draft
Contract No. DTRS57-01-C-10044.
FINAL DRAFT
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR A
PROTOCOL TO ASSESS ASBESTOS-RELATED RISK
(Volume 2 of 2: Appendicies)
Prepared for:
Mark Raney
Voipe Center
U.S. Department of Transportation
55 Broadway
Kendall Square
Cambridge MA 02142
and
Chris Weis
Paul Peronard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
999 18* St, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Prepared by:
D. Wayne Berman
Aeolus, Inc.
751 Taft St
Albany, CA 94706
and
Kenny Crump
The KS Crump Group, Inc.
602 E. Georgia Ave
Ruston, LA 71270
September 4,2001

-------
APPENDIX A:
UPDATE OF POTENCY FACTORS FOR LUNG CANCER (KJ
AND MESOTHELIOMA (K„)

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
APPENDIX A:
Update of Potency Factors for Lung Cancer (KL) and Mesothelioma (KM)
Estimates of risk of dying of lung cancer or mesothelioma from asbestos exposure are
quantified by means of mathematical models that express risk as a function of
exposure. The models utilized in the 1986 EPA Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment
Update (USEPA, 1986) contain parameters (KL for lung cancer and KM for
mesothelioma) that gauge the potency of asbestos for causing these health effects.
USEPA calculated KL and KM values from a number of studies. In this section these
KL and KM calculations are revised using the same models as in the EPA 1986 update,
&ut incorporating newer data from more recent publications. Since the 1986 update,
additional cohorts have been studied from several new exposure settings, and the
followup periods have been extended for several of the previously studied cohorts.
In the 1986 update KM values were not calculated from all of the available studies,
perhaps owing to the limited number of mesotheliomas observed in some of these
studies. In this update, an attempt has been made to utilize any study with suitable
health and exposure data, regardless of the number of mesotheliomas reported, and to
quantify the statistical uncertainty attributable to small numbers using statistical
confidence limits. Since the present work utilizes somewhat different methods from the
1986 update, for consistency, ail of the KL and KM values were recalculated, even from
studies for which no new data were available. Table 1 contains a summary of these
new KL and KM calculations. The original values from the 1986 update are also
provided for comparison.
Lung Cancer Model
The 1986 EPA lung cancer model (USEPA, 1986) assumes that the relative risk, RR, of
mortality from lung cancer at any given age is a linear function of cumulative asbestos
exposure (fiber-years/ml, or f-y/ml, as measured by PCM), omitting any exposure in the
most recent ten years. This exposure variable is denoted by CE10. The ten-year lag
embodies the assumption that exposure does not influence lung cancer mortality until
ten years has elapsed. The mathematical expression for this model is
where the linear slope, KL, is the "lung cancer potency factor." Sometimes allpwance is
made for the possibility that the background lung cancer risk in the exposed population
differs from that of the comparison population by applying the expanded model,
RR = 1 + KL*CE10,
(1)
RR = a(1 + KL*CE10).
(2)
A.1
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
With this form of the model the relative risk at zero exposure is a rather than 1.0. Both
KL and a are estimated by fitting the model to data. The type of data most appropriate
for applying this model are from cohort studies in which observed and expected (based
on an appropriate comparison population, e.g., U.S. males) numbers of lung cancers
are categorized by cumulative exposure incorporating a ten-year lag. To explore the
adequacy of the model, it is useful to have the data cross-classified by one or more
other variables, such as latency.
Frequently the cumulative exposure variable available from the published report of a
study does not incorporate a lag (or, less frequently, incorporates a lag of less than ten
years). In this report, rather than attempting an ad hoc correction, no correction for lag
has been made. Although this tends to cause KL values to be slightly underestimated,
this is unlikely to be a serious problem. For most cohorts, exposures decreased
significantly over time. Also, in many studies, followup didn't begin until several years
after the start of exposure, and the bulk of the lung cancers occurred at older ages. All
of these factors tend to mitigate the error created from use of data with no lag.
Moreover, use of an ad hoc correction for lag could hinder comparisons of KL values
among studies that do not employ a lag (which includes the majority of studies).
Mesothelioma Model
The 1986 EPA mesothelioma model (USEPA, 1986) assumes that the mortality rate at
time t after the beginning of exposure can be calculated by summing the contributions
from exposure at each increment of time, du, in the past. The contribution to the
mortality rate at time t from exposure to E(u) f/ml (as measured by PCM) at time u is
assumed to be proportional to the product of the exposure rate, E(u), and (t - u -10)2,
the square of the elapsed time minus a lag of ten years. Thus, as with the lung cancer
model, the mesothelioma model assumes a ten-year lag before exposure has any effect
upon risk. With the additional assumption that the background rate of mesothelioma is
zero, the mesothelioma mortality rate at time t since the beginning of exposure is given
by
l„(t)=3 * KM * Jo~1DE(u) * (t - u -10)*du,	(3)
where t.u are in years, lM(t) is the rate per year at year t after the beginning of
exposure, and the proportionality factor, KM, is the "mesothelioma potency factor." The
factor of "3" is needed to retain the same meaning of KM as in USEPA (1986).
If exposure is at a constant level, E, for a fixed duration, DUR, this model can be written
as
A.2
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
the statistical confidence bounds to arrive at a "likely range" for Kl or KM for each
particular cohort. A "best estimate" within the range is also provided for each cohort.
The most serious uncertainties are often related to exposure. Air samples may not
exist for certain departments or periods of time. Sampling was often sparsest in the
more distant past when exposures were generally highest. Often samples were not
collected routinely and the context of historical samples may no longer be known.
(E.g., were they representative, or were they worst-case?) Some asbestos jobs
involved short and infrequent, but extremely dusty, conditions that were difficult to
evaluate. In some studies historical exposure levels were estimated from samples
collected during an attempt to recreate past exposure conditions. An uncertainty factor,
F1, was selected for each study to reflect uncertainty in KL and KM estimates stemming
from these issues. This factor is at least 1.5 and is 2 or greater in most cases.
Samples from the 1960's and earlier were collected using an impinger or similar
apparatus that counted particles rather than fibers, and a conversion factor must be
used to convert from, say, particle concentrations in million particles per cubic foot
(mppcf) measured by an impinger to fiber concentrations in fibers per milliliter (f/ml)
measured by phase contrast microscopy (PCM). Since different operations had
different degrees of dustiness, a common conversion factor may not be appropriate for
different cohorts or even for different jobs within the same plant. Some studies had
available side-by-side samples by impinger and PCM, or concurrent samples collected
over a period of years in different operations, which could be used to determine
appropriate conversion factors for different operations. Other studies only had samples
collected by an impinger, and no conversion factor was estimated. An uncertainty
factor, F2, is used to represent the uncertainty in the conversion factor.
Some studies had highly variable working conditions, with little or no sampling data,
and exposure levels were estimated from attempts to recreate typical working
conditions. Other studies did not have individual work histories, and a crude estimate
of average duration was applied to all members of the cohort. A third uncertainty
factor, F3, is used to account for these special conditions.
In addition to uncertainty related to exposure, there are non-statistical uncertainties
stemming from 1) lack of information on potential confounders, 2) questionable
appropriateness of the comparison population, and 3) incomplete or inaccurate
mortality ascertainment. Many studies do not have information on smoking, an
important potential confounder for lung cancer. In some studies a sizable proportion of
the cohort was loss to followup. Mesothelioma deaths were sometimes misclassified on
death certificates as due to other types of cancer. To handle the appropriateness of
the comparison population for lung cancer, the reported lower (upper) confidence
bound selected was the smaller (larger) of the two bounds calculated with the
A.5
Revision 1 - 8/2S/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
background parameter, a, in the lung cancer model (2) estimated, and with this
parameter fixed at a = 1. Since all three non-statistical uncertainties imply an improper
control population, this approach addresses to some extent all three problems. In
addition, when it was deemed to be warranted, an additional non-exposure-related
uncertainty factor for lung cancer, F4L, and/or mesothelioma, F4M, was proposed.
In addition to upper and lower statistical confidence intervals, four uncertainty factors
have been proposed: F1: Exposure, general; F2: exposure conversion factor; F3: lack
of individual work histories; F4L (lung cancer), F4M (mesothelioma): non-exposure
related. Since it is unlikely that all of the uncertainty sources caused errors in the same
direction, rather than multiplying the uncertainty factors, an overall uncertainty factor, F,
was calculated as F = exp{[Ln2(F1) + Ln2(F2) + Ln2(F3) + Ln2(F4)]*}, where 1.0 is the
default value for any factor not explicitly provided. The overall "reasonable range" for
KL or KM was calculated by dividing the statistical lower bound by F and multiplying the
upper bound by F.
Analysis of fndividuaf Studies
Predominately Chrvsotile Exposure
Quebec Mines and Mills
Liddell et al., 1997 extended the followup into 1992 of a cohort of about eleven
thousand workers at two chrysotile asbestos mines and related mills in Quebec that
had been studied earlier by McDonald et ai, 1980 (followup through 1975) and
McDonald et al. 1993 (followup through 1988). Production at the mines began before
1900. The cohort consisted of workers who worked one month or more and who were
born between the years of 1891 and 1920. Follow-up began for each individual after
20 years from first employment. The most recent followup (Liddell et al., 1997) traced
9780 men through May 1992, whereas 1138 (10%) were lost to view, most of whom
worked for only a few months prior to 1935. Of those traced, 8009 (82%) were
deceased as of 1992.
Estimates of dust levels in specific jobs were made from some 4,000 midget impinger
measurements collected systematically starting in 1948 and periodically in the factory
beginning in 1944. Estimates for the period prior to 1949 utilized interviews with long-
term employees and comparison with more recent conditions. These dust-level
estimates were matched to individual job histories to produce estimates of cumulative
exposure for each worker (mppcf-years). Conversions between dust levels and PCM
concentrations were derived from side-by-side samples. On the basis of over six
hundred side-by-side midget impinger and optical microscopy measurements, it was
A.6
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
estimated that 3.14 fibers/ml was, on the average, equivalent to 1.0 mppcf (McDonald
et at., 1980b).
Liddell et al. (1997) categorized cancer deaths after age 55 from of lung, trachea, and
bronchus by cumulative asbestos exposure to that age (Liddell etal., 1997, Table 8).
Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated based on Quebec rates from
1950 onward, and Canadian, or a combination of Canadian and Quebec rates, for
earlier years. Table 2 shows the fit of the lung cancer model to these data. Although
the models both with a - 1 and a variable provided reasonably adequate fits to the
data, the hypothesis a = 1 can be rejected (p - 0.007). The model with a estimated
yields a best estimate of KL of 0.00029 (f-y/ml)'1, 90% CI: (0.00019, 0.00041). With a
= 1, the estimate was KL = 0.00041 (f-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0.00032, 0.00051).
Smoking history was obtained in 1970 by a questionnaire administered to current
workers at that time, and to proxies of those who had died after 1950. Although no
analyses of lung cancer and asbestos exposure were presented for the 1992 followup
(Liddell et al., 1997) that controlled for smoking, such an analysis was conducted for
the followup that continued through 1975 (McDonald et al., 1980a). Table 9 of
McDonald et al. (1980a) contained data on lung cancer categorized jointly by
cumulative exposure to asbestos and by smoking habit. Two models were fit to these
data: the multiplicative model for relative risk
RR = a(l + bd)(l+cx),
and the additive model
RR = a(l + bd + cx),
where d is cumulative exposure to asbestos to age 45, x is number of cigarettes
smoked per day, and a,b,c are parameters estimated from the data. The multiplicative
model fit the data well, but the fit of the additive model was inadequate. This
corroborates the multiplicative interaction between smoking and asbestos exposure in
causing lung cancer (Hammond et al., 1979). The estimate of potency using the
multiplicative model was 0.00051 (f-y/ml)'1, which was very close to that of 0.00045 (f-
y/ml)'1 estimated from Table 5 of McDonald et al. (1980a), which did not utilize smoking
data. This suggests that smoking is not strongly confounded with exposure in this
cohort.
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be the MLE estimate with a variable. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 2, F2 = 1.5, which, when coupled
with the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table
1.
A.7
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
By 1993, 38 deaths from mesothelioma had occurred in this cohort (Liddell et ai,
1997). Through the courtesy of Dr. Corbett McDonald and Professor Douglass Liddell,
the underlying mesothelioma data from this.study were provided to us (Liddell, 2001,
personal communication). These data contained the following information on each
worker: the date of birth, asbestos exposure history, last date of followup, whether
followup ended as a result of death from mesothelioma, location where they first
worked, and whether they worked in more than one location.
Nine distinct locations for first employment were coded. Locations 5-9 referred to small
operations, some having very heterogeneous exposures, and were omitted from the
analysis. Also, workers who worked at more than one location were omitted. After
these exclusions, there remained 9244 workers who worked at Locations 1-4, and
among whom 35 deaths from mesothelioma occurred. Location 1 (4195 men, 8 deaths
from mesothelioma) was the mine and mill at the town of Asbestos. Location 2 (758
men, 5 deaths) was a factory at the town of Asbestos that, in addition to processing
chrysotile, had also processed some crocidolite. Location 3 (4032 men, 20 deaths)
comprised a major mining and milling company complex near Thedford Mines.
Location 4 (259 men, 2 deaths) comprised a number of smaller mines and mills also in
the vicinity of Thedford Mines. Because of the small number of workers at Location 4,
the fact that both locations were near Thedford Mines, and the fact that the separate
KM values obtained from Locations 3 and 4 were similar, data from these locations
were combined. The remaining groups were analyzed separately, because of the
crocidolite used at Location 2, and because of evidence of greater amounts of tremolite
in the ore at Thedford Mines that at Asbestos (Liddell et ai, 1997).
The availability of the raw data from this study made it possible calculate KM from this
study using an "exact" likelihood approach based on expression (3) that did not involve
any grouping of data, or use of average values. For Location 1 (Asbestos mine and
mill), KM = 0.013x10-®, 90% CI: (0.0068x10"®, 0.022x10-®). For Location 2 (Asbestos
factory), KM = 0.092x10* 90% CI: (0.040x10-®, 0.18x10-®). For Locations 3 and 4,
KM = 0.021x10"*, 90% CI: (0.014x10"®, 0.029x10"*). The KM estimate from Location 1
(whose ore was reported to have a lower tremolite content) was about one-half that
from Locations 3 and 4, although this difference was not significant (p = 0.22). The KM
estimated from Location 2, the mill where substantial crocidolite was used, was four to
seven times higher than the KL estimated from Location 1 and Locations 3 and 4.
For comparison purposes, KM were also calculated using grouped data and applying
expression (4), since this is the method that must be used with most studies. For
Location 1 (3&4) the KM estimate based on the "exact" analysis was 34% (25%) higher
than that based upon grouped data. This suggests that reliance upon published data
for calculating KM may introduce some significant errors in some cases. Such errors
A.8
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
may be further compounded by the failure of some studies to report the needed data on
levels and durations of exposure in different categories of time since first exposure.
The best estimate of KM for each location was assumed to be the MLE estimate. The
uncertainty factors described earlier, when coupled with the statistical confidence limits,
resulted in the likely range for KM shown in Table 1.
Italian Mine and Mill
Piolatto et al. (1990) conducted additional followup of workers at a chrysotile mine and
mill in Italy that was earlier studied by Rubino et al. (1979). The cohort consisted of
1058 workers with at least one year of employment between 1946 and 1987. Followup
extended from 1946 through 1987, which is 12 more years of followup than in Rubino
et al. (1979). Lung cancer mortality was compared to that of Italian men.
As described in Rubino et al. (1979), fiber levels were measured by PCM in 1969. In
order to estimate earlier exposures, information on daily production, equipment
changes, number of hours worked per day, etc. were used to create conditions at the
plant during earlier years. PCM samples were obtained under these simulated
conditions and combined with work histories to create individual exposure histories.
Piolatto et al. (1990) observed 22 lung cancers compared to 11 in the earlier study
(Rubino et al., 1979). Lung cancer was neither significantly in excess nor significantly
related to cumulative asbestos exposure. Piolatto et al. (1990, Table 1) presented
observed and expected lung cancers (based on age- and calendar-year-specific rates
for Italian men) categorized by cumulative exposure in f-y/ml. The lung cancer model
with fixed a provided an adequate fit to these data (Table 3, p = 0.42) and allowing a
to vary did not significantly improve the fit. The KL estimate with a =1 was 0.00035 (f-
y/ml)"\ with 90% CI: (0,0.0015). With a allowed to vary the estimate was KL = 0.00051
(f-y/ml)"1 with 90% CI: (0,0.0057).
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be the MLE estimate with a = 1. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 2, which, when coupled with the
statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
Two mesotheliomas were observed by Piolatto etal. (1990), compared to one found by
Rubino et al. (1979). However, data were not presented in a form from which KM could
be estimated.
A.9
Revision 1-8/2B/D1

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Connecticut Friction Product Plant
McDonald et al. (1984) evaluated the mortality of workers employed in a Connecticut
plant that manufactured asbestos friction products. The plant began operation in 1913
and used only chrysotile until 1957, when a little anthophyllite was used. Also, a small
amount of crocidolite (about 400 pounds) was handled experimentally between 1964
and 1972. Brake linings and clutch facings were made beginning in the 1930s, and
production of automatic transmission friction materials, friction disks and bands was
begun in the 1940s.
The cohort was defined to include any man who had been employed at the plant for at
least one month before 1959, omitting all that had worked at a nearby asbestos textile
plant that closed in 1939. This cohort consisted of 3515 men, of whom 36% had died
by the end of follow-up (December 31,1977). Follow-up of each worker was only
begun past 20 years from first employment
Information on dust levels from impinger measurements were available for the years
1930,1935,1936, and 1939. There was little other exposure information available until
the 1970s. An industrial hygienist used these measurements and information on
processes and jobs, environmental conditions and dust controls to estimate exposures
by process and by period in units of mppcf. No conversion from mppcf to f/ml value
was suggested by the authors, a conversion factor or between 1.4 and 10 is suggested
by other studies. The most common value seems to be around 3 f/ml per mppcf, which
has been observed in diverse environments such as mining and textile manufacture.
This value was provisionally applied to this cohort, although this conversion has
considerable uncertainty associated with it
Total deaths and deaths from most individual causes investigated were elevated; these
elevations were due primarily to increased deaths in the group working for less than
one year. This pattern holds for lung cancer in particular; the SMR for lung cancer was
highest (180) for persons exposed for less than one year. A similar pattern holds when
the analysis was carried out by cumulative exposure (Table 4); the SMR in the lowest
exposure category is higher than in any other category. The linear relative risk lung
cancer model provided a poor fit (p = 0.01) to these data when the Connecticut rates
were assumed to be appropriate for this cohort (fixing the parameter a = 1); use of U.S.
rates gave similar results. However, the fit was adequate (p = 0.28) if the background
response is allowed to rise above that of Connecticut men (allowing the parameter a to
vary). Although the reason for this increased response in persons that worked for a
short period or have low exposures is not clear, the analysis in which the background
response is allowed to vary appears to be the most appropriate. This analysis yields
an estimate of KL = 0.0 (f-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0, 0.0017). The analysis with a = 1 yielded
KL = 0.0019 (f-y/ml)*1, 90% CI: (0, 0.0061).
A.10
Res«icn 1 -8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be the MLE estimate with a s 1. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 2, F2 = 3, which, when coupled
with the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table
1.
McDonald et al. did not find any mesotheliomasin this cohort. It is useful to determine
the range of mesothelioma risk that is consistent with this negative finding. Although
McDonald et al. do not furnish data in the form needed for this calculation, these data
can be approximated from McDonald et al.'s Table 1. In this table they list 511 deaths
occurring after age 65. Assuming that the overall SMR of 108.5 held for persons over
65 years of age, the expected number of deaths is 511/1.085 = 471. The death rate in
U.S. white males between 65 and 75 years of age is approximately 0.050 per year
(from 1971 vital statistics). Therefore the number of person years observed in persons
post 65 years of age is estimated as 471/0.050 = 9420.
A lower bound on the person-years of followup between ages 45 and 65 can be
estimated by assuming that followup was complete for this age group. First we
estimate the number of persons that would have had to have been in the cohort to
experience the observed deaths. Assuming that x persons in the cohort are alive at
age 45, we have the following estimates of the number entering each successive five-
year age interval and the corresponding number of deaths (based on death rates in
1971 white males).
Age
Number Entering Interval
Number of Deaths
in Interval
Person-Years in
Interval
45-50
X
0.032x
4.9x
50-55
x( 1-0.00638) 5=0.97x
0.052x
4.7x
55-60
0.97x(1-0.01072)5=0.92x
0.076x
4.4x
60-65
0.92x(1-0.01718)5=0.84x
0.11x
3.9x
65+
0.84x(1-0.02681)5=0.73x


TOTALS

0.27x
18.Ox
Since there were 616 deaths in men between the ages of 45 and 65, the expected
number of deaths is estimated as 616/1.085 = 567.7 expected deaths between ages of
45 and 60, the number of persons entering this age interval is estimated as
x = 567.7/0.27 = 2100. The person-years is then estimated as (2100)(17.964) = 38000.
Using the average age of beginning work of 30.95 years (McDonald et al., 1984, Table
3) yields the data in Table 5. Moreover, the average duration of exposure in this cohort
was 8.04 years and the average exposure level was 1.84 mppcf (McDonald et al, Table
A.11
Revision 1 -8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
3), which is equivalent to 1.84x3 = 5.52 fibers/ml. These data yields an estimate of KM
= 0.0 and a 90% upper bound of KM = 1.2xlO'9.
The best estimate of KM was assumed to be zero. In addition to the uncertainty factors
described earlier, an additional factor (F4M = 3) was applied to account for the crude
method of analysis. When coupled with the statistical confidence limits, these resulted
in the likely range for KM shown in Table 1.
New Orleans Asbestos-Cement Plants
Hughes ef al. (1987) report on followup through 1981 of a cohort of Louisiana workers
from two asbestos cement plants studied previously by Weill etal. (1979). Although
chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite were used at these plants, a group of workers at one
of the plants were only exposed to chrysotile. The cohort contained 6,931 workers, of
whom 95% were traced, compared to a 75% success in tracing by Weill et al. (1979).
This improved trace was the result both of greater access to Social Security
Administration records and greater availability of computerized secondary information
sources (Dr. Hughes, personal communication).
Both of the plants have operated since the 1920s. Chrysotile was used predominantly
in both plants. Some amosite was used in Plant 1 from the early 1940s until the late
1960s, constituting about 1% of some products, and crocidolite was used occasionally
for approximately 10 years beginning in 1962. Plant 2 utilized only chrysotile, except
that pipe production, which began in 1946 and was housed in a separate building,
produced a final product that contained about 3% crocidolite. Since the total
percentage of asbestos fiber in most asbestos cement products ranges from fifteen to
28 per cent, it is estimated that crocidolite constituted between ten and twenty per cent
of the asbestos used to make cement pipe (Ontario Royal Commission, 1984).
Workers from Plant 2 that did not work in pipe production were exposed only to
chrysotile.
Estimates of airborne dust levels were made for each job by month and year from
midget impinger measurements initiated in the early 1950s. Levels estimated .from
initial samples in the 1950s were also assumed to hold for all earlier periods because
no major dust control measures had been introduced prior to that time. New exposure
data from Plant 2 became become available after the earlier study (Weill ef a/., 1979)
was completed, and these, along with a complete review of all the exposure data, were
used to revise the previous estimates of exposure. In Plant 1 the earlier and revised
estimates were reasonably similar, but in Plant 2, the revised estimates tended to be
about one-third of the previous estimates through the 1940s and about one-half the
previous estimates thereafter. Based on 102 side-by-side measurements by midget
A.12
Revision 1 - &2&D1

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
impiriger and PCM in various areas of one of the plants, Hammond et al. (1979)
estimated an overall conversion factor of 1.4 fibers/ml per mppcf. There were
substantial variations in this factor among different areas of the plant.
The principal cohort studied consisted of all workers who, according to company
records, were employed for at least one month prior to 1970, had a valid Social
Security number, and were first employed in 1942 or later (Plant 1) or in 1937 or later
(Plant 2). Mortality experience was compared with that expected based on Louisiana
rates.
Hughes et al. found no significant difference between the dose responses for lung
cancer in Plant 2 among workers exposed to chrysotile only and those who were also
exposed to crocidolite in pipe production. A single lung cancer dose response model
adequately describes the lung cancer data from Plants 1 and 2 combined (p >= 0.42,
Table 6). The fit of this model is good when Louisiana men are assumed to be an
appropriate control group (fixing the parameter a = 1). This fit provides an estimate of
KL = 0.004 (fiber-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0.001, 0.007) With a allowed to vary, the estimate is
0.003	(fiber-y/ml)*1, 90% CI: (0, 0.007 ).
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be the MLE estimate with a = 1. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 2, F2 = 1.5, which, when coupled
with the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table
1.
Six mesotheliomas were identified in the primary cohort studied by Hughes et al., two in
Plant 1 and four in Plant 2. Four other mesotheliomas are known to have occurred, one
among those initially employed in Plant 2 before 1937 and three among Plant 2 workers
shortly after followup ended in 1981. A case control analysis conducted among Plant 2
workers found a relationship between mesothelioma risk and length of employment and
proportion of time spent in the pipe area after controlling for length of exposure, which
is consistent with a greater risk of mesothelioma from crocidolite exposure.
Data were not presented in the paper in the form required for estimating KM. However,
Hughes and Weill (1986) present estimates of mesotheliomas potency from several
data sets, including the cohort studied in Hughes et al. and containing six
mesotheliomas, but using a model slightly different from the 1986 EPA model (3).
Estimating KM by multiplying the potency estimated by Hughes and Weill model by the
ratio of the potency values estimated for another study using the 1986 EPA model and
the Hughes-Weill model yielded the following estimates of KM for the Hughes et al.
data: 0.25x10-® (Selikoff et al., 1979); 0.21xlO-*(Dementet al., 1983b);
0.27xlO'8(Seidman1 et al., 1979); and 0.43x10"® (Finkelstein, 1983). Based on these
A.13
Revision 1-8/2001

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
calculations, KM = 0.30x10"* seems to be a reasonable estimate for the Hughes et al.
cohort.
It would be worthwhile to estimate mesothelioma risk using additional followup that
included the three cases that occurred shortly after followup ended. However, such an
estimate should be no larger than about KM = 0.45x10"®. This is because, since there
were six mesotheliomas in the cohort studied by Hughes et al., even if the additional
person years of followup post 1981 is not taken into account, the three additional
mesotheliomas would increase the estimate of KM by only about 50%.
Hughes et al.'s finding of an association with crocidolite exposure implies that a smaller
KM would correspond to the chrysotile-only exposed group in Plant 2. Although Hughes
et al. didn't furnish the data needed for precise estimation of KM from this cohort, it is
possible to make some reasonable approximations to this KM. Since none of the six
mesotheliomas occurred among workers exposed only to chrysotile, KM = 0 would be
the point estimate derived from the data used by Hughes et al.
However, one mesothelioma was discovered in a person whose employment began in
1927 and thus was not eligible for inclusion in the cohort. This person was employed
continuously for 43 years in the shingle production area, where only chrysotile was
used. In an attempt to compute an alternative KM using this one case, it was noted that
the duration of observation of the Hughes et al. cohort was roughly equivalent to that of
the Dement et al. (1983b) cohort. If the person-years from this cohort, categorized by
years since first exposure, are adjusted by the ratio of the sizes of Dement et al. and
the Hughes et al. non-crocidolite-exposed cohort from Plant 2, one mesothelioma is
assumed to occur (in 30+ years from first exposure category) and the average duration
of exposure (2.5 years) and fiber level (11.2 fibers/ml) appropriate for the Hughes et ai.
cohort are applied to these data, a KM = 0.2x10-® is obtained.
The best estimate of KM was assumed to be 0.2x10"® for workers exposed only to
chrysotile and 0.3x10-® for workers exposed to both chrysotile and amphibole. Since no
confidence interval was available for these values, additional uncertainty factors were
included (F4M = 5, for chrysotile exposures and 2.5 for mixed exposures), which, when
coupled with the other uncertainty factors discussed earlier, resulted in the likely range
for KM shown in Table .1	
South Carolina Textile Factory
Dement and coworkers (Dement etal., 1994; Dement and Brown, 1998) conducted
a retrospective cohort study of employees of a chrysotile textile plant in South Carolina.
In an earlier study of this plant (Dement et al. 1982, 1983a, 1983b), the cohort was
A.14
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
defined as all white male workers who worked for one or more months between 1940
and 1965, and follcwup was through 1975. Dement et al. (1994) expanded the cohort
to include black male and white female workers who met the entrance requirements,'
and extended followup through 1990, an additional 15 years. This expanded cohort
included 1247 white males {2.8% lost to followup), 1229 white females (22.8% lost to
followup) and 546 black males (7.8% lost to followup). A total of 1259 deaths were
identified, and a death certificate was located for all but 79 (6.2%) of the deaths.
Based on data from 5,952 air samples taken at the plant between 1930 and 1975,
linear statistical models were used to reconstruct exposure levels, while taking into
account textile processes, dust control methods, and job assignments (Dement ef aL,
1983a). For each worker, time spent in each job was multiplied by the estimated
exposure level for that job to estimate cumulative exposure (f/ml-days). Based on
regression analyses applied to 120 side-by-side particle and fiber counts, Dement
(1980) estimated a f/ml to mppcf ratio of 2.9, 95% CI: (2.4, 3.5). Also, between 1968
and 1971 both impinger and PCM samples were collected (a total of 986 samples).
Based upon a regression analysis of these data, Dement (1980) determined that a
common conversion factor could be used for jobs except f ber preparation. For fiber
preparation, a conversion factor of 7.8 was found, 95% Ci: (4.7-9.1). For all other
operations, a value of 2.5, 95% CI: (2.1-3.0) was calculated. Based on this information,
Dement et al (1983a) concluded that a conversion factor of 3 was appropriate for all
operations except preparation, for which a factor of 8 was adopted.
The underlying data for this cohort were obtained from the National Institute for Safety
and Health (NIOSH). These data consisted of a work history file and a file with
exposure levels by job category and time period. The work history file contained codes
for race, sex, month and year of birth, vital status, month and year of death, and the
department, operation, start date, and stop date for each job worked. The exposure
level file contained the exposure start and stop dates and the exposure level (fiber/ml)
by the plant code, the department code, and the operation code.
The cohort was defined as the white and black males and the white females who met
the employment requirements described above. This cohort included 1244 white males
(1.5% lost to followup), 550 black males (7.5% lost to followup), and 1228 white
females (22.1 % lost to followup).
Table 7 shows observed and expected deaths for lung cancer among white males,
black males and white females, categorized by cumulative exposure. This table shows
an excess of lung cancers that exhibited a dose response relationship. U.S. rates were
used for calculating expected deaths, whereas South Carolina lung cancer rates are
higher for white men but slightly lower for white women and black men. Whereas
twelve categories of cumulative exposure were used for fitting the model, these were
A.15
Revision 1 - 6/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
been combined into seven categories for display in Table 7. The model with a = 1 and
a variable fit the data adequately (p £ 0.2), and the hypothesis that a = 1 cannot be
rejected (p = 0.21). The estimate of KL with a = 1 was 0.028 (f-y/ml)'1, 90% CI: (0.021,
0.037), and the estimate with a variable was KL = 0.021 (f-y/ml)'1, 90% CI: (0.012,
0.034). An analysis applied to white men alone gave somewhat higher estimates
(KL = 0.040 (f-y/ml)'1 with a = 1, and KL = 0.026 (f-y/ml)'1 with a variable).
Because the chi-square goodness of fit test could not reject the model with a = 1 even
though a = 1 could be rejected the best estimate of KL was assumed to be the
geometric mean of the MLE estimates with a = 1 and a variable. The uncertainty
factors selected for this study were F1 = 1.5, which, when coupled with the statistical
confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
Two deaths were certified as due to mesothelioma on the death certificates. In
addition, Dement et al. (1994) considered four other deaths as likely due to
mesothelioma. The availability of the raw data from this study made it possible
calculate KM from this study using an "exact" likelihood approach based on expression
(3) that did not involve any grouping of data, or use of average values. Using the six
confirmed and suspected mesotheliomas, KM = 0.43x10*®, 90% CI: (0.20x10"®, 0.79x10'
8). Using the two confirmed mesotheliomas, KM = 0.14x10"®, 90% CI: (0.034x10"®,
0.38x10"8).
For comparison purposes, KM were also calculated using grouped data and applying
expression (4), since this is the method that must be used with most studies. The data
were divided into 10 categories by the tabulated values of expression (4). The KM
estimate based on the "exact" analysis was 2% greater than that based upon grouped
data.
The best estimate of KM was assumed to be the geometric mean of the MLE estimates
computed using either confirmed or both confirmed and suspected mesotheliomas
(0.25x10"®). The statistical lower bound used for this estimate was the one based on
confirmed cases and the upper bound used was the one based on confirmed and
suspected cases. The uncertainty factors described earlier, when coupled with these
statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KM shown in Table 1.
McDonald et al. (1983a) conducted a cohort mortality study in the same South
Carolina textile plant that was studied by Dement et al. (1994). Their cohort consisted
of all men employed for at least one month before 1959 and for whom a valid social
security record existed. This cohort consisted of 2410 men, of whom 36% had died by
the end of followup (December 31, 1977). Followup of each worker was begun past 20
years from first employment.
A.16
Revision 1 - B/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
McDonald et al. had available the same exposure measurements as Dement et al.
(1983b) and used these to estimate cumulative exposures for each man in mppcf-y. In
their review of the environmental measurements in which both dust and fiber
concentrations were assessed, they found a particle to fiber conversion range of from
1.3 to 10.0 with an average of about 6 fibers/ml per mppcf. This value, which is
intermediate between the values of 3 and 8 found by Dement et al. for different areas of
the same plant, will be used in the calculations involving the McDonald et al. (1983a)
study.
McDonald et al. describe two practices at the plant that entailed very high exposures
and which were not reflected in either their's or Dement et al.'s estimates: cleaning of
burlap bags used in the air filtration system by beating them with buggy whips during
the years 1937-53, and the mixing of fibers, which was carried out between 1945 and
1964 by men with pitch forks and no dust suppression equipment.
A strong dose response for lung cancer was observed (Table 8), which parallels the
results of Dement et al. (1994). Unlike Dement et al., McDonald et al. used South
Carolina men as the control group rather than U.S. men. Use of this control group
provided an adequate description of the data and lung cancer potency values
estimated both with a - 1 and allowing a to vary provided excellent descriptions of the
data (p >= 0.88) and the hypothesis a = 1 could not be rejected (p = 0.36). Assuming
a - 1 resulted in KL = 0.012 (f-y/ml)'1, 90% CI: (0.0075, 0.016), and when a was
allowed to vary, KL = 0.010 (f-y/ml)"\ 90% CI: (0.0044, 0.025). These results are
reasonably consistent with the potency estimated from Dement et al. (1994), and the
differences can be largely accounted for by the different assumptions regarding the
fiber/particle ratio.
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be the MLE estimate with a = 1. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 2, which, when coupled with the
statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
McDonald et al. found one case of mesothelioma in this cohort, apparently the same
one discovered by Dement et al. (1983b): a man born in 1904 who died in 1967 and
worked at the plant for over 30 years. Since this study was conducted exactly as
McDonald et al. (1984), the same method used there to reconstruct person-years by
years from first exposure can be applied to this cohort as well. The reconstructed data
are listed in Table 9. The estimated potency MLE is KM « 0.088 xltt*. with a 90%
confidence interval of <0.0093x10"®, 0.32x10"").
The MLE estimate of KM was assumed to be the best estimate. The uncertainty factors
described earlier, when coupled with the statistical confidence limits and an additional
A.17
Revision 1-U2WD1

