Document km7Z5nXLEKO4L3mGzgN8GDmGD

FILE NAME Rogers Corporation ROG DATE 1979 DOC ROG050 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Rogers Corp Commentary Upon Proposed Asbestos Standards within the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality ROGERS CORPORATION Commentary upon Proposed Asbestos Standards within the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality PROTECTED 3050 January 25 1979 RGS 052672 Rogers Corporation a Connecticut based manufacturer wishes to express its serious concern over the proposed asbestos emission and ambient standard portion of the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality We as users of various asbestos minerals do not pretend to be experts on asbestos related occupational and environmental hazards however we do have an inherent interest in terms of concern for employee safety and market impact in keeping current on medical scientific and technical developments in this area It is upon this knowledge that we base some of our objections to this proposed legislation Rogers Corporation does not minimize the known health hazards associ- ated with the use of asbestos quite the contrary we have installed sophisticated state the art engineering and administrative controls to insure worker safety and compliance to all applicable regulatory requirements in our manu- facturing facilities is from this experience in installing and operating state emission control devices that we draw our conclusion that industrial compliance to the proposed emission standard is not economically or technically possible We have been engaged for some time in the research and development of acceptable asbestos substitutes for use in our products A number of product changes especially in less critical applications involving asbestos substitution have already taken place However to date acceptable asbestos PROTECTED RGS 052673 , Page Page 2 substitutes for many of our high temperature high strength plastics applica- tions do not exist This fact coupled with a growing body of data possibly I implicating other asbestos fiber materials as potential health hazards lends support to our contention that the tunnel vision approach embodied in these proposals will not result in the stated goal of minimizing the health risk to both workers and the general public Indeed if this proposal is implemented we face the possible realization of the old adage Jumping out of the frying pan into the fire We would hope that responsible individuals within the DEP would re- re- alize our concerns over this proposal from the ensuing discussion Effective minimization of risk to development of respiratory cancer and other disabling diseases from the inhalation of hazardous particulates can only be achieved if industry regulatory agencies and the general public are aware of what is fact what is supposition and what is conjecture Regulatory action if it is to achieve its stated goals must be based on factual data concerning the nature and scope of the problem a realization of the capabilities and limitations of technology to provide the control mechanisms and finally an accurate as es - assess- ment of the economic and social impact of proposed control strategy The corner so speak of these proposed asbestos regulations are the relationship of a sharp rise in mesothelioma within Connecticut during a year period between 1960-1969 as compared to a similar interval between We refer here to recently published articles in the Hartford Courant Norwich Bulletin and Providence Journal copy attached which deal with recent Japanese research implicating fine fibrous fiberglass as respiratory carcinogens We also further elaborate on this later in our discussion PROTECTED RGS 052674 Page 3 1940-1949 and the estimated increase of asbestos use within Connecticut plotted DEP's Figure 8 page 10-15 between 1900-1969 Very serious deficiencies exist in this conjecture In the introduction to these proposals page 10-1 a statement is made alluding to DEP conducted " . . study of asbestos mesothelioma incidence 5,6 5,6 Review of indicated references fail to show a clear distinction has been made between asbestos and asbestos induced mesotheliomas Further in the mesothelioma discussion on page 10-14 of these proposals no distinction is mentioned between asbestos and asbestos related meso- thelioma In fact page 10-14 discussion does its best to implicate asbestos as the cause by innuendo and pure conjecture such " . . only four people were reported with known exposure to asbestos Eight others were felt to have experienced some exposure .. . of the remaining individuals in it is interesting to note that one person was listed as a toll collector .. " It is very apparent the formulators of this proposal have made the pre- determination that asbestos is the cause of mesothelioma incidence within Connecticut At best this is a very unscientific assessment To be sure asbestos and especially the variety crocidolite has been