Document QgYezeX2NXo345RKpKZmBR6mR

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington. D C. 20004 202-737-6330 ESI Organization Resources BSsSl Counselor^ Inc February 27, 1987 && Memorandum * s PDM To ORC Asbestos Task Force; #111 From Darrell K. Mattheis Subject: OSHA Printout of General Correspondence Regarding its Asbestos Standard Attached, for your information, is a computer printout of inquiries submitted to OSHA and the Agency's responses regarding its Asbestos Standard. The correspondence covers the period between 1981 and the fall of 1986. BD/1 * t * samples* NOISE line use * (a)? enter * r or respiratory? enter* ASBESTOS 1910.1200 1910.1200* RESRlRATuh* f (always enclose a phrase in suotes) No* "1910.1029(0(2)" .* "HEARING CONSERVATION AMENDMENT" "JUHN MILFS" r "XEROX CORFORATION" to narrow* use AND GUARDING AND "RADIAL SAWS" (note* only the Phrase is enclosed in suotes* .t? to p*rand* use OR LABELLING OR "HAZARD COMMUNICATION" (note* only the Phrase is enclosed in suetes) fT ENTFR YOUF: search j OR RHRaSE? asbestos HERE WERE 50 RECORDS FOUND FOR asbestos DISPLAY OPTIONS* 1 - SHOW SOURCE* ABSTRACT, STANDARD NO.* STATUS* AND DATE 2 - SHOW FULL RECORD INCLUDING LETTER S - SHOW LETTER ONLY A - NARROW SEARCH WITH ADDITIONAL SEARCH TERNS 5 - N'W SEARCH END - TO LEAVE DATA EASE To capture* prepare machine now * TO CANCEL DISPLAY * TO INTERRUPT DISPLAY * TO RESUME DISPLAY - Use CTRL C (Press CTRL - Use NOSCROl.L or CTRL S - Use NOSCROLL or CTRl 0 key ard C key at same time) ENTER ITEM NOS. OP CARRIAGE RETURN*. ITEM 1 STANDARD number I N"OF'HAT J >-1' r v.jiJHCf; fiFSCR i R"f. CC,K- ANY ABSTRACT STATUS 1910.194(e)(5) SI 0203 Letter to Arco/Rolvmers* Inc. A**c o/Ro I vmer s Inc. SM 9900 is acceptable (or asbestos* No OSHA position on aerorriate Test Atmosphere. Current 29 CFR ) a? C. * '* ( o m5) February 3? 19S1 Ronald J. Rpie er Safety and Health Ensineer AF:CO/Polynier* * lnr. an* fort R a d Horace? Penns*'loani a 15<`U.i Dear Mr. Reiser* This is in rrsrensc to your inquiry resardins OShA's Position on the use of the SM dispft?phle respirator* Me>***i No. 99t.u.i* with asbestos* and on nualitatiu* tit-testin? of this respirator in a "test atmosphere OSHA hes not taken a position* per set cn this respirator*. Tne respirator he? been afrro'ed bv t>e National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health? and the nine Safety ano Heaitn A'jff) r-: s t v j *. i or, <MOSH/NCH~* eprou*) Tt. /U-i/t* tor protection a s a ? n ? t t o * i c dust with ar air contamination level of rot less man .05 iTif/h:.-:. mcludins chromium* lead? ffiitninese and asbestos. Because of this approval OCHA accepts the use of this respirator for corpliance purroses when employees are exposed to asbestos fibers. NIOfH hs shown conrern with disposable respirators as an effective res* j ra to**v device* especially when the contaminant is a careinosen fucn as asbestos. You mev wish to contact NiOCr*. for further x nt oris a 13 or: on this hr usine the foilowins address and telephone numbers Appalachian Laboratory for Occupational Safety and Health* NSOSK* Testins arid Certification 944 Chestnut Hides Road H1-:f n r o>.:n Wst Virginia 6505 T p l p p h fi r : j04* 599- 1 -acua has' not taken a position rrsardins acceptable qualitative Js:t-of the 9*00 respirator in a "test Atmosphere." However? qcHA has issued an instruction to its field offices (to which i resume you are referrins) entitled "29 Cf-R 1910.13* (e) (5) *-Resr irat-or Fit-Testins" caetioned OSHA Instruction rpL 2-2.29? dated October 27? 1900. This is a directive to our field fersonnelf and is not to be taken as a new standard. % This instruction has not introduced new fit-testins frocedures as part of 29 CFR 1910.134(e)(5) for the employer to toilou*. The wor os "test atmofehere" are fourd in the present standard 1910.134(e)15) which was issued in 1971? the term "test atmosphere" is also found in toe American National Stardards Institute's standard (ANSI) Z66.2-1969. The words? "test atmosphere?" have now been chansed to "test asent" jn ANt;I? 260,2-1960. the use of the words "test asent" at this time is more apercrriate for GsHA compliance purposes* and expands the kinds ot fit-testins that can be performed to come into compliance with 1910.134(e)(5). OSHA is takins a relatively or en view in resard to the type of test atmosphere used tor fit-testins respirators. Furthermore? recent OSHA standards which require qualitative and/or quantitative fit-testins (i.e.? lead? acrylonitrile? cotton dust) do not indicate a specific procedure? retrsnizins the erob)em of requirins only one test Procedure? the availability? and the present state of tne art of fit-testins respirators. Moreover? an employer should fellow the manufactvrer's facepiece fittin* instructions? when appropriate. The procedure used? however mist effectively test the fit of the respirator. _ You may if you like also obtain the followins references for further in fornations 1) John A Pri tcha**d A Guide to Industrial h'esei ratory Protection? Hi-?) Publication No. (NIOSH) 76-169. 2) J. L. Caplin? et al.? Manual of Respiratory Protection Asainst Airborne Radioactive Materials? NUREG-0041 (1976). Resulatory Commissior's resulaiions. You also m?y wish to consult the American National Standards Institute (ANSI* Practices for Respiratory Protection 166.2-1969. The }*6`* edition has just- been made available for further suidance on proeer use and fiitins of respirators.I I hope this information is helpful to you. If we can serve you in the future? w* shall te slad to do so. Sincerely? Prune Hiller brand Ac tins L'i rector Federal Compliance and State Prosrams *END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 2 STANDARD NUH6FR INFORMATION DhTE SOURC E PC.6OR 1PT . ABSTRACT STATUS 1910.1001 631213 Letter to Enrique Gonzales Fernandez? Ph.D. The ORHA ETS tor asbestos (0.5 f/cc) was staves. renc;ns full reviewfthe PCl reverts bait to tne onsinai i t/cc. Curren t 29 CFR 1910.1001 December 13? 1962 Enrique Gonzales Fernandez? Ph.D. Iieoe en el Trabajo Centro de 1nvestisacion C / T c ? r e 1 s o n a 73 Madrid - ? Spain Dear Dr. Gonzalez* T > i is in response- to Yot.r insnjrr of October 31 19C3 reeardins OSH^'s asbestos standard* and i r.s t^t'c ti * os for samel ins and analysis of asbestos fibers. 2f<m*'_FrTfTipSibr>ln*eeemtrtrrsosieurnpmpieaaerstorbinocecunsubt'oobicsfictvhwcuecmehniecE*t.thife<mC-r leomwotweafser areosidrtvfa,irYatehHfider^owbp(eyfev/ecrrmtc?h)eis.osUntiob.SNle0.o.v5Ceemxofpbu/ocersrtcu?2ore3f?oAlri1pm59p60ei30ta??ls0fr0o0fmor *he Fifth C'''ir--c--u--it1 ? -p--e--n--d--i-n--*- fu1l1l juditcal review of the standard. Accordingly? durins the period of the stay? enforcement action reverts bach to the orisiral standard 29 CFR 1910.1001? and the permissible exposure^1imit of 2 f/cc for an 6-hour? time weishted averaee. A copy of the ETC is enclosed tor youi* information. At the present time? OSHA has not chansed its instructions for samelins and analysis of asbestos fibers from those found in Chaster X? earasraeh C.? of the OCHA Industrial Hysiene Field Operations Manual (1MF0M)? CPL 2-2.20 (April 2? 1979). However? 0HAs IHFOM is currently beins revised. In the future? you may wish to contact the Directorate of Technical Support? Mr. Edward J. fcaier? Director? resardins any chimes in procedures for the samp line and analysis of asbestos fibers. In addition? the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NlOsH'? our sister asercy in the Department of Health and Human Services? may be able to further advise you on additional instructions lor asbestos samplin? and analysis. For further information the address ard telephone number are* National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Robert A. 1ait Lafcoratories 4d*/l*o 1 "F:bit F*&rkw*y Cincinnati? Ohio 45226 Telephone! <513) 604-0221 I hope this information is useful to you. If we can provide any further assistance please contact us asain. Sincerely? John . Miles* -Jr. Director Directorate of Field Operations Enclousurs EM* Of DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 3 S1 TNAFNODF.AmRC1D'! 1 WUMDER *<N HATE SOURCE DCSCRIPT. COMPANY ABSTRACT STATUS ,I4.}001(d)(4) :`nT*U? 2 tf Letter to Vincent R. Dabbs International Union of ueentins Ensineers 'fwo separate clothes lociers are resuired for expose? to asbestos above the F`EL. Currcn t emp1ovees 29 CFR 1910.1001 Febrvarv 16? 1963 Mr. Vincent R. Dabbs International Union of Operating Ensineers Local Union No. 140? AFL-CIO 146 Wilma Drive F'.O. Roy 396 Maryville? Illinois 6206a: Dear Mr. Dabbs* This is in response to your instnry of January 13? 19S3? resardins OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.JOOi(d)(4)(ii). You are see` ins an interpretation an to *hen an employer must provide separate clntnrs locters cr containers tor each employee when exposed to asbestos fibers. two The provision of the OCHA asbestos standard immediately rereedins th one you mertion? 29 CFR 1910.1001(d)(4)til? states that? at any fixed place cf emp1oyment? employers must provide chanse '90ms 4ct- their regular employees who are exposed to airhvoe concentrat j ons of asbestos fibers in excess ot the exposure limits rrescribec in raresrarh (b> of the standard. These permi ssi ble limits are 2 fibers rer cubic centimeter of air <fihers/cc) for ar> 0-hovr time-wri sbtee averase and 10 fibers/cc ceil ine value. These same exposure limits also apply to parasraph 29 CFFi 1910.1001 (d)<4)<ii) resardins the clothes lockers. Thus* two seearate clothes lockers are required for each employer exposed to asbestos above the permissible limits. A copy of Aft OSHA prosram directive resarbine minimum Airborne ,?ib*r concentrations for initiatins asbestos medical examinations is enclosed for your information. f hor> this information arswers rourquestion. If you have any further suestions? elease feel free to contact us asain. Sincerely A F-ruce Hillenbrand Actin? Director? Federal Compliance and State Prosrams Enclosure END OF DGCUMtNT REACHCD*^ ITEM 4 9T A N Vi A k Vi NUMBER INFOFMAT ION Dm!E SOURC E DtbCRlF'i . COMPANY ABS1FACT STATUS 1910.1001(f)(1) 030413 Letter to John F. Sommersett toss Control Inc. Air amlins for asbestos must be repeated as often as is necessary to determine with reasonable accuracy tne ievei of employee exposure, vamp line for employees who ray ex the permissible exposure limits must be repeated at iea every 6 months. Current 111*> 29 CFR 1910.1001 April 12? 1963 John F. Sommersett Loss Control Incorporated 1432 Joe a?ta Drive Lexineton? Kentucky 4050a Lear Mr. Sommersett* This is in response to YOtr inquiry of February 2? 1963? resuestins an interpretation ot OSHA standard 29 CFR 1910.1001if)(1)? employee ex o s u e non it or ins for asbestos f!be**s. Please accept my apoIosy for the delay in our response. The Occupational Safety ard He'alth standard? 29 CFR 1910.1001(f)(1)? does require exposure monitorins (air sampling) for all employees co"prp^ bv the Occupational Safety and Health Act in any enviroment in which asbestos is released. Samrlins must be repeated as often as is necessary to determine with reasonable accuracy the levels of exposure of employees. Samrlins mt.st be repeated at intervals re sreater than 4 months for employees whose exposure may reasonably be foreseen to exceed the eermissible exposure limits in 29 CFR 1910.1001(b) 12. fibers/cc time-weishted averase? and 10 tibers/cc ceilins limit). Normally* conditions leadin* to such levels would be expected to be present i r. wort environments where asbestos is handled? used? or cle;.r,ec up? o** w,n a. procuct is manuf ac tured? etc. In the type of environment you d*srribe* thrrp covjd bp possible exposures to janitorial or Maintenance rersonnel is they are involved in activities such as i ns t a ) 1 a 1 i on ? rei?c'il? cleanup and epneral maintenance involvins asbestos contairin? maferjals. incidental exposure in tne areas you describe mav reflect a different level from the above. Therefore? if there appears to be a questions of the level? an air* sarrrle may be warranted. The Act does not appIy to the seneral public and employees of State and local souernments. State and local sovernment employees would be covered under an GSHA approved State plan under section 16(b) of the Act? or under other existin? State law. The State of Kentucky does have such an approved plan and operates its own prosram for workplace safety and health. Employees of the State or local sovernment in h'erti.ckv are therefore covered by the State. _Tne vtte of Kentucky would also hp able to provide you tt'ith further information on job health ard safely standards for all employees* including those work ins ir Siate-related schools. For furtner information you mar contact the State of Kentucky usins the following address and telephone numters U.S. Hishwav 127 Frankfort* Kentucky -,#^01 Telephone* 502-564-3070 In ad*di tion* the Environmental Protection Asency (EPA) resulates eeneral public exposure if asbestos fibers* and asbestos removal in choo) buildinss. For further information you mar want to contact ERA as well. The address is: U.S. Environmental Protection Asency 401 M Street* B.W. Washinston* D.C. 20460 hope this information answers Your questions. If you have anY urther nyestions* please feel free to contact us asain. Sincerely? B*-ure Hillenhrand Actins Director* Federal Compliance and state F'rosrams **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 5 cTAwr'AfJT Ni'mPfF; INFORMATION' DATE SrrOiriUPRACNEV L'fc SCRIPT. ABSTRACT STATUS 1910.1001(j)(2)(3)*(4) 760213 Letter to Mr. Land and Mr. Burt ARNOLD *: PORI ER If an emlovee refuses a medical examination a sisned ref us a statement must dp maintained and accessable in accor can:e with tie asbestos standard. CO d 29 CFFi 1910.1001<j)(2) <3) <4> FebruarY 13* 1976 Mr. Stuart J. Land and Mr. Jeffrey A. Burt ARNOLD %. PORI Eft 1229 Nineteenth Street* N.W. BWashinston* D.C. 20036 Gentlemen* Assistance Secretary Morten Corn has asked me to reseend to your letter of December 2* 1975. Where an en*lovee refuses to underso one of the medical examinations provided or made available in accordance with 29 CFF: 1910.1001 <j 1(2) * (3) or (4>* implementaticn of the procedures you of. line in your letter would constitute c < mp 1 i a . e with the medical examination res*ireme in the current asbestos standard. We would remind you* however* that the procedures you outline must be repeated eacn time a new medical examination is d"e and refused by the employee. Thus* for example* the procedures wculd have to be repeated each time an annual examination is refused. In addition* maintenance (unreadable word) and access to the sisnec statements of refusal to fate the medical examinations must be in accordance with 1*10.100i (. m6) . 'Unreadable words) the details of compliance is appreciated. Sine erelv* Bert Conchlin 8wa4voP*8ieiApaTsstAiBr* ITEM 6 STANDARD NUMRCR INFhRMAT1 ON DATE SOURCE DE SCRIPT. COM*ANt ABSTRACT 1910.1001(c)(2)(iii) B00229 Letter to C. Wt Holtermann Sorter Harden company nder tie asbestos standard if the concentrator! is known in advance averase airborne to not exceed 100 times Xrehse'pTi'trCa'toi'*r*.tvre ""C" resrl rilbr* 4y~6* rPi*cta *ith .jthe February 29? 1980 Mr. C. W. Holtermann Porter Hayden Company 32Sooth Street Baltimore? Maryland 21202 Bear Mr. Holtermann* The.intereretati$n.of reseiratorY protection required br 29 CFR 19U>. 1001 <c> <2) Ini) of lie Asbestos standard is provided below, aeolosizr ter our delaY ir responding. Employees about to ensue in the sprayins of asbestos? in the removal or demolition of pipes? structures? or equipment covered or insulated *'. i t ti ssbestosr or in the removal or demolition of asbestos insulation or coverinss? shall be provided with and shall use a tYee "C" continuous flow or pressure-demand* sueelied-air respirator. This requi rement. holds true unless the employer has estaolisned in advance that the averase airborne concentrations of asbestos tne employees will confront will not exceed 100 times either of the permissible exposure limits? i.e.? 8-lour time-weishted averase (TWA) and ceilins limits. If you can conclusiuelY establish the uprer ceilins and 8-hour TWA concentrations of airborne asbestos that employees could confront durins sprayins? demoliticn or removal? then anr of the respirators presented in 29 CFR i910.1001<d)(2)<i)? (ii) and (iii) that afford adequate protection at such upper concentrations of airborne asoestos mar be used. The establishment of the ipper concentrations may require considerable effort if there are variations from operation to operation ir any factors such as the followins* < 1 > Findins material (2) Type of asbestos (e.s. lensth of fibers? comeesition) (3) Percentase of asbestos in the insulation (4) Removal techniques (5) Amount of insulation removed (6) Ensineerins and work practice controls instituted to reduce employee exposures (7) Complement of employees (8) How well employees are trained in asbestos control procedures. Presumably* the workers pictured in the EPA manual were able to wear air-purjtYins respirators because the airborne concentration of asbestos was controlled tc levels at which these respirators provide adequate protection. This could have been done bY applYins a fine prav of "amended water" to the asbestos-containins material before and durins the asbestos removal operation. "Amended water" is water cor.tainins 1 ounce of a surface active detersent or wettins asent (50V. polyethylene ester ar d 507. poIyoxypthvlene ether) per 5 sailons. I.must stress the extreme importance of comrlvine with 29 CFR lvlu.1001(f)(2)(ii) if you decide to provide respirators described in 29 CFR 1910.1001(d)(2)(i) or (ii) rather than a type "C" continuous flow or p res sure-demand? sup p 1 i ed-a. i r respirator. 29 CFR I9i0.1001(f)(2)(ii) requires you to determine the exposure of each of your employees to airborne asbestos on each occasion you remove asbestos cortainins insulation. You must determine both the ceilins concentration and the 8-hfir? time-weishred averase concentration of asbestos to which each cf the employee is exposed. I hope this answers your question. If we can serve you in the future? we shall be slid to do so. Sincerely? Crover C. Urenn Direc tor Federal Compliance and Stale Prosrams **ENB OF HOCUHENT REACHED** ITEM 7 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. ABSTRACT 1910.1001 (i) (4) .and (5) 780814. Memorandum tor Gabriel Gillotti If emelcyee refuses termination medical examination erovi in acccrdance to current asbe_stos standard* a wr\_tt$n___ STATUS ' T ' y?** v emeu v m v z 1/ C within erecedins rear can medical exam. Old VI.' vai lirg r IJ u iff r U A l A A CX4II1 substitute for termination 29 CFR 1910.1001<j>(4) ant <5) / Ausust 16* 1976 MEMORANDUM for* GABRIEL GILLOTTI Regional Administrator SUBJECT* 29 CFR 1910.1001(j)(4) and (5) This memo is in reely to voor memos of June 14 and 28* 1976 resardins interer*1a 1ion tf the medical examination requirements under the asbestos standard at 29 CFR 1910.1001(j>(4) and (5). Your first inquiry cone erred as employer's duty where an employee refuses to.onderso a termination medical examination provided or made available in accordance wilt 29 CFR 1910.1000(j><4). Tne employer would not be subject to citation under the OSH Act where the employer obtains a statement from the employee erideneins his refusal. A record of the refusal must be maintained and made available in accordance with the requirements of 1910.1001(j)(6). Your second inquiry concerned the effect of 1910.1001(j)(5) on the medical examination requirements of 191o.1001(j)(4). While it would be advisable to provide si.ch examinations at the time of termination if such an exam had not. been eiven shortly before the termination date* 1910.1001 (, M5) dees not require termination medical examinations if adequate records show that the employee has been examined in accordance with 1910.1001(j) medical examination requirements within the precedint year. **END OF DOC '.'HENT REACHED** ITEH 8 STANDARD NUmBCR I NFO* HAT J fmil D^TE SOoRCfc DtSCRIPT. COMPAHi ABSTRACT STATU? 1910.1001(j)(2)(3)(4)(5) 770420 Letter to Mr. James J. Ortvl NW Ohio Council of Construction Employers Employer need not provide employee an annual medical examination if no occupational exposure to asbestos fiber: belweer last required medical exam and termination of employment. Current 29 CFR 1910.1001(j)a <2> (3)(4)(5) April 20 1977 Mr. James J. Ortyl Safety A in. r i s tr a tor N0 r t hwe s1e r n Oni0 Council of Construction Employers 55IS Southwvck Plvd. Toledo* Ohio 43614 Dear Mr. Ortvl* This is in response to roir letter of May 11* 1976* t< Mr. Glen Butler* A^sa Dimer tor? Occupational Bafety and Health Administration (OrHA) Toledo* Ohio, Your letter was fcrwsrded tc tms office since your request for interpretation of certain medic a 1. e^ami na ti on. . requirements contained in the A*bestos Standard* 29 CFR 1910.lOOl has potential national sisnificarce. An emeloyer need not erouide or mate available to an employee the annual medical exa". inatior dplineated in 29 CFR 19l0.l001<j)(3) if the employee h?s not received an exposure to airborne asbestos fibers durins the one year eerier succeeding tte last medical examination received in accordance with any appropriate subearasraeh of 29 LFR 1910.1001(j). If* however* at some point in time followin* this period of non*exrosvre to airborne asbestos fibers* the employee is asain e-'Posed* the employer must provide or mate available to tne empioxe** another eree 1 acemer t medical examination in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1001U)t2>. An employee's last required annual medical examination fulfill?_the termination of employment mdical examination provision in trR 1910.1001 (.*) <4* if the emplcvet receives no occupational exposure to asbestos fibers bptwer it at examination and his termination of employment. The termination of cmploymrnt medical examination a I* A <1 I A P. C . A 4 i' < 1 i ' 1 j i LA -e e "* requisite if the,first anrual medical examination did not come due eri'Or to termination of employment? out the employee had refused the ` frep 1acement medical examination. In accordance with 29 CFR .1910.1001<i)(5)? the termination of employment medical examination provision is not a requisite for an employee exposed tc asbestos fibers if adequate records show that less than one year prior to termination of employment? a medical examination in accordance with any appropriate subearasrefh in 29 CFR 1910.1001<i1 has been received by the employee. The matter cf an employer refusins a person employment because of the person's refusal to underso a ere-emrloyment medical examination is outside of OCHA authority. Please accept mv arolosy for the delayec response? I hop* you find our reply helpful. Sincerely? ,, Richard P. Wilson? Deputy Director Federal Compliance and Slate Programs END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 9 STANDARD NUMBER m(j00l and 1910.10010) INrORMAT1 ON DATE SOURCE: DC SCRIPT. Letter to Mr. Roser D. Tankerslev COMPANY The-Travelprs Insurance Companies ABSTRACT OSMA requires employee medical examinations if exposur e to airborre asbestos exceeds o.l fibers>5 microns/cubic centimster of air on an C hr. TWA? or a peak level of 0.5 fibers>5 microns/CC based on 15 min. sameiins periods STATUS Curren t 29 CFR 1910.1001 and 1910.1001U) March 4? 1977 Mr. Poser D. Tankers ley Tne Travelers Insurance Companies One Tow*** Square Hartford? Connecticut 06115 Dear Mr. Tankerslev* This is in response to your letter dated September 27? 1976? in which you requested some interpretations relative to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (GSHA) asbestos standard (29 CFR 1910.1001). Although? by its express terms as well as the develop ins case law 29 CFR 1910.1001 (.) would resuire medical examinations where employees are exposed to any concentration of airtorne asbestos fibers? it is current OCHA policy to require medical examinations only when employee exposures to airtorne asbestos exceed 0.1 fibers sreater than 5 microns in lensth eer cubit centimeter of air (f/cc sreater than 5 microns) on an D-h>: ur. time-weishted averase (TWA) basis or exceed a peak level of 0.5 f/cc sreater than 5 miron based on 15-minute samelin* eeriods. Our policy in this resard deriues support from a recent reccmmendalion from the National Institute for Gccu*ation*) Safety and Health (NIG6H) that the permissible exposure limits for airborne asbestos be fixed at these levels. This rec off'-mend a t i on was made by N10CH in its document entitled? Re-examinati ofs and Urdale of Information on tne Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asbestos (December 1976). The existence of employee exposure to airborne asbestos fibers in excess of 0.1 t/cc sreater than 5 microns on an G-hour TWA basis or in excess of 0.5 f/cc srratcr than 5 microns on a 15-minute Twh basis are uerified by OSHw throveh measurement before a citation is issued for failure to provide or make available a medical examination required under earasraeh 29 CFF; 1 910.1001 (j ) . A company vsine asbestos vnder conditions where employee exposures are exceedirs the leuels referred to above? that eursuantlr discontinue* the use of asbestos and besins usins fiberslass? must verify by measurements that exposures above these limits are no looser occurrine due to lineerine causes such as asbestos settled about the slant? before it is permitted to pursue with the discontinuation of medical examinations. The medical examinations max then by discontinue? after the next annual medical examinations that come due have been provided or made available. Rlease afreet my arolosies tor the delayed response. 1 bore you find the information rrovidfd teleful. **enp'6f docuhent reached-**' fc ITEM 10 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE >OUPCE DE SC R IPT. CfOiMMPPAANNY (BSTRACT STATUS 1910.1001(c)(2)<iii) 790424 L?ltir to Dr. Jack Berberich NIOSH Concentrations of airborne asbestos 100 times above the PE restore is* of contirueus flow or pressure demand suppiie air resrirators. Current 29 CFR 1910.1001(c)(2)(iii) April 24* 1979 Dr. Jack Berberich Curriculum Development Branch Division of Training and Manpower Development NIUSH 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati* Ohio 45226 Dear Dr. Berberich* The.interpretation of respiratory protection required br 29 CFR ivlo.1001(r)(2)<iii) of tie Asbestos Standard is proviced below* in response to your telephone request of April 6* 1979. Employees about to enee.se in the seravins of asbestos* in the removal or demolition of pjpes structures* or equipment covered or insulated with asbestos* or in the removal or demclition of asbestos insulation or coverings* shell be provided with and shall use a type "C" continuous flow or eressure-demand * supplied-air respirator. This requirement holds true unless the employer has positively established in advance that the airborne concentrations of asbestos the employees will confront will not exceed 100 times either of tne permissible exposure limits* i.e. 6-tour time-weisnted averase and ceilins limits. If the employer has concltsively established the upper concentration of airborne asbestos that employees could confront durins spraYins* demolition or removal* then any of the respirators presented in 29 CFR 1910.1001(d>(2)<i) (ii) and (iii) that afford adequate protection at such upper cor centration of airborne asbestos may be used. If we can serve you in the future* we shall be slad to do so. Sincerely* Grover C. Wrenn Director Federal Compliance and State F'rosrams **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 11 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. COMPANY ABSTTRACT STATUS 1910.1001 630612 letter to Mr. Richard A. Uhlar International Chemical Workers Union Asbestos exposure* sreater than o.l tiber/c.c. of air* requires medical examination. OSHA does not permit excessive X-ray examination. Current 29 CFR 1910.1001 Ausust 12* 1963 Hr. Richard A. Uhlar Industrial Hvsienist International Chemical Workers Union 1655 West Market Street Akron* Ohio 44313 Dear Mr. Uhlar* This is in response to your letter of June 26* 1963* requestins a c1arisication of OCHA's e*)icv on medical examinations for workers exposed to asbestos. Ricase accept my apolosv for the delay in Asbestos exposure which wculd triseer.the standard's requirements for medical examinations. However* east jitisation and challenses resardins the question of enforcins these requirements for any level of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers indicated the need to '.establish a minimum expost re and analytically detectable. level that would be at least Thus* OSHA established this accurately minimum concentration as 6.1 fiber eer cubic centimeter of 0SH4 does realize that even short exroscre* may be linked to an asbestos related disease. Howev*er* if an emelovee ceases to be exposed to asbestos fibers* the emelover must still ercvide or make available to the emelovee a medical examination to cover the final year of his or her last exeosure. The employee must also be erovided a termination of employment medical examination within 30 calendar days before or after he or she stops workins for the employer. No medical examination is required of any employee if adequate records show that the employee has been examined m accordance with earasrarh* 29 CFR 1910.1001<j)(1) throush (4) within the Past one-year period. It should be noted that in some situations* such as transient asbestos workers* exrosins employees to numerous X-ray examinations may be more 1azardous than failins to provide the medical surveillance required by the standard. For reasons of this nature* OsHA does not permit excessive asbestos medical examinations. Because the asbestos stanrard is currently undersoins review* a copy of your letter will be forwarded to the Directorate of Health Standards Programs for aeeroeriate consideration. If we can be of further assistante pleas? contact us as ain. Sincerely* / Bruce Hillenbrand Ac tins Director Federal Compliance and State Programs *END .OF DOCUMENT PEACHED** ITEM 12 STANDARD NUMBER * INFORMATION UaTL SOURCE DESCRIPT, Comfan i ABSTRACT STATUS 1910.1001<s) 040327 Letter to Southern Fiber Control Southerr Fiber Control Technolosies* Inc. Asbestos warnins sisn not meetins line seacins specifications is in compliance due to otner compensatins factors. Curren t March 27* 19S4 Mr. Stan Shaw President Southern Fiber Control Techno1 osies Inc. 3S2S Gakcliff Industrial ourt - Elide. 5 oravilie* Georsia 30340 Dear Mr. Shaw: This is in response to yot.r letter of February 23* to Mr. Jerry haves in our Atlarta Regional Office resardins the 14" X 20" sisn you have developed for alertine workers about tht presence of an asbestos hazard. We have compared your sist (reduction copy enclosed) asainst the required sisn sp pc i i ic a t i c ns at 29 *1 f F-: J vi 0.1 wi (s) (1) < i i) of the asbestos standard and frurd it to be in essential compliance. It does not meet the specification that the sracine between lines is at least esual to the heistt of the upper cf any two lines* but we have concluded that this is more than compensated for by the fact that the sisn (1) includes a skull ard crossbcnes at the toe* (2) uses tne Iisnal word* WARNING* which is strenser than CAUTION* and (3) uses arser than required letter sizes. Thank you for contactins the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If we may serve you asain in the future* we shall be slad to do so. Sincerely* John B. Miles? Jr. Directer ,, _. . . , Directorate of Field Operations f2ENUS0F*D0CUMENT REACHED#* fl ITEM 13 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DwTF SOURCE DESCRIPT. ABSTRACT STATUS 1910.1001 031212 Letter to Mr. William G. Cherry A lavmar review of the asbestos air standard and measureme techniques is rrovided. Current 29 CFR 1910.1001 December 12? 1963 Mr. William G. Cherry 1909 S.W. Athens Way Pendleton? Oreson 97801 Dear Mr. Cherry* As requested in your letter of November A? 1983? enclosed is a cosy of the Emergency Temeorarv Standard tETs) for Asbestos which was eublished in the Federal Resister on November A. I here that the followina will clear up vour uncertainty about the exposure limits required ty the old stardard versus those required bv the ETS. Determination of airborne asbestos levels involves drawins air throveh a filter? at a controlled r?.fe? for a seecific period of time? ccvntine the fibers collected on the filter? usins a microscope? &f>d dividing the number of fibers bv the vclume of air passed throush the filter (with appropriate conversion factors) to scalculate the concentration- Concentration* or exposure levels are us tors.ar i 1 y expressed as either fibers per cubic centimeter (f/cc> or ibers per cubic meter <f/m3). This method of collectins? countins and calculatins yields a value which is ar. averase for the eeriod of time taler to collect the sample. If the period of time is 8 hours? then the level calculated is the averase level which existed durine that 8-hour period. This is referred to as an 8-hour time-weisnted averase (6-hr TWA). The permissible exposure limit or PEL is the maximum level to which an employee may be exeosed witheut the employer beins required tc erovide teetiai erotective devices and/or tale other actions. In some instances? or in the case of asbestos? PELs are defined as 8-hour TWAs. OCHA's asbestos standard (29 CFR 1910.1001) sets a PEL at 2.0 f/cc measured as an 8-hour TWA. The TS (which has teen stayed by the U.8. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) reduced this limit to 0.5 f/cc (or 500?000 f/m'3) measured as an 8-hour TWA. While court-imposed stay is in effect? the employer must comply with the 2.0 f/cc PEL. Sincerely? R. Leonard Vance? Ph.D. Director Health Standard? Proarams Enc1osvre *END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** I ITEM 14 STANDARD.NUMBER . T mi>T J ON ij4TE J'iii*.fp DESCRIPT. ABSTRACT-* STATUS General 40\04 Letter to Professor Warren A. Cook The ETS ter asbestos is aeelied to fibrous talc and tremolite howe<.'ersinee the ETS has been staved* the limits for fibrous talc and tremolite are in effect. Old old January 4 1984 Professor Warren A. Cook 71? Emory Drive Chapel Kill* North Carolira 27514 Dear Professor Cook* In rcur letter of December 12 IAk-u you informed us that you were ereearins a monograph on work* 3 ac e air contaminants and asi-.ed for clarification of the permissible exposure limits (PELS) for asbestos* talc j*:>j tremMit*. I am afraid tnat our asbestos ruismafins activity is occurrins at an inopporturie moment for you. As you know* we did issue an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on November 4* which reduced t) e F'fcL from 2.0 fibers/cc to 0.5 fibers/cc measured a* an 6-hour time-weishted average. Unfortunately the ETb has been stared bv the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Aendins judi?i*l review or the merits. The Occupational Safety and ealth Administration i? elannins to proceed with a proposal for a final standard and is aimins tor publication of a final standard within the six months from publication of the ETS that are prescribed br the Occupational Safety and Health Act. At the present time* fowever* because the ETS is staved* the old standard and the related iirats for talc (fibrous) and trcmolite are in effect. The ETS for asbestos fibers is applied to talc (fibrous) and to tremolite as wo)). Also* the ceilins level was not, altered by the ETs. We expect tnat durirs the forthcomins rulemakins proceedxnss on asbestos questions will be raised concrrnins the.extent to which talc and tremolite should be covered bv the Asbestos Standard. I have enclosed a copy of the November 4 ETS for your use. Sincerely* Thorne G. Auchler Assistant Secretary Enclosure END OF DOCUMENT REACHED*^ STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DmTE SOURCE DESCRIPT. ABSTRACT STATUS 1910.1001 040127 Letter to Mr. Phil Kelly The OSHA asbestos standard covers work-ins conditions for employees rather than property or buildinss and federal resulations do not cover state and local sovernment? therefore the ETS does not apply to property fc ouildinowned tr various state and local subdivisions. Old January 27? 19S4 Mr. Phil Kelly 69 River Ridse Road Wellesley Hills? Massachusetts 02181 Dear Mr. Kelly* This is in response to votr recent letter concernins the Emersencv Temporary Standard (ETS) issued bv the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on November 4? 1983. Copies o*' tte ETS and of the OCHA's current Asbestos Standard (29 CFft lviO.1001) are enclosed. The ETC went into effect immediately upon publication? but was challenged by an industry trade association in the U.C. Court of Appeals fcr the Fifth Circuit where it was staved on November 23? 1983? penrins judicial review. Arsuments were heard tv the Court on January 12? 1904. The court has not vet issued its decision. You asked whether or not the ETS would apply to property and buildinss owned by various slate or local subdivisions. First? OCHA's standards cover workins ccnditiors for employees? rather than property or buildinss? except to the extent that ryles involvins the latter must be defined to protect the employees, second? in those states in which Federal OCHA enforces the OSHA resulations (which include Massachusetts)? state and local sovernment employees are specifically excluded from coverasr bv Section 3(5) of the occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. OSHA resulations apply to state and local eovernmert employees only in tnose states wmch have taf.en over enforcemert of OcHA resulations within their own boundaries under an asreement with OSHA called a state Plan. If you are interested in resulatiors in Mas*achusetts? you snould check with the state and local soverrments to find out what resulations? if any? they enforce. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Sine erely? R. Leonard Vance? Ph.D. Director Health standards F'rosrams end of document reached** STANFORD NUMBER 1910.1001 INFOFMAT1 ON L'ATE B40917 4cuRcef^t SCRIPT. Letter to R. Brown ;.TRAC Asbestos standard tprescribes use of phase contract microscopy to measure employee exposure? and tne L i/cc limit assumes this msaturement method. It is recosnized phase contract microscopy will not identify some fibers which can be observer usins electron microscopy. Kelaticnshir between electron microscopy measurements and TECH. REVIEW DATE B4/11/29 risp*fe vet tp be established. STATUS Current 29 CFR 1910.1001 September 17 19S4 Honorable Richard L. Brown Controller U.S. General Accountins Office Washinstcn? B.C. 20548 Dear Mr. Brcwn* In your letter of May 31? you asked the C'ccupat iona 1 Safety and Health Administration (CjSHA) for suidar.ee resardins the appropriate method tor measurins airhorre concentrations of asbpstos fibers. Please accept our apolesy for the dealv in this response which was caused by the orsoins activity of tne asbestos rultmakjns and technical complexity of the issue addressed in your letter. As you tray know? OCHA is in the midst of rulemakins eroceedin9S pn asbestos and measuremert technology is one of the major issues to he covered. The outcome of this rulemakins mav chanse ucHh's present policy. The current OCHA standard for asbestos? 29 CFR 1910.1001? sets a permissible exposure limit of 2 fibers eer cubic centimeter <f/cc) of air end erescrites the use of phase contrast microscopy to erasure enloyee exposurp. Phase contrast microscopy has been used to measure air concentrations near the L f/cc limit.for many years. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (N308H1 has stated that the phase contrast method is reliable to measure concentrations at o.l f/cc. Although the correlatior tetween phase contrast, asbestos measurements to disease risk has been made? OCHA has net made a similar correlation between electron microscopy measurements and disease risk. The numbers of fibers counted by electron microscoev are not equivalent to those counted by the ehase contrast method. The relationship between electron microscopy measurements and the risk of disease has yet to be established. At this time? OCHA believes that the phase contrast method is adequate for monitorins tte office environment and the use of electron microscopy i* not required. However? our view may chanse should be the rulemakins record ct our current proposal to revise the asbestos standard so indicate. With resard to your concerns about the potential exposure of employees who will be occtpyins the bvildine while asbestos removal is beins performer? it is sussested that the office space be monitored durins the peak activity hours. If levels show unacceptable fiber ccunts? further control measures would be necessary. Such contrcls may include maintaimns the areas beins renovated under nesa+ive rressurr to prevent fibers misration into th office work peace? additional eartitionins? and/or improver wt tin? procedures d'H-irs asbestos removal and clean up. Good industrial tvsirne practice indicates that asbestos concentrations if office work spaces should be controlled to as near backsround levels as possible. If w can be of further assistance in this matter? please do not hesifat* to contact us. Sincerely? Patrick R. Tyson Deputy Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety ard Health ` Df?ectment of Labor . 200 Constittii Wash!nston* D. e? himyNW Dear Mr. Tvsont The purpose.of this letter is to seek your opinion concernins the appropriate method of measuring airborne concentrations of asbestos fliers. .The General Accountins Office buildins is currently uf^reeintrenoiationof its heatins* ventilation* and air eonditiomns system (HVAC) that includes the removal of asbestos material which is part of the HVAC system. We art concerned for the health tf employees who continue to cccuer the buildins while the work is on-toins. Since the GAO buildins remains occupied durins the renovation period* which is expected to take approximately 10 years to complete* we have initiated a measurer.fr k prosram for detectins airborne astestos fibers that may be released into the employee occupied areas. Certain experts and consultants in ths field of asbestos have advised us that the phase contrast method of measurins asbestos fibers* as prescribed in 29 CFR 51910.1001 <e> is insufficient to allow a determination of whether employees have been exposed to excessive levels of this hazardous material. Transmission electron microscroey (TEM) alons with Phase contrast microscopy* is the method the experts and consultants recommended for measurins asbestos fibers. Under both methods of measurement* GAO must use the services of private laboratories to dc such analysis. The cost of usins the TEM method is over ten times the cost of the ehase contrast method. Althoush we are rot opposed to seendins the time and effort to insure the health and safety of our employees* we are not sure that the TEM reacinss are any more meaninsful in identifying daneerous asbestos fibers in the employee work area. Specifically* we have found no means of accurately com.pjrirs TEM analysis results with the phase contrast standard. For instance* if we analyze our results usins TEM* we differentiate asbestos titers from other fibers of a similar size* as well as identify smaller sized asbestos fibers. Frequently* this results in hisher readinss than would be obtained usins the phase contrast method now prescribed by OSHA res*.*3 a t i ons. Althoush we have more exact-ins results* we have no comparison factor with the phase contrast analysis resclts* on which the OCHA standards are based. In view of the above* we request your suidance as to 11 whether phase contrast method is sufficient to enable this asency to determine if employees base been exeosec to excess leuels of asbestos* 2) any suidance you can provide resardins decision criteria on asbestos levels in an office environment* and 3) a possible conversion factor relatins TEM results to Phase contrast results. If sue! a conversion factor is available* is there sufficient benefit ctrivcd from the TEM to justify the cost for such analysis. Any information you can provide will be most appreciated. Sincerely* Ri chard L. Brown Control 1er END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 17 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DP`~E SOURC E D SCRIPT . COMPANY ABSTRACT 1910.1001(i)(3)5.1016(e)(5)1 1025(d) (6)1.1029(e) (3) C40U31 Le(ter to David R. Smith IT Corecraiion Except for asbestos* employees must be notified of their level cf exposure to a resulated sutstance resardless of whether the exposure exceeds the permissible exposure STATUS Current 29 CFR 1910.1001(i)(3) 29 CFR 1910.1016(e)(5) 29 CFK 1910.1025(d)(6) 29 CFR 1910.1029(e)(3) 29 CFR 1910.1093(d)(4) 29 CFR 1910.1044(f)(5) 29 CFR 1910.1045<e><b) corporate Director* HealU* Safety tnd Trainins tt norr ora *ion 234$6 Hawthcrne Boulevard* Box 2995 Torrance* California 90509 Deer Mr. Smith* This is in response to voir letter of July IS* concernins the requirement in certain Occueational Safety and Health Administration health stardards to notify employees of their amount of exposure to the resulated substance. All the provis*onsAto which you refer* except the one couenns asbestos* require that employees be notified of their exposure levels resardless of whetter the exposures exceed the Ii1fiS1 ^ This is true for provisions 29 19l0.1&4$<d)(4)* lilO.ltaitf)C5?t(and llio'lSIIie)II)! Only the provision coverins asbestos* 29 CFR 1910.1001<i>(3) requires that the permissible exposure limit(s) be excteded before employers are oblisated to notify their employees of their exposures. In rcportins the exposures* any exposure reduction provided t*y respiratory protection devices is to be disresarded. Thank you for your inquiry. If we can serve you asain in the future* u*e shall be slad to do so. Sincerely* John B. Miles* Jr. Direc tor Directorate of Field Operations END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 18 STANDARD NUMBER information DATE SOURCE DESCR1P1. ABSTRACT TECH. REVIEW DATE STATUS KJW001 (c)(2) (iii) and <f>(21 (ii) letter to Mr. Walter Roy Ouanstrom Letter to Walter Roy Ouanstrom* 1H Standard Oil Letter to Walter Roy Ouanstrom of Standard Oil. Guide line* for recieuins a deminimus classification for use of air supplied respirators durins sprayins* removal and demolition inuolvins asbestos. 29-NOV-1984 1 ne omrIs te 29 CFR 1910.1001<c><2><iii> and (fM2)(ii> June 4* 1982 Mr. Walter Roy Ouanstrom Manaser* Industrial Hysiere* Toxicol*osv and Safety Division Mail Code 3802 Standard Oil Company (Indiana) 200 Last Randolph Drive Post Office E-ox 591OA Chicaso* Illinois t0f-80 Dear Mr. Ouanstrom* This is in response to yoir letter of March 11* 1982* requestins interpretations for provisions 29 CFR 1vlu.1001(c)(Z)(iii) and <f>(2><ii) cf the asbestos standard. Mease accept mv apoIosy for the delay in our response. All failures t* use sups 1iec-air rrspirators durins spravins* removal* and demolition operations inuolvins asbestos are technical violations of 29 CFR 1910.1001 (c ) (2) (ii i >. CSHA* however p has adopted the policy of resardins an employer's failure to provide and require that employees use sueelied-air respirators as a de minimis violation of 29 CFR 1910.1001(cMiii) if the employer has conclusively established tha< for his particular situation* the respiratory protection that he is rrovidin* his employees affords them adequate protection. This policy accords with section v of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. For dp minimis violations* no citations are issued* no penalties proposed* and no corrective action required. asbestos that hi? cm?Iovees *mi sh t'c onf rnn'tF (2) provide and assure that hi? employees use respirators that afford adequate prctection asainst ?uch utmost asbestos concentrations* and (3) fellow ihe respirator selection lesic presented in 29 CFft 1910.l00MdM2> <i) (ii) and (iii) of the asbestos standard. Considerable effort misht- be required to establish the utmost concentraticns of asbestos that misht occur if there v>ere variations from operation to operaticn in any factors such as the followins* (1) Bindins material (2) Type of asbestos (e.s. lensth of fibers composition) (3) Percentage of asbestos in the insulation (4) Removal techniques (5) Amount, of insulaticn removed <M Room size (7) Cnsireerins and work practice controls instituted to reduce employee exposures <e> Complement, of emplcytes (9) How well employees are trained in asbestos control procedures. 29 CFF: 1910.1OOM f > <2M i i > reads ir. part* ...samples shall be of such frequency and pattern as to represent with reasonable accuracy the levels of ex- eosure of employees. In no case shall the samplms be dons at intervals sreater than 6 months for employees whose exposure to asbestos may reasonably be foreseen to exceed the limits prescribed by parsrah (b) of this section. Note t-ha** in case respirators are beins worn* "exposure" as used in the standard means exposure that would occur without tke respirator. OSHA interprets the maxi mim samp]ins interval of t months to apply to stable tvpps of exposure situations such as misht occur in certain steady* mechanizec production operations of the sort where variations in work, practices have little effect on exposure levels. In seneral* the more variable the exrosures* the more frequently they must be measured. Employee astestos exposures resvltins from dpmolition and removal work invclvine asbestos can be hishly variable. The amount of tne variability depends oft how much chanse there is from operation to operation in factors such a? those previously listed on ease 2. Even in situations where exposures do not appear to be varyins much from operation to operation* tte potential for larse variations often exists. For example* if wet removal methods are the usual practice* (n inadvertent failure to wet down the material adequately can cause arse increases in exposure over what had been normal. Accordinslv* OSHA interprets 29 CFF; 1910. 1001 < f M2) (i i) to require employers to determine the amount of exposure of each cf their employees to airborne asbestos on each day they perform demolition ov removal work invo)virs asbestos. In vur company's case* althoush both the ceilins concentration arid the E-hour* time-weishted averasr concentration to which each of rour employees is exposed mt:-t be determined* it appears that the ceilins concentration exposures ate the m'-st crilical determinations to be made. That is* it the ceilins concentration of asbestos fibers lonser than b microns to which your employees are exposed is held at or below the ceilins limit for exposure (10 fibers eer cubic centimeter) for the duration of a one-hnur exposure* tken the E-hour* time-woishied "ere concentration of those fibers to which they are exposed is held telow 2 fibers per cubic centimeter. It is neither advisable ncr necessary to ensase in unscheduled asbestos removal work in errer to comely with the samelins trequenev requirements presented in 29 CFfi 1910'. l01t f ) (2) (11) . Samelins is required only whenever voir company decides on its own nsht to perform asbestos removal work. It does not matter if more than 6 months elapse between performances of the work. QbHA feels that there is value in air same line even thoush employees are wearins reseiraters. lhe information on the concentration levels of airborne asbestos that is obtained from the samples enables employers to monitor the continuins effectiveness of the ensineerins and/or work practice controls that they user as well as to verify whether the respiratory protection they provided for the last operation was *de\u*te. Also? such information enables^. , emplovers to apprise their employees of the desree of potential hazard that, was posed by the environment in which they wore their reseiratorsr and the adesvacy of the protection they were afferoed. We appreciated the opportunity to comment on your concerns. If we mav be of future assistance? we shall be elad to provide it. Sine erely? Patrick R. Tyson Director* federal Come li at ce and State Pros rams END Of L,OCUr*'.Nl REASHED** nA %r ITEM 19 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT ABSTRACT STATUS 1910.1001() and <f)(2) emi? to Stephen C. Yohay* McCuiness fc Williams The asbestos standard. Heasurins of,airborne asbestos concentrations. MonitorinsCFR 1910.1001(f)(2) and (3) Current 29 CF? 1910.1001<e) 29 lFR 1910.lOol(f)(2) anc (3) November 27* 1984 Mr. Stephen C. Yohay McGuiness & Williams Suite 1200 1015 Fifteenth Street* N.W. Washinston* D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. Yohar* This is in response to yotr letter of October 26 concernins the measurins of airborne asbestos concentrations to determine the need for personal protective equipment for employees. In accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1001(e)* all determinations of airborne cor centrations of asbestos fibers shall be made 0y the membrane filter method at 400-450 x (masnification) (4 millimeter objective) with phase contrast illumination. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) method PuAM 239 about which you inquired fulfills the above requirement* while GCA Fibrous Aerosol Monitor Model FArl-1* also a subject of vour inquiry* tots not. meet the above requirement. Moreover* tte asbestos stancard requires two trees of monitorins* personal and environmental* which are described at 29 CFR lvlO.1001(t)(2) and (3). Both personal and environmental monitorins can be readily conducted fcr method PfcCAM 239* whereas onlr environmental monitorins car be readily done with GCA Fibrous Aerosol Monitor Model FAM-1. The GCA monitor could prove valuable for scresnins for airborne asbestos* but it mar not be used as the primary meins for makins the airborne asbestos concentration determinations required by the OCHA asbestos standard. Think you for your inquiry. If we can assist you asain in the future* we shall he slac to do so. Sincerely* John B. Miles* Jr. Di rec tor Directorate of Field Operations (see next ease for incomirs letter) October 26* 1964 David Smith* Eiirector Office of Health Compliance Assistance Occupational Safety and Health Administration U.S. Department of Labor 2w Constitution Avenue* N.W.* Room N-3101 Hashineton* D.C. 20210 Dear Mr. Smith* Following up on our telephone conversation of October 24* 1964* I am writins on behalf of a client to request an official opinion from Your office on the propriety of usins certain samrlinj devices and methods for particular moritorins purposes under the OSHA asbestos standard 29 CFR 1910.1000. Mr client desires to comply with the requirements of the asbestos standard to provide persoral protective equipment for employees work-ins outside a resulated area who may be exposed to backsround levels of asbestos. My client's inquiries are these* 1. For the purpose of moritorins to determine the need for personal protective equipment* dees OSHA resard as an adequate monitorins device the GCA Fibrous Aerosol Monitor Model FAK-lr This device is described in OSHA's Industrial Hysiene Technical Manual* Chapter X* earasrarh 1. Jt not* please explain the reason for the inadequacy. 2. For the above monitorins purposes* does OSHA resarc as adequate the N10SH analytical method* r&CAM 2S9V If this method is not reserded as adequate* please explain the reason for the inadequacy. I trust these inquiries are clear. If not* or to discuss any other aspect of this request* please do not hesitate to contact me. Your assistance is sreatly appreciated. Very truly yours* Stephen C. Yohay **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED*# ITEM 20 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. COMPANY ABSTRACT TECH. REVIEW DATE STATUS 1910.1200(f)(3) 41106 Letter to W. C. Thurber Calidria Core. Letter corcernins asbestos health suidelines of 1210.1200(f)(3). 06-JUN-1985 Curren t hazard labelins under 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(3) November 6 1984 Mr. W. C. Thurber Vice President and General Manaser C a1id ria Corporation 8Id Rids etuiry Road anbury* Connecticut 06817 Dear Mr. Thcrberi 29 CFR 1910.1200(f)(3) cf the Occupational Safety and Health Admi n i s tr a ti on.* s (OSKA) stard&rd directs employers to comely with labelins suideline? aeeearins under specific substance standards. Therefore* your product's label is resulated under 29 CFR 19iO.1001(e) of OSHa's astestos standard. The label ttat you enclrsed with your letter appears to so beyond the minimal labelin* specifications set forth in the asbestos standard* and* therefore* is acceptable. Please feel free to contact us if further assistance is needed. Sincerely* John D. Miles* Jr.* Director Directorate of Field Oesrations he a: R'Gi bhs / cma / 1 1*2-84 Rm. N ri 101 e-:t . 38036 #577 ccs Miles/Smith/Gibbs (see next, ease for inconiirs letter) September 19* 1984 Mr. John Miles Director of Field Coordination U.8. Occupational Safety & Health Administration yr r > vtucii v i b b* v i 500 Constitution Avenue* N.W. ashineton* D.C. 2:02:10 Dear Mr. Miles.* Calidria Corporation (formerly Union Carbide Corporation* Metals Division) he* mined and milled chrvsotile asbestos fiber in San E'enito County of California since 1963. A warnins label has been usedonoureroduct bass sirce 1963. Th? orisinal label was modified slishtly to confirm to GsHA 191U.1001 when the regulation was eromulsated. We belieye that, the asbestos health hazard information that has emersed in the last few years as well as the need to move into come 1 iance wi th the new C3HA Hazard Communication Resulaiions Part 1910.1200 (i.e. ercuidins appropriate hazard warninss" on the product label) make it imperative to mive erometly to uedate our asbestos larel. This is to let you know that we elan to besin usins the attached label and reeuest that you inform us within 30 davs if you have any objections. Very truly yours* CALIDR1A CORPORATION W. C. Thurber Vice President fc General Manaser (see next ease for label) A (this is a very larse a on the label) CHRY SOT 1 Lfc* A3P.fc.ST OP WARNING - CANCER HAZARD BREATHING ACCEPT OS DUST CAN CAUSE UJN& DAMAGE AND CANCER. THE RISK OP LUNG CANCER IS GREATLY INCREASED IN SMOKERS. Do not create or breathe dust. I'o not dry swear or t. se air hose for cleanins. Do not take protective equipment or clotnins home. Do follow recommendee work eractices. Do wear approved reseiratory protection and protective cloihins a? required by aFrlicable resulations. Do use vacuum or wet cleanins methods. Do dispose of dust or contaminated protective equipment in dust-tisht containers. FOR ADDITIONAL SAFETY INFORMATION SEE CURRENT CALI DR]A CORPORATION MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET. FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY HO NOT REUSE PACKAGING MATERIAL EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS: CHEMTREC 000-424-9300 H.E.L.P. 304-744-3407 AN>' DISCARDED PRODUCT, CONTAINER* OR SPILL RESIDUE MUST & DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL* SThTE* AND LOCAL REGULATIONS CAL}DR)A CORPORATION CLD blDGSfcsURY ROAD* DANBURY CT 06617 **END OF DOCUMENJ REACHED** ITEM 21 STANDARD NUMBER 1910,1200 . INFORMATION DATF 050925 _ ' * SOURCE DESCRIPT. Letter to Mr. Nicholas J. Hluchvj* Esq. COMrAhT Asbestos Jntormation Association ABSTRACT Harare Communication resui rcnients to the Standard specific defers its labelins substance requirements f or labels or warnin.s forms that exist under other Ot-nA standards (e.s.ashes.tos). TECH. REVIEW DATE 05)101 STATUS Current SE* ?S* 19S5 Micbclas J. HJvehYj* Government Affair* Counsel Asbestos In forma lion Association 1745 Jefferson Davis Hishw&v Crystal Square 4* Suite 509 Arlinston* Virsinia 22202 Dear Mr. Hluchri* This is in response to rotr letter of September 6* 1985* end confirms Your readin* of OCHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) as it relates to the label iris of asbestos materials. As indicated in Your letter* the HCS defers its lebelins requirements to the specific substance requirements for labels or warnins forms that exist under other OSHA standards. Please feel free to contact us if further assistance is needed. Sincerely* John B. Miles* Jr. Direc tor Directorate of Field Operations HCAi RGibbs/cma/9-24-85 Pm. N7:101 ext. ^8036. SEP 6t 1985 U. S. Dtp ar tme nt of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration Attn* John Milts Room N3&03 200 Constitution Avenue? N.W. Washington? D.C. 20210 Re: Interpretaiion of Hazard Communication Standard Dear Mr. Miles* I am writins you at the sussestion of Mr. Roy Gibbs of the OSHA staff to obtain written confirmation of an interpretation of the.hazard communication standard <29 UrR 1910.1200) provided bY Mr. Gibos in response to mY telephone inquirY on this date. In replY to mY question of whether manufacturers and importers of asbestos and asbestos-containins products could continue t$ use the lansuase of trs hazard warnin* label required under the USHM asbestos standard to satist'Y the labeling requirement of the hazard communication standard, he answered i ri the affirmative? citins section it) (3) of the hazard communication erosram? which reads* If the hazardous ctemical is resulated br GsHA in a substancespecific health stantard? the chemical manufacturer? importer? distributor or emrloYer shall ensure that the labels pr other forms cf warnins usee are in accorcance with the requirements of that standard. I thank you for Your aftertion to this matter? and look forward to Your expeditious replY. VerY trulY Yours? Nicnloas J. HluchYj? Esq. Government Affairs Counsel Asbestos Information Association 1745 Jefferson Davis Hishway? Crystal Square 4? Suite 509 Arline ton? Virsini a 22202 (703) *79-1150 **END ('f DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 22 STANDARD NUMBER INFORM AT 1 f'N DATE SOURCE RESCRIPT. COMPANY ABSTRACT 1910.1200 850124 Letter to Honorable Steve Gunderson U.S. House of Representatives Effective dates for the HCs were desisned to allow emPlo adequate opportunity to institute prosrams necessary tc meet, the standard's requirements while ensurins tnat employees suffered nr undue delay in receivins protecti from tie rule. The two-Year period provided for cnemic producers to comply with the Hcs provisions for labeiir and MSDSs was intended to allow small chemical manufacturers to use chemical hazarc information s ener by employers in larser establishments. All employers.. si HI US JAN -24, 1985 Current \ JL Honorable Steve Gunderson U.S. House of Representative* Uashinston* D.C. 2:0515 Dear Congressman Cundersori Thank you for roor letter of December 13 19e4 ursine that certain step* be taken hr the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (y*HA) to frevent the occurrence in this country of a trashy like the one which resulted frcm a leak of methyl isocyanate (MIC) at the Union Carbice Plant m Bhcral* India. Your letter raises a number of mterestin* questions which I shall address in turn. Your first recommendation is that OSHA expedite the implementation of the labelins and trainins requirements of its Hazard Communication Standard.. If.this proves impossible* you sussest that the Asency consider lssyinsan emerstncy rule limited to MIC. There are several reasons_why instituting proceedinss to expedite implementation of the Hazard Communication Stancard would not achieve the end you desire. Let me brsir by reviewin* for you* first* the present implementation schedule anct.then* the rationale for that schedule. The standard requires chemical manufacturera * distributors and imeorters to iaoel containers rf hazardous ctemicals leauins their workplaces and to provide material safety data sheets with such shipments by November 25* 19$5f Downstream.industryal users of these chemicals are allowed an additional six months (until Hay 25* 19D6) to come into compliance with these provisions of the standard. The standard further requires all covered employers to comply with its trainins requirements by Hav 25* Thus* all emrleyrrs covered by the standard are to be in compliance with all provisicns by Hay 25* 1YU6. These effective dates were determined only after painstakin* analysis of the feasibility of various compliance deadlines and after careful consideration of the more than two hundred written comments and hundreds of eases of recorded testimony received durins the rulemakins process. The cates chosen were desisned to allow employers adequate opportunity to institute prosrams necessary to meet the standard's requirements while ensurins that employees suffered no undue delay ir receivins protection from the rule. In develoeins its standard* OCHA determined that there were an estimated 575*000 different chemical products <i.e. chemical sutstances and mixtures) in the nation's irdustrial workplaces and that the total number of chemical products in all establishments in U.S. manufacturins was approximately 27 million. The Asency determined that to comply with the labelins provisions of the standard* each employer would have to corduct an inventory of the chemical products in his or her workplace* evaluate (hose products for health hazards* review existins labels on ccntainers of such products* and develop an appropriate material safety data sheet for each product if one did not exist- in the workplace. This is an undertakins of enormous masnitude* and evidence ir the record indicated that two years were needed for chemical producers to complete the task. The number of safety and tealth specialists knowledseable about the health effects of toxic chemicals is finite* and such experts* for the most part* are already employed in tie chemical industry where their expertise is needed fcr other essential tasks as well as this new one. The difficulty is even sreater for small businesses. Since the Resulatory Flexibility Act of 19C0 requires OSHA and other federal resulatory asencies to take into account the compliance problems of small businesses* OSHA hac the option of settins a later initial effected date for small clemical producers or selectins a date bv which it was feasible to expect that all producers cculd be in compliance. The two-year period provided for chemical producers to comply with the Hazard Communication standard's provisions for labelins and materia) safety data sheets is intended t$ allow small chemical manufacturers to use chemical fazard information senerated by employers in larser estat1ishments. The compliance dates in tke standard were structured accordin' to the losical sequence of activities. Thus* OCHA determined that the information--that is* the labels and material safety data sheets--sent downstream from chemical manufacturers anc importers to industrial users had to be prepared first. Only then could the employers who use these chemicals be required to see that the information was maintainec and adequately communicated to employees. Similarly* OSHA determiner that it was not possible to require covered employers to develop and implement trainins prosrams before the hazard evaluation ard labelins activities had been completed. For these reasons* a unifcrm effective date for sandins information downstream was adopted for toih larse ard small chemical manufacturers* with a delay -df six months -in -the effective date for implementation of the remairin* requirements of the standard--that is* application of the stancard to industrial users and trainins of employees ir all covered industries. If # emelorers #--w----->-9 V--w---'n- n- u w*pjj>rpo an lnurni meet compliance resuircments. team of txrertt The Hazard Communication work sreur is responsible for coordinates all Asencr activities on hazard communication* such as reviewim available options for compliance assistance and erouidins answers to employers* question* about p*rformante-crianted provisions. In the past Year OsHA National Office and field personnel have participate in more than a hundred seminars conducted on the standard by trade associations and professional societies like the Natioral Safety Council and the American Industrial Hvsienists Association. Also in the east Year the Asency** Trainins Institute at ties Plaines* Illinois* has included cotrses in its curriculum to train OSHA compliance cfficers in enforcement of the standard and also to train public and private sector personnel as instructors in methods of compliance with the standard. 5? Advancint the implementation deadlines would require OSHA to conduct a new rulemak.ins procedure under section 6<b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act ot 1970 <the Act). The Asency would haue to publish a proposal* allow an opportunity tor public comment* includins > public hearin* if requested* and* after anaivzins the comments received* issue a final resulation. This process* which allows the public to participate in asencY rulemakins would take considerable time and almcst certainly could not be corcluded before the present initial effective date of the standard. The same constraints that led to a determination of the November 1965 and May 1966 effective dates woulc still apply. In our judsmert* then* it would not be practicable to expedite the implementation dates of the Hazard Communication Slantard. Similarly* it would not be feasible to require implementation of the trainins provisions befere the provisions for labelins and material safety data sheets were ir Place. As noted above* trainins and educational erosrams can te developed only after the information provided by labels and material safety c?ta sheets beccmes available. It is worth notins* however* that testimony presented at the public hearings on the hazard commmicalien proposal inoicatec that the then-existirs trainins eresrams of some larse chemical manufacturers exceeded the requirements of the OSHA standard. "over* the existence of the Hazard Ccmm ration standard has probably stimulat rompliance by ether employers even thoush its provisions are not yet in effect. It. is not unreasonable to assume* then* that responsible employers have teeun intormins their employees about tne hazards from chemicals in their work environment* witnout waitins tor the May 1906 effective date. You sussest that if expedited implementation of the Hazard Communication Standard is not eosible* OSHA should consider issuins an emersency rule limited to NIC. It needs to be pointed out that methyl isocyanate is marufactured in the United States only at the Union Carbide plant in Institute* West Virsinia* and that to the best of our knowledge* it is used or handled in any sisnificant amount at only five other facilities in this country. In the east month* OSHA or (in the case of a plant in Michigan) State inspectors have investisatec these plants. It was evident to the Federal inspectors that employees at these sites had been made aware of the hazards %509teP. Issuance of an emersency hazarT Zt,5Sb*ftAfaXHylJ9YrlYy.9jZ e95Iy1eu91i1MU5 M ! M* a 95RG91Z 1 j X GUI J r G z 9 " ! 1Y 9 GV. V fi=R Y t*7 001 z 1 r * 5R* |*U AlXJ97.9.RTtY j KWVzM. RT .1. .-rC *. ) (W * .\ 4he * Up-: up a t i t na 1 * 0 ` id tv' no 'tf/.al th ' h As a consequence* OSHA fas fad only minima) success ir issuins emersency standards. In feci* Federal appellate courts have struck down five of six emersency standards which were challersed. The Asency** most recent experience with an emersency rule for asbestos has ynderscored the difficulty in meetirs the criteria of the Act. Section 6(c) of the Act allows OSHA to issue an emersercr temporary standard without public nctic and commrnt only if two conditions are met. First* employees must be exeosed* at work* to srave danser from toxic substances or new hazard*. (There is ot course ro author! tvunder the Act to address cansers to the eublic at larse.) Second* the emersency standard must be necessary to protect employees from the danser. As the Supreme Court noted in its decision vacatins OSHA*s benzene standard (lncustria) Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute* 440 U.S. 607 flVUO))* the secretary* in issuins an emersency temporary standard* shoulders the burder of showins tnat there exists a 'danser" wtich is "srave*" while in issuins a psr?nen + rule he rust Nw there i a potential "mate*ial imp airment" which rose*'i ,,mn'icint risk.'* AdditioralW* the Secretary fljust show that an emersencr temporary standard is necessary to address the srave dansert while in issuins a permanent rule he need only show that "additional resulation is 'reasonably necessary or appropriate" to deal with the sisnificant risk. Further* the Supreme Court drew on the Fifth circuit's decision uacatins OCHA's emersency rule sovernins pesticides* emphasizins that in promulsatins an emrrsercy standard* [the Secretary! must find not only a daneer of exposure or even some danser from exposure* but also a srave danser from exrrsire necessitatins emersency action. In OSHA's icdsment* a case could not be established either for eromulsation of an emersercy hazard communication rule limited to MIC or for an emersrncv temporary standard for the substance itself. To try to do so in (he face cf almost certain failure seems an inadvisable allocation of asency resources. Your second recommendatior is that QSHA revise its schedule for programmed inspections in order to include more plants handlins extremely toxic and hazarcous chemicals. You note the relatively low injury incidence rates cf the chemical industry and sussest that CiSHA inspect plants in this incustry more frequently than it does because of possible srave consequences to the ccmmunities surroundins these plants from even a sintle toxic release. We share your concern about the need for visilence in this area. Indeed* while the relatively low lost workday injury irtidence rate of chemical manufacturers excludes them from GSHA's safety tarsetin? list* the ectentiallv toxic nature of the work environment in these plants makes them a chief tarset- for the Asency's prosrammec health inspections. In fact* in Ft 19S3* GSHA cordiftrd. 145$ irsrections in SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) 2--thr classification for chemical manufacturers--and 1157 of these wore scneral schedule inspections. That means that each year* while OSHA inspects only about one in every fifty establishments in this country* it inspects about on* in every five chemical manufacturers. That is a considerable GsHA presence. I 4 Your third recommendati?n is that. OSHA should work directly with the National Institute tor Occupational Safety and Health (NIUS.H) to update available information on hazardous chemicals and should take the lead with other federal asencies in securing wider distribution of such information. In east rears OSHA and NIObH collaborated on a series of "Occupational Health Guidelines" for approximately 4u0 chemicals?.one of which is H1C.^( These Guidelines* whi?h were published in three volumes py OSHA and NIOSH in lvSl? include useful information for employers ard employees on such subjects as permissible exposure limits? sisns and symptoms of overexposure? environmental and medical monitorins rrccedures?_and procedures for emersencv treatment when cverexrosure occurs. OsHA's `Full service Area Office' policy? instituted in 1983 to provide wider access to the Asency's technical assistance? assures that the UbHA-NlOsH Guidelines are readily available throustout the country. Let me mention some, other irstances of cooperation between OSHA and NIOSH? and also between OSHA and other federal resuflia__t_ory asencies such as EPA (Environmental Protection Asency)? to improve information on toxic chemicals and to disseminate that information. (Cooperation amons the federal rejulatcry asencies also is directed $o ,. c oor d i n a t i on of resulatory activities.) Early in 1Y83 UbHA asred NIOSH to review the adequacy of a number of existins exposure 1imits for toxic chemicals? listed in the 2 tables at 29 CFR 1910.loOO? on which information had beer requested or action.had once been proposed* but on which nothins had transpired in this decade._ (Tou will recall this as the subject of a hearins on October 4? 1983? before your subcommittee) OSHA is now considerins NIOSH's response? which has only recently beer received. 1 he two asencies routinely share their expertise wher NluSH scientists testify at UbHA rulemakings and when OSHA staff serve or NIOSH peer-review sroues to consider and comment on NIOSH research. OSHA meets resularly.with NIOSH to discuss and exchanse information on emersins occupational health hazards. Both asercies also participate in an interasency task force on asbestos hazards. As for EPA? OsHA has worked with that asency to develop information about toxic substances in the workplace. For example? in September 1yS3 the two asercies announced a joint reeves! for information on 4*4-methylenediani1ine? a chemical used to formulate other chemical products and el as tics.such as polyurethane foam. EPA has broad authority to sather information on this substarce and to control its use under the Toxic Substances Control Act? while OSHA of course has the authority to deal with chemicals in the workplace. He also ear ticieate eeriocicallr in vo**kins-level meetinss with other federal resulatory asencies to discuss subjects of mutual interest such as risk-manasement and biotechnolosy or? as notec? to coordinate resulatory activities on__. certain toxic substances such as formalcehyde and asbestos. Et-A? run (Food and Iirus Administration)? and CPBC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) are arr.ons the asencies that have been rtr resen ted at these meetinss. We inttrd to continue workins with these asencies as appropriate. Your final recommendation is that 06HA should request Union Carbide's firticiration in the Atency's Voluntary Protection Prosrams <VPF). These voluntary programs cncourase and recosnize excellence in companies' occupational safety and health prosrams by srantins esrticieatirs employers ar exemption from ObHA's erosrammed inspections as well as.aseurins them priority consideration in requests for variances frcm OsHA standards. To be elisible for participation? employers must sive evidence of a commitment to work;lace safety and health that soes beyond meetins tte requirements of usHA standards? they must also demonstrate to GSHA's satisfaction that their efforts have been effective in minimizine workplace denser*. Tte.Asency actively promotes participation in the erosram by^provi^ins information about VPF* durins the course of inspections and by distribyiins 11 terature on the erosram from its area offices. Nonetheless? while Ot;HA erccurases and welcomes applications from any company? includins Union Carbide? it does not solicit participation bv an individual employer. To do so would run counter to the purpose of the erosram? which is to stimulate vcinn tarism. By leauins the initiative to participate with the emelcver? OSHA is more likely to attract applicants who will in fact foster voluntary protection. I appreciate your concern flat every possible action be taken to lessen the possibility here of an incident like that which occurred in Bhopal. Recosnizins tie very serious consequences cf workplace accidpnts irvolvins MIC? OCHA has focused attention on thij problem in a number of wavs. Tie Asency has requested from Union carbide the results of its investis ation of the accident in Bhopal. We have now inspected every plant in this country which produces or uses hit in a Sisni f icant amount. C.$HA area offices in those locations have been instructed to be especially sensitive to employee complaints or reports of accidents at ary of these facilities. We have worked with the Environmental Protection Asency *r>d the Federal Emertency Management Asency? as well as Ctate and local officials aurins the inspections of these workplaces. At present? OshA is considerins whether to include specific information on MIC and its hazardous effects in the asency*s consultation anc trainins prosrams. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. Sincerely? Robert A. Rowland Assistant Secretary Dec. 13? 