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
factor to account for the reconstructed person years (F4M = 3) resulted in the likely
range for KM shown in Table 1.
Predominant Crocidolite Exposure
Wittenoom, Australia Mine and Mill
de Klerk et al., 1994 followed a cohort of 6904 men and women employed at a
crocidolite mine and mill in Wittenoom, Australia. This cohort was followed through
1999 and the raw data were obtained through the courtesy of Dr. de Klerk. The data
consisted of a record number, date of birth, sex, employment start date, total days of
employment, average exposure level (fZee), cumulative exposure (f-Yr/cc), date of last
contact, ICD code for cause of death, indicator variable for mesothelioma death, and
date of death if applicable.
A number of subjects from the full cohort were removed from the analysis reported
herein: 412 because the sex was not designated as male; One because the date of
last contact was missing; 1275 subjects because the followup period was less than five
years; 41 because the number of days worked was 0 or missing. After these subjects
were removed, the cohort consisted of 5173 men who were employed at Wittenoom
Gorge between 1943 and 1966.
The concentrations of fibers greater than 5 mm in length as measured by PCM were
measured at various work sites in a survey conducted in 1966. Job category data were
obtained from employment records and supplemented by records from the Perth Chest
Clinic and the Western Australian Mineworkers Relief Fund. The concentration
measurements and job category information were used to estimate the exposure level
for each subject in the cohort (DeKlerk et al., 1989). The exposure levels were high
with a median of 17.8 (fiber/ml). The durations of employment were low with a median
of 128 days.
There were 251 lung cancer deaths in the cohort. Table 10 shows the observed,
expected, and predicted lung cancer deaths among the males categorized by
cumulative exposure (fiber-year/ml). The number of expected lung cancer deaths are
based on Australian lung cancer mortality rates. With no allowance for difference
between the background lung cancer death rates among Australia and the members of
this cohort (a = 1), the fit of the model is poor (p < 0.01). Allowing for difference in the
background lung cancer death rates (a variable), the model provides a reasonably
good fit to the data (p = 0.10) and estimates KL = 0.0047 (fiber-year/ml)-\ 90% CI;
(0.0017, 0.0087). The hypothesis a - 1 can be rejected with high confidence (p <
0.01).
A.18
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be the MLE estimate with a variable. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 2, which, when coupled with the
statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
There were 165 mesotheliomas in the cohort. The availability of the raw data from this
study made it possible calculate KM from this study using an 'exact* likelihood
approach based on expression (3) that did not involve any grouping of data, or use of
average values. With this approach, KM = 7.95x10"®, 90% CI: (6.97x10"®, 9.01x10"®).
For comparison purposes, KM were also calculated using grouped data and applying
expression (4), since this is the method that must be used with most studies. The KM
estimate based on the "exact" analysis was 12% lower than the estimate based upon
grouped data.
The MLE estimate of KM was assumed to be the best estimate. The uncertainty factors
described earlier, when coupled with the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the
likely range for KM shown in Table 1.
Predominant Amosite Exposure
Patterson, N.J. Insulation Factory
Seidman et al. (1986) studied a cohort of 820 men (mostly white) who worked at an
amosite asbestos factory that operated in Patterson, New Jersey from 1941 through
1954. The men began work between 1941 and 1945 and followup was through 1982.
The followup of a worker began five years following the beginning of employment
Workers who had prior asbestos exposure were not included in the cohort, and
followup was stopped when a worker was known to have begun asbestos work
elsewhere (6 men). Exposures were generally brief, as 76% were exposed for two
years or less, although a few were exposed for as long as 10 years.
No asbestos exposure measurements are available for this plant. Estimates of
exposures in particular jobs were made based on air measurements made between
1967 and 1970 at plants in Tyler, Texas and Port Allegheny, Pennsylvania that were
operated by the same company and made the same products using some of the same
machinery as the Patterson facility. The estimated median exposure level was 50 f/ml.
Amosite was the only type of asbestos used at the plant.
Seidman et al. cross-categorized lung cancer deaths by cumulative exposure (eight
categories of f-y/ml) and length of time worked (seven categories, Seidman etal., 1986,
Table XXXIV). Although this table apparently was created by categorizing workers by
their final cumulative exposure (rather than categorizing person-years of followup by
A.19
Revision 1-8/2MM

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
the cumulative exposure to that point in time, which is more appropriate for calculating
a KL), because exposures were brief this likely made little difference. Expected
number of lung cancer deaths were based on age- and year-specific rates for New
Jersey white males.
Table 11 shows the results of applying the lung cancer model to these data, after
collapsing the table by summing over length of time worked. Results were highly
dependent upon whether or not the background lung cancer mortality rate was
assumed to be equal to that predicted by the comparison population of New Jersey
white males (equivalent to a = 1). The test for departure from the null hypothesis, a=1,
was highly significant, and the maximum likelihood estimate was a = 3.3. Similarly, the
model gave a poor overall fit to the data with a= 1 (p < 0.01), but the fit was quite good
when a was allowed to vary (p = 0.90). The estimated potency parameter, KL, also
was highly dependent upon the assumption regarding the parameter, a. The estimate
of KL was 0.062 (f-y/ml)'1, 90% CI: (0.050, 0.076), when a was fixed at a = 1, and
0.011 (f-y/ml)'1, 90% CI: (0.0058, 0.019), when a was allowed to vary, a six-fold
difference. The lung cancer model was also fit to the data cross-classified by both
cumulative exposure and length of time worked, allowing a to assume a different value
in each category of time worked. Although the estimated values of a tended to
increase with increasing duration of exposure, allowing different values of a did not
significantly improve the fit (p = 0.64).
The reason for this behavior is not clear. There is no indication that workers with
shorter durations experienced disproportionately high mortality, since, as noted above,
a tended to increase with increasing duration of exposure. Although it is possible that
cumulative exposure is not the appropriate exposure metric, it is difficult to envision
what metric would predict this response, so long as a linear model is assumed. It is
also possible that a linear model for relative risk is not correct and a suprafinear model
is more appropriate, or that the increased risk is not proportional to the background
risk, as assumed by this simple relative risk model. Finally, it is possible that the
background rate in this population is significantly greater than that in the comparison
population, although it seems unlikely that it could be three times greater as suggested
by the model.
It is not clear what is the best estimate of KL in this case. If a is fixed at a = 1, the
model underpredicts risk atlow exposures and overpredicts at high exposures. On the
other hand if a is estimated, the resulting estimate of 3.3 seems unrealistically high.
Provisionally, 0.026 (f-y/ml)*1, the geometric mean of the two MLE estimates with a = 1
and a estimated will be used as the best estimate of KL for this cohort. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 3.5, which, when coupled with the
statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
A.20
Revision 1-8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Seidman etal. (1986) discovered 17 deaths from mesothelioma in this population.
Table III of Seidman etal. categorized mesothelioma deaths and person-years of
observation by years since onset of work. In order to apply the 1986 EPA
mesothelioma model it is necessary to have estimates of the duration of exposure and
level of exposure for each category. Using the categorization of the members of the
cohort by duration of work in Table XXIII of Seidman et al., it was estimated that the
mean duration of work was 1.5 years. Using data from Seidman et a/., Table XIV, an
average cumulative exposure was for each category of time from onset of exposure by
weighting exposures according to the expected total number of deaths. These
averages were divided by 1.5 years to obtain the average fiber concentrations in Table
12. The estimated exposure levels decrease with time since onset, which is consistent
with higher mortality among more heavily exposed workers.
The 1986 mesothelioma model provided an adequate fit to these data (p = 0.35),
although it over-predicted somewhat the number of cases in the highest latency
category (> 35 years). The estimate of KM was 3.9x10"*, 90% CI: (2.6x10"*, 5.7x10"8).
The MLE estimate of KM was assumed to be the best estimate. The uncertainty factors
described earlier, when coupled with the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the
likely range for KM shown in Table 1.
Tyler, Texas Insulation Factory
Levin et al. (1998) studied the mortality experience of 1121 men who formerly worked
at a plant in Tyler, Texas that manufactured asbestos pipe insulation. The plant
operated from 1954 through February, 1972. The plant used the same raw materials
and some of the same equipment that was used in the Patterson, New Jersey plant that
was studied by Seidman et al. (1986). The asbestos used was amosite from the
Transvaal region of South Africa. The insulation was manufactured from a mixture that
contained 90% amosite asbestos.
Environmental surveys were conducted at the plant in 1967,1970 and 1971, with
average fiber concentrations ranging from 15.9 through 91.4 f/ml. An average
exposure of 45 f/ml is assumed for this plant, which is near the middle of this range
obtained in the three surveys. It is also consistent with average levels assumed for the
Patterson, New Jersey plant, which operated under very similar conditions.
The cohort consisted of 744 whites, 305 non-white (mostly blade), and 72 with missing
race (assumed to be white, based on hiring practices at that time). For the entire
cohort, the median age of first employment was 25 years, and the mean duration of
employment was 12.7 months (range of one day to 17.3 years). Followup was through
1993. Death certificates were obtained for 304 of the 315 men known to be dead. In
A.21
Revision 1-6/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
the mortality analysis only white men were evaluated and followup started ten years
after first employment. After additional exclusions of men with missing birth dates or
missing employment information, the cohort analyzed in the mortality analysis
consisted of 753 former workers, among whom 222 deaths were recorded. These
deaths were compared with, those expected based on age, race and sex-specific U.S.
rates.
There was an excess of deaths from respiratory cancer (SMR = 277, based on 36
deaths, not including four deaths from mespthelioma). Table 13 contains observed and
expected numbers of deaths from respiratory cancer, categorized by duration of
exposure. Cumulative exposure in f-y/ml was estimated by multiplying the duration of
exposure times the assumed average fiber level of 45 f/ml. There was an excess of
lung cancer deaths in the lowest exposure group (23 observed, B.9 expected), and
consequently the model with a = 1 did not fit these data (p < 0.01), and the hypothesis
a = 1 could be rejected (p < 0.01). The KL with a variable was KL = 0.0013, 90% CI:
(0, 0.006). With a = 1, KL = 0.013 (f-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0.0055, 0.022).
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be the MLE estimate with a variable. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 3, which, when coupled with the
statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
Four mesotheliomas were reported in this study. However, the data are not presented
in a form that would permit application of the EPA 1986 mesothelioma model.
Predominant Tremolite-Actinolite Exposure
Libby, Montana Vermiculite Mine
Amandus and Wheeler (1987) conducted a retrospective cohort study of 575 men who
were exposed to tremolite-actinolite while working at a vermiculite mine and mill in
Libby, Montana. A dry mill began operation in 1935 and a wet mil! began operating in
the same building as the dry mill in 1950 (Amandus et a/., 1987).
A total of 376 impinger samples were available that had been collected during
1950-1969, although only 40 of these were collected prior to 1965. In addition 4118
PCM samples were available from the period 1967-1982. Exposure estimates for years
later than 1968 were based on historical measures of fiber concentrations (f/ml), and
those for earlier years were based on concentrations measured by midget impinger
(mppcf) and converted to f/ml assuming a conversion ratio of 4 f/ml per mppcf. This
conversion factor was derived from 336 impinger samples collected during 1965-1969
and 81 filter samples collected during 1967-1971. Individual cumulative fiber exposure
A. 22
Revision 1-8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
estimates (f-y/m!) were computed from job-specific exposure estimates and work
histories (Amandus eta!., 1987).
The cohort consisted of all men hired prior to 1970 and employed for at least one year
in either the mine or the mill. Followup was through December 31,1981. The vital
statuses of 569 of the men (99%) were determined and death certificates were obtained
for 159 of the 161 who were deceased.
Smoking information was available for 161 men employed between 1975 and 1982 and
with at least five years of tenure. The proportion of these workers who smoked (current
or former) was 84% compared to 67% among U.S. white males during the same time
period.
A total of 20 deaths from lung cancer were observed (9 expected, SMR = 223.2, using
U.S. white males as the comparison population). Table 14 (based on Amandus and
Wheeler, 1987, Table II) shows that the excess occurred mainly in workers whose
cumulative exposure exceeded 400 f-y/ml (10 observed, 1.7 expected). The 1986 EPA
lung cancer model fit these data adequately (p * 0.25) both with a = 1 and a variable,
and the hypothesis a = 1 could not be rejected (p = 0.4). With a = 1, KL was
estimated as 0.0061 (f-y/ml)'1, 90% CI: (0.0029, 0.010), and with a variable, KL =
0.0051	(f-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0.0011, 0.020).
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be the MLE estimate with a =1. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 2.5, F2 = 1.5, which, when coupled
with the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table
1.
Amandus and Wheeier (1987) observed 2 deaths from mesothelioma in this cohort.
However, information on these cases was not sufficient to permit application of the
1986 EPA mesothelioma model.
McDonald et at. (1986) also conducted a cohort study of workers at the Libbv
Montana vermiculite mine and mill. Their cohort was composed of 406 workers
employed prior to 19631 for at least one year. Followup was until July 1983. Vital status
was determined for all but one man and death certificates were obtained for 163 of the
165 men who had died. Cumulative exposures (f-y/ml) were estimated for each worker
using work histories based on 42 job categories, and 1363 environmental
measurements, including samples analyzed by PCM (f/ml) and by midget impinger
(mppcf).	9 s
A total of 23 deaths from lung cancer were observed (SMR = 303, based on Montana
rates). Table 15 shows these deaths categorized by cumulative exposure (based on
A.23
Revision 1-8/2MJ1

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Table 4 of McDonald et a!., 1986). Both the models with a = 1 and a variable fit these
data adequately (p £ 0.16) although the hypothesis a = 1 could almost be rejected
(p = 0.057). The estimate of KL with a = 1 was 0.011, (f-y/ml)*1, 90% CI: (0.0055,
0.017), and with a variable, KL = 0.0039 (f-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0.00067, 0.012).
Since the test of the hypothesis a = 1 was close to significance, KL was assumed to be
the geometric means of the MLE estimates from a - 1 and a variable. KL estimate
with MLE estimate with a variable. The uncertainty factors selected for this study were
F1 = 2.5, F2 = 1.5, which, when coupled with the statistical confidence limits, resulted
in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
McDonald et al. (1986) observed 2 deaths from mesothelioma. However, information
on these cases was not sufficient to permit application of the 1986 EPA mesothelioma
model.
Exposure to Mixed Fiber Types
British Friction Products Factory
Berry and Newhouse (1983) conducted a mortality study of 13,460 workers in a
factory in Britain that manufactured brake blocks, brake and clutch linings, and other
friction materials. Only chrysotile was used at the plant except for two relatively short
periods before 1945 when crocidolite was used in the production of railway blocks.
The cohort studied consisted of all men or women employed at the plant between 1941
and 1977. Follow-up was to the end of 1979 and the mortality experience was
examined after 10 years from first exposure. Airborne dust measurements were only
available from 1967 onward and these were made using the PCM method. Fiber
concentrations in earlier years were estimated by reproducing earlier working
conditions using knowledge of when processes were changed and exhaust ventilation
introduced.
Deaths from all causes were less than expected both prior to ten years from first
employment (185 observed versus 195.7 expected) and afterward (432 observed
versus 450.8 expected). There was no indication of an effect of employment at the
plant upon lung cancer; there were 51 lung cancers more than ten years from first
employment compared to 47.4 expected. A significant deficit of gastrointestinal
cancers was observed after ten years from first employment (25 observed versus 35.8
expected, p = 0. 04).
A linear dose response model relating cumulative exposure and lung cancer was fit to
case-control data presented by Berry and Newhouse. The resulting KL was 0.00058
A.24
Revision 1 - 8/28A)1

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
(f-y/ml)"1 and the 95% upper limit was 0.0080 (f-y/ml)*1. This estimate was used as the
best estimate of KL, and and the lower confidence bound was assumed to be zero.
The uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 3, which, when coupled with
the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
A case control study on mesothelioma deaths showed that eight of the eleven cases
had been exposed to crocidolite and another possibly had intermittent exposure to
crocidolite. The other two had been employed mostly outside the factory and possibly
had other occupational exposures to asbestos. The case control analysis showed that
the distribution of cases and controls in respect to exposure to crocidolite was quite
unlikely assuming no association with crocidolite. This indicates that some, and
possibly all, of the eight mesotheliomas with crocidolite exposure were related to this
exposure. The data were not presented in a form that permitted a quantitative estimate
of mesothelioma risk.
Ontario Asbestos-Cement Plant
Finkelstein (1984) studied mortality among a group of 535 exposed and 205
unexposed employees of an Ontario asbestos-cement factory who had been hired
before 1960 and who had been employed for at least one year. This cohort contained
the cohort studied by Finkelstein (1983) and which required at least nine years of
employment for membership. Follow-up continued until 1977 or 1981.
The plant produced asbestos cement pipe from 1948, asbestos cement board from
1955-1970, and manufacture of asbestos insulation materials was added in 1960. Both
chrysotile and crocidolite were used in each batch processed in the pipe process, but
only chrysotile was used in the cement board operation. Crocidolite constituted
approximately 20% of the asbestos used in the pipe process (Ontario Royal
Commission, 1984).
Fiber concentrations in various work areas and for various epochs were estimated from
membrane filter samples taken after 1969, impinger measurements taken during 1949,
1954,1956,1957 and semiannually during the 1960s, and information on changes in
dust control methods. Finkelstein judged that the resulting exposure estimates were
"probably accurate to within a factor of three or five." Exposures of maintenance
workers were not estimated, and the exposure response analysis consequently
involved only the unexposed workers (N = 205) and the production workers (N = 428).
Only 21 deaths from lung cancer were observed among production workers. Based on
these deaths, Finkelstein compared age-standardized lung cancer mortality rates in
production workers after a 20-year latency, categorized into five groups according to
A.25
Revision 1-8/2MH

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
their cumulative exposure through 18 years from date of first employment (Finkelstein,
1984, Table 7). Mortality rates were standardized with respect to age and latency
using the man-years distribution in the cohort as a whole as the standard. Using
similarly standardized mortality rates in Ontario males as the comparison population,
lung cancer rates were elevated in all five categories, and Finkelstein found a
significant exposure-response trend. However, the trend was not monotone, as rates
increased up to the middle exposure category and decreased thereafter (Table 16).
These data may be put into a form roughly equivalent to the more conventional
age-adjusted comparison of observed and expected lung cancer deaths by dividing the
rates in the exposed group by that of Ontario men. (The rate for unexposed workers
was not used because it was based on only 3 deaths.) The results of this are shown in
Table 16, which also shows the results of fitting the 1986 EPA lung cancer model both
assuming the Ontario rates were appropriate for this cohort (fixing the parameter a = 1)
and not making this assumption (allowing the parameter a to vary). Neither approach
provided an adequate fit to these data (p < 0.05) and the hypothesis a = 1 was
rejected (p = 0.03). The maximum likelihood estimate of a was 4.26, which seems too
large to be due to differences in smoking habits. The KL estimate with a =1 was 0.048
[f-y/ml]'1, 90% CI: (0.028,0.074). With a allowed to vary the estimate was KL = Q.0029
[f-y/ml]"1, 90% CI: (0,0.037). The fact that the lower limit was zero indicates that the
dose-response trend was not significant when the background was allowed to vary.
Because the hypothesis a - 1 was rejected but neither a = 1 nor a estimated gave an
adequate fit to these data, the best estimate of KL was assumed to be the geometric
means of the MLE estimates from a = 1 and a variable. The uncertainty factors
selected for this study were F1 = 4, which, when coupled with the statistical confidence
limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
Based on a "best evidence" classification of cause of death, Finkelstein identified 17
deaths from mesothelioma among production workers. Table 3 of Finkelstein (1984)
gives these mesotheliomas categorized by years since first exposure. This table also
provides the mortality rate, from which can be calculated the person-years of
observation. Finkelstein states that the average cumulative exposure for production
workers was about 60 f-y/ml, but does not provide information for determining duration
and level of exposure separately. CHAP (1983) used an average exposure of 9 f/mi for
a subcohort of production workers, although they provided no support for this
assumption. If this value is assumed to be appropriate for the expanded cohort, the
average duration is estimated as about 60/9 - 6.7 years. However these values are
uncertain. Table 17 presents the result of applying the 1986 EPA mesothelioma model
to the Finkelstein (1984) data based on these assumptions. The mesothelioma model
describes these data adequately (p = 0.26) and provides an estimate of KM = 18x10"®
90% CI: (13x10"8, 24x10-®).
A.26
Revision 1 -a/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
The MLE estimate of KM was assumed to be the best estimate. The uncertainty factors
described earlier, when coupled with the statistical confidence limits and an additional
factor to account for the estimated exposure level (F4M = 2), resulted in the likely range
for KM shown in Table 1.
Swedish Asbestos-Cemerit Plant
Albin etal. (1990) studied workers at a Swedish plant that operated from 1907 to 1978
and produced various asbestos cement products, including sheets, shingles, and
ventilation pipes. The asbestos handled was mainly chrysotile (> 95%). Crocidolite
was used before 1966 but never exceeded 3-4% of the total asbestos. Amosite was
used for a few years in the 1950s but never exceeded 18% of the total asbestos used
Fiber length classes were the commercial grades 3-7, and all asbestos was milled prior
to incorporation into products.
Impinger and gravimetric dust measurements were available for 1956-1969, and PCM
measurements after 1969. These data, along with information on production and dust
control, were used to estimate exposures for different jobs and periods of time.
The cohort contained 2898 men and was defined as all male employees who worked
for at least three months between 1907 and 1977. A reference cohort was composed
of 1233 men who worked in other industries in the region and who were not known to
have worked with asbestos. Vital status of both groups was determined through 1986
Followup of both began after 20 years from first employment.
Excluding mesothelioma, other respiratory cancers were not significantly increased
Albin et ai. present relative risks of these respiratory cancers and corresponding 95%
confidence intervals for three categories of cumulative exposure (Table 18) based on
Poisson regression with control for age and calendar year. In order to obtain crude
estimates of the range of KL that are consistent with these data, the 1986 EPA luna
cancer relative risk model was fit, assuming that the Ln (RR) were normally distributed
with fixed variances computed from the reported confidence intervals for the RR.
Although elevated the RR did not exhibit a dose response, and the hypothesis a = 1
was rejected (p = 0-02). In this analysis KL was not significantly different from zero,
regardless of whether a was fixed at 1.0 or estimated. With a =1 the estimate of KL
was 0.019 (f-y/ml)-, 90% CI: (0, 0.065), and KL = 0.00067 (f-y/ml)*1, 90% CI: (0 0 036)
with a estimated.	* » •. /
Because the hypothesis a = 1 was; rejected, the best estimate of KL was assumed to
be the geometric means of the MLE estimates from cr = 1 and a variable. The
Revision 1 - 8/2IV01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 4, which, when coupled with the
statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely.range for KL shown in Table 1.
Thirteen mesotheliomas were identified among exposed workers and one in the
referent population, and a significant dose response was observed with increasing
cumulative exposure. Unfortunately, the mesothelioma data were not presented in a
format that would permit application of the 1986 EPA mesothelioma model.
Belgium Asbestos-Cement Plant
Lacquet etal. (1980) conducted a roentgenologic, asbestosis, and mortality study in a
Belgium asbestos cement factory employing about 2400 employees that annually
processed about 39,000 tons of asbestos, of which 90% was chrysotite, 8% crocidolite,
and 2% amosite. The mortality study considered male workers who worked in the
factory for at least 12 months during the 15-year period 1963-1977. Apparently no
minimal latency was required before followup began.
Fiber counts were available for the years 1970-1976; fiber levels were estimated for as
far back as 1928, but these estimates were considered to be "only good guesses at
best." Individual exposures were estimated in fiber-years from work histories and
estimated yearly concentrations in four work areas.
The incidence of respiratory cancer was very close to that which was expected in a
Belgium population of matched age and sex (Table 19). The models with a = 1 (p =
0.51) and a variable (p = 0.39) gave similar results and the hypothesis a = 1 was not
rejected (p = 0.34). With a = 1, the estimate of KL was 0.0 (f-y/ml)*1, 90% CI: (0,
0.0010). With a estimated, KL = 6.8X10'5 (f-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0, 0.0021).
The estimate of KL with a = 1 was assumed to be the best estimate. The uncertainty
factors selected for this study were F1 = 4, which, when coupled with the statistical
confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
One death was due to pleural mesothelioma. Unfortunately, the data were not
presented in a way that allowed the estimation of KM.
Retirees from U.S. Asbestos Products Company
Enterline et a/. (1986) extended followup through 1980 for a cohort of U.S. retirees
from a large asbestos products company that had been the subject of an earlier report
(Henderson and Enterline, 1979). Products manufactured by the company included
A.28
R»«ion1 -8/2&01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
textiles, cement shingles, sheets, insulation and cement pipe. Exposure was
predominately to chrysotile in most operations, although amosite predominated in
insulation production, and crocidolite in manufacture of cement pipe. Each worker's
exposure was estimated from dust measurements in mppcf obtained from
environmental surveys that started in the mid-1950's and were extrapolated back in
time by the company industrial hygienist. No data are provided for conversion from
mppcf to PCM in f/ml. Given the wide range of products manufactured, this conversion
likely varied according to operation. Conversions calculated in different environments
have ranged from 1.4 to 10, the most common value being around 3 f/ml per mppcf,
which has been observed in diverse environments such as mining and textile
manufacture. This value was provisionally applied to this cohort.
The cohort consisted of 1074 white males who retired from the company during 1941-
1967, and who were exposed to asbestos in production or maintenance jobs. The
average duration of employment was 25 years. Followup started at age 65 or at
retirement if work continued past age 65. By the end of followup in 1980, 88% were
deceased.
Overall, respiratory cancer was significantly increased (SMR = 258 in comparison to
U.S. rates, based on 79 observed deaths). Enterline etal. (1986) categorized lung
cancer deaths by cumulative exposure (their Table 4). Results of applying the 1986
EPA lung cancer model to these data are shown in Table 20. Although both the model
with a = 1 and a variable fit the data adequately (p £ 0.75), the test of a = 1 was
marginally significant (p = 0.05). With a = 1 the estimate of KL was 0.0021 (f-y/ml)*\
90% CI: (0.0015,0.0027). With a variable, KL = 0.0011 (f-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0.00041,
0.0028).
Since the test of the hypothesis a = 1 was close to significance, KL was assumed to be
the geometric means of the MLE estimates from a = 1 and a variable. The uncertainty
factors selected for this study were F1 = 2, F2 = 3, which, when coupled with the
statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
From the death certificates Enterline etal. identified eight deaths from mesothelioma.
These data were not presented in a form that permitted application of the 1986 EPA
mesothelioma model.
U.S. Insulation Applicators
Selikoff and Seidman (1991) reported on followup through 1986 of a cohort of 17,800
asbestos insulation applicators that had been followed through 1976 by Selikoff etal.
(1979). The cohort consisted of men enrolled as members of the insulator's union in
A.29
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
the United States and Canada. Deaths were classified both based on the information
the death certificate, and using "best evidence," in which death certificate information
was augmented by clinical data, histopathological material and X-rays.
Based on the composition of insulation material, it seems likely that these workers were
exposed to substantial amounts of chrysotile and amosite. Data on insulator's
exposures were reviewed by Nicholson (1976), who concluded that average exposures
of insulation workers in past years could have ranged 10-15 f/ml and could have been
15-20 f/ml in marine construction. USEPA (1986) assumed a value of 15 f/ml as an
overall average, with an associated 3-fold uncertainty. This estimate of 15 f/ml will be
used provisionally here as well.
The form of the data provided in Selikoff and Seidman (1991) is not particularly suitable
for calculating KL. Table 4 of Selikoff and Seidman (1991) contain observed and
expected deaths from lung cancer (determined from either death certificates or best
information) categorized by years from first exposure (<15,15-19, 20-24,..., 50+).
Death certificate information was utilized herein to facilitate comparisons with expected
deaths (based on the mortality experience of U.S. white males), which were also based
on death certificates. Lung cancer was significantly increased over expected, except
for the category of < 15 years from onset of exposure. Selikoff and Seidman did not
provide information on the duration of exposure. The USEPA (1986, page 90)
assumed an average exposure duration of 25 years. Assuming that all workers worked
exactly 25 years and were exposed to 15 f/ml, the data in Table 4 of Selikoff and
Seidman (1991) can be used to categorize lung cancer deaths by cumulative exposure
lagged 10 years. The result is shown in Table 21. The 1986 EPA lung cancer model
provided a reasonable fit to these data with a variable (p = 0.12), but not with a = 1
(p < 0.01). Also, the hypothesis that a = 1 could be rejected (p < 0.01). The estimate
of KL with a variable was 0.0018 (f-y/ml)-1, 90% CI: (0.00065, 0.0038). With a = 1, KL
= 0.0087 (f-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0.0081, 0.0093).
Although the hypothesis a = 1 could be rejected, the estimated value of a (2.3)
seemed somewhat large. Accordingly, the best estimate of KL was assumed to be the
geometric means of the MLE estimates from a = 1 and a variable. The uncertainty
factors selected for this study were F1 = 4, F3 = 2 (no individual work histories) and
F4L = 2 (data not summarized in appropriate form for fitting model), which, when
coupled with the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown
in Table 1.
Based on best evidence, Selikoff and Seidman (1991) found 458 mesotheliomas in this
cohort. Table 22 shows these deaths categorized by years from onset (based on
Selikoff and Seidman, 1991, Tables 5 and 6). Table 22 also shows the results of fitting
the 1986 EPA mesothelioma model to these data, assuming, as above, that workers
A. 30
tafetanl-808/Dl

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
worked for 25 years and were exposed to 15 f/ml. The 1986 EPA mesothelioma model
provided a poor fit to these data (p < 0.01), as it overestimates by more than a factor of
2 the number of mesothelioma deaths after 50+ years from first exposure. The
estimate of KM was 1.3x10"*, 90% CI: (1.2*10"®, 1.4x10"®).
The MLE estimate of KM was assumed to be the best estimate. The uncertainty factors
for exposure described earlier, when coupled with the statistical confidence limits,
resulted in the likely range for KM shown in Table 1.
Pennsylvania Textile Plant
McDonald et al. (1983b) report on mortality in an asbestos plant located near
Lancaster, Pennsylvania that produced mainly textiles, but also some friction materials.
About 3,000 to 6,000 tons of chrysotile were processed annually at the plant, which
began operation in the early 1900s. Crocidolite and amosite were used from 1924
onward; about three to five tons of raw crocidolite were processed annually and the use
of amosite reached a peak of 600 tons during World War II.
The cohort consisted of all men employed for at least one month prior to 1959 and who
had a valid record with the Social Security Administration. This group consisted of
4022 men, of whom 35% had died by the end of follow-up (December 31,1977).
Follow-up of each worker was only begun past 20 years from first employment.
To estimate exposures, McDonald et al. had available reports of surveys conducted by
the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company during the period 1930-1939, Public Health
Service surveys conducted during 1967 and 1970, and company measurements made
routinely from 1956 onward. These data were used to estimate by department and
year in units of mppcf.
The lung cancer mortality in this cohort exhibited a significant dose response trend
(Table 23), which was partially due to a deficit of cancers in the group exposed to <10
mppcf-y (21 with 31.4 expected). A survey of those employed in the plant in 1978
revealed a larger per cent of nonsmokers (25%) than were found in the other plants
studied by these researchers (McDonald et al., 1983a, 1984), although this finding was
based on a sample of only 36 workers. Regardless of the reason for this shortfall in the
number of lung cancers, it appears that the most appropriate analysis is that in which
the background is allowed to vary; this analysis fits the data well (p > 0.7), whereas the
analysis which assumes the Pennsylvania rates are appropriate provides a marginal fit
(p = 0.08). The hypothesis a = 1 was rejected (p < 0.01). Consequently, the former
analysis is judged to be the most appropriate (allowing the parameter a to vary).
McDonald et al. did not provide a factor for converting from mppcf to f/ml. Assuming
A.31
Revision 1 - 8/28AM

