Document LopYkmNpg1VKOogk1Z5pjK26q

06167423 COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCERNING PROPOSED REVISION OSHA STANDARD 1910.1001 ET SEQ RELATING TO OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS (DATE) PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF V. R. GRACE & CO. r CONTENTS C6187424 Page Agency Documentation, OSHA and NIOSH 1 I. Current Standard A. Definition B. Control Programs C. Labeling D. Timing 1 1 1 12 2 II. Proposed Standard 2 A. ToxicologicalConsiderations of Exposure to Asbestos 1* Newhouse and Berry 2. Howard et al 3. Gilliam et al 2 3 3 3 B. Definitions 1. Tremolite 2. Vermiculite 3. U.K. Definitions 4. Tremolite in Agency Documentation 5. Tremolite in Non-Agency Documentation 6. Tremolite Treatment a. OSHA . b. MESA c. American Society of Testing of Materials d. U.S. Bureau of Mines e. April 1976 Commentaries, OSHA 7. Fiber vs. Particulate Form 8. Mineral Dusts 9. Substitute Minerals for Vermiculite 3 4 A,5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8,9 9 10 . 10,11 C. Exposure Level, Monitoring-Feasibility^..; 1. Background Levels 2. Field Monitoring 3. Laboratory Evaluations . 4. .. Fibre ldentification ~ ^ 11 11,12 12,13 13 13,14 D. ...Exposure .-Level, ,, Health. Feasibility v *l. Tremolite vs. Other Minerals '2. Exposure vs. Hazard - !",f: .3. Multipla^Exposure ... 4* i- DosevResponse .'`Relationship,.-Man - r5. `' Dose Response Relationship,1 Animal v 6. NIOSH on' Dose Response 7.-i'-Basis for a 0.5 f/ml Standard 14 - KSIpiiiO-: 24: W; yr,*yy. . 14 - y}.. 7-1 X'-inJ', ; --!' 'i E. Monitoring (Employee Notification of Results) F. Medical Requirements (Medical Examinations, Physician's Statement) G. Regulated Area (Requirement for. Daily Roster) H. Labeling 1. Binder Inconsistency 2. April, 1976 Commentaries, OSHA 3. Proposed Alternate Wording I. Other Summary 1^ - Definition - Exposure Level _3 - Medical Examinations k_ - Labeling 06167425 Page 15 16 16 16 17 17,18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 C6167426 The Construction Products Division of W. R. Grace & Co. (Grace) appreciates this opportunity to testify at these Public Hearings on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) rulemakings on a revised standard for occupational exposure to asbestos. Our testimony is in response to that proposed standard as published in the October 9, 1975 Federal Register (Volume 40, No. 197, pp. 47652-47665) and as supplemen ted in the "Reexamination and Update of Information on the Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asbestos" (''Reexamination1') published by the National Instutute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in December, 1976. That supplement was transmitted to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, OSHA on December 1976 by John F. Finklea, M.D., Director of NIOSH. This statement on behalf of Grace has also been submitted in quadruplicate with the U.S. Department of Labor Docket Officer, with copies to the attention of the Assistant Secretary of Labor, OSHA, and the Direc tor, NIOSH. I. Current Standard . Grace first wishes to briefly discuss the current standard for occupational exposure to asbestos. The focus is three significant points which carry over into the proposed standard. .Grace would request OSHA reconsideration on these points within the context of the existing standard. ( were a revised standard not now in process. Grace has previously made written review requests of OSHA in this area. A. Definition It is essential that a standard should exactly define the materials it regulates. However, the definition of asbestos includes minerals which occur in non-fibrous forms. As examples, although Chryso- tile occurs only in fibrous habit (non-fibrous being Antlgorite or Lizar- dite), Tremolite.-occurs both in fibrous and non-fibrous habit. Although there is considerable published human and animal data showing commercial asbestos (such as Chrysotile, Crocidolite and Amosite) are carcinogens, tfere is no comparable data for Tremolite. ' ~ :! : ~ 1 ' ' " : / ^,1^.'- - v:*- ' B. Control Programs These are correctlyjrequired^forjnotentiaUy^hazard-^ xu ous exposures. However/a control program is pational exposures to asbestos, regardless of level of exposure?^Although * - V NIOSH/acknowledges Mata demonstrating' a dose:responsegrelationaHlp^ln^their Reexamination >(p. VI-I)they do not consider the trigger* levelfponcep^^^^. : ?-:-.because*exposures were ;not recorded in the occupational >exposoru.ph^^3Hp|^r. J} srrj&of ftheLpertinent^epidemlological studiesThis is a .thin.basis:;fortmanaa-5:/ ` t^that ell^mployersv*maintain control programs of medical and monitor-:^ expense-at^trace^levelsof exposure (such as 0.1 f/ml) never-found to. - ` pose a carclnogenhazard and far below the permissible (2 f/ml) exposure; levels establishedftn the-Standard.^Practicality requires a trigger Aevel,^^.^^^183 V ibelingvofhazardoua .materlals'ls/clearlj uU$ '.coating,$ " -M binder, or ocher material" so chat subsequent exposures will not exceed established limits. Although this approach is a practical one for "bound" fibre products, if literally interpreted, it would severely discriminate against bulk materials with trace fibre contamination, even in the case of exposures well below the established limits. It would appear no label is required on a bound product releasing 1.5 f/ml in use but a label would be required on a bulk construction aggregate releasing 0.05 f/ml in use. Grace recommends that these briefly discussed, specific incon sistencies in the current standard should be noted. As these inconsisten cies are repeated in the proposed standard they are discussed in more appropriate detail below. D. Timing One other general aspect of the current standard should also be noted. That is that a 5 f/ml TLV was in use in the U.S. for the appro ximately five year period through July, 1976. A 2 f/ml TLV has been effec tive only for one year since July 1976. Setting aside for a moment the question of whether that TLV should be lowered, it should be noted that U.S. employers have absorbed considerable amounts of capital and operating expense to plan for and implement this recent change from 5 f/ml to 2 f/ml. Setting aside the question of whether it is possible for employers to implement a still lower TLV, another change to a still lower TLV is pro jected to be geometrically more expensive than the 5 f/ml to 2 f/ml reduc tion. Niethe'r is any specific resultlnp health improvement predicted by either OSHA or NIOSH. Thus, a serious question remains; In the absence of emergency conditions or startling new data, can a further reduction be'practical at this time given the very recent drop from b to Z i/ml? II. Proposed Standard The proposal carries over most elements of the current standard, including the ones discussed above, but with the addition of several new elements and the Intensified attention to others. . Grace does not feel it is appropriate for us to comment to each and every aspect of the pro- posal but will Instead concentrate our time here today to those points vhlch w flcatlons of the proposeawordingon other elements as well, but.we believe other employer^wlll^coyer them in these Hearings and/or did so in. their wrltten CommentariesvmiimLitted April 9, 1976. . < C - /. '^ IV.1. ^Taking!these selected elements in the- sequence in. which;- they&k^ appear the; proposal, our detailed comments follow. Where the propose^j^L^;. rulemaking 1sthe;subject, the paragraph and section are indicatedin^par^^f^' es^foll' a. V'^A.