1964 Mr. Robert W. Rowland Assistant. Secretary Occupational Safety and Health U.S. Department of Labor Frances Perkins Buildins 200 Constitvtion Ave.? N.W. Washinston? D.C. 20210 Dear Mr. Secretary! As the rankins minority member of the Health and Safety Subcommittee? 1 have notec with sreat concern the trasic events , surrounding the leak of mrttyl isocyanate at the Union Carbide plant ir, Bhopal? India. Yestercay's hearinss marked the start of our efforts to set clear answers and prompt actions to ensure an incident similar to Bhopal will not happen here. OSHA must be an active participant in this effort and your willingness to appear at our, session was interpreted as an indication of your commitment to timely prosress on this matter. Sometimes sovernment acts based on an evaluatior cf the problem and the neev to respond. On other occasions? sovernmert actions result from public reward. With the aftermath of Bhopal? we may have a case of both. We must pick up the pieces of Bhopal and the lessons learned in that, traeedy ard reevaluate our preventive measures. Both the need and the public drmand no less. Obviously? much information must yet be eatherec about the cause of the accident in Bhopal. However? we must not take the attitude that action hv OCHA to reouce the possibility of an accident must await a comrlete answer to ell the q-uestions that have been raised. In fact? we have erotsh experience and knowledse already to define at loast an initial health and safety oriented response. I stror.sly urse you to take the followins tour specific steps* .* fxeecite the implemertation of the hazardous chemical ahelin* the trainins requirement?. Our hishest priority must be tc ensure that workers know what hazardous chemicals are in their workplaces. They must be educates and trained in how to avoid and respond to emerscncjes. The eendins Hazard Communication stancard is set to come into force on November 25 1V05. lf after careful review? rour lesal experts incicate this cannot be further expedited? an emersencY rule limited to MIC mistt be in order. It would also t<e trvisible to explore prompt implementation of the training provisions of the lahelins standards at the earliest possible date. This mishi to done notwithstandins litisation on other issues svrroundins the standard. --Revise inspection timetables for plants handlins extremely toxic anc hazardous chemicals. It has been rishtfully pointed out that the chemical industry and Unicn Carbide have verY low rates cf injury in comparison to other businesses. However? OSHA must rccosnize that workplace accidents involvins toxic chemicals may potentially affect thousands of people outside of the riant. Inspection efforts should be altered to reflect that fact. --OCHA should work directly with the National Irstitute for Occupational Safety and Health to update information sheets on hazardous chemicals. These suidelines can provide invaluable irformation on what to do in an emersency. This information wtuld also be useful to officials and the Public in areas with facilities usins danserous chemicals. OSHA stould take the lead in workins with ERA and other apprcpriate federal asencies to ersure wider distributicn of these valuable materials. --OCHA should request Union Carbide participation in the Voluntary Protection Program. This rrosram is specifically aimed at tncournjni employers, ard employees to work tosether in improvms workplace * conditions. These cooperative efforts could provide . additional assurances that accidents similar to Bhopal will not happen here. We must redouble etr efforts to develop a reasoned response to the threat posed br accidents with toxic chemicals. I look forward to workins with you and all of OSHA on this critical1y,,important seal. Efforts to ensure the public is informed of UbHA's efforts to improve health and safety ir this area must also be a priority. Their concerns and worry can effectively be reduced ty accurate information about OSKA's response. Best retards? 3* **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** Steve Gunderson Hember of Consress X ITEM 23 STANDARD MUMS'Eft INFORMATION DATE DfiSCRIPT. 1910.1000 850802 Letter to J. Eosnar* Manner N.Z. Forest Products Limited Current Aus 2 1985 J. Bosnar* Manner Environmental Technoloer N.Z. Forest F'roducts Limited Private Eas* Auckland 1 New Zealand Dear Mr. Bosnar* Thank you fcr your letter of July 12* tc former Assistart Secretary Robert Rowland* concerning the occueaticnal exposure standard on man-made mineral fiber (MMMF). Your letter has been referred to this office for response. Fellowine are answers to youi* seven questions: 1. What is the correrii TLV for MMMF in tout country? The current Threshold Limit Value (TLV) as adopted br the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hvsienists (ACGIH) for MMMF is JO milligrams rer cubic meter of air (10 mt/m3). However* TLVs are not enforced br jesislation. The Occupational safety and Health Atministratiioonn (< OCHA) does resulate MMMF as an inert or nuisance dvst. The OCHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for mineral fibers is 15 mmss>/m3. 2. Are the current TLVs specified bY legislation? OSHA does not enforce TLVs for MMMF. However* OSHA does enforce the PEL for MMMF. ?. Are there any chaoses beins considered to TLV? . What are the details tf the proposed chanses? 5. What are the main reasors.for the proposed chanses? 6. When will the new TLV be likely to be implemented? In reply to each of tte above? there are no proposed chanses to the current TLV or to the OSHA PE.L for MMMF. 7. Has the risk associated with the use of MMMF been Quantified? It has been sussested that the inhalation of very fine mineral fibers such as ashestes or slass fiber could increase the incidence of cancer because the particle size of these fibers are essentially respirable. However* the particle size of the majority of mineral fibers products such as slass fibers for industrial use and corsumer seeds si.ch as appliance and buildins insulation materials? furnace filters? and reinfcrced slass fiber plastics are senerally non-respirablc. The health risk associated with prolorscd exposure for these fibers are sisnificantlr lower than those for asbestos fibers. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is the Federal asener which conducts research in occupational safety and health for OSHA. For additional information on the health risk associated with the use of MMMF? you may contact them at the followins address! Mr. Richard l.emen? Director Division of Standards Development and Technolosr Transfer National lnsitutute fer Occupational Safety and Health 4676 Columbia Parkway Cincinnati* Ohio 45226 Sincerely* James J. Concannon Actins Director Directorate of Technical Support 2L A l < July 12* 1985 Mr. Robert A. Rowland Assistant. Secretary of Latour Occupational Safety & Healtt Administration WasKins ton* DC 2:0? 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Dear Sir RE: MAN MADE MINERALL FIBRE (MMMF) Althovsh our main manufacturins activities are related to forest products (rulr* rarer* lumber and wood-tasod panels) we are also rr.an.uiac tur ins mineral fibre (rock woo) from basalt reck). The situation with resard to the manufacture and use of MMMF in New xealahd has* until recently* been relatively suiet. However* the repeated pvtlicity siven to asbestos has senerated a sentiment that MMMF and related products may also be implicated and present* on a Ions term basis* a tazard tc health. In rrite of the fact that there arrears to be no conclusive evidence* some srours and their medical advisers are exertins pressure on the New Zealand resulatory authorities (Department of Health) to admit that MMMF is not only a nuisance dust* tut it also represents a sisnificant occupational health risk. Because of these concerns* the Department of Health and the_____. strinsent and a dual threshold 1 imit* valve~(TLV) *?'* MVI V 1. 5 ms/mS total dust ard 2. 1 fibre/ml of air respirable fibre concentration. It is eroeosed that the stove TLV ere to apply simultaneously. As manufacturers of MMMF we ere eencerncd thet these TLV uelues now proposed for MMMF ere unduly strinsent end in fecit ere to be similar to those applicable to estestos (except croc idolite)? which would sussest end/or imply thet the risk essocieted with the use of MMMF wes elso similar. We believe.thet.scientific evidence currently evaileble does indicate thet the risk <jf eny) essocieted with MMttr does not approach the hazards of asbestos. This brines.me to the mair rvrrcsr of ihy letter which is to obtain ur-to-date information on the occuratioral health related resulatcrv requirements in vour country concernins the manufacture end use of MMMF. More specifically? we would appreciate it if you could provide us information on the followint* (1) What are the current TLV for MMMr in your country? <2> Are thr current TLV specified bv lesislationr (3) Are there any chartes beins considered to TLV? (4) What are the cetails of the rrorosed chanses? (5) What are the main reasons for the proposed charse? <6) When will the new TLV be likely tc be implemented? </) Has the risk associated with the use of MMMF been quantified? Any other eemment relevant to the occupational health aspects of MMMF would be appreciated. Thank you for your co-operation. Yours sincerely? J. Bcsnar Manas er ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY N.Z. Forest. Products Limited Private Bas? Auckland 1? N.Z. **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED#* ITEM 24 INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. COMPANY STATUS 50923 Letter to Mr. James H. Rion Platt fc Fales Current Sep 25? 1985 Mr. James H. Rion 11 a 11 f Fales Attorneys at Law Post Office Box 35 Barnwell? South Carolina 29612 Dear Mr. Rion* This is an irdste to my letter of Avsust 1? seekins clarification of certain points in your letter dated Junr 25. loiether? your letters of June 25? and Ausust 14? request communications between the Occupational Safety and Htalth Administration (OSHA) and the railroad industry? *nd documents related to warnings and/or citations issued to the "railroad industry* tv OSHAr all related to asbestos. While there may have been asbestos-related communications between ObHA and various railroads at various times in the east? OSHA does not maintain assresate communication .files indexed and accessed bv substance? product or process. However? OCHA has published a number of pamphlets dealins with asbestos in the workelace which misht have been transmitted to railrcacs. Cories of these pamphlets are enc1osed. be accestrd direcllr for the *mf rti?or j as siven afcove but it wav {,? possible for you to identity citatiors or interest tv hauins a computer search or searches run on a file of records of inspections and citatiors which as maintained by ODHA's Office of Manasement Data Systems. This office could senerate a report for you coverins federal inspections of lncust-ries in certain Standard Industrial Classifications |SJt. codes) in which OSHA's asbestos standard (29 CFR 1910.1001) was cited. ClC.Code 3743 includes `'establishments primarily ensased in builcint and rebuildins locomotives'1! and hence misht be an appropriate cede to search. You misht wis) to search other codes* also. A1terratiuely* searches can be made t>Y railroad company names rather than Sit codes. If you wish to have a computer search made* it is susscsted that you contacts - Mr* John A. Katalinas Director Office of Hanasement Data Systems Occupational Safety and Health Admiristration Ro^m,NAtij 20*. Constitution Avenue N.W. Washinstcn* D.C. 20210 Mr. Katalinas* office will provide you with instructors on how to request a search* the cost of searches* and explanatory information on search reports. If citations of interest were found in a search of the computer files* you would then have to make separate requests tc specific Area Offices for cories of tte actual citations. The computer report would sive you the necessary identifying information for each citation. OCHA Publication 3046 listins the Area Offices is enclosed. I hope this information will be of help to you. Sincerely* Edward J. Paier Actins Director Health Standards Prosrams Enc1osure Ausust 14* 1985 Edward J. Eairr* Actins Director Health Stancardc F'rosram U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety 6 Health Administration Washinston* DC; 20210 Dear Mr. Baier* Thank you fer Your letter of Ausust 1* 1965* concernirs my previous June 25* 1965 letter resutstins OSHA documents relative to asbestos in railroads. You note in Your letter t)at OSHA jurisdiction is limited to railraod repair shops. We are ir fact most interested in information concernins asbestos-related hazards in railroad repair shops. In your letter you asked tor clarification of the meanins of "documents concernins communications". (his simelY means anY documents that embody anY communications to or from railroads about use of asbestos in railroad shops or asbestos-related hazards in railroad shops. You further asked how far back your search should o. Because clients we represent now manifest disease caused bY asbestos exposure as far back as the early 1920's* 1 would simply ask that you provide documents for as far back as you can possibly o. Finally* 1 would be most interested in any type of documents you have concernins all warninss or cilations.issued to railrcacs because of asbestos-related hazards in railroad then. Dincerely* ITEM 25 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIF'T. STATUS April 22* 1985 1910.1001 050422 Letter to Jeffery McLaushlin Current Mr. Jeffery P. McLaughlin 28915 Olive Drive Silverado* CA 92676 Dear Mr. McLaughlin* This is in response to voir letter of March 9 1985 concernins the problem of asbestos insulation in the school which ycu attend. You were partly correct ir statins that the Environmental Protection Asencr (ERA) banned the use of asbestos in buildinss (in 1973) however* this rule only prohibited the further use of asbestos insulation in buildinss. It did not specifically call for the removal of insulation which had been applied prior to 1973. Asbestos insulation poses a health threat to exposed populations if the material besins to deteriorate and senerate airborne asbestos fibers, fibers which are irhaled have been linked tc luns cancer and other respiratory diseases. If the insolation is intact and in sood condition* it is unlikely that an immediate hazard exists. On the other hand* if it. is flakine o(f or is beint disturbed by custodial staff and others* there may be a problem. The ERA has rules which require all private and public schools to inspect* sample* and analyze friable materials to determine if asbestos is present. If so* all school employees must be informed of the locatior of these materials and each custodial or maintenance employee mutt be provided with a copy of the EPA publication* "A Guide for Reducins Asbestos Exposure." In addition* the school's parent-teacter sroup must be notified of the presence of friable asbestos. Teachers* as employees of the school* haue the riaht to file _ complaints relatins to jot safety and health with Cal/OSHA. The Cal/OSHA office seruins ycur area would be listed in the telephone book in the California state sovernment section under the Department of Industrial Relations. Per more information on EPA and their resulations* you may write to them at* EPA* Toxics Division* 215 Fremont Street* San Frarcisco* CA 94105. Thank you for your interest in safety and health. Sincerely* Dean Ikeda Resional Incustrial Hysieriet END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** z*i ITEM 26 INpORMATTr>g DATE SOURCE LiESCRIPt. COMPANY STA'lUS Dec . 12 1980 801212 Memorandum to Resional Administraters OCHA Current MEMORANDUM FOR REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS THRU! JOHN MILES FROM! R, HAYS BELL SUBJECT: Rose inter Selection We hive rprt i<*ed numerous irsuiries concernins the use of various approved respirators on certain applications which arc not specified in so vFR 11 or tv L'FR 1910. fhe use of the MSHA/usHA approved respirators are acceptable for the followins applications provided that the maximum use concertrations permitted in each class of respirator is not. exceedec: 1. Asbestos! Hish efficiency particulate filter cartridses. 2. Paint srrav containins chromium or lead! combination hish-etf:cionev particulate filter and orsanic vapor cartridses or canisters.--  no orunic vifcr cirinons or canisters END OF DOCUMENT REACHED#* ITEM 27 STANDARD NUMBER COMPANY 5ISI1. i*m mw001 Loiter tc Walter Roy Guanstrom Standarc Oil C:omr*nr (Indiana) Current nr. Mailer nor uuanssrom Manner* Industrial Hysiere* Toxicolotr* and Safety Division Mail Code 3002 Standard Oil Company (lrdiana) 200 East Rardolph Drive Post Office Pox 5910A Chicaso* Illinois 60600 Dear Mr. Guanstrom* This is in response to your letter of March 11* 1982* resuestins inters ret ations for provisions 29 CFR 19)0.1001<c)(2)<iii) and (f)(2Mii) tf the asbestos standard. Please acceet my aeolosr for the delay in our response. All failures to use surrlied-air resrirators durins srrayins* removal and demolition operations involvins asbestos are technical violations cf 29 CFR 1910.1001(c)(2)(iii). OSHA* however* has adopted the policy of resardins an employer's failure to provide and require that employees isc supelied-air respirators as a de minimis violation of 29 CFR 1910.1001(c)(2)(i i i) if the emplcysr has conclusively established that* for his particular situation* the respiratory protection that he is rrevicins his employees affords them adequate protection. This policy accords with Section 9 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. For de minimis violations* no citations are issued* nc penalties proposed* and no corrective action required. In order to receive a de minimis classification for tie violation the employer musts (1) have estahlishec incontrovertib)y the utmost 0-hour time-weishted average and ceilins concentrations cf airborne asbestos that his employees misht confront* (2) provide and assure that his employees use ID `respirators that afford adequate protection asainst sich utmost asbestos concentrationsf and (3) fellow the resrirafor srlection losic present f-d in 29 CFR 1910.1001(d)(2)(i)* (ii)* and (iii) of the asbestos standard. Considerable effort misht be required to establish the utmost concentrations of asbestos that misfit occur if there were variations from operation to oreraticn in any factor* such as the followins* <11 Eindins material (2) Tree cf asbestos (e.t. lenstf of fibers* c o(ii* os i ti c n) (3) Percentase of asbrstos in thr insulation (4) Removal technisi.es (5) Amouunt of insulation removed (6) Room size (7) Ensineerine and work practice controls instituted to reduce employee exposures (8) Complement of employees (9) How well employees are trained in asbestos control er oc edures 29 CFR 1910.1001 (fXZYtii) reads* in part: ...samples shall b ( such frequency and pattern as to rerresert with reasonable accuracy tie levels of exposure of employee?. In no case shall the samplins bf don? at intervals sreater tr an 6 months fcr employees whose exposure to asbestos mar reasonably be foreseen to exceed the limits prescribed br parasraph <b) of this section. Note that* in case respirators are beins worn* "exposure" as used in the standard means exposure that would occur without the respirator. ObHA interprets the maximum samrlins interval of & months to apply to stable types of exposure situations such as misfit occur in certain steady* mechanized production operations of the sort where variations in work practices have little effect on exposure levels. In seneral* the more variable the exposures* the more frequently tley must be measured. Employee asbestos exposures resultins from demolition and removal work involvin? asbestos can be hishlv variable. The amount of the variability depends on tow much chanse there is from operation to_ operation u factors such as those previously listed or ease 2. Even in situations where exposures do not appear to be varyins much from operation to operation* ite potential for larse variations often exists. For example* if wet removal methods are the usual practice* tn inadvertent failure to wet down the material adequately can cause arse increases in exposure over what had been normal. Accordinsly* OSHA interprets 29 CFR 1910.1001(f)(2)<ii) to require employers tc determine the amount of exposure of eacr of their employees tc airborne asbestos on each day they perform demolition or removal work involvins asteslos. In rot.r company's case* althoush both the ceil ins concentration and the 6-hour time-weishted averase concentration to which each of rour employees is exposed must be determined* it appears that the ceilins concentration exposures are the most critical determirations to be made. That is* if the ceilins coneentration of astestos fibers lonser than 5 micrors to which your employees are exposed is leld at or below the ceilins limit for exposure (10 fibers per cubic centimeter) for the duration of a one-hour exposure* then tie 6-hour time-weishted aucrase . . concentration of those filers to which they are exposec is held below 2 fibers per cubic centimeter. It is neither advisable ncr necessary to ensase in unscheduled asbestos removal work in treer to comely with the samelins freque requirements eresented in 29 CFR 1910.1001<t)<2)(i1). Samelins i required only whenever your company decides on its own rishi to perform asbestos removal work. It does not matter if more than 6 months elapse between performances of the work. USHA teels that there is ,alve in air samelins even theush employees are wetrins respirators, fte informaticn on the concertration levels of airborne asbestos that is obtained from the samples enables employers to monitor the cortinoins effectiveness of the ensineerins ard^or work ractice controls that they use* as well as to verify whether the respiratory protection they provided tor the work operation was adequate. Also* such information enables employers to apprise their employees of the desree of potential hazard that was posed br ths environment in which they wore their respirators* and the adequacy of the protection they were afforded. We appreciated the opportunity to comment on your concerns. If we mar be of future assistance* we shall be slad to provite it. Sincerely* Patrick R. Tyson Director* Federal Comrliarce and State Programs **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 28 STANDARD NUMBER cSIN:(O*hFUOiRuRC*rEMr ADTIEOfNCRDlAPTlE. STATUS Jul 19* 1985 1910.1001 to Mr Current Mr . Mi 1 an Rac ic 1707 North Prospect Avenue* 2E Milwaukee* Wisconsin 53202 M. Racic D*r Hr. Racic* This i* >n response to voir letter .of June 27* reiirdiri the ecve ational Safety and Health Administration's (GSHA) enforcement policies concerning the_medical examination provisions of the asbestos standard* 29 CFR 1910.1001((j)* and OSHA Instruction CPL 2-2.21A. As you stated in rour letter* 29 CFR 1910.1001<41<1> requires* "The emelover shall provide cr make available at his cost* medical examinations relative to exposure to asbestos required by this paragraph" (emphasis adcec). When issums a citation fcr noncompliance with 29 CFR 1910.1001 (J ) (2) * (cti or <4) OSHA has the burden of provine that the fmp1oytes were in fact exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos ibers. , The 0.1 fiber/cc "trieser lever1 that you refer to was established because it is the lowest detectable level cf asbestos fibers usine the analYtiral method prescribed by the standard. Any lower concentrations woulc Yield non-detec table sample results* and we would be unable to prove exposure. The section of 08HA Instruction CPL 2-2.21A that you refer to deals with past exposures. Ttp provisions of the section ciscussins resular versus irresular asbestos exposure were developed as the result of court decisions which held that. 29 CFR 1910.1001 (j ) .does not eppIy to employees ensaeed in insulation removal or an infrequent bas i s. Asain* I must assert that 1 do not a'-rre with your allesations that OSHA's policies presented in CPL 2-2.21m* and interpretations of the asbestos standard are Mannseirent and Buds e t illcsal. For your information* of the executive Office of the pSi8iac?oM> has hid no connection witt the development of interpretations of the asbestos standard for field enforcement. OMB does review and advise ueon major new rule-makins actions* as mandated by Executive Order. In addition* I must reemptasize that OSHA is continuins to enforce all of the provisions of the asbestos standard wiihir the boundaries prescribed tv case law. To accomplish this* interpretations developed to euide the fielc staff must be consistent with established lesal rulines* to ensure effectiue enforcement of the standard. Thank you for your interest in safety and health. Sincerely* Patrick R. Tyson Actins Assistant Secretary June 27* 1985 Mr. Patrick R. Tyson Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor - OSHA U.S, Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue* N.W. Washington* D.C. 20210 Dear Mr. Tyson* This is in reference to ycur letter to me dated June* 1985. I do have a very short anc precise initial answer to what you wrote in that letter* absurd. Furthermore* i t reminds me cf the "reaf German leads*' of this century. Me said somethin* to this effect* if you repeat somethin* offer enoueh you beam to believe it. Perhaps* those reeeatjns your political mandate are slowly becomins brainwashed into believins it. In this particular cast ycu wrote to me that "OSHA continues to . enforce all provisions cf the Asbesto* t-tandard . How can it be?' Let's make a simple and crncise comparison. The standard mandates this* ..... "The employer stall provide or make availatle at his cost* medical examiratiens relative to exposure to asbestos required by thit earasrarh." As you know the triseer eoint was set at 0.1 fiters/cc many years aso. . Yor Milwaukee Office interpreted your Field Instruction in this Dinner "a. the werk with asbestos must b serf or med. on a rMi'Ur basis* or b. if the work was performed on an irrssular basis* employees wore exposed to sisnificant amounts of dust contiinin* asbestos." I can only accept, your statement* that OSHA enforces all provisions of the Asbestos Standard* if you can shew me where your standard makes allowance for the exemption of the enforcement (cf the Medical provisions cf the standard when it comes to irresular exposures. Also* please point to the part of your Asbestos Stancard resuirme, irresular exposures to astestos to be at sisnificant air levels. I could not find any refererce to these two points in your standard. Asain* 1 must rcreat that your asency's tinkerins with this standard is illesal and rolitical1y motivated. 1 still think that your asenev did compromise the interests of asbestos exposed workers* you failed to protect them and you utilaterally decided to enforce only those earts of the Asbestos Ctardard that are politically acceptable. In this particular case ycur sole interest seems to be to create "the Proper business climate" ty Irvins to please the employers. Also* in this particular case* 1 meat say* that your asency failed to perform its consressional1y mancatec function tc provide safe and healthful conditions for all American workers. iask that you revoke this policy and besin enfercine the entire sbestos Standard as it appears in your Volume 1. Gereral Industry Standards and Interpretations. Furthermore* I ask that, you purse all other similar field directives from the OSHA files. In conclusion* let me state that I do not think that ttis was the only instance where the O.M.B. exercised its political role in resales to what must he rtrelr technical decisions. The G.h.B.'s role is undemocratic anc mieht even be unconstitutional because* clearly* there is nc provision for public input and accountaoi1xtv. Your prompt response is requested. Sincerely* MILAN RACIC 1707 North Prospect. Ave. E Milwaukee* Wisconsin 53202 END OF DOCUMENT REACHED^ ITEM 29 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. COMPANY STATUS June 24* 19S5 1910.1001 050624 Memorancum to E*ennis Whitfield OSHA Current MEMORANDUM FOR* Dennis Whitfield Chief cf Staff THROUGH* Robert A. Rowland Assistant Secretary FROM! Anthony E. Goldin Director of Policy SUBJECT* Cabinet Affairs Memorandum of 6/11/65 Resardins lnsuratility of Asbestos Removal Cor tractorI I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Junf 11* 1985* Cabinet Affairs memorandum cealint with the prehlrms the At'MAT Corporation (asbestos remove! firm) is tauins obtainins liability coverase at competitive rates. In all probability* other asbestos removal firms are havins a similar problem. For some time.now* l hue hid y stiff carefully monitcrins developments in the^instrsnce and product liability fields. I have always believed that there are.potential inter-relatiorshies between manv of the policy issues pendins in OSHA and other labor and economic issues. Activities in the areas of insurance and product liability affect the eccncmic incentives and disincertives tnat operate in the safety and health field* For example* economic theory has Ions held that employees who perceive a task as risky will demand premium pay for that.work. This* in turn* creates incentives for employers to invent in safety and health controls to reduce risks and* thereby* wase demards.. The risk premiums insurance companies charse for perceived risks is but one of the ways in which the market adjusts costs to employers cither up or down dependirs upon the nature =ef tt e perceived risks. In the last.several years* a number of significant events have taken place both in government anc in the private sector wticn lead me to conclude that the problem of insurability of certain risks is a much larser* more senerr1!?ed problem than that described ir the documents relatins to AuHnl's asbestos removal insuracne coverase. For example* in the ACHAT case* the company may be able to set up its own insurance (captive) firm* or it may be able to secure coverase at very hish rates (estimatec in one article at 2:0*/. of the averase asbestos removal contract.) F.ven if ACHAT can extricate itself from its present insurance protleme* there are still a number of issues that need to be raised frem the standpoint of public policy. 1. The insurability problem faced by ACMAT has also manifested itself in a number of other situations* includins: a. Product liability coverase for U.S. industry. b. Environmental impairment ar d liability coverase. c. Post closure liability coverase for toxic waste site ore raters. d. Liability ccuerase for contractors workins on toxic waste site cleanup under Sveerfund. e. Occupational disease coverase under workers' coffs sensation. f. Liability coverase of U.S:. fishins fleet operations. 2. Virtually all of ttese situations above have been referred to the federal srvernment* the Consress or the courts for some resolution. 3. Host of these situations directly or indirectly affect public policy seals, fpr example* there is a finite amount of public resources- available for asbestos removal* for tne cleanup of hazarcovs waste sites* for the operation of authorized hazarcous waste sites* and for the compensation of victiffiS of occupationsl/environmental diseases. To the extent that the insurance industry refuses to write coverase* or writes coverase at excessive costs* public policy soals may br adversely affected since this could reduce the amount cf work that can be done for a siven price. If the capacity or willinsness to write insurance coverase disappears* then the international ccmeetitiveness of U.i. industry can be adversely affected. Such a situation apparertly exists in some sesments cf the private sector product liability iharket* tor example* postclosure liability insurarce for htzardcuus waste sites and environmental ifl>*airment and liability coverase for certain industrial operations. 4. The ability of tbs private sector state workers' Compensation irstrance mechanism to deal with the complex issues of Ions latency occupational disease ccverase has been raised and is the subject of debate amons the states* insurers* ersanized labor* public interest srours* Consress* and the Administration. the Centre**. tor tte last several sessions in the form~of' the Kasten Bill (B-lOO). The recent failure of that Administration supported bill to be reporter from the Commerce Committee* where it was deadlocked 6-6* aeear >ntlr was one of the major reason* the insurance industry announced a major new chants in the tree of liability coverase it will offer U.S. firms. Under a new "policy form" developed ty the insurance Service Ortarization (ISO) companies will have to accept policies that cither will pay only those claims actually filed in a tiven pdicy year (a "claims made" policy) or will pay three to four times the premium rate fcr "Ions term risk" coverate. This chante I eflects tie ont latency insurance companies' collective view risks associated with such compounds that the as Aient Oranse* dioxin* anc asbestos* are actually unpredictable anc require this action. Some analysts believe that this new insurance policy serves notice on Americar industry that under Ue present state laws or court decisions on product liability cr "toxic torts"* their operations are not "insurable" within the traditional meanins of that term. 6. The insurance incustrv is also apparently retrenchins on its willinsness to write soneral environmental impairment and liability (ElL) coverase. Everts such as tie "Love Lanai" and James River keeone incident caused the insurance industry to question the viability and rate structure of the "environmer tel damase" type policies they hae been writins. The courts have interpreted many of these older EJL policies* which were written to protect firms from damase associatec with sudden and accidental releases* such as a fire* expcsion* or train derailment* tc include coverase for slew serrate or leakase. Under this scenario* a firm which disposed of hazarcous waste whicf has sutsesuently seerec into the water table causins damase to the environment (drinkins water* fish* agriculture) can turn to its decades-old EIL insurance policy and transfer the costs to the irstrcr based on liberal court irterpretations of the terms of the policy. 7. The issue of lialility coverase for contractors workins on hazardous waste site cleanup urdrr the ERA Surerfund has also been raised. For example* members of the New Jersey Contractors Association (NJCA) would aeearertly like to bid on some of the Burerfund cleanup work* but tave expressed concern about the insurability of their operations asainst potential claims from employers for exposure and subsequent illnesses. 1 am iritiatins a cialosue with the NJCA to determine how a eilot rrosram of employer and employee trainins and technical assistarce would affect their willinsness to urdertake this work and the willinsness of insurors to write coverase at more reasonable rates. B. The liability coverase of small U.S. commercial fishins vessels was recertly the subject of a hearins before the Berate Committee cn.Commerce* Science and Transportation* * Bvbcommi it *e or Merchant Marine. The thrust- cf the hearinss* chairec ty Senator Paul Tribie <R-VA) was that liability insurarce costs for the U.S. offstore fishins fleet had become prohibitively expensive anc unless Consress die somethin* aheut it* the U.S. commercial fishins fleet would be cripplec. Analysis At first blush these issvrs* aside from the workers' compensation and employee safety and health in asbestos removal operations* mar not appear to be related to the role of the Department cf Labor fDOL). However* the product liatilitv issue touches directly on Di'il. eroeram* since there are provisions in tne Kasten Bill that alter the present relationships between workers' compensation and recovery for product liability. In acdition* the issue of "victim's compensation" and product liability reform have been joined* at- least ir the mind of some senators* such as Sen. Slade Gortor (R-WA). Ttere is also some evidence that the shortcemins? of some of Ue state workers' compensation systems in terms of benefit levels ard coverase of occupational diseases is causins some parties to "jurisdiction shop" and to file tort claims asainst third parties ratter than collect ahat they perceive are inadesuate tenefits from employers under their own state workers' compensator system. The issue of liability coyeras* f*r contractor* workins on toxi. vittt sit? cleanup operation is indirectly titd to DOL responsibilities under Surerfynd. OCHA is responsible for employee safety and tealth at Sueerfund cleanup sites. The reluctance of insurors to write Uis kird of coyerase. may bet in part? related to the lack of suidelines for low this work can be carried out safely. Cater this Summer? the Interasencr Work Croup on Hazarcous wastes <0*HAt N)OSHt.Coast Guard? LF*A> if to provide an Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manta! tor Hazardous Waste Activities. The fish ins fleet insurance issue directly affects DOL since it involves the Jones Act? ard the status of crew members who are not now ^overeo bv any.workers* cpmrensatior erosram? since ther are considered "participants m the venture" and paid bv shares in th* catch rather than wases or salary. With respect to occupational disease coverase? toxic tort? victims* compensation? anc ether issues? the Department of Labor is involved not onlY throush O&HA? but alsc throush its werkers* compensation role under FECA? the Black Luns Act? and the Lonsshore Act. I also believe that resvletory asercies? such as EF`A and OtHA? have an indirect? but ncnetheless sisnificant- impact or the overall issue of insurability. For example? virtually every GSHA health and safety standard automatically creates a "standard of die dilisence" bv which incustrv behavior and perception of risk are evaluated. The adversarial nature of public rulemakins with respect tc a toxic substance creates media ard public awareness of the lirkase between the substance and disease ir man. The rules themselves? which often require employers to post warninss such as "cancer hazard" and provide trainins? medical and environmertal monitorins? tuel liability? and workers* ccmpensation claims. Viewed from one perspective? these resolaticns create the awareness anc the "proof" in the form of exposure ard medical evicence which can help to sustain a compensation case. OS-HA rrcordkeep ins ard rerortins requirements ? and disclosure requirements (which make records available to employees and tneir physicians representatives) create additional eressure on the eonpensatier and liability systems. For thsse reasons? 1 sussest that we do not consicer the issues of regulation? compensation* and insurability separately. 1 believe they are inextricably irtrrtwined? and 1 believe that any Ions term solution will require that, they be studied with a view of how each affects the other. Ur until now? each such issue? whether it is fisnins fleet operators hit with a fiOOtOOO to *c;00?000 bill eer boat per season? or ACHAT* which is facine dramatic increases in asbestos removal liability premiums? has been dealt with in isolation. Each special interest brines eressure wherever it can -- at the barsainins table? in the courts? ir the Conerrss (with the introduction of a, special compensation bill)? and so forth. The resolution of the Ions term problems of insurability? coverase and costs mav be tied to the reformance of the resulatcry aeencies? to the availability of lower cost mechanisms to deal with the problems? to the availability of information and to the resuHin* decisirns made by the private sector. 1 am not now advccatins but 1 wish to raise fer vour consideraticn whether there may even be a role for the federal eovernment in structurine an insurance erosram for some of the "uninsurable lone latency risks" similar to th* erosram developed for the nuclear eo'r irdustry. In any case? you misht consider establishins a DDL. task ftree to examine these matters. Mav 21? 