Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Mining groups sue for review of msha asbestos limits

On February 29, 2008, the Mining Safety and Health Administration published a final rule concerning protection for miners exposed to asbestos. The new rule reduced the permissible exposure limit to just five percent of its former level, down to 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter. On April 25, just four days before the sixty day deadline for filing a legal challenge to the new rule, two mining groups have filed an appeal to request that the rule be reviewed. One of the petitions is from the Georgia Construction Aggregate Association (GCAA) and the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA). The petition says that a review of the MSHA rule is needed because “among other reasons, the methods used to measure asbestos under the Rule may indicate that asbestos is present in a mine when in fact it is not.” The second petition is from the National Mining Association, the Industrial Minerals Association-North America Inc., and other groups. In this petition, the groups do not mention their reasons for filing the petition, but simply say the have an “interest in the outcome of this case.” However, while the second petition does not mention any reasons, a letter from these groups to Albert Wynn, chairman of the House’s Subcommittee on Environment & Hazardous Materials, and John Shadegg, a member of the same subcommittee, may provide some clues. In the letter, the NMA and other groups mention some of their concerns, saying that “We must…ensure asbestos is accurately defined so that natural materials, like common rock fragments, are not mistakenly included as asbestos containing products.” The letter also notes that “Rock fragments have been extensively studied and have not been found in either the scientific literature or regulation to cause asbestos-related disease. Arbitrarily including these rock fragments will have a detrimental impact on each of our industries.” Essentially, many mining companies are worried about the possibility that the new asbestos rule might force them to use testing methods that show the presence of asbestos where there is none. The petition filed by the GCAA and NSSGA suggests an alternative method of testing, similar to tests already used by the OSHA, to prevent false positive test results under the new MSHA rule. In those tests a series of sequential tests are carried out to identify asbestos and asbestos-like minerals, and differentiate them from other mineral present in mines. (Source: Asbestos and Mesothelioma News)

No comments: