Document 8R1N0k4gXQjqRJ8Vdjm0YyL75

plaintiffs exhibit !i 1________ CT-1537 162 i 1 JUDGE MAHONY: Thank you. Do you have an exhibit 1i 2 i number for Dr. Crump's testimony? 1I -s 1 MR. SHORTALL: Yes, we do, Your Honor. Dr. Crump's i !1 4 i' written submission will be Exhibit 237-A, and copies of Dr. ll ii*. 5 li Crump's overhead transparencies would be Exhibit 237-B, 1 j| A through whatever they are. 7 i; e ;; 91 (Whereupon, Exhibits Nos. 237-A and 237-B were received in evidence.) JUDGE MAHONY: Dr. Crump, thank you very much for io ii! [ U ;! " ii coming. f DR. CRUMP: Thank you. (Discussion off the record.) 12 t mi JUDGE MAHONY: We will go back on the record. Mr. Sampson, I will defer to you to introduce our 15 ! next group of panelists. 16 ' MR. SAMPSON: Thank you. Your Honor. 17 : i 18 ; The presentation of the Asbestos Information Association of North America continues this afternoon with 19 a panel of witnesses from the primary manufacturing sector 20 of the industry. I will allow them to introduce themselves, 21 and unless there is an objection, we would request that all 22 four gentlemen be permitted to present their statements 1 23 1 seriatim, and answer questions as a panel together after all j1 2-4 | presentations are complete. : 25 MR. SHORTALL: That is fine with me. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005825 . 193 1 MS. HASH: That is fine with us. 2 MR. SAMPSON: We will being with John MdGinley, 3 who is with CertainTeed, and will introduce himself. 4 MR. McGINLEY: My name is John McGinley and I am 5 Vice President of Asbestos-Cement Operations for CertainTeed 6 Corporation and a registered professional engineer. 7 I have complete responsibility for the manufactur 6 ing operations at CertainTeed's two A-C pipe plants, which 9 are located at Riverside, California, and Hillsboro, Texas. 10 My responsibilities also extend to the design and modifica 11 tion of new and existing process equipment for the manufactur i 12 of A-C_pipe, including all associated environmental controls. 13 I began working in the asbestos products industry 14 while studying mechanical engineering in college. Since 15 graduating in 1957, 1 have worked in the industry in both 16 engineering and management capacities. 17 My first fifteen years were in the engineering 16 field. From 1959 to 1962, I worked exclusively on industrial 19 hygiene projects. During that time, I conducted dust level 20 sampling in various plants and designed and installed local 21 exhaust ventilation systems for the various manufacturing 22 processes. For the past 11 years, I have overseen A-C pipe 23 manufacturing operations in various management positions. 24 Today I would like to address several aspects of 25 OSHA's proposed standards as they relate to the A-C pipe EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005826 1 industry. These issues and others are covered in my written 2 testimony, which was prepared by CertainTeed's Corporate 3 Industrial Hygiene group and myself. Although I am comment A ing as a representative of CertainTeed Corporation, I believe 5 my associates at CAPCO and JM -- the other domestic manu 6 facturers of A-C pipe -- would support my views. 7 A-C pipe is manufactured from a closely-controlled e mixture of chrysotile and crocidolite fibers, Portland cement 9 and silica sand. My written testimony describes the process 10 in detail. To make acceptable quality pipe economically, 11 both chrysotile and crocidolite asbestos are required. 12 A-C pipe manufacturers therefore oppose any OSHA 13 action that would effectively ban either of these forms of U asbestos. 15 The earliest existing records of asbestos exposures 16 in CertainTeed's plants are from several U.S. Public Health 17 Service and OSHA studies conducted from 1966 to 1972. This 18 informaticj)is collected in Table I of my written statement. 19 Compared to workplace conditions today, those exposure levels 20 were high. In 1972, our insurer assisted us in developing 21 monitoring programs, and by 1974 our own plant personnel 22 began monitoring operations with the help of NIOSH training. 23 In 1979, a newly founded corporate industrial 2A hygiene group began periodic monitoring of all positions in 25 our plants on an annual basis. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (3011 565-0064 CTD005827 lt>b 1 Our historical monitoring results reveal gradual 2 improvements in exposure conditions over time. An example 3 of these gradual improvements is railcar unloading of asbestos 4 fiber, historically one of the dustiest operations in A-C 5 pipe production. 6 Improvements in asbestos packaging described in 7 my written testimony have taken place over time. The results 8 have been that the unloading of fiber bags from railcars 9 has gone from one of the dustiest operations to among the 10 cleanest in the A-C pipe plants. 11 American A-C pipe producers have worked diligently 12 not merely to comply with the current PEL, but to attain the 13 lowest possible fiber levels at each work station. The low 14 dust levels that exist today in A-C pipe manufacturing have 15 been the result of a long learning process. 16 A-C pipe manufacturers have experimented with new 17 hood designs, modified cutting and finishing techniques, 18 implemented employee educational programs, and upgraded 19 housekeeping procedures in order to offer their workers 20 maximum protection. 21 Based on my visits to similar manufacturing plants 22 in other countries, I believe the dust control technology 23 employed by the three United States A-C pipe manufacturers 24 represents the state of the art in the industry. 25 The keystone of this dust control technology is EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005828 Ibb 1 effective local exhaust ventilation, which removes a high 2 percentage of the dust generated before it can enter the 3 workplace atmosphere. The local exhaust ventilation system 4 'reduces employee exposure on most operations to between 0.5 5 and 1.0 fiber per cc. In our experience additional ventila 6 tion capacity will not generate significant further reduc 7 tions. S We have been able to reduce fibers levels at most 9 work stations to 0.5 fibers per cc or lower by improving hood 10 designs at the point source of dust generation and upgrad 11 ing maintenance of the local exhaust ventilation system. 12 The implementation of good employee work practices 13 and the meticulous housekeeping are essential to reduce 14 exposure levels below 0.5 fibers per cc. Local exhaust will 15 not provide effective dust control if it is not supplemented 16 with sound housekeeping and work practices. 17 We at CertainTeed also supplement the engineering 18 controls with a variety of ancillary worker protection 19 measures. CertainTeed1s workplace monitoring program pro 20 vides semiannual exposure sampling of each work station by 21 plant personnel who have completed the NIOSH course on 22 "Sampling and Evaluation of Airborne Dust." A separate team 23 of Corporate Health and Safety industrial hygienists also 24 sample each station annually. 25 CertainTeed provides medical surveillance for all executive court reporters (301) 565-0064 CTD005829 1 employees in pipe plants through preplacement, annual and 2 termination physical examinations. The examinations include 3 health questionnaires, measurements of the vital signs, chest 4 x-rays, visual acuity tests, audiograms, pulmonary function 5 tests, urinalyses, blood counts and complete blood chemistry. 6 In addition, CertainTeed provides educational programs on 7 the health hazards of asbestos. 8 All employees receive instruction in respirator 9 protection, although respirators are mandatory only for 10 workers who perform relatively short-duration, high-exposure 11 operations, such as maintenance and cleanup. 12 CertainTeed's plants are equipped with showers, 13 lockers and lunchroom facilities. We consider our entire 14 plant a regulated area. 15 The great majority of our dust counts are around 16 the 0.2 fibers per cc level. However, even with the applica 17 tion of local exhaust ventilation and the employment of good 18 housekeeping procedures, we occasionally register counts in 19 excess of 0.6 fibers per cc. 20 Most of our work stations generate very low 21 average levels of airborne fiber, but a few difficult areas 22 remain. For example, we have not been able to consistently 23 operate our pipe cutting saws below the 0.5 fibers per cc 24 level. We have experimented with hood designs and new 25 methods for cutting pipe, but with limited success. It may EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005830 1 take considerable time before improvements are realized. 2 The pipe formation machinery also presents difficult dust 3 control problems, and does not consistently operate below 4 '0.5 fibers per cc. 5 The variability of airborne concentrations of 6 asbestos makes assessment of the feasibility of a PEL of 0.5 7 fibers per cc difficult. Monitoring of specific jobs in our 8 plants has produced varying results from day to day and from 9 individual to individual. 10 V7e apparently experience daily changes in airborne asbestos level^s at any given work stations. Yet, there is n 12 no way to visually distinguish the difference in the work 13 place environment between levels slightly above 0.5 fibers 14 per cc and levels below. 15 Only after exposure monitoring results are avail 16 able several days later do we know that levels were high at 17 a particular time. In order to accommodate these fluctuations 18 and assure compliance with a PEL of 0.5 fibers per cc we 19 would have to operate at an average exposure level of about 20 0.2 fibers per cc. Most of the fluctuations would then fall 21 under 0. 5 fibers per cc although a small portion would still 22 exceed that level. 23 A-C pipe manufacturers would be unable to comply 24 with a PEL of 0.2 fibers per cc unless all workers wore 25 respirators. Although over half of the sample measurements EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005831 1 in CertainTeed's two plants show airborne levels less than 2 0.1 fibers per cc, a large number indicate fiber levels above 3 0.2 fibers per cc at the same work stations measured on 4 different days. Although A-C pipe plants may attain long C run exposure averages of near 0.2 fibers per cc, I know of A no way to eliminate the large number of readings above that 7 level. 8 An additional source of difficulty is assessing the 9 feasibility of the proposed PELS is that at such low levels 10 the current measurement techniques are imprecise and subject 11 to great biases. Dr. Eric Chatfield has thoroughly discussed 12 the problems inherent in measuring airborne asbestos levels, 13 and I do not have the expertise to add to his theoretical U discussion. However, I would like to address the practical 15 difficulties that measurement problems present to asbestos 16 manufacturers. 17 Our experience shows that the current NIOSH count 18 ing method is subject to considerable bias. In the course of 19 our industrial hygiene quality control program, CertainTeed 20 has conducted several tests to evaluate the consistency of 21 our asbestos monitoring results. 22 The tests included duplicate counting of the same 23 filter by plant personnel and their corporate counterparts, duplicate counting by different personnel in our corporate 25 lab, and a round robin test using a NIOSH Proficiency EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005832 1 Analytical Sample (PAT) involving both Corporate and Plant 2 personnel. 3 A comparison of plant versus corporate counts on 4 the same sample reveals a bias in results. Corporate results 5 tended to be higher than plant calculations. One factor that 6 may account for the bias is that the corporate lab uses a 7 brand of microscope different from that used in the plants. e NIOSH has shown that differences in microscopes can produce 9 significant biases. 10 An intra-laboratory comparison of readers in the n corporate lab demonstrates the subjective nature of the 12 NIOSH counting method. Corporate counters, using the same 13 equipment and operating under the same conditions, generated 14 consistent biases in their results. 15 The Round Robin Test provides further evidence of 16 both intra- and inter-laboratory sources of error in measur 17 ing asbestos. Two plant counters, two corporate counters, 18 and one Research and Development lab counter observed three 19 wedges from a NIOSH Proficiency Analytical Testing sample. 20 All five counters counted the wedges in their own 21 laboratories, in a three-day span. The results are presented in Table III of my written statement. The counts on one slide ranged from 75.41 fibers per square millimeter to 1,133.77 fibers per square millimeter. Despite such a wide spread in values, I have been told by our corporate EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005833 1 industrial hygienists that the results were within the PAT 2 program's acceptable counting range of ^ 3 standard devia 3 tions. The data also disclosed a high count corporate bias 4 II 'similar to the bias observed in the inter-lab comparison 5 study. 6 If these counts represented a 240 minute exposure 7 sample at a flow rate of 2.0 liters per minute, a sample 8 measurement could vary from 0.13 fibers per cc to 2.02 fibers 9 per cc. A workplace manager attempting to determine his 1 compliance status with'a given PEL would have no way of 11 knowing which value to trust. 12 He also would have no way of knowing where in that 13 range OSHA compliance measurements would fall. Thus, it 14 becomes extremely difficult to assure compliance with any 15 given PEL. 16 Measurement imprecision severely limits the useful 17 ness of sampling data in planning new dust control strategies. ie Inter-day variations in sampling results hinder the ability 19 of manufacturers to pinpoint problem areas in their plants. 20 Frequently, samples taken on one day may indicate high airborne fiber levels at a certain workstation, but 21 22 samples taken the following day will show low levels at the 23 same station. Thus, plant managers have great difficulty 24 obtaining an accurate picture of exposure patterns in their 25 plants. Consequently, continued efforts to achieve 'Ir EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0C64 CTD005834 improvements over the low levels that our plants have already! achieved are somewhat hindered. The Regulatory Analysis of the Proposed OSHA Standard on Asbestos, prepared for OSHA by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and released in May of 1984 acknowledged that it would not be possible to achieve 0.5 fibers per cc at all times even in the best run A-C pipe plants. Certain operations such as bag house cleaning and maintenance will generate concentrations in excess of 0.5 fibers per cc. The RTI study concluded that where engineer ing controls and housekeeping techniques are already utilized to the limit of their effectiveness, further controls would achieve only marginal improvements. These basic conclusions of the RTI report are correct. However, RTI's further suggestions of specific controls to generate reductions in some plants are misguided and poorly substantiated. RTI's first suggestion advocates enclosed fiber introduction or, alternatively, automatic bag openers to introduce asbestos fiber into the manufacturing process. Our experience in A-C pipe production has been that either an automated debagger or a well run manual bag opening station can achieve equivalent low exposures around 0.1 fibers per cc on average. RTI's industry survey indicated an exposure EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005835 173 1 range for the introduction and mixing stage, which presumably 2 includes plants with manual bag openers, at 0.07 to 0.20 3 fibers per cc. At such low levels, even if further reduc 4 tions were possible, they would probably be nondetectible. 5 RTI also suggests wetting of fibers at an earlier 6 stage in the production process. In current production 7 methods, asbestos fiber is dry mixed with cement and silica 8 sand before water is added. The current dry operation is not 9 a manned workstation? it is completely enclosed and automated, 10 Airborne dust concentrations are low -- generally 11 less than 0.3 fibers per cc. Radical redesign of this 12 operation would be costly and would make little sense. Oper 13 ating wet often creates more exposure problems than it 14 solves. 15 The wet substance spills on the floor ar^Jdries, 16 creating housekeeping headaches. In the manufacture of A-C 17 pipe, CertainTeed has found that wet processes are incom 18 patible with local exhaust ventilation because the moist 19 cement particles clogs the ducting, impairing the efficiency 20 of the exhaust system. 21 A third suggestion by RTI is for manufacturers to 22 receive asbestos fibers in an uncompressed state in order to 23 reduce the need for willowing during production. While this 24 suggestion seems attractive on its face, it too would create 25 more problems than it would solve. Uncompressed fibers would EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005836 1 be very difficult to handle, and it would increase the danger 2 of asbestos exposure from torn bags. 3 RTI factored the use of respirators into its cost 4 'calculations for compliance in model plants. Consistent 5 with the study's basic conclusion that no significant addi 6 tional reductions in air concentrations are achievable in 7 A-C pipe plants through engineering controls, RTI's cost 8 figures for compliance with proposed PELS include only the 9 addition of respirators. -KM*. .. 1 At a PEL of 0.5 fibers per cc, RTI estimates 10 per 11 cent of the workforce in A-C pipe plants will require respira 12 tors; at a PEL of 0.2 fibers per cc, 50 percent and at 0.1 13 fibers per cc, 100 percent. ~ 14 These estimates fail to consider the variability 15 and measurement problems of asbestos. Plant managers are 16 incapable of assuring continued airborne asbestos concentra 17 tions of less than 0.2 fibers per cc at any workstation. 18 Atmosphere changes would easily drive daily readings 19 above a .2 fibers per cc. Measurement imprecisions would 20 also generate readings above the 0.2 fibers per cc level, 21 even at stations where the long term average is below that. 22 Plant managers would not be able to determine at 23 which areas of the plant airborne levels exceeded 0.2 fibers 24 per cc; therefore, to assure compliance they would need to i- 25 require respirators for all workers. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005837 The variability of asbestos concentrations and the imprecision of measurement techniques place asbestos manu facturers in a difficult position. Plant operators have no method of determining with an acceptable degree of certainty the airborne levels of asbestos concentration at any time. Consequently, compliance with a PEL as low as 0.2 fibers per cc becomes a guessing game. Unless manufacturers choose respirators, they may be subject to compliance viola tions if OSHA^samples generate high readings, even if such readings are attributable to unusual variations or measure ment error. Members of the A-C pipe industry have already invested considerable time and money to install the best available engineering controls. A-C pipe manufacturers re*the U.S. have combined effective dust control engineering with sound housekeeping and a variety of educational, medical and monitoring programs in order to reduce exposures to the lowest possible level. As Dr. Bragg indicated in his feasibility report, asbestos control research has focused with considerable success on optimizing current technologies. In the A-C pipe industry, where the best available controls have already been implemented, further improvement are likely to be minimal. JUDGE MAHONY: Thank you, Mr. McGinley. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005838 206 1 JUDGE MAHONY: So ve are looking at about an hour 2 and a half to two hours for questioning. 3 MS. NASH: Perhaps it won't be that long. 4 JUDGE MAHONY: Let us begin. 5 MR. SHORTALL: Thank you. Your Honor. 6 Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing here 7 today. I would like to begin with Mr. McGinley. I wonder 8 first if you could tell us what is the basis for your beliefs 9 stated in your written testimony that your views would gen 10 erally be supported by'CAPCO and JM, the other domestic manu 11 facturers of A-C pipe? 12 ------ MR. McGINLEY: Well, I am somewhat familiar with 13 the gentlemen that run those operations. The Vice President 14 of Production at CAPCO used to work with me at CertainTeed. 15 MR. SHORTALL: Have you discussed your testimony 16 at all with -- 17 MR. McGINLEY: Yes. He has seen my written testi 18 mony before it was submitted, and he agreed with it in 19 principle. 20 MR. SHORTALL: Thank you. You note in your written 21 testimony that plant personnel have been conducting semi 22 annual air sampling at each position since about 1973, and 23 corporate industrial hygienists have been conducting annual 24 air sampling at each position since 1979. I wonder, first, 25 if you would clarify the status of the corporate group. Am EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005839 ^^ I correct in assuming that those are employees of Certain- Teed? MR. McGINLEY: Yes. MR. SHORTALL: Do you know what method they use to analyze the samples? MR. McGINLEY: I don't understand the question. They would use the method that is prescribed in the regula tion. MR. SHORTALL: So the answer is that you don't know? MR. McGINLEY: I don't understand the question. I would assume that they are using -- JUDGE MAHONY: Don't assume anything. Try rephrasing it and see where we go. MR. SHORTALL: Have you heard of a sample analysis technique that has been published by NIOSH? MR. McGINLEY: Yes. MR. SHORTALL: Is that the one that you are using? MR. McGINLEY: Yes, they use a NIOSH in fact, I may mention it here in the testimony. (Pause.) JUDGE MAHONY: Is your answer yes? Is that a certain answer? MR. McGINLEY: I really don't know, I am not qualified to answer that question. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005840 ? MR. SHORTALL: What kind of turnaround time do you get on your sampling results? MR. McGINLEY: The sampling results done at the plant/ we read them at the plant, and it is usually within a couple of weeks, a week or two, depending on the numbers sampled. The corporate samples might take a little longer. MR. SHORTALL: And "a little longer" means approxi mately what? MR. McGINLEY: Maybe a month by the time a cor porate report is ready; MR. SHORTALL: Are you generally satisfied with the performance of your labs? MR. McGINLEY: Well, I am not technically qualified to judge their performance. I just take their data and operate with it. MR. SHORTALL: In your capacity as a manager, are you satisfied with the performance of the labs? MR. McGINLEY: Again, I can only say I have no basis any longer to judge their proficiency. I take their report and act accordingly. MR. SHORTALL: So you act on the basis of what is contained in the reports? MR. McGINLEY: Absolutely. MR. SHORTALL: We had a witness who testified ear lier in the hearings that some labs that he had dealt with EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005841 3*8 falsified their air sample analysis reports. Do you feel that you are getting honest, accurate reports from your labs? MR. McGINLEY: Absolutely. MR. SHORTALL: If I could ask that question to the other members of the panel. You all three agree with that? MR. ALEXANDER: I believe we are dealing with a reputable lab that participates in the NIOSH round robin. MR. SHORTALL: So you also believe that you are. getting honest, accurate reports from your labs? MR. ALEXANDER: Honest. MR. SHORTALL: But not accurate? MR. ALEXANDER: That is a question of the method. MR. SHORTALL: Mr. McGinley, you note that the plant at Hillsboro began production in '61, and Riverside in '64. How many tons of A-C pipe are produced annually at each plant? MR. McGINLEY: The typical pipe machine in CertainTeed would make 50,000 tons a year if they are running full production. At the present time we are running two machines at Hillsboro. If business conditions continue, we could make as much as 80,000 tons there this year. MR. SHORTALL: How about at Riverside? MR. McGINLEY: Around 50,000 tons a year. MR. SHORTALL: Do you know approximately what the production of the plants operated by CAPCO and JM are? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005842 Jo? 1 MR. McGINLEY: I generally know their capability. 2 I don't know what their production figures are. 3 MR. SHORTALL: Are they essentially comparable to 4 your own, or are they much larger? 5 MR. McGINLEY: The capability is essentially the 6 same. What their actual production is I have no way of 7 knowing. 8 MR. SHORTALL: In your statement, you note that 9 you implemented the use of polywoven bags beginning in 1972 10 and the use of palletized bundles beginning in 1978. 11 First, when did you implement the automatic 12 debagging machine? 13 MR. McGINLEY: Well, we developed that ourselves, 14 and it was an evolutionary type development. I believe we 15 started around 1976. 16 MR. SHORTALL: I wonder if you can just describe 17 what the difference is between a manual debagging process 18 and an automatic? 19 MR. McGINLEY: In a manual operation, the operator 20 would take the bag under an exhaust hood, slit the top, and 21 proceed to dump the bag into, in our process, a bucket 22 elevator. This was all done under a hooded area that had 23 good intake velocity coming through the hood. 24 MR. SHORTALL: Can you describe what the size of 25 the bag is and what the size of the hood is? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005843 <J/o 1 MR. McGINLEY: An asbestos bag, I don't know that 2 there is a standard size, but they are about 30 inches high, 3 18 inches wide, and 9 or 10 inches deep, would be the size 4 of the bags that we receive. 5 MR. SHORTALL: How about the width of the hood? 6 MR. McGINLEY: Well, when we were using a manual 7 hood, it would be possibly a foot wider maybe. It would 8 probably be -- if the bag was 18 inches wide, the hood would 9 have clearance on either side, maybe enough for the operator 10 to get his hands in. 11 MR. SHORTALL: If I can ask the other gentlemen on 12 the panel, those of you that use this kind of hood apparatus, 13 is that essentially the same as what Mr. McGinley has 14 described? 15 MR. NETTER: In concept, yes. 16 MR. SHORTALL: I am sorry? 17 MR. NETTER: Yes, in concept. 18 MR. SHORTALL: You are Mr. Netter? 19 MR. NETTER: That is correct. 20 MR. HUTCHINS: We would be using a block breaker 21 and high density pressure packed block, so it is different 22 from his. We also are using repulpable bags, and practically 23 everything we make, bag and all, goes into the wet operation. 24 MR. SHORTALL: Mr. Alexander? 25 MR. ALEXANDER: We use approximately 3 cubic foot EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005844 J// 1 brickettes. In our newest station, these 100-pound brickettes are introduced manually by the operator into an opening about the size of a bedroom window, about the same height. Inside that opening, he can slash the bag, empty the contents, and dispose of the bag. MR. SHORTALL: Excuse me. I don't know what size house you live in, so I don't know how big your bedroom windows are. MR. ALEXANDER: About 38 by 32 inches, 38 inches wide, 32 inches high. * MR. SHORTALL: Okay. And what are you giving the dimensions of there? . ______ MR. ALEXANDER: The opening. That is the opening to what we call the hood. Just inside the opening is-a ~XVx. woAzur table, which is nothing but a set of round bar^j^places the block on the set of round bars, cuts the plastic bag off, and breaks the block so that it falls through the bars down into what we call the fluffer. MR. SHORTALL: You referred to cutting. How does he cut the bag, at one end, or does he hack at it? MR. ALEXANDER: No. He uses what they call a utility knife. You have seen them in the hardware store. He cuts around the center line from the left side, across the back, along the right side, so that he can draw the / cover back. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005845 MR. SHORTALL: Do any of you use something called a carousel feeder? You are all shaking your heads no? MR. ALEXANDER: No, we don't. MR. SHORTALL: Mr. McGinley? MR. McGINLEY: No. MR. SHORTALL: Mr. McGinley, what about exhaust ventilation, when did you first implement that? Is that just sort of a basic part of your plant, since the day you opened you had exhaust ventilation of some kind in there? MR. McGINLEY: You are referring to the two plants that we presently operate? MR. SHORTALL: Yes. MR. McGINLEY: Yes, they were designed with exhaust ventilation as part of the original equipment. MR. SHORTALL: When you refer to exhaust ventila tion, what essentially are you talking about? MR. McGINLEY: Local exhaust ventilation. MR. SHORTALL: Have there been any significant advances in exhaust ventilation technology in -- let's see, both of your plants were opened in the early sixties -- so in the last 20 years? MR. McGINLEY: The principles of local exhaust i (_A ventilation have been known I don't know when. That is very basic engineering. MR. SHORTALL: Okay. So the answer is no. On EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 563-0064 CTD005846 J?/3 1 page 2 of the section of your statement covering the manu facturing process, you said that all cutting and machining operations on the pipe are performed in the finishing depart ment, which contains an elaborate local exhaust system. When was that local exhaust system installed in the finish ing department? HR. McGINLEY: When the plant was originally designed. Actually, to elaborate on that answer, in our two plants today, the exhaust ventilation systems that exist are the same exhaust ventilation systems that were installed in the plants when they were originally built. The only additional ventilation that we have since that time is when new processes possibly were added, and then we would put an exhaust system in, in addition to a process piece of equip ment. MR. SHORTALL: In the part of your testimony cover ing dust control history, on page 2, at the top of the page you refer to the wet machine area. I wonder if you can tell us whether the wet machine that you are referring to does the same operation as the dry mixing system, or is that something else? MR. McGINLEY: Well, the wet machine is the name given to the pipe machine, which is the area where the mate rial is mixed with water. The dry mix at the beginning of the wet process is mixed with water. The slurry that is EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005847 formed passes through vats. It is transferred onto a felt. The sheet then rolls up to the front end of the machine, and is wrapped around a steel cylinder in the formation of the pipe. I gave a diagram of that process earlier on. MR. SHORTALL: Where on the diagram is the wet machine that you are referring to? MR. McGINLEY: Where it says pipe machine, on the middle section starting from the left side of the page. MR. SHORTALL: Where on the diagram is the part you described as the dry mixing area? MR. McGINLEY: On the top section to the right, extreme right, designated "mixer." MR. SHORTALL: Now, at the bottom of the first page of the section in your testimony covering dust control history, you note that it has recently been suggested that by converting the dry mixing system to a wet mixing system, you could significantly reduce employee exposure levels. However, you note that your experience at CertainTeed does not substantiate that. And you say that you get lower fiber counts in your dry mixing area than at the wet machine area. Just so the record is clear, the wet machine area, however, is not a mixing area in the same respect that the dry mixing area is, is it? MR. McGINLEY: That is correct, it is not. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565*0064 CTD005848 216 1 MR. SHORTALL: Are you aware of other companies in 2 your industry that use wet mixing systems rather than dry 3 mixing systems? 4 MR. McGINLEY: In the United States, they are all 5 dry mixing systems. In Europe, you see a lot of wet mixing. 6 MR. SHORTALL: Do you know whether the wet mixing 7 at those European companies has reduced asbestos dust levels 8 in comparison to those at dry mixing systems? 9 MR. McGINLEY: I don't have access to their dust 1 measurement values. I do have visual observation. I form 11 opinions, but that is subjective. They are not, in my opin 12 ion, as good as what we do. 13 MR. SHORTALL: Now, referring to one of your tables 14 Table II, entitled "Cumulative Frequency," I wonder first 15 if you could tell us what was the cutoff date for 1984 data 16 that is referred to in that table? 17 MR. McGINLEY: We have an industrial hygiene prog 18 ram that is kind of ongoing. We do not do all our sampling 19 | at one time. We sample by the plant people twice yearly at 20 each workstation. So by the time you get to June, we would 21 like to have the whole plant sampled once, and then from June 22 on, for the rest of the year, we would be working toward 23 sampling it the second time. 24 So I really don't have the breakdown of that data 25 with me. CTD005849 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 /. gK 1 MR. SHORTALL: Not to put words in your mouth, but 2 then the answer is you don't know what the cutoff date for 3 1984 data is, is that fair? 4 MR. McGINLEY: At the present time I don't know, 5 but I could find out and supply you that answer, if it is 6 meaningful. 7 MR. SHORTALL: Can you tell us when the plants, 8 that are identified as Plant A, B, and C, were shut down? 9 MR. McGINLEY: Well, Plant A was shut down 10 approximately 1978. Plant B was shut down around 1980. 11 Plant C, about 1981, I believe. 12 MR. SHORTALL: So, for example, on Table II, the 13 data that is reported for Plant B for the period 1980 to 14 1984 actually refers only to 1980, is that true? 15 MR. McGINLEY: That would be essentially correct. 16 MR. SHORTALL: And the data that is reported for 17 Plant C, for the period 1981 through 1984, only applies to 18 81? 19 MR. McGINLEY: That would be essentially correct. 20 MR. SHORTALL: Again, in Table II, you report data 2,f 21 for exposures less than 0.1 fibers per cubic centinjpr and 22 less than 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter. Do you have data 23 which covers up to and including 0.2 fibers per cubic 24 centimeter? 25 MR. McGINLEY: We have the actual dataA-f^ which EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005850 .=?'? I 218^ 1 all these readings were taken. Yes, I would have that. It 2 wasn't broken down in this table, but the raw data exists. 3 ; MR. SHORTALL: Would you be able to supply a 4 column for the record that covers the data up to and includ 5 ing 0.2, because that was one of the permissible exposure 6 limits that was mentioned in the notice? 7 MR. McGINLEY: Yes, I will. 8 MR. SHORTALL: Another question having to do with 9 Table II. If you reported data for exposures up to and 10 including 0.5 instead of less than 0.5, would you agree that 11 the percent of employees exposed to no more than 0.5 would be 12 at least 96.4? 13 MR. McGINLEY: Could you repeat the question, 14 please? 15 MR. SHORTALL: What I am trying to get at is the 16 way you present your data. You arrange it for exposure 17 levels less than .1 and less than .5 -- 18 MR. McGINLEY: No, I don't. It is equal to or 19 less than. That is kind of cheating with the equal sign 20 maybe. 21 MR. SHORTALL: Well, cheating is your categoriza 22 tion. I just didn't see where it says equal there. So for 23 all of the data that is on here, where it says less than a 24 particular fiber concentration, it is less than and including* 25 MR. McGINLEY: No. The title says percent equal EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005851 I 1 II 2 to or less than. The first column it is less than .1. Then, we go equal to or less than in the remaining categories. 3 MR. SHORTALL: Okay. So the table indicates that 4 96.4 percent of your employees at Plant E were exposed to 5 .5 or below? 6 MR. McGINLEY: It says 96.4 percent of the samples 7 that we have taken at those workstations were equal to or 8 less them .5. 9 MR. SHORTALL: Okay. Thank you. On the page 1 which follows Table 11/ in the paragraph at the bottom, about 11 the middle of the paragraph, you note that you are trying to 12 improve hood design emd you are now experimenting with a 13 new concept of cutting pipe. I wonder if you can tell us 14 what this new concept is. 15 MR. McGINLEY: We have a specifically troublesome 16 location in our saws where we have to trim pipe. We have not 17 been too successful at getting substantially consistently low 18 readings. When I say "consistently low," I define it as 19 something less than .5. 20 We tried to attack it from instead of using a saw. 21 to go to a machine tool operation. In our industry, you 22 don't go out and buy equipment. You build it, develop it, 23 innovate, and it is an evolutionary process. 24 So we started to develop a piece of equipment that 1 25 would cut it with a tool, and quite frankly, it is presently EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005852 ^ 1 under evaluation. Early indications are we have improved the 2 dust level measurement, and we have created a noise problem. 3 So I have solved one problem and created another. But we 4 constantly work in these areas to take the highest levels 5 that we have at a plant, within an operation, and then we 6 concentrate our efforts on getting that location substan 7 tially improved. 8 Then, we will go to the next highest reading that 9 we still have in the plant, and work on that. It is just 10 an ongoing day-in, day-out process. 11 MR. SHORTALL: Approximately how long have you 12 been experimenting with this method? 13 MR. McGINLEY: We started talking about it probably 14 about nine months ago. We got something that we could do a 15 check on about, oh, early this year, and it is presently 16 under evaluation. 17 MR. SHORTALL: Continuing on your section called 18 current best practices, you cite some data on page 2, 19 monitoring results for 1983. It is the bottom paragraph on 20 page 2. 21 First of all, can you tell us whether those monitor 22 ing results are from your Riverside plant, or your Hillsboro 23 plant? 24 MR. McGINLEY: I can't tell for certain. I believe 25 them to be Riverside. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005853 1 MR. SHORTALL: Are the results that are reported 2 as time weighted averages -- excuse me -- how many employees 3 would be subjected to air sampling at Riverside? 4 MR. McGINLEY: We do not monitor employees per se. s' We monitor workstations. Employees constantly bid on dif 6 ferent jobs, so there is no way of telling on a given day 7 where an employee is going to be working. So what we do is S monitor an employee when he is at that workstation. 9 If we are monitoring that same workstation the 10 second time during the'year, we make sure there is a differen: 11 employee at that job, so we cam get as good a cross section 12 as possible. 13 MR. SHORTALL: What are some of the areas that, in 14 your experience, have the highest exposure levels? What are 15 some of the job titles, job positions? 16 MR. McGINLEY: Basically, our saw operations con 17 cern me the most. 18 MR. SHORTALL: I would like to direct your atten 19 tion to something that was introduced into this record by a 20 witness last week. I believe Mr. Hardy had a copy of that 21 this morning. It is a letter from Mr. E. J. Lamoureau -- 22 or rather to Mr. E. J. Lamoureau. The exhibit number is 23 Exhibit 225. It is a letter to Mr. E. J. Lamoureau who 24 represents employees at the Riverside plant, and it is from 25 MR. McGINLEY: Mr. Lohuis. CTD005854 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 MS. SHORTALL: Mr. Lohuis. And it is dated November 23rd, 1983. I guess the first question is, have you seen a copy of that? Did Mr. Hardy show that to you? MR. McGINLEY: I saw a copy of it when it was submitted to Ernie, Ernie Lamoureau. MR. SHORTALL: Are you familiar with what is attached, with the sampling data that is attached to the letter? MR. McGINLEY: Generally. MR. SHORTALLf Just for the record, the letter is the company's response to a request made by the union on November 4 for dust exposure data for asbestos for 1981, 1982, and 1983 to present. Attached are samples listed together with the dates, the job titles, and then the samples recorded for different time periods. I am wondering, first of all, you, in your state ment, note that monitoring results for 1983 for the position of machine tender show a high value of .5 and a low value of .068. You don't have a copy of this in front of you, do you?( MR. McGINLEY: No, but if you give me some time, I might be able to dig one out. I have a lot of data with me. JUDGE MAHONY: Do you have a question? MR. SHORTALL: Yes. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005855 JUDGE MAHONY: Why don't you ask him the question, and then see where we go? MR. SHORTALL: He needs to read it, I think. Wow, on the attached air sampling results, I believe that samples for machine tenders are listed in five places, and the readings are: .129, .074, .068, .050, and .045. Thus, according to the data that is recorded by Mr. Lohuis, the high value for machine tenders was .129 rather than .5. The low value was .045 rather than-.068. The range of exposures for machine tenders, the difference between the high and low was only .08 rather than .432. I guess my question is, do you have any reason to doubt the data that is reported by Mr. Lohuis to the union? MR. MpGINLEY: Well, first, I see this data-is generally done in March and April, and does not seem to include data. The counts for March and April would be during the first half of the year, and don't show you the counts for the second half of the year. We count twice at each plant, twice a year. So that may account for it. Mr. Lamoureau did not write to me for the data. He wrote to the plant. I am really not responsible. I mean the plant reports to me, but I have no control over when they send something like that. I don't hinder any communica tion between the plant and the International. MR. SHORTALL: But just to finish off the loose EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005856 <23 1 ends, do you have any reason to dpubt the data that is 2 reported here? 3 MR. McGINLEY: No. 4 MR. SHORTALL: Thank you. Is there any other air 5 sampling that is conducted besides the two semiannual samples 6 by plant personnel and the annual sampling by corporate 7 personnel? 8 MR. McGINLEY: Yes. We will do what I refer to as 9 engineering sampling. As we work on the development of a ID piece of equipment, we 'will sample the results of any modi 11 fications we made to something to see if we made any 12 progress in our modifications. 13 MR. SHORTALL: You note on page 2 of the part of 14 your statement covering other worker protection measures, 15 the CertainTeed treats the entire plant as a regulated access 16 area. Do you provide showers for all of your employees? 17 MR. McGINLEY: We have a shower room. We do not 18 make it mandatory that they take a shower. 19 MR. SHORTALL: To your knowledge, do all of your 20 employees take showers at the plant before they go home? 21 MR. McGINLEY: I don't know that. I have no way -- 22 I never checked on it. 23 MR. SHORTALL: What sort of protective equipment 24 do you require your employees to wear? 25 MR. McGINLEY: Doing what? Generally, we have CTD005857 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 1 safety shoes are mandatory in the plant. Depending on the 2 job they were doing, they could wear goggles, they could be 3 wearing respirators, they could be wearing special clothing. 4 MR. SHORTALL: What kind of special clothing? 5 MR. McGINLEY: If somebody was doing maintenance 6 work in an area where they would be -- or even operations 7 in an area where we thought they could be exposed to the 8 potential of dust accumulation on their clothing, that indi 9 vidual would be issued company clothing. 10 MR. SHORTALL: Have you ever done any air sampling 11 during maintenance operations? 12 MR. McGINLEY: Yes, we do air sampling in the 13 Maintenance Department. You know, maintenance can cover such 14 a wide variation of things. We do eight-hour sampling gen 15 erally -- actually, the sampling probably is closer to seven 16 hours, but that maintenance man is generally not on one job 17 for an eight-hour period. He could be on half a dozen dif 18 ferent jobs. 19 MR. SHORTALL: Well, let me ask you this. On 20 page 2 of the part of your statement covering other worker 21 protection measures, where you are talking about respirator 22 programs, you note that mandatory wearing of respiratory 23 protection is required only for special operations where 24 the possibility of excess exposure may occur, such as 25 maintenance and cleanup operations involving asbestos EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005858 1 containing materials. 2 Have you ever done any air sampling during the 3 course of the maintenance operations that you are referring 4 to there? 5 MR. McGINLEY: I presume we have, but I have no 6 knowledge of it at the present time. 7 MR. SHORTALL: Have you ever done any air sampling 8 during the cleanup operations that you are referring to 9 there? 10 MR. McGINLEY: Here, again, I could not cite any 11 specific data, but I am sure we have. 12 JUDGE MAHONY: Do you have much more, Mr. Shortall? 13 You have been going about 40 minutes with this witness. 14 MR. SHORTALL: Well, I am afraid I do, 15 JUDGE MAHONY: Well, I am afraid you are going to 16 have to really get to the point, because a lot of this is not 17 too terribly enlightening I don't think. I am really going 18 to cut you short. 19 MR. SHORTALL: Okay. 20 MS. NASH: Your Honor, we wish to perhaps register 21 an objection to that characterization of Mr. Shortall's 22 questions. 23 JUDGE MAHONY: Well, you can object all you want, 24 but it is twenty to 6:00, and we have been here a long time, 25 and I still think the questions could be a little more EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005859 1 pointed than just to reinforce what has already been testi 2 fied to. 3 MR. SHORTALL: Have you done any area monitoring 4 in your locker areas? 5 MR. McGINLEY: Not that I am aware of. 6 MR. SHORTALL: What considerations led you to 7 conclude that at the levels of exposure encountered in your 8 plant today, separate change rooms and mandatory showers are 9 not necessary? That is a statement you make at the bottom 10 of page 2. n MR. McGINLEY: We feel that the operation is a 12 very clean operation. There is no visible dust on people's 13 clothing. I know when I am at the plant, I don't feel that 14 I am any more contaminated or dirty at the end of a day than 15 I would be if I was sitting in this room. 16 MR. SHORTALL: * Okay. On turning the page to the 17 section on worker protection, you note that you operate two 18 plants that have been in operation since '61 and '64, 19 which presumably are the Hillsboro and Riverside plants. 20 And you say, "At the present time we are not aware of any 21 asbestos-related disease cases in either of these plants." 22 Are you aware of any asbestos-related disease cases 23 at any of the three other plants that have been shut down? 24 MR. McGINLEY: I am aware that we have some, yes. 25 MR. SHORTALL: Can you elaborate on that a bit? I EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005860 23? 1 mean what kind of cases? 2 MR. McGINLEY: I am not qualified to speak to that 3 subject. I am just aware due to my position as Vice Presi 4 dent of Operations, that we do have litigation going on 5 involving former employees. It seems to be standard practice 6 for'the lawyers to contact the employees as soon as they 7 retire dr* leave. 8 MR. SHORTALL: How many former employees? 9 MR. McGINLEY: How many former employees what? 10 MR. SHORTALLr How many former employees apparently 11 are asserting that they have suffered asbestos-related diseas 2 12 in the three plants that have closed down? 13 MR. McGINLEY: I couldn't speak to that subject. I 14 am not qualified to. I can get you that information if that 15 seems important to you. 16 MR. SHORTALL: Okay. That would be useful. Thank 17 you. Can you approximate for us what your turnover rate is 18 for employees who leave within the first six months of em 19 ployment? 20 MR. McGINLEY: I am not sure I understand your 21 question. 22 JUDGE MAHONY: Would you say that again, the turn 23 over rate for the employees that leave in the first six 24 months? CTD005861 25 MR. SHORTALL: Right. What percentage -- you give EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 38 1 turnover rates for different groups of employees here. 2 JUDGE MAHONY: What page is it on in the testimony? 3 MR. SHORTALL: I am looking for it now. 4 MR. SAMPSON: Are you talking about the first page 5 of the section entitled "Worker Protection?" 6 MR. SHORTALL: Right. You say that your turnover 7 rate is highest for employees under 30 years of age and 8 five years of service. .I am wondering how many employees -- 9 MR. McGINLEY: It depends on the economic times. 10 It depends on the unemployment rate. You know, you have to 11 be a little more specific, and I don't have those figures at 12 my fingertips. I certainly will take note of it, and supply 13 you with data if you tell me what specifically you are after. 14 MR. SHORTALL: Well, I am asking that in connection 15 with your belief you state later on in your testimony that 16 medical exams should only be provided after six months or 17 something. I will have to get the page. 18 (Pause.) Well, what exactly do you mean when you 19 say, on page 3 of the section entitled "Ancillary Provisions 20 of the Proposal," at the bottom of the page, "We believe 21 a six-month interval for preplacement physicals, as suggested 22 appears reasonable?" 23 MR. McGINLEY: We presently give people a physical 24 when we hire them. Everybody is given a preplacement physi 25 cal. In the OSHA proposal, I believe they mentioned having CTD005862 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 at a physical within six months after hire. I never really gave it much thought until I read about it. We were always used to giving physicals as soon as we hire somebody. ' It started us thinking that maybe that is a good way to go. MR. SHORTALL: ` On page 2 of the section covering proposed PELS, you state that there is general bias in the data in that the majority of the corporate results tend to be higher. Several members on the panel used the word "bias." What do you mean by the use of "bias" there? MR. McGINLEY: Well, we compare readings. If you look on the submission on the following pages, we have done evaluations where we have taken interlaboratory comparisons, where we would take the plant reading -- I am looking at Figure 1 on the next page, following the one that you were just discussing -- we would take plant readings , and then we would have the plant send the filter to the corporate labs. We would have the corporate people take a segment and read it. Then, we started comparing this data on these scatter diagrams, and it appears that we tended to get higher readings in some cases, you know, in the corporate analysis than we did in the plant analysis. CTD005863 We noted so far that the only difference is that the corporate people use one type of microscope, and the plant people use another. In putting this data together, this was something that started to become apparent. When we EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 c330 1 were meeting the 2 fiber level, I really wasn't too concerned 2 in variations between plant and corporate reading, but as we 3 get down lower and lower, our data indicates that as we get 4 under the .5 fiber level, we tend to get wide variations. 5 The only thing I could attribute it to would be possibly 6 microscope differences. 7 But then again, I am not really qualified, nor have 8 we done any kind of in-depth analysis of this problems. It 9 was really a question that developed in our minds as a result 10 of putting some data together. 11 MR. SHORTALL: Do you know why the corporate people 12 use a different kind of microscope than the plant people? 13 MR. McGINLEY: I know how it came about. When we 14 started our industrial hygiene program in the early '70s, 15 we were instructed to buy one type of microscope, and one 16 of the plants couldn't get that, and he bought another manu 17 facture. That plant shut down, and that microscope went to 18 corporate. So it is just a difference in two different micro 19 scopes. 20 MR. SHORTALL: Thank you. Mr. Hutchins, on page 4 21 of your written statement, you refer to damage in the fiber 22 receiving and storage area. You say, "Any minor damage;is23 repaired by vacuuming spilled fiber." How often does this 24 minor damage which requires vacuuming occur? 25 MR. HUTCHINS: It is very infrequent. CTD005864 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 5654)064 month? MR. SHORTALL: Do you mean once a week, once a MR. HUTCHINS: Well, we receive fiber in probably one truckload a week, so, no, I would say probably once a month. MR. SHORTALL: What sort of protective equipment is worn by employees who clean up the results of minor damage? MR. HUTCHINS: Respirators. MR. SHORTALL:' What kind of respirators do they wear? MR. HUTCHINS: They are the single-use respirators 3M. We also supply -- all of our employees are supplied with uniforms. They are given five sets of uniforms a week. We have disposable uniforms also, if they were to have a major spill. But I haven't seen a major spill in a very long time. The last one came about as the result of a rail- car being wrecked on the way down we opened it we had a mess. MR. SHORTALL: On page 5 of your written statement, about the middle, you refer to both economics and an EPA requirement forcing you to have full recycle of Whitewater. What economic factors contributed to your decision to re cycle the Whitewater? MR. HUTCHINS: To make our grades of so-called EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005865 purified electrical paper, it is very important that we retain as much of the fiber fines and also as a result of being sold^, fiber to us became much more costly. Therefore, it became economically desirable to retain as much of the fiber fines as possible. In our process, fiber slurry is about 95 percent through a -200 mesh screen. We lose an awful lot in the so-called Whitewater. In the close-up of the plant, we are allowed no process outflow from the plant. We jumped from probably about 55 percent the normal first-pass up to about 85 percent first-pass. Basically, it created an awful lot of high fiber mist. It was necessary to use this Whitewater in mold showers, in edge deckels, in all dilution steps, and the cascading and the splash-offs, and so forth, put into the air a very high percentage of high fiber content mist. MR. SHORTALL: Do you know what the asbestos content of the high fiber mist is? MR. HUTCHINS: All I can tell you is that we get readings around the machine that are consistently in the 2 fibers per cc range. MR. SHORTALL: But that is not the -- that is the mist that you are describing there? MR. HUTCHINS: It is from the mist. If you look around the machine, you will have, where that can deposit, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 CTD005866 33 you have a gel-like, colloidal accumulation, and it has basically forced us to put shielding, fully enclosed molds. We are a long way from complete in that area. MR. SHORTALL: You present some data beginning on page 11; I wonder first if you can tell us what is the significance of the information reported under the column System Changes in relation to the exposure data that is reported in these tables? MR. HUTCHINS: Just trying to see if there was any, so that each time a change was made, did it really influence the readings. In some cases, there were indications it did; in others it was a toss-up. MR. SHORTALL: I thought that was probably what you were doing, and I am trying to get through this as fast as I can. However, there are several places where you refer to system changes, and I am wondering if they are the same systems that you refer to earlier on page 9, where you describe the cost of equipment purchases that you have made. MR. HUTCHINS: Yes, but that cost, as I state at the bottom, the initial cost of the equipment is nothing in comparison to the fiddling around that you have to do to try to get it to work, and the changes .and rechanges. MR. SHORTALL: I understand that. Actually, what I am trying to get at, though, is -- MR. HUTCHINS: To answer, yes. CTD005867 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 1 MR. SHORTALL: For example, on page 11, you refer 2 to, in connection with the tests on February 5, 1979, you 3 refer to a system change, a block breaker system, and I am 4 wondering, is that different than the fiber block opener? 5 MR. HUTCHINS: Right. That is the same. 6 MR. SHORTALL: That is the same. 7 MR. HUTCHINS: Right. B MR. SHORTALL: The fiber block opener, if I read 9 this correctly, the information on page 9, was not completed 10 until July of '79. 11 MR. HUTCHINS: We installed that thing and initial 12 ly, after about a week of operations, we destroyed the drive 13 on it. It went through half a dozen rebuilds, and it is 14 still far from perfect. It takes these one cubic foot, 15 100-pound high density blocks that are like rocks. They 16 go up a conveyor under a hooded exhaust system, drop^into 17 the block breakers, and then droj^directly into a regular 18 oldi type beater or a high-agitation pulper. 