Tobacco Documents Online

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 506. Proceedings of the Workshop on Asbestos: Definitions and Measurement Methods held at NBS, Gaithersburg, Mg, July 18-20, 1977. (Issued November 1978) IMPACT OF ASBESTOS REGULATIONS ON THE MINING INDUSTRY C. S. Thompson R. T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. Norwalk, Connecticut 06855 Abstract No one in the mining industry objects to proper regulation of toxic substances. No one in the mining industry has any objection to the rea- sonable control of asbestos as long as the regulations apply to the truly asbestiform varieties of specific minerals. Unfortunately, the regulators have ignored basic mineralogical data and have included numerous minerals which bear no resemblance to the asbestos upon which essentially all health data have been obtained. This gross extrapola- tion of the known health hazards of excessive exposures to true asbestos, to the non-asbestiform varieties of common rock-forming minerals is totally unwarranted. The full assessment of the economic impact of asbestos regulations, as with other restrictive legislation, will undoubtedly take many years. The impact is also greatly dependent upon the outcome and recomnenda- f tions resulting from this workshop. As of today, if the regulatory agencies apply their present rules and definitions regarding "asbestos", the entire mining industry and those dependent on it face an adverse economic impact unparalleled in its history. Furthermore, proposed regulations, based on the same erroneous definitions and extrapolations, are so restrictive they threaten the existence of major segments in a wide variety of areas within the mining industry. The continued promulgation and enforcement of mineral legislation based on errors and misconceptions will have severe economic effects on the total U.S. economy and on the individual taxpayer. Keywords: Amphibole; copper; crushed stone; fiber; iron; minerals; mining; quarrying; solid waste. First of all I would like to state that I am not a medical doctor and, therefore, will not attempt to evaluate the problems of real or imagined health hazards involved with exposure to minerals. I am a mineralogist and I am here today representing the American Mining Congress to do five things, as follows: 1. Remind everyone of the value of the mining industry to the overall U.S. economy; 2. Point out the widespread geographic distribution of the various segments of our industry; 3. Describe briefly the almost universal occurrence of certain minerals of interest in essentially all mineral deposits; 4. Discuss the confusion resulting from the erroneous and unwarranted expansion of the term "asbestos" to include many non-asbestiform minerals; and 5. Illustrate the inevitable economic disaster the enforcement of the present and/or proposed regulations will have on ineral related industries. 461

With regard to Item 1, it is probably unnecessary to spend much time pointing out to this audience the value of mineral products to the U.S. economy, but at times all of us forget how important these products are to our everyday life, and most of us are unaware of the quantities we consume in our various work and leisure activities. Figure 1, prepared by the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, illustrates rather graphically our dependence on materials derived from the mining and related industries. Without detailing the extreme diversity of uses of the basic commodities, it is obvious that the mining and mineral based industries are the very backbone of the economy of this country. At a time when our nation has finally become aware of the serious problems it faces in the general overall economic situation and in the specific areas of energy and raw material supply, it seems very strange and unfortunate that a small but very vocal segment of our population would insist on legislation that would directly increase the already great burden on the industry responsible for both. This is particularly unfortunate since the intent of the original and subsequent legislation regarding asbestos was to protect workers from excessive exposures in industrial environments where these exposures have been shown to pose a health hazard. No similar hazard has been shown to exist with exposures to the mineral dusts associated with normal mining and mineral handling industries now threatened. Secondly, the widespread geographic distribution of the various segments of our industry has been adequately discussed by several previous speakers - Drs. Zoltai, Ross, and Campbell in particular. To my knowledge, no state is without some form of mining operation, although the type and concentration of mining activities vary greatly. To illustrate the economic contribution, both in product value and jobs, and the dis- tribution of activities, I have chosen three of the many critical segments of our industry - iron mining (Table 1), copper mining (Table 2), and stone quarrying (Table 3). All the data presented were obtained from U.S. Department of the Interior documents, principally the Commodity Data Summaries 1977 [1]1. Table 1. Iron mining industry (1976 estimate). Mine Production - Ore 78 Million Tons Value - Ore 1.8 Billion Dollars No. of Major Companies 86 Major Mines 60 Concentration Plants 44 Pelletizing Plants 20 Employaent - Mine/Mill 20,500 Geographic Distribution Minn., Mich., Calif., Utah, Wy., Mo., Penn., N.Y., Tex., Wisc. 'Figures in brackets indicate the literature references at the end of this paper. 462