-^Toxicological:Considerations of Exposure to Asbestos (II,`: A, B^and C). :-0f-''the ,42- references cited in the proposed standard^ 27 carry a .dat>of ^ '* 1972<the;date offthe current standard) and 'earlier In not^idrus;the:major^is8ueat hand, namely, ehic&responses^relatedfto- alfferent exposure^levels^^Host^dnstead^rtepeafr V t * * i * -3- 06167425 ' r'( of asbestos exposure at what were probably very high exposures compared f' with either the current or proposed U.S. standard. Several are "in press," and some still unobtainable. This means that those references not only have never benefited from peer review, but also that those in industry regulated under the proposed standard are prevented access to whatever evidence may be in those references. (This problem also exists with Re examination references.) Other references in the proposal dated since 1972 are re discussions of earlier studies which had already been published in their entirety prior to 1972. Of these, three might merit comment on the basis of "newness." 1. In (25), Newhouse and Berry apply an earlier statistical model to earlier data to project mesothelioma incidence in a British asbestos tex tile plant closed 1968. No data was available on exposures but they were admittedly "high." 2. In (30), Howard et al followed up on a longitudinal study of British textile workers and reported an increased cancer incidence among relatively recent employees (since 1950). Again, no data was available on exposures. However, as reported to OSHA on April 9, 1976 by Dr. Hans Weill of Tulane University, it should be noted that average work area concentrations were as high as 25 f/ml with standard deviations nearly as large. In no way does this information pertain to hazards at the current or proposed standard levels. ( 3. In (41) Gilliam, Dement, et al draw the conclusion that fibre exposures .below 2 f/ml pose a significant hazard. However, this was a multiple exposure work environment. Other drafts of the same-paper reported comin gled arsenic, silica and radon daughter exposures at very significant levels which may have eclipsed any disease contribution bv the fibres which were present at some unreported level. Differences in control and experimental groups and smoking history have also been noted. This document has such serious shortcomings that the1wisdom of placing any credence upon it in this standards setting process Is questionable. Ip summary, the "recent" data is not relevant to the proposal which follows It. Other data referred to in the "Reexamination" will"be mentioned in connection with specific points discussed.below. t*:: V--' B. Definitions (b). The proposal definition of asbestos is Identical to that -In:the-current standard except1 for broadening1 the-current minerolo-^ glcal scope so as , to include "...and^every product containing-anyof theseminerals." The*added words are unsupported and should be deleted for. two reasona.^Flrst.vthe- language of the proposed standard lssin^terma oflashes-. tos\fibre and asbestos;(product) .' .This broadening of the^defInltlon of** asbestos thus serves no Identifiable-objective in facilitating understanding ~ .the-proposed standard orbits enforcement.- - Secot lie?, scope of what constitutes,asbestos remollte-voccurs jwidelyin;. the.earth*sicrust * * * ~,;<pntainlhg." definftionThasthe .-.tfiVaV -`Zb: S! V- v. '--."a*--22,. W .> -4- ^`(>16742,9 and gravel fill as "asbestos" even when it contains no fibre. This result seems unwarrented, and is probably also unintended. No improvement in employee health would occur as a result. This aspect is discussed again below under labeling (p.16).' 1. The proposed definition perpetuates the current standard's inclusion of all Tremolite as being "asbestos" regardless of whether, occurring in fibrous or non-fibrous habit. This is consistent regulatory practice but it is still as much at odds with the ainerological facts of asbestos as it was in 1972. Tremolite's physical properties are^ very different from those of commercial asbestos. This fact is illustrated by the following data comparing Tremolite with the predominant North American commercial asbestos, chrysotile. It is abstracted from the current (1975) edition of Industrial Minerals and Rocks, (p. 384) published by the American Insti tute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers. ?rl(/ K Chrysotile Tremolite Crystal Structure fibrous and asbestiform long and thin columnar Tensile strength, pounds per sq. inch 80,000 to 100,000 1,000 to 8,000 Splnnability Very Good Poor Flexibility High Poor Electric Charge Positive Negative The sharp difference in properties of tremolite versus commercial asbestos such as chrysotile are also-apparent In the attached photographs of commer cial chrysotile fibre versus tremolite in fibrous form. (Attachment I). The data and the photographs depict a fundamental difference between Tremolite and commercial asbestps fibres. The fact that most Tre- molite is non-fibrous to one side, that Tremolite which is fibrous nas^-;-V startlingly'different propertiesjj^Shpgt^wajcy^Ablunt.^ and wean, , the tremo lite fibres would appear to be a very different^level-of^lrritant^in". the respiratory..system than commercial fibres which are long,^hard, sharp, and. strongr^ndeedf^thc'Trembllte fibres, based upon theiriphyslcAl^propertien _would appear to be much less of a tissue irritant, than many hard, sharp, , tf-vr -^abrasive mlneral nartlcles of respirablesizenever'regulated'as carcinogens `" "... --- - rnm , .* 2. The point of-view Grace, is speaking from today Is that of both a large /industrial user of talcs typically containing tremolite;>.mnd^also from the V ; perspective of. Grace's-ownvermiculite?business. . Our. perspective'is thus - dual; the employee1 health concerns -and responsibilities of a. customer,. and as a producer, of tremolite-containlng.products, as wellL You.are probably y,>i*faniliar with tremolitic talcs, , bait .a brief. descrlptlonarOf^yernicullte1 would probably ibe appropriate..[ rdiraii^Sccurringiiiineralti subsequently 'processe^vand packaged^^vermiculite^is J * &- 'V*; ^167430 -5- utilized principally for its non-flammable, high insulation properties, in a number of highly critical fire protection and energy conserving insul ation applications. Some vermiculite is found with co-occurring strata <>f^ tremolite. The tremolite is present in mined vermiculite only in minor amounts. Of the tremolite which may be present, only a ^trac^ fraction of that is fibrous. Extensive capital and operating expenses have been incurred by Grace in independent efforts _t.o_ minimize the tremolite contam ination, but it is not(practical to totally remove it, even if cost were not a consideration. THa-perspective, then, of Grace's vermiculite busi ness is that although much of the vermiculite we process and sell may have no detectable amounts of tremolite, the possibility continues that some of it may have trace amounts. However, even where present,, most of the tremolite (Zero to Z) in finished vermiculite is of a non-flbrous nature. Of the tremolite which may be present, only some (Zero to Z of tremolite) is of fibrous habit. Of that fibrous portion, only some (Zero to Z of tremolite) is in the respirable particle size range of to . , Recent experiments in one facility have shown that in one combination of ^ abnormally dusty circumstances purposely created to pose a "torture test," the maximum airborne concentration of fibrous tremolite which could be artifically induced in that case was 1.5 f/ml. However, at that extreme point , the accompanying concentration ot toEal dust was between four and five times permissible levels of the ACGIH. / ^j In summary, a typical tremolite presence in vermiculite is at a low level, if* present, and has little or nothing in common with the con- * centration potential in handling connnercial asbestos. Although Grace can not say there is "none," there may be this "trace amount" present, and vermiculite thus falls within the asbestos standard regardless of the different properties discussed above. &i 3. As an illustration of the different physical properties of Tremolite . (A> / and its unsuitability for the purposes where commercial' asbestos products are utilized, it should be noted it is not regulated in the United Kingdom. Their "Standards for Asbestos Dust Concentration" as originally promulgated in 1969 and most recently supplemented do not mention tremolite. Their standard instead regulates coonerdal asbestos fibres at different expo sure levels based upon their demonstrated carcinogenicity. Considering that the large proportion of asbestos human studies cited in the.proposal are from the U.K., this is a significant point. * 1= t'J 4. As noted above, bothflbrousand non-flbrous Tremolite are included in, the asbestos definition of both the current and.proposed standards. The Occupational^Safety and Health Act states data^saall be utilized to^evalu- v<ir:^b^ate^the health hazards^posed by potentially harmful agents. 