IN THE MATTER OF:                 )
                                  )
Public Meeting on Asbestos        )
                                  )

Pages:    1 through 206

Place:    Charlottesville, VA

Date:     June 20, 2002     MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
     ASBESTOS HEARING PANEL
     
     
     IN THE MATTER OF:                 )
                                       )
     Public Meeting on Asbestos        )
                                       )
     
                                       
                   Holiday Inn
                                       
                   1901 Emmet St.
                                       
                   Charlottesville, Virginia
     
                                       
                   Thursday,
                                       
                   June 20, 2002
     
                   The parties met, pursuant to the notice, at 
     
     9 a.m.
     
     
                   APPEARANCES:
                   REBECCA SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
                   DAVE LAURISKI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
                   DR. CAROL JONES, PROGRAM MANAGER
                   JIM LYNCH, OFFICE OF STANDARDS
                   AL DUCHARME, SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
                   CARLOS MOSLEY, COAL ORGANIZATION
                   SHARON AINSWORTH, TECHNICAL SUPPORT
                   DEBRA JANES, OFFICE OF STANDARDS
                     P R O C E E D I N G S
           MS. SMITH:  Good morning.  My name is
     Rebecca Smith.  I'm the Deputy Director of
     the Office of Standards, Regulations and
     Variances for the Mine Safety and Health
     Administration.  On behalf of Dave Lauriski,
     who is our Assistant Secretary of Labor for
     Mine Safety and Health, I welcome you this
     morning to this public meeting.
           With me also this morning are several
     other individuals from Mine Safety and
     Health.  On my immediate left, Dr. Carol
     Jones, who is our program manager for our
     metal/non-metal program; Jim Lynch, who is
     from our Office of Standards in Arlington; Al
     Ducharme, who is from our Solicitor's Office
     in Arlington, Virginia.  On my right is
     Carlos Mosley, who is from our Coal
     Organization; Sharon Ainsworth, who is from
     our Technical Support Organization; Debra
     Janes is from our Office of Standards also.
           This is the seventh and last of seven
     public meetings that we have held on this
     issue.  The previous meetings were held in
     Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Spokane, Washington;
     Vacaville, California; Canton, New York;
     Phoenix, Arizona; and Virginia, Minnesota.
           The initial announcement of these
     public meetings was contained in the Advance
     Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on
     March 29th, 2002 in the "Federal Register."
     A subsequent "Federal Register" notice,
     published on April 18th, announced that the
     date of the Charlottesville, Virginia meeting
     was changed to June the 20th, and a public
     meeting would also be held in Phoenix,
     Arizona on June 5th.  These two "Federal
     Register" notices are available to you in the
     back of the room.
           The purpose of these meetings is to
     obtain information from the public that will
     help us evaluate the following five issues:
     (1) whether to lower our asbestos permissible
     exposure limit; (2) whether we should replace
     our existing fiber analysis method, referred
     to as phase contrast microscopy, with a more
     sensitive method which is known as
     transmission electron microscopy; (3) whether
     we should implement safeguards to limit
     take-home exposure; (4) whether our field
     sampling methods are adequate, and how our
     sampling results are being used; (5) what is
     the likely benefit and cost impact of any
     rulemaking action we would take on these five
     issues.
           These five issues were discussed in the
     March 29th Federal Register document.  The
     scope of the issues we're addressing with
     this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
     is limited; therefore, this public meeting
     will be limited to hearing public input on
     these five issues I just mentioned.
           In the Advanced Notice of Proposed
     Rulemaking we were asked -- we asked
     questions relating to each of these five
     issues.  We're particularly interested in
     responsive information related to these
     questions.
           Now, I'd like to give you some
     background which has led us to be here today.
     In 1980, we requested that the National
     Institute for Occupational Safety and
     Health -- NIOSH -- investigate health
     problems at vermiculite operations around the
     country because our sampling data at that
     time showed higher than average asbestos
     exposures among the miners.  The results of
     the NIOSH study were published in 1986, and
     verified our sampling results that indicated
     high occupational exposure prior to 1974 at a
     vermiculite operation in Libby, Montana.  The
     highest exposures were in the mill.  The
     NIOSH report showed that in 1974 the mine
     began to use a wet process to concentrate
     vermiculite in the mill, and occupational
     exposures dropped markedly.  The
     asbestos-exposed miners employed at the
     vermiculite mine in Libby, however,
     inadvertently carried the asbestos fibers
     home on their clothes and in their personal
     vehicles, thereby continuing to expose
     themselves and family members.  At that time
     we encouraged the operators to change from
     dry to wet processing material, and also to
     reduce take-home contamination by installing
     showers, and requiring the miners to change
     clothing before leaving the site.
           In November of 1999, a Seattle
     newspaper published a series of articles
     about the unusually high incidence rate of
     asbestos-related illnesses and fatalities
     among individuals who had lived in Libby,
     Montana.  Because MSHA had jurisdiction over
     the mine, the Department of Labor's Office of
     the Inspector General began an evaluation of
     MSHA's role at the Libby mine.
           The findings and recommendations of the
     Office of the Inspector General were
     published in March 2001.  Three of the
     recommendations would require additional
     rulemaking by MSHA.  And those issues are the
     subject of this public meeting today.  The
     Office of Inspector General recommendations
     were:  (1) that MSHA lower the existing
     permissible exposure limit to a more
     protective level; (2) that MSHA use a more
     sensitive method, transmission electron
     microscopy, to quantify and identify fibers
     in our samples, rather than the phase
     contrast microscopy method currently used;
     and (3) that MSHA address take-home
     contamination from asbestos.  As you know,
     our current asbestos standards for coal
     mining and for metal and non-metal mining is
     two fibers per cubic centimeters of air.  And
     these standards have been in place from the
     mid 1970s.  Recently, MSHA adopted new
     asbestos sampling techniques, and we have
     increased the scope of sampling for airborne
     asbestos fibers at mines in an attempt to
     better determine miners' exposure levels to
     asbestos.  Our efforts have included taking
     samples at all existing vermiculite,
     taconite, talc, and other mines to determine
     whether asbestos is present, and at what
     levels.  Since the spring of 2000, we have
     taken almost 900 samples at more than 40
     operations employing more than 4,000 miners.
     Our preliminary review and analysis of these
     samples show very few exposures occurred
     during the sampling period which were above
     the OSHA eight-hour time-weighted average of
     point 1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air.
     Our sampling results are now available to the
     public on our web site at www.msha.gov.
     Also, the sampling results will be made part
     of the rulemaking record if we move forward
     with rulemaking.
           The issues surrounding asbestos
     exposure are important to MSHA, and we will
     use the information provided to us at these
     public meetings to help us decide how to best
     proceed with these five issues.  So we want
     to hear public view.  These public meetings
     will give mine operators, miners and their
     representatives and other interested parties
     an opportunity to present their views on
     these five issues that we are considering for
     potential rulemaking action.
           The format of this public meeting will
     be as follows:  Formal rules of evidence will
     not apply, and this meeting will be conducted
     in an informal manner.  Those of you who have
     notified us in advance of your intent to
     speak, or have signed up today will make your
     presentations first, unless there is an
     arrangement to the contrary.  After all
     scheduled speakers have finished, others are
     free to speak.  When the last speaker has
     finished, then we will conclude this public
     meeting.  If you wish to present any written
     statements or information today, please
     clearly identify your material.  When you
     give it to me, I will identify the material
     for the record by the title as you have
     submitted it.  You may also submit comments
     following this meeting, but please submit
     them by June 27th, which is the close of the
     comment period.  Comments may be submitted to
     us by electronic mail, fax, or regular mail.
     But please note that the MSHA headquarters
     office has moved.  The address is different
     than the "Federal Register" notice you picked
     up in the back.  But in the back of the room
     there is a document that shows our new
     address, fax, electronic address, et cetera.
           A verbatim transcript of this meeting
     will be available upon request.  If you want
     a personal copy of this transcript, please
     make arrangements with the court reporter, or
     you may view it on our web site.  It will be
     there and available within five days from
     today.
           The procedures have been the same for
     each of these seven public meetings.  We will
     begin with persons who have requested to
     speak.  To ensure that we get an accurate
     record when you speak, please give your name,
     spell your name and the organization.
           Our first speaker this morning is
     Mr. Stephen Lucas.  Good morning, Mr. Lucas.
           MR. LUCAS:  Good morning.  Thank you,
     Mrs. Smith.  Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
     My name is Stephen Lucas, S-T-E-P-H-E-N,
     Lucas, L-U-C-A-S.
           I'm a farmer.  And I'm a fairly --
     almost a neighbor of the Virginia Vermiculite
     plant in Louisa County not too far east of
     here.  And I come here -- I kind of hoped to
     give a personal -- a different kind of view
     from the -- I know it's a lot of agency folks
     and a lot of commercial folks.  And I hope to
     give a little personal information.  I'm also
     a member of Historic Green Springs, an
     organization of owners of land adjacent to
     the mining area.  My wife's farm has been --
     my wife has farmed the land near the mine
     since 1959.  So it's been awhile.
           And when the information came out about
     Libby -- and, you know, there's volumes of
     information from the "New York Times," from
     all these places I'm sure you're aware of --
     it scared her to death.  Her parents both
     died -- both her parents and her grandmother
     all died of lung cancer within about three
     years of each other -- not because of
     vermiculite, but because of smoking.  But
     just the thought of lung cancer and the
     things that are in those reports scared her
     to death.  And it scares me some, too.  And
     it scares me because of my neighbors and
     friends who work at the plant, or near the
     plant -- have worked at or near the plant.
     Folks come through town in their pickup
     trucks, dusty clothes.  I see them on the
     street, at soccer games, baseball games,
     Little League games.  We see them.  They
     bring the vermiculite dust with them.
           And so, you know, I look -- to address
     the issues of the five that you listed, I say
     I want to know where the question is.  If
     we're really trying to save the public from
     what happened in Libby, if we're really
     trying to do the right thing, these issues
     that you bring forth don't seem all that
     difficult.  Lowering asbestos limits, why
     not?  We have the technology to do it.  Why
     is there a question if should do it.  The
     fiber analysis method, shouldn't we be using
     the best available scientific -- there is the
     sound science argument that comes up so much
     in politics today.  What better thing of
     sound science is there than to use the best
     available information?  I talked about the
     take home.  I talked about some of these
     other things.
           I just want to briefly say that folks,
     I thank you for coming out here and hearing
     what we have to say.  All I ask for you to do
     is do the right thing.  Help prevent Louisa
     County and these other places from becoming
     the next Libby.  Like I said, it scares us to
     death of the potential it could happen.  I
     just want to thank you so much for hearing
     us, and just ask you to do the right thing.
     Thank you so much.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Lucas.  We
     appreciate your comments.
           Do the panel members have any question
     of Mr. Lucas?  Thank you very much for
     coming.
           MR. LUCAS:  Thank you very much.
           MS. SMITH:  Our second speaker is
     Donald Gazaille.  I probably didn't do that
     right.
           MR. GAZAILLE:  You came closer than
     most.  My name is Donald Gazaille,
     G-A-Z-A-I-L-L-E.  And I'm from Trevilians,
     Virginia.  And I'm on the immediate side of
     the Virginia Vermiculite mine directly across
     the street.  And I appreciate the opportunity
     to present my views on asbestos exposure
     related to mining operations.
           I am particularly concerned about a
     statement contained in MSHA's March 29, 2002
     "Federal Register" notice on page 15137.  It
     says, MSHA's recent field data show that none
     of the samples collected exceeded OSHA's
     eight-hour time-weighted average of 0.15 per
     centimeter of air when analyzed using the TEM
     method.  Considering the low fiber levels
     observed, what would be an appropriate agency
     action?
           First, I think it is important to
     acknowledge that MSHA only conducts
     inspections once or twice per year at a mine.
           Secondly, when the inspector is doing
     inspection work, working conditions are
     probably not the same as a typical day at the
     mine.  I suspect when the inspector is
     present, the mine is in good condition.
     Therefore, I don't think it's appropriate for
     MSHA to draw conclusions based on a limited
     number of unrepresentative samples.
           MSHA says none of the samples collected
     exceeded OSHA's standard.  I'm suggesting
     that these samples are not a good indicator
     of fiber levels at the mine.  MSHA should not
     draw conclusions from the results of a
     handful of samples when a mine operates 300
     to 600 shifts each year.
           If MSHA really wants to know what the
     typical conditions are at a mine or group of
     mines, it should target these mines the full
     scale propaganda for several weeks at a time
     every couple of months.
           We live on the off-site.  Contamination
     is a concern of ours from MSHA, not only from
     its employees leaving the mine with
     contaminated areas, but the transportation of
     materials off the mine, and the loading of
     the materials -- the raw materials -- at the
     site.  If you were to ever to go up and down
     Route 22 and across right along our driveway
     and across from our house is where the trucks
     haul this material out of there, and see the
     gray trees on both sides of the road, and the
     gray all over the grass, you'll know where
     the contamination is going.
           We're very concerned.  It's totally
     inadequate.  It doesn't take a lot of fibers
     to kill someone.  The standard should be
     extremely high, and make us feel at least a
     little more comfortable that we can still
     live in the area.  Thank you for your
     consideration.  And we hope you'll keep the
     immediate public in mind.  Thank you.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Gazaille.
     Panel members?  Thank you very much for
     coming.
           Our next speaker is John Stamberg.
     Mr. Stamberg has admitted for the record a
     document entitled, "Testimony pursuant to
     Mine Safety and Health Administration on
     Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
     Measuring and Controlling Asbestos Exposure,
     June 20, 2002."
           MR. STAMBERG:  My name is John
     Stamberg.  You have the report that I am
     submitting to the record.
           Basically, a little bit about my
     background:  I'm a civil engineer for the
     University of Maryland with a master's degree
     from Stamford.  I've been in the asbestos
     business -- in the vermiculite business --
     for over 40 years.  I've taken courses in
     asbestos, asbestos abatement management and
     identification at Drexel, Tufts, Georgia
     Tech, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia
     Commonwealth University, and others.  My
     relevant experience is heavily in the
     commercial retail inspection and abatement of
     asbestos under EPA and OSHA regulations.
     I've worked in 35 states, Canada.  And I'm
     also familiar with the vermiculite industry
     as far as mines, expander operations, soil
     mixtures, that type of facilities.  I've been
     active in 21 states with respect to
     vermiculite.  I've also examined ores from
     five different states, evaluated the
     different vermiculites from them, as well as
     several different foreign countries.
           I'm here on behalf of Virginia
     Vermiculite, and I've got a number of points
     I want to make.
           The first point -- and I'll be brief --
     is the three points that you choose to
     regulate to lower the permissible exposure
     level to .1 fiber per cc, the use of TEM
     versus PCM, and the control of take home are
     just three elements of what should be a full
     program similar to EPA and OSHA.
           What defines a lot of the elements?
     Some of the things that are not clear from
     these:  One is you've got to be properly
     ready to identify what really is asbestos.
     This isn't a problem when you have
     commercially-made asbestos products like you
     encounter in OSHA and EPA.  They usually mix
     good grade commercial asbestos with granular
     or non-asbestos material.  And the assumption
     that any fiber is asbestos is reasonable in
     that kind of context -- that kind of
     mixture -- in natural soils that breaks down.
     So the level that they're interested in is a
     much different level than we're talking here.
     So MSHA should fully address in their
     regulations specific methodologies geared to
     mining, earth products, rock products that
     can clearly identify asbestos-containing
     materials.  And in their tests they should
     have procedures and nomenclatures that
     clearly identify what the tests mean -- not
     just 3:1 and then assume it's asbestos, as
     you do with commericial products that only
     have tar and asbestos, or vinyl asbestos, or
     ingredients that are clearly identified in
     concentrations that are easy to identify.
           Air sampling, it's the same issue there
     where in the air testing the assumption is
     that these particles in commericial building
     products are asbestos.  Reasonable for that
     industry; not reasonable for this.  So that
     assumption that the air test anything 3:1 is
     asbestos is not correct.  I'll go into that a
     little bit later.
           Then the other thing, the program
     should have some focus or targeting of where
     you should do the analysis.  OSHA has
     procedures for negative exposures, use of
     objective data in other ways to aid or help
     target the extent, type and place for air
     monitoring; in other words, in places where
     there is no asbestos, you don't have to do
     elaborate monitoring.
           So this is what I suggest for an
     overall program.
           Going to the second point:  One is that
     Virginia Vermiculite has been under the
     scrutiny and under the concern of asbestos
     since 1976 before they were mining in the
     public hearings and zoning.  This has
     continually been a source of discussion.  And
     it really stems from the Libby situation.
     And right now I'd like to just take a few
     minutes to do a one-on-one on geology.
           EPA Region 10 with their studies from
     the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
     classified vermiculite.  And vermiculite is
     not a single thing; it's a group of things
     with different origins, different
     chemistries.  They classify vermiculite by
     three types.  Type one is the type in Libby.
     Type two is often found in North Carolina and
     some other places.  And the Louisa deposit is
     one of the ones that is type three.
           If you look at my Figure 1, I've got
     the EPA report references, as well as the
     source rocks, the rock that mixed with it to
     form a primary sheet silicate that weathers
     under moisture and then becomes either
     vermiculite, hydrobiotite or
     hydrophologopite.  These are different
     subvarieties of vermiculite with different
     origins, different chemistries.
           Then not only is the origin of the
     rock, chemical makeup, and the way it was
     metamorphized or altered are different, the
     temperature and pressure of formation makes a
     difference.  My Figure 2 addresses that.
     These changed silicates, depending on the
     temperature and pressure can be diopside,
     quartz, or one of the many varieties of
     crystalline tremolite.  Crystalline formation
     can be any of a number of things.  It can be
     anywhere from massive, isolith or fibers
     tremolite.  So there's a number of things.
     Also, the same deposit you can get quartz,
     diopside and these type of minerals.  And it
     depends on the temperature and pressure.
           What exists at Virginia Vermiculite is
     recently they've got into a situation not
     with the main deposit, but where the two
     rocks were twisting, turning and folding on
     each other.  They have slip sheets.  In those
     slip sheets, which are about a 16th of an
     inch to maybe a little bit over an inch, the
     temperature and pressure in that slip sheet
     has created veinlets that have every one of
     these chemistries in there.  There are some
     small areas where there is true asbestos, as
     well as bysolite, massive tremolites and
     quartz.  And this stuff you can get right off
     the edge of it, and that veinlet doesn't
     exist.  You get in the veinlet, and the
     chemistry can vary by the foot.  It just
     depends on the local temperature and
     formation.
           So what Virginia Vermiculite has done
     is tested -- what they do is there's the
     MSHA's bulletin P00-3 where it says how to
     isolate and not over mine this stuff.
     Virginia Vermiculite follows that.  Then the
     material that they take and mine and send to
     the process, and their final product they
     test -- the United Kingdom has banned
     asbestos.  They have developed a test that's
     100 to 1,000 times more accurate than the
     U.S. tests for bulk material because of their
     ban.  This material -- we send these
     materials that are mined and sent to the
     process plant as well as the product on a
     routine basis to this more accurate test,
     which is good to about 10 parts per million.
     We have those results in Appendix 1.  And we
     have been doing that ever since the third
     quarter of 2000 to make sure we get the
     accurate, most up-to-date test on that.
           So what we find is that the test for
     country that has banned asbestos finds no
     detectable asbestos.  And those are attached
     in there, and support a lot of the other
     tests that have been done.
           In doing this program, Virginia
     Vermiculite has done several things.  One is
     OSHA has a concept called a competent person
     that is trained to identify, locate and
     understand asbestos.  They brought an
     international expert in, in both vermiculite
     an asbestos, and trained the miners,
     engineers, supervisors to identify this or
     anything that is suspect to that.  So they
     developed competent people.  These competent
     people then flagged the material.  And it's
     either not mined or isolated per P00-3, the
     MSHA criteria.
           Recently, the MSHA people came in and
     inspected.  They took three samples of this
     flag isolated material.  And one of the three
     samples tested positive for asbestos, two
     were not.  So it's an indication that people
     at VVL who are competent or were trained this
     way are well trained and err to the cautious
     side.
           Okay.  Another thing that Virginia
     Vermiculite has adopted from OSHA is the
     negative exposure assessment.  So when they
     were doing the mining and isolating of the
     veinlets that were suspect material, they had
     an EPA OSHA licensed certified testing firm
     come in and see if there was any exposure
     over the .1 during the movement of that
     material.  There was not.
           Then, also during that procedure, the
     same consultant measured upwind, downwind and
     across the property to see if anything was
     going across property lines.  And they found
     nothing but background levels of dirt and
     material.
           The EPA came down and tested seven
     homes for asbestos; in other words, the
     consultants was a snapshot during an activity
     that had concern.  And EPA going to the homes
     and collecting dust in and around the homes
     is more a result of long-term accumulations.
     They found no asbestos in those seven homes
     that they tested.
           VVL has also done a couple of things
     that are not required of it, even if they
     were under OSHA.  They sent all their
     employees -- except one refused -- to the
     University of Virginia Division of Pulmonary
     and Critical Care Medicine for the OSHA-style
     respiratory x-ray series of medicals.  And
     the conclusion was that there were no
     Virginia Vermiculite-related occupational
     issues.  The whole details of the medical
     exam and other details are not privy to us,
     but we do get this -- or, you know, Virginia
     Vermiculite did get the letter that there was
     no occupational-related health effects.
           They've also purchased a HEPA vacuum
     cleaning system that can vacuum the clothes.
     And that's a high efficiency particulate air
     systems that filters out 99.9 plus percent of
     asbestos fibers used in the asbestos
     abatement industry.  They have this to be
     available for cleaning clothes if the people
     want to do that.  They find it's also useful
     for cleaning up the labs and some dusty areas
     around the office.  It's just a cleaning
     tool.
           So they have those things whether they
     need it or not.  They've gone ahead and
     pursued those.
           Next, I'd like to take a couple of
     minutes to talk about the bulk testing.  I've
     touched on that.  The accuracy of the U.S.
     test 600/R-93/116 is 1 percent.  It's
     accurate, and it can detect things down to .1
     percent.  This is 10,000 parts per million,
     or 1,000 parts per million is its stated
     accuracy for ability to notice.  The U.K.
     system, which is MDHS77, is accurate to
     .001 percent, or 10 parts per million.  And
     that's the test that's in Appendix 1 that
     they have been doing.
           Air tests:  The PLM test is
     schizophrenic.  Or PCM test is very different
     in results, because under the OSHA procedure
     you can do differential counting.  So if you
     see a spider's leg, an obvious fiberglass
     particle, vegetable particle, the
     microscopist at its discretion or its lab
