Document 6z78jpJDXe6v1wYxgzxoJG1R

{-p-1 H THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY Midland, Miehifan MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING BETWEEN UMWA-MANAGEMENT BARGAINING COMMITTEES CONCERNING PIPE COVERERS WORXING WITH ASBESTOS I I Representing August 19, 1969 UNION COMMITTEE Schroadar (Chairman), Halcomb, Raid, Evans, Brseslnskl, Prior, Kablback, Edgacomba COMPANY COMMITTEE Naaring (Chairman), Martini, C. Warren, Todd, Plagana, Colllna, Englbous, Johnson, Eastman, Reed. Supervision and Dapartmantal Representatives Andarson, DaGasaro, Dr. Kramar, Warran, Badlay, Kegley. ST0000366 Discussion Naaring bagan that thay wara thara to discuss a problem thay wars concarnad with. Jack, why don't you pick yp tha ball'and glva tha explanation? Mayba tha bast way to do it would bo to run through tha whola problem and than opan it up for quastions; or would you lika questions as you go? Badlay answered no. Lac me just glva kind of a short praambla on what wa did out in tha plant. Wa had six groups of paopla consisting of both Covarara and tha production paopla and tha Maineananca Sacclon Managar in eharga of tha malncananca for that par ticular group. Wa klckad tha meeting off by making the scacamanc as such, chat wa do have a presentation that takas baewaan 30 and 35 minutes to go through and we'd lika the questions held until the and. Those questions chae aren't answered by tha presentation, than we'd give the group a chance to do this. We had two-hour meetings. As I say, the presentation cook 30 to 35 minutes. And most of the time wa used up between an hour and an hour and twenty-five minutes on questions. These wara generally points on clarification of data and chat type of thing. Tha Section Managar introduced me and I aort of played tha role of introducing Che panel. I think what I'd like to do-- and Dr. Kramar is going to play Dr. Duconmon's role, who is on the panel, and Dr. Kramar was thara to help answer questions afterwards-- 1 chink we'll go right through these and raad precisely what wa gave and than opan it up for questions. I seartad out by saying, "Many of you genclasMO have waited soma time for this gac-co-gachar. I'm sura the following presentations by Dr. Ducommon from our Medleal Dept., Roy DaGasaro from Environ mental Research, Roy Andarson from Organic Chemicals Malncananca, and Larry Warran now Sist of Construction in CCP, will be of vital interest to you. DOU 06152 Special Mealing -2- Auguat 19, 1969 There are several reasons for this Interest on your part - mainly however, a request by the covermrs .on "How Poes the Handline of Asbestos Content Insulation Affect Me?" Other intereaca win b* '^hac are the Solutions?" end "How Should We Implement- rh. Solutions? Solutions to a problea sometimes cause other problems a couple in which the production people here have a stake, such es technology and costs. This obviously la a matter of concern to them. These fellows, thet I named before, are going to present the problem co you - the solutions, with tiae for questions. I'm sure you -- especially the Coverers -- will be listening carefully. I'm also sure that by the end of these presentations all of your questions will be answered. I would now like co introduce Mr. DeCesero from Environmental Research: "Good day, gentlemen. My name is Roy DeCesero froa Environmental Research. Your supervision requested that Che Environmental Research Lab survey and evaluate Pipe Coverers' exposures to dusts from the insulating materials commonly used here at Che Midland location of Dow Most insulating materials found in use here contain either asbestos or fiberglss. These insulation materials provide Che sources of ex posure to asbestos or fiberglss. Z would like co discuss sc this time the results of a survey conducted from.January through April, 1969, ^ concerned with evaluating Pipe Coverers' current levels of exposures--i co asbestos and fiberglss from insulating materials commonly used, o The health standards for exposure to asbestos or fiberglss have beet formulated by e group called the American Conference of Governmental^ and Industrial Hygeniscs. This group has accumulated end reviewed cn sound and current data pertinent to the health problems associated with the use of fiberglss and asbestos, and has defined what is chough to be safe levels of exposure for the eight-hour day with asbestos or fiberglss. The American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygenists expresses these esbestos and fiberglss health standards in terms of eight-hour average concentration numbers. These numbers cell how much of a certain duse a man can tolerate with no adverse effect on his health, assuming he's exposed eight hours a day, day in and day out for his entire working career, to the dust. Mow, the health standards are average numbers. That means thee a man can be exposed for a short period of time to concentration levels above the health standards, provided he is exposed for periods of equally long duration the concentrations below the health standard so we do Indeed arrive at an average mndber. These mabers or health standards are called threshhold limit values. They ere designed to protect essentially all working men who use asbestos or fiberglss. For asbestos, the present health standard is 5 million psrtieles per cubic foot. This is the concentration number that the health standard is formulated at the eight-hour concentration number. This data wee arrived at some years back and the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygeniscs, after reviewing research literature and field experience DOU 06153 Special Netting 3 August 19, 1969 of asbestos, has proposed that the standard ba lowered from five to two million particles per cubic foot for the eight-hour day. This lower number should provide protection for you fellows using esbestoscontaining insulation materials. By 1971, this new standard of two million particles per cubic foot will be in effect. Now, let's look et the standard for fiberglee. The threshhold limit value or health standard for flberglas says how much fiberg la a dust a man can tolerate with no adverse affect on hie health for his entire working career, assuming he is exposed eight hours a day, day in and day out to dust of flberglas. The American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygenists, has placed this health standard number et fifteen million particles per cubic fooe in the eight hour day. Asbes tos has a much lower number, two million particles per cubic foot, than flberglas does. That's because the two dusts have e much dlfferen affect on health. Since the standards ere drawn up for the eight-hour day, we have to know how you pipe coverers spend the eight-hour day to see if Dow compares with the standards. Pipe covering is quite complicated. Often the pipe coverers work ell day with one material and will not use this material for days' there after. Therefore, to estimate where the average pipe coverer spends his day in terms of say, a year, we talked to you men, had you fill out questionnaires and talked to your supervisors. Ve then decided ^ on this basis where to sample for the dust. Ve found out whet is in^ each material. First we have to know how long you fellows ere exposed to dust snd we have to know what the dusts contain, asbestos or fibers glas. Finally, we go out into the field end measure how much dust actually present. We determine the concentration of the dust. Now,^ the old asbestos health standard says thee e man should be exposed on the average to an eight-hour concentration of five million particles per cubic foot. The proposed new standard says you should be exposed to two million pertleles per cubic foot: Ve evaluated your exposures to see how they compered with the present standard of five end how they looked according to the future standard of two. This slide shows whet we found. For the eight-hour day, men working Indoors with insulation materials containing asbestos, were exposed on an average to A.9 million particle per cubic foot of asbestos-containing dult. This Is Just under the present standard of five. As you coin see, it's in excess of the pro posed standard of two. Men working outdoors received an eight-hour average exposure of 4.2 million pertleles per cubic foot. Again, we're under or within the present standard of five million particles per cubic foot, but are in exeess of the proposed standard of two million particles per cubic fooe. For flberglas now, you'll remember that the etandard If fifteen mil lion particles per cubic foot. Fer a man working Indoors, the DOW 061 Special Minute* -4- - August 19, 1969 