Document YmZdj9DB6GYkNGbMkO91OeRK

Officer Docket; H-033 U. 3. Department of Labor Room >7-3520 200 Constitution Avenue N.V7. Washington, D.C. 20210 DRAFT Comments of ASARCO Incorporated on the OSHA Proposed Asbestos .Standard as contained in the Federal Register Vol. 40, No. 197 (October 9, 1975) C/-. * J}h* ASARCO Incorporated, hereafter termed the Company, is a large non-ferr metals oroducer and operates two asbestos-cement plants.. Both plants produc jn asbestos-cement pipe which is used in sewer lines, etc These plants are ne> and modern (one constructed in 1967 and one in 1971) incorporating high- velocity local ventilation with baghouse controls. The Company welcomes this opportunity to submit the following comments on the OSHA proposed asbestos standard: Paragraph (b) (1) The definition of "asbestos", although technically correct, unnecess---------- arily includes.tremolite, anthophyllxte, and actmolite as regulate substances. Thef<tvdata( to date) do not suDoort the inclusion of the above. Paragraph (c) (1) The 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter is too stringent. The "0.5" figure appears to have no basis in fact and can best Be termed a "magic hat" number. Asarco suggests that the existing 2 fiber/cc standard is adequate to protect employee health and welfare. Paragraph (d)_ The "work area where a person may be exposed to airborne concentration of asbestos fiber___" (emphasis added) is much too general and vague. As an PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT ASA-643 ASARCO ELP 0000722 .llusrrarion, employee! t sene Asarco me cal smelt s repair brake linings, make bonded asbestos gaskets, or use asbestos rope caulking on an irreaular basis for short periods of time (1-15 minutes). Exposure samples show very low concentrations of asbestos. /Include samole results?*! Designation of these areas as "regulated areas" and maintenance of a roster borders on the ridiculous. Asarco suggests that the language be changed to "work area where asbestos is routinely handled and airborne concentrations of asbestos fiber exceed...." Paragraph (e) (1) As in paragraph (d) , the need for monitoring ''where asbestos fibers may be released" is too general and vague. The Company suggests that initial monitoring be required for industries normally and/routinely using asbestos^or where a qualified industrial hygienist could reasonably expect the two limits prescribed in paragraph (c) to be exceeded. Paragraph (e) (2) (i) and (ii) Monthly sampling is much too frequent and burdensome. Asarco's two asbestos-cement plants employ about 210 people of which 200 may be exposed above the 0.5 fiber/cc standard. For accurate counting and construction of an 8-hourtime-weighted average, as many as 5 samples/employee/shift may be needed (as noted in Appendix B, Section IV, paragraph A of the proposed stan dard) . Therefore, Asarco's two small asbestos-cement plants may need to collect 1000 samples per month at a cost of $50/saraple plus salaries for two additional technicians for a total of $52,000/month, costs which can positively be termed "unreasonable." Asarco "suggests monthly sampling for areas exceeding the 5 fiber/cc ceiling limit and monitoring every three months in areas exceeding the 2 fiber/cc 8-hour time-weighted average (as previously proposed by Asarco). Annual plant surveys are also suggested. Paragraph (e) (2) (ii) --This., requirement is unnosded if the monthly monitoring--schedule is cstsined in the final standard or even if Asarco's proposed frecruene-i-es" icidnrx itt pnnnrvm Title Sricknason 3rickmason Bricknason Brickrason Job or Operation Mixing asbestos cement dust with water* II II Bricking up lead settler and working in No. 1 blast Caulking Blast Furnace Brickmason Same as above Machine Shop Welder Punching asbes tos gaskets in black smith's shop Mechanic Drilling, countersinking,, and riveting brake shoes for zinc plant crane Frequency Samoling of Time Operation Date (Min.) Asbestos Fibers (> 5 q/cm3 Air) 8-Hr. TimeWeighted Average (? 5 u/cm3 Air) ** Once/week 7/31 1 3.40 0.007 Once/week 1/18 4 4.7 0.04 Part of usual duties 10/10 470 0.02 0.020 Part of usual duties 1/21 102 Twice/month 10/10 469 0.4 0.03 0.085 0.029 Twice/month 10/10 112++ 0.15 0.035 Twice/month 10/10 108 0.16 0.036 * NOTE ** + NOTE: A hand-held sample was also collected from the cloud of dust generated during the dumping of the dry cement. This 1-minute sample contained 6.11 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air and represents the maximum possible exposure The 8-hour average exposure would be 0.013 fibers >5 u/cm3 air. The 8-hour averages assume that employees received no further exposures to asbestos fibers in the remainder of their work shift. OSHA Standards for Asbestos: 8-hour time-weighted average airborne concentrati 5.0 fibers >5 ulong per cm3 of air. Ceiling concentration (not to be exceeded) = 10.0 fibers >5 i^long per cm3 of ai Sampling times generally represent the entire length of operation. Usualy time for operation is