     procedures can eliminate those from the
     count.  This procedure is really inaccurate
     when you have soil and rock particles that --
     many of which are 3:1 in the visible range,
     and are not asbestos.
           So this differential counting of 3:1
     and reporting it asbestos may be good for
     OSHA when you're abating fireproofing in a
     building when that's the only particle of
     that size, shape or configuration.  That
     definition includes many, many different
     types and chemistries of particles.  So
     that's using PCM as a screening tool.
           And going to something more accurate,
     TEM can eliminate some of the particles
     because it has higher resolution.  You can
     see cleavage fragments, arrowheads,
     non-parallel things, platelets that are on
     their side, and the whole variety of things.
     In using private labs using just TEM, VVL has
     found that 93 -- or 83 to 95 percent of the
     particles are eliminated.  So that 83 to
     95 percent of the particles just with TEM can
     be eliminated.  Some of the MSHA count sheets
     that we see eliminate only 30 to 70 percent.
     Again, this is the accuracy difference, or
     inaccuracy problems with differential
     counting.
           NIOSH 7402, which is the TEM procedure
     that's most appropriate, states that the
     presence of substance may warrant the use of
     more powerful diffraction pattern, morphology
     analysis before positive identification could
     be made.  So even with TEM you've still got
     to go to other techniques to identify it
     because these particles can have the same
     chemistry.
           To illustrate the mistakes that could
     be made in this area, Dr. Chatfield of
     Ontario Research reviewed the samples and
     tests done by EPA in their garden products
     containing vermiculite material.  He found
     that all but Libby were free from asbestos.
     They had identified diopside, hornblende, and
     clearly non-asbestos forming minerals as
     asbestos incorrectly.  They also, in that
     counting procedure, ignored EPA's definition
     of asbestos fibers.  And 99.9 percent of the
     fibers fell outside the clear EPA definition
     without more powerful diffraction or
     morphology kind of identifications.
           So there's tons of mistakes that could
     be made.  And one of the things MSHA should
     consider is narrowing the size range that
     really fit asbestos in its definition of
     fibers so these cleavage fragments, blades,
     Acular arrowhead type of material is
     eliminated.  And it should develop
     nomenclature that clearly identifies what the
     test means, what does it represent.  So any
     time you see soils with a 3:1 aspect
     ratio, it doesn't automatically get reported
     as asbestos.  So they need a lot of
     improvement in that.  In OSHA EPA, they
     didn't need that.
           Okay.  So I'll go off of that point to
     another point about take-home asbestos.
     Again, my familiarity with OSHA, they have an
     elaborate protective clothing clause, 29 CFR
     1926.1101(i).  It's in the report.  When
     there is a PEL or excursion exceedence, then
     you fall under that, or if you do work of a
     certain nature, their definition of asbestos
     over 25 feet or 10 square feet for which you
     haven't done this negative exposure
     assessment, then they've got elaborate
     procedures on launderer notification,
     transport labeling inspection, and many
     procedures in that.  It's a good law.  It's a
     good regulation.  And MSHA should consider
     that as a pattern that evolved over the
     years.
           Going to another point on TEM versus
     PCM, the 900 data points when we went to the
     web site, only 178 of the 900 were reported.
     Of that, only 24 were side-by-side phase
     contrast versus TEM.  Of that, 0 of the 24
     side-by-side tests showed TEMs that were --
     none of them were higher than the PCM.  So
     the PCM seems to be picking up everything
     that has been presented.  None of them --
     there was no TEM, whether there was
     violations or not, were higher.  So by
     circumstantial evidence, even though it's
     very thin, there was no indication that TEM's
     additional magnification is necessary.
           In my chart -- or Figure Number 4,
     there's an understanding why.  The chrysotile
     fibrils are suboptical, okay?  But the fibers
     are not because it's like a frayed rope or a
     bundle of glass rods.  To disseminate all
     these fibers into individual fibrils is very
     exacting, very difficult, and almost never
     done.  So the optical microscope,
     particularly the amphiboles, can pick up and
     see the problem.  And so that was the case.
     I mean, even at Libby the PCM test was
     exacting for that.
           So my comments are that the scientific
     or circumstantial evidence to switch from PCM
     to TEM is not there.
           Also, MSHA -- and I've got the exact
     quote in Figure 5 -- the long-term historical
     epidemiology as a disease correlation has not
     been with the small fibers.  Potts, Stanton,
     Lippman and those people indicate that the
     particles have to be at least as a wavelength
     of light to be health-oriented.  So you would
     have to establish that these smaller
     particles, submicroscopic -- or sub
     wavelength in diameter -- are a health
     disease, which that has not been established.
     And again, the only fibers that are going to
     fall basically in that range is ultra-fine
     amphiboles and the individual chrysotile
     fibrils, which is extremely rare in
     situations.
           So again, PCM may be a screening tool
     or a primary thing, and then you go to
     differential counting.  TEM is maybe just one
     of the things that can be used.  And there
     could be many others.
           With respect to health -- that's my
     point six -- there is several things I want
     to mention on that.  There is a fairly recent
     document put out by the Department of Health
     and Human Services, "Toxicology Profile for
     Asbestos Update."  And that was in
     September 2001.  They use a different concept
     than the EPA OSHA linear model where the --
     they go directly proportionate to that.
           The concepts here are no observable
     adverse effect levels, less serious lowest
     observable adverse health effects -- which
     means significant dysfunction.  Asbestosis
     would be an example of that.  Then it got
     serious lowest observable adverse health
     levels -- and those are the ones that attack
     our biological system, cancer and things like
     that.
           So with those concepts, if you go to
     Figure 6, I've taken the highest and lowest
     value presented in that report, as well as
     the median and the average.  For the less
     serious impact -- you know, significant
     dysfunction -- at the .1 it would be 586
     years to 380 years at the .1 exposure level
     before you would get the less serious impact.
     And then for the serious impact at the .1 you
     would be in the 700 to 1,800 years.
           So even though the .1 seems to be
     achievable, it may not be based in health, in
     which case the rationale for the .1 is
     achievability as opposed to health.  So I
     think this study is something very worthwhile
     to look at.  And these are respiratory
     illnesses.
           As far as gastrointestinal, they
     couldn't find animal studies to support that.
     And Gamal and some of these other people have
     not found the connection to gastrointestinal
     or proved that.  In fact, McDonald, in his
     Exhibit 410.6 of the OSHA regulations
     discussion, found that there was no excess
     number of deaths from cancers of
     non-respiratory sites at Libby.  So if Libby
     is one of the things that is creating
     anxiety, the gastrointestinal side is not
     there.
           Then point seven:  The reporting
     accuracy of description testing procedures,
     methods and what they mean, MSHA needs a lot
     of improvement in that so things aren't taken
     out of context.
           And then the report you have.  If
     there's any questions, I'd be glad to respond
     to them.
           MS. AINSWORTH:  Yeah, I have one
     question, if you could clarify.  Initially, I
     thought you were saying that you thought PCM
     wasn't the best analysis method because
     differential kinds by different laboratories
     produced different results.  Then you said
     the TEM was good, but you needed an
     additional besides TEM diffraction work.
           MR. STAMBERG:  Yeah.  Normally what's
     done in EPA and OSHA is you do the total 3:1
     count.
           MS. AINSWORTH:  Right.
           MR. STAMBERG:  If you assume that it's
     all asbestos and you're fine, within
     standards or clearance standards -- or
     standards set by the hospital, school or
     whatever -- then even with that assumption
     they don't do further analysis.  Oftentimes,
     their first way of differential counting is
     to go to TEM, which still does not
     differentiate true asbestos from other
     similar amphiboles with different crystalline
     structures.
           In the asbestos industry where you're
     dealing with pure asbestos in products, you
     really have to go beyond that.  In mining,
     you have a plethora of products and chemicals
     and material that's in that 3:1 range that
     you have to go to additional techniques by
     infringement, extinction kind of things,
     morphology, Addison in his things has
     morphology characteristics of asbestos.  He's
     got five of those.  If you meet three of
     those, you can assume it's asbestos.  So
     those type of things are rarely used in EPA,
     HERA, or OSHA work because of the nature of
     the business.
           Those type of differential countings
     with probably very necessary in mining and
     mining products -- rock, horn, and that type
     of thing -- to truly get at the true asbestos
     fibers.
           MS. AINSWORTH:  So you're suggesting
     that, and not TEM?
           MR. STAMBERG:  But with PCM as a
     primary tool.  If need be, start differential
     counting by TEM, more exacting methods by
     fringement -- you know, additional optical,
     chemical, x-ray diffraction techniques to
     narrow down the particles to see whether
     they're true asbestos or not.
           True asbestos almost never occurs in
     single individual fibers.  It's created in
     bundles.  And when you have it, you have the
     bundles, and you may have some chafe or
     things that crack off the bundles, but you
     have the bundles which are usually large
     enough to look at.  The difficulty is when
     you get to particles below the diameter of
     the wavelength of light, some of the light
     optical conditions when you can't identify
     some of these submicron particles with some
     of the light optical techniques.  So you have
     to go look at the bundles or masses to see
     what those might be.
           MS. AINSWORTH:  Didn't you make a
     statement that you said the additional
     magnification of TEM was not necessary?
           MR. STAMBERG:  No.  That's helpful
     because you can see non-parallel fibers, and
     you can see the morphology of the particles
     that are smaller than a wavelength of
     light -- generally two microns or finer.  You
     can see a more definite image and decide
     whether it's a cleavage fragment or not.  So
     TEM can be one of the mechanisms to
     differential count from a PCM test.
           DR. JONES:  Good morning.  I just want
     to clarify one thing you said.  When you use
     the TEM and see the things -- the fibers of a
     much lower diameter, was it your evaluation
     of the literature you found there was no
     information saying they had elevated hazard
     from those?
           MR. STAMBERG:  The studies by Potts,
     some of the information in the Lippman
     studies, show that the submicron particles
     are not the ones that are associated with
     health risks.  I referred back in my file
     stuff that I can provide for you and show
     that the Potts demographic and particle size
     versus health risk.
           DR. JONES:  Were you also saying --
     this is just for clarity -- when you have the
     fiber bundles, the things you see by PCM,
     does it require milling or some major action
     on those to generate the fibers?
           MR. STAMBERG:  No.  Once you are --
     once the bundles are in the optical range,
     the polarized slides, the curvature and other
     morphological visible signs are there so that
     the bundle can be fairly readily identified.
           DR. JONES:  But does that break up --
           MR. STAMBERG:  What?
           DR. JONES:  Do the bundles break into
     fibers readily when you view that?
           MR. STAMBERG:  No.  No, they don't.
           MS. SMITH:  Mr. Stamberg, can you
     elaborate somewhat on -- you mentioned the
     HEPA vacuum cleaner you use.  Could you
     elaborate on that in terms of how it's used,
     the section of that to be used by miners, and
     the costs associated with that system?
           MR. STAMBERG:  Yes.  The high
     efficiency particulate air systems come in a
     number of configurations.  When they're doing
     asbestos abatement in a school, commericial,
     or even a home situation, it's a three-stage
     filter, each one getting finer and finer that
     will take out virtually all the asbestos-size
     fibers.  So when they do negative air
     abatement -- say they seal this room -- they
     put it on negative air, which means they suck
     the air out so there is leakage in, not out.
     Standard technique.  Then they use these
     filters.  Then these filters also come as
     vacuum cleaners -- large vacuum cleaners or
     systems where they use that same thing, where
     the exhaust is virtually clean.  And then you
     can use that to clean the clothes, clean the
     laboratory, and that type of thing, and then
     dispose of the filters as required.
           In the asbestos industry for miner
     work, a lot of the companies have these HEPA
     vacuum cleaners for cleaning not only
     whatever spilled, but they clean their
     clothes with that.  So those systems are
     available.  Virginia Vermiculite has one of
     those, even though they haven't detected
     asbestos in their ore or their product.
           MS. JANES:  Good morning.  I was just
     wondering, could you submit your various
     references to the record as -- like
     Mr. Lippman's study, the Potts study?
           MR. STAMBERG:  Yes.  I'll xerox those
     and send them by tomorrow, or by Monday.
           MS. JANES:  You're very close to our
     new location.
           MS. SMITH:  We have a question from
     another MSHA member who is sitting in the
     audience.
           MSHA MEMBER:  Yeah.  Mr. Stamberg,
     could you clarify for me also along the same
     lines as Sharon Ainsworth, that 3:1 ratio,
     did you say it was not appropriate in the
     OSHA differential method?  Since OSHA uses a
     differential method as part of --
           MR. STAMBERG:  No.  The OSHA EPA method
     starts with 3:1 on PCM.  Then you start
     differential counting and say, What is this
     chunk, okay?  And then there's a whole series
     of things which are in my Figure 5 of how you
     start sorting that out.  A cellulose or
     vegetable fiber looks like a swirled piece of
     grass, and usually is easily identifiable.
     Cellulose fibers, insect material, fiberglass
     is very translucent under the green light.
     It can be eliminated.
           Every microscopist and their expertise
     vary.  When you're paying $6 for these tests
     you haven't got the Addisons, the Chatfields
     and the Krons doing this.
           In England where they have banned
     asbestos, they have had to develop a method
     and microscopists with the skills that are
     consistent and detailed enough to do that
     differential counting at a higher and more
     sophisticated level.
           MSHA MEMBER:  Okay.  And on the comment
     you made about the results being on the web
     site, 178 of those shift-weighted average
     results represent probably four or five
     samples taken in consecutive series that led
     up to that shift-weighted average compliance
     of --
           MR. STAMBERG:  Okay.  So you didn't do
     900 shift-weighted averages.  You did 178
     shift-weighted averages which may comprise
     258 separate subtests.
           MSHA MEMBER:  Right.
           MR. STAMBERG:  Oh, okay.  So that
     wasn't apparent from --
           MSHA MEMBER:  We did do a lot more than
     178, but a lot of those were excluded for
     quality control purposes.  We betted a lot of
     those samples out because of some concern
     because they are compliant sample results.
           MR. STAMBERG:  Yes.
           MSHA MEMBER:  So they got a lot of
     scrutiny.
           MR. STAMBERG:  Mining, because it has a
     lot of other material other than just the
     asbestos, can be blinded, or the samples get
     fogged up and you get a lot of, say,
     particulate debris from diesel engines and
     stuff like that.  So that's part of the
     concerns that you need to have good, detailed
     procedures that reflect mining and mining
     operations.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Stamberg.
     We appreciate you coming.
           Our next speaker is Robert Glenn.
           MR. GLENN:  Thank you very much,
     Ms. Smith.  I'm Robert Glenn.  I'm president
     of the Industrial Minerals Association of
     North America.  For the record, Glenn is
     G-L-E-N-N.  My training is the field of
     industrial hygiene.  With me today is
     Mr. John Kelse, K-E-L-S-E.  John is the
     Director of Risk Management for the R.T.T
     Vanderbilt Company, and a member of our
     Safety and Health Committee.
           The Industrial Minerals Association of
     North America -- and I'll shorten it to
     IMANA -- appreciates this opportunity to
     appear at this public meeting to provide
     comments to MSHA on measuring and controlling
     asbestos in the mining industry.  IMANA is a
     recently-established trade association
     serving the interest of six industrial
     minerals; ball clay, feldspar, industrial
     sand, mica, soda ash and talc.  Thirty-seven
     founding producer member companies are
     presently members of IMANA operating more
     than 200 mining facilities, and employing
     another 5,000 workers.  Although no IMANA
     company is engaged in the production or
     distribution of asbestos or
     asbestos-containing products, IMANA
     recognizes the critical importance of sound
     policy and science in regard to the
     development and application of any standard
     involving asbestos.
           Our comments today draw from the
     experience of our member companies.  We will
     be brief in our comments today, and confine
     our remarks to some of the questions asked by
     the agency in its announced notice of
     proposed rulemaking.  We will submit more
     comprehensive written comments and materials
     to the rulemaking record.
           Regarding the asbestos permissible
     exposure limit, IMANA believes MSHA should
     lower its eight-hour time-weighted average
     permissible exposure limit for asbestos to
     0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter, and its
     short-term exposure limit to 1.0 fibers per
     cubic centimeter over a sampling period of 30
     minutes.  This, of course, would be
     consistent with the OSHA standard.
           The 1994 revised OSHA asbestos standard
     noted that reducing the exposure limit to 0.1
     fibers per cc would further reduce but not
     eliminate significant risk of
     asbestos-related disease.  The excess
     lifetime cancer risk at that level was
     estimated to be 3.4 deaths per thousand
     workers exposed for a working lifetime.  With
     the exception of the one asbestos mine
     surveyed by MSHA, MSHA's recent field
     sampling data showed that none of the samples
     collected exceeded OSHA's eight-hour
     time-weighted average of 0.1 fibers per cc
     when analyzed by transmission electron
     microscopy.
           While preliminary, these results
     indicate that exposure to asbestos in mining
     are low, and that the cancer risk in miners
     should be less than the OSHA risk estimates,
     since cumulative working lifetime fiber per
     cc years in non-asbestos mining will be lower
     than the cumulative exposures in the OSHA
     risk estimate.
           We wish to make it very clear that we
     make this recommendation to adopt the OSHA
     PEL because of the need to be prudent in the
     face of uncertainty in the interest of
     regulatory consistency, not because of any
     agreement on our part with the risk estimate
     adopted by OSHA.
           A voluminous body of scientific
     evidence establishes that asbestos exposure
     increases the risk for asbestosis, for lung
     cancer, and for mesothelioma.  And while
     asbestos is perhaps the most studied
     occupational agent, there remains a great
     deal of uncertainty and controversy regarding
     its effect and acceptable levels of exposure.
           While in our opinion it is not in the
     interest of any of the affected parties
     involved in this rulemaking to debate the
     adequacy of the OSHA asbestos PEL, MSHA
     should be aware and should keep in mind that
     uncertainties and controversies do exist.
     Some of the complexities in designing
     exposure response relationships and risk for
     asbestos-related disease include
     uncertainties and exposure estimates in
     studied workers both quantitatively and
     qualitatively, extrapolation to low levels
     from epidemiological data with high levels of
     exposure, variability among estimates of risk
     from various studies, inconsistent or
     inappropriate adjustment for the possible
     confounding effects of cigarette smoking,
     possibility of differences in potency among
     different types of asbestos, and inadequate
     description and definitions of asbestos
     exposure in terms of asbestos mineral type,
     and characteristics of fibers that may lead
     to both the inclusion and exclusion of
     inappropriate fibers leading to aerogenic
     exposure method.
           Regarding the analytical method, the
     IMANA believes that phase contrast microscopy
     should be continued to be used as a screening
     tool at the lower PEL of 0.1 fiber per cc,
     but only if fiber characteristics more
     specific to asbestos are applied, such as
     screening approaches that ensure actual or
     probable asbestos fiber exposures observable
     by light microscopy are recognized and then
     confirmed by more discriminating analytical
     methodology such as electron microscopy.  We
     believe this can be done, and that it will
     control the unnecessary expenditure of time
     and money for the TEM work.
           In the ANPR, MSHA asked for comments
     regarding the advantage and disadvantage of
     exclusive use of TEM over the agency's
     current use of phase contrast microscopy as a
     screening tool for samples that may contain
     asbestos.  Of course, the major difference of
     the two methods is the magnification or
     resolution limits associated with each
     method.  TEM commonly uses magnification of
     20,000 times for asbestos fibers, while PCM
     methods use 400 to 450 times magnification.
     Based on magnification alone, it would seem
     TEM is the preferable method; however, the
     agency seems to be aware of limitations and
     problems surrounding the sole use of TEM for
     identification and of PEL compliance
     determination for asbestos by the questions
     posed affected parties in your "Federal
     Register" announcement.
           A specific question for MSHA -- from
     MSHA -- asks for information on the
     availability and costs for commericial TEM
     analytical services.  We have not attempted
     to survey commericial laboratories regarding
     capabilities for TEM services, but we are
     certain that we would find that there are far
     more laboratories equipped with light
     microscopes able to analyze fibers of 450
     magnification using phase contrast
     elimination than there are laboratories with
     TEM scopes capable of asbestos identification
     at 20,000 times.  Likewise, it stands to
     reason that there would be many more trained
     analysts at commericial laboratories capable
     of asbestos quantification using PCM than
     there are electron microscopists at
     commercial labs providing analytical asbestos
     services.
           As for the cost of these analytical
     services, there are no doubt persons who can
     provide more precise information, but for
     illustrative purposes we have made some cost
     projections using the MSHA asbestos sampling
     data set as an example.
           In the asbestos PEL section of the
     ANPR, MSHA noted that recent field sampling
     data showed none of the samples collected
     exceeded OSHA's eight-hour time-weighted
     average of 0.15 fiber per cc when analyzed
     using the TEM method.  Assuming that the
     personal asbestos fiber compliance air
     sampling results -- those that are posted on
     your web site -- is a basis for this
     statement, we would make some cost estimates
     of various strategies for analyzing asbestos
     by TEM and PCM.  And I must say I did not
     understand all of the complexities in that
     data until the remark that was made
     previously by one of the MSHA staff that
     these numbers would even differ from what I
     would present.
           The example we present includes 12
     samples in the data set from the one asbestos
     mine, but we understand -- and our example
     assumes -- that analysis by TEM ranges
     between $150 to $250 per sample, while
     analysis by PCM for asbestos will range from
     $12 to $15 per sample.  Assuming these
     analytical costs are in the ballpark, if TEM
     were required for all asbestos samples,
     analysis of the 273 samples in our count in
     the MSHA database by TEM would have cost on
     the low end $40,950, and on the high end
     $68,250.
           Suppose MSHA were to use a strategy of
     PCM for screening samples and establish an
     action level of one half the OSHA PEL of 0.05
     fibers per cc, and use TEM to confirm the
     identification of asbestos on samples
     exceeding the action level.  If our
     understanding of the MSHA data is correct --
     and again, I think it is quite correct -- 44
     samples would have exceeded that action
     limit, and would have been subjected to TEM
     analysis.  Using the current fiber definition
     for PCM counting, the cost of PCM analysis
     for all of the 273 samples and confirmatory
     TEM for the 44 samples would have ranged from
     $9,876 to $15,095.  Going one step further,
     if the screening level was set at the OSHA
     PEL of 0.1 fiber per cc, 12 samples would
     have been subjected to TEM, and the cost
     range would have been $5,286 to $8,345.
           The end result of these scenarios using
     the MSHA database would have been that no
     overexposures to asbestos at the OSHA
     standard would have been detected in mines
     not engaged in asbestos mining, and miners
     would not be subjected to unacceptable risk.
     So if TEM had been used to analyze all of the
     samples, the cost of doing so would have been
     wasted.  Using PCM as a screen reduced
     unnecessary cost with no negative impact on
     risk detection, PCM analysis could be made an
     even more reliable screening tool by adopting
     fiber counting criteria more specific to
     asbestos, resulting in further unnecessary
     cost containment.
           Be assured that in a for-profit
     business a greater than ten-fold cost
     difference of $5,286 on the low end of our
     example and $68,250 on the high end for any
     service -- whether it's analytical laboratory
     or other -- without receiving added value or
     benefit is not viewed as a sound business
     expense.  Perhaps for any later rule to be
     proposed by MSHA you will have time to
     independently survey accredited asbestos
     laboratories to determine the capability of
     commericial laboratories for analytical
     services, and to provide cost projections
     that will be placed on the industry to comply
     with the various sampling schemes.
           This idea or concept of a phase
     contrast microscopy screening, especially if
     it's involves asbestos specific fiber
     counting criteria, is so important we do want
     to make a little more comment on that.  And
     for that I would ask John Kelse to continue
     with the remarks on the subject.
           MR. KELSE:  I thank you, Bob.  I guess
     I'll continue by saying that we realize there
     is concern that asbestos fibers below the
     resolution limit of a light microscope are
     not counted under PCM; and, when present,
     constitute a false negative PCM finding.  And
     there is understandable concern, then, that
     an undetected health risk exists.  And this,
     in turn, might argue for TEM analysis for
     every sample -- financial impact aside.
           In addressing this concern, we found
     that MSHA's own 285 mine samples -- and
     again, it's I guess in the PDF file --
     results provided, as Bob indicated, a
     valuable insight regarding the practicality
     of PCM screening from a risk perspective.  We
     noted, for example, that the PCM total fiber
     counts significantly outnumbered the
     corresponding TEM counts for actual asbestos
     in the MSHA database.
           Comparison was available for 50
     samples, I believe, for mines not engaged in
     the mining of asbestos.  TEM asbestos counts
     turned out to be approximately 5 to 20 times
     lower than the PCM count.  Even in the two
     asbestos mine samples analyzed by both PCM
     and TEM, the TEM asbestos fiber count was
     one-half that of the PCM count.
           We believe this difference demonstrates
     the significant role non-asbestos elongated
     particulate false positive PCM results, if
     you will, play in the mining environment
     because none of the non-asbestos mine TEM
     data shows an asbestos concentration in
     excess of the proposed PEL of 0.1 fibers per
     cc.  Most were not even close.  Concern that
     actual asbestos not observed by PCM may be at
     risk of significance isn't supported by the
     agency's own data.
           We think this, in turn, lends support
     for PCM as an adequately sensitive
     approach -- especially in the mining
     environment -- one that could be made even
     more useful, as Bob mentioned, with the
     adoption of more asbestos-specific fiber
     counting criteria.
           We believe in non-mining environments
     where processed asbestos-containing materials
     are more often encountered, asbestos fiber
     counts, as MSHA I believe has pointed out,
     have been shown to be much higher than PCM
     counts with the same exposure, or the same
     filter; the exact inverse of what you see in
     the MSHA mine data.  In fact, in the mining
     environment, it might be argued that the
     greatest risk of PCM use is false positives.
     The counting of elongated particulate that is
     not asbestos.
           It would be interesting to know how
     much difference the mining PCM counts would
     have been from the TEM counts had more
     discriminating fiber counting criteria been
     applied in the PCM counts.  If you still have
     those filters, in fact, I suspect MSHA could
     do that comparison.  It would be our guess
     that the difference between the PCM count and
     the TEM count would have been much less.  And
     if we're right, the need for TEM work would
     have been avoided altogether in this sampling
     effort.  And the time and money involved
     could have been saved or directed to more
     important safety and health problems.
           We believe far more could be gained in
     the mining environment by a more effective
     PCM screening approach than it could from
     exclusive use of TEM, since it does not
     appear a reasonable PCM screening approach
     would jeopardize the health of miners.
           Given today's improved understanding of
     what asbestos is, we believe MSHA should be
     able to design a more discriminating, more
     asbestos-specific PCM fiber counting
     procedure for screening purposes with
     electron microscopy used to confirm that
     suspect PCM fibers are a regulated asbestos
     mineral.  Asbestos fiber characteristics that
     can be observed under PCM will be discussed
     more fully in our written submission.
           Further, in regard to the proper
     asbestos identification, we feel very
     strongly that MSHA should use this rulemaking
     opportunity to provide specific guidance to
     the regulated community on the difference
     between asbestiform and non-asbestiform
     varieties of minerals.  Doing this would
     reduce confusion and support an improved PCM
     screening approach.  This clarity is
     particularly important in the mining
     environment because there is an even greater
     potential than in general industry to
     mistakenly include cleavage fragments in the
     counting of asbestos fibers, as I believe the
     PCM/TEM comparison I just discussed shows.
           The characteristics of what constitutes
     and distinguishes asbestiform and
     non-asbestiform minerals was the topic of an
     OSHA asbestos hearing in 1990 with a final
     rule promulgated in 1992.  MSHA is encouraged
     to review the testimony and docket
     submissions to this rule, and provide
     guidance to the regulated community and
     analysts on the characteristics that
     distinguish asbestiform from non-asbestiform
     varieties of the serpentine and amphibole
     mineral groups.
           A consensus definition from the 1990
     rulemaking supported by 16 mineral
     scientists, many of whom have published
     extensively in this area -- and put forward
     by the American Mining Congress, now the
     National Mining Association; and the National
     Stone Association, that's now the National
     Stone, Sand and Gravel Association -- defined
     asbestos and ascribed characteristics of
     asbestos fibers.  We feel that MSHA should
     adopt this consensus definition as a means
     further reducing ambiguity in this area.  I
     should note that this consensus definition
     does not contradict the agency's current
     definition, but does build upon it.  This
     additional clarity can only improve
     analytical specificity.  A copy of this
     definition will be provided in our written
     submission.
           In regard to what is regulated as
     asbestos, we would like to simply say at this
     time that asbestos aside, any material --
     chemical or mineral, fibers or non-fibers,
     acicular or elongated, asbestiform or
     non-asbestiform -- should be regulated only
     on the basis of demonstrated risk, and
     always, always called by its proper name.
           In the Advanced Notice of Proposed
     Rulemaking, MSHA also asked if PEL compliance
     should be measured using TEM, and if disease
     end points in epidemiology studies of
     asbestos have been related to TEM
     measurements.  We believe the simple answer
     to both questions is no.  We're not aware of
     any reported TEM asbestos fiber
     concentrations that have been adequately
     correlated to disease end points of asbestos
     exposure or to risk.  In contrast, PCM
     asbestos fiber counts have been related to
     asbestos-related disease, and do form the
     basis for exposure limit decisions.
     Moreover, we are not aware of any reliable
     correlation or correction factor that can be
     applied within TEM asbestos fiber counts to
     PCM fiber counts.  TEM to PCM asbestos fiber
     counting correlation schemes have been
     proposed, but the uncertainties and
     limitations of these schemes are well
     recognized.  Some of those will be discussed
     in the submissions that we'll make later.
           Variables such as the mode of fiber
     generation impacting size and number of fiber
     bundles, and asbestos mineral type -- some
     present in shorter, thicker fibers than
     others -- must be taken into consideration.
     In summary, TEM asbestos fiber counts should
     not be compared to PELs that were developed
     using PCM fiber counts, since they do not
     relate occupational exposures to disease
     outcomes.
           For the above reasons, it will still be
     necessary to conduct PCM analysis of all
     samples used for the determination of PEL
     compliance.  Further, we are not aware of any
     adverse human exposure to any asbestos
     material in which the airborne exposure could
     not readily be observed by light microscopy.
           Switching gears in regard to questions
     MSHA has asked about take-home contamination,
     we simply have at this stage a simple comment
     that we believe that when asbestos take-home
     exposure exists in a mine from any source,
     MSHA should require appropriate control
     measures.  The Industrial Mineral Association
     plans to comment further in this area after
     MSHA has more fully defined what controls are
     desirable, and how implementation in this
     area is envisioned.
           In regard to asbestos sampling, we
     believe the most used, established asbestos
     monitoring protocols -- such as NIOSH 7400 --
     in terms of filter media, flow rates, and
     sampling strategies should not be changed.
     We believe MSHA's emphasis on full-shift
     personal sampling is appropriate for PEL
     comparison purposes, as well.
           IMA North America is obviously most
     concerned with consistency and proper
     asbestos identification.  Changes in sampling
     variables such as collection flow rates are
     likely to further confound the usefulness of
     asbestos -- further confuse the usefulness of
     asbestos fiber counts.
           Comparison of asbestos fiber
     concentrations obtained in ways different
     than those used to establish the risk linked
     PEL reduces the reliability of the sample to
     predict risk.  Obtaining higher fiber counts
     by adjusting collection and analytical
     practices is not very meaningful if you
     aren't able to make apples to apples
     comparison between exposure and the risk of
     disease.
           Certainly any change in asbestos
     monitoring or analysis that would improve
     risk recognition is desirable.  Such changes,
     however, should be confirmed before they are
     implemented.  IMA North America is not aware
     of any monitoring adjustments at this time
     that would improve upon the current asbestos
     monitoring system.
           To wrap up our testimony today, the
     Industrial Minerals Association believes
     significant asbestos exposure in U.S. mines,
     outside the mining and milling of asbestos,
     is very rare.  MSHA's recent assessment of
     asbestos exposure in mines supports this.
     Further, despite ongoing controversy
     regarding risks associated with asbestos
     exposures and imprecision regarding the
     identification of asbestos, enough
     understanding does exist to properly identify
     and control hazardous exposure.  However, to
     make the best use of this understanding,
     lessons of the past must not be overlooked.
     And theories and concepts no longer supported
     must be abandoned.
           Considering the error-ridden history of
     asbestos regulation in the United States as
     it relates to a host of non-asbestos
     minerals, it might be argued that the
     greatest risk to the mining community is when
     asbestos is improperly identified, and
     emotionalism is allowed to trump science and
     reason.  The IMA North America looks forward
     to further participation in this rulemaking
     as MSHA further refines and clarifies its
     intentions.  Thank you very much.
           If you have any questions, I'll see if
     I can dance around.
           DR. JONES:  You had called for a clear
     definition of asbestiform minerals versus
     non-asbestiform.  What --
           MR. KELSE:  A clear definition of
     asbestos, what asbestos is.  In defining
     asbestos, you have to also define what the
     term asbestiform means, and describe it.  It
     will appear in our submissions.
           DR. JONES:  Okay.  Thank you.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you very much.
           Do we have other individuals in the
     audience at this time who would like to speak
     who have not signed up, who have just
     recently come in?
           (Pause)
           Has everyone else who signed up spoken?
           MS. ELY:  Thank you very much.  It's a
     very good thing that you folks have elected
     to come to Charlottesville today.  We
     appreciate that.  My name is Rae Ely, R-A-E,
     E-L-Y.  I'm an attorney from Louisa County.
           I have been monitoring the production,
     distribution and problems associated with the
     vermiculite industry in America for
     approximately 30 years now.  And I may be one
     of the few people in the room here today who
     was involved in the Federal government's
     levels of concern and interest in the 1970s
     in what was going on in Libby, Montana.  Was
     it Yogi Bear who said, "It's deja vu all over
     again?"  That's how I feel today.
           The industry, as you know, took a very
     vigorous stand in the 1970s defending itself
     in the work that was being done in Libby,
     Montana.  The people of Libby knew that they
     were being subjected to dangerous materials.
     And we -- as far away as Louisa County,
     Virginia -- knew about what was going on in
     Libby.  But the agencies were so concerned
     about the pressure from the industries that
     very little was done.
           I was concerned by your opening
     statement here today where you indicated that
     MSHA, even though it had jurisdiction over
     Libby, learned about the extent of the
     problem in Libby from reading the Seattle
     newspapers.  This is -- this is a real
     concern, I think, to people who are concerned
     about public health.
           The problems that we have in Louisa
     County are now being debated as to whether or
     not there is any health problem.  This is the
     same debate that took place in Libby in the
     '70s.  There are not the death totals that we
     have in Libby now in Louisa County because
     that mine is 25 years younger.  But I would
     submit to you that just as the W.R. Grace
     problem in Libby was a case study in the
     '70s, where we now know what the bottom line
     turned out to be, so is the problem in Louisa
     County a case study that you have the
     opportunity of addressing today.
           If you look through your own files and
     records on the history of the inspections of
     this mine, you will see a great contradiction
     in the results that have been developed
     through the years.  A number of reports from
     the inspections -- the MSHA inspections --
     show no detection at all.  And then when
     there was greater scrutiny following in the
     wake of Libby, there was extensive testing
     which found substantial samples of
     contamination; some of the contamination
     being as high as samples that showed
     99 percent tremolite asbestos.
           Now, one of the things that's in my
     possession that's quite interesting, I
     have -- because of extensive litigation with
     the W.R. Grace company, I have thousands and
     thousands of documents from the W.R. Grace
     company files, which show as early as 1949
     when the Grace company was doing the original
     drilling -- the test drilling in Louisa -- of
     almost every test drilling hole, probably
     75 percent at least showed high levels of
     actinolite and tremolite asbestos being
     pulled out of the ground in these samples.
     And then, of course, Grace began to be very
     defensive as the problems in Libby developed.
     And Grace began to take the same position in
     regard to the vermiculite deposits in Louisa
     as it was in Libby, in every instance denying
     that there was a problem.  Also, of course,
     at Libby they argued that the economics of
     controls were just so great for them that
     they could not afford to offer additional
     protection to the workers and the community.
     It's ironic, isn't it, that today -- 25 years
     later -- hundreds of people of the community
     and the workers are dead.  And, of course,
     the company is bankrupt.
           Now, one of the questions that was
     asked here today was about the breakdown of
     the bundles of fibers during the processing.
     And I certainly am not an engineer.  I'm not
     a chemist.  But I do have a little bit of
     common sense.  And as I say, I've watched
     this process for a long time.  I will say
     that based on the information that I have
     available, there is a tremendous risk of the
     massive asbestos samples -- or the bundles of
     fibers -- being broken down fairly readily.
     This product is submitted to grinding and
     processing as it's being made ready for its
     downstream market.  It is also subject to
     contact with heavy equipment in the
     workplace, large pieces of machinery running
     over this material.  And one of the things
     that Mr. Stamberg did not mention to you is
     that when the asbestos veins are dug up, much
     of that is dumped into a pond on the
     property.  And the water for the dust control
     at the plant is withdrawn from this
     asbestos-containing pond.  And that water is
     sprayed over the roads and over the workers'
     area.
           Right now we are in the middle of a
     drought, and, of course, tremendous heat.
     And we've had a fair amount of wind.  I would
     invite any one of you to drive past that
     plant today and see the clouds of dust -- not
     only visible on the mine site itself, but out
     on the road.  I drive past it twice every
     day.  I hold my breath, literally, as I drive
     past that mine site, getting behind trucks
     that are giving off clouds of dust.  All of
     these minerals -- much of this is stored in
     an open location in the center of the Town of
     Louisa where it is being readied for shipment
     by rail.  No protection whatsoever.
           I am wondering whether any of you who
     are here today were present at the senatorial
     hearing that was held by Senator Paddy Murray
     last fall?  One person.  I will recommend to
     you that you review the transcript -- or
     perhaps the videotape -- which is available
     that exists from that hearing, and include
     that information as part of your record
     today.
           In any event, we cannot afford to make
     anymore mistakes like this agency and EPA and
     other agencies made through the years with
     Libby.  What more do we need than what we
     already have from the record that is
     available as far as this product in the
     United States?
           Let's err on the side of caution.  The
     most stringent tests should be employed.  The
     workers must be protected.  HEPA filters do
     not control the workplace outdoors.  They do
     not control the dust that is laced with this
     product that is being spread around this
     property and around the community.  That is
     not sufficient.  And we would request, on
     behalf of the community and the public at
     large, that this agency step up to the plate,
     assume the responsibility that it has, and
     exercise it to the best of its capability.
     Thank you very much.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you very much.  If
     you do have information available to us that
     you could submit for the record, could you do
     that?
           MS. ELY:  I'll be happy to supplement
     my remarks with documents.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you very much.
           Are there any other speakers in the
     audience who have not signed up, but would
     like to speak at this time?
           (Pause)
           We do have a request for speakers for
     1:00 this afternoon.  Since we have no other
     speakers at this time, we will go off the
     record.  The panel will remain in this room
     until 11:00.  If we do have other speakers
     come and request to speak, we will go back on
     the record to accept their remarks.  If not,
     then we will come back on the record in this
     room at 1:00.  We have, I believe, eight
     speakers this afternoon beginning at 1:00.
     Thank you very much.
           (Off the record, 10:40 a.m.)
           MS. SMITH:  Ladies and gentlemen, it is
     11:00.  We had no further requests for
     speakers this morning.  Therefore, we will
     adjourn until 1:00.  We do have speakers
     scheduled for this afternoon beginning at
     1:00.  Thank you.
         (Recess, 11:00 a.m. to 1:07 p.m.)
           MS. SMITH:  I've had a request to
     start.  We're going to start with Mr. William
     Ford.
           MR. FORD:  Thank you very much,
     distinguished members of the MSHA Asbestos
     Hearing Panel.  My name is William Ford.  I'm
     senior vice president of the National Stone,
     Sand and Gravel Association.  I'm a
     registered professional engineer, and have
     been with the association for the past 12
     years.  I have more than 36 years experience
     in the field of environmental engineering, a
     significant portion of which has been as an
     environmental and public health regulation.
           The National Stone, Sand and Gravel
     Association, NSSGA, is pleased to offer
     comments and evidence in response to a
     request for comments from the Mine Safety and
     Health Administration regarding asbestos.  We
     appreciate that the agency has reached out to
     stakeholders in an Advanced Notice of
     Proposed Rulemaking to obtain their views on
     this important matter.  NSSGA has assembled
     speakers with expertise on the various facets
     of asbestos from geology, mineralogy,
     analytical chemistry, safety and health, and
     industrial hygiene to offer the best possible
     advice to the agency during its deliberation.
           NSSGA is the world's largest mining
     association in terms of annual production and
     locations represented with more than 900
     member companies -- many of which are small
     businesses -- operating over 3,500 locations
     across America.  Our membership represents
     about 90 percent of the crushed stone,
     70 percent of the sand and gravel produced
     annually in the United States.  During 2000,
     2.78 billion metric tons of crushed stone,
     sand and gravel, valued at $14.5 billion,
     were produced and sold from the 10,000
     locations nationwide -- more than double the
     tonnage of the next largest mining sector,
     which is sole.  We represent operations in
     all 50 states.
           NSSGA is completely and unreservedly
     committed to assuring a mining workplace that
     is free of recognized safety and health
     risks.  NSSGA's "Safety and Health Guiding
     Principles," a written statement of policy,
     advocates that NSSGA members advocate a
     strong and unwavering commitment to safety
     and health, and pledges the association's
     work toward the prevention of all
     occupational illnesses and injuries.
           Over the years, NSSGA has backed up
     this lofty rhetoric with programs designed to
     meet the objectives the organization
     espouses.  For instance, in a landmark,
     award-winning seminar series, we have
     partnered with MSHA to bring real-life
     instruction on sampling for noise and
     respirable dust to aggregates industry safety
     and health professionals.  Some 320
     individuals have successfully completed this
     program, including eight who just completed
     the intensive three-day workshop this past
     week.
           We have produced videos on new miner
     training, haul truck safety, and basic safety
     and health principles.  We have teamed with
     MSHA to produce PowerPoint presentations on
     high wall safety, and we're currently working
     with the agency on a high wall video safety
     series.  And we have joined hands with the
     agency to dissect the job of haul truck
     operators as a first step in preparing an
     interactive CD-ROM, which we believe will
     lead to a sharp reduction in the number of
     accidents of powered haulage accidents.
           We have also collaborated with the
     agency, other industry stakeholders, and
     labor representatives to fashion a new safety
     training rule that meets the unique needs of
     safety aggregates miners.  NSSGA co-founded,
     co-led and provided volunteer staff for the
     Coalition for Effective Miner Training, an
     industry/labor coalitions that MSHA used as
     the basis for its Part 46 training
     regulation.
           NSSGA's Board of Directors has approved
     development of an occupational health program
     for the aggregates industry.  The OHP, as we
     call it, will set a benchmark for
     occupational health in the aggregates
     industry that should ensure an even healthier
     aggregates mining population than now exists,
     and may serve as a beacon for other industry
     segments to follow.  The Association is a
     co-founder and active participant of the
     Silica Coalition.  The aim of this
     organization is to bring sound science to
     regulatory deliberations on crystalline
     silica.  NSSGA is also funding an
     epidemiological study of crushed stone
     workers to determine what, if any, adverse
     health effects they may have experienced due
     to potential exposure to crystalline silica.
           The six commericial varieties of
     asbestos are widely known to present a
     serious health risk under specific
     circumstances of exposure.  These substances
     are among the most highly regulated of any in
     the country today.  We appreciate that the
     agency is taking steps to tighten its
     asbestos regulations in the wake of the
     tragedy in Libby, Montana.  We offer our
     heartfelt condolences to those who have
     suffered there, and to those who continue to
     suffer.
           It's crucial to identify the hazard,
     and then to develop thoughtful regulations
     that will minimize or eliminate that hazard.
     We see a risk that MSHA might encompass, by
     regulation, non-asbestiform materials for
     which no health effects have been observed.
     As the panel knows, an attempt to regulate
     non-asbestiform minerals occurred in 1986
     when the Occupational Safety and Health
     Administration announced a final rule aimed
     at regulating the non-asbestiform mineral
     habit of actinolite, tremolite, and
     anthophyllite.
           Fortunately, this so-called ATA
     regulation was subsequently withdrawn in 1992
     after NSSGA -- operating then as two separate
     entities, the National Stone Association and
     the National Aggregates Association -- along
     with others, persuaded an attentive agency
     that it was off course; and that there was,
     in fact, no health justification for the
     regulation.  The exhausting effort stretched
     out over six long years, and consumed
     countless hours of personnel time, and
     involved an expenditure to the industry alone
     of over $5 million in direct costs.  A decade
     has since past, and there still is no
     evidence to support a regulation of
     non-asbestiform minerals.
           Why did we put so much effort into
     turning back a regulation issued by an agency
     that didn't even have jurisdiction over our
     mining operations?  We viewed it as critical
     to the very survival of our industry because,
     while OSHA does not regulate aggregates
     mines, it does regulate our customers.  This
     issue is even more critical today because it
     is under consideration by an agency, MSHA,
     that does regulate our industry.
           NSSGA viewed the 1992 decision as a
     victory for sound science, reason, and just
     plain common sense.  In considering changes
     to its own asbestos standard, MSHA has a more
     challenging mission than OSHA had 15 years
     ago.  Because OSHA is primarily concerned
     with the handling of commercial asbestos in
     abatement projects, where the presence of
     asbestos is known, the need for more specific
     mineralogical descriptions of asbestos and
     more specific methods of analyzing asbestos
     are not necessary.  But the environment MSHA
     looks after is much more difficult and
     complex when sampling and analyzing for
     asbestos, because in this setting the agency
     deals primarily with non-commericial,
     naturally-occurring asbestos, or no asbestos
     at all.
           Where the federal fiber definition of a
     particle that is five microns and longer with
     an aspect ratio of at least 3:1 is not too
     troublesome in OSHA's regulatory environment,
     it is very troublesome and inappropriate in
     MSHA's regulatory environment.  The only
     reason it hasn't been a problem in the past
     is that the current exposure limit of 2
     fibers per cubic centimeter is high.  Not
     many samples reach this concentration, and
     need mineralogical determination.
           In the quarry environment there are
     many types of harmless rock fragments that
     fit the federal fiber definition.  In fact,
     the non-asbestiform habits of the six
     commercial varieties of asbestos fall under
     this category.  As MSHA considers reducing
     its PEL from two fibers per cubic centimeter
     to a tenth of a fiber per cubic centimeter,
     the number of samples requiring additional
     electron microscopic analysis for
     mineralogical characterization will increase
     dramatically unless the discriminate counting
     procedure used by MSHA is more inclusive of
     asbestos and exclusive of non-asbestos.
           We fully recognize the need for many
     MSHA to respond to the recommendations
     contained in the Department of Labor
     Inspector General's 2001 report.  We have
     prepared testimony to assist the agency in
     responding responsibly to those
     recommendations.
           As noted, we have assembled a panel of
     experts from across North America to offer
     their expertise in this matter in their
     professional field.  Resums of this group
     will be submitted with their formal
     testimony, so I'll dispense with reciting the
     extensive array of skills, experience and
     training that they bring to their work.
     Nonetheless, I will provide a short
     introductory remark on each of them now.
           Our first speaker will be Dr. Malcolm
     Ross, a retired geologist with the U.S.
     Geological Survey, who now is in private
     practice in mineral consulting.  Dr. Ross
     will stress the importance for MSHA to
     properly define, sample and analyze asbestos
     in the mining industry to avoid significant
     adverse economic impacts.  Dr. Ross's entire
     career has been devoted to geology and
     mineralogy.
           The next three speakers following
     Dr. Ross will describe the specific impact
     improper asbestos definitions and analytical
     methods have had on their operations.
     Speaking from personal, firsthand experience
     will be Doug Palmore from Luck Stone
     Corporation here in Virginia, Rick Cole from
     the Lafarge Corporation in Maryland, and Alan
     Bowen of Southdown in New Jersey.  Southdown
     is a division of the Cemex Corporation.
           Our fifth speaker, Dr. Ann Wylie from
     the University of Maryland, will review the
     scientific literature that addresses how
     asbestiform fibers and non-asbestiform
     particles differ in the real world.
     Dr. Wylie will explain how asbestos is
     defined neurologically, and how the federal
     fiber definition fails to differentiate
     between asbestiform and non-asbestiform
     minerals.  She will stress the need to
     incorporate these real world differences in a
     proper set of counting criteria that can be
     used in air and bulk analyses.  Dr. Wylie has
     more than 35 years of experience in the
     field.
           Dr. Richard Lee of the R.J. Lee Group
     in Monroeville, Pennsylvania will talk about
     the -- who has been active in the area of
     asbestos analytical research since the
     1970s -- will demonstrate that many samples
     collected in quarries will exceed .1 fibers
     per cubic centimeter under microscopic
     analysis by phase contrast microscopy.
           This will lead to a discussion about
     the need to change the simplistic federal
     fiber counting criteria, since failing to do
     so could lead to excessive electron
     microscopy analysis.  He will discuss the
     technical difficulties of characterizing
     samples using electron microscopy with a lack
     of qualified laboratories.  He will address
     the impracticality of using OSHA's current
     fiber definition in an unknown mineral
     environment.  His talk will conclude with a
     description of an analytical approach to air
     samples that contain federal fiber count for
     historical purposes, but incorporates the
     discriminate counting process that isolates
     only fibers of health concern; that is, long,
     thin fibers.
           Dr. Eric Chatfield of Toronto-based
     Chatfield Technical Consulting, who will
     precede Dr. Lee, will describe how EPA is
     using the discriminate counting process to
     focus on asbestiform particles that are less
     lest than .5 microns in width, and 10 microns
     and longer.  He will emphasize the
     inappropriateness of the PCM federal fiber
     method for the ambient environment typical of
     quarries.  And he will identify other
     entities that have departed from the federal
     fiber PCM counting method.
           Kelly Bailey will conclude our
     presentation.  Kelly is a certified
     industrial hygienist with Vulcan Materials
     Company, the nation's largest producer of
     aggregate products.  He will describe how
     inappropriate fiber definitions have warped
     the dose/response curves for asbestos miners,
     and how continued use of the federal fiber
     analytical approach will prolong poor
     science.  Kelly will also summarize the main
     points made by each of the panelists.  And he
     will outline a proposed standard regarding
     fiber definitions and analytical processes.
           In the interest of time and efficiency,
     we suggest that members of the panel hold any
     questions or comments until all of the
     speakers have concluded their presentations.
     It's possible that the questions that you may
     have for one speaker will be answered by a
     subsequent speaker.
           Thank you again for offering
     stakeholders such as NSSGA the opportunity to
     offer expert witnesses on this vital issue.
     Copies of the testimony of each of our
     speakers, plus an extensive array of
     supporting documents, will be submitted to
     the docket before the close of the comment
     period.  This concludes my presentation, and
     Dr. Ross will be our first speaker.
           DR. ROSS:  Thank you for allowing me to
     address the panel, the MSHA panel.
           The crushing of any rock produces some
     mineral particles that may be within the size
     range of specified federal regulations.  If
     correct definitions of the truly hazardous
     material; that is, asbestos, are not made, it
     presents a formidable problem to those
     analyzing for the asbestos minerals in the
     multitude of different mineral particles that
     may be found in rock dusts, for not only must
     the size and shape of the mineral particles
     be determined, but also an exact mineral
     identification must be made.  Many different
     types of non-fibrous amphiboles are found in
     many types of common rocks.  And many of
     these amphiboles might be considered
     asbestos, depending on the professional
     training of the analyst, on the equipment
     used for analysis.  Drs. Wylie, Lee and
     Chatfield, in the testimony to be given
     later, ably discuss the methods to
     distinguish asbestos particles to
     non-asbestos particles, as I have nothing
     further to contribute to this subject other
     than to support their conclusions.
           If the suspect fibers include
     non-fibrous, amphibole minerals, then we must
     recognize asbestos presents -- is present in
     significant amounts in many types of rocks
     covering perhaps 30 percent of the United
     States.
           This is a slide that was produced by
     the Environmental Protection Agency some
     years ago.  And on the right you see the
     cross-hatch region.  That's essentially the
     Appalachian Mountains where you have many
     types of rocks that can contain asbestos, as
     well as in the West Coast in the Sierras and
     Rocky Mountains and so forth.
           Rocks within the serpentenite belts,
     greenschist rocks, amphibolites, gneissic
     rocks, diabases, basalts, trap rocks and
     granites would be considered asbestos
     bearing.  Asbestos regulations would thus
     pertain to many of our country's mining
     operations and quarrying operations for
     concrete aggregate, dimension stone, road
     material, railroad ballast, and riprap.  Also
     affected would be the construction
     industry -- road and housing construction,
     for example.
           I now want to mention the Libby
     asbestos problem.  The Libby vermiculite
     deposit located near the town of Libby,
     Montana is owned by the W.R. Grace Company,
     and was operated by that company from 1963
     until it closed in 1990.  The vermiculite
     found in a geologically complex magnesium
     iron-rich rock composed of alkaline rocks,
     syenites, trachytes, phonolites and granites.
     Anything amphibole-bearing, asbestos-bearing
     veins are disseminated throughout the
     vermiculite body.  The asbestos has been
     identified as amphibole winchite.
     Colloquially, you can refer to this as a
     sodic tremolite.
           Apparently, the newly-proposed MSHA
     regulations were promulgated because of the
     concern over the asbestos dust and resulting
     health effects from the Libby mine.  The
     problem at Libby, as I see it, is not because
     there was a lack of a .1 fiber standard,
     because neither the mine operator nor the
     state or federal authorities recognized that
     asbestos was pervasively disseminated through
     the ore body, and that airborne dust levels
     were far higher than existing regulations
     permitted, even after wet processing began in
     1974.  It was well known asbestos was present
     in the ore body long before the mine was
     taken over by Grace Chemical Company.
           If a mineralogist/petrologist had been
     engaged to inspect this mine for asbestos,
     warnings could be given, and mining
     procedures altered, if possible, to keep the
     dust levels low.  I believe it is imperative
     that mines of any type be inspected by
     qualified mineralogists and petrologists in
     order to protect the potential dust risks, an
     activity that I and my colleagues have been
     engaged in for several years.
           Next, the crystal growth of asbestos
     fibers.  All asbestos occurrences that I have
     seen, and are noted in the scientific
     literature, show that asbestos crystallizes
     under very special conditions -- conditions
     that occur within rock formations that are
     undergoing intense deformation.  Rock
     deformations are often accompanied by the
     intrusion of magnetic fluids forming dikes
     and sills.  Fibers crystallize in high strain
     environments such as within folds, shear
     planes, faults, dilation cavities, and at
     intrusion boundaries.
           For example, we observed fiber
     formation in a shear zone within a
     metamorphosed iron formation.  Here
     non-fibrous ferroactinolite amphibole came
     into contact with low temperature acidic
     solutions which were moving through an active
     shear zone, causing the amphibole to
     re-crystallize in a fibrous form.
           In another mine, I studied felsic dikes
     had intruded the host rock; the dikes
     composing perhaps 2 or 3 percent of the total
     rock volume.  Asbestos was not found within
     the ore-bearing portion of the ore body, but
     rather as thin coatings of asbestos on the
     contact surfaces between the felsic dikes and
     the host rock.  I estimate that the fibrous
     mineral associated with the felsic dikes
     composed much less than .01 percent of the
     total volume of the rock.
           In another mine, I noted thin coatings
     of asbestos on the shear surfaces of large
     blocks of marble, this shearing probably
     occurring over tens of millions of years.
     Rock deformations are common and found in
     many different geologic localities, hosting a
     variety of mineral deposits.  But even though
     a deposit may be exploited for something
     other than asbestos, asbestos may form in
     extremely small quantities within the
     deformed rock.
           Even though asbestos was present in the
     examples I presented, it was little or none
     that would be expected to show up in air
     sampling, particularly when the
     asbestos-bearing rock is not crushed and
     processed, but rather discarded with other
     overburden.  I bring this point out, for even
     though the fiber may not be detected in air
     samples, organizations or individuals who,
     for one reason or another are against mining,
     might collect samples of sheared rock and
     show that asbestos is indeed present in the
     ore, and thus there is a potential health
     danger to the miners and those living nearby.
     The mere fact that asbestos exists in a mine
     is often enough to stop production -- the
     one-fiber-can-cause-cancer scenario.
           I present some case histories of where
     I think there has been a misdirected effort
     at the regulation.  A large number of actions
     over the last 30 years, perpetuated in a
     misguided effort to protect human health,
     have greatly affected the vitality of U.S.
     Mining and metals industries and the U.S.
     economy.  A few examples are given here.
           A flood barrier surrounding part of the
     City of San Jose, California is composed of
     serpentinite rock containing small amounts of
     chrysotile asbestos.  The EPA considers that
     rock toxic, and placed a barrier on the
     Superfund list for remedial action.  In this
     same city, the extension of a mass transit
     rail line was held up indefinitely because
     the right-of-way required a cut through a
     hill composed of serpentinite rock.
           Serpentinite is a very common type of
     rock exposed in many areas in the United
     States, and is commonly used in construction
     zones and aggregates.  Indeed, if
     serpentinite rock is considered dangerous,
     thousands of square miles of land might be
     placed off limits for any kind of
     development.
           In one area of California, the New
     Idria Mountains, 50 square miles of soft rock
     is naturally exposed at the surface
     containing 15 to 60 percent chrysotile
     asbestos.  Large amounts of asbestos from
     this area have entered the environment, both
     air and water and stream, for millions of
     years with no discernible health effects to
     the residents in those areas.
           The U.S. District Court in Minnesota in
     1975 declared the taconite mined by Reserve
     Mining Company contained amosite asbestos.
     The company was ordered to build a special
     landfill costing $300 million to dispose of
     the waste rock.  Soon after spending this
     money for site preparation, the company
     declared bankruptcy.  The taconite mined by
     Reserve contains magnetite, carbonates,
     quartz, and various other silicates;
     including non-asbestiform cummingtonite and
     actinolite amphibole.  After carefully
     sampling 11-miles just recently, I found only
     one small area, a shear zone, that contained
     asbestos.
           In 1987, actinolite asbestos was
     discovered at a construction site in Fairfax
     County, Virginia, causing concern over
     possible health risks to workers, as well as
     county residents.  The asbestos was confined
     to the shear zone and anticlinal folds within
     the actinolite schist, a prominent rock type
     within the Piney Branch formation, which
     outcrops over three and-a-half square mile
     area of Fairfax County.
           As a result of this discovery, the
     Fairfax County Health Department initiated
     dust control procedures.  The advisory
     requires contractors to use proper dust
     control practices, air monitoring, safe waste
     rock disposal, and existing asbestos
     standards.  It further states in the county
     advisory that construction not be banned.  As
     a result of this well-reasoned regulatory
     initiative, the county continued to build
     housing and commericial buildings on some of
     the most valuable land in the United States,
     while at the same time protecting the workers
     and the public from an avoidable risk of
     asbestos-related disease.
           Lastly, during the 1990s, many new
     housing projects were started in the
     fast-developing foothills area of El Dorado
     County, California, a county located in the
     Great Valley serpentenite belt.  During
     excavation for housing sites within the
     serpentenite rock, fragments of tremolite
     were found, thus alarming the homeowners.
     The local newspapers published a series of
     articles that suggested that the county
     residents' exposure to tremolite asbestos was
     endangering their health.  A large number of
     air samples were collected in numerous sites
     all over the county by the California Air
     Resources Board.  The fiber concentrations,
     non-tremolite, averaged less than .001 fibers
     per cubic centimeter.  El Dorado County still
     appears to remain in turmoil over the
     asbestos.  In contrast, Fairfax County, in
     which the asbestos controversy -- if indeed
     there was one -- died out 10 years ago.
           Cleavage fragments described as
     amphibole, as well as fragments from many
     other natural occurring minerals, are
     abundant in our environment.  Anywhere that
     mines or quarries are operated, where
     building road and tunnel construction occurs,
     in many agricultural regions, and where
     mineral or rock aggregate is processed or
     utilized, mineral fragments will usually be
     encountered both in air and water.
           It is now common for people living near
     mines and quarries to believe that any amount
     of asbestos, or minerals said to be
     asbestos-like present unacceptable health
     risks.  Others at this meeting will tell
     their problems facing quarry operations.
           Many prescribe to the theory that there
     is no known exposure threshold for the
     induction of cancer.  It's stated repeatedly
     in the press and in many health reviews that,
     because no one knows the minimum amount of a
     carcinogen required to initiate the growth of
     a tumor, it must be assumed that any amount
     of a carcinogen is unsafe.  Such statements
     lead the public to believe that just one
     fiber of asbestos can cause cancer, and has
     led many communities to ban the mining and
     quarrying of rock.
           Hopefully, the state and federal
     regulatory agencies will help to counter such
     perceptions with promulgation of guidelines
     giving the true risks to the miners, as well
     as those living in the vicinity of the mine
     or quarry, of the various exposure scenarios.
           With regard to the proposed MSHA
     standard of .1 asbestos fibers per cc, I
     believe most stone quarries could operate at
     this standard rock, provided only true
     asbestos is counted.  However, if amphibole
     cleavage fragments are counted, many quarries
     could not meet the standard.  Thank you.
           MR. PALMORE:  Good afternoon.  My name
     is Doug Palmore.  I am the Environment,
     Health and Safety Manager for Luck Stone
     Corporation.  Luck Stone is a family-owned
     and operated aggregate company headquartered
     in Richmond, Virginia with 800 associates and
     19 operations in Virginia and North Carolina.
           In addition to my role at Luck Stone,
     I'm also speaking today on behalf of the
     Virginia Aggregates Association, and in
     support of the testimony prepared by the
     National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association.
     The groups I am representing today support
     MSHA in its efforts to protect miners from
     hazards associated with asbestos.
           Today I'm going to deliver a factual
     account about the economic impact caused by
     the misidentification of asbestos in crushed
     stone at one of our quarry operations.  This
     misidentification was due to improper
     analytical methodology, and an improper fiber
     definition which apparently led to cleavage
     fragments being mistaken for asbestos.
           A little over two years ago, our
     materials testing lab received a call from
     the Virginia Department of Transportation and
     Materials Division notifying us that they
     were investigating the possibility of
     asbestiform minerals in materials from our
     Rockville, Virginia -- not Rockville
     Maryland -- crushed stone plant.  This
     notification was very informal, and VDOT
     representative implied this was no big deal,
     they were not concerned, and they were simply
     addressing a citizen's complaint.
           A week earlier, VDOT had received a
     letter from a concerned citizen notifying the
     Department that he had collected a sample
     from an unpaved road in front of his home.
     He had read an article about naturally
     occurring asbestos, and thought his
     respiratory ailments and those of his family
     may be due to asbestos in the dust from the
     unpaved road.  He apparently had been working
     for some time to get the road paved with no
     success.
           The results of his sampling showed
     2.8 percent chrysotile asbestos as identified
     by EPA Method 600/R-93/116 using TEM.  Armed
     with this data, he sent a letter to his local
     health department and copied the VDOT
     Secretary of Transportation, the State
     Attorney General, the Director of the
     Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,
     and the director of EPA Region III, to name a
     few.  It was not long before VDOT's position
     was very formal, very serious, and directed
     squarely at Luck Stone.
           Even though stone had been placed on
     that road from several different quarries
     over the years, our Rockville plant had
     current orders to supply the VDOT maintenance
     shed that served the road in question.
     Within a couple of days of the initial
     notification, we received a call from the
     VDOT district administrator notifying us that
     VDOT was discontinuing the use of our stone
     in one of their residencies until the
     asbestos issue was resolved.  And they
     requested access to our Rockville plant for
     testing.
           We immediately collected a random
     sample of base material from Rockville, and
     shipped it overnight to R.J. Lee Group in
     Monroeville, Pennsylvania for asbestos
     analysis.  We had not conducted any asbestos
     sampling previously because the geology at
     Rockville does not lend itself to the
     formation of asbestiform mineralogy.
           Within 24 hours, we received the
     results from R.J. Lee confirming what we
     thought:  There was no asbestos in our
     Rockville material.  We communicated that
     information to VDOT, but they would not lift
     the ban on our material until they received
     the results of sampling that they had done at
     our plant and on the road in question.
           During this process, we were very
     concerned that VDOT may be using labs that
     were accustomed to analyzing building
     materials, and may not have experiencing
     analyzing natural occurring minerals for
     asbestos.  Our fears were realized when one
     of VDOT's initial samples from the roadway
     showed a trace of chrysotile asbestos.
           Concurrently with the sampling
     activity, and despite Luke Stone's data
     showing the Rockville material to be asbestos
     free, VDOT began circulating an e-mail
     banning Rockville's products from the entire
     Fredericksburg district and Richmond
     district.  VDOT began to shut down our
     customers -- asphalt and concrete
     producers -- working on state jobs.  Contract
     truckers were bringing the VDOT e-mail to
     other Luck Stone sites, and asking if this
     ban applied to all of Luck Stone, or just
     material coming from our Rockville plant.
     The volatility of this situation expanded
     very quickly because of the general public's
     concern that asbestos equals cancer.
     Fortunately for us and for VDOT, VDOT did not
     used the word "asbestos" in their e-mails,
     only the word "contaminated" to describe our
     product.
           A group from Luck Stone requested and
     received an emergency meeting with VDOT's
     Assistant Commissioner for Environment,
     Transportation, and Regulatory Affairs to
     express our concern over VDOT's response to
     this situation, and to request that the ban
     be lifted from our Rockville plant.  We
     received an assurance that he would do
     everything he could to expedite VDOT's
     response, but he was not prepared to lift the
     ban until he had conferred with VDOT's
     project team.
           Two days later, we finally convinced
     VDOT to participate in a conference call with
     the labs they were using and the R.J. Lee
     Group.  The conference call occurred eight
     days after we were initially notified of the
     problem, and three days after the ban on our
     material began to circulate.  The outcome of
     that conference call was to split a series of
     samples between VDOT's lab and R.J. Lee.
     Only after VDOT received the results of the
     split sampling showing no asbestos present
     did they finally lift the ban on our product.
     VDOT impacted Rockville plant sales for seven
     days as a result of the misidentification of
     asbestos from an unpaved road.
           The direct cost to Luck Stone in the
     form of lost sales and analytical fees
     numbered in the thousands of dollars, but
     pales in comparison to the cost of the
     man-hours we spent responding to this
     unfortunate situation.
           In addition to the cost to Luck Stone,
     VDOT had a team of four to five people
     working on this project, along with
     representatives from the Virginia Health
     Department.  Between VDOT and Luck Stone, we
     collected well over 60 samples from our
     plant, VDOT's stockpiles, and the unpaved
     roadways -- all at a significant cost to the
     taxpayer.  All because a lab with an
     excellent reputation for analyzing asbestos
     in building materials did not distinguish
     between a rock fragment and an asbestos
     fiber.
           Beyond the measurable financial loss,
     the what-ifs associated with this story are
     even more daunting.  If the press had picked
     up on the word "asbestos" associated with our
     Rockville plant, it is difficult to predict
     the amount of damage that would have occurred
     to Luck Stone's reputation and viability in
     the Richmond, Virginia market.
           The cost to our industry and to MSHA
     resulting from a regulation that allows the
     misidentification of asbestos in naturally
     occurring minerals would be catastrophic.
     I'm not a chemist or a geologist, so I will
     not begin to speak to the technical details
     of what analytical methods are appropriate,
     or what the fiber definition should be.  We
     have assembled an incredible wealth of
     knowledge and experience on the proper
     identification of asbestos in this room
     today, and they will provide the scientific
     justification for our position.  My concern
     is that we properly identify and regulate
     true asbestos for the health of our miners,
     for the well-being of the public, and for the
     good of our industry.
           Thank you very much for the opportunity
     to speak today.  I would like to introduce
     Rick Cole of Lafarge North America, who will
     be our next speaker.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you.
           MR. COLE:  Good afternoon.  My name is
     Rick Cole.  I'm the manager of Environmental
     Control in Lafarge North America, Eastern
     U.S. Region.  I would like to thank the MSHA
     Office of Standards, Regulations and
     Variances for the opportunity to comment on
     measuring and controlling asbestos exposure.
           We have had a problem with the
     definition of asbestos as a 3:1 aspect ratio,
     and equal or greater to five microns in
     length for phase contrast microscopy,
     analysis which would then require
     transmission electron microscopy.  This
     definition would include cleavage fragments
     which would not be true asbestos, but would
     require us to proceed with TEM, which takes
     more time, and is more expensive.
           You are also investigating reducing the
     PEL from two fibers per cc to .1 fiber per
     cc.  This will cause the industry to test
     many more samples by TEM, which would be a
     waste of time and money since 3:1 greater
     than five microns would not necessarily be
     asbestos.  Please don't make the same mistake
     that OSHA made during the hearings on
     asbestos back in the early '90s.