This is within ehe standard. Fellows working outdoors were exposed to an eight-hour average concentration of 0.4 Billion particles per cubic foot. Again, ehia Is within the standard. Generally speaking, outdoor exposures were lower than Indoor exposures because of the air movement outside generally tnds to dilute dust better than air move ment Indoors. The concentrations were lower outside and the exposures dropped off accordingly. In summary then, the currant levels of exposure to 'flbotglas are wichi the proposed standard. The current levels or exposures to asbestos arwithin the present health standards for asbestos, but are in excess of the proposed new health standard of 2 Billion, pardeles per cubic foot according to this survey,>and a potential chraat to your health exists. Dow must provide a healthy work envlronBenc and Banageaent recognizes that it has a moral and legal coaaleaent to you Ban to implement the best known health standards as soon aa possible. The Environmental Research Laboratory has therefore suggested three possible ways to youmanagement of lowering Pipe Coverers' exposure to asbestos so that these exposures would be within the proposed health, standards by 1971 when these new standards take affect. The proposeIs (are: The proposals are: 1) Use local on-the-job air aovers to pull dusts away from the pipe coverers. 2). Use approved respiratory protection whenever pipe coverers perform specific operations which cause high exposures. This point will be diseussed la greater detail somewhat later. 3) As much as possible, substitute for Che present materials which contain asbestos and are causing this to ba in excess of the proposed health standards, ocher materials which ara safer to use than the present Insulating materials. I'd like to thank you gentlemen for your attention and at this time turn the meeting over to Dr. Ducommon of the Medical Department, who will discuss soae of Che implications in this survey. Today Dr. Kramer will be speeking. Dr. Eraser began that the lung on responds differently to different kinds of dusts. What you spit oue-i or sae on your handkarchlef does no hara. What stays behind in cheg lung may or aay not cauae hara, depending upon what it la. To unde stand the discussion regerdlng asbestos, we would like you to have 0 some understanding of the basic structure of the lung. cj ' Here is a slice of actual normal king tissue. Think of it es being similar to a sponge with many cells, except that in the lung there is an air tube going to eech end every one of the cells. These cells are called alveoli and it is here where the gaseous exchange cakes place. The air cubes are known as the sir-conduction system of the lung. They branch out as they leave the nose end threat becoming smaller in size and larger in number until they finally reaeh the small cells at the end. In this piece of lung tissue you can see cross cuts through the various sixes of eir tubes. DOW 06155 Special Meecing 5- August 19, 1969 If you spread out all of the alveoli, which arc the equivalent to the cells in the sponge, on a flat surface, they would oceupy en eree somewhat bigger than a bsdmitton court end slightly smaller than a 22 tennis court. You can see then that the lung surface has a greater o exposure to the outside sir than does the skin, the skin having en o exposure area of a few square asters at the aost. o The amount of dust you breathe depends la part on the particle sice of the dust. The range of sise Important here is one-tenth micron ifP diameter to ten microns In diameter. The larger particles tend to be trapped in the upper part of the breathing system, while the smallest particles tend to move in and out of the alveoli without becoming trapped. The particles in between these two extreme sixes may become trapped anywhere from the nose and throat to Che alveoli. The rate and depth of breathing also Influence dust exposure; the faster end deeper you breathe, the more dust you are likely to take into your lungs. In dealing with dusts, the lung has many protective mechanisms/ The cough reflex is one of these end is effective in expelling inhaled dusts which Irritate the tubes of the air conduction system. The nose and throat warm and clean the air of larger particles before it arrive: at the first branching of Che tubes of'the air conduction system. The large hairs in the nose act as a filter in stopping the large dust particles. If you breathe through your mouth rather chan through the nose, this particular protective mechanism is bypassed, end therefore mouth breathing should be avoided. The air drawn into the lungs is properly humidified in addition to being warmed to protect the tissue from injury. Another very important protective mechanism the lung has is a slimy coating called the mucous blanket which contains many hair-like pro jections celled cilia. These cilia constantly sweep upward la unison carrying Inhaled dust particles to the nose end throat where the parti cles are swallowed, spit out, or blown out through the nose into your handkerchief. This self cleansing system works twenty-four hours e day and is very efficient. Now some dusts ere considered nuisance dusts. This means that no mat ter what the quantity of dust you breathe, the lung is capable of clearing itself of the dust. Nuisance dusts do not cause disease and they are not retained in the lung in significant quantities. Other dusts are retained in the lungs but eeuse no signifleant changes and the lungs continue to function ee they normally would. For example, one of these would be iron dust. On the other hand, there ere dusts which are harmful to the lung. You have all heard of silicosis. It is interesting that we do noe know why they do injury to the lung except that they do. Different forma of silica produce different degrees of silicosis end some forms do not produce any disease at ell. Spec ill Meeting -6- " August 19, 1969 uefiooois With thet a e background, let us now Calk about asbestos. Asbestos is a material which is found in nature and is made up of a group of fibrous minerals. Its chemical composition varies. There era many kinds of asbestos, but at least four era useful In industry. These are Blue African Asbestos and Bad African Asbestos mined chiefly in South Africa, and two kinds of White Asbestos, one of which is mine mainly in Europe (Anthrophollte). Asbestos has bean associated with a lung disease which we call Aabes- tosis. Asbestosis was first recognlsedas an industrial disease at the turn of the century and is a scarring condition of the lungs which is progressive and interferes with the effective exchange of gasses across the pulmonary membrane. Tha asbestos fibers are stiff and they seem to mechanically irritate tha lungs; those chat remain in the lung become coated with protein and iron salts* Our present industrial hygiene standard of five million particles par euble foot appears to adequately protect against tha development of asbestosis. There have been no cases of asbestosis in our pipe -coverers; ' Our pipe coverers are exposed to varing amounts of asbestos during the course of their work and as you know, we have recently undertaken to measure their exposure. As Mr. OeGesero has pointed out to you, the exposure levels of 4.9 million particles per cubic foot Indoors and 4.2 million particles per cubic foot outdoors are within the present standard established by the American Conference of Governments Industrial Hygienists and up to this point would have been considered a safe standard. In fact, it is still the standard used by most of industry. However, there are many people who feel this level is too high and will have to be lowered to Che proposed new standard of 2 million psrticlas per cubic foot scheduled to cake effect in about two years. There era two ocher lung diseases we are concerned about that appear co be associated with exposure to lower levels of asbestos than that which causes claasicsl asbestosis. One is a very rare tumor ealled a mesothelioma which develops from the cells lining che chest and abdominal cavities. Some research workers feel this disease is assoelsted only with exposure to the Blue African Asbestos, but this point la not clears the ocher types may causa it also. The other disease is lung cancer which you know has been sssociated with heavy smoking. It has been thought that high exposure to all types of ssbescos dusts over long periods of time increased che risk of lung esneer. Becently it has been reported that there is an in creased risk of this disease in workers who smoke and may be exposed to somewhat lower levels of asbestos dust. Smoking should be par ticularly discouraged among asbestos workers. Smoking tends to descrov the heir-like cells in the mucous blanket thus defeating one Special Minute* 7 August 19, 1969 Even chough che new standard of 2 million particles per cubic foot he* noc gone into effect, we feel thee we chould acarc now co meet chia new acandard before ie become* official. Thla will mean aome *** inconvenience to choae of you who work with aabeacoa and it will re-lj quire che uae of proper proceetlon ae time*, aa well aa much more E> careful handling of che material. Ie may also require che uae of o substitute maceriala ocher chan aabeaeoa. o u Fiberglaa which you have heard mentioned briefly by Mr. DeCesero ia one possible substitute for aabeacoa. Some people have accused ie of presenting a pulmonary hazard, fiberglaa doe* cause itching of che sk and prickling. It can cause some nose end throat irritation, buc all che literature reviewed particularly of Che impartial investigators in the field, those of Dr. George Urighc and Dr. Paul Gross Indicates the there is absolutely no pulmonary hazard whatever, and Dr. Cross is presently suggesting chat fiberglaa be classified as an inert dust, one of the nuisance dusts. It is our feeling that this is in the best Interest of the health of che pipe covering group, and that the recommendacions made by Mr. DeGesero will have to be acted upon. And now beck to Jack. Badlcy then introduced Warren. m Warren began chat after all of the explanation and.facts concerning th hazards of asbestos, I can imagine e lot of you are wondering "where d< we go from here?" For years and years, asbestos and Insulation value have been almost synonymous. The higher che asbestos content, the eas it was co sell. Most of us were aware of the health problem, covering asbestos, buc it seemed rather insignificant as it didn't seem co be affecting us much. Then there were e couple articles in our local pap concerning the affects of asbestos on the respiratory system. These were brought to my attention and X in turn brought it to the attention of the Medleal Department and Environmental Research. We decided cha each of the coverers should have a chest x-ray and at the same time we should have an environmental research study to find out exactly what our exposure is. We were very pleased to find that none of our coverers had asbestosis. But when the environawntal research findings were told to us we recog nized chat we do have the potential for lung diseases. The Doctor and Roy DeCesro have explained the causes of the problem end the affect on che body. I'm here to tell you whet we expect to do tv eliminate the problem. If you will remember toy gave us three (3) things he thought we could do that would lower the parts per sdlllon of asbestos dust co an acceptable level. 1. Local ventilation. You and I know this is net an acceptable method as it would be almost impossible to do this. DOW 06158 Special Minuets -8- August 19, 1969 2. Use Bureau of Mints approved respiratory protection. I have two with at today and these are both available at the Safety Depart ment. One is the number 66 respirator. The other one is made by the American Optical and it also is available at the Safety Department. This is an acceptable method in most cases if we follow the chart 1 to will now show on the screen. If you will notice, the removing of --* Aircell, Kaylo, High Temp, and Mag Oxide have all been checked. a All of you men who ere in the trade I'm sure have seen the reason S for this. Also checked la the applying of Kaylo.and Alreell. It o was found the applying of either of these insulations caused the <-> parts per million of dust in the breathing area to go to 5.7 which ^ is above the limit. This was almost 351 of your work day. The mixing of abas cos shorts or plus one is also checked for apparent reasons. You will nodes that fiberglas is not checked in any category. The reason for this has been pretty well covered by &oy and Dr. Ducoamon. 1 will only say chat I've heard many controversial words said about fiberglas, but never had Z heard or read anything by a reliable source chat said ic was detrimental to your health. In fact, X have with me a pamphlet put out by Che Industrial Hygiene Foundation of America from which 1 would like to read you a few excerpts. First of all, che 1HF is a non-profit research association for the advancement of healchful working conditions and human relations in Industry and serves che unique function of a focal point for exchange of informadc on health problems allegedly arising from industries' operations, pro duces and wastes. One of the excerpts says this: "Results of medical research, including examinations of hundreds of persons who have workc in fiberglas plants as long as 25 to 30 years gives evidence chac fib* glas is inert and not Injurious to individuals overall health." Anoctn paragraph says, "Based on existing medical evidence dating back to 19^ chrough co che present, airborne fibrous glass le not a hazard to gent health. Hundreds of fiberglas workers have been exposed co higher cru average concentrations of airborne glass particles virtually every vor ing day for as long as 25 to 30 years without exhibiting any pattern c lung disease that can be attributed to exposure to fiberglas." I would say that under some circumstances that It is somewhat uncom fortable. According to most people who have studied its use, a peror using fiberglas insulation should wear loose fitting clothing, no clgt belcs or cuffs end they should keep clean.. Talking about cleanliness brings up another point chat bears mentioning and that le that shower clme for men using fiberglas is not, and X repeat, not automatic or mandatory for health reasons. A supervisor will grant, shower time if he feels the conditions warrant it. 3. Replace our present asbestos-containing insulation with materials that don't cause a Health problem. We have all of our resources on the lookout for replacements now. ` Roy Anderson will cover this subject further, later on. DOW 06159 Special Meeting -9- August 19, 1969 These were Roy's recommendations and starting August the llth here is what we intend to do: l7C00001s a) Substitute as much as possible with non-asbestos materials, fiberglas,foam glass, ceramic foam, polyurethane, ate. b) When using insulation containing asbestos, use a bureau of mines approved respirator as per the ehart. Wa will pass out a wallet sice copy of the chart as you leave. c) Keep on the look-out for more non-asbestos type insulation. If we do these three things there it no doubt in my mind that we wil be below the 2 M.P.P.C.F. limit that will go into affect soon. Gentlemen, we have a problem; it isn't going away by itself. We feel we recognise the problem* and we have the solution. You have heard the plans.. We expect and insist that wa get your full cooperation to implement these plans. I'm sura some of you men are sitting there thinking about possible additional costs, and of the possible corrosio: in some instances where a perfect weather barrier is not achieved. We know we have had some of these problems in the past; we recognise we w have some in the future. By working together we know that all the pr lems can be worked out. Our main objective today is to make the job safe for you men. The economics are important, but not of prime impor at this particular time. s 7*V Thank you for your attention, now here is Roy Anderson to talk about p sible substitutes. Remember August llth is the day that we must wear respiratory protection when working with asbestos type insulation. Th card is your guide. Thanks again. Hera's Roy, Anderson said that he would like to use the transparency showing the "Minimal Respiratory Protection Requirements" to show what we can use substitutes for some of our present insulating amtarials. Z think yoi all know that thare is a very food replacement for Aircell, and that : Fiberglas. Aircell, is 60% asbestos, Fiberglas la 0. Fiberglas is moi than twice as effective as Alreel (k factor .29-.61) as an insulating material. Actually, Aircell should never be used on any Job except f. personnel protection. Zt was never designed for temperatures over 20' and we all know that it is coononly used on lines traced with 150# st (370)F). . In the past, Fiberglas has been condemned because It was supposed to caused corrosiotf. Zt is vary true that fiberglas will hold water th it has been exposed to, whereas Aircell will slpply fall off; however fiberglas, kept dry, is positively not corrosive. This is especially now that new inhibitors have been added to the resin that bonds the f glas together. Z have been told many times that because fiberglas h be wired on, it is more expensive to apply. At this point, we are nc concerned with cost -- we are concerned with doing a better job while the same time preserving your health. Zt is an interesting fact that g *------- - Wirfiawrt Division is the only one Q  ST0000375 Special Minuets -10- -August. 