Document YjYndDGQONLy6Y8QbnX7Dkb1N

FILE NAME: RT Vanderbilt (RTV) DATE: 2002 Dec 13 DOC#: RTV 105 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter from MVA Inc. to O'Brien Law Firm RE Vanderbilt Sample Analysis MVA, lac. -- MExiccreollaennacleysiins -- I @[PY 13 December 2002 O'Brien Law Firm, L L C 906 Olive Street Suite 1150 Saint Louis, M O 63101 Attention: Mr. Andrew O 'Brien Re: Sam ple A nalysis - M V A Project No. 5318 Vanderbilt IT3X Talc Dear Mr. O'Brien: Enclosed please find our report on the examination of one talc sample received by M VA, Inc. on 4 Novem ber 2002. if you have any questions, please call me at 770-662-8509. ' . Thank you for consulting M VA, Inc. The sample will be stored for.the period of the project and returned upon your request. Sincerely, \\LESUBmva_d3l\PROJECTSVfO]53OO\53l0'ip1213O2_5318.doc 5500 OikbtooV Prkv>y, Suite 200. Noteras!. GA 50093 Telephone (770) 62-8509 FAX (770) 662-8532 WES000522 ! Report of Results: M VA5318 Sam ple Analysis Vanderbilt IT3X Talc Prepared for; O 'B rie n L a w Firm, L L C 906 Olive Street Suite 1150 Saint Louis, M O 63101 Attention: Mr. A n d re w O 'Brien Prepared by: M V A, Inc. 5500 O akbrook Parkway, Suite 200 Norcross, G A 30093 13 Decem ber 2002 WLESUE\mv3_data\PRQJECTS\Proj53QQ\5318\rpl121302_5318.doc \ '/ M V A , Inc. Excellence in -- M icroanalysis M/ 5500 Oakbrook Parkway #200 Norcross, GA 30093 770-662-8509 FAX 770-662-8532 www.mvainc.com WES000523 Report of Results M V A Project No. 5318 Sam ple Analysis Vanderbilt IT3X Talc IN T R O D U C T IO N M V A , lnc,, h a s analyzed one talc sample submitted for particulate characterization and received at M VA, Inc. on 4 November 2002. The sam ple w as labeled: 1T3X Industrial talc, tremolitlctalc from the R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. U pon receipt, the sam ple w as assigned a unique laboratory identification number: M 3832. It w as requested that the sample be characterized as to the nature of the tremolite fibers. A sam ple of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Standard Reference Material (S R M ) 1867 - tremolite asbestos w as also characterized. A sb e sto s refers to a set of fibrous mineral materials. Amosite, chrysotile and crocldolite are considered com m on asbestos minerals. Tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite are considered uncommon asbestos minerals. The asbestiform (morphology) habit of a sb e stos has been described In several analytical methods. A population of fibers a s observed in a bulk sample having the asbestiform habit is generally recognized by the following characteristics (EPA/600/R-93/116): M ean aspect ratios ranging from 20:1 to 100:1 or higher for fibers longer than 5 pm. V ery thin fibrils* usually le ss than 0.5 pm in width, and two or more of the following: Parallel fibers occurring in bundles, Fiber bundles displaying splayed ends, Matted m a sse s o f individual fibers, and/or Fibers showing curvature. Fibers occurring In the form of thin needles were aiso included a s an asbestiform characteristic by Wylie, 1990. It is more difficult to classify individual fibers a s to asbestiform or cleavage fragments because individual fibers do not exhibit all the characteristics of a population. O n e fiber counting procedure considers a fiber with length greater than 5 pm and an aspect ratio of 3:1 to be a countable fiber for asbestos exposure assessm ent (N IO S H 7 40 0 with N IO S H 7402). Other methods use an aspect ratio of >5:1 and lengths of either 0.5 pm or 5 pm to m easure asbestos levels in the air (A H ER A , IS O 10312). \\LESUm va_date\PROJECTS\Pr^$3OO\5310Vpt1213O2_5318.doo WES000524 Fiber widths are not generally considered in air analyses, except that fibers less than 0.25 pm are not seen by the N IO S H 7400 method. A s a consequence, only those fibers greater than 0.25 pm In width are considered by the N IO S H 7 40 2 method. ' W hen counting those fibers over 5 pm in length, the IS O 10312 method u se s an upper limit for fiber width of 3 pm. B ase d on review of various studies, It has been