           To illustrate our concerns, I would
     like to relate two episodes which our company
     encountered in 1986 due to the June 1986 OSHA
     proposal.  We feel that both of these
     situations could reoccur with the current 3:1
     aspect ratio greater than five microns in
     length definition if the agency fails to
     include an adequate definition of asbestos,
     and an adequate analytical procedure.
           The first episode I'd like to relate is
     the New England play sand issue.  It engulfed
     our company around 1986.  And it began with a
     publication in the "New England Journal of
     Medicine" on October 2nd, 1986.  The article
     resulted in a panic situation in which we
     removed all our product from retailer
     shelves.  This issue surfaced in the states
     of Massachusetts and New York, and was due to
     the lack of an adequate definition of the
     material allegedly found in play sand.
           Numerous laboratories and renowned
     specialists were called upon to analyze these
     materials which were found to contain
     non-asbestiform tremolite rather than
     tremolite asbestos.  Since they met the 3:1
     aspect ratio, and were greater than five
     microns, they were initially reported as
     asbestos.  Our firm was required to engage
     lawyers, as well as specialists, to monitor
     the issue -- all at great expense.  We
     believe all this was caused by an inadequate
     definition of asbestos.
           The second issue is Prince Georges
     County, Maryland, basically as a local
     jurisdiction's attempt to regulate asbestos.
     Literally, it dealt with a law that would
     have required an aggregate firm to certify
     that its material did not contain asbestos in
     an amount greater than .01 percent by volume.
     The local law defined asbestos as actinolite,
     amosite, anthophyllite, chrysotile,
     crocidolite and tremolite -- the six.
           Several Maryland quarrying operations
     filed a complaint asking for declaratory and
     injunctive relief against Prince Georges
     County.  The Prince Georges County Executive
     formed a task group to study the issue and
     report back on the feasibility of the law.
     The task group met 12 times over a 14-month
     period to no avail.  There was a labor
     viewpoint and an industry viewpoint.  The
     task group had reached a stalemate, and it
     wasn't going anyplace.
           One interesting activity undertaken by
     the task group was to submit a questionnaire
     to 20 different laboratories soliciting their
     ability to analyze aggregates in a manner to
     certify compliance with the law.  13 firms
     responded.  None of them would certify that a
     quarry could be warranted asbestos-free from
     a sampling program, due to the heterogeneous
     nature of a stone deposit.  It was also
     obvious that large errors were associated
     with the measurements; and the smaller the
     concentration, the greater the error.
           It was agreed that the resolution of
     this situation would be in the Circuit Court
     of Prince Georges County.  Three years of
     debate, discussion and court hearings ensued
     between the introduction of the initial
     county bill and the final court action which
     declared the law invalid.  Legal fees alone
     were more than $75,000.
           In June 1992, OSHA resolved the
     actinolite, tremolite, anthophyllite issue --
     after years of debate -- by finally admitting
     there were two forms of these minerals.  In
     that admittance, I guess, they failed to
     address the 3:1 aspect ratio for particles
     greater than five microns.
           I believe that these issues demonstrate
     that OSHA and MSHA do not operate in a
     vacuum, and local jurisdictions and
     municipalities look to these agencies for
     guidance in formulating safety and health
     programs.  The asbestos issues in 1986 and
     subsequent laws subjected my firm to an
     enormous amounts of unnecessary effort to
     convince our customers, employees, and even
     ourselves that our quarry products did not
     contain carcinogenic asbestos.  We were
     required to become knowledgeable in
     explaining the difference between true
     asbestos and cleavage fragments, as well as
     non-asbestiform AT&A.
           Both of these extremely volatile
     situations could have been avoided if the
     agencies had properly defined asbestos.  I
     implore you to include in your new proposal a
     proper mineralogical definition of asbestos,
     and an adequate analytical procedure capable
     of distinguishing more realistically between
     cleavage fragments and asbestos.  To do less
     would lead to continued confusion.
           Again, I want to thank you for the
     opportunity to speak.  And the next speaker
     will be Mr. Alan Bowen, Director of
     Operations of the Mineral Division of Cemex.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Cole.
           MR. BOWEN:  Thank you.  I also
     appreciate the opportunity to participate in
     this presentation as a member company of the
     National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association.
     For the record, my name is Alan Bowen.  I
     serve as Director of Operations for the
     Minerals Group of Cemex, Incorporated.  We
     operate five plants in the Northeastern
     United States that are involved in a mining
     environment.  All of these plants are subject
     to regulation and inspection by the Mine
     Safety and Health Administration.
           It is important that I echo the
     sentiment expressed here today that
     preserving the safety of the personnel we
     employ is paramount to our success as a
     company.  In fact, the four main
     responsibilities I give all of our operations
     to meet are to ensure the safety of the
     workforce, maintain environmental compliance
     of the facilities, adhere to the quality
     standards we have set for our products, and,
     of course, obtain the financial goals we have
     established.  I see these four legs as
     equally important to our success.  We are
     pleased to be able to work with outside
     organizations as resources to help us improve
     in any of these four areas.  For that reason,
     we support MSHA's effort to establish new
     standards as regards the exposure of any of
     our people to real asbestos.
           However, our recent experience at our
     Sparta, New Jersey facility prompts me to
     present these remarks as to how important
     proper asbestos definition and analytical
     methods are to determining whether or not our
     employees are exposed to real asbestos
     hazards.  The mineral deposit available to us
     in Sparta, New Jersey is a mixture of a
     granite overburden and a limestone ore body.
     The limestone is classified as part of the
     Franklin limestone deposit.  It has the
     characteristic of a high purity calcium
     carbonate limestone, but has been blessed
     with a variety of other mineral inclusions
     during its millions of years of formation.
     These mineral inclusions actually detract
     from the purity of the limestone, but part of
     almost all naturally formed deposits.  These
     inclusions compose such a small percentage of
     the total ore deposit that they do not
     interfere with the normal operations of the
     quarry, and do not have a measurable effect
     on the end product quality.  Consequently,
     these included minerals are generally
     processed as part of the limestone ore body.
     This has been the case in this quarry since
     it was opened by Thomas Edison in the early
     1900s.
           One of the known mineral inclusions is
     the non-asbestiform habit of tremolite.  This
     mineral composes less than 1 percent of the
     ore body.  It is important to understand that
     there is both an asbestos and a non-asbestos
     form of this same mineral.  The potential
     harmful effects of the non-asbestos variety
     of this mineral has been studied many times.
     And the conclusion is that the non-asbestos
     variety does not pose a health threat.  The
     almost hundred years of operation of the
     Sparta plant support this conclusion, as we
     have no history of plant personnel ever
     experiencing health problems of the type
     associated with known asbestos diseases.  In
     fact, we have several third generation
     workers of the same family working in our
     Sparta quarry.  They would not be there if
     they had had health problems in the previous
     generations of their families.
           So why was our quarry the subject of
     such a public outcry a year ago, with claims
     of posing a health threat to our community?
     Why were we forced to spend millions of
     dollars -- and I mean literally millions of
     dollars -- to defend ourselves when we posed
     no health threat to our employees, let alone
     our community?  Why are we still spending six
     figure amounts to continue to prove we are
     not posing a health threat to anyone?  It was
     really the result of improper interpretation
     of what constitutes asbestos or asbestos form
     minerals and improper analytical testing
     methods.
           Our tale of woe started as many urban
     sprawl stories do, with the development of
     very exclusive homes being built and
     purchased near our quarry site.  Then when
     our neighbors occupied these homes, they were
     made to discover they had just bought their
     dream home next to a quarry that had been in
     operation almost a hundred years.  This led
     to the typical complaints about blasting,
     noise, and dust generation.  Even though we
     were not in violation of codes or
     regulations, as good corporate citizens we
     attempted to address those complaints with
     modifications to our operations.  We changed
     our blasting patterns.  We installed noise
     suppression devices.  We took steps to
     decrease any fugitive emissions through
     improved dust collection, road watering, even
     curtailing operations in times of high wind
     events.
           Our level of public and regulatory
     scrutiny greatly increased when our
     neighbors, fueled by misguided emotion and
     improper asbestos definition, claimed the
     quarry posed a health threat to the community
     because of tremolite in the ore deposit.
     Continuing our role as a responsible
     corporate citizen, we voluntarily conducted
     stack testing to prove that there was no
     threat the our workers, let alone our
     community.
           Unfortunately, we were not well enough
     educated ourselves to understand the problems
     that come from this improper interpretation
     of what constitutes asbestos or asbestiform
     minerals, and improper analytical testing
     methods.  The state agency's interpretation
     of the stack test alleged that asbestos type
     minerals were being emitted; however, after
     careful review and analysis by our outside
     expert, it was found that numerous errors
     occurred in the collection, preparation and
     analysis of the samples.  In fact, asbestos
     type minerals could not be confirmed.
           Of course, by that time we were trying
     to defend ourselves in the face of public
     outcry and a state agency reacting to public
     pressure.  We had to employ the best experts
     available, as well as conduct extensive
     research, and go through multiple legal
     battles that could all have been avoided had
     we known ahead of time the pitfalls
     associated with improper interpretation of
     what constitutes asbestos or asbestiform
     minerals and improper analytical testing
     methods.
           This is another real life example of
     what can happen across the entire mining
     industry if we do not set the proper
     standards for asbestos definition and
     analytical testing methods as we go forward.
     We want our people to work safely, and we are
     committed to providing safe work
     environments.  We appreciate outside agencies
     and resources such as MSHA working with us to
     help us achieve safe workplaces.  But we must
     take advantage of the best science available
     to us to accomplish this goal, and avoid
     spending money chasing problems that are not
     real.
           I'm supporting the recommendation of
     the NSSGA in regards to MSHA's proposed rule
     regarding asbestos.  Our experience confirms
     we cannot simply rely on the federal fiber
     definition as a hazardous material.  It is
     critical to both the mining industry and the
     efforts of MSHA that we use valid asbestos
     definitions and proper analytical methods in
     the new standard.  Thank you very much.
           It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Ann
     Wylie, Professor of Geology at the University
     of Maryland.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you, Mr. Bowen.
           DR. WYLIE:  Thank you very much.  It is
     a pleasure to be here and to talk to you
     today.  I've spent many years studying the
     relationships between mineral fibers and
     disease.  I think you face a complex task by
     changing the asbestos regulations because of
     the interferences of the system in the mining
     industry.  So I'm hoping today that some of
     the comments that I make will assist you in
     the decisions that are ahead of you.
           Could I have the first slide?  The
     membrane filter method is the method used to
     monitor asbestos in the air.  It was
     developed in Great Britain in an asbestos
     textile factory.  The five micron minimum
     length was based on reproducibility of
     exposure estimates.  That's where it came
     from.  They did studies on how they could get
     the data from one analyst to another to be
     consistent.  It was determined if they
     encountered asbestos fibers anything shorter
     than five microns, they lacked
     reproducibility.
           MS. SMITH:  Excuse me, Dr. Wylie.
     Could you move your microphone just slightly
     in front of you so it's not cutting out on
     you?
           DR. WYLIE:  Okay.  Sure.  The 3:1
     aspect was just arbitrary in this environment
     just to allow ordinary dust.  And I think
     it's very important, when you think about
     these regulations, to keep in mind that the
     longer than five and the 3:1 are not
     definitions.  They never have been
     definitions.  They were counting criteria.
     That's all they ever were.  And that's all
     they ever are today.  They are not
     definitions for asbestos.
           Also, I think it's also important for
     you to keep in mind that what was counted
     then in Great Britain, and in monitoring
     asbestos ever since, is an index of exposure.
     It was never intended to be a comprehensive
     assessment of the total fiber in the air.
     It's an index of exposure.  And it is not
     specific for asbestos, because things like
     cellulose and all kind of things satisfy
     these criteria.
           In the 1979 publication where the
     membrane filter method was published by
     NIOSH, the method says very specifically that
     these should be counted in absence of
     evidence to the contrary.  So even in 1979,
     there was a clear recognition that there were
     things that could indeed be confused based on
     these arbitrary dimensional characteristics.
     And the NIOSH 7400 method says asbestos and
     other -- I think they say fiber, but what
     they really mean is what's loosely referred
     to as federal fiber, five microns, 3:1 aspect
     ratio particles.  Mineralogically, these were
     not fibers.
           These data came from a paper by Virta,
     et al.  And they are length and width data
     that come from air monitoring studies that
     were done in the 1980s.  The first one is
     from the Homestake goal line.  The second one
     is from Peter Mitchell Pit.  Dr. Ross
     referred to that particular location.  And
     the third one was from one of the quarries
     here in Charlottesville.  And in these three
     environments there is no asbestos; or if it
     is present, it's in trace amounts.  The
     material that was collected on those filters
     were not asbestos.  They were cleavage
     fragments of amphibole.  These are three
     environments in which amphibole is a very
     abundant part of the rock, and not in the
     asbestiform variety.  Shipyard and electrical
     refers to air monitoring studies that were
     done in two industrial sites that were using
     amosite asbestos.
           And the mean length on those -- the
     particles that were counted in this case were
     based only on aspect ratio criterion, so 3:1
     particles.  All 3:1 particles were counted in
     these studies.  The mean length, you can see
     that in the first place, the particles in the
     shipyard and electrical are longer in their
     average length than you would find in these
     three quarries, but the ones in the quarries
     are pretty long.  I mean, they approach the
     mean lengths.  Now, this is the middle.  So
     they approach the five micron limit.  And the
     mean width in the quarries of these amphibole
     particles is about one micron; whereas in the
     shipyard and electrical it's less than half a
     micron.  And we model these populations.
     It's possible to draw mathematical models
     that show you the relationship between length
     and width for any population of mineral
     particles.  The model with the 10 microns in
     the cleavage fragments is greater than one
     micron; whereas the model with the 10 microns
     for shipyard and electrical remains at about
     the mean width for the population.  If you
     look at the model with the two microns for
     cleavage fragments it goes up to beyond two
     microns -- almost three microns at that
     length; whereas, again, in the shipyard and
     electrical environment the mean length
     remains approximately constant.
           So there's a couple of points that I
     want to make from this slide.  I summarized
     them in the next slide.  Cleavage fragments
     get wider as they get longer.  And that's a
     characteristic of them.  Rock fragment,
     amphibole particulate as they get longer they
     get wider; whereas for asbestos, width is
     essentially independent of length.  That's
     because of the nature of the way asbestos
     forms.  It forms as unit fibrils.  They are
     sort of a basic building block of asbestos.
     All that happens with asbestos is they just
     aggregate.  But there are long particles with
     narrow widths, and there are short particles
     with narrow widths.  But the widths are
     pretty much constant and independent.  And
     again, that five micron length of 3:1 ratio
     is not specific for asbestos.  It is
     inclusive of asbestos, but it's not specific
     for it.
           I've provided, to accompany my
     testimony, a copy of an article that was
     published some time ago entitled, "The
     Importance of Width in Asbestos Fiber,
     Carcinogenicity and its Implication for
     Public Policy."  Myself, Kelly Bailey, Rich
     Lee and John Kelse were all in on that.
     Basically, what we did was take all the
     dimensional data that was published in the
     literature anywhere we could find it, and put
     it in kind of tabular form so that you could
     see what we know about the dimensions of
     asbestos, and what we know about the
     dimensions of cleavage fragments.  So
     everything I knew about at that time is in
     that paper.  And I ask you to look at it
     because you will see over and over and over
     again the characteristics of asbestos, and
     how constant they are -- whether they're in
     bulk samples or airborne, whether they're
     asbestos from South Africa or Australia, or
     wherever.  It's all very, very similar.
           There is one other point that I want to
     make, and that is that asbestos fibers that
     are counted that are wider than one micron
     are bundles of particles.  It's the nature of
     asbestos.  These fibers of asbestos are
     smaller than a micron in diameter.  So when
     they get to be the size of at least one
     micron -- even smaller than that in many
     cases -- but when they're at one micron you
     can see that these are composite particles.
     It's an important distinction to be made in
     the analysis of asbestos.  It's not part of
     most of the population definitions because
     they just don't record that kind of
     information.  But it is an important part.
           Now, these are some of the data that
     are in that paper I referred to.  I'm going
     to go through them fairly quickly just so
     that you'll get an idea, again, of the kind
     of things that I'm talking about.  In column
     A, the percentage of the population that were
     actually longer than five microns.  And
     again, I want to show you there's a lot of
     variability here.  In some asbestos
     populations only a small percentage are
     longer than five microns; and in other
     populations a lot is longer than five
     microns.  So this is a variable in
     populations.  And it will vary in the
     location, in the use, in different parts of
     an asbestos textile factory, different
     applications of asbestos.  The portion that's
     longer than five and less than five is
     variable, but it is certainly not inclusive.
     You can see that here.  These are bulk
     samples of the main commericial types of
     asbestos at the top, crocidolite and amosite,
     chrysotile, and then a couple of samples that
     are not mine commericial, but represent the
     actinolite variety.
           And the other characteristic is how
     significant the width is.  This material is
     less than a half a micron in width.  Of
     course, it has high aspect ratio.  I'm not
     going to spend a lot of time emphasizing
     aspect ratio today because we're going to
     present to you a proposal to consider width
     and length.  So I want to concentrate on
     those fundamentals.
           This is bulk samples; again, SEM
     characterization.  And these are cleavage
     fragments.  And again, you'll see that there
     is a proportion that's longer than five
     microns.  There is a proportion that has a
     width less than one micron, less than half a
     micron here, but it's not very much.  It is
     there, but it's not a characteristic of the
     population.  Some of these also have aspect
     ratios that are greater than 20:1, but again,
     not anywhere near the abundance.
           So populations of cleavage fragments
     and populations of fiber have distinctive
     characteristics that enable them to be
     distinguished.
           Next slide.  These are airborne data.
     Again, look at the very small proportion that
     is longer than five microns, and the
     variability of this characteristic.  This
     particular dataset didn't have the width at
     less than .5.  It had less than .375.  But
     you can see, again, these are very, very
     narrow materials, high aspect ratio.
           Airborne cleavage fragments.  Same
     thing that you see in bulk.  Actually, when
     you look at airborne particles in bulk
     population you see the same characteristics.
     It's not as though you have something totally
     different airborne than you would have in
     bulk.  You can tell a lot about what the
     airborne population is like by looking at a
     bulk population.
           So if I were to summarize what I would
     say about population characteristics, most of
     them -- these are populations of longer than
     five micron particles to start with, because
     if you include the short ones that first
     statement doesn't hold.  But if you only look
     at the ones that are longer than five, you
     find that they are also longer than 10.
     That's very characteristic.  There's a lot of
     long fibers.  And they have very narrow
     widths, less than half a micron or more.  And
     these are commericial asbestos, by the way.
     They have high aspect ratio.  Those fibers
     that are wider than one micron are bundles.
     About 50 percent are either fiber bundles, or
     are both longer than 10 and have widths less
     than one.  The individual statistics here are
     not as important as the fact that the
     populations have very distinctive
     characteristics that enable you to design
     methods that can tell them apart.
           Okay.  The next one.  The things that
     I've been talking about have been recognized
     by those who have looked at the false
     positive dimensions of insoluble fiber --
     durable fiber, it's called.  There's a lot of
     data and animal experimentation, inhalation
     and implantation studies, cell studies, human
     exposure that have led people who make this
     their business to analyze these types of
     things to come up with what dimensions are
     actually likely to produce disease.  And what
     you see here, the only thing I know about in
     the literature where people have taken a stab
     at this sort of thing, you can see that the
     lengths are longer than five microns, and the
     widths are less than a half a micron in
     general.  Lippman has a .1, and he also has a
     .2 to .8.  He makes a distinction between
     those and lung cancer.  These are the
     characteristics of asbestos populations, as
     you might well imagine.  But they are borne
     out by all types of inorganic fiber studies
     we see.
           What about Libby?  It seems to me that
     everything that I've talked about so far has
     been known for a long time.  There's nothing
     new that has been presented up there.  But in
     the background of these hearings there's a
     spectra of what happened at Libby.  Why does
     Libby, Montana exist?  What's going on there?
     Has there been some failure, some lack of
     understanding about the material at Libby?
     Is there an issue there that we need to
     understand in order to move forward?
           And I want you to understand really
     that at Libby the only -- one distinction is
     that the type of asbestos there is
     mineralogically properly called winchite, not
     tremolite by winchite.  But it is an
     amphibole, and it's a very close cousin to
     tremolite.  So we know that.  We know the
     nomenclature of the specific mineral is
     distinctive there from what we had known, and
     was listed in the regulatory policy
     elsewhere.  Airborne populations -- but it is
     asbestos.  And it is common in the gangue
     there.  It is very abundant material.  It is
     not some small amount.  There's a lot of real
     amphibole asbestos present at Libby.
     Airborne populations contain both asbestos
     and some cleavage fragments.  Dr. Lee is
     going to present some data from there that's
     going to make his point very clearly.  And.
           I'm going to present some data now from
     Libby.  I have two studies that were done at
     Libby.  One was done -- actually,
     Dr. Chatfield recorded some of the original
     data in 1980 under an EPA contract.  It was
     not air data.  It was data that -- cephalin
     techniques were used from the vermiculite,
     both raw ore and from exfoliated material to
     mimic what one would find in the air.  And
     the second set of data that I'm going to show
     you is from EPA's air monitoring that's gone
     on for the last couple of years up there.  So
     I'm going to look at the dimensions of the
     populations that are airborne there so that
     you get a feeling for it.  And then the other
     population that I'm going to show you -- the
     other one, the one that's in the middle here
     says lung tissue.  These are the raw data of
     Dr. Martha Warnock, who was a professor at
     the University of California at San
     Francisco.  And she studied the dimensions of
     material that was found in asbestos workers
     who suffered either from mesothelioma,
     asbestosis, or lung cancer.  And the lung
     cancer were from people who had high lung
     burden of asbestos.  So I want you to look at
     the actual fiber dimensions of asbestos.  Her
     data, by the way, have all different types,
     but it's dominated by amosite.  In the lung,
     how they compare with what's in the air or
     lung -- modeled in the air from Libby so you
     get a sense of how similar these things are.
           So I've put a bunch of different
     criteria up there just to try to give you
     sort of a handle on this.  Particles in -- in
     the first slide, I'm going to look at all
     widths.  In the second slide -- don't change
     it yet -- I'm going to look at widths that
     are .125 microns in diameter.  In the third
