraph f 4 ii for employees engaged in this type of work This monitoring requirement is unnecessary and burdensome especially when such work is performed infrequently In refineries and chemical plants this monitoring would be required almost every time that pipes valves and other equipment covered with insulation containing asbestos are repaired or inspected even though employees are furnished with adequate respiratory and clothing protection The requirement of monitoring on a routine basis serves no useful function since the work of removing the insulation is already completed before the collected air samples can be counted More properly monitoring of representative jobs and types of insulation and maximum air concentrations that can occur and then tion be provided should be done initially and pipe coverings to establish appropriate respiratory protec- We recommend that the following paragraph outlining an exception to the monthly monitoring requirement be incorporated into the proposed regulation Monitoring shall not be required asbestos insulation and coverings the work being performed and who for employees engaged in the removal of when this removal is only incidental to under paragraph ii of this section Docket Officer Page 2 December 2 1975 are required to wear approved from airborne asbestos fibers respirators that provide and protective clothing adequate protection The adequacy of respirators shall be determined by sufficient monitoring of exposures to verify that the respirators selected under paragraph 2 of this section provide the required protection Showering -- The requirement that employees be required to shower is contradictory and in our opinion unnecessary since the employees would be protected with special clothing as provided for in paragraph h Washing of the hands face and forearms as provided for in i would be adequate especially for those employees having minimal and infrequent contact with asbestos such as in the removal of insulation Lavatory and toilet facilities -- where all that is involved is the from pipes etc. In these cases i 5 is hardly applicable to asbestos handling removal on occasion of asbestos insulation the exposure is usually only a few minutes but may exceed the permissible level This proposed requirement of 1 as written would in effect then require that any and all toilet facilities be considered in regulated area Such a provision is unworkable and unnecessary The Standard should recognize the difference between and provide for exemptions for these infrequent operations Regulated Areas -persons entering a to enter Paragraph d would require maintaining a roster of all regulated area and allowing only authorized persons In operations where insulation may be removed such as from a large hot fluids this may be done taking only a few minutes in order to valve handling get at the valve for servicing It would be very difficult and unnecessary to maintain a roster and police authorized person entry to such an operation and some exemption , should be provided It is likely that under the present definition all of the area of a unit during a turnaround would be a regulated area This could require keeping a roster of several hundred persons including many temporary employees and appears to be highly impractical An exemption from this requirement should be provided for plants which comply with the respiratory and clothing protection and monitoring require- ments Labels - Paragraph 3 -- There is no disagreement with the stipulation that no label be permitted that contradicts the the provision or detract from the sign or required cautionary label however label is subject to interpretation and should be deleted Respiratory Protection -- Table I of respirators for use up to 1000 should specify full facepiece times the applicable exposure for the limit three types es Docket Officer Page 3 December 2 1975 A type C supplied air respirator with a full facepiece operated in pressuredemand or other positive pressure and with emergency egress bottle should be permitted for exposures over 2000 times the applicable exposure limit We will appreciate it if you would give our recommended changes consideration your utmost Sincerely Paul D. Halley fal in Warner Corporation 200 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVENUE CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60604 December 5 1975 Docket Officer Docket 33 U.S. Department of Labor 3620 Room N - 200 Constitution Avenue Washington D.C. 20210 N.W. RE Proposed Standard for Occupational Exposure to Asbestos Dear Sir DOCRET DOCRET DE DE ~ ? - DOCRET 8 OFFICE N N OFFICE - OFFICE 3 OFFICE 4:06 D 4:06 4:06 4:06 Pursuant to 20 CFR 1911.11 we wish to file the following written comments concerning the proposed standard for Occupational Exposure to Asbestos 1. Section 1910.1e 003 1 - Method of Measurement In the original criteria document concerning asbestos entitled Occupational Exposure to Asbestos issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health it was recognized that only the biologically appropriate attribute of the air sample should be measured Medical evidence has pointed to the asbestos fiber as a problem area in the search for a cause of the various types of cancers associated with asbestos use Because of this evidence the present regulation 29 CFR Part 1910 restricts the number of asbestos fibers that are allowed in the work place The term asbestos fiber was defined so as to pro- videa standard whereby the biologically significant fibers can be identified and distinguished from other asbestos particles present in the work place atmosphere The asbestos fiber was defined in the present regulation as an asbestos fiber longer than 5 micrometers Further interpretation