Document jZgEdde1q3vOR5M5RGGwavaN

statement op ms textile workers union or ahfrica, apucio or THE PROPOSED STANDARD FOR EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS DOST UNDER TBS OCCUPATIONAL SAFETT A HEALTH ACT FmOARX 11, 1972 The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 require* the Secretary of Labor to promulgate ataadard* A--H"g with toxic materials ao that the stand ard "most adequately aaaurea that ao employes will Buffer material impaireat of health or fuactloaal capacity even if auoh employee haa regular expoiure to toe hasard dealt with by euch ataadard for the period of his working life." /Section 6 (b) (5j7 V* submit that the ataadard proposed by tbs Assistant Secretary for exposure to asbestos dust (Federal Register. Volume 37, No. 7, January 12, 1972) fails to fulfill the requirements of the Act. The concentration limit proposed for an eight-hour day of 5 fibers longer than 5 adcroaa per milliliter (time-weighted average) is far In excess of a safe limit for regular exposure to this hasard. The British Occupational Hygiene Society subecmalttee report on Hygienlo Standards for Chrysotilo Asbestos Dust finds that a ties-weighted average concentration of 100 fibers/ mlUUltar-yeara would reduce the risk of developing asbestosis to less than 1 percent. This yields e limit of 2 flbera/ml averaged over a 50-year per iod. This finding has been confirmed in the criteria package compiled on asbestoe by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Surely there can be ao Justification for establishing a ataadard of 5 fibersAd. Indeed, the standard of 2 fibers does not provide a safe limit since it is based entirely on protecting exposed workers from asbestosis. In spite of the foot that thare is olear evidence that workers exposed to asbestos are at risk to oanoer, no data have been compiled to define the level of exposure whioh would reduce the cancer riek to negligible propor- . -2- tions. (See Appendix I, Standards for Occupational Asbestos Rxtwsure. by Or. I.J. Selikoff aid D.A. Boladay.) Tta* order of magnitude by which tha permissible limit baaed on aabaatoaia aaada to ba raduoad to aohleve protection against tha risk of oanoar la inlicatad by the fact that in tha British Asbestos Regulations tha reoammeaded Unit for crooidolite asbestos (which is known to ba as sociated with Kesothalial `toeors) is 0*2 fibar/ow? while tha oooparabla Unit for ehrysotile and anoslta asbastoa is 2 fibera/aP. (Sea P.d. Harries, "Asbestos Dost Conoantrations in Ship Repairing," Ann. Popup. Hyg. Vol. 14, 1971, p. 253.) Tha association between asbestos exposure and oanoar among work ers in tha Ufaited States has been thoroughly doounented. Hammond, Selikoff and Churg here found that the number of deaths from cancer among members of the Raw fork and Rework locals of the asbestos' insulation union who were exposed to asbestos dost 20 years or longer was 3 tines the expected number (i.e., deaths based upon age specific rates for D.S. white melee). Deaths from cancer of the lung and pleura (the moat frequent oanoar observed among these workers) were 7 times the axpeoted masher* (See Table 6 In Appendix I.) Workers exposed to asbestos dust in factories have also been found to. suffer high risks of death due to eaneer. Selikoff, Reason! and Churg hare found that deaths from oanoar among workers employed in an amosite asbestos products factory in an eastern city of tha United States were 5 times the mmber axpeoted while the death rate from oanoar of the lung, pleura, bronohus and trachea was 11 times the axpeoted rate. (Z.J. Selikoff, E.C. Hansond, J. Churg, "Mortality Exparienoe of Amosite Asbestos Factory Workers," presented at IVth International Pnexaaooonioals Conference. TLO, Ductkuast, 1971.) In light of the evidence of essociation between aebestoe dust -3- exposure and oaneer It Is clearly inappropriata to sst s standard for asbes- tos based solely on the risk of aabestosis. Dr. Salikoff*s studies among lufftilstlan workers In Haw fork and Newark show that nor# than half of the observed deaths aaong the asbestos Insulation workers studied between 1963 and June 30, 1971 were due to cancer. Aabestosis was responsible for 12 percent of the observed deaths. A standard of 5 fibers per milliliter would be equivalent to a license to kill. This level of contamination Is no lower than the level . currently prevailing In many workplaces where workers are suffering from excessive death rates due to canoer and aabestosis. the conclusion la lnesoapable that an appropriate standard for asbestos dust exposure must be directed at aero dust. This Is the conclu sion wbioh two Industrialists expressed at the 1964 Conference on "Biological Effects of Asbestos" at the Mew York Academy of Sciences: C.O. Addlngley (British Belting and Asbestos Ltd., deckheaton, ftigland) "Ms do not believe there is any safe limit. Me have our Ideas as to how low we oan get and we are always striving to get right down to sero ..." John Mails (U.S. Rubber Co., Mewnan, Ga.)t "Our own conclusion, as we began soalng what was happening in our own process, was that the only safe amount of asbestos dust exposure was sero and that ths efforts in terms of achieving that lay basically in engineering, and, second ly, In education. But as far as a safe level of asbestos dust Is concerned, our own conclusion In HogaasvUle, Ga., Is that there is no safe level. The safe level Is nil and anything above ths safe level represents certain risk." ("Biologfeal Fffeot# of Asbestos," inni. the Mew York toUhrcr gf 196*, pp. 335-336.; The engineering controls and the "educational" prograa needed to approach the sero level of asbestos dust should be set forth in the standard. The proposed standard does contain a number of specifications for such a program but these are too limited to constitute an effective . plan of nation. The "particular operations and products" listed under -4- paragraph (d) of Sootioa 1910.93* should