suggested that only fibers with widths le ss than 1 pm should be considered a s those important for regulation (Wylie et al. 1993). A N A LYSIS PRO CED U RES The sample w a s first examined by stereomicroscopy utilizing a Z e iss Stemi 2000 stereomicroscope having a magnification range from 6.5X to 47X. The sam ple was then examined by polarized light microscopy utilizing an Olympus BH -2 polarized light m icroscope having a magnification range from 4 0 X to 1000X. Representative portions from the sam ple were examined and analyzed by scanning electron m icroscopy (SEM ) using a J E O L 6500 coupled with an x-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (E D S ) Noran Vantage system. Representative portions of the sample were also analyzed with analytical electron m icroscopy (A E M ) using a J E O L 1200,100 k V scanning transm ission electron microscope (ST EM ), equipped with a Noran E D S x-ray analysis system. RESULTS Sam ple M 3 8 3 2 (IT3X) is a white powder containing talc fibers, talc ribbons, platy particles (lizardite) and tremolite particles. The tremollte particles exhibit morphologies from blocky (aspect ratios (AR) < 2:1) to aclcular (AR up to approximately 50:1). The tremollte particles exhibiting aspect ratios greater than 3:1 comprise 2 0 % to 3 5 % by volume of the sample. Tremollte exhibiting aspect ratios greater than 20:1 comprise le ss than 1 % by volume of the entire sample. A s a population of particles, the tremolite particles in sam ple M 3 8 3 2 are consistent with a population of tremolite cleavage fragments as described by Wylie, 1990. A number of the tremoiite fibers in Sam ple M 3832 are long and thin (have aspect ratios higher than 5:1,10:1 or 20:1). A number of the tremolite fibers in M 3 8 3 2 are consistent with the tremolite asbestos fibers found In the N IS T Standard Reference Material 1887.- tremolite asbestos. Aspect ratios were determined by S E M from 100 fibers (> 5pm) of each sam ple of S R M 1867 and M3832. Representative im ages appear in the Appendix. T he data are compared in Table 1 and Figure 1. There is a significant overlap between the two populations. Representative transmitted light im ages appear a s Figures 2 and 3. W IESLIE\mva_data\PROJECTSVPrcj5MO\531fi\ipi1213Q2_53l8.doc Page 2 WES000525 Twenty-three percent (2 3 % ) of the 100 tremolite fibers measured in Sam ple M 3 8 3 2 (IT3X) had fiber widths less than 1.0 pm. Som e of the tremolite fibers are very thin, less than 0.5 pm in width. Four percent (4 % ) of the 100 tremolite fibers measured in Sam ple M 3 8 3 2 (IT3X) had fiber widths less than 0.5 pm. These thin fibers had aspect ratios ranging from 15:1 to 47:1. These findings differ somewhat with the report by W ylie in 1990 and W ylie et al. in 1993 of 9 % less than 1.0 pm and 0 % less than 0.5 pm in width for a sam ple of New York tremolite. It is not clear whether or not this New Y o rk tremolite w a s from a similar source a s M3832. Both the sample in the Wylie report and Sam ple M 3832 were analyzed by SE M . A num ber of the individual fibers exhibit the characteristics of asbestos fibers. S o m e sh ow parallel fibers occurring in bundles, fiber bundles displaying splayed ends, and/or fibers show ing curvature. The tremolite fibers in Sam ple M 3832 did not show evidence of matted m a sse s of individual fibers. D ISC U SSIO N The population of tremolite fibers In Sam ple M 3832 is not consistent with commercial a sb e sto s fibers. The population of tremolite particles in sample M 3832 Is consistent with a population of tremolite cleavage fragments. However, many of the individual tremolite fibers In M 38 3 2 exhibit characteristics of asbestos fibers and are consistent with the tremolite asbestos fibers in the N IS T Standard Reference Material 1867. Som e individual tremolite fibers in Sam ple M 3832 would be counted by the various standard m ethods a s asbestos fibers. There are som e tremolite fibers in Sam ple M 38 3 2 that appear to be consistent with the tremolite fibers found in the lungs of mesothelioma c a se s a s reported by Roggli et al., 2002. The Roggli report states that all tremolite fibers counted in the sam ples from the lung tissue were at least 5 pm In length and almost all had aspect ratios of 5 or greater. REFERENCES Baron, P., Method 7400, Revision No. 3, N iO S H Manual of Analytical Methods, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio, 7400-1 -7400-14 (1994). -N IO S H Method 7402, "A sb estos Fibers by Transm ission Electron Microscopy (T E M )\ N IO S H M anual of Analytical Methods, 4th Ed,, U.S. Department of HH S, N IO S H Publ. 94-113,1994. .. international Standards Organization (ISO), Ambient Air - Determination of Asbestos Fibres - Direct-transfer Transmission Electron Microscopy Procedure. ISO-10312. \\LESUEVnva_data\PRQJCTS\Pro)5300\531 B\rpt1213Q2_53l8.doc P9* 3 WES000526 Roggli, V, L., Vollrner, R. T., Buinor, K.J. and Sporn, T. A. Tremolite and Mesothelioma, Ann. Occup. Hyg. Vol 46 (5):447-453,2002. " U S E P A , Te st Method for the Determination of Asb estos In Bulk Building Materials. Office of R e se arch and Development, W ash. DC. 1993 Publication: EPA/600/R93/116. U.S. E PA , 40 C F R Part 763. Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools, Final Rule and Notice. Fed. Reg. 52(210): 41870-41893 (1987). Wylie, A. G. Discriminating Am phibole Cleavage Fragments from Asbestos: Rationale and Methodology. Proc. Intern. Pneum oconiosis Conf. Nov. 1990. Publication No. 90 108 Part II. Wylie, A. G . , Bailey, K.F. Kelse, J.W. and Lee, R.J. The Importance of Width in A sb e sto s Fiber Carcinogenicity and Its Implications for Public Policy. Am. Ind. Hyg. A sso c . J. 54:239-252, 1993. \\LSUE\mva,,dati\PROJECTS\Prpj5300\531$Vpl121302_$3l8.(IOC Page 4 WES000527 Table 1. Data from SE M Analysis of 100 Tremolile Fibers >5 pm W3832 Wean SL Dev Min, . Max. Length 14.5 9.9 5.2 55.6 W idth 2.1 1.6 0.3 9.1 Aspect Ratio 0.5 5.5 3.8 47.7 S R M 1867 Tremolite Mean S t Dev Min. Max. le n g th 46.7 41.4 6.0 224.0 Wtdth 2.6 1.9 0.3 10.3 Aspect Ratio 19.9 13.6 4.4 93.4 F ig u re 1. C o m p a riso n of A sp e c t R atio Data from Sam ple M3832 and S R M 1867 Tremolite A sb e sto s Micrograph 7. S E M Image of Tremolite from S R M 1867. M ic ro g ra p h 8. S E M Im age of Tremolite from S R M 1867. VM.ESUEVnvajdala'PROJECTtSV-rnjS300\o31B^pt12130Z.5318 doc WES000530 M ic ro g ra p h 3. S E M Im age of Tremolile from Sam ple M3832. MVA SEI S.OhV X45G Q W D95m m M ic ro g ra p h 4. S E M Im age of Tremolite from Sa m p le M 3832 WlgLlEVmwa_d3la\PROJCTSM Voi'jrUim M I avp; 12 1302_S31 ifc.r: WES000531 I t i j 4 l I I M ic ro g ra p h 1. S E M Im age of Tremolite from Sam ple M3832. I ! \M_ESUBrtwa_data\PROJEC I BW' rr.i'.aiK j' t-.:-:` (Vr>l 15 '302_53 3 dor. WES000532 Ii I I M icro gra p h 11. T E M Im age of Tremolite from Sam ple M3832. i u I M icro g ra p h 12. T E M im age of Tremolite from Sam ple M 3832. V\LfeUOmva_d3taMRJeCTS\Pr^6300'5iVpl12130t_5319.oc WES000533 I I I I i ! I ii i i i M ic ro g ra p h 10. T E M Im age of Tremolite from Sam ple M3832, MSUmva- <jataV>ROJECTS\Pro)530O\5316Vpt12l302_5318.doc WES000534 ] J ! iI Ii i M icro grap h 14. T E M Image of Tremolite from S R M 1867. \'LesU EVnv^_^3ta\r>ROJECT5\Pno)53oo\53i 8\rpl121302_5318.doc I WES000535 M ic ro g ra p h 15. T M Im age of Tremolite from S R M 1867, M ic ro g ra p h 16. T E M Im age of Tremolite from S R M 1867. VLESUE\mva_<Jate\PftJECT5\Prp53Q0\53l6Vpn2l3O2_5318.doc WES000536 M ic ro g ra p h 5. S E M Im age of Tremolite from s r m 1867 M ic ro g ra p h 6. S E M Im age o f Tremolite from S R M 1867 \SLESUE\mva__(JataVPROJECTS'l>;C|b30<l\;i.',.lH j}ji i? <302 5318 doc WES000537 Page 1 o f 1 Kelse, John From : AnnG .W yileiaw ylte@ deans.um d.edu] S e n t Tuesday. Decem ber 17.2002 3:54 P M To: Kelse, John Su b je ct: Re: FW : Photos from Miflette John; I have never seen tremollte that displays the haWt Jim iiustrates. Lacking is the evidence d ial it Is tremottte. I wonder If any calcium at all qualified thfe as tremolite in his dasdflcaSon. I do not see chemical data. This will be hard to defend since he wl/l assert that there Is C3 present and who can