19 The high-agitation pulper works very nicely, but 20 in the old beater that breaks .it down into pieces that big `*0 21 .that go right to the bottom, if there, iwere rocks, we are 22 still playing^ f 23 MR. SHORTALL: In the interest again of time, I 24 wonder if you can just clarify, on page 12, where you refer 25 to the system change, Whitewater showers installed -- CTD005868 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 ass' 1 HR. HUTCHINS: What it's looking for there is where 2 we added these Whitewater showers, and became immediately 3 aware of the mist that was high in fiber content, and expect a l 4 to see higher numbers. 5 MR. SHORTALL: But are those Whitewater showers 6 the same as the Whitewater showers that are listed on page 9? 7 MR. HUTCHINS: I purchased probably about three or 0 8 four different Whitewater shower systems, but they are the 9 more expensive ones, yes. 10 MR. SHORTALL:' And also on page 12, under System 11 Changes, you refer to a dryer dust collector. Is that the 12 same thing as the PM dryer Yankee dust collector? 13 MR. HUTCHINS: Yes. 14 MR. SHORTALL: And on page 13, the System Change, 15 mist shield installed. Is that the same as the Whitewater 16 mist shields that are listed on page 9? 17 MR. HUTCHINS: For the millboard machine. 18 MR. SHORTALL: And the baler that you refer to on 19 page 14, is that the same as the scrap baler listed on 20 page 9? 21 MR. HUTCHINS: Right. 22 MR. SHORTALL: And on page 15, the vacuum roll 23 cleaners, is that the same as the vacuum cleaner roll clean 24 ing that is listed on page 9? 25 MR. HUTCHINS: Yes. CTD005869 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 1 MR. SHORTALL: While we are on page 15, you have 2 noted that Manville sold the plant to Quin-T sometime around 3 1975. Why was Manville in the plant taking tests in October 4 of '837 5 MR. HUTCHINS: We buy, or our major supplier is 6 Johns-Manville. We buy glass fiber from them, among other 7 things. We are probably one of the -- not only this plant, 8 but the Erie plant -- we are a major buyer of asbestos and 9 glass from them. They came in to make readings on glass 10 exposure, and at the same time, made asbestos tests. 11 We can get the same periodic service from our 12 insurance company, Wassau. They will come in a couple times 13 a year at no cost to us, but if we ship samples to them -- 14 we have our own pumps -- we will make tests and ship them 15 to them for analysis. We pay for that service. 16 JUDGE MAHONY: Do you have much more, Mr. Shortall? 17 MR. SHORTALL: Not too much more. Your Honor. 18 On the bottom of page 17, where you are describing 19 current best practices, and you refer to a pulper system. 20 You already have a pulper system in operation? 21 MR. HUTCHINS: Yes, but I would love to have some 22 thing that will allow me to more efficiently pulp scrap. 23 MR. SHORTALL: Is that the scrap pulper that was 24 installed in October of '78? CTD00587C 25 MR. HUTCHINS: That was a small unit, yes. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 ? 1 MR. SHORTALL: And on page 18, you are discussing 2 the cost of a system under paper machiner dryers? 3 MR. HUTCHINS: Right. 4 MR. SHORTALL: Is that generally the same system 5 as your Yankee dust collector? MR. HUTCHINS: Yes, but it is extending it^tw^addi- 7 tional operations anyplace you have a (docter) blade on a 8 dryer drum. Sp7 1 9 MR. SHORTALL: Under Part 5, covering dry end, 10 are the slitters you are referring to there essentially the 11 same as the slitter dust collector? 12 MR./ HUTCHINS: No. There is on the end of the paper Om iv1a\cJ~^ 13 machine a winderedge trimming is done. 14 MR. SHORTALL: Is the slitter that you are referring 15 to on page 18 essentially the same as the piece of equipment 16 called slitter dust collector, which is on page 9, or is it 17 different? 18 MR. HUTCHINS: Where are you? You are on the dry 19 end. No, that is referring to our so-called Cameron winder, 20 or winder slitter on the end of the paper machine. We take 21 it off the machine, and we slit tapes down a quarter-inch 22 wide for a range of applications. That has a dust collecting 23 system on it. This particular unit does not. CTD005871 24 MR. SHORTALL: And the Cameron device that you 25 refer to, that is not listed under the equipment on page 9, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 J-3S is it? MR. HUTCHINS: Right, it isn't. MR. SHORTALL: A few questions about your hiring policy with respect to nonsmokers. First of all, how do you determine that a job applicant is a nonsmoker? MR. HUTCHINS: You ask them. You ask them to sign a statement, but again, you look at them. Invariably, coming into our office, anybody that has smoked, excuse me, but you can smell them immediately. That is not always so, oaJ-- and there^-is^always those coming in that^, yes, we gave it up yesterdayy Most of them are more ingenious them that. "We gave it up a week ago." We have had a pretty good record of hiring people that do not smoke. We have probably hired, say, hired^20 people, in a quick estimate, that we have had to get rid of three that we caught smoking after they said they didn't. MR. SHORTALL: Have you ever reject a job applicant on the basis that he was a smoker? MR. HUTCHINS: Yes, every day of the week. MR. SHORTALL: Do you rely on any legal authority in enforcing this ban against hiring smokers? MR. HUTCHINS: We have used legal advice in doing this. CTD005872 MR. SHORTALL: Do you know specifically what the basic of the legal advice was? I mean what the statute was. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 A3? 1 MR. HUTCHINS: We handle it by falsifying a job 2 application, not -- I mean if he says he doesn't smoke, and 3 we find out he does, and he signs that statement on the job 4 application, he is falsifying a job application. 5 MR. SHORTALL: Are you aware of any legal authority 6 that supports your right to not hire smokers? 7 MR. HUTCHINS: The only thing that we have obtained 8 legal advice -- I am out of my element if you want to know 9 the truth. 1 MR. SHORTALL:' Has your policy of rejecting appli 11 cants who smoke ever been challenged? 12 MR. HUTCHINS: No. 13 MR. SHORTALL: After a person has been hired, do 14 you continue to insist that he or she not smoke at all? 15 MR. HUTCHINS: Absolutely. 16 MR. SHORTALL: What measures do you take to assure 17 that your no smoking rule is being faithfully observed by all 18 1 your employees? 19 j MR. HUTCHINS: Observation. 20 MR. SHORTALL: Do you observe them off the job, as 21 well? 22 MR. HUTCHINS: If one of our supervisors saw this 23 guy smoking -- person smoking off the job, we would tend to 24 fire them, yes. CTD005873 25 MR. SHORTALL: Does the no smoking policy apply to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 4"SX 1 all positions, hourly and salaried, in the plant? 2 MR. HUTCHINS: Yes. Realize, though, that we, as 3 4 5 6 7 ^8 9 we put this ban in -- it was under Johns-Manville -- we have 10 people that do smoke. We have a hard job keeping control of that. They don't smoke in the plant except I know dif ferent because you can occasionally find on the roof, or on the back deck, and so forth, cigarette butts that says yes, they have been there. A We also don't allow anybody coming into the plant 10 in the line of a contractor or visitor, or anybody else. 11 to smoke in the plant. That isn't as bad as it sounds. In 12 the plant they never were allowed to smoke in any of the 13 14 15 operating areas from the day it was put together. They were allowed to smoke only in the lunch rooms or locker rooms. MR. SHORTALL: My last questions have to do with 16 lockers. On the bottom of page 20, you note that your em- 17 ployees each have two lockers. I am wondering if they are 18 side by side, or in separate locations. 19 1 MR. HUTCHINS: Yes, they are, they are side by side 20 MR. SHORTALL: What procedures do you have to 21 assure that employees do not take clothing, shoes, or other 22 gear home from the plant? CTD005874 23 MR. HUTCHINS: Because we supply each of them five 24 uniforms each week, meaning that they have got five sets of 25 clothes, and those clothes are marked with our labels and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 ^. c/T f 242 1 so forth. They don't take those home. 2 MR. SHORTALL: How about shoes or other gear? 3 MR. HUTCHINS: I would suspect that their shoes, 4 and so forth, go home with them. 5 MR. SHORTALL: I am sorry? 6 MR. HUTCHINS: I would suspect -- I know their 7 shoes go home with them. We supply shoes to a number of 8 people, but they are not in the asbestos area; they are in 9 saturator area where anti-static sole shoes are necesary. 10 MR. SHORTALL:" Thank you. That is all I have, Your 11 Honor. 12 JUDGE MAHONY: I think in.fairness to the other 13 people, since the Government took over twice the time they 14 announced, that the others should at least have an opportunity 15 to ask their questions. 16 Mr. Adams, would you like to come up? 17 MR. ADAMS: I will try to be brief. First of all, 18 just a general question for the panel. Does any company 19 represented on the panel engage in directly installing 20 asbestos-containing products in the workplace? 21 MR. NETTER: No. CTD005875 22 MR. ADAMS: In other words, do you go out and 23 install any of the products that you sell, that you rely on other people to buy your products and you install them? JUDGE MAHONY: Is the answer for everybody? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 66WJ064 <342- 1 MR. NETTER: Nobody on this panel. 2 JUDGE MAHONY: The answer is no. 3 MR. ADAMS: Do any of the panelists' companies 4 conduct routine monitoring of the work practices of workers 5 installing products purchased from your company? Do you 6 have any programs in place, any of you have programs in place 7 to go out and see how your products are installed, to see 8 what kind of work practices are used? 9 MR. McGINLEY: CertainTeed does not. 10 MR. HUTCHINS: We supply monitoring pumps to people 11 who use our products, but it would be us peddling a paper, 12 a (Sorgall) heavy-duty GE, and so forth, and they would use 13 the pumps to run a test. We would get a sample submitted to 14 a lab for testing. 15 MR. ADAMS: I think the rest of my questions are 16 for Mr. Netter. Your company is Supradur? 17 MR. NETTER: Supradur. 18 MR. ADAMS: Could you describe the composition and 19 characteristics of the cooling tower fill on page 1 of your 20 written testimony? What does that look like? 21 MR. NETTER: Essentially, that is an asbestos 22 cement sheet that is either texture or corrugated. It's a 23 regular -- if you have ever seen a flat sheet -- 24 MR. ADAMS: It's a variation, then, of a flat 25 sheet? CTD005876 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 a*3 1 MR. NETTER: Yes. 2 MR. ADAMS: On page 5, you say that work practice 3 pamphlets have been developed by the industry, and copies of 4 work practices are available. Are these work practices in 5 cluded in the record, have you submitted them? 6 MR. NETTER: No, I have not. 7 MR. ADAMS: Are they published or copyrighted: 8 in any way? . 9 MR. NETTER: I don't know whether they are. 10 MR. ADAMS: The question I am really getting at, 11 the A-C pipe producers have a recommended work practices 12 guide. I am asking if the people who manufacture -- you 13 manufacture flat sheets, cooling tower fill, and other spe 14 cialized products, if you have a work practices guide similar 15 to what the A-C pipe producers have. 16 MR. NETTER: Different manufacturers have developed 17 their own work practice guidelines and work practice guide 18 that they supply, and I believe the Asbestos Information 19 Association has, as well. CTD005877 20 MR. SAMPSON: I believe that is correct, also. 21 We will be happy to try to put that together for you. 22 MR. NETTER: We can collect them if you would like. 23 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. On page 3, at the top of 24 the page, first paragraph, you have got a statement there, 25 "In normal use, no measurable amounts of asbestos should be EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 4-4- 245 1 released over time." Could you give me your characteriza 2 tion of "normal use?" 3 MR. NETTER: In the case of roofing or siding, 4 for example, or flat sheets sitting there being exposed to 5 the weather is considered to be normal use. 6 MR. ADAMS: Would you definition include the 7 removal, renovation, or repair of the product? 8 MR. NETTER: No, it does not. 9 MR. ADAMS: Do your recommended work practices 10 cover removal, repair, *or renovation? 11 MR. NETTER: No, it does not. 12 MR. ADAMS: Could I ask the AIA if yours do? 13 MR. SAMPSON: I believe that is also the case 14 with the AIA. I would rather let the document speak for 15 itself. 16 MR. ADAMS: On page 4, at the bottom, you refer 17 to special tools that have been developed for use in the A-C 18 sheet industry. How do the primary installers learn of these 19 special tools and the work practice required with these 20 special tools? CTD005878 21 MR. NETTER: Certainly in the case of Supradur and 22 the tools that we advocate using, it is part of our standard 23 literature package that would be used for promotional pur- 24 poses or installation purposes. We recommend the use of cer- 25 tain equipment, and we also sell^fehat, equipment that we EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 45 1 recommend be used 2 MR. ADAMS: So you sell the tools to go with the 3 material? 4 MR. NETTER: Yes. The tools are not manufactured 5 by us. 6 MR. ADAMS: On page 5, does the label describe the 7 lung and cancer hazard that may result from improper work 8 practices in tools? 9 MR. NETTER: No, it does not. 10 MR. ADAMS: Could you give me the specific language, n or as close as possible to what the specific language of that 12 label is? 13 MR. NETTER: It includes the contents of the 14 product, it includes the proper storage of the product, and 15 certain other installation instructions. 16 MR. ADAMS: It is not intended, then, to advise the 17 workers or the installers? 