Document MXKpzND6E8Q7YL1ZL1XYovDk

FILE NAME: Union Carbide (UC) DATE: 1972 Feb 11 DOC#: UC362 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Public Comments on the Proposed Amendment to 29 CFR, Part 1910, as Published in the Federal Register Jan 17, 1972 U N I O N C A 1 1 D DF. C O I l P O l t A T l O N M IN IM I A N U M IITAI.S DIVISION* aro j-a u k a v k n u e .n d w v o i k .k .y .10 0 17 Jah r.s VT.TUwi,rxc> TiCK-rnEklDUlT J /' 'o >l.| PLAN"nr'i,SEXHIBIT UC-2914 REGIS1ERED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ' February 11, 1972 Office of Safety and Health Standards Room 305 ' * 400 First Street N.lv. ~ .Washington, D.C. 2G210 j - ' Subject; Comments on the Proposed Amendment to ' 29 CFR, Part 1910, as Published in the Federal Register January 12, 1972_____ Gentlemen: Background * For approximately nine years, Union Carbide Corporation has conducted a modest mining operation on a large short fiber, chrysotile asbestos deposit in the remote New Idria mining district of California. The asbestos is subsequently processed iti a mill located near King City, California. Rome of the resulting asbestos products are sold to domestic floor tile producers and for other typical applications for short fiber asbestos. However, Union Carbide Corporation's participation in these markets is relatively small, and we could not sustain thi^i operation if it were solely based on the production and sale of traditional asbestos products in competition with the large Canadian producers. Consequently, Union Carbide Corpora tion has placed emphasis cn the development and sale of highly refined asbestos fibers for special applications to the extent that the economic viability of our asbestos business is dependent on these products. Our most significant special asbestos product is a chemically modified high purity asbestos fiber which acts as a thi:;otropo for such strong binder re.ins as polyester, epoxy and polyvinyl chloride. Typically, the ' 'A2401:1 UCC 016091 biee of Safety and Health Standards .. - 2- February 11, 1072 asbestos addition to these resins varies from 0.57. to 1.07. and in some few applications may exceed 5%. The market for this product consists of literally hundreds of customers, each using a relatively small quantity of asbestos.' For instance, in 1971, 70% of the' companies to vhom we supplied asbestos for this purpose used less than 0.7 tons per year. [For comparison, one average size floor tile plant will consume approximately 15,000 tons of asbestos per year.] These low asbestos content resins are often applied to a mold by spraying techniques and the ' fabricated plastic material is often drilled or sawed, and some- .times sanded. The only significant alternate thixotropic agent available is pyrogenic silica -- also designated by 0SHA as a ''Target Hazard". This silica product has a much lower bulk density than our asbestos product and is inherently much dustier. It is also a less efficient thixotrope and is more-expensive. However, the silica dust hazard and attendant regulations have .received much less publicity and, therefore, are less alarming to the customers. - ' . General Comments We have made significant capital investments.in engineering installations at our King City mill in order to minimize concen trations of airborne asbestos fibers.. We are planning to make further capital investments for this purpose and are confident of our ability to comply with the presently proposed TLV of 5 fibers per milliliter in our own operations. We are aware, however, that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has proposed a lower level of 2 fibers per milliliter. It is our opinion that this lower TLV level cannot be achieved by any presently known combination of engineering installations. We also believe that the comments of Dr. G. W. Wright:, in his letter of . January 11, 1972 to Dr. C. H. Powell (this letter included as a part of the Appendix of the NIOSH Criteria Package) indicate a most reasonable position. Certainly, it is our view that the adoption of a 2 fiber TLV would be unreasonable within the time frame applicable to the presently proposed regulations. Since the adoption of a 2 fiber TLV could lend to the de facto prohibi tion of asbestos use, it is vitally important that sufficient tine be given to quantify the economic impact and practicality of such a limit. ' . Most of our specific comments pertain to the impact of the proposed regulations on our epectal asbestos product customers. A2^0!2 nr UCC 0)6092 Qfficc o Safety and Health Standards - 3 - February 11, 1972 The basis for our comments is that the specific regulations cited below are unreasonable with respect to: 1. the relatively low asbestos exposure level t of our customers' employees; ' 2. the practical aspects of administering the regulations; and ' 3. the potential negative economic impact which could force us to terminate our . . asbestosoperations. Specific Comments - ' There are four major areas of concern: -- 1. Subparagraph (d), "Particular Operations and Products". Article 1910.93 (a) sets a low but obtainable TLV of 5 fibers per ml. Subparagraph (d) ther. places additional restrictions on a variety of operations such as spraying, use cf various tools on asbestos materials, etc., which apply even if the TLV level is not approached. Extensive testing, medical examinations and . record keeping are also mandated for situations falling under this section. In the first place, essentially all cf the asbestos used in the United States will be affected by this provision, particularly as it is used by the smaller user of the final products who can least afford an extensive compliance program. ' Moreover, the term, "Asbestos" is used throughout without clear definition, especially in subparagraphs (d) (3), W (5) and (6), For example, the meaning cf "spraying of asbestos "asbestos cement . " , "asbestos waste and scrap" is not well defined in that no distinction is made between materials that may contain a single asbestos fiber and those containing up to 100%. This distinction can make a major difference in the exposure generated. We do not believe these rules should be arbitrarily applied to materials containing only relatively, small percents of fiber, especially those in which the fiber is prewetted * and firmly bound. . ' Further, O perations for the area ir. which hand and power tools are used can be provided with local exhaust ventila tion but dust collectors cannot very well be attached to hand operated tools, Also, the wording, "The rniiviror,tents- of this - .A240 13 UCC 016093 1 -"1 "Office of Safety onci Health Standards < - - 4 - February 11, 3972 paragraph shall apply at all times.'1,is unclear. Protection is needed only when the tools are. generating dust. 'J It would seem far better to rely'upon the exposure and compliance, provisions of paragraphs (a), through (c) without, additional complication. At the very least, the provisions -JS should apply only whsn the TLV limits are exceeded. . fi i 2. The term, "asbestos waste", as usee in subparagraph .fV ' (d) (5) could Ibe interpreted to mean ore tailings from a mill. - The quantity involved is such that these..tailings cannot * practicably be handled in sealed bags. Some provision must be . made for this situation."' " ` ' "3 'A . Warning Siens. The warning signs proposed seem excessively alarmist and the wording and sigr. specifications are too detailed. Certainly, there, is hazard associated with long term and excessive inhalation'cf asbestos fiber. It would seem more appropriate, however, to require posting of "Asbestos .111 Dust Hazard" or "Respirator Required" signs at entrances of the area and require that companies train their employes and enforce work rules. Further, the_ term, "Asbestos dust hazard" is not defined. This provision should cither read "where TLV atmospheres are exceeded" or soma other more precise definition. It would be impossible to place warning signs wherever asbestos fibers may be encountered in tha United States. -. - * Personnel Monitoring. Paragraph (f) continues the apparent inconsistency introduced by paragraph (d). Personnel monitoring provisions apply whenever exposure to concentrations as high as 250 fibers per milliliter are encounted or in concentrations as low as a single fiber when caused by operations or procedures specified in paragraph (d). Since a very large effort is required for collection of data for physical examina 1 tions and for maintenance of records for 20 years, the 250 fiber per-.milliliter level seems quite reasonable. It is suggested that this be the criteria and that reference to paragraph (d) be deleted. With regard to the records, we object to opening the medical records, of any einployeo to the scrutiny of anyone but a physician. These records, contain notations of personal illness vhich we have always held confidential, *" Proposed Wording, of Regulations To incorporate these suggestions nn-J a few other sigr*.if j c rnL but lens important points, we" suggest the L olloviiig wording clw.ig.-.-, fswi.uim i UCC 016094 "Office d Safety and lieu] th Standards 1 - 5 - February 11, 1972 be made: . * I # t ' 1. Paragraph (c), "Allowable Respirators", specifies increasingly efficient respirators for increasing fiber concentra tions which is good and proper. Precise wording, however, does not allow for use of a more powerful respirator in lieu of a less efficient one. For example, subparagraph (c' (1) provides that "A reusable or single use filter type respiracor ... shall be used." Thus, according to the specific wording, use of a respirator approved for more severe conditions would not be in compliance. Perhapswording such as "or a respirator approved under paragraph (e) (2) or (e) (3)"should be inserted before "shall be used." A similar change is needed in paragraph (c) (2). r 2`* Paragraph (d). The best approach would be to delete (d) (1) through (5) and rely upon exposure ar.d compliance provi sions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c), Alternatively, paragraph (d) could read:"(d) (1). If an atmosphere in excess of the TLV of paragraph (a) is generated by the operations or use of tools described in the remaining subparagraphs of this paragraph (d), the employer shall comply with the requirements . of this paragraph." . " 3. .Paragraph (d) (5) should read: "Asbestos waste (except for large volume, low percentage content materials such as mill ore tailings) and scrap shall be collected ar.d disposed of in * ' sealed bags or other closed containers." . ' . A. Paragraph (e), "Warning Signs". ' ' (1) "Posting" should read: "Warning signs shall . be provided and displayed at each location where the base TLV is likely to be exceeded. . The sign shall be located so f.s to warn ' ` . ' anyone approaching the area that a hazard ' exists." : . (2) "Sign Specifications. The wrrning signs shall be easily readable with wording such as 'Asbestos Dust Hazard' or 'Respirator Required'." ^ ` . . . Subparagraph (3) should be deleted as not. necessary. LICC 016005- A 2 4 0 !b ii "ip imiiii 11w i m j u i . ^Office of Safety and Health Standards - 6- February 11, 1972 5. Paragraph (f), subparagraph (1), ''Personnel" should read: "Employees i*;ho would be exposed to concentrations of asbestos dust in excess of 230 fibers per milliliter if not protected by specified respirators, shall be monitored in accordance' with this paragraph. - "(i) Method. Dust samples shall be collected from within the normal breathing zone of the employees in their normal working posture when no respirator is being worn. If the employee is wearing a respiratory device, a sample shall be taken so as to determine the atmosphere tc which he would be exposed if he did not have a respirator," . Subparagraph (ii) does not require any change. - Subparagraph (iii) should read: "Sampling Duration. The sampling duration shall be modified according to the atmosphere so that a representative sample is obtained but shall not be so long as to result, in an overloaded and, therefore, unreadable filter." 6. Paragraph (f) (2), "Environmental", should read: "Environmental monitoring shall be conducted in all areas in v?hich employees would be exposed to concentrations of asbestos dust in excess of the limits specified in paragraph (a) of this section if they were not equipped with respirators." ' The same wording changes proposed for paragraphs ' (f) (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) should be made for paragraph (f) (2) (i), (ii) and (iii). 7. Paragraph (h) (3) should read: "The records of medical examinations shall bo made available only to the Secretary of Labor, to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, to designated representatives (who shall be physicians) or either of them, and at: the request of the employee, or former employee, examined, to his physician." ' . , ' We will be happy to discuss these comments with your staff at your convenience. . Jl.'R.:mc Very truly yours, a.. V-* . V-V'-- `v .'./i w -a Jurncs V;. P.aw lings. j'W 1 U C C 016096