United States regulations for control of asbestos exposure

Our plain-English summary of United States regulations for control of asbestos exposure, by E.M. Fenner (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1979).

The study

• Author: E.M. Fenner
• Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
• Published: 1979;330:179-83
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 004029).

In plain English

This paper was a commentary, not a research study. The author, from the Health, Safety and Environment Department of Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, gave an industry view of United States asbestos regulations from OSHA and the EPA, and presented no new data. The author declined to discuss exposure limits, saying they were not qualified to do so as a nonhealth scientist. The author argued that the accuracy and precision of the workplace air monitoring method were not fully documented, particularly at low levels. The author quoted a Johns-Manville biostatistician as saying that, based on limited data, simultaneous samples could give readings well above 1.5 fibers per cc alongside readings well below 0.5 fibers per cc. The author proposed a triggering level for medical examinations and a less frequent schedule, citing the long latent period of asbestos disease. The author also called for a separate construction-industry standard based on certified, industry-developed work practices. The author was in basic agreement with EPA rules but objected to fences and warning signs, rather than cover, as the prime protection at waste disposal sites.

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 US federal asbestos regulations, written from an industry standpoint; no original data
• Who was studied: No study population; the paper discussed regulations issued by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Exposure: Workplace airborne asbestos, asbestos air emissions, asbestos-containing wastes and process water; construction products named were asbestos cement pipe, asbestos-cement sheets, flooring materials and build-up roofing
• Main results:
  • The author argued that the accuracy and precision of the monitoring method were not fully documented, particularly at low exposure levels, and that its regulatory role should be carefully scrutinized
  • A Johns-Manville biostatistician (Dr. Gerald R. Chase), quoted by the author, said that limited data showed simultaneous samples give estimates over a broad range, with readings well above 1.5 F/cc found alongside readings well below 0.5 F/cc
  • Example of that range given in the quoted statement: readings well above 1.5 F/cc alongside readings well below 0.5 F/cc
  • The author proposed that a triggering level for medical examinations be added to the asbestos standard
  • Proposed medical examination schedule for workers new to the asbestos industry: an initial examination, then repeat examinations in the fourth, sixth, eighth and tenth years and annually thereafter. The author justified this by the long latent period of asbestos disease
  • The author suggested basing a separate construction-industry standard on work practices developed by industry and certified for effectiveness
  • The author stated that asbestos-cement pipe work practices, tested by Equitable Environmental Health, Inc., keep airborne fiber levels during pipe installation well below exposure limits. No data were presented in the paper
  • On the EPA emission standard (no visible emissions, or an approved air-cleaning device), the author stated basic agreement
  • The author reported that a court ruled the EPA could not use a work practice requirement for demolition in place of an emission standard
  • The author's only major objection to the EPA rules was the use of fences and warning signs, rather than cover, as the prime means of public protection at waste disposal sites
  • The author argued that because asbestos occurs naturally and widely, zero airborne asbestos is rare and should be considered when setting exposure limits
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that the main problems with the OSHA standard were the need for a separate construction-industry standard, the need to recognize the monitoring method's lack of accuracy and precision at low levels, and the need to revise medical surveillance
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated they were not qualified to discuss exposure limits as a nonhealth scientist

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos Exposure.

Related studies

• Asbestos products, hazards, and regulation — B. Castleman (2006)
• Prediction in the face of uncertainty: the United States versus Reserve Mining Company — A.L. Brown (1986)
• Surveillance of high-risk groups exposed to asbestos in the United States — H.C. Lewinsohn (1979)
• Why are lung cancer rate trends so different in the United States and United kingdom? — P.N. Lee, B.A. Forey (2003)
• Asbestos law: victims' rights and industry's reaction — K. Asch (1979)
• Dust control in a conventional asbestos textile factory — H.C. Lewinsohn, C.A. Kennedy, et al. (1979)

Browse more research in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, or return to medical research.