'It is note worthy that no data on tremolite hazard in' referenced either.. in^hel972 -Criteria:, document:(76 References) or in the'counterpart 1975 Cr^teria''docu- ment.``(42 references) The word tremolite doesoccur twice'ln the December' 1976. NIOSH. "Reexamination" (221 references). Once-is in an.J^jpendix^table % Llcal' pi.opei ties; uf. miueials~og~page ^IY-23 .??*The oth Trefer- 4^&fo-einndctee^atote^is^Lh9a60t'h-8dtnuudtyegjfien-r.qauvfaTnatbitleieraappoefatrriengmoonliptea.ghaevIeII)-.b3e2ein^^TdelitectedE^*ienr*efnacrme -^'V~.j t XT?- C' VA* <* . '* .: ' >. , J'- .. -; '. .*'?f'** 'l* :v -a. X/ . ,1 6- - Thus, although John F. Finklea, M.D., Director of NIOSH states in his cover letter to the Reexamination that "...all forms of asbestos, both commercial and non-commercial, are carcinogenic," that statement is unsubstantiated anywhere in that sizeable document or its 221 references, and thus is without basis. i It should be noted Section 6(a)(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not allow for the regulation of materials for which no documentation has been provided. V ; 5. Although among all these references there is no published study eval uating a carcinogen hazard of tremolite, it should be noted that there r V- v are responsible, contraindicating studies. William E. Smith, H.D., "Exper % ^ ~ imental Studies on Biological Effects of Tremolite Talc on Hamsters" (1973) reported no mesothelioma in animal populations receiving intra V pleural injections of talcs containing 50Z fibrous tremolite versus a sig nificant mesothelioma incidence in animals receiving injections of the commercial asbestos minerals; Chrysotile, Amosite, Anthophylite and Cro- cidolite injections . Gerrit W. H. Schepers, M.D., D. Sci., "The Biological Action of Talc and other Silicate Minerals" (1973), reviewed the mineralogical crystalline formulae and properties of 37 natural Silicates including tre- ' molite and the 4 principal fibrous forms of commercial asbestos (which Smith studied) as well as 10 synthetic types of respirable fibres. He then analyzed the differential biology of all tissue reactions to them. c He concluded "...because (Tremolite) has been classified as at? amphibole ( ^.mineral, it has naturally come under suspicion as a theoretical carcino gen. Theory and fact, however, have never matched up in either human experience or animal experimentation.^ Schepers went on to develop a relatlve index of pathogenic response among silicates, which placed tremolite at zero with a theoretical maximum index value of ten accorded to exposures jof commercial asbestos in conjunction with other minerals. .1. ^ --- - r- . A population of.talc miners and millers in upstate New York has been followed and periodically reported on over the past two decades (AMA Archives of Environmental Health; Schepers 1955; Klelnfeld 1967, and - Kleinfeld 1973) *-*?These workers had originally received occupational expo sures to fibrous tremolite dusts many, many times the current permissible- levels. An earlyjjreporteindicated a possible increased.: incidence of lung cancer. A later tS^aifce^rofth'S^ime. miners^jshowed a distinctly lower inci dence of neoplasia^at^hat^ thoughtthe men had by that time received^aJ progressivS.v longer exposure to tremolite and-smoking.' # This11 study is clouded og^a?ccrupie*ofvT>olnts insofar as conclusive findings are , jconcerned. The -men received phenomenal mixed dust exposures originallyv and most also had earlier exposures to metal ore, rocki.'ffand* commerc asbestos dusts.* ICleinfeld concluded, however, (1973> that---tnotwithstandingi the study's problems particularly the miners' high exposure: (4;to '5*times? ; a-^ . the then applicable standard ^f./ f/ml)--the mortality decline7: for *iungv _ k and pleural' cancer 1960/69/73" f/ml^standartDftfor-> tremolltej was-adequaterjrKlelnfeld^&lsoibtmcliided^that1,tremolite was less hazardous^ ^than commerclal^asbestos at cbmparable exposures,. ' - m : -.'r''.. . :-* ...... .. .. . * --V,.. *., * v .. -i . Ck. CtJtw/ii&ii'ik iL -7- 06167432 1 r, Grace understands that another review of this population is under thougH-tKe"result's_aFe_not yet available.' 6. There are precedents for treating Tremolite differently than the other minerals grouped with it in the definition. First, OSHA issued revised fibre evaluation guidelines for the case of fibrous tremolitic talcs in November, 1974 (OSHA Field Memorandum #74-92) together with a letter by (then) Assistant Secretary of Labor, John Stender, to one talc company, R. T. Vanderbilt and Co. The letter gave that company the right to certify their products as asbestos-free (that is containing tremolite, but not fibrous, asbestiform tremolite) if they contained no naturally occurring fibres prior to processing. Both the field memorandum and the "certification" letter were rescinded January 19, 1977 by (then) Assistant Secretary of Labor Morton Corn. This incident is mentioned not because we are of the belief that one or the other action was consistent or inconsistent with the Asbestos Standard, but because it shows past consideration has been given to tremolite's different position. Actually, the reason for the January 1977 cancellation of the Field Memorandum and Certification letter was an unreleased NIOSH preliminary reevaluation of the upstate New York miners and millers population discussed above. That is the very mine from which the Vanderbilt talc comes. As noted above, the conclusions from this study have changed from time to time and when it is finalized and released by NIOSH we would welcome an opportunity to review it. (' It should be noted, however, that the total tremolite analysis n (fibrous and non-fibrous) in tremolitic talcs is typically 35Z to 50Z by weight, a situation that is very different from the minor contamination, present in Vermiculite.. The point is that even in such large concentra tions, tremolite was recognized to be an exception. Second, the TJ.S, Bureau of Mines has recognized the Inadequacy of asbestos definitions such as that contained in the current and proposed OSHA standards. y.^They removed non-asbestlform tremolite from the Health and Safety Standards,^as^reflected in the Federal Register of July-1, 1974, pp. 24316/7. In that amendment, the Bureau of Mines acknowledged the. opinion that tremolite was "...not na-hazardous as chrysotile and other true asbestos minerals." The Mining Enforcement and Safety " Administration further stated that non-fibrous and non-asbestlform tremolite were not. Included within the definition of asbestos (Federal Register, March 10,Yl976;>p^10223)^^ -*> . \ Third, the American Society of Testing of Materials Committee D-34 has developed a Health and .Safety Standard.