19B5 The Honorable Thomas Citsen Associate Director of Cabinet Af fairs The Whi te Hr y* e Washineton? Du /0->u0 Foilowine ue on Mr. Harder Cluaal*% telephone conversation? w* are sendins you a brief history of the national emersency which has taken place recently tor astestc* removal in ovr nation. We attach a few newspaper articles which will brief you on the seventy of this problem and the lack of irsurability by asbestos remevers in the United States. The elisht is a most seritvs one in this nation? with more than SltOOO schocls? to say rothins of 1400 severnmental fcuildinss and hundreds of thousands of private sector structures? which contain asbestos anr must have it removed. ACHAT has been in the asbestos removal business for mary rears and last rear? of its fb0.000*000 in revenue* about one-half* or .S250o0000 was related tc asbestos removal. CjCNA Insurance Company rrocipitouslv cancelled all of ACMAT's insurance - liatilitr* property damase auto anc others - because ther want-ec no eart of insurins anyone who removes asbestos. ACMAT^s insurance aments went to more ttan eishtr insurance companies in America and founo that none are interested in underwritins this risk. As you can see from the articles attached? this is a serious national problem* which is now at a standstill urlrss sovernment intervention resolves this problem. Fcrtr million rcunssters are beins exposed to asbestos denser which results in cancer and asbestosis in later rears. As with nuclear rlprts some rears aso* the sovernment set up a Pool of insurance to handle this situation? and we are very much interested in pursuin'* whatever measures are necessary to resolve this national emersenev ard major healtt hazard as suickly as possible. Asbestos removal contractcrs must be insured to remove hazardous asbestos. We will appreciate your reuiewins some cf these articles* which will eive you a full flavor of tie cat-astrorb ic effects of the asbestos problem. Yours very truly* HENRY W. N0Z*<0 - PRESIDENT AC MAT 141 frptjo Park Road - p.Q. Box 8307 East Hartford* Conn 0610B This letter is jointly sutmitted bv ACHAT" Corporation and Mr. David T. Chase* President ard Chief Executive Officer Chase Enterprises Ore Cop-marc? al Plaza Hartford* Connecticut- 06103 **ENP OF DOCUMENT REACHED*# ITEM 30 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DAT SOURCE DESCRIPT COMPANY ABSTRACT STATUS Aus 8* 1985 muTM Letter to Hon Barner Frank House of Representatives OSHA will be lookins at the possibility of makins the Haza Corneanicatior* Standard applicable tc hazardous waste site Current The Honorable Barney Frank Chairman Subcommittee on Employment and Mousins Committee or Government Grerations House of Representatives Washinston* D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you tor your letter of May 24* ask.ins for the comments of the Occupational Safety and Health Admi nistrati on (OSHA) on the report bv the Employment and Housin'* tube ommi 11 ee on OSHA's activities at hazardous waste sites. 1 aeolosize for the delay in this reply. OSHA shares the Subcommittee's, interest in srekine solutions to the problems ot toxic wastes anc the potential threat such wattes rose to the nation's health arid tc workers involved in cleanup activities. We recosnize that OSHA has the lead reseonsibilitr amors sovernment asencies for the health ard safety of these employees. We recosnize too that "the essential nature of both cleanup and storase/disposal of chemical wastes is hazardous" (Re-rort* rase 10) and that employees at toxic waste sites face unisue health and safety hazards in their work (Report* pases 3 and 10). . .. tnat seme of ih* ibl r^ 11iii*s <un de`rcomnusid*eiircast*ionu<&b*rr t s una no 18 the Asencv have been discussed in the Sibcommittee.reeort. For example* in reviewins the sceee of its Hazard Communication Standard* OSHrt will be loofcins at the eessibiJitv of makine the standard applicable to hazardous waste sites (Recommendation 12* Report* ease 13). We will also be takins a closer look at tfe criteria documents of the National Institute ter Occupational Safety and Health (NIGSH) to aetermine whether any of the information in these documents coulc assist UiHA's enforcement efforts at hazardous waste sites (K'eeort* ease 4). We do not asree* however* that a new standard or set of standards such as the Suheommittee tas recommended for cleanup activity at hazardous waste sites would afford workers at these sites treater protection than they now tace (Report* pases 3* 4* 10* and 12). Hor de we believe that more fresuent inspections at toxic waste sites over the past few veers would have improved conditions for employees (Report* eases 4* 5* 6* K* 11* and i2). in our judsment* the evidence does not sueeort ttese conclusions. Enforcement Since Censres? did rot rrevide for a resular GShA presence in workplaces* OSHA's inspections are spot-check in nature. Each rear* Federal and State OS-HA inspect only about A percent cf the nation's approximately A.6 million werkins establishments covered br GirHA. We do not have reliable data on the number of non-Superfund waste sites at which employees are exposed* and so cannot, calculate the eercentase of those sites wt ich have received an GShA inspection. Our records of federal anc Stale GsHA irspections at active Sueerfund sites* howeier* indicate thaf an GSHA irseection was ccnducted at roushlv 4 percent of these sites in FY 1984. In recent years the A*ercv has succeeded :n foevsins its inspection resources or hist azard workplaces. GttHA's current safety ana health ta-setins systems are improvements ever earlier systems. The present svstpm of tarsptirs safety inspections to hish-hazard manuf ac turi ns industries o<as besun in (he previous Administration and refined in this one. 08HA finds violation? on about 80 percent of ta'-seted safety inspectiors in the manuf ac tur i ns sector* whereas it finds violations in only about half of all other inspections. That means the system is takins the Aspncy where the hazards are. Nearly 80 percent cf OCHA's inspections are now tarseted to hish-hazard industries. This repreeerts an increase of 68 percent in tarseted inspections since 1980. Most of OCHA's tarseted irspections are in the manufacturins and construction industries. When the need has been demonstrated* howeve*** the Asencv hs taken steps* throush local or nationalemphasis prnsrams* to tarset inspections c other industries or hazards. At present* OSHA's special emphasis prosrams tarset such hazards as asbestos* cotton dust* and swinsins scaffclds* and such operation? as oil and sas drillin'* ship and boat buildins and repair* and trenchins and excavation. Until recently* it was the Asencv's considered judsment that there was little evidence of a reed for tarseted inspectiors at hazaroous waste sits?. In testimony alluded to or rase 11 of the Subcommittee resort (Transcript* rases 18* and 19) the Assistant Secretary stated that GSHA was lookirs at the question of erosrammins inspections av hazardous waste sites* but that other priorities had taken precedence since the Asencv thus far had not had reason to believe there were major eroblrms with reseect to worker health and safety at Sueerfund sites. The Committee report (ease 11) seems to be critical t)at the local errhasis prosper* currently tnderwav in Idaho was "a F.esional Office initiative rather than frem head\urters." A? was explained at the hearins* sirce the current tarsetins system does not sive priority to most hazardrus waste sites and since the A?en>-y_wanted to determine the seriousfes? of fhe prcblem at these sites* OSriA welcomed a proposal from its F-esior % cffice lor a local emphasis erosram tarsetins hazardous waste sites in the state of idahc. The erosram was aeerouec bv GSHA's Naticnal Office in September 1984. The question of whether tke Asency's inseection-tarsetins system should be altered t previde for routine schedu)|ns cf inspections at hazardous waste sites was or the asenda of the U*Hh Marasers Conference teld in mid-Arril, A special workshop cordictid at the conference recommended that an internal task force be established to review the tarsetins issue and that the results of the Idaho erosram* which are expected by uctcber 1* 198b (as Mr. Howland tad announced at the Marct 27th hearins)* should be used to determine resource needs. OSHA ht since convened ar internet task force to review and consider revisions tc . i ts erosram for htnrdout waste sites. Arr tarsetins .scheme tht is developed tv this work srooe will be for both Surerfund end non-Sueerfyrd.hazardous waste sites. OSHA eeeerentlY did not make this cleer ir its testimony (Report* rest 11). Stenderds It is the Subcommittee's view thet OSHA should issue & comprehensive stenderd or set of stenderds specifically desisned for the problems et hazardous waste sites (Report* rests 4 end 12). We must re-state" thet there is little evidence et present of the need fer such a stenderd or stendercs. The sreciel workshop convened et OSHA's recent annual Menesers Plennins Conference* looked into this end other suesiicns releted to Asencr activities et hazardous waste sites. Members of tne workshop included OCHA's Director tf Field Operations* three Resionel Administrators and e number of other OCHA career menesers. The heed of OCHA's Health Response Team was particularly heletul in the consideration of possible improvements in current enforcement procedures. The consensus of this expert sroup was that existina constructor end seneral inevstry standards* as well as the senerel dutv clevse* could provide an adequate basis for OSHA's efforts to protect employees et these sites. At the same time* the conference workshop sroup recommended that OSHA's procedures for enfcrcins its star dat'd? requirina personal protective equipment should be reviewed. (his subject will also be addressed bv OSHA's intcrral task force on hazardous waste issues. There is also need for research on* end development cf more efficient erd comfortable protective eqvirrent. The available equipment rets a sreat deal of physical stress on workers* heat exhaustion is not an uncommon occurrence. A draft Memorandum of Urderstandins has hern proposed to cooroinate the research and development efforts of ERA* N10SH* the Federal Emersencv Manaaement Asencv* and the U.S. Coast Guard to improve the desisn* testina* and selection of chemical protective cJotbina. It is likely that OSHA will participate in this tody as an observer. I am enclosing additional staff comments on the Subcommittee's report which 1 ho? will he helpful. We share the Subcommittee's concern for the protection et emploYees at hazardouus waste sites* but -while acknowledsins the neec to improve our efforts -- disasree with the conclusion that OSHA has failed jn this resard. If there is further information that we may provide in relation to this matter* please have someone on yovr staff contact my Special Assistant for Consressional Relations* Rebecca R. Morris* at 523-6027. Sincerely* Patrick R. Tyson Actins Assistance Secretary Enclosure Additional Comments on the Subcommittee Report Entitlec* "OSHA's Failure to Protect the Health and Safety of Workers at Hazardous Waste Sites"! OSHA's Data on Hazardous Waste Site Inspections Since the Subcommittee* ir characterizirs OSHA's enforcement record in the hazardous waste incustry as "dismal*" calls irtf question the numbers which make up tta* record* an explanation of OCHA's date on its inspecions ot hazardous waste sites is in order. The Subcommittee Resort* on rase 10* notes that* Whether the fiaure fer Superfund site insrectiors is 4 or 11 (whether the fisure for non-superfund inspections is 11 or 19 tor fY 1904) and whether work was underway at the entire list of priority sites <S12> or only at 'fewer than 300 sites" as Mr. Rowland estimatec* the dimensiors of the OSHA inspection erosram are srossly inadequate. The facts art as follows! o The fisure ?f 300 Sueerfund sites at which work was actiallv soins on was taken front the President's Eudset for the Ebinivviiriovniimmerinvta lj Pi irvotectiovnii Anvsccihiwcy1 TfoWTr rFYl 4179W6W5*V which shoowws tt at`- 204 removal action* and 116 remedial a c t i o n s 0r Jj.iS1 ctlofist toot place at Stperfvnd sites d u ri_ne rY 1__9_64. S__i_n_c_e_ _fc_p_f_t__h_a_s___t_o__ld_ __us tfat an undetermined but not insisnificent* number cf removal actions occtr at tites that are also undersoins remedial actions* the total rumber of Surerfund sites at which actual cleanup work was takins place in FY 1964 was less thar the sym cf removal and remedial actions. EFA reviewed OSHA's statement to the Subcommittee and accented our calculation of "fewer than 300 sites" as a reasonable estimate of the number of active Surerfund sites in FY 1984. o In FY 1964* Federal and State OSHA conducted 36 inspec tions at hazards us waste sites* of which 11 were inspections at Surerfund waste sites and 27 were inspec tions at non-Superfind waste sites. o OSHA's records of inspections at hazardous waste sites are not easilY retrievable* and this maY acccurt for some of the apparent confusion in the Subcommittee's report. Federal OSHA (which accounts for arrroximate1y 60 percent of tte national etfort) has compute* tized case tiles which allow OSHA to retrieve irspection information bY Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. Thus it is relatively simple for the Asencv to determine how manY inspections were conducted* let us sav* in the chemical marufacturins industry (SIC coce 26) for a siven period of time. Hazardous waste sites? however* do not fall in any ?ins)e SIC code* and some abjndoned dumps are not readilv classified. A few are found in tte manufac turing sector cr in other incustries with wfich the waste products ir question are associated (and so maY be subject to OCHA's tarsetins scheme fer those sectors). Other sites are found in SIC cede 495* "Sanitary Services." To compotnd the problem* the federally approved State OSHA rrosrams (which account for approximately 40 percent- of the national etfort) are onlY now in the process cf irtesratins their inspection date into the Federal OsHA computerized information system. All of the inspection data which OsHA at carious times provided to the Subcommittee in preparation for the March 27 hearins (in response to specific requests from Subcommi ttee staff) were obtained bv searchins files manually and sueryins each of the 25 States and jurisdictions that operate full or partial erosrams under section 16 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. - OSHA's National Office continued to receive informa tion in this fast ion until the mornine of tte March 27th hearins. Subsequently the Asency received further information from its Field offices in preparation for another hearins on the same sub ject* on Mar 22* before the Subcommittee on Health and Safety of the House Committee on education and Labor. We believe that our data on hazarcous waste site insprctiors are now reasonably accurate and complete tor tie period October 1* 1963* throush March 1965. "Comprehensive" and "Partial" Inspections The f ubc omioii t tee criticizes Federal OSHA for not havins conducted more "comprehensive" insrections at non-Superfund hazardous waste sites in FY 19641 Host Federal inspections at ron-Surerfund sites were "partial" anc rot "com*rehensive"... even theush they resulted from referral bv EF'A or health departments or rarely* worker complaints. (F'erort* eases 5 and 10.) This statement is.not strictly accurate inasmuch as 10 of the 15 ''partial" lrspect-ions of r or-Sup er fnno hazardous waste sites conducted by Federal OSHA it FY 1904 were conducted in response to complaints? (four were referrals* and ore was a prosrammed inspection). As.the Subccmmittee mar be aware* it if OSHA's policy senerally tc limit the sccee of complaint inuestisatiors to the subject of the complaint. If circumstances warrant* however* the Area Direr ter may.exranc the scope of the complaint investisation. It is OSHA's considered judgment that irseections at these hazardous waste _ si tes were as irtensiue and as thorovsh as necessary and practicable. Conditions at hazardous waste sites are 1unisue*" as the Subcommittee notes* ard it is not- always feasible for OSHA's compliance officers to cordict "wall-to-wall" inspections in the usual sense of the term <as it has been defined for internal Asency reeortins purposes). The Report notes that records inspections constitute "partial" inspections and that "alttoush available reports femrhasis added/ of inspection of toxic waste sites do not include this type of inspection...fa>s Hr. Rutterbers's statement put its 'Such a review is certainly less likely to lead to discovery of serious hazards than an on-site `wall-to-wall" irsrection with worker walkaround and serious monitorins measurements taken'" (Report* ease 5). 1 assure the Subcommittee that there are no reports available of records inspections at hazardous waste sites simply because ro such inspections have been conructed. Recoros inspections are a war of allowins OSHA inspector? to limit the time they srenc on routine* targeted *fntv jnserctiors at rnanufacturins establishments (slu codes 24-39) which have better-than-avera?c safety records. While seme hazardous waste sites may fall in the manufacturirs sector* the vast pa.'oritv do not. No records inspections were concucted at hazardous waste sites fer the period which the Subcommittee studied (October 1* 1903* tc March 1965). The term "partial" (asain as defined for internal Asency reeortins purposes) has a special 'me an ins with rrsrect to recoros inspections* and perhaps this accounts ter the Subcommittee's and Dr. Ruttenbers's confusion or this point. If a records inspection is conducted and it is determined (hat the estat1ishment has a better-than-averase safety record* if (here is reasor to believe that there mav be problems that need i rives t i s a t i ns the compliance o(ficer nonetheless may conduct a walkaround inspection under conditions prescribed in OSHA instruction CFL 2.45. If a records irseection is extended in this wav* the inspection is designated 'partial" on the Asency's repcrtins form. Let me also make clear that an opportunity to participate in "worker walkaround" is offered to authorized employee representaiiubes on all inspections at hazardous waste sites and that "serious monitorins mea?ure"mer>ts" are always core on such irsfections if necessary -that is* it there are potential overexrcsures to toxic substances. Citations Dirins Inspections at Hazardous Waste Sites The Subcommittee Resort criticises Federal OSHA for hauins cited few "serious" violations anc assessed "(ewer penalties" (Report* rase 4). On the 37 Federal irserctiors of hazardous waste sites conducted from October 1* 1963* to March 1965* OSHA issued a total of 91 citations for violations* of which more than half (46) were desisnated "serious"* 'willful"* or 'repeat" violations. Penalties were assessed total line f3280(. In om- judgment* that is not an ins?snificar* sum in lisht cf OSHA's belief that a punitive approach to workplace s H * tv ard health is demonstrably less successful than a cooperative approach. We recosnize our fundamental cisasreement with the Subcommittee on this point (Report* ease 11) but remain convinced that history will Prove us correct. Complain* Pci icy OSHA's complaint policy received severe criticism in the Subcommittee Retort (rises 6 and li). Tfe Subcommittee recommends that OSHA ensure that its fie1d.eersonne1 adhere to "the eolicv <f respondins to md i nves ti s i ti ns informal complaints involvins serious and identifiable health and safety hazards it toxic waste sites." At the hear ins *.a union shoe steward testified that the AsencY hid fiiled to respond in two instances cf serious complaints from workers (one involvins asbestos exposure) because the complaints had not been presented ir writins. 06HA was unable to find a reccrc in its complaints loss of the particular concerns alluded tc at the hearins* but wishes to assure the Sutcommittee that it will ccntinue to do its utmost to see that Asencv field personnel are aware cf and follow OSHA all compliance instructions* includins those for reseondins to informal complaints. ObHA's eoliCY of limitine onsite investisations of employee complaints primarily to formal (i.e.t written* sisned) complaints was initiated tv the previous Administratior followins a General Acccuntins Office report recommendins this ccurse of action. The present Administratior has refined this policy tc trY to exclude frivolous and non-terious complaints. Under OSHA's National Emphasis Prosram for Asbestos* irspections mujt te conducted in response to all complaints for which there is a likelihood of emrlcvee exposure ao asbestos* even thoust the infermatior is received bY telephone. n-site investigations must also be coneucted in reseorse to informal complaints cf imminent carser situations (CPL 2.45A* Chapters I and VII) . The Subcommittee report (pase 6) also cites Dr. Ruttenbers*s testimony U t the number of "inspections trissered bv complaints" dropped drastically since 1961 in five waste manasement companies which she studied. It needs to be pointed out that the number of complaints received bv OSHA has declined over the past several years and the number of comflairt. inspections at all work sites* not just toxic waste sites* has declined accordinsly. The important point is that OSHA is makin* fewer crmplaint inspections because it is receivsns fewer complaints* not because it chooses tc inspect fewer of the complaints it receives. In the past five Years the total number of formal complaints received by OSHA has dropped sharply -from 12.3*9 in fY J960*,U 6>Q&5 in FY 1964 ~ a 50 percent decrease. The number of Gs-HA complairt inspections has declined correspondinsly* from 16*044 in kY I960* to 7*491 in FY 1964. Information and Trainins* The Subcommittee report (pase 6) states: In the 1960 MOU the asencies asreed to develcr a comprehensive suicance manual. After four years of activity* however* the manual has not yet been completed. Only a simplified Worker Bulletin has been issued and distributed fer tt e suidance cf the workers who are at a ccnstant risk of exposure to a uast number of toxic chemicals ... The December 1960 MOU outlines three interasency objectives. The second of tfese is. "to identify and establish mechanisms for transmittins occupational health and safety information to workers and those responsible for tteir protection...." In Jaruary and February 1961* durine tie early meetines of the MOU work troop* it became apparent that the effort to produce a technically sound comprehensive suidarcc marua) for work at the vast array of hazardous waste sites only then besinnins to be uncovered would te a lens-term project, Bince cleanup activity was already besinnins at some of those sites* and sitce there was little practical information aveilable on the problems irvolved* the work sroup concluded that the most important and immcciate need was to apprise employees and their supervisors of the potential hazards they could expect to encounter and the best availatle means for addrrssins those hazards. Consequently* tie "Worker Bulletin for Hazardous Waste Sites and Hazardous Substance Emersencies" was developed and was intentiallv kept as simple as possible so that the affected workers and their supervisors would rear it* understand its importance* and use it to their benefit. It was ceueloeed at a time when 06HA had no experience with hazardous waste cleanup* no compliance officers trained to assess hazards at toxic wasfe sites* and no field directive aedressins the issues* and,the question of EPA preemption of 05HA autlorjtv at these sites was'sfil) unresolved. In December 196* a Bulletin was eublished which the tour concerned asencies were able to accept as reeresertative of their individual perspectives on hazardous waste issues. Ten thousand ernes were distributed soon after publication* and thirty thousand additional copies have since , , VI Bit i rwi Vf nr >* ***' nil itiviviaipigim ( 14. nnT OT the documents which were sutsequentlr published on the subject of hazardous waste by other asencits and orsanizations crtw heavily on the ideas presented in that "simplified Worker Bulletir." The workers and their supervisors.and employers who have used the Bulletin have been provided.with a.basic and essential awareness of the hazards and risks asscciated with hazardous waste site cleanup and hazardous substance emertenciee. - V3 Work on the more comprehersive technical suidance marual was besun early in 1983. The importance of this cocument? alors with the srowins body.of knowledse ard experience in this field? has required sreat attention to technical details. Drafts have had to be sent to field eersornel for commertl comments have had to be reviewed? discussed ard incorporates into subsequent drafts. The technical manual.is now in its final craft form. It must pass peer reviews and sain the approval of each of the four agencies. The dccument is expected to be released befere the end cf this fiscal year. The Subcommittee report cites Ms. Seminario's testimenr that, "*ssuabblms over jurisciction*...and lack of leadership by GSHA" were responsible for the celars in issuance of the Bulletin and technical manual (Report pe.se 6). What Ms. Beninaric cescribes as "squabblin*.over Jurisdiction" was a concern that a lack of careful attention misht hauo retderrd 06HA powerless in this realm? with EPA bavins to issue safety enc tea.lth resulations which it would find difficult tc enforce. The purrose of tie attention siuen to the juri sdictioral.issue was to assure adequate erotecticn to workers ensased in to*sc wpste clearup. END CF DC'CUMENT REACHED-** ITEM 31 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. Company ABSTRACT STATUS Nou 30? 1964 1910.1001 64J130 Letter to Hon. Jim Moody He use of Representatives CSHA currently has a national "Special Emphasis Prosram for Asbestcs?" in effect since October 1? 1963. It pro vices procedures tor the programmed health inspection of worksites where asbestos is used? stored? or erocesseo. Al] referrals to CSHA from the EPA resardins asbestos construction or demolition sites are evaluated bv the CSHA Area Director? assisrrd the hishest priority amone prosrammed insepetiors? and schedules for inspection as soon as practicable? but no later than five workins davs after receipt. Current Honorable Jim Moony U.S. House cf Represents Washington? D.C. 0515 es Dear Consressman Moody* This is in response to your letter of October 4 resardins cooperative actions between the Occupational Safety anc Health Administration (CSHA) and the Environmer tal F'rotecticn Asency (EPA) relatins to asbestos removal at demolition sites. As background informaticn for you? a six-month experimental inspection prosram on this subject was established Octcber 1? 1963? and was subsequently exterded tor another six months. (Copies of the 93HA directives initiatins and extending the prosram are enclosed). he prosram required CSHA Resional Offices to establish lines of communication with resional ERA reeresertatiues to assure the prompt referral to G6HA of asbestos demolition/removal notices. EPA routinely receives such nrtices concernin' constructior or demolition projects where exposures to airborne levels of asbestos could occur. OSHA Area Directors were to evaluate all notificatiors thoroushlv? and schedule for insrecticn within five workins days all timely notificatiors received relatins to contractors not previously inspected by G6HA under this erosram. Inspections made of these construction or demclitior sites invtstieate compliance with all applicable requirements of GBHA's standard for occupational exposure to asbestos? 29 CFR 1910.1001. Information on the level of worker exposure to asbestos is ohtained for each workplace operation inspected. This 06HA experimental presram was not desisned to fcrce employers to remove asbestos from their workplaces. The Gt-HA asbestos standard does not require asbestos tc br removed from worksites? but instead j mlmmWmW 4 a 1 (.i 4 .. . 4 - . . . > a a - .4 - - L - - * -- 1933. It rr oyides e roceotres. for the prosrammed health inspection of worksites within the feneral industry* maritime and corstruction industry sec tors where.astestes is used* storedi or erccessed. Referrals from the Enuirormental Protection Asency besun under the experimental erosram are row handled uncer these erocecures. All referrals to OSHA from the Ef'A resardins asbestos construction or demolition sites are evaluated by the OSHA Area uirectcr* assisned the hiihest priority amens erosrammed irseections* and schedules for inspection as soon as practicable* but no later than five workins daYS after receipt. I hope this response an*eer rour concerns. Jf we can be of further assistance please feel free to contact us asam. Sincerely# cW John B. Miles* Jr. Director Directorate of field Operations Enc1osures DrSHC* SANDS* jjr 11/16/64 Control #62166 Oct 24* 1964 John B. Miles Director Field Operalions U. 6. Department of Labor 0 200 ConstitLtion Avenue* N. W. Wash: ns ton* L*C 20210 A Dear John* I am writers to inquire about anv recent policy chanses resardins fie serious rrotlem of asbrstes removal. It particular* 1 am interested in the prosress made thus far concernirs the asreement between the Environmental Protection Asency (LPA) anc the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). As 1 urderstand it* EPA refers certain eriuate sector cases of non-removal and demolitiors to OSHA tor inspection. 1 would like to know more about the losistics concerning these referrals* i.e. h7soon suen're referrels'ls'jPriiiealMo'for tinned*7orksite16afetvn Thank, you in advance for consideration of this request. Please contact me if I can be cf assistance in any war. I lock forward to Your resronse. Sincerely* Jim Moody Memiber of Consress House of Representatives Washinsten* D.C. 20515 **END f'F DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 32 INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCR1P1. COMPANY ABSTRACT STATUS Feb 4* 1965 650204 Letter to Mr. Milan Racic , ^ Allied Incvstrial Workers of America C.v.-H* will errlorp a recommendation fer a field Instruction addressers the evaluation of X-raYS and pulmonary function tests anc relavins irformaticn to emeloYees for early diaanosis of luns disease directly attributable to an occupational hazard. C vrrent Mr . Milan Rac ic Health and Safety Director Allied Industrial Workers of America A.1.W. Bui 1dins ci5c.u West Oklahoma Avenue ' Dear Mr. Rac ic * Your `letter to Assistant Secretary Rowland dated December 12* 1964* recommending a field Instruction addressins the evaluation of X-ravs and eolmonary functior testa and relayinv information to employees was forwarded to the Directorate of technical Support for response. We aeolosize for the delay in resrondine. As you know* and as Dr. Sclikoff- states in his letter to you? B-readers are an asset becavse they have been trained to interpret X-rave but there are many proficient physicians in tbe field who are not certified B-readers ard nevertheless well sualifiec to evaluate pneumoconiosis. It would be difficult to set suidelines which would allow employers and employees to select physicians with such expertise. furthermore* askins employees to live with a diasrosis of luns "chanse on X-ravs or ar altered pulmonary function test which reflects a cecrement due to atins or smokins* mav be ccntrarv to the interests of the employee who may be deprived of a fell life and wholesome employment for the wrone reasons. The suestio** you raise are complex hut will be fiver our full attention and we will explore the possibility of meetins your concerns* namely* early diasnosis of lurs disease directly attributable to art occupational hazard. Thank you for your continvirs interest in occupational safety and health. Sincerely* Ed'-`*-d J. Faier E'irector Directorate of Techrical Support OSHA/BTS/RYcdaikrn/sib 2/1/85 Control No. 32556 Dec 12* 1964 Mr. Robert Rowland Assistant Secretary of Labor - OSHA 200 '.'ons t i t u i on Avenve* N.W. WasLinston* DC 20210 Dear Mr. Rowland* This is in addition to my letter to you dated December 7* 1964. That letter contained various enclosures which were to sice you the orisin of and the rationale tor mv revjest. At this time I would like tc further explain why I think that the OSHA Field Directive pertairihs to the subject of Astestos exposures is essential if OSHA is tc protect employees and prevent injuries at the workplace. Please allow me a slisht cisression for a bit pf historical narrative. Sometime in tbe latter part of 197u*s the International Chemical Workers Union struck the Johns Manville Comearv in Waukesan* Illinois. This larse elart was tor a Ions time erodveins various Asbesto* products inclydirs water pipes* pipe insulation and roofins material. When the television cameras came to the elart tnev were sreeted witt ansrv eicketere. One of those workers* whom 1 will never forset* was a very slim man. He took his hat eff and showed his totally hairless head. He told the interviewer that he was unset with the company because they did not tell him before that he has scarred lunss. He vis most senerou? while savins this because he did not seem to be bothered as much with the tact that he bas a luns cancer as he was. with the fact that he was not informec of those luns scarrinss hetore. He wantre to know so that he coulc exercise his oetion of art early retiremert. Instead he was undersoins radiation treatment* which accoi.nlec for a total loss of hair anc was facins a suick and a certain death.I I was moved bv this and will remember this eerson forever. Still now* I think that he was most senerovs" because he did rot even threaten the company with a 1 aw suit or any other lesal action. He only wanted to have time cif while he was still relatively healthy and.before bis cancer developed* so that he could seenc it with his family. Tht was* I hope vc v a'ill asrrr* a very modest request. However* that eersor as well as many other* that cin after* did not have to be informed then anc d not have to be informed now br company doctor* of their physical condition. The company did onlv what OSHA asked them to dc* offer tree medical examinations and make information available to the employees it they request. They did not have to inform their emelcyees of early lun* chanses as well as the results of their pulmonary function test. Also* at ercsent the erne lover*s ehysiciar docs net have to irform employees that B-readers are trained physician* caeable of eroeerly classifvins X-rays of Asbestos or Silica exposes emeloyees. What I would like tc ask is this* Issue a seecial Field Directive eertainins to exposure cf emeloyees to any eneumoconiosis eroducins dusts * includins Asbestos* Silica and Cotton dust - ard ask vour field eersonnel to* <1) Irform affected employees and employers that they may want to seek a B-rearer or a physician who has established equivalent or better expertise to evaluate their X-rays and explain why their skills misht be necessary i.e.* some X-rays rertainins to pneumoconiosis misht be misread by physicians. As a result affected employees are either not diasnesed at all or not diarnosed on time. Also* please emphasize in this f ielc Directive the importance of pulmonary tests and their value as early warrins sisnais. <7;) Ask all employers and their physicians to inform the affected emrlevees when first lvns chanses besin to show up or when their pulmonary function values besin to cnanse. Also* request that employees te told what these chanses mean* what their alternatives are <i.e. to te removed from the exposure etc.) and the basic science irvclvins exposures to these materials. Also* request that employers aevise affected employees of their risht tc obtain a copy of their medical file and the importance of seeins a physician of their choice* if further evaluation is warranted. In ether words* employees should be informed immediately after any luns chanses besin to take Place. These requests are not based on OSHA enforcement requirements byt are* I think* in conformarce with sood medical practice. If this medical practice is beins applied now ir the ratient/phvsician relationship it certainly ousht to be applied in the employee/company phvsician relationship. 0'HA in my opinion* must serve as a catalyst and a motivator in this litter relationship. I will be happy to meet or talk with you and assist vov in outlinins the lansuase of this Fielc Directive. I am quite certain that many people are fallins throush our present safety net. They are either without any compensation cr without an adequate compensation. This should he unacceptable to you as much as it is unacceptable to me. Workers ha*'e a risht to know. This information will provide the best incentive for others to prevent these types of exposures frem continuing to take place in the future. Since chansins the Asbestcs Standard would be rather cumbersome and time consumins and since OSHA is accustomed to issuins Field Directives* 1 think that this directive would so a Ions way in erotectins thousands of wrrkfri from the development of unnecessary occupational diseases. It will help take some workers out of exPo3u/KHv2.-.KHZ3W- 55Y1A--I *nd Uf t he issue c f eroeer medical diatnosis must bf iddrrtsrd immediate! Y. Please eiue this request a very hish erioritv and please let me know whet tour immediate course of action* resardins this important matter* is seine to be. Sincerely* KM?. ,____ RACIC jealth and Safety Director , Allied Industrial Workers of ,, America A.J.W. Euildins 3520 West Oklahoma Avenue Milwaukee* Wisconsin 53215 END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 33 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCF DESCRIPT. COMPANY ABSTRACT STATUS Nov 19* 1965 1910.20 65)119 Lrlter to Mr. James M. Peirce Natioral Federal of Federal Employees Under provisions of 29 CFR 1910.20* Executive Order 12196 mandates that all standards issued under Section 6 of the OSHA Act will be complied with br Federal asencies except where the Secretary of Labor approves alternate standards. 0PM t as issued a notice for the establishment of CPM/Goit-10 Employees Medical File System Records. (50 F.R 15253* April 17* 1965.)