OSHA and elongate mineral particles

Our plain-English summary of OSHA and elongate mineral particles, by D.T. Crane (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 2018).

The study

• Author: D.T. Crane
• Journal: Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
• Published: 2018;361:165-167
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established to provide guidance to protect workers from hazards in the workplace. After broadly adopting extant health and safety standards, OSHA promulgated an expanded standard for regulation of asbestos. This standard provided for regulation of six named minerals and practices to be followed. Since the initial establishment of asbestos regulation by OSHA, other elongate particles have been considered for evaluation. This discussion describes the evolution of the OSHA regulations for asbestos, what they cover and how other materials might be regulated if they are found to pose a health risk.

Published by Elsevier Inc.

In plain English

This article is a commentary, not a research study. The author, an OSHA scientist giving personal views, described the history of US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) asbestos rules. OSHA's first asbestos limit was 12 fibers per milliliter. In July 1972 it adopted a limit of 5 fibers longer than 5 micrometers per milliliter. That rule defined asbestos as six minerals: chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. A court case directed OSHA to count only fibers of these six minerals. In 1992 OSHA found that substantial evidence was lacking to conclude that nonasbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite present the same type or magnitude of health effect as asbestos. The author concluded that the rules do not cover elongate particles left out of the original rulemaking, which says nothing about their toxicity. Other fibers, such as erionite or carbon nanotubes, could be regulated through new rulemaking if there are sufficient data and exposed employees. They could also be regulated under OSHA's General Duty section if four conditions are met, including a recognized serious hazard and a feasible way to correct it.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Commentary on the history of US OSHA asbestos regulation, written from the viewpoint of a regulatory scientist; not a research study and not a systematic review
• Who was studied: No study population; the article discusses US federal (OSHA) workplace asbestos regulations from 1970 onward
• Exposure: Asbestos as defined by OSHA (chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite), plus other elongate particles not covered by the asbestos standard (richterite, winchite, carbon nanotubes, double walled nanotubes, erionite)
• Main results:
  • OSHA's first asbestos exposure limit, adopted under Section 6(a) of the OSH Act, was 12 fibers per milliliter
  • The July 1972 OSHA asbestos standard set a limit of 5 fibers longer than 5 micrometers per milliliter, measured by phase contrast microscopy
  • In Secretary of Labor v. Borg-Warner Corporation, OSHA was directed to use the 5 micrometer and 3:1 definitions and to count only fibers of the six named minerals
  • In 1992 OSHA determined that substantial evidence was lacking to conclude that nonasbestiform tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite present the same type or magnitude of health effect as asbestos
  • The current regulatory definition (after the 1994 rules) names chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, and chemically treated or altered forms of these
  • Minerals and fibers not in the asbestos standard cannot be regulated under it, but could be addressed through 6(b) rulemaking or the 5(a)1 General Duty section, given sufficient data and exposed employees
  • A General Duty (5(a)1) citation requires four conditions: the employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees were exposed; the hazard was recognized; it was causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm; and there was a feasible and useful method to correct it
  • If all four required elements of a 5(a)1 violation are present, any substance or process can be regulated
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the OSHA regulations do not extend to elongate particles not originally included in rulemaking, and that this says nothing about the toxicity of those materials
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated that the opinions are the author's own and are not an official OSHA statement

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: OSHA, elongate mineral particles (EMPs).

Related studies

• A comparison of asbestos fiber potency and elongate mineral particle (EMP) potency for mesothelioma in humans — D.H. Garabrant, S.T. Pastula (2018)
• The epidemiologic evidence for elongate mineral particle (EMP)-related human cancer risk — P. Boffetta, K.A. Mundt, et al. (2018)
• A review of mortality associated with elongate mineral particle (EMP) exposure in occupational epidemiology studies of gold, talc, and taconite mining — J.H. Mandel, B.H. Alexander, et al. (2016)
• Differential responses of murine alveolar macrophages to elongate mineral particles of asbestiform and non-asbestiform varieties: Cytotoxicity, cytokine secretion and transcriptional changes — T.O. Khaliullin, E.R. Kisin, et al. (2020)
• Elongate mineral particles in the natural environment — M.E. Gunter (2018)
• Non-asbestiform elongate mineral particles and mesothelioma risk: Human and experimental evidence — J.E. Goodman, M.J. Becich, et al. (2023)

Browse more research in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, or return to medical research.