     slide, I'm going to look at widths that are
     .22 microns in diameter.  And I'm making this
     distinction because of what will you see on
     phase contrast microscopy during air
     monitoring?  And there are two things that
     are used to take dimensional data that are
     gathered by TEM and try to understand what
     would you see if you were looking at this
     with an optical microscope.  And the minimum
     width is the thing that is usually used.  But
     there is visibility, and there's resolution
     by optimal microscopy.  And there's two very
     different things.  Visibility is about .125
     microns for amphibole asbestos by the
     presently used air monitoring technique.  It
     will vary.  It depends on index of refraction
     contrast.  So it varies, but it's about .125.
     Resolution is about .22.
           So the thing to look for as I go
     through these three slides is that the data
     don't change at all, number one.  There's
     really very little difference in what you
     take.  You get the same sorts of
     characteristics.  I just need to be sure you
     get why I've got the same thing over and over
     again up here.  We take all widths.  You see
     that Libby doesn't look exactly like amosite
     asbestos in the lungs of asbestos workers.
     It's a little fatter.  It's a little shorter.
     It isn't a real good commericial asbestos,
     actually, that stuff at Libby.  But it does
     have the dimensional characteristics that are
     asbestos in their character.  So they have
     widths less than a half.  Most of the
     particles have widths less than one.  A
     significant proportion are longer than 10,
     and the width is less than a half.  Variety
     of different comparative data there, just so
     that you can see.
           Now, let's look at the visibility width
     so we limit these to widths that are greater
     than .125 microns.  And all the other data
     I've taken out.  Oh, and by the way, there
     are -- in terms of numbers here, there's --
     from Martha Warnock's data there's 541
     particles.  From the Libby mine there's 484
     particles.  And there's over 1,800 particles
     from the population in the Libby region.  So
     these are fairly large datasets that I think
     represent fairly accurately what you're
     looking at.
           Next slide.  And again, not much
     changes here.  They're less than one.  They
     have half a micron.  Very abundant, and so
     forth.  So the stuff at Libby is asbestos.
     It has the characteristics of asbestos.  And
     it doesn't need a new way of thinking about
     it at all.
           Next slide.  This is just another
     looking only at the longer than 10 micron
     populations.  Again, you see them.
           So the lesson from Libby is that
     asbestos is a major component.  The
     dimensions are similar to amphibole asbestos.
     The amphibole at Libby can cause
     asbestos-related diseases.  One thing that I
     haven't presented the data to support --
     Dr. Lee will support it -- is that really all
     the fiber at Libby is visible by phase
     contrast microscopy because it's fairly wide.
           The data that I've presented, and all
     the data that we know about asbestos, say
     that there are discriminate characteristics
     that you could apply to an optical count that
     would tell you whether you have the
     likelihood of asbestos or not.  And these are
     some of the discriminating characteristics
     that all populations of asbestos will share
     in common, one or the other.  Either half the
     population is longer than 10, or they're less
     than a half, or they have high aspect ratios,
     they're longer than one, they're bundles, and
     so forth.  These populations have
     characteristics that you could use phase
     contrast microscopy to discriminate.
           Next slide.  I've already talked about
     this.  Next slide.  I'm going to end with
     just a little bit of discussion about bulk
     analysis, why polarized light could be used,
     because you specifically asked about that.
           The bulk populations of asbestos have
     distinctive characteristics that easily
     enable you to tell whether they're asbestos
     or not.  This is an easy thing to do.  All
     mineralogists agree -- everyone who look at
     bulk samples using polarized light
     microscopy, whether they're asbestos or
     whether they're not.  And they have
     population characteristics.
           You asked specifically about methods.
     The ASTM method was listed.  The ASTM method
     was adopted in gray sheets only.  And I know
     about this because I wrote it, the original
     draft.  It was then worked on by the
     committee.  But ASTM never finished it.  I
     provided you a copy of the last go-round so
     you can have that for your records, but it
     was never officially adopted by ASTM.
           You asked about an EPA method.  Perkins
     and Harvey in 1993 developed a method that is
     widely referred to by the EPA method, but it
     was not formally adopted by the EPA, either.
     I'm not sure what you had in mind, but this
     is a very good method for asbestos-containing
     building materials.  Provides a good
     approach.
           NIOSH 9002, I would not recommend you
     using it.  It has some identification
     information that is incorrect.  But one thing
     that you really need to be aware of is that
     all these methods were designed for the
     asbestos-containing materials -- not the
     mining environment -- and that no method is
     adequate to measure quantitatively amounts of
     asbestos in low abundance.  And all methods
     need attention to the literature, and a
     well-trained mineralogist familiar with the
     mining environment to apply them correctly.
     It's different from building materials, the
     mining environment.  And I think that's the
     last slide that I had.
           And Eric Chatfield is sitting next to
     me.  I have in my written testimony some
     comments on TEM.  I'm not going to make them
     today.  They're there for you to read.
     Dr. Chatfield's comments overlap everything I
     have written.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you, Dr. Wylie.
           DR. CHATFIELD:  My name is Eric
     Chatfield.  I'm president of Chatfield
     Technical Consulting, Limited just outside of
     Toronto, Canada.  I've been working in the
     asbestos field for a considerable number of
     years -- probably more years than I really
     want to remember -- dating back to the
     Reserve mining, dumping of material into Lake
     Superior.  And I believe I did the very first
     airborne asbestos measurement in Canada,
     which was taken at a school playground
     outside of a Johns Manville operation.  And
     that was way back in around 1971.
           Since then, we have been involved in
     writing analytical methods.  I'm chairman of
     one of the international standards
     organization committees which does develop
     analytical methods for asbestos.  We've
     already published now three methods in the
     national standards level.
           Well, enough about me.  I want to
     address a number of issues that you have
     raised in your proposed rulemaking.  The
     first comment I want to make is related to
     Libby, and why we don't -- I'll start with it
     first.  In establishing any future regulatory
     action, I think it's important to
     discriminate between the Libby situation and
     pretty well everything else.  In looking at
     vermiculite over the years, I've examined
     vermiculite from Brazil -- two different
     mining operations in Brazil -- Russia
     vermiculite.  I've looked at Russian
     vermiculites, all the U.S. sources, and also
     sources in South Africa.  And I have never
     seen anything even comparable.  This Libby
     situation -- the amount and nature of the
     amphibole in Libby is, in my experience,
     totally unique.  So I think it's important to
     recognize, though, that the conditions that
     prevail in currently operated mines and
     quarries are not really relevant to the Libby
     situation, although I do recognize it was
     Libby that precipitated MSHA's regulatory
     action and proposals.  And I believe that
     that statement I just made, I believe it is
     confirmed, to a large extent, by MSHA's
     recent findings in which no measurements by
     TEM were found to be .15 per cc, shows that
     currently operated mining operations really
     are different from what must have happened at
     Libby.
           In the selection of analytical methods,
     I believe that a geological survey should be
     done to determine whether asbestos is even
     present.  There's no point in sampling for
     asbestos if there isn't any there.  And I
     believe a combination of TEM should be used
     in the initial investigation to characterize
     the airborne dust cloud in the mining
     operation.  I also believe -- even though I'm
     a TEM microscopist, and I've made my above
     living at it for the last 30 odd years -- the
     last 50 years, actually -- I do not believe
     that TEM is a method for routine monitoring.
     And my basis for saying that is I believe
     that regardless of its deficiencies, phase
     contrast microscopy still offers the most
     timely means to detect whether worker
     exposures have exceeded the permissible
     exposure limit.  And I believe, therefore,
     the health interest of workers are best
     served by the continued use of PCM.
           PCM analysis is widely available.  And
     you can even carry it out on site, if you
     want to.  It's easy to set up, easy
     microscope.  Preparation of sample filters
     for PCM examination takes about 15 minutes.
     An examination takes about another 15.  So
     after you -- if you analyze something on
     site, the results of those analyses can be
     available within about an hour of finishing
     the sampling.
           Now, by comparison, if you do TEM
     analysis, they have to be transported to a
     TEM lab.  Preparation -- and I will emphasize
     a valid TEM evaluation of one sample I
     believe cannot be completed in less than
     three to four hours.  Moreover, many TEM labs
     are operating with one instrument where it's
     a simple matter -- and a relatively
     inexpensive thing -- to establish more than
     one PCM microscope.
           Now, having done an initial
     site-specific study which asbestos -- at a
     place where asbestos is known to be present,
     then I believe the parallel analyses by the
     same filters by TEM and PCM could develop a
     database which allows you to look at the size
     fraction of fibers that you're dealing with,
     the nature of the dust cloud.  If those
     allowances are conducted correctly, it's my
     experience there's no reason to expect that
     the results would be different from the two
     methods, if the same size fraction fibers are
     measured; in other words, you go to TEM.  You
     measure the same size fraction of fibers as
     are detected by PCM.  The results should
     agree.  And those places where I've done that
     kind of work, they do agree.  I mean, there's
     some scatter, of course, but not significant.
           The TEM analysis permits you to
     discriminate on the basis of a composition
     and crystallographic structure between
     different types of crystalline fibers that
     may be present.  After you've characterized
     the nature of the airborne dust cloud in an
     operation, I believe you should then carry
     out monitoring using PCM.  And the only
     circumstance that would warrant using TEM
     after that would be to determine the
     proportionate asbestos fibers in a PCM count
     when the PEL is exceeded.  And that, to me,
     is basically the fundamental approach taken
     by NIOSH in the publication of NIOSH 7402,
     which is basically a proportion measurement.
           Now, with regard to the feasibility,
     availability cost of commericial TEM
     analysis, that is one of the questions that
     you have in -- I have a particular interest
     in that kind of thing because I do operate a
     TEM lab.  I operate a TEM lab, but I also
     operate with polarized light microscopy and
     phase contrast microscopy.  I do not believe,
     as a practical proposition, to specify TEM
     analysis of all occupational -- there is an
     exception that TEM analysis now is quite
     inexpensive and widely available.  But in
     reality, very few commericial TEM labs are
     competent to perform valid analyses of the
     complicated mineralogical mixtures that you
     find in mining and quarrying operations.
           Many TEM and PLM labs were established
     in response to activities related to asbestos
     in building products.  The accreditation
     programs operated solely is to control
     quality of analyses related to asbestos in
     manufactured building materials in U.S.
     school buildings.  These analyses are very
     straightforward, and involve only the six
     regulated asbestos types.  The majority of
     the analyses, in fact, involve only the three
     most common asbestos types -- chrysotile,
     amosite and crocidolite.
           Now, the low prices for PLM and TEM
     quoted by many labs reflect the simplicity of
     the analysis being performed.  The low prices
     are based on the use of the AHERA analytical
     method for determination of airborne asbestos
     in U.S. school buildings.  The vast majority
     of these samples are comparable with blank
     samples, with very few asbestos fibers
     present to report or measure or identify.
     And there's usually very little particulate
     on the filter at all.  Therefore, they're not
     difficult to count.
           The other thing is if a sample
     obviously contains a large amount of
     particles or fibers to be identified, the
     sample is actually rejected automatically at
     first sight.  No amount of analysis -- where
     there's a lot of fibers to count and measure
     because the area is obviously dirty -- the
     information is passed directly to the
     contractor that you better go and ahead, or
     I'm going to take more samples.  So the
     analysis of a heavy sample is never done.  So
     a lab can therefore handle these very simple
     and very clean samples at this reduced price.
           The other point about accreditation I
     wish to make, the accreditation of status of
     a TEM or a PLM lab is unrelated to the
     ability of the TEM or PLM lab -- analysts, I
     beg your pardon -- to perform analyses of
     these complex -- such as these that exist in
     mines and quarries.  And I mean to illustrate
     this comment with three examples which are my
     own power stories.
           I've recently examined samples from a
     new vermiculite composite where the owners
     were looking for funding to pay for the mill,
     and to get the operation moving.  They were
     looking for investment.  These vermiculite
     samples which were taken were reported by two
     accredited commercial TEM labs to contain
     chrysotile asbestos.  One of the labs
     reported chrysotile concentration of
     0.4 percent.  The detailed electron
     diffraction analysis of the material showed
     that the fibers reported as chrysotile were
     all, in fact, a variety of lizardite -- which
     is another serpentine mineral -- which
     exhibited a peculiar scrolling arrangement.
     I did, in fact, get Dr. Fredwicks involved in
     this, who is -- he's the head of Earth
     Science at the Royal Ontario Museum in
     Toronto.  He is one of the world experts in
     minerals.  And I got him to help.  And
     eventually between taking the diffraction
     patterns and analyzing them, we show that
     there was no evidence of chrysotile in this
     vermiculite at all.  The erroneous analyses
     originally by the two TEM labs could have
     resulted in abandonment of this mine.  And it
     was necessary for the company to make
     significant expenditures to resolve this
     problem.  I believe it probably cost them
     close to $50,000 to get this simple analysis
     dealt with.
           The second example you already heard
     About from Alan Bowen regarding the marble
     quarry in New Jersey, contains very low
     concentrations of non-asbestiform tremolite.
     Following complaints from the State of New
     Jersey from recently arrived residents who
     built homes adjacent to the quarry, stack
     tests were performed to measure if there were
     any emissions of tremolite in the stack
     emissions.  That was from the crushing and
     drying operations that were going on.  Test
     samples were analyzed by an accredited TEM
     lab.  The results of the analyses include the
     tremolite fibers up to 200:1 aspect ratio,
     which were interpreted as indicating the
     presence of asbestos.  It was only after the
     state requested a listing of the fiber aspect
     ratios that I noticed a discrepancy between
     the lab records and the data submitted to the
     state.  The data discovered during the lab
     visit that the measurement of fiber
     dimensions was such an unusual activity in
     that regard that the TEM operated was
     required to calculate the fiber dimensions
     using a hand calculator while sitting at the
     microscope.  Calculation errors were being
     made, and many fiber aspect ratios were
     actually a factor of 10 lower than they were
     actually recorded.  The day following this
     discovery a court hearing was held in which
     the state was requesting that the quarry be
     closed.  It was only by presenting a
     certification containing the corrected data,
     and a valid interpretation of it, that
     closure of that quarry was averted.
           In another example illustrating the
     unreliability of TEM analysis by commericial
     labs when dealing with these complex
     mineralogical mixtures, an NVLAP accredited
     commercial TEM lab reported that a sample of
     talc contained 8 percent anthophyllite.  A
     combination of PLM and TEM showed
     anthophyllite was certainly present, but only
     trace levels well below 1 percent.
           So there we've got examples -- the
     fundamental problem is that the individual --
     it isn't a question of the individual lab;
     it's a question of the individual analyst,
     and the level of training and knowledge that
     exists in the individual analyst.  And
     unfortunately, that training is simply not
     there.
           Moving on to PCM methods, interference
     and method modifications.  Among the modern
     published methods for PCM analysis, two PCM
     methods published by governmental agents of
     the U.S. are NIOSH 7400 and OSHA Method ID
     160.  Now, the International Organization for
     Standardization, ISO, has also published a
     PCM method known as ISO 8672.  Now, for some
     time, ASTM also published a PCM method which
     was ASTM D4240, but this has lapsed, and is
     currently being rewritten.  I've said that it
     will be produced in due course as soon as I
     have time to do it.
           Unlike the NIOSH method 7400, or OSHA
     ID 160, 8672 requires that a fiber thicker
     than three microns is not counted.  You throw
     those out because they're not respirable.
     That's the rationale for that.  And the TEM
     method -- the direct transfer TEM method --
     ISO 10312 applies the same criteria in
     counting the so-called PCM equivalent fibers.
     The same criteria throw out the fibers
     thicker than three microns, or throw out the
     fibers which are in contact with particles
     thicker than three microns on the basis that
     the entire assembly is not respirable.  The
     rationale basically is that fibers too large
     to be respirable should not contribute to an
     exposure measurement.
           The PCM method as mentioned earlier was
     originally intended for the routine
     monitoring of worker exposure in the asbestos
     textile industry where asbestos is known to
     be present.  Any fibers you find could be
     assumed to be asbestos.  The fiber criteria
     was selected rather arbitrarily to provide
     discrimination between obvious fibers and
     fragments of other minerals which are mostly
     random or equant in shape.  The airborne dust
     in other types of mining and quarrying
     operations can be very different, in that the
     numerical concentration in asbestos fibers,
     if asbestos is present at all, is low
     compared with that of the other types of
     particle.  And unfortunately, crushing of
     these non-asbestiform minerals, and even
     things such as -- if you crush them up you
     get large numbers of particles which qualify
     as fibers under the 3:1 aspect ratio rule.
     They constitute an interference in the
     current PCM methods when applied to monitor
     airborne dust in non-asbestos mining and
     quarrying.  Using the current PCM fiber
     counting criteria, cleavage fragments are
     reported as fibers, even when there's no
     asbestos present at all.
           In any revision to this PCM method,
     there are two actions that MSHA could take
     which would result in a fiber counting method
     directed toward monitoring worker exposure in
     mining and quarrying operations.  One would
     be to bring the PCM fiber counting method
     into light with current national standards by
     incorporating the criteria to reject fibers
     thicker than three, and fibers in contact
     with particles larger than three microns in
     diameter.  The second thing would be to
     modify the fiber counting criteria to make
     them more specific to asbestos, which would
     have the effect of reducing the interference
     by cleavage fragments.
           Fibers of non-respirable dimensions
     clearly should not be included in the
     measurement of exposure.  And the first
     criterion, the rejection criterion, would
     specify that such fibers would not be
     counted.
           Fiber counting criteria could be made
     more specific for asbestos by taking into
     account the length to diameter relationship
     exhibited by asbestos fibers, particularly
     airborne asbestos fibers.  The diameters of
     airborne asbestos fibers and asbestos fiber
     bundles generally increase only very slowly
     with increasing length; whereas the wet
     cleavage fragments of non-asbestiform
     minerals show a proportionate increase in
     width as they get longer.  Airborne asbestos
     fibers collected and examined by PCM methods
     are generally thin.  When they are thicker,
     they are fiber bundles which usually exhibit
     asbestiform morphology.
           To make the measurement more specific
     to asbestos, the fiber counting criteria
     should be modified (1) to include all fibers
     that exhibit obvious asbestiform morphology;
     i.e., fiber bundles, curvature, splayed ends,
     clusters; (2) to include any fibers for which
     the asbestiform or non-asbestiform nature is
     ambiguous and cannot readily be determined;
     and (3) to exclude all mineral fragments of
     discernible width that exhibit cleavage
     characteristics.
           These changes would result in rejection
     of many other types of non-asbestiform
     mineral particles, and provide a more
     meaningful measure of the asbestos
     concentration in the special environments
     that MSHA regulates.  In adopting fiber --
     modified fiber counting criteria for the
     special situation in mining and quarrying,
     MSHA would not be the first agency to apply
     selective fiber counting in measurements of
     asbestos concentrations.  In fact, all
     current PCM methods, or any selective fiber
     counting, in fibers shorter than or equal to
     five micrometers are disregarded.  OSHA also
     recognizes the concept of selective fiber
     counting.
           The alternate differential counting
     techniques are available, and they may
     include primary discrimination based on
     morphology, polarized light analysis of
     fibers, or modification of PCM data by SEM or
     TEM.  That language is actually in the OSHA
     ID 160 Method.  But it does say that a great
     deal of experience is needed -- is required
     to routinely and correctly perform
     differential counting.
           Another agency, EPA, is using also
     modified procedures.  Just to illustrate the
     differential counting, that's a PCM slide
     containing mineral walls.  And you see that
     the mineral wall could be recognized because
     generally they're rather thick, and generally
     they are a cylindrical section which you
     actually see quite well when you move the
     focus up and down on these slides.
           Gypsum tends to be recognized because
     you see the bottom particle there has a fiber
     which is more than 3:1 aspect ratio, but you
     see the ends are out at an angle.  And that's
     very characteristic of gypsum.  So with a bit
     of mineralogical knowledge, you can do
     discrimination of these.
           Going on to TEM, we have measurements
     of the Libby site being made.  The EPA is
     currently making environmental measurements
     using -- counting fibers longer than five and
     thinner than 0.5 microns.  Those are the only
     size fractions being counted.  And in these
     analyses special consideration is also being
     given to fibers longer than 10 and thinner
     than .5.
           Now, the decision to include only the
     size range of fibers is based on experimental
     work that shows that graphs -- the incidence
     of lung tumors was related to long, thin
     fibers.  And the actual lab data from the rat
     study came out as longer than 40 microns and
     thinner than 0.3.  In determining a suitable
     risk protocol, EPA elected to relax that --
     and somewhat arbitrarily, I might say -- to
     longer than 5 and thinner than .5.
           Now, moving on to bulk sample analysis,
     you did address your question of bulk samples
     in the "Federal Register."  A few comments I
     wanted to make about doing bulk samples.  The
     four analytical methods -- EPA, ASTM, OSHA
     and NIOSH -- they're fundamentally based on
     the same principle.  And they're almost
     identical.  And we did hear this morning
     about the British method -- which, again, is
     polarized light microscopy as the basis.  In
     fact, the EPA method is currently the most
     versatile of these published analytical
     methods in that it includes some but not all,
     perhaps, of the procedures of gravimetric
     matrix reduction.  If you're dealing with
     asbestos concentrations in the vicinity of
     below 1 or 2 percent, it's, in my opinion,
     absolutely essential to use matrix reduction
     to get accurate results.  It's an
     indispensable component.  Depending on the
     nature of the skill of the analyst, without
     gravimetric matrix reduction, it can fail to
     detect gross concentrations in asbestos.  The
     reason for that is even if you consider the
     Libby situation, what you will find with the
     vermiculite with the Libby -- what we used to
     call tremolite, but we now call it winchite,
     in it the bulk of the weight is represented
     by some very large fiber bundles, which are
     widely spread in the vermiculite.  So if you
     detect -- grind it up and put it under a
     microscope slide, you will either see or you
     will not see one of these big ones.  So the
     only way of dealing with this situation is to
     take the large sample, get rid of most of the
     vermiculite, and then have a look at what's
     left.  Then you're in a much better
     situation, because you're perhaps only
     looking at 10 percent of the original weight.
     You've got rid of stuff which identifies
     vermiculite.  That particular situation is
     very easy because you can exfoliate and make
     it float on the top of the water.  It's very
     straightforward.
           But nevertheless, there are a number of
     gravimetric procedures that are ambiguous.
     The mining and quarry samples you can
     accurately quantity the concentration only by
     using the gravimetric matrix reduction
     method.
           I've already dealt with the fact that
     the ASTM method really was only a suggestion,
     and never really got forward and published.
     But in general, one comment I want to make on
     this topic is that TEM is not a suitable
     method for determining the concentration of
     asbestos in bulk samples.  Asbestos is
     present in the products of mines and
     quarries, is often presents as sporadic large
     fiber bundles widely disbursed in the
     material.  They're often too large to appear