(Sections Al.l .to-AT*5); :a.\ for naturally.occurring Mineral 'fibres (asbestos). They recognize the^. t ^f^tfact'- tremolite^occursrfnboth asbestiform and non-asbestlform types.'and gig ^specify that^only'jiaturaily^^occurringi fibres (not solid tremolite ^an^iiioc^ n-iibrous.>cieavage ragmentsof tremolite) should be countedVas-'aabesto -'is essentiaJLiy^tha;same ^judgement,reflected^in* theJJ.!__ ' and 'MininksEnforcement .and <SefetydLnterpretationsimttntimimd' >,*, &*=^&.-d*MiKsSas .***.. <4 * v -8- 06167433 Fourth, the distinction between true asbestifora fibres and the non-asbestiform minerals included in the asbestos definition was also addressed in a 1976 paper "Asbestos Minerals and Their Monasbestos Analogs" by Sarkis G. Ampian, Chief, Branch of Cements and Ceramics, Division of Nonmetallic Minerals of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, "It should be noted at the outset that the non-fibrous minerals crystallizing in the radiating_or columnar groups of single crystals do. not become asbest6s through cominution. Characteristically they all lack unique physical proper ties, such as flexibility and crystallographic properties." (p. 7) This same distinction was described earlier (1963) by Hans Berger "Asbestos Fundamentals, Their Origin, Properties, Mining, Processing and Utilization" (Chemical Publishing Company, Inc. of New York) differentiating between "tremolite"--the correct mineral designation for the non-fibrous amphibole--and "tremolite asbestos"--an appropriate designation for the infrequently occurring fibrous form, (p. 2) .Our- objective in citing these U.S. government and private mineraloeical references is to draw attention to the inconsistency of the OSHA asbestos definition. To the extent the standard addresses "fibres" in specific sections of the Standard, the unnecessary inconsistency is to some extent self-correcting. However, the proposed (and current) definition needlessly , generates confusion as to what is asbestos, and the inconsistent definition is picked up and used in state regulations and standards, further compound ing the error, particularly with respect to tremolite. Fifth an4 last on this point, OSHA should note that numerous other concerned individuals besides Grace have independently highlighted the need to treat tremolite differently than the other mineraxs grouped with it in the definition. These recommendations were contained In comments filed on the proposed standard in April, 1976. A summary, partial sampling Includes: - E. I. DePont de Nemours & Company (pp. 1/3) recommended deletion of non-asbestiform Tremolite from regulation. - GAF Corporation (p. 2) recommended that the definition of asbestos product should be revised to cover any product . containing asbestos fibre where the fibre is not locked in, and ln ns^fapplication, or handling would release airborne concentrations above permissable ,leyeJa,^Tttis^change^; . .. ... would not diminish the effectiW^cS^flW^IBflPWratearirana^ ww 7 V* V- -^American ^MiningCongress (pp. 1/3) recommended that non-' ^^%asbe8tiform tremolite be deleted from'the definition, as ' ~ ^well^aaithatjithe.,:4efinYt<7h)eincludeyanv- products contain^.': ; yi- :1 ing morakh^^lX^of lasbestifornTminerals. ': . .. - .PPG Induatries '(pp. 3/4) also recommended clarification the definition,off tremolite - in relatlbnto Tremolite. ^ S'*"*" j-UnionlCarbideS(pi':-5wr)-tir..p........o.......^......t....e.......d..... ou t^l.:defin. l ^inconsi8fc^y;nsvwellta^the%fj3Mllhoodof>itrace" ties * , - .. materials.' >. *'** " * - *:.' W- %&***::'' -V v; ^ ;< yj - '^1 ns * It lAc: - ift/>iidi}iiyjL liv-sA' i .iiiilkl - ..' UL-.: ^ih.1 C liv - Jfciii.iii&.!'&&. -9- 06167434 Johns-Manville (p. D-2) recommended chac non-asbestiform minerals such as Tremollte should be deleted from the definition and went on to point out the wide prevelance of trace impurities. - Homestake Mining Company (pp. 3/4) recommended clarifica tion of the definition in respect to Tremollte. - The American Society for Testing and Materials (pp. 2/4) recommended deletion of non-asbestiform minerals such as tremollte. In summary, Grace suggests to OSHA that the above recommendations by several representative large chemical and mineral products concerns--none of whom have a direct business interest in tremollte or ties with Grace--, together with the government regulatory precedents and independent profes sional and trade association recommendations, constitute a valid, responsible message which should be heeded on tremollte. He believe OSHA should act in accordance with these precedents and include only that Tremollte in the defi nition which is in naturally occurring fibres. 7. One change in the proposed Standard seems minor, but Grace believes that It serves no identifiable objective. It may be detrimental in the possible application of the proposed Standard to non-flbrous minerals. The current Standard defines "Asbestos fibres" as those fibres which may be characterized , in terms of length and proportion (paragraph (a)), as determined by the A method prescribed in paragraph (e). The Proposed Standard, however, defines "Asbestos fibres" as a particulate form of asbestos possessing a minimum length and maximum aspect ratio (paragraph (b)). Grace inquires as to what purpose is served by defining a "fibre" as a "particulate form," especially as the balance of the Proposed Standard is expressed universally with the nomencla ture "fibre." As discussed above, there is a considerable amount of descrip tion in minerological science as to the characteristics of a "fibre," but there is no similar body of interpretation concerning "particulate form." i . Thischange would appear to be towards vagueness instead of preciseness and ; ordinarily a standard would strive for the latter objective. rin what may have beeniaurelated>developmentj.v.a^propo8ali^waspresen ted to the Metalllc|And Mon-MetTeerat**their 21st Hearings^in^October, '1976.* That proposa3P?wwlJ*have substituted "mineral : particulateA for::"asbestos fibre" in the MESA Standard 57_.5-Hl for occupational ^ exposure ; to-^isbestos. A Due both to thelack of.1 any-,supporting.;basis 'and%the;3ft't '^ ^Unpractically largerenforcement scope (virtually the entlreUrS.?,Mining, Milling,fand Processing': Industry) the proposed change was-withdrawn.A However, A^.theJcommeatS'/prepared for., those) Hearings by*W.'.-Clark Cooper, |Mp,-.arenas- per-: - :tinent4t6]rthe^propo8al^s^particulate" terminelogy, as they^were'k<the)MESA; pro-;. -4 _ posAl'^^articulafi" ^terminology. He stated-.";i.It is scientifically/untenable1 of commercial asbestos. whereofor convenience ?V?3rljaspectxratio ;was-set^as a lower cut-off^in^defininga fibre,ito:tha*--"*** *' * iTO^thatfan^particle-which -is three-:tl^suonger^than'rlt is4'^ide has *&*?*' ... . *-v * l,' . <h r. ~~2rr fUu :i&. Y. * -10- ColC7dr,5 K properties like asbestos." Dr. Cooper then proceeded to point out the many questions as to validity of the studies of Pott, Guth, and Friedrichs on which NIOSH has placed so much emphasis in their "Reexamination" of the OSHA Asbestos Standard. This "particulate" for "fibre" terminology change in the proposal would have great possible impact in the case of minerals such as Tremolite, vhich occur principally in non-fibrous habit. We recommend that the new "particulate" nomenclature be deleted. It serves no identifiable purpose in improving employee health, and it adds needless confusion. 