The record
OSHA's Salt Lake Technical Center, analyzing ten materials for FDA, identified tremolite asbestos in four samples by PCM-PLM and SEM/EDX, while X-ray diffraction detected no regulated asbestos mineral in any sample.
Claim scope
A second federal laboratory independently corroborating tremolite in cosmetics, AND — decisively for the method dispute — that XRD returned 'none detected' on the very same samples where microscopy found tremolite. OSHA states why: 'The amount of potential regulated fiber in the samples as noted by PCM/PLM and SEM/EDS is very small and likely below the limit of detection for the XRD, which is generally taken as 1% in practice.' Also: 'None of the XRD results was positive for the presence of any of these regulated asbestos minerals.' Nine of ten submitted samples were analyzed; FDA instructed OSHA to hold back one (Claire's Highlighting Pallet, 945287) without analysis.
What this source does not establish
OSHA expressly disclaims interpretation: 'This report presents data and evaluation of the materials examined. It does not express any opinions of OSHA regarding any issues within the purview of the requesting Agency.' The report says the fibers 'appear morphologically fibrous, and likely asbestos' — hedged language ('likely'), which the page must preserve rather than upgrade to a flat identification. Does not establish current contamination; samples date to the 2018-2019 FDA action.
Limitations
THIS IS THE SINGLE BEST GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT FOR THE 'DOES NO-DETECT MEAN NO-ASBESTOS' QUESTION: one set of samples, two answers, depending on method — XRD 'ND' versus microscopy 'tremolite asbestos'. It empirically demonstrates the 0.5-1% XRD blind spot that FDA later quantified in the 2024 proposed rule. OSHA methods: PCM-PLM per OSHA Method ID-191 and 29 CFR 1910.1001 Appendix J, central stop dispersion staining at n=1.605, plus SEM/EDX and XRD.
Source
Gov Report — Daniel T. Crane, 'Report of Evaluation of Cosmetics and Cosmetic Talc for FDA', U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center, Sandy, Utah, 23 February 2019 (response to Agency Technical Assistance Request dated 23 March 2018 from FDA CFSAN Office of Cosmetics and Colors)