Document r60rvpoQL7kd2d27RZvJMDrve
1625{$Urt.NVVr wathmgtorr, DC 2000b 202-872-1060
^OrganizationResources
CounsdoFS^Inc.
Memorandum.
February 21, 19.84
TO; From: Subject
ORC Asbestos Taste Force
Darrell K. Mettheis
Report of February 9, 1984 Task Force Meeting and Announcment of the next Task Force Meeting
Next Task Force Meeting:
The next meeting of the Asbestos Task Force; wAiiT h'fe.MomMarcbi 2&, 1984 at ORC Offices in Washington D.C. The meeting will begin at 1:00 pm and last to approximately 5;00 pt.ra.-
Purpose of the February 9. 1984 Meeting
The Task Force met to decide what kind of a response should be made to the OSHA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Draft-) that had previously been distributed.
Defining OSHA'-s Intent
The draft NPR is so vaguely worded that it is difficult to determine just what OSHA has in mind. The NPR rather than outlining what OSHA intends to do, asks for comments at every critical juncture, and says that final action will depend on the comments that it receives! This format-gives the agency almost complete freedom of action to do what ever it wishes, since in addition to the comments that they already have, they will receive additional arguments on both sides of every question asked. This will enable OSHA to shape its response to meet the demands of the moment, rather than be locked into a clearly outlined position.
CONFIDENTIAL
005490
Page 2
Given the fact that OSHA's risk assessment was developed with the assistance of Dr. Selikoff's group at Mount Sinair and that la.box.-_ NIOSH &#diisorahiinircfnmenta 1 groups have pushed' V^ry fcffcifd 'f0'rr^a|J**?fj PEL of 0.1 fibers/cc, it seems possible that with approjpyfatd. pressure, OSHA could be persuaded to lower the PEL to 0.1 fibers/cc.
NPR At 0MB (EARLY MARCH .PUBLICATION POSSIBLE)
At the moment, OSHA seems to be committed to a PEL of 0.5 fibers/cc
with reasonable flexibility allowed for the use of respirators.
OSHA sent an asbestos NPR to 0MB on February 10, 1984, and it is
said to be very similar to the early draft released to the Construc
tion Advisory Committee. The draft* etfnfc to 01"d&ciltstfed 0.5, 0.2
and . 0.1 fibers per/cc as a possible PEL. It is possible that
the NPR will be published by the begirftri$ 'of^arbh
as OMB
has seen it alreadi y , a. nd it is b,e ing handled on an *"expedited*" basis.
What Should Our Strategy Be?
To be roost effective, we must be positive in our comments. If. we wish OSHA to continue to support a PEL of 0.5,.fibers, fee, it is important that we give the agency positive comments designed to strengthen the 0.5*PEL.
This does not mean that we cannot be critical of the risk assessment or other assumptions made in the document. Indeed, it is imperative that we take care to point out (in a positive way) that because of the very conservative assumption^' made in the-risk estimate, the number of actual cases of disease that may result from exposure to asbestos fibers in the-*modern working environment is likely to be significantly smaller than--those in-OSHA's risk estimate.
The Task Force should concentrate on those elements of the NPR where we have good data, or where we know that OSHA is weak. This means that we need to respond to individual elements Of the. risk estimate as well as many of the specific questions that OSHA is asking.
Responding To The Risk Estimate
The first thing we need to do here is to carefully read the OSHA ETS, because it contains a much more detailed discussion of their risk estimate than the NPR. Additionally, I will obtain a copy of the risk estimate that OSHA entered into the record and make this available to those who request it.
CONFIDENTIAL
005491
Page 3
- *..-**q
assumed expo&U^e'l&vel"of' |eftfstos ifb&Hi a8p&8iifs ui
day, 5 days a week; 'T!ft `4b
Tassuiiip`i8a,'fShfen
attacked on_____ ' _. * `
in a number *& :;mfijdr 5 industries; (^)1fh^ft\toB&Esi'v&&}krs r&$pge<*
to asbestos'fJ k**...*
Jhs
(found mainlys
asbestos tS^s^^adfiy
we industries actually has as the basis for plants remaining.^ ^ ...... as well as thefr"`rate 'o^reiiSPirffT?
s;
A useful tool for otfr commerrts on"trie OSHA'risk: istmae`'i's: an affidavit of Dr. Kenny Sherman Crump concerning the OSHA ETS. I am including that document with .this report.