8. At the same time, the evidence should be reviewed on Tremolite in connec tion with the proposed standard, it would be well to note that "asbestos" is but one of many types of mineral dust concentrations to which employees are exposed. Grace believes employee exposures to high mineral dust concen trations of any kind are a serious subject. As mentioned Immediately above, the Pott, Guth, and Friedrichs studies were given a prominent position in the NIOSH Reexamination in connection with the proposed, new OSHA Asbestos Standard. Those studies involved phenomonally nmsilve interpleural injections (100 mg). In fact, test animal mortaljty resulting from this dosage was so high, the injections had to be administered in.four, successive 25 mg injections over time. However, the extrapolatabilltv has never been dgmnnat-rargd of known, massive animal tests to unknown but comparatively very low exposures for man involving a totally different inlection mechanism. Such massive tests may or C may not be screenings for neoplasia in man. Certainly it would be a favorable Indicator if such a massive injection had no harmful effect, but so many widely occurring minerals can give positive results in such animal tests--without ^ even suggestive human data--that their credibility as an indictment is subject , \ f to great doubt as a practical matter. The quantities injected may be so mas- / sive as to Induce mesothelioma with just1 about any material. Those studies showed neoplasia induction from massive injections of many widely used mineral products. They included fibrous glass and gypsum. In this connection it-should be noted that animal studies Involving Tremolite yielded negative results (Smith, mentioned above). v* /\ Z r. -o'?*: ", <v* Ignoring, for. the^sake of discussion, the proposal's impact'on Grace's approximatelyJ*l*600*emplbyee3 - directly associated with the yermiculite busi- iSy^asjjpelJgna^he.jLpproximately 5,000 people working for other employers slve^^ttHwihtributlon^ sale, use and application ofvvermicullte -products, y\. > onemay'legitimately ask what the positive,yOffsettingUienelftts-frwguld be"to \Z; American societyby dislocating this number of people--^Grace's^businessinter- ests in the matter - to one side. These vermicullte-based products do not ; . tF /j serve the-role-for society that snack foods or toys do when they-are judged to be potentially unhealthful or unsafe. Vermicullte-based products are of proven'value on.anational scope in saving.lives through fireproofingsaving through insulation,frand permittin^^igh-yleld hortl^ -'v' .. . . * 'i 'C ' V.. tvy * !'L *'*. .' w *'it \ '*.*> v <, &*<': fr " "---.vik.v- -*Z..-..!.T.'V..-.s'V-' v-'l"' - . ?V." -wr 0G167A36 -11*i> If vermlcullte were eliminated from use, in most product applica- / tions there are no known substitutes giving comparable performance character istics. However, the materials most likely to be substituted for vermiculite, although not giving equivalent performance, would principally be: Perlite, i\ x/ Mineral Fibre, and Class Fibre. In contrast to the evidence on Tremolite reviewed above, it should be noted that those materials all may have poten tially greater health hazards than does the vermiculite they would replace. We refer to the silicosis and pneumoconiosis aspects of Perlite, as well as the respiratory impairment and carcinoma potential of all mineral particles. iv 4 Including the man-made fibres. Our point is not that no materials are 100Z l' "safe" to use (much of the evidence on those substitute materials is from animal studies of questionable pertinence, as discussed above). Rather, our point is, considering the evidence reviewed above on Tremolite, Grace is not only hard pressed to identify any employee health benefit from eliminating vermiculite use, but there is basis to fear a potential, comparative employee health hazard as a result. Those substitute materials do not fall under the pyf* scope of the Asbestos Standard and thus, unlike Tremolite, are not tarred with the Asbestos brush, but that situation mav change over the next five to i-pn years. In that perspective it would seem unfair--for lack of a better term--to eliminate vermiculite at this time, given the difficulty in esta blishing data on Tremolite. C. Exposure Level (c) In this and previous rulemaking proceedings, OSHA has considered the latency of carcinogenic effects, variations in Individual susceptibility, and feasibility of "no-effect," or "threshold" exposure levels. The conclusion has been that employee exposures should be reduced to the lowest feasible level. Feasibility has been defined as the lowest level detec-table bv available analytic techniques. In this instance, optical microscopy. The problem on this aspect of the OSHA proposal is that optical microscopy is not a reliable methodology at airborne concentrations as low as O.i f/ml. Optical microscopy, the only practical analytic technique available at this time, is utterly unreliable at concentrations as low as the 0.1 f/ml recommen ced in the NIOSH Reexamination. It may be one thing for an. agency to recommend an exposure standard that is Impractical, monitoring wise; they can focus their enforcement monitoring predominantly on workplaces with higher exposure and/or confine their enforcement citations to airborne concentrations suffi ciently higher to permit accurate measurement. The problem, however, in fully placed upon employers. They would be confronted with the task of attempting to monitor to those lmpractically low concentrations, and below, with a-suffi cient degree of accuracy so as to fulfill theiramuch;greater/responsibilities .as-employers, . - Grace.expects:that others-will-describe the Increased frequency . and expense of monitoring required at such low exposures. Many fold more workplaces will be required to receive scheduled monitoring. .'.The amount of monitoring per workplace would also be Increased many times.in an attempt to compensate for the poor accuracy of the individual samples;- Rather than dwell upon this vastly Increased monitoring, its expense, and the dubious value of , .the.-activity, Grace.vill Instead make a few comments on the problems . .-M* - ` ;the-regulated'employers we cannot beg the vissue^as^canjthe^enforcement'agency, *'""twouldiinstead,.have to expend the effort&egariilesswrfnilireturns. ......... - ............. ^igja.;^y3ackground-.cohcentratlon values are sufficlehtlvfthlgh^in^manvTlnstahcea 'r<-. /that' a conaiderabla&"headstart" already exists lnlteha^hmblehtWbefore one Tjy, . .. .^ 1*1 ' ;. v- ; s.p . * ~\T* r.'rii.yi*..*. , * Vv. i.`k2ui}isilsi}j>/i<`..'Jlhl:* i<a,'.' wWk.'.. :&&.. iiiK: -!: >i . *** *r,`.; ^attempts to measure incremental contribution at the workplace. Most studios .of ambient levels have been done in terms of electron microscopy technique in lieu of optical microscopy. The conversion factor from nanograms mass/m^ to fibres counted/ml is approximate at best, and the conversion factor varies greatly by type of fibre, length, and aspect ratio. 