say that it Is not th e re ????? , I will help you on this. W e will have to discuss how. Ann JKELSE@rtvandertJilt.com wrote: Ann - this follows my f a x regarding MiUettes report. These are the photomicrographs that rm sure are unintelligible in the FAX -- -Original M essage-- F rom : Am y d a rk fmailto:ad a rk@hrva.com l S e n t: Tuesday, December 17,2002 12:13 PM T o : drace@aW ngum p.com ; drcw@rjla.com ; Kelse, John . C c: Lisa LaConte S u b je c t: Photos from Millette U sa LaConte asked m e to send you these photos. Please let me know If you have any problems opening them. Amy CtarkHeyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen(309) 676-0400 Ann G. Wytie Assistant President and Chief of Staff Professor of Geology 1101 Main Administration University Of Maryland College Park, M D 20742 301-405-6848 12/17/2002 \ WES000538 Kelse, John From; Sent: To: Subject: Ann Wylie [awylie@deans.umd.e<iu] Wednesday, January 01,2003 2:42 PM Kelse, John [Fwd: testimony] R E : testimony John: I have serverai issues with Jim's report 1. There is no supporting documentation to be able to see if the longest of his fibers are intergrowths. There is a history of some t e m labs (long ago) calling this material low Ca tremolite. Greenwood has some tremolite-talc intergrowths. Jim does not understand that this type of intergrowth is even possible and is unaware, it seems, that Stemple and Brindley first describes tremolite-talc intergrowths as fibrous talc. 2. Jim does not know what asbestos is. He only knows what counting rules are and seems confused about what they mean. He seems to think that asbestos is sometimes asbestos and sometimes not and that cleavage fragments are sometime asbestos and sometimes not, depending on the counting rules. This is nonsensical. 3. He persists in referring to my comments on needle-like, which I used early on but then found it to be covered by other parts of the definition. Also, by needle like, mineralogists do not mean the tip of the needle. The term is used to define the general aspect ratio. Jim seems to have used the term to any elongated particle that tapers on one end. This has never been a characteristic of asbestos and was not implied b y the term. 4. His population characteristics are those of cleavage fragments. My characterization of tremolite for the NIEHS study showed about 4% at 20:1 or greater. Other cleavage fragment populations might be up to 10%. X do not see that there is any evidence for tremolite-asbestos at all in these population statistics. X will be in my office tomorrow afternoon for conversation. I will also then look over my notes again to see if I can add to the above. Ann Ann G. Wylie awyli e@deans.u m d .edu Assistant President and Chief of Staff University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 {301)405-6848 1 WES000539 Page 1 o f2 Kelse, John From: Drew Van Orden {drew rjlg.coml Se n t- Thursday, January 02,2003 5:16 P M To: Kelse, John Cc: Rich Lee: Patty Polka Su b je ct: R T Vanderbilt IT-3X The following are preliminary notes on Vanderbilt talc. A more detailed report can be issued a s needed. R J Lee Group received a sam ple of material identified a s IT-325 from John K eise (R.T. Vanderbilt Com pany, Inc.) on 12/11/02. The sam ple w as logged into our project database (job number LSH 212880) and assign ed sam ple number 3037447. The sam ple w as analyzed using transm ission electron m icroscopy (T E M ) generally following the analytical portion of A S T M D-5756 (du$t m ass method). A portion of the sam ple w as weighed and placed In a beaker; 100 ml oi deionized w ater were added. The suspension w as sonicated for 3 minutes to disperse the sam ple. An aliquot of the suspension w as removed (without any settling time) and deposited on a clean filter. The filter w as prepared for T E M examination using the standard direct preparation procedures. Ail particles with an aspect ratio > 3:1 were examined in the T E M at a magnification of 20.000X. Fibrous talc w as observed in the sam ple, a s were talc/anthophylHte intergrowth particles and tremolite