factually associated with the development of human mesothelioma However a significant body of data bas been published 3 which document asbestos induced human mesothelioma 2Reference is made to papers presented at the Dec. 5 1977 meeting of the Society for Occupational and Environmental Health in Washington DC by Dr. C. Wagner of Llandough Hospital Wales U.K and Dr. M. Davis of the Institute of Occupational Medicine Edinburgh Scotland These papers especially Dr. Wagner's discuss both asbestos and asbestos induced mesotheliomas Dr. Wagner's paper Animal Model for Inhalation Exposure to Talc discusses the development of a proposed animal study however in the preliminary section he discusses the known causes of human lung cancers especially meso- thelioma Also refer to discussion section of proceedings PROTECTED RGS 052675 Page 4 Dr. Wagner in his presentation at the December 1977 meeting of the Soci- ety for Occupational and Environmental Health discussed two relevant studies The first study deals with an almost epidemic level of mesothelioma among villagers of two Turkish communities ten cases in 1977 out of a population of 600 The Health Ministry of Turkey the U. S. EPA and the World Health Organization have conducted investigations which strongly implicates zeolite not asbestos as the causative agent Zeolite like asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral its occurrence in Connecticut is common especially in glacial moraine The second study dealt with development of human - mesothe lioma from exposure in India to burning of sugar cane bagasse You may rightly ask how this latter case has any bearing on mesothelioma in Connecti- cut but in so doing a serious discrepancy in the population statistics used by the DEP is pointed up Although attempts were made to make related adjustments population mobility was totally ignored Since World War II Connecticut has had a large influx of immigrants from the Carribbean and south border areas areas where growing and processing of sugar cane is basic to local economies Statistics on mesothelioma incidence make no distinction on whether individuals developed this cancer due to exposure to the causative agent whatever here or elsewhere they show only that diagnosis and termination occurred in Connecticut Refer is made to the published proceedings NBS Special - Publica tion 506 Workshop on Asbestos Definitions and Measurement Methods page 197 General Discussion Section to comments made pertaining to a study of mesothelioma in Switzerland where only 2 of 19 cases were related to asbestos exposure PROTECTED RGS 052676 Page 5 It is an undisputed fact that extremely long times exist between exposure to causing agents and clinical diagnosis of human mesothelioma In the case of asbestos induced mesothelioma the U.S. Department of Health Education and Walfare the Public Health Service and the National Institutes of Health in their joint publication Asbestos - An Information Resource DHEW Publication NIH 78-1681 May 1978 page 29 state In 85 of one series of mesothelioma cases death occurred more than 25 years after first exposure to asbestos with a range of 3.5 to 53 years Another investigator reported a mean latency period of 37 years and among a large cohort of as- bestos workers most deaths from pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas occurred 30-35 years after first exposure Accepting this latter statement that about 33 years is the significant la tency period for asbestos exposure we will now expose another serious dis- discrepancy in the proposal's corner Working back from the 1960-1969 time period when the statistically significant rise in mesothelioma occurred we note that if it was asbestos exposure first occurred between 19271936 in these individuals It is well known that the first recommendation for limiting occupational exposure to asbestos was made in 1938 by the U.S. Public Health Service This recommendation wasn't generally accepted until 1964 | and wasn't mandated until the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.4 Exposure levels to industrial usage of asbestos during 1927- 1936 were uncontrolled to lack of knowledge relating to associated health Asbestos Asbestos An Information Resource U.S. Dept. of Health Education and Welfare al DHEW Publication NIH 78-1681 dated May 1978 p 5 PROTECTED RGS 052677 hazards To promulgate a regulation as proposed on the basis of alleged mesothelioma incidence diagnosed in 1960-1969 without considering the very significant variable of asbestos exposure levels between 1927-1936 and current legal limits is unjustifiable Before pursuing a discussion of current levels of allowable occupational and emission exposure limits we need to back up minute and complete an earlier line of discussion To pick up where we left off on discussing nonasbestos inducement of mesothelioma the current technique used in trying to determine whether a material is carcinogenic in man is to utilize animal testing Reference 4 