* which has tecome final. This provides for routine uses of records maintained in the emeleyee mpdical system records. No alternate standard for 29 CFR 1910.20 has been approved for any Federal asency. Current Mr. James M. Peirce Press dent National Federation of Federal Employees Suite 200 2020 K Street, N.W., Washinston* D.C. 20006 Dear Mr. Peirce* This is in response to your letter yf October 3! to Act-ins Assistant Secretary Patrick. R. Tysor concermns access to employee exposure and medical records. In resard to your suestior as to whether or not Federal asencies* and specifically the Departmert of Interior* are bound to comply with the provisions cf 29 CFR 1910.20, you correctly noted that Executive Orde** 12196 mandates that all standards issued under Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act will be complied with bv Federal asencies except, where the Secretary of Labor approves alternate standards. You should also be aware that the Office of Personnel Manasemeni (OPM) has issued a notice tor the establishment of GPM/Covt-10 Employees Medical File System Records. t50 F.R. 15253* April 17* 1965.) We have been informed that this notice has become final. OMP/Govl-lO rrovitesamons other thinss* for routine uses of records iftairtainec in the employee mrdical system records. Amons the routine uses provided fcr is disclosure to officials of labor ersanisatior* recosnised in,r 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 in accordance with the Occupational Safety ard Health Admiristration *s records access rules. We are enclosins a copy of this notice for your information. In resard tc your euestior as to whether or not any alternate standard related to 29 CFR 19)0.20 for the Department cf Interior has been approved* the answer is not. No alternate stancard for 29 CFR 1910.20 has been approved fcr any Federal asencv. You also asked whether or net the standards you are corcerned with apply to the Deeartmert of Interior as an employer. It is mandated* as stated previously, that asencies must comely with all standards issued under Section 6 cf the Act. We hope this satisfactorily addresses veur concerns. Sincerelv John B. Miles* Jr. Birectorate of Field Operations `rff Enclosure GFAftM.ELLlCSKONtjjm 11/12/65 CCU 37469 October 31 1965 Mr. Patrick R. Trson Actios Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety ard Health Administration U.S. Department of Labor zuO Constitition Avsnie* N.W. Washinstcn* DC 20210 Dear Mr. Secretary* The National Federation of Federal EmpJcvees requests the official position of the Gccnratioral Safety and Health Administration resardjns a Better within OSHA's jurisdiction. Is a Federal asency* specifically the U.S. Department of the Interior* bounc to comply with the provisions of 29 C.F.R. 1910.20 concernins "Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records?" This evesticn arose in collective barsainins with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Marasemert representatives claimed that privacy consideratic ns and sreci&l rules resardine medical reccrds of Federal employees would rreclode the union front even receivins sanitized records resardint employee exposure to such substances as lead and asbestos . The union referred the Asency to Seciior l-201<c) of Executive Order 1219c which requires the tead of each Federal asency tc "comply witn all standards issued uncer Section 6 of the Act* except where the Secretary approves compliance with alternative standarcs." We also referred the Asency tc 29 C.F.R. 1960.6 which states `The head of each asency shall comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards applicable to the Asency." Finally we referred to 29 C.F.R. 1910.20<e)(1>(i) which states* `Whenever an employee r d"*isnated representative resuests access to a Cmedicall record* the employer shall assure that access is provided in a reasonable time* place* ard manner* but in no event later than fifteen (15) days after tt e request for access is made." The Asency re)ifd that M did not believe that the provisions of 29 C.F.R. 1910.20* nor the specific provisions in 29 C.F.R. 1910.100l<i>(2) (asbestos exposure records) and 1910.1025<n)(4)(ii) (lead exposure records) applied to the Department of the Interior. Has the Secretary of Labor approved application of alternative standards tc those cited abeve for the U.S. Department of the Interior? Do the above-cited standards apply to the Department as employer? Wp would appreciate your prompt response to these questions as the parties are currently in negotiations and this information will aic in a speedy conclusion of barsainins. If you your statf wish to discuss this, matter* please contact Labor Relations Specialist Charles Bernhardt at 662-4455. an or 6incere)y end of "Document reached* James M. Peirce President NFFE ITEM 34 STANDARD NUMBFR INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. company ABSTRACT STATUS 910.1200(f)(3) *6052 y etter to Mr. Michael K. Seifned CS Associates , ishestos ccntainins substances and tbe HCL Standard. An asbesics containing substance in a form tnat which can be released* mav cause an exrcsire or potential exposure to emplcyees. HCB lahelins and MSbS requirements would arri`> to those chemicals, urrent catesorr he* subject MAY 29 19et Mr. Michael K. Seifried L originator lieifried control #37932* Convent Station! New Jersey 07961 Dear Mr. Seifried* We find in* Kouir^inlel t the Health labelin* requirement* of the Hazard Communication Stancard (HCS). Re*rettably our answer t-tat the warnin* label covered bY the asbestos standard would not meet the requirements of the HCS labelin* provision was in error. The HCS specifically states ir 29 CFFv 1910. I*U`J< f 1 (3) that "if the hazardous chemical is restlated br GSriA in a substance-seecific health standard! the chemical manufacturer! importer! distributor or employer shall ensure that the labels or other forms of warnin* ised are in accordance with toe requirements of the stancard." Therefore! the labelin* requiremerts of the HCS are not applicable to pyre asbestos rrocucts. ,Ifj heweuert the asbestos is combineo with other hazardous chemicals which could be released and cause an exposure or potential exposure to employees! then the HCS labelin* ard material safety data sheet requirements would aeely to those chemicals. We aeolosize for our error and hope that it has not caused you any problems. If we can be of further assistance please feel free to contact our Office of Hsaltt Compliance Assistance at (202) 523-6036. Sincerely! John B. Miles* .Jr.! Birector Directorate of field Operations HCA:SSimon/A1 M/N3104/5-27-06/523-6036 cc* Smith/Miies/Gibba/Simcn/Talmont./N3104 File File# 37932a February ?! 1965 Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health U.S. Department, of Labor Washinston! D.C. 20210 Dear Sir* This is a request for clarification of the rules coverin* hazard communications under CFR 2?t Section 1910.1200. Mv client i? manufacturer of industrial values. These ualues are sold to other industrial companies for tse in their Plants or in systems for resale. These valves are fitted wit! saskets and stem packin* which in turn contain asbestos. The astestos is contained within the structure of the ualve! and there is nc sisnificant release of astestos to the atmosphere durin* normal use. It is possible! however! that asbestos could be'released if improper procedures were used dcrin* overhaul of the product (for example! bv srindinq or abradin* a sasket). Given the atove circumstarccsr is it necessary to provide material safety data sheet* to tie user of these valves? Also is special hazard labelins reqiirec? Your answers to the aboie questions would be sreatly appreciated. Very trulv Your*! Michael R. Seifried Consul tant <*#ND OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 35 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. COMPANY ABSTRACT STATUS 1910.1200 84-0822 teller to Mr. Dick Carlton Carltcn Jrdustries* Inc. An interpretation set for ti in OSHA i* provided Instruction oCfPLtie2-2la.3b8eAlinCgH-r.1e..quii-raeomeei ni nt systems such as the Hazardous Material Information syster <HM1S) ard the.National Fire Protection Association (NFFi are permitted for inplant labeling systems. Such laoelif systems are allowed as lone as the complete Hazard Communication Pretram is effective and the employees are aware cf the complete hazard information! includint tart; ertans. Labels on shippins containers must incluae hazardcus effects of exposure. Current catesory hcs subject- la oritinator carlton control# 10094 AUG 22 196*- Mr. Dick Carlton Carlton Industries! Inc. Post Office Box 280 La Granse* Texas 78945 Dear Mr. Carlton* Secretary of Labor William F.. F:rock. has asked me to respond to vour letter dstec July If resardins the labelin* of products containins hazardous clerical a under tie Occupational Safety anc Health Administration's (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standarc (HCS)! 29 CFR 1910.1200. Labels on ccntainers are the first of tie three major components of a Hazard Communication Prcsram* included in the Standard to transmit hazard information. Tbs labels requires under the Stardard are to be put on shipped containers* as well as or containers within the workplace. Their purpose is threefold* to serve as an immediate visual warnine that the clericals in the container are hazardous* to remind employees of what they ha**e been tausht about nandiins these chemicals* and to atuise that more detailed informatior is available on the material satety data sheets. On shipped containers* the label is to include an identity* appropriate hazard warnings* and the name and address cf the chemical manufacturer* importer* or ether responsible party. Or inrlant containers* the label is to include an identity and appropriate hazard warnin'*. The focus of detailed hazard information in the Standard is the material safety data sheet* the second component. As you know* are written documents that provide extorsive inf'ormaticn on the chemical identification of components* as well as other useful information such as the hazards of the chemicals* effects of exposure* and protective measures. Material safety cat-a sheets required for each hazardous chemical in the workplace. these are The third major communication corn*onent of the Standard is trainins. This is retarded bv many as the most important aspect? which ties tosether the various etter components of the hazard communication erosram in a form that car most readily ensure that employees understand the informatior lein* provided to them. Trainins is required'for all empjrvpps exposed to hazardous chemicals before their initial assisreent to such work ard when-ever the hazard chaoses. The t*-a*nnr is tc include a discussion of labels and material safety oata sheets* so that the employee will understand the material on these documents and how it can be used. Eevond that* the Standard also requires cmricrees to be trained resardirs the hazards (effects) of the chrmicals they are expesed to* wavs to detect the pretence ot these hazarcs* and measures employees car take to protect themselves. In additior? they are to be informed of tie operations in their work areas wlcre hazardous chemicals are present* and the location anc availability of the written hazard communication prcsram and materia) safety data sheets. As you note to in your letter? labflins systems such as the Hazardous Materials Informaticn System (HMIS) and National Fire Protection Association do not convey tt e complete hazard information. However? the preamble of the Stardarc does recosrize the existerce of numerous labelins systems? and the lrtent of the standard is to permit the use or these systems. Therefore? as Ions as the complete hazard communication prosram is cffective--meanin* that the prosram ensures that employees are aware cf the complete hazard information? includins tarset orsan effects--the Asencywill now permit employers to utilize any inplant latelins system. Labels on shipped containers containins hazardous chemicals must continue to include the hazardous effects of exposure. This will ensure that ncn-covered employees? who senerally do no receiue trainins or have access tr material safety data sheets? are erouided with minimal informatior that will make them aware of the hazardous effects of the chemicals with which they work. This is consistent with the intent of the Standard as stated in the preamble? "... all containers leavins the workplace of chemical manufacturers? importers? or distributcrr will be labeled? resardless of their intended destination.' 48 Federal Kesist-er? at 58286. This chanse in policy was made on July 18? when 08HA issued new suidelines to its enforcemeri personnel clarifyins tfe Asencv's enforcement procedures relative to labelins (U$HA Instruction CrL 2-2.CH-1? copy enclosed). This dociment establishes a two-tiered labelins approach Hat meets the standard's ir tent that- employee? be made aware cf the hazardous effects of the chemicals tfey work with? without resard to the correct scope of the standard? a^ile ensurins flexibility consistent with the standard's performance nature. Thank you fcr your comments. Please feel free to cortact us asain? if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely? John A. Pendersrass Assistant Secretary Enc1osure HCA s RGibbs/ALM/N3104/523-8036/7-16-86 cc* Smith/Mi1es/Simcn/GibtS/N3104 File/CCU/ Hawkins/White Control Numbers 10094 Due Dates 7-15-66 July 1* 1986 Secretary William Frock U.S. Department of Labor Uashinston* D.C. 20210 Rt Labeiins Provision cf 29CFR 1910.1200 Dear Secretary Brock! I have just read a memo from John B. Miles to tie Resional Administrators of OSHA resardins the Hazardous Communication Standard. Thank God the situation has been corrected before it has sone too far. As Mr. Miles pointed out* the National Paint and Coatirs Association's Hazardous Materials Information System <Hm>) is ,, , , inadequate labelins tor employers as well as employees. It is full of liability. From the employer's stardeointr they carnot defend themselves in court because colors* numters* symbols and pictosrams say very little about the products beins identified. From the employee's siardeoint* he wants to be completely informed in a plain and simple format* not numbers* colors* and pictosrams. Good labeiins is easy ~ just- state, the hazards* both physical and health* in plain easy to read Enslish. If rour employes cannot read* then read the data to him or her. Labeiins such as HMIS and NFPA {National Fire Protection Association;* just does not convey the messase to a eerson usins chemicals on a resular basis in the workplace. HMIS and NFPA will cause thousands of lawsuits in the future for the employers if they are urc as labeiins tor this stancard. .It is wise to clarify 29f.FR 1910.1200 now before all industry is required ta comely in tie future sirce very few companies have ccmplied to date. , . t., VkiM i mi *9VT>vi i iiuu? u t n*Q f oi>tr it mrr ic \n e i r *mr.lovees ird customers as the tobacco industry has with a plain and eimrle warnins* they woulcn't hive had the problem* they have to date 1 have just completed.ten safety trade show* throushout the U.S.. It is alarmins tc talk witt safety manasers with larse companies who one year avo didn't, know what a material safety data *heet wa* and today are sittins down with 1000 M&DS's to interpret the data onto a HhlS or NFPA label number and color code system. This safety manaser may urknowins 1y be harmins the American worker. This is trasic. Industry is hidins behind the HM1S anc NFPA label because they dp not want the employee to know the chemical hazards. Industry must know that sitter you seel! out the hazarc on the label or later an court. I am in Washinston from time to time anc would be happy to meet with you or a member of your staff to discuss this problem further. Thanks asain for carins. Retards* Dick Carlton Carlton Inc cc* John F'endertrass John P. Miles Jr. *2 **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED-** ITEM 36 STANDARD NUM8ER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT, r O Ah<Y ABSTRACT STATUS 1910.1001 860718 Lettertc Dennis M. Race Akin* Glme 8trauss* Hauer fc Feld A stay is sranted for the purpose cf reopenins the record and institutins supp1emental rulemakins limited to tne issued of whether nor-asbestiform tremolite* anthoehvl1ite and actirolite should continue to be resulated in the same standards and to the same extent as asbestos* or shoulo be treatec in some other way. This stay applies only to the application of the revised standards to non-asbestiform tremclite* anthoehyl 1 i te and actirolite. In ail otner respects* the reviser standards will take effect as previously scheduled. Current JUL 18 1986 Dennis M. Race Akin* Gump* Strauss Haver & Feld 133?! New Hampshire Ave. N.W. Suite 400 Wash ins ton* D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. fiace* This in response to your July 14* J986 letter on brtalf of R. T. Vanderbilt Co. in which vt u request that Oi-MA reconsider your request for a stav of the provisions ot the revised standards promulgated June 17* 1986 souerrint occupational exposure to asbestos* tremolite* anthoehvl1ite and actinclite* to the extent the standards resulate occupational exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite* arthrophvl1ite and actinnjite (51 Fed. Fcf*. 22612 et. sm.) . The revised standards* wnich amend OSHA's 1972 asbestos standard* 29 CFR 1910.1001 <1965,'* are scheduled to-take effect July 21* 1986. For the reasons indicated below* 1 am srantins a temporary stay of v months (until April 21* 1987) of the effective date cf the revised standards irsefar as they apply to occupational exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite* anther hy) 1 i te and actinolite. This stas is sranted for the purpose cf reoeenin* the record and institutins supplemental rulemakins limited to the issued of whether non-asbestiform frrmolite* anthoehyl1ite and actinolite should continue to be rrsulafer in the same standards and tc the same extent as asbestos* or should te treated in some other wav. This stav applies only to the application of the revised standards to non-asbestiform fremolite* anthorhvl1ife and actinolite. In all other respects* the revised standards will take effect as previously scheduled. It should be noteo that dirins the pendency of the stay* the provisions cf the 1972 standard sovernint occupational exposure to Asbestos (29 CFR 1910.1001 (1905)) will remain in effect with respect to refutation of ron-ast es ti form tremol i te anthorhvllite and actmolite. (S* bl Fed. Res. at 2:2732). OSHA is srartin* this teinPorarY staY in part to enable the AsencY to review a July 17* 1906 letter from the Director of t) e National Institute fer Occupational Safety and Hfalth <N10SH) ard certain related N10SH staff memorenca which have recently been brousht to its attention* as well as submission* by the R.T. Vanderbilt Co. and variou.trade associaticns concernins the appropriateness of resulatins non-asbest i f orm tremolite* anthophvl 1 i te anc actmolite in the revised asbestos stancards. OSHA believes* as statec in our July 9* 1906 letter* that it provided adequate notice tc the pullic that its recent asbestos rulemakins would address whether tte Asency should amend the 1972 definition of asbestos* ard the proper sccpe of the revised standards .with respect to the three non-ashestifcrm minerals. However* OSHA acknowledses that letters and eetiticns from rulemakins particiearts and non-particip ants have beer received since the revisec standards* assertions* arid informaticn which the rulemakins reccrc may not fully reflect* anc which request, an opportunity to submit further information on these suesticnr. To assure that these submissions are fully considered by OSHA* tc allow public comment on ttese additional submissions* and to invite additional comment and evidence on all issues relevant to resulaticn of noncastestiform tremolite* . anthcphvl 1 ite and actmolite* OSHA will shortly tor Federal Resister notice reoeen the rulemakins record on the limited issue of whether non-asbesti4orm tremolite* anthorhvl1ite and actinolite should continue to be resulatec as eresentins the same health risk as asbestos* or should be treated m some ether way. SincerelY* John A. F'enc ersrass Assistant Secretarv of Lator **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** 5* ITEM 37 INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. COMPANY STATUS 860306 Letter to The Honorable Quentin M. Burdick Uni tec States Senate t'urrer t AUG 6 1986 The Honorable Quentin M. Burdick United States Senate Washinston* D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Burdick! This js in response tc letter of July 7* concerrxrs your constituents* Mr. G__l_e_n ... ______ and Ms. Lynn Lammer of Midwest Asbestos Consultants* Ire.* in Farso* North Dakota. These individuals expressed tcncern about the extreme difficulties asbestos abatement consultants are expe`rriieennccins in obtainins prcfessional liability irsurance at an affordable price, The Occupational Safety ard Health Administration (OSHA) is a standards settins ard erfcrcement asency that deals with matters of occupational safety and health. Althoush we can appreciate the concerns of your, constituents* we are not in a positior to address their difficulty with insurance as OCHA has no exrerierce or jurisdictior in that area. Correspondente about rrcblems such as those of concern to your constituents should be adcressed to the Department of Justice at the followins acdrrss* The Honorable Richard K. Willard Assistant Attorney General Civil Division Department of Justice Fiocm 3143 10th and Constitution Avenue* N.W. Washinston* D. C. 20530 Thank you fer your interest in this important matter. Sincerely* John A. Pendersrass Assistant Secretary OH*Wainless*ec*7/22/66 Room N-367J _x37111 Control! C 6546 Vlue Date 7/16/86 cc* CCU File OH File* Pendersrass* Wainless* Williams * Strobel* OLIR* Wm. J. Haroni* WPC File* Document#0129L June 24* 1966 Senator Over t in N. Burdick United States Senate Washinston* D.C. 20510 RE* SENATE BILLS S2300 6 S2063. Dear Senator Burdick* We wish to applaud and encourase vour effort* tc strengthen and expand present lesislatior cealins with the hazards associated with exposure to asbestos fibers. Previous tills and retslaijons seemed deliberately drsisned to skirt the issue but S2300 ard 82083 appear to face the issue squarely br demandins appropriate action. An additional step worthy of vour consideration is to also address the extreme difficulties asbestos abatement consultants are experiencing in ohtainirs erofessional liability insi--nce at an an affordable erice (at any erice : many instances). It is a paradox that we . have the trairirs* expertise and experience necessary to assist in alleviatins the asbestos hazard are penalizec and effectively prevented from doin? so bv the lack of {latility insurance. Somehow* we su.sk convince or force the irsurance industry to recosnize the tact that consultants and contractors who are tryins desperately to correct this hazardous situation should not be classified as equivalent risk* to those manufacturers who caused the problem. There is re basis for comparison of the potertial liabilities. Further* the cverall potertial for asbestos injury claims is beine heishterec tv discourasins our abatemert efforts! thus proloneins the exposure to a hazarceus situatior. Asain* we fully support veur efforts. If you can also address the irsurance dilemma* you will be performins an invaluable service to e>'ery huildine owfier in America as well as the people who occupy those b ui1d j r s . Respectful1y Midwest Asbestos Corsultarts* Inc. Glen R. Winter General Manaser Lynn Lammer Manaser July 7* 1966 Mr. John A. Perdors*ass Assistant Secretary Occupational Safety and Health Admjnistration 200 Constitution Avenue Washinston* D.C. 2O210 Dear Mr. Pendererass* I have received the attactec letter from a consultins firm seecializins in asbestos removal. I would appreciate your review and advice on the questions raised on insurance premiums. With kind retards* I am Sincerely* Quentin N. Burdick GNB*ehc Enclosure +*END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** mSSOlPUAKCNfcY UtSLHlf Letter to nr. Jihn A. Pendersrass U.S. Department of Labor Current July 16* 1966 Hr. John A. Pendersrass Assistant Secretary of Lafcor for the Occupational Safety and Health Admini* tra lion U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue Washinston* D.C. 20210 ,,. Dear Hr. Perdersrassi As you may te aware* JSEA at d ethers haue instituted lesal proceedings aennst NIOSH ard EPA concermns their publication of "A Guide To fiespiratory Prctection For The Asbestos Abatement Industry." At a meetins last Friday with Parry White in which we ciscussed the case he sussested that ws write to you to pursue the possibility of obtainins a statement from cne or more appropriate OSHA officials for use in the case. As pointed cut in our complaint- (copy erclosed)* EPA and NIOSH have ensased in what amounts tc a rulemakins throush the publication of the Guide without- complyjrs with any of tie procedural requirements afforded uncer the fidmiristrailve Prorecure Act or Due Process of Law. These asencies have also violated their own rules and those of other asencies* including GSHA* in the black!istins of several tyees of reseirators whicb are currently certified and approved for use in asbestos environments. We would be most interested in a statement sueecrtive cf our position that before an asency can release a publication such as the Guide* it should conduct public rulemakins proceedings. Would ycu be so kind to aduise me whether GSMA would be in a position to previde such a s tatement? I also request that you arvisr me as to whether EPA or NIOSH requested or received ary irput from OSHA in connection with the ereearation or review of the Guide. Thank you in advarce for your conside ration. Sincerely* Frank E. Wilchert Jr. President cc * Parry J. Whi te 2nd Draftiati7/24/06 rev*6/4/66 OKP Project Officer *4e0ffice Director <-<-<-JLi nb ard Mr. Frank E. Wilchert Jr. President Industrial Safety Equirmerl Association 1901 N. Moore Street Arlington* Virsinia 22209 Dear Mr. Wilchert This is in response to yoir letter of July 16 resardirs your proceedinss asainst the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Envirormental Protection Asencyp corcernins the publication of "A Guide tc Respiratory Protection for the Asbestos Industry." In view of the fact that you are now ensased in litisation asainst the Government it wevid be inappropriate for the Occupational Safety and Health Administraticn lc issue any comment on the matter. I resret that we car te of ro help to you. Sine erely* John A. Pendersrass Assistant Secretary for Occupatioral Safety and Health OH:Weiner t ac17/24/66 Room N3669 r't 1M Z>-> cc CCU F i 1 e We iner Ha torik White* Strobel* Williams* WF'C#66-229* Docume ntH(>0176 Hr. Frank E. Wilder* Jr. President Industrial Safety and Esuirment- Association 1901 N. Moore Street Arlinsion* Virsinia 22209 Dear Hr. Wilcheri This if.in response to rotr letter of Jtlv 16 resardins Your proceedings aeainst the National Institute tor Occupational Safety and Health and the knvirormental Protecticn AsencY ccncernins their publication of "A Gtire tc Respiratory Protection for the Asbestos Industry." In view of the fact that you are now ensased in litisatior, asainst the Governments it would te inappropriate for the Occupational Safety and Health Adminisiration tc issue any comment on the matter. I resret that we car be of ro help to you. Sincerely* John A. Rencersrass Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 39 STANDARD NUMBER INrURMAllUN SOURCE DESCRIPT. COMPANY STAY OS mbMi%* Mrme te GILEERT J. SAULTER OSHA Current AUG 19 1966 MEMORANDUM FORi GILBERT J. SAULTER Resional Acministrator FROM: PARRY J. WHITE Ac tins Director Health Standards Prosrams SUBJECT: Clarification of New Asbestos Standard for Construction (29 CFR 1926.56) This is in response tc Your memo of July 24 resuestirs clarification of the scope of (he new standard for astestos* tremolite* anthophvl1ite and actirolite as it applies to the ccnstruction industry. The new stardard* 29 CFR 1926.56* applies to all construction related activities whether conductec at a construction site cr performed by a maintenance care of plant personnel in a seneral industry establishmert. Cons truetior related activities as defined in 1926.56(a) includes demolition* salvase* removal* encapsulation of materials containins astestes* alteraticn* repair* ard installation of products containins asbestos. In seneral* it should be roted that any of the above activities related to a bvildirs* structure* or Plant process equipment (such as pipe* process vessel and toiler insulation) fall under the scope of the asbestos slantard for construction (1926.bb). Hcwever* maintenance activities whict involve the ceeration itself* such as reeairins ar asbestos impregnated conveyer belt or reeairms duct wort, or a Mover system Hat exhausts or conveys asbestos dust* would be considered under the scope of the sereraJ industry standard (1910.1001) . QHsWainJessstec *6/15/66 Room N-3671 *37111 cc: OH File* BWnit** Wairlrss* WPG Fi)f^66-24b Doc umer>t*0146L n&nUttHwuun r urv * pHtTKI J* PMJ It* Actins Director Directcrate of Health Standards Prosrams attention* SUBJECT * JOHN B. MlLESt JR. Birectcr irectorate of Field Orerations Clarification of New Asbestos Standard </9 lFR 19/6.58) for Construction This if to request clarification of the new asbestos standard <29 CFR 1926.56) as at applies to tie construction industry. Under rtrasraph 29 CFR 1926.56(a)! the score and application of the standard is discussed. It as stated that the standard aeelies to all constructior work includirs demolition and salvase of structures where.asbestos is present! and removal cr encarsulaiior of materials contaanans asbestos. I have received several requests for clarification of the score of this standard. Constructior in the 29 CFR 1926.56 asbestos standard is not defired by ary SIC cedes but is cefineo by the tyre of activity! i.e.> removal! demolition! rerair! etc. In a seneral industry establishment where removal or rerair is takirs rlace and these activities are beins conducted bv a maintenance crew <not contractors)! does the 29 CFR 1926.SB standard aerlv wtere those activities ceseribed in its score) i.e. removal! rerair! demolition! are takins rlacc? Your assistance in clarifyirs this matter will be arrreciated. GILBERT J. SfiULTER Resional Administrator END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 40 SOURCE DESCRIPT. Letter to Robert G. Bartlett! P.E. COMPANY National Stone Association STATUS Current Robert G. Bartlett! P.E. President National St-cne Association 141 - Elliot Place! N.W. k'ashinston! D.C. 20007 Dear Mr. Bartletti This is in resronse to yotr July lie 1966 letter in which you request that OSHA stay the rrovitiers of the revised standarcs rromulsated July 1?! 1966 soverrins occurational exposure to non-asbestiform irerolite! anthorhyl1ite anc actinolite to the extent the standards reeulate occurational exposure to non-asbestiform tremclite and actinolite (51 Fed. Res. 2/612 et tes). The revised standards became effective July 21! 1966. On July 16! 1966t OSHA sranted a temrorary partial stay of the revised standards! of 9 menths of the effective date Until Arril 2l! 1967)! insotar a* they areJy to occurational exeosure to non-asbestitorm tremoliter anthoehyl1ite and actinolite. Enclosed is a cory of tte letter sert tc counsel tor the R.T. Vanderbilt Co. which announces the stai anc describes OCHA's intentior to conduct shortly suer1enenta 1 rulemakins on the limited issue of whether non-asbestiform tremolilei antherhyl1ite and actinolite should continue to be resulatec as eresentins the same health risk as asbestos or should be treated some other way. In the sueelemental rulemakin*! you will have an opportunity to submit comments and evieeree relatins tc the feasibility of the standard with reseect to the three non-asbestiform minerals. Serartte Feeeral Resister nctices annourcins the issuance of the stav and the sueelemental rulemakins eroceedins will be published shortly. Sine erelyr John A. Pencersrass Assistant Prcretary for Gccuratioral Safety ard Health July 11* 1966 Honorable Jrhn A. F'endersrass Assistant Secretary of Lai or for Orcup*tioral Safety ard Health U. S. .Dpp a r tmen t Washinston* DC Ret Request For A Stay? Occupational Exposure to Tremolite and Ac ti no liter 29 C.F.R. Parts 1910 and 1926* 51 Fed. Res. 22612 et sen. (June 20* 1986) Dear Hr. Pendersrass* The National Slone Association* represertins approximately 400 companies ard 64*000 emplcyees* respectfully requests that G6KA stav the application of the abcue-citcd siancard for tremclite ana actinolite* published or Jure 20* 1986* as it applies to crushed stone used for con?tructicn. Such exrecitious administrative relief is needed due to the fact flat the schedule is to become effective on July 21* 1986. Crushed,stone is a prcduct that has broad application. It is used in homebuildins -- concrete foundations* block walls* insulatins panels* sidewalks ard rortle.nc cement concrete pavements* base courses* shoulder corstrnction* bridse and culvert installation and other uses* erosicn and sediment control* water storase facilities* environmental purposes such as fluid bed desulfurizaticn in fossil fuel burnins power plants ard pond limins where water acidity is below proper levels* agricultural purposes where crushed limestone is applied to raise the ph level of the soil to enhance crop productivi+v? and euen in such househo3c products as kitchen cleanser and toothpaste. Clearly* ary arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive requirement that would interrupt the free flow of crusted stone products to the consumer market would have a widesrreac ana adverse ime&ct upon thp public. Furthermore* trace amourts cf nonashestiform tremolite and actinolite are ubiauit-cus in hard rock deposits* especially in the eastern United States* OCHA has net- considered the feasibility of compliance bv the construction industry users ofstone* OSHA's rylemakins record does not certain evidence justifying the imposition cf 0.2 fiber/cc standard for nona? bes t i f or m tremolite arid actinolite in this industry* ard there is ro reason to believe that employees in this industry face a sisnificart risk to their health as a result of exposure to trace amounts of nonasbestiform tremolite and actinolite in crushed stone. Crushed store is the most predominantly used construction assresate. Of the aeercximately one billion tons of crushed stone used annually in the United states* semewbat more thar three-fourths is limestone* and the remainins amount (approximately 281 million tors in 1965) is hard rock* including sranitp and trarrock. Generally* the usase of either hard rock or limestone is determined by the location of mineral deecsits. Hard reck is the rrecominant construction assresate in the states of Ceorsia* Couth Carolina* North Carolina* Virsinia* Maryland* New Ycrk* Connecticut* Rhode Islanc* Massachusetts* Maine* New Hampshire* Vermont* Minnescta and Wisconsin. Hard rock is also widely used throushout the western states. With respect tc some applications* limestone is not a suitable substitute for hare rock. For example* certain Federal Hishwav Administration specifications rrsardins skid resistant pavements can senerallv be met only br bard rock. Trace amounts of tremolite and actinolite* in their rorasbestiform state* afe ubiquitous in bard rock deposits. This fact will be of concern to ai numbers of construction firms uuhose prefects involve work with construction as*resates. Such constructior firms will be subject to the new OCHA exposure standards for tremolite and actinolite* and they will be able to comply only by corductins expensive* time-consumins mcnitorins (which presently may not be technelosical1v feasible) or by obtainins appropriate certificates from construction assresabes producers. The only certificate that would resol*e the erotism of a construction firm concerned with the pretence ot these minerals in the air would be a certificate attestins tc the total absence of thes.e minerals in the products. Because of the nature of tremolite and actinolite* it is unlikely that any ercducer of hard reck will be able to certify that its product is free of these mirerals. As a result* the new ex*osurp standard has the unintended etfrei of imredins the use of crushed ?rc'b4 fri;r?;9riV4 ITthVricik?u shcd tTir' e* . IhI'lnuir u in*'dv wuswt<ryi . A] thC t *i hUf %*C\5vI<hamn dj oidr toif mnct cw ov *n* vs*idw eV Ir the technolcsical feasibility and economic impact fxU tkndfcrds in certain other industries* OSHA has never considered the technical and economic feasibility of compliance in the constructicn industry users ? crushed tlcne. None f the erodocts considered by OSHA art inalofei'i tc crushed stent containin trace amounts cf nonasbestiform tremolite or actinolite. We are concerred that the cnlY war to assure compliance with the standards may be to discortinue the use of crushed erarite and traercck* which would have a severe adverse effect on tie industry anc the ultimate consumin eutlic. For this reason alone* a star anc reconsideratior of the standards is warranted* There if no reason to believe thft rantir the star wcyld h*bm the eublictinterest. OSHA corcedes in the ereamble to the final rules that the metical cyidence as to tremolite and actinolite is at best inconclusive. In fact* OSHA's 1964 proposal stated that the Aency elanned not tc rrsulate ntnasbestos tremolite and actirolite. Jb?,National St one Association did not file public ccmments on OSHA's lvs4 proposal to revise its standard* principally because the Association asreed with OSHA's specific public intenticn to eliminate such nonashesti+orm minera1s from the standard. Given that OSHA did not announce that it lnierdcd to resvlat-e nonasbestiform tremolite* anthophvl1lte and actinclite* the Natiora) Stone Asscciation (and others adversely affected bv the expansion of the resulaiion) should have.the risht to be heart tr OSHA on this matter of major concern and impact to the indistry. Accordingly* the National Stone Associaticn respectfully requests that OSHA rant, relief expec i ti ousIy* ir view of the imeendin July 21* 1966 effective date. Please do net. hesitate to contact me directly if you have anr questions or we can be cf assistance in vour consideration of this resues t. Thank you. Very truly ycurs* Rotert. G. fiartlett* P.E. President National Stone Association RGE/k.e cc* John Martonik* OSHA JUL IS 1986 Dennis M. Race Akin* Gump* Strauss* Haver i Feld 1383 New Hampshire Ave.* N.W. Suite 400 Washinston* D.C*. 20036 Dear Mr. Race* This is in response to yot.r July 14* 1906 letter on bfhalf of R. T. Vanderbilt Co. in which ycu resvrst that OSHA reccnfiter rour request for a stay pi the erovisiens cf the revised stardards eromulsated June 17* 1906 oven in occupational exposure to asbestos* tremolite* anthophvl1ite and actinclite* to the extent the standards resulate occupational exposure tc ron-asbestiform tremolite* anthoehyl1lte and actinolite (51 Fee. Re. 22612 et. ses.l. The revised standards* which amend OSHA's 1972 asbestos standard* 29 CFR 1910.1001 (1965)* are scheduled to take el feet July 21* 1966. For the reasons indicated below* I am srantins a temporary stay of 9 months (until April 21* 19671 of the effective date cf the revised standards irsofar as they apply to occupational exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite* anthoehyl 1 ite and actinolite. This stay is ranted for the pure?? pf reoeenin the record ard institutin supplemental rulemakir limited to the issue of whether non-asbestiform tremolite* anthorhyl)ite and actinolite should continue be be reeulatec in the same .standards and tc the same extent as asbestos* or should te treated in some other way. This stay applies onlv to the application of the rrvised standarcs to non-asbestiform tremolite* anthophvl1itr and actinolite. In all other reseeds* the revised standards will take effect as previously scheduled. It'cheultf be noted that. dunne the pendency of the stay* the erovisions of the 197/ stancard sovernire occupational exposure to asbestos (/V CFR 1910.1001 <19t:5)) % l JI remain in effect with respect to reeulation of ron-aste*tiform tremolite* anthophyl1ite end actinolite. (tee 51 Fee. Re*. at 2732). OSHA is srertins this temporary stay in part to enable the Asency to review a July* 17* 1966 letter from the Director of the National Institute fer Occur atioral SafetY and Health (NIOSH) ard certain related NIOSH staff memcranca which have recently been brousht to its attention* as well *s submissions b* the R.T. Vandertilt Co. and various trade assonatiens concernms We aeeroeriateness of resulatins ron-ashestiterm tremolite* arthoehrllite anc actinolite in the revised asbestos stancards. 