19, 1969 At the present tins calcium-silicate, vlth an asbestos content of about is still the standard insulating auterlal for temperatures up to 1000* Wt- ore evaluating a material called Careytemp 1500. It is an expanded silicone (perlite) type with about 61 asbestos Che same as calciua-sil 'Preliminary tests have shown that it is only about one-half as dusty a Kayio. It does not absorb water and the Phllllp-Carey Company is doln sut.c- wurk on eliminating all of the asbestos. This material has a lot uf potential. Hi-Temp is a dlatomaceous earth-type of insulation vhi toiUrfins about 151 asbestos. There is no non-asbestos substitute for this material on very high temperature applications; however, its use i rather limited and it should not present a real problem. Mac' Oxide is another fairly high asbestos-containing insulation which, .a present, is not being used to any great extent here in Che plant. Mineral wool insulating cement coononly known as Webber's Cement con tains about 101 asbestos and is quite dusty when being mixed with wate U has been suggested that the dry material be made up in batches larg enough to last for a week or two. This would eliminate the need for a respirator each time the material la used. The use of Armentite is sm enough so that making up large batches would not be warranted except i special cases. Every major manufacturer of insulation has been contacted with regard new products available, etc. This practice will be continued and any time we can find a new product that will be awre effective or easier t wurk with, it will be brought into the plant for your use. Hod icy said, as you can see in the past half-hour presentation, the pruUems, the solutions affect all of us. Z want to reiterate the tucL chat management has a moral and legal obligation to protect the health. To continue our efforts to give you a safe place to >rk, we are obviously going to eliminate any Insulating materials the H.iin asbestos. Starting August 11, in specific areas, until adequa MihkCitutions are acquired, approved respiratory equipment kiss be wor 1 ;i .. very brief suanary, Z would like to reiterate these facts: We ha a known health problem. The solutions may not be popular. We have a choice between protecting employee health or occasional discomfort*. I will go on record that it's no choice for me to make. Z make the one in protecting the employees' health. Va are going to protect the em ployees' health and Z would like to have any of your questions, and fct'l free if you would like to ask any one of the panel. Edgecombe said he guessed he had one right off the bat. I'd like to have you show --(machine malfunction--), OeCesero explained that he had brought the sampling equipment or device vlth him today. We didn't have this with the coverers and Z regret it. What we have essentially is abubbler whieh is designed to pick up primarily particles in the range of .1 to 10 microns. Zn this portion you might be able to see some fluid. This is very clean distilled water. We place this on the DOU 0 6 1 6 1 Special Meeting ST0000376 -11- August 19, 1969 puaip, pass a known volume of air through it and the effect Is the sane asihb household vacuum sweeper. We trap dust which is in the man's breathing zone. We located this pump near eha araa around his nose and mouth that he breathes air from. Then we take this dust and put it under a microscope and count the number of particles, the number of particles of dust in the sample. This la a magnification 138 times - just about what we see in the microscope (referring to a transparency) of the fluid in the scrubber. I'd like to call your attention to severs highlights on this magnification. It's pretty veil In focus. You see a number of these black lines. They could be flbera. You see some clu here which are dirt, possible. There la a white area up here which is thought to be of a different nature which glyaa the appearance of havln an overexposed area of the film. I'd like you fellowa to reference the rest of the slides to this general area. Tbla la the area that we'd like to show you in enlargements. The next shot again of this area the 1 was referring to is a 400 magnification. Now suddenly we see many mo fibers and particles visable here than we saw on the last or 100 magnl* ficacion slide. This is that white area that we were referring to. So of these particles could indeed be asbestos fibers. Xf you'll remember this is a sample of Kaylo. Xn blowing this up 1,000 times, again refer ring to that same white area, you see these clumps of dirt-- these are very small now-- and what appears here In my mind to be a classical picture of an asbestos fiber. Again you can see these other strands which are visable on the last series of slides. So this Is basically the nature of the beast I guess. Warren asked DeGcsero what they had counted there. DeGesero explained that what they do, we count up all the particles we can sae here visib Warren interjected that they didn't know whether they were asbestos or not. DeGesero explained that the standard had been specifically formulaced in such a manner that you count the total dust in the sample. It is true that sometimes you'll be counting particles which are these particles appear to be-- are not fibrous or rather perhaps nuisance dir And this has been done to provide a margin of safety in the standard. Because a lot of thesa fibers there may or My not be visable under a microscope. When the original standards wars formulated, the people wh went out and did this work, using the same techniques that we have copi from them, counted total dust In the sample end then reviewed the healt records and the health performance of people exposed to these types of dusts at various levels of exposure. From this they then judged that five million particles per cubic foot of total dust count in an atmosph chat contains asbestos at that time was believed to be a eafe level for eight-hour exposure. Today It la commonly thought that this five numbe is too high. So now we refer to two million particles per cubic foot. Engibous reasoned that the test would tend to give you a conservative answer. On the other hand, X can't believe you draw up all the dust particles in that one bubbler. DeGesero explained that what It does is give a statistical cross section or a statistical sample. Engibous ask DOW 06162 ST0000377 Special Meeting -12- Augusc 19, 1969 ( ' if the five million particles par cubic foot was obtained with the same kind of bubbler. DeCescro said that when he was talking about the five and two, he was talking about health standards. What we do with this gadget is to cake it out in the field and sample the dusts. Ue counted the dusts here--- Engibous interjected that he knew what they did. DeGesero continued that they then compare. Xe'e all the same, the same procedure. Whenever we sample any kind of dust, asbestos or fiber glas, regardless of the concentration In the scrubber, it's all the sam equipment, all analyzed the same way. And analysed X might mention in the standard technique for analyzing dusts. Engibous said he didn't think he was making himself clear. When Che people sent five million particles per cubic foot, they got that particle count with the same kind of bubbler? DeGesero replied, precisely. Engibous reasoned that if they only caught half the particles, DeGesero only caught half the particles. DeGesero explained that the point was that it's a reference point to go from. So we have to be careful to follow and duplicate their techniques as much as possible. Brzezinski asked how many cubic feet of air we normally breathe, say per hour per day. Does anyone happen to know? Dr. Kramer answered that he thought it was something like SOOcc, depending on how deep you' breaching. If you're running or something, it'll be much deeper. If you're resting, it'll be much more shallow. Brzezinski asked how they arrived at the fact that there's a health problem with asbestos if the history of the x-rays of all Che pipe coverers at Dow show there is no problem. Dr. Kramer said, let's go back to Che beginning of this. I became concerned with this first when Bob ------ became a patient of mine. He was a pipe coverer. Xt was suspectad that he might have asbestosis. At that time X looked for data to indicate bow much asbes tos he had been exposed to and found that