two to three hours. All employees were observed to wear respirators during these operations. The employees also reported that respirators were routinely worn during such activities. Good respirator use would, of course, result in lower individual exposures than the concentrations of asbestos fibers reported. tc4T?rO ELP 0000724 Paragraph (e) (3) The membrane filter methodising phase contrast illumination, is basically inadequate for asbestos sampling. OSHA should recognize this and make soma provision in this paragraph for improved methods. ASARCO notes that the proposed asbestos standard is the only new standard that does not contain a paragraph on the "Accuracy of Measurement" (which usually requires an accuracy to a confidence level of 95^. Asarco feels that OSHA is aware of the measurement difficulties and should make provision that other methods would be acceptable. To illustrate the inad equacies of the membrane filter method, OSHA should examine the results of the NIOSH PAT program, an interlaboratory testing program which gives out known samples to a number of laboratories. Asarco's Department of ^.nvironmentalvLaboratory participates in this program-and ata supplied from PAT (consisting of histograms'asbestos fiber countsj show that A given eoncen-fcration of fibers is considered valid if it is within 35% of the mean value. In addition, the membrane filter method does not positively identify any fiber as being asbestos. Only asbestos-like fibers are counted. Asarco has found that fiberglass and even Sinaliy dispersed ,vi(V) , toilet paper fibers cam be counted as asbestos using the membrane filter method. Unfortunately, the proposed asbesto standard of 0.5 fibers/cc is an absolute number. The regulation should address itself to the concept of standard deviation and/or experimental error. These are concepts which are inherently^ -`important in any analytical measurement and should be included, especially with an inadequate method like the membrane filter method. paragraph (f) (1) The two asbestos-cement plants, ..operated by Asarco, already use high-velocity pick up ventilation*. The older,plant, constructed in c * orn FI ,P 0000725 3a CQr-riDii^iiAi. 1967, recently installed a new ventilation system to comply with the existing asbestos standard of 2 fihers/cc (taking effect in 1976). in fact, the system is so new^ that air sampling data -xs--not yet available. 6'-'t Air sampling data rs available ror the plant constructed in 1971. This plant uses the best available^ control technology^. The results of ar six-month asbestos survey of this plant are shown belo; T#*' /A^ ASARCO Lab No. Sample No. Samoling Rate Fiber/cm- 1297 1293 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 130o 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 2001 2002 2005 2006 2003 . 2010 3002 3003 3004 4000 4002 4003 4004 5001 5002 6001 6002 6004 6006 8005 2 L/nvin. - 120 min. II * II 120 120 it It ft 120 *1 It 120 tl H 120 ! II 120 tt 120It It* tt 110 tt 105It , i II 90- ti It 105 It 90It It 11 120 It 1 120 tt n 90 It * tt 90 ti it 120 It tt 110 ll it 240 It 0.67 0.82 0.32 1.18 0.10 0.01 0.20 1.12 0.36 0.20 0.30 1.10 2.52 0.12 0.24 0.21 0.14 0.20 0.48 0.01 A blank filter was also counted and was found to be very low. The blank was subtracted from the above results. As can be seen,-, even with the most modern technology, six of the twenty one samples (29%) exceed the OSHA proposed limit of 0.5 fibers/cc. Thus/ full compliance with the 0.5 fiber/cc .limit using engineering controls, j&f (CK. ** ^ -A 0t .ay be possible, but promises to be extrecmely exxppensive-. 1 yx-w-T- ?'arrafca.O!\^4yi^Zs)r ASARCO ELP 0000726 3b cr Paragraph (4) (i) Wet methods are specified "insofar as practicable". However, the definition of "practicable" has never been adequately resolved between plant personnel and OSHA personnel, in Asarco's experience. This paragraph should be expanded and clarified. ASARCO ELP 0000727 4 ji Paragraph (f) (6) Measurements to demonstrate the effectiveness of the ventilation system every three months are unneeded because the technology involved with high velocity ventilation minimizes the possibility of accretions or build-ups which would alter the effectiveness of the system. An annual survey would be adequate. Another set of ventilation measurements within five days of "any change of production, process, or control" is vague and much too general. At asbestos cement plants, production and process chemistry can change on an hour-to-hour basis although exposures will not change and ventilation volumes will not change. Asarco recommends that this requirement be deleted. Paragraph (g) Asarco disagrees with OSHA over the use of respirators and feels that respirators are a viable compliance method. However, because this agreement has^in previous standards^ fallen on1 StWsP^SSrs OSHA, the Company will not further belabor this issue. Paragraph (g) (3) (iv) Asarco feels that this entire paragraph is unnecessary. The Company's experience has been that employees