06HA believes* as statec in our July 9* 1966 letter* that it provided adequate notice to the put lie that its recent asbestes rulemakins would address whether the Asency should amend the 1972 definition of asbestos* and the eroeer sccee of the revised standards with respect to the three non-asbestiferm minerals. However* OSHA acknowledses that letters and petitions from rulemakins rarticirarts and non-participants hare beer received since the revisec standard's June 17* 196:6 issuance* whict certain additicnal comment* assertions* and information which the rulrmakin* record mav not fullY reflect* and which request an opportunity to submit further information on these questions. To assure Wat these submissiens are fullY considered bv OSHA* to allow eublic censer t on these additional submissions* and to invite additional comment ard evidence on all issues relevant to resulation cf non-asbestiferm tremolite* anthoehrl1ite and actinolite* OSHA will shortly bv Federal Resister notice reopen the rulemakins record on the limited issue cf whether nor-asbestiform tremolite* anthoehYl1ite anc actinolite should contiruc to be reeulated as presenters We same health risk as asbestes* or should be treated in some cWer wav. Sincerely* John A. Pendersrass Assistant Secretary of Lator **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 41 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCRIPT. COMPANY STATUS 1910.1001 and 1926.56 660905 Letter to Peter C. Nash* Esq. Osletree* Deakins* Nash* Smoak and Stewart Current SEP 5 1966 Peter 0. Nash* Ess. Osletree* Dtakiri** Nash* S it. a k a n d S t e w art Suite 230 12oo New Hampshire Avenue Was hins ton* D.C. 20036 N.U. Dear Mr. Nash* This is in response to your July 17 petition on behalf of the Minnesota Minins and Marvfacturins Company (3M) which requested the Occupational Safety ard Health Administration (G6HA) to reconsider ard star the effective cate of the respirator selectior tables in OSHA's revised standard? tor asbestos* tremolite* anthcehyl1ite and actinolite. The revised standards were issued on Jure 17* 1966 <51 Fed. Res. 22612 e<. si-a.) ard will be ccditied at 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 and 1926.56: (1966). It amer ds OSHA's ctrrrnt asbestes standards issued on i972 and codified at 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 (1985). Specifically* 3M has objected to the stancards* provision* requirins respirators used tor prelection asainst asbestos to ce equipped with hish efficiency particulate (HERA) filters* end.disallewin* the use of disposable res* ire tor s (1) . In this resard* c:M requests that both disposable respirators anc re*piratori-with non-HEPA filters be allowed where employees are exposed to asbestos at levels up to ten times the permissible expesure limit (PEL), Your request focuses^ mainly on 3M's coricerr that use of its 6/10 reseiratcr* which is both disposable and non-HLPA* shcvld be permitted.  AUfrfoi iir*furiTTin respirators trHrrM tor employees exposea so airborne aslest-os* tremolite* anthophrl1ite and actinclite up to concentration* of 100.time* the permissible exposure limit (PEL). 3M has y.rted O&HA to limit use of these respirators to corcentrations up to 25 times the PEL. <1) 3m exprtsses doubt ahcut whether both the sencral industry standard anc the corstruction standard prohibit the use of HEPA disposable respirator*. As evidenced by the non-mandatory appendices to both stardardt* all dispcseble respirators are interded to be prohibited. See 51 Fed. Res. 22754* 227fci&. After thorotshlv reviewins rour request* we have decided that reconsideration of the stancards is not warranted* ard thus your request is cemcd. We believe our orisinal decisions were correct and were supported cy substantial eviderce in the record as a whole. Nor has 3Mfs submission of tew* non-reccrd evidence persuaded us that the record should be reopened. Your request for a stay is also denied. Our reason for ttese decisions follow. I. OSHA DOE?- NOT FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO RECONSIDER OR STAY THE RESPIRATOR SELECTION PROVISIONS FOR NEGATIVE PRESSURE RESPIRATORS. The standarcs* reseiratcr selection tables are intendec to assure that worker* exeosec to a ccnfirmed human carcinosen are provided with respirators that will provide optimal protection ever the entire ranse of environmental cofditions likely to be encourtered. The OSH Act directs OsHA to "set the standard wtich most adequately assures* [emphasis aedeb) to the extent feasible* that no employee will surfer material impairment of health or functicnal capacity' and sets as a criterion fer standards "attainment of the hishest desree [emphasis added! of health anc safety protection for the employee." (Section As 3M acknowledses the desree of protection provided by a nesative pressure respirator is a function of both filter efficiency and face fit. For exposure abevr the PEL and up to 10 times the PEL* the stande*'ds require half-ma*k eir-eurifyine respirators equipped with HEPA filtered) because KLPA filters provide sreater ard more reliable prctection to workers than non-Ht.KA filters* assumin* equivalent face fit of the respirator, lrdeed* the superiority of HEPa filters is self-evident. By definition* HEPA filters must be capable of trarpine and retainins at least 99.97 eercert of particles 0.3 microns or larser (See 51 Fed. Res. 22733* 22735 Table 1* 22756* 2z75ts Table 1). In contrast, other filters can be certified by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and.Health (NIOSH) as Ions as they are only 99/. efficient. Thus* ron-HtPA resPirators allow in as much as 30 times as many particles as do hish efficiency filters. See e.s 30 C.F.R. 11.140-4. . <2) OSHA acknowledses ttat positive pressure respirators (PAPR's and air supplied) are inherently more protective thao nesative pressure respirators (51 Fed. Res. 226951 2z?iB-i9>* but usHA has not required them in the standards a* the first line of defense because they are not always feasible. Tteir c.osts mar preclude their use in very low level* Intermittent exposure situations* and* in some situations* air supplied resrirator* have tie potential for danserously restrictins movement (from tansled air lines or bulky air tanks) ard communication (51 Fed. Res. 22719). To account for the occasional unreliability of nesative pressure respirators* PAPR's must be provided ueon request- sc lore as they will provide acequate (51 Fed. Res. 22696). Additionally* the standarcs prohibit the use cf disposable respirators* with or witheut HEPA filters* because disposable respiraters* in seneralt permit sreater taceseal leakase under most conditions of use than half-mask respirators with elastomeric facepieces and replaceable filters* end thus they carnet be relied upon to provide optimal protection. 3M disputes bett $f these findinss* hut we believe there is substantial support in the record for both firdinss* including testimony frem the National Institute for Occupational Safety ard Health (NIOSH)* reseiratcr manufacturers* f' ndeeendent experts* incustrial users wt o must wear respirators. his evidence is buttrrssed by the Asency's collective experience promulsatins and enforcins tealth standarrs. 3H's criticism of OSHA'% analysis of several key studies in the record* combined with its citation of evidence in the record rot cited by 08HA and its introductior of new* non-record evidence (the Shiloh Brake study) does nothins to alter ttese findinss.* A. The Asercy'? conclusion that HEPA filters provide sreater protection asainst astestes than non-NEPA filters is supported by the rec ord. u< Th*r# is o known tkresk old for asbestos-caused cincrr, additionl inhaled fiber increases the risk of disease. EIha re wised standards HEPA filters in negative eressure respirators because HEPA filters provide more reliabl? protection than non-HEPA filters. Tier have hisher filter efficifncy,(by definition* an.approved.HEPA filter will provide 99.9/% filtration efficiency aaainet particles O.d microns in size.) (3) and thus permit fewer asbestos fibers to be inhaled bv a respirator wearer. While some non-HE PA filters (includins Jki's 6710) car provide a hish desree of filter efficiency asainst. asbestos* the evidence in the record clearly demonslrates that* when compared under the same conditions* respirators with HEPA filters* as a class* outperform non-HEPA filter respirators in filter efficiency. (3) 3M appears to concede the "theoretical advantase of HEPA filters" (Petition* p.9 footnote 9) but attempts to minimize the advantase by pointins to face seal leakase that is caused by ecor fittins and poor respirator maintenance. Face seal leakase is a different issue that is separately discussec* infra. As OSHA stated in the preamkles to the standards (51 Fed. Res. 22695* 22716)* the study performed for OSHA bv tie Los Alamcs Scientific Laboratory (LAS!.) (Exs. 04-472* 93-5) demonstrates tk e superior performance of HEPA filters. DOHA had LAsL perform this study because testins of filter media aseinet asbestos had been inadequate.(4) The study ccmrared filter efficiency of one HEPA and four non-HEPA filters urder test conditions that were telieued to be relevant to typical asbestos exposure ard that would measure relative effectiveness under adverse conditions (Ex. 93-5* p.4). The only filter that performed well (less than 0.1% penetration) in all experimental conoitiors was the HEPA filter. (4) 3M cites (Petition* pp.7-8) nine studies to demonstrate that non-HEPA filters arc as efficient asainst asbestos as HEPA filters. Two of these exhibits are net "studies"* the 1973 Selikoff article (Ex. 91-14) rerorts tte results of a previous study core by the .1. DuPont de Nemours Ccmparv (DuPont)* but no data is Presented to permit analysis* and the Japuntich article (Ex. 91-14) is a review article for lay readers or filtration mechanisms. Tke remainins studies have numerous deficiencies. For example* in seme (howie* Ex. 91-14* Johnston* Ex. 91-14* McGill 1971* Ex. 91-14)* tke filter medium was challensed wit) asbestos concentrations huncreds of times hisher than expectec exposurp. This cprdition is irrelevant to a determination of filter efficiency it lew levels because penetration rate is a ft net ion of concer(ration. Hish concentratic ns will qyicklv loac (and clos) tie filter medium* creatins kish efficiency* but also creatins treater breathins resistance that resyljs in moreface seal leakase. In etters (Weeks anc burns* Ex. 64-35%)* efficiency was measured ir mass eenetration* not fiber count* which is not an acequate method for measurins filter efficiercy for asbestos filers (Ore Jasurtich* Ex. 91-14* e.150). In still others (Oardswick* Ex. 91-14* Gerscn* Ex. 90-251)* the testins was not done with asbestes. This is equivalent to an exposure of 0.02 f/cc* which* accordins to OOHA's risk calculations (51 FR %%644)* has cancer risk of approximately 67 per Joy*000 exposed workers over 45 years. A HEPA filter* ty contrast* will allow penetration of only 6000 fibers* equivalert to an exposure cf 0.0006 f/cc cr a 45 year risk of 2 per 100*000. At best* these studies shea* that some ncn-HFPA filters* such as 3M's 0710* demonstrated as muck a? 99% filter efficiency asainst asbestos and other aerosols (e.s. Ckerrie* Ex 101J* He Gill 1971* Ex. 91-14). Sisnificantly however * even this desree of efficiency is net equivalent to the 99.97% efficiency required tor HEPA filters. The difference between the very best non-HEPA filter* assumins 1% penetration* is not "imperceptible" or `minute" as 3k1 aliases (Petition* p.9) in terms cf health risk. One percent, penetration will alio** 20^.000 fibers tc be inhaled in an 6-hour workins day at a concentration of 2 f/cc (10 times the PLL and the upper limit for usins half-mask* air-eurifvine respirators). 3M*s criticism (Petitior* pp.27-33) of GSHA's interpretation and use of this study is neither accurate nor valid. First* 3h states that the exeerimntal corditiors under which the reseiraters were compared (hish humidity and kish ccncentration of oil mist) were "unlikely to be found in any asbestos workplace" (Petition* p.27* see also Ex. 250P* p.9). This is clearly wrons because water is iscd in wettins asbestos materials durirs removal operations* and oil and other mists are not uncommon in mant facturins workplaces where asbestos could be encountered (S-ee testimony cf LAGL ensirerr* Sidney Socerholm* Ph.u.r Ex. 93-5* p.4). because "LASL protection teainsi r*bc*to in *11 situations" (Petition* r.ciO). Asain* there it no relevance to this claim* LASL'* role was to measure and compare respirator filters* not.make resulatory Rudiments. LASL made no recommendations ccncernins which respirators should te allowed or disallowed. Moreover* tie studies cited by 3M also show stme nor-HEPA filters have performed very roorlr allowing as much as 20'/. eeretration. 3M attempts to downplay these poor results by claimine that these inefficient respirators are no lonser marketed (petiticn* r. 32). That arsymert is uneersiasiue. Resardless of their present status the respirators that underiab]y tested eocrly could te Put back on the market at any time. OSHA must address respirators by their class and not on a model by mcdel basis. Since non-HEPA respirators tested poorly as a class* it is justifiable to preclude use of that class. Simi1arly.irrelevant is 3M's criticism (Petition* p.31) that LASL did not test in-use erptectior factors. This study was cesisned to compare filt-pr media* not. protection factors when the respirator is worn. This issue is ditcisseo below with respect to fittins of disposable masks. Fifth* 3M c 1 aims (Petitior* p.31) that OSHA's judsment asainst non-HEPA filters as a class was biased br the poor performance of the American Optical R1050 respirator when in fact this performance was due to measurement errors discovered when the R1050 eerformed poorly in a subsequent- (DuPont) study. The performance of the R1050 plaved a minor role in GSHA's cecieion* and there is no basis for 3H to infer otherwise. Alsc* there is no evicence that the Rl050*s performance in the LASL stuev was in any way related tc the problem encountered in the DuPort study. Finally* cW claims (Petitior* p.31) that the results of the study are misleidins tecause cn)y ore HEPA filter was tested asainst four non-HEPA filters* and had acditional HEPA's been test-ec* some could have performed poorly. There is little merit to this arsument. Almost all HEPA filters are made from an identical slass fiber filter efficiency amons HEPA filters. The same cannot be said of non-HEPA filters* which are made from a sreat variety of materials (Japuniich* pp.s140-141). While, there is no way oi demonstratins how other HEPA filters would have tested ir the LASL. study* based or the data we have* we have seen pocr performance amors some non-HEPA filters* but not amons HEPA's. Additional evidence ir the record supports the standards' requirements for HEPA filters. NlOStt* which tests respirators and certifies that appreved mcdel? meet the criteria established for a particular class of respirator* testified that HEPA filters are necessary tc provide adequate rrotect-ior asainst asbestos (Ex. 124A* Attachment A).(5) Orsarization Resources Counselors* Inc. an industry associat-iorv reccmmends "HEPA filters only*' fer respiratory protection asainst asbestos (Ex. 123A* p.5). Two respirator manufacturers Ciebe North* Inc. (Ex. 90-237)* maker of North and Norton (Ex. 117E) brards* ard American Optical Corporation (Ex. 90-234) assert the suppricrity of HEPA filters. The Irdependent Safety Equipment Association an association of respirator manufacturers which 3M queies (Petition* p. 6) as opeosins a requirement for HEPA filters* ears (Ex. 90-1*2* e.2).that "with respect to the i**ue cf hist efficiency versus non-hish efficiency filters for respirators usee in conjunction with asbestos* IsEA does not currently have sufficient technical data to make a recommenoation or distinction between the two . . . (5) 3M disputes (Petition* er.22-25) OSHA's conclusicn that the NIOtH certificaticn criteria cictate use of HEPA filters. 3M concedes that* under both the old anc revised astest-os standards* its E710 respirator is ineligible tor certitication under subsection (a) of NlOf-H's tilter errti1ication requirements L'.F.R. 11.130(a)). However* 3M arsues that N1G&H previously certified seme non-HEPA filters specifically for ercteptipn asainst asbestos urdfr the old PEL. 3H's reliance cn this claim is misplaced* because it does not address the use of these respirators uncer the new PEL. In addition* even if disposable were previously certified .that acCtjion did not comport with the requirements of subsection (f>(30 C...F.....R.... ........1...30(f)), Specifically* subsection (f) allows for tbe use of "respirators wi th replaceable filters* cesisned *s resrirrai tory rrotectior asainst asbestos-contalnins dust anc mist lb:id. E:y its plain terms* a `..'Jdiisspi osable' resrirator canrot be "res pira tor with a replaceable f11 ter In su the. evidence m fever of HEf'A filters over non-HEPA filters is substantial.Moreover? m the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary? GsHA feels compelled to require the means which erovide the sreatest drsree of prctection? to the extent feasible? when dealins with a known turner carcinosen like asbestos. As former OSHA Assistant Secretary Iir. Merton Corn statrd? "Asbestos is a human carcinosen. We stould lsc those rrotective measures ttat have eroven most effective** (Tr. July 3? p.12? see also N10SH letter to res?irater manufacUrer?? Ex. 124A? Attachment A? and testimony of David Kirby from the University of Alabama? Ex. 93-6? p.15). . . B. .The Asency*s conclusion that disposable respirators with or without HLF'A filters permit treater faceseal leakase than elastomeric facepiece respirators is supported by tke record. In addition to f11 ter efficiency? an important factor in protectins workers is the face fit of a respirator. As several experts testififd? protecticn.from a eood respirator can be easily compromised by excessive face seal leakate due to poo* face fit (see e.t.? Pritchard? f.ix.25t>3? p.5). Deficiencies m eapJover respirator protrams are commor and they too can quickly compromise the protection provided by the respirator (Ex.250E). 3M alleses (Petition? p.18) that the reccrc demonstrates "no s 11 ni f ic ar*i difference" in workplace protection factors(6) provided in asbestos environments between disposable ard elastomeric facepiece respirators. Or the contrary? the evidence in the record stronsly supports OSHA's firdins that? when compared tc elastomeric facepiece respirators? disposable respirators do not provide a reliable face fit durins use. osHA stated its obiecticn? to the use of diseosable respirators in the preamble to the eonetruction standard (L>1 Fed. Res. 22713). We concluded tt at disposable respirators could not be usee because they an? as a class? not equipped with HEPA filters?(7) anc there is no acceptable method for verifyins their fit. OSHA ackrowledses that disposable rrsnratcrs car te aval i tative) y fit tested in a test chamber veins the saccharine aerosol prctocol describee in the appendices to the standarcs (51 Fed. Res. 22743? 22766) but? just as importantly? the record clearly shows t-k at? as a class? disposable respirators do not provide a reliable face fit after iritial fit testins. They can rot te adequately fit checked each time the same or new respirator is dorned<8) and thev are more subject to abuse? misuse? ard desradation of face fit dvrins actual use than elastomeric facepiece respirators. (6) The protection factcr of a resriratcr is a ratio of concentration of the air contaminant cutside the respirator and concentration inside the respirator. It takes into acccunt filter efficiency as well as leakase thrcvfh Ike face seal? cartridse holcers? and exhalation valves. A erotection factor can be determired durins quantitative fit testins (fit factor) or durins actual workplace use (workplace protecticn factor). Accordins to respirator expert John Pritchard (Ex. 250E? p.ID? respirator protection factcrs obtained bv quantitative fit testins shcvld be divided by a safety factor of at least 10 to arcovnt for desradation of face fit durirs use. In its respirator selection tables? C8KA requires respirators that will reliably meet desired erotection factors not only when fit tested but durins all conditions of lsc. (7) While this ohiectior coes not relate to disposable respirators equipped with Hr*-A filters (a small numtrr of disposable respirators? such as 2M's 9940? do have HEPA filters)? the objection to disposable resriraters cn tk e basis of face fit applies. (8) 3M claims (Petition?r.38) that disrcsable respirators can be fit checked? as shown ir nor-record 3H test data submitted af Appendix E to the Wilmes Affidavit. OSHA reviewed this study wker it was submitted as an attachment to 3M's February 10? 1986 request for reconsideration and stay cf the cotton dust standard. OSHA rejected its validity then (Reply to 3M? April 15? 1906? pp.8-9? Secretary of Labor's brief? pp.73-75? U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit)? and will still adhere to our previous evaluation. Tyeic a1 performance of disposable r*firators is exemplified in * laboratory et-vdy br Cowry jt *1. at LASL in 1977 (Ex. 219). This study* conducted on.human test subjects* concluded that-only two of the iix model? of disposable respirators tested provided a protection factor of five to all memtera of the teat panel? that cne model had decreased efficiercy after storase in a humid envirorment? and that wtwoort`, mshodi'fe*tls. faOrilip-e--od---sittci-o---nm- .atointda-iis-n--p--oe--s-r-aoL bt' electrioersril' reavteolsrs throcstout a six-hour in the rulemakins came from ecvernment* irdustry* and independent experts. NlOSH's official position is that it is, not a "prudent occupational health risk" (Tr. ounej e.75*). to use. disposable respirators fer asbestos exposure <nctwithatancins,,their current certification). Opposition also came from the North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Ex. 92-G1* the University of Alabama (Tr. June 20* e.196)* and the U.S. Army (Ex. 90-45). Workers unarimoualy oeprsed use of disposable respirators* contrary to 3M's assertion that workers find them more comfortatle and are therefore more likely to use them. Workers s tated that disposable respirators do not fit well (tr. June 29* p.6 <-- 1) ard failed to provide a scod face seal (Tr. June 29* p.105). Dr. hirer from the United Auto Workers statec that "a field fit check . . . can1t be pf1'3eb1rif.*orarm.e1t7di* ort1'3ji4tth.e pr.2are2r 2* d3u*'spt .m4?as2k7"7?(E3x3, 0 *17I2rA.. p.13). July 3* See pp. also _xs 160- ll 193) . Industrial hysiene expert* were no less oeeosed to disposable respirators. William Ewirs of the Georsia Institute of Technolosv testified that disrcsablr respirators are "not adequate" and should not be permitted (Ex. 124A). Dr. Morton Corn* a former OSHA Assistant Secretary and currently Professor of envircnmental Health Ensireerins at the Schocl of Hrsiene and Public Health at Johns Horkins University* said* "We know that sinsle-use tcisposable3 respirators* currently certified by NIOSM for asbestos* are associated with poor performance" (Tr. July 3* p.ll) ard ". . . of all o* the respirators 1 ceal with* [disposables! seem to t>e the most improperly used in my experience" (Ir. July 3* p. 45). While a number of industry parties advocated the use of disposable respirators (Exs. 84-457* 90-174* 9*-44 241A* 263* 3*8) industry views were civided cn the issue (See e.s. Exs. 123A. Appendix E. p.6* 1238* 25oA* Appendix D? Tr. June 29* p.236). Standard Oil Company of Indiana stated (Ex. 123A* ftpp.D* p.4) that the compary's choice of elastomeric facepiece respirators was based primarily cn the hish assurance ttese sive of a repeatable quality of fit* ard the ease of eerformins the stanrard ecsitive and nesetive pressure fit checks each tine tte device is put on by the employee. Sinsle-use* disposable types were rejected because tf the difficulty in eerformins a positive or resative pressure fit check* and due to the fact that most hrancs are "wearer formed" each time they are used and may thus otfer less assurance of a consistent fit. 3h contends that two studies in the rectrd support its view that disposable respirators previde esuivalrrt. protection tc elastomeric faceriece respirators -* a 1974 study by Hevoir (Ex. 203) concernjnt protection asainst cotton dust and a 198b study by DuFcnt (Ex. 33v>. The ftevoir study should net be siven sreat weisht here. First* it did not compare disposable respirators with elastomeric facepiece respirto^s* it simply measured protection factors obtained from use of three disposable respirators. Seconc* it tested exposure to cotton dust particles not tc asbpstos fibers. Cotton cust particles h$<*e different collection characteristics than do asbestos fibers (see Jaeuntich* Ex. 91-14* pp. 142-143). Use of this_ c__a_t_afor an asbestos determination* tterefore* would resuire extraeolation which could result in uncertainties. F.xtraeol p i on of cottor dust data to environmental asbrstos cordiiiont is unwprranted here siven the availability of sturies seecitic to asbrstos. The Du^ort study compared protection factors obtainec with seven -respirators used in a controlled asbestos removal operation. The study compared three disposable respirators (3h's 710 and_ 9910 and American Optical's (AO) R1050) * a self-cortained breattins apparatus (SODA)* and tkiree elastomeric facepiece respirators* two of which had HEFA* filters. .OvFont reported that all respirators except the A0R1050 save etecticn factors sreater than 10 (at a 95'/. confidence level)* witt the nesetive pressure respirators eerformins better than the SODA. The only statistically sienificant diffffeerrence measurred however was between the 3H 9910 and the AO K1050 (Ex. 339* p.7) OSHA discussed the DuPont studyr in the preamble to the standards and c,,o,,n__c_l_u_d__eadnt Honaeil^utshieues"tu(dbyl wFaesd. Res. 2*717) because it contained unexplained inconsistent findin>ssss and was performed in a carefully cor trolled environment not reepresentative trrical respirator usase (51 Fed. Res. 22696). 3H's a explanation of'the inepfsistpni findins_<F*etition pp.14-16) is merely speculative. There simply.is no scod reason here to five undue weiehl to a study which arrived at the remarkatl* result that the respirators indisputably known to be hishly protective (i.e. the SCBAs) scored lower than ether reariratcre. A more rrcbable explanation can be attributed to flaws in the study itself* such as the use of a ronstandard countina system for fibers* which sives treater variabi1ity in measurement.results. In any event* the study it best only cemonslrates what GbHA concedes -- that is* that 3M's disposable resrira tors ofter perform better than other members of their class* but that the class as a whole* as eviderced by the AC* R1050's performance* carnet provide as reliable protection up to 10 timrs the PEL as elastomeric facepiece respirators with HEPA filters.(9) 3M submittec with its petition a study tf respiratory protection amons brake mechanics (Shilch Brahe stuev) to support its contention that dispofable respirator?- provide adequate protectior. Tnis stuev is not part of the rulemakirs recoro* arid it was not ccnsidered bv OSHA in makins its resulatorv decisions. Our inquiry in evaluatins 3M's reconsiders lion eetiticn is to determine whether usHA's evaluation cf the recorc was correct anc whether our resulatory decisions were surrcrtec ty record evidence. However* we have reviewed the Shilch Brake study and have concluded that because it has serious limitations ard method]osical flaws* it acds little if anr additioral weisht tr 3H's claims. (9) NIOSH tests and certifies respirators by class or type. GSHA's respiratory selection rest,irerents * as a matter of acministrative convenience* conform to the NIOSH classifications. OSHA must be assured* in settirs resulatcry requirements* that all respirators in a class meet performarce specifications. John Pritchard testified that "Isis a matter et cors?rvatism* and of practicality* when a sinsle number has to he assisnt-d to an entire class cf respirators* then it must be assisrec cn the basis of the worst performing facepiece ir that class" (Ex. 250B* p.l('). The major limitatior anc critical flaw is the very limited number of test subjects used to estimate the performance of each model of respirator. The small rumber of subjects used in the study led to major problems with the resultins workplace protection factor (WPF) data. First* the Shiloh sample sets for each respirator could not be representative samples because ttev could not ccntain a representative ranse cf facial characteristics and behavioral factors. Second* tie small sample sire led to a larse statistical uncertainty in the summary results used as the basis fer 3h's conclusion. Because of this uncertainty* the Shiloh data are very "soft" and effectively worthless tor trvins to judse the performance of any individual respirator or for tryins to judse similarities or differences between masks or classes of masks. In addition* there are prchable fundamental errors ir almost all reported WPF data values cue to use of an erroneous limit of detection ter the asbestos analytical method. It appears that almost all of 3*t*s WPF valves shculd be reduced by 63%. The cata analysis in the Shilch Brake stuev failed to correctly analyze the WPf variability for each worker and between workers. considerably more soehisticated statistical analysis would be needed tc craw accurate interpretations from the small amount of available data* if the WPr data values could be corsidered valid* representative* and accurate* which is not the case. Lastly* it appears that unwarranted selective removal of the smallest otseroed MFT observations occurred before tne final WPF aralvsis and resortins of results. II. OSHA DOBS NOT r 1 NO 11 APPROF'kl A'ffc TO RECONSIDER THE RESPIRATOR SELECTION PROVISIONS FOR PAPRS. 3M has petitioned OSHA to reconsider its cecision to permit the use of PAPRS to provide protection up to 20 f/cc or 100 times the PEL. 3M1s view is that PAPR's car be safely used only up to 5 f/cc or 5 iimps the PEL (Petition* p.20* footnote 20* Wilmes affidavit* ^ pp.6-7). Thiis vjew is hasec primarily on a recommenc ation to OSHA bv the Americar Naticnal Stardards Institute's respirator committee concernins OSHA's review cf the seneral rrseiratory erctection standard* 29 CFR 1910.134. The committee's recommencat ion* aceordins to the affidavit* is basec cn its r*"i*"' of several studies apparently rot part of the asbestos rulemakins record. eTr ushstiesisirai-s'RtfiAnu?F* .Rw'*OasSHa Aneorrteoatliedecddrtei.oesrsreimfraacinrtiolydr eootnfaiItlCheOd.uNrilyp3sMfH the astestos recommercation to has raised an issue thatj is aeelicable to all standards for which reseiraterr erotection is required* and we believe it is most appropriate tc address it in the context of our review of 29 CFR 1910.134. We will then stake revisions* as necessary* tc standards that allow PAFR's in concentraticn ue to 100 times the PEL. III. A STAY IS UNWARRANTED For the above reasons* OSHA does not believe reconsideration of any rrovisions cf the respirator selection tables is warrarted. 3H has requested that* in the abserce of a decision to recorsider the disallot'snce of ncn-HEPA cr disposable respirators* OSHA star these provisions eendins jucicia) review. 3M has failed to demonstratr the criteria necessary for a stay. Firtr as exp1 ajned.at lersth jn this letter* the Apency believes that its dcterminatlors rrsaroins respirator selecticn are supported by substantial evidence or the record* and will be upheld bv the count of appeals on review. Hence* 3M is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its action. Secord* 3M has tailed to show irreparable harm. Rather* ^M has presetted only bare ailesations and unsupported speculations about some rrssible economic injury. Third* a star of the Asency's decision tc resuire use of the most efficient filters would disserve the put lie interest by ccntravenins Ccnsress1 mandate that OSHA "assure so far as possible every workins man and woman m the Nation Safe and health til workins conritions. <29 U.S.C. 651(b)) (emphasis supplied). Finally* but importantly* the very parties whom the asbestos standards are in tender to protect -- the employees themselves -believe they would be arversely aftertec hr the stay ycu have requested. The or ions represenlins these employees have intervened in vour court- action anc have ursed both the Asency anc the court of appeals to cany your request. They have indicated their strons support tor OsHA's re^isicn to prohibit the use of disposable nen-HFPA respirators m liei of more protective respirators. The union's position incicates that it woulc tp adversely affected by the srantins of a stay, Paste iron our evaluation of the relevant criteria we believe a stay would be inappropriate. Accordinsly we are denvins y>M*r requests frr reconsideration of the standards respirators provisions ant your request tor a stay. Sincerely* Frank A. White Deputy Assistant Secretary END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 42 STANDARD NUMEER INFORMATION DATE fStOruUifRcCf-Er DruErsCRlFTr `OMRANY TATUS 1910.1001 0607ie Letter to Dennis M. Race Akin* Gimp* Strauss* Haver f. Feld Cirrer t JUL 10 1986 Dennis M. Race Akin* Gump* Strauss* Haver fc Feld 1333 New Hampshire Ave.* N.W. Suite 400 Was hi ns ton* D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Races This is in response to yotr July 14* 19tf6 letter on behalf of R. T. Vanderbilt Co. in e>hich ycu request that Ot-HA reconsider your request for a stay tf the erovisitne of the revised standards eromulsated June 17* 1906 sovernins occ teat i ofial exposure to asbestos* tremolite* anthoebvl1itr and actinolite* to the extent the stancards resulate occupational exposure tc iot-asbestiform tremolite* anthoehvl1ite and actinolite <51 Fed. Res. 2i612 et. sen.). The revised standards* which amend OSHA'e 19/2 asbestos standard* 29 CFR 1910.1001 (1965)* are scheduled to take effect July 21* 1906. ohthr(ont,M A.fu-ijrj967rof ihr#ff?ctK;; utrirthe xzum ' tandards irsofar as they arrly to occupational exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite? antherhyl1ite and actinolite. This star sranted for the eyrrosf rrorrnim. tr r record ard institutins sure1 amenta) rulemakins Jlmi tad to the is sue of whether non-asbestiform tremolite? anther hrll i tt and actinolite should continue to be resulatee in the tame standards and tc the same extent as asbestos? or should te treated in some other way. this star ipplits oftlv to \hr tpflicition 01 the revised stendercs to non-asbestiform tremol i t-e? anthor by) )i te and actinolitc. In all other respects? the revised standards will tare effect as previously scheduled. It shoyld be,noted that durins the eendancy of the star* the provisions cf the 1972 stancard aovernma occupational exposure to asbestos (?9 CFR 1910.1001 (1985)) will.remain in effect with resrect to resolution of ror-ashestiform tremollte? anthorhrlIite and actinolite. (Bee 51 Fee. Res. at ZtLic.-Z) . 08HA is rantins this temror ary stay in rart to enable the Asencv to review a July 17? 1986 letter from the Director of the National Institute for Gccuaatioral Safety and Health (N10SH) ard certain related NlusH staff mrmcranca which have recently been brousht to its attention? as well as submi s si ons concerning the appropriateness of resulat-ins ron-asbestiferm tremolite anthorhvllite anc actinolite in the revised asbestos standards. OSHA believes? as stated in our July 9? 1986 letter? that it rrovided adequate notice to the rut lie that its recent asbestes rulemakins would address whether the Asencv should amend the 1972 definition of asbestos? and the rrorer sccre of the revised standards with resrect to the three non-asbestos minerals, However? OSHA ackrowledses that letters and re tit ions from r ulema): ins r ar tic ir ants ard non-s j.r ir j ant.s ha*r bFer received since the revises standards' June 17? Iv86 issuance? which contain addilicnal comment? assertions? and information on these suestiens. To assure that these submissions are fully consicered by OSHA? ic allow public comment on these additional submissions? end to irvite additional comment and evidence on all issues relevant to regulation of non-astestiform tremolite?? anihorhyl1ite and actinolite? OSHA will shortly dy Federal Resister notice reorsn the rulemakins record on the limited issue of whether non-ashestiform tremolite? anthorhvl1ite and actinolite should continue to be resulatee as ` presentins the same health risk as asbestos? or should be treated in some ether way. Sincerely? John A. Pendersrass Assistant Secretary of Lator July 14? 1986 John A. Pencersrass Assistant Secretary of Later for Occur ational Safety and Health U.S-. Department of Labor Room 6-2;15 200 Constitution Avenue? N.W. Washinston? D.C. 20210 In re: STANDARDS FOP OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASDESlOS IN GENERAL? MARI1IHE AND CONSTROtT1 ON )NbUSTR1ES (OSHA DOCKET NO. H-G33C) REQUEST FOP PECONSIDERATION BY THE R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY? INC. FOR # A STAY PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW Dear Mr. Per de'-sress * The undersisned is in receipt, of your Jtlv 9? 1986 response to our administrative stay request on behalf of the R.T. Varderbilt Company? Inc. ("Vanderbilt"). We are ursine you tc reconsider your denial of our stay resvesi hecausr it is apparent from your letter that you or your staff have made some ircorrect factual assumrticns and apparently have failcc to take into acccunt some relevant evidence. Our rerlv brief and supportive documentation recently filed in the Second Circuit Ccuri of Appeals (which wehave enclcscd for your review and con?jderatior)? address most of the points we wish to call to your attention. Hcwrver? because of the ursenev cf this request to reconsider? we have summarized below certain re leu art information we felt Compelled tc Call t.f vour on rmr So ft Jii i v is ixrrt uestate N"*ew*r;TOT*Kref watnIirfitirt#thMreOeT*es*epratriautemfancinliatuiei^sc flolictat*ed.<. in... A`* * 1 * -`-"-`t are plainly covered by nd it* application to Hort Street in Norwalk? |CSonnneJctKiclu}t.:A!iivtai1rKie*tTy55oifyVEanSd^ertbailttse:mppllonyeSesK? iinic;lTucfin}:e!*l'a,blo"re"rs? engineer*? technicians? ard administrative staff? resvlarlvhandle the talc lor*, after it k a* teen mined? milled and packased for distribution hundreds of mile* away at the Gouverneur Mi ne (which admittedly a* covered_.tr tie resuiremert *et fourth ir last year' Hazard Communication Stancard which will te affected as well bv the new Asbestos Standard. 2. Sufficiency of Evicence. With resard to relevant evidence you note that (1) vanderbi1t tas not presented any additioral new evidence anc (*) the evidence which CiSHA relies uron? while "net conclusive" is "senerallv pcsitive" and "certainly sussestive". Althoush we aedress our fundamental concerns about tke:;.- two statements in detail in our reply b::-t? we now request only that you review the ee memoranda that the undfrsisned obtained on July Ilf 1966 from NIOsH in respcnse to a Freedom cf Information Act Request. As demonstrated by the three attached memoranda (see lab A) hi OSH officials disagree with OSHA's use of their study as justification for inclusion of these three nonasbestiform minerals. In a memorandum rated Jure 25? 1906? the director of NIOBK's Division of Respiratory Disease Stucies states that- "this inclusior of non-ashes t i form tremolite? anthorhy]1ite? and actinolit-e appears to be without scientific justification" <p. 3). John Gambler one of the co-author? cf the orisiral NlOSH studvr notes in a memcrandum dated November *2? 