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
that 3 f/ml is equivalent to one mppcf, the resulting estimate of lung cancer potency with
a variable was 0.018 (f-y/ml)1. 90% CI: (0.0075, 0.045). With a = 1, KL = 0.0057
(f-y/ml)"1, 90% CI: (0.0027, 0.0094).
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be from the analysis with a variable. The
uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 2, F2 = 3, which, when coupled
with the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table
1.
A diagnosis of mesothelioma was specified on fourteen death certificates (ten pleural
and four peritoneal). Thirty other deaths were given the ICD code 199 (malignant
neoplasms of other and unspecified sites) and the diagnosis given in many of these
cases was said to be consistent with an unrecognized mesothelioma. McDonald et al.'s
Table 3 lists the average age at beginning of employment as 26.92 and the average
duration of employment as 9.18 years, and their Table 1 lists 191, 667 and 534 deaths
as occurring before age 45, between 45 and 65, and after 65 years of age,
respectively. Assuming that 1/2 of the deaths given the ICD code 199 might have been
due to mesotheliomas, the total number of mesotheliomas in this cohort is estimated to
be 23. Proceeding as in the mesothelioma analysis carried out for the McDonald et al.
(1984) data, the data in Table 24 were generated. Noting that the age since first
exposure categories in which the mesotheliomas occurred is irrelevant as far as
estimating KM is concerned, the estimate of KM is 1.1x10"®, 90% CI: (0.76x10"*,
1.5x10"®). These estimates are uncertain due to the uncertainty regarding the number
of mesotheliomas in the cohort.
The MLE estimate of KM was assumed to be the best estimate. The uncertainty factors
described earlier, when coupled with the statistical confidence limits and an additional
uncertainty factor (F4M = 2) to account for uncertainty in the number of mesotheliomas,
resulted in the likely range for KM shown in Table 1.
Rochdale, England Textile Factory
Peto et al. (1985) studied a textile factory in Rochdale, England that has been the
subject of a number of earlier reports (Peto, et al., 1977; Peto, 1980a,b). Peto et ai
(1985) has the most complete follow-up (through 1983) and emphasizes assessment of
risk. The factory, which began working with asbestos in 1879, used principally
chrysotile, but approximately five percent crocidolite was used between 1932 and 1968.
Quantitative estimates of risk were based on a subgroup of Peto et al.'s "principal
cohort" consisting of all men first employed in 1933 or later who had worked in
scheduled areas or on maintenance and had completed five years of service by the end
A. 32
Revision 1 - &7M)1

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
of 1974. In the analyses of interest relating to lung cancer, follow-up only begins 20
years after the beginning of employment and exposure during the last five years of
follow-up is not counted.
Routine sampling using a thermal precipitator began at 23 fixed sampling points in
1951. Comparisons of particle counts and fiber counts taken in 1960 and 1961 were
used to convert between particles/ml and f/ml. Dust levels prior to 1951 were assumed
to be the same as those observed during 1951-1955 for departments for which no
major changes had been made. In departments in which conditions had improved,
higher levels were assigned. These levels and work histories were used to assign
individual exposure estimates. A conversion factor of 34 particles/ml per f/ml was
determined by comparing average results obtained by the Casella thermal precipitator
(particles/ml) with Ottway long running thermal precipitator (f/ml) at the same sampling
point during 1960 and 1961. However, a conversion factor of 35.3 was used by Peto et
al. for the sake of consistency with earlier work, and this factor will be used here as
well.
After 20 years from first employment, there were 93 lung cancer deaths with only 64.6
expected. Using a lung cancer model essentially the same as the 1986 EPA model,
Peto et al. estimated KL = 0.0054 (f-y/ml)'1 for the entire cohort, and KL = 0.015
(f-y/ml)'1 when the analysis was restricted to men first employed in 1951 or later. Peto
et al. felt that the most plausible explanation for this difference was that it was largely
due to chance and also possibly to the chance that exposure to the most carcinogenic
fibers was not reduced as much as changes in particle counts from 1951 and 1960
would suggest.
The best estimate of KL was assumed to be the geometric mean of the two estimates
obtained by Peto et al. Since Peto et al. did not provide confidence intervals, the upper
and lower statistical bounds were assumed to be equal to the larger and smaller of the
two estimates, respectively, with an additional uncertainty factor added (F4M = 2). The
best estimate of KL was assumed to be from the analysis with a variable. The
remaining uncertainty factors selected for this study were F1 = 2, F3 = 2, which
resulted in the likely range for KL shown in Table 1.
Ten mesotheliomas were observed in the cohort used by Peto et al. for quantitative
analysis (an eleventh case who was exposed for four months and died four years later
was omitted because the short latency made it unlikely that this case was related to
exposure at the factory). Observed mesotheliomas and corresponding person years of
observation by duration of service and years since first employment (Peto et al., 1985,
Table 8) are shown in Table 25. An overall average exposure was estimated by
applying the Peto mesothelioma model to the data in Table 25 with a single exposure
estimate selecting the value that gave the smallest least squares fit of this model to the
A.33
Revision 1 - B/2M)1

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
mesothelioma data. The fitting was carried out both unweighted and by weighting by
the person years, with resulting estimates of 360 and 322 particles/ml, respectively; the
latter value was the one selected. Using the conversion factor of 35.3 particles/ml per
f/ml, the estimated average exposure is 322/35.2 = 9.1 f/ml. The 1986 EPA
mesothelioma model fit these data well (p = 0.80), and the resulting estimate of
mesothelioma potency (Table 25) was KM = 1.3x10"®, 90% CI: (0.74x10-8, 2.1x10*®).
The MLE estimate of KM was assumed to be the best estimate. The uncertainty factors
described earlier, when coupled with the statistical confidence limits, resulted in the
likely range for KM shown in Table 1.
A. 34
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
References
Albin, M., Jakobsson, K., Attewell, R., Johansson, L., Welinder, H. "Mortality and
Cancer Morbidity in Cohorts of Asbestos Cement Workers and Referents." British
Journal of Industrial Medicine 79:602-610. September, 1990.
Amandus, H.E., Wheeler, R., "The Morbidity and Mortality of Vermiculite Miners and
Millers Exposed to Tremolite-Actinolite: Part II. Mortality.* American Journal of
Industrial Medicine 11:15-26,1987.
Amandus, H.E., Wheeler, R., Jankovic, J., Tucker, J., "The Morbidity and Mortality of
Vermiculite Miners and Millers Exposed to Tremolite-Actinolite: Part I. Exposure
Estimates." American Journal of Industrial Medicine 11:1-14, 1987.
Armstrong, B.K., DeKlerk, N.H., Musk, A.W., Hobbs, M.S.T., "Mortality in Miners and
Millers of Crocidolite in Western Australia." British Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol.
45, pp. 5-13, 1988.
Berry, G., Newhouse, M.L., "Mortality of Workers Manufacturing Friction Materials
Using Asbestos." British Journal of Industrial Medicine 40:1-7,1983.
CHAP (Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Asbestos), "Report to the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission." July 1983.
Cox and D. Oakes, Analysis of Survival Data. Chapman and Hall, London, 1984.
DeKlerk, NH; Musk, AW; Armstrong, BK; and Hobbs, MST; "Diseases in Miners and
Millers of Crocidolite from Wittenoom, Western Australia: A further Followup to
December 1986." Annals of Occupational Hygiene, Vol. 38, Supplement 1, pp.
647-655. 1994.
Dement, J.M., "Estimation of dose and evaluation of dose-response in a retrospective
cohort mortality study of chrysotile asbestos textile workers.* Ph.D. Thesis, The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1980.
Dement, J.M., Brown, D.P., "Cohort Mortality and Case-Control Studies of White Male
Chrysotile Asbestos Textile Workers", Journal of Clean Technology, Environmental
Toxicology, and Occupational Medicine 7:1052-1062,1998.
Dement, J.M., Harris, R.L., Symons, M.J., Shy, C.M., "Estimates of Dose-Response for
Respiratory Cancer Among Chrysotile Asbestos Textile Workers." Annals
Occupational Hygiene 26:869-887,1982.
A. 35
Region 1 - 8/28TO1

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quoti
Dement, J.M., Harris, R.L., Symons, M.J., Shy, C.M., "Exposures and Mortality Among
Chrysotile Workers. Part I: Exposure Estimates." American Journal of Industrial
Medicine 4:399-419,1983a.
Dement, J.M., Harris, R.L., Symons, M.J., Shy, C.M., "Exposures and Mortality Among
Chrysotile Workers. Part II: Mortality." American Journal of Industrial Medicine 4:421-
433, 1983b.
Dement, J.M., Brown, D.P., Okun, A., "Follow-up Study of Chrysotile Asbestos Textile
Workers: Cohort Mortality and Case-Control Analysis." American Journal of Industrial
Medicine 26:431-447, 1994.
Doll, R„ Peto, J., "Asbestos: Effects on Health of Exposure to Asbestos." Health and
Safety Commission, London, United Kingdom, 1985.
Enterline, P.E., Harley, J., Henderson, V., "Asbestos and Cancer - A Cohort Followed
to Death." Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 1986.
Finkelstein, M.M., "Mortality Among Long-Term Employees of an Ontario Asbestos-
Cement Factory." British Journal of Industrial Medicine 40:138-144, 1983.
Finkelstein, M.M., "Mortality Among Employees of an Ontario Asbestos-Cement
Factory", American Review of Respiratory Disease 129:754-761, 1984.
Hammond, E.C., Selikoff, I.J., Seidman, H. "Asbestos Exposure, Cigarette Smoking and
Death Rates." Annals New York Academy of Sciences 330:473-490,1979.
Henderson, V.L., Enterline, P.E., "Asbestos Exposure: Factors Associated with Excess
Cancer and Respiratory Disease Mortality." Annals New York Academy of Sciences
330:117-126, 1979.
Hughes, J.M., Weill, H., "Asbestos Exposure: Quantitative Assessment of Risk."
American Review of Respiratory Disease 133:5-13,1986.
Hughes, J.M., Weill, H., Hammad, Y.Y., "Mortality of Workers Employed at Two
Asbestos Cement Plants." British Journal of Industrial Medicine 44:161-174, 1987.
Lacquet, L.M., VanderLinden, L., Lepoutre, J., "Roentgenographic Lung Changes,
Asbestosis and Mortality in a Belgian Asbestos-Cement Factory." Biological Effects of
Mineral Fibres, Wagner, J.C., ed., IARC Sci Publ., pp. 783-793,1980.
A. 36
Revisi0"i-e«c

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Levin, J.L., McLarty, J.W., Hurst, G.A., Smith, A.N., Frank, A.L, "Tyler Asbestos
Workers: Mortality Experience in a Cohort Exposed to Amosite." Occupptional and
Environmental Medicine 55:155-160,1998.
Liddell, F.D.K., McDonald, A.D., McDonald, J.C., "The 1891-1920 Birth Cohort of
Quebec Chrysotile Miners and Millers: Development From 1904 and Mortality to 1992."
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 41:13-36, 1997.
McDonald, J.C., Liddell, F.D.K., Gibbs, G.W., Eyssen, G.E., McDonald, A.D., "Dust
Exposure and Mortality in Chrysotile Mining, 1910-1975." British Journal of Industrial
Medicine 37:11-24, 1980.
McDonald, J.C., Gibbs, G.W., Liddell, F.D.K., "Chrysotile Fibre Concentration and Lung
Cancer Mortality: A Preliminary Report." Biological Effects of Mineral Fibres, Wagner,
J.C., ed., I ARC Scientific Publications, pp. 811-817,1980b.
McDonald, A.D., Fry, J.S., Wooley, A.J., McDonald, J.C., "Dust Exposure and Mortality
in an American Chrysotile Textile Plant." British Journal of Industrial Medicine 39:361-
367, 1983a.
McDonald, A.D., Fry, J.S., Woolley, A.J., McDonald, J.C., "Dust Exposure and Mortality
in an American Factory Using Chrysotile, Amosite, and Crocidolite in Mainly Textile
Manufacture." British Journal of Industrial Medicine 40:368-374, 1983b.
McDonald, A.D., Fry, J.S., Woolley, A.J., McDonald, J.C., "Dust Exposure and Mortality
in an American Chrysotile Asbestos Friction Products Plant." British Journal of
Industrial Medicine 41:151-157,1984.
McDonald J.C., McDonald, A.D., Armstrong, B., Sebastien, P., "Cohort Study of
Mortality of Vermiculite Miners Exposed to Tremolite." British Journal of Industrial
Medicine 43:436-444,1986.
McDonald, J.C., Liddell, F.D.K., Dufresne, A., McDonald, A.D., "The 1891-1920 Birth
Cohort of Quebec Chrysotile Miners and Millers: Mortality 1976-1988." British Journal
of Industrial Medicine 50:1073-1081,1993.
Nicholson, W.J., "Part III. Recent Approaches to the Control of Carcinogenic
Exposures. Case Study 1: Asbestos - The TLV Approach." Annals New York
Academy of Science 271:152-169,1976.
Ontario Royal Commission, "Report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and
Safety Arising form the Use of Asbestos in Ontario." Vol. 3,1984.
A.37
Revision 1-8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Peto, J., "Lung Cancer Mortality in Relation to Measured Dust Levels in an Asbestos
Textile Factory." Biological Effects of Mineral Fibres, Wagner, J.C., ed., IARC Scientific
Publications, pp. 829-836, 1980a.
Peto, J., "The Incidence of Pleural Mesothelioma in Chrysotile Asbestos Textile
Workers." Biological Effects of Mineral Fibres, Wagner, J.C., ed., IARC Scientific
Publications, pp. 703-711, 1980b.
Peto, J., Doll, R., Howard, S.V., Kinlen, L.J., Lewinsohn, H.C., "A Mortality Study
Among Workers in an English Asbestos Factory." British Journal of Industrial Medicine
34:169-173, 1977.
Peto, J., Doll, R., Hermon, C., Binns, W., Clayton, R„ Goffe, T., "Relationship of
Mortality to Measures of Environmental Asbestos Pollution in an Asbestos Textile
Factory." Annals Occupational Hygiene 29:306-355,1985.
Piolatto, G., Negri, E., LaVecchia, C., Pira, E., Decarfi, A., Peto, J., "An Update of
Cancer Mortality Among Chrysotile Asbestos Miners in Balangero, Northern Italy."
British Journal of Industrial Medicine 47:810-814,1990.
Rubino, G.F., Piolatto, G.W., Newhouse, M.L., Scansetti, G., Aresini, GA, Murray, R.t
"Mortality of Chrysotile Asbestos Workers at the Balangero Mine, Northern Italy."
British Journal of Industrial Medicine 36:187-194,1979.
Seidman, H., Selikoff, I.J., Hammond, E.C., "Short-Term Asbestos Work Exposure and
Long-Term Observation." Annals New York Academy of Sciences 330:61-89, 1979.
Seidman, H., Selikoff, I.J., Gelb, S.K., "Mortality Experience of Amosite Asbestos
Factory Workers: Dose-Response Relationships 5 to 40 Years After Onset of Short-
Term Work Exposure." American Journal of Industrial Medicine 10:479-514,1986.
Selikoff, I.J., Seidman, H., Hammond, E.C., "Mortality Experience of Insulation Workers
in the United States and Canada 1943-1976." Annals New York Academy of Sciences
330:91-116,1979.
Selikoff, I.J., Seidman, H., "Asbestos-Associated Deaths among Insulation Workers in
the United States and Canada, 1967-1987." Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences 643:1-14,1991.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), "Airborne Asbestos Health
Assessment Update." Report 600/8-84-003F, U.S. EPA, 1986.
A. 38
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Venzon, D., Moolgavkar, S. "A method for computing profile-iikelihood-based
confidence intervals." Appl Stat 37:87-94,1988.
Weill, H., Hughes, J., Waggenspack, C., "Influence of Dose and Fibre Type on
Respiratory Malignancy Risk in Asbestos Cement Manufacturing.* American Review of
Respiratory Disease 120:345-354,1979.
A. 39
Revision 1-6/2MM

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 1
Fiber Typr Operation
Cohert
CPA (1986)
KlalOO Reference
This update
KlilOO Range
Reference
CPA (1986)
KMild Relereace
Tills update
KMilt Range
Relereace
ChffMlNf Mining end Milling
Quebec mines i
mills
Asbestos, Quat
Thedtord Mine
Quebec
Italian mine at
mill
0 06 McDonalel a/, (1980)
0)7 Nicholscat *1.(1979)
0 081 Piolatttef at. (1990)
LiddeVlal
0 029 (0 0085.0 11 (1997)
0035 (0.1 1) Piolattoatal (199'


0 013 (0 003, 0 049; Uddall el al (1997) i
0 021 (0 0065.0 06! Llddell et al (1997) i
Friction Products
Connecticut pti
0 01 McOonalef al, (1964)
0 (0,2 2)
(1984)


0 (0,0 9)
McDonalel al (1984)
Cement manufacture
Naw Orleana
plants

0 4 (0. 1 6)
Hugheet al
(19B7)


0 2 (0 028.14)
Hugheet a. (1987)
Teitltes
South Carolint
plant
2 8 Demenetal(1983)
2 5 McOonalef al. (1963a)
2 4 (0 81.5 6)
1 15 (0 22,4 9)
Damanei a/. (1994
raw data)
McDonaldl al
(1983a)


Oil ; i 037, 0 25)
0 088 (0002, 1.6)
per comm Dement (
McDonalel a. (1983a
Crecldellt Mining and Milling
Whitenoom,
Austialia

0 47 (0 08.6 9)
DeKlerk, unpublist
data

7 9 (3 5. IB)
DeKlerk, unpublishet
Amoatte Insulation manutecti
Patterson. NJ
lactory
Tyler, Texas
factory
4 3 Seidmen (1984)
2 6 (0 17,27)
0 13 (0,6 6)
Seidman (1986)
Levins) a, (1998)
32
Seidman (1984)
3 9 (0 74.20)
Seidman (1986)
Tnmllto Vermiculita mimi ir
Libby, Montan

0 61 (0 04,5 3)
0 64 (0 025.4 7)
(1987)
(1986)


MIn4 Friction Product!
British lactory
0.058 Barry and Newhouaa (1
0 058 (0,2 4)
Betty and Newhou!
(1983)




Cement manufacture
Ontario tactoo
Naw Orleans
plants
Swediih planl
Belgium tacloi
4 8 Finkelttein (1983)
0 53 Weiletal, (1979); Weill
1 2 (0, 29)
0 4 (0. 1 6)
0 07 (0,25 9)
0 (0,0 84)
Finkelttein (1984)
Hugheet al (1987)
Albiref a/ (1990)
Laqueelal.(1980)
12
Finkelttein (1983
18 (2 1, 149)
0 3 (0 062, 1 4)
Finkelttein (1984)
Hughael«/ (1987)
Factory wot tart
U S ratiraat
Asbastos, Quat
0 49 Henderson and Entarlii
0 15 (0011. 1)
(1986)


0092 (0 02,0 35)
Uddall el al (1997X
U.S. Insulatioi
Insulation applicator worked
0 75 SelikoHef al, (1979)
0 4 (0 012.5 1)
Selikoll and Seidm.
(1991)
15
SalikoK atal (197
1 3 (0 25, 6 5)
Selikofl end Seidman
Teatiles
Pennsylvania pi
Rochedala.
England plan
14 McDonalafaf. (1983b)
1.1 Palo (1980)
18 (0 073.16 5) (1983b)
0 9 (0 16,5) Palo (1985)
1
Palo (1980); Pel
et al (1982)
1 1 (0 13,8 8)
1 31 (0 28, 5 6)
McDonalel al (1983t
Peto(1985)
A.40	Revision 1-B/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 2
Cancer of Lung, Trachea, or Bronchus by Cumulative Exposure
Level among Workers in Quebec Chrysotile Mines and Mills
Lidded e/af., (1997)
Deaths from Cancer of lung, trachea, or bronchus
Observed SMR Expected Predicted by model
mppfc-y
f-y/ml



(a=1)
(a estimated)
1.5 (<3)
4.71
75
1.12
67.0
67.1
77.0
6.5 (3-10)
20.41
64
1.27
50.4
50 8
58.2
20 (10-30)
62.6
61
1.03
59.2
60.6
69.2
45 (30-60)
141.3
60
1.32
45.5
48.1
54.3
80 (60-100)
251.2
61
1.45
42.1
46.4
51.8
150 (100-200)
471
67
1.27
52.8
63.0
68.8
250 (200-300)
785
35
1.1
31.8
42.1
44.8
350 (300-400)
1099
29
1.46
19.9
28.8
30.1
700 (400-1000)
2198
88
1.84
47.B
91.1
89.9
1500 (>1000)
4710
47
2.97
15.8
46.5
43.0
Goodness of fit p-value



0.18
0.58
Test of H>:
p * 0.01
Estimates of KL (ty/mlf*
(a® 1)
KL-0.00041
90% CI: (0.00032, 0.00051)
(a variable)
KL - 0.00029
90% CI: (0.00019,0.00041)
A.41
Revision 1-8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 3
Lung Cancer Mortality among Chrysotiie Asbestos
Miners in Balangero, Northern Italy
	 Plolatlo et a/., (1990)	
Number of Lung Cancer Deaths
Predicted
f-y/m>	Observed Expected (a = 1) (avariable)
50 ( < 100)
4
5.1
5.2
4.9
250 (100-400)
8
6.1
6.6
6.4
600 (> 400)
10
8.7
10.5
10.7
Goodness of Fit P-value

•
0.75
0.45
Test of a=1
p = 0.42
Estimates of KL (f-y/mlf1
(a = 1 )
KL = 0.00035
90% CI = (0.0, 0.0015)
(a variable)
KL = 0.00051
90% CI = (0.0, 0.0057)
A.42
Revision 1 - 8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 4
Lung Cancer Mortality among Workers In a Chrysotlle
Asbestos Friction Products Plant In Connecticut
McDonaldef a/., (19B4)
Number of Lung Cancer Deaths
Predicted
mppcf-y f-y/ml SMR Observed Expected (a = 1) (avariable;
5 (< 10)
15
167.4
55
32.9
338
49.0
15 (10-20)
45
101.7
6
5.9
6 4
8.8
30 (20-40)
90
105.4
5
4.7
5 5
7.1
60 (40-60)
160
162.8
6
3.7
4.9
5 5
110 (>=80)
330
55.22
1
1.8
2.9
2.7
Goodness of Fit P-value




0.01
0.28
Test of hb: a=1
p < 0.01
Estimates of KL (f-y/mlj1
(«=1)
KL = 0.0019
90% CI = (0.0, 0.0061 )
(a variable)
KL - 0.0
90% CI "(0.0, 0.0017)
A.43
R«vt»lon 1-8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 5
Mesothelioma Mortality among Connecticut Friction Product Plant Workers
McDonald ef a/., (1984)
Years After First Exposure
Duration ol
Exposure
f/ml
Person-
Years
Number of Mesothelioma
Observed P,edic'oc!
by model
22 14-34
39 34+
8.04
6.04
5.5
5.5
37742
9420
0
0
0.4
0.9
Goodness of Fit P-value = 1
Estimate of KM (f-^3I ml)1
Km *10®= 0
90% CI * 1(?= (0,0.12)
A.44
Ration 1 -8/28/0t

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 6
Lung Cancer Mortality among Workers Employed In Two Asbestos Cement
Manufacturing Plants In New Orleans, Louisiana
Hughes e( a/., (1987)




Number of Lung
Cancer Deaths






Predicted
mppcf-y
f-y/ml
Observed
Expected (a
= 1)
(a variable)
Plant 1 Employees





4.0
(<6)
5.6
3
2.9
3.0
3.4
13.0
(6-24)
18.2
9
6.0
8.6
96
35.0
(25-49)
49.0
2
3.7
4.4
4.8
74.0
(50-99)
103.6
3
3.8
5.4
5.5
163.0
(>= 100)
256.2
5
4.1
8.3
7.7
Plant 2 Employees





3.0
(<6)
4.2
20
18.9
19.2
21.8
12.0
(6-24)
16.6
19
14.5
15.5
17.3
36.0
(25-49)
50.4
12
6.0
7.2
7.7
71.0
( 50 - 99 )
99.4
10
5.5
7.7
7.9
164.0
V
n
o
o
229.6
12
5.2
9.9
9.4
Goodness of Fit P-value	0.44	0.42
Test of Ho: a=1
p = 0.10
Estimates of KL (f-y/mi;1
(a = 1)
KL = 0.0040
90* CI » (0.0015, 0.0070)
(a variable)
KL = 0.0025
90% CI a ( 0 ,0.0066;
A.45
Region 1-6/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quota
Figure 7
Lung Cancer Mortality among South Carolina Chrysolite Asbestos Textile Worker
Cumulative Exposur	Predicted
Mean Category Observed Expected (a = 1) (avariable) PYR
6.14 o
7
6.8
6.6
8.3
34950.4
1.33 10.8,2)
11
9.3
96
11.6
13213.7
2.90 (2,4)
12
9.2
10.0
11.9
11964.5
6.53 [4,10)
19
11.0
13.0
15.1
14615.1
19.35 (10,35)
19
119
18.4
20.2
14793.3
54.73 (35,85)
21
8.5
21.7
22.1
88007
143.35 (>=85)
33
6.6
33.5
32.0
4649.9
Totals i
122
63.4
113.2
121.2
102996.4
Goodness of Fit


0.92
0.96

Test of H>: a = 1
p value 0.21
Estimates of KL (f-y/ml;1
(a® 1)
KL« 0.028
90% CI = (0.021, 0.037)
(a variable)
KL« 0.021
90% CI = ( 0.012, 0.034 )
A.40
Rsv*«lon 1-8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 10
Asbestos Workers In Wittenoom. Australia
DeKlerk
Predicted
f-y/ml Observed Expected
(a=1)
(a variable)
0 5 4.0
4.6
6.6
0.192881 27 7.9
8.0
17.0
0.692009 11 8.2
8.3
17.6
1.58918 22 11.6
12.1
24.9
3.27249 28 12.9
140
27.9
6.19474 38 14.3
16.7
31.4
11.8112 31 13.2
17.4
29.8
21.5285 21 9 2
14 5
21 6
41.0693 25 11.6
24.5
29.6
142.283 43 11.6
56.5
41.6
Tolals 251 105.1
178.6
250.99999
Goodness of Fit P-value
<0.01
0.10
Test of Hi: «=1


p < 0.01


Estimates of KL (f-y/ml)"1


(a = 1 )


KL = 0.027


90% CI = ( 0.020,0.035)


(a variable)


KL = 0.0047


90% CI = (0.0017, 0.0087)


A.49
Revision 1-6/20/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quota
Figure 11
Lung Cancer Mortality by Cumulative Exposure among Amoslte Asbestos
Factory Workers In Patterson, New Jersey
Seidman etal., (1066)
Deaths from Cancer of Lung
Observed Expected	Predicted

f-y/ml


(a-1)
(a estimated)
3
(<6)
15
5.3
6.3
18.2
9
(6-12)
12
2.9
4.5
10.5
185
(12-25)
15
34
7.3
13.5
37.5
(25-50)
13
2.8
9 3
13.0
75
(50-100)
17
2.4
13.5
14.3
125
(100-150)
9
1.5
13.1
11.7
200
(150-250)
15
1.3
17.7
13.9
375
(250+)
15
0.9
22.9
15.8
Goodness of fit p-value


< 0.01
0.90
Test of Ho: u=1
p = < 0.01
Estimates of KL (f-y/ml)
(a " 1)
KL * 0.062
90% CI - ( 0 050, 0.076 )
( a variable)
KL = 0.011
90% CI = ( 0.0058, 0.019)
A.50
Revision 1 - 6/20/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quoto
Figure 12
Mesothelioma Mortality among Amosite Insulation Workers in New Jersey
Seldman et al.. (1986)
Years After First Exposure
Duration of
Exposure
f/ml
Person-
Years
Number of Mesothelioma:
Observed P,6dlc>c'' b»
model
7.5
(5-9)
1.5
46.9
3952
0
0.0
12.5
(10-14)
1.5
48.3
3628
0
0.1
17.5
(15-19)
1.5
44.1
3198
0
1.1
22.5
(20 24)
1.5
43.2
2656
2
2.8
27.5
(25-29)
1.5
40.3
2094
5
4.2
32.5
( 30-34)
1.5
33.5
1576
8
4.4
37.5
(35-39)
1.5
31.1
1086
2
4.3
Goodness of Fll P-value = 0.35
Estimate of KM (f-y/ml)1
KM * 10® « 3.9
90%CI*1CP" (2.6,5.7)
A.51
Revision 1-8/28/01

-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 13
Lung Cancer Deaths among Asbestos Workers In Tyler, Texas
Levin ef a/., (1998)
Predicted
Ouration
f/rnl
f-y/ml
Observed Expected
a = 1
a variable
0.25
(<0.5)
45
11.25
23
0 9
10.15
22.45
0.75
(0.5-1)
45
33.75
3
1.1
1.50
2.86
3
(1-5)
45
135
4
1.8
4.84
5.28
7.5
(>5)
45
337.5
6
1.5
7.83
5.42
Goodness of fit p value




<0.01
0.81
Test of H>: a s 1
p value < 0.01
Estimates of KL (f-y/mlf1
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 14
Lung Cancer Mortality by Cumulative Exposure among
Vermiculite Mine and Mill Workers near Libby, Montana
	Amandus and Wheeler, (1987)	
Deaths from Cancer of Lung
Observed Expected Predicted
f-y/ml	(g~1) (a estimated)
25
(<50)
6
4.0
4.6
5.0
75
(50-99)
2
1.4
2.0
2.1
250
(100-399)
2
1.9
4.8
4.8
600
(>=400)
10
1.7
8.1
8.0
Goodness of fit p-value	0.41	0.25
Test of l-b: a=1
p ¦ 0.40
Estimates of KL (f-y/ml;1
(a=1)
KL= 00061
90% CI = (0.0029, 0.010)
(a variable)
KL a 0.0051
90% CI ¦ (0.0011, 0.020)
A.53
Ravtslon 1 - 0/28/01
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 15
Lung Cancer Mortality by Cumulative Exposure among
Vermlcullte Miners near Llbby, Montana
McDonald e( at., (1986)
Deaths from Cancer of Lung
Observed Expected	Predicted
f-y/ml


(a=D
(a estimated)
12.5 (0-25)
7
3.4
39
69
77.3 ( 25-200)
5
25
46
63
332.4 ( 200-500]
7
09
4.2
4.1
836.1 ( >«500)
4
0.7
7.0
5.8
Goodness of fit p-value