     on the specimen grid.  The TEM specimen grid
     is 3-millimeters in diameter.  If you have a
     fiber bundle in every hundred grams of
     product which -- and that fiber bundle is
     half an inch long, you're never going to see
     it on a TEM sample.  You just never will get
     to it.
           So PLM is by far the best approach --
     in fact, I believe the only approach to bulk
     analysis.  The way you do that is start with
     a large sample, and remove as much of the
     non-asbestos material as possible before you
     go to the microscopy.  Once you get there,
     then the amount of asbestos remaining in that
     residue, which may be 10 percent or less than
     the original sample weight, is readily
     quantified if you use size selective points.
     TEM is useful in bulk analysis to identify
     fibers where you have some doubts, as opposed
     to the optical work.  Certainly it's very
     simple to identify fibers on the TEM if
     you're having some problems optically.  But
     the other place where it's useful is to
     demonstrate the absence of asbestos because
     if you go through your gravimetric matrix
     reduction and you've got residue, you can --
     it's a homogenized residue from a large
     sample, and you can them make up a TEM grid
     from that very simply.  If you don't see any
     asbestos on that grid, it's a very good way
     of confirming the absence.
           In fact, one of the things that I
     should say here in conclusion to that is that
     I believe TEM analysis of untreated samples
     are generally misleading.  And because of the
     small sample size that you have to use, and
     it's an inappropriate method for the majority
     of these types of samples.
           One of the other questions you did
     address, or did ask questions on, was
     selective removal of mineral dust from air
     samples.  Now, in general if an air sample
     contains a large proportion of minute
     particles, little can be done to remove the
     non-asbestos particles, but there are some
     exceptions.
           In samples which I collected -- air
     samples I collected roughly a week after the
     World Trade Center disaster, I had air
     filters which were very, very heavily loaded.
     They were collected in some apartment
     buildings.  The loading was gypsum.  And I
     did find that one of the techniques that can
     be used is to extract the gypsum with water.
     So you could put it onto a Jaffe washer with
     water for a period of a day.  And at the end
     of the day you've got no gypsum there.  The
     rest of the sample then could be analyzed
     very easily.  And the same with marble and
     calcium carbonate; you can remove it with
     hydrochloric acid without any major -- that's
     the key thing.  I didn't want to do any
     analysis on any of these things.
           So with those two kinds of exceptions,
     you can do something.  But in general, I
     don't believe there's anything that can be
     done other than taking -- doing it that way.
           The other thing you could do in that
     case is if you have to drop the air volume,
     then your analytical sensitivity is going to
     be worse.  You're going to run into the
     situation where one fiber equals one fiber
     per cc, which is not very good.  So what you
     can do, then, is to extend the fiber count
     and do a little more area on the PCM filter.
     Again, there's a limit as to how much of that
     you want to do because it gets to be a very
     long fiber count.  So I think that's
     summarized on the slide, really.  There's not
     much you can do unless you've got soluble
     fibers to remove.
           I hope these comments are going to be
     useful to you.  And I wish you the best of
     luck in your deliberations.
           Now I'll pass the microphone down to
     Dr. Richard Lee, who will continue.  He's
     president of the R.J. Lee Group.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you, Dr. Chatfield.
           DR. LEE:  Might I suggest about a
     five-minute stretch?
           MS. SMITH:  Yes, you certainly may.
     Let's come back in about 10.
     (Off the record, 2:53 p.m. to 3:04 p.m.)
           MS. SMITH:  We're back on the record,
     Dr. Lee.
           DR. LEE:  Thank you.  And thanks for
     the break.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you.
           DR. LEE:  As you probably all know by
     now, my name is Richard Lee.  And I'm very
     pleased to have the opportunity to address
     your panel in its consideration of the issues
     and ramifications of any change in the PEL.
           I'm here on behalf of the Association
     from the Sand and Gravel and Aggregate
     producers.  I'll be testifying today on the
     basis of my knowledge of the literature, my
     personal research which spans about two
     decades, and my personal experience and
     knowledge of the issues involved in fiber
     counting.
           You've heard -- in fact, both Eric and
     I probably got our start -- a large part of
     our start in this business at the time of the
     Reserve mining case.  I was a brand new Ph.D.
     at United States Guild Research when Mount
     Sinai researchers announced their finding of
     amphibole asbestos in Lake Superior water.
     We rapidly found out two things:  We didn't
     know anything about it, and neither did
     anybody else.  A whole set of issues have
     developed because of the application of
     historical definitions into the electron
     microscope, and the use of the terminology,
     and the aspect ratios and sizes created a set
     of problems that persist today.  They're
     responsible for the errors and mistakes that
     have caused various companies and individuals
     substantial money, shut down organizations
     like Reserve because of these definitional
     issues.  They will surely create -- pop up
     more frequently with any reduction of the PEL
     to a point where the dose you're trying to
     measure is not substantially different than
     the background concentration of the
     interference.  That is one of the critical
     issues facing a very -- bringing the PEL down
     to a very low level.
           I've provided -- I will provide the
     slides I use today.  I will also provide
     copies of the testimony I gave at the OSHA
     hearings in '92, because not much has
     changed, in reality, as Dr. Wylie and
     Dr. Chatfield pointed out.  Unfortunately,
     the topics that were addressed there are
     coming up again, and will come up repeatedly
     because the cutbacks in RND in both corporate
     and agencies have sort of diminished the
     corporate -- collective corporate memory.  So
     we keep rediscovering and reinventing issues.
     So I think any change you make, you need to
     be sure to formalize what materials you're
     going to characterize, and the operational
     definitions of their characterization in the
     laboratory in a manner that hasn't been done
     previously.  This is probably the most
     important thing of the action of the
     regulator in creating an ongoing corporate
     memory.  How do we do this?  We know how.
     It's we keep -- people get old, go away.  And
     the next generation has to reinvent it.
           I do not intend to comment on the
     merits of changing the PEL.  I would like to
     point out that the PEL, as Dr. Wylie and
     others have pointed out -- and the use of PCM
     data is that of an index.  It's not an
     absolute measure of concentration.  It's an
     index which has been related to the
     characteristics of a disease population, and
     characterizes dose responses.  We know full
     well that there are particles that are in
     that exposure that aren't being characterized
     by that measurement.  But as long as we have
     a qualitative and quantitative index relating
     that to dose response, we really don't care.
     But as the PEL is lowered, these factors,
     these interferences from cellulose fibers,
     other minerals, from cleavage fragments,
     become more important.
           If you go back to the Libby situation,
     today the average PCM, airborne concentration
     is .003 fibers per cc.  That is reduced by
     merely two orders of magnitude if you take
     out the interferences.  So the interferences
     constitute a very large part of that
     concentration.
           I will also not speak in any detail to
     the OIG's recommendation that TEM be used as
     a primary screening technique.
     Dr. Chatfield's comments I just support and
     endorse.  You can find lots of references in
     the literature to the problems.  But I would
     make these points, some of which echo
     Dr. Chatfield's comments:  Number one, the
     average TEM laboratory is only equipped to
     measure chrysotile concentration, and then
     only in specialized situations; number two,
     properly done, PCM and TEM will provide
     equivalent measures of the index of
     concentration.  They are both microscopes.
     You see -- you look in them, and you see
     things.  It's a matter of what Dr. Wylie
     talked about, the -- what did you say, Ann?
           DR. WYLIE:  Visibility and resolution.
           DR. LEE:  Visibility and resolution.
     That's it.  Other than that, they both form
     images generated by a source.  And you don't
     look -- you look at those images with your
     eye.  So the fundamentals don't change
     between those two.  And that's a very
     widely-hold misconception.
           Number three:  The properties of
     asbestos that make it biologically relevant.
     Mainly it forms in long, thin fibrils.  And
     its typical characteristics in the atmosphere
     are long, thin particles; and therefore you
     can handle them.  Also permits you to use a
     discriminate counting technique that could be
     employed on a very reliable rugged basis by
     people with limited skill sets.  And in the
     industry we need to consider that.  In the
     agency, you need to consider that.
           Number four:  The cost of TEM analysis
     properly done is going to be at least 10 to
     20 times the cost of PCM discriminate
     analysis properly done.  As we lower the PEL
     that we're attempting to measure, it becomes
     more important that we increase the frequency
     of monitoring.  Because the concentrations
     that we're trying to measure are being
     reduced, the natural variability in those
     concentrations increase.  So in an attempt to
     get a reproducible index of the dose a person
     is receiving, we need more, not fewer
     measurement.  Cost becomes an issue.
           So for that reason, the consideration
     of the use of a simple discriminate counting
     technique, which will then enable more
     sophisticated analysis to determine whether
     or not you're getting an asbestos exposure,
     is significant.  And that's why we, the
     technical expert on behalf of the Sand and
     Gravel and Stone Association -- I never
     remember what order -- on behalf of those
     guys -- are really recommending cleaning up,
     modernizing the definitions of PEL, and
     instituting a reliable screening procedure
     that lets the concerned industrial hygiene
     professional, self-help health and safety
     professional or regulator determine the
     likelihood that there is an exposure going
     on.
           I'll now turn to the topics covered in
     the slides.  And if the panel would permit,
     I'd like to stand up.  And I'll hold the
     microphone so the court reporter gets it.
           I want to -- because I think
     organizations have short corporate memories,
     my suspicion is some members of the panel and
     certainly some members of the audience have
     not been introduced to the mineralogy and
     chemistry -- other than the four or five
     times today that you've heard about.  I'd
     like to just briefly address the past OSHA
     rulings, the '92 ruling that ultimately
     eliminated ATNA cleavage fragments from
     consideration.  And I've been extensively
     involved in the Libby, Montana situation.  So
     I'd like to make some comments on that.
           In the last extension notice that came
     out, the Stone Association sponsored some
     sampling in various quarries to which we
     applied some discriminate counting
     techniques.  So I'd like to report on those
     results.  And finally, present the
     discriminate counting technique that we're
     proposing for your consideration.
           Asbestos is forms of a mineral.  This
     is chrysotile.  It's what everybody in the
     country in TEM -- and for the most part
     optical labs -- count because that's what's
     used in ceiling materials and insulation
     jobs.  It has a wide market.  It's
     characterized by a very specific chemistry of
     magnesium and silica.  The techniques we have
     available to determine whether this
     includes -- energy x-ray spectroscopy, which
     tells us what elements are present; pictures,
     which tell us the morphology or shape
     characteristics of it; electron diffraction,
     which tells us, if we interpret it correctly,
     what the crystal structure is.  And this was
     a point Eric was making earlier about failure
     in some situations to properly interpret
     electron diffraction patterns leads to
     misinterpretation and misidentification.
     Finally, the one -- the optical image which
     is polarized light microscopy.  Of these, in
     one sense the most reliable is the one
     requiring the most sophistication, the
     polarized light microscope, because you learn
     how to recognize things by what you see, not
     what you can measure.
           Just briefly, here is the six regulated
     minerals, tremolite, similar things.  I'm not
     trying to train you on what these are.
     They're there.  If you ever want to become a
     TEM analyst, you can use these for your
     reference.  Anthophyllite, amosite.  Each one
     of these, the pattern -- diffraction
     patterns, the crystal can be tilted up to
     give you a very specific diffraction pattern.
     It will exhibit, under certain conditions,
     very specific optical colors and properties.
     And they have specific chemistries.
     Crocidolite, which is not much of a factor
     except in the cement type industry.
           Related to these is -- if you're
     chrysotile, it's identified as a mineral.  So
     we really in general don't have a debate
     between cleavage fragments and amphiboles
     because its cousins are -- cleavage rock
     forming cousins are minerals, and they have
     uniquely different structures in general.
     When you get to the amphiboles, they are not
     unlike chrysotile and amphibole, but they're
     not recognized as separate minerals.  But
     therefore what happens is people see
     tremolite or actinolite.  And if it's three
     times longer than wide, and they don't know
     what they're doing, they've got to question
     whether or not it's asbestos.  And you'll get
     that debate.
           The difference between them -- I was
     trying to think about it this morning -- this
     may not be a good analogy, but if you
     visualize a map of the United States -- the
     different states -- and at the time you're
     forming the country you're trying to decide
     whether we're going to be a union in which we
     have to physically break those boundaries,
     because they're growing together, they were
     an integral part of each other, or whether
     those were going to be loosely connected,
     each state was going to be its own thing.  In
     an asbestos body, each fibril that makes up
     an asbestos fiber is its own thing.  You
     separate it.  You don't have to break it.  In
     the cleavage, those boundaries that you can
     see between the different grains are, in
     fact, boundaries.  So they are -- they have
     to be broken that will produce long, thin
     particles.  Nature is not always perfect, or
     at least our view of it isn't.  You can get
     mixed asbestos and non-asbestos actinolite
     and tremolite -- any of these minerals.  In
     the extreme case, it's simply obvious:  Long
     and thin versus short and fat are never going
     to make an asbestos fiber.  Just isn't going
     to happen.  But that -- as you reduce the
     size and get smaller and smaller, that
     difference you see in the optical microscope
     gets harder and harder to resolve.
           In the TEM, you still do -- this is a
     TEM picture -- you still do get that
     characteristic.  And if you use the same
     scale like in the next slide, the difference
     is still obvious.  You see the cleavage
     fragment is irregular, has that tapered end
     that Dr. Chatfield mentioned in the gypsum,
     and the way it was broken.  If you flip back,
     you see none of those characteristics in the
     TEM of the asbestos fibril.  It's bent, its
     curvature.  It's actually the same set of
     properties that Dr. Wylie put up as the
     definition of asbestos.
           Finally, we can separate one advantage
     in electron microscopy is that we can
     actually separate -- use our chemical
     differentiation application to separate
     minerals out and discriminate, say, talc from
     tremolite where or other asbestos where the
     morphology in the PL, or whatever, may
     confuse you.
           Now, I want to take a look at what OSHA
     concluded -- at least my understanding of
     what OSHA concluded in 1992.  They examined
     the whole question of tremolite,
     anthophyllite and actinolite.  You heard
     about the lengthy debate and discussion.
     Based on the testimony presented to OSHA,
     they cited -- and therefore I say determined.
     I don't know if that's technically a legal
     word or not -- conclude or didn't disagree
     with -- which I assume they would have had
     they not been determined -- first of all,
     that the scientific literature -- and they
     cite Dr. Wylie's findings in there
     extensively -- that high aspect ratio thin
     particles were biologically relevant; that
     you can, in fact, discriminate asbestos and
     non-asbestos particles; and that they should
     be defined separately for regulatory
     purposes.  I believe that if MSHA moves the
     PEL, it's important that they adopt this as a
     minimum.  They use Dr. Wylie's slide to
     define what are the characteristics of the
     population.  This is also a slide the ASTM
     uses in their definition, and the EPA method
     that Dr. Chatfield cited -- used.
           They also further evaluated an optical
     discriminating counting that we had provided.
     They did not endorse it.  They recognized
     that it existed.  I just believe they didn't
     go far enough.  What was done with that in
     order to enable that counting -- and this is
     important, because it's the difference
     between just counting everything that's three
     times longer than it is wide, and counting to
     make some discrimination.  If you listen
     carefully to Dr. Chatfield, he was really
     saying that below some number -- and he
     didn't particularly cite it -- but below
     about a half a micron -- optical fibers,
     optical images start to lose their
     distinctive shape characteristics, and start
     to become lines.  That's about a half a
     micron.
           So if -- and as Dr. Wylie pointed out,
     individual fibrils is thinner than one
     micron.  So there's a graticule -- which has
     a half micron wide line, one micron wide
     lines, five microns in length, five micron
     circles, one micron dot -- various
     characteristics that enable the analyst to be
     trained to recognize and discriminate
     different features.  We then count -- and
     anybody, any of these rock counter or ore
     investigators would say we do a green count.
     We count all particles that are greater than
     3:1 under one button.  We use another button
     to count those particles that which are
     longer than 10 microns, Dr. Wylie suggested.
     Another button to count those particles which
     are less than a half a micron, and another
     button to count those particles which are
     bundles, or to display the obvious
     asbestiform characteristics.  But instead of
     a manual grain counting device that's been
     used for 200 years, we use -- next slide.  Go
     to the end.  Back up.  We'll come back.
           We used a computerized version where
     the buttons are on a little computer device.
     You can do this on a sheet of paper.  You can
     do this with a computer-aided device.  It
     doesn't even matter.  It's not hard.  It's
     simple.  And you can train people to do it,
     just like you train them to do phase contrast
     counting.
           Okay.  Now you can flip back.  Let's
     take a look at this Libby data.  Now, I'd
     like to focus a little bit on Libby.  In
     terms of the historical, Dr. Ross mentioned
     that the Libby mine was shut down 10 years
     ago.  So in term of a real problem, it's 10
     years old, and beyond.  The PCM could have,
     and should have, and did demonstrate high
     fiber counts at Libby.  If you look at
     Amandis's data and the papers by EPA -- or I
     forget who, but Amandis was the author --
     they showed that the fiber counts weren't
     slightly above .1; they were much.  They
     showed fiber counts slightly larger than one.
     They the were much larger.  They were larger
     than 10 fibers.
           So the PCM did not fail when used in
     the mine.  There's been a large number of SEM
     and TEM analyses performed on samples
     recently.  What you find is cleavage
     fragments.  These are going to be images.
     Each one of these images has a relatively
     high magnification in each of the fibers, a
     low magnification, and a chemistry.  And I'm
     really just going to focus your attention to
     the upper right-hand corner, because the
     first three I'm going to show you are
     cleavage.  And the next three are asbestos.
     And you need to see them relative to one
     another in fairly close context in order to
     understand.
           So go ahead.  If you just flip --
     another one tapered.  Another one very
     course.  Two microns thick, kind of plate.
     Another one now we turn to the asbestiform.
     High aspect ratio, thin width.  .5 microns.
     Thinner and longer.  Next.  Thinner and
     even -- even thinner and longer.  If you back
     up, all of a sudden, boom, you see that even
     in the electron microscope when you're
     looking at these things, then you realize
     that the individual fibril -- which Dr. Wylie
     and Dr. Chatfield talked about -- then with
     length fiber diameter does not get courser
     for asbestos.  That's the real key.  You get
     to the long, thin guys, and you can
     dramatically see the difference -- at least I
     can, and you'll have to believe me if you
     don't.
           Our data indicates 98 percent of the
     fibers were large enough to be detected by
     PCM.  In the recent data sets, 72 percent of
     those -- in conjunction with Dr. Wylie's
     testimony -- were either less than half a
     micron in diameter, or longer than 10 microns
     in diameter.  55 percent of the particles by
     our analysis are, in fact, asbestiform.
           So Libby has a characteristic that is
     the first time -- even though the
     concentrations that are there today are very,
     very low, .304 fibers per cc, they have
     characteristics we haven't seen in any other
     population -- at least in the U.S. -- long,
     thin, substantial abundance.  We just haven't
     seen that in any of the quarries.
           If you go to TEM, you see the same
     situation.  Next slide.  Tapered -- tapered
     ends.  These are characteristics of cleavage.
     Back up one.  Again, tapered.  Irregular.  No
     evidence of fibril bundles.  Next.  Same
     thing.  Next.  I mean, you get some close
     calls.  Sometimes you just can't tell on a
     single fiber.  This is where Dr. Wylie
     mentioned you have to do populations.  Next.
     Now you get into asbestiform.  Very long,
     thin.  Different population.  Next.  Same
     characteristics that distinguish on a
     macroscopic basis also distinguish it
     microscopically.  It's actually quite nice
     that nature didn't somehow make things
     indistinguishable at the cell level that were
     distinguishable at the macroscopic level.
     Next.  There are two populations:
     Asbestiform and non-asbestiform.  Most of the
     fibers are non-asbestiform.  Airborne fibers
     are probably 10 to 20 percent asbestiform.
     The mean fibril diameter is between .2 and.3
     micrometers.
           Now I'm going to show you some slides
     which illustrate the population.  This, as
     Dr. Wylie mentioned earlier, is out of EPA
     data.  It's AHERA fiber population.  So it
     includes all fibers.  Horizontal axis is
     width; vertical axis is length.  It's a true
     dimensional crosscut of the contour map of
     the population.
           So out here there's less than 10
     fibers.  The purple is 10 to 20, or whatever.
     The blue is the highest concentration.
     What's interesting about this, because of
     this large dataset they've collected, is that
     you can see there are two populations; one
     which is virtually independent, and one which
     is -- gets wider as it gets longer.  It's the
     best data I've seen because it's the largest
     dataset.  It was collected essentially by one
     lab.  And we really can't argue with it,
     because the industry didn't pay for it; the
     EPA did.  So it's not like there's
     suggestions that maybe this guy biased the
     analysis, or whatever.  This is a lab
     collecting this data.
           Now, let's look at the five micron
     diffraction.  You see the interesting thing
     about Libby is you never see -- there's still
     a significant population above five microns.
     Next slide.  So 57 percent are greater than
     five and greater than two.  Next slide.  Now
     let's look at the stuff wider than a half
     micron.  You can see the line come in, and
     the left of it will shade off that which is
     greater than a half.  So you see our
     population increasing.  There's still nearly
     25 percent.  Next slide.  52 percent of the
     population greater than five is less than a
     half.  So again, this is Dr. Wylie's
     characteristics of an asbestiform population.
     Take it up to 10, the risk population that
     Dr. Chatfield and Dr. Wylie talked about,
     we're still seeing a substantial portion.
     Next slide.  So when we get done, Libby is
     unique, even though the current
     concentrations are extremely low.  It's
     unique in anything that I've seen.  And the
     data clearly illustrates that there's an
     asbestiform and a cleavage population in that
     airborne population.
           Now, let's take a look at some recent
     datasets.  Let's just go to the next slide.
     Historically, there is data that more than
     20 percent of rock quarries samples would be
     above .1.  MSHA recently provided a dataset
     which said about 7 percent by PCM -- not by
     TEM, but 7 percent by PCM.  In the data
     analysis that we've done where people send a
     sample, it's not all that different.  It's
     about 12 percent -- substantial, though, if
     you're going to start counting all these
     samples with TEM, number one; and substantial
     if you're going to have to go back on 12 or
     14 percent and verify that you're not looking
     at asbestos by TEM.  So it can still be a
     very significant cost.
           In the historical dataset, selected
     samples have been examined by either SEM or
     TEM.  All asbestos fibers were fine out of
     that percent.
           When you look at the NSSGA data or the
     Libby data, the solution is do a discriminate
     optical count and analyze, based on the
     trigger mechanism, portions of the samples by
     SEM or TEM.  This screening can help you
     distinguish those samples which have
     characteristics of asbestiform in
     populations.  And they let you analyze enough
     samples and enough particles because you're
     doing it using an inexpensive method to get
     some meaningful data.
           Next slide.  So we proposed to count
     all particles having greater than 3:1 aspect
     ratio.  This is important because it relates
     back to the historical data.  From that
     population, count using a separate button --
     a separate tally -- a percentage of those
     being longer than 10 microns or less than a
     half micron.  Say the sample is potentially
     asbestiform is now only 50 percent of the
     fibers and bundles are either less than a
     half micron in diameter, or longer than 10.