ABOUT 40,000 POUNDS OF NEW MINERAL MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED ANNUALLY FOR EACH U.S. CITIZEN N000 L 6S STONE 6060 LOS 666 LlS. K6 LOS UO LSS. 1E00 LLS SANDANOURAVfL CEMENT CLAVS SALT OTHER NONMETALS A0, IN v o m 'n;, 1000 LOS 46 L85, 16 L9S. 14 LBS. 1/ LYS. 31 LOS. OTHER IRON AND STEEL ALUMINUM COFPER ZINC LEAD METALS PLUS ]650 L eS. KTROLEUM 5700 LOS COAL 4200 LOS. NATURAL GAS v It? L/.UMANIUM TO GENERATE: ENERGY EQUIVALENT TO 360 PERSONS WORKING AROUNO THE CLOCK FOR EACH U $ CITIZEN U.S. TdTAL USE OF NEW MINERAL SUPPUES IN 197b WAS ABOUT 4 BILLION TONS I WREAU OF M1NE US DEPARTMEN f T OF THE 1NTEMIOR igure 1. Mineral use in the USA. N O Cn w ~. 0 463 N N Y

Table 2. Copper mining industry (1976 estimate). Mine Production Value 1.6 Million Tons 2.25 Billion Dollars No. of Major Companies 15 No. of Major Mines 25 Employment - Mine/Mill 34,000 Geographic Distribution Ariz., Utah, New Mexico, Mont., Mich., Nev., Mo., Tenn. Table 3. Stone quarrying industry (1975 estimate). Crushed Stone Production 888 Million Tons Value 2.02 Billion Dollars 2000 Companies - 5400 Quarries - 49 States Dimension Stone Production 1.5 Million Tons Value 104 Million Dollars 300 Companies - 460 Quarries - 43 States Total Employment - Quarry/Mill 54,000 It should be emphasized that all data presented are for the mining and milling indus- tries only and do not include the value added by the subsequent beneficiation and ultimate fabrication and use of these materials. This added value, the number of dependent industries with the required employment, and then geographic distribution dwarf the numbers listed in these tables. For example, while the iron mining industry produced ore valued at 1.8 billion dollars in 1976 and employed slightly aver 20 thousand workers, the iron, steel, and foundry industries had a combined output valued at an estimated 42 billion dollars and employed nearly three quarters of a million workers. Several previous speakers have thoroughly discussed the third point on my list, that of the almost universal occurrence of those mineral groups of particular interest to this workshop - the chain silicates (amphiboles and pyroxenes) and serpentines. These minerals are present in varying but significant amounts in all three of the mining industry seg- ments mentioned above, as they are in essentially every other mining operation in the United States, and for that matter the world. I would estimate that the chain silicates and serpentines make up about 15 percent of the earth's crust. All of the geoscientists, and several others who have addressed this audience, have made it very clear that the mineral species under discussion may occur in nature in both non-asbestiform and asbestiforn morphologies. They have also pointed out that the asbestiform varieties are very rare relative to their normal non-asbestiform counterparts, 464

and in some cases, such as with tremolite and actinolite, the asbestiform varieties are not available commercially and probably exist only in specimen quantities. The lack of understanding of this fact has led to the confusion surrounding the use and misuse of the term "asbestos." As I pointed out in an earlier article [2] the majority of the regulatory agencies developed standards without making use of readily available mineralogical expertise. With the publication of the OSHA Asbestos Standard in July 1972 [3], which listed six (6) minerals as being "asbestos" regardless of their morphology, using the single criterion of aspect ratio (>3:1 length:width) for classification as "fibers" or "non-fibers," the die was cast for all these intervening years. OSHA wrote its own mineralogical dictionary and most other agencies merely followed suit. Professor Zoltai, speaking earlier in this workshop, most elegantly stated the need "for an unambiguous, interdisciplinary language" in order that medical researchers, regulatory personnel, analysts, and geoscientists can speak together and understand each other. Grs. Zussman, Ross, and Campbell emphatically supported this need. It is my opinion that it is absolutely necessary that the materials being investigated, whether commercial, industrial, or environmental, be correctly defined and thoroughly character- ized by geoscientists in order that medical researchers will know what they are testing and evaluating. It is only then that we will know the nature of the mineral particulates which constitute health hazards and be able to delineate the type and degree of such hazards. It does make a difference! The last and key topic of my presentation is to shed some light on the economic disaster in store for the mining industry if the present, let alone proposed, "asbestos" regulations are enforced. First of all, who is involved? Not just asbestos miners and millers, not ;just the small operators (although they would undoubtedly be the first to be hurt), but essentially every mining/milling operation, every taxpayer, every citizen. At present, OSHA, EPA, and, in practice, MESA consider all mineral particles-three times longer than they are wide (3:1 aspect ratio) as "fibers" regardless of whether they grew as fibers or were broken into cleavage or fracture fragments. They list six (6) min- erals as being asbestos; chrysotile (a truly fibrous serpentine polymorph) and five amphiboles: crocidolite, "Amosite," anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite. Of the agencies mentioned, only MESA states in its regulation that the last three names (under- lined) are used for both non-fibrous and fibrous forms and must be qualified by the addition of the term asbestos; i.e., anthophyllite asbestos, etc. The others appear to believe that all forms of these three are asbestos, the only difference being that when they are not long silky fibers, but short stubby cleavage fragments, they become "non- commercial asbestos" [4], another term of convenience created by government bureaucrats. These regulations, as pointed out by the chairman of this session, were proposed and promulgated under intense public and political pressure in a panic situation without, I'm sure, any intent or realization of the scope of the problems created by the inclusion of mineralogical errors. The mining industry has been faulted because they failed to speak to the issue at the time of the OSHA asbestos hearings in early 1972. Only the asbestos segment of the industry was represented. The fact is that the rest of the mining industry had no need for input at that time because they did not have asbestos in their ores or products. It was only after an erroneous definition was promulgated that the industry 'gradually became aware that what they knew to be common rock-forming minerals present in essentially all mining operations had suddenly become "Government Asbestos." Reaction to this problem has been slow in coming, basically because of the great immediate pressure to pour vast amounts of time and money into complying with other government regulations regarding air and water effluents, changes in equipment and material handling procedures, etc. Another reason for a slow reaction, however, has been the general belief that the regulatory agencies, once informed of their error, would immediately seek proper mineralogical information and make the necessary corrections to limit their regulations to deal with the known hazards of true asbestos. This action not only hasn't taken place, but the agencies have continued to propose and/or promulgate regulations aimed at both lowering the permissible level of "government asbestos" and 465 2063105253

cl including more and more mineral particles which bear no resemblance to true asbestos, but which meet the sole criteria for a fiber (three times longer than they are wide). In the five years since the issuance of the OSHA Asbestos Standard we have seen the permissible levels decrease from 5 fibers/cm3 to 2 fibers/cm3 to a proposed 0.5 fibers/cm3 and a recommended (NIOSH) 0.1 fibers/cma. Philosophies on measurements are shifting from expression as fiber numbers to weight of total fiber in nanograms/m3. This latter ex- pression could allow for over 90 percent of the total fiber weight to be accounted for by one "fiber". No company or industry can develop a program to improve working conditions when faced with such constantly changing requirements. The zero level or lowest detectable amount philosophy is totally impractical and impossible to achieve. One clear and very disturbing fact stands out. A huge effort in time, energy, and money has been expended in medical research, development of analytical equipment and techniques, legislative efforts and interminable court battles, all before the material to be studied, detected, quantified, and regulated has even been properly defined or charac- terized. The cart has been placed before the horse. This situation must be reversed before an additional, and in many cases unbearable, burden is placed upon the backbone industry of the U.S. economy. My company, R. T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., has experienced the results of this confusion in "asbestos" definition and characterization. We are obviously not alone, but we have been directly or indirectly involved In two cases where "asbestos" citations were issued by OSHA on preliminary findings. These citations were contested, and in both cases all allegations regarding "asbestos" were dro,pped before trial when subsequent analytical data failed to show sufficient evidence of a violation of the asbestos standard. The overall economic impact of enforcement of the present asbestos regulations using the present "asbestos" definitions covers such a broad range of mining/milling activities that it would be impossible to even mention them all in the time or space allotted. I have chosen to illustrate the problem with the discussion of only one factor, which affects the majority of all mining operations, the disposal of waste materials. All metal and many non-metal mines are confronted with this task. In those cases of industrial mineral operations where there are no tailings, since the total material mined becomes the product, the impact of asbestos regulations becomes more complex and acute. In these instances the mining companies and their customers often must comply with the requirements of OSHA, FDA, CPSC, etc., in addition to meeting the regulations of MESA and EPA. In Table 4, I have selected a typical porphyry copper mining operation and only one of the many "asbestos" regulations governing it. This type of ore body is associated with varying but significant quantities (~2-6%) of amphiboles, present as the normal non-fibrous variety. Assuming a daily ore production of 60,000 tons containing 3 percent amphibole, approximately 58,000 tons of waste containing 1800 tons/day of "government asbestos" would be dumped as waste, most of it meeting the 3:1 aspect ratio, and therefore asbestos. Such a mining operation normally has a 2:1 stripping ratio, thus 120,000 tons of overburden containing (ti5 percent) 6000 tons of "government asbestos" is also blasted, moved, and dumped every day, making a total of 7800 tons/day to be dealt with. The one regulation I referred to is the EPA regulation requiring all active mine dumps containing over one percent "asbestos" be covered by at least six inches of compacted non-asbestos containing material at least once every 24 hours [5]. Assuming that it was possible to find soil, pulverized rock, etc. which was free of "government asbestos," and assuming that the farmers or environmentalist groups, etc. would allow it to be moved, it takes little imagination to visualize the costs involved with digging, transporting, spreading, and compacting some 18,000 tons/day of this material. This is the estimated amount of cover needed for a waste dump of 180,000 tons of tailings six feet deep covering 15 acres. The hypothetical case presented in Table 4 for a copper mining operation will hold true for most other metal and some non-metal mining activities by substitution of the proper numbers. Remember that this case discusses only one factor in any mining operation and only one regulation. The added costs of this one item alone would be prohibitive in most cases, opening the door for our country's dependence an foreign sources for more and more of our raw materials. 466

Table 4. Copper mining - typical operation. Material Handled Ore Mined 2-5% Amphiboles Tailings Dumped - 3-6% Amphiboles Overburden Moved 5% Amphiboles 60,000 Tons/Day 1,800 Tons/Day 58,000 Tons/Day 1,800 Tons/Day 120,000 Tons/Day 6,000 Tons/Day TOTAL AMPHIBOLES Area of Dump (6' Depth) Tailings Overburden TOTAL DUMP AREA 7,800 Tons/Day 5 Acres/Day 10 Acres/Day 15 Acres/Day Amount of Cover Required -"Asbestos" Free (6" Depth) Tailings 5,000 Tons/Day Overburden 10,000 Tons/Day TOTAL COVER 15,000 Tons/Day In order to remain viable and serve in its proper place in the U.S. economy, the mining industry needs the following conditions with regard to "asbestos": 1. Correct mineral definitions developed by geoscientists; 2. Adequate analytical methods and qualified analysts for thorough characterizations and quantification of mineral particulates; 3. Medical data on the health effects of such well characterized materials; and 4. Realistic exclusion levels for those materials which will afford acceptable risk. References [1] Lommodity Data Summaries - 1977, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of the Interior. [2] Thompson, C. 5., Asbestos In Your Future, Mining Congress Journal, 62, (12) (December 1976). [3] Federal Register 37 F.R. 11320-11322 July 7, 1972. [4] Federal Register 40 F.R. 47652-47665 October 9, 1975. [5] Federal Register 40 F.R. 48292-48302 October 14, 1975. Discussion NOTE: Discussion of this paper was included in the General Discussion at the end of this session. 467