0.16
0.26
Test of K»: U=1
p = 0.06
Estimates of KL (f-y/mi)1
(a-1)
KL-0.011
90% CI: (0.0055, 0.017)
(a variable)
KL » 0.0039
90% CI: (0.00067, 0.012)
A.54
Rmtelon 1-8/2001
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 16
Mesothelioma Mortality among Employees of an Ontario Asbestos Cement Factory
Finkelstein, (1984)
Years After First Exposure
Duration of
Exposure
f/ml
Person-
Years
Mesotheliomas
Number per 10 3
_ Observec
Person-Years
Predicted
by model
12
(10-14)
0.7
9.0
2500
0.4
1
0.0
17
(15-19)
6.7
9.0
2500
0.4
1
14
22
(20-24)
8.7
9.0
2982.96
2.7
8
7.0
27
( 25 - 29)
8.7
9.0
2083.49
6.3
13
12.8
32
( 30 - 34 )
8.7
9.0
825
9.6
8
7.2
Goodness of Fit P-value ¦ 0.26
Estimate of KM (f-y3/ml)1
KM * 10* * 18
90% CI* 10* « (13,24)
A. 55
R«v»tlon 1 -8/20/01
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 17
Mesothelioma Mortality among Employees of an Ontario Asbestos Cement Factory
Finkelstein. (1984)
Mesotheliomas
Years After First Exposure
Duration of
Exposure
f/ml
Person-
Years
Number per 103
Person-Years
Observec
Predicted
by model
12
(10-14)
67
90
2500
0.4
1
0.0
17
(15-19)
67
90
2500
0.4
1
1.4
22
(20 - 24 )
6.7
9.0
2962.96
2.7
8
7.6
27
(25-29)
6.7
9.0
2063.49
6.3
13
12.8
32
(30 - 34 )
6.7
9.0
625
96
6
7.2
Goodness of Fit P-value = 0.26
Km *10®	18.045667	Km*10» Lower' 1tf Upper* 1(?
LL	29.095965	18.04567 13.0797 24.133062719641
1B.045667	29.09597 27.743 27.74295218448
L(K')-L(K)-1.645 -1.3530125
Estimate of KM (f-yVml)1
KM* 10®= 18
90% CI * Itf = (13,24)		
A. 56
Revision 1 - 8/28/01
-------
Erjuat ian?
CO. 1,
.0000
>40
20-30, >30,
.0000
20-JO, 30-<0
20-30, >30.
3. T2O0E-O3
<20, 20-40, 40-60, >60
0.1-0.2, 0.2-0.3,
.5301	3
10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
.'552	.0000
AR<100,
.0000
100
5-10, 10-20. 20-10, 10-10, 40-50,
-IV29/IW -1	"PS PCH <5. 5 10. 10-20, >20
I f ^	5.22<»n''f 6.T064E-05
05/29/1 992" -'# 52:42- "SC PCM
000	i ".^Ht-02 .0000
-W:53:Ol- "SC PCM
l20riK «M 'i - 2222E-04
<»%/•"•'1 'l**m "17:53:06" "SC PCM 20-30, >30. AR< fO40.
>09	.0000	.0000	.2265	0.O142E-O2
15/29/1992* "17:54:OS" "SC PCM <5. 5-10, 10-20. >20
419	4.7177C-03 7.9309E-05
15/29/1992- "17:54:11- "PS PCM <5
DOO	.0000	2.76356-02 4.6469E-04 .5740	.0000
66006-03
05/29/1992* "17:55:00* *PS(no C or M1PCH <5, 5-10, 10-20,
000	.0000	1.75096-02 4 39166*02 .6920
.2966-03
05/29/1992" "17:55:34" *SC00	9.79856*03 .0000	.0000 ' .0000	1.5661E-03
*5/29/1992" "17:56:50" "PS PCM 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, <0.2, 0.2-0.3,
>32	.1111	.0000	.0000	6.4 495E-02 .5343
15/29/1992" "17:56;54" "SC PCM 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, <0.2, 0.2-0-3,
000	.0000	4.9612C-02 .1239	.0000	1.2642E-10
05/29/1992* "17:57:02" *SC PCH <5, 510, 10-20, >20, <0.25, >0.25
000	.0000	.0000	2.57666-02 2.3627E-10 4.O202E-O3
05/29/1992- -17:57:16- "SC PCME(SC| <5, 5-10, 10-20, >20
0I2IC-U 4.059OC-0J 3.4073E-05
05/29/1992" "17:57:20- T0C PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, >20, <0,25, >0.25
0.3-0.4,
12B2Z-I\
>0 . 4
4.3022E-0)
5. 1 364E 03
5-60, >
. 0000
<0.2, >0.2
.2440
200, AR>200
.484 1
-6.0482E-09
50-60.
. 30 4 9
>60,
c0.2, >0.2
I .2 251E-0 2
20-30. 30-40, 40-50. 50-60. >60,
.2466	.0000	.0000
<0.2, >0.2
.0000
40-50, 50-60, >60. <0
.0000	.3393
.2, >0.2
.0000
0.15-0.25,
45206-02
°5
0. 15
.17 7 6
0.25,
0.25-0.35,
0000
0.25-0.35,
.0000
0.15-0.25,
. 1467
0.15-0.25,
.0000
Q-J-0.4
7.5079E-OJ
0.3-0.4
5.0 996E-0 3
>0.35
3024
>0. 35
. oooo
0.25-0.35,
. 14 6 7
0.25-0-35,
.4401
9.4402E01
-1 . 7330E-OB
4.3492E-10
>0.35
3.57 40E-11
>0.35
-3.00406-00
1.10906-02
1 .09736-03
MLC
-62.1949
-60.5687
-60.7224
-60.9782
-61.1790
-60.1211
. 0000
-59.0032
4.12426-03
-61.7031
-59.6135
. 0000
-59.5425
.0000
-60.5424
.0000
-59.1475
4.40916-03
-59.3960
4.2216C-03
-59.0255
3. 4723E-03
-50.9000
4. 15766 03
-59.6295
-59.0333
-61.4230
-60.4900
-61 .5539
ChiSqtiAte DF
10.14	11
1 3.56
13.09
14.77
\5.12
13.15
.0000
12.00
6.7554E-03
17. 00
12.25
. 0000
L3.53
. 0000
14.20
.0000
11.	74
1.90616-02
12.	It
2. 62406-03
13.54
4 . 94566-03
1 1 . 67
2.14 21E- 02
12.32
1 K 22
15-59
14.03
15. 72
10
I	0
u
10
.0000
0
II
7
. 0000
9
.0000
6
10
5
7
1
0
10
1 I
9
P-va hie
7.0315E-0?
9.403BE-0?
. I 70?
. 1 407
. 1772
.2155
f Irl pnt 5 1
.0000	.0000
.0000	.2012
J.66T7E-02 3.2929F.-
.0000	.7915
.0000	I.000
.ooon	.oooo
302 56 10 2.9064E 03
. 1109
. 10BO
9. 2727E 02
-I .5614E
9 . 4J40E-O2
1 . 9J32E
.1155
-2 .02 ?7E-
6.7916E-02
.2 m
1 8790E 02
. 1 120
9.052 9E-02
1997
.1119
.2312
1 . 3068F. 02
. 0000
. 0000
. 2092
. OOOO
.0000	,0000
00 5.6502E 03
.0000	.0000
10 4.4931E-03
.0000	.0000
10 3.02O0E 03
. 1315
. oooo
1467
9.0451E-O2
nooo
9.? f64E-02
.0000
. oooo
<1000
.oooo
.0000
.0000
.0000
5.2 419E 0
.0000
. oooo
. oono
. 00 iw
-------
J.I396E 03 .0000	4.0 616E- 02 .0000
-05/29/1992" mn:5hnm 'SC PCH 5-10, 10-20, 2O-J0, >30
1.2799E-13 4.2022E-OJ 2.1632E-04
-05/29/1992" "17:57:42" "SC PCM, AA>10
4.2799E-13 4.2B22E-03 2.1632E-04
-05/29/1992- "17:57:46" "SC PCM. AR>I0. 510, 1020, >20,
0000	2.5766E-02 1.94BOE-11 4.0282E-03 1.0973E-01
-05/29/1992" "17:57:54" "SC PCM, 10-20, >20, <0.1, 0.1-0
.0000	3.9377E-02 .3501	.0000	-2.6301E-10
6.2996E-0J 4.2436E 03 1.6O13E-03
5-10, 10-20, 20-30, >30
<0.25,
0 . 25
2, 0.2-0.5,
3.7544E-03 i.
>0.5
900 J£- 0 J
-61.6197
-61.6197
-61.4 2 30
- 60.82 4 3
16. \B
16. IB
1559
15. 06
10	9 . 4 62 IF. 02
10 9.4 62 4E-02
10	. 1 119
9	8.91NE-02
.0000	l.f|
.0000	i.iti
.0000 . OQqq1
.6025 .0000
-------
4*««(	.•.•,t,l.»E-02 • 042 4E-02
'iin/M/l'W** -lS:DO »•," "SC PCM 5- 40, >40, with W <0.5 and AR>-5, >5
ii-|4fi	2.9B80F.	I . 54 30E--02
••06/24/1992- -IS:UU:46- "SC PCM 5-40, >40. with W <0.5 and AR>-10, >5
ga«6	j.ihiihk-02 1.54 30E-02
-06/24/1992" *15:00:56" "SC PCH 5-40, >40, with W <0.5 and Afi>-20, >5
qj|7	' U005E-O2 1.5106E-O2
**06/24/1 t'li" "15:01:00" "SC PCH 5-40. >40. with H <0.5 and AR>-30, >5
q?M	2.7747E-02 1.51S2E-02
"06/2-1/1992" "15:01:01" "SC PCH <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50 (no discharged chrysotile)
2 JOIIC-02 9.2428E-02 4.8158E-02 .8364	2-4594E-02 7.7B40E-03
-06/24/I992- *15:01:13" "SC PCH 5-40, >40, with N <0.3, >5 (and all structures AR>-3) (no discharged!
_!102	2.4254E-02 7.1138E-02
"06/24/1992* "15:01:18" "SC PCH 5-40, >40, with W <0.5 and AR>-20, >5 (no discharged chrysotilel
9926	2.6968C-02 1.6049E-O2
"06/25/1992" "10:20:00" "SC H(I6> 5-40, >40 ind <0.3, >5
S.S967C-02 2-9951E-02 .2335
"06/25/1992" "10:28:0'" "SC H(14) 5-40, >40 and <0.3, >5
7.1229E-02 2.3175E-02 .2276
"06/25/1992" "10:26:1)** "SC H(16> 5-40, >40 and <0.3, >5 (no discharged chrysotile)
.1014	2.6936E-02 .2021
"06/25/1992" "10:28:17" "SC M(l4l 5-<0, >40 and <0.3, >5 (no discharged chrysotile)
.1164	2.1490E-02 .1998
"06/25/1992" "10:28:21" "SC PCH <5, 5-10, 10 20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50, and <0.3, >5
4.2994E-04 .0000	1.705OE-O3 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	3.3391E-02 .2012
"06/25/1992" "10:30:25" "SC PCH 5-40, >40 and 0.1-0.3, >5
.1407	2.5473E-02 7.0764E-02
"06/25/1992" "10:30:30" "SC PCH 5-40, >40 and 0.2-0.3, >5
.1429	2.5396E-02 6.8760E-02
"06/25/1992" "10:53:03" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with >5, <0.3 and AR>-10
.8530	2.5612E-02 7.0424E-02
"86/25/1992" "10:30:41" "SC PCH 5-40. >40 with <0.3 and AR>-20, >5
. 1471	2.5544E-02 6.9620E-02
"06/25/1992* *10:30:47" "SC PCH 5-40, >40 with <0.4 and AR>-5, >5
.1005	2.5652E-02 4.227SE-02
*06/25/1992* *10:30:51" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with <0.4 and AR>-20, >5
.1296	2.5806E-02 4.0611E-02
"06/25/1992" *10:31:15" *SC PCM 5-40, >40 with <0.3
.1140
T06/25/1992" *10:31:16" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with >5
1.5U4E-02
"86/25/1992" "10:53:06" "PS PCM 5-40, >40 and <0.3, >5
.957)	2.7270E-02 1.2536E-02
*06/25/1992* *10:32:46* "FBC PCH 5-40, >40 and <0.3 (there are no fibers >5)
-279.469
-279.469
-278.500
-277 . 782
-255.492
-2 48 .899
-253.154
27. 19
27. 19
24.89
22.81
20.01
8.027
18. 1)
10	1.58 75E-0)	1 .648HE- 0 3	.0000
10	I.5075E-O3	1.6480E 01	.0000
10	4.7 281E-01	6.817 2E- 0 3	.0000
10	I.064 6E -02	1.245BE-02	.0000
fl	9.4M2E-03	.0000	.0000
9	.5311	1.7527E-03	.0000
10	5.2069E -02	7.4254F.-03	.0000
- 320.420
-286.209
-294.603
260.649
-272.108
.0000
-272.938
-272.985
-272.935
-272.902
-274.247
-274.223
-277.690
-299.923
-276.320
-277.76?
7 .1480
4.0372E-02 2.5783E-G2 .1943
.2734	t „ 8856E-0 3
65.65
40.07
56.01
32.11
10. 78
H2E-02
12. 17
12.21
12. 19
12.14
14.82
14.82
22.79
81.71
19.51
22. 97
12
10
11
9
.0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
I .2664E-O 3
I . 1053E-O3
1.6400E-O 3
I .4970E-07
. 0000
.2706
.2716
. 2)51
10
10
1Q
10
9
9
11- 1.8207E 02
11	.0000
10	3.3427E 02
11	1 . 7084E-02
3 . 4 3 36E-0 3
.0000
1 8812E-03
9.5423K-02 2.2016E-03
9.5210E-O2 2.8966E 01
. 9986
. 7287
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.7 V 7 6E-03
.0000
1.58 3 55 02
1	. U54E-02
2	. 828 4 E 02
5 .5902E-02
2. 1545E 02 2.11 I 6f. 02
.9086	2	0?
-------
I 19
>6/25/1W "10:32:49" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 and <0.3, >5 (no discharged rhrysotilel
MO	2 - 4251E-02 6.S809E-02
06/25/1992- -10:32:56" "PS PCM 5-40, >40 and <0.3. >5 (no discharqed chcysotile)
•	285	2.4971E02 1.238BE-02
•16/25/1992" "10:32:59" "FBC PCH 5-40, >40 and <0.3 (there are no fibers >5| (no discharge! chrysotile)
133
1)6/25/1992" "10:33:01" "SC PCMU6) 5-40, >40 and <0.3, >5
)32	3.9J79E-02 6.9539E02
1)6/25/1992" "10:53:11" "SC PCM(16) 5-40, >40 with >5, <0.3. (no disch,)rjed chrysotile)
193	3,7799E-02 6.2BB4E-02
06/26/1992" "15:45:42" "SC PCH <5, >5 with W <0.3. >5
•799	3.5380E-02 4.1B29E-03
06/26/1992" "15:45:47- "SC PCM <5, >5 with * <0.3 and AR>-20, >5
079	3.4927E-02 4.1831E-03
'Q6/26/1992" "15:45:49" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with AR>-20, >5 (4 categories)
•	929	2.7947E-02 1.4448E-02
06/26/1992" "15:45:52" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with <0.3, 0.3-5, >5
-000	.8530	-1453	2.5612E-D2 7.0424E-02
06/26/1992" "15:46:03" "SC PCH 5-40, >40 with <0.3, >5 (bat e*clude aLl M and HS)
i 453	2.5612E 02 7.0424E-02
06/26/1992" "15:46:08" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with <0.3, >5 12 studies)
8526E-02
06/26/1992" *15:46:08" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with <0.3, >5 <2 studies)
2764E-02
•06/26/1992*' "15:46:20" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with <0.3, >5 (chrysostlle only)
I287E-02 3.21HE-02 .1319
06/26/1992" "15:46:30" *SC PCM 5-40, >40 with <0.3, >5 lamphlboles only)
1014	2.47 72E-02 8.5164E-02
¦06/26/1992" "IS:46:32" "SC PCH 5-40, >40 with <0.3 and AB>-20, >5 (2 studies)
7677E-02
'06/26/1992* *15:46:32* "SC PCM 5-40. >40 with <0.3 and AR>-20, >5 (2 studies)
2156E-02
*06/26/1992" "15:46:42" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with <0.3 and AR>-20, >5 (chrysotile onlyl
3975E-02 3.2170E-02 .1252
*06/26/1992" "15: 46:50" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with <0.3 and AK>-20, >5 (ajnphiboles only)
1018	2.411BE-02 8.4964E-02
•06/26/1992* *17:18:46" *SC PCM 5-40, >40 with >5 (C and CS onlyl, <0.3 (fBC onlyl <2 itudienl
6976E-02
*06/26/1992" "17:18:46" "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with >5 (C and CS only), <0.3 (FBC only) (2 studies)
S613C-02
'06/26/1992* *17:19:12* *SC PCM 5-40, >40 with >5 (C and CS only), <0.3 (FBC only) (chrysotile only)
*546	3.21716-02 .1304
*06/26/1992* "17:19:48* "SC PCM 5-40, >40 with >5 (C and CS only), <0.3 (FBC only) (amphiboles only)
248.966
252.063
255.100
309.395
205 . 390
294.5*0
294.170
2 J 1 .958
272.935
2)2.935
300.312
300.312
199.150
100.725
300.286
300.286
199.150
100.723
300.289
300.209
199.150
100.724
3.273
I	4 .90
21 .02
49.04
45.29
61.95
fil - 28
23.15
12.19
12.19
11.46
II	. 46
8. 438
2.344
11.41
11.41
8.438
2.337
11 . 34
11.34
8. 4 38
2.34)
0 4067	I 9186E-03
9 9 . 3 i 66E -02 1.7562E02 5. 3984* H|'
1.5245E-02
. 0000
. 00 )0
.0000
. 0000
1.6UJ0E 02
0 . 2"11 6
0 -2T16
9 .2151
9 .2451
3 3.7O44E-02
3 .5038
9 .2481
9 .2491
3 3.7048E-02
3 .5051
9 IBM
8 .18*4
3 3.70I4E-02
3 .5013
. 9905
1	. U50E-03
. 0000
.0000
. 0000
7. 1418E-0 3
1.7176E-03
1.7176E-03
. 1256
.1256
7.3631E-04
2.2569E04
. 1203
. 1283
B . 5J21E 04
2	6046E-04
B 90 3
*90 3
1 . il 15E-02
0000
2. 77S7e-<,2
. 0000
2	. 151 lt-03
.0000
. 0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
3	. 3S96E-02
2 . 1933E-02
1	.5232E-02
. 0000
3.3499E-02
2. I909E-02
1.4942E-02
. 0000
1.3 t 30E-02
2	I 7 8 4 E -02
1.5254t-04
2. 1182E-04
-------
"06/16/1992" -I-, -vi,..,
¦ 0000	2.O0l.'r.-'it
"06/16/1992"
1.0688E-02
"06/16/1992- -I-IS"
1.1243E-02 •:./'U4E-02
"06/16/1	"16:20:42"
7.3058E-02 .1151
"06/16/lv»2" "15:58:04
.1135	4.1740E-02
-06/16/1992" "15:SB:14
9.8803E-02 J.6726E-02
-06/16/1992- "16:37:21"
.1492	.1710	I
-00/16/1992- "15:58:39"
2372	.1225
-06/16/1992- "15:58:46"
^.3S«9C-02 2.4707E-02
-06/16/1992" -15:58:54-
.0000	4.5497E-04
-06/16/1992- -15:59:39*
.0000	7.68S6E-03
PCM
/ 91 7
"SC PCM
.7160
"SC PCM
.2171
"SC PCM
.3195
"SC PCM
.2284
*SC PCM
1.311 IE-1
"SC PCM
.B609E-04
"SC PCM
. 3545
"SC PCM
.2394
"SC PCM
.0000
"SC PCM
.7128
<5f 5-40, >40 and >8, <0.3
2.7267E-02 6.578BE-02
<8, 8-40. >40 and >«. <0.3
2.5S65E-02 5.41I7E-02
<10, 10-40, >40 and <0.3, >8
2.4137E 02 5.6716E-02
<15. IS-40, >40 and <0.3, >8
2.3806E-02 3.7739E-02
<10, 10-30, >10 and >8. <0.3
2.3632E-02 1.8589E-02
<10, 10-50, >50 and >8, <0.3
1 2.4535E-02 2.2019E-02
>50, 20-50, <20 and >8, <0.3
2.3804E-02 2.4382E-02
<10, 10-40, >40 and AR>"100 or W>"9 {6 categories)
2.45JJE-02 3.6979E-02
<5, 5-10, 10-20. 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
.0000	.0000
<5. S-10. 10-20. 20-10,
2-2876E-0 3 .0000
<10, 10-40, >40 and >8,
2.6190E-02 6.5721E-02
2.3420E-02
30-40. 40-50,
.0000
<0.3 (with AR>
>50 and AR>-150 or K>-8 (14 cat.
8.5612E-02 7.6892E-02 .1257
>S0 and >8, <0.3 (with AR>-3I
.0000	.9000	.0000
Jl
-06/17/1992"
.0000	6.
-06/17/1992"
0000	6.
-06/17/1992"
. 0000
-06/17/1992"
.0000
-06/17/1992"
.0000
-06/17/1992"
0000
"06/17/1992"
2.0354E-02
"06/17/1992"
0000	3.
*06/17/1992"
1034	1.
"06/17/1992*
1.772IE-04
-06/17/1992-
0000	1.
1 -14:24:32- "SC PCM <5,
4848E-04 .0000	3
' -14:25:51" "SC PCM <5.
4849E-04 .0000	3
-14:28:12" "SC PCM <5,
0000	.2027
1	-14:32:50- "SC PCM <5.
0000	.0000
-14:33:09" "SC PCM <40
0000	7-7411C-01
•14:33:41" "SC PCM <40
0000	.0000
•14:33:51" "SC PCM <10
S-10, 10-20, 20-30,
.24 79E-03 .0000
5-10, 10-20, 20-30,
¦2479E-03 .0000
5-10, 10-20, 20-30,
.0000	.0000
5- It), 10 -20, 20-30,
.0000	9.3260E-02
30-40, 40-50,
.0000
30-40, 40-50.
.0000
30-40, 40-50,
.0000
30-40, 40-50,
.0000
>40 and <0.2, 0.2-0.3, 0.3-0.4
.0000
.2327
•14:34:07"
9432E-02 8.
"14:34:13"
4351E-02
•14:45i23*
.5564
"SC PCM <10
57B6E-02 2
"SC PCM <10
6578 2
"SC PCM <5,
.0000
.3, 0.3-0.4
.0000
>8 (chrysot
.0000	6.IS2SC-04
•15:45:33" "SC PCM <5,
S961E-03 .0000	4
. 4238
>40 arid <0.2, 0.2-0
.0000	3.1406E-02
10-40. >40 and <0.3,
3.6817E-02 4.S930E-05
10-40, >40 and <0.3. >8 (amphibolest
.33566-02 8.8092E-02
10-40, >40 and >9, <0.4
.4091E-02 3.44S8E-02
5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
.0000	7.1379E-03 .0000
5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
.1331E-02 .0000	.0000
>50 and >8
4.9158E-02
>50 and >8
4.9158E-02
>50 and >8
. 3859
>50 and >8
.0000
0.4-2
.0000
, 0.4-2
. 8748
ilel
2-
2-
<0.3 and AR»-10
.0000	.0000
<0.3 and AR>«3
.0000	.0000
<0.3 Ichrysotllel
.2964	.0000
<0.3 (amphiboles)
5.5979E-02 .0000
5, 5-8, >8 (chrysotlle)
.0000	6.5665E-02
5, 5-8, >8 (amphiboles)
.0000	.0000
>50 and	<0.3, >8 (with AR>-10I
.0000	.0000	.2738
>50 and	>8, <0.3 (2 studiesi
.0000 .0000	-2.1416E-05
-2 12 . 87 1
12.51
10 .2515
0000
. 0000
-272.805
12.41
9 .1906
.0000
.0000
-272.895
12.21
8 .1414
1.55 J0E-0 5
.0000
-272.896
12.1 3
8 .14 16
2.I089E-05
. oooo
-274.890
15.82
9 7.0146E-02
.0000
.0000
-274.641
15.42
9 7.9144E-02
.0000
.0000
-275.523
16.03
0 4.U66E-02
.6671
. 0000
-274.361
15.16
9 8.5993E-02
.2858
.0000
-272.330
11.22
1 5.8425E 05
5.64 73E 02
5.6473E-02
8.5612E-02
. 1054
2.7771E-02 .1274


-272.197
10.83
8 .210?
.0000
.0000
.2874
. 5971
2.6318E-02 .1745


-272.968
11.90
9 -2183
.0000
J.9534E-05
-272.198
10.89
7 .1430
. 0000
.0000
.4088
. 4276
2.5808E-02 .1227


-272.198
10.89
7 .1430
. 0000
.0000
.4088
. 4276
2.5808E-02 .1227


-199.146
8.429
2 1.3952E-02
.0000
.0000
.0000
1.1885E-11
3.2157E-02 7 5085E
02

-100.336
1.656
1 .1976
. 0000
.0000
.7515
7.0580E-11
2.3542E-02 .1025


-199.147
8.432
3 3.715 IE - 02
. 0000
.0000
.0000
. 5028
3.2162E-02 2.7220E-
02

-100.379
1 .697
3 .6171
.0000
.0000
.0000
9.3811E -02
2. 3J51E-02 8.8091F;
0?

231.202
165.7
3 .0000
. 1^06
.0000
-100.144
1.655
3 .646^1
. 0000
.0000
-273.352
13.00
9 1 61r
0000
.0000
-275.830
16.52
7 9.074?E-0l
. 0000
. oooo
.0000
-1.0060E-10
2.594<*E 02 .3142