18 MR. NETTER: No, I answered the question in the 19 negative when you asked it the first time. CTD005879 20 MR. ADAMS: I am sorry. I won't harass you. 21 These labels, are they visible after the product is installed: 22 MR. NETTER: No, they are not. 23 MR. ADAMS: How do the workers involved in renova 24 tion, repair, and removal learn of the special tools and 25 work practices required to control asbestos dust release? In EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 other words, your product is installed and somebody is going to come in and work on it later on, how do they learn of the special tools and practices necessary to work on that partic ular product? MR. NETTER: Concerning the repair of the product, those are ordinarily the same people that install the product, Concerning the demolition, that is a whole different industry. MR. ADAMS: You didn't listen to me. I didn't say demolition. I said renovation, removal and repair. Demo lition is not exactly the same thing as removal and repair. MR. NETTER: Okay. I addressed myself to repair, which is ordinarily the same people who install, and they havii the tools available to them. MR. ADAMS: On renovation, where there is remodel ing work going on? MR. NETTER: Renovation, to us, renovation means adding. It doesn't mean taking siding off. In the event thau they took siding off, if they did not contact us, I have no way of knowing how they would find out. MR. ADAMS: At what point do you consider the products you manufacture to become an installed product? MR. NETTER: When it is on the structure, when it is nailed to the structure. MR. ADAMS: When it is finally fastened? MR. NETTER: Yes. CTD005880 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565*0064 <g4? MR. ADAMS: Could you generally describe the proper procedure for removing installed asbestos, flat sheet, cor rugated sheets, and siding? Is there a general procedure for the proper way of doing this? MR. NETTER: Not in a formal manner, that I am aware of. There are obviously good common sense things that should be done, or not done. I have seen articles or pub lications basically telling you what should not be done, which is throwing them down from the fifth floor into a pile on the street, and letting a bulldozer run over it. I am not aware of specific instructions that are used for demolition purposes. MR. ADAMS: Would you agree that during the instal lation of siding and sheets, the primary installer may have to remove material immediately previously installed due to mistakes or changes made in the building plan? This is not an unheard of thing, where as you are installing new mate rial, mistakes are made, or the client decides to change his mind and do something differently. Do you have a procedure, do you know of procedures for the removal of that material? MR. NETTER: No, I do not. CTD005881 MR. ADAMS: My last question. Does your company and AIA consider the removal, renovation, and repair of your installed products beyond their scope of responsibility? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 65-0064 48 1 MR. NETTER: I cannot speak for the AIA. For my 2 company, I would say yes, that it is beyond our scope. 3 MR. ADAMS: AIA? 4 MR. SAMPSON: I can't speak for AIA. 5 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Thank you. 6 JUDGE MAHONY: Thank you. Ms. Seminario? 7 MS. SEMINARIO: Peg Seminario from the AFL-CIO. 8 Mr. McGinley, on the section of your testimony that ? deals with current best practices, you make the statement, 10 "In order to comply.with a 0.5 fiber per cc standard, we 11 feel that we must be able to operate at the 0.25 fibers per _L2 cc level with, a high degree of consistency." What do you meai 13 by a "high degree of consistency?" 14 MR. McGINLEY: I don't know if I can define that 15 to some numerical number. I just feel that we have to have 16 some values, in my judgment, to be 75, 80 percent of the time, 17 or even higher than that, at the 2 fiber level on all occa 18 sions. 19 MS. SEMINARIO: The 0.25 fiber level? 20 MR. McGINIiEY: Generally, yes. 21 MS. SEMINARIO: A question on a couple of your 22 tables here. In Table I, you have laid out a summary of 23 your 1965 to 1972 exposure levels, and at least one, if not 24 two of those data sets were from OSHA inspections, is that 25 correct? CTD005882 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 1 MR. McGINLEY: Yes. One was in 1972, the first 2 and the fifth one. 3 MS. SEMINARIO: 1972. The samples from one of the 4 1972 exposures, the one marked 5 in the first column, had 5 levels of 94.38, 2.5, 40.19, do you know if that inspection 6 resulted in a citation from OSHA? 7 MR. McGINLEY: No, I do not. I was not in my 8 present position at the time. I know about that. We were 9 unloading government surplus fiber that was sold to us by the 10 GSA out of their warehouse, and when it came in the bags were 11 all ripped. It happened to be we were getting an OSHA 12 inspection when that railroad car came in. That is the data 13 that we had in our files. 14 MS. SEMINARIO: During the time that you have 15 been with the company, can you tell me how many OSHA inspec 16 tion you have had at your facilities? Have you had any? 17 MR. McGINLEY: Oh, yes. I would only be guessing 18 how many. You are talking about industrial hygiene inspec 19 tions? 20 MS. SEMINARIO: Let me be specific; to asbestos, 21 industrial hygiene inspections that evaluated, took samples 22 for asbestos exposure. 23 MR. McGINLEY: No, I don't know the answer to that. 24 MS. SEMINARIO: Do you know if there have been any 25 citations, OSHA citations at all for overexposure to asbestos EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005883 MR. McGINLEY: Since when? MS. SEMINARIO: Since 1976, with the 2 fiber standard. MR. McGINLEY: I am not prepared to answer that one. It would be a matter of record. I could research it and supply you with that answer. MS. SEMINARIO: If you could without a lot of trouble. MR. McGINLEY: I am sure I could. MS. SEMINARIO: You indicated that in preparing your Table II, that that was based on raw sampling data. In that table, the column marked sampling number, there are different numbers that start with 144. Just a clarification. Is that the actual number of samples that was taken? -- MR. McGINLEY: Yes, that is the number of samples that were taken in that time frame, not the sample number. MS. SEMINARIO: You said that was prepared from raw sampling data. For the period from 1981 to the present, could you supply for the record the results of that sampling, the actual data rather than just a summary table? MR. McGINLEY: Yes. MR. SAMPSON: Excuse me. You want it from 1981 to the present? MS. SEMINARIO: Right. CTD005884 Mr. Hutchins, as part of your testimony, you have EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 as/ a table in here which lists historical sampling results. These questions are really a matter of clarification. On the page in your testimony, starting with page 11, the column there that says, "PEL" and "Fibers per Centimeter," let's say for the first sample that was done 7-26-72, tested by J.M., the PEL fiber per cubic centimeter was 2. Was that column supposed to represent the OSHA standard at that time? MR. HUTCHINS: Right, the 10 would be in the peak levels. MS. SEMINARIO: But the OSHA standard in 1972, I believe was 5--10 rather. Okay. Now, for these tests that are not peak levels, would those be representative of 8-hour TWA computations, or time weighted averages for the period the sample was taken? MR. HUTCHINS: Those are time weighted averages. In other words, they are just to the eight hours. Very few of them were actual 8-hour tests. They are anywhere from -- if the exposure was high, or if the background dust was high, they were cut short. MS. SEMINARIO: But they were all adjusted to the eight hours? MR. HUTCHINS: They were all adjusted to an 8-hour test, yes. . MS. SEMINARIO: Was this all the sampling that was conducted at your plant during this time period, essentially? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005885 asz | 253 1 MR. HUTCHINS: There is, a lot of extraneous sampl 2 ing. We have four of our own pumps, and we are playing 3 around constantly, whenever you make a change, so we have a 4 lot of data that isn't in here, yes. 5 MS. SEMINARIO: Could you supply for the time 6 period of 1981 to 1984, your environmental monitoring sampl 7 ing results? 8 MR. HUTCHINS: Right. 9 MS. >SEMINARIO: You mentioned a policy in your 10 plant of not hiring smokers, or hiring only nonsmokers. Last 11 week we heard testimony from Dr. Irving Selikoff on the 12 question of the increased risk associated with asbestos 13 workers who smoke. Dr. Selikoff testified that in his 14 opinion, the workers at greatest risk were formerly exposed IS workers, because the exposures had been very high. 16 According to a number of studies that he had 17 conducted, even in formerly exposed workers, if they stopped 18 smoking today before they had developed the disease, that 19 indeed the risk of developing the disease was reduced. It 20 didn't reduce back to the point of never being a smoker, but 21 it did reduce somewhat. CTD005886 22 In your company, do you have a policy or a program 23 to notify former workers, who have worked for your company, 24 to indicate the hazards of asbestos and to urge that they 25 get medical tests to determine risk and also to cease smoking? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 S3 254 1 MR. HUTCHINS: Specifically/ no. I am looking back 2 at retirees that have gone out of the plant in recent years. 3 They have all had the training. They have all been given 4 that opportunity, I would say since 1975, under Johns5 Manville. So anybody from 1975 on up has been given a dog 6 gone good background of influence of smoking on asbestos 7 exposure and a good go-around on quit now if you can. 8 We have gone through hiring a hypnotist that did a 9 good job initially on a lot of people. We have had the 10 lung society. Cancer Society in for talks, and Smoke Enders, 11 and have had people that it worked on for five or six 12 months, but pretty soon they are drifing back into it. -13 To^specifically/^evert^looked at that in detail, no. 14 MS. SEMINARIO: A question for all the panelists. 15 Do any of you include in your medical surveillance program 16 a notification and provision of medical exams for formerly 17 exposed workers, who were exposed to asbestos, who are no 18 longer employed at your facility? 19 MR. McGINLEY: We.contact, on a yearly basis, our 20 retired employees, and offer them physicals. At that time 21 we also remind them about smoking and its associations. 22 MS. SEMINARIO: Mr. Netter? CTD005887 23 MR. NETTER: On an annual basis, when we have our 24 pulmonary function tests, we do invite retired employees. We 25 do not require it of them. We invited them to take part. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 1 MS. SEMINARIO: Mr. Alexander? 2 MR. ALEXANDER: I am not aware of such a program. 3 We have only a very small fraction of our employees exposed 4 to asbestos. 5 MS. SEMINARIO: I would just like to follow up and 6 ask Mr. Netter and Mr. Alexander, for the same time period 7 I spoke about with the other gentlemen, 1981 to 1984, if you 8 could provide for the record the exposure monitoring results 9 for asbestos sampling that you have conducted. 10 MR. NETTER: Yes, ma'am. 11 MR. ALEXANDER: I will find out. 12 MS. SEMINARIO: Thank you very much. _I have no 13 further questions. 14 MR. SAMPSON: Do you just want a tabulation of 15 the individual sample results? What exactly are you 16 interested in? 17 MS. SEMINARIO: Most of the data that has been 18 presented, both in your testimony and by a number of other 19 witnesses, has been in the area of ranges. It is sometimes 20 very hard to tell where things fall within those ranges 21 because of the cutoff points or the way the data is charac 22 terized. By having a listing of exposure measurements it is 23 easier to see exactly what kind of exposures we are talking 24 about. 25 To the extent that the data is available currently EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005888 1 and it would not be a lot of extra work by different times 2 of operations, it would be helpful. I am not trying to 3 create a lot of work for anybody. 4 MR. SAMPSON: I understand. I just wanted to be 5 sure that we would produce it in a way that would be meaning 6 ful to you. You are interested in the individual readings, 7 8-hour TWAs? S MS. SEMINARIO: Eight-hour TWAs, or any short term 9 that you have, that would be by job classification. 10 MR. HUTCHINS? You realize that most of that kind 11 of data is already in these tables. 12 MS. SEMINARIO: I understand. If it is duplica 13 tive, then I am not asking you to submit it, but any addi 14 tional data that you have would be useful. 15 JUDGE MAHONY: Thank you, Ms. Seminario. 16 Ms. Nash? 17 MS. NASH: I have a few questions. I will try to 18 make it very brief. 19 I wonder if each of the panelists could quickly 20 tell us what the asbestos content of your product lines is, 21 the kind of asbestos it is, and whether that has always been 22 the case, or whether the asbestos fiber mix has changed over 23 over the last 10 years. CTD005889 24 MR. ALEXANDER: The asbestos content has been 25 quite stable over many decades. The asbestos in our product EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 Is thoroughly encapsulated during the manufacturing process and remains so. It has always been what is called "floats and it is still that grade, although the makers tailor the grades a little bit differently from year to year. MS. NASH: Did you say it is floats? MR. NETTER: It is Grade 7. MS. NASH: Oh, it's, a grade, but the fiber type is chrysotile? MR. ALEXANDER: He have been using Canadian as bestos for a very long 'time. MS. NASH: Thank you. Mr. Hutchins? MR. HUTCHINS: We use a range of fibers that go from an Arizona 3Z chrysotile, paper asbestos 1 and 5. Paper asbestos 1 is a 5K. 5 is a 7D. The products, we make fuel cell diaphragm materials, NASA and others, that are 100 percent Arizona asbestos. We make 100 percent asbestos millboards that go into anti-radar and so forth type bat teries, small volume. We make papers that are 100 percent asbestos. They come off the paper machine, but are saturated with silicon and acetate, and so forth, that go into such things as self- destruct labels on automobile engines, and this kind of thing. We make a range of asbestos papers that are kraft and starch-bonded that go into lens-- where you wrap the bifocal lens and fuse it together, and on, and on. We have EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565*0064 CTD005890 1 about eight different basic formulas that go from 100 percent 2 asbestos to normally about 80 percent asbestos. Most of 3 our production is in the 80 percent asbestos. The materials 4 in that other than asbestos are about 10 percent of a rein- O W-4+5 forcing staple that could be ne-mistj, that could be poly 6 ester, it could be rayon. It could be glass, and acrylon 7 itrile latex. 