page D lists a number of materials other than asbestos that have demonstrated capability to produce intrapleural and intra- peritoneal mesothelioma These are brucite a mineral ceramic fiber barium sulfate glass powder and aluminum oxide We don't generally agree that these animal studies are directly corre- lateable to human development of disease however they do raise questions which need to be further investigated If indeed other materials can lead to the development of mesothelioma in humans then enactment of regulations to control only one causative agent on the premise that passage will reduce human incident level to the same risk as death due to train accidents seems irresponsible The General Public will be misled and industry will be forced to use asbestos materials which may very well prove to be equally haz- ardous A recent literature search by computer of a filing called Excerpta Medica file 72 turned up 11 documented studies of asbestos induced mesothelioma in humans attached related study This listing also shows the bagasse- PROTECTED RGS 052678 Page 7 Getting back to current exposure levels to asbestos passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the Clean Air Act of 1977 have imposed upon industry and society stringent exposure limits limits which in no way existed during any of the statistically significant time periods refer-refer- enced by the DEP in their risk assessment No accurate data exists on possible asbestos exposure levels to workers and the general public back between 1926-1949 Most estimates of past exposure levels relative to the current 2.0 cc hours TWA are 10 to 50 times above this level This would give 8 hour exposure levels of 20 to 100 fibers Granted no threshold level has been found below which asbestos does not create lung cancer however considerable documentation does exist showing a direct relationship between response 6,7 Use of statistical manipulation based on mesothelioma deaths between 1960-1969 without considering exposure levels between 1926-1937 and extrapolating this cancer's risk factor against today's legally mandated exposure levels is clearly conjecture Another deficiency is the DEP's comparison of this mesothelioma incidence against projected Connecticut asbestos consumption Conceding 6A paper titled Nicholson Arthur M. Epidemiological Evidence on Asbestos by William J. Langer Irving J. Selikoff presented at the Workshop on Asbestos July 18-20 1977 at the National Bureau of Standards See proceedings in NBS Special Publication 506 page 85. Also see proceedings discussion page 141 A paper titled and Fiber Dimensions presented at the above Also see proceedings Epidermiologic Evidence of the Effect of Type of Asbestos on the Production of Disease in Man by W. Clark Cooper workshop NBS Special Publication 506 page 123. discussion page 141 PROTECTED RGS 052679 Page 8 asbestos isa cause of mesothelioma we submit this approach is either coin- cidental or irrelevant No distinction between types of asbestos is made yet medical authorities state there exists indisputable evidence that crocidolite a variety of asbestos is the major cause of asbestos induced mesothelioma 7,8 If true then a comparison against consumption of this mineral would be more appropriate However there are two other points that require emphasis here First there is significant evidence to suggest that radiation exposure is harmful where mesothelioma is concerned We submit that early medical usage of ray diagnosis involved quite high radiation levels relative to today's stan dards and that these may have contributed to higher level of incidence It would be interesting interesting to plot mesothelioma incidence against ray utilization as a function of dosage at least on the basis of conjecture it may be much more relevant than the plot against asbestos The second point that we wish to bring up is the DEP's apparent lack of consideration given to natural contributors of asbestos and asbestos fibers Asbestos and other fibers occur naturally Thus it is reasonable to assume that man's disturbance of the environment would contribute to airborne presence of these types of fibers Geologically Connecticut is amply endowed with rock formations that contain these type of fibers From the Asbestos An Information Resource 4 page 51 we quote See Reference 2 1977 meeting Dr. Wagner's paper presented at the SOEH December Asbestos Asbestos An Information Resource U.S. Public Health Service al DHEW NIH Publication 78-1681 May 1978 page 96 PROTECTED RGS 052680 Page 9 " Asbestos Emissions from Natural Sources Rock that contains asbestos can be disturbed by natural means such as weathering or landslides or inadvertently by such human interventions as road building construction and tilling of the soil If the primary areas of source rock are looked at in conjunction with high population density the most critical areas for emissions from natural sources appear to be eastern Pennsylvania southeastern New York