of this definition added a requirement that the particle being examined have an aspect ratio of at least 3 times as long as it is wide to be considered an asbestos fiber The proposed regulation incorporates the above standards and adds a maximum diameter requirement of 5 micrometers When the particles which have been captured on the filter during the air sampling process are examined under a microscope according to the prescribed membrane filter + method the analyst has only the definition of an asbestos fiber to work with as a standard to distinguished asbestos fibers from unregulated particles Both the present definition of asbestos fiber and that proposed are inadequate to distinguish between asbestos fibers and other particles All particles which have an aspect ratio of 3-1 or more are not necessarily asbestos fibers The overbroad definition results in analysts counting particles that are not asbestos fibers as asbestos fibers see Secretary of Labor vs. Warner OSHRC Docket No. 10757 where R. Zummualde a N.I.O.S.H. expert testified that a talc particle would be counted as an asbestos fiber Second the overbroad definition results in analysts not being able to arrive at the same results upon subsequent or repeated analysis of the same sample Third many qualified analysts introduce their own additional standards in an attempt to avoid -2- counting particles which are not asbestos but have an aspect ratio of 3-1 or greater The net result is a method of analysis that has been described by NIOSH experts as subjective The subjective variance encountered when counting a single sample is on the order of plus or minus 25 percent As the concentration of particles per unit volume decreases the effect of the subjectivity in the analytical counting pro- cess increases At a threshhold limit value of 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter it is quite possible that an analyst choosing to count a single fiber or not as asbestos could make the difference between compliance or violation This problem is particularly significant when ceiling concentrations are being tested due to the short testing time periods In order to reduce the possibility that a violation might be found due to the subjectivity of the analytical process and statistical error several changes must be made A. The definition of the terms asbestos should include in addition to the proposed standards the requirement that a particle must exhibit obvious curvature to be considered an asbestos fiber B. The term asbestos includes all products containing any of the designated minerals as proposed A. . limit of 5 percent asbestos should be allowed in products before the requirements of the proposed rule are applied This accounts for the situation where a user of a product does not know of the trace asbestos content -3- C. Strict adherence to the sampling and analytical techniques specified must be made a requirement as a matter of regulation in order to assure an accurate and reliable sample for compliance or enforcement purposes D. When sampling for ceiling concentrations at least one fifteen minute sample must be taken to assure a sample that has a sufficient number of particles for a valid statistical analysis E. When sampling for ceiling concentrations the result must be the average of at least five samples if any samples are taken for less than 15 minutes F. When determining a time weighted average concen- tration variability in the work process must be taken into consideration Section 1910.1001 - Medical Surveillance The standard does not include a level at which medical examinations should be instituted A specific level should be designated as the point at which medical examinations should be provided Monitoring of the atmosphere in many cities indicate that there are always some asbestos fibers in the atmosphere Unless a specific action level is designated the medical surveillance provisions of this section would require the medical examination procedures outlined in this section to be provided to everyone An article in the December 1975 issue of Professional Safety indicates that in a Yale University Library there is a measureable concentration of asbestos fibers in the air We suggest that an action level for implementation of the medical examination requirement be approximately 50 percent of the per- missible exposure limit Feasibility of Attaining the Permissible Exposure of 0.5 Fibers per c.c. of Air Our experience at this time indicates that we will find it extremely difficult if not technically impossible to maintain an airborne concentration of asbestos fibers below 0.5 fibers per c.c. of air when performing various machining operations on friction plates containing asbestos Although in some operations we have been able to maintain the level below 0.5 fibers per c.c. of air periodically we do record levels above 0.5 fibers per c.c. of air At the present time we have in operation the most advanced exhaust systems available We have found it extremely difficult to maintain the 0.5 fiber level Part of the problem of course is due to the fact that clutch plates and other asbestos con- taining disks are made up of various materials which are not identifiable under the measurement technique provided in the standard It is our opinion that many times the counts include minerals or metals that are not asbestos but because accurate identification of these particles is not possible contrast illumination we cannot be sure under phase | Economic Impact We have conducted a study of only four locations who make gaskets containing asbestos and apply various machining and fastening methods in the manufacturing of asbestos containing clutch plates and other friction devices If we can successfully