we did not have sufficient data available and had to base our data on some studies done at Dow Corning to estimate what he had been expoeed to. At this time X asked Mr. Hoyle to see if he would get into the business of checking on what the exposure of our people was. About this sastt time, X started geccir things from Larry Warren and other people regarding the hazards of asbestos. These appeared in the newspapers and X got into the whole topic of just how hazardous is asbestos. X have used many sources in concluding chat it is hazardous at these levels. Mow our group repre sents a fairly small group and as sueh we cannot work with them scads tlcally. Remember, we're not here producing a classical disease, asbestosis. We calked about that as one of the diseases that is produt Another disease, very rare, Amesochellcma, which might never occur in our people. Xc's very rare even in asbestos workers. The third dlseasi is cancer of Che lung. Now cancer of the lung is caused by many different things. Xt has bee: associated with smoking. Nobody really knows all of the causes of cancer of the lung. But there is data in larger groups than ours wher they have enough people which indicates that when you study a large gr DOU 06163 .ST0Q00378 Special Minutes -13- Augusc 19, 1969 of chese people, that you do find a ouch higher incidence of cancer of the lung chan che people chac have been exposed to asbescos ac chase lev 1 calked, co Dr. Silikoff on che phone and talph Sherwood has a letter fr him regarding fiberglas; Buc I discussed asbescos which hla also and aeked him what he felc che safe level for asbescos exposure was. He lakes the extreme view chac che level should be sene cwency-flve times luwer than ic presently is. In ocher words, he would lower lc much U>wur chan lc has been lowered. Z have a statement made before che Congress of che Uniced Scaces by fir. Silikoff in which he presented co the Congress all che scadsclcs on which be makes bis conclusions chac asbestos is a hazard. Z have daca chac indicates the levels chac have been considered co be safe are actually not safe. Now, another thing is, how abouc our group. Z have reviewed che health of our group. I cannoc prove Chac their health is worse insofar as che: lungs are .concerned, but there is sufficient evidence there chac suggest co me chac they do look worse chan che regular .plant population. We're noc a statistically big enough group chac Z can prove my poinc. The Bot .... case, Bob-- Z have his permission Co calk abouc chls. I asked fur ic before 1 even mentioned his name in any of Chase meetings. He developed some chickening of che covering of Che lung. This fs seen in people who work with asbescos. And as a resule ha was scudied in Ann Arbor. They came up with some conclusions chac were rather indefinite. And I personally have recommended Chac we should aceepc chis case as being an occupacional disease Co che insurance carrier. They however claim chac because of che nacure of che reporc from Ann Arbor, chac they cannoc voluncarlly accept che case. Scbroeder remarked chac chac case wasn't conclusive as of right now. It's scill in progress. Dr. Kramer agreed. Z have personally asked them noc Co put me on the stand to testify againsc Bob ------ because Z feel in my own mind chac the Bub ...... cast does have some relationship to his exposures. Schroeder said, if you found out Chat five million pares is detrimental to health, why do you wait to put these into effect? Z mean, lc seems ort of silly chat if Z know this is true, chac tbs five is detrimental why should Z wait until 1971 if we're so worried about people's health? Dr. Kramer replied that there were two answers to this. One is chac ch Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists secs the standard. Whenever they change a standard chay give a period of tls during which people who have data available which might contradict the standard may present evidence co che contrary. Za ocher words( Chis.gives people wh may ehlnk chat five is a good figure or that tan is a good figure, or 1 should be one or lc should be less, time co get la Chair data and do whs ever scudies are necessary so chac when you finally finalise on lc, cha a proposed standard co an actual standard, chare has been as much oppor cunicy given as possible for chis to be done. Schroeder reasoned chac lc wouldn't necessarily cake affect la 1971. There could be enough opposition*- Dr. Kramer stated that chis was possible. We chink che data chac Or. Silikoff has is so strong that this will turn ouc chac va DOU 06164 ;ST0000379 Special Meeting -14- August 19, 1969 An interesting thing happened in the meantime. We were talking about a proposed standard here of the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists, which has been a voluntary standard, which industries have voluntarily used to protect Che health of the worker has not been a legal requirement that they be protected. Mow big industries do follow these standards, but many industries do not fol low these standards. They don't pay any attention necessarily to these figures. Since this all began, the Walsh-Healey regulations have come into affect and this is a part of the Walsh-Healey Act. There are some regulations issued under that act which in effect state these things apply in every plant, factory, building or surroundings, or working conditions which are unsanitary or hasardous or dangerous to the health or safety of employees engaged in the performance of said contracts. It applies to people involved in contracts entered into by any plant with the United*States Government. It's unclear just how wide the application is. Schroeder asked if this was in effect now. Ur. Kramer agreed. DeGesero agreed. Dr. Kramer continued that the legal people did not know whether-- Well we asked them specifically whether our pipe coverers would be under the Walsh-Healey Act. And they cell us chat they think they would be but chat this would not be known until a few cases have come up in court to try the regulation, to see if they stiek. Schroeder asked when chis took effect. What's Che date on this? DeGesero replied, January 1, 1969, I believe. Schroeder asked if this had been proposed or if it had actually been put into effect. Has it been passed? DeGesero agreed. Dr. Kramer explained that it had been passed as far as he knew. Now the Walsh-Healey Act will make it a requirement in other words under circumstances to follow these standards. And they have in here not to sec the standard of five, but they have set the standard of two as che legal standard. In ocher words, they're not waicing until 1971. They've got it into the law now. Schroeder asked Ur. Kramer by what reason he would say that Dow people wouldn't come under che Walsh-Healey Act as pipe coverers. What streteh of the imagination-- Nearing explained that they meant are they all working on jobs with Government contracts involved. That's the question. We have a Government contract for certain products suybe, certain items. But not all of the fellows work in chat area. Schroeder added that they were all subject to that area. Hearing reiterated that what he had explained was the question. Sure, they're all subject B> assign ment to working in chat area. Z guess Z'd agree to Chat. But whether or not chat means we're under the Walsh-Healey Act or not, our Legal Department cold you that they thought they were'. But that some cases might have to be tried in court. Dr. Kramer explained that DeGesero had the opinion from the Legal Department. Meeting thought maybe they had better read che opinion. That question hasn't come up before in ocher areas. DOW 06165 ;ST0Q00380 Special Minutes -15- . August 19, 1969 Dr. Kramer explained that if they couldn't find it ha eould remember ihac che essence of it was chat they teat cases to determine who was suing to be covered where. This is true of all of industry, all across che councry right now. Everybody is trying to figure out whether it applies or not. Schroeder reasoned that if Dow people were under a contract, all the people were subject to most any and every place in the plant. 