southwestern Connecticut and greater Los Angeles and San Francisco Nowhere within the proposal for asbestos emission standards or in the supporting data do we see any consideration given to contributions from these sources Turning now from addressing these proposals on the basis of our understanding of published documents we will proceed to discuss them more based on our practical experiences Asbestos is now regulated by a number of federal agencies the EPA regulates emissions to the environment OSHA regulates manufacturing ex- posure limits MESA regulates mining and quarrying exposures to workers and CPSC regulates exposure to consumers Presently the EPA's emission standard states No visible emission and application of best available control technology The DEP has called this rather general in scope and thus is proposing a numerical standard instead On the surface this seems to be a reasonable premise however is it really We think not The EPA first promulgated their ambient standard in 1973. In August of 1974 the EPA announced initiation of a major study to determine asbestos 10 levels nationwide and to review existing regulations for a need to adjust them Volume 5 Number 16 BNA Environmental Reporter page 477 PROTECTED RGS 052681 Page 10 To date no modifications to this standard have been promulgated The EPA has discussed a possible numerical standard being assigned however they expressed considerable concern over its validity As no changes have occurred in their standard we can only surmise it is because either no justification exists or that its practicality is doubtful Now let us look at the present EPA standard and what it means First no visible emission means just nothing visible Normal human eyesight can detect particles down to about 25-30 microns in size that's 10-6 meters Also that applies to the emission point not to the property line Second application of best available control technology is not at all ambiguous In the first place is flexible and allows for improvements in technology to be applied in the second place and probably most important it recognizes technology's capabilities and limitations According to the Asbestos An Informa tion Resource page 83 the best available control technology for particulate removal is fabric filtration having efficiencies of up to 99.9 percent on weight basis This latter statement is very significant 99.9 percent efficient on weight basis however a significant piece of data is missing is above what minimum size Most experts and suppliers of fabric filters will agree that 99.9 percent of all particulates above 0.5 microns in size is about the current state It is important to note that particles less than 0.5 microns in dimension will pass through the collectors Particles with lengths greater than 0.5 microns will in all probability be trapped Two vital points follow First any standard based on total weight of a PROTECTED RGS 052682 Page 11 given particulate ignores particle shape or size This totally disregards the medically significant fiber Innumerable studies and papers have been given 12 emphatically stating fiber size is crucial in the development of lung cancers Most medical researchers agree that medically significant fibers are those that are about 0.25 microns in diameter with a length greater than 8 microns this is an aspect ratio of 1:32 diameter to length No medical studies have shown that particles of 0.5 microns or less in length are carcinogenic Second inclusion of very small particles into the total standard introduces almost impossible analytical and identification problems Quoting from page 10-1 of the DEP's proposal Connecticut proposed a numerical ambient air quality standard of 30 mor 30,000 total asbestos fibers determined by electron microscopy per cubic meter of air 30 day average and compatible mass emission standard of 24 day . The DEP conducted an ambient air asbestos survey . " this survey was dis-dis- cussed in a paper presented to the NBS Asbestos Workshop by L. Bruckman In the discussion following the paper recorded in the proceedings of NBS Special Bulletin 506 page 197 L. Bruckman states that total weight of collected sample was not run on the Connecticut survey samples All asbestos determinations were based on chrysotile mass measurements We would stress this is a highly variable and imprecise technique On rv The SOEH meeting held in December 1977 in Washington a half dozen papers that stressed this See proceedings D.C. had The NBS Special Bulletin 506 the proceedings of a day asbestos work-work- shop held at the National Bureau of Standards in July 1977 had over a dozen papers where this is pointed out PROTECTED RGS 052683 Page 12 page 10-5 of the proposal data reference is made to the fact that approxi- mately 1000 asbestos nanogram of asbestos is an applicable ratio between weight and fiber count This then becomes a basis for the 30 memission standard Referring to page 11 of Asbestos An Information Resource we quote The ratios of