design operate and maintain an exhaust system to control emissions from various operations to 0.5 asbestos fibers per c.c. of air or less we estimate that our costs will increase approximately 1 million dollars for these improved exhaust systems and an annual additional maintenance cost of approximately 350 thousand dollars per year If we are not able to maintain the 0.5 fibers per c.c. of air limit the capital cost for isolated working areas ; change rooms showers additional monitoring etc. will be e approximately 4 million dollars The annual operating cost increase for these four locations will be approximately 2.5 million dollars In conclusion we recommend the following A. Section 1910.1e 003 1 - Method of Measurement be changed as recommended in the foregoing statement B. Section 1910.1001 - Medical Surveillance be instituted at half the permissible exposure level C. Section 1910.1001 - Permissible Exposure be retained at two fibers per cubic centimeter of air and the ceiling concentration at five fibers per cubic centimeter of air until substantial evidence is available to indicate revision of the exposure level is necessary D. Section 1910.1 g0h01 i - These sections should be followed only if the two fibers per cubic centimeter of air level cannot be attained Very truly yours Steens HilliamHilliam & William L. Stiens Manager -- Loss Control WLS THIOKOL CORPORATION Newtown Pennsylvania 18940 215-968-5911 56 Thiokol ThiTohk iookTohl iolkol EXECUTIVE OFFICES ' December 8 1975 573 Docket Officer Docket 033 U.S. Department of Labor Room 3620 200 Constitution Ave. N.W. Washington D.C. 20210 Gentlemen DEC LOCKET DEC ; LOCKET 11 r. LOCKET 11 : 7 . OFFICE A OFFICE ED OFFICE 4:06 ED 4:06 4:06 Thiokol Corporation uses asbestos in the manufacture of friction materials specifically disc brake pads for use on new passenger cars and for the aftermarket Thiokol also uses asbestos in the manufacture of insulating materials for rocket motors and uses a number of products containing asbestos for a variety of miscellaneous purposes including insulation and building components Thus Thiokol has experience with manufacturing operations involving asbestos and a direct interest in Health Standard on asbestos 29CFR 1910.1001 1910.1001 cerning the standard proposed in 40FR47625 We the proposed Occupational Safety and submit the following comments con- ; I. Regarding the permissible exposure to airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers Paragraph e Experience in operations involving the manufacture of friction materials using asbestos leads us to conclude that the proposed limit of 0.5 fiber per cc is lower than the level that can be feasibly obtained in significant parts of the operation by engineering and work practice controls Since the present standard was prolmugated | in 1972 significant engineering modifications have been made to our manufacturing facilities to meet the fiber limit and to further improve controls with the objective of meeting the fiber limit that becomes effective July 1 1976. Most of the cost and effort were to improve control from the fiber limit to the fiber limit a reduction of 60 The half fiber limit represents a further reduction of 75 from the already low level of fiber Our best engineering estimates indicate that this very stringent fiber level cannot be met in parts of our production facility We believe that different manufacturing techniques and completely different approaches to dust control would be necessary in order to meet the fiber limit This solution is not feasible for several reasons Docket Officer Page 2 @ The friction materials used as brake pads on automobiles are critical for safety Manufacturing processes now used are proven and subject to stringent quality controls Significant modifications to the manufacturing processes would require a complete evaluation essentially equivalent to a full deve- lopment program which would be very expensive and would re- quire a long time - - probably several years @ = The control equipment which we have installed in good faith in our production facility over the past few years to comply with the present asbestos standard limit of fibers per ce effective July 1976 is estimated to have cost about 25 of the total cost of the production facility for engineering control to 0.5 fiber this investment would be of little value Furthermore the present plant with its investment of one million dollars which has been established to manufacture a qualified product with the best feasible controls to keep employee exposure to airborne asbestos to the lowest practicable level would have to be replaced We estimate the cost of this replacement at more than three million dollars 6 The facility requirements to meet the proposed new limit by engi- neering and work practice controls are estimated to be high enough that the investment probably could not be justified The plant is currently running at about 90 capacity and from a business stand- point operation is marginal despite good operating efficiency Termi- nation of our operation would result in termination of employment of of approximately 120 people in Trenton N.J. which is already hard hit by unemployment Imported goods could well replace those now produced in our facility Therefore we believe that engineering and work practice control to 0.5 fiber is not Teasible The need for limiting personnel exposure to a time weighted average of 0.5 fiber or to a ceiling value of fibers is not documented rather the level appears to have been set based on arbitrary judgement of the lowest level that can be feasibly reached by engineering and work practice controls We submit that the permissible level should be established on the basis of the level necessary to