1 guess if we do have some government contracts, I don't see how thcri-'d be doubt in anybody's mind as to whether we come under the WalshHi-aley Act. 1 guess this sort of surprises me. Warren pointed out that the Legal Department was agreeing with Schroeder. Nearing notled that they didn't give the conform of being able to say, "Yes, you are." Halcomb asked if they were saying then that it Just covered part of them. Nc-ering answered that he wasn't saying that. I'm only quoting what che Legal Department has to say. Engibous reasoned that until there are some test cases, they won't taka a black and white position on anything. I think che answer chat probably all of our workers are covered is as good as you could get. Nearing added that there was no solution, only their opinion. Badley pointed out that it didn't mean or imply that the Company wasn't concerned whether they fell under the Walsh-Uealey Act or not; but 1 think we're concerned with the fact that we have some fairly supportive evidence. We should be getting our asbestos exposure down to the rcconancnded exposure. Schroeder interjected chat this one doctor thinks it should be lower than that. So you get it down to two. Zf we have a guy with asbescosis, I want to know whether that guy comes under chat Walsh-Healey Act or not. So you can get some guy in here chat does accidently get silicosis. Z guess we should know whether we're going to he under che Act or not.. Z mean that's part of it too. Dr. Kramer com muted that he would, regardless of the level of exposure. If che Compensation Comnlssioner decided that as a result of the exposure they would br protected by che compensation law, regardless of what level of exposure it was. Reid stated that they could calk about what the iM>ral and legal obligati, was under the Walsh-Healey Aet. Of course you've got your State Comp. Laws. For years they've been dramatically wishy-washy on airborne disea Because a guy could work down here and go home and work on his farm and breath dust and wind up with silicosis. But who Is to say whether it's Dow Chemical's air or air outside che plant. They never took much of a stand on it. Of course the Comp laws are getting stiffer now. But what's their interpretation of something like this now? Are they finall starting to firm up a stand on whether they'll pay compensation for a man? Schroeder answered no. They won't pay anything. Neerlng remarked that chat wasn't true. Reid explained that he was trying to feel the doctor out on that one. Schroeder noted that Dr. Kramer had even DOW 0616^ ST000038I Special Mci-ting -16- August 19, 1969 rixoiiinumlfd il snd they wouldn't pay It. Dr. Kramer reminded that it was because of Ann Arbor. 1 was vary dissatisfied with Ann Arbor's. I didn't like the way they vnrote their latter. X talked to one of the doctors down there and he feels the same way X do. But the letter they wrote to us which is being used as the basis for this thing, just doesn't give the insurance company enough support. X have gotten them to agree at least not to make a big issue over the thing, but merely present the data to the Commissioner and let him make up his mind. Schrueder added that this was a big thing and there was no doubt about it. They're afraid to be put on the line, Kemember, people could be exposed nation-wide and not just Dow Chemical. Xt could snow-ball too. 1 imagine they'll play it cool. Edgecombe stated that he had another question.. On this parts per million, would you put that chart up there like you did over there for showing? The difference of the asbestos and fiberglas, tha percentage like you did over there? DeGesero explained that this was a summary table chat was in the origii report. On this table, what we've done was Che essential portion of our function as Industrial Hyglanlsts is to find out as to what a man does with his day, what materials he works with. Ve go through and find out which of these materials contain asbestos or some other cheraic agent or minerals in this casa which could cause a stress on the workei In other words, a potential threat to his health. Ve find out how muci time on the average he spends working with these materials and then lake this little scrubber that X showed you gentlemen out in the field and ascertain what the actual concentrations by operation here are. Vo also like to express a range of concentration. Vhac we do is the following: In order to estimate a man's eight-hour average exposure, wo have co look at the contribution contributed to this exposure by ooch of the materials in each of the operations which contains asbesco iSct page 16A for chart) in this case, Air Cell, Kaylo, and Mag Oxide, are all asbestos contain Wo take the amount of time chat a man spends working with the material and multiply it by the amount of material there to get the fractional ur partial contribution to the total exposure. You'll notice we've done this for all of Che materials which contain (and X might mention that these are the most commonly used materials in the Midland locatio asbestos. Ve wind up with a series of columns of fractions which are then totaled. Xt is then this number Chat we compare with the health standard. Here is the exposure for the fellows working indoors with asbestos. It's 4.9 million particles par cubic foot. This number then as X say is compared with the health standard co see how the health of tha man comparas with what we know is the best Information available on the effects of eight-hour exposure to these particles DOW 06167 Special Meeting .ST0000382. * 16A- * .Augu.st 19, 1969 Table 1. TIME-WEIGHTED EXPOSURES OF PIPE COVERERS TO DUSTS FROM ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS Concentrations Time-weight 9pcr#tJLonf V (appef) UQlX Urn Ranae Factor: Remove Air cell Kaylo Mag oxide Flberglas Mix No. 1 Plus Armencite Superpower Cut Air cell Kaylo Flberglas Others Apply Air cell Kaylo Flberglas Others No. 1 Plus Armentita/ Superpower Clean up removed covers Stocking ; get new coversi Move to Job, tec up Breaks, lavatory 1.2 1.6 0.2 2.0 1.6 0.1 0.6 3.9 8.8 2.2 0.6 13.8 19.9 4.3 2.6 4.8 2.4 3.0 2.0 3.0 13.0 11.4 11.2 2.8 13.7 0.3-24.9 3.7-20.5 1.8-4.6 1.2-33.7 0.137 0.179 0.006 m mm 13.4 2.2-30.3 9.6 2.7-13.5 34.9 19.6-6.14 0.219 0.010 3.0 11.7 1.7 0.6-6.2 4.9-23.1 0.8-2.6 0.177 1.030 -- -- ' 3:7 0.2-16.4 3.7 0.4-22.3 2.4 1.2-3.8 mm mmm 9.6 1.1-39.5 V d.9-3.9 8.5 2.4-24.6 0.901 1.123 eeee mmm 0.461 0.050 0.255 1.0 0.1-2.3 0.020 2.0 1.4-2.9 0.100 1e .4 0.1-3.9 0.200 Time-weighted exposure to asbestos containing dusts - 4.9 # (indoor) in appef DOW 06168 Special Meeting .ST0000383 -17- August 19, 1969 of dust. Thara art quite a bit of numbers on it but to ua it*s quite meaningful and I'll ba glad to answer any quaationa. Edgecombe asked DeCesero if ha could put on tha blackboard on tba charts applying to tach operation of the cutting and so forth. Schroeder remarked that it was quite high than in certain parts. DeCesero agreed. If we were 10 compare it on a typical operation which could causa a high degree of exposure, we could look at removing, cutting and applying. Now the health standard, as Z told you on tha threshbold, the present is five for the eight-hour day. Now theee numbers are not representative of an eight-hour day, but when totaled up, as Z explained on the viewgraph, they do. (At this point, the reporter's machine malfunctions and conversation by DeCesero was lost. Coming back in on Degcsero-*) -- this is the present and I'd like to put in tha proposed standard of two. And this is asbestos. Let's look at Air Cell and Kaylo. Removing'Air Cell indoors is 11.4. Removing Kaylo indoors is 11.2. Cutting Air Cell indoors is 3.0. Cutting Kaylo indoors is 11.7. Applying Air Cell indoors is 5.7 and applying Kaylo indoors is 5.7. So you see that we have high lave la of dust during operationa here such as removing and applying. If you'll notice here in the cutting, during the cutting operation, Kaylo is about four times dustier. There's four times e greater concentration during the cutting of Kaylo un the average than there is for Air Cell If you'll notice.on these cards on the respirator chart that we were looking at before, in attempting to track down- the areas where a man does receive the major exposure, we've gone through and considered these different facts from the survey. There's no X there for cutting Air Cell because on cutting Air Cell, when it's cut, it does not produce the amount of dust that the Kaylo does. On other operations, they're very comparable. So we applied this protection. I adght mention that this chart and the card have been labeled appropriately, "Minimum Respiratory Protection Requirement." And it'a done oa this basis. We search through this table and find the areas where* the biggest contribution to the exposure cbmee and lt'e at these points that we selectively apply thlr respiratory protection, so that we don't drive a tack with a sledge'hammer eo to say, but try to put the protection where it's going to do the sMst good, for this least amount of time. Plagens said that be had a questions on that. One of your recommended is to use respirators where you have an X under those conditions, or use fiberglas. DeCesero explelned that these findings were for. tha average pipe covers The average pipe coverer very seldom uses Thermobestos and very seldom uses High Temp or Meg Oxide. Mow when a fellow on the other hand is using these meterials, these so-called exotic materials rather exclusl\ as being opposed to let's say up to eight hours a.day, you could then go through the data that we obtained and look at his exposures to see DOW ST0000384 Special Meeting -18- August 19, 1969 if they would be over the proposed or present health standards. I didn't do this with High Temp or Mag Oxide because these naterlals are very difficult to find in cooeon use out in the field. And let's just assume that a man worked his entire day with Xaylo and had no exposure to Air Cell or any of these other ieacerials listed here, Including even the cements. Now this la an eight-hour exposure. He'd be exposed to about 5.1 million particles per cubic foot. Remember the standard is five and the proposed is two. Okay, he's in trouble here. Zf he was using nothing jbut Air Cell all day long, around 3.5. He's within the present standard but in excess of the proposed standard. And this experimental material we're talking about, Careytemp, this does at the present contain about 6X asbestos. In other words it has about the same asbestos content as Xaylo, but because of the peculiar properties to it, it's not quite as dusty as the Kaylo, in an eight-hour day that exposure would be 3.2. - How, let's take a look at all this daea and chan go back and put in fibergU Plagens asked, how about Themobestos. Pup it on your list now. DeCesero explained ttut as he had sqld, he hadn't done that. But Z can possibly obtain some sort of an eyeball estimate for it. (At this point, due to a further malfunction of the reporter's equipment, some conversation was lost) Let me explain it this way. Vhen we drew up these cards, we realized chat we were frying to reach the greatest number of men possible. Ac meetings where the issue was brought up, we said chat for instance if the man is using High Temp all day long ox if a man is using Mag Oxide all day long, which is improbable, or Thermobcstos, that he should consider (in light of such findings as these) wearing that respirator all the time. Or else if he's working all day long in and day out with tha material as is the case with some of these materials here, that for us to go through and put an X down every time a man encounters the material, we could potentially b* putting a man in a respirator for three-quarters of the day. This is a good solution to the problem that we now face. Z think management has a better solution and that is to replace the source of the trouble. Plagens noted that the chart said that if you're removing Kaylo you should wear a respirator 100Z of tha time. Suppose he was removing Kaylo for four hours. Then, for the last five minutes he removed Thermobescos. Are you saying it's ell right to take off the respiratoz to remove the Thermobescos for the five minutes? (Due to malfunction of equipment, conversation was lost at this point) --ip terms of minimum respiratory protection. Minimum now. Zf It's dusty to them, they put che respirators on. Thermosbestos does contain asbestos. And as Z mentioned before, for the sake of providing as broad a scope as possible on these cards, we did not go through and X these cards because it would have no meaning to a man. DOW 06170 Special Matting ST0000385 -19- August 19, 1969 Now it's intsrssting to nott that a plpa covarar working out in tha field, and pipecoverexs whohave usad asbestos, hava come to me and said that they could tall me Just by looking at tha stuff that this is much dustiar than aithar tha Kaylo or Air Call. What thay ara saaing is dusts which ara visabla to tha aya. Fibarglas is so constructad by tha natura of tha notarial that it doas not fracture easily. It cumes off rathar in large chunks. This is what a nan complains about whan ha gats soma of this on him. Thera ara these large chunks that ara beyond or greater than tha particle elae which a man can normally raspira info tha lungs. That particle slat is 0.1 to 10 microns. This is essentially what this scrubber or this little vacuum sweeper that wa hava traps. Stuff bigger than this will ba stopped according to tha doctors in tha nose and in tha throat to ba spit out, ate. This suggests that fibarglas in this particular application is pretty dusty. In cutting and applying though, it fairs much batter than tha asbascos containing materials. Now if wa ware to go over to this same eight hours of exposure, given tha levels that wa fovnd during this report, an eight hour exposure to fibarglas, a man would ba exposed to 2.0 million particles par cubic foot. Evan given tha fact that during one specific operation ha's exposed to relatively dusty concen trations. I might remind you that if a man did nothing but remove fibarglas all day long, according to tha numbers that wa fotnd in the survey, cm tha average, ha would still be within the acceptable standards for fibarglas. Mow, as Or. Kramer mentioned, there has bean considerable work dona on fibarglas and the affects of exposure to fibarglas. Right now tha grape vine has it that this TLV of fifteen is going to ba dropped and raised to fifty million particles par cubic foot. In this room it looks pretty clean right now. You'd probably have something like 0.5 million particles per eublc foot. So if you can imagine a dust situation 100 times dustiar than this room, it's a real dust storm. But even at these concentration levels, there is still no hazard to health according to the recent research done by such people as Or. Paul Cloaa. He did one very interesting experiment in which he took some rats and put them into concentrations of 100,000 and they survived with no effects of health. Engibous asked, 100,00 what! DeGesero replied, no chronic affects. It's Just aboue like dropping them into a bucket of the stuff. Engibous reiterated, 100,000 what? DeGesero replied, million particles per cubic foot. The same units. What they're essentially saying is that this stuff is inerf. So if this new masher,, this fifty, becomes the new TLV and by the same process this five is going down to two, then that thirteen becomes insignificant as far as the hazard or that would cause chronic lting problems. The other numbers assume a much greater significance because they are numbers of tutorials which contain asbeset This again reflects this value of the Asurlean Congress of Governmental DOW 06171 ,ST 0 0 0 0 386 Special Meeting -20- August 19, 1969 and Industrial Hygienists. They're continually reviewing'and revising their standards like this. And avary year.they put out a booklet with these changes in then and we expect momentarily 4 shipment of booklets. Nobody is going to be particularly surprised to sss this fifty number in there for fiberglas. (At this point tbs -equipment malfunctioned again and conversation was lost) Or. Kramer advised that since complet their final presentation to the pips coverere, they had reconsidered their position on the wearing of tbs respirator whan removing fiberglas as follows: It is recoeaended that vbaa removing fiberglas insulation that may be contaminated with toxic chemicals, that the pipe coverers are to wear respirators in addition to any other .protective devices that may be deemed necessary. It's not because of any pulmonary haxard from exposure to fiberglas but because of possible injury due to the contaminating chemical that may be present. Zt occurred to us that some of that fiberglas might become contaminated with materials chemsel far more toxic than fiberglas. Zf this is suspected, they should prota themselves. Edgecombe said that he had another question. Zt'a going to be a repeat but I've heard it about the percentage of people that'll lose a classlf cation on account of the product chat they're using, fiberglas. Dr. Kr pointed out that these were estimates. vZ haven't been able to get real good figures that Z can use. They vary between five and ten percent of the people who will not adapt to fiberglas. At first when they work with fiberglas they itch. After a while it's very much like the sun. When you first go out you burn. The skin thickens up enough so chat the fiberglas becomes less irritating and there are people who adapt to it and have no trouble getting into fiberglas after that. The quest is, how many people do not adapt to fiberglas. Z've found estimates of five percent and Z've found estimates of tan percent. Z don't know if we'll have one man, ten men or twenty men that'll be unable to adapt to the fiberglas as far as skin irritation goes. Ve did have a fair question relative to that. Thac is that the Medical Department's attitude would be thac we would not ordinarily take a man off his job unless he complained of the itching and wanted to bo off the Job becaus of it, or if unless we first convinced him chat it was to hie benefit to be taken off the job. But there is a possibility that some men-- ve may have to recommend that they do not work with fiberglas. t . Halcomb asked Dr. Kramer if he was toying five or tea percent of the crew can't work with fiberglas. Dr. Kramer explained that this was a figure. Ve don't have exactly. Z've never been able to pick up a real good figure from anybody on how meay people do end don't. Z've had estimates given to me by people working with fiberglas materials, chat five to ten percent. Z don't know exactly whet the figures are. DOW 06172 ST0000387 Special Meeting -21- August 19, 1969 Halcomb said chat ha thought that vaa what Edgecombe's qua scion was co th doctor, chat tan parcant losa Chair Job. Warran explained chat ha had baan talking to a Mr. Graham who has an Insulating company over in Bay City. Ha has twanty-chraa guys ovar thara. They use fiberglas full time. They have no trouble at all. Nearing asked how many Dow had. Varren replied thae they had eighty-one and maybe a few more one way or the other. Edgecombe coemenced that ha had heard ninety. Warren axplainad that they had had 41 for a long time. Uc almost doubled it. If fiberglas completely took the place of Air Cell, about 40% or 4S% of the total would be of this nature. It'll only go up to 400*. It can't be used on--let's aay it isn't being used on 150 pound steam as such, on the line itself. It is put ovar tracing As far as putting it on a two inch, 150 pound steam line, you'd use Kaylo or Careycemp. We're not in the business of trying to put Air Cell out of stock. -We're in the business of trying to put asbestos coniaining material out of our stock. It seems like what is happening all the time is the guys are saying you're trying to get rid of Air Cell. This isn't the case. We're crying to get rid of asbestos contai: insulation material. Plagens asked Warren if he was saying Chat he was expecting perhaps 50% of the insulation would be fiberglas.' Warren agreed. Plagens added that the rase would still be Careycemp-- Warren explained chat it would be Kaylo, Careycemp-- I'm sure chat in the pas we've always been able to work things out. I'm sura in this particular case it can be worked out, assuming chat 99% of them or 50% don't come along and say chat they can't work with it. 5% is limited. Schroeder reasoned chat there really wasn't any fear of anybody losing their job if they switch to fiberglas. Warren replied, if this 5% figure is true, no. If it comes out that way. Brzezinskl said that he guessed that he had been hearing that fiberglas was nothing but a discomfort problem. Supposing some guy in Lhe middle of the afternoon is all sweaced up and he talked to his supervisor and says he itches and wants to go and take a shower. What would the response be in a case lika this? Varren answered thae he knr if he saw a guy thae was reewving covering (and I've seen this happen before), removing covering ehat'e up over a guy's head and ha's in this for two or three hours, ha deserves a shower. I'm sure thae most forem that are aware of this are going to give it to him. Todd questioner* whether over a period of time a man would build up a resistance to asbestos so thae he could taka more than if ha had no resistance. Dr. Kramer answered no. Schroeder reasoned that it was the ocher way around. The longer he works with it, the beccer chance he'd have of developing a disease. Martini asked what industry in general was doing about this problem. Are we leading Cha pack or are we falling behind the rest of industry. Dr. Kramer answered that ha couldn't give them a real hard feeling for it right now. I do know from what I've heard DOW 06173 ST 0000388 Special Meeting -22*. August 19, 1969 from these fellows thee we're che only one in Michigan using Air Cell. Warren agreed. Edgecombe added, and ehree in Che United States, warren explained that there were only three coapanles in che United States that even make Air Cell. And we're the only Industrial plant in the State of Michigan that use it. Neering related chat he had been at a nesting with about twenty chemical companies. This subject cane up and they're all struggling with the problem as we are. So we may be somewhat of a leader now, Z believe. This was my impression, (mechine malfunction and sosm conversation was lost) Prior questioned whether there was any problem with the clothing you wear working with flberglas. Will the fibers become embedded in your clothing end will you not be able to get then out? Warren replied that supervision recognised this problem. It's a problem we've had for many years. What we will be doing,, undoubtedly, each field service unit will have to have a supply of coveralls. They wear light-loose coveralls. We'll have then available. Zf e pipe coverer needs a replacement, we'll have them available. That's about the way it'll happen. Edgecombe consented that he hoped thee it worked better then it had in the past, (machine malfunction end some conversation was lost) Warren remarked that it was surprising bow many coverers are already wearing their masks. This is quite gratifying really. And most of them do have the masks around their necks right now. As of che seconc we'd like to follow through on this whole program. Martini added that this was che dace that Wittbrodc had asked fear. Be asked for this meeting and chat we hold up until the first of September. Halcomb asked if he had heard someone say chat they had started the research on this as of the first of this year. Was it January 1 that you had these fellows start getting this together? Neering questioned whether they had first become aware of the problem January 1st. Or. Kramer answered that ha would say it was about then. 1 can't remember the data. I'd have to look back in my records. It was about the time that Z first started with Bob Schroeder remarked that that was a good year ago. Halcomb asked if they had workec with Dow coverers and if they had gone into their area. DeGesero replied, absolutely. Halcomb asked DeGesero if the men knew what they were doing at that time. DeGesero agreed. Warren added, all che way through. Zn fact, we had questionaires seat out to the eoverers. We talked to the steward and everybody. Bearing added that in fact, che men had done some research of their own during that time. Edgecombe said that he would like to say for the record that there had been a broad discussion on che way that the operation was performsd out there, che way che samples were taken. There were several discussions on this that 1 heard. They weren't satisfied with the way you took them. DOW 06174 Special Meeting ST0000389 -23- August 19, 1969 Schroeder stated that thay had had discussions with Or. Kramer. This has bean at laast a couple of yaars ago at laast. And of course there'* * Bob --case where Or. Kraaar got Involved. UNION RECESSED Net-ring asked if the Union had any acre questions. Schroeder answered no. Neering explained that the Coapany was going to put the prograa into effect as of Septeaber 2nd as agread to. It's for the eaployees* beltermenc for their health. That's two weeks fraa today. If there are any problems that arise, we'll just have to handle thea as they crae up. That's going to be it. DeGeaero asked if Edgecoabe had been at the meeting where the fact was brought up that soae guys had called up and somebody had refused to do the seapling or something like that. Edgt-ccube- answered yes. DeGesero continued that he had started thinking about chat. 1 think there* was a call froa the fellows over in the Power Department to came out and survey while they were ripping off the bottoir of a boiler or something like that. And as Z recall the entire incident at this time, what it aaounted to was that they wanted ae to come out and 1 had already made a previous cooeltasnt and could not make it. So 1 said I'd coaie out at anothar tiae and Z did eons out and measure while chey--l think it was-- Ejbgecoe&e stated that it hadn't been Oc-Cc-sero. This happened at 77 Buildingr The guy came while they were cutting this. He said it was too dirty and ha wouldn't take it. Oo you remember this? Jin Martin was tha fellow that brought this up. Nc-ering slated that if they had a problem they could work it out. ADJOURNED ccretary Bargaining Coanittee KegiJyV Secretary Hanageaent Bargaining Committ DOW 06175