19t-5? that* the TVanderbiltl company may be correct in their contenticn that New York talc is not causally asscciaied with increased risk of luns cancer. Sirce NIOSH authors published these crisinal cenclusionsr NlOSH should correct them if they are incorrect. Before NlOSH makes any conclusions about health risk the mortality study should be updated and analyzed by latency and exposure and controlled for smokins and other exposures. <p. 3). In addition? Dr. Gamble aisr notes that several of OSHA's criticisms of the study by Stills anc Tabershaw? wkich shows no excess risk of respiratory cancers amons New York State talc workers? apply with eaual force to the orisinal NIOSH study. Further? Dr. Gamble notes that OSHA's reliarcs upon He summary of the Kilovuoto study contained ir the crisinal NIOSH report is inapposite as that study dealt with anthoehvl1ite asbestos miners? whose exposures were Quantitatively anc Qualitatively different from those cf New York talc fliiners exposed to rorasbestiform arthoehyl1ite in talc ores. 3. Continuous Resulation. We also dispute OSHA's assertion that the three minerals in Questior are merely aftectec bv chansed nomenclature and will orlv continue to be resulated just as before. For all intents and purposes? there has been no effective resulation of tremolite? anihoehyl 1 i te and actinolit-e by G*HA since 19/2 (and probably prior to that time frame). As you point out? from 1974 until 1977 there *as ro mutation of tremolite. Then? for approximately the next twe years? OSHA was ensased ir a few sporadic administrative acticns inuolvins Vanderlilt's products. From lv7v to present? to our knowledse? there has bean no resulatcry action bv , OSHA involvjns tremolite? anthophvl1ite or actinolite tor Vanderbilt products'-- or for anyone else'* products containins said minerals nationside. To insist that the three minerals have teen resulated is plainly a distortion -- net only on the basis of our firsthand experience? b1 * ?lso as confirmed bv the numerous suppertins affidavits from related irdustrirs which we have attacked under Tab As reflected tv these affidavits? the minine community is outrased bv OSHA's current attempt to resulate as asbestos virtually all products containins mirerals mined if the Northern and Easterr States. On the basis of the "Notice" filed in April 1904? no one coulc have anticipated Hat CiSHA wrvld drop the PEL for the three minerals in Question (resardless of Heir nomenclature) to 0.2 fibers per cubic centimeter anc also iritiate a 0.1 active level. Uncer such levels? literally all minins as ccvered. Obviously? if these interested parties were aware of suck potential ramifications? they would not have waited until now to uoice their Irsitimate concerts. 4. Chemical Identity <"twir*"). Finally? we urse that too consult directly with *'rre*** sible. expert who ha* basic krowledse of the mine^aiesKel .*? >[jce* to review the sc i er tific conclusion* vur staff eroviced.to yco. Ir eiriicular we refer to the conclusion* reached resarcins the chemical equality of certain minerals. We submit that the conclusion are wrons? howruer? even assumins they have some merit? we ask Mat someone recorcile why or the basis of so-called chemical estalitv? OSHA has net expanded its Asbestos Standard to also incli.de the themical twins for the ether asbestos mi neral s chrvs ot J1 e {the r or ashes ti form mineral riebcckite)? ana amosite (the nonasbestiform mineral cumminstonite-srtnerito). . We feel that cn the.basis of these contentions tosether with the additional informatior set forth in our reply brief anc suerortins documents? the immeciate issuance of an acministrative stay eendins judicial review or an amicable resolution of the issues we have raised l* warranted. Ressectfully sutmitted* AKIN? GUMP? STRAUSS HAUER & FELD Dy* Dennis M. Racer F'.C. Attorney for R.T. Vanderbilt Cc.r Inc. cc* Honorable William E. Drockr III Ariorea C. Ctsscn? Ess. Assistant Counsel for Appellate Litisaticn July 9 1984- Dennis M. Race Alin? Gurnet Strauss Hauer fc Feld 1333 New Hampshire Ave.? Suite 400 Washinston? D.C. 20034- N.W. Dear Mr. Race* This is in response to ycir June 20 1986 resuest on behalf of R.T. Vanderbilt Co. for an administrative stay of O^hA's revised standard so'ernins occur atioral exposure to asbestos? tremolit-e? anihopnvl 1 i te and actinolite for construction and seneral industry. The revised standard was issued on Jure 17? 1904- anc published ir the Federal Resister on Ji ne 20? 1906 (51 Fed. Res. 226)2 et. sen.) and will be codified a( 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 (1905). In your letter? you request that Of-HA stay the erovisiors of the revised standarc that resulate occupational exposure to rorasbestiform tremolite? arthoehyl1ite and actinolite? eendins judicial review of ths standard. You haue also filed a motion in (he Urited Stales Court of Apeeals fer the Second Circuit to *.tav these provisions o( the standard eencirs judicial review. We have carefully reviewed your submissions ard have determined? for the reasors set forth below? that a stay is not aerroeriate. The revised standard? like its predecessor? resilates occupational exposure to a variety of raturally occurrins mineral silicates. The previous version c( the standard libelee all covered silicates under the seneric term "asbestos,1 Thus? pricr to the reesnt amendment "asbestos" was defined to lrclude "chrysolite? amosite? crocidilite? tremolite? anlhoahyl1ite and actinolite." 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001(a)(1) (1965). In current miner alesica 1 Ptrlarce? however? the term "asbestos" seneral1y refers to forms of (hese mineral silicates that chvrstailize as fibers. Recosnizin* that some of the covered silicates? i.e.? tremclitf? anthoehvl1i(e? and actinclite? can also appear in (her forms? such as sheet*? in addition to fibers? OS-HA proposed (49 Fed. P*. 14116? A*ril 10? 1904) and premilasted \5i Fed. Rps. 22679? 22733; ar amendment reflectin* these mineralo*ical differences by redifinins the term "asbestos" to induce onlr the asbestiform varieties of these substances. The stancard continues to cover however? the forms tf thesr minerals that are rot asbestiform. While those forms were excluded from the definition cf asbestos? tne standard was redesisnated as arrlyins net only to asbestos? but also to tremolite? actinolite? ard inihoehyl1ite? includirs the nonasbestiform varieties cf these minerals. 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001(b) (19F-4-). This? while the terminolosy he* been chansec? the revised standard reeolates sxeosure to precisely the same sutstances that have been resulaied under the 1972 riancard. *TmPtoekinS'laetIhr^.aemr^fefe'ict*btioverstra5nsitrzimtoecido"cthm}roeemmyoxcfpenetetltoyaeerorttrssac,prleeooraarrcscurtltoeii.ct.nao3.t.e.stteee"tdolri.io.n..ww.Je..mh..ir.t"e.esh.n.a.*.n.-2ath9eoaleCennp.iFtioan.tnRrhtato-.isctbout1oe-9lasnd1trsi0if*ai.e1mr0fm*Io0ttre1ImImr(kb1i)orni afewt(r1i*atot9lh0ne6is), removed from the sreurd ard processed. It bears emrtasis that while the asbestiform and nonaste*tiform varieties can be cistinsyished mi neralos ic al 1 v* they are identical chemically (Tr. 82* 40 Fed. Ret. 47652). Inhalation of asbestos filers has been shown to be associated with a number of disablins and often fatal diseases. These diseases include asbestoses* a nonmalisnant scarrins of the lures which results in a eroeressive loss of eulmorary function? luns cancer mesothelioma* a malienancr cf the limns cf the chest cavity (pleural mesothelioma) or abdomen (peritoneal mesothelioma)? ard other cancers* includins cancer of tte colon* rectim* etorhasus* stomach* larynx* pharynx* buccal (cheek) cavity* kicneys* and ovaries. 48 Fed. Res. 51105 (Nov. 4* 19630 . Your client* R.T. Vanderbilt Company* mines ard distritutes industrial talc* whict* as you explain* is used as ar ineredient l n ceramics* tiles* paints ard other products. Tremolite* a calcium masnesium siliiccat'e* is efter a major component of* incustrial talc. 40 Fed. Res 47652 (Oct. 9* 1975). Since Vanderbilt is ensased in minins * it is resulated urder the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act and not under the Occuratioral Safety ard Health Act. See 30 U.D.C. eoi et. al. seq. Accor_d_irs__lv__* your challenge to OSHA's actions is not based or any allesrc hardship that Vanderbilt will incur as a result of heir? resiirec to comply with OSHA's resulations? rather you allese that the (treat to Vanderbilt's customers ccmplrins with the revised eiandarc* ard tie "itisma" cf association with asbestos* will dissuace (he firm's customer? from buyins its erocuct and result in loss of rales and erofits. In this rererd* we emphasize asain that the revised standard doer not resulatr-anv substarces that were not ereviourlv resulatec. Tremolite was rrsulated urder the old standard* but was specifically labeled as "asbestos" resardless of its minera 1csica 1 form. 1/ the revisec standard merely makes a chanse in terminology* it dees not alter the list of substances ccet-eo. Thus* Vanderbilt's customers have already teen under an oblisation to comply with tte requiremeris of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 (1965)* includins net only the earlier exposure level requirements* but the labelins* medical surveillance* heusekeepins ard recerdkeer irs requiremerts as well. In this respect* we note that the preamble to tte revised standard expressly erouices that the provisions cf the 1972 stancard shall remain in effect if the revised standard is staves (51 Fee. Res. 22732)* as doe$ the standard's text. 29 C.F.R. 1910.1061(o)(1) ard l926.56(o)(l> (1986). Ttus* a stay would not remove tremolite from coverase under the ericr standard* and would net. relieve Vancerbilt's custcmers from their oblisations to comply with the prior version of the standard. Moreover* as explained in tie preamble to the revisec standard* OSHA has examinee the releuart scientific anc medical evicerce* and concluded that continue resulation of renasbestiform tremolite* anthoehvl1 i tc* actinolitp is necessary to adequately protect worker health (51 Fed. Res. 22631* 22679). We adhere to that view* and believe it is well sueecrt-ec by the reccrd. Your stay request asserts that 06HA "did not provide nctice that it was considerins expansion of the as|estcs standard tc include non-ashestiform minerals" (e. 2). (he contention is iraccurat*. First* 06HA did not "expard' the standard to include new minerals. Rather* as explainer abcue* OSHA simply amended the cetimtional section of the standard to reflect current mineralosical terminolosy. tut tie scope of coverase under both tie unrevised and the revised standarc is icertical* and specifically* beth resulate emp loye^exposure to irsmclite* anthop hyl 1 i t e and actirolite fibers (51 Fed. Res. 22631). 1/ As you rotp in your mcmerandum to tie Seconc Circuit (pp. 3-4)* the Asency in 1974 interpreted the stancard tc cover orly fibrous tremolite. The Astncy's position was mrst fully explained in its Field information Mtmorancum ("FJM") #74-92 issued cn November 21* 1974 (Addenrum A)* in which the Aeencv stated that ir erder for a fiber found ir the talc tc le considered "asbestiform cr fibrous*" it must be "5 limes or more lorser than wice." The F1M further stated that the policy was "trmecrarv and TmisltJ chanse as a result of an onsoins (National lrstitute of Occupational Safety ard Health (NlUtH) study on this subject (see 29 U.R.C. 671)." Ibid. Accordinslv* after preliminary fincirs? cf N10SH in 1977 showed tlat workers exposed to tremojytic talc ejed from lurs cancer and other respiratory disease* at sisrificantlr hisher rates tlar normal populations* OSHA revertec to thp 3 to J lensth/widtl ratio. II In r! on to NKi'.K's firdinss* the AssisUnt Secretarr for Occupational Safety ard Health on January 4* 1977 carccled FIM #74-92 expressly nrtino 'that a under QSHA's asbestcs stardard." tr(.eA.md..doeiritd.eim fifbc>e. r is an asbestos fiber We cannot aeree with the assertion that Vanderbilt had no notice or opportunity to comment on OSHA's action. CSHA issuec a notice of proposed rulemakins in Aenl 19fc4 which save notice that the Asencv would consicer whether the cefinition of `'asbestos1' shcyld be amended so that it was mineralosicallY "correct"* and that the AsencY would consider whether the defirition of "asbestos" should be amended so that it was mineralcsically "correct"* and that the AsencY sousht comments rjeardins the tccre of the revised standard <49 Fed. Res. 14121-1412/:). f resvmabJr. as a consequtrce of this nctice* Vanderbilt and other ccmmenters testified and submitted extensile evidence relatine both to the correct mineralosic*1 definitior and to the question of whether resu)ation.of tremoiite and anthceFy11ite should be retained based on the existins health evidence. In reachins our final determination* we reviewed all testimonial and dccumeniary evidence in the rectrd corcernins the health effects of exposure to tremoiite ard anthophvllite. We note ttat althoush yoi allese Vanderbilt tad inadequate notice of OSHA's action* in Your request for a stay* you have not presented any additional relevant evidence. The Asency's determinatior to continue resulatins these nonashestiform fibrous mirerals under tlis standard is supported bv substantial eviderce anc in accord with GSHA's statutory mandate to establish standarcs f*:r tcxic substances that "most adequately assure l 3,.. that- no employee will suffer material imrairmert of health or functional capacity ever if such employee has resular exposure to the hazard dealt with by such standard for the period of his workins life." 29 U.S.C. 655(b) (5). Where the Asencv ptopcscs to amend a longstanding rule and remevr a toxic substance from resulation* it bears a burcen of justification. As applied here* tbe Asencv concluded* anc continues to believe* that the best available evidence does not support reductior in the score of this stancard* because it provides no sufficient basis for findins that such a ccntraction will not result in a sisriticart- risk of material health impairment. 51 Fed. Res. 22679. Resardins tie eviderce of health effects* we note at the outset several factors that you co not dispute, first* it is undisputed that exposure to asbestos fibers causes diseases suck as asbestosis* mesothelioma* and Ions career. Indeed* "GSHA is aware of no instance in which exposure tc a toxic substance has more clearlv demonstrated detrimental effects on burners than has asbestos exposure." 51 Fed. Res. 22615. The need fer resulation to prevent these cesenerative diseases is particularly pressins siven the Ions latency periods between exposure and any actual onset of the disease. Moreover* you do not dispute* and the epidrmiolosical evidence demonstrates* that at least for asbestiform tremoiite* there is a clear association between exrrsure anc disease patterns uriquelv associated with asbestos* inclydinj rletral plaqyejt mesothelioma* abestosi* and funs cancer, lee 51 Fee. Res. 22630-22631? AS Fed. Res. 51117-51120. Nor do you cor test the evidence demonstr a t i ns a causal relatior.snip between exposure te many types of talc anc asbestos-related diseases. See ibid. Rattier* Vanderbilt has posited that the specific talc at its facility has not been eroven to cause an excess cf these diseases (See 51 Fed. Res. 22630-22631). It asserts ttat its talc contains only the nonasbestiform variety of tremoiite* and that variety is safe. 2/ As noted in the ereamble* the studies rrlatins directly to the talc at Vanderbilt's facility are not conclusive with reseect to the facility. They are* however* senerallv positive and certainly supportive ft a health darser. The pp ic emi olosical ftidies bv crown et al fourd that Virdertilt miners had statistically sismficant increases ir ceatls from career and other asbestos-related diseases. 51 Fed. Res. at 22630. Tie study bv Gambif found sisnificantly elevated prevalence of pleural thickcnirs and calcification (conditions particularly associated wit) asbestos exposure) amone Vanderbilt mirers with ro previous work experience and increased prevalences of cotsh* rhlesm production* dyspnea* anc x-ray abnormalities* anc de^reasrc pulmonary function amons all Vanderbilt minprs. Ibid. As the Asencv noted* these studies are not conclusive* because the Vancerbilt miners had senerallv worked at other talc mines in the area as well* arid it is conceivable that the excess risks are attribitable to the otter mines' talc rather than Vanderbilt talc. Id. at 22631. Ihe'evidtrice is certainly svsrestive* hewever. . otitic BIIW lutl 1IIW> VII 1 <. I T VV1H no _ . _____ ______ *i7firnt excess risk* is inconclusive because it studied only a ` irouf of worker? anc because it did no': follow tte workers for k follow-ue eeriod necessary to make an accurate determineticn of risk fcr asbestos-re1.ted diseases (51 Fed. Re. 22691). Morecver* that stycY did find a nonsisnificant increase in mortality from as 1estc-re 1 a ted diseases* althoush the authors opined that this result could reflect a "emokirs effect." Id. at 22630. Several ether authors have also i nvps ti s a i pci mortality and morbidity associated with antioshy)1ite and tremolite exposures. Studies bv Kleinfeld ard Kiviluoto senerally found an excess risk of luns cancer and ether resuratory diseases associated with exposures to these minerals (46 Fed. Res. 51117-51120). .If addition* ar animal study has shown excess risk from a sample of nonashestiform iremolite* althoush otter samples die ret (51 Fed. Res. 22679). We note* however* that the National Institute for Occupational afety and Health fourd that Vanderbilt talc contains the asoestiform variety of tremolite. 51 Fed. Res. 22630. The record evidence simtnarised above plainly justifies the Asency's policy decision tc retain resulation of all fibrous tremolite* actinolite* and ant hophvl1ite* resardless of its mineralosic definition. This choice is particularly appropriate siven that the asbestiform variations cf ttese minerals are chemically identical to the nonasbeti form variation* *nd in Jisht of the fact that the Asencv resvlates the norashpstiform minerals only to the extent they produce fibers. Here* the Asency is add^essins deadly diseases known minerals themselves? then by their chemically identical asbestiform twins. Althoush there.is nc scientific certainty as tc whether nonasbestiform tremolite cusps these diseases* "the Asency is free to use conservative assumptions in error on the side of overprotection rather thar tnderprotection." Industrial Union Dept v. American Pptrolevm Irstitute* 446 U.6. 601* 656 (1960). Here* GiHA has* ir the Supreme Court's admonition and resulated towards sreater worker protection. We remain convinced that* tased upon the best available evidence* cur decision best fulfills OSHA's consressional mandate. 3/ Finally* you have not demonstrated that irreparable harm will result to Vanderbilt if the stancard is not staved. As noted earlier in this letter* Vandertilt itself is not required to comely with the 06HA. refutation. You claim* however* that. Vanderbilt's sales and profits wi 31 fall because its customers will stop usins Vanderbilt's talc because cf their obligations to comely with CtSHA's standard and because of the stisms of teins associated with asbestos. As we have already noted* however* this claim is not persuasive because all fibrous tremolite is already covered uncer the 1972 standard. Therefore* a stay will reitter eliminate the Asencv's resulation of tremolite nor remove the 1stiema" of association with the same standard that resvlates asbestos. 4/ Irdred* the new standard is in some reseects less condvcive to such > stisma* because nonasbesiiform tremolite is no lonser cefired as asbestos. Moreover* your claim of a.potential drop in sales ar profits is not within the Act's "rone of interests'- as te fined tv he courts* and for that reason* too* should not te siven decisive we is hi. 6ee R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. OSKRC* 726 F.2d 615 (6U Cir 1964)* R.T. Vanderbilt Cc. v. G6HRC* 706 F.2d 1170 <11 th C ir J.963)? Fire Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n v. Marshall* 679 F. 2d 679 (/tt Cir. 1962). A delay in tie new standard with its lower exposure limit* misht* or the other hanc* cause some exposed employees their lives. In sum* G6HA adheres to its view that ccntinued resulation of fibrous tremolite* anthoetylJite and actinolite under 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 and 1926.56 is appropriate. Furthermore* w* are rot conuirced that you will suffer irreparable harm as a result of this resulation. 3/ Likewise* we adhere to our view that the proper aspect ratio for detinins a tiber is the 3-tc-l lensth-t>-oi ameter ratic. That ratio is the most commonly used throughout the world and was recommendeo dv most experts aeeearin* in Ue rulemakins rroceedinss (51 Fed. Res. 2^.660-61) . 4/ Furthermore* the materials submitter in support of your stay motion in the 6econo Circuit provide scant support fcr predictins dire consequences to Vardertilt from the new standarc. Those materials irdicate (he firm's share o`f the talc market has been stable since 1976* itwittstandins OCHA's desisnatior cf all forms of tremolite as asbestos order the applicable standard. (Affidavit of Allen Hr"pv* Attachemnt A* Graphs 1 and 11). Compare n. 1* supra reeardine OCHA's enforcement eolicy with rrsrect to tremolite. Accordingy* roor request fcr an administrative stay if denied. Sincerely* tsohsnisAta. nPt eSnececrrsertaasrys of Let for Occueational Safety and Health *END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 43 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DESCPIPI. COMPANY ' STATUS -- 1926.32(f)* 1926.5e 060905 M* me to GILBERT E. SAULTER OsHA Current SEP 5 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR GILBERT J. SAULTER Resicnal Administrator FROM: CHARLES E. ADKINS fictirs Director Health Standards Prosrams THROUGH: JOHN B. MILES* JR. Dir peter Fielc Operations SUBJECT: Astestes Construction Standard a) Ccmeetent Person t> OSHA Reference Method This is in response to yoir memo of July 25 requestir* clarification as to (he minimum qualifications a "competent person* must possess and *>r clarification as to what constitutes a methoc equivalent to tr.e OSHA Reference Method (Appendix A) for asbestos samrlins and analysis. A "competent eerstn* must have academic credentials and/or field experience in asbestos abatement. By virtue of his cr her background* this individual will be capable of identifyins existins asbestos hazards in the wcrkelace and will be a persen who had the authority tc late prompt corrective measures to eliminate them* as specified ir 1926.32(f). Tie "competent, prrson" will te ,,,,,, knowledgeable of the cor tents of the new asbestos stancard (29 CFR 1926.58)* tie identificatior of asbestos and its remcual procedures* and other practices fcr reducing the hazard. This individual must also have attended an EPA-approved trairins course or te State certified ir those States with asbestos abatement certification and t^&inins erosrams. (States wi th c er t. i Tic a t i on and trainins erosrams are Alabama* Alaska* Arkarsas* Illinois* Iowa* Kansas* Maryland* New Jersey* Oklahoma* C*lio Rloce Island* Tennessee and Washinston.) In resard to your seconc question* methods eqtisalent to the OSHA,.,, Ref erenee Method are the N10SH 74w0 method (Revision 42) and the OSHA ID 160 m* the d developed by the OSHA Salt lake City Laberatory. Any othe*' method would have to be evaluated on a c ase-by-case basis bv our 1 a b o r a t c r y. OH:Wain]es:kec:8/27/66 Room N-3<?1 X37111 cc: OH File* Catkirs* Wainless* WPC Ei 1 ee'86-255* Document#0151L July 25* 1966 MEMORANDUM FOR: ATTENTION: THROUGH: SUBJECT: BARRY J. WHITE Actins Director ,, Directcratc of Health Standards Prosrams JOHN MARTONIK JOHN E. MILES. JR. Director Directorate of Field Operations Asbestos Cc nr. true t i on St4ftdard--Comr etent Person siancaro icr tne construction industry. Farasraph ,ZCt$i&il.W (c)(6)(ill requires th? employer to desisnate a ffrion to perform or sueeruis* specific duties. The *ution hA teen raised as to whet the minimum qualifications for a comertent eerson re i.e. a persons whe has comeletsd formal trainins on Asbestos remova)/demolition a person whe has completed in EPA sc hod etc. Pantrirh 29 CFR 1926.58(c) states that. PEL is 0.2 fibsrs per cc. as determined t*y the mettod prescribed in Appendix A or bv An equivalent method. Several questions have been raised oner what GSHA considers on esuivalert Analysis methed to be. Your assistance in resolvins these issues a'ill be appreciated. GILBERT J. SAHLTER fiesional Administrator **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 44 STANDARD NUMBEFt INFORMATION DATE SOURCE HESCRIPT. COMPANY STATUS 1926.56 061007 Le t ter to Helen E. McAllister* M.D. Prince Gecrse's Countv Health Department Current OCT 7 1986 Helen B. McAllister* M.D. Prince Georae's Ccurty Health Department Hospital Drive Cheuerlv* Md. 20785 Dear Dr. McAllister* This is in response to yo.r letter of Arsust 15 ccncernins the use of crushed assresate materials which may ccntain asbestes. As you pointed out* the of aesresatf materials ir road cone truetior can result ir employee exec sure to asbestes. Given the variability of jsbestes c t ncentr a ti on ir these materials* your concert* is tow often* and on what basis* these materials must be sampled and analyze? in order to demonstrate that the concentration of asbestos in these assresates is less than the 0.percent limit which exempts the employer from the retirements resarcins labelins and material safety data sheets. In senersl* it should be rot-ed that is cifficult for the end-use to measure the amount of asbestos present in assresate materials because the asbestos if present* is not homoseneously mixed with the assresate. A safer approach for you is to require the rock quarry to prouide you with an analysis of the asbestos content of the crushed rod assresate. The quarry is in a better position to provide you with this irfcrmalicn since it is aware of the type formation of the rock deposit mined. Your second issue dealt with the appropriate air samelins protocol for monitorins worker expestre and the appropriate method of analysis, You expressed rorcern that many asbestos titers mav be present in the area I a road construction site siuirs rise to false* hisher than expected air sample results. The air samelins protocol appropriate for monitorins worker exposure should be in conformant* with Appendix A to 1926.56. The NI08H 7400 method (revision a c*:ev of which is enclosed* erondes a detailed %ter-hy-etee samelins and analysis procedure that conforms to the element* specified ir Appendix A. Althoush ycu do not haue access to a transmissior electron microscope* it shotlc be noted that a microscoeist* trained if the techniques ot fiber differentiation* can make the cistinctior trtween obvious interferences and asbestos* usins phase contrast microscopy. .. . If you haue additioral questions concernins asbestos samelins and analysis please contact Mr. Dan Crane of the Cccup atior al Safety and Health Admiristraticn*s Salt Lake Citv Laboratory. His phone number is <8011 52c<-52fc7. Sincerely* Charles E. Adkins Ac tin* Director Health Standards Prrarams it -- A 1* * ^ fc I > / te V WV * I I V V f F:oom N3671 xS>lll WW * l\ C W cc * OH Filet C.Ackins? Hairless? UPC File#66-305? Document#0050e Ausust 15 1966 Mr. Perry White Ac tine Pi rector United States Department cf Labor Occur attonal Safety ard Health Administration Health Standards Prcsrams 200 Constitution Avenue? N.U. Room.N-$716 ^ Washinston? D. C. 20210 Dear Mr. White! The Prince Genres'* tcurty Health Department ha* completed a review of the Department of labor? Occupational Safety and Health Administration Final Pules renardint Occupational Exposure to Asbestost Tremoliter Antherhyllite and Actinolite. Baed $n this review* a* well as a lelerhcne conversation on Husust. fc!? lv86 between Mr. Donald A. Nerk. ? of the Division of Air Quality Control and Mr. Ira Wainless of your officer this Department requests clarification of the followins! 1. The Final Rules co not address the use of assresate materials which mav contain trace amounts of asbestos. Given the variability of asbestos conceniraticns of these materials? how often? and on what basis? must the materials be sameled and aralvzed in order to demonstrate that the corcentratior cf asbestos in these assresates is less than the 0.1*/. limit which requires anc use of material safety data s hi sets. 2. In cases where rcac constructicn workers use crushed assresate which cor tains trace amounts of asbestos? what special air serve lira protocols would be appropriate for monitories worker exposure and demonstratins airborne astrstos c one er t r a. t i on* less tt ar the actior level of . 1 f/cc? Giver the fact, that miry non-asbestes fibers may be present in the area of a road corstruction site? false? hush air samle results may be coifmcn. Please ncte that this Derartmert dees rot have access to a Transmission Electron Microscope. A prom*t response from your office is requested as it is important to take appropriate stpps to protect, individuals who may te work-ins with these assresate mate rials. If you have any euestiors? please contact- Mr. Work. at. 794-6600 on extension 310 weekdays between 6t00 a.m. and 4!00 p.m. Sincerely yours? Helen B. McAllister? M.D. Health Officer HEM!crm END Or DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 45 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE DLi-CRlF-T. COMPANY STATUS 1926.56(h)(2)(i) ? 1926.56(h)(2)(iii) 660626 l.rtter to Mr. W, Scot Keyes xA Natioral Asbestos Trainins Institute turrer t AUG 26 1966 Mr. W. Scot Keyes _ National Asbestos Trainins Institute F*. (*. Box 413 West Lons Branch? New Jersey 07764 Dear Mr. Keyes! This is in response to voir letter of July 24? reterrreine a respirator prevision 29 C FR 1926.56(h) (/:) (in) of the row standard for exposure to asbestos? tremolitc? anthorhvllite? anc actinolite in the construction incus try. Specifically? *9 CkR 1926.56(h)(2)ii11) in nn t nY r*fressure respirator specified in Table D-4 wher ever* (A-t fin. IB) Thi BPlOYVC emrloYfe chcote % II reMrtor will to use this Iyp provide irnut e it of respirator! protection to and the You insuirec as to whether the word? "stall provide*" imply that the respirator must be providFo at no cost to the employee. In addition* you wanted to know whetrer* when 4 powered* 4ir purifvins respirator is provided to the employee* the employer could request. 4 deposit to ensure that the respirator is returned when the emplcYee finds other fwf1oyr?nt* The standard stipulattee**.tMt4at resnrirators required fcr pprrootection from exposure to asbestos liters shall be provided 4a1t no cost to the employee (1926.58(h)(2)(1). Due to the unreliebi1itY end phrsiolosical distress associated with resative pressure respirators* OSHA has real*ired em.p--loyers to provider powered* sir Pirifvins (positive pressure) r..e..s...p..i r .a tor5 * a_ t n..o. c__o__s_t_*___to_ _t_h_o_s__e e__mr .1 o..re_e__s . who re__s_u_e_s.t.on? SsOo IJo0nna^ >ast titf Mwiillll prroAvliiidXeet aircaeeaiiusatmte mprroa tte ction at the level of prelection reaiit ed Powered* air-pun fvm? respirators* operated in positive-pressure mode* provace sreater protection to individuals (especially those who cannot obtain a scod face fit on a nesative pressure respirator) and will provide sreater comfcrt when a respirator must te worn for Ions periods of time. OSHA telieves employees will have 4 sreater incentive tc wear respirator? if discomfort is minimized. As with any OsHk reavired safety caiiement* a "ceposit11 cannct be reauested by an employer to ensure that a PAPR is returned at the end of employment. This wcvld redt.ee the incentive of an employee to reauest and use this type of respiratory protection. I hope this irformation will he helpful to you. Sincerely* Parry J. White Ac tins Director Health Standards Prosrams OH s W ain1es s s kec s S/07/86 Room N-3671 x3?lil cc* CCU Fije, OH File* Wtite* Wainless* WPC File#86-240 Bocument#Oi39L July 24* 1986 Occupational Safety ard Health Administration Room N 3718 200 Constitution Auenue* N.W. Washinston* D.C. 20210 ATTN: Parry White Actins Director of Health Standards Dear Mr. White* Recently* a suestior was raised at our institute resardin* an interpretation of a specHic section of tie New t'SHA resuiation* 29 CFR 1926.58. 1 spoke witt Mr. Ira Wainless of the OshA Standards Office* and he sussestec that 1 write directly to yoi. The specific sectior in siestion is on ease 22758* (t) "Respiratory Protection"* (2) "Respirator Selection"* (iii) "The employer shall provide a prwered* air-eurifyins respirator in lieu cf any nesatiue-pressvrp ressirator specified in Table D-4 whenever! (A) An employee chooses to use this tYpe of respirator* and <P) This respirator will provide adrsuate erotectior to the emp1c Yee." The suestiof is this* If ar employer provides (at no cost to the employee)* the minimum resuired respirator protectior (in this case a half-mask* air-purifyins respirator witt a HEPA filter) to an employee* ard the employee permitted to resuire payment for the requested respirator? Do the wordsa "sIKhaal*llleYroiice1*I IimApA ly that the6r.Ar4fKsap<i*ra4ItIoC re f thAe*n m a-usJt be - n The rnnritori ett in th e ir*i of t450 to $500 each. If I "provide *t no cost to.the employee" one unit? am 1 permitted tc request * "dee011t" .tc insure the respirator* returns The dercsit would be returned if end when the employee finds other emrloYmert. An official irterrretatier cn this issue would be sreatly appreciated. Thank you very much fer rcur help in this matter. Very truly yours? NATIONAL ASBESTOS TRAINING INSTITUTE W. Scot Keyes Direc tor WSK/mw **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 46- STANDARU NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE RESCRIPT. STATUS 1926.56(f)(J) 061030 Letter to Mr. Thomas R. Kupferer Currert OCT 30 1986 Mr. Thomas R. Kupferer 2231 Rem:ns ton Drive Harerville? Illinois 60565 Dear Mr. Kupferer* This is in response to yot r letter of October 2 cencernin* resulatory provisions cortained in tie new standarc for exposure to asbestos? tremolite? anther h-rl 1 i te ard actinolite in the construction industry. Your fist area of ccncern was the provision that requires daily monitorins within a requirec area. Ton stated that cor scientious employers will establish a resulated area for every asbestos removal job? resardless of curat-jcn? and that this would result, in a multitude of samples that essentially wculd be meanirsless because employees will be wearies respirators. The intent of 1926.56(f) (J) is to require daily monit-orins only where airborne IsveJs exceed 0.2 fiher/cd. Wien it is necessary to establish a resulated area? as required by the standarc? daily monitorins rot only verifies the adequacy of the respiratory protective cevicrs work* tut serves as a check to ensure that ensineerins controls are furctionins pr<p*rly and the specified work, practice? a* e be ins carried out. It should be noted that where daily woo?toxins reveals that employee exposures (as indicated by statistically reliatle measurements) are below the action level? the employer may discontirue moritorins for those employees whose exposures are represertfd bv those samples. In additicn? daily monitorins is not requirec in a resulated area where all employers are equirre*- with supplier air respiraters operated in the positive p res sure moc e. Your second issue dealt with the establishment of a nesatiue pressure enclosure for asbestos remouelt demolition and renovation operations. The intent cf 1925.58(e) is to require a relative pressure enclosure only where a regulated area is required. Resulated areas are established only where astestos concent rations exceec the permissible exposure limit. The resuiremert for settirs up a nrsative pressure enclosure closelv parallels the Environmer * al Rrotectior* Asency's requirement for proper work area contairmrnt. Without such containment measures? asbestos cortainifs materials would be eisrersed outsice the area and a sisnificart exposure hazard could resilt tor plant or buildins occupants. The-use of relative pressure systems? tosether u'ltn hish efficiency particulate (HERA) filtratior to move air from within the work area to outside the resulated area? will provide added protection. A harmful level of contam-i r ants would net? as a rule? build up in a resulated area? as nesatiue pressure is required durins work activities. ^ erimp ter ot rrjoyi co*cneese.snt-oref.titchnes found PFirmpin cnnouufs at tout comunr in not level. However* there is no mention of sir in the breathin* zcne of employees actually in herformine extent of exposure* remcval work. Deeerdin* on the rature end the requirement for * nesative pressure > enclosure mar net be applicable ir voir case Efforts are currently urdsr way to correct the contradictory statements* such as those hishlishted in your letter* which appear in the Federal Resister notice will be published in the Federal Resister in the near future. I hope this information will be helpful tc you. Sincerely* John A. Pencersrass Assistant Secretary OHtUainles*>ee119/16/861 tecs 10/17/66 Room N?671 x:-!7111 Control *C 36661 Due Date 10/24/S6 ccs CC'U File* OH File* C.Adkins* Fendersrass* F.White* Wainless* Williams* Strctters* WF'C Vi 1 c86-324* Documer t#0059e October 2* 1986 John A. F'encersrass Assistant Secretary of l. at or For uccv*ational Safety ard Health 200 Constitution Ave* N.W. Washinston* D.C. 20210 Dear Hr. f`er dersrass * I am vri+ins to you today* as a fellow professional incustrial hrs?erist* to express mv cotcern for damaso beins dore to our profession by the recently eromulsated USHA standard resulatins asbestos in constructior activities. 1 resard this standard to be so poorly conceived and executed as to be a mejor embarrassment to tnose of us in the profession who now have been hanced the jcb of tryjns to implement it. Mary of the provisions call for mere activity which will contribute nothirs tc worker protection. Others will* in some cases* actually create more serious hazarcs than the standard intends to correct. Dome are actually contradicted within th e resulation itself. All of these cculd have been prevented if GSHA had simply submitted the constructior standard to peer review ir the same manner as they did tke far superior asbestos stardarc for sencral industry. As an example of the previsions which acd nothirs to the worker's protection* 1 call your attention to the section which requires daily monitorm* representative of each worker when a resulated area exist*. 3ir-ce conscienticvs employers wi)j establish a resulated area for every asbestos removal job* whither it will last 5 minutes or 5 months* this will result in a multitude of sameles. These samples will be essentially meaninsiess however* sirce* by the standard* all these workers will be wearins resriraters. It is unnecessary tc do this much momtorins to simely verify the adequacy of our respiratory protection choices. Nevertheless* industrial hvsienists row must insist that our employers and clierts perform samplins which we know is net- jvstiiied* which certainly does nothin* to enhance the imase of our profession as a profession. Instead we just parrot resulatiors* tans rump** anc file away reams of expensive* meaninsless data. An example cf the rcssitly canserous activities prescribed by the standard is its insisterce on buildin* enclosures arcurd remoual operations. My comrary has frequently pcriormed area samples at the perimeter of remoual erprations of various sorts* anc we have never found levels in excess cf the new actior level. In fact* we usually don't find anythin* above background levels. The new standard would appear to now resvire us* ir most cases* to create what amounts to a confined space* with all its hazards* ard require our people to work, within it. This will result in sreater heat stress* ard the possibility of trarrins danverous concertrations of toxic or flammable eases ir their work environment. We will thus increase the risk to the health and safety of these persons in orcer to eliminate a non-existant. exposure hazard to what is senerally uncccueied syrroundinss. It.will also require a let of work just to construct the enclosures* with* all the well documented risks of seneral construction work. t7 As an example of cortracictcrr statements withir the standard* notice that the earseraph cn fit. testine requires that* "The employers shall ensure that the respirator issued to the employee ext it its the least possible facepiece leakase..." The note that Appendix C on fit testine procedures requires that the employee be alleged to choose the most cornerrtatle respirator rasiins a tit test* rot the one rrovidins the best seal. Also note that. Appendix C states that when eerformins fit tests hy tfe irritant smeke protocol tht respirator wearer should be in?true ted to leer his eyes closed curins the test, shortly afterwards it has us instruct him to read the `rainbow rassase." The. above are only a very few examples cf the major problems in this seriously f1 awed stanrard. 