microscope to microscope- visible fibers vary among plant emissions the workplace and the general environment as well as within each of the categories No universal ratios or factors for conversion of optical microscope results to electron microscope results exist . . No single factor for conversion of mass emissions to fiber emis - sions exists Fiber ratios differ markedly from the occupational to the general environments and they also differ markedly with each environment The number of microscope fibers per nanogram might well range from 100 - 10,000 " From these data we see that the supposition of 1000 asbestos fibers/ nanogram could be off by a factor of 10 either high or low Add to this the variability of sampling bearing in mind that this survey used a modification of the EPA approved sampling method and the very high variability of analy-analy- sis by microscope and you see why we express our concern To be sure microscope analysis specifically transmission electron microscopy with ray diffraction is the most accurate mode of analysis available However this does not mean is absolute The EPA in their recently released publication Electron Microscope Measurement of Airborne Asbestos Concentrations Publication EPA 2-77-178 dated 8/1977 states in the foreward page iii Electron microscopy is currently the principal technique used to identify and characterize asbestos fibers in PROTECTED RGS 052684 Page 13 ambient air and water samples . The several laboratories that perform such analyses generally have reasonable internal consistency However interlaboratory comparisons have shown that the results obtained by the separate laboratories are often widely different Continuing in Asbestos An Information Resource pp C C and 10 describe analytical disparities in duplicate analysis between perhaps two of the most respected authorities Mount Sinai Department of Environmental Medicine and the California Department of Health The average disparity factor in ten separate analyses between these laboratories using TEM Transmission Electron Microscopy was 89 with range of 210 through 2 Finally a number of papers on TEM analysis were presented at the NBS Asbestos Workshop which confirmed this high variability of results Addi- tionally the BNA Environment Reporter Volume 8 number 22 page 834 in their abstraction of the EPA's recently published publication EPA 600 2-77-178 states the reason for publication was to standardize interlaboratory procedure because Previous interlaboratory comparison tests of these prior used techniques had shown them to yield data that differed by as much as 1,000 to 10,000 fold . . " All of this assumes relatively pure asbestos samples and a high percentage of asbestos to asbestos materials in the sample Coupled with this would be industry's need to do its own compliance monitoring now we quickly realize applicability and correlation of data as major problems Because of the obvious large body of data indicating problems with TEM analysis in general and conversion of fiber identification to PROTECTED RGS 052685 Page 14 mass relationships specifically we raise questions pertaining to the signi ficance of the data obtained by the DEP on their survey conducted in 1975 and early 1977. Especially since the EPA didn't publish a provisional optimum electron microscope procedure until the latter half of 1977. We also have certain doubts pertaining to the data accumulated on the DEP survey itself Page 10-17 of the proposal documentation shows four sampling sites The molding materials facility referred to is Rogers Corpo- ration's Manchester Connecticut facility Here seven monitoring stations levels around the facility are shown with varying measured of asbestos Neither in this proposal nor the actual survey report is any mention made of certain variables which undoubtedly impacted on the one station exhibiting a high level value Namely that a large Chrysler auto dealership that does brake relining is located across the street from the plant nor that a very high stop and go traffic population passes by the plant nor that significant rail traffic local passes close by and finally no mention that large scale construction was underway in an industrial park less than 1/4 mile away We will return to comment further upon this survey We have shown our concerns pertaining to the establishment of the am- bient standard of 30 mlet us now address the problems of the 24 gram premise emission standard First on page 10-9 of the proposal it is stated that 24 grams is the allowable emission rate measured 300 to 350 feet from the source However on page 186 the proposal itself explicitly states There shall be no emissions of asbestos to the ambient air from any premise which engages in the processing or manufacturing of any asbestos- asbestos- PROTECTED RGS 052686 Page 15 containing product in excess of 24 grams What happened to the 300-350 foot sampling distance from the source It appears to us that this number value has been rather