Another area of concern iV that of '*f ruction
^bn'e "cr>f ^ *
the major remaining uses **; :.~bestdS iV id tft!*prdJfflfctiI#rfc' instaf- !:
lation, repair and replacement of brake linings and clutch facings.
We need to collect as much as possible of the perti.nep.t. data published in this area, and where it is available, unpublishedda-ta Vha't would assist us in making, pur'case.
Preparing Qur; Response
j-
HM
In our comments to OSHA we need to present data shoeing._t hat,,the . ,
actual, as opposed to calculated, hazard at 0.5 ^bW^^'id-sm'a^l^--
and that with appropriate measures, personal exposure levels should,
be much lower than- CpJS'.
'
' ' ''
t*
The comments should emphasize that* in gehdr.al .Irt^ttstry *. wripre .mpddC,,',
of the potential exposure to asbestos fibers exists, exppjs'ures. are
low, intermittent, of'ten not feasible to enjginieer put,, and "that ipC 1
any case the individual is protected through the use of personal
'
prctective equipment.
005492
Page 4
We need to make $fte point that in a practicftl sense, the quality 6? the protection frbqeiyOd by the employee depends mofe on"the quAli^y of the Safety and health program and its enforcement^ than it does on setting a,low $EL.
We ,nee^ to fincTda^a.tb back-up the point.that for a.,.high percentagj 6f general Indus^r^ exposure, the'nature^of the . work heihS $$ne;mke;5 the Use of engineering cqhtrOIS.Almost impossi^ie. ` -fbdsi .mdftt^of^tSe employp^is ,doing..#opTwfiere thebe is a potential fbr.i^e', release' of .'asbestos ...fi^eSs, will' use a cbmbfni^Ipn ofJfbrft prftdiced'and..respi|afbrs,,
to prevent exposure-to'dangerous3levels of asbestos .fibers*
We need to maito.it .clpar ..that .whJLjUwe would, like to .keep
the ambient ieyeil of aetielios :fibers. as lqw .as*bos4t&ie
it. is often dr^fic^lt to`keep
below.'0/5 `while "ejoij
is/being,done/ `th^s! the .us^of f ii^testedt, .efic^en.i-/
respirators can `and does reduce employee ^exposure ','kp.r - `
below 0.5 fibers/cc. te need'to emphasize,that it does
not make sense to equate ambient air concentrations with
employee exposure, and present data to back up that
contention.
We need to comment on fiber type and industrial process as important determinent.s in the kind and amount of disease found among those exposed.
Our Time Is Limited!
We need to carefully read OSHA's TS and NPR; Dr. Kenny Crump's affidavit, and we should look over the OTA paper. Then, as individuals, determine which of OSHA's questions we can best answer. We should begin this reading and selection process as early as possible, since once the NPR is- published,, we are only, going, .to have 45 days to. prepare and submit our written response.
What I Am Requesting.
I would like to request that as you read over the questions that OSH A has asked, or as you contemplate the larger questions involved, you select a question or questions that you would feel comfortable answering, and write up your thoughts and bring them to the March 26 meeting of the task force. Once you have chosen a topic or question if you would give me a call to let me know what you have selected I would appreciate it. That way I can coordinate things so we have the most complete coverage of the questions.
CONFIDENTIAL
005493
Page 5
OSHA's Questions
Begiiritffe: on page 7 in the draft Copy of their NPR OSttA lists-
19 questions that cover, `in & goitera! way, tiie- areas where they
want some answers. *Tfrese questfotfd ;do hot necessarily match
those thkt OSH A asks in the course1 of the discussion, - Thus it
is important to carefully examine both sets of questions to
determine what the aghhacy refefliy wants* -
'
I have reproduced the initial 19 questions, (attached) and in
the following, I list the questions OSHA asks in the course of
the NPR discussion and the pagej they`Are ca* E urge all to read
the whole discussion however, because the intent of the questions
becomes' Clearer in Context.
*
Definitions
' .
page 28: "OSHA requests comments on how the nonasbestiforms or varieties of the mineral should be "regulated. A change in defini tion would mean that the mineral fibers that are now regulated as asbestos under the OSHA standard would no longer be-specifically
regulated, but would rthdr fall into the nuisance dUst category. QShA requests and encourages public coraents on whethe-B' theraiaeralogic definition of asbestos fibers should be iised ift OSHA-s definition for protecting worker health. OSHA requests comments on how mineral fibers that are not asbestos in the mineralogic sense should be regulated.
page 28: "Another issue concerning the definition of asbestos is whether asbestos which has been chemically treated or altered should be regulated the same as untreated or unaltered asbestos."
Page 29: "Public comment is requested regarding whether asbestos that has been chemically treated' and/or altered^should :Be' regu-^ lated to the same extent as other forms of asbestos."
PERMISSIBLE EXPOSERE LEVELS
Page 32: "OSHA belives however, that a PEL lower than 0.5 fibers/cc maybe desirable to reduce risk for any fiber type if measurable, and OSHA is encouraged that the British appear to have had success with the 0.2 f/cc limits for certain fiber types. OSHA requests comments on whether the scientific evidence is sufficient to support differences in the asbestos standard for some fiber types and whether such differences are feasible."
CONF/DENT/AH!i.
005494
Page 6
ACTION LEVEL
Page 37: "Also, although OSHA recognizes the potential tritcertai-fity;
of asbestos itnesa5^0jme^a^ afer .^bacen tjsatLaos -belqykntJhje .^rcwpSjE^ a
DDT
AOU.A
AW. _4vW"A4f
fA r\4
rn'iaai^
and ift
action leye3nt0wa&siA
^qratfte^.onj.tHis; tissue- 1f` ]
"OSHA requests corafriehts on wtye&te# a#
adopted, and if so* what requirements it should trigger^"
i
t ?a) .anoilaeup -:f .a * t - A-
i;~v t
inij r.i afiaa AHEO anv.x Jav c. -f.i * *: I , yrr-w:a m-4t!agpo-smas^MONLimiNa.... , r . !j4
Page 38
> ad; To
. *dJ equated , n^v-^od r.o:2?:u;<
"OSHA requests "data, " informaiiqn^^{^olgigeaija'^onq^j^LiMi^ny
changes that should be*ina#e in the monitoring provisions of' the" " " '
current asbestos standard* "
_ ,,...,.. ,
' `>.1 n iw. .-c or! J *oo i<\ - : nv~-\- <-;
-, ., - < . j R E&BLAT EP,=AREAS. .. ~
--is, t .: '
* (i
v*r*'
....: i .n
* an;
r*r; ... ,, - }
Page 39: . "QSH^ ftis&fcoipaifce rfeh$t>,the .regulated axeas..may be estar 1 a
blished at litheg%^lfiQHJ.i5g:gl.s;r -OSttfc ..request's,. comments on ,whe.tjejj *,
this is approp^a^q* and?ffit%jfe<^dd4tiQnai5^qti.yiti.es Zshqu'ld^e .
required;or: pirqbiifAped ip;tj.|garegelated .area*""
' . : ?',
i pS ' A . '. ft J 1 & # cl '-*', > '' ' n i r`.-J -i-idti for, :- . METHODS OE COMPLIANCE
Page 41: "OSHAtqoliei^^qqBraeptSggoncerning^tbe fmetbods ,of com pliance. The aae%-sy?is`jp^ptiauja3|iyninte^qsted in recei^ying v ' comments* ;infqjip^tigu,, d^f^and^G^her^exidenqe ..concerning the. extent to which respirators may 'provide'effective protection
against-
rqqon(a,.a substitute,,.a
for engineeringv^r-cme '-
r
".ao-Jy-wSea 1o *rto\ lerfj Hi '...??3. .vr.,.. -ha * .-
page 42: As an aftenatbivo to proposing a flexible compliance requirement for all asbestos workplaces, OSHA is considering a limited exemption from aogeng&neeringcgon trolrEQqqir.ement for
--.{
intermittent exposure
A--requests"comments
regarding,<an;,e5erap^iQn,..frqnj engineering coqtrolSj
for intermitted
$qtasbes.iqs and ,.bo^. it .`can be. applied.-^--7
to the typef^gl Ofpqfupef ^in-fhe af^fcted .industries." In any
case OSHA.,infendg?iQ. maintain-the eAisting, requirement for
engineering-jConi^qls. towiedqce exposures 'to 2 t/.co. This will
prevent massive,ree$se qfjasbestos fiber in the working environment.
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Page 44-45: "OSHA believes that advances in work practices since 1972 have reduced exposure levels in these operations
owc
005495
Page 7
si'
> ; n t u:: '*:< * - ^*1. : i *; q r f.-rTiMEDICAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
surveilllfn\:e>'j^b^lbhisriiai;e ftot I ncluded*,'Tbr t&sfeu&Wiotf
O'Vi^Tf/bb^iivel*
` *" ' * :`"
' -J !!'
<*o
(a) ?`Th,ea`&ctilbrri l%Veir- concept- ii^-lApi#'r^rl'k1te'! fbr*; ra&di'calj SdrfiS; 1-?
lance and what action level should apjjrTy
* ' ' -:'r-- '
-
(b) Thfe-1 fre-ueficy otn ches^x-Tay^`a^aThi?&k;tli6iiiS'H's&buld be' ci'ettPbaseS
for young- employees- or empit)yee&' wfW:siibrt?
expb'ktrresA. " '' '
`
\'t ; ~
.,.7 i 'rr.it /:/;;-? : *- * t;
' . -.
(c) There* sird'uld? bb a- elartilbra-tiotf bf* Vtre. t'infi^withib-which1
the employer- must-f conduct prepl'ai&raeht ` examinations* after `hiring
employees'*;
':
.............r: 1 '- *" ' '
(d) There should be any additional tests or procedures (such r '
as use of questionnaires) for the purposes of early diagnosis of
any disease, including asbestosis; and
> 7 / j Vy- - . v. ; 7 :.'
(e) There should be screening tests for colo-rectal cancer such ,,
as tests-for occdlt*'- Bld6d;lh-* tfte-^ feces1? anti-^ ^if`-;' Oiiiy*i:"B`,'reai#r9*`3t`,i
should^tnterpret-f<-rayS.-:
i
:
' -'' -i : ~
2
^METHODS OP -iMi-Ei ASUrR11 EME" "N1 [T' '"
.,,,
,;
Page 49-50: "One issue raised in the record to date is whether phase contrast microscopy analysis, is capable of..reliable .measuring airborne concentrations of 0.5 f ibers/ccrAnd lessfrw". h it. may- oe \ possible that phase contrast microscdpy errors- can be rediiC^cLllf1 improved and standardized procedures are followed, perhaps by adding requirements to the standard."
I CONFIDENTIAL
005495
P*ge8
'In revisions to the permanent asbestos standard, OSHA may,
5 4 JO > i tJ c- zr-i . . <_/
tyw j-w F-
n .%
_________ ..
____
emoted
tbm. !; 7 .;i nastau Isval v-* 'r*>*'*ma ~sw[ .?5 eoq7-5 ^SitiywwwM-P<zmm&p sn
comments eh Vhlch anaT^rtfcar procedure provides the best results
and whether OSSA should specify the procedure iir the revised
asbestos standard."
yASOCa*! iOMAJJI3V3-J8 JAO 335*
replace, phases cont.ra.sXj ra^xppgo^;ft
l xsv:,. 3
measuring' airborne cohcehtraVtons^i.^ji^s^i^^t^tMis ^time5-Tr.1.i :n 1
OSHA believes that it is not practical or necessary tcT modify
i ts - standard to:, ,rfq.^ire^ electrojn. microscopy. analysis.instead, of 3 ,
phase contrast' light microscbpyr.5h'.
\..... ...
a:
"OSHA requests information, rela^ng, o_ .the*,relative' merits o-v the electron^ microscopy. iuid.;p|iaj5^^pqE^'^^jniCf;o8cp.pe*. raeifchodsjK
and to the feasibility and appropriateness of other methods of
measurement^ for airborne asbestos^ fibers.-.,}OSHA also? requests- v data on the^ statistical.! Limits. ofL.raejjrsurements.t at. the 0,5-< f/oC'}*
0.2 f/cc and' 0.1 f/cc levels and comments on whether OSHA shouLdr.^-
choose an action level which is more uncertain in terms of measure
ment than the PEL."
^.
CLOSING COMMENT
r'. H
These,,are ,t-he mainrquestions OSHA^is^askingt- int the body of> itsa ?ah DRAFT NPR. 4 These`questions, plus those listedvinitially* Bepresent.-.*
a lot of work if we try to answer all of them, but I do not think we can answer them all in the time available. Again I want to remind you that we may .see tbeNPR published by the beginning of March 1984.
DKM/dm
CONFIDENTIAL
005497