8 MS. NASH: But it is chrysotile, also, various 9 grades of it? 10 MR. HUTCHINSi Right. 11 MS. NASH: When you talk of various grades, does 12 this have to do with the dimensional qualities of it? 13 MR. HUTCHINS: As you go from a 3 grade, you are 14 going from a fiber that is probably three-quarters of an 15 inch long down to a 7D, which gets you down into a fiber that 16 is -- oh, it has some quarter-inch fiber in it,but it is 17 more 35 percent retained on a 200 mesh screen. That doesn't A 18 tell you much, but -- it is relatively short. \ cuj 'ikQ Wr. \) 19 When you get to his fiber, it is deucedly short. McJly Mr. .--------------) 20 When you get to hi^, you are getting into the 4 grade fiber 21 I would suspect, way longer than anything I am using. 22 MS. NASH: What is the shortest fiber you use? 23 MR. HUTCHINS: That would be 4T floats -- 7T 24 floats, and so forth. I would be next in line. 25 MS. NASH: What does that mean? CTD005891 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 5654X564 c3S8 1 MR. HUTCHINS: It is short, very short. If you 2 start with Number 1, you have got fiber going into very 3 high grade spinning operations, that could be up to 2 inches 4 long, but it will have some shorter fiber in it. That stuff 5 would probably be $3,000 a ton. As you get into 2, it is 6 seldom used. 3 grade goes into special textiles. 4 grade 7 is asbestos cement, for the most part. 6 grade goes into 8 pipeline felts; 5 and 6, brake linings, clutch facings, this 9 kind of thing. 7 grade is floor tile. The shorter 7 grades 10 go into caulking compounds. 11 MS. NASH: Do you all use chrysotile asbestos? 12 Is that it exclusively? 13 MR. McGINLEY: CertainTeed used chrysotile and 14 crocidolite. 15 MS. NASH: What is the percentage? 16 MR. McGINLEY: Total asbestos, and A-C pipe varies 17 from 13 to 18 percent of the mixture by weight. It is 18 predominantly chrysotile. I can only speak for CertainTeed 19 here. We use something less than 20 percent crocidolite. 20 MS. NASH: Could you make it without using crocido- 21 lite? 22 MR. McGINLEY: No. Well, let me^qua^tify^that. 23 We cannot make it economically. If I don't keep up with my 24 production rates and other things, keep my specifications, 25 I in a sense don't have a product anymore. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005892 1 MS. NASH: Thank you. Mr. Netter, you use chry2 sotile also? 3 MR. NETTER: Yes, only. Just to clarify to Mr. 4 Hutchins, asbestos cement is 5's, 6's, and 7's. 5 MS. NASH: Primarily my questions are directed to 6 Mr. Alexander and Mr. Netter, but if anyone else wants to 7 chime in, that's all right, also. 8 What kind of measurement programs do you have in your plants, and do you measure workstations and employees 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 both, and what frequencies? MR. ALEXANDER: We have purchased the pumps, and the analytical lab provides the ^fil^ers^ The pumps and the fillers are given to the foremen who are trained to use the NIOSH method. They select the worst case men. The monitor ing is always done on a. man for one day. We hope he works a full eight hours, but on occasion they don't. We report for the number of hours they do work. 18 The work schedule of these men can be highly 19 variable, and no one man spends full time on worst case 20 21 22 / 23 asbestos handling. They all have many other duties, but they are monitored for their full shift. MS. NASH: In other words, the day that monitoring should be taking place, somehow the worst workstation will 24 be identified, and the person at that station gets monitored 25 How do you do that? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005893 1 MR. ALEXANDER: We don't have many men, and we 2 don't have many stations, so we pick the men that are on 3 that asbestos handling station. 4 MS. NASH: You said in your statement that only 5 five or six individuals work directly with asbestos. Is that 6 five to six out of 10 to 15 in a typical plant? 7 I am sorry. Would you refer to your oral statement? 8 There may be a typographical error. It's the first page, 9 face page. When you talk about the industry, "There are 10 approximately 20 major producers of asbestos coatings," 11 and "A typical coatings plant" -- is that a typographical 12 error? 13 MR. ALEXANDER: A plant employing 10 to 15 workers 14 would have two to three individuals working directly with 15 asbestos. When I pick five or six, I pick a larger size 16 plant. 17 MS. NASH: So the plant size would range from 18 10 to 15 employees, and the direct asbestos-exposed popula 19 tion would range from two to six? 20 MR. ALEXANDER: That is correct. CTD005894 21 MS. NASH: What do you mean by direct asbestos 22 exposure? 23 MR. ALEXANDER: Our monitoring shows that we pick tJu- wo A&rtJ 24 up TWAs above the limit of detection only if they^have been 25 actively handling asbestos, and there are only a few ways EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 / 1 that they can do it. The easiest way to actively handle 2 asbestos is to be opening the bags at the bag opening sta 3 tion that we described earlier. These are manual bag open 4 ing stations. 5 MS. NASH: Even in the new plant? 6 MR. ALEXANDER: The new plant has a manual bag 7 opening station, and the design of that station is so effec- 8 tive, we can maintain^at^. 5 PEL. 9 MS. NASH: What design attributes are there in 10 that new bag opening station that make it effective? n MR. ALEXANDER: The station is under negative 12.. pressure. It has a front door, that I described earlier, 13 about waist high. 14 MS. NASH: Is that the bedroom window? 15 MR. ALEXANDER: Yes, that's the bedroom window -- 16 through which the man introduces a bale of asbestos. After 17 he cuts the wrapper and breaks open the bag, the asbestos 18 drops through the bars into the processor underneath the 19 station. The processor is a fluffer. It redisperses 20 the asbestos as it moves vertically downward into the vat. 21 MS. NASH: Have you investigated how much it would 22 cost to transform the other bag opening stations in your 23 other plants into the superior ones that you just mentioned? 24 MR. ALEXANDER: I mentioned that, Our engineering 25 department says 20 to $33,000 a station. CTD005895 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 1 MS. NASH: That would be a one-time cost? 2 MR. ALEXANDER: One time. The operating charges 3 are rather normal. 4 MS. NASH: That would be a percentage of -- would 5 it be about 3 percent of sales? I kind of did a little 6 calculation. 7 MR. ALEXANDER: I can't -- 8 MS. NASH: You wouldn't know? 9 MR. ALEXANDER: That sounds too high. 10 MS. NASH: Ydu mentioned that in these plants, the n asbestos comes to you pressure-packed. Is this the case with 12 all of your plants and throughout the industry? 13 MR. ALEXANDER: There is some minor variability. 14 The bulk of the asbestos that we buy, we prefer these partic 15 ular bales. They are not the most dense bales which are 16 possible, but they are quite dense, and the reason is that 17 should it become ruptured in transit, it holds together even 18 without a wrapper, and doesn't spew fibers through the vehicle 19 or through the plant while it is being transported from j 20 the dock to the storage area. CTD005896 21 Not only do we like the pressure-packed bale 22 wrapped in plastic, but we like to see the bales overwrapped 23 with additional plastic sheet. 24 MS. NASH: Do you know if this is commonly done 25 this way in your industry, or is it just your company that EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 6654)064 63 1 does it this way? 2 MR. ALEXANDER: No, it is all through the industry 3 MS. NASH: Are there any plants in the industry that 4 still receive loose asbestos? 5 MR. ALEXANDER: There are vendors who offer loose 6 asbestos. I can't tell you the extent to which they are used 7 in the industry. e MS. NASH: Thank you. Do you only use local exhaust 9 ventilation, is that it? 10 MR. ALEXANDER: That is correct. n MS. NASH: On page 3, you talk about there are many 12 smaller sources of airborne dust that you have improved over 13 the years. How do you identify these sources of airborne 14 dust? 15 MR. ALEXANDER: I believe they are identified because 16 you can see the asbestos dust. 17 MS. NASH: Only visual dust? IS MR. ALEXANDER: When we monitor, we really don't 19 pick up finite numbers unless the men have been in the 20 asbestos handling areas. 21 MS. NASH: Do you monitor the workstations of men 22 outside the -- 23 MR. ALEXANDER: We have tried, but we don't 24 get numbers above the limit of detection. CTD005897 25 MS. NASH: Is there any physical barrier between EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 1 the asbestos handling areas and the other areas? 2 MR. ALEXANDER: Kimberton has an asbestos area. 3 There are signs in that area. The people who go in there 4 1 are the asbestos handlers. I describe our ancillary pro 5 visions. 6 MS. NASH: Is Kimberton your new plant? 7 MR. ALEXANDER: No, Kimberton is the oldest. 8 MS. NASH: How old is your newer plant? When do 9 you mean when you say your new plant? 10 MR. ALEXANDER: I think three years ago. I am 11 .guessing. 12 MS. NASH: The exposures that you monitored at 13 Kimberton, that you allude to on page 6, you say, "Of the 14 23 exposures measured, fifteen were above the generally 15 accepted limit of detectability of .1 fibers/cc." They were 16 on workers at the introduction and mixing stages. 17 Did you separate out the data for the employees in 18 the introduction stages as opposed to the mixing stage? 19 MR. ALEXANDER: I separated out all the readings Jr o'* 20 below .08, and kept all the readings above .08. 21 MS. NASH: These statistics were generated during 22 the last four years. How frequently were people monitored? 23 MR. ALEXANDER: Semiannually,' in some cases more 24 frequently, but generally semiannually. CTD005898 25 MS. NASH: Before, you said that you tried to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 <QS 1 identify the roost heavily exposed employee. Is that in each 2 functional area, or just in the asbestos handling area? 3 MR. ALEXANDER: Amongst the group of asbestos 4 handlers. I went back through the data, trying to see if 5 the data was homogeneous across the workers, or whether some 6 body was getting especially high counts. The one with the 7 highest count was also the one with the lowest count. The 8 TWAs were distributed across the people in what appeared to 9 be quite a random fashion. 10 The only workers who showed low levels, and never n got a measurable number, were people who are known as 12 asbestos handlers who were in the warehousing area. They 13 receive asbestos from the trucks and transport it to the 14 asbestos storage area. Their counts were very low. 15 MS. NASH: All 15 of the exposures were in the 16 introduction and mixing stage. Are the warehouse people 17 included in those categories? 18 MR. ALEXANDER: All 15 TWAs, which were included, 19 were men who spent some time in the introduction phase, 20 at the workstation where the asbestos is introduced. No one 21 man spends full time in that area. He has other duties. 22 MS. NASH: Oh the day he is measured, he is there 23 for a full day? 24 MR. ALEXANDER: No. On the day he is measured, 25 he goes about his business. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005899 aw 1 MS. MASH: And he carries a sample^r^.with.:hin 2 from area to area? 3 MR. ALEXANDER: Wherever he goes. 4 MS. NASH: Wouldn't that account for some of the 5 variability in the measurements? 6 MR. ALEXANDER: It certainly would, because the 7 work schedule for the men is highly variable in^its^expo- 8 sure to asbestos. 9 MS. NASH: So it may not reflect the variability 10 of the method at all, then, if they are going around from 11 place to place, exposed to different operations, and being 12 exposed in different ways. 13 MR. ALEXANDER: Ask the question again. 14 MS. NASH: I may be confused. 15 MR. ALEXANDER: There are a lot of sources of 16 variability. The work schedule is somewhat bimodal. 17 MS. NASH: What does that mean? 18 MR. ALEXANDER: Well, he is in the asbestos area 19 doing asbestos handling, and picking up fiber, and at other 20 times he is out of the area where the exposure level might 21 very well be extremely low. 22 MS. NASH: Maybe I could ask you this to save some 23 time. It would be helpful, because I am not sure I under 24 stand this, and to ask you a number of questions. Do you 25 have the actual data that you could perhaps submit to us, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 CTD005900 <AC1 1 and would that reflect the operations of the employees and 2 the amount of time that they were measured doing these 3 operations? They would not? 4 MR. ALEXANDER: Wait a minute. We measured the 5 amount of time they worked that day, the amount of time they 6 were monitored. But we didn't break it down to what they 7 were doing. We have no records on what they were doing that 8 day. 9 MS. NASH: But based on your experience with the 10 program, would you say'that each employee may have been 11 doing something different than another employee who is also 12 represented in the group? _______ 13 MR. ALEXANDER: We have got some men in there who' 14 appear to be doing similar things day after day, and the 15 data, are highly variable. Let me repeat that. We have men 16 whose schedules include working in the asbestos area on 17 a somewhat similar basis on a number of days, and yet the 18 monitoring data that we get back from them is extremely 19 variable. There is no information that we have collected tha: 20 ties in what they were doing to the variation. CTD005901 21 There is some indication that the sampling and 22 analytical technique is subject to considerable variation, 23 and I interpret the data to indicate that the exposures 24 themselves are extremely variable even though the men -appear 25 to be working on similar schedules. The reason for the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665*0064 1 extreme variability is, of course, what troubles us, what 2 makes it difficult to predict. 3 MS. NASH: Thank you. Mr. Netter, when you talk 4 on page 5 of integrated asbestos control -- 5 MR. NETTER: The written testimony? 6 MS. NASH: Whatever you handed in today. That is 7 an integrated program of industrial hygiene, and you are 8 talking about training, work practice requirements, house 9 keeping, respirator programs, locker room facilities. Is 10 this something which was done throughout your industry, or 11 just in your company? 