-301.025
12.62
8 .12 a
. 0000
. oooo
3.1O06E-O2
I.fl ?08E- 02



-------
<09	.0000	.3555	2.5908E02 3.4600E 02
>6/12/1992* **14:37:15" "FBC AR>-100 OR SC(C and CS only) WIDTH>-5, F'M, <10, 10-40, ><0
•58	.0000	.3621	2-595BE-02 3.4841E-02
>6/12/1992" **14:37:21" "SC PCM <4(1, >40, and <0.3, >0.3
•7576-02 2.55096-02 9.4588E-02
16/12/1992" "16:47:32" "SC PCM <20, 20-40. >40 and >0, <0.3
.406E-02 2.7083E-02 .7421	2.5097E-02 6.9122E-02
>6/15/1992"
1957E-02
>6/15/1992"
' 120E-Q2
>6/15/1992-
•472604
16/15/1992"
>00
16/15/1992*
)00
>6/t5/l992'
JOO
>6/15/1992'
19726-04
>6/15/1992'
.H7E-04
>6/15/1992'
>0936-02
16/15/1992
>5536-02
>6/15/1992
too
>6/15/1992'
>00
>6/15/1992'
>00
>6/15/1992
100
>6/15/1992
>00
>6/15/1992
>00
>6/15/1992
>00	6
"11:06:50" "SC PCM <5, 5-10,
.0000	.0000	.0000
"11:08:19" "SC PCM <5, 5-10.
.0000	2.9985E-02 .0000
"11:08:49" "SC PCM <5, 5-10,
.0000	4.3486E-03 .0000
"11:10:41" "SC PCM <5, 5-10.
0000	1.3893E-03 .0000
-11:12:36" "SC PCM <5, 5-10.
0000	3.7626E-03 .0000
1	•11:14:25" "SC PCM <5, 5-10,
0000	1.6795E-03 .0000
•	"lit 16:10" "SC PCH <3, 3-10,
.0000	4.12966-03 .0000
¦ -11:10:03" "SC PCM <5, 5-8. 8
.0000	2.2255E-03 .0000
' -12:16:10- "SC PCM <5, 5-10,
.0000	8.7093E-Q2 .0000
•	-12:16:21- "SC PCM <5, 5-10,
.0000	.2414	.0000
' -12:16:44- *SC PCM <5. 5-10.
0000	1.3801E-02 .0000
' "12:18:06" "SC PCM <5, 5-10.
0000	4.9098E-03 .0000
' "12:19:28" "SC PCM <5. 5-10.
0000	6.9703E-03 .0000
' -12:20:57- "SC PCM <5, 5-10.
0000	8.1095E-03 .0000
' -12:22:28- "SC PCM <5, 5-10,
0000	5.0759E-03 .0000
' -12:24:05- "SC PCM <5. 5-10.
0000	5.8288E-03 .0000
1	-15:17:15" "SC PCM <5, 5-10.
48486*04 .0000	3.24796
10-20. 20-30, 30-40, 40-50.
4.3341E-02 .0000
10-20, 20-30, 30-40. 40-50.
<0.2, >0
.0000
.0000
10-20. 20-30, 30-40, 40-50.
.0000	.0000
10-20, 20-30. 30-40, 40-50,
5.2414E-02 .0000
10-20. 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
3. 6885E-02 .0000
10-20. 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
3.4904E-03 .0000
10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
.0000	.0000
20. 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >
.0000	.0000
10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
<0. 3,
<0.5,
.
.1419
10-20, 20-30,
.0000
20-30,
10-20,
.0000
30-40, 40-50,
.0000
30-40, 40-50,
3.7693E-02 .0000
10-20, 20-30, 30-40. 40-50.
I.9901E-02 .0000
10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
.0000
10-20, 20-30,
.0000
10-20, 20-30,
-50
.0000
30-40, 40
.0000
30-40, 40-50,
4.7770E-03 .0000
10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
7.2O70E-O4 .0000
10-20. 20-30, 30-40, 40-50,
03 .0000	.0000
>50 *n50 and
.0000
>50 and <0
.0000
>50 and
6.03J5E-02
>50 and <0.6,
. 1015
>50 and <0.8,
6.0160E- 02
>50 and <0.3,
.0000
50 and <0
.0000
>50 with AR>-
.0000
>50 with AR>-
.0000
>50 with AR>
5.33106-02
>50 with AR>-
6. 4082E-01
>50 with AR>-
3 . 0064E-02
>50 with AR>-
2.5890E-02
>50 with AR>-
.0000
>50 with Aft>«
1.0573E-02
>50 and >0,
4.9150E-O2
1 .640SE 03
>0
. 0000
>8
. l?54
>0
. 3 2 80
>8
.4142
>8
.3190
>8
4.22I5E-02
0
6.5672E-02
200 or M>-0
.2037
100 or W>-0
.2577
50 oc W>-0
. 3 3 75
30 oc W>-8
.2060
20 or w>-0
. 24 39
10 or w>-0
.2019
5 or W>-0 (
. 1090
3 or H>-0 I
.1299
0.3
.0000
.0000
.0000
.7476
. 0000
.0000
. 0000
. 4837
. 34 31
(14 cat.)
8.7093E-02
(14 cat.I
.0000
(14 cat. )
.0000
(14 cat.I
. 0000
(14 cat.)
.0000
t14 cat.>
.0000
1 4 cat.I
.0000
14 cat.1
.0000
. 0000
6/16/1992* "15:57:13" "SC PCM <5, 5-30, >30 and >8, <0.3
00	4.74356-03 .5686	2.5768E-02 2.5232E-02
-275.121
-276.137
-273.463
-	296 . 708
. 0000
-	301.032
. 0000
-272 . 385
. 0000
-272.058
. 3594
-273.029
7.002 3E-02
-273.276
. 27 32
-272.209
.0000
-272.224
.0000
-285.792
.0000
-272.200
.2205
-273.057
.3226
-273.632
.6920
-273.360
.5410
-273.866
. 4075
-274.167
. 7 302
-274.231
.6530
-272.198
. 4000
-275.834
16.15
I 7 . 09
12 . 56
70.04
2916
92. 76
.9229
11.	16
7 1 640E-Q2
11.07
.1984
12.	11
.37 17
12.53
. J 3 65
10. 93
1544
11.04
8.4681E-02
53. 7S
. 1092
11.02
2.2922E-02
12.26
. 235 1
13.16
7.0740E-02
12.73
.1701
13.72
. 1565
14.40
. 1430
14.54
. 2000
10.89
. 4 2 7 6
10 9.4596E-02 .4119
.0000
9 4.660OE-02 1.60306-05 1.8285E-04
1262
.0000
9 .0000	.0000
2.B4116-02 l . 62 38E 02
10 .0000	.0000
2 . 5 J59F. 02 5 . 3 7.Uf.-03
9 .1922	.0000
2.5317E-G2 6.1120E 02
7 .1143	.0000
2. 4095E 02 4.680 1E 02
7 9.6200E-02 .0000
2.4532E-02 3.5003E-02
7 0 . 3961E-02 .0000
2.4465E-02 3. 7 091 E -02
7 .1412	.0000
2.5667E-02 9.91 15E- 02
6 8.63186-02 .0000
2.5656E-02 .1429
4	.0000	8.7093E-02
5 . 527 3E-02 .1341
5	5.0JJ5E-02 4.98816-02
2.5260E-02 9.42286-02
6	5.567 4E-02 .0000
2 . 3665E-02 4.48566-02
7	6.7616E-02 .0000
2.3745E-02 6.62646 02
8	.1209	.0000
2.44906-02 5.1541C 02
8 8.6611E-02 .0000
2.S024E-02 J.8497E02
0 7.1042E-02 .0000
2 -5059E-02 5.B00 7E-O2
7 4.1630E-02 .0000
2.5215E-02 5.123BE-02
7 .1410	.nooo
2 . 5808E-02 .1227
18.83
10 4 . 161PE-02
.0000
0.13166-05
. 0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
6 . 2016E-07
9 . 7093E-02
4 .9881E-02
1 .31796-07
.0000
.0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
-------
ifMii.j. J00°
"sc m 60. <0.2,	>0.2
... 1 . 3 3 34E-02 .0000	.0000
10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60, <0.3,	>0.3
		9.9726E-02 5.15636-02 .0000
-12:45:29- "SC PCH.
"SC PCH
.0000	.4960
USING SUM OF (AM-1.8 IHSTEM5 Of THE SUM Or THE MVIHBER Of
MIMICS RJ LEE
"M/l .'/ I'llJ
' . illicit; -i|'
•'Mi/I,VItH" "12:46:51
•¦H/12/1992". -14:25:51- "SC PCH <10, 10-20, 20-30 30-20 and <0 2 0 2 n
.OOOQ	-0000	2.»541e-0J .0000	0000
-0«/.l2/l»»2" "14.-30:01- "SC PCM <30, >30 .nd 60 anrj
.0000	2.14436-02
40-50, 50-60. >60 and ,
.0000
40-50, 50-60,
.0000
3, 0.3-0.4,
. 31 JO
.8731
>60 and
.9036
0.4-2. 2
8.8019E-03
-06/12/1992- "14:31:34
3.90IOE-02 3.7648C-02
~06/I2/l»»2" -14:32,09"
5.SM2E 04 3.2760E-04
-06/12/1992" "14:33:06"
1.1U6E-03 .0000
-06/12/1992" "14:33:22"
2-5,
2-5,
2.	>0.2
. OODO
3.	>0.3
.0000
4.	>0.4
.0000
5. 5 8. >8
.21)8
5, 5-8, >8
5256
5-8, >8
. 0000
5-9, >8
. 7592
"SC PCM <40. >40 »nd <0.2, 0.2-0.3. 0.3-0.4,
.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
•SC PCM <50, >50 and <0.2, 0.2-0.3, Q.3-0.4,
.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
*SC PCH <5, 5-40# >40 and <0.3, >5
.1453	2.5612E-02 7.0424C-02
•sc PCH <5, 5-40, >40 and <0.4, >5
2.614t£-02 2.3396S-02 6.11*41-02 6.3939E-02 5.5121E 03
•0S/12/19M" M4:33i37- *SC PCM <10. 10-40, >40 and <0.4, >S
t.5§Jie-03 S.6426E-02 3.J751E-14 2.4070E-02 4.5074E-02
-06/12/1992" -14:33:58- "SC PCH <20, 20-40, >40 and <0.4,
.2053	.0000	.7667	3.737lt-02 3.2598E-04
-06/12/1992" -14:34:10- "SC PCH <20, 20-40, >40 and <0.3,
3.S410C-02 .0000	6.1022E-02 3.8161E-02 4.0910E-05
-06/12/1992* "14:34:49- -SC PCH <20, 20-50, >50 and <0.3,
6.0514C-02 1.3155C-02 .1895	2.4667E-02 6.5M3E-02
-06/12/1992" "14:16:04- -SC PCM <20, 20-50, >50 and <0.4,
.1035	2.0935C-02 .4459	2.99206-02 2.6012E-05
*06/12/1992 "I4i36l54 SC PCH <10, 10-40, >40, with KR>*50 or llIDTH>*5 (6 categories}
6.I066C-02 .0000	.9319 2.4370C-02 1.4488E-02
-06/12/1992" "14:36:59* "SC PCM <10, 10-40, >40, with AR>-100 or 40, with **>-200 oe Wll?TM>-5 (6 cate«jories|
.3174	4.7952E-02 .2999	5.26B0C-02 4.5503E-02
-06/12/1992" •14:37:11" "SC AR>*I00 OR (C and CS onlyl «tDTH>-5, PCH, <10, 10 40, >40
.0000
.0000
.0000
STPUCTURES
-0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
>5
>8
>5
>5
. oooo
1 -280.135
. 0000
-298.689
.0000
-316.759
-314.904
-274.19?
.0000
-273.570
1.6883E-02
-2T3.752
J. 9? ME-02
-273-104
.0000
-274.535
.0000
-319.192
.0000
-2ft2.961
.0000
-212.935
-301.510
-273.662
-337.543
345,304
-277.024
-349.979
-274.917
-275.017
-286.4S2
215.017
5.0666E- 02
24. J7
2,59UF~0)
63 . 37
. 1070
120. 5
103.0
14.22
4.0984E -06
no
. 1024
VI.17
4.690GE-02
12.30
. 4536
15. 28
. 3723
153 4
. 92 3 J
38. 07
. 2399
12. 19
78.09
I J. 2»
291 .4
351.5
10.04
404 .9
15.55
1594
56 19
15-14
2 . 2 9 1 4 E 0? .2^41
9 1.1420E-03 5.805 IE 06
2. 1 UftF.~02 . 34??
0 .0000	.oooo
4.M01E-02 V6J12F.-02
11 .0000	..5002
11 .0000	.4998
0 7.5497E-02 .0000
2. 4 4 7 3E- 02 9. 7935E-0?
5 .1417	.0000
2.5Z19E-02 7.016 3E-02
0 8.709!f:'02 .0000
2.4767E-02 5.6149E-02
8	.13 9	.0000
2.4370E-02 2.3W0E-O?
0 5 . 31 7 7g-02 .0000
2. 5364E-02 3-0727E-02
JO .OOCO	.0aoa
3.8I96E-02 1.028'E-03
9	.0000	.0000
3.7498E-02 6.32 70E-02
. OOOO
10
9
8
10
9
9
9
U
10
9
m
.2716
.0000
. oooo
.0000
. oooo
9.6I06E-02
. 1020
. 0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.oooo
.0000
. 1023
2.6O06E-O5
.0000
. oooo
?.7954E-02
-0000
. oooo
.2255
.0000
.492IE-0?
6.7203E-O5
.0000
0001
3496
. oooo
1502
.0000
.0000
1 00 9
4 117
.0000
oooo
. 0000
. oooo
tnrK
i 1 37
. nnoo
-------
KI9
>6/ 1 0/ 1 992"
>6
>6/10/1992"
'299E-04
>6/10/1992-
248E-02 2
>6/10/1992"
I914E-02 2
•6/10/1992"
-10-47:49- "SC PCM <40. ^40, 0.2-0.1
-lO^^S1
0000
"15:23:45"
5944E-02
-SC PCM <40,
.0000
-SC PCM <40,
9.8491E-02
>40,
0000
>40,
<0.1
>40, <0.4
>40, <0 3
>40, <0.3
"¦15:24:05" "SC PCM <40,
7S18E-02 4.8515E -02
"15:24:25" 'SC PCM <40,
'660E-02 2.5536E-02 9.0266E-02
>6/10/1992- "15:24:36" "SC PCM <40.
'24	2.6666E-02 8.0706E-02
16/10/1992- "15:24:48" "SC PCM <40, >40, <0.1
142	2.9171E-02 8.2945E-02
16/10/1992" "15:25:11" "SC PCM 20-40.
5012E-12 2.5325E-02 8.2712E-02
>6/10/1992- "15:25:11- "SC PCM 20-40,
'035E-02 2.4296E-02 3.6304E-02
>6/10/1992- -15:25:24- "SC PCM 20-35,
>07	2.6694E-02 2.8991E-02
>6/10/1992- "15-.2S-.21" "SC PCM 20-45,
5830E-12 2.4133E-02 .2121
16/10/1992- "15:25:34" "SC PCM <20, 20-40
>00	.0000	4.5312E-02 2.5936E-02
0.1-0.2,
; .6964E-04
>2
>2
>3
>5
>10
>40, <0.3, >2
>40, <0.4. >2
>35, <0.3, >2
>45, <0.1, >2
.2-0.3.
. 0000
.30.4,
.0000
.6. 0 .
.7514
6-1.
>1
.2283
>40. <0.3, >2
9 . 858 3E -02
16/11/1992"
1240E-03
16/11/1992"
i!71«e-02 2
06/11/1992-
I070E-03
>6/11/1992-
1824E-03 5
>6/11/1992-
I093E-02 1
>6/11/1992"
I2UE-02 2
>6/11/1992-
100
>6/11/1992"
>00
>6/11/1992
>00
>6/11/1992
*15:31:51" "SC PCM <40, >40
"15:31:56"
.5619E-02
"15:32:29*
.0000
"15:32:48"
4184E-03
"15:33:31'
.6167E-02
-15:33:37-
.0059E-02
16:05:03'
0000
16:06:22'
0000
*16:06:57'
0000
*16:08:07'
"SC PCM	<20 20-40, >40. <0.3, >5
.1163 2.5487E-02 1.6466E-02
"SC PCM	<10 10-40, >40, <0.3, >2
4.5564E-02 2.5144E-02 9.3422E-02
"SC PCM	<10 10-40, >40, <0.3, >5
.1346 Z.4875E-02 7.0329E-02
"SC PCM	<20 20-40. >40, with AR>100 or w>S
"SC PCM <20 20-40, >40, with AR>200 or w>5
"SC M <10,	10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60, <0.4, >0 4
.0000	.0000	2.0091E-02 .0000	.3316	.0000	.6323
"SC N <20,	>20, <0.2, 0.2-0.3, 0.3-0.4, 0.4-2, 2-5, 5-8. >8 (without)
.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.4395	1.5005E-
1 "SC N <30.	>30, <0.2, 0.2-0.3, 0.3-0.4, 0.4-2, 2-5, 5-8, >B (without)
.0000	.0000	.0000	.8490	.0000	9.9544E-02 .0000
' "SC H <40,	>40, <0.2, 0.2-0.3, 0.3-0.4, 0.4-2, 2-5, 5-8, >8 (without!
-274.426
. 0000
-274.857
-275.922
-274.995
-274.006
-274.370
-283.427
-276.234
-282.698
-286.727
-274.850
-289.B30
-273.833
-274.688
-273.349
-279.057
-28 7.78 3
19.14
14 .08
11 5.79>6E-02
9997
7 4.9015E-02 5.2545E-05
1.3866E-02 2 6012E 02 .1065
1 4 . 75	9 9.74 73E-02 5.4764E-05 2. Sl»j|
17.20
14. 95
13.41
14.68
31 . 70
17 . 96
30.25
36. 13
14.73
50.85
13.04
14.64
12.40
23. 32
57.24
2 3.25
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
9
11
4.4919E-02	1.0B11E-04 l-OllSE-^
9. 1591E-02	5.9029E-05	3.1457E-03
.1442	7 1369E-05	4.9037E-03
9.92 94E-02	7.S85BE-05	1.2275E-02
.OCOO	3.1466E-02	9.1336E-02
3.4671E-02	9.9336E-02	7.5388E-02
.0000
.0000
. 1 302
.0000
2.3230E-02 3.3283E-02
9. 7 945E-02 5.4613E-05 2.7873E-04
. 0000
8	.1098
9	.1005
8 .1337
10 8.7947E-03
10 .0000
.9995
7.4 307E-05
4.4249E-05
4 .587 3E-05
. >284
4 . 1695E-02
-279.728	23.25	8 2.2192E-03	3.6878E-05
.0000	9.9335E-03	2.1964E-02 .3872
-290.051	43.31	9 .0000	1.0731E-04
.0000	.5454	2.3980E-02 3.3505E-02
-278.334	19.29	7 6.5724E-OJ	5.7529E-05
1.6664E-04	9.9650E-04	2.1948E-02 .3498
-277.968	19.74	9 1.6B59E-02	8.5360E-05
4 . 0751E-02
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 4497
.6415
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
-------
1992" •15:19:23" "SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,	30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60, AR>200
.0000 4.5280E-02 .1237 .2896
1992" •09:36:19" "SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,	30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60, <0.4, >0.4
.0000	.0000	.0000	.9036	.0000	.0000	3.9774E-02 4.6900E-02
1992" "09:36:44" "SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,	30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60, AR>20
.9754	5.07B7E-11 2.4409E-02	2.0790E-02
1992" "09:36:50" "SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,	30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60, AR>5
)2 .0000	4.6592E-02 2.4754E-02	2.5388E-02
-2.0902E-08
-7.8 12 4E-08
. 4087
-2.1203E-06
1 . 0 368E-02
.0000
4.54B4E-02
5.4099E-02
.0000
.0000
1992" "09:42:52* "SC PCM(dlforder»<40, >40, <0.1, 0.1-0.2, 0.2-0.3, 0.3-0.5, 0.5-1, 1-2, >2
.0000	.0000	.0000	2.8445E-04 .0000	.0000	.9300	.0000
'1992* *10:46:34" "SC M 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, >40, AR<100, 100200
.0000	3.6250E-O3 .0000 •	.0000	.0000	.7186	2.4970E-O3 .1761
'1992" "10:47:09" "SC M 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, >40, AR<100, 100200 (without)
.0000	9.5295E-03 .0000	.0000	.0000	.7246	4.7535E-03 .1014
/1992" "10:47:42" "SC PCM 30-40, 40-50, <0.2, 0.2-0.3
.1441	.1207
/1992* "10:47:44- "SC PCM 30-40, >40, <0.2, 0-2-0.3
.1441	.1141
'1992* "10:47:46" "SC PCM 30-40 AHD <0.2, 40-50 ANO 0.2-0.3
/1992" "10:47:47- *SC PCM 30-40 AMD <0.2, >40 AND 0.2-0.3
" -314.551
1992- "09:37:02"
"SC PCM
10-20, 20-
30, 30-40, 40-50
, 50-60,
>60, AR> 3

. OOOO 9.
0420E-O2
2.5730E-
02 1.9572E-
02



1992" "09:51:30"
"PS PCM
10-20, 20-
30, 30-40, 40-50
, 50-60,
>60, <0.2,
>0.2
)2 2.5453E-04
. 9090
.0000
.0000

.0000
.0000
.0000
1992" "09:51:53"
"rac pcm
10-20, 20
-30, 30-40,
40-50, 50-60,
>60, <0.2,
>0.2
02 .0000
.8906
.0000
1.5773E
-02
.0000
. 0000
.0000
1992" "09:52:00"
"PS PCM
10-20, 20-
30, 30-40, 40-50,
, 50-60,
>60, <0.3,
>0.3
2.9401C-03
3567
.0000
.OOOO

.0000
.0000
.0000
1992" "09:52:36"
"FBC PCM
; 10-20, 20
-30, 30-40,
40-50, 50-60,
>60, <0.3,
>0.3
.0000
0000
.2039
. 5420

.0000
.0000
.0000
1992" "10:49:30"
"SC PCM
<5, >5, <0
.1, 0.1-0.2
. o
.2-0.3.
0.3-0.5, 0
.5-1, 1-2, >;
.0000
0000
.0000
. OOOO

.0000
.0000
.0000
1992" "10:49:54"
"SC PCM
<10, >10,
<0.1, 0.1-0
-2.
0.2-0.3,
0.3-0.5,
0.5-1, 1-2,
.OOOO
OOOO
.0000
.0000

. 7220
.0000
.0000
1992" "10:50:29"
"SC PCM
<20, >20.
<0.1, 0.1-0
.2,
0.2-0.3,
0.3-0.5,
0.5-1, 1-2,
.0000
0000
.0000
.0000

.3188
.5973
.0000
1M2* "10:42;08"
"SC PCM
<30, >30,
<0.1, 0.1-0
.2,
0.2-0.3,
0.3-0.5,
0.5-1, 1-2,
04 .0000
.0000
.0000
.0000

.0000
.4007
.4290
1992" "10:43:04**
•SC PCM
<40, >40,
<0.1, 0.1-0
.2,
0.2-0.3,
0.3-0.5,
0.5-1, 1-2,
.0000
0000
.0000
2.0445E-I
04
.0000
.0000
.9300
1992" "10:43:44-
"SC PCM
<50, >50,
<0.1, 0.1-0
-2,
0.2-0.3,
0.3-0.5,
0.5-1, 1-2,
.0000 5.
0791E-04
.0000
.0000

.0000
.0000
.9601
-273.752
2 . 4767E-02
-282.130
-280.428
-280.621
-273.982
2.4 402E-02
-276.214
2.5377E-02
-276.577
2. S828E-02
-285.851
1.7593E-02
-306.621
.2379
-288.155
6. 3293E-02
-277.141
.0000
-278.516
.0000
-274.113
.0000
-285.544
.0000
102. 3
13.77
5.8149E-02
28. 46
24.	35
25.	34
14.15
.2017
18.66
. 1086
19.01
.8763E-02
39.03
.3597E-02
96.8)
. 3233
44.97
. 1249
18.94
8390E-02
21.96
. 1080
13.99
9566E-02
42 63
9410E-02
. 0000
.oooo
-274.113
.0000
-301.303
.6706E-O2
-271.722
.3B13E-02
-328.264
-328.362
-328.264
-328.362
13.89
6.9566E-02
21.78
.6618
9. 472
. 6408
132.1
132.3
137. 1
132. 3
8	0.709!E-02 7.5744E 03
10	6.8359E-04 2.4648E02
9	3.O270E-O3 I.0293R-02
9	I.0654E 03 9.1834E-03
8	7.7092E-02
8	1.5934E-02
8	1.3996E-02
8	.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
9 .0000
5.4390E-02 9.2242E-04
9 .0000	.0000
2.6367E-02 9.8343E-03
9 2.4998E-02 .0000
2.2548E-02 4.7097E-02
8	4.1566E-03 .0000
2.6150C-02 5.0063E-02
9	.1256	1.4 1 4 3E- 0 4
2.6644E-02 H.1119E-02
10 .OOOO	.0000
3.3774E-02 .1990
9 .1256	1. 4 1 4IE 04
2.664 4 E- 02 S.I119E-02
10 1 .54 4 IE - 02 .0000
10
10
.3034
.0000
.0000
.0000
. oono
.0000
.4 994
. 4486
.414)
3.2936E-02
2.	1524F-03
. 0000
. OOOO
.0000
1 . 7037E-03
3.	9259F.-03
3.5134E-03
I . 4957E-02
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
9.9225E-02
7.9714E-02
.0000
. 0000
.1441
.1441
-------


MLE
Ch i Squd re
OF
p-Value
Coef(Icient i ?

EquatIon?





>6/04/1992" "15:59:53"
"PS M <5. 5-10, 10-20. 20-30, 30-40. 40-50, 50-60, >60
- -325.410
72. 32
12
. oooo
2.5437E-04 .0000
<00 .0000
3350 0000 .5647 3.3093E-02 2.7314E-02





b/04/1992- -16:00:06"
"PS M <5, 5-10, 10-20. 20-30. 30-40, 40-50. 50-60, >60 (without)
- -289.760
40.91
10
. oooo
1 . 2026E-O4 .0000
¦00 .0000
3131 .0000 .66 68 2.3751E-02 3.0330E-02





16/04/1992- "16:00:34"
-PS PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30. 30-40. 40-50. 50-60. >60
-279.961
24.45
9
2.8979E-03
.0000 .0000
>642E-02 .0000
.1925 .0000 .3962 2.6431E-02 1.349JE-02





6/04/1992" "16:09:39"
"SC H <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60
-324.089
69 . 36
12
.0000
1.2222E-04 .0000
100 .0000
4101 .0000 -581t 3.311 IE-02 3.1739E-02





'6/04/1992* "16:09:53-
-SC M <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60 (without)
" -208.190
31 .50
9
. oooo
2.5206E-O5 .0000
1213E-03 .0000
.3599 .0000 .6302 2.334SE-02 3.4731E-Q2





16/04/1992* "16:10:22-
"SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60
- -279.950
24.27
9
3.1396E-03
. OOOO .0000
'505E-O3 .0000
.1659 .0000 .1266 2.5546E-02 1.7443E-02





(6/04/1992" -16:25:02"
"FBC M <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60
¦ -327.491
76.80
12
.0000
.0000 .0000
1391E-02 .0000
.0000 .4570 .5300 3.2501E-02 7.0673E-02





16/04/1992" "16:25:16"
-FBC H <5. 5-10, 10-20, 20-30. 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60 (without)
" -292.240
48.03
10
.0000
.0000 .0000
0616E-02 .0000
.0000 -4790 .5095 2.3348E-02 7.4414E-02





06/04/1992" "16:25:29"
"FBC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60
" -280.941
27.21
10
1 .57 4 4E-03
.0000 .0000
1830E-02 .0000
.0000 .9002 2.1630E-13 2.4967E-02 2.1750E-02





r>6/04/1992" "17:01:04*
"SC PCM <5, 5-10# 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, >60
- -279.950
24 .27
9
3. 1 396E-03
.0000 .0000
'S95E-03 .0000
.1659 .0000 .6970 2.5546E-02 1.7443E-02





•36/08/1992" *14:23:24"
-SC PCM, USING SUM OF
AR INSTEAD OF
THE SUM OF
THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES
-320.990
120. 1
11
. oooo
. 5002
. 1054
mie-oi














04/08/1992- "14:23:27"
"SC PCM, USING SUM OF
(LA2/M) INSTEAD OF THE SUM OF THE NUMBER OF
STRUCTURES
-304.439
92.30
11
.0000
.5002
4.9910E-02
5S23E-07














06/09/1992" "15:17:31*
-SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,
30-40, 40-50,
50-60
>60
AR>100


-282.372
31.86
9
.0000
. 3233
. 1434
000 .3697
»1637 2.7310E-O2
8.6314E-Q2












06/09/1992" "15:17:39*
"SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,
30-40, 40-50,
50-60
>60
AR>50



-202.195
29.24
9
. oooo
2.94B2E-02
. 1059
000 .9647 1
.5222E-11 2.4334E-02
2.B640E-02












06/09/1992" "15:17:43-
"SC PCH 10-20, 20-30,
30-40, 40-50,
50-60
>60
AR> 30



-204.342
33.22
9
.0000
2.5570E-02
3.1076E-02
000 .9434 €
.3293E-14 2.5224E-02
2.2209E-02












06/09/1992* "15:17:50"
"SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,
30-40, 40-50,
50-60,
>60.
AR> 10



-202.527
28.52
9
2.66976-05
1.0006E-02
.0000
9477E-02 .0000
7.6669E-10 2.4802E-02
2.9345E-02












06/09/1992" "15:19:00*
"SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,
30-40, 40-50,
50-60,
>60,
<0.1,
>0. 1


-277.397
21.06
6
6. 1426E-03
.5520
5.5765E-04
S990E-02 .0000
.0000 4.0257E-02
.0000
.0000

.oooo

.0000
.3413
2.6604E-02
3-2997E-02




06/09/1992" "15:19:16"
"SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,
30-40, 40-50,
50-60.
>60,
<0.2,
>0.2


-274.192
14.21
9
.1142
.0000
3.027BE-O3
9I23E-02 ,0000
.9063 .0000
.0000
.0000

.0000

.0000
3.9421E-11
2. 44 70E-02
9.5869E-02




06/09/1992" -15:19:33-
-SC PCH 10-20, 20-30,
30-40, 40- 50,
50-60,
>60,
<0.3,
>0.3


-273.570
13.47
9
.1417
7.5561E-03
.0000
000 .0000
.0000 .0000
.0731
0000

.0000
1
6093E-
02 .1024
2 .5219E-02
7.0 163E-02




06/09/1992" "15:19:49*
"SC PCM 10-20, 20-30,
30-40, 40-50,
50-60,
>60,
<0.5,
>0.5


-277.042
18 . 60
7
8.7967E-03
7 . 1726E-03
7.7336E-03
3013E-02 .0000
3.65BOE-02 .0000
.7005
.0000

.oooo

.0000
.2300
2. 3656E-02
3.O509E-02




36/09/1992" "15:19:15*
"SC PCH 10-20, 20-30,
30-40, 40-50,
50-60,
>60,
<1, >1



-276.004
10.60
9
2.01O9E-O2
1.0869E-02
.0000
<100 .0000
.1691 .1142
.0000
0000

.0000

0000
.7050
2.5210E-02
1.7 712E-02




-------
1 -15:45:33" "SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-10. 30 40, 40-50. >50 and >8, <0.1 (2 studies)	- -101.025	12.62
|M9 I.-j96IE-0J .0000 4.1331E-02 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 -2.1416E-05	2.1602E-O2	2.949JE-02
«40 and <0.2, 0.2-0. J, 0.3-0.4, 0.4-2, 2-5, 5-8. >8 (2 studlesi	" -300.792	12.06
ililOil .0000 7. B049E-04 .0000 4.1073E-02 .0000 .8914 .0000 4.1637E-02	3.2830E-02	.1416
-IH./I I/I'IMZ" -15:45:50" "SC PCM <40, >40 and <0.2, 0.2-0.3, 0.3-0.4, 0.4-2, 2-5, 5-8, >8 12 studiesi	" -300.792	12.06
IIHOU	1)000	7.8049E-04 .0000	4.1073E-02 .0000	.8914	.0000
I/I'l'il- "15:47:24" "SC PCM <10. 10-40, >40 and <0.3, >8 (2 studies)
I n'M	I..M65E-02 8. 7587E-02
-116/1 1/I '> If "15:47:24" "SC PCM <10. 10-40, >40 and <0.3, >8 (2 studiejl
Mill	2.0771E-02 6.6119E-02
•n*t:H1192" "15:33:41" "SC (4(141 <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50 and <0.3, >8
¦. I I VIK -II4 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.2541
•i|«./:*.!/I992" "15:35:19" "PS M(14I <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50. >50 and <0.3. >8
IHIbtOJ .0000	.0000	.0000	1.6148E-02 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
-il«i/12/l992" "15:36:20" 7FBC H(14l <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50 and <0.3. >8
illlOU	.0000	.0000	.8194	2 .2740E-02 1.290
••116/22/1992" -15: 37:36" "SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50 and <0.3 and AR>-20, >8
U850E-04 .0000	3.1301E-O3 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	5.6291E-02 .3825
"06/22/1992" "15:40:55" "SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50 and <0.3 and AR>-30, >8
.4954E-04 .0000	2.3397E-03 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	7.1845E 02 .3003
"06/22/1992" "IS:43:58" "SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30. 30-40, 40-50, >50 and <0.3, >8 (chiysotilel
0000	.0000	.0000	.1688	.0000	.0000	.2492	.5106	.0000
-06/22/1992- "15:46:08" "SC PCM <40, >40 and <0.2, 0.2-0.3, 0.3-0.4, 0.4-2, 2 5, 5-8, >8 tchrysottlel •
0000	.0000	5.5468E-03 .0000	.3469	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
'"06/22/1992" "15:55:24" "SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50 and <0.3, >8 (chrysotilel (avq)-
.9108E-03 .0000	1.7452E-02 .0000	1.0756E-02 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
-06/22/1992" -16:30:35- "SC PCM <40. >40 and <0.2, 0.2-0.3, 0.30.4, 0.4-2, 2-5, 5-8, >8 (chrysotilel (
-8851C-04 .0000	.0000	1.4347E-02 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
"06/22/1992" -15:49:00" "PS PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30. 30-40, 40-50, >50 and <0.3, >8
.6521C-03 .1246	.0000	.0000	.0009	.0000	.1227	.4444	.0000
-06/22/1992- "15:50:08" "FBC PCM <5, 5-10. 10-20. 20-30, 30-40, 40-50. >50 and <0.3, >8
0798E-04 7.2S92E-03 .0000	.7180	2.5916E-02 .3137
.1249	.0000
5.9787E-02 2.6205E-05
S.9707E-O2 2.6205E-05
4.1637E-02 2.0805E-02 8.7989E-02
11.32
-300.139
-300.139
11.32
.1837
.1837
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
-277.7)3
20.96
9 1.21Q8E-02 .0000

.0000
. 7450
1.9854E-10
2.1741E-02 .4279


-277.324
19.37
9 2.14 52E-02 .0000

.0000
. 9455
3.4942E02
2. 2094 E-02 .3327


-282.927
31.48
9 .0000 2.0191E
-06
2.8155E-04
-272.197
10. 92
5 5.226BE-02 1.7B29E
-05
1.3304E-09
.0000
9.9690E-02
2.5B51E-02 .1301


-272.256
11.12
5 4.B301E-02 B.7621E
-05
1.3116E-06
.0000
5.9915E-02
2.5516E-02 .1679


-|7«.591
3. 392
2 .1027 .0000

.0000
.0000
7.1357E-02
3.0137E-02 9.0414E-02


-174.591
3.395
2 .1625 .0000

.0000
.0000
. 3974
3.0140E-02 3.04 70E-02


-126.207
1.2755E-
15 0 .0000 .0000

.0000
.0000
.9679
2.6668E-02 2.1269E-02


ivql- -126.
207 2.9177E-13 -1 .0000 .0000

.0)95
. 1459
-1.9596E-10 2.666BE 02 1.:
J955E
-02
-272.711
12.25
0 .1395 .0000

.0000
.0000
.2996
2 .5616E-02 J.4242F. 02


-275.071
16.62
0 1.6231E-02 .0000

3.7774E-04
"06/23/1992" "14:32:26" "SC PCM <20, >20 (chrysotlle only - averaged K013) -	-121.858	3.449
02KE-03
"06/23/1992" "15:20:51" "SC PCM <5,5-10, 10-20,20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50 with AK>-100 or »>-8 114 CAT.)(no discharged!" -247 . 715
165) 5.39O2E-02 .0000 .2203 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .2507	.0000	.0000
-06/23/1992" "15:21:06" "SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50 with <0.3, >8 |no dischargedl "	-247.916	6.347
7664E-04 .0000 J.3297E-03 .0000 1.1683E-02 .0000 .0000 .1023 .3292	.0000	.1214
"06/2J/1992" "15:21:59* "SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20. 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, >50 with <0.4, >6 (no dischargedl "	247.977	6.302
•.20I7E-04 .0000 S.3676E-03 .0000 2.3489E-02 .0000 .0000 .2528 .5300	.0000	.1875
"06/23/1992" -15:22:39- "SC PCM <5. 5-10. 10-20, 20-30, 30-40. 40-50, >50 with <0.5, >8 (no dischargedl "	-248.237	6.697
0000 .0000 4.4608E-03 .0000 7.6930E-02 .0000 3.6633E-02 .4443 .0000	.0000	.4 377
"06/23/1992- -45:41:52" "SC PCM <5,5-10,10-20,20-30,30-40,40-50,>50 with <0.5 and *R>-3,>8(no dischargedl"	-248.237	6.697
.1270
1 .000
2.9297F.-02
6.231	5 .28 39	.1653
6.1001E-0? 2.4264E-02 .1097
5	.2733	.0000	.0000
2.3640E 02 .1100
6	.3997	.0000	.0000
2.1356E-02 5.1 364 R-02
7	.4607	.0000	.0000
2.2722E-Q? 3.3184E-0?
7 .460 '	.0000	.000(1
-------
!<•« , adtitf 4
4«0#«-l)l . Oil O'l l.6Hne-02 .0000 3.6633E-02 .4443 .0000
. 0000
4 371
2.2722E
02 3 . 318 4 E
02
1.029«*|fc

•11 mill |-
"1C I'CM 50 ulth >8,<0.5and AR>-iO|no discharged)"
-248.221
6.690
6
. 3499
.0000
')00
0000
0000 .0000 .0000 .1014 .4356 6.4002E03 .0000
.0000 -3
'956E-06
2.269BE
02 3.2980E
02

i<;/2m992-
"IS-.4V.06-
"SC PCM <5. "S-10,10-20, 20-10, 30-40, 40-50, >50 with <0 . Sand AR>-20,>8|no discharged)"
-249.139
6.630
8
. 5"67
4 .1166E-04
.0000
000
0000
0000 .0000 .1019 .0000 .0000 .4509 .0000
.0000
4 469
2.2774E
-02 3.3466E
02

16/23/1992"
"16:04:30*
"SC PCM <20, >20 with <0.3, >8 (no discharqedl "
-250.431
9.919
9
. 3517
3.1512E-04
. 0D00
123 2.
16306-02 1
6030E-02






06/23/1992"
"16:04:31"
"SC PCM <40, >40 with <0.3, >8 (no discharged) -
-251.384
12.81
B
. K 7 B
9.43JBE-05
J.9B73E-01
(52 2.
BB47E-02 7
4959E-02






16/23/1992"
"16:04:49"
"SC PCM <40, >40 with <0.3, >5 (no discharged)
-250.175
9.585
8
.2">48
7 0228E 05
1 .556IE-02
110 2.
4517E-02 7
8915E-02






06/2 3/1992"
"16:39:42"
"SC PCM >10 (all with AR >- 3) (no HOC chrysotlle or tremolite) "
-220.082
16. 49
9
S.6634E-02
.9283
2.5 391E-02
4491E-03








06/23/1992"
"16:39:44"
"SC PCM <10, 10-20, >20 (all with AR >- 3) (no HDc chrysotlle or tremolite)
-219.772
16. 07
9
6. 4632E-02
.0000
3.9610E-12
S926E-02 3
-8301E-04






06/23/1992"
-16:39:46-
"PS PCM >10 (all with AR >- 3) (no WDC chrysotlle or tremolltel
-220.532
17 .26
9
4.4107E-02
. 9300
2.SB29E-02
&04BE-03








06/23/1992"
"16:40:11"
"PS PCM <10, 10-20, >20 (all with AR >- 3) (no HOC chrysotlle or tremolite)
-2 20.468
17. J6
9
4.2fi34E-02
.0000
. 1894
6163E-02 4
-7643E-04







06/23/1992"
"16:39:49"
"SC(no C,CS,H,or MSI PCM >10 (all with AR >- 3) („o HOC chrysotlle or tremolite) •
-220.925
10.92
9
2.5190E-02
.6933
2.6422E-02
1936E-03








06/23/1992"
-16:39:51-
"SCtno C,CS,M,Or MSI PCM <10. 10-20, >20 (all with AR >- 31 (no WDC or tremolite) "
-220.428
17.B9
9
J.5777E-02
.0000
S.4710E-1I
6733E-02 4
.2818E-04







06/24/1992"
"14:59:32-
-SC PCM >10 (all with AR>-3 and ¥>-0.2) (no tremolite or WDC chrysotlle)
-219.932
16.02
9
6.5104E-02
.9655
2.5115E-02
04596-02







06/24/1992"
"14:59:34"
"SC PCM <10,10-20,>20(all with AR>-3 and M>-0.2)(no tremolite or WDC chrysotlle) "
-219.402
15.14
9
8.6504E-02
.0000
2.4 662E-11
5513B-02 4
•4249E-04






06/24/1992"
"14:59:36-
"FBC PCM >10 (all with AR>-3 and W>-0.2) (no tremolite or HOC chryiotllel
-220.055
18.10
9
2.7090E-02
.9594
2.6243E-02
0404E-D2







06/24/1992"
-14:59:38"
"FBC PCM <10,10-20.>20(al1 with AR>-3 and W>-0.2)(no tremolite or WDC chrysotlle)"
-220.072
16.90
8
3.0312E-02
1 . 9053E-0)
1.9158C-12
6426E-02 4
.(2UE-04






06/24/1992"
"14:59:41"
"SC PCM <5, 5-40, >40, with W <0.5, >5
-279.469
27.19
10
1.5875E-03
.0000
.0000
64I0C-03
.0000
.8946 2.9880E-02 1.S430E-02






06/30/1992"
"10:00:07"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40, with W >5, <0.3 -
-272.935
12.19
10
.2716
. OOOO
1 . 7176E-03
530 2.
S612E-02 7
042 4E-02






06/24/1992"
"14:59:58"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40, with N <0.5, >5
-279.469
27. 19
10
1.5B75E-03
4 .64B0E-0J
.0000
946 2.
9880E-02 1
S430E-02






06/24/1992"
"15:00:08"
•SC PCM 5-40, >40, with W <0.3, >5 (and all structures AR>-3)
-273.227
12.61
10
.2459
1 . 48 4 5E-0 3
.0000
511 2.
538SE-02 7
.¦347E-02






06/24/1992"
"15:00:17"
•SC PCM 5-40, >40, with * <0.3, >5 (and all structures AR>-5I
-274.576
15.49
10
.1144
1.4548E-03
.0000
902 2.
S505E-02 0
6I87E-02