cleavage fragments. N o asbestiform tremolite fibers were observed during the analysis. T h e se results are different than those reported by M VA. Inc. (Decem ber 13, 2002, Report of Results: M VA5318) where fibrous tremolite particles were reported. M icrographs 1-4 and 9-12 of that report are represented to be im ages of fibrous tremolite. The Vanderbilt ore is a com plex am algam of fibrous talc, platy tremolite. intergrowth particles of talc/anthophyllite and talc/tremoiite, serpentine minerals, and other particles. It is not possible to sim ply exam ine a micrograph and conclude the particle is "tremolite*. Because the ore body contains the intergrowth fibers (as stated before, both talc/anthophyllite and talc/tremofite) each particle must be examined using both selected area diffraction (SA E D ) and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (E D X A or E D S ). These techniques, providing information on crystal structure (S A E D ) and chemistry (E D S), m ust be performed at multiple locations on the particle because of the intergrowth possibility. The diffraction patterns (S A E D ) for intergrowth patterns will show com plex patterns representative of two different crystal structures overlaying each other; the E D S spectra will show reduced peaks for calcium and/or m agnesium (for the taic/tremollte Intergrowth) or m agnesium and/or iron (for the talc/anthophyllite intergrowth). N o diffractions patterns (S A E D ) were included in the M V A materials reviewed by R J Lee Group. O f the E D S spectra included in the supplem entary m aterials (Exhibit 2 of the Mlllette deposition), the E D S spectra Identified a s M3632 Tremolite are show reduced levels of m agnesium , suggesting the m inerals reported a s tremolite m ay actually be a diopside mineral. All of the asbestos analytical m ethods were developed for analysis of the asbestiform minerals; more recently 1/6/2003 WES000540 Page 2 o f2 published m ethods expressly limit the asbestiform minerals to the regulated varieties. Each current method lists the m inerals of interest. N o published T E M method calls for the inclusion of non-regulated am phiboles or cleavage fragm ents in the asbestos count There has been much debate over the years by people who do not understand mineralogy or polarized light m icroscopy about what constitutes cleavage fragm ents. A primary reference for definitions pertinent to asbestos analysis w as published by tho Bureau of M ines (1C 8751). W ylie proposed a discriminating function that could be used to aid in Identifying fibers that are cleavage fragm ents from other asbestos fibers. O S H A 's record on regulating the non-asbestiform am phiboles (preamble to the 1992 regulations) contains a clear sum m ary of the issu e s related to the definition of asbesfiform and cleavage fragments. EP A has recognized that cleavage fragm ents can be an interference in asbestos analysis and h as consistently ruled they should not be counted. E P A h as attempted to limit these counts by providing Improved definitions of asbestos in later protocols. However, in all of the analytical methods, the m fcroscopist is required to analyze for asbestos - each protocol then provides a sizing guideline to use in deciding whether the observed asbestos fibers should be recorded. The sizing guidelines in the analytical m ethods (such a s N IO S H 7402 where you count fibers longer then 5 urn and wider than 0.25 utn with a minimum aspect ratio [l/w] of 3:1) do not define whether the particle is asbestiform. The Vanderbilt talc m aterials have been extensively analyzed by many groups (including FU Lee Group, RTI, DataChem . Bureau of M ines, Penn State University. University of Maryland am ong many)over at least a 40 year period. In all of the published data, no one h a s ever reported asbestiform tremolite in the talc - only cleavage tremolite or tremolite/talc intergrowth fibers (see Stem ple and Brindley, J American Ceram ic Society, vol. 43, p. 34 -4 2 ,1 9 6 0 ). The data reported by M V A lack supporting analytical information (such a s E D S and S A E D ) and are contradicted by our analysis of a subsam ple of the sam e talc analyzed by M V A a s well as tho published literature. B ase d on the above, we do not believe the fibers reported a s tremolite by M V A are asbestiform tremolite fibers. Drew R. Van Orden, P E R J Lee Group, Inc. drew QriIa.com www.rilo.com T h is electronic docum ent is legally privileged and confidential information Intended for the addressee named above. If you believe you have received this communication In error, we apologize. W e ask, however, that you please notify the sender immediately be return e-mail and destroy this document without disclosing it. Any dissem ination or use of this information by unauthorized persons is prohibited. 1/6/2003 WES000541 Page 3 of 4 From: Drew Van Orden fmailto:drew@rila.corn| SenfcTuesday, December 17,20024:13 PM To: John Kelse Okelse@rtvanderbilt.com) Subject: Millette I received the lax and read through it. S o n y I m issed your call this morning. W E have analyzed the talc sam ple twice (using new material eaoh time) and have not found tremolite fibers by T E M - we have found cleavage fragm ents and intergrowth fibers, but not real tremolite fibers. Millette did PLM , S E M , and TEM , though h is reliance on the S E M is questionable. You can t really see the intergrowth by S E M . Anyway, there seem s to be som e circular arguments used In the report. 1. All m ethods require you to analyze asbestos, the m ethods Indicate which sizes of the asbestos you are to record - the size s do not determine that a partlcle/fiber is asbestos. H e seem s to have that backward - he is saying the methods sa y if the particles m eet these sizes, it must be asbestos. 2. He is com paring the fiber distribution to the N IS T S R M material to be able to sa y your fibers are also asbestos. Basically - if the S R M is really asbestiform, then he would have an argument. However, the S R M . is cleavage fragm ents and is a very tow grade material. H is data In Table 1 confirms thi3. H is minimum width is 0.3 pm, but the average Is 2.1 ( 1.96 * 0.16 for the 9 5 % confidence Interval) for the talc and 2.6 ( 1.96 * 0.19). Statistically, his reported minimum is a statistical outlier form the m easured population. In addition, if you do a simple unpaired com parisons of the m eans, you find there is a statistically significant difference in diameter between these two populations (as welt a s aspect ratios). Thus, his assum ption that they are sim ilar Is Incorrect. You may want to ask him if he performed any statistical com parison on his data to verify if the populations are similar. H is reasoning is that they overlap (you can thank Mtke Beard for that one), so there must be similarities. He should produce the raw data used to generate Table 1 and Figure 1. 3. He should clearly describe his understanding of intergrowth fibers and how to detect them and what they represent. Even O SH A /D an Crane gets this correct Even R T l never reported tremolite fibers in the crayons - didn't they only report anthophyllite? 4. In looking at his photos (for what they were worth), only figures 9 and 11 cause m e som e concern. He should produce his chemistries and diffraction patterns for these im ages. 12/ 20/2002 WES000542 Page 4 of 4 Drew R . Van Orden, P E R J Lee Group, Inc. drew @ nla.com www.rjlq.com This electronic document is legally privileged and confidential information Intended for the addressee named above, if you believe you have received this communication in error, we apologize. W e ask, however, that you please notify the sender immediately be return e-mail and destroy this document without disclosing it Any dissem ination or use of this Information by unauthorized persons is prohibited. Aim G. W ylie Assistant President and Chiefo f Staff Professor o f Geology 1101 Main Administration University o f Maryland College Park, MD 20742 301-405-6848 Ann G. Wylie Assistant President and Chiefo f Staff Professor o f Geology 1101 Main Administration University o fMaryland College Park, MD 20742 301-405-6848 /12 20/2002 WES000543