arbitrarily cho- sen certainly no consideration as to the probability of its technical achieve- ment has been given Going back to our previous discussion on best available technology for particulate removal you will remember the reference to the quoted government figures that particulate removal of up to 99.9 percent is best available technology Rogers Corporation has installed a large number of pulsed fabric collectors which meet this criteria in fact the manufacturer of the collectors guarantees 99.99 percent removal of particles greater than 0.5 microns in dimension Although we have no transmission electron microscopy analyses of our emissions available at this time we can easily perform some mass balance calculations Taking three 3 collectors and weighing the amount of col- lected asbestos particulates over a period of time we can project what the emission rate will be Collector Designation Weight Collected over 13 days . Daily Average 725 - 15 2,090 lbs 160.8 lbs 735 - 8 18,698 lbs 1,438.3 lbs 745 - 14 15,605 lbs 1,200.4 lbs approx 2,799.5 lbs 2799.5 2799.5 lbs 99.99 - 100.00 100.00 mday Air Flow 448,589 285,486 285,486 285,486 x = 2,799 lbs 2,799.8 lbs ~ 2,799.5 lbs 0.3 lbs PROTECTED RGS 052687 Page 16 Converting to grams 0.3 lbs x 454 grams = 136.2 grams Thus we can project that just three of our numerous collectors all of which reflect best available technology emit 5.7 times the proposed emission standard per premise Hence our position that we believe compliance is not technologically possible All of this on the basis of particles greater than 0.5 microns dimensionally If we added the weight of all particles including those less than 0.5 microns in size this number would rise significantly) Additionally a small amount of particulates are lost during cleaning and removal of dust from these collectors which would increase emission level Another very real contributor to increased emission would be enactment of OSHA's proposed 0.5 cc standard in lieu of the current 2.0 cc standard This would force an increase in air movement out of plant and an attendant increase in fibers emitted Going back now to our earlier comments on the DEP survey study the data showing one sampling station out of seven set up around our Manchester Connecticut facility with a high reading exhibited an interesting anomaly Bearing in mind that the highest recorded value was 33 m10 percent over proposed ambient standard and disregarding for the moment our comments pertaining to other contributing factors we note that the average value was 8.1 mIf we were emitting 5.7 times the proposed emission standard of 24 premise then we didn't significantly show up on the site sampling survey This would suggest that 24 premise although compatible to the proposed 30 m ambient standard is much lower than PROTECTED RGS 052688 Page 17 it should be This is a very significant inconsistency It also suggests some very real problems with the survey technique used Now we would like to briefly discuss the impact upon Rogers Corpora-Corpora- tion should this proposal be implemented as written Based on our premise that complicance is not possible then one of two possibilities exist 1 We relocate the manufacturing operations using asbestos fibers outside Connecticut 2 We close down those asbestos operations for which asbestos sub- stitutes are not available Both would mean loss of jobs in Connecticut Case 2 would - conserva tively involve the immediate reduction of one third of our Manchester Division work approximately 60 people would be affected The loss in business sales to the Corporation under case 2 would be of the order of 8,300,000 year That represents over 11 percent of the Corporation's 1978 sales The ripple effect of case 2 imposition is not easily calculated but it would be significant both in and out of Connecticut We have not because of the extremely short time available to us from when we became aware of these proposals and the end of public comment on January 30 1979 less than 20 days commented upon all of the weaknesses and errors in the proposals However we believe those discussed reasonably reflect the overall problem It is quite easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize it is another matter to offer specific recommendations for addressing obvious shortcomings This PROTECTED RGS 052689 Page 18 is a very complex problem and one which does pose a potential health risk We would offer the following suggestions 1 Because we know of no federal or judicial mandate to include this asbestos proposal in the overall SIP for air quality we recommend its separation from this plan 2 We suggest the establishment of a committee of experts from DEP industry academia EPA medical consultants testing labora-labora- tories and emission control equipment manufacturers to define the scope of the problem to separate fact from supposition to set realistic and achievable standards and to develop meaningful analytical protocols mb PROTECTED RGS 052690