protect health We recognize that the open questions regarding carcinogenicity make it prudent to keep exposure to a mini- muin For very low levels particularly when dictated by caution rather than by medical evidence if they are required personal protective equipment should be permitted in lieu of other controls ^' pocket Officer / Page 3 II Regarding Methods of Compliance Paragraph f Feasible engineering and work practice controls are required by paragraph 1 personal protective equipment which is an effective way to reduce or eliminate exposure of personnel to airborne asbestos is required by paragraph 2 The requirement of paragraph 7 mandating each establishment to develop and implement a plan for controls beyond those that are feasible is unwarranted 6 The plan will not reduce employee exposure to asbestos 6 = The good faith establishment and implementation of a compliance program as specified will demand engineering and financial resources that operations can ill afford and are likely to be unable to obtain @ = The requirement cannot be reasonably enforced either plans without merit will be accepted or the merits of the methods and schedule in the plan will be determined subjectively for each case until courts probably with minimal expertise in this area define how to evaluate the merits of the plans and what is acceptable III Regarding Respiratory Protection Paragraph g Respirators are an effective method of reducing the exposure of personnel to airborne asbestos In environments for up to fiber ten times the hour TWA and using the most simple respirator prescribed for this environment personnel exposure to asbestos from breathing is essentially zero Use of respirators will often result in lower exposure than relying on engineering controls If the arbitrarily established permissible limit of 0.5 fiber per cc is adopted the use of respirators should be permitted in lieu of engineering and work practice controls in areas where the fiber concentration 8 hour average is no greater than 5 libers per following This approach will provide the @ Reduced employee exposure as compared to engineering control to 0.5 fiber with no respirator 6 Regular and immediate protection of employee in the area in case of any malfunction that causes a brief excursion to higher levels 6 Large savings in costs for equipment design procurement and installation $ Substantial savings in energy and costs necessary for operating the extra control equipment Docket Officer Page 4 Respirator use should also be permitted in lieu of engineering controls in areas and operations which must be attended periodically periodically or occasionally for short periods Engineering controls for some operations of this type would be expensive and of no real value for reducing employee exposure Examples include charging and unloading hoppers and maintenance of some equipment Since these occurrences are generally foreseeable and expected they are not emergencies The principle of permitting respirators in lieu of other controls for operations where the time of exposure of per- sonnel is low has been adopted in the standards being proposed under the Standards Completion Project although the time restrictions in those so far proposed are un- _ necessarily restrictive and unreasonable In regard to paragraph 3 iv the mandated rotation of an employee to another job is improper and objectionable in a safety standard Such action is a matter of personnel policy and labor contracts The provision would many times be unfair to other employees when an employee is transferred to another job under the mandates of this standard the incumbent in this job would be displaced Regarding Recordkeeping Paragraph n The maintenance of exposure records paragraph 1 and rosters paragraph 5 for 40 years imposes a significant administrative burden on employers the impact on small establishments is particularly severe This requirement does not appear to be in any way related to employee safety and health it is therefore not appropriate in the standard Most of the data would be inadequately controlled for epidemiological studies Data from selected establishments with a significant potential for exposure to asbestos together with suitable control establishments and follow on employees in these establishments would be necessary for a good study Funding such a program to the selected establishments by NIOSH would seem to be the proper approach if this type of study is warranted In regard to paragraph n 6 ii the availability of records to affected em- ployees and affected former employees is adequate Making the records available to employee representatives is unnecessary bears no relation to employee safety or health and is objectionable . Regarding Implementation Time As noted above we do not believe that the need for the limit of 0.5 fiber per cc TWA is established More importantly we object to the mandatory requirement for engineering and work practice controls for achieving this limit we believe that control without respirators to the proposed limit is not feasible in current facilities using current engineering control concepts Docket Officer Page 5 Should the proposed standard be adopted a reduction of 75 percent from the July 1 1976 limit of fiber per cc will be required Experience in our operations indicates that this reduction by engineering and work practice controls would be an order of magnitude more difficult than the reduction from fibers to fibers for which four years was allowed Years would be required for this program We strongly urge that the adoption of this standard be deferred indefinitely until ex- perience is obtained with the facilities that have been modified to achieve the fiber limit If lower exposure limit is