06167437 However, taking the Reexamination's six conversion factors (pp. IV14/15) and averaging indicates a possible index of 1 ng = 5,100 fibres. Arbi trarily halving this to compensate for the effects of the Nicholson (1973) Study (which cited an average ng to fibre conversion ratio of 30,600) and dividing by 1,000,000 ml/M^ yields an approximate conversion factor of .0025 for converting ng/M^ to f/ml. This may be high or low, but it is a conserva tive average of the data prescribed by NIOSH. _ NIOSH. cites. Selikoff as a source in this matter, he having estimated a nanogram equivalency of one million fifergs; so, if a factor of 2500 f/nanogram is off-target it would seem to be on the conservative side. In their Reexamination, they present the detailed results of two major ambient studies in U.S. areas, Selikoff et al (1972) in Table 7 (p. IV29), and Fairless (1974) in Table 10 (p. IV-32). Applying the rule of thumb conversion factor of 1 ng/M^ .0025 f/ml to the mean values in those studies Indicates average backgrounds of 0.02 f/ml to 0.08 f/ml for Selikoff and Fairless. It should be noted those are averages. Many backgrounds were much higher, up to an indicated 0.25 f/ml. rWe apologize for this digression in conversion factor derivation. but we feel the question of how high U.S. ambients may be in terms of the am* wpfsnrpmgnf system as employed by the Standard is important. The point here is that ambients are high enough to be a significant factor. Actually, Grace has recorded background concentrations as high as those indicated above. We wish this were not so. _The uncontrolled pervasive-" ness of asbestos fibres in our environment is hot a basis for considering potentially controllable additions lightly. However, this phenomenon is a fact of life. OSHA could perhaps subtract backgrounds from the values found in workplace monitoring, but the point is that ambients can be a fair percent of workplace values, and at these low concentrations the error associated with the measurement of either is great. 2. Field monitoring procedures and the subsequent laboratory analysis by optical mlcroscppy are imprecise. That imprecision increases as the air borne concentration becomes lower. There are a number of studies illustrating this variability, both from government and private professionals. G. S. Rajhaus and G. M. Brogg (AIHA Journal, December 1975) analyzed the variability measurements under field conditions. Their standard deviation varied from 0.4 to 1.2 f/ml. Company test data developed by Grace shows that the measurement of airborne concentrations is subject to considerable variation, even under rela tively idealized, closed-room test conditions. Sample collection must take place in close proximity to the point source of fibre release in order to mini mize variability in sample collection. , Multiple samples taken simultaneously the same close range from the point source may display a standard deviation + x f/ml of the average value at airborne concentrations averaging y f7ml. * -13- This variability increases at lower concentrations and is only partially compensated for by counting to a higher number of fields and/or by taking samples whose duration is many, many times in paragraph (b) of the proposed standard. the 15 minute duration mention 156167438 When samples are taken ten to fifteen feet from the point source under controlled, non-field conditions, variations of 3 to 8 fold are recor ded at immediately adjacent locations. When one is monitoring under field conditions with uncontrolled air circulation and intermittent or varying point 1 sources of fibre emission, the measurement process is subject to such great variation at fibre levels below 2 f/ral that the concept of 0.5 f/ml is quite unfeasible. Although NIOSH, in their Reexamination, bases their exposure, ' v- recommendations upon the capabilities of the very same measurement process :* ve are talking about, it should be noted that their basis (such as p. IV-25, ,rReexaminacion") is based upon idealized, "t-honrgr-tral min-tqimpg'^ pf jiatectable fibre concentrations. Grace, speaking as a employer with continuing respon- slbilities and experience in not only detecting but quantifying fibre con centrations under field concentrations, must take specific exception with the proposal's statement that 0.5 f/ml is a viable exposure threshold, measure ment-wise. 3. The samples gathered in the field are then subjected to several types of error when analyzed in the laboratory, the principal one there being coun ter bias and error. Setting aside, for a moment, measurement variations in duced by the sample gathering phase of the method, let us consider the labor atory evaluation phase specifically. Ortiz et al (Journal of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1975) reviewed this area of variability in some detail in a paper supported by NIOSH. Referring to data generated by NIOSH in their Proficiency Analytic Testing Program (a NIOSH program to demon strate laboratory competency in evaluating airborne asbestos fibre concentra tions) , Ortiz et al advised "...that under the ideal conditions of several experienced counters counting the same wedges, using the same optics, varia tions as large as 502 are observed." Ortiz et al also reported the results of the NIOSH PAT program com paring laboratories counting the same identical samples. After eliminating 5 to 10Z of the results on the basis that they were abnormally high or low counts, the remainder still had coefficients of variation typically + 50Z to 60Z. Considering this variability on evaluating filters produced under controlled conditions, the practicality of a 0.5 f/ml standard is rule<T~out. To these fibre counting variations of -4- 50 to 60Z, one must also add higher variations which occur in field sample collection, as well as variations in duced by other parts of the measurement process not discussed in detail here (sample preparation, microscope type and calibration, counting rules, and natural variation). Although it is feasible to discriminate an. exposure of 2 f/ml from 5 f/ml or 1 f/ml by existing technology, it is not practical to quantify and discriminate between an exposure of 0.5 f/ml from 1 f/ml or 0.25 . i f/ml under field conditions with reliability. Reliable discrimination among tlv y concentrations around 0.1 f/ml, under field conditions, is patently impossible, r / 4. This only available monitoring method, optical microscopy, is particu larly difficult to use at low concentrations. Plate-like mineral particles -14- on edge can and do become confused with asbestiform fibres. This error is especially encountered when the laboratory technician is evaluating low con centrations and there is little material on the microscope reticle area to be counted. Comparisons between adjacent particles is not possible, and the probability of counting a non-fibre as a fibre is aggravated at low concen trations. C61674_ 39 This difficulty has previously been noted with talcs (and mentioned in other companys' April, 1976 comments), but it is uniquely a serious prob lem with samples which contain vermiculite dust. As shown in the attached photograph, platelets of vermiculite tend to impinge the filter membrane on edge. Although these vermiculite plates are totally different from asbestos, they tend to be counted as fibres unless the laboratory technician is partic ularly experienced in evaluating this sort of sample. Grace has experienced the same difficulty with mixed samples including dust from ingredients other than vermiculite. Gypsum is a particular problem. Grace has reevaluated samples only to find actual airborne concentrations of tremolite "fibres were 1/2 to l/3 of initially reported values. Definite particle identification is very difficult by optical microscopy for technicians experienced in vermi culite. This is a problem with vermiculite, it is most aggravated at low concentrations, and we ask this problem receive serious consideration. In summary, Grace believes that the NIOSH/OSHA position that 0.5 f/ml (let alone 0.1 f/ml) concentrations are measurable is valid only in con trolled, laboratory conditions, if there. Grace and others with years of experience in monitoring airborne concentrationsHtmdef~the "responsibility of accurately evaluating all workplaces (not a selected few)_believe a standard of 0.5 f/ml cannot be reliably measured. D.Exposure Level (C) An entirely different perspective on lowering the exposure level--besides measuring It--is whether a reduction is justified or has a benefit. Nowhere does the proposed standard or the "Reexamination" document inadequacy of the recent 2 f/ml standard. The.only available data shows that persistent exposures to commercial asbestos well above that permit ted under the current standard do have an adverse effect. No data has been presented to show that the recent 2 f/ml standard is an "unsafe" exposure for commercial asbestos--let alone tremollte. Neither is there any evidence to show that a lower standard would have any improvement in employee health. 