BACKGROUND:

Asbestos is a commercial term for six naturally occurring minerals that are composed of long, thin, flexible fibers that easily separate and become airborne. The six regulated asbestos minerals also exist in a fundamentally different structure as prismatic, rock-forming minerals, in prismatic crystal forms. These prismatic minerals are common rock-forming components of many igneous and metamorphic rock types found along the east and west coasts of the U.S., in the Midwest and in Alaska. The problem is that the definitions and analytical methods that have been used to define and measure asbestos in air and bulk samples are not able to distinguish between the harmful forms of the minerals and those forms that pose no health effects.

In 1986, OSHA passed a regulation that tightened existing rules on six asbestos minerals while expanding its rules to include three prismatic, rock-forming minerals. The mining industry, including the aggregates sector, challenged this action. In 1992, after public hearings, OSHA recognized the problem and concluded that exposure to these prismatic, rock-forming minerals does not cause the adverse health effects associated with asbestos. The issue emerged again in the wake of asbestos contamination found at a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana that resulted in serious asbestos-related illnesses occurring among miners there and within the Libby community. Several federal agencies, including the EPA and MSHA, are currently examining the need for additional regulation of naturally occurring asbestos. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), non-regulatory agencies, are providing scientific information to help resolve these issues.

The Senate by unanimous consent passed S. 742, the Ban Asbestos in America Act of 2007, in Oct. 2007. NSSGA organized a group of allied organizations who worked tirelessly with the Senate that resulted in a bipartisan bill that accurately defines asbestos and would require health risk studies and development of a testing methodology which can distinguish asbestos from non-asbestiform minerals in a natural, mixed dust environment.

A discussion draft was circulated in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. The House draft takes a different direction than the Senate-passed bill. Although it accurately defines asbestos, it would set impractical concentration levels for naturally occurring asbestos without requisite health risk studies and with development of a methodology for determining what is and is not asbestos only after enactment of the bill.

Constant vigilance throughout the legislative process is necessary to prevent confusion between asbestiform and prismatic mineral varieties. Federal legislation, if passed without the proper definitions, could result in unjustified regulation of prismatic, rock-forming minerals as if they were asbestos. Confusing these minerals with asbestos will likely alarm miners, the public and the investment community unnecessarily and spur frivolous lawsuits. Companies in the construction materials industry could become targets of asbestos litigation, which has already forced many companies in other industries into bankruptcy.

TALKING POINTS:

• Asbestos is a serious human health hazard and a known human carcinogen; harmful exposure needs to be controlled.
• The six regulated commercial asbestos minerals can exist in the rare asbestiform variety or, more commonly, in the prismatic variety found in many igneous and metamorphic rocks. Studies show that the prismatic variety does not produce disease.
• Differences between the asbestiform and prismatic mineral varieties are not evident in their physical form but are in their chemical composition. The challenge then becomes to differentiate between the two. This can be done through carefully drawn definitions and discriminate analytical methods. Current analytical methods and fiber definitions for asbestos were designed for settings where commercial asbestos is expected to be present. However, they are not useful in the natural environment, where asbestos is not usually present, because they cannot distinguish between asbestiform and prismatic, rock-forming minerals. Current analytical methods falsely identify many prismatic cleavage fragments as asbestos.
• New test methods are needed to measure the lower concentrations of asbestos that can occur in the natural environment. In addition, a voluntary laboratory accreditation program, similar to the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, is needed to help assure local testing laboratories produce accurate results.
• The logical entity to develop a new test protocol and incorporate it into a national laboratory accreditation program is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST has worked for over 100 years with U.S. companies, universities, governmental agencies and other organizations to build the infrastructure—the technical support system—vital to the nation’s technological capabilities and its long-term economic competitiveness. NIST has the necessary scientific expertise and experience to undertake such a project, and its Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory is the nation’s primary reference laboratory.
• Regulation and legislation addressing asbestos must have scientifically- based definitions and methods, and be both accurate and specific enough to measure regulated asbestiform minerals while excluding prismatic, rock-forming minerals.
• Failure to correctly differentiate between the two mineral forms and apply appropriate analytical procedures is likely to result in significant unwarranted public and employee concern, unrest in the investment community and frivolous litigation.

Updated: November 2008