Horowitz to Richard Bleier of the American Mutual Insurance Alliance Opposing a Lower Asbestos Limit and Warning Signs (1972)

An unsigned two-page letter of February 14, 1972, to Richard Bleier, secretary of the Industrial Hygiene Subcommittee of the American Mutual Insurance Alliance in Chicago, on the "Criteria Document and Standard for Exposure to Asbestos Dust." The writer, whom the index names as Horowitz, accepted the cut in the threshold limit value from 12 to 5 fibers per milliliter, but argued that lowering it to 2 "is not justified by the Criteria Document." He quoted the document's own statement that there were "no experimental dose-response data that can be used in estimating a work place air standard for asbestos," and urged keeping the 5-fiber limit until NIOSH could study its effects.

What it shows

The writer had "no serious objection" to the sign specifications but saw no need to go beyond "Hazard dust area." If signs had to say that asbestos dust may cause asbestosis, he wrote, similar statements would be needed for almost every toxic material: "You can imagine the impact on claims with such a notice - and such detail will not improve control but could cause panic." He suggested signs naming the occupational hazard "rather than details of biologic effects which are open to question." The letter shows an industrial hygienist advising an insurance trade group's hygiene subcommittee against a lower limit and plain-language warnings in 1972, partly because of their effect on claims.

In Johns-Manville's index

Johns-Manville's legal department indexed the Motley 1,000 in 1984. Its index describes this document as follows:

Horowitz letter to Richard Bleier (Secretary, Industrial Hygiene Subcommittee, American Mutual Insurance Alliance), 2/14/72, entitled "Criteria Document and Standard for Exposure to Asbestos Dust." Horowitz states that he has digested the large volume of material relating to the proposed reduction of the asbestos TLV from 5 fpcc to 2 fpcc, which Bleier sent to him. Horowitz states that there is no justification in the Criteria Document for the reduction of the TLV to 2 fpcc. In fact, the document states that "[t]he number of studies that have collected both environmental and medical data and with a significant number of exposed workers is not sufficient to establish a meaningful standard based upon firm scientific data .... There are no experimental dose-response data that can be used in estimating a work place air standard for asbestos." Horowitz states that there have been no studies which have shown evidence of biological effects at or below the relatively new TLV of 5 fpcc. (The standard became an OSHA permanent standard in July 1972.) Horowitz suggests that the 5 fpcc be adhered to until NIOSH can study its effects. If after a reasonable period, a well-documented study indicates that the TLV should be lowered, it could then be lowered. "The argument that 2 fpcc is feasible because studies show that many operations can be maintained at that low level is no reason to burden industry at this low level because it is an entire(?) safety factor." Horowitz has no objection to OSHA's caution sign specifications. However, he does not believe it is necessary for a sign to state more than "Hazard Dust Area." He objects to the posting of a sign stating that asbestos dust may cause asbestosis, etc. If such a sign is required for asbestos, it must be used for almost all toxic materials on the TLV list. "You can imagine the impact on claims with such a notice--and such detail will not improve control but could cause panic."

About this copy

This is document 879 of the Motley 1,000, from the set the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust's records facility certified as true copies, pages CRMC-Motley1000-Subj-004623 to CRMC-Motley1000-Subj-004624.