1 ask you to carefully review the onerous provisions cf this stancard* drawins on your own consicerable practical experience* ard direct reconsideration to ceveloe a more flexible* performance oriented document. 1 ask this as one individual professional tr another* not. as a rerreser tative of any employer or associaticn. The provisions cf the constrvction standard* as written* skow a serious lack of appreciation for the true score ot the werk it- is written to cover* and fer the nature of the hazards it trips to ccntrol. It will result in a tremendous amount of activity* but little* if any* increase in worker protection. In fact* what, it will serve to do more than anvthins else will be to divert this country's already strained industrial hveiene resources away frern more productive activity where far sreater contributions tc worker health would be made. I have spent- a tremendoi s amount of my time over the last three to four years Irvins where ever I could to ccnlribute semethins to the development of a meaninrtvl and effective asbestos stardard. Upon readins the constructor incust-ry asbestos standard* I feel the effort was totally wasted. Sincerely* Thomas E. Kurferer* CIH END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM A7 STANDARD NUMBER information DATE SOURCE DESCR1RT. COMPANY STATUS 1910.1001 (r) (1) (vii) 1926.56<s) (2MIII) 660S14 Letter to Mr. Robert J. Bettacchi Ccnstruction Products Division Currer t AUG 14 1986 Mr. Robert J. Bettacehi Vice President Cone tr ifc t i on Products Division W. R. Grace & Company 62 Whiitemore Avenue Cambridse* Massachusetts 02140 Dear Mr. Bettacchi* This is in response to rotr letter of Jt ne 22*. seekire interpretation of certain resulatory provisions contained in the stancar-ds for occupational exposure to astestos* tremrlite* antbopryllite and actinolite issued ne 20 <51 FR 22612). Specifically* your concern is that certain provisions of the new stardards may apply to many ac t i < i i i that prse ro asbestos risk tc worker health and that were not intendec tv the Geeirational .Gafetv Halth Administration <U6Hrt) to be covered by the new standards. Your letter raised interpretive issues about three provisions. The first provision states that* "Materials containing astestos* tremolite* anthvrhvlIite* or actinolite shall not be applied by spray methods" <1vlO.1001<r)<1)<vii> and 1926.56<s)(6)<ill)).. As you pointed out* ether eovernmert asencies which how* restricted the . application of asbestos materials bv rrchibitins iprayini that* since the OEHA previsions dc rot contain an exclusion* the uBHA refutation will inappropriately arrlv to a wide* variety of srravec products that contain trace amotnt* of raturally occurring levels cf asbestos whicn you term "de-minimis." ncua _r*eo*nize% tbat some mineral products that are sprayed may rniin *uck *m*ll amount* cf asbestos a* to be considered rift-mi n i mi s' for purposes of administerin* these stardards. Jn certain situations* thereforer OSHA will not enforce tbe provisions a? the stancarbs which rrrhibit the srrayin* of asbestcs-containin* Products. These situatiors will be limited to cases wbere the emeloYer car show ttat the "fiber" concentration of the eroduct is fete than 6.1V. bY weisbt* ie a natural cor t aminant* anc where objective data <as cescriter in 51 FR 22/12) indicate that* under tncreasfble handlin* anc isase* emeloYee exposures will npt exceed he action level of 0.1 1/cc. For rurreses of administerin* the standard* OsHA crmeliancc cfficers will be instructed that* in such situations* they shcvld net issue a citation because of the de-min>mis rature of emrlcyee exposure. Your second area of crncern was whether 1926.58<j)(2) which imposes requirements for cecortamination areas* clean rooms anc showers* applies to all asbestes remrval* demolition and removal operations* or onlv those where airkornr concentrations of asbestos* tremolite* anthophvllite actinolite or a combination of those mirerals exceed or can reascnably be expected to excess tk e PEL prescribed in 1926.58(c). The intent of 1926.58(i)(2) is to require a decontamination area anc the other facilities listed atove only where a resulated area is established. Fes via ted areas arc established onlr where concentrations exceed the PEL. The third issue cited ir Your letter deals with similar provisions in the seneral irdustry and corstruction standards (1910.1001(E) and 1926.58(1)* respectively). As you stated in Your letter* these are housekeeping provisiors which resulate clean-up metheds and waste disposal anc are cf particular concern to you if they *pp1y to activities involving all materials containins anY ameurt of asbestos* however small. The Asencv telieves tkat preper Housekeeping anc cisposal practices are essential parts of any effective astrsto* control prosram. GSmh* however* die not intend its Housekeeping and waste disposal provisions to he required fer de-minimis situations. As explained above* if materials contain only trace ratvral contamirants of asbestos (defined as predicts with less than 0.1*/. astestos by dry weisht)* anc if employers can show* based u*on objective data that employee exposure tc such materials* burins anticipatec usase and handlins* canrot exceed tie action level* then the Hcusekeepins and waste disposal provisions will not be cited. Also* in an earlier letter to OSHA* dated November 14* 1985* concernins the draft reiisec standards* you expressec concern that the scope of the revised standards woulc include non*asbestiform tremolite* anthopbyl1ile anc actinolite. The revisec standards have included these nor-ashestiterm minerals in their scope. You should nct* hoerver that the revised standard orly resulated fibrous forms of these mirerals (define? as havins a 1ersth-to-widih ratio sreater than 3 to J). Furtker* or July 18* 1986* OsHA sranted a temporary nine-month stay of the effective date of the revised standards (until April 21* 1987) irsefar as they apply tc occupational exposure to non-asbestiform tremolite* anthophrllite and actinolite. The purpose of the stay is to allow OSHA to review rewly submitted information and to institute svplemertl rulemakine on wbether these minerals should continue tc ke rest, lated as presentins the same health risk as asbestos. Enclosed is a copy cf OSHA's JuIy 18 letter to counsel for the R. T. Vanderbilt Company whick cescribe? the stay in sreater detail. I hope this irformaticn will be heirful to you. Sincerely* John A. Pendersrass Assistant Secretary QHtWainlejs *Rrc *7/29/861reviac *8/1/66 6/13/86*Rec Room N-3671 x3711 cc* CCU File* OH File* Wtite* Martonik* Wainless* WPC Pile#86-206 Document#0120L BY HAND Mr. John F. Hartorik Deputy Director Health Standards Prtirw Occupational Safety *nd Health Administration Room N-37J6 ZW Constitution Avenue* N.W. Washinston* D.C. 20210 Dear Hr. Hartonik* As you sysscsted in your corversation with our counsel David Evans earlier this week* we have.sent the attached letter to Assistant Secretary Pendersrassseetirs.an intererelation of the Applicability of thf seravins.erohxhxticns in the new asbestos stardards to materials centamins.trace quantities of asbestos, tot will note that our.further review of the new stanrards has revealed a few related issues.that arise because of the standard's failure to define asbestcs-cortainins materials. We hope the Asency is atle to provide suidance that will avoid the inevitable interpretation ard enforcemert difficulties posed by any attempt to apply its previsions to all materials containins any trace asbestos. If Grace can farther supply additional information to aio in this effert* please let me or David knew. Sincerely* Enc1 osure Robert J. Eettacchi cc w/ enc.* David C. Evans* Ess. Fieed* Smith* Shaw & McClay JUL IS 1966 Dennis M. Race Akin* Gump* Strauss* Haver & Feld 1333 New Hampshire Ave. Suite 400 Washinston* D.C. 20036 N.W. Dear Hr. Race* This is in response to your July 14* 1966 letter on behalf of R. T. Vanderbilt Co. in which ycu request that OSHA reconsider your request for a stay ef the provisions of the.revised standards promulgated June 17* 1966 sovermrs occteational exeosure to non-asbestxform tremolite* ant hophyl1iis ane aciinolite <51 Fed. Res. 2262 et. seq.). The revised standares* which amend OSHA's 19/2 asbestos standard* 29 CFR 1910.1001 (1965)* are scheduled to take effect July 21* 1YS6. For the reasons irdicated below* 1 am srartins a temeorary stay of v months (until April 21* 1967) of the effective date cf the revised standards irsofar as they apply to occupational exposure to non-asbestitorm tremolite* anthorhvl1ite and actinolite. This stay is sranted for the purpose ef reopenins the record ard institutins supplemental rulemakins limited to the issue of whether non-ashestiform tremolite* anthorhyl1ite and actxnolite should continue to be resulatee in the same standards and te the same extent as asbestos* rr should he treated in some ether way. This stay applies only to the application of the revised standarc* to non-asbestiform tremolite* anthorhyl)its and actxnolite. In all other respects* the revised standards will take effect as ereviouslv scheduled. It should bs noted that durine the pendency of the stay* the erovisions of the 1972 stardard sovsrnxns occupational exposure to asbestos <29 CFR 1910.1001 (1965)1 will remain in effect with respect to reiulaticn of nor-asbestiform tremolite* anthorhyl1ite and actxnolite. (tee 51 Fee. Res. at 22732). OSHA is srartins this temeorary stay in eart to enable the Asency to review a July 17* 1966 letter from the Director of the National Institute fer t'ce ur a t i or a 1 Safety and Health (NlObH) ard certain related N10SH staff mesirranea which have recently been brousht to its attention* as well as submissions by the R. 'I . Vanderbilt Co. and various trare associations concernins the appropriateness of resulatins non-asbestiferm tremolite* arthoehvl1ite anc actxnolite in kh* ruid asbestos stanrards. ................. (j$HA belie"'*' * *tled in our Jolt 9t 196:6 letter* Uit it Provided 'kda'Mit* notice to the eullic that its recent asbestcs rulemakins would*address whether tie Asencv should imend the 1972 definition of asbestos* ard the eroeer eccTe of the revised standards with resrect 'to the three non-asbestifcrm minerals. Hcwever* OSHA acknowledses that letters end eetiticns from rulemakins rarticjearts and non-earticiearts rave.beer received since the revxsec standards* June 17 1966 issuance* which cor tain additional comment* assertions* and information which tie rulemakins record mav not fully reflect* and which request an opeortinitv to submit further information, on these questions. To assure flat these submissions are fully considered bv OSHA* to allow eublic commert on these adcitional submissions* and to incite additional commert ard evidence on all issues relevant to resulation tf non-asbestiform tremolite* anthoehyllite and actinolite* OSHA will shortly by Federal Resister notice reoeen the rulemakins record on the limited issue of whether nor-asbestiform tremolite* antherhvl1ite anc actinolite slould contirue to be resulated as rresentins tie same health risk as asbestos* or should be treated in some ctler way. Sine erely John A. Peneprsrass Assistant Secretary of l.alor 14 November 1965 EY HAND Mr. Patrick R. Tyson Ac tire Assistant Secretary Occupational Safety ard Health Administration U.S. Der ar tmer> t of Labor 200 Constitution Avenve* N.W. Francis Perkins Elds.* Rm. S 2315 Washinston* D.C. 20210 Dear Mr. Tyson* The Cons f rue ti on Predicts Division of W.R. Grace & Co. las reviewed the draft asbestos constriction standarc rresentre recently to the OSH* Constriction Advisory Committee (CACUSM). Our review reveals that the d**aft woulc require label ins of a vast array cf materials that cor4in re minimis* trace concentrations of asbestos and would thus s i s ni * icanti y cilut.e tie effectiveness of OSHA's asbestos labelins eresram. If tie draft is net amended to set aeeroeriate limits on the labs Jins reevirements so many products will have to be labeled that those products with sisniticant asbestos concentrations will not be clearly icertified and workers will not knew which rrcducts in fact require seecia) handlirs. The ouerlv-comerelensive sccee of the draft standard is particularly troublesomr because OSHA erevided no notice in its asbestos eroeosai of any intertien to sweep products contairins de minimis levels of asbestos into 4 he stardare's labelins requirements. OSHA's eroeosai* 4v Fed. Ps. 14116* 14127 (April 10* 19641* containec ro sussestion that 06HA would require procuct labels ether than as currently erovided when foreseeable use would leao to exposures above the permissible exposure le.el* 29 C.F.R. 1910.1001 (s) (2) *- a situation that would rarelv* if ever* occur in use of eroducts ccntainins trace levels of asbestos. Inoesd* the April 10* 196-4* notice affirmatively stated that "the current standard resuirins labels fer Products containins astestrs and tteir container will continue to apply.14 4v Fed. Res. 14116* 1427. Acccrdintly* it is suite likely that most parties who would bp affeetpd bv the draft standard's labelins requirements are not even aware that the n w asbestos standard could affect tf^m. Cafe's interest in these labelins requirements slews from, its mining of* and manifacture of ercdicts from* uermiculite ore that contains trace levels of asbestiform tremolitr. Asbestiform tremolite is thus found in some Grace erecucts at de minimis levels. Grace studies have found that asbestos exposures in the use of these products is well below the draft's 0.2 tibers/cc permissible exrcsure level (FEl) and 0.1 fibers/cc actior level. For example* recent measurements resulting from use of Mcnckcte* a structural steel fireproofing containins Grace vermicilite* demonstrated exposures below 0.0u5 and 0.007 fibers/cc. Accor*irslv* the rdrrcse of this letter is to set forth explicitly thr problems created by the draft ccns truetion standard and to propose appropriate revisions to that craft to assure tf-at the OvHA labrlins requirements are maninsful ard consistnent with erotecticn of worker hpalth. AKKAT tit- PRODUCTS INTO THE LABELING REQUIREMENTS. ---. -t, .------ . -T- - . r ,------------- `Labels shall be affixed tn all asbestos products and to all container* containing asbestos products* inclidin* waste containers." The term "asbestos products*" however* is rot tefined* thus apparently resuirins labelins no matter tow low the Product's concentration of asbestos. This problem it exacerbated because,the draft does net more specifically define "Aslrstcs* as OSHA had indicatec in its proposal it would more speciffcallY tefine the term* 49 Fed. Res. at 14122* to include only *asbestiform* tremolite* atthoehrllite anc actinolite. As a result* the.draft wovlc apparently require labelirs of all products. cortamins asbestos -* whether or not asbestiform -- at any level. The draft labelins ertvisiors fail to recesnize the ubiquity of natura1lY-orcurrirs asbestos. irace quantities of asbestos are found in a wide variety of mirerals. As minera 1 osists have Ions recosnized* beth serrentire rod* which usually contairs some proportion of chryjotile (asbestiform serpentine) anc amehibole minerals (e.s. asbestiforni tremolitc* crocidolite* cr amosite) occur very widely in sedimentary* isneous and metamcrehic rock formations throughout the world. Such occurrences are typically rich enoush to be mined for asbestos rrocuctieri in only a few areas* tut levels are found widely in many mineral formation. 1/ As University of Maryland Professor of Geolosy Dr. Anr Wylie testified at the OSHA hearinss (Ex. at **. 3* 9)i 'Approximately thirty percert of the rocks found in the continental United state; certain amrhitoles as major constituents ... T13t would he practically impossible to produce a commercial prcduct from rtek which occurs in a metar:-hie terrain which did net contain tiny qua 'ties of such fibers." 2/ Any preduc formed from such minerals will thus contain asbestos* althoush normally orlY at trace levels. Indeed* liven the ubiquity of asbestos fibars in natiral1y-occurrirs water* any product manuiacturec with water (a vast array of products) will* if properly analyzed* reveal the presence of asbrsirs. Althoush nene of these products post the potential to cause exposures anywhere near the OSHA acticr level of 0.1 fibers/ce* the draft standard wovlc apparently require asbestos labelirs. Were 09HA nrt to revise tie draft standard* a sreat potential exists for vast astestos over-1 at11 ins. It is quite likely that almost any product on a construction sitp would have to be labelec. Were such a result to occur* the labels would lose all utility ir informins workers of products that in fact require special handins to prevent exposures at cue the CjSHA astestos PEL. 1/ See* Zvssman* J. "The Mineralosy of Asbestos*" V'ol. 1* Ch. 2 of A;bstcs? Prcperties* Applications arid Hazard* L. Michaels and 3. t-. Chissick (Eds.) at 5t-E7 (1979). 2/ See also* Natioral Bureau of Standards Publicaticn 5u6 Proceedings of the Workjrtf on Ashe?tos .Definition ard Measurement Methods (6aithersbyrs HD* Jliy 1&-2u 197/1* M, Ross* 'The 'Asbestos* Minerals* fie fi ni 11 on? * Description* Modes of kormatior* Physical and Chemical Properties* anc Health Risk to tfe Minins Ccmmunity*" at 51* notins that if "asbestos" ircludes the ron-fibrous ferms of amehiboles* Many iron formations and copper deposits wculd be "asbestes* tearins* inclvdins deposits in the fclarsest open-pit minp in the world at Bintham* Utah. "AbPslo" resuletions would thus pertain t>: many ol our country*; minirs operations* ircludirs mict tf the con;truction industry* and its quarryins operations for concrete assresate* dimension stone* road metal* railroad ballast* riprap and the like. The "asbestos" resulations wculd a Isc prrtair to the ceramic* paint* and cement incurtrips* and to many,other areas of erdeavor where silicate minerals are used. II. OSHA PHnili fi REVISE Inappropriate ,, K*ffmttVUCZ-............ ,,PROLMX. T .AND ESTABLISH REASONABLE LABELING REQUIREMENTS. tsbeslos*'I'rclud? an appropriate definition of asbestos eroduct* and ' ld<v#t i rtiiontblt label iri. trisser to assure that orlr products that tost \i\r eotertial for meaningful asbestos exposures are included. *A< OSHA initially,ererosec* it should acopt a definition of asbestos conistent with mineralctr and other Feceral statutes. The terms chrvsotile* crocidolite ard amosite* bv definition* mean the asbetiform forms of these minerals* the minerals tremcliter anthophrl1ito and actinclite should be preceded br the term "ashestiform" as these mirerals occur ir both asbestiferm and non-asbestiform forms. As OSHA has ereviously recosrized* 49 Fed. ?e. at 14122* this is the eefinjtion of asbestos currently employed y HSHA* the CPSC* the Departments of Education and Transeortation and EPA. 3/ Second* a definitior cf "astestos product" should be included in the standard. Ashestos-containine products are currently cefined by EPA in resulations under both the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act to include rnly products with more than 1a asbestos bv weisht. 40 C.F.R. 61.2:2? 763.103(c)* 763(b). CF'SC has achieved a similar resi.lt by resvlatins only products with "intentionally added" asbestos. See 42 Fed. Pee. 63354. 63357 (Dec. 15* 1977). Each of these resulatory defiritiens recosniizes ttat it is essential that some reasonable lowsr limit be placed or product asbestos coneentraticns so that resulatory coverase is not overly-exeensiue. 4/ (h)l 16 C.F.R. 1304.3(b)? 34 C.F.R ?330.4(b)? 49 C.F.R. 1/3.1090(a)* ard 40 C.F.R. 763.63(a)* 763 103tb). 4/ The OsMA Hazards Communications Rule similarly euts a limit on product labelins by requirirs hazard lahelins for erebvet mixture only it they contain hazardous constituents at more than 1*A bv weisht (0.1*/- if the hazardous corstituent is krown to be a carcinosen). 29 C.F.R. 1910.1 20u> (d. (b) (i i) . Third* labelins shovlo rot te required if foreseeable airborne releases are less than the action level. Otherwise* siuen the ubiquitous rature of asbestes* the rrorcsed standard may require every manufacturer of every constructor product to latel its products. The draft erorcsal is internally inconsistent bv requirins labelins of all products which contain any ameunt of asbestos* while only requirins warnins sisns under (k)(l) (at p. 21) when airborne concentrations of asbestos fiber may be in excess of the permissible exposure limit. In summary* we sussest the followins mocifications to the draft standard: (a) the word asbestitorm should be used ir the definition of asbestos* (b) the te*-m "asbestos rrocuct" should te defined by settins a dry weisht volume lower limit* and (c) the standard should require eroovet labels only where foreseeable airborre releases are equal to or sreater than the action level. With these revisions* the standard would proeerlv fccus workplace ccncern on those products with any potential for causins sisnifiont worker exposures. Such revisions would also eliminate the impossible enforcement difficulties in tie currert draft by rrovidins suidarce as to whicn product are ir fact ot corcern. Crace urses OSHA to consioer ihpse issues carefully tefore issuins a final standarr. We appreciate this opportunity to ccmmeni on the draft standaro and would te slad to rrovice further information to OSHA and to meet with you or your staff as appropriate. Sincerely Robert J. Bettac-chi cci Dr. fidward J. Baier John Hartonik Robert F`. Bedell Scott Jacobs Office of Harasemert ard Subset Da i d t. E v a r * Esq. Reed* Smith* St aw fc htcCl ay Edward W. Warren* P.C.* Ess. K i r k 1 a r d t. Ellis END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 48 STANDARD NUMBER SOURCE DESCRIPT. COMPANY STATUS 1926.58(hh (4)* 1926.58(e)(6)(iii) Letter to Mr. Jamie T. Hemes Mechanical Asbestos Removal* Inc. Curr er t Mr. Jamie T. Heme* Health and Safety Director Mechanical Asteslos Rsmcval* Inc. P. 0. Box 1043 Hunt Valiev* Maryland 21030 Dear Mr. Hemesi This is.in response to your letter of Ausust 14 and 25* reqvestins clarificatirn or certair resulatory erovisions contained in the new standard for exposure tr asbestos* tremclite* anthophy11ite and actinolite in the ccnstruction industry. Your first question concerned the fit testins provisiors found in 1926.56(h) (4). It should be noted that fit tests are resuired for all nesatiue pressure respirators* both half-mas), anc full-face tyres. Half-mast respirators can be fit tested usins either quantitative or qualitative fit testins procedures. Orly quantitative fit testins is permitted fer full-face masks. Fit testins for half and full-face positive pressure* powered air-purifyirs respirators is not required. Your second questior corcerred OCHA's samelins and aralytical procedures contained in Appendix A. The intent of the standard is to require the use of analytical laboratories that analyze asbestos samples usir* the OCHA Reference Method or an equivalert method (i.p.* NJOChi 7400 method* revision #2* OcHA ID 160 method developed by OCHA Salt. Lake City Lahoratoryl. Bamrlin* for asbestos can be conducted bv any person/orsanization follomins the OSHA Reference Method or equivalent- me the d. Finally* yotr Ausust 25 letter reqvestec c1arificaticn as to whether a state certified asbestos trainine course could satisfy the requirement for an EPA equivalent course. The "competent person" as referred to in 1926.58(e>(61(iii) must have attended ar EPA-approved trainins course or he State certified ir those States with asbestos abatement certification ard trainins rresrams are Alabama* Alaska* Arkansas* Illinois* Irma* Kansas* Maryland* New Jersey* Oklahoma* Ohio* Rhode Island* Tenressee and Washiftton). I hope this information will be helpful to you. Sincerely* E. Adkins Diret tor Health Stancard Prosrams Ausust *25* 1986 Mr. Ira Hairless U.S. Department of Lator/OSHA Director f Health* Standards Presram Room N-3718 200 Constitution Avenue* N.W. Uashinston* D.C. 20210 Dear Mr. Wainlesst In retard to our phone ccnvereation of Ausust 25* 1986* it if m* under*tandins that a mure definitive interpretation tcft 1926.56* 5Sei c (e)(6)(iii) is presently teins eitected by your office and that a state certified ashestof trainins course will adequately satisfy the requirement for an E.P.A. equivalent course. Respectfully* Jamje T. Hpwes Health t Safety Director JTH/sa cc* Richarc Clarke Richer* Ehrlich UpAlri'fhlSipfaltr*tmIetniHoefil Labor/OGHA th Stardards Proine i20$"ron?tifutipri Avenue H.W. Uishinstcn* Dt 20210 Deir Hr. Wainless* In confirmation of tor rhcnr conversalicn dated 08-13-86 it if my understandins that the follcwins interpretations of 1926.56 ire true and correct. 1. Sec. <h> <ii) A. Fit tests ire only required for half face nesitive pressure respirators. Either qualitative or quantltatxue eiethods mar tr used. B. Fit bestirs fcr foil face nesatioe pressure respirators is not required* however* if desired cnly quantitative mettods will te accepted. C. Fit testirs for half and full face positiue pressure* powered* powered air purifvins respirators is not requir ec. 2. Appendix A. to 1926.58 (O.R.M.l* (1st parasraph) A. The present verbiase is not meant to imply that all Rmrlins for asbestos fibers/fibers be corducted by an analytical laboratory* merely that those laboratories analyzing such samples use the O.R.M. Mv thanks aain fcr your invaluable assistance. 1926.58 will* I'm sure* be sreat a born tc the abatement industry. Respectfully* James T. Hewes Health and Safety Director df cc> Richarc A.-Clark Rjcharc Ehrlich **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 49 STANDARD NUMBER INFORMATION DATE SOURCE I'L'SCRIRT. COMPANY STATUS 1926.58(tl(6) 1926.58(j 1 (21* 1926.58(e) 861016 Letter to Mr. Daniel E. Hoffman National Steel Corporation Current OCT 10 1986 Mr. Daniel E. Hoffman Granite City Division National Steel Cor p ora tion 20th i State Streets Granite City* Illinois 62040 Dear Hr.' Hoffman* This is jw response tc rot r letter of Atsust 28 to Ira Wainless seekins interpretation cf certain resulatory provisions contained in the new stardard for exposure to ashestrs* tremolite arthophvl1ite and actinolite in the construction industry. Your first area of concerr was whether 1926.58(e)(61 * which imposes requirements for negative eressure enclosures and the cesisnation of a "competent person*" ard 1926.5801(2)* which requires the establishmert of a decontamination area* apply to all asbestos removal* demoliticn* anr rerovation operations* or rlr those where airborne c or central iors of asbestos exceec or can reascnably be expected to exceed* tie PEL of 0.2 f/cc. The intent of 1926.58(e) is to require a relative pressure enclosure and "competent person" only where a resulated area is established. Similarly* 1926.56 (j)(2) requires the establishment cf a decontamination area when a resulated area is required. Rp*ulatec areas, are established orly where concentrations exceed it e f`EL. It Your second issue dealt wiitthe type 4' operations that could qualify 4or exemption from the requirements or earasraeh (e)(6). It should be ncted that any eeeration can qualify for exemption provided airborne levels of asbestcs are kept at or below 0.2 f/cc. This can best be acccmelislec ty means of ensineerins controls ised in conjunction with appropriate work practices since these two methods? when used either sir sly or in combination can be employed effectively tc reduce asbestos exposures to below 0.2 f/cc. The exemption from parasraeh (f)(6)? therefore? does not depend on the lersth of time it takes to complete a job or the masnitude cf the job. Your interest in occupaticnal health is appreciated. Sincerely? Charles E. Adkins ectirs Director ealth Stancards Pros rams OH: Wa i nl es s : ac *9/30/C6*kec Room N3:671 x:7111 ccJ OH File? Wairless? Atkins? WPC? File#66"298? Document#0060a 1 1 V 4 9W v # >v * / WW ' Hr. Ira Warinsles? Industrial HY*x*nist * U.S. Deet. of Labor/OSHA Health Standard* Branch Room N-3178 , ,, 200 Cons titttion Avenue N.W Washinston* D.C. 20210 A Dear Hr. Weyinslsss* Thank you fcr rour prompt. response to siestions I recertlr rosed to you bY telephone resardins the n?w OSHA Asbestos Stardards Published June 20* 196 in the Federal Resister. I am writins in restest- of written confirmation of OsHA's position Eoncernins several cf the issues we discussed bY telephone. pecificallY* if a comranr such as ours is ensased ir a project involvins the removal of astesto* insulation from duct work or pipins* etc. at one of cur facilities* would we be restired to meet the resuiremrr is of 29 CFR* Section 1926.58(e)(6) resardless of the employee astestos exposvre leve1sV Hr inderstandin* from rour verbal response is that Sectior 1926.56(e)(6)* "Reeulated areas"* only applies to situations in which the P.E.L. of 0.2 f/cc is exceeded. That is* if the.use of wet methods or other methods are utilized and are successful in mairtainrs exposures at or below 0.2 f/cc then nesative pressure erclosures* hvsiene facilities (decortamination rooms) and the use cf "competent persons" (as definec in the standard) are not resuirec. We feel this is an important point and is in need cf clarificaticn. Also* please provide clarification as tc what tYpe of cperations would sualifY for the exception provisions contained ir Section 1926.58(e)(6)(IV). Mr recollection is that rou indicated that for jobs which are relatively short duratior* i.e. eisht hours or less* the exception would apply. Please respond at ycur earliest rossible convenience. Very truly yovrs* Daniel E. Hcffman Hanaser* Environmental Health PEH/01.44* sc **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** ITEM 50 STANDARD NUMBER 1910.1001 (i > (4) (ii) * (j > (2) and 861016 Letter to Mr. Peter T. Barnes Earmir Inc. Ctrrent (j)<3> Mr. Peter T. Barnes Water down* Onteric LOR 2H0 Canada ue rtt Ptr lit*1 This J* in response to yotr letter of Aunt n, conccrnim those sortic-ns of.the recent!y ercmylsatcd Occupational Safety end Health Administratjor (OS-HA) stardards on asbestos that pertain to nonasbestifcrm tremdite* arthophvl1ite ard actinolite. Please be advised that a temporary* nine-month stay cf .the effective date of the asbestos standards has been sranted insofar as the tandards apply tc ron-astestiform tremdite* anthophvl1ite and actinolite in order to recren our recorc for further discussion of whether the*e substances sheyld be included as eart cf the new asbestos standards, fcnc1cscd for your attention is a cosy of my July 18 letter tc the law firm of Akin* Sump* Strauss* Hater and Feld* which.represents R. T. Vardsrbilt Compary* informins it of our. . decision to reoeer the record. In the app lemental rulemakms* you will haue an oeecrtunity to submit comments and eyiderce relatins tc the feasibility of the standard in the Uni ted. 81 a te s with respect to the three non-asbes11form.minera 1s. Separate Federal Resister nctices announcins the issuance of the stay and the sueelemertal rulemakins proceedins will be publistec shortly. In addition to the above* ycu raised a second issue corcernins the labelins provision cf 1910.1001(j)(4)<ii) wnich states that the provisions of rarasraphs <j)(2) and do not apply where "asbestos* tremolite* antiophyl1ite* actinolite* or a combination of these minerals is rresert- ir a product in concentration s less tnan 0.1*4." The 0.1% fisure mears 0.1 percent measured as a dry weisht. Your interrst in occueaticnal health anc this rulemakirs is ae p reciated. Sincerely* John A. Pendersrass Assistant Secretary Enc1osure OH:U ain1e s s:e:9/17/86 Room NS671 >:S7 111 Control:C 38729 Due Date 9/12/et cc* CCU File* OH File* C.Adkins* Wainless* Williams* Strothers* WPC Fi1e*06-295* Document#8S45e Ausust 11* 1986 Mr. John A. Pendersrass Assistant Secretary of Lafcoir OSHA National Office Occupational Safety & Healtl Administration 200 Constitution Av?oue N.W. Washinston* D.C. 20/10 Dear Mr. F'er der*rass s We write to ycu as a corcerred supplier to many U.S. customers. We are concerned by the rew resulation of the non asbestiform varieties of tremolite* anthophvl1itc and actinolite. The new resddion treats these varieties as asbestos which they are clearly not. The resdatior has been tishtened from 2 fibers/cc down to .2 fibers/cc. Vcv haue perhaps* unkrowinslv* induced many miner a 1 s operation? which will tall under resulations where there is more than .1 aciinolite* tremolite* ant 1 ophy) 11te in the mineral, k? speah frolh detailed irtermation on a number of deposits in thf norlheasterr U.S.A. of colomiie* calcite* and other incustrial , A minerals suprlyins the corstruction* tiller* and industrial markets. This new resulation came as a total surprise. We* ard our customers in the U.S.* feel flat we haue been blind sided bv it. Prior to a resulation of this kind brirs rut in place* are there epen forums available tc explore tow to resulate incustrv whereby all interested parties could be informed ard asked for representative? 1. Was incustry irfcrmec cf this new resulation? In 1972* when OSHA's resulation No. 29CFR 1910.1001 on Asbestos rame out* it listec tremolite* anUophvllite anc actinolite with asbrstes. At (hat time* there was no jndicatior cf anv intentior to resulate the non-asbr*tiform varieties. -o *33813 JrtO 0> A)tU0}J0330 U* >0 pa<\IJ43f> U33q 3rt*4 8A } 8 .| * *5J3U0>lV> J(10 pui S8AT83JT0 JOJ. *8838 t )Ut t88> 318 iJ0J8Jjqi 'P4}I(I1UJ Sq 0% tutot IJiM 38V*3CJtA <8 JO f X \ 8 8 q * uo i >i^v uotqticput OU P4 8M <^36t i U0 P 88 0 40 J 3 9% 8U3{>Vtnt8J ZLH\ 8'n WOjj uot|tut>ap 4 Ut 3tU?q3 3qi Jkq 08 Op OV 8Ut08 >3U 8VA >t qq* UOI8 8 j 4ii t 8^8 8rttt >3t> It <put SaiWtJtA til J 0.111 5 8 q 51 UOU 84* 8}tint3J >0J 3tJ yHSO *U)C}tUt>8p quajjns aq* ut a}t{out}3 8> t \ (.1430 fi jt tlttioma.i} iiinou aq> lo >uojf jt Huuo>i>83qs,, aotjoarp* 84* tutpj* uoticut>ap 84q Ut 88 tUt 43 P0q83t3t>u JOJlilt out 3JpUq$ 8343qiW yu$Q aqq oq patoaoja ^uauipuaut*'u 44*0l u0 In Canada* we art resulated br tht Ortario Ministry of Labour ~ ho hate wade it a practice in the east to follcw fairly closely the tyre* of lesislaticns*.especially on minerals* that come from Washinstor. We make it a practice to comment on United States rolinn because they have direct influence on our rulinss. -- CjQ 2. Is there conclusive evidence that the non asbestiform varieties of tremolite* antherty11ite and actinolite are irdeed a health hazard? The lesislation will irclude the whole of the United States industrial minerals ard, minins sectors* and we are not sure that is what was interded. we have not seen any evicerce that prismatic tremclite* arthophvl1ite and actinolite are a health hazard. As a supplier we would be most interestec in any m evidence which wruld make us aware of any such health hazard. 3. If the minerals mentiored in 2 abeve are cf corcern* do they warrant the severity of resulation--i.e. a maximum of .2 fiber/cc--which is almrst the same as asbestos maximum exposure 1imit? The nor-asbestiferm tremolite* anttophyl1ite* and actinolite ar# common minerals founc in most minins districts in Ontario* Quebec* and the eastern U.S. seaboarc. We canrot understard hew the requirement was established whereby these ror-asbestiform minerals fall tnder the asbestos regulation. We car vnderstand that asbestos must be controlled* but these are ror-astestifera minerals. Jn discussion with experts in our Ministry of Ncrthern evelopment & Mines (formerly* Ministry of Natural Resources)* it was felt that GSHA's regulation wruld cause uncue hardship on the whole minirs ard lrdustrial mireral user incustries. We are a part, of it and reatorably knowlecseable but many are not* particularly the customers--!.e. practically every manufacturins operation that exists. 4. If you are tryins to ccntrol the nrn-asbestiform minerals which have asbestiform varieties* why would Cummins torite-sunerite* Riebeckite and Serpertine have beer emitted from your regulation? Shoulcn't you. in fact* have a mineral policy coverirs each mireral separately or at least sreured together as 3 osically as possible? In any case* all the nor asbestiform minerals would lrsically be coverec together. This would seem to be v more losical* scientific way of coverins the subject lesislation. Has any work been dore in conjuncticn with mineralogists of tre Bureau of Mines* United States Department of the Interior? 5. Does GSHA really intenc to enforce this resulatior commencins July Zip l?St as outlired? Are any delays possible so all concerned may at least understand the rulins which is still somewhat confusirs? Tte timins on this resulatior and its enforcement is totally unexpected. 6. W*e do rot appreciate tte fact that you separatee the asbestos and non-asbestiform minerals as they should have teen* according to the U.S. Bureau of Mines definitions. 7. Was GSHA aware that this lesislation covers almest any minins of minerals in the easterr U.S. whether it be hard reck minins for metallics or industrial minerals. Practically every industry usins mined products ir the easterr U.S. is effected. Apparertlv* these three minerals are found in talc* limestone* marble* sranite* ard tra* rock mined in the eastern North American sector. Euen thoush the amount found in these deposits mar be neslisibje* they are coverec t*r tte asbestes exposure, limitation of .2 fiters/cc and action must be taken by suppliers tnd users at. tte .1 fiters/cc or .1/. of the subject minerals in he prcduct used depencins on how you road the cefimtion. We feel careful examination of the implications of the lesislation with tie American Minirs Consress is in order. The resulations will cause severe limitations erd increase costs for hardliner transredition* and storase of assresatesr crushed stones* sranites* marbles* travels* ceramics* paid* elastics* rubber? parer* etc. Jest in the eastern half of the U.S. we would expect that this resulation will seriously effect billions of dollars in trade. Value cf minerals prediction in Eastern Carada & U.S.i Metals Industrial Minins Minerals Ontario Quebec Mari times United States *2.7 billion 1.1 billion 1.0 bill ion 2 .9 billion *.8 billion .7 billion billion 5.3 billion * We estimate the new lesislation will have a serious impact on this one third of the total U.S. production. 8. We are concerned about the definitions in the lesislation. "Asbestos" is defirec to include "tremolite asbestos" as noted under refinitiens. Tremolitet ant 1 ophvllite ard actinolite are treatec as separate mirerals* thus* wherever the work "asbestos" is user* include tremolite asbestos. Wherever the word "tremolite" (actinolite* antherhvllite also) is used consider tremolite--which may or may not be asbestos* thus* any tremolite fiber <e.s. treater than 5 m>crometc*s and with a 3*1 or treater aspect ratio) is induced in the werds* "asbestos1 and "tremolite". All of Up crncentraticn levels include 'asbestos* tremolite* anthorhyl1ite* actinolite or a combination of these minerals". These resulations refer to any kind cl tremolite. There are some apparent ambiguities which misht be important to clarify. Generally* Ue vinous resulations for various activities specify "tremolite* etc. fibers" (e.s. Table 1). Thus* fibers of 5 micrometers with a 3d or sreater aspect ratio would be consicerec. Howeuer* under parasraeh 4 (ease 22736) for labelins* the specification refers to "....asbestos* tremolite* artbophvl1ite* actinolite or a combiration of these minerals is present in a product ir concentrations less than 0.17". Our suestion is this.. .0.17. by weisht or 0.17. by particle count? We feel clarificatior is* asain* necessary. Your early response to cur concerns and clarificatior cf the intent and scope of this resulatior would be sreatly appreciated. Yours sincerely* BARMIN INC. Peter T. Barnes President PTB/et cct Mr. Brock Secretary of Labour **END OF DOCUMENT REACHED** rtroi av r*C'TTi-ikic