06/30/1992"
"10:00:12-
"SC PCM 5-40, >40, with W >5, <0.3 and AR>-3
-272.935
12.19
10
.2116
.0000
1.7P6E-03
530 2.
5612E-02 7
0424E-02






U6/30/1992"
"10:00:11-
"SC PCM 5-40. >40, with » >5, <0.3 and AR>_5
-272.935
12.19
10
.2716
. 0000
\.7176E-03
-------
3941	2. '*»o ty. «i.' 'too
-07/02/1992"
"II: 'iVHV
"SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, >-40 and W <0.3, >-5
-272.566
11.47
0
.1757
.0000
.0000
i .16296-03
.oooo
*>. 3055E-03 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 6.10S7E-02 .1250
2.4594E-02
6. 9306E-O2




-07/02/1992"
-| 1 :'| 1 : fi-
"SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, >»40 and W <0.3, >-5 (no discharged! "
-240.210
6.779
6
.3412
. 0000
.0000
».53936-04
.0000
. 7145E-03 1. 9X496-02 .0000 .0000 .0000 0.2O33E-O2 .1302
2.29 30E-02
6.7034E-02




-07/02/1992-
- 1 J : M : .M -
**SC PCM >*5 and N <0.3, >-S (no discharged chtysotiJel "
-267.012
49.63
10
.0000
. 9015
3.09916-02
.06466-03








-07/02/1992"
-13:14:26"
"SC PCM 5-40, >-40 (no discharged chrysotile)
-261.069
31.15
10
.0000
. 9907
2.0947E-O?
, .41576-03








*07/02/1992"
-13:14:29-
"SC PCM >-5 (no discharged chrysotile) "
-285.450
103.2
10
.0000
.9075
5.7855C-G2
i .09756-03








-07/02/1992-
"13:14:31"
"SC PCM 5-40 and M <0.3, >-5 Ino discharged chrysotile) "
-2B3.414
99. 33
10
.0000
.9753
5.5205E-02
1.42106-03








-07/02/1992-
-13:14:33"
"SC PCM 5-40 ino discharged chrysotile) "
-206.703
107.2
10
.0000
. 96)1
6.2602E-02
>.62536-03








-07/02/1992*
•13:14:50-
"SC PCM <5, 5-40, >-40 and « <0.3, >-5 fno discharged chrysotile) •
-248.966
8.273
8
. 4067
OOOO
.0000
1.91966-03 4
.67666-0)
.1770 2.42516-02 6.50O9E-O2






-07/02/1992"
-13:15:02-
"SC PCM <5, 5-40, >"40 (no discharged chrysotile) "
-261.069
31.75
10
.0000
.0000
.9907
>.•9476-02 5
.47576-03







-07/02/1992-
-13:14:35-
-SC PCM <5. >*5 and If <0.3, >-5 (no discharged chrysotile) -
-267.012
49.63
10
.0000
.0000
.0000
.901$ 3.0991C-02 5
.06466-03






-07/02/1992-
•13:14:39-
"SC POM <5 and * <0.3 (there are no fibers W >• 5) (no discharged chrysotile) "
-301.966
132.5
10
.0000
.6775
.1194
£.00936-05








-07/02/1992-
-13:14:41-
-SC PCM <5, >-5 (no discharged chrysotile) -
-285.450
103.2
11
.0000
1.000
5.7055E-O2
9.I6S4C-0S








-07/02/1992-
-13:14:43-
-SC PCM <5 (no discharged chrysotile)
-301.208
132.0
10
.0000
. 6657
.1169
t.69606-05








-07/02/1992-
-13:14:45-
"SC PCM 5-40, >*40 and * >-5 (no discharged chrysotile) **
-267.213
60.09
10
.0000
. 9311
5.16336-02
1.69626-02








-07/02/1992-
-13:14:46-
"SC PCM 5-40, >-40 and * <0.3 (no discharged chrysotile!
-260.510
33.58
10
.0000
. 9902
3. 3808E-02
-1069
•07/02/1992-
-14:50:19"
"SC PCM <5,5-10, 10-20,20-40,>-40 and <0.15,0.15-0.3,0.3-1,1-5,>-5 (no discharged)"
-246 . 170
6.67 4
6
.3515
.0000
.0000
.0000 . 0000
.0000 .0000 2.59396-03 .0000 .0000 .0000 .1706
.0000
.0000
. oooo
.oooo
2 . 5 1 7 1 E
-02 .0000
.0000
.0000
6.01036-02 .0000 .5370 .0000 .2046 2.2673E-02 5.5023E-02






•07/02/1992"
-15:42:07-
"SC M(14) <5,5-10, 10-20,20-40, >-40 and <0.15,0.15-0.3,0.3-1,1-5,>-5
-279.614
23.57
9
4.2B18E-03
. 0000
.0000
.0000 .0000
.0000 1.50386-02 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
.0000
.0000
. OOOO
.0000
.0000
. oooo
.0000
.0000
.0000 .0000 .0857 2.5155E-02 7.3297E-02 2.164BE-02 .2244






-07/02/1992-
-15:43:31-
•SC PCM <5,5-10,10-20,20-40,>-40 and <0.15,0.15-0.3,0-3-1,1-5,>-5
-272.616
11 .60
7
.1137
.oooo
. oooo
.0000 .0000
.0000 .0000 1.8178E-03 .0000 .0000 .0000 3.3464E-02
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 1020
. oooo
.0000
.0000
1.70036-02 .0000 .7100 .0000 .1269 2.4549E-02 7.7920E-02






-07/02/1992-
•16:13:33*
"SC Ml14) <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and >-5, 1-5, 0.3-1, 0.15-0.3, <0.15
-279.614
23.57
8
1 . 0615E-03
.0000
.0000
0000 .0000
.0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 1.5039E-O2 .0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
.0000
.0000
. oooo
.0000
.0000
.0000 7.32976-02 .0000 t.5l55E-02 -1.27216-09 2.164BE-02 .2244






-07/02/1992-
-16:30:29-
"SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and >-5, 1-5, 0.3-1, 0.15-0.3, <0.15
-272.616
11 .60
6
7 . 0614E-02
.0000
. oono
-------
IB5	2.I143E-D2 B.5096E-02
ofe/26/1992" "17:19:51"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
>5, <0.3 (no discharged) (2 studif'' "
-276.253
7.248
7
.4031
.9652
).ll9flft40
with
>5, <0.3 (no discharged) (2 studies) "
-276 251
7 .248
7
. 4031
. 0852
2.122QC-03
I2B0E-02









06/26/1992" -17:20:27-
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
>5, <0.3 (chrysotiie only - no discharged)
-174.593
3 . 399
2
.1921
3.4 305E-02
1 • 5 901 e - 0 3
U6 3.0145E-02 6
0929E-02








06/26/1992- -15:47:32"
"SC PCH 5-40. >40
with
<0.3 and AR>-20, >5 (no dischatqed) (2 studies*
276.253
7 .262
7
.4017
. 1027
3.U89E-02
1412E-02









06/26/1992" -15:47:32-
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
<0.3 and fcR>«20, >5 (no discharged) (2 studies)
-276.251
7 .262
7
. 4017
. 1027
2.1218E-02
2605E-02









06/26/1992- -15:47:47-
"SC PCM 5-40. >40
with
<0.3 and AR>-20, >5 (chrysotiie only - no discharged)
-174.593
3.397
2
. 1023
?.07t9E-0J
3.6781E-02
255 3.015BE-02 5
1641E-02








06/26/1992" "15:48:06"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
AR*-20, >5 (4 categories) (no discharged) (2 studies) "
-219.340
13.11
9
.1571
. 9916
3.1665E-02
1314E-02









06/26/1992- -15:48:06"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
AR>*20* >5 (< categories) (no discharged) (2 studies) "
-279.340
13.11
9
. 1571
. 9916
2.1102E-02
9H7E-02









06/26/1992- "15:48:13"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
AR>-20, >5 (4 categories)(chrysotiie only - no discharged)"
-174.600
3 . 396
2
. 1823
1. I2I2E-03
. 3689
1254E-11 3.0232E-02
.2891E-02








06/24/1992" "15:48:16"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
AR>-20, >5 (4 categories) (amphiboles only) "
-10 3.580
6.615
4
. 1569
1 .3691E-02
.0000
963 1.98726-02 1
5860E-02








56/26/1992" "15:48:11"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
AR>*3, >5 (4 categories) (amphiboles only! "
-105.610
10.10
4
3.7996E-02
8.0680E-03
.0000
919 2.0367E-02 1
3821E-02








06/26/1992" "15:48:19"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
>5 (4 categories) (amphiboles only) "
-105.251
9 .464
4
4.9692E-02
8.4672E-03
.0000
915 2.0225E-02 1
3745E-02








06/26/1992" -15:48:21-
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
AR>"10, >5 |4 categories) (amphiboles only) "
-104 .569
8.284
4
8.0934E-02
9 2017E-03
. oooo
908 2.0025E-02 1
4364E-02








06/26/1992- "15:48:23"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
AR>-30, >5 14 categories) (amphiboles only)
-10 3.770
6,06$
4
.1425
2.3034E-02
.0000
HO J.O138E-02 1
.6260E-02








06/26/1992" "15:48:24"
"SC PCM 5-40, >40
with
AR>-50, >5 14 categories) (Amphiboles only)
-103.554
6. 499
4
.1641
5.9731E-02
, 0000
(03 ' 2.0684E-02 1
7099E-02








J6/26/1992" "15:48:26"
"SC PCM <5, 5-40,
>40 with <0.3, >5 (no discharged chrysotllel "
-248.966
8.273
8
.4067
.0000
.oooo
9186E-03 4.6766E-03
.1770 2.4251E-02
6.3809E-02






06/26/1992" "15:48:38"
"SC PCX 5-40, >40
with
<0.3, 0.3-5* >5 (no discharged chrysotiie) "
-248.966
B.273
8
. 4067
1 . 9186E-03
.oooo
6766E-03 .8164
.1770 2.42516-02
6.5809E-02






06/26/1992" -18:00:06"
"SC PCHQ >10 (all
Structures AR>-3#W>0.2) (no WDC chrysotiie or tremolite) **
-223.907
24.09
9
3.4101E-03
.9521
2.3551E-02
0063E-02




19. 60

1 . 1142E-02


06/26/1992" -18:10:08-
"SC PCHQ <10,10-20, >20
fall structures AR»-3,H>0.2) (no WDC chrysot i le/t reinol i te) "
-221.562
0
. 1793
3.3351E-13
U84C-02 4.3772E-04









16/30/1992" "lOi44:26"
"PS PCM, USING SUM OF SURFACE AREA INSTEAD OF THE SUM OF THE NUMBER Of STRUCTURES"
-285.826
39.16
11
. 0000
. 5002
2.9496E-02
1475E-86






.0000


15/30/1992" "10:44:27"
"PS PCM, US IMG SUM OF VOLUME INSTEAD OF THE SUM OF THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES
-291.704
55.77
1 1
.5002
4.7021E-02
H62E-06









>7/01/1992" "15:49:07"
-SC PCH 5-40, >50
and W >5, <0.3 (all structures AR>-20) (no discharged) "
-253.886
19.50
9
2 .05G9E-02
.oooa
7.6482E04
-------
.oaoa	.oooo
oooo	.0000
-07/02/1992" -17:20:59*
.0000	.0000	1
.0000	.H3J
-07/02/1992" "II: IB: 45"
.0000	•OOOO	I
.OOOO	.1431
-07/06/1992
5.7162E-02
-01 /OS/1992
1.3791E-05
-07/06/1992
2.5174E-03
-01/06/1992
1.3791E-OS
-07/06/1992
2.51141-03
"07/04/1992
.0000
.0000
"07/06/1992
.0000
.0000
"07/06/1992
.0000
.0000
-07/07/1992
.0000
.0000
"07/07/1992
.0000
.0000
"01/07/1992
.000*
.OOOO
"07/07/1992
.OOOO
.4496
"07/07/1992
.OOOO
.3570
-07/07/1992
"09:32:37"
"10-.57:11"
*10:57:42*
"llsl8:57"
"11:19:00"
"11:33:31"
OOOO
.0000
-13:44:41"
OOOO
.0000
"15:10:12"
OOOO
.0000
"13:21:40"
OOOO
.0000
*14:46:55"
OOOO
.0000
"15:06:25"
OOOO
.0000
"15:24:54"
0000
1.60SSE-07
"15:30:50"
OOOO
1.47101-09
•15:50:02"
OOOO .0000 .0000	.0000	1.9178E-03	.0000	.0000
.1020 .1269 .0000	.0000	-1.9608E-09	2.4549E-02 7.79201
"SC PCH <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40,	>-40 and	<0.3, O.J-l. 1-5,	>-5
2014C-03 .0000 .OOOO	.OOOO	5.4344E-03	.OOOO	.0000
2.4572C-02 6.7829E-02
"SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40.	>-40 and	<0.3. 0.3-1, 1-5,	>-5 (with CI)
2014E-03 .0000 .0000	.0000	5.4J44F.-03	.0000	.0000
2.4572E-02 6.7B29E-02
"SC PCM >-40 and H <0.3, >-5
"SC PCM Ino length or width categories)
"SC PCM length >- 5
"SC PCM mo length or width categories!
"SC PCM tengch >- 5
"PS PCM -:5. 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and W <0.15, 0.15-0. J, 0.3-1, 1-5, >-5
.0000	S.4S14E-03 .OOOO	.0000	.0000	.0000	.4190
7.3795E-0? ,0000	.0000	.0000	.4188	2.3729E 02 2.1B01E
"PS H(141 -40 and W <0.15, 0.15-0.3, O.J-l, 1-5, >-5
.0000	I.99166-02 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.3587
.0000	.0000	.0000	.2160	.3401	2.1931E-02 I.7601E
"SC PCM <'|. 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and H <0.1, 0.1-0.3, O.J-l, 1-5, >-5
.OOOO	OOOO	1.162BE-03 .0000	.0000	.0000	3.8041C-0
I.28I7C-02 .0000	.1253	.0000	.1256	2.4639E-02 7.9469E
"SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and Complex, >-1, 0.3-1, 0.15-0.3, <0.15
.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	1.2661E-03 .0000	.0000
• 10)0	4.4982E-02 .0000	6.8896E-03 -I.872OE-I0 2.3911E-02 9.71ZQE
"PS PCH <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and Couple*, >-1, 0.3-1, 0.15-0.3, <0.15
•OOOO	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	-1.04«OE-08 3.4J7BE-02 2.4421E
"PS PCH <5. s-io, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and w <0.15, 0.15-0.3, 0.1-1. »-l. Complex
.0000	.DOOO	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.4217
1.0417e-0f .0000	.0000	.3577 -1.1622E-0B 2.4136E-02 4.64
"PS PCH 1-10. 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and N <0.15, 0.15-0.3, 0.3-1, >-1, Cowple*
.0000	. J6S5	.0000	.0000	.2317	4.46HE-04 .0000
2.6BIH-0) 1. 3486C-02
"PS PCH j-10. 10-20, 20-10, >-40 and Comple*. >-l, 0.3-1, 0.15-0. J, <0.15
.0000 IJ.4199E-03 .2072	.0000	.0000	.4210	1.0419E-02
2.4I36C-UI I.S405E-02
"PS PCH J.|H. 10-20. 20-40, >-40 and Complex. >-1, 0.4-1. 0.2-0.«. <0.2

.OOOO
, GOCfl
.0000
3.1464E
02 1.70O1C-02 .0000
-02





"
-21?.680
lie*
9
- 1674
.0000 .0000

. oooo
.0000
.0000
. 0000
1.1976E-0? .6182
-
-272 600
11 .64
B
. ir>7 4
.0000 .0000

. OOOO
. oooo
.0000
. oooo
I. I9T6C-02 .0 302
-
-310.1?J
lie.6
11
. oooo
.2645 9.17atE-02
-
-322.66B
131.4
11
.0000
.635 4 .1125
-
-309.474
107 .2
11
.0000
. 9691 6.3273E-0?
-
-322.660
131.4
11
. oooo
.6154 .1125
-
-309.474
107.2
11
.0000
.9691 6 . 32 7 3E- 02
-
-273.275
*2.67
7
7.986HE 02
.0000 .0000
3
. 9527E-02
.0000
. oooo
4.3412E
02 .0000 .0000
-02

,




-275.607
15.[73
a
4.559 JE-02
.0000 .0000
5
1BSIE-03
. 0000
. oooo
. oooo
.0000 .00Q0
-02


y


•*
-212 .609
11 .58

.1146
.0000 .0000
2
OOOO
,0000
.0000
. 00Q0
9.6416E-02 .0000
-02





-
-274.051
1 4 . d9
6
2.7817E-Q2
.0000 .0000
7
6933E-03
.0000
.0000
OOOO
.0000 .0000
02






-294 903
61 . 42
10
.0(100
.0000 .0000

oooo
.2615
. oooo
.0000
. 7 1f|5 .0000
03





•
-274.044
14.95
6
1 .981 IF 02
.0000 .0000

oooo
.0000
¦ 207V
2 .8 in »F,
01 2.b?oof:-04 onoo
02






-275.101
17.10
6
0 0952E-03
.0000 .0000

0000
?.509 3E- 02
.0000
2. 7 6 Mr.
0? .0000 .0000
-
-274 -044
14 .95
7
1 .r>0?9£ 0?
oooo .oono

OOOO
. nooo
oooo
oooo
,nooo .oooo
-
-273.0 78
12-7)
9
. 1 ?QQ
.0000 .0000
-------
10	.0000	.0000	1.1200E-0) 5 6SI9E-02 .0000	.0000	.0(100	.0000
1000	1.4806E-10 2.4043E-02 .1039
1/07/1992" "16:31:01" "SC PCM 5-10, 10-20, 20 40, >-40 and Complex, >-1, 0.4 1. 0.2-0.4. <0.2
HO	1.5795E-03 .0000	.0000	4.9393E-02 .0000	1.1903E-02 .0000
0000	1.5002E-10 2.4148E-02 3.9445E-02
.1/07/1992" "16:56:39* "PS PCM 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and Complex, >-1, 0.4-1, <0.4
1)0	.0000	.0000	.4346	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
918E-02
.0000
. oooo
.0000
-272.998
.0000
-278.198
. 1 909
.0000
12.41
.oooo
21.79
. 3745
. 0000
¦ 00M
6 5.223SE-02 .0000	. UOOfl
2. 1272E-03 .0000	3.0210E-02 . Otidfe
9 8. 820 3E - 03 .0000	.0000
.0000	-1.0420E-06 2.2334E-02
il/08/l9»2" "08:36:46" "PS PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and W <0.4, 0.4-1, >-1, Complex
,00	.oooo	.oooo	.oooo	.oooo	.oooo	oooo	.oooo 6.1242E-02
oaoo	-7.3093E-07 2.5132E-02 7.1660E-02
>1/08/1992" "08:42:38" "PS PCM -40 and Complex, >-1, 0.4-1, <0.4
too	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	3.9837E-0J 3.0906E-02 .0000
0000	.9329	2.4067E-02 9.1268E-02
¦17/08/1992" "09:04:18" "PS PCM >-40, 20-40, 10-20, 5-10, <5 and Complex, >-1, 0.4-1, <0.4
100	.0000	.6995	.OOOO	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
0000	-4.5399E07 3.0207E-02 2.7264E-03
1)7/08/1992* "09:09:10* "PS PCM >-40, 20-40, 10-20, 5-10, <5 and W <0.4, 0.4-1, >-1, Complex
UOO	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.9993	.0000	.0000	.0000
J620E-04 .0000 -2.S20JE-07 4.4540E-02 2.2204E-03
07/08/1992" "09:16:06" "PS PCM <5, 5-10. 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and Complex, <0.4. 0.4-1, >-l
1)00	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	3.9837E-03 .0000	.0000
9329	2.6822E-10 2.4067E-02 9.1268E-02
07/08/1992" "09:24:17" "PS PCM <5. 5-10, 10-20. 20-40, >-40 and Complex, <0.4, >-1, 0-4-1
>000	.oooo	.oooo	.oooo	.oooo	.oooo	.oooo	.3006	.0000
.0000	-1.2442E-06 3.0200E-02 2.7271E-03
07/08/1992" "09:27:24" "PS PCM 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and Complex, <0.4, 0.4-1, >-1
¦000	.0000	J.98J7E-03 .0000	.0000	3.0906E-02 .0000	3.21J5E-02 .0000
126IE-02
07/01/1992" "09:57:02* "PS PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40,>-40 and W <0.4. 0.4-1, >-1(no complex structures)
<000	.0000	.0000	.OOOO	.0000	.0000	4.5807E-02 1.8949E-02 3.3914E-02
07/08/1992" "10:17:31" "PS PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40,>-40 and W >-1, 0.4-1, <0.4|no complex structures!
>000	.0000	.0000	.0000	4.5810E-02 .0000	.0000	.0000	3.3927E-02
07/08/1992" "11:34:26" "PS PCM <5,5-10.10-20,20-40,>-40 and >-1, 0.4-1, <0.4 and Complex with 6 lengths
iOOO	.0000	.0000	.0000	3.7007E-02 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
81C6E-03 5.9101E-03 .0000	5.3636E-10 2.3957E-02 8.8626E 02
07/08/1992" "14:44:47" "SC PCM <5,5-10,10-20,20-40,>-40 and >-1, 0.4-1, <0.4 and Complex with 6 lengths
1000	.0000	.0000	.OOOO	.0000	S.4027E-05 .9999	.00011	.0000
.0000	.0000 -9.9125E-08 1.485|E-02 9.5085E-04
07/08/1992" "14:48:02" "SC PCM Complex ulth 6 lengths and <5,5-10, 10-20,20 - 40,>-40 and >-1, 0.4-1, <0.4
1000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
.0000	.0000 -1.8353E-07 4.1522E-02 3.4939E-03
•07/08/1992" *14:58:17" "SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20,20-40,>-40 and <0.4, 0.4-1. >-1 and Complex wlch 6 lenqthi
iOOO	6.5666E-04 .0000	.0000	6.0087E-03 .0000	5.8557E-02 2.6025E-02 .0000
-274.519
B.034OE-O4
-213.814
.0000
-292.314
. 3005
-298.842
.0000
-273.814
3.090SE-02
-292.314
.0000
-273.814
.0000
-275.298
.0000
-275.298
1.8952E-02
-27).774
3.4493E-02
-311.176
.0000
-29).905
.0000
-272.749
.0000
1 14.77
2 0129E-02
14.1V
.0000
55 . 42
.0000
69.62
.oooo
14.11
.oooo
: 55.42
.6494
! 14.11
. oooo
i 16.34
.9(^00
. 16.34
.oooo
14.04
. 0000
143.3
. 00D0
58.17
.oooo
' 11.85
.817)
6	2.1279E-02	.0000	.0000
5.4116E-02 .0000	1.2797E-02 .8508
9	.1171	.0000 .0000
-OOOO	.0000	.3.2175E-02 .0000
io	.oooo	oooo .oooo
-OOOO	.0000	.0000 .0000
io	.oooo	oooo .oooo
.0000	.0000	.0000
B	7.8127E-02	.0000 .0000
3.2175E-02 .0000	. .0000	.0000
10	.0000	.0000 .OOOO
.0000	.0000	.0000 .0000
8	7.8127E-02	.0000 .0000
.9)29	1.4U8E-10 S. 4067E-02
7	2 . 1478E-02	.0060	1.2928E-03
-1.1481E-05 2.7020E-02 8.9065E-02
8	3.693SE-02	.OOOO	1.2930E-03
.9000	2.6966E-02 8.BO70E-O2
7	4.9819E-02	.0000 .0000
,0000	.9198	(.0000
10	.0000	.0000 .0000
.0000	.0000	.0000 .0000
9	.0000	.0000	.0000
1.5413E-05 .1811	.0000	.8189
7	.1049	.0000 .0000
.0000	.0000	.0000 .0000
-------
.0000	9.14 94E-02 2.4199E-02 J.62BIE-02
' .¦«/1992" "15:I J:14" "S C PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-J0f > 30 for <.3 and	5 - 10. 1 0-20, 20-30, 30-40. 40 - SO , >50 for>5" -274.067
iitiifi 7.465BE'02 .4261 .0000 .0000 .0000	.2326 .2633 2.3275E-02 3.26BSE-02
~Ut/09/\992" •|5i45:37" "SC PCH <5,5-10, 10-20,20-40, >-40 and <0.3,	0.3-1, >-1 and Comple* with 6 lengths " -272.964
UOO0 6.3774E-04 .0000 .0000 4.1770E-O3 .0000	1.8608E-02 .0000 .0000 .0000
.0000 .0000 7.4421E-02 2.414BC-02 7.536SE-02
12. 1 1
.0789
0 5 . I I ] JF 0/
7 9.6267E-02
2.329<»F:-02 .0000
.0000
.0000
1 14. I It
.0000
"07/09/1992" "09: II : Off " "SC PCH <5,5-10, 10-20,20-40, >-4 0 and <0.4, 0 .4-1, >-l and C and CS with 6 length
0000	6.5666E 04 .0000	.0000	6.0087E-03 .0000	5.0557E-O2 2.6025E-02 .0000
.0000	.0000	9.1494E-02 2.4199E-02 3.6231E-02
"07/09/1992** -11:30:24" "SC PCM S-«0, >-40 and * <0.3
1140
"07/09/1992" "11:30:28" "SC PCH 5-10, >-40 and * >5
I.S134C-02
"07/09/1992" "11:30:29* "SC PCM 5-40 and M <0.3, >5
13170E-O3
"07/09/1992* "11:30:31* "SC PCH 5-40, >-40 and M <0.3, >5 and Length < 5 (no width*) (with 95% CI)
6999 -1.6245E-07 1.5694E-02 2.9705C-O3
"03/09/1992" •12:05:26* "SC PCM <8, 8-15, 15-25/ 25-40, >-40 and w <0.3. >-5
6375E-03 .0000	.0000	3.8505E-02 .0000	.0000	.1430	2.3906E-O2 7.0573E-O2
"01/09/1992" "12:05:47" "SC PCM 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and w <0.3, >-5
OflOO	8.5144E-03 .1634	2.3902C-02- 5.9924C-02
**07/09/1992" "14:31:48* *SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and <0.4, 0.4-1 and Complex with G lengths
Ultoo	.0000	1.07£9E-02 3.2242E-03 .0000	.00 00	.9210	.0000	.0000
•. 1978E-02
~f»7/o9/1992" "14:55:48* "SC PCM 5-40, >-40 and W <0.3, >5 (multipy control animals/response by 10*6)
tl.O	2.6668E-02 7.0300E-07
"im/119/1992* *15:I8s32* *9C PCM 5-40,>-40 and H5 <2 studies) (control aniwals/response * 10*6)
<111 1E-02
"ni/09/1992* *15:18:32* *3C PCM 5-40,>-40 and W<0.3,>5 (2 studies} (control animals/response * 10"6|
I »•**«~:-02
•¦Mf/iP»/t«*92" *15:46:24" "SC HI1SI <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and <0.15, 0.15-0.3, 0.3-1, 1-5, >-5
¦"•MU	.0000	.0000	1. 1778E-02 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
i ¦•imii	.0000	.0000	.0000	.9076	1.96Q4E-02 5.5023E-02 2.2577E-02 .2350
"ii--iri/l«|.»2- -15:47:33* "PS M(1«J <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 and <0.15, 0.15-0.3. 0.3-1, 1-5. >-5
Hit.tu	.0000	.0000	.1318	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.1955
¦ I	ft 11/ .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.1961	.39)1	2.1022E-02
»!«•»¦* "16:06:08* *SC PCM Length < 5 (no widths) and 5-40, >-40 and W <0.3, >5 (with 951 CII
•••«.•	.1453	2* 5612E-02 7.Q424E-02
tv,' i	* I 7; 22:46* "PS PCM (FIB 15-10# 10-20, 20-40, > 40 and<. 4, .4-1, >1 C only and CS with 6 length cat.
••(inn	fulfill	2.1747E-03 7.1876E-02 5.3U6E-Q2 .0000	.0000	.7673	.0000
ftf	. H618E-04 .0000	.0000	.0000	-5. 1901E-O8 2.4947E-02 6.J^2€E~02
-272.749
.0000
-277.690
-299.923
-309.212
-310.153
-272.701
-273.565
-273.213
.0000
11 -BS
.0173
22.79
01.71
107. 4
159. 1
11.78
13.25
12.51
.0000
-2.7 74 61 1E* 07 12.11
-5.549190E»O7 12.10
-5.549198P.* 07 12.10
-310.190
.0000
-304.903
.0000
7.20G3E-02
-272.935
-272 433
.0000
37. 43
. 0000
25 .27
. oooo
12.19
11.32
. 0000
7
. 0000
11
11
11
9
9
9
. 1049
. 000(7
1.0 2G7E- 02
. 0000
.0000
.0000
.2254
.1508
8 . 1 2 90
7.6252E-02 0.0H39C
10
9
9
11
. 0000
. 2770
.2074
. 2074
. 0000
10 4.0203E 03
.0000	.0000
10
.2716
6 7.8319E-Q2
.0000	.0000
. 0000
. oono
. 9906
. 7287
. 9697
0	1SI6E-02
.0000
1.4457E-02
. 0000
02 2.40O9F.
1	. M30E-0)
. 1210
.1240
.0000
. 0000
.0000
.0
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
2 0204E-O2
5	. 5902E-02
6	.2884E-02
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
02
.0000
2.6660E-O2
2.6668E- 02
.0000
. 0000
1 . 7116C 01
.0000
. rporjo
If i	-111:14:47- "SC PCM Length < 5 (no widths) and 5-40, >-40 and * >5, <0.3 (with 951 CI)
•»•«.! <%t w. Id	2.5612E-02 7.0424E-02
•272.935
12.19
. ? M6
.0 000
-------
' /I 0/i 992"
I
1992
if)0
4446
nno/
if>0
0000
nz 10/1992
too
oooo
"/10/1992
>00
oooo
IF/10/1 992
)00
oooo
01/10/1992
1*00
oooo
07/10/1992
ooo
oooo
01/10/1992
<»406E-02
07/10/1992
t>92?C-02
•10:20: 12-
.544JEQ3
.0000
" "11:30:52*
.OOOO	7
.0000
" -12:20:58"
. OOOO
.0000
" •12:15:35-
.o&oo
1.011IE-02
" -12:29:04"
.0000
.0000
¦ -12:32:22"
.0000
.0000
- -13:46:21"
0000
.0000
* "14:23:02*
1.0021C-02
" •15:20:11
1.2277E-02
"SC PCM <5,5 -10, 10-20,20-40.>-40
OOOO	.ODOO	.0000
.55 38	.OOOO	.OOOO
"SC PCM <5,5- 10, 10-20,20-40.>-40
4663E-05 7.750BE-02 .0000
.0000	.OOOO	.0000
"SC PCM <5,5-10,10-20,20-40,>-40 L
,0000	.OOOO	5.4696E-02
.OOOO	-1.9458E-08 4.3684E-03
"SC PCM <5,5-10, 10-20.20-40,>-40 4
.0000	.0000	.061®
.0000 -5.1691E- 09 4.2054E-03
"SC PCM Co»ple* w/6 lengths t <5,5
.0000	.OOOO	9.2717E-05
.9970	-I.6111E-06 4.7046E-03
"SC PCM Comple* w/6 lengths 4 <5,5
.0000	.0000	.0000
.0000	-l.5fl32C-08 4.6132E-03
"SC PCM Complex w/6 lengths & <5,5
.0000	.OOOO	7.8080E05
.0000	.B9T7	4.6447E03
•SC PCM >- 20
- "SC PCM >- 20 and <0.4
nrt <0.15,
. OOOO
-OOOO
ri'i >-5,1-
. OOOO
.0000
>-.3, .15
. OOOO
7 . 352BE
<. 15,-15
.0000
9.5365E
10,10-20
.0000
t.020IE
10,10-20
.OOOO
2 .606iE
-10,10-20
.0000
1 . 1 447E
0.15-0. 3,0.3-1, 1-5, >-5 (Me socheliomas)
.0000	.0000	.oooo
-5.G341E-GB 4.6440E-O3 6.0542E-0
5,0.3-1,0.15-0. J,<0.15 (Me sothe Iiomaa J
.0000	.0000	.oooo
4.2322E 10 1.4830E-01 1.180BE-0
-.3,<.15 & Complex w/6 lengths {Heso.J
.8168	6.052 OE- 02 .0000
-04
-.3,>-.3 I Complex u/6 lenqrhs (Heso.I
3.1225E-02 .0000	.0000
04
20-40,>-40 t <. 15, .15-.3,>-.3 (Heso.)
.0000
. oooo
• uc
,20-40,>-40 I >".J, . 1 5 - .J, < . 15 (H0IO.I
.0000
. 0000
,20-40,>-40 1 < . 15. 3-. J. . 15-. 3 IMoJO.)
.0000
.0000
.0000
07/16/1992" "09:13:25"
0»9B€-02 4.232OE-03
07/16/1992" "09:14*. 13"
000	6.S172C-04
O76E-02 4.2294E-02
07/16/1992" *16:17:33"
000	. oooo
0742C-O2
07/20/1992" -11:14:21"
4262E-02 B.]2)7E-02
07/20/1992" "11:16:24"
6863E-02 9.I092E-03
07/2O/1992* "11:16:25"
1)2	2.6095E-O2
07/20/1992- "11:16:26*
544	.1622
M/20/1992- *11:16:27"
1009E-0Z 1.00206-02
*SC PCM <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 I <0.4 and Complex only with 6 lengths
.1006	.0000	.0000	OOOO	.1114	.0000	7.2753E-02
"SC PCM <5, 5-10. V0-20, 20-40, >-40 c <0.2, 0.2-0.4 and Complex only w/6 lengths
.OOOO
1.4206E 02
. 0000
.0000
.0000
.B095
. 0000
"SC PCM <5. 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >-40 t >-1, 0.4-1, <0.4 Ino rompls* luucturml
.0000	.0000	5.07 J9E-02 .0000	1.1999E-02 2.79S7E-02 .0000
"SC	PCM	Length >-20 and	width	<0.2
"SC PCM	Length >-10
"SC PCM	Length >-30 and	Width	<0.4
"SC	PCM	Length >-30 and	Width	<0.2
"SC PCM	Length >-20 and	Width	>-0.1
-60.6932
14.61
9
. 1005
. oooo
. oooo
. oooo
.0000
.oooo
.oooo
. oooo
.oooo
-59.0535
12.20
9
. 2015
. oooo
.0000
0000
-OOOO
. oooo
.0000
.0000
.0000
-60.6227
14.73
9
9.7R66E-02
.0000
.oooo
oooo
.0000
.0000
. oooo
.0000
.0000
- 60.6067
14 .72
8
6 . 4OB0E-O2
. oooo
.0000
6921E-02
.0000
. oooo
.0000
.oooo
.oooo
-59.3875
11,93
9
. 2 16 7
. oooo
. oooo
0000
2.9416E-03
. oooo
. 0000
.0000
.0000
-60.7657
15.50
9
7.7 300E-02
.0000
.oooo
0000
.1489
. OOOO
.5814
.2697
.ocoo
-59.3230
12,04
10
. 2315
.0000
.0000
oooo
.oooo
.oooo
. oooo
. 1022
.0000
-292.31S
20. 39
11
2.0676E-03
.2055
.7945
-285.310
3 9.84
11
.0300
.4983
.5017
-27J.250
12.63
7
8.092 4E-02
.0000
1 .5099E-04
!.4602E-02
4.1308E-02