1. In our April, 1976 commentary, we requested that OSHA consider a 5 f/ml standard be implemented for Tremollte. How likely this is in the face of political ^pressure to treat all "asbestos" as "asbestos" may be another matter, but Grace seriously submits that the facts support such a case. ' 2. We again wish to draw attention to the fact that the epidemiological data cited by the government does not correlate hazards with exposure levels, and that where rudimentary exposure data was available within the studies it showed massive exposures. 3. Many of the epidemiological studies cited involve multiple exposures to harmful materials in conjunction with formidable exposures to commercial  . * Ai: -15- asbcstos, or, alternadvcly massive exposures to mixed types of commercial asbestos (as mentioned above). 4. One study that we are aware of which sought to establish dose:response 06167440 relationships for commercial asbestos (Dr. P. E. Enterline, University of Pittsburgh, 1976 IndustryrGovernment Asbestos Conference and planned for pub lication in Archives of Environmental Health) shows a mean 78.3 year occupa tional exposure latency period for lung cancer and mesothelioma at 2 f/ml, (and 124.3 years at 0.5 f/ml). In other words, based on an analysis of all epidemiological studies where approximate commercial asbestos exposures could be estimated, it was projected that the _health_hazard_a.t_2._f/jal_was minimal, with mortality due to other causes occurring first. The other study directed to dose:response was from OSHA (Benefits and Costs of the Federal Asbestos Standard, University of Delaware, 1975). It stated (p. 15) "...While it is unlikely that asbestos-induced diseases will be completely eliminated by a 2-fibre standard, they may be reduced to a negligible number, provided the standard is vigorously enforced. In the estimation of benefits and costs, vv we assume that the number of asbestos-induced diseases occurring under any V* 2-fibre standard will be so negligible that they can be ignored." As discussed above, there has been no new data introduced since the time of this study y which could reasonably invalidate that statement. Based upon the data available on relative characteristics of tremolite versus commercial asbestos discussed above, by comparison with these two studies, 2 f/ml (or 5 f/ml) are very conservative standards for asbestiform Tremolite. ^ 5. Although Grace concurs with the utility of massive-dose, animal tests to clear minerals, positive results indicate need for further tests. Tremolite has shown negative results in 25 mg interpleural injections (as noted above although not mentioned by NIOSH). 6. The NIOSH Reexamination emphasizes descriptions of man's response to mas sive doses of commercial asbestos even though it acknowledges that a dose: response relationship does in fact exist (p. VI-1). In convoluted logic NIOSH then concludes (p. VI-2) that an absence of data showing the current exposure standard is unsafe is the reason that the exposure standard must be cut to the lowest detectable level. This is illogical besides being unreasonable for rommere-fal asbestos.__Including Tremolite in the exercise is even further afield, justification-wise. 7. The Proposal and the Reexamination based their recommendations not on health hazard data or even prolections of hazards at 2 f/ml but upon~the measurement method's theoretical capabilities (discussed above).*. Grace states that the proposed reduction from the recent (July 1975) 2 f/ml standard is without basis. E. Monitoring (e) The requirement thit the~empiloyee be notified within 5 days after receipt of results should be modified either by addition of the words "or as practical" or by OSHA clarification. In a large employer organization, it is not practical for the employee to be notified 5 days after a laboratory ^.technician first makes the determination. L/iiU'Jiiiiiiii'ii;- -16- F. Medical Requirements (j) The proposal requires annual physical examina tions for all employees exposed to asbestos fibres. This is irrespective of whether the employees are exposed above, at, or below the permissible levels. Considering that someone crossing a street on his way to work is probably exposed to asbestos fibres, this is unreasonable. An action level should be adopted for the annual medical examinations requirement in the proposed stan- dard, perhaps one-half the permissible 8 hr. TWA. An appropriate reference point would be the 1 f/ml action level adopted by California OSHA for medical examinations of employees exposed to asbestos fibre in that state (Article 5208), the California Standard being recognized by Federal OSHA as having employee health protection equivalent to the current Federal program, an<U^ thus operatedjwith Federal_funding participation. voib/qql In this connection, it should be noted that, J.n fact, OSHA already omits the requirement for annual medical examinations below an exposure action level of 0.1 f/ml, and has documented this policy. The proposal's requirement for a Physician's statement that the employee has or doesn't have a medical condition which might place him at risk, or indirectly aggravate a pre-existing medical condition, is unreasonable. This requirement asks the physician to designate "no risk" situations. In today's malpractice environment, few physicians can Tie expected to respond to such-a point. Many of our plants are in remote locations with restricted availability of medical personnelI The Physician's Statement requirement should be deleted, and replaced with a statement of Physician's Opinion as to whether the employee has a significant medical condition which is commonly recognized as being materially impaired by exposure to asbestos. G. Regulated Area (dj The proposal designated any area where employees may be exposed in excess of permissible levels to be a Regulated Area. Inasmuch as the standard required monitoring of all employees who may be exposed to asbestos fibre at anv level, as a practical matter, employer Identification of "hazard" assignments and work stations is lnri-Cn<Hr m rhe pmpncuH gtandard-- (and the existing standard). Thus, those areas which have been found through monitoring to expose employees at or above permissible levels (or. at or above a lower, action level of one half the permissible levels) would be a better criterion for "Regulated Area." The requirement of a daily roster is burdensome and unnecessary, either in determining an individual's exposure or in evaluating the hazards facing an employee. This requirement is, in any event, obviated by the Stan dard's initial and scheduled exposure monitoring requirements. H. Labeling (1) This is an important subject to Grace. We take exception with the current standard in this section and have communicated this to OSHA before. A fundamental tenet of employee safety programs is to reserve the "hazard" designation for a relatively few hazards, and not to identify a multi tude of objects as hazardous and thus diminish the effect of the warning label. To tjhls end, the paragraph has appropriately provided an exemption for fibres aodlfied by a bonding agent, coating, binding or ocher mat-grifllt_whare_ Pt?