determined to be essential to achieve it should be permitted the use of respirators Very truly yours -- -- ---- J.S. Jorczak Group Vice President JSJ - - STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE AND SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 1006 FOURTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 916 322-2220 ADMINISTRATION December 8 1975 59 Edmund G. Brown Jr. , Governor ~ 7 DOLNET DOLNET i : : Docket Officer Docket 033 U. S. Department of Labor Room 3620 200 Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington D. C. 20210 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE 14:07 14:07 14:07 14:07 14:07 WED WED Dear Sir Subject Response standard to request for comments on proposed for occupational exposure to Asbestos This letter is in response to your notice published in the Federal Register Volume 40 No. 197 October 9 1975 Attached are comments prepared by the Occupational Health Section of the California Department of Health We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this standard any questions please let me know If you have Sincerely Str Jablosky Jablosky STEVEN A. JABLONSKY Program Manager 4 ' Enc a RESPONSE TO FEDE^ ALOSHA REQUEST in FR Vol 40 re No. 197 Date 10-9-75 CI Public proposed safety and health standards [] Information following a NIOSH submittal of criteria for a recommended standard 7} Committee meeting Responding to OSHA request for comment on draft of proposed standards The Occupational Health Section Department of Health and offers the following comments relating to of the CALIFORNIA has reviewed the OSHA request s 1910.1001 1910.1001 Asbestos . Paragraph 1910.1001 e Initial Monitoring Reword this paragraph as follows The employer shall monitor or cause to have monitored each place of employment where asbestos fibers are released in such a manner as to cause exposure to employees in excess of either of the two limits prescribed in paragraph c of this section If either limit undertake a compliance program in is exceeded the employer accordance with paragraph shall immediately f of this section Rationale This paragraph is very vague from an enforcement standpoint as pre- sently worded In light of recent decisions by the OSAHRC with regard to medical examination being required at any level of exposure to asbestos a reasonable administrative interpretation of this vague standard may not be possible In Northern California and in many other areas there is considerable serpentine in surface soil so that any operation involving.common involving.common dirt may release asbestos fibers In fact the background level in San Francisco and 1000 to 5000 Fibers greater than 5 micrometers and about If shorter fibers are counted It is therefore necessary Berkeley are about 500,000 fibersabout that the enforcement : level for monitoring be specified in the standard 2. 1910.1001 ii This subparagrsahopulhd be deleted Subparagraph e iii clearly indicates the procedure to follow if the level is below both limits and subparagraph e clearly tells you what to do if any monitoring result is above the limits prescribed William William MStiffan MStiffan Chief of Occupational Health Section OSHA OP 5/75 3 1910.1001 4 Work Practices This subparagraph should state that spills shall be cleaned up promptly ed an a bed CUIHANY GENERAL OFFICES 3M CENTER * SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA 55101 TEL 612 733-1110 December 8 1975 * 70 Docket Officer Docket 033 U.S. Department of Labor Room 3620 200 Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20210 Sir Dear Sir CE DOCKET 16 DOCKET 16 DOCKET PM RESRVED OFFICE PM OFFICE OFFICE 3:23 3:23 3:23 oo In re Proposed Standard for Occupational Exposure to Asbestos We have examined the proposed standard on Asbestos which in Federal Register Volume 40 Number 197 October 9 1975 appeared MONITORING Our comments on Monitoring relative to Federal Number 197 Thursday October 9 1975 Proposed Exposure to Asbestos are Register Volume 40 Rules Occupational Page 47661 e Monitoring The application of monitoring results for the employee likely to be exposed to the highest airborne concentration of asbestos fibers to all other employees who have possible similar has several damaging impacts as it tends towards ) ignorienxgpostuhere unmonitored worker's health 2 removing the burden of protecting each worker's health from the employer 3 promoting a poor attitude among unmonitored workers which may later lead to careless work habits 4 removing incentive for development of high technology and lower cost monitoring methods which will provide economical monitoring for all and 5 providing a very inadequate data base for future epidemiological _ programs For these reasons provisions for more extensive monitoring recommended A suggested plan would be to randomly select workers each job classification such that within a given year 20 of all workers in the job class are monitored at least once The costs of monitoring these greater numbers of workers are substantial are from Where exposures are controlled through knowing what they are the increase in worker health and long term productivity by proper protection will give a good return on this investment It is essential to develop career records of worker exposure MINNESOTA MINING -more- AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY ; Page 2 Page 47661 3 Method of Measurement Note is taken of the suggestion on page 47653 column 3 top paragraph that OSHA believes that new research developments regarding advances in monitoring and protective technology make reexamination of the standards premises and general structure desirable Because of the wisdom of this statement and to provide for such eventualities as implementation of new approaches the Method for Measurement must be written so as to allow methods which provide equal or greater performance in counting asbestos fibers as compared to the present adequate but costly and restrictive method Nothing is lost by permitting new methods to compete with the present method and much is lost by completely ruling out new methods and perpetuating any single method regardless of its merit RESPIRATOR COMMENTS Also of concern to us are the provisions for the use of various classes of respirators at different concentrations based on the time weighted average protection factors as proposed in the standards completion project We feel that such a system has merit but strongly disagree with the method of assigning protection factors as put forward in the standards completion project Rather we feel that individual protection factors be assigned to each respirator Our reasons for taking this position are documented in the attached comments which are taken from our comments being submitted in the Ketones Inflationary Impact Statement We hope these comments will be helpful to you in preparing a useful and workable standard Should you wish further explanation of these comments or the accompanying documents please do not hesitate to contact me Sincerely EDH Attachments E.D. Horne Laboratory Manager Occupational Health & Safety Products Bldg 230 Te RESPIRATOR SELECTION GUIDE 3M Page 1 of 3 In the compliance section of the standards completion project there are two main areas of significance in regard to respirator usage The first im- portant area refers to table 2 in each criteria document wherein levels of respiratory protection and acceptable products are outlined The other significant area deals and it is this section with the decision logic sequence in of the standards completion project respirator selection that is based on inadequate technical facts analysis it is stated On page 12 of the standards completion project The technically appropriate respirators for each substance are determined by the guidelines of the Respirator Decision Logic Attachment ) and the approval requirements of 30 CFR 11. The assumption that technically appropriate respirators will result by following the guidelines of the Decision Logic in standards completion project Attachment 1 is not accurate and 30 CFR 11 is in desperate need of revision The heart of the decision logic sequence is the assignment of protection factors which are defined as criteria used in determining what limiting concentrations are to be permitted for each respirator type that will afford adequate protection to the wearer levels assigned to protection factor In the values standards used data completion project.. gathered by a procedure developed at Los Alamos as the basis for the assignment of a protection level to a respirator This Los Alamos information is from very early studies and it contains some serious discrepancies 1 We feel the protection factor concept to be of value but strongly recommend that the LASL concept of grouping respirators in a class for protection factor be eliminated and indivi- dual protection factors be assigned for each respirator when tested by NIOSH The following statement on page 39 of the standards completion project is not adequate information for basing the decision logic sequence on protection factors The protection factors used in based on quantitative fit tests the preparation of the standaradrse performed at Los Alamos and elsewhere and in some instances on professional judgement In appendix , the protection factors for each class of respirators listed in the check- lists are shown The entries in each list are for an entire class of respirators and are assigned the protection factor of the lowest performing device within each class / 3M Page 2 of 3 Our reasons for requesting your review of these decision logic tables are that 1 Protection factor work in our laboratory proves conclusively the existance of a problem in respirator class grouping For example on NIOSH approved half masks protection factor values vary from 3.6 to 92. In the standards completion project plans this class of respirators is assigned a protection factor value of 10. This type of classifying will not help an employer protect his worker properly should he purchase one of the poorer fitting NIOSH approved respirators Our testing also shows that one manufacturer could control the protection factor of an entire class Thereby if this manufacturer chooses not to sell a respirator in a class because it is not profitable to him he could possibly get an approval on a product with poor facefit properties and thus | keep the protection factor of that class low 3 As new research in respiratory protection continues there is no incentive to produce the optimum product if the protection factor is assigned to the class The following additional recommendations on the use of protection factors are made 1 Protection factor studies should be undertaken by NIOSH to establish a consistent test procedure for respirators designed to remove . particulate and organic vapor products 2 That the NIOSH Testing and Certification Laboratory at Morgantown assign an individual protection factor to each respirator certified with the cost burden of this testing to be borne by the applicant for the certification This protection factor value should then appear on each respirator package giving the user information to be sure he is properly protecting the worker with the product purchased 3M Page 3 of 3 REFERENCES ISEA Analysis of Supporting Test Data OSHA Exhibit 38 Utilized by E.C.Hyatt to Develop Respirator Protection Factors not included Barghini R. J. and Wilmes D. .: Performance Studies for Leakage of Half Mask Respirators