unable to function while wearing a respirator will report to their safety office^which will make every effort to rotate them to another job. However, the requirement that an employee be given the same seniority status and rate of pay* is counterproductive. This mandate also removes a viable respirator use enforcement technique which would require that an employee use a respirator and. if his respirator us&sZs not improve/, then he can be transferred to a lower paying job. ASARCO ELP 0000728 i 5 Paragraph (h) The requirement for protective clothing -f-ronr employees exposed -t. above the limit of 0.5 fibers/cc is ridiculous because the standard is so low that virtually no deposition of asbestos fibers is likely. Asarco suggests that personal protective clothing be provided only for employees exposed above the ceiling concentration of 5 fibers. Paragraph (i) (6) The prohibition of smoking or non-food chewing material in regulated areas is virtually impossible to enforce. Paragraph (j) (1) OSHA should be aware that many states require that medical examination be provided at no cost to the employee. This is the case where the two asbestos cement plants are operated by Asarco. Therefore, the language whic makes medical examinations "available at the employers cost1' is superfluous. The present language requires pre-placement, annual, and termination medical exams for employees working "in an area exposed to airborne concen t-rations of asbestos fibers". This language is much too general and has bee repair brake'linings, or make bonded, asbestos gaskets, or use asbestos rope caulking on an irregular basis for short periods of time (1-15 mintes). Exposure samples show very low concentrations of asbestos*^ Asarco feels tha medical examinations should only be required for employees that work in area exceeding the 8-hour TWA or the ceiling limit. Paragraph (j) combined with paragraph (n) essentially constitute a massive epidemiological study wh ASARCO ELP 0000729 OSHA is requiring that industry finacne to justify oSHA's "magic hat" number of 0.5 fibers/cc. This responsibility should be placed on OSHA and NIOSH and not on industry. Paragraph (j) (6) In this day of malpractice suits and lack of occupational health physicians, Asarco feels that many local physicians would be reluctant to mak a written opinion for every employee examined. Asarco suggests that OSHA investigate this problem more thoroughly before including it with any of the proposed standards. Asarco feels that it is obvious that a physician will err on the side of caution, making some men unemployable because of the written opinion, and this would be counterproductive. Paragraph (1) (1) Asarco takes exception r the need^f for posting danger signs. If all the requirements of the proposed standard are followed, such as rosters, employee information, trainingj pre-placement exams, etc., the need for danger signs is unwarranted. This section should be deleted.* * Paragraph (m) (1) The.language requiring that exposed surface "be maintained free of accumulations of asbestos fibers, which^if dispersed, would create an airborne concentration in excess of the exposure limits" is much too ua&tge.. Any minor spill of asbestos fibers could violate this requirement, especially at the low standard proposed by OSHA. The language should be clarified to say that "all exposed surfaces in the place of employment will be kept reasonably clean and spills should be cleaned up with caution to avoid * dispersing asbestos fibers. Paragraph (m) (2) OSHA should recognize that other types of waste disposal methods, such as pelleting, or otherwise bonding asbestos waste^ impossible. OSHA should not limit the waste disposal methods to sealed impermeable bags ; ( ASARCO ELP 0000730 7 or other containers. EPA's NESHAP program has recognized that pelletized or bonded asbestos waste is essentially non-toxic. This section needs to be rewritten to reflect these facts. Paragraph (n) The entire section on record keeping is onerous., to- Asar-eo. As stated previously, OSHA is essentially requiring a massive epidemiological study to justify the proposed standard. The records of mechanical ventilation measurements and employee training should not be required to be kept more than one year. Paragraph (n) (6) (ii) Although Asarco agrees that exposure measurements should be available to employees, the Company feels that the language "designated representative should be clarified to read "legally designated representatives" which would allow greater confidentiality of these records. Paragraph (n) (7) (ii) The need to notify, by letter, every employee and former employee of a transfer'o^"records would be a herculean task for many industries. For example, one of the company's asbestos cement plants has a 70% turnover rate. Therefore, the number of former employees is staggering. Asarco feels that the transfer of records should be advertised.in the legal notices of local papers. JP S/ms James P. Sieverson Environmental Specialist ASARCO ELP 0000731