     That's a very inclusive rule.  The proper
     rule properly is longer than 10 and less than
     a half.  But if you do the ore, it's a little
     more inclusive, and will cost a little bit
     more, but will be sure to get anything
     potentially asbestos.
           So if you do your PCM count if you're
     below .1, or whatever your PEL is, forget it.
     Just go home.  If it's above that, check your
     discriminate counts which you do on the same
     sample at the same time, the same ticks.  You
     count the number.  But you're also counting
     this.  You're also counting this.  And you're
     also counting lengths greater than 10 and
     widths greater than -- less than .5.  And
     you're taking in bundles or obvious
     asbestiform particles.  If more than
     50 percent of the particles are -- meet those
     criteria, the asbestiform characteristics --
     not that they're asbestos -- you say we
     better check this.  At that point the
     operator either has the choice to treat that
     count as asbestos, or get a validation.  That
     is the same as your OSHA rule right now.
           Next slide.  Then you move -- if you
     say the sample is potentially asbestos, you
     go in with SEM or TEM to confirm the
     identity, confirm it's asbestiform amphibole.
     If not, you say the sample is not asbestos.
     When you get done, you use the OSHA rule --
     which basically says take your PCM count,
     take your percentage that was asbestos, and
     divided it by the total fibers.  Multiply
     that by your count.  So I get a PCM count
     which is all fibers.  I take my asbestos over
     my total -- that's my fraction -- and
     multiply those two together.  And then I get
     my determination of what my asbestos
     concentration is.  This is the way we do it I
     mentioned now.  So we'll just go by that.
           Now, I think for the purposes of late
     in the day and letting Dr. -- Mr. Bailey
     go -- I think the rest of this is a repeat of
     what we've seen earlier.
           Oh, I forgot one thing.  Let's go one
     more.  Here is the chrysotile and asbestos in
     commericial building products.  You see
     they're quite visible.  This is chrysotile:
     Long, hairy.  Now let's go to a real world.
     This slide is actually much better in black
     and white than the printed version.  It's
     very hard, lots of background stuff in a real
     world dust sample that you don't get in a
     building sample.  And that's the reason these
     labs go bad.
           Next slide.  When we apply the
     discriminate counting to recent samples, 73
     samples, we're counting using either 10
     microns or less than five.  Nine of the
     samples were above .1, and had more than
     50 percent of their population in that
     discriminate count category.  Those samples
     are the ones that would go to TEM or SEM for
     a review.
           There's another way that people have
     looked at it; and that's to say suppose I
     exceed my simple count .05 -- which is, for
     all practical purposes, the same thing -- I
     screen my sample out for asbestos as much as
     I can.  If that counting is .05, then I go to
     my backup counting.  Of those 73 samples, 12
     samples were found to have 50 percent of the
     fiber population longer than 10 microns.
     None of those had 10 factors.
           So the discriminate count I believe can
     be very effective, very powerful, and very
     simple, and not add anything to routine
     costs.  So on the basis of that, that's what
     we recommend.  I thank you for your time and
     patience.  And we'll let Mr. Bailey wrap it
     up.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you, Dr. Lee.
           MR. BAILEY:  I want to again thank MSHA
     for the time it has given us to provide this
     testimony on its proposed asbestos standard.
           I'm the manager of Occupational Health
     for Vulcan Materials Company.  I have over 27
     years as a professional industrial hygienist.
     I serve as the NSSGA's chairman on its IH
     Subcommittee, Occupational Health Program
     Task Force; and, of course, the Asbestos Task
     Force.
           Now, before I conclude the
     Association's testimony, and I put forth the
     Association's recommendations to MSHA, I wish
     to address one additional, very important
     point concerning asbestos in miners.
           The OSHA PEL was designed for
     protecting workers exposed to commercialized
     asbestos.  For purposes of demonstration,
     here is a diagram of a sample collected in
     commericial asbestos environment, and counted
     through the light microscope.  This is the
     kind of sample that many asbestos labs see.
     I have indicated here, for purposes of
     discussion and demonstration, a concentration
     of 0.5 fibers per cc.
           The entire quantitative risk assessment
     or QRA used by OSHA for asbestos PEL is based
     on a dose/response relationship of
     commericial asbestos and health outcome of
     the workers handling it.  The OSHA asbestos
     QRA purposely did not include studies of
     asbestos miners, even though there were a
     number of valid studies available for the
     agency.
           Why was that?  The primary reason was
     that the various asbestos health risks --
     asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma -- were
     shown to be significantly lower in miners
     than those studies of non-miners.  Was the
     asbestos found in mines significantly safer
     than that found in building, insulation and
     textiles?  I believe the answer lies in the
     way the exposure dose was determined.  And it
     pertains directly to what has been testified
     to this afternoon.
           Properly sampling and analyzing ambient
     samples for asbestos in mining environments
     is critically important to MSHA and to those
     it regulates.  In the chrysotile mine --
     which we don't have anymore -- typically
     95 percent of the ore being handled is the
     host rock or gangue material, while 5 percent
     or less was the product being sought;
     asbestos.  When chrysotile miner dust samples
     were collected in the early '70s and before,
     the liquid impinger sampling method and the
     million particles per cubic foot analytical
     measurement were used and recorded
     respectively.
           The counting criteria, using a light
     microscope, were particles longer than five
     microns, and with length to width aspect
     ratios of 3:1 or greater.  In the studies of
     asbestos miners, researchers attempted to
     convert the million particles per cubic foot
     results to fibers per cc so the fiber dose
     could be determined for risk assessment
     purposes.  In later years, the phase contrast
     light microscope method was adopted and
     applied to the mining environment, along with
     the simplistic fiber definition.
           What was the result?  The asbestos
     fiber exposure results not only included
     chrysotile asbestos fibers, but also
     antigorite, lizardite, and other host rock
     fragments that fit the fiber definition,
     designated here as A, L and O.  And C is the
     chrysotile.  In fact, the rock fragment
     proportion of an asbestos exposure would have
     accounted for most of the exposure seen under
     light microscopy.
           Now, these are all particles -- this
     is -- I'm going to make it real simple.
     We're going to delete the non-fibril fibers
     here just for demonstration purposes here.
           The antigorite and lizardite are not
     asbestiform minerals, and have never been
     shown to cause asbestos-like disease.  The
     result is that asbestos exposure to miners
     was diluted or inflated with non-asbestos,
     non-harmful rock fragments.  And consequently
     the dose of asbestos in mines did not cause
     the same effect as an equivalent dose of
     asbestos in other work cohorts exposed to
     asbestos.  Of course, as show on the first
     slide, these other work cohorts were handling
     commercial asbestos.  And almost all the
     particles fitting the fiber definition were,
     indeed, asbestos and harmful.
           Had a more appropriate asbestiform
     fiber screening criteria been applied to the
     mine samples, the results would have been
     very, very different, and would have been
     more consistent with the other non-mining
     asbestos cohorts.  If the PCM counting
     criterion was such that the rock fragment
     portion of the dust sample was excluded from
     the count while still including the
     chrysotile asbestos, the real dose to
     asbestos miners, in this case being reduced
     now to .05 fibers per cc, would have been
     apparent and lower.  And the resulting health
     outcome would have matched the exposure.
           Here, an inappropriate analytical
     method led to an inappropriate conclusion
     regarding miner health.  The analytical tools
     must account for the environment from which
     the samples are collected.  It is clear that
     the mining environment is so different from
     what OSHA regulates, that more appropriate
     screening methodologies are necessary and
     essential.
           Now, I briefly want to summarize the
     testimony and submit the recommendations for
     your consideration as a final part of my
     testimony, and then open up the forum to
     questions and discussion.
           From Bill Ford, senior vice president
     of the NSSGA, you heard how this issue is
     near and dear to our hearts.  There is no
     question that this one issue of what is and
     what is not asbestos is linked directly to
     our survival as an industry.  We were
     constantly present during the OSHA
     deliberations.  And we will be vigilant again
     as you progress through your rulemaking.
           Dr. Malcolm Ross, retired from the
     USGS -- and a prolific author of numerous
     papers and chapters on this very subject of
     asbestos and non-asbestos -- told you that
     true asbestos risk needs to be based on
     factual information, and risks need to be put
     into perspective.  He told you about the
     distribution of the two mineral habits in the
     United States, and what could and did happen
     to the mining industry when improper and
     ambiguous asbestos measuring techniques were
     used.
           To bring that point home, three
     companies shared their separate but related
     story of how poor definitions, poor
     analytical procedures, and poor understanding
     of the properties of asbestos and
     non-asbestos minerals resulted in significant
     adverse economic impact and unwarranted panic
     of customers, neighbors and employees.
           Dr. Wylie, recognized worldwide for her
     expertise on naturally occurring asbestos,
     told you how the asbestiform mineral habit of
     minerals is different from the
     non-asbestiform habit.  She told you where
     the federal fiber counting rules for the PCM
     originated, and why they cannot be used to
     distinguish between the two mineral habits.
     Finally, she reported on the numerous
     scientific papers in the asbestos literature
     demonstrating how populations of asbestiform
     minerals can be easily recognized using
     morphological properties that are more
     appropriate for that mineral habit.
           Dr. Eric Chatfield, consulting electron
     microscopist to EPA and others, recognized
     worldwide for his expertise, as well as the
     author of asbestos analytical methods, told
     you that TEM analysis for routine exposure
     monitoring is a poor choice because of cost,
     time for analysis, quality of labs due to the
     lack of experience with mine samples, and too
     small a sample size being analyzed.  He did
     say that electron microscopy needs to be used
     to confirm the mineralogy of the particles of
     interest.  And, very importantly,
     Dr. Chatfield provided examples of where
     discriminate fiber analysis has already been
     established in the very environments MSHA is
     regulating.  The precedent for change for the
     betterment of science has been established,
     and MSHA should follow this trend.
           Finally, Dr. Lee, who is also
     recognized internationally as an asbestos
     expert and as a past consultant to MSHA, told
     you how to apply the morphological
     differences in a more appropriate
     discriminate PCM counting procedure that
     captures true asbestiform minerals while
     excluding the majority of harmless cleavage
     fragments.  This procedure allows a logical
     tiered analytical approach for mine samples
     going from the least expensive, time
     consuming and technique sensitive to the most
     sophisticated where needed.  Like
     Dr. Chatfield, Dr. Lee also spoke to the
     point that the many electron microscopic
     laboratories doing asbestos work are dealing
     with commercial asbestos samples and samples
     for mine ores would be very difficult for
     them to accurately analyze.  Samples from
     mines and from commercial asbestos abatement
     sources are completely different with respect
     to complexity, where the samples from mine
     require experienced mineralogists.
           All of these experts addressed the
     Libby, Montana vermiculite issue.  And none
     of the recommendations made would minimize or
     miss what occurred at Libby.
           Based on this testimony from these
     individuals, NSSGA offers the following
     recommendations:  NSSGA recommends that MSHA
     reduce the PEL to 0.1 fiber per cuber
     centimeter of air for the currently regulated
     asbestos minerals -- chrysotile, amosite,
     crocidolite, actinolite-asbestos,
     tremolite-asbestos and
     anthophyllite-asbestos -- and other
     amphiboles in their asbestiform habit -- for
     example, winchite-asbestos,
     richterite-asbestos, et cetera -- and
     erionite-asbestos.  The short-term limit for
     these same asbestiform minerals should be set
     at 1.0 fiber per cc for a 30 minute sampling
     duration to be consistent with OSHA.
           The term "asbestiform habit" needs to
     be defined as follows -- this is consistent
     with all the testimony -- the mineral fiber
     populations have an asbestiform habit when
     the following characteristics are viewed
     under light microscopy:  (1) many particles
     with aspect ratios ranging from 20:1 to 100:1
     and higher for particles longer than five
     microns in length; (2) very thin fibrils,
     generally equal to or less than five microns
     in width; (3) in addition to the mandatory
     fibrillar crystal growth, two or more of the
     following attributes must be apparent:  (a)
     parallel fibers occurring in bundles; (b)
     fibers displacing splayed ends; (c) matted
     masses of individuals fibers; (d) fibers
     showing curvature.
           Now, this recommendation goes beyond
     the DOL Inspector General report -- which is
     lower the permissible exposure limit for
     asbestos to a more protective level -- in
     that it specifically adds the amphibole
     asbestiform minerals and the specific
     minerals that have been shown to cause
     asbestos-like health effects.  These minerals
     are not commercially mined, and need not be
     incorporated in the OSHA standards.  They are
     relevant to the MSHA sphere of responsibility
     and enforcement.
           NSSGA recommends in the strongest terms
     that MSHA adopt a more improved PCM
     discriminate counting procedure that
     specifically emphasizes the asbestiform
     properties of minerals.  This counting
     procedure would supplement the current
     procedure -- not replace it -- with
     additional measurements of federal fibers
     that are .5 microns wide or less, unless
     existing as bundles, and 10 microns long or
     longer.  If these measurements show that
     50 percent or more of the federal fibers
     exist with either of those morphological
     characteristics, then electron microscopy --
     either SEM or TEM -- with the necessary
     analytical peripheral devices, be used to
     ascertain if the PCM-observable asbestiform
     fibers are composed of the minerals listed
     above.  If so, then the PCM count would be
     adjusted to reflect the mineralogy as
     determined by electron microscopic analysis
     to determine compliance with the exposure
     limits.  Only respirable particles -- a
     maximum of three microns in width unless a
     bundle -- should be counted to be consistent
     with recent international standards.
           This approach is consistent with the
     DLO Inspector General report recommendation
     number two:  Use transmission electron
     microscopy to analyze fiber samples that
     may -- and I emphasize that on my own --
     contain asbestos.  The use of TEM in the
     NSSGA recommendation is for mineralogical
     verification, not fiber quantification.  SEM,
     in many samples, will be adequate to
     distinguish the minerals of interest from
     others.  Where it cannot, TEM must be used.
           Finally, the International
     Mineralogical or Mineral Association's
     definitions of amphiboles need to be
     incorporated for reference for guidance in
     electron microscopic identification of these
     minerals.  The reference for this source is
     provided here.
           Finally, NSSGA recommends that MSHA
     adopt appropriate provisions in the OSHA
     asbestos standard for construction regarding
     hygiene facilities for asbestos abatement
     workers who handle asbestos-containing
     materials, or whose exposure exceeds the PEL.
     The definition of asbestos-containing
     material -- 1 percent or more -- must be
     consistent with OSHA's.
           With that, I'd like to recognize one
     other person that belongs to this panel and
     did a lot of work is Mr. Jim Sharpe.  If he's
     still here, he can join our panel -- perhaps
     also answer questions that may come.  Thank
     you for the time and the attention.  We leave
     it open to you.
           MS. SMITH:  Thank you to the
     representatives of NSSGA.  I'd like to ask
     the panel members if they have any questions.
           DR. JONES:  I'd like to ask Dr. Lee --
     Dr. Chatfield also contributed to this --
     about the use of relatively low skill
     analysts to do discriminate analysis.  Is
     that widespread in the business now?  Are
     there people who can do that?
           DR. LEE:  I think it would take
     additional training.
           DR. JONES:  How extensive?
           DR. LEE:  I think a PCM certification
     today is a 40-hour course, I believe, if I
     recall right.  I don't think you would have
     to retrain your analyst, but I don't think
     they would take more time than that 40 hours.
     But I don't think -- I mean, we had to
     retrain ours to get them, and to run some
     trial samples in the office.  OSHA at Salt
     Lake City participated in Reynolds Robin with
     MSHA's Denver lab a number of years ago
     participated.  We also agreed that we would
     have to retrain the analysts to recertify
     them.
           DR. JONES:  Is the RME gradual in use
     now?
           DR. LEE:  It's in use in very limited
     form, but it's available and could be
     manufactured by the people that currently
     manufacture the Walton bucket, which is the
     common --
           DR. JONES:  When NSSGA did their 12 to
     14 percent of their PCM counts above .1 ; is
     that correct?
           DR. LEE:  That's --
           DR. JONES:  Was that done using
     differential counting?
           DR. LEE:  No.  That was the straight
     federal fiber count.  Dr. Clark might be the
     right guy, because he's got a better memory
     than I do.  We counted the NSS -- we counted
     these guys as samples using the federal fiber
     count five microns and greater than 3:1.
     The -- of those samples, some 270, 11 percent
     or 12 percent -- 77 of those, 12 percent
     ended, up above .1 fibers.  When the
     discriminate count was applied, which was
     kept simultaneously with separate tick marks,
     I believe 9 of those samples, which is -- go
     ahead.
           DR. CLARK:  If I may, it was reduced by
     approximately 25 percent.  75 percent of the
     samples were still -- 75 percent of the
     samples had 50 percent or greater -- 10
     microns or greater fibers.
           DR. JONES:  I just have one last
     question:  How was the 50 percent chosen,
     50 percent of the microns?
           DR. LEE:  Well, it's really based on a
     couple of things.  One is Dr. Wylie's
     asbestiform population; and second is my own
     experience in the laboratory over any number
     of years that if you're -- what we've done
     historically since I was at U.S. Steel is if
     a PCM sample exceeded .05, which was half of
     the threshold, we checked it by electron
     microscopy.  What we found just by
     experience -- but also you can show this
     statistically -- that if it's below half that
     limit using normal collection parameters, it
     could be asbestos, and it will never go above
     .1.  You'll never reach the .1 no matter what
     the fraction is.  And above .05 given a .1
     threshold, a recount could -- you have a
     significant probability that the recount
     would take you over .1.  So it's those two
     factors.
           DR. JONES:  Also, I had some interest
     in what Dr. Chatfield was saying about the
     need of the gravimetric matrix reduction.  I
     can see where that would be a very essential
     thing, but is there -- do you know of any
     research that's going on to look at very
     matrixes to see how that could be reduced in
     other ways?  It seems to me it's important in
     a lot of different situations.  Is anybody
     looking at these situations that you're aware
     of -- various ores or different things that
     are mined?
           DR. CHATFIELD:  There's a number of
     techniques that can be used to concentrate
     any asbestos that's present.  And the whole
     idea there is to -- is to get rid of as much
     non-asbestos material as you can.  In some
     cases you can't do anything because if the --
           DR. JONES:  If it's truly insoluble,
     say?
           DR. CHATFIELD:  If it's truly
     insoluble, and there's no major density
     difference -- you can do density separation
     on some of these things as well.  I mentioned
     with vermiculite you can exfoliate it and
     float off the vermiculite.  If one of them is
     acid soluble, you can dissolve it out.
           The other thing, of course, is you
     could take account of these width
     characteristics in the sedimentation
     process -- not just with the vermiculite work
     and the Libby work -- you could have --
     recognize that cleavage fragments are
     generally going to settle much faster than
     the asbestos fibers do.  So if there's any
     asbestos present, you would find it.  But on
     the other hand, in something like Libby
     there's been a lot of the asbestos fiber
     fragments settle as well.
           DR. JONES:  And it doesn't change the
     characteristics to suspend those?
           DR. CHATFIELD:  I don't believe so, no.
           DR. JONES:  Thank you.
           DR. LEE:  It's primarily for bulk
     sampling.  Just to comment, for air sampling
     you virtually have to reduce the sampling
     time if you have substantial dusty
     conditions.  Also, you have to collect
     multiple samples as recommended in OSHA 7400.
           DR. JONES:  That's what we've been
     doing.
           MS. AINSWORTH:  Dr. Lee, along with
     your computerized system, that was just for
     recording the counts, right?  The analysts
     would just record the counts on the computer
     rather than on paper?
           DR. LEE:  That's right.
           MS. AINSWORTH:  Do you have any attempt
     at letting the computer determine if the
     particles meet those size requirements and
     let it count if there's no objective decision
     by the analysts?
           DR. LEE:  Actually, in the right kind
     of samples we're actively working on that
     kind of effort.  One of the problems with
     stone, with the quarry samples, is the vast
     majority of the dust is something else.  And
     so that you really do have a lot of
     interferences.  And your own eye is an
     incredibly quick image analyzer at
     recognizing long, thin particles.  It's hard
     for a computer to keep up.
           MS. AINSWORTH:  One question is if the
     interference due to all these other mineral
     dust is a problem, is there any information
     about available -- to use some kind of size
     select sampler to eliminate them rather than
     get rid of them after you've collected them?
           DR. LEE:  That certainly is an option
     that could be considered.  I think to define
     the standard around it you might -- it
     might -- I think that would be a good thing.
     There are cascading factors, various size
     selective devices, cycles -- small cycling
     samplers, and the like.  That would certainly
     help your analysis.  You would just have to
     get the acceptance in the mines, in the
     quarry, and make sure your calibrations are
     done.  But yeah, that could help a lot.  It
     would help very much with any of these
     proposals.
           MS. AINSWORTH:  And I have a question
     for you, Dr. Wylie:  With your distributions
     and the sizes and the particles and the
     fibers, for the bulk samples, was there some
     preparation done on them to grind them or
     send them that might change that size?
           DR. WYLIE:  Well, actually, with a real
     asbestos it's extremely difficult to grind.
     It has remarkable tensile strength.  A lot of
     this data came from a study that was done by
     NIEHS -- from a question by the NIEHS through
     the Bureau of Mines.  We had a mill, and we
     were trying to reduce the amosite.  They
     wanted to use the animal feet studies, so
     they wanted to reduce the size so they could
     actually get them down.  And they had a mill
     that they were using, an air jet mill.
     Instead of reducing the size, the amosite
     blew a hole in the side of this mill.  It's
     steel and about that thick.  It has
     remarkable tensile strength.  It's very, very
     difficult to do.  They were dispersed.  They
     used a technique of a little bit of soap and
     water, and a little slight sonication just to
     try to aggregate it -- simple aggregation.
     But there was no real attempt to try to
     reduce it in any other way.  We were really
     looking for the size distribution that you
     would get in this animal feet study.  Some of
     those data are air data.  Of course, the air
     itself has done this aggregation for us.
           If I might add one more thing:  You
     really can't reduce the width of the fibrils.
     It's a growth property.
           MS. AINSWORTH:  I was thinking of the
     cleavage fragments.
           DR. WYLIE:  Yeah.  Well, we had to
     cleave them.  I mean, they're -- yes, we
     ground them.  For the bulk material, it was
     actually received in a ground state.  So we
     were characterizing the samples as we
     received them from the Bureau of Mines.
           MS. SMITH:  With no more questions from
     our panel, I'd like to express my
     appreciation to the speakers from NSSGA and
     the other speakers earlier this morning.
           Do we have additional speakers that
     have come in later who would wish to present
     information at this time?
           If not, I would like to encourage those
     of you who have indicated you're going to
     leave us with materials, if you'd like to do
     that today, if you would leave it with me
     before you do leave.  And I thank you all for
     coming today.  The information you have given
     us certainly will assist us in our
     deliberations as we move forward to deal with
     these difficult issues.  And we very much
     appreciate the information you've provided so
     that we can do that in a timely and efficient
     way.
           And with that, I believe we will close
     the record on this public meeting.  Thank you
     all very much for coming.
           (Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m, the hearing in the 
     above-entitled matter was concluded.)
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //
     //               CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER
     
     
     
          I certify that the foregoing is a correct
     transcript from the record of proceedings in the
     above-entitled matter.
     
                                               
         Lisa M. Blair, RPR, Notary Public
         Commonwealth of Virginia at Large