bo expanded to oover all operations involved In the aanufaetur* of aobostos produota where asbestos dust way be generated. D.W. Hills of Turner Brothers Asbestos Co., Ltd., Rochdale, England has provided a description of nodera nsthods of asbestos textile manufacture which could forn the basis of a oannal of approved practices which should be part of the standard for asbestos dust exposure. The following operational procedures are illustrative < (1) fee a ventilated booth for receiving and opening bags of asbestos fiber. Exhaust ventilation is to be ap plied at the dust-producing points. (2) Treat asbestos flbsr with oil saulsion in blendlag drua far the parposs of suppressing dust in subsequent operations. (3) Enclose Machinery need for opening aal screening fiber. (4) Dee neohanieal beg filling naohlaery to transfer fiber to begs} rah bags are to be oloeed tightly while in transit. (5) Apply exhaust ventilation to each dust-producing point on eaidlag Machines| paintedn air speed of not loss than 3,000 feet per nlmte in ventilation pipes. (6) fee revolving brush fitted with exhanst ventila tion la cleaning or stripping of cards. (7) Tholose spinning fr--ss and apply exhaust venti lation. (6) Use oxj. yarns in weaving and apply exhaust ventilation. (9) Totally enolose all oonvavlng and handling of fiber. (Adapted fron D.V. Hills, "Eoooonies of Dust control. Amals of the fry Inrk Anadwv of Sciences. 1965, pp. 322-334.) In order to inplsnent the specifications for particular operations, it Is Imperative that the requirensnts for warning signs, aonitoring, mdlcal examinations and reoorda be strengthened. i 5 I Vvatogjlgaa The proposed stanlard require* the posting of signs *t least $0 feet In eseh direotion from tte location where tte hazard is present. However, no requirement 1* proposed for tte of begs or other containers, fuch la aaoessary to infora an? worker handling a container that the con tents are hazardoua. It should contain tte following warning! DANGER Contains asbestos. Asbestos dust nay oeuse asbestosis and cancer. Container ateuld not be opened so as to permit asbestos dust to enter the air. Oh* only with adequate ventilation ami apjroved respiratory protective devices. flattering Tte proposed standard provides for personal and environmental monitoring in areas "in vhioh employees are exposed to oonoentrations of asbestos dust in excess of tte limits specified . . .* However, no provision is made for Monitoring to dstermine whether tte epeeifled Halt is being exoeeded. Without such e provision tte proposed requirement is rendered Meaningless. Workers exposed to asbeatoe dust should have tte right to k whether they are bcirg exposed to hasardous eoneentrations. Tte employer should be required to *aplw tte air at eaoh operation where there is a poten tial axpoaura at Issst ones s week. If tte eight-hour time-weighted average conoentratlon of asbestos dust sxeesds tte psrnlssibls level, he should te required to undertake lawdiate Measures to eosqtly with tte stated limit. There should be no temporary prevision for permissible "excursions." Tte right of tte employees or ttelrrepresentatives to observe, tte employer's monitoring and to have access to the itczilj thorucf should be set forth, in accordance with Seotlon 6 (o) (3) of tte Aot. Tte employer should be obligated to promptly notify any employee who has bm axpoaad to aabeatoa dust la oonoantratlone whioh axoaed the etoedard sad should. infant any employee who is balng thus wpawd of the oorreotlve setloa bslnc la seoordaaes with Seotion 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Tbs proposed regulation requires tbs aployar to "provide, or --1~ available at bis ooat," appropriate aedioal examinations to any aa- ployee exposed to asbsstes dost la excess of the stated Units. The Aot states that "where appropriate, asp suoh standard shall presoribe the type sal frequency of aedioal exeatnations or other teats which fr? rrvV* --by tbs e^loyar or at bis oost, to enployees . .* (Section 6 (b) (7), eophasis added). The *. Mttww between "providing" and "asking available" aed- ioal ie quite significant. Mb are opposed to giving the employer the right to provide a aedioal exeatnation; he would thereby have aooeas to the results, and could use them against the interests of the employees. The regulation should require the employer to sake available nodical exeatnation! at hie oost. The resuite should be furnished only * to the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel fare, end, at the request of the eaployee, to hie physioian. The eaployer should not have enneee to the results of individual aedioal exaalnations. Kseerds The proposed standard requires saplo/ers to maintain records of the aonltoring and. aedioal examinations oonduoted pursuant to this regu lation. Access to the records is required for the Secretary of Labor and, In the ease of nedloal examinations, the records are alao to be aade avail able to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the enployee' physician. As notad above under Ifcdieal Rtawlnations, wa ara opposed to requiring the results of individual aadioal exaalnatlona to ba furnished to tha --pinjar It la approprlata for aooh records to ba Maintained by tha Depertaaot of Health, Education, and Welfare. bplopoea or their representatives abould hare aooeaa to reoorda of the Monitoring rorpiLrad la thia regulation. Section 8 (e) (3) of the hot provider for the lamanew of "regulations requiring enployars to --accurate reoorda of anployse expoaura to potentially toxlo Materials . which ara required to be Monitored or aeaaured under Section 6. Such regulations ahall provide employees or their represen tatives with aa opportunity to observe such Monitoring or Measuring, and to have access to the records thereof." Such regulations have act been issued* It la therefore fitting that tha present regulation require employee access to reoorda it Monitor ing. 2/11/72