-273.150
12.42
8
. 1 329
.0000
.0000
oooo
.0000
. 1250
.0000
5.0575E-
02
-271.601
13.08
3
5.2717E-02
. ODOO
2 .4004E-04
2O0 7E-04
.oooo
.0000
.9084
2.46 7 IE-
02
-313.069
137.2
u
.0000
. 5000
.5000
-28 f.475
40.36
11
.0000
. 4976
.5024
-316.358
110.2
11
.0000
-5702
.4298
-331.156
132.3
It
.0000
.5175
.4625
-285.590
34.13
11
. oooo
. 3fl0T
.6993
-------
-07/20/1992* "11:16:28" "5C PCM Length >-l0
1.0399E-02 1.0603E-02
"*07/20/1992* *16:59:38" ~5C PCM F4B with 5-40,<0.3, FIB with >-40,<0.3, and Complex only with >-40,>-5
.1467	2.5581E-02 7.0175E-02
"07/20/1992" "17:02s26" "SC PCM f->40,<.3, B->40,<.3, Coifiplex->40, >5, F-5-40, <.3, 8-5-40,<.3
5.9B73E-02 8.8266E-06 0.3673E-O4 2.9366E02 .1S25
>-40 4<0.3,
and >-40 & >-S
"07/21/1992" •ll:Usll* "SC PCM 5-40 I <0.3,
.1453	2.5612C-02 7.0424E-Q2
"07/21/1992" *13:19:20" "SC PCM >-40 & >-S, 5-40 c <0.3, ®nd >-40 4<0.3
.8530	2.5612E-02 7.0424E-02
"00/06/1992" "15:38:36" "SC PCM length >- 0 and width < 0.25
1.41ME-02 4.4551E-03
"12/14/1992" "16;30:46" *SC PCM Length <¦ 5 Cno widths) and 5-40, >-40 and « <0.1, >5 (with 951 CH
0000	.8530	.1453	2.5612E-02 7.0I24E-02
"12/15/1992" "10:16:36" "tali **c#pt chrysotlle) SC PCM <5,5-I0r10-20,20-40,>-40 and <0.15,0.15-0.3,0.3-1,1
0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	7.6546E-02 .0000	.9027	.0000	.0000
-12/15/1992" "10:11:47" "(chiysotlU onlyl SC PCM -40 and <0.15,0. 15-0.3,0.3-1,1-5, >-5
I.90S4E-O0 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	,0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
.0000	.0000	?.0494E-02 .0000	.5626	.0000	.0000	.2450	.0000
¦12/17/1992" "14:09:01" "(chrysotlle only! 3C PCM <5,5-10, 10-20,20-40.>-40 and >-5,1-5,0.3 -1,0,15-0.3,<0.15
.0000	.0000	.1402	9.S597C-03 .0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
0502	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	1
"12/18/1992" *09:34:10" "IchryaotlU onlyl SC PCM >-40, <5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-40 and <0.15.0.1S-0.3,0.3-1.1-5, >-5
.0000	.2450	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
0000	.0000	.0000 - 0000	.0000	.0000	.0000	2.050IE-02 .0000
-292.283
-272.933
-212.537
-212.935
-272.935
-306.530
-272.935
56.96
12 .20
U .55
12 . 19
12.19
100.2
11	.0000
10	.2712
8	.1710
10	.2716
10	.2Jlfi
11	.0000
10	.2716
3.665 4E-07	.9633
1.7376E-03	.0516
-.4990	.4405
1.7176r. - 0 ?	.8530
.1453	I 7176G 03
. 3319
.6601
I .7176E-03
-5,>-5	- -100.3$9	1.695
.0000	.0000	.0000	.0000
2.0714E-02 2.2772E-0? 0.6916E 02
" -199.146	0.430	I 2.9414E-03
-1719	.0000	.0000	.0000
-6.1022E-O5 3.2157E-02 3.7205E-02
3
.0000
.0000
6399
.0000
.0000
" -224.122	109.7	} .0000
.0000	.0000	-0000	.0000	.0000
.2193E-07 5.9591E-02 1.1295E 04
.0000
' -199.146	ft 430
.0000	.0000	.0000
5625	3.2158E-02 3 7206E 02
"lO/Ot/1991" "16:02:37" "SC PCM S-40, >-40 with >-5, <0.3 (All ««cept chrysotilel
• 4000E-02 .9019	2.6668E-02 I .6399E-02
*10/12/1993" *17:03:34" "SC PCM >-4»5 tChrysotile only! (dlM000,d2*100,d4*3D)
2883	.2214	2.6668E-02 3 1415E-04
"03/23/1994" *14:46:29" "SC - Lcnqtft: <5, 5-40i Width: < 3, >5
'.9161	8.1337E-02 2.3018E-02 I.4603E-02
"03/23/1991" "14:52:42" "SC - Laivjth: 5-20, >20; width: <.3, >5
».3639	0.6204	2.1557E-02 I.0541E-02
*03/23/1994" "15:13:12" "SC - Length: 5-40, >40; Width: >5
.I6I0E-02 1.6153E-02
-2.77 4 594C * 0 J 2.321
-2.774604E*07 8.826
3 .5082
3 3 0963R 0? .3950
3 3.7196C-02 .0000
. 1 719
3000	7.1027E-05
9.4552E 0?
-271.156
-276.44*
-303.315
0.005
17.53
90. li
10	0.6200	2.5270E 01 0.000fir.»00
in 6.7729E-07 I.5716E 02 O.OOODFKIO
11	0.0000r*00 0 3142	0.6B59
-------
1/23/1994* "11:13:26- "
H6E-02 1 . 004 9E-02
1/23/1994" "15:35:48" "
lOOEtOO 0. 7780	2.
••/28/1994" "15:56:48-
lOOEtOO 0.OOOOEtOO 0
lUOEtOO 0.OOOOEtOO 0
1446E-02 S.0462E-02
••/10/1994" "08:40:56" "
'lOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.
'lOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.
1434	O.OOOOEtOO
6/30/1994" *09:27:22" '
¦OOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0
•OOOEtOO 2.2450E-02 0
OOOOE'OO 0.1061
¦ I/05/1994" -12:25:40"
OOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0
¦OOOEtOO I. 8899E-02 0
I.OOOOEtOO 0.4309
il/IS/HM* -13:42:25" '
>729	0.3216	2
17/05/1994" "13:46:50" '
¦act	0.3803	2
17/11/1994" "09:30:21"
¦OOftEtQO O.OOOOEtOO 0
lOOOCtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0
I.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
17/11/1994- "09:48:26-
lOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0
(OOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0
I.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
19/06/1994" -14:33:11" '
lOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 5.
>9/06/1994" "14:44:46" '
lOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 6.
sc
Length: 5-20, >20; Width: <3
SC - Length: 5-20, >20; Width: <.3 and 1-encjt h: 5-40, >40; width: >5
2547E-02 1.52036-02
'SC {smooth): L: 5-10, 10-20, 20-40, >40; W: 0-.15, .15.3. .3-1, 1-5, >5
OOOOEtOO 9.3741E-02 0 OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 1.7745E-02
OOOOEtOO 0.3401
¦sc (smooth!: L: <5, 5-10. 10-20,	20-40. >40; W: 0-.15. .15-.3, .3-1, 1-5, >5
.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
.OOOOEtQO O.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOCtOO 0.2563	4.5062E-02 6 3313E-02
"SC (smoothI: L: 40; W: 0-.1S, .15-.3, .3-1, 1-5. >5
OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOGOCtOD 0.3393
OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.5322	2.1610E-02 2.6262E-02
"SC (snooth): L: <5, S-10, 10-20,	20-40, >40; W: 0-.15, .15-.3. .3-1, 1-5, >S
.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 8.6406E-04 O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOCtOO 9.4122E-02
•OOOOEtOO 0.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.4546	2.3140E-02 2.9659E-02
"SC (snoottil - Length: 5-40. >40; Width: <.3, >5	,	"
.14S7E-02 3.1507E-02
"SC (inochl - Length: 5-40, >40; Width: <.3, >5	"
.2734E-02 3.0645E-02
-Davis Studies - Using nass to calculate the constant for the dose -	*
.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 5.9335E-02 O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
.3107	0.OOOOEtOO
0.5525	O.OOOOEtOO -7.1447E-05 2.1965E-02 2.1994E-02
"PS (saoothl L: <5. S-10. 10-20. 20-40, >40; *: <.15. .15-.3, .3-1. 1-5, >5
.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.2206	O.OOOOEtOO
.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
0.5853	O.OOOOEtOO -2.9093E-07 2.3400E-02 I.7669E-02
-284.330	35.14	11 O.OOOOEtOO 1.5189C-02 0.9848
-275.192	15.27	10 0.1217	1.1560E-02 0.2105
-214.350	13.01	8 0.1108	O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
0 OOOOEtOO 2.8592E-02 O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.5198
-285.085	51.34	9 O.OOOOEtOO 2.0499E-04 7.1SC1E-0S
0 OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
-272.652	10.23	9 0.31H	O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
-274.379	14.21	B 7.5S95E-02 O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
-273.849	12.39	10 0.2SB9 5.4909E-03 O.OOOOEtOO
-274.767	14,82	10 0.1382 J.llSpE 03 O.OOOOEtOO
-271.857	9.198	7 0.2382 , O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO	7.7491E-02 O.OOljoEtOO 0. OOOOEtOO
-274.561	15.30	8 5.2770E-02 O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO 1.5167E-03 0.1926	O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
i
SC - Length: <5. 5-10, 10-20 20-40, >40; fiB, CtM
2769E-02 2.5229E-02 O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.8311
PS - Length: <5, 5-10, 10-20 20-40, >40; FIB, CtM
4922E-02 1.4464E-02 O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.7031
9.0947E-1)2 2 2160E-02
0.2175	2.2220E-02
-275.569
1.5963E-02
-276.055
1 . 4 475E-02
16.15	9 6.3160E-02 O.OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
16.35	9 5.9294E-02 0 OOOOEtOO O.OOOOEtOO
-------
-09/08/1994" "0»:5».-2l" " I Indirect I n - Length- <5 5-1 a
>.OOOOE.OO 1.9S26C-02 O.OOOOE.OO D.OOOOE.OO 0 OOOOE.OO*
"09/09/1994• -10;4O.-42" "(Indirect) ps - length-\:5 s-.n
>.OOOOE.OO 2.03I4E-02 O.OOOOE.OO 0.OOOOE.OO 0 OOOOE.Oo'
"09/00/1994" -10:40:54- -(Indirect) SC - length <5 5-in
I.130SE-03 0.4515	0.OOOOE.OO 0.3474	0.OOOOE.OO
"09/09/1994" -15:25:33- "(Indirect) SC - Length- <5 5-,n
I.130SE-03 0.6515	0.OOOOE.OO 0.1474	0.OOOOE.OO
"09/09/1994" "15:25:54" "(Indirect) PS - Un,th 55- 0
1.0000C400 2.Q334E-02 0. OOOOE.OO 0.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO
"09/09/1994" -15; 28:54* - (Direct! PS - Length- .00001*00 O.OOOOE.OO 2.0403E-02 9.05JIC-04 0 OOOOC 00
-09/09/1994- -15:29:19- - (Olrectl SC - Length- 40: F40, CIM
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO 0.9805
10-20 20-40, >40) FiB, cm
O.OOOOE.OO oioOOOE.OO 0.979'
10-20 20-40, >40; FIB, CtH
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO
10-20 20-40, >40; F«B (w<.J), CM
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO
10-20 20-40, >40; r(B lw<.3). CiM
O.OOOOE.OO 0.0000000 0.9797
10-20 20-40.	*40I riB <«<.J), CtH
4.61086-03	0.9375	3.6S47E-02
10-20 20-40,	>401 r«8 (wc.JI, C»M
O.OOOOE.OO	0.9790	1.5448E-02
2.774 3E-02
2.7748E-02
6.7921E-02
6.7921E-02
2.7748E-02
2.2579E-02
2.2709E-02
"09/15/1994"
t.CSl«E-04 5
"09/15/1994"
I. OOOOE.OO 2
"09/15/1994*
1.3CC1E-0J 0
"09/15/1994*
4.C242E-04 0.
*15:28:41'
.2736E-02
-15:29:00'
0334E-02
-IS:29:18'
0O0DE»00
*15:29:34"
C6S8
' -(Indirect) rs - Length:
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO 0
' "IIndirect) ps - length:
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO 0
"(IndirectI SC - Length:
O.OOOOE.OO 0.99*5	0
-1Indirect) SC - Length:
O.OOOOE.OO 0.3124	0
<5, 5-10,
.OOOOE.OO
<5, 5-10,
.OOOOE.OO
<5, 5-10,
•OOOOE.OO
<5, 5-10,
.OOOOE.OO
10-20 20-40, >40; width: <.J, >- .3
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO 0.9471	2.654SE-02
10-20 20-40, >40: FIB lu<.3), CiM -,3)
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO 0.9797	2.7748E-02
10-20 20-40. >40; width: <-3. >- .3
o.ooooE.oo o.ooooe.oo o.ooooe.oo G.saooe-o?
10-20 20-40, >40) FIB (w<.3), CH4 Cw>-.1|	"
O.OOOOE.OO O.OODOE.OD O.OOODE'OO B.1093E-02
"09/19/1994* "15:14:20
¦7. OOOOE.OO 0.1713
-09/29/1994* -15:14:30
OOOOE.OO 0.1113
-09/29/1994* "15:14:3B'
1.0000EMH) 0.ooooe*oo
*09/29/1)94* "IS; 14:46'
f. OOOOE.OO o.ooooe»oo
> "(Indirect) PS - Length: <5, 5-10,
0. OOOOE.OO 0.1244	O.OOOOE.OO
' "(Indirect) M - Length: <5, 5-10.
O.OOOOE.OO 0.1244	O.OOOOE.OO
' "(IndlrectI SC - Length: <5, 5-10,
O.OOOOE.OO 0.9859	1.1353E-02
¦ " (Indirect) SC - Length: <5, 5-10,
O.OOOOE.OO 0.9855	1.2036E-02
10-20 20-«0, >40; width: <.3, >- I
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO 0.7044
10-20 20-40, >40; width: <1, >» 1
O.OOOOE.OO 0.OOOOE'OO 0.7044
10-20 20-40, >40: width; <.3. >- 1
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOE.OO -6.8408E-0*
10-20 20-40, >40: width: <1. >- 1
O.OOOOE.OO O.OOOOCOO 7.077 IE-10
2. 8364E-02
2.8954E-02
2. 5704E-02
2.5422E-02
"10/08/1994*
J.952S -4
-10/08/1994-
1.9933 . 1
-10/08/1994-
'>.3111 0
"10/01/1994"
'.9539 1
"10/08/1994*
J.7III	0
•13:35:2®'
. 4052E-13
*13:35.30'
.9299C-13
-|3:35i33'
.2213
*11i35:35'
. 1028E-13
1171
' " (Directl
2.2531E-02
' " (Direct)
2.2452E-02
' " (Direct)
2.4778E-02
' " (Directl
2.1312E-02
' (Direct)
2.2471E-02
8S - Length-. 5-35, >35) width: <-4, >-.4
4.9013E-02
SC - Length: 5-35, >35; width: <.4, >-.4
2-62I0E-02
PS - Length: 10-15, >35( width: <.4, >-.<
1.49I9E-02
SC - Length: 10-35, >35; width: <.4, >-.<
Z-0133C-02
PS - Length: 10-30, >30; width: <-4, >>.4
2.1357E-02
* -291.736
0.1171
33.23
11
0•OOOOE+ 00
0.00DOE»0O
0.OOOOE* 00
" -201.699
0, 1125
33. 16
11
0.QOOOE* 00
0.OOOOE* 00
0.O0O0E*00
' -301 .OH
2.44DIE-02
90. 67
9
0.QOOOE* 00
0.OOOOE* 00
0.OOOOEIOO
' -301.014
2.4401E-02
90.67
9
0 . OOOOEt Of>
0.OOOOE'00
o,ooooe*oo
-261.698
0. 1125
33.16
11
0.OOOOE* 00
0.OOOOE*00
oooooe»oo
-211.173
0. 1224
17.54
0
2.4O0BE-O2
0.000OE*0O
o.ooooe*oo
-272.162
0.1006
9.944
9
0.3545
O.OOOOE*00
0.OOOOEIOO
-202.522
0.1306
33.70
10
Q .0000000
0. 00Q0E* 00
0 .OOOOEIOO
-201.698
0.1125
33.16
11
o.ooooe»oo
0.0000£*00
0.OOOOEt00
-312.657
1.201OE-O2
116. 4
9
0.00006*00
1.I927E-04
O.OOOOE«DO
-304.051
2.541SE-02
103.5
0
o.ooooe>oo
2.1660E-07
o.ooooe«oo
-270.476
1. 1107E-O2
26. 59
10
2.10O3C-O1
O.OOOOE*00
o.ooooe«oo
-2 70.476
1.1IB1E-02
26.59
10
2 -1803E-Q3
0.OOOOEIOO
o.ooooc+oo
-273.0*9
1.267 6E-02
15.15
0
5. 5 4 31E-02
5.3701E-05
2.6475E-03
-273.637
1.2459E-02
14.50
0
6.0763E-O2
5.1098E-05
2.3654E-03
-273.526
12.55
9
0.1032
J.6055E 02
t.OS30E 02
-274.549
13-85
10
0-1?92
6.7303EO3
0.OQOOE»QO
-279.769
21.65
9
3099E-01
0.3404
4 9499E 02
-2?4.577
13.29
9
0.1492
2.7992E-02
I.efl71E 02
-270.770
21.61
9
9. 4M 1E-D1
0 1 124
5.92fir. n?
-------
1/08/1994" "IJ;35:4l- - (Direct)	SC - Length: 10-30, >10: uidth: c.4, > ». 4
¦18	2.Q145E-02 2.1867E-02	1.4365E-02
1/08/1994- "13:35:43* - IDiiectl	PS - Length: 5-30, >30; width: <.4, >-.4
,06	-2.2348E-I0 2.0451E-02	3.4136E-02
1/08/1994" "I3:35:46" - IDiiectl	SC - Length: 5-30, >30; uidth: <4, >-.4
162	8.4893E-02 2.3156E-02	1.50B3E-02
1/09/1994" *13:35:41" * (Ditectl	PS - Length: >40; width: <.4, >-.4
,41 0.1680
1/08/1994" *13:35:51" - (Direct!	SC - Length: >40; width: <.4. >-.4
162E-02 3.1167E-02
D/00/1994" •15:07:24" " (Ditectl	PS - Length: 5-35, >35; width: <.4, >-.4
',25	-4.4052E-13 2.2537E-02	4.9OI3E-02
0/08/1994" "15:07:27- - (Directl	SC - Length: 5-35, >35,- width: <.4, >-.4
¦133	1.9299E-13 2.2452E-02	2,62206-02
0/08/1994" "15:07:29" " (Directl	PS - Length: 10-35, >35; width: <4, >-.4
i)lB	O . 2283	2 . 4778E-02	1.69B9C-02
0/08/1994" *15:07:32" - (Directl	SC - Length: 10-35, >35: width: <4, >-.4
>^39	1.IO20E-13 2.1312E-D2	2.O133E-02
0/OI/1994" *15:07:35" " (Directl	PS - Length: 10-30, >30; uidth: <.4, >-.4
L12	0.1171	2.2I71E-02	2.1357C-02
0/08/1994" * 15:07:38" - (Directl	SC - Length: 10-30, >30: width: <.4, >-.4
.j 38	2.014SE-02 2.1867E-02	1.4365E-02
0/01/1994" ¦15:07:41" " (Directl	PS - Length: 5-30, >30; width: <-4, >-.4
.386 -2.2348C-IO 2.0451E-02	3.4136E02
0/08/1994" "15:07:44" " (Direct)	SC - Length: 5-30, >30j width: <.4, >-.4
062	8.4893E-02 2.3156E-02	1.5083E-02
0/08/1994" "15:07:47" - (Direct)	PS - Length: >40; width: <.4, >-.4
544 0.1680
0/04/1994" "15:07:49" " (Ditectl	SC - Length: >40: width: <.4. >-.4
062E-O2 3.11S7E-02
0/10/1994" "08:00:28* " (Olreccl	PS - Length: 5-35, >35; width: <-4, >-.4
•52S	1.109SE-13 2.2538E-02	4.9012E-02
0/10/1994* *08:00:31" * (Directl	SC - Length: S-3S, >35; width: <-4, >-.4
¦933	1.9284E-I3 2.2454E-02	2.6220E-02
0/10/1994" "08:00:33" " IDlrect)	PS - Length: 10-35, >35; width: <.4, >-.4
BIT	0.2283	2.4718E-02	1.6987C-02
0/10/1994" "08:00:36" " (Directl	SC - Length: 10-35, >35; width: <.4, >-.4
'539	1.Q979E-13 2.1314E-02	2.0134E-02
0/10/1994" "08:00:38" * (Direct)	PS - Length: 10-30, >30; width: <.4, >-.4
113	0.1171	2.2472E-02	2.13S6E-02
Q/10/1994" "08:00:41" " (Direct) SC - Length: 10-30, >30; width: <.4, >-.4
238	2.0172E-02 2.1869E-02	1.4365E-02
0/10/1994" *08:00:44- " (Direct) PS - Length: 5-30, >30; width: <.4, >-.4
'596	2.7876E-13 2.O451E-02	3.41311-02
275.485	15.94	9	6.7417E-02	1 2623E-02	2.3444E-02
273.993	12.89	9	0.1669	1 9S02E-02	2.1946E-02
277.242	19.78	10	3.O632E-02	a 8853E-03	O.OOOOEtOO
331.3S2	132.3	11	Q.0O00E40O	I.000	3.B06HE-14
300.176	70.SS	11	O.OOOOE+OO	0.7468	0.2532
-273.526	12.55	9	0.1332	3 6B55E-02	1.063BE-02
274.549	13.35	10	0.1792	6 7383E-0J	O.OOOOE»DO
278.769	21.65	9	9.3099E-03	0 3404	4.9499E-02
274.577	13.29	9	0.1192	2 7992E-02	1.8079E-02
278.770	21.61	9	9.4S43E-03	0.1124	5.9273E-02
-275.485	15.94	9	6.74771-02	3.2623E-02	2.3444E-02
273.993	12.89	9	0.1669	1.9502E-02	2.1946E-02
-277.242	19.78 . 10	3.0632E-02	8.8B53E-03	O.OOOOEtOO
331.352	132.3	11	O.OQOOEtOO	1.000	3.8068E-14
300.376	70.55	11	0.0(1005*00	0.7468	0.2532
273.526	12.55	9	0.1932	3.6955E-02	1.0638E-02
-274.549	13.85	10	0.1793	6.73B4E-03	O.OOOOCtOO
278.768	21.65	9	9.3202E-03	0.3404	4.9500E-02
274.577	13.29	9	0.1491	2.1991E-02	1S0BOE-O2
278.771	21.61	9	9.4607E-03	0.1123	5.9294E-02
275.485	15.94	9	6.7504E-02	3.2620E-02	2.3446C-02
273.992	12.89 < 9	0.1670	1.9478E-QJ	2.1954E-02
-------
,0399e-02 3
"10/22/1996-	"sc	l»n9th3 >"10
•8864«-04
-10/22/1996-	"SC PCM lenqths >-10 and widths < O.J
.2t87e-03
-10/22/1996- "19:33:01- "SC PCM lengths >-10 and widths < 0.4
.0126.04
"10/22/1996" "19:33:02" "SC PCM lengths >-10 and widths < 0.5
9682a-04
"10/22/1996" "19:33:02- -SC PCM lengths >-10 ®nd widths >-0.3
.1901a-04
"10/22/1996" "19:33:02- "SC PCM lengths >-10 »nd widths >-0.«
¦011J«-0«
¦10/12/1996" "1»!31:01- -sc PCM lengths >-10 and widths >-0.5
.0040a-01
¦10/22/1996" "19:JllOl" *SC PCM lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.3, >-0.J
.OOOOEtOO 1.000	1.0016a-02 5.190U-04
"10/22/1996" "19:13:03" "SC PCH lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.4, >-0.4
.1906	0.1094	2.9857«~02 7.3280e-04
"10/22/1996" "19:13:03" "SC PCH lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.5, >-0.5
.I101a-02 0.931J	2.9234e-02 9.6970e-04
"10/22/1996" "19:13:04- "SC PCM lengths <5, 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.3, >-0.3
•OOOOCtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.OOOOCtOO 1.000	3.0016e-02 5.3901a-04
*10/22/1996- "19:31:04" "SC PCM lengths <5, 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.4, >-0.4
.OOOOCtOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.1906	0.1094	2.9857a-02 7.3280e04
"10/22/1996" *19:31:05" "SC PCM lengths <5, 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.5, >-0.5
.OOOOCtOO O.OOOOEtOO 6.8701a-02 0.9313	2.8234e-02 }.6970a-04
"10/28/1996-
-12:44:57-
-OPS
PCM
lengths
<10,
>-10

¦523Sa-02 5
1220«-04






"10/2«/1996"
•12:44:57"
"OPS
PCM
lengths
>-10


. 1220a-04







-10/28/1996-
"12:44:58"
-OPS
PCM
lengths
>-10
and widths
< 0.3
.6«2)a-01







"10/H/1996"
•12:44:51"
-OPS
PCM
lengths
>-10
and widths
< 0.4
4464a-0)







"«/2»/19«"
"12:«4:5«*
•OPS
PCH
lengths
>-10
and widths
< 0.5
. }|40e-01







"U/li/1996"
•12:44s5»"
-DPS
PCM
lengths
>-10
and widths
>-0.3
.41MC-0I







*10/2t/»»W
-12:4415V
•DPS
PCM
lengths
>-10
and widths
>-0.4
.9117*-04







-10/28/1996-
-12:44:59*
"DPS
PCM
lengths
>-10
and widths
>-0.5
.2912a-04







"I0/28/I996-
"12:44:59"
•OPS
PCM
lengths
<10,
>-10 and widths <0.3, >-0.3
-292.2B3
-301.779
-300.564
-299.230
-291.282
-291.615
-209.530
-291.212
-291.297
-2B9.410
-291.282
-291.297
-289.410
-287.949
-287.949
-316.501
-300.922
-793.750
-289.6S8
-291.088
-292.160
-286 - 566
56.96
90.24
87.30
90.93
53.08
51.13
47.01
53.08
53.07
47.20
53.09
53.107
47.20
44.46
44.46
110.2
82.23
61 .78
48.OS
51.44
54.13
41.96
12	0.OOOOCtOO
12	O.OOOOEtOO
12	O.OOOOEtOO
12	O.OOOOEtOO
12	O.OOOOEtOO
12	O.OOOOEtOO
12	O.OOOOEtOO
12	O.OOOOEtOO
11	O.OOOOEtOO
11	O.OOOOEtOO
12	O.OOOOEtOO
11	O.OOOOEtOO
U	O.OOOOEtOO
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1 .000
1 .000
1 .000
O.OOOOEtOO
0.OOOOEt00
O.OOOOEtOO
0.OOOOEtOO
0.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO
3.O399e-02
4 . 354Se-02
4.2830«-02
4.089Je-02
1.0016«-02
3.0601.-02
2.B679e-02
0.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO
0.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO
O.OOOOEtOO
12	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO	1.000
12	0.OOOOEtOO 1.000	2.52J5.-02
12	O.OOOOEtOO 1.000	J.3622«-02
12	O.OOOOEtOO 1.000	4.4147a 07
12	O.OOOOEtOO 1.000	3.5229e-02
12	0. OO'lOEt 00 1.000	2.6465* 02
12	O.OOOOEtOO	1.000	2.7837e-02
12	O.OOOOEtOO	1.000	2.n610e n7
11	O.OOOOEtOO	0.OOOOEt 00	o. annnr. > on
-------
10/10/1994- -09:00:47" " (Direct! SC - Length: $-30, >30; wldrh: <4. >*.4
* -277.24 1
19.77
10
3.O658E-02
0.99SOE-O3
0.OOOOEfOO
9062 0.4973E-02 2.3157E-02
t.5094E-02






'10/10/1994" -08:00:49" * lOirectl PS - Length: >40; width: <.4, >-.4
" -331.357
132. 3
11
0.00Q0E* 00
1 .000
3T8065E-14
1544 0.1690







' 10/10/1994* "09:00:52" * (Direct* SC - Length: >40; width: <.4, >-.4
* -300.376
70.55
11
0.OOOOE+OO
0.7469
0.2532
6B57E-02 3.1I65E-02







'10/18/1994" *10:52:04- " (Direct) SC - Length: 5-40, >40; width: <.4, >-.4 (not adjusted)
" -275,345
17.04
10
5.694JE-02
2 . 4333E-03
0.OOOOEfOO
9963 1.2560E-03 2.7391E-02
4.7 399E-02






"10/10/1994* *10:52:22* " (OUectl SC - Length: 5-40, >40; width: <3, >-.3 (not adjusted)
* -2*5.510
17.22
10
6.0 761E- 02
1. 3B29E 03
0.OOOOEfOO
9604 3.Q243E-02 2.5503C-O2
8.5973E-02






•11/10/1994" "13:06:25* * (Dlrectl SC - L: 5, H: <.4; L:5. W: >-.4: L: >40, w: <.4 (noL adjusted)
* -275.346
17.06
11
0.416TE-02
2 4379E-03
0.OOOOEfOO
9976 2.7465E-02 4.7575E-02








Log-Like
Chi -S
DF
ip-value
coefficients for each
ngth-wldth category followed by
2 equation coefficients






" 10/22/1996* "19:32:55* *PS PCM
lengths <10, >-10
" -296.320
69.01
12
0.OOOOEfOO
0.OOOOEfOO
1 .000
416U-02 3.56S3e-04







"10/22/1996* *19:32:56- "PS PCM
lengths >*10
- -296.320
69 .01
12
0.OOOOEfOO
1 .000
3.416le-Q2
5653e-04







-10/22/1996* *19:32:56* *PS P04
lengths >-10 and widths <0.3
* -325.595
129.6
12
0.OOOOEfOO
1 .000
0.1064
6404«-O3







" 10/22/1996* -19:32:56" "PS PCM
lengths >*10 and widths < 0.4
- -312.334
110.2
12
0.OOOOEfOO
1 -000
6.6970e-02
9852«~03







" 10/22/1996* *19:32:57* *PS PCM
lengths >-10 and widths < 0.5
" -306.968
96.93
12
0.OOOOEfOO
1 .000
5.5436e-02
4187e-03







* 10/22/1996" *19:32:57" *PS PCM
lengths >-10 and widths >-0.3
* -297.031
70.29
12
O.OOOOCfOO
1 .000
3.5080«-02
9243e-0«







* 10/22/1996* *19:32:57* *PS PCM
lengths >*10 and widths >-0 4
* -290.06?
72.82
12
0.OOOOEfOO
1 .000
3.6791e-02
0886e-04







10/22/1996* *19:32:57* "PS PCM
lengths >-10 and widths >-0.5
- -298.522
73.82
12
0.OOOOEfOO
1 . 000
3 . 7221e-02
4693«-04







*10/22/1996* *19;32:58" "PS PCM
lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.3, >-0.3
* -296.220
68.97
11
G . OOCdEf00
0.OOOOEfOO
0.OOOOEfOO
6171 0.3829 3.I084C-02
B.9l73e-04


it



10/22/1996* *19:32:58" "PS PCM
Lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.4, >-0.4
* -296.121
69.75
¦0.OOOOEfOO
0 OOOOEfOO
0.OOOOEfOO
6218 0.3782 3.3966«-Q2
9.64SW-04






' 10/22/1996" "19:32:58" "PS PCM
lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.5, >-0.5
* -296.226
69 . 95

*0.OOOOEfOO
0. OOOOEfOO
0.OOOOEfOO
5800 0.4200 3.4167e-02
7.8386e-04


~
it



10/22/1996* *19:32:59* "PS PCM
lengths <5, 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.3. >-0.3
" -296.228
68.97
0.OOOOEfOO
0.OOOOEfOO
0.OOOOEfOO
OOOOEfOO 0.OOOOEfOO 0-6171
0.3029 3.4084e-02 fl.9173e-04



G.OOObEfOO


•10/22/1996- "19:32:59* "PS PCM
lengths <5, 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.4, >-0.4
* -296.124
68 . 75
u
0.OOOOEfOO
0.OOOOEfOO
OOOOEfOO 0.OOOOEfOO 0.6218
0.3782 3.3966e-02 B.6454e-04



O.OOC'&EfOQ


10/22/1996* -19:32:59* "PS PCM
lengths <5, 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.5, >-0.5
- -296.226
68 . 95
i l
0.OOOOEfOO
0.OOOOEfOO
OOOOEfOO O.OOOOCfOO 0.5800
0.4200 3.4167e-02 7.83B6e-Q4






10/22/1996- *19:33:00" "SC PCM
lengths <10, >-10
" -292.283
56. 96
i?
0.OOOOEfOO
0.OOOOEfOO
1 .000
-------
0.7938	o 20«' a-«31.-02 2.1051.-03
"10/28/Imk- •itiif-Q*" "DPS ra'	<10, >-10 and widths <0.4. >-0.4
0.7526 0 2.46O4.-02	1.6363.-03
"10/28/1996* -12:45:00" "DPS PCM	lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.5, >-0.5
0.7521 0.2472 2.4906.-02	1.4603.-03
"10/28/1M*" *12:45:01" "DPS PCM	lengths <5, 5-10, >»10 and widths <0.3, >-0.J
o.oooofoo o.ooooe»oo 0.793s	0.2062 2.4(31.-02 2.1051.-03
"10/28/1996" *12:45:01" "OPS PCM	lengths <5. 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.4, >-0.4
0.00aoemo	o.ooooe»oo 0.7526	0.2474 2,4604.-02 1.6363.-03
-10/20/1996" "12:45:01" "OPS PCM	l.ngths <5, 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.5, >-0.5
>.OOOOS+OO O.OOOOEtOO O.7S20	0.2472 2.4906.-02 1.460 3.-0 3
"10/20/1996" "12:45:03" "DSC PCM	lengths <10, >-10
>.3313«-02 S.S129.-04
"10/20/1996" "12:45:03" "DSC PCM	l.nqths >-10
i.5l29«-O0
"10/20/1996" "12:45:03" "DSC PCM	langths >-10 and widths < 0.3
1.	9603.-03
"10/21/1996" "12:45:04" "DSC PCM	l.nqths >-10 and widths < 0.4
1.2027.-03
"10/21/1996" "12:45:04" "DSC PCM	lengths >-10 and widths <0.5
?.0725«-04
"10/21/1996" "12:45:04" "DSC PCM	lengths >-10 and widths >-0.3
>.5397a-0«
"10/21/1996" "12:45:05" "DSC PCM	lengths >-10 and widths >-0.4
?.7066«-O4
"10/20/1996" "12:45:05" "DSC PCM	l.ngths >-10 and widths >-0.5
I.3372«-03
"10/21/1996" "12-:45:05" "DSC PCM	lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.3, >-0.3
>.1662 0.9330 2.3616.-02	0.4322.-04
"10/20/1996" •12-45:06" "DSC PCM	lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.4, >-0.4
1.2051 0.7149 2.34 47.-02	1.0409.-03
"10/20/1996" *12:45:06" "DSC PCM	lengths <10, >-10 and widths <0.5, >-0.5
>.3050 0.6950 2.31.03.-02	l.l895e-03
"10/20/1996" "12:45:06" "DSC PCM	lengths <5, 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.3, >-0.3
>.0000E»0O O.OOOOE+OO 0.1662	0.03."8 2.361Se-02 1.4322.-04
" 10/20/1996" *12»45:07" "OSC PCM	lengths <5. 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.4, >-0.4
•.OOOOClOO O.OOOOEtOO 0.2851	0.7149 2.3447.-02 1.0489.-03
"10/20/1996" "12j4Ss07" "DSC PCM	lengths <5, 5-10, >-10 and widths <0.5. >-0.5
>.0000£»00 O.OOOOEtOO 0,3050	0.6950 2.3103.-02 1.1195.-03
-206.586 4 1 .99	11	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-286.449 41.81	11	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-286.566 41.86	11	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-286.586 41.99	11	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOE'OO	O.OOOOEtOO
-286.449 41.81	11	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-283.543	33.35	l?	1.107«e-05	O.OOOOEtOO	I.000
-283.543	33.35	12	1.1074e-05	1.000	2.3313.-02
-292.585	62.75	12	O.OOOOEtOO	1.000	2.935O.-02
-291.994	61.26	12	O.OOOOEtOO	1.000	2.9669.-02
-288.758	50.76	12	O.OOOOEtOO	1.000	2.7648.-02
-283.168	31.45	12	8.3897.-04	1.000	2.3906.-02
-283.756	32.11	12	4.9080.-04	1.000	2.4780.-82
-284.839	33.02	12	O.OOOOEtOO	1.000	2.5206.-02
-283.115	31.57	11	1.4270.-04	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-283.015	31.25	11	2.5114.-04	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-283.016	31.11	II	1.0503.-04	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-283.115	31.57	II	1.4? 70.-04	0 OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-28J.015	31.25	11	2.5114e 04	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-283.016	31.11	11	3.050Je- 04	O.OOOOEtOO	O.OOOOEtOO
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 18
Lung Cancer Mortality among Asbestos Cement Workers in Sweden
Albln et a/., (1990)
Relative Risk of Dying of Lung Cancer
Predicted
f-y/ml	RR Lower Bound Upper Bound St. Dev. (a = 1) (a variable)
3.1
1.8
0.8
3.9
0.4
1.06
1.82
25.6
1.9
0.7
5.3
0.5
1.49
1.85
88.2
1.9
0.5
7.1
0.7
2.69
1.92
jodness of Fit P-valu<



0.32
0.95
iSt Of hoi a=1
= 0.02
itlmates of KL (f-y/ml^1
i=1)
. = 0.019
1% CI = (0, 0.065 )
t variable)
.« 0.00067
>% CI ° { 0, 0.036 )
A. 57
RmMon 1-028/01
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quota
Figure 19
Lung Cancer Mortality among Belgian Asbestos-Cement Factory Workers
Laquete/a/., (1980)
Number of Lung Cancer Deaths
Predicted
f-y/ml	Observed Expected (g= 1) (a variable)
25
(0-49)
6
5.2
5.2
4.6
75
( 50 - 99)
3
2.4
2.4
2.3
150
( 100- 199)
5
4.6
4.6
4.3
300
(200 - 399)
4
7.5
7.4
7.0
600
(400 - 799 )
1
2.0
1.9
1.9
1200
<800- 1599)
2
0.57
0.5
0.6
2400
(1600-3200)
0
0.17
0.2
0.2
Goodness of Fit P-value
Test of hb: a=1
p = 0.34
Estimates of KL (f-y/ml)-1
(a-1)
KL = 0
90% CI = (0 , 0.0010)
(a variable)
KL » 0.000068
90% CI = (0 ,0.0021 )
A.58
Rsvlsloo 1 - 8/28/01
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quota
Figure 20
Lung Cancer Mortality among Retirees from a US Asbestos Company
Enteriineef a/., (1986)
Tippcf-y
f-y/ml
SMR
Observed
Expected
Predicted
(a = 1) (a variable)
(< 125)
186
182.3
23
12.6
17.5
21.8
( 125-249)
546
203.1
14
6.9
14.7
15.9
(250-499)
1056
322
24
7.5
23.7
23.4
( 500 - 749 )
1B18
405
10
2.5
11.7
10.8
(>= 750)
2928
698.7
8
1.1
8.1
7.1
ss of Fit P-valu€
'2
Hb: a=1
>




0.75
0.92
&s of Kl (f-y/ml)"1
3021
= (0.0015,0.0027)
ible)
3011
« (0.00041, 0.0028)
A.59
RwMon 1 - 8/28/01
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quote
Figure 21
Lung Cancer Deaths among Insulation Workers in the United States and Canada
Se/ikoff and Seidman, (1991)
Predicted
sr First
ure
Duration o
Exposure
f/ml
Person-
Years
f-y/ml
Observe<
(DC)
Ratio
Expectec
(a = 1 )
(a varying
( <15)
2.5
15.0
61655.4
37.5
7
1.81
3.87
5.13
9.87
15-19)
7.5
15.0
52709.5
112.5
34
2.93
11.60
22.96
33.42
20-24 )
12.5
15.0
57595.4
187.5
85
3.09
27.51
72,39
88.25
25-29)
17.5
15.0
50518.6
262.5
172
3.69
46.61
153.07
164.81
30-34 )
22.5
15.0
37165.8
337.5
252
4.38
57.53
226.49
222.29
of Fit p value	<0.01 0.12
i- 1
: 0.01
3f KL (f-y/rr,})
7
0.0081, 0.0093)
)
8
0.00065, 0.0038 )
M.CU
Revision 1 - B/2B/01
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quota
Figure 22
Mesothelioma Deaths among Asbestos Insulation Workers
Selikoff and Seldman, (1991)
Number of Mesotheliomas
rst Exposure
(<15)
( 15-19)
(20-24)
(25-29)
(30-34)
(35-39)
(40-44)
(45-49)
(50*)
Duration of
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
"it P-value = < 0.01
/(8/28/01
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quota
Figure 23
Lung Cancer Mortality among Workers in a Pennsylvania Textile Factory
McDonaldet at., (1983b)
Predicted
mppcf-y f-y/ml
SMR
Observed Expected (
a = 1 )
(a variable)
5 (< 10) 15
66.9
21
31.4
34.1
20.7
15 (10-20) 45
83.6
5
6.0
7.5
5.6
30 (20 - 40) 90
156
10
6.4
9.7
8.8
60 (40-80) 180
160
6
3.8
7.6
8.3
110 (>=80) 330
416.1
11
2.6
7.6
9.6
Goodness of Fit P-value
Test of Po: o=1
p < 0.01
Estimates of KL (f-y/ml)-1



0.08
0.76
{
-------
Preliminary Working Draft - Do Not Copy or Quota
Figure 24
Mesothelioma Mortality among Pennsylvania Textile Plant Workers
McDonald eta!., (1983b)
Years After First
Duration
ttml
Person-Years
Predicted by
Exposure



model
15.5
8.18
6.96
17179
0.22
24
9.18
6.96
40868
8.21
41
9.1C
6.96
9840
14.57
Estimate of KM (f-yJ/ml)"1



KM * 10® =
1.1



90% CI * 10® =
(0.76, 1.5)



A. 03	R«*ton1-a/2M01
-------
Years After f-irst txposure
Exposure
i/mi
Years
VAIbCIVCU
by model
11.5 (0-19)
0.5
9.1
28015
0
0.0
22.5 ( 20-24)
0.5
9.1
46682
0
02
27.5 (25-29)
0.5
9.1
3469.8
0
0.3
32.5 ( 30-34)
0.5
9.1
20412
0
0.3
37.5 (35-39)
0.5
9.1
840.4
0
02
42 (>=40)
0.5
9.1
402.3
0
0.1
11.5 (0-19)
3
9.1
4785.6
0
0.0
22.5 (20-24)
3
9.1
877.4
0
02
27.5 (25-29)
3
9 1
631.7
0
0.3
32.5 ( 30-34)
3
9.1
421.3
0
0.3
37.5 (35-39)
3
9.1
237.7
0
0.3
42 (>=40)
3
9.1
148.4
1
02
11.5 (0-19)
7.5
9.1
8520.5
0
0.0
22.5 ( 20-24)
7.5
9.1
1416.8
0
0.5
27.5 (25-29)
7.5
9.1
1103.5
0
0.9
32.5 (30-34)
7.5
9.1
7072
0
1.1
37.5 (35-39)
7.5
9.1
383.3
0
0.9
42 (>=40)
7.5
9.1
249.1
0
0.9
11.5 (0-19)
15
9.1
4814.1
0
0.0
22.5 ( 20-24)
15
9.1
1423.3
0
0.5
27.5 (25-29)
15
9.1
869.7
0
0.9
32.5 ( 30-34)
15
9.1
469.7
3
1.0
37.5 (35-39)
15
9.1
204
0
0.7
42 (>=40)
15
9.1
102.3
1
0.5
22.5 ( 20-24)
25
9.1
848.3
1
0.3
27.5 (25-29)
25
9.1
935.3
1
1.0
32.5 (30-34)
25
9.1
599.7
2
1.3
37.5 (35-39)
25
9.1
257.1
1
1.0
42 (>=40)
25
9.1
121.7
0
0.8
32.5 ( 30-34)
35
9.1
862
0
02
37.5 (35-39)
35
9.1
106.9
0
0.4
42 (>=40)
35
9.1
103.4
0
0.7
Goodness of Fit P-value = 0.8
Estimate of KM (f-yVml)"1
KM * 10" « 1.3
90% CI * 1 CP = (0.74,2.1)
A. 64
Revision 1 - B/28/D1
-------
APPENDIX B:
BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPROVED EXPOSURE INDEX
FOR ASBESTOS
-------
PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT - DO HOT COPY OR QUOTE
APPENDIX B:
BACKGROUND FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN AD HOC
EXPOSURE INDEX FOR ASBESTOS
The asbestos exposure index recommended for supporting risk assessment in this
report (i.e. the interim index, C^, as defined by Equation 7.13) represents a
compromise. The index preserves most of the important features of the optimum
exposure index (Equation 7.12) that is recommended based on the results of our
supplemental literature review (Chapter 7) combined with our formal statistical re-
analysis of the animal inhalation studies conducted by Davis et al. (Section 7.4.3).
These features include:
•	a maximum structure width similar to;
•	the same minimum structure length as; and
•	the same analytical requirements for obtaining the required counts as
the optimum index. However, due to the limitations in the published size distributions
available for re-evaluating the human epidemiology studies (Section 6.2.4.2), the
longest category of structures had to be shortened from that incorporated in the
optimum index (40 pm) to 10 |im, which is incorporated in the interim index
(Section 7.5).
Nevertheless, we expect to provide somewhat conservative (in a health protective
sense) estimates of asbestos exposure because we believe that:
•	the minimum length for the structures included in C^ (5 pm) is sufficiently short
to capture the range of structures that contribute both to lung cancer and to
mesothelioma in humans;
•	the maximum width for the structures included in (0.5 pm) is greater than the
greatest width observed to contribute in our formal analysis of the Davis et al.
studies and is expected to be sufficiently wide to capture the bulk of the range of
structures that contribute both to lung cancer and to mesothelioma. Importantly,
contributions from thicker, complex structures are also included because the
counting rules adopted to provide measurements for generating estimates ''
-------
activity than the current index (Section 7.5). The analyses presented in Sections
6.2.4.2 and 6.3.3.2 demonstrate that, when human dose-response coefficients are
adjusted to match the exposure expressed as C^, the variation observed in the
published values across studies is reduced in comparison to unadjusted coefficients
(which are matched with CpcUE).
Remarkably, the improved across-study agreement observed when risk coefficients are
adjusted to C^, is achieved despite the limitations of the manner in which the
coefficients are adjusted, including:
•	that the definition of itself is a compromise that does not fully account
for the effects of structure size. The optimum exposure index
recommended in Section 7.5 of this document (Equation 7.12) could not
be applied to the epidemiology studies because available TEM size
distributions would not support it (Section 6.2.4.2). Therefore, as
indicated above, the length dimensions of the longest size category
incorporated into is substantially shorter than what is considered
optimal;
•	that the size distributions employed to adjust risk coefficients to match
C*sbwere obtained from analyses performed in separate studies than
those from which the corresponding risk coefficients were derived. Thus,
the size distributions employed for the adjustments were typically derived
under time-frames and conditions that differed from those that obtained
during the studies from which the risk coefficients were derived, even if
such studies were conducted in the same facility (which was not always
the case);
•	that the same size adjustment was applied to each of the multiple risk
coefficients representing a particular fiber type in a particular type of
industrial setting (e.g. chrysotile in textile production) even when such risk
coefficients were derived from studies at different facilities, which would
typically exhibit somewhat varying conditions; and
•	that each risk coefficient was subjected to a single, average adjustment
for fiber size despite the fact that each such coefficient was derived from
B-2
Rcviskjn 1 - W3/0)
-------
PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT - DO NOT COPY OR QUOTE
a long-term study during which exposure conditions (potentially including
fiber size distribution) typically changed substantially over the course of
the study.
Due to the limitations described above, a small number of follow-on studies are
recommended in the text of this document (Chapter 8), which would provide the
additional data required to allow use of a better optimized exposure index and may
reduce some of the uncertainty associated with use of generic-industry-based
adjustments rather than study-specific adjustments.
As a further test of the relative performance of the recommended, interim index (vs. the
index in current use), we compared the ability of the interim index (C.^) and the current
index (Cp^) to fit (predict) the relative tumorigenicity of six tremolite samples that were
intraperitoneally injected into rats in a study by Davis et al. (1991). This is a study to
evaluate the relative tumorigenicity of tremolite samples that vary primarily by the
difference in the degree of their "asbestiform character" (i.e. the difference in the
degree that each contains asbestos-type fibers vs cleavage fragments of acicular
tremolite).
The data from this study were selected for evaluation for two reasons:
(1)	because the published study includes detailed bivariate size distributions
for each of the samples, which allows us to derive concentration
estimates based on each of the exposure indices of interest; and
(2)	because the study provided an opportunity to evaluate the importance of
considering the degree of "asbestiform character* of a sample when
analyzing such samples for risk assessment.
The data used to develop estimates of the magnitude of the response (i.e. frequency of
tumors) and the magnitude of the dose injected for each sample in the Davis et al.
study, based on the current index of exposure, CPCME, is provided in Table B-1. The
first column of the Table indicates the identification of the sample. The second and
third columns, respectively, provide the number of animals dosed and the number of
mesotheliomas observed. The fourth column is an estimate of the rate of
-------
TABLE B-1:
THE DAVIS ET AL 1991 TREMOLITE DATA WITH EXPOSURE
EXPRESSED AS PCME STRUCTURES1
No. of
No. of
Point Est _
Mho Rate


No. PCME
PCME
PCME
i Animals
Mmo'i Mho Rata UCL
LCL

Dose
Fibers
UCL
LCL





(mg)
(.10-® str)
(.10"* str)
(-10"6 str)
36
36
1
1
0.915
10
1497
1562
1434
36
35
0.972
0.999
0.875
10
746
792
702
33
32
0.970
0.998
0.865
10
677
722
634
36
24
0.667
0.795
0.515
10
137
158
119
33
4
0.121
0.255
0.043
10
230
257
206
36
2
0.056
0.165
0.01
10
49
62
38
1 Source: Davis et aJ. (1991)
D.Wayne Barman and Kenny S. Crurrv
-------
PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT - DO NOT COPY OR QUOTE
Columns seven and eight of Table B-1 present, respectively, the mass dose
administered and the estimated number of PCME fibers administered to each animal
for each sample. Columns 9 and 10 (the last two columns of the table) present,
respectively, the upper and lower confidence bounds on the estimated number of fibers
in each sample dose. These confidence bounds are derived assuming that the number
of fibers observed in each sample is Poisson distributed.
The fit of the estimated doses (based on PCME) to the observed tumor incidence is
provided in Figure B-1. In this figure, the observed mesothelioma incidence is plotted
on the Y-axis and the estimated PCME dose is plotted on the X-axis. The solid
squares are points representing the observed tumor incidence and the best estimate of
average dose for each experiment. The hollow rectangles surrounding each solid
square represent the estimated confidence bounds for each point (i.e. the confidence
bounds for tumor incidence on the vertical axis and the confidence bounds for dose on
the horizontal axis). The curve in the figure represents the best-fit dose-response
model (which has the same form as that described to evaluate the Davis et al.
inhalation data (Equation 7.7, Section 7.4.3), except that the symbols have been
changed and the equation simplified for this application:
lM = 1 - exp(a - Pd)	(B.1)
where:
lu is the observed incidence of mesotheliomas in each experiment;
a is a coefficient used to adjuste for any estimated background rate
of mesotheliomas among unexposed rats;
P is a coefficient representing the potency for PCME fibers; and
d is the estimated dose of PCME fibers.
Because background rates from an appropriate control population was not provided in
this paper, the background incidence of mesothelioma was optimized as an adjustable
parameter. The fits of this model to the data was optimized visually by trial and error.
In thie mmi		•
-------
figure b-t
OBSERVED TUMOR RESPONSE VS. PCME
STRUCTURES
(Data from Davia et al. 1991)
100
PCME Structures
1000
10000
D. Wayne Barman and Kenny S. Crump
-------
PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT - DO NOT COPY OR QUOTE
As is obvious from Ihe figure, the fit is entirely inadequate, as the "best fit' line does not
even touch two of the six hollow boxes in the figure. Moreover, it should be obvious
from the relative location of the hollow boxes representing the samples with the three
lowest tumor responses in this figure, that no smooth dose-response curve can be
constructed that can pass through all three of these boxes. Therefore, it is not possible
to fit these data using this index.
In comparison, the data used to develop estimates of the magnitude of the response
(i.e. frequency of tumors, which is the same as in Table 6-1) and the magnitude of the
dose injected for each sample in the Davis et al. study, based on the interim index of
exposure, C^, is provided in Table B-2. The information provided in each of the
columns of Table B-2 is the same as the information provided in the corresponding
column from Table B-1.
In further comparison, the fit of the estimated doses (based on the interim index
recommended in this document) to the observed tumor incidence is provided in
Figure B-2. The format for this figure is identical to that described for Figure B-1. The
best fit of the model to the observed mesothelioma incidence in these experiments
using the interim index indicates a coefficient for the background rate, a = 0 and an
estimated potency coefficient, P = 0.19. That the resulting curve passes well within the
boundaries of the hollow boxes for each of the six samples indicates that this model
provides an adequate fit to these data.
Note that the appearance that the boxes representing the confidence intervals in this
figure are larger than in Figure B-1 is an artifact created by the difference in the scales
of the two figures. Because the magnitude of the doses for the interim index are
smaller than those for PCME, the X-axis scale in Figure B-2 is expanded relative to
Figure B-1. Thus the boxes appear wider in Figure B-2.
When dose is expressed in terms of the interim index recommended in this document,
the observed tumor incidence for the six tremolite samples studied by Davis et al.
(1991), each with vastly differing degree of asbestiform character, can be adequately
predicted. This means, among other things, that it is not necessary to distinguish
fibers from cleavage fragments when evaluating potency using the recommended,
interim index. All structures that exhibit the reauisite dimensions, whether asbestiform
-------
TABLE B-2:
WIS ET AL. 1991 TREMOLITE DATA WITH EXPOSURE EXPRESSED
AS WEIGHTED "INTERIM INDEX" STRUCTURES1
No. of
Pt Est
Meso Rate


No.
No. long
Weighted
Weighted
Weighted
Meso's
Rate
UCL
LCL
Dose
Prot str
Prot str
Prot str
UCL
LCL




(mg)
(.104 str)
(.10-* str)
(.10"* str)
(10-* str)
MO-4 str)
36
1
1
0.915
10
1212
215
217.991
331.07
136.24
i 35
0.9722222
0.9985
0.875
10
536
270
270.798
37.3.10
191.56
» 32
0.969697
0.9985
0.865
10
113
27
27.258
49.06
13.63
i 24
0.6666667
0.795
0.515
10
18
3
3.045
7.92
0.83
I 4
0.1212121
0.255
0.0425
10
25
3
3.066
9.66
0.55
i 2
0.0555556
0.165
0.01
10
2
1
0.006
3
0
1 Source: Davis et al. (1991)
D. Wayne Berman and Kenny S CrLrr-
-------
SERVED TUMOR RESPONSE VS.
GHTED PROTOCOL STRUCTURES
(Data from Davis et al. 1991)
Weighted Protocol Structures
-------
This appendix shows how additional lifetime risk of lung cancer or mesothelioma are calculated
from the models from which K{_, the potency for lung cancer, and K^, the potency for mesotheliomas,
are derived. First a general model is developed thai allows a variable exposure pattern, and the lung
cancer and mesothelioma models are shown to be special cases of the more general expression. Next
the procedure used 10 implement these modeb based on human mortality rates is explained. Finally,
the mortality rates used in these calculations are derived.
Let D « (D(t); l> & 0} represent exposure to asbestos (i.e., exposure at age t is D(t) t/ml), lei
So(t | x) be the probability of surviving to age t given survival to age x < L Let M^t) be the mortality
rate for a given cause at age t. The probability of dying of the given cause during a small age interval
At at age t is the probability of surviving to age t times the probability of dying from the given cause
g^ven survival to age t, or
S|j(t |x)M^(l)At.
The probability of dying of the given cause is given survival to age x therefore given by the integral
Pc(*) « / S^t | x)Mp(t)dt.	(t). It is shown below how expressions (Bl), (B2). and (B3) are used to convert estimates from the
modeb in Section 6.2 into estimates of additional risk.
It will be assumed that the increase in the mortality rate at age t from an exposure of D(v)
-------
Thus g(u,t) is an intensity function that relates an exposure u years prior to age t to the resulting
mortality rate at age t. It is further assumed that the total mortality rate at age t is the sum of the
contributions from all doses prior to age t, plus the background mortality rate Mg(i); i.e.,
I
M^i) = Mo(t) + / D(v)g(i-v,t)dv.J	(B4)
0
To obtain tbe relative risk model for lung cancer in Section 6.2.1, lei
Mo(i)lQ.	B > 10
iOm) -	(B5>
0	a < 10.
By applying (BS) to (B4) and performing the integration, it follows that
t-10
Mj>(t) - Mfl(t) [1 + Kl f D(v)dv).	(B6)
0
Thus, the relative risk at age t, Mp(t)/M0(i), is given by
l + Kj, " [total exposure up to 10 years prior to age i],	(B7)
which agrees with expression (E.4) in Section 6.2.1. However (B7) holds generally for any exposure
pattern D(v), whereas (E.4) is more specialized in that it presupposes a constant exposure.
To obuin the absolute risk model for mesothelioma in Section 6.2.2 from (B4), define the
intensity function
3K* (u-10)2 u > 10
g(u,t) «	(B8)
0	u < 10
Thus tbe intensity function is proportional to the square of elapsed time since exposure less 10 years. Ii
then follows thai
».in
-------
If a constant exposure rate is assumed over a fixed age interval.
f lj < V < X2
(BIO)
D(v) -
0 otherwise.
then
Mo(t) + K^fO-tj-lO)3
for ij+lOcKt^-HO

Mo(t) +	- (t-irlO)1! for t>t2+l0.
(Bin
which agrees with the mesothelioma model (E_5) in Section 622.
To implement these models the integral (Bl) must be evaluated using the appropriate
expression for the mortality rate Mc(t) (expression (B6) for lung cancer and (Bll) for mesothelioma).
Let bJt b2r~, bJt be the mortality rates (expected number of deaths) for all causes per year per 100,000
persons for the age intervals 0-5, 5-10^..^0-85, and 85+ years, respectively, and let	be the
corresponding rates for lung cancer. Given survival to age x=5k, the probability of survival to i=5i
years is estimated as
Given survival to age 5(i-l), the probability of dying of lung cancer by age Si is estimated as
The probability of dying of lung cancer given survival to age 85 is estimated as ajt/bjg. Therefore, the
probability of dying of lung cancer in the absence of asbestos exposure, given survival to age x=5k is
estimated as
SoO-x) -HT [l-5b;/100,000).
j-k+1
(B12)
5a/l00,000.
(B13)
17
i-1
P0(x) = T |(5aj/100,000) tf(l-5b./100,000)1
.«k+l	i-k+1
(B14)
17
+ Cufoia) TT (l-5b;/l00,000).
j-k+1
-------
Ei = * [total exposure up to 10 years prior
lo mid-point of ith age interval].
(B15)
where Kg. is the potency parameter (risk factor) for lung cancer. (Here a,+E, is playing the role of
Mj>(t) in equation (B6).) The additional lifetime risk of lung cancer is estimated by the difference
Pi>(*)-Po(x). For example, to estimate the future risk to a person presently 20 years of age, we would
use x=20 (i.e., k=4) in (B14).
The additional lifetime risk of death from mesothelioma is estimated using the same formulas,
except a, is replaced by zero (background rate of mesothelioma is so small as to be unimportant), and
(following equation B9) E, is replaced by a discrete approximation to
1,-10
3K* J D(v)(t,-v-10)2dv,
0
where t, is the mid-point of the ith age interval. Appropriate modifications are made to these
expressions when x is not a multiple of 5.
Sex- and smoking-specific estimates are used for the mortality rates required in the above
calculations (a,- and b,). Lung cancer mortality rates for nonsmokers are obtained by averaging rates for
nonstnokers are obtained by averaging rates for three different time periods calculated from the
American Cancer Society prospective study (Garfinkel 1981). Lung cancer mortality rates in smokers,
(P(LCF|S)], are calculated using the equation
P(LCD) » P(LCF | S)P(S) + P(LCD | NS)[1-P(S)],	(B16)
where P(LCD) is a 1980 age- and sex-specific death rate from lung cancer in the general U.S.
population, P(S) is the fraction of smokers in the population, P(LCD | NS) is an age- and sex-specific
death rate from lung cancer in nonsmokers computed from Garfinkel (1981), and P(LCD | S) is a
corresponding rate in smokers. The proportion of smokers, P(S) is assumed to be 0.67 for males and
0-33 for females, which is consistent with the U.S. EPA (1986) approach. Smoking-specific rates for all
causes are calculated from 1980 U.S. rates for all causes assuming that the mortality rate in smokers is a
factor, f, times the morality rate in nonsmokers. An age-specific mortality rate, P(AC | NS). in
nonsmokers is then calculated using the formula
P(AC) « fP(AC | NS)P(S) + P(AC| NS)(1-P(S)J,
where P(AC) is a 1980 age- and sex-specific death rate from all causes in the general U.S. population.
Following Hammond (1966), the factor f is taken as 1.83 for males and 1.26 for females. This
procedure is followed for all age groups despite the fact that smokers generally do not begin smoking
ttviltl tMM## wart ttfirf Ih*	nnnfi monolttvr mill nm nrnit nnfil ctill hi#r TV»«	littl**
-------
APPENDIX C:
COMPENDIUM OF MODEL FITS TO ANIMAL INHALATION DATA IN SUPPORT OF
THE BERMAN ET AL. (1995) STUDY AND POST-STUDY WORK
-------
APPENDIX C:
COMPENDIUM OF MODEL FITS TO ANIMAL INHALATION DATA IN SUPPORT
OF THE BERMAN ET AL. (1995) STUDY AND POST-STUDY WORK
The attached tables are a compendium of raw outputs for the fits of various (exposure
index) models to the Davis et al. animal inhalation studies. Each entry lists the date of
the run, the size categories included in the run, the maximum likelihood estimate for the
run, the degrees of freedom, the P-value for the fit, and the coefficients representing
the relative potency assigned to each size category for the model.
NOTE THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THIS APPENDIX WAS NOT IN OUR MISSION
SCOPE. THEREFORE ADDITIONAL ELABORATION OF THE INFORMATION
WOULD REQUIRE TIME AND EFFORT AND CANNOT CURRENTLY BE PROVIDED.
-------
Table B1
Smoking- and Sex-Specific Mortality Rates Per Year Per 100,000
Population for Respiratory Cancer and Tout Mortality
Ate
Total Mortality

Resoiratorv Cancer
Smokers Nonsmoken
Smokers
Nonsmoken


Males


0-1
1679.0
918.0
.4
0
1-5
85.4
46.7
.0
0
5-10
411
215
XI
0
10-15
45.0
24.6
.0
0
15-20
1663
90.9
.1
0
20-25
2393
130.8
.4
0
25-30
230.7
126.1
.7
0
30-35
230.5
126.0
12
0
35-40
288.4
157.6
93
0
40-45
4283
234.0
762
83
45-50
686.8
3753
16.1
3.1
50-55
1109.0
606.0
155.1
7.9
55-60
1717.8
938.7
263.2
10.2
60-65
2623.7
1433.7
4018
173
65-70
3991.2
2181.0
556.7
28.2
70-75
59112
3263.5
698.5
25.2
75-80
8796.8
4807.0
750.6
44.9
8045
13218.0
7222.9
711.0
715
85+
22110.4
12082.2
527.1
1003


Females


0-1
1324.9
10513
3
0
1-5
63.5
50.4
3
0
5-10
29.7
23.6
3
0
10-15
26.6
21.1
.0
0
15-20
61.6
48.9
.0
0
20-25
71.8
57.0
3
0
25-30
79.1
62.8
.9
0
30-35
98.1
77.8
17
0
35-40
144.4
114.6
10.6
0
40-45
233.0
184.9
27.9
14
45-50
372.8
295.9
67.4
33
50-55
578.7
4593
124.0
5.2
55*60
869.2
689.8
178.8
7.0
60-65
1327J
1053.6
234.8
13.6
65-70
1993J
1582.0
2816
16.2
-------
APPENDIX D:
DERIVATION OF LIFETIME RISKS FOR LUNG CANCER AND MESOTHELIOMA
FROM MODELS USING ADJUSTED Kt AND K„ ESTIMATES FOR POTENCY
-------