*.' isisSSlijsi V .i V . -17- 06167442 concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is not expected to exceed designated concentrations. However, for no apparent reason, the same exemption does not apply to unmodified asbestos fibres, even though the airborne concentration of unmodified asbestos fibres would in many cases be substantially less than the airborne concentrations of fibres from a modified product. This is partic ularly true with respect to non-commercial minerals which occur widely as natural trace contaminants in bulk materials. Obviously, in many cases it is impossible to eliminate or to "modify" these trace minerals. However, under the proposed (and the current) labeling requirement, products containing these .trace minerals would.require full asbestos warning labels, no matter how small the amount released in use, transportation, etc. We recognize that addition of a bonding agent could be an important change in a material formulation which included commercial asbestos. However, the overriding consideration must be the actual employee exposure level, not trace contamination of bulk materials. The functional criterion in regard to labeling is whether the product releases fibre and what is the nature of the hazard that is present. As a matter of practice, it appears our views are shared by Fed- eral OSHA. Mr. Grover Wrenn. Chief. Division of Health Standards-Development, stated on September 9, 1976, at the AIA Industry-Government Conference: "The (asbestos) standard addresses itself to exposure to asbestos...The standard * does not explicitly differentiate among various products containing asbestos but addresses'itself to employee exposure to asbestos, and_the.burden then of tfre standard will be a function thfi flTgnr *<* a p*rM.r-ni*r product containing asbestos is capable of releag-tng rh*r ashostna <nfn the workplace, resulting in employee exposure" (pp. .81/88 Proceedings). Grace is not aware of all other parties who have recommended OSHA consider this point of fibre release versus presence, but knows that they include the following, based on a review of some April, 1976 comments. Some were commenting on the Proposal's Asbestos Definition, and others on labeling, as the two are related: - GAF recommended a change so that "'Asbestos Product' means any product made wholly or partly from asbestos where the fibre is not locked in and in use, application or handling would release airborne concentrations above peraissable levels" (p.2). - The American Mining Congress stated that "...It would include asbestos products which contained even trace amounts of any of the identified minerals which occur naturally along with many minerals which are mined" (p. 2). - PPG Industries noted that "...The definition of asbestos includes 'every product containing any of these minerals,' however, the standard does not reveal how this is determined. The use of 'any* could be as restrictive as to mean even one fibre. Recom- __ mendation: There needs to be a lower limit of acceptable levels of these minerals in products, otherwise there is no lower limit even for inherent impurities. The Definition should be rewritten as follows: '...and every produc.t that is likely to contain asbes tos which in its use or preparation would result in exposure, to' the employee, airborne levels in excess of the permissible limit.'"  a. 01 :' " ^ * - * ' * K . * v '*'>' .- ' -18- ei67443 - Johns Manvllle pointed out in their recommendations Chat "...It is well recognized that asbestos is a natural component of the earth's crust. Serpentine rock, which is the host rock for chrysotile asbestos fibres, is common in this country. Therefore, asbestos is ubiquitous in the soil of the United States...Serpentine rock is quarried in certain states and much of it is used in road construction (pp. F.14-15)...asbestos can be present as a constituent of certain substances and products at extremely low levels, although asbestos is not intentionally used or added. Considering the almost universal presence of asbestos in the environment, one can neven be certain that asbestos is not present, in the absolute sense, any where." (p. F.2) Accordingly, we ask that the labeling language as proposed be modi fied as follows: "(2) Danger labels. (i) Labeling. Caution labels shall be affixed to all raw materials, mixtures, scrap, waste, debris, and other products containing asbestos fibers or to their containers except that no label is required in cases where during any reasonably foreseeable use, handling, storage, disposal, processing, or transportation, no airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers in excess of the exposure limits prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section will be released." We believe that this modified language would not Increase one employee's exposure to harmful fibre concentrations as defined under the Pro posed Standard's paragraph (c). We believe that the modified language would prevent a serious and adverse impact on employees and employers engaged in supply and use of bulk materials and possibly other industries as well. We believe the modified language accurately states the original intent of the Federal regulations, and that OSHA should take this opportunity to correct the obvious inconsistency and inequity in the present wording. That wording presumes the same hazard in a carload of loose bulk building material aggregate containing one fibre as in a bag of pure chrysotile. < V The present labeling wording has another serious inconsistency. \j That is, it would trigger extensive, expensive monitoring and medical programs / among myriad customers who had (inconsistently required) labeled products at \ their place of employment. This would occur even when the airborne exposure /^r levels associated with those products were below detectable monitoring levels. I. Other - Grace has identified several other aspects of the proposed stan dard which we believe could be materially improved by revisions. The criteria Involved are practicality and costs versus safeguarding/improvement of our employees' health. However, based upon a review of industry comments filed in April, 1976, we know OSHA is aware of counterpart comments by others directed to these very points. Thus, rather than talk at length on many Issues. Grace has instead elected to comment at length today on those relatively few points which are very important and/or unique to us versus the other parties testify ing here. i -19- % 06167444 SUMMARY W. R. Grace & Co.'summarizes our position on four key points: 1. The Asbestos Definition should be revised so as to refer to Tremolite (and ocher minerals) only in naturally-occurring fibrous form because there is not basis for including non-fibrous minerals. The definition should also be revised to include "products containing asbestos" only where those products have the potential to expose people above permissible limits. The change to define fibre as "particulate form" should be deleted. 2. The recent (July 1976) exposure levels of 2 f/ml and 10 f/ml should be retained. There is no data to show either that they constitute a relative hazard or that a lower level would be an improvement. Contrary to agency statements, the lower levels proposed are not feasible, monitoring-wise. Under no circumstances should a lower limit be considered for tremolite. 3. Medical Examinations should be required only at exposures above the permissible limits because the practical alternate end state is examination costs from all employees without any health improvements related to the Asbestos Standard. 4. The labeling requirement should be limited to those products which have the potential to expose people above permissible limits because the alternative is labeling of products posing no hazard as defined under the Asbestos Standard.