12 MR. NETTER: I certainly can speak for my company. 13 MS. NASH: You talked about the A-C sheet indus 14 try in your testimony. I was wondering if you were rep- 0 15 resenting company practice or industrywide practice. 16 MR. NETTER: I certainly am speaking of company 17 practice. 18 MS. NASH: Do you have locker room facilities that 19 include shower facilities for your workers? 20 MR. NETTER: Yes, ma'am. 21 MS. NASH: Do you require them to shower at the 22 end of each workday? 23 MR. NETTER: We supply them with different clothing 24 every day, and they have to walk through the shower. Whether 25 they get wet or not, I don't know. ___________ CTD005902 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 <?? 1 MS. NASH: In your typical plant, how many em 2 ployees are there? 3 MR. NETTER: About 100. 4 MS. NASH: How many of these employees are engaged 5 in asbestos handling operations? 6 MR. NETTER: I would say 100: percent of them: either 7 handle asbestos or the product which is an asbestos cement 8 product. 9 MS. NASH: Do you monitor by workstation, or by VO employee? 11 MR. NETTER: Our union rules require that an indi 12 vidual work at the same station for the duration of the shift, 13 so when we monitor we are monitoring a person at a work 14 station for a shift. 15 MS. NASH: What is the frequency of your monitoring? 16 MR. NETTER: At least twice a year, and we do 17 monitor more often if we believe we have made some change, 18 we want to see how it is doing, or something, but a minimum 19 of twice a year. 20 MS. NASH: Is every employee in the plant monitored 21 twice a year? 22 MR. NETTER: No. CTD005903 23 MS. NASH: Which ones are, and which ones aren't, 24 how do you determine that? 25 MR. NETTER: Several years ago -- which was EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 reaffirmed in 1984 -- several years ago a determination was made that beyond a certain point in the plant, levels of asbestos were so low that there was no point in monitoring. MS. NASH: A point in the processing? MR. NETTER: Geographically in the plant. It is not a door you go through, but it is a portion of the plant behind which about half the people work. We stopped monitor ing there several years ago. MS. NASH: Do you mark the parkin which asbestos levels were detectable'and found to be significant? MR. NETTER: The entire plant is marked none theless. MS. NASH: How is it marked? MR. NETTER: Warning signs, caution, asbestos dust hazard. MS. NASH: The ones that are prescribed in the OSHA standards? MR. NETTER: Right. C__T_D_005904 MS. NASH: You mentioned that the cost to the manufacturers of integrated asbestos controls have been high. At your company, you say 70 percent of your total capital expenditures have been, in the last four years, for dust control equipment. What kind of dust control equipment have you installed in the last four.years? MR. NETTER: We installed at least one very large EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 ^ ( <1 1 dust collector# large being 100,000 CFM collector. 2 MS. NASH: Is this considered local exhaust, or 3 4 ss 6 7 8 9 10 is it plant or operationwide? MR. NETTER: It is a large dust collector that is, \lAr \ o * > by means of ductwork, made into local exhaust at^vea?^places within the plant. MS. NASH: Why did you decide that you needed to install this equipment? MR. NETTER: We were trying to get our dust counts below 2. 11 MS. NASH: Have you been successful? 12 MR. NETTER: Yes, to a point. 13 MS. NASH: What point is that? 14 MR. NETTER: We have managed to get our dust counts 15 to a 1 fiber^. 16 MS. NASH: When you say dust counts you have manage! 17 to get to 1 fiber, are those the exposure measurements you 18 get twice a year when you monitor at the stations that you 19 are concerned about? 20 MR. NETTER: Yes. CTD005905 21 MS. NASH: What was the cost of installing that? 22 MR. NETTER: I would say the capital cost for the 23 machinery was probably $300,000, which does not include 24 all the subsequent tinkering that has been done, and the re 25 structure of the local ducting that was required since then. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 c2 72 1 MS. NASH: When you installed that, and you wanted 2 to see how well it was working, did you have a plant, am 3 industrial hygienist come around from time to time and do 4 measurements at certain emission sources to see whether -- 5 MR. NETTER: Absolutely. ' 6 MS. NASH: What did they find when they made these 7 measurements ? 8 MR. NETTER: They found that after the machine was 9 installed, and over the next three or four months we did a 10 lot of adjusting of baffles and backdraft regulators, and 11 other technical things, that we were able to balance the 12 machine and reduce our dust counts to a point. 13 MS. NASH: To the point that you mentioned? 14 MR. NETTER: Yes. 15 MS. NASH: Does that vary among workstations? 16 MR. NETTER: Surely. 17 MS. NASH: What are your most troublesome spots? 18 MR. NETTER: We have two areas that we consider to 19 be troublesome. One is the punching operation, and the other 20 is the scrap grinding operation. 21 MS. NASH: Have you installed special controls or 22 work practices in those areas? 23 MR. NETTER: Yes. 24 MS. NASH: What are they? CTD005906 25 MR. NETTER: The new dust collector that we EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 1 installed was for the punch press area, which allowed us to 2 take the old dust collector that was also working in that 3 area, and employ it in the scrap area. 4 MS. NASH: If OSHA were to reduce its exposure -- 5 its permissible exposure level to, let's say, .5, I imagine 6 at least in the punch press area and the scrap area, you 7 would find that most of the measurements would exceed that, 8 is that correct, right now? 9 MR. NETTER: Yes. 10 MS. NASH: What do you think you could do to 11 reduce those exposure levels further in that area? 12 MR. NETTER: It certainly would be a multi- 13 facetted type of approach to the problem. It would not 14 simply be the installation of additional hardware, hardware <5 U meaning additional dust collection. That alone certainwould 16 not do it. It would require some other work practice mod 17 ifications and perhaps material flow modifications. 18 MS. NASH: Do you believe generally that you have 19 installed pretty much the best available technology to 20 reduce -- collection devices and systems that represent the 21 best available technology? 22 MR. NETTER: Speaking for Supradur, I would say 23 yes, I believe that we have. 24 MR. ALEXANDER: Allow me to correct a statement I 25 made. Our new plant began in 1983. CTD005907 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 1 MS. NASH: You said on page 6 -that you won't be 2 able to get down to .5 without large expenditures, and it 3 would only benefit a few individuals who work at these high 4 exposure workstations. Are those the workstations we were 5 just talking about? How many employees work at those sta 6 tions in your plant of 100 people? 7 MR. NETTER: In our punch press area, there are 8 12,and in the scrap area, there is 1. 9 MS. NASH: How about the other people in your 10 plant who are in the areas where you would say there is some 11 significant asbestos exposure, what levels are they getting 12 now? 13 MR. NETTER: Anywhere from .2 to .7, an average 14 of about .5, I would say. 15 MS. NASH: So you would not make that statement 16 as relating to that, that it would not cost a lot of money to 17 MR. NETTER: It certainly would cost money, because 18 I think you have to engineer to go below -- in order to reach 19 a PEL of .5, you have to engineer to go below .5. We could 20 not rest assured that the people that are ordinarily at .5 21 that that station would not require additional work. It . .v i. 22 would. CTD005908 23 MS. NASH: When you are talking about resting 24 assured, is there a level of confidence you are talking about? 25 MR. NETTER: Yes, the concept of variance in the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 J?7S 1 dust counts. 2 MS. NASH: Can you quantify it for us? 3 MR. NETTER: No, I can't. 4 MS. NASH: Do you quantify it now at your plant? 5 MR. NETTER: No, it was a qualitative feeling 6 rather than a quantitative one. 7 MS. NASH: Do you support AIA's suggestion that 8 OSHA should consider requiring respirators even in situa 9 tions -- I can ask the entire panel this -- even in situa 10 tions where engineering and work practice controls have 11 reduced the permissible exposure level, to have reduced 12 exposures to the permissible exposure level? 13 MR. ALEXANDER: We make them available to everyone. 14 MS. NASH: When you say you make them available, 15 is that you make the single-use, disposable masks available 16 to everyone? 17 MR. ALEXANDER: Half-face. 18 MS. NASH: Do you have any training that goes along 19 with the availability, what does that consist of? 20 MR. ALEXANDER: I won't give you the whole program, 21 but everyone who works with asbestos goes through the train 22 ing program, has to learn the work practices. CTD005909 23 MS. NASH: But training in respirator use? 24 MR. ALEXANDER: It also includes the respirators, 25 and there is a liberal supply of those, always available. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 1 and meeting the PEL does not require the mask, but we do 2 require that the men in the asbestos area wear the masks 3 when they are there. They can wear them anywhere else they 4 want. We encourage them to wear them. 5 MS. NASH: You don't rely on these masks to meet 6 the PEL? 7 MR. ALEXANDER: You can't rely on the masks. 8 MS. NASH: Why is that? 9 MR. ALEXANDER: We believe that we must protect 10 our men with engineering controls. Having done that, we 11 believe that the mask improves the protection. To the 12 extent that the mask has acceptance among the workers, we 13 encourage them to do so. 14 MS. NASH: Do you have any kind of fit testing . 15 16 for these masks? MR. ALEXANDER: No, only to the extent that the 17 foreman checks visually that the mask is functioning. 18 MS. NASH; You say these masks are used by people 19 who are doing maintenance operations. What kind of asbestos 20 exposure do people doing maintenance operations have? 21 MR. ALEXANDER: These same men at least maintain 22 the bag house, which is the worst operation. CTD005910 23 MS. NASH: Do you measure their exposures when they 24 are in the bag house? V 25 MR. ALEXANDER: That is noi^really feasible for EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 X?'?'? 1 us to measure their exposure. 2 MS. NASH: Why isn't it feasible? 3 MR. ALEXANDER: There are some very short-term 4 exposures. 5 MS. NASH: How short is short term? 6 MR. ALEXANDER: Fifteen-minute exposures. 7 MS. NASH: How frequently do they have this 15- 8 minute exposure? 9 MR. ALEXANDER: Once a month. 10 MS. NASH: DO you have any idea of the levels which 11 they are getting in the bag houses? 12 MR. ALEXANDER: I don't have any idea. I would 13 have to find out who is responsible. I know that has been 14 given careful consideration. 15 MS. NASH: Do the rest of the panel support AIA's 16 suggestion to OSHA that it consider a requirement that 17 respirators be used even if the permissible exposure level 18 has been achieved with engineering and work practice controls ? 19 MR. NETTER: I think it is fair to say that we 20 support that it be considered. All of us here are in plant 21 environments, and recognize that there will be certain 22 difficulties posed if that becomes a requirement, but it is 23 certainly something that shouUid be considered. CTD005911 24 MS. NASH: Do you also support AIA's suggestion to 25 OSHA that it consider prescribing certain work practice and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 665-0064 78 4/3 1 engineering controls be used regardless -- correct me if I 2 am characterizing your suggestion wrongly -- regardless of 3 the levels that are actually achieved? In other words, as I 4 understand it, AIA is suggesting to OSHA that in certain 5 operations, it would be effective control for only wet 6 process to be used, and OSHA should require that those pro 7 cesses be used regardless of the levels that are actually 8 achieved. 9 Do you support such a scheme in concept? 10 MR. NETTER: 'I don't understand your question. 11 MS. NASH: Mr. Sampson, am I characterizing your 12 suggestion correctly? 13 MR. SAMPSON: I think that, as with the case of 14 the respirator program, that all AIA has said so far is that 15 those are options to be considered. They are not affirma 15 tive recommendations at this point. I think Mr. Netter 17 implied that in answering your question. That would also 18 extend to the suggestion that consideration be given to 19 specifying engineering controls, work practices, house 20 keeping requirements whether or not the PEL is met, that 21 is a suggestion of something to be considered. 22 MS. NASH: We have no further questions. 23 JUDGE MAHONY: Thank you very much. Thank you, 24 gentlemen, for coming. Do you have exhibit numbers you 25 would like to attach to their testimony? CTD005912 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 19 1 MR. SAMPSON: We had each one of them submit an 2 advanced testimony statement. 3 MS. NASH: Let's put in first their statement 4 that was handed out today. Mr. McGinley's statement that 5 was handed out today would be 238-A. 6 MR. SAMPSON: Do you want to make his previously 7 submitted statement 238-B? 8 MS. NASH: Okay. 9 MR. SAMPSON: We can follow the same procedure for 10 the other three. 11 MS. NASH: 239 was Mr. Netter. 12 MR. SAMPSON: 240 would be Mr. Hutchins'. 13 MS. NASH: 241 would be Mr. Alexander. 14 MR. SAMPSON: In all those cases, the oral state 15 ment submitted today would be A, and the May 25th advance 16 statements would be B. 17 (Whereupon, Exhibits: Nos. 238-A, 238-B, 239-A, 239-B, 240-A, 18 240-B, 241-A, and 241-B were received in evidence.) 19 20 JUDGE MAHONY: Is that all you need on the record. 21 Ms. Nash? 22 MS. NASH: Yes, sir. CTD005913 23 JUDGE MAHONY: We will stand adjourned until 9:00 24 a.m. tomorrow. 25 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 7:10 p.m., to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., July 10th, 1984.) EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS (301) 565-0064 'K ir k la n d & E l l i s ( r e OSHA H e a rin g 8 4 ) /y